Has Guy Chapman ever posted as Lou Knee?  Why will he not answer the 
question when he's been asked it by several different people (surely if 
he hadn't posted as Lou Knee, he would have just said "No" by now)?  And 
why won't any of his fans answer the question "Why will he not answer 
the question?"?  I think it's obvious to *everyone* that he *has* posted 
as Lou Knee, and I think we all know which post he made.

And so we turn to the question of why he made the Lou Knee post where he 
called another poster a "piece of shit".  Why did he not just post as 
himself?  Was he trying to make it seem like there was more support for 
his position than there actually was?  I can't see any other logical 
reason for him pretending to be someone else when he made that post, 
although it is Chapman we're talking about, so logic may very well not 
come into it at all.  (After all, it's not logical to hate motorists.)

It's time for him to stop evading the question.  He seems to think he 
can please his "God" without having to be honest by simply refusing to 
say whether he posted as Lou Knee.  Well, somehow, if "God" existed then 
I don't think he'd be as easily deceived: "He" would know that Chapman 
was still taking the soft option by not fessing up, and that whether or 
not he actually lied about it was more or less irrelevant, and he'd 
probably be more angry with Chapman for taking "Him" for a gullible fool 
(like Chapman does with *everyone*) than he would have been had Chapman 
just lied and denied making the post.  So Chapman fails.  Again.  As 
always.

Let's see if he's learnt anything yet, shall we?  Guy Chapman, here's 
your chance to redeem yourself: Did you make the Lou Knee post where you 
called another poster a "piece of shit"?  You *must* answer.

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:18:48 -0000, Conor  wrote:

>In article , Tom Crispin 
>says...
>> 
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:10:03 -0000, Conor  wrote:
>> 
>> >In article , Tom Crispin 
>> >says...
>> >
>> >> >..says the man who advocates driving at 50% of the speed limit.
>> >> 
>> >> All I said was, "there is nothing wrong with driving at half the
>> >> posted limit."
>> >
>> >Go look up the definition of the word "advocate".
>> 
>> =====quote=====
>> recommend: push for something; "The travel agent recommended strongly
>> that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day" 
>> =====/quote=====
>> 
>> And your point?
>
>You advocate travelling at 50% below the posted limit.

So you think that saying, "There's nothing wrong with wearing sandals
with socks" is synonymous with saying, "I recommend wearing sandals
with socks"?

Tom Crispin wrote:

>> You advocate travelling at 50% below the posted limit.
> 
> So you think that saying, "There's nothing wrong with wearing sandals
> with socks" is synonymous with saying, "I recommend wearing sandals
> with socks"?

Watch it. You're skating on thin ice now!

In article , Tom Crispin 
says...
> 
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:18:48 -0000, Conor  wrote:
> 
> >In article , Tom Crispin 
> >says...
> >> 
> >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:10:03 -0000, Conor  wrote:
> >> 
> >> >In article , Tom Crispin 
> >> >says...
> >> >
> >> >> >..says the man who advocates driving at 50% of the speed limit.
> >> >> 
> >> >> All I said was, "there is nothing wrong with driving at half the
> >> >> posted limit."
> >> >
> >> >Go look up the definition of the word "advocate".
> >> 
> >> =====quote=====
> >> recommend: push for something; "The travel agent recommended strongly
> >> that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day" 
> >> =====/quote=====
> >> 
> >> And your point?
> >
> >You advocate travelling at 50% below the posted limit.
> 
> So you think that saying, "There's nothing wrong with wearing sandals
> with socks" is synonymous with saying, "I recommend wearing sandals
> with socks"?

But you weren't saying that about travelling below the speed limit, 
hypocrite.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

Conor  considered Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:22:44 -0000 the
perfect time to write:

>In article , Tom Crispin 
>says...
>> 
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:18:48 -0000, Conor  wrote:
>> 
>> >In article , Tom Crispin 
>> >says...
>> >> 
>> >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:10:03 -0000, Conor  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >In article , Tom Crispin 
>> >> >says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> >..says the man who advocates driving at 50% of the speed limit.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> All I said was, "there is nothing wrong with driving at half the
>> >> >> posted limit."
>> >> >
>> >> >Go look up the definition of the word "advocate".
>> >> 
>> >> =====quote=====
>> >> recommend: push for something; "The travel agent recommended strongly
>> >> that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day" 
>> >> =====/quote=====
>> >> 
>> >> And your point?
>> >
>> >You advocate travelling at 50% below the posted limit.
>> 
>> So you think that saying, "There's nothing wrong with wearing sandals
>> with socks" is synonymous with saying, "I recommend wearing sandals
>> with socks"?
>
>But you weren't saying that about travelling below the speed limit, 
>hypocrite.

I don't see that your inability to work out what anyone was saying has
much to do with any argument.