Some drivers are such wankers

[Lieutenant Scott]

http://youtu.be/DqeEWI0ACtg

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

| , \
.-"""-. | | ;
/ `.___ |
| O .=-"`| ; |
/ .' |
_.'--._ ( | ; | \
.-" ; ``\ | ; |
.' ; | |
/ .' ; | | | :
/_/ __.' , ; |
.' / / | ; |
.' _..--' _/ |_..- ;
/_.--''` __.-'`\\__ .==="" \ .
/ .--'` \\__.'--))) `; |
/ .' .-'--))) . |
/ .' .' ` _.'
/_.' .` __..--""````""===="" | ;
// / /` | ; .

[Steve Firth]

Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:

Yes, you're one of them. HTH.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:32:10 -0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, you're one of them. HTH.

Post-snipping troll.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

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.

[Steve Firth]

Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:32:10 -0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, you're one of them. HTH.
>
> Post-snipping troll.

Troll

[brass monkey]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.wnsfn11nytk5n5@i7-940...

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:32:10 -0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, you're one of them. HTH.
>
> Post-snipping troll.

Prick.

[Steve Firth]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:32:10 -0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, you're one of them. HTH.
>
> Post-snipping troll.

troll

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[John Benn]

"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.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:25:20 -0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:32:10 -0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, you're one of them. HTH.
>>
>> Post-snipping troll.
>
> troll

You've got two prefixes so you're more of one.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

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.

[Lieutenant Scott]

I am actually more courteous than most. Unless someone gets in my way.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:29:47 -0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:32:10 -0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, you're one of them. HTH.
>>
>> Post-snipping troll.
>
> Troll

You're pathetic at this. Back in the bin you go.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

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.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Same applies to you.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Researchers have recently unearthed the text of the first transcontinental telegraph message. Reportedly, it reads
ENLARGE YOUR MALE MEMBER STOP GUARANTEED RESULTS STOP ...

[Steve Firth]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:29:47 -0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:32:10 -0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you're one of them. HTH.
>>>
>>> Post-snipping troll.
>>
>> Troll
>
> You're pathetic at this. Back in the bin you go.

[Steve Firth]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:25:20 -0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:32:10 -0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you're one of them. HTH.
>>>
>>> Post-snipping troll.
>>
>> troll
>
> You've got two prefixes so you're more of one.

troll.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Mentalguy2k8]

"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...@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.

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.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:21:32 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@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...@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.
>
> 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?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Do you know what a Jewish dilemma is?
Free ham.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.wnu49royytk5n5@i7-940...

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:21:32 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@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...@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.
>>
>> 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?

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:26:16 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@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 <Mental...@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...@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.
>>>
>>> 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.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

You can't please everyone. But it IS possible to piss 'em ALL off at the same time.

[nik.morgan]

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.

--
ennemm

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:32:09 -0000, nik.morgan <ig....@me.com> wrote:

> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:26:16 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@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 <Mental...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:op.wntny6sgytk5n5@i7-940...

>>>>>

>>>>> 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.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

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.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.wnu7jdjfytk5n5@i7-940...

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.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:01:43 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wnu7jdjfytk5n5@i7-940...
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:26:16 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@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
>>>> <Mental...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:op.wntny6sgytk5n5@i7-940...

>>>>>

>>>>> 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.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Did you hear about the guy who finally figured out women?
He died laughing before he could tell anybody.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.wnvdzhtyytk5n5@i7-940...

So do it yourself then and comply with the Highway Code at the same time.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:55:08 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wnvdzhtyytk5n5@i7-940...
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:01:43 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.wnu7jdjfytk5n5@i7-940...
>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:26:16 -0000, Mentalguy2k8
>>>> <Mental...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:op.wnu49royytk5n5@i7-940...

>>

>>>>>

>>>>> 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? 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.

That's not a good enough reason to do something.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

What does a Polish woman do after she sucks a cock?
Spits out the feathers.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.wnvg7ntiytk5n5@i7-940...

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.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:54:39 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wnvg7ntiytk5n5@i7-940...
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:55:08 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.wnvdzhtyytk5n5@i7-940...
>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:01:43 -0000, Mentalguy2k8
>>>> <Mental...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:op.wnu7jdjfytk5n5@i7-940...

>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> 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?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

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.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.wnvkgjubytk5n5@i7-940...

But your entire argument for *you* not changing lanes is that it's too much
effort. Why is it more effort for you than anyone else?

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:57:33 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wnvkgjubytk5n5@i7-940...
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:54:39 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.wnvg7ntiytk5n5@i7-940...
>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:55:08 -0000, Mentalguy2k8
>>>> <Mental...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:op.wnvdzhtyytk5n5@i7-940...

>>
>>>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> 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.
>
> But your entire argument for *you* not changing lanes is that it's too much
> effort. Why is it more effort for you than anyone else?

I'm not the one that wants to get past.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Debugger: a tool to remove evidence of rear entry.

[Steve Firth]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> I stay in the middle lane because

Because you are a dickhead.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Steve Firth]

Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> > But your entire argument for *you* not changing lanes is that it's too much
> > effort. Why is it more effort for you than anyone else?
>
> I'm not the one that wants to get past.

So you're one of those idiots who sees it as their "right" to obstruct
traffic and who has a massive chip on his shoulder about being
overtaken, even on a three lane motorway.

Here's a clue. Take your driving license (both parts) and put them in a
DL envelope. Write D.V.L.A, Swansea, SA99 1BD on the envelope, drop in a
note saying that you are too stupid to have a driving licence and post
it back to them.

TIA.

[brass monkey]

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1ktpf6a.5nkz9j1f6pwhsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...

IAWTP, the prick shouldn't be allowed access even to a dinky toy. Silly
thing is, the stupid troll believes he actually has brains.
Ya hafta laugh, well, I do.

[Steve Firth]

brass monkey <a...@b.com> wrote:

> the prick shouldn't be allowed access even to a dinky toy.

Or to scissors made of something other than plastic.

It is, as you say, most amusing that he thinks he is clever and that his
dumb arsed one line comments are "smart" when they just make him look
like the brainless, drooling cretin he is.