Nuxx:Af420db6-d50b-4713-b850-62e0db073836@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Matthew Parris Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:48:12 -0700 (PDT) References: <810d0e40-f4c8-405c-b2c1-6b82051dabbe@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <3ff26f0f-5b1f-4925-b40e-079e28daf37a@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <8e8u841dna3r7u3lo2hjb68fb8nbo2j8en@4ax.com>  <9bku84p1u6f7n7gj5db6g95rakuvh5qppl@4ax.com>   <0874945tebn24r1a8efnhdj6t0ag0ot4l5@4ax.com>  Lines: 56 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.145.93 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217548092 5019 127.0.0.1 (31 Jul 2008 23:48:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:48:12 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.145.93; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4869 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660028

On Jul 31, 9:35=A0pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:14:16 +0100, judith  > said in <0874945tebn24r1a8efnhdj6t0ag0ot...@4ax.com>: > > >Nuux Bar - you are wasting your time trying to get him to answer a > >straight question. > > Nuxx Bar has never asked a straight question in this newsgroup. =A0He > makes a series of assertions which are baseless and/or false, then > posits a rhetorical question which embodies his false premises. =A0The > question he posted here is a false dilemma as it is based on > numerous false assumptions, the key one being that if I were forced > to choose which of two unidentified individuals I preferred to die, > my choice would be based on their chosen mode of transport. =A0In > making such a decision, were it presented in real life, the mode of > transport is likely to be very low on a very long list of > considerations, but the question entirely misses the point which is > the (real) existence of some individuals who are sufficiently > deranged as to string up wires where they pose a genuine risk of > death or serious injury to others. =A0I'm not aware that the law > permits use of lethal traps to deter trespassing, and in some cases > the traps have been set in places where there is not only a legal > right of way but considerable through traffic.

Stop wriggling. I said "all other things being equal", which makes the above nothing more than a load of feeble excuses: there is no "long list of considerations". You won't answer the question, because you know that your answer would demonstrate that I was right about you hating motorists/motorcyclists. Truly pathetic.

Nor will you answer the second question ("Are you going to either substantiate or retract your accusation that I've been using other people's words?") This is because you can't substantiate the accusation, and you don't have the common decency to retract it. Not only that, but you have made the SAME accusation again today in another thread. What more proof is needed that you systematically come up with completely baseless and fraudulent accusations, and then when such lies are exposed, you refuse to take them back and instead keep repeating them? You have done the same thing with Paul Smith time and time again, and all it demonstrates is that you are unable to come up with any accusations that carry any weight whatsoever.

Two very simple questions, neither of which you will answer because you don't want to look stupid. Your tactics have been made entirely obvious by this exchange. You use similar tactics all the time of course, when discussing things such as road safety, but usually the complexity of the subject allows you to obfuscate and distract so that people can't necessarily see what those tactics are. Here, however, the questions are basic, and thus your incredibly underhand "debating" technique is amply exposed for all to see.

The disclosure of you as a fraud, a charlatan, a liar and a bad loser is therefore complete and unequivocal. Even the staunchest supporter of speed cameras cannot fail to see it. I challenge anyone who has read this exchange to argue otherwise.