Cars in future could be brought to standstill if driver gets tooangry

On 22/09/2019 14:33, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:10, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/09/2019 15:19, JNugent wrote:

[Devices which sense the extent of a driver's irritation or anger and
are capable of limiting the vehicle's operation as an amelioration
method.]

Those would be very useful if they could be adapted for compulsory
use by those permanently-angry urban cyclists constantly on the
lookout for the opportunity for a fight with... well, with just
about anyone, really.

It has recently been established that you just make this up. Pity
there are no spittle sensors on your computer.

Denial... never a good tactic.

It's a valid response to your allegation. Up to you to prove it.

You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly, so does
everyone else.

How do you know what other people think?

The people I'm referring to give no signs of doing much thinking.

You compared me to everybody else. I am the only one that thinks? Well,
that's kind of you.

On 22/09/2019 14:33, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:10, JNugent wrote:

You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly, so
does everyone else.

Topically, take a look at this warrior, so recently praised in
this NG:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7447037/Hunt-head-butting-cyclist-ran-red-light-clipped-pedestrian.html



It's known as an anecdote.

It's also known as an example.

Cambridge dictionary:

example ~ something that is typical of the group of things that it is a
member of.

Then you are wrong.

I suppose it doesn't count when 100 drivers a day use their car
bodywork...?

Or it's a blind spot you have.

On 22/09/2019 15:26, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:33, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:10, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/09/2019 15:19, JNugent wrote:

[Devices which sense the extent of a driver's irritation or anger
and are capable of limiting the vehicle's operation as an
amelioration method.]

Those would be very useful if they could be adapted for compulsory
use by those permanently-angry urban cyclists constantly on the
lookout for the opportunity for a fight with... well, with just
about anyone, really.

It has recently been established that you just make this up. Pity
there are no spittle sensors on your computer.

Denial... never a good tactic.

It's a valid response to your allegation. Up to you to prove it.

You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly, so does
everyone else.

How do you know what other people think?

The people I'm referring to give no signs of doing much thinking.

You compared me to everybody else. I am the only one that thinks? Well,
that's kind of you.

I didn't compare you to anybody or anything.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 22/09/2019 15:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:33, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:10, JNugent wrote:

You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly, so
does everyone else.

Topically, take a look at this warrior, so recently praised in
this NG:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7447037/Hunt-head-butting-cyclist-ran-red-light-clipped-pedestrian.html




It's known as an anecdote.

It's also known as an example.

Cambridge dictionary:

example ~ something that is typical of the group of things that it is a
member of.

Then you are wrong.

A chav scofflaw cyclist is typical of chav scofflaw cyclists.

What else could you call someone like the cyclist in that video?

I suppose it doesn't count when 100 drivers a day use their car
bodywork...?

Or it's a blind spot you have.

We aren't discussing "other people". We are discussing cyclists.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 23/09/2019 00:34, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 15:26, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:33, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:10, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/09/2019 15:19, JNugent wrote:

[Devices which sense the extent of a driver's irritation or
anger and are capable of limiting the vehicle's operation as
an amelioration method.]

Those would be very useful if they could be adapted for
compulsory use by those permanently-angry urban cyclists
constantly on the lookout for the opportunity for a
fight with... well, with just about anyone, really.

It has recently been established that you just make this
up. Pity there are no spittle sensors on your computer.

Denial... never a good tactic.

It's a valid response to your allegation. Up to you to prove
it.

You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly,
so does everyone else.

How do you know what other people think?

The people I'm referring to give no signs of doing much
thinking.

You compared me to everybody else. I am the only one that thinks?
Well, that's kind of you.

I didn't compare you to anybody or anything.

Then you should be able to explain (in English, please) what this means-

"You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly, so
does everyone else."

On 23/09/2019 11:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 00:34, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 15:26, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:33, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:10, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/09/2019 15:19, JNugent wrote:

[Devices which sense the extent of a driver's irritation or
anger and are capable of limiting the vehicle's operation as
an amelioration method.]

Those would be very useful if they could be adapted for
compulsory use by those permanently-angry urban cyclists
Â*constantly on the lookout for the opportunity for a
fight with... well, with just about anyone, really.

It has recently been established that you just make this
up. Pity there are no spittle sensors on your computer.

Denial... never a good tactic.

It's a valid response to your allegation. Up to you to prove
it.

You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly,
so does everyone else.

How do you know what other people think?

The people I'm referring to give no signs of doing much
thinking.

You compared me to everybody else. I am the only one that thinks?
Well, that's kind of you.

I didn't compare you to anybody or anything.

Then you should be able to explain (in English, please) what this means-

"You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly, so
does everyone else."

Of course I could. But I don't need to. Its meaning is obvious (to those
who don't have difficulty with English and I'm not addressing anyone else).

As a side issue, you ought to get a dictionary and look up the meaning
of the word "compare". It seems that you regard it a word which can used
indiscriminately without regard either to its meaning or the immediate
context.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 23/09/2019 13:12, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 11:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 00:34, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 15:26, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:33, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:10, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/09/2019 15:19, JNugent wrote:

[Devices which sense the extent of a driver's irritation or
anger and are capable of limiting the vehicle's operation as
an amelioration method.]

Those would be very useful if they could be adapted for
compulsory use by those permanently-angry urban cyclists
Â*constantly on the lookout for the opportunity for a
fight with... well, with just about anyone, really.

It has recently been established that you just make this
up. Pity there are no spittle sensors on your computer.

Denial... never a good tactic.

It's a valid response to your allegation. Up to you to prove
it.

You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly,
so does everyone else.

How do you know what other people think?

The people I'm referring to give no signs of doing much
thinking.

You compared me to everybody else. I am the only one that thinks?
Well, that's kind of you.

I didn't compare you to anybody or anything.

Then you should be able to explain (in English, please) what this means-

"You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly, so
does everyone else."

Of course I could. But I don't need to. Its meaning is obvious (to those
who don't have difficulty with English and I'm not addressing anyone else).

As a side issue, you ought to get a dictionary and look up the meaning
of the word "compare". It seems that you regard it a word which can used
indiscriminately without regard either to its meaning or the immediate
context.

As ever, wriggling out takes more words than to explain.

On 23/09/2019 15:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 13:12, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 11:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 00:34, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 15:26, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:33, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:10, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/09/2019 15:19, JNugent wrote:

[Devices which sense the extent of a driver's irritation or
anger and are capable of limiting the vehicle's operation as
an amelioration method.]

Those would be very useful if they could be adapted for
compulsory use by those permanently-angry urban cyclists
Â*constantly on the lookout for the opportunity for a
fight with... well, with just about anyone, really.

It has recently been established that you just make this
up. Pity there are no spittle sensors on your computer.

Denial... never a good tactic.

It's a valid response to your allegation. Up to you to prove
it.

You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly,
so does everyone else.

How do you know what other people think?

The people I'm referring to give no signs of doing much
thinking.

You compared me to everybody else. I am the only one that thinks?
Well, that's kind of you.

I didn't compare you to anybody or anything.

Then you should be able to explain (in English, please) what this means-

"You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly, so
does everyone else."

Of course I could. But I don't need to. Its meaning is obvious (to
those who don't have difficulty with English and I'm not addressing
anyone else).

As a side issue, you ought to get a dictionary and look up the meaning
of the word "compare". It seems that you regard it a word which can
used indiscriminately without regard either to its meaning or the
immediate context.

As ever, wriggling out takes more words than to explain.

Please quote this "comparison" you complained of.

In English, of course.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 23/09/2019 16:15, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 15:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 13:12, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 11:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 00:34, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 15:26, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:33, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:10, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/09/2019 15:19, JNugent wrote:

[Devices which sense the extent of a driver's irritation or
anger and are capable of limiting the vehicle's operation as
an amelioration method.]

Those would be very useful if they could be adapted for
compulsory use by those permanently-angry urban cyclists
Â*constantly on the lookout for the opportunity for a
fight with... well, with just about anyone, really.

It has recently been established that you just make this
up. Pity there are no spittle sensors on your computer.

Denial... never a good tactic.

It's a valid response to your allegation. Up to you to prove
it.

You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly,
so does everyone else.

How do you know what other people think?

The people I'm referring to give no signs of doing much
thinking.

You compared me to everybody else. I am the only one that thinks?
Well, that's kind of you.

I didn't compare you to anybody or anything.

Then you should be able to explain (in English, please) what this
means-

"You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly, so
does everyone else."

Of course I could. But I don't need to. Its meaning is obvious (to
those who don't have difficulty with English and I'm not addressing
anyone else).

As a side issue, you ought to get a dictionary and look up the
meaning of the word "compare". It seems that you regard it a word
which can used indiscriminately without regard either to its meaning
or the immediate context.

As ever, wriggling out takes more words than to explain.

Please quote this "comparison" you complained of.

In English, of course.

First, explain your sentence.

On 23/09/2019 16:26, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:15, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 15:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 13:12, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 11:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 00:34, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 15:26, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:33, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:10, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/09/2019 15:19, JNugent wrote:

[Devices which sense the extent of a driver's irritation or
anger and are capable of limiting the vehicle's operation as
an amelioration method.]

Those would be very useful if they could be adapted for
compulsory use by those permanently-angry urban cyclists
Â*constantly on the lookout for the opportunity for a
fight with... well, with just about anyone, really.

It has recently been established that you just make this
up. Pity there are no spittle sensors on your computer.

Denial... never a good tactic.

It's a valid response to your allegation. Up to you to prove
it.

You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly,
so does everyone else.

How do you know what other people think?

The people I'm referring to give no signs of doing much
thinking.

You compared me to everybody else. I am the only one that thinks?
Well, that's kind of you.

I didn't compare you to anybody or anything.

Then you should be able to explain (in English, please) what this
means-

"You know full well that you are wrong. But more importantly, so
does everyone else."

Of course I could. But I don't need to. Its meaning is obvious (to
those who don't have difficulty with English and I'm not addressing
anyone else).

As a side issue, you ought to get a dictionary and look up the
meaning of the word "compare". It seems that you regard it a word
which can used indiscriminately without regard either to its meaning
or the immediate context.

As ever, wriggling out takes more words than to explain.

Please quote this "comparison" you complained of.

In English, of course.

First, explain your sentence.

Which one?

Asking that does not mean that I consent to either explaining or
re-wording a sentence written in plain everyday English.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com