From: Adrian on
dan(a)telent.net gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

> * The unqualified statement "Cyclists don't pay VED" is incorrect
> unless a person is only considered a cyclist while astride the bike,

Which, of course, is absolutely bob-on, otherwise Duhg is correct in his
assertion that uk.rec.cycling is full of "closet-motorists".

> * This could be considered to be splitting hairs

Yes, it could. But - sometimes - that's necessary, in order to shut the
muppets up trying to claim "But I'm a cyclist and I pay VED!"

If having paid VED for one vehicle carried any weight towards any
additional vehicles, I'd be a very happy bloke with a healthier bank
balance.

More worryingly, though, if "I'm a cyclist and I pay VED!" was correct,
Duhg would be proved right for once, and the sane world would implode.
From: mileburner on

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7npiviF3n4836U7(a)mid.individual.net...

> 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"...

You seem to be twisting things to try to make them mean the opposite, is
this so that you can make an argument out of it?


From: mileburner on

"Peter Grange" <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sh5fh5p46nq9gl5gjedvfjckuq6g8g4tdi(a)4ax.com...
> 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.

Is that one of the little jobs he does, or one of the bigger ones?


From: Adrian on
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>> 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"...

> You seem to be twisting things to try to make them mean the opposite, is
> this so that you can make an argument out of it?

Not at all.

If you are a cyclist in everything you do, then surely you are also a
motorist in everything you do? Even riding a bike...
From: mileburner on

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7npmj8F3n4836U12(a)mid.individual.net...
> dan(a)telent.net gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> * The unqualified statement "Cyclists don't pay VED" is incorrect
>> unless a person is only considered a cyclist while astride the bike,
>
> Which, of course, is absolutely bob-on, otherwise Duhg is correct in his
> assertion that uk.rec.cycling is full of "closet-motorists".

Thanks for that. It must mean that I am neither a cyclist not a motorist, in
fact all I am is a monkey on a keyboard posting drivel to Usenet.

>> * This could be considered to be splitting hairs
>
> Yes, it could. But - sometimes - that's necessary, in order to shut the
> muppets up trying to claim "But I'm a cyclist and I pay VED!"

You should have just said that in the first place, instead of trying to shut
us up with your pathetic arguing. That method failed.