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.

... do your clearly and frequently expressed beliefs about restricting
road use for zero-VED-paying cyclists apply to zero-VED-paying
drivers, too?

It's a simple question, and surely a yes or no answer will cover it.

I think it's fairly clear now that you're trying to avoid answering the
question, which can really only lead to one conclusion. That VED is a red
herring, and it's the bicycle itself which your objections pertain to.
The rest is just bluster to try to hide your true motives.

Yes or No?

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

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.

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

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.

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. )

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! ) 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 )

--
Spud

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:04:25 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:
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 )

It might be the former but most definately the latter. He even lives the
cliche - drives a beaten up camper van. I think he's slowly turning into
Dugh mk2. Or he could be Dughs son, you never know!

NJR

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?