From: Happi Monday on
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:25:49 -0000, Conor <conor(a)> wrote:
>> What do you think volcanos do?
> Generally they leak small quantities of greenhouse gasses into the
> atmosphere; they occasionally spew huge quantities of greenhouse
> gasses into the atmosphere for a short period of time. Rarely they
> can have a significant impact on global CO2 levels for a period of
> many years before the Earth re-balances itself. The Earth does this,
> mostly by absorbing the CO2 into the oceans generating growth spurts
> of algae which then dies and falls to the ocean bed and is taken out
> of the carbon chain for a great many thousands of years.
> Unfortunately, the Earth cannot cope with the increasing volumes of
> CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere by mankind. But the problem may
> not be irreversible if carbon emissions are significantly reduced.

God, you are on boring fucker!
From: JNugent on
MasonS(a) wrote:

> On 13 Dec, 22:01, JNugent <J...(a)> wrote:
>> Mas...(a) wrote:

>>> [ ... ] If you add on <long list of made-up numbers> and many,
>>> many other costs to society, the amount of tax taken from the average
>>> driver does in no way pay for even a half of the entire cost to
>>> society. The last time I checked it was about 25% of the cost.

>> I'll not make too much of your category error there.
>> Let it suffice to remark that even on your unsupported figure, it would only
>> take four drivers to pay the whole of these alleged "costs" to society.

>> And that's before you add in the benefits to society.

> It's my day off and I can't be arsed to find the 25% link


Or something.
From: Happi Monday on
The Medway Handyman wrote:
> Happi Monday wrote:
>> The Medway Handyman wrote:
>>> Janet & John see Simple Simon.
>>> They call him Simple Simon because he's a bit thick.
>>> Simple Simon thinks horses are vehicles!
>>> Simple Simon thinks shoes are vehicles!
>>> Simple Simon thinks children's toys are vehicles!
>>> See Janet & John laugh at Simple Simon for making a prat out of
>>> himself again.
>> I confess, if you're as good at handymaning as you are at comedy, I'd
>> use your services :-)
> Thank you kind sir. One does ones best :-)

Hmmm, that's the first time I've been referred to as "sir", but thank
you anyway.
From: JNugent on
MasonS(a) wrote:
> On 14 Dec, 11:20, Adrian <toomany2...(a)> wrote:
>> "Mas...(a)" <Mas...(a)> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>> Even our work's HSE dept has admitted that relying solely on hi-vis is a
>>> failure.
>> "Relying solely on hi-vis" is not the same as "ignoring hi-vis
>> completely", of course.
>> Yes, of course a decent set of lights is vital. But - equally - hi-vis
>> can help to identify "that little red light in the distance" as a cyclist
>> as early as possible, which can only be of benefit.
> I agree, but JNugent doesn't believe that reflective bits on specific
> cycling clothing counts as hi-vis, it's a cheapo builder's vest or
> nothing for him.


I don't remember anything at all about any such topic.

Perhaps you could cite the post?

Or perhaps it's your day off and you "can't be arsed", just like you "can't
be arsed" to look up the figures that support your odd=view that the costs of
"motoring" [TM] are five times the amount collected in motoring taxes?
From: Happi Monday on
The Medway Handyman wrote:

> Then again, Simon isn't a particularly sensible bloke is he? Didn't he
> suggest I run my business from a push bike?#

Judging by the amount of daytime you spend posting here, I doubt you
actually have a business.