Celebrate the new group
Tom Crispin
Cycle ride: Mixing with the cars.
The London to Brighton Veteran Car Rally
===========================
All motor vehicles taking part are built before 1905 (with very few
exceptions). The motorists are celebrating the end to road safety
being taken seriously - the end of the Locomotives Act of 1865 (the
Red Flag Act) in 1896.
I shall cycle with them to commemorate (for good or ill) the new group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated. Anyone is welcome to join.
Start points:
1: Under the arch at Hyde Park Corner (NOT MARBLE ARCH) at 06:40am for
PROMPT departure at 7am.
2: Cutty Sark Gardens Greenwich for a PROMPT departure at 07:15
3: Forest Hill rail station forecourt for a PROMPT departure at 07:45
4: Blackheath Station Car Park, motor vehicle entrance opposite John
Ball Primary School for a PROMPT departure at 07:00.
5: East Croydon Railway Station at 08:15 where all other feeder rides
converge.
I shall be at #4 and #5 only.
From East Croydon there will be at least three led rides.
#1 for roadies at a moderate roadie pace
#2 for leisure cyclists at a fast touring pace
#3 for families and older children at a medium touring pace
I will be leading ride #3.
Distance 55 miles.
Brief stops are planned in Crawley and Ansty for all rides.
IMPORTANT: BRING YOUR OWN FOOD - there will be no stopping for lunch.
The groups may well meet up in Brighton for a drink and bite to eat in
Brighton - the last two years, in glorious weather, we've even sat on
the beach. Here's hoping.
Train home - or turn your bike around and spin back to London.
Tom Crispin
1st November 2009
Distance 55 miles.
Photos: www.britishschoolofcycling.com/gallery/cars/real.htm
Rob Morley
Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> [Repost: the original did not show up on my server]
>
It arrived here OK.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
It has happened twice to recent posts of mine. I have posted, then
refreshed the group and the post has shown up as no longer available.
Perhaps it is because the header has arrived at the server but the
body has not yet arrived.
Judith M Smith
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>1st November 2009
>
>Cycle ride: Mixing with the cars.
>
>The London to Brighton Veteran Car Rally
>===========================
>All motor vehicles taking part are built before 1905 (with very few
>exceptions). The motorists are celebrating the end to road safety
>being taken seriously - the end of the Locomotives Act of 1865 (the
>Red Flag Act) in 1896.
>
>I shall cycle with them to commemorate (for good or ill) the new group
>uk.rec.cycling.moderated. Anyone is welcome to join.
ffs this takes the biscuit.
Why not organise your own f..ing rally rather than spoiling other
people's day out.
Do you really think that the Veteran Car motorists are going to want a
load of lycra fuckwits disturbing their day.
I really do wonder about you sometimes.
--
British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:
Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents
JNugent
> 1st November 2009
>
> Cycle ride: Mixing with the cars.
>
> The London to Brighton Veteran Car Rally
> ===========================
> All motor vehicles taking part are built before 1905 (with very few
> exceptions). The motorists are celebrating the end to road safety
> being taken seriously - the end of the Locomotives Act of 1865 (the
> Red Flag Act) in 1896.
Oh, for heaven's sake, grow up, please.
Tom Crispin
It is not me!
www.lbvcr.com/history.cfm
==========
"The annual event takes place on the first Sunday of every November
and commemorates the Emancipation Run of 14 November 1896 which
celebrated the passing into law of the Locomotives on the Highway Act,
which raised the speed limit for 'light locomotives' from 4 mph to 14
mph and abolished the requirement for these vehicles to be preceded by
a man on foot."
==========
Emancipation of the motor vehicle!? Now that really is a childish
notion.
JNugent
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:45:50 +0100, JNugent
> <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> 1st November 2009
>>>
>>> Cycle ride: Mixing with the cars.
>>>
>>> The London to Brighton Veteran Car Rally
>>> ===========================
>>> All motor vehicles taking part are built before 1905 (with very few
>>> exceptions). The motorists are celebrating the end to road safety
>>> being taken seriously - the end of the Locomotives Act of 1865 (the
>>> Red Flag Act) in 1896.
>> Oh, for heaven's sake, grow up, please.
>
> It is not me!
Don't lie. The clause "celebrating the end to road safety being taken
seriously" was all your own work.
> www.lbvcr.com/history.cfm
> ==========
> "The annual event takes place on the first Sunday of every November
> and commemorates the Emancipation Run of 14 November 1896 which
> celebrated the passing into law of the Locomotives on the Highway Act,
> which raised the speed limit for 'light locomotives' from 4 mph to 14
> mph and abolished the requirement for these vehicles to be preceded by
> a man on foot."
> ==========
Nowhere containing the bit you wrote.
> Emancipation of the motor vehicle!? Now that really is a childish
> notion.
"Please, miss! It wasn't me! The bigger and cleverer boy made me do it!"
Tom Crispin
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:45:50 +0100, JNugent
>> <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1st November 2009
>>>>
>>>> Cycle ride: Mixing with the cars.
>>>>
>>>> The London to Brighton Veteran Car Rally
>>>> ===========================
>>>> All motor vehicles taking part are built before 1905 (with very few
>>>> exceptions). The motorists are celebrating the end to road safety
>>>> being taken seriously - the end of the Locomotives Act of 1865 (the
>>>> Red Flag Act) in 1896.
>>> Oh, for heaven's sake, grow up, please.
>>
>> It is not me!
>
>Don't lie. The clause "celebrating the end to road safety being taken
>seriously" was all your own work.
One person's *insurgent* is another person's *freedom fighter*. It is
simply a matter of persepctive.
>> www.lbvcr.com/history.cfm
>> ==========
>> "The annual event takes place on the first Sunday of every November
>> and commemorates the Emancipation Run of 14 November 1896 which
>> celebrated the passing into law of the Locomotives on the Highway Act,
>> which raised the speed limit for 'light locomotives' from 4 mph to 14
>> mph and abolished the requirement for these vehicles to be preceded by
>> a man on foot."
>> ==========
>
>Nowhere containing the bit you wrote.
>
> > Emancipation of the motor vehicle!? Now that really is a childish
> > notion.
>
>"Please, miss! It wasn't me! The bigger and cleverer boy made me do it!"
I just put a different spin on their words.
JNugent
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:03:43 +0100, JNugent
> <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:45:50 +0100, JNugent
>>> <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1st November 2009
>>>>>
>>>>> Cycle ride: Mixing with the cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> The London to Brighton Veteran Car Rally
>>>>> ===========================
>>>>> All motor vehicles taking part are built before 1905 (with very few
>>>>> exceptions). The motorists are celebrating the end to road safety
>>>>> being taken seriously - the end of the Locomotives Act of 1865 (the
>>>>> Red Flag Act) in 1896.
>>>> Oh, for heaven's sake, grow up, please.
>>> It is not me!
>> Don't lie. The clause "celebrating the end to road safety being taken
>> seriously" was all your own work.
>
> One person's *insurgent* is another person's *freedom fighter*. It is
> simply a matter of persepctive.
yes, but yours is weird.
>>> www.lbvcr.com/history.cfm
>>> ==========
>>> "The annual event takes place on the first Sunday of every November
>>> and commemorates the Emancipation Run of 14 November 1896 which
>>> celebrated the passing into law of the Locomotives on the Highway Act,
>>> which raised the speed limit for 'light locomotives' from 4 mph to 14
>>> mph and abolished the requirement for these vehicles to be preceded by
>>> a man on foot."
>>> ==========
>> Nowhere containing the bit you wrote.
>>> Emancipation of the motor vehicle!? Now that really is a childish
>>> notion.
>> "Please, miss! It wasn't me! The bigger and cleverer boy made me do it!"
> I just put a different spin on their words.
You lied, IOW.
Tom Crispin
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> I just put a different spin on their words.
>
>You lied, IOW.
Requiring motor vehicles to be preceeded by a man waving a red flag is
a serious safety measure. Would you not agree?
JNugent
That is like calling the smashing of agricultural machinery an industrial policy.
Sir Jeremy
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:23:36 +0100, Tom Crispin
>
> >1st November 2009
>
> >Cycle ride: Mixing with the cars.
>
> >The London to Brighton Veteran Car Rally
> >===========================
> >All motor vehicles taking part are built before 1905 (with very few
> >exceptions). The motorists are celebrating the end to road safety
> >being taken seriously - the end of the Locomotives Act of 1865 (the
> >Red Flag Act) in 1896.
>
> >I shall cycle with them to commemorate (for good or ill) the new group
> >uk.rec.cycling.moderated. Anyone is welcome to join.
>
> ffs this takes the biscuit.
>
> Why not organise your own f..ing rally rather than spoiling other
> people's day out.
>
> Do you really think that the Veteran Car motorists are going to want a
> load of lycra fuckwits disturbing their day.
>
If did it on pre 1905 cycles then I'm sure they'd be welcome. Doing it
to piss people off seems to be par for the course with some here.
Mike Causer
Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
Tom, I've done the Brighton run for many years with a single-cylinder
car. The old bicycles are not a problem but the so-called "classic
cars" (aka grey porridge) really are. A pre-1905 car is very difficult
to drive in traffic, so please do all you can not to impede them.
Mike
--
Mike Causer
Tom Crispin
There is absolutely no question of anyone trying to impede the classic
cars. To see them out en-masse is the entire reason for cycling with
them. That, and the fact that Southern Trains allow bikes on them
after the LBVCR but not after the London to Brighton Bike Ride.
The relationship between the Classic Car drivers and passengers, and
the cyclists accompanying them is one of mutual support.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_frm/thread/d82fd9c7c6437a83/fd4e1ab88492a370
Rob Morley
Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> There is absolutely no question of anyone trying to impede the classic
> cars.
