"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

It fits with his inability to actually apply common sense to any
situation. Like all that guff about sticking 9kW on a socket. He likes
nice black and white rules that don't require any application of thought
or interpretation. So speed limit = dangerous, without recognising its
an arbitrary number chosen as a resonable compromise for the situation.

Its you that doesn't know why that limit was chosen that is the problem.
As I have stated before safety is not the only reason speed limits are
set.
If you exceed that limit because you think its safe then you choose to
ignore all the other reasons.
The thinking of someone that doesn't care about anyone else or what
effect that has on them.

You are inconsistent. You repeatedly claim that travelling at speeds even
slightly higher than the indicated limit is automatically extremely
dangerous, yet you now say that safety is not the only reason for setting
a particular limit.

Which is correct? Is it always dangerous to exceed a speed limit which has
been set to, say, reduce traffic noise? Note:- We all know that it is
unlawful to do so, but is it automatically dangerous?

Try asking whomever said "its automatically extremely dangerous".

dennis@home wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:



"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast
enough to
escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of orbits
or space travel.

Escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000mph, roughly. Orbital speed for
the Earth at ground level is about 17,500 mph relative to the
centre. At
100mph on a normal road, the reduction in weight is in theory just
about
measurable, although in practice totally masked by aerodynamic effects.

But escape velocity isn't what he said.
100 mph is more than enough to escape earth orbit if you have propulsion
available.

1mm/aeon is enough to escape orbit if you have propulsion available.

That's not what "escape velocity" means...

I know.
Shame TNP doesn't know escape orbit != escape velocity.

Same you don't understand that it cant have any other meaning.

To be in orbit you *already* have to be doing something stupendous just
at the earth's surface.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

dennis@home wrote:


"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

It fits with his inability to actually apply common sense to any
situation. Like all that guff about sticking 9kW on a socket. He
likes nice black and white rules that don't require any application
of thought or interpretation. So speed limit = dangerous, without
recognising its an arbitrary number chosen as a resonable compromise
for the situation.

Its you that doesn't know why that limit was chosen that is the problem.
As I have stated before safety is not the only reason speed limits
are set.
If you exceed that limit because you think its safe then you choose
to ignore all the other reasons.
The thinking of someone that doesn't care about anyone else or what
effect that has on them.

You are inconsistent. You repeatedly claim that travelling at speeds
even slightly higher than the indicated limit is automatically
extremely dangerous, yet you now say that safety is not the only
reason for setting a particular limit.

Which is correct? Is it always dangerous to exceed a speed limit which
has been set to, say, reduce traffic noise? Note:- We all know that it
is unlawful to do so, but is it automatically dangerous?

Try asking whomever said "its automatically extremely dangerous".

You, but not in that precise wording.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


Try asking whomever said "its automatically extremely dangerous".

You, but not in that precise wording.

Maybe its you that can't understand!
I know I have never said that.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

To be in orbit you *already* have to be doing something stupendous just at
the earth's surface.

So you admit to speeding!
Stop wriggling.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:xuGdnQwZu5wskujSnZ2dnUVZ8qidnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk...

It fits with his inability to actually apply common sense to any
situation. Like all that guff about sticking 9kW on a socket. He
likes nice black and white rules that don't require any application
of thought or interpretation. So speed limit = dangerous, without
recognising its an arbitrary number chosen as a resonable
compromise for the situation.

Its you that doesn't know why that limit was chosen that is the problem.
As I have stated before safety is not the only reason speed limits
are set.
If you exceed that limit because you think its safe then you choose
to ignore all the other reasons.
The thinking of someone that doesn't care about anyone else or what
effect that has on them.

You are inconsistent. You repeatedly claim that travelling at speeds
even slightly higher than the indicated limit is automatically
extremely dangerous, yet you now say that safety is not the only
reason for setting a particular limit.

Which is correct? Is it always dangerous to exceed a speed limit
which has been set to, say, reduce traffic noise? Note:- We all know
that it is unlawful to do so, but is it automatically dangerous?

Try asking whomever said "its automatically extremely dangerous".

Its "whoever" bull**** boi - you have the case wrong

You really do represent the mentality that killed off Marconi - the
barely competent middle management that turned it in on itself, squashed
the sense of adventure, free thought and flying a bit close to the wind


--
geoff

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted
speed limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast.
If you can't work out the difference hard luck.


Well of course 'too fast' is a conditional statement.


100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast enough
to escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of
orbits or space travel.

Well you managed to make yourself look like a **** the last time gravity was
mentioned in a post you commented on.

What is the escape velocity on dennisworld?


--
Adam

On 30/03/2012 18:35, dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

To be in orbit you *already* have to be doing something stupendous
just at the earth's surface.

So you admit to speeding!
Stop wriggling.

**** me, he's struggling now...

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:25:12 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

****e that plods will be told the number and be watching for it.
Not
so the ANPR system...

I wonder how that would work.

The ANPR camera reports to the police that is has spotted a car
that has been reported 3 times for speeding in a quiet village.
It's now driving in a town centre doing 10MPH like ever other car
in the traffic jam that has just passed the ANPR camera.

ANPR cameras are not just static some traffic cars are fitted with
them. So the traffic plod get alerted, they might choose to follow
for a while to see what the "tagged" car does. Chances are that the
driver is an habitual speeder...

A possibility. But it seems very unlikely to me.

I cannot see many people getting caught 3 times by the volunteers
and still not managing to lose their license by being caught
speeding elsewhere by the police (unless they live local)

Unless he has a "road angel" or similar device that warns him of the
static cameras and maybe even the mobile ones as they have to publish
(stupidly IMHO) well before hand where they are going to be.

If they did not publish the details then they would not be able to claim "we
are doing it for safety not to raise money" before parking the van well away
from the likes of Andy Cap and Charles' villages :-).


--
Adam

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast.
If you can't work out the difference hard luck.


Ah, so if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and they
change it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph before
travelling too fast?

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast.
If you can't work out the difference hard luck.


Ah, so if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and they
change it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph before
travelling too fast?

What a stupid question.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast.
If you can't work out the difference hard luck.


Ah, so if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and they
change it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph before
travelling too fast?

What a stupid question.


You mean you don't have an answer



--
geoff

dennis@home wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast.
If you can't work out the difference hard luck.


Ah, so if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and they
change it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph before
travelling too fast?

What a stupid question.


Ah. so a question is stupid if it raises a valid issue and you can't
answer it without looking like a dribbling idiot?


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed
limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast.
If you can't work out the difference hard luck.


Ah, so if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and they
change it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph before
travelling too fast?

What a stupid question.


Ah. so a question is stupid if it raises a valid issue and you can't
answer it without looking like a dribbling idiot?

The only issue it raises is why are some people really, really stupid.

Its at the same level as: if they install a set of lights at a junction,
does it mean its still OK to drive through if they are on red. Does it mean
half the people were offending last week?

Its dribbling morons like geof and you that make all the rules essential.

On 03/04/2012 08:00, dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed
limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast.
If you can't work out the difference hard luck.


Ah, so if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and
they change it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph
before travelling too fast?

What a stupid question.


Ah. so a question is stupid if it raises a valid issue and you can't
answer it without looking like a dribbling idiot?

The only issue it raises is why are some people really, really stupid.

Its at the same level as: if they install a set of lights at a junction,
does it mean its still OK to drive through if they are on red. Does it
mean half the people were offending last week?

Wiggle wiggle...

No, the question was not about the legality of the situation previously,
it was about whether faster than the current limit was "too fast"
previously.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...


No, the question was not about the legality of the situation previously,
it was about whether faster than the current limit was "too fast"
previously.

No the question was geof being an idiot and asking if it was too fast after
they lowered the speed limit.

The legality is obvious as is the question of "too fast" to anyone that
isn't an idiot.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:yNGdnVBsf7U7hubSnZ2dnUVZ8kOdnZ2d@brightview. co.uk...


No, the question was not about the legality of the situation
previously, it was about whether faster than the current limit was
"too fast" previously.

No the question was geof being an idiot and asking if it was too fast
after they lowered the speed limit.

Answer the question bull**** boi


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted
speed limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too
fast. If you can't work out the difference hard luck.


Ah, so if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and
they change it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph
before travelling too fast?

What a stupid question.


You mean you don't have an answer


Or understand it.

--
Adam

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:yNGdnVBsf7U7hubSnZ2dnUVZ8kOdnZ2d@brightview .co.uk...


No, the question was not about the legality of the situation previously,
it was about whether faster than the current limit was "too fast"
previously.

