Why do you post here? [Archive]

Doug[_10_]

July 5th 12, 07:40 AM

On Jul 5, 12:53*am, M Wicks > wrote:
> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This
> is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
> interested to hear from everyone.
>
> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
> know differently...)
>
I used to post here because I have enjoyed in the past being a cyclist
for many years but latterly I have become more aware of how exposed to
death and injury vulnerable cyclists are on our roads, where priority
is given to traffic flow over and above road safety, and how the
dangerous car-culture mob has been allowed to grow and dominate
virtually every aspect of British society, including this cycling
newsgroup.

Also, as a person who has been hospitalised three time so far by
drivers, I gradually at first became more aware of the world wide
campaigning against the dominance of the car and which I like to think
I am now a part of.

So all the anti-cyclist trolls who post here, watch out!

-- .
Car Free Cities.
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

John Benn

July 5th 12, 09:07 AM

"M Wicks" > wrote in message
...
> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This
> is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
> interested to hear from everyone.
>
> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
> know differently...)

I post here to take the **** out of militant cyclists and/or God squad.
It's very satisfying, especially when they get wound up and post a entire
essay in reply to me.

M Wicks

July 5th 12, 02:18 PM

On Jul 5, 9:07*am, "John Benn" > wrote:
> "M Wicks" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This
> > is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
> > interested to hear from everyone.
>
> > I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
> > cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
> > naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
> > know differently...)
>
> I post here to take the **** out of militant cyclists and/or God squad.
> It's very satisfying, especially when they get wound up and post a entire
> essay in reply to me.

Do you realise just how much you sound like your portrayal of Simon
Mason, but on the 'other side'? 'I post here to poke fun at trolls',
'It's their own time they're wasting', etc. The reason you hate him so
much that you turn up to his company's AGMs to smear him is because
deep down you fear that you're exactly like him. There's a thin line
between love and hate, Jonathan (if indeed that is your name).

Taken anyone's unsubstantiated word about anything lately?

John Benn

July 5th 12, 03:07 PM

"M Wicks" > wrote in message
...
> On Jul 5, 9:07 am, "John Benn" > wrote:
>> "M Wicks" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This
>> > is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
>> > interested to hear from everyone.
>>
>> > I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>> > cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
>> > naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
>> > know differently...)
>>
>> I post here to take the **** out of militant cyclists and/or God squad.
>> It's very satisfying, especially when they get wound up and post a entire
>> essay in reply to me.
>
> Do you realise just how much you sound like your portrayal of Simon
> Mason, but on the 'other side'? 'I post here to poke fun at trolls',
> 'It's their own time they're wasting', etc. The reason you hate him so
> much that you turn up to his company's AGMs to smear him is because
> deep down you fear that you're exactly like him. There's a thin line
> between love and hate, Jonathan (if indeed that is your name).
>
> Taken anyone's unsubstantiated word about anything lately?

Another sermon. Excellent.

jnugent

July 5th 12, 03:24 PM

jnugent

July 5th 12, 03:25 PM

On 05/07/2012 07:40, Doug wrote:
> On Jul 5, 12:53 am, M Wicks > wrote:
>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This
>> is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
>> interested to hear from everyone.
>>
>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
>> know differently...)
>>
> I used to post here because I have enjoyed in the past being a cyclist
> for many years but latterly I have become more aware of how exposed to
> death and injury vulnerable cyclists are on our roads, where priority
> is given to traffic flow over and above road safety, and how the
> dangerous car-culture mob has been allowed to grow and dominate
> virtually every aspect of British society, including this cycling
> newsgroup.
>
> Also, as a person who has been hospitalised three time so far by
> drivers, I gradually at first became more aware of the world wide
> campaigning against the dominance of the car and which I like to think
> I am now a part of.
>
> So all the anti-cyclist trolls who post here, watch out!

What ought they to watch out for?

Tony Dragon

July 5th 12, 03:32 PM

On 05/07/2012 15:25, JNugent wrote:
> On 05/07/2012 07:40, Doug wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 12:53 am, M Wicks > wrote:
>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This
>>> is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
>>> interested to hear from everyone.
>>>
>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
>>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
>>> know differently...)
>>>
>> I used to post here because I have enjoyed in the past being a cyclist
>> for many years but latterly I have become more aware of how exposed to
>> death and injury vulnerable cyclists are on our roads, where priority
>> is given to traffic flow over and above road safety, and how the
>> dangerous car-culture mob has been allowed to grow and dominate
>> virtually every aspect of British society, including this cycling
>> newsgroup.
>>
>> Also, as a person who has been hospitalised three time so far by
>> drivers, I gradually at first became more aware of the world wide
>> campaigning against the dominance of the car and which I like to think
>> I am now a part of.
>>
>> So all the anti-cyclist trolls who post here, watch out!
>
> What ought they to watch out for?

Humphrey?

Partac[_10_]

July 5th 12, 04:29 PM

"John Benn" wrote in message ...

"M Wicks" > wrote in message
...
> On Jul 5, 9:07 am, "John Benn" > wrote:
>> "M Wicks" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This
>> > is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
>> > interested to hear from everyone.
>>
>> > I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>> > cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
>> > naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
>> > know differently...)
>>
>> I post here to take the **** out of militant cyclists and/or God squad.
>> It's very satisfying, especially when they get wound up and post a entire
>> essay in reply to me.
>
> Do you realise just how much you sound like your portrayal of Simon
> Mason, but on the 'other side'? 'I post here to poke fun at trolls',
> 'It's their own time they're wasting', etc. The reason you hate him so
> much that you turn up to his company's AGMs to smear him is because
> deep down you fear that you're exactly like him. There's a thin line
> between love and hate, Jonathan (if indeed that is your name).
>
> Taken anyone's unsubstantiated word about anything lately?

Another sermon. Excellent.

Yes, I think we've found a suitable successor to Mason, now that he's ****ed
off.

Mrcheerful[_3_]

July 5th 12, 04:43 PM

Partac wrote:
> "John Benn" wrote in message ...
>
> "M Wicks" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Jul 5, 9:07 am, "John Benn" > wrote:
>>> "M Wicks" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here.
>>>> This is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but
>>>> I'd be interested to hear from everyone.
>>>
>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup
>>>> may naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but
>>>> alas, we know differently...)
>>>
>>> I post here to take the **** out of militant cyclists and/or God
>>> squad. It's very satisfying, especially when they get wound up and
>>> post a entire essay in reply to me.
>>
>> Do you realise just how much you sound like your portrayal of Simon
>> Mason, but on the 'other side'? 'I post here to poke fun at trolls',
>> 'It's their own time they're wasting', etc. The reason you hate him
>> so much that you turn up to his company's AGMs to smear him is
>> because deep down you fear that you're exactly like him. There's a
>> thin line between love and hate, Jonathan (if indeed that is your
>> name). Taken anyone's unsubstantiated word about anything lately?
>
> Another sermon. Excellent.
>
> Yes, I think we've found a suitable successor to Mason, now that he's
> ****ed off.

