Attack on cyclists never happen out of the blue says JNugent

"we can safely assume that the man with the hammer didn't just jump
out of his car and assault the first cyclist to come along."

JNugent (for it is he) Sept 10th.

A lesson for us all in avoidance of assault. Just do nothing that
could possibly be accidentally misinterpreted by any motorist (even
Ol' Medicated). Stay at home basically. Or, if you must travel and
thereby impede the traffic, at least do not be the first cyclist to
come along.

On 13/09/2011 09:54, Squashme wrote:

"we can safely assume that the man with the hammer didn't just jump
out of his car and assault the first cyclist to come along."

JNugent (for it is he) Sept 10th.

A lesson for us all in avoidance of assault. Just do nothing that
could possibly be accidentally misinterpreted by any motorist (even
Ol' Medicated). Stay at home basically. Or, if you must travel and
thereby impede the traffic, at least do not be the first cyclist to
come along.

Are you so drunk so early?

It's not yet 10:00 am.

On Sep 13, 9:58*am, JNugent wrote:
On 13/09/2011 09:54, Squashme wrote:

"we can safely assume that the man with the hammer didn't just jump
out of his car and assault the first cyclist to come along."
JNugent (for it is he) Sept 10th.
A lesson for us all in avoidance of assault. Just do nothing that
could possibly be accidentally misinterpreted by any motorist (even
Ol' Medicated). Stay at home basically. Or, if you must travel and
thereby impede the traffic, at least do not be the first cyclist to
come along.

Are you so drunk so early?

It's not yet 10:00 am.

That's not your best argument. You are often better than that.
Admittedly I have no right to expect anything, but surely your self-
respect would ... (slips off chair, snores)

On 13/09/2011 10:04, Squashme wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:58 am, wrote:
On 13/09/2011 09:54, Squashme wrote:

"we can safely assume that the man with the hammer didn't just jump
out of his car and assault the first cyclist to come along."
JNugent (for it is he) Sept 10th.
A lesson for us all in avoidance of assault. Just do nothing that
could possibly be accidentally misinterpreted by any motorist (even
Ol' Medicated). Stay at home basically. Or, if you must travel and
thereby impede the traffic, at least do not be the first cyclist to
come along.

Are you so drunk so early?

It's not yet 10:00 am.

That's not your best argument.

In the circumstances, nothing like my best argument is required.

Why don't you come back and post something sensible when you're sober?

Then you could make a start by reinstating the context you butchered,
couldn't you?

But get some sleep first, a few hours at least, followed by a couple of
aspirins drowned in strong black coffee.

On 13/09/2011 09:54, Squashme wrote:

"we can safely assume that the man with the hammer didn't just jump
out of his car and assault the first cyclist to come along."

JNugent (for it is he) Sept 10th.

A lesson for us all in avoidance of assault. Just do nothing that
could possibly be accidentally misinterpreted by any motorist (even
Ol' Medicated). Stay at home basically. Or, if you must travel and
thereby impede the traffic, at least do not be the first cyclist to
come along.

Your subject line is not what he posted, and your comments miss the
context (which you snipped) in which he posted the part you quoted.

You seem to be deliberately misrepresenting what was actually posted.

--
Psyched
add d to reply email

On Sep 13, 10:11*am, JNugent wrote:
On 13/09/2011 10:04, Squashme wrote:









On Sep 13, 9:58 am, *wrote:
On 13/09/2011 09:54, Squashme wrote:

"we can safely assume that the man with the hammer didn't just jump
out of his car and assault the first cyclist to come along."
JNugent (for it is he) Sept 10th.
A lesson for us all in avoidance of assault. Just do nothing that
could possibly be accidentally misinterpreted by any motorist (even
Ol' Medicated). Stay at home basically. Or, if you must travel and
thereby impede the traffic, at least do not be the first cyclist to
come along.

Are you so drunk so early?

It's not yet 10:00 am.

That's not your best argument.

In the circumstances, nothing like my best argument is required.


[wriggle snipped]

What are your grounds for your safe assumption "that the man with the
hammer didn't just jump out of his car and assault the first cyclist
to come along."? He appears to have assaulted the cyclist after
colliding with him. Is it safe to assume that the motorist didn't just
ram the first cyclist to come along?

---------------------------------

Apologies for dropped s in subject line. It should read "Attacks on
cyclists never happen out of the blue says JNugent "

On 13/09/2011 11:31, Squashme wrote:

On Sep 13, 10:11 am, wrote:
On 13/09/2011 10:04, Squashme wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:58 am, wrote:
On 13/09/2011 09:54, Squashme wrote:

"we can safely assume that the man with the hammer didn't just jump
out of his car and assault the first cyclist to come along."
JNugent (for it is he) Sept 10th.
A lesson for us all in avoidance of assault. Just do nothing that
could possibly be accidentally misinterpreted by any motorist (even
Ol' Medicated). Stay at home basically. Or, if you must travel and
thereby impede the traffic, at least do not be the first cyclist to
come along.

Are you so drunk so early?
It's not yet 10:00 am.

That's not your best argument.

In the circumstances, nothing like my best argument is required.

[wriggle snipped]

I can reinstate that if you like.

What are your grounds for your safe assumption "that the man with the
hammer didn't just jump out of his car and assault the first cyclist
to come along."? He appears to have assaulted the cyclist after
colliding with him.

You've just answered your own question, haven't you?

And you actually appear to know more about the case than I did, proving that
I was right, even though I was relying upon mere probability.

How many cases are there of random hammer attacks (on anyone, by anyone)?

There are some, but mercifully, they are very rare. Not rare enough, but
still rare.

And how many altercations occur daily after traffic accidents and near-misses?

In practical terms, too many to count, I would suggest.

So what *are* you trying to argue about?

After stating that the incident happened after a traffic accident (rather
than as a result of a driver with a hammer assaulting the first cyclist to
come along), are you trying to pretend that it somehow didn't?

On 13/09/2011 10:53, Psyched wrote:

On 13/09/2011 09:54, Squashme wrote:

"we can safely assume that the man with the hammer didn't just jump
out of his car and assault the first cyclist to come along."

JNugent (for it is he) Sept 10th.

A lesson for us all in avoidance of assault. Just do nothing that
could possibly be accidentally misinterpreted by any motorist (even
Ol' Medicated). Stay at home basically. Or, if you must travel and
thereby impede the traffic, at least do not be the first cyclist to
come along.

Your subject line is not what he posted, and your comments miss the context
(which you snipped) in which he posted the part you quoted.
You seem to be deliberately misrepresenting what was actually posted.

Thanks for the intervention, but not to worry.

Squashme's output is highly variable.

Sometimes, though certainly not always, he posts with intelligence and
obvious signs of culture and wit which one can only admire, regardless of
whether one agrees with what he says.

But, at other times, he posts like he does today.

I suspect that some sort of substance might possibly be at the bottom of it.
It affects many of us from time to time, of course. But that's usually around
midnight.

On Sep 13, 1:01*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 13/09/2011 10:53, Psyched wrote:

On 13/09/2011 09:54, Squashme wrote:
"we can safely assume that the man with the hammer didn't just jump
out of his car and assault the first cyclist to come along."
JNugent (for it is he) Sept 10th.
A lesson for us all in avoidance of assault. Just do nothing that
could possibly be accidentally misinterpreted by any motorist (even
Ol' Medicated). Stay at home basically. Or, if you must travel and
thereby impede the traffic, at least do not be the first cyclist to
come along.
Your subject line is not what he posted, and your comments miss the context
(which you snipped) in which he posted the part you quoted.
You seem to be deliberately misrepresenting what was actually posted.

Thanks for the intervention, but not to worry.

Squashme's output is highly variable.

Sometimes, though certainly not always, he posts with intelligence and
obvious signs of culture and wit which one can only admire, regardless of
whether one agrees with what he says.

But, at other times, he posts like he does today.

I suspect that some sort of substance might possibly be at the bottom of it.
It affects many of us from time to time, of course. But that's usually around
midnight.

Don't encourage her.

On Sep 13, 12:36*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 13/09/2011 11:31, Squashme wrote:









On Sep 13, 10:11 am, *wrote:
On 13/09/2011 10:04, Squashme wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:58 am, * *wrote:
On 13/09/2011 09:54, Squashme wrote:
"we can safely assume that the man with the hammer didn't just jump
out of his car and assault the first cyclist to come along."
JNugent (for it is he) Sept 10th.
A lesson for us all in avoidance of assault. Just do nothing that
could possibly be accidentally misinterpreted by any motorist (even
Ol' Medicated). Stay at home basically. Or, if you must travel and
thereby impede the traffic, at least do not be the first cyclist to
come along.
Are you so drunk so early?
It's not yet 10:00 am.
That's not your best argument.
In the circumstances, nothing like my best argument is required.
[wriggle snipped]

I can reinstate that if you like.

What are your grounds for your safe assumption "that the man with the
hammer didn't just jump out of his car and assault the first cyclist
to come along."? He appears to have assaulted the cyclist after
colliding with him.

You've just answered your own question, haven't you?

And you actually appear to know more about the case than I did, proving that
I was right, even though I was relying upon mere probability.

How many cases are there of random hammer attacks (on anyone, by anyone)?

There are some, but mercifully, they are very rare. Not rare enough, but
still rare.

And how many altercations occur daily after traffic accidents and near-misses?

In practical terms, too many to count, I would suggest.

So what *are* you trying to argue about?

After stating that the incident happened after a traffic accident (rather
than as a result of a driver with a hammer assaulting the first cyclist to
come along), are you trying to pretend that it somehow didn't?

How do you know that the "collision" was an accident? The possession
of a hammer, the leaving the car and attacking the cyclist were not
accidental. Nor was the motorist being 20 years of age accidental.
Is it safe to assume that the motorist didn't just ram the first
cyclist to come along? You have admitted that random hammer attacks do
happen, despite their rarity. So do random rammings, which are also
rare. And a hammer attacker is a more likely bet to have carried out a
random ramming of the first cyclist to come along, than is an ordinary
fallible motorist who has an "innocent" collision.