I'm pretty sure that people won't be setting out to make the driver's
lives difficult, but conservation of momentum is key to getting some
of these cars up the hills and steering some of them isn't that easy
either, while you can pretty much forget about brakes - it really
doesn't take much obstruction on the part of another road user to mess
it up for the driver.
David Hansen
<nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote this:-
>I'm pretty sure that people won't be setting out to make the driver's
>lives difficult, but conservation of momentum is key to getting some
>of these cars up the hills
Something cyclists tend to understand fairly well, as the output of
their human power plants is even more limited than that of old cars.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:02:51 +0100
That is well understood.
Much of the route is on roads closed to other motor traffic, with both
sides of the road available for the veteran cars.
I can assure you that cyclists keep well out of the way.
Judith M Smith
Oh really - perhaps you can just explain how you know that they will
do so?
Why not organise your own "rally" instead of trying to piss on someone
else's?
Tom Crispin
<judith...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>Why not organise your own "rally" instead of trying to piss on someone
>else's?
Does that mean that you won't be joining us? That would be a big
shame!
Nobby Anderson
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:02:39 +0100 someone who may be Rob Morley
><nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote this:-
>
>>I'm pretty sure that people won't be setting out to make the driver's
>>lives difficult, but conservation of momentum is key to getting some
>>of these cars up the hills
>
> Something cyclists tend to understand fairly well, as the output of
> their human power plants is even more limited than that of old cars.
>
modern cyclist and old car where the opposite is true :-)
Luddite it may make me, but I've never seen the fascination with old
engineering stuff, evun tho I are won, and cars in particular. The
more modern, airconditioned, and comfortable a car the better as
far as I'm concerned! I mean, I appreciate that stuff that was at
the forfront of engineering and technology at the time was great at
the time because it was at the forefront of engineering and technology,
but I'm far more interested in the current forefront, so to speak. An
old car is just, umm, an old car! Sorry.
Nobby
PS Hey judith darling, I know you'll be confused, but when I wrote "evun
tho I are won" I did it deliberately. ;-) xx
Judith M Smith
Correct, I - like you - have not been invited so I will have the
decency not to gate crash it.
You?
ji...@somewhere.com
Well, I'm going on it ...on my bike. I shall use my giant tricycle and
ride in the middle of the road in order to show the atmosphere
polluting car drivers that they do not have the right to pollute our
oxygen. They will have to drive at the speed I set. I will also stop
for a picnic leaving my giant trike parked in the middle of the road
whilst the global warming inducing car drivers will have to wait as I
enjoy my healthy luncheon.
Trevor A Panther
news:luqgf5tp47rfi5923...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:28:43 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
>>If did it on pre 1905 cycles then I'm sure they'd be welcome. Doing it
>>to piss people off seems to be par for the course with some here.
>
>
> Well, I'm going on it ...on my bike. I shall use my giant tricycle and
> ride in the middle of the road in order to show the atmosphere
> polluting car drivers that they do not have the right to pollute our
> oxygen. They will have to drive at the speed I set. I will also stop
> for a picnic leaving my giant trike parked in the middle of the road
> whilst the global warming inducing car drivers will have to wait as I
> enjoy my healthy luncheon.
Presumably next year! Since it has already happened
--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Eyebee
>
> Well, I'm going on it ...on my bike. I shall use my giant tricycle and
> ride in the middle of the road in order to show the atmosphere polluting
> car drivers that they do not have the right to pollute our oxygen. They
> will have to drive at the speed I set. I will also stop for a picnic
> leaving my giant trike parked in the middle of the road whilst the
> global warming inducing car drivers will have to wait as I enjoy my
> healthy luncheon.
Are you going to take a crap in the middle of the road after lunch too?
--
Beware of sneezing pigs
thomas
ji...@somewhere.com
I expected no more from a car driver, pah!!! No doubt your abusive and
defensive attitude is a pathetic attempt to disguise the gnawing guilt
you obviously (and rightly) feel about polluting our environment with
your filthy car, belching out its toxic fumes into the lungs of
innocent babies. Every child you see struggling for breath because
they have asthma is your fault. How many times have children been
crippled or slaughtered by people driving carelessly in cars and most
of them are drunk!!! or on drugs or on their mobile phones? We need to
ban ALL cars now for many reasons, ie less crime. For example how
could anyone commit a bank robbery without a getaway car? Peter
Suttcliff (the Yorkshire Ripper) needed a car so he could get from one
town to another to commit his terrible crimes. Ram raiding, dogging
etc etc . The list of deviant car related crimes is endless.
The car is a curse on humanity and we need to ban ALL cars NOW! If a
person has more than one car they should be imprisoned.
We the people have spoken.
JNugent
> Eyebee <use...@eyebee.otherinbox.com> wrote:
>> jinny wrote:
>>> Well, I'm going on it ...on my bike. I shall use my giant tricycle and
>>> ride in the middle of the road in order to show the atmosphere polluting
>>> car drivers that they do not have the right to pollute our oxygen. They
>>> will have to drive at the speed I set. I will also stop for a picnic
>>> leaving my giant trike parked in the middle of the road whilst the
>>> global warming inducing car drivers will have to wait as I enjoy my
>>> healthy luncheon.