I thought it was Simon, and that his symptoms had worsened.

John Benn

July 5th 12, 05:34 PM

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> Partac wrote:
>> "John Benn" wrote in message ...
>>
>> "M Wicks" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Jul 5, 9:07 am, "John Benn" > wrote:
>>>> "M Wicks" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here.
>>>>> This is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but
>>>>> I'd be interested to hear from everyone.
>>>>
>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>>>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup
>>>>> may naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but
>>>>> alas, we know differently...)
>>>>
>>>> I post here to take the **** out of militant cyclists and/or God
>>>> squad. It's very satisfying, especially when they get wound up and
>>>> post a entire essay in reply to me.
>>>
>>> Do you realise just how much you sound like your portrayal of Simon
>>> Mason, but on the 'other side'? 'I post here to poke fun at trolls',
>>> 'It's their own time they're wasting', etc. The reason you hate him
>>> so much that you turn up to his company's AGMs to smear him is
>>> because deep down you fear that you're exactly like him. There's a
>>> thin line between love and hate, Jonathan (if indeed that is your
>>> name). Taken anyone's unsubstantiated word about anything lately?
>>
>> Another sermon. Excellent.
>>
>> Yes, I think we've found a suitable successor to Mason, now that he's
>> ****ed off.
>
> I thought it was Simon, and that his symptoms had worsened.

Do you mean "finding God"? That's the worst it can get.

Dave - Cyclists VOR

July 5th 12, 05:54 PM

On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This
> is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
> interested to hear from everyone.
>
> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
> know differently...)
>
I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
cycling in the UK.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

Dave - Cyclists VOR

July 5th 12, 05:56 PM

On 05/07/2012 07:40, Doug wrote:
> On Jul 5, 12:53 am, M Wicks > wrote:
>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This
>> is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
>> interested to hear from everyone.
>>
>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
>> know differently...)
>>
> I used to post here because I have enjoyed in the past being a cyclist
> for many years but latterly I have become more aware of how exposed to
> death and injury vulnerable cyclists are on our roads, where priority
> is given to traffic flow over and above road safety, and how the
> dangerous car-culture mob has been allowed to grow and dominate
> virtually every aspect of British society, including this cycling
> newsgroup.

You can't cycle any more because you are a doddering old ****.
>
> Also, as a person who has been hospitalised three time so far by
> drivers, I gradually at first became more aware of the world wide
> campaigning against the dominance of the car and which I like to think
> I am now a part of.

**** me you must have been a terrible cyclist.
>
> So all the anti-cyclist trolls who post here, watch out!

I was attracted here by you cross positing bollox to other NG's.
--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

Dave - Cyclists VOR

July 5th 12, 05:57 PM

Dave - Cyclists VOR

July 5th 12, 05:59 PM

On 05/07/2012 14:18, M Wicks wrote:
> On Jul 5, 9:07 am, "John Benn" > wrote:
>> "M Wicks" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This
>>> is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
>>> interested to hear from everyone.
>>
>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
>>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
>>> know differently...)
>>
>> I post here to take the **** out of militant cyclists and/or God squad.
>> It's very satisfying, especially when they get wound up and post a entire
>> essay in reply to me.
>
> Do you realise just how much you sound like your portrayal of Simon
> Mason, but on the 'other side'? 'I post here to poke fun at trolls',
> 'It's their own time they're wasting', etc. The reason you hate him so
> much that you turn up to his company's AGMs to smear him is because
> deep down you fear that you're exactly like him. There's a thin line
> between love and hate, Jonathan (if indeed that is your name).

But Mason ****ed off & Benn is still here.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

Peter Keller[_3_]

July 5th 12, 06:05 PM

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:53:07 -0700, M Wicks wrote:

> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
> aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
> interested to hear from everyone.
>
> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
> in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may naturally
> assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we know
> differently...)

I post here for the same reasons that you want to post here. I love
bicycling and the feelings it gives me, and also want to exchange ideas
on mechanics, safety, road rules, enjoyment, fitness, national health etc.
There is at least one person here whose religious mission is to utterly
destroy this newsgroup.
I am doing my damnedest to let people know I will not be destroyed, and
will keep riding my trusty enjoyable healthy viable economical low-
polluting form of transport.

--
Never trust a man in a suit.

Dave - Cyclists VOR

July 5th 12, 06:21 PM

On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here.

Satan told me to........

Mwahahaha............

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.
665. The neighbour of the beast.

July 5th 12, 06:44 PM

On Jul 5, 6:05*pm, Peter Keller > wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:53:07 -0700, M Wicks wrote:
> > I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
> > aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
> > interested to hear from everyone.
>
> > I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
> > in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may naturally
> > assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we know
> > differently...)
>
> I post here for the same reasons that you want to post here. *I love
> bicycling and the feelings it gives me, *and also want to exchange ideas
> on mechanics, safety, road rules, enjoyment, fitness, national health etc..
> There is at least one person here whose religious mission is to utterly
> destroy this newsgroup.
> I am doing my damnedest to let people know I will not be destroyed, and
> will keep riding my trusty enjoyable healthy viable economical low-
> polluting form of transport.
>
> --
> Never trust a man in a suit.

Don't forget your hagfish fetish.

Peter Keller[_3_]

July 6th 12, 08:29 AM

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:44:23 -0700, NM wrote:

> On Jul 5, 6:05Â*pm, Peter Keller > wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:53:07 -0700, M Wicks wrote:
>> > I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This
>> > is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
>> > interested to hear from everyone.
>>
>> > I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>> > cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
>> > naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
>> > know differently...)
>>
>> I post here for the same reasons that you want to post here. Â*I love
>> bicycling and the feelings it gives me, Â*and also want to exchange
>> ideas on mechanics, safety, road rules, enjoyment, fitness, national
>> health etc. There is at least one person here whose religious mission
>> is to utterly destroy this newsgroup.
>> I am doing my damnedest to let people know I will not be destroyed, and
>> will keep riding my trusty enjoyable healthy viable economical low-
>> polluting form of transport.
>>

>
> Don't forget your hagfish fetish.

No I haven't. Try them sometime.
But hagfish are not good at riding bicycles.

--
Never trust a man in a suit.

Peter Keller[_3_]

July 6th 12, 08:30 AM

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
>> aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
>> interested to hear from everyone.
>>
>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
>> know differently...)
>>
> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
> in the UK.

you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There is a
difference you thick ****.

--
Never trust a man in a suit.

Mrcheerful[_3_]

July 6th 12, 08:55 AM

M Wicks wrote:
> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This
> is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
> interested to hear from everyone.
>
> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
> cycling in the UK.

and what UK cycling matters have you discussed?
All I see from you is long diatribes about God and his vengeance along with
poor attempts at rudeness to other posters.

jnugent

July 6th 12, 09:14 AM

On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:

>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
>>> aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
>>> interested to hear from everyone.

