Elephant repellant
Just zis Guy, you know?
with a mixture of tiger dung and creosote. I have done this for years
and have never seen an elephant. QED.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
GPG public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
thirty-six
wrote:
Idiot. Tiger dung stops the cats pissing on you magnolias, and
creosote is too dificult to get hold of. The only way to stop an
elephant is to replant the cherry tree in to the neighbours garden.
Judith M Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>To prevent elephant infestations in your garden, paint the gateposts
>with a mixture of tiger dung and creosote. I have done this for years
>and have never seen an elephant. QED.
>
>Guy
You fucked up this group previously; are you trying to do so again?
Any chance of fucking off to the moderated group.
Mind, they're not very keen on you either - I see you have the fifth
most rejected messages there; they soon got the measure of you.
--
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Keitht
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:06:48 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> To prevent elephant infestations in your garden, paint the gateposts
>> with a mixture of tiger dung and creosote. I have done this for years
>> and have never seen an elephant. QED.
>>
>> Guy
>
> You fucked up this group previously; are you trying to do so again?
>
> Any chance of fucking off to the moderated group.
>
> Mind, they're not very keen on you either - I see you have the fifth
> most rejected messages there; they soon got the measure of you.
>
You really are anal to keep tracks on people in other newsgroups that
you have no interest in.
Why don't you fuck off to uk.r.sadbastard
--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
Marc
Judith M Smith
Oh hello again Keith - you seem to be very interested in my recent
posts - any particular reason?
What do you mean - I have "no interest in" - I read the urc group
avidly - fascinating.
You know that I am interested in the safety (or should that be
"dangers") of cycling.
I see you took objection to me reproducing the latest stats from the
DfT .
I thought the following sentence was most interesting:
The number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured fell by 9 per
cent whilst motorcycle and car user KSI casualties fell by 7 and 9 per
cent respectively. The total number of reported pedal cycle casualties
rose by 2 per cent whilst the number killed or seriously injured rose
by 4 per cent.
In summary:
Pedestrians killed or seriously injured - DOWN 9%
Motorcyclists killed or seriously injured - DOWN 7%
Car users killed or seriously injured - DOWN 9%
and finally
Cyclists killed or seriously injured - UP 4%
Draw you own conclusions - others will.
I wonder if URCM would be interested in a discussion on the safety of
cycling cf other forms of transport?
Judith M Smith
At the time the stats were produced you were indeed number one with 23
rejected against 6 accepted.
(Someone sent me the Excel spreadsheet of the posting stats which is
doing the rounds with the chosen few - you can also see the chosen
ones who are White listed)
Keitht
>
> Draw you own conclusions - others will.
>
> I wonder if URCM would be interested in a discussion on the safety of
> cycling cf other forms of transport?
>
he conclusion is absolutely clear -- you refuse to post any other DfT
data that makes sense of the carefully chosen DfT data you continuously
post.
The conclusion is that you have something to hide.
Judith M Smith
>Judith M Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> Draw you own conclusions - others will.
>>
>> I wonder if URCM would be interested in a discussion on the safety of
>> cycling cf other forms of transport?
>>
>
>
>he conclusion is absolutely clear -- you refuse to post any other DfT
>data that makes sense of the carefully chosen DfT data you continuously
>post.
>The conclusion is that you have something to hide.
In which case - feel free to find it and publish it here.
--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Keitht
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:29:09 +0000, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
>
>> Judith M Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Draw you own conclusions - others will.
>>>
>>> I wonder if URCM would be interested in a discussion on the safety of
>>> cycling cf other forms of transport?
>>>
>>
>> he conclusion is absolutely clear -- you refuse to post any other DfT
>> data that makes sense of the carefully chosen DfT data you continuously
>> post.
>> The conclusion is that you have something to hide.
>
>
> In which case - feel free to find it and publish it here.
>
>
>
You are the one who can dig up DfT figures - you are quite happy to do
so but, it seems, only those that suit your particular case or argument.
As such I see no reason for me to go digging around for stats that
should have been presented already.
Judith M Smith
>Judith M Smith wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:29:09 +0000, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
>>
>>> Judith M Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> Draw you own conclusions - others will.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if URCM would be interested in a discussion on the safety of
>>>> cycling cf other forms of transport?
>>>>
>>>
>>> he conclusion is absolutely clear -- you refuse to post any other DfT
>>> data that makes sense of the carefully chosen DfT data you continuously
>>> post.
>>> The conclusion is that you have something to hide.
>>
>>
>> In which case - feel free to find it and publish it here.
>>
>>
>>
>
>You are the one who can dig up DfT figures - you are quite happy to do
>so but, it seems, only those that suit your particular case or argument.
>
>As such I see no reason for me to go digging around for stats that
>should have been presented already.
So you really expect everyone who posts something which others may
think contentious should post all alternative points of views and
facts and figures to back them up.
Sorry - it doesn't work like that.
Get real.
--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.
The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly vizible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
Louis Genou
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:08:42 +0000, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
> >Judith M Smith wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:29:09 +0000, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
>
> >>> Judith M Smith wrote:
>
> >>>> Draw you own conclusions - others will.
>
> >>>> I wonder if URCM would be interested in a discussion on the safety of
> >>>> cycling cf other forms of transport?
>
> >>> he conclusion is absolutely clear -- you refuse to post any other DfT
> >>> data that makes sense of the carefully chosen DfT data you continuously
> >>> post.
> >>> The conclusion is that you have something to hide.
>
> >> In which case - feel free to find it and publish it here.
>
> >You are the one who can dig up DfT figures - you are quite happy to do
> >so but, it seems, only those that suit your particular case or argument.
>
> >As such I see no reason for me to go digging around for stats that
> >should have been presented already.
>
> So you really expect everyone who posts something which others may
> think contentious should post all alternative points of views and
> facts and figures to back them up.
>
> Sorry - it doesn't work like that.
>
> Get real.
So cries for spoon-feeding are only valid when when they come from
you? That's so far into the stupid it makes "2012" look like a piece
of intelligent film-making.
--
Louis Genou
Passing Maniac
Judith M Smith
No - if someone states something - I expect them to be able to back up
what they say. I do not expect - nor ever ask - for them to provide
the counter point of view or opposite stats.
Feel free where I - or indeed anyone else - has asked a poster to
present the counter arguments/stats to the point that they are making.
As I said - it doesn't work like that.
I am sorry that you do not have the common sense to see the difference
between these two approaches.
Keitht
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:08:42 +0000, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
>
>> Judith M Smith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:29:09 +0000, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Judith M Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Draw you own conclusions - others will.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if URCM would be interested in a discussion on the safety of
>>>>> cycling cf other forms of transport?
>>>>>
>>>> he conclusion is absolutely clear -- you refuse to post any other DfT
>>>> data that makes sense of the carefully chosen DfT data you continuously
>>>> post.
>>>> The conclusion is that you have something to hide.
>>>
>>> In which case - feel free to find it and publish it here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You are the one who can dig up DfT figures - you are quite happy to do
>> so but, it seems, only those that suit your particular case or argument.
>>
>> As such I see no reason for me to go digging around for stats that
>> should have been presented already.
>
>
> So you really expect everyone who posts something which others may
> think contentious should post all alternative points of views and
> facts and figures to back them up.
>
> Sorry - it doesn't work like that.
>
> Get real.
>
>
>
>
Reality is that you are unwilling/unable to post any figures that will
make sense of the minuscule amount of data that you claim to be
important on its own.
Reality is that you are more than likely to be unwilling as it may show
an increase in cycling that more than exceeds the KSI figures.
Reality is that you are happy to produce data when it suits you and at
no other time.
Reality is reality - not your rather odd world of black and white.
Judith M Smith
Why don't *you* publish the figures which will put mine in a poor
perspective?