Surprise surprise, the ABD and its lies are behind the anti road-pricing petition.

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:24:41 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:10:54 +0000, Matt B
>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:04:16 +0000, Matt B
>>>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you also a member?
>>>>>> "Also"? In addition to yourself?
>>>>> Also, in addition to the petitoner who you claimed, in the face of all
>>>>> evidence to the contrary, was not a member of the ABD.
>>>> I never claimed any such thing.
>>> These are your words:
>>>
>>> "...he may well not be..."
>
>>> which were in direct opposition to all the facts as were known at the
>>> time, and have now been admittted to be tru by you yourself.
>> At the time the one article was not corroborated - now it is. What's
>> controversial or difficult to understand about that?
>
> What evidence did you have that it was not true?

It was not so much the evidence that it was not true, but the haste at
assuming from only one press report that it was incontrovertible.

> Was it just that, as a member of the ABD yourself,

What leads you to make that assertion?

> you wished to muddy
> the waters,

What waters? Are you paranoid?

> making it appear that the petition did not originate from
> one of your fellow members?

Why on earth do you think I, or anyone, would want to do that? The ABD
seem proud enough of the fact. Explain why you think it has any bearing
on the discussion?

Would you be surprised to hear that someone raising a petition calling
for an action to benefit cyclists was a member of a cycling organisation?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:04:32 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>
>> Was it just that, as a member of the ABD yourself,
>
>What leads you to make that assertion?
>

It is not asserted - but -

there is more evidence that you are a member of the ABD than there was
evidence that the petitioner was not.

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:04:32 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>>> Was it just that, as a member of the ABD yourself,
>> What leads you to make that assertion?
>
> It is not asserted

You made an assertion,this one: "as a member of the ABD yourself".

> - but -

No "buts".

> there is more evidence that you are a member of the ABD

Please cite some of it.

> than there was
> evidence that the petitioner was not.

Who said he /was/ not? It certainly wasn't me. Why do you keep
suggesting that I did (as if the reasons aren't already clearly apparent)?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:32:16 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:


>> there is more evidence that you are a member of the ABD
>
>Please cite some of it.
>
>> than there was
>> evidence that the petitioner was not.
>

There was evidence (of which you were aware, and against which,
without a shred of contradictory evidence, you claimed that he might
wll not be) the petitioner being a member of the ABD.

There is no evidence that you are not.

Do you wish to provide any? If you do not, we may conclude, using the
same standards as you used yourself in re the petitioner, that you are
indeed a member of the ABD.

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:32:16 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>>> there is more evidence that you are a member of the ABD
>> Please cite some of it.
>>
>>> than there was
>>> evidence that the petitioner was not.
>
> There was evidence (of which you were aware,

Yes, just the one report from The Times which started the whole thread.

> and against which,
> without a shred of contradictory evidence, you claimed that he might
> wll not be

Thank you. You've climbed down - at last ;-)

> ) the petitioner being a member of the ABD.

Good, that's that cleared up. Do you take at face value every single
newspaper report /you/ read?

> There is no evidence that you are not.

Ah, another climbdown - good. You've dropped your unsubstantiated
assertion.

> Do you wish to provide any?

Why?

> If you do not, we may conclude, using the
> same standards as you used yourself in re the petitioner, that you are
> indeed a member of the ABD.

Please explain, given that I never attempted to "conclude" anything
about the petitioner. I was merely exercising caution, as most would,
about accepting a single newspaper article, particularly one in that
tone, as conclusive evidence.

The most you can conclude from what you've seen so far is that I may, or
on the other hand may not, be a member.

--
Matt B

 

[Stevie D]

[email protected] wrote:

> A Downing Street experiment in internet democracy has been hijacked by
> a hardline motoring organisation that is promoting a petition against
> nationwide congestion charging.

What nonsense - but yet another indication that the petitions website
is set up so that the government can hear only what it wants to hear.

If large numbers of people support the cause of the motoring
organisation, and have signed the petition, that is the website
fulfilling its intended purpose - not in any way "hijacking".

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Stevie D <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > A Downing Street experiment in internet democracy has been hijacked by
> > a hardline motoring organisation that is promoting a petition against
> > nationwide congestion charging.
>
> What nonsense - but yet another indication that the petitions website
> is set up so that the government can hear only what it wants to hear.
>
> If large numbers of people support the cause of the motoring
> organisation, and have signed the petition, that is the website
> fulfilling its intended purpose - not in any way "hijacking".

Yes, in so far as it goes.

The petition in question is a bit barmy though - it's like petitioning
the government not to abolish income tax. What's the point
petitioning someone not to do something they don't intend to do
anyway?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|