Before and after

On 10/09/2013 19:35, Partac wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 10/09/2013 12:39, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

There obviously isn't even the slightest appetite for taking this group
back from the trolls, as people continue to engage with them as ever.
That's fine. It was worth a try though.

...said the #2 troll of the site.

Good to see that you still rate yourself as #1.

If the very mild ****taking (although not from me) in the thread of your
original question really got under your skin (no pun intended) then
perhaps a "site" [sic] like this one really isn't your cup of tea. Since
you don't appear to have the skills required to use a killfile, I really
don't know why you don't use URCM instead, it's ideal for people who
like to denigrate motorists, campaign for limitless funding for cycling,
agree tht the Highway Code is for motorists and not cyclists, and all
this incredible fun without the heartache of having a contrary point of
view suddenly appear in a thread. And it's made up of joyless people
without a sense of humour so there won't even be any gentle ribbing,
never mind the distressing and offensive remarks like "give up cycling"
in response to a question about a problem. You'll have to tone down the
language and the trolling though, you'll get banned.

Once a ****, always a ****, huh?


5) You are still a ****.

Psycholists SOP. When you are losing an argument, always revert to insults.

What argument?

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 10/09/2013 19:35, Partac wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 10/09/2013 12:39, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

There obviously isn't even the slightest appetite for taking this group
back from the trolls, as people continue to engage with them as ever.
That's fine. It was worth a try though.

...said the #2 troll of the site.

Good to see that you still rate yourself as #1.

If the very mild ****taking (although not from me) in the thread of your
original question really got under your skin (no pun intended) then
perhaps a "site" [sic] like this one really isn't your cup of tea. Since
you don't appear to have the skills required to use a killfile, I really
don't know why you don't use URCM instead, it's ideal for people who
like to denigrate motorists, campaign for limitless funding for cycling,
agree tht the Highway Code is for motorists and not cyclists, and all
this incredible fun without the heartache of having a contrary point of
view suddenly appear in a thread. And it's made up of joyless people
without a sense of humour so there won't even be any gentle ribbing,
never mind the distressing and offensive remarks like "give up cycling"
in response to a question about a problem. You'll have to tone down the
language and the trolling though, you'll get banned.

Once a ****, always a ****, huh?


5) You are still a ****.

Psycholists SOP. When you are losing an argument, always revert to
insults.

What argument?

You lose every argument. Explains all the swearing. By the way, your
killfile's still broken.

On 10/09/2013 22:42, Partac wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 10/09/2013 19:35, Partac wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 10/09/2013 12:39, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

There obviously isn't even the slightest appetite for taking this
group
back from the trolls, as people continue to engage with them as ever.
That's fine. It was worth a try though.

...said the #2 troll of the site.

Good to see that you still rate yourself as #1.

If the very mild ****taking (although not from me) in the thread of your
original question really got under your skin (no pun intended) then
perhaps a "site" [sic] like this one really isn't your cup of tea. Since
you don't appear to have the skills required to use a killfile, I really
don't know why you don't use URCM instead, it's ideal for people who
like to denigrate motorists, campaign for limitless funding for cycling,
agree tht the Highway Code is for motorists and not cyclists, and all
this incredible fun without the heartache of having a contrary point of
view suddenly appear in a thread. And it's made up of joyless people
without a sense of humour so there won't even be any gentle ribbing,
never mind the distressing and offensive remarks like "give up cycling"
in response to a question about a problem. You'll have to tone down the
language and the trolling though, you'll get banned.

Once a ****, always a ****, huh?


5) You are still a ****.

Psycholists SOP. When you are losing an argument, always revert to
insults.

What argument?

You lose every argument. Explains all the swearing. By the way, your
killfile's still broken.

No, my killfile is not broken. And a campaign to try to ban cycling is
not an argument. Your opinion rests on the simple premise that a cyclist
is in your way, so he or she should be killed. That isn't a position
that can be argued or negotiated with.

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 10/09/2013 22:42, Partac wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 10/09/2013 19:35, Partac wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 10/09/2013 12:39, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

There obviously isn't even the slightest appetite for taking this
group
back from the trolls, as people continue to engage with them as ever.
That's fine. It was worth a try though.

