Tree sap weapon makes cyclists fall off

On 24/09/2016 12:45, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:19:02 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

snip

Facilities don't tend to be put in places where people cycle for leisure.

Bawdrip to Chedzoy Riverside Path
Costs per km £35,267

Mirfield Helm Lane to Bradley Viaduct
Costs per km £ 163,820

I suppose there were thousands of cyclists wanting to use the paths to get to
work.

Fair enough though as Sustrans paths, public funding was not the amount
you quote. Since they were existing tracks, how much maintenance/upgrade
was necessary anyway, without consideration for people to ride bicycles?

I don't mind as long as those costs came out of the cyclist licence fees. Do
you know if they did? Or was there a cyclists toll on the paths?

I don't suppose the council minds collecting taxes from people that find
new business opportunities.

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 01:57:07 +0100, "James Wilkinson"
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:45:41 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:19:02 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

snip


Facilities don't tend to be put in places where people cycle for leisure.

Bawdrip to Chedzoy Riverside Path
Costs per km £35,267

Mirfield Helm Lane to Bradley Viaduct
Costs per km £ 163,820

I suppose there were thousands of cyclists wanting to use the paths to get to
work.

I don't mind as long as those costs came out of the cyclist licence fees. Do
you know if they did? Or was there a cyclists toll on the paths?

It costs more than that. If those cyclists stop having a car, the government gets less taxes from that.


I didn't realise that every cyclist had a car. Are your sure?

On Monday, 26 September 2016 15:05:43 UTC+1, Judith wrote:


It costs more than that. If those cyclists stop having a car, the government gets less taxes from that.


I didn't realise that every cyclist had a car. Are your sure?

Here's mine in Spain.
In F/E/P/I I paid £300 in road tolls as well.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cj4KejwXAAESfZF.jpg

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 15:05:41 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 01:57:07 +0100, "James Wilkinson"
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:45:41 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:19:02 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

snip


Facilities don't tend to be put in places where people cycle for leisure.

Bawdrip to Chedzoy Riverside Path
Costs per km £35,267

Mirfield Helm Lane to Bradley Viaduct
Costs per km £ 163,820

I suppose there were thousands of cyclists wanting to use the paths to get to
work.

I don't mind as long as those costs came out of the cyclist licence fees. Do
you know if they did? Or was there a cyclists toll on the paths?

It costs more than that. If those cyclists stop having a car, the government gets less taxes from that.


I didn't realise that every cyclist had a car. Are your sure?

They have to become a cyclist at some point.

--
If the Pope goes #2, does that make it "Holy ****"?

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:24:31 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 24/09/2016 17:22, James Wilkinson wrote:


I'll respond to you when your posts are intelligible. Your mind is in
knots.

The usual process when sending a reply with quoted material is to make
your reply relevant. Your reply wasn't relevant and you complained even
after I followed yours with an agreement.

Had somebody written something along the lines of "somebody else was to
blame and the council should be sued for every penny", then your
original reply would have been relevant. Nobody wrote anything like
that, did they?

You've now snipped everything so I can't see what you're referring to and I really can't be bothered with you. Behave properly and reply in the normal fashion, then I might.

--
A mute walks into a drugstore (chemist) to buy package of prophylactics. Unable to tell the pharmacist what he wants, he puts a $5.00 bill on the counter, unzips his pants, and puts his dick on the counter and points to it.

The pharmacist watches, unzips his own fly, puts his dick on the counter, puts a ruler down next to both of them, points out that his is 1 inch longer and takes the mute's $5.00 bill.

On 26-Sep-16 2:24 PM, TMS320 wrote:

On 24/09/2016 17:22, James Wilkinson wrote:


I'll respond to you when your posts are intelligible. Your mind is in
knots.

The usual process when sending a reply with quoted material is to make
your reply relevant. Your reply wasn't relevant and you complained even
after I followed yours with an agreement.

Had somebody written something along the lines of "somebody else was to
blame and the council should be sued for every penny", then your
original reply would have been relevant. Nobody wrote anything like
that, did they?

You never like it when someone doesn't post what you expected, do you?

On 26-Sep-16 7:59 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:24:31 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 24/09/2016 17:22, James Wilkinson wrote:


I'll respond to you when your posts are intelligible. Your mind is in
knots.

The usual process when sending a reply with quoted material is to make
your reply relevant. Your reply wasn't relevant and you complained even
after I followed yours with an agreement.

Had somebody written something along the lines of "somebody else was to
blame and the council should be sued for every penny", then your
original reply would have been relevant. Nobody wrote anything like
that, did they?

You've now snipped everything so I can't see what you're referring to
and I really can't be bothered with you. Behave properly and reply in
the normal fashion, then I might.

Bingo!

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:35:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 26-Sep-16 2:24 PM, TMS320 wrote:

On 24/09/2016 17:22, James Wilkinson wrote:


I'll respond to you when your posts are intelligible. Your mind is in
knots.

The usual process when sending a reply with quoted material is to make
your reply relevant. Your reply wasn't relevant and you complained even
after I followed yours with an agreement.

Had somebody written something along the lines of "somebody else was to
blame and the council should be sued for every penny", then your
original reply would have been relevant. Nobody wrote anything like
that, did they?

You never like it when someone doesn't post what you expected, do you?

Maybe he's a bot and we're upsetting his programming?

--
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart -- H. L. Mencken

On 26/09/2016 20:35, JNugent wrote:
On 26-Sep-16 2:24 PM, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/09/2016 17:22, James Wilkinson wrote:

I'll respond to you when your posts are intelligible. Your mind is in
knots.

The usual process when sending a reply with quoted material is to make
your reply relevant. Your reply wasn't relevant and you complained even
after I followed yours with an agreement.

Had somebody written something along the lines of "somebody else was to
blame and the council should be sued for every penny", then your
original reply would have been relevant. Nobody wrote anything like
that, did they?

You never like it when someone doesn't post what you expected, do you?

From you, the unexpected thing would be a follow up that actually
follows up.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 23:50:50 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 26/09/2016 20:35, JNugent wrote:
On 26-Sep-16 2:24 PM, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/09/2016 17:22, James Wilkinson wrote:

I'll respond to you when your posts are intelligible. Your mind is in
knots.

The usual process when sending a reply with quoted material is to make
your reply relevant. Your reply wasn't relevant and you complained even
after I followed yours with an agreement.

Had somebody written something along the lines of "somebody else was to
blame and the council should be sued for every penny", then your
original reply would have been relevant. Nobody wrote anything like
that, did they?

You never like it when someone doesn't post what you expected, do you?

From you, the unexpected thing would be a follow up that actually
follows up.

Everybody in this group except you makes sense (even though their opinions may be wrong).

--
Testicle (n.), a humorous question on an exam.