Good news (they can do wonders these days)...

[JNugent]

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-38543516>

George Boden, from High Easter, near Chelmsford, Essex, was riding his
bike in 2011 when he crashed face-first.

[So it IS possible, after all.]

Surgeons took bone from his shoulder and a titanium plate to make a new
jaw, but he was left with no bottom teeth and a mouth the size of a walnut.

[Perhaps just a little too much information there.]

But 3D printed models were used to plan more surgery to refine his jaw
and create new teeth.

Mr Boden said: "I was out for a training spin, looked at my watch and
the next minute I'd slammed into a piece of machinery around the corner.
"It's not a good idea to hit something with your chin at 30mph [48kmph],
which is exactly what I did. It ripped the whole of my jaw off."

[I wonder whether he did actually add in the speed in kmph when he gave
the interview?]

[MrCheerful]

What a good job it was not a pedestrian he slammed into while checking
his strava time.

[mycro...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 8:49:35 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-38543516>
>
> George Boden, from High Easter, near Chelmsford, Essex, was riding his
> bike in 2011 when he crashed face-first.
>
> [So it IS possible, after all.]
>

Translated.
Noddy Nugent is looking for a fight.

[JNugent]

TRANSLATION: The fact that no-one of any importance disagreed with the
story or the comment was deeply satisfying (silence, after all, gives
consent).

PS: You need not respond unless you are are, as usual, looking to create
a dispute out of nothing.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 11:23:30 -0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

or give his implicit consent by not responding. Nice troll! (but the kf
rule remains)


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[MrCheerful]

Is that the Google groups Killfile program written by Simon ? It is
amazing that such advanced programming has not been unleashed on the
world, it would have brought a massive boost to his pension pot.

[TMS320]

On 08/01/2017 02:36, mycro...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 8:49:35 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-38543516>
>>

> Translated.
> Noddy Nugent is looking for a fight.

Groups and forums have a lot of people that just post a link and copy
and paste the text from that link.

It always seems rather arrogant to expect others to mull over something
without giving their own interest in it. And why provide a link which
readers (if interested) can follow, then paste it all?

[mycro...@gmail.com]

What actually happened is that Noddy (incorrectly) believes cyclists have claimed it is not possible for a cyclist to go over the handlebars, and wanted someone to challenge him.
Not responding to his pathetic troll makes him cry.

[MrCheerful]

So as to provide a cite.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Why do many many many people hate despise cyclists?

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Because they get upset when they fly over the handlebars, blaming everyone else for making them stop quickly. That just doesn't happen in a car.

--
Rescuers in Pakistan today reported rescuing a man from the rubble.
They became aware when they heard a faint voice saying "we're still open".

[mycro...@gmail.com]

Because they are jealous of people who can travel without a motorised womb.
And stay fit and happy in the process.
The downside is that cyclists have to pay high rates of income tax to subsidise motorists.

[mycro...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 7:13:05 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 18:57:34 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire <MrPo...@rationalthought.com> wrote:
>
> > mycro...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 12:59:41 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
> >>> On 08/01/2017 02:36, mycro...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 8:49:35 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-38543516>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Translated.
> >>>> Noddy Nugent is looking for a fight.
> >>>
> >>> Groups and forums have a lot of people that just post a link and copy
> >>> and paste the text from that link.
> >>>
> >>> It always seems rather arrogant to expect others to mull over
> >>> something without giving their own interest in it. And why provide a
> >>> link which readers (if interested) can follow, then paste it all?
> >>
> >> What actually happened is that Noddy (incorrectly) believes cyclists
> >> have claimed it is not possible for a cyclist to go over the
> >> handlebars, and wanted someone to challenge him. Not responding to
> >> his pathetic troll makes him cry.
> >
> > Why do many many many people hate despise cyclists?
>
> Because they get upset when they fly over the handlebars, blaming everyone else for making them stop quickly. That just doesn't happen in a car.
>

Are you and Noddy related?

[TMS320]

My gripe remains that he started this thread and the reasons for posting
should come from him. Yes, I know what was originally discussed and the
misinterpreted version held dear by Nugent and a few others. Not
surpisingly, they cannot provide a quote that supports their version.

This is one of Nugent's own quotes, verbatim, that he posted on
03/09/2016 16:00.
You might like to copy and keep.

> The key is that you should read what was written and correctly
> understand it. Not what you wish had been written and not what you
> imagined had been written.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Show me a webpage which proves motorists are subsidised.

--
Britney Spears is pregnant. She plans to breast feed.
In other words, the child will have an abundant supply of artificial milk.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

I see you didn't deny what I wrote.

[mycro...@gmail.com]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty

Even the Apologists for Bad Driving admit that Rude Tax only pays for 60% of the motorway budget.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

I'm not reading all that to find the alleged 60%. But are you including fuel tax?

And are you considering he government might want to subsidise something very useful which keeps the planet moving? Or do you want your food delivered on bicycle?

--
Make like a post-it note and stick around....

[mycro...@gmail.com]

I know the truth hurts. When you grow up you will have to face reality.

> But are you including fuel tax?

Yes

>
> And are you considering he government might want to subsidise something very useful which keeps the planet moving? Or do you want your food delivered on bicycle?

So you admit motoring is subsidised, thanks for your support.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

I'm just not prepared to read it all, why don't you point out the part required?

>> But are you including fuel tax?
>
> Yes

I doubt roads cost anything like the amount that they steal from motorists.

Cycle paths and lanes however are ENTIRELY subsidised by the government, there is no bicycle tax.

>> And are you considering he government might want to subsidise something very useful which keeps the planet moving? Or do you want your food delivered on bicycle?
>
> So you admit motoring is subsidised, thanks for your support.

I did not. I said if you were correct, it still wouldn't be wrong. Answer the question, do you think goods could all be transported by bicycle?

--
Billy bashed bandy Brian's bollocks because bandy Brian broke Billy's big brown blowup boy before breakfast began.
Bigtits Beryl bit Barry's boner because Barry banged black Barbara's bare bruised bottom beside Brighton beach's battered blue bandstand.

[mycro...@gmail.com]

The numerical answer, as always, is left as an exercise for the student.

>
> >> But are you including fuel tax?
> >
> > Yes
>
> I doubt roads cost anything like the amount that they steal from motorists.

So you are in denial, like most moronists.
Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.

>
> Cycle paths and lanes however are ENTIRELY subsidised by the government, there is no bicycle tax.
>

This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money.
All 'The Government's' money comes from tax payers.
Are you claiming cyclists are tax exempt?
If so, please provide evidence.

> >> And are you considering he government might want to subsidise something very useful which keeps the planet moving? Or do you want your food delivered on bicycle?
> >
> > So you admit motoring is subsidised, thanks for your support.
>
> I did not. I said if you were correct, it still wouldn't be wrong. Answer the question, do you think goods could all be transported by bicycle?
>

Ask a real question rather than one from your fairy tales and I will attempt to answer in in a fashion you will be able to understand.

[JNugent]

On 08/01/2017 12:59, TMS320 wrote:

> On 08/01/2017 02:36, mycro...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 8:49:35 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-38543516>
>>>
>> Translated.
>> Noddy Nugent is looking for a fight.
>
> Groups and forums have a lot of people that just post a link and copy
> and paste the text from that link.

Indeed.

But that is not what I do (or did) as you well know (or ought to).

> It always seems rather arrogant to expect others to mull over something
> without giving their own interest in it. And why provide a link which
> readers (if interested) can follow, then paste it all?

Don't ask me. I did not do that. I did what I almost always do - posted
a few selected extracts and gave my commentary on them.

[JNugent]

On 08/01/2017 18:54, mycro...@gmail.com wrote:

You did challenge that observation, though only in your usual peevish way.

[JNugent]

So you were unable to understand even the few brief extracts from the
story or my equally brief comments on those extracts.

You wish I'd written something different from that which I did write.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

So you don't know for sure then.

>> >> But are you including fuel tax?
>> >
>> > Yes
>>
>> I doubt roads cost anything like the amount that they steal from motorists.
>
> So you are in denial, like most moronists.
> Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.

They could stop wasting money retarmaccing things unnecessarily for a start.

>> Cycle paths and lanes however are ENTIRELY subsidised by the government, there is no bicycle tax.
>
> This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money.
> All 'The Government's' money comes from tax payers.
> Are you claiming cyclists are tax exempt?
> If so, please provide evidence.

Motorists according to you pay for 60% of the roads they use. Cyclists pay for 0% of the cycle paths and roads they use. The other 40% and 100% comes from random people, no matter which mode of transport they use.

Even if you are correct and driving is subsidised 40%, cycling is subsidised 100%, and buses and trains loads too.

>> >> And are you considering he government might want to subsidise something very useful which keeps the planet moving? Or do you want your food delivered on bicycle?
>> >
>> > So you admit motoring is subsidised, thanks for your support.
>>
>> I did not. I said if you were correct, it still wouldn't be wrong. Answer the question, do you think goods could all be transported by bicycle?
>
> Ask a real question rather than one from your fairy tales and I will attempt to answer in in a fashion you will be able to understand.

You are suggesting motor vehicles are wrong, yet you cannot explain how society could function without them. It is you living in the fairy tale.

--
Archimedes principle: When a body is fully immersed in water, the telephone rings.

[mycro...@gmail.com]

Why are you still up, don't you have school in the morning?

[mycro...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 11:06:05 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 22:14:22 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The numerical answer, as always, is left as an exercise for the student.
>
> So you don't know for sure then.

I only know what the published, peer reviewed, data tell me.
If you have contrary data please share it with the group.

>

> > So you are in denial, like most moronists.
> > Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.
>
> They could stop wasting money retarmaccing things unnecessarily for a start.

So you have no data to support your claim.

> > This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money.
> > All 'The Government's' money comes from tax payers.
> > Are you claiming cyclists are tax exempt?
> > If so, please provide evidence.
>
> Motorists according to you pay for 60% of the roads they use.

Wrong,as usual. VED (which some people of extremely low intelligence call Road Tax) pays for 60% of the motorway budget. That is the only tax unique to motorists. They still get to use other roads at the tax payers expense.

>Cyclists pay for 0% of the cycle paths and roads they use. The other 40% and 100% comes from random >people, no matter which mode of transport they use.
> Even if you are correct and driving is subsidised 40%, cycling is subsidised 100%, and buses and trains >loads too.

So you ARE claiming cyclists are tax exempt. Can you provide evidence to support this claim.

>

> > Ask a real question rather than one from your fairy tales and I will attempt to answer in in a fashion you will be able to understand.
>
> You are suggesting motor vehicles are wrong, yet you cannot explain how society could function without them. It is you living in the fairy tale.
>

Where did I suggest this?

[JNugent]

I am not a teacher.

[mycro...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 11:47:34 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

> On 08/01/2017 23:07, mycro...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Why are you still up, don't you have school in the morning?
>
> I am not a teacher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMhURei8N6Q

[TMS320]

The story is simple enough but I want to know why you picked out the
bits you did in more specific terms. It is possible to guess, obviously
(and it has been aired), but instead of trying to inform you what you
are thinking, you have to tell us.

> You wish I'd written something different from that which I did write.

Indeed. But that is not a sin of the reader.

[JNugent]

On 09/01/2017 10:28, TMS320 wrote:

> On 08/01/2017 22:56, JNugent wrote:
>> On 08/01/2017 19:40, TMS320 wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>> The key is that you should read what was written and correctly
>>>> understand it. Not what you wish had been written and not what you
>>>> imagined had been written.

>> So you were unable to understand even the few brief extracts from the
>> story or my equally brief comments on those extracts.
>
> The story is simple enough but I want to know why you picked out the
> bits you did in more specific terms.

Do you?

Why is it important?

> It is possible to guess, obviously
> (and it has been aired), but instead of trying to inform you what you
> are thinking, you have to tell us.

Do I?

When was that rule introduced?

>> You wish I'd written something different from that which I did write.

> Indeed. But that is not a sin of the reader.

Yes, it is. Who else could possibly be responsible for your wishes, as
odd as they might turn out to be?

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 23:39:12 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 11:06:05 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 22:14:22 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > The numerical answer, as always, is left as an exercise for the student.
>>
>> So you don't know for sure then.
>
> I only know what the published, peer reviewed, data tell me.
> If you have contrary data please share it with the group.

You've oversnipped.

>> > So you are in denial, like most moronists.
>> > Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.
>>
>> They could stop wasting money retarmaccing things unnecessarily for a start.
>
> So you have no data to support your claim.

I can observe with my own eyes that they could retarmac half as often.

>> > This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money.
>> > All 'The Government's' money comes from tax payers.
>> > Are you claiming cyclists are tax exempt?
>> > If so, please provide evidence.
>>
>> Motorists according to you pay for 60% of the roads they use.
>
> Wrong,as usual. VED (which some people of extremely low intelligence call Road Tax)

People with low intelligence need specific names. The rest of us use sensible terms. It's a tax to pay for roads, so it's road tax.

> pays for 60% of the motorway budget. That is the only tax unique to motorists. They still get to use other roads at the tax payers expense.

Little roads don't cost much. And you've omitted the fuel tax, which is MUCH MUCH higher than the road tax.

>> Cyclists pay for 0% of the cycle paths and roads they use. The other 40% and 100% comes from random >people, no matter which mode of transport they use.
>> Even if you are correct and driving is subsidised 40%, cycling is subsidised 100%, and buses and trains >loads too.
>
> So you ARE claiming cyclists are tax exempt. Can you provide evidence to support this claim.

You don't pay road tax or fuel tax. That's a lot less tax.

>> > Ask a real question rather than one from your fairy tales and I will attempt to answer in in a fashion you will be able to understand.
>>
>> You are suggesting motor vehicles are wrong, yet you cannot explain how society could function without them. It is you living in the fairy tale.
>
> Where did I suggest this?

Up there above your snipping point.

--
Why do tourists go to the top of tall buildings and then put money in telescopes so they can see things on the ground in close-up?

[mycro...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 9:25:51 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 23:39:12 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 11:06:05 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 22:14:22 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > The numerical answer, as always, is left as an exercise for the student.
> >>
> >> So you don't know for sure then.
> >
> > I only know what the published, peer reviewed, data tell me.
> > If you have contrary data please share it with the group.
>
> You've oversnipped.

Did I?
if i did I apologise, please reinstate the relevant text.

>
> >> > So you are in denial, like most moronists.
> >> > Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.
> >>
> >> They could stop wasting money retarmaccing things unnecessarily for a start.
> >
> > So you have no data to support your claim.
>
> I can observe with my own eyes that they could retarmac half as often.

So you have no data to support your claim.

>
> >> > This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money.
> >> > All 'The Government's' money comes from tax payers.
> >> > Are you claiming cyclists are tax exempt?
> >> > If so, please provide evidence.
> >>
> >> Motorists according to you pay for 60% of the roads they use.
> >
> > Wrong,as usual. VED (which some people of extremely low intelligence call Road Tax)
>
> People with low intelligence need specific names.

Like incorrectly referring to VED as Road Tax.

>The rest of us use sensible terms.

VED for example.

> It's a tax to pay for roads, so it's road tax.
>

No, it is a fee you have to pay for permission to use your motor vehicle on roads owned and payed for by pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists.

> > pays for 60% of the motorway budget. That is the only tax unique to motorists. They still get to use other roads at the tax payers expense.
>
> Little roads don't cost much.

But damage is still proportional to the 4th power of axle loading.

>And you've omitted the fuel tax, which is MUCH MUCH higher than the road tax.
>

How much would I pay for a litre of fuel if I bought it as a cyclist rather than a motorist?

> >> Cyclists pay for 0% of the cycle paths and roads they use. The other 40% and 100% comes from random >people, no matter which mode of transport they use.
> >> Even if you are correct and driving is subsidised 40%, cycling is subsidised 100%, and buses and trains >loads too.
> >
> > So you ARE claiming cyclists are tax exempt. Can you provide evidence to support this claim.
>
> You don't pay road tax or fuel tax. That's a lot less tax.

We have already established that 'Road Tax' is a myth and cyclists have to pay the same for fuel as motorists so what is your point?

>
> >> > Ask a real question rather than one from your fairy tales and I will attempt to answer in in a fashion you will be able to understand.
> >>
> >> You are suggesting motor vehicles are wrong, yet you cannot explain how society could function without them. It is you living in the fairy tale.
> >
> > Where did I suggest this?
>
> Up there above your snipping point.

Is that a new Game Show?

[Judith]

On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 12:14:57 +0000, MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 08/01/2017 12:11, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 11:23:30 -0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/01/2017 02:36, mycro...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 8:49:35 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-38543516>
>>>>

>>>>> George Boden, from High Easter, near Chelmsford, Essex, was riding his
>>>>> bike in 2011 when he crashed face-first.
>>>>
>>>>> [So it IS possible, after all.]

>>>
>>>> Translated.
>>>> Noddy Nugent is looking for a fight.
>>>

>>> TRANSLATION: The fact that no-one of any importance disagreed with the
>>> story or the comment was deeply satisfying (silence, after all, gives
>>> consent).
>>>
>>> PS: You need not respond unless you are are, as usual, looking to
>>> create a dispute out of nothing.
>>
>> or give his implicit consent by not responding. Nice troll! (but the kf
>> rule remains)
>>
>>
>
>Is that the Google groups Killfile program written by Simon ?


I think he is being rather coy.

The reason he has loads of money is because Google bought the rights off him as
they want to start selling it themselves.

He is just too modest to share that with us.

