A federal survey shows that one in twenty Americans lack basic English skills.
The good news is, even without those skills someone can still become President.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:25:20 -0000, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:32:10 -0000, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Many years ago in Scotland, a new game was invented. It was ruled "Gentlemen Only...Ladies Forbidden"...and thus the word GOLF entered into the English language.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:36:30 -0000, John Benn <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wnscw0q8ytk5n5@i7-940...
> Yes, I agree and you are probably one of them based on the way you admit to
> driving.
I am actually more courteous than most. Unless someone gets in my way.
Many years ago in Scotland, a new game was invented. It was ruled "Gentlemen Only...Ladies Forbidden"...and thus the word GOLF entered into the English language.
An e-mail computer virus has swept across the globe that automatically opens pornographic websites on the victim's screen.
Authorities intend to track down the hackers responsible for the virus just as soon as somebody complains.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:36:12 -0000, brass monkey <a...@b.com> wrote:
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wnsfn11nytk5n5@i7-940...
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:32:10 -0000, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk>
>> wrote:
Researchers have recently unearthed the text of the first transcontinental telegraph message. Reportedly, it reads
ENLARGE YOUR MALE MEMBER STOP GUARANTEED RESULTS STOP ...
>> Yes, I agree and you are probably one of them based on the way you admit >> to
>> driving.
> I am actually more courteous than most.
Yes, demonstrated by your philosophy that you can drive in whichever lane of a motorway you choose, and other people can go round you if they don't like it.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:21:32 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wntny6sgytk5n5@i7-940...
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:36:30 -0000, John Benn <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Yes, I agree and you are probably one of them based on the way you admit
>>> to
>>> driving.
>> I am actually more courteous than most.
> Yes, demonstrated by your philosophy that you can drive in whichever lane of
> a motorway you choose, and other people can go round you if they don't like
> it.
I'm not obstructing anyone if there is a free adjacent lane. You say it's no hassle for me to change back to lane 1, yet you think it's a hassle for you to change to lane 3?
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:21:32 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.wntny6sgytk5n5@i7-940...
>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:36:30 -0000, John Benn <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Yes, I agree and you are probably one of them based on the way you >>>> admit
>>>> to
>>>> driving.
>>> I am actually more courteous than most.
>> Yes, demonstrated by your philosophy that you can drive in whichever lane >> of
>> a motorway you choose, and other people can go round you if they don't >> like
>> it.
> I'm not obstructing anyone if there is a free adjacent lane.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:26:16 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wnu49royytk5n5@i7-940...
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:21:32 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mentalguy...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.wntny6sgytk5n5@i7-940...
>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:36:30 -0000, John Benn <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, I agree and you are probably one of them based on the way you
>>>>> admit
>>>>> to
>>>>> driving.
>>>> I am actually more courteous than most.
>>> Yes, demonstrated by your philosophy that you can drive in whichever lane
>>> of
>>> a motorway you choose, and other people can go round you if they don't
>>> like
>>> it.
>> I'm not obstructing anyone if there is a free adjacent lane.
> Do you understand what "obstruction" means?
The dictionary says "Something which prevents or hinders the movement of someone or something in motion".
There is no hindrance if lane 3 is clear. You don't have to slow down or speed up, you don't waste fuel, you don't waste time. You just steer a bit.
"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:26:16 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.wnu49royytk5n5@i7-940...
>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:21:32 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mentalguy...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:op.wntny6sgytk5n5@i7-940...
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:36:30 -0000, John Benn <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, I agree and you are probably one of them based on the way you
>>>>>> admit
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> driving.
>>>>> I am actually more courteous than most.
>>>> Yes, demonstrated by your philosophy that you can drive in whichever lane
>>>> of
>>>> a motorway you choose, and other people can go round you if they don't
>>>> like
>>>> it.
>>> I'm not obstructing anyone if there is a free adjacent lane.
>> Do you understand what "obstruction" means?
> The dictionary says "Something which prevents or hinders the movement of
> someone or something in motion".
> There is no hindrance if lane 3 is clear. You don't have to slow down or
> speed up, you don't waste fuel, you don't waste time. You just steer a bit.
The requirement is to keep in the near side lane unless overtaking, you
swanning along in lane three is causing an obstruction even if there is no
one right up your arse you are not supposed to be there.
>>>>> Yes, demonstrated by your philosophy that you can drive in whichever lane
>>>>> of
>>>>> a motorway you choose, and other people can go round you if they don't
>>>>> like
>>>>> it.
>>>> I'm not obstructing anyone if there is a free adjacent lane.
>>> Do you understand what "obstruction" means?
>> The dictionary says "Something which prevents or hinders the movement of
>> someone or something in motion".
>> There is no hindrance if lane 3 is clear. You don't have to slow down or
>> speed up, you don't waste fuel, you don't waste time. You just steer a bit.
> The requirement is to keep in the near side lane unless overtaking, you
> swanning along in lane three is causing an obstruction even if there is no
> one right up your arse you are not supposed to be there.
The discussion earlier was about me staying in lane 2.
And it's not causing an obstruction unless someone comes up behind me and has to wait for me to get out of the way, having to slow down and speed up again.
If I'm in lane 3 and I see a distant vehicle in my mirror, then I move over ready.
The record of having had intercourse the most frequently goes to a boy who was recorded to have had intercourse about 52,000 times over a period of 30 years. This means he had intercourse on average 33.3 times a week.
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:26:16 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.wnu49royytk5n5@i7-940...
>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:21:32 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 >>> <Mentalguy...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:op.wntny6sgytk5n5@i7-940...
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:36:30 -0000, John Benn >>>>> <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, I agree and you are probably one of them based on the way you
>>>>>> admit
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> driving.
>>>>> I am actually more courteous than most.
>>>> Yes, demonstrated by your philosophy that you can drive in whichever >>>> lane
>>>> of
>>>> a motorway you choose, and other people can go round you if they don't
>>>> like
>>>> it.
>>> I'm not obstructing anyone if there is a free adjacent lane.
>> Do you understand what "obstruction" means?
> The dictionary says "Something which prevents or hinders the movement of > someone or something in motion".
You appear to think that nothing can be described as an obstacle as long as it's possible to take some kind of action to pass it.
If someone parks across your driveway it's fine, because you can always take your fence down and drive across the pavement instead, right? The amount of effort needed to avoid an "obstacle" doesn't redefine its meaning.
>>>>> Yes, demonstrated by your philosophy that you can drive in whichever
>>>>> lane
>>>>> of
>>>>> a motorway you choose, and other people can go round you if they don't
>>>>> like
>>>>> it.
>>>> I'm not obstructing anyone if there is a free adjacent lane.
>>> Do you understand what "obstruction" means?
>> The dictionary says "Something which prevents or hinders the movement of
>> someone or something in motion".
> You appear to think that nothing can be described as an obstacle as long as
> it's possible to take some kind of action to pass it.
> If someone parks across your driveway it's fine, because you can always take
> your fence down and drive across the pavement instead, right? The amount of
> effort needed to avoid an "obstacle" doesn't redefine its meaning.
There is virtually no effort required to change lane.
>>>>>> Yes, demonstrated by your philosophy that you can drive in whichever
>>>>>> lane
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> a motorway you choose, and other people can go round you if they >>>>>> don't
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> it.
>>>>> I'm not obstructing anyone if there is a free adjacent lane.
>>>> Do you understand what "obstruction" means?
>>> The dictionary says "Something which prevents or hinders the movement of
>>> someone or something in motion".
>> You appear to think that nothing can be described as an obstacle as long >> as
>> it's possible to take some kind of action to pass it.
>> If someone parks across your driveway it's fine, because you can always >> take
>> your fence down and drive across the pavement instead, right? The amount >> of
>> effort needed to avoid an "obstacle" doesn't redefine its meaning.
> There is virtually no effort required to change lane.
So do it yourself then and comply with the Highway Code at the same time.
>>>> The dictionary says "Something which prevents or hinders the movement of
>>>> someone or something in motion".
>>> You appear to think that nothing can be described as an obstacle as long
>>> as
>>> it's possible to take some kind of action to pass it.
>>> If someone parks across your driveway it's fine, because you can always
>>> take
>>> your fence down and drive across the pavement instead, right? The amount
>>> of
>>> effort needed to avoid an "obstacle" doesn't redefine its meaning.
>> There is virtually no effort required to change lane.
> So do it yourself then
As it's virtually no effort, who cares who is the one to do it? Do you walk along a high street towards someone and get annoyed when the other person doesn't move out of the way?
> and comply with the Highway Code at the same time.
>>>>>> Do you understand what "obstruction" means?
>>>>> The dictionary says "Something which prevents or hinders the movement >>>>> of
>>>>> someone or something in motion".
>>>> You appear to think that nothing can be described as an obstacle as >>>> long
>>>> as
>>>> it's possible to take some kind of action to pass it.
>>>> If someone parks across your driveway it's fine, because you can always
>>>> take
>>>> your fence down and drive across the pavement instead, right? The >>>> amount
>>>> of
>>>> effort needed to avoid an "obstacle" doesn't redefine its meaning.
>>> There is virtually no effort required to change lane.
>> So do it yourself then
> As it's virtually no effort, who cares who is the one to do it?
You're still not getting it. If someone has to change their course to avoid you, then you are causing an obstruction. It doesn't matter how much or how little effort they have to expend to avoid you, you are causing an obstruction.
>Do you walk along a high street towards someone and get annoyed when the >other person doesn't move out of the way?
Which is not the same thing at all. A better comparison would be someone standing in a shop doorway refusing to move, saying that if shoppers want to get in or out, they should use the other door because it's too much effort to move out of the way.
However, I've just read the summary of a study on middle-lane-hogging, which appears to show that most offenders are those with the least confidence in their own driving abilities. Which would make sense, they obviously assume that everyone else is more competent to change lanes. Although in my view, people who lack the confidence or ability to change lanes shouldn't be driving on motorways.
>>>>> You appear to think that nothing can be described as an obstacle as
>>>>> long
>>>>> as
>>>>> it's possible to take some kind of action to pass it.
>>>>> If someone parks across your driveway it's fine, because you can always
>>>>> take
>>>>> your fence down and drive across the pavement instead, right? The
>>>>> amount
>>>>> of
>>>>> effort needed to avoid an "obstacle" doesn't redefine its meaning.
>>>> There is virtually no effort required to change lane.
>>> So do it yourself then
>> As it's virtually no effort, who cares who is the one to do it?
> You're still not getting it. If someone has to change their course to avoid
> you, then you are causing an obstruction. It doesn't matter how much or how
> little effort they have to expend to avoid you, you are causing an
> obstruction.
It's a negligible obstruction, not worth even commenting on.
>> Do you walk along a high street towards someone and get annoyed when the
>> other person doesn't move out of the way?
> Which is not the same thing at all.
It is exactly the same thing, two moving objects on intersecting paths avoiding each other.
> A better comparison would be someone
> standing in a shop doorway refusing to move, saying that if shoppers want to
> get in or out, they should use the other door because it's too much effort
> to move out of the way.
Using another door is a lot more effort than moving lane.
> However, I've just read the summary of a study on middle-lane-hogging, which
> appears to show that most offenders are those with the least confidence in
> their own driving abilities. Which would make sense, they obviously assume
> that everyone else is more competent to change lanes. Although in my view,
> people who lack the confidence or ability to change lanes shouldn't be
> driving on motorways.
I stay in the middle lane because I have no reason to move. I don't stop at a red light with no traffic coming the other way because I have no reason to. Do you like doing things without reason?
You are The One. But not The One. The One who is not The One, but is Another One. But you are that One who is The One who is The Other One who is, in fact, The One. All is lost.
