|
NB4L production buses
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:47:38 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:19:20 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote: a bit more vacuous bluster to try to derail inspection I notice you snipped the awkward question again. I don't answer straw men. -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 14:10:49 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
I notice you snipped the awkward question again. I don't answer straw men. chuckle Thank you for removing any remaining lingering doubt at all. |
NB4L production buses
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 14:34:11 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 14:10:49 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote: I notice you snipped the awkward question again. I don't answer straw men. chuckle Thank you for removing any remaining lingering doubt at all. You really are a strange little man. I make a statement that only an idiot could misunderstand or misconstrue but yet you apparently managed it - then you continue to put your own spin on it just so you can score points. To what end? -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 14:51:12 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
I notice you snipped the awkward question again. I don't answer straw men. chuckle Thank you for removing any remaining lingering doubt at all. You really are a strange little man. I make a statement that only an idiot could misunderstand or misconstrue but yet you apparently managed it No, not at all. I understood precisely what you were trying to say. I wanted you to expand on it and clear up a potential area of confusion arising from it. You have consistently refused to do so... then you continue to put your own spin on it ....leaving me no choice but to extrapolate from what you _have_ said. just so you can score points. To what end? To attempt to understand your real agenda and motives in making your pronouncements. It's quite simple. If you are being honest in saying that paying VED is the important factor for you, then you should be quite happy to say that disabled drivers and those driving old or low emission cars should be restricted in the way you want to restrict cyclists. Is that the case? Should they be? * "Yes, it is" * "No, it is not" Pick one. That simple. There is a third option. * "waffle, refuse to answer". I rather suspect that's the one you'll go for. Again. Don't obfuscate by saying that you've discussed the disabled and that "they suffer enough already" (you patronising tit), or that old/LE vehicles shouldn't be exempt. They are, and it'll be staying. They are the constraints in place, which we all have to work within and around. Zero VED payable on bicycles is also staying. So... talk to me about the restrictions you want to impose. Or have you just not thought this through properly, in your rush to knee- jerk away? Because you really don't want to actually come out and admit your true reasons. You hate cyclists purely for their being cyclists, and you want to punish them for it. You think they're lesser individuals, and should be treated as such. Because you, in your car - you're more important. But you're jealous of the ease they avoid traffic. Whatever. Just have the balls to admit it, instead of being a coward. |
NB4L production buses
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 15:07:39 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: those driving old or low emission cars should be restricted in the way you want to restrict cyclists. I want to "restrict" cyclists? Thats a nice contortion of logic there. Is there a course you learn to do this on? Don't obfuscate by saying that you've discussed the disabled and that "they suffer enough already" (you patronising tit), or that old/LE Thats patronising is it? Well I guess exempting them from VED is patronising too since being disabled is hardly a lifestyle choice. Perhaps you should tell them they don't need special treatment - until the fit men & women who cycle all those miles to work. Yes , they obviously need to be exempt. Right? vehicles shouldn't be exempt. They are, and it'll be staying. They are the constraints in place, which we all have to work within and around. Zero VED payable on bicycles is also staying. So... talk to me about the restrictions you want to impose. I honest to god have no idea where you're dredging this stuff up from but you are VERY amusing. :o) Looking back at some of your posts this does seem to be your modus operandi. Take a simple clear statement and twist it around to something you want to argue about. Why do you do this? Is it because you can only argue on safe black and white ground and can't cope with anything not within the strict parameters of your views? Is that the case? * "Yes, it is" * "No, it is not" Or have you just not thought this through properly, in your rush to knee- jerk away? Because you really don't want to actually come out and admit your true reasons. You hate cyclists purely for their being cyclists, and you want to punish them for it. You think they're lesser individuals, and should be treated as such. Because you, in your car - you're more important. But you're jealous of the ease they avoid traffic. Whatever. Just have the balls to admit it, instead of being a coward. Lets play Spot The Loaded Terminology, your starter for 10... knee-jerk hate punish lesser jealous coward LMFAO! A whole barn full of straw men! :o) I needed a good laugh this morning and for that I'm very grateful! So tell us , what exactly IS your problem - are you a poor put upon cyclist who is championing his cause or are you just another sad crusty who'll jump on any old band wagon that creaks to bang his tamborine? LOL :o) -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
