LadyDeliah

Yes, democracy and community involvement are such a nuisance when you want to get yuor investment plans through quickly.

And with this cyclists taxes paying for it's upkeep too.

Fair do's then. As you were.

I thought VW Campers were for pacifist hippy types.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry to interrupt on this thread but Seabag If > you're going to take the moral high ground on > spelling and grammar you may want to at least > attempt it yourself. Your nauseating attempts at > 'normalising' your contributions to this forum are > becoming tedious. Just saying :-) > > Louisa. Harsh(or did I miss a back story?).

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought this might worth posting here. Seems the > AA are being more pro cycle safety > > Thanks Henryb. That just brightened up my Saturday morning breakfast! Lol

From 17th March, loads of cycling kit in Lidl: http://www.lidl.co.uk/cps/rde/SID-7133229B-F28B08C4/www_lidl_uk/hs.xsl/our-offers-2491.htm?id=240 I find most their stuff well made and a good price. The lights are a bit big and I'm not sure about their paniers, but I like their front box thing and their cycling clothes.

Ok, so what did you actually mean then Steveo? I clearly missed some clever nuance.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There two lines for two flights at the airport; > one flight contains people of a middle eastern > appearance who have been frisked, one contains > people of a middle eastern appearance that > haven't. > > Which one do you make your kids stand in? I think he's trying to say you'd be safer in the queue who'd been frisked, because all middle eatsern looking dudes are potential terrorists. Offensive and lame.

I can confirm that the van man is sincere in his twattish views of cyclists. He sent me some amusingly offensive PM's during the cyclist on the pavement thread.

Look guys, I'm sorry. It's not my fault. I've had a think for cassocks ever since the Thorn Birds :-(

Re: female bosses, I've actually got on better with them than some of the pervy, patronising, ego-centric male bosses I've had. Probably because they were all small to medium sized firms run by individuals who were also unemployable! I learned what I needed to and hopped around relatively frequently (from 6 -18 months depending on how much I could stand) to widen my knowledge and jump my salary up more quickly.

Lol, I'd have flicked your ear really hard for being a relentless wind-up if you were my offspring, but seeing as how you are an unrelated grown-up, it's off to the naughty step for you!

Worth reading to help avoid becoming a bad manager!

SCSB79 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyDeliah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Crap managers are why I am unemployable and had > to > > start my own company. > > > > I would have ended up doing time for GBH if I'd > > stayed in some of my previous jobs! > > This suggests you had problems with managers > (plural)... perhaps the issue was you, not the > numerous managers? I said I'm unemployable for a reason. I can't kiss arse or smile at people I want to punch. I hate being micro-managed by ego-maniacs, unless they are particularly talented ego-maniacs and then I'd suffer their crap to learn from them. I've spent most of my life working for myself though and I seem to make a better boss than employee, judging by the loyalty I always get from the people who work for me.

It's good. I have to clear the memory pretty much weekly, but I just save everything in the hope I'll get time to edit it some time in the future.

We ended up getting drunk with a barrister and his clerk in Middle Temple Hall, so didn't make it to cocktails :-)

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally I'm a sick to death of all the > miserable twats coming out of the station looking > like they loathe their > jobs/lives/existence....it's why I go on the bus > with the plebs and kids > > Life's too short you miserable tossers LMFAO!!!! Classic

Crap managers are why I am unemployable and had to start my own company. I would have ended up doing time for GBH if I'd stayed in some of my previous jobs!

Loz, stop dodging the bullet. Do you still claim that cyclists are similarly dangerous as motorists? Yes or no? Simple :-)

So come on then, counter my logical demolition of your crap stats!

Ready to tap out yet Loz?

mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Mako, fear of the unknown is a normal biological > instinct but learning about potentially harmful > things enables us to give our fears a rational > context,'. I agree I learnt about potentially > harmful dogs when my father in law was attacked by > a jack russell last year whilst out running and as > well as twenty stitches required he had 4 months > of skin grafts. I still see no reason why all dogs > shouldnt be muzzled in public areas. I have been attacked on more than one occasion by men. I now know that men are dangerous and I have a totally rational fear of men. I see no reason why men should not all be tagged and put on a curfew to allay my reasonable fear of them.

Nice that ED might get a cinema, but being a regular ?4.99 Peckhamplex devotee, I'm sure I'll still go there more than an ED cinema, except for any a lot of good, non-mainstream films.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I want to know why only pedestrian deaths are > important. > > Surely if we are looking at relative > dangerousness, we should be looking at all deaths. > All deaths by car or cycle to all road users and > pedestrians. > > Plus a look at who is at fault needs to be brought > into the equation, or again, real dangerousness > isn't actually being measured properly. > > It also doesn't make sense when measuring general > dangerousness, to only include a group of people > (pedestrians) who overwhelmingly share a space > that is predominantly used by one form of > transport (cyclists) over another. > > So I dismiss all the flawed stats on here which do > not take into account the above and only show > deaths of pedestrians as a general indication of > relative dangerousness of cycles over cars. > > It's a total nonsense. Just incase you can't be arsed scrolling up Loz.