On Feb 5, 2:54 pm, spindrift wrote:
I'm like a homophobe because of my antimotorist stance which you,
errrr, don't actually have any evidence for?

You keep saying that even though people keep supplying evidence. A
typical Cycling+ troll's tactic. Demand evidence or answers, then
keep demanding them even when they're supplied.

Quote

"Let's all share the roads peacefully, happily and considerately.
Tolerance in transport. A new era of understanding and positivity.
An end to trolling cyclists once and for all. Those who feel an
overwhelming need to be obnoxious and intolerant should take up a new
cause which doesn't involve people dying in their thousands, or
better
still, see their doctors. It's high time that the lying stopped.
It's high time for proper policies that are not dictated by spiteful,
deranged, hateful extremists. "

And this new reach-out stance involves claiming someone you've never
met isn't a cyclist, is a militant, has blood on his hands and does a
disservice to cyclists all based on evidenc you are unwilling to share
with us?

It's not a new stance. And just because I make claims about one
person, it doesn't say anything about my general opinion of cyclists.
I have said more than once that I don't have a problem with the
majority of cyclists who are sensible and happy to share the roads.
I'm not the only one who thinks you're a militant by a long chalk.
The fact is that there are different types of road users and there
will be for the forseeable future. Almost all motorists are happy to
campaign to improve their lot without interfering with cyclists (as
long as the cyclists don't jump red lights, cycle on the pavement or
pick fights). Live and let live. Unfortunately, there is a hardcore
of militant cyclists who are quite clearly more concerned with spiting
motorists than they are improving their own lot. How ****ed up is
that? Since you claim not to be one of them, presumably you agree
that such attitudes are fundamentally unhelpful, even to other
cyclists? Isn't it absurd that they're more concerned about
persecuting others than helping themselves? And do you accept that
such cyclists exist, whether or not you think that there are also
drivers like that?

You seem obsessed, seriously, tell me what it is i wrote that provoked
such and unbalanced attack.

*I'm* obsessed?! Ha ha! You're ridiculous. Honestly, I haven't read
such hypocrisy for a long time. You must have posted thousands of
times more than me.

What, exactly, is your problem nuxx bar?

What's yours? Why won't you admit that you're anti-motorist? Why do
you think so many people think you are? Can you not see at all why
they might come to such a conclusion? How many times have you slagged
off drivers in general? And how many times have you slagged off
cyclists in general? How many anti-motorist measures have you
supported, and how many anti-cyclist measures? When there's an
article about a collision between a motorist and a cyclist, how many
times have you defended the motorist, and how many times have you
defended the cyclist? And so on and so forth.

Do you see yet just how much cumulative evidence there is that you're
anti-motorist? Few of your posts in themselves are anti-motorist, but
when you put them together, there's undeniably a very clear anti-
motorist pattern. You might as well admit it. Then each time you
post you can come straight to the point, that you don't think people
should be driving, instead of bleating on about things that you
actually see as irrelevant, such as safety. It would save you, and
everyone else, a hell of a lot of time. And you would get a lot more
respect than you currently do, because then you'd at least be a
genuine campaigner, even if you were campaigning for something utterly
stupid. You could even start a website, and you'd stop having to hide
your identity.

I think you should give it some serious thought.