Pro cyclists

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'?

On 17/10/2019 00:20, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 12:13:37 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 04:39, Simon Jester wrote:

On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 1:22:42 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 00:07, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:30:27 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 4:12:54 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote:

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.

Drivers who don't indicate are mine.

I've yet to see a cyclist sticking an arm out when turning a corner.

Maybe they also drive BMWs?

Cyclists can't afford Beemers.

Why would anyone with an IQ greater than a turnip want an overpriced rebadged Skoda anyway?

You cannot possibly be as stupid as you are trying to make out.
Or... can you?
Perhaps you can.

Are you a carspotter or a road enthusiast?

No.

So you are a Roadspotter.

No.

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).

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.

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.

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:10:07 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 00:20, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 12:13:37 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 04:39, Simon Jester wrote:

On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 1:22:42 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 00:07, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:30:27 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 4:12:54 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote:

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.

Drivers who don't indicate are mine.

I've yet to see a cyclist sticking an arm out when turning a corner.

Maybe they also drive BMWs?

Cyclists can't afford Beemers.

Why would anyone with an IQ greater than a turnip want an overpriced rebadged Skoda anyway?

You cannot possibly be as stupid as you are trying to make out.
Or... can you?
Perhaps you can.

Are you a carspotter or a road enthusiast?

No.

So you are a Roadspotter.

No.

So what are you? Apparently anyone who doesn't what a Beemer is must be stupid in your mind.
Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone worships the mythical god Road Tax?

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.

On 17/10/2019 02:03, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:10:07 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 00:20, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 12:13:37 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 04:39, Simon Jester wrote:

On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 1:22:42 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 00:07, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:30:27 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 4:12:54 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote:

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.

Drivers who don't indicate are mine.

I've yet to see a cyclist sticking an arm out when turning a corner.

Maybe they also drive BMWs?

Cyclists can't afford Beemers.

Why would anyone with an IQ greater than a turnip want an overpriced rebadged Skoda anyway?

You cannot possibly be as stupid as you are trying to make out.
Or... can you?
Perhaps you can.

Are you a carspotter or a road enthusiast?

No.

So you are a Roadspotter.

No.

So what are you? Apparently anyone who doesn't what a Beemer is must be stupid in your mind.

Not at all.

But a person who knows what a "beemer" is and "thinks" that BMW cars are
designed and made by Skoda is an absolute idiot.

Now... who has exhibited that belief over the last few posts? Anyone we
know?

Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone worships the mythical god Road Tax?

Assuming you know, what on Earth are you trying to talk about?

[No meaningful answer will come in reply to that, and that's for sure.]

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.

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 2:10:21 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 02:03, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:10:07 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2019 00:20, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 12:13:37 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 04:39, Simon Jester wrote:

On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 1:22:42 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 00:07, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:30:27 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 4:12:54 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote:

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.

Drivers who don't indicate are mine.

I've yet to see a cyclist sticking an arm out when turning a corner.

Maybe they also drive BMWs?

Cyclists can't afford Beemers.

Why would anyone with an IQ greater than a turnip want an overpriced rebadged Skoda anyway?

You cannot possibly be as stupid as you are trying to make out.
Or... can you?
Perhaps you can.

Are you a carspotter or a road enthusiast?

No.

So you are a Roadspotter.

No.

So what are you? Apparently anyone who doesn't what a Beemer is must be stupid in your mind.

Not at all.

But a person who knows what a "beemer" is and "thinks" that BMW cars are
designed and made by Skoda is an absolute idiot.

Now... who has exhibited that belief over the last few posts? Anyone we
know?

Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone worships the mythical god Road Tax?

Assuming you know, what on Earth are you trying to talk about?

[No meaningful answer will come in reply to that, and that's for sure.]

Aardvark.