View Single Post
  #83  
Old July 4th 19, 02:00 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On 02/07/2019 15:23, JNugent wrote:
On 02/07/2019 10:42, TMS320 wrote:

On 01/07/2019 23:56, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 23:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/07/2019 22:08, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 21:46, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/07/2019 14:20, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 10:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/07/2019 00:16, JNugent wrote:


Now, tell me why I should respect cyclists who break traffic
law constantly and repeatedly.


Why should I respect somebody that chooses to use a dangerous
form of transport (no matter how careful and law abiding the
driver) and believes he can tell others using a much safer form
of transport that their behaviour is dangerous.
Unlike you, I work on the basis that criticism of behaviour
should only go sideways and up, not down.


IOW, you make up whatever you need to in order to evade questions
whose answers are not advantageous to you.


In other words, criticism of behaviour should only go sideways and
up, not down.
How is doing otherwise advantageous to me?


That's the ticket. Create your own definitions within your own
little world. That way you think your "arguments" (yes, I know...)
cannot be beaten.


Whereas it is always your habit to obfuscate or change the subject
(as immediately above).
You have now played your hand. If you think my point of view is open
to argument then have a go. If you don't have a go then you can't
beat it.


It isn't easy to beat "arguments" couched in meaningless terms and
founded upon meaningless "principles".


I told you my stand point. There is no "argument" that can change my
change my mind about it.


I knew that you are impervious to facts. Well, not all facts, just
salient ones.


What facts, in this case?

And to any consideration of the rights of others, of course.


By 'consideration for others', you mean to drivers?

Or for thinking that your attitude is wrong. You have seen other
recent posts, I won't repeat it.


The gods be praised.

Participants in argument have to operate from a common premise or set
of premises. Your premises are decidedly odd (whatever "criticism of
behaviour up, down and sideways" might mean).


You often tell people what you think they mean - which does not
resemble anything they wrote. You do understand it but you can't twist
it.


If you are talking about your "Over, Under, Sideways, Down" schtick, I
recognise it as a song title. In context, the phrase made little sense
there, too.


For goodness' sake. I use foot, bicycle or car for personal transport.
In a car, the only other people open to criticism are other drivers
(sideways). When walking, anybody is a potential target for criticism
(sideways or upwards).

Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home