pavement cyclists mow down young and old

On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:29:01 PM UTC+1, Judith wrote:

He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people involved with
[snip]
can't see what a tosser he is.

Judith,

Can you explain why you post under all those false names?
How many is it now? You're well past 20, are you up to 100 yet?

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:36:13 -0700 (PDT), PhilO wrote:

On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:29:01 PM UTC+1, Judith wrote:

He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people involved with
[snip]
can't see what a tosser he is.

Judith,

Can you explain why you post under all those false names?
How many is it now? You're well past 20, are you up to 100 yet?
--
Hello PhilattiO

I just love the way that you have to comment on my every post.

I really do appreciate it.

You really are excellent value.

On Monday, October 15, 2012 11:47:45 PM UTC+1, Judith wrote:

Can you explain why you post under all those false names?

How many is it now? You're well past 20, are you up to 100 yet?


Hello PhilattiO

I just love the way that you have to comment on my every post.


Judith,

You remembered the name-calling and the lie, but seem to have forgotten to answer the questions.

So, come on, tell us.
Why do you post under all those false names?
How many is it now? You're well past 20, are you up to 100 yet?

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:28:39 -0700 (PDT), PhilO wrote:

snip


Judith,

You remembered the name-calling and the lie, but seem to have forgotten to answer the questions.

--
Hello PhilattiO

I just love the way that you have to comment on my every post.

I really do appreciate it.

You really are excellent value.

On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:18:17 PM UTC+1, Judith wrote:


Hello PhilattiO
I just love the way that you have to comment on my every post.
I really do appreciate it.
You really are excellent value.

Judith,

Not answering the question again?

At least tell us why not?

You take exception to others posting under false names, why will you not discuss doing it yourself?

Can you explain why you post under all those false names?
How many is it now? You're well past 20, are you up to 100 yet?

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:37:38 -0700 (PDT), PhilO wrote:

snip


Can you explain why you post under all those false names?
How many is it now? You're well past 20, are you up to 100 yet?


If you can tell me which false names you believe I have used, then I will
answer your post.

On 16/10/2012 16:28, Judith wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:37:38 -0700 (PDT), PhilO wrote:

snip


Can you explain why you post under all those false names?
How many is it now? You're well past 20, are you up to 100 yet?


If you can tell me which false names you believe I have used, then I will
answer your post.


Why not use the standard DavidR tactic & claim the question is faulty?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote
On 16/10/2012 16:28, Judith wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:37:38 -0700 (PDT), PhilO
wrote:

snip


Can you explain why you post under all those false names?
How many is it now? You're well past 20, are you up to 100 yet?

If you can tell me which false names you believe I have used, then I will
answer your post.

Why not use the standard DavidR tactic & claim the question is faulty?

Looks ok to me. The questioner is not including a mistake due to lack of
knowledge of basic physics (with the resolute belief he is right) and an
answer can be provided without causing a logic error.

On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:28:05 PM UTC+1, Judith wrote:

If you can tell me which false names you believe I have used, then I will
answer your post.

Wriggle, wriggle...

Is it so many that you can't easily list them?
Just tell us how many you've used (approximately will do, if you've lost count).

Maybe you can tell us why you have to be so deceptive, using all those false names.

On Oct 17, 8:35*am, PhilO wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:28:05 PM UTC+1, Judith wrote:

If you can tell me which false names you believe I have used, then I will
answer your post.

Wriggle, wriggle...

Is it so many that you can't easily list them?
Just tell us how many you've used (approximately will do, if you've lost count).

Maybe you can tell us why you have to be so deceptive, using all those false names.

As you seem to have all the details, why don'y you answer the question?