A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old July 2nd 19, 01:44 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,757
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On 02/07/2019 13:33, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:05:55 GMT, MrCheerful
wrote:

On 02/07/2019 10:50, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:46:54 GMT, TMS320 wrote:

so-called "Mr" so-called "Cheerful":

I also note that despite this being a cycling group you continually
try to move it to a driving group, why is that?ÂÂÂ* are you too
embarassed to admit that uk cyclists are a terrible shower of
scofflaws?

What do you expect?


When idiots come in this group slagging off cyclists, what do you
expect?




So, logically, if you want to slag off car drivers, then surely you
would go to a driving group?


I guess some might.
But this group is for cyclists. DKUATB.


Yes, this is why I post articles about cyclists here.

To post about car drivers I would post to a driving group, just as
anyone sensible would.
Ads
  #72  
Old July 2nd 19, 03:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On 02/07/2019 13:33, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:05:55 GMT, MrCheerful
wrote:

On 02/07/2019 10:50, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:46:54 GMT, TMS320 wrote:

so-called "Mr" so-called "Cheerful":

I also note that despite this being a cycling group you continually
try to move it to a driving group, why is that?ÂÂÂ* are you too
embarassed to admit that uk cyclists are a terrible shower of
scofflaws?

What do you expect?


When idiots come in this group slagging off cyclists, what do you
expect?




So, logically, if you want to slag off car drivers, then surely you
would go to a driving group?


I guess some might.
But this group is for cyclists. DKUATB.


This group is not *for* cyclists.

It is *about* cycling (and by extension, about cyclists).

Your mistake has been made before.
  #73  
Old July 2nd 19, 03:23 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

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

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.
  #74  
Old July 2nd 19, 04:18 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 11:23:01 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 17:54, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 5:30:33 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 17:19, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 2:18:19 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:


[ ... ]

I have no adverse prejudice towards cyclists. I am happy to
acknowledge that a significant minority of them more or less
comply with the law.


The above statement shows how prejudiced you are.
It's like saying.
'I have nothing against Black people, some of them are almost as
good as White people.'


It's actually exactly like saying that some cyclists are law
abiding and that others (as it happens, these days, a majority)
are not.
That's what it's like saying. It is nothing at all like saying
anything to do with being black.


Thank you for proving my point.


Before you start ranting I do consider the anti-cyclist bias
equivalent to racism.


You can be as wrong and as stupid as you like, I can't stop you.
Being black (or Jewish or any other inherent characteristic) is
not a chosen behaviour. Being a chav scofflaw cyclist *is* a
chosen and deliberate behaviour. Your statement about what you
consider (that's perhaps putting it a bit high) doesn't change
that.


Enlisting in a particular religion is not a choice?


I would not previously have believed that you are so stupid as to
think that being black - or being Jewish - is a voluntary choice.


How is being Jewish NOT a voluntary choice?
I was raised as a Christian then I grew up and stopped believing in
fairy tales.


You aren't helping yourself. Stop digging.


I'm backing Jester on this one; you tried to conflate "professing a
religion" with "having a skin colour." Quite distinct.


Being Jewish is not "professing a religion", though it's easy to see why
some people make that mistake. Nevertheless, I'm surprised that you
didn't know that.
Telling the SS at the railway station that you were no longer practising
Judaeism didn't save you. Being Jewish is hereditary via the female side
and applies even to a completely non-religious Jew. You can look it up
if you like.


So you are saying there exists a Jewish gene?


No.


So it is not hereditary, merely a mindset.


Why does there have to be a particularly-identified gene or set of genes
in order to be hereditary?

Is there an Invisible Pink Unicorn gene?


Only on your planet.


Earth or Terra you mean.


Forget the playground stuff. This isn't your old nursery alma mater.

What happens when a Jew converts to Islam? Does their brain explode or simply rewire itself?

You'd better see whether you can find such a person to ask them.
BTW: If you're interested, you could always do a bit of reading rather
than just shooting aimlessly from the hip.
A good place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F


Read it.


Is that an imperative (as in "You should read it")?

I had read it before I cited it.

Or was it a claim that you have read it?

If you have, you obviously haven't understood it.

Doesn't change the fact that being Jewish is not hereditary if an adult chooses to no longer be Jewish. No physical exam no matter how thorough can tell whether or not a person is Jewish. DNA can pinpoint ancestry but not fairy tale beliefs.


You refuse to believe that there is such a thing as a non-religious Jew,
do you?


Honestly I neither know nor care.
All religions look equally foolish to me.
  #75  
Old July 2nd 19, 04:25 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 11:23:01 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 17:54, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 5:30:33 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 17:19, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 2:18:19 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:


[ ... ]

I have no adverse prejudice towards cyclists. I am happy to
acknowledge that a significant minority of them more or less
comply with the law.


The above statement shows how prejudiced you are.
It's like saying.
'I have nothing against Black people, some of them are almost as
good as White people.'


It's actually exactly like saying that some cyclists are law
abiding and that others (as it happens, these days, a majority)
are not.
That's what it's like saying. It is nothing at all like saying
anything to do with being black.


Thank you for proving my point.


Before you start ranting I do consider the anti-cyclist bias
equivalent to racism.


You can be as wrong and as stupid as you like, I can't stop you.
Being black (or Jewish or any other inherent characteristic) is
not a chosen behaviour. Being a chav scofflaw cyclist *is* a
chosen and deliberate behaviour. Your statement about what you
consider (that's perhaps putting it a bit high) doesn't change
that.


Enlisting in a particular religion is not a choice?


I would not previously have believed that you are so stupid as to
think that being black - or being Jewish - is a voluntary choice.


How is being Jewish NOT a voluntary choice?
I was raised as a Christian then I grew up and stopped believing in
fairy tales.


You aren't helping yourself. Stop digging.


I'm backing Jester on this one; you tried to conflate "professing a
religion" with "having a skin colour." Quite distinct.


Being Jewish is not "professing a religion", though it's easy to see why
some people make that mistake. Nevertheless, I'm surprised that you
didn't know that.
Telling the SS at the railway station that you were no longer practising
Judaeism didn't save you. Being Jewish is hereditary via the female side
and applies even to a completely non-religious Jew. You can look it up
if you like.


So you are saying there exists a Jewish gene?


No.


So it is not hereditary, merely a mindset.


Why does there have to be a particularly-identified gene or set of genes
in order to be hereditary?

Is there an Invisible Pink Unicorn gene?


Only on your planet.


Earth or Terra you mean.


Forget the playground stuff. This isn't your old nursery alma mater.

What happens when a Jew converts to Islam? Does their brain explode or simply rewire itself?

You'd better see whether you can find such a person to ask them.
BTW: If you're interested, you could always do a bit of reading rather
than just shooting aimlessly from the hip.
A good place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F


Read it.


Is that an imperative (as in "You should read it")?

I had read it before I cited it.

Or was it a claim that you have read it?

If you have, you obviously haven't understood it.

Doesn't change the fact that being Jewish is not hereditary if an adult chooses to no longer be Jewish. No physical exam no matter how thorough can tell whether or not a person is Jewish. DNA can pinpoint ancestry but not fairy tale beliefs.


You refuse to believe that there is such a thing as a non-religious Jew,
do you?


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?
  #76  
Old July 2nd 19, 04:28 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On 02/07/2019 16:18, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 11:23:01 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 17:54, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 5:30:33 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 17:19, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 2:18:19 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:


[ ... ]

I have no adverse prejudice towards cyclists. I am happy to
acknowledge that a significant minority of them more or less
comply with the law.

The above statement shows how prejudiced you are.
It's like saying.
'I have nothing against Black people, some of them are almost as
good as White people.'

It's actually exactly like saying that some cyclists are law
abiding and that others (as it happens, these days, a majority)
are not.
That's what it's like saying. It is nothing at all like saying
anything to do with being black.

Thank you for proving my point.

Before you start ranting I do consider the anti-cyclist bias
equivalent to racism.

You can be as wrong and as stupid as you like, I can't stop you.
Being black (or Jewish or any other inherent characteristic) is
not a chosen behaviour. Being a chav scofflaw cyclist *is* a
chosen and deliberate behaviour. Your statement about what you
consider (that's perhaps putting it a bit high) doesn't change
that.

Enlisting in a particular religion is not a choice?

I would not previously have believed that you are so stupid as to
think that being black - or being Jewish - is a voluntary choice.

How is being Jewish NOT a voluntary choice?
I was raised as a Christian then I grew up and stopped believing in
fairy tales.

You aren't helping yourself. Stop digging.

I'm backing Jester on this one; you tried to conflate "professing a
religion" with "having a skin colour." Quite distinct.

Being Jewish is not "professing a religion", though it's easy to see why
some people make that mistake. Nevertheless, I'm surprised that you
didn't know that.
Telling the SS at the railway station that you were no longer practising
Judaeism didn't save you. Being Jewish is hereditary via the female side
and applies even to a completely non-religious Jew. You can look it up
if you like.

So you are saying there exists a Jewish gene?

No.

So it is not hereditary, merely a mindset.


Why does there have to be a particularly-identified gene or set of genes
in order to be hereditary?

Is there an Invisible Pink Unicorn gene?

Only on your planet.

Earth or Terra you mean.


Forget the playground stuff. This isn't your old nursery alma mater.

What happens when a Jew converts to Islam? Does their brain explode or simply rewire itself?

You'd better see whether you can find such a person to ask them.
BTW: If you're interested, you could always do a bit of reading rather
than just shooting aimlessly from the hip.
A good place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F

Read it.


Is that an imperative (as in "You should read it")?

I had read it before I cited it.

Or was it a claim that you have read it?

If you have, you obviously haven't understood it.

Doesn't change the fact that being Jewish is not hereditary if an adult chooses to no longer be Jewish. No physical exam no matter how thorough can tell whether or not a person is Jewish. DNA can pinpoint ancestry but not fairy tale beliefs.


You refuse to believe that there is such a thing as a non-religious Jew,
do you?


Honestly I neither know nor care.
All religions look equally foolish to me.


Fair enough. You didn't know that Jewishness is regarded as an
ethnicity. And why should you?

Jews don't choose to be Jewish. Black people don't chhose to be black.
That is not to say that members of either group would ever choose to be
something else.

But, OTOH, as you know, chav cyclists choose to behave as they do.

  #77  
Old July 2nd 19, 05:10 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On 02/07/2019 16:25, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 11:23:01 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 17:54, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 5:30:33 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 17:19, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 2:18:19 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:


[ ... ]

I have no adverse prejudice towards cyclists. I am happy to
acknowledge that a significant minority of them more or less
comply with the law.

The above statement shows how prejudiced you are.
It's like saying.
'I have nothing against Black people, some of them are almost as
good as White people.'

It's actually exactly like saying that some cyclists are law
abiding and that others (as it happens, these days, a majority)
are not.
That's what it's like saying. It is nothing at all like saying
anything to do with being black.

Thank you for proving my point.

Before you start ranting I do consider the anti-cyclist bias
equivalent to racism.

You can be as wrong and as stupid as you like, I can't stop you.
Being black (or Jewish or any other inherent characteristic) is
not a chosen behaviour. Being a chav scofflaw cyclist *is* a
chosen and deliberate behaviour. Your statement about what you
consider (that's perhaps putting it a bit high) doesn't change
that.

Enlisting in a particular religion is not a choice?

I would not previously have believed that you are so stupid as to
think that being black - or being Jewish - is a voluntary choice.

How is being Jewish NOT a voluntary choice?
I was raised as a Christian then I grew up and stopped believing in
fairy tales.

You aren't helping yourself. Stop digging.

I'm backing Jester on this one; you tried to conflate "professing a
religion" with "having a skin colour." Quite distinct.

Being Jewish is not "professing a religion", though it's easy to see why
some people make that mistake. Nevertheless, I'm surprised that you
didn't know that.
Telling the SS at the railway station that you were no longer practising
Judaeism didn't save you. Being Jewish is hereditary via the female side
and applies even to a completely non-religious Jew. You can look it up
if you like.

So you are saying there exists a Jewish gene?

No.

So it is not hereditary, merely a mindset.


Why does there have to be a particularly-identified gene or set of genes
in order to be hereditary?

Is there an Invisible Pink Unicorn gene?

Only on your planet.

Earth or Terra you mean.


Forget the playground stuff. This isn't your old nursery alma mater.

What happens when a Jew converts to Islam? Does their brain explode or simply rewire itself?

You'd better see whether you can find such a person to ask them.
BTW: If you're interested, you could always do a bit of reading rather
than just shooting aimlessly from the hip.
A good place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F

Read it.


Is that an imperative (as in "You should read it")?

I had read it before I cited it.

Or was it a claim that you have read it?

If you have, you obviously haven't understood it.

Doesn't change the fact that being Jewish is not hereditary if an adult chooses to no longer be Jewish. No physical exam no matter how thorough can tell whether or not a person is Jewish. DNA can pinpoint ancestry but not fairy tale beliefs.


You refuse to believe that there is such a thing as a non-religious Jew,
do you?


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.
  #78  
Old July 2nd 19, 06:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

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.
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.




  #79  
Old July 3rd 19, 12:26 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

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.
  #80  
Old July 3rd 19, 01:28 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 10:27 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.