[TMS320]

On 09/01/2017 18:05, JNugent wrote:
> On 09/01/2017 10:28, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 08/01/2017 22:56, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2017 19:40, TMS320 wrote:
>
> [ ... ]

<attribution restored>

>>>>> On 03/09/2016 16:00, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> The key is that you should read what was written and
>>>>> correctly understand it. Not what you wish had been written
>>>>> and not what you imagined had been written.
>
>>> So you were unable to understand even the few brief extracts from
>>> the story or my equally brief comments on those extracts.
>>
>> The story is simple enough but I want to know why you picked out
>> the bits you did in more specific terms.
>
> Do you?

For curiosity sake.

> Why is it important?

There was no suggestion it is.

>> It is possible to guess, obviously (and it has been aired), but
>> instead of trying to inform you what you are thinking, you have to
>> tell us.
>
> Do I?
>
> When was that rule introduced?

Probably since the ancestors of homo sapiens developed the abiity to
communicate.

>>> You wish I'd written something different from that which I did
>>> write.
>
>> Indeed. But that is not a sin of the reader.
>
> Yes, it is. Who else could possibly be responsible for your wishes,
> as odd as they might turn out to be?

You should spend a moment thinking about the difference between -

"...you should read what was written... Not what you wish had been written."

and -

"You wish I'd written something different from that which I did
write."

Then heed your own advice.

[JNugent]

On 11/01/2017 09:27, TMS320 wrote:

> On 09/01/2017 18:05, JNugent wrote:
>> On 09/01/2017 10:28, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2017 22:56, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 08/01/2017 19:40, TMS320 wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>>>> The key is that you should read what was written and
>>>>>> correctly understand it. Not what you wish had been written
>>>>>> and not what you imagined had been written.

>>>> So you were unable to understand even the few brief extracts from
>>>> the story or my equally brief comments on those extracts.

>>> The story is simple enough but I want to know why you picked out
>>> the bits you did in more specific terms.

>> Do you?

> For curiosity sake.

I see.

>> Why is it important?

> There was no suggestion it is.

Then what is its significance (if any)?

>>> It is possible to guess, obviously (and it has been aired), but
>>> instead of trying to inform you what you are thinking, you have to
>>> tell us.

>> Do I?
>> When was that rule introduced?

> Probably since the ancestors of homo sapiens developed the abiity to
> communicate.

They didn't have the internet then. And there is no rule compelling me
to answer your questions.

>>>> You wish I'd written something different from that which I did
>>>> write.

>>> Indeed. But that is not a sin of the reader.

>> Yes, it is. Who else could possibly be responsible for your wishes,
>> as odd as they might turn out to be?

********************************************************

> You should spend a moment thinking about the difference between -
>
> "...you should read what was written... Not what you wish had been
> written."
>
> and -
>
> "You wish I'd written something different from that which I did
> write."
>
> Then heed your own advice.

*******************************************************

The bit marked out by the lines of asterisks is not a response to my
question.

Your wishes are your own business and responsibility. No-one else's.

[TMS320]

It might not be the response you wish for... but here is no rule
compelling me to answer your question (as you wish it to be answered)...

> Your wishes are your own business and responsibility. No-one else's.

...besides, your question is irrelevant to anything that preceeeded it.

[JNugent]

On 11/01/2017 17:49, TMS320 wrote:
> On 11/01/2017 13:49, JNugent wrote:
>> On 11/01/2017 09:27, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2017 18:05, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/2017 10:28, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 08/01/2017 22:56, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>> You wish I'd written something different from that which I did
>>>>>> write.
>>
>>>>> Indeed. But that is not a sin of the reader.
>>
>>>> Yes, it is. Who else could possibly be responsible for your wishes,
>>>> as odd as they might turn out to be?
>>
>> ********************************************************
>>> You should spend a moment thinking about the difference between -
>>>
>>> "...you should read what was written... Not what you wish had been
>>> written."
>>>
>>> and -
>>>
>>> "You wish I'd written something different from that which I did
>>> write."
>>>
>>> Then heed your own advice.
>> *******************************************************
>>
>> The bit marked out by the lines of asterisks is not a response to my
>> question.
>
> It might not be the response you wish for... but here is no rule
> compelling me to answer your question (as you wish it to be answered)...

It is patently not a response to any question I had asked.

>> Your wishes are your own business and responsibility. No-one else's.

> ...besides, your question is irrelevant to anything that preceeeded it.

It must be your "answer" (above) that you are thinking of there.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 22:38:11 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 9:25:51 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 23:39:12 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 11:06:05 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 22:14:22 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > The numerical answer, as always, is left as an exercise for the student.
>> >>
>> >> So you don't know for sure then.
>> >
>> > I only know what the published, peer reviewed, data tell me.
>> > If you have contrary data please share it with the group.
>>
>> You've oversnipped.
>
> Did I?
> if i did I apologise, please reinstate the relevant text.

Can't be bothered going to find it.

>> >> > So you are in denial, like most moronists.
>> >> > Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.
>> >>
>> >> They could stop wasting money retarmaccing things unnecessarily for a start.
>> >
>> > So you have no data to support your claim.
>>
>> I can observe with my own eyes that they could retarmac half as often.
>
> So you have no data to support your claim.

1st hand observation trumps everything.

>> >> > This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money.
>> >> > All 'The Government's' money comes from tax payers.
>> >> > Are you claiming cyclists are tax exempt?
>> >> > If so, please provide evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Motorists according to you pay for 60% of the roads they use.
>> >
>> > Wrong,as usual. VED (which some people of extremely low intelligence call Road Tax)
>>
>> People with low intelligence need specific names.
>
> Like incorrectly referring to VED as Road Tax.

Thanks for proving my point. Most people call things by a colloquial term. Like a "Hoover".

>> The rest of us use sensible terms.
>
> VED for example.

I never hear of that unless filling in a form. It's called road tax, or car tax, or a tax disk.

>> It's a tax to pay for roads, so it's road tax.
>
> No, it is a fee you have to pay for permission to use your motor vehicle on roads owned and payed for by pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists.

Same thing.

>> > pays for 60% of the motorway budget. That is the only tax unique to motorists. They still get to use other roads at the tax payers expense.
>>
>> Little roads don't cost much.
>
> But damage is still proportional to the 4th power of axle loading.

Irrelevant, you're still using it. Now about those cycle paths....

>> And you've omitted the fuel tax, which is MUCH MUCH higher than the road tax.
>
> How much would I pay for a litre of fuel if I bought it as a cyclist rather than a motorist?

What a stupid question. Most petrol/diesel is consumed by cars. This pays for the upkeep of roads, about 10 times as much (rough guess) as road tax.

And to answer your question, if you prove it's for a tractor or lawnmower, you'd pay 80p less per litre.

>> >> Cyclists pay for 0% of the cycle paths and roads they use. The other 40% and 100% comes from random >people, no matter which mode of transport they use.
>> >> Even if you are correct and driving is subsidised 40%, cycling is subsidised 100%, and buses and trains >loads too.
>> >
>> > So you ARE claiming cyclists are tax exempt. Can you provide evidence to support this claim.
>>
>> You don't pay road tax or fuel tax. That's a lot less tax.
>
> We have already established that 'Road Tax' is a myth

No, you're just renaming it to be silly.

> and cyclists have to pay the same for fuel as motorists so what is your point?

Cyclists don't use fuel to operate their bikes.

>> >> > Ask a real question rather than one from your fairy tales and I will attempt to answer in in a fashion you will be able to understand.
>> >>
>> >> You are suggesting motor vehicles are wrong, yet you cannot explain how society could function without them. It is you living in the fairy tale.
>> >
>> > Where did I suggest this?
>>
>> Up there above your snipping point.
>
> Is that a new Game Show?

Grow up.

--
Women do not snore, burp, sweat, or fart.
Therefore, they must "bitch" or they will blow up.

[mycro...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 8:33:41 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 22:38:11 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 9:25:51 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 23:39:12 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 11:06:05 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 22:14:22 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > The numerical answer, as always, is left as an exercise for the student.
> >> >>
> >> >> So you don't know for sure then.
> >> >
> >> > I only know what the published, peer reviewed, data tell me.
> >> > If you have contrary data please share it with the group.
> >>
> >> You've oversnipped.
> >
> > Did I?
> > if i did I apologise, please reinstate the relevant text.
>
> Can't be bothered going to find it.

IOW it doesn't exist.

>
> >> >> > So you are in denial, like most moronists.
> >> >> > Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.
> >> >>
> >> >> They could stop wasting money retarmaccing things unnecessarily for a start.
> >> >
> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
> >>
> >> I can observe with my own eyes that they could retarmac half as often.
> >
> > So you have no data to support your claim.
>
> 1st hand observation trumps everything.

No, peer reviewed publication is all that counts.

>
> >> >> > This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money.
> >> >> > All 'The Government's' money comes from tax payers.
> >> >> > Are you claiming cyclists are tax exempt?
> >> >> > If so, please provide evidence.
> >> >>
> >> >> Motorists according to you pay for 60% of the roads they use.
> >> >
> >> > Wrong,as usual. VED (which some people of extremely low intelligence call Road Tax)
> >>
> >> People with low intelligence need specific names.
> >
> > Like incorrectly referring to VED as Road Tax.
>
> Thanks for proving my point. Most people call things by a colloquial term. Like a "Hoover".

Thanks for proving my point. Just because the illiterate, unwashed masses call VED 'Road Tax' does not make it the correct term.

>
> >> The rest of us use sensible terms.
> >
> > VED for example.
>
> I never hear of that unless filling in a form. It's called road tax, or car tax, or a tax disk.

Ignorance is no excuse.

>
> >> It's a tax to pay for roads, so it's road tax.
> >
> > No, it is a fee you have to pay for permission to use your motor vehicle on roads owned and payed for by pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists.
>
> Same thing.

So you agree, roads are payed for by cyclists.

>
> >> > pays for 60% of the motorway budget. That is the only tax unique to motorists. They still get to use other roads at the tax payers expense.
> >>
> >> Little roads don't cost much.
> >
> > But damage is still proportional to the 4th power of axle loading.
>
> Irrelevant, you're still using it. Now about those cycle paths....

Entirely relevant. Cars cause 10000 times as much damage to roads paid for out of council tax as cyclists.

>
> >> And you've omitted the fuel tax, which is MUCH MUCH higher than the road tax.
> >
> > How much would I pay for a litre of fuel if I bought it as a cyclist rather than a motorist?
>
> What a stupid question. Most petrol/diesel is consumed by cars. This pays for the upkeep of roads, about 10 times as much (rough guess) as road tax.

Just answer the question.

>
> And to answer your question, if you prove it's for a tractor or lawnmower, you'd pay 80p less per litre.

Are you Alvin Straight?

>
> >> >> Cyclists pay for 0% of the cycle paths and roads they use. The other 40% and 100% comes from random >people, no matter which mode of transport they use.
> >> >> Even if you are correct and driving is subsidised 40%, cycling is subsidised 100%, and buses and trains >loads too.
> >> >
> >> > So you ARE claiming cyclists are tax exempt. Can you provide evidence to support this claim.
> >>
> >> You don't pay road tax or fuel tax. That's a lot less tax.
> >
> > We have already established that 'Road Tax' is a myth
>
> No, you're just renaming it to be silly.

Renaming what? VED is VED, there is no Road Tax.

>
> > and cyclists have to pay the same for fuel as motorists so what is your point?
>
> Cyclists don't use fuel to operate their bikes.

Cycling fuel comes from the supermarket. Part of the shelf price is lorry VED and Fuel Duty.
Cycles just do more mpg than cars.

>
> >> >> > Ask a real question rather than one from your fairy tales and I will attempt to answer in in a fashion you will be able to understand.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are suggesting motor vehicles are wrong, yet you cannot explain how society could function without them. It is you living in the fairy tale.
> >> >
> >> > Where did I suggest this?
> >>
> >> Up there above your snipping point.
> >
> > Is that a new Game Show?
>
> Grow up.

It was a serious question, combine The Link with Tipping Point and you may have something.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:56:42 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 8:33:41 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 22:38:11 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 9:25:51 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 23:39:12 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 11:06:05 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 22:14:22 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > The numerical answer, as always, is left as an exercise for the student.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So you don't know for sure then.
>> >> >
>> >> > I only know what the published, peer reviewed, data tell me.
>> >> > If you have contrary data please share it with the group.
>> >>
>> >> You've oversnipped.
>> >
>> > Did I?
>> > if i did I apologise, please reinstate the relevant text.
>>
>> Can't be bothered going to find it.
>
> IOW it doesn't exist.

No, it's just not presented above. Why did you snip the context?

>> >> >> > So you are in denial, like most moronists.
>> >> >> > Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They could stop wasting money retarmaccing things unnecessarily for a start.
>> >> >
>> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
>> >>
>> >> I can observe with my own eyes that they could retarmac half as often.
>> >
>> > So you have no data to support your claim.
>>
>> 1st hand observation trumps everything.
>
> No, peer reviewed publication is all that counts.

You trust other people?!

>> >> >> > This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money.
>> >> >> > All 'The Government's' money comes from tax payers.
>> >> >> > Are you claiming cyclists are tax exempt?
>> >> >> > If so, please provide evidence.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Motorists according to you pay for 60% of the roads they use.
>> >> >
>> >> > Wrong,as usual. VED (which some people of extremely low intelligence call Road Tax)
>> >>
>> >> People with low intelligence need specific names.
>> >
>> > Like incorrectly referring to VED as Road Tax.
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point. Most people call things by a colloquial term. Like a "Hoover".
>
> Thanks for proving my point. Just because the illiterate, unwashed masses call VED 'Road Tax' does not make it the correct term.

Democracy means you're outvoted you fucked up medical problem (OCD).

>> >> The rest of us use sensible terms.
>> >
>> > VED for example.
>>
>> I never hear of that unless filling in a form. It's called road tax, or car tax, or a tax disk.
>
> Ignorance is no excuse.

Democracy means you're outvoted you fucked up medical problem (OCD).

>> >> It's a tax to pay for roads, so it's road tax.
>> >
>> > No, it is a fee you have to pay for permission to use your motor vehicle on roads owned and payed for by pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists.
>>
>> Same thing.
>
> So you agree, roads are payed for by cyclists.

No, because you don't pay road tax to use a bicycle.

>> >> > pays for 60% of the motorway budget. That is the only tax unique to motorists. They still get to use other roads at the tax payers expense.
>> >>
>> >> Little roads don't cost much.
>> >
>> > But damage is still proportional to the 4th power of axle loading.
>>
>> Irrelevant, you're still using it. Now about those cycle paths....
>
> Entirely relevant. Cars cause 10000 times as much damage to roads paid for out of council tax as cyclists.

Cycle paths are only used by cyclists. Yet only motorists pay for them.

>> >> And you've omitted the fuel tax, which is MUCH MUCH higher than the road tax.
>> >
>> > How much would I pay for a litre of fuel if I bought it as a cyclist rather than a motorist?
>>
>> What a stupid question. Most petrol/diesel is consumed by cars. This pays for the upkeep of roads, about 10 times as much (rough guess) as road tax.
>
> Just answer the question.

I did, below, do keep up at the back.

>> And to answer your question, if you prove it's for a tractor or lawnmower, you'd pay 80p less per litre.
>
> Are you Alvin Straight?

Don't care who he is. Are you denying I'm correct?

>> >> >> Cyclists pay for 0% of the cycle paths and roads they use. The other 40% and 100% comes from random >people, no matter which mode of transport they use.
>> >> >> Even if you are correct and driving is subsidised 40%, cycling is subsidised 100%, and buses and trains >loads too.
>> >> >
>> >> > So you ARE claiming cyclists are tax exempt. Can you provide evidence to support this claim.
>> >>
>> >> You don't pay road tax or fuel tax. That's a lot less tax.
>> >
>> > We have already established that 'Road Tax' is a myth
>>
>> No, you're just renaming it to be silly.
>
> Renaming what? VED is VED, there is no Road Tax.

A thing can have more than one name. Welcome to the English language.

>> > and cyclists have to pay the same for fuel as motorists so what is your point?
>>
>> Cyclists don't use fuel to operate their bikes.
>
> Cycling fuel comes from the supermarket. Part of the shelf price is lorry VED and Fuel Duty.

Not so much as duty on petrol when you buy it directly.

> Cycles just do more mpg than cars.

So?

>> >> >> > Ask a real question rather than one from your fairy tales and I will attempt to answer in in a fashion you will be able to understand.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are suggesting motor vehicles are wrong, yet you cannot explain how society could function without them. It is you living in the fairy tale.
>> >> >
>> >> > Where did I suggest this?
>> >>
>> >> Up there above your snipping point.
>> >
>> > Is that a new Game Show?
>>
>> Grow up.
>
> It was a serious question, combine The Link with Tipping Point and you may have something.

I was getting at you snipping like a silly little troll, and you make childish puns.

--
Sprinter Tim Montgomery is banned 2 years for doping.
Track officials began to suspect he might be juicing.
His personal best time recently broke the record held by Chuck Yeager.

[mycro...@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 12:03:54 AM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:56:42 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 8:33:41 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 22:38:11 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 9:25:51 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 23:39:12 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 11:06:05 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 22:14:22 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The numerical answer, as always, is left as an exercise for the student.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So you don't know for sure then.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I only know what the published, peer reviewed, data tell me.
> >> >> > If you have contrary data please share it with the group.
> >> >>
> >> >> You've oversnipped.
> >> >
> >> > Did I?
> >> > if i did I apologise, please reinstate the relevant text.
> >>
> >> Can't be bothered going to find it.
> >
> > IOW it doesn't exist.
>
> No, it's just not presented above. Why did you snip the context?

