|
General » rec.autos.driving » Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #780889] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 08:01 |
|
"Old Wolf" <oldwolf [at] inspire.net.nz> wrote in message
news:<1152369290.476830.214760 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>...
> reakhavoc [at] gmail.com wrote:
> >> 1) The law requires that you must signal
> >> 2) By signalling you announce your intention to take the gap, so
> >> the other drivers know to not take the gap themself, in case they
> >> were considering doing so.
> >
> > But according to you the gap is big enough that there is no need to
> > inform anyone.
>
> Actually , that is according to you. You are the one who thinks that
> you should not inform anyone of your intentions. Don't put words in my
> mouth.
Reading this thread for some time, reak has said no such thing. He has said
many many many times that he signals. You are putting words in his mouth
> > The signal is in fact a singal to let others know you
> > want need that lane. You would like them to allow you to merge
> > into. To let you in.
>
> The signal is to indicate your intention. Go and read your local
> traffic code. Did you get your licence off a cereal box?
Yes so that other cars accommdate you. Something reak has contunally said.
> Q. What is the purpose of signalling?
> A. To tell other people to get out of your way.
>
> I don't think so somehow.
Reak did not write that. You did.
> >> Actually it is so that other drivers know what I am about to do.
> >> This helps to avoid crashes.
> >
> > Why do they need to know? So they can accommodate your request.
>
> Go and read your local traffic code. It is all explained in there. A
> signal indicates that you intend to change lane. Nothing more, nothing
> less. You must signal every time you change lane. That is the law. It
> is irrelevant if you conjure up some logic as to why this law should
> be different. If you disagree with this law then petition your local
> politician.
There is no law not allowing you to let someone change lanes.
>
> The key point here is that when I indicate, I expect everyone else to
> keep doing what they were doing already.
Then there is no point in indicating as it would serve no purpose.
However, you expect people to
> get out of your way. NOTE: key word 'indicate'. Do not swap out
> 'indicate' for 'change lane' or some other words, as you tend to do.
Having read this thread for some days (as best I could) reak has been very
clear. Remind us of those steps reak?
> > > > We don't even disagree. I think you're just being stubborn and
> > > > refusing to admit, other drivers show you courtesy when you
> > > > signal, by letting you in and slowing down.
> > >
> > > I have never denied that, and in fact I agree. Most drivers show
> > > courtesy when I signal. In the case I am talking about above, no
> > > other driver was required to slow down, because a large gap
> > > already existed.
> >
> > Excuse me? Then why are you arguing with me? I have stated this
> > from the beginning to which you provided rebuttals. You signal,
> > they let you in. Plain and simple.
>
> My argument is that it is rude to expect someone to let you in when
> there is no gap.
>
> You keep going on and on repeating your 1 2 3 simple thing. Saying
> something 50 times doesn't make it any more or less true.
In this case, he happens to be write. You denying it, and your chose to
refuse to touch your brake peddle does not make you right. IT makes you an
asshole.
>Nobody is
> disputing that your method is simple, and nobody is disputing that
> people who let you in are showing you courtesy. So there is really no
> need for you to keep banging on about the same things and ignoring
> what other people are actually trying to say.
Yes, people were disputing that. Are you not reading this thread? Many
people has said letting other in is rude.
> > If the gap fits, wear it.
>
> Yes, that is what I do.
>
> > One one hand you're saying I'm rude for asking to be let in.
>
> Yes
>
> > Then you're saying I'm rude by merging into a space where there is a
> > big enough gap.
>
> I did not say anything even remotely resembling that.
> Please quote where you think I said that, or retract
> your claim. Don't say "oh i am too lazy but you did
> say it somewhere".
>
> > Everything I have written is meaningful. It is you going around and
> > round in circles,
>
> You are the one going around in circles, by defining "demand" as
> "demand".
>
> > refuting my claim that people should be courteous
> > enough to let you into a lane when you signal. Then you say you
> > people NEVER should have to do that. THEN above you admit people
> > indeed to modify their driving for you (as you do, apparently, for
> > them).
>
> I never said either of those things. Again, post some quotes of my
> words, or retract your claim.
>
> > I suggest you not reply unless you FINALLY have something logical
> > and meaningful to say.
>
> Lol. Your whole style of argument is circular reasoning, repeating the
> same thing over and over, and inventing things that I never said so
> that you can refute them (aka. 'straw man').
>
> Either you are trolling, or you really have no idea how to construct a
> logical argument. I'll go with the latter as you seemed to start off
> the thread in a positive frame of mind.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #782916 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 04:39 |
|
Are you reak in disguise? Because your posts read almost exactly
the same as his. In case you aren't:
Gswiss wrote:
> > reakhavoc [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > >> 1) The law requires that you must signal
> > >> 2) By signalling you announce your intention to take the gap, so
> > >> the other drivers know to not take the gap themself, in case they
> > >> were considering doing so.
> > >
> > > But according to you the gap is big enough that there is no need to
> > > inform anyone.
> >
> > Actually , that is according to you. You are the one who thinks that
> > you should not inform anyone of your intentions. Don't put words in my
> > mouth.
>
> Reading this thread for some time, reak has said no such thing. He has said
> many many many times that he signals. You are putting words in his mouth
You say "he has said no such thing". There it is in black and
white above, you even quoted it. He said "the gap is big enough
that there is no need to inform anyone".
It is strange to find two of you with such obvious difficulties
in reading comprehension.
> > The key point here is that when I indicate, I expect everyone else to
> > keep doing what they were doing already.
>
> Then there is no point in indicating as it would serve no purpose.
Here you are again. Clearly you, unlike me, believe in this principle
that there is no purpose to indicating in some situations. I believe
you should follow the law on indicating and I quoted it. You and
reak continually try to say that I believe something else. Well,
I don't. I have stated it clearly many times.
You and reak are the only ones that have brought up this
idea that there is no purpose to indicating.
> > Q. What is the purpose of signalling?
> > A. To tell other people to get out of your way.
> > I don't think so somehow.
> Reak did not write that. You did.
He wrote that he signals and then expects other people to
move out of his way. His exact words are something like
he expects people to brake or slow down to create a gap
when he signals.
So I think my words are a good summary of his.
> > Go and read your local traffic code. It is all explained in there. A
> > signal indicates that you intend to change lane. Nothing more, nothing
> > less. You must signal every time you change lane. That is the law. It
> > is irrelevant if you conjure up some logic as to why this law should
> > be different. If you disagree with this law then petition your local
> > politician.
>
> There is no law not allowing you to let someone change lanes.
Again your reading comprehension fails you. This section was
discussing the law on when and why you should signal.
Nobody is saying it is illegal to change lanes so why did
you bring that point up?
> > You keep going on and on repeating your 1 2 3 simple thing. Saying
> > something 50 times doesn't make it any more or less true.
>
> In this case, he happens to be write. You denying it, and your chose to
> refuse to touch your brake peddle does not make you right.
No kidding. Truth is determined by logical arguments. You and
reak seem to think that whoever repeats their statement the
most wins.
> >Nobody is
> > disputing that your method is simple, and nobody is disputing that
> > people who let you in are showing you courtesy. So there is really no
> > need for you to keep banging on about the same things and ignoring
> > what other people are actually trying to say.
>
> Yes, people were disputing that. Are you not reading this thread? Many
> people has said letting other in is rude.
Again your reading comprehension fails you. In the paragraph
I just quoted, I did not say "nobody is disputing that letting others
in is courteous", or anything to that effect. Read it again.
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #782924 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 05:10 |
|
Old Wolf wrote:
> Are you reak in disguise? Because your posts read almost exactly
> the same as his. In case you aren't:
This has been addressed before. I am not Gswiss, not am I in disguise.
>
> Gswiss wrote:
> > > reakhavoc [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> 1) The law requires that you must signal
> > > >> 2) By signalling you announce your intention to take the gap, so
> > > >> the other drivers know to not take the gap themself, in case they
> > > >> were considering doing so.
> > > >
> > > > But according to you the gap is big enough that there is no need to
> > > > inform anyone.
> > >
> > > Actually , that is according to you. You are the one who thinks that
> > > you should not inform anyone of your intentions. Don't put words in my
> > > mouth.
> >
> > Reading this thread for some time, reak has said no such thing. He has said
> > many many many times that he signals. You are putting words in his mouth
>
> You say "he has said no such thing". There it is in black and
> white above, you even quoted it. He said "the gap is big enough
> that there is no need to inform anyone".
Correct, according to him, that is what he is saying. There is no point
in signalling unless it is to let people know you are changing lanes.
The reason for that is for them to modify their behavior and slow down
to let you in, or some other way of modifying behavior.
> It is strange to find two of you with such obvious difficulties
> in reading comprehension.
There is not difficulty in reading comprehension. The difficulty here
is your refusal to admit you are wrong (again).
> > > The key point here is that when I indicate, I expect everyone else to
> > > keep doing what they were doing already.
> >
> > Then there is no point in indicating as it would serve no purpose.
>
> Here you are again. Clearly you, unlike me, believe in this principle
> that there is no purpose to indicating in some situations.
How many of these do you plan on taking out of context?
> I believe
> you should follow the law on indicating and I quoted it.
And I do. I signal, allowing other to cooperate. Whether that means
the let me in, or they ensure they don't change lanes at the same time,
is up to them.
Same when I see a signal For someone to obsessed with the law it
surprises me you don't know this. If I see a signal, I can let them
in. OR I can avoid changing lanes at the same time.
>You and
> reak continually try to say that I believe something else. Well,
> I don't. I have stated it clearly many times.
As you said, it's here, Black and White.
>
> You and reak are the only ones that have brought up this
> idea that there is no purpose to indicating.
To prove that there is a point to indicating. That is cooperation from
other drivers.
According to you, if the gap is big enough, indicating serves no
purpose.
> > > Q. What is the purpose of signalling?
> > > A. To tell other people to get out of your way.
> > > I don't think so somehow.
> > Reak did not write that. You did.
>
> He wrote that he signals and then expects other people to
> move out of his way.
No I didn't. Please quote where I said that? You are, again, lying.
What I said was I DO expect people to show courtesy and let me in. The
same way I let people in.
> His exact words are something like
> he expects people to brake or slow down to create a gap
> when he signals.
First off, what you wrote there is an oxymoron.
Second, I expect courtesy, yes and allow me to enter. Obviously you do
not pay that courtesy to people.
> So I think my words are a good summary of his.
No, they weren't.
>
> > > Go and read your local traffic code. It is all explained in there. A
> > > signal indicates that you intend to change lane. Nothing more, nothing
> > > less. You must signal every time you change lane. That is the law. It
> > > is irrelevant if you conjure up some logic as to why this law should
> > > be different. If you disagree with this law then petition your local
> > > politician.
> >
> > There is no law not allowing you to let someone change lanes.
>
> Again your reading comprehension fails you. This section was
> discussing the law on when and why you should signal.
No, my comprehension is fine. IT is you who cannot follow a logical
argument, nor engage rationally. This discussion was about whether to
let people in when the signal to change. I say yes, you should. You
say NO, you should not.
>
> Nobody is saying it is illegal to change lanes so why did
> you bring that point up?
I never said that either. It seems to be YOU with the reading
comprehension problem.
What I challenged, was someone to point out legislation where letting
someone is, IS illegal, since, according to you and them, letting
people in causes congestion.
> > > You keep going on and on repeating your 1 2 3 simple thing. Saying
> > > something 50 times doesn't make it any more or less true.
> >
> > In this case, he happens to be write. You denying it, and your chose to
> > refuse to touch your brake peddle does not make you right.
>
> No kidding. Truth is determined by logical arguments. You and
> reak seem to think that whoever repeats their statement the
> most wins.
Contraire. IT is you who keeps repeating himself. For example,
stating he has a reading comprehension problem, 3 times (in this post
alone), does not make it so. Yet you keep doing that despite the
evidence that neither one of us lacking such comprehension.
