Nuxx:E013e26f-d288-4fa8-87a8-dda2f075a0b0@r17g2000vbc.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!r17g2000vbc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Happiness = Work, sleep and bicycles Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 05:53:52 -0800 (PST) References:     Lines: 27 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 1299419632 30091 127.0.0.1 (6 Mar 2011 13:53:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 13:53:52 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r17g2000vbc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110218 Firefox/3.6.14,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2516 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:801316

On Mar 6, 10:14=A0am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote: > > On 06/03/2011 01:48, Peter Keller wrote: > > I completely agree. > > I suspect most people here do

Why don't you just admit that you read my posts? It's entirely clear that you saw my reference to you that Peter snipped, and that's why you felt the need to launch an impassioned (if flawed) defence of yourself. You should really either stop this silliness and reply to me directly, or completely and genuinely ignore my posts. This waiting for a third party to reply to me and then replying to me through them is frankly a pretty cowardly, time-wasting and halfwitted way to go about things.

So please stop this charade. You're entirely at liberty to start being an adult about this matter any time you want, even if the police really have suggested otherwise to you (which I doubt, but if they have then it's still your call whether to heed them, and anyway, do you think they'd want you replying indirectly any more than directly?)

> It's pretty clear that any commentary about plurality of modes is in the > wrong group here

...unless you agree with it, in which case you never complain.