JNugent  considered Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:19:31 +0100 the
perfect time to write:

>Squashme wrote:
>
>> JNugent  wrote:
>>> The Real Doctor wrote:
>
>>>> ... In this case, the cyclist simply seems to have got all upset
>>>> because a car /dared/ to overtake him. There's no question that the
>>>> driver didn't see him and he was not in danger at any point. He simply
>>>> seems to have been looking for an excuse to have a go at someone
>
>>> ...which may explain why he goes to the trouble of cycling around with a
>>> video camera running - behaviour which is decidely not normal.
>
>> Not normal eh?
>
>Correct.
>
>*Not normal*.
>
>It is a strong indication of someone spoiling for a fight and determined 
>to find it.

Or someone who's pissed off with having his life constantly
threatened, and being repeatedly told by the police that they can't
act without evidence.

Phil W Lee wrote:

> JNugent :
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> JNugent  wrote:
>>>> The Real Doctor wrote:

>>>>> ... In this case, the cyclist simply seems to have got all upset
>>>>> because a car /dared/ to overtake him. There's no question that the
>>>>> driver didn't see him and he was not in danger at any point. He simply
>>>>> seems to have been looking for an excuse to have a go at someone

>>>> ...which may explain why he goes to the trouble of cycling around with a
>>>> video camera running - behaviour which is decidely not normal.

>>> Not normal eh?

>> Correct.
>> *Not normal*.
>> It is a strong indication of someone spoiling for a fight and determined 
>> to find it.

> Or someone who's pissed off with having his life constantly
> threatened, and being repeatedly told by the police that they can't
> act without evidence.

It may be both.

But the first is a given.

It's obssessive, abnormal, behaviour.

Just imagine a driver - or a pedestrian - doing it, and try to imagine 
what you would think of them for it.

JNugent  considered Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:00:16 +0100 the
perfect time to write:

>Phil W Lee wrote:
>
>> JNugent :
>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>> JNugent  wrote:
>>>>> The Real Doctor wrote:
>
>>>>>> ... In this case, the cyclist simply seems to have got all upset
>>>>>> because a car /dared/ to overtake him. There's no question that the
>>>>>> driver didn't see him and he was not in danger at any point. He simply
>>>>>> seems to have been looking for an excuse to have a go at someone
>
>>>>> ...which may explain why he goes to the trouble of cycling around with a
>>>>> video camera running - behaviour which is decidely not normal.
>
>>>> Not normal eh?
>
>>> Correct.
>>> *Not normal*.
>>> It is a strong indication of someone spoiling for a fight and determined 
>>> to find it.
>
>> Or someone who's pissed off with having his life constantly
>> threatened, and being repeatedly told by the police that they can't
>> act without evidence.
>
>It may be both.
>
>But the first is a given.
>
>It's obssessive, abnormal, behaviour.
>
>Just imagine a driver - or a pedestrian - doing it, and try to imagine 
>what you would think of them for it.

Well, the police seem to do it rather a lot, but instead of putting it
on youtube, they get it broadcast on tv.

Phil W Lee wrote:
> JNugent  considered Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:00:16 +0100 the
> perfect time to write:
> 
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent :
>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>> JNugent  wrote:
>>>>>> The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>> ... In this case, the cyclist simply seems to have got all upset
>>>>>>> because a car /dared/ to overtake him. There's no question that the
>>>>>>> driver didn't see him and he was not in danger at any point. He simply
>>>>>>> seems to have been looking for an excuse to have a go at someone
>>>>>> ...which may explain why he goes to the trouble of cycling around with a
>>>>>> video camera running - behaviour which is decidely not normal.
>>>>> Not normal eh?
>>>> Correct.
>>>> *Not normal*.
>>>> It is a strong indication of someone spoiling for a fight and determined 
>>>> to find it.
>>> Or someone who's pissed off with having his life constantly
>>> threatened, and being repeatedly told by the police that they can't
>>> act without evidence.
>> It may be both.
>>
>> But the first is a given.
>>
>> It's obssessive, abnormal, behaviour.
>>
>> Just imagine a driver - or a pedestrian - doing it, and try to imagine 
>> what you would think of them for it.
> 
> Well, the police seem to do it rather a lot, but instead of putting it
> on youtube, they get it broadcast on tv.

Is he a police officer?