UK and Europe · Public discussion

Enough!

Started by Nuxx Bar · · Last activity · 26 posts · 892 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
8 April 2008
Last activity
13 April 2008
Original author
Nuxx Bar
Posts
26
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
892
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 26
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Firstly, I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with the quality
    of my posts lately. I don't think there can really be any doubt that
    I've been wiping the floor with the trolls, and humiliating them time
    and time again by exposing their real motives and showing just how
    laughable their support of cameras is. Although I have the truth on
    my side, the trolls are renowned for their chicanery, lying and other
    dodgy discussion tactics, and it can be easy for a neutral to be left
    with the false impression that the trolls have won the argument unless
    the camera opponent handles things as well as I have been. Spindrift
    has resorted to telling ludicrous lies like "I never speed", I've got
    Chapman to admit that he has all the same opinions as a motorist-hater
    (meaning that he is one in my book), and I've even got the trolls who
    drive to admit that they should all be permanently banned...LOL! All
    in all, I'm making an absolute mockery of their stance. No wonder
    they're getting so [censored] with me!

    OK. Say (completely hypothetically of course, especially in the case
    of Spindrift and "Just Zis Lie, You Know?"😉 you had an emotive,
    ideological dislike of cars and the freedom of individual choice that
    they provided. Say you wanted motorists to be forced off the roads as
    soon as possible, being a spiteful, interfering, misanthropic, sad
    little busybody. How would you go about it?

    1. I would admit that I hated cars, be completely up front about
    wanting them off the road, and try (mostly unsuccessfully) to achieve
    this by persuading people that cars were bad.

    2. I would pathetically deny that I hated cars, knowing that I
    wouldn't be able to justify this hatred to people using logic or
    reason. I would instead try to force motorists off the road by
    pretending that I cared about road safety, and that speed cameras were
    the way to reduce accidents. Since every regular driver speeds (even
    the ones who lie about it, like Spindrift), a saturation of speed
    cameras (and unreasonably low speed limits) would be an excellent way
    of harrassing, persecuting and eventually banning all motorists. I
    would launch vicious smear campaigns against anyone who spoke the
    truth about cameras, knowing that I couldn't attack what they were
    saying about cameras, but I could still attack them. I would also
    campaign for other anti-motorist measures such as unnecessary double
    yellow lines and road narrowing, on the oh-so-logical basis that
    taking roadspace from cars and making things unpleasant for drivers
    would magically make them, and the need for their journeys, disappear.

    I don't think anyone's really in any doubt that anyone warped enough
    to be a motorist-hater would be more than likely to do things the
    second, dishonest, disingenuous way. So:

    - We know, sadly, that these motorist-haters exist, despite the
    vehement denial from some of their number.

    - We know that they are likely to conduct their campaign in a
    dishonest way by callously hijacking road safety.

    - We know that there are people on newsgroups like this who have a
    mysteriously illogical and unshakeable support of speed cameras and
    other anti-motorist measures. They will not even think about changing
    their minds no matter how much evidence is presented to them, and they
    are incredibly and infamously obnoxious towards anyone who dares to
    suggest that cameras have failed. It is therefore likely that there
    is an ulterior motive behind their support of such measures. If they
    really cared about road safety then they would have long since
    admitted that they had been wrong about cameras working, realising
    that saving lives was infinitely more important than their precious
    pride. There is clearly something else other than a wish to save
    lives which is governing their point-blank refusal to accept what has
    been staring us in the face for years: that cameras have been a road
    safety disaster.

    Bringing these things together, it seems completely inconceivable that
    *none* of the irrational camera supporters on this newsgroup are
    motorist-haters, and that they all support cameras for the most
    altruistic and transparent of reasons. Yet that's what they expect us
    to believe. Ridiculous. The fact that motorist-haters are so
    reluctant to admit their prejudices should tell everyone all they need
    to know about them. And anyone who claims that cameras work when they
    don't even believe it themselves has BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. I can't
    see why anyone would argue with that point unless they were such a
    person themselves.

    Hijacking any cause in order to force people out of their cars is
    pretty bad, but compromising road safety, where lives are at stake, is
    about as low as it gets. These people are absolute monsters, and it's
    no wonder that anyone who tries to expose their true aims or the truth
    about cameras is given such a rough ride. "If it wasn't for the likes
    of bloody Safe Speed, it would be so much easier for us to lie about
    cameras and force people out of their cars. We almost managed it but
    now the cat's out of the bag regarding cameras and we'll have to find
    another way of stopping people from driving." My heart bleeds. If
    you're going to conduct a callous, extremist anti-car campaign which
    causes road deaths and consists of lies and deceit then you cannot
    expect to do so unopposed. You really shouldn't give people such a
    hard time just for exposing the truth and not shutting up on your say-
    so.

    Perhaps it's time to turn your attention to campaigning for something
    more noble, where you don't feel the need to tell a constant stream of
    lies. Just a thought. Mind your own business, let people drive their
    cars if they want to, accept that this is a free society, and start
    doing something which actually benefits humanity in some way. Then
    everyone wins, and no-one dies unnecessarily as a result of your
    campaigning. You know it makes sense. Honesty and a genuine wish to
    help people, starting from now. I knew you'd agree. Well done! The
    first step is admitting to your true motives on here and apologising
    profusely to every single road user for unnecessarily and selfishly
    endangering their lives. I'm sure you'll find it difficult to swallow
    your pride but you'll feel so much better once you've done it.
    There's no better time than now: those of us who really care about
    road safety are right behind you. So, without further ado, it's time
    for you to turn over a new leaf. I look forward to reading your
    apologies. And on behalf of all who are campaigning for real road
    safety, thank you so very much. It may have taken you a long time to
    do the right thing but it's still absolutely worth it. We're all
    really proud of you. You've done brilliantly. It just shows that
    there's redemption in everyone.

    The trolls are finally going to stop their anti-car, road user-killing
    campaign; it's a great day for real road safety! :-D

  2. Nuxx Bar said:

    Firstly, I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with the quality
    of my posts lately. I don't think there can really be any doubt that
    I've been wiping the floor with the trolls, and humiliating them time
    and time again by exposing their real motives and showing just how
    laughable their support of cameras is.

    Could you cut it down a bit. I do love your posts but I lost interest in
    this one waiting for you to get to the point. Maybe you could outline
    your argument as four or five bullet points.

  3. In article <a221fde4-2c39-457e-9275-
    [email hidden]>, Nuxx Bar
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    Firstly, I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with the quality
    of my posts lately. I don't think there can really be any doubt that
    I've been wiping the floor with the trolls, and humiliating them time
    and time again by exposing their real motives and showing just how
    laughable their support of cameras is. Although I have the truth on
    my side

    OK, it started silly and gets so ludicrous at this point that I'm not
    going to read any further. You're obviously beyond reason, whether
    because of stupidity, insanity or trollness, and your posts are just too
    long and tedious to provide entertainment. Bye.

  4. Response to Rob Morley

    Quoted message said:

    You're obviously beyond reason, whether
    because of stupidity, insanity or trollness, and your posts are just too
    long and tedious to provide entertainment. Bye.

    He's past "shouty tramp" level, approaching EmEye5iveVictim level.

    --
    Mark, UK
    "Look behind you, a Three-Headed Monkey!"

  5. Nuxx Bar said:

    Firstly, I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with the quality
    of my posts lately.  I don't think there can really be any doubt that
    I've been wiping the floor with the trolls, and humiliating them time
    and time again ...

    Your arm's off!

    --
    Dave...

  6. Nuxx Bar said:

    Firstly, I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with the quality
    of my posts lately.

    Can we have a vote on that?

    I'm for the "Nays".

    <snip>

  7. In article said:
    Nuxx Bar said:

    Firstly, I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with the quality
    of my posts lately.

    Can we have a vote on that?
    I'm for the "Nays".

    I don't see why. I find it entirely plausible that he's happy with the
    quality of his posts, even if no one else is. It would save bandwidth
    if he didn't bother posting them and was just pleased with them in private,
    but with the amount of image data on the net these days it's hardly worth
    bothering about.

  8. Nuxx Bar said:

    Firstly, I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with the quality
    of my posts lately.  I don't think there can really be any doubt that
    I've been wiping the floor with the trolls, and humiliating them time
    and time again by exposing their real motives and showing just how
    laughable their support of cameras is.  Although I have the truth on
    my side, the trolls are renowned for their chicanery, lying and other
    dodgy discussion tactics, and it can be easy for a neutral to be left
    with the false impression that the trolls have won the argument unless
    the camera opponent handles things as well as I have been.  Spindrift
    has resorted to telling ludicrous lies like "I never speed", I've got
    Chapman to admit that he has all the same opinions as a motorist-hater
    (meaning that he is one in my book), and I've even got the trolls who
    drive to admit that they should all be permanently banned...LOL!  All
    in all, I'm making an absolute mockery of their stance.  No wonder
    they're getting so [censored] with me!

    OK.  Say (completely hypothetically of course, especially in the case
    of Spindrift and "Just Zis Lie, You Know?"😉 you had an emotive,
    ideological dislike of cars and the freedom of individual choice that
    they provided.  Say you wanted motorists to be forced off the roads as
    soon as possible, being a spiteful, interfering, misanthropic, sad
    little busybody.  How would you go about it?

    1. I would admit that I hated cars, be completely up front about
    wanting them off the road, and try (mostly unsuccessfully) to achieve
    this by persuading people that cars were bad.

    2. I would pathetically deny that I hated cars, knowing that I
    wouldn't be able to justify this hatred to people using logic or
    reason.  I would instead try to force motorists off the road by
    pretending that I cared about road safety, and that speed cameras were
    the way to reduce accidents.  Since every regular driver speeds (even
    the ones who lie about it, like Spindrift), a saturation of speed
    cameras (and unreasonably low speed limits) would be an excellent way
    of harrassing, persecuting and eventually banning all motorists.  I
    would launch vicious smear campaigns against anyone who spoke the
    truth about cameras, knowing that I couldn't attack what they were
    saying about cameras, but I could still attack them.  I would also
    campaign for other anti-motorist measures such as unnecessary double
    yellow lines and road narrowing, on the oh-so-logical basis that
    taking roadspace from cars and making things unpleasant for drivers
    would magically make them, and the need for their journeys, disappear.

    I don't think anyone's really in any doubt that anyone warped enough
    to be a motorist-hater would be more than likely to do things the
    second, dishonest, disingenuous way.  So:

    - We know, sadly, that these motorist-haters exist, despite the
    vehement denial from some of their number.

    - We know that they are likely to conduct their campaign in a
    dishonest way by callously hijacking road safety.

    - We know that there are people on newsgroups like this who have a
    mysteriously illogical and unshakeable support of speed cameras and
    other anti-motorist measures.  They will not even think about changing
    their minds no matter how much evidence is presented to them, and they
    are incredibly and infamously obnoxious towards anyone who dares to
    suggest that cameras have failed.  It is therefore likely that there
    is an ulterior motive behind their support of such measures.  If they
    really cared about road safety then they would have long since
    admitted that they had been wrong about cameras working, realising
    that saving lives was infinitely more important than their precious
    pride.  There is clearly something else other than a wish to save
    lives which is governing their point-blank refusal to accept what has
    been staring us in the face for years: that cameras have been a road
    safety disaster.

    Bringing these things together, it seems completely inconceivable that
    *none* of the irrational camera supporters on this newsgroup are
    motorist-haters, and that they all support cameras for the most
    altruistic and transparent of reasons.  Yet that's what they expect us
    to believe.  Ridiculous.  The fact that motorist-haters are so
    reluctant to admit their prejudices should tell everyone all they need
    to know about them.  And anyone who claims that cameras work when they
    don't even believe it themselves has BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.  I can't
    see why anyone would argue with that point unless they were such a
    person themselves.

    Hijacking any cause in order to force people out of their cars is
    pretty bad, but compromising road safety, where lives are at stake, is
    about as low as it gets.  These people are absolute monsters, and it's
    no wonder that anyone who tries to expose their true aims or the truth
    about cameras is given such a rough ride.  "If it wasn't for the likes
    of bloody Safe Speed, it would be so much easier for us to lie about
    cameras and force people out of their cars.  We almost managed it but
    now the cat's out of the bag regarding cameras and we'll have to find
    another way of stopping people from driving."  My heart bleeds.  If
    you're going to conduct a callous, extremist anti-car campaign which
    causes road deaths and consists of lies and deceit then you cannot
    expect to do so unopposed.  You really shouldn't give people such a
    hard time just for exposing the truth and not shutting up on your say-
    so.

    Perhaps it's time to turn your attention to campaigning for something
    more noble, where you don't feel the need to tell a constant stream of
    lies.  Just a thought.  Mind your own business, let people drive their
    cars if they want to, accept that this is a free society, and start
    doing something which actually benefits humanity in some way.  Then
    everyone wins, and no-one dies unnecessarily as a result of your
    campaigning.  You know it makes sense.  Honesty and a genuine wish to
    help people, starting from now.  I knew you'd agree.  Well done!  The
    first step is admitting to your true motives on here and apologising
    profusely to every single road user for unnecessarily and selfishly
    endangering their lives.  I'm sure you'll find it difficult to swallow
    your pride but you'll feel so much better once you've done it.
    There's no better time than now: those of us who really care about
    road safety are right behind you.  So, without further ado, it's time
    for you to turn over a new leaf.  I look forward to reading your
    apologies.  And on behalf of all who are campaigning for real road
    safety, thank you so very much.  It may have taken you a long time to
    do the right thing but it's still absolutely worth it.  We're all
    really proud of you.  You've done brilliantly.  It just shows that
    there's redemption in everyone.

    The trolls are finally going to stop their anti-car, road user-killing
    campaign; it's a great day for real road safety! :-D

    Good rant. Wasted here though- [censored] like Spindrift and Chapman
    would never ever admit being in the wrong

  9. Sir Jeremy said:
    Nuxx Bar said:

    Firstly, I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with the quality
    of my posts lately.  I don't think there can really be any doubt that
    I've been wiping the floor with the trolls, and humiliating them time
    and time again by exposing their real motives and showing just how
    laughable their support of cameras is.  Although I have the truth on
    my side, the trolls are renowned for their chicanery, lying and other
    dodgy discussion tactics, and it can be easy for a neutral to be left
    with the false impression that the trolls have won the argument unless
    the camera opponent handles things as well as I have been.  Spindrift
    has resorted to telling ludicrous lies like "I never speed", I've got
    Chapman to admit that he has all the same opinions as a motorist-hater
    (meaning that he is one in my book), and I've even got the trolls who
    drive to admit that they should all be permanently banned...LOL!  All
    in all, I'm making an absolute mockery of their stance.  No wonder
    they're getting so [censored] with me!

    Quoted message said:

    OK.  Say (completely hypothetically of course, especially in the case
    of Spindrift and "Just Zis Lie, You Know?"😉 you had an emotive,
    ideological dislike of cars and the freedom of individual choice that
    they provided.  Say you wanted motorists to be forced off the roads as
    soon as possible, being a spiteful, interfering, misanthropic, sad
    little busybody.  How would you go about it?

    Quoted message said:

    1. I would admit that I hated cars, be completely up front about
    wanting them off the road, and try (mostly unsuccessfully) to achieve
    this by persuading people that cars were bad.

    Quoted message said:

    2. I would pathetically deny that I hated cars, knowing that I
    wouldn't be able to justify this hatred to people using logic or
    reason.  I would instead try to force motorists off the road by
    pretending that I cared about road safety, and that speed cameras were
    the way to reduce accidents.  Since every regular driver speeds (even
    the ones who lie about it, like Spindrift), a saturation of speed
    cameras (and unreasonably low speed limits) would be an excellent way
    of harrassing, persecuting and eventually banning all motorists.  I
    would launch vicious smear campaigns against anyone who spoke the
    truth about cameras, knowing that I couldn't attack what they were
    saying about cameras, but I could still attack them.  I would also
    campaign for other anti-motorist measures such as unnecessary double
    yellow lines and road narrowing, on the oh-so-logical basis that
    taking roadspace from cars and making things unpleasant for drivers
    would magically make them, and the need for their journeys, disappear.

    Quoted message said:

    I don't think anyone's really in any doubt that anyone warped enough
    to be a motorist-hater would be more than likely to do things the
    second, dishonest, disingenuous way.  So:

    Quoted message said:

    - We know, sadly, that these motorist-haters exist, despite the
    vehement denial from some of their number.

    Quoted message said:

    - We know that they are likely to conduct their campaign in a
    dishonest way by callously hijacking road safety.

    Quoted message said:

    - We know that there are people on newsgroups like this who have a
    mysteriously illogical and unshakeable support of speed cameras and
    other anti-motorist measures.  They will not even think about changing
    their minds no matter how much evidence is presented to them, and they
    are incredibly and infamously obnoxious towards anyone who dares to
    suggest that cameras have failed.  It is therefore likely that there
    is an ulterior motive behind their support of such measures.  If they
    really cared about road safety then they would have long since
    admitted that they had been wrong about cameras working, realising
    that saving lives was infinitely more important than their precious
    pride.  There is clearly something else other than a wish to save
    lives which is governing their point-blank refusal to accept what has
    been staring us in the face for years: that cameras have been a road
    safety disaster.

    Quoted message said:

    Bringing these things together, it seems completely inconceivable that
    *none* of the irrational camera supporters on this newsgroup are
    motorist-haters, and that they all support cameras for the most
    altruistic and transparent of reasons.  Yet that's what they expect us
    to believe.  Ridiculous.  The fact that motorist-haters are so
    reluctant to admit their prejudices should tell everyone all they need
    to know about them.  And anyone who claims that cameras work when they
    don't even believe it themselves has BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.  I can't
    see why anyone would argue with that point unless they were such a
    person themselves.

    Quoted message said:

    Hijacking any cause in order to force people out of their cars is
    pretty bad, but compromising road safety, where lives are at stake, is
    about as low as it gets.  These people are absolute monsters, and it's
    no wonder that anyone who tries to expose their true aims or the truth
    about cameras is given such a rough ride.  "If it wasn't for the likes
    of bloody Safe Speed, it would be so much easier for us to lie about
    cameras and force people out of their cars.  We almost managed it but
    now the cat's out of the bag regarding cameras and we'll have to find
    another way of stopping people from driving."  My heart bleeds.  If
    you're going to conduct a callous, extremist anti-car campaign which
    causes road deaths and consists of lies and deceit then you cannot
    expect to do so unopposed.  You really shouldn't give people such a
    hard time just for exposing the truth and not shutting up on your say-
    so.

    Quoted message said:

    Perhaps it's time to turn your attention to campaigning for something
    more noble, where you don't feel the need to tell a constant stream of
    lies.  Just a thought.  Mind your own business, let people drive their
    cars if they want to, accept that this is a free society, and start
    doing something which actually benefits humanity in some way.  Then
    everyone wins, and no-one dies unnecessarily as a result of your
    campaigning.  You know it makes sense.  Honesty and a genuine wish to
    help people, starting from now.  I knew you'd agree.  Well done!  The
    first step is admitting to your true motives on here and apologising
    profusely to every single road user for unnecessarily and selfishly
    endangering their lives.  I'm sure you'll find it difficult to swallow
    your pride but you'll feel so much better once you've done it.
    There's no better time than now: those of us who really care about
    road safety are right behind you.  So, without further ado, it's time
    for you to turn over a new leaf.  I look forward to reading your
    apologies.  And on behalf of all who are campaigning for real road
    safety, thank you so very much.  It may have taken you a long time to
    do the right thing but it's still absolutely worth it.  We're all
    really proud of you.  You've done brilliantly.  It just shows that
    there's redemption in everyone.

    Quoted message said:

    The trolls are finally going to stop their anti-car, road user-killing
    campaign; it's a great day for real road safety! :-D

    Good rant. Wasted here though- [censored] like Spindrift and Chapman
    would never ever admit being in the wrong- Hide quoted text -

    - Show quoted text -

    that's uncalled for, are you this aggressive when you drive?

    Chill out dude, get out in the sunshine on your bike, get those
    endorphins flowing, you'll feel better, I promise!

  10. spindrift said:

    On 9 Apr, 13:11, Sir Jeremy <[email hidden]> wrote:
    On 8 Apr, 10:25, Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]> wrote:

    [ ... ]

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Good rant. Wasted here though- [censored] like Spindrift and Chapman
    would never ever admit being in the wrong- Hide quoted text -

    Quoted message said:

    that's uncalled for, are you this aggressive when you drive?

    Mr Pot, may I introduce Mr Kettle?

  11. spindrift said:
    Sir Jeremy said:

    On 8 Apr, 10:25, Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Firstly, I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with the quality
    of my posts lately.  I don't think there can really be any doubt that
    I've been wiping the floor with the trolls, and humiliating them time
    and time again by exposing their real motives and showing just how
    laughable their support of cameras is.  Although I have the truth on
    my side, the trolls are renowned for their chicanery, lying and other
    dodgy discussion tactics, and it can be easy for a neutral to be left
    with the false impression that the trolls have won the argument unless
    the camera opponent handles things as well as I have been.  Spindrift
    has resorted to telling ludicrous lies like "I never speed", I've got
    Chapman to admit that he has all the same opinions as a motorist-hater
    (meaning that he is one in my book), and I've even got the trolls who
    drive to admit that they should all be permanently banned...LOL!  All
    in all, I'm making an absolute mockery of their stance.  No wonder
    they're getting so [censored] with me!

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    OK.  Say (completely hypothetically of course, especially in the case
    of Spindrift and "Just Zis Lie, You Know?"😉 you had an emotive,
    ideological dislike of cars and the freedom of individual choice that
    they provided.  Say you wanted motorists to be forced off the roads as
    soon as possible, being a spiteful, interfering, misanthropic, sad
    little busybody.  How would you go about it?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    1. I would admit that I hated cars, be completely up front about
    wanting them off the road, and try (mostly unsuccessfully) to achieve
    this by persuading people that cars were bad.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    2. I would pathetically deny that I hated cars, knowing that I
    wouldn't be able to justify this hatred to people using logic or
    reason.  I would instead try to force motorists off the road by
    pretending that I cared about road safety, and that speed cameras were
    the way to reduce accidents.  Since every regular driver speeds (even
    the ones who lie about it, like Spindrift), a saturation of speed
    cameras (and unreasonably low speed limits) would be an excellent way
    of harrassing, persecuting and eventually banning all motorists.  I
    would launch vicious smear campaigns against anyone who spoke the
    truth about cameras, knowing that I couldn't attack what they were
    saying about cameras, but I could still attack them.  I would also
    campaign for other anti-motorist measures such as unnecessary double
    yellow lines and road narrowing, on the oh-so-logical basis that
    taking roadspace from cars and making things unpleasant for drivers
    would magically make them, and the need for their journeys, disappear.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I don't think anyone's really in any doubt that anyone warped enough
    to be a motorist-hater would be more than likely to do things the
    second, dishonest, disingenuous way.  So:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    - We know, sadly, that these motorist-haters exist, despite the
    vehement denial from some of their number.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    - We know that they are likely to conduct their campaign in a
    dishonest way by callously hijacking road safety.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    - We know that there are people on newsgroups like this who have a
    mysteriously illogical and unshakeable support of speed cameras and
    other anti-motorist measures.  They will not even think about changing
    their minds no matter how much evidence is presented to them, and they
    are incredibly and infamously obnoxious towards anyone who dares to
    suggest that cameras have failed.  It is therefore likely that there
    is an ulterior motive behind their support of such measures.  If they
    really cared about road safety then they would have long since
    admitted that they had been wrong about cameras working, realising
    that saving lives was infinitely more important than their precious
    pride.  There is clearly something else other than a wish to save
    lives which is governing their point-blank refusal to accept what has
    been staring us in the face for years: that cameras have been a road
    safety disaster.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Bringing these things together, it seems completely inconceivable that
    *none* of the irrational camera supporters on this newsgroup are
    motorist-haters, and that they all support cameras for the most
    altruistic and transparent of reasons.  Yet that's what they expect us
    to believe.  Ridiculous.  The fact that motorist-haters are so
    reluctant to admit their prejudices should tell everyone all they need
    to know about them.  And anyone who claims that cameras work when they
    don't even believe it themselves has BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.  I can't
    see why anyone would argue with that point unless they were such a
    person themselves.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Hijacking any cause in order to force people out of their cars is
    pretty bad, but compromising road safety, where lives are at stake, is
    about as low as it gets.  These people are absolute monsters, and it's
    no wonder that anyone who tries to expose their true aims or the truth
    about cameras is given such a rough ride.  "If it wasn't for the likes
    of bloody Safe Speed, it would be so much easier for us to lie about
    cameras and force people out of their cars.  We almost managed it but
    now the cat's out of the bag regarding cameras and we'll have to find
    another way of stopping people from driving."  My heart bleeds.  If
    you're going to conduct a callous, extremist anti-car campaign which
    causes road deaths and consists of lies and deceit then you cannot
    expect to do so unopposed.  You really shouldn't give people such a
    hard time just for exposing the truth and not shutting up on your say-
    so.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Perhaps it's time to turn your attention to campaigning for something
    more noble, where you don't feel the need to tell a constant stream of
    lies.  Just a thought.  Mind your own business, let people drive their
    cars if they want to, accept that this is a free society, and start
    doing something which actually benefits humanity in some way.  Then
    everyone wins, and no-one dies unnecessarily as a result of your
    campaigning.  You know it makes sense.  Honesty and a genuine wishto
    help people, starting from now.  I knew you'd agree.  Well done!  The
    first step is admitting to your true motives on here and apologising
    profusely to every single road user for unnecessarily and selfishly
    endangering their lives.  I'm sure you'll find it difficult to swallow
    your pride but you'll feel so much better once you've done it.
    There's no better time than now: those of us who really care about
    road safety are right behind you.  So, without further ado, it's time
    for you to turn over a new leaf.  I look forward to reading your
    apologies.  And on behalf of all who are campaigning for real road
    safety, thank you so very much.  It may have taken you a long time to
    do the right thing but it's still absolutely worth it.  We're all
    really proud of you.  You've done brilliantly.  It just shows that
    there's redemption in everyone.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The trolls are finally going to stop their anti-car, road user-killing
    campaign; it's a great day for real road safety! :-D

    Quoted message said:

    Good rant. Wasted here though- [censored] like Spindrift and Chapman
    would never ever admit being in the wrong- Hide quoted text -

    Quoted message said:

    - Show quoted text -

    that's uncalled for, are you this aggressive when you drive?

    Chill out dude, get out in the sunshine on your bike, get those
    endorphins flowing, you'll feel better, I promise!- Hide quoted text -

    - Show quoted text -

    I feel fine, thank you. I'm never aggressive when I drive, as I'm
    enjoying myself. Nuxx has you to a T under his heading #2 above
    though, doesn't he?

  12. "Sir Jeremy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I feel fine, thank you. I'm never aggressive when I drive, as I'm
    enjoying myself. Nuxx has you to a T under his heading #2 above
    though, doesn't he?

    Although I am still unsure as to whether he is correct about speed cameras.
    It is my experience that people who make aggressive statements on a
    newsgroup about something, unaccompanied by any solid evidence why, are
    likely to be wrong. I suspect this is the case with the supposed (lack of)
    effectiveness of speed cameras, but I am willing to be corrected.

  13. Adam Lea said:

    "Sir Jeremy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I feel fine, thank you. I'm never aggressive when I drive, as I'm
    enjoying myself. Nuxx has you to a T under his heading #2 above
    though, doesn't he?

    Although I am still unsure as to whether he is correct about speed
    cameras. It is my experience that people who make aggressive
    statements on a newsgroup about something, unaccompanied by any
    solid evidence why, are likely to be wrong. I suspect this is the
    case with the supposed (lack of) effectiveness of speed cameras,
    but I am willing to be corrected.

    I think it is obvious that the opinions which get most aggressively
    defended (and, indeed, attacked) are those for which there is no solid
    evidence. By implication, therefore, those that the proponent has
    doubts about.

    No-one, for example, gets aggressive about asserting whether the sun
    exists or not. Conversely, lots of people through history have been
    willing to die (or more commonly, to kill) in defence of whether a
    particular deity exists or not.

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

  14. JNugent said:
    spindrift said:

    On 9 Apr, 13:11, Sir Jeremy <[email hidden]> wrote:
    On 8 Apr, 10:25, Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]> wrote:

    [ ... ]

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Good rant. Wasted here though- [censored] like Spindrift and Chapman
    would never ever admit being in the wrong- Hide quoted text -


    that's uncalled for, are you this aggressive when you drive?

    Mr Pot, may I introduce Mr Kettle?

    Sorry?

    I'm not aggressive when I drive or cycle.

  15. Sir Jeremy said:
    spindrift said:

    On 9 Apr, 13:11, Sir Jeremy <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    On 8 Apr, 10:25, Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Firstly, I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with the quality
    > of my posts lately.  I don't think there can really be any doubt that
    > I've been wiping the floor with the trolls, and humiliating them time
    > and time again by exposing their real motives and showing just how
    > laughable their support of cameras is.  Although I have the truth on
    > my side, the trolls are renowned for their chicanery, lying and other
    > dodgy discussion tactics, and it can be easy for a neutral to be left
    > with the false impression that the trolls have won the argument unless
    > the camera opponent handles things as well as I have been.  Spindrift
    > has resorted to telling ludicrous lies like "I never speed", I've got
    > Chapman to admit that he has all the same opinions as a motorist-hater
    > (meaning that he is one in my book), and I've even got the trolls who
    > drive to admit that they should all be permanently banned...LOL!  All
    > in all, I'm making an absolute mockery of their stance.  No wonder
    > they're getting so [censored] with me!

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > OK.  Say (completely hypothetically of course, especially in the case
    > of Spindrift and "Just Zis Lie, You Know?"😉 you had an emotive,
    > ideological dislike of cars and the freedom of individual choice that
    > they provided.  Say you wanted motorists to be forced off the roads as
    > soon as possible, being a spiteful, interfering, misanthropic, sad
    > little busybody.  How would you go about it?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > 1. I would admit that I hated cars, be completely up front about
    > wanting them off the road, and try (mostly unsuccessfully) to achieve
    > this by persuading people that cars were bad.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > 2. I would pathetically deny that I hated cars, knowing that I
    > wouldn't be able to justify this hatred to people using logic or
    > reason.  I would instead try to force motorists off the road by
    > pretending that I cared about road safety, and that speed cameras were
    > the way to reduce accidents.  Since every regular driver speeds (even
    > the ones who lie about it, like Spindrift), a saturation of speed
    > cameras (and unreasonably low speed limits) would be an excellent way
    > of harrassing, persecuting and eventually banning all motorists.  I
    > would launch vicious smear campaigns against anyone who spoke the
    > truth about cameras, knowing that I couldn't attack what they were
    > saying about cameras, but I could still attack them.  I would also
    > campaign for other anti-motorist measures such as unnecessary double
    > yellow lines and road narrowing, on the oh-so-logical basis that
    > taking roadspace from cars and making things unpleasant for drivers
    > would magically make them, and the need for their journeys, disappear.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > I don't think anyone's really in any doubt that anyone warped enough
    > to be a motorist-hater would be more than likely to do things the
    > second, dishonest, disingenuous way.  So:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > - We know, sadly, that these motorist-haters exist, despite the
    > vehement denial from some of their number.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > - We know that they are likely to conduct their campaign in a
    > dishonest way by callously hijacking road safety.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > - We know that there are people on newsgroups like this who have a
    > mysteriously illogical and unshakeable support of speed cameras and
    > other anti-motorist measures.  They will not even think about changing
    > their minds no matter how much evidence is presented to them, and they
    > are incredibly and infamously obnoxious towards anyone who dares to
    > suggest that cameras have failed.  It is therefore likely that there
    > is an ulterior motive behind their support of such measures.  If they
    > really cared about road safety then they would have long since
    > admitted that they had been wrong about cameras working, realising
    > that saving lives was infinitely more important than their precious
    > pride.  There is clearly something else other than a wish to save
    > lives which is governing their point-blank refusal to accept what has
    > been staring us in the face for years: that cameras have been a road
    > safety disaster.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Bringing these things together, it seems completely inconceivable that
    > *none* of the irrational camera supporters on this newsgroup are
    > motorist-haters, and that they all support cameras for the most
    > altruistic and transparent of reasons.  Yet that's what they expect us
    > to believe.  Ridiculous.  The fact that motorist-haters are so
    > reluctant to admit their prejudices should tell everyone all they need
    > to know about them.  And anyone who claims that cameras work when they
    > don't even believe it themselves has BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.  I can't
    > see why anyone would argue with that point unless they were such a
    > person themselves.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Hijacking any cause in order to force people out of their cars is
    > pretty bad, but compromising road safety, where lives are at stake, is
    > about as low as it gets.  These people are absolute monsters, and it's
    > no wonder that anyone who tries to expose their true aims or the truth
    > about cameras is given such a rough ride.  "If it wasn't for the likes
    > of bloody Safe Speed, it would be so much easier for us to lie about
    > cameras and force people out of their cars.  We almost managed it but
    > now the cat's out of the bag regarding cameras and we'll have to find
    > another way of stopping people from driving."  My heart bleeds.  If
    > you're going to conduct a callous, extremist anti-car campaign which
    > causes road deaths and consists of lies and deceit then you cannot
    > expect to do so unopposed.  You really shouldn't give people such a
    > hard time just for exposing the truth and not shutting up on your say-
    > so.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Perhaps it's time to turn your attention to campaigning for something
    > more noble, where you don't feel the need to tell a constant stream of
    > lies.  Just a thought.  Mind your own business, let people drivetheir
    > cars if they want to, accept that this is a free society, and start
    > doing something which actually benefits humanity in some way.  Then
    > everyone wins, and no-one dies unnecessarily as a result of your
    > campaigning.  You know it makes sense.  Honesty and a genuine wish to
    > help people, starting from now.  I knew you'd agree.  Well done! The
    > first step is admitting to your true motives on here and apologising
    > profusely to every single road user for unnecessarily and selfishly
    > endangering their lives.  I'm sure you'll find it difficult to swallow
    > your pride but you'll feel so much better once you've done it.
    > There's no better time than now: those of us who really care about
    > road safety are right behind you.  So, without further ado, it's time
    > for you to turn over a new leaf.  I look forward to reading your
    > apologies.  And on behalf of all who are campaigning for real road
    > safety, thank you so very much.  It may have taken you a long timeto
    > do the right thing but it's still absolutely worth it.  We're all
    > really proud of you.  You've done brilliantly.  It just shows that
    > there's redemption in everyone.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > The trolls are finally going to stop their anti-car, road user-killing
    > campaign; it's a great day for real road safety! :-D

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Good rant. Wasted here though- [censored] like Spindrift and Chapman
    would never ever admit being in the wrong- Hide quoted text -

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    - Show quoted text -

    Quoted message said:

    that's uncalled for, are you this aggressive when you drive?

    Quoted message said:

    Chill out dude, get out in the sunshine on your bike, get those
    endorphins flowing, you'll feel better, I promise!- Hide quoted text -

    Quoted message said:

    - Show quoted text -

    I feel fine, thank you. I'm never aggressive when I drive, as I'm
    enjoying myself.  Nuxx has you to a T under his heading #2 above
    though, doesn't he?- Hide quoted text -

    - Show quoted text -

    Not really, unless you can demonstrate that nuxxies telling the truth
    and I've ever posted anything that demonstrates "a hatred of cars"?

    Feel free to post it if so.

    What nuxxie's done is realise that the adulation for the dead smith
    doesn't extend beyond his now defunct forum of nodding dogs and fake
    policemen. Smith was a joke when he was alive and is forgotten when
    dead. His campaign died with him and his toady acolytes are reduced to
    spamming cycling forums and calling people "[censored]". That's mature
    and persuasive debate there.

    Or take this:

    "I would also
    campaign for other anti-motorist measures such as unnecessary double
    yellow lines and road narrowing"

    I've no idea what "unnecessary" yellow lines are, does anyone actually
    have an example of what these measures are that I'm supposed to swear
    by? Anything?

  16. Ian Smith said:

    I think it is obvious that the opinions which get most aggressively
    defended (and, indeed, attacked) are those for which there is no solid
    evidence.  By implication, therefore, those that the proponent has
    doubts about.

    In a fist fight it is usually fairly obvious who has won. The loser is
    the one lying on the ground in a bloody heap, unwilling or unable to
    get up for more. The loser of a newsgroup argument, however, is often
    too stupid to realise that, metaphorically speaking, he is taking a
    pounding. There is after all no blood, and he cannot actually hear the
    derisive laughter. Occasionally the poor fool starts posting messages
    about how well he is doing in the exchange.

    The question of who is winning and who is losing a particular argument
    has to be left to those who are following it. Only a fool would
    publicly praise the quality of his own posts, and only a fool would
    declare himself to be winning. The unfortunate Nuxx Bar is such a
    fool.

    --
    Dave...

  17. spindrift said:
    JNugent said:
    spindrift said:

    On 9 Apr, 13:11, Sir Jeremy <[email hidden]> wrote:
    On 8 Apr, 10:25, Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    [ ... ]

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Good rant. Wasted here though- [censored] like Spindrift and Chapman
    > would never ever admit being in the wrong- Hide quoted text -
    that's uncalled for, are you this aggressive when you drive?

    Quoted message said:

    Mr Pot, may I introduce Mr Kettle?

    Sorry?

    I'm not aggressive when I drive or cycle.

    Now come on Spinny, you're not old enough to be able to drive.

  18. On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 02:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
    <[email hidden]> said in
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    Firstly, I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with the quality
    of my posts lately. I don't think there can really be any doubt that
    I've been wiping the floor with the trolls, and humiliating them time
    and time again by exposing their real motives

    Wow! Your world is *that* far divorced from reality? Who knew?

    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

  19. On 09 Apr 2008 12:32:01 +0100 (BST), [email hidden]
    (Alan Braggins) said in
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    I don't see why. I find it entirely plausible that he's happy with the
    quality of his posts, even if no one else is. It would save bandwidth
    if he didn't bother posting them and was just pleased with them in private,
    but with the amount of image data on the net these days it's hardly worth
    bothering about.

    Aye. Nuxxy's posts are the electronic equivalent of wanking:
    enjoyable only for the participant.

    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

  20. you know? said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    bothering about.

    Aye.  Nuxxy's posts are the electronic equivalent of wanking:
    enjoyable only for the participant.

    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

    rather like your website

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.