Riding my tail with highbeams on is a recipe to make me go slower, not faster...

The BBQ Pit
261

**Then SHOW ME WHERE I DID. Indicate the quote. Put a big arrow next to it, and say, “This is where you admitted to misrepresenting my argument deliberately.” DO IT, LIAR.

I have already explained to you that saying I was trying to bust your balls was not an admission of saying I was misrepresenting your argument. Frankly, only a fucking moron like you could have read that and come to that conclusion. It was part of a paragraph where I said I had mistakenly committed a non sequitur, imbecile. How you could read the whole paragraph and reach your conclusion is beyond reason.

**No, it’s not, and you can repeat it ad infinitum and it won’t take on an aura of truth. I busted your balls (as you have mine in this thread). That is not, NOT, NOT an admission of deliberate misrepresentation, you fucking moron you. Repeating that it is won’t make it so.

Your tiny brain has committed a non sequitur–i.e., if I said I was trying to bust your balls, it can only mean I was misrepresenting your argument deliberately. No amount of semantical torture can make what I said mean what you want it to. Sorry, asshole.

**I never said it was an unintended side effect, you dense fucking prick! I said I was refuting your argument, and in doing so hoped I did it in a manner that busted your balls.

Just show me where, liar. Show me where I imply that I did not intend to bust your balls. JUST SHOW ME THE SPECIFIC FUCKING PHRASE. Stop saying over and over again that I did. Just show it.

**No. None whatsoever. What could possibly be inconsistent with two statements that indicate that busting your gumdrop-sized balls would be a fine outcome from my perspective? Clearly you think that the first statement implies that busting your 'nads must be unintentional, a reading that is illogical and not supported by the actual words, not to mention one that is inconsistent within the context of the thread. Idiot.

Look, it’s just as easy as I’ve said. I’ve shown you the phrases where you lied. Do the same, champ. Or admit you lied.

BTW, I noticed you completely ignored my point about having addressed your argument. I wonder why that is? I also notice you made no comment regarding what I said about the “egregious” misrepresentation of your argument. I wonder why you didn’t expand on the horrible misattribution I did? I wonder why? :wally

BTW, bub, you have one more chance to respond honestly, then I’m done with you. This has been enough fun.

262

[/qupte]gah. Kindly show me an article which says you shouldn’t slow down as much as necessary (consistent with safe driving) to allow the tailgater to pass, even if it means slowing down to 5 mph or stopping

And while you’re at it, you might take a crack at the other questions:

(1) True or false: the articles I quoted contradict your view of what is reasonable?
[/quote]

The ARTICLES don’t contrdict what those of us in the thread think is reasonable, they contradict what YOU think is reasonable based on what you’ve said in this thread. And that is basically that you’ll not accept any action by a tailgatee as “reasonable” unless it results in the tailgater being able to pass.

And that 5mph is okay and reasonable to allow a tailgater to pass, but 15mph is not. And that there are roads where it’s impossible for the tailgatee to pull over.

THAT is what we’re disagreeing with you about.
what constitutes “allowing a reasonable opportunity”.

And your very own quoted cite doesn’t support YOUR views as previously expressed in this thread.

263

Asked and answered.

**

I realize that you’ve “explained” that, but saying it don’t make it so, Senor Weasel.

**

Admittedly, your admission was not entirely clear. But note I inserted the adverb “basically.”

**

I pointed out that you’d misrepresented my position, and you responded indicating you were busting my balls. Or perhaps you were referring to something entirely different? Perhaps you don’t mean anything you’ve been saying at all? Whatever.

**[

That’s what you implied. But look, if reserve the right to claim that none of what you say actually means what it seems to say, maybe you should just stop spewing your nonsense?

**

That’s precious. So if I show one place in the thread where I addressed that point, it means you’re a liar, eh? lol. Anyways, I summarized what you said and gave it what response it deserved. Check again, senor weasel.

Oh I forgot – nothing that you say means what it seems to say. Pardon me, idiot.

**

Does this mean you’re leaving the thread? Happy Trails, moron.

264

Look, do you remember saying the following?

Agree or disagree: You think it’s reasonable to slow down in order to punish and retaliate against a tailgater?

**

If I find an article which says it’s appropriate to pull over to let a tailgater pass, will you concede defeat?

Oh, and

(1) Agree or disagree: You think it’s reasonable to slow down in order to punish and retaliate against a tailgater?

(2) Can you quote the exact language I used which you claim indicates I claimed that the tailgater didn’t pass because he was “law-abiding.”?

(3) Can you cite actual language from any articles or public service announcements that contradict stuff that I’ve actually said (not stuff you made up)?

265

**Yep, one last chance to actually show where I said this. One more time where you didn’t. Whatever. At least there can be no doubt you’re a liar.

**Say, where’d you pick up that clever “Senor Weasel” line, sparky? BTW, I don’t need to explain that “I was trying to bust your balls” doesn’t mean “I deliberately misrepresented your argument” any more than I need to explain why it doesn’t mean I confessed to killing Jimmy Hoffa. It simply doesn’t. If you’re a lwayer, I hope you’re not a prosecuting attorney.

Anyone who understands English (unfortunately for you) can plainly read that. That’s good enough for me. Anyone with an ounce of reason reading this thread will draw the proper conclusion. Frankly, I have no more interest in pointing out the obvious to you.

**A word that apparently means “I can say this without any real logic or evidence” in lucwarm’s moronic little world.

**No, but you’re close. I reserve the right to point out that you can’t make plain English mean whatever you want it to.

**It’s right here on this page (wow, again with that golden insult, Senor Weasel). Anyone who wants to look can do so. I laid out an argument. You ignored it.

**On the contrary. It means just what it seems to. Unfortunately for you, plain English can’t be twisted into whatever you’d prefer.

See you in the funny papers, dickhead.

266

from an outsider’s perspective - when I see a back and forth like:

A: Show me where I said that

B: I’ve already answered that

My general take on it is that:

especially in long threads (like this one), if you feel you ‘answered’ the question way back on page two, it should be easy for you to find the segment where you felt you had indeed answered the question.

Sometimes you feel like you’ve answered the question when the other person didn’t see it that way. It doesnt’ mean necessarily that either poster is lying or being evasive etc. what was crystal clear to you as you wrote it may not have come across that way. If you’re asked again, point it out. repeating “I’ve answered that” allows readers, observers, other posters etc to believe you’re weaseling.

If the tactic is repeated (where you get to answer “once again, as I said on page 2 when you asked, and again on page 5 when you asked”) observers will indeed see what’s really happening.

267

Umm, I showed you a few times. But look, maybe you could explain exactly what you were intending to do? Certainly the phrase “I was trying to bust your balls” (or something like that) implies that there was some sort of deliberate decision.

**

From you, Senor Weasel.

**

Ahh, but under stratocaster-logic, if I ever addressed the argument, your claim that I later ignored it is wrong. But like I said, I gave it as much of a response as it deserved.

**

Umm, you’re the one who’s twisting here.

bye bye idiot.

268

well, that answers **that ** question. Next up, chicken/egg

269

I appreciate the feedback. I certainly feel as if I’ve pulled out the relevant quotes, multiple times, and explained in excruciating detail my position (using the specific quotes). Excruciating to the point where I felt bad clogging up the thread with an argument I was certain only two guys had any real interest in.

There reaches a certain point where it seems clear the other guy refuses to address anything except in an indirect manner, and the back and forth becomes a duck and dodge, with loaded statements and insults completely taking the place of a point-by-point reply. I am never reluctant to say, “I may have overstated that,” or, “You’re right, I was off base there.” I have effectively done so in this very thread. It’s my experience that some people on this board feel that means they somehow lose and will refuse to make the simplest concession. Then the exchange degenerates into a trainwreck. I’m done contributing in this instance.

Anyway, that’s the way it feels from where I sit. Everyone is entitled to form their own opinion, of course.

Again, I appreciate the feedback.

270

I agree with the OP, especially if it is very dark out or bad weather and this A-Hole is blinding me with his High Beams.
That makes me go slower, because I can not see, A-Hole.

271

OK kids, back to the OP.

Under no cirumstances should you allow the driver behind you to drive your car. If you change your driving behavior because of the guy behind you, you are letting him make decisions for you about how to operate your car. This is extremely dangerous. If, as the OP said, you are comforable driving this road at 30 mph, then drive at 30, not 50 as the guy behind you would like, nor at 15 as the guy behind you would not like. Each person should drive one car at a time.

OK the fight may now resume.

272

Right, but the OP said that he was driving at 15 because of poor visibility due to the high beams, not to slow the tailgater down. The number one priority, as I’m sure you would agree, is to drive the car in a safe manner, which is why he shouldn’t go 50 either.

273

Not really. If he were really vindicative, he could have said so, this being the Pit and all. Many have. If he had wanted to llie about being vindictive, he wouldn’t have had to mention it at all. So his story is self-consistent.

Let’s look at the numbers.

Say WW’s car is 20 feet long the tailgater is 20 feet back (or will be when he starts to pass) and will pull back in 20 feet in front of the WW car. Say he will pass at 50 mph, which he clearly thinks is a safe speed on this road. The OPs speed is 15 mph, which is 22 feet per second. The pass will be done at 35 mph relative, which is about 51 feet per second. So, it will take no more than a second or two to pass. It would probably take more than that due to acceleration and deceleration.

If the OP was going 5 mph, the relative speed would be 45 mph, or 66 fps, less than 33% faster. So, if the tailgater could pass at 5 mph, he would certainly be able to pass at 15. (One mistake - the tailgater wouldn’t have to decelerate, would he?)

So your assertion that the OP did not give the tailgater an opportunity to pass is disproven. There was either no room to pass at all (possible) or the tailgater was getting his jollies torturing the OP with his brights. One other possibility. The tailgater’s visibility was impaired by following too closely.

I think it is clear to all here that the only reason you doubt the OP’s story is that this is the only way you can justify your position - and it doesn’t even work.

And the preponderence of evidence is that he did both. You’re just denying it so that you don’t have to retract.

First of all, we are not begging the question, but working on evidence.

Could you give a scenario where the OP did not let the tailgater pass that does not directly contradict the OPs posts, or is at least reasonable and self consistent. So far your only response has been, “I don’t believe it.”

Most examples I’ve seen of people preventing others from passing have involved speeding up, not driving at 15 mph. The OP is fiendishly clever indeed, preventing the guy from passing by driving slowly. My hat’s off to him.

274

Or he could have later decided to put an improved spin on his story.

**

Your conclusion doesn’t make a lot of sense. You think that any time a 5mph car can be passed, the same car can be passed if it’s going 15mph?

**

You’ve got it backwards – my position is based on the fact that I doubt the OP’s story. As I’ve said before, if in fact he did give the tailgater a reasonable opportunity to pass, my position would be different.

**

I’m not sure who you mean by “we” – would you like examples?

**

I’m not sure what your point is – but it seems to me that the OP, angered at being tailgated decided to slow down in order to punish and retaliate the tailgater. This is not inconsistent with his first post. In a later post, he decided, consciously or subconsciously, to put a better spin on events by suggesting that the tailgater had a reasonable opportunity to pass.

Note that my scenario is not entirely consistent with the OP’s posts, which is unsurprising since I’ve already indicated my skepticism. However, it is more consistent with human nature. Just MHO of course.

**

I’ve offered reasons for my skepticism. You may disagree with them, but that won’t make them go away.

**

Don’t be ridiculous. Part of the OP’s objective was to impede the tailgater. Obviously the way to accomplish this is by slowing down, but not so much that the tailgater can pass.

275

It was only with morbid curiosity to see what kind of beast this turned into. Lucwarm, I’m a moron, idiot, etc. Good argument. I hope you’re the defending BARRISTER of some kingpin’s daughter’s death that was caused by a tailgater. You may see see the SAFETY argument here.

Has anyone else noticed 1) Fuclorn uses the word "behavioUr’? 2) He(?) has no clue about American roads outside NYC?

Dipship, if a car is doing 15 mph (NOT 15 KPH) I could run past the fucker on FOOT!

Ass-clown, your “arguments” have no basis in real law. Go play with your other wads for awhile and allow us real discourse. You seem to enjoy repeating your same nut-drippings on this board, though you don’t seem to understand you’ve been proven to be a sac-less toad-wart. Name-calling? You bet your pimpled ass. It’s the only language pre-teens seem to understand.

Have you presented this as a hypothetical, given only the OP, to ANYONE you may or may not know for review. I understand you’ll probably have to make it up, like everything else you say, but we love good fiction here. Especially when spewed by bitter, despotic, beings of darkness.

Like I said, try this shit in the OP behind me, and you’ll have to take your chances. You see, the main safety point of not fucking with people who are trying to let you by is this.

You just never know who the person you’re fucking with is capable/willing to do in retaliation, if they feel threatened by an unknown 2 ton entity behind them.

Have a horrible day

276

Absolutely. You are a moron, an idiot, etc.

**

Absolutely – you never know what folks will do in retaliation on the road. Which is why one should be very careful not to engage in behaviour which will escalate the situation, such as slowing down to punish and retaliate against a tailgater.

277

And how do you let them pass if you don’t slow down, speed up? I know if I have someone riding my bumper with the Highbeams on, my first thought is to show him up by going faster. This does two things. First, it shows him I’m better than him cuz I can control the speed that he has to overcome to pass me, that’ll show him. Second, I get to decide how fast I, or he, can hit the oncoming car head on that exponentially increases the chance of some poor innocent dying.

Another excellent argument.

278

I’ll lay it out real simple-like for you:

Slowing down in order to let the tailgater pass: ok.

Slowing down so that tailgater is slowed down but cannot pass: not ok.

279

so at some point it becomes too slow to pass? If the dick can’t pass at 15 mph, he surely can’t pass at 25, 35, 45 mph. You just proved the OP’s point.

Now go away, you need your medication

280

Oh, I forgot, coming to a complete stop would let the dick know it was ok to pass, risking a rear-end collision, possible bodily injury, as well as “impeding traffic” as you so much like to claim. Maybe you are an attorney. Can I retain you if I’m ever in an accident I didn’t cause? I suspect you could exhaust a jury to the point of millions of dollars. I’d hire you in that circumstance.