two-wheeled scum murdering pedestrians again

On Apr 13, 8:35*pm, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 13/04/2011 12:04, Front Mech wrote:



No-one apart from you is suggesting that VED is based on the emissions
emitted by one particular and it's owner's usage. So, in short, as the
Governent itself says, VED is based on CO2 emissions.

And the Guvmint would never lie to us in order to put up taxes would they?

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

You any further with calcualting percentages, Medway Hominid? Or have
you already forgotten your display of ignorance?

On Apr 13, 8:35*pm, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 13/04/2011 12:04, Front Mech wrote:



No-one apart from you is suggesting that VED is based on the emissions
emitted by one particular and it's owner's usage. So, in short, as the
Governent itself says, VED is based on CO2 emissions.

And the Guvmint would never lie to us in order to put up taxes would they?

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

It is not a lie. They base the VED on the emissions category of the
car. You might not like paying it, but that is truly how it is
calculated. You really are remarkably backward.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:40:28 -0700 (PDT), Front Mech wrote:

On Apr 13, 8:05*pm, Judith wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:48:12 -0700 (PDT), Front Mech wrote:

snip



Your pleading with him to give a reason is unfortunate. The reason you
repeatedly attribute to him on this forum is thus a lie - you have
produced no quote. The rest of your abuse is a shameful attempt to
disguise that fact.

I must admit I cannot remember *actually "attributing" *the words *" just because the limits do not
apply to cyclists." to him *- could you remind me where I did so please.
By repeating the unsupportable conclusion to which you have come about
the reason for his behavior you are, by defininition, attributing that
very reason to him. This is all the more incorrect when he, himself,
has given a more than plausible explanation for his speed.

Bugger - I missed that - what was it?
Odd that he won't answer my direct question.

He must have a reason for such unacceptable behaviour.

Is it just because he is daft we have to ask ourselves.


You cannot
possibly know his reasoning: nor is he under any obligation to explain
himself to someone who repeatedly abuses him on public fora.


If he, in a public newsgroup want to say that he carries out anti-social activities then I am sorry
sunshine - he can expect people to query as to his motives and reasons.


rest of ****e snipped

--
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
A total disreagrd for the well-being of vulnerable road users.

On 13/04/2011 19:40, Front Mech wrote:

By repeating the unsupportable conclusion to which you have come about
the reason for his behavior you are, by defininition, attributing that
very reason to him. This is all the more incorrect when he, himself,
has given a more than plausible explanation for his speed. You cannot
possibly know his reasoning: nor is he under any obligation to explain
himself to someone who repeatedly abuses him on public fora.


This is a complete reversal of all rules of public debate - the moral
onus of supporting an assertion is upon the maker of that assertion.
It is absolutely not incumbent upon the victim of your assertion to
have to disprove it.

So basically you are repeatedly posting that Simon has acted within
the law.
You have reached an unsupportable conclusion about his choice of
speed.
With no knowledge of any facts you then post as a fact that he had a
total disregard for other vulnerable road users. The law does not
support your assumtion about this: a 5 mph breach of a spped limit
(which does not apply to bicycles) is insufficient to fall into this
category. Again you are reaching falsehoods as a result of your
dislike of a poster.


I have no idea to what you are referring: I would like it to remain
so.

**** me. This tosser has obviously been educated well beyond his
natural intelligence.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 13/04/2011 19:46, Front Mech wrote:
On Apr 13, 8:35 pm, The Medway
wrote:
On 13/04/2011 12:04, Front Mech wrote:



No-one apart from you is suggesting that VED is based on the emissions
emitted by one particular and it's owner's usage. So, in short, as the
Governent itself says, VED is based on CO2 emissions.

And the Guvmint would never lie to us in order to put up taxes would they?

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

It is not a lie. They base the VED on the emissions category of the
car.

Oh sure they do. The Guvmint is only interested in saving the ickle
wicle planet from nasty pollution. Nothing to do with raising revenue
at all.

You might not like paying it, but that is truly how it is
calculated.

I don't mind paying my way, unlike sponging cyclist scum.

Why don't lycra bibshorts have pockets? Because cyclists never put
their hands in their pockets.

You really are remarkably backward.

And you are a gullible ****.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:22:40 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:



**** me.

I am sure that Doris will oblige.




--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:30:15 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:



And you are a gullible ****.

Doris has a better ****. Wouldn't you like her?



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

On 15 apr, 01:30, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 13/04/2011 19:46, Front Mech wrote:









On Apr 13, 8:35 pm, The Medway
wrote:
On 13/04/2011 12:04, Front Mech wrote:

No-one apart from you is suggesting that VED is based on the emissions
emitted by one particular and it's owner's usage. So, in short, as the
Governent itself says, VED is based on CO2 emissions.

And the Guvmint would never lie to us in order to put up taxes would they?

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

It is not a lie. They base the VED on the emissions category of the
car.

Oh sure they do. *The Guvmint is only interested in saving the ickle
wicle planet from nasty pollution. *Nothing to do with raising revenue
at all.

You might not like paying it, but that is truly how it is
calculated.

I don't mind paying my way, unlike sponging cyclist scum.

Why don't lycra bibshorts have pockets? *Because cyclists never put
their hands in their pockets.

You really are remarkably backward.

And you are a gullible ****.

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Any luck calculating that percentage correctly yet, Medway Hominid? I
have shown you how to do it.

What would the progeny of a coupling between a hominid and a goat look
like, by the way?

I never said that VED was used to reeive pollution - I wrote that the
government is not lying when it states that the rates are related to
the potential to pollute of each model of car.

No go away and finish your bananas.

On 15/04/2011 06:17, Front Mech wrote:
On 15 apr, 01:30, The Medway
wrote:
On 13/04/2011 19:46, Front Mech wrote:









On Apr 13, 8:35 pm, The Medway
wrote:
On 13/04/2011 12:04, Front Mech wrote:

No-one apart from you is suggesting that VED is based on the emissions
emitted by one particular and it's owner's usage. So, in short, as the
Governent itself says, VED is based on CO2 emissions.

And the Guvmint would never lie to us in order to put up taxes would they?

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

It is not a lie. They base the VED on the emissions category of the
car.

Oh sure they do. The Guvmint is only interested in saving the ickle
wicle planet from nasty pollution. Nothing to do with raising revenue
at all.

You might not like paying it, but that is truly how it is
calculated.

I don't mind paying my way, unlike sponging cyclist scum.

Why don't lycra bibshorts have pockets? Because cyclists never put
their hands in their pockets.

You really are remarkably backward.

And you are a gullible ****.



What would the progeny of a coupling between a hominid and a goat look
like, by the way?

A cyclist probably.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 16 apr, 02:24, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 15/04/2011 06:17, Front Mech wrote:









On 15 apr, 01:30, The Medway
wrote:
On 13/04/2011 19:46, Front Mech wrote:

On Apr 13, 8:35 pm, The Medway
wrote:
On 13/04/2011 12:04, Front Mech wrote:

No-one apart from you is suggesting that VED is based on the emissions
emitted by one particular and it's owner's usage. So, in short, as the
Governent itself says, VED is based on CO2 emissions.

And the Guvmint would never lie to us in order to put up taxes would they?

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

It is not a lie. They base the VED on the emissions category of the
car.

Oh sure they do. *The Guvmint is only interested in saving the ickle
wicle planet from nasty pollution. *Nothing to do with raising revenue
at all.

You might not like paying it, but that is truly how it is
calculated.

I don't mind paying my way, unlike sponging cyclist scum.

Why don't lycra bibshorts have pockets? *Because cyclists never put
their hands in their pockets.

You really are remarkably backward.

And you are a gullible ****.

What would the progeny of a coupling between a hominid and a goat look
like, by the way?

A cyclist probably.

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

And, pray Dave, tell us how you would define a cyclist.