burt wrote:
> "Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>burt wrote:
>>
>>>"Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>message news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Following on from burt's message. . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>AHD is yet another helmet obsessive. He wears one on his recumbent and
>>>>>it's
>>>>>his trademark!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Cycling needs brains not mouthpieces.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyone who blindly accepts that helmets work doesn't have a brain, and
>>>>>can't
>>>>>be bothered with little things like evidence.
>>>>
>>>>Hold on! Speaking as a virulent /anti-compulsion/ and anti-assumption
>>>>that Hs do any good /in accidents/ person, I object to that facile and
>>>>silly statement. [Discussion continues ad infinitum....]
>>>
>>>Nice bit of cutting Peter, since I never said any of the above!
>>
>>Err, according to my newsreader, you did.
>
> something wrong with your newsreader then.
In article <[email protected]>
burt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > burt wrote:
> >> "Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> message news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>>Following on from burt's message. . .
> >>>
> >>>>AHD is yet another helmet obsessive. He wears one on his recumbent and
> >>>>it's
> >>>>his trademark!
> >>>>
> >>>>>Cycling needs brains not mouthpieces.
> >>>>
> >>>>Anyone who blindly accepts that helmets work doesn't have a brain, and
> >>>>can't
> >>>>be bothered with little things like evidence.
> >>>
> >>>Hold on! Speaking as a virulent /anti-compulsion/ and anti-assumption
> >>>that Hs do any good /in accidents/ person, I object to that facile and
> >>>silly statement. [Discussion continues ad infinitum....]
> >>
> >> Nice bit of cutting Peter, since I never said any of the above!
> >
> > Err, according to my newsreader, you did.
> > --
> > Don Whybrow
>
> something wrong with your newsreader then.
>
>
Someone using the same name, email address, newsreader, IP address and
NSP as you posted this
"AHD is yet another helmet obsessive. He wears one on his recumbent and
it's his trademark!"
and this
"Anyone who blindly accepts that helmets work doesn't have a brain, and
can't be bothered with little things like evidence."
as was quoted by Peter above with attribution.
The "Cycling needs brains not mouthpieces." bit is Peter's.
"Rob Morley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>
> burt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > burt wrote:
>> >> "Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote
>> >> in
>> >> message news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >>>Following on from burt's message. . .
>> >>>
>> >>>>AHD is yet another helmet obsessive. He wears one on his recumbent
>> >>>>and
>> >>>>it's
>> >>>>his trademark!
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Cycling needs brains not mouthpieces.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Anyone who blindly accepts that helmets work doesn't have a brain,
>> >>>>and
>> >>>>can't
>> >>>>be bothered with little things like evidence.
>> >>>
>> >>>Hold on! Speaking as a virulent /anti-compulsion/ and anti-assumption
>> >>>that Hs do any good /in accidents/ person, I object to that facile and
>> >>>silly statement. [Discussion continues ad infinitum....]
>> >>
>> >> Nice bit of cutting Peter, since I never said any of the above!
>> >
>> > Err, according to my newsreader, you did.
>> > --
>> > Don Whybrow
>>
>> something wrong with your newsreader then.
>>
>>
> Someone using the same name, email address, newsreader, IP address and
> NSP as you posted this
Since I didn't post any of the above, either you are right, and someone is
very effectively impersonating me electronically, or there is something
wrong with the attribution process.
>
> "AHD is yet another helmet obsessive. He wears one on his recumbent and
> it's his trademark!"
Now that I did write.
>
> and this
>
> "Anyone who blindly accepts that helmets work doesn't have a brain, and
> can't be bothered with little things like evidence."
and I didn't write that.
>
> as was quoted by Peter above with attribution.
>
> The "Cycling needs brains not mouthpieces." bit is Peter's.
On Wed, 27 Sep, burt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Rob Morley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "AHD is yet another helmet obsessive. He wears one on his recumbent and
> > it's his trademark!"
>
> Now that I did write.
> >
> > and this
> >
> > "Anyone who blindly accepts that helmets work doesn't have a brain, and
> > can't be bothered with little things like evidence."
>
> and I didn't write that.
Both statement are in the same posting. If you typed one, you typed
the other, assuming you weren't drugged just as you finished paragraph
1 and someone else substituted paragraph 2 before hitting send.
Do you have any other plausible explanation?
The whole message says (I've cut out some longer headers):
>>> From: "burt" <[email protected]>
>>> Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling
>>> Subject: Re: CTC error
>>> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:40:16 GMT
>>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.33.89.1
>>> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
>>>
>>> "Peter Fox" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>> >
>>> > $64,000 question for urc : Who /would be/ a better ambassador?
>>> > The obvious candidate is Adam Hart-Davis who has the 'dirty
>>> > knees' qualification but there must be alternatives which those
>>> > of you with televisions and sporty knowledge would know about.
>>>
>>> AHD is yet another helmet obsessive. He wears one on his
>>> recumbent and it's his trademark!
>>> >
>>> > Cycling needs brains not mouthpieces.
>>>
>>> Anyone who blindly accepts that helmets work doesn't have a brain,
>>> and can't be bothered with little things like evidence.
Following on a string of denials.
>>
>> "AHD is yet another helmet obsessive. He wears one on his recumbent and
>> it's his trademark!"
>
>Now that I did write.
>>
>> and this
>>
>> "Anyone who blindly accepts that helmets work doesn't have a brain, and
>> can't be bothered with little things like evidence."
>
>and I didn't write that.
Nobody here believes you. Let that be a lesson in not being too hasty.
H-threads are bad enough with professional trolls and amateur
evangelists. More light: Good. More heat: Bad.
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The CTC has made an unwise move, I think.
>
> According to the copy of Cycle which arrived this morning, Jon Snow is the
> new CTC president, having been invited to take the role once Phil Liggett
> steps down.
>
> This will be Jon Snow, the newsreader, who back in February on 'Richard &
> Judy' (13th February 2006) admitted he tells people not to take up cycling
> as "it's too dangerous out there" and that cyclists should be kept
> separate from traffic on separate facilities, so promoting the erroneous
> view that cycling is inherently dangerous. How long is it going to take
> before this comes back and bites the CTC in its organisational backside
> when the media picks up on how the CTC has a president who thinks cyclists
> should be kept off the roads, yet at the same time supporting Daniel
> Cadden, a CTC member who was fined for cycling on the road. Mixed messages
> from the CTC, anyone?
>
> I feel like handing in my CTC membership in disgust.
>
> Cheers, helen s
>
>
>
> --
>
>They should have asked that nice Mr Clarkson to do the job. He can ride a
>bike. (and does so, sometimes...)
In article <[email protected]>, burt wrote:
>> Someone using the same name, email address, newsreader, IP address and
>> NSP as you posted this
>
>Since I didn't post any of the above, either you are right, and someone is
>very effectively impersonating me electronically, or there is something
>wrong with the attribution process.
>>
>> "AHD is yet another helmet obsessive. He wears one on his recumbent and
>> it's his trademark!"
>
>Now that I did write.
Since that was part of the "any of the above" you just said you didn't
write any of, that rather undermines the chances that the problem is
really a forgery including a mixture of stuff you did and didn't write,
and increases the chances that you just forgot what you said.
"something wrong with the attribution process" is ruled right out by
going to your original post (or at least the post which appears to
be from you).
