Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?

"Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
smashes through front door

It may not look like it but this was once a thriving newsagents.

But all that changed in just a few seconds when a driver lost control
of her car and ploughed through the front door.

The impact caused two sides of building to collapse before the first
floor gave way and crashed to the ground.

Amazingly no-one died in the carnage and the four people in the shop
and the driver of the car survived with only minor injuries..."

More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=566817&in_page_id=1770

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

"Doug"  wrote

> Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?

I can only see *one* motorist referred to here Doug, and there are 26 
million motorists not including those such as yourself who spent fifty years 
driving but no longer do..

Any chance of that report onto my house move anytime soon?


-- 
Regards, Vince.

Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary-

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=31071

Doug wrote:
> Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?
> 
> "Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
> smashes through front door
> 
> It may not look like it but this was once a thriving newsagents.
> 
> But all that changed in just a few seconds when a driver lost control
> of her car and ploughed through the front door.
> 
> The impact caused two sides of building to collapse before the first
> floor gave way and crashed to the ground.
> 
> Amazingly no-one died in the carnage and the four people in the shop
> and the driver of the car survived with only minor injuries..."
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=566817&in_page_id=1770
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

1 	Cars are not normally 'lethal weapons'
2	At present we do not know the reason for the incident.
3	If it was driver error, then it was one driver. You yourself have said 
one bad cyclist does not mean all cyclists are bad, the same goes for 
car drivers.

Over to you.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
 wrote this:-

>"Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
>smashes through front door
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=566817&in_page_id=1770

It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
>  wrote this:-
> 
>> "Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
>> smashes through front door
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=566817&in_page_id=1770
> 
> It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
> control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
> itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
> for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.
> 
> 

So not a biased reply then?
And thank you for confirming that the 'Wail' usually gets it wrong.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

"David Hansen"  wrote in message 
news:u3lr24h6cqk4h93hld1623vtaf9emdhl1k@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
>  wrote this:-
>
>>"Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
>>smashes through front door
>>
>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=566817&in_page_id=1770
>
> It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
> control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
> itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
> for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.

Maybe they should have blamed the electrons in the car's wiring....

"Knight Of The Road"  wrote in message 
news:isudnWSmlpKPXrDVnZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@bt.com...

> "Doug"  wrote
>
>> Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?
>
> I can only see *one* motorist referred to here Doug, and there are 26 
> million motorists not including those such as yourself who spent fifty 
> years driving but no longer do..
>
> Any chance of that report onto my house move anytime soon?

I hereby propose a 'Doug Report Day' where we all get together and form a 
giant human 'WHERE IS IT' that can be seen from Catford..... when's the 
anniversary due?

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:7a87baf0-5822-4578-809a-8a5bdf844f56@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?

Been busy agains, have we?

1. Search internet media outlets for any story relating to cars or driving
2. For each story, decide that it's
  a. Another terrorist motorist getting away with it, or
  b. More woes for car drivers, another nail in the coffin for the future of 
motoring
3. Copy'n'paste article into a post
4. Sit back and watch as
  For case (a), it's pointed out that this is one person among many 
millions, so not representative at all
  For case (b), it's pointed out that the press have, as usual, 
over-exaggerated the facts, used a single example and extrapolated to 
ridiculous levels, and that it is, in fact, a storm in a teacup and not 
really a story at all
5. Attempt to maintain your position, but when the folly of your OP finally 
dawns, best not reply any further
6. Having lost the argument, and all credibility, go back to step 1 and 
repeat.

cupra wrote:
> "Knight Of The Road"  wrote in message 
> news:isudnWSmlpKPXrDVnZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> 
>> "Doug"  wrote
>>
>>> Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?
>> I can only see *one* motorist referred to here Doug, and there are 26 
>> million motorists not including those such as yourself who spent fifty 
>> years driving but no longer do..
>>
>> Any chance of that report onto my house move anytime soon?
> 
> I hereby propose a 'Doug Report Day' where we all get together and form a 
> giant human 'WHERE IS IT' that can be seen from Catford..... when's the 
> anniversary due? 
> 
> 
Late November I think, can't we have a half birthday on June 1st?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

"Tony Dragon"  wrote

> Late November I think, can't we have a half birthday on June 1st?



Like "Godwinning", ROTFLMAO and "thread-necro", I want "the report on 
Vince's house move" to become part of internet folklore, meaning "a promise 
made but never honoured" to live on long after I am gone.




-- 
Regards, Vince.

Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary-

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=31071

Doug  wrote:

> Amazingly no-one died in the carnage and the four people in the shop
> and the driver of the car survived with only minor injuries..."

Adds "carnage" to the list of words that Duhng doesn't know the meaning
of.

David Hansen  wrote:

> On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
>  wrote this:-
> 
> >"Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
> >smashes through front door
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_
> > id=566817&in_page_id=1770
> 
> It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
> control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
> itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
> for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.

And yet you failed to notice misuse of the term "carnage". Why was that?

"David Hansen"  wrote

> It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
> control of her car.




It never ceases to amaze me that a free-thinking radical such as Doug reads 
the ultimate "lowest-common-denominator" lying gutter-press Tory newspaper.




-- 
Regards, Vince.

Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary-

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=31071

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ih234s.1u5i5xqev0v8oN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> David Hansen  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
>>  wrote this:-
>>
>> >"Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
>> >smashes through front door
>> >
>> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_
>> > id=566817&in_page_id=1770
>>
>> It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
>> control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
>> itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
>> for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.
>
> And yet you failed to notice misuse of the term "carnage". Why was that?

Doug, Hansen, Tammy, Squashme.
I do believe we now have enough cunts to start a brothel

Knight Of The Road wrote:
> "Tony Dragon"  wrote
> 
>> Late November I think, can't we have a half birthday on June 1st?
> 
> 
> 
> Like "Godwinning", ROTFLMAO and "thread-necro", I want "the report on 
> Vince's house move" to become part of internet folklore, meaning "a promise 
> made but never honoured" to live on long after I am gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
I believe this is the relevant post:-
It looks like we have passed the half birthday.


  	 	
Doug   	
View profile
	 More options Nov 3 2007, 9:13 am
Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: Doug 
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 01:13:09 -0700
Local: Sat, Nov 3 2007 9:13 am
Subject: Re: Back-seat toilet to end mishaps in traffic jams
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | 
Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 1 Nov, 08:32, "Tony Dragon"  wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
 > Doug wrote:
 > > On 29 Oct, 22:35, Adrian  wrote:
 > >> Ed Banger (Ed Banger ) gurgled happily,
 > >> sounding much like they were saying:

 > >>>> Oyster's are made of plastic aren't they? That's a waste of scarce
 > >>>> resources.
 > >>> Duhg breathes oxygen, doesn't he? That's a waste of valuable
 > >>> resources.

 > >> Inhales Oxygen, and exhales... Carbon Dioxide!

 > >> Frivolous hyperrespirator...

 > > Hypocrite Adrain! You not only do the same as me, you also use a car
 > > which is much worse.

 > > Checkout thread title.

 > > LOL!

 > Nice to see you are still here, could you now answer the question that I
 > asked on the 25th, I post a copy below.

 > >> Still, while you are here, perhaps you could explain to me how I
 > >> could get from my home in a rural area to my work in an industrial
 > >> area, carrying a week's worth of food, clothing and bedding, when
 > >> neither place is served by public transport and at a time when it
 > >> wouldn't be running anyway, other than in my car?

 > >> I know I have asked you several times before and you have always run
 > >> away from answering but perhaps today might be my lucky day?

 > > Liar!  As keep on telling you and others here ad nauseum, change your
 > > lifestyle, move, stop being utterly dependent on a car.

 > Just for the sake of us mere mortals who could not understand your 
answer,
 > would you please answer again giving the answer in tabular form with 
bullet
 > points & foot notes to expand on your notes.

 > Many thanks for your forthcoming reply, I await it with much 
anticipation.

Its going to take me about a month to answer in the way requested. I
do hope you don't mind waiting. Or perhaps you would rather just
accept the shortened version above?

LOL!

-- 
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".


-- 
Tony the Dragon

Gizmo. wrote:
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1ih234s.1u5i5xqev0v8oN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> David Hansen  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
>>>  wrote this:-
>>>
>>>> "Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
>>>> smashes through front door
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_
>>>> id=566817&in_page_id=1770
>>> It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
>>> control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
>>> itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
>>> for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.
>> And yet you failed to notice misuse of the term "carnage". Why was that?
> 
> Doug, Hansen, Tammy, Squashme.
> I do believe we now have enough cunts to start a brothel 
> 
> 
Well I would not pay to go with one of them.
But I agree they should be fucked.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Tony Dragon wrote:
> Knight Of The Road wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon"  wrote
>>
>>> Late November I think, can't we have a half birthday on June 1st?
>>
>>
>>
>> Like "Godwinning", ROTFLMAO and "thread-necro", I want "the report on 
>> Vince's house move" to become part of internet folklore, meaning "a 
>> promise made but never honoured" to live on long after I am gone.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I believe this is the relevant post:-
> It looks like we have passed the half birthday.
> 
> 
>          
> Doug      
> View profile
>      More options Nov 3 2007, 9:13 am
> Newsgroups: uk.transport
> From: Doug 
> Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 01:13:09 -0700
> Local: Sat, Nov 3 2007 9:13 am
> Subject: Re: Back-seat toilet to end mishaps in traffic jams
> Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | 
> Report this message | Find messages by this author
> On 1 Nov, 08:32, "Tony Dragon"  wrote:
> 
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
>  > Doug wrote:
>  > > On 29 Oct, 22:35, Adrian  wrote:
>  > >> Ed Banger (Ed Banger ) gurgled happily,
>  > >> sounding much like they were saying:
> 
>  > >>>> Oyster's are made of plastic aren't they? That's a waste of scarce
>  > >>>> resources.
>  > >>> Duhg breathes oxygen, doesn't he? That's a waste of valuable
>  > >>> resources.
> 
>  > >> Inhales Oxygen, and exhales... Carbon Dioxide!
> 
>  > >> Frivolous hyperrespirator...
> 
>  > > Hypocrite Adrain! You not only do the same as me, you also use a car
>  > > which is much worse.
> 
>  > > Checkout thread title.
> 
>  > > LOL!
> 
>  > Nice to see you are still here, could you now answer the question that I
>  > asked on the 25th, I post a copy below.
> 
>  > >> Still, while you are here, perhaps you could explain to me how I
>  > >> could get from my home in a rural area to my work in an industrial
>  > >> area, carrying a week's worth of food, clothing and bedding, when
>  > >> neither place is served by public transport and at a time when it
>  > >> wouldn't be running anyway, other than in my car?
> 
>  > >> I know I have asked you several times before and you have always run
>  > >> away from answering but perhaps today might be my lucky day?
> 
>  > > Liar!  As keep on telling you and others here ad nauseum, change your
>  > > lifestyle, move, stop being utterly dependent on a car.
> 
>  > Just for the sake of us mere mortals who could not understand your 
> answer,
>  > would you please answer again giving the answer in tabular form with 
> bullet
>  > points & foot notes to expand on your notes.
> 
>  > Many thanks for your forthcoming reply, I await it with much 
> anticipation.
> 
> Its going to take me about a month to answer in the way requested. I
> do hope you don't mind waiting. Or perhaps you would rather just
> accept the shortened version above?
> 
> LOL!
> 
Re-reading that, means I should add one month, so there is still time.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 16 May, 19:17, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?
>
> > "Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
> > smashes through front door
>
> > It may not look like it but this was once a thriving newsagents.
>
> > But all that changed in just a few seconds when a driver lost control
> > of her car and ploughed through the front door.
>
> > The impact caused two sides of building to collapse before the first
> > floor gave way and crashed to the ground.
>
> > Amazingly no-one died in the carnage and the four people in the shop
> > and the driver of the car survived with only minor injuries..."
>
> > More:
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti...
>
> > --
> > World Carfree Network
> >http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> 1       Cars are not normally 'lethal weapons'
>
Neither are kitchen knives but they can still kill.
>
> 2       At present we do not know the reason for the incident.
>
What other reason could there be?
>
> 3       If it was driver error, then it was one driver. You yourself have said
> one bad cyclist does not mean all cyclists are bad, the same goes for
> car drivers.
>
> Over to you.
>
Potentially anyone using a lethal weapon is a threat to others and
some weapons are more lethal than others, i.e. can kill more people at
a stroke.

What this incident clearly demonstrates, I assume you have seen the
picture, is that cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
It takes about 10 acres to feed a car on ethanol for a year.
The world supply of grainland is about three-tenths of an acre per
person.

On 16 May, 23:13, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> David Hansen  wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
> >  wrote this:-
>
> > >"Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
> > >smashes through front door
>
> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti...
> > > id=566817&in_page_id=1770
>
> > It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
> > control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
> > itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
> > for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.
>
> And yet you failed to notice misuse of the term "carnage". Why was that?

Very appropriate, as in car-nage. Motorists kill about 2,000 or more
people every year, for reasons that this incident and its impact force
makes abundantly clear. Not only are people not safe on our roads from
motorists they are not even safe in their own homes!

--
RoadPeace
http://www.roadpeace.org/
For road crash victims.

In article <9c97d916-c21c-40f8-b993-
703037a111bc@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, jagmad@riseup.net says...
> On 16 May, 19:17, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?
> >
> > > "Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
> > > smashes through front door
> >
> > > It may not look like it but this was once a thriving newsagents.
> >
> > > But all that changed in just a few seconds when a driver lost control
> > > of her car and ploughed through the front door.
> >
> > > The impact caused two sides of building to collapse before the first
> > > floor gave way and crashed to the ground.
> >
> > > Amazingly no-one died in the carnage and the four people in the shop
> > > and the driver of the car survived with only minor injuries..."
> >
> > > More:
> >
> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti...
> >
> > > --
> > > World Carfree Network
> > >http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> > > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> >
> > 1       Cars are not normally 'lethal weapons'
> >
> Neither are kitchen knives but they can still kill.
> >
> > 2       At present we do not know the reason for the incident.
> >
> What other reason could there be?
> >
Dug, you really are a dickhead. Virtually *anything* can be a lethal 
weapon. Pencils, newspapers, rubber bands,... the list is endless. Why 
are you not campaigning for these to removed?
Life itself is fatal. I hope you'll join my campaingn to outlaw life.
And I'm thinking of adding vegetables, since EVERYONE who eats 
vegetables dies. Oh, and water. And meat. And sex. And a bacon butty in 
the morning.

Doug wrote:
> Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?

Vauxhall Tigra, needs no other explanation.

-- 
Abo

On 16 May, 23:30, "Knight Of The Road" 
wrote:
> "David Hansen"  wrote
>
> > It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
> > control of her car.
>
> It never ceases to amaze me that a free-thinking radical such as Doug reads
> the ultimate "lowest-common-denominator" lying gutter-press Tory newspaper.
>
I read a wide range of newspapers it just so happens that the DW seems
to carry the most reports of motorist criminality and, unlike you, I
don't involve myself in party politics anyway.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

"Doug"  wrote


> I read a wide range of newspapers

All delivered by road vehicles, the drivers of which have no choice other 
than to get to work by car.


 it just so happens that the DW seems
> to carry the most reports of motorist criminality

Perhaps they pander to the simple-minded?




and, unlike you, I
> don't involve myself in party politics anyway.


In what way do I involve myself in party politics?

Would you like a month to prepare your answer?


-- 
Regards, Vince.

Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary-

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=31071

Doug  wrote:

> On 16 May, 23:13, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > David Hansen  wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
> > >  wrote this:-
> >
> > > >"Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
> > > >smashes through front door
> >
> > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti...
> > > > id=566817&in_page_id=1770
> >
> > > It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
> > > control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
> > > itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
> > > for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.
> >
> > And yet you failed to notice misuse of the term "carnage". Why was that?
> 
> Very appropriate, as in car-nage.

No Duhng the term used was "carnage" written like that by you and
Hansen, without the hyphen.

> Motorists kill about 2,000 or more people every year, for reasons that
> this incident and its impact force makes abundantly clear. Not only are
> people not safe on our roads from motorists they are not even safe in
> their own homes!

Who was killed in this incident? Exactly in round numbers, and then
consider the definition of "carnage" which is "great slaughter". Not
just "slaughter", but "great slaughter".

And now try to explain how an incident in which the number of dead was
nil, zero, nada, zip, zilch, niente... can be described by anyone as
"carnage".

On 17 May, 08:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> > On 16 May, 23:13, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > David Hansen  wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
> > > >  wrote this:-
>
> > > > >"Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
> > > > >smashes through front door
>
> > > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti...
> > > > > id=566817&in_page_id=1770
>
> > > > It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
> > > > control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
> > > > itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
> > > > for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.
>
> > > And yet you failed to notice misuse of the term "carnage". Why was that?
>
> > Very appropriate, as in car-nage.
>
> No Duhng the term used was "carnage" written like that by you and
> Hansen, without the hyphen.
>
If you knew how to read properly, Filth, you would see the word is
used in the original article.
>
> > Motorists kill about 2,000 or more people every year, for reasons that
> > this incident and its impact force makes abundantly clear. Not only are
> > people not safe on our roads from motorists they are not even safe in
> > their own homes!
>
> Who was killed in this incident? Exactly in round numbers, and then
> consider the definition of "carnage" which is "great slaughter". Not
> just "slaughter", but "great slaughter".
>
See above.
>
> And now try to explain how an incident in which the number of dead was
> nil, zero, nada, zip, zilch, niente... can be described by anyone as
> "carnage".
>
Potential carnage. It is a miracle that those injured were not killed.

Now what further digressions, to avoid the issue of serious motorist
culpability, will you now be introducing?

--
RoadPeace
http://www.roadpeace.org/
For road crash victims.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 May, 08:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

>> And now try to explain how an incident in which the number of dead
>> was nil, zero, nada, zip, zilch, niente... can be described by
>> anyone as "carnage".
>>
> Potential carnage.

"Carnage", potential or otherwise, implies a great many individuals being 
killed. There were only four people in the shop none of whom suffered any 
great injury.

> It is a miracle that those injured were not killed.
>
What unusual and mysterious event was caused by some unseen deity to create 
this "miracle"? The lack of something happening is not a miracle.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 May, 08:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

>> No Duhng the term used was "carnage" written like that by you and
>> Hansen, without the hyphen.
>>
> If you knew how to read properly, Filth, you would see the word is
> used in the original article.

So what, are you trying to justify sensationalist reporting?

Knight Of The Road wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote
>
>
>> I read a wide range of newspapers
>
> All delivered by road vehicles, the drivers of which have no choice
> other than to get to work by car.
>
>
> it just so happens that the DW seems
>> to carry the most reports of motorist criminality
>
> Perhaps they pander to the simple-minded?
>
>
>
>
> and, unlike you, I
>> don't involve myself in party politics anyway.
>
>
> In what way do I involve myself in party politics?
>
> Would you like a month to prepare your answer?

Perhaps he could prepare a report? ROFL

In article <7a87baf0-5822-4578-809a-8a5bdf844f56
@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?
> 
> "Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
> smashes through front door
> 
Who died? Nobody. So how was it lethal?

Nowhere near as bad as the damage caused by this train..

http://tinyurl.com/5z5jl4

Difference is that with the train crash, 31 people were killed.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <9c97d916-c21c-40f8-b993-
703037a111bc@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> What this incident clearly demonstrates, I assume you have seen the
> picture, is that cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
> 
So are trains:
http://tinyurl.com/5z5jl4

Are you going to call for a ban on trains?



-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <3b608d2d-c0a4-4c9b-8926-a278a3941b24
@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> On 17 May, 08:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Doug  wrote:
> > > On 16 May, 23:13, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > > David Hansen  wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
> > > > >  wrote this:-
> >
> > > > > >"Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
> > > > > >smashes through front door
> >
> > > > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti...
> > > > > > id=566817&in_page_id=1770
> >
> > > > > It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
> > > > > control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
> > > > > itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
> > > > > for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.
> >
> > > > And yet you failed to notice misuse of the term "carnage". Why was that?
> >
> > > Very appropriate, as in car-nage.
> >
> > No Duhng the term used was "carnage" written like that by you and
> > Hansen, without the hyphen.
> >
> If you knew how to read properly, Filth, you would see the word is
> used in the original article.
> >
> > > Motorists kill about 2,000 or more people every year, for reasons that
> > > this incident and its impact force makes abundantly clear. Not only are
> > > people not safe on our roads from motorists they are not even safe in
> > > their own homes!
> >
> > Who was killed in this incident? Exactly in round numbers, and then
> > consider the definition of "carnage" which is "great slaughter". Not
> > just "slaughter", but "great slaughter".
> >
> See above.
> >
> > And now try to explain how an incident in which the number of dead was
> > nil, zero, nada, zip, zilch, niente... can be described by anyone as
> > "carnage".
> >
> Potential carnage. It is a miracle that those injured were not killed.
> 
So, potential. In the same way that the electricity in your home could 
possibly kill you if the right events unfold?


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <260a0f42-f187-404c-a1fa-ab20c586b366
@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> I read a wide range of newspapers it just so happens that the DW seems
> to carry the most reports of motorist criminality and, unlike you, I
> don't involve myself in party politics anyway.
> 
So you needlessly contribute to global warming by buying several 
papers, the manufacture of paper being a very energy intensive process, 
instead of reading them online?



-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Knight Of The 
Road says...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Doug"  wrote
> 
> 
> > I read a wide range of newspapers
> 
> All delivered by road vehicles, the drivers of which have no choice other 
> than to get to work by car.
> 
And made from paper which was created in Scandinavia and shipped over 
to the UK. Doug has a thing for imported goods, doesn't he?


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Conor"  wrote

> So you needlessly contribute to global warming by buying several
> papers, the manufacture of paper being a very energy intensive process,
> instead of reading them online?




I suspect that rather than buying them, he reads them in the public library 
where he goes to keep warm.


-- 
Regards, Vince.

Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary-

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=31071

Doug wrote:
> On 16 May, 19:17, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?
>>> "Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
>>> smashes through front door
>>> It may not look like it but this was once a thriving newsagents.
>>> But all that changed in just a few seconds when a driver lost control
>>> of her car and ploughed through the front door.
>>> The impact caused two sides of building to collapse before the first
>>> floor gave way and crashed to the ground.
>>> Amazingly no-one died in the carnage and the four people in the shop
>>> and the driver of the car survived with only minor injuries..."
>>> More:
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti...
>>> --
>>> World Carfree Network
>>> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>> 1       Cars are not normally 'lethal weapons'
>>
> Neither are kitchen knives but they can still kill.

So why not post about incidents involving cooking knives?

>> 2       At present we do not know the reason for the incident.
>>
> What other reason could there be?

Read what I said  "At present we do not know the reason for the 
incident", for all we know at present the great SwanGod may have taken 
control of their car.

>> 3       If it was driver error, then it was one driver. You yourself have said
>> one bad cyclist does not mean all cyclists are bad, the same goes for
>> car drivers.
>>
>> Over to you.
>>
> Potentially anyone using a lethal weapon is a threat to others and
> some weapons are more lethal than others, i.e. can kill more people at
> a stroke.

And ...
> 
> What this incident clearly demonstrates, I assume you have seen the
> picture, is that cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
> 
If they hit buildings yes, but that is nothing to do with the point I 
was making.
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> It takes about 10 acres to feed a car on ethanol for a year.
> The world supply of grainland is about three-tenths of an acre per
> person.

I notice that you did not comment on point 3, how surprising.
-- 
Tony the Dragon

Knight Of The Road wrote:

> 
> Would you like a month to prepare your answer?
> 
> Remember June 1st


-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 17 May, 09:14, "Knight Of The Road" 
wrote:
> "Conor"  wrote
>
> > So you needlessly contribute to global warming by buying several
> > papers, the manufacture of paper being a very energy intensive process,
> > instead of reading them online?
>
> I suspect that rather than buying them, he reads them in the public library
> where he goes to keep warm.
>
Duh! Both wrong, as usual. I read them online. Clue; copy and paste?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
It takes about 10 acres to feed a car on ethanol for a year.
The world supply of grainland is about three-tenths of an acre per
person.

"Doug"  wrote

> Duh! Both wrong, as usual. I read them online.

Oh I see. You read them on a computer which has travelled half-way around 
the world by ship and then several hundread miles in the UK by truck?



 Clue; copy and paste?

Yes Doug, we know Doug, copy 'n paste is all you ever do.


-- 
Regards, Vince.

Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary-

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=31071

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:260a0f42-f187-404c-a1fa-ab20c586b366@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
> I read a wide range of newspapers it just so happens that the DW seems
> to carry the most reports of motorist criminality

You still don't understand, do you, despite having had it pointed out to you 
more than once.

The Daily Mail sells by peddaling moral outrage and scare stories. To do 
this, it'll take any story, remove the mitigating facts and exaggeate the 
aggravating ones, to leave an sensationalised version unrecognisable by 
anyone involved who has first hand knowledge of what actually happened or 
was claimed. And the reason why it continues to sell is that muppets like 
you fall for it every time, hook, line and sinker.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:24:05 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>On 16 May, 19:17, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?
>>
>> > "Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
>> > smashes through front door
>>
>> > It may not look like it but this was once a thriving newsagents.
>>
>> > But all that changed in just a few seconds when a driver lost control
>> > of her car and ploughed through the front door.
>>
>> > The impact caused two sides of building to collapse before the first
>> > floor gave way and crashed to the ground.
>>
>> > Amazingly no-one died in the carnage and the four people in the shop
>> > and the driver of the car survived with only minor injuries..."
>>
>> > More:
>>
>> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti...
>>
>> > --
>> > World Carfree Network
>> >http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>> > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>>
>> 1       Cars are not normally 'lethal weapons'
>>
>Neither are kitchen knives but they can still kill.

And your point is?
>>
>> 2       At present we do not know the reason for the incident.
>>
>What other reason could there be?

Brake failure
Steering failure
Swerving to avoid a cyclist
Petit mal seizure
Driver error
Swerved to avoid a bus
Swerved to avoid a car
Swerved to avoid a lorry
Driver fainted
Throttle on the car defective
Driver error

>>
>> 3       If it was driver error, then it was one driver. You yourself have said
>> one bad cyclist does not mean all cyclists are bad, the same goes for
>> car drivers.
>>
>> Over to you.
>>
>Potentially anyone using a lethal weapon is a threat to others and
>some weapons are more lethal than others, i.e. can kill more people at
>a stroke.

So what do use you to cut up your imported out of season vegetables?
Obviously not a knife as they are lethal weapons (see above)
>
>What this incident clearly demonstrates, I assume you have seen the
>picture, is that cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.

But are bicycles more dangerous than a pointed stick?

-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

Doug  wrote:

> On 17 May, 08:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Doug  wrote:
> > > On 16 May, 23:13, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > > David Hansen  wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
> > > > >  wrote this:-
> >
> > > > > >"Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
> > > > > >smashes through front door
> >
> > > > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_
> > > > > >arti... id=566817&in_page_id=1770
> >
> > > > > It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
> > > > > control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
> > > > > itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
> > > > > for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.
> >
> > > > And yet you failed to notice misuse of the term "carnage". Why was that?
> >
> > > Very appropriate, as in car-nage.
> >
> > No Duhng the term used was "carnage" written like that by you and
> > Hansen, without the hyphen.
> >
> If you knew how to read properly, Filth, you would see the word is
> used in the original article.

No, the word "carnage" was used in the article, incorrectly, not
"car-nage" as you woudl now have it. And you repeated the article text
verbatim without thinking to comment on the inappropriate use of the
term or to "correct" it to you pathetic usage "car-nage".

> > > Motorists kill about 2,000 or more people every year, for reasons that
> > > this incident and its impact force makes abundantly clear. Not only are
> > > people not safe on our roads from motorists they are not even safe in
> > > their own homes!
> >
> > Who was killed in this incident? Exactly in round numbers, and then
> > consider the definition of "carnage" which is "great slaughter". Not
> > just "slaughter", but "great slaughter".
> >
> See above.

I can see above, it makes no statement about *THIS* incident. If you
knew how to read properly you would realise that your comment had no
relevance to the article in the Heil or to this incident.

> > And now try to explain how an incident in which the number of dead was
> > nil, zero, nada, zip, zilch, niente... can be described by anyone as
> > "carnage".
> >
> Potential carnage.

There is no such concept, like "potential holocaust" the term is simply
meaningless. Either there is carnage or there is not.

> It is a miracle that those injured were not killed.

It's a miracle that you can draw breath without instructions. But niw
you have admitted no one was killed, there was no "carnage".
 
> Now what further digressions, to avoid the issue of serious motorist
> culpability, will you now be introducing?

I haven't digressed at all, you have told lies. You have described a
minor accident as "carnage" and then wriggled with your "car-nage" and
"potential carnage" bollocks.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:848a5b66-c2f0-403b-8949-1000f71af084@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 May, 23:13, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> David Hansen  wrote:
>> > On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
>> >  wrote this:-
>>
>> > >"Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
>> > >smashes through front door
>>
>> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti...
>> > > id=566817&in_page_id=1770
>>
>> > It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
>> > control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
>> > itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
>> > for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.
>>
>> And yet you failed to notice misuse of the term "carnage". Why was that?
>
> Very appropriate, as in car-nage. Motorists kill about 2,000 or more
> people every year, for reasons that this incident and its impact force
> makes abundantly clear. Not only are people not safe on our roads from
> motorists they are not even safe in their own homes!

So, tell me, what does car-nage (as opposed to carnage) mean? Is it 
something to do with swimming automobiles? Or does it go along with your 
completely incorrect definition of hypermobility (which is a medical term)?

And following the same "logic", what should I make from words like card, 
cardiac, carnation, cardinal, career, caress, caricature, carol, carpenter, 
etc, all of which obviously have links to cars?

The more you say, the bigger idiot you make of yourself.

Steve Firth wrote:
> David Hansen  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
>>  wrote this:-
>>
>>> "Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
>>> smashes through front door
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_
>>> id=566817&in_page_id=1770
>> It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
>> control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
>> itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
>> for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.
> 
> And yet you failed to notice misuse of the term "carnage". Why was that?

I think no one except Duhg used the term.
-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

John Wright wrote:
> Steve Firth wrote:
>> David Hansen  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
>>>  wrote this:-
>>>
>>>> "Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
>>>> smashes through front door
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_ 
>>>>
>>>> id=566817&in_page_id=1770
>>> It makes a change for the Daily Wail to say that a motorist lost
>>> control of her car. They usually claim that the car lost control of
>>> itself, before blaming everyone from the UN to some council official
>>> for oppressing poor hard done by motorists.
>>
>> And yet you failed to notice misuse of the term "carnage". Why was that?
> 
> I think no one except Duhg used the term.

Correction - it is in the original article, but wrongly used. This is 
the standard of journalism Duhg relies upon.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

Steve Firth wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> 
>> Amazingly no-one died in the carnage and the four people in the shop
>> and the driver of the car survived with only minor injuries..."
> 
> Adds "carnage" to the list of words that Duhng doesn't know the meaning
> of.

And in this case, the Daily Wail doesn't know the meaning of it either.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 17 May, 12:59, PeterT  wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:24:05 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 16 May, 19:17, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >> > Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?
>
> >> > "Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
> >> > smashes through front door
>
> >> > It may not look like it but this was once a thriving newsagents.
>
> >> > But all that changed in just a few seconds when a driver lost control
> >> > of her car and ploughed through the front door.
>
> >> > The impact caused two sides of building to collapse before the first
> >> > floor gave way and crashed to the ground.
>
> >> > Amazingly no-one died in the carnage and the four people in the shop
> >> > and the driver of the car survived with only minor injuries..."
>
> >> > More:
>
> >> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti...
>
> >> > --
> >> > World Carfree Network
> >> >http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> >> > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> >> 1       Cars are not normally 'lethal weapons'
>
> >Neither are kitchen knives but they can still kill.
>
> And your point is?
>
They become lethal when they kill, obviously.
>
>
> >> 2       At present we do not know the reason for the incident.
>
> >What other reason could there be?
>
> Brake failure
> Steering failure
> Swerving to avoid a cyclist
> Petit mal seizure
> Driver error
> Swerved to avoid a bus
> Swerved to avoid a car
> Swerved to avoid a lorry
> Driver fainted
> Throttle on the car defective
> Driver error
>
My goodness! This reminds me that cars can be even more of a threat
than supposed. So much to go wrong, especially at speed.
>
>
> >> 3       If it was driver error, then it was one driver. You yourself have said
> >> one bad cyclist does not mean all cyclists are bad, the same goes for
> >> car drivers.
>
> >> Over to you.
>
> >Potentially anyone using a lethal weapon is a threat to others and
> >some weapons are more lethal than others, i.e. can kill more people at
> >a stroke.
>
> So what do use you to cut up your imported out of season vegetables?
> Obviously not a knife as they are lethal weapons (see above)
>
Bring on the semantics!
>
>
> >What this incident clearly demonstrates, I assume you have seen the
> >picture, is that cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>
> But are bicycles more dangerous than a pointed stick?
>
And your point is?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
It takes about 10 acres to feed a car on ethanol for a year.
The world supply of grainland is about three-tenths of an acre per
person.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 May, 12:59, PeterT  wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:24:05 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 16 May, 19:17, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?
>>
>>>>> "Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car
>>>>> and smashes through front door
>>
>>>>> It may not look like it but this was once a thriving newsagents.
>>
>>>>> But all that changed in just a few seconds when a driver lost
>>>>> control of her car and ploughed through the front door.
>>
>>>>> The impact caused two sides of building to collapse before the
>>>>> first floor gave way and crashed to the ground.
>>
>>>>> Amazingly no-one died in the carnage and the four people in the
>>>>> shop and the driver of the car survived with only minor
>>>>> injuries..."
>>
>>>>> More:
>>
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti...
>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> World Carfree Network
>>>>> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>>
>>>> 1       Cars are not normally 'lethal weapons'
>>
>>> Neither are kitchen knives but they can still kill.
>>
>> And your point is?
>>
> They become lethal when they kill, obviously.
>>
>>
>>>> 2       At present we do not know the reason for the incident.
>>
>>> What other reason could there be?
>>
>> Brake failure
>> Steering failure
>> Swerving to avoid a cyclist
>> Petit mal seizure
>> Driver error
>> Swerved to avoid a bus
>> Swerved to avoid a car
>> Swerved to avoid a lorry
>> Driver fainted
>> Throttle on the car defective
>> Driver error
>>
> My goodness! This reminds me that cars can be even more of a threat
> than supposed. So much to go wrong, especially at speed.
>>
>>
>>>> 3       If it was driver error, then it was one driver. You
>>>> yourself have said one bad cyclist does not mean all cyclists are
>>>> bad, the same goes for
>>>> car drivers.
>>
>>>> Over to you.
>>
>>> Potentially anyone using a lethal weapon is a threat to others and
>>> some weapons are more lethal than others, i.e. can kill more people
>>> at a stroke.
>>
>> So what do use you to cut up your imported out of season vegetables?
>> Obviously not a knife as they are lethal weapons (see above)
>>
> Bring on the semantics!
>>
>>
>>> What this incident clearly demonstrates, I assume you have seen the
>>> picture, is that cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>>
>> But are bicycles more dangerous than a pointed stick?
>>
> And your point is?

The same as everyone else's point, which is that you're a fucking idiot.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 May, 12:59, PeterT  wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:24:05 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 16 May, 19:17, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Why can't motorists control their lethal weapons?
>>>>> "Newsagent's shop wrecked after driver loses control of her car and
>>>>> smashes through front door
>>>>> It may not look like it but this was once a thriving newsagents.
>>>>> But all that changed in just a few seconds when a driver lost control
>>>>> of her car and ploughed through the front door.
>>>>> The impact caused two sides of building to collapse before the first
>>>>> floor gave way and crashed to the ground.
>>>>> Amazingly no-one died in the carnage and the four people in the shop
>>>>> and the driver of the car survived with only minor injuries..."
>>>>> More:
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti...
>>>>> --
>>>>> World Carfree Network
>>>>> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>>>> 1       Cars are not normally 'lethal weapons'
>>> Neither are kitchen knives but they can still kill.
>> And your point is?
>>
> They become lethal when they kill, obviously.

No shit Sherlock!

>>>> 2       At present we do not know the reason for the incident.
>>> What other reason could there be?
>> Brake failure
>> Steering failure
>> Swerving to avoid a cyclist
>> Petit mal seizure
>> Driver error
>> Swerved to avoid a bus
>> Swerved to avoid a car
>> Swerved to avoid a lorry
>> Driver fainted
>> Throttle on the car defective
>> Driver error
>>
> My goodness! This reminds me that cars can be even more of a threat
> than supposed. So much to go wrong, especially at speed.

that's why education and experience is so important. Something sadly 
lacking in most cyclists, trailers or not.


>>>> 3       If it was driver error, then it was one driver. You yourself have said
>>>> one bad cyclist does not mean all cyclists are bad, the same goes for
>>>> car drivers.
>>>> Over to you.
>>> Potentially anyone using a lethal weapon is a threat to others and
>>> some weapons are more lethal than others, i.e. can kill more people at
>>> a stroke.
>> So what do use you to cut up your imported out of season vegetables?
>> Obviously not a knife as they are lethal weapons (see above)
>>
> Bring on the semantics!

Not semantics idiot. Knives can be meant to kill. Cars are not. Hint, 
most times car accidents are just that - unintended.

>>> What this incident clearly demonstrates, I assume you have seen the
>>> picture, is that cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>> But are bicycles more dangerous than a pointed stick?
>>
> And your point is?

No fan of Monty Python I see.


-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

Doug wrote:

>>
>>>> 2       At present we do not know the reason for the incident.
>>> What other reason could there be?
>> Brake failure
>> Steering failure
>> Swerving to avoid a cyclist
>> Petit mal seizure
>> Driver error
>> Swerved to avoid a bus
>> Swerved to avoid a car
>> Swerved to avoid a lorry
>> Driver fainted
>> Throttle on the car defective
>> Driver error
>>
> My goodness! This reminds me that cars can be even more of a threat
> than supposed. So much to go wrong, especially at speed.
>>

Or if using a bike
Brake failure
Steering failure
Swerving to avoid a cyclist
Petit mal seizure
Rider error
Swerved to avoid a bus
Swerved to avoid a car
Swerved to avoid a lorry
Rider fainted
Chain failure
Rider error



-- 
Tony the Dragon

Tony Dragon wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> 
>>>
>>>>> 2       At present we do not know the reason for the incident.
>>>> What other reason could there be?
>>> Brake failure
>>> Steering failure
>>> Swerving to avoid a cyclist
>>> Petit mal seizure
>>> Driver error
>>> Swerved to avoid a bus
>>> Swerved to avoid a car
>>> Swerved to avoid a lorry
>>> Driver fainted
>>> Throttle on the car defective
>>> Driver error
>>>
>> My goodness! This reminds me that cars can be even more of a threat
>> than supposed. So much to go wrong, especially at speed.
>>>
> 
> Or if using a bike
> Brake failure
> Steering failure
> Swerving to avoid a cyclist
> Petit mal seizure
> Rider error
> Swerved to avoid a bus
> Swerved to avoid a car
> Swerved to avoid a lorry
> Rider fainted
> Chain failure
> Rider error
> 
> 
> 
Trousers caught in chain causing sudden, unscheduled stop.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

On 17 May, 08:53, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 17 May, 08:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >> And now try to explain how an incident in which the number of dead
> >> was nil, zero, nada, zip, zilch, niente... can be described by
> >> anyone as "carnage".
>
> > Potential carnage.
>
> "Carnage", potential or otherwise, implies a great many individuals being
> killed. There were only four people in the shop none of whom suffered any
> great injury.
>
> > It is a miracle that those injured were not killed.
>
> What unusual and mysterious event was caused by some unseen deity to create
> this "miracle"? The lack of something happening is not a miracle.

I would certainly call the 2000 or so a year killed by motorists
'carnage' and this example amply illustrates how easily it could
occur, even in the safety of people homes.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> I would certainly call the 2000 or so a year killed by motorists
> 'carnage' and this example amply illustrates how easily it could occur,
> even in the safety of people homes.

You really ought to look at the number of deaths from other, more prosaic 
but more easily avoidable, causes every year.

Roughly twice that number die in the home every year of domestic 
accidents.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 May, 08:53, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 17 May, 08:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>>> And now try to explain how an incident in which the number of dead
>>>> was nil, zero, nada, zip, zilch, niente... can be described by
>>>> anyone as "carnage".
>>
>>> Potential carnage.
>>
>> "Carnage", potential or otherwise, implies a great many individuals
>> being killed. There were only four people in the shop none of whom
>> suffered any great injury.
>>
>>> It is a miracle that those injured were not killed.
>>
>> What unusual and mysterious event was caused by some unseen deity to
>> create this "miracle"? The lack of something happening is not a
>> miracle.
>
> I would certainly call the 2000 or so a year killed by motorists
> 'carnage'

If it was all in one incident you might have a point. It's not so you don't.

> and this example amply illustrates how easily it could
> occur, even in the safety of people homes.

Indeed, far more people die in their own homes than anywhere else.

In article <bde200ac-e18a-4d17-90b8-44357e58d3d0
@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, jagmad@riseup.net says...
> On 17 May, 08:53, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 17 May, 08:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > >> And now try to explain how an incident in which the number of dead
> > >> was nil, zero, nada, zip, zilch, niente... can be described by
> > >> anyone as "carnage".
> >
> > > Potential carnage.
> >
> > "Carnage", potential or otherwise, implies a great many individuals being
> > killed. There were only four people in the shop none of whom suffered any
> > great injury.
> >
> > > It is a miracle that those injured were not killed.
> >
> > What unusual and mysterious event was caused by some unseen deity to create
> > this "miracle"? The lack of something happening is not a miracle.
> 
> I would certainly call the 2000 or so a year killed by motorists
> 'carnage' and this example amply illustrates how easily it could
> occur, even in the safety of people homes.
> 
Doug, you have no idea how things work. I've something new for you. Its 
called "thinking".

Brimstone wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 17 May, 08:53, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 17 May, 08:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>>>> And now try to explain how an incident in which the number of dead
>>>>> was nil, zero, nada, zip, zilch, niente... can be described by
>>>>> anyone as "carnage".
>>>> Potential carnage.
>>> "Carnage", potential or otherwise, implies a great many individuals
>>> being killed. There were only four people in the shop none of whom
>>> suffered any great injury.
>>>
>>>> It is a miracle that those injured were not killed.
>>> What unusual and mysterious event was caused by some unseen deity to
>>> create this "miracle"? The lack of something happening is not a
>>> miracle.
>> I would certainly call the 2000 or so a year killed by motorists
>> 'carnage'
> 
> If it was all in one incident you might have a point. It's not so you don't.
> 
>> and this example amply illustrates how easily it could
>> occur, even in the safety of people homes.
> 
> Indeed, far more people die in their own homes than anywhere else.

But hospital runs it a close second (and that's just from MRSA).

In article <bde200ac-e18a-4d17-90b8-44357e58d3d0
@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> I would certainly call the 2000 or so a year killed by motorists
> 'carnage' and this example amply illustrates how easily it could
> occur, even in the safety of people homes.
> 
More than that die every week from cancer.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Doug  wrote:

> On 17 May, 08:53, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 17 May, 08:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > >> And now try to explain how an incident in which the number of dead
> > >> was nil, zero, nada, zip, zilch, niente... can be described by
> > >> anyone as "carnage".
> >
> > > Potential carnage.
> >
> > "Carnage", potential or otherwise, implies a great many individuals being
> > killed. There were only four people in the shop none of whom suffered any
> > great injury.
> >
> > > It is a miracle that those injured were not killed.
> >
> > What unusual and mysterious event was caused by some unseen deity to create
> > this "miracle"? The lack of something happening is not a miracle.
> 
> I would certainly call the 2000 or so a year killed by motorists
> 'carnage' and this example amply illustrates how easily it could
> occur, even in the safety of people homes.

An incident in which no one died illustrates that "carnage" can occur in
homes because "2000 or so" die each year in separate and entirely
unrelated incidents?

When the clue fairy came calling you were hiding under the sofa shouting
"fuck off you're not wanted here!"

On 20 May, 20:18, Conor  wrote:
> In article <bde200ac-e18a-4d17-90b8-44357e58d3d0
> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
> > I would certainly call the 2000 or so a year killed by motorists
> > 'carnage' and this example amply illustrates how easily it could
> > occur, even in the safety of people homes.
>
> More than that die every week from cancer.
>
Caused by who? This is about people who kill others and are allowed to
get away with it.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 20 May, 22:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> > On 17 May, 08:53, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > On 17 May, 08:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > >> And now try to explain how an incident in which the number of dead
> > > >> was nil, zero, nada, zip, zilch, niente... can be described by
> > > >> anyone as "carnage".
>
> > > > Potential carnage.
>
> > > "Carnage", potential or otherwise, implies a great many individuals being
> > > killed. There were only four people in the shop none of whom suffered any
> > > great injury.
>
> > > > It is a miracle that those injured were not killed.
>
> > > What unusual and mysterious event was caused by some unseen deity to create
> > > this "miracle"? The lack of something happening is not a miracle.
>
> > I would certainly call the 2000 or so a year killed by motorists
> > 'carnage' and this example amply illustrates how easily it could
> > occur, even in the safety of people homes.
>
> An incident in which no one died illustrates that "carnage" can occur in
> homes because "2000 or so" die each year in separate and entirely
> unrelated incidents?
>
> When the clue fairy came calling you were hiding under the sofa shouting
> "fuck off you're not wanted here!"

Why do you always try to seek refuge in semantics when reality is
staring you in the face? The reality is that cars are highly dangerous
machines with an enormous impact force, enough to wreck a building,
which are allowed to cause carnage on our roads.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
> On 20 May, 22:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> Doug  wrote:
>>> On 17 May, 08:53, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 17 May, 08:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>>>>> And now try to explain how an incident in which the number of
>>>>>> dead was nil, zero, nada, zip, zilch, niente... can be described
>>>>>> by anyone as "carnage".
>>
>>>>> Potential carnage.
>>
>>>> "Carnage", potential or otherwise, implies a great many
>>>> individuals being killed. There were only four people in the shop
>>>> none of whom suffered any great injury.
>>
>>>>> It is a miracle that those injured were not killed.
>>
>>>> What unusual and mysterious event was caused by some unseen deity
>>>> to create this "miracle"? The lack of something happening is not a
>>>> miracle.
>>
>>> I would certainly call the 2000 or so a year killed by motorists
>>> 'carnage' and this example amply illustrates how easily it could
>>> occur, even in the safety of people homes.
>>
>> An incident in which no one died illustrates that "carnage" can
>> occur in homes because "2000 or so" die each year in separate and
>> entirely unrelated incidents?
>>
>> When the clue fairy came calling you were hiding under the sofa
>> shouting "fuck off you're not wanted here!"
>
> Why do you always try to seek refuge in semantics when reality is
> staring you in the face? The reality is that cars are highly dangerous
> machines with an enormous impact force, enough to wreck a building,

Show evidence of anyone saying anything different.

> which are allowed to cause carnage on our roads.

As ever, wrong. If they were allowed to cause carnage there wouldn't be any 
rules governing their use and thus no motorist would ever face punishment. 
There are lots of rules and lots of motorists get punished for breaking 
them.

In article <1d312d03-d806-49a2-a9f8-
d217a77696dd@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, jagmad@riseup.net says...
> On 20 May, 20:18, Conor  wrote:
> > In article <bde200ac-e18a-4d17-90b8-44357e58d3d0
> > @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> >
> > > I would certainly call the 2000 or so a year killed by motorists
> > > 'carnage' and this example amply illustrates how easily it could
> > > occur, even in the safety of people homes.
> >
> > More than that die every week from cancer.
> >
> Caused by who? This is about people who kill others and are allowed to
> get away with it.

You fucking brainless twat. Try a new concept. Thinking.

Doug  wrote:

> > An incident in which no one died illustrates that "carnage" can occur in
> > homes because "2000 or so" die each year in separate and entirely
> > unrelated incidents?
> >
> > When the clue fairy came calling you were hiding under the sofa shouting
> > "fuck off you're not wanted here!"
> 
> Why do you always try to seek refuge in semantics when reality is
> staring you in the face? 

I don't, its not "semantics" to point out that the incident that you
refer to as "carnage" did not involve a single death whereas "carnage"
means mass slaughter.

Nor is it "semantics" to point out that several thousand separate deaths
with differing causes are not "carnage" either.

> The reality is that cars are highly dangerous machines with an enormous
> impact force, enough to wreck a building, which are allowed to cause
> carnage on our roads.

Again with the lack of understanding.

On 21 May, 08:44, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 20 May, 22:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >> Doug  wrote:
> >>> On 17 May, 08:53, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> On 17 May, 08:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >>>>>> And now try to explain how an incident in which the number of
> >>>>>> dead was nil, zero, nada, zip, zilch, niente... can be described
> >>>>>> by anyone as "carnage".
>
> >>>>> Potential carnage.
>
> >>>> "Carnage", potential or otherwise, implies a great many
> >>>> individuals being killed. There were only four people in the shop
> >>>> none of whom suffered any great injury.
>
> >>>>> It is a miracle that those injured were not killed.
>
> >>>> What unusual and mysterious event was caused by some unseen deity
> >>>> to create this "miracle"? The lack of something happening is not a
> >>>> miracle.
>
> >>> I would certainly call the 2000 or so a year killed by motorists
> >>> 'carnage' and this example amply illustrates how easily it could
> >>> occur, even in the safety of people homes.
>
> >> An incident in which no one died illustrates that "carnage" can
> >> occur in homes because "2000 or so" die each year in separate and
> >> entirely unrelated incidents?
>
> >> When the clue fairy came calling you were hiding under the sofa
> >> shouting "fuck off you're not wanted here!"
>
> > Why do you always try to seek refuge in semantics when reality is
> > staring you in the face? The reality is that cars are highly dangerous
> > machines with an enormous impact force, enough to wreck a building,
>
> Show evidence of anyone saying anything different.
>
> > which are allowed to cause carnage on our roads.
>
> As ever, wrong. If they were allowed to cause carnage there wouldn't be any
> rules governing their use and thus no motorist would ever face punishment.
> There are lots of rules and lots of motorists get punished for breaking
> them.

Despite the rules carnage still happens therefore the authorities must
be allowing it, from expediency no doubt. Were it not so car use would
be banned, as are other potential lethal weapons. Quite the opposite
is true. Cars are encouraged by government, with vast tracks of land
given over to car parking, cars allowed to be street garaged for free
24/7 and to pollute and congest, with tokenistic penalties for
motorists who kill and maim people.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> On 21 May, 08:44, "Brimstone"  wrote:

>> As ever, wrong. If they were allowed to cause carnage there wouldn't
>> be any rules governing their use and thus no motorist would ever
>> face punishment. There are lots of rules and lots of motorists get
>> punished for breaking them.
>
> Despite the rules carnage still happens therefore the authorities must
> be allowing it, from expediency no doubt. Were it not so car use would
> be banned, as are other potential lethal weapons. Quite the opposite
> is true. Cars are encouraged by government, with vast tracks of land
> given over to car parking, cars allowed to be street garaged for f