cyclists turned right when i overtook

Joe_Horner

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Careful, or he'll "call you out" on your mistakes. :rotfl:

He can call me in, out, or shake-it-all-about for all I care, he still needs to learn what constitutes a hazard on the roads

Fat_Walt

Joe_Horner wrote: »

He can call me in, out, or shake-it-all-about for all I care, he still needs to learn what constitutes a hazard on the roads

He's a bell end and will never learn.

ElefantEd

kraken776 wrote: »

Wow
Just WOW!

You have made many mistakes in this post
Mistakes which you have made MANY times before and which i have called you out for MANY times before.

You really do never learn do you.

MISTAKE NUMBER ONE

Originally Posted by Aylesbury Duck
Oh, the accident happened alright.

This statement is incorrect was no accident.

You knocked the cyclist off on purpose? Shame on you.

Aylesbury_Duck

ElefantEd wrote: »

You knocked the cyclist off on purpose? Shame on you.

:rotfl: brilliant.

Manxman_in_exile

I'm pleased this thread has been resurrected - it's very amusing.


As others have pointed out the OP's turn of phrase is a bit eccentric..."Just WOW!" and "...I will call you out..."


Is that last phrase even English? I don't think I've ever seen it written down before.


Also the obsession with ad hominem attacks. One of my old philosophy lecturers reckoned ad hominem was a perfectly legitimate argument against an idiot who couldn't reason.


And, being pedantic, I thought the cyclist crossed the road to join a hitherto unseen cycle-path, not ride on the pavement.

Aylesbury_Duck

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I'm pleased this thread has been resurrected - it's very amusing.


As others have pointed out the OP's turn of phrase is a bit eccentric..."Just WOW!" and "...I will call you out..."


Is that last phrase even English? I don't think I've ever seen it written down before.


Also the obsession with ad hominem attacks. One of my old philosophy lecturers reckoned ad hominem was a perfectly legitimate argument against an idiot who couldn't reason.


And, being pedantic, I thought the cyclist crossed the road to join a hitherto unseen cycle-path, not ride on the pavement.

Somewhere in the middle of the whole thread, the OP resorted to accusations that I'd reported his posts and had them deleted. When it was pointed out that the report does not say who reported a thread, and then subsequently, two other posters confirmed that they were responsible for the reporting, the OP went strangely quiet on the matter. It was all rather ironic, given the OP's fondness for claiming others were guilty of ad hominem arguments.

The fascinating and entertaining thing about this thread is not the subject matter itself - I think there's an almost unanimous view that the OP was at fault in the collision - but the length the OP has gone to to defend his view of the collision, which is quite remarkable considering he now claims it didn't take place.

Manxman_in_exile

I think the OP is an underemployed philosophy student who has just done a logic module on the form of a valid argument.


It's a bit like the Monty Python sketch "Do you want a 10 minute argument, sir, or the full half hour?"

Aylesbury_Duck

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I think the OP is an underemployed philosophy student who has just [STRIKE]done [/STRIKE] failed a logic module on the form of a valid argument.


It's a bit like the Monty Python sketch "Do you want a 10 minute argument, sir, or the full half hour?"

I took the liberty of correcting your inadvertent mistake. :beer:

Mercdriver

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

The fascinating and entertaining thing about this thread is not the subject matter itself - I think there's an almost unanimous view that the OP was at fault in the collision

Don't tell the dragon that (Kraken is a Norwegian dragon) he thinks that people almost unanimously agree with him! But then, that's based on his failed sense of logic.

RichardD1970

Mercdriver wrote: »

Don't tell the dragon that (Kraken is a Norwegian dragon) he thinks that people almost unanimously agree with him! But then, that's based on his failed sense of logic.

Thought it was a sea monster??