#71
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:37:04 -0800 (PST), Justin Clewless
wrote: On 16 jan, 13:54, Judith wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:54:57 -0800 (PST), Justin wrote: On 16 jan, 11:30, Judith wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:30:47 -0800 (PST), Justin wrote: snip Dear oh dear - you naughty little porker you. I do not recognise you as Judge, Jury and Police of this newsgroup. You want to attempt that which is incorrect? Go ahead. Incorrect? *In what way? Are you denying using the posting names of: Front Mech Billsgate Ricky Bikebloke Sedentary IgnorantPopulist J.M.Messie I have said - you seem to be a bit of a Porker here. incorrect means wrong Wrong in what way? I see that you are not denying using those names. What a tosser you are. Let's take your posting in this thread: and then of course you were actually caught using the email address you had registered specifically for the purpose of making out that posts were from me J.M.Messie It is wrong. I invite you to prove your incorrect assertion. No,.no. no - I caught you. You then denied it Oh dear - keep digging. Just because you have already denied it does not mean that it did not happen. Let's try again : have you posted using name/address J.M.Messie It is quite a simple question - I am sure that you can answer it. Once you start trying to dodge the actual question - and trying to be clever with your response - it tends to confirm that you are lying in the first place. Porky Chapman is a dab hand at that - and then being caught out of course |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:07:33 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:56:56 +0000, Judith wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:47:13 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:04:47 +0000, Judith wrote: Then perhaps - why you are called Porky? The use of the passive to try and give some general justification to a personal opinion is thoroughly despicable. -- You are Peter Keller MB ChB FANZCA - a silly old sod in his late sixties in New Zealand, and ICMFP A credit to the Medical Profession - ffs And you are an anonymous coward. Guy Now, now, now Porky - you don't want to go winding me up :-) |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:04:32 +0000, Judith
wrote: You are Peter Keller MB ChB FANZCA - a silly old sod in his late sixties in New Zealand, and ICMFP A credit to the Medical Profession - ffs And you are an anonymous coward. you don't want to go winding me up :-) As was evident from within an hour of your first arrival, you come pre-wound. Guy -- Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed to be worth at least what you paid for them. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On 16/01/2012 13:04, The Weasel wrote:
On 16/01/2012 01:21, JNugent wrote: On 15/01/2012 20:47, dr6092 wrote: wrote: spoke mon wrote: But i'm pleased I got the bike now, it will save me quite a lot of money and the exercise will be good for me. Also means the wife can use the car during the week if she wants to. Most cyclists are apparently rather rich. If you can't at least afford two cars, are you sure you're ready for membership of the cycling fraternity? Not needing to have two is why they're rich. You've missed the point by a fair margin there. Ability to afford is highly aligned to desire. Is it? I could afford a £5,000 bicycle. Several of them, in fact. But do I desire one? What I can afford and the next man can afford will differ considerably. Most people cannot afford a new £1000 bike every year. You are surely wrong. "Most people" see more than that depreciate off the value of their car every year. Flat screen TVs must be depreciating fast as well (though not by £1,000 pa). They can afford it. If they couldn't, they er... wouldn't. The reason they don't buy a £1,000 bike annually is that [delete as appropriate] (a) they don't want a bike at all (just throwing that out there for discussion), (b) don't want one that badly or are prepared to (c) buy one which is cheaper. I can, but I can’t really afford a second car. No shame in that. The cost of running a car is more than £1,000 a year. Whether you can afford a second car is a completely separate issue from whether you would like one. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On 16 jan, 17:03, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:37:04 -0800 (PST), Justin Clewless wrote: On 16 jan, 13:54, Judith wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:54:57 -0800 (PST), Justin wrote: On 16 jan, 11:30, Judith wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:30:47 -0800 (PST), Justin wrote: snip Dear oh dear - you naughty little porker you. I do not recognise you as Judge, Jury and Police of this newsgroup.. You want to attempt that which is incorrect? Go ahead. Incorrect? *In what way? Are you denying using the posting names of: Front Mech Billsgate Ricky Bikebloke Sedentary IgnorantPopulist J.M.Messie I have said - you seem to be a bit of a Porker here. incorrect means wrong Wrong in what way? I see that you are not denying using those names. What a tosser you are. Let's take your posting in this thread: and then of course you were actually caught using the email address *you had registered specifically for the purpose of making out that posts were from me J.M.Messie It is wrong. I invite you to prove your incorrect assertion. No,.no. no *- I caught you. *You then denied it Incorrect. Wrong. Did you rebut my denial with conclusive proof? Oh dear - keep digging. *Just because you have already denied it does not mean that it did not happen. I do not have to do anything you ask. I invite you to re-offer your conclusive proof of your incorrect assertion regarding JM Messie. Let's try again : have you posted using name/address J.M.Messie It is quite a simple question - I am sure that you can answer it. Once you start trying to dodge the actual question - and trying to be clever with your response - it tends to confirm that you are lying in the first place. Porky Chapman is a dab hand at that - and then being caught out of course |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On 16/01/2012 15:07, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:56:56 +0000, wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:47:13 +0000 (UTC), Peter wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:04:47 +0000, Judith wrote: Then perhaps - why you are called Porky? The use of the passive to try and give some general justification to a personal opinion is thoroughly despicable. -- You are Peter Keller MB ChB FANZCA - a silly old sod in his late sixties in New Zealand, and ICMFP A credit to the Medical Profession - ffs And you are an anonymous coward. Didn't you say you knew who she was? |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On 16/01/2012 17:12, JNugent wrote:
