From: NM on 12 Dec 2009 09:05
On Dec 12, 2:30 pm, Happi Monday <ha...(a)munday.com> wrote:
> NM wrote:
> > On 12 Dec, 02:21, Marc <initial.surn...(a)btintenret.com> wrote:
> >> NM wrote:
> >>> On 12 Dec, 01:32, Se or Chris <u...(a)domain.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> JNugent wrote:
> >>>>> Does his credibility vary depending only on whether it chimes with what
> >>>>> you wish to believe? Surely not?
> >>>> No, his credibility is permanently stuck at zero. The entire episode is
> >>>> a complete fantasy.
> >>> Evidence for this assertion?
> >> Your previous messages?
> > Oh! more artistic interpretations, Just get over it, the cyclist
> > fucked up, and has admitted it.
> As the facts were presented, the cyclist would have to be a total idiot
> to admit any wrong-doing, as it was clearly the driver's fault.
> Of course, that doesn't mean that the cyclist isn't such an idiot - it's
> just that I don't believe you when you say he's admitted liability.
Your choice, sorry that the facts are too painful for you to accept
and don't fit into your template.
From: mileburner on 12 Dec 2009 10:26
> What is the point of replying to you? I have written confirmation of
> the esteem you hold me, together with the veiled insult in your last
> post, why should I waste my time with an idiot. If I wanted to be
> insulted I would get my partner to do it she makes you look like the
> amateur you are.
So NM is berated in his personal life as well as on Usenet. That figures...
From: The Medway Handyman on 12 Dec 2009 11:09
> On Dec 12, 2:27 pm, Happi Monday <ha...(a)munday.com> wrote:
>> NM wrote:
>>> On 12 Dec, 09:00, Happi Monday <ha...(a)munday.com> wrote:
>>>> NM wrote:
>>>>> On 11 Dec, 17:33, Happi Monday <ha...(a)munday.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I think you are talking total bollox! (ie. you are making it up).
>>>>>> And only a total idiot would admit liabilty.
>>>>> Well he is a cyclist so the pattern fits.
>>>> I do more motoring than cycling - in hour terms, not miles.
>>>> I still say you are bullshitting or simply totally self-deluded.
>>> As I said to your friend, The cyclist has admitted it, case closed,
>>> so it matters little how you care to view the facts.
>>> Even when blindingly obvious you still will not admit the cyclist
>>> was wrong, you would rather accuse me of lying than admit that.
>> The problem is, the way you originally presented the "facts", it was
>> totally obvious the driver was responsible. Even after you massaged
>> the facts, it was ambiguous, at best.
>> Of course, it doesn't matter what I think about it, but the fact that
>> you came back asking for an apology tells me you do care what I and
>> others think.
>> I stick to my original assertion that you are lying about the cyclist
>> admitting liability.
> I would expect nothing else. it goes to underline just how bigoted
> cyclists can be when one of their own is called into question.
Its quite incredible isn't it? Like some kind of zombie belief system.
Not one of the posts from cyclists has contained anything but childish
personal attacks on you.
Maybe its something to do with those half a melon helmets affecting their
Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: mileburner on 12 Dec 2009 13:22
> Try the words 'we are sorry we made a mistake', it's not too hard to
Sorry, I thought you were being serious.
From: NM on 12 Dec 2009 14:19
On 12 Dec, 18:22, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> NM wrote:
> > Try the words 'we are sorry we made a mistake', it's not too hard to
> > do.
> Sorry, I thought you were being serious.
Not man enough? Trite remarks as a substitute. Bless.