Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle! - Page 76 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-16-2004, 10:14 PM

>"tk" [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

wrote:

>Thank you for the mini ornithology lesson
>I doubt I could tell the difference if I had to.
>Don't have much experience with geese here in NYC.
>Probably all the same with a little jelly sauce
>

You're welcome and if you're interested in recipes as well, when it comes to
goose a marsala/worchestershire marinade and charcoal roasting beats the
daylights out of any jelly sauce. <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

06-16-2004, 11:05 PM

loki wrote:

>"tk" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:HgXzc.5216$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].hcvlny.cv.ne t...
>
>>>>>Let us not foget, the are Probably Canadian Geese.
>>>>>
>>>>Let us not forget, they are called "Canada Geese".
>>>>
>>>Could they not be Canada Geese from Canada, thus
>>>"Canadian [Canada] Geese", as opposed to American
>>>Canada Geese?
>>>Any Mexican Canada Geese??
>>>SMH
>>>
>>Of course there are mexican canada geese.
>>They are here doing jobs that american canada geese won't do for that pay
>>They can be identifed by them living 16 to a nest.
>>
>
> And Canadian Canada Geese are just like American Canada Geese except they
>are polite and have public healthcare?
>
They don't honk as aggressively either.

06-16-2004, 11:05 PM

loki wrote:

>"tk" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:HgXzc.5216$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].hcvlny.cv.ne t...
>
>>>>>Let us not foget, the are Probably Canadian Geese.
>>>>>
>>>>Let us not forget, they are called "Canada Geese".
>>>>
>>>Could they not be Canada Geese from Canada, thus
>>>"Canadian [Canada] Geese", as opposed to American
>>>Canada Geese?
>>>Any Mexican Canada Geese??
>>>SMH
>>>
>>Of course there are mexican canada geese.
>>They are here doing jobs that american canada geese won't do for that pay
>>They can be identifed by them living 16 to a nest.
>>
>
> And Canadian Canada Geese are just like American Canada Geese except they
>are polite and have public healthcare?
>
They don't honk as aggressively either.

06-16-2004, 11:05 PM

loki wrote:

>"tk" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:HgXzc.5216$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].hcvlny.cv.ne t...
>
>>>>>Let us not foget, the are Probably Canadian Geese.
>>>>>
>>>>Let us not forget, they are called "Canada Geese".
>>>>
>>>Could they not be Canada Geese from Canada, thus
>>>"Canadian [Canada] Geese", as opposed to American
>>>Canada Geese?
>>>Any Mexican Canada Geese??
>>>SMH
>>>
>>Of course there are mexican canada geese.
>>They are here doing jobs that american canada geese won't do for that pay
>>They can be identifed by them living 16 to a nest.
>>
>
> And Canadian Canada Geese are just like American Canada Geese except they
>are polite and have public healthcare?
>
They don't honk as aggressively either.

06-16-2004, 11:05 PM

loki wrote:

>"tk" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:HgXzc.5216$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].hcvlny.cv.ne t...
>
>>>>>Let us not foget, the are Probably Canadian Geese.
>>>>>
>>>>Let us not forget, they are called "Canada Geese".
>>>>
>>>Could they not be Canada Geese from Canada, thus
>>>"Canadian [Canada] Geese", as opposed to American
>>>Canada Geese?
>>>Any Mexican Canada Geese??
>>>SMH
>>>
>>Of course there are mexican canada geese.
>>They are here doing jobs that american canada geese won't do for that pay
>>They can be identifed by them living 16 to a nest.
>>
>
> And Canadian Canada Geese are just like American Canada Geese except they
>are polite and have public healthcare?
>
They don't honk as aggressively either.

06-16-2004, 11:05 PM

loki wrote:

>"tk" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:HgXzc.5216$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].hcvlny.cv.ne t...
>
>>>>>Let us not foget, the are Probably Canadian Geese.
>>>>>
>>>>Let us not forget, they are called "Canada Geese".
>>>>
>>>Could they not be Canada Geese from Canada, thus
>>>"Canadian [Canada] Geese", as opposed to American
>>>Canada Geese?
>>>Any Mexican Canada Geese??
>>>SMH
>>>
>>Of course there are mexican canada geese.
>>They are here doing jobs that american canada geese won't do for that pay
>>They can be identifed by them living 16 to a nest.
>>
>
> And Canadian Canada Geese are just like American Canada Geese except they
>are polite and have public healthcare?
>
They don't honk as aggressively either.

06-16-2004, 11:35 PM

16 Jun 2004 15:40:17 GMT,
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:
\szip
>>Say, legally riding you hits a legally walking pedestrian whilst
>>avoiding a distracted driver. You're both injured. There's no other
>>witnesses to the incident. The driver is long gone. Neither of you has
>>a plate number and somewhat conflicting accounts.
>>Who gets sued?
>
>Again, liability versus responsibility plus you're throwing something else into
>the mix. Distractions are not the same as intentional violations of the law.
>You're mixing apples and oranges, civil and criminal. Perhaps if I can ever
>convince you to stop doing that you'll stop making over the top, blanket
>statements like, "It's always the driver's fault. They were driving weren't
>they?" <g>

Oh that's right, I forgot it's legal and perfectly acceptable to doze
off or search for your cigarettes when you should be driving.
I guess you've got to get caught killing somebody to get a fine.

