Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Adrian on 3 Dec 2009 06:43 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 3 Dec 2009 06:47 "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 3 Dec 2009 06:49 "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 3 Dec 2009 06:49 "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 3 Dec 2009 06:54
"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. |