From: Ivor Jones on
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98237228A2144adrianachapmanfreeis(a)204.153.244.170
> Ivor Jones (ivor(a)despammed.invalid) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying :
>
> > > 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..?
>
> Why do some people get so exercised over it? Don't want
> to use it, don't use it. Getting your knickers in a twist
> over it's just a bit silly, though. They're only words,
> unless _you_ internally make more of them.

I don't have to use it myself, no. But I have to put up with others doing
so and I don't see why I should have to.

> In this case, they're very appropriate words that
> describe the perpetrators of such inconsideration rather
> well.

No they don't. The words concerned refer to sexual functions and body
parts.

Ivor


From: Ivor Jones on
"Paul {Hamilton Rooney}" <craig(a)oil.com> wrote in message
news:ot4be2l9vucedqotrv3vjvo8oa8shoo493(a)4ax.com

[snip]

> It's not 'foul'. It's now known as 'strong' language -
> don't you watch TV? Have you ever heard them say 'this
> film contains foul language'?

It's foul language. Don't try and excuse it when you don't have a good
argument for doing so. There is no reason to swear in normal everyday
conversation. If someone dropped a brick on my foot I might well do so,
but there really isn't an excuse for doing so just because you can't think
of anything else to say.

Ivor


From: davek on
Alex Heney wrote:
> What is more, if I were a gambling man, I would be willing to bet that
> when he stared that, the OP accelerated to prevent him getting past
> that way.

It's possible. I'm not ruling out the possibility that the OP was
himself driving inconsiderately, but assuming we take the OP's account
at face value, on the scale of wrongness the tailgater was by far the
more serious offender.

d.
From: davek on
Tony Raven wrote:
> Untrue. With your speedometer indicating 70mph you could be going
> anywhere between 63mph and 70mph. So it is quite feasible for someone
> else to pass you legally going 7mph faster when you are indicating 70mph.

Note the actual words of my previous post:
"If you're doing 70mph on the motorway..."

Not:
"If your speedo is reading 70mph when you're on the motorway..."

(See, I can be just as pedantic as you. ;-) )

d.
From: davek on
JNugent wrote:
> 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.

Nor is the driver in front obliged to modify their driving just because
some twunt in a BMW thinks they own the road.

d.