|
NB4L production buses
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:21:40 +0000, neil wrote:
He even lives the cliche - drives a beaten up camper van. Well, not that "beaten up". I've also got a large and very thirsty petrol 4x4, as well as a nice sensible economical hatchback and three or four classic cars. And a couple of old mopeds. And several bicycles. Have you owned up to what you drive lately? Or is it still a state secret? |
NB4L production buses
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:24:23 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:21:40 +0000, neil wrote: He even lives the cliche - drives a beaten up camper van. Well, not that "beaten up". It must've had a makeover since your trip then. I've also got a large and very thirsty petrol 4x4, as well as a nice sensible economical hatchback and three or four classic cars. And a couple of old mopeds. And several bicycles. Wow, someone must've left you a nice trust fund. I think you've just blown any eco credentials you had out the water however. Have you owned up to what you drive lately? Or is it still a state secret? Its far more fun not telling. NJR |
NB4L production buses
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:04:25 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
those driving old or low emission cars should be restricted in the way you want to restrict cyclists. I want to "restrict" cyclists? Well, that's certainly the impression I've got from what you've been writing on the subject in this thread. How else should I interpret these quotes? You think cyclists should not be able to use certain roads since they do not pay to use the roads. Right? Yup. or And whats more I'd insist cyclists had some sort of formal training before they're allowed on B roads and above. If they want to potter about in their own backstreets fine, but if they want to ride on a numbered road they need a license. or bikes should pay road tax if the rider wishes to ride on numbered roads or Bikes should pay some sort of tax to use the roads. End of. Perhaps you could explain what you did mean, if not that cyclists should be restricted? |
NB4L production buses
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:29:34 +0000, neil wrote:
I've also got a large and very thirsty petrol 4x4, as well as a nice sensible economical hatchback and three or four classic cars. And a couple of old mopeds. And several bicycles. Wow, someone must've left you a nice trust fund. Yes, because that's the only possible solution you can come up for your jealousy that not everybody's a wage slave in a grim suburb, isn't it? The camper's worth the same as we paid for it, 40k miles and 2yrs ago. The 205 cost £100 four years ago - and regularly returns mid-40s mpg. The 4x4 cost £800 with a year's MOT. One moped was free, the other cost £100. They're each worth about £300 now. One 2cv cost £100, one cost less than a grand, and she's owned the third for 30 years next year. That one'd easily fetch £5k+ tomorrow, not that it's for sale. My bike cost me £50 20yrs ago. Her bike was bought off a national park's cycle-hire scheme. Her dad's classic racing bike'll be on eBay soon. Her mother's gorgeous old Swedish bike's going to get restored soon. I think you've just blown any eco credentials you had out the water however. What "eco credentials" are those, then? I've certainly never laid claim to any. Have you owned up to what you drive lately? Or is it still a state secret? Its far more fun not telling. Jesus. It's that embarrassing, eh? |
NB4L production buses
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:33:56 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:04:25 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote: those driving old or low emission cars should be restricted in the way you want to restrict cyclists. I want to "restrict" cyclists? Well, that's certainly the impression I've got from what you've been writing on the subject in this thread. No, its not an impression "Adrian" , its you deliberately flipping the logic on its head to score points. Do you realise how transparent you are even though no doubt you think you're being oh so clever about it? :o) No probably not. Its no more restricting cyclists than expecting people to pay to use public transport is "restricting" their movements. Do try harder sonny - even as a troll you're ****ing useless. But funny :o) -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:17:02 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
