Horrific Bike Crash In Mexico

[jæd]

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?

Its been in at least three of my posts. Try reading them. See-ya...!

 

[Athos]

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.

I agree that they don't usually. But, there's been enough high profile miscarriages of justice to see that sometimes they get it spectacularly wrong. And that's why evidence needs to be tested by a Court, rather than just convicting on the police's say-so. That's not really so controversial is it?

I think you've painted yourself into a corner, and are now making yourself look silly by arguing against my sensible point which is that we just don't know what happened, and that it's not right for guilt to be presumed simply upon the word of the police, without any due process. Are you seriuosly trying to argue with that?

 

[Athos]

Its been in at least three of my posts. Try reading them. See-ya...!

No it hasn't; you've ducked the point.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

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


where you went on to say:



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"

wriggle all you want about your interpretation of what i've said but the FACT remains that i made no CLAIM and the EDITOR LIED.

so are you going to ask him to do the decent thing and apologise for his hyperbole as he clearly has no intention of doing so himself and indeed as attempted to use that as a method to close down an avenue of discussion which didn't suit or fit his prejudices.

why is it that the editors assumption that the police are correct is fine your assumption of the intent and meaning of a vey clear statement is fine, but if the assumption doesn't fit the monothough politick it needs to be backed up...

so which is it are the assumptions of people on this thread actualy arse gravey without facts which back them up in which case speculating on an indicedent with no information other than a vague news story and a pretty spectacular photograph no a touch poor taste.

and would both you and the editor previously have had a touch more rigour before leaping to defend hyperbolic standpoints with no basis in fact...

hell if it had been an invisable rocket firing remote control plane hitting cyclists you'd both be verhimatley demanding proof...

so why is this different....??

or is it that he pull's the chain and you all pick it up... regardless...
you claim to be your own man and by and large you are... why aren't you preparred to say hang on actually garf hasn't made the claim the editor did attempt to close down any and all discussion which didn't fit in to his prejudiced POV about cars and his hatered has this time lead him astray.

no one is condoning what is visable in the picture and no one is saying it's accepable merely questioning what actually happened before leaping to metioric conclusions as to the cause...

 

[Crispy]

wriggle all you want about your interpretation of what i've said but the FACT remains that i made no CLAIM and the EDITOR LIED.

so are you going to ask him to do the decent thing and apologise for his hyperbole as he clearly has no intention of doing so himself and indeed as attempted to use that as a method to close down an avenue of discussion which didn't suit or fit his prejudices.

Why should I have to apologise for anyone else?

I think you have internet anger issues, mr lechat. It's not much fun trying to engage with you, so I'm going to stop

 

[Athos]

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

Ooooh, you've put me on 'ignore', eh?

That's the U75 equivalent of the old playground tactic:

"La ,la, la, la, la... I can't hear you... my fingers are in my ears! I win! Ner, ner, na, ner, ner! "

You have me on ignore because you don't want to carry on this debate, because you've been trounced. Your argument is piss-poor, and you can't address my points.

And the best thing is that I know you won't be able to resist reading this. And you won't be able to reply without looking like (more of) a prick.

If you really believe that everything the police say is always 100% accurate, and that it's not possible that what they say about this case isn't correct, then more fool you. Thankfully, most of the rest of the world has the sense to understand the danger in taking the police's word at face value, and insists on some due process to test the evidence against the accused.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

fine. polis sometimes lie about things. altho often no need too when there is photographic evidence of this nature ime.

but if/when this bloke is found to be guilty of causing death and severe injury by reckless driving, what do you think should happen to him?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Why should I have to apologise for anyone else?

I think you have internet anger issues, mr lechat. It's not much fun trying to engage with you, so I'm going to stop

i'm not asking you to apologise dude i'm asking you to ask him to apologise...

as for anger issue chap i'm not the one being sarky when someone said we don't know and then wanting credible senarios with sneer and disdane in their posts....

or then attempting to barrack people into a courner over things they haven't said and attemping to bully them into agreeing with their verison of events...

you wanna look closer at that really....

passive agressive attacks on posters are still attacks on posters regardless of whether they come from the cheif or the crew or us plebs...

in this case the editor has deleiberatly allowed his personal prejudice to entirely misrepresent another poster and their views and has then despite repeatdly being shown otherwise continued these lies...

when he's finally confronted with it he ceases posting on the thread and tag teams you in where you now find yourself in a situation not of your making but where a poster is more than a little pissed of that the editor of the site would defame them in order to 'win' and internet argument over their prejudical assumptions.

