> Curtain Cider wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:44:52 +0000, %%steve%%@
malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Dean
simtext.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Whoo. Power to the people. Enough of Steve Firth, Adrian, Conor, that
>>>> guy who calls himself "?" and several others. Just rude obnoxious
>>>> arrogant freaks.
>>> Ah yes, the Simon Dean view of "arrogance", someone daring to know more
>>> than he does about a subject, and unwilling to back down and agree with
>>> Simon when he bullshits.
>
> Well, Steve, if I bullshit, then I have done nothing wrong but lie.
>
Call me old fashioned, but I was under the impression that lying is
generally considered not to be exemplary behaviour.
> As for being unwilling to backdown, show me some unemotional objective
> factual based argument instead of some usual rhetoric about it's unsafe
> to overtake, or it shows impatience, or Im a fuckwit for doing so, or
> bin men are doing their job and are therefore allowed to park where they
> like and block junctions.
>
I would have thought there was a wealth of evidence that it is generally
unsafe to overtake. That doesn't mean it isn't often the right thing to
do, but there is no way that it's the safest option even when it's the
most sensible. So I'm afraid you are already defeating your own argument.
<
http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/overtaking.html>
<
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/related/novicedriverssafet
yno02?page=5>
Obviously overtaking at the very least implies impatience. That is not
necessarily a bad thing. However it is generally the case that it would
be perfectly safe to slow down to their speed rather than overtake a
slower vehicle, it just means travelling more slowly.
You're not necessarily a fuckwit for overtaking. However if you consider
it to ever be completely safe then you are definitely a fuckwit.
Bin men are allowed to block junctions briefly when it's necessary in
order to do the job. It's not parking if the vehicle is solely stationary
in order to be loaded. Since my knowledge of the subject largely relates
to being involved in discussions on traffic planning during borough
council Planning and Development Committee meetings I can't readily point
to any relevant documents on the web, but I'm sure your local authority
will send you a copy of the relevant traffic regulations if you ask.
That's just how it is. They have to stop to load the truck where they
have to load the truck, and it's up to everyone else to work round it.
Unless, of course, you are the sort of dangerous, impatient, fuckwit who
can't bear to wait a few minutes so that somebody else can do their job.
> Im a liberal fellow. Im not the one trying to say how someone should and
> should not behave. It strikes me that it is you who lays down the law
> and are unwilling to backdown.
>
It seems to me that you were just attempting to lay down the law on how
the bin men should behave, and doing so with absolutely no knowledge of
what that law actually is.
> I am also rather disinclined to back down when people pretend to know
> that my driving is unsafe and Im impatient, from a factual argument that
> after waiting for a safe moment to overtake, I overtook in a safe and
> controlled manner. I consider it arrogant for people to pretend to know
> more about how an event unfolded than the participant does.
>
So you'd expect to have more understanding of any medical treatment you
have undergone than any doctor not involved in treating you no matter how
relevant their speciality?
There are different types of knowledge. You may know precisely and
accurately your own experience of any event that you have participated
in, that doesn't mean you know more about ANY other aspect of it, or
about how it fits in with other similar events. I consider it arrogant to
assume that ones own experience encompasses all their is to know about
anything. Which doesn't mean you are wrong about anything you have
directly experienced, but you are clearly wrong to assume that anything
conflicting with it can't be true.
> I am also rather disinclined to back down to such festering feeble
> minded illogical arguments as many of you folks tend to do here.
>
Don't see any evidence of you having anything to say that is either
particularly rigourous logic, or even particularly clever.
> You're nothing but another Andy Mabbet.
>
High praise there Steve. Clever bloke is Andy. I may not always agree
with him, but it's generally been a fair bet that when I don't he's the
one who is right.
> I judge that I am right when my opponents manipulate my arguments, lie,
> cheat and insult while I simultaneously get support from RoSPA Gold
> Members and my fellow human beings in the physical world.
>
Interesting choice of words there. "Opponents". Do you see Usenet as a
competition? How do points get scored? Who's that bastard in the black?
Is being Godwinated a TKO or simply a suspension? Are your fellow human
beings in the physical world the same as the lurkers that support other
losers by email?
>>> Try posting something that's factually correct and objective, for a
>>> change. You appear to be one of the (very few) fuckwits who thinks that
>>> either Usenet is a write-only medium or that it is better to post
>>> bullshit "in good faith" than it is to post something which is factual.
>
> What do I lie about?
>
Oh for Dog's sake make up your mind. Suddenly you don't think it's OK to
bullshit.
I give up. You are very obviously a fuckwit. You are contradicting
yourself already.
--
eric
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
