cyclists turned right when i overtook

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Really? Wasn't it you who said "I recently had an accident with a cyclist" yet are now desperately back-pedalling(!) and trying to claim you didn't? I understand your knowledge and reasons better than you do.

Yet again you are selectively ignoring information.
How many times have I called you out for this?
How many times are you going to repeat this comment only for me to point out that you haev selectively ignored other information?

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

More fiction from you, kraken. As others have pointed out, the reports don't show that but just as a favour to you, I'll let you in on a little secret: It wasn't me who reported your posts. In fact, I was alerted to them by a third party (thanks) and that's why I came back here to comment. I wouldn't dream of getting your responses deleted, they are so entertaining. :rotfl:

Nobody believes you.
not least because you have been constantly responding to my posts since long before anything was deleted.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Oh, kraken, I forgot to ask: What stance did your insurers take? Have you had to stump up the excess yet? How are the premiums looking?

You are embarrassing yourself --- again

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

You are embarrassing yourself --- again

:rotfl: Brilliant!

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

Yet again you are selectively ignoring information.
How many times have I called you out for this?
How many times are you going to repeat this comment only for me to point out that you haev selectively ignored other information?



Nobody believes you.
not least because you have been constantly responding to my posts since long before anything was deleted.

That's where you and I are fundamentally different.

You lie and get wound up when people criticise you for it.

I don't lie and don't really care if you think I do.

As I said, I get such enjoyment from your posts, why would I ask for them to be deleted? Your super-secret-cyber-spy tactics aren't very good, are they?! :rotfl:

Mercdriver

kraken776 wrote: »

You are embarrassing yourself --- again

Oh Grow up. Here's a more suitable website for you:

http://www.fisher-price.com/en_GB/index.html

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

Yet again you are selectively ignoring information.

This is priceless, coming from the man who selectively ignored:

- the existence of a second cyclist;
- speed humps;
- a cycle lane;
- an upcoming width restriction;
- various other signals that suggested overtaking should have waited;
- anyone who dared to criticise his actions or offer an opinion that differs from his.

Which information of yours should I selectively ignore anyway? The bit where you said you had an accident with a cyclist or the bit where you claim you didn't?

Sicard

:shhh: Why are you feeding the virus?

Nobbie1967

Laurie_Sicard-Askey wrote: »

:shhh: Why are you feeding the virus?

For amusement

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

This is priceless, coming from the man who selectively ignored:

- the existence of a second cyclist;
- speed humps;
- a cycle lane;
- an upcoming width restriction;
- various other signals that suggested overtaking should have waited;
- anyone who dared to criticise his actions or offer an opinion that differs from his.

Which information of yours should I selectively ignore anyway? The bit where you said you had an accident with a cyclist or the bit where you claim you didn't?

My god
you cant type anything without humiliating yourself can you.

First of all you have completely ignored everything from my previous post and instead attempted to construct an ad hominem attack. By doing this you have demonstrated that you dont have a rational response to what i said and that you know you have lost the argument.

Why did you even attempt this?
did you honsestly think there was any possibility that i would not call you out for this.

I will now go though the things you claim that i selectivity ignored one by one

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

- the existence of a second cyclist;

nope
I was very aware of this.
I attempted to overtake 2 cyclists, there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing this and so far no one on this thread has given any explanation as to why this could possibly be wrong.

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

- speed humps;

nope
I was very aware of this.
I attempted to overtake 2 cyclists, there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing this and so far no one on this thread has given any explanation as to why this could possibly be wrong.

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

- a cycle lane;

This was not visible from the position where i attempted the overtake, I have pointed this out many many times and yet you have ignored this many may times.

The fact that you would use this as evidence that i "selectively ignored information" is very very funny considering you have ignored the fact that it was not visible many times.

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

- an upcoming width restriction;

as I have pointed out many times i was too far away to be relevant.

I have pointed this out many many times and yet you have ignored this many may times.

The fact that you would use this as evidence that i "selectively ignored information" is very very funny considering you have ignored the fact that it was not visible many times.

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

- various other signals that suggested overtaking should have waited;

this is a very vague comment, please list the what these are and bare in mind that if you say something absurd i will point it out.

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

- anyone who dared to criticise his actions or offer an opinion that differs from his.

This is the most absurd claim of all
I have responded to many people who "dared to criticise" and in doing so, by definition, did not ignore them

bigadaj

Ah well, schools are back in a week or so.