On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:43:16 -0000, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:13:37 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

If you deliberately get in my way slowing me down, I am going to try to overtake you.

For ****'s sake get a bike - you don't get held up, then.

Some arse would open a door in front of me.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

As the coffin was being lowered into the ground at a Traffic Wardens funeral, a voice from inside screams:
"I'm not dead, I'm not dead. Let me out!"
The Vicar smiles, leans forward sucking air through his teeth and mutters:
"Too late pal, I've already done the paperwork"

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 00:14:39 -0000, SteveW wrote:

On 28/11/2012 23:17, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:10:36 -0000, SteveW
wrote:

On 28/11/2012 20:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:07:05 -0000, SteveW
wrote:

On 28/11/2012 19:28, Lieutenant Scott wrote:






Not much comfort if you or someone else is killed or seriously injured
because the tailgater shunted you forward when you tried to stop.

Hardly. You'd get shunted a little bit. Not enough to change life to
death.

Under different circumstances (I was stationary for long enough for a
child
to walk the length of the zebra crossing I was waiting at), I was hit
from
behind by someone who didn't notice me early enough. I was pushed forward
until my car was straddling the crossing. It is easy enough to see
that had
someone unexpectedly stepped out in front of me elsewhere on the road and
forced an emergency stop, a tailgater could easily have pushed me far
enough to end up with a pedestrian under my car!

Which would be the pusher's fault not yours, so don't worry about it.
If you weren't there he would have run over the pedestrian himself.

If he hadn't been driving so close, the pedestrian would be fine. I
don't care about fault, I rather not flatten someone.

You didn't. He did. Whether you were in between him and the pedestrian or not.

Both the unreasonably slow and the tailgater are in the wrong, but the
slow driver is only very irritating, while the tailgater is dangerous.

The slow driver prompts the tailgater to be dangerous.

Prompts, does not force.

Same outcome.

No. You have no choice if you are forced. If you are only prompted, you
needn't do it and if you do, the action is still your responsibility and
fault.

You're obviously some kind of robot without emotions that can't get annoyed and worked up.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The most ejaculatory orgasms ever recorded in 1 hour for a boy is 16.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:56:53 -0000, Huge wrote:

On 2012-11-29, Tim Watts wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:

In message op.wojp95wjytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
writes


I don't think so. This group is probably above average age and
intelligence and I don't see you getting any support.

That's because someone agreeing with a post is less likely to reply to it.

OK. Hands up all those who think the Lieutenant is a responsible driver?


I think he's a dangerous arrogant ****wit
^
|
This

An S?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

If you are going to try cross-country skiing, start with a small country.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:02:28 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 8:57 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:16:01 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:









On Nov 29, 6:06 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:48:56 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 4:40 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:32:33 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 10:58 am, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:53:47 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:13:15 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

And what is wrong with going at a faster speed? Then he won't need to
tailgate you.

He won't need to tailgate anyone if he does the decent thing and goes and
tears up his license as he has no place on the roads.

Or goes and plays with the lions in Africa. I'm happy either way.

Typical moronic response from a fool who thinks he has chosen the most
appropriate speed for the road and anyone who can go faster than him must
be dangerous.

That's not what I wrote, dipstick.

I do not think "people who can go faster" are ******s who should go and poke
lions in the butts with pointy sticks.

I said tailgaters are.

Tailgaters are simply people trying to go faster, but unable to do so because of people like you.

Tailgaiters are ****wits who drive aggresively close and try to bully
others into driving unsafely.

So? What gives you the right to be a safe little wimp? Man up and go faster.

Given you self confessed standards of driving, you are obviously the
one with "manhood" problems.

No, people with a small manhood tend to act girly and take safety precautions. I bet you got a red triangle and a hi-vis jacket in your boot too.

Do you always do as you're told?

Talking to yourself now.

You replied to me so I was successfully talking to you.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Helpdesk: Click on the 'my computer' icon on the left of the screen.
Customer: Your left or my left?

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:21:55 -0000, ARW wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:25:03 -0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
In message , Tim Watts
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

In message op.wojp95wjytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
writes


I don't think so. This group is probably above average age
and intelligence and I don't see you getting any support.

That's because someone agreeing with a post is less likely to
reply to it.

OK. Hands up all those who think the Lieutenant is a
responsible driver?

I think he's a dangerous arrogant ****wit who probably has one of
those fancy conditions that lead to an inability to see other's
POVs.

That's a hands down then?

Danger is fun.

You are wrong.

Danger can be fun - but there is a difference between "is" and "can" and it
depends who is in danger.

If it's me it's fun. If it's someone else, who cares?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The average person over 50 will have spent 5 years waiting in lines.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:10:42 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 30, 2:50 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:15:33 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:









On Nov 29, 6:06 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:47:15 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 4:22 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:26:50 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 28, 10:39 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:35:26 -0000, dennis@home wrote:
On 28/11/2012 22:22, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:17:37 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 28/11/2012 21:36, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:20:14 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

The tailgater is an arrogant ****** who needs to be reeducated.
Tailgaters
harrass others and invariably do stupid things.

By getting in my way you are harassing me. You can choose to let me
past.

By slowing down, as you should when being tailgated.

If you have to slow down and there is no safe passing place then its the
stupid tailgater that is causing his delay.

If there is no place for him to get past, then speed up and go at a
decent rate you old fart.

That is unsafe as he is tailgating you and you have to slow down.
Once you start tailgating the only safe thing the driver infront can do
is slow down.

And what is wrong with going at a faster speed? Then he won't need to tailgate you.

Jeezus. He was tailgaiting to start with. He's still tailgaiting when
I slow down. What makes you think he will stop tailgaiting if I speed
up again?

He wants to go 50mph, you're going 40mph. If you now go 50mph, he has no reason to drive close to you.

sigh

I was doing 50 and he was too close. I slow down to 40 to let him pass
and he continues to drive too close. I slow down some more for safety
sake (his and mine). Why do you think he will change his behaviour if
I drive at 50 again?

I wasn't talking about an again. Either speed up or slow down, not both.

Thanks for finally admitting that it's OK to slow down when being
tailgated.

My statement was incomplete. It's ok to slow down TO LET HIM PAST.

Like I said, "Thanks for finally admitting that it's OK to slow down
when being tailgated.". No need for the extra qualification, if you
read up thread you'll realise we've been saying "to let the ****wit
past" that all along.

No, you've been advocating slowing down to be "safe" and to "annoy him".

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

It's strange, isn't it? You stand in the middle of a library and go "Aaaaaaagghhhh!!!!" and everyone just stares at you. But you do the same thing on an aeroplane, and everyone joins in.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:45:01 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 30, 9:36 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:19:56 -0000, ARW wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Here's some news for you, a huge section of the population speeds.
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. All those
people disagree with you. THREE MILLION caught a year plus the
ones that aren't caught ALL disagree with you.

I don't care if some people speed when it's not dangerous to do so. I
have been pulled before and set of (an empty) GATSO.

It's tailgating I hate - there is never a good reason for it other
that the rear driver is a ****.

Not even when you are having a good road rage moment with a ****** that has
just pulled out infront of you without indicating causing you to slam the
breaks on?

I did that to someone, we chased each other for the next 15 miles. The pig we passed didn't even notice.

MOre evidence of your appaling driving standards.

Nope, evidence of me being able to do it without the pig seeing.

Anyway he started it, all I did was get in his safety gap. He gave me the finger and overtook me with evil intent.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

It's strange, isn't it? You stand in the middle of a library and go "Aaaaaaagghhhh!!!!" and everyone just stares at you. But you do the same thing on an aeroplane, and everyone joins in.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:45:31 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 30, 10:28 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:16:25 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:









On Nov 29, 6:07 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:52:41 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 5:11 pm, Huge wrote:
On 2012-11-29, John Williamson wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:26:50 -0000, Man at B&Q
wrote:
Jeezus. He was tailgaiting to start with. He's still tailgaiting when
I slow down. What makes you think he will stop tailgaiting if I speed
up again?

He wants to go 50mph, you're going 40mph. If you now go 50mph, he has
no reason to drive close to you.

Most tailgaters, if you speed up, maintain the same distance between you
and them, irrespective of the speed.

I have a better solution. I slow down until the speed is appropriate for the
gap between me and the tailgater.

+1

I've had them down to walking pace before now.

I have actually stopped.

Do you like playing silly games on the roads? If a policeman saw you do that, he'd get you into at least as much trouble as the tailgater.

No he wouldn't.

Deliberately obstructing traffic is an offence. Getting your own back is not an excuse.

Good job I wasn't deliberataly obstructing anyone then, wasn't it.

Driving at walking pace on a road is always obstructing.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

In light of the Madrid bombing, France has raised its terror alert level from "run" to "hide."
The only two higher levels in France are "surrender" and "collaborate."

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:11:58 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

I don't know what people you're seeing, but the only people I've ever seen
tailgate are simply trying to get past, and will do so as soon as
possible.


No - they are dangerous *******s who need to be sent back to learn how to
drive properly.

You really like to persist in this delusion that your ****ty driving is
somehow virtuous. See a psychotherapist and/or a driving instructor before
you kill someone.

I'm only trying to get past. If you let me past I'll go past. There's no reason to stay tailgating.

And every other tailgater I've sen does the same as me.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

In light of the Madrid bombing, France has raised its terror alert level from "run" to "hide."
The only two higher levels in France are "surrender" and "collaborate."

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:14:19 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:


That's exactly what I'm saying, people don't say when they agree. With
anyone, not just me.

I think you'll find it's because you are talking out of your arse and really
noone remotely agrees with you.

So explain why there's no "I agree" after other people's posts?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The scientific theory I Iike best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline Luggage. -- Mark Russell

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:14:52 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:


Context removed, reply not possible. Grow up.

Speaks the opinionated jock.

The Scots are on the whole more sensible than the English, just look at our laws.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Lemon entry my dear Watson.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:33:56 -0000, tony sayer wrote:

In article op.wom7ratoytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
scribeth thus
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 11:38:42 -0000, tony sayer wrote:

In article op.wol2bdsdytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
scribeth thus
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:35:24 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:





I got pulled for 38 in a 30. So that's some real dip**** theory you've got
going there.

Do you live in Wales? I've been let off with 36, 38, and 39. My colleague
got
done for 41, I got done for 47 and 55.

So hope reigns then, one or a few more and you'll be off the road..

They have all expired.


Pity

Still you can do it again...

Collect as many points as you can .. as quick as you can...

I can't. My satnav stops me getting most of them, and the other three I talked my way out of.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Lemon entry my dear Watson.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:14:52 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:


Context removed, reply not possible. Grow up.

Speaks the opinionated jock.

The Scots are on the whole more sensible than the English, just look
at our laws.

The first laws that spring to mind suggest that the Scots are always ****ed.
Lower limits for drink driving and a minimum alcohol price.



--
Adam

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:43:16 -0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:13:37 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

If you deliberately get in my way slowing me down, I am going to
try to overtake you.

For ****'s sake get a bike - you don't get held up, then.

Some arse would open a door in front of me.

If you were a "proper" cyclist then that would be the passenger door as you
drove down the pavement......

--
Adam

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:21:55 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:25:03 -0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
In message , Tim
Watts writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

In message op.wojp95wjytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
writes


I don't think so. This group is probably above average
age and intelligence and I don't see you getting any
support.

That's because someone agreeing with a post is less
likely to reply to it.

OK. Hands up all those who think the Lieutenant is a
responsible driver?

I think he's a dangerous arrogant ****wit who probably has
one of those fancy conditions that lead to an inability to
see other's POVs.

That's a hands down then?

Danger is fun.

You are wrong.

Danger can be fun - but there is a difference between "is" and
"can" and it depends who is in danger.

If it's me it's fun. If it's someone else, who cares?

The person you are endangering might care. And I have strong views on who I
can endanger with my driving.

--
Adam

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:42:09 -0000, ARW wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:14:52 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:


Context removed, reply not possible. Grow up.

Speaks the opinionated jock.

The Scots are on the whole more sensible than the English, just look
at our laws.

The first laws that spring to mind suggest that the Scots are always ****ed.
Lower limits for drink driving and a minimum alcohol price.

Drunk driving doesn't necessarily mean drunk crashing.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Scientists recently conducted a marijuana taste test.
Nobody seems to be able to remember the results.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:44:15 -0000, ARW wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:43:16 -0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:13:37 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

If you deliberately get in my way slowing me down, I am going to
try to overtake you.

For ****'s sake get a bike - you don't get held up, then.

Some arse would open a door in front of me.

If you were a "proper" cyclist then that would be the passenger door as you
drove down the pavement......

I'm not a "proper" cyclist as I refuse to wear skin tight shorts. But I do cycle on the pavement if it's clearer than the road. Or would you rather a queue of cars?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Scientists recently conducted a marijuana taste test.
Nobody seems to be able to remember the results.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:45:31 -0000, Man at B&Q
wrote:
On Nov 30, 10:28 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:16:25 -0000, Man at B&Q
wrote:
On Nov 29, 6:07 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:52:41 -0000, Man at B&Q
wrote:

On Nov 29, 5:11 pm, Huge wrote:
On 2012-11-29, John Williamson
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:26:50 -0000, Man at B&Q
wrote:
Jeezus. He was tailgaiting to start with. He's
still tailgaiting when I slow down. What makes you
think he will stop tailgaiting if I speed up again?

He wants to go 50mph, you're going 40mph. If you now
go 50mph, he has no reason to drive close to you.

Most tailgaters, if you speed up, maintain the same
distance between you and them, irrespective of the
speed.

I have a better solution. I slow down until the speed is
appropriate for the gap between me and the tailgater.

+1

I've had them down to walking pace before now.

I have actually stopped.

Do you like playing silly games on the roads? If a policeman
saw you do that, he'd get you into at least as much trouble
as the tailgater.

No he wouldn't.

Deliberately obstructing traffic is an offence. Getting your own
back is not an excuse.

Good job I wasn't deliberataly obstructing anyone then, wasn't it.

Driving at walking pace on a road is always obstructing.

No it is not. It's about the average speed on Peckham High Street at 6pm.

--
Adam

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:48:12 -0000, ARW wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:21:55 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:25:03 -0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
In message , Tim
Watts writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

In message op.wojp95wjytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
writes


I don't think so. This group is probably above average
age and intelligence and I don't see you getting any
support.

That's because someone agreeing with a post is less
likely to reply to it.

OK. Hands up all those who think the Lieutenant is a
responsible driver?

I think he's a dangerous arrogant ****wit who probably has
one of those fancy conditions that lead to an inability to
see other's POVs.

That's a hands down then?

Danger is fun.

You are wrong.

Danger can be fun - but there is a difference between "is" and
"can" and it depends who is in danger.

If it's me it's fun. If it's someone else, who cares?

The person you are endangering might care. And I have strong views on who I
can endanger with my driving.

They can care all they like.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

What is the difference between a battery and a woman?
A battery has a positive side.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:54:41 -0000, ARW wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:45:31 -0000, Man at B&Q
wrote:
On Nov 30, 10:28 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:16:25 -0000, Man at B&Q
wrote:
On Nov 29, 6:07 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:52:41 -0000, Man at B&Q
wrote:

On Nov 29, 5:11 pm, Huge wrote:
On 2012-11-29, John Williamson
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:26:50 -0000, Man at B&Q
wrote:
Jeezus. He was tailgaiting to start with. He's
still tailgaiting when I slow down. What makes you
think he will stop tailgaiting if I speed up again?

