#91
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:32:19 +0000, Judith wrote:
-- a silly old sod Even though evidence of their truly basal position was known (Stensiö, 1968), the lack of fossils made it difficult for people who study fish evolution to accept that the Myxini could have evolved so long ago. -- An oft-repeated lie is still a lie. |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On Jan 16, 1:21*am, JNugent wrote:
On 15/01/2012 20:47, dr6092 wrote: *wrote: spoke mon wrote: But i'm pleased I got the bike now, it will save me quite a lot of money and the exercise will be good for me. *Also means the wife can use the car during the week if she wants to. Most cyclists are apparently rather rich. If you can't at least afford two cars, are you sure you're ready for membership of the cycling fraternity? Not needing to have two is why they're rich. You've missed the point by a fair margin there. Rather less wide than yours. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On Jan 16, 5:12*pm, JNugent wrote:
You are surely wrong. "Most people" see more than that depreciate off the value of their car every year. Flat screen TVs must be depreciating fast as well (though not by £1,000 pa). They can afford it. If they couldn't, they er... wouldn't. Not so much now. You never heard of the credit crunch on your planet? |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On 16/01/2012 23:05, dr6092 wrote:
wrote: dr6092 wrote: wrote: spoke mon wrote: But i'm pleased I got the bike now, it will save me quite a lot of money and the exercise will be good for me. Also means the wife can use the car during the week if she wants to. Most cyclists are apparently rather rich. If you can't at least afford two cars, are you sure you're ready for membership of the cycling fraternity? Not needing to have two is why they're rich. You've missed the point by a fair margin there. Rather less wide than yours. I expect that the familiar general word order and sentence construction you used there makes you believe that that was some sort of witty rejoinder. In fact, it is simply a string of words without any meaning rooted in reality. See whether you can work out why that is. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On Jan 16, 11:51*am, al Mossah wrote:
*And beware these frosty mornings for ice; I had my first locked wheel this morning; interesting when approaching a roundabout; learn which are the slopes where you need to brake really early. *Using just one brake in these circumstances is advised; keeps the other wheel turning to maintain stability. For the same total braking, when distributed between two wheels, lockup is less likely to occur. Weight transfer is not an issue in such circumstances. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On 16/01/2012 23:11, dr6092 wrote:
On Jan 16, 5:12 pm, wrote: You are surely wrong. "Most people" see more than that depreciate off the value of their car every year. Flat screen TVs must be depreciating fast as well (though not by £1,000 pa). They can afford it. If they couldn't, they er... wouldn't. Not so much now. You never heard of the credit crunch on your planet? Has it stopped cars and consumer electronics from depreciating faster than Labour election posters? |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On 16/01/2012 17:37, JNugent wrote:
On 16/01/2012 17:26, The Weasel wrote: On 16/01/2012 17:12, JNugent wrote: On 16/01/2012 13:04, The Weasel wrote: On 16/01/2012 01:21, JNugent wrote: On 15/01/2012 20:47, dr6092 wrote: wrote: spoke mon wrote: But i'm pleased I got the bike now, it will save me quite a lot of money and the exercise will be good for me. Also means the wife can use the car during the week if she wants to. Most cyclists are apparently rather rich. If you can't at least afford two cars, are you sure you're ready for membership of the cycling fraternity? Not needing to have two is why they're rich. You've missed the point by a fair margin there. Ability to afford is highly aligned to desire. Is it? I could afford a £5,000 bicycle. Several of them, in fact. But do I desire one? What I can afford and the next man can afford will differ considerably. Most people cannot afford a new £1000 bike every year. You are surely wrong. "Most people" see more than that depreciate off the value of their car every year. Flat screen TVs must be depreciating fast as well (though not by £1,000 pa). They can afford it. If they couldn't, they er... wouldn't. The reason they don't buy a £1,000 bike annually is that [delete as appropriate] (a) they don't want a bike at all (just throwing that out there for discussion), (b) don't want one that badly or are prepared to (c) buy one which is cheaper. I can, but