>> Are you going to take a crap in the middle of the road after lunch too?
> I expected no more from a car driver, pah!!!
So where *will* the offending material be disposed of?
Or will you wait until you back at home somewhere relatively civilised, fed
and supplied by the labours of those who commute by motor vehicle and those
who undertake deliveries in larger versions of the same?
> No doubt your abusive and
> defensive attitude is a pathetic attempt to disguise the gnawing guilt
> you obviously (and rightly) feel about polluting our environment with
> your filthy car, belching out its toxic fumes into the lungs of
> innocent babies. Every child you see struggling for breath because
> they have asthma is your fault. How many times have children been
> crippled or slaughtered by people driving carelessly in cars and most
> of them are drunk!!! or on drugs or on their mobile phones? We need to
> ban ALL cars now for many reasons, ie less crime. For example how
> could anyone commit a bank robbery without a getaway car? Peter
> Suttcliff (the Yorkshire Ripper) needed a car so he could get from one
> town to another to commit his terrible crimes. Ram raiding, dogging
> etc etc . The list of deviant car related crimes is endless.
> The car is a curse on humanity and we need to ban ALL cars NOW! If a
> person has more than one car they should be imprisoned.
> We the people have spoken.
Doug, why are you posting under a female assumed name?
Elder
cited author.]
In article <l0nif5pfidcbbet1g...@4ax.com>,
ji...@somewhere.com says...
> We the people have spoken.
>
You and who's multiple personalities?
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
ji...@somewhere.com
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>ji...@somewhere.com wrote:
>
>> Eyebee <use...@eyebee.otherinbox.com> wrote:
>>> jinny wrote:
>
>>>> Well, I'm going on it ...on my bike. I shall use my giant tricycle and
>>>> ride in the middle of the road in order to show the atmosphere polluting
>>>> car drivers that they do not have the right to pollute our oxygen. They
>>>> will have to drive at the speed I set. I will also stop for a picnic
>>>> leaving my giant trike parked in the middle of the road whilst the
>>>> global warming inducing car drivers will have to wait as I enjoy my
>>>> healthy luncheon.
>
>>> Are you going to take a crap in the middle of the road after lunch too?
>
>> I expected no more from a car driver, pah!!!
>
>So where *will* the offending material be disposed of?
The "offending material" is organic which means it will feed the Earth
unlike the putrid filth that gets pumped out of millions of car
exhausts every day polluting our breathing oxygen. Cars drivers are
selfish retards who care nothing for all the asthmatic children they
have caused. See all those wheezing people? ( maybe your granny) You
did that!!
>
>Or will you wait until you back at home somewhere relatively civilised, fed
>and supplied by the labours of those who commute by motor vehicle and those
>who undertake deliveries in larger versions of the same?
>
>> No doubt your abusive and
>> defensive attitude is a pathetic attempt to disguise the gnawing guilt
>> you obviously (and rightly) feel about polluting our environment with
>> your filthy car, belching out its toxic fumes into the lungs of
>> innocent babies. Every child you see struggling for breath because
>> they have asthma is your fault. How many times have children been
>> crippled or slaughtered by people driving carelessly in cars and most
>> of them are drunk!!! or on drugs or on their mobile phones? We need to
>> ban ALL cars now for many reasons, ie less crime. For example how
>> could anyone commit a bank robbery without a getaway car? Peter
>> Suttcliff (the Yorkshire Ripper) needed a car so he could get from one
>> town to another to commit his terrible crimes. Ram raiding, dogging
>> etc etc . The list of deviant car related crimes is endless.
>> The car is a curse on humanity and we need to ban ALL cars NOW! If a
>> person has more than one car they should be imprisoned.
>> We the people have spoken.
>
>Doug, why are you posting under a female assumed name?
Doug!!?
ji...@somewhere.com
<carl....@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>[This followup was posted to uk.rec.driving and a copy was sent to the
>cited author.]
>
>In article <l0nif5pfidcbbet1g...@4ax.com>,
>ji...@somewhere.com says...
>> We the people have spoken.
>>
>You and who's multiple personalities?
I speak for all asthmatics and people with breathing problems of any
kind. We speak as one when fighting you car driving polluters.
thomas
<ji...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:0iujf5ppra88mqq0f...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:34:15 -0000, Elder
Are you old enough to remember the Great Climate COOLING Scare?
Conor
ji...@somewhere.com says...
>
> Cars drivers are
> selfish retards who care nothing for all the asthmatic children they
> have caused. See all those wheezing people? ( maybe your granny) You
> did that!!
obsession with living in a sterile environment. End result is that our
kids have no immunity to the stuff we do.
--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
Steve Firth
> I speak for all asthmatics and people with breathing problems of any
> kind.
No you don't.
Keitht
does that also include having problems that other people are still
breathing? -- well it does say 'any kind'
--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
Sir Jeremy
Ask the doctor to increase your dose
Tony Dragon
You are Doug AICMFP
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
Did I give you permission to speak for me.
--
Tony Dragon
ji...@somewhere.com
Who is Doug? No doubt just a diversion aimed at preventing sensible
discussion re the subject of cars and the destruction they bring to
our planet and all the innocent children on it. It's a fact that cars
and selfish car owners are wilfully destroying our planet. They care
not for the generations to come who will have to live in the
environmental nightmare they are creating.
Here's a possible solution - All cars should be fitted with a device
on the exhaust which feeds 50% of the exhaust emissions back into the
car for the inhabitants to breathe. This would make sure no
unnecessary journeys were made and generally make selfish car drivers
reluctant to use the car...unless they like being poisoned. This
solution might seem a little extreme but this is only what car drivers
have been inflicting on us for decades. I should imagine the Police
would welcome this sanction as they could use it as a deterrent to
stop deviant car crime. For example if someone is caught speeding,
they would have the exhaust emission percentage increased by 5% for
every offence. Using a gas mask would be a mandatory 75%. Drunk
driving offences would face an immediate 100% etc.
I have sent this proposal to the Ministry of Transport and am
receiving favourable feedback.
Adrian
> It's a fact that cars and selfish car owners are wilfully destroying
> our planet.
Is it, indeed...?
Would you care to provide any evidence to support that "fact"?
Assuming you're referring to greenhouse gases, would it interest you to
know that cars _and vans_, combined, globally, emitted less than 6.5% of
the total global greenhouse gases in 2000?
That's a figure from an HM Treasury report, referencing the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development, by the way.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Transport_annex.pdf
> I have sent this proposal to the Ministry of Transport
Did you use a time machine to do so? There's been no such body since 1981.
> and am receiving utter ridicule.
Typo corrected.
Halmyre
says...
Favourable feedback would be having them lock you away in the nuthouse.
--
Halmyre
This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your
head clean off.
Tony Dragon
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:32:30 +0000, Tony Dragon
> <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> ji...@somewhere.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:49:04 -0600, Eyebee
>>> <use...@eyebee.otherinbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:29:35 +0000, jinny wrote:
>>>>
> I have sent this proposal to the Ministry of Transport and am
> receiving favourable feedback.
I would be very interested to see this feedback, could you post it here
or provide a link.
--
Tony Dragon
ji...@somewhere.com
<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>ji...@somewhere.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:32:30 +0000, Tony Dragon
>> <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ji...@somewhere.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:49:04 -0600, Eyebee
>>>> <use...@eyebee.otherinbox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:29:35 +0000, jinny wrote:
>>>>>
><snip>
>
>> I have sent this proposal to the Ministry of Transport and am
>> receiving favourable feedback.
>
>I would be very interested to see this feedback, could you post it here
>or provide a link.
No
Tony Dragon
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:21:19 +0000, Tony Dragon
> <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> ji...@somewhere.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:32:30 +0000, Tony Dragon
>>> <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ji...@somewhere.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:49:04 -0600, Eyebee
>>>>> <use...@eyebee.otherinbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:29:35 +0000, jinny wrote:
>>>>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I have sent this proposal to the Ministry of Transport and am
>>> receiving favourable feedback.
>> I would be very interested to see this feedback, could you post it here
>> or provide a link.
>
> No
And I was so looking forward to reading it, you've spoiled my whole evening.
--
Tony Dragon
PeterG
Why didn't you just say that this feedback does not exist then?
PeterG
Adrian
were saying:
>> >> I have sent this proposal to the Ministry of Transport and am
>> >> receiving favourable feedback.
>> >I would be very interested to see this feedback, could you post it
>> >here or provide a link.
>> No
> Why didn't you just say that this feedback does not exist then?
Of _course_ it doesn't exist. The "Ministry of Transport" hasn't existed
for 28 years.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>I speak for all asthmatics and people with breathing problems of any
>kind.
Well next time you presume to speak for me, ask me first.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
GPG public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
ji...@somewhere.com
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:43:31 +0000, ji...@somewhere.com wrote:
>
>>I speak for all asthmatics and people with breathing problems of any
>>kind.
>
>Well next time you presume to speak for me, ask me first.
>
>Guy
Well, I tried but you were to busy wheezing. Damn those car drivers
huh?
ji...@somewhere.com
Oh right!! just pretend the evidence doesn't exist just because I
refuse to show it to you. That's very easy to do and shows the
inherent weakness of your argument.
Do you know anyone with breathing problems? Of course you do. All this
diversion and denial will not save you from the obvious truth......
that people have breathing problems because car owners insist on
polluting our oxygen with their noxious and poisonous fumes just so
they can get to the pub a bit quicker and then drive home drunk...or
on crack and mow down a single mum and her blind children!!
Surely it's time to ban all cars before they kill us all. All the car
owners who refuse to give up their cars should be sent to fight in
Afghanistan.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>>Well next time you presume to speak for me, ask me first.
>Well, I tried but you were to busy wheezing. Damn those car drivers
>huh?
Guess again. Salbutamol works fine for me and the problem is cold
damp air not pollution.
Adrian
> Oh right!! just pretend the evidence doesn't exist just because I refuse
> to show it to you. That's very easy to do and shows the inherent
> weakness of your argument.
Mmm. Yes, that'll be it.
Your evidence is so strong that you refuse to show it - and anybody
speculating as to your motives is the with the weak argument. Yes, of
course. Sure. Despite the fact that you can't even get the name of the
wing of government you've been dealing with right. Yeh, that'll be it.
> All this diversion and denial will not save you from the obvious
> truth...
"Obvious truth", eh?
So "obvious" that it doesn't need any evidence, right?
> that people have breathing problems because car owners insist on
> polluting our oxygen with their noxious and poisonous fumes
Uh-huh. And exactly which pollutants are these? C'mon, you must have the
figures to hand.
> just so they can get to the pub a bit quicker and then drive home
> drunk...
Even Duhg decided that was a bit lame.
> or on crack and mow down a single mum and her blind children!!
...and not even Duhg ever got _quite_ that loopy...
> Surely it's time to ban all cars before they kill us all.
Odd. There was me, thinking that the planet was massively over-populated,
and we were facing serious demographic & social problems because of an
ever-growing population, with ever-lengthening life expectancies...
Still, you know best, eh? After all, it's an "obvious truth". You told us
so. Providing evidence from credible sources is the last resort of those
with a weak argument, right?
> All the car owners who refuse to give up their cars should be sent to
> fight in Afghanistan.
But only if they walk or cycle there, and then only walk and cycle whilst
there, right?
I notice you seem to have ignored the _PROPER, SCIENTIFIC STATISTICAL
EVIDENCE_ which I pointed - you know, the bit where I pointed out to you
that cars _and vans_ together were responsible for less than 6.5% of the
total global greenhouse gas emissions?
Fuck me, but you make Duhg look sane.
ji...@somewhere.com
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:33:29 +0000, ji...@somewhere.com wrote:
>
>>>Well next time you presume to speak for me, ask me first.
>
>>Well, I tried but you were to busy wheezing. Damn those car drivers
>>huh?
>
>Guess again. Salbutamol works fine for me and the problem is cold
>damp air not pollution.
>
>Guy
You've never lived in a world without cars so how would you know?
Adrian
> You've never lived in a world without cars so how would you know?
Have you?
ji...@somewhere.com
>ji...@somewhere.com gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> Oh right!! just pretend the evidence doesn't exist just because I refuse
>> to show it to you. That's very easy to do and shows the inherent
>> weakness of your argument.
>
>Mmm. Yes, that'll be it.
Glad you agree.
>
>Your evidence is so strong that you refuse to show it - and anybody
>speculating as to your motives is the with the weak argument. Yes, of
>course. Sure. Despite the fact that you can't even get the name of the
>wing of government you've been dealing with right. Yeh, that'll be it.
Yes, that's right, concentrate on one minor mistake to try and take
away attention from the crux of the debate. A contemptible ruse used
by those that need to duck the real issue.
>
>> All this diversion and denial will not save you from the obvious
>> truth...
>
>"Obvious truth", eh?
>
>So "obvious" that it doesn't need any evidence, right?
Do you believe in God? Evidence?
>
>> that people have breathing problems because car owners insist on
>> polluting our oxygen with their noxious and poisonous fumes
>
>Uh-huh. And exactly which pollutants are these? C'mon, you must have the
>figures to hand.
If you don't know what they are you have no right engaging in this
debate. Maybe you should go and watch Corry and leave debate to those
of us that can.
>
>> just so they can get to the pub a bit quicker and then drive home
>> drunk...
>
>Even Duhg decided that was a bit lame.
>
>> or on crack and mow down a single mum and her blind children!!
>
>...and not even Duhg ever got _quite_ that loopy...
Duhg?
>
>> Surely it's time to ban all cars before they kill us all.
>
>Odd. There was me, thinking that the planet was massively over-populated,
>and we were facing serious demographic & social problems because of an
>ever-growing population, with ever-lengthening life expectancies...
>Still, you know best, eh? After all, it's an "obvious truth". You told us
>so. Providing evidence from credible sources is the last resort of those
>with a weak argument, right?
You're saying you've never heard of the global warming debate!!?
>
>> All the car owners who refuse to give up their cars should be sent to
>> fight in Afghanistan.
>
>But only if they walk or cycle there, and then only walk and cycle whilst
>there, right?
Quite.
>
>I notice you seem to have ignored the _PROPER, SCIENTIFIC STATISTICAL
>EVIDENCE_ which I pointed - you know, the bit where I pointed out to you
>that cars _and vans_ together were responsible for less than 6.5% of the
>total global greenhouse gas emissions?
Have you a link for your "statistics"? or did you just make them up?
>
>Fuck me,
Er, no thanks.
>but you make Duhg look sane.
?
ji...@somewhere.com
I have an organic gas mask which I wear 24/7. Even when I sleep so I
suppose the answer to your question is yes.
Adrian
>>Your evidence is so strong that you refuse to show it - and anybody
>>speculating as to your motives is the with the weak argument. Yes, of
>>course. Sure. Despite the fact that you can't even get the name of the
>>wing of government you've been dealing with right. Yeh, that'll be it.
> Yes, that's right, concentrate on one minor mistake to try and take away
> attention from the crux of the debate. A contemptible ruse used by those
> that need to duck the real issue.
Yep, that seems to be exactly what you're now doing. Concentrating on us
laughing at your "one minor mistake" - not even knowing who the fuck
you're apparently being taken seriously by - so you can try to duck the
utter lack of substance in your argument.
>>> All this diversion and denial will not save you from the obvious
>>> truth...
>>"Obvious truth", eh?
>>
>>So "obvious" that it doesn't need any evidence, right?
> Do you believe in God?
Nope.
> Evidence?
Never seen any.
>>> that people have breathing problems because car owners insist on
>>> polluting our oxygen with their noxious and poisonous fumes
>>Uh-huh. And exactly which pollutants are these? C'mon, you must have the
>>figures to hand.
> If you don't know what they are you have no right engaging in this
> debate.
I want to know what you think they are.
>>> just so they can get to the pub a bit quicker and then drive home
>>> drunk...
>>Even Duhg decided that was a bit lame.
>>> or on crack and mow down a single mum and her blind children!!
>>...and not even Duhg ever got _quite_ that loopy...
> Duhg?
Well known to the denizens of at least three, probably four, of the
groups this thread is cross-posted to.
>>> Surely it's time to ban all cars before they kill us all.
>>Odd. There was me, thinking that the planet was massively
>>over-populated, and we were facing serious demographic & social problems
>>because of an ever-growing population, with ever-lengthening life
>>expectancies... Still, you know best, eh? After all, it's an "obvious
>>truth". You told us so. Providing evidence from credible sources is the
>>last resort of those with a weak argument, right?
> You're saying you've never heard of the global warming debate!!?
Oh, absolutely. It's a very nice little earner for a lot of people. At
best, it's a nice distraction from the root cause. There's too many
people huddled on this lump of rock.
Strikes me that the best possible future for the planet is for the human
race to die out completely. Strange how the environmentalists don't seem
to want to help that out, isn't it? Next time you meet a fervent tree-
hugger, ask 'em how many kids they've got. Odds are that it's
considerably more than the average, because they want to live the good
old earth-mother lifestyle.
>>> All the car owners who refuse to give up their cars should be sent to
>>> fight in Afghanistan.
>>But only if they walk or cycle there, and then only walk and cycle
>>whilst there, right?
> Quite.
Mmmm.
>>I notice you seem to have ignored the _PROPER, SCIENTIFIC STATISTICAL
>>EVIDENCE_ which I pointed - you know, the bit where I pointed out to you
>>that cars _and vans_ together were responsible for less than 6.5% of the
>>total global greenhouse gas emissions?
> Have you a link for your "statistics"? or did you just make them up?
Already posted it, dearie. But, to save you the embarrasment of not
knowing how to take a look back in the thread, here y'go again...
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Transport_annex.pdf
Oh, look. The source is HM Treasury, crediting statistics from the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Now, how credible are the sources for this "evidence" of yours...? Oh,
yes, that's right. You won't tell us. It's secret.
Adrian
>>> You've never lived in a world without cars so how would you know?
>>Have you?
> I have an organic gas mask
Bwahahaha
> which I wear 24/7. Even when I sleep
You get funnier with every word.
> so I suppose the answer to your question is yes.
ITYM "Umm, no, nor've I. Bugger. Caught out. Sorry."
ji...@somewhere.com
>ji...@somewhere.com gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> You've never lived in a world without cars so how would you know?
>
>>>Have you?
>
>> I have an organic gas mask
>
>Bwahahaha
You may laugh now but you won't be laughing in 10 years time when you
are existing in an oxygen tent (see Michael Jackson for details) due
to the fact your lungs have collapsed.
>
>> which I wear 24/7. Even when I sleep
>
>You get funnier with every word.
Environmental pollution and the death of mankind is not funny.
>
>> so I suppose the answer to your question is yes.
>
>ITYM "Umm, no, nor've I. Bugger. Caught out. Sorry."
No point apologising now.
Adrian
>>>>> You've never lived in a world without cars so how would you know?
>>>>Have you?
>>> I have an organic gas mask
>>Bwahahaha
> You may laugh now but you won't be laughing in 10 years time when you
> are existing in an oxygen tent (see Michael Jackson for details) due to
> the fact your lungs have collapsed.
Uh-huh. Still waiting for you to tell us which pollutants you think car
use is responsible for to cause these dire effects.
> Environmental pollution and the death of mankind is not funny.
Like I already said. The "death of mankind" is probably about the best
thing that could happen to this lump of rock. The death of a large
proportion of mankind would be about the best thing that could happen to
mankind.
>>> so I suppose the answer to your question is yes.
>>ITYM "Umm, no, nor've I. Bugger. Caught out. Sorry."
> No point apologising now.
Well done for admitting the fact.
Mr Benn
news:gq6pf5pj0lbgdfjvq...@4ax.com...
Surely it's time to ban all cars before they kill us all. All the car
> owners who refuse to give up their cars should be sent to fight in
> Afghanistan.
I hadn't realised that Doug's sister posted here.
I think you'll find the biggest emitters of particulate pollution are buses
and lorries. You know, the ones that get your food to the shops?
Eleanor Blair
>
>Guess again. Salbutamol works fine for me and the problem is cold
>damp air not pollution.
Yep, friend of mine is going through a bad patch with her asthma at the
moment, and having to drive to work, because cycling home in the evening
when it's cold is making her ill.
Elder
ji...@somewhere.com says...
>
> I have an organic gas mask which I wear 24/7. Even when I sleep so I
> suppose the answer to your question is yes.
>
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
Elder
ji...@somewhere.com says...
> see Michael Jackson for details
>
Did Derek get through then?
Mike P
You have to be a troll. No one can possibly be as crazy as you.
Mike P
thomas
speaking for everyone AND cross-posting to around half a dozen groups.
e|xpenses if she gets the job will be getting a moat installed for her bike?
"Eleanor Blair" <ele...@the-blairs.co.uk> wrote in message
news:N1r*OU...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
Tom Crispin
<toooo...@retardedloony.com> wrote:
[Follow-ups set]
>The OP is tryiung to get onto some news group management YET is already
>speaking for everyone AND cross-posting to around half a dozen groups.
What the Devil are you talking about!?
I am the OP. I rarely crosspost to more than one other group, and if
I do I nearly always set follow-ups to the most relevant group or
groups. I claim to speak for no one but myself and I have no ambition
for news group management.
All that I did was organise a London to Brighton bike ride to
celebrate the formation of uk.rec.cycling.moderated and advertise that
ride to uk.rec.cycling.
johnwright
No snogging for you then.
--
I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore
?John Wright
Bod
> ji...@somewhere.com wrote:
>> On 13 Nov 2009 00:03:59 GMT, Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ji...@somewhere.com gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>> saying:
>>>
>>>> You've never lived in a world without cars so how would you know?
>>> Have you?
>>
>> I have an organic gas mask which I wear 24/7. Even when I sleep so I
>> suppose the answer to your question is yes.
>
> No snogging for you then.
>
Perhaps he has a farting problem?
Bod
johnwright
Or some other hygiene issue?
Bod
> Bod wrote:
>> johnwright > wrote:
>>> ji...@somewhere.com wrote:
>>>> On 13 Nov 2009 00:03:59 GMT, Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ji...@somewhere.com gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>>>> saying:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You've never lived in a world without cars so how would you know?
>>>>> Have you?
>>>>
>>>> I have an organic gas mask which I wear 24/7. Even when I sleep so I
>>>> suppose the answer to your question is yes.
>>>
>>> No snogging for you then.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps he has a farting problem?
>
> Or some other hygiene issue?
>
Let's not go there. :-)
Bod
johnwright
<grin>
Eleanor Blair
>The OP is tryiung to get onto some news group management YET is already
>speaking for everyone AND cross-posting to around half a dozen groups.
>
>e|xpenses if she gets the job will be getting a moat installed for her bike?
I did wonder about the cross-posting (followups on this one set to
poster). Apologies anywhere it was off-topic.
For the avoidance of doubt a) I'm not speaking for anyone except me and
b) I'm not standing for election.
johnwright
> On 12 Nov 2009 23:01:33 GMT, Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> PeterG <peter...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>>>>> I have sent this proposal to the Ministry of Transport and am
>>>>>> receiving favourable feedback.
>>>>> I would be very interested to see this feedback, could you post it
>>>>> here or provide a link.
>>>> No
>>> Why didn't you just say that this feedback does not exist then?
>> Of _course_ it doesn't exist. The "Ministry of Transport" hasn't existed
>> for 28 years.
>
> Oh right!! just pretend the evidence doesn't exist just because I
> refuse to show it to you. That's very easy to do and shows the
> inherent weakness of your argument.
The weakness of your argument is that you state without proof of any
kind that you have feedback and then refuse to show it. This leads one
to suspect that such feedback does not in fact exist. You'd never get
away with that in the real world.
BrianW
wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:51:24 -0000, "thomas"
>
>
> [Follow-ups set]
>
> >The OP is tryiung to get onto some news group management YET is already
> >speaking for everyone AND cross-posting to around half a dozen groups.
>
> What the Devil are you talking about!?
Dunno, but if you ever manage to work it out, that will be a first.
Toomy is well-known over on uk.transport for posting retarded drivel.
ji...@somewhere.com
This is not the real world, this is Usenet and long may it remain so.