He wants to go 50mph, you're going 40mph. If you now
go 50mph, he has no reason to drive close to you.

Most tailgaters, if you speed up, maintain the same
distance between you and them, irrespective of the
speed.

I have a better solution. I slow down until the speed is
appropriate for the gap between me and the tailgater.

+1

I've had them down to walking pace before now.

I have actually stopped.

Do you like playing silly games on the roads? If a policeman
saw you do that, he'd get you into at least as much trouble
as the tailgater.

No he wouldn't.

Deliberately obstructing traffic is an offence. Getting your own
back is not an excuse.

Good job I wasn't deliberataly obstructing anyone then, wasn't it.

Driving at walking pace on a road is always obstructing.

No it is not. It's about the average speed on Peckham High Street at 6pm.

Well apart from Peckham. I meant in civilisation.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

On going to war over religion:
You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. -- Richard Jeni

In message , ARW
writes
Driving at walking pace on a road is always obstructing.

No it is not. It's about the average speed on Peckham High Street at 6pm.

How do you manage that??? I can only get that fast at 3am!

--
Simon

12) The Second Rule of Expectations
An EXPECTATION is a Premeditated resentment.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:42:09 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:14:52 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:


Context removed, reply not possible. Grow up.

Speaks the opinionated jock.

The Scots are on the whole more sensible than the English, just
look at our laws.

The first laws that spring to mind suggest that the Scots are
always ****ed. Lower limits for drink driving and a minimum alcohol
price.

Drunk driving doesn't necessarily mean drunk crashing.

You are 100% correct. However your statement is ********:-)
--
Adam

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:48:12 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:21:55 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:25:03 -0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
In message , Tim
Watts writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

In message op.wojp95wjytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
writes


I don't think so. This group is probably above
average age and intelligence and I don't see you
getting any support.

That's because someone agreeing with a post is less
likely to reply to it.

OK. Hands up all those who think the Lieutenant is a
responsible driver?

I think he's a dangerous arrogant ****wit who probably has
one of those fancy conditions that lead to an inability to
see other's POVs.

That's a hands down then?

Danger is fun.

You are wrong.

Danger can be fun - but there is a difference between "is" and
"can" and it depends who is in danger.

If it's me it's fun. If it's someone else, who cares?

The person you are endangering might care. And I have strong views
on who I can endanger with my driving.

They can care all they like.

That is the difference between us. I do care who I endanger and I consider
their needs and requirements before endangering them and I take their views
onboard before doing so.

--
Adam

On 01/12/2012 16:08, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:01:18 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/11/2012 19:19, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:05:10 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/11/2012 16:49, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:43:34 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:



And the kids sitting in the rear most seat of my car who are 12"
from the
rear metalwork?

You don't have a boot?!?

And they're still on seats. A front collision pushes you forwards, a
rear collision simply pushes you into the comfy chair.

Another idiot that doesn't understand o'level physics.

It's Newton's third law. And what I stated above is correct.

Only if you have energy absorbing seat backs and head restraints.

Seats and head restraints are soft. Soft things absorb energy. Try
punching a pillow, then try punching a brick wall.

Expensive stuff if its set off. New seats aren't cheap.
If you rear ended me that £1000 excess you want wouldn't stop an
insurance claim.

A seat doesn't tend to get broken in an accident.


just like crash helmets and child seats don't.

usenet2012 wrote:
In message , ARW
writes
Driving at walking pace on a road is always obstructing.

No it is not. It's about the average speed on Peckham High Street
at 6pm.

How do you manage that??? I can only get that fast at 3am!

Anything past New Cross is easy.
--
Adam

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:08:06 -0000, ARW wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:42:09 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:14:52 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:


Context removed, reply not possible. Grow up.

