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

[Matt B]

Buck wrote:
>
> On 01/17/2007 18:22:00 [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:59:00 +0000, Matt B
>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>>> I made no assertion. I was commenting on an assertion.
>
>> You asserted that inspite of the fact reported by the Times, the
>> petitioner might not be a member of the ABD. This was not a "comment", it
>> was (if untrue and without a shred of evidence to suggest so; which
>> conditions are fully satisfied) an attempt to mislead the readers of
>> u.r.c.
>
>> Upon what did you base your assertion?
>
>> Why did you attempt to mislead the readers of u.r.c.?
>
>> Are you also a member of the ABD?
>
> He "asserted" that someone "might not be" something?
>
> Adj. asserted - confidently declared to be so
>
> Saying somebody "might" not be something is hardly an assertion.

Thank you for clearing that up!

I think he is after the world record for the most protracted,
transparent, and futile smear campaign.

He obviously doesn't appreciate just how comprehensively it has
backfired ;-)

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:48:36 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:59:00 +0000, Matt B
>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I made no assertion. I was commenting on an assertion.
>>> You asserted that inspite of the fact reported by the Times, the
>>> petitioner might not be a member of the ABD.
>> No, I merely suggested that was a possibility.
>>
>
> It was not a possibility - the facts opposite had been reported.
>
> Why did you decide to tell us that they were not true?
>
> What evidence did you have?
>
> Are you also a member of the ABD?

May I refer you to my previous answer.

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:53:55 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>
>He obviously doesn't appreciate just how comprehensively it has
>backfired ;-)


There is a backfire - and it is that your assertion that the
petitioner was not a member of the ABD has been admitted to be false -
by you yourself.

Why did you claim this in the first place?

What evidence did you have?

Are you also a member of the ABD?

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> and it comes
> from a noted troll,

Is that an assertion, an allegation, a fact, or merely a blatant attempt
to pervert the course of justice in this group? Either way there is no
evidence to supported such an implication.

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:55:14 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>>
>> Are you also a member of the ABD?
>
>May I refer you to my previous answer.

You have not answered this question.

Why not?

A member of the ABD would be embarrassed to admit so, given the
pasting they get (and deserve); they might well twist and turn, as you
have done, attempting to avoid answering it.

Are you also a member?

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:53:55 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> He obviously doesn't appreciate just how comprehensively it has
>> backfired ;-)
>
>
> There is a backfire - and it is that your assertion that the
> petitioner was not a member of the ABD has been admitted to be false -
> by you yourself.
>
> Why did you claim this in the first place?
>
> What evidence did you have?
>
> Are you also a member of the ABD?

Are you stuck in a loop?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:58:19 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> and it comes
>> from a noted troll,
>
>Is that an assertion, an allegation, a fact, or merely a blatant attempt
>to pervert the course of justice in this group? Either way there is no
>evidence to supported such an implication.

Readers of u.r.c. are invited to search dejanews (now "google groups")
for "TrollB", the frequently applied description of the entitiy
calling itself "Matt B", and draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:55:14 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>>> Are you also a member of the ABD?
>> May I refer you to my previous answer.
>
> You have not answered this question.
>
> Why not?
>
> A member of the ABD would be embarrassed to admit so,

Why?

> given the
> pasting they get

What pasting?

> (and deserve);

For what reason? For standing up against what they believe to be an
unjust attack, by government, on motorists?

> they might well twist and turn,

Why? When? Where?

> as you
> have done, attempting to avoid answering it.

I haven't twisted, turned, or avoided it. I want to know a) if you are
a member and b) why you need to know.

> Are you also a member?

"Also"? In addition to yourself?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

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.

Are you also a member of the ABD?

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:58:19 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> and it comes
>>> from a noted troll,
>> Is that an assertion, an allegation, a fact, or merely a blatant attempt
>> to pervert the course of justice in this group? Either way there is no
>> evidence to supported such an implication.
>
> Readers of u.r.c. are invited to search dejanews (now "google groups")
> for "TrollB", the frequently applied description of the entitiy
> calling itself "Matt B", and draw the obvious conclusion.

The only conclusion they are likely to arrive at is that a persistent
few, who, when faced with a challenge to their preconceptions, bigotry,
or whatever, resort to offensive smear tactics rather than admit they
have been rumbled.

It appears that you are on the point of joining the brotherhood - those
who are too desperate, insecure, or arrogant to accept non-orthodox
opinions as valid.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

[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.

> Are you also a member of the ABD?

Are you? Why are you asking?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:10:01 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:58:19 +0000, Matt B
>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> and it comes
>>>> from a noted troll,
>>> Is that an assertion, an allegation, a fact, or merely a blatant attempt
>>> to pervert the course of justice in this group? Either way there is no
>>> evidence to supported such an implication.
>>
>> Readers of u.r.c. are invited to search dejanews (now "google groups")
>> for "TrollB", the frequently applied description of the entitiy
>> calling itself "Matt B", and draw the obvious conclusion.
>
>The only conclusion they are likely to arrive at is that a persistent
>few, who, when faced with a challenge to their preconceptions, bigotry,
>or whatever, resort to offensive smear tactics

Whereas you appear to resort to the denial of facts available to all,
and the mendacious attempts to mislead those who may not be familiar
with them.

Why did you claim the petitioner was not a member of the ABD?

Are you a fellow member?

 

[[email protected]]

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.

Why did you attempt to mislead the readers of u.r.c. - are you a
fellow member of the ABD?

