Nuxx:55ce7427-8499-4443-8a7b-a6fe890cf185@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <55ce7427-8499-4443-8a7b-a6fe890cf185@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving,uk.transport Subject: Re: Heads Up - parking fines & credit cards. Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:37:01 -0700 (PDT) References:    Lines: 34 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.193.13 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1250048221 5271 127.0.0.1 (12 Aug 2009 03:37:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:37:01 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.193.13; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009073022 Firefox/3.0.13 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2862 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:724183

On Aug 11, 7:41=A0pm, JNugent  wrote: > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 8:38 am, "Brimstone"  wrote: > >> If you've paid a parking fine by credit card and been charged a fee fo= r > >> using the card this might be of interest. > >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/6005619/Motorists-set-to-rec..= . > > > You meant to post this to a driving group, obviously, as it's of zero > > relevance to cycling. > > I think he did mean to do that, and I think he did it. I'm certainly read= ing > it in one. > > But hang on... aren't you (and certain others) always protesting that mos= t > cyclists are drivers? If so, surely the topic is of equal relevance there= ?

As usual with the various disingenuous arguments put forward by URC regulars, they only like those arguments to be used in one particular context, where they support one of their warped points of view; if anyone tries to use the arguments in another context, thus making them look silly and hypocritical, their toys leave their prams.

As you may have noticed, URC regulars don't like being proven wrong (one of the reasons for uk.rec.cycling.censored), especially when their own previously made arguments are made against them. (Of course, it wouldn't be possible to do this if the URC regulars were honest, sincere and only put forward genuinely held beliefs in the first place.)