Bicyclist's toe, sometimes mistaken for gout.

On 18 Aug, 17:04, "Paul - xxx" wrote:
Mike P wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:16:59 -0700, Doug garbled:
10 miles a day on average? Peanuts. I wonder what your car mileage is
for 7 weeks?

So now Doug, someone who by their own admission and definition is not a Pure
Cyclist no matter how much they try, now reverts to slagging off another
cyclist! * You couldn't write the script ....

Actually Doug, it's 14.2 miles a day on average. Maths never was your
strong point.

Now, please tell us how much you've cycled over the last 7 weeks.

Before my disability I was capable of 60 miles a day. Currently, with
my disability, I am cycling about the same as you and don't depend on
a car.

My car mileage? I rarely use one. I go to work on the train and walk
to the station.

Yeah sure! What about weekends?

No, no no no ... walking, train, cycling, little use of the car ... no no
no, Doug will either simply not believe you or will pick some minor point
up, or make one up if he can't find a real one, to slag you off about having
a lifestyle that doesn't fit his little Pigeon Holes and polarised,
tunnel-visioned (other than when it suits him personally) view of life. *He
is in Doug World, which in no way resembles the real world.

My bet would be that he'll ask why you as a cylist are getting at him and
aren't slagging motorists off ...

He is a motorist.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.

On 19/08/2010 06:38, Doug wrote:

But what you don't seem to realise is I started posting them in the
first place as a response to anti-cyclists threads on URC. You know
the usual 'Cycling on pavements' and 'Cycling through red lights' and
'Cyclists should have number plates' drivel, not to mention all those
personal insults in responses from motorists.

So what?

Anyone can post anything they like within the boundaries and rules of
usenet, who set you up as the main arbiter?

If I didn't counter the anti-cyclist threads from motorists here who
else would take on the job? I would be happy to devolve. Any takers
who feel up to the job, bearing in mind the sheer volume of motorist
inundations?

It isn't a job, it isn't productive and if you stopped posting, they
would stop posting and URC would revert to being more cycle and cyclist
oriented.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

On Aug 19, 6:38*am, Doug wrote:
On 18 Aug, 16:56, "Paul - xxx" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On 18 Aug, 14:28, Paul - xxx wrote:
On 18/08/2010 13:15, Doug wrote:

How many more times? Why is it then that those who claim to be both
cyclists and motorists spend so much time criticising cyclists but
not motorists on URC, bearing in mind that cars can present a
considerable danger to cyclists but not vice versa?

Criticising motorists on a cycling newsgroup seems to be preaching to
the converted ..

Problem is, this newsgroup seems to be mainly populated by motorists.

Don't keep posting anti-motorist threads then. *They'll have less to reply
to and will soon **** off. *In fact, just stop posting. *As I say, posting
anti motorist threads on a cycling newsgroup is somewhat ****ing into the
wind and preaching to the already converted, somewhat.

When I'm ****ed off with a driver I'd mention it in URD not URC. When
I'm ****ed off with a cyclist I'd mention it on URC not URD ...
depending on my mood at the time and whether it's a reply to a thread
that's already being cross-posted as you often do to feed an
argument.

That still doesn't account for a preponderance of anti-cyclist threads
on URC from motorists.

They're not anti-cyclist threads, they're anti Doug and your rabid moronic
attitude threads. *They're taking the **** out of you.

I rarely feel the need to mention either general group (cyclists or
drivers) in derogatory or polarised terms. I prefer to try and solve
an issue rather than simply fan the flames and be part of the
original issue.

Nothing is as cut and dried as saying motorists or cyclists ...

As a motorist and cyclist why would I put down motorists?

As a cyclist and motorist, why would I put down cyclists?

I might put down 'a' motorist or cyclist (or group of) for being a
****wit, but so what? I'll be putting them down for being a ****wit,
not for being either a motorist or a cyclist. We don't all fit into
your particular pigeon holes, thank goodness.

My view of URC is that is should be about cyclists exchanging views
and information with each other, not somewhere for motorists to
outnumber cyclists while slagging them off.

Stop posting anti motorist threads then, see above.

But what you don't seem to realise is I started posting them in the
first place as a response to anti-cyclists threads on URC. You know
the usual 'Cycling on pavements' and 'Cycling through red lights' and
'Cyclists should have number plates' drivel, not to mention all those
personal insults in responses from motorists.

If I didn't counter the anti-cyclist threads from motorists here who
else would take on the job? I would be happy to devolve. Any takers
who feel up to the job, bearing in mind the sheer volume of motorist
inundations?

Doug.

