On 29/06/2020 12:50, JNugent wrote:
On 29/06/2020 08:19, TMS320 wrote:

On 28/06/2020 15:26, JNugent wrote:
On 28/06/2020 12:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/06/2020 20:37, JNugent wrote:

Simon... do you REALLY think that anyone believes you have me
killfiled? ;-)

You have now been prompted to reply - twice in very quick succession -

The threading shows you are wrong.

You are naive.

I know you have a very overrated sense of self-importance.

Did Simon ever manage to sell that special "killfile" he has for use
with Google Groups? Surely the world is waiting for it? Even Google
would surely pay a pretty penny for the rights to it?

Ask him.

to my accurate observation that this "Cawkwell" character is a
fully qualified cyclist but is *not* - and cannot be described as -
a "driver".

For goodness' sake put a sock in it.

Which bit of my observation on that person was incorrect or untruthful?

Neither.

Thank you.

It was, in other words, 100% accurate.

Just a nonsense "obvervation".

Ah... a new definition... "Nonsense" - something which is 100% true but
which TMS320 doesn't like.

I'm going by the Cambridge dictionary definition:
~ nonsense - an idea, something said or written, or behaviour that is
silly or stupid.

Thank you again. That you have said it is informative, about you.

You're obviously very pleased with yourself for thinking it up, given
the number of times you have used it.

It's a straightforward truth. And I will remind you of it whenever one
of the usual suspects tries blames a (non-qualified and therefiore
non-existent) driver for the actions of a fully-qualified cyclist in
mishandling a vehicle he/she is not qualified to drive or ride. Where
the person in charge of the vehicle *is* a driver, it won't apply or be
applied.

Your one about the safety of other road users being more important than
your convenience was much better.