On 25/12/21 03:15, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Come along ya wanker, tell us.

Thanks greatly for that EXCELLENT compliment cumming from YOU.
Especially as it is YOU who spouted it.
Now please ejaculate to me the further esteemed honour of having bad breath.

It really is a very great compliment to be called a wanker by YOU.
Especially by YOU.
And I have no fucking interest in looking good in YOUR eyes.
After all I ride a bicycle, a very convenient delightful economical
viable means of transport.
And we all know what YOU think of bicyclists. You think they are the
fuckwitted pits of humanity.
And because it is YOU who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.

On 25/12/21 02:02, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/12/2021 04:34 pm, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> On 23/12/2021 02:22 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/12/2021 12:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 23/12/2021 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of his window and shouted "Get off your bikes!" at riders
>>>>>>>>>>>>> including children, some riding bicycles on their own,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> others in cargo bikes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean... "??".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than
>>>>>>>>> *on* it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted
>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing odd about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a
>>>>>>> bike?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".
>>>>>
>>>>> The words were: "riders including children". No mention of "cargo"
>>>>> except as an adjective apparently describing some sort of cycle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try again?
>>>>
>>>> A computer operates in a completely literal manner. A human does not.
>>>>
>>>> Which do you claim to be?
>>>
>>> I'm sorry you have to wriggle so much.
>>>
>>>>>>> Weird.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something
>>>>>>> similar to that case of a few years ago, where a cyclist was
>>>>>>> discovered (by a chambermaid) having sex with his cycle in a
>>>>>>> hotel room?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That must be it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is. You
>>>>>> have merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by a
>>>>>> chambermaid. You are in the wrong newsgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're too late with the attempt at witticism.
>>>>
>>>> You're not denying the allegation.
>>>
>>> Not dignifying your pathetic attempt at wit with a response.
>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>>> A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not
>>>>>> surrounded by one and a half tons of metal and padding, requires
>>>>>> intelligence and initiative, not blind faith.
>>>>>
>>>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>>>>> obeying the law".
>>>>
>>>> Most of the time, dying isn't considered to be a particularly cool
>>>> idea.
>>>
>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>>> obeying the law; all we have to to do is claim that we know better
>>> than everyone else including Parliament and try to close down
>>> discussion of our transgressions by referring to "safety". Other
>>> peoples' safety - especially that of pedestrians unreasonably using
>>> footways as though they were for pedestrians - is totally
>>> unimportant".
>>
>>
>> Do you not get bored of beating these wankers up? I know that they are
>> easy
>> meat and fun to play with, but even so.
>
> That is not my objective! ;-)
>
> Marry Christmas, by the way.
>
> And that goes to everyone reading (or pretending not to but always
> answering just the same).

And a very merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and everyone.
May we all get along in peace and harmony and with goodwill to all people.

On 25/12/2021 09:17 am, Peter Keller wrote:
> On 25/12/21 02:02, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/12/2021 04:34 pm, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 23/12/2021 02:22 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23/12/2021 12:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/12/2021 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of his window and shouted "Get off your bikes!" at riders
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including children, some riding bicycles on their own,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others in cargo bikes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean... "??".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than
>>>>>>>>>> *on* it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted
>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nothing odd about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a
>>>>>>>> bike?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The words were: "riders including children". No mention of "cargo"
>>>>>> except as an adjective apparently describing some sort of cycle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try again?
>>>>>
>>>>> A computer operates in a completely literal manner. A human does not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which do you claim to be?
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry you have to wriggle so much.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Weird.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something
>>>>>>>> similar to that case of a few years ago, where a cyclist was
>>>>>>>> discovered (by a chambermaid) having sex with his cycle in a
>>>>>>>> hotel room?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That must be it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is. You
>>>>>>> have merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by a
>>>>>>> chambermaid. You are in the wrong newsgroup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're too late with the attempt at witticism.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're not denying the allegation.
>>>>
>>>> Not dignifying your pathetic attempt at wit with a response.
>>>>
>>>>> <...>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not
>>>>>>> surrounded by one and a half tons of metal and padding, requires
>>>>>>> intelligence and initiative, not blind faith.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>>>>>> obeying the law".
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the time, dying isn't considered to be a particularly cool
>>>>> idea.
>>>>
>>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>>>> obeying the law; all we have to to do is claim that we know better
>>>> than everyone else including Parliament and try to close down
>>>> discussion of our transgressions by referring to "safety". Other
>>>> peoples' safety - especially that of pedestrians unreasonably using
>>>> footways as though they were for pedestrians - is totally
>>>> unimportant".
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you not get bored of beating these wankers up? I know that they are
>>> easy
>>> meat and fun to play with, but even so.
>>
>> That is not my objective! ;-)
>>
>> Marry Christmas, by the way.
>>
>> And that goes to everyone reading (or pretending not to but always
>> answering just the same).
>
> And a very merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and everyone.
> May we all get along in peace and harmony and with goodwill to all people.

Thank you. And, of course, the same to you!

>

On Sunday, 26 December 2021 at 01:46:20 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/12/2021 09:17 am, Peter Keller wrote:
> > On 25/12/21 02:02, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 23/12/2021 04:34 pm, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> >>> JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 23/12/2021 02:22 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 23/12/2021 12:12, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>> On 23/12/2021 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of his window and shouted "Get off your bikes!" at riders
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> including children, some riding bicycles on their own,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> others in cargo bikes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ??
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What do you mean... "??".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than
> >>>>>>>>>> *on* it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted
> >>>>>>>>>> it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Nothing odd about it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a
> >>>>>>>> bike?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The words were: "riders including children". No mention of "cargo"
> >>>>>> except as an adjective apparently describing some sort of cycle.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Try again?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A computer operates in a completely literal manner. A human does not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which do you claim to be?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sorry you have to wriggle so much.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Weird.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something
> >>>>>>>> similar to that case of a few years ago, where a cyclist was
> >>>>>>>> discovered (by a chambermaid) having sex with his cycle in a
> >>>>>>>> hotel room?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That must be it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is. You
> >>>>>>> have merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by a
> >>>>>>> chambermaid. You are in the wrong newsgroup.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You're too late with the attempt at witticism.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're not denying the allegation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not dignifying your pathetic attempt at wit with a response.
> >>>>
> >>>>> <...>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not
> >>>>>>> surrounded by one and a half tons of metal and padding, requires
> >>>>>>> intelligence and initiative, not blind faith.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
> >>>>>> obeying the law".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Most of the time, dying isn't considered to be a particularly cool
> >>>>> idea.
> >>>>
> >>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
> >>>> obeying the law; all we have to to do is claim that we know better
> >>>> than everyone else including Parliament and try to close down
> >>>> discussion of our transgressions by referring to "safety". Other
> >>>> peoples' safety - especially that of pedestrians unreasonably using
> >>>> footways as though they were for pedestrians - is totally
> >>>> unimportant".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Do you not get bored of beating these wankers up? I know that they are
> >>> easy
> >>> meat and fun to play with, but even so.
> >>
> >> That is not my objective! ;-)
> >>
> >> Marry Christmas, by the way.
> >>
> >> And that goes to everyone reading (or pretending not to but always
> >> answering just the same).
> >
> > And a very merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and everyone.
> > May we all get along in peace and harmony and with goodwill to all people.
> Thank you. And, of course, the same to you!
>
> >

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKexFyfhwkg

But PounderNugent wont click on this link.

Mike Collins wrote:
> On Sunday, 26 December 2021 at 01:46:20 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/12/2021 09:17 am, Peter Keller wrote:
>>> On 25/12/21 02:02, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 23/12/2021 04:34 pm, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/12/2021 02:22 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23/12/2021 12:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/12/2021 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of his window and shouted "Get off your bikes!" at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> riders including children, some riding bicycles on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own, others in cargo bikes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean... "??".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather
>>>>>>>>>>>> than *on* it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I
>>>>>>>>>>>> signposted it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing odd about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in*
>>>>>>>>>> a bike?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The words were: "riders including children". No mention of
>>>>>>>> "cargo" except as an adjective apparently describing some sort
>>>>>>>> of cycle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A computer operates in a completely literal manner. A human
>>>>>>> does not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which do you claim to be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry you have to wriggle so much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Weird.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something
>>>>>>>>>> similar to that case of a few years ago, where a cyclist was
>>>>>>>>>> discovered (by a chambermaid) having sex with his cycle in a
>>>>>>>>>> hotel room?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That must be it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is.
>>>>>>>>> You have merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by
>>>>>>>>> a chambermaid. You are in the wrong newsgroup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're too late with the attempt at witticism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're not denying the allegation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not dignifying your pathetic attempt at wit with a response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not
>>>>>>>>> surrounded by one and a half tons of metal and padding,
>>>>>>>>> requires intelligence and initiative, not blind faith.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty
>>>>>>>> things like obeying the law".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most of the time, dying isn't considered to be a particularly
>>>>>>> cool idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things
>>>>>> like obeying the law; all we have to to do is claim that we know
>>>>>> better than everyone else including Parliament and try to close
>>>>>> down discussion of our transgressions by referring to "safety".
>>>>>> Other peoples' safety - especially that of pedestrians
>>>>>> unreasonably using footways as though they were for pedestrians
>>>>>> - is totally unimportant".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you not get bored of beating these wankers up? I know that
>>>>> they are easy
>>>>> meat and fun to play with, but even so.
>>>>
>>>> That is not my objective! ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Marry Christmas, by the way.
>>>>
>>>> And that goes to everyone reading (or pretending not to but always
>>>> answering just the same).
>>>
>>> And a very merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and everyone.
>>> May we all get along in peace and harmony and with goodwill to all
>>> people.
>> Thank you. And, of course, the same to you!
>>
>>>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKexFyfhwkg
>
> But PounderNugent wont click on this link.

Wrong as always.
Have you always been a stupid cunt?

On 27/12/21 17:12, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Have you always been a stupid cunt?

Thanks greatly for that EXCELLENT compliment coming from YOU.
Now please vomit to me the further great honour of being a moron of the
highest order.

It really is a very great compliment to be called a cunt by YOU.
Especially by YOU.
And I have no fucking interest in looking good in YOUR eyes.
After all I ride a bicycle, a very convenient delightful economical
viable means of transport.
And we all know what YOU think of bicyclists. You think they are the
fuckwitted pits of humanity.
And because it is YOU who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.

On 24/12/2021 16:51, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/12/2021 04:39 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 24/12/2021 16:03, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 24/12/2021 02:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 24/12/2021 13:04, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Have you never broken a speed limit?
>>
>>>>> Why would that ever matter?
>>>>> If the answer were "Yes", would it mean that you are free to break
>>>>> the law?
>>
>>>> Sigh. Standard Nugent response. Reply to a question with a question.
>>
>>> It's a reasonable enough question.
>>
>> It is not. Answer my question.
>
> I shall not do so at the very least unless...

TRANSALATION: "I have broken the law (for my own convenience) on many
occasions but refuse to admit it."

On 27/12/2021 12:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 24/12/2021 16:51, JNugent wrote:
>> On 24/12/2021 04:39 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 24/12/2021 16:03, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 24/12/2021 02:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 24/12/2021 13:04, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Have you never broken a speed limit?
>
>>>>>> Why would that ever matter?
>>>>>> If the answer were "Yes", would it mean that you are free to break
>>>>>> the law?
>
>>>>> Sigh. Standard Nugent response. Reply to a question with a question.
>
>>>> It's a reasonable enough question.
>
>>> It is not. Answer my question.
>
>> I shall not do so at the very least unless...
>
> TRANSALATION: "I have broken the law (for my own convenience) on many
> occasions but refuse to admit it."

Even if that were true, would it mean that you and other fairy-cyclists
are free to do as you like?

You are attempting diversion via red-herrings.

On 27/12/2021 14:45, JNugent wrote:
> On 27/12/2021 12:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 24/12/2021 16:51, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 24/12/2021 04:39 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 24/12/2021 16:03, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 24/12/2021 02:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/12/2021 13:04, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Have you never broken a speed limit?
>>
>>>>>>> Why would that ever matter? If the answer were "Yes",
>>>>>>> would it mean that you are free to break the law?
>>
>>>>>> Sigh. Standard Nugent response. Reply to a question with a
>>>>>> question.
>>
>>>>> It's a reasonable enough question.
>>
>>>> It is not. Answer my question.
>>
>>> I shall not do so at the very least unless...
>>
>> TRANSLATION: "I have broken the law (for my own convenience) on
>> many occasions but refuse to admit it."
>
> Even if that were true, would it mean that you and other cyclists are
> free to do as you like?

Everyone is free to do what they like unless consequences or legal
retribution give cause for regret.

> You are attempting diversion via red-herrings.

It is not a red herring. It is about you as a person.