On 12/12/2018 17:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 15:34, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2018 14:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 10:52, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very
few exceptions.

The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on
the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as
some of them find to accept that, especially when the
risk accrues to other people who are doing such
outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto
the footway, or crossing the road.


...

Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever there
was one] said:

"Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions".

And I responded:

"The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other
hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to
accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who
are doing such outrageous [things] such as walking out of the garden
gates onto the footway, or crossing the road".

I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to the use
of the word "or".

Yes, it's still there at the top, never snipped. You admit that
Simon's statement of fact made you think about two publicised events.
Then you must think there is a connection. Blether and bluster as
much as you will though it is always in your nature to make a mistake
then try and cover it with an exponential increase in the number of
words.

There was no "connection" betweare waste of space.en the cases except
for the most obvious and non-controversial one: cyclists. You know,
those scofflaw chavs (most of 'em) for whom no rule matters and
neither does the safety or convenience of any of their fellow citizens.

I'd rather have not had to be so blunt, but you did insist.

Here's your chance. What point were you trying to make by replying to
Simon? Try to leave out irrelevant stuff.

Other than the very obvious - the fact that cyclists cannot be
prosecuted for speeding does not mean that they can't and don't cause
great harm - you mean?

No point replying to Simon.

If you say so. But you saw it. And now you understand what was being
said, you behave like the dog who has caught the car tyre when the
lights turned red and slinks away, tail between legs, because he didn't
know what to do next anyway.

Just a Pavlov response. Does it also make you dribble?

That's a bit better... but not in the same league as your previous
attempt (which is still on course for a decisive win in Non-Sequitur of
the Year 2018).