David Hansen wrote:

On 16 Apr 2009 15:07:45 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:-

Indeed. Nice tries often do introduce facts to the debate.

In this case it didn't introduce any unknown facts into the debate,
at least as far as I was concerned.

snork

One wonders why anyone woudl choose to make themselves look like a
know-nothing and then would try to dig themselves out of the hole they
created by denying that the hole is a hole.

David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Indeed. Nice tries often do introduce facts to the debate.

In this case it didn't introduce any unknown facts into the debate, at
least as far as I was concerned.

So you were well aware of the fact you were talking complete ********?

Strange man.

Adrian wrote:

David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Indeed. Nice tries often do introduce facts to the debate.

In this case it didn't introduce any unknown facts into the debate, at
least as far as I was concerned.

So you were well aware of the fact you were talking complete ********?

Oh come on, it's not like it's difficult to spot when "Dynamo" Dave
starts to talk ********, is it?

On 16 Apr 2009 17:25:23 GMT, Adrian wrote:

JNugent gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Alternatively, you could regard it as a ****-take of your arrogant
pedantry.

Bad day at the office?

Not at all. A little light entertainment at your expense.


Surely you would only consider it "entertainment" if you had shown him
to be stupid or silly?

Why did your showing yourself to be both stupid and silly give you
entertainment?

Most odd.

Chapman school of ****wittery perhaps?




--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Clive wrote:
In message , Ttoommy
writes

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Adrian wrote:

Careful, you'll fuel Toomtard's "Steve Firth Collective" fantasies.

snip shaite

As I keep saying but it appears NOT to sink in

Gizmo = Filth

Also i asked the question about all the new posters that appearedfor
just a day or so appeared also to know ALL about Doug, his history
with Brians accusations and Filths vomit and would soon disappear
after slating Doug DO YOU Adrian think -its really one person = one
name=one poster
here? If its yes then Mr Adrain Gullible must stop handing your dosh
over
to all those Nigerian solicitors and money launderers
I notice that Mr Firth has correctly predicted when the rubbish would
start again, they'll have been serving for about 75 minutes, just
enough to get well oiled.

Who can get ****ed in an hour and a quarter? A child perhaps.

In ,
Adrian tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
"Dave Larrington" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

If it's not a silly question, why did you stop in a position where
he could pull up alongside?

Because preventing a vehicle from overtaking is something one should
never ever do ;-)

cough And where would he have been overtaking too...?

cough Doesn't matter. Even if he's about to crash headlong into another
vehicle, you must *never* obstruct him.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
If you want a bicycle, buy a bicycle. If you want something
that folds, buy a deckchair.

In message , JNugent
writes
Approaching a set of lights which turn amber just before we reach them
is a very common experience. It is remarkable that there is no ready
case-law on the topic.
As so many people treat amber as "get ready to stop" instead of stop if
it's safe to do so, the chances of being rear ended if you do stop would
be greatly enhanced.
--
Clive

Clive wrote:

JNugent writes:

Approaching a set of lights which turn amber just before we reach them
is a very common experience. It is remarkable that there is no ready
case-law on the topic.

As so many people treat amber as "get ready to stop" instead of stop if
it's safe to do so, the chances of being rear ended if you do stop would
be greatly enhanced.

Yes, I understand that this would be the general approach, but it's not quite
what I asked.

Daniel Barlow wrote:
Adrian writes:

Next
lights you see that are in the process of changing, whilst you've got a
police car following you, feel free to just blat through as they're very
nicely orange. Don't forget to ask the nice officers to make sure they
charge you, because you want to clarify the law.

If, as you claimed earlier, going through the lights on amber is not an
offence, what exactly do you expect them to charge him with?

Carless cycling. As opposed to failure to obey a traffic sign, which
would apply to going through the lights on red.

Nick Finnigan wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:
Adrian writes:

Next
lights you see that are in the process of changing, whilst you've
got a police car following you, feel free to just blat through as
they're very nicely orange. Don't forget to ask the nice officers
to make sure they charge you, because you want to clarify the law.

If, as you claimed earlier, going through the lights on amber is not
an offence, what exactly do you expect them to charge him with?

Carless cycling.

One would hope he was. :-)