Cycles funded by the taxpayer?

[Spike]

John Parkin, professor of transport engineering at the University of the
West of England, says the bike-docking hire schemes helped enable the
long-term subscription businesses to take off. This is because more people
got used both to cycling and to using a bike that they didn't own.

However, Prof Parkin, who is also deputy director of the university's
Centre for Transport and Society, says a major challenge for the companies
involved is the sheer capital expenditure of buying all the bikes in the
first place. "It's massive capital and it's burning capital," he says.

"I'm not sure where the profitability lies, as maintenance and moving them
across cities is a massive cost, so keeping a lid on costs is probably a
challenge for such companies."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64371657

--
Spike

[JNugent]

With hirings costing the taxpayer an average of £400 a pop, we already
know that it would be cheaper just to make taxis free and pay the
drivers a good wage, as well as paying all capital and maintenance costs
for the vehicle.

[Spike]

The Manchester scheme trumpeted its 100,000km mark, which simple arithmetic
showed cost £436/mile.

Simple arithmetic also tells us that to get the cost down to 40p/mile, the
original bikes will have to travel 100,000,000km.

By this time, of course, the bikes will have worn out and will need
replacing, not yet having repaid their original cost and not allowing for
maintenance and other costs such as the profits of the managing company.

But that starts the cycle again, never having covered the costs.

Can anyone possibly gain the impression from this that this sort of scheme
is a licence to print money, for the operating companies? With the actual
costs falling mostly on the taxpayer!

No wonder there is so much enthusiasm for bike schemes!

Health? Air quality? Safety? Emissions?

Forget that, follow the money.

--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

Offset by the £30 billion annual motoring subsidy.

[Spike]

Doubtless paid for by the £40bn raised from motor vehicles….

“Taxes on motoring raise around £40 billion a year for the exchequer
(around 5% of government revenue), equivalent to about £750 per adult in
the UK.

Most of this comes from fuel duties, which in 2019–20 are expected to raise
£28 billion in their own right plus an additional £5.7 billion from the VAT
payable on the duties. Another £6.5 billion comes from vehicle excise duty
(VED) and £0.2 billion from the London congestion charge”.


--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 18:26:05 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 16:26:13 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> John Parkin, professor of transport engineering at the University of the
> >> West of England, says the bike-docking hire schemes helped enable the
> >> long-term subscription businesses to take off. This is because more people
> >> got used both to cycling and to using a bike that they didn't own.
> >>
> >> However, Prof Parkin, who is also deputy director of the university's
> >> Centre for Transport and Society, says a major challenge for the companies
> >> involved is the sheer capital expenditure of buying all the bikes in the
> >> first place. "It's massive capital and it's burning capital," he says.
> >>
> >> "I'm not sure where the profitability lies, as maintenance and moving them
> >> across cities is a massive cost, so keeping a lid on costs is probably a
> >> challenge for such companies."
> >>
> >> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64371657
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
>
> > Offset by the £30 billion annual motoring subsidy.
> Doubtless paid for by the £40bn raised from motor vehicles….

You seem to have misspelled £7.2 billion raised in VED, since that is the only motor vehicle tax, of which £12 billion is spent on motorway maintenance. Then there is the 4th power of axle loading rule for local council funded roads.

[Spike]

Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 18:26:05 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 16:26:13 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> John Parkin, professor of transport engineering at the University of the
>>>> West of England, says the bike-docking hire schemes helped enable the
>>>> long-term subscription businesses to take off. This is because more people
>>>> got used both to cycling and to using a bike that they didn't own.
>>>>
>>>> However, Prof Parkin, who is also deputy director of the university's
>>>> Centre for Transport and Society, says a major challenge for the companies
>>>> involved is the sheer capital expenditure of buying all the bikes in the
>>>> first place. "It's massive capital and it's burning capital," he says.
>>>>
>>>> "I'm not sure where the profitability lies, as maintenance and moving them
>>>> across cities is a massive cost, so keeping a lid on costs is probably a
>>>> challenge for such companies."
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64371657
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike

>>> Offset by the £30 billion annual motoring subsidy.

