High Way Code omission
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: NM on 12 Jun 2010 15:01 On 12 June, 19:39, JNugent <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: > NM wrote: > > Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> NM wrote: > >>> Silk<m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >>>> NM wrote: > >>>>> Silk<m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >>>>>> The root cause is thick lorry drivers. > >>>>> If you want super bright lorry drivers then it will cost you, > >>>> Just not being thick would be a start. > >>> Most people are thick, they can't help it, just as you can't, what > >>> would you do to rectify this 'problem' ? > >> I think you'll find most people are not thick. You obviously spend too > >> much time with lorry drivers. > > Depends where you place the median. > > The relevant IQ median's position (in a European population at least) is > known and fixed at 100. > > The important placement - and it is subjective - is how far below 100 an IQ > has to be before its owner can be labelled as thick (whatever "thick" means). > > 99? No. > > 90? No. > > 80? Possibly. > > 70? Probably. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_reference_chart> That will certainly depend on the point of view of the person seeking to make the judgment, if I had an IQ of 127 then I could possibly, should I so choose, regard someone with an IQ of 100 as thick because relative to me they would be. similarly if I had IQ of 80 then one with IQ of 65 would appear thick. Usually those who witter on about their IQ and how stupid truck drivers et al are have a problem with their penis size and it's associated feelings of inferiority, asserting their self perceived superior IQ is a form of compensation.
From: Nick Finnigan on 13 Jun 2010 06:29 NM wrote: > > others point of view, clue, motorways are not there for the sole use > of motorists, erm...
From: NM on 13 Jun 2010 09:18 On 13 June, 11:29, Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > NM wrote: > > > others point of view, clue, motorways are not there for the sole use > > of motorists, > > erm... Constructed principally for the movement of freight
From: JNugent on 13 Jun 2010 09:20 NM wrote: > On 13 June, 11:29, Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >> NM wrote: >> >>> others point of view, clue, motorways are not there for the sole use >>> of motorists, >> erm... > > Constructed principally for the movement of freight Often erroneously claimed. Never proven.
From: NM on 13 Jun 2010 09:49
On 13 June, 14:20, JNugent <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: > NM wrote: > > On 13 June, 11:29, Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > >> NM wrote: > > >>> others point of view, clue, motorways are not there for the sole use > >>> of motorists, > >> erm... > > > Constructed principally for the movement of freight > > Often erroneously claimed. Never proven. You believe what you want, no amount of 'proof' will change your entrenched position, we have been down this road before. In the event of a national emergency, like an escalation of the fuel crisis of the seventies for example, what will be the first vehicles banned from using the M ways, could it be private cars? Feeding the people will take precedence over a rep trying to keep a bussiness lunch appointment. |