I am not aware that I did.
If you can cite the relevant text I will admit I am wrong.

>
> >> >> >> > So you are in denial, like most moronists.
> >> >> >> > Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> They could stop wasting money retarmaccing things unnecessarily for a start.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
> >> >>
> >> >> I can observe with my own eyes that they could retarmac half as often.
> >> >
> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
> >>
> >> 1st hand observation trumps everything.
> >
> > No, peer reviewed publication is all that counts.
>
> You trust other people?!
>

Who should we trust when it comes to published data?
Your bigoted observations or a written document vetted by unbiased reviewers?

> >> >> >> > This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money.
> >> >> >> > All 'The Government's' money comes from tax payers.
> >> >> >> > Are you claiming cyclists are tax exempt?
> >> >> >> > If so, please provide evidence.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Motorists according to you pay for 60% of the roads they use.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wrong,as usual. VED (which some people of extremely low intelligence call Road Tax)
> >> >>
> >> >> People with low intelligence need specific names.
> >> >
> >> > Like incorrectly referring to VED as Road Tax.
> >>
> >> Thanks for proving my point. Most people call things by a colloquial term. Like a "Hoover".
> >
> > Thanks for proving my point. Just because the illiterate, unwashed masses call VED 'Road Tax' does not make it the correct term.
>
> Democracy means you're outvoted you fucked up medical problem (OCD).

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

>
> >> >> The rest of us use sensible terms.
> >> >
> >> > VED for example.
> >>
> >> I never hear of that unless filling in a form. It's called road tax, or car tax, or a tax disk.
> >
> > Ignorance is no excuse.
>
> Democracy means you're outvoted you fucked up medical problem (OCD).

Childish insult ignored.

>
> >> >> It's a tax to pay for roads, so it's road tax.
> >> >
> >> > No, it is a fee you have to pay for permission to use your motor vehicle on roads owned and payed for by pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists.
> >>
> >> Same thing.
> >
> > So you agree, roads are payed for by cyclists.
>
> No, because you don't pay road tax to use a bicycle.

There is no road tax.

>
> >> >> > pays for 60% of the motorway budget. That is the only tax unique to motorists. They still get to use other roads at the tax payers expense.
> >> >>
> >> >> Little roads don't cost much.
> >> >
> >> > But damage is still proportional to the 4th power of axle loading.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant, you're still using it. Now about those cycle paths....
> >
> > Entirely relevant. Cars cause 10000 times as much damage to roads paid for out of council tax as cyclists.
>
> Cycle paths are only used by cyclists. Yet only motorists pay for them.

Cyclists don't want cycle paths, they just want to use the roads they are overcharged for in peace.

>
> >> >> And you've omitted the fuel tax, which is MUCH MUCH higher than the road tax.
> >> >
> >> > How much would I pay for a litre of fuel if I bought it as a cyclist rather than a motorist?
> >>
> >> What a stupid question. Most petrol/diesel is consumed by cars. This pays for the upkeep of roads, about 10 times as much (rough guess) as road tax.
> >
> > Just answer the question.
>
> I did, below, do keep up at the back.

No you did not.
Just answer the question. How much will I have to pay for a litre of fuel at my local filling station if I use my bicycle? Will it be more, less or the same as it would if I use my car?

>
> >> And to answer your question, if you prove it's for a tractor or lawnmower, you'd pay 80p less per litre.
> >
> > Are you Alvin Straight?
>
> Don't care who he is. Are you denying I'm correct?

Try doing some research.

>
> >> >> >> Cyclists pay for 0% of the cycle paths and roads they use. The other 40% and 100% comes from random >people, no matter which mode of transport they use.
> >> >> >> Even if you are correct and driving is subsidised 40%, cycling is subsidised 100%, and buses and trains >loads too.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So you ARE claiming cyclists are tax exempt. Can you provide evidence to support this claim.
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't pay road tax or fuel tax. That's a lot less tax.
> >> >
> >> > We have already established that 'Road Tax' is a myth
> >>
> >> No, you're just renaming it to be silly.
> >
> > Renaming what? VED is VED, there is no Road Tax.
>
> A thing can have more than one name. Welcome to the English language.
>
> >> > and cyclists have to pay the same for fuel as motorists so what is your point?
> >>
> >> Cyclists don't use fuel to operate their bikes.
> >
> > Cycling fuel comes from the supermarket. Part of the shelf price is lorry VED and Fuel Duty.
>
> Not so much as duty on petrol when you buy it directly.

Really?
You think supermarket delivery lorries pay less VED and fuel duty than other lorries?

>
> > Cycles just do more mpg than cars.
>
> So?

So cyclists pay fuel duty, thanks for agreeing with me.
I assume you will be posting a retraction of your claim that they do not.

>
> >> >> >> > Ask a real question rather than one from your fairy tales and I will attempt to answer in in a fashion you will be able to understand.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are suggesting motor vehicles are wrong, yet you cannot explain how society could function without them. It is you living in the fairy tale.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Where did I suggest this?
> >> >>
> >> >> Up there above your snipping point.
> >> >
> >> > Is that a new Game Show?
> >>
> >> Grow up.
> >
> > It was a serious question, combine The Link with Tipping Point and you may have something.
>
> I was getting at you snipping like a silly little troll, and you make childish puns.
>

"Coincidence may be described as the chance encounter of two unrelated causal chains which—miraculously, it seems—merge into a significant event. It provides the neatest paradigm of the bisociation of previously separate contexts, engineered by fate. Coincidences are puns of destiny. In the pun, two strings of thought are tangled into one acoustic knot; in the coincidental happening, two strings of events are knitted together by invisible hands."

Arthur Koestler

[caddys...@gmail.com]

I think Mr Sword in frustrated because Kinks has returned to Aus.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 01:31:54 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 12:03:54 AM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:56:42 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 8:33:41 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 22:38:11 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 9:25:51 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 23:39:12 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 11:06:05 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 22:14:22 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The numerical answer, as always, is left as an exercise for the student.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So you don't know for sure then.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I only know what the published, peer reviewed, data tell me.
>> >> >> > If you have contrary data please share it with the group.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You've oversnipped.
>> >> >
>> >> > Did I?
>> >> > if i did I apologise, please reinstate the relevant text.
>> >>
>> >> Can't be bothered going to find it.
>> >
>> > IOW it doesn't exist.
>>
>> No, it's just not presented above. Why did you snip the context?
>
> I am not aware that I did.
> If you can cite the relevant text I will admit I am wrong.

You must know if you're a snipper.

>> >> >> >> > So you are in denial, like most moronists.
>> >> >> >> > Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> They could stop wasting money retarmaccing things unnecessarily for a start.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I can observe with my own eyes that they could retarmac half as often.
>> >> >
>> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
>> >>
>> >> 1st hand observation trumps everything.
>> >
>> > No, peer reviewed publication is all that counts.
>>
>> You trust other people?!
>
> Who should we trust when it comes to published data?
> Your bigoted observations or a written document vetted by unbiased reviewers?

Trust your own observations.

>> >> >> >> > This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money.
>> >> >> >> > All 'The Government's' money comes from tax payers.
>> >> >> >> > Are you claiming cyclists are tax exempt?
>> >> >> >> > If so, please provide evidence.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Motorists according to you pay for 60% of the roads they use.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Wrong,as usual. VED (which some people of extremely low intelligence call Road Tax)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> People with low intelligence need specific names.
>> >> >
>> >> > Like incorrectly referring to VED as Road Tax.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for proving my point. Most people call things by a colloquial term. Like a "Hoover".
>> >
>> > Thanks for proving my point. Just because the illiterate, unwashed masses call VED 'Road Tax' does not make it the correct term.
>>
>> Democracy means you're outvoted you fucked up medical problem (OCD).
>
> Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

There are more than three people in the UK, and we're all the same species (until the Muslims overrun us).

>> >> >> The rest of us use sensible terms.
>> >> >
>> >> > VED for example.
>> >>
>> >> I never hear of that unless filling in a form. It's called road tax, or car tax, or a tax disk.
>> >
>> > Ignorance is no excuse.
>>
>> Democracy means you're outvoted you fucked up medical problem (OCD).
>
> Childish insult ignored.

It's not an insult. People with OCD don't deserve to be on the same planet as me.

>> >> >> It's a tax to pay for roads, so it's road tax.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it is a fee you have to pay for permission to use your motor vehicle on roads owned and payed for by pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists.
>> >>
>> >> Same thing.
>> >
>> > So you agree, roads are payed for by cyclists.
>>
>> No, because you don't pay road tax to use a bicycle.
>
> There is no road tax.

Yes there is, you just call it by a different name. I was using the one most people use.