In the given example, you avoided the question. Who gets sued?

My point is, if bungwipe doesn't smack into something expensive or
heavy enough to stop them and a cop doesn't see him run the cyclist
into the pedestrian, perhaps breaking a law in the process, it isn't
any different than dufus' proposition that bicyclists cause these
types of accidents all the time and there's no way of holding them
accountable.

I'm saying scud jockeys get away with deadlier dumb **** all the time
and their victims' families are slapped in the face by the meaningless
punishments given the killers that are caught.
--
zk

06-16-2004, 11:35 PM

16 Jun 2004 15:40:17 GMT,
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:
\szip
>>Say, legally riding you hits a legally walking pedestrian whilst
>>avoiding a distracted driver. You're both injured. There's no other
>>witnesses to the incident. The driver is long gone. Neither of you has
>>a plate number and somewhat conflicting accounts.
>>Who gets sued?
>
>Again, liability versus responsibility plus you're throwing something else into
>the mix. Distractions are not the same as intentional violations of the law.
>You're mixing apples and oranges, civil and criminal. Perhaps if I can ever
>convince you to stop doing that you'll stop making over the top, blanket
>statements like, "It's always the driver's fault. They were driving weren't
>they?" <g>

Oh that's right, I forgot it's legal and perfectly acceptable to doze
off or search for your cigarettes when you should be driving.
I guess you've got to get caught killing somebody to get a fine.

In the given example, you avoided the question. Who gets sued?

My point is, if bungwipe doesn't smack into something expensive or
heavy enough to stop them and a cop doesn't see him run the cyclist
into the pedestrian, perhaps breaking a law in the process, it isn't
any different than dufus' proposition that bicyclists cause these
types of accidents all the time and there's no way of holding them
accountable.

I'm saying scud jockeys get away with deadlier dumb **** all the time
and their victims' families are slapped in the face by the meaningless
punishments given the killers that are caught.
--
zk

06-16-2004, 11:35 PM

16 Jun 2004 15:40:17 GMT,
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:
\szip
>>Say, legally riding you hits a legally walking pedestrian whilst
>>avoiding a distracted driver. You're both injured. There's no other
>>witnesses to the incident. The driver is long gone. Neither of you has
>>a plate number and somewhat conflicting accounts.
>>Who gets sued?
>
>Again, liability versus responsibility plus you're throwing something else into
>the mix. Distractions are not the same as intentional violations of the law.
>You're mixing apples and oranges, civil and criminal. Perhaps if I can ever
>convince you to stop doing that you'll stop making over the top, blanket
>statements like, "It's always the driver's fault. They were driving weren't
>they?" <g>

Oh that's right, I forgot it's legal and perfectly acceptable to doze
off or search for your cigarettes when you should be driving.
I guess you've got to get caught killing somebody to get a fine.

In the given example, you avoided the question. Who gets sued?

My point is, if bungwipe doesn't smack into something expensive or
heavy enough to stop them and a cop doesn't see him run the cyclist
into the pedestrian, perhaps breaking a law in the process, it isn't
any different than dufus' proposition that bicyclists cause these
types of accidents all the time and there's no way of holding them
accountable.

I'm saying scud jockeys get away with deadlier dumb **** all the time
and their victims' families are slapped in the face by the meaningless
punishments given the killers that are caught.
--
zk

06-16-2004, 11:35 PM

16 Jun 2004 15:40:17 GMT,
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:
\szip
>>Say, legally riding you hits a legally walking pedestrian whilst
>>avoiding a distracted driver. You're both injured. There's no other
>>witnesses to the incident. The driver is long gone. Neither of you has
>>a plate number and somewhat conflicting accounts.
>>Who gets sued?
>
>Again, liability versus responsibility plus you're throwing something else into
>the mix. Distractions are not the same as intentional violations of the law.
>You're mixing apples and oranges, civil and criminal. Perhaps if I can ever
>convince you to stop doing that you'll stop making over the top, blanket
>statements like, "It's always the driver's fault. They were driving weren't
>they?" <g>

Oh that's right, I forgot it's legal and perfectly acceptable to doze
off or search for your cigarettes when you should be driving.
I guess you've got to get caught killing somebody to get a fine.

In the given example, you avoided the question. Who gets sued?

My point is, if bungwipe doesn't smack into something expensive or
heavy enough to stop them and a cop doesn't see him run the cyclist
into the pedestrian, perhaps breaking a law in the process, it isn't
any different than dufus' proposition that bicyclists cause these
types of accidents all the time and there's no way of holding them
accountable.

I'm saying scud jockeys get away with deadlier dumb **** all the time
and their victims' families are slapped in the face by the meaningless
punishments given the killers that are caught.
--
zk