|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Only cyclists break the law.
On 04/04/2019 19:55, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
TMS320 wrote: On 04/04/2019 17:05, JNugent wrote: On 04/04/2019 11:21, TMS320 wrote: On 03/04/2019 16:28, JNugent wrote: I am not reaily inclined to believe that you would be totally neutral (still less pleased) if one of them were banned from driving on "totting-up" and particularly not so if you could have prevented it with a timely warning, as irritating as they may be to some. The first one would be a source of mild amusement. You would be amused if a relative - or even a friend, assuming you still have any - were banned from driving? How long have you been estranged from your family? One can just imagine a certain sort of person being unsympathetic in such circumstances, but being *amused* by it? Really? If the incompetence continued to the full set, they would not ask for sympathy and they wouldn't get any if they did. Have you ever asked yourself whether you have your sense of life's priorities in the right order? It's not as though they've got cancer. Cancer. You have just dropped as low as a human can get with that comment. ****. A colleague once had his car written off so he was without one for a few weeks. He commented that some people had spoken to him as though it was a bereavemment. In a statement such as "it's not like..." what other conditions would be more acceptable to you? |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Only cyclists break the law.
On 04/04/2019 19:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/04/2019 17:05, JNugent wrote: On 04/04/2019 11:21, TMS320 wrote: On 03/04/2019 16:28, JNugent wrote: I am not reaily inclined to believe that you would be totally neutral (still less pleased) if one of them were banned from driving on "totting-up" and particularly not so if you could have prevented it with a timely warning, as irritating as they may be to some. The first one would be a source of mild amusement. You would be amused if a relative - or even a friend, assuming you still have any - were banned from driving? How long have you been estranged from your family? One can just imagine a certain sort of person being unsympathetic in such circumstances, but being *amused* by it? Really? If the incompetence continued to the full set, they would not ask for sympathy and they wouldn't get any if they did. Have you ever asked yourself whether you have your sense of life's priorities in the right order? It's not as though they've got cancer. Presumably whereas you would only find a relative's driving disqualification mildly amusing, you would find their cancer diagnosis hilarious. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Only cyclists break the law.
On 04/04/2019 22:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/04/2019 19:55, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: TMS320 wrote: On 04/04/2019 17:05, JNugent wrote: On 04/04/2019 11:21, TMS320 wrote: On 03/04/2019 16:28, JNugent wrote: I am not reaily inclined to believe that you would be totally neutral (still less pleased) if one of them were banned from driving on "totting-up" and particularly not so if you could have prevented it with a timely warning, as irritating as they may be to some. The first one would be a source of mild amusement. You would be amused if a relative - or even a friend, assuming you still have any - were banned from driving? How long have you been estranged from your family? One can just imagine a certain sort of person being unsympathetic in such circumstances, but being *amused* by it? Really? If the incompetence continued to the full set, they would not ask for sympathy and they wouldn't get any if they did. Have you ever asked yourself whether you have your sense of life's priorities in the right order? It's not as though they've got cancer. Cancer. You have just dropped as low as a human can get with that comment. ****. A colleague once had his car written off so he was without one for a few weeks. He commented that some people had spoken to him as though it was a bereavemment. Trying to change the subject? In a statement such as "it's not like..." what other conditions would be more acceptable to you? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Only cyclists break the law.
On 05/04/2019 01:12, JNugent wrote:
On 04/04/2019 22:44, TMS320 wrote: On 04/04/2019 19:55, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: TMS320 wrote: On 04/04/2019 17:05, JNugent wrote: On 04/04/2019 11:21, TMS320 wrote: On 03/04/2019 16:28, JNugent wrote: I am not reaily inclined to believe that you would be totally neutral (still less pleased) if one of them were banned from driving on "totting-up" and particularly not so if you could have prevented it with a timely warning, as irritating as they may be to some. The first one would be a source of mild amusement. You would be amused if a relative - or even a friend, assuming you still have any - were banned from driving? How long have you been estranged from your family? One can just imagine a certain sort of person being unsympathetic in such circumstances, but being *amused* by it? Really? If the incompetence continued to the full set, they would not ask for sympathy and they wouldn't get any if they did. Have you ever asked yourself whether you have your sense of life's priorities in the right order? It's not as though they've got cancer. Cancer. You have just dropped as low as a human can get with that comment. ****. A colleague once had his car written off so he was without one for a few weeks. He commented that some people had spoken to him as though it was a bereavemment. Trying to change the subject? You're the expert. Without doubt, without Mr Pounder's intervention you would have written a three paragraph reply. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Only cyclists break the law.
On 05/04/2019 09:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/04/2019 01:12, JNugent wrote: On 04/04/2019 22:44, TMS320 wrote: On 04/04/2019 19:55, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: TMS320 wrote: On 04/04/2019 17:05, JNugent wrote: On 04/04/2019 11:21, TMS320 wrote: On 03/04/2019 16:28, JNugent wrote: I am not reaily inclined to believe that you would be totally neutral (still less pleased) if one of them were banned from driving on "totting-up" and particularly not so if you could have prevented it with a timely warning, as irritating as they may be to some. The first one would be a source of mild amusement. You would be amused if a relative - or even a friend, assuming you still have any - were banned from driving? How long have you been estranged from your family? One can just imagine a certain sort of person being unsympathetic in such circumstances, but being *amused* by it? Really? If the incompetence continued to the full set, they would not ask for sympathy and they wouldn't get any if they did. Have you ever asked yourself whether you have your sense of life's priorities in the right order? It's not as though they've got cancer. Cancer. You have just dropped as low as a human can get with that comment. ****. A colleague once had his car written off so he was without one for a few weeks. He commented that some people had spoken to him as though it was a bereavemment. Trying to change the subject? You're the expert. Without doubt, without Mr Pounder's intervention you would have written a three paragraph reply. You and Mason are the only people I have ever encountered who have either (a) expressed pleasure and amusement at a relative's or friend's misfortune in getting a licence endorsement or disqualification or (b) stated that they would be pleased and amused were it to happen. You each have the same screw loose. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Only cyclists break the law.
On 05/04/2019 12:18, JNugent wrote:
You and Mason are the only people I have ever encountered who have either (a) expressed pleasure and amusement at a relative's or friend's misfortune in getting a licence endorsement or disqualification or (b) stated that they would be pleased and amused were it to happen. You each have the same screw loose. All the loose screws are amongst those that don't know the meaning of misfortune or the difference between amusement and pleasure. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclists to be trained not to break the law | John Benn | UK | 29 | February 16th 13 08:23 AM |
8 per cent of cyclists didn't break the law | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 7 | April 28th 11 07:57 PM |
Oxford cyclists too dim to take the break that was offered | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 53 | November 28th 10 11:29 PM |
one in 5 cyclists in westminster break the law | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 27 | August 14th 10 09:47 AM |
Cyclists break the road rules... | scotty72[_106_] | Australia | 56 | January 16th 08 10:41 AM |