I nearly choked over my cornflakes when I read this one:

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144919&contentPK=20935661&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch

Made I larf!

:-)
-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

®i©ardo wrote:
> I nearly choked over my cornflakes when I read this one:
>
> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144919&contentPK=20935661&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch
>
> Made I larf!
>
What a sad, sick little man the writer of that piece is.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:42:40 +0100 someone who may be ®i©ardo
 wrote this:-

>http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144919&contentPK=20935661&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch
>
>Made I larf!

It made me smile. While one shouldn't mock the afflicted I made an
exception for the author of the letter and allowed myself a little
smile. As it says in the comment after the letter:

"Your letter is very far from a genuine argument Jamie Caddick.
There is accusation, name-calling, stereotyping, vitriol, cynicism,
insult, exaggeration and ignorance aplenty. I wonder if your letter
is more likely to be persuade people that actually the money for
cycling is pretty reasonable such is your ranting onslaught."



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 24 Jun, 10:37, David Hansen 
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:42:40 퍝 someone who may be ®i©ardo
>  wrote this:-
>
> >http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=...
>
> >Made I larf!
>
> It made me smile. While one shouldn't mock the afflicted I made an
> exception for the author of the letter and allowed myself a little
> smile. As it says in the comment after the letter:
>
> "Your letter is very far from a genuine argument Jamie Caddick.
> There is accusation, name-calling, stereotyping, vitriol, cynicism,
> insult, exaggeration and ignorance aplenty. I wonder if your letter
> is more likely to be persuade people that actually the money for
> cycling is pretty reasonable such is your ranting onslaught."
>
> --
>   David Hansen, Edinburgh
>  I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
>  http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54


The replies from Hanson and Grimstone made me laugh.
NM

David Hansen  wrote:

>  As it says in the comment after the letter:

"Hear Hear" is what it says, and I tend to agree.

On 2008-06-24, NM  wrote:
> On 24 Jun, 10:37, David Hansen 
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:42:40 +0100 someone who may be ®i©ardo
>>  wrote this:-
>>
>> >http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=...
>>
>> >Made I larf!
>>
>> It made me smile. While one shouldn't mock the afflicted I made an
>> exception for the author of the letter and allowed myself a little
>> smile. As it says in the comment after the letter:
>>
>> "Your letter is very far from a genuine argument Jamie Caddick.
>> There is accusation, name-calling, stereotyping, vitriol, cynicism,
>> insult, exaggeration and ignorance aplenty. I wonder if your letter
>> is more likely to be persuade people that actually the money for
>> cycling is pretty reasonable such is your ranting onslaught."
>>
>> --
>>   David Hansen, Edinburgh
>>  I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
>>  http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
>
>
> The replies from Hanson and Grimstone made me laugh.

I agree with every single word in the original article. Glad to see someone is
prepared to say it like it really is.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 2008-06-24, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> David Hansen  wrote:
>
>>  As it says in the comment after the letter:
>
> "Hear Hear" is what it says, and I tend to agree.

The web site puts in comments at the top.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On Jun 24, 10:37 am, David Hansen 
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:42:40 퍝 someone who may be ®i©ardo
>  wrote this:-
>
> >http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=...
>
> >Made I larf!
>
> It made me smile. While one shouldn't mock the afflicted I made an
> exception for the author of the letter and allowed myself a little
> smile.

Personal abuse?  Excellent.

Fod

On 24 Jun, 09:42, ®i©ardo  wrote:
> I nearly choked over my cornflakes when I read this one:
>
> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=> Made I larf!
>
> :-)


I think that he is just a tad over the top. For instance, the act of
cycling is not actually criminal yet, nor are we cyclists such
important sources of evil and terror in the world, as he seems to
suggest. Nor are we likely to get any of the money.

He could be one of their journos, you know. If so, he's no Auberon
Waugh. He could be Doug's evil twin, or the Anti-Doug, perhaps.

On 24 Jun, 10:28, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
> > I nearly choked over my cornflakes when I read this one:
>
> >http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=...
>
> > Made I larf!
>
> What a sad, sick little man the writer of that piece is.

You seem to be an exception here. The motorists who dominate this
transport newsgroup seem to bitterly resent anything being done to
help cyclists, which I attribute to sour grapes. Cycling is so much
more ethically acceptable than motoring, especially these days when
there is growing concern about harmful pollution and wanton wastage of
oil.

--
Carfree Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
and public transport.

Squashme wrote:
> On 24 Jun, 09:42, ®i©ardo  wrote:
>> I nearly choked over my cornflakes when I read this one:
>>
>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=...
>>
>> Made I larf!
>>
>> :-)
> 
> 
> I think that he is just a tad over the top. For instance, the act of
> cycling is not actually criminal yet, nor are we cyclists such
> important sources of evil and terror in the world, as he seems to
> suggest. Nor are we likely to get any of the money.
> 
> He could be one of their journos, you know. If so, he's no Auberon
> Waugh. He could be Doug's evil twin, or the Anti-Doug, perhaps.

He has obviously encountered the "better" side of the cycling fraternity 
in Bristol, though.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

In message , Brimstone 
 writes
>®i©ardo wrote:
>> I nearly choked over my cornflakes when I read this one:
>>
>> 
>>http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=di
>>splayContent&sourceNode=144919&contentPK=20935661&moduleName=InternalSe
>>arch&formname=sidebarsearch
>>
>> Made I larf!
>>
>What a sad, sick little man the writer of that piece is.
>
>
Tell me just who is going to want to cycle from (and back to) Knowle or 
Clifton, or any of the estates further out?
-- 
Clive

In message 
, 
Doug  writes
> Cycling is so much
>more ethically acceptable than motoring,
You try cycling around Bristol, instead of the flatland you call 
Catford.
-- 
Clive

Clive wrote:
> In message , Brimstone
>  writes
>> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>> I nearly choked over my cornflakes when I read this one:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=di
>>> splayContent&sourceNode=144919&contentPK=20935661&moduleName=InternalSe
>>> arch&formname=sidebarsearch
>>>
>>> Made I larf!
>>>
>> What a sad, sick little man the writer of that piece is.
>>
>>
> Tell me just who is going to want to cycle from (and back to) Knowle
> or Clifton, or any of the estates further out?

I don't recall seeing any shortage of cyclists when I lived and worked in 
Bristol, said work included driving around town.

The only problem I had was with idiot car drivers who thought that 
indicators were just for decoration and ambled around as if they were still 
country bumpkins. Oh, hang on a mo....

On Jun 24, 2:59 pm, Doug  wrote:
> On 24 Jun, 10:28, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>
> > ®i©ardo wrote:
> > > I nearly choked over my cornflakes when I read this one:
>
> > >http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=...
>
> > > Made I larf!
>
> > What a sad, sick little man the writer of that piece is.
>
> You seem to be an exception here. The motorists who dominate this
> transport newsgroup seem to bitterly resent anything being done to
> help cyclists,

Most people here object to bad driving and bad cycling.  I don't
recall many objecting to improvements for cyclists.

The exception would be cycle lanes but more cyclists object to them
than motorists.

Fod

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-06-24, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > David Hansen  wrote:
> >
> >>  As it says in the comment after the letter:
> >
> > "Hear Hear" is what it says, and I tend to agree.
> 
> The web site puts in comments at the top.

Yes, can't imagine who said "Hear Hear" or was the "Hear Hear" agreeing
with a comment, not the article?