Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: DavidR on 22 Dec 2007 07:23 "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote > > There may not be, but I would not cross a red light for the reasons given. > You can't understand this for some reason, so we will have to disagree. I > can understand your view on this, but I don't share it. So, as I said elsewhere, traffic lights are the ultimate dumbing down devices for drivers. So much whingeing about a dumbing effect of other rules that I find it remarkable that this one goes totally unnoticed.
From: Brimstone on 22 Dec 2007 11:22 "Steve in Herts" <nospam(a)invalidaddress.blob> wrote in message news:h8dqm3hbv67qrr9cn35oba2k9c60n4ghvh(a)4ax.com... > > It sounds like this guy has something personal against the late Paul > Smith with the way he's ranting on. What's really sick is that he waits until the guy is dead and can't argue for himself. There;s no honour in destroying a dead man. > Paul's main concern was for road safety - not just for motorists, but > for pedestrians and other road users also. Quite.
From: Clive George on 22 Dec 2007 12:11 "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng01(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:pK2dnSMMpqo4pPDanZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "Steve in Herts" <nospam(a)invalidaddress.blob> wrote in message > news:h8dqm3hbv67qrr9cn35oba2k9c60n4ghvh(a)4ax.com... >> >> It sounds like this guy has something personal against the late Paul >> Smith with the way he's ranting on. > > What's really sick is that he waits until the guy is dead and can't argue > for himself. There;s no honour in destroying a dead man. Spindrift? You're talking bollocks - he's been arguing with/about Paul Smith for several years now. Paul Smith consistently avoided arguing with him - so it's rather the opposite of "can't argue for himself". clive
From: Brimstone on 22 Dec 2007 12:19 Clive George wrote: > "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng01(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:pK2dnSMMpqo4pPDanZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> "Steve in Herts" <nospam(a)invalidaddress.blob> wrote in message >> news:h8dqm3hbv67qrr9cn35oba2k9c60n4ghvh(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> It sounds like this guy has something personal against the late >>> Paul Smith with the way he's ranting on. >> >> What's really sick is that he waits until the guy is dead and can't >> argue for himself. There;s no honour in destroying a dead man. > > Spindrift? You're talking bollocks - he's been arguing with/about > Paul Smith for several years now. Paul Smith consistently avoided > arguing with him - so it's rather the opposite of "can't argue for > himself". The history is irrelevant. I've not seen spidrift on this NG arguing with/about PS before.
From: Clive George on 22 Dec 2007 13:08
"Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng01(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:ndydnfEdFYCW2vDaRVnyuwA(a)bt.com... > Clive George wrote: >> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng01(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:pK2dnSMMpqo4pPDanZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>> >>> "Steve in Herts" <nospam(a)invalidaddress.blob> wrote in message >>> news:h8dqm3hbv67qrr9cn35oba2k9c60n4ghvh(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>> It sounds like this guy has something personal against the late >>>> Paul Smith with the way he's ranting on. >>> >>> What's really sick is that he waits until the guy is dead and can't >>> argue for himself. There;s no honour in destroying a dead man. >> >> Spindrift? You're talking bollocks - he's been arguing with/about >> Paul Smith for several years now. Paul Smith consistently avoided >> arguing with him - so it's rather the opposite of "can't argue for >> himself". > > The history is irrelevant. I've not seen spidrift on this NG arguing > with/about PS before. The history is entirely relevant to your comment - he's most definitely not waited till he was dead to start arguing. Whether or not you've noticed it is a different problem - or are you like the child who believes if they shut their eyes things you don't want will go away? clive |