Speaks the opinionated jock.

The Scots are on the whole more sensible than the English, just
look at our laws.

The first laws that spring to mind suggest that the Scots are
always ****ed. Lower limits for drink driving and a minimum alcohol
price.

Drunk driving doesn't necessarily mean drunk crashing.

You are 100% correct. However your statement is ********:-)

Your contradiction is nonsensical.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Red meat isn't bad for you. Fuzzy blue-green meat is bad for you.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:21:09 -0000, ARW wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:48:12 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:21:55 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:25:03 -0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
In message , Tim
Watts writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

In message op.wojp95wjytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
writes


I don't think so. This group is probably above
average age and intelligence and I don't see you
getting any support.

That's because someone agreeing with a post is less
likely to reply to it.

OK. Hands up all those who think the Lieutenant is a
responsible driver?

I think he's a dangerous arrogant ****wit who probably has
one of those fancy conditions that lead to an inability to
see other's POVs.

That's a hands down then?

Danger is fun.

You are wrong.

Danger can be fun - but there is a difference between "is" and
"can" and it depends who is in danger.

If it's me it's fun. If it's someone else, who cares?

The person you are endangering might care. And I have strong views
on who I can endanger with my driving.

They can care all they like.

That is the difference between us. I do care who I endanger and I consider
their needs and requirements before endangering them and I take their views
onboard before doing so.

I bet you draw up a risk assessment too. But the question is do you fill in the form while driving?

A 1 in a million danger is not a danger. Ignore it.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

An ostrichs eye is bigger than its brain.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:24:57 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 01/12/2012 16:08, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:01:18 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/11/2012 19:19, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:05:10 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/11/2012 16:49, Lieutenant Scott wrote:




Another idiot that doesn't understand o'level physics.

It's Newton's third law. And what I stated above is correct.

Only if you have energy absorbing seat backs and head restraints.

Seats and head restraints are soft. Soft things absorb energy. Try
punching a pillow, then try punching a brick wall.

Expensive stuff if its set off. New seats aren't cheap.
If you rear ended me that £1000 excess you want wouldn't stop an
insurance claim.

A seat doesn't tend to get broken in an accident.


just like crash helmets and child seats don't.

I don't use either of those so I've no idea what you mean.

But a crash helmet is harder than a seat and can break.

Also a seat is in the middle of the car and is not struck directly.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be "meetings."

In message , ARW
writes
usenet2012 wrote:
In message , ARW
writes
Driving at walking pace on a road is always obstructing.

No it is not. It's about the average speed on Peckham High Street
at 6pm.

How do you manage that??? I can only get that fast at 3am!

Anything past New Cross is easy.

Pahh! That's not real Peckham! But, you're right... until you hit
Deptford.

--
Simon

12) The Second Rule of Expectations
An EXPECTATION is a Premeditated resentment.

On 01/12/2012 18:05, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:48:12 -0000, ARW
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:21:55 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:25:03 -0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
In message , Tim
Watts writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

In message op.wojp95wjytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
writes


I don't think so. This group is probably above average
age and intelligence and I don't see you getting any
support.

That's because someone agreeing with a post is less
likely to reply to it.

OK. Hands up all those who think the Lieutenant is a
responsible driver?

I think he's a dangerous arrogant ****wit who probably has
one of those fancy conditions that lead to an inability to
see other's POVs.

That's a hands down then?

Danger is fun.

You are wrong.

Danger can be fun - but there is a difference between "is" and
"can" and it depends who is in danger.

If it's me it's fun. If it's someone else, who cares?

The person you are endangering might care. And I have strong views on
who I
can endanger with my driving.

They can care all they like.


So we can care all we want but you object when we do something about it.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:27:49 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 01/12/2012 18:05, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:48:12 -0000, ARW
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:21:55 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:25:03 -0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
In message , Tim
Watts writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

In message op.wojp95wjytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
writes


I don't think so. This group is probably above average
age and intelligence and I don't see you getting any
support.

