Cheerfully wrong

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

In the threads about a cyclist killed by a drunk truck driver Mr
Cheerful said the following:

> don't get on the inside of lorries, particularly at junctions, she paid the
> ultimate price for her actions.

> when did you last see a cyclist stop at a set of traffic lights? Pound to a
> penny she rode up the inside.

> And yes, I do think she rode up the inside, and by so doing she put herself
> into mortal danger, perhaps if she had been trained in road use then this
> tragedy need not have occurred.

> of course, if she had not been there, she would probably still be alive

> I cannot see the point of her exercising a right which got her killed. The
> drink overlimit was trivial and probably had no actual effect on the driver.

> it is only a few years since that reading would have been legal. A regular
> drinker will not show any effects from such a small amount 'over the limit'

And as Mr Pounder said:

> "The trial continues"
>
> Mr Pounder

Well now the trial has finished and we can see just how wrong Mr
Cheerless was:

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/streathamnews/8675868.Drunk_lorry_driver_who_ran_over_cyclist_wh ile_talking_on_mobile_phone_jailed/

Drunk lorry driver who ran over cyclist while talking on mobile phone jailed

5:50pm Thursday 18th November 2010

A lorry driver who was over the drink drive limit and on a mobile when
he crushed a Clapham cyclist has been jailed for seven years.

Dennis Putz, 51, from North London killed 39-year-old Catriona Patel, of
Common Mile Close, Clapham, after he drove his lorry over her, just
outside the Tube station on June 29, 2009.

Mrs Patel, a regular cyclist wearing a hi-visibility jacket and a
helmet, was cycling her normal route to work on that Monday morning.

She stopped at a red light, in the cycle reservoir in front of a large
green tipper lorry at 8.23am, at the junction of Kennington Park Road
and Harleyford Street.

As the lights turned green, Mrs Patel pulled off, intending to go
straight across the junction.

Putz, who was over the drink drive limit and was driving with one hand
on the wheel while talking on his mobile phone, turned left.

The truck caught the rear wheel of Mrs Patel's bike, dragging her
underneath the vehicle.

Witnesses watched in horror, as Putz failed to notice the cyclist caught
underneath his lorry. Only when passers by began banging on the side of
his vehicle did Putz finally stop.

She was given first aid at the scene by passers-by and taken by air
ambulance to the Royal London Hospital, with multiple rib fractures and
internal bleeding. She was taken straight into surgery but went into
cardiac arrest. She was pronounced dead at 11:30am that morning.

The post mortem examination found she died from a ruptured spleen,
fractured ribs, lung laceration and pelvic fractures.

Mrs Patel, who had been married for seven years, left behind her husband
Anish.

Putz stated that the cyclist must have been in his blind spot, but the
court heard that she had been in his view for at least 29 seconds before
he moved off and began to turn left. She also remained in view
throughout the turn until he was stopped by members of the public.

Putz, who was drink driving and on the phone was found guilty of death
by dangerous driving, has now received a life time driving ban.

It was revealed during the trial that he had 20 previous
disqualifications, three drink drive convictions and three previous
convictions for reckless driving.

Detective Constable Tony Tobin, the senior investigating officer, said:
"Our thoughts are with Catriona's husband and the rest of her family as
they have to deal with her loss every day.

"Dennis Putz started driving a large tipper truck that day still 1.5
times the legal drink drive limit. He was also using a mobile telephone
as he hit Catriona.

"The combination of the size of vehicle, drink and phone came together
to produce such tragic consequences."

Detective Chief Inspector Nick Chalmers from the Road Death
Investigation Unit, said: "Dennis Putz ignored the duty of care he had
to other road users, which resulted in the tragic death of this young woman.

"The Met takes this sort of crime seriously and the Traffic department
now has some of London's most experienced detectives investigating fatal
road collisions.

"If someone dies on one of the capital's roads as a result of dangerous
driving the investigation will be thorough, professional and relentless."


I won't hold my breath waiting for Mr Cheerless to say he was wrong.


Tony

[chris French]

In message >, Tony Raven
> writes
>In the threads about a cyclist killed by a drunk truck driver Mr
>Cheerful said the following:
>
>> don't get on the inside of lorries, particularly at junctions, she paid the
>> ultimate price for her actions.
<snip>

>
>Well now the trial has finished and we can see just how wrong Mr
>Cheerless was:
>
>http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/streathamnews/8675868.Drun
>k_lorry_driver_who_ran_over_cyclist_while_talking_ on_mobile_phone_jailed>/
>
>Drunk lorry driver who ran over cyclist while talking on mobile phone jailed
>
>5:50pm Thursday 18th November 2010
>
> A lorry driver who was over the drink drive limit and on a mobile when
>he crushed a Clapham cyclist has been jailed for seven years.
>
At least there was a reasonable sentence.

>It was revealed during the trial that he had 20 previous
>disqualifications, three drink drive convictions and three previous
>convictions for reckless driving.
>

20? that must be going some in at most 34 years of driving, rather un
believable, . It sounds like a bit of mistake in the reporting, unless
he was doing something odd like getting disqualified again whilst still
on a disqualification.. I do think that a second disqualification
should mean a permanent ban (or at least very long)
--
Chris French

[Mr Pounder]

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> In the threads about a cyclist killed by a drunk truck driver Mr Cheerful
> said the following:
>
>> don't get on the inside of lorries, particularly at junctions, she paid
>> the
>> ultimate price for her actions.
>
>> when did you last see a cyclist stop at a set of traffic lights? Pound
>> to a
>> penny she rode up the inside.
>
>> And yes, I do think she rode up the inside, and by so doing she put
>> herself
>> into mortal danger, perhaps if she had been trained in road use then this
>> tragedy need not have occurred.
>
>> of course, if she had not been there, she would probably still be alive
>
>> I cannot see the point of her exercising a right which got her killed.
>> The drink overlimit was trivial and probably had no actual effect on the
>> driver.
>
>> it is only a few years since that reading would have been legal. A
>> regular drinker will not show any effects from such a small amount 'over
>> the limit'
>
> And as Mr Pounder said:
>
>> "The trial continues"
>>
>> Mr Pounder
>
> Well now the trial has finished and we can see just how wrong Mr Cheerless
> was:

Do you have a special little folder in your Amstrad 1640 dedicated to me?

Mr Pounder
>
> http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/streathamnews/8675868.Drunk_lorry_driver_who_ran_over_cyclist_wh ile_talking_on_mobile_phone_jailed/
>
> Drunk lorry driver who ran over cyclist while talking on mobile phone
> jailed
>
> 5:50pm Thursday 18th November 2010
>
> A lorry driver who was over the drink drive limit and on a mobile when he
> crushed a Clapham cyclist has been jailed for seven years.
>
> Dennis Putz, 51, from North London killed 39-year-old Catriona Patel, of
> Common Mile Close, Clapham, after he drove his lorry over her, just
> outside the Tube station on June 29, 2009.
>
> Mrs Patel, a regular cyclist wearing a hi-visibility jacket and a helmet,
> was cycling her normal route to work on that Monday morning.
>
> She stopped at a red light, in the cycle reservoir in front of a large
> green tipper lorry at 8.23am, at the junction of Kennington Park Road and
> Harleyford Street.
>
> As the lights turned green, Mrs Patel pulled off, intending to go straight
> across the junction.
>
> Putz, who was over the drink drive limit and was driving with one hand on
> the wheel while talking on his mobile phone, turned left.
>
> The truck caught the rear wheel of Mrs Patel's bike, dragging her
> underneath the vehicle.
>
> Witnesses watched in horror, as Putz failed to notice the cyclist caught
> underneath his lorry. Only when passers by began banging on the side of
> his vehicle did Putz finally stop.
>
> She was given first aid at the scene by passers-by and taken by air
> ambulance to the Royal London Hospital, with multiple rib fractures and
> internal bleeding. She was taken straight into surgery but went into
> cardiac arrest. She was pronounced dead at 11:30am that morning.
>
> The post mortem examination found she died from a ruptured spleen,
> fractured ribs, lung laceration and pelvic fractures.
>
> Mrs Patel, who had been married for seven years, left behind her husband
> Anish.
>
> Putz stated that the cyclist must have been in his blind spot, but the
> court heard that she had been in his view for at least 29 seconds before
> he moved off and began to turn left. She also remained in view throughout
> the turn until he was stopped by members of the public.
>
> Putz, who was drink driving and on the phone was found guilty of death by
> dangerous driving, has now received a life time driving ban.
>
> It was revealed during the trial that he had 20 previous
> disqualifications, three drink drive convictions and three previous
> convictions for reckless driving.
>
> Detective Constable Tony Tobin, the senior investigating officer, said:
> "Our thoughts are with Catriona's husband and the rest of her family as
> they have to deal with her loss every day.
>
> "Dennis Putz started driving a large tipper truck that day still 1.5 times
> the legal drink drive limit. He was also using a mobile telephone as he
> hit Catriona.
>
> "The combination of the size of vehicle, drink and phone came together to
> produce such tragic consequences."
>
> Detective Chief Inspector Nick Chalmers from the Road Death Investigation
> Unit, said: "Dennis Putz ignored the duty of care he had to other road
> users, which resulted in the tragic death of this young woman.
>
> "The Met takes this sort of crime seriously and the Traffic department now
> has some of London's most experienced detectives investigating fatal road
> collisions.
>
> "If someone dies on one of the capital's roads as a result of dangerous
> driving the investigation will be thorough, professional and relentless."
>
>
> I won't hold my breath waiting for Mr Cheerless to say he was wrong.
>
>
> Tony

>
>

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:
> In the threads about a cyclist killed by a drunk truck driver Mr
> Cheerful said the following:
>
>> don't get on the inside of lorries, particularly at junctions, she
>> paid the ultimate price for her actions.
>
>> when did you last see a cyclist stop at a set of traffic lights? Pound to
>> a penny she rode up the inside.
>
>> And yes, I do think she rode up the inside, and by so doing she put
>> herself into mortal danger, perhaps if she had been trained in road
>> use then this tragedy need not have occurred.
>
>
> I won't hold my breath waiting for Mr Cheerless to say he was wrong.
>
>
> Tony

What is a cycle reservoir?
If it means that the cyclist had stopped , before the arrival of the tipper
in an advanced cycle stop area at the lights and the lorry rammed her after
the lights changed, then that is very different to the way the original
reports read. It is also at odds with the pictures, which showed her debris
on the left of the lorry, if he had turned left striking her back wheel with
the bumper of the lorry then the debris would end up on the right of the
lorry, not the left, particularly since it is said he went some way before
realising.

The whole thing just shows how unsuitable cycles are for use in heavy
traffic, ban them and solve the problem.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Mrcheerful wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> In the threads about a cyclist killed by a drunk truck driver Mr
>> Cheerful said the following:
>>
>>> don't get on the inside of lorries, particularly at junctions, she
>>> paid the ultimate price for her actions.
>>> when did you last see a cyclist stop at a set of traffic lights? Pound to
>>> a penny she rode up the inside.
>>> And yes, I do think she rode up the inside, and by so doing she put
>>> herself into mortal danger, perhaps if she had been trained in road
>>> use then this tragedy need not have occurred.
>>
>> I won't hold my breath waiting for Mr Cheerless to say he was wrong.
>>
>>
>> Tony
>
> What is a cycle reservoir?

An ASL

> If it means that the cyclist had stopped , before the arrival of the tipper
> in an advanced cycle stop area at the lights and the lorry rammed her after
> the lights changed, then that is very different to the way the original
> reports read.

No, it was very different from the way you interpreted the original
reports in an attempt to blame a cyclist for the actions of a drunk
driver on the phone. Here's the original report for you to check:
http://tinyurl.com/3xo8vsn

> It is also at odds with the pictures, which showed her debris
> on the left of the lorry, if he had turned left striking her back wheel with
> the bumper of the lorry then the debris would end up on the right of the
> lorry, not the left, particularly since it is said he went some way before
> realising.

Not if she was in front of the lorry on the passenger side of the cab.

>
> The whole thing just shows how unsuitable cycles are for use in heavy
> traffic, ban them and solve the problem.
>

Typical. The driver was drunk and on the phone, had 20 previous
disqualifications, three drink drive convictions and three previous
convictions for reckless driving and yet you still want to blame the
victim not the driver.

Tony

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Mrcheerful wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> In the threads about a cyclist killed by a drunk truck driver Mr
>>> Cheerful said the following:
>>>
>>>> don't get on the inside of lorries, particularly at junctions, you
>>>> still want to blame the
> victim not the driver.
>
> Tony

The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out there, I see
them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of close encounters. But,
cyclists choose to ignore that and try to travel unprotected amongst them.
Rather like the swimmers that go for a dip in shark infested water, when one
gets killed they get all uppitty and say: 'do something about the sharks'

Why not just stay clear of them?

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Mrcheerful wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>> In the threads about a cyclist killed by a drunk truck driver Mr
>>>> Cheerful said the following:
>>>>
>>>>> don't get on the inside of lorries, particularly at junctions, you
>>>>> still want to blame the
>> victim not the driver.
>>
>> Tony
>
> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out there, I see
> them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of close encounters. But,
> cyclists choose to ignore that and try to travel unprotected amongst them.
> Rather like the swimmers that go for a dip in shark infested water, when one
> gets killed they get all uppitty and say: 'do something about the sharks'
>
> Why not just stay clear of them?
>
>

Why not extend your philosophy to other crimes as well rather than
dealing with the source of the problem. It could save a fortune on
policing costs. We don't need police, just stay clear of criminals.
Drivers could drive as drunk and distracted as they want and its
everyone else's responsibility to stay clear of them. Sorted. You
should write to the Daily Mail about it.

