Nuxx:89e58ba5-b41f-4e4d-8ad4-d873034b8071@72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <89e58ba5-b41f-4e4d-8ad4-d873034b8071@72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: List Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:44:10 -0800 (PST) References:   <61baahF1uoq6gU2@mid.individual.net>  <1ic5zwf.fki32t11hha3cN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com> Lines: 63 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.211.165.120 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1202993050 21566 127.0.0.1 (14 Feb 2008 12:44:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:44:10 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.211.165.120; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4705 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:640112

On Feb 11, 9:05 pm, notmyaddress.1.ekulnam...@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) wrote: > Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > On Feb 11, 4:07 pm, Peter Clinch  wrote: > > > Rob Morley wrote: > > > > Why don't you list what you think are anti-motorist measures so we can > > > > address them? > > > > They won't let us drive wherever and whenever we like at any speed and > > > in any manner we like in any vehicle we might want to! Bastards! > > > And people say that I'm a troll. > > I wonder why.

Oh do shut up. You're the troll. You're the one who won't answer questions. And when you are going to admit that all drivers speed?

> As a motorist and cyclist, I don't see speed cameras, speed limits, > Vehicle Excise Duty, compulsory licensing and obligatory insurance as > anti-motorist.

Do you ever speed? Yes or no? I don't care whether it's "unintentional" or "momentary" or "creeping over the limit" or any of the other usual trollisms, because cameras don't care about that either. Speeding is speeding, even when you (aka Mr Holier-Than- Though) are doing it. Do you ever speed, yes or no? Answer the question please, unless doing so would make you look stupid and hypocritical of course, in which case just ignore it.

And I don't have a problem with any of what you listed except for speed cameras (although speed limits should be sensible, which they increasingly are not). In fact I detest scumbags who don't bother with insurance. I don't think motorists should be able to "do what they like". I just don't agree with measures which are unnecessary and put there mostly to make things unpleasant for drivers. Safety is great. Persecution dressed up as safety is utterly unforgiveable, as are the liars who knowingly advocate it.

I'll come back to other posts later today if I can, so again Spindrift is wrong about me "disappearing". I will also humour the lying motorist-hating trolls by listing the plethora of anti-motorist measures that we have today, even though they know perfectly well what they are already. Once I've listed them once, at least they can no longer pretend not to know what they are. And they'll be forced to admit that they agree with every single one of those measures. They will of course deny that they are anti-motorist measures at all, but that will just make them look even sillier and more anti-motorist. The important thing is that they'll have to admit that they agree with them. Readers will be able to make their own minds up as to whether they're anti-motorist measures, and will see that the trolls are indeed in favour of every measure commonly believed (by sane people who realise that the car is an important and perfectly legitimate mode of transport) to be there predominantly to make motorists' lives more difficult.

Anyone want to save some face now by admitting that they're anti- motorist before it becomes even more obvious than it already is? Go on, break the habit of a lifetime. I simply can't understand why anyone who's so devoted to a cause would lie about it. Ultimately, what's the point? Either the cause is defensible or it isn't. Lying about something like that is the sort of thing that a mad person (*cough* Spindrift) would do.