>> Doubtless paid for by the £40bn raised from motor vehicles….

> You seem to have misspelled £7.2 billion raised in VED, since that is the
> only motor vehicle tax

That’s not what I said. Have another read.

[Hint: ‘tax raised from motor vehicles’ > VED]

> of which £12 billion is spent on motorway maintenance.

So where does the other £28bn raised from motor vehicles get spent?

> Then there is the 4th power of axle loading rule for local council funded roads.

When I researched your worn out shibboleth, it related to a rule of thumb
that was in vogue back in the days before computers, that was based on what
was suspected about the properties of the materials used for building
roads.

These days we know better.

Nice try, but time you moved on.

--
Spike

[Simon Mason]

On Friday, 27 January 2023 at 00:29:31 UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> You seem to have misspelled £7.2 billion raised in VED, since that is the only motor vehicle tax, of which £12 billion is spent on motorway maintenance. Then there is the 4th power of axle loading rule for local council funded roads.

That's a tax on the pollution they spew out, killing children

[Mike Collins]

I know what you said but you are wrong. VED is the only motoring tax.

> > of which £12 billion is spent on motorway maintenance.
> So where does the other £28bn raised from motor vehicles get spent?

What tax would that be?

> > Then there is the 4th power of axle loading rule for local council funded roads.
> When I researched your worn out shibboleth, it related to a rule of thumb
> that was in vogue back in the days before computers, that was based on what
> was suspected about the properties of the materials used for building
> roads.

You mean they did actual real world tests rather than computer simulations based on theory and written by programmers rather than civil engineers.

>
> These days we know better.

So cite the relevant peer reviewed research on road damage vs axle weight.

[Spike]

Simon Mason wrote:
> Mike Collins wrote:

>> You seem to have misspelled £7.2 billion raised in VED, since that is
>> the only motor vehicle tax, of which £12 billion is spent on motorway
>> maintenance. Then there is the 4th power of axle loading rule for local
>> council funded roads.

> That's a tax on the pollution they spew out, killing children

https://air.plumelabs.com/learn/en/indoor-outdoor-pollution

These indoor spaces are often found to be contaminated by many pollutants,
and studies even show that indoor air pollution is up to 8 times greater
than that of outdoor air.

Why is indoor air quality important? We spend, on average, 80 to 90% of our
time inside!

So, although ignored for a long time, the question of indoor air quality
has become one of the main environmental public health issues all over the
world. 

--
Spike

[Spike]

It was you that raised the issue of taxes, so quite why you expect me to
explain it is a mystery.

>>> Then there is the 4th power of axle loading rule for local council funded roads.

>> When I researched your worn out shibboleth, it related to a rule of thumb
>> that was in vogue back in the days before computers, that was based on what
>> was suspected about the properties of the materials used for building
>> roads.

> You mean they did actual real world tests rather than computer
> simulations based on theory and written by programmers rather than civil engineers.

And due to that we now have a much better understanding of the processes
and their effects.

>> These days we know better.

> So cite the relevant peer reviewed research on road damage vs axle weight.

Now, seeing that you’ve recognised the pothole that you have dug for
yourself, you’ve fallen back on shifting the goalposts - for the third time
in this thread.

>> Nice try, but time you moved on.

Or grew up.

--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

Yes, and motoring taxes only raise £7.2 billion pa which does not even cover the cost of motorway maintenance.
Thank you for proving my point.

> >>> Then there is the 4th power of axle loading rule for local council funded roads.
>
> >> When I researched your worn out shibboleth, it related to a rule of thumb
> >> that was in vogue back in the days before computers, that was based on what
> >> was suspected about the properties of the materials used for building
> >> roads.
>
> > You mean they did actual real world tests rather than computer
> > simulations based on theory and written by programmers rather than civil engineers.

> And due to that we now have a much better understanding of the processes
> and their effects.

So cite the relevant data.

> >> These days we know better.
>
> > So cite the relevant peer reviewed research on road damage vs axle weight.
> Now, seeing that you’ve recognised the pothole that you have dug for
> yourself, you’ve fallen back on shifting the goalposts - for the third time
> in this thread.

So you are unable to cite a peer reviewed reference to support your claim.

> >> Nice try, but time you moved on.
> Or grew up.

How childish.

[Spike]

What a pity you had to move the goalposts so often, but unfortunately you
‘proved’ a point that wasn’t under discussion. You only introduced it
because you were losing.

>>>>> Then there is the 4th power of axle loading rule for local council funded roads.

>>>> When I researched your worn out shibboleth, it related to a rule of thumb
>>>> that was in vogue back in the days before computers, that was based on what
>>>> was suspected about the properties of the materials used for building
>>>> roads.

>>> You mean they did actual real world tests rather than computer
>>> simulations based on theory and written by programmers rather than civil engineers.

>> And due to that we now have a much better understanding of the processes
>> and their effects.

> So cite the relevant data.

Ask yourself when was the last time your fourth-power ‘rule’ was used to
build a road.

>>>> These days we know better.

>>> So cite the relevant peer reviewed research on road damage vs axle weight.

>> Now, seeing that you’ve recognised the pothole that you have dug for
>> yourself, you’ve fallen back on shifting the goalposts - for the third time
>> in this thread.

> So you are unable to cite a peer reviewed reference to support your claim.

Note that you cannot cite any modern work that supports the fourth power
‘rule’.

>>>> Nice try, but time you moved on.
>> Or grew up.

> How childish.

You’re the one using playground tactics.

--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

So you are unable to show where these mythical motoring taxes come from.

> >>>>> Then there is the 4th power of axle loading rule for local council funded roads.
>
> >>>> When I researched your worn out shibboleth, it related to a rule of thumb
> >>>> that was in vogue back in the days before computers, that was based on what
> >>>> was suspected about the properties of the materials used for building
> >>>> roads.
>
> >>> You mean they did actual real world tests rather than computer
> >>> simulations based on theory and written by programmers rather than civil engineers.
>
> >> And due to that we now have a much better understanding of the processes
> >> and their effects.
>
> > So cite the relevant data.
> Ask yourself when was the last time your fourth-power ‘rule’ was used to
> build a road.

You are the one who claimed the 4th power rule was no longer valid.

> >>>> These days we know better.
>
> >>> So cite the relevant peer reviewed research on road damage vs axle weight.
>
> >> Now, seeing that you’ve recognised the pothole that you have dug for
> >> yourself, you’ve fallen back on shifting the goalposts - for the third time
> >> in this thread.
>
> > So you are unable to cite a peer reviewed reference to support your claim.
> Note that you cannot cite any modern work that supports the fourth power
> ‘rule’.
> >>>> Nice try, but time you moved on.
> >> Or grew up.
>
> > How childish.
> You’re the one using playground tactics.

Once again I thank you for proving my point.

[Peter Granger]

Thank you for proving my point about you constantly saying “Thank you for proving my point”.

[swldx...@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 5:12:22 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> Once again I thank you for proving my point.

What "point" was that? It just appear blank at this end.

[Spike]

Don’t ask Mike Collins such awkward questions.

--
Spike

[Spike]

Laughable.

>>>>>>> Then there is the 4th power of axle loading rule for local council funded roads.
>>
>>>>>> When I researched your worn out shibboleth, it related to a rule of thumb
>>>>>> that was in vogue back in the days before computers, that was based on what
>>>>>> was suspected about the properties of the materials used for building
>>>>>> roads.
>>
>>>>> You mean they did actual real world tests rather than computer
>>>>> simulations based on theory and written by programmers rather than civil engineers.
>>
>>>> And due to that we now have a much better understanding of the processes
>>>> and their effects.
>>
>>> So cite the relevant data.
>> Ask yourself when was the last time your fourth-power ‘rule’ was used to
>> build a road.

> You are the one who claimed the 4th power rule was no longer valid.

And I said why, and gave you a timescale.

