Bicyclist's toe, sometimes mistaken for gout.

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.

Doug.

On 08/18/2010 06:26 AM, 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. Of course this would not apply to genuine tricycle
users.

Real cyclists track-stand. :-P


Of course, Doug, the extra weight of that battery doesn't help any. I
don't think your argument stands close scrutiny.

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

"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?

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?

Doug

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

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.

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.

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.

Doug

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Doug garbled:

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.

When I'm ****ed off with a driver I'd mention it in URD not URC. Â*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 taking the **** and parodying you, you silly old ****. If you
stopped posting your drivel , then I'm sure they'd go away.

Do you really think MrCheerful is that bothered whether a cyclist or a
car causes more damage? I'd like to think he's got more sense. I suspect
he has because his threads on the car maintenance group are always very
helpful...

He's posting drivel in retaliation to your drivel.

Here's an idea, why don't you **** off, change your nym (again) and try
posting sense for a few days as someone else without giving us a clue who
you are. I bet the SNR ratio of this group drops dramatically. It's you
who's causing the problem, just like you ruined uk.transport with the
same old **** you post here.


--

Mike P

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Doug garbled:

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.

When I'm ****ed off with a driver I'd mention it in URD not URC. Â*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 taking the **** and parodying you, you silly old ****. If you
stopped posting your drivel , then I'm sure they'd go away.

Do you really think MrCheerful is that bothered whether a cyclist or a
car causes more damage? I'd like to think he's got more sense. I suspect
he has because his threads on the car maintenance group are always very
helpful...

He's posting drivel in retaliation to your drivel.

Here's an idea, why don't you **** off, change your nym (again) and try
posting sense for a few days as someone else without giving us a clue who
you are. I bet the SNR ratio of this group drops dramatically. It's you
who's causing the problem, just like you ruined uk.transport with the
same old **** you post here.


--

Mike P

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.

--
Paul - xxx

mobile ...

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?