Another killer motorist

In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 10:55, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 10:49, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 10:39, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 00:32, Jim Newman wrote:
On 29/08/2013 23:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 29/08/2013 22:08, brianrob1961 wrote:
Imagine what he would have done to a cyclist.

yep, you are doug mkII

try to post about cyclists, this is a cyclist group.


You're not a cyclist. Not sure what you are, but you're not a cyclist


I post about cyclists, and usually they are UK cyclists.

Is there a requirement to be a cyclist in order to post on this group?

Simon claimed there was a charter for the group which forbade anyone
outside his circle from making posts to 'his' group, but it seems he is
unwilling to reveal its location.

The group is for issues related to cycling. It is not for
cyclist-hating car drivers to troll.


Strange then, that anyone should complain, since I post about cycling
issues in the UK.

No you don't. You troll anti-cyclist garbage.

are my posts about cyclists? a yes or no will be fine.

You lose.

Again.

I did not realise there was a win or lose involved, but the answer you
are looking for is yes.
you did lose.

I know.

On 30/08/2013 11:13, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 30/08/2013 10:55, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 10:49, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 10:39, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 00:32, Jim Newman wrote:
On 29/08/2013 23:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 29/08/2013 22:08, brianrob1961 wrote:
Imagine what he would have done to a cyclist.

yep, you are doug mkII

try to post about cyclists, this is a cyclist group.


You're not a cyclist. Not sure what you are, but you're not a
cyclist


I post about cyclists, and usually they are UK cyclists.

Is there a requirement to be a cyclist in order to post on this
group?

Simon claimed there was a charter for the group which forbade anyone
outside his circle from making posts to 'his' group, but it seems
he is
unwilling to reveal its location.

The group is for issues related to cycling. It is not for
cyclist-hating car drivers to troll.


Strange then, that anyone should complain, since I post about cycling
issues in the UK.

No you don't. You troll anti-cyclist garbage.

are my posts about cyclists? a yes or no will be fine.

You lose.

Again.

I did not realise there was a win or lose involved, but the answer you
are looking for is yes.

ooh, I know, start swearing again, that always re-inforces and proves
your points so succinctly.

On 30/08/2013 11:14, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 10:55, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 10:49, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 10:39, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 00:32, Jim Newman wrote:
On 29/08/2013 23:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 29/08/2013 22:08, brianrob1961 wrote:
Imagine what he would have done to a cyclist.

yep, you are doug mkII

try to post about cyclists, this is a cyclist group.


You're not a cyclist. Not sure what you are, but you're not a cyclist


I post about cyclists, and usually they are UK cyclists.

Is there a requirement to be a cyclist in order to post on this group?

Simon claimed there was a charter for the group which forbade anyone
outside his circle from making posts to 'his' group, but it seems he is
unwilling to reveal its location.

The group is for issues related to cycling. It is not for
cyclist-hating car drivers to troll.


Strange then, that anyone should complain, since I post about cycling
issues in the UK.

No you don't. You troll anti-cyclist garbage.

are my posts about cyclists? a yes or no will be fine.

You lose.

Again.

I did not realise there was a win or lose involved, but the answer you
are looking for is yes.
you did lose.

I know.

if your posts get any more juvenile you will be telling me that your dad
is bigger than my dad. Try to act like an adult, I had assumed you
were, but perhaps not.

In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 11:14, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 10:55, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 10:49, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 10:39, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 30/08/2013 00:32, Jim Newman wrote:
On 29/08/2013 23:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 29/08/2013 22:08, brianrob1961 wrote:
Imagine what he would have done to a cyclist.

yep, you are doug mkII

try to post about cyclists, this is a cyclist group.


You're not a cyclist. Not sure what you are, but you're not a
cyclist


I post about cyclists, and usually they are UK cyclists.

Is there a requirement to be a cyclist in order to post on this
group?

Simon claimed there was a charter for the group which forbade anyone
outside his circle from making posts to 'his' group, but it seems he
is
unwilling to reveal its location.

The group is for issues related to cycling. It is not for
cyclist-hating car drivers to troll.


Strange then, that anyone should complain, since I post about cycling
issues in the UK.

No you don't. You troll anti-cyclist garbage.

are my posts about cyclists? a yes or no will be fine.

You lose.

Again.

I did not realise there was a win or lose involved, but the answer you
are looking for is yes.
you did lose.

I know.

if your posts get any more juvenile you will be telling me that your dad
is bigger than my dad. Try to act like an adult, I had assumed you
were, but perhaps not.

You are a troll. You have singularly failed to back up your claim that
because your trolls are 'about cyclists', they are on-topic. Posting
'Kikes to the sword' on a Jewish newsgroup would be 'about Jews', but
would not be 'on-topic'. Posting 'wogs out!' to a newsgroup aimed at
black culture in the UK would be 'about blacks', but would not be
on-topic.

A troll gets the contempt and derision it deserves.

In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

I did not realise there was a win or lose involved, but the answer you
are looking for is yes.

ooh, I know, start swearing again, that always re-inforces and proves
your points so succinctly.

'You're a ****' just about sums it up, though. Doesn't it?

"Andy Watson" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

I did not realise there was a win or lose involved, but the answer you
are looking for is yes.

ooh, I know, start swearing again, that always re-inforces and proves
your points so succinctly.

'You're a ****' just about sums it up, though. Doesn't it?

Foulmouth strikes again!

On 30/08/2013 11:37, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

I did not realise there was a win or lose involved, but the answer you
are looking for is yes.

ooh, I know, start swearing again, that always re-inforces and proves
your points so succinctly.

'You're a ****' just about sums it up, though. Doesn't it?

only in your sad mind.

In article ,
"Partac" wrote:

ooh, I know, start swearing again, that always re-inforces and proves
your points so succinctly.

'You're a ****' just about sums it up, though. Doesn't it?

Foulmouth strikes again!

It must be awful to be considered the group tosser, even by people who
ae ostensibly 'on your side'.

"Andy Watson" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Partac" wrote:

ooh, I know, start swearing again, that always re-inforces and proves
your points so succinctly.

'You're a ****' just about sums it up, though. Doesn't it?

Foulmouth strikes again!

It must be awful to be considered the group tosser, even by people who
ae ostensibly 'on your side'.

Yes, I agree. It must be. But does it upset you that much that you have to
keep displaying your bad temper and filthy language?

In article ,
"Partac" wrote:

"Andy Watson" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Partac" wrote:

ooh, I know, start swearing again, that always re-inforces and proves
your points so succinctly.

'You're a ****' just about sums it up, though. Doesn't it?

Foulmouth strikes again!

It must be awful to be considered the group tosser, even by people who
ae ostensibly 'on your side'.

Yes, I agree. It must be. But does it upset you that much that you have to
keep displaying your bad temper and filthy language?

*chortle*

Well, I bet no one expected _that_ response...