Brownsville man arrested after allegedly plowing car through racers.

John Clayton

"Sir Jeremy" <pete.aron@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:356d7396-5c6c-46e2-b5d0-> Your mate "EDDH" claimed that the cyclist
killed by a drunk/drugged
> driver was the victim of Darwinism.
>
> Nice idealogical colleagues you've got there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Never heard of him, but no less an extreme view than I've read on
cycling forums in the past.


Why are you "hanging about" on "cycling forums" if you don't care for
peoples/ cyclists views?
Seems perverse to me.
John

Nuxx Bar

On Jun 3, 11:12*am, spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 1:59*am, Martin <martin.d...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > Peter Pie Eater wrote:
> > > Authorities told Mexican media that Campos admitted to using cocaine
> > > prior to the accident.
>
> > > Original Story:http://www.kgbt4.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=141620
> > > Horrific Image:http://shackpics.com/files/crash_mz...9u6zq4jlrx7.jpg
>
> > A picture says a thousand words. That is truly horrific.
>
> Paul Smith's acolytes wank themselves into a frenzy over pictures of
> young people being killed and injured:

AFAIK Paul has never had any acolytes, but why would Safe Speed
supporters (if that's who you mean) be trying to reduce road deaths if
they took such delight in them?

You, on the other hand, are so sick, and so obviously happy for road
deaths to continue unabated, that I wouldn't be at all surprised if
you literally did wank over pictures of young people being killed and
injured (or healthy young people if that's all you've got).

It's perfectly simple. Road deaths stopped falling as they had been
when since speed cameras were introduced. The most plausible
explanation by far for that is that speed camera policy is to blame.
Only those who supported cameras for reasons other than safety would
even attempt to deny that. This "Vehicle safety, engineering
improvements and all the other things which had been improving year on
year for several decades suddenly plateaued all at the same time"
rubbish is just desperate floundering by those who want to see cameras
stay because they want motorists to be punished for driving. It's
quite obvious that these people have started off with the conclusion
that cameras have worked, and gone through the most ridiculous
contortions to get to that conclusion. But both the trolls and their
opponents can see that it's the wrong conclusion. Anyone who believes
that it is still possible to improve the road death figures has to
agree that current policy has been an ABJECT FAILURE.

> Moderation on that forum is delightfully quaint, point out that Smith
> was hopelessly out of his depth and criminally stupid and you get
> deleted.

No Spindrift, you simply get banned on sight because you quite rightly
have a reputation as a foul, lying, deranged loony who would rather
persecute motorists than save lives. You hate motorists in the same
manner that Bin Laden hates the west (i.e. you're prepared to kill
huge numbers of people to get what you want), and you're about as easy
to reason with.

Although Bin Laden does at least admit that he hates the west. On top
of everything else, you're an utter coward for continually and
pathetically denying that you've got it in for motorists. Because
that's why you really like speed cameras, isn't it? Anyone who didn't
hate motorists would give due consideration to the idea that cameras
were costing rather than saving lives. But not you, because you don't
care whether they save lives, as long as they're making things
difficult for motorists. It's so obvious. You're like an open book.
Why not make yourself look slightly less demented by admitting it?

> Meanwhile comments like the above are left alone. Says it all really.

What have motorists ever actually done to you? I mean actual things,
not just products of your fevered, warped imagination. It's a mystery
to me how you trolls can have such disdain for people who are just
trying to get around. Wouldn't it be better to reserve your hate for
actual blights on society, e.g. vandals? Why pick on the humble
driver? The worst thing is not that Spindrift exists (there will
always be the odd loony), but the fact that he has supporters, who of
course just feed his delusions and stop him getting well. It's a
shame.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in
<8d66b499-64f8-457b-89f7-1897f82abdd7@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:

>why would Safe Speed
>supporters (if that's who you mean) be trying to reduce road deaths if
>they took such delight in them?

Close, but no banana. Safespeed is, and always was, a speed
apologist and anti-enforcement group /pretending/ to be concerned
with road deaths. Everybody who is /genuinely/ concerned with
reducing road deaths seems remarkably consistent in supporting the
conclusion, robustly scientifically proven, that both frequency and
severity of collisions rises with speed.

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

I don't know whether to be amused or freaked out that Crapman rarely
posts here unless it's in reply to me. Amused because Crapman
obviously feels threatened by me and my habit of revealing the truth
about cameras and the trolls' anti-motorist agenda. Freaked out
because it's never a good thing to have someone stalking you,
especially when they're clearly so blase about lives being lost.

On Jun 23, 7:01*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> <derderderder...@hotmail.com> said in
> <8d66b499-64f8-457b-89f7-1897f82ab...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >why would Safe Speed
> >supporters (if that's who you mean) be trying to reduce road deaths if
> >they took such delight in them?
>
> Close, but no banana. *Safespeed is, and always was, a speed
> apologist and anti-enforcement group /pretending/ to be concerned
> with road deaths.

Really? Where's your evidence? Oh that's right, you've got NONE.
I'm sure that you and your troll friends have moles in the Clubhouse
(sorry to disappoint you but we do know), and no doubt you've seen a
distinct lack of the sorts of posts that you'd expect to see there
from an organisation that really had such an agenda. Once again,
you've shown yourself to be a LIAR.

I know many of the people from Safe Speed, an awful lot better than
you do, and they are decent, responsible people who quite obviously
care about saving lives a hell of a lot more than the trolls here do.
And if we really were a "speed apologist and anti-enforcement group",
we'd all have a lot of points to show for it by now. Polls have very
clearly shown otherwise.

"Speed apologist" is absurd: we don't want people going too fast any
more than anyone else does. Why would we? We don't want people to
die. And "anti-enforcement" is nothing more than slander; most of us
want *more* enforcement of most traffic laws, and we still want speed
limits and parking restrictions: we just want them to be set sensibly
and by the right people (with the right motives), and we want them to
be enforced with discretion (and I can't see how anyone except a
motorist-hating tosser would not want those things). If you actually
look at the Safe Speed manifesto, I bet you can't find a single thing
on there that you can logically argue with. So no wonder you're
making shit up about Safe Speed instead. It's like when you can't
argue with what I'm saying, so you start talking crap about me having
been banned, or not having passed my test. You'd rather slander
people than admit that the anti-camera brigade are right about
anything. You're pathetic.

> Everybody who is /genuinely/ concerned with
> reducing road deaths seems remarkably consistent in supporting the
> conclusion, robustly scientifically proven, that both frequency and
> severity of collisions rises with speed.

But since you (purportedly at least) automatically assume that anyone
who questions speed enforcement can't be concerned with road deaths,
it's hardly surprising that you've come to the above conclusion. All
of what you're saying is lies anyway, and you know the truth as well
as I do. Safe Speed most definitely is concerned with reducing road
deaths; it's you and your troll friends who prioritise the persecution
of motorists above the saving of people's lives.

By the way, what do you mean by "speed": impact speed or free-
travelling speed? Do you acknowledge that they are different, and no
relationship has been found between them? Oops, sorry, we're not
allowed to go there are we? Any attempt at uncovering the deceit and
intentional oversimplification surrounding the "case" for speed
cameras is invariably met with flaming from the troll collective. So
I'd better not mention the fact that 95% of crashes take place within
the speed limit, despite people exceeding the speed limit half the
time. So much for the frequency of collisions rising with "speed".
Oh dear, Crapman doesn't like that. A salvo of irrefutable facts:
it's guaranteed to upset the trolls. The trouble is that it's great
fun as well, and one has to try to get some amusement out of the
existence of such twisted motorist-haters.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:41:58 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in
<ffafedb3-133a-4b13-a34d-13b7ef4715cc@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:

>I don't know whether to be amused or freaked out that Crapman rarely
>posts here unless it's in reply to me.

You can be whichever you like, since it's not true. It has that in
common with everything else you say here, I guess.

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

David Damerell

Quoting Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.chapman+usenet-reply@spamcop.net>:
><derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in
>>I don't know whether to be amused or freaked out that Crapman rarely
>>posts here unless it's in reply to me.
>You can be whichever you like, since it's not true.

Perhaps you have something to say about Bromptons?
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Olethros, Presuary - a weekend.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On 24 Jun 2008 17:31:14 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> said in
<YhD*uHegs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

>Perhaps you have something to say about Bromptons?

How did you know I have a Brompton?

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

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:55:36 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in
<03f63ce1-6a14-4b24-b697-756a3f76b404@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:

>I have, thanks, and I endorse Paul's conclusions.

Yes, we know you are also working back from his conclusions, just as
he did. That doesn't make you or him any less completely wrong,
though.

Aside from anything else, the figures are actually stated by those
who collected them not to be directly comparable across this period,
but as it turns out this was also the period when mobile phones - a
device for which there is credible evidence of significant impact on
driving performance - became much more widespread. Without a
mechanism for controlling that variable out, which mechanism neither
you nor Smith has any chance of providing, you're just blowing hot
air. Not that I mind you making yourself a laughing stock in
Smith's stead, that's really your own lookout.

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

On 23 Jun, 19:01, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> <derderderder...@hotmail.com> said in
> <8d66b499-64f8-457b-89f7-1897f82ab...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >why would Safe Speed
> >supporters (if that's who you mean) be trying to reduce road deaths if
> >they took such delight in them?
>
> Close, but no banana. *Safespeed is, and always was, a speed
> apologist and anti-enforcement group /pretending/ to be concerned
> with road deaths.

In your opinion only


*Everybody who is /genuinely/ concerned with
> reducing road deaths seems remarkably consistent in supporting the
> conclusion, robustly scientifically proven, that both frequency and
> severity of collisions rises with speed.
>
> Guy
> --

ie everyone who agrees with your particular "anti" POV, plenty of
concerned people agree with Safespeed and disagree with the
Guardianistas

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:49:04 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<pete.aron@virgin.net> said in
<89b9da3e-7fdb-4ca2-9b0b-e23f73268897@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:

>> Close, but no banana. *Safespeed is, and always was, a speed
>> apologist and anti-enforcement group /pretending/ to be concerned
>> with road deaths.

>In your opinion only

Provably not my opinion only, since George Monbiot has said the same
in print.

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

On 26 Jun, 09:12, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:49:04 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <pete.a...@virgin.net> said in
> <89b9da3e-7fdb-4ca2-9b0b-e23f73268...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> Close, but no banana. *Safespeed is, and always was, a speed
> >> apologist and anti-enforcement group /pretending/ to be concerned
> >> with road deaths.
> >In your opinion only
>
> Provably not my opinion only, since George Monbiot has said the same
> in print.
>
> 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


Monbiot's an arsehole

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:23:52 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<pete.aron@virgin.net> said in
<066720fd-558e-414f-a4de-8969f352ea58@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:

>> Provably not my opinion only, since George Monbiot has said the same
>> in print.

>Monbiot's an arsehole

Using the Safespeed definition of arsehole, being "one who disagrees
with Saint Smith of Madeupnumbers".

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

On 26 Jun, 21:48, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:23:52 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <pete.a...@virgin.net> said in
> <066720fd-558e-414f-a4de-8969f352e...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> Provably not my opinion only, since George Monbiot has said the same
> >> in print.
> >Monbiot's an arsehole
>
> Using the Safespeed definition of arsehole, being "one who disagrees
> with Saint Smith of Madeupnumbers".
>
> 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



Even if one disagrees with Safespeed, Monbiot is still an arsehole.
End of.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:43:54 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<pete.aron@virgin.net> said in
<8194c8d6-f25a-475f-b7c5-c07d022a2612@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:

>Even if one disagrees with Safespeed, Monbiot is still an arsehole.
>End of.

You think. Others disagree.

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