Cuban Eel wrote:
>> 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.
Sure, you're old fashioned.
But at the same time, being a dangerous driver is worse than being a
liar. Yet Firth likes to accuse me of both.
Incidentally Id didn't say it was OK to lie, or that I did lie. That's
just something you've invented in your own head to persecute me later...
>> 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.
Erm, actually you're trying to defeat the argument. Your logic would
dictate that there is a risk in everything you do, walking, talking,
driving, eating, drinking alcohol.
And since you don't differentiate between risk and safety, everything is
unsafe and therefore alcohol is unsafe, no matter how it is used.
My logic states that there is nothing intrinsincally unsafe in doing
something as long as full responsibility is taken for the consequences
of ones actions and you undertake any action in a safe and controlled
manner.
I say something is only unsafe, if done unsafely. Things aren't plainly
unsafe.
That is not to say that there isn't a risk.
What? That's a stupid argument, if only for the fact that it doesn't
necessarily agree with dictionary definition in that impatience is a
dislike of anything that causes delay, or irritation with anything that
causes delay.
Someone who overtakes a slower moving vehicle isn't necessarily
impatient, they're just quicker.
And since you're making up the rules now, at what speed differential is
it OK to overtake? What speed should they be driving? What speed should
you be driving? Is it OK to overtake a stationery vehicle, or should
you, to be perfectly safe, slow down to their speed, as, it just means
waiting a little while longer?
> You're not necessarily a fuckwit for overtaking. However if you consider
> it to ever be completely safe then you are definitely a fuckwit.
I consider overtaking safely to be safe. I do not consider anything to
be risk free though.
> 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.
My main problem with their actions is that they had alternatives they
could have pulled up before the junction and even made their job easier.
> 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.
I don't disagree and I agree that at many times it is necessary to block
junctions and cause obstruction in order for them to do their job.
However when there were quite clearly alternatives (at least in my
situation), then I feel quite within my rights to complain about
perceived selfishness and pig-headedness.
> 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.
I don't like to wait behind someone who has an alternative to go
somewhere else. But that's not to say I become impatient about it, but
merely take my time to avoid the obstruction in a safe controlled manner.
>
>> 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.
Yes yes yes, it's OK to be selfish and block junctions with absolutely
no need. Tell me, does the law also say that the driver of such a
vehicle should leave his cab? What happens if an emergency vehicle is
steaming down the road and the driver is unable to get back to his
vehicle in time causing UNNECESSARY delay?
>> 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?
An interesting proposition. Would you trust a doctor with no involvement
in your case to provide expert medical advice to you?
I wouldn't.
Doctors make mistakes time and time again. I've heard many differences
of opinion between doctors.
But yes, I would suggest that I know more about my treatment then any
doctor who is unfamiliar with my case. They may have certain expert
knowledge about various techniques but that is about all. And if after
presenting them with the facts they then contradict what your doctor has
said, then I also wouldn't trust them.
> There are different types of knowledge.
Yes...
> You may know precisely and
> accurately your own experience of any event that you have participated
> in,
As I said...
> that doesn't mean you know more about ANY other aspect of it,
As I didn't say...
> or
> about how it fits in with other similar events. I consider it arrogant to
> assume that ones own experience encompasses all their
there...
> is to know about
> anything.
Which I didn't say...
> 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.
You are clearly wrong, because I didn't say that. If I say XYZ was done
safely, who is anyone to say that it wasn't done safely. Were you there?
Back to your doctor scenario, if he started contradicting my story,
pretending he knew how I got disease XYZ, or saying that I can't have
had ABC treatment because he only gives DEF - I would get rid of his
ass quicker than anything.
It's one thing to disagree when someone says that red is blue, it's
quite another thing to disagree that someone actually saw blue on someday.
Sorry for dumbing it down.
>> 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.
Do you disagree that overtaking something safely is unsafe?
Now show me where I was unsafe.
Do you agree with the logic that states that overtaking something when
there's no oncoming traffic is as unsafe as overtaking something when
there's oncoming traffic?
>
>> You're nothing but another Andy Mabbet.
>>
>
> High praise there Steve. Clever bloke is Andy.
Hahaaha. You're sussed.
>> 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?
Far from it. It's just a matter of fact when there are two people with
opposing viewpoints, one is an opponent.
You're just trying to dig up whatever you can because, well, you,
actually don't have anything do you? You're a tired old fool trying to
drum up an argument.
> 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?
You what now? You really are diseased cretin.
>> What do I lie about?
>
> Oh for Dog's sake make up your mind. Suddenly you don't think it's OK to
> bullshit.
Now its later...
You're a bit lacking in comprehension there. Trying to dish it out.
can't take it. For the fool at the back, a) I never said I lie b) I
never said it is OK to lie
> I give up. You are very obviously a fuckwit. You are contradicting
> yourself already.
Nope. Never have done mate. Well, I may have over the years as opinion
changes. You on the otherhand have misrepresented my posting at every
single point you can, and yet, you, like the rest of you cretins know
more about my intentions than I do?
Yet Im the arrogant one!
Hahahah
Cya
Simon
