Driving on pavements.

Adrian wrote:
"Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Eh! I have carried 35kg.

Distributed front and rear.

In special panniers and boxes.

Actually the centre of gravity was lower than usual and therefore
safer.

Specially constructed boxes carrying weight low down.

Which part of the frame were the boxes attached to?

I can only assume that the weight on the front was attached to the
forks - which would make the steering massively heavy and ponderous.
The last thing you need, with the extra static mass threatening the
balance - especially if the cyclist is of limited mobility and
therefore slower - and, presumably, also of restricted balance. Given
Duhg's original description of a cyclist who can only provide power
with one leg, there's really no way that this is a safe combination
for road use.

A trailer would be a MUCH better solution - giving much better weight
distribution and making balance easier, not more difficult.

However, since Duhg's now decided that only an electric bicycle is
safe to tow a trailer with, that's clearly not an option - unless, of
course, this mythical "friend" of his is now riding an electric
bicycle.

I wonder whether he's moved to a "green" electricity tariff yet?

If I were a gambling man, I'd hesitate to place a bet on him having done so,
he's always stanchly objected to "green" generation of electricity. Come to
think of it, he objects to the generation of electricity by any means,
which, given that he's promoting the use of electric bikes leaves one
wondering ...

Adrian wrote:
BrianW gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Let's face it - the only solution that will ever satisfy you is when
you, Douglas Bollen of 117a Culverley Road, Catford, are enshrined in
legislation with a special "Do whatever you like, with our blessing,
and feel free to stop anybody else doing what you don't like" law.

Even then, you'll probably find a reason not to like it. Probably a
totally spurious and false reason. Maybe a claim that you're not
Douglas Bollen of 117a Culverley Road, Catford.

cough

For once, Mr Bollen would not be lying if he claimed he did not live at
the address you state:

http://www.hilpers.org/575774-altern...ondon-1982-a/3

D'oh.

Oh, well. It's the smallest problem his neighbours have.

There are some really sad ****ers around who spend their time tying to
track down where someone who posts here may live.

Why was this felt to be necessary?
Can we now have the addresses of everyone else on the list, after all,
there must have been some reason for all that work - other than
playground bullying.

Roll on the new group and this sort of absolute ****e might not be
encouraged.


--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Keitht KeithT gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

There are some really sad ****ers around who spend their time tying to
track down where someone who posts here may live.

Hardly "track down" - it's been posted regularly for at least a decade.
And, anyway, it's apparently not an address where any poster to usenet
lives.

Roll on the new group

What new group? There's no new legal group proposed that I'm aware of.

On 22 Sep 2009 07:12:31 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

For once, Mr Bollen would not be lying if he claimed he did not live
at the address you state:

I just wonder at the mentality of someone who thinks it is funny/clever
to publicise the home address of another poster.

An address which has been frequently posted before, and is staunchly
denied by that other poster.

Could you explain please?

The mentality is of one who is reacting blindly in knee-jerk fashion
against criticism of their POV or lifestyle and who therefore wishes to
censor their critic in any way possible, regardless of newsgroup
standards or internet providers' terms and conditions.

Oh? So is that (correction to 119a notwithstanding) the correct name and
address of a poster here, then?


I think it is unacceptable behaviour to post the home address of
other people in newsgroups. As simple as that.

I am not surprised that you think it OK - it confirms my earlier
impressions of you.

--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Judith M Smith gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

I think it is unacceptable behaviour to post the home address of other
people in newsgroups. As simple as that.

37 High Street, Lichfield.
72 Forest Road, Preston.
14b Inverness Terrace, Exeter.

Oh, look. Addresses. Are they the home addresses of other people? Who
knows...?

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:28:06 -0700 (PDT), The Zit
wrote:

snip


I just wonder at the mentality of someone who thinks it is
funny/clever to publicise the home address of another poster.

Could you explain please?

I didn't, "judith". Why don't you learn to read, you dumb ****?



Oh really - so in the bit of *your* which *you* quoted where it said:

Even then, you'll probably find a reason not to like it. Probably a
totally spurious and false reason. Maybe a claim that you're not Douglas
Bollen of ************ , Catford.

You weren't publicising it?

Most odd.

(My comment was intentionally aimed at you - as it was a follow-on to
the exchange between us about you being obsessed with Doug.)

By the way, why are you obsessed with him - something sexual?

On 22 Sep, 11:58, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:28:06 -0700 (PDT), The Zit

wrote:

snip

I just wonder at the mentality of someone who thinks it is
funny/clever to publicise the home address of another poster.

Could you explain please?

I didn't, "judith". �Why don't you learn to read, you dumb ****?

Oh really - so in the bit of *your* which *you* quoted where it said:

Even then, you'll probably find a reason not to like it. Probably a
totally spurious and false reason. Maybe a claim that you're not Douglas
Bollen of ************ , Catford.

You weren't publicising it?

sigh

If you could read, you dumb ****, you would understand that "Adrian"
and "BrianW" are not the same. It was Adrian who posted the address,
not me.

Christ, just when you think the depths of retardedness have been
plumbed, along comes "judith" with a new deep sea vessel capable of
even greater feats of dumbness.

Most odd.

Yes, you are, aren't you?

(My comment was intentionally aimed at you - as it was a follow-on to
the exchange between us �about you being obsessed with Doug.)

By the way, why are you obsessed with him - something sexual?

Yes, dear, I think we have been through this one. I already took the
wind out of your sails by saying yes. Do you really need to prove,
once again, what a 'tard you are?

On 22 Sep, 11:44, Judith M Smith wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009 07:12:31 GMT, Adrian wrote:





Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

For once, Mr Bollen would not be lying if he claimed he did not live
at the address you state:

I just wonder at the mentality of someone who thinks it is funny/clever
to publicise the home address of another poster.

An address which has been frequently posted before, and is staunchly
denied by that other poster.

Could you explain please?

The mentality is of one who is reacting blindly in knee-jerk fashion
against criticism of their POV or lifestyle and who therefore wishes to
censor their critic in any way possible, regardless of newsgroup
standards or internet providers' terms and conditions.

Oh? So is that (correction to 119a notwithstanding) the correct name and
address of a poster here, then?

I think it is unacceptable �behaviour to post the home address of
other people in newsgroups. �As simple as that.

I am not surprised that you think it OK - it confirms my earlier
impressions of you.

I bet Adrian is really upset about that. Aren't you, Adrian?

BrianW gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

On 22 Sep, 11:44, Judith M Smith wrote:
I am not surprised that you think it OK - it confirms my earlier
impressions of you.

I bet Adrian is really upset about that. Aren't you, Adrian?

Distraught. Absolutely, inconsolably distraught.

I _so_ wanted Judith to be my friend.

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Or shall we add "centre of gravity" and "balance" to the list of things
you clearly have no clue about?

Maybe we should instead add "touring and utility cycling" to the list of
things you clearly have no clue about.

You do that. And I'll say "Don't worry, I'm well aware".

Then, I'll remind you that Duhg's claim was THIRTY FIVE kilograms loaded
into those panniers.