From: Conor on
In article <thq9h59v48poocktlfvm2objdp7orclqs3(a)4ax.com>, Peter Grange
says...
=
> More bollocks.

So what direct costs do you pay to maintain the roads, bearing in mind
that taxation on motor vehicles is eight times the road maintenance and
buiding budget?


--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Steve Firth on
Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

> Idiot.

Keep the sig.
From: Steve Firth on
Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
> > Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> See previous comment about "tu quoque" it really does draw you like a
> >>> moth to a candle, doesn't it?
> >> I repeat, I didn't attempt to justify either of them being there, and
> >> never have.
> >
> > Still struggling with that "tu quoque" business I see.
>
> Still using that false legal bollocks I see.

It's nothing to do with "false legal bollocks". But thanks for the
demonstration of the extent of your ignorance.

> "Oooh, it's in Latin, it must be important"

I like it when thick people pretend something isn't apposite based
purely on the depths of their ignorance.
From: Steve Firth on
Huge <Huge(a)nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> "cyclists are a bandit tribe who blithely ignore the usual laws of the road";

"riding a bike has to stop being a lawless occupation"

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article6936082.ece

(ibid.)
From: Conor on
In article <hf2fic$col$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner says...

> Although on the local housing estate where plenty of the residents are
> unemployed and live on benefits and do not pay council tax, they still
> manage to run untaxed cars on the road.

How do you know they're unemployed? Are you basing it solely on the
virtue that they live on a council estate?

--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.