Chapman's OWN Web Page: "I Hate Motorists"

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080...ini-faq-cagers

Look! Chapman admits to hating motorists on that page! So that means
that he's been lying when claiming not to hate motorists! Now why, oh
why, would he do that? Surely there's only one explanation: he wanted
to conduct his anti-motorist agenda secretly and dishonestly. Instead
of telling the truth and saying "I want cameras just because I hate
motorists", he thought he'd tell blatant LIES and say "I don't hate
motorists, I just want cameras because of safety". The fact that
cameras actually COST lives didn't even make him hesitate. How can
any of us trust him again now that he's been shown to have been lying
SO OFTEN and SO BRAZENLY about hating motorists? What a ****ing
*******! *******!

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:05:36 +0100
Chapman Is A Liar wrote:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080...ini-faq-cagers

Look! Chapman admits to hating motorists on that page!

So you're too stupid to realise that page was written in a satirical
vein? It doesn't surprise me.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:31:58 +0100, Rob Morley
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:05:36 +0100
Chapman Is A Liar wrote:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080...ini-faq-cagers

Look! Chapman admits to hating motorists on that page!

So you're too stupid to realise that page was written in a satirical
vein? It doesn't surprise me.

All the standard motorist-haters' evasive ploys are coming out at the
moment, aren't they? Here we have #295: "Oh ****, one of us has
admitted something that we didn't want to...let's say it was a 'joke'
and hope that people swallow it".

1. There's nothing *remotely* funny about that page.
2. I don't think there's anything satirical about "vehemently
anti-motorist".
3. I don't think there's anything satirical about "cagers" and "we
hate them".
4. I don't think there's anything satirical about the carefully
selected and presented motorist-hating figures.
5. I don't think there's anything satirical about the whinging about a
driver supposedly receiving a sentence that was too light (the subtext
being "He should have been punished more strictly than someone who
accidentally killed someone in a non-motoring-related manner would
have been, since he was selfish and reckless enough to be driving in
the first place"...actually pretty much everything that Crapman says
has a highly unpleasant, prejudiced and hateful anti-motorist
subtext).
6. I don't think there's anything satirical about the anti-motorist
******** in the last paragraph (which basically says "It's annoying
that we can't spout our anti-motorist ******** when there are normal
people around, since they don't share our view that all drivers are
irresponsible, selfish scumbags who are always in the wrong, and all
cyclists are morally superior and perfect."
7. I don't think there's anything satirical about *anything* on that
page, except for the "suggested punishments" that it links to.

The whole page illustrates pretty well how much Crapman hates *every
single motorist* except himself, though of course he hates motorists
much more than he admits there, and he doesn't admit explicitly on
there that he only supports speed cameras because they discourage
motorists from driving, and he couldn't give a Flying Monkey whether
they save lives or kill people.

Please point out which parts you believe are satirical, and what
evidence you have that such beliefs are not just wishful thinking (as
you and the other motorist-haters seem *extremely* reluctant to say
anything against Crapman, despite surely knowing in reality just what
a complete ******* he is, and just how absurd the idea that he cares
about other people's safety really is).

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:16:17 +0100
Chapman Hates
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:31:58 +0100, Rob Morley
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:05:36 +0100
Chapman Is A Liar wrote:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080...ini-faq-cagers

Look! Chapman admits to hating motorists on that page!

So you're too stupid to realise that page was written in a satirical
vein? It doesn't surprise me.

Please point out which parts you believe are satirical, and what
evidence you have that such beliefs are not just wishful thinking (as
you and the other motorist-haters seem *extremely* reluctant to say
anything against Crapman, despite surely knowing in reality just what
a complete ******* he is, and just how absurd the idea that he cares
about other people's safety really is).

You seem to have mistaken my (rhetorical) question as an invitation to
converse. It was not. I have no interest in your deluded rantings and
no need to justify myself to you.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 00:34:33 +0100, Rob Morley
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:16:17 +0100
Chapman Hates
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:31:58 +0100, Rob Morley
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:05:36 +0100
Chapman Is A Liar wrote:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080...ini-faq-cagers

Look! Chapman admits to hating motorists on that page!

So you're too stupid to realise that page was written in a satirical
vein? It doesn't surprise me.

Please point out which parts you believe are satirical, and what
evidence you have that such beliefs are not just wishful thinking (as
you and the other motorist-haters seem *extremely* reluctant to say
anything against Crapman, despite surely knowing in reality just what
a complete ******* he is, and just how absurd the idea that he cares
about other people's safety really is).

You seem to have mistaken my (rhetorical) question as an invitation to
converse. It was not. I have no interest in your deluded rantings and
no need to justify myself to you.

Well, your "rhetorical question" was wrong, as he's now changed his
site out of shame (and a desire to carry on the risible "I don't hate
motorists" lie), which I don't think he would have done if it was
"satirical", do you? But you don't really care, do you? You know he
hates motorists anyway, and you love him for it.

You really do look up to Crapman don't you? You're very keen to show
him what a pompous, motorist-hating arse you really are. You're doing
a good job, thought you'll never be as vile as him.

And don't worry, I won't make the mistake of replying to any more of
your sycophantic rubbish (unless it's to take the **** out of your
pathetic sucking up, even though it's so easy to do that that it
almost seems cruel).

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20081017193158.4e208a30@bluemoon...


So you're too stupid to realise that page was written in a satirical
vein? It doesn't surprise me.


Any chance of you not responding to the trolls? Kill-files are your friend.
To repeat yet again - trolls are not looking for rational discussion - they
seek to inflame and disrupt. No matter what response you put, it keeps them
coming back. The only thing that works is to ignore them. Those who are
responding to the trolls are part of the problem.

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20081018003433.4a23cad1@bluemoon...

You seem to have mistaken my (rhetorical) question as an invitation to
converse. It was not. I have no interest in your deluded rantings and
no need to justify myself to you.

Then please stop feeding the trolls.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:48:20 +0100
"wafflycat" wrote:


"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20081018003433.4a23cad1@bluemoon...

You seem to have mistaken my (rhetorical) question as an invitation
to converse. It was not. I have no interest in your deluded
rantings and no need to justify myself to you.

Then please stop feeding the trolls.

I've been naughty. haven't I? Sorry, sometimes I just can't resist
prodding them, but I'll stop (even though I just composed a post
debunking some assertions made by one of Guy's playmates).

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:47:52 +0100
"wafflycat" wrote:


"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20081017193158.4e208a30@bluemoon...


So you're too stupid to realise that page was written in a satirical
vein? It doesn't surprise me.


Any chance of you not responding to the trolls? Kill-files are your
friend.

I just like to turn the filters off occasionally to see what I'm
missing. I'll reactivate them, and add a few new ones.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:05:36 +0100, Chapman Is A Liar
wrote:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080...ini-faq-cagers

Look! Chapman admits to hating motorists on that page!


He really is a knob.

I took a copy of the page when you posted above - and lo and behold -
he has now changed it !!!!!

"This page was last modified 19:09, 17 October 2008" - ffs you cannot
make it up

So come on Chapman - a simple question:

Have you altered this page above as a result of the posted link?

(You really must think that people are as thick as you. You were
caught out the last time you did this - and you've been caught out yet
again)

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment