Woman on crossing mown down by cylist

[Mrcheerful]

A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury after a
cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
morning (Tuesday 8 January).

I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?

http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/01/09/pedestrian-suffers-serious-head-injury-in-brighton-in-collision-with-cyclist/18760

[Simon Weissel]

You obviously thought wrong.

There is a very well thought comment on that site which states:

�Terrible for both people involved. But before anyone jumps to
conclusions and starts ranting, please note there is no statement either
way as to who was �in the wrong� here. The cyclist might have failed to
stop, or the pedestrian might have walked out in front of him without
looking / giving him time to stop.�

Many cyclists jump red lights and many pedestrians walk into the road
into cyclists without looking.

Either way, cyclists need to take the upper hand and take care. You
can�t really blame the pedestrian.

[thirty-six]

On Jan 9, 4:14 pm, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury after a
> cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
> morning (Tuesday 8 January).
>
> I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?
>

> http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/01/09/pedestrian-suffers-seri...

was she wearing a helmet?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon enables wrote:
> On 09/01/2013 16:14, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury after a
>> cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
>> morning (Tuesday 8 January).
>>
>> I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?
>>
>> http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/01/09/pedestrian-suffers-serious-head-injury-in-brighton-in-collision-with-cyclist/18760
>>
>>
>>
>
> You obviously thought wrong.
>
> There is a very well thought comment on that site which states:
>
> �Terrible for both people involved. But before anyone jumps to
> conclusions and starts ranting, please note there is no statement either
> way as to who was �in the wrong� here. The cyclist might have failed to
> stop, or the pedestrian might have walked out in front of him without
> looking / giving him time to stop.�
>
> Many cyclists jump red lights and many pedestrians walk into the road
> into cyclists without looking.

All irrelevant. A cyclist approaching a pelican crossing should use
anticipation & observation and travel at a suitable speed that would
enable him to stop.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

[JNugent]

On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon Weissel wrote:

> On 09/01/2013 16:14, Mrcheerful wrote:

>> A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury after a
>> cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
>> morning (Tuesday 8 January).
>
>> I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?
>
>> http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/01/09/pedestrian-suffers-serious-head-injury-in-brighton-in-collision-with-cyclist/18760
>
> You obviously thought wrong.

If he thought wrong, that will be because he was told wrong - here.

> There is a very well thought comment on that site which states:
>
> �Terrible for both people involved. But before anyone jumps to
> conclusions and starts ranting, please note there is no statement either
> way as to who was �in the wrong� here. The cyclist might have failed to
> stop, or the pedestrian might have walked out in front of him without
> looking / giving him time to stop.�

If cyclists cannot (or are unlikely to) cause serious injury or damage
(and that is the usual claim, though there will no doubt now be some
backpedalling on it), then it doesn't actually matter whose fault the
collision was.

> Many cyclists jump red lights and many pedestrians walk into the road
> into cyclists without looking.
> Either way, cyclists need to take the upper hand and take care. You
> can�t really blame the pedestrian.

You can if she didn't watch where she was going, but as you say, we have
nothing whatever (at this stage) to even suggest that.

[Simon Weissel]

On 09/01/2013 18:42, JNugent wrote:
> On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon Weissel wrote:
>
>> On 09/01/2013 16:14, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>>> A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury after a
>>> cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
>>> morning (Tuesday 8 January).
>>
>>> I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?
>>
>>> http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/01/09/pedestrian-suffers-serious-head-injury-in-brighton-in-collision-with-cyclist/18760
>>>
>>
>> You obviously thought wrong.
>
> If he thought wrong, that will be because he was told wrong - here.

Where? on the Interweb?

Like Abraham Lincoln said, "You should not believe everything you read
online". Or it might have been George Washington, I can't remember.

>> There is a very well thought comment on that site which states:
>>
>> �Terrible for both people involved. But before anyone jumps to
>> conclusions and starts ranting, please note there is no statement either
>> way as to who was �in the wrong� here. The cyclist might have failed to
>> stop, or the pedestrian might have walked out in front of him without
>> looking / giving him time to stop.�
>
> If cyclists cannot (or are unlikely to) cause serious injury or damage
> (and that is the usual claim, though there will no doubt now be some
> backpedalling on it), then it doesn't actually matter whose fault the
> collision was.
>
>> Many cyclists jump red lights and many pedestrians walk into the road
>> into cyclists without looking.
>> Either way, cyclists need to take the upper hand and take care. You
>> can�t really blame the pedestrian.
>
> You can if she didn't watch where she was going, but as you say, we have
> nothing whatever (at this stage) to even suggest that.

Disagree. All road users should anticipate and be prepared for the
actions of pedestrians. Running 'em over, is almost always the fault of
the one doing the running over.

[Simon Weissel]

No, she was selfishly walking across the road with no protection whatsoever.

[JNugent]

On 09/01/2013 20:47, Simon Weissel wrote:

> On 09/01/2013 18:42, JNugent wrote:
>> On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2013 16:14, Mrcheerful wrote:

>>>> A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury after a
>>>> cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
>>>> morning (Tuesday 8 January).

>>>> I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?
>>>> http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/01/09/pedestrian-suffers-serious-head-injury-in-brighton-in-collision-with-cyclist/18760

>>> You obviously thought wrong.

>> If he thought wrong, that will be because he was told wrong - here.

> Where? on the Interweb?

Not on the world wide web, on the internet. Strictly: on usent, in
uk.rec.cycling.

Claims that cyclists cannot hurt pedestrians abound here.

> Like Abraham Lincoln said, "You should not believe everything you read
> online".

Good advice.

I, of course, don't believe everything I see online, especially not when
it is an assertion that cyclists cannot injure, or are unlikely to
injure, pedestrians.

>>> Many cyclists jump red lights and many pedestrians walk into the road
>>> into cyclists without looking.
>>> Either way, cyclists need to take the upper hand and take care. You
>>> can�t really blame the pedestrian.
>>
>> You can if she didn't watch where she was going, but as you say, we have
>> nothing whatever (at this stage) to even suggest that.
>
> Disagree. All road users should anticipate and be prepared for the
> actions of pedestrians. Running 'em over, is almost always the fault of
> the one doing the running over.

If everyone follows the rules of the road, including kerb drill, and
including stopping at pedestrian crossings, such collisions are less likely.

[Simon Weissel]

On 09/01/2013 20:54, JNugent wrote:
> On 09/01/2013 20:47, Simon Weissel wrote:
>
>> On 09/01/2013 18:42, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/2013 16:14, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>>>>> A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury after a
>>>>> cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
>>>>> morning (Tuesday 8 January).
>
>>>>> I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?
>>>>> http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/01/09/pedestrian-suffers-serious-head-injury-in-brighton-in-collision-with-cyclist/18760
>>>>>
>
>>>> You obviously thought wrong.
>
>>> If he thought wrong, that will be because he was told wrong - here.
>
>> Where? on the Interweb?
>
> Not on the world wide web, on the internet. Strictly: on usent, in
> uk.rec.cycling.
>
> Claims that cyclists cannot hurt pedestrians abound here.

P L E A S E . . . The claim that cyclists CANNOT hurt pedestrians is
absurd. The only time I have EVER seen this assertion is from Mr
Cheerful and anything said by him has to be taken with a lorra lorra salt.

>> Like Abraham Lincoln said, "You should not believe everything you read
>> online".
>
> Good advice.
>
> I, of course, don't believe everything I see online, especially not when
> it is an assertion that cyclists cannot injure, or are unlikely to
> injure, pedestrians.

Injury can be fatal. The regularity of it and the liklihood of it
happening is a different matter.

>>>> Many cyclists jump red lights and many pedestrians walk into the road
>>>> into cyclists without looking.
>>>> Either way, cyclists need to take the upper hand and take care. You
>>>> can�t really blame the pedestrian.
>>>
>>> You can if she didn't watch where she was going, but as you say, we have
>>> nothing whatever (at this stage) to even suggest that.
>>
>> Disagree. All road users should anticipate and be prepared for the
>> actions of pedestrians. Running 'em over, is almost always the fault of
>> the one doing the running over.
>
> If everyone follows the rules of the road, including kerb drill, and
> including stopping at pedestrian crossings, such collisions are less
> likely.

Agreed, but those in control of vehicles need to be responsible for
their actions. Obeying the law and sticking to the rules is not nearly
enough. They need to take care, and take responsibility.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:54:30 -0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon enables wrote:
>> On 09/01/2013 16:14, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury after a
>>> cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
>>> morning (Tuesday 8 January).
>>>
>>> I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?
>>>
>>> http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/01/09/pedestrian-suffers-serious-head-injury-in-brighton-in-collision-with-cyclist/18760
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You obviously thought wrong.
>>
>> There is a very well thought comment on that site which states:
>>

>> “Terrible for both people involved. But before anyone jumps to

>> conclusions and starts ranting, please note there is no statement either

>> way as to who was ‘in the wrong’ here. The cyclist might have failed to

>> stop, or the pedestrian might have walked out in front of him without

>> looking / giving him time to stop.”

>>
>> Many cyclists jump red lights and many pedestrians walk into the road
>> into cyclists without looking.
>
> All irrelevant. A cyclist approaching a pelican crossing should use
> anticipation & observation and travel at a suitable speed that would
> enable him to stop.

Have you never seen those crazy pedestrians that just walk across zebras without looking?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Bumper sticker: "Help! She's farted and I can't get out."

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:09:11 -0000, Simon Weissel <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:

> On 09/01/2013 20:54, JNugent wrote:
>> On 09/01/2013 20:47, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/01/2013 18:42, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>>>> On 09/01/2013 16:14, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>

<snip>
>>
<snip>

>>
>>>>> You obviously thought wrong.
>>
>>>> If he thought wrong, that will be because he was told wrong - here.
>>
>>> Where? on the Interweb?
>>
>> Not on the world wide web, on the internet. Strictly: on usent, in
>> uk.rec.cycling.
>>
>> Claims that cyclists cannot hurt pedestrians abound here.
>
> P L E A S E . . . The claim that cyclists CANNOT hurt pedestrians is
> absurd. The only time I have EVER seen this assertion is from Mr
> Cheerful and anything said by him has to be taken with a lorra lorra salt.

It is not absurd. A bicycle is 10 times lighter than a car.

It can also be said that butter knives can't kill you, but some twat somewhere will manage it.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A waiter brings the customer the steak he ordered with his thumb over the meat.
"Are you crazy?" yelled the customer, "with your hand on my steak?"
"What" answers the waiter, "You want it to fall on the floor again?"

[Lieutenant Scott]

Why? Everyone seems to assume cyclists should wear them. Why not pedestrians? They get involved in accidents too.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

If only women came with pull-down menus and on-line help.

[Partac]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wqn0bh14ytk5n5@i7-940...

Have you ever seen those crazy psycholists who ride across zebra crossings
without caring?

[Partac]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wqn0d3yyytk5n5@i7-940...

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:09:11 -0000, Simon Weissel
<si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:

> On 09/01/2013 20:54, JNugent wrote:
>> On 09/01/2013 20:47, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/01/2013 18:42, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>>>> On 09/01/2013 16:14, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>
<snip>
>>
>>>>> You obviously thought wrong.
>>
>>>> If he thought wrong, that will be because he was told wrong - here.
>>
>>> Where? on the Interweb?
>>
>> Not on the world wide web, on the internet. Strictly: on usent, in
>> uk.rec.cycling.
>>
>> Claims that cyclists cannot hurt pedestrians abound here.
>
> P L E A S E . . . The claim that cyclists CANNOT hurt pedestrians is
> absurd. The only time I have EVER seen this assertion is from Mr
> Cheerful and anything said by him has to be taken with a lorra lorra salt.

.........You're not quite smart enough to recognise sarcasm when it hits you
in the face, then?..............

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 09/01/2013 22:22, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:48:29 -0000, Simon Weissel
> <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 09/01/2013 17:52, thirty-six wrote:
>>> On Jan 9, 4:14 pm, "Mrcheerful"<g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury after a
>>>> cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
>>>> morning (Tuesday 8 January).
>>>>
>>>> I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/01/09/pedestrian-suffers-seri...
>>>>
>>>
>>> was she wearing a helmet?
>>
>> No, she was selfishly walking across the road with no protection
>> whatsoever.
>
> Why? Everyone seems to assume cyclists should wear them. Why not
> pedestrians? They get involved in accidents too.
>

Pedestrians already have seat belts & air bags, idiot.

[PhilO]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:54:37 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>
> Claims that cyclists cannot hurt pedestrians abound here.
>

Unless "abound" equals "Doug used to say" I think I might like to challenge that.
Is this going to be another one of those threads where people claim "it's been said lots here" but are unable to cite any examples?

[Partac]

"PhilO" wrote in message
news:8c09d67e-60ff-4310...@googlegroups.com...

When you last claimed this, Dave actually went back through the archives and
proved you wrong.
Are you banking on him not being arsed to do the same again?

[PhilO]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:48:19 AM UTC, Partac wrote:
>
>
> When you last claimed this, Dave actually went back through the archives and
> proved you wrong.
> Are you banking on him not being arsed to do the same again?

I think you'll find your memory is at fault here.
Dave never goes back through any archives.
Do you want to check and try again?

[soup]

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

> It can also be said that butter knives can't kill you, but some twat
> somewhere will manage it.

So instead of ' CAN'T ' use ' won't usually '.

[Simon Weissel]

There was a case a while ago of someone tripping over and falling onto a
knife left upright in their dishwasher which had the rather tragic
result of cutting their life short. While this is rare, it does make
sense to place your knives pointy end down when putting them in the
dishwasher, just in case.

These things can happen, so we may as well all guard against them
happening to us.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 09/01/2013 21:09, Simon Weissel wrote:
> On 09/01/2013 20:54, JNugent wrote:
>> On 09/01/2013 20:47, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/01/2013 18:42, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>>>> On 09/01/2013 16:14, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>>>>> A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury
>>>>>> after a
>>>>>> cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
>>>>>> morning (Tuesday 8 January).
>>
>>>>>> I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?
>>>>>> http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/01/09/pedestrian-suffers-serious-head-injury-in-brighton-in-collision-with-cyclist/18760
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>> You obviously thought wrong.
>>
>>>> If he thought wrong, that will be because he was told wrong - here.
>>
>>> Where? on the Interweb?
>>
>> Not on the world wide web, on the internet. Strictly: on usent, in
>> uk.rec.cycling.
>>
>> Claims that cyclists cannot hurt pedestrians abound here.
>
> P L E A S E . . . The claim that cyclists CANNOT hurt pedestrians is
> absurd. The only time I have EVER seen this assertion is from Mr
> Cheerful and anything said by him has to be taken with a lorra lorra salt.

The claim has been made many times here.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

I cited several - and you went strangely quiet....

[Simon Weissel]

Really?

I would be surprised if this type of comment was made by anyone who
knows anything about cycling. Pedestrians can be fragile, especially the
elderly, and while you could knock over a child or young person and
probably not do much damage to them you have to accept that if you do
collide with someone they might be seriously hurt or worse, and that you
will be to blame.

[Partac]

"PhilO" wrote in message
news:6e3b3b77-ce56-46c0...@googlegroups.com...

Nothing wrong with my memory, but you appear to be suffering from selective
Alzheimer's.
Just to help you try to remember - it was the last comment you made before
you buggered off with your tail between your legs, and laid low for a while.
Remember now? You made similar claims but Dave posted a number of posts as
evidence that proved you wrong.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Contact me off group Mr Partac, I have more news for you :-)

[Lieutenant Scott]

If the pedestrian waits until they can see all vehicles are stopping, then they won't get hit. It takes two to cause a collision.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A lawyer is an expert on justice in much the same way your average hooker is an expert on love.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:14:46 -0000, Partac <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> "Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wqn0d3yyytk5n5@i7-940...
>
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:09:11 -0000, Simon Weissel
> <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 09/01/2013 20:54, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2013 20:47, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/01/2013 18:42, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon Weissel wrote:

>>>

> <snip>
>>>
> <snip>

>>>

>>>
>>>>> If he thought wrong, that will be because he was told wrong - here.
>>>
>>>> Where? on the Interweb?
>>>
>>> Not on the world wide web, on the internet. Strictly: on usent, in
>>> uk.rec.cycling.
>>>
>>> Claims that cyclists cannot hurt pedestrians abound here.
>>
>> P L E A S E . . . The claim that cyclists CANNOT hurt pedestrians is
>> absurd. The only time I have EVER seen this assertion is from Mr
>> Cheerful and anything said by him has to be taken with a lorra lorra salt.
>
> .........You're not quite smart enough to recognise sarcasm when it hits you
> in the face, then?..............

I didn't write that.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Doctor: "Ask the accident victim his name so we can notify his family."
Nurse: "I did! He said his family already knows his name."

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:17:08 -0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> On 09/01/2013 22:22, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:48:29 -0000, Simon Weissel
>> <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/01/2013 17:52, thirty-six wrote:
>>>> On Jan 9, 4:14 pm, "Mrcheerful"<g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury after a
>>>>> cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
>>>>> morning (Tuesday 8 January).
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/01/09/pedestrian-suffers-seri...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> was she wearing a helmet?
>>>
>>> No, she was selfishly walking across the road with no protection
>>> whatsoever.
>>
>> Why? Everyone seems to assume cyclists should wear them. Why not
>> pedestrians? They get involved in accidents too.
>>
> Pedestrians already have seat belts & air bags, idiot.

I've never seen a pedestrian with either of those.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

I learnt so much from my mistakes I think I'll make another.

[JNugent]

On 10/01/2013 08:29, PhilO wrote:

Challenge it all you like.

The majority of people here know the truth of the matter.

[JNugent]

On 10/01/2013 09:18, PhilO wrote:

> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:48:19 AM UTC, Partac wrote:
>>
>> When you last claimed this, Dave actually went back through the archives and
>> proved you wrong.
>> Are you banking on him not being arsed to do the same again?
>
> I think you'll find your memory is at fault here.
> Dave never goes back through any archives.

He did exactly that about two weeks ago, in direct response to the last
of your "challenges".

> Do you want to check and try again?

It is your good self who needs to do that.

[Mr Pounder]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.wqpo2nrzytk5n5@i7-940...

What part of she was on a Pelican Crossing do you not understand you stupid
prick?

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:34:21 -0000, Simon Weissel <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:

> On 10/01/2013 17:29, soup wrote:
>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>
>>> It can also be said that butter knives can't kill you, but some twat
>>> somewhere will manage it.
>>
>> So instead of ' CAN'T ' use ' won't usually '.
>
> There was a case a while ago of someone tripping over and falling onto a
> knife left upright in their dishwasher which had the rather tragic
> result of cutting their life short.

Tragic? I'd say hilarious.

There's a German spoof health and safety video somewhere (I can't find it) with a woman falling onto a dishwasher cutlery drawer.

> While this is rare, it does make
> sense to place your knives pointy end down when putting them in the
> dishwasher, just in case.

They clean better pointy end up.

> These things can happen, so we may as well all guard against them
> happening to us.

No, we may aswell not guard against something which happens to 1 in 50 million people.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

United Airlines Flight Attendant: "Ladies and Gentlemen, as you are all now painfully aware, our Captain has landed in Seattle. From all of us at United Airlines we'd like to thank you for flying with us today and please be very careful as you open the overhead bins as you may be killed by falling luggage that shifted during our so called "touch down."

[Lieutenant Scott]

Shut up you silly pedant.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe. -- Carl Sagan

[Lieutenant Scott]

Zebra? Pelican?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

They have Mother's day for Mother's and Father's day for Father's -- so what do they have for Single Men?
Palm Sunday

[Mrcheerful]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.wqprnjqwytk5n5@i7-940...

> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:34:21 -0000, Simon Weissel
> <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 10/01/2013 17:29, soup wrote:
>>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> It can also be said that butter knives can't kill you, but some twat
>>>> somewhere will manage it.
>>>
>>> So instead of ' CAN'T ' use ' won't usually '.
>>
>> There was a case a while ago of someone tripping over and falling onto a
>> knife left upright in their dishwasher which had the rather tragic
>> result of cutting their life short.
>
> Tragic? I'd say hilarious.
>
> There's a German spoof health and safety video somewhere (I can't find it)
> with a woman falling onto a dishwasher cutlery drawer.
>
>> While this is rare, it does make
>> sense to place your knives pointy end down when putting them in the
>> dishwasher, just in case.
>
> They clean better pointy end up.
>
>> These things can happen, so we may as well all guard against them
>> happening to us.
>
> No, we may aswell not guard against something which happens to 1 in 50
> million people.
>

Decent quality dishwashers have a cutlery drawer.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Why would that be any better?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The Artist Formerly Known As Prince has a new album out.
It's called "The Songs Formerly Known As Hits."

[Mrcheerful]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.wqpx7jxlytk5n5@i7-940...

No possibility of knives blade upwards :)
It is a better system, every bit of cutlery is separate from each other
which means they are better cleaned and (if you have valuable cutlery) no
chance of rubbing against each other and getting scratched. If you have a
huge kitchen the whole drawer insert can just go straight into a drawer and
you put the spare insert into the washer.

[PhilO]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:42:48 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 08:29, PhilO wrote:
>
> > Unless "abound" equals "Doug used to say" I think I might like to challenge that.
>
> > Is this going to be another one of those threads where people claim "it's been said lots here" but are unable to cite any examples?
>
> I cited several - and you went strangely quiet....
>

Dave, is that this post:
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/uk.rec.cycling/Tf8u7-Kv7Qo/discussion

You cited one example from 2006 where you cliam Tony Raven said cyclists can't kill pedestrians. Can you provide a link to this as Google can't find that post.
I looked and found Tony Raven saying in 2006:

"Between 3 and 4 pedestrians are killed on the roads a year by cyclists"

Doesn't sound like somebody who thinks cyclists can't kill pedestrians, does he?

Anyway, is that your definition of the claim has been made many times? One person over six years ago (and even he acknowledged cyclists kill pedestrians)

Or are there other (non-Doug) examples you can provide? (with links, please)

[Mrcheerful]

"PhilO" <goo1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:14e5a7a1-8e9e-4383...@googlegroups.com...

are you making a 'faulty' search?

[PhilO]

On Friday, January 11, 2013 1:43:54 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>
>
> are you making a 'faulty' search?

Alays a possibility. Unlike Dave, I do admit to being wrong sometimes.

Dave claimed that in 2006 Tony Raven posted:
"A cyclist cannot possibly kill a pedestrian, they lack the kinetic
energy, only motorists kill pedestrians".

I cannot find this post (but have found ones that contradict that opinion)

If anyone can give a link to the post Dave claims he found, it would be appreciated

Cheerless - no examples from you, I notice.

[judiths...@hotmail.com]

Look, Sunshine, Dave has not killed anyone with a butter-knife so fuck off.

[Lieutenant Scott]

It's a very remote possibility, so can be ignored.

> It is a better system, every bit of cutlery is separate from each other

Which presumably means it takes longer to put them in. I can just put a bundle in mine in one go.

> which means they are better cleaned

I've never had a dirty piece of cutlery come out of it.

> and (if you have valuable cutlery) no
> chance of rubbing against each other and getting scratched.

Snob. I prefer products to be a tough quality rather than a fancy quality.

> If you have a
> huge kitchen the whole drawer insert can just go straight into a drawer and
> you put the spare insert into the washer.

If you have a huge kitchen you should have a maid.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Dijon vu: the same mustard as before.

[Mr Pounder]

<judiths...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:949d2665-90ed-4bc7...@googlegroups.com...

> Look, Sunshine, Dave has not killed anyone with a butter-knife so fuck
> off.

LS is at best a stupid cunt.

[Judith]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:41:19 -0800 (PST), judiths...@hotmail.com wrote:

>Look, Sunshine, Dave has not killed anyone with a butter-knife so fuck off.

--

the above post claiming to be from Judith Smith was actually made
by the knob-head Justin Lewis.

[Simon Weissel]

I think he's quite funny.

Seems to be a lot of people on this group who get upset very easily.

[Partac]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:dbi0f8to23m9ouqic...@4ax.com...

You could save yourself some time here.
When you write "the knob-head Justin Lewis", you could just leave it at "
the knob-head".

We would all know who you mean.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:alb069...@mid.individual.net...

Indeed, I'm sure we'll all be informed in the unlikely event that the the
situation ever changes.

[Mrcheerful]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.wqra9mjsytk5n5@i7-940...

It only takes seconds to lay the cutlery in the dividers. The other reasons
I listed are not ones that apply to me. Other great uses for the cutlery
drawer on a dishwasher is washing smaller things that would fall through the
normal grid, such as children's toys like lego. Once you have had a d/w
with a separate cutlery drawer you would really miss it if you had to go to
one without.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 11/01/2013 15:36, PhilO wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 1:43:54 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> are you making a 'faulty' search?
>
> Alays a possibility. Unlike Dave, I do admit to being wrong sometimes.

I'm "Alays" right.

>
> Dave claimed that in 2006 Tony Raven posted:
> "A cyclist cannot possibly kill a pedestrian, they lack the kinetic
> energy, only motorists kill pedestrians".
>
> I cannot find this post (but have found ones that contradict that opinion)
>
> If anyone can give a link to the post Dave claims he found, it would be appreciated
>
> Cheerless - no examples from you, I notice.
>

Are you so thick you can't search Google Groups properly?

[Mr Pounder]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message
news:kcphnk$4hu$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

Is there?
>
>

[Mr Pounder]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.wqra9mjsytk5n5@i7-940...

He is talking about the sharpest knife in the drawer, you stupid cunt.

[soup]

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> Shut up you silly pedant.

Shouldn't that be? :-

Shut up, you silly pedant.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"PhilO" <goo1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:567dbff9-df7a-46ae...@googlegroups.com...

You need a newsreader with a decent search function, Google won't be much
help. If you look hard enough, you can see almost every cyclist who makes a
claim of some sort, contradicts that claim completely in another post. Maybe
he was being facetious with the "kinetic energy" post but that doesn't make
it "un-said".

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:48:51 -0000, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wqra9mjsytk5n5@i7-940...
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:39:25 -0000, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.wqpx7jxlytk5n5@i7-940...
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:48:08 -0000, Mrcheerful
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:op.wqprnjqwytk5n5@i7-940...

>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Decent quality dishwashers have a cutlery drawer.
>>>>
>>>> Why would that be any better?
>>>
>>> No possibility of knives blade upwards :)
>>
>> It's a very remote possibility, so can be ignored.
>>
>>> It is a better system, every bit of cutlery is separate from each other
>>
>> Which presumably means it takes longer to put them in. I can just put a
>> bundle in mine in one go.
>>
>>> which means they are better cleaned
>>
>> I've never had a dirty piece of cutlery come out of it.
>>
>>> and (if you have valuable cutlery) no
>>> chance of rubbing against each other and getting scratched.
>>
>> Snob. I prefer products to be a tough quality rather than a fancy
>> quality.
>>
>>> If you have a
>>> huge kitchen the whole drawer insert can just go straight into a drawer
>>> and
>>> you put the spare insert into the washer.
>>
>> If you have a huge kitchen you should have a maid.
>>
>
> It only takes seconds to lay the cutlery in the dividers.

The whole point of a dishwasher is to save time. Extra seconds could mean just washing them by hand would be quicker.

> The other reasons
> I listed are not ones that apply to me. Other great uses for the cutlery
> drawer on a dishwasher is washing smaller things that would fall through the
> normal grid, such as children's toys like lego. Once you have had a d/w
> with a separate cutlery drawer you would really miss it if you had to go to
> one without.

The bottom of my cutlery basket has very small holes, I could put even lego 1s in there.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

As the coffin was being lowered into the ground at a Traffic Wardens funeral, a voice from inside screams:
"I'm not dead, I'm not dead. Let me out!"
The Vicar smiles, leans forward sucking air through his teeth and mutters:
"Too late pal, I've already done the paperwork"

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.wqrmw0s1ytk5n5@i7-940...

>> The other reasons
>> I listed are not ones that apply to me. Other great uses for the cutlery
>> drawer on a dishwasher is washing smaller things that would fall through
>> the
>> normal grid, such as children's toys like lego. Once you have had a d/w
>> with a separate cutlery drawer you would really miss it if you had to go
>> to
>> one without.
>
> The bottom of my cutlery basket has very small holes, I could put even
> lego 1s in there.

Congrats, you've found another receptacle which could easily hold your cock
and your brain simultaneously.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:13:18 -0000, Mr Pounder <MrPo...@rationalthought.com> wrote:

>
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wqra9mjsytk5n5@i7-940...
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:39:25 -0000, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.wqpx7jxlytk5n5@i7-940...
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:48:08 -0000, Mrcheerful
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:op.wqprnjqwytk5n5@i7-940...

>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Decent quality dishwashers have a cutlery drawer.
>>>>
>>>> Why would that be any better?
>>>
>>> No possibility of knives blade upwards :)
>>
>> It's a very remote possibility, so can be ignored.
>>
>>> It is a better system, every bit of cutlery is separate from each other
>>
>> Which presumably means it takes longer to put them in. I can just put a
>> bundle in mine in one go.
>>
>>> which means they are better cleaned
>>
>> I've never had a dirty piece of cutlery come out of it.
>>
>>> and (if you have valuable cutlery) no
>>> chance of rubbing against each other and getting scratched.
>>
>> Snob. I prefer products to be a tough quality rather than a fancy
>> quality.
>>
>>> If you have a
>>> huge kitchen the whole drawer insert can just go straight into a drawer
>>> and
>>> you put the spare insert into the washer.
>>
>> If you have a huge kitchen you should have a maid.
>
> He is talking about the sharpest knife in the drawer, you stupid cunt.

Who let that Northerner in here?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A foursome of ladies was standing on a tee when a streaker ran across the fairway in front of them. One lady asks, "Is that Dick Green?"
Another replied, "No, I think it's just the reflection off the grass."

[Lieutenant Scott]

The meaning isn't changed.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The tired doctor was awakened by a phone call in the middle of the night. "Please, you have to come right over," pleaded the distraught young mother. "My child has swallowed a contraceptive."
The physician dressed quickly, but before he could get out the door, the phone rang again.
"You don't have to come over after all," the woman said with a sigh of relief. "My husband just found another one."

[soup]

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:24:37 -0000, soup <cheezs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> Shut up you silly pedant.
>>
>> Shouldn't that be? :-
>>
>> Shut up, you silly pedant.
>
> The meaning isn't changed.
>

B A Z I N G A !

[Lieutenant Scott]

Putting your cock near rotary equipment is a bad idea: http://youtu.be/_6C521f3dDc

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body - US Marines

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:42:09 -0000, soup <cheezs...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:24:37 -0000, soup <cheezs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> Shut up you silly pedant.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't that be? :-
>>>
>>> Shut up, you silly pedant.
>>
>> The meaning isn't changed.
>>
>
> B A Z I N G A !

Then why bother pressing an extra key?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

I've had bad luck with both my wives. The first one left me and the second one didn't.

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:42:09 -0000, soup <cheezs...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:24:37 -0000, soup <cheezs...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> Shut up you silly pedant.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't that be? :-
>>>
>>> Shut up, you silly pedant.
>>
>> The meaning isn't changed.
>>
>
> B A Z I N G A !

G A Z U N D A!


--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Money/Life question

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

:-)

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:26:13 -0000, Stanley Daniel de Liver <notag...@invalid.org.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:42:09 -0000, soup <cheezs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:24:37 -0000, soup <cheezs...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>>> Shut up you silly pedant.
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't that be? :-
>>>>
>>>> Shut up, you silly pedant.
>>>
>>> The meaning isn't changed.
>>>
>>
>> B A Z I N G A !
>
> G A Z U N D A!

Bless you.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Do not adjust your mind - the fault is with reality.

[PhilO]

On Friday, January 11, 2013 6:42:03 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>
> >> are you making a 'faulty' search?
>
> > Alays a possibility. Unlike Dave, I do admit to being wrong sometimes.
>
> I'm "Alays" right.
>

Ooh, Dave, you are funny!

>
> > Dave claimed that in 2006 Tony Raven posted:
>
> > "A cyclist cannot possibly kill a pedestrian, they lack the kinetic
> > energy, only motorists kill pedestrians".
>
> > I cannot find this post (but have found ones that contradict that opinion)
>
> > If anyone can give a link to the post Dave claims he found, it would be appreciated
>
> >

> Are you so thick you can't search Google Groups properly?
>

Entirely possible.
I can't find a link to the quote you posted. Can you provide one, please.

[PhilO]

Yes, but can anyone actually provide a link to where it was said?

[Mrcheerful]

Simon has many special home written apps. that are useful for google groups.

[PhilO]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 10:26:55 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, but can anyone actually provide a link to where it was said?
>
> Simon has many special home written apps. that are useful for google groups.

But Simon doesn't post here, so another pointless Cheerless post.

Maybe Dave could provide a link - he is the one that posted the quote.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 14/01/2013 08:57, PhilO wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 6:42:03 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>>
>>>> are you making a 'faulty' search?
>>
>>> Alays a possibility. Unlike Dave, I do admit to being wrong sometimes.
>>
>> I'm "Alays" right.
>>
> Ooh, Dave, you are funny!

I know. One of my many talents.

>>
>>> Dave claimed that in 2006 Tony Raven posted:
>>
>>> "A cyclist cannot possibly kill a pedestrian, they lack the kinetic
>>> energy, only motorists kill pedestrians".
>>
>>> I cannot find this post (but have found ones that contradict that opinion)
>>
>>> If anyone can give a link to the post Dave claims he found, it would be appreciated
>>
>>>
>> Are you so thick you can't search Google Groups properly?
>>
> Entirely possible.

I believe that.

> I can't find a link to the quote you posted. Can you provide one, please.
>

Does anyone else have trouble finding them?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

I've posted the comments, it's not my job to make up for your incompetence.

You seem to be the only one having trouble finding them. Is it because
you don't want to find them?

[Partac]

"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message news:EzXIs.205$mQ3...@fx19.fr7...

On 14/01/2013 08:57, PhilO wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 6:42:03 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>>
>>>> are you making a 'faulty' search?
>>
>>> Alays a possibility. Unlike Dave, I do admit to being wrong sometimes.
>>
>> I'm "Alays" right.
>>
> Ooh, Dave, you are funny!

I know. One of my many talents.
>>
>>> Dave claimed that in 2006 Tony Raven posted:
>>
>>> "A cyclist cannot possibly kill a pedestrian, they lack the kinetic
>>> energy, only motorists kill pedestrians".
>>
>>> I cannot find this post (but have found ones that contradict that
>>> opinion)
>>
>>> If anyone can give a link to the post Dave claims he found, it would be
>>> appreciated
>>
>>>
>> Are you so thick you can't search Google Groups properly?
>>
> Entirely possible.

I believe that.

> I can't find a link to the quote you posted. Can you provide one, please.
>
Does anyone else have trouble finding them?

Not me. Admittedly I didn't find all of them, but then again I found enough
quickly to satisfy my curiosity. Couldn't be arsed to spend too much time on
it.

[Judith]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:50:29 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
<davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 14/01/2013 08:57, PhilO wrote:
>> On Friday, January 11, 2013 6:42:03 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>>>
>>>>> are you making a 'faulty' search?
>>>
>>>> Alays a possibility. Unlike Dave, I do admit to being wrong sometimes.
>>>
>>> I'm "Alays" right.
>>>
>> Ooh, Dave, you are funny!
>
>I know. One of my many talents.
>>>
>>>> Dave claimed that in 2006 Tony Raven posted:
>>>
>>>> "A cyclist cannot possibly kill a pedestrian, they lack the kinetic
>>>> energy, only motorists kill pedestrians".
>>>
>>>> I cannot find this post (but have found ones that contradict that opinion)
>>>
>>>> If anyone can give a link to the post Dave claims he found, it would be appreciated
>>>
>>>>
>>> Are you so thick you can't search Google Groups properly?
>>>
>> Entirely possible.
>
>I believe that.
>
>> I can't find a link to the quote you posted. Can you provide one, please.
>>
>Does anyone else have trouble finding them?

No probs.

[Judith]

Tony Raven used to post in cam.transport : another cess-pit of psycholists -
one of the posts referred to may have been posted there.
But : he also used different posting names something like Wile E Coyote and
"Not Tom Crispin" or some such shite.
He was about as bright as Porky Chapman - another one who used the same IP
address for various posters.

[JNugent]

I, OTOH, can remember the general tenor of those remarks (from, it has
to be admitted, several posters) over the years and feel no need to go
searching for them.


>

[PhilO]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 5:52:45 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
> On 14/01/2013 10:41, PhilO wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 14, 2013 10:26:55 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Yes, but can anyone actually provide a link to where it was said?
>
> >>
>
> >> Simon has many special home written apps. that are useful for google groups.
>
> >
>
> > But Simon doesn't post here, so another pointless Cheerless post.
>
> >
>
> > Maybe Dave could provide a link - he is the one that posted the quote.
>
> >
>
> I've posted the comments, it's not my job to make up for your incompetence.
>
>
>
> You seem to be the only one having trouble finding them. Is it because
>
> you don't want to find them?
>
>

Put up or shut up, Dave.

You claimed somebody said something six years ago - why won't you provide a link?

[PhilO]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 5:58:29 PM UTC, Partac wrote:
>> Does anyone else have trouble finding them?
>
>
>
> Not me. Admittedly I didn't find all of them, but then again I found enough
> quickly to satisfy my curiosity. Couldn't be arsed to spend too much time on
> it.

Great. Would you kindly post a link to where Tony Rqaven said:
"A cyclist cannot possibly kill a pedestrian, they lack the kinetic
energy, only motorists kill pedestrians".

Dave seems unwilling to.

[PhilO]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:20:17 PM UTC, Judith wrote:
>
> >Does anyone else have trouble finding them?
>
>
> No probs.

Can you kindl post a link to where Tony Raven said:
"A cyclist cannot possibly kill a pedestrian, they lack the kinetic
energy, only motorists kill pedestrians".

Dave seems to know where, but isn't telling

[PhilO]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:24:36 PM UTC, Judith wrote:
>
> Tony Raven used to post in cam.transport : another cess-pit of psycholists -
> one of the posts referred to may have been posted there.
> But : he also used different posting names something like Wile E Coyote and
> "Not Tom Crispin" or some such shite.
>

But did he actually post here (as claimed by Dave):

[PhilO]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:27:07 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>
>
> I, OTOH, can remember the general tenor of those remarks (from, it has
> to be admitted, several posters) over the years and feel no need to go
> searching for them.
>
>

I did go searching and found Tony Raven saying the exact opposite of what Dave quoted. I posted a link to this, but Dave seems unwilling to post a link to his "quote"

Does this look a little suspicious?

[Partac]

"PhilO" wrote in message
news:1a51edb0-57db-467c...@googlegroups.com...

What part of " Admittedly I didn't find all of them, but then again I

found enough
> quickly to satisfy my curiosity. Couldn't be arsed to spend too much time
> on

> it." are you having trouble understanding?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Why don't you learn how to search Google Groups properly?

You pretending you can't find them, when everybody else can is rather
convenient isn't it?

2/10 must try harder.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

I suspect you haven't really looked properly.

What have you done? Looked for 5 mins

[JNugent]

On 15/01/2013 13:40, PhilO wrote:

I don't want to comment on what you say you have, or, as the case may
be, have not, found.

As I said, I can remember the general tenor of remarks on the topic(s)
from several posters over the years and feel no need to go searching for
them.

[PhilO]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:34:13 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:

>
> > Put up or shut up, Dave.
> >
> > You claimed somebody said something six years ago - why won't you provide a link?
> >
>
> Why don't you learn how to search Google Groups properly?
>
> You pretending you can't find them, when everybody else can is rather
> convenient isn't it?
>
> 2/10 must try harder.
>

Not at all convenient,Dave. A pain, actually.
What is inconvenoent is your refusal to provide a link to your claimed quote where Tony Raven said cyclists can't kill pedestrians.

You say everybody else can find it, but nobody else will post a link.

Am I the only one that think this looks fishy?

[DavidR]

"PhilO" <goo1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

>
> You say everybody else can find it, but nobody else will post a link.
>
> Am I the only one that think this looks fishy?

There is a story about the king's new clothes that comes to mind. You're not
the only one that can't see them.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

We don't want to encourage you being bone idle & stupid.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

That was a 'faulty' story.

[thirty-six]

forgot me kippers didn-eye?

[PhilO]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:26:41 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
> On 16/01/2013 08:56, PhilO wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:34:13 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> Put up or shut up, Dave.
> >>>
> >>> You claimed somebody said something six years ago - why won't you provide
> >>> a link?
> >>
> >> Why don't you learn how to search Google Groups properly?
> >>
> >> You pretending you can't find them, when everybody else can is rather
> >> convenient isn't it?
> >>
> >> 2/10 must try harder.
> >>
> > Not at all convenient,Dave. A pain, actually.
> > What is inconvenoent is your refusal to provide a link to your claimed quote where Tony Raven said cyclists can't kill pedestrians.
> >
> > You say everybody else can find it, but nobody else will post a link.
>
> We don't want to encourage you being bone idle & stupid.

Dave,

You're refusal to provide a link to the "quote" you posted is making you look unreliable.
Why the big secrecy if it was a genuine quote?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

[PhilO]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:58:20 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
> On 17/01/2013 10:15, PhilO wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:26:41 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
> >> On 16/01/2013 08:56, PhilO wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:34:13 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Put up or shut up, Dave.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You claimed somebody said something six years ago - why won't you provide
> >>>>> a link?
> >>>>
> >>>> Why don't you learn how to search Google Groups properly?
> >>>>
> >>>> You pretending you can't find them, when everybody else can is rather
> >>>> convenient isn't it?
> >>>>
> >>>> 2/10 must try harder.
> >>>>
> >>> Not at all convenient,Dave. A pain, actually.
> >>> What is inconvenoent is your refusal to provide a link to your claimed
> >>> quote where Tony Raven said cyclists can't kill pedestrians.
> >>>
> >>> You say everybody else can find it, but nobody else will post a link.
> >>
> >> We don't want to encourage you being bone idle & stupid.
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > You're refusal to provide a link to the "quote" you posted is making you look unreliable.
> > Why the big secrecy if it was a genuine quote?
>
> We don't want to encourage you being bone idle & stupid.
>

Dave, if it was a genuine quote, just post the link.
If it wasn't, be a big enough man to admit you made a mistake.

What happened to all these others that claimed they could find the quote?
Come and save Dave - he's starting to get embarrassed.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Find them yourself you lazy useless pillock.

>
> What happened to all these others that claimed they could find the quote?
> Come and save Dave - he's starting to get embarrassed.
>

I confess to being slightly embarrassed by conversing with an idiot like
you.

[Peter Keller]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:57:56 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

>> Dave, if it was a genuine quote, just post the link.
>> If it wasn't, be a big enough man to admit you made a mistake.
>
> Find them yourself you lazy useless pillock.
>>
>> What happened to all these others that claimed they could find the
>> quote?
>> Come and save Dave - he's starting to get embarrassed.
>>
> I confess to being slightly embarrassed by conversing with an idiot like
> you.

Oooh!!! Losing our temper are we?

[nik.morgan]

At least he isn't going on about fish.
--
ennemm

[Peter Keller]

What does that have to do with the price of cucumbers?

[Squashme]

Enjoy!:-

http://aglobalgarnish.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/p1050202.jpg

[Alex]

If that could be served with, say, a few slices of boiled potato
instead of the fish then... yummy!

[Peter Keller]

With a sprinkle of coriander and saffron ....

[PhilO]

On Friday, January 18, 2013 5:57:56 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>
> > Dave, if it was a genuine quote, just post the link.
> > If it wasn't, be a big enough man to admit you made a mistake.
>
> Find them yourself you lazy useless pillock.

Dave, I'm not being lazy. I have genuinely looked and cannot find any post where Tony Raven stated (as you claim):

"A cyclist cannot possibly kill a pedestrian, they lack the kinetic energy, only motorists kill pedestrians".

I have found (and posted a link to) Tony Raven stating that cyclists kill a few pedestrians every year, which contradicts your claimed quote.

I have spent longer looking for the original post than it would take for you to post a link to your "quote".

I have spent longer asking you (and the others that claimed to have seen it) to post a link than it would take for you to post a link to your quote.

You yourself have spent longer refusing to post a link than it would take for you to post a link.

It is your claimed quote - what is wrong with you posting a link to it?

You claim Tony Raven said something - prove it!

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 21/01/2013 13:42, PhilO wrote:
> On Friday, January 18, 2013 5:57:56 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>>
>>> Dave, if it was a genuine quote, just post the link. If it
>>> wasn't, be a big enough man to admit you made a mistake.
>>
>> Find them yourself you lazy useless pillock.
>
>
> Dave, I'm not being lazy. I have genuinely looked and cannot find any
> post where Tony Raven stated (as you claim): "A cyclist cannot
> possibly kill a pedestrian, they lack the kinetic energy, only
> motorists kill pedestrians".

Then you are just useless.

>
> I have found (and posted a link to) Tony Raven stating that cyclists
> kill a few pedestrians every year, which contradicts your claimed
> quote.
>
> I have spent longer looking for the original post than it would take
> for you to post a link to your "quote".

But not long enough obviously.

>
> I have spent longer asking you (and the others that claimed to have
> seen it) to post a link than it would take for you to post a link to
> your quote.
>
> You yourself have spent longer refusing to post a link than it would
> take for you to post a link.
>
> It is your claimed quote - what is wrong with you posting a link to
> it?

I don't wish to do all the work for you.

>
> You claim Tony Raven said something - prove it!
>

[PhilO]

On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:47:03 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:

>> > It is your claimed quote - what is wrong with you posting a link to
> > it?
>
> I don't wish to do all the work for you.

Dave, it shouldn't be my work to do. You claim Tony Raven said something here, I'm just asking for a link so that we can see you are correct.
You yourself have demanded proof of claims from plenty of other posters.

Why won't you post a link to your own claim?

What have you got to hide?