Don't feed Troll Nuxx

Ian Smith

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:16:03 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? <uce@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:59:09 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> <derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in
> <83c7102d-8972-4ad7-9b8d-99741d196cd9@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Amazing how *everyone* else who comments on my writing at all tells
> >me how good it is, yet certain trolls go on about "illiteracies".
>
> aka "the lurkers support me in email".

I don't think it's that sophisticated an argument.

As far as I can see, what he said was "It's only the people that
criticise my writing that criticise my writing."

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

Rob Morley

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 21:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
Nuxx Bar <derderderder619@hotmail.com> wrote:

> All of you trolls have shown that you support cameras in
> the full knowledge that they kill people:

Cameras don't kill people, drivers do.
Don't bother replying, I won't see it.

spindrift

" Spindrift has been responsible for
threatening someone at their business, with the result that they had
to vacate the building for the safety of their staff. "

WTF are you talking about you unmitigated arsewit?

Nuxx Bar

On Jun 5, 9:42*am, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:16:03 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? <u...@ftc.gov>wrote:
> > *On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:59:09 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> > <derderderder...@hotmail.com> said in
> > <83c7102d-8972-4ad7-9b8d-99741d196...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >Amazing how *everyone* else who comments on my writing at all tells
> > >me how good it is, yet certain trolls go on about "illiteracies".
>
> > *aka "the lurkers support me in email".
>
> I don't think it's that sophisticated an argument.
>
> As far as I can see, what he said was "It's only the people that
> criticise my writing that criticise my writing."

If you say so, Jellybelly. You never were the sharpest tool in the
box. Are you looking forward to your adventure BTW?

It's perfectly simple. Apart from the trolls, many people, both off
and on the Internet, have gone out of their way to comment on my
writing, and such comments have always been positive. Yet the trolls
here talk about "illiteracies". So what's more likely, do you think?
That my writing is poor, or that the trolls simply say that the truth
is the opposite to what it is if they find that reality doesn't fit
with their lunatic, agenda-driven arguments? What's more likely?
That cameras really do work, despite all the science saying otherwise,
or that the trolls simply pretend that cameras work because they have
an anti-motorist agenda? Altering reality to suit their arguments:
it's one of the more crude ways in which the trolls dishonestly try
(and invariably fail) to get the upper hand in discussions.

The really scary thing is that some of the more mentally disturbed
trolls (Spindrift springs to mind) probably convince even themselves
that their lies are true. It could well be that Spindrift is the only
troll here who honestly believes that speed cameras work, such is his
wish for that to be true. It's still the product of a warped anti-
motorist agenda though, otherwise he wouldn't have persuaded himself
that it was true in the first place. Sad though, that people like him
are prepared to do damage to their already fragile minds just so that
they can make things worse for motorists.

Nuxx Bar

On Jun 5, 1:58*pm, spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> *" Spindrift has been responsible for
> threatening someone at their business, with the result that they had
> to vacate the building for the safety of their staff. "
>
> WTF are you talking about you unmitigated arsewit?

How can you tell when Spindrift's lying? His buttocks move. (Now
that's a really disgusting thought.)

Nuxx Bar

On Jun 5, 12:23*pm, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 21:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > All of you trolls have shown that you support cameras in
> > the full knowledge that they kill people:
>
> Cameras don't kill people, drivers do.
> Don't bother replying, I won't see it.

...because you know that you haven't got a hope in hell of winning the
debate.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in
<705e7fb1-5e39-44cc-9fdc-d4ebcfb89f99@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:

>> And yet you feel no compunction about sending your hate-filled rants
>> to me by email. *Which just goes to show that you are a coward, as
>> stated.

>I sent exactly one, short email through your feedback form

Close: one short /hate/ mail. As I said, cowardice: attacking form
behind anonymity, unprepared to stand behind your vile and baseless
attacks. Fortunately your outpourings are so hilariously deranged
that they are unlikely to fool anyone.

You're right that I don't let raving lunatics like you edit my wiki.
Anyone who is unable to tell the difference between one of Smith's
pronouncements and a credible argument is not fit to edit anything
at all, so that saved me a few seconds of reverting for no obvious
detriment to the world in general.

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

Nuxx Bar

On Jun 11, 12:42*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> <derderderder...@hotmail.com> said in
> <705e7fb1-5e39-44cc-9fdc-d4ebcfb89...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> And yet you feel no compunction about sending your hate-filled rants
> >> to me by email. *Which just goes to show that you are a coward, as
> >> stated.
> >I sent exactly one, short email through your feedback form
>
> Close: one short /hate/ mail. As I said, cowardice: attacking form
> behind anonymity, unprepared to stand behind your vile and baseless
> attacks.

What's your address and telephone number then? Because you could be
any Guy Chapman, or maybe that's not your name at all. According to
you, there's only one way to show that you're not a coward, and that's
by providing your address and telephone number.

"Vile and baseless attacks"...hmm. Sounds suspiciously like what you
used to subject Paul Smith to. Whereas anything that I say about you
is far from baseless, and the truth can only ever be so vile.

> Fortunately your outpourings are so hilariously deranged
> that they are unlikely to fool anyone.

Tee hee. You really should change your name to "Pot". That's
probably what you've been smoking as well. Thereagain maybe not;
people who smoke pot don't generally campaign to kill road users.

> You're right that I don't let raving lunatics like you edit my wiki.
> Anyone who is unable to tell the difference between one of Smith's
> pronouncements and a credible argument is not fit to edit anything
> at all, so that saved me a few seconds of reverting for no obvious
> detriment to the world in general.

I think the word you're looking for is "censorship". You tend to get
it a lot from people who know that the facts don't support their
purported points of view. ("Purported" because of course you don't
really believe that cameras save lives, you just pretend to as part of
your ludicrous anti-motorist agenda.)

Why does your s(h)ite not have a policy whereby you will correct
errors which are brought to your attention? I think it's because even
if it were proved to your satisfaction that cameras killed people (and
I think it has been already), you'd still support them, such is your
hatred of all motorists except yourself and a few others. And there's
one of many fundamental differences between you and Paul Smith: his
agenda was as stated (to save lives), whereas yours is not (you
pretend to want to save lives when really you just want motorists to
be persecuted). You have BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:57:54 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in
<f99ab26c-295f-4a98-bc8c-32288068c2d1@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:

>What's your address and telephone number then? Because you could be
>any Guy Chapman, or maybe that's not your name at all. According to
>you, there's only one way to show that you're not a coward, and that's
>by providing your address and telephone number.

Nope, because I'm not the one calling people a murderer just because
they fail to believe the lunatic ravings of a monomaniac.

>"Vile and baseless attacks"...hmm. Sounds suspiciously like what you
>used to subject Paul Smith to.

Nope, we asked him to prove his thesis and gave him ample
opportunity to do so, the fact that was unable to improve on proof
by assertion was his problem, not ours. Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence, then only extraordinary thing about
Smith's so-called evidence was that he apparently believed it.

>> Fortunately your outpourings are so hilariously deranged
>> that they are unlikely to fool anyone.

>Tee hee. You really should change your name to "Pot". That's
>probably what you've been smoking as well. Thereagain maybe not;
>people who smoke pot don't generally campaign to kill road users.

You really have drunk the Kool-Aid, haven't you? Your statement
relies on absolute and uncritical acceptance of an assertion that
lacks any credible evidential basis and has never been tested by
informed peer review. Smith refused to even submit his ideas for
peer review, and he dealt any possible alternate explanations for
the (invalid) comparison of year-on-year trends by putting his
fingers in his ears and chanting "laa laa, I'm not listening".

I challenge you to find any posts in this group in which anybody
seriously advocates killing road users.

>> You're right that I don't let raving lunatics like you edit my wiki.
>> Anyone who is unable to tell the difference between one of Smith's
>> pronouncements and a credible argument is not fit to edit anything
>> at all, so that saved me a few seconds of reverting for no obvious
>> detriment to the world in general.

>I think the word you're looking for is "censorship". You tend to get
>it a lot from people who know that the facts don't support their
>purported points of view. ("Purported" because of course you don't
>really believe that cameras save lives, you just pretend to as part of
>your ludicrous anti-motorist agenda.)

I don't care whether they save lives or not, actually, I just don't
believe they kill, and I don't see why a measure to enforce a law
which has existed since long before I learned to drive should be
seen as a pressing problem. So the law gets enforced? Big deal.
There was a backlash when they introduced intoximeter testing, but
these days few people seriously question the wisdom of enforcing
drink-drive laws. Excess speed is a behaviour where all the benefit
accrues to the driver and much of the risk applies to other road
users. In car v. bike collisions, the driver is usually at fault
but virtually never injured. The severity and incidence of
collisions both rise with average speed on a given type of road.
These simple facts mean that for me enforcing speed limits is simply
something to accept and move on; as a driver I have absolutely no
problem with limits being enforced. None at all.

>Why does your s(h)ite not have a policy whereby you will correct
>errors which are brought to your attention?

It does. And unlike Smith's, I will actually correct them. For
example, Smith was still publishing the false 12mph claim after the
scientist on whose work it was based pointed out that it was a
completely invalid argument and asked him to remove all reference to
his name and work.

>I think it's because even
>if it were proved to your satisfaction that cameras killed people (and
>I think it has been already),

There is not and never has been any credible proof for that deranged
speedophile fantasy.

>you'd still support them, such is your
>hatred of all motorists except yourself and a few others. And there's
>one of many fundamental differences between you and Paul Smith: his
>agenda was as stated (to save lives), whereas yours is not (you
>pretend to want to save lives when really you just want motorists to
>be persecuted). You have BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS.

No, I don't have blood on my hands, but you have foam on your lips.
And unlike you I don't run my life on hate - I dread to think how
empty your life must be for you to consider that your evident
visceral hatred of people who fail to believe Smith's mad theory to
be a productive use of your energy.

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

Mark McNeill

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?


[40-odd lines snipped]

> No, I don't have blood on my hands, but you have foam on your lips.
> And unlike you I don't run my life on hate


But on the other hand, you *do* let this twit control your actions. He
knows now that if - for whatever pathological reason - he needs to get
somebody to notice him, you'll always be obediently there with a
response.


Perhaps it's time you balanced the minimal damage his evidently deranged
opinions may cause, against the damage you do yourself - if not in your
own eyes, then in the eyes of others - by putting yourself in that
position. You must have something better to do with your time than
write 40-line responses to a troll.


--
Mark, UK
"Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty."

Peter Clinch

Mark McNeill wrote:

> But on the other hand, you *do* let this twit control your actions. He
> knows now that if - for whatever pathological reason - he needs to get
> somebody to notice him, you'll always be obediently there with a
> response.

> Perhaps it's time you balanced the minimal damage his evidently deranged
> opinions may cause, against the damage you do yourself - if not in your
> own eyes, then in the eyes of others - by putting yourself in that
> position. You must have something better to do with your time than
> write 40-line responses to a troll.

Wot Mark sez, I'm afraid. There's no point reasoning with Nuxx on the
simple grounds Nuxx is self-evidently unreasonable, and anyone else
looking in knows that (a) Nuxx is a twit just from reading in between
the lines of froth and that (b) Paul Smith wouldn't have known a proper
standard of scientifically/statistically compelling evidence if it had
come up and bitten him on the nose, for all the reasons we've known for
several years now.

He's just poking a beehive with a stick. The fact he gets stung doesn't
bother him, so not much to gain by doing it and better to go out looking
for pollen and nectar.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:07:25 +0100, Mark McNeill
<markonnewsgroups@yahoo.com> said in
<MPG.22bb2fe3c326bdff989adf@news.nildram.co.uk>:

>But on the other hand, you *do* let this twit control your actions. He
>knows now that if - for whatever pathological reason - he needs to get
>somebody to notice him, you'll always be obediently there with a
>response.

Not really, I just enjoy pointing and laughing at the idiot.

Tell you what, though, see how you like it when people accuse you in
public of being a murderer. Even when they are obviously deranged,
it is still not exactly pleasant.

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

Peter Clinch

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Tell you what, though, see how you like it when people accuse you in
> public of being a murderer. Even when they are obviously deranged,
> it is still not exactly pleasant.

I'm sure it wouldn't be: all the more reason to ignore him so he goes
away, rather than give him numerous daily excuses to be deranged in public.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:37:53 +0100, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> said in
<6bcqm2F3abr9lU1@mid.individual.net>:

>> Tell you what, though, see how you like it when people accuse you in
>> public of being a murderer. Even when they are obviously deranged,
>> it is still not exactly pleasant.

>I'm sure it wouldn't be: all the more reason to ignore him so he goes
>away, rather than give him numerous daily excuses to be deranged in public.

Idiots like that love to claim that twaddle which is not refuted is
therefore somehow not twaddle.

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