Nuxx Bar

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

His name is, I believe, Guy Cuthbertson. See
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.driving/browse_frm/thread/40d2073690c8a582/0ec6cca5072e64c3?lnk=st&q=#0ec6cca5072e64c3
and note the email addres, tone and language. Also note
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=xSqVOxsAAACALntdCZhygj0p6wab60EGW 0rZFdfcaar5x5y0kptMbA
and look at the posting history. I don't think there's much doubt
that the two lusers are one and th same.

I'm embarassed to be associated with him even by the tenuous link of a
first name.

[Martin[_2_]]

GoogleUser Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> His name is, I believe, Guy Cuthbertson. See
> http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.driving/browse_frm/thread/40d2073690c8a582/0ec6cca5072e64c3?lnk=st&q=#0ec6cca5072e64c3
> and note the email addres, tone and language. Also note
> http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=xSqVOxsAAACALntdCZhygj0p6wab60EGW 0rZFdfcaar5x5y0kptMbA
> and look at the posting history. I don't think there's much doubt
> that the two lusers are one and th same.
>
> I'm embarassed to be associated with him even by the tenuous link of a
> first name.

I think Nuxx has gone by many names other names as well, so don't be
embarrassed.

Just curious Guy, why have you just started using google groups?

[_[_2_]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:17:47 -0700 (PDT), Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> His name is, I believe, Guy Cuthbertson. See
> http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.driving/browse_frm/thread/40d2073690c8a582/0ec6cca5072e64c3?lnk=st&q=#0ec6cca5072e64c3
> and note the email addres, tone and language. Also note
> http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=xSqVOxsAAACALntdCZhygj0p6wab60EGW 0rZFdfcaar5x5y0kptMbA
> and look at the posting history. I don't think there's much doubt
> that the two lusers are one and th same.
>
> I'm embarassed to be associated with him even by the tenuous link of a
> first name.

You might not have to worry, Guy; that could well be another nom-de-plume
and instead he might be not long out of his teens, living in Surrey under
the initials S.W.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Jul 20, 12:40*am, Martin > wrote:
> GoogleUser Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > His name is, I believe, Guy Cuthbertson. *See
> >http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.driving/browse_frm/thread/40d20...
> > and note the email addres, tone and language. *Also note
> >http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=xSqVOxsAAACALntdCZhy....
> > and look at the posting history. *I don't think there's much doubt
> > that the two lusers are one and th same.
>
> > I'm embarassed to be associated with him even by the tenuous link of a
> > first name.
>
> I think Nuxx has gone by many names other names as well, so don't be
> embarrassed.
>
> Just curious Guy, why have you just started using google groups?

I'm using my other laptop. I can't be arsed to go and get the D630
back form the games room so I'm using the Vista machine which doesn't
have Agent or other newsreader software on it.

Guy

[Nuxx Bar]

On Jul 20, 1:16*am, _ >
wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:17:47 -0700 (PDT), Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > His name is, I believe, Guy Cuthbertson. *See
> >http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.driving/browse_frm/thread/40d20...
> > and note the email addres, tone and language. *Also note
> >http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=xSqVOxsAAACALntdCZhy....
> > and look at the posting history. *I don't think there's much doubt
> > that the two lusers are one and th same.
>
> > I'm embarassed to be associated with him even by the tenuous link of a
> > first name.
>
> You might not have to worry, Guy; that could well be another nom-de-plume
> and instead he might be not long out of his teens

Ah, yet again we have the standard, oh-so-lame troll insult, where the
target is hilariously described as being younger than he actually is.
The irony of course being that a 5-year-old could quite easily come up
with a better insult. Pathetic. (Or maybe by "Guy" you meant me!
Who knows?)

And clearly you don't even have the imagination necessary to come up
with one nom-de-plume. What was that your fellow trolls were saying
about people concealing their true identities? Oh sorry, I forgot, as
with all things that trolls complain about, it's OK as long as it's a
fellow anti-motorist person doing it.

Guy
(I'm so horrified that my name has been discovered on usenet...I
desperately tried to take precautions to stop people finding it out,
one of which was...putting it on usenet. Crapman clearly fancies
himself as a detective, among many other things. Still, the fact that
he took the time to "dig up" that information makes me laugh, as it
means he's clearly been rattled by me constantly embarrassing him and
exposing him as a car-hating tosspiece. Crapman, the deal is the same
as always: admit what is already excruciatingly obvious, i.e. that you
want the number of motorists to be substantially reduced and speed
cameras and other anti-motorist measures are a good way of achieving
that, and I won't be a thorn in your side any longer. Surely all the
silly lying has become too high-maintenance by now? Let's put an end
to it, eh?)

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:25:44 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> said in
>:

>Ah, yet again we have the standard, oh-so-lame troll insult

Indeed. I wonder why you keep posting your standard, oh-so-lame
troll insults really. Perhaps you are stupid as well as being
deluded, mad and a pathological liar.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[al Mossah]

On 24 Jul, 21:25, Nuxx Bar > wrote:
>admit what is already excruciatingly obvious, i.e. that you
> want the number of motorists to be substantially reduced and speed
> cameras and other anti-motorist measures are a good way of achieving
> that

Isn't that what we all want? Even motorists?

Which do you want?

a) fewer motorists?
b) the number we have now?
c) more motorists?

Clue: if c), then you might have to accept that more of them will be
in front of you.

Peter.

[Nuxx Bar]

On Jul 25, 12:33*pm, al Mossah > wrote:
> On 24 Jul, 21:25, Nuxx Bar > wrote:
>
> >admit what is already excruciatingly obvious, i.e. that you
> > want the number of motorists to be substantially reduced and speed
> > cameras and other anti-motorist measures are a good way of achieving
> > that
>
> Isn't that what we all want? *Even motorists?

Only those who have been convinced (or like to pretend) that a
reduction in the number of motorists is the only thing that will
prevent gridlock. Besides, Crapman doesn't even admit to wanting
that. Instead of saying "I know cameras don't really make the roads
safer, but I like them because they make motorists hate driving, and
that's got to be a good thing if it makes them think twice about their
journeys," he makes vicious, vile, deeply offensive, personal remarks
about those who dare to show that cameras don't work, as well as
coming up with contrived, laughable rebuttals to Safe Speed pages in
which he has desperately tried every conceivable trick in order to
twist, beat and contort the figures into supposedly saying "Cameras
save lives". Why would he bother unless he had an anti-motorist (or,
if you prefer, a "motorist reduction") agenda?

> Which do you want?
>
> a) fewer motorists?
> b) the number we have now?
> c) more motorists?

It's not a question of how many I want, it's a question of how many
there needs to be. Anyone who needs to drive should be able to. The
authorities (and the trolls) need to acknowledge that driving is
essential for many people and businesses, and try to help those
people, instead of deciding that they're evil because they don't use
politically correct transport.

I believe that the current number of motorists, plus more, could
easily be accommodated if the authorities *really* wanted to solve
congestion properly. There are many options, one of which is not con
charging, and I'm fed up with Labour and the Labour Corporation (also
known as the BBC) pretending that con charging (i.e. pricing the
poorest off the roads) is the only way to deal with it.

You can tell when someone's anti-motorist, because they simply want
things to be made as difficult for motorists as possible, and they
don't care about anything else. They're not interested in measures
which solve congestion or make the roads safer, unless those measures
also make things less pleasant for motorists (so bypasses, road
widening and removal/rephasing of certain traffic lights are all
out...when was the last time Crapman or Spindrift wanted a bypass?)
But they *are* interested in discredited "safety" measures (e.g. speed
cameras), again as long as they make motorists suffer in some way. I
just don't think people should be abusing road safety in order to get
rid of motorists, just because *they're* not happy with the idea of
the hoi polloi having so much freedom and control over their lives.

> Clue: if c), then you might have to accept that more of them will be
> in front of you.

I don't mind drivers being in front of me at all, as long as they
either keep up an adequate speed (that's "adequate", trolls, not
"high"), and/or have some consideration for those behind them and help
them to overtake or pull over and let them past. It's a perfectly
reasonable thing to expect of people, and if someone wants to overtake
me, I do everything I can (within reason) to aid them. Those who are
belligerent and self-righteous towards anyone wishing to overtake,
like Chapman and co undoubtedly are, antagonise people unnecessarily,
which inevitably increases accident risk. (And that of course shows
how much such people really care about "safety".)

I also try to help cyclists whenever I can, e.g. by leaving a gap to
the left of me at traffic lights. But when I read the anti-motorist
**** on here, and see Spindrift wannabes (or maybe the foul being
himself) being complete antisocial ****s in London, it makes me wonder
why the hell I bother. I just have to keep reminding myself that many
cyclists are perfectly decent human beings, and they shouldn't be made
to suffer just because of their fallen cyclist brethren, who they have
nothing in common with except their mode of transport.

Regards

Guy

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> said in
>:

>Instead of saying "I know cameras don't really make the roads
>safer, but I like them because they make motorists hate driving, and
>that's got to be a good thing if it makes them think twice about their
>journeys," he makes vicious, vile, deeply offensive, personal remarks
>about those who dare to show that cameras don't work, as well as
>coming up with contrived, laughable rebuttals to Safe Speed pages in
>which he has desperately tried every conceivable trick in order to
>twist, beat and contort the figures into supposedly saying "Cameras
>save lives". Why would he bother unless he had an anti-motorist (or,
>if you prefer, a "motorist reduction") agenda?

Paul Smith was a crank, but he didn't call people a murderer because
they refused to believe his arse-about reasoning, and he put his own
name to his crankery, so he was a much better person than you. You
appear to be the living embodiment of the Daily Mail at its very
worst, which is I guess better than Radovan Karadzic but not by
much.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound