Re: Petition

[Martin]

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ban-bicycles/

Total 8 signatures,

: Submitted by Richard Olliffe of Rider Connect

Apparently the originator did not have the guts to use his own name,
instead he borrowed the name of a Motorcyclist. Typical tactics of your
s*fespeeding group.

* Phil Healey
* david J.Leigh
* Mark Holland
* Ban healthy exercise???
* think the politically correct world is a false utopia-get on yer
bike!
* Dr Adrian V Stokes OBE
* Spindrift

At least 3 of the other 7 are definitely made up.


> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to to ban the sale and
> use of bicycles.
>
> If bicycles were invented now, no sane government would allow them to
> be used. Unprotected bodies, travelling at speed on a 2-wheeled
> vehicle which can be upset by a wet manhole - any official would
> reject this idea out of hand. The only reason we allow bicycles is
> that they have been around for more than a century and we have all got
> used to them.
>
> Bicycles are dangerous to all road users, are frequently ridden
> recklessly, and cause a disproportionate number of deaths and serious
> injuries. Their removal would benefit everyone."

0/10 for trolling, Smith could have done better, and he is Dead.

 

[Tony B]

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> you obviously have no respect for the dead.

It's an interesting concept, respect for the dead.. how did it ever come
about? I mean, if someone is unworthy of respect during their time
alive, should they garner respect for simply for being dead? We will all
be there eventually, but there are people alive at present for whom I
have no respect for whatsoever - I can't see things will change once
they shuffle off this mortal coil, M. Thatcher for example...

T

 

[Ben C]

On 2008-06-09, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>> you obviously have no respect for the dead.
>
> It's an interesting concept, respect for the dead.. how did it ever come
> about?

The first recorded use is by Diogenes Laertius, circa 300AD, but he
attributes it to Chilon (6th century BC). Look up "de mortuis nil nisi
bonum" on Wikipedia (which is Latin for "don't [say] anything about dead
people unless it's good").

> I mean, if someone is unworthy of respect during their time alive,
> should they garner respect for simply for being dead?

Not really, but it can sometimes be unfair to criticize people who
aren't there to defend themselves.

 

[TheMgt]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-06-09, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>>> you obviously have no respect for the dead.
>> It's an interesting concept, respect for the dead.. how did it ever come
>> about?
>
> The first recorded use is by Diogenes Laertius, circa 300AD, but he
> attributes it to Chilon (6th century BC). Look up "de mortuis nil nisi
> bonum" on Wikipedia (which is Latin for "don't [say] anything about dead
> people unless it's good").
>
>> I mean, if someone is unworthy of respect during their time alive,
>> should they garner respect for simply for being dead?
>
> Not really, but it can sometimes be unfair to criticize people who
> aren't there to defend themselves.

Fair enough if they're just out of the room but why would that apply to
people who are dead?

 

[Ben C]

On 2008-06-09, TheMgt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2008-06-09, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>>>> you obviously have no respect for the dead.
>>> It's an interesting concept, respect for the dead.. how did it ever come
>>> about?
>>
>> The first recorded use is by Diogenes Laertius, circa 300AD, but he
>> attributes it to Chilon (6th century BC). Look up "de mortuis nil nisi
>> bonum" on Wikipedia (which is Latin for "don't [say] anything about dead
>> people unless it's good").
>>
>>> I mean, if someone is unworthy of respect during their time alive,
>>> should they garner respect for simply for being dead?
>>
>> Not really, but it can sometimes be unfair to criticize people who
>> aren't there to defend themselves.
>
> Fair enough if they're just out of the room but why would that apply to
> people who are dead?

Well if they're dead they can't defend themselves even if they are in
the room.

 

[TheMgt]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-06-09, TheMgt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2008-06-09, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>>>>> you obviously have no respect for the dead.
>>>> It's an interesting concept, respect for the dead.. how did it ever come
>>>> about?
>>> The first recorded use is by Diogenes Laertius, circa 300AD, but he
>>> attributes it to Chilon (6th century BC). Look up "de mortuis nil nisi
>>> bonum" on Wikipedia (which is Latin for "don't [say] anything about dead
>>> people unless it's good").
>>>
>>>> I mean, if someone is unworthy of respect during their time alive,
>>>> should they garner respect for simply for being dead?
>>> Not really, but it can sometimes be unfair to criticize people who
>>> aren't there to defend themselves.
>> Fair enough if they're just out of the room but why would that apply to
>> people who are dead?
>
> Well if they're dead they can't defend themselves even if they are in
> the room.

If they're dead then they don't need to defend themselves., they no
longer exist. They'll never hear anything anyone says about them.
I suspect the original reason for not speaking ill of the dead was to
avoid having their vengeful ghost come and bother you.

 

[spindrift]

On Jun 9, 11:08 pm, TheMgt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
> > On 2008-06-09, TheMgt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ben C wrote:
> >>> On 2008-06-09, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
> >>>>>  you obviously have no respect for the dead.  
> >>>> It's an interesting concept, respect for the dead.. how did it ever come
> >>>> about?
> >>> The first recorded use is by Diogenes Laertius, circa 300AD, but he
> >>> attributes it to Chilon (6th century BC). Look up "de mortuis nil nisi
> >>> bonum" on Wikipedia (which is Latin for "don't [say] anything about dead
> >>> people unless it's good").
>
> >>>> I mean, if someone is unworthy of respect during their time alive,
> >>>> should they garner respect for simply for being dead?
> >>> Not really, but it can sometimes be unfair to criticize people who
> >>> aren't there to defend themselves.
> >> Fair enough if they're just out of the room but why would that apply to
> >> people who are dead?
>
> > Well if they're dead they can't defend themselves even if they are in
> > the room.
>
> If they're dead then they don't need to defend themselves., they no
> longer exist. They'll never hear anything anyone says about them.
> I suspect the original reason for not speaking ill of the dead was to
> avoid having their vengeful ghost come and bother you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The ghost of Paul Smith would rattle chains at the end of your bed and
insist on showing you some pretty coloured graphs he's drawn that
prove that speed cameras cause cancer.

 

[Ben C]

On 2008-06-09, TheMgt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2008-06-09, TheMgt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>> On 2008-06-09, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>>>>>> you obviously have no respect for the dead.
>>>>> It's an interesting concept, respect for the dead.. how did it ever come
>>>>> about?
>>>> The first recorded use is by Diogenes Laertius, circa 300AD, but he
>>>> attributes it to Chilon (6th century BC). Look up "de mortuis nil nisi
>>>> bonum" on Wikipedia (which is Latin for "don't [say] anything about dead
>>>> people unless it's good").
>>>>
>>>>> I mean, if someone is unworthy of respect during their time alive,
>>>>> should they garner respect for simply for being dead?
>>>> Not really, but it can sometimes be unfair to criticize people who
>>>> aren't there to defend themselves.
>>> Fair enough if they're just out of the room but why would that apply to
>>> people who are dead?
>>
>> Well if they're dead they can't defend themselves even if they are in
>> the room.
>
> If they're dead then they don't need to defend themselves., they no
> longer exist.

By that logic there would also be no need to attack them.

> They'll never hear anything anyone says about them.
> I suspect the original reason for not speaking ill of the dead was to
> avoid having their vengeful ghost come and bother you.

If it was an "ancient Chinese proverb" (which it may also be) that would
be quite likely, but Greek philosopher types aren't usually so silly.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilon. Some good sigs there.

--
Do not let one's tongue outrun one's sense.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:34:01 +0100, Tony B
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> you obviously have no respect for the dead.

>It's an interesting concept, respect for the dead.. how did it ever come
>about? I mean, if someone is unworthy of respect during their time
>alive, should they garner respect for simply for being dead?

Indeed. And in this case the term is being used in a way which
confuses the general with the specific. If the hearse carrying the
departed Smith had driven past me on the road, then I would likely
have stopped, as is my wont when hearses pass, out of respect not
for the dead so much as those who mourn. But being dead does not
somehow validate Smith's idiotic ideas, his statistical sophistry,
his misguided campaigning or (most especially) the atrocious
behaviour of his acolytes.

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

 

[spindrift]

"(most especially) the atrocious
behaviour of his acolytes. "

Speaking of which, perhaps nuxxy could name the business premises I
caused to be "evacuated", or admit she's a lying turd?

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Jun 10, 8:08 am, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 11:08 pm, TheMgt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ben C wrote:
> > > On 2008-06-09, TheMgt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Ben C wrote:
> > >>> On 2008-06-09, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
> > >>>>>  you obviously have no respect for the dead.  
> > >>>> It's an interesting concept, respect for the dead.. how did it evercome
> > >>>> about?
> > >>> The first recorded use is by Diogenes Laertius, circa 300AD, but he
> > >>> attributes it to Chilon (6th century BC). Look up "de mortuis nil nisi
> > >>> bonum" on Wikipedia (which is Latin for "don't [say] anything about dead
> > >>> people unless it's good").
>
> > >>>> I mean, if someone is unworthy of respect during their time alive,
> > >>>> should they garner respect for simply for being dead?
> > >>> Not really, but it can sometimes be unfair to criticize people who
> > >>> aren't there to defend themselves.
> > >> Fair enough if they're just out of the room but why would that apply to
> > >> people who are dead?
>
> > > Well if they're dead they can't defend themselves even if they are in
> > > the room.
>
> > If they're dead then they don't need to defend themselves., they no
> > longer exist. They'll never hear anything anyone says about them.
> > I suspect the original reason for not speaking ill of the dead was to
> > avoid having their vengeful ghost come and bother you.- Hide quoted text-
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The ghost of Paul Smith would rattle chains at the end of your bed and
> insist on showing you some pretty coloured graphs he's drawn that
> prove that speed cameras cause cancer.

Pills! Now!

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Jun 10, 12:55 pm, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> "(most especially) the atrocious
> behaviour of his acolytes. "

You don't think your behaviour's atrocious then? I'm sure you do in
your lucid moments.

> Speaking of which, perhaps nuxxy could name the business premises I
> caused to be "evacuated", or admit she's a lying turd?

You know what you did. Have the guts to admit it. You obviously felt
that it was worthwhile at the time that you did it, so why miss out on
claiming the "glory" for your part in the jihad against motorists?
Your worshippers here will be well impressed. Denying that you did it
is as futile and dishonest as pretending that you hate cars (that
other people drive). You and Crapman never stop lying, do you? ("We
don't lie" being the inevitable answer of course....)

And is this "she" thing some incredibly infantile and feeble idea of a
joke, or a genuine misunderstanding? Or do the trolls think they know
who I am? Who knows what goes on in their pathetic minds. Crapman
thinks I'm Mike Vandemar or however it's spelt, and other trolls claim
to think I'm female. Still, I suppose the trolls are no strangers to
saying stupid untrue things about their opponents whenever they can't
come up with any real arguments (i.e. pretty much all of the time).

Oh by the way Spindrift, you're intersex! Ha ha ha! Really funny
isn't it?

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Jun 10, 9:24 pm, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Denying that you did it
> is as futile and dishonest as pretending that you hate cars (that
> other people drive).

That should have been "pretending that you don't hate cars" of
course. I'm sure that was obvious anyway.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:24:16 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> Speaking of which, perhaps nuxxy could name the business premises I
>> caused to be "evacuated", or admit she's a lying turd?

>You know what you did. Have the guts to admit it.

He clearly doesn't, so the onus is on you to prove your claim.

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