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?


You have not answered my question.

On 01/01/2017 18:17, 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?

You have not answered my question.

Evidence.

His actions (as described) were those of a nasty thug. A nasty thug - at
least one of them - must therefore look just like that.

Does it look a bit like you?

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:17:20 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
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*.

And the childish abuse starts once again.


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).

Common assault only requires the threat of unlawful violence.


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.

Precisely, there is no evidence to support the reportee's story

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

More childish abuse.



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.


And this proves what?

All we know is that a pedestrian confronted a law abiding cyclist in an aggressive manor and the victim was prepared to defend himself, at which point the aggressor ran away and decided to get his version of events in first with the police.


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?

I prefer to deal with facts, not your fantasy world.

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:20:03 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 18:17, 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?

You have not answered my question.

Evidence.

His actions (as described) were those of a nasty thug. A nasty thug - at
least one of them - must therefore look just like that.

Does it look a bit like you?

You said you judged his thuggishness from the photo.
Just answer the question.

On Sunday, 1 January 2017 16:03:56 UTC, wrote:

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.

What worries me is that the innocent cyclist was attacked by a "frail" 60 year old man who then went off crying to his mummy.

I am 60 next year and can assure you that if some thug came up to me, I would deck him with a single punch 60 or no 60.

On 01/01/2017 18:27, wrote:

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:17:20 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
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*.

And the childish abuse starts once again.

What?

Coming from someone who, in the previous line had described someone who
refuses to try to construct lies out of a report whose veracity is not
seriously in question, as a "bigot", one wonders where your sense of
irony has disappeared to.

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).

Common assault only requires the threat of unlawful violence.

Correctamundo.

Check out the big brain on Mycroft.

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.

Precisely, there is no evidence to support the reportee's story

Why is any needed?

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

More childish abuse.

You're a bigot.

Is that better?

You are also a fantasist and a semi-literate, but you presumably won't
take offence at "bigot" unless you are also a hypocrite (which
possibility I merely thrown in there for discussion).

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.

And this proves what?

It is *evidence*. Do you know what evidence is?

There is, of course, no evidence to the contrary (apart from your
fantasies, which are not evidence).

All we know is that a pedestrian confrnted a law abiding cyclist in an aggressive manor

Oxford City Council do indeed do some very silly things, but describing
the place as an agressive manor is probably OTT.

and the victim was prepared to defend himself, at which point the aggressor ran away and decided to get his version of events in first with the police.

No. That's your fantasy getting another airing.

It is not what was reported.

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?

I prefer to deal with facts, not your fantasy world.

You are the fantasist bigot.

On 01/01/2017 18:29, wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:20:03 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 18:17, 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?

You have not answered my question.

Evidence.

His actions (as described) were those of a nasty thug. A nasty thug - at
least one of them - must therefore look just like that.

Does it look a bit like you?

You said you judged his thuggishness from the photo.

I certainly did *not*.

This is another of your bigoted fantasies.

Just answer the question.

I have done so.

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:40:24 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 18:29, wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:20:03 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 18:17, 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?

You have not answered my question.

Evidence.

His actions (as described) were those of a nasty thug. A nasty thug - at
least one of them - must therefore look just like that.

Does it look a bit like you?

You said you judged his thuggishness from the photo.

I certainly did *not*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_Bay

Just down the road from here.
I think you will feel at home.

wrote:
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 ******.

Cycling is: (credits to somebody else)

Painfully slow.
Involves great physical effort.
You get soaked/frozen/roasted/blown over by the weather.
Makes you sweaty & smelly.
Cause piles.
Reduces sperm count.
Makes you dress like an extra in a gay rave movie.
You are unable to atract women.
Unable to carry passengers or goods.
People laugh at you.
Makes you a sponging freeloader.
Leaves you vulnerable to proper traffic.
Pedestrians and drivers hate you.

http://www.edexam.com.au/wp-content/.../05/******.jpg

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 20:03:56 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

wrote:
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 ******.

Cycling is: (credits to somebody else)

Painfully slow.
Involves great physical effort.
You get soaked/frozen/roasted/blown over by the weather.
Makes you sweaty & smelly.
Cause piles.
Reduces sperm count.
Makes you dress like an extra in a gay rave movie.
You are unable to atract women.
Unable to carry passengers or goods.
People laugh at you.
Makes you a sponging freeloader.
Leaves you vulnerable to proper traffic.
Pedestrians and drivers hate you.

ROTFPMSL!

http://www.edexam.com.au/wp-content/.../05/******.jpg

--
A woman was standing at the edge of a cliff trying to get the nerve to jump off.
A homeless drunk stopped and mumbled, "If you're about to kill yourself, how about a shag before you go?"
The woman was angry and said, "No! **** off you filthy old *******!"
The tramp turned to leave and said, "No problem, I'll just go and wait at the bottom then."