Nuxx:70fad663-6540-4885-8844-11e66bade13b@n11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!n11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <70fad663-6540-4885-8844-11e66bade13b@n11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM is now dead Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:26:53 -0800 (PST) References:   <20110224135120.715c9f6c@bluemoon>   <1jx7mqv.930q4115d14d1N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>    <0d1cc6d6-037f-4d44-b17b-ec40686707ec@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> <1jx94xr.18odck8bk935wN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> Lines: 21 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1298651213 2474 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2011 16:26:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:26:53 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: n11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5.8; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.01,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2791 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:37975

On Feb 25, 3:48=A0pm, real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: > Simon Mason  wrote: > > In Matt's latest bizarre argument, he stated that all cyclists should > > be banned from roads where HGVs are travelling at 56mph. Currently, > > HGVs above 7.5 T can only drive at this speed on Motorways where > > cyclist are banned anyway. So, in effect he is saying that a Large > > Goods Vehicle under 7.5 T travelling at 56mph on a NSL A road should > > not mix with cyclists, but a 44T truck driving at its legal 50 mph is > > OK. I bowed out and he won again. > > In what sense does not contradicting someone's opinion mean they have > won an argument? > > Are you getting it confused with ping-pong, where the game is awarded to > a player if their opponent leaves the table?

No, you're the only person getting confused. Which happens a worrying number of times considering you're the self-styled Saviour of URCM. Still, I'm just one of your unnamed nutcases/wreckers/haterz, so you can disregard what I'm saying whether it's right or not.