London Taxi Attempted Assault



"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>
> You owe us an explanation, Dr Curious.



I owe you nothing McClancey. Nothing.

And its nice to see you've taken it upon yourself to speak on
behalf of the whole Newsgroup.

Or are you just referring to yourself there, and these imaginary
friends of yours?

And neither do I usually respond to posts consisting of
little else but spelling flames, and plagiaristed, unnattributed
material.

Its just that I couldn't let that royal "us" go unremmarked. As
its so seldom nowadays that one gets such an easy opporunity
to poke fun at someone.

Bye bye.



Curious


< plagiarised material, spelling flames, and dopey sig snipped >

...
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, Dr Curious
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> >
> > "Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:eek:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter how much you repeat this sentence, it does
> >> not alter the *fact* that there are plenty of cars driving into
> >> and parking in central London every day. Those drivers are
> >> bypassing public transport altogether.
> >> Why do you assume only cyclists are bypassing public transport?

> >
> > What do you think the tem "by-passing" refers to Colin?
> >
> > How can those who still drive and have always been driving cars
> > be by-passing "anything"?

>
> By the same logic, how can those who still ride and have
> always been riding bicycles be bypassing anything?



I never claimed they were. The point is unlike drivers, cyclists
have never been encouraged to abandon their bikes and use public
transport instead. Its only those who have been encouraged to use
public transport, who can by pass it as an option.


Curious

....


>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.
 
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:50:23 +0100, Dr Curious wrote:

> "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> You owe us an explanation, Dr Curious.

>
>
> I owe you nothing McClancey. Nothing.
>
> And its nice to see you've taken it upon yourself to speak on
> behalf of the whole Newsgroup.
>
> Or are you just referring to yourself there, and these imaginary
> friends of yours?
>
> And neither do I usually respond to posts consisting of
> little else but spelling flames, and plagiaristed, unnattributed
> material.
>
> Its just that I couldn't let that royal "us" go unremmarked. As
> its so seldom nowadays that one gets such an easy opporunity
> to poke fun at someone.
>
> Bye bye.
>
>
>
> Curious
>
>
> < plagiarised material, spelling flames, and dopey sig snipped >
>
> ..


Plagiaristed? Or did you mean plagiaristified?

You're George Bush Jr. I claim my £5.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "They never open their mouths without subtracting from
the sum of human knowledge." - Thomas Brackett Reed
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
 
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:50:23 +0100, Dr Curious wrote:
>
> > "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]>
> > wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>
> >> You owe us an explanation, Dr Curious.

> >
> >
> > I owe you nothing McClancey. Nothing.
> >
> > And its nice to see you've taken it upon yourself to speak on
> > behalf of the whole Newsgroup.
> >
> > Or are you just referring to yourself there, and these imaginary
> > friends of yours?
> >
> > And neither do I usually respond to posts consisting of
> > little else but spelling flames, and plagiaristed, unnattributed
> > material.
> >
> > Its just that I couldn't let that royal "us" go unremmarked. As
> > its so seldom nowadays that one gets such an easy opporunity
> > to poke fun at someone.
> >
> > Bye bye.
> >
> >
> >
> > Curious
> >
> >
> > < plagiarised material, spelling flames, and dopey sig snipped >
> >
> > ..

>
> Plagiaristed? Or did you mean plagiaristified?
>
> You're George Bush Jr. I claim my £5.




You surely mean - "we claim our £5" - there, don't you?

Whatever happened to all your imaginary friends?




Curious

....


> --
> Michael MacClancy
> Random putdown - "They never open their mouths without subtracting from
> the sum of human knowledge." - Thomas Brackett Reed
> www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
> www.macclancy.co.uk
 
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:00:22 +0100, Dr Curious wrote:

> "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message


>>>
>>> ..

>>
>> Plagiaristed? Or did you mean plagiaristified?
>>
>> You're George Bush Jr. I claim my £5.

>
>
>
> You surely mean - "we claim our £5" - there, don't you?
>
> Whatever happened to all your imaginary friends?
>
>


Given the size of the US national debt you couldn't afford to pay all of
us.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever
they go." -Oscar Wilde
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
 
in message <[email protected]>, Michael
MacClancy ('[email protected]') wrote:

> I'm curious.


