Horrific Bike Crash In Mexico

[GarfieldLeChat]

Err, excuse me.

I've hardly been "going at his throat." In comparison, my posts have been short, polite and to the point.

and lied through you teeth can you back up the supposed claim i have made or is that infact a gross misrepresenation of what was said ie liying blantently...

if you consider lying about what someone has said so you can win your ego based argument over somethign which you have no further information about and have entirely failed to answer the viald question put to you as polite... i'd hate to see you being rude...

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

sorry but to claim "we don't know the circumstances" arguments are pretty baseless and very tasteless imo.

i think to some degree at least, the picture shows that the driver was guilty of some "careless" driving if i'm being kind.

if he is found to be under the influence, he should be done for manslaughter.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I would have thought that a photograph of the driver on the wrong side of the road ploughing head on into a group of cylists on a dead straight highway with good visibility might be evidence that he's guilty of dangerous driving at the very least.

who knows the likely hood is in reality that this is an idiot drving in to a group of cyclists with out good cause.

but it could be photoshop it could be theres and unfortunate but mitigating reason it happened it could be as has been alledged that this person was drunk and fell asleep...

but with out access to the facts of the case it's merely wild speculation.

sadly it seems increasingly that when this is pointed the editor and others leap up and down damanding their rattles out the pram hyperbole is the only possible explaination and leap on anyone who points out the flaw in that knee jerk reaction with ries of witch and sadly a newer emergance of simply lying about the posters posts in order to barrack them in to agreement.

well the world don't work like that.

there's not enough information except to say it's a horrific (if real) photograph which has a sensationalist story behind it.

no need for others to attempt to manipluatle others misfortune to garner support for their own pet hates. in fact doing so is dispicable to my mind...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

sorry but to claim "we don't know the circumstances" arguments are pretty baseless and very tasteless imo.

i think to some degree at least, the picture shows that the driver was guilty of some "careless" driving if i'm being kind.

if he is found to be under the influence, he should be done for manslaughter.

you don't know.

what's fare more tasteless is that the editor this site will lie about posters points in order to 'win' an argument...

who exactly can we get recourse from if the owner is lying about posters...

fuckign abysmal behaviour for which he should apologise to the entire community for...

 

[editor]

But this isn't very nice..

Considering the earful I've been getting in this thread, I have been positively Princess Di like in my grace and demeanour.

and lied through you teeth can you back up the supposed claim i have made or is that infact a gross misrepresenation of what was said ie liying blantently...

I have not "lied through my teeth" at any point in this thread, Garf, but your needlessly confrontational and abusive conduct has been a disgrace throughout.

 

[Athos]

sorry but to claim "we don't know the circumstances" arguments are pretty baseless and very tasteless imo.

i think to some degree at least, the picture shows that the driver was guilty of some "careless" driving if i'm being kind.

if he is found to be under the influence, he should be done for manslaughter.

If he'd had a stroke at the wheel, is that careless?

My point is, we don't know what happened.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

you don't know.

what's fare more tasteless is that the editor this site will lie about posters points in order to 'win' an argument...

who exactly can we get recourse from if the owner is lying about posters...

fuckign abysmal behaviour for which he should apologise to the entire community for...

we do know that he drove full-on into a pack of cyclists garf, which is pretty negligent whatever else the circumstances. and to start a bunfight over whether or not the driver was to blame or not byway of some half-baked notion of kids running onto 4-lane highways and subsequent tyre blows is tasteless imo. but hey ho, lets go....am not getting sucked into any psycho-dramas on here, too busy with other things, not least of which is feeling pretty damned bad about such carnage occuring

found some flickr pics if anyone's remotely interested...

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

If he'd had a stroke at the wheel, is that careless?

My point is, we don't know what happened.

he looks pretty darned unstroke like in those pics i just posted.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Compared to the earful I've been getting in this thread, I have been positively Princess Di like in my grace and demeanour.
I have not "lied through my teeth" at any point in this thread, Garf, but your needlessly confrontational and abusive conduct has been a disgrace throughout.

you did lie you claim i had made a claim where as in fact i had given you a senario you then ran with that senario attempt to portay this as me excusing the incident and then attempted to barrack me into proving the race was illegal in the actual sitation. correct me if at any point your posts don't reveal this...

you have on several occasions then accused me of wriggling out of providing any explaination as to the hyperthetical legality of the senario given in an attempt to marginlaise my intial point we don't know what happened.

i suggest you go back and read the thread with your cooled heels and then come back and apologise for blatently lying about another poster...

they are your posts unless someones comprimised your login.

really stop misrepresenting my comments and cease lying...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

we do know that he drove full-on into a pack of cyclists garf, which is pretty negligent whatever else the circumstances. and to start a bunfight over whether or not the driver was to blame or not byway of some half-baked notion of kids running onto 4-lane highways and subsequent tyre blows is tasteless imo. but hey ho, lets go....am not getting sucked into any psycho-dramas on here, too busy with other things, not least of which is feeling pretty damned bad about such carnage occuring

the editor concurs that the police are correct with no possilbe access to informaton to prove this either way other than his own prejudice and then asks for senarios which would cause this of which i provided one. nothing tastless or excusing about it.

 

[editor]

you did lie you claim i had made a claim where as in fact i had given you a senario you then ran with that senario attempt to portay this as me excusing the incident and then attempted to barrack me into proving the race was illegal in the actual sitation. correct me if at any point your posts don't reveal this...

I'll let others decide on what I believe is your rather unique interpretation of events, thanks, but I would ask you stop throwing around the personal abuse please.

 

[Athos]

he looks pretty darned unstroke like in those pics i just posted.

Come on, you know the point I am trying to make - we just don't know what happened. Maybe he was pissed, or maybe he'd just been stung by a wasp, or had a fit. We don't know, do we?

 

[editor]

he looks pretty darned unstroke like in those pics i just posted.

Indeed.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I'll let others decide on what I believe is your rather unique interpretation of events, thanks, but I would ask you stop throwing around the personal abuse please.

can you cite one post where i have made ANY CLAIM OF AN ILLEGAL ROAD RACE OR APOLOGISE FOR DELIBERATLY LYING TO MISREPRESENT MY POINT.

you lied you then obficated attempt to misrepresent the point inorder to further your anti car agenda and you've been caught red handed.

it's up to you whether you are an adult and admit that actually you did make up the part where i CLAIM the race was illegal and in fact you had mis read my intial post.

when you're ready, btw what is it when you deleiberately lie about someone inorder to negate their point would that be personal abuse i think so...

when you are ready mr editor...

 

[Crispy]

cyclist pack racing illegally on an open road.

I think it's pretty unambiguous garf.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

all we need now is for max to turn up and question whether we really know anything.....

 

[jæd]

Come on, you know the point I am trying to make - we just don't know what happened. Maybe he was pissed, or maybe he'd just been stung by a wasp, or had a fit. We don't know, do we?

No, the police do. And the headline would've been "Man Stung By Wasps Kills Cyclists"... Not sure how hard this.

 

[Athos]

No, the police do. And the headline would've been "Man Stung By Wasps Kills Cyclists"... Not sure how hard this.

So you think that the police's say-so is concrete proof of guilt?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I think it's pretty unambiguous garf.

and where is that from can you quote it in full...

in fact seeing as you too are now playing silly buggers with what's actually been said (had a word in thwe mods froum has he)

here's the link to the original post...

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7590729&postcount=25

and that post in full including the editors 'polite' not at all sneering condasending post it was responding too...

Perhaps you might come up with a remotely credible scenario how someone on the wrong side of the road might manage to smash headlong into a large bunch of brightly clad cyclists at high speed on a clear day if they weren't driving recklessly?

Looking forward to it.

child runs out infront of car car swerves to aviod child runs over nail deflates tire by 15 psi which steers car into path of cyclist pack racing illegally on an open road.

any more examples you'd like captain unimaginative car basher?

not made a single claim that this was an illegal road race presented a senario as was requested which was credible.

now then are you going to ask him to apologise for lying or are you goign to have you choke chain pulled so you to can cowtow to his obvious bullying too...

 

[richsaint]

So you think that the police's say-so is concrete proof of guilt?

I'm sure they were bored and just felt like fitting someone up, they even went to the bother of photoshopping that picture.

 

[Athos]

No, the police do. And the headline would've been "Man Stung By Wasps Kills Cyclists"... Not sure how hard this.

Yeah, just like if de Menezes had been an innocent electrician the headline would have been "Innocent Electrician Killed" rather than what was actually written: "One Down Three to Go".

Newsflash: what the police say about alleged offenderes isn't necessarily 100% accurate, all of the time. Or do you think it is?

 

[jæd]

So you think that the police's say-so is concrete proof of guilt?

No, but police don't just say the cause of a accident is due to the guy being drunk and asleep without a good reason...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

No, but police don't just say the cause of a accident is due to the guy being drunk and asleep without a good reason...

they didn't say it at all they allegdged it...

 

[Athos]

No, but police don't just say the cause of a accident is due to the guy being drunk and asleep without a good reason...

And they don't just say four Irishmen blew up a pub in Guildford, or six did the same in Birmingham, or that Stefan Kitchco raped that little girl, or that Stephen Lawrence's killing wasn't racially motivated etc. etc.

You need to understand that police saying someone is guilty does not mean they are. People say things for all sorts of reasons. I don't know what reasons they have, nor do you. But I do know that I'd want there to be some testing odf the evidence to establish guilt as a fact.

Are you saying it is a logical impossibility that this may was not drunk and asleep?

 

[Crispy]

and where is that from can you quote it in full...

in fact seeing as you too are now playing silly buggers with what's actually been said (had a word in thwe mods froum has he)

No garf. in fact as you can see me and ed have already already disagreed on this thread. I'm my own man, thanks.

here's the link to the original post.

where you went on to say:

as for the legality of the ROAD RACE can you find me chaper and verse where any know country in the world will allow unsupported racing on open pulbic roads because i can assure you the racing lobby of the world will be very intrested in going there as yet it's not been possible to find anywhere insane enough to allow the general public and professional racers to met and mingle on the tarmac for blindingly obvious reasons...

Which to me reads as "I think this race was illegal, because AFAIK, all road races are illegal unless otherwise stated by a local law"

 

[jæd]

Newsflash: what the police say about alleged offenderes isn't necessarily 100% accurate, all of the time. Or do you think it is?

Cool. I was wondering how more many posts it would take before we got to the ACAB.

 

[Crispy]

Cool. I was wondering how more many posts it would take before we got to the ACAB.

He didn't say that ACAB. Just that they can't be trusted 100%

 

[jæd]

And they don't just say four Irishmen blew up a pub in Guildford, or six did the same in Birmingham, or that Stefan Kitchco raped that little girl, or that Stephen Lawrence's killing wasn't racially motivated etc. etc.

You need to understand that police saying someone is guilty does not mean they are. People say things for all sorts of reasons. I don't know what reasons they have, nor do you. But I do know that I'd want there to be some testing odf the evidence to establish guilt as a fact.

Are you saying it is a logical impossibility that this may was not drunk and asleep?

Um... No, I'm saying the cops don't usually say things without having a good reason. Please try reading my last post. But please continue ranting about how ACAB... You'll be doing to to yourself.

 

[Athos]

Cool. I was wondering how more many posts it would take before we got to the ACAB.

That's pathetic. I didn't say 'ACAB'. There's a world of difference between that and saying that police officers are not the arbiters of fact in a criminal case. But you must know that, and prefer to misrepresent what I did say because your position is so weak.

I'll ask again: Do you accept that it is not a logical impossibility that the driver was not drunk and asleep?

 

[jæd]

He didn't say that ACAB. Just that they can't be trusted 100%

And where have I had said this...? I've just said there's usually a good reason. Its the he's way its bringing in unrelated guff like de Menezes, the Guildford 4, which smacks of ACAB...

But hey, the dude is on ignore now, anyhow...