those driving old or low emission cars should be restricted in the way you want to restrict cyclists. I want to "restrict" cyclists? Well, that's certainly the impression I've got from what you've been writing on the subject in this thread. No, its not an impression "Adrian" , its you deliberately flipping the logic on its head to score points. Its no more restricting cyclists than expecting people to pay to use public transport is "restricting" their movements. So explain to me how not allowing cyclists to use numbered roads (without additional requirements over the current situation) is not "restricting" them? How else should I interpret these quotes? You think cyclists should not be able to use certain roads since they do not pay to use the roads. Right? Yup. or And whats more I'd insist cyclists had some sort of formal training before they're allowed on B roads and above. If they want to potter about in their own backstreets fine, but if they want to ride on a numbered road they need a license. or bikes should pay road tax if the rider wishes to ride on numbered roads or Bikes should pay some sort of tax to use the roads. End of. Perhaps you could explain what you did mean, if not that cyclists should be restricted? |
NB4L production buses
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:41:29 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:29:34 +0000, neil wrote: I've also got a large and very thirsty petrol 4x4, as well as a nice sensible economical hatchback and three or four classic cars. And a couple of old mopeds. And several bicycles. Wow, someone must've left you a nice trust fund. Yes, because that's the only possible solution you can come up for your jealousy that not everybody's a wage slave in a grim suburb, isn't it? Its not that grim and its in london. Where's you house? Oh , thats right, according to your blog a while back you didn't even have one and were squatting in the camper van. Nice. Showing your missus the high life eh? The camper's worth the same as we paid for it, 40k miles and 2yrs ago. Bugger all then to a normal person. The 205 cost £100 four years ago - and regularly returns mid-40s mpg. The 4x4 cost £800 with a year's MOT. One moped was free, the other cost £100. They're each worth about £300 now. One 2cv cost £100, one cost less than a grand, and she's owned the third for 30 years next year. That one'd easily fetch £5k+ tomorrow, not that it's for sale. So in other words a load of pikey scrap sitting in a yard somewhere. Ok, I take back my trust fund comment - I'd expected someone who posts to a driving group to own at least 1 decent vehicle. My bike cost me £50 20yrs ago. Her bike was bought off a national park's Bought or nicked? cycle-hire scheme. Her dad's classic racing bike'll be on eBay soon. Her mother's gorgeous old Swedish bike's going to get restored soon. Fascinating. *yawn* I think you've just blown any eco credentials you had out the water however. What "eco credentials" are those, then? I've certainly never laid claim to any. Well you seem to champion cyclists and get all irate when someone dares to suggest they should be taxed. Why would anyone other than a dyed in the wool Cyclopath give a ****? Its far more fun not telling. Jesus. It's that embarrassing, eh? Lets just say even at 5 years old its still worth more than all the scrap you own combined. NJR |
NB4L production buses
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:20:40 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: [more deliberate misunderstandings] Listen, I'd love to keep feeding you but my troll bucket is empty. You'll just have to wait for someone else to cross your bridge. Au reviour! -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:27:50 +0000, neil wrote:
I've also got a large and very thirsty petrol 4x4, as well as a nice sensible economical hatchback and three or four classic cars. And a couple of old mopeds. And several bicycles. Wow, someone must've left you a nice trust fund. Yes, because that's the only possible solution you can come up for your jealousy that not everybody's a wage slave in a grim suburb, isn't it? Its not that grim and its in london. Where's you house? Oh , thats right, according to your blog a while back you didn't even have one and were squatting in the camper van. Nice. Well, the house in a really very pleasant corner of the home counties which we were renting out whilst we were away sold in three weeks for quite a lot of money - just as well, really, since we were in the throes of buying a rather large and lovely house in a beautiful rural part of the country, thank you for asking. With a nice chunk left over after paying off the mortgage. So, at just over 40, here I am - mortgage free - in my dream house. Poor us. How's the wage-slavery going? Showing your missus the high life eh? She seems very happy with life, and certainly was enjoying life on the road. The camper's worth the same as we paid for it, 40k miles and 2yrs ago. Bugger all then to a normal person. shrug Who cares? The 205 cost £100 four years ago - and regularly returns mid-40s mpg. The 4x4 cost £800 with a year's MOT. One moped was free, the other cost £100. They're each worth about £300 now. One 2cv cost £100, one cost less than a grand, and she's owned the third for 30 years next year. That one'd easily fetch £5k+ tomorrow, not that it's for sale. So in other words a load of pikey scrap sitting in a yard somewhere. Ok, I take back my trust fund comment - I'd expected someone who posts to a driving group to own at least 1 decent vehicle. With the exception of the 4x4 - proof-of-necessity short-term purchase - they're all cars that we love dearly, and all bought for being bloody excellent at the job. So, yes, they're definitely "decent vehicles". The fact that you think the value's more important than the driving dynamics shows you as the sort of vacuous urban-centric **** that you are. I think you've just blown any eco credentials you had out the water however. What "eco credentials" are those, then? I've certainly never laid claim to any. Well you seem to champion cyclists and get all irate when someone dares to suggest they should be taxed. Why would anyone other than a dyed in the wool Cyclopath give a ****? a. Because I genuinely don't think bicycles are half as much of a traffic problem as the kind of ****wit who gets red mist at the thought of them b. Because I genuinely don't like snide hidden agendas promoted by duplicitous little ****s. c. Because I genuinely don't think bikes need taxing and I don't think cyclists need licensing. Its far more fun not telling. Jesus. It's that embarrassing, eh? Lets just say even at 5 years old its still worth more than all the scrap you own combined. Gosh, really? Your 5yo whatevercommutermobile is worth rough count up £15-20k? I don't believe you. And - one thing's definitely for certain - the value of your whatevercommutermobile's only going one way, and it ain't the same way as the value of our fleet is. One other thing's for certain... I'm sure that the value of your car bothers you far more than the value of mine bothers me. |
NB4L production buses
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:11:05 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote: ... safety failures hardly ever have a single cause. Yes, drivers also cause those risks, but IME of actual and near accidents, yer average cyclist who is involved in an accident is more at fault, and even if they aren't at fault, they're still the ones who, when **** goes wrong, suffer the most. Therefore it behooves them to do the most to mitigate the risk. No. Those who cause the greatest risk to others have the greatest responsibility to reduce that risk. Cyclists can make themselves safer, mainly by being more aware of what drivers are doing around them. The danger still comes overwhelmingly from the motor vehicles, with a small contribution from poor road surfaces. In a majority of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles, police record the driver as mainly at fault. In collisions between pedestrians and motor vehicles, the pedestrians are more likely than the drivers to be blamed. So cyclists are more careful of their own safety than pedestrians are. Colin McKenzie -- Cycling in the UK is about as safe as walking, and helmets don't make it safer. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org. |
NB4L production buses
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 15:57:36 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: Its not that grim and its in london. Where's you house? Oh , thats right, according to your blog a while back you didn't even have one and were squatting in the camper van. Nice. Well, the house in a really very pleasant corner of the home counties which we were renting out whilst we were away sold in three weeks for quite a lot of money - just as well, really, since we were in the throes of buying a rather large and lovely house in a beautiful rural part of the country, thank you for asking. With a nice chunk left over after paying off the mortgage. Ah , so I was right about the trust fund. Either that or a lottery win or an inheritence. There's zero chance a dumb**** like you could earn enough by 40 to pay off the mortgage on a posh house. So, at just over 40, here I am - mortgage free - in my dream house. Poor us. How's the wage-slavery going? Well given I'm self employed its hardly slavery plus my contract will be ending soon and I won't be bothering to look for another until next year. The benefits of IT contracting rates. Though the only benefits you'd know about would be income support. With the exception of the 4x4 - proof-of-necessity short-term purchase - they're all cars that we love dearly, and all bought for being bloody excellent at the job. So, yes, they're definitely "decent vehicles". The fact that you think the value's more important than the driving dynamics shows you as the sort of vacuous urban-centric **** that you are. A cars value is set by what all the people who want to buy 2nd hand cars everywhere around the country think its worth. That rather trumps your opinion. If its only worth a few hundred quid its because everyone else thinks its scrap. Well you seem to champion cyclists and get all irate when someone dares to suggest they should be taxed. Why would anyone other than a dyed in the wool Cyclopath give a ****? a. Because I genuinely don't think bicycles are half as much of a traffic problem as the kind of ****wit who gets red mist at the thought of them b. Because I genuinely don't like snide hidden agendas promoted by duplicitous little ****s. c. Because I genuinely don't think bikes need taxing and I don't think cyclists need licensing. d. Because you're a trolling little dick. I don't believe you. And - one thing's definitely for certain - the value of your whatevercommutermobile's only going one way, and it ain't the same way as the value of our fleet is. LOL!!! Yeah , whatever you say :o) One other thing's for certain... I'm sure that the value of your car bothers you far more than the value of mine bothers me. If its value bothered me I'd buy a new one. But I happen to like it and intend to keep it until it falls to bits. NJR |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk