spindrift wrote:
> " Or it could be that the viewpoint is wrong and potentially
> damaging."
>
> Or it could be that the ABD member and defender of killer drivers
> trollb has its inane,
You seem to have confused me, via my "pet name" here with someone who is
a member of the ABD and who defends killer drivers.
You must use a perverse definition of the word "defend" to arrive at
that conclusion... Or can you cite even one example to illustrate your
assertion?
If you you look back you'll see that practically everything I write is
about ways and means of making our roads safer, and challenges to biased
and bigoted interpretations of statistics, court reports, and news items.
> ill-informed and asinine views
That characterises your posts to a tee.
> attacked so often
> because it's a proven liar
Only by you - and although you often write it you are unable to support it.
> who deliberately disrupts this board
What "board"? _I've_ never posted to any "board". All I post is to usenet.
> by
> asking the same question over and over and over again
List them.
> or spamming
> threads with multiple posts minutes after each other- see below.
Eh? Do you mean that I am passionate about reducing the death toll on
our roads, and am not afraid to criticise current ill-conceived and
failed methods.
Your problem seems to be that you would rather criminalise and punish
millions of motorists for trivial victimless offences than reduce the
danger on our roads. You are blind to all the evidence that shows that
what you post is generally wrong, and attempt crude smears of those who
challenge your nonsense.
You trawl-up old, bigoted, preconceived and frankly erroneous snippets
of information and present them, out-of-context and with your own spin,
as if you have uncovered some previously concealed gem, and proceed to
pour bile on anyone and everyone who challenges your prejudiced assertions.
--
Matt B
