Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity, by
demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl=en&dmode=source

He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is 32
mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their cars
are making "wild claims".

Absolutely beyond belief ...

"BrianW"  wrote in message 
news:3f81736f-9e95-4746-966f-02c2f88908a2@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity, by
> demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl=en&dmode=source
>
> He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is 32
> mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their cars
> are making "wild claims".
>
> Absolutely beyond belief ...

what a thick twat he is

Mike P

"BrianW"  wrote in message 
news:3f81736f-9e95-4746-966f-02c2f88908a2@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity, by
> demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl=en&dmode=source
>
> He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is 32
> mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their cars
> are making "wild claims".
>
> Absolutely beyond belief ...

There's also a point where he claims that the average consumption is 3.1 
mpg! "you are loathe to admit that average petrol consumption has remained 
unchanged at a pathetic 3.1mpg over the years". A slight factor of ten 
problem there!

On 27 Jun, 09:50, "Mortimer"  wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> news:3f81736f-9e95-4746-966f-02c2f88908a2@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity, by
> > demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
>
> >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl...
>
> > He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is 32
> > mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their cars
> > are making "wild claims".
>
> > Absolutely beyond belief ...
>
> There's also a point where he claims that the average consumption is 3.1
> mpg! "you are loathe to admit that average petrol consumption has remained
> unchanged at a pathetic 3.1mpg over the years". A slight factor of ten
> problem there!

And then claims that the difference between 3.1 and 32 is 0.1.  Has
there ever been a bigger, more drooling retard in the history of
mankind?

BrianW wrote:

> Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity, by
> demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
> 
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl=en&dmode=source
> 
> He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is 32
> mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their cars
> are making "wild claims".
> 
> Absolutely beyond belief ...
Strange, that's not the way that I read it,
---------------------------------------------------
quote
 > You're guessing, again. And table 3.4 does not show "new  cars are no
 > better than old cars." Table 3.4 clearly shows that the fleet average
 > for new cars in 2006 was 32mpg and that in the same year the average for
 > cars over 10 years old (i.e. old cars) was 29mpg.
 >
That is a very small difference and far removed from the wild claims
made by the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup and who
often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars.
unquote
-----------------------------------------------------

I realise that not everyone here is disposed to be charitable to Doug, 
but one *could* read his response as two clauses.
1/ the improvement in milage is of about 10% in ten years is hardly the 
massive improvement claimed by some of the pro private car group.
2/ The 45mpg performance of the cars used by some individuals is not 
evidence that there' been general progress in cutting fuel consumption.

Roger Thorpe

On Jun 27, 9:57 am, BrianW  wrote:
> On 27 Jun, 09:50, "Mortimer"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> >news:3f81736f-9e95-4746-966f-02c2f88908a2@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com..> > > Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity, by
> > > demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
>
> > >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl.> > > He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is 32
> > > mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their cars
> > > are making "wild claims".
>
> > > Absolutely beyond belief ...
>
> > There's also a point where he claims that the average consumption is 3.1
> > mpg! "you are loathe to admit that average petrol consumption has remained
> > unchanged at a pathetic 3.1mpg over the years". A slight factor of ten
> > problem there!
>
> And then claims that the difference between 3.1 and 32 is 0.1.  Has
> there ever been a bigger, more drooling retard in the history of
> mankind?

Everyone makes mistakes.  Typos creep in, decimal places are in the
wrong place.  You type something in the heat of the moment and miss a
word out that changes the meaning such as dropping a "not".

Most people exlain the mistake and then get on with the discussion.

Of course if you can't ever admit to making a mistake you're only
option is to see how big a hole you can dig before you have to resort
to going silent for a few days to let people forget the hole you just
doug.  Erm I mean dug.

Fod

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> BrianW wrote:
>
>> Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity,
>> by demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
>>
>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl=en&dmode=source
>>
>> He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is
>> 32 mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their
>> cars are making "wild claims".
>>
>> Absolutely beyond belief ...
> Strange, that's not the way that I read it,
> ---------------------------------------------------
> quote
>> You're guessing, again. And table 3.4 does not show "new  cars are no
>> better than old cars." Table 3.4 clearly shows that the fleet average
>> for new cars in 2006 was 32mpg and that in the same year the average
>> for cars over 10 years old (i.e. old cars) was 29mpg.
>>
> That is a very small difference and far removed from the wild claims
> made by the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup and who
> often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars.
> unquote
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> I realise that not everyone here is disposed to be charitable to Doug,
> but one *could* read his response as two clauses.
> 1/ the improvement in milage is of about 10% in ten years is hardly
> the massive improvement claimed by some of the pro private car group.
> 2/ The 45mpg performance of the cars used by some individuals is not
> evidence that there' been general progress in cutting fuel
> consumption.
Has any one got any beer?

<Sits back to await an onslaught from Doug.>

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:XdSdneWabIE0I_nVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>> BrianW wrote:
>>
>>> Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity,
>>> by demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl=en&dmode=source
>>>
>>> He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is
>>> 32 mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their
>>> cars are making "wild claims".
>>>
>>> Absolutely beyond belief ...
>> Strange, that's not the way that I read it,
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> quote
>>> You're guessing, again. And table 3.4 does not show "new  cars are no
>>> better than old cars." Table 3.4 clearly shows that the fleet average
>>> for new cars in 2006 was 32mpg and that in the same year the average
>>> for cars over 10 years old (i.e. old cars) was 29mpg.
>>>
>> That is a very small difference and far removed from the wild claims
>> made by the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup and who
>> often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars.
>> unquote
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I realise that not everyone here is disposed to be charitable to Doug,
>> but one *could* read his response as two clauses.
>> 1/ the improvement in milage is of about 10% in ten years is hardly
>> the massive improvement claimed by some of the pro private car group.
>> 2/ The 45mpg performance of the cars used by some individuals is not
>> evidence that there' been general progress in cutting fuel
>> consumption.
> Has any one got any beer?

Depends on whether it's more or less expensive than petrol, because, as we 
all know, it's quite valid to compare the relative cost of unrelated fluids 
and draw conclusions from that comparison.

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:XdSdneWabIE0I_nVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> Has any one got any beer?
>
> <Sits back to await an onslaught from Doug.>
 the testicularly challenged little men CHOOSE to read something into a 
statement that was not said or implied and its down to Doug  = What?

Gordon Bennett - Do some of you guys live in Narnia or maybe its x-box world 
and you hate reality and anyone who mentions it  :(

BRENT CRUDE $141.98 - Highest Ever

"Tommy"  wrote in message 
news:6cju5cF3feempU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> news:XdSdneWabIE0I_nVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Has any one got any beer?
>>
>> <Sits back to await an onslaught from Doug.>
> the testicularly challenged little men CHOOSE to read something into a 
> statement that was not said or implied and its down to Doug  = What?
>
> Gordon Bennett - Do some of you guys live in Narnia or maybe its x-box 
> world and you hate reality and anyone who mentions it  :(
>
> BRENT CRUDE $141.98 - Highest Ever

And? It's called life. Prices go up. Deal with it.

Mike P

Tommy wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> news:XdSdneWabIE0I_nVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Has any one got any beer?
>>
>> <Sits back to await an onslaught from Doug.>
> the testicularly challenged little men CHOOSE to read something into a
> statement that was not said or implied and its down to Doug  = What?

Perhaps if you were capable of understanding Doug's usual procedure you 
wouldn't be asking such a question. But there again, if you understood 
anything you wouldn't post the gibberish that you do.

> Gordon Bennett - Do some of you guys live in Narnia or maybe its
> x-box world and you hate reality and anyone who mentions it  :(
>
> BRENT CRUDE $141.98 - Highest Ever

Now what are you going on about?

