Another Motorist-Hating Freak, But At Least He Admits It

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 26, 6:46 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:46:25 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
> <[email protected]> said in
> <d2004b6b-1423-44c4-9c05-b8bac6357...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >I've said repeatedly that I will do it, to humour you trolls, but that
> >you know what they are anyway, and that you're lying when you say
> >otherwise. You can say "You haven't done it yet" as much as you want,
> >it just makes you look impatient.
>
> Um, no, it makes us look puzzled, because despite your repeated and
> increasingly hysterical assertions we can't identify the supposed
> measures of which you speak, despite most of us being motorists
> ourselves.

LIAR. "can't identify" is a LIE. You *know* the sorts of things that
I'm referring to, because the likes of the ABD and many others have
repeatedly identified them, and ****-stirring trolls like you are
always reading their stuff to see if you can find anything to complain
about*. Even if you genuinely didn't believe that they were anti-
motorist, you would still know the sorts of measures that I was
talking about. Pretending not to have the first idea makes you a
liar, who is just trying to snarl up the discussion as much as
possible. Who tries to snarl up discussions? Trolls who don't want
logic to take its course and the truth to be reached.

Are you now going to admit that you know perfectly well which sorts of
measures motorist advocates in general believe to be anti-motorist?
Are you going to apologise for lying? Are you going to explain why
you did it?

> And it makes you look like an idiot, but I suspect that you manage
> that quite unaided, and for obvious reasons.

Not at all, but anyway I'd rather be an idiot than a nasty spiteful
little liar like you and so many of the other trolls. Someone who's
stupid can't really help it. Someone who systematically lies can.
And when so many lives are at stake they should be utterly ashamed of
themselves.

If you want me to humour you and list the anti-motorist measures
(despite them being common knowledge), then please answer these
general questions. If someone was knowingly advocating road traffic
measures which they knew were resulting in totally unnecessary deaths
and injuries, and they were doing so for nothing more than ideological
and spiteful reasons, they would have to be an absolute monster with
seriously screwed up priorities, would they not? Yes or no? If they
claimed to care about safety, they would be a grade A hypocrite, would
they not? Yes or no?

(And no, trolls, I'm not saying that every anti-motorist measure
results in deaths and injuries. Speed cameras though, for one,
certainly do.)

--
* c.f. the pathetic and ludicrous recent complaints to the ASA about
the anti-Manchester Con Charge adverts, which were pretty likely one
of you twisted lot, and were nothing more than a way of getting at the
ABD and MART for daring to campaign on behalf of motorists (it seems
that the trolls would like to ban campaigning on behalf of motorists
as well as the motorists themselves). The complaints had no substance
and no reasonable person would have been misled in any meaningful way
by the adverts. You know that when one side of the debate uses
tactics which are almost exclusively disingeunous and underhand, they
are probably the incorrect side, and they know it.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:26:25 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> said in
<ec104b39-46ad-4bdb-b6e4-7a411b6bf854@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:

>LIAR. "can't identify" is a LIE. You *know* the sorts of things that
>I'm referring to, because the likes of the ABD and many others have
>repeatedly identified them,

YA Mike Vandeman & ICMFP.

Plus: the ABD would not know a fact if it bit them on the ****. For
which it would need a strong stomach and an unusually large mouth,
judging by the few ABD members I've met.

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:26:25 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> said in
<ec104b39-46ad-4bdb-b6e4-7a411b6bf854@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:

>Are you now going to admit that you know perfectly well which sorts of
>measures motorist advocates in general believe to be anti-motorist?

That's a long way form saying they *are* anti-motorist, since the
more militant petrolheads have a capacity for self-delusion which
reaches near-legendary proportions, starting with the delusion that
they are above-average skill. All of them.

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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 26, 5:59 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
> Namsob) wrote:
> > Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > Anyway, I know exactly what you'll do when I list them. You'll deny
> > > that they're anti-motorist measures at all.
> >
> > I promise you that I won't.
>
> Tell you what then. To show that you're serious, please name at least
> three measures that exist in the UK which you consider to be anti-
> motorist. I will list my (and many other people's) anti-motorist
> measures within 72 hours of you doing so.

OK. This will be a struggle since I don't believe there are any wholly
anti-motorist measures in force in this country but I shall try.

1) The London congestion charge.

2) The existence of mandatory cycle lanes.

3) The existence of pedestrian zones.

Two thirds of the above apply exclusively to motorists.

> I don't see why I should do
> all the work, just so that the trolls can dance around shrieking
> "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" without providing any
> insight or making any real points themselves.

Various of us were happily contributing to intelligent debate until one
individual insisted on one particular point while refusing to expound
upon that very point. I am, however, more than willing to let bygones be
bygones. Please do me a favour, give up on using provocative language.
It simply has the effect of turning intelligent discussion into
confrontation.

Cheers,
Luke

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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 26, 6:46 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:46:25 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
> > <[email protected]> said in
> > <d2004b6b-1423-44c4-9c05-b8bac6357...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > >I've said repeatedly that I will do it, to humour you trolls, but that
> > >you know what they are anyway, and that you're lying when you say
> > >otherwise. You can say "You haven't done it yet" as much as you want,
> > >it just makes you look impatient.
> >
> > Um, no, it makes us look puzzled, because despite your repeated and
> > increasingly hysterical assertions we can't identify the supposed
> > measures of which you speak, despite most of us being motorists
> > ourselves.
>
> LIAR. "can't identify" is a LIE.

Oh, do grow up. For a moment there I thought you were willing to engage
in intelligent debate.

Luke


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

 

[Just Visiting]

"Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:24966046-3d0b-40b0-a355-9e77891c161d@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> "I hate cars. If I ever get any power again, I'll ban the lot."
> Ken Livingstone, 1988
>
> And the trolls say that London, indeed the whole of the UK, has no
> anti-motorist measures whatsoever. ROTFL. The ******** that they
> have to come out with to maintain the lie. Is it really worth it?

A quick Google of that quote shows a whole nine hits. One of which is this
thread, and one is Ken denying ever saying it in a BBC interview.

Your respond to a previous question in this thread asking for a source where
you say "the Conservative Party" shows that you've already done that Google
(as it's from the BBC story).

So nuxxy baby, which is more likely: that he actually said it, or that
you're a complete ****? What do you think the odds are?

 

[[email protected]]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 5:59 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
>> Namsob) wrote:
>>> Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Anyway, I know exactly what you'll do when I list them. You'll deny
>>>> that they're anti-motorist measures at all.
>>> I promise you that I won't.
>> Tell you what then. To show that you're serious, please name at least
>> three measures that exist in the UK which you consider to be anti-
>> motorist. I will list my (and many other people's) anti-motorist
>> measures within 72 hours of you doing so.
>
> OK. This will be a struggle since I don't believe there are any wholly
> anti-motorist measures in force in this country but I shall try.
>
> 1) The London congestion charge.
>
> 2) The existence of mandatory cycle lanes.
>
> 3) The existence of pedestrian zones.

You missed:

4) Buildings. Many of these could be knocked down to provide extra space
for roads and car parks

5) Parks and open spaces ditto.

6) Traffic lights. These are *designed* to impede the free flow of traffic

7) Measures designed to increase the number of pedestrians in certain
areas - such as "pavements", "shops", and "tourist attractions".

8) Tax. It is clearly anti-motorist that our rights to free expression
through driving are abrogated by having to pay the government money for it

9) Revolving doors often make it impossible to drive directly into the
lobbies of buildings. Even where this is feasible, the buildings may
have lifts or stairwells too small for the free passage of most SUVs

10) Motorists. See also (6) above: the volume of motor vehicles on the
road is a deliberate affront to all motorists whose journeys are impeded
by the consequent congestion.

11) Obesity and heart disease. Over 1,200 Americans die of coronary
heart disease every day, and I'm sure that most of them are motorists.
The link is clear.


It's no wonder people are upset!


-dan

 

[Nuxx Bar]

Firstly, until you answer the two "yes or no" questions that I asked
you in my previous post, I'm not going to do my list of anti-motorist
measures. Why should I do what you "ask" me to do if you won't do
anything that I ask you to? And you know how much Spindrift hates it
when people don't answer questions. Oh silly me, that only applies to
people on one side of the debate, doesn't it? Anyway, I would have
thought that the questions were very easy to answer for any individual
with a shred of decency.

