Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Would that be the answer where you either showed your previous comment
to be a complete non-sequitur or tried desperately to back-track when
you realised what a tit you'd made yourself look?

No back-tracking here. pk suggested attacking a cyclist breaking the
law, I pointed out that if he tried that with me it's not going to good
for him.

You seem to be forgetting that it's not going to be an issue for you if
you don't tonk straight across occupied pedestrian crossings.

You jumped to the conclusion that I do jump lights at busy crossings and
I'm pointing out you're wrong.

One of us is. It's not me. Meanwhile, I'm pointing out that you seem
unable to comprehend basic logic.

Why is it ok to attack someone breaking a law that doesn't involve your
own person?

Which part of somebody tonking straight across the pedestrian crossing
you happen to be crossing at the time doesn't "involve your own person"?