See? Getting out of one’s car to confront the other person can lead to spontaneous public sex, and friendship, too!
Whether it’s right or not, one should be prepared if they’re going to run their mouth and flip people off. I think it’s the school of thought known as “don’t let your mouth write a check your sorry ass can’t cash,” or somesuch. 
I guess flipping people the bird, running your mouth, and then running away are now considered the evolved way of doing things. Anything else is caveman thinking. But me RevCo - what me know?! 
Note: Road rage is not a disease or a medical condition. People who get pissed off in traffic get pissed off in other places as well (work, church, dance floors, hula-hoop contests, etc.) That doesn’t mean you have to kow-tow to them out of fear of an assbeating, but neither do you have to play their game (by flipping them off and giving them run-along waves.)
Again, that’s the strange logic I’m talking about - the idea that yelling at someone leads to a fistfight as naturally as writing a check leads to having to make good on the payment. It makes no sense.
“Don’t yell at people.” <- sage advice
“Don’t yell at people unless you’re going to have a fistfight with them.” <- nonsensical
Strawman. Yelling and gesturing at people is bad. Physically striking people is bad. What I am questioning is the logic that maintains that these two things ought to be causally related.
It’s like saying, “It’s bad to pick your nose. It’s also bad to park in the handicapped space if you’re not handicapped. Therefore, if you pick your nose, you better be prepared to park in the handicapped space.” 
[For the analogy impaired, I’m not saying that fighting is analagous to picking your nose.]
Still a strawman. I don’t think anyone is ADVOCATING flipping people off.
It can be a symptom of a larger problem called Intermittent Explosive Disorder.
The ONLY one who is saying that Yelling and striking are related is (drumroll…) blowero! You keep saying that I’m making a direct relationship between yelling and gesturing and physically striking - I’m calling you out. Where is it?
No, IndyGrrl said, “don’t let your mouth write a check your sorry ass can’t cash”. And you seem to have agreed. If that doesn’t mean that a verbal altercation implies some sort of willingness to engage in a physical contest, then what does it mean? What is the “check” that would need to be “cashed”?
You keep complaining that I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying, yet you fail to clarify what it is you’re trying to say. You never clarified what you’re saying, as I asked you before:
**If someone wants to fight you, you either (A) fight or (B) don’t fight. The OP chose (B), and according to you, that’s “cowardly”.
Perhaps you need to define what the fuck you mean by “confrontation”.**
yet you want to bitch that I’m not understanding you. Well then start making sense. :rolleyes:
RevCo, have you ever listened to the short radio skits by “The Champ”?
Pass the pancake syrup or I’ll belt ya!
Good one! I seem to agree! Hey! Iraq seemed to have WMD’s - I guess we are right in attacking then? Seemed like the logical thing to do! What Indygrrl was saying boils down to: Don’t say anything you can’t back up - it’s metaphor - no hard meaning. Could mean fighting, could mean proving something, could mean a lot of things. I’m sure if she meant “Flip someone off, prepare for a pounding” she would have said it - but I don’t know her, so she can do her own talking.
It has never been established that the other driver wanted to fight. That’s where you are making an assumption. The other driver gets out of his car, obviously angry, and wants to confront one (con·front·ed, con·front·ing, con·fronts
v. tr. To come face to face with, especially with defiance or hostility: I wish to confront my accuser in a court of law. To bring face to face with: The defendant was confronted with incontrovertible evidence of guilt. To come up against; encounter: confronted danger at every turn. ) Notice no definition involves fighting or blows - sorry - for Christmas I’ll get you a dictionary, if we’re still friends.
You are the one making the assumtions - you assume that that stop was going to be a fight, you assume I believe that all angry words end in violence, you assume standing up for oneself is tantamount to fighting. I say fiddlesticks.
Are you saying you disagree? Or is it to much to ask for you to actually make a coherent point?
“No hard meaning”. Translation: I’m gonna weasel out of what I said.
What do you mean by “back up”?
Huh? “Proving something”? And that doesn’t mean fighting either? What are you talking about then, standing in front of the guy and doing calculus?
You just got through telling me what she meant, then you say you’ll let her do her own talking. If you’re gonna bitch about people misunderstanding you, you need to stop talking out of both sides of your mouth, idiot.
If you have a point, make it. Don’t bitch and whine about how I’m misinterpreting you, and then just say bullshit like “no hard meaning” and refuse to make a cogent point.
So what you are saying is that one’s goal, if one is not to be branded a ‘coward’ by you, is to exit one’s vehicle and stand in close proximity to the other person, facing them. I’m sorry, what purpose does that serve again?
Now I know you’re going to come back whining about how I’ve misinterpreted you, but you’re simply not giving me anything coherent to go on. I’m not the only one who is confused about what you’re trying to say; it’s rather obvious where the problem lies.
I invited you to clarify your meaning, which so far you’ve done a piss-poor job of.
I TOLD you that I’d be willing to consider that you had a different meaning, and invited you to explain what that meaning was. So far, all you’ve managed to muster is vagueness, sarcasm, and completely unhelpful dicitionary definitions.
Oh, and speaking of assumptions, I never claimed that you believe “all angry words end in violence.” Nice strawman, there.
blowero The OP made a mistake then ran from it. If he had to face the consequences of his actions – either arguing with someone or fighting with someone, he would probably analyze his actions and adjust accordingly. The consequences are now he must live with himself - which is worse than all the other punishments.
You encourage running from error. That is not the path of wisdom – it is through our mistakes that we learn. But I guess there is some good from this road misunderstanding: Now you are learning. Peace.
Yeah, but what is he learning? My guess is it’s that you are not capable of giving a straight answer.
Thank you, Lute. I appreciate that you also noticed RevCo’s waffling and pointed it out, even though you and I have had our differences in the past.
RevCo, I think you’re just trying to play games here. There’s a name for what you’re doing, but board rules don’t allow me to say it.
You’re welcome. I might misperceive you at times but know a waffle when I see one.
The way I see it, fighting is in many ways like sex. If it’s mutually agreed upon, then it’s no problem, and fun for the onlookers to boot. Afterwards, there’s a lot of pain, and sometimes embarassment. You should probably only do it with people you know well and trust, with protective gear, under the instruction of a trainer, and preferably a doctor’s supervsision ringside. Doing it outside of a bar with someone you just met is best avoided, and may arouse the interest of the local constabulary.
However, nobody has the right to force either on somebody who doesn’t want it. Anyone has the right to walk away from on offer of either, and a person who insists is engaging in criminal activity. Generally, a total stranger who jumps out of their car wanting to do do either with you by the side of the road (perhaps believing you were somehow inviting such an activity) should be regarded warily and scrupulously avoided, as they may well be batshit insane.
That seems like an extremely persuasive and amusingly phrased comparison, pravnik. I hope you don’t mind if I were to shamelessly steal your observation for use at my workplace during one of the staff’s informal lunchtime current events discussions (a distressingly large fraction of which tend to revolve around physical violence, sex crimes, or the two combined in various proportions*). I wonder if there’s any significant correlation between those who believe that someone who throws an insult must accept responsibility for provoking an attack, and those who believe that someone who wears revealing clothing must accept responsibility for being assaulted sexually.
*I swear, you have never heard such conversations; I could probably make big cash by secretly taping them and selling them online. These people can start from a tiny newspaper article about a dog being confiscated by the county, and somehow wind up discussing whether they personally would use power tools or fire to torture someone who forcibly molested a llama. I usually go outside to eat lunch these days unless it’s raining really hard.
OK I find myself agreeing with RevCo and blowero.
Rude words and actions shouldn’t lead to violence.
but also
Rude words and actions shouldn’t be ignored, and should lead to possible violent confrontation.
The idea that you can flip someone off without the risk of verbal and or physical retribution is abhorant, but the idea of hitting someone just because the flipped you the bird is also abhorant to me.