|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile phone using driver gets karma!
On 12/12/2018 08:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 02:08, JNugent wrote: On 11/12/2018 22:47, TMS320 wrote: On 11/12/2018 15:18, JNugent wrote: On 11/12/2018 14:48, TMS320 wrote: On 11/12/2018 13:27, JNugent wrote: On 11/12/2018 08:52, TMS320 wrote: On 11/12/2018 01:01, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2018 19:56, TMS320 wrote: On 10/12/2018 16:01, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote: Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions. The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto the footway, or crossing the road. I see. The consequence of a collision by a cyclist riding on the pavement is now determined by the speed of another cyclist travelling along the road. Is this your entry for a Nobel prize in quantum physics? Please do us a favour and hold your breath. Are you trying for the Non Sequitur Of The Year prize? It was a sarky reply to your effort. A failed sarky reply, you mean. Only if you explain the sequitur you attempted to make between riding a bike on the road at a legal speed and a collision on the pavement by a different person at a different time and place. There was no conection between them except for the fact that they both relate to recent(-ish) well-reported cases of (prosecuted) offences by cyclists. When has a cyclist been prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit for motor vehicles? No, that just isn't in the same league as your previous attempt at a non-sequitur. You'll have to think of a better one if you're going to top your effort of a day or two back (which is still on track for the annual award). Nugent's standard response. Make up up a paragraph using lots of random words. You decided to make to make some sort of connection with Simon's correct fact to a collision on the pavement. I did not. Well, we are are nearly into pantomine season. No, that's not even out of the startiung blocks. Hardly a non-sequitur at all, in fact. But still, the panto season approaches, as you say. And that's lucky for you, as it's the only time of the year when you can get the employment for which you are ideally suited. One question, though: are you the front end or the rear end? Perhps you're skilled enough to play both ends at once. You certainly don't get the job of leading the community singing from the roll-down lyric sheet due to your poor reading and comprehension skills. Do you want to start again and try to see where you went wrong? Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever there was one] said: "Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions". And I responded: " The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous [things] such as walking out of the garden gates onto the footway, or crossing the road". I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to the use of the word "or". |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile phone using driver gets karma!
On 12/12/2018 10:52, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote: Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions. The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto the footway, or crossing the road. ... Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever there was one] said: "Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions". And I responded: "The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous [things] such as walking out of the garden gates onto the footway, or crossing the road". I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to the use of the word "or". Yes, it's still there at the top, never snipped. You admit that Simon's statement of fact made you think about two publicised events. Then you must think there is a connection. Blether and bluster as much as you will though it is always in your nature to make a mistake then try and cover it with an exponential increase in the number of words. Here's your chance. What point were you trying to make by replying to Simon? Try to leave out irrelevant stuff. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile phone using driver gets karma!
On 12/12/2018 14:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 10:52, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote: Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions. The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto the footway, or crossing the road. ... Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever there was one] said: "Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions". And I responded: "The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous [things] such as walking out of the garden gates onto the footway, or crossing the road". I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to the use of the word "or". Yes, it's still there at the top, never snipped. You admit that Simon's statement of fact made you think about two publicised events. Then you must think there is a connection. Blether and bluster as much as you will though it is always in your nature to make a mistake then try and cover it with an exponential increase in the number of words. There was no "connection" between the cases except for the most obvious and non-controversial one: cyclists. You know, those scofflaw chavs (most of 'em) for whom no rule matters and neither does the safety or convenience of any of their fellow citizens. I'd rather have not had to be so blunt, but you did insist. Here's your chance. What point were you trying to make by replying to Simon? Try to leave out irrelevant stuff. Other than the very obvious - the fact that cyclists cannot be prosecuted for speeding does not mean that they can't and don't cause great harm - you mean? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile phone using driver gets karma!
On 12/12/2018 15:34, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2018 14:29, TMS320 wrote: On 12/12/2018 10:52, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote: Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions. The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto the footway, or crossing the road. ... Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever there was one] said: "Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions". And I responded: "The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous [things] such as walking out of the garden gates onto the footway, or crossing the road". I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to the use of the word "or". Yes, it's still there at the top, never snipped. You admit that Simon's statement of fact made you think about two publicised events. Then you must think there is a connection. Blether and bluster as much as you will though it is always in your nature to make a mistake then try and cover it with an exponential increase in the number of words. There was no "connection" betweare waste of space.en the cases except for the most obvious and non-controversial one: cyclists. You know, those scofflaw chavs (most of 'em) for whom no rule matters and neither does the safety or convenience of any of their fellow citizens. I'd rather have not had to be so blunt, but you did insist. Here's your chance. What point were you trying to make by replying to Simon? Try to leave out irrelevant stuff. Other than the very obvious - the fact that cyclists cannot be prosecuted for speeding does not mean that they can't and don't cause great harm - you mean? No point replying to Simon. Just a Pavlov response. Does it also make you dribble? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile phone using driver gets karma!
On 12/12/2018 20:19, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2018 17:57, TMS320 wrote: On 12/12/2018 15:34, JNugent wrote: On 12/12/2018 14:29, TMS320 wrote: On 12/12/2018 10:52, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote: Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions. The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto the footway, or crossing the road. ... Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever there was one] said: "Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions". And I responded: "The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous [things] such as walking out of the garden gates onto the footway, or crossing the road". I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to the use of the word "or". Yes, it's still there at the top, never snipped. You admit that Simon's statement of fact made you think about two publicised events. Then you must think there is a connection. Blether and bluster as much as you will though it is always in your nature to make a mistake then try and cover it with an exponential increase in the number of words. There was no "connection" betweare waste of space.en the cases except for the most obvious and non-controversial one: cyclists. You know, those scofflaw chavs (most of 'em) for whom no rule matters and neither does the safety or convenience of any of their fellow citizens. I'd rather have not had to be so blunt, but you did insist. Here's your chance. What point were you trying to make by replying to Simon? Try to leave out irrelevant stuff. Other than the very obvious - the fact that cyclists cannot be prosecuted for speeding does not mean that they can't and don't cause great harm - you mean? No point replying to Simon. If you say so. But you saw it. And now you understand what was being said, you behave like the dog who has caught the car tyre when the lights turned red and slinks away, tail between legs, because he didn't know what to do next anyway. I still don't see the point you're trying to make by replying to Simon and then claiming "no connection". Just a Pavlov response. Does it also make you dribble? That's a bit better... Well, thank you. But you failed to answer "yes it does". |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile phone using driver gets karma!
On 13/12/2018 00:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 20:19, JNugent wrote: On 12/12/2018 17:57, TMS320 wrote: On 12/12/2018 15:34, JNugent wrote: On 12/12/2018 14:29, TMS320 wrote: On 12/12/2018 10:52, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote: Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions. The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto the footway, or crossing the road. ... Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever there was one] said: "Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions". And I responded: "The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous [things] such as walking out of the garden gates onto the footway, or crossing the road". I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to the use of the word "or". Yes, it's still there at the top, never snipped. You admit that Â*Simon's statement of fact made you think about two publicised Â*events. Then you must think there is a connection. Blether and Â*bluster as much as you will though it is always in your nature to make a mistake then try and cover it with an exponential increase in the number of words. There was no "connection" betweare waste of space.en the cases except for the most obvious and non-controversial one: cyclists. You know, those scofflaw chavs (most of 'em) for whom no rule matters and neither does the safety or convenience of any of their fellow citizens. I'd rather have not had to be so blunt, but you did insist. Here's your chance. What point were you trying to make by replying to Simon? Try to leave out irrelevant stuff. Other than the very obvious - the fact that cyclists cannot be prosecuted for speeding does not mean that they can't and don't cause great harm - you mean? No point replying to Simon. If you say so. But you saw it. And now you understand what was being Â*said, you behave like the dog who has caught the car tyre when the lights turned red and slinks away, tail between legs, because he didn't know what to do next anyway. I still don't see the point you're trying to make by replying to Simon and then claiming "no connection". My response clearly was connected to the post to which I was responding, but the two example categories I mentioned were not connected except by cyclists and their harmful effects on innocent pedestrians. That you don't (or don't want to) understand that is hardly my fault. The connection was plain enough. Just a Pavlov response. Does it also make you dribble? That's a bit better... Well, thank you. But you failed to answer "yes it does". Now you're drifing off your best form again. You need much better non-sequitur material than that in order to maintain the high standard you set yourself a couple of days back. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile phone using driver gets karma!
On 13/12/2018 03:26, JNugent wrote:
My response clearly *was connected* to the post to which I was responding, but the two example categories I mentioned were *not connected* except by cyclists and their harmful effects on innocent pedestrians. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile phone using driver gets karma!
On 13/12/2018 09:40, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/12/2018 03:26, JNugent wrote: My response clearly *was connected* to the post to which I was responding, but the two example categories I mentioned were *not connected* except by cyclists and their harmful effects on innocent pedestrians. Do you always have trouble with English? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile phone using driver gets karma!
On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 10:13:43 AM UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:58:09 PM UTC, wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:45:57 PM UTC, Bod wrote: *An amber light means stop if you are able to. The amber light usually stays on for between 4-6 seconds to give all vehicles enough time to stop safely* I have just checked the cyclist's video again and the driver DID stop well before the RED light, so no problem there, BUT after the lights went to green he shot off and crashed into the back of the car in front as he had wasted so much time arguing the toss with the cyclist at the lights. SEE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ0x...A#action=share Lest people think that the clip was snipped to show the driver in a bad light, the cyclist has also provided the video IN FULL he https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb_NHo39b88 Now on the Daily Mail website! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nts-later.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mobile phone driver reported and pulled | Alycidon | UK | 1 | January 27th 16 04:03 PM |
Where is a mobile phone :-) | Box | UK | 5 | September 7th 09 02:53 PM |
Where is a mobile phone :-) | Box | Techniques | 0 | September 6th 09 09:12 PM |
Where is a mobile phone | Box | Techniques | 3 | August 29th 09 01:11 AM |
Where is a mobile phone :-) | PEO from ITALY | UK | 1 | October 27th 06 08:12 PM |