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:10:01 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:58:19 +0000, Matt B
>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> and it comes
>>>>> from a noted troll,
>>>> Is that an assertion, an allegation, a fact, or merely a blatant attempt
>>>> to pervert the course of justice in this group? Either way there is no
>>>> evidence to supported such an implication.
>>> Readers of u.r.c. are invited to search dejanews (now "google groups")
>>> for "TrollB", the frequently applied description of the entitiy
>>> calling itself "Matt B", and draw the obvious conclusion.
>> The only conclusion they are likely to arrive at is that a persistent
>> few, who, when faced with a challenge to their preconceptions, bigotry,
>> or whatever, resort to offensive smear tactics
>
> Whereas you appear to resort to the denial of facts available to all,

When?

> and the mendacious attempts to mislead those who may not be familiar
> with them.

When?

> Why did you claim the petitioner was not a member of the ABD?

I didn't.

> Are you a fellow member?

Ah, so you admit you are one yourself.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

[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..."

Yes, like I said, I never claimed he wasn't a member. I pointed out
that he /may/ not be. Your quote speaks for itself.

> 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?

> Why did you attempt to mislead the readers of u.r.c.

When? After, or before your concerted attempt to do just that. Are you
proud of yourself?

> - are you a
> fellow member of the ABD?

Tell me why you are so desperate to know?

--
Matt B

 

[Buck]

On 01/17/2007 18:53:55 Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

> Buck wrote:

>> On 01/17/2007 18:22:00 [email protected] wrote:

>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:59:00 +0000, Matt B
>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>>>> I made no assertion. I was commenting on an assertion.

>>> You asserted that inspite of the fact reported by the Times, the
>>> petitioner might not be a member of the ABD. This was not a "comment",
>>> it was (if untrue and without a shred of evidence to suggest so; which
>>> conditions are fully satisfied) an attempt to mislead the readers of
>>> u.r.c.

>>> Upon what did you base your assertion?

>>> Why did you attempt to mislead the readers of u.r.c.?

>>> Are you also a member of the ABD?

>> He "asserted" that someone "might not be" something?

>> Adj. asserted - confidently declared to be so

>> Saying somebody "might" not be something is hardly an assertion.

> Thank you for clearing that up!

> I think he is after the world record for the most protracted, transparent,
> and futile smear campaign.

> He obviously doesn't appreciate just how comprehensively it has backfired
> ;-)

No problem, the self declared cognicenti here are living outside reality.
--

Buck

Give a little person a little power and create a big problem.

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:20:17 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:10:01 +0000, Matt B
>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:58:19 +0000, Matt B
>>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> and it comes
>>>>>> from a noted troll,
>>>>> Is that an assertion, an allegation, a fact, or merely a blatant attempt
>>>>> to pervert the course of justice in this group? Either way there is no
>>>>> evidence to supported such an implication.
>>>> Readers of u.r.c. are invited to search dejanews (now "google groups")
>>>> for "TrollB", the frequently applied description of the entitiy
>>>> calling itself "Matt B", and draw the obvious conclusion.
>>> The only conclusion they are likely to arrive at is that a persistent
>>> few, who, when faced with a challenge to their preconceptions, bigotry,
>>> or whatever, resort to offensive smear tactics
>>
>> Whereas you appear to resort to the denial of facts available to all,
>
>When?

When you posted "...he may not be..."

>
>> and the mendacious attempts to mislead those who may not be familiar
>> with them.
>
>When?

When you posted "...he may not be..."

>
>> Are you a fellow member?
>
>Ah, so you admit you are one yourself.

Now, so obvious a distortion is easily recognised as another evasion.

One person's membership in the ABD has never (despite your mendacious
attempts to mislead) been in doubt. That is the person of whom we are
asking your fellowship.

Are you a member of the ABD?

 

[[email protected]]

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?

Was it just that, as a member of the ABD yourself, you wished to muddy
the waters, making it appear that the petition did not originate from
one of your fellow members?

 

[Tim Hall]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:00:59 GMT, [email protected] wrote:


>Readers of u.r.c. are invited to search dejanews (now "google groups")
>for "TrollB", the frequently applied description of the entitiy
>calling itself "Matt B", and draw the obvious conclusion.


See also "Troll Wrestling"


Tim

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:20:17 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:10:01 +0000, Matt B
>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:58:19 +0000, Matt B
>>>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> and it comes
>>>>>>> from a noted troll,
>>>>>> Is that an assertion, an allegation, a fact, or merely a blatant attempt
>>>>>> to pervert the course of justice in this group? Either way there is no
>>>>>> evidence to supported such an implication.
>>>>> Readers of u.r.c. are invited to search dejanews (now "google groups")
>>>>> for "TrollB", the frequently applied description of the entitiy
>>>>> calling itself "Matt B", and draw the obvious conclusion.
>>>> The only conclusion they are likely to arrive at is that a persistent
>>>> few, who, when faced with a challenge to their preconceptions, bigotry,
>>>> or whatever, resort to offensive smear tactics
>>> Whereas you appear to resort to the denial of facts available to all,
>> When?
>
> When you posted "...he may not be..."

In what way is that a "denial"? Ah, in /no/ way at all. Enough said.

>>> and the mendacious attempts to mislead those who may not be familiar
>>> with them.
>> When?
>
> When you posted "...he may not be..."

I'm getting your drift now (at last many may say). Could it be that you
are /not/ a member of the ABD, but, in fact, an anti-car bigot?

>>> Are you a fellow member?
>> Ah, so you admit you are one yourself.
>
> Now, so obvious a distortion is easily recognised as another evasion.

You used the phrase. Distortion - that, it would appear, is your modus
operandi.

> One person's membership in the ABD has never (despite your mendacious
> attempts to mislead) been in doubt. That is the person of whom we are
> asking your fellowship.
>
> Are you a member of the ABD?

Why do you need to know? Are you a member yourself?

--
Matt B