|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears
On 19/08/2017 21:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/08/17 00:15, JNugent wrote: On 18/08/2017 08:46, TMS320 wrote: On 18/08/17 04:01, JNugent wrote: Then you changed your mind and said there is a difference. So quote the part you think says this. Tell you what: you tell everyone what your current position is, just in case it's changed again. My position has not changed. Unless you quote the part that confuses yoy, I have no idea what you're talking about. You could have condensed that last attempt at a retort to just its last eight words, surely? |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears
On 19/08/2017 21:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/08/17 00:17, JNugent wrote: On 18/08/2017 08:49, TMS320 wrote: On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote: And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the collision and as he did after it? And then posted on the internet that it was all the pedestrian's fault? I was asking you why you were making a connection to the crash. It's at the top so* don't claim you don't remember. His behaviour before, during and after the running down of the innocent victim is relevant to his... er... behaviour. Only if it had any bearing on the crash. You would not have mentioned it it if you thought it did not. His state of mind, and his intentions, are clearly connected with what he did. What's your current problem with that, You haven't answered my question. I can see two question marks in the quoted text above. They were both mine. You have quoted no question of yours. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears
On 19/08/2017 21:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/08/17 00:18, JNugent wrote: On 18/08/2017 08:54, TMS320 wrote: On 18/08/17 04:57, JNugent wrote: On 18/08/2017 00:23, TMS320 wrote: At the top you made one of your sweeping derogatory statements about "cyclists". Ah.... that was a typo. Doesn't make much difference. Well spotted. It should have read just "cyclist". It was about the cyclist on trial for manslaughter. Mind you, you ought to have been able to infer from the context... Interesting how you think others should be able to do that from your writings but you always fail from others. Except, of course, when you turn failed telepath and tell people what they have written that they haven't. It was a typo. Get over it. You should have been able to see that it was simply a typo (especially from the plentiful context), but you failed to so so. Don't expect from others what you are rarely able to do. There is enough backround to know your ideas about the behaviour of "cyclists". Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "context"? |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears
On 20/08/17 10:02, JNugent wrote:
On 19/08/2017 21:29, TMS320 wrote: On 19/08/17 00:17, JNugent wrote: On 18/08/2017 08:49, TMS320 wrote: On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote: And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the collision and as he did after it? And then posted on the internet that it was all the pedestrian's fault? I was asking you why you were making a connection to the crash. It's at the top so don't claim you don't remember. His behaviour before, during and after the running down of the innocent victim is relevant to his... er... behaviour. Only if it had any bearing on the crash. You would not have mentioned it it if you thought it did not. His state of mind, and his intentions, are clearly connected with what he did. You make it seem as though he set out to cause himself a lot of inconvenience. What's your current problem with that, You haven't answered my question. I can see two question marks in the quoted text above. They were both mine. You have quoted no question of yours. A *crash* involves two or more bodies colliding and causing damage, injury or death. I didn't ask about state of mind (it's likely irrelevant). You made an issue over the noise, so please tell us what it had to do with the *crash*. Please also bear in mind that what he said/wrote afterwards cannot possibly have altered the *crash*. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears
On 20/08/17 10:03, JNugent wrote:
Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "context"? I do. Of all the posters here, you are unquestionably the one with the least understanding of how to apply it. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears
On 20/08/2017 23:11, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/08/17 10:02, JNugent wrote: On 19/08/2017 21:29, TMS320 wrote: On 19/08/17 00:17, JNugent wrote: On 18/08/2017 08:49, TMS320 wrote: On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote: And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the collision and as he did after it? And then posted on the internet that it was all the pedestrian's fault? I was asking you why you were making a connection to the crash. It's at the top so* don't claim you don't remember. His behaviour before, during and after the running down of the innocent victim is relevant to his... er... behaviour. Only if it had any bearing on the crash. You would not have mentioned it it if you thought it did not. His state of mind, and his intentions, are clearly connected with what he did. You make it seem as though he set out to cause himself a lot of inconvenience. That's 99% certain to be the last thing he wanted to cuse. What's your current problem with that, You haven't answered my question. I can see two question marks in the quoted text above. They were both mine. You have quoted no question of yours. A *crash* involves two or more bodies colliding and causing damage, injury or death. I didn't ask about state of mind (it's likely irrelevant). You made an issue over the noise, so please tell us what it had to do with the *crash*. Please also bear in mind that what he said/wrote afterwards cannot possibly have altered the *crash*. Are you totally unfamiliar with the concept of cross examination? |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears
On 20/08/2017 23:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/08/17 10:03, JNugent wrote: Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "context"? I do. Of all the posters here, you are unquestionably the one with the least understanding of how to apply it. That's gibberish. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears
On 21/08/17 01:06, JNugent wrote:
On 20/08/2017 23:11, TMS320 wrote: On 20/08/17 10:02, JNugent wrote: On 19/08/2017 21:29, TMS320 wrote: On 19/08/17 00:17, JNugent wrote: On 18/08/2017 08:49, TMS320 wrote: On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote: And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the collision and as he did after it? And then posted on the internet that it was all the pedestrian's fault? I was asking you why you were making a connection to the crash. It's at the top so don't claim you don't remember. His behaviour before, during and after the running down of the innocent victim is relevant to his... er... behaviour. Only if it had any bearing on the crash. You would not have mentioned it it if you thought it did not. His state of mind, and his intentions, are clearly connected with what he did. You make it seem as though he set out to cause himself a lot of inconvenience. That's 99% certain to be the last thing he wanted to cuse. Good. So we are part way there. What's your current problem with that, You haven't answered my question. I can see two question marks in the quoted text above. They were both mine. You have quoted no question of yours. A *crash* involves two or more bodies colliding and causing damage, injury or death. I didn't ask about state of mind (it's likely irrelevant). You made an issue over the noise, so please tell us what it had to do with the *crash*. Please also bear in mind that what he said/wrote afterwards cannot possibly have altered the *crash*. Are you totally unfamiliar with the concept of cross examination? I couldn't give a stuff about cross examination; it has nothing to do with the question I asked you. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears
On 21/08/17 01:06, JNugent wrote:
On 20/08/2017 23:15, TMS320 wrote: On 20/08/17 10:03, JNugent wrote: Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "context"? I do. Of all the posters here, you are unquestionably the one with the least understanding of how to apply it. That's gibberish. Then consider it an opportunity to use your telepathic ability. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears
On 21/08/2017 10:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/08/17 01:06, JNugent wrote: On 20/08/2017 23:11, TMS320 wrote: On 20/08/17 10:02, JNugent wrote: On 19/08/2017 21:29, TMS320 wrote: On 19/08/17 00:17, JNugent wrote: On 18/08/2017 08:49, TMS320 wrote: On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote: And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the collision and as he did after it? And then posted on the internet that it was all the pedestrian's fault? I was asking you why you were making a connection to the crash. It's at the top so* don't claim you don't remember. His behaviour before, during and after the running down of the innocent victim is relevant to his... er... behaviour. Only if it had any bearing on the crash. You would not have mentioned it it if you thought it did not. His state of mind, and his intentions, are clearly connected with what he did. You make it seem as though he set out to cause himself a lot of inconvenience. That's 99% certain to be the last thing he wanted to cuse. Good. So we are part way there. What's your current problem with that, You haven't answered my question. I can see two question marks in the quoted text above. They were both mine. You have quoted no question of yours. A *crash* involves two or more bodies colliding and causing damage, injury or death. I didn't ask about state of mind (it's likely irrelevant). You made an issue over the noise, so please tell us what it had to do with the *crash*. Please also bear in mind that what he said/wrote afterwards cannot possibly have altered the *crash*. Are you totally unfamiliar with the concept of cross examination? I couldn't give a stuff about cross examination; it has nothing to do with the question I asked you. sigh A trial is aimed at bringing out the truth, whether or not the defendant wishes to co-operate. Part of the truth aimed at consists of the intentions and state of mind, at the time of the alleged offence, of the defendant. This is what you need (as a preliminary step): http://tinyurl.com/ya5zmbpk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pedestrian comes off best after high speed cyclist mows him down | MrCheerful | UK | 1 | March 28th 17 03:32 PM |
Another pedestrian killed by a cyclist | MrCheerful | UK | 8 | January 7th 17 01:09 PM |
Pedestrian killed by cyclist | Mrcheerful | UK | 0 | July 14th 14 05:55 PM |
High speed cyclist mows down pedestrian | Mrcheerful | UK | 3 | July 1st 14 07:42 PM |
yet another pedestrian killed by a cyclist | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 11 | October 9th 10 09:05 AM |