From: mileburner on
MasonS(a) wrote:
> By the same token, I could be a 65 year multi millionaire who has paid
> vast sums in income tax and NI over my career, but chooses to use my
> Brompton to go to the train station everyday. Yet some 17 year old
> scrote who has just passed his test in his Nova bips his horn at me as
> he has paid "road tax" and I am in his way.
> That's how people like Medway Van Driver's mind works, sadly.

Cyclists do tend to be slightly higher up the socio-economic scale than
17year old scrotes in Novas and odd-job men who go about in vans.

From: MasonS on
On 6 Dec, 13:23, Conor <co...(a)> wrote:
> In article <867b9ab4-a44a-433c-9d1c-c983963201b2
>>, Mas...(a) says...
> > The carbon coming out of your car is *new* carbon that was previously
> > locked away for millions of years.
> So it isn't new carbon then, is it? Its old carbon being released.

That's as dumb as saying that the molten iron in the Earth's core is
the same old iron from when the Earth was formed 5 billion years ago
(that's 5,000 million years) and we can therefore tap into it and pour
it over the planet's surface with no harm done.

Simon Mason
From: Tom Crispin on
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 06:18:06 -0800 (PST), "MasonS(a)"
<MasonS(a)> wrote:

>On 6 Dec, 13:21, Conor <co...(a)> wrote:
>> In article <23235dc8-ba90-4d7a-b648-3ca741e4ff65@
>>>, Mas...(a) says...
>> > On 5 Dec, 23:31, Conor <co...(a)> wrote:
>> > > In article <0c2f34b5-12b2-4ab8-84aa-756320ec18a5
>> > >>, Mas...(a) says...
>> > > > Sadly though the world's current oil consumption is 86 million barrels
>> > > > *a day", so your 2.5 billion barrels cited above will only last around
>> > > > a *month* not 79 years.
>> > > > The entire known world oil reserves will last about 36 years at
>> > > > *current* consumption levels.
>> > > Err, it was the global definition of a billon whch is a million
>> > > million, not the UK definition.
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > > I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
>> > Er, it's the other way round!
>> You may want to do some research...
>> --
>> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>The BRITISH billion is/was 1 million million.
>The US billion is 1000 million.
>"British prime minister Harold Wilson explained in a written answer to
>the House of Commons that UK government statistics would from then on
>use the short scale. Hansard, for the 20 December 1974, reported it:
>"Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop asked the Prime Minister whether he will make it
>the practice of his administration that when Ministers employ the word
>'billion' in any official speeches, documents, or answers to
>Parliamentary Questions, they will, to avoid confusion, only do so in
>its British meaning of 1 million million and not in the sense in which
>it is used in the United States of America, which uses the term
>'billion' to mean 1,000 million.
>The Prime Minister: No. The word 'billion' is now used internationally
>to mean 1,000 million and it would be confusing if British Ministers
>were to use it in any other sense. I accept that it could still be
>interpreted in this country as 1 million million and I shall ask my
>colleagues to ensure that, if they do use it, there should be no
>ambiguity as to its meaning."
>In oil finds the billion used is 1000 million barrels.
>If we baled the banks out to the tune of �850 billion quid and that
>is, as you contend, really �850, 000, 000, 000, 000, then we really
>*are* up sh1t creek!

That could all be solved if only Jesus was given one American cent
when he was born. If he invested it in the religion that bears his
name, and compond interest was earnt at the rate of 2% per annum, his
one cent would now be worth US $1.5 quadrillion, or 30 times the value
of the entire world economy.
From: Peter Grange on
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:26:42 -0000, Conor <conor(a)> wrote:

>In article <1g2nh553v5j7pg067ct22kp5c230frb2ks(a)>, Peter Grange
>> "The only good cyclist is a dead cyclist" passes for a "comment" in
>> your world does it?
>It does in most of the country save that inhabited by weaselly men with
>no bollocks.

You do move in the strangest circles, you know.


From: johnwright ""john" on
Conor wrote:
> In article <6ae2e4c1-d316-4b4a-85d9-87d8921d2009
>>, MasonS(a) says...
>> They are PhDs and think that I emit more CO2 on my bike as I breathe
>> more than them and therefore emit more CO2 than their 4.2 litre 4x4s -
>> there's no hope is there?
> Considering man made CO2 has absolutely no effect on climate change at
> all, why does it matter?

You have some proof of that - real proof I mean not some illegally
hacked out of context emails from UEA[1]? I sincerely hope you have no
plans to retire to the Maldive Islands or even go on holiday there since
they may cease to exist very soon.

[1] Of course the evidence of fudging of tree ring data from the 1950s
proves does not prove your case.


I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore

?John Wright