8.25am, racing down an 8% hill, the wind and the rain seemingly going
as hard as possible in the opposite direction. Not for the
faint-hearted. Then a car driver pulls out into my path without even
looking vaguely in my direction. A few long seconds later, having
tested my new brakes to their limit, I was counting my blessings. The
car driver, naturally, was oblivious from start to finish.

It would appear that here:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_frm/thread/7bd06f1abd3f07fe#

I've admitted to being a lying, motorist-hating cunt, a terrorist, a
paedophile, and much, much more. In fact, I made up the above incident
because I hate motorists so much, in line with most of the "You'll
never guess what such-and-such a driver supposedly did this morning"
bollocks that is spouted by the trolls in this hive of anti-motorist
aggression and deception.

(Oh dear, it looks as though I used my non-spamtrapped email address,
jtaylor@hfx.andara.com , by mistake. It looks like all the work I put
into maintaining a spam-free email address is going to be undone in
one fell swoop, simply because I couldn't stop myself being a sad
little troll and attempting to hijack the threads of those who
propagate true facts which I would rather pretend weren't true.  If
I'd just admitted that those people were right, or simply started
sulking and ignoring them, or even heeded the incredibly clear final
warning issued to me, then I wouldn't be in this position, where the
most annoying "troll" ever  has decided to single me out for special
treatment. Oh well, I'd better just get used to spam arriving at
jtaylor@hfx.andara.com , and attempt to limit the damage by ceasing to
attempt to ruin other people's threads (as I should have done when
warned to), because I know that I'll get sick of all this a long time
before the "troll" does, so there's no point in prolonging the agony.)

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:48:40 +0100, a troll wrote:

hello nuxx, do you think that abuse@dsl.pipex.net would be interested in 
your nasty posting habits?

Roger Thorpe

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:48:40 +0100, _  wrote:

>8.25am, racing down an 8% hill, the wind and the rain seemingly going
>as hard as possible in the opposite direction. Not for the
>faint-hearted. Then a car driver pulls out into my path without even
>looking vaguely in my direction. A few long seconds later, having
>tested my new brakes to their limit, I was counting my blessings. The
>car driver, naturally, was oblivious from start to finish.
>
>It would appear that here:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_frm/thread/7bd06f1abd3f07fe#
>
>I've admitted to being a lying, motorist-hating cunt, a terrorist, a
>paedophile, and much, much more. In fact, I made up the above incident
>because I hate motorists so much, in line with most of the "You'll
>never guess what such-and-such a driver supposedly did this morning"
>bollocks that is spouted by the trolls in this hive of anti-motorist
>aggression and deception.
>
>(Oh dear, it looks as though I used my non-spamtrapped email address,
>jtaylor@hfx.andara.com , by mistake. It looks like all the work I put
>into maintaining a spam-free email address is going to be undone in
>one fell swoop, simply because I couldn't stop myself being a sad
>little troll and attempting to hijack the threads of those who
>propagate true facts which I would rather pretend weren't true.  If
>I'd just admitted that those people were right, or simply started
>sulking and ignoring them, or even heeded the incredibly clear final
>warning issued to me, then I wouldn't be in this position, where the
>most annoying "troll" ever  has decided to single me out for special
>treatment. Oh well, I'd better just get used to spam arriving at
>jtaylor@hfx.andara.com , and attempt to limit the damage by ceasing to
>attempt to ruin other people's threads (as I should have done when
>warned to), because I know that I'll get sick of all this a long time
>before the "troll" does, so there's no point in prolonging the agony.)


Alternatively you could have used a kill-file - I suppose that would
have been too easy and you couldn't have shown how clever (or
pathetic) you are.



--   
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

judith wrote:

> Alternatively you could have used a kill-file - I suppose that would
> have been too easy and you couldn't have shown how clever (or
> pathetic) you are.
> 
Who do you think you're replying to? I don't think that's "_" , but your 
only supporter the questionable nuxx. I'd have a deeper look if I were you.
Roger Thorpe

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:03:48 +0100, Roger Thorpe
 wrote:

>judith wrote:
>
>> Alternatively you could have used a kill-file - I suppose that would
>> have been too easy and you couldn't have shown how clever (or
>> pathetic) you are.
>> 
>Who do you think you're replying to? I don't think that's "_" , but your 
>only supporter the questionable nuxx. I'd have a deeper look if I were you.
>Roger Thorpe

Thank you  - I hadn't spotted it - I would not have been surprised if
Taylor had written it.

"Supporter" - what makes you think I want/need/or have a supporter? -
just because some on here seem to need same.


--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

_ said the following on 30/09/2008 16:10:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:48:40 +0100, a troll wrote:

Oh, excellent!!!!!!!!  Your autoreply system has decided that you are a 
troll and sent an autoreply to your own opening post :-)

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd wrote:

> Oh, excellent!!!!!!!!  Your autoreply system has decided that you are a 
> troll and sent an autoreply to your own opening post :-)

I take it you didn't read the original at all, then? It was a forgery...

Tim


-- 
My hearts numbered beat            |       Greetings from Birmingham, UK
Still echoes in this empty room    |All about me: www.nervouscyclist.org
Fear wells in me, but nothing seems|      Is your ISP pimping your data?
Enough to defend      Dave Matthews|                  www.badphorm.co.uk

On Sep 30, 4:49 pm, Roger Thorpe 
wrote:
> hello nuxx, do you think that ab...@dsl.pipex.net would be interested in
> your nasty posting habits?

