On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 20:22:50 GMT, TMS320 wrote:

On 21/02/2019 17:42, MrCheerful wrote:
On 21/02/2019 17:33, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
On 21/02/2019 16:10, MrCheerful wrote...

...nothing about cycling. As usual.

Then why did you reply?
Pillock.

Contrast to Bod's post. I bet you wouldn't have sent that link had
he not.

I have not seen 'bod's' post, so it is not related to that at all,

I didn't say it was related. I just told you to look at it for an
example of something that *is* relevant to cycling and cyclists.

I use
the special algorithm written by Simon to filter out the stupidest
posters. (which means most of the 'anti the rest of the world' morons
that inhabit this group)Â* Bring back Doug I say!!

Bod isn't a stupid poster. Nobody is "anti the rest of the world". But
when you keep saying cyclists do this and that as though that
particular person's behaviour doesn't happen elsewhere what sort of
response do you expect to get?

Surely anything about any cyclist in the UK is actually on topic for
this group?Â* or am I missing something?Â* Perhaps there is something
in the groups charter?Â* or perhaps there is not.Â* My bet is on the
latter.

The group is called uk.rec.cycling. A different word to "cyclist"

I have never tried to fall back on "charters"; there is nothing to
stop you from posting. All that can be done is to tell you that most
of your posts reporting a common crime where the bicycle is nothing
more than identifying feature - like another criminal's car, shoes,
coat or hairstyle - has nothing to do with cycling.



Mr "Cheerful" is anything but.



--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.