Re: MLOC
- From: "Mike G" <metier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:48:18 +0100
"MrBitsy" <ray.keattch@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4fXsk.404$Ff2.7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Mike G" <metier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:6hgvleFlm1e6U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Conor" <conor_turton@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6hgi2iFlt7stU2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <6hge1nFleq1oU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike G says...And I've explained why that's bullshit.
"Conor" <conor_turton@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6hgbv9Flfs5eU3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <6hg3qvFln9bbU3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike G
> says...
>
>> Neither can you if I use the same logic.
>> Mike.
>
> Remind me again who is posting about driving against the > HC
> and
> ignoring basic lane discipline?
You really are thick. I clearly expressed my POV, but you
choose
to conveniently ignore it. Concentrating instead on "I'm with
you", as if I literally agreed with every word Ian wrote. I
agreed with the sentiment, then went on to explain my view
specifically, but such a simple concept seems to be beyond
your
understanding. thick.
Just to remind you this is what I actually wrote:-
"I'm with you. In principle I see no reason why any part of a
road, inc m/ways, can't be used, if it does not inconvenience
other drivers."
What is?
Even Ray agrees with the last sentence.
Wow, thanks for the vote of confidence :-)
That's OK :-).
You and I don't see eye to eye that often, but on this occasion you surprised me. I expected you to have a view similar to that of Conor.
Mike.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Gotta NIP
- Next by Date: Re: Gotta NIP
- Previous by thread: Re: MLOC
- Next by thread: Re: MLOC
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|