Cheerfully wrong

On 22/11/2010 15:16, Mrcheerful wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 21/11/2010 22:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 21/11/2010 17:50, JNugent wrote:
On 21/11/2010 16:53, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 21/11/2010 16:40, JNugent wrote:
On 21/11/2010 16:19, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 21/11/2010 00:30, JNugent wrote:
On 21/11/2010 00:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:

I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am
clearly too dim to formulate any reasonable response.

IFYPFY.

Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after
suffering a brain injury after a cycling accident where he
was not wearing a cycle helmet.

You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say
something like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes
you look.

Is it more "crass" than "I've scraped higher life forms off my
shoe"?

Yes.

Why?
Because it was about you?

You really don't see why, do you? Good grief.

As to whether Mr Cheerful's comments about you (about which I pass
no particular comment) was any worse than some other savant saying
that the dirt on his shoe is a higher life-form than Mr Cheerful
(ditto), I leave as an open question.
There's little difference between them, as far as I can see.
But one of them was about you, and you obviously don't like that.

Ah, so not only do you not understand, you don't even know to which
remark I was referring.

Don't be so bloody silly.
It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
exception. It was what he had (just) said about you and you not only
quoted it but you responded to it. It's all there, just above.

He said (about you):
"Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering
a brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a
cycle helmet."

And you said (to him):
"You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say
something like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you
look".

At that point, I wondered how far along the crassness continuum you
thought the (fairly recent) remarks of a different poster might be.
Let's face it, there are some pretty crass things said in this NG -
by some people.

I'd give up at that point if I were you.

Why? Are you going to start moving the goalposts even further apart,
perhaps by trying to argue about the meaning of a word in my posting?

Could I just point out that it was not me that said anything about brain
damage.
Quite how that has got attributed to me I do not have a clue. I pointed out
that I do not generally make any personally abusive comments. I do make
wide ranging ones about cyclists in general, the same as most people in the
country do every day.

In that case, I do apologise for mis-attributing that particular comment.

It was made by someone though, and it was not I who altered the attributions
within the post to which I responded.

JNugent wrote:
On 22/11/2010 15:16, Mrcheerful wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 21/11/2010 22:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 21/11/2010 17:50, JNugent wrote:
On 21/11/2010 16:53, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 21/11/2010 16:40, JNugent wrote:
On 21/11/2010 16:19, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 21/11/2010 00:30, JNugent wrote:
On 21/11/2010 00:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:

I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am
clearly too dim to formulate any reasonable response.

IFYPFY.

Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after
suffering a brain injury after a cycling accident where he
was not wearing a cycle helmet.

You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can
say something like that blissfully unaware of how crass it
makes you look.

Is it more "crass" than "I've scraped higher life forms off my
shoe"?

Yes.

Why?
Because it was about you?

You really don't see why, do you? Good grief.

As to whether Mr Cheerful's comments about you (about which I pass
no particular comment) was any worse than some other savant saying
that the dirt on his shoe is a higher life-form than Mr Cheerful
(ditto), I leave as an open question.
There's little difference between them, as far as I can see.
But one of them was about you, and you obviously don't like that.

Ah, so not only do you not understand, you don't even know to which
remark I was referring.

Don't be so bloody silly.
It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you
took exception. It was what he had (just) said about you and you
not only quoted it but you responded to it. It's all there, just
above.

He said (about you):
"Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after
suffering a brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not
wearing a cycle helmet."

And you said (to him):
"You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say
something like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you
look".

At that point, I wondered how far along the crassness continuum you
thought the (fairly recent) remarks of a different poster might be.
Let's face it, there are some pretty crass things said in this NG -
by some people.

I'd give up at that point if I were you.

Why? Are you going to start moving the goalposts even further apart,
perhaps by trying to argue about the meaning of a word in my
posting?

Could I just point out that it was not me that said anything about
brain damage.
Quite how that has got attributed to me I do not have a clue. I
pointed out that I do not generally make any personally abusive
comments. I do make wide ranging ones about cyclists in general,
the same as most people in the country do every day.

In that case, I do apologise for mis-attributing that particular
comment.
It was made by someone though, and it was not I who altered the
attributions within the post to which I responded.

it looks like it was Judith for the brain damage assertion. and guy for
altering the supposed reply that I had made. Why do people do that? Fair
enough to selectively snip, but not alter, thread title altering is quite
pathetic too.
Mrcheerful

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 21/11/2010 22:54, JNugent wrote:
It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
exception.

Really. You might want to check back up the thread.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEbBAEBAgAGBQJM6uniAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/pbgH+ItQ21OptfZnV2KrPXwQq0pO
0woOP3Xxo1Od/Rq5CfYuZX06YuBzHfh/boZoQZBW2iWa0B9DUhuVz2IKGzUomajo
YoRBBGvpoeoyXPPMwAIjw2HAK4IdMvdqXaCbP7qmrTg4gmm2pe M0JPk06ltvLv1+
v5roVDa0M19F6scn0fv9Et+oZvSaqDhtk0aFABPfgU69CSoJuu +06aHUAzYBgdNk
b55mG+H2UEtiHnlceK7ccwrp/suW7LmvbhF8noyxSjcXNDysqRGcDHBwtU0HzHy/
aN3ZqGE5A5VM8/qZFTP3N0ue/RtEtR0VVzs3AsITPLbHGHwQTQQmYshg2dVyDw==
=8qrH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 22/11/2010 22:08, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On 21/11/2010 22:54, JNugent wrote:

It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
exception.

Really. You might want to check back up the thread.

The poster has now - very helpfully - made it clear that the remark to which
you took exception was not his, even though the attributions had been snipped
to make it look as though it was his.

I wonder how that happened?

On Nov 21, 5:17*pm, JMS wrote:

Pathological Lying:
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for
them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught
up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities.

Actually, Judith, I think that is a pretty good description of you and
your lies. Where did it come from, you "special" OED or maybe the
"official" rule book you have?

Do you have a definition for somebody that thinks insults are good
posting? We've had quite a rush of your vitriolic bile recently in
this thread. It just shows (again) what a deeply unpleasant person you
are.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:48:42 -0800 (PST), PhilO
wrote:

On Nov 21, 5:17*pm, JMS wrote:

Pathological Lying:
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for
them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught
up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities.

Actually, Judith, I think that is a pretty good description of you and
your lies. Where did it come from, you "special" OED or maybe the
"official" rule book you have?

Do you have a definition for somebody that thinks insults are good
posting? We've had quite a rush of your vitriolic bile recently in
this thread. It just shows (again) what a deeply unpleasant person you
are.



Feel free to show anywhere where you believe I have lied.

(Showing you up as a ****** is of course not a lie as such)


--


Latest figures from DfT: KSI per billion passenger kilometres:

Van: 5 people
Bus/Coach: 9 people
Car : 18 people
Pedestrians: 358 people

Oh : and of course cyclists:
Cyclists: 541 people

Of those four modes of transport - which is the most dangerous?

(With thanks to Justin Lewis for asking me to find out the figures)

On Nov 23, 2:40*am, JNugent wrote:
On 22/11/2010 22:08, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On 21/11/2010 22:54, JNugent wrote:
It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
exception.
Really. You might want to check back up the thread.

The poster has now - very helpfully - made it clear that the remark to which
you took exception was not his, even though the attributions had been snipped
to make it look as though it was his.

I wonder how that happened?

The attributions were correct in the message that you replied to (as
far as I can tell). You must have read them wrongly.

Colin

On 24/11/2010 15:16, wrote:

On Nov 23, 2:40 am, wrote:
On 22/11/2010 22:08, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 21/11/2010 22:54, JNugent wrote:
It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
exception.
Really. You might want to check back up the thread.

The poster has now - very helpfully - made it clear that the remark to which
you took exception was not his, even though the attributions had been snipped
to make it look as though it was his.

I wonder how that happened?

The attributions were correct in the message that you replied to (as
far as I can tell). You must have read them wrongly.

They were correct as far as *I* could tell, too. So I assumed they were correct.

As you have probably noticed, I never interfere with attributions except in
cases where there is a very long thread and I am responding only to one other
poster. If an attribution line is missing, it is not because I excised it.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:29:38 +0000, JMS wrote:



Feel free to show anywhere where you believe I have lied.

(Showing you up as a ****** is of course not a lie as such)


Is that the best you can do?

What about

You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly
with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this
world.
--

snip

--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

On 24/11/10 16:50, JNugent wrote:
On 24/11/2010 15:16, wrote:

On Nov 23, 2:40 am, wrote:
On 22/11/2010 22:08, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 21/11/2010 22:54, JNugent wrote:
It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
exception.
Really. You might want to check back up the thread.

The poster has now - very helpfully - made it clear that the remark
to which
you took exception was not his, even though the attributions had been
snipped
to make it look as though it was his.

I wonder how that happened?

The attributions were correct in the message that you replied to (as
far as I can tell). You must have read them wrongly.

They were correct as far as *I* could tell, too. So I assumed they were
correct.


That's what I'm saying - they were correct. Derek C made the comment
that you thought came from Mr Cheerful, and the attributions were
correct, just a little convoluted so you must have read them wrongly.
Nobody had snipped or changed them to make it more difficult - at least
as far as I could make out.

Colin