glaikie wrote:
Paul Smith got considerable mileage out of that tactic: declaring himself to have prevailed in an argument before ending the discussion. That he was able to muzzle people by banning them helped, of course. Until your coronation as new king of safespeed, this isn’t a facility available to you.
...and yet you were the one crowing about being 'done', when you clearly hadn't, and still don't, understand the issues at hand!
Do you consider yourself 'big' for deriding the deceased? You're debating here with the living, and have taken quite a confrontational tone with me personally, which I suggest you restrict yourself to, rather than the cowardly tactic of maligning those who cannot speak out in their own defence.
glaikie wrote:
I note your New Year's resolution not to start lying when being embarrassed on internet forums didn't last l ong.
Is your tactic when embarrassed on internet forums to accuse people of lying, and lie yourself? Comments like the above certainly make it seem so!
glaikie wrote:
That this cost is borne by the tax-payer, mediated by the organisation, makes it a form of subsidy to employees who choose to travel by car. And it's exclusive; no other commuting transport choices qualify for such subsidy
So, given that logic, and the fact that you are paid by the same local authority, must we therefore conclude that your angry little existence is also to be considered subsidised by the tax-payer?
glaikie wrote:
Opportunity costs? That value is bound up in assets is something this LA understands, albeit you don't.
Ah, the inevitable change of tack when the realisation of error hits home. There was never any dispute that assets had worth, the mistake you and the 'iGreens' made was to purport that not liquidating those assets was tantamount to an expenditure. Convenient to push your rabid agenda, but utter, utter piffle.
glaikie wrote:
It's taken Robin to point out that on top of all the other advantages conferred upon Copenhageners by more progressive transport policies, they're materially more prosperous than people in the UK as well! They’ve got loadsamoney!
Dear god! Please don't attempt to attribute such tripe to me! Correlation does not imply causation, as anyone with the slightest intelligence should be able to grasp. You're really clutching at straws if you have to now attempt to attribute the fact that Danes earn more on average than Brits to the fact that more of them cycle! Norwegians earn more on average than Danes, that must be due to the fact that they eat more fish! You'd like Norway, incidentally, there is some cycling, but more importantly, they're very fond of trolls!
Incomprehensibly illogical nonsense such as the above and 'cars make us fat' really illustrate admirably why there is little need to further indulge your 'furious pedaling'. You have clearly been duped by partisan propoganda on several issues Tthere is no shame in that, many of us here initially believed the claims surrounding speed cameras; the shame is not having an open, inquiring mind, and a willingness to unearth the truth oneself.
You quite clearly have no interest in opening your mind, you have been handed your gospel, and simply intend to preach to us from it. Such is your prerogative, but it is incumbent upon you to remain civil when people point out the gaping holes in your received logic.