Give him a medal
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Speeding - a few questions
Next: Smartcom 12s relay?
From: Ian Dalziel on 18 Aug 2006 07:40 On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:21:52 +0100, "Ivor Jones" <ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote: >"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. > What have you got against sexual functions and body parts? I'm quite keen on them, myself. -- Ian D
From: davek on 18 Aug 2006 07:41 Dave Mayall wrote: > There was a case some years ago of a motorist being convicted for travelling > at exactly 70 mph in the outside lane for miles. > > The court took the view that whilst anybody who went past her would have > been breaking the law, that did not permit her to break the law. Well, obviously in that case she deserves the book thrown at her, but that's not the kind of case I was talking about and I'm sure you realise that. d.
From: Ivor Jones on 18 Aug 2006 07:42 "Ian Dalziel" <iandalziel(a)lineone.net> wrote in message news:bm9be2lilu11lc1n8nkihms32u36kggqse(a)4ax.com [snip] > What have you got against sexual functions and body > parts? I'm quite keen on them, myself. So am I, at certain times and places. This isn't one of them. Ivor
From: manatbandq on 18 Aug 2006 07:44 Adrian wrote: > JAF (anarchSPAMKILLER(a)ntlworld.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying : > > >>unless overtaking. > > > ISTR that such a manoeuvre was being undertaken at the time. > > It was claimed, yet the bloke towing a trailer tent STILL managed to pass > on the left...? Read what was actually written. DieSea was overtaking slow moving traffic. Some fuckwit tried to overtake on the inside and managed to do so only by forcing DieSea to move into the outside lane (presumably to avoid an accident). MBQ
From: davek on 18 Aug 2006 07:58
Conor wrote: > Not really. Chances are he wasn't breaking the law. Regardless of the OP's offences, is tailgating and flashing not "inconsiderate driving"? d. |