The Shed Thread

On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:45:04 +0100, Rob Morley
wrote:

On Sat, 19 May 2012 20:18:13 +0100
Bertie Wooster wrote:

Shed walls are up. Roof tomorrow.

You should have put the roof up first, in case it rains.

I looked carefully at the Met Office website and no rain was forecast.
A few spots would not have hurt anyway.

Here's a pic taken from my bedroom window.
http://www.britishschoolofcycling.co...os/shed/07.jpg

Order of day:
#1 cut back trees
#2 roof boards
#3 felt roof
#4 fascia and skirting
#5 wood preserver and stain

On Sat, 19 May 2012 17:25:56 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Sat, 19 May 2012 04:25:57 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller

wrote:

On Fri, 18 May 2012 08:38:12 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

On 18/05/2012 05:43, Peter Keller wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 21:49:39 +0100, Wm... wrote:


Hi Wm.
My weekend will be fine.
What success have these people had at making us feel stupid because
we use a bike for efficient enjoyable transport and recognition?
In my case, none whatever and I use bicycles as much as I have ever
done!



But now you know what a tat you are.

A tat? Now that is very floppy! Why not grim, unsympathetic, and
jargon-
spouting you censorious, secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing moron


"****" is more succinct.

And sensuous.



--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

Sat, 19 May 2012 14:29:34
uk.rec.cycling JNugent

On 19/05/2012 13:36, Wm... wrote:
Sat, 19 May 2012 13:17:11 uk.rec.cycling
JNugent


Oh, you did post a non-sequitur. That's a fact, not an opinion.

I have made a number of them.

If I tell you about my grammatical errors will you tell us about why you are
troubling this ng?

I'm presuming you have a purpose or reason.

I am interested by and in many - but not all - of the threads posted
here and the topics on which they are posted.

If you manage to read many of the threads in this ng you have more time
on your hands than me.

Do I need a better reason or purpose?

Nope, it is just that you seem a thoughtful and reasonable person so I
thought I'd ask.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Sat, 19 May 2012 20:18:13
uk.rec.cycling Bertie Wooster


Shed walls are up. Roof tomorrow.

Wouldn't Tuesday be better? I'm thinking of the weather forecast.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Sat, 19 May 2012 16:54:05
uk.rec.cycling JNugent


Did you not read my answer?

If it was in another thread or sub-thread probably not.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Fri, 18 May 2012 23:30:16
uk.rec.cycling JNugent

Wm:
I am unhappy that a thoughtful person does what you do.

I do a lot of things.

I'd much rather talk to you.

Maybe you can.

can? The stage is yours. What is it that interests you about cyclists
as you don't appear to be one yourself.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Sat, 19 May 2012 17:25:56
uk.rec.cycling Judith

On Sat, 19 May 2012 04:25:57 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
wrote:

On Fri, 18 May 2012 08:38:12 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

On 18/05/2012 05:43, Peter Keller wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 21:49:39 +0100, Wm... wrote:


Hi Wm.
My weekend will be fine.
What success have these people had at making us feel stupid because we
use a bike for efficient enjoyable transport and recognition?
In my case, none whatever and I use bicycles as much as I have ever
done!



But now you know what a tat you are.

A tat? Now that is very floppy! Why not grim, unsympathetic, and jargon-
spouting you censorious, secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing moron


"****" is more succinct.

I'm always a little disappointed when a woman so dislikes her gender in
such an obvious way.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Sun, 20 May 2012 08:42:17 uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller

On Sat, 19 May 2012 17:25:56 +0100, Judith wrote:

"****" is more succinct.

And sensuous.

I think you are pushing the boundaries of decency, Peter.

To the best of my knowledge no-one has ever said they find Judith
attractive.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 20/05/2012 11:25, Wm... wrote:

JNugent
Wm... wrote:
JNugent

Oh, you did post a non-sequitur. That's a fact, not an opinion.

I have made a number of them.
If I tell you about my grammatical errors will you tell us about why you are
troubling this ng?
I'm presuming you have a purpose or reason.

I am interested by and in many - but not all - of the threads posted here
and the topics on which they are posted.

If you manage to read many of the threads in this ng you have more time on
your hands than me.

There are *many* threads and individual postings that I do not read, here and
elsewhere.

Do I need a better reason or purpose?

Nope, it is just that you seem a thoughtful and reasonable person so I
thought I'd ask.

OK.

Sun, 20 May 2012 14:37:21
uk.rec.cycling JNugent


Nope, it is just that you seem a thoughtful and reasonable person so I
thought I'd ask.

OK.

Do you have a visceral dislike of bicycles or people that ride them?

That seems to cover the basis for most of the antis.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days