|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
It's not every day...
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:53:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2017 21:17, wrote: On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:25:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 14/07/2017 18:02, wrote: I assume you have evidence that I do not use my own money to buy newspapers when I choose to do so. How can you possibly have used your own money to buy newspapers when you haven't bought one for about twenty-five years (though you're uncklear about the Sunday Telegraph)? Or have you already forgotten when you wrote in your previous post? At the time (may 11 1990) I was working with Colin Pillinger at the Open University, we were at a seminar day at the Royal Society. £18Kpa seemed like a fortune after being a student. And? You asked how it was possible I used my own money to buy a newspaper and I have answered your question. Do 'Road Users' include cyclists in your fairy tale world? No more so than pedestrians (of which latter group I make no criticism). So why do cyclists have to obey road rules if they are not road users? Who said cyclists are not road users? You did. Certainly not I. I said that they are no more road-users than pedestrians are. And they aren't. Make your mind up. You may (or, possibly, may not) recall that we were discussing people other than cyclists (ie, we were discussing the ones who pay billions of taxes annually in various taxes and duties in addition to the usual incom tax, NI, VAT, etc). That would be the £6 billion motorists pay in [Road Tax] Why did you alter my post? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
It's not every day...
On 22/07/2017 22:28, wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:53:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/07/2017 21:17, wrote: On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:25:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 14/07/2017 18:02, wrote: I assume you have evidence that I do not use my own money to buy newspapers when I choose to do so. How can you possibly have used your own money to buy newspapers when you haven't bought one for about twenty-five years (though you're uncklear about the Sunday Telegraph)? Or have you already forgotten when you wrote in your previous post? At the time (may 11 1990) I was working with Colin Pillinger at the Open University, we were at a seminar day at the Royal Society. £18Kpa seemed like a fortune after being a student. And? You asked how it was possible I used my own money to buy a newspaper and I have answered your question. You seem confused. You said that you haven't bought a newspaper for twenty-five years. You then asked what evidence I have that you do not use your own money to buy nespapers. You had provided that evidence when you said that you had not bought a newspaper for twenty-five years. Asserting that you once bought a newspaper in 1990 neither undermines nor miliotates against what you had already said. I do hope you manage to clear up the confusion in your own mind about thvat. As it happens, your evidence was fairly clear; it's just that you don't seem to understand your own statements. Do 'Road Users' include cyclists in your fairy tale world? No more so than pedestrians (of which latter group I make no criticism). So why do cyclists have to obey road rules if they are not road users? Who said cyclists are not road users? You did. Not in the slightest, and the reasons for your confusion about newspaper-buying start to become clearer: you don't understand plain English, even when you have written it. I said that cyclists are no more road-users than are pedestrians. That is not a statement to the effect that cyclists are not road-users. Perjhaps you'll evenbtually be able to understand that when you have grown more familiar with English. Certainly not I. I said that they are no more road-users than pedestrians are. And they aren't. Make your mind up. There is no conflict implicit in what I said. There *might* be a conflict in your mind as to the meaning of a perfectly simple sentence. We have already seen the evidence of that (above). You may (or, possibly, may not) recall that we were discussing people other than cyclists (ie, we were discussing the ones who pay billions of taxes annually in various taxes and duties in addition to the usual incom tax, NI, VAT, etc). That would be the £6 billion motorists pay in [Road Tax] Why did you alter my post? I didn't. So what are you talking about (assuming you know, which is far from guaranteed, given your patently limited understanding of English)? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
It's not every day...
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:38:35 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2017 22:28, wrote: On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:53:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/07/2017 21:17, wrote: On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:25:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 14/07/2017 18:02, wrote: I assume you have evidence that I do not use my own money to buy newspapers when I choose to do so. How can you possibly have used your own money to buy newspapers when you haven't bought one for about twenty-five years (though you're uncklear about the Sunday Telegraph)? Or have you already forgotten when you wrote in your previous post? At the time (may 11 1990) I was working with Colin Pillinger at the Open University, we were at a seminar day at the Royal Society. £18Kpa seemed like a fortune after being a student. And? You asked how it was possible I used my own money to buy a newspaper and I have answered your question. You seem confused. You said that you haven't bought a newspaper for twenty-five years. You then asked what evidence I have that you do not use your own money to buy nespapers. You had provided that evidence when you said that you had not bought a newspaper for twenty-five years. Asserting that you once bought a newspaper in 1990 neither undermines nor miliotates against what you had already said. I do hope you manage to clear up the confusion in your own mind about thvat. As it happens, your evidence was fairly clear; it's just that you don't seem to understand your own statements. Do 'Road Users' include cyclists in your fairy tale world? No more so than pedestrians (of which latter group I make no criticism). So why do cyclists have to obey road rules if they are not road users? Who said cyclists are not road users? You did. Not in the slightest, and the reasons for your confusion about newspaper-buying start to become clearer: you don't understand plain English, even when you have written it. I said that cyclists are no more road-users than are pedestrians. That is not a statement to the effect that cyclists are not road-users. Perjhaps you'll evenbtually be able to understand that when you have grown more familiar with English. Certainly not I. I said that they are no more road-users than pedestrians are. And they aren't. Make your mind up. There is no conflict implicit in what I said. There *might* be a conflict in your mind as to the meaning of a perfectly simple sentence. We have already seen the evidence of that (above). You may (or, possibly, may not) recall that we were discussing people other than cyclists (ie, we were discussing the ones who pay billions of taxes annually in various taxes and duties in addition to the usual incom tax, NI, VAT, etc). That would be the £6 billion motorists pay in [Road Tax] Why did you alter my post? I didn't. So what are you talking about (assuming you know, which is far from guaranteed, given your patently limited understanding of English)? Wow! What a diatribe just to avoid admitting you are wrong. Guess I must have hit a nerve. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
It's not every day...
On 30/07/2017 14:53, wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:38:35 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 22/07/2017 22:28, wrote: On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:53:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/07/2017 21:17, wrote: On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:25:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 14/07/2017 18:02, wrote: I assume you have evidence that I do not use my own money to buy newspapers when I choose to do so. How can you possibly have used your own money to buy newspapers when you haven't bought one for about twenty-five years (though you're uncklear about the Sunday Telegraph)? Or have you already forgotten when you wrote in your previous post? At the time (may 11 1990) I was working with Colin Pillinger at the Open University, we were at a seminar day at the Royal Society. £18Kpa seemed like a fortune after being a student. And? You asked how it was possible I used my own money to buy a newspaper and I have answered your question. You seem confused. You said that you haven't bought a newspaper for twenty-five years. You then asked what evidence I have that you do not use your own money to buy nespapers. You had provided that evidence when you said that you had not bought a newspaper for twenty-five years. Asserting that you once bought a newspaper in 1990 neither undermines nor miliotates against what you had already said. I do hope you manage to clear up the confusion in your own mind about thvat. As it happens, your evidence was fairly clear; it's just that you don't seem to understand your own statements. Do 'Road Users' include cyclists in your fairy tale world? No more so than pedestrians (of which latter group I make no criticism). So why do cyclists have to obey road rules if they are not road users? Who said cyclists are not road users? You did. Not in the slightest, and the reasons for your confusion about newspaper-buying start to become clearer: you don't understand plain English, even when you have written it. I said that cyclists are no more road-users than are pedestrians. That is not a statement to the effect that cyclists are not road-users. Perjhaps you'll evenbtually be able to understand that when you have grown more familiar with English. Certainly not I. I said that they are no more road-users than pedestrians are. And they aren't. Make your mind up. There is no conflict implicit in what I said. There *might* be a conflict in your mind as to the meaning of a perfectly simple sentence. We have already seen the evidence of that (above). You may (or, possibly, may not) recall that we were discussing people other than cyclists (ie, we were discussing the ones who pay billions of taxes annually in various taxes and duties in addition to the usual incom tax, NI, VAT, etc). That would be the £6 billion motorists pay in [Road Tax] Why did you alter my post? I didn't. So what are you talking about (assuming you know, which is far from guaranteed, given your patently limited understanding of English)? Wow! What a diatribe just to avoid admitting you are wrong. Guess I must have hit a nerve. You didn't. I wasn't wrong. You were. You said you hadn't bought a news paper since 1990, then you asked me what evidence I had for saying (ie, repeating) that you hadn't bought a paper since 1990. Your only possible "point" is that no-one should believe a word you write. Either you haven't bought a paper since 1990 (which is what you said) or you have. Which is it this time? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
It's not every day...
On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 3:22:40 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 30/07/2017 14:53, wrote: On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:38:35 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 22/07/2017 22:28, wrote: On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:53:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/07/2017 21:17, wrote: On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:25:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 14/07/2017 18:02, wrote: I assume you have evidence that I do not use my own money to buy newspapers when I choose to do so. How can you possibly have used your own money to buy newspapers when you haven't bought one for about twenty-five years (though you're uncklear about the Sunday Telegraph)? Or have you already forgotten when you wrote in your previous post? At the time (may 11 1990) I was working with Colin Pillinger at the Open University, we were at a seminar day at the Royal Society. £18Kpa seemed like a fortune after being a student. And? You asked how it was possible I used my own money to buy a newspaper and I have answered your question. You seem confused. You said that you haven't bought a newspaper for twenty-five years. You then asked what evidence I have that you do not use your own money to buy nespapers. You had provided that evidence when you said that you had not bought a newspaper for twenty-five years. Asserting that you once bought a newspaper in 1990 neither undermines nor miliotates against what you had already said. I do hope you manage to clear up the confusion in your own mind about thvat. As it happens, your evidence was fairly clear; it's just that you don't seem to understand your own statements. Do 'Road Users' include cyclists in your fairy tale world? No more so than pedestrians (of which latter group I make no criticism). So why do cyclists have to obey road rules if they are not road users? Who said cyclists are not road users? You did. Not in the slightest, and the reasons for your confusion about newspaper-buying start to become clearer: you don't understand plain English, even when you have written it. I said that cyclists are no more road-users than are pedestrians. That is not a statement to the effect that cyclists are not road-users.. Perjhaps you'll evenbtually be able to understand that when you have grown more familiar with English. Certainly not I. I said that they are no more road-users than pedestrians are. And they aren't. Make your mind up. There is no conflict implicit in what I said. There *might* be a conflict in your mind as to the meaning of a perfectly simple sentence. We have already seen the evidence of that (above). You may (or, possibly, may not) recall that we were discussing people other than cyclists (ie, we were discussing the ones who pay billions of taxes annually in various taxes and duties in addition to the usual incom tax, NI, VAT, etc). That would be the £6 billion motorists pay in [Road Tax] Why did you alter my post? I didn't. So what are you talking about (assuming you know, which is far from guaranteed, given your patently limited understanding of English)? Wow! What a diatribe just to avoid admitting you are wrong. Guess I must have hit a nerve. You didn't. I wasn't wrong. You were. You said you hadn't bought a news paper since 1990, then you asked me what evidence I had for saying (ie, repeating) that you hadn't bought a paper since 1990. Your only possible "point" is that no-one should believe a word you write.. Either you haven't bought a paper since 1990 (which is what you said) or you have. Which is it this time? Definitely time for your afternoon nap. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
It's not every day...
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|