Cycle club out on a run comes home one short

On 25 apr, 22:41, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:23:02 -0700 (PDT), Justin
wrote:









On 25 apr, 18:18, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:20:06 -0700 (PDT), PhilO wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:07*pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:
.

And you really thought that mean you were immune to being run over if
you were in a group?

That's almost exactly what we have been told...

And you'll happily show who and where that was stated?

Nobody (apart from Cheerless) has ever claimed that riding in a group
makes you immune from being run over.

I'm happy to call you an idiot for stating that people have made that
claim.

Prove me wrong.

people have claimed that riding in a group is safer than riding alone -
therefore by implication they also think that you are more immune from an
accident and being run over.

Blah Blaah Blaah'

More immune , **** off, you are either immune or not immune.

You are a virgin. You cannot be more or less virginal.

Since when has he word "safer" meant "immune"?

Blaah blaah blaah Mickey Mouse.

Hello it's Nobhead Lewis:
--
Justin *(Nobhead) Lewis has been caught using the following names:
FrontMech
Billsgate
Ricky Bikebloke
Sedentary IgnorantPopulist
J.M.Messie

Jacqueline Lewis-Wintjens
He has denied it. *Nobhead Lewis is a liar.

Please post it again: it's very funny to be abused by Walt Disney

On 25 apr, 22:48, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:26:29 -0700 (PDT), Justin
wrote:

snip

Come on my little bald, pussy, partnerless, jobless loser. You got
something to say. Don't be a coward, don't hide it. Stand up and be
counted. When you post this sort of thing anonymously it has no effect
- just another troll loser. If you evoke no emotion in your intended
victims you are wasting your time - read the research.
Now, you are just a cartoon character, a Judith shaped hole in the air
spouting noisy, harmless, repetitive, pathetic blah blah blah
bull****. A cartoon character - difficult to get worked up about
Goofy , Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse. Only Dave can get worked up about
a cartoon character - he was going to fight Front Mech before he shat
himself.

Is there anyone reading this who is hurt by the anonymous bull****
posted by this pathetic troll?

Hello it's Nobhead Lewis:
--
Justin *(Nobhead) Lewis has been caught using the following names:
FrontMech
Billsgate
Ricky Bikebloke
Sedentary IgnorantPopulist
J.M.Messie

Jacqueline Lewis-Wintjens
He has denied it. *Nobhead Lewis is a liar.

And again, please Mr Inadequate

On 26/04/2012 09:16, PhilO wrote:

On Apr 25, 6:26 pm, wrote:

That may be his personal instinctive view (it certainly isn't supported by
any evidence).

However, his *considered* view (arrived at after academic enquiry and
research) is that many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate
mode of transport and that for them it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange.
The two views are not incompatible in any sense.
But only one of them is supported by fact and forms part of the
academic/scientific world body of knowledge.

Are you willing to back this claim up with a reference to the
scientific work you claim to be quoting?

Is there any need to do so?

It was done by the gentleman under discussion.

Do you not know how scientific enquiry and research works?

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:18:25 -0700 (PDT), PhilO wrote:

On Apr 25, 9:41*pm, Judith wrote:

Hello it's

Hello, it's Judith.

She complains that Justin may have posted using multiple names and may
have lied.

Of course, the fact that Judith has posted using multiple names and
has lied is not at all relevant.



Feel free to point out any multiple names you think I have "secretly" used.

If you are going to quote Porky Chapman's 200-300 list - then please offer your
proof as well.

Feel free to quote the lies.

You could try the "You said that you were going to the BP AGM" "lie" if you
want to.

Just email Mason before you do and ask his opinion :-)



--
Hello PhilattiO

I just love the way that you have to comment on my every post.

I really do appreciate it.

You really are excellent value.

On 26/04/2012 09:38, Squashme wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:54 pm, wrote:
On 25/04/2012 23:47, Squashme wrote:









On Apr 25, 6:26 pm, wrote:
On 25/04/2012 13:41, PhilO wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:07 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

A more up to date view from Dave Horton is:
"I believe cycling can be the most important and popular means of
mobility on our planet, accounting for well over half of all journeys
in all societies."
http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/about/

Are you sure you're not mis-representing his views?

That may be his personal instinctive view (it certainly isn't supported by
any evidence).

However, his *considered* view (arrived at after academic enquiry and
research) is that many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate
mode of transport and that for them it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange.

The two views are not incompatible in any sense.

But only one of them is supported by fact and forms part of the
academic/scientific world body of knowledge.

But that does not mean that their views are correct.

Who would "they" be?

Exactly.

I see - you were referring to the sample of people canvassed by that social
science researcher for their views, and whose views he recognised in the
terms: "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
transport; [for them] it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only
for the poor and/or strange.".

What is this curious concept of a "correct" view?

One that concurs with your view?

Something else?

The only "correctness" that actually matters here is the correctness of the
researcher's findings. Either many people really do barely recognise the
bicycle as legitimate mode of transport and say that for them it is either a
toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange, or they
don't.

On 26/04/2012 19:04, Justin wrote:
On 25 apr, 22:41, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:23:02 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:









On 25 apr, 18:18, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:20:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:07 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
.

And you really thought that mean you were immune to being run over if
you were in a group?

That's almost exactly what we have been told...

And you'll happily show who and where that was stated?

Nobody (apart from Cheerless) has ever claimed that riding in a group
makes you immune from being run over.

I'm happy to call you an idiot for stating that people have made that
claim.

