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
  #81  
Old July 3rd 19, 01:13 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,423
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On 03/07/2019 01:28, Simon Jester wrote:
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.


You are a liar.

How does it feel?
Ads
  #82  
Old July 3rd 19, 05:05 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,326
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 1:13:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 03/07/2019 01:28, Simon Jester wrote:
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.


You are a liar.

How does it feel?


W5
  #83  
Old July 4th 19, 02:00 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,699
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On 02/07/2019 15:23, JNugent wrote:
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.


What facts, in this case?

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


By 'consideration for others', you mean to drivers?

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.


For goodness' sake. I use foot, bicycle or car for personal transport.
In a car, the only other people open to criticism are other drivers
(sideways). When walking, anybody is a potential target for criticism
(sideways or upwards).

  #84  
Old July 4th 19, 02:22 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,423
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 02/07/2019 15:23, JNugent wrote:
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.


What facts, in this case?


All facts in this case. You just said so when you said there were no
arguments that can change your mind. "No arguments" subsumes arguments
supported by, and arising out of, fact.

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


By 'consideration for others', you mean to drivers?


"Others" means everyone except yourself and/or your chosen tribe.

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.


For goodness' sake. I use foot, bicycle or car for personal transport.
In a car, the only other people open to criticism are other drivers
(sideways). When walking, anybody is a potential target for criticism
(sideways or upwards).


So you say, at least.
  #85  
Old July 4th 19, 06:00 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,699
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On 04/07/2019 14:22, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 02/07/2019 15:23, JNugent wrote:
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.


What facts, in this case?


All facts in this case.


If you know some facts, provide them. If you don't there are no facts.

You just said so when you said there were no
arguments that can change your mind. "No arguments" subsumes arguments
supported by, and arising out of, fact.


Go on, give me some facts that should change my mind about not passing
criticism downwards.

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


By 'consideration for others', you mean to drivers?


"Others" means everyone except yourself and/or your chosen tribe.


If it makes you happy, I will say this: when walking or cycling I care
little about the sensibilities and convenience of drivers other than to
assure my own safety.

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.


For goodness' sake. I use foot, bicycle or car for personal transport.
In a car, the only other people open to criticism are other drivers
(sideways). When walking, anybody is a potential target for criticism
(sideways or upwards).


So you say, at least.


Unless you can produce something from me, verbatim and with context,
that says otherwise, you have no option other than to accept it at face
value.
  #86  
Old July 4th 19, 11:22 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,423
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On 04/07/2019 18:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:22, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 02/07/2019 15:23, JNugent wrote:
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.

What facts, in this case?


All facts in this case.


If you know some facts, provide them. If you don't there are no facts.


That's a very flattering thing to say, but I assure you that I am not in
possession of all the facts which exist. The fact that I either cannot
or will not present you with a fact does not mean that it doesn't exist.

It is, OTOH, quite arrogant to claim that facts of which you are not
aware don't exist because you aren't aware of them. Be very sure of your
own ignorance. We all have near-unlimited amounts of it, you no less
than anyone else.

You just said so when you said there were no arguments that can change
your mind. "No arguments" subsumes arguments supported by, and arising
out of, fact.


Go on, give me some facts that should change my mind about not passing
criticism downwards.


See above.

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

By 'consideration for others', you mean to drivers?


"Others" means everyone except yourself and/or your chosen tribe.


If it makes you happy, I will say this: when walking or cycling I care
little about the sensibilities and convenience of drivers other than to
assure my own safety.


The law actually requires you to do certain things which are clearly
required in order to assure the safety and convenience of others.

You don't care about that. Why am I not surprised?

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.

For goodness' sake. I use foot, bicycle or car for personal
transport. In a car, the only other people open to criticism are
other drivers (sideways). When walking, anybody is a potential target
for criticism (sideways or upwards).


So you say, at least.


Unless you can produce something from me, verbatim and with context,
that says otherwise, you have no option other than to accept it at face
value.


I acknowledge that you say it, if that's what you mean.

It doesn't mean anything.
  #87  
Old July 4th 19, 11:32 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,699
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On 04/07/2019 23:22, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 18:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:22, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:



For goodness' sake. I use foot, bicycle or car for personal
transport. In a car, the only other people open to criticism are
other drivers (sideways). When walking, anybody is a potential
target for criticism (sideways or upwards).

So you say, at least.


Unless you can produce something from me, verbatim and with context,
that says otherwise, you have no option other than to accept it at
face value.


I acknowledge that you say it, if that's what you mean.

It doesn't mean anything.


Well, you're wrong. And that's a fact. Which you are impervious to.

  #88  
Old July 4th 19, 11:34 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,423
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On 04/07/2019 23:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:22, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 18:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:22, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:



For goodness' sake. I use foot, bicycle or car for personal
transport. In a car, the only other people open to criticism are
other drivers (sideways). When walking, anybody is a potential
target for criticism (sideways or upwards).

So you say, at least.

Unless you can produce something from me, verbatim and with context,
that says otherwise, you have no option other than to accept it at
face value.


I acknowledge that you say it, if that's what you mean.

It doesn't mean anything.


Well, you're wrong. And that's a fact. Which you are impervious to.


Dishonest snipping.

Quelle surprise.
  #89  
Old July 5th 19, 12:26 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,699
Default Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance

On 04/07/2019 23:34, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:22, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 18:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:22, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:


For goodness' sake. I use foot, bicycle or car for personal
transport. In a car, the only other people open to criticism are
other drivers (sideways). When walking, anybody is a potential
target for criticism (sideways or upwards).

So you say, at least.

Unless you can produce something from me, verbatim and with context,
that says otherwise, you have no option other than to accept it at
face value.

I acknowledge that you say it, if that's what you mean.

It doesn't mean anything.


Well, you're wrong. And that's a fact. Which you are impervious to.


Dishonest snipping.


If your memory is that bad, previous messages don't get erased.

Quelle surprise


Shrug.
 




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 09:27 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 06:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.