List

Peter Clinch said:

JNugent said:

Peter Clinch said:

JNugent wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I don't see vehicle registration and marks, compulsory licensing and
> obligatory insurance as anti-cyclist, just pro-everyone else
> (particularly pedestrians)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then you're too blind to have thought about the ultimate cost of
actively discouraging cycling for no particular benefit.

What a clever debating technique you don't have.

Quoted message said:

I should drop down to ad-hominem attacks like you, should I?

I don't make such attacks (not unless you count pointing out the fact
that others - people like your good self - have done so, as on this
occasion).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nice context-snipping too.

Quoted message said:

Actually, no context was snipped at all

Wrong.

My post was a very specific response to a very specific point. That you
don't understand that or chse to ignore that is not my problem.

Quoted message said:

for anyone reading down the
morning's new posts like I did. I was just saving some space.

Quoted message said:

Really is time to put the likes of you, Firth, Brimstone etc. in the
Bozo Bin... Bye!

Yes, that's always the safest response when you know you're in the wrong.

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<<heavily snipped>>

Quoted message said:

Actually, no context was snipped at all for anyone reading down the
morning's new posts like I did. I was just saving some space.

Really is time to put the likes of you, Firth, Brimstone etc. in the
Bozo Bin... Bye!

Pete.

Did that ages ago!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.

Trevor A Panther said:

Did that ages ago!

Smart move... You really haven't missed anything of worth in the recent
past from them, I can safely assure you!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Nuxx Bar wrote:

<snip rubbish>

Another nutter with a pretend name and a pretend email address, best ignored.

A.C.P.Crawshaw said:

Nuxx Bar wrote:

Quoted message said:

<snip rubbish>

Quoted message said:

Another nutter with a pretend name and a pretend email address, best
ignored.

D'you mean "Nuxx Bar" isn't his real name?

Astounding...

I wonder what spindrift thinks of that.

JNugent said:

A.C.P.Crawshaw said:

Nuxx Bar wrote:
<snip rubbish>
Another nutter with a pretend name and a pretend email address, best
ignored.

D'you mean "Nuxx Bar" isn't his real name?

Astounding...

I wonder what spindrift thinks of that.

I couldn't care less what his name his, I just don't understand why he
sets out his stall so rabidly and then disappears. Considering the
disturbing behaviour exhibited by the creepier elements of the
safespeeding posters cited above it's no wonder people choose not to
post personal details. There are websites for that sort of behaviour
if you look for them Nugent, I'm sure. You and people on the internet
can exchange personal details and you can take it from there mate, do
what you like, you're a grown man.

Or you could defend your position and answer some of the points
raised?

You think nuxxy's claims of mental illness in his defence of the dead
smith are pretty representative of the behaviour of your mob?

spindrift said:

JNugent said:

A.C.P.Crawshaw said:

Nuxx Bar wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<snip rubbish>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Another nutter with a pretend name and a pretend email address, best
ignored.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

D'you mean "Nuxx Bar" isn't his real name?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Astounding...
I wonder what spindrift thinks of that.

Quoted message said:

I couldn't care less what his name his, I just don't understand why he
sets out his stall so rabidly and then disappears.

He/she might be at work ot something. He's only been gone a day.

Quoted message said:

Considering the
disturbing behaviour exhibited by the creepier elements of the
safespeeding posters cited above it's no wonder people choose not to
post personal details. There are websites for that sort of behaviour
if you look for them Nugent, I'm sure. You and people on the internet
can exchange personal details and you can take it from there mate, do
what you like, you're a grown man.

Well, I wish I wasn't quite so "grown", but I'll take it as a compliment.

Quoted message said:

Or you could defend your position and answer some of the points
raised?

Quoted message said:

You think nuxxy's claims of mental illness in his defence of the dead
smith are pretty representative of the behaviour of your mob?

Which "mob" is that?

I am a member of no "mob" (though I notice that you sometimes respond as
though it were I who had posted things quoted in my posts).

JNugent said:

spindrift said:

JNugent said:

A.C.P.Crawshaw wrote:
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
> <snip rubbish>
> Another nutter with a pretend name and a pretend email address, best
> ignored.
D'you mean "Nuxx Bar" isn't his real name?
Astounding...
I wonder what spindrift thinks of that.

