A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

It's not every day...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old July 21st 17, 03:53 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,917
Default It's not every day...

On 15/07/2017 21:17, wrote:

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:25:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 18:02,
wrote:

I assume you have evidence that I do not use my own money to buy newspapers when I choose to do so.


How can you possibly have used your own money to buy newspapers when you
haven't bought one for about twenty-five years (though you're uncklear
about the Sunday Telegraph)?
Or have you already forgotten when you wrote in your previous post?


At the time (may 11 1990) I was working with Colin Pillinger at the Open University, we were at a seminar day at the Royal Society.
£18Kpa seemed like a fortune after being a student.


And?

Do 'Road Users' include cyclists in your fairy tale world?


No more so than pedestrians (of which latter group I make no criticism).


So why do cyclists have to obey road rules if they are not road users?


Who said cyclists are not road users?

Certainly not I. I said that they are no more road-users than
pedestrians are. And they aren't.

You may (or, possibly, may not) recall that we were discussing people
other than cyclists (ie, we were discussing the ones who pay billions of
taxes annually in various taxes and duties in addition to the usual
incom tax, NI, VAT, etc).


That would be the £6 billion motorists pay in [Road Tax]


It would include that money, certainly.

Let's see whether you're intelligent enough to work out the (much
greater) value of other taxes paid in connection with motorised road-use.

I wouldn't put money on that, though.
Ads
  #42  
Old July 22nd 17, 10:28 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 376
Default It's not every day...

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:53:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2017 21:17, wrote:

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:25:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 18:02,
wrote:

I assume you have evidence that I do not use my own money to buy newspapers when I choose to do so.

How can you possibly have used your own money to buy newspapers when you
haven't bought one for about twenty-five years (though you're uncklear
about the Sunday Telegraph)?
Or have you already forgotten when you wrote in your previous post?


At the time (may 11 1990) I was working with Colin Pillinger at the Open University, we were at a seminar day at the Royal Society.
£18Kpa seemed like a fortune after being a student.


And?


You asked how it was possible I used my own money to buy a newspaper and I have answered your question.


Do 'Road Users' include cyclists in your fairy tale world?


No more so than pedestrians (of which latter group I make no criticism).


So why do cyclists have to obey road rules if they are not road users?


Who said cyclists are not road users?


You did.


Certainly not I. I said that they are no more road-users than
pedestrians are. And they aren't.


Make your mind up.


You may (or, possibly, may not) recall that we were discussing people
other than cyclists (ie, we were discussing the ones who pay billions of
taxes annually in various taxes and duties in addition to the usual
incom tax, NI, VAT, etc).


That would be the £6 billion motorists pay in [Road Tax]


Why did you alter my post?

  #43  
Old July 28th 17, 01:38 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,917
Default It's not every day...

On 22/07/2017 22:28, wrote:

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:53:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2017 21:17,
wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:25:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 18:02,
wrote:


I assume you have evidence that I do not use my own money to buy newspapers when I choose to do so.

How can you possibly have used your own money to buy newspapers when you
haven't bought one for about twenty-five years (though you're uncklear
about the Sunday Telegraph)?
Or have you already forgotten when you wrote in your previous post?


At the time (may 11 1990) I was working with Colin Pillinger at the Open University, we were at a seminar day at the Royal Society.
£18Kpa seemed like a fortune after being a student.


And?


You asked how it was possible I used my own money to buy a newspaper and I have answered your question.


You seem confused.

You said that you haven't bought a newspaper for twenty-five years.

You then asked what evidence I have that you do not use your own money
to buy nespapers.

You had provided that evidence when you said that you had not bought a
newspaper for twenty-five years.

Asserting that you once bought a newspaper in 1990 neither undermines
nor miliotates against what you had already said.

I do hope you manage to clear up the confusion in your own mind about
thvat. As it happens, your evidence was fairly clear; it's just that you
don't seem to understand your own statements.

Do 'Road Users' include cyclists in your fairy tale world?


No more so than pedestrians (of which latter group I make no criticism).


So why do cyclists have to obey road rules if they are not road users?


Who said cyclists are not road users?


You did.


Not in the slightest, and the reasons for your confusion about
newspaper-buying start to become clearer: you don't understand plain
English, even when you have written it.

I said that cyclists are no more road-users than are pedestrians.

That is not a statement to the effect that cyclists are not road-users.

Perjhaps you'll evenbtually be able to understand that when you have
grown more familiar with English.

Certainly not I. I said that they are no more road-users than
pedestrians are. And they aren't.


Make your mind up.


There is no conflict implicit in what I said.

There *might* be a conflict in your mind as to the meaning of a
perfectly simple sentence. We have already seen the evidence of that
(above).

You may (or, possibly, may not) recall that we were discussing people
other than cyclists (ie, we were discussing the ones who pay billions of
taxes annually in various taxes and duties in addition to the usual
incom tax, NI, VAT, etc).


That would be the £6 billion motorists pay in [Road Tax]


Why did you alter my post?


I didn't.

So what are you talking about (assuming you know, which is far from
guaranteed, given your patently limited understanding of English)?
  #44  
Old July 30th 17, 02:53 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 376
Default It's not every day...

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:38:35 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2017 22:28, wrote:

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:53:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2017 21:17,
wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:25:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 18:02,
wrote:


I assume you have evidence that I do not use my own money to buy newspapers when I choose to do so.

How can you possibly have used your own money to buy newspapers when you
haven't bought one for about twenty-five years (though you're uncklear
about the Sunday Telegraph)?
Or have you already forgotten when you wrote in your previous post?


At the time (may 11 1990) I was working with Colin Pillinger at the Open University, we were at a seminar day at the Royal Society.
£18Kpa seemed like a fortune after being a student.


And?


You asked how it was possible I used my own money to buy a newspaper and I have answered your question.


You seem confused.

You said that you haven't bought a newspaper for twenty-five years.

You then asked what evidence I have that you do not use your own money
to buy nespapers.

You had provided that evidence when you said that you had not bought a
newspaper for twenty-five years.

Asserting that you once bought a newspaper in 1990 neither undermines
nor miliotates against what you had already said.

I do hope you manage to clear up the confusion in your own mind about
thvat. As it happens, your evidence was fairly clear; it's just that you
don't seem to understand your own statements.

Do 'Road Users' include cyclists in your fairy tale world?


No more so than pedestrians (of which latter group I make no criticism).


So why do cyclists have to obey road rules if they are not road users?


Who said cyclists are not road users?


You did.


Not in the slightest, and the reasons for your confusion about
newspaper-buying start to become clearer: you don't understand plain
English, even when you have written it.

I said that cyclists are no more road-users than are pedestrians.

That is not a statement to the effect that cyclists are not road-users.

Perjhaps you'll evenbtually be able to understand that when you have
grown more familiar with English.

Certainly not I. I said that they are no more road-users than
pedestrians are. And they aren't.


Make your mind up.


There is no conflict implicit in what I said.

There *might* be a conflict in your mind as to the meaning of a
perfectly simple sentence. We have already seen the evidence of that
(above).

You may (or, possibly, may not) recall that we were discussing people
other than cyclists (ie, we were discussing the ones who pay billions of
taxes annually in various taxes and duties in addition to the usual
incom tax, NI, VAT, etc).


That would be the £6 billion motorists pay in [Road Tax]


Why did you alter my post?


I didn't.

So what are you talking about (assuming you know, which is far from
guaranteed, given your patently limited understanding of English)?


Wow!
What a diatribe just to avoid admitting you are wrong.
Guess I must have hit a nerve.
  #45  
Old July 30th 17, 03:22 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,917
Default It's not every day...

On 30/07/2017 14:53, wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:38:35 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2017 22:28,
wrote:

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:53:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2017 21:17,
wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:25:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 18:02,
wrote:


I assume you have evidence that I do not use my own money to buy newspapers when I choose to do so.

How can you possibly have used your own money to buy newspapers when you
haven't bought one for about twenty-five years (though you're uncklear
about the Sunday Telegraph)?
Or have you already forgotten when you wrote in your previous post?


At the time (may 11 1990) I was working with Colin Pillinger at the Open University, we were at a seminar day at the Royal Society.
£18Kpa seemed like a fortune after being a student.


And?

You asked how it was possible I used my own money to buy a newspaper and I have answered your question.


You seem confused.

You said that you haven't bought a newspaper for twenty-five years.

You then asked what evidence I have that you do not use your own money
to buy nespapers.

You had provided that evidence when you said that you had not bought a
newspaper for twenty-five years.

Asserting that you once bought a newspaper in 1990 neither undermines
nor miliotates against what you had already said.

I do hope you manage to clear up the confusion in your own mind about
thvat. As it happens, your evidence was fairly clear; it's just that you
don't seem to understand your own statements.

Do 'Road Users' include cyclists in your fairy tale world?


No more so than pedestrians (of which latter group I make no criticism).


