Utterly wrong. This is the fundamentally flawed attitude I’m talking about.
And I’m the one posting content-less replies?
For someone not interested in trading insults, you seem awfully interested in trading insults.
Also, I did not “lie” about you. I posted above why I said what I said. Simply tarring it a lie does nothing to address the merits of my claim. You’re just, essentially, saying, “That’s a lie, I win.” It’s a behavior pattern not too off from my (granted, somewhat limited) experience with those with autism.
I didn’t have to pretend I’d never said it, because I didn’t. Now, here’s the part where you can either (a) say I’m lying, (b) quote me and then, mistakenly, again reiterate that I’m lying, or (c) say, “OK, fine, you never said that.” Guess which option I bet you’re going to go with? (I’m gonna pick (a), although I wouldn’t put it past your obtuseness to put (b)).
Which is it, am I a troll or a sock? Or both? Either way, put up or shut up, as RT said.
Perhaps it’s not elegant, but it is a serious question, one you’ve avoided answering for… how many posts now? Don’t be embarrassed. Just be honest.
And, on the matter at hand in this thread (if not in the OP)…
Riding a bicycle at 5 MPH on a road where the speed limit for cars is 10x greater is creating a danger. Hold on, hold on, don’t get your panties in a bunch, lowbrass. Let me explain. It’s creating a danger the same way that I would if I decided to toss a football from one side of the street to a friend on the other. The same way as if I decided to dress all in black and dart across, like a ninja, the street. The same way as if I decided to juggle in the shoulder (I’m not a very good juggler, so I’d often be dropping the balls into the road).
None of these activities are illegal. I’m certainly within my rights to do any of them. But I’m creating a danger in every situation nonetheless, despite how true it is that it’s my right to do any of them. Yes, the cars should be going a safe speed so they can stop even if I’m a really good ninja and they don’t see me until it’s almost too late. But the fact is that they wouldn’t have to slam on the brakes in response to my juggling show if I weren’t doing my juggling show.
But wait, I can already hear you whining, the roads are intended for bicycles, not jugglers or ninjas. To which I offer three responses: (1) I see kinds throwing footballs from one side of the street to the other all the time, so even if that behavior isn’t in line with the original intent of the road’s designers, it still happens; (2) catsix has already attested to the fact that there aren’t many bicycles on her road (one to two a summer, I think she said?), so perhaps it can be said that that particular road isn’t intended for bicycles any more than it’s intended for ninjas; and (3) you’ve been foaming at the mouth and saying that the ONLY guiding principle is “It’s legal!!!” So, given that it’s legal to wear all black, even at night, and given that crossing the road on foot is legal, you’ll afford me the same frothing-saliva defense as you give to cyclists, right?
I said I’m not interested in JUST trading insults. Learn to read.
Cute - trying to goad me into explaining it yet again, after I already did, so that you can then call me “pedantic”. Sorry, not playing your games anymore. Yes, you fucking lied, you fucking liar.
Whatever you say, dear. That’s so clever when you call me autistic. It just gets more and more clever each time you needlessly repeat it.
Yeah, I’m pedantic. :rolleyes:
You seriously think I’m going to respond to your drivel? There was enough hyperbole, strawmen, and poisoned wells in there to choke a horse. Fuck you. Shove your jugglers up your ass. And then shove those ninjas up there too.
And this also gets more clever every time YOU use it. This must be at least the third time you’ve used it just in this thread.
You didn’t “explain” shit. You declared.
And here’s another baseless declaration, except more emphatic this time, so you’re… more right?
At this point, I’m no longer trying to be clever. I think I’ve demonstrated that I’ve probably nailed it in one. Seriously, I won’t make fun of you if you cop to it. I’ll just nod my head knowingly, maybe pat myself on the back for my quick-yet-accurate diagnosis, and let you go back to your Life Skills.
I’m not sure what I said about my three options that you feel is “pedantic.” Maybe this will help?
And while I’m sure you’re more happy drooling and repeating ad nauseum, “You lied! Nuh-UH, YOU’RE pedantic! I didn’t say that, YOU did!!” maybe you could take some time out of your busy day of being too busy to trade insults with me and respond to my substantive post? (Yes, I’m trying to hijack the thread back to something at least tangentially related to the first post). Yes, I used hyperbole, but I don’t see any strawmen, and I’m not even sure what a poisoned well is, in this context. Care to respond? Or are you just going to admit that you can’t argue, but can only string together dismissals and insults and non sequitirs?
