|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist gets fined for riding on a motorway
On 12/07/2019 03:15, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 2:15:22 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 11/07/2019 18:31, Simon Jester wrote: On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 5:43:29 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 11/07/2019 16:13, TMS320 wrote: On 11/07/2019 15:45, JNugent wrote: On 11/07/2019 14:41, Simon Jester wrote: You introduced pedestrian zones on motorways. You don't even understand what you are saying. It's easy enough to understand. The failure is yours. Now there's a surprise. Bzzzzzz. The report was of a cyclist cycling on a motorway. Desperate Jester tries to justify their dangerous law-breaking by referring to drivers in "pedestrian zones", which can only be of relevance if these pedestrian zones are on motorways. Where did I try to justify their actions? In a post on this newsgroup. Then you should have no trouble citing the actual text. That's true. And neither would you, if you seriously disputed what was said. But you don't, because you know it's true. If they aren't, there can be no equivalance between the offence committed by that cyclist and the imaginary drivers in Desperate Jester's mind. Apparently I'm 'not right in the head'. You've already agreed that. Without a definition I cannot agree or disagree. That didn't stop you. A claim you have made yet refuse to provide any evidence to support it. Not necessary. You've already agreed it. Where? That's all. Folks! |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist gets fined for riding on a motorway
On 11/07/2019 17:43, JNugent wrote:
On 11/07/2019 16:13, TMS320 wrote: On 11/07/2019 15:45, JNugent wrote: On 11/07/2019 14:41, Simon Jester wrote: You introduced pedestrian zones on motorways. You don't even understand what you are saying. It's easy enough to understand. The failure is yours. Now there's a surprise. Bzzzzzz. The report was of a cyclist cycling on a motorway. Desperate Jester tries to justify their dangerous law-breaking by referring to drivers in "pedestrian zones", which can only be of relevance if these pedestrian zones are on motorways. If they aren't, there can be no equivalance between the offence committed by that cyclist and the imaginary drivers in Desperate Jester's mind. Stop talking ********. That's all. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist gets fined for riding on a motorway
On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:45:39 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 12/07/2019 03:15, Simon Jester wrote: Where did I try to justify their actions? In a post on this newsgroup. Then you should have no trouble citing the actual text. That's true. And neither would you, if you seriously disputed what was said. But you don't, because you know it's true. So why haven't you cited the text? If they aren't, there can be no equivalance between the offence committed by that cyclist and the imaginary drivers in Desperate Jester's mind. Apparently I'm 'not right in the head'. You've already agreed that. Without a definition I cannot agree or disagree. That didn't stop you. Once again you fail to provide a definition of 'not right in the head'. Until you do so there is no point in continuing this discussion. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist gets fined for riding on a motorway
On 12/07/2019 14:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:45:39 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 03:15, Simon Jester wrote: Where did I try to justify their actions? In a post on this newsgroup. Then you should have no trouble citing the actual text. That's true. And neither would you, if you seriously disputed what was said. But you don't, because you know it's true. So why haven't you cited the text? There is no need to. It isn't in dispute. If they aren't, there can be no equivalance between the offence committed by that cyclist and the imaginary drivers in Desperate Jester's mind. Apparently I'm 'not right in the head'. You've already agreed that. Without a definition I cannot agree or disagree. That didn't stop you. Once again you fail to provide a definition of 'not right in the head'. There is no need to. It isn't in dispute. You have already accepted that it is a description of your good self. Until you do so there is no point in continuing this discussion. Thou speakest aright, particularly because there is nothing in dispute. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist gets fined for riding on a motorway
On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 3:25:09 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 12/07/2019 14:30, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:45:39 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 03:15, Simon Jester wrote: Where did I try to justify their actions? In a post on this newsgroup. Then you should have no trouble citing the actual text. That's true. And neither would you, if you seriously disputed what was said. But you don't, because you know it's true. So why haven't you cited the text? There is no need to. It isn't in dispute. I dispute it. So please quote the exact text where I condoned cycling on motorways. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist gets fined for riding on a motorway
On 12/07/2019 20:39, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 3:25:09 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 14:30, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:45:39 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 03:15, Simon Jester wrote: Where did I try to justify their actions? In a post on this newsgroup. Then you should have no trouble citing the actual text. That's true. And neither would you, if you seriously disputed what was said. But you don't, because you know it's true. So why haven't you cited the text? There is no need to. It isn't in dispute. I dispute it. You're too late. You've already accepted that you are not right in the head. So please quote the exact text where I condoned cycling on motorways. Did anyone say you did that? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist gets fined for riding on a motorway
On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 1:25:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 12/07/2019 20:39, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 3:25:09 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 14:30, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:45:39 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 03:15, Simon Jester wrote: Where did I try to justify their actions? In a post on this newsgroup. Then you should have no trouble citing the actual text. That's true. And neither would you, if you seriously disputed what was said. But you don't, because you know it's true. So why haven't you cited the text? There is no need to. It isn't in dispute. I dispute it. Irrelevant text snipped So please quote the exact text where I condoned cycling on motorways. Did anyone say you did that? You said I tried to justify cycling on a motorway. Another claim you seem unable to provide evidence for. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist gets fined for riding on a motorway
On 13/07/2019 19:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 1:25:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 20:39, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 3:25:09 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 14:30, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:45:39 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 03:15, Simon Jester wrote: Where did I try to justify their actions? In a post on this newsgroup. Then you should have no trouble citing the actual text. That's true. And neither would you, if you seriously disputed what was said. But you don't, because you know it's true. So why haven't you cited the text? There is no need to. It isn't in dispute. I dispute it. Irrelevant text snipped So please quote the exact text where I condoned cycling on motorways. Did anyone say you did that? You said I tried to justify cycling on a motorway... ....by citing a case of "the big boys do the same or worse..". Another claim you seem unable to provide evidence for. ....other than the evidence *you* provided, you mean? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist gets fined for riding on a motorway
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 1:07:17 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2019 19:53, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 1:25:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 20:39, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 3:25:09 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 14:30, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:45:39 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 03:15, Simon Jester wrote: Where did I try to justify their actions? In a post on this newsgroup. Then you should have no trouble citing the actual text. That's true. And neither would you, if you seriously disputed what was said. But you don't, because you know it's true. So why haven't you cited the text? There is no need to. It isn't in dispute. I dispute it. Irrelevant text snipped So please quote the exact text where I condoned cycling on motorways. Did anyone say you did that? You said I tried to justify cycling on a motorway... ...by citing a case of "the big boys do the same or worse..". So you have no evidence to support your claim. Another claim you seem unable to provide evidence for. ...other than the evidence *you* provided, you mean? What evidence? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist gets fined for riding on a motorway
On 14/07/2019 01:18, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 1:07:17 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 13/07/2019 19:53, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 1:25:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 20:39, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 3:25:09 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 14:30, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:45:39 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 12/07/2019 03:15, Simon Jester wrote: Where did I try to justify their actions? In a post on this newsgroup. Then you should have no trouble citing the actual text. That's true. And neither would you, if you seriously disputed what was said. But you don't, because you know it's true. So why haven't you cited the text? There is no need to. It isn't in dispute. I dispute it. Irrelevant text snipped Weasel words. As per bleedin' usual from Desperate Jester. So please quote the exact text where I condoned cycling on motorways. Did anyone say you did that? You said I tried to justify cycling on a motorway... ...by citing a case of "the big boys do the same or worse..". So you have no evidence to support your claim. Au contraire. You provided that evidence at the time. Another claim you seem unable to provide evidence for. ...other than the evidence *you* provided, you mean? What evidence? Your post that drivers drove motor vehicles in "pedestrian zones" (the implication being that these "zones" were connected with motorways). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclist with child on tow rides across a motorway | MrCheerful | UK | 2 | March 19th 19 12:31 AM |
Cyclist critically ill after crash on motorway | Mrcheerful | UK | 18 | July 20th 15 09:34 AM |
yet another cyclist on a motorway | Mrcheerful | UK | 14 | March 16th 14 09:06 AM |
Reckless cyclist caught by police on MOTORWAY | Mr Benn[_5_] | UK | 3 | April 6th 12 09:35 AM |
Cyclist Fined for Riding on Road in the UK | petulance | Australia | 11 | August 10th 06 02:04 PM |