So why do cyclists have to obey road rules if they are not road users?


Who said cyclists are not road users?

You did.


Not in the slightest, and the reasons for your confusion about
newspaper-buying start to become clearer: you don't understand plain
English, even when you have written it.

I said that cyclists are no more road-users than are pedestrians.

That is not a statement to the effect that cyclists are not road-users.

Perjhaps you'll evenbtually be able to understand that when you have
grown more familiar with English.

Certainly not I. I said that they are no more road-users than
pedestrians are. And they aren't.


Make your mind up.


There is no conflict implicit in what I said.

There *might* be a conflict in your mind as to the meaning of a
perfectly simple sentence. We have already seen the evidence of that
(above).

You may (or, possibly, may not) recall that we were discussing people
other than cyclists (ie, we were discussing the ones who pay billions of
taxes annually in various taxes and duties in addition to the usual
incom tax, NI, VAT, etc).


That would be the £6 billion motorists pay in [Road Tax]


Why did you alter my post?


I didn't.

So what are you talking about (assuming you know, which is far from
guaranteed, given your patently limited understanding of English)?


Wow!
What a diatribe just to avoid admitting you are wrong.
Guess I must have hit a nerve.


You didn't. I wasn't wrong. You were.

You said you hadn't bought a news paper since 1990, then you asked me
what evidence I had for saying (ie, repeating) that you hadn't bought a
paper since 1990.

Your only possible "point" is that no-one should believe a word you write.

Either you haven't bought a paper since 1990 (which is what you said) or
you have.

Which is it this time?
  #46  
Old July 30th 17, 03:47 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 376
Default It's not every day...

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 3:22:40 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 30/07/2017 14:53, wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:38:35 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2017 22:28,
wrote:

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:53:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2017 21:17,
wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:25:05 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 18:02,
wrote:

I assume you have evidence that I do not use my own money to buy newspapers when I choose to do so.

How can you possibly have used your own money to buy newspapers when you
haven't bought one for about twenty-five years (though you're uncklear
about the Sunday Telegraph)?
Or have you already forgotten when you wrote in your previous post?

At the time (may 11 1990) I was working with Colin Pillinger at the Open University, we were at a seminar day at the Royal Society.
£18Kpa seemed like a fortune after being a student.

And?

You asked how it was possible I used my own money to buy a newspaper and I have answered your question.

You seem confused.

You said that you haven't bought a newspaper for twenty-five years.

You then asked what evidence I have that you do not use your own money
to buy nespapers.

You had provided that evidence when you said that you had not bought a
newspaper for twenty-five years.

Asserting that you once bought a newspaper in 1990 neither undermines
nor miliotates against what you had already said.

I do hope you manage to clear up the confusion in your own mind about
thvat. As it happens, your evidence was fairly clear; it's just that you
don't seem to understand your own statements.

Do 'Road Users' include cyclists in your fairy tale world?

No more so than pedestrians (of which latter group I make no criticism).

So why do cyclists have to obey road rules if they are not road users?

Who said cyclists are not road users?

You did.

Not in the slightest, and the reasons for your confusion about
newspaper-buying start to become clearer: you don't understand plain
English, even when you have written it.

I said that cyclists are no more road-users than are pedestrians.

That is not a statement to the effect that cyclists are not road-users..

Perjhaps you'll evenbtually be able to understand that when you have
grown more familiar with English.

Certainly not I. I said that they are no more road-users than
pedestrians are. And they aren't.

Make your mind up.

There is no conflict implicit in what I said.

There *might* be a conflict in your mind as to the meaning of a
perfectly simple sentence. We have already seen the evidence of that
(above).

You may (or, possibly, may not) recall that we were discussing people
other than cyclists (ie, we were discussing the ones who pay billions of
taxes annually in various taxes and duties in addition to the usual
incom tax, NI, VAT, etc).

That would be the £6 billion motorists pay in [Road Tax]

Why did you alter my post?

I didn't.

So what are you talking about (assuming you know, which is far from
guaranteed, given your patently limited understanding of English)?


Wow!
What a diatribe just to avoid admitting you are wrong.
Guess I must have hit a nerve.


You didn't. I wasn't wrong. You were.

You said you hadn't bought a news paper since 1990, then you asked me
what evidence I had for saying (ie, repeating) that you hadn't bought a
paper since 1990.

Your only possible "point" is that no-one should believe a word you write..

Either you haven't bought a paper since 1990 (which is what you said) or
you have.

Which is it this time?


Definitely time for your afternoon nap.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.