On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:57:54 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<
[email protected]> said in
<
[email protected]>:
>What's your address and telephone number then? Because you could be
>any Guy Chapman, or maybe that's not your name at all. According to
>you, there's only one way to show that you're not a coward, and that's
>by providing your address and telephone number.
Nope, because I'm not the one calling people a murderer just because
they fail to believe the lunatic ravings of a monomaniac.
>"Vile and baseless attacks"...hmm. Sounds suspiciously like what you
>used to subject Paul Smith to.
Nope, we asked him to prove his thesis and gave him ample
opportunity to do so, the fact that was unable to improve on proof
by assertion was his problem, not ours. Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence, then only extraordinary thing about
Smith's so-called evidence was that he apparently believed it.
>> Fortunately your outpourings are so hilariously deranged
>> that they are unlikely to fool anyone.
>Tee hee. You really should change your name to "Pot". That's
>probably what you've been smoking as well. Thereagain maybe not;
>people who smoke pot don't generally campaign to kill road users.
You really have drunk the Kool-Aid, haven't you? Your statement
relies on absolute and uncritical acceptance of an assertion that
lacks any credible evidential basis and has never been tested by
informed peer review. Smith refused to even submit his ideas for
peer review, and he dealt any possible alternate explanations for
the (invalid) comparison of year-on-year trends by putting his
fingers in his ears and chanting "laa laa, I'm not listening".
I challenge you to find any posts in this group in which anybody
seriously advocates killing road users.
>> You're right that I don't let raving lunatics like you edit my wiki.
>> Anyone who is unable to tell the difference between one of Smith's
>> pronouncements and a credible argument is not fit to edit anything
>> at all, so that saved me a few seconds of reverting for no obvious
>> detriment to the world in general.
>I think the word you're looking for is "censorship". You tend to get
>it a lot from people who know that the facts don't support their
>purported points of view. ("Purported" because of course you don't
>really believe that cameras save lives, you just pretend to as part of
>your ludicrous anti-motorist agenda.)
I don't care whether they save lives or not, actually, I just don't
believe they kill, and I don't see why a measure to enforce a law
which has existed since long before I learned to drive should be
seen as a pressing problem. So the law gets enforced? Big deal.
There was a backlash when they introduced intoximeter testing, but
these days few people seriously question the wisdom of enforcing
drink-drive laws. Excess speed is a behaviour where all the benefit
accrues to the driver and much of the risk applies to other road
users. In car v. bike collisions, the driver is usually at fault
but virtually never injured. The severity and incidence of
collisions both rise with average speed on a given type of road.
These simple facts mean that for me enforcing speed limits is simply
something to accept and move on; as a driver I have absolutely no
problem with limits being enforced. None at all.
>Why does your s(h)ite not have a policy whereby you will correct
>errors which are brought to your attention?
It does. And unlike Smith's, I will actually correct them. For
example, Smith was still publishing the false 12mph claim after the
scientist on whose work it was based pointed out that it was a
completely invalid argument and asked him to remove all reference to
his name and work.
>I think it's because even
>if it were proved to your satisfaction that cameras killed people (and
>I think it has been already),
There is not and never has been any credible proof for that deranged
speedophile fantasy.
>you'd still support them, such is your
>hatred of all motorists except yourself and a few others. And there's
>one of many fundamental differences between you and Paul Smith: his
>agenda was as stated (to save lives), whereas yours is not (you
>pretend to want to save lives when really you just want motorists to
>be persecuted). You have BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS.
No, I don't have blood on my hands, but you have foam on your lips.
And unlike you I don't run my life on hate - I dread to think how
empty your life must be for you to consider that your evident
visceral hatred of people who fail to believe Smith's mad theory to
be a productive use of your energy.
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