Tony

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Mrcheerful wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>>> In the threads about a cyclist killed by a drunk truck driver Mr
>>>>> Cheerful said the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>> don't get on the inside of lorries, particularly at junctions,
>>>>>> you still want to blame the
>>> victim not the driver.
>>>
>>> Tony
>>
>> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out
>> there, I see them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of
>> close encounters. But, cyclists choose to ignore that and try to
>> travel unprotected amongst them. Rather like the swimmers that go
>> for a dip in shark infested water, when one gets killed they get all
>> uppitty and say: 'do something about the sharks' Why not just stay clear
>> of them?
>>
>>
>
> Why not extend your philosophy to other crimes as well rather than
> dealing with the source of the problem. It could save a fortune on
> policing costs. We don't need police, just stay clear of criminals.
> Drivers could drive as drunk and distracted as they want and its
> everyone else's responsibility to stay clear of them. Sorted. You
> should write to the Daily Mail about it.
>
> Tony

if someone knowingly travels to a really bad place and gets killed, then
yes, it is a crime, but why on earth did they go there?

[mischastar]

What a horrible way to die...drunk drivers are the scum of the earth and should be punished a lot more severely than they are.

[Squashme]

On Nov 19, 9:00*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > Mrcheerful wrote:
> >> Tony Raven wrote:
> >>> Mrcheerful wrote:
> >>>> Tony Raven wrote:
> >>>>> In the threads about a cyclist killed by a drunk truck driver Mr
> >>>>> Cheerful said the following:
>
> >>>>>> don't get on the inside of lorries, particularly at junctions,
> >>>>>> you still want to blame the
> >>> victim not the driver.
>
> >>> Tony
>
> >> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out
> >> there, I see them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of
> >> close encounters. *But, cyclists choose to ignore that and try to
> >> travel unprotected amongst them. Rather like the swimmers that go
> >> for a dip in shark infested water, when one gets killed they get all
> >> uppitty and say: 'do something about the sharks' Why not just stay clear
> >> of them?
>
> > Why not extend your philosophy to other crimes as well rather than
> > dealing with the source of the problem. *It could save a fortune on
> > policing costs. *We don't need police, just stay clear of criminals.
> > Drivers could drive as drunk and distracted as they want and its
> > everyone else's responsibility to stay clear of them. *Sorted. *You
> > should write to the Daily Mail about it.
>
> > Tony
>
> if someone knowingly travels to a really bad place and gets *killed, then
> yes, it is a crime, but why on earth did they go there?

Don't cross the road.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 19/11/2010 08:44, Mrcheerful wrote:
> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out there, I see
> them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of close encounters.

Um, no, the fact is that you were so caught up in trying to excuse the
driver and put as much blame on the cyclist as possible that you were
irrefutably wrong, and Tony called you on it.

You have also violated Healey's First Law of Holes.
- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5ve0AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/vUcH/2wC4PDNV4SND2K7PjgL/Ms+
LbWju9iAnQLs16fm1GdVZ/VLoVNrwdHt2feGRZTt8exggtHNTykRFTpulu1QlI57
WWchKU590Rv07eadobGz8olI12LDvIInrBtg53cMfM1gTckFO8 TPj5ulKqpmExzX
HuklirdGh8oDN2v+UymwFwa5wIiL55rft/+NP6kCZMV2bypIDAf73aLJ2GOl+hIi
Z+bQ0fH/l3GYpOAz7TdiKlRlMMdetpycHPgbWSPBpHzWbhwVfYtT/WygrXHCxcwP
GGJNk2aj+s5ZUKvET+p3NskUM85qPEOahm3CnSGfmfsmdKi7os 3DPf5B5gtKkUg=
=I4yH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 19/11/2010 08:44, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out
>> there, I see them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of
>> close encounters.
>
> Um, no, the fact is that you were so caught up in trying to excuse the
> driver and put as much blame on the cyclist as possible that you were
> irrefutably wrong, and Tony called you on it.

I seem to recall that the first thing you wrote on the subject said that
'cyclists should not go up the inside of lorries', one of the few sensible
things that you have written. Have you retracted that clearly wrong
(according to some ) statement?

[Adam Lea[_3_]]

On 19/11/10 08:44, Mrcheerful wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>> In the threads about a cyclist killed by a drunk truck driver Mr
>>>> Cheerful said the following:
>>>>
>>>>> don't get on the inside of lorries, particularly at junctions, you
>>>>> still want to blame the
>> victim not the driver.
>>
>> Tony
>
> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out there, I see
> them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of close encounters. But,
> cyclists choose to ignore that and try to travel unprotected amongst them.
> Rather like the swimmers that go for a dip in shark infested water, when one
> gets killed they get all uppitty and say: 'do something about the sharks'
>
> Why not just stay clear of them?
>
>

Do you also think that women that dress up to look attractive deserve to
get raped?

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 19/11/2010 22:38, Mrcheerful wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 19/11/2010 08:44, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out
>>> there, I see them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of
>>> close encounters.
>>
>> Um, no, the fact is that you were so caught up in trying to excuse the
>> driver and put as much blame on the cyclist as possible that you were
>> irrefutably wrong, and Tony called you on it.
>
> I seem to recall that the first thing you wrote on the subject said that
> 'cyclists should not go up the inside of lorries', one of the few sensible
> things that you have written. Have you retracted that clearly wrong
> (according to some ) statement?


The cyclist was in front of the lorry, which overtook and then
left-hooked her. While driving drunk. And texting.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5xy6AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/4p0IAKT+DOWmG/ILxyOYa6TT8JcP
BWcdSyQo0fEuORGygd0diIR8LNrbA4GbJ47qVABXSKPQwaPcGv CDVZkMJa2y/rrb
IOdSt+G1x+wbiJnJ3VXKydzWszLXVy2Vgw3kPEZKLH3kyisBjD 28BXtPnNrqGhyS
EmlSc3qHVDL6580UPnZzPiWohqRRNnwO7gD5NlrR8tK0yU4I1q KXrn9Ecjy+4SEB
j6NdZn5HocqjvBCGLVReibY+NzJX1kjRQQCvzzqkXMnUiiXuOP c4rwcaOaNeAk+b
nWZ6ezsRudkr0t3y2qauTQGVJTp8ZXksGfPd9SpXe7UqnT3Fat iOXWLR/d48JLE=
=rAkV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 19/11/2010 22:38, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 19/11/2010 08:44, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out
>>>> there, I see them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of
>>>> close encounters.
>>>
>>> Um, no, the fact is that you were so caught up in trying to excuse
>>> the driver and put as much blame on the cyclist as possible that
>>> you were irrefutably wrong, and Tony called you on it.
>>
>> I seem to recall that the first thing you wrote on the subject said
>> that 'cyclists should not go up the inside of lorries', one of the
>> few sensible things that you have written. Have you retracted that
>> clearly wrong (according to some ) statement?
>
>
> The cyclist was in front of the lorry, which overtook and then
> left-hooked her. While driving drunk. And texting.
>

how would it overtake, the cycle was in the asl, the lorry was behind her,
the junction was immediately left.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20/11/2010 05:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 19/11/2010 22:38, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 19/11/2010 08:44, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out
>>>>> there, I see them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of
>>>>> close encounters.
>>>>
>>>> Um, no, the fact is that you were so caught up in trying to excuse
>>>> the driver and put as much blame on the cyclist as possible that
>>>> you were irrefutably wrong, and Tony called you on it.
>>>
>>> I seem to recall that the first thing you wrote on the subject said
>>> that 'cyclists should not go up the inside of lorries', one of the
>>> few sensible things that you have written. Have you retracted that
>>> clearly wrong (according to some ) statement?
>>
>>
>> The cyclist was in front of the lorry, which overtook and then
>> left-hooked her. While driving drunk. And texting.
>>
>
> how would it overtake, the cycle was in the asl, the lorry was behind her,
> the junction was immediately left.


You really are plumbing the depths here. A multiply-convicted drunk
driver texting at the wheel kills a cyclist and you're trying to deflect
blame? Please.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM56aAAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/44cH/3I9rgAe4SBgklYhwWGobgG3
/IynA+KyPKFlEy4xf680iA2PY835GAfU0yJa1Loow6Wc/vPUpb5asUxInnrhEeU1
qtzGG3apJ3NYAN9GvnhfcwxruMwqh4lW9FAOvOxZErLxyodgId jN2n3VXCTzHSeB
8ibFdQDLbDVY8wDMgDvu1l4UzpsBQhHGI4PjxGV917vR+LZgQ+ 8wwIkFFqD2+aGu
THdYAFPsPnUyX+VcRKjOQRa5E90ECTki+MCw6Rq8Egh5n1vI9S O/sX4Fqy/EWpXX
zhCpa1tBBCfng+Te1PHcW41DOQ9MDldPT+B8r4jbvHq0E4CG63 iwSOjmtdI/38I=
=OFC7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 20/11/2010 05:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 19/11/2010 22:38, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19/11/2010 08:44, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out
>>>>>> there, I see them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of
>>>>>> close encounters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Um, no, the fact is that you were so caught up in trying to excuse
>>>>> the driver and put as much blame on the cyclist as possible that
>>>>> you were irrefutably wrong, and Tony called you on it.
>>>>
>>>> I seem to recall that the first thing you wrote on the subject said
>>>> that 'cyclists should not go up the inside of lorries', one of the
>>>> few sensible things that you have written. Have you retracted that
>>>> clearly wrong (according to some ) statement?
>>>
>>>
>>> The cyclist was in front of the lorry, which overtook and then
>>> left-hooked her. While driving drunk. And texting.
>>>
>>
>> how would it overtake, the cycle was in the asl, the lorry was
>> behind her, the junction was immediately left.
>
>
> You really are plumbing the depths here. A multiply-convicted drunk
> driver texting at the wheel kills a cyclist and you're trying to
> deflect blame? Please.

many things are not as they are portrayed.

[Marc[_5_]]

On 20/11/2010 20:31, Phil W Lee wrote:
> > considered Sat, 20 Nov 2010
> 11:26:30 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 20/11/2010 05:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19/11/2010 22:38, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19/11/2010 08:44, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>>>> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out
>>>>>>>> there, I see them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of
>>>>>>>> close encounters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Um, no, the fact is that you were so caught up in trying to excuse
>>>>>>> the driver and put as much blame on the cyclist as possible that
>>>>>>> you were irrefutably wrong, and Tony called you on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I seem to recall that the first thing you wrote on the subject said
>>>>>> that 'cyclists should not go up the inside of lorries', one of the
>>>>>> few sensible things that you have written. Have you retracted that
>>>>>> clearly wrong (according to some ) statement?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The cyclist was in front of the lorry, which overtook and then
>>>>> left-hooked her. While driving drunk. And texting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> how would it overtake, the cycle was in the asl, the lorry was
>>>> behind her, the junction was immediately left.
>>>
>>>
>>> You really are plumbing the depths here. A multiply-convicted drunk
>>> driver texting at the wheel kills a cyclist and you're trying to
>>> deflect blame? Please.
>>
>> many things are not as they are portrayed.
>>
> Indeed, you portray yourself as human.
>
> I've scraped higher life-forms off my shoe.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddNYvUVCpjI

2:33 to 2:40

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" > considered Sat, 20 Nov 2010
> 11:26:30 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 20/11/2010 05:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19/11/2010 22:38, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19/11/2010 08:44, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>>>> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out
>>>>>>>> there, I see them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of
>>>>>>>> close encounters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Um, no, the fact is that you were so caught up in trying to
>>>>>>> excuse the driver and put as much blame on the cyclist as
>>>>>>> possible that you were irrefutably wrong, and Tony called you
>>>>>>> on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I seem to recall that the first thing you wrote on the subject
>>>>>> said that 'cyclists should not go up the inside of lorries', one
>>>>>> of the few sensible things that you have written. Have you
>>>>>> retracted that clearly wrong (according to some ) statement?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The cyclist was in front of the lorry, which overtook and then
>>>>> left-hooked her. While driving drunk. And texting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> how would it overtake, the cycle was in the asl, the lorry was
>>>> behind her, the junction was immediately left.
>>>
>>>
>>> You really are plumbing the depths here. A multiply-convicted drunk
>>> driver texting at the wheel kills a cyclist and you're trying to
>>> deflect blame? Please.
>>
>> many things are not as they are portrayed.
>>
> Indeed, you portray yourself as human.
>
> I've scraped higher life-forms off my shoe.

oh, good answer, so succinct, when you have no answer just drop to abuse,
typical cyclist.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> oh, good answer, so succinct, when you have no answer just drop to abuse,
> typical cyclist.
>

We learnt it from you, Judith and Meds.

Tony

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>> oh, good answer, so succinct, when you have no answer just drop to
>> abuse, typical cyclist.
>>
>
> We learnt it from you, Judith and Meds.
>
> Tony

my posts are not generally abusive in nature, certainly I do not make
personally abusive comments on any regular or uncalled for basis.

I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' , some people are clearly
too dim to formulate any reasonable response.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am clearly
> too dim to formulate any reasonable response.

IFYPFY.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6FzMAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/+U8IAKOB9Kc8orXAfyt0os2n6qwU
wboY21Xh720+ZffidXxBTv4CV5X0pNllEupyDmrQUKGfVQcm6D Q69BQpDU3QhAz4
Uenrs4FfWpNN0jgU2AODabS8ezqPWcW1QAWdIfrYeA7KvufhvJ HzcaMbYxziwA9j
jp9ReU9Sg/yB/sOiedwqc9XiJP8gSeEzu4QjLZTg16/KL5a1r4HJj+XHPBktDTVP
jRIp+oho0MteqRUx7MKryUKpyIAebnfsuX4ht98M36U2vf1QJT Qz5gtEHoiNQvLX
YpiDEyrqwb8Xms0vJZk9XnrJuikzN/FaqQSvRueiYtV3gjOrzi6oKKnVQxrxC6g=
=cnT6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Derek C]

On Nov 20, 11:42*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> > I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am clearly
> > too dim to formulate any reasonable response.
>
> IFYPFY.
>
> - --
> Guy Chapman,http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering a
brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a cycle
helmet.

[Marc[_5_]]

On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
> On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am clearly
>>> too dim to formulate any reasonable response.
>>
>> IFYPFY.
>>
>> - --
>> Guy Chapman,http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering a
> brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a cycle
> helmet.
And your excuse is...?