> > >Nobody is
> > > disputing that your method is simple, and nobody is disputing that
> > > people who let you in are showing you courtesy. So there is really no
> > > need for you to keep banging on about the same things and ignoring
> > > what other people are actually trying to say.
> >
> > Yes, people were disputing that. Are you not reading this thread? Many
> > people has said letting other in is rude.
>
> Again your reading comprehension fails you. In the paragraph
> I just quoted, I did not say "nobody is disputing that letting others
> in is courteous", or anything to that effect. Read it again.
Again, YOU are lacking the comprehension. Read what I replied again.
You said "Nobody is disputing that your method is simple, and nobody is
disputing that people who let you in are showing you courtesy.
But people ARE DISPUTING THAT. Several here have stated it is rude to
let people in. Re-read the thread (after you take some reading
comprension lessons) and you will see people are, in fact, saying it is
rude.
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #782949 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 11:47 |
|
reakhavoc [at] gmail.com wrote:
> Old Wolf wrote:
> > He wrote that he signals and then expects other people to
> > move out of his way.
>
> No I didn't. Please quote where I said that? You are, again, lying.
You wrote in message
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/06f9fbf ed7760297
But I do expect people to show some courtesy. For instance
if I am signalling and need to change lanes. If they see my signal
I do expect them to let me in (most people do).
You clearly state that you "expect" people to let you in.
In order to let you in, they must move. They are in your
way when you begin indicating, otherwise you would
not need to wait -- you would just indicate and move.
Therefore, you expect them to move out of your way.
If you want to dispute this, please do so in a logical fashion.
In other words, which of the following steps do you disagree
with:
1) You expect people to let you in
2) To let you in, people must move
3) People are in your way to begin with
A generic "I am right, you are wrong", or repeating your position,
will not elicit a response from me.
>> Nobody is saying it is illegal to change lanes so why did
>> you bring that point up?
>
> I never said that either.
Why do you use "I" to describe Gswiss? I was responding to
Gswiss's post, not yours. Unless...
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #782956 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 15:14 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #782983 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 20:07 |
|
Old Wolf wrote:
> reakhavoc [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > Old Wolf wrote:
> > > He wrote that he signals and then expects other people to
> > > move out of his way.
> >
> > No I didn't. Please quote where I said that? You are, again, lying.
>
> You wrote in message
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/06f9fbf ed7760297
>
> But I do expect people to show some courtesy. For instance
> if I am signalling and need to change lanes. If they see my signal
> I do expect them to let me in (most people do).
>
> You clearly state that you "expect" people to let you in.
> In order to let you in, they must move. They are in your
> way when you begin indicating, otherwise you would
> not need to wait -- you would just indicate and move.
Wrong again, wolfy. I would indicate, wait for them to give the gap,
THEN move.
> Therefore, you expect them to move out of your way.
I expect them to show courtesy. I also expect people to say "please
and thank you" Your point?
> If you want to dispute this, please do so in a logical fashion.
> In other words, which of the following steps do you disagree
> with:
> 1) You expect people to let you in
> 2) To let you in, people must move
> 3) People are in your way to begin with
I have been logical straight from the beginning. The fact you don't
understand is a reflection of your lack of logic.
You can't get any simpler than this: Signal, wait, move, simple as
1,2,3. I also throw in what can be considered a fourth step-wave
thanks.
> A generic "I am right, you are wrong", or repeating your position,
> will not elicit a response from me.
I know, that is why I haven't been saying that. I expected a logical
response. At first you (and a few of the others) started that way.
But in your frustration of NOT making your point, and NOT getting the
last word, you got more and more desperate and start with the insults,
non-logical arguments, etc.
> >> Nobody is saying it is illegal to change lanes so why did
> >> you bring that point up?
> >
> > I never said that either.
>
> Why do you use "I" to describe Gswiss? I was responding to
> Gswiss's post, not yours. Unless...
Unless what? I am him? Yah, right. I simply am stating I never said
that, either.
