"Andy" wrote in message
news:0rusn311eu34902q5cuur9rnn6qm70tj7u@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:15:58 GMT, "Wog George"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Andy" wrote in message
>>news:apjpn31l6o9ogh2a2qjkc6t759l9pbdso9@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:01:50 +1100, "Hergy" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Wog George" wrote in message
>>>>news:K52fj.31021$CN4.4065@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> [ ~ ]
>>>>> If your wife was driving a Daewoo too instead of a sodding-huge 4WD,
>>>>> the
>>>>> accident may not have occurred at all. Do many of her nursing clients
>>>>> live on Fraser Island or in the outback?
>>>>
>>>>what has that got to do with it?
>>>
>>> Hell that's easy. Sour g.s from Wog George because your wife can
>>> afford to drive a 4WD vehicle while all he could manage to keep on the
>>> road is a shitty little Daewoo. Some blokes have major issues when
>>> women make more money and drive better cars than they do. Elementary.
>>>
>>> Hope that helps.
>>>
>>
>>Why does Hergy's wife drive a truck and then complain that she had an
>>accident when she backed out in front of someone she couldn't see?
>
> Perhaps you should look again because I don't see any trucks in the
> photographs.
>
>>I neither have a wife nor a 4WD nor a Daewoo. I may not earn as much as
>>you
>>or your wife, but I sure as hell get paid more than both of you put
>>together.
>
> Nothing more than delusions of grandeur on your part..
>
> To make such an idiotic brag about how much "more" you get paid, when
> in the very same breath you admit to having no idea whatsoever how
> much their combined income could be to compare to, only goes to
> further expose your own insecurities.
>
>>This dumb . is providing evidence that his wife's vehicle, by its very
>>dimensions, contributed to some poor bastard colliding with it.
>
> You sir, are an idiot. The OP provided no evidence of the sort.
>
> What he did however was provide the means for you to advertise and
> expose your idiotic and irrational hate of 4WD vehicles, purely for
> them being what they are. An opportunity you certainly took full
> advantage of.
>
>>Why was she
>>backing a vehicle that she couldn't see out of onto a public road? I have
>
> Any reasonable person can see from those pictures that there would
> have been difficulty in seeing oncoming traffic when backing out of
> that driveway "regardless" of the vehicle being driven. If you are
> alone in a vehicle and must back out, then it is reasonable to assume
> that the safest way of doing so would be to back out "very very
> slowly" which coincidently, is precisely what she was reportedly
> doing.
>
> That you were and continue to be blinded to that because your sole
> focus is to stupidly blame the type of vehicle she was driving, only
> aids in showing that you are not only irrational, but quite possibly
> jealous of not being able to afford such a luxurious vehicle to drive
> for yourself, just as I'd originally guessed.
>
>>no idea why the Daewoo driver's attention was momentarily diverted to the
>>right, maybe a starling, but a brief lapse in a sedentary environment
>>shouldn't result in what we saw in those pictures.
>
> Yes. That you have no idea what the hell you're talking about is
> precisely the point, isn't it?
>
>>Hergy's wife, quite legally, drives a 2 tonne fuel guzzling piece of shit.
>
> Oh dear.. you really do have a bad case of penis envy about 4WD owners
> don't you? In fact, Hergy's wife, quite legally, was driving a 4WD
> vehicle. End of story. That fact alone neither makes her totally at
> fault for the accident that occurred, nor does it make her car a
> "piece of shit". No amount of stupidity originating from your keyboard
> can change any of that.
>
>>Is it out of necessity or simply because she wants a presence on the road?
>
> As Hergy himself asked you. What does that have to do with anything?
>
> Your continued (quite obvious) sour g.s and envy about the type of
> vehicle that Hergy's wife chooses to drive continues to expose you.
>
> Hehe.. Never mind George.. if you apply yourself, perhaps one day you
> too may be able to enjoy the luxury and safety of driving in a vehicle
> of that calibre.
>
>>She certainly made her presence felt from what I saw.
>
> From the pictures shown, her vehicle was barely on the road when the
> collision occurred. That much is clear.
>
> Was she at fault? Most likely.. Did the trees contribute to the
> accident? In the eyes of the law, perhaps they did. Was the other
> driver also negligent? If the OP is to be believed when he says his
> wife's car was being backed out "very very slowly" then contributory
> negligence by the other driver is also possible.
>
> Perhaps the other driver wasn't watching the road because he was busy
> talking on a mobile, lighting a smoke or even having a wank while
> driving. He's not about to admit not watching where he was going so
> it's all speculation.
>
> One this IS clear however, and that is that the collision had sweet
> . all to do with the "type of vehicle" that Hergy's wife was
> driving, despite your idiotic outburst to the contrary. That my friend
> is a fact. A fact you need to accept. Arguing to the contrary only
> serves to make you look more and more foolish with every word you
> type.
>
>>I hope that explains my position (rather than a lame "Hope that helps")
>
> Yes. It fully explains and reinforces the fact that you're an
> irrational idiot, envious of people that are able to afford driving
> 4WD recreational vehicles, just as I'd guessed. Thanks for the
> confirmation, but it really wasn't necessary.
>
> If I can quote an old saying to you George.. Better to keep your mouth
> shut and let people think you're stupid, rather than open it as you
> did here and remove all doubt.
>
> Food for thought..
>
> Hope it helps.
My word! You made a reference to my capacity to afford such a vehicle,
accused me of delusions of grandeur when I defended myself, and then
repeated your equally unfounded claim.
Irrational 4WD hater though I may be, I seem to have touched a nerve in your
world. Why did you dedicate so much time and so many key presses to my
apparently idiotic retort?
--
George
"The standard measuring unit for human faeces. One Katie Couric is
approximately 2½ pounds of excrement." - European Faecal Standards &
Measurements - 10 October 2007
|