>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
>>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
>>> know differently...)

>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
>> in the UK.

> you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There is a
> difference you thick ****.

Is there?

One is a mere subset of the other.

There cannot be many posters who are interested in every last possible facet
of cycling (watching kids on trikes in the park, for instance). Everyone's
interest in the subject will have outside parameters. Some will be wider than
others. They all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling in the UK", just
as police officers are "interested in crime in the UK" whilst being
determined to do all that they can to stamp it out.

DavidR (was dr6092)

July 6th 12, 09:26 AM

On Jul 6, 8:55*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:

> and what UK cycling matters have you discussed?

You're not one to ask that question. All you ever do is copy on stuff
you have found about various mishaps, make up sarky headers and
sometimes add your (blinkered) point of view for them but you never
discuss.

Squashme

July 6th 12, 10:18 AM

On Friday, July 6, 2012 9:14:00 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> >> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
>
> >>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
> >>> aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
> >>> interested to hear from everyone.
>
> >>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
> >>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
> >>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
> >>> know differently...)
>
> >> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
> >> in the UK.
>
> > you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There is a
> > difference you thick ****.
>
> Is there?
>
> One is a mere subset of the other.
>
> There cannot be many posters who are interested in every last possible facet
> of cycling (watching kids on trikes in the park, for instance). Everyone's
> interest in the subject will have outside parameters. Some will be wider than
> others. They all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling in the UK", just
> as police officers are "interested in crime in the UK" whilst being
> determined to do all that they can to stamp it out.

And, once they are successful, what will they do then? Much like the cyclophobes here, they will look rather pointless. Still, interesting that you choose to equate cycling with crime. Doubtless purely random.

jnugent

July 6th 12, 10:37 AM

On 06/07/2012 10:18, Squashme wrote:
> On Friday, July 6, 2012 9:14:00 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>>>> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
>>
>>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
>>>>> aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
>>>>> interested to hear from everyone.
>>
>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>>>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
>>>>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
>>>>> know differently...)
>>
>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
>>>> in the UK.
>>
>>> you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There is a
>>> difference you thick ****.
>>
>> Is there?
>>
>> One is a mere subset of the other.
>>
>> There cannot be many posters who are interested in every last possible facet
>> of cycling (watching kids on trikes in the park, for instance). Everyone's
>> interest in the subject will have outside parameters. Some will be wider than
>> others. They all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling in the UK", just
>> as police officers are "interested in crime in the UK" whilst being
>> determined to do all that they can to stamp it out.
>
> And, once they are successful, what will they do then? Much like the cyclophobes here, they will look rather pointless. Still, interesting that you choose to equate cycling with crime. Doubtless purely random.

What is more interesting is that you are the second poster within a week who
has so pointedly demonstrated that you don't understood the meaning of the
word "equate".

Cycling and crime were and are not being "equated". They are being
analogised. In order to make the analogy, it was necessary to use a parallel
subject where "interest" can easily be accepted as including "opposition to".

If you can think of a better analogy which makes that point as forcefully,
please feel free to add it to mine.

In the meantime, I can only suggest looking up "equate" and checking what it
really means. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't mean "compare".

Squashme

July 6th 12, 12:16 PM

On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:37:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 10:18, Squashme wrote:
> > On Friday, July 6, 2012 9:14:00 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> >>>> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
> >>>>> aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
> >>>>> interested to hear from everyone.
> >>
> >>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
> >>>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
> >>>>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
> >>>>> know differently...)
> >>
> >>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
> >>>> in the UK.
> >>
> >>> you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There is a
> >>> difference you thick ****.
> >>
> >> Is there?
> >>
> >> One is a mere subset of the other.
> >>
> >> There cannot be many posters who are interested in every last possible facet
> >> of cycling (watching kids on trikes in the park, for instance). Everyone's
> >> interest in the subject will have outside parameters. Some will be wider than
> >> others. They all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling in the UK", just
> >> as police officers are "interested in crime in the UK" whilst being
> >> determined to do all that they can to stamp it out.
> >
> > And, once they are successful, what will they do then? Much like the cyclophobes here, they will look rather pointless. Still, interesting that you choose to equate cycling with crime. Doubtless purely random.
>
> What is more interesting is that you are the second poster within a week who
> has so pointedly demonstrated that you don't understood the meaning of the
> word "equate".
>
> Cycling and crime were and are not being "equated". They are being
> analogised. In order to make the analogy, it was necessary to use a parallel
> subject where "interest" can easily be accepted as including "opposition to".
>
> If you can think of a better analogy which makes that point as forcefully,
> please feel free to add it to mine.
>
> In the meantime, I can only suggest looking up "equate" and checking what it
> really means. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't mean "compare".

Definition:- "To consider, treat, or depict as equal or equivalent"

You MAY not be aware of what you were doing. Others can see.
If anybody is bothering to look, here in Tumbleweed Junction.

jnugent

July 6th 12, 04:12 PM

On 06/07/2012 12:16, Squashme wrote:

> On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:37:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 06/07/2012 10:18, Squashme wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 9:14:00 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
>>>>>>> aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
>>>>>>> interested to hear from everyone.
>
>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>>>>>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
>>>>>>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
>>>>>>> know differently...)
>
>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
>>>>>> in the UK.
>
>>>>> you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There is a
>>>>> difference you thick ****.
>
>>>> Is there?
>>>> One is a mere subset of the other.
>
>>>> There cannot be many posters who are interested in every last possible facet
>>>> of cycling (watching kids on trikes in the park, for instance). Everyone's
>>>> interest in the subject will have outside parameters. Some will be wider than
>>>> others. They all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling in the UK", just
>>>> as police officers are "interested in crime in the UK" whilst being
>>>> determined to do all that they can to stamp it out.
>
>>> And, once they are successful, what will they do then? Much like the cyclophobes here, they will look rather pointless. Still, interesting that you choose to equate cycling with crime. Doubtless purely random.
>
>> What is more interesting is that you are the second poster within a week who
>> has so pointedly demonstrated that you don't understood the meaning of the
>> word "equate".

Oh, what a mistake to make! Editing, my dear chap... editing...

>> Cycling and crime were and are not being "equated". They are being
>> analogised. In order to make the analogy, it was necessary to use a parallel
>> subject where "interest" can easily be accepted as including "opposition to".
>> If you can think of a better analogy which makes that point as forcefully,
>> please feel free to add it to mine.
>> In the meantime, I can only suggest looking up "equate" and checking what it
>> really means. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't mean "compare".

> Definition:- "To consider, treat, or depict as equal or equivalent"

Correct. And I'll treat that as an apology.

> You MAY not be aware of what you were doing.

Ah... but I *am*. I am equally aware of what I am *not* doing. And I was and
am not equating cycling and crime. If I *wanted* to equate crime and cycling
(as unlikely as that eventuality may be), please be sure that my meaning
would be clear and not in doubt.

> Others can see.

