Scum attacks cyclist who stopped for pedestrian

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 6:55:07 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 6:19:35 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:

Q:
Who rides a silly, untraceable, uninsured pedal bike in the ****ing
down rain?
A: ...........

I did for 15 years, day in day out.
Saved about £15000 in fuel alone and it made me super fit.
One of the best things I ever did.

Then came the bridge ................

Got a year on full sick pay, £2000 from BUPA, a £5000 annual bonus, a year's pension, then retired with a £600000 pension pot and shares.

Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 6:55:07 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 6:19:35 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:

Q:
Who rides a silly, untraceable, uninsured pedal bike in the ****ing
down rain?
A: ...........

I did for 15 years, day in day out.
Saved about £15000 in fuel alone and it made me super fit.
One of the best things I ever did.

Then came the bridge ................

Got a year on full sick pay, £2000 from BUPA, a £5000 annual bonus, a
year's pension, then retired with a £600000 pension pot and shares.

Just look at you now.

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 7:17:32 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 6:55:07 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 6:19:35 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:

Q:
Who rides a silly, untraceable, uninsured pedal bike in the ****ing
down rain?
A: ...........

I did for 15 years, day in day out.
Saved about £15000 in fuel alone and it made me super fit.
One of the best things I ever did.

Then came the bridge ................

Got a year on full sick pay, £2000 from BUPA, a £5000 annual bonus, a
year's pension, then retired with a £600000 pension pot and shares..

Just look at you now.

Looking forward to 20 MAY 2020 - 20 JUN 2020 and this trip:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJhK2YXX...pg&name=medium

On 16/11/2019 16:15, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 15:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 14:26, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2019 22:32, TMS320 wrote:

I have told you before that you have no right to
comment about cyclists when you are sitting behind
a windscreen. Your choice is more dangerous.

OK... you *are* trying to say that cyclists can do as they like
and are not subject to traffic law.

You fail to convince me that cyclists are saints who ought to be
allowed to do exactly as they please (and sod everyone else) and then
you throw a strop when you realise you aren't going to be able to
convince me (or anyone else) of it.

Have you thought of attending an anger management course?

You could think about learning to read and if you want to reply, not
changing the subject.

On 16/11/2019 22:48, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/11/2019 16:15, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 15:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 14:26, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2019 22:32, TMS320 wrote:

I have told you before that you have no right to
comment about cyclists when you are sitting behind
a windscreen. Your choice is more dangerous.

OK... you *are* trying to say that cyclists can do as they like
and are not subject to traffic law.

You fail to convince me that cyclists are saints who ought to be
allowed to do exactly as they please (and sod everyone else) and then
you throw a strop when you realise you aren't going to be able to
convince me (or anyone else) of it.

Have you thought of attending an anger management course?

You could think about learning to read and if you want to reply, not
changing the subject.

Now you're trying to change the subject.

On 17/11/2019 09:20, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 22:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 16:15, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 15:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 14:26, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2019 22:32, TMS320 wrote:

I have told you before that you have no right to
comment about cyclists when you are sitting behind
a windscreen. Your choice is more dangerous.

OK... you *are* trying to say that cyclists can do as they like
and are not subject to traffic law.

You fail to convince me that cyclists are saints who ought to be
allowed to do exactly as they please (and sod everyone else) and then
you throw a strop when you realise you aren't going to be able to
convince me (or anyone else) of it.

Have you thought of attending an anger management course?

You could think about learning to read and if you want to reply, not
changing the subject.

Now you're trying to change the subject.

I was wrong. You are thicker than 2 breeze blocks laid lengthways.

On 17/11/2019 11:58, TMS320 wrote:

On 17/11/2019 09:20, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 22:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 16:15, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 15:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 14:26, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2019 22:32, TMS320 wrote:

I have told you before that you have no right to
comment about cyclists when you are sitting behind
a windscreen. Your choice is more dangerous.

OK... you *are* trying to say that cyclists can do as they like
and are not subject to traffic law.

You fail to convince me that cyclists are saints who ought to be
allowed to do exactly as they please (and sod everyone else) and then
you throw a strop when you realise you aren't going to be able to
convince me (or anyone else) of it.

Have you thought of attending an anger management course?

You could think about learning to read and if you want to reply, not
changing the subject.

Now you're trying to change the subject.

I was wrong. You are thicker than 2 breeze blocks laid lengthways.

As you know, or ought to, I do not respond to stuff like that.

It merely shows that you have run out of anything useful to say and are
reduced to stamping your foot in pique, having failed (again) to assert
and enforce your will.

Have a nice rest of the day.

On 17/11/2019 12:03, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2019 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/11/2019 09:20, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 22:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 16:15, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 15:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 14:26, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2019 22:32, TMS320 wrote:

I have told you before that you have no right to
comment about cyclists when you are sitting behind
a windscreen. Your choice is more dangerous.

OK... you *are* trying to say that cyclists can do as they like
and are not subject to traffic law.

You fail to convince me that cyclists are saints who ought to be
allowed to do exactly as they please (and sod everyone else) and then
you throw a strop when you realise you aren't going to be able to
convince me (or anyone else) of it.

Have you thought of attending an anger management course?

You could think about learning to read and if you want to reply, not
changing the subject.

Now you're trying to change the subject.

I was wrong. You are thicker than 2 breeze blocks laid lengthways.

As you know, or ought to, I do not respond to stuff like that.

Well, you have. So there's a lie.

If you want to maintain a civil conversation, then limit your responses
to what was written. You will not get one when someone posts "my opinion
is / it is a fact that ABC" and consistently counter with "so you're
saying you believe XYZ?"

On 17/11/2019 16:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/11/2019 12:03, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2019 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/11/2019 09:20, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 22:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 16:15, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 15:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 14:26, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2019 22:32, TMS320 wrote:

I have told you before that you have no right to
comment about cyclists when you are sitting behind
a windscreen. Your choice is more dangerous.

OK... you *are* trying to say that cyclists can do as they like
and are not subject to traffic law.

You fail to convince me that cyclists are saints who ought to be
allowed to do exactly as they please (and sod everyone else) and then
you throw a strop when you realise you aren't going to be able to
convince me (or anyone else) of it.

Have you thought of attending an anger management course?

You could think about learning to read and if you want to reply,
not changing the subject.

Now you're trying to change the subject.

I was wrong. You are thicker than 2 breeze blocks laid lengthways.

As you know, or ought to, I do not respond to stuff like that.

Well, you have. So there's a lie.

I responded to the post in general. I did not provide a response to your
petulant and childish outburst.

If you want to maintain a civil conversation, then limit your responses
to what was written.

I always try to do exactly that.

Your advice would be better addressed to Jester/Fool.

You will not get one when someone posts "my opinion
is / it is a fact that ABC" and consistently counter with "so you're
saying you believe XYZ?"

Sometimes - certainly not always, but sometimes - there is a
clearly-implied meaning to what people say.

Refusing to condemn law-breaking and geberal yobbishness by cyclists is
tantamount to saying that they are entitled to behave like that and by
extension, that everyone else is fated simply to put up with it. You are
free to correct that impression at any time by making some alternative
position clear.

On 17/11/2019 16:54, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2019 16:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/11/2019 12:03, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2019 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/11/2019 09:20, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 22:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 16:15, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 15:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 14:26, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2019 22:32, TMS320 wrote:

I have told you before that you have no right to
comment about cyclists when you are sitting behind
a windscreen. Your choice is more dangerous.

OK... you *are* trying to say that cyclists can do as they like
and are not subject to traffic law.

You fail to convince me that cyclists are saints who ought to be
allowed to do exactly as they please (and sod everyone else) and
then
you throw a strop when you realise you aren't going to be able to
convince me (or anyone else) of it.

Have you thought of attending an anger management course?

You could think about learning to read and if you want to reply,
not changing the subject.

Now you're trying to change the subject.

I was wrong. You are thicker than 2 breeze blocks laid lengthways.

As you know, or ought to, I do not respond to stuff like that.

Well, you have. So there's a lie.

I responded to the post in general. I did not provide a response to your
petulant and childish outburst.

If you want to maintain a civil conversation, then limit your
responses to what was written.

I always try to do exactly that.

Then try harder.

You will not get one when someone posts "my opinion is / it is a fact
that ABC" and consistently counter with "so you're saying you believe
XYZ?"

Sometimes - certainly not always, but sometimes - there is a
clearly-implied meaning to what people say.

It is not "sometimes".

Refusing to condemn law-breaking and geberal yobbishness by cyclists is

I am not obliged to kowtow to your demands.