Safe Speed Forums

Robin, in what way have I been proven wrong???



Look who's talking you hypocrite!!! What about your response in your very first post?



And what about all your bile when you come out with crap like "same old circles, same old arguments!" without actually explaining whatsoever what they are. You are just making up rubbish to try and have a go at me; is it because you are still annoyed at how incredibly stupid you looked when you didn't understand your own link?

Robin, I would suggest that you take quite a few moments of quiet to actually think about what the other person is saying. You say that it's a problem with my articulation, except that:

(a) No-one else has had a problem understanding my posts. Well?
(b) You didn't understand you own link. Is that a problem with the dictionary not articulating very well?
(c) You didn't understand my position from my very first post, and considering that it was a short one, there was no way I normal person couldn't have understood it. Well?
(d) For ages you went on about me supposedly talking about someone "calculating" their speed in relation to the speed limit, when that was clearly not the case as I had clearly indicated that it was an example. Well?



So again you simply don't have the intelligence to respond to it and you come out with more bluster to try and cover up for it. As for the "ad hominem" bit, that's effectively just hypocrisy when you have done nothing on this thread but come out with negativity, right from your very first post.



There are many points worthy of note but responding to them would totally expose the rubbish of what you were saying.



Oh yes, let's all roll our eyes. Just because all along you have been absolutely desperate to engineer an argument with me you now want to ignore what I have actually been saying.



You are such a complete idiot!!!!!!! You keep saying stuff like this when I have made it just so completely clear that I was just coming out with my observation!!!

My goodness, what is your mental state like???



No the point here is that you disagree with me but you are too obsessive to just say so. You just have to try and win some non-argument.

Anyway, the key thing here, which you continue to ignore, is that the anecdotal or otherwise evidence is on my side! We are getting MORE 20 zones, not less. That crucial point backs up what I've been saying all along. You can keep obsessively going on all you want but the evidence is on my side.

I disagree with you! Did you really need that pointing out?

If your observation was merely that there are more 20mph zones, well done! You're right, a true expert of the obvious!

How about all those other bits;



Thats no observation, thats a view, an opinion, a conjecture. Its also wrong, as we've already thrashed out.



Is that an observation? Would you care to indicate where it can be observed? All experience points to the fact that the SCPs will enforce at the very lowest speed they can get away with.



Look at the topic of this thread. It says speed camera, not police, you changed your tune to restrict your guesses merely to the police, which is neither accurate nor complete when looking at speed enforcement.

One of the cornerstones of this campaign is that we would very much like to see more police on the roads, exercising this sort of discretion in the interests of road safety. Unfortunately that seems unlikely to happen in the near future.



I suggest you might like to look up the meaning of ad hominem. It refers to attacking your opponent personally rather than their argument. I have had plenty to busy myself with in your arguments, yet you seem unable to come up with adequate rebuttal without the need to resort to such puerile "sticks and stones" as 'you f***ing idiot'.

I'm really not bothered if you're sat at your computer in an apoplectic fit, hurling schoolyard insults in your efforts at letting one-upmanship win out over sensible debate on road safety. To be honest it rather amuses me. I would recommend however, given the continued escalation of your attacks, that if you do not want to attract negative attention from the moderators you may want to consider taking that quiet moment before you let it happen again.



For someone without an argument, you sure seem to be doing a lot of arguing!

Hold on a moment Robin, you're trying to do the same thing that you've done before, which is to carefully ignore all the points that you find it hard to deal with. Why don't you actually try and argue with what I say. Here is my post again:

Well thats more than slightly ironic!

So how can you disagree with me when at the moment we are getting more 20mph zones? Do you think that something is suddenly going to change? I think you're just confused again.



Robin, you've already mentioned that and I've already responded. Perhaps you should drag up my response before tediously expecting me to reply again.



And here you're doing it again. You are clearly really struggling to reply to my points and so you need to keep coming back to previous points. Rather lame.



I haven't changed my tune at all. This is just you finally realising what I've been saying all along.



I know what it means. I suggest you look up the meaning of "effectively".



And how does saying something like "same old circles, same weak argument!" (or whatever it was exactly) do that then??



I have clearly come up with more than adequate rebuttals because you have repeatedly failed to respond to my points!!!

And what is one supposed to do when you keep obsessively trying to carry on some argument that you've created in your mind? There is only so much stupidity that a person can take.



Robin, you haven't been interested in sensible debate on road safety since your very first reply to me on this thread. To argue otherwise is just a lie. And by the way, has it really taken you all day to come up with the word "schoolyard"? As for one-upmanship, my first post on here was quite deliberately a carefully written post - since then you have done nothing but to engage in childishness, presumably because you were in an apoplectic fit before when I exposed the fact that you had not understood your own link and wanted to get back at me. And no, I'm not sat at my computer in an apoplectic fit, I was just very frustrated in that post at your apparent stupidity.



Well it rather amuses me how someone who says that he's a part of Mensa can have such an exceedingly poor ability to comprehend the written word.



"Continued escalation"? Er, how do you figure that? Did I come out with more swear words in that last post or less? If you want to talk about negativity why don't we look at your first response to me on here?



You know what, I think you are actually really bothered by the fact that, despite your supposed enormous intellect, there have been so many things that I have said that you haven't been able to respond to.

[/quote]

I'm just replying to your endless childishness.

Not really because all I have done is copy the post down. I haven't re-written it or anything.

I'm not going to argue with you about arguing! If you've got nothing to contribute to the road safety debate beyond observing that there are more 20mph zones now than last year then I suggest you might feel more at home in another forum.

You made an observation, it was accurate, you made some conjectures, they were inaccurate. We dealt with that. You started throwing insults, and 90% of your posts became either ad hominem or complaining that points of yours hadn't been addressed, when all the ones about road safety have been, I've been back and checked.

So, to recap:

There are more 20mph zones than previously - Yes - Agreed
20mph zones are just to make people do 30mph - No - Dealt with
20mph zones will not be enforced rigorously - No - Dealt with
20mph zones will be enforced by human police officers, with discretion - No - Dealt with

If you have anything else to bring up on the topic of road safety then please do. If you merely want to argue about arguing and throw personal insults then I suggest you grow up or find another forum for that level of debate, I believe C+ would suit.

That's merely your way of saying that you can't respond to all the points I've made.



But why does someone need to contribute more to say what I said? You're just making excuses for your lame attempt to enginneer an argument.



And you started with the negativity in your very first response. It is a shame that you are too childish to admit that.

Here is one particular question that I asked you before but which you have now repeatedly ignored:

Robin, in what way have I been proven wrong???




I didn't say that they were, merely that that was what was likely to happen and is already happening.



I never came out with a blanket statement like that. Der.



I never said that this would automatically be the case. Der.



You are such a hypocrite, Robin. When since your very first post on here you have been coming out with negative crap, you really should condemn yourself before condemning others. I told you that you were childish and this is probably the first post from you in which you haven't been. How do you excuse all the others? (Edited to say: I have been perfectly grown up. Compare and contrast our first two posts on here.)

There was something in particular which I think you should respond to:

--
You say that it's a problem with my articulation, except that:

(a) No-one else has had a problem understanding my posts. Well?
(b) You didn't understand you own link. Is that a problem with the dictionary not articulating very well?
(c) You didn't understand my position from my very first post, and considering that it was a short one, there was no way I normal person couldn't have understood it. Well?
(d) For ages you went on about me supposedly talking about someone "calculating" their speed in relation to the speed limit, when that was clearly not the case as I had clearly indicated that it was an example. Well?
--

Ok, I paraphrased those points, let me clarify:




No - Dealt with




No - Dealt with




No - Dealt with

So, I hope thats a little clearer for you. I've gone ahead and ignored the rest of your posts, as its all arguing about arguing and ad hominem, as predicted.

I take it that now concludes your contribution, or do you have any other road-safety related points to make?

No you don't get out of saying all the crap that you said just like that. Try again with responding to these points, in particular the bits that I have put in bold for you. Perhaps you would actually like to take it back that I had been proven wrong and apologise for saying that I had been?



That's merely your way of saying that you can't respond to all the points I've made.



But why does someone need to contribute more to say what I said? You're just making excuses for your lame attempt to enginneer an argument.



And you started with the negativity in your very first response. It is a shame that you are too childish to admit that.

Here is one particular question that I asked you before but which you have now repeatedly ignored:

Robin, in what way have I been proven wrong???




Er, how have you dealt with this point? Apart from speed cameras, which only cover a tiny amount of the road space, do you actually believe that the police will stop people for doing 24 in a 20 on a regular basis? Really?



They won't be on the whole. So how have you dealt with this point?



And how many speed cameras cover even small parts of 20-zones? So how have you dealt with this point?

Yeah, there's nothing about road-safety in there is there!

Oh look, an edit, I can do those too! Previous pages of the thread are available by clicking on the number links in the bottom right of the page, you will find all your answers there.

I can see that you're going to keep trying to get out of defending or apologising for all the negative crap that you came out with. Try again:





So what?



No I won't because you just made up your crap.

Nothing to defend or apologise for, other than to the other forum users for being drawn in to an argument that dragged over several pages without providing any new content to the topic.

Sorry guys, I will do my best to avoid biting when the next troll raises it's head.

Night all!

Only because you have such a problem with understanding English. How about even simply answering the question at the end of this post, if you can't bring yourself to withdraw it and apologise for it?



Ha ha, that's so lame. Are you always this juvenile when you lose an argument? So in what way have I been a troll? (Will you even answer the question or will it just be yet another criticism of yours which you won't even attempt to defend?) If anyone has been a troll, it's you with your constant attempts to engineer an argument that wasn't there.



_________________________

Here's another post which I'm sure you will keep trying to ignore because you are so weak and pathetic that you can never admit that you make mistakes and don't understand things, so you have to try and turn things round to blame others.

I bet it really gets to you that someone has clearly got the better of you in an argument.

This has become 'boring, boring, boring'.
Can't you two use personal emails to argue?

Agreed

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

As mentioned guys, I apologise for allowing myself to be drawn in by trollery (again ). I will certainly be doing nothing further to feed this nonsense.

hjeg2 is, of course, free to pm me if he wishes, but I doubt he will, and I doubt I'd read it.

This thread has gone downhill.
Gents, please don’t interpret the words 'play on' as 'I got away with this, let’s push harder' - such an escalation will inevitably result with moderator action.

I suggest we back up a couple of pages, or just agree to disagree and leave that as our last words.

Agreed too but was it an argument anyway? I thought it became a fight on forums the moment someone uses the 'F' word in anger but maybe I'm wrong?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.