Roger Thorpe wrote:

I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to
having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars,
but he is remarkably open and honest.

He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers
that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a
vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts.

Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to
having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars,
but he is remarkably open and honest.

He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers
that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a
vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts.

But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it.

Roger Thorpe

Roger Thorpe wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to
having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars,
but he is remarkably open and honest.

He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers
that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a
vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts.

But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it.

The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others
does not make him "open and honest".

Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed
and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest".

Once more I am astonished that *any* behaviour seems to be acceptable to
the cycling community as long as someone wedges a saddle up their bum
crack, or claims that they do. Because I don't believe a single word
that Robertson says.

Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to
having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars,
but he is remarkably open and honest.
He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers
that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a
vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts.
But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it.

The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others
does not make him "open and honest".

Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed
and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest".

Once more I am astonished that *any* behaviour seems to be acceptable to
the cycling community as long as someone wedges a saddle up their bum
crack, or claims that they do. Because I don't believe a single word
that Robertson says.

Neither does he, when he sobers up. (Rare as that might be)

Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to
having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars,
but he is remarkably open and honest.
He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers
that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a
vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts.
But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it.

The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others
does not make him "open and honest".

I've not read him "boast" about it, you'll have to ask him if he thinks
that it was a wise thing to do. I think that I know what his answer
might be.

Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed
and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest".

No it doesn't, because my argument is based on the premise that he
regrets that action, but was prepared to confess it. Sadly a couple of
trolls here will continue to use it as a stick to beat him.


Once more I am astonished that *any* behaviour seems to be acceptable to
the cycling community as long as someone wedges a saddle up their bum
crack, or claims that they do. Because I don't believe a single word
that Robertson says.

If you had been reading this group (URC)for a while you would have read
responses that condemned red light jumping, riding on the pavement,
riding while intoxicated, riding without lights etc etc etc.
At the moment the group is in a dysfunctional state after the concerted
attempts by a couple of trolls to destroy it, Doug's attempts to stir up
controversy and a boneheaded series of arguments about helmets where
neither side will let go.
What we've got now is overreaction, overstatement and wilful
misunderstanding and an absence of people who want to discuss the joys
of self propelled travel. I hope that it will calm down soon.

Roger Thorpe

Roger Thorpe wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably
admit to
having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC
regulars,
but he is remarkably open and honest.
He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who
considers
that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a
vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts.
But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it.

The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others
does not make him "open and honest".

I've not read him "boast" about it, you'll have to ask him if he thinks
that it was a wise thing to do. I think that I know what his answer
might be.

I'm not so sure that you do. He has certainly revelled in the
controversy on more than one newsgroup, sometimes 'gleefully'.

Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed
and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest".

No it doesn't, because my argument is based on the premise that he
regrets that action, but was prepared to confess it. Sadly a couple of
trolls here will continue to use it as a stick to beat him.

The reason he gets 'beaten with a stick' could be related to his very
open hatred (no, thats not an exaggeration) of private cars and/or their
drivers. Since he insists on being so deliberately confrontational, I
think its churlish to call those who respond in similarly 'robust'
fashion trolls. Perhaps you should read more of Googles comprehensive
posting history on him and then re-evaluate your viewpoint?

Roger Thorpe wrote:

The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others
does not make him "open and honest".

I've not read him "boast" about it, you'll have to ask him if he thinks
that it was a wise thing to do. I think that I know what his answer
might be.

He quite openly boasted about it here on uk.transport. He seemed to find
it very funny, and he had the perfect excuse "everyone does it". I've
never seen him utter a word of regret.

Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed
and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest".

No it doesn't, because my argument is based on the premise that he regrets
that action,

Very Christian. However I think that several Emperors had the right
attitude to Christian attitudes. And since I've never seen him utter a
word of regret and I have seen him boast about his continuing excessive
drinking, I don't see any sign of regret on the horizon.

but was prepared to confess it. Sadly a couple of
trolls here will continue to use it as a stick to beat him.

He deserves beating with something bigger than a stick. Can I send a
virtual pick-axe handle to his detractors?

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:52:59 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

snip


At the moment the group is in a dysfunctional state after the concerted
attempts by a couple of trolls to destroy it,


I don't thinks that the Taylor and Chapman realise the harm they do -
I don't think they do it intentionally.


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.