Careful. It may be catching.

> What's 'by-passing' mean? 


What the Rabbi did in the parable.

> And what are 'bye-passes'?


Small, blue pieces of card, with the word 'Goodbye' written on them.

> Or, further up the thread, what's 'bi-passing'?


The practice of making passes at members of both genders
indiscriminately.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Want to know what SCO stands for?
;; http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030605
 
Dr Curious [email protected] opined the following...
> If you paid the sort of wages necessary to attract the sort of
> paragons the job undoubtedly requires, you'd presumably have to pay
> a far higher wage.


I currently earn about =A36000 a year less than the advertised salary for=
=20
Lothian bus drivers. I drive vans as a part of my job. I do so with=20
courtesy to other road users.

> I know we've all got our problems with Merkans but you really should
> see some NYC bike messengers at work, taking tows in fast moving
> traffic etc. You'd hang your head in shame, you really would.
> They're not all chaps either, actually.


I've seen a bloke with his hand hooked into one of the catches on the=20
back of a 7.5T truck cruising up Leith Walk. The worst I've managed to=20
date was drafting a bus up a short hill while on the bent. It wasn't=20
actually intentional though, I was overtaking another cyclist at the=20
time.

> That's a guarenteed custodial sentence.


Only if I get caught! As I said, I never mounted the screwdriver so=20
there would never be the temptation. These days I tend to have polite=20
but sarcastic conversations with them at the next set of lights.

Jon
 
Gawnsoft [email protected] opined the
following...
> Although that doesn't explain the animosity from taxi drivers when I
> want to take my bike with me in the taxi!


Oddly enough, I've never had a problem with that. On the rare occasions
that I have to take a bike in a cab, I tend to hold it in an obvious
position when hailing to avoid any nastiness.

Jon
 
Gawnsoft wrote:

>> He said, "You shouldn't have been undertaking
>>
>>>>me."
>>>
>>>
>>>And you said? (If it's printable!) That's a simply cracking response.

>>
>>Sadly my reply wasn't printable. Which, when I'd calmed down, I
>>regretted, since it undoubtedly wouldn't have helped my case had I
>>reported him to his superiors.

>
>
> You mean you didn't!!!?!!


Sigh. No. I imagine that he was so intent on not running into the
back of the bus that he was tailgating, that he didn't see me as he
overtook. So he assumed I was undertaking him. And it would've been
my word against his, with the added advantage to him that he was being
reasonable and I was a raging psycho :)
 
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:55:12 +0100, "Dr Curious"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> If I were travelling upon, for example, Uncle Kenneth's Underground
>> Railway, would I not also be costing the bus company a fare?


>Yes. But tube passengers don't come into direct contact with bus
>drivers do they? Except when being carried to the station as
>passengers maybe. And so bus drivers have no opportunity to
>develop animosity towards tube passengers, as they never see any.


So, do alighting taxi passengers get the same treatment? Or
pedestrians? Both costing the bus company a fare.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Dr Curious wrote:


> You surely mean - "we claim our ?5" - there, don't you?
>
> Whatever happened to all your imaginary friends?


We got bored with you more rapidly so mostly didn't bother to respond.

Michael can have my share of the 5 quid

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
"James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dr Curious wrote:
>
>
> > You surely mean - "we claim our ?5" - there, don't you?
> >
> > Whatever happened to all your imaginary friends?

>
> We got bored with you more rapidly so mostly didn't bother to respond.
>
> Michael can have my share of the 5 quid



Doubtless arrangements are already in place Annan, for Church
Bells to be rung throughout the length and breadth of the land,
the moment you ever make an original, or a witty remark.


Curious




>
> James
> --
> If I have seen further than others, it is
> by treading on the toes of giants.
> http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
>
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:55:12 +0100, "Dr Curious"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >> If I were travelling upon, for example, Uncle Kenneth's Underground
> >> Railway, would I not also be costing the bus company a fare?

>
> >Yes. But tube passengers don't come into direct contact with bus
> >drivers do they? Except when being carried to the station as
> >passengers maybe. And so bus drivers have no opportunity to
> >develop animosity towards tube passengers, as they never see any.

>
> So, do alighting taxi passengers get the same treatment? Or
> pedestrians? Both costing the bus company a fare.


....

So you're suggesting that buses should mount the pavement
then are you? Or specifically alter direction in pursuit
of "pedestrians" if they could be readily identifiable
as such, or taxi passengers in the street.

Don't you think that might look a tad suspicious?


Curious

....


>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington

University
 
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:29:44 +0100, "Dr Curious"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Doubtless arrangements are already in place Annan, for Church
>Bells to be rung throughout the length and breadth of the land,
>the moment you ever make an original, or a witty remark.


Oi! Somebody turn the bloody bells off!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:29:49 +0100, "Dr Curious"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>So you're suggesting that buses should mount the pavement
>then are you?


Hadn't you noticed that most of the pedestrians killed and injured are
not on the pavement at the time? Although, of course, many /are/ on
the pavement when run over by motor vehicles...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:29:49 +0100, "Dr Curious"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >So you're suggesting that buses should mount the pavement
> >then are you?

>
> Hadn't you noticed that most of the pedestrians killed and injured are
> not on the pavement at the time?



So how do you suggest bus drivers are able identify which pedestrians
to kill and injure ? How do they distingish between those who are on
their way to the bus stop in order to catch a bus, from those who
definitely aren't?



> Although, of course, many /are/ on
> the pavement when run over by motor vehicles...




I think we're supposed to be limiting ourselves to buses here. And
the likelihod would probably be I suggest, that buses kill and injure
rather more actual bus users waiting in queus at bus stops than they
do random pedestrians. Many such incidents do indeed appear to occur
at bus stops I think you'll find.


Curious

>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington

University
 
Dr Curious wrote:

>>> So you're suggesting that buses should mount the pavement
>>> then are you?


>> Hadn't you noticed that most of the pedestrians killed and injured
>> are not on the pavement at the time?


> So how do you suggest bus drivers are able identify which pedestrians
> to kill and injure ? How do they distingish between those who are on
> their way to the bus stop in order to catch a bus, from those who
> definitely aren't?


And that's your explanation for why they only try to kill cyclists?
Fascinating.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dr Curious wrote:
>
> >>> So you're suggesting that buses should mount the pavement
> >>> then are you?

>
> >> Hadn't you noticed that most of the pedestrians killed and injured
> >> are not on the pavement at the time?

>
> > So how do you suggest bus drivers are able identify which pedestrians
> > to kill and injure ? How do they distingish between those who are on
> > their way to the bus stop in order to catch a bus, from those who
> > definitely aren't?

>
> And that's your explanation for why they only try to kill cyclists?
> Fascinating.


....

Wherever did I ever claim that bus drivers deliberately try to kill
cyclists?

All I ever said, was they didn't necessarily show them sufficient
consideration at times.

You're the one who tried to further the argument to such
ridiculous lengths.

No me.

So kindly don't whinge so, when you're so obviously shown to be
hoist with your own pertard.


Curious

....

>
> --
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
>
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dr Curious wrote:
>
> >>> So you're suggesting that buses should mount the pavement
> >>> then are you?

>
> >> Hadn't you noticed that most of the pedestrians killed and injured
> >> are not on the pavement at the time?

>
> > So how do you suggest bus drivers are able identify which pedestrians
> > to kill and injure ? How do they distingish between those who are on
> > their way to the bus stop in order to catch a bus, from those who
> > definitely aren't?

>
> And that's your explanation for why they only try to kill cyclists?
> Fascinating.


....

Wherever did I ever claim that bus drivers deliberately try to kill
cyclists?

All I ever said, was they didn't necessarily show them sufficient
consideration at times.

You're the one who tried to further the argument to such
ridiculous lengths.

No me.

So kindly don't whinge so, when you're so obviously shown to be
hoist with your own pertard.

Or rather for the benefit of all the increasingly desparate
spelling flamers - "petard"


Curious

....

>
> --
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
>
 
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:07:21 +0100, Dr Curious wrote:


>
> Or rather for the benefit of all the increasingly desparate
> spelling flamers - "petard"
>
>


'Desperate' or 'disparate'?

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "His mother should have thrown him away and kept the
stork." - Mae West
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk