JNugent gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Alternatively, you could regard it as a ****-take of your arrogant
pedantry.

Bad day at the office?

Not at all. A little light entertainment at your expense.

Adrian wrote:

Daniel Barlow :

Next lights you see that are in the process of changing, whilst you've
got a police car following you, feel free to just blat through as
they're very nicely orange. Don't forget to ask the nice officers to
make sure they charge you, because you want to clarify the law.

If, as you claimed earlier, going through the lights on amber is not an
offence, what exactly do you expect them to charge him with?

I'm not the one trying to legally clarify whether it is or not.

And neither are any of us.

I asked whether there was any legal definition of:

"You may go on [at amber] only if ... you ... are so close to [the stop line]
that to pull up might cause an accident".

In article , says...

I see you snipped the part about the trailer taking the same path.

You mean if an artic goes in a straight line the trailer will too??
My god, these revelations just never stop, I need to go sit down...

What a ****ing moron.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Apr 15, 1:15*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Marz wrote:
What your simple wee mind seems to fail to grasp is that I'm not
making new rules,

What your walnut sized brain seems to fail to comprehend is that you are
making your own rules. I'm all for anarchy, which is what you seem to
want. What you fail to realise is that in an anarchy *everyone* is a
policeman and those who try to unilaterally impose their rules on
society will be resisted by a significant number.

I'm not saying this is how things are supposed to be or even justifying it
as ok. It's just what I do and whether you think you can take me or not is
immaterial.

It's not "think" sonny.

Yes, I guessing thinking wouldn't be your strong point.


Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack
someone who infringes a traffic law.

I said nothing about attacking anyone, strike up another failure for
that walnut-sized cat brain you have.

Marz wrote:

I guessing

Bwhahahahahahahahahahaahahaha it's Toomy!

In message , Ttoommy
writes

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Adrian wrote:

Careful, you'll fuel Toomtard's "Steve Firth Collective" fantasies.

snip shaite

As I keep saying but it appears NOT to sink in

Gizmo = Filth

Also i asked the question about all the new posters that appearedfor just a
day or so appeared also to know ALL about Doug, his history with Brians
accusations and Filths vomit and would soon disappear after slating Doug

DO YOU Adrian think -its really one person = one name=one poster here?

If its yes then Mr Adrain Gullible must stop handing your dosh over to all
those Nigerian solicitors and money launderers
I notice that Mr Firth has correctly predicted when the rubbish would
start again, they'll have been serving for about 75 minutes, just enough
to get well oiled.
--
Clive

On Apr 16, 1:04*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Marz wrote:
I guessing

Bwhahahahahahahahahahaahahaha it's Toomy!

****, typo!

Marz wrote:

(Steve Firth) wrote:
Marz wrote:

I guessing

Bwhahahahahahahahahahaahahaha it's Toomy!

****, typo!

To be fair, there have been other similarities.

In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 07:25:29AM -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:
very few car drivers jump red lights, fewer do it deliberately, and
fewer still do it regularly. Which is really rather different from
cyclists, at least in London.
You are joking! I will concede that cyclists ignore lights more
often than motorists do but otherwise you are deluded.

Would care to join me for an exciting evening of traffic counting?

I'll take you to a junction in Cambridge I used to pass every day to and
from work and now pass on my way to my Daughter's or Tesco's and you'll
see a red light jumping motorist every day I pass it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 16 Apr 2009 15:07:45 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:-

Indeed. Nice tries often do introduce facts to the debate.

In this case it didn't introduce any unknown facts into the debate,
at least as far as I was concerned.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54