Are You Anti-Motorist?

When it comes to the trolls, they know the answer to the above
question as well as I do. However, since they insist on farcically
denying it, I thought it would be fun to annoy them (isn't it always?)
by once again effortlessly demonstrating how anti-motorist they really
are. This time, the demonstration will take the form of a series of
questions. Any troll answering will quickly show that they're quite
prepared to forget about silly little things like road safety,
democracy and justice as long as it means that motorists are
punished. Of course, the trolls are very unlikely to answer the
questions, not wanting to be exposed as demented and irrational haters
of those who dare to transport themselves in the "wrong" fashion, but
that in itself will be as telling as any answers they could give.

(Chapman, I know you're busy with your new job that someone was stupid
enough to give you, so I've made it easy for you: just choose "a" for
each question. In fact, as a personal favour to you, I'll assume that
you've done that already, without you even having to post. Isn't that
generous of me? And just to show that I'm not asking people to answer
questions that I wouldn't answer myself, my answer to each question is
"b".)


1. Despite the extensive evidence showing that they make the roads
significantly less safe through their long list of side effects, do
you support speed cameras?

a. Yes. I don't care how unsafe cameras are shown to be, I'll always
support them, because my reasons for supporting them were never to do
with safety in the first place. So, whenever a petrolhead puts
forward an argument against cameras, I've already decided that it's
not going to make any difference to my stance before the petrolhead
has even begun. In other words, my support of cameras is based on
sound and dispassionate logic, science, reason and rationality...not.

b. No. They are killing machines and they need to be scrapped RIGHT
NOW. Surely only those who stand to make money from cameras, those
who hate motorists, those who like to be sanctimonious and/or
controlling towards others, those who aren't aware of and/or aren't
sufficiently educated to understand all the facts, those who refuse
point blank to look beyond overly simplistic rubbish like "Slower is
safer", and those with similarly spurious reasons for their support of
cameras would disagree.


2. If a speed limit is reduced (despite nothing about the road or its
surroundings having changed), and the new reduced speed limit is far
lower than it needs to be, do you believe that this is a good thing?

a. Yes. As long as something makes life less pleasant for motorists,
it's all good. There may well be all sorts of safety-related side
effects associated with making a speed limit too low, but it's a
question of priorities. What's a few thousand deaths and injuries
here and there when the motorist scum are being given hell?

b. No. Simply reducing speed limits willy-nilly when there is no
genuine safety-related reason for doing so is potentially very
dangerous, as well as bad for the economy and the environment. One of
the worst safety-related side effects is the "crying wolf" aspect:
ludicrous 30 limits are not distinguished from proper 30 limits, with
the result that the effectiveness of the proper 30 limits is reduced.


3. What do you think of those who are charged with speeding and fight
the charge in court?

a. They should just accept their punishment. They wouldn't have been
charged if they hadn't been guilty [of driving].

b. They have every right to justice, and if the case for the
prosecution cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, there should be
no conviction. The bias shown by magistrates in recent years against
those accused of speeding has been sickening.


4. Are you happy with the fact that Ken Livingstone went ahead with
the westward extension of the Con Charge, despite the fact that the
residents involved in the "consultation" clearly indicated that they
didn't want it?

a. Yes. Making things unpleasant for motorists is so important that,
if necessary, the wishes of the people must be ignored.

b. No. Of course Livingstone should have listened to the wishes of
those who lived in the affected area, and the fact that he didn't
showed that, like the trolls, he hates motorists. Who knows, maybe he
*is* one of the trolls.


5. Despite the fact that the people of Manchester have made it clear
that they don't want it (e.g. by overwhelmingly voting out Roger Jones
in favour of a candidate who ran on an anti-Con Charge ticket), do you
believe that the Manchester Con Charge should be implemented anyway,
without a referendum?

a. Yes. Again, it's extremely important that things are made as
difficult for motorists as possible. Sometimes (quite often in fact),
when it comes to the anti-motorist effort, relatively insignificant
things such as democracy have to be ignored for the greater good.

b. No. It's outrageous that the government and the relevant councils
are still even considering the Con Charge when it is so utterly clear
that the people don't want it. How very dare they? And why is it
that with problems such as congestion, the authorities will only ever
consider "solutions" that make things harder for motorists?
Congestion is a classic example: con charging and HOV lanes are
gleefully announced, while the likes of road widening/building,
removal of congestion-causing measures and traffic light rephasing/
removal are stubbornly ignored again and again. It's blatantly
obvious that the authorities don't *really* want to ease congestion,
because that might actually make things easier for the evil drivers.
So instead, they just use congestion as another excuse to tax,
restrict and bully the beleaguered motorist. However good old Boris*
is now rephasing traffic lights: maybe the tide is turning at last.


6. Do you support the huge VED rises announced in the last budget,
despite the fact that they are very unpopular, they are extremely
unfair, and their environmental value has been extensively questioned,
even by the likes of Greenpeace?

a. Yes. Once again, it's all about priority. I wouldn't normally
support something of that nature, but since the motorist is getting
clobbered, how could I not support it? The only thing I don't like
about the VED rises is that they don't go far enough. I'd love
motorists to have to pay £10000 a year. Not that I'm anti-motorist or
anything like that.

b. No. Very unpopular, extremely unfair, and of no environmental
value: who, except motorist-hating dimwits, would be in favour of such
a measure? And if the government absolutely must raise yet more taxes
to recoup its losses, the motorist should not (yet again) be the
target.


7. Do you believe that fuel duty should be cut?

a. No. I realise that the huge rises in the cost of fuel are
increasing the prices of food and pretty much everything else, as well
as threatening to put large numbers of hauliers out of business, and
I'm sorry about those things. But ****ing off the motorist has GOT to
come first. I'm prepared to pay more for my food and everything else
if it means that I can feel spitefully smug about the suffering of
millions of motorists. Just the other day, I was thinking about the
pain of all those drivers and I actually came in my pants. That's how
great it makes me feel. Perhaps there is a way of me feeling that
great without having to pay extra for everything: maybe we should cut
fuel duty for hauliers, and increase it for motorists to compensate.
But of course the selfish motorist ******s would whinge about it,
despite it being perfectly fair. They should be grateful that they're
even allowed to drive at all: if I had my way, that would all change.
And if we all had to pay huge amounts of extra tax to replace the
motorists' fuel duty, so be it.

b. Yes. Fuel duty has been excessive for a long time, and it has
never been anything to do with "the environment". Now, thanks to the
rise in the cost of oil, everyone is suffering, however they get
around. It's time for the government to get on our side rather than
on our backs; it's time for the government to do something which for
once doesn't involve making money, persecuting motorists, or both.


8. The website http://www.witlessandswindle.me.uk, a site which
contained justified criticism of the Wiltshire & Swindon "Safety"
Camera Partnership, "mysteriously disappeared" a few months ago
according to its owner. (Don't worry trolls, it will be back very
soon.) It seems that certain people didn't like the public being able
to access such information. Do you think this is a good thing?

a. Yes. I'm normally as anti-censorship as anyone, but once again,
persecution of the motorist is more important. I know that speed
cameras cost lives, and I know that the way that partnerships are run
is extremely dodgy at the best of times. But we can't have that
information getting out to the general public, because then even more
people than currently will be against speed cameras, and they'll have
to be scrapped. Then where would the anti-motorist effort be? In
other words, usually with censorship, the end doesn't justify the
means, but in this case, it most definitely does. If we have a choice
between keeping our cameras and becoming like China, and getting rid
of our wonderful cameras, then keeping cameras and becoming like China
is quite obviously the way to go.

b. No. The authorities are killing people, lying to cover up that
fact, and then indulging in censorship to cover up the lies. It's
outrageous and it has to stop. I'm looking forward to the
reinstatement of the website and others like it. Truth will out. One
day, all but the most stubborn control freaks and motorist-haters will
despise scameras for what they are.


9. Do you hate motorists?

a. No. You see, I play this really funny game where I make it
entirely obvious that I hate motorists, but then when I'm asked
whether I hate them, I deny it. Hilarious, isn't it? And dead
clever, I reckon. Because, you see, I know I can't defend my hatred
of motorists, and this way, I don't have to! Suck on that,
petrolheads!

b. No. I've had enough "discussions" with lying motorist-hating
trolls to know what sad, pathetic pricks they really are, and just the
thought of being among their number makes me shudder. One of them in
particular, who calls himself Spindrift, is a really, infamously sick
individual who urgently needs help; you simply don't get people
anywhere near as bad as that on the pro-motorist side. Whether it's
socialism, or Communism, or something else that fuels their warped
agenda, motorist-haters are utterly ridiculous. Why would anyone be
so obsessed with making things worse for people who, like anyone, are
simply trying to get from A to B? It's time for the motorist-haters
to adopt a real cause and stop harrassing reasonable people.


Addendum

Hopefully this will have demonstrated to the motorist-haters just how
many of their usual principles they have steamrollered in order to
maintain their insane discrimination against those who dare to drive.
If you're normally against road deaths, but you're prepared to make an
exception for the sake of Cause X (in this case a wish to get
motorists off the road), it's very likely that there is something
utterly wrong with Cause X, and it doesn't deserve your support. If
you're normally in favour of true justice, democracy, freedom of
speech, openness about your true aims, and the authorities telling the
truth, but not when it comes to Cause X, then the same applies.

Look what a bullying, lying, misanthropic monster Cause X has turned
you into. Cause X is no good, and if you continue to pursue it, then
you and your outlook will become irrevocably warped, not just with
Cause X, but with everything. Can you even remember why you hate
motorists so much, or has it just become a sort of reflex? For your
own sake, as well as that of millions of people who just want to get
around, please destroy your hatred of motorists once and for all,
before it destroys you.


* Talking of Boris, anyone who was genuinely pro-cyclist, as opposed
to simply anti-motorist, wouldn't have a problem with him. But,
surprise surprise, Spindrift does have a problem with him. Spindrift
also doesn't want motorcyclists in bus lanes, even though such a
measure would make things safer for cyclists. It's crystal clear that
Spindrift is utterly anti-motorist/motorcyclist, and is simply
pretending to be pro-cyclist in order to get support.

Whenever there is a measure or a politician that makes things better
for cyclists, but also makes things better for motorists, Spindrift
*always* opposes it/them. (Coincidence? I don't think so.) He has
been asked to come up with examples to the contrary, but of course he
can't. When are the genuinely pro-cyclist posters on this newsgroup,
if there are any, going to wake up to the fact that Spiteful Scumbag
Psycho ****drift is using them? The fact that he gets any support
anywhere on the Internet, let alone as much as he does, is deeply
worrying, and is just going to make him more and more unhinged. It
also puts those who support him in a very bad light.

The best way that people can help Spindrift is to stop feeding his
delusions and get him sectioned. That way, he gets the help he needs,
and he won't be allowed to post anonymously on the Internet anymore,
which will mean that we finally have an end to the disgusting tirades
against Safe Speed and anyone else who dares to oppose the war on the
motorist. If and when he is released, he will be able to offer
genuine help to cyclists, by concentrating on making things better for
them rather than making things worse for motorists. Surely that way,
everyone will win except for the remaining motorist-haters (*ahem*
Crapman *cough*).

Nuxx Bar writes:

When it comes to the trolls, they know the answer to the above

I jut saved three whole minutes of my life by skipping straight to the
end of this post instead of reading it through. "TL;DR" as the kids say.

This gave me such a feeling of pleasure that I subsequently realised I
had to come back and use some of that time for the benefit of other
posters by recommending they try it too


-dan

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008, Nuxx Bar wrote:

1. Despite the extensive evidence showing that they make the roads
significantly less safe through their long list of side effects, do
you support speed cameras?

LOL. That's a neutral question, is it? It is already apparent it's
not worth reading further, but I'll answer that one for you: if there
was any such evidence, I would consider it. If there was sufficient
such evidence, I would stop supporting speed cameras.

btw nuxxy, you've never answered: have you stopped beating yopur wife?

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

On Jul 5, 8:51*am, Nuxx Bar wrote:


?

You know, I really hope I don't know you in real life.

wrote in message
...
On Jul 5, 8:51 am, Nuxx Bar wrote:


?

You know, I really hope I don't know you in real life.

Pretty doubtful, unless you happen to hang around with 14 year olds
regularly.

Colin

wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:51 am, Nuxx Bar wrote:

?

You know, I really hope I don't know you in real life.

I don't think Nuxxy has a real life.

Answer to question as posted: no.

End of.

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

On 5 Jul, 08:51, Nuxx Bar wrote:
When it comes to the trolls, they know the answer to the above
question as well as I do. *However, since they insist on farcically
denying it, I thought it would be fun to annoy them (isn't it always?)
by once again effortlessly demonstrating how anti-motorist they really
are. *This time, the demonstration will take the form of a series of
questions. *Any troll answering will quickly show that they're quite
prepared to forget about silly little things like road safety,
democracy and justice as long as it means that motorists are
punished. *Of course, the trolls are very unlikely to answer the
questions, not wanting to be exposed as demented and irrational haters
of those who dare to transport themselves in the "wrong" fashion, but
that in itself will be as telling as any answers they could give.

(Chapman, I know you're busy with your new job that someone was stupid
enough to give you, so I've made it easy for you: just choose "a" for
each question. *In fact, as a personal favour to you, I'll assume that
you've done that already, without you even having to post. *Isn't that
generous of me? *And just to show that I'm not asking people to answer
questions that I wouldn't answer myself, my answer to each question is
"b".)

1. Despite the extensive evidence showing that they make the roads
significantly less safe through their long list of side effects, do
you support speed cameras?

a. Yes. *I don't care how unsafe cameras are shown to be, I'll always
support them, because my reasons for supporting them were never to do
with safety in the first place. *So, whenever a petrolhead puts
forward an argument against cameras, I've already decided that it's
not going to make any difference to my stance before the petrolhead
has even begun. *In other words, my support of cameras is based on
sound and dispassionate logic, science, reason and rationality...not.

b. No. *They are killing machines and they need to be scrapped RIGHT
NOW. *Surely only those who stand to make money from cameras, those
who hate motorists, those who like to be sanctimonious and/or
controlling towards others, those who aren't aware of and/or aren't
sufficiently educated to understand all the facts, those who refuse
point blank to look beyond overly simplistic rubbish like "Slower is
safer", and those with similarly spurious reasons for their support of
cameras would disagree.

2. If a speed limit is reduced (despite nothing about the road or its
surroundings having changed), and the new reduced speed limit is far
lower than it needs to be, do you believe that this is a good thing?

a. Yes. *As long as something makes life less pleasant for motorists,
it's all good. *There may well be all sorts of safety-related side
effects associated with making a speed limit too low, but it's a
question of priorities. *What's a few thousand deaths and injuries
here and there when the motorist scum are being given hell?

b. No. *Simply reducing speed limits willy-nilly when there is no
genuine safety-related reason for doing so is potentially very
dangerous, as well as bad for the economy and the environment. *One of
the worst safety-related side effects is the "crying wolf" aspect:
ludicrous 30 limits are not distinguished from proper 30 limits, with
the result that the effectiveness of the proper 30 limits is reduced.

3. What do you think of those who are charged with speeding and fight
the charge in court?

a. They should just accept their punishment. *They wouldn't have been
charged if they hadn't been guilty [of driving].

b. They have every right to justice, and if the case for the
prosecution cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, there should be
no conviction. *The bias shown by magistrates in recent years against
those accused of speeding has been sickening.

4. Are you happy with the fact that Ken Livingstone went ahead with
the westward extension of the Con Charge, despite the fact that the
residents involved in the "consultation" clearly indicated that they
didn't want it?

a. Yes. *Making things unpleasant for motorists is so important that,
if necessary, the wishes of the people must be ignored.

b. No. *Of course Livingstone should have listened to the wishes of
those who lived in the affected area, and the fact that he didn't
showed that, like the trolls, he hates motorists. *Who knows, maybe he
*is* one of the trolls.

5. Despite the fact that the people of Manchester have made it clear
that they don't want it (e.g. by overwhelmingly voting out Roger Jones
in favour of a candidate who ran on an anti-Con Charge ticket), do you
believe that the Manchester Con Charge should be implemented anyway,
without a referendum?

a. Yes. *Again, it's extremely important that things are made as
difficult for motorists as possible. *Sometimes (quite often in fact),
when it comes to the anti-motorist effort, relatively insignificant
things such as democracy have to be ignored for the greater good.

b. No. *It's outrageous that the government and the relevant councils
are still even considering the Con Charge when it is so utterly clear
that the people don't want it. *How very dare they? *And why is it
that with problems such as congestion, the authorities will only ever
consider "solutions" that make things harder for motorists?
Congestion is a classic example: con charging and HOV lanes are
gleefully announced, while the likes of road widening/building,
removal of congestion-causing measures and traffic light rephasing/
removal are stubbornly ignored again and again. *It's blatantly
obvious that the authorities don't *really* want to ease congestion,
because that might actually make things easier for the evil drivers.
So instead, they just use congestion as another excuse to tax,
restrict and bully the beleaguered motorist. *However good old Boris*
is now rephasing traffic lights: maybe the tide is turning at last.

6. Do you support the huge VED rises announced in the last budget,
despite the fact that they are very unpopular, they are extremely
unfair, and their environmental value has been extensively questioned,
even by the likes of Greenpeace?

a. Yes. *Once again, it's all about priority. *I wouldn't normally
support something of that nature, but since the motorist is getting
clobbered, how could I not support it? *The only thing I don't like
about the VED rises is that they don't go far enough. *I'd love
motorists to have to pay £10000 a year. *Not that I'm anti-motorist or
anything like that.

b. No. *Very unpopular, extremely unfair, and of no environmental
value: who, except motorist-hating dimwits, would be in favour of such
a measure? *And if the government absolutely must raise yet more taxes
to recoup its losses, the motorist should not (yet again) be the
target.

7. Do you believe that fuel duty should be cut?

a. No. *I realise that the huge rises in the cost of fuel are
increasing the prices of food and pretty much everything else, as well
as threatening to put large numbers of hauliers out of business, and
I'm sorry about those things. *But ****ing off the motorist has GOT to
come first. *I'm prepared to pay more for my food and everything else
if it means that I can feel spitefully smug about the suffering of
millions of motorists. *Just the other day, I was thinking about the
pain of all those drivers and I actually came in my pants. *That's how
great it makes me feel. *Perhaps there is a way of me feeling that
great without having to pay extra for everything: maybe we should cut
fuel duty for hauliers, and increase it for motorists to compensate.
But of course the selfish motorist ******s would whinge about it,
despite it being perfectly fair. *They should be grateful that they're
even allowed to drive at all: if I had my way, that would all change.
And if we all had to pay huge amounts of extra tax to replace the
motorists' fuel duty, so be it.

b. Yes. *Fuel duty has been excessive for a long time, and it has
never been anything to do with "the environment". *Now, thanks to the
rise in the cost of oil, everyone is suffering, however they get
around. *It's time for the government to get on our side rather than
on our backs; it's time for the government to do something which for
once doesn't involve making money, persecuting motorists, or both.

8. The websitehttp://www.witlessandswindle.me.uk, a site which
contained justified criticism of the Wiltshire & Swindon "Safety"
Camera Partnership, "mysteriously disappeared" a few months ago
according to its owner. *(Don't worry trolls, it will be back very
soon.) *It seems that certain people didn't like the public being able
to access such information. *Do you think this is a good thing?

a. Yes. *I'm normally as anti-censorship as anyone, but once again,
persecution of the motorist is more important. *I know that speed
cameras cost lives, and I know that the way that partnerships are run
is extremely dodgy at the best of times. *But we can't have that
information getting out to the general public, because then even more
people than currently will be against speed cameras, and they'll have
to be scrapped. *Then where would the anti-motorist effort be? *In
other words, usually with censorship, the end doesn't justify the
means, but in this case, it most definitely does. *If we have a choice
between keeping our cameras and becoming like China, and getting rid
of our wonderful cameras, then keeping cameras and becoming like China
is quite obviously the way to go.

b. No. *The authorities are killing people, lying to cover up that
fact, and then indulging in censorship to cover up the lies. *It's
outrageous and it has to stop. *I'm looking forward to the
reinstatement of the website and others like it. *Truth will out. *One
day, all but the most stubborn control freaks and motorist-haters will
despise scameras for what they are.

9. Do you hate motorists?

a. No. *You see, I play this really funny game where I make it
entirely obvious that I hate motorists, but then when I'm asked ...

read more »


paragraph 7a is Spindrift to a "T"

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 23:20:01 +0100, Colin Reed wrote:
Pretty doubtful, unless you happen to hang around with 14 year olds
regularly.

but thats an insult to 14 year olds.

--
Stephen Patterson :: :: http://patter.mine.nu/
GPG: B416F0DE :: Jabber:
"Don't be silly, Minnie. Who'd be walking round these cliffs with a gas oven?"

Nuxx Bar wrote:

snipped rubbish

You've not replied to my questions (about your motoring convictions) so why should I
reply to yours?