On 27 Jun, 09:44, "Mike P"  wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> news:3f81736f-9e95-4746-966f-02c2f88908a2@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity, by
> > demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
>
> >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl...
>
> > He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is 32
> > mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their cars
> > are making "wild claims".
>
> > Absolutely beyond belief ...
>
> what a thick twat he is

It gets better and better.  See this latest one from the great man:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/2de3f6f21f2b1018?hl=en&dmode=source

How do you calculate your average fuel consumption?

<sucks air in through teeth>

Oooh, that's a tricky one.  Anyone got any ideas?

"BrianW"  wrote in message 
news:068ad7d9-d07c-4efe-b5cd-2a3892105595@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 Jun, 09:44, "Mike P"  wrote:
>> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:3f81736f-9e95-4746-966f-02c2f88908a2@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity, by
>> > demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
>>
>> >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl...
>>
>> > He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is 32
>> > mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their cars
>> > are making "wild claims".
>>
>> > Absolutely beyond belief ...
>>
>> what a thick twat he is
>
> It gets better and better.  See this latest one from the great man:
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/2de3f6f21f2b1018?hl=en&dmode=source
>
> How do you calculate your average fuel consumption?
>
> <sucks air in through teeth>
>
> Oooh, that's a tricky one.  Anyone got any ideas?

Er fill my car up to the brim, drive it until it runs dry and work out how 
many mpg I'm getting. 46.1 actually, but that's immaterial.

I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug arsehole doing 
in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.

Mike P

Mike P wrote:

> I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug arsehole
> doing in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
>
Everyone else (apart from Doug's acolytes) is asking the same question.

Welcome to the happiest band in Usenetland. United in a common goal, to get 
rid of Doug.

On 27 Jun, 11:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> news:068ad7d9-d07c-4efe-b5cd-2a3892105595@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27 Jun, 09:44, "Mike P"  wrote:
> >> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:3f81736f-9e95-4746-966f-02c2f88908a2@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.> >> > Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity, by
> >> > demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
>
> >> >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl> >> > He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is 32
> >> > mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their cars
> >> > are making "wild claims".
>
> >> > Absolutely beyond belief ...
>
> >> what a thick twat he is
>
> > It gets better and better.  See this latest one from the great man:
>
> >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/2de3f6f21f2b1018?hl...
>
> > How do you calculate your average fuel consumption?
>
> > <sucks air in through teeth>
>
> > Oooh, that's a tricky one.  Anyone got any ideas?
>
> Er fill my car up to the brim, drive it until it runs dry and work out how
> many mpg I'm getting. 46.1 actually, but that's immaterial.

No, no, the average at best is 32, so you *must* be lying.  According
to Duhg.

> I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug arsehole doing
> in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.

Correct.  He is, however, highly entertaining, in a "poke the mong
with a sharp stick" type of way.  The same could be said for Tommy,
who is uk.transport's other resident drooling retard.

BrianW wrote:
> It gets better and better.  See this latest one from the great man:
> 
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/2de3f6f21f2b1018?hl=en&dmode=source
> 
> How do you calculate your average fuel consumption?
> 

Is this the passage that you mean? what is so wrog with it?
----------------------------------------------------
 >Some bloke:
 >My 22 year old Ford Capri 2L does 37MPG and thats doing a 300 mile
 > round trip with 2 adults, 2 kids plus picnic gear in and 3 trips down
 > Santa Pod drag strip.
 >
Doug:
How do you calculate your anecdotal result, what does it ignore,  and
how does this excuse the fact that average petrol consumption of all
the other cars still remains at 32mpg at best, regardless of age?
--------------------------------------------------------

BrianW wrote:

 > On 27 Jun, 11:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
 >
 >> "BrianW"  wrote in message


 >> I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug 
arsehole doing
 >> in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
 >
 >
 >
 > Correct.  He is, however, highly entertaining, in a "poke the mong
 > with a sharp stick" type of way.  The same could be said for Tommy,
 > who is uk.transport's other resident drooling retard.


That's one point of view, complete with a reference to Down's syndrome 
of the type that I didn't think we'd see anymore in the 21st century...

Doug seems to be a committed environmentalist and is concerned 
specifically about the CO2 emissions from private cars and their other 
antisocial characteristics.  Unfortunately his posting style seems to 
consist mostly of cut and paste from a variety of sometimes unreliable 
sources. Too often he lets the arguments that stem from these posts get 
personal and drift into abuse, which is a shame because that has 
polarized the group and made it difficult to make any green arguments.
Like most people here I often wish that he'd just shut up.

Roger Thorpe

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> BrianW wrote:
>
>> On 27 Jun, 11:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
>>
>>> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
>
>>> I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug
>>> arsehole doing in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot
>>> to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Correct.  He is, however, highly entertaining, in a "poke the mong
>> with a sharp stick" type of way.  The same could be said for Tommy,
>> who is uk.transport's other resident drooling retard.
>
>
> That's one point of view, complete with a reference to Down's syndrome
> of the type that I didn't think we'd see anymore in the 21st
> century...
> Doug seems to be a committed environmentalist and is concerned
> specifically about the CO2 emissions from private cars and their other
> antisocial characteristics.

As you read further you might find that view changing.

>  Unfortunately his posting style seems to
> consist mostly of cut and paste from a variety of sometimes unreliable
> sources. Too often he lets the arguments that stem from these posts
> get personal and drift into abuse, which is a shame because that has
> polarized the group and made it difficult to make any green arguments.

The biggist obstacle to him actually persuading anyone is his hypocritcal 
stance. In fact, he has said that he isn't interested in converting anyone 
to his point of view. He appears to relish pointless argument, and so who 
are we to deny an old man his pleasures?

> Like most people here I often wish that he'd just shut up.
>
Indeed. When I joined this group Doug wasn't posting to it (there has been 
an inference that he was having a break from real life courtesy of Her 
Majesty) and there was good general discussion on a wide range of transport 
topics. Sadly, since Doug's return he has sought to dominate the group, 
endlessly whinging about the fact that it is dominated by motorists and yet 
he starts the vast majority of posts about cars or motorists and introduces 
those subjects into threads which are not about other subjects.

Fod  wrote:

> 
> Of course if you can't ever admit to making a mistake you're only
> option is to see how big a hole you can dig before you have to resort
> to going silent for a few days to let people forget the hole you just
> doug.  Erm I mean dug.

Of course the problem for Duhng is that since his approach to "debate"
is to call anyone who disagrees with him a liar, or to be accurate a
"Liar!!!", he creates an ever growing list of people who will not give
him room for even a single mistake. Nor will that list of people forget
or overlook his many cock-ups and he will be reminded ad-nauseam of
every single slip, lie or act of fantasy that he has committed.

Roger Thorpe  wrote:

> BrianW wrote:
> 
> > Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity, by
> > demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
> > 
> > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl=en
> > &dmode=source
> > 
> > He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is 32
> > mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their cars
> > are making "wild claims".
> > 
> > Absolutely beyond belief ...
> Strange, that's not the way that I read it,
> ---------------------------------------------------
> quote
>  > You're guessing, again. And table 3.4 does not show "new  cars are no
>  > better than old cars." Table 3.4 clearly shows that the fleet average
>  > for new cars in 2006 was 32mpg and that in the same year the average for
>  > cars over 10 years old (i.e. old cars) was 29mpg.
>  >
> That is a very small difference and far removed from the wild claims
> made by the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup and who
> often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars.
> unquote
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> I realise that not everyone here is disposed to be charitable to Doug,
> but one *could* read his response as two clauses.
> 1/ the improvement in milage is of about 10% in ten years is hardly the
> massive improvement claimed by some of the pro private car group.

