"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: Mike Ross on 4 Mar 2010 12:48 On 04 Mar 2010 17:24:25 GMT, fburton(a)nyx.net (Francis Burton) wrote: >In article <otlvo59i512shodq6bd1o41s7146se7oso(a)4ax.com>, >Mike Ross <mike(a)corestore.org> wrote: >>finally get my license this summer), and amateur gas turbine engineer. Currently >>building a gas turbine / electric hybrid car. >> >>Out-of-date turbine stuff is here: http://www.corestore.org/turbine.htm > >I assume you don't use the BMW/MAN ground power unit to run the >PDP11 computer(s)! :-) (I recognized the corner of the RK05 disk >drive.) Good for you, and no. Though I did once toy with using a larger turbine to generate 3-phase for the pdp-10... Sanity (FSSVO 'sanity') prevailed and I got a rotary converter instead... Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'
From: Doug on 4 Mar 2010 12:52 On 4 Mar, 17:46, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Steve Walker wrote: > > Doug wrote: > >> On 3 Mar, 11:17, NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote: > >>> On 3 Mar, 08:56, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > >>>> I was just reading about a USA CMer who was run over, had is ankle > >>>> broken and who then smashed his bike into the windscreen of his > >>>> assailant. Naturally, it was the cyclist who was charged with an > >>>> offence and not the driver, by the car-centric law enforcers, as > >>>> usual. > >>> Good, sounds like he deserved it, I hope the motorist was also > >>> compensated for his damage. > > >>> What is so hard to understand? If you cause deliberate congestion you > >>> will get a reaction, remedy is so simple a child (but not apparantly a > >>> lycra loon) could understand, don't do it and if you do accept the > >>> consequences. > > >> The consequences are a driver, who has superior force by using a car > >> as a weapon, takes the law into his own hands by attacking a cyclist > >> by ramming. And you and other motorists here are trying to pretend > >> this was a legal act because the cyclist was deliberately corking? > > > You are suddenly changing the story to make the initial collision into a > > deliberate assault by the driver (rather than an accident). If there is > > evidence of that then of course the driver should be prosecuted. > > Well he has already lied by telling us the cyclists were not moving even > though the video was shot by a moving cyclist. > Not only are you confusing two incidents but you are deliberately misrepresenting one of them. In the case of the video it was a shot of stationary cyclists corking and being physically threatened by a violent driver who happened to be a cop. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Steve Walker on 4 Mar 2010 12:58 The Todal wrote: > Anyway, the case has developed somewhat. Apparently the helicopter pilot > believes he was taking ack ack fire from the ground prior to this > incident and sincerely believed that he was in danger of being attacked > unless he took off. I think that would probably be my story too, if I > were in his position. You're kidding, right? I suppose that they would have shotguns handy though, and it would be easy to say you were aiming for some rare species that had just flapped into view..... Thanks god they couldn't afford MIG fighters
From: damduck-egg on 4 Mar 2010 13:03 On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 17:58:47 -0000, "Steve Walker" <spam-trap(a)beeb.net> wrote: >The Todal wrote: > >> Anyway, the case has developed somewhat. Apparently the helicopter pilot >> believes he was taking ack ack fire >You're kidding, right? > >I suppose that they would have shotguns handy though, and it would be easy >to say you were aiming for some rare species that had just flapped into >view..... > >Thanks god they couldn't afford MIG fighters Hawker Hunter would be more appropriate. G.harman
From: The Todal on 4 Mar 2010 13:12
"Steve Walker" <spam-trap(a)beeb.net> wrote in message news:7vaamtFq7nU1(a)mid.individual.net... > The Todal wrote: > >> Anyway, the case has developed somewhat. Apparently the helicopter pilot >> believes he was taking ack ack fire from the ground prior to this >> incident and sincerely believed that he was in danger of being attacked >> unless he took off. I think that would probably be my story too, if I >> were in his position. > > You're kidding, right? > > I suppose that they would have shotguns handy though, and it would be easy > to say you were aiming for some rare species that had just flapped into > view..... > > Thanks god they couldn't afford MIG fighters > http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2010/03/04/gyrocopter-pilot-feared-he-was-under-attack-from-hunt-supporters-65233-25964160/ "An animal rights enthusiast who piloted a gyrocopter which killed a Warwickshire Hunt supporter believed he had been shot at from the ground and feared a "gang" was on its way to attack him, a court heard". I don't envy the jury their task. I am disinclined to take sides as between hunt supporters and hunt saboteurs but I can well imagine that either would feel threatened by their opponents and it is all too easy for a lawyer to say, after the event, that there was actually no threat and it should all have been sorted out in a gentlemanly manner. |