Nuxx:MPG.26ffdf39127b3ba3989801@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eweka.nl!hq-usenetpeers.eweka.nl!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Nominations invited for new moderators Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:50:42 +0100 References:     <5EsBxIMSAojMFwU8@[127.0.0.1]>        <2rd996h2irv09svsim2g8u135gst8l451g@4ax.com> Lines: 81 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 84b56094.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=BFMJob=LgniNIg4<6BFRPinok4Z\, guy.chapman@spamcop.net says... > > Basically, yes. The militant motor lobby found Smith, a lone voice who > had a sciencey-sounding version of the message they wanted, and seem > quite disproportionately angry with anyone who shot holes in it;

It's understandable that one might have got angry with car-haters who knew that Paul was correct but tried to obfuscate and lie their way out of it (like you so often do) simply because Paul's conclusions didn't fit with the socialist utopia that they wanted.

> some > of the worst attacks I got were after the Which? report was published,

Diddums. It couldn't possibly be that people attack you because they hate you and with very good reason.

> and I think that marked the point where people like the BBC News > website stopped quoting Smith but it was a long time ago so I don't > remember precisely.

You're a liar. The BBC website never "stopped quoting" him while he was alive. Anyway if you know so much more than him then why have *you* never been quoted? Some people go round pretending to be important and famous; others just get on with being it.

> Smith appeared on urc several times and was thoroughly spanked.

You mean "shouted down by the car-haters who didn't like to hear the truth about their beloved cameras"?

> He was wrong on a large proportion of what he said

AKA "I can't stand that he was right, because I see cameras as an excellent weapon against motorists and I don't want to lose them". You wriggle, in the same way as with Lou Knee, when certain questions are put to you. For example, why do you not condemn "Safety" Camera Partnerships when they deliberately and fraudulently don't take account of RTTM (which even you admit exists)? Because you're quite happy for people to pretend that cameras are more effective in saving lives than they are, and that's because you hate cars and you think that's more important than keeping road users (even cyclists) safe.

As for the Which? "study", well, there are a *lot* of organisations that have a vested financial interest in cameras, and that, shamefully, causes them to be biased in their assessment of cameras' effectiveness (and never mind if more people die as a result of their advocacy...see, they've taken a leaf out of your book there). For example, Brake have speed camera manufacturers and other camera beneficiaries on their donor list. The AA make money from speed awareness courses, which is why they are complaining about cameras being removed (no self-respecting motorist should therefore give the AA a penny of their hard-earned). Insurance companies like cameras because more points = higher premiums.

I have no doubt that Which? also make something from cameras somewhere along the way. It's terrible that a usually unbiased, useful, consumer- championing publication such as Which? could be corrupted in this way, but not altogether surprising: everywhere in the world, cameras tend to result in dishonesty, deceit, greed and secrecy from those who run, financially benefit from and advocate them. You only have to look at what kind of person Paul Smith was: a gentle, decent, caring and sincere man. Then look at the more extreme, evangelical camera advocates: we have Chapman (who Ian Smith has described extremely well in recent posts), Spindrift (nuff said), Med Hughes (the hypocritical, sanctimonious twat who "accidentally" let his speedo "creep up" to 90 in a 60), Richard Brunstrom (completely out of his tree...he broke into a police station as an "exercise" FFS), Monbigot...all abrasive morons who quite obviously don't really believe that cameras save lives at all, and just either hate cars, or enjoy spiting the population at large, or some other equally illegitimate motivation.

> Probably because he doesn't sing or play but he does speed. That is > certainly why I give a toss about Gesualdo but rarely even notice > speed cameras.

Hey Guy: do you ever speed? (Oh dear, that'll be *another* question that he refuses to answer because doing so truthfully would make him look even worse....)