I can't see how you can read that into Duhng's statement other than if
you are falling backwards to open your legs and be inseminated with his
next love child.

"This is a very small difference."

Untrue, 10% is not a very small difference, and given the difficulty of
obtaining an improvement in mpg given conflicting government edicts
(more safety which means more weight which means poor mpg; cleaner
exhaust emissions to be obtained using a prescribed and inefficient
technology means poorer economy) it is astonishing that the fleet
average has improved to the extent that it has.

"far removed from the wild claims made by the motorists who dominate
this transport newsgroup"

Firstly a lie, there are no documented "wild claims" made in this
newsgroup about improvements in fleet mpg. There are many "wild claims"
made by one Doug Bollen of Catford but as far as I can see there is no
evidence of any motorists claiming huge improvement in fleet mpg. There
is also the lie about the domination of this newsgroup by motorists.
Doug seem to hope that repeating this lie will make it true or appear
true. Before Doug started his anti-car rants in which every post he
makes on any transport subject drags the subject around to cars, there
was no "domination" by motorists or indeed no domination of this group
by the subject of cars. Just about every thread here about cars is
started by Doug Bollen of Catford.


> 2/ The 45mpg performance of the cars used by some individuals is not 
> evidence that there' been general progress in cutting fuel consumption.

There is no conenction between that interpretation and what was said by
Bollen. He claims that the "the motorists who dominate this transport
newsgroup and who often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars"

That's not "some individuals" according to Bollen is it a majority of
motorists (who dominate) and who make this claim. His statement is a
lie, the majorityof newsgroup users do not claim to have cars exceeding
45mpg. Some have stated that they drive economical cars and some have
told Bollen to fuck off and mind his own business.

If you, or he allege that there is a consistent and dominant theme in
this newsgroup of individuals claiming that mpg of the Uk fleet exceeds
45 mpg or that there has been a huge improvement of that fleet mpg in
recent years, then I suggest that you post some evidence.

Your interpretation that the garbled sentence from Duhng illustrates two
clear and distinct proposals is, quite simply, bullshit.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ij7133.bklyj1s2e7z2N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
SNIP SNIP SNIP

 Your interpretation that the garbled sentence from Duhng illustrates two
> clear and distinct proposals is, quite simply, bullshit.

Blimey, Steve so verbose in the last couple of days I'd have thought verbal 
Dai O'Rea or bovine effluent but "bullshit"

You must try harder :)

On 27 Jun, 12:37, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Fod  wrote:
>
> > Of course if you can't ever admit to making a mistake you're only
> > option is to see how big a hole you can dig before you have to resort
> > to going silent for a few days to let people forget the hole you just
> > doug.  Erm I mean dug.
>
> Of course the problem for Duhng is that since his approach to "debate"
> is to call anyone who disagrees with him a liar, or to be accurate a
> "Liar!!!", he creates an ever growing list of people who will not give
> him room for even a single mistake. Nor will that list of people forget
> or overlook his many cock-ups and he will be reminded ad-nauseam of
> every single slip, lie or act of fantasy that he has committed.

Quite.  Everyone makes mistakes, but most people's response, when a
mistake such as putting a decimal point in the wrong place is pointed
out, is to say "silly me, I made a mistake", correct it and get on
with life.

Gollum, however, has said in the past that he never admits to making a
mistake.  That means that he has to dig harder and harder to justify
his initial position, rather than ever admitting it was wrong.
Fortunately, in doing so he provides us with a great deal of
entertainment.

Roger Thorpe  wrote:

> Doug seems to be a committed environmentalist 

In a pig's eye. He's anti-car and that's the begining and end of his
eco-mentalism. He started his involvement in newsgroups by declarign his
"socialist" principles and a "smash the capitalist state" diatribe.
That's nothing to do with being a "committed environmentalist."

Like many donning a green mantle, his pronouncements remain red to the
core.

> and is concerned specifically about the CO2 emissions from private cars
> and their other antisocial characteristics.

He's concerned about anything that can paint cars and car drivers in a
bad light. End of story. 

>  Unfortunately his posting style seems to consist mostly of cut and paste
> from a variety of sometimes unreliable sources.

"Sometimes"?

He relies upon cut and paste from websites that he authors, the Daily
Mail and IndyNews. There's no "sometimes" about it.

> Too often he lets the arguments that stem from these posts get personal
> and drift into abuse, 

He doesn't "let arguments get personal" he makes arguments personal. For
years now he has been screaming "Liar!" at anyone who disagrees with him
or who points out the poverty or inaccuracy of his "argument".

> which is a shame because that has polarized the group and made it
> difficult to make any green arguments. Like most people here I often wish
> that he'd just shut up.

Well that's something we can all agree on. You also forgot to mention
that when anyone does make some progress in terms of "green arguments"
Duhng's only response is to heap abuse on the invidividual.

Steve Firth wrote:

> 
> I can't see how you can read that into Duhng's statement other than if
> you are falling backwards to open your legs and be inseminated with his
> next love child.
>
That's the second unpleasant image you've put in my head in 24 hours.

> "This is a very small difference."
> 
> Untrue, 10% is not a very small difference, and given the difficulty of
> obtaining an improvement in mpg given conflicting government edicts
> (more safety which means more weight which means poor mpg; cleaner
> exhaust emissions to be obtained using a prescribed and inefficient
> technology means poorer economy) it is astonishing that the fleet
> average has improved to the extent that it has.
That's a point of view, but I'd still say that 1% a year is very 
disappointing. I think that you're right about the reasons too except 
that I'd add that the demand for "luxury", air conditioning and the 
fashion for big (often 4wd) cars and high performance toys are factors too.

> 
> "far removed from the wild claims made by the motorists who dominate
> this transport newsgroup"
> 
> Firstly a lie, there are no documented "wild claims" made in this
> newsgroup about improvements in fleet mpg. There are many "wild claims"
> made by one Doug Bollen of Catford but as far as I can see there is no
> evidence of any motorists claiming huge improvement in fleet mpg. There
> is also the lie about the domination of this newsgroup by motorists.
snip
> 
You may be right but I hope that you'd understand why he has a slightly 
paranoid view.
> 
> 
>>2/ The 45mpg performance of the cars used by some individuals is not 
>>evidence that there' been general progress in cutting fuel consumption.
> 
> 
> There is no conenction between that interpretation and what was said by
> Bollen. He claims that the "the motorists who dominate this transport
> newsgroup and who often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars"
> 
> That's not "some individuals" according to Bollen is it a majority of
> motorists (who dominate) and who make this claim. His statement is a
> lie, the majorityof newsgroup users do not claim to have cars exceeding
> 45mpg. Some have stated that they drive economical cars and some have
> told Bollen to fuck off and mind his own business.

I suppose this might come down to my optimistic view that the debate was 
about the issues rather than each other's personal behaviour. I have the 
distinct impression of coming across a discussion where someone did 
claim that the performance of a particular car demonstrated a general 
improvement. This may, of course have been in Real Life.

> Your interpretation that the garbled sentence from Duhng illustrates two
> clear and distinct proposals is, quite simply, bullshit.

Optimistic bullshit though!

Roger (Pollyanna) Thorpe

Tommy  typed:
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1ij7133.bklyj1s2e7z2N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> SNIP SNIP SNIP
>
> Your interpretation that the garbled sentence from Duhng illustrates
> two
>> clear and distinct proposals is, quite simply, bullshit.
>
> Blimey, Steve so verbose in the last couple of days I'd have thought
> verbal Dai O'Rea or bovine effluent but "bullshit"
>
> You must try harder :)

You don't refute his arguments though.

-- 
Dogpoop
http://www.glass-uk.org/
"You would probably do better not to bother with renewable
energy"  Doug, UK.Transport 29/04/2008 08:53.

