-
And another thing, anymore fucking ginger gags from you cunts and I am going straight to your managers.
alright arizona mist - keep yer hair on.
"Hello, Bulaweyo Safari Park, Mpepe speaking..."
"Hi, can you put me through to your HR department? Thanks"pfff! good luck, our telephone system consists of a piece of twine between two coconut shells.
Amazing... Reej?
-
i see that Jeez is now involved in this thread probably advocating long windedly for this bullshit. Luckily i have him on ignore but his mere presence posting loads here in favour makes it pretty obvious that this stuff is moronic.
-
i see that Jeez is now involved in this thread probably advocating long windedly for this bullshit. Luckily i have him on ignore but his mere presence posting loads here in favour makes it pretty obvious that this stuff is moronic.
I'll start quoting him for you.
Oh why can't we all just get along. I'm sure this nice person didn't meant any harm. Won't somebody think of the children
-
"get cyclists insured and I will avoid knocking them off the stupid contraption when they stupidly ride in front of me, and when I hit a wall, an on coming vehicle or anything else at least there will be some muppet I can claim from"
"if cyclists just stayed out of my way then we would not have any problem"
That implies that he has knocked people off, and it says that he does not care whether he does or not. He also claims that he overtakes dangerously when he shouldn't (which risks the lives of drivers not just cyclists).
He has not outright said that he breaks the law, but he has said that he is a shit driver who does not give a fuck about others, which is just as bad.
It doesn't imply he has knocked anyone off, nor does it imply that he intends to.
Although these kinds of linguistic nuances are lost on keyboard warriors, in common speech people often phrase hypotheticals in the form of conditionals linked by the word 'and', and they may exaggerate those hypotheticals for rhetorical purposes.
That doesn't mean that they're any less hypothetical.
He would like cyclists to have insurance because he thinks its unfair that they don't have any whereas he has to, and he wishes that there were fewer cyclists. The rest of it is bluster.
-
I cannot believe that anyone can disagree.
I think everybody* can agree on that.*Except you obviously.
-
Can we just actually get to the point? Someone claims not to give a shit about other road users, implies that they drive like a cunt and sets up a facebook page with the express purpose of sharing that view at the risk of encouraging other people to behave like he does.
Shouting such a person down is entirely reasonable, but I understand if people have better things to do.
Were I to employ drivers I would wish to know if thy had that attitude. Telling his employers is the right thing to do.
That's all I am saying and I cannot believe that anyone can disagree.
You're spouting bullshit justifications to be an internet vigilante, trying to fuck up someone else's life. So what if he's a cunt online. What gives you the right to try to mess with his employment?
deleted
dst2
BRM
punkture
h2o
BareNecessities
dimi3-
Post a reply
About
Facebook I hate cyclists group infiltrated!
Posted by
This