Pro cyclists

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 2:11:21 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 02:07, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:59:47 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 01:53, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:11:23 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 00:25, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 12:11:59 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 04:33, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 1:21:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2019 19:12, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 6:13:22 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2019 17:31, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 3:05:52 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2019 13:33, Bod wrote:

In The Beginning there was UK.TRANSPORT and UK.REC.CYCLING.

The Cyclists pointed out that UK.TRANSPORT only discussed motor
vehicles, and it was so.

The Prophet Huge Davies thus created UK.REC.DRIVING, and all was
peaceful.

Then came JNUGENT who claimed UK.RAILWAY was not an appropriate forum
to discuss railways in the uk. So was the flame war born and
destroyed usenet.

You are seriously weird.

Why are you talking to the man in the mirror?

Jester/Fool is a man in a mirror?

What does it even mean?

I thought that was obvious. The is no uk.transport.cycling so we have to use this group.

That's fine. You won't hear any criticism of that by me. I don't care
whether the subject is utility (transport) cycling, recreational cycling
(whatever that might be) or even cycle collection. I do, however,
sometimes note that topics raised here have no element of, or connection
with, cycling in any sense.

Oh dear... no comment on that, for some reason.

If you want me to comment on your posts they need to make sense.

I'm sorry - whilst I have a smattering (and no more than that) of a
couple of other languages, I can really only communicate well in English.

I know you have difficulty with that, but I'm afraid there's nothing I
can do to ameliorate it.

But then you are the one who claimed uk.railway was not appropriate for a discussion about uk railways.

Nonsense.

Perhaps some non-railway connected sub-thread, but certainly not
discussions about railways (or their enthusiastic fans).

No nonsense. When you started your famous 'trains should have to stop at level crossings' stupidity you kept removing uk.railway from the group lists because it was a 'trainspotters' group.

It IS a trainspotters' group.

First you deny it, now you admit it.

"Admit" what?

That sentence (in English... I know....) is what is known as a
"statement", not an "admission".

When and if you are more familiar with the language you may come to
understand these finer points of distinction.

Whilst there are (or were) some sensible people posting there, too many
of them are just "railway enthusiasts" with no sense of time having
moved on since 1885 or so. A bit like some cyclists, really.

But saying so is exceptionally far from saying that uk.railway is not
appropriate for a discussion about uk railways. They can "discuss" (ie,
obsess about) rolling stock and signal layouits to their hearts' content
for all I care.

I have never read uk.railway so I have no idea what you are ranting about.

You didn't let your admitted ignorance of the subject or the language
stop you, though?

I don't speak Thieving Scally. Do you now admit you kept removing uk.railway from the group list when you made your stupid claim that trains should have to stop at level crossings until the driver operated a 'manual device'?

What on Earth (assuming you know) are you trying to talk about?

You don't have to answer if it's too difficult (and it will be).

Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for inadvertently proving mine.

What a clever comeback. I think it is time we promoted you to a half-wit.

That really is the best you can do, isn't it?

Jester/Fool. Well-named.

I met with the review panel this morning and you are now officially promoted to halfwit, congratulations.

JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 02:07, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:59:47 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 01:53, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:11:23 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 00:25, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 12:11:59 PM UTC+1, JNugent
wrote:
On 16/10/2019 04:33, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 1:21:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent
wrote:
On 15/10/2019 19:12, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 6:13:22 PM UTC+1, JNugent
wrote:
On 15/10/2019 17:31, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 3:05:52 PM UTC+1, JNugent
wrote:
On 15/10/2019 13:33, Bod wrote:

In The Beginning there was UK.TRANSPORT and
UK.REC.CYCLING.

The Cyclists pointed out that UK.TRANSPORT only
discussed motor vehicles, and it was so.

The Prophet Huge Davies thus created UK.REC.DRIVING,
and all was peaceful.

Then came JNUGENT who claimed UK.RAILWAY was not an
appropriate forum to discuss railways in the uk. So
was the flame war born and destroyed usenet.

You are seriously weird.

Why are you talking to the man in the mirror?

Jester/Fool is a man in a mirror?

What does it even mean?

I thought that was obvious. The is no uk.transport.cycling
so we have to use this group.

That's fine. You won't hear any criticism of that by me. I
don't care whether the subject is utility (transport)
cycling, recreational cycling (whatever that might be) or
even cycle collection. I do, however, sometimes note that
topics raised here have no element of, or connection with,
cycling in any sense.

Oh dear... no comment on that, for some reason.

If you want me to comment on your posts they need to make
sense.

I'm sorry - whilst I have a smattering (and no more than that)
of a couple of other languages, I can really only communicate
well in English. I know you have difficulty with that, but I'm
afraid there's
nothing I can do to ameliorate it.