Where is that diagram Derek?

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
> On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am clearly
>>> too dim to formulate any reasonable response.
>>
>> IFYPFY.
>>
>> - --
>> Guy Chapman,http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering a
> brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a cycle
> helmet.

You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say something
like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you look.

If I had the time and gave a **** I would trawl through your posts and
see if there are any that do not embody logical fallacies, but I suspect
the answer is not.
- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6GUdAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/7s4H/0l+qjotaQnRrBcVzI3uPmlQ
0hj+ALCs7edvLS8AhdPua88NU37ugkWLZ6F92yagRWx3yKpFWY KQ3eNWgkTzs9h7
X+c5l6KaWuk61+ynDrolD6mRZ2xhLc6n0ehUgK3eFrhQXZofSq Sme/nv/UX7kYD2
MkqgOkCREv+dyvTQnFbUUX+oM9wnF+q/J/Bw9blgFTik+KLX8Ot57Ihxp+l0JAGY
IK6x6lCc5lCIz6uQxJa+LhbyGmJv6SyCDEFyymZ9aruJvRtwej IRGYxlD93ULi5m
diFzAIRVXVO+JThOII2arMp/DMOokBRFBG/oiIhN8VKi8W2CRs8UbZSV1llttTs=
=eUTP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 21/11/2010 00:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>> > wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am clearly
>>>> too dim to formulate any reasonable response.
>>>
>>> IFYPFY.
>>>
>>> - --
>>> Guy Chapman,http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>>
>> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering a
>> brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a cycle
>> helmet.
>
> You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say something
> like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you look.

Is it more "crass" than "I've scraped higher life forms off my shoe"?

[JMS]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:42:04 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am clearly
>> too dim to formulate any reasonable response.
>
>IFYPFY.



Characters in message : 953

Actual comment made : 6


0.6% - par for the course

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

[JMS]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:45:41 -0800 (PST), Derek C
> wrote:

>On Nov 20, 11:42*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>> > I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am clearly
>> > too dim to formulate any reasonable response.
>>
>> IFYPFY.
>>
>> - --
>> Guy Chapman,http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
>Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering a
>brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a cycle
>helmet.


Surely - he has had three "brain injuries".

Apart from the recent cycling accident he has previously:

"I also suffered a brain injury many years ago in a playground
accident, and another in a door-related incident."

So three separate injuries to his brain explains an awful lot.

Three strikes and you're a ****wit!!

Anchor Lee has also had a nasty bang on his head. There seems to be
a bit of a theme developing.
--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

[JMS]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:50:47 +0000, Marc > wrote:

<snip>


>Where is that diagram Derek?

How's the nudist cycling and seat sniffing Mr Cattle?

I'm sure there is a photo of you and mileburner in your favourite
pastime - I'll see if I can find it.

Where is he by the way?

Not had a cycling accident without a helmet I hope.

--


Latest figures from DfT: KSI per billion passenger kilometres:

Van: 5 people
Bus/Coach: 9 people
Car : 18 people
Pedestrians: 358 people

Oh : and of course cyclists:
Cyclists: 541 people

Of those four modes of transport - which is the most dangerous?

(With thanks to Justin Lewis for asking me to find out the figures)

[JMS]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 00:17:33 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:


<snip>


>> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering a
>> brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a cycle
>> helmet.
>
>You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say something
>like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you look.
>
>If I had the time and gave a **** I would trawl through your posts and
>see if there are any that do not embody logical fallacies, but I suspect
>the answer is not.

Hello Porky.

Touched a little nerve did he :-)

The truth often hurts.

(A bit like a bang on the head)

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 21/11/2010 00:30, JNugent wrote:
> On 21/11/2010 00:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
>>> On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>> > wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am clearly
>>>>> too dim to formulate any reasonable response.
>>>>
>>>> IFYPFY.
>>>>
>>>> - --
>>>> Guy Chapman,http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>>>
>>> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering a
>>> brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a cycle
>>> helmet.
>>
>> You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say something
>> like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you look.
>
> Is it more "crass" than "I've scraped higher life forms off my shoe"?

Yes.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6UaYAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/dgEH/iOdrIWZ+UYWRp0Di8iDEZuP
55t8FIFlz0NWyYss78/RBNUlP1lfyhHLyynN8yKY4hCcDyxLzd6DTtXPCL3E1VMC
1hv0VyQat9rT36RCSm6zpB9QmnNwg9JqifEOT3WF32qzAHV43v Fa/NtKx9JVckwP
cjGpiwTfbUkOUgDY7BUFhYL+4O/jHTYlUzcS7dpu9fWgWIJVUekAMzpJms7G9rxU
NfnI33BKyXHplGzqQ/Nr9Sj8haLJPlxDMF9qGzkGebw/PYn1qfUhPXRMwxkGii37
u0ed1vwivaiMb0ouvMAYp6kzYdaWzzPhah/VUsrtRiyaY7w/rZVwBs+oTQMGagk=
=UCSK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 21/11/2010 16:19, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 21/11/2010 00:30, JNugent wrote:
>> On 21/11/2010 00:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
>>>> On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am clearly
>>>>>> too dim to formulate any reasonable response.
>>>>>
>>>>> IFYPFY.
>>>>>
>>>>> - --
>>>>> Guy Chapman,http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>>>>
>>>> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering a
>>>> brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a cycle
>>>> helmet.
>>>
>>> You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say something
>>> like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you look.
>>
>> Is it more "crass" than "I've scraped higher life forms off my shoe"?
>
> Yes.

Why?

Because it was about you?

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 21/11/2010 16:40, JNugent wrote:
> On 21/11/2010 16:19, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 21/11/2010 00:30, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2010 00:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am clearly
>>>>>>> too dim to formulate any reasonable response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IFYPFY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - --
>>>>>> Guy Chapman,http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>>>>>
>>>>> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering a
>>>>> brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a cycle
>>>>> helmet.
>>>>
>>>> You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say
>>>> something
>>>> like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you look.
>>>
>>> Is it more "crass" than "I've scraped higher life forms off my shoe"?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Why?
>
> Because it was about you?

You really don't see why, do you? Good grief.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6U6jAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W//lMH/0qDMSapGTMY6oQLTQQQ/ALt
dfGnf6clmR/wofWt62lASSXci93p/ueME1ot3sXQnnlWPalIH3LoKBvIDgZXgKXQ
LYwXB5zEXsO6iURGl9fAAP4Jxwi5vQzKGRPiH+gin68oV4q2Ud r9n6czIJsD7MB5
p5V7GKvIpkRUFpzFAZ2rR21WAQS2Yfi77hF5BBEUVCdL0BFTr0 fqLm7h9bTfgwXp
8eBTwGj/XtVbOWb37Ahr7TzZx3wt1Pu3ert3JRHV7rT5W408/Awy/KpVPvhIaEwT
mdkMrJbFI8YRSJR8hiV8PmLVrYTUsAybix0LXIJRhldjv6xiF6 qBJKVQtISM7+0=
=rPvP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[JMS]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 16:53:55 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

<snip>


>>>>>> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering a
>>>>>> brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a cycle
>>>>>> helmet.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say
>>>>> something
>>>>> like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you look.
>>>>
>>>> Is it more "crass" than "I've scraped higher life forms off my shoe"?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because it was about you?
>
>You really don't see why, do you? Good grief.


Please Sir, please Sir - I know Sir.

It is because Porky Chapman *really is brain damaged* Sir.

Surely people do not think that someone could be that ****witted and
be *normal*.

He is of course a sociopath as well:

Pathological Lying:
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for
them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught
up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities.

I always thought that that was natural - but I suppose that that could
be a result of the brain damage as well.
--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 21/11/2010 16:53, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On 21/11/2010 16:40, JNugent wrote:
>> On 21/11/2010 16:19, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2010 00:30, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 21/11/2010 00:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>> On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:

>>>>>>>> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am clearly
>>>>>>>> too dim to formulate any reasonable response.

>>>>>>> IFYPFY.

>>>>>> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering a
>>>>>> brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a cycle
>>>>>> helmet.

>>>>> You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say
>>>>> something like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you look.

>>>> Is it more "crass" than "I've scraped higher life forms off my shoe"?

>>> Yes.

>> Why?
>> Because it was about you?

> You really don't see why, do you? Good grief.

As to whether Mr Cheerful's comments about you (about which I pass no
particular comment) was any worse than some other savant saying that the dirt
on his shoe is a higher life-form than Mr Cheerful (ditto), I leave as an
open question.

There's little difference between them, as far as I can see.

But one of them was about you, and you obviously don't like that.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 21/11/2010 17:50, JNugent wrote:
> On 21/11/2010 16:53, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/2010 16:40, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2010 16:19, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>> On 21/11/2010 00:30, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 21/11/2010 00:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am clearly
>>>>>>>>> too dim to formulate any reasonable response.
>
>>>>>>>> IFYPFY.
>
>>>>>>> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after
>>>>>>> suffering a
>>>>>>> brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a
>>>>>>> cycle
>>>>>>> helmet.
>
>>>>>> You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say
>>>>>> something like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you
>>>>>> look.
>
>>>>> Is it more "crass" than "I've scraped higher life forms off my shoe"?
>
>>>> Yes.
>
>>> Why?
>>> Because it was about you?
>
>> You really don't see why, do you? Good grief.
>
> As to whether Mr Cheerful's comments about you (about which I pass no
> particular comment) was any worse than some other savant saying that the
> dirt on his shoe is a higher life-form than Mr Cheerful (ditto), I leave
> as an open question.
>
> There's little difference between them, as far as I can see.
>
> But one of them was about you, and you obviously don't like that.

Ah, so not only do you not understand, you don't even know to which
remark I was referring.

I'd give up at that point if I were you.
- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6ZpuAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/vkAH/RB75ONyDJTZrBnTIb5/uVJK
v0yfnz+Djxav1ZF2B4AgyZDaOr0Z1SpApMLIzyKstffRvpvXyD H9W/2KWLOIV4xc
q4hgM/2BucQBENvRI/kUPPZ5SK7iuqyGmC3Sf705SmPEP9cm1VjSzIljDKQGKB2E
ZY1lQD/FUnR3BtICt0n68r0WM9Oe9YILNvpyvbSZWh/2qZhiM7BkDA1hMSxb17BH
e+5upjIsgj9R15j3DNr8HWBOROwE5iRzYfdPji+FCbyAiB9zdA 1K+0lc+LIzcJ5A
DUeYShI9IynXNag3ZSS1rCiVkNFA0zJgIbbZEFdIkaoNAX/6YvLXFqFmRLzAmFE=
=48wr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 21/11/2010 22:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On 21/11/2010 17:50, JNugent wrote:
>> On 21/11/2010 16:53, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2010 16:40, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 21/11/2010 16:19, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>> On 21/11/2010 00:30, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/11/2010 00:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am clearly
>>>>>>>>>> too dim to formulate any reasonable response.

>>>>>>>>> IFYPFY.

>>>>>>>> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after
>>>>>>>> suffering a brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not
>>>>>>>> wearing a cycle helmet.

>>>>>>> You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say
>>>>>>> something like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you
>>>>>>> look.

>>>>>> Is it more "crass" than "I've scraped higher life forms off my shoe"?

>>>>> Yes.

>>>> Why?
>>>> Because it was about you?

>>> You really don't see why, do you? Good grief.

>> As to whether Mr Cheerful's comments about you (about which I pass no
>> particular comment) was any worse than some other savant saying that the
>> dirt on his shoe is a higher life-form than Mr Cheerful (ditto), I leave
>> as an open question.

>> There's little difference between them, as far as I can see.

>> But one of them was about you, and you obviously don't like that.

> Ah, so not only do you not understand, you don't even know to which
> remark I was referring.

Don't be so bloody silly.

It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
exception. It was what he had (just) said about you and you not only quoted
it but you responded to it. It's all there, just above.

He said (about you):

"Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering a brain
injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a cycle helmet."

And you said (to him):

"You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say something
like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you look".

At that point, I wondered how far along the crassness continuum you thought
the (fairly recent) remarks of a different poster might be.

Let's face it, there are some pretty crass things said in this NG - by some
people.

> I'd give up at that point if I were you.

Why? Are you going to start moving the goalposts even further apart, perhaps
by trying to argue about the meaning of a word in my posting?

[Jon[_5_]]

On Nov 19, 8:44*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out there, I see
> them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of close encounters.
*> But cyclists choose to ignore that and try to travel unprotected
amongst them.

I learned long ago in school that giving in to bulllies and thugs was
not the way to deal with them. .I do not ignore them - I have reported
several dangerous drivers.
I am not unprotected - I am protected, first by the fact that most
people are pro-social and no more wish to injure me than I do to
injure them, and secondly by laws and sanctions which restrain most of
those who are not otherwise willing to act reasonably. These two, far
more than any kind of physical 'protection', are the main defences for
most of us against many of the everyday potential threats which face
us.

> Rather like the swimmers that go for a dip in shark infested water, when one
> gets killed they get all uppitty and say: 'do something about the sharks'

A shark is a wild animal doing what its instincts urge. A human is
not: they can reasonably be expected to copmly with legislation.
>
> Why not just stay clear of them?

As above - I don't believe in giving in to criminals. The solution to
criminally careless or dangerous driving (and indeed cycling) is
better law enforcement, not anyone being intimidated into giving up
their right to use the public highway.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

JNugent wrote:
> On 21/11/2010 22:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/2010 17:50, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2010 16:53, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>> On 21/11/2010 16:40, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 21/11/2010 16:19, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/11/2010 00:30, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/11/2010 00:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am
>>>>>>>>>>> clearly too dim to formulate any reasonable response.
>
>>>>>>>>>> IFYPFY.
>
>>>>>>>>> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after
>>>>>>>>> suffering a brain injury after a cycling accident where he
>>>>>>>>> was not wearing a cycle helmet.
>
>>>>>>>> You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say
>>>>>>>> something like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes
>>>>>>>> you look.
>
>>>>>>> Is it more "crass" than "I've scraped higher life forms off my
>>>>>>> shoe"?
>
>>>>>> Yes.
>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>> Because it was about you?
>
>>>> You really don't see why, do you? Good grief.
>
>>> As to whether Mr Cheerful's comments about you (about which I pass
>>> no particular comment) was any worse than some other savant saying
>>> that the dirt on his shoe is a higher life-form than Mr Cheerful
>>> (ditto), I leave as an open question.
>
>>> There's little difference between them, as far as I can see.
>
>>> But one of them was about you, and you obviously don't like that.
>
>> Ah, so not only do you not understand, you don't even know to which
>> remark I was referring.
>
> Don't be so bloody silly.
>
> It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
> exception. It was what he had (just) said about you and you not only
> quoted it but you responded to it. It's all there, just above.
>
> He said (about you):
>
> "Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering
> a brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a
> cycle helmet."
> And you said (to him):
>
> "You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say
> something like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you
> look".
> At that point, I wondered how far along the crassness continuum you
> thought the (fairly recent) remarks of a different poster might be.
>
> Let's face it, there are some pretty crass things said in this NG -
> by some people.
>
>> I'd give up at that point if I were you.
>
> Why? Are you going to start moving the goalposts even further apart,
> perhaps by trying to argue about the meaning of a word in my posting?

Could I just point out that it was not me that said anything about brain
damage.
Quite how that has got attributed to me I do not have a clue. I pointed out
that I do not generally make any personally abusive comments. I do make
wide ranging ones about cyclists in general, the same as most people in the
country do every day.

Mrcheerful

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Jon wrote:
> On Nov 19, 8:44 am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>
>> The fact is that there are thousands of truly awful drivers out
>> there, I see them, you see them, everyone has horror stories of
>> close encounters.
>> But cyclists choose to ignore that and try to travel unprotected
> amongst them.
>
> I learned long ago in school that giving in to bulllies and thugs was
> not the way to deal with them. .I do not ignore them - I have reported
> several dangerous drivers.
> I am not unprotected - I am protected, first by the fact that most
> people are pro-social and no more wish to injure me than I do to
> injure them, and secondly by laws and sanctions which restrain most of
> those who are not otherwise willing to act reasonably. These two, far
> more than any kind of physical 'protection', are the main defences for
> most of us against many of the everyday potential threats which face
> us.
>
>> Rather like the swimmers that go for a dip in shark infested water,
>> when one gets killed they get all uppitty and say: 'do something
>> about the sharks'
>
> A shark is a wild animal doing what its instincts urge. A human is
> not: they can reasonably be expected to copmly with legislation.
>>
>> Why not just stay clear of them?
>
> As above - I don't believe in giving in to criminals. The solution to
> criminally careless or dangerous driving (and indeed cycling) is
> better law enforcement, not anyone being intimidated into giving up
> their right to use the public highway.

I try to not rely on other peoples' common sense/skills, nor legislation,
which may only be effective in arrears. Far better to rely on oneself. I
avoid dangerous areas and situations, which is why I do not cycle up the
inside of lorries, nor mix with A road traffic and similar situations, I
regard my life/health as too important to risk, especially not trying to
prove some ill conceived 'right' to use the roads on an unpowered machine
with no protection from injury. Which is why I have little sympathy for
those cyclists that put themselves into danger and get hurt or killed.

Mrcheerful

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 22/11/2010 15:16, Mrcheerful wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> On 21/11/2010 22:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2010 17:50, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 21/11/2010 16:53, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>> On 21/11/2010 16:40, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/11/2010 16:19, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/11/2010 00:30, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/11/2010 00:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly too dim to formulate any reasonable response.

>>>>>>>>>>> IFYPFY.

>>>>>>>>>> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after
>>>>>>>>>> suffering a brain injury after a cycling accident where he
>>>>>>>>>> was not wearing a cycle helmet.

>>>>>>>>> You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say
>>>>>>>>> something like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes
>>>>>>>>> you look.

>>>>>>>> Is it more "crass" than "I've scraped higher life forms off my
>>>>>>>> shoe"?

>>>>>>> Yes.

>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>> Because it was about you?

>>>>> You really don't see why, do you? Good grief.

>>>> As to whether Mr Cheerful's comments about you (about which I pass
>>>> no particular comment) was any worse than some other savant saying
>>>> that the dirt on his shoe is a higher life-form than Mr Cheerful
>>>> (ditto), I leave as an open question.
>>>> There's little difference between them, as far as I can see.
>>>> But one of them was about you, and you obviously don't like that.

>>> Ah, so not only do you not understand, you don't even know to which
>>> remark I was referring.

>> Don't be so bloody silly.
>> It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
>> exception. It was what he had (just) said about you and you not only
>> quoted it but you responded to it. It's all there, just above.

>> He said (about you):
>> "Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after suffering
>> a brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not wearing a
>> cycle helmet."

>> And you said (to him):
>> "You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say
>> something like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you
>> look".

>> At that point, I wondered how far along the crassness continuum you
>> thought the (fairly recent) remarks of a different poster might be.
>> Let's face it, there are some pretty crass things said in this NG -
>> by some people.

>>> I'd give up at that point if I were you.

>> Why? Are you going to start moving the goalposts even further apart,
>> perhaps by trying to argue about the meaning of a word in my posting?

> Could I just point out that it was not me that said anything about brain
> damage.
> Quite how that has got attributed to me I do not have a clue. I pointed out
> that I do not generally make any personally abusive comments. I do make
> wide ranging ones about cyclists in general, the same as most people in the
> country do every day.

In that case, I do apologise for mis-attributing that particular comment.

It was made by someone though, and it was not I who altered the attributions
within the post to which I responded.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

