Peloton

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:17:14 +0100, Judith M Smith wrote:

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:25:22 -0500, Nobby Anderson
wrote:

snip


Of course you didn't sweetheart. Well, not while you were compos mentus
anyway.

Sad, aren't you?

Nobby


I seem to be able to bring out the best in you!

Being blind, the hagfish doubtless finds its food by its greatly
specialized olfactory apparatus. It feeds chiefly on fish, dead or
disabled, though no doubt any other carrion would serve it equally well.

snip

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:32:44 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:13:43 +0100, Aard wrote:

You've caught Guy's 'judith
sucks' disease and you've probably got it worse than he had

Are you really this immune to irony? Judith has made literally
thousands of posts knocking me, and in return I mostly ignore her.

Your perceptions are incredibly skewed.

Guy

Once you started lying you became fair game as far as I was concerned.
I cannot abide people whom deliberately lie or try and deceive - have
I told you that before?

Just because I have drawn the attention of people to your sneaky
little habits - you know - after you had lied about your children and
then sneakily altered the web page without updating the date of last
change. Or was it the pointing out of your deceit on Risk
Compensation, or perhaps it was just Lou Knee.

Just have a think of the types of posts which I make, and to whom they
are directed?

Spot anything?


--
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a ****.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:39:45 +0100, "Wm..the lying ****wit"
wrote:

Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:15:44
uk.rec.cycling Aard

See what happens when you apply sweeping generalisations?

According to jms Marc and I are meant to be having sex.


Really - please explain - I don't think I have ever suggested that;
I would even say that you are lying yet again

You do seem to be obsessed with sex; why is that?


--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

Sat, 5 Sep 2009 00:17:39
uk.rec.cycling Aard

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 23:32:44 +0100, "Wm..."
wrote:

Fri, 4 Sep 2009 22:15:31
uk.rec.cycling Aard

If you were somewhat nearer, it might be a laugh. But Lincs/Humberside
border to the old smoke is a bit of a trip just to see if you were as
difficult to converse with verbally as via type.

I was suggesting I would travel. I need to fill in a few things about
jms to make the trip worthwhile. I assure you I am a nice person in
person.

Pick a Sunday - I've got events for the next three so I've got respite
for the lads.

for or from?

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:55:36 +0100, Marc
wrote:

snip


It's a troll, trolls lie.

People who are fat, smell.

Do you smell?

Oh really - just point out any lies I have made.

(A little point Round : I am surprised that you keep referring to me
as "it" - things could become quite personal - couldn't they?)

--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:52:40 +0100, "Wm...the lying ****wit "
wrote:

snip


Why would anyone want to imitate jms? Strong people
tend to not be imitated or intimidated.


Excellent - you admire my strength(s)


Many thanks


--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

Sat, 5 Sep 2009 18:09:30
uk.rec.cycling Judith M Smith

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:55:36 +0100, Marc
wrote:

snip


It's a troll, trolls lie.

People who are fat, smell.

I thought I was one of the few people that noticed that.

Do you smell?

I've never met him. Is he fat?

Oh really - just point out any lies I have made.

Can't be bothered.

(A little point Round : I am surprised that you keep referring to me
as "it" - things could become quite personal - couldn't they?)

Sooner than you think, it.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:00:53 +0100, "Wm..."
wrote:

Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:32:36
k uk.rec.cycling Clive
George


You've taken Judith's word against Guy's word and the evidence supporting
Guy's word. Either you're _really_ bad at making judgements, or you're
trying to cause trouble. Or of course both.

Well said. I know who makes more sense to me.


A very simple question for you Wm.. Why do *you* think that Guy will
not answer the Lou Knee question?
--

Peloton:

a rabble of psycholists who think they are above the law.

Sat, 5 Sep 2009 18:49:37
uk.rec.cycling Judith M Smith

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:00:53 +0100, "Wm..."
wrote:

Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:32:36
. uk uk.rec.cycling Clive
George


You've taken Judith's word against Guy's word and the evidence supporting
Guy's word. Either you're _really_ bad at making judgements, or you're
trying to cause trouble. Or of course both.

Well said. I know who makes more sense to me.


A very simple question for you Wm.. Why do *you* think that Guy will
not answer the Lou Knee question?

Because it is no longer important. If he has doubled voted recently he
will be in trouble. Occasional use of another name is ordinary and
unimportant.

You are the person making the fuss.

All, apparently, because someone said poo

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:32:36 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

snip


Judith ain't a credible reason to believe _anything_. Guy's version is
actually consistent with the evidence. The wrapped-url thing is obviously
Judith just ****ing up, the dates thing is just her misinterpretation of how
a web server does things.

Not at all - there is another question which was asked of Guy - re the
time and date the page was made available - he always refused to
answer it. Just like the Lou Knee question.


Regarding the footnote to the kids/helmets page - ask him when he made
that change. I have asked him - he refuses to answer. He obscures
facts by referring people to Waybackwhen etc. If he answer - I would
believe him; he just will not answer. He is a Christian. IT is OK to
confuse - but not to deliberately lie.

So three straight questions - obfuscation and smoke screens by Chapman
rather than answering three very straight questions.

I must admit I am not surprised that you and others do not encourage
him to answer - there would be much credibility lost by a number of
people - if he were to answer the questions.

Why not ask him yourself?

--
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a ****.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.