From: MasonS on
On 11 Dec, 15:04, Adrian <toomany2...(a)> wrote:
> "Mas...(a)" <Mas...(a)> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
> > Almost as insane as taking oil that has taken millennia to produce and
> > which is a FINITE resource and then shoving it up an exhaust pipe.
> <shrug>
> Two responses come to mind.
> 1. Stop moaning, it pays your wages.
> 2. What else is it for? Just because nobody else has used it before...

Oh, I don't know. Plastics, pharmaceuticals, paints, inks, coatings,
solvents, lubricants, adhesives...

Simon Mason
From: MasonS on
On 11 Dec, 15:15, "Mr Benn" <nos...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> <Mas...(a)> wrote in message
> news:805cd537-b48f-4266-97db-ac34b9204adf(a)
> > On 11 Dec, 13:39, %ste...(a) (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >> Huge <H...(a)nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> >> > Oh, indeed. I thought the attributions made that clear, but I'm
> >> > happy to confirm that Mas...(a) is a drooling retard (as is
> >> > anyone who thinks taxation is money well spent).
> >> I think it's most amusing that someone working for bp complains about
> >> other people perpetrating rip-offs and environmental damage and rattles
> >> on about how he's saving the planet by cycling.
> > We are actually constructing a world scale bioethanol plant at our
> > site so that when you fill up your car, some of the fuel will come
> > from wheat and not oil.
> That's strange.  I had though that ethanol released CO2 when burnt.

That's right and the wheat takes it out of the atmosphere again.

Simon Mason
From: Steve Firth on
MasonS(a) <MasonS(a)> wrote:

> On 11 Dec, 15:52, %ste...(a) (Steve Firth) wrote:

> > Perhaps, instead of evading the question over and over again, you can
> > indicate where I laughed at you clothes as you claimed that I had? So
> > far you have cited a post (or rather you didn't, you quoted some
> > material, out of context without a message id presumably in the hope no
> > one would check context) that was not in reply to any post that you
> > made, and in which I make a point not about you, but specifically about
> > cyclists that I know. I even made this explicit by writing "Every bike
> > rider I know". A set which I take it you admit excludes you.
> I agree - I just said earlier that you had only mocked your workmates'
> habits and clothing and not cyclists' habits and clothing nationwide
> (which includes myself).

I note that you are still unable to accept that you were wrong.

> I am more than happy to accept that you have never mocked cyclists en
> mass, but purely only your workmates. This is a good thing as you
> accept that your workmates are not representative of cyclists as a
> whole.

And I note that once more you try to tell me what I think and what I
have said. I'm quite happy to mock cyclists en-masse. However this would
still not be a personal insult directed at you as you had claimed. A
claim that you still cannot bring yourself to retract.

You and logic, strangers forever, eh?
From: The Medway Handyman on
Phil W Lee wrote:
> Peter Grange <peter(a)> considered Thu, 10 Dec 2009
> 19:36:18 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:16:40 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
>> <davidlang(a)> wrote:
>>> mileburner wrote:
>>>> MasonS(a) wrote:
>>>>> I stand corrected, he just laughed at my car and clothes then, my
>>>>> apologies.
>>>> It is better to be laughed at for you car and clothes, than to be
>>>> laughed at for your lack of ability to comprehend the tax system,
>>>> your hypocrisy, you poor attitude to other road users and your vile
>>>> postings.
>>> So, suggesting you pay your way counts as a 'vile' posting does it?
>> "The only good cyclist is a dead cyclist" does.
>>> I suppose it does. You are so adverse to putting your hands in
>>> your pocket the very though must be vile.
>> More bollocks.
>>> --
>>> Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
> Best to put it in the killfile I reckon.
> It's impervious to reason or logic, and blind to any facts.
> I think it will make a good mate for the J troll, although I must
> admit it worries me what they might produce.

Resorting to insults again, because you can't justify being a sponging

Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist

From: The Medway Handyman on
MasonS(a) wrote:
> On 11 Dec, 01:06, JNugent <J...(a)> wrote:
>> Mas...(a) wrote:
>>> On 10 Dec, 18:33, JNugent <J...(a)> wrote:
>>>>> I don't care if it is a cheque or cash, it all comes out of my
>>>>> bank in the long run. If they fiddle their tax returns it's on
>>>>> their conscience, not mine.
>>>> So you always insist on a serialised receipt?- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> No - once I agree a price and pay up - that's the end of it as far
>>> as I'm concerned. A serialised receipt is no use...
>> you.
>> But insisting on it is very helpful to HMRC and your fellow
>> taxpayers..
>> But that's apparently not your concern.
> Don't be so ridiculous. The TRADER is responsible for HIS tax returns,
> not me.

Should HMRC choose to investigate and find dodgy dealings, they will
investigate the customer as well. If the trader is judged guilty of evading
tax and they suspect collusion they can (& have) prosecute both.

Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist