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 10:21:40 +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?

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

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?

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

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?

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? ) 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 )

--
Spud

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?