...said the #2 troll of the site.

Good to see that you still rate yourself as #1.

If the very mild ****taking (although not from me) in the thread of your
original question really got under your skin (no pun intended) then
perhaps a "site" [sic] like this one really isn't your cup of tea. Since
you don't appear to have the skills required to use a killfile, I really
don't know why you don't use URCM instead, it's ideal for people who
like to denigrate motorists, campaign for limitless funding for cycling,
agree tht the Highway Code is for motorists and not cyclists, and all
this incredible fun without the heartache of having a contrary point of
view suddenly appear in a thread. And it's made up of joyless people
without a sense of humour so there won't even be any gentle ribbing,
never mind the distressing and offensive remarks like "give up cycling"
in response to a question about a problem. You'll have to tone down the
language and the trolling though, you'll get banned.

Once a ****, always a ****, huh?


5) You are still a ****.

Psycholists SOP. When you are losing an argument, always revert to
insults.

What argument?

You lose every argument. Explains all the swearing. By the way, your
killfile's still broken.

No, my killfile is not broken. And a campaign to try to ban cycling is
not an argument. Your opinion rests on the simple premise that a cyclist
is in your way, so he or she should be killed.

I think you need to point out where I have ever said any of those
things(other than in your mind, of course)

"Partac" wrote in message
...

Psycholists SOP. When you are losing an argument, always revert to
insults.

What argument?

You lose every argument. Explains all the swearing. By the way, your
killfile's still broken.

No, my killfile is not broken. And a campaign to try to ban cycling is
not an argument. Your opinion rests on the simple premise that a cyclist
is in your way, so he or she should be killed.

I think you need to point out where I have ever said any of those
things(other than in your mind, of course)

This is the dim-witted prat who has said that "motorscum" should be removed
from the gene pool, that "motorscum" cause environmental damage, that he
wouldn't sit in a "tin box" for all the tea in China, then goes on to say he
hardly cycles any more, he drives for a living and uses a car in his spare
time.

He is what he hates, there's his motivation.

On 11/09/2013 11:36, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Partac" wrote in message
...

Psycholists SOP. When you are losing an argument, always revert to
insults.

What argument?

You lose every argument. Explains all the swearing. By the way, your
killfile's still broken.

No, my killfile is not broken. And a campaign to try to ban cycling is
not an argument. Your opinion rests on the simple premise that a cyclist
is in your way, so he or she should be killed.

I think you need to point out where I have ever said any of those
things(other than in your mind, of course)

This is the dim-witted prat who has said that "motorscum" should be
removed from the gene pool, that "motorscum" cause environmental damage,
that he wouldn't sit in a "tin box" for all the tea in China, then goes
on to say he hardly cycles any more, he drives for a living and uses a
car in his spare time.

He is what he hates, there's his motivation.

Not really. Motorscum would be no loss to the gene pool. Decent
motorists would agree with me. Motorscum do indeed cause environmental
damage. That is agreed by most sane people.

I will not EVER own a car again if I can help it.

The fact that I no longer cycle a lot does not in any way contradict the
above statement. I have legs and there is public transport. I have just
used a bus for the longer part of my journey home from work, and my legs
for the shorter bit.

No, I am not a ****wit killer motorist who thinks that paying some vague
taxation means that he owns the road.

On Wednesday, 11 September 2013 22:37:17 UTC+1, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 11/09/2013 11:36, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:



"Partac" wrote in message

...



Psycholists SOP. When you are losing an argument, always revert to

insults.



What argument?



You lose every argument. Explains all the swearing. By the way, your

killfile's still broken.



No, my killfile is not broken. And a campaign to try to ban cycling is

not an argument. Your opinion rests on the simple premise that a cyclist

is in your way, so he or she should be killed.



I think you need to point out where I have ever said any of those

things(other than in your mind, of course)



This is the dim-witted prat who has said that "motorscum" should be

removed from the gene pool, that "motorscum" cause environmental damage,

that he wouldn't sit in a "tin box" for all the tea in China, then goes

on to say he hardly cycles any more, he drives for a living and uses a

car in his spare time.



