I went for a cycle ride on Friday afternoon.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: The Medway Handyman on 23 Jun 2010 18:22 Ian Smith wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:22:41 +0100, Brimstone <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: >> >> "Ian Smith" <ian(a)astounding.org.uk> wrote in message >> news:slrni24jfa.j45.ian(a)acheron.astounding.org.uk... >>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:10:16 +0100, Brimstone >>> <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> "Ian Smith" <ian(a)astounding.org.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:slrni2403a.hss.ian(a)acheron.astounding.org.uk... >>>>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:08:07 +0100, Jim A >>>>> <ja(a)averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On 06/22/2010 10:50 PM, The Medway Handyman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I explained that "The people who drive cars that are ROAD TAX >>>>>>> free or pay a small amount still pay their way in fuel duty >>>>>>> etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> The fuel duty is charged regardless of whether you are powering >>>>>> an off-road quad, a mini-moto, a lawnmower or a private car. It >>>>>> is not road-specific. >>>>> >>>>> Red diesel doesn't exist, then? >>>>> >>>> Does red diesel have some special property that allows it to be >>>> used in a >>>> petrol engine? >>> >>> Oh so sorry, I thought from the fact that "fuel duty" occurred in >>> every quote and "petrol duty" occurred in none of them taht teh >>> discussion was about fuel duty, not petrol duty. Silly me. >>> >> However, the quote you responded to mentioned only petrol powered >> vehicles. > > Oh yes, of course. There's no such thing as a diesel-engined private > car. Dumb, dumb, dumb, how dumb can I be. Dumb enough to be a cyclist clearly. -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.
From: Brimstone on 23 Jun 2010 19:04 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:APvUn.27920$NW.24271(a)hurricane... > Dumb enough to be a cyclist clearly. > But not nearly as dumb as you.
From: NM on 24 Jun 2010 06:04 On 24 June, 00:04, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:APvUn.27920$NW.24271(a)hurricane... > > > Dumb enough to be a cyclist clearly. > > But not nearly as dumb as you. Jurys out on that one
From: Adrian on 24 Jun 2010 12:37 JNugent <jenningsltd(a)fastmail.fm> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>> I must have been so impressed its been wiped from my memory. Go on, >>>>> educate us again. >>>> Message-ID: <7om7t2F3p6crlU4(a)mid.individual.net> >>> ?????????????? >>> >>> If I click on that a new e mail opens? >> <sigh> Another one who doesn't know how to drive his software, and >> expects to be spoon-fed as a result. > FWIW, I'd be interested in reading an explanation on this as well. > > My email/usenet client parses that link as an email address (for obvious > reasons, I think) and no browser I use (and I have at least four loaded) > will see it as a URL. > > How is it *supposed* to work? It's a MessageID. Any half-decent proper news client will be able to parse it correctly. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036 Google Groups should, too, but it's terminally fucked.
From: Adrian on 24 Jun 2010 12:46
Tony Dragon <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> How is it *supposed* to work? > Go to Google Groups > Advanced search > Paste the link in the 'message ID' (without the beackets) If only Google Groups worked reliably... |