They might, one supposes, *imagine* that they can see something which simply
isn't there to be seen. There are several posters here who give every sign of
being to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day.

Why can't you just accept - as graciously as is now possible - that you were
simply wrong? You'd be better thought of for it.

> If anybody is bothering to look, here in Tumbleweed Junction.

Squashme

July 6th 12, 04:39 PM

On Friday, July 6, 2012 4:12:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 12:16, Squashme wrote:
>
> > On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:37:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 06/07/2012 10:18, Squashme wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 9:14:00 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> >>>>>> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
> >>>>>>> aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
> >>>>>>> interested to hear from everyone.
> >
> >>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
> >>>>>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
> >>>>>>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
> >>>>>>> know differently...)
> >
> >>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
> >>>>>> in the UK.
> >
> >>>>> you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There is a
> >>>>> difference you thick ****.
> >
> >>>> Is there?
> >>>> One is a mere subset of the other.
> >
> >>>> There cannot be many posters who are interested in every last possible facet
> >>>> of cycling (watching kids on trikes in the park, for instance). Everyone's
> >>>> interest in the subject will have outside parameters. Some will be wider than
> >>>> others. They all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling in the UK", just
> >>>> as police officers are "interested in crime in the UK" whilst being
> >>>> determined to do all that they can to stamp it out.
> >
> >>> And, once they are successful, what will they do then? Much like the cyclophobes here, they will look rather pointless. Still, interesting that you choose to equate cycling with crime. Doubtless purely random.
> >
> >> What is more interesting is that you are the second poster within a week who
> >> has so pointedly demonstrated that you don't understood the meaning of the
> >> word "equate".
>
> Oh, what a mistake to make! Editing, my dear chap... editing...
>
> >> Cycling and crime were and are not being "equated". They are being
> >> analogised. In order to make the analogy, it was necessary to use a parallel
> >> subject where "interest" can easily be accepted as including "opposition to".
> >> If you can think of a better analogy which makes that point as forcefully,
> >> please feel free to add it to mine.
> >> In the meantime, I can only suggest looking up "equate" and checking what it
> >> really means. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't mean "compare".
>
> > Definition:- "To consider, treat, or depict as equal or equivalent"
>
> Correct. And I'll treat that as an apology.
>
> > You MAY not be aware of what you were doing.
>
> Ah... but I *am*. I am equally aware of what I am *not* doing. And I was and
> am not equating cycling and crime. If I *wanted* to equate crime and cycling
> (as unlikely as that eventuality may be), please be sure that my meaning
> would be clear and not in doubt.
>
> > Others can see.
>
> They might, one supposes, *imagine* that they can see something which simply
> isn't there to be seen. There are several posters here who give every sign of
> being to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day.
>
> Why can't you just accept - as graciously as is now possible - that you were
> simply wrong? You'd be better thought of for it.

To quote one JNugent back in September 2010:-

"It doesn't matter what he meant.

It is what he said which caused the comment."

And you have pointed out earlier in the posting that you typed something incorrectly. Nothing wrong with that. We are all human. We do not always understand exactly what we are writing.

jnugent

July 6th 12, 05:14 PM

On 06/07/2012 16:39, Squashme wrote:
> On Friday, July 6, 2012 4:12:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 06/07/2012 12:16, Squashme wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:37:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2012 10:18, Squashme wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 9:14:00 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
>>>>>>>>> aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
>>>>>>>>> interested to hear from everyone.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>>>>>>>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
>>>>>>>>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
>>>>>>>>> know differently...)
>>>
>>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
>>>>>>>> in the UK.
>>>
>>>>>>> you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There is a
>>>>>>> difference you thick ****.
>>>
>>>>>> Is there?
>>>>>> One is a mere subset of the other.
>>>
>>>>>> There cannot be many posters who are interested in every last possible facet
>>>>>> of cycling (watching kids on trikes in the park, for instance). Everyone's
>>>>>> interest in the subject will have outside parameters. Some will be wider than
>>>>>> others. They all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling in the UK", just
>>>>>> as police officers are "interested in crime in the UK" whilst being
>>>>>> determined to do all that they can to stamp it out.
>>>
>>>>> And, once they are successful, what will they do then? Much like the cyclophobes here, they will look rather pointless. Still, interesting that you choose to equate cycling with crime. Doubtless purely random.
>>>
>>>> What is more interesting is that you are the second poster within a week who
>>>> has so pointedly demonstrated that you don't understood the meaning of the
>>>> word "equate".
>>
>> Oh, what a mistake to make! Editing, my dear chap... editing...
>>
>>>> Cycling and crime were and are not being "equated". They are being
>>>> analogised. In order to make the analogy, it was necessary to use a parallel
>>>> subject where "interest" can easily be accepted as including "opposition to".
>>>> If you can think of a better analogy which makes that point as forcefully,
>>>> please feel free to add it to mine.
>>>> In the meantime, I can only suggest looking up "equate" and checking what it
>>>> really means. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't mean "compare".
>>
>>> Definition:- "To consider, treat, or depict as equal or equivalent"
>>
>> Correct. And I'll treat that as an apology.
>>
>>> You MAY not be aware of what you were doing.
>>
>> Ah... but I *am*. I am equally aware of what I am *not* doing. And I was and
>> am not equating cycling and crime. If I *wanted* to equate crime and cycling
>> (as unlikely as that eventuality may be), please be sure that my meaning
>> would be clear and not in doubt.
>>
>>> Others can see.
>>
>> They might, one supposes, *imagine* that they can see something which simply
>> isn't there to be seen. There are several posters here who give every sign of
>> being to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day.
>>
>> Why can't you just accept - as graciously as is now possible - that you were
>> simply wrong? You'd be better thought of for it.
>
> To quote one JNugent back in September 2010:-
>
> "It doesn't matter what he meant.
> It is what he said which caused the comment."

And you should read what what I said, not what you imagine (without evidence)
I meant.

> And you have pointed out earlier in the posting that you typed something incorrectly. Nothing wrong with that. We are all human. We do not always understand exactly what we are writing.

Typos aside, I don't do badly at that.

Squashme

July 6th 12, 10:48 PM

On Friday, July 6, 2012 5:14:30 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 16:39, Squashme wrote:
> > On Friday, July 6, 2012 4:12:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 06/07/2012 12:16, Squashme wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:37:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 06/07/2012 10:18, Squashme wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 9:14:00 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>> On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
> >>>>>>>>> aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
> >>>>>>>>> interested to hear from everyone.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
> >>>>>>>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
> >>>>>>>>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
> >>>>>>>>> know differently...)
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
> >>>>>>>> in the UK.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There is a
> >>>>>>> difference you thick ****.
> >>>
> >>>>>> Is there?
> >>>>>> One is a mere subset of the other.
> >>>
> >>>>>> There cannot be many posters who are interested in every last possible facet
> >>>>>> of cycling (watching kids on trikes in the park, for instance). Everyone's
> >>>>>> interest in the subject will have outside parameters. Some will be wider than
> >>>>>> others. They all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling in the UK", just
> >>>>>> as police officers are "interested in crime in the UK" whilst being
> >>>>>> determined to do all that they can to stamp it out.
> >>>
> >>>>> And, once they are successful, what will they do then? Much like the cyclophobes here, they will look rather pointless. Still, interesting that you choose to equate cycling with crime. Doubtless purely random.
> >>>
> >>>> What is more interesting is that you are the second poster within a week who
> >>>> has so pointedly demonstrated that you don't understood the meaning of the
> >>>> word "equate".
> >>
> >> Oh, what a mistake to make! Editing, my dear chap... editing...
> >>
> >>>> Cycling and crime were and are not being "equated". They are being
> >>>> analogised. In order to make the analogy, it was necessary to use a parallel
> >>>> subject where "interest" can easily be accepted as including "opposition to".
> >>>> If you can think of a better analogy which makes that point as forcefully,
> >>>> please feel free to add it to mine.
> >>>> In the meantime, I can only suggest looking up "equate" and checking what it
> >>>> really means. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't mean "compare".
> >>
> >>> Definition:- "To consider, treat, or depict as equal or equivalent"
> >>
> >> Correct. And I'll treat that as an apology.
> >>
> >>> You MAY not be aware of what you were doing.
> >>
> >> Ah... but I *am*. I am equally aware of what I am *not* doing. And I was and
> >> am not equating cycling and crime. If I *wanted* to equate crime and cycling
> >> (as unlikely as that eventuality may be), please be sure that my meaning
> >> would be clear and not in doubt.
> >>
> >>> Others can see.
> >>
> >> They might, one supposes, *imagine* that they can see something which simply
> >> isn't there to be seen. There are several posters here who give every sign of
> >> being to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day.
> >>
> >> Why can't you just accept - as graciously as is now possible - that you were
> >> simply wrong? You'd be better thought of for it.
> >
> > To quote one JNugent back in September 2010:-
> >
> > "It doesn't matter what he meant.
> > It is what he said which caused the comment."
>
> And you should read what what I said, not what you imagine (without evidence)
> I meant.
>
> > And you have pointed out earlier in the posting that you typed something incorrectly. Nothing wrong with that. We are all human. We do not always understand exactly what we are writing.
>
> Typos aside, I don't do badly at that.

How could you know?

Justin[_3_]

July 8th 12, 09:54 AM

On 6 jul, 23:48, Squashme > wrote:
> On Friday, July 6, 2012 5:14:30 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> > On 06/07/2012 16:39, Squashme wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 6, 2012 4:12:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> > >> On 06/07/2012 12:16, Squashme wrote:
>
> > >>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:37:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> > >>>> On 06/07/2012 10:18, Squashme wrote:
> > >>>>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 9:14:00 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
> > >>>>>>>>> aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
> > >>>>>>>>> interested to hear from everyone.
>
> > >>>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
> > >>>>>>>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
> > >>>>>>>>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
> > >>>>>>>>> know differently...)
>
> > >>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
> > >>>>>>>> in the UK.
>
> > >>>>>>> you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There is a
> > >>>>>>> difference you thick ****.
>
> > >>>>>> Is there?
> > >>>>>> One is a mere subset of the other.
>
> > >>>>>> There cannot be many posters who are interested in every last possible facet
> > >>>>>> of cycling (watching kids on trikes in the park, for instance). Everyone's
> > >>>>>> interest in the subject will have outside parameters. Some will be wider than
> > >>>>>> others. They all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling in the UK", just
> > >>>>>> as police officers are "interested in crime in the UK" whilst being
> > >>>>>> determined to do all that they can to stamp it out.
>
> > >>>>> And, once they are successful, what will they do then? Much like the cyclophobes here, they will look rather pointless. Still, interesting that you choose to equate cycling with crime. Doubtless purely random.
>
> > >>>> What is more interesting is that you are the second poster within a week who
> > >>>> has so pointedly demonstrated that you don't understood the meaning of the
> > >>>> word "equate".
>
> > >> Oh, what a mistake to make! Editing, my dear chap... editing...
>
> > >>>> Cycling and crime were and are not being "equated". They are being
> > >>>> analogised. In order to make the analogy, it was necessary to use a parallel
> > >>>> subject where "interest" can easily be accepted as including "opposition to".
> > >>>> If you can think of a better analogy which makes that point as forcefully,
> > >>>> please feel free to add it to mine.
> > >>>> In the meantime, I can only suggest looking up "equate" and checking what it
> > >>>> really means. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't mean "compare".
>
> > >>> Definition:- "To consider, treat, or depict as equal or equivalent"
>
> > >> Correct. And I'll treat that as an apology.
>
> > >>> You MAY not be aware of what you were doing.
>
> > >> Ah... but I *am*. I am equally aware of what I am *not* doing. And I was and
> > >> am not equating cycling and crime. If I *wanted* to equate crime and cycling
> > >> (as unlikely as that eventuality may be), please be sure that my meaning
> > >> would be clear and not in doubt.
>
> > >>> Others can see.
>
> > >> They might, one supposes, *imagine* that they can see something which simply
> > >> isn't there to be seen. There are several posters here who give every sign of
> > >> being to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day.
>
> > >> Why can't you just accept - as graciously as is now possible - that you were
> > >> simply wrong? You'd be better thought of for it.
>
> > > To quote one JNugent back in September 2010:-
>
> > > "It doesn't matter what he meant.
> > > It is what he said which caused the comment."
>
> > And you should read what what I said, not what you imagine (without evidence)
> > I meant.
>
> > > And you have pointed out earlier in the posting that you typed something incorrectly. Nothing wrong with that. We are all human. We do not always understand exactly what we are writing.
>
> > Typos aside, I don't do badly at that.
>
> How could you know?

I like to see the trolls' (Cheerless, Dave, Judith etc) pubescent,
little - England, indignant and ill-informed apoplexy.

