Jason McIntyre killed

[Jeff York]

[email protected] wrote:

>On Jan 21, 6:26 pm, Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> >So, no answers then? You claimed you were impressed by Smith. Does is
>> >exhortation, together with smiley, not disabuse you of your adulation
>> >of the monstrous man? Interestingly, when Smith was aksed about these
>> >posts on Cycling Plus, he denied writing them, then said he may have
>> >written them, then said someone else must have written them. His
>> >cowardice and evasion spoke volumes.
>>
>> "monstrous man" - that's a bit "tabloid" isn't it?
>>
>> Anyway, assuming that this was written to me, it's a non-trivial task
>> to track down all the references that spinny has laid out in his post,
>> especially as they have a tendency either not to exist at all or not
>> to say what he claims... I'm old, I need more time than you young
>> whippersnappers!!
>>
>> However, in one of the threads that spinny referenced, I found the
>> following quote:-
>>
>> "We have Cabinet Ministers who are former members of the Communist
>> Party. We have ministers in Northern Ireland who were in the past
>> strong supporters of terrorism, if not actual terrorists themselves.
>>
>> In comparison with this, a past expression of a sneaking sympathy with
>> people who want to swap licence points rather pales into
>> insignificance."
>
>"Monstrous man " tabloid?
>
>
>Not at all. This was a man whose misguided, cack handed amateurism
>went a long way toward making the roads more dangerous for vulnerble
>road users. He admitted his campaign took no account of pedestrians or
>cyclists. He encouraged the boy racers and anti-social idiots who
>wreck communities by using roads as racetracks. He moderated a forum
>where posters called police officers "cxxts" and "nazis". Search on
>those words if you don't believe me. He fled from challenging debate
>and issued impotent threats against anyone who dared disagree with
>him:

"Spinny"... It *is* you... God, it must be tough having so many
personae to maintain...

>http://new.edp24.co.uk/cs/forums/5/907023/ShowPost.aspx#907023
>
It has to be you spinny... Surely nobody else in this ng is stupid
enough to post as a "scoring point" a pointer to somthing that says:

"...it could be turning into a debate on Paul Smith - who I agree
with, I'll say that just to wind Spinny up - because Spinny is now
posting as both Newtyres and Monkeytrousers. I apologise to
Monkeytrousers of I'm wrong but there are some of the usual tell-tale
signs. endless cut 'n' paste and weblinks for one, and a new poster
who mysteriously appears and starts repeating everything Spinny says.

Spinny has done this before and his hysterical obsession with speed
cameras has seen him banned from forums far and wide, so could he be
turning into an endangered species again..."

>I pitied him at that stage.

I find you pitiful.

 

[Clive George]

"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

>>("officious"?)
>
> Yes... You come across like the uk.rec.cycling "supernanny"...
>
> For example, you lay into "robin" in the sidetracked thread about
> helmet law...
>
>>Nanny
>>I can think of at least two more options along those lines which are
>>rather
>>more realistic - you're not really trying...
>
>>>robin
>>> until there is a reliable transport system that runs at the times that
>>> we
>>> need to get us to work, we have to run 2 cars.
>
>>Nanny
>>You don't have to run two cars. You've chosen to do so - stop pretending
>>otherwise.
>
> I'm surprised you've not made him sit on the "naughty stair".

I'm giving him helpful advice. There are plenty of people out there who
claim they're forced into a dreadful car commute. The first step to doing
something about this is to realise that they weren't forced, they chose. If
they still want to do it, then they can feel better about that choice - it's
been their decision, they're in control.

> Lighten up man...

Says the man blithering about "respect". Says the man who's done the usenet
equivalent of wandering into a bar and swearing at all the regulars - except
you wouldn't do that in real life, would you.

clive

 

[[email protected]]

On Jan 21, 7:39 pm, Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >On Jan 21, 6:26 pm, Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >> >So, no answers then? You claimed you were impressed by Smith. Does is
> >> >exhortation, together with smiley, not disabuse you of your adulation
> >> >of the monstrous man? Interestingly, when Smith was aksed about these
> >> >posts on Cycling Plus, he denied writing them, then said he may have
> >> >written them, then said someone else must have written them. His
> >> >cowardice and evasion spoke volumes.
>
> >> "monstrous man" - that's a bit "tabloid" isn't it?
>
> >> Anyway, assuming that this was written to me, it's a non-trivial task
> >> to track down all the references that spinny has laid out in his post,
> >> especially as they have a tendency either not to exist at all or not
> >> to say what he claims... I'm old, I need more time than you young
> >> whippersnappers!!
>
> >> However, in one of the threads that spinny referenced, I found the
> >> following quote:-
>
> >> "We have Cabinet Ministers who are former members of the Communist
> >> Party. We have ministers in Northern Ireland who were in the past
> >> strong supporters of terrorism, if not actual terrorists themselves.
>
> >> In comparison with this, a past expression of a sneaking sympathy with
> >> people who want to swap licence points rather pales into
> >> insignificance."
>
> >"Monstrous man " tabloid?
>
> >Not at all. This was a man whose misguided, cack handed amateurism
> >went a long way toward making the roads more dangerous for vulnerble
> >road users. He admitted his campaign took no account of pedestrians or
> >cyclists. He encouraged the boy racers and anti-social idiots who
> >wreck communities by using roads as racetracks. He moderated a forum
> >where posters called police officers "cxxts" and "nazis". Search on
> >those words if you don't believe me. He fled from challenging debate
> >and issued impotent threats against anyone who dared disagree with
> >him:
>
> "Spinny"... It *is* you... God, it must be tough having so many
> personae to maintain...
>
> >http://new.edp24.co.uk/cs/forums/5/907023/ShowPost.aspx#907023
>
> It has to be you spinny... Surely nobody else in this ng is stupid
> enough to post as a "scoring point" a pointer to somthing that says:
>
> "...it could be turning into a debate on Paul Smith - who I agree
> with, I'll say that just to wind Spinny up - because Spinny is now
> posting as both Newtyres and Monkeytrousers. I apologise to
> Monkeytrousers of I'm wrong but there are some of the usual tell-tale
> signs. endless cut 'n' paste and weblinks for one, and a new poster
> who mysteriously appears and starts repeating everything Spinny says.
>
> Spinny has done this before and his hysterical obsession with speed
> cameras has seen him banned from forums far and wide, so could he be
> turning into an endangered species again..."
>
> >I pitied him at that stage.
>
> I find you pitiful.

Well, the difference is I'm engaging with a dialogue of sort with you,
not issuing empty threats of legal sanctions against anyone who
disagrees with me. Seriously, does not smith's absurdly pompous threat
of "legal action' against dissenters strike you as....rather strange?

What was he so scared of?

What motivated him to run away from challenges and issue futile
attempts at legal sanctions against anyone who criticised his barking
mad theories?

Why was he so terrified of his work being examined?

You know why.

The man was a bully and like all bullies, he was a coward.

He couldn't handle robust debate, he ran away from challenges and he
hid behind his oft-quoted "legal action" lies.


I have no idea whether his unmasking as a fraud hastened his death,
perhaps it did, but since his heirs have shown no inclination to
distance themselves from his aggressive, bullying tactics i see no
reason to stop exposing them now.

 

[Jeff York]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>
>>>("officious"?)
>>
>> Yes... You come across like the uk.rec.cycling "supernanny"...
>>
>> For example, you lay into "robin" in the sidetracked thread about
>> helmet law...
>>
>>>Nanny
>>>I can think of at least two more options along those lines which are
>>>rather
>>>more realistic - you're not really trying...
>>
>>>>robin
>>>> until there is a reliable transport system that runs at the times that
>>>> we
>>>> need to get us to work, we have to run 2 cars.
>>
>>>Nanny
>>>You don't have to run two cars. You've chosen to do so - stop pretending
>>>otherwise.
>>
>> I'm surprised you've not made him sit on the "naughty stair".
>
>I'm giving him helpful advice.

Your "helpful advice" is another man's "hectoring".

>...There are plenty of people out there who
>claim they're forced into a dreadful car commute. The first step to doing
>something about this is to realise that they weren't forced, they chose. If
>they still want to do it, then they can feel better about that choice - it's
>been their decision, they're in control.

He's, presumably, a grown man... Don't tell him how he ought to be
deciding..
>
>> Lighten up man...
>
>Says the man blithering about "respect". Says the man who's done the usenet
>equivalent of wandering into a bar and swearing at all the regulars - except
>you wouldn't do that in real life, would you.

Not any more... I'm too old and unwell. Now, forty years ago...

 

[Clive George]

"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news[email protected]...
>>
>>>>("officious"?)
>>>
>>> Yes... You come across like the uk.rec.cycling "supernanny"...
>>>
>>> For example, you lay into "robin" in the sidetracked thread about
>>> helmet law...
>>>
>>>>Nanny
>>>>I can think of at least two more options along those lines which are
>>>>rather
>>>>more realistic - you're not really trying...
>>>
>>>>>robin
>>>>> until there is a reliable transport system that runs at the times that
>>>>> we
>>>>> need to get us to work, we have to run 2 cars.
>>>
>>>>Nanny
>>>>You don't have to run two cars. You've chosen to do so - stop pretending
>>>>otherwise.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised you've not made him sit on the "naughty stair".
>>
>>I'm giving him helpful advice.
>
> Your "helpful advice" is another man's "hectoring".

Offering condolences may seem less offensive, but it doesn't actually help
solve the original problem.

>>...There are plenty of people out there who
>>claim they're forced into a dreadful car commute. The first step to doing
>>something about this is to realise that they weren't forced, they chose.
>>If
>>they still want to do it, then they can feel better about that choice -
>>it's
>>been their decision, they're in control.
>
> He's, presumably, a grown man... Don't tell him how he ought to be
> deciding..

Why not? There are a great many people out there who make foolish choices.
Some even you object to - you don't hold back there. If he doesn't want his
decisions to be questioned, he shouldn't be here.

Do you think that usenet is one giant group hug?

Or put another way, Spindrift is a grown man. You wouldn't think about
challenging him on any of his decisions, would you? No.

I think in this case you may have actually missed my point though - it
wouldn't surprise me. Try taking your prejudices off for a moment and think
about what I wrote again.

clive

 

[Jeff York]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>>("officious"?)
>>>>
>>>> Yes... You come across like the uk.rec.cycling "supernanny"...
>>>>
>>>> For example, you lay into "robin" in the sidetracked thread about
>>>> helmet law...
>>>>
>>>>>Nanny
>>>>>I can think of at least two more options along those lines which are
>>>>>rather
>>>>>more realistic - you're not really trying...
>>>>
>>>>>>robin
>>>>>> until there is a reliable transport system that runs at the times that
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> need to get us to work, we have to run 2 cars.
>>>>
>>>>>Nanny
>>>>>You don't have to run two cars. You've chosen to do so - stop pretending
>>>>>otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised you've not made him sit on the "naughty stair".
>>>
>>>I'm giving him helpful advice.
>>
>> Your "helpful advice" is another man's "hectoring".
>
>Offering condolences may seem less offensive, but it doesn't actually help
>solve the original problem.
>
>>>...There are plenty of people out there who
>>>claim they're forced into a dreadful car commute. The first step to doing
>>>something about this is to realise that they weren't forced, they chose.
>>>If
>>>they still want to do it, then they can feel better about that choice -
>>>it's
>>>been their decision, they're in control.
>>
>> He's, presumably, a grown man... Don't tell him how he ought to be
>> deciding..
>
>Why not? There are a great many people out there who make foolish choices.
>Some even you object to - you don't hold back there. If he doesn't want his
>decisions to be questioned, he shouldn't be here.
>
>Do you think that usenet is one giant group hug?

Jeez! I hope not!!

>Or put another way, Spindrift is a grown man. You wouldn't think about
>challenging him on any of his decisions, would you? No.

I don't challenge his "decisions" - I just challenge his "claims" and
"facts".

>I think in this case you may have actually missed my point though - it
>wouldn't surprise me. Try taking your prejudices off for a moment and think
>about what I wrote again.

I'm only monkeying around really... The advice you gave was perfectly
sound, it's just that you have a very "forthright" style, hence the
"Nanny" reference.

 

[Clive George]

"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I'm only monkeying around really... The advice you gave was perfectly
> sound, it's just that you have a very "forthright" style, hence the
> "Nanny" reference.

Ah well, the style varies depending on the intended recipient, based on
things like posting style and history.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> >He moderated a forum
> >where posters called police officers "cxxts" and "nazis". Search on
> >those words if you don't believe me. He fled from challenging debate
> >and issued impotent threats against anyone who dared disagree with
> >him:
>
> "Spinny"... It *is* you... God, it must be tough having so many
> personae to maintain...

Spindrift posts from 145.246.240.14 which is a Financial Times computer,
apparently.

Inwe Anwamane posts from 82.29.114.155 which is an NTL address.

This doesn't demonstrate that the two are different people.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[spindrift]

On 21 Jan, 21:31, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >He moderated a forum
> > >where posters called police officers "cxxts" and "nazis". Search on
> > >those words if you don't believe me. He fled from challenging debate
> > >and issued impotent threats against anyone who dared disagree with
> > >him:
>
> > "Spinny"... It *is* you...    God, it must be tough having so many
> > personae to maintain...
>
> Spindrift posts from 145.246.240.14 which is a Financial Times computer,
> apparently.
>
> Inwe Anwamane posts from 82.29.114.155 which is an NTL address.
>
> This doesn't demonstrate that the two are different people.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>
> --
> Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
> exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

I used a mate's laptop last night.

" Mr Smith appears
to take another poster's (JulesM) advice and writes a polite email to
the forum owner asking that certain postings be pulled as they might
be considered libellous. "

Exactly. Call Smith for what he was- a hopelessly out of his depth
amateur floundering in a sea opf pretty graphs, and he threatens legal
action! Nothing was pulled from teh EDP site, no posts were removed,
but one wonders how many people were intimidated into silence by
Smith's tactics.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
>What wouold you like it changed to? Buggered if I'm mixing this ****
>back into the Jason McIntyre thread!

Find out what a thread is before using the word. No, your ignorance is not
my problem.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Saturday, January - a weekend.

 

[Jeff York]

David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
>>What wouold you like it changed to? Buggered if I'm mixing this ****
>>back into the Jason McIntyre thread!
>
>Find out what a thread is before using the word. No, your ignorance is not
>my problem.

Come on genius... What do *you* think a thread is?

 

[Jeff York]

[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> >He moderated a forum
>> >where posters called police officers "cxxts" and "nazis". Search on
>> >those words if you don't believe me. He fled from challenging debate
>> >and issued impotent threats against anyone who dared disagree with
>> >him:
>>
>> "Spinny"... It *is* you... God, it must be tough having so many
>> personae to maintain...
>
>Spindrift posts from 145.246.240.14 which is a Financial Times computer,
>apparently.
>
>Inwe Anwamane posts from 82.29.114.155 which is an NTL address.

I noticed that *after* I'd posted...

>This doesn't demonstrate that the two are different people.

It was the astounding similarity in style and vocabulary that made me
think it was the same person.

 

[Jeff York]

spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 21 Jan, 21:31, [email protected] (Ekul
>Namsob) wrote:
>> Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> > >He moderated a forum
>> > >where posters called police officers "cxxts" and "nazis". Search on
>> > >those words if you don't believe me. He fled from challenging debate
>> > >and issued impotent threats against anyone who dared disagree with
>> > >him:
>>
>> > "Spinny"... It *is* you...    God, it must be tough having so many
>> > personae to maintain...
>>
>> Spindrift posts from 145.246.240.14 which is a Financial Times computer,
>> apparently.
>>
>> Inwe Anwamane posts from 82.29.114.155 which is an NTL address.
>>
>> This doesn't demonstrate that the two are different people.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Luke
>>
>> --
>> Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
>> exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
>
>I used a mate's laptop last night.
>
>" Mr Smith appears
>to take another poster's (JulesM) advice and writes a polite email to
>the forum owner asking that certain postings be pulled as they might
>be considered libellous. "
>
>Exactly. Call Smith for what he was- a hopelessly out of his depth
>amateur floundering in a sea opf pretty graphs, and he threatens legal
>action! Nothing was pulled from teh EDP site, no posts were removed,
>but one wonders how many people were intimidated into silence by
>Smith's tactics.

So where have they gone then? Go into the thread on SafeSpeed, look at
the urls of the EDP forum messages that JulesM includes in his posts,
follow them up, and....? Gorn..

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
> >Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >> >He moderated a forum
> >> >where posters called police officers "cxxts" and "nazis". Search on
> >> >those words if you don't believe me. He fled from challenging debate
> >> >and issued impotent threats against anyone who dared disagree with
> >> >him:
> >>
> >> "Spinny"... It *is* you... God, it must be tough having so many
> >> personae to maintain...
> >
> >Spindrift posts from...
> >
> >Inwe Anwamane posts from...
>
> I noticed that *after* I'd posted...
>
> >This doesn't demonstrate that the two are different people.
>
> It was the astounding similarity in style and vocabulary that made me
> think it was the same person.

That's what made me investigate. I've had a polite request not to
publish Mr. Drift's work details so I've edited the above.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[spindrift]

On 22 Jan, 11:24, Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 21 Jan, 21:31, [email protected] (Ekul
> >Namsob) wrote:
> >> Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> > >He moderated a forum
> >> > >where posters called police officers "cxxts" and "nazis". Search on
> >> > >those words if you don't believe me. He fled from challenging debate
> >> > >and issued impotent threats against anyone who dared disagree with
> >> > >him:
>
> >> > "Spinny"... It *is* you...    God, it must be tough having so many
> >> > personae to maintain...
>
> >> Spindrift posts from 145.246.240.14 which is a Financial Times computer,
> >> apparently.
>
> >> Inwe Anwamane posts from 82.29.114.155 which is an NTL address.
>
> >> This doesn't demonstrate that the two are different people.
>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Luke
>
> >> --
> >> Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
> >> exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
>
> >I used a mate's laptop last night.
>
> >" Mr Smith appears
> >to take another poster's (JulesM) advice and writes a polite email to
> >the forum owner asking that certain postings be pulled as they might
> >be considered libellous. "
>
> >Exactly. Call Smith for what he was- a hopelessly out of his depth
> >amateur floundering in a sea opf pretty graphs, and he threatens legal
> >action! Nothing was pulled from teh EDP site, no posts were removed,
> >but one wonders how many people were intimidated into silence by
> >Smith's tactics.
>
> So where have they gone then? Go into the thread on SafeSpeed, look at
> the urls of the EDP forum messages that JulesM includes in his posts,
> follow them up, and....?   Gorn..- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Gorn?

http://new.edp24.co.uk/cs/forums/453662/ShowPost.aspx

 

[Jeff York]

spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:

>Gorn?
>
>http://new.edp24.co.uk/cs/forums/453662/ShowPost.aspx

Apologies, they would indeed appear to be there. Couldn't get them
from the urls in JulesM's posts, they gave a "databse error".

However, having finally got to page 5, I see that it's just your
standard, tired, inaccurate, scurrilous boilerplate twaddle.

I really don't know why I bothered, you've not posted anything
original on the subject since those in 2003!

 

[spindrift]

On 23 Jan, 01:04, Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Gorn?
>
> >http://new.edp24.co.uk/cs/forums/453662/ShowPost.aspx
>
> Apologies, they would indeed appear to be there. Couldn't get them
> from the urls in JulesM's posts, they gave a "databse error".
>
> However, having finally got to page 5, I see that it's just your
> standard, tired, inaccurate, scurrilous boilerplate twaddle.
>
> I really don't know why I bothered, you've not posted anything
> original on the subject since those in 2003!

I offer my opinion of paul Smith.

I demonstrate that his "research" is muddled, confused, contradictory
and dishonest.

Smith's reaction is to write to a forum that has nothing to do with
him and threaten legal action and try to get me banned. It's what he
does, so terrified of exposure as a charlatan he issues impotent
threats toward anyone who dares disagreee with him and deletes posts
on his own forum that highlight his howlers.



This is the man you claim is a credible "road safety expert" Yorkie!


A man so anxiopus to conceal the truth about his tawdry website that
he sends hilarious threatening emails that are ignored.

Why, in your opinion, would he do that?

What's libellous about pointing out that Smith's claim that a 12mph
limit would result in 3500 deaths is laughable?

Why would he be so worried about people discussing his world openly,
rather than on his nodding dog forum?

 

[Jeff York]

spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 23 Jan, 01:04, Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
>> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Gorn?
>>
>> >http://new.edp24.co.uk/cs/forums/453662/ShowPost.aspx
>>
>> Apologies, they would indeed appear to be there. Couldn't get them
>> from the urls in JulesM's posts, they gave a "databse error".
>>
>> However, having finally got to page 5, I see that it's just your
>> standard, tired, inaccurate, scurrilous boilerplate twaddle.
>>
>> I really don't know why I bothered, you've not posted anything
>> original on the subject since those in 2003!
>
>I offer my opinion of paul Smith.
>
>I demonstrate that his "research" is muddled, confused, contradictory
>and dishonest.

In your opinion.

In that thread, for example, you pour scorn on his "ludicrous theory
of Regression To The Mean" - is it still "ludicrous" now that your
"poster-girl" Dr Linda Mountain, who, with her colleagues wrote
Appendix H of the 4th Year Report confirming *exactly* what Paul Smith
had identified *several years earlier*??

>Smith's reaction is to write to a forum that has nothing to do with
>him and threaten legal action and try to get me banned. It's what he
>does, so terrified of exposure as a charlatan he issues impotent
>threats toward anyone who dares disagreee with him and deletes posts
>on his own forum that highlight his howlers.

Having read what you wrote, it was the forum equivalent of scurrilous
tabloid journalism. And any deletions from the SafeSpeed forum that
I've noticed have been for trolling, abuse, ad-hominems etc - all
breaches of the forum rules. Nothing to do with "disagreement with
him" - there are plenty on there who manage to do so in a civil way,
but everything to do with being an abusive, obsessive poster of
irrelevant drivel.

>This is the man you claim is a credible "road safety expert" Yorkie!

As the vast majority of his work appears to have been finally
confirmed by current official studies, yes I guess that's a reasonable
description.

>A man so anxiopus to conceal the truth about his tawdry website that
>he sends hilarious threatening emails that are ignored.

It seemed a perfectly polite and reasonable request in view of what
you'd posted.

>Why, in your opinion, would he do that?

Because you were posting lies maybe? It's not as if you don't have
"previous" for it, is it?

>What's libellous about pointing out that Smith's claim that a 12mph
>limit would result in 3500 deaths is laughable?

Because he claimed no such thing perhaps?

>Why would he be so worried about people discussing his world openly,
>rather than on his nodding dog forum?

As it was, I must admit that I rather admire your chutzpah, directing
readers to an EDP thread where you comprehensively "get your ****
handed to you on a plate" by virtually all of the other contributors.
Are you a sort of usenet masochist, or do you just have no shame?

 

[spindrift]

" In that thread, for example, you pour scorn on his "ludicrous theory
of Regression To The Mean" - is it still "ludicrous" now that your
"poster-girl" Dr Linda Mountain, who, with her colleagues wrote
Appendix H of the 4th Year Report confirming *exactly* what Paul
Smith
had identified *several years earlier*??"

She did nothing of the kind. I checked with her and she maintained
Smith misrepresented her work and even allowing for RTTM speed cameras
offer worthwhile results.

So a man who runs a mile when asked if his work can be peer-reviewed
lauches false attacks on proper, established, accredited researchers
and lies about their findings.

Professor Smith never, ever, verified or endorsed in any way Smith's
work.

When you were asked to provide evidence to the contrary you promised
to post it.

Still waiting.


"Having read what you wrote, it was the forum equivalent of scurrilous
tabloid journalism. And any deletions from the SafeSpeed forum that
I've noticed have been for trolling, abuse, ad-hominems etc - all
breaches of the forum rules. Nothing to do with "disagreement with
him" - there are plenty on there who manage to do so in a civil way,
but everything to do with being an abusive, obsessive poster of
irrelevant drivel."

What abuse did I post on Safespeed please?

Sixth time of asking.

There is nothing I wrote on the EDP forums that wasn't an opinion
backed up by facts, so I repeat my question, why was Smith so
desperate to avoid awkward questions that he issues legal threats that
never, ever materialise?

If there was abuse or libel the posts would have been removed.

They weren't.

Smith, yet again, proved himslef to be gas and air, and a bully who
tried to silence critics.

"As the vast majority of his work appears to have been finally
confirmed by current official studies, yes I guess that's a
reasonable
description."

Name one idependent expert who verified anything Smith said, ever.
Smith said his gaol was to scrap speed cameras, instead we have ever-
advanced cameras that can stop a host of traffic violations. In what
way is this a victory for him?

Come on, one road safety expert whose wrok is peer-reviewed who
validated, agreed with or otherwise endorsed Smith's lunatic
scribbles.

Just one.

"Because you were posting lies maybe? "

Name them.

"As it was, I must admit that I rather admire your chutzpah, directing
readers to an EDP thread where you comprehensively "get your ****
handed to you on a plate" by virtually all of the other
contributors."

My views were challanged by Jules, who turned out to be a safespeeding
supporter. His argument collapsed, so he ran back to Smith to aks for
help.

Smith's response?

Was it to engage in debate?

Back up his ideas?

Offer a shred of evidence?

Nope, it was to throw a tantrum and threaten "legal action" if the
posts weren't removed.

The posts are still there, we never heard from Smith again.

The man was a sad, pathetic figure at this stage, the seven bannings
from the Open Review thread (none of them me, that's your paranoia
showing again) show nothing so much as a man terrified of exposure as
a hopeless inadequate, even the regular safespeeding posters who
aren't pretend coppers felt he had lost his composure in the face of a
reasoned argument.

I'm sure that this episode hastened his death. The man could sense his
tower of lies collapsing around him, the humiliation of his You Tube
appearance can't have helped, poor chap should have bought a bike and
he could have lived to a ripe old age, staring out of his maximum
security twilight home for the permanantly bewildered, staring at the
cars bombing past his flat and muttering:

"They'd be going EVEN FASTER if I'd had my way"!


I don't want to accept you yorkie but face it, the man was a failure.

Nobody's validated his work. Ever. The scrutiny he received from
Monbiot, Which magazine and every accredited road safety organisation
resulted in a very public exposure as a crank.


Even his eulogy was full of inaccuracies and lies- there is no
moratorium on speed cameras, we're getting them installed near my
street. So why lie? Why pretend he was successful in getting speed
cameras removed when none has been removed?

Why allow posts on his forum that call coppers "filth" and "nazis" but
delete honest, polite questions from me and others?

One example, Mister Paul was banned for suggesting tongue in cheek
that Smeggers needed to drive fast to avoid falling asleep. Smith
banned Mr Paul for this- you can search the forum if you like.

So, Smith allows threads on safespeeding that fantasise about killing
cyclists or burning police officers to death (because the posts are
made by safespeeding supporters, natch) but a weak joke from a
dissenter results in a banning. If that's not evidence of rampant
megalomania I dunno what is!

 

[Jeff York]

spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>" In that thread, for example, you pour scorn on his "ludicrous theory
>> of Regression To The Mean" - is it still "ludicrous" now that your
>> "poster-girl" Dr Linda Mountain, who, with her colleagues wrote
>> Appendix H of the 4th Year Report confirming *exactly* what Paul
>>Smith had identified *several years earlier*??"
>
>She did nothing of the kind. I checked with her and she maintained
>Smith misrepresented her work and even allowing for RTTM speed cameras
>offer worthwhile results.

You utter fool! The title of the Appendix that she co-wrote was
"Estimates of regression-to-mean effects at safety camers". The
conclusion of which was to reduce the claimed "benefits" of safety
cameras by 80%.

(a) have you ever bothered to read the report? (b) If you know Linda
Mountain I'm a monkey's-uncle!

>So a man who runs a mile when asked if his work can be peer-reviewed
>lauches false attacks on proper, established, accredited researchers
>and lies about their findings.

Another wondrous Spindrift statement of the "facts", 100% at odds with
reality.

>Professor Smith never, ever, verified or endorsed in any way Smith's
>work.

Promoted "Mr" Smith have we?

>When you were asked to provide evidence to the contrary you promised
>to post it.
>
>Still waiting.

I posted it, in ludicrous detail the day after you asked.

>"Having read what you wrote, it was the forum equivalent of scurrilous
> tabloid journalism. And any deletions from the SafeSpeed forum that
> I've noticed have been for trolling, abuse, ad-hominems etc - all
> breaches of the forum rules. Nothing to do with "disagreement with
> him" - there are plenty on there who manage to do so in a civil way,
> but everything to do with being an abusive, obsessive poster of
> irrelevant drivel."
>
>What abuse did I post on Safespeed please?
>
>Sixth time of asking.

Just the usual.

>There is nothing I wrote on the EDP forums that wasn't an opinion
>backed up by facts, so I repeat my question, why was Smith so
>desperate to avoid awkward questions that he issues legal threats that
>never, ever materialise?

There were *no* "facts", only the strange claims that you pull out of
thin air.

>If there was abuse or libel the posts would have been removed.
>
>They weren't.

We've only your word for it that the thread you indicated was actually
the one that Smith objected to... I couldn't find the one that was
recorded in the original posts on the SafeSpeed website. Maybe better
that I apply Occam and take the simplest conclusion - that you, a
notorious liar have simply dredged up another, similar but less
offensive set postings...?

>Smith, yet again, proved himslef to be gas and air, and a bully who
>tried to silence critics.

Abuse doesn't really rate as "criticism".

>>"As the vast majority of his work appears to have been finally
>> confirmed by current official studies, yes I guess that's a
>>reasonable description."
>
>Name one idependent expert who verified anything Smith said, ever.
>Smith said his gaol was to scrap speed cameras, instead we have ever-
>advanced cameras that can stop a host of traffic violations. In what
>way is this a victory for him?
>
>Come on, one road safety expert whose wrok is peer-reviewed who
>validated, agreed with or otherwise endorsed Smith's lunatic
>scribbles.
>
>Just one.

LINDA MOUNTAIN...!!!!! Read Appendix H - it's a complete vindication
of the RTTM theory - proposed by Paul Smith several years before!!.

Mervyn Stone, when challenged was forced into the public admission on
Radio 4 that he'd neglected to allow for RTM effects in his study.


>>"As it was, I must admit that I rather admire your chutzpah, directing
>> readers to an EDP thread where you comprehensively "get your ****
>> handed to you on a plate" by virtually all of the other
>>contributors."
>
>My views were challanged by Jules, who turned out to be a safespeeding
>supporter. His argument collapsed, so he ran back to Smith to aks for
>help.

There were a lot more than just "Jules"... You were a minority of 1 on
that thread. In response to your hysterical rantings and statements of
"fact" a couple of them cooly and calmly posted information taken
directly from official reports and peer-reviewed research that totally
contradicted everything you claimed... Not only did they completely
demolish your "arguments", they made you look a fool - which seems to
the normal result of you posting anything about motoring and road
safety.

>Smith's response?
>
>Was it to engage in debate?
>
>Back up his ideas?
>
>Offer a shred of evidence?
>
>Nope,

Frankly, I don't give a stuff! You're a fool. A sad obsessive liar
who fabricates "evidence" to support your absurd and pathetic vendetta
against a man who at least tried to do something concrete to improve
road safety.

What have you ever done other than blather-on round usenet and
assorted forums, becoming an object of utter derision in the brief
interludes before you're kicked out?

In the words of the poet, "Enough",,, <plonk>

<Cheers from other usenet readers>