JNugent wrote:
> On 22/11/2010 15:16, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2010 22:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>> On 21/11/2010 17:50, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 21/11/2010 16:53, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/11/2010 16:40, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/11/2010 16:19, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/11/2010 00:30, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/11/2010 00:17, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/11/2010 23:45, Derek C wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/11/2010 21:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do accuse abusers of 'typical cyclist behaviour' I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly too dim to formulate any reasonable response.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> IFYPFY.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after
>>>>>>>>>>> suffering a brain injury after a cycling accident where he
>>>>>>>>>>> was not wearing a cycle helmet.
>
>>>>>>>>>> You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can
>>>>>>>>>> say something like that blissfully unaware of how crass it
>>>>>>>>>> makes you look.
>
>>>>>>>>> Is it more "crass" than "I've scraped higher life forms off my
>>>>>>>>> shoe"?
>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>
>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>> Because it was about you?
>
>>>>>> You really don't see why, do you? Good grief.
>
>>>>> As to whether Mr Cheerful's comments about you (about which I pass
>>>>> no particular comment) was any worse than some other savant saying
>>>>> that the dirt on his shoe is a higher life-form than Mr Cheerful
>>>>> (ditto), I leave as an open question.
>>>>> There's little difference between them, as far as I can see.
>>>>> But one of them was about you, and you obviously don't like that.
>
>>>> Ah, so not only do you not understand, you don't even know to which
>>>> remark I was referring.
>
>>> Don't be so bloody silly.
>>> It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you
>>> took exception. It was what he had (just) said about you and you
>>> not only quoted it but you responded to it. It's all there, just
>>> above.
>
>>> He said (about you):
>>> "Just ignore this Guy (literally). He is a bit simple after
>>> suffering a brain injury after a cycling accident where he was not
>>> wearing a cycle helmet."
>
>>> And you said (to him):
>>> "You know, the really funny thing about you is that you can say
>>> something like that blissfully unaware of how crass it makes you
>>> look".
>
>>> At that point, I wondered how far along the crassness continuum you
>>> thought the (fairly recent) remarks of a different poster might be.
>>> Let's face it, there are some pretty crass things said in this NG -
>>> by some people.
>
>>>> I'd give up at that point if I were you.
>
>>> Why? Are you going to start moving the goalposts even further apart,
>>> perhaps by trying to argue about the meaning of a word in my
>>> posting?
>
>> Could I just point out that it was not me that said anything about
>> brain damage.
>> Quite how that has got attributed to me I do not have a clue. I
>> pointed out that I do not generally make any personally abusive
>> comments. I do make wide ranging ones about cyclists in general,
>> the same as most people in the country do every day.
>
> In that case, I do apologise for mis-attributing that particular
> comment.
> It was made by someone though, and it was not I who altered the
> attributions within the post to which I responded.

it looks like it was Judith for the brain damage assertion. and guy for
altering the supposed reply that I had made. Why do people do that? Fair
enough to selectively snip, but not alter, thread title altering is quite
pathetic too.
Mrcheerful

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 21/11/2010 22:54, JNugent wrote:
> It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
> exception.

Really. You might want to check back up the thread.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEbBAEBAgAGBQJM6uniAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/pbgH+ItQ21OptfZnV2KrPXwQq0pO
0woOP3Xxo1Od/Rq5CfYuZX06YuBzHfh/boZoQZBW2iWa0B9DUhuVz2IKGzUomajo
YoRBBGvpoeoyXPPMwAIjw2HAK4IdMvdqXaCbP7qmrTg4gmm2pe M0JPk06ltvLv1+
v5roVDa0M19F6scn0fv9Et+oZvSaqDhtk0aFABPfgU69CSoJuu +06aHUAzYBgdNk
b55mG+H2UEtiHnlceK7ccwrp/suW7LmvbhF8noyxSjcXNDysqRGcDHBwtU0HzHy/
aN3ZqGE5A5VM8/qZFTP3N0ue/RtEtR0VVzs3AsITPLbHGHwQTQQmYshg2dVyDw==
=8qrH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 22/11/2010 22:08, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On 21/11/2010 22:54, JNugent wrote:

>> It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
>> exception.

> Really. You might want to check back up the thread.

The poster has now - very helpfully - made it clear that the remark to which
you took exception was not his, even though the attributions had been snipped
to make it look as though it was his.

I wonder how that happened?

[PhilO]

On Nov 21, 5:17*pm, JMS > wrote:
>
> Pathological Lying:
> Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for
> them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught
> up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities.
>
Actually, Judith, I think that is a pretty good description of you and
your lies. Where did it come from, you "special" OED or maybe the
"official" rule book you have?

Do you have a definition for somebody that thinks insults are good
posting? We've had quite a rush of your vitriolic bile recently in
this thread. It just shows (again) what a deeply unpleasant person you
are.

[JMS]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:48:42 -0800 (PST), PhilO >
wrote:

>On Nov 21, 5:17*pm, JMS > wrote:
>>
>> Pathological Lying:
>> Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for
>> them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught
>> up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities.
>>
>Actually, Judith, I think that is a pretty good description of you and
>your lies. Where did it come from, you "special" OED or maybe the
>"official" rule book you have?
>
>Do you have a definition for somebody that thinks insults are good
>posting? We've had quite a rush of your vitriolic bile recently in
>this thread. It just shows (again) what a deeply unpleasant person you
>are.



Feel free to show anywhere where you believe I have lied.

(Showing you up as a ****** is of course not a lie as such)


--


Latest figures from DfT: KSI per billion passenger kilometres:

Van: 5 people
Bus/Coach: 9 people
Car : 18 people
Pedestrians: 358 people

Oh : and of course cyclists:
Cyclists: 541 people

Of those four modes of transport - which is the most dangerous?

(With thanks to Justin Lewis for asking me to find out the figures)

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 23, 2:40*am, JNugent > wrote:
> On 22/11/2010 22:08, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > On 21/11/2010 22:54, JNugent wrote:
> >> It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
> >> exception.
> > Really. You might want to check back up the thread.
>
> The poster has now - very helpfully - made it clear that the remark to which
> you took exception was not his, even though the attributions had been snipped
> to make it look as though it was his.
>
> I wonder how that happened?

The attributions were correct in the message that you replied to (as
far as I can tell). You must have read them wrongly.

Colin

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 24/11/2010 15:16, wrote:

> On Nov 23, 2:40 am, > wrote:
>> On 22/11/2010 22:08, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2010 22:54, JNugent wrote:
>>>> It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
>>>> exception.
>>> Really. You might want to check back up the thread.
>>
>> The poster has now - very helpfully - made it clear that the remark to which
>> you took exception was not his, even though the attributions had been snipped
>> to make it look as though it was his.
>>
>> I wonder how that happened?
>
> The attributions were correct in the message that you replied to (as
> far as I can tell). You must have read them wrongly.

They were correct as far as *I* could tell, too. So I assumed they were correct.

As you have probably noticed, I never interfere with attributions except in
cases where there is a very long thread and I am responding only to one other
poster. If an attribution line is missing, it is not because I excised it.

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:29:38 +0000, JMS wrote:


>
> Feel free to show anywhere where you believe I have lied.
>
> (Showing you up as a ****** is of course not a lie as such)
>
>
Is that the best you can do?

What about

You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly
with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this
world.
> --

<snip>

--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

[Colin Reed[_4_]]

On 24/11/10 16:50, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/11/2010 15:16, wrote:
>
>> On Nov 23, 2:40 am, > wrote:
>>> On 22/11/2010 22:08, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>> On 21/11/2010 22:54, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> It is absolutely *obvious* to which of Mr Cheerful's remarks you took
>>>>> exception.
>>>> Really. You might want to check back up the thread.
>>>
>>> The poster has now - very helpfully - made it clear that the remark
>>> to which
>>> you took exception was not his, even though the attributions had been
>>> snipped
>>> to make it look as though it was his.
>>>
>>> I wonder how that happened?
>>
>> The attributions were correct in the message that you replied to (as
>> far as I can tell). You must have read them wrongly.
>
> They were correct as far as *I* could tell, too. So I assumed they were
> correct.
>

That's what I'm saying - they were correct. Derek C made the comment
that you thought came from Mr Cheerful, and the attributions were
correct, just a little convoluted so you must have read them wrongly.
Nobody had snipped or changed them to make it more difficult - at least
as far as I could make out.

Colin