Peter Keller[_3_]

July 8th 12, 10:48 AM

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 01:54:50 -0700, Justin wrote:

> On 6 jul, 23:48, Squashme > wrote:
>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 5:14:30 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> > On 06/07/2012 16:39, Squashme wrote:
>> > > On Friday, July 6, 2012 4:12:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> > >> On 06/07/2012 12:16, Squashme wrote:
>>
>> > >>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:37:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> > >>>> On 06/07/2012 10:18, Squashme wrote:
>> > >>>>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 9:14:00 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> > >>>>>> On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
>> > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts
>> > >>>>>>>>> here. This is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual)
>> > >>>>>>>>> cyclists, but I'd be interested to hear from everyone.
>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in
>> > >>>>>>>>> discussing cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't
>> > >>>>>>>>> read this newsgroup may naturally assume that that is why
>> > >>>>>>>>> everyone posts here, but alas, we know differently...)
>>
>> > >>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in
>> > >>>>>>>> discussing cycling in the UK.
>>
>> > >>>>>>> you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There
>> > >>>>>>> is a difference you thick ****.
>>
>> > >>>>>> Is there?
>> > >>>>>> One is a mere subset of the other.
>>
>> > >>>>>> There cannot be many posters who are interested in every last
>> > >>>>>> possible facet of cycling (watching kids on trikes in the
>> > >>>>>> park, for instance). Everyone's interest in the subject will
>> > >>>>>> have outside parameters. Some will be wider than others. They
>> > >>>>>> all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling in the UK",
>> > >>>>>> just as police officers are "interested in crime in the UK"
>> > >>>>>> whilst being determined to do all that they can to stamp it
>> > >>>>>> out.
>>
>> > >>>>> And, once they are successful, what will they do then? Much
>> > >>>>> like the cyclophobes here, they will look rather pointless.
>> > >>>>> Still, interesting that you choose to equate cycling with
>> > >>>>> crime. Doubtless purely random.
>>
>> > >>>> What is more interesting is that you are the second poster
>> > >>>> within a week who has so pointedly demonstrated that you don't
>> > >>>> understood the meaning of the word "equate".
>>
>> > >> Oh, what a mistake to make! Editing, my dear chap... editing...
>>
>> > >>>> Cycling and crime were and are not being "equated". They are
>> > >>>> being analogised. In order to make the analogy, it was necessary
>> > >>>> to use a parallel subject where "interest" can easily be
>> > >>>> accepted as including "opposition to". If you can think of a
>> > >>>> better analogy which makes that point as forcefully, please feel
>> > >>>> free to add it to mine.
>> > >>>> In the meantime, I can only suggest looking up "equate" and
>> > >>>> checking what it really means. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't
>> > >>>> mean "compare".
>>
>> > >>> Definition:- "To consider, treat, or depict as equal or
>> > >>> equivalent"
>>
>> > >> Correct. And I'll treat that as an apology.
>>
>> > >>> You MAY not be aware of what you were doing.
>>
>> > >> Ah... but I *am*. I am equally aware of what I am *not* doing. And
>> > >> I was and am not equating cycling and crime. If I *wanted* to
>> > >> equate crime and cycling (as unlikely as that eventuality may be),
>> > >> please be sure that my meaning would be clear and not in doubt.
>>
>> > >>> Others can see.
>>
>> > >> They might, one supposes, *imagine* that they can see something
>> > >> which simply isn't there to be seen. There are several posters
>> > >> here who give every sign of being to believe six impossible things
>> > >> before breakfast every day.
>>
>> > >> Why can't you just accept - as graciously as is now possible -
>> > >> that you were simply wrong? You'd be better thought of for it.
>>
>> > > To quote one JNugent back in September 2010:-
>>
>> > > "It doesn't matter what he meant.
>> > > It is what he said which caused the comment."
>>
>> > And you should read what what I said, not what you imagine (without
>> > evidence) I meant.
>>
>> > > And you have pointed out earlier in the posting that you typed
>> > > something incorrectly. Nothing wrong with that. We are all human.
>> > > We do not always understand exactly what we are writing.
>>
>> > Typos aside, I don't do badly at that.
>>
>> How could you know?
>
> I like to see the trolls' (Cheerless, Dave, Judith etc) pubescent,
> little - England, indignant and ill-informed apoplexy.

I think you have already seen them.

--
Never trust a man in a suit.

Squashme

July 8th 12, 11:26 AM

On Sunday, July 8, 2012 10:48:08 AM UTC+1, Peter Keller wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 01:54:50 -0700, Justin wrote:
>
> > On 6 jul, 23:48, Squashme > wrote:
> >> On Friday, July 6, 2012 5:14:30 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> > On 06/07/2012 16:39, Squashme wrote:
> >> > > On Friday, July 6, 2012 4:12:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> > >> On 06/07/2012 12:16, Squashme wrote:
> >>
> >> > >>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:37:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> > >>>> On 06/07/2012 10:18, Squashme wrote:
> >> > >>>>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 9:14:00 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> > >>>>>> On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
> >> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>>> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
> >>
> >> > >>>>>>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts
> >> > >>>>>>>>> here. This is aimed at the trolls more than the (actual)
> >> > >>>>>>>>> cyclists, but I'd be interested to hear from everyone.
> >>
> >> > >>>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in
> >> > >>>>>>>>> discussing cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't
> >> > >>>>>>>>> read this newsgroup may naturally assume that that is why
> >> > >>>>>>>>> everyone posts here, but alas, we know differently...)
> >>
> >> > >>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in
> >> > >>>>>>>> discussing cycling in the UK.
> >>
> >> > >>>>>>> you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There
> >> > >>>>>>> is a difference you thick ****.
> >>
> >> > >>>>>> Is there?
> >> > >>>>>> One is a mere subset of the other.
> >>
> >> > >>>>>> There cannot be many posters who are interested in every last
> >> > >>>>>> possible facet of cycling (watching kids on trikes in the
> >> > >>>>>> park, for instance). Everyone's interest in the subject will
> >> > >>>>>> have outside parameters. Some will be wider than others. They
> >> > >>>>>> all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling in the UK",
> >> > >>>>>> just as police officers are "interested in crime in the UK"
> >> > >>>>>> whilst being determined to do all that they can to stamp it
> >> > >>>>>> out.
> >>
> >> > >>>>> And, once they are successful, what will they do then? Much
> >> > >>>>> like the cyclophobes here, they will look rather pointless.
> >> > >>>>> Still, interesting that you choose to equate cycling with
> >> > >>>>> crime. Doubtless purely random.
> >>
> >> > >>>> What is more interesting is that you are the second poster
> >> > >>>> within a week who has so pointedly demonstrated that you don't
> >> > >>>> understood the meaning of the word "equate".
> >>
> >> > >> Oh, what a mistake to make! Editing, my dear chap... editing...
> >>
> >> > >>>> Cycling and crime were and are not being "equated". They are
> >> > >>>> being analogised. In order to make the analogy, it was necessary
> >> > >>>> to use a parallel subject where "interest" can easily be
> >> > >>>> accepted as including "opposition to". If you can think of a
> >> > >>>> better analogy which makes that point as forcefully, please feel
> >> > >>>> free to add it to mine.
> >> > >>>> In the meantime, I can only suggest looking up "equate" and
> >> > >>>> checking what it really means. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't
> >> > >>>> mean "compare".
> >>
> >> > >>> Definition:- "To consider, treat, or depict as equal or
> >> > >>> equivalent"
> >>
> >> > >> Correct. And I'll treat that as an apology.
> >>
> >> > >>> You MAY not be aware of what you were doing.
> >>
> >> > >> Ah... but I *am*. I am equally aware of what I am *not* doing. And
> >> > >> I was and am not equating cycling and crime. If I *wanted* to
> >> > >> equate crime and cycling (as unlikely as that eventuality may be),
> >> > >> please be sure that my meaning would be clear and not in doubt.
> >>
> >> > >>> Others can see.
> >>
> >> > >> They might, one supposes, *imagine* that they can see something
> >> > >> which simply isn't there to be seen. There are several posters
> >> > >> here who give every sign of being to believe six impossible things
> >> > >> before breakfast every day.
> >>
> >> > >> Why can't you just accept - as graciously as is now possible -
> >> > >> that you were simply wrong? You'd be better thought of for it.
> >>
> >> > > To quote one JNugent back in September 2010:-
> >>
> >> > > "It doesn't matter what he meant.
> >> > > It is what he said which caused the comment."
> >>
> >> > And you should read what what I said, not what you imagine (without
> >> > evidence) I meant.
> >>
> >> > > And you have pointed out earlier in the posting that you typed
> >> > > something incorrectly. Nothing wrong with that. We are all human.
> >> > > We do not always understand exactly what we are writing.
> >>
> >> > Typos aside, I don't do badly at that.
> >>
> >> How could you know?
> >
> > I like to see the trolls' (Cheerless, Dave, Judith etc) pubescent,
> > little - England, indignant and ill-informed apoplexy.
>
> I think you have already seen them.
>

