reaching new heights of idiocy

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2006-09-15, scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
> The point becomes mute if it actions in the point are illegal.

*MOOT*, damnit! *MOOT*! Not mute!

Mute == silent. Moot == no longer practically applicable.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[BrettS]

Stuart Lamble wrote:
> On 2006-09-15, scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The point becomes mute if it actions in the point are illegal.
>
>
> *MOOT*, damnit! *MOOT*! Not mute!
>
> Mute == silent. Moot == no longer practically applicable.
>

But Stuart, this is USENET. Sorely it make's no difference if the wrong
word is used? If we are understanding of what he was trying to say then
the meaning of his words hasn't been effected. To many people get to
worked up about proper English and using words in the wright context.
Were do you get off correcting people for there English? It may bee
there second language.

;-)

--
Brett"I love apostrophes too!"S

 

[Donga]

BrettS wrote:
> Stuart Lamble wrote:
> > On 2006-09-15, scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>The point becomes mute if it actions in the point are illegal.
> >
> >
> > *MOOT*, damnit! *MOOT*! Not mute!
> >
> > Mute == silent. Moot == no longer practically applicable.
> >
>
> But Stuart, this is USENET. Sorely it make's no difference if the wrong
> word is used? If we are understanding of what he was trying to say then
> the meaning of his words hasn't been effected. To many people get to
> worked up about proper English and using words in the wright context.
> Were do you get off correcting people for there English? It may bee
> there second language.

What's Shirley got to do with it?

Donga

 

[Absent Husband]

I can't fscking believe you guys are still discussing this. FFS, does
anyone remember the "What does Share The Road mean????" thread??????

Listen to Abby - he know everything:

1. If you have a shoulder to ride on, then fscking ride in it. Don't be
a d!ck. Even if its fun to p!ss off the crazy ute driver. Even if its
only a short distance.

2. If you don't have a shoulder, then claim the fscking lane. The
fsckers in the root-ute and the 'oh my god my d!ck is so small, what
can I do" Prado can wait behind you. Let them toot their big fscking
horns if they want, who gives a flying fsck.

End of story. I really should be Prime Minister. Anyone want to start a
party??

Cheers,
Abby (fsck I love Claratyne - give me some more....)

 

[PiledHigher]

> If I could whack a bicycle rack on the back of my motorcycle, it would be
> adios car.

Soft
http://www.flickr.com/photos/46435249@N00/88368352/

 

[asterope]

I can't fscking believe you guys are still discussing this. FFS, does
anyone remember the "What does Share The Road mean????" thread??????

Listen to Abby - he know everything:

1. If you have a shoulder to ride on, then fscking ride in it. Don't be
a d!ck. Even if its fun to p!ss off the crazy ute driver. Even if its
only a short distance.

2. If you don't have a shoulder, then claim the fscking lane. The
fsckers in the root-ute and the 'oh my god my d!ck is so small, what
can I do" Prado can wait behind you. Let them toot their big fscking
horns if they want, who gives a flying fsck.

End of story. I really should be Prime Minister. Anyone want to start a
party??

Cheers,
Abby (fsck I love Claratyne - give me some more....)

abby for prime minister!!
*hands him some more antihistamines*

 

[BrettS]

Absent Husband wrote:

> I can't fscking believe you guys are still discussing this. FFS, does
> anyone remember the "What does Share The Road mean????" thread??????
>
> Listen to Abby - he know everything:
>
> 1. If you have a shoulder to ride on, then fscking ride in it. Don't be
> a d!ck. Even if its fun to p!ss off the crazy ute driver. Even if its
> only a short distance.
>
> 2. If you don't have a shoulder, then claim the fscking lane. The
> fsckers in the root-ute and the 'oh my god my d!ck is so small, what
> can I do" Prado can wait behind you. Let them toot their big fscking
> horns if they want, who gives a flying fsck.
>
> End of story. I really should be Prime Minister. Anyone want to start a
> party??
>
> Cheers,
> Abby (fsck I love Claratyne - give me some more....)
>

Abby,

We got off that discussion 3 posts ago. Now we're discussing grammar.

To bring it back OT:
The OP was correct to claim the lane in the situation described. The
problem was the the moron in the car couldn't overtake correctly, so he
passed on the *left*, only to have to brake hard to avoid the car that
Duncan was riding behind.

Despite doing everything 'right', he was still placed in a dangerous
situation by an idiot from the shallow end of the gene pool.

Perhaps he needs one of them orange flags mounted sideways with a sharp
point on the tip... or a shotgun.

--
BrettS

 

[Duncan]

Absent Husband wrote:

> 1. If you have a shoulder to ride on, then fscking ride in it. Don't be
> a d!ck. Even if its fun to p!ss off the crazy ute driver. Even if its
> only a short distance.

you missed the point of the OP.

I didn't ride in the middle of the lane to ******** the ute driver
(though it did), I rode there to avoid having to merge back into
traffic that was going slower that I could, less than 15s after I'd
have gone onto the shoulder.

It was infinitely more safe (and is so, every time I ride that piece of
road) to claim the lane.

Do you ride in those roundabout bicycle lane shoulders, too?

duncan

 

[scotty72]

On 2006-09-15, scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
> The point becomes mute if it actions in the point are illegal.

*MOOT*, damnit! *MOOT*! Not mute!

Mute == silent. Moot == no longer practically applicable.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

Oh dear me.

I fired off a quick point to a news group on the net without first devoting time to check the integrity of my textual discourse. Un-be-liev-a-ble!

This is just the sort of thing we all have to put up with...
Or should that be, 'This is the sort of thing up with which we all must put'?


I was particularly outraged when Captain Kirk said those words, 'To boldly go...' What an idiot! Splitting an infinitive.

 

[TimC]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 at 01:30 GMT, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:33:11 +1000
> Resound <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In most cases I'd agree with you, but through a roundabout is definitely a
>> time to claim the lane. You're going to be there for all of ten seconds and
>> they can get past after that.
>
> Except the passing happened in a 100m stretch where there appears to
> have been room for the car to pass and get ahead. If he'd pulled over
> instead of claiming then, it seems the car could have passed safely
> and not screamed past, and pulled in hard.

What makes you think Duncan was going any slower down the 100m section
of hill any slower than any reasonable person in any other vehicle,
and hence why do you think he should have pulled in when he obviously
would not have been expected to pull in had he been driving a
commodore at the same pace?

--
TimC
According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics
are totally worthless.

 

[TimC]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 at 11:25 GMT, beerwolf (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Stuart Lamble wrote:
>
>> Believe it or not, I have, in the past, deliberately sat my car behind a
>> cyclist at 30 kph in a 70 kph zone. Reason? The corner where I want to
>> turn is only a couple hundred metres up the road, and the time I "save"
>> by overtaking is negligible - maybe ten seconds. I'm just as happy to
>> move behind the cyclist, turn left, and proceed on my merry way.
>>
>> Plus this way, there's zero chance that I'll cut off a cyclist who's
>> moving faster than I think he is.

Or even inconvenience them if you can't make the turn as quickly as
you wanted, and they have to wait for you, whereas they wouldn't have
had to wait if you didn't overtake.

> Being a 70kph zone, I presume it's double lane?
> As a cyclist, I actually feel pretty uncomfortable if a driver hangs
> behind me for no apparent reason, when there's clear road ahead
> and it's safe to overtake.

I don't. I realise they might be turning soon. I've had enough cases
of where I had waved someone through, and it turned out they were
about to turn.

If they're showing obvious signs of happily and patiently driving
behind you, they're obviously skilled drivers, and hence why should
you worry about them placing risks on you? They're not going to rear
end you, and no car behind them is going to rear end or sideswipe you
until after they complete the turn, and after visibility returns to
those behind.

> When I drive, I try to see things from the perspective of any
> cyclist I see. So in the scenario you describe, with 200m to go
> I might overtake and make the turn (but leaving a wide safety
> margin). But maybe the cyclist feels differently from me about
> cars behind.......

I absolutely loath them doing that -- even if they get sufficiently
far enough to make a turn, I don't know whether they are going to have
to stop suddenly with their bum hanging out into the road, because a
pedestrian just happened to start to cross the side street. And then
about half the motorists who do this end up making an inadequate
judgement anyway of just how much room they do have, and how do I know
that you know what you are doing? I'm going to have to assume that
I'm going to have to perform an evasive manevour, so you end up
slowing me down (why do car drivers hate us slowing them down, but
they don't give a second thought to them slowing us down). I'd just
rather you waited patiently.

And by going wide, do you mean you turn left from the right hand lane
(or half thereof)? Illegally? Just like the dicheads who keep going
"straight ahead" up burwood road, from the right hand lane, cutting in
just missing both me and the traffic island?

--
TimC
"The application failed to fail"

 

[TimC]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 at 05:33 GMT, Stuart Lamble (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On 2006-09-15, scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The point becomes mute if it actions in the point are illegal.
>
> *MOOT*, damnit! *MOOT*! Not mute!

Oi, I was going to say that. We must read the same alt.pedantic
newsgroups or something.

PS. I heard cfsmtb pronounce it as "mute" in her radio interview

--
TimC
Yesterday, after years of trying, I finally managed to take a photo of a
subway train that said "INSTRUCTION CAR" just so that someday I can caption
it "...but where's the DATA CDR?" when I'm ready to make a joke that's
nerdy even by the standards of jokes about LISP. -- James "Kibo" Perry

 

[TimC]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 at 06:30 GMT, Absent Husband (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> I can't fscking believe you guys are still discussing this. FFS, does
> anyone remember the "What does Share The Road mean????" thread??????
>
> Listen to Abby - he know everything:
>
> 1. If you have a shoulder to ride on, then fscking ride in it. Don't be
> a d!ck. Even if its fun to p!ss off the crazy ute driver. Even if its
> only a short distance.

And especially if there's glass and potholes on the shoulder, if the
surface is rougher, or maintained to a lesser extent. You're a
cyclist, you're only riding a toy, and we only give you rights to use
the road for hysterical raisins er, historical reasons.

(There are some bizaare signs up in Coonarabran, banning cyclists.
Mostly apparently for the footpath, but there is one on the road that
the RTA office sits on, and there is no associated footpath. I
neglected to ask the RTA office both times I went in, WTF the deal
was.)

--
TimC
Keyboard Not Found: Press <F1> to Continue

 

[TimC]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 at 23:05 GMT, Shane Stanley (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "DaveH" <AnyDave(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Whilst cyclists have every right to claim the lane, the simple courtesey of
>> allowing impatient motorists (who had been noticed) the opportunity to pass
>> them safely will produce a better outcome for both parties.
>
> There's also the matter of rewarding extremely aggressive behavior --
> you're teaching the hoon that the way to get what he wants is to rev his
> engine and creep closer and closer. Proving to him that intimidation
> works may well produce a worse outcome for lots of parties.

Much better to rub his nose in his own ****. Heh heh heh.

--
TimC
Shift to the Left;
Shift to the Right
Pop up; Push down
Byte! Byte! Byte!!! --unknown

 

[TimC]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 at 02:12 GMT, OzCableguy (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> "DaveH" <AnyDave(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Such acts would improve the relationship between motorists and cyclists
>> and they might think better of them.
>
> I think it's more about letting a potential road rager move on and pick on
> someone else. I know I've been guilty of retaliating with the finger or
> aggressive behaviour in the past with these jokers and I've since learnt
> that's exactly the wrong thing to do if I want to both stay alive and enjoy
> my cycling.

If you're after extremely short term solutions. A good way to
*guarantee* that he'll be back again within the hour, doing it to
someone else. Because in his lowly primative brain, it worked as
positive reinforcement. He got what he wanted by the extrememly manly
action of stepping on a pedal.

Despite his threatening behavour, Duncan is still alive. Even the ute
driver, with brains smaller than his penis (and that's saying
something!), is unlikely to going to want to *kill* someone. So I
think, even if the ute driver had a chance of overtaking safely, his
prior behaviour would gaurantee that I'd be telling him to go fsck
himself up the **** with a stingray barb. But I'm just diplomatic and
opionated.

> Let 'em go and give 'em no further thought.

And pass the problem onto someone else. Excellent idea.

--
TimC
If anyone tells me to work smarter, not harder, I will kick him
or her, hard, in a random body part. I will then kick him or her
a second time, "smarter, not harder," which is to say that on the
second strike, I'll use the same force, but target more carefully.
-- Catherine in Scary Devil Monastery

 

[TimC]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 at 03:07 GMT, LotteBum (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> DaveH Wrote:
>> I'm not saying you did anything "wrong", merely pointing out that you
>> could have done something "kind" and allowed the ******** to pass at
>> the earliest opportunity, waved him through even. . .
> I agree entirely with what you're saying. Tiny-**** in the dunnydore
> probably would have driven away feeling a right knob too.

********. You're attributing emotional intelligence that never
existed, to the driver. He wouldn't feel any the worse.

--
TimC
I'm not a procrastinator! I'm temporally challenged! --unknown

 

[Resound]

> Bicycles may pass on the left on cars - mostly we are forced to
> squeeze. The law recognise this.
>
> We can squeeze, they cannot. Entirely sensible as if we mijudge,
> we will most like just hurt ourselves. If they misjudge...
>
> Scotty
>
"forced" to, eh? Is that that the same as cars being "forced" to overtake
unsafely because they're being held up by the nasty slow cyclist?

 

[Dave Hughes]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:39:22 +0000, TimC wrote:

> Oi, I was going to say that. We must read the same alt.pedantic
> newsgroups or something.
>
> PS. I heard cfsmtb pronounce it as "mute" in her radio interview
^^^^^^^

*BLAM*

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
Any commentary about doing something "for the children" has no place in
polite society unless heavily inflected with sarcasm or uttered by
Helen Lovejoy -- Pete Vonder Haar, A Perfectly Cromulent Blog

 

[beerwolf]

TimC wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 at 11:25 GMT, beerwolf (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Stuart Lamble wrote:
>>
>>> Believe it or not, I have, in the past, deliberately sat my car behind a
>>> cyclist at 30 kph in a 70 kph zone. Reason? The corner where I want to
>>> turn is only a couple hundred metres up the road, and the time I "save"
>>> by overtaking is negligible - maybe ten seconds. I'm just as happy to
>>> move behind the cyclist, turn left, and proceed on my merry way.
>>>
>>> Plus this way, there's zero chance that I'll cut off a cyclist who's
>>> moving faster than I think he is.
>
> Or even inconvenience them if you can't make the turn as quickly as
> you wanted, and they have to wait for you, whereas they wouldn't have
> had to wait if you didn't overtake.
>
>> Being a 70kph zone, I presume it's double lane?
>> As a cyclist, I actually feel pretty uncomfortable if a driver hangs
>> behind me for no apparent reason, when there's clear road ahead
>> and it's safe to overtake.
>
> I don't. I realise they might be turning soon. I've had enough cases
> of where I had waved someone through, and it turned out they were
> about to turn.
>
> If they're showing obvious signs of happily and patiently driving
> behind you, they're obviously skilled drivers, and hence why should
> you worry about them placing risks on you? They're not going to rear
> end you, and no car behind them is going to rear end or sideswipe you
> until after they complete the turn, and after visibility returns to
> those behind.
>
>> When I drive, I try to see things from the perspective of any
>> cyclist I see. So in the scenario you describe, with 200m to go
>> I might overtake and make the turn (but leaving a wide safety
>> margin). But maybe the cyclist feels differently from me about
>> cars behind.......
>
> I absolutely loath them doing that -- even if they get sufficiently
> far enough to make a turn, I don't know whether they are going to have
> to stop suddenly with their bum hanging out into the road, because a
> pedestrian just happened to start to cross the side street. And then
> about half the motorists who do this end up making an inadequate
> judgement anyway of just how much room they do have, and how do I know
> that you know what you are doing? I'm going to have to assume that
> I'm going to have to perform an evasive manevour, so you end up
> slowing me down (why do car drivers hate us slowing them down, but
> they don't give a second thought to them slowing us down). I'd just
> rather you waited patiently.
>
> And by going wide, do you mean you turn left from the right hand lane
> (or half thereof)? Illegally? Just like the dicheads who keep going
> "straight ahead" up burwood road, from the right hand lane, cutting in
> just missing both me and the traffic island?

I said "wide", but I meant "long". This particular sub-thread could
easily degenerate into a "when conditions x, y and z are met, but a and
b are not, and the cyclist is ..... " type of thing, whereas in real life
every
situation is unique and decisions are made on the basis of imperfect
information and best guesses. I'm sure I make a bad decision sometimes,
and try to ensure that it's infrequent. Suffice it to say that, whatever my
mode of transport, I consider that I failed if another road user had to hit
their brakes (in absence of traffic lights, zebra crossing, give way sign
etc).

Regarding Duncan's original post, I kind of get the impression that
smalldick behaved in that fashion *because* of the presence of a cyclist.
I think a minority of drivers are annoyed more by a minor inconvenience
from a cyclist than from the same problem caused by another motorist.
These guys are only going to be cured by an empathy transplant.

--
beerwolf (remove numbers from email address)

 

[cfsmtb]

Oi, I was going to say that. We must read the same alt.pedantic
newsgroups or something.

PS. I heard cfsmtb pronounce it as "mute" in her radio interview

No, it's "moot", put it down to a compressed mp3 and my rather broad strine.