🚀 go-pugleaf

Well isn't this odd.  I just checked my IP addresss and isn't what you
posted below.
I checked the headers too and it differs from what i have.
Király wrote:
> DiscoDuck <fornewsgroups@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > LOL.  Interesting that when someone thinks I'm right-correction-KNOWS I
> > am correct, You assume it's me.
> > You make me laugh.  I guess you want to try and erode my credibilty by
> > suggesting this.  Good luck with that.
>
> IP address of posts in this thread made by DiscoDuck:  24.84.215.140
> IP address of posts in this thread made by nickarama:  24.84.215.140
>
> This isn't the first time this little "coincidence" has happened.
>
> Two posts were made in this group on March 4th 2006.  One by DiscoDuck,
> one by nickarama.  The IP addresses again are the same; 24.84.192.47.
>
> There is more evidence; But the real, obvious kicker is that you posted
> from your nickarama account, and signed it DD.  Just look at the
> headers and the body.
>
> Here it is again, in case you missed it:
>
> ---begin quoted post with message headers---
>
> |From: nickarama2005@yahoo.com
> |Newsgroups: bc.cycling
> |Subject: Re: Who pays more?
> |Date: 7 Jun 2006 17:25:41 -0700
> |Organization: http://groups.google.com
> |Lines: 43
> |Message-ID: <1149726341.251179.288020@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> |
> |[snip]
> |
> |NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.84.215.140
> |
> |[snip]
> |
> |Thanks Nick.
> |I find it unbelievable that some people are bent on saying the two are
> |same.
> |The two are no more the same as skateboarders and rollerbladers.
> |DD
>
> ---end quoted post---
>
> If that's not proof that nickarama and DiscoDuck are the same person,
> then I don't know what is.
>
> > Just come out and admit (at the very least) you were mistaken.  That
> > indeed the two have different rights and obligations AND there are
> > other differences.
>
> The MVA says they are the same.  DiscoDuck says they aren't.  The MVA
> prevails.  It's right there in black and white.  You can argue and
> disagree all you want but it doesn't change the law.
>
> > That the law you quoted pertained to highways only. You were wrong.
>
> Highways is what we were talking about.  We weren't talking about riding
> in your backyard or on mountain trails.  We were talking obligations
> and rights about riding bikes vs. those of driving cars.  Pretty much the
> only place where you'll find both riding together are on highways.
>
> > Or do I have to come up with examples too?  I got one immediately off
> > the top of my head.
> > OK, here it goes (since I know you'll not admit you were wrong).
> > Cars by law are required to have insurance.  Cyclists are not.
> > Want more?
>
> Insurance is a legal requirement of operating a motor vehicle in a public
> highway, yes.  So it a helmet for a cyclist.  Heavy trucks are also
> subject to additional exterior lighting requirements that are required of
> neither cars nor bikes.
>
> But neither the car insurance, nor the helmet, nor the truck lighting make
> any difference on how the vehicle is to be driven/operated on highways,
> which is what we were talking about, and to what the "same rights and
> obligatins" refers.
> 
> K.