Nobody posted

On Aug 19, 6:41*am, Doug wrote:
On 18 Aug, 18:14, francis wrote:

On Aug 18, 2:28*pm, Paul - xxx wrote:

On 18/08/2010 13:15, Doug wrote:

How many more times? Why is it then that those who claim to be both
cyclists and motorists spend so much time criticising cyclists but not
motorists on URC, bearing in mind that cars can present a considerable
danger to cyclists but not vice versa?

Criticising motorists on a cycling newsgroup seems to be preaching to
the converted ..

When I'm ****ed off with a driver I'd mention it in URD not URC. *When
I'm ****ed off with a cyclist I'd mention it on URC not URD ...
depending on my mood at the time and whether it's a reply to a thread
that's already being cross-posted as you often do to feed an argument..

I rarely feel the need to mention either general group (cyclists or
drivers) in derogatory or polarised terms. *I prefer to try and solve an
issue rather than simply fan the flames and be part of the original issue.

Nothing is as cut and dried as saying motorists or cyclists ...

As a motorist and cyclist why would I put down motorists?

As a cyclist and motorist, why would I put down cyclists?

I might put down 'a' motorist or cyclist (or group of) for being a
****wit, but so what? *I'll be putting them down for being a ****wit,
not for being either a motorist or a cyclist. *We don't all fit into
your particular pigeon holes, thank goodness.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

Doug has never beeb able to understand that a person can use more than
one form of transport depending on the circumstances at the time.

If I use a car then I can't be a cyclist, does that mean if I use a
train I can't be a motorist?

No what it means is what form of transport you depend on the most
colours your attitude towards the others. I very much doubt you use a
bicycle more than your car, if your posts are anything to go by.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.

I use trains more than I use my car, so according to you I must be
posting from the point of view of a train user.

On Aug 19, 6:38*am, Doug wrote:

But what you don't seem to realise is I started posting them in the
first place as a response to anti-cyclists threads on URC. You know
the usual 'Cycling on pavements' and 'Cycling through red lights' and
'Cyclists should have number plates' drivel, not to mention all those
personal insults in responses from motorists.

If I didn't counter the anti-cyclist threads from motorists here who
else would take on the job? I would be happy to devolve. Any takers
who feel up to the job, bearing in mind the sheer volume of motorist
inundations?

Doug.-

So basically you lead a empty and boring little existance, so you have
nothing better to do with your time!

On Aug 19, 6:43*am, Doug wrote:
On 18 Aug, 17:39, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-

blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 18 Aug, 09:17, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

This is a good way of determining if someone is a genuine cyclist or
merely a motorist pretending to be a cyclist, examine their feet.

If their saddle is the correct height a cyclist can only touch the
ground on tip-toe and if they do this frequently, usually with the
same foot, their big toe will become swollen and tender and possibly
end up misaligned. Of course this would not apply to genuine
tricycle users.

Kind of reminds me of stories about checking people for foreskins
before deciding whether to let them go or gas them.

Why would anyone *pretend* to be a cyclist seeing as they are
publicly represented by arseholes like you? When will you ever
accept that there are people who cycle, people who drive, and plenty
of people who do both? Why is it so important for you to *define*
people?

How many more times? Why is it then that those who claim to be both
cyclists and motorists spend so much time criticising cyclists but not
motorists on URC, bearing in mind that cars can present a considerable
danger to cyclists but not vice versa?

Complete bollox as usual. *In 2008 115 cyclists were killed on the road.
Lets be generous and assume all of the fatalities were caused by killer
drivers.

We have 30,000,000 motorists each doing an average of 10,000 mpa. *Thats
300,000,000,000 miles driven per year.

Thats 1 cyclist killed per 2,608,695,652 miles driven. *Or 28 times the
distance to the sun.

Considerable danger ny arse.

And all avoidable. You just love people being killed don't you.

Doug.

Another stupid comment, just because you dissagree with somebody you
have to start posting ideas that only your small mind can see.

On Aug 19, 6:46*am, Doug wrote:
On 18 Aug, 17:04, "Paul - xxx" wrote: Mike P wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:16:59 -0700, Doug garbled:
10 miles a day on average? Peanuts. I wonder what your car mileage is
for 7 weeks?

So now Doug, someone who by their own admission and definition is not a Pure
Cyclist no matter how much they try, now reverts to slagging off another
cyclist! * You couldn't write the script ....

Actually Doug, it's 14.2 miles a day on average. Maths never was your
strong point.

Now, please tell us how much you've cycled over the last 7 weeks.

Before my disability I was capable of 60 miles a day. Currently, with
my disability, I am cycling about the same as you and don't depend on
a car.