He is what he hates, there's his motivation.



Not really. Motorscum would be no loss to the gene pool. Decent

motorists would agree with me. Motorscum do indeed cause environmental

damage. That is agreed by most sane people.



I will not EVER own a car again if I can help it.

Most motorists here keep a car using their own money, for the Crown. Apparently it's a great honour on one to be permitted to do such and many will go into much debt to show the most fancy display they can.




The fact that I no longer cycle a lot does not in any way contradict the

above statement. I have legs and there is public transport. I have just

used a bus for the longer part of my journey home from work, and my legs

for the shorter bit.



No, I am not a ****wit killer motorist who thinks that paying some vague

taxation means that he owns the road.

The crown thinks they do, after all they collect the taxation.

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 11/09/2013 11:36, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Partac" wrote in message
...

Psycholists SOP. When you are losing an argument, always revert to
insults.

What argument?

You lose every argument. Explains all the swearing. By the way, your
killfile's still broken.

No, my killfile is not broken. And a campaign to try to ban cycling is
not an argument. Your opinion rests on the simple premise that a cyclist
is in your way, so he or she should be killed.

I think you need to point out where I have ever said any of those
things(other than in your mind, of course)

This is the dim-witted prat who has said that "motorscum" should be
removed from the gene pool, that "motorscum" cause environmental damage,
that he wouldn't sit in a "tin box" for all the tea in China, then goes
on to say he hardly cycles any more, he drives for a living and uses a
car in his spare time.

He is what he hates, there's his motivation.

Not really. Motorscum would be no loss to the gene pool. Decent
motorists would agree with me. Motorscum do indeed cause environmental
damage. That is agreed by most sane people.

I will not EVER own a car again if I can help it.

The fact that I no longer cycle a lot does not in any way contradict the
above statement. I have legs and there is public transport. I have just
used a bus for the longer part of my journey home from work, and my legs
for the shorter bit.

No, I am not a ****wit killer motorist who thinks that paying some vague
taxation means that he owns the road.

Perhaps not, but you are a ****wit killer psycholist that thinks by not
paying taxation he does own the road, and is only needs to follow the law
(or any other rules of the road) when it suits him.

On 12/09/2013 12:57, Partac wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 11/09/2013 11:36, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Partac" wrote in message
...

Psycholists SOP. When you are losing an argument, always revert to
insults.

What argument?

You lose every argument. Explains all the swearing. By the way, your
killfile's still broken.

No, my killfile is not broken. And a campaign to try to ban cycling is
not an argument. Your opinion rests on the simple premise that a cyclist
is in your way, so he or she should be killed.

I think you need to point out where I have ever said any of those
things(other than in your mind, of course)

This is the dim-witted prat who has said that "motorscum" should be
removed from the gene pool, that "motorscum" cause environmental damage,
that he wouldn't sit in a "tin box" for all the tea in China, then goes
on to say he hardly cycles any more, he drives for a living and uses a
car in his spare time.

He is what he hates, there's his motivation.

Not really. Motorscum would be no loss to the gene pool. Decent
motorists would agree with me. Motorscum do indeed cause environmental
damage. That is agreed by most sane people.

I will not EVER own a car again if I can help it.

The fact that I no longer cycle a lot does not in any way contradict the
above statement. I have legs and there is public transport. I have just
used a bus for the longer part of my journey home from work, and my legs
for the shorter bit.

No, I am not a ****wit killer motorist who thinks that paying some vague
taxation means that he owns the road.

Perhaps not, but you are a ****wit killer psycholist that thinks by not
paying taxation he does own the road, and is only needs to follow the
law (or any other rules of the road) when it suits him.

I don't own the road and never thought that I did. Where does putting my
safety first suggest that I think such a thing?

On Thursday, 12 September 2013 22:09:02 UTC+1, brianrob1961 wrote:



I don't own the road and never thought that I did. Where does putting my

safety first suggest that I think such a thing?

While it may be nice to "think such a thing", do you mean "think of such a thing"? If you see that it doesn't matter, why do you think gubmint make such a fuss of who claims ownership of things?