>> >> >> > pays for 60% of the motorway budget. That is the only tax unique to motorists. They still get to use other roads at the tax payers expense.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Little roads don't cost much.
>> >> >
>> >> > But damage is still proportional to the 4th power of axle loading.
>> >>
>> >> Irrelevant, you're still using it. Now about those cycle paths....
>> >
>> > Entirely relevant. Cars cause 10000 times as much damage to roads paid for out of council tax as cyclists.
>>
>> Cycle paths are only used by cyclists. Yet only motorists pay for them.
>
> Cyclists don't want cycle paths,

Bullshit, cycle paths are always in the news with cyclists saying how wonderful they are.

> they just want to use the roads they are overcharged for in peace.

Then why do they keep moaning at drivers?

>> >> >> And you've omitted the fuel tax, which is MUCH MUCH higher than the road tax.
>> >> >
>> >> > How much would I pay for a litre of fuel if I bought it as a cyclist rather than a motorist?
>> >>
>> >> What a stupid question. Most petrol/diesel is consumed by cars. This pays for the upkeep of roads, about 10 times as much (rough guess) as road tax.
>> >
>> > Just answer the question.
>>
>> I did, below, do keep up at the back.
>
> No you did not.
> Just answer the question. How much will I have to pay for a litre of fuel at my local filling station if I use my bicycle? Will it be more, less or the same as it would if I use my car?

I already have. Fuel is 80p less a litre if not used for a car.

>> >> And to answer your question, if you prove it's for a tractor or lawnmower, you'd pay 80p less per litre.
>> >
>> > Are you Alvin Straight?
>>
>> Don't care who he is. Are you denying I'm correct?
>
> Try doing some research.

Just for the sake of a post made by a childish little cyclist with a psychological problem? I don't think so.

>> >> >> >> Cyclists pay for 0% of the cycle paths and roads they use. The other 40% and 100% comes from random >people, no matter which mode of transport they use.
>> >> >> >> Even if you are correct and driving is subsidised 40%, cycling is subsidised 100%, and buses and trains >loads too.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So you ARE claiming cyclists are tax exempt. Can you provide evidence to support this claim.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You don't pay road tax or fuel tax. That's a lot less tax.
>> >> >
>> >> > We have already established that 'Road Tax' is a myth
>> >>
>> >> No, you're just renaming it to be silly.
>> >
>> > Renaming what? VED is VED, there is no Road Tax.
>>
>> A thing can have more than one name. Welcome to the English language.
>>
>> >> > and cyclists have to pay the same for fuel as motorists so what is your point?
>> >>
>> >> Cyclists don't use fuel to operate their bikes.
>> >
>> > Cycling fuel comes from the supermarket. Part of the shelf price is lorry VED and Fuel Duty.
>>
>> Not so much as duty on petrol when you buy it directly.
>
> Really?
> You think supermarket delivery lorries pay less VED and fuel duty than other lorries?

No, they aren't bicycles either.

>> > Cycles just do more mpg than cars.
>>
>> So?
>
> So cyclists pay fuel duty, thanks for agreeing with me.
> I assume you will be posting a retraction of your claim that they do not.

You pay no fuel duty as you use no petrol.

>> >> >> >> > Ask a real question rather than one from your fairy tales and I will attempt to answer in in a fashion you will be able to understand.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You are suggesting motor vehicles are wrong, yet you cannot explain how society could function without them. It is you living in the fairy tale.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Where did I suggest this?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Up there above your snipping point.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is that a new Game Show?
>> >>
>> >> Grow up.
>> >
>> > It was a serious question, combine The Link with Tipping Point and you may have something.
>>
>> I was getting at you snipping like a silly little troll, and you make childish puns.
>
> "Coincidence may be described as the chance encounter of two unrelated causal chains which—miraculously, it seems—merge into a significant event. It provides the neatest paradigm of the bisociation of previously separate contexts, engineered by fate. Coincidences are puns of destiny. In the pun, two strings of thought are tangled into one acoustic knot; in the coincidental happening, two strings of events are knitted together by invisible hands."
>
> Arthur Koestler

What is this irrelevant nonsense you have pasted?

--
I've taken a vow of poverty. To annoy me, send money.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Who?

--
We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful god, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes -- Gene Roddenberry

[mycro...@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 9:28:08 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 01:31:54 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 12:03:54 AM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:56:42 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 8:33:41 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 22:38:11 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 9:25:51 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 23:39:12 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 11:06:05 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 22:14:22 -0000, <mycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > The numerical answer, as always, is left as an exercise for the student.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> So you don't know for sure then.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I only know what the published, peer reviewed, data tell me.
> >> >> >> > If you have contrary data please share it with the group.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You've oversnipped.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Did I?
> >> >> > if i did I apologise, please reinstate the relevant text.
> >> >>
> >> >> Can't be bothered going to find it.
> >> >
> >> > IOW it doesn't exist.
> >>
> >> No, it's just not presented above. Why did you snip the context?
> >
> > I am not aware that I did.
> > If you can cite the relevant text I will admit I am wrong.
>
> You must know if you're a snipper.

Is a snipper a sniper with diabetes?

>
> >> >> >> >> > So you are in denial, like most moronists.
> >> >> >> >> > Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> They could stop wasting money retarmaccing things unnecessarily for a start.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I can observe with my own eyes that they could retarmac half as often.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1st hand observation trumps everything.
> >> >
> >> > No, peer reviewed publication is all that counts.
> >>
> >> You trust other people?!
> >
> > Who should we trust when it comes to published data?
> > Your bigoted observations or a written document vetted by unbiased reviewers?
>
> Trust your own observations.

I saw a woman with blonde hair today.
According to you this means all women have blonde hair.

>
> >> >> >> >> > This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money.
> >> >> >> >> > All 'The Government's' money comes from tax payers.
> >> >> >> >> > Are you claiming cyclists are tax exempt?
> >> >> >> >> > If so, please provide evidence.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Motorists according to you pay for 60% of the roads they use.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Wrong,as usual. VED (which some people of extremely low intelligence call Road Tax)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> People with low intelligence need specific names.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Like incorrectly referring to VED as Road Tax.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for proving my point. Most people call things by a colloquial term. Like a "Hoover".
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for proving my point. Just because the illiterate, unwashed masses call VED 'Road Tax' does not make it the correct term.
> >>
> >> Democracy means you're outvoted you fucked up medical problem (OCD).
> >
> > Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
>
> There are more than three people in the UK, and we're all the same species (until the Muslims overrun us).

Muslims and Christians worship the same gods.

>
> >> >> >> The rest of us use sensible terms.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > VED for example.
> >> >>
> >> >> I never hear of that unless filling in a form. It's called road tax, or car tax, or a tax disk.
> >> >
> >> > Ignorance is no excuse.
> >>
> >> Democracy means you're outvoted you fucked up medical problem (OCD).
> >
> > Childish insult ignored.
>
> It's not an insult. People with OCD don't deserve to be on the same planet as me.

Which planet is that?

>
> >> >> >> It's a tax to pay for roads, so it's road tax.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, it is a fee you have to pay for permission to use your motor vehicle on roads owned and payed for by pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists.
> >> >>
> >> >> Same thing.
> >> >
> >> > So you agree, roads are payed for by cyclists.
> >>
> >> No, because you don't pay road tax to use a bicycle.
> >
> > There is no road tax.
>
> Yes there is, you just call it by a different name. I was using the one most people use.

Most people incorrectly call a vacuum cleaner a hoover, as you have stated.

>
> >> >> >> > pays for 60% of the motorway budget. That is the only tax unique to motorists. They still get to use other roads at the tax payers expense.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Little roads don't cost much.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But damage is still proportional to the 4th power of axle loading.
> >> >>
> >> >> Irrelevant, you're still using it. Now about those cycle paths....
> >> >
> >> > Entirely relevant. Cars cause 10000 times as much damage to roads paid for out of council tax as cyclists.
> >>
> >> Cycle paths are only used by cyclists. Yet only motorists pay for them.
> >
> > Cyclists don't want cycle paths,
>
> Bullshit,

Reasoned argument, logically presented, that'a what I like to see.

> cycle paths are always in the news with cyclists saying how wonderful they are.

Cite?

>
> > they just want to use the roads they are overcharged for in peace.
>
> Then why do they keep moaning at drivers?

Because drivers put primary road users in danger.

>
> >> >> >> And you've omitted the fuel tax, which is MUCH MUCH higher than the road tax.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How much would I pay for a litre of fuel if I bought it as a cyclist rather than a motorist?
> >> >>
> >> >> What a stupid question. Most petrol/diesel is consumed by cars. This pays for the upkeep of roads, about 10 times as much (rough guess) as road tax.
> >> >
> >> > Just answer the question.
> >>
> >> I did, below, do keep up at the back.
> >
> > No you did not.
> > Just answer the question. How much will I have to pay for a litre of fuel at my local filling station if I use my bicycle? Will it be more, less or the same as it would if I use my car?
>
> I already have. Fuel is 80p less a litre if not used for a car.

Again, how much will I pay for a litre of fuel if I buy it using my bicycle?
How about if I fill a 5 litre fuel can as a pedestrian?
If I state it is for cleaning my bicycle chain will I get a discount?

>
> >> >> And to answer your question, if you prove it's for a tractor or lawnmower, you'd pay 80p less per litre.
> >> >
> >> > Are you Alvin Straight?
> >>
> >> Don't care who he is. Are you denying I'm correct?
> >
> > Try doing some research.
>
> Just for the sake of a post made by a childish little cyclist with a psychological problem? I don't think so.
>

it is your choice to remain ignorant.

> >> >> >> >> Cyclists pay for 0% of the cycle paths and roads they use. The other 40% and 100% comes from random >people, no matter which mode of transport they use.
> >> >> >> >> Even if you are correct and driving is subsidised 40%, cycling is subsidised 100%, and buses and trains >loads too.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So you ARE claiming cyclists are tax exempt. Can you provide evidence to support this claim.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You don't pay road tax or fuel tax. That's a lot less tax.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We have already established that 'Road Tax' is a myth
> >> >>
> >> >> No, you're just renaming it to be silly.
> >> >
> >> > Renaming what? VED is VED, there is no Road Tax.
> >>
> >> A thing can have more than one name. Welcome to the English language.
> >>
> >> >> > and cyclists have to pay the same for fuel as motorists so what is your point?
> >> >>
> >> >> Cyclists don't use fuel to operate their bikes.
> >> >
> >> > Cycling fuel comes from the supermarket. Part of the shelf price is lorry VED and Fuel Duty.
> >>
> >> Not so much as duty on petrol when you buy it directly.
> >
> > Really?
> > You think supermarket delivery lorries pay less VED and fuel duty than other lorries?
>
> No, they aren't bicycles either.

Thank you for proving my point.
Better get that foot seen to before gangrene sets in.

>
> >> > Cycles just do more mpg than cars.
> >>
> >> So?
> >
> > So cyclists pay fuel duty, thanks for agreeing with me.
> > I assume you will be posting a retraction of your claim that they do not.
>
> You pay no fuel duty as you use no petrol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_Bay

>
> >> >> >> >> > Ask a real question rather than one from your fairy tales and I will attempt to answer in in a fashion you will be able to understand.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You are suggesting motor vehicles are wrong, yet you cannot explain how society could function without them. It is you living in the fairy tale.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Where did I suggest this?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Up there above your snipping point.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Is that a new Game Show?
> >> >>
> >> >> Grow up.
> >> >
> >> > It was a serious question, combine The Link with Tipping Point and you may have something.
> >>
> >> I was getting at you snipping like a silly little troll, and you make childish puns.
> >
> > "Coincidence may be described as the chance encounter of two unrelated causal chains which—miraculously, it seems—merge into a significant event. It provides the neatest paradigm of the bisociation of previously separate contexts, engineered by fate. Coincidences are puns of destiny. In the pun, two strings of thought are tangled into one acoustic knot; in the coincidental happening, two strings of events are knitted together by invisible hands."
> >
> > Arthur Koestler
>
> What is this irrelevant nonsense you have pasted?
>

'The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes'
Winston Churchill

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Do diabetics pee more?

>> >> >> >> >> > So you are in denial, like most moronists.
>> >> >> >> >> > Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> They could stop wasting money retarmaccing things unnecessarily for a start.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I can observe with my own eyes that they could retarmac half as often.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1st hand observation trumps everything.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, peer reviewed publication is all that counts.
>> >>
>> >> You trust other people?!
>> >
>> > Who should we trust when it comes to published data?
>> > Your bigoted observations or a written document vetted by unbiased reviewers?
>>
>> Trust your own observations.
>
> I saw a woman with blonde hair today.
> According to you this means all women have blonde hair.

No, but if you saw 100 of them and no brunettes, your conjecture would be valid.

>> >> >> >> >> > This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money.
>> >> >> >> >> > All 'The Government's' money comes from tax payers.
>> >> >> >> >> > Are you claiming cyclists are tax exempt?
>> >> >> >> >> > If so, please provide evidence.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Motorists according to you pay for 60% of the roads they use.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Wrong,as usual. VED (which some people of extremely low intelligence call Road Tax)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> People with low intelligence need specific names.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Like incorrectly referring to VED as Road Tax.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks for proving my point. Most people call things by a colloquial term. Like a "Hoover".
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for proving my point. Just because the illiterate, unwashed masses call VED 'Road Tax' does not make it the correct term.
>> >>
>> >> Democracy means you're outvoted you fucked up medical problem (OCD).
>> >
>> > Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
>>
>> There are more than three people in the UK, and we're all the same species (until the Muslims overrun us).
>
> Muslims and Christians worship the same gods.

Most Christians have worked out it's a load of shite.

>> >> >> >> The rest of us use sensible terms.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > VED for example.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I never hear of that unless filling in a form. It's called road tax, or car tax, or a tax disk.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ignorance is no excuse.
>> >>
>> >> Democracy means you're outvoted you fucked up medical problem (OCD).
>> >
>> > Childish insult ignored.
>>
>> It's not an insult. People with OCD don't deserve to be on the same planet as me.
>
> Which planet is that?

Childish insult ignored.

>> >> >> >> It's a tax to pay for roads, so it's road tax.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, it is a fee you have to pay for permission to use your motor vehicle on roads owned and payed for by pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Same thing.
>> >> >
>> >> > So you agree, roads are payed for by cyclists.
>> >>
>> >> No, because you don't pay road tax to use a bicycle.
>> >
>> > There is no road tax.
>>
>> Yes there is, you just call it by a different name. I was using the one most people use.
>
> Most people incorrectly call a vacuum cleaner a hoover, as you have stated.

If most call it that, it is no longer incorrect.

>> >> >> >> > pays for 60% of the motorway budget. That is the only tax unique to motorists. They still get to use other roads at the tax payers expense.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Little roads don't cost much.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But damage is still proportional to the 4th power of axle loading.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Irrelevant, you're still using it. Now about those cycle paths....
>> >> >
>> >> > Entirely relevant. Cars cause 10000 times as much damage to roads paid for out of council tax as cyclists.
>> >>
>> >> Cycle paths are only used by cyclists. Yet only motorists pay for them.
>> >
>> > Cyclists don't want cycle paths,
>>
>> Bullshit,
>
> Reasoned argument, logically presented, that'a what I like to see.
>
>> cycle paths are always in the news with cyclists saying how wonderful they are.
>
> Cite?

GIYF.

>> > they just want to use the roads they are overcharged for in peace.
>>
>> Then why do they keep moaning at drivers?
>
> Because drivers put primary road users in danger.

What is this "primary road users" shit you're making up? If anything, the primary road user is the car, because there are more of them.

>> >> >> >> And you've omitted the fuel tax, which is MUCH MUCH higher than the road tax.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > How much would I pay for a litre of fuel if I bought it as a cyclist rather than a motorist?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What a stupid question. Most petrol/diesel is consumed by cars. This pays for the upkeep of roads, about 10 times as much (rough guess) as road tax.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just answer the question.
>> >>
>> >> I did, below, do keep up at the back.
>> >
>> > No you did not.
>> > Just answer the question. How much will I have to pay for a litre of fuel at my local filling station if I use my bicycle? Will it be more, less or the same as it would if I use my car?
>>
>> I already have. Fuel is 80p less a litre if not used for a car.
>
> Again, how much will I pay for a litre of fuel if I buy it using my bicycle?
> How about if I fill a 5 litre fuel can as a pedestrian?
> If I state it is for cleaning my bicycle chain will I get a discount?

Only if you can prove it. The point is the government takes 80p per litre of fuel because they believe you are going to use it to power a car on the road.

>> >> >> And to answer your question, if you prove it's for a tractor or lawnmower, you'd pay 80p less per litre.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you Alvin Straight?
>> >>
>> >> Don't care who he is. Are you denying I'm correct?
>> >
>> > Try doing some research.
>>
>> Just for the sake of a post made by a childish little cyclist with a psychological problem? I don't think so.
>
> it is your choice to remain ignorant.

I have no interest in your silly distractions.

>> >> >> >> >> Cyclists pay for 0% of the cycle paths and roads they use. The other 40% and 100% comes from random >people, no matter which mode of transport they use.
>> >> >> >> >> Even if you are correct and driving is subsidised 40%, cycling is subsidised 100%, and buses and trains >loads too.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > So you ARE claiming cyclists are tax exempt. Can you provide evidence to support this claim.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You don't pay road tax or fuel tax. That's a lot less tax.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We have already established that 'Road Tax' is a myth
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, you're just renaming it to be silly.
>> >> >
>> >> > Renaming what? VED is VED, there is no Road Tax.
>> >>
>> >> A thing can have more than one name. Welcome to the English language.
>> >>
>> >> >> > and cyclists have to pay the same for fuel as motorists so what is your point?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cyclists don't use fuel to operate their bikes.
>> >> >
>> >> > Cycling fuel comes from the supermarket. Part of the shelf price is lorry VED and Fuel Duty.
>> >>
>> >> Not so much as duty on petrol when you buy it directly.
>> >
>> > Really?
>> > You think supermarket delivery lorries pay less VED and fuel duty than other lorries?
>>
>> No, they aren't bicycles either.
>
> Thank you for proving my point.
> Better get that foot seen to before gangrene sets in.

I eat food too without cycling, funny that.

>> >> >> >> >> > Ask a real question rather than one from your fairy tales and I will attempt to answer in in a fashion you will be able to understand.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> You are suggesting motor vehicles are wrong, yet you cannot explain how society could function without them. It is you living in the fairy tale.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Where did I suggest this?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Up there above your snipping point.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Is that a new Game Show?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Grow up.
>> >> >
>> >> > It was a serious question, combine The Link with Tipping Point and you may have something.
>> >>
>> >> I was getting at you snipping like a silly little troll, and you make childish puns.
>> >
>> > "Coincidence may be described as the chance encounter of two unrelated causal chains which—miraculously, it seems—merge into a significant event. It provides the neatest paradigm of the bisociation of previously separate contexts, engineered by fate. Coincidences are puns of destiny. In the pun, two strings of thought are tangled into one acoustic knot; in the coincidental happening, two strings of events are knitted together by invisible hands."
>> >
>> > Arthur Koestler
>>
>> What is this irrelevant nonsense you have pasted?
>
> 'The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes'
> Winston Churchill

Stop pasting random quotes for no reason.

--
Excuse me sir, are you playing the bagpipes or sexually abusing an octopus?

[mycro...@gmail.com]

Yes, do some research.

>
> >> >> >> >> >> > So you are in denial, like most moronists.
> >> >> >> >> >> > Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> They could stop wasting money retarmaccing things unnecessarily for a start.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I can observe with my own eyes that they could retarmac half as often.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 1st hand observation trumps everything.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, peer reviewed publication is all that counts.
> >> >>
> >> >> You trust other people?!
> >> >
> >> > Who should we trust when it comes to published data?
> >> > Your bigoted observations or a written document vetted by unbiased reviewers?
> >>
> >> Trust your own observations.
> >
> > I saw a woman with blonde hair today.
> > According to you this means all women have blonde hair.
>
> No, but if you saw 100 of them and no brunettes, your conjecture would be valid.

Thank you for proving my point.

>

> >> >> >> >> >> > This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money.
> >> >> >> >> >> > All 'The Government's' money comes from tax payers.
> >> >> >> >> >> > Are you claiming cyclists are tax exempt?
> >> >> >> >> >> > If so, please provide evidence.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Motorists according to you pay for 60% of the roads they use.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Wrong,as usual. VED (which some people of extremely low intelligence call Road Tax)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> People with low intelligence need specific names.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Like incorrectly referring to VED as Road Tax.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks for proving my point. Most people call things by a colloquial term. Like a "Hoover".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for proving my point. Just because the illiterate, unwashed masses call VED 'Road Tax' does not make it the correct term.
> >> >>
> >> >> Democracy means you're outvoted you fucked up medical problem (OCD).
> >> >
> >> > Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
> >>
> >> There are more than three people in the UK, and we're all the same species (until the Muslims overrun us).
> >
> > Muslims and Christians worship the same gods.
>
> Most Christians have worked out it's a load of shite.

Christianity, Islam, Pastafarianism or just religion in general?
As an atheist I don't care.

I don't speak 'infant', please translate

>
> >> > they just want to use the roads they are overcharged for in peace.
> >>
> >> Then why do they keep moaning at drivers?
> >
> > Because drivers put primary road users in danger.
>
> What is this "primary road users" shit you're making up? If anything, the primary road user is the car, because there are more of them.
>

Those who use roads by right rather than under licence.

> >> >> >> >> And you've omitted the fuel tax, which is MUCH MUCH higher than the road tax.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > How much would I pay for a litre of fuel if I bought it as a cyclist rather than a motorist?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What a stupid question. Most petrol/diesel is consumed by cars. This pays for the upkeep of roads, about 10 times as much (rough guess) as road tax.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Just answer the question.
> >> >>
> >> >> I did, below, do keep up at the back.
> >> >
> >> > No you did not.
> >> > Just answer the question. How much will I have to pay for a litre of fuel at my local filling station if I use my bicycle? Will it be more, less or the same as it would if I use my car?
> >>
> >> I already have. Fuel is 80p less a litre if not used for a car.
> >
> > Again, how much will I pay for a litre of fuel if I buy it using my bicycle?
> > How about if I fill a 5 litre fuel can as a pedestrian?
> > If I state it is for cleaning my bicycle chain will I get a discount?
>
> Only if you can prove it. The point is the government takes 80p per litre of fuel because they believe you are going to use it to power a car on the road.

Thank you once again for proving that primary road users pay the same fuel duty as subsidised road users.

>
> >> >> >> And to answer your question, if you prove it's for a tractor or lawnmower, you'd pay 80p less per litre.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Are you Alvin Straight?
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't care who he is. Are you denying I'm correct?
> >> >
> >> > Try doing some research.
> >>
> >> Just for the sake of a post made by a childish little cyclist with a psychological problem? I don't think so.
> >
> > it is your choice to remain ignorant.
>
> I have no interest in your silly distractions.
>

Not a distraction, just fact.

> >> >> >> >> >> Cyclists pay for 0% of the cycle paths and roads they use. The other 40% and 100% comes from random >people, no matter which mode of transport they use.
> >> >> >> >> >> Even if you are correct and driving is subsidised 40%, cycling is subsidised 100%, and buses and trains >loads too.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > So you ARE claiming cyclists are tax exempt. Can you provide evidence to support this claim.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You don't pay road tax or fuel tax. That's a lot less tax.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > We have already established that 'Road Tax' is a myth
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, you're just renaming it to be silly.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Renaming what? VED is VED, there is no Road Tax.
> >> >>
> >> >> A thing can have more than one name. Welcome to the English language.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > and cyclists have to pay the same for fuel as motorists so what is your point?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Cyclists don't use fuel to operate their bikes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cycling fuel comes from the supermarket. Part of the shelf price is lorry VED and Fuel Duty.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not so much as duty on petrol when you buy it directly.
> >> >
> >> > Really?
> >> > You think supermarket delivery lorries pay less VED and fuel duty than other lorries?
> >>
> >> No, they aren't bicycles either.
> >
> > Thank you for proving my point.
> > Better get that foot seen to before gangrene sets in.
>
> I eat food too without cycling, funny that.

Better get some exercise or you may get diabetes.
Excess thirst and urination is an early sign.

>
> >> >> >> >> >> > Ask a real question rather than one from your fairy tales and I will attempt to answer in in a fashion you will be able to understand.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> You are suggesting motor vehicles are wrong, yet you cannot explain how society could function without them. It is you living in the fairy tale.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Where did I suggest this?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Up there above your snipping point.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Is that a new Game Show?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Grow up.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It was a serious question, combine The Link with Tipping Point and you may have something.
> >> >>
> >> >> I was getting at you snipping like a silly little troll, and you make childish puns.
> >> >
> >> > "Coincidence may be described as the chance encounter of two unrelated causal chains which—miraculously, it seems—merge into a significant event. It provides the neatest paradigm of the bisociation of previously separate contexts, engineered by fate. Coincidences are puns of destiny. In the pun, two strings of thought are tangled into one acoustic knot; in the coincidental happening, two strings of events are knitted together by invisible hands."
> >> >
> >> > Arthur Koestler
> >>
> >> What is this irrelevant nonsense you have pasted?
> >
> > 'The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes'
> > Winston Churchill
>
> Stop pasting random quotes for no reason.

Hypocrite.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

I have no interest in diabetics. Although my uncle's one and he doesn't go to the toilet all the time.

>> >> >> >> >> >> > So you are in denial, like most moronists.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> They could stop wasting money retarmaccing things unnecessarily for a start.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I can observe with my own eyes that they could retarmac half as often.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > So you have no data to support your claim.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 1st hand observation trumps everything.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, peer reviewed publication is all that counts.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You trust other people?!
>> >> >
>> >> > Who should we trust when it comes to published data?
>> >> > Your bigoted observations or a written document vetted by unbiased reviewers?
>> >>
>> >> Trust your own observations.
>> >
>> > I saw a woman with blonde hair today.
>> > According to you this means all women have blonde hair.
>>
>> No, but if you saw 100 of them and no brunettes, your conjecture would be valid.
>
> Thank you for proving my point.

No I didn't.

>> >> >> >> >> >> > This deity you refer to as 'The Government' has no money

--
"Okay, okay, I take it back! UnFuck you!"