Give him a medal
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Speeding - a few questions
Next: Smartcom 12s relay?
From: Conor on 18 Aug 2006 05:10 In article <v4cae2hgl4d63dmnpbgh7k2b1r6a6hojr9(a)4ax.com>, JAF says... > On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:27:21 +0100, "Ivor Jones" <ivor(a)despammed.invalid> > wrote: > > >So why swear..? Is your command of language so poor that you can only make > >a point by abusing the other person..? > > It doesn't necessarily show a poor command of language. Quite the opposite > - it can show that the swearer has a few extra words at his disposal. > LOL. -- Conor "No trilogy should have more than four books" - Arthur C. Clarke
From: Conor on 18 Aug 2006 05:11 In article <4kkji8Fclv92U1(a)individual.net>, Ivor Jones says... > "Conor" <conor.turton(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.1f4ea96527a378a898d3f5(a)news.individual.net > > In article <4kis8gFccr7pU1(a)individual.net>, Ivor Jones > > says... > > > "Sharon O." <sharon.owpan(a)googlemail.com> wrote in > > > message > > [snip] > > > > > It's actually 'Qué'. > > > > > > I know, but my keyboard doesn't have accented > > > characters and I couldn't be bothered to search for the > > > program that puts them in. > > > > > Character Map...included in Windows. > > I know, but I couldn't find it offhand and couldn't be bothered to look > for it. > S'OK, I think I'd be worried if you had. -- Conor "No trilogy should have more than four books" - Arthur C. Clarke
From: Ivor Jones on 18 Aug 2006 05:44 "Christian McArdle" <cmcardle75(a)nospam.yahooxxxx.co.uk> wrote in message news:44e5756f$0$11537$4d4eb98e(a)read.news.uk.uu.net > > > And even if the following driver wants to exceed the > > > 70 limit, it's not the business of the driver in > > > front to prevent it. > > > > But he's not doing anything wrong by so doing. > > Yes. He is breaking the law by not moving left after > overtaking. So it's a distinct *law* that is being broken whenever someone does not move to the left-most lane at all times except when overtaking, thankyou I was unaware of that. Which section of which law, please, I'd like to look it up. > For example, it is wrong for a burglar to break into my > house. It is also wrong, after me discovering the fact, > to go round his house and break his legs, thus preventing > further burglary. > You may not commit a criminal offence just because you > believe someone else has, or is about to commit an > offence themselves. Intentionally blocking someone on the > motorway because you are a fuckwit is not allowed. Ah, foul language again. Why *is* it some people can't make a point without using it..? Ivor
From: Ivor Jones on 18 Aug 2006 05:45 "Paul {Hamilton Rooney}" <craig(a)oil.com> wrote in message news:2uuae2549pdloo6jflnltmghitvv9gp0ln(a)4ax.com > On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:24:40 +0100, "Ivor Jones" > <ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote: > > > "JNugent" <not.telling(a)isp.com> wrote in message > > news:-vmdnbC_c6_yAHnZRVnygA(a)pipex.net > > > > [snip] > > > > > And even if the following driver wants to exceed the > > > 70 limit, it's not the business of the driver in > > > front to prevent it. > > > > But he's not doing anything wrong by so doing. > > > > Ivor > > > > He is if he's not overtaking. What, precisely..? Which section of which law is being broken and why aren't there more prosecutions for it..? Ivor
From: Ivor Jones on 18 Aug 2006 05:48
"JAF" <anarchSPAMKILLER(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:v4cae2hgl4d63dmnpbgh7k2b1r6a6hojr9(a)4ax.com > On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:27:21 +0100, "Ivor Jones" > <ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote: > > > So why swear..? Is your command of language so poor > > that you can only make a point by abusing the other > > person..? > > It doesn't necessarily show a poor command of language. > Quite the opposite - it can show that the swearer has a > few extra words at his disposal. Well you go right on believing that. Although I don't understand how referring to sexual activities and body parts has anything to do with it. Ivor |