But then you are the one who claimed uk.railway was not
appropriate for a discussion about uk railways.

Nonsense.

Perhaps some non-railway connected sub-thread, but
certainly not discussions about railways (or their
enthusiastic fans).

No nonsense. When you started your famous 'trains should
have to stop at level crossings' stupidity you kept removing
uk.railway from the group lists because it was a
'trainspotters' group.

It IS a trainspotters' group.

First you deny it, now you admit it.

"Admit" what?

That sentence (in English... I know....) is what is known as a
"statement", not an "admission".

When and if you are more familiar with the language you may
come to understand these finer points of distinction.

Whilst there are (or were) some sensible people posting
there, too many of them are just "railway enthusiasts" with
no sense of time having moved on since 1885 or so. A bit like
some cyclists, really. But saying so is exceptionally far from
saying that
uk.railway is not appropriate for a discussion about uk
railways. They can "discuss" (ie, obsess about) rolling stock
and signal layouits to their hearts' content for all I care.

I have never read uk.railway so I have no idea what you are
ranting about.

You didn't let your admitted ignorance of the subject or the
language stop you, though?

I don't speak Thieving Scally. Do you now admit you kept
removing uk.railway from the group list when you made your
stupid claim that trains should have to stop at level crossings
until the driver operated a 'manual device'?

What on Earth (assuming you know) are you trying to talk about?

You don't have to answer if it's too difficult (and it will be).

Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for inadvertently proving mine.

What a clever comeback. I think it is time we promoted you to a
half-wit.

That really is the best you can do, isn't it?

Jester/Fool. Well-named.

+1

On 17/10/2019 19:27, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 2:11:21 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 02:07, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:59:47 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 01:53, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:11:23 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 00:25, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 12:11:59 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 04:33, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 1:21:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2019 19:12, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 6:13:22 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2019 17:31, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 3:05:52 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2019 13:33, Bod wrote:

In The Beginning there was UK.TRANSPORT and UK.REC.CYCLING.

The Cyclists pointed out that UK.TRANSPORT only discussed motor
vehicles, and it was so.

The Prophet Huge Davies thus created UK.REC.DRIVING, and all was
peaceful.

Then came JNUGENT who claimed UK.RAILWAY was not an appropriate forum
to discuss railways in the uk. So was the flame war born and
destroyed usenet.

You are seriously weird.

Why are you talking to the man in the mirror?

Jester/Fool is a man in a mirror?

What does it even mean?

I thought that was obvious. The is no uk.transport.cycling so we have to use this group.

That's fine. You won't hear any criticism of that by me. I don't care
whether the subject is utility (transport) cycling, recreational cycling
(whatever that might be) or even cycle collection. I do, however,
sometimes note that topics raised here have no element of, or connection
with, cycling in any sense.

Oh dear... no comment on that, for some reason.

If you want me to comment on your posts they need to make sense.

I'm sorry - whilst I have a smattering (and no more than that) of a
couple of other languages, I can really only communicate well in English.

I know you have difficulty with that, but I'm afraid there's nothing I
can do to ameliorate it.

But then you are the one who claimed uk.railway was not appropriate for a discussion about uk railways.

Nonsense.

Perhaps some non-railway connected sub-thread, but certainly not
discussions about railways (or their enthusiastic fans).

No nonsense. When you started your famous 'trains should have to stop at level crossings' stupidity you kept removing uk.railway from the group lists because it was a 'trainspotters' group.

It IS a trainspotters' group.

First you deny it, now you admit it.

"Admit" what?

That sentence (in English... I know....) is what is known as a
"statement", not an "admission".

When and if you are more familiar with the language you may come to
understand these finer points of distinction.

Whilst there are (or were) some sensible people posting there, too many
of them are just "railway enthusiasts" with no sense of time having
moved on since 1885 or so. A bit like some cyclists, really.

But saying so is exceptionally far from saying that uk.railway is not
appropriate for a discussion about uk railways. They can "discuss" (ie,
obsess about) rolling stock and signal layouits to their hearts' content
for all I care.

I have never read uk.railway so I have no idea what you are ranting about.

You didn't let your admitted ignorance of the subject or the language
stop you, though?

I don't speak Thieving Scally. Do you now admit you kept removing uk.railway from the group list when you made your stupid claim that trains should have to stop at level crossings until the driver operated a 'manual device'?

What on Earth (assuming you know) are you trying to talk about?

You don't have to answer if it's too difficult (and it will be).

Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for inadvertently proving mine.

What a clever comeback. I think it is time we promoted you to a half-wit.

That really is the best you can do, isn't it?

Jester/Fool. Well-named.

I met with the review panel this morning and you are now officially promoted to halfwit, congratulations.

Same childish retort two days running? Yes, it must be the best you can do.

On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:56:23 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 19:27, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 2:11:21 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 02:07, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:59:47 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 01:53, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:11:23 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 00:25, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 12:11:59 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 04:33, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 1:21:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2019 19:12, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 6:13:22 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2019 17:31, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 3:05:52 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2019 13:33, Bod wrote:

In The Beginning there was UK.TRANSPORT and UK.REC.CYCLING.

The Cyclists pointed out that UK.TRANSPORT only discussed motor
vehicles, and it was so.

The Prophet Huge Davies thus created UK.REC.DRIVING, and all was
peaceful.

Then came JNUGENT who claimed UK.RAILWAY was not an appropriate forum
to discuss railways in the uk. So was the flame war born and
destroyed usenet.

You are seriously weird.

Why are you talking to the man in the mirror?

Jester/Fool is a man in a mirror?

What does it even mean?

I thought that was obvious. The is no uk.transport.cycling so we have to use this group.

That's fine. You won't hear any criticism of that by me. I don't care
whether the subject is utility (transport) cycling, recreational cycling
(whatever that might be) or even cycle collection. I do, however,
sometimes note that topics raised here have no element of, or connection
with, cycling in any sense.

Oh dear... no comment on that, for some reason.

If you want me to comment on your posts they need to make sense.

I'm sorry - whilst I have a smattering (and no more than that) of a
couple of other languages, I can really only communicate well in English.

I know you have difficulty with that, but I'm afraid there's nothing I
can do to ameliorate it.

But then you are the one who claimed uk.railway was not appropriate for a discussion about uk railways.

Nonsense.

Perhaps some non-railway connected sub-thread, but certainly not
discussions about railways (or their enthusiastic fans).

No nonsense. When you started your famous 'trains should have to stop at level crossings' stupidity you kept removing uk.railway from the group lists because it was a 'trainspotters' group.

It IS a trainspotters' group.

First you deny it, now you admit it.

"Admit" what?

That sentence (in English... I know....) is what is known as a
"statement", not an "admission".

When and if you are more familiar with the language you may come to
understand these finer points of distinction.

Whilst there are (or were) some sensible people posting there, too many
of them are just "railway enthusiasts" with no sense of time having
moved on since 1885 or so. A bit like some cyclists, really.

But saying so is exceptionally far from saying that uk.railway is not
appropriate for a discussion about uk railways. They can "discuss" (ie,
obsess about) rolling stock and signal layouits to their hearts' content
for all I care.

I have never read uk.railway so I have no idea what you are ranting about.

You didn't let your admitted ignorance of the subject or the language
stop you, though?

I don't speak Thieving Scally. Do you now admit you kept removing uk.railway from the group list when you made your stupid claim that trains should have to stop at level crossings until the driver operated a 'manual device'?

What on Earth (assuming you know) are you trying to talk about?

You don't have to answer if it's too difficult (and it will be).

Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for inadvertently proving mine.

What a clever comeback. I think it is time we promoted you to a half-wit.

That really is the best you can do, isn't it?

Jester/Fool. Well-named.

I met with the review panel this morning and you are now officially promoted to halfwit, congratulations.

Same childish retort two days running? Yes, it must be the best you can do.

I see you are taking your new responsibilities seriously. Keep up the good work.

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 19:13:56 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 02:07, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:59:47 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 01:53, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:11:23 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 00:25, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 12:11:59 PM UTC+1, JNugent
wrote:
On 16/10/2019 04:33, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 1:21:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent
wrote:
On 15/10/2019 19:12, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 6:13:22 PM UTC+1, JNugent
wrote:
On 15/10/2019 17:31, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 3:05:52 PM UTC+1, JNugent
wrote:
On 15/10/2019 13:33, Bod wrote:

In The Beginning there was UK.TRANSPORT and
UK.REC.CYCLING.

Mr 'Rational Thought' added one insult and used up all these electrons.



--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On 18/10/2019 08:13, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:



+1



Thanks greatly for the compliment.

On 18/10/2019 02:07, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:56:23 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 19:27, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 2:11:21 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 02:07, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:59:47 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 01:53, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:11:23 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 00:25, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 12:11:59 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 04:33, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 1:21:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2019 19:12, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 6:13:22 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2019 17:31, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 3:05:52 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2019 13:33, Bod wrote:

In The Beginning there was UK.TRANSPORT and UK.REC.CYCLING.

The Cyclists pointed out that UK.TRANSPORT only discussed motor
vehicles, and it was so.

The Prophet Huge Davies thus created UK.REC.DRIVING, and all was
peaceful.

Then came JNUGENT who claimed UK.RAILWAY was not an appropriate forum
to discuss railways in the uk. So was the flame war born and
destroyed usenet.

You are seriously weird.

Why are you talking to the man in the mirror?

Jester/Fool is a man in a mirror?

What does it even mean?

I thought that was obvious. The is no uk.transport.cycling so we have to use this group.

That's fine. You won't hear any criticism of that by me. I don't care
whether the subject is utility (transport) cycling, recreational cycling
(whatever that might be) or even cycle collection. I do, however,
sometimes note that topics raised here have no element of, or connection
with, cycling in any sense.

Oh dear... no comment on that, for some reason.

If you want me to comment on your posts they need to make sense.

I'm sorry - whilst I have a smattering (and no more than that) of a
couple of other languages, I can really only communicate well in English.

I know you have difficulty with that, but I'm afraid there's nothing I
can do to ameliorate it.

But then you are the one who claimed uk.railway was not appropriate for a discussion about uk railways.

Nonsense.

Perhaps some non-railway connected sub-thread, but certainly not
discussions about railways (or their enthusiastic fans).

No nonsense. When you started your famous 'trains should have to stop at level crossings' stupidity you kept removing uk.railway from the group lists because it was a 'trainspotters' group.

It IS a trainspotters' group.

First you deny it, now you admit it.

"Admit" what?

That sentence (in English... I know....) is what is known as a
"statement", not an "admission".

When and if you are more familiar with the language you may come to
understand these finer points of distinction.

Whilst there are (or were) some sensible people posting there, too many
of them are just "railway enthusiasts" with no sense of time having
moved on since 1885 or so. A bit like some cyclists, really.

But saying so is exceptionally far from saying that uk.railway is not
appropriate for a discussion about uk railways. They can "discuss" (ie,
obsess about) rolling stock and signal layouits to their hearts' content
for all I care.

I have never read uk.railway so I have no idea what you are ranting about.

You didn't let your admitted ignorance of the subject or the language
stop you, though?

I don't speak Thieving Scally. Do you now admit you kept removing uk.railway from the group list when you made your stupid claim that trains should have to stop at level crossings until the driver operated a 'manual device'?

What on Earth (assuming you know) are you trying to talk about?

You don't have to answer if it's too difficult (and it will be).

Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for inadvertently proving mine.

What a clever comeback. I think it is time we promoted you to a half-wit.

That really is the best you can do, isn't it?

Jester/Fool. Well-named.

I met with the review panel this morning and you are now officially promoted to halfwit, congratulations.

Same childish retort two days running? Yes, it must be the best you can do.

I see you are taking your new responsibilities seriously. Keep up the good work.

That's variation on a theme at least, though hardly worthy of being
called a response. I expect it went down well at your junior school.

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 17:02:42 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Bod wrote:
On 13/10/2019 15:55, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/10/2019 12:09, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Violent, uncouth, foul mouthed, littering ******* who shave their
legs. Little wonder that they are detested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBOlo4t3JtM




You forgot 'drug users' 'spitters' 'law breaking' 'tdf wannabees'
'vigilantees' 'cheats' and of course 'untraceable scum'

'Boy racers top poll to find the most annoying British road users'

Boy racers and drivers who don't say thanks when you've let them out
are the two most annoying types of road user for British motorists,
according to an AA/Autocar survey that shows there's a need for better
manners on the UK's roads.

Boy racers are the most annoying, with 42 per cent of UK drivers
naming them as their number one irritation, but 41 per cent of those
surveyed named drivers who don't say thanks as the type they most
dislike.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/m...-most-annoying

Just what has this 10 year old article have to do with cycling, Bod?

So 10 years having passed means it's no longer relevant? Do we not use cars any more?

Just to annoy you, I'm replying to a 7 month old message (I spotted it when tidying up my newsreader, so sue me).

And to answer the question, I'd say the most annoying are those who don't let people out. I let people out, and whether they say thanks or not (can be difficult when using your hands to operate the car) is irrelevant to me. But when I see a car trying to pull out of a sideroad and 30 cars in front of me don't bother making a gap, it ****es me off.

On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 6:00:47 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:

And to answer the question, I'd say the most annoying are those who don't let people out. I let people out, and whether they say thanks or not (can be difficult when using your hands to operate the car)

Maybe the drivers can't say thanks as they have a mobile 'phone in their hand?

On Fri, 29 May 2020 18:09:09 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:

On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 6:00:47 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:

And to answer the question, I'd say the most annoying are those who don't let people out. I let people out, and whether they say thanks or not (can be difficult when using your hands to operate the car)

Maybe the drivers can't say thanks as they have a mobile 'phone in their hand?

Can't you drive no handed? You only need a hand on the wheel to turn.

But seriously, I have no problem using a phone, a sandwich, or a bottle of coke while driving. You only use one hand unless you're changing gear or indicating. Just put the phone down at that point.