Turning The TW200 Into A Street Bike (Mostly)

Well, Krusty's insults are generally somewhere around the primary
school playground level. I must say, your explanation has left me even
more baffled than I was before.

 

Really? Given The Learned Doctor's definition, I'd doubt it. Still,
whatever you say.

I'm confused now. What do you call a bar that has both ferns *and*
bikers in it?

 

I knew that. Has your therapist suggested living as a woman for a
while before going under the knife?

That's a *gay* bar with rough trade or The Village People on tour have
popped in for drinks.

 

You know, your attempted insults say *far* more about you than they do
about their intended recipient(s).

Have you ever wondered that? And wondered what picture people draw of
you as a result?

<G>

 

If you recall Toggy Boy, you played the "homosexuality card" FIRST
when you called another male "sweetie." And then followed up with
your last statement, calling a male "dear." If you do twist that way,
enjoy yourself, no prob, just know who to call sweetie and dear and
when to keep your mouth shut. Save it for your butt buddies...I'm not
interested. Is that clkear enough for you old Toggy "boy?"

Bill

 

But you see, not all "men" like yourself enjoy being called "sweetie"
by other "men." Get the point, dim one from Sweden?

Bill

 

On Aug 12, 11:56 am, (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:

therapist suggested living as a woman for a while before going under
the knife?

Well, we may not know that but everyone knows the picture that people
think of when they think of TOG. See for yourself. The photo
perfectly describes him, his personality and the value of his posts on
Reeky.

http://www.dogbag.com/pics/feces_big.gif

Bill

 

And, BTW, you can save the "sweetie" routine for all your "boyfriends"
and other butt-buddies. Find someone else who's interested in your
homoerotic thoughts. I'm not.recently) played by Krusty and JS. You're in good company, dear. Next?

A term of endearment.

See above.

And you're copying JS's 'Toggy Boy'. Lovely. I've got you nicely
trained. Erm, what's that phrase. Oh yes:

Dance, boi.

Now, let's return to your Webster's 'definition'. I see you've
studiously ignored my posting to the effect that I think you made it up.
Now I'm certain.

You actually gave your own definition of the meaning of a phrase, and
then claimed you'd got it from Webster's.

You have *no idea* how much that makes me grin, and what a loser it
makes you. You have simply lost all credibility.

I've never known anyone to do that on Usenet; to claim they're right by
using their own definition, and saying they got it from a dictionary.
It's just brilliant.

 

Well, yes, it started me too, rather.

Anyway, you've got him jumping nicely. Well done.

 

Yawn...

WTFGAS?

 

You don't find it amusing that someone claims their own made-up
definition came from Websters? You don't think it rather destroys
their position?

<Thinks>

No, you probably don't, given that you are equally inventive with your
postings. Carry on, then.

 

I can think of circumstances when I would enjoy it, as in 'it would
amuse and entertain me', but like you, I really don't care if someone
starts hurling wild accusations of homosexuality at me because, like
you, I am comfortable and certain enough of my own sexuality.

I always feel that hurling such insults says more about the
hurler...... It's fascinating that Krusty, JS and Bill are so alike in
this respect.

 

I bet you enjoy it a lot but just keep it and your own falsified
definition (the same thing you accuse others of) of it as a term of
endearment from one male to another to yourself and your other "male"
friends you "picnic" with on those long rides out in the English
countryside. Like I said earlier, if it tweaks your wheel, do it,
just keep your "sweetie" and "dearie" crap to yourself. And it has
nothing to do with ones own certainty about their sexuality. It just
that some find you an annoying old pile of poop and just wish you'd
shut the **** up, but I guess you have enough "sweeties" and "dearies"
in this newsgroup to keep you afloat. Maybe it should be renamed
alt.sexuality.rec.motorcycles.

J.S..

J.S.

 

On Aug 13, 2:13 am, "TOG@Toil" <>
wrote:


On 13 Aug, 09:19, (Hans-Christian Becker)
wrote:
I am not sure I would *enjoy* being called "sweetie" in a bar, but I
am
certain enough of my sexuality that I would not throw a hissy-fit over
it.

I bet you enjoy it a lot but just keep it and your own falsified
definition (the same thing you accuse others of) of it as a term of
endearment from one male to another to yourself and your other "male"
friends you "picnic" with on those long rides out in the English
countryside.

Like I said earlier, if it tweaks your wheel, do it, just keep your
"sweetie" and "dearie" crap to yourself. And it has nothing to do
with ones own certainty about their sexuality. It just that some find
you an annoying old pile of poop and just wish you'd shut the **** up,
but I guess you have enough "sweeties" and "dearies" in this newsgroup
to keep you afloat. Maybe it should be renamed
alt.sexuality.rec.motorcycles.

Bill

 

<snip>

Still smarting about being caught out lying over your so-called
'dictionary' definition, aren't we, dear?

<G>

First time I've ever come across someone using a dictionary as a sock
puppet. Utterly glorious.

 

.....and we move onto the next stage in the development of a classic
Usenet Looney: the general denigration of the newsgroup and its
posters, as a group.

You're doing really, really well, laddie. Conforming exactly to type,
and being led by the nose. Now, it's about time for your barely
coherent rant.

Have you ever paused to consider that you're parading your mental
instability in front of a global audience?

 

Not smarting over anything. My definitions were valid, unlike your
offerings that you twist and manipulate to feed your own inflated
asshole ego. Anyone with an IQ higher than a turnip could easily see
the two phrases meant essentially the same thing, but you're so full
of yourself in that little house of cards you call your character that
being wrong is such anathema you'll go to any extreme and lie as many
times as you need to protect that fragile sick ego of yours.
Actually, a senile old dickhead like yourself is to be pitied in your
dementia.

puppet. Utterly glorious.

You would find another guy calling you "sweetie" utterly glorious too
so I guess all know not to pay much attention to what the Older
Motorcycle Queen Gentleman thinks is "glorious." BTW, you use your
own twisted, sick mind as your own sock puppet, now that you bring up
the subject.

Bill
(Still smiling at the utter absurdity of TOG and the fact that God
even allowed him to escape the birth canal with all of those inherent
defects he possesses. Abortion would have been kinder for all
concerned.)

 

No, they weren't. You claimed a dictionary definition to prove your
point. And there was no dictionary definition, was there? You made it
up.

If your definition had been valid, you'd have been able to find a
dictionary source to back it up. But you couldn't, so you were forced
to resort to lying, and reckoned you wouldn't be called out over it.

Unfortunately for you, though, and as I pointed out, words are my
business, and I can frequently tell when someone's dug themselves a
lovely deep hole with the 'very exact instrument' (as I called it)
that is the English language.

I even warned you: "You must be prepared to be tripped up by someone
who can wield the instrument better than you can".

It's not often you see such a perfect demonstration in action, is it?
I mean, people get away with all kinds of fibs and obfuscations[1] on
Usenet, but rarely do you see someone first warned that they're on
thin ice, and then watch while they fall straight through it, as they
try and lie their way out of trouble.

[1] You may need a dictionary for this[2].
[2] A real one.

 

Those mileages are based upon Imperial gallons, which are have 20%
more volume than U.S. gallons.

Diesel / AYGO 3 & 5-door 1.4L Diesel 5-speed Man

Urban: 53.3 mpg–imp (5.3 L/100 km / 44.4 mpg–U.S.)
Extra-urban 83.1 mpg–imp (3.4 L/100 km / 69.2 mpg–U.S.)
Combined: 68.9 mpg–imp (4.1 L/100 km / 57.4 mpg–U.S.)