Chapman: His Agenda Exposed

On this thread, among others:

http://tinyurl.com/evasivetroll

....Chapman has repeatedly failed to answer two basic questions. They
are basic in that the content of the questions is simple, and also in
that it would take Chapman mere seconds to answer them. (In other
words, they are fundamentally different to deliberately time-wasting
"questions" such as "Provide a huge, complete list of every anti-
motorist measure bar none".) Please read the questions with an open
mind, and think about why Chapman would be so reluctant to answer
them.

Question 1: Which would bother you more (all other things being
equal): a cyclist being decapitated by piano wire, or a motorcyclist
being decapitated by piano wire?

Question 2: Are you going to either substantiate or retract your
accusation that I've been using other people's words?

They are pretty straightforward questions, as you can see, and someone
with a noble, selfless agenda to save lives would have no problem
whatsoever with providing answers. Answer 1 would be something along
the lines of "They would both bother me equally", while Answer 2 would
be something like "I cannot substantiate the accusation, so I hereby
retract it".

The fact that he refuses point blank to answer them, despite being
asked the same questions repeatedly, speaks volumes. Why would he
refuse to answer Question 1, unless his answer was "The cyclist being
decapitated by piano wire would bother me more"? And why would that
be his answer, unless he did indeed have an anti-motorist/motorcyclist
agenda?

His refusal to answer Question 2 is an even greater stain on his
character. When you make an accusation against someone, it is only
right that you either substantiate or retract it. Yet Chapman has
done neither. It's clear to me that he knows that he cannot
substantiate his accusation, but he's so arrogant and stubborn that he
will not retract it, even without an apology. Additionally, and
almost unbelievably, he repeated the SAME accusation only yesterday.

I believe that this is the clearest indication yet that Chapman's
"debating" tactics are extremely underhand, and that he does indeed
have a hidden, anti-motorist agenda. No-one who cared about saving
lives, and was posting out of the goodness of their heart, would
employ such evasive, ungracious tactics. Over the years, he has
constantly used the very same tactics when debating with anti-camera
posters, but because of the complex subject matter, he has usually
managed to obfuscate sufficiently that most readers have not realised
how duplicitous he was being. But with these simple, straightforward,
quick questions, which only require simple, straightforward, quick
answers, no obfuscation is possible, and the truth about Chapman is
there for all to see.

Please, dear readers, just open your minds, forget for a second about
who's making this post, and look at the questions. Ask yourself if
it's reasonable that Chapman refuses to answer them, and ask yourself
why. Surely only those who were part of his nasty little anti-
motorist crusade would refuse to condemn him for his tactics after
reading this post. Chapman and his motorist-hating allies have been
exposed once and for all, and not a moment too soon.

Nuxx Bar wrote:

Waffle snipped ...

Please, dear readers, just open your minds, forget for a second about
who's making this post, and look at the questions. Ask yourself if
it's reasonable that Chapman refuses to answer them,

Question 1. is a contrived question that no matter how anyone answers
you can twist to suit your own agenda, especially as all other things
_aren't_ equal, and can never be so, no matter how you attempt to
phrase it.

Question 2 is a personal decision. If you'd read about GC (all freely
available on t'net) you'd have already seen the reasoning behind it and
wouldn't need to ask the question.

and ask yourself why.

Why?

Anyone can ask, answer, or simply ignore anything posted on Usenet for
many and varied reasons. You appear to want to destroy someone's
character for whatever reason (excuse) of your own. I see little
reason why anyone would answer your questions. I'm answering this one
as I believe you're KF'd by a good deal of the newsgroup and because I
think I can contribute positively.

Surely only those who were part of his nasty little anti-
motorist crusade would refuse to condemn him for his tactics after
reading this post.

What you fail to understand is that GC _is_ a motorist, driver,
road-user, as well as a cyclist. How can he possibly be 'anti' himself?

Your attempts to pigeon-hole people into specific little slots, black
and white, simply don't work in real life, of which you appear to need
help with.

Chapman and his motorist-hating allies have been
exposed once and for all, and not a moment too soon.

Heheheh, your rantings are somewhat reminiscent of Quixote, you tilt at
windmills, with your own destructive agenda but without the humour.

PS, I mostly disagree with a lot of 'stuff' said on this NG, indeed I
suspect and expect that I'm also KF'd from a few posters as I have a
more pro-motoring that pro-cycling outlook, but that also depends upon
what's being discussed. Motorists and cyclists are _not_ simple little
'things' that are one or the other. I'm a motorist and I'm a cyclist.
I drive on-road and compete in a 4x4 off-road, I ride for leisure and
race a bicycle off-road and on-road, I organise and compete in
Motorcycle Trials and I help to organise Bicycle Cross-country and
Downhill events, I do lots of 'cross-over' stuff so tend to see things
from both sides. I have views that change, ideas that develop and
thoughts that can be influenced by what's happened to and around me.
I'm also not interested too much in your, or others, political agendas
except where I see something that strikes a chord with me, which you,
plainly have here. Your attempts to ridicule and subvert what others
say says far more about you, than you say about them.