He may use a car, but why does he depend on it?


My car mileage? I rarely use one. I go to work on the train and walk
to the station.

Yeah sure! What about weekends?

Why do you not believe him, is it because it undermines your
arguement?


No, no no no ... walking, train, cycling, little use of the car ... no no
no, Doug will either simply not believe you or will pick some minor point
up, or make one up if he can't find a real one, to slag you off about having
a lifestyle that doesn't fit his little Pigeon Holes and polarised,
tunnel-visioned (other than when it suits him personally) view of life. *He
is in Doug World, which in no way resembles the real world.

My bet would be that he'll ask why you as a cylist are getting at him and
aren't slagging motorists off ...

He is a motorist.

You have had this question answered so many times, dont you understand
what people have said?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 02:30:19 -0700, francis garbled:

On Aug 19, 6:46Â*am, Doug wrote:
On 18 Aug, 17:04, "Paul - xxx" wrote:
Mike P wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:16:59 -0700, Doug garbled:
10 miles a day on average? Peanuts. I wonder what your car mileage
is for 7 weeks?

So now Doug, someone who by their own admission and definition is not
a Pure Cyclist no matter how much they try, now reverts to slagging
off another cyclist! Â* You couldn't write the script ....

Actually Doug, it's 14.2 miles a day on average. Maths never was
your strong point.

Now, please tell us how much you've cycled over the last 7 weeks.

Before my disability I was capable of 60 miles a day.

Is that all? I could do that when I was smoking and drinking FFS.

Currently, with my disability, I am cycling about the same as you

Prove it. I can put up screen shots of my cycle computer with dates/
journey times and distances. Can you?

and don't depend on a car.

No, you depend on other people using motor vehicles and aircraft to fly
and transport your airy-fairy vegan food though don't you. That's worse ..


He may use a car, but why does he depend on it?

I drive a Citroen Xantia Activa with all it's unreliability issues. Of
course I don't depend on it, that would be insane.


My car mileage? I rarely use one. I go to work on the train and
walk to the station.

Yeah sure! What about weekends?

Well, I did drive to Sainsburys and back, all of 10 miles round trip.

Why do you not believe him, is it because it undermines your arguement?

Because he's a silly old ****.

No, no no no ... walking, train, cycling, little use of the car ...
no no no, Doug will either simply not believe you or will pick some
minor point up, or make one up if he can't find a real one, to slag
you off about having a lifestyle that doesn't fit his little Pigeon
Holes and polarised, tunnel-visioned (other than when it suits him
personally) view of life. Â*He is in Doug World, which in no way
resembles the real world.

My bet would be that he'll ask why you as a cylist are getting at him
and aren't slagging motorists off ...

He is a motorist.

You have had this question answered so many times, dont you understand
what people have said?

Usenet is a write-only medium for Doug


--

Mike P

Doug wrote:
This is a good way of determining if someone is a genuine cyclist or
merely a motorist pretending to be a cyclist, examine their feet.

If their saddle is the correct height a cyclist can only touch the
ground on tip-toe and if they do this frequently, usually with the
same foot, their big toe will become swollen and tender and possibly
end up misaligned.

Sample size of one, Doug?

BugBear

Doug wrote:
On 18 Aug, 17:39, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 18 Aug, 09:17, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

This is a good way of determining if someone is a genuine cyclist
or merely a motorist pretending to be a cyclist, examine their
feet.

If their saddle is the correct height a cyclist can only touch the
ground on tip-toe and if they do this frequently, usually with the
same foot, their big toe will become swollen and tender and
possibly end up misaligned. Of course this would not apply to
genuine tricycle users.

Kind of reminds me of stories about checking people for foreskins
before deciding whether to let them go or gas them.

Why would anyone *pretend* to be a cyclist seeing as they are
publicly represented by arseholes like you? When will you ever
accept that there are people who cycle, people who drive, and
plenty of people who do both? Why is it so important for you to
*define* people?

How many more times? Why is it then that those who claim to be both
cyclists and motorists spend so much time criticising cyclists but
not motorists on URC, bearing in mind that cars can present a
considerable danger to cyclists but not vice versa?

Complete bollox as usual. In 2008 115 cyclists were killed on the
road. Lets be generous and assume all of the fatalities were caused
by killer drivers.

We have 30,000,000 motorists each doing an average of 10,000 mpa.
Thats 300,000,000,000 miles driven per year.

Thats 1 cyclist killed per 2,608,695,652 miles driven. Or 28 times
the distance to the sun.

Considerable danger ny arse.

And all avoidable. You just love people being killed don't you.

Nope, I just have a realistic perspective.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.