Enough!

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:00:06 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

rather like your website

So you say. I'm constantly amazed at the number of hits I get -
tens of thousands a month.

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

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

Thanks. And you're quite right. It must be awful to be unable to
admit that you're wrong. Imagine the moment when it dawned on Crapman
that he'd been wrong about cameras saving lives. "Oh [censored]! Not only
have I been wrong all this time, but I've got to keep pretending that
cameras work, because I'm so proud and arrogant, and besides, I've got
the motorist-hating to think of!" No wonder he's such a [censored]; the
strain of campaigning for something that he doesn't believe in himself
must do very strange things to him. He should realise that carrying
on the pretence will only make it worse though; he should really cut
his losses and stop this silly lying. You're right though, he won't,
and nor will SPINdrift, or any of their sycophants, so there's not
much point in wasting too much time here. Still, it's quite amusing
to annoy the trolls from time to time, and nothing annoys lying
motorist-hating trolls like the "inconvenient truth"! ;-)

(I stupidly tried to start a debate about the effectiveness of
cameras, and of course not one of the trolls even attempted to argue
with any of my points. It's *so* obvious that they know what a
disaster cameras have been! I don't know why they don't just admit
it, since everyone on both sides of the debate knows it perfectly
well. I almost feel sorry for them, but I don't; after all, anyone
who ranks persecuting motorists above saving lives is hardly deserving
of pity.)

spindrift said:

Sir Jeremy 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?

So when you campaign for killer cameras just so that you can make
motoring a misery, that's all right, but when someone calls you a
[censored] (not for the first time), that's "uncalled for"? Get a sense
of perspective. And anyway, "[censored]" is putting it very mildly.

And when are you going to admit that you speed? Don't you realise
that tellng preposterous lies like "I drive regularly but I never
speed" just shows that you know your opponents are right? Your
position becomes more farcical and desperate by the day. Time to
admit that cameras kill people and move on. Find another way of
persecuting motorists if you absolutely must, but please just stop
this camera-supporting nonsense, as it's not doing you or anyone else
any favours.

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 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:

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?

He hasn't denied it.... ;-)

dkahn400 said:

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.

Yawn. Neither you, nor any of the other trolls, are able to defend
cameras in any way, shape or form when challenged. You know the
game's up. Why not stop this silly pretending? Who is it helping?

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:37:32 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Yawn. Neither you, nor any of the other trolls, are able to defend
cameras in any way, shape or form when challenged.

Um, no - we're just not able to defend them in terms that allow for
the uncritical acceptance that speeding is not a problem. Since
that is your fundamental premise, and we reject it outright, you
fail it. It being a valid use of good oxygen.

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