Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Alex Heney on 14 Jul 2008 16:46 On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:18:37 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: >On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:27:50 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:22:48 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:03:26 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)NPPTG.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Nick Finnigan wrote: >>>> >>>>> JNugent wrote: >>>> >>>>>> ... A >>>>>> door opening half a mile in front of you in a narrow street with cars >>>>>> parked on both sides might still require you to stop by the time you got >>>> >>>>> That would be a door left open, rather than a door opening. >>>> >>>>I adhere to the position that a door that you see being opened, some way >>>>off as you approach, may still require you to stop (there being various >>>>good and bad reasons for keeping a door open). That does not make the >>>>stop automatically an emergency stop or the need for it automatically >>>>unreasonable. >>>> >>>>Are we simply on different tacks, or are we hair-splitting? >>> >>>You are hair splitting (aka trolling). >> >>They do appear to be hair splitting. >> >>But that is not trolling. >> >>Perhaps this explains some of your ridiculous accusations of >>"trolling" about various people >> >It may explain why you don't consider some action trolling and I (and >others) do. I rather think your "and others" was probably wrong. It does explain why we have differing ideas about trolls. > >I consider wholly unnecessary hair splitting to be part of the armoury >of the troll because it is ideal for accomplishing troll aims. It can be part of the armoury of a troll. But that doesn't mean it defines one. It is something which happens quite naturally sometimes. > >>>There are all sorts of dangerous behavour where the attribution of >>>'dangerous' implies some particular condition. >>> >>>Sensible people understand that condition. >>> >>>Idiots and trolls make post after post pointing out the bleeding >>>obvious. >>> >> >>While perfectly rational and reasonable people make post after post >>trying to work out just what somebody else means by what they *think* >>is "bleeding obvious". > >Instead of just asking. > >Perverse, isn't it? It can seem that way. > >I have given you concrete examples of where the troll 'judith' has kept >an argument going by deliberately avoiding mentioning what the actual >problem was despite being perfectly well arware of it simply in order to >protract the argument. > I cannot recall being given any such examples. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 14 Jul 2008 16:48 On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:20:30 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: >On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:35:19 +0100, judith <judithsmith(a)live.co.uk> >wrote: > <snip> > >>Therefore you and others were plain wrong to assert that she was drunk > >That was admitted way back. > >And that is why your continued prattling on an on about it can be >considered as nothing other than puerile trolling. So by your definition, *you* are a troll too. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 14 Jul 2008 16:53 On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:34:31 -0700 (PDT), "Sniper8052(a)yahoo.co.uk" <Sniper8052(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: <snip> > >If a person can drive a vehicle with 80/100 ml I am damn sure a person >can walk along a pavement with two cans of Stella washing around >without too much of a problem. And so is everybody else in this thread. NOBODY has ever suggested otherwise. > Your argument is facile, foolish, >insensitive and blatantly constructed to excuse the cyclist from the >consequences of his actions, if not wholly then in part. I could call that utter bollocks, but that would be giving it a lot too much credence. >The cyclist >was, I take it not drunk, intoxicated or inebriated so should have >taken appropriate action to avoid a collision, he failed to do so and >a young woman died needlessly, All true. But again, not something which ANYBODY has argued might possibly not be the case. > whilst walking on the pavement where >she should have been save. That is not *at all* clear. >The cyclist should not have been on the >pavement And probably wasn't, from all accounts. He *may* have mounted the pavement at the last moment in a last-ditch attempt to avoid the collision, but even that is nowhere near sure. It is almost certain he was not on the pavement prior to that moment. And absolutely certain he wasn't just a minute or two before, because he was seen on CCTV riding in the road. >so it doesn't matter if she was stone cold sober or 'pissed >as a sapper on pay day' he was in the wrong and should have paid the >proper 'moral' penalty...as should all who cause death on the roads >though there own arrogance rather than 'true accident'. > >This is not the thread to discuss this so can we return to the real >topic now? So exactly what do you think this *is* the thread to discuss? -- Alex Heney, Global Villager 2400 Baud makes you want to get out and push!! To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 14 Jul 2008 16:54 On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:20:36 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: >On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:30:41 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> >>This is you very much splitting hairs, and stupidly so. > >Yet you defend known trolls stupidly spilting hairs. > >Odd. No I don't. My "defence" has been of those who are arguing *against* the hair splitting of Nick. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Faith is good, but scepticism is better. - Giuseppe Verdi To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: judith on 14 Jul 2008 18:01
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 02:39:24 -0700 (PDT), "Sniper8052(a)yahoo.co.uk" <Sniper8052(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On 7 Jul, 21:23, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >> Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >> > If the act of opening the door (rather than leaving it open) causes >> > him to stop, then the other road user can not reasonably and safely take >> > avoiding action. >> >> Errm if the act of opening the door causes someone to stop then the >> other user has demonstrably been able to safely take the appropriate >> avoiding action, which was to stop before hitting the obstruction. > >I don't know what happened to my post so here goes again. > >The offence is opening a car door to danger. The offence is complete >whether the approaching traffic avoids the danger or not. The offence >may be committed by either the driver or a passenger and the driver is >liable for the actions of his passengers. Are you sure about this - how can that be the case? If someone in the rear seat of a car opens the car door on to a cyclist - how can the driver be at fault. Even if he said watch that cyclist - he would be in no position to stop the door being opened. What law are you thinking of? |