Nuxx:3f636aaf-baaf-47f8-a52f-fda23b9c393e@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3f636aaf-baaf-47f8-a52f-fda23b9c393e@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: I saw Critical Mass Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:42:43 -0700 (PDT) References: <047590b2-adba-4123-ae27-6d81e5f0ad36@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <488B57C3.40CEB5DB@comcast.net>     Lines: 83 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.129.172 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217662963 11918 127.0.0.1 (2 Aug 2008 07:42:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 07:42:43 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.129.172; 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: 6078 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660297

On Aug 2, 5:36=A0am, BIG ONE  wrote: > On 1 Aug, 22:58, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > > > the majority of the most > > prolific posters on uk.rec.cycling, who claim to be pro-bike because > > they're too cowardly to admit to being anti-car. =A0They implicitly > > support the likes of Critical Mass by refusing to condemn them (in > > fact, many of them are probably fully paid-up members). =A0And > > mysteriously, they just happen to support every single anti-motorist > > measure...I wonder why? > > > Good to know that other bicycle newsgroups haven't gone down the pan > > in the same way. =A0If I was a keen cycling advocate, I'd be furious > > about the car-haters pretending to be cycling advocates and trashing > > our reputation. =A0Members of the rec.bicycles.* newsgroups need to be > > vigilant to ensure that the anti-motorist/CM crowd don't take over > > their groups in the same way as they have urc. > > > Guy Cuthbertson > > I'm anti car, I make no secret of it as anyone who knows me will > confirm. But I do not post regularly on URC(compared to you), and can > only think of a couple of individuals who do who may be considered to > be in any way anti-car. However, they would IMO both be much more > accurately described as pro-cyclist, unlike yourself who I am > confident anyone looking at the facts would define as rabidly anti- > cyclist and deeply in love with Guy Chapman. But these groups (save I > am presuming alt.planning.urban) are not the place for discussion of > cars. You on the other hand are a troll who insists on constantly > debating cars on URC which is a fact anyone who wishes to check will > find for themselves. > There is no membership or payment for CM, many of the regulars on URC > admit to owning cars and not being anti car, and the majority do not > support CM - but why let the facts get in the way of you mouthing off > topic .... it never has in the past. > & you Mr. Bar have no interest in bicycles or cycling beyond this > unhealthy interest in Mr. Chapman

Well done for at least admitting to being anti-car, unlike Chapman and co. (If you can really only think of a "couple of individuals" on urc who are anti-car, you are making the mistake of assuming that every motorist-hater is as honest as you about it.  Try opening your eyes and being a bit less naive.)

Now why don't you add up all the times when I have posted in reply to someone other than Chapman (or started a topic), and Chapman has then replied to me. Then add up the times when the reverse has happened. You will find that the first number is far larger than the second. Yet you interpret that as *me* having an unhealthy interest in *him*. Black is white in the illogical world of the car-hater. Believe me, I can't think of anything more disgusting than being in love with Chapman. The fact is that I know next to nothing about "Guy Chapman: the person", and that's absolutely the way I want it to stay, thank you. I bet you've read more of his Site Of Hate than I have.

BTW, since you are honest about hating cars, I've got a question for you. If you discovered that cameras were costing lives, would you:

a. continue to support them anyway, because they are very good at automatically fining and banning motorists for something that at least 99.9% of them do, and are thus excellent anti-car tools?

b. immediately renounce your support for them, and start to campaign for their removal, even though that would make things easier for at least 99.9% of those evil motorists?

With the urc car-haters, it has been amply established that the answer is a, so it's no wonder that they're reluctant to be honest about their agenda, as they would quite rightly be utterly despised for it. And the answer really is a: just because it might be hard to believe that anyone could be that callous, it doesn't mean that it's not true.

And BTW, "fully paid-up members" in this case was a figure of speech, which surely anyone with half a brain would have had no trouble understanding.

Anyway, I didn't want to start a debate with a car-hater on this thread, I was just warning the rec.bicycle.* groups to be on the lookout for CM-type car-haters trying to take over their groups in the same way as they have urc. It's hardly surprising that a car-hater has taken exception to such a warning, is it?