P.S. Any news on your Holmesian quest to track down whose sock I am? You seemed to have dropped that once being called out on it…
I haven’t the slightest idea what we’re arguing about any more, but I just can’t resist jumping back in, given the opportunity for a language hijack.
Lots of folks across the pond (apparently including South Africa) often use “shite” as an adjective. As in,
Q: “How was that movie last night?”
A: “Shite.”
So “shitest” would be correct although I’ve never heard it. Spell checkers are often biased towards American English.
And oddly enough, MY spell checker doesn’t suggest “shittiest” as an alternative … although it is in the dictionary. Hm.
You’re being dishonest again. I explained it in the previous post. Of course you quoted a later post in your typical dishonest fashion. If I explain it again, you will call me “pedantic” and hurl more epithets at me. Sorry, but I refuse to play your games.
Then you have succeeded.
I don’t either. I think the anti-bike folks are just trying to confuse the issue with personal attacks and quibbles about semantic bullshit.
O.K., that makes sense.
What confusing?? I separated my insults from my thoughts on the issue. The latter are contained in post 402, which you’ve repeatedly avoided addressing. I think if anything, YOU (I’ll not lump you with anyone else) are trying to avoid the issue by only addressing “personal attacks and quibbles about semantic bullshit.”
The word “previous” here isn’t exactly clear to me. You first accused me of lying in post #387. The previous post (by you, I assume) has an accusation of slander, which I always thought was speaking, whereas libel referred to the written word, followed up by you asking me to find where you had said, direct quote, that you had “declared victory.” There’s no lie there. I said it was my imitation, a satirical paraphrase based on what I observed of your behavior in this thread. I even pointed to my inspiration – your exhausting back-and-forth with Red Whatever on page 3 of this thread – in post 388.
You don’t like my impression? Fine. I’m sure I’d do much better if I could mock you in person. You can even call my impression bullshit. But it’s in good faith, it’s not a lie, and I explained that in post 388. You continuing to say, “Nuh fucking uh, you’re fucking a fucking liar, fuck it”* is a declaration, not a refutation.
- Disclaimer – another paraphrase, of post 403, not a direct quote. So please don’t respond with, “Show me where I said, ‘Nuh fucking uh, you’re fucking a fucking liar, fuck it.’ Can’t do it? You’re a liar.”
yawn
By the way, Aliquot - Out of your first 16 posts, 10 of them are in this thread, apparently just to insult me. And you have used that lame “autistic” insult 5 times now.
A life - get one.
And what’s your post count in this thread? Have you broken triple digits yet?
Also, I’d like to again point out that you only seem to respond to the posts where I insult you. The post where I tried to get back on track was disdainfully disregarded by you. So your whining seems a tad disingenuous.
I didn’t join two days ago. And 64% of all my posts aren’t in this thread.
Bah, merely a function of my newbieness. Are you telling me that I couldn’t find a stretch in this monstrosity of a thread where you posted more than 11 times in a two day span?
Get a life? Physician, heal thyself.
No, I’m telling you that 64% of your total posts are in this thread. 66% now. Surely I was clear.
For once, you were quite clear. My point was that the 66% number is artificially inflated, as I’ve only been a member for three days now, and thus the 12 or however many posts I’ve made in this thread represent a huge proportion of my total posting history. Your oh-so-original charge of “Get a life,” however, fails when I note that I’m sure you’ve posted far more than 12 posts in this very thread in a three day span. It’s not complicated, even for you. Compare total posts over a given time frame for the “Life-needing quotient,” not some misleading percentage of total overall posts.
And are you ever going to address my meaningful contribution to this thread, or are you going to continue down the road of unimportant minutae while whining, hypocritically, about how the “anti-bike” people are trying to derail the thread? I know, I know, focusing on more than one thing at a time makes your head hurt, but try to shift focus.
Here’s a logic lesson for you : just because you’ve never been caught doing something wrong doesn’t mean you’re not a shitty driver. I’m more going by your postings in this thread.
Clearly, the competent authorities (road engineers & traffic department) disagree with you - or else bicycles would not be allowed there, as they are not allowed on freeways here. Since they are not banned (or you would have brought it up), you’re just going to have to suck it up. Bikes can and should be on that particular road, and only petitioning the authorities can change that. I’m not buying this “only vehicles that can do the speed limit” argument - I see tractors and slow trucks on the road all the time, as well as bikes.
I can only guess that you missed post #66 or assumed that it does not apply to your state. Also has been mentioned in this thread, there are parts of the California freeway system where it is legal to ride a bicycle on the freeway. (Highway 101 north of Ventura)
Bottom line, the only legal place to ride a bike is in on the road. Deal with it.