On 21/05/2015 12:00, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 10:28:17 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Wed, 20 May 2015 15:03:25 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

On Wed, 20 May 2015 10:19:28 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Tue, 19 May 2015 17:01:29 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

On Tue, 19 May 2015 10:08:46 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Mon, 18 May 2015 15:57:47 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

On Mon, 18 May 2015 10:01:04 +0100, Peter Keller

wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2015 23:54:20 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2015 10:46:23 +0100, Peter Keller

wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 2015 22:45:06 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

On Fri, 15 May 2015 12:21:08 +0100, Peter Keller

wrote:

On Fri, 15 May 2015 00:08:17 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

Nobody would say a saddle is more comfortable than a chair, or
we'd have them in our houses.

Bull****.
I only need to find one person who says a saddle is more
comfortable then a chair to prove you are a liar.

You need to find one person who sits on one instead of an
armchair in their living room. Even then, you may find the odd
freak on a BDSM site. You need to find a handful at least.

Overpopulated. Verging on prison cell. A cyclists, who
enjoys fresh air and countryside, should appreciate this.

So bicycling is great?

Not in cities.

You are entitled to your opinion.

A city is an eyesore. There is no fresh air and no scenery. The
inside of your car looks better.

What car?

Any car beats a city.

Not relevant in my case.

You're the one talking about cities and bicycles.

Cities and bicycles are not mutually incompatible.
So your statements are irrelevant.

The car prevents you being exposed to the ugly city.

My city is beautiful.
I have never seen your car.

No city is beautiful. They're concrete. Beautiful is trees etc.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Peoples opinions vary.