Yet another cyclist dies on our unsafe roads, because of the Olympics..

On 10/08/2012 09:03, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 10/08/2012 06:53, Doug wrote:
On Aug 9, 3:36 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2012 08:20, Doug wrote:









On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win
gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with
it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it
involves him.

Bzzzt!

You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more
important than killing cyclists.

Are you serious?

Can you *read*?

Can you explain yourself at all or do you just make empty assertions?


I also think that it is more important to win gold medals, than it is to kill
cyclists.

Exactly so.

In fact, I don't accept that we should attach any priority whatever to
killing cyclists.

On Aug 10, 10:26*am, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2012 09:03, Tony Dragon wrote:









On 10/08/2012 06:53, Doug wrote:
On Aug 9, 3:36 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2012 08:20, Doug wrote:

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win
gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with
it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it
involves him.

Bzzzt!

You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more
important than killing cyclists.

Are you serious?

Can you *read*?

Can you explain yourself at all or do you just make empty assertions?

I also think that it is more important to win gold medals, than it is to kill
cyclists.


Exactly so.

So you do think the killing of cyclists is less important than winning
gold medals?

In fact, I don't accept that we should attach any priority whatever to
killing cyclists.

Do you mean 'the killing of cyclists'?

On 12/08/2012 07:08, Doug wrote:
On Aug 10, 10:26 am, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2012 09:03, Tony Dragon wrote:









On 10/08/2012 06:53, Doug wrote:
On Aug 9, 3:36 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2012 08:20, Doug wrote:

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win
gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with
it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it
involves him.

Bzzzt!

You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more
important than killing cyclists.

Are you serious?

Can you *read*?

Can you explain yourself at all or do you just make empty assertions?

I also think that it is more important to win gold medals, than it is to kill
cyclists.


Exactly so.

So you do think the killing of cyclists is less important than winning
gold medals?

In fact, I don't accept that we should attach any priority whatever to
killing cyclists.

Do you mean 'the killing of cyclists'?

I mean what I say.

Can you understand what you read?

On 12/08/2012 07:08, Doug wrote:
On Aug 10, 10:26 am, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2012 09:03, Tony Dragon wrote:









On 10/08/2012 06:53, Doug wrote:
On Aug 9, 3:36 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2012 08:20, Doug wrote:

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win
gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with
it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it
involves him.

Bzzzt!

You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more
important than killing cyclists.

Are you serious?

Can you *read*?

Can you explain yourself at all or do you just make empty assertions?

I also think that it is more important to win gold medals, than it is to kill
cyclists.


Exactly so.

So you do think the killing of cyclists is less important than winning
gold medals?

Personally I think it is much more important to win gold medals, than it
is to kill cyclists, can I ask why you disagree.

TBH I don't think that killing anybody should be part of a league table.


In fact, I don't accept that we should attach any priority whatever to
killing cyclists.

Do you mean 'the killing of cyclists'?

On Aug 12, 11:28*am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 12/08/2012 07:08, Doug wrote:









On Aug 10, 10:26 am, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2012 09:03, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 10/08/2012 06:53, Doug wrote:
On Aug 9, 3:36 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2012 08:20, Doug wrote:

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win
gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with
it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it
involves him.

Bzzzt!

You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more
important than killing cyclists.

Are you serious?

Can you *read*?

Can you explain yourself at all or do you just make empty assertions?

I also think that it is more important to win gold medals, than it is to kill
cyclists.

Exactly so.

So you do think the killing of cyclists is less important than winning
gold medals?

Personally I think it is much more important to win gold medals, than it
is to kill cyclists, can I ask why you disagree.

You seem not to understand what this thread is about. The title should
be a clue.

TBH I don't think that killing anybody should be part of a league table.


What other items are part of the league table then?



In fact, I don't accept that we should attach any priority whatever to
killing cyclists.

Do you mean 'the killing of cyclists'?

On Aug 12, 10:20*am, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2012 07:08, Doug wrote:









On Aug 10, 10:26 am, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2012 09:03, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 10/08/2012 06:53, Doug wrote:
On Aug 9, 3:36 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2012 08:20, Doug wrote:

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win
gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with
it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it
involves him.

Bzzzt!

You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more
important than killing cyclists.

Are you serious?

Can you *read*?

Can you explain yourself at all or do you just make empty assertions?

I also think that it is more important to win gold medals, than it is to kill
cyclists.

Exactly so.

So you do think the killing of cyclists is less important than winning
gold medals?

In fact, I don't accept that we should attach any priority whatever to
killing cyclists.

Do you mean 'the killing of cyclists'?

I mean what I say.

Can you understand what you read?

Only if it makes any sense. Why don't you want the killing of cyclists
to be prioritised? Any chance of a proper answer this time?

On Aug 12, 10:20*am, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2012 07:08, Doug wrote:









On Aug 10, 10:26 am, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2012 09:03, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 10/08/2012 06:53, Doug wrote:
On Aug 9, 3:36 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2012 08:20, Doug wrote:

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win
gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with
it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it
involves him.

Bzzzt!

You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more
important than killing cyclists.

Are you serious?

Can you *read*?

Can you explain yourself at all or do you just make empty assertions?

I also think that it is more important to win gold medals, than it is to kill
cyclists.

Exactly so.

So you do think the killing of cyclists is less important than winning
gold medals?

In fact, I don't accept that we should attach any priority whatever to
killing cyclists.

Do you mean 'the killing of cyclists'?

I mean what I say.

Can you understand what you read?

lost cause this time.

On 14/08/2012 07:42, Doug wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:20 am, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2012 07:08, Doug wrote:









On Aug 10, 10:26 am, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2012 09:03, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 10/08/2012 06:53, Doug wrote:
On Aug 9, 3:36 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2012 08:20, Doug wrote:

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win
gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with
it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it
involves him.

Bzzzt!

You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more
important than killing cyclists.

Are you serious?

Can you *read*?

Can you explain yourself at all or do you just make empty assertions?

I also think that it is more important to win gold medals, than it is to kill
cyclists.

Exactly so.

So you do think the killing of cyclists is less important than winning
gold medals?

In fact, I don't accept that we should attach any priority whatever to
killing cyclists.

Do you mean 'the killing of cyclists'?

I mean what I say.

Can you understand what you read?

Only if it makes any sense. Why don't you want the killing of cyclists
to be prioritised? Any chance of a proper answer this time?


Read & understand.
It is more important to win gold medals than it is to kill cyclists.

Unless you think that we should prioritise killing cyclists, what method
do you think we should use to kill these cyclists?

On 14/08/2012 07:38, Doug wrote:
On Aug 12, 11:28 am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 12/08/2012 07:08, Doug wrote:









On Aug 10, 10:26 am, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2012 09:03, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 10/08/2012 06:53, Doug wrote:
On Aug 9, 3:36 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2012 08:20, Doug wrote:

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win
gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with
it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it
involves him.

Bzzzt!

You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more
important than killing cyclists.

Are you serious?

Can you *read*?

Can you explain yourself at all or do you just make empty assertions?

I also think that it is more important to win gold medals, than it is to kill
cyclists.

Exactly so.

So you do think the killing of cyclists is less important than winning
gold medals?

Personally I think it is much more important to win gold medals, than it
is to kill cyclists, can I ask why you disagree.

You seem not to understand what this thread is about. The title should
be a clue.

I was replying to your post, just because you don't reliase what you
posted is not my fault.


TBH I don't think that killing anybody should be part of a league table.


What other items are part of the league table then?

Read my words.





In fact, I don't accept that we should attach any priority whatever to
killing cyclists.

Do you mean 'the killing of cyclists'?

On 14/08/2012 07:42, Doug wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:20 am, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2012 07:08, Doug wrote:









On Aug 10, 10:26 am, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2012 09:03, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 10/08/2012 06:53, Doug wrote:
On Aug 9, 3:36 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2012 08:20, Doug wrote:

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win
gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with
it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it
involves him.

Bzzzt!

You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more
important than killing cyclists.

Are you serious?

Can you *read*?

Can you explain yourself at all or do you just make empty assertions?

I also think that it is more important to win gold medals, than it is to kill
cyclists.

Exactly so.

So you do think the killing of cyclists is less important than winning
gold medals?

In fact, I don't accept that we should attach any priority whatever to
killing cyclists.

Do you mean 'the killing of cyclists'?

I mean what I say.

Can you understand what you read?

Only if it makes any sense. Why don't you want the killing of cyclists
to be prioritised? Any chance of a proper answer this time?

I refer you to all the previous answers I have given on the topic.

Is English not your first language?