Re: Lane question

7 Oct 2005 09:49:15 -0700,
<1128703755.256238.149880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gds"
<gary_jill@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>Always the sign of a good argument to depend on calling your opponenet
>silly names. A real sign of maturity.
>
Stuff your lame assed snivelling.

>Zoot, a definition of road rage is inappropriate, unsafe action based
>on misplaced anger. Meaning that often the expression of road rage is
>not a reaction ot what is happening in the moment but rather a result
>of frustrations from a whole host of situations being expressed against
>some innocent person.

Where da*** do you get this crap? Do you make it up or just
regurgitate the other idiots' paranoid delusions?
No asswipe cager needs any excuse to go bonkers. The automobile itself
is the deep-rooted cause of that insanity. They're sold "freedom" and
what they get is a cage that demands a large amount of their resources
to maintain that illusion. Their "freedom machine" is an albatross.
They're stuck. No wonder they're peaved.
Fukem, It's not my fault they're crippled.

They bought into a fantasy that can't be fulfilled and that causes
their constant frustration by not being able to accelerate due to
other vehicles being "in their way".

That the spineless shitballs act out their aggression on anyone is
largely due to their perceived invincibility inside their plastic and
plush carapace.

Say, for instance, some stunned turd in a red Mustang cuts you off. Do
you now hunt down and kill all drivers of red Mustangs, or just slam
into the next asswipe who gets "in you way"? Do you flip them off
first? Do they return the gesture? Now, do you even think about that
red Mustang a week ago, an hour ago, or even a minute ago?
Get real.

>So, to my mind anyone who "needlessly" contributes to that frustration
>is part of the problem.

When they strap into their armoured wheelchairs, they're causing their
own problems as well as contributing to the overall insanity that
passes for acceptable behaviour in a society crippled and sickened by
its dependence on scuds.
Nobody said "needlessly" except you. From your cager's POV, it may
appear needless. You've shown your hand, scud slave.
>
>My problem with the current argument is that I read this all as being
>less a discussion of safety than of an assertion of rights based not on
>the safest procedure but on some sense that as cyclists you have a
>package of rights and are damn well going to exercise them.

I assert my rights in other areas too. I also accept my
responsibilities. Scud scum has a responsibility to not jeopardise
others by their addiction. You seem to be professing that it's their
"right" to do otherwise.

>Simply pput-- I don't agree with that position.

I don't agree with your restatement of the "argument" either.

>Calling me names won't change that and it certainly doesn't change the
>merit of any argument.

Quit your snivelling.
--
zk
.