I couldn't care less what his name his, I just don't understand why he
sets out his stall so rabidly and then disappears.

He/she might be at work ot something. He's only been gone a day.

Quoted message said:

Considering the
disturbing behaviour exhibited by the creepier elements of the
safespeeding posters cited above it's no wonder people choose not to
post personal details. There are websites for that sort of behaviour
if you look for them Nugent, I'm sure. You and people on the internet
can exchange personal details and you can take it from there mate, do
what you like, you're a grown man.

Well, I wish I wasn't quite so "grown", but I'll take it as a compliment.

Quoted message said:

Or you could defend your position and answer some of the points
raised?
You think nuxxy's claims of mental illness in his defence of the dead
smith are pretty representative of the behaviour of your mob?

Which "mob" is that?

I am a member of no "mob" (though I notice that you sometimes respond as
though it were I who had posted things quoted in my posts).

So you distance yourself from the unpleasant harrassment of people
appealing for lower speeds on the safespeeding forum?

You are not a member of safespeeding and you don't post there?

You agree that nuxxy is a good representative of the creepier
safespeeding posters with his ad hominem "you are mentally ill posts"?

Go to safespeeding, search on the word "nazi" and then let me know if
you think those bods have a sense of proportion.

Or address any of the posts in this thread that highlight the dead
smith's inability to grasp basic statistical data and let us know why
you support him or not.

spindrift said:

JNugent said:

spindrift said:

JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote:
> A.C.P.Crawshaw wrote:
>> Nuxx Bar wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> <snip rubbish>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Another nutter with a pretend name and a pretend email address, best
>> ignored.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> D'you mean "Nuxx Bar" isn't his real name?
> Astounding...
> I wonder what spindrift thinks of that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I couldn't care less what his name his, I just don't understand why he
sets out his stall so rabidly and then disappears.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He/she might be at work ot something. He's only been gone a day.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Considering the
disturbing behaviour exhibited by the creepier elements of the
safespeeding posters cited above it's no wonder people choose not to
post personal details. There are websites for that sort of behaviour
if you look for them Nugent, I'm sure. You and people on the internet
can exchange personal details and you can take it from there mate, do
what you like, you're a grown man.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, I wish I wasn't quite so "grown", but I'll take it as a compliment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or you could defend your position and answer some of the points
raised?
You think nuxxy's claims of mental illness in his defence of the dead
smith are pretty representative of the behaviour of your mob?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which "mob" is that?
I am a member of no "mob" (though I notice that you sometimes respond as
though it were I who had posted things quoted in my posts).

Quoted message said:

So you distance yourself from the unpleasant harrassment of people
appealing for lower speeds on the safespeeding forum?

Do I need to?

It's got nothing to do with me. I've only ever seen the website once
(ages ago), and I've certainly never posted a message on it.

Quoted message said:

You are not a member of safespeeding and you don't post there?

No and no. Why do you think otherwise?

Quoted message said:

You agree that nuxxy is a good representative of the creepier
safespeeding posters with his ad hominem "you are mentally ill posts"?

I've never seen or read them, so I couldn't comment.

Quoted message said:

Go to safespeeding, search on the word "nazi" and then let me know if
you think those bods have a sense of proportion.

I don't think I'll do that.

Quoted message said:

Or address any of the posts in this thread that highlight the dead
smith's inability to grasp basic statistical data and let us know why
you support him or not.

I don't think I'll do that either.

On Feb 11, 9:05 pm, [email hidden] (Ekul

Namsob) said:

Nuxx Bar said:

Peter Clinch said:

Rob Morley wrote:
> Why don't you list what you think are anti-motorist measures so we can
> address them?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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! [censored]!

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Nuxx Bar said:

On Feb 11, 9:05 pm, [email hidden] (Ekul

Namsob) said:

Nuxx Bar said:

On Feb 11, 4:07 pm, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > Why don't you list what you think are anti-motorist measures so wecan
> > address them?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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!  [censored]!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And people say that I'm a troll.

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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.

So, if we deny being anti- motorist (dependant on criteria you refuse
to name) then that means we must be anti-motorist and insane to boot?

Mmmm.

Would you like to address the points above nuxxy?

Why do you place your faith in the dead smith when you've been shown
what a self-aggrandising lying megalomaniac he was?

dkahn400 said:

Nuxx Bar said:

Quoted message said:

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! [censored]!

Quoted message said:

And people say that I'm a troll.

I think people assumed you meant anti-motorist measures that were
actually in force, but of course there aren't any.

Are you a liar or just blind? Are you seriously contending that there
are *no* anti-motorist measures whatsoever in the UK? Do you realise
how ridiculous that sounds? Do you realise just how obvious it is
that you're talking rubbish?

Quoted message said:

If you mean all
possible anti-motorist measures then I am happy to go on record and
say that I am utterly opposed to arbitrary machine gunning of
motorists.

Yeah right. I'm sure you are.

So the strategy is to pretend that there are no anti-motorist
measures, so that it supposedly can't be shown that you are in favour
of such things. Except that it doesn't work. Because even if you
deny that such measures are anti-motorist, plenty of others beg to
differ. And when you just happen to support every measure that many
believe to be anti-motorist, I'm afraid the game's up and it's obvious
what you really think, pathetic strategies notwithstanding. I'll be
along with a list of such measures later, and when none of you can say
that you oppose a single one of them, then it'll be game, set and
match, and you can whinge about how they're "not anti-motorist
measures" as much as you like; it won't make a difference, because
it's just lies, and they're all you have left.

The whole thing's ridiculous. It would be like me getting 200 black
people into a room, asking a racist if he hated them, and the racist
saying "Yes, I do hate each one of them, but they're not black people,
so I'm not racist". The racist is not only a racist [censored], but he's
telling pathetic, obvious lies in a futile effort to avoid being
labelled as a racist. And that's exactly the same as someone seeing a
list of anti-motorist measures and saying "Yes, I do agree with each
one of them, but they're not anti-motorist measures, so I'm not a
motorist-hater". It's PATHETIC and it won't stop the truth emerging.

I still don't understand why you don't all just admit to being anti-
motorist. Why lie? Or are you in denial? It really is very
strange. You obviously feel very strongly about how bad cars are,
particularly the Cycling+ trolls with their hate campaigns, so the
lying just seems totally pointless.

Nuxx Bar said:

Are you a liar or just blind? Are you seriously contending that there
are *no* anti-motorist measures whatsoever in the UK? Do you realise
how ridiculous that sounds? Do you realise just how obvious it is
that you're talking rubbish?

So what are they? With the majority of the voting population being
motorists or aspirant motorists you'd think it would be an easy vote
winner to get rid of them, but most people realise that complete
deregulation of driving would actually be a bit of an own goal.

Quoted message said:

I still don't understand why you don't all just admit to being anti-
motorist. Why lie? Or are you in denial? It really is very
strange. You obviously feel very strongly about how bad cars are,
particularly the Cycling+ trolls with their hate campaigns, so the
lying just seems totally pointless.

He might be lying or in denial, but /I/ *am* a motorist and I don't hate
myself for it and I'm not aware of the "anti motorist" measures of which
you speak. Any time my motorist-self is inconvenienced it is not purely
done to make my life difficult by a form of blatant, otherwise
purposeless discrimination against me.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Nuxx Bar said:

dkahn400 said:

On Feb 11, 7:44 pm, Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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!  [censored]!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And people say that I'm a troll.

Quoted message said:

I think people assumed you meant anti-motorist measures that were
actually in force, but of course there aren't any.

Are you a liar or just blind?  Are you seriously contending that there
are *no* anti-motorist measures whatsoever in the UK?  Do you realise
how ridiculous that sounds?  Do you realise just how obvious it is
that you're talking rubbish?

Quoted message said:

If you mean all
possible anti-motorist measures then I am happy to go on record and
say that I am utterly opposed to arbitrary machine gunning of
motorists.

Yeah right.  I'm sure you are.

So the strategy is to pretend that there are no anti-motorist
measures, so that it supposedly can't be shown that you are in favour
of such things.  Except that it doesn't work.  Because even if you
deny that such measures are anti-motorist, plenty of others beg to
differ.  And when you just happen to support every measure that many
believe to be anti-motorist, I'm afraid the game's up and it's obvious
what you really think, pathetic strategies notwithstanding.  I'll be
along with a list of such measures later, and when none of you can say
that you oppose a single one of them, then it'll be game, set and
match, and you can whinge about how they're "not anti-motorist
measures" as much as you like; it won't make a difference, because
it's just lies, and they're all you have left.

