Arrogant cyclist in village this morning - for you

[Keef]

Ha ha :)

[thebeard]

giggirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's contemptible to berate someone because their

> English usage isn?t up to scratch. Very cruel.

> Can?t you find something more worthy to make a

> point about?

Worthy of translation into local dialect.

It?s like well out of order to take de piss out of somebody because they?re no good at the English. Init.

That?s like well well double nasty init.

If you aint got a point on the fing then keep yer trap hole buttoned up.

Like.

Init

[barty]

That's "take DA piss" I think you'll find, old bean.

and you forgot to add a few RAAAAAS and BLUUUUUUURD CLARTs at the end. And suck your teeth. and play your rap music loud on your moby. Innit.

[Keef]

I think you'll find that one kisses one's teeth's rather than sucking them old bean.

[louisiana]

Asset Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> I definitely don't agree with that comment.

> Dictionaries are great. Expanding vocabulary and

> playing a home-made version of Call My Bluff are

> two things they are good for. Also useful for

> finding the origin of words. Useful to most

> people with a passing interest in language.

>

> Anyway, as you were.

Asset, do you believe everything you read on this forum, taking it at face value? :-S

Dictionaries are also useful for assessing the equivalence or otherwise of words in different languages. For using as door-stops or weights... I have around two or three hundred of them, have sometimes resorted to using six or seven at the same time when encountering particularly problematic terms. And sometimes the word is not in any dictionary, and then it's time to use other means.

[louisiana]

Sunlover00 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Geez lousiana, think that's fairly harsh to break

> down someone's post and analyse to an inch of it's

> life.

You are right.

Does anyone really care?

No. That is the point.

I mean, it's

> obviously got right up your nose but Louisa was

> having a rant so misuse of words probably wasn't

> at the forefront of her mind.

Louisa was having a pointless rant. I had one too. That is all.

Geez as I type this

> I'm feeling rather paranoid that I screw up but

> I've always been a bit rebellious so

> ............skjhakdissufdsjfjccn ;-)

[Keef]

Does anyone really care?

A few people seemed to.

[bigbadwolf]

I think that as responsible adults we should take a step back and look at the bigger picture in greater detail with less compassion and a lot more logic.

I'm going to approach this argument from the 4 against 2 angle/viewpoint.

Stretching back as far as Antiquity roads have traditionally been used and constructed for the purpose of transport of either passengers or cargo. The modes of transport had either 4 or 2 legs. A vehicle/animal with 4 legs is going to cause a great deal more damage to a vehicle/Human with 2 legs if a collision were to occur so the more vulnerable will watch out for that danger then and in the future. The same theory/reality applies in the modern era whereby someone on 2 wheels is going to be far more wary of the physical consequences of the collision between them and a car than the driver of a car is going to have over a cyclist. The simple fact remains that roads are built for modes of transport that weigh over half a ton. Bicycles don't fall into this category because lets face it today's bicycles are a developed form of a Victorian pastime and the law that governs the road scantly covers the rights and wrongs of those on a Bicycle.

You could also look at it as though road users mirrored that of the Animal kingdom. Cars and lorries are the migrating herd and cyclists are the weaker hangers on that occasionally get trampled.

Now we've got that covered lets move on to the types of cyclists most commonly found on Britain's roads.

Learning to ride a bike is a right of passage found in all cultures around the globe and probably the only thing the Human race will ever have the French to thank for. All able bodied adults have ridden a bike at some point in their lives with the two common reasons of either having fun or to get from A to B. In recent history however it has also become a fashionable and condescending mode of transport among the commuting classes.

1) Children.

Bicycles are the first practical mode of mechanized transport available to adolescents and their level of competence should be respected by all of those on the open road whether they're riding on the pavement or they're showing off and riding on the road. Keep your distance as they're only young.

2) Teenagers and the poor.

Although often seen as one and the same they're are in both instances described above able with some degree to hold their own on the road and will have the experience at hand to see danger when it's getting too close.

3) Bicycle couriers.

Don't worry as they're suicidal and usually stoned anyway.

4) The City cyclist commuter

With their elevated position on the financial ladder of life they've naturally developed an inflated sense of self worth i.e you can't reason with them. They see any other road user who doesn't have an Ipod velcroed to their upper arm an inferior race.

There is however an even worse breed of cyclist.

5) Middle class professionals who've just returned from living in a bike friendly European city such as Barcelona or Amsterdam.

Firstly these 'people' resent the fact that they've been posted back to the country they were born in so they even more irritable but handily they can be identified by the fold up bike they're riding.

Him: A creative media type just back from an 'eye opening' 2 years in Barcelona.

Her: A trustafarian out reach worker based in Knightsbridge who's just returned from an alternative therapy course in Holland.

Secondly they're self obsessed arseholes past the point of no return.

[Sunlover00]

keef, no it doesn't seem like many people care that there are grammatical errors in louisa's post