Safe Speed Forums

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Clearly not the real Georgeda.

Are you?

Or have you been chemically enhanced in some way?

I don't think taht's very friendly and maybe confrontational.

What do you think Paul?

I take it this is a pointless continuation of the suspended pointless debates between the previously suspended George Painter and the previously suspended Lauren Bogush Diesel Ed Mann.

It'd be much simpler to abuse each other in private? There seems to be very little point in allowing it to spill into public forums such as this.

It becomes very boring, hijacks good threads and stultifies meaningful debate.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Try telling that to eg Towman and his Ilk.

Or, more to the point, the moderators who suspend, well, ban, actually, people for committing the unforgivable sin of being abused by a Pist on Head.

I just luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurve hypocrtites!

Which could be a very worthwhile topic of debate for a motoring forum.

Don't you think.

No?

Try reading this, then:

ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA

Look Bogush. I remember you from the some of the fuel protest forums and chatrooms from 2000, and found your comments usually informative and invariably well put. But in here for a long while I didn't think it was the same Bogush. Lots of tangential stuff and, excuse me for being blunt, a pointless and unnecessary pissing contest with people who, as far as I can make out, are more or less on the same side as you as far as camera plocies go. Jeez, I don't agree with absolutely everything SafeSpeed says about them, but I'm not fighting about the differences which are largely insignificant. Can't you bury the hatchet?


While I'm inclined to agree with a lot of that, especially on civil leberties in general, IMO it's a bit off topic for a road safety forum. <shrugs> Or maybe not. We're in general chat after all, but the connection to social glue?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I don't think - I know - that the Safe Speed forums are the wrong place for you and Bogush to continue your feud.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Will you kindly ban us both then?

I think you'll find that Towman's Ilk on PH and good ol' riggers on this forum were angered by your aggressive posting style, and inability to 'smell the coffee' that they got drawn into argument which lost any relevance to the topic of the forums, and simply became 'ad hominem'.


Can you not see that this abuse comes from both sides - 'Betari's box' - no-one seems to be so routinely banned on forums as yourself - while you're writing your reply to me, which I won't reply to, have a little think about that.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

I've just clicked on a link provided by Lauren O Dare a few posts above which quite frankly shocked me:

What amazes me is that such a site promoting the ownership of guns has any place on this site. I'm surprised at the owner allowing the link to stand and allowing the poster to continue posting such propoganda material which has absolutely nothing to do with the theme of this site.

Or am I mistaken and Safe Speeds site actually supports gun ownership? -I'm sure the press would be interested......Will you be putting out a release to that effect Paul?

This is the "General Chat" forum so people are entitled to discuss topics that are somewhat tangential to the core aims of Safe Speed.

The government's banning of handguns raises civil liberties issues that many here will think are a legitimate subject of debate.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Fair enough Peter. Thanks for the explanation.

I happen to disagree but if the debate about gun ownership is allowed then I may chip in my bit later. - Let's first see what the opinions of the others are.........

I only read the link for a minute, but it seemed to clearly state that it isn't about gun ownership as such, it's simply used as an example to illustrate the slippery slope of loss of liberty. I assume the posting of it was intended to cause readers to see parallels with the loss of motorists' liberty over time and where we are heading.

Halleluja!!!!

.

Yes, in the early days I posted on the basics which most "petrolhead" types had no problem agreeing with.



Yup, very tangential stuff.

Like the "Slippery Slope".

Which, if people actually bothered to read it, even a short way, would find was an exact foretaste of what motorists can expect.

As pointed out by others above who did actually bother.



There you go.

If, for example, I post a link to the "Slippery Slope" article.

And people who, as far as you can make out, are more or less on the same side as me as far as camera policies go:

At best start complaining about me posting lots of tangential stuff which has no place on a motoring forum.

At worst start laying into me about me being a homicidal gun maniac.

And I have the cheek to defend myself.

And the audacity to try to put them right

Then that means that I'm engaging in a pointless and unnecessary pissing contest with people who, as far as you can make out, are more or less on the same side as me as far as camera policies go.

Well, if you care to read what I have just written carefully you might just spot that you are wrong.


If you're still struggling, let me give you another example.

On the Pistonheads forum it's common for people to "quote" others but twist what they said, usually in a scatological way.

Where I read a post that surrendered ground to the anti-car lobby, instead of simply stating (or rather retyping) that x might as well have said y:

I "quoted" the relevant statement clearly labelling it as x might as well have said and then ammended the statement as appropriate.

Eg where a sports car driver sided with an anti 4x4 opinion because 4x4s are noisy, thirsty, impractical, wasteful, dangerous.............. and should be banned:

I used the quote box to break up my posts (which are often complained of as being too long and hard to follow) and emphasise the fact that x might as well have said sports cars are noisy, thirsty, impractical, wasteful, dangerous.............. and should be banned.

But it was I who was banned for putting words into other people's mouths, "twisting" their posts, winding them up, and using the quote boxes for a purpose for which they weren't intended!

Oh, and pointing out that the forum owner was a hypoctite and I thought he'd libelled me when he continued to make the false allegations.

So much for:






If you had actually read all the way down to the end of the "Slippery Slope" you would have found that it describes a path that the motorists are following exactly.

