Another headbutting cyclist

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 9:43:14 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 8:08:39 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2019 19:37, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:23:32 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There is no evidence (let alone proof) that most cyclists are as
law-abiding

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35101252
2 million cyclists

https://road.cc/content/news/232506-...lated-offences
847 offences

I'd say that constitutes 'most'.

But... to be scrupulously fair, you do say a *lot* of very silly
things

I am not the one one who claimed trains should have to stop at level
crossings until the driver operated a 'manual device', and said
'manual device' would not operate if there was the remotest
possibility it would inconvenience a motorist.

Prat.

Thats Professor Doctor Prat to you.

On 25/09/2019 17:23, JNugent wrote:

There is no evidence (let alone proof) that most cyclists are as
law-abiding and public-spirited as you claim. Some undoubtedly are 9and
that is not denied), but you cannot say "most" on the basis of
non-existent evidence for that proposition.

You have no evidence or (apparently) no first hand experience to support
your claims.

Don't even think of taking up a course on moral or scientific
philosophy. You won't survive the first day without picking a fight with
the lecturer.

Perhaps you should go on such a course and tell us all about it.

Besides, what the f*** is scientific philosophy. The only thing that
matters is statistics.

On 25/09/2019 21:11, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 8:08:39 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2019 19:37, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:23:32 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There is no evidence (let alone proof) that most cyclists are as
law-abiding

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35101252
2 million cyclists

https://road.cc/content/news/232506-...lated-offences
847 offences

I'd say that constitutes 'most'.

But... to be scrupulously fair, you do say a *lot* of very silly things
(even by the standards of "your side" in this NG), so... no change there.

So you admit I am right and you are wrong.

See what I mean about your constantly saying very stupid things?

On 25/09/2019 21:18, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 8:08:39 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2019 19:37, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:23:32 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There is no evidence (let alone proof) that most cyclists are as
law-abiding

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35101252
2 million cyclists

https://road.cc/content/news/232506-...lated-offences
847 offences

I'd say that constitutes 'most'.

But... to be scrupulously fair, you do say a *lot* of very silly things

I am not the one one who claimed trains should have to stop at level crossings until the driver operated a 'manual device', and said 'manual device' would not operate if there was the remotest possibility it would inconvenience a motorist.

Quite right. You have never made such a sensible and obvious suggestion
as to what can be done in order to reduce and prevent unnecessary
congestion.

On 25/09/2019 23:30, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/09/2019 17:23, JNugent wrote:

There is no evidence (let alone proof) that most cyclists are as
law-abiding and public-spirited as you claim. Some undoubtedly are
9and that is not denied), but you cannot say "most" on the basis of
non-existent evidence for that proposition.

You have no evidence or (apparently) no first hand experience to support
your claims.

Jester-Fool was the one making claims (without evidence).

I declined to agree with his unevidenced claims. I made no counter-claim.

If you were better at English comprehension, you'd both know that.

Don't even think of taking up a course on moral or scientific
philosophy. You won't survive the first day without picking a fight
with the lecturer.

Perhaps you should go on such a course and tell us all about it.

it's not my job to educate either of you.

Besides, what the f*** is scientific philosophy. The only thing that
matters is statistics.

I've seen it all before - you are a stroppy 14-yr-old, just starting
your O-levels (or whatever they have as a substitute these days) and are
feeling bolshie. I claim my five pounds.

On 26/09/2019 01:31, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2019 23:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/09/2019 17:23, JNugent wrote:

There is no evidence (let alone proof) that most cyclists are as
law-abiding and public-spirited as you claim. Some undoubtedly are
9and that is not denied), but you cannot say "most" on the basis of
non-existent evidence for that proposition.

You have no evidence or (apparently) no first hand experience to
support your claims.

Jester-Fool was the one making claims (without evidence).

I was replying to your statement, above.

I declined to agree with his unevidenced claims. I made no counter-claim.

It depends on whether you're considering only this thread or things you
have said over many years.

If you were better at English comprehension, you'd both know that.

When enough people don't understand you, yours is the problem.

Don't even think of taking up a course on moral or scientific
philosophy. You won't survive the first day without picking a fight
with the lecturer.

Perhaps you should go on such a course and tell us all about it.

it's not my job to educate either of you.

Give us a taster so we can decide whether it's worth bothering to look
deeper. (In your own words, please, not a link or copy and paste.)

Besides, what the f*** is scientific philosophy. The only thing that
matters is statistics.

I've seen it all before - you are a stroppy 14-yr-old, just starting
your O-levels (or whatever they have as a substitute these days) and are
feeling bolshie. I claim my five pounds.

So I can send the cheque, let us know the hospital and your room number.

On 26/09/2019 08:42, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 8:08:39 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2019 19:37, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:23:32 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There is no evidence (let alone proof) that most cyclists are as
law-abiding

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35101252
2 million cyclists

https://road.cc/content/news/232506-...lated-offences
847 offences

I'd say that constitutes 'most'.

But... to be scrupulously fair, you do say a *lot* of very silly
things

I am not the one one who claimed trains should have to stop at level
crossings until the driver operated a 'manual device', and said
'manual device' would not operate if there was the remotest
possibility it would inconvenience a motorist.

Prat.


Thanks very much for that excellent compliment emanating from YOU.
After all I ride a bicycle, a very convenient delightful economical
viable means of transport, and we all know that YOU think bicyclists are
the ****witted pits of humanity.
I really feel complimented by that, because YOU said it.

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 1:26:07 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2019 21:11, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 8:08:39 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2019 19:37, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:23:32 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There is no evidence (let alone proof) that most cyclists are as
law-abiding

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35101252
2 million cyclists

https://road.cc/content/news/232506-...lated-offences
847 offences

I'd say that constitutes 'most'.

But... to be scrupulously fair, you do say a *lot* of very silly things
(even by the standards of "your side" in this NG), so... no change there.

So you admit I am right and you are wrong.

See what I mean about your constantly saying very stupid things?

Evidence that over 99% of cyclists obey the law is stupid?
If you have evidence that only 'some' cyclists obey the law you should cite it.

On 29/09/2019 23:12, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 1:26:07 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2019 21:11, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 8:08:39 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2019 19:37, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:23:32 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There is no evidence (let alone proof) that most cyclists are as
law-abiding

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35101252
2 million cyclists

https://road.cc/content/news/232506-...lated-offences
847 offences

I'd say that constitutes 'most'.

But... to be scrupulously fair, you do say a *lot* of very silly things
(even by the standards of "your side" in this NG), so... no change there.

So you admit I am right and you are wrong.

See what I mean about your constantly saying very stupid things?

Evidence that over 99% of cyclists obey the law is stupid?
If you have evidence that only 'some' cyclists obey the law you should cite it.

See what I mean about your constantly saying very stupid things?

Keep 'em coming.

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 11:47:38 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 29/09/2019 23:12, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 1:26:07 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2019 21:11, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 8:08:39 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2019 19:37, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:23:32 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There is no evidence (let alone proof) that most cyclists are as
law-abiding

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35101252
2 million cyclists

https://road.cc/content/news/232506-...lated-offences
847 offences

I'd say that constitutes 'most'.

But... to be scrupulously fair, you do say a *lot* of very silly things
(even by the standards of "your side" in this NG), so... no change there.

So you admit I am right and you are wrong.

See what I mean about your constantly saying very stupid things?

Evidence that over 99% of cyclists obey the law is stupid?
If you have evidence that only 'some' cyclists obey the law you should cite it.

See what I mean about your constantly saying very stupid things?

Keep 'em coming.

So you have no evidence to support your claim that only 'some' cyclists obey the law.