Hello Roger.  Do you think that the fuckwit "_"'s ISP would be
interested in *his* nasty posting habits?  Do you think it's
reasonable for person A to systematically attempt to ruin *every*
thread that person B starts, just because he'd rather not be reminded
of the true facts that person B insists on posting?  Usenet is for
discussion, yet he is trying to smother discussions which involve the
"wrong" facts being propagated.  Furthermore, if I am slandering him,
then he is slandering me with this "troll" business.  Either his
behaviour, and mine, are acceptable on usenet, or neither are (and I
think it's the former).  But what is indisputable is that he started
it, and before he started with his pathetic attempts at censoring the
truth, I tended to ignore him for the boring, lying, scheming little
shit that he was (and still is).

Make him stop being a tit, and I'll go back to ignoring him (once he's
been taught a lesson).  But threatening to complain about me but not
him, just because you purport to disagree with the opinions that I
post, is a bit much, don't you think?  You know he's as much of a
stirrer as I am, and you know he started it.

Tim Dunne said the following on 01/10/2008 13:26:

> I take it you didn't read the original at all, then? It was a forgery...

Read a post from or allegedly from "_"?  You must be kidding, surely?

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd wrote:

> Read a post from or allegedly from "_"?  You must be kidding, surely?

I don't see why you wouldn't. He's generally quite signalacious - 
probably as much as you. Anyways, it's propably worth investigating 
before shooting from the hip...

Tim


-- 
My hearts numbered beat            |       Greetings from Birmingham, UK
Still echoes in this empty room    |All about me: www.nervouscyclist.org
Fear wells in me, but nothing seems|      Is your ISP pimping your data?
Enough to defend      Dave Matthews|                  www.badphorm.co.uk

Nuxx Bar said the following on 01/10/2008 16:43:

> Hello Roger.  Do you think that the fuckwit "_"'s ISP would be
> interested in *his* nasty posting habits?  Do you think it's
> reasonable for person A to systematically attempt to ruin *every*
> thread that person B starts, just because he'd rather not be reminded
> of the true facts that person B insists on posting?

Oddly enough, I agree with you here!  At home, you are KF'ed.  End of 
story.  Except that a certain tosser keeps filling the group with crap 
every time you or certain other people post something to remind me that 
you still exist.  Most of what you say is utter crap in my opinion, but 
that's my opinion and I can KF you if I want.  I do object to one 
individual deciding on the whole group's behalf that you're talking 
utter crap though.  I can decide for myself who's a troll and who isn't, 
and FWIW I've KF'ed you because of the crap you spout rather than 
because I think you're a troll.

Have a nice day :-)

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

You are deluded.

Roger Thorpe

On Oct 1, 5:19 pm, Paul Boyd  wrote:
> Nuxx Bar said the following on 01/10/2008 16:43:
>
> > Hello Roger.  Do you think that the fuckwit "_"'s ISP would be
> > interested in *his* nasty posting habits?  Do you think it's
> > reasonable for person A to systematically attempt to ruin *every*
> > thread that person B starts, just because he'd rather not be reminded
> > of the true facts that person B insists on posting?
>
> Oddly enough, I agree with you here!  At home, you are KF'ed.  End of
> story.  Except that a certain tosser keeps filling the group with crap
> every time you or certain other people post something to remind me that
> you still exist.  Most of what you say is utter crap in my opinion, but
> that's my opinion and I can KF you if I want.  I do object to one
> individual deciding on the whole group's behalf that you're talking
> utter crap though.  I can decide for myself who's a troll and who isn't> and FWIW I've KF'ed you because of the crap you spout rather than
> because I think you're a troll.

Oh, thank you so much.  But other than the "I talk crap" bit (it's
really not crap, particular the stuff about speed-obsessed road
"safety" policy being a very bad idea, but like me, you're entitled to
your opinion), I agree wholeheartedly.  "_"'s behaviour is evidence of
his utter, unbelievable arrogance: whatever he thinks, everyone else
has to think, and whatever he decides, everyone else has to go along
with.  I'd always thought of him as being one of the very worst
posters in this group (in the top five, but much more boring than any
of the others there), but at least he didn't usually post in the
threads I read.  Now, that's changed, and I (along, apparently, with
many others) am now actively pissed off with him, and will remain so
until he stops being a tosser in this particular way.

BTW, if you don't think I'm a troll, I'm puzzled that you haven't
previously had more of a stab at "correcting" my "crap".  I genuinely
came here for a debate about road safety, but all I got was
aggression, attempts at censorship and dodging of "difficult" points
from the start, which is what makes me so certain that there are so
many motorist-haters here who know that they can't defend cameras from
a road safety point of view.  I didn't notice you trying to have a
sensible debate, but maybe you're just of the opinion that there's no
point in trying to debate with someone whose point of view is so
different to yours.

> Have a nice day :-)

I might have said the same back if I'd thought for a moment that you'd
actually meant that.

Nuxx Bar said the following on 01/10/2008 18:04:

> Oh, thank you so much. 

You're welcome ;-)

> BTW, if you don't think I'm a troll, I'm puzzled that you haven't
> previously had more of a stab at "correcting" my "crap".

Frankly, I can't be bothered.

> ...but maybe you're just of the opinion that there's no
> point in trying to debate with someone whose point of view is so
> different to yours.

Exactly.  You won't change your views, and I won't change my views of 
your views, so is there any point in arguing?

FWIW, I'm also a motorist.  A motorist who for the first time in the 25 
years I've been driving got caught by a speed camera a few weeks ago. 
At the time, I genuinely didn't think I was speeding, and the camera van 
was not positioned following the ACPO guidelines.  At the end of the day 
though, I exceeded the speed limit and I'll shortly be toddling up to 
North Wales to attend a Speed Awareness Course.

Now, as a cyclist should I be ranting and raving about how there should 
be more speed cameras because they save lives, or as a motorist should I 
be ranting and raving about the injustices of speed cameras catching 
"innocent" motorists?  Is there any point in taking either view?  I 
think not.

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/