The whole thing's ridiculous.  It would be like me getting 200 black
people into a room, asking a racist if he hated them, and the racist
saying "Yes, I do hate each one of them, but they're not black people,
so I'm not racist".  The racist is not only a racist [censored], but he's
telling pathetic, obvious lies in a futile effort to avoid being
labelled as a racist.  And that's exactly the same as someone seeing a
list of anti-motorist measures and saying "Yes, I do agree with each
one of them, but they're not anti-motorist measures, so I'm not a
motorist-hater".  It's PATHETIC and it won't stop the truth emerging.

I still don't understand why you don't all just admit to being anti-
motorist.  Why lie?  Or are you in denial?  It really is very
strange.  You obviously feel very strongly about how bad cars are,
particularly the Cycling+ trolls with their hate campaigns, so the
lying just seems totally pointless.

WHY NOT JUST TELL US WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DENY ARE ANTI-MOTORIST
MEASUURES YOU GOGGLE-EYED SLACK-JAWED MOUTH-BREATHING FULL BLOWN CLASS
A CERTIFIED UNRESTRAINED [censored] WIT?

Nuxx Bar said:

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.

Ok, I'll come out and say that I'm anti-motorist by your terms.
I don't think that I'm unusual in wanting fewer car journeys to be made
and car ownership to decrease. I want to see our infrastructure and
public transport arranged so that it's easier and more attractive to get
by without a car.
I want to see motorists disciplined and responsible, I want them to
travel at low speed in densely populated areas. I'd like them to keep to
some conventional limits on roads where they might think that they can
travel faster.
If, in order to get those aims we need to make each car journey a little
more expensive and spend that revenue on PT (even if it isn't
hypothecated) the I'm happy. If we make car use slightly less convenient
by introducing a congestion charge, reducing the availability of parking
and lower speed limits in order to improve the urban environment then I
don't mind that either.
I don't think that I'm swimming against the tide either. I suppose the
London election might be seen as a litmus test.
I can't be bothered to argue with you or some of the other U.T. posters
about it because it's proved pointless in the past. You asked for my
views and there they are. You've flushed me out, I'm a do gooding lefty
soft on immigration pinko... AND I'M PROUD.
Roger Thorpe

Nuxx Bar said:

On Feb 11, 9:05 pm, [email hidden] (Ekul

Namsob) said:

Nuxx Bar said:

On Feb 11, 4:07 pm, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > Why don't you list what you think are anti-motorist measures so we can
> > address them?

Quoted message said:

> 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! [censored]!

Quoted message said:

And people say that I'm a troll.

I wonder why.

Oh do shut up.

Sorry, if I shut up you won't get the answers to the questions you ask
later. Do you want me to shut up or not? If you do, it was rather
foolish of you to ask the questions below.

Quoted message said:

You're the troll. You're the one who won't answer
questions.

Which question have I not answered?

Quoted message said:

And when you are going to admit that all drivers speed?

Quoted message said:

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?

No. I do not speed any more and have not done so for two years. As I've
mentioned frequently on this group, I've acquired six points on my
licence in the last three years due to speeding and now take care not to
break the limit.

Quoted message said:

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.

I've answered it.

<snip big cliffhanger>

Quoted message said:

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?

Why, as a motorist, would I be anti-motorist?

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 05:05:41 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Are you a liar or just blind? Are you seriously contending that there
are *no* anti-motorist measures whatsoever in the UK?

Precious few. There are a lot of *pro*-motorist measures, though -
the many rules and regulations covering driving, for example, which
allow the privilege to be extended to such a wide range of people
without resulting in total carnage (although to be fair a few
thousand deaths a year and the leading cause of trauma fatality to
children is bad enough).

It would be great if we didn't need rules and cost recovery, but
then the privilege of driving would almost certainly have to be
restricted to those whose skill was at least amateur rallying
standard; I don't think that would go down well with Mondeo Man.

I guess all this pro-motorist legislation is a result of decades of
MPs being drawn largely from the motoring classes.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

spindrift said:

Nuxx Bar said:

On Feb 11, 9:05 pm, [email hidden] (Ekul

Quoted message said:

Namsob) said:

Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 4:07 pm, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > Rob Morley wrote:
> > > Why don't you list what you think are anti-motorist measures so we can
> > > address them?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > They won't let us drive wherever and whenever we like at any speedand
> > in any manner we like in any vehicle we might want to!  [censored]!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And people say that I'm a troll.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder why.

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

So, if we deny being anti- motorist (dependant on criteria you refuse
to name) then that means we must be anti-motorist and insane to boot?

Mmmm.

Would you like to address the points above nuxxy?

Why do you place your faith in the dead smith when you've been shown
what a self-aggrandising lying megalomaniac he was?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Show some respect for the recently departed please

spindrift wrote:

[something rather intemperate in response to another poster]

But I was hoping for a response to my posting of yesterday.

This is how it went:

STARTQUOTE:

spindrift said:

JNugent said:

spindrift said:

JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote:
> A.C.P.Crawshaw wrote:
>> Nuxx Bar wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> <snip rubbish>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Another nutter with a pretend name and a pretend email address,
>> best ignored.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> D'you mean "Nuxx Bar" isn't his real name?
> Astounding...
> I wonder what spindrift thinks of that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I couldn't care less what his name his, I just don't understand why
he sets out his stall so rabidly and then disappears.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He/she might be at work ot something. He's only been gone a day.

{Prophetic words, we see.]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Considering the
disturbing behaviour exhibited by the creepier elements of the
safespeeding posters cited above it's no wonder people choose not to
post personal details. There are websites for that sort of behaviour
if you look for them Nugent, I'm sure. You and people on the
internet can exchange personal details and you can take it from
there mate, do what you like, you're a grown man.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, I wish I wasn't quite so "grown", but I'll take it as a
compliment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or you could defend your position and answer some of the points
raised?
You think nuxxy's claims of mental illness in his defence of the
dead smith are pretty representative of the behaviour of your mob?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which "mob" is that?
I am a member of no "mob" (though I notice that you sometimes respond
as though it were I who had posted things quoted in my posts).

Quoted message said:

So you distance yourself from the unpleasant harrassment of people
appealing for lower speeds on the safespeeding forum?

Do I need to?
It's got nothing to do with me. I've only ever seen the website once
(ages ago), and I've certainly never posted a message on it.

Quoted message said:

You are not a member of safespeeding and you don't post there?

No and no. Why do you think otherwise?

Quoted message said:

You agree that nuxxy is a good representative of the creepier
safespeeding posters with his ad hominem "you are mentally ill posts"?

I've never seen or read them, so I couldn't comment.

Quoted message said:

Go to safespeeding, search on the word "nazi" and then let me know if
you think those bods have a sense of proportion.

I don't think I'll do that.

Quoted message said:

Or address any of the posts in this thread that highlight the dead
smith's inability to grasp basic statistical data and let us know why
you support him or not.

I don't think I'll do that either.
ENDQUOTE

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:31:53 -0800 (PST), Sir Jeremy
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Show some respect for the recently departed please

Well, reading around this a bit, it seems that the ludicrous fawning
over Smith by his speedophile admirers while he was alive has been
replaced by something akin to canonisation now he's dead, but the
simple fact remains that just about everything he wrote was complete
bollocks from beginning to end. He worked back from the conclusions
every time, and that's why no reputable publication would take his
idiotic assertions to peer review.

Since we said all this to him while he was alive, to the point that
he withdrew from here to his own forums where he could ban anyone
who posted facts to rebut his drivel, we would be hypocritical in
the extreme if we failed to point out that drivel is what it always
was

I also find it rather amusing that you lot seem to believe that
Smith somehow invented regression to the mean - it's extensively
discussed in "Death on the streets: cars and the mythology of road
safety" which was published in 1993, and it was already well
established back then.

If you don't want to see people chipping bits off your plaster
saint, you'd better keep to the SS forums where they can continue to
expunge inconvenient facts that conflict with Smith's decidedly
[censored]-about-face world-view.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound