Reasonable? Necessary? You Decide

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:48:17 GMT, Martin Dann
<[email protected]> said in
<BMUwj.16256$%[email protected]>:

>Because I have actually looked at the data myself, and seen the opposite
>effect that Mr Smith produced?

You should realise by now that any research that contradicts the
Gospel according to Smith is "flawed" at best and "fraudulent" at
worst - a criticism which applies to pretty much all peer-reviewed
research with a very few exceptions with which he partially agreed.
Strangely, these were often written by the self-same researchers who
were, in other contexts, fraudulent. Funny old world.

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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 25, 9:07 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
> Namsob) wrote:
> > Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Three little words. "I hate motorists." You can do it.
> >
> > Most of us are motorists too.
>
> I said it wouldn't take long.

I know. Now you can feel smug while simultaneously being wrong. Sadly,
as you refuse to name any anti-motorist measures, I know of no way in
which I can be considered anti-motorist.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 26, 12:43 pm, David Damerell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
> >
> > >Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>when a cyclist is punished for breaking a law. They are happy to apply
> > >>common sense and latitude to cyclists' infringements but not to
> > >>motorists'. I would like one of them to tell me why.
> > >Who are these people?
> >
> > I think many people might feel that a group who kill thousands and maim
> > tens of thousands a year and pollute massively while doing it - purely
> > for their own convenience - indeed deserve more stringent treatment
> > from the law than a group who do not. I certainly do, and I think I've
> > expressed why...
>
> Great! *At last*, someone has got close to admitting that they have a
> fundamental problem with motorists.

You used the plural. You need to find more than one. David has made his
opinions known previously. His post was hardly a revelation.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:48:44 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
> <[email protected]> said in
> <3b34a6e7-9dac-4630-ba2e-6e43a55fcd07@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > Why do you keep writing **** in the threads
> >that I start?
>
> Just following your lead, is my guess.

Where would you like me to send your prize? I don't think Mr / Ms Bar
has quite figured out that it is /only/ his posts that I treat with
complete disdain.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nuxx Bar wrote:

<intelligent stuff retained>

> Can't be bothered with the rest of your rant. You've lost the plot and
> are incapable of arguing properly so there just isn't any point.

But that just proves Ms Bar to be right. ;-)

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:

> Good grief, maybe the safespeeding forum served the same purpose as
> The Isle Of Sheppey- an official policy of containment so all the mono-
> browed knuckle draggers are kept together and kept an eye on so they
> don't contaminate normal society.

That's the first genuine LOL I've had in ages on Usenet. Thank you.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 25, 9:07 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
> Namsob) wrote:
> > Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > As I said, anyone who sticks to properly and honestly debating road
> > > safety, rather than deliberately snarling up the discussion with
> > > personal attacks, is welcome.
> >
> > So, are you willing to properly and honestly debate road safety here? If
> > so, would you mind doing as you were asked and as you promised to do
> > several days ago so that we can clear up the points of confusion?
> >
> > The problem, you see, is that you keep referring to anti-motorist
> > measures, you keep accusing people of hypocrisy and of lying and yet you
> > refuse to tell us what these so-called anti-motorist measures are.
>
> You know perfectly well what they are. They're the ones that you
> advocate without question because they restrict and/or punish the
> motorist.

Please name one.

> They're all around us.

Roads? Clouds? Houses? Chewing gum detritus? 3A fuses? Those junctions
with a pelican crossing on just one of the four roads?

> Road policy "innovations" in the
> last 15 years have consisted of very little else.

The M6 Toll? It's great for motorists, I can now use the M6 without
getting stuck in traffic.

> You and the others
> are just trying to waste my time and get me to jump through hoops by
> telling me to list them.

No. I'm asking you to use your time profitably.

> Even if you claim not to believe that they're anti-motorist measures, you
> know exactly which measures I'm talking about.

Read my words: No I don't. You are blithering. Honestly, calm yourself
down and think so as not to make such a fool of yourself.

> What typical troll tactics. Anything to delay the
> discussion reaching its logical conclusion and the truth coming out.
>
> Nevertheless, I'll do it (when *I* decide), because I'll only have to
> do it once, and then the "I don't know what anti-motorist measures you
> mean" avenue is closed off to the trolls forever. And no doubt that
> when I do start the thread, you will be one of the first to reply,
> with a wretchedly useless, unpleasant and vague post about how I
> shouldn't have posted what I did (despite you telling me to do it in
> the first place).

There's one easy way that you could find out. I promise, however, that
your prediction is wrong.

> The fact that you complain about every topic I
> start, yet you haven't killfiled me (as I've already asked you to do),
> indicates to me that you like trolling in my threads.

As I recall you've started two topics and I've complained about one. My
apologies if I'm wrong.
>
> The list will be worth waiting for, I can assure you.

More drivel snipped.

>You've had your fun, and now it's time to debate properly and
>truthfully.

I've been ready for a while. I've been waiting for you. Or do you think
that inquiries into the size of my genitalia are the key to proper and
truthful debate?

Cheers,
Luke

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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 26, 10:34 am, "budstaff"
> <budstaffdotusegroupatbtinternetdotcom> wrote:
> > And BTW, we _know_ that many cameras are placed for revenue-generating
> > purposes rather than purely for safety, but we're prepared to go along with
> > that as they only penalise the stupid.
>
> Who's "we"? I don't think many of the trolls will agree with you.
> They think all cameras, and other anti-motorist measures, are great.

Please name one of those people.

> (And yes, visible cameras only penalise the stupid, but not hidden
> mobile ones, unless you think that all drivers are stupid, because all
> drivers speed.)

We've been through this before: many drivers do not speed. Until you can
prove otherwise, there's no point repeating that statement.

> I'm not going to respond to most of the other comments, because the
> trolling against me has reached fever pitch.

I can't imagine why.

> It's now become obvious to me why other Safe Speed supporters have
> long since given up trying to debate with you. It's not because
> you're right (let me just repeat that: IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT),
> it's because you deliberately make yourselves as intolerable as
> possible. And you would only be so utterly obnoxious if you knew they
> had a point. Otherwise you would be happy to humour them with good
> grace.

Please show some good grace. Here's a clue: refusing to reveal
information that is key to the understanding of your points, inquiring
about the size of someone's genitalia, using foul language and insisting
that those who disagree with you are trolls is not good grace.

> Do you think that people who are right about something
> generally give dissenting voices the kind of mauling that you do?
> No,
> they patiently explain their position with logic, because they know
> that truth will out, and no poison is required.

That's why most of us have not used foul language (unlike you). It is
certainly why I keep asking for one essential snippet of information
that you refuse to reveal. I can only assume it is because you actually
know of no anti-motorist measure.

Cheers,
Luke

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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 25, 10:20 pm, Don Whybrow <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Fortunately, despite these things being apparently all too common, most
> > people are not reckless, inconsiderate idiots. It is just a shame that
> > the few with the opportunity to cause death or serious injury to other
> > people are all in charge of motorised vehicles.
>
> Thank you for that honest reply. I don't know why others here
> apparently find it so difficult to admit that they even have the
> slightest reservations about the car as a mode of transport.

That could be because we've made those reservations clear already in
open and honest debate. Being aware that the car is not the ideal mode
of transport makes me no more anti-motorist than my preference for fruit
juice makes me anti-beer. [1]

Would you like to join us in open and honest debate? Or would you like
to know the size of my genitalia?

Cheers,
Luke

[1] Actually, the fruit juice thing is about my previously ballooning
waste.


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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 26, 11:53 am, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I haven't even read your post. You're worse than any of the other
> trolls.

That's a pity. Martin's post was more intelligent and rational than any
you appear to have written in the last few days here.

Now, who wants to predict what Ms Bar's reply to my post will be?

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[JNugent]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 25, 10:20 pm, Don Whybrow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Fortunately, despite these things being apparently all too common, most
>>> people are not reckless, inconsiderate idiots. It is just a shame that
>>> the few with the opportunity to cause death or serious injury to other
>>> people are all in charge of motorised vehicles.
>> Thank you for that honest reply. I don't know why others here
>> apparently find it so difficult to admit that they even have the
>> slightest reservations about the car as a mode of transport.
>
> That could be because we've made those reservations clear already in
> open and honest debate. Being aware that the car is not the ideal mode
> of transport makes me no more anti-motorist than my preference for fruit
> juice makes me anti-beer. [1]
>
> Would you like to join us in open and honest debate? Or would you like
> to know the size of my genitalia?
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>
> [1] Actually, the fruit juice thing is about my previously ballooning
> waste.

"Not the ideal mode of transport"?

The car (or other light motor vehicle) is the only mode of transport
that can be used for (almost) any purpose, to go anywhere, any distance,
at any time of day or night on any day of the year, by an operator in
more or less any state of fitness or health which doesn't require a stay
in hospital or being bed-bound. Use a car and you never have to use any
other mode (except sea-crossing ferries) in order to live a more than
reaaonable life-style.

*If* the car falls short of being ideal, it must still be the only mode
of transport that comes anywhere near to the ideal (WTMB).

 

[Don Whybrow]

Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
> Thank you for that honest reply. I don't know why others here
> apparently find it so difficult to admit that they even have the
> slightest reservations about the car as a mode of transport.

Where did I say I had any reservations about the car as a mode of
transport? In some circumstances I find it quite appropriate. In others
it is a slow, expensive, frustrating mode of transport. I don't have any
problems with other people driving, just so long as they are behaving
within the law and being considerate of other road users.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Evolution is a harsh mistress.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Ekul Namsob <[email protected]> wrote:

> [1] Actually, the fruit juice thing is about my previously ballooning
> waste.

Sorry. That really should be 'waist' although I suppose the beer was a
bit of a waste.

Cheers,
Luke

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

 

[Adam Lea]

"Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1icxh1c.f63pnr13eszn8N%[email protected]...
>
> The M6 Toll? It's great for motorists, I can now use the M6 without
> getting stuck in traffic.
>

I find that the congestion has now moved to between the merge point of the
M6/M6T and junction 19.

I can't be arsed with it anymore so I now travel by train when visiting
family.

Adam

 

[Roger Merriman]

Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 25, 10:29 pm, Don Whybrow <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Nuxx Bar wrote:
> > > It's lucky God doesn't exist, otherwise He'd be very, very cross with
> > > the likes of you.
> >
> > Blasphemer!
>
> Heh. I didn't notice that, although maybe it was subconscious, as I
> would *never* normally use the word "cross" in such a way.
>
> > By jingo, the sig generator must have had some divine inspiration.
>
> Indeed, and it's a good 'un. Dawkins said something very similar in
> "The Root of All Evil?" I shall have to research this Roberts
> character.

<http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.php>

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com