No the question was geof being an idiot and asking if it was too fast
after they lowered the speed limit.

Answer the question bull**** boi

Answer it yourself and prove how stupid you are.

On 03/04/2012 20:05, dennis@home wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...


No, the question was not about the legality of the situation
previously, it was about whether faster than the current limit was
"too fast" previously.

No the question was geof being an idiot and asking if it was too fast
after they lowered the speed limit.

Answer the question bull**** boi

Answer it yourself and prove how stupid you are.

You are Count Arthur Strong AICMFP.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...

resorting to abuse to make up for it

like you always have, not a chance.


I do it as a matter of course, bull**** boi

--
geoff

In message , geoff
writes
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...

resorting to abuse to make up for it

like you always have, not a chance.


I do it as a matter of course, bull**** boi


So, give us an answer, an opinion .... anything

"if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and they change
it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph before travelling
too fast?"




--
geoff

In message , geoff
writes
In message , geoff
writes
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...

resorting to abuse to make up for it

like you always have, not a chance.


I do it as a matter of course, bull**** boi


So, give us an answer, an opinion .... anything

"if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and they change
it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph before travelling
too fast?"

I presume by that deafening silence you don't have an answer


--
geoff

In message , geoff
writes
So, give us an answer, an opinion .... anything

"if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and they
change it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph before
travelling too fast?"

I presume by that deafening silence you don't have an answer

Are you really thick?

No I'm not denboi

I am not going to answer such a stupid question,

Because you don't have an answer

answer it yourself.

Its yours to answer, not an issue for me, you see

Then I might pull your answer apart or I might not.

Just answer the question ...


Come, come, dennis

Your obsession with speeding and perceived automatic dangers associated
with exceeding the speed limit would mean that you have to have an
answer

"if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and they change
it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph before travelling
too fast?"

So, what is it

were they travelling too fast or not, ?
easy yes / no answer,
no squirming required

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...

Come, come, dennis

Your obsession with speeding and perceived automatic dangers associated
with exceeding the speed limit would mean that you have to have an answer

"if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and they change it
to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph before travelling too
fast?"

So, what is it

were they travelling too fast or not, ?
easy yes / no answer,
no squirming required

There is only one person with an obsession here and its not me.
Go and take your meds.

dennis@home wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...

Come, come, dennis

Your obsession with speeding and perceived automatic dangers
associated with exceeding the speed limit would mean that you have to
have an answer

"if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and they change
it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph before
travelling too fast?"

So, what is it

were they travelling too fast or not, ?
easy yes / no answer,
no squirming required

There is only one person with an obsession here and its not me.
Go and take your meds.


weak, very weak. He's got you on the floor and slapping..

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...

Come, come, dennis

Your obsession with speeding and perceived automatic dangers
associated with exceeding the speed limit would mean that you have to
have an answer

"if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and they
change it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph before
travelling too fast?"

So, what is it

were they travelling too fast or not, ?
easy yes / no answer,
no squirming required

There is only one person with an obsession here and its not me.

I beg to differ bull**** boi

You're deflecting again

simple answer - yes or no ?


Go and take your meds.

I neither have or have need of any prescription medication whatsoever

now, go and ask nursie for yours (and no hiding it under your tongue
again)

then you might be able to give a simple answer to the simple question
above


--
geoff

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...



weak, very weak. He's got you on the floor and slapping..

TNP trying to prove himself weird.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...



weak, very weak. He's got you on the floor and slapping..

TNP trying to prove himself weird.

Dennis proves he's a lot younger than he pretends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYMhE...eature=related


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 04/04/2012 22:23, dennis@home wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...

Come, come, dennis

Your obsession with speeding and perceived automatic dangers
associated with exceeding the speed limit would mean that you have to
have an answer

"if a road has had a speed limit of 50mph for 20 years and they change
it to 40mph, was everyone who was travelling at 50mph before
travelling too fast?"

So, what is it

were they travelling too fast or not, ?
easy yes / no answer,
no squirming required

There is only one person with an obsession here and its not me.

No, I would like to hear your answer as well...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

No, I would like to hear your answer as well...

Well if you post why they changed the limit the answer will be obvious to
you.

dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

No, I would like to hear your answer as well...

Well if you post why they changed the limit the answer will be obvious
to you.


A councillor moved into a house in the street.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.