Sad *******s

Get yourself over to URCM and **** yourself at the thread:




To put it in perspective: Chapman maintains a webpage list of famous
people he has met.

ffs

Sad *******s or what?
--

"wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being
involved in an accident."

That august body The CTC

(They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)

On 01/04/2010 18:42, JMS wrote:
Get yourself over to URCM and **** yourself at the thread:




To put it in perspective: Chapman maintains a webpage list of famous
people he has met.

ffs

Sad *******s or what?

Yeah, he's a sad ******* but WTF you doing over there? Nearly as sad, IMO.

"JMS" wrote in message
...
Get yourself over to URCM and **** yourself at the thread:
Sad *******s or what?
--
no worse than rushing to cross post to all the road Ngs

You know Judith, every time I think UCRM
has problems, you post something that makes
your absence alone sufficient reason for its existence.

BugBear

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:21:13 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

You know Judith, every time I think UCRM
has problems, you post something that makes
your absence alone sufficient reason for its existence.

Not for people whose posts are blocked.

On 06/04/2010 11:22, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:21:13 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

You know Judith, every time I think UCRM
has problems, you post something that makes
your absence alone sufficient reason for its existence.

Not for people whose posts are blocked.

Fortunately that's nobody. Including you.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:03:45 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 06/04/2010 11:22, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:21:13 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

You know Judith, every time I think UCRM
has problems, you post something that makes
your absence alone sufficient reason for its existence.

Not for people whose posts are blocked.

Fortunately that's nobody. Including you.

You may note that Simon Brooke has declined to answer a direct
question:
Message-ID:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:21:13 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

You know Judith, every time I think UCRM
has problems, you post something that makes
your absence alone sufficient reason for its existence.

Not for people whose posts are blocked.

Works for me.

BugBear

bugbear wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:21:13 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

You know Judith, every time I think UCRM
has problems, you post something that makes
your absence alone sufficient reason for its existence.

Not for people whose posts are blocked.

Works for me.

Yep. Jolly fine place. I'm only on holiday here!

In article ,
e says...

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:03:45 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 06/04/2010 11:22, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:21:13 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

You know Judith, every time I think UCRM
has problems, you post something that makes
your absence alone sufficient reason for its existence.

Not for people whose posts are blocked.

Fortunately that's nobody. Including you.

You may note that Simon Brooke has declined to answer a direct
question:
Message-ID:

Is that like when Clive George declined to answer your direct question
about whether he opposed the publication of rejected URCM posts? Funny
that...almost like there's a pattern whereby if an irrational psycholist
is asked a question and answering that question truthfully would make
them look bad then they simply refuse to answer the question at all - as
if that's going to fool anyone.

And oh look, Clive George hasn't replied to your post here
either...looks like he's conceded this debate as well then!

And elsewhere, Clive George is pathetically altering people's posts in
the manner that Alan Braggins did not so long ago. As they're both URCM
"moderators" their behaviour really should be *much* better than that,
and when they are beaten in a debate then they should have the guts to
admit defeat gracefully rather than adopting the pathetic Chapman
Strategy and running away from difficult questions.

There's got to be some reason why Clive George is always so determined
to defend every aspect of URCM (and why he keeps dodging questions...if
he knows that what he's saying in defence of URCM isn't watertight then
why does he keep saying it unless he has one or more hidden reasons for
doing so?) No-one else who supposedly isn't involved with URCM has
jumped to its defence anywhere near as much as George. In fact he may
well be URCM's staunchest defender full stop. Is this just because he
shares Jackson's "philosophy" (cyclists are great, motorists are scum
and dissenting voices must be systematically silenced) or is there more
to it than that? Is he a sock of Jackson or one of his subordinates? I
think we should be told. But of course this will be yet another awkward
question that Clive George ducks.