CycleBanter.com

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)
-   UK (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Photo of cyclist Police are hunting after assault on pedestrian (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=253432)

MrCheerful January 1st 17 04:01 PM

Photo of cyclist Police are hunting after assault on pedestrian
 
Nasty looking thug.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/149..._over/?ref=rss

[email protected] January 1st 17 05:03 PM

Photo of cyclist Police are hunting after assault on pedestrian
 
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:01:10 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
Nasty looking thug.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/149..._over/?ref=rss


A bully assaulted an innocent cyclist then ran to his mummy when the victim stood up to him.


jnugent January 1st 17 06:25 PM

Photo of cyclist Police are hunting after assault on pedestrian
 
On 01/01/2017 16:03, wrote:

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:01:10 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:


Nasty looking thug.


Agreed.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/149..._over/?ref=rss

A bully assaulted an innocent cyclist then ran to his mummy when the victim stood up to him...


....is a description of a different - and totally imaginary - incident.

[email protected] January 1st 17 06:45 PM

Photo of cyclist Police are hunting after assault on pedestrian
 
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:25:13 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 16:03, wrote:

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:01:10 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:


Nasty looking thug.


Agreed.


Apart from the silly hat why do you say this is nasty looking thug?
What metric do you use to determine a person's facial thuggishness?

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/149..._over/?ref=rss

A bully assaulted an innocent cyclist then ran to his mummy when the victim stood up to him...


...is a description of a different - and totally imaginary - incident.


No, it's a valid interpretation of the reported 'facts' from someone who was not there.
You, for example.


Mr Pounder Esquire January 1st 17 06:49 PM

Photo of cyclist Police are hunting after assault on pedestrian
 
wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:25:13 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 16:03,
wrote:

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:01:10 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:


Nasty looking thug.


Agreed.


Apart from the silly hat why do you say this is nasty looking thug?


He is a good judge of personality.
So am I.
You are a ******.

What metric do you use to determine a person's facial thuggishness?

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/149..._over/?ref=rss

A bully assaulted an innocent cyclist then ran to his mummy when
the victim stood up to him...


...is a description of a different - and totally imaginary -
incident.


No, it's a valid interpretation of the reported 'facts' from someone
who was not there. You, for example.




jnugent January 1st 17 06:49 PM

Photo of cyclist Police are hunting after assault on pedestrian
 
On 01/01/2017 17:45, wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:25:13 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 16:03,
wrote:

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:01:10 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:


Nasty looking thug.


Agreed.


Apart from the silly hat why do you say this is nasty looking thug?
What metric do you use to determine a person's facial thuggishness?

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/149..._over/?ref=rss

A bully assaulted an innocent cyclist then ran to his mummy when the victim stood up to him...


...is a description of a different - and totally imaginary - incident.


No, it's a valid interpretation of the reported 'facts' from someone who was not there.
You, for example.


I would never construct such a stupid "interpretation" from such a report.

But you did.

The report does not support your fanciful re-imagining of reality.

There is no report of an assault on a cyclist, for a start. But there
*is* a report of an assault on the victim, pepetrated by a cyclist.

Are you trying to live down to a New year's Resolution?



James Wilkinson Sword[_4_] January 1st 17 07:00 PM

Photo of cyclist Police are hunting after assault on pedestrian
 
On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 17:49:27 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:25:13 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 16:03,
wrote:

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:01:10 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

Nasty looking thug.

Agreed.


Apart from the silly hat why do you say this is nasty looking thug?


He is a good judge of personality.
So am I.
You are a ******.


I agree, you can tell most criminals by looking at them.

What metric do you use to determine a person's facial thuggishness?

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/149..._over/?ref=rss

A bully assaulted an innocent cyclist then ran to his mummy when
the victim stood up to him...

...is a description of a different - and totally imaginary -
incident.


No, it's a valid interpretation of the reported 'facts' from someone
who was not there. You, for example.






--
If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

[email protected] January 1st 17 07:04 PM

Photo of cyclist Police are hunting after assault on pedestrian
 
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:49:50 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 17:45, wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:25:13 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 16:03,
wrote:

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:01:10 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

Nasty looking thug.

Agreed.


Apart from the silly hat why do you say this is nasty looking thug?
What metric do you use to determine a person's facial thuggishness?

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/149..._over/?ref=rss

A bully assaulted an innocent cyclist then ran to his mummy when the victim stood up to him...

...is a description of a different - and totally imaginary - incident.


No, it's a valid interpretation of the reported 'facts' from someone who was not there.
You, for example.


I would never construct such a stupid "interpretation" from such a report.


Because you are a bigot.


But you did.

The report does not support your fanciful re-imagining of reality.


In your fantasy world where cyclists can do no right.


There is no report of an assault on a cyclist, for a start. But there
*is* a report of an assault on the victim, pepetrated by a cyclist.


Where was the alleged assault on the initiator of the unnecessary confrontation?
The cyclist was just going about his lawful business.


Are you trying to live down to a New year's Resolution?


Not getting into an argument with a child using an adult keyboard would be a good one.




[email protected] January 1st 17 07:10 PM

Photo of cyclist Police are hunting after assault on pedestrian
 
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:49:45 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:25:13 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 16:03,
wrote:

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:01:10 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

Nasty looking thug.

Agreed.


Apart from the silly hat why do you say this is nasty looking thug?


He is a good judge of personality.
So am I.
You are a ******.


Define ******.

jnugent January 1st 17 07:17 PM

Photo of cyclist Police are hunting after assault on pedestrian
 
On 01/01/2017 18:04, wrote:

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:49:50 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 17:45,
wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:25:13 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 16:03,
wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:01:10 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:


Nasty looking thug.


Agreed.


Apart from the silly hat why do you say this is nasty looking thug?
What metric do you use to determine a person's facial thuggishness?


http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/149..._over/?ref=rss

A bully assaulted an innocent cyclist then ran to his mummy when the victim stood up to him...


...is a description of a different - and totally imaginary - incident.


No, it's a valid interpretation of the reported 'facts' from someone who was not there.
You, for example.


I would never construct such a stupid "interpretation" from such a report.


Because you are a bigot.


If your definition of "bigot" is someone who declines to falsify
reality, you are smi-literate at best.

At *best*.

But you did.
The report does not support your fanciful re-imagining of reality.


In your fantasy world where cyclists can do no right.


You are the fantasist.

The pedestrian victim, according to the report, *was* assaulted (look up
"assault", if you know how to do that).

The cyclist thug (any problem with that epithet?) did the assaukting.

It's what is says in the report.

The report might be right.

It might be wrong.

But that's what it *says*. It does not support your fanciful and
semi-literate re-write.

There is no report of an assault on a cyclist, for a start. But there
*is* a report of an assault on the victim, pepetrated by a cyclist.


Where was the alleged assault on the initiator of the unnecessary confrontation?
The cyclist was just going about his lawful business.


That appers not to be the view of the victim.

When there is a report of a street robbery, do you immediately prefer to
believe what you imagine would be said by the thief who has scarpered
with the ill-gotten gains?

Or the victim?

Are you trying to live down to a New year's Resolution?


Not getting into an argument with a child using an adult keyboard would be a good one.


It would.

Not lying and making things up would be even better. I recommend it to
you as a more useful resolution for you.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:38 AM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com