Prove me wrong.

people have claimed that riding in a group is safer than riding alone -
therefore by implication they also think that you are more immune from an
accident and being run over.

Blah Blaah Blaah'

More immune , **** off, you are either immune or not immune.

You are a virgin. You cannot be more or less virginal.

Since when has he word "safer" meant "immune"?

Blaah blaah blaah Mickey Mouse.

Hello it's Nobhead Lewis:
--
Justin (Nobhead) Lewis has been caught using the following names:
FrontMech
Billsgate
Ricky Bikebloke
Sedentary IgnorantPopulist
J.M.Messie

Jacqueline Lewis-Wintjens
He has denied it. Nobhead Lewis is a liar.

Please post it again: it's very funny to be abused by Walt Disney


Justipoo's has caught Masonitis. He's started talking to himself.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 25/04/2012 23:47, Squashme wrote:
On Apr 25, 6:26 pm, wrote:
On 25/04/2012 13:41, PhilO wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:07 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

A more up to date view from Dave Horton is:
"I believe cycling can be the most important and popular means of
mobility on our planet, accounting for well over half of all journeys
in all societies."
http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/about/

Are you sure you're not mis-representing his views?

That may be his personal instinctive view (it certainly isn't supported by
any evidence).

However, his *considered* view (arrived at after academic enquiry and
research) is that many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate
mode of transport and that for them it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange.

The two views are not incompatible in any sense.

But only one of them is supported by fact and forms part of the
academic/scientific world body of knowledge.

But that does not mean that their views are correct.

But it does mean that their views - are their views.

You may not agree, but that's what the general public think about cycling.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 25/04/2012 21:43, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:32:26 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:
snip


In his own time of course.



Oh dear :-) - perhaps numb-nuts hasn't noticed what the rest of us have already
noticed :-)




I've noticed. Do you think he got a major bollocking after the AGM & is
now **** scared to post from work?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 25/04/2012 23:27, Squashme wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:56 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
On 25/04/2012 15:17, Justin wrote:









On 25 apr, 16:07, wrote:
Justin wrote:
On 24 apr, 20:12, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:02:27 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Judith wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:45:39 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

I thought it was claimed there is safety in numbers when cycling?

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...killed-in-coll...

Do you know - was it a race?

Possibly.
She was riding with others from her cycle club, next Sunday they are
starting early so they can have a remembrance first.

That's nice isn't it.

My thoughts are with her family

Come on my little bald, pussy, partnerless, jobless loser. You got
something to say. Don't be a coward, don't hide it. Stand up and be
counted. When you post this sort of thing anonymously it has no effect
- just another troll loser. If you evoke no emotion in your intended
victims you are wasting your time - read the research.
Now, you are just a cartoon character, a Judith shaped hole in the air
spouting noisy, harmless, repetitive, pathetic blah blah blah
bull****. A cartoon character - difficult to get worked up about
Goofy , Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse. Only Dave can get worked up about
a cartoon character - he was going to fight Front Mech before he shat
himself.

Is there anyone reading this who is hurt by the anonymous bull****
posted by this pathetic troll?

How do you know that Front Mech pooed himself?

Read it properly. Dave bottled.

Front Mech - or whatever name you were using at the time, apparently
rode past a hotel that doesn't exist 5 times....


How can a hotel not exist 5 times?

Comprehension problems again I see.

NOT the Churchill Hotel, nay 5 times nay:-
http://www.bestwestern.co.uk/Hotels/...o/Default.aspx

Simple fact. There is no Churchill Hotel in Dover. End of story.

And of course them sharing the same post code is just a coincidence.

I share a post code with 20 other houses. That doesn't make them me.



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On Apr 26, 7:29*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2012 09:38, Squashme wrote:









On Apr 25, 11:54 pm, *wrote:
On 25/04/2012 23:47, Squashme wrote:

On Apr 25, 6:26 pm, * *wrote:
On 25/04/2012 13:41, PhilO wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:07 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

A more up to date view from Dave Horton is:
"I believe cycling can be the most important and popular means of
mobility on our planet, accounting for well over half of all journeys
in all societies."
http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/about/

Are you sure you're not mis-representing his views?

That may be his personal instinctive view (it certainly isn't supported by
any evidence).

However, his *considered* view (arrived at after academic enquiry and
research) is that many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate
mode of transport and that for them it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange.

The two views are not incompatible in any sense.

But only one of them is supported by fact and forms part of the
academic/scientific world body of knowledge.

But that does not mean that their views are correct.

Who would "they" be?

Exactly.

I see - you were referring to the sample of people canvassed by that social
science researcher for their views, and whose views he recognised in the
terms: "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
transport; [for them] it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only
for the poor and/or strange.".

What is this curious concept of a "correct" view?

One that concurs with your view?

Of course. The bicycle is a legitimate mode of transport, as far as I
am aware. I am not a child, sadly. I am not poor, although I am
doubtless poorer than your good self. And the jury is out on my
strangeness, but I think that I have a reasonable chance of winning.
So, unsurprisingly, "many people" are incorrect. It could hardly be
otherwise, if Dave the hotel-demolisher quotes them.


Something else?

The only "correctness" that actually matters here is the correctness of the
researcher's findings. Either many people really do barely recognise the
bicycle as legitimate mode of transport and say that for them it is either a
toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange, or they
don't.

No doubt. Many people have many kinds of repulsive views. But, as
here, they don't bear repeating hundreds of times, except as a wind-
up.