On 29/04/2016 09:37, Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen wrote:
> JNugent <
jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 28/04/2016 15:09, Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>> JNugent <
jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> On 27/04/2016 22:07, Peter Parry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 19:47:34 +0100, JNugent <
jenni...@fastmail.fm>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Even taking the (very) long way round would require - at a minimum - the
>>>>>> crossing of the English Channel.
>>>>
>>>>>> Was this cyclist born of a virgin?
>>>>
>>>>> Apparently he hopes to cycle through the maintenance tunnel of the
>>>>> Channel Tunnel.
>>>>
>>>> Does he really believe that even if he were allowed to do that, it would
>>>> mean that he hadn't crossed the English Channel?
>>>>
>>>> It's a bit of innovative thinking, innit?
>>>>
>>>> According to his thinking, you can use the Dartford Crossing north to
>>>> south and you've crossed the Thames (on a bridge).
>>>>
>>>> Cross at Dartford south to north and you have not crossed the Thames
>>>> (because you're in a tunnel).
>>>
>>> According to thicko troll's 'thinking', if you walk under the Thames via
>>> one of the tunnels, you have walked on water.
>>
>> You're the one who insisted that if you cross a sea, you haven't done a
>> sea crossing, aren't you?
>
> Since when was 'the sea' solid, thicko?
That HAS to be your proposition. You are, after all, the one who claimed