Nice to see cyclists fighting back.

Brian Robertson wrote:
The Manchester Evening News, actually.

I was fascinated by this thread - all I can see is just 15 posts from
yourself. In reading your posts, I can see that the trolls have been at it
again. They've done quite a good job in drawing you in under various
guises. And from what I can see in your posts, they have contributed very
little constructive comment to the discussion, and look as though they are
trying to wind you up.
I would consider very seriously whether your want to continue 'feeding the
trolls'.

--
Iain

On 21/09/2013 14:28, Iain wrote:
Brian Robertson wrote:
The Manchester Evening News, actually.

I was fascinated by this thread - all I can see is just 15 posts from
yourself. In reading your posts, I can see that the trolls have been at it
again. They've done quite a good job in drawing you in under various
guises. And from what I can see in your posts, they have contributed very
little constructive comment to the discussion, and look as though they are
trying to wind you up.
I would consider very seriously whether your want to continue 'feeding the
trolls'.


I am just doing this between other things. There isn't anything else on
here other than the trolls. I suggested ignoring them and didn't get a
scrap of interest. So the least I can is to make it obvious to new
people the group exactly what they are letting themselves in for.

"Brian Roberts0n" wrote in message
...

No point. You would get away with it on the grounds of diminished
responsibility.

No, I would get away with it on the grounds that you are a cowardly little
**** who hides behind a screen name.

Exactly the same as you, then, except he doesn't gob off at people and
threaten them. If I posted as "Tarquin Appleby", does that mean my real name
is Tarquin Appleby?

Your real name could be Terence Appleby for all anyone knows.

You're the only one round here who keeps changing his username, that's about
the fourth time. What are you trying to hide from, coward?

On 21/09/2013 16:23, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Roberts0n" wrote in message
...

No point. You would get away with it on the grounds of diminished
responsibility.

No, I would get away with it on the grounds that you are a cowardly
little **** who hides behind a screen name.

Exactly the same as you, then, except he doesn't gob off at people and
threaten them. If I posted as "Tarquin Appleby", does that mean my real
name is Tarquin Appleby?

Your real name could be Terence Appleby for all anyone knows.

You're the only one round here who keeps changing his username, that's
about the fourth time. What are you trying to hide from, coward?

Just for you, I will call myself Terence Appleby then.

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 13:09:26 +0100, Catrap wrote:

group of morons

It is thoroughly ecstatic to be moronised by the carprat.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...

"Catrap" considered Sat, 21 Sep 2013 13:09:26
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"brianrob1961" wrote in message
m...

On 21/09/2013 11:49, Catrap wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 21/09/2013 11:37, Mr Pounder wrote:
"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...
On 21/09/2013 11:24, Catrap wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message


A tiny, tiny, vocal group of morons does not make a majority. Besides,
who cares? We are winning against motorists on every level. Every cost
associated with your mode of transportation is going through the roof
and it is going to get a lot worse. Meanwhile, you are helping to buy my
bike for me - I forgot to mention in previous posts that you are also
helping to buy my girlfriend's bike for her - and my costs hover around
£100 a year. You are persecuted by the police, your roads are falling
apart, you are virtually banned from town centres on pain of huge
parking fines, the list goes on and on.



You make that sound like it's a good thing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cou...r-parking.html
http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com...p#.Uj2JxIakoYp
http://ertonline.co.uk/ERT%20Latest%...ct-analyst.htm
http://www.fpb.org/news/2386/Don_t_k...cils_urged.htm
http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/r...e_high_street/
http://www.findalondonoffice.co.uk/b...hops-part-one/
http://www.hamiltonadvertiser.co.uk/...1525-21476078/
http://www.fromepeople.co.uk/Parking...ail/story.html

You may notice I've deliberately included links from all over, from
Scotland
to London to Cornwall et al., showing this is not a localised problem but a
national one.
Perhaps you are right after all, perhaps it is a good thing - all us
motorists can shop in comfort in newly built, heated and air conditioned
out
of town malls, leaving you and your ilk to confine their shopping to
charity
shops, takeaways and mobile phone outlets.
You'll have plenty of boarded up shop windows to lean your bikes against,
too.

So you've noticed that the most popular places for shopping are those
that ban motor vehicles entirely.


Well, yes, they don't allow vehicles inside the building, true, but I'm
pretty sure that they would frown upon it if you tried to take a bicycle
into one of your beloved charity/takeaway/mobile phone shops, too.

They do, however, provide hundreds (usually free) car parking spaces within
easy walking distance of the stores, unlike your average charity shop.
Which explains their growing success and the demise of the high street.

Sorry I explained this to you in such simple terms, but I felt it was
necessary.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...

"Catrap" considered Sun, 22 Sep 2013 12:04:24
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
.. .

"Catrap" considered Sat, 21 Sep 2013 13:09:26
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"brianrob1961" wrote in message
om...

On 21/09/2013 11:49, Catrap wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 21/09/2013 11:37, Mr Pounder wrote:
"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...
On 21/09/2013 11:24, Catrap wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message


A tiny, tiny, vocal group of morons does not make a majority. Besides,
who cares? We are winning against motorists on every level. Every cost
associated with your mode of transportation is going through the roof
and it is going to get a lot worse. Meanwhile, you are helping to buy my
bike for me - I forgot to mention in previous posts that you are also
helping to buy my girlfriend's bike for her - and my costs hover around
£100 a year. You are persecuted by the police, your roads are falling
apart, you are virtually banned from town centres on pain of huge
parking fines, the list goes on and on.



You make that sound like it's a good thing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cou...r-parking.html
http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com...p#.Uj2JxIakoYp
http://ertonline.co.uk/ERT%20Latest%...ct-analyst.htm
http://www.fpb.org/news/2386/Don_t_k...cils_urged.htm
http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/r...e_high_street/
http://www.findalondonoffice.co.uk/b...hops-part-one/
http://www.hamiltonadvertiser.co.uk/...1525-21476078/
http://www.fromepeople.co.uk/Parking...ail/story.html

You may notice I've deliberately included links from all over, from
Scotland
to London to Cornwall et al., showing this is not a localised problem but
a
national one.
Perhaps you are right after all, perhaps it is a good thing - all us
motorists can shop in comfort in newly built, heated and air conditioned
out
of town malls, leaving you and your ilk to confine their shopping to
charity
shops, takeaways and mobile phone outlets.
You'll have plenty of boarded up shop windows to lean your bikes against,
too.

So you've noticed that the most popular places for shopping are those
that ban motor vehicles entirely.


Well, yes, they don't allow vehicles inside the building, true, but I'm
pretty sure that they would frown upon it if you tried to take a bicycle
into one of your beloved charity/takeaway/mobile phone shops, too.

They do, however, provide hundreds (usually free) car parking spaces within
easy walking distance of the stores, unlike your average charity shop.
Which explains their growing success and the demise of the high street.

Sorry I explained this to you in such simple terms, but I felt it was
necessary.

The overwhelming majority of shopping precincts and malls do not
provide free car parking (at least this side of the Atlantic).
And quite a few (far more than provide free cage parking) have (free)
bicycle racks within them.

Wrong yet again. There are no out of town shopping centres in my neck of the
woods that charge for parking. In fact there is one slightly further away
that does charge, but that is noticeable by its many empty spaces. That is
exactly what attracts people to them (this, or that side of the Atlantic) .
There would be little point in charging cyclists, as they carry no
identification as to the owner. Who would you ticket?
Another case for the registration of cycles. Thank you for providing that.

On 21/09/2013 12:01, brianrob1961 wrote:


A tiny, tiny, vocal group of morons does not make a majority.

Correct.

And that is one more reason by the ever more shrill demands of (some)
cyclists should be resisted.

On 21/09/2013 13:43, Brian Robertson wrote:

On 21/09/2013 13:41, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...

These are very minor "crimes", if indeed any crime has been committed.
Therefore we must logically assume that cyclists film and report their
friends and neighbours for other petty alleged crimes like leaving
their
bin on the pavement on the wrong day, or using a hosepipe during a ban.
There's nothing to convince me that a cyclist wearing a ****-cam to
catch other people's transgressions while he's cycling, doesn't have
the
same mentality during the rest of his day. Sad, petty losers whose only
joy is to make trouble for other people. And trainspotting.

Answer the question. Would you report a drunk driver or would you not?

Apples and oranges. Try to think of an example of behaviour that is
roughly equivalent to calling someone a ****** on Twitter and I'll
respond.

No, I want to know if you would report someone for drink driving. That
is an issue that effects us all.

Some more than others, eh?

On 21/09/2013 13:46, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:42, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
news
I rather suspected that you were the type to put your hands over your
ears and go "la-la".
This confirms it.

As distinct from motorists who do the equivalent while they are driving.

I've never seen a driver driving with his or her hands over their ears.
Do you have an example that would support your claim?

Sorry, my mistake. Driving in a sealed tin box with music playing and a
blue tooth ear piece shoved in yer lug hole (while listening to
instructions from a satnav) obviously doesn't reduce your ability to
hear what is going on around you.

If it did, it wouldn't matter anything like as much as you seem to think.

Since it is perfectly permissible and lawful to drive even if profoundly
deaf, being able to hear "what is going on around you" cannot possibly
be a legal requirement. And neither should it be one.