I can’t really afford a second car. No shame in that. The cost of running a car is more than £1,000 a year. Whether you can afford a second car is a completely separate issue from whether you would like one. Disagree, I could actually afford a second car if I wanted one. But the fact of the matter is that I don’t want one. I do not want the car, and I do not want the costs that would go with it. Actually, you've just agreed with me. Probably, but the standard argument for being ‘unwilling to pay for’ for is ‘I can’t afford’. Perhaps that really shows how the use of ‘can’t afford’ gets abused and used as a substitute. -- The Weasel |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On Jan 16, 11:11*pm, dr6092 wrote:
On Jan 16, 5:12*pm, JNugent wrote: You are surely wrong. "Most people" see more than that depreciate off the value of their car every year. Flat screen TVs must be depreciating fast as well (though not by £1,000 pa). They can afford it. If they couldn't, they er... wouldn't. Not so much now. You never heard of the credit crunch on your planet? Planet Nugent is a mirror image of the real world where cars can beat bicycles on city commutes. I am glad I don't have to read the tedious toad's tripe anymore - killfiles have put paid to him. -- Simon Mason |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:44:32 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote: On Jan 16, 11:11*pm, dr6092 wrote: On Jan 16, 5:12*pm, JNugent wrote: You are surely wrong. "Most people" see more than that depreciate off the value of their car every year. Flat screen TVs must be depreciating fast as well (though not by £1,000 pa). They can afford it. If they couldn't, they er... wouldn't. Not so much now. You never heard of the credit crunch on your planet? Planet Nugent is a mirror image of the real world where cars can beat bicycles on city commutes. I am glad I don't have to read the tedious toad's tripe anymore - killfiles have put paid to him. Yes of course they have :-) I hope you are not missing the heads up that I am giving you in my posts :-) -- Have you noticed how some ******s actually need to tell someone when they have been put in the kill-file? But then of course - the really serious ******s have to remind people periodically; particularly when they have let something slip which shows that they do actually read the "kill-filed" poster. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On 16 jan, 20:04, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:13:16 -0800 (PST), Justin wrote: On 16 jan, 17:03, Judith wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:37:04 -0800 (PST), Justin Clewless wrote: On 16 jan, 13:54, Judith wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:54:57 -0800 (PST), Justin wrote: On 16 jan, 11:30, Judith wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:30:47 -0800 (PST), Justin wrote: snip Dear oh dear - you naughty little porker you. I do not recognise you as Judge, Jury and Police of this newsgroup. You want to attempt that which is incorrect? Go ahead. Incorrect? *In what way? Are you denying using the posting names of: Front Mech Billsgate Ricky Bikebloke Sedentary IgnorantPopulist J.M.Messie I have said - you seem to be a bit of a Porker here. incorrect means wrong Wrong in what way? I see that you are not denying using those names. What a tosser you are. Let's take your posting in this thread: and then of course you were actually caught using the email address *you had registered specifically for the purpose of making out that posts were from me J.M.Messie It is wrong. I invite you to prove your incorrect assertion. No,.no. no *- I caught you. *You then denied it Incorrect. Wrong. Did you rebut my denial with conclusive proof? So I say that you denied it. You say that I am *"incorrect" - and I am *"wrong" - and yet you then acknowledge that you made a denial. Most odd - still we knew that your English was almost as bad as your Dutch. Who are "we". I am pleased you resorted to this again: this is ground upon which I am the expert and about which you have no knowledge. Support your statement about my Dutch. Oops, you can't. Liar |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[melb] tips for week in week out dirt crits? | dej | Australia | 5 | November 23rd 06 09:39 PM |
Helmet week next week on my new Blog & Question about Helmets! | 101bike | Techniques | 8 | March 17th 06 06:05 PM |
RR: The Same as Last Week | Ride-A-Lot | Mountain Biking | 18 | December 22nd 04 12:35 AM |
_Rhymes_With_Orange_ (Week of 9-Feb): Is it bike week? | Jym Dyer | General | 0 | February 10th 04 04:13 PM |
Personal statistic - More miles/week than hours worked/week | Peter Fox | UK | 10 | October 1st 03 10:17 PM |