To use your words "repeating your position" does not make it so.
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #782984 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 20:10 |
|
Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> "Old Wolf" <oldwolf [at] inspire.net.nz> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
> >A generic "I am right, you are wrong", or repeating your position,
> >will not elicit a response from me.
> >
> >>> Nobody is saying it is illegal to change lanes so why did
> >>> you bring that point up?
> >>
> >> I never said that either.
> >
> >Why do you use "I" to describe Gswiss? I was responding to
> >Gswiss's post, not yours. Unless...
>
> Aw, give the guy a break. He's new to both trolling and to
> sockpuppeteering; of course he's going to make some mistakes now and
> again. Even the great Pride of America has slipped up a time or two.
Considering you are the one Trolling (you've yet to submit a logical
argument in this "discussion") I'd keep quiet if I were you (I know
that means you'll post even more as desperately want the last word).
Still waiting for you to prove your allegation. Guess you spoke out of
yoru ass.
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #783008 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 23:15 |
|
Old Wolf wrote:
>
> >
> > I never said that either.
>
> Why do you use "I" to describe Gswiss? I was responding to
> Gswiss's post, not yours. Unless...
....Gswiss is a sockpuppet? LOL. Yeah, it took most of us about 3
seconds to figure that one out. Gswiss is an at-home posting nym, and
the other is at-work.
Funny that they post from the same place in Canada, eh?
;)
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #783017 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 01:31 |
|
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Old Wolf wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I never said that either.
> >
> > Why do you use "I" to describe Gswiss? I was responding to
> > Gswiss's post, not yours. Unless...
>
> ...Gswiss is a sockpuppet? LOL. Yeah, it took most of us about 3
> seconds to figure that one out. Gswiss is an at-home posting nym, and
> the other is at-work.
wrong again buddy boy. I don't have a workplace, fool.
>
> Funny that they post from the same place in Canada, eh?
Really? Cool. Where is that? OR are you lying again.
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #783023 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 01:18 |
|
reakhavoc [at] gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
>>Old Wolf wrote:
>>
>>>>I never said that either.
>>>
>>>Why do you use "I" to describe Gswiss? I was responding to
>>>Gswiss's post, not yours. Unless...
>>
>>...Gswiss is a sockpuppet? LOL. Yeah, it took most of us about 3
>>seconds to figure that one out. Gswiss is an at-home posting nym, and
>>the other is at-work.
>
>
> wrong again buddy boy. I don't have a workplace, fool.
That's the first thing you've posted that I don't have any trouble at
all believing!
Perhaps it's the same public library...
nate
(or is this just Judy Diarya on vacation in Canuckia?)
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #783025 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 02:42 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> reakhavoc [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >
> >>Old Wolf wrote:
> >>
> >>>>I never said that either.
> >>>
> >>>Why do you use "I" to describe Gswiss? I was responding to
> >>>Gswiss's post, not yours. Unless...
> >>
> >>...Gswiss is a sockpuppet? LOL. Yeah, it took most of us about 3
> >>seconds to figure that one out. Gswiss is an at-home posting nym, and
> >>the other is at-work.
> >
> >
> > wrong again buddy boy. I don't have a workplace, fool.
>
> That's the first thing you've posted that I don't have any trouble at
> all believing!
Well, when you're independalty wealthy, you don't need a workplace.
> Perhaps it's the same public library...
Same as what? Gswiss? You still believe that? What a laugh.
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #783033 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 03:11 |
|
reakhavoc [at] gmail.com wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>reakhavoc [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Old Wolf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I never said that either.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you use "I" to describe Gswiss? I was responding to
>>>>>Gswiss's post, not yours. Unless...
>>>>
>>>>...Gswiss is a sockpuppet? LOL. Yeah, it took most of us about 3
>>>>seconds to figure that one out. Gswiss is an at-home posting nym, and
>>>>the other is at-work.
>>>
>>>
>>>wrong again buddy boy. I don't have a workplace, fool.
>>
>>That's the first thing you've posted that I don't have any trouble at
>>all believing!
>
>
> Well, when you're independalty wealthy, you don't need a workplace.
>
Please define "independalty wealthy." I couldn't find a definition of
the first word anywhere. Does that mean that you live in your parents'
basement?
>
>>Perhaps it's the same public library...
>
>
> Same as what? Gswiss? You still believe that? What a laugh.
It pleases me to believe that "Gswiss" is one of your sockpuppets,
because the alternative would be that there are two people as stupid as
you posting to RAD simultaneously. Besides, your posting styles and
lack of logic, inability to stay on topic, and atrocious grammar,
spelling, and punctuation are very similar, not to mention that someone
traced your IP addresses to the same location.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #783056 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 10:33 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> reakhavoc [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> >
> >>reakhavoc [at] gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Old Wolf wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>I never said that either.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why do you use "I" to describe Gswiss? I was responding to
> >>>>>Gswiss's post, not yours. Unless...
> >>>>
> >>>>...Gswiss is a sockpuppet? LOL. Yeah, it took most of us about 3
> >>>>seconds to figure that one out. Gswiss is an at-home posting nym, and
> >>>>the other is at-work.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>wrong again buddy boy. I don't have a workplace, fool.
> >>
> >>That's the first thing you've posted that I don't have any trouble at
> >>all believing!
> >
> >
> > Well, when you're independalty wealthy, you don't need a workplace.
> >
>
> Please define "independalty wealthy." I couldn't find a definition of
> the first word anywhere. Does that mean that you live in your parents'
> basement?
If you need a definition, then you don't know.
>
> >
> >>Perhaps it's the same public library...
> >
> >
> > Same as what? Gswiss? You still believe that? What a laugh.
>
> It pleases me to believe that "Gswiss" is one of your sockpuppets,
Of course it does please you as you are a dufus.
> because the alternative would be that there are two people as stupid as
> you posting to RAD simultaneously. Besides, your posting styles and
> lack of logic, inability to stay on topic, and atrocious grammar,
> spelling, and punctuation are very similar, not to mention that someone
> traced your IP addresses to the same location.
Wrong cowboy. Not the same locations. Didn't you say moments ago it
was the same city in Canada? Thanks for the laugh.
>
> nate
you mean "nat"
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #783079 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 16:21 |
|
On 23 Jul 2006 01:33:17 -0700, reakhavoc [at] gmail.com wrote:
>> Please define "independalty wealthy." I couldn't find a definition of
>> the first word anywhere. Does that mean that you live in your parents'
>> basement?
>
>If you need a definition, then you don't know.
That has to be the statement of the week!
You have surpassed yourself! That statement, alone, makes you
worthwhile!
Thank you for the laugh.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #783084 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 17:36 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #783100 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 20:44 |
|
Bill Funk wrote:
> On 23 Jul 2006 01:33:17 -0700, reakhavoc [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Please define "independalty wealthy." I couldn't find a definition of
> >> the first word anywhere. Does that mean that you live in your parents'
> >> basement?
> >
> >If you need a definition, then you don't know.
>
> That has to be the statement of the week!
Thank you, but I have to be honest-I borrowed it.
> You have surpassed yourself! That statement, alone, makes you
> worthwhile!
> Thank you for the laugh.
I aim to please (another I borrowed)
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
|
|
|
| Re: Speed limit vigilante sent to jail [message #783101 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 20:45 |
|
Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
> >>>>wrong again buddy boy. I don't have a workplace, fool.
> >>>
> >>>That's the first thing you've posted that I don't have any trouble at
> >>>all believing!
> >>
> >> Well, when you're independalty wealthy, you don't need a workplace.
> >
> >Please define "independalty wealthy." I couldn't find a definition of
> >the first word anywhere.
>
> Who is this guy? Archie Bunker?
No, he is Scott en Aztl=E1n.
> >Does that mean that you live in your parents' basement?
No but I do think he lives with you, and Nate.
>=20
> He could also be Rod Speed's roommate...=20
Never heard of him
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Sep 3 11:06:06 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09346 Sekunden |
