|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On 03/07/2019 01:28, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 12:26:05 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 02/07/2019 18:02, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 5:10:27 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 02/07/2019 16:25, Simon Jester wrote: If there is a natural disaster such as a tsunami, earthquake, mudslide, volcanic eruption or whatever and an infant is found alive in the rubble. What scientific test can be performed to prove the child is Jewish? You'd already admitted that you didn't know that Jewishness is regarded as an ethnicity. It's too late to start backpedalling. No backpedaling involved, I am seeking knowledge so please answer the question. I do not regard myself as Jewish but according to you I may be Jewish because of my ancestry. That is a blatant LIE. I know precisely nothing of, and have said nothing of, your ancestry. It is utterly ridiculous of you to claim it. Re-think your reasons for your dishonesty and re-phrase your statement honestly (if you can). If you don't recognise your own attempt at pure deceit, and if you don't amend it, don't expect a reply from me. Are you only Jewish because your parents are Jewish or does it go back further in history? Are non Jewish children adopted by Jewish parents Jewish? Bear in mind the ancestors of people born in Israel were not born in Israel because Israel is a human political construct. Amend your lie and then perhaps (perhaps) we can proceed. I can only assume your parents were haemorrhoids because you like to wriggle and squirm. You are a liar. How does it feel? |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 1:13:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 03/07/2019 01:28, Simon Jester wrote: On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 12:26:05 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 02/07/2019 18:02, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 5:10:27 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 02/07/2019 16:25, Simon Jester wrote: If there is a natural disaster such as a tsunami, earthquake, mudslide, volcanic eruption or whatever and an infant is found alive in the rubble. What scientific test can be performed to prove the child is Jewish? You'd already admitted that you didn't know that Jewishness is regarded as an ethnicity. It's too late to start backpedalling. No backpedaling involved, I am seeking knowledge so please answer the question. I do not regard myself as Jewish but according to you I may be Jewish because of my ancestry. That is a blatant LIE. I know precisely nothing of, and have said nothing of, your ancestry. It is utterly ridiculous of you to claim it. Re-think your reasons for your dishonesty and re-phrase your statement honestly (if you can). If you don't recognise your own attempt at pure deceit, and if you don't amend it, don't expect a reply from me. Are you only Jewish because your parents are Jewish or does it go back further in history? Are non Jewish children adopted by Jewish parents Jewish? Bear in mind the ancestors of people born in Israel were not born in Israel because Israel is a human political construct. Amend your lie and then perhaps (perhaps) we can proceed. I can only assume your parents were haemorrhoids because you like to wriggle and squirm. You are a liar. How does it feel? W5 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:
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? All facts in this case. You just said so when you said there were no arguments that can change your mind. "No arguments" subsumes arguments supported by, and arising out of, fact. And to any consideration of the rights of others, of course. By 'consideration for others', you mean to drivers? "Others" means everyone except yourself and/or your chosen tribe. 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). So you say, at least. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On 04/07/2019 14:22, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote: 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? All facts in this case. If you know some facts, provide them. If you don't there are no facts. You just said so when you said there were no arguments that can change your mind. "No arguments" subsumes arguments supported by, and arising out of, fact. Go on, give me some facts that should change my mind about not passing criticism downwards. And to any consideration of the rights of others, of course. By 'consideration for others', you mean to drivers? "Others" means everyone except yourself and/or your chosen tribe. If it makes you happy, I will say this: when walking or cycling I care little about the sensibilities and convenience of drivers other than to assure my own safety. 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). So you say, at least. Unless you can produce something from me, verbatim and with context, that says otherwise, you have no option other than to accept it at face value. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On 04/07/2019 18:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:22, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote: 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? All facts in this case. If you know some facts, provide them. If you don't there are no facts. That's a very flattering thing to say, but I assure you that I am not in possession of all the facts which exist. The fact that I either cannot or will not present you with a fact does not mean that it doesn't exist. It is, OTOH, quite arrogant to claim that facts of which you are not aware don't exist because you aren't aware of them. Be very sure of your own ignorance. We all have near-unlimited amounts of it, you no less than anyone else. You just said so when you said there were no arguments that can change your mind. "No arguments" subsumes arguments supported by, and arising out of, fact. Go on, give me some facts that should change my mind about not passing criticism downwards. See above. And to any consideration of the rights of others, of course. By 'consideration for others', you mean to drivers? "Others" means everyone except yourself and/or your chosen tribe. If it makes you happy, I will say this: when walking or cycling I care little about the sensibilities and convenience of drivers other than to assure my own safety. The law actually requires you to do certain things which are clearly required in order to assure the safety and convenience of others. You don't care about that. Why am I not surprised? 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). So you say, at least. Unless you can produce something from me, verbatim and with context, that says otherwise, you have no option other than to accept it at face value. I acknowledge that you say it, if that's what you mean. It doesn't mean anything. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On 04/07/2019 23:22, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 18:00, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 14:22, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote: 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). So you say, at least. Unless you can produce something from me, verbatim and with context, that says otherwise, you have no option other than to accept it at face value. I acknowledge that you say it, if that's what you mean. It doesn't mean anything. Well, you're wrong. And that's a fact. Which you are impervious to. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On 04/07/2019 23:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:22, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 18:00, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 14:22, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote: 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). So you say, at least. Unless you can produce something from me, verbatim and with context, that says otherwise, you have no option other than to accept it at face value. I acknowledge that you say it, if that's what you mean. It doesn't mean anything. Well, you're wrong. And that's a fact. Which you are impervious to. Dishonest snipping. Quelle surprise. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On 04/07/2019 23:34, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:32, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 23:22, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 18:00, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 14:22, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote: 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). So you say, at least. Unless you can produce something from me, verbatim and with context, that says otherwise, you have no option other than to accept it at face value. I acknowledge that you say it, if that's what you mean. It doesn't mean anything. Well, you're wrong. And that's a fact. Which you are impervious to. Dishonest snipping. If your memory is that bad, previous messages don't get erased. Quelle surprise Shrug. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Moment driver knocks cyclist off bike on wrong side of road in hitand run (video) | Bod[_5_] | UK | 2 | June 5th 19 09:05 PM |
Terminator on the wrong side of the road | Alycidon | UK | 3 | January 22nd 16 09:27 AM |
cycling on the wrong side of the road | wafflycat[_2_] | UK | 21 | July 26th 08 09:28 PM |
wrong-way sidewalk rider gets comeuppance | Ben Pfaff | General | 51 | October 10th 05 10:14 PM |
Wrong Side Of The Road | winnard | Social Issues | 33 | August 10th 05 03:22 PM |