That's because someone agreeing with a post is less
likely to reply to it.

OK. Hands up all those who think the Lieutenant is a
responsible driver?

I think he's a dangerous arrogant ****wit who probably has
one of those fancy conditions that lead to an inability to
see other's POVs.

That's a hands down then?

Danger is fun.

You are wrong.

Danger can be fun - but there is a difference between "is" and
"can" and it depends who is in danger.

If it's me it's fun. If it's someone else, who cares?

The person you are endangering might care. And I have strong views on
who I
can endanger with my driving.

They can care all they like.


So we can care all we want but you object when we do something about it.

No they can care about themselves, I never you said you could care about them.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together?

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:21:09 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:48:12 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:21:55 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:25:03 -0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
In message ,
Tim Watts writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

In message op.wojp95wjytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant
Scott writes


I don't think so. This group is probably above
average age and intelligence and I don't see you
getting any support.

That's because someone agreeing with a post is
less likely to reply to it.

OK. Hands up all those who think the Lieutenant is a
responsible driver?

I think he's a dangerous arrogant ****wit who
probably has one of those fancy conditions that lead
to an inability to see other's POVs.

That's a hands down then?

Danger is fun.

You are wrong.

Danger can be fun - but there is a difference between "is"
and "can" and it depends who is in danger.

If it's me it's fun. If it's someone else, who cares?

The person you are endangering might care. And I have strong
views on who I can endanger with my driving.

They can care all they like.

That is the difference between us. I do care who I endanger and I
consider their needs and requirements before endangering them and I
take their views onboard before doing so.

I bet you draw up a risk assessment too. But the question is do you
fill in the form while driving?
A 1 in a million danger is not a danger. Ignore it.

Statistically 1 in a million still a danger.
--
Adam

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:59:44 -0000, ARW wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:21:09 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:48:12 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:21:55 -0000, ARW
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:25:03 -0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
In message ,
Tim Watts writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

In message op.wojp95wjytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant
Scott writes


I don't think so. This group is probably above
average age and intelligence and I don't see you
getting any support.

That's because someone agreeing with a post is
less likely to reply to it.

OK. Hands up all those who think the Lieutenant is a
responsible driver?

I think he's a dangerous arrogant ****wit who
probably has one of those fancy conditions that lead
to an inability to see other's POVs.

That's a hands down then?

Danger is fun.

You are wrong.

Danger can be fun - but there is a difference between "is"
and "can" and it depends who is in danger.

If it's me it's fun. If it's someone else, who cares?

The person you are endangering might care. And I have strong
views on who I can endanger with my driving.

They can care all they like.

That is the difference between us. I do care who I endanger and I
consider their needs and requirements before endangering them and I
take their views onboard before doing so.

I bet you draw up a risk assessment too. But the question is do you
fill in the form while driving?
A 1 in a million danger is not a danger. Ignore it.

Statistically 1 in a million still a danger.

Not one worth worrying about. That's the problem with today's sissy health and safety brigade.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Why is Bin Laden like a pair of tights?
Because he irritates bush!

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:42:09 -0000, ARW
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:14:52 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:


Context removed, reply not possible. Grow up.

Speaks the opinionated jock.

The Scots are on the whole more sensible than the English, just look
at our laws.

The first laws that spring to mind suggest that the Scots are always
****ed. Lower limits for drink driving and a minimum alcohol price.

Drunk driving doesn't necessarily mean drunk crashing.


Are you going to speak in favour of drink driving now?

Stop wearing those man skirts - the cold's getting to your brain...


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
moral busybodies."

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:16:01 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:42:09 -0000, ARW
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:14:52 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:


Context removed, reply not possible. Grow up.

Speaks the opinionated jock.

The Scots are on the whole more sensible than the English, just look
at our laws.

The first laws that spring to mind suggest that the Scots are always
****ed. Lower limits for drink driving and a minimum alcohol price.

Drunk driving doesn't necessarily mean drunk crashing.


Are you going to speak in favour of drink driving now?

If you don't crash, there's nothing to be concerned about.

Stop wearing those man skirts - the cold's getting to your brain...

Never worn one, never will.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

"One dies in Istanbul suicide attack"

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:29:18 +0000, ARW wrote:

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:49:33 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
You stop sudenly (and reverse into the tailgater if needed). you
phone for an ambulance.

Wow. Just... wow.

It would suggest that it might be worth recording him reversing into
you:-)

And den accuses me of criminal behaviour. It seems den is into fraud and
false insurance/injury claims.

Yes, it was the suggestion of wasting the emergency services time which
surprised me; I just had him down as an idiot but it seems that he's
quite the *******, too.

usenet2012 wrote:
In message , ARW
writes
usenet2012 wrote:
In message , ARW
writes
Driving at walking pace on a road is always obstructing.

No it is not. It's about the average speed on Peckham High
Street at 6pm.

How do you manage that??? I can only get that fast at 3am!

Anything past New Cross is easy.

Pahh! That's not real Peckham! But, you're right... until you hit
Deptford.

Well my journey was from Lambeth to Deptford 4 miles took about an hour at
6pm. The return journey at 6.30am took 20 minutes but I did follow someone
who knew the shortcuts.

Next time I am down there it will from Deptford to Deptford. 4 weeks living
in a pub in Deptford.

--
Adam

On 02/12/2012 11:37, Huge wrote:
On 2012-12-01, ARW wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:

If it's me it's fun. If it's someone else, who cares?

The person you are endangering might care. And I have strong views
on who I can endanger with my driving.

They can care all they like.

That is the difference between us. I do care who I endanger and I consider
their needs and requirements before endangering them and I take their views
onboard before doing so.

There's an article here about our most successful troll;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect


The ripples of thought that follow from the idea of writing and
publishing a paper entitled "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How
Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated
Self-Assessments". Did they feel skilled and competent enough to author
it? Or did they assume that everyone else would say how incompetent they
are? What is their assessment of themselves?

--
Rod

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 11:37:13 -0000, Huge wrote:

On 2012-12-01, ARW wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:

If it's me it's fun. If it's someone else, who cares?

The person you are endangering might care. And I have strong views
on who I can endanger with my driving.

They can care all they like.

That is the difference between us. I do care who I endanger and I consider
their needs and requirements before endangering them and I take their views
onboard before doing so.

There's an article here about our most successful troll;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

You're suffering from the opposite effect, where you can't believe anyone else can be better than yourself.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg

On Dec 1, 5:32*pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:02:28 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:









On Nov 29, 8:57 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:16:01 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 6:06 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:48:56 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 4:40 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:32:33 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 10:58 am, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:53:47 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:13:15 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

And what is wrong with going at a faster speed? *Then he won't need to
tailgate you.

He won't need to tailgate anyone if he does the decent thing and goes and
tears up his license as he has no place on the roads.

Or goes and plays with the lions in Africa. I'm happy either way.

Typical moronic response from a fool who thinks he has chosen the most
appropriate speed for the road and anyone who can go faster than him must
be dangerous.

That's not what I wrote, dipstick.

I do not think "people who can go faster" are ******s who should go and poke
lions in the butts with pointy sticks.

I said tailgaters are.

Tailgaters are simply people trying to go faster, but unable to do so because of people like you.

Tailgaiters are ****wits who drive aggresively close and try to bully
others into driving unsafely.

So? *What gives you the right to be a safe little wimp? *Man up and go faster.

Given you self confessed standards of driving, you are obviously the
one with "manhood" problems.

No, people with a small manhood tend to act girly and take safety precautions. *I bet you got a red triangle and a hi-vis jacket in your boot too.

Do you always do as you're told?

Talking to yourself now.

You replied to me so I was successfully talking to you.


No, you successfully replied to your own post.

MBQ