On 16/01/2012 13:04, The Weasel wrote: On 16/01/2012 01:21, JNugent wrote: On 15/01/2012 20:47, dr6092 wrote: wrote: spoke mon wrote: But i'm pleased I got the bike now, it will save me quite a lot of money and the exercise will be good for me. Also means the wife can use the car during the week if she wants to. Most cyclists are apparently rather rich. If you can't at least afford two cars, are you sure you're ready for membership of the cycling fraternity? Not needing to have two is why they're rich. You've missed the point by a fair margin there. Ability to afford is highly aligned to desire. Is it? I could afford a £5,000 bicycle. Several of them, in fact. But do I desire one? What I can afford and the next man can afford will differ considerably. Most people cannot afford a new £1000 bike every year. You are surely wrong. "Most people" see more than that depreciate off the value of their car every year. Flat screen TVs must be depreciating fast as well (though not by £1,000 pa). They can afford it. If they couldn't, they er... wouldn't. The reason they don't buy a £1,000 bike annually is that [delete as appropriate] (a) they don't want a bike at all (just throwing that out there for discussion), (b) don't want one that badly or are prepared to (c) buy one which is cheaper. I can, but I can’t really afford a second car. No shame in that. The cost of running a car is more than £1,000 a year. Whether you can afford a second car is a completely separate issue from whether you would like one. Disagree, I could actually afford a second car if I wanted one. But the fact of the matter is that I don’t want one. I do not want the car, and I do not want the costs that would go with it. -- The Weasel |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On 16/01/2012 17:26, The Weasel wrote:
On 16/01/2012 17:12, JNugent wrote: On 16/01/2012 13:04, The Weasel wrote: On 16/01/2012 01:21, JNugent wrote: On 15/01/2012 20:47, dr6092 wrote: wrote: spoke mon wrote: But i'm pleased I got the bike now, it will save me quite a lot of money and the exercise will be good for me. Also means the wife can use the car during the week if she wants to. Most cyclists are apparently rather rich. If you can't at least afford two cars, are you sure you're ready for membership of the cycling fraternity? Not needing to have two is why they're rich. You've missed the point by a fair margin there. Ability to afford is highly aligned to desire. Is it? I could afford a £5,000 bicycle. Several of them, in fact. But do I desire one? What I can afford and the next man can afford will differ considerably. Most people cannot afford a new £1000 bike every year. You are surely wrong. "Most people" see more than that depreciate off the value of their car every year. Flat screen TVs must be depreciating fast as well (though not by £1,000 pa). They can afford it. If they couldn't, they er... wouldn't. The reason they don't buy a £1,000 bike annually is that [delete as appropriate] (a) they don't want a bike at all (just throwing that out there for discussion), (b) don't want one that badly or are prepared to (c) buy one which is cheaper. I can, but I can’t really afford a second car. No shame in that. The cost of running a car is more than £1,000 a year. Whether you can afford a second car is a completely separate issue from whether you would like one. Disagree, I could actually afford a second car if I wanted one. But the fact of the matter is that I don’t want one. I do not want the car, and I do not want the costs that would go with it. Actually, you've just agreed with me. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:13:16 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote: On 16 jan, 17:03, Judith wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:37:04 -0800 (PST), Justin Clewless wrote: On 16 jan, 13:54, Judith wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:54:57 -0800 (PST), Justin wrote: On 16 jan, 11:30, Judith wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:30:47 -0800 (PST), Justin wrote: snip Dear oh dear - you naughty little porker you. I do not recognise you as Judge, Jury and Police of this newsgroup. You want to attempt that which is incorrect? Go ahead. Incorrect? *In what way? Are you denying using the posting names of: Front Mech Billsgate Ricky Bikebloke Sedentary IgnorantPopulist J.M.Messie I have said - you seem to be a bit of a Porker here. incorrect means wrong Wrong in what way? I see that you are not denying using those names. What a tosser you are. Let's take your posting in this thread: and then of course you were actually caught using the email address *you had registered specifically for the purpose of making out that posts were from me J.M.Messie It is wrong. I invite you to prove your incorrect assertion. No,.no. no *- I caught you. *You then denied it Incorrect. Wrong. Did you rebut my denial with conclusive proof? So I say that you denied it. You say that I am "incorrect" - and I am "wrong" - and yet you then acknowledge that you made a denial. Most odd - still we knew that your English was almost as bad as your Dutch. You have previously posited using the names: Justin Lewis Front Mech Billsgate Ricky Bikebloke Sedentary IgnorantPopulist J.M.Messie You have been caught out. You are a ****wit and a liar. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
First week
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:27:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:04:32 +0000, Judith wrote: You are Peter Keller MB ChB FANZCA - a silly old sod in his late sixties in New Zealand, and ICMFP A credit to the Medical Profession - ffs And you are an anonymous coward. you don't want to go winding me up :-) As was evident from within an hour of your first arrival, you come pre-wound. Guy Ho, ho ho - how we laughed. Have you got the precise date for your ****-up? Oh - sorry - I did of course mean court case. "Tell me Mr Chapman - is it true that you registered an email address - purely so that you could abuse the defendant?" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[melb] tips for week in week out dirt crits? | dej | Australia | 5 | November 23rd 06 10:39 PM |
Helmet week next week on my new Blog & Question about Helmets! | 101bike | Techniques | 8 | March 17th 06 07:05 PM |
RR: The Same as Last Week | Ride-A-Lot | Mountain Biking | 18 | December 22nd 04 01:35 AM |
_Rhymes_With_Orange_ (Week of 9-Feb): Is it bike week? | Jym Dyer | General | 0 | February 10th 04 05:13 PM |
Personal statistic - More miles/week than hours worked/week | Peter Fox | UK | 10 | October 1st 03 10:17 PM |