But Iesus sayde: Father, forgeue them, for they wote not what they do.

(Well, it's Sunday, isn't it?)

Peter Keller[_3_]

July 9th 12, 09:18 AM

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 03:26:10 -0700, Squashme wrote:

> On Sunday, July 8, 2012 10:48:08 AM UTC+1, Peter Keller wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 01:54:50 -0700, Justin wrote:
>>
>> > On 6 jul, 23:48, Squashme > wrote:
>> >> On Friday, July 6, 2012 5:14:30 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> >> > On 06/07/2012 16:39, Squashme wrote:
>> >> > > On Friday, July 6, 2012 4:12:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> >> > >> On 06/07/2012 12:16, Squashme wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:37:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> >> > >>>> On 06/07/2012 10:18, Squashme wrote:
>> >> > >>>>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 9:14:00 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> >> > >>>>>> On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:
>> >> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
>> >> > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> > >>>>>>>> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >>>>>>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster
>> >> > >>>>>>>>> posts here. This is aimed at the trolls more than the
>> >> > >>>>>>>>> (actual) cyclists, but I'd be interested to hear from
>> >> > >>>>>>>>> everyone.
>> >>
>> >> > >>>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in
>> >> > >>>>>>>>> discussing cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't
>> >> > >>>>>>>>> read this newsgroup may naturally assume that that is
>> >> > >>>>>>>>> why everyone posts here, but alas, we know
>> >> > >>>>>>>>> differently...)
>> >>
>> >> > >>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in
>> >> > >>>>>>>> discussing cycling in the UK.
>> >>
>> >> > >>>>>>> you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK.
>> >> > >>>>>>> There is a difference you thick ****.
>> >>
>> >> > >>>>>> Is there?
>> >> > >>>>>> One is a mere subset of the other.
>> >>
>> >> > >>>>>> There cannot be many posters who are interested in every
>> >> > >>>>>> last possible facet of cycling (watching kids on trikes in
>> >> > >>>>>> the park, for instance). Everyone's interest in the subject
>> >> > >>>>>> will have outside parameters. Some will be wider than
>> >> > >>>>>> others. They all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling
>> >> > >>>>>> in the UK", just as police officers are "interested in
>> >> > >>>>>> crime in the UK" whilst being determined to do all that
>> >> > >>>>>> they can to stamp it out.
>> >>
>> >> > >>>>> And, once they are successful, what will they do then? Much
>> >> > >>>>> like the cyclophobes here, they will look rather pointless.
>> >> > >>>>> Still, interesting that you choose to equate cycling with
>> >> > >>>>> crime. Doubtless purely random.
>> >>
>> >> > >>>> What is more interesting is that you are the second poster
>> >> > >>>> within a week who has so pointedly demonstrated that you
>> >> > >>>> don't understood the meaning of the word "equate".
>> >>
>> >> > >> Oh, what a mistake to make! Editing, my dear chap... editing...
>> >>
>> >> > >>>> Cycling and crime were and are not being "equated". They are
>> >> > >>>> being analogised. In order to make the analogy, it was
>> >> > >>>> necessary to use a parallel subject where "interest" can
>> >> > >>>> easily be accepted as including "opposition to". If you can
>> >> > >>>> think of a better analogy which makes that point as
>> >> > >>>> forcefully, please feel free to add it to mine.
>> >> > >>>> In the meantime, I can only suggest looking up "equate" and
>> >> > >>>> checking what it really means. I'll give you a hint: it
>> >> > >>>> doesn't mean "compare".
>> >>
>> >> > >>> Definition:- "To consider, treat, or depict as equal or
>> >> > >>> equivalent"
>> >>
>> >> > >> Correct. And I'll treat that as an apology.
>> >>
>> >> > >>> You MAY not be aware of what you were doing.
>> >>
>> >> > >> Ah... but I *am*. I am equally aware of what I am *not* doing.
>> >> > >> And I was and am not equating cycling and crime. If I *wanted*
>> >> > >> to equate crime and cycling (as unlikely as that eventuality
>> >> > >> may be), please be sure that my meaning would be clear and not
>> >> > >> in doubt.
>> >>
>> >> > >>> Others can see.
>> >>
>> >> > >> They might, one supposes, *imagine* that they can see something
>> >> > >> which simply isn't there to be seen. There are several posters
>> >> > >> here who give every sign of being to believe six impossible
>> >> > >> things before breakfast every day.
>> >>
>> >> > >> Why can't you just accept - as graciously as is now possible -
>> >> > >> that you were simply wrong? You'd be better thought of for it.
>> >>
>> >> > > To quote one JNugent back in September 2010:-
>> >>
>> >> > > "It doesn't matter what he meant.
>> >> > > It is what he said which caused the comment."
>> >>
>> >> > And you should read what what I said, not what you imagine
>> >> > (without evidence) I meant.
>> >>
>> >> > > And you have pointed out earlier in the posting that you typed
>> >> > > something incorrectly. Nothing wrong with that. We are all
>> >> > > human. We do not always understand exactly what we are writing.
>> >>
>> >> > Typos aside, I don't do badly at that.
>> >>
>> >> How could you know?
>> >
>> > I like to see the trolls' (Cheerless, Dave, Judith etc) pubescent,
>> > little - England, indignant and ill-informed apoplexy.
>>
>> I think you have already seen them.
>>
>>
> But Iesus sayde: Father, forgeue them, for they wote not what they do.
>
> (Well, it's Sunday, isn't it?)

I love it! Middle English is such a lovely language. It saved us from
the Normans and Plantagenants!

--
Never trust a man in a suit.

