Cheerfully wrong again!

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Remember Mr Cheerless's thread "
The ambulance chasers are lining up the cycle hire scheme" and the
associated link about two Boris bike users suffering serious head
injuries requiring brains scans?

Well I'm pleased to report that BJ confirmed in Cycle magazine that the
brain scans were a routine procedure and that no serious injury
occurred. In fact no injury at all occurred.
http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-news/london-cycle-hire-scheme-injuries-now-being-highlighted-lu-2742.htm

Mr Cheerless - never failing to grasp an opportunity to be wrong. As
you were then.

Tony

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Remember Mr Cheerless's thread "
> The ambulance chasers are lining up the cycle hire scheme" and the
> associated link about two Boris bike users suffering serious head
> injuries requiring brains scans?
>
> Well I'm pleased to report that BJ confirmed in Cycle magazine that
> the brain scans were a routine procedure and that no serious injury
> occurred. In fact no injury at all occurred.
> http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-news/london-cycle-hire-scheme-injuries-now-being-highlighted-lu-2742.htm
>
> Mr Cheerless - never failing to grasp an opportunity to be wrong. As
> you were then.
>
> Tony

I admit that I am not psychic, I can only go on what is reported at the
time, can anyone do better than that?
Mrcheerful

[FrengaX]

On Nov 27, 4:44*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > Remember Mr Cheerless's thread "
> > The ambulance chasers are lining up the cycle hire scheme" and the
> > associated link about two Boris bike users suffering serious head
> > injuries requiring brains scans?
>
> > Well I'm pleased to report that BJ confirmed in Cycle magazine that
> > the brain scans were a routine procedure and that no serious injury
> > occurred. *In fact no injury at all occurred.
> >http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-news/london-cycle-hire-scheme-inj...
>
> > Mr Cheerless - never failing to grasp an opportunity to be wrong. *As
> > you were then.
>
> > Tony
>
> I admit that I am not psychic, I can only go on what is reported at the
> time, can anyone do better than that?

Yes. One can look at the reports, and conclude that it is not possible
to take one report and extrapolate from it to form some wild
conclusion that happens to support your personal agenda/prejudice/
dogma.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Mrcheerful wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Remember Mr Cheerless's thread " The ambulance chasers are lining
>> up the cycle hire scheme" and the associated link about two Boris
>> bike users suffering serious head injuries requiring brains scans?
>>
>> Well I'm pleased to report that BJ confirmed in Cycle magazine that
>> the brain scans were a routine procedure and that no serious
>> injury occurred. In fact no injury at all occurred.
>> http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-news/london-cycle-hire-scheme-injuries-now-being-highlighted-lu-2742.htm
>>
>>
>> Mr Cheerless - never failing to grasp an opportunity to be wrong.
>> As you were then.
>>
>> Tony
>
> I admit that I am not psychic, I can only go on what is reported at
> the time, can anyone do better than that? Mrcheerful
>

I thought you were. You are always adamant about what has happened even
when there is zero evidence to support you. But then again I guess you
aren't given the number of times you turn out to be wrong.

Tony

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" > considered Sat, 27 Nov 2010
> 16:44:27 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> Remember Mr Cheerless's thread "
>>> The ambulance chasers are lining up the cycle hire scheme" and the
>>> associated link about two Boris bike users suffering serious head
>>> injuries requiring brains scans?
>>>
>>> Well I'm pleased to report that BJ confirmed in Cycle magazine that
>>> the brain scans were a routine procedure and that no serious injury
>>> occurred. In fact no injury at all occurred.
>>> http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-news/london-cycle-hire-scheme-injuries-now-being-highlighted-lu-2742.htm
>>>
>>> Mr Cheerless - never failing to grasp an opportunity to be wrong.
>>> As you were then.
>>>
>>> Tony
>>
>> I admit that I am not psychic, I can only go on what is reported at
>> the time, can anyone do better than that?
>> Mrcheerful
>>
> Nost people not only can, but do.

aah, you mean the cyclist way, just invent whatever you like and ignore
anything contrary.

[Tony Dragon]

On 28/11/2010 06:06, Phil W Lee wrote:
> > considered Sat, 27 Nov 2010
> 21:37:38 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> > considered Sat, 27 Nov 2010
>>> 16:44:27 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>>> Remember Mr Cheerless's thread "
>>>>> The ambulance chasers are lining up the cycle hire scheme" and the
>>>>> associated link about two Boris bike users suffering serious head
>>>>> injuries requiring brains scans?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well I'm pleased to report that BJ confirmed in Cycle magazine that
>>>>> the brain scans were a routine procedure and that no serious injury
>>>>> occurred. In fact no injury at all occurred.
>>>>> http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-news/london-cycle-hire-scheme-injuries-now-being-highlighted-lu-2742.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr Cheerless - never failing to grasp an opportunity to be wrong.
>>>>> As you were then.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>> I admit that I am not psychic, I can only go on what is reported at
>>>> the time, can anyone do better than that?
>>>> Mrcheerful
>>>>
>>> Nost people not only can, but do.
>>
>> aah, you mean the cyclist way, just invent whatever you like and ignore
>> anything contrary.
>>
> No, we look for real research, instead of gleaning headlines from
> people who can't get a productive job and end up writing crap for
> local rags (or even national rags).
>
> You don't usually appear to even read the crap you do post, limited in
> value though it is.

Looking through this NG, it is obvious that most look at research
results & get the answers they want.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Tony Dragon > wrote:

> Looking through this NG, it is obvious that most look at research
> results & get the answers they want.

Probably because most of them don't have the training or experience to
do otherwise. Some here do though.

--
Tony