On Feb 26, 8:54 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:26:25 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
> <[email protected]> said in
> <ec104b39-46ad-4bdb-b6e4-7a411b6bf...@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Are you now going to admit that you know perfectly well which sorts of
> >measures motorist advocates in general believe to be anti-motorist?
>
> That's a long way form saying they *are* anti-motorist, since the
> more militant petrolheads have a capacity for self-delusion which
> reaches near-legendary proportions, starting with the delusion that
> they are above-average skill. All of them.

As you know, I wasn't asking about whether you agreed that they were
anti-motorist; I know that you and the rest of Trolls United claim to
think that there are no anti-motorist measures whatsoever (ha ha).
You purported not to have the faintest idea what measures I was
talking about, full stop ("can't identify"), and that was your excuse
for telling me to list them. It's clear to me that you *do* have a
fair idea of the sorts of measures that I have been referring to
(whether or not you supposedly agree that they're anti-motorist),
you've pretended not to have the foggiest just to snarl up the
discussion, your lying has been exposed and now you don't even have
the grace to admit it. No wonder the vast majority of motorists'
rights advocates have long since given up having anything to do with
you. You don't play fair. None of you trolls do.

Thanks for your silly insults about "militant petrolheads" BTW.
"Petrolheads" is a term that I'd expect a motorist-hater to use about
anyone who advocates motorists' rights. A silly pejorative term for
anyone who disagrees with your anti-motorist stance. I'd also expect
a motorist-hater to be sweepingly disparaging about the ABD. Anyone
who didn't hate motorists would agree with at least a fair proportion
of what the ABD said; a lot of the time it's just common sense.

Put it this way: in terms of your opinions and stances, in what ways
would you say that you were different from a motorist-hater? (Don't
try to tactically divert the discussion with **** about "whether
motorist-haters exist", just take it as read.) As far as I can see,
if one accepts that a motorist-hater can drive (for reasons of
hypocrisy or delusions of importance or whatever, as discussed),
you're indistinguishable. I can't see a single thing about you which
sets you apart from one. So you can see why I might have come to the
conclusion that you and your ilk are anti-motorist. If it looks like
a duck and quacks like a duck, forgive me for thinking that it is one,
however much it denies it. I'm sure you'll be keen to show me that
you're not anti-motorist by listing the huge number of obvious and
fundamental differences between your opinions and those of a nasty
extremist motorist-hater.

And while we're at it, what do you think of motorist-haters? How
about cyclist-haters? Which set of people do you dislike more? I'll
be fascinated to know the answer as I can't begin to guess at it.

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 26 Feb, 22:12, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Firstly, until you answer the two "yes or no" questions that I asked
> you in my previous post, I'm not going to do my list of anti-motorist
> measures.  Why should I do what you "ask" me to do if you won't do
> anything that I ask you to?  And you know how much Spindrift hates it
> when people don't answer questions.  Oh silly me, that only applies to
> people on one side of the debate, doesn't it?  Anyway, I would have
> thought that the questions were very easy to answer for any individual
> with a shred of decency.
>
> On Feb 26, 8:54 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:26:25 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
> > <[email protected]> said in
> > <ec104b39-46ad-4bdb-b6e4-7a411b6bf...@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >Are you now going to admit that you know perfectly well which sorts of
> > >measures motorist advocates in general believe to be anti-motorist?
>
> > That's a long way form saying they *are* anti-motorist, since the
> > more militant petrolheads have a capacity for self-delusion which
> > reaches near-legendary proportions, starting with the delusion that
> > they are above-average skill.  All of them.
>
> As you know, I wasn't asking about whether you agreed that they were
> anti-motorist; I know that you and the rest of Trolls United claim to
> think that there are no anti-motorist measures whatsoever (ha ha).
> You purported not to have the faintest idea what measures I was
> talking about, full stop ("can't identify"), and that was your excuse
> for telling me to list them.  It's clear to me that you *do* have a
> fair idea of the sorts of measures that I have been referring to
> (whether or not you supposedly agree that they're anti-motorist),
> you've pretended not to have the foggiest just to snarl up the
> discussion, your lying has been exposed and now you don't even have
> the grace to admit it.  No wonder the vast majority of motorists'
> rights advocates have long since given up having anything to do with
> you.  You don't play fair.  None of you trolls do.
>
> Thanks for your silly insults about "militant petrolheads" BTW.
> "Petrolheads" is a term that I'd expect a motorist-hater to use about
> anyone who advocates motorists' rights.  A silly pejorative term for
> anyone who disagrees with your anti-motorist stance.  I'd also expect
> a motorist-hater to be sweepingly disparaging about the ABD.  Anyone
> who didn't hate motorists would agree with at least a fair proportion
> of what the ABD said; a lot of the time it's just common sense.
>
> Put it this way: in terms of your opinions and stances, in what ways
> would you say that you were different from a motorist-hater?  (Don't
> try to tactically divert the discussion with **** about "whether
> motorist-haters exist", just take it as read.)  As far as I can see,
> if one accepts that a motorist-hater can drive (for reasons of
> hypocrisy or delusions of importance or whatever, as discussed),
> you're indistinguishable.  I can't see a single thing about you which
> sets you apart from one.  So you can see why I might have come to the
> conclusion that you and your ilk are anti-motorist.  If it looks like
> a duck and quacks like a duck, forgive me for thinking that it is one,
> however much it denies it.  I'm sure you'll be keen to show me that
> you're not anti-motorist by listing the huge number of obvious and
> fundamental differences between your opinions and those of a nasty
> extremist motorist-hater.
>
> And while we're at it, what do you think of motorist-haters?  How
> about cyclist-haters?  Which set of people do you dislike more?  I'll
> be fascinated to know the answer as I can't begin to guess at it.



Good rant, but they aren't worth it. Chapman's a pompous ******** and
Spindrift's in a locked ward for his own safety

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

> Firstly, until you answer the two "yes or no" questions that I asked
> you in my previous post, I'm not going to do my list of anti-motorist
> measures.

Excuse me. You said within 72 hours of my listing of three anti-motorist
measures.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 7:26 pm, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 6:46 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:46:25 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
> > <[email protected]> said in
> > <d2004b6b-1423-44c4-9c05-b8bac6357...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >I've said repeatedly that I will do it, to humour you trolls, but that
> > >you know what they are anyway, and that you're lying when you say
> > >otherwise. You can say "You haven't done it yet" as much as you want,
> > >it just makes you look impatient.
>
> > Um, no, it makes us look puzzled, because despite your repeated and
> > increasingly hysterical assertions we can't identify the supposed
> > measures of which you speak, despite most of us being motorists
> > ourselves.
>
> LIAR. "can't identify" is a LIE. You *know* the sorts of things that
> I'm referring to, because the likes of the ABD and many others have
> repeatedly identified them, ...
> Are you now going to admit that you know perfectly well which sorts of
> measures motorist advocates in general believe to be anti-motorist?

Ah, that sounds like a breakthrough. So the list you keep threatening
to post consists not of "anti-motorist measures" but "measures
considered anti-motorist by motorist advocates". I think you probably
need to establish more of a track record of sounding less "out there"
than spindrift at his most didactic before many will consider it worth
spending much time trying to second guess what is going on in your
head. Anyway, don't rush on my account. I am in no special hurry to
see your list.

Hope you manage to calm down a bit. You sound pretty stressed

best wishes
james

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 26, 9:41 pm, "Just Visiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:24966046-3d0b-40b0-a355-9e77891c161d@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "I hate cars. If I ever get any power again, I'll ban the lot."
> > Ken Livingstone, 1988
>
> > And the trolls say that London, indeed the whole of the UK, has no
> > anti-motorist measures whatsoever. ROTFL. The ******** that they
> > have to come out with to maintain the lie. Is it really worth it?
>
> A quick Google of that quote shows a whole nine hits. One of which is this
> thread, and one is Ken denying ever saying it in a BBC interview.
>
> Your respond to a previous question in this thread asking for a source where
> you say "the Conservative Party" shows that you've already done that Google
> (as it's from the BBC story).

What do you want? A medal?

> So nuxxy baby, which is more likely: that he actually said it, or that
> you're a complete ****? What do you think the odds are?

Which is more likely: that you and your troll mates just happen to be
exactly like anti-motorist wankers in every way, or that you actually
are anti-motorist wankers? What do you think the odds are?

And since you asked so charmingly, I think he did say it. As with you
lot, when you look at the overwhelming evidence, the idea that he
doesn't hate cars is just too ridiculous for words. And when you look
at his track record with alcohol (e.g. drinking whisky instead of the
usual water at press conferences), together with the fact that people
tend to lose their inhibitions when they get rat-arsed, I think he
probably did let it slip when he was ****** one night. If you're
going to tell habitual lies and make a habit of covering up what you
really think, drinking to excess isn't a good idea. It's like the
racist **** who manages to keep his (justifiably unpopular) opinions
in check in the workplace, only to spill the beans at the office
party. Livingstone spilt the beans about his foul attitude towards
motorists, and no amout of lying after the event (or trolls leaping to
his defence) will change that.

(Thanks for the completely unprovoked ad hominem BTW. Do you go round
high streets walking up to people who've never met or spoken to you
and calling them cocks? Or would you be too scared of getting a
kicking? Is it easier when you've got the Internet to cower behind?
What does that say about you?)

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 26, 9:38 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 5:59 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
> > Namsob) wrote:
> > > Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Anyway, I know exactly what you'll do when I list them. You'll deny
> > > > that they're anti-motorist measures at all.
>
> > > I promise you that I won't.
>
> > Tell you what then. To show that you're serious, please name at least
> > three measures that exist in the UK which you consider to be anti-
> > motorist. I will list my (and many other people's) anti-motorist
> > measures within 72 hours of you doing so.
>
> OK. This will be a struggle since I don't believe there are any wholly
> anti-motorist measures in force in this country but I shall try.
>
> 1) The London congestion charge.
>
> 2) The existence of mandatory cycle lanes.
>
> 3) The existence of pedestrian zones.
>
> Two thirds of the above apply exclusively to motorists.

Thank you. If only all your posts to me were as informative, although
admittedly they are improving.

I don't think you'll get much agreement from Spindrift and co though,
do you? But it does appear that you for one are not a motorist-
hater. Let's hope you don't get ostracized as a result.

> > I don't see why I should do
> > all the work, just so that the trolls can dance around shrieking
> > "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" without providing any
> > insight or making any real points themselves.
>
> Various of us were happily contributing to intelligent debate until one
> individual insisted on one particular point while refusing to expound
> upon that very point. I am, however, more than willing to let bygones be
> bygones. Please do me a favour, give up on using provocative language.
> It simply has the effect of turning intelligent discussion into
> confrontation.

I would gladly do it, but others don't seem to want to play ball. I
was perfectly polite and neutral when I started this thread, and look
at the replies I got straight away, including from you. Sadly, I
don't think it's possible round these parts. I could speculate about
why but I won't.

Still I'll happily debate politely if others do. I can assure
everyone that I am perfectly capable of doing it when others are
prepared to. But I have genuinely tried it on here and cycling forums
and it never seems to work. There are some (naming no names) whose
track record and reputation would suggest that it's beyond them.

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 26, 9:38 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 6:46 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:46:25 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
> > > <[email protected]> said in
> > > <d2004b6b-1423-44c4-9c05-b8bac6357...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > >I've said repeatedly that I will do it, to humour you trolls, but that
> > > >you know what they are anyway, and that you're lying when you say
> > > >otherwise. You can say "You haven't done it yet" as much as you want,
> > > >it just makes you look impatient.
>
> > > Um, no, it makes us look puzzled, because despite your repeated and
> > > increasingly hysterical assertions we can't identify the supposed
> > > measures of which you speak, despite most of us being motorists
> > > ourselves.
>
> > LIAR. "can't identify" is a LIE.
>
> Oh, do grow up. For a moment there I thought you were willing to engage
> in intelligent debate.

Same to you. He *did* lie in a very calculating way and I explained
how. What am I supposed to do when someone is quite clearly using
trolling tactics to deliberately snarl up the debate and make me jump
through hoops? Just carry on as if they have the best of intentions?
Would you be happy if I told you that I "couldn't identify" something
that I quite obviously could?

If someone lies, I'll say so, every time. I would be quite happy for
anyone else to do the same. If you can't deal with that, tough.

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 26, 10:53 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Firstly, until you answer the two "yes or no" questions that I asked
> > you in my previous post, I'm not going to do my list of anti-motorist
> > measures.
>
> Excuse me. You said within 72 hours of my listing of three anti-motorist
> measures.

If he hasn't answered by then, I'll email them to you. I'm not
posting them on here and jumping through their hoops until they play
ball with me. As I've already said, they know what the anti-motorist
measures are anyway, so I would only be doing it to humour them, and
why should I if they won't humour me?

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 26, 10:32 pm, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 Feb, 22:12, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Firstly, until you answer the two "yes or no" questions that I asked
> > you in my previous post, I'm not going to do my list of anti-motorist
> > measures. Why should I do what you "ask" me to do if you won't do
> > anything that I ask you to? And you know how much Spindrift hates it
> > when people don't answer questions. Oh silly me, that only applies to
> > people on one side of the debate, doesn't it? Anyway, I would have
> > thought that the questions were very easy to answer for any individual
> > with a shred of decency.
>
> > On Feb 26, 8:54 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:26:25 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
> > > <[email protected]> said in
> > > <ec104b39-46ad-4bdb-b6e4-7a411b6bf...@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > >Are you now going to admit that you know perfectly well which sorts of
> > > >measures motorist advocates in general believe to be anti-motorist?
>
> > > That's a long way form saying they *are* anti-motorist, since the
> > > more militant petrolheads have a capacity for self-delusion which
> > > reaches near-legendary proportions, starting with the delusion that
> > > they are above-average skill. All of them.
>
> > As you know, I wasn't asking about whether you agreed that they were
> > anti-motorist; I know that you and the rest of Trolls United claim to
> > think that there are no anti-motorist measures whatsoever (ha ha).
> > You purported not to have the faintest idea what measures I was
> > talking about, full stop ("can't identify"), and that was your excuse
> > for telling me to list them. It's clear to me that you *do* have a
> > fair idea of the sorts of measures that I have been referring to
> > (whether or not you supposedly agree that they're anti-motorist),
> > you've pretended not to have the foggiest just to snarl up the
> > discussion, your lying has been exposed and now you don't even have
> > the grace to admit it. No wonder the vast majority of motorists'
> > rights advocates have long since given up having anything to do with
> > you. You don't play fair. None of you trolls do.
>
> > Thanks for your silly insults about "militant petrolheads" BTW.
> > "Petrolheads" is a term that I'd expect a motorist-hater to use about
> > anyone who advocates motorists' rights. A silly pejorative term for
> > anyone who disagrees with your anti-motorist stance. I'd also expect
> > a motorist-hater to be sweepingly disparaging about the ABD. Anyone
> > who didn't hate motorists would agree with at least a fair proportion
> > of what the ABD said; a lot of the time it's just common sense.
>
> > Put it this way: in terms of your opinions and stances, in what ways
> > would you say that you were different from a motorist-hater? (Don't
> > try to tactically divert the discussion with **** about "whether
> > motorist-haters exist", just take it as read.) As far as I can see,
> > if one accepts that a motorist-hater can drive (for reasons of
> > hypocrisy or delusions of importance or whatever, as discussed),
> > you're indistinguishable. I can't see a single thing about you which
> > sets you apart from one. So you can see why I might have come to the
> > conclusion that you and your ilk are anti-motorist. If it looks like
> > a duck and quacks like a duck, forgive me for thinking that it is one,
> > however much it denies it. I'm sure you'll be keen to show me that
> > you're not anti-motorist by listing the huge number of obvious and
> > fundamental differences between your opinions and those of a nasty
> > extremist motorist-hater.
>
> > And while we're at it, what do you think of motorist-haters? How
> > about cyclist-haters? Which set of people do you dislike more? I'll
> > be fascinated to know the answer as I can't begin to guess at it.
>
> Good rant, but they aren't worth it. Chapman's a pompous ******** and
> Spindrift's in a locked ward for his own safety

You're quite right of course (Spindrift won't answer my questions
about whether he's had treatment for mental illness )

It really is draining and I have pretty much tired of this latest
spell of interaction with the Internet's ugliest transport-related
trolls. I like to expose myself to small doses every now and then
because 1) it makes me appreciate proper discussion elsewhere 2) it's
funny to watch my reporting of the truth get on their nerves so much
3) it makes any neutrals who are in any doubt realise how little
regard the trolls really have for road safety and 4) I like to remind
myself that the trolls really are as bad as their reputation elsewhere
says. I'm *never* disappointed in the slightest :-\

You can bet your life that as soon as I leave, there'll be a flurry of
"He only left because he couldn't answer our questions". Never mind
the fact that I have to leave sometime, and at that point there'll
inevitably be new questions that I haven't answered. Logic and
rationality are hardly their strong points though I suppose.... ;-)

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 26, 9:53 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 26, 5:59 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
> >> Namsob) wrote:
> >>> Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Anyway, I know exactly what you'll do when I list them. You'll deny
> >>>> that they're anti-motorist measures at all.
> >>> I promise you that I won't.
> >> Tell you what then. To show that you're serious, please name at least
> >> three measures that exist in the UK which you consider to be anti-
> >> motorist. I will list my (and many other people's) anti-motorist
> >> measures within 72 hours of you doing so.
>
> > OK. This will be a struggle since I don't believe there are any wholly
> > anti-motorist measures in force in this country but I shall try.
>
> > 1) The London congestion charge.
>
> > 2) The existence of mandatory cycle lanes.
>
> > 3) The existence of pedestrian zones.
>
> You missed:
>
> 4) Buildings. Many of these could be knocked down to provide extra space
> for roads and car parks
>
> 5) Parks and open spaces ditto.
>
> 6) Traffic lights. These are *designed* to impede the free flow of traffic
>
> 7) Measures designed to increase the number of pedestrians in certain
> areas - such as "pavements", "shops", and "tourist attractions".
>
> 8) Tax. It is clearly anti-motorist that our rights to free expression
> through driving are abrogated by having to pay the government money for it
>
> 9) Revolving doors often make it impossible to drive directly into the
> lobbies of buildings. Even where this is feasible, the buildings may
> have lifts or stairwells too small for the free passage of most SUVs
>
> 10) Motorists. See also (6) above: the volume of motor vehicles on the
> road is a deliberate affront to all motorists whose journeys are impeded
> by the consequent congestion.
>
> 11) Obesity and heart disease. Over 1,200 Americans die of coronary
> heart disease every day, and I'm sure that most of them are motorists.
> The link is clear.
>
> It's no wonder people are upset!
>
> -dan

Yeah, because the Congestion Charge, mandatory cycle lanes and
pedestrian zones are every bit as necessary and integral to
civilisation as buildings and all the rest, so I see your point. Or
at least I see the point you're trying to make oh-so-cleverly, but of
course it's completely wrong (what a surprise).

See Luke? I knew at least one troll would immediately leap upon your
post with a load of fatuous, contentious nonsense. No-one is allowed
to stick up for the motorist in any way, shape or form without
immediately getting a load of scathing, sarcastic bollocks in return.
And the trolls wonder why they are "misconstrued" as motorist-haters.

> 6) Traffic lights. These are *designed* to impede the free flow of traffic

Nothing like someone trying to be amusingly sarcastic and actually
getting something right by mistake. Only a troll would even begin to
contend that no set of traffic lights had ever been put in, or
deliberately phased badly, in order to impede traffic. Yes, they have
their place. No, we don't need as many as we've got, especially on
roundabouts. But no doubt I'll be abused for saying that.

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 26, 11:02 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 26, 7:26 pm, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 6:46 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:46:25 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
> > > <[email protected]> said in
> > > <d2004b6b-1423-44c4-9c05-b8bac6357...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > >I've said repeatedly that I will do it, to humour you trolls, but that
> > > >you know what they are anyway, and that you're lying when you say
> > > >otherwise. You can say "You haven't done it yet" as much as you want,
> > > >it just makes you look impatient.
>
> > > Um, no, it makes us look puzzled, because despite your repeated and
> > > increasingly hysterical assertions we can't identify the supposed
> > > measures of which you speak, despite most of us being motorists
> > > ourselves.
>
> > LIAR. "can't identify" is a LIE. You *know* the sorts of things that
> > I'm referring to, because the likes of the ABD and many others have
> > repeatedly identified them, ...
> > Are you now going to admit that you know perfectly well which sorts of
> > measures motorist advocates in general believe to be anti-motorist?
>
> Ah, that sounds like a breakthrough. So the list you keep threatening
> to post consists not of "anti-motorist measures" but "measures
> considered anti-motorist by motorist advocates".

It consists of both, actually. Although I would expect most here to
insinuate that anything that a motorist advocate said couldn't
possibly be correct. Because most here give the mysterious and
coincidental impression of being motorist-haters, even though I'm
assured that they're nothing of the kind.

> I think you probably
> need to establish more of a track record of sounding less "out there"
> than spindrift at his most didactic before many will consider it worth
> spending much time trying to second guess what is going on in your
> head. Anyway, don't rush on my account. I am in no special hurry to
> see your list.

I'll bear that in mind. You patronising burk. And I can assure you
that whatever this newsgroup might drive me to post, I have no mental
problems whatsoever. Spindrift can make no such assurance, and it's
pretty obvious that he's always like he is on here (whereas I adopt a
"troll-fighting" persona because I'm damned if I'm going to let their
poisonous and deliberately upsetting remarks get to the "real" me).

> Hope you manage to calm down a bit. You sound pretty stressed

Trolls do stress me out. It's why I try to limit my exposure to them,
and it's why I won't be around here much longer. That's why they're
so terribly obnoxious to anyone who's against cameras of course: they
know that the quicker they can make someone leave, the less they'll be
able to post annoying true facts.

 

[[email protected]]

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> Yeah, because the Congestion Charge, mandatory cycle lanes and
> pedestrian zones are every bit as necessary and integral to
> civilisation as buildings and all the rest, so I see your point. Or
> at least I see the point you're trying to make oh-so-cleverly, but of
> course it's completely wrong (what a surprise).

No. You have missed my point. You have missed my point by such a
margin and with such elan, flair and grace it's a wonder you're not
gainfully employed as a copywriter for the Innovations catalogue.

>> 6) Traffic lights. These are *designed* to impede the free flow of traffic
>
> Nothing like someone trying to be amusingly sarcastic and actually
> getting something right by mistake. Only a troll would even begin to
> contend that no set of traffic lights had ever been put in, or
> deliberately phased badly, in order to impede traffic. Yes, they have
> their place. No, we don't need as many as we've got, especially on
> roundabouts.

There is a set of traffic lights on average every 150 metres on my
commute home. They force me to slow down and lose momentum that I
worked for, and more pressingly they are the places where users of
different types of vehicle are most likely to come into conflict with
each other or with pedestrians crossing between lanes. In a
mechanically propelled car, the former consideration is not nearly as
much of an issue - the engine does the work, not the driver - and the
latter is less of an issue too: in a collision between a motor vehicle
and almost anything else on the road, it's not the motorist who'll
suffer. If this is your idea of an anti-motorist measure, it's tenfold
greater an anti-cyclist measure.


-dan

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:12:24 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> said in
<387c5d12-e332-45f2-b376-af825ded1b3c@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:

>Firstly, until you answer the two "yes or no" questions that I asked
>you in my previous post, I'm not going to do my list of anti-motorist
>measures.

Your "questions" were of the form "have you stopped beating your
wife yet". No, I do not know which measures you suppose to be
anti-motorist, because you refuse to identify them.

Your response appears to be that unless I acknowledge that I know
perfectly well what these supposed anti-motorist measures are,
you're not going to tell us, and that it's all our fault. This is
the purest sophistry. You have said that there are anti-motorist
measures, we have asked what they are, and you have done nothing but
evade the issue.

(snip more drivel)

>And while we're at it, what do you think of motorist-haters? How
>about cyclist-haters? Which set of people do you dislike more? I'll
>be fascinated to know the answer as I can't begin to guess at it.

Hate is a bad thing to be on the roads in any shape or form. The
more potentially dangerous the vehicle, the more dangerous hate
becomes. If I ram your car with my bicycle in a moment of rage, it
won't hurt you personally. If I ram a cyclist my car, I might cause
death or serious injury. This much is self-evident. Unlike your
supposed anti-motorist measures, which are not self-evident at all.

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