Now prove yourself right by citing a recent case of a road being designed
using your fourth power ‘rule’.

>>>>>> These days we know better.
>>
>>>>> So cite the relevant peer reviewed research on road damage vs axle weight.
>>
>>>> Now, seeing that you’ve recognised the pothole that you have dug for
>>>> yourself, you’ve fallen back on shifting the goalposts - for the third time
>>>> in this thread.
>>
>>> So you are unable to cite a peer reviewed reference to support your claim.
>> Note that you cannot cite any modern work that supports the fourth power
>> ‘rule’.

>>>>>> Nice try, but time you moved on.

>>>> Or grew up.

>>> How childish.

>> You’re the one using playground tactics.

> Once again I thank you for proving my point.

See what I mean?

--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

Indeed it is as you have provided no proof of the mythical £40 billion you claim motorists pay.

> >>>>>>> Then there is the 4th power of axle loading rule for local council funded roads.
> >>
> >>>>>> When I researched your worn out shibboleth, it related to a rule of thumb
> >>>>>> that was in vogue back in the days before computers, that was based on what
> >>>>>> was suspected about the properties of the materials used for building
> >>>>>> roads.
> >>
> >>>>> You mean they did actual real world tests rather than computer
> >>>>> simulations based on theory and written by programmers rather than civil engineers.
> >>
> >>>> And due to that we now have a much better understanding of the processes
> >>>> and their effects.
> >>
> >>> So cite the relevant data.
> >> Ask yourself when was the last time your fourth-power ‘rule’ was used to
> >> build a road.
>
> > You are the one who claimed the 4th power rule was no longer valid.
> And I said why, and gave you a timescale.

so you have no evidence to support your claim.

>
> Now prove yourself right by citing a recent case of a road being designed
> using your fourth power ‘rule’.
> >>>>>> These days we know better.
> >>
> >>>>> So cite the relevant peer reviewed research on road damage vs axle weight.
> >>
> >>>> Now, seeing that you’ve recognised the pothole that you have dug for
> >>>> yourself, you’ve fallen back on shifting the goalposts - for the third time
> >>>> in this thread.
> >>
> >>> So you are unable to cite a peer reviewed reference to support your claim.
> >> Note that you cannot cite any modern work that supports the fourth power
> >> ‘rule’.
>
> >>>>>> Nice try, but time you moved on.
>
> >>>> Or grew up.
>
> >>> How childish.
>
> >> You’re the one using playground tactics.
>
> > Once again I thank you for proving my point.
> See what I mean?

Exactly.

[Spike]

You have no proof the £40bn is mythical.

>>>>>>>>> Then there is the 4th power of axle loading rule for local council funded roads.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I researched your worn out shibboleth, it related to a rule of thumb
>>>>>>>> that was in vogue back in the days before computers, that was based on what
>>>>>>>> was suspected about the properties of the materials used for building
>>>>>>>> roads.
>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean they did actual real world tests rather than computer
>>>>>>> simulations based on theory and written by programmers rather than civil engineers.
>>>>
>>>>>> And due to that we now have a much better understanding of the processes
>>>>>> and their effects.
>>>>
>>>>> So cite the relevant data.
>>>> Ask yourself when was the last time your fourth-power ‘rule’ was used to
>>>> build a road.
>>
>>> You are the one who claimed the 4th power rule was no longer valid.
>> And I said why, and gave you a timescale.

> so you have no evidence to support your claim.

Ask yourself when was the last time your fourth-power ‘rule’ was used to
build a road.

>> Now prove yourself right by citing a recent case of a road being designed
>> using your fourth power ‘rule’.

(Silence)

Oh dear….

>>>>>>>> These days we know better.
>>>>
>>>>>>> So cite the relevant peer reviewed research on road damage vs axle weight.
>>>>
>>>>>> Now, seeing that you’ve recognised the pothole that you have dug for
>>>>>> yourself, you’ve fallen back on shifting the goalposts - for the third time
>>>>>> in this thread.
>>>>
>>>>> So you are unable to cite a peer reviewed reference to support your claim.
>>>> Note that you cannot cite any modern work that supports the fourth power
>>>> ‘rule’.
>>
>>>>>>>> Nice try, but time you moved on.
>>
>>>>>> Or grew up.
>>
>>>>> How childish.
>>
>>>> You’re the one using playground tactics.
>>
>>> Once again I thank you for proving my point.
>> See what I mean?

> Exactly.

I think the only thing you’ve proved here is that you are a boring,
repetitive, ignorant knee-jerker.


--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

How can I provide proof for something that does not exist?
Since you claim it does exist the onus is on you to provide proof.

Remind me again when and where you got your civil engineering degree.

[Peter Granger]

Yet you “respect Mason as a chemist” when he has no degree (just like all those Brextards)?

Either you *were* being sarcastic, or you are guilty of double standards.

[Mike Collins]

Where and when did you get your Chemistry PhD?

[Spike]

Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 27 January 2023 at 19:41:37 UTC, Spike wrote:

<very large snip>

>> I think the only thing you’ve proved here is that you are a boring,
>> repetitive, ignorant knee-jerker.

> Remind me again when and where you got your civil engineering degree.

You’re the one that so boringly and so repetitively quotes what you refer
to as ‘the fourth power rule’ for road damage caused by axle load, so
perhaps you ought to defend your position on the subject by stating your
relevant professional qualifications and the papers you have authored on
the topic.

--
Spike

[Peter Granger]

Why do I need a PhD to impress him when you’re only being told you need a degree? Am I being discriminated against?

Mind you, I’m not sure why I need any qualification to point out how Mikeyboy is subjecting Mason to such soft standards compared to the rest of us. Perhaps he feels sorry for him.

[JNugent]

Well... er... quite.

[Mike Collins]

On Friday, 27 January 2023 at 22:16:23 UTC, Spike wrote:

So you are still unable to cite a reference that over rules the fourth power rule.

[Spike]

So you are still unable to cite a reference that supports the fourth power
rule.


--
Spike

[Spike]

I put it down to the ‘birds of a feather’ syndrome.

--
Spike

[swldx...@gmail.com]

It's still blank and I'm not disabling my killfile just for that.

[Mike Collins]

Still waiting for you to tell what we know better these days.

[Spike]

Still waiting for your authoritative source of the supposed if not mythical
‘fourth power rule’.

I’m not holding my breath.


--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

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

https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/

https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/

https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=253&meta_id=32349

https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/278653/1-s2.0-S1877705816X00148/1-s2.0-S1877705816305240/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEOX%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCID7nOf4%2Fnt%2Fw20HEkLjdlz8ec9Ksa3lhTUa5cRf%2BTnNPAiEAptdx1HteiG%2B%2FkzowA76AinIi1eXbdgF8gF9%2FtUHjtwsqswUIXhAFGgwwNTkwMDM1NDY4NjUiDICiQdp8jjPxM%2BLBvSqQBVJZkyNPlxyQLEPf%2BHTHm5Ks46OW6KlgarLF3d7eRJPelBEPXmfSnOtg9nC9eMPiBuMdhF0PsumsxI%2Bm34zBDHOQceZEGcqUcS1OpXEtDBmGUBRgfYPWajVQg3uoL%2BKgeAJcP0frt3t4a%2B%2BTVMG0YzsjmktjTVJFYEdRRK6IWBf1P%2FWqhVmVKx6IllwVoNEqqzYJIOWTGFFgrxCYcmkc3CmyYmyszpqIHazkUqTGBjWKL654fJb7d889zbEMMTEwGK3FiMsBAlEtTFTgr3u1U%2Bip4v6T%2BA4jy0W0NBQ3P0h%2B0IzMBesihiz4W5oKMcOytj32IsOmGc7p52w1Z50%2F3ni1zBSRaTC6X%2FzZ2rGfX9B5XRi8KSm5BXRZeqSBJDekdIbuwjZnbRNALqxWXGrQLItE9BV8LsyoQa0xD5%2Bt%2F6E9i3efopjWnF3X1%2FtwLZiHzi0lAAEUdqg0%2BZPjqEFInL7flL%2Fa4ORPmMZL6WKd0L7q6UFEbg0kqyZYoJh%2FopqPi9nzmITJrdMUDZbQ0PYEBUny1W6hfuRfmUbZinKIZVDcuQfbTZmNoXe%2ByWKhjVNB1ofMBoVcKQhLWHRcDNOi%2FixCXF5GvDxEm9D9sxcYgrk%2BeE6%2FA8Qhvb7CH1vNpCeHkapGWUxRQs14bMF7EhJwBO5PkD4lVoC3kPXOHzuuK4tfI3UgN4KtFuDcTt0ARaFqVyEUh7yKiPHbt7a8HSc%2BC%2B8PhwmrQJV5ZRfv7KQSrKfnJKus29I8JaXYhqgjb2ZKFQLSLXITSKpBWf4IHxVsN%2F7BgYpBeHYVXKS4KsQxxpWCWlJZukTZOSyhESd%2BQ5Nidp81uUFJoEamYaAeKbW6O936ZZ%2FuXm1C38ucDq2eoWdJMIi21J4GOrEB%2B%2FDrtx1ko6%2BBsyPAQCbU33KVlvF03TZk%2FCUQ3ot5JtQ1yCYUW2U3FrfWIrchOmjSUSwhHojMFhW5eoCyYcYquvyUTZY%2FSPVEsrmzPJXD7FECC7MIAsVr89xj25YSGnAhZAKUb04mvTTSPX%2BLi3BLJLpTAa8w9l5%2FleJ8jfaoUIsZDtjf88Yt5KvyXqoXzkDlOcfw9mHavKCgp1eOhm6RFRVcTCkFeBaFbnm6EkHc22%2Bj&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20230128T140121Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYZKIWR7TS%2F20230128%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=9917c838f0a91625bdc3b312be925306b064df39f5bdc928a784ff8c746dc518&hash=89c3b8db433ab2db4b3736aed8787636b00f84b782a7e0a985c4325d9028fdce&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S1877705816305240&tid=spdf-5f680fd6-618f-4a6f-973a-995ceaf43b5d&sid=9977da563d30a648b17a25a3841b9f193566gxrqb&type=client&tsoh=d3d3LnNjaWVuY2VkaXJlY3QuY29t&ua=1d04565f5400565d5552&rr=790a4276de8e76ab&cc=gb

Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that we know different theses day?

[Peter Granger]

How do you suddenly know how to spell “canister” if your killfaux “blanks out” all posts and quotes from people who make you look (more) stupid?

PS - You haven’t mentioned “Brextards” today. Too drunk to remember? Scared of what’s soon going to be uploaded? Insecurity about your intelligence on the wane? (Obviously, that last one was a joke.)

Still, now that you’ve seen this post, you’ll be “coincidentally” shoehorning it in somewhere, I’m sure. Never did know when to quit while behind, did you?

[JNugent]

Where is that "rule" published?

[Mike Collins]

In the peer reviewed literature, the numerical answer is left as an exercise for the student.

[Peter Granger]

How are you even seeing this thread? You usually pretend not to see threads started by those who take the pee out if you. Made a mistake by initially replying to this thread, didn’t you?

Clearly, your killfaux is malfunctioning. Only you could manage to introduce errors into a program that doesn’t even exist. Even in your happiest, most delusional fantasies, you’re still thick.

Admittedly, it would take way more imagination than you have to conceive of a reality where you weren’t.

[swldx...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 6:35:31 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> In the peer reviewed literature, the numerical answer is left as an exercise for the student.

Ah - I think you have found the nub of the problem right there!

[JNugent]

So it doesn't exist.

[swldx...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 6:35:31 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> In the peer reviewed literature, the numerical answer is left as an exercise for the student.

Beyond the likes of Medway, Cheerless and Judith.

[Mike Collins]

> So it doesn't exist in Nugentworld.