if you think that's internet anger dude then maybe...

tell me if i said you were claiming kids needed to be stabbed would you allow it particularlly if you said nothing of the sort...

the fact is it's patentley clear the editor was spoiling for a fight and clearly though i'll enguage with garf because sooner or later he'll fall over on some minor point i can then use my usual tactic of barracking inconsiquential bollcks over the salient points made and entirely refuse to engauge with anything other than more accusations of things unsaid and furhte claims.

it's well know to most that the editors posting style is a direct verbatium copy of his well known trolling FAQ when ever one of his pet hate topics comes up look at any 9/11 thread for evidence.

he made the accusation that another poster had made claims that proves to be false and misrepresentation. ergo as mod you should ask them to apologise as they have been shown now to be lying outright.

i find it a touch petty that the editor and yourself both refuse to conceed that actually you were in the wrong and stroll off the thread rather than do the decent thing...

but as the editor said earlier that's me pwned right...

a word to the wise editor if you're going to pwn someone try and at least get your facts straight first....

 

[Jazzz]

I wonder if this means lead vehicles for bicycle races should be ultra-heavy range rovers and trained not to veer out of the way of oncoming traffic.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

fine. polis sometimes lie about things. altho often no need too when there is photographic evidence of this nature ime.

but if/when this bloke is found to be guilty of causing death and severe injury by reckless driving, what do you think should happen to him?

fucking made to ride a bike down a road an allow each family member of the injuried and dead to drive a car at them

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

fucking made to ride a bike down a road an allow each family member of the injuried and dead to drive a car at them

with nails in the saddle and his hands strapped to the handlebars.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

with nails in the saddle and his hands strapped to the handlebars.

yeah why the hell not i'm neither an egalitarian or a humanist fuck em i say...

 

[DotCommunist]

 

[baldrick]

I wonder if this means lead vehicles for bicycle races should be ultra-heavy range rovers and trained not to veer out of the way of oncoming traffic.

i know

i bet the driver feels really fucking guilty for swerving out of the way. i don't think he did anything wrong in doing so, but the carnage of those cyclists was hideous.

 

[Athos]

fine. polis sometimes lie about things. altho often no need too when there is photographic evidence of this nature ime.

but if/when this bloke is found to be guilty of causing death and severe injury by reckless driving, what do you think should happen to him?

So you are conceeding that what the police say isn't necessarily always true? (For the record, I am not saying that it's always wrong, or that, when it is wrong, it is because they have lied - more likely they have made a mistake. But that's the point of the checks-and-balances provided by judicial process.)

When applied to this case, that might mean that the driver was not drunk and asleep? We seem to have found some common ground, because that's all I was saying: I was just warning against condeming this man without sufficient evidence - just upon the police's say-so. Because the photo doesn't prove anything; when the editor invited us to do so, I posited a number of possible explanations (albeit that I recognise that one quite probable hypothesis is that he was pissed and asleep).

 

[Crispy]

i'm not asking you to apologise dude i'm asking you to ask him to apologise.

Oops, my misreading there, sorry!

passive agressive attacks on posters are still attacks on posters regardless of whether they come from the cheif or the crew or us plebs...

agreed. it's what I disagree with the ed about re: debating styles.

tag teams you in

No! FFS I already stated this was not the case.

i find it a touch petty that the editor and yourself both refuse to conceed that actually you were in the wrong and stroll off the thread rather than do the decent thing.
{/quote]

I don't think I was in the wrong - your post implicitly stated that the race was illegal, because you made the challenge to editor to prove that it was. Maybe this strictly speaking, isn't a 'claim' I'll admit that. But it
certainly seemed to be your position.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

No! FFS I already stated this was not the case.

you stated it but at present you are repeating his lies as fact. so it's kind of conflicting statements you say there's no tag team but you're also joining in his lie...

i find it a touch petty that the editor and yourself both refuse to conceed that actually you were in the wrong and stroll off the thread rather than do the decent thing.

I don't think I was in the wrong - your post implicitly stated that the race was illegal, because you made the challenge to editor to prove that it was. Maybe this strictly speaking, isn't a 'claim' I'll admit that. But it
certainly seemed to be your position.

but this was after his lie that i had made any claim and his passive aggressive attack dude look at the chronlogy of the posts...

ed get's PA about something he's misread and decided is outragious uses his usual tactic of barrack people (also no doubt knowing it's an argument with garf it's going to be all 5 and 9's) then proceeds to lie about what was said and the demands proof based on his incorrect restatement of my position...

i'm not havign a go dude i'm merely saying that it seems to the outside as though there's some sort of monothought at work here where you're backing your boss regardless of the evidence to the contray...

and your boss in this instance is being particularlly cowardly not coming back and admitting he didn't tell the truth about another posts, in order to 'win' his argument....

really rather bad form...

 

[Crispy]

I'm not defending him. I'm (trying) to argue with you, about the bike crash. I'm happy to do this with you.

I do not 'back my boss regardless' - you two get on each other's nerves like a bad fever and I don't want to be a part of it. Please leave me out of it.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I'm not defending him. I'm (trying) to argue with you, about the bike crash. I'm happy to do this with you.

I do not 'back my boss regardless' - you two get on each other's nerves like a bad fever and I don't want to be a part of it. Please leave me out of it.

cool in which case my point is that we don't know what happened other than the picture and the vaugest of reports and it's wrong to assume that because some unnamed un credited spokes person reportdly from the police says this guy mgiht have been asleep at the wheel and drunk (tbh judging by the angle of attack i'd say not asleep as this tends usually to make the steering wheel be pulled hard left or right or veer off at a wired angle).

and just as with the sensationalise story last week where we had lots of people queing up to condem partents of a twins in hospital who were older than usually and from india again we have little informaiton provided and yet people are again jumping to metioric conclusions about it and then in particular cases using it to either justify their impotent rage against all car drivers or their unfathomable prejudices generally...

all of which is rather wrong when you look at it...

 

[bluestreak]

A brief googl reveals, incidentally, that this was not an illegal race and in the place where the accident happened the mexican police were supposed to have been providing a bodyguard to keep road traffic away.

 

[DotCommunist]

A brief googl reveals, incidentally, that this was not an illegal race and in the place where the accident happened the mexican police were supposed to have been providing a bodyguard to keep road traffic away.

ACAB

 

[Athos]

... the mexican police were supposed to have been providing a bodyguard to keep road traffic away.

So the same police who quickly came out to say that the driver was drunk and asleep may have been at least partly responsible insofar as they had failed in their duty to provide a bodygaurd. Mmmm... interesting.

I'm saying the cops don't usually say things without having a good reason.

 

[Orang Utan]

Thread ruined by wankers hairsplitting and pointscoring. Cheers.

 

[exosculate]

yeah why the hell not i'm neither an egalitarian or a humanist fuck em i say...

You are an argumentative twit though!

 

[exosculate]

Thread ruined by wankers hairsplitting and pointscoring. Cheers.

Yep!

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

So you are conceeding that what the police say isn't necessarily always true? (For the record, I am not saying that it's always wrong, or that, when it is wrong, it is because they have lied - more likely they have made a mistake. But that's the point of the checks-and-balances provided by judicial process.)

When applied to this case, that might mean that the driver was not drunk and asleep? We seem to have found some common ground, because that's all I was saying: I was just warning against condeming this man without sufficient evidence - just upon the police's say-so. Because the photo doesn't prove anything; when the editor invited us to do so, I posited a number of possible explanations (albeit that I recognise that one quite probable hypothesis is that he was pissed and asleep).

fuck off you twat. i'm conceding nothing other than the fact you appear to be determined to score cheap and stupid points.

so your claim is that those nasty corrupt mexican cops framed this bloke? you utter fucking prick.....

soz orang but fucking hell.

 

[Radar]

Love the graphic dc

Horrific train crash of a thread about a horrific car/cycle crash

You have to love this place sometimes !

 

[Spymaster]

Because the photo doesn't prove anything;

Maybe, maybe not but TBF looking at the photo below there are no skidmarks from the car which you'd expect in most circumstances if the driver is aware.

Driver asleep = no braking = no skidmarks.

 

[tommers]

this is fucking unbelievable. there are pictures on here of people getting killed, lying dead by the side of the road and you lot of fucking tossers are sat around behind your monitors scoring cheap points off each other and getting angry cos some other cunt on the internet might be lying about what you've said, or might not or blah blah fucking blah.

honestly. fucking give it up, have a day off.

 

[editor]

this is fucking unbelievable. there are pictures on here of people getting killed, lying dead by the side of the road and you lot of fucking tossers are sat around behind your monitors scoring cheap points off each other and getting angry cos some other cunt on the internet might be lying about what you've said, or might not or blah blah fucking blah.

honestly. fucking give it up, have a day off.

Amen to that.