Terrorist cyclists selfish, mean-spirited, dangerous and aggressive

ritcho Wrote:
Either way, the offence taken (or given) by the message is trivial
compared to the back and forth tirade of abuse that followed. In the
true sense of the word, it's a disgrace.

Our thoughts on this trival matter?

Get a room.


--
cfsmtb

permanently bewildered since the late 1960's

DRS Wrote:


It also mentioned a bunch of other stuff he either made up or twisted
beyond
recognition.

Flyingdutch said: (to Hippy, it seems)

"Yes, but you were blocking my way!!!
perhaps I shoulda shouted at you like Drs does to kids on
bikepaths..."

And that is all that appears in the message.
?

No it didnt DRS
OK, perhaps i dont know Usenet inside out like you and all the
different types of features, etc but you claim that it included "a
bunch of other stuff"
is pure rhubarb! And that's what youre invective is based on???
It would appear that it is your perception of what i said, as opposed
to what i actually said, that got you to arrive at your accusing me of
lying

You stated that you once shouted at a kid and later said you would do
so again (going on to buy a airzound, WIMHO was a good idea)

i referred to shouting at a kid 'like DRS' cos I you said that is what
you did and will continue to do, so i doubt its much of a quantum leap
to stereotype you as someone who shouts at kids on bikepaths

How you can call that 'proof' is just unbelieveable

Like i said. If you could prove it i would apologise, but that's
hollow
I will not be slandered on this any further

Some people just dont WANT to get along, for lordy's sake, but for the
betterment of the form let's try...


--
flyingdutch

"flyingdutch" wrote
in message
DRS Wrote:

It also mentioned a bunch of other stuff he either made up or twisted
beyond
recognition.

[...]

No it didnt DRS
OK, perhaps i dont know Usenet inside out like you and all the
different types of features, etc but you claim that it included "a
bunch of other stuff" is pure rhubarb!

Oh, no it bloody isn't. And that is exactly the kind of dishonesty I object
to. It manifestly refers to several instances. Of course, it would have
made things clearer if you'd left the attributions in like you're supposed
to. This is also my text in that post, quoted from a previous post
):

"I never called Hippy an idiot; I never called Hitchy either stupid or a
fool (although in his case I confess to believing both to be true); I never
called anirm stupid or a fool. You're [sic] stuff up out of thin air yet
again."

All things you accused me of which were not true.

If you want to follow that part of that thread when reading a post in Google
then click on the "View: Complete Thread" link at the upper right-hand
corner of the page.

And that's what youre invective is based on???

You've been told often enough.

It would appear that it is your perception of what i said, as opposed
to what i actually said, that got you to arrive at your accusing me of
lying

You stated that you once shouted at a kid and later said you would do
so again (going on to buy a airzound, WIMHO was a good idea)

i referred to shouting at a kid 'like DRS' cos I you said that is what
you did and will continue to do,

I said: "I only yell at the ones trying to cause an accident." That's
called context.

so i doubt its much of a quantum leap
to stereotype you as someone who shouts at kids on bikepaths

How you can call that 'proof' is just unbelieveable

It's perfectly believable when the necessary context is put back in. I told
you I wouldn't put up with being misrepresented and I won't.

Like i said. If you could prove it i would apologise, but that's
hollow
I will not be slandered on this any further

You don't know the meaning of the word.

Some people just dont WANT to get along, for lordy's sake, but for the
betterment of the form let's try...

My history in here is very clear. Don't tell lies about me and I won't get
upset at you for telling lies about me.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

No it didnt DRS
OK, perhaps i dont know Usenet inside out like you and all the
different types of features, etc but you claim that it included "a
bunch of other stuff" is pure rhubarb![/color]

Oh, no it bloody isn't. And that is exactly the kind of dishonesty I
object
to. It manifestly refers to several instances.

All of which werent lieing, just your 'interpreation filter' going
haywire again

Of course, it would have
made things clearer if you'd left the attributions in like you're
supposed
to. ...

Fair nuff. not meant to confuse. just brevity...

This is also my text in that post, quoted from a previous post
):
"I never called Hippy an idiot; I never called Hitchy either stupid or
a
fool (although in his case I confess to believing both to be true); I
never
called anirm stupid or a fool. You're [sic] stuff up out of thin air
yet
again."
All things you accused me of which were not true.

Strange, cos all 3 commented (later in subsequent threads, private
messages and in person) on how much you ****ed them off! They certainly
read your comments as I did. Maybe its the way other people are
interpreting your posts, not the way you think they should be
interpreted that starts all this...


It's perfectly believable when the necessary context is put back in.
I told
you I wouldn't put up with being misrepresented and I won't.

Yes but the same thread includes you stating that kids should not
be/ride on paths at all. that was what I originally took you to task
on, my perspective being they should be encouraged, not yelled at

Like i said. If you could prove it i would apologise, but that's
hollow
I will not be slandered on this any further[/color]

You don't know the meaning of the word.

Cmon DRS. thats going too far again


Some people just dont WANT to get along, for lordy's sake, but for
the
betterment of the form let's try...

My history in here is very clear. Don't tell lies about me and I
won't get
upset at you for telling lies about me.

If it ever happens, gladly :-)
Youre still most welcome on the Leyland Bros ride.
Maybe we can test that 'bigger wheel' theory


--
flyingdutch

"flyingdutch" wrote
in message
No it didnt DRS
OK, perhaps i dont know Usenet inside out like you and all the
different types of features, etc but you claim that it included "a
bunch of other stuff" is pure rhubarb!

Oh, no it bloody isn't. And that is exactly the kind of dishonesty
I object to. It manifestly refers to several instances.

All of which werent lieing, just your 'interpreation filter' going
haywire again[/color]

I said it referred to a bunch of stuff, you said it didn't, I listed the
bunch of stuff it referred to. So whose interpretation is haywire?

Of course, it would have
made things clearer if you'd left the attributions in like you're
supposed to. ...

Fair nuff. not meant to confuse. just brevity...

This is a classic example of why Usenet conventions and standards have
evolved as they have. Attributions matter. If you quote someone then you
are obligated to attribute properly.

This is also my text in that post, quoted from a previous post
):
"I never called Hippy an idiot; I never called Hitchy either stupid
or a fool (although in his case I confess to believing both to be
true); I never called anirm stupid or a fool. You're [sic] stuff up
out of thin air yet again."

All things you accused me of which were not true.

Strange, cos all 3 commented (later in subsequent threads, private
messages and in person) on how much you ****ed them off!

Even if that is true (claiming support from Private Email is a source of
derision on Usenet since it is untestable without making public that which
was intended to be private, assuming it exists at all) it remains a fact
that I did not do the things you accused me of. And I most sincerely
couldn't give a stuff what Hitchy thinks.

[...]

Yes but the same thread includes you stating that kids should not
be/ride on paths at all. that was what I originally took you to task
on, my perspective being they should be encouraged, not yelled at

That's called a strawman: an argument you make up, attribute to your
opponent, subsequently knock down and preen about how good you are. The
problem is *no-one* ever said kids shouldn't be on bike paths at all.

Once again, here's what I actually said: "If your kids can't keep left then
they shouldn't be riding on the path".

"If they can't or won't do the right thing then they should not be on the
bike paths at all."

"What people are saying in this thread is that kids should keep left and if
they can't or won't then they shouldn't be on the paths in the first place,
which is absolutely spot on."

"Some people need to realise that everybody has responsibilities in a shared
environment and that kids are not exempt."

If anybody cares, the thread is called "why do you ride on a shared path"
(9/3/04).

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?h...rimu s.com.au

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS Wrote:
"flyingdutch" wrote
in message
No it didnt DRS
OK, perhaps i dont know Usenet inside out like you and all the
different types of features, etc but you claim that it included "a
bunch of other stuff" is pure rhubarb!

Oh, no it bloody isn't. And that is exactly the kind of dishonesty
I object to. It manifestly refers to several instances.

All of which werent lieing, just your 'interpreation filter' going
haywire again

I said it referred to a bunch of stuff, you said it didn't, I listed
the
bunch of stuff it referred to. So whose interpretation is haywire?

Of course, it would have
made things clearer if you'd left the attributions in like you're
supposed to. ...

Fair nuff. not meant to confuse. just brevity...

This is a classic example of why Usenet conventions and standards have
evolved as they have. Attributions matter. If you quote someone then
you
are obligated to attribute properly.

This is also my text in that post, quoted from a previous post
):
"I never called Hippy an idiot; I never called Hitchy either stupid
or a fool (although in his case I confess to believing both to be
true); I never called anirm stupid or a fool. You're [sic] stuff up
out of thin air yet again."

All things you accused me of which were not true.

Strange, cos all 3 commented (later in subsequent threads, private
messages and in person) on how much you ****ed them off!

Even if that is true (claiming support from Private Email is a source
of
derision on Usenet since it is untestable without making public that
which
was intended to be private, assuming it exists at all) it remains a
fact
that I did not do the things you accused me of. And I most sincerely
couldn't give a stuff what Hitchy thinks.

[...]

Yes but the same thread includes you stating that kids should not
be/ride on paths at all. that was what I originally took you to task
on, my perspective being they should be encouraged, not yelled at

That's called a strawman: an argument you make up, attribute to your
opponent, subsequently knock down and preen about how good you are.
The
problem is *no-one* ever said kids shouldn't be on bike paths at all.

Once again, here's what I actually said: "If your kids can't keep left
then
they shouldn't be riding on the path".

"If they can't or won't do the right thing then they should not be on
the
bike paths at all."

"What people are saying in this thread is that kids should keep left
and if
they can't or won't then they shouldn't be on the paths in the first
place,
which is absolutely spot on."

"Some people need to realise that everybody has responsibilities in a
shared
environment and that kids are not exempt."

If anybody cares, the thread is called "why do you ride on a shared
path"
(9/3/04).

http://tinyurl.com/5ulm2

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?[/color]
Are you two thinking of emulating Filippo Simeoni and Lance the
Pants-man? Hmmm, at least Lance had the sense to BUTTON HIS LIP!

M "litigious ****tiness is for lawyers" H


--
mfhor