lucwarm, why do you think the OP was lying? His account seems perfectly reasonable to me. During this whole thread you have repeatedly stated that you don’t think WW was giving the tailgater an opportunity to pass. You have also stated that you think WW slowed down merely to retaliate.
Why do you think Windwalker was lying when he wrote the OP? What inconsistencies are there? And please don’t say, “I just feel that he’s lying”.
Windwalker, I see you didn’t want someone else dictating your speed. The other driver could have easily passed you, regardless of whether or not it was legal. In your position, I would have simply changed the angle of reflection on all mirrors away from my sightline, and continued on.
Whatever. Allow me to amend my previous statement to:
…In my opinion you are wrong and just too stubborn to admit it. In my opinion you are continuing the argument in the hopes of making the opposition give up in disgust at your disingenuous, lawyer tactics; allowing you to claim a rather tattered and pyrrhic victory.
Well, I think there were some people who had issues with the OP at the start of the thread. But I don’t see anyone agreeing with you after the OPer’s clarifying post.
Show of hands for those agreeing with Lucwarm’s arguments…
Anyone?
It’s Alive…
It’s ALIIIII HHHIIIIIVE!!!
mwaaaah haaa ha HAAA!!
Psst GSV no one in this thread agreed with him. Only one person on page one said he SORTOF felt like the OP MAY have been a little jerkish, IF he did it out of spite.
Other than that it’s about 50-1.
No, just making a joke.
You’ve been bashing people upside the head with your opinion for pretty much the entire thread.
Feasable to pass?!? 15 in a 55 zone and it can’t be passed? What the fuck kind of Green_Party car that looks at Geo Metro’s as gas-hogs are you driving?
Everyone’s an idiot/moron, etc. Which law school teaches these phrases as cognizent argumentative descriptors?
I challenge that you are less than a lawyer, you purport to be one. Before any more legal challenges, please tell us which law school you are associated with.
I call major BS on any claim to be a lawyer. The initial accusations are hereby invalid, since any lawyer would proudly state his education.
This is now just funny.
Not likely since he mentioned the vindictiveness in his original post. He did give more details later, but that is reasonable, since his fairly long OP couldn’t include everything, and he was not likely to anticipate the full reaction.
Well, yes, in most circumstances. Exceptions are if you are doing a stunt, or being an idiot and passing when there is oncoming traffic. It appears that neither is the case here. Given that we know the tailgater could go 50, there is no functional difference in this situation. Please demonstrate otherwise.
And we have asked for evidence to support your position, and have gotten none. My statement stands.
No, he explicitly said in the first post that he slowed down because he was blinded by the tailgaters brights. He admitted that he took pleasure from doing it, but it was not the cause. Is it really human nature to act like an asshole when you are coming back from Thanksgiving dinner with your mother in the car? Or don’t you believe in the mother either? Hell, maybe he was ferrying the missing WMDs. When you start making stuff up, anything is possible.
Perhaps I missed them. Could you maybe give a logically consistent argument for both your skepticism and what happened? The OPs mental state is unprovable, but it neither kept the tailgater from passing, created a shoulder, or forced the tailgater to follow closely with brights on. The best you might say is that the OP did the correct thing for the wrong reason, but you need to come up with better reasons than your skepticism some time.
As is mentioned in another post, the way to impede someone is to drive inconsistently. Speeding up and slowing down randomly does indeed make it impossible to pass in this situation. The actions of the OP certainly slowed the tailgater down, but did not impede him from passing. The slowing was a side effect of the OP slowing for safety reasons. The tailgater really slowed himself down by creating an unsafe situation.
Your client has been fried, guy. Time to give the case up.
At this point in this woefully hijacked thread there are really only three words I’d like to hear from the shyster…I mean prosecuting attorney and they are.
The prosecution rests.
I dunno if anyone has posted this yet (I can’t stand to read the whole thing - it’s abusurd) but, assuming they havent:
lukwarm The Road to the Sun highway in Montana fits the criteria of a road that has large stretchs where it would be impossible to pass. I don’t know if you can tell from the photo but on the left is a 1000ft drop and on the right is a 1000 foot rock wall going straight up. What is clear is that there are no shoulders on this particular road. Now, unless you have the mother of all SUV’s, you will NOT be able to pull over to let a tailgater pass. FWIW, this particular stretch of road is 54 miles long.
alice, you may have just came up with something to put this mess to rest (finally). A road, 54 miles long, where it is not safe to cross the double-yellow and not typically feasible to pull over to allow someone to pass safely.
Now if only counsel can agree that Windwalker may have been on such a road.
Indeed. I’ve driven that road - it’s scarey as shit, even in the summer. (Heck, it’s usually only open in the summer.)
If someone’s tailgating and shining their brights in your eyes you really have no other choice but to slow down.
A good question.
First, re-read the OP. Note that he doesn’t say in his first post whether the tailgater was able to pass. However, it does appear that he got some vindictive pleasure out of the situation. This is more consistent with a situation where the tailgater is unable to pass than a situation where the tailgater is able to pass but has decided to stalk the OP.
Note also that in the very first post, the OP does not say “I slowed way down and he STILL didn’t pass me” or words to that effect. If the OP had done that, it would have been odd not to mention it.
Thus I inferred from the OP that the tailgater was not given an opportunity to pass. This is also consistent with human nature – when confronted by an obnoxious asshole making demands, it’s human nature to try to deny the person what he or she seeks. Indeed, that’s arguably the premise of the thread.
If the OP was trying to give the tailgater the opportunity to pass, he could have slowed down further as has been debated ad nauseum in this thread. From the fact that he didn’t, I gather that he was content to impede the tailgater. This is also consistent with human nature – as mentioned above, when confronted by an obnoxious asshole making demands, it’s human nature to try to deny the person what he or she seeks. Indeed, that’s arguably the premise of the thread. Thus my claim that the OP was trying to punish and retaliate against the tailgater. It’s been said that for everything we do, there is a good reason and the real reason. I think that saying applies to some extent here.
In a later post, the OP does indicate that the OP did have an opportunity to pass. However, with this premise, the story makes a lot less sense (IMHO of course). Also, it’s human nature, when confronted with criticism, to spin your conduct to make it appear more reasonable or justified. I think that’s what happened here.
Again, it seems a little much to claim somebody’s opinion is flat out wrong. I don’t recall having made such a claim about other peoples’ opinions.
Anyway, I think it would help if you spelled out specifically what point you believe I’m wrong on.
**
I think I can come up with examples to show that I haven’t faced “unanimous opposition.” as you’ve claimed, even after the OP’s “clarifying post.”
Ahh, you were JOKING. Whatever.
**
Then it should be very easy for you to come up with examples. Or perhaps this is another joke?
Go back and check the thread, idiot. I didn’t call everyone an "idiot. " Mainly you (and a few others) actually. Because you’re an “idiot/moron etc.”
**
Go back and check the thread, idiot. I never volunteered the fact that I’m an attorney. Other people made the claim, and I agreed with it.
You think I care if you doubt I’m an attorney? Because I don’t. I couldn’t care less in fact.
And I think it’s a little much to claim the OP is lying based on what’s been presented here.
Oh no. You are not going to draw me into your ever decreasing circles of argument. Plenty of other people have already demolished your arguments, with cites no less.
Please do so. Someone specifically agreeing with you, not just calling the OP names for driving slowly.
Disagree, but it’s a matter of opinion. I did set forth the basis for my belief a few posts back.
**
Ok . . . first, will you concede that according to your logic, it’s just as easy to pass somebody going 20 as 15?
**
I’m not sure what you mean by “evidence,” since there is no possibility of bringing in additional witnesses or documents concerning the events described in the OP. I’ve explained why I believe what I believe about what happened. It seems to me that there’s nothing more I can do in the way of presenting evidence.
You may disagree with my explanations, but ignoring them won’t make them go away.
Perhaps it would help if you explained what you mean by “evidence,” and show me where “we” asked for it?
Sure. When somebody’s an asshole to you, it’s human nature to retaliate.
Perhaps. I laid out an explanation a few posts back, though. You might check it out. (Note that I had given explanations previously too.)
**
Disagree. But feel free to pronounce yourself the victor and abandon the thread.
In the alternative, I’m happy to consider any new arguments you may care to present.
Whatever. I’ve emphasized that it’s my opinion.
**
Suit yourself. But I note that I’ve discussed a lot of different things in this thread. Your general claim that I’m “wrong” is really too vague to allow any kind of meaningful response.
So I challenge you: Specify where you think I’m wrong. To borrow a popular phrase: Put up or shut up.
**
Fine, but let’s make sure I understand your position: Your claim is that I’ve faced “unanimous opposition.” So if I find a poster who mentioned my position and didn’t say I was wrong (either expressly or impliedly), then you’re wrong. Agreed? Or are you going to weasel a little?
I looked at the photo, and it seems to me that if the car in the foreground pulled as far to the right as possible and slowed to a stop or near-stop, the car behind it would be able to pass by crossing the double-yellow. Just MHO of course.
Pretty much every single post you have made in this thread, you pedantic jerk.