"Roger Thorpe"  wrote in message 
news:g42n4c$lj8$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
> Steve Firth wrote:
>
>>
>> I can't see how you can read that into Duhng's statement other than if
>> you are falling backwards to open your legs and be inseminated with his
>> next love child.
>>
> That's the second unpleasant image you've put in my head in 24 hours.
>
>> "This is a very small difference."
>>
>> Untrue, 10% is not a very small difference, and given the difficulty of
>> obtaining an improvement in mpg given conflicting government edicts
>> (more safety which means more weight which means poor mpg; cleaner
>> exhaust emissions to be obtained using a prescribed and inefficient
>> technology means poorer economy) it is astonishing that the fleet
>> average has improved to the extent that it has.
> That's a point of view, but I'd still say that 1% a year is very 
> disappointing. I think that you're right about the reasons too except that 
> I'd add that the demand for "luxury", air conditioning and the fashion for 
> big (often 4wd) cars and high performance toys are factors too.
>
Speed bumps are a factor too, they must ruin fuel consumption figures. It 
wouldn't be so bad if people actually drove over them at say 20-25mph and 
KEPT THAT SPEED between them. Here they seem to slow down to an almost stop, 
crawl over them at 3mph (literally) then speed up to 30 before the next one, 
before slamming on the brakes then crawling over them, then speeding up, 
then anchoring on etc. This must use lots of extra fuel.

Mike P

On 27 Jun, 12:18, Roger Thorpe 
wrote:
> BrianW wrote:
> > On 27 Jun, 11:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
>
> >>"BrianW"  wrote in message
> >>I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug arsehole doing
> >>in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
>
> > Correct.  He is, however, highly entertaining, in a "poke the mong
> > with a sharp stick" type of way.  The same could be said for Tommy,
> > who is uk.transport's other resident drooling retard.
>
> That's one point of view, complete with a reference to Don's syndrome of
> the type that I didn't think we'd see anymore in the 21st century...

I do apologise.  May I refer to him as a "window licker" instead?

Mike P wrote:
> 
> I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug arsehole
> doing in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
> 
You're being too kind.

"BrianW"  wrote in message 
news:06a0f22e-7ba5-4ccf-8167-c4fc883752f9@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 27 Jun, 12:18, Roger Thorpe 
wrote:
> BrianW wrote:
> > On 27 Jun, 11:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
>
> >>"BrianW"  wrote in message
> >>I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug arsehole 
> >>doing
> >>in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
>
> > Correct. He is, however, highly entertaining, in a "poke the mong
> > with a sharp stick" type of way. The same could be said for Tommy,
> > who is uk.transport's other resident drooling retard.
>
> That's one point of view, complete with a reference to Don's syndrome of
> the type that I didn't think we'd see anymore in the 21st century...

>I do apologise.  May I refer to him as a "window licker" instead?

No, you may not. I believe the correct term these days is "Scopie" or 
"Scoper".

Mike P

On 27 Jun, 14:01, "Mike P"  wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> news:06a0f22e-7ba5-4ccf-8167-c4fc883752f9@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 Jun, 12:18, Roger Thorpe 
> wrote:
>
> > BrianW wrote:
> > > On 27 Jun, 11:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
>
> > >>"BrianW"  wrote in message
> > >>I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug arsehole
> > >>doing
> > >>in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
>
> > > Correct. He is, however, highly entertaining, in a "poke the mong
> > > with a sharp stick" type of way. The same could be said for Tommy,
> > > who is uk.transport's other resident drooling retard.
>
> > That's one point of view, complete with a reference to Don's syndrome of
> > the type that I didn't think we'd see anymore in the 21st century...
> >I do apologise.  May I refer to him as a "window licker" instead?
>
> No, you may not. I believe the correct term these days is "Scopie" or
> "Scoper".

Makes sense - used to be "spacker" or "spaz" when I were a lad.

On 27 Jun, 13:44, "Mike P"  wrote:
> "Roger Thorpe"  wrote in message
>
> news:g42n4c$lj8$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
>
> > Steve Firth wrote:
>
> >> I can't see how you can read that into Duhng's statement other than if
> >> you are falling backwards to open your legs and be inseminated with his
> >> next love child.
>
> > That's the second unpleasant image you've put in my head in 24 hours.
>
> >> "This is a very small difference."
>
> >> Untrue, 10% is not a very small difference, and given the difficulty of
> >> obtaining an improvement in mpg given conflicting government edicts
> >> (more safety which means more weight which means poor mpg; cleaner
> >> exhaust emissions to be obtained using a prescribed and inefficient
> >> technology means poorer economy) it is astonishing that the fleet
> >> average has improved to the extent that it has.
> > That's a point of view, but I'd still say that 1% a year is very
> > disappointing. I think that you're right about the reasons too except that
> > I'd add that the demand for "luxury", air conditioning and the fashion for
> > big (often 4wd) cars and high performance toys are factors too.
>
> Speed bumps are a factor too, they must ruin fuel consumption figures. It
> wouldn't be so bad if people actually drove over them at say 20-25mph and
> KEPT THAT SPEED between them. Here they seem to slow down to an almost stop,
> crawl over them at 3mph (literally) then speed up to 30 before the next one,
> before slamming on the brakes then crawling over them, then speeding up,
> then anchoring on etc. This must use lots of extra fuel.
>
> Mike P

You haven't seen the ones around here. Any faster than 5mph over them
and your suspension would be through the bonnet. My tiny _fuel
efficient_ Fiesta gets through so many suspension components it's
ridiculous. Maybe I should buy a 4x4.

Philip

"BrianW"  wrote in message 
news:206833d8-a18e-4dcd-bb82-22af583e719a@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 27 Jun, 14:01, "Mike P"  wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> news:06a0f22e-7ba5-4ccf-8167-c4fc883752f9@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 Jun, 12:18, Roger Thorpe 
> wrote:
>
> > BrianW wrote:
> > > On 27 Jun, 11:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
>
> > >>"BrianW"  wrote in message
> > >>I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug arsehole
> > >>doing
> > >>in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
>
> > > Correct. He is, however, highly entertaining, in a "poke the mong
> > > with a sharp stick" type of way. The same could be said for Tommy,
> > > who is uk.transport's other resident drooling retard.
>
> > That's one point of view, complete with a reference to Don's syndrome of
> > the type that I didn't think we'd see anymore in the 21st century...
> >I do apologise. May I refer to him as a "window licker" instead?
>
> No, you may not. I believe the correct term these days is "Scopie" or
> "Scoper".

>Makes sense - used to be "spacker" or "spaz" when I were a lad.

Yes, me too. My brother works with them , and he tells me that they refer to 
each other as scopies these days..

Mike P

On 27 Jun, 12:21, Roger Thorpe 
wrote:
> BrianW wrote:
>
>  > On 27 Jun, 11:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
>  >
>  >> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
>  >> I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug
> arsehole doing
>  >> in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Correct.  He is, however, highly entertaining, in a "poke the mong
>  > with a sharp stick" type of way.  The same could be said for Tommy>  > who is uk.transport's other resident drooling retard.
>
> That's one point of view, complete with a reference to Down's syndrome
> of the type that I didn't think we'd see anymore in the 21st century...
>
> Doug seems to be a committed environmentalist and is concerned
> specifically about the CO2 emissions from private cars and their other
> antisocial characteristics.  Unfortunately his posting style seems to
> consist mostly of cut and paste from a variety of sometimes unreliable
> sources. Too often he lets the arguments that stem from these posts get
> personal and drift into abuse, which is a shame because that has
> polarized the group and made it difficult to make any green arguments.
> Like most people here I often wish that he'd just shut up.

If you are quite new to this group, you might wonder why everyone is
so harsh on Doug Bollen.  Allow me to explain why.  It is because he
is a mean-spirited, bitter, vindictive, hypocritical, dishonest,
terrorist-supporting, Stalin-loving, anarchist-pretending, Holocaust-
denying, ex-4x4 driving yet now anti-car, Morocco-visiting yet now
anti-foreign travel, ex-country dwelling yet now believing everyone
should live in London, vegan-claiming yet leather shoe wearing, two
ozone-believing, scientifically and mathematically illiterate, Gollum-
resembling, child death-gloating, misogynistic, racist, senile, stupid
and ignorant old gobshite.

And that's just his good points ...

PS all of the above can be backed up by stuff he has posted over the
years

BrianW wrote:
> If you are quite new to this group, you might wonder why everyone is
> so harsh on Doug Bollen.  Allow me to explain why.  It is because he
> is a mean-spirited, bitter, vindictive, hypocritical, dishonest,
> terrorist-supporting, Stalin-loving, anarchist-pretending, Holocaust-
> denying, ex-4x4 driving yet now anti-car, Morocco-visiting yet now
> anti-foreign travel, ex-country dwelling yet now believing everyone
> should live in London, vegan-claiming yet leather shoe wearing, two
> ozone-believing, scientifically and mathematically illiterate, Gollum-
> resembling, child death-gloating, misogynistic, racist, senile, stupid
> and ignorant old gobshite.
>
> And that's just his good points ...
>
Is that all?

"BrianW"  wrote in message 
news:2b41690d-97ec-4852-a359-7729a5116ca0@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 27 Jun, 12:21, Roger Thorpe 
wrote:
> BrianW wrote:
>
> > On 27 Jun, 11:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
> >
> >> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> >> I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug
> arsehole doing
> >> in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Correct. He is, however, highly entertaining, in a "poke the mong
> > with a sharp stick" type of way. The same could be said for Tommy,
> > who is uk.transport's other resident drooling retard.
>
> That's one point of view, complete with a reference to Down's syndrome
> of the type that I didn't think we'd see anymore in the 21st century...
>
> Doug seems to be a committed environmentalist and is concerned
> specifically about the CO2 emissions from private cars and their other
> antisocial characteristics. Unfortunately his posting style seems to
> consist mostly of cut and paste from a variety of sometimes unreliable
> sources. Too often he lets the arguments that stem from these posts get
> personal and drift into abuse, which is a shame because that has
> polarized the group and made it difficult to make any green arguments.
> Like most people here I often wish that he'd just shut up.

>If you are quite new to this group, you might wonder why everyone is
>so harsh on Doug Bollen.

His posts just make him look like a twat, that's what I'd presumed anyway


>Allow me to explain why.  It is because he
>is a mean-spirited, bitter, vindictive, hypocritical, dishonest,
>terrorist-supporting, Stalin-loving, anarchist-pretending, Holocaust-
>denying, ex-4x4 driving yet now anti-car, Morocco-visiting yet now
>anti-foreign travel, ex-country dwelling yet now believing everyone
>should live in London, vegan-claiming yet leather shoe wearing, two
>ozone-believing, scientifically and mathematically illiterate, Gollum-
>resembling, child death-gloating, misogynistic, racist, senile, stupid
>and ignorant old gobshite.

and a steaming hypocrite as well by the looks of things!
Well, I love steak, drive a Jeep, my wife's black, I hate living in London, 
I love to travel to South America a lot and we lost a baby last year. 
Fucker's going to love me isn't he?


Mike P

On 27 Jun, 16:28, "Mike P"  wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> news:2b41690d-97ec-4852-a359-7729a5116ca0@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 Jun, 12:21, Roger Thorpe 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > BrianW wrote:
>
> > > On 27 Jun, 11:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
>
> > >> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> > >> I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug
> > arsehole doing
> > >> in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
>
> > > Correct. He is, however, highly entertaining, in a "poke the mong
> > > with a sharp stick" type of way. The same could be said for Tommy,
> > > who is uk.transport's other resident drooling retard.
>
> > That's one point of view, complete with a reference to Down's syndrome
> > of the type that I didn't think we'd see anymore in the 21st century...
>
> > Doug seems to be a committed environmentalist and is concerned
> > specifically about the CO2 emissions from private cars and their other
> > antisocial characteristics. Unfortunately his posting style seems to
> > consist mostly of cut and paste from a variety of sometimes unreliable
> > sources. Too often he lets the arguments that stem from these posts get
> > personal and drift into abuse, which is a shame because that has
> > polarized the group and made it difficult to make any green arguments.
> > Like most people here I often wish that he'd just shut up.
> >If you are quite new to this group, you might wonder why everyone is
> >so harsh on Doug Bollen.
>
> His posts just make him look like a twat, that's what I'd presumed anyway

Yes, but the effect of Gollum is cumulative - it is not always
apparent to people just how big a twat he is until they've read
sufficient of his posts.  You seem to be a fast learner, though!

> >Allow me to explain why.  It is because he
> >is a mean-spirited, bitter, vindictive, hypocritical, dishonest,
> >terrorist-supporting, Stalin-loving, anarchist-pretending, Holocaust-
> >denying, ex-4x4 driving yet now anti-car, Morocco-visiting yet now
> >anti-foreign travel, ex-country dwelling yet now believing everyone
> >should live in London, vegan-claiming yet leather shoe wearing, two
> >ozone-believing, scientifically and mathematically illiterate, Gollum-
> >resembling, child death-gloating, misogynistic, racist, senile, stupid
> >and ignorant old gobshite.
>
> and a steaming hypocrite as well by the looks of things!
> Well, I love steak, drive a Jeep, my wife's black, I hate living in London,
> I love to travel to South America a lot and we lost a baby last year.

Sorry to hear that.

> Fucker's going to love me isn't he?

Yup.  However, I'm sure you'll cope ...

Mike P wrote:

> and a steaming hypocrite as well by the looks of things!
> Well, I love steak, drive a Jeep, my wife's black, I hate living in
> London, I love to travel to South America a lot and we lost a baby
> last year. Fucker's going to love me isn't he?
>
You sound like an ideal member. Welcome. :-)

"BrianW"  wrote in message 
news:1df3cc5c-f1f0-45e6-92ce-5223fdb28b6d@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 27 Jun, 16:28, "Mike P"  wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> news:2b41690d-97ec-4852-a359-7729a5116ca0@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 Jun, 12:21, Roger Thorpe 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > BrianW wrote:
>
> > > On 27 Jun, 11:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
>
> > >> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> > >> I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug
> > arsehole doing
> > >> in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
>
> > > Correct. He is, however, highly entertaining, in a "poke the mong
> > > with a sharp stick" type of way. The same could be said for Tommy,
> > > who is uk.transport's other resident drooling retard.
>
> > That's one point of view, complete with a reference to Down's syndrome
> > of the type that I didn't think we'd see anymore in the 21st century...
>
> > Doug seems to be a committed environmentalist and is concerned
> > specifically about the CO2 emissions from private cars and their other
> > antisocial characteristics. Unfortunately his posting style seems to
> > consist mostly of cut and paste from a variety of sometimes unreliable
> > sources. Too often he lets the arguments that stem from these posts get
> > personal and drift into abuse, which is a shame because that has
> > polarized the group and made it difficult to make any green arguments.
> > Like most people here I often wish that he'd just shut up.
> >If you are quite new to this group, you might wonder why everyone is
> >so harsh on Doug Bollen.
>
> His posts just make him look like a twat, that's what I'd presumed anyway

Yes, but the effect of Gollum is cumulative - it is not always
apparent to people just how big a twat he is until they've read
sufficient of his posts.  You seem to be a fast learner, though!

> >Allow me to explain why. It is because he
> >is a mean-spirited, bitter, vindictive, hypocritical, dishonest,
> >terrorist-supporting, Stalin-loving, anarchist-pretending, Holocaust-
> >denying, ex-4x4 driving yet now anti-car, Morocco-visiting yet now
> >anti-foreign travel, ex-country dwelling yet now believing everyone
> >should live in London, vegan-claiming yet leather shoe wearing, two
> >ozone-believing, scientifically and mathematically illiterate, Gollum-
> >resembling, child death-gloating, misogynistic, racist, senile, stupid
> >and ignorant old gobshite.
>
> and a steaming hypocrite as well by the looks of things!
> Well, I love steak, drive a Jeep, my wife's black, I hate living in 
> London,
> I love to travel to South America a lot and we lost a baby last year.

>Sorry to hear that.

>Thanks, however no sympathy required. Happens to many many people, not just 
>us! Life goes on, and it was posted more as a dig at Doug ;-)

> Fucker's going to love me isn't he?

>Yup.  However, I'm sure you'll cope ...

I think I'll manage somehow :-)

Mike P

"Dogpoop"  wrote in message 
news:re59k.100693$8k.39635@newsfe18.ams2...
>
> You don't refute his arguments though.
>
Ok then- just for the hard of thinking :)

I refute wot' the Firth Collective has stated

happy?

PS Like your name

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:2YGdnZ5UsYLiWfnVnZ2dnUVZ8tHinZ2d@bt.com...
>> BRENT CRUDE $141.98 - Highest Ever
>
> Now what are you going on about?

Oh I wonder wot I might be talking about - minced liver?

Surely there are "2   ozones" ?

one - the "fresh"  air that most people refer to when at the seaside and the 
"real" ozone - the dangerous gas

Wait for incandescent stupidity ...........................

Brimstone wrote:
> Mike P wrote:
> 
>> I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug arsehole
>> doing in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
>>
> Everyone else (apart from Doug's acolytes) is asking the same question.
> 
> Welcome to the happiest band in Usenetland. United in a common goal, to get 
> rid of Doug.
> 
> 
> 
No no, lets put him in the middle of Purley Cross on his bike & watch 
him claim his right of way.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

philipuk@gmail.com wrote:
> On 27 Jun, 13:44, "Mike P"  wrote:
>> "Roger Thorpe"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:g42n4c$lj8$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
>>
>>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>>> I can't see how you can read that into Duhng's statement other than if
>>>> you are falling backwards to open your legs and be inseminated with his
>>>> next love child.
>>> That's the second unpleasant image you've put in my head in 24 hours.
>>>> "This is a very small difference."
>>>> Untrue, 10% is not a very small difference, and given the difficulty of
>>>> obtaining an improvement in mpg given conflicting government edicts
>>>> (more safety which means more weight which means poor mpg; cleaner
>>>> exhaust emissions to be obtained using a prescribed and inefficient
>>>> technology means poorer economy) it is astonishing that the fleet
>>>> average has improved to the extent that it has.
>>> That's a point of view, but I'd still say that 1% a year is very
>>> disappointing. I think that you're right about the reasons too except that
>>> I'd add that the demand for "luxury", air conditioning and the fashion for
>>> big (often 4wd) cars and high performance toys are factors too.
>> Speed bumps are a factor too, they must ruin fuel consumption figures. It
>> wouldn't be so bad if people actually drove over them at say 20-25mph and
>> KEPT THAT SPEED between them. Here they seem to slow down to an almost stop,
>> crawl over them at 3mph (literally) then speed up to 30 before the next one,
>> before slamming on the brakes then crawling over them, then speeding up,
>> then anchoring on etc. This must use lots of extra fuel.
>>
>> Mike P
> 
> You haven't seen the ones around here. Any faster than 5mph over them
> and your suspension would be through the bonnet. My tiny _fuel
> efficient_ Fiesta gets through so many suspension components it's
> ridiculous. Maybe I should buy a 4x4.
> 
> Philip

The wrath of the God of Catford (or wherever) will be down on you if you do.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

BrianW wrote:
> On 27 Jun, 12:21, Roger Thorpe 
> wrote:
>> BrianW wrote:
>>
>>  > On 27 Jun, 11:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
>>  >
>>  >> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>>
>>  >> I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug
>> arsehole doing
>>  >> in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Correct.  He is, however, highly entertaining, in a "poke the mong
>>  > with a sharp stick" type of way.  The same could be said for Tommy,
>>  > who is uk.transport's other resident drooling retard.
>>
>> That's one point of view, complete with a reference to Down's syndrome
>> of the type that I didn't think we'd see anymore in the 21st century...
>>
>> Doug seems to be a committed environmentalist and is concerned
>> specifically about the CO2 emissions from private cars and their other
>> antisocial characteristics.  Unfortunately his posting style seems to
>> consist mostly of cut and paste from a variety of sometimes unreliable
>> sources. Too often he lets the arguments that stem from these posts get
>> personal and drift into abuse, which is a shame because that has
>> polarized the group and made it difficult to make any green arguments.
>> Like most people here I often wish that he'd just shut up.
> 
> If you are quite new to this group, you might wonder why everyone is
> so harsh on Doug Bollen.  Allow me to explain why.  It is because he
> is a mean-spirited, bitter, vindictive, hypocritical, dishonest,
> terrorist-supporting, Stalin-loving, anarchist-pretending, Holocaust-
> denying, ex-4x4 driving yet now anti-car, Morocco-visiting yet now
> anti-foreign travel, ex-country dwelling yet now believing everyone
> should live in London, vegan-claiming yet leather shoe wearing, two
> ozone-believing, scientifically and mathematically illiterate, Gollum-
> resembling, child death-gloating, misogynistic, racist, senile, stupid
> and ignorant old gobshite.
> 
> And that's just his good points ...
> 
> PS all of the above can be backed up by stuff he has posted over the
> years

Well yes, but he might not be Doug Bollen (according to him, but the 
rest seems about right.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Mike P wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message 
> news:2b41690d-97ec-4852-a359-7729a5116ca0@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 Jun, 12:21, Roger Thorpe 
> wrote:
>> BrianW wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 Jun, 11:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>>>> I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug
>> arsehole doing
>>>> in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.
>>>
>>>
>>> Correct. He is, however, highly entertaining, in a "poke the mong
>>> with a sharp stick" type of way. The same could be said for Tommy,
>>> who is uk.transport's other resident drooling retard.
>> That's one point of view, complete with a reference to Down's syndrome
>> of the type that I didn't think we'd see anymore in the 21st century...
>>
>> Doug seems to be a committed environmentalist and is concerned
>> specifically about the CO2 emissions from private cars and their other
>> antisocial characteristics. Unfortunately his posting style seems to
>> consist mostly of cut and paste from a variety of sometimes unreliable
>> sources. Too often he lets the arguments that stem from these posts get
>> personal and drift into abuse, which is a shame because that has
>> polarized the group and made it difficult to make any green arguments.
>> Like most people here I often wish that he'd just shut up.
> 
>> If you are quite new to this group, you might wonder why everyone is
>> so harsh on Doug Bollen.
> 
> His posts just make him look like a twat, that's what I'd presumed anyway
> 
> 
>> Allow me to explain why.  It is because he
>> is a mean-spirited, bitter, vindictive, hypocritical, dishonest,
>> terrorist-supporting, Stalin-loving, anarchist-pretending, Holocaust-
>> denying, ex-4x4 driving yet now anti-car, Morocco-visiting yet now
>> anti-foreign travel, ex-country dwelling yet now believing everyone
>> should live in London, vegan-claiming yet leather shoe wearing, two
>> ozone-believing, scientifically and mathematically illiterate, Gollum-
>> resembling, child death-gloating, misogynistic, racist, senile, stupid
>> and ignorant old gobshite.
> 
> and a steaming hypocrite as well by the looks of things!
> Well, I love steak, drive a Jeep, my wife's black, I hate living in London, 
> I love to travel to South America a lot and we lost a baby last year. 
> Fucker's going to love me isn't he?
> 
> 
> Mike P 
> 
> 
Sorry about the baby, but it looks like you might be on his hit list if 
you say the wrong things.
Oh you just did.......

-- 
Tony the Dragon

wrote in message 
news:4296ce87-3550-4533-b79c-7e168f8a3aa0@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 Jun, 13:44, "Mike P"  wrote:
>> "Roger Thorpe"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:g42n4c$lj8$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
>>
>> > Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>> >> I can't see how you can read that into Duhng's statement other than if
>> >> you are falling backwards to open your legs and be inseminated with 
>> >> his
>> >> next love child.
>>
>> > That's the second unpleasant image you've put in my head in 24 hours.
>>
>> >> "This is a very small difference."
>>
>> >> Untrue, 10% is not a very small difference, and given the difficulty 
>> >> of
>> >> obtaining an improvement in mpg given conflicting government edicts
>> >> (more safety which means more weight which means poor mpg; cleaner
>> >> exhaust emissions to be obtained using a prescribed and inefficient
>> >> technology means poorer economy) it is astonishing that the fleet
>> >> average has improved to the extent that it has.
>> > That's a point of view, but I'd still say that 1% a year is very
>> > disappointing. I think that you're right about the reasons too except 
>> > that
>> > I'd add that the demand for "luxury", air conditioning and the fashion 
>> > for
>> > big (often 4wd) cars and high performance toys are factors too.
>>
>> Speed bumps are a factor too, they must ruin fuel consumption figures. It
>> wouldn't be so bad if people actually drove over them at say 20-25mph and
>> KEPT THAT SPEED between them. Here they seem to slow down to an almost 
>> stop,
>> crawl over them at 3mph (literally) then speed up to 30 before the next 
>> one,
>> before slamming on the brakes then crawling over them, then speeding up,
>> then anchoring on etc. This must use lots of extra fuel.
>>
>> Mike P
>
> You haven't seen the ones around here. Any faster than 5mph over them
> and your suspension would be through the bonnet. My tiny _fuel
> efficient_ Fiesta gets through so many suspension components it's
> ridiculous. Maybe I should buy a 4x4.
>
Cheap and cheerful Citroen Xantia, bit of a dab of the brakes just before to 
do something I don't understand fully with the suspension, and it floats 
over them at 25-20 quite happily. The Jeep is *awful* to drive over them. 
The ones through Burchetts Green are particularly bad.

Mike P

Tommy wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> news:2YGdnZ5UsYLiWfnVnZ2dnUVZ8tHinZ2d@bt.com...
>>> BRENT CRUDE $141.98 - Highest Ever
>> Now what are you going on about?
> 
> Oh I wonder wot I might be talking about - minced liver?
> 
> Surely there are "2   ozones" ?
> 
> one - the "fresh"  air that most people refer to when at the seaside and the 
> "real" ozone - the dangerous gas
> 
> Wait for incandescent stupidity ........................... 
> 
> 
We don't have to wait.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Tommy wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> news:2YGdnZ5UsYLiWfnVnZ2dnUVZ8tHinZ2d@bt.com...
>>> BRENT CRUDE $141.98 - Highest Ever
>>
>> Now what are you going on about?
>
> Oh I wonder wot I might be talking about - minced liver?
>
> Surely there are "2   ozones" ?
>
> one - the "fresh"  air that most people refer to when at the seaside
> and the "real" ozone - the dangerous gas
>
> Wait for incandescent stupidity ...........................

You've already provided the white heat of cretinism,

Tommy wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> news:2YGdnZ5UsYLiWfnVnZ2dnUVZ8tHinZ2d@bt.com...
> 
>>>BRENT CRUDE $141.98 - Highest Ever
>>
>>Now what are you going on about?
> 
> 
> Oh I wonder wot I might be talking about - minced liver?
> 
> Surely there are "2   ozones" ?
> 
> one - the "fresh"  air that most people refer to when at the seaside and the 
> "real" ozone - the dangerous gas
> 
> Wait for incandescent stupidity ........................... 
> 
> 

Here's some from me, although I don't know why I  bother to put my head 
above the parapet....
This is right in a way. Real ozone is ozone, O3. that's one. then 
there's the smell that you get at the seaside wwhich people call "ozone" 
although it's actually dimethyl sulphide.
So it's only as wrong as " I've just bought myself a new hoover made by 
Dyson" which, although technically wrong is still a meaningful sentence 
to all but the most pedantic literal minded.

Roger Thorpe

On 27 Jun, 18:07, Roger Thorpe 
wrote:
> Tommy wrote:
> > "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> >news:2YGdnZ5UsYLiWfnVnZ2dnUVZ8tHinZ2d@bt.com...
>
> >>>BRENT CRUDE $141.98 - Highest Ever
>
> >>Now what are you going on about?
>
> > Oh I wonder wot I might be talking about - minced liver?
>
> > Surely there are "2 � ozones" ?
>
> > one - the "fresh" �air that most people refer to when at the seaside and the
> > "real" ozone - the dangerous gas
>
> > Wait for incandescent stupidity ...........................
>
> Here's some from me, although I don't know why I �bother to put my head
> above the parapet....
> This is right in a way. Real ozone is ozone, O3. that's one. then
> there's the smell that you get at the seaside wwhich people call "ozone"
> although it's actually dimethyl sulphide.
> So it's only as wrong as " I've just bought myself a new hoover made by
> Dyson" which, although technically wrong is still a meaningful sentence
> to all but the most pedantic literal minded.

Indeed.  However, that is not what Doug was on about on the infamous
two ozones thread.  Doug claimed that there are two types of actual
ozone i.e. O3 - good and bad.  ISTR he said that the ozone generated
by electical discharge is "good", whereas that generated by
photochemical reactions involving vehicle exhausts was bad.  Perhaps
someone can provide a link to the thread - I can't be arsed to find it.

On 27 Jun, 18:07, Roger Thorpe 
wrote:
> Tommy wrote:
> > "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> >news:2YGdnZ5UsYLiWfnVnZ2dnUVZ8tHinZ2d@bt.com...
>
> >>>BRENT CRUDE $141.98 - Highest Ever
>
> >>Now what are you going on about?
>
> > Oh I wonder wot I might be talking about - minced liver?
>
> > Surely there are "2   ozones" ?
>
> > one - the "fresh"  air that most people refer to when at the seaside and the
> > "real" ozone - the dangerous gas
>
> > Wait for incandescent stupidity ...........................
>
> Here's some from me, although I don't know why I  bother to put my head
> above the parapet....
> This is right in a way. Real ozone is ozone, O3. that's one. then
> there's the smell that you get at the seaside wwhich people call "ozone"
> although it's actually dimethyl sulphide.
> So it's only as wrong as " I've just bought myself a new hoover made by
> Dyson" which, although technically wrong is still a meaningful sentence
> to all but the most pedantic literal minded.
>
> Roger Thorpe

Oh! you've met Brimstone already?
NM

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> BrianW wrote:
> 
>> Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity, by
>> demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
>>
>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl=en&dmode=source 
>>
>>
>> He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is 32
>> mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their cars
>> are making "wild claims".
>>
>> Absolutely beyond belief ...
> Strange, that's not the way that I read it,
> ---------------------------------------------------
> quote
>  > You're guessing, again. And table 3.4 does not show "new  cars are no
>  > better than old cars." Table 3.4 clearly shows that the fleet average
>  > for new cars in 2006 was 32mpg and that in the same year the average for
>  > cars over 10 years old (i.e. old cars) was 29mpg.
>  >
> That is a very small difference and far removed from the wild claims
> made by the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup and who
> often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars.
> unquote
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> I realise that not everyone here is disposed to be charitable to Doug, 
> but one *could* read his response as two clauses.
> 1/ the improvement in milage is of about 10% in ten years is hardly the 
> massive improvement claimed by some of the pro private car group.
> 2/ The 45mpg performance of the cars used by some individuals is not 
> evidence that there' been general progress in cutting fuel consumption.
> 
> Roger Thorpe

I agree about being charitable. But it is disingenuous to say that Doug 
didn't claim that 45mpg is a "wild claim".

