Infestation in "Campaign"

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

Please tell me you aren't too big.I do have some lube, but....
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So you're homophobic as well as everything else? Issues or what?

Is there anyone that you actually tolerate? Do you go round hissing at everyone?

There are four words to describe you: misanthropic. You come on here purely to vent your hatred, as doing it face-to-face would otherwise have resulted in several prison sentences by now.

A nasty piece of work.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Be gentle with me, Mongo. You know what happened last time.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

Be gentle with me, Mongo. You know what happened last time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Suck my dick.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Pauly/Mongo, you just know I'd love to---but you'll be gone so quickly!
Next time, maybe, once you've rinsed out Smeggy?

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> There are four words to describe you: misanthropic. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh, my heart yearns for the numeracy skills of a pro-speeding troll.

I find them stimulating and unsettlingly arousing.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

But I made the offer to Pauly first!

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

rothbook · June 2007

He's making promises he can't keep Tone. If he thinks "misanthropic" is four words I fear we'll both be sadly disappointed when he reveals what he claims is eight inches.

Toying with us, building our hopes up, heartless b@stard.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Or just hardless?

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Regulator · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbrook

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

Please tell me you aren't too big.I do have some lube, but....
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So you're homophobic as well as everything else? Issues or what?

Is there anyone that you actually tolerate? Do you go round hissing at everyone?

There are four words to describe you: misanthropic. You come on here purely to vent your hatred, as doing it face-to-face would otherwise have resulted in several prison sentences by now.

A nasty piece of work.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I can vouch that Tourist Tony is far from homophobic... (but not in the literal sense)[:D]

Methinks you are somewhat over sensitive Rothbrook, my dear...

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Now now, Reg, you promised....

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

formerlyknownasbonj · June 2007

Careful, I think some would prefer SS to Gay Solicitation. If you need your own website Tone on which to market any services you may or may not be inclined to offer it's perfectly possible to set one up you know.

Regulator · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by formerlyknownasbonj

Careful, I think some would prefer SS to Gay Solicitation. If you need your own website Tone on which to market any services you may or may not be inclined to offer it's perfectly possible to set one up you know.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Don't worry bonj - I don't think you're at risk of being chatted up...[:D][:D]

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

Tourist Tony · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by formerlyknownasbonj

Careful, I think some would prefer SS to Gay Solicitation. If you need your own website Tone on which to market any services you may or may not be inclined to offer it's perfectly possible to set one up you know.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But
But
But
Pauly says I'm a homophobe.....
And only HIS dick is in my mind (or anywhere else) at present.
Are you as big as your engine, Bonj? You can tell me. We're friends.
We could be SPECIAL friends if you wanr.....

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by formerlyknownasbonj

Careful, I think some would prefer SS to Gay Solicitation. If you need your own website Tone on which to market any services you may or may not be inclined to offer it's perfectly possible to set one up you know.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But
But
But
Pauly says I'm a homophobe.....
And only HIS dick is in my mind (or anywhere else) at present.
Are you as big as your engine, Bonj? You can tell me. We're friends.
We could be SPECIAL friends if you wanr.....

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Sorry about all that. I'm such a twat.

Unknown · June 2007

ComicBitch dares to complain about "trolls" who are "infesting" "her" forum. Firstly of course, the Cycling Plus forum's membership is not restricted in any way, so her choice of words is poor and inflammatory. Secondly, and more worryingly, ComicGirl is a liar and a stirrer. She claims to like a "genuine good debate", and yet she refuses point blank to engage in any debate whatsoever. This refusal is because she knows that the Safe Speed position is correct. Yet she chooses to carry on spouting pro-camera nonsense, which means that she is spitefully and knowingly advocating a policy which has so far killed TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT ROAD USERS WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE ALIVE TODAY.

Now she is even advocating setting up a website to counter the "cod science" on the Safe Speed site, which is in reality one of the most outstandingly comprehensive and accurate sources of information on the whole Internet. Her reasons for preferring a website to forum debate are there for all to see.

If she sets up a website, she has no obligation to give a right to reply, and so the evident and fraudulent falsehoods employed by the pro-camera scam artists (e.g. RTTM, misreporting of KSIs, etc) will go onto the site unchallenged. This method is already employeed by scamera pratnershits everywhere, none of whom now have an Internet forum. With unchangeable web pages, the awkward forum debate scenario, where people keep on disproving her pathetic arguments, can be avoided, allowing her and the other trolls to delude themselves that their points are correct. Who wouldn't choose to censor the opposition when their arguments were so weak and simplistic?

What she has failed to take into account, of course, is that all Safe Speed pages do have the right to reply, and Paul Smith is always very happy to engage in genuine debate. Therefore it will be readily apparent to anyone who visits both sites that one is open, accountable and gives a right to reply, while the other is dictatorial, shady, secretive and devoid of interactivity. At whatever level, wherever you go, it's the same. Anti-camera = welcomes debate, pro-camera = "fuck off, shut up, you're wrong, and I'm not explaining why".

Silly, silly ComicGirl is shooting herself in the foot with her current approach. She should admit to us (and, if necessary, herself) that she is wrong about cameras and the persecution of the motorist. She should realise that working with drivers, so that both they and cyclists can have the best possible facilities, is by far the most workable solution. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Until improvements are made, ComicGirl has no right to claim to like a "genuine good debate". Nothing could be further from the truth, and no amount of ignoring or censoring the opposition (aka the truth-tellers) will ever change that.

Ravenbait · June 2007

This topic has reached the point of the ridiculous and has become the opposite of that which was intended. I have flagged it [V].

When it has come to the point of someone pretending to be someone else in order to cause upset, it's time to call the moderators.

Whoever you are, the person who is now pretending to be TT, you didn't win any friends pretending to be Rothbook and you're just being an ass now. This is not the way to win an argument and it's really very sad. If you have something to say that is justifiable and can stand on its own merit, do so. Don't do it this way: it's automatic defeat even if you somehow manage a reasonable argument.

Sam

The cross product of Tank Girl and Ellen Ripley:

http://ravenfamily.org
"You might remember that 'annoyed' is my natural state!"

http://gentlemencyclists.org/clubhouse
"Ya'd think we could just attract ants, like normal people."

Unknown · June 2007

It is (correctly) claimed that if a pedestrian is hit at 30mph, they have a 20% chance of dying. However, in actual fact, less than 0.5% of pedestrians that are hit in 30mph zones die.

Clearly, then, drivers anticipate hazards and slow down in areas of danger. Clearly impact speed is usually far less than free travelling speed. Therefore the notion that forcing drivers to go at a slower speed all the time is counterproductive, and could very easily distract drivers from the aforementioned anticipation which is so vitally important.

Anyone who advocates lower speed limits and speed cameras as a way of reducing accidents is in fact advocating something which results in the opposite. If they knowingly and continually do this, they have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Ravenbait

This topic has reached the point of the ridiculous and has become the opposite of that which was intended. I have flagged it [V].
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So. You resent being sacked as a mod, you believe that it was wrong, and you wish you still were one. Therefore you go round being a pretendy mod instead, telling people that you have flagged the thread as if the fact that YOU have done it will carry extra authority. It doesn't. You're a nobody. This thread isn't going anywhere for at least another 12 hours, and there's fuck all you can do about it.

Ashtrayhead · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist_Tony

It is (correctly) claimed that if a pedestrian is hit at 30mph, they have a 20% chance of dying. However, in actual fact, less than 0.5% of pedestrians that are hit in 30mph zones die.

Clearly, then, drivers anticipate hazards and slow down in areas of danger. Clearly impact speed is usually far less than free travelling speed. Therefore the notion that forcing drivers to go at a slower speed all the time is counterproductive, and could very easily distract drivers from the aforementioned anticipation which is so vitally important.

Anyone who advocates lower speed limits and speed cameras as a way of reducing accidents is in fact advocating something which results in the opposite. If they knowingly and continually do this, they have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And you've got **** on your nose.

'Don't Walk, Don't Smoke, Don't Drink', Don't Think'

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Ashtrayhead

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist_Tony

It is (correctly) claimed that if a pedestrian is hit at 30mph, they have a 20% chance of dying. However, in actual fact, less than 0.5% of pedestrians that are hit in 30mph zones die.

Clearly, then, drivers anticipate hazards and slow down in areas of danger. Clearly impact speed is usually far less than free travelling speed. Therefore the notion that forcing drivers to go at a slower speed all the time is counterproductive, and could very easily distract drivers from the aforementioned anticipation which is so vitally important.

Anyone who advocates lower speed limits and speed cameras as a way of reducing accidents is in fact advocating something which results in the opposite. If they knowingly and continually do this, they have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And you've got **** on your nose.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What, coke? Nah, others here I'm sure, but not me.

Nice to see you dismantling my argument so conclusively and effectively by the way. But one of the myriad things that the Cycling Plus trolls won't (and can't) explain is how a reliance on cameras squares with the huge difference between impact and free travelling speeds.

And there, ladies and mentalmen, is why they so despise Safe Speed: because everywhere they look on the site, there are annoying things like that that they just have no answer to. It irritates them no end, and in the case of Spindrift and probably others, it stops them from getting better. If it wasn't for Safe Speed, they'd be able to spout their nonsense without any organised opposition. As it is they find themselves constantly foundering to justify their dogma, and they fall short every time. No-one likes being exposed as a fraud.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist_Tony
...

Nice to see you dismantling my argument so conclusively and effectively by the way. But one of the myriad things that the Cycling Plus trolls won't (and can't) explain is how a reliance on cameras squares with the huge difference between impact and free travelling speeds

And there, ladies and mentalmen, is why they so despise Safe Speed: because everywhere they look on the site, there are annoying things like that that they just have no answer to. It irritates them no end, and in the case of Spindrift and probably others, it stops them from getting better. If it wasn't for Safe Speed, they'd be able to spout their nonsense without any organised opposition. As it is they find themselves constantly foundering to justify their dogma, and they fall short every time. No-one likes being exposed as a fraud.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yawn yawn yawn.

Above, ladies and gentlemen, is the that standby of the SS repertoire- the red-herring. The non-argument that sounds like a good point to those who haven't thought about it. You see, no-one has ever claimed that the speed at which a car passes a camera is the same as the impact speed in a collision. I'm sure even the most ardent advocate of cameras is aware that cars are fitted with brakes, and would expect all but the numptiest and drunkest of drivers to apply them. But the lower the travelling speed the more time there is for the driver to react and the slower the collision speed will be in turn.

You see, you SS frauds, the case for cameras doesn't rest even slightly on whether there is a "difference between impact and free travelling speeds ". Not even a tiny bit. The case for cameras is based on their observed effectiveness, in the real world, even allowing for regression to the mean, at reducing collisions. And as this effectiveness is based on research by respected experts in the field, this evidence stands unless and until someone comes up with rigororous independently reviewed evidence to the contrary.

The ball is in your court, SS frauds, where it has been for a long time now. So come on, stop wasting time trolling here, go and do your homework and get that independent verification of your claims, because until you do all your posturing and bogus 'blood on your hands' rhetoric is going to get you nowhere.

Unknown · June 2007

So if cameras have been observed to be effective even taking RTTM into account, why do DfT and the SCPs STILL quote the same old statistics without taking it into account at all? Why do DfT ignore Appendix H of their own report? Why is the RTTM stuff buried in Appendix H at all, when in earlier drafts of the report it was far more prominent?

I tell you what, just this once, why don't you honestly and seriously ask yourself why that is, and treat yourself to an honest and open-minded answer? Forget your agendas, motives, ideals and preconceptions, and just be frank with yourself for a minute. Once you see the light you'll kick yourself for not doing so sooner.

If they've got nothing to hide, why are they constantly hiding things? Why do they churn out bogus and misleading statistics? Why do they claim that serious injuries are down when they know that hospital admissions have stayed the same? If cameras are having such a wonderful effect, why are their proponents constantly lying and using fraudulent tricks?

Because the fact is that even being generous, cameras could not possibly have saved more than 25 lives per year. And taking into account the 40+ side effects of cameras, it is INCONCEIVABLE that those 25 lives a year haven't been wiped out, and very likely indeed that on aggregate cameras are costing lives, i.e. KILLING PEOPLE.

Those who knowingly and constantly try to dupe people into liking cameras with dodgy statistics do indeed HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. And as each day goes by with this insane policy, more blood is spilt. These people are arguably more culpable than even the most prolific serial killer. It's a bloody outrage. Criminal scumbags.

And STILL they don't admit that they're wrong, and STILL they don't care. Absolutely, mind-blowingly incredible, and not in a good way. It's bad enough for Cycling Plus trolls to tell lies that result in deaths, but for politicians that we are supposed to trust to do it is beyond the pale. Everyone here should be up in arms about it as a basic matter of principle. There are more important matters at stake here than petulant and irrational hatred of cars. It's time for the core trolls to forget their silly squabbles and look at the bigger picture.

"NO, WILL, WE CAN'T! WE HAVE TO SAVE HUMANITY!"

MattBlackBigBoysBMX · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist_Tony
...

Nice to see you dismantling my argument so conclusively and effectively by the way. But one of the myriad things that the Cycling Plus trolls won't (and can't) explain is how a reliance on cameras squares with the huge difference between impact and free travelling speeds

And there, ladies and mentalmen, is why they so despise Safe Speed: because everywhere they look on the site, there are annoying things like that that they just have no answer to. It irritates them no end, and in the case of Spindrift and probably others, it stops them from getting better. If it wasn't for Safe Speed, they'd be able to spout their nonsense without any organised opposition. As it is they find themselves constantly foundering to justify their dogma, and they fall short every time. No-one likes being exposed as a fraud.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yawn yawn yawn.

Above, ladies and gentlemen, is the that standby of the SS repertoire- the red-herring. The non-argument that sounds like a good point to those who haven't thought about it. You see, no-one has ever claimed that the speed at which a car passes a camera is the same as the impact speed in a collision. I'm sure even the most ardent advocate of cameras is aware that cars are fitted with brakes, and would expect all but the numptiest and drunkest of drivers to apply them. But the lower the travelling speed the more time there is for the driver to react and the slower the collision speed will be in turn.

You see, you SS frauds, the case for cameras doesn't rest even slightly on whether there is a "difference between impact and free travelling speeds ". Not even a tiny bit. The case for cameras is based on their observed effectiveness, in the real world, even allowing for regression to the mean, at reducing collisions. And as this effectiveness is based on research by respected experts in the field, this evidence stands unless and until someone comes up with rigororous independently reviewed evidence to the contrary.

The ball is in your court, SS frauds, where it has been for a long time now. So come on, stop wasting time trolling here, go and do your homework and get that independent verification of your claims, because until you do all your posturing and bogus 'blood on your hands' rhetoric is going to get you nowhere.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hello Mr. Jones.
I noticed you ceased to reply in the threads where we were chatting.
Can I take that as an apology?
[:)]

Wheelies ARE cool.

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist_Tony

So if cameras have been observed to be effective even taking RTTM into account, why do DfT and the SCPs STILL quote the same old statistics without taking it into account at all? Why do DfT ignore Appendix H of their own report? Why is the RTTM stuff buried in Appendix H at all, when in earlier drafts of the report it was far more prominent?

I tell you what, just this once, why don't you honestly and seriously ask yourself why that is, and treat yourself to an honest and open-minded answer? Forget your agendas, motives, ideals and preconceptions, and just be frank with yourself for a minute. Once you see the light you'll kick yourself for not doing so sooner.

If they've got nothing to hide, why are they constantly hiding things? Why do they churn out bogus and misleading statistics? Why do they claim that serious injuries are down when they know that hospital admissions have stayed the same? If cameras are having such a wonderful effect, why are their proponents constantly lying and using fraudulent tricks?

Because the fact is that even being generous, cameras could not possibly have saved more than 25 lives per year. And taking into account the 40+ side effects of cameras, it is INCONCEIVABLE that those 25 lives a year haven't been wiped out, and very likely indeed that on aggregate cameras are costing lives, i.e. KILLING PEOPLE.

Those who knowingly and constantly try to dupe people into liking cameras with dodgy statistics do indeed HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. And as each day goes by with this insane policy, more blood is spilt. These people are arguably more culpable than even the most prolific serial killer. It's a bloody outrage. Criminal scumbags.

And STILL they don't admit that they're wrong, and STILL they don't care. Absolutely, mind-blowingly incredible, and not in a good way. It's bad enough for Cycling Plus trolls to tell lies that result in deaths, but for politicians that we are supposed to trust to do it is beyond the pale. Everyone here should be up in arms about it as a basic matter of principle. There are more important matters at stake here than petulant and irrational hatred of cars. It's time for the core trolls to forget their silly squabbles and look at the bigger picture.

"NO, WILL, WE CAN'T! WE HAVE TO SAVE HUMANITY!"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And this shrill, screaming collection of non-sequiteur nonsense is where the SS are.

Towards the end of the most momentous week in the history of the SS, with the biggest ever press conference in the universe only hours away there is still enough time for SS members (sic) to come here and post carelessly crafted screams of unconsciousness.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

ScumOfTheRoad · June 2007

There is a Critical Mass ride tomorrow.
Something tells me he won't bring the camper can along to the NFT.
Paul, you have an open invite. NFT, South Bank.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist_Tony

So if cameras have been observed to be effective even taking RTTM into account, why do DfT and the SCPs STILL quote the same old statistics without taking it into account at all? Why do DfT ignore Appendix H of their own report? Why is the RTTM stuff buried in Appendix H at all, when in earlier drafts of the report it was far more prominent?

I tell you what, just this once, why don't you honestly and seriously ask yourself why that is, and treat yourself to an honest and open-minded answer? Forget your agendas, motives, ideals and preconceptions, and just be frank with yourself for a minute. Once you see the light you'll kick yourself for not doing so sooner.

If they've got nothing to hide, why are they constantly hiding things? Why do they churn out bogus and misleading statistics? Why do they claim that serious injuries are down when they know that hospital admissions have stayed the same? If cameras are having such a wonderful effect, why are their proponents constantly lying and using fraudulent tricks?

Because the fact is that even being generous, cameras could not possibly have saved more than 25 lives per year. And taking into account the 40+ side effects of cameras, it is INCONCEIVABLE that those 25 lives a year haven't been wiped out, and very likely indeed that on aggregate cameras are costing lives, i.e. KILLING PEOPLE.

Those who knowingly and constantly try to dupe people into liking cameras with dodgy statistics do indeed HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. And as each day goes by with this insane policy, more blood is spilt. These people are arguably more culpable than even the most prolific serial killer. It's a bloody outrage. Criminal scumbags.

And STILL they don't admit that they're wrong, and STILL they don't care. Absolutely, mind-blowingly incredible, and not in a good way. It's bad enough for Cycling Plus trolls to tell lies that result in deaths, but for politicians that we are supposed to trust to do it is beyond the pale. Everyone here should be up in arms about it as a basic matter of principle. There are more important matters at stake here than petulant and irrational hatred of cars. It's time for the core trolls to forget their silly squabbles and look at the bigger picture.

"NO, WILL, WE CAN'T! WE HAVE TO SAVE HUMANITY!"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And this shrill, screaming collection of non-sequiteur nonsense is where the SS are.

Towards the end of the most momentous week in the history of the SS, with the biggest ever press conference in the universe only hours away there is still enough time for SS members (sic) to come here and post carelessly crafted screams of unconsciousness.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You really are the worst ever.

Unknown · June 2007

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topi ... _ID=134644

_________________________________
Trips
South America
www.pedalpatagonia.co.uk
Europe
http://europejibi.googlepages.com

Mister Paul · June 2007

So Paulie has now taken to posting on here pretending to be someone else? How very big of him.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Infestation in "Campaign"

Comments

Categories