Well gosh. Such venom. Such anger. All over a thread from 2+ years ago. That’s really something. We must have had quite the heated exchange, right?
Except we didn’t, did we? Now I really do hate to kiss and tell, but you’ve not really left me much choice but to actually post the messages we exchanged.
First, and apologies for the tedium, here’s the thread that started it all: Lust4Life’s pitting of cyclists and his claim that “what has brought me to actually making this pitting is reading in my local paper that one of these characters has just got himself killed by running into the side of an articulated lorry.”
Now, a few people including myself found that unlikely, and asked for a link. He refused for fear of somehow upsetting the relatives. So, I offered:
Lust4Life pms me, and confirms the incident he was referring to. This prompts my PM:
WHich is the only PM I’ve ever sent to Lust4Life, and seems polite and reasonable to me. In fact, judging by L4L’s response, he thought so too:
So colour me slightly confused when 2 1/2 years later, you appear to have rather changed your position.
So, Lust4Life, any odds of an explanation. I mean, the obvious one that springs to mind is you’re a lying sack of shit who’s been nursing some weird form of grudge for a considerable time, and finally decided the time was right to seek revenge. However, being the kind soul that I am, I thought you might like a chance to explain yourself.
The answer is simple: L4L is a troll. He’s a really bad troll, which is cause for at least some amusement. It seems that his MO is to project any number of motivations and intentions upon things and get all worked up about it when people start pointing out inconsistencies and flaws in his reasoning. It’s best to just ignore him.
That notion isn’t implausible. L4L’s contention though was that the cyclist caused the crash: “what has brought me to actually making this pitting is reading in my local paper that one of these characters has just got himself killed by running into the side of an articulated lorry.”
Cycling deaths in the UK are fortunately uncommon. Cycling deaths caused by the cyclist are incredibly uncommon.
I could buy a cyclist getting killed through his own inattention or recklessness, or a combination of the cyclist’s inattention and the driver’s inattention. Heck, a couple of years ago, a cyclist ran a red light and slammed into the side of my father’s car. I was in the passenger seat at the time. The jerk got back on his bike and took off, leaving my dad with a broken side mirror. Jerk.
As an incidental note, he was a Hassidic Jew and wearing the traditional black garb. While riding a bike. At night. Shalom, asshole.
“In a thread in the Pit some time ago, I didn’t wish to reveal a persons name (who had been killed in an accident)…because it would have caused a lot of hurt to the family of the deceased.” Lust4Life
The first item puts the second item into an interesting context. I’m glad I stopped by.
Then I don’t get what either of you are on about - it’s plausible to me that a careless cyclist caused his own death and I don’t see how the family could be hurt by having the name of the cyclist cited on a message board after it had been cited in the press.
I don’t get why the name of the cyclist was important to you. So far on my scoreboard, you’re both idiots. Maybe he was a little bit idiot-er, but you started this thread so it’s a tie.
I started the thread, because 2 years after the exchange in question, he made the post above. You know, the bit where he alleges I’m "a pathetic , lieing little coward, a cocksucking little nobody ". Oh, and does the rather cute “meet me if you dare” thing. Internet hard man, Gotta love it.
Now you might think that I’m out of order asking him to specify which incident he was referring to during the original thread. Judging by the way a few other people asked the same question, it doesn’t seem like that unreasonable thing to ask, but your mielage may vary.
But I would have thought it was fairly understandable why, having not thought about the exchange for the last 2 years, I find his outburst from the weekend worth querying.
I’m not sure what your problem is in following the thread. Lust4Life harboured some bizarre grudge from a misrepresented PM exchange over two years ago and brought it up out-of-the-blue in a completely unrelated thread in order to accuse Gary Kumquat of being a loathsome piece of filth, etc. The Pit Thread is occurring now because Lust4Life resurrected the strange exchange just a few days ago in said unrelated thread.
This is just one instance in a pattern of behaviour that’s honestly pretty bizarre.