But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.

Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is fooled by
colwyn's snipping).

Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal.
Do you actually know what tyre tread is for?

You are lying (again).

I never said that cycling with a bald tyre is illegal (or an absolute
offence).

You are making it up. That is your usual tactic when you can't win
honestly, so you have to use it a lot, don't you?

[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts?

Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to comply
with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is
an absolute offence.

And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with traffic
signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute
offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly an easy task.

Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not apply to cyclists?

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:22:25 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.

Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is fooled by
colwyn's snipping).

Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal.
Do you actually know what tyre tread is for?

You are lying (again).

I never said that cycling with a bald tyre is illegal (or an absolute
offence).

You are making it up. That is your usual tactic when you can't win
honestly, so you have to use it a lot, don't you?

[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts?

Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to comply
with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is
an absolute offence.

And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with traffic
signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute
offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly an easy task.

Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not apply to cyclists?

Don't be afraid to declare an emergency even if you don't have a pilot's licence and your goalposts are not CAA certified. ATC will vector you to the nearest suitable airfield.

On 14/12/2019 21:38, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:22:25 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.

Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is fooled by
colwyn's snipping).

Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal.
Do you actually know what tyre tread is for?

You are lying (again).

I never said that cycling with a bald tyre is illegal (or an absolute
offence).

You are making it up. That is your usual tactic when you can't win
honestly, so you have to use it a lot, don't you?

[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts?

Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to comply
with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is
an absolute offence.

And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with traffic
signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute
offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly an easy task.

Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not apply to cyclists?

Don't be afraid to declare an emergency even if you don't have a pilot's licence and your goalposts are not CAA certified. ATC will vector you to the nearest suitable airfield.

TRANSLATION:

Curses! Foiled again and I cannot think up a "witty" rejoinder this time
either!

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:09:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 21:38, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:22:25 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.

Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is fooled by
colwyn's snipping).

Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal.
Do you actually know what tyre tread is for?

You are lying (again).

I never said that cycling with a bald tyre is illegal (or an absolute
offence).

You are making it up. That is your usual tactic when you can't win
honestly, so you have to use it a lot, don't you?

[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts?

Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to comply
with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is
an absolute offence.

And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with traffic
signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute
offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly an easy task.

Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not apply to cyclists?

Don't be afraid to declare an emergency even if you don't have a pilot's licence and your goalposts are not CAA certified. ATC will vector you to the nearest suitable airfield.

TRANSLATION:

Curses! Foiled again and I cannot think up a "witty" rejoinder this time
either!

Did you or did you not say:-
"I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.
That is a contextless statement.

You can wriggle and squirm and move the goalposts all you like.

On 15/12/2019 06:32, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:09:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 21:38, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:22:25 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.

Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is fooled by
colwyn's snipping).

Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal.
Do you actually know what tyre tread is for?

You are lying (again).

I never said that cycling with a bald tyre is illegal (or an absolute
offence).

You are making it up. That is your usual tactic when you can't win
honestly, so you have to use it a lot, don't you?

[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts?

Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to comply
with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is
an absolute offence.

And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with traffic
signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute
offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly an easy task.

Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not apply to cyclists?

Don't be afraid to declare an emergency even if you don't have a pilot's licence and your goalposts are not CAA certified. ATC will vector you to the nearest suitable airfield.

TRANSLATION:

Curses! Foiled again and I cannot think up a "witty" rejoinder this time
either!

Did you or did you not say:-
"I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.
That is a contextless statement.

You can wriggle and squirm and move the goalposts all you like.

Actually, slick tyres on a bicycle grip better than ones with treads.
They are also better in the wet.

Explanation:
https://bike.bikegremlin.com/767/slick-tyres/

--
Bod

On 15/12/2019 06:32, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:09:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 21:38, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:22:25 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.

Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is fooled by
colwyn's snipping).

Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal.
Do you actually know what tyre tread is for?

You are lying (again).

I never said that cycling with a bald tyre is illegal (or an absolute
offence).

You are making it up. That is your usual tactic when you can't win
honestly, so you have to use it a lot, don't you?

[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts?

Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to comply
with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is
an absolute offence.

And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with traffic
signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute
offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly an easy task.

Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not apply to cyclists?

Don't be afraid to declare an emergency even if you don't have a pilot's licence and your goalposts are not CAA certified. ATC will vector you to the nearest suitable airfield.

TRANSLATION:

Curses! Foiled again and I cannot think up a "witty" rejoinder this time
either!

Did you or did you not say:-
"I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.
That is a contextless statement.

You can wriggle and squirm and move the goalposts all you like.

You can trim, delete and quote out of context all you like. It won't
make you any less silly.

On 15/12/2019 06:32, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:09:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 21:38, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:22:25 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.

Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is fooled by
colwyn's snipping).

Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal.
Do you actually know what tyre tread is for?

You are lying (again).

I never said that cycling with a bald tyre is illegal (or an absolute
offence).

You are making it up. That is your usual tactic when you can't win
honestly, so you have to use it a lot, don't you?

[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts?

Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to comply
with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is
an absolute offence.

And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with traffic
signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute
offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly an easy task.

Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not apply to cyclists?

Don't be afraid to declare an emergency even if you don't have a pilot's licence and your goalposts are not CAA certified. ATC will vector you to the nearest suitable airfield.

TRANSLATION:

Curses! Foiled again and I cannot think up a "witty" rejoinder this time
either!

Did you or did you not say:-
"I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.
That is a contextless statement.

You can wriggle and squirm and move the goalposts all you like.

He just needs to have the last word! He is never wrong, ever!

On 15/12/2019 06:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/12/2019 06:32, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:09:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 21:38, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:22:25 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald
tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.

Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is
fooled by
colwyn's snipping).

Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal.
Do you actually know what tyre tread is for?

You are lying (again).

I never said that cycling with a bald tyre is illegal (or an absolute
offence).

You are making it up. That is your usual tactic when you can't win
honestly, so you have to use it a lot, don't you?

[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped;
now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I
don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts?

Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to
comply
with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left
signs) is
an absolute offence.

And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with
traffic
signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an
absolute
offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly an
easy task.

Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not
apply to cyclists?

Don't be afraid to declare an emergency even if you don't have a
pilot's licence and your goalposts are not CAA certified. ATC will
vector you to the nearest suitable airfield.

TRANSLATION:

Curses! Foiled again and I cannot think up a "witty" rejoinder this time
either!

Did you or did you not say:-
"I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.
That is a contextless statement.

You can wriggle and squirm and move the goalposts all you like.

Actually, slick tyres on a bicycle grip better than ones with treads.
They are also better in the wet.

Explanation:
https://bike.bikegremlin.com/767/slick-tyres/

A policeman of my acquaintance told me that quite a few drivers of
beaten-up old bangers try that one on when a on-road vehicle check
reveals defective tyres.

On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 11:40:16 GMT, JNugent
wrote:

On 15/12/2019 06:32, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:09:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 21:38, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:22:25 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent
wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain


You can trim, delete and quote out of context all you like. It won't
make you any less silly.



Is this the 5 year argument or the full decade?


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On 15/12/2019 11:41, JNugent wrote:
On 15/12/2019 06:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/12/2019 06:32, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:09:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 21:38, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:22:25 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it
is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald
tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.

Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is
fooled by
colwyn's snipping).

Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal.
Do you actually know what tyre tread is for?

You are lying (again).

I never said that cycling with a bald tyre is illegal (or an absolute
offence).

You are making it up. That is your usual tactic when you can't win
honestly, so you have to use it a lot, don't you?

[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped;
now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I
don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you
goalposts?

Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to
comply
with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left
signs) is
an absolute offence.

And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with
traffic
signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an
absolute
offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly
an easy task.

Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not
apply to cyclists?

Don't be afraid to declare an emergency even if you don't have a
pilot's licence and your goalposts are not CAA certified. ATC will
vector you to the nearest suitable airfield.

TRANSLATION:

Curses! Foiled again and I cannot think up a "witty" rejoinder this
time
either!

Did you or did you not say:-
"I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.
That is a contextless statement.

You can wriggle and squirm and move the goalposts all you like.

Â* Actually, slick tyres on a bicycle grip better than ones with
treads. They are also better in the wet.

Explanation:
https://bike.bikegremlin.com/767/slick-tyres/

A policeman of my acquaintance told me that quite a few drivers of
beaten-up old bangers try that one on when a on-road vehicle check
reveals defective tyres.

I said bicycles, NOT cars etc.
If you bothered to read the explanation I provided, you'd understand why.

--
Bod