I, and most other people I know, am not a single 'thing' with ideas set
in stone ... you appear to be so and want others to also be one thing,
devoid of other influences. Life is not like that.

Get real, get a life.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'

On 1 Aug 2008 08:56:03 GMT, "Paul - xxx"
said in
:

What you fail to understand is that GC _is_ a motorist, driver,
road-user, as well as a cyclist. How can he possibly be 'anti' himself?

He doesn't so much fail to understand it as wilfully refuse to
accept it, as it conflicts with the straw man he has erected.

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

On Aug 1, 9:56*am, "Paul - xxx" wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:

Waffle snipped ...

Ah, the trolls' favourite: the generalised slur. Simply say that what
your opponent has written is "waffle" or "drivel", without specifying
how, and you can't go wrong.

Please, dear readers, just open your minds, forget for a second about
who's making this post, and look at the questions. *Ask yourself if
it's reasonable that Chapman refuses to answer them,

Question 1. is a contrived question that no matter how anyone answers
you can twist to suit your own agenda, especially as all other things
_aren't_ equal, and can never be so, no matter how you attempt to
phrase it.

Not at all. How could anyone twist an answer such as "They would both
bother me equally"? You can rest assured that Chapman would have said
that if that was what he had thought. And there's nothing contrived
about it, that's just a feeble excuse that Chapman and his sycophants
have come up with. If you read a news article about a cyclist being
decapitated, and then a month later you read a news article about a
motorcyclist being decapitated in the same circumstances, which would
bother you more? Anyone who wasn't anti-motorist/motorcyclist would
be equally bothered by both, and *that* is why Chapman won't answer:
because he *is* anti-motorcyclist.

Question 2 is a personal decision. *If you'd read about GC (all freely
available on t'net) you'd have already seen the reasoning behind it and
wouldn't need to ask the question.

What are you blethering on about? He accused me, several times, of
passing off other people's words as my own. I asked him to either
substantiate that accusation (by citing examples), or withdraw it. He
did neither, because he couldn't provide examples, and he was too
ungracious to admit it. How can you possibly defend such behaviour?
I asked people to keep an open mind, and you at least have not: you
have simply automatically defended Chapman , presumably because he's
"one of you", without even looking properly at the questions he failed
to answer.

I'm going to snip the rest of your waffle now. (Wow that was a clever
thing to say.)

On Aug 1, 8:53*am, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On this thread, among others:

http://tinyurl.com/evasivetroll

...Chapman has repeatedly failed to answer two basic questions. *They
are basic in that the content of the questions is simple, and also in
that it would take Chapman mere seconds to answer them. *(In other
words, they are fundamentally different to deliberately time-wasting
"questions" such as "Provide a huge, complete list of every anti-
motorist measure bar none".) *Please read the questions with an open
mind, and think about why Chapman would be so reluctant to answer
them.

Question 1: Which would bother you more (all other things being
equal): a cyclist being decapitated by piano wire, or a motorcyclist
being decapitated by piano wire?

Question 2: Are you going to either substantiate or retract your
accusation that I've been using other people's words?

They are pretty straightforward questions, as you can see, and someone
with a noble, selfless agenda to save lives would have no problem
whatsoever with providing answers. *Answer 1 would be something along
the lines of "They would both bother me equally", while Answer 2 would
be something like "I cannot substantiate the accusation, so I hereby
retract it".

The fact that he refuses point blank to answer them, despite being
asked the same questions repeatedly, speaks volumes. *Why would he
refuse to answer Question 1, unless his answer was "The cyclist being
decapitated by piano wire would bother me more"? *And why would that
be his answer, unless he did indeed have an anti-motorist/motorcyclist
agenda?

His refusal to answer Question 2 is an even greater stain on his
character. *When you make an accusation against someone, it is only
right that you either substantiate or retract it. *Yet Chapman has
done neither. *It's clear to me that he knows that he cannot
substantiate his accusation, but he's so arrogant and stubborn that he
will not retract it, even without an apology. *Additionally, and
almost unbelievably, he repeated the SAME accusation only yesterday.

I believe that this is the clearest indication yet that Chapman's
"debating" tactics are extremely underhand, and that he does indeed
have a hidden, anti-motorist agenda. *No-one who cared about saving
lives, and was posting out of the goodness of their heart, would
employ such evasive, ungracious tactics. *Over the years, he has
constantly used the very same tactics when debating with anti-camera
posters, but because of the complex subject matter, he has usually
managed to obfuscate sufficiently that most readers have not realised
how duplicitous he was being. *But with these simple, straightforward,
quick questions, which only require simple, straightforward, quick
answers, no obfuscation is possible, and the truth about Chapman is
there for all to see.

Please, dear readers, just open your minds, forget for a second about
who's making this post, and look at the questions. *Ask yourself if
it's reasonable that Chapman refuses to answer them, and ask yourself
why. *Surely only those who were part of his nasty little anti-
motorist crusade would refuse to condemn him for his tactics after
reading this post. *Chapman and his motorist-hating allies have been
exposed once and for all, and not a moment too soon.

So there we have it: the truth has been exposed. As I have said all
along, the only reason that Chapman likes speed cameras is because
they make motorists suffer and bully them off the roads. He has an
anti-motorist agenda, which he tries to keep hidden, and one of the
many indicators of his hidden agenda is that he employs thoroughly
disingenous discussion tactics, one of which is to refuse to answer
incriminating questions.

On 1 Aug 2008 08:56:03 GMT, "Paul - xxx"
wrote:

snip

Question 2 is a personal decision. If you'd read about GC (all freely
available on t'net) you'd have already seen the reasoning behind it and
wouldn't need to ask the question.


Where Question 2 is
Are you going to either substantiate or retract your
accusation that I've been using other people's words?

You what?

What to do mean a personal decision?

If he's accused someone of using other peoples words, then he needs to
provide some evidence.

When you say " If you'd read about GC ...on the web" - do you mean
he's done this sort of think before. Have you got any specific
pointers? He's put words in my mouth - so I would not be surprised if
he's done it to others.
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

nuxxie, you're a fruitcake, you were a fruitcake on Cycle Chat when
you posted as bobbylightcycles before getting banned and you're a
fruitcake here, I even highlighted a story about a motorcyclist
injured by a wire, there's no hatred of any other road users here,
just from me at least an opposition to PTWs sharing bus lanes because,
despite their being fewer PTWs than cars they are twice as likely to
injure cyclists.

You've also made some bizarre claims about me causing a building to be
evacuated for summat or other, I've no idea what you're blathering on
about and you refused to explain - that's why you're ignored by most
people here.

Take a breath, go for a bike ride, get laid, get a life.

judith wrote:

On 1 Aug 2008 08:56:03 GMT, "Paul - xxx"
wrote:

snip

Question 2 is a personal decision. If you'd read about GC (all
freely available on t'net) you'd have already seen the reasoning
behind it and wouldn't need to ask the question.


Where Question 2 is
Are you going to either substantiate or retract your
accusation that I've been using other people's words?

You what?

What to do mean a personal decision?

LOL, that's me getting something wrong ... I'd also just read Nuxx
asking about why GC's kids wear helmets ... and got the two mixed up
for which I apologise.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'

Nuxx Bar wrote:

On Aug 1, 9:56*am, "Paul - xxx" wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:

Waffle snipped ...

Ah, the trolls' favourite: the generalised slur. Simply say that what
your opponent has written is "waffle" or "drivel", without specifying
how, and you can't go wrong.

er no, it's not a slur, s'wot I write when I'm snipping a lot, I do it
to all sorts of stuff, not just you.

Please, dear readers, just open your minds, forget for a second
about who's making this post, and look at the questions. *Ask
yourself if it's reasonable that Chapman refuses to answer them,

Question 1. is a contrived question that no matter how anyone
answers you can twist to suit your own agenda, especially as all
other things aren't equal, and can never be so, no matter how you
attempt to phrase it.

Not at all. How could anyone twist an answer such as "They would both
bother me equally"? You can rest assured that Chapman would have said
that if that was what he had thought. And there's nothing contrived
about it, that's just a feeble excuse that Chapman and his sycophants
have come up with. If you read a news article about a cyclist being
decapitated, and then a month later you read a news article about a
motorcyclist being decapitated in the same circumstances, which would
bother you more? Anyone who wasn't anti-motorist/motorcyclist would
be equally bothered by both, and that is why Chapman won't answer:
because he is anti-motorcyclist.

Your flights of fancy are strong, young nuxxie. Why does he have to
answer anything? What even possesses you to ask such a contrived
question?

Question 2 is a personal decision. *If you'd read about GC (all
freely available on t'net) you'd have already seen the reasoning
behind it and wouldn't need to ask the question.

What are you blethering on about? He accused me, several times, of
passing off other people's words as my own. I asked him to either
substantiate that accusation (by citing examples), or withdraw it. He
did neither, because he couldn't provide examples, and he was too
ungracious to admit it. How can you possibly defend such behaviour?
I asked people to keep an open mind, and you at least have not: you
have simply automatically defended Chapman , presumably because he's
"one of you", without even looking properly at the questions he failed
to answer.

As just posted in answer to your sycophant Judith, that is my mistake.
I had just been reading you asking GC about why his kids wear helmets
and got the questions mixed up, for which I apologise.

I'm going to snip the rest of your waffle now. (Wow that was a clever
thing to say.)

Nope, it wasn't.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'

Nuxx Bar wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:53*am, Nuxx Bar wrote:Huge
waffle snip ...

So there we have it: the truth has been exposed. As I have said all
along, the only reason that Chapman likes speed cameras is because
they make motorists suffer and bully them off the roads. He has an
anti-motorist agenda, which he tries to keep hidden, and one of the
many indicators of his hidden agenda is that he employs thoroughly
disingenous discussion tactics, one of which is to refuse to answer
incriminating questions.

You ask too many questions that are contrived, spun answers and
generally behaved as troll-like as possible and yet you think you've
somehow 'exposed' a truth.

You need to live a little, off Usenet.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'