Guy Chapman's Offensive Web pages
aston
==========================================================================
Paedo scum!
Yes, it's official! Safespeeders are paedo scum! And here's the proof,
as published in the prestigious International Journal of Because I
Said So[1]
The profile of paedophiles is as follows:
Mostly male
Car owners (see numerous campaigns on stranger danger and not getting
into cars)
Convinced that theirs is a victimless offence of no provable detriment
to the victims (see NAMBLA[2])
Sad obsessive no-life loners
Safespeeders are:
Mostly male
Car owners
Convinced that theirs is a victimless offence of no provable detriment
to the victims
Sad obsessive no-life loners
The offender profiles are an exact match!
Clearly it is proven beyond doubt that speed camera obsession is the
major cause of paedophilia.
=======================================================================
Care to explain it Guy?
Do you think it funny?
Don't you think that some people will find that offensive?
Nuxx Bar
Oh look! *Yet another* person who despises Crapman the fuckwitted
liar, "closet" motorist-hater and killer camera advocate! Yet another
person who Crapman has pissed off over the Internet so much that
they've sought him out on usenet to have a pop at him! It'll only
take a few thousand more before the rest of the URC regulars finally
accept that these sorts of threads will keep coming until "Just zis
Lie" leaves this group, and stops using the legitimate cause of
cycling as a cover for his illegitimate, highly offensive and
ludicrous campaign to bully car drivers off the roads at all costs.
Aston, what he'll probably do now is remove that page from his website
and then deny that it ever existed, taking the opportunity to sneer at
you at the same time. That's his standard behaviour whenever someone
embarrasses him by copying and pasting the "wrong" part of his Site of
Hate. He did it when it was pointed out that he had flipflopped on
helmets; he did it when it was pointed out that his site contained an
explicit admission that he was "anti-motorist" and that he "hated
cagers [car drivers]".
(You see, these days he's taken to denying that he hates motorists,
despite how painfully obvious it is. Like many car-haters at the
moment, he seems to think that he'll have a better chance of making
drivers suffer if he plays dirty (dirtier) and pretends that he cares
about "safety" instead. It's a shame that, when he decided to change
tack and start lying about hating motorists, he forgot to take down
the offending page where he admitted to it. It makes him even more of
a joke, and even more of an obvious liar, than he would otherwise be.)
BTW, you'll probably now get the standard treatment that anyone gets
when they ask him difficult questions: he'll call you a "troll",
accuse you of talking "drivel", and boast about having "killfiled" you
(despite not really having done so). Alternatively he'll pretend not
to have seen your post. Either response will tell you that he's been
beaten, he knows he can't answer your points without showing that
you're right and/or that he's a lying twat, and he's too pompous and
arrogant to even begin to contemplate thinking about considering doing
the decent thing and accepting that you have a point or he's wrong
about something.
Oh, and Crapman is male, a (hypocritical) car owner, convinced that
his assault on motorists has no provable detriment in the long run
(it'll "save lives in the end, even if the opposite's happening at the
moment"), and a sad obsessive no-life loner. Does that make him paedo
scum? He's scum certainly, and that's far too kind a way of
describing anyone who campaigns for anti-motorist measures which they
know to be killing thousands of people. (And he *does* know that
they're killing people: he may deny it until he's blue in the face,
and he may even delude himself about it, so desperate is he for it not
to be true (because after all he loves his anti-motorist cameras).
But deep down, he knows all right, as his continually evasive posts
show, and the fact that he still advocates cameras despite that is
utterly unforgivable.)
Dave Larrington
> I've jut seen this on Guy Chapman's web pages:
> ==========================================================================
> Paedo scum!
> Care to explain it Guy?
>
> Do you think it funny?
>
> Don't you think that some people will find that offensive?
And don't forget to complain to those wacky japesters at The Rockall Times
about this:
http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2004/04/12/120x600newsmokingshirt.jpg
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Stop it! You're scarin' the Hippo...
Nuxx Bar
wrote:
> aston wrote:
> > I've jut seen this on Guy Chapman's web pages:
> > ==========================================================================
> > Paedo scum!
> > Care to explain it Guy?
>
> > Do you think it funny?
>
> > Don't you think that some people will find that offensive?
>
> And don't forget to complain to those wacky japesters at The Rockall Times
> about this:
>
> http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2004/04/12/120x600newsmokingshirt.jpg
That's a joke. Crapman's page is hate-laced vileness against those
who dare to oppose his anti-motorist campaign, just like everything
else he writes (although *he* is a joke, albeit an extremely unfunny
and depressing one).
Petert
<smert.s...@privacy.net> wrote:
>aston wrote:
>> I've jut seen this on Guy Chapman's web pages:
>> ==========================================================================
>> Paedo scum!
>
>> Care to explain it Guy?
>>
>> Do you think it funny?
>>
>> Don't you think that some people will find that offensive?
>
>And don't forget to complain to those wacky japesters at The Rockall Times
>about this:
>
>http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2004/04/12/120x600newsmokingshirt.jpg
I used to enjoy reading the Rockall Times, but it seems to have
stopped posting - the page I see is dated Monday 23rd October 2006
Perhaps they've given up due to the Daily Mash
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
--
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.
PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please
Nuxx Bar
> aston wrote:
> > I've jut seen this on Guy Chapman's web pages:
>
How typical of a URC troll to make out that a perfectly legitimate and
correct post somehow doesn't need answering properly just because of
who supposedly wrote it. As is so often the case with you lot, it's
just an excuse to get out of responding to something which is too near
the bone. No-one does that like the Crapmeister, but his apologists
(like those who aptly choose names similar to scientology founders) do
it a fair bit as well when they're defending their beloved anti-
motorist hero.