> Doug wrote:

>> On 20 Jul, 12:16, John Wright pegasus.f2s.com> wrote:

>>> Doug wrote:

>>>> On 19 Jul, 08:43, "Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>>>> Doug wrote:

>>>>>> Why am I not surprised that among the motorists who dominate qnd
>>>>>> infest this transport newsgroup are those whose only response to
>>>>>> confrontation is one of physical violence? Is it any wonder that ther
>>>>>> is so much mayhem and road rage on our roads with such people actually
>>>>>> being granted a driving licence?

>>>>> As you have argued on many occasions Doug, there are justifiable reasons for
>>>>> violence. You've supported unprovoked violence on many occasions but when
>>>>> it's being directed against people whose aims you support you suddenly
>>>>> become less than enthusiastic, why is that?

>>>> You are mistaken as usual. While I accept that violence may sometimes
>>>> be justified you have been in constant denial on the subject, as have
>>>> many of the motorists who dominate and infest this NG. It is they who
>>>> dish it out but can't take it.

>>> Indeed, I think you will find a very low tolerance for violence in this
>>> group, as you have found before.

>

>>> "violence is the last resort of the incompetent" is one rule I like to
>>> abide by.

>

>> Only a tolerance to the violence of others, while they themselves seem
>> free to threaten it quite often on this very NG. As for motorists as a
>> whole, it would be difficult to find a more violent section of
>> society, killing as they do some 2,000 people a year and seriously
>> injuring many more, which they airily like to brush aside as mere
>> accidents while blaming their victims for getting in their way.

>
> There you go again, taking pleasure from what are tragic events in other
> people's lives. When will you learn? We all regret the deaths and
> injuries in society from any cause - including transport. True violence
> has only been offered in response to the violent acts of those people
> you supposedly look up to, like ARTs who dig up people's grannies,
> threaten people's livelihoods and other violent and intimidatory acts,
> and the recent case of vandalising other people's property.
>
> You hit me and I might well hit you back. In a Christian sense you turn
> the other cheek. But I won't offer you violence. Don't accuse me of
> being a Christian either.
>