From: Steve Firth on
DavidR <curedham(a)> wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <> wrote in message

> > I've already commented on your attempts to put words into my mouth.
> I have not attributed anything to you that you have not said. What you have
> said does not show a grip of reality.

That's quite simply a lie.


> > Libel is, I suppose, a step on from ad hominem. Just not a very good
> > direction to choose. No doubt you will later try to argue that my
> > behaviour falls far short of the perfection shown by the URC clique, and
> > then you'll wonder why people are laughing at you.
> Well, if it bothers you, use English words.

The fact that your education stopped at grunting and pointing doesn't
give you the right to libel someone.
From: boltar2003 on
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:50:03 +0000
Derek Geldard <impex(a)> wrote:
>My experience does tell me to expect delegates to pig out on expenses,
>and in the longer term to build highly paid empires motivated by their
>sole desire to maximise their salary take that would make a banker
>You don't think so ?
>They all made their way to W.W. Copenhagen on foot and in rowing
>boats, and are currently living in tents on pickled herrings are
>they ?

Just because politicians are a bunch of disingenuous liars doesn't mean
the science is wrong. Given that these vermin are quite happy making
political capital out of visiting soldiers in hospital wards and pretending
to sympathises with their injuries thanks to a war they started , why is it
such a surprise that they'll use climate change to further their own ends?


From: DavidR on
"The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)> wrote
> DavidR wrote:
>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)> wrote
>>> DavidR wrote:
>>>> "Strangely Composed" <here(a)there.nowhere> wrote
>>>>> If you're going to quibble... DavidR said:
>>>>>> "Conor" <conor(a)> wrote
>>>>>>> In article <hfe63g$6ql$1(a)>, mileburner
>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>> While out on my bike today, I was thinking to myself, I wonder
>>>>>>>> what the vehicle emissions are on my bikes and what the VED
>>>>>>>> would be if there was any. I came to the conclusion that the
>>>>>>>> emissions are nil and the VED would
>>>>>>>> be zero.
>>>>>>> So you're a clueless cyclist. I'll give you a lesson.
>>>>>>> When you cycle, you exert energy over and above that of a person
>>>>>>> who is driving a car or walking.
>>>>>> Cycling does not require more energy than walking.
>>>>> Even if you assume cycling at walking pace the cyclist still has to
>>>>> move the mass of the bike as well as him/herself, which will take
>>>>> more energy. There is also additional energy required to overcome
>>>>> the friction
>>>>> inherent in the mechanisms of the cycle.
>>>>> As cyclists tend to move faster than walkers other factors such as
>>>>> overcoming wind resistance and kinetic energy conversion.
>>>> Oh, really? When I get on a bike I somehow make do with the same
>>>> engine as when I walk yet manage to go further & faster. In
>>>> accordance with Newton's laws it suggests the machine is more
>>>> efficient. Perhaps you know otherwise?
>>> Typical cyclists bollox.
>>> To compare cyclists to walkers is not a scientific comparison.
>>> Walkers proceed at approx 4 mph, cyclists at 12 mph. Cyclists could
>>> not sustain such a low speed, walkers could not sustain such a high
>>> speed without running.
>> You can't think of any scientific measure other than comparing speed?
>> You miss your calling as a science adviser to the shower that claim
>> to be the Government.
> If you had the intellect to read the post properly you would have spotted
> words like 'sustain'.

Whether spotted or not please explain its relevance.

I see no one has come back with a response to my earlier post about heart
rates. If there is a flaw with it, anybody with good intellect, such as
yourself, should easily be able to see it.

> Just a shame you are a fuckwit really.

Ah no, I was wrong on one count.

From: DavidR on
"The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)> wrote
> DavidR wrote:
>> "Steve Firth" <> wrote

>>> And more ad hominem, it just comes naturally to you, doesn't it?
>> Still drunk.
> And you are still stupid. At least he will be sober in the morning.

That is a modification of a quotation attributed to Winston Churchill. And
yet, by some accounts, sobriety and Winston Churchill were not particularly
comfortable together.

From: MasonS on
On 4 Dec, 12:02, %ste...(a) (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Peter Grange <pe...(a)> wrote:
> > Would probably lower the blood pressure actually. Cycling's good for
> > that :-)
> How odd then that the twats who post to urc and urcm act as if they are
> permanently on the edge of bursting a blood vessel.

Nuxxy and Guy Cuthbertson for sure, but they're "both" rabid
frustrated boy racers, not cyclists.

Simon Mason