EG different factions of a group which supposedly should be more or less on the same side as you slagging each other off.

Sports car drivers agreeing that 4x4s should be banned.

"Sporty" drivers agreeing that someone driving perfectly safely but slightly over the limit (for drink, or, worse, slightly over the limit the next day, but stone cold sober due to the Mellanby efect) should be banned for a year, and probably locked up too.

"Spirited" posters agreeing that people they don't agree with should be banned for not agreeing with them...................

AA/RAC/Hauliers/etc agreeing with various anti other sections of the motoring community legislation.

Or even calling for it.

So much for "Social Glue"!



And so, thanks to these people.

Who only agree on one thing:

That I'm going "tangential" and should be banned.

Cars will end up being banned.


Don't believe me?

Read ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA

And if you're still finding it "tangential" try imaging it's entitled

ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: CAR PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN BRITAIN

And substitute car wherever you see gun.

And motorists whenever you see any reference to the gun lobby.

And then tell me it's "tangential".

I think you tend to categorise people and issues too easily into black and white.

People can legitimately hold views - with a sound philosophical basis - in which they accept some restrictions on freedom (such as, say, banning handguns, or banning foxhunting) but strongly oppose others.

They will then take strong objection to being branded fellow-travellers of Transport2000 just because they don't happen to agree with everything you support.

"If you're not for us, you're against us" is a dangerously narrow-minded view of the world which doesn't take account of the diversity of people's opinions and principles.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I think you'll find that if you actually read the threads in question it was I that was subjected to ad hominem attacks, and, eventually, defended myself with a level of agression that slowly approached, but never actually matched, that of those attacking me.

A lot of people who never actually read my posts accuse me of an aggressive posting style. However, you will usually find one or two lone voices who have actually bothered to read what was written, rather than what they think was written, who point out that I'm actually the one being abused.





As I noted above.

However, it used to be taken as a given than a victim's counter agression is excusable as self-defence.

Perhaps you concur with the more modern view of agressor as victim.



But "who started it"?

For example, see earlier in this thread.

I revisited this forum in response to the following posts:



And:



Not to mention:



So, I come back.

Defend myself.

And no doubt will provide further proof that:



Have a little think about this:

One moderator (who probably banned me more than most) came to the conclusion that the reason "I" wound people up was that I held a mirror up to them and, whilst they could probably accept what was revealed in a private discussion, for it to be reflected across the internet was too much for most people.

And, as most people do when they are hurt, they lash out at me.

Well, if that makes me in the wrong, so be it.

But someone has to reveal the unacceptable face of the so called "motorists lobby".

By the way, have you any idea how dismisive, condescending, rude and aggressive signing off with:

"while you're writing your reply to me, which I won't reply to, have a little think about that"

Comes across as?

But, unlike too many denizens of motoring fora:

I Won't run crying to moddy about the big boys being beastly to me.

However:

I WILL reserve the right to D Fend myself.

Even if you are so rude as not to listen.

.

This is what I mean Bogush. As I said, I agree with pretty much the whole article (which incidentally, and contrary to your assumption, I took the time to read before posting - as an occasional shooter I would have found it interesting anyway) but I wanted to clarify the connection you were drawing. Thank you for the explanation, but no thanks for the tone. I see your point and it happens I agree with it, just like the Bogush posts I remember from a few years ago apart from the fact that I don't recall you being so f ing rude before.

Why do you feel the need to find people who are on your side and then piss on their chips?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Such as debate should only be carried out by "gentlemen" (but see earlier comments about certain posters) and in the fashion of a ladies debating society.

Even when the debate is aginst those trying to deprive you of freedom, mobility, income, livelihood..............!


You can argue for banning handguns, and for banning foxhunting.

(Though what is the sound philosophical basis?).

But you cannot argue with a sound philosophical basis that you should be allowed to use your noisy, thirsty, impractical, wasteful, dangerous sports car, but that others shouldn't be allowed to use noisy, thirsty, (much less) impractical, wasteful, dangerous 4x4s.

Which is why I point out that if they argue that noisy, thirsty, (much less) impractical, wasteful, dangerous 4x4s shouldn't be allowed:

They might as well argue that:

Noisy, thirsty, totally impractical, wasteful, dangerous sports cars should be banned.


Now, where have I done that?

If they decide that what they said makes them fellow-travellers of Transport2000 and that upsets them and they want to take it out on me that doesn't make me wrong, nor them right.



Unlike banning me then?

.

No.

I find people who are letting themselves and the side down.

Point out the error of their ways.

Get my chips knocked out of my hands, stamped on, pissed all over.

And then I get a good kicking.

And get banned for my trouble.

.

Tone?

TONE?!?!

Is that "tone" like:

"f ing rude"

Or:

"somewhat deranged - certainly the concept of open and polite debate is totally alien to him .... IMV his exclusion from this forum was a case of good riddance"

Or:

"we try to keep the standard of discussion high and the tone reasonably polite"

Or:

"no-one seems to be so routinely banned on forums as yourself - while you're writing your reply to me, which I won't reply to, have a little think about that"

But, then again, I'm not English.

Perhaps they were all being incredibly polite.

But I just misunderstood them.

.