M Wicks

July 9th 12, 05:46 PM

On Jul 6, 5:14*pm, JNugent > wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 16:39, Squashme wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Friday, July 6, 2012 4:12:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 06/07/2012 12:16, Squashme wrote:
>
> >>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:37:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 06/07/2012 10:18, Squashme wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 9:14:00 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>> On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
> >>>>>>>>> aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
> >>>>>>>>> interested to hear from everyone.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
> >>>>>>>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
> >>>>>>>>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
> >>>>>>>>> know differently...)
>
> >>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
> >>>>>>>> in the UK.
>
> >>>>>>> you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There is a
> >>>>>>> difference you thick ****.
>
> >>>>>> Is there?
> >>>>>> One is a mere subset of the other.
>
> >>>>>> There cannot be many posters who are interested in every last possible facet
> >>>>>> of cycling (watching kids on trikes in the park, for instance). Everyone's
> >>>>>> interest in the subject will have outside parameters. Some will be wider than
> >>>>>> others. They all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling in the UK", just
> >>>>>> as police officers are "interested in crime in the UK" whilst being
> >>>>>> determined to do all that they can to stamp it out.
>
> >>>>> And, once they are successful, what will they do then? Much like the cyclophobes here, they will look rather pointless. Still, interesting that you choose to equate cycling with crime. Doubtless purely random.
>
> >>>> What is more interesting is that you are the second poster within a week who
> >>>> has so pointedly demonstrated that you don't understood the meaning of the
> >>>> word "equate".
>
> >> Oh, what a mistake to make! Editing, my dear chap... editing...
>
> >>>> Cycling and crime were and are not being "equated". They are being
> >>>> analogised. In order to make the analogy, it was necessary to use a parallel
> >>>> subject where "interest" can easily be accepted as including "opposition to".
> >>>> If you can think of a better analogy which makes that point as forcefully,
> >>>> please feel free to add it to mine.
> >>>> In the meantime, I can only suggest looking up "equate" and checking what it
> >>>> really means. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't mean "compare".
>
> >>> Definition:- "To consider, treat, or depict as equal or equivalent"
>
> >> Correct. And I'll treat that as an apology.
>
> >>> You MAY not be aware of what you were doing.
>
> >> Ah... but I *am*. I am equally aware of what I am *not* doing. And I was and
> >> am not equating cycling and crime. If I *wanted* to equate crime and cycling
> >> (as unlikely as that eventuality may be), please be sure that my meaning
> >> would be clear and not in doubt.
>
> >>> Others can see.
>
> >> They might, one supposes, *imagine* that they can see something which simply
> >> isn't there to be seen. There are several posters here who give every sign of
> >> being to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day.
>
> >> Why can't you just accept - as graciously as is now possible - that you were
> >> simply wrong? You'd be better thought of for it.
>
> > To quote one JNugent back in September 2010:-
>
> > "It doesn't matter what he meant.
> > It is what he said which caused the comment."
>
> And you should read what what I said, not what you imagine (without evidence)
> I meant.
>
> > And you have pointed out earlier in the posting that you typed something incorrectly. Nothing wrong with that. We are all human. We do not always understand exactly what we are writing.
>
> Typos aside, I don't do badly at that.

I don't think that was a very good post. Can you see why yet?

jnugent

July 9th 12, 07:22 PM

On 09/07/2012 17:46, M Wicks wrote:
> On Jul 6, 5:14 pm, JNugent > wrote:
>> On 06/07/2012 16:39, Squashme wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 4:12:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2012 12:16, Squashme wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:37:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/07/2012 10:18, Squashme wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 9:14:00 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06/07/2012 08:30, Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:39 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/07/2012 00:53, M Wicks wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to know, quite simply, why each poster posts here. This is
>>>>>>>>>>> aimed at the trolls more than the (actual) cyclists, but I'd be
>>>>>>>>>>> interested to hear from everyone.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing
>>>>>>>>>>> cycling in the UK. (A naive person who hadn't read this newsgroup may
>>>>>>>>>>> naturally assume that that is why everyone posts here, but alas, we
>>>>>>>>>>> know differently...)
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I post here because, shock horror, I am interested in discussing cycling
>>>>>>>>>> in the UK.
>>
>>>>>>>>> you are interested in destroying bicycling in the UK. There is a
>>>>>>>>> difference you thick ****.
>>
>>>>>>>> Is there?
>>>>>>>> One is a mere subset of the other.
>>
>>>>>>>> There cannot be many posters who are interested in every last possible facet
>>>>>>>> of cycling (watching kids on trikes in the park, for instance). Everyone's
>>>>>>>> interest in the subject will have outside parameters. Some will be wider than
>>>>>>>> others. They all qualify as "interest in discussing cycling in the UK", just
>>>>>>>> as police officers are "interested in crime in the UK" whilst being
>>>>>>>> determined to do all that they can to stamp it out.
>>
>>>>>>> And, once they are successful, what will they do then? Much like the cyclophobes here, they will look rather pointless. Still, interesting that you choose to equate cycling with crime. Doubtless purely random.
>>
>>>>>> What is more interesting is that you are the second poster within a week who
>>>>>> has so pointedly demonstrated that you don't understood the meaning of the
>>>>>> word "equate".
>>
>>>> Oh, what a mistake to make! Editing, my dear chap... editing...
>>
>>>>>> Cycling and crime were and are not being "equated". They are being
>>>>>> analogised. In order to make the analogy, it was necessary to use a parallel
>>>>>> subject where "interest" can easily be accepted as including "opposition to".
>>>>>> If you can think of a better analogy which makes that point as forcefully,
>>>>>> please feel free to add it to mine.
>>>>>> In the meantime, I can only suggest looking up "equate" and checking what it
>>>>>> really means. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't mean "compare".
>>
>>>>> Definition:- "To consider, treat, or depict as equal or equivalent"
>>
>>>> Correct. And I'll treat that as an apology.
>>
>>>>> You MAY not be aware of what you were doing.
>>
>>>> Ah... but I *am*. I am equally aware of what I am *not* doing. And I was and
>>>> am not equating cycling and crime. If I *wanted* to equate crime and cycling
>>>> (as unlikely as that eventuality may be), please be sure that my meaning
>>>> would be clear and not in doubt.
>>
>>>>> Others can see.
>>
>>>> They might, one supposes, *imagine* that they can see something which simply
>>>> isn't there to be seen. There are several posters here who give every sign of
>>>> being to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day.
>>
>>>> Why can't you just accept - as graciously as is now possible - that you were
>>>> simply wrong? You'd be better thought of for it.
>>
>>> To quote one JNugent back in September 2010:-
>>
>>> "It doesn't matter what he meant.
>>> It is what he said which caused the comment."
>>
>> And you should read what what I said, not what you imagine (without evidence)
>> I meant.
>>
>>> And you have pointed out earlier in the posting that you typed something incorrectly. Nothing wrong with that. We are all human. We do not always understand exactly what we are writing.
>>
>> Typos aside, I don't do badly at that.
>
> I don't think that was a very good post. Can you see why yet?

I'm sure you know how just highly I value your opinion of my language skills.