"...the wild claims made by the motorists who dominate this transport 
newsgroup and who often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars..." 
can mean nothing else. There was no misinterpretation.

As it happens, my car does 60mpg if I am careful and not less than 55mpg 
even I am not. That is a fact and certainly not a wild claim.

Mike P wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message 
> news:068ad7d9-d07c-4efe-b5cd-2a3892105595@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>> On 27 Jun, 09:44, "Mike P"  wrote:
>>> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:3f81736f-9e95-4746-966f-02c2f88908a2@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity, by
>>>> demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
>>>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl...
>>>> He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is 32
>>>> mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their cars
>>>> are making "wild claims".
>>>> Absolutely beyond belief ...
>>> what a thick twat he is
>> It gets better and better.  See this latest one from the great man:
>>
>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/2de3f6f21f2b1018?hl=en&dmode=source
>>
>> How do you calculate your average fuel consumption?
>>
>> <sucks air in through teeth>
>>
>> Oooh, that's a tricky one.  Anyone got any ideas?
> 
> Er fill my car up to the brim, drive it until it runs dry and work out how 
> many mpg I'm getting. 46.1 actually, but that's immaterial.

<sigh>

You can't be. That's an obvious wild claim.

JN <with an equally wild claim of 55mpg to 60+mpg>

Tommy wrote:

> "Dogpoop"  wrote:

>> You don't refute his arguments though.

> Ok then- just for the hard of thinking :)
> I refute wot' the Firth Collective has stated
> happy?

Where?

How?

Er... you weren't under the erroneous impression that "refute" means 
"deny", were you?

On 27 Jun, 20:01, JNugent  wrote:
> Roger Thorpe wrote:
> > BrianW wrote:
>
> >> Gollum has again shown us the depth of his ignorance and stupidity, by
> >> demonstrating that he doesn't know what an "average" is.
>
> >>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/6dc0873fbee720a0?hl..> >> He contends that, since the average fuel consumption of new cars is 32
> >> mpg, this means that people who claim 45mpg and more for their cars
> >> are making "wild claims".
>
> >> Absolutely beyond belief ...
> > Strange, that's not the way that I read it,
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > quote
> > �> You're guessing, again. And table 3.4 does not show "new �cars are no
> > �> better than old cars." Table 3.4 clearly shows that the fleet average
> > �> for new cars in 2006 was 32mpg and that in the same year the average for
> > �> cars over 10 years old (i.e. old cars) was 29mpg.
>
> > That is a very small difference and far removed from the wild claims
> > made by the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup and who
> > often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars.
> > unquote
> > -----------------------------------------------------
>
> > I realise that not everyone here is disposed to be charitable to Doug,
> > but one *could* read his response as two clauses.
> > 1/ the improvement in milage is of about 10% in ten years is hardly the
> > massive improvement claimed by some of the pro private car group.
> > 2/ The 45mpg performance of the cars used by some individuals is not
> > evidence that there' been general progress in cutting fuel consumption.
>
> > Roger Thorpe
>
> I agree about being charitable. But it is disingenuous to say that Doug
> didn't claim that 45mpg is a "wild claim".
>
> "...the wild claims made by the motorists who dominate this transport
> newsgroup and who often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars..."
> can mean nothing else. There was no misinterpretation.
>
> As it happens, my car does 60mpg if I am careful and not less than 55mpg
> even I am not. That is a fact and certainly not a wild claim.-

Liar!

BrianW wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:
>> Roger Thorpe wrote:

>>> I realise that not everyone here is disposed to be charitable to Doug,
>>> but one *could* read his response as two clauses.
>>> 1/ the improvement in milage is of about 10% in ten years is hardly the
>>> massive improvement claimed by some of the pro private car group.
>>> 2/ The 45mpg performance of the cars used by some individuals is not
>>> evidence that there' been general progress in cutting fuel consumption.
>>> Roger Thorpe

>> I agree about being charitable. But it is disingenuous to say that Doug
>> didn't claim that 45mpg is a "wild claim".

>> "...the wild claims made by the motorists who dominate this transport
>> newsgroup and who often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars..."
>> can mean nothing else. There was no misinterpretation.
>
>> As it happens, my car does 60mpg if I am careful and not less than 55mpg
>> even I am not. That is a fact and certainly not a wild claim.-

> Liar!

:-)

On 27 Jun, 20:17, JNugent  wrote:
> Tommy wrote:
> > "Dogpoop"  wrote:
> >> You don't refute his arguments though.
> > Ok then- just for the hard of thinking :)
> > I refute wot' the Firth Collective has stated
> > happy?
>
> Where?
>
> How?
>
> Er... you weren't under the erroneous impression that "refute" means
> "deny", were you?

I would wager a considerable sum that Tommy "do you want fries with
that?" Fuckwitt is indeed under that impression.

On 27 Jun, 21:11, JNugent  wrote:
> BrianW wrote:
> > JNugent  wrote:
> >> Roger Thorpe wrote:
> >>> I realise that not everyone here is disposed to be charitable to Doug,
> >>> but one *could* read his response as two clauses.
> >>> 1/ the improvement in milage is of about 10% in ten years is hardly the
> >>> massive improvement claimed by some of the pro private car group.
> >>> 2/ The 45mpg performance of the cars used by some individuals is not
> >>> evidence that there' been general progress in cutting fuel consumption.
> >>> Roger Thorpe
> >> I agree about being charitable. But it is disingenuous to say that Doug
> >> didn't claim that 45mpg is a "wild claim".
> >> "...the wild claims made by the motorists who dominate this transport
> >> newsgroup and who often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars..."
> >> can mean nothing else. There was no misinterpretation.
>
> >> As it happens, my car does 60mpg if I am careful and not less than 55mpg
> >> even I am not. That is a fact and certainly not a wild claim.-
> > Liar!

> :-)

Even my knackered, 9 year old Ford Focus returns 45 mpg.

Gollum seems to think that because some people choose to run a 15 mpg
off-roader (*), the rest of us cannot run an economical car.

* i.e. just like the hypocritical old slug did he did when he wanted
to drive

BrianW  wrote:

> > As it happens, my car does 60mpg if I am careful and not less than 55mpg
> > even I am not. That is a fact and certainly not a wild claim.-
> 
> Liar!

Indeed it's a proven fact that the best any car in the UK can achieve is
32mpg. It must be true, I read it on Usenet.

BrianW  wrote:

> Gollum seems to think that because some people choose to run a 15 mpg
> off-roader (*), the rest of us cannot run an economical car.

His Land Rover wouldn't achieve as much as 15mpg, 12-14 possibly. Quite
shocking.

Mike P wrote:
mmaterial.
> 
> I've only just started reading this group. What is this Doug arsehole doing 
> in a transport newsgroup? Seems like a fucking idiot to me.

In which I suspect most regulars here would agree. Apart from anything 
else he will never admit when he is wrong. We are all wrong sometimes, 
but not Duhg.


-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin