getting rear ended .....
Aaron P Coolidge
A while ago i wrote......
I was so p****d off I just drove away (after restarting).
Appartently, net.readers would have had me beat the snot out of the
moronic Mustang pilot! I would have loved to do this, but I didn't want to
embarass him in front of his girlfriend (or mine!). Seriously, what if he was
high on all kinds of stuff? I feel that beating the crap out of him would be
too dangerous for the reward I'd get. oh well.....
--
Aaron Coolidge
acoo...@wpi.wpi.edu -or- acoo...@wpi.ibit
"I'm always in control of my car. Well, at least 70% of the time."
b...@amati.tv.tek.com
> Appartently, net.readers would have had me beat the snot out of the
> moronic Mustang pilot!
A few would, I'm sure. I don't think that view is widespread, thank goodness.
I think most of us don't believe we can simply pummel someone at the side of
the road and "that's the end of that".
Bob Wakehouse
b...@amati.tv.tek.com
Beaverton, Oregon
Geoff Miller
>> Appartently, net.readers would have had me beat the snot out of the
>> moronic Mustang pilot!
>A few would, I'm sure. I don't think that view is widespread, thank goodness.
>I think most of us don't believe we can simply pummel someone at the side of
>the road and "that's the end of that".
The one time I did pummel someone at the side of the road, that *was* the
end of that. And very nearly the end of *him,* too. I found that the
technique worked quite nicely. :)
Geoff
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems
geo...@purplehaze.sun.com + + + + + + + + Milpitas, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Ron Youngquist
>In article <11...@amati.TV.TEK.COM> b...@amati.TV.TEK.COM (Bob Wakehouse) writes:
>>I think most of us don't believe we can simply pummel someone at the side of
>>the road and "that's the end of that".
>The one time I did pummel someone at the side of the road, that *was* the
>end of that. And very nearly the end of *him,* too. I found that the
>technique worked quite nicely. :)
Those who live by the sword die by the sword. I think it would be only too
fitting if the next lesson you decide to teach at the side of the road
results very nearly in the end of *you*, Geoff. Are you the same person
who recently claimed to have layed someone out on the trunk lid of their
own car?
/* Ron Youngquist ro...@locus.com (213)337-5963 */
Geoff Miller
>Those who live by the sword die by the sword.
Ah, a wordsmith! :-> How reassuring to see see such original thought
instead of the mindless parrotting of a tired old saying. I suppose you'll
next be telling me that "A gramme is worse than a damn," eh?
-----
>I think it would be only too fitting if the next lesson you decide to teach
>at the side of the road results very nearly in the end of *you*, Geoff.
Now that's interesting. How did our philosophical differences escalate
into hostility and ill will? If you think back, Ron, you'll note that I
don't advocate going out of one's way to find trouble with other drivers;
what I *do* advocate is having the backbone to rise to the occasion when
trouble finds *you.* In fact, I went out of my way to emphasize that I
don't mess with anyone unless they mess with me. If you don't agree with
my approach, then conduct yourself in whatever way you think is appropriate.
-----
>Are you the same person who recently claimed to have layed someone out on
>the trunk lid of their own car?
Yup. And the only regret I have about that incident is that I didn't nail
the asshole several more times with my jack handle before un-assing the A.O.
Geoff
"There's a lot to be said
for a blow to the head."
-- Blue Oyster Cult
Ron Youngquist
>ro...@locus.com (Ron Youngquist) writes:
>>Those who live by the sword die by the sword.
>Ah, a wordsmith! :-> How reassuring to see see such original thought
>instead of the mindless parrotting of a tired old saying. I suppose you'll
>next be telling me that "A gramme is worse than a damn," eh?
Your sarcasm reflects your personality, but is otherwise counterproductive.
>>I think it would be only too fitting if the next lesson you decide to teach
>>at the side of the road results very nearly in the end of *you*, Geoff.
>Now that's interesting. How did our philosophical differences escalate
>into hostility and ill will?
They didn't. Notice that I did not imply any hostility or ill will in my
statement. You inferred both. I said only that it would be fitting, karmic
if you will. Is it common for you to mistake statements for attacks?
>If you think back, Ron, you'll note that I
>don't advocate going out of one's way to find trouble with other drivers;
>what I *do* advocate is having the backbone to rise to the occasion when
>trouble finds *you.* In fact, I went out of my way to emphasize that I
>don't mess with anyone unless they mess with me.
I don't recall you saying anything about what motivated your actions.
Maybe you did and I missed it. But you've provided a clue, albeit
somewhat cryptic:
>>Are you the same person who recently claimed to have layed someone out on
>>the trunk lid of their own car?
>Yup. And the only regret I have about that incident is that I didn't nail
>the asshole several more times with my jack handle before un-assing the A.O.
I'll take "un-assing the A.O." to mean "helping up the arresting officer",
who I suppose was knocked down by the "asshole". In this context, it is
perhaps more difficult to rule out the appropriateness of attacking the
"asshole". Then again, people often mistake statements for attacks.
I don't know if your action was appropriate or not, and I never will. However,
I wonder what purpose it would have served to hit the "asshole" repeatedly.
> "There's a lot to be said
> for a blow to the head."
> -- Blue Oyster Cult
"All the scars are on the inside."
-- Blue Oyster Cult
Geoff Miller
>Your sarcasm reflects your personality, but is otherwise counterproductive.
I didn't realize that you were the final arbiter of semantic productivity.
-----
>>Now that's interesting. How did our philosophical differences escalate
>>into hostility and ill will?
>They didn't. Notice that I did not imply any hostility or ill will in my
>statement. You inferred both. I said only that it would be fitting, karmic
>if you will. Is it common for you to mistake statements for attacks?
Since when does an attack have to be made in order for hostility to exist?
And you say that it's unreasonable of me to interpret your apparent wish
for my eventual harm (AKA "ill will") as hostility? Curious, to say the
least.
-----
>>If you think back, Ron, you'll note that I
>>don't advocate going out of one's way to find trouble with other drivers;
>>what I *do* advocate is having the backbone to rise to the occasion when
>>trouble finds *you.* In fact, I went out of my way to emphasize that I
>>don't mess with anyone unless they mess with me.
>I don't recall you saying anything about what motivated your actions.
>Maybe you did and I missed it.
You *did* miss it. When this topic originally came up a week or two ago, I
stated plainly that I don't believe in looking for trouble on the road, but
that I don't believe in backing down when suitably provoked. Maybe you were
so wrapped up in your disagreement with my basic philosophy that the fine
points flew several miles over your head.
-----
>I'll take "un-assing the A.O." to mean "helping up the arresting officer",
>who I suppose was knocked down by the "asshole". In this context, it is
>perhaps more difficult to rule out the appropriateness of attacking the
>"asshole".
Get a clue. The phrase is Army slang for "leaving the area of operations."
Not that you couldn't have figured it out from the context, given an iota of
inclination and effort. But I guess you were too preoccupied looking for
flame-fodder.
-----
>I don't know if your action was appropriate or not, and I never will.
Then what the hell are you shooting off your mouth for? This single
statement invalidates your entire position!
-----
>However, I wonder what purpose it would have served to hit the "asshole"
>repeatedly.
The same purpose it served to hit him once. Repetition is a powerful
educational tool.
Geoff
Ron Youngquist
>ro...@locus.com (Ron Youngquist) writes:
>>Your sarcasm reflects your personality, but is otherwise counterproductive.
>I didn't realize that you were the final arbiter of semantic productivity.
Geoff, I'm not trying to engage in a flame-fest or a vocabulary war. Why
don't you try responding with information rather than sarcasm?
>>>Now that's interesting. How did our philosophical differences escalate
>>>into hostility and ill will?
>>They didn't. Notice that I did not imply any hostility or ill will in my
>>statement. You inferred both. I said only that it would be fitting, karmic
>>if you will. Is it common for you to mistake statements for attacks?
>Since when does an attack have to be made in order for hostility to exist?
>And you say that it's unreasonable of me to interpret your apparent wish
>for my eventual harm (AKA "ill will") as hostility? Curious, to say the
>least.
You missed the point entirely. I have no "wish for your eventual harm."
However, I would not be surprised if you confronted someone who shared
similar views, and he kicked your ass. That's what I meant by "fitting".
>...When this topic originally came up a week or two ago, I
>stated plainly that I don't believe in looking for trouble on the road, but
>that I don't believe in backing down when suitably provoked. Maybe you were
>so wrapped up in your disagreement with my basic philosophy that the fine
>points flew several miles over your head.
Wishful thinking on your part. I recall you stating what you repeated
above. However, I don't recall you mentioning any specifics about the
situation. There are three reasons why I entered this discussion:
1) To determine what you mean by "suitably provoked".
2) To show that, like most people, you tend to turn a disagreement
into an insult-swapping session.
3) To see if, despite 2, one or both of us (and/or an interested third
party) might be further educated with regard to the appropriate use of
physical violence.
I think (2) has been demonstrated. I'm getting a better idea of (1), but
(3) may be a way off.
>>I'll take "un-assing the A.O." to mean "helping up the arresting officer",
>>who I suppose was knocked down by the "asshole". In this context, it is
>>perhaps more difficult to rule out the appropriateness of attacking the
>>"asshole".
>Get a clue. The phrase is Army slang for "leaving the area of operations."
>Not that you couldn't have figured it out from the context, given an iota of
>inclination and effort. But I guess you were too preoccupied looking for
>flame-fodder.
I had no idea what "unassing the A.O." meant. I presented what seemed to
me to be a reasonable interpretation. To ridicule me for my ignorance
of military slang is infantile, Geoff.
>>I don't know if your action was appropriate or not, and I never will.
>Then what the hell are you shooting off your mouth for? This single
>statement invalidates your entire position!
Perhaps you would like to elaborate on my position. You seem to know
much more about it than I do.
>>However, I wonder what purpose it would have served to hit the "asshole"
>>repeatedly.
>The same purpose it served to hit him once. Repetition is a powerful
>educational tool.
What were you trying to teach the "asshole"? Did he learn it?
Geoff Miller
>Geoff, I'm not trying to engage in a flame-fest or a vocabulary war.
Could've fooled me!
>Why don't you try responding with information rather than sarcasm?
Gee, you don't think it might be because I don't take you
seriously enough to warrant my full attention, do you? Naaaah!
:-}
This conversation has strayed pretty far from the subject of
driving, and has degenerated into a discussion of who said what
when. Followups (if any) to alt.flame or email, please.
Geoff
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems
geo...@purplehaze.EBay.sun.com + + + + + + + + Milpitas, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-