Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: mileburner on 3 Dec 2009 05:37 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7nphnqF3n4836U6(a)mid.individual.net... > "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> message news:SIDRm.11223$Ym4.7974(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... >>> The only good cyclist is a dead cyclist. > >> That comment certainly highlights the problems that cyclists face on the >> roads. > > I find it hilarious that David Lang, the Medway Handyman (http:// > www.medwayhandyman.co.uk/) thinks that he's actually doing anything > positive by advertising his business in this manner. Not only that, he makes remarks which are hateful and thoroughly offensive and publishes his home address in the public domain.
From: Adrian on 3 Dec 2009 05:41 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Do you buy bike bits as a motorist, too? > Clearly it *is* too hard for a non-cycling motorist to understand. At the moment, I'm neither a cyclist or a motorist. But at other times, I am both. > And yes, I do. You would seem to be heading towards agreeing with Duhg that somebody who uses a car, no matter how occasionally, can never be a "proper cyclist"...
From: Adrian on 3 Dec 2009 05:43 Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> You are qualifying the argument after the event, which is a well-known >>> usenet ploy. >>It's difficult to correct you before you're wrong. > You changed the argument afterwards, not me. Not at all. > There is no qualification about "as a cyclist" in the original > statement. There shouldn't need to be. > Am I or am I not a cyclist? Yes I am. Do I pay VED? Yes I do. But not as a cyclist you don't. I sometimes wear a hat. Am I a hat-wearer? <checks reflection> No, I am not. Does whether I wear a hat or not affect whether I pay VED? No, it does not.
From: Peter Grange on 3 Dec 2009 05:45 On 3 Dec 2009 10:20:42 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much >like they were saying: > >> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> message news:SIDRm.11223$Ym4.7974(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... >>> The only good cyclist is a dead cyclist. > >> That comment certainly highlights the problems that cyclists face on the >> roads. > >I find it hilarious that David Lang, the Medway Handyman (http:// >www.medwayhandyman.co.uk/) thinks that he's actually doing anything >positive by advertising his business in this manner. Presumably he can arrange to kill cyclists in a "reliable, honest, polite and friendly" manner then. -- Pete
From: dan on 3 Dec 2009 05:48
Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> writes: > I sometimes wear a hat. Am I a hat-wearer? <checks reflection> No, I am > not. Does whether I wear a hat or not affect whether I pay VED? No, it > does not. And again, I sometimes drive a car. At present, I am not driving a car. Last time I paid VED I was not driving a car. It seems that paying VED and driving cars are no more closely linked than paying VED and wearing hats. -dan |