Use the cycle path, it is there for a reason

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:49:59 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:12:19 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 31/03/2014 21:43, Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:21:19 +0100, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

snip

Many *choose* to do so. Probably for a variety of reasons.

Proper cycling gear is certainly more comfortable when cycling hard -
it doesn't have to be in the garish colours often seen, but
unfortunately it can be quite difficult to find in plainer colours.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

I didn't want to wear fluorescent pink, skin tight lycra - but it was
all I could find!

Ha ha ha ha ha!


I really didn't think it *possible* for anybody to be moronic enough
to find that funny.

When you said "it can be quite difficult to find in plainer colours", that was funny. You can buy plain cycling shorts. Black for example.

--
When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because they push back harder. -- Billy Connelly

On 01/04/2014 21:48, Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:03:52 +0100, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:43:17 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:

snip

Many *choose* to do so. Probably for a variety of reasons.

Proper cycling gear is certainly more comfortable when cycling hard -
it doesn't have to be in the garish colours often seen, but
unfortunately it can be quite difficult to find in plainer colours.

Loose clothing is more comfortable than tight clothing. It allows a greater freedom of movement.

As is so often the case when you make a definitive black and white
statement, you are simply wrong.

How about a definitive fluorescent pink statement?

What clothing is more comfortable depends on what you are doing, and
what the clothing is designed for.

And in this case, it is simply not open to argument. Performance
clothing, designed to do the job properly is undoubtedly the most
comfortable choice when indulging in any form of serious exercise.

Then why does it have to be fluorescent pink?


Some people undoubtedly wear it because they want to show off - for
the same reason some people going for a quiet riverbank stroll in the
fields will wear clothes suitable for trekking in extreme conditions.

Only if they want to look like an idiot.

That doesn't seem to stop many.

Alas not.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:43:34 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:36:40 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:20:55 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:37:19 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 21:14:01 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 10:39:14 +0100, Peter Keller

wrote:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 22:40:11 +0000, Uncle Peter wrote:













beauty is in the eye .... etc

Surely nobody thinks this looks beautiful?
http://www.kansaslaw.com/wp-content/...ge_arts016.jpg

I am sure glad to be labelled as nobody by the uncle.

[Peter Keller states he find the male cyclist in the photo beautiful]

Interesting...

Thank you.

Are you a homosexual? (Honest question, not intended to be an insult)

I refuse to answer --- etc

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:44:12 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:38:11 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:03:52 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

Only if they want to look like an idiot.

It is a real pleasure for me to look like an idiot in the Uncle's eyes.

And the eyes of virtually every non-cyclist.

That is a real great honour, to be seen as an idiot by the uncle.
Now if I could please have the further honour of being a thick-headed trog
and a skeet?

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:49:59 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:12:19 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 31/03/2014 21:43, Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:21:19 +0100, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

snip

Many *choose* to do so. Probably for a variety of reasons.

Proper cycling gear is certainly more comfortable when cycling hard -
it doesn't have to be in the garish colours often seen, but
unfortunately it can be quite difficult to find in plainer colours.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

I didn't want to wear fluorescent pink, skin tight lycra - but it was
all I could find!

Ha ha ha ha ha!


I really didn't think it *possible* for anybody to be moronic enough to
find that funny.

Well it is.
You have not lived.

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:43:51 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:37:10 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:21:19 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:38:34 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 21:25:30 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 21:19:58 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 22:40:11 -0000, "Uncle Peter"
wrote:













Because you don't notice the rest

I do, it's so unusual that I think "my god, a cyclist dressed in
everyday clothes!"

Put it this way, you wouldn't dress up like that for any other
reason.
Why should cycling require a completely different set of clothing to
anything else?

Bicycling does not *require* a completely different set of clothing
to anything else.

So why do most choose to do so?

You ask them.

This is a cycling group, so I have.

So ask the ones who wear the clothing which you so despise.

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:44:42 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:41:06 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:21:35 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:39:36 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 21:26:06 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 21:21:35 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:57:51 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:










Because that is your (rather silly) opinion.

Having never seen a gay movie, I wouldn't have a clue what extras
in one might look like anyhow, but you are much more likely to
actually notice the ones who stand out because they are wearing
garish clothing.

It's kinda obvious what a gay rave movie would look like. Have you
never sen what Freddie Mercury used to wear?

Who is Freddy Mercury?

The lead singer of Queen, dumbass.

Who is Queen?

Light metal I guess.

Oh, whatever that is.

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:44:30 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:40:38 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:21:35 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

dumbass.

And thank you very much kind sir for your great accolade!
Now I am working towards the higher honour, especially bestowed by the
Uncle, of green-nostriled, crossed eyed, hairy-livered, goisher kopf,
inbred trout-defiler.
Please?

I have never used that label.

Oh please? it would make me really ecstatic!

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:01:56 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:45:07 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 21:26:06 +0100, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 21:21:35 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:57:51 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 29/03/2014 21:32, Alex Heney wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 02:59:20 -0000, "Uncle Peter"
wrote:







Correct, but the anti-cycling morons don't seem to believe that.


that is, in fact, the main point I was making there - cycling most
certainly does not *make* you wear anything.

Then why do the majority of cyclists look like extras in a gay rave
movie?

Because that is your (rather silly) opinion.

Having never seen a gay movie, I wouldn't have a clue what extras in
one might look like anyhow, but you are much more likely to actually
notice the ones who stand out because they are wearing garish
clothing.

It's kinda obvious what a gay rave movie would look like.

Is it?

Have you never sen what Freddie Mercury used to wear?

Yep.

It certainly didn't look anything remotely like the lycra many cyclists
wear.

They both clearly fall into the homosexual category. Skin tight is NOT
for men.

Why not?

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:52:11 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:52:22 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:01:56 +0100, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:45:07 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 21:26:06 +0100, "Uncle Peter"
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 21:21:35 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:57:51 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:









Because that is your (rather silly) opinion.

Having never seen a gay movie, I wouldn't have a clue what extras
in one might look like anyhow, but you are much more likely to
actually notice the ones who stand out because they are wearing
garish clothing.

It's kinda obvious what a gay rave movie would look like.

Is it?

Have you never sen what Freddie Mercury used to wear?

Yep.

It certainly didn't look anything remotely like the lycra many
cyclists wear.

They both clearly fall into the homosexual category.

I would call that a lie, except that I believe you may actually be
stupid enough to believe there is anything "clearly homosexual".

So it is just you making a really moronic statement.

Skin tight is NOT for men.

That is your (very stupid) opinion.

It is the opinion of most. You will never see a straight man wearing
skin tight clothing when not on a bicycle.

I am extremely glad to be not in the category of "most", especially if
"most" means "people like Uncle Peter"