Boris

Might already have been discussed and drowned in the flood of
nuxxious emissions.

Monday's Times newspaper on Boris:
http://143.252.148.161/tol/news/poli...cle4454100.ece

The mayor looked on, bemused, as a member of the London Assembly
informed him that she wholeheartedly backed his policy on cycle
helmets.

Boris Johnson, who has vowed to protect his blond mop but has been
caught riding without a helmet more than once, threw his hands
skywards before remarking wryly: "How can you possibly agree? My
position is hopelessly muddled."


Perfect. Hopelessly muddled is an extremely sound view and to be
wholeheartedly endorsed.

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

So Crapman grudgingly supports Boris (sometimes at least) when he's
talking about stuff that's nothing to do with motorists. But
coincidentally enough, both he and Spindrift just happen to disagree
with him every time he refuses to implement an anti-motorist policy
(e.g. banning motorcycles from bus lanes, the "Road User Hierarchy",
pedestrianisation of Parliament Square, the westward extension of the
Con Charge, and no doubt many other things in the future). What are
the chances of someone not being anti-motorist, but just happening to
take the anti-motorist line *every single time* there's a news story
related to motoring politics, like both Crapman and Spindrift do? It
must be trillions to one.

Whereas what are the chances that Crapman and Spindrift are actually
anti-motorist, but choose to lie about it? Possibly a bit higher than
trillions to one, I would have thought. Just a hunch.

Surely only someone who blindly took them at their word, without doing
any sanity checking whatsoever, would believe that Chapman and
Spindrift, joint leaders of the Anti-Motorist Cult, weren't anti-
motorist.

On 6 Aug, 19:40, Nuxx Bar wrote:

So Crapman grudgingly supports Boris (sometimes at least) when he's
talking about stuff that's nothing to do with motorists. *But
coincidentally enough, both he and Spindrift just happen to disagree
with him every time he refuses to implement an anti-motorist policy
(e.g. banning motorcycles from bus lanes, the "Road User Hierarchy",
pedestrianisation of Parliament Square, the westward extension of the
Con Charge, and no doubt many other things in the future). *

So it seems both Guy and Spindrift decide their stance on an issue on
its particular merits rather than worrying unduly about personalties.

--
Dave...

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:03:48 -0700 (PDT), dkahn400
said in
:

So it seems both Guy and Spindrift decide their stance on an issue on
its particular merits rather than worrying unduly about personalties.

Correct. And so much for "grudgingly", I had a very convivial
exchange of letters with Boris when he was MP for Henley, as I had
with Tarzan before him, and I have had a letter published in Boris's
mag. I think that might have been the one that won me a bottle of
wine from Corney and Barrow, actually.

This need Nuxxy has to pretend that he concessions have somehow been
extracted when none in fact have, and that the imagined concessions
imply any degree of support for his extremist agenda, is one of the
things that makes him a particularly pointless troll. It is so
self-evidently unhinged that all it does is discredit the entire
Safespeeder camp. Not that they need much help there.

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