Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 22 Dec 2007 13:21 Clive George wrote: > "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. Perhaps, but not on uk.rec.driving. > Whether or > not you've noticed it is a different problem I didn't say "noticed". > - or are you like the > child who believes if they shut their eyes things you don't want will > go away? Huh?
From: JNugent on 22 Dec 2007 15:45 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". > > clive "Paul Smith consistently avoided arguing with him"? I expect that a lot more people than the late Paul Smith also avoid arguing with spindrift - it's what the killfile was invented for.
From: MrBitsy on 22 Dec 2007 18:01 DavidR wrote: > "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >> >> It answers your question on what I feel is safe/not safe about >> crossing red lights. >> > No you haven't. All you have told us is the bleedin' obvious - if you > can't see nothing is coming, something might be coming. > > If you can see nothing coming, is it dangerous? I have given my reasons, the strongest one of which is the strength of message given by a green signal. -- MrBitsy
From: MrBitsy on 22 Dec 2007 18:03 DavidR wrote: > "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. Dumbing down? -- MrBitsy
From: Ian Dalziel on 23 Dec 2007 05:18
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:01:35 GMT, "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >DavidR wrote: >> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >>> >>> It answers your question on what I feel is safe/not safe about >>> crossing red lights. >>> >> No you haven't. All you have told us is the bleedin' obvious - if you >> can't see nothing is coming, something might be coming. >> >> If you can see nothing coming, is it dangerous? > >I have given my reasons, the strongest one of which is the strength of >message given by a green signal. If there is nothing coming, who is receiving that message? -- Ian D |