Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:22:05 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:44:49 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

psycholists

"A synonym for 'psycholist' is '****wit'" (â„¢ J Smith)

I had no idea that was the case.
But, as you so kindly have gone to the trouble of pointing it out, I can
now see that you are completely right.
Thank you.

And thank you very much kind sir for your great accolade.
And now could I please have the further compliment of being arassive,
poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive, socially-retarded,
puerile, pinguid, and Generally Not Good?
Please?

"JNugent" wrote
On 25/07/2014 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/07/2014 17:56, TMS320 wrote:

Exchanging insurer name is not required. I bet most people don't know
it.

The only nouns in the above paragraph are "insurer", "name" and "people".
Which do you think "it" refers to?

"It" referred to your whole clause "Exchanging insurer name is not
required".

If you insist. On reflection there might be some ambiguity but I would
make an interpretation in the way you did if a "this" had been on the end.

Saying "Exchanging insurer name is not required. I bet most people don't
know their insurer name" looks messy.

... it makes no difference whether parties exchange
insurer detail at the scene.

Actually, it does.

Please give your reasoning.

On 28/07/2014 09:12, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 25/07/2014 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/07/2014 17:56, TMS320 wrote:

Exchanging insurer name is not required. I bet most people don't know
it.

The only nouns in the above paragraph are "insurer", "name" and "people".
Which do you think "it" refers to?

"It" referred to your whole clause "Exchanging insurer name is not
required".

If you insist. On reflection there might be some ambiguity...

None at all.

When someone says:

"X is the case. I bet most people don't know it", the "it" clearly
refers to X being the case.

... but I would
make an interpretation in the way you did if a "this" had been on the end.

There's no difference whether the sentence ends in "it" or "this".

Saying "Exchanging insurer name is not required. I bet most people don't
know their insurer name" looks messy.

Is that what you meant? It's not what you said.

Your proposed "messy":

"Exchanging insurer name is not required. I bet most people don't know
their insurer name"

....reads perfectly sensibly to me. The only change I would make is to
add "apostrophe s" to the second iteration of the word "insurer".

... it makes no difference whether parties exchange
insurer detail at the scene.

Actually, it does.

Please give your reasoning.

Failure to provide the name of the insurer looks (to the innocent party)
either like being uninsured or an intention to wriggle out of it.

This has already been said.

Bret Cahill writes:

I cannot imagine why a rider that felt he was in danger would remove
a hand from the controls unless he was jumping off, there is nothing
instinctive about putting up a hand,

Sometimes it's the quickest way to change directions.

More plausibly, the cyclist's hand was knocked off from behind by some
criminal dangerously crashing a heavy/ rigid motor car door mirror into
their arm.

yet I have often seen claims and reports of cyclists deliberately
damaging car miiror of vehicles that the cyclist feels has offended
or insulted them in some way, such as hooting at them.

Any wing mirror -- good term BTW -- that costs more that $5 is a rip
off.

It does seem astonishing that something which is apparently so fragile
could possibly be so expensive yet still mounted outside a motor car
given how inexpertly they are operated. OTOH, a fool and his money are
easily parted... The components might well cost no more than 5 USD, but
the price to the gullible punters could easily be multiplied a
hundred-fold (if the NugentWitnesses(TM) are to be believed) with them
still claiming it is a good deal.

But the mirror in question will almost invariably have been pre-stressed
a few times by `accidental' crashes into bollards, gates, pedestrians,
lamp posts, buildings, etc. So it is only by chance that it fell apart
so readily _this_ time when crashed into the cyclist. If it had been a
new one, one would hope it would not have broken.

The entire motor vehicle should be designed to disintegrate upon
impact with a cyclist.

You want us all to buy motor cars made in the USA? Nice try, but no
chance; they are too enormous to fit on our roads or in our garages ;-).

--
Mark

On 08/08/2014 19:12, Mark Williams wrote:
Bret Cahill writes:

I cannot imagine why a rider that felt he was in danger would remove
a hand from the controls unless he was jumping off, there is nothing
instinctive about putting up a hand,

Sometimes it's the quickest way to change directions.

More plausibly, the cyclist's hand was knocked off from behind by some
criminal dangerously crashing a heavy/ rigid motor car door mirror into
their arm.

yet I have often seen claims and reports of cyclists deliberately
damaging car miiror of vehicles that the cyclist feels has offended
or insulted them in some way, such as hooting at them.

Any wing mirror -- good term BTW -- that costs more that $5 is a rip
off.

It does seem astonishing that something which is apparently so fragile
could possibly be so expensive yet still mounted outside a motor car
given how inexpertly they are operated. OTOH, a fool and his money are
easily parted... The components might well cost no more than 5 USD, but
the price to the gullible punters could easily be multiplied a
hundred-fold (if the NugentWitnesses(TM) are to be believed) with them
still claiming it is a good deal.

But the mirror in question will almost invariably have been pre-stressed
a few times by `accidental' crashes into bollards, gates, pedestrians,
lamp posts, buildings, etc. So it is only by chance that it fell apart
so readily _this_ time when crashed into the cyclist. If it had been a
new one, one would hope it would not have broken.

The entire motor vehicle should be designed to disintegrate upon
impact with a cyclist.

You want us all to buy motor cars made in the USA? Nice try, but no
chance; they are too enormous to fit on our roads or in our garages ;-).

You haven't been in the USA in the last twenty years (or perhaps at
all), then?