Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / November 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Traffic Watch scheme -- what is it ??

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
spector@shinyfeet.com - 28 Nov 2006 11:29 GMT
Hi there,

A motorbike rider thought that he had issues with my driving, and he
had an altercation with me. I thought it was over.

A few weeks later, I obtained a letter from SA Police. The guy appears
to have reported on me. The letter from the police says that "a member
of public" reported on the wrong behaviour of the driver of my car
within the "Traffic Watch" scheme. The tone of the letter was rather
polite. The letter said that if more reports on my vehicle are
obtained, this may result in a visit by a police officer or even "the
driver being reported for an offence under the Australian Road Rules".

I wonder where I stand from the legal point of view. I found the
website on "Traffic Watch" scheme,
http://www.sapolice.sa.gov.au/public/download.jsp?id=18013 , but it
does not say too much.

It occurs to me that the Police can register the complaint against me,
but they cannot do anything against me from the law point of view. The
only thing they can do is to write me a polite letter. They can begin
the legal proceedings against me (or, issue me with a traffic ticket)
only if there is an independent witness to a traffic violation. (The
guy is not counted as an independent witness.) I can tell the Police to
stuff their letter up to where the Sun does not shine.

Am I correct, or there is more to it ?

And another issue. The puprose of the motorbike rider was to cause me
an inconvenience. He obviously achieved this somewhat, because the
Police sent me a letter, and I was concerned for a while figuring out
how it affects me. Can I do anything to inconvenience the guy ?

Thanks.

..
FuTAnT - 28 Nov 2006 11:51 GMT
So did you do the wrong thing or not? was the complaint valid, or just full
of sh.t to stir you up?
ant - 28 Nov 2006 11:57 GMT
> And another issue. The puprose of the motorbike rider was to cause me
> an inconvenience. He obviously achieved this somewhat, because the
> Police sent me a letter, and I was concerned for a while figuring out
> how it affects me. Can I do anything to inconvenience the guy ?

Apparently, Ya Pears are very effective in these situations.

Signature

ant
Don't try to email me;
I'm borrowing the spammer du jour's addy

John_H - 28 Nov 2006 21:06 GMT
>> And another issue. The puprose of the motorbike rider was to cause me
>> an inconvenience. He obviously achieved this somewhat, because the
>> Police sent me a letter, and I was concerned for a while figuring out
>> how it affects me. Can I do anything to inconvenience the guy ?
>
>Apparently, Ya Pears are very effective in these situations.

So's a greenie in the centre of the windscreen!

Signature

John H

GB - 28 Nov 2006 11:58 GMT
spector@shinyfeet.com wrote in news:1164713342.763990.157230
@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:
> A motorbike rider thought that he had issues with my driving, and he
> had an altercation with me. I thought it was over.

You should think seriously about making a habit of looking
over your shoulder before you do stupid sh.t with your
car.

> A few weeks later, I obtained a letter from SA Police. The guy appears
> to have reported on me. The letter from the police says that "a member
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> obtained, this may result in a visit by a police officer or even "the
> driver being reported for an offence under the Australian Road Rules".

A load of meaningless waffle designed to make you think seriously
about making a habit of looking over your shoulder before you
do stupid sh.t with your car.

> I wonder where I stand from the legal point of view. I found the
> website on "Traffic Watch" scheme,
> http://www.sapolice.sa.gov.au/public/download.jsp?id=18013 , but it
> does not say too much.

That's 'cos there's not too much of it. Shame really, dickheads
who don't look over their shoulders before doing stupid sh.t with
their cars deserve far worse than the slap on the wrist that
you've gotten off with.

> It occurs to me that the Police can register the complaint against me,

"Register"? What is this "register" of which you speak? So they
wrote your name in a book, and pencilled "bad person" beside your
name. So frickin' what?

> but they cannot do anything against me from the law point of view. The
> only thing they can do is to write me a polite letter.

Well, they could conceivably upgrade from 'polite' to 'stern'.

> Am I correct, or there is more to it ?

You've gotten off very bloody lightly. You cut me off like you
did that poor bastard on the bike, and you'll find yourself out
at the wreckers shopping for wing mirrors and touch-up paint
before you can mutter "what-the" and get all angry at me for
your failure to look out of a window.

You've had a polite warning. Learn from it, and look-the-f.ck
over your shoulder before doing stupid things with your car. I
for one am sick to f.cking death of attending funerals 'cos
twits like you can't be arsed looking out anything but the front
f.cking window.

> And another issue. The puprose of the motorbike rider was to cause me
> an inconvenience. He obviously achieved this somewhat, because the
> Police sent me a letter, and I was concerned for a while figuring out
> how it affects me. Can I do anything to inconvenience the guy ?

Don't even dream about it bozo. Quit while you're ahead.

Remember how in the old WW2 movies guys had little japanese flags
on the sides of their aircraft to reflect how many 'kills' they
had made? Some of us have little pictures of wing mirrors, all in
a neat row.

GB
Signature

"Most police misconduct occurs when citizens challenge an individual
 officer's authority" (Reiss, 1971 c.in Jermier & Berkes 1979)

spector@shinyfeet.com - 28 Nov 2006 12:33 GMT
>  "Register"? What is this "register" of which you speak? So they
> wrote your name in a book, and pencilled "bad person" beside your
> name. So frickin' what?

I work for the finance industry. Each time I apply for a new job, they
put me through a police check. I have to be concerned what is written
the police database against my name.

>  You've gotten off very bloody lightly. You cut me off like you
> did that poor bastard on the bike, and you'll find yourself out
> at the wreckers shopping for wing mirrors and touch-up paint
> before you can mutter "what-the" and get all angry at me for
> your failure to look out of a window.

Mmm... tell me more about how you make the drivers to need a touch up
paint ? Do you spit with your poison acid spit on their cars ? Do you
always carry a batten to bang on the wing mirrors of the faulty drivers
? I am asking this because if one person is likely to do it, then the
others are likely to do it, too. I should know it and be prepared for
it.

>  You've had a polite warning. Learn from it, and look-the-f.ck
> over your shoulder before doing stupid things with your car. I
> for one am sick to f.cking death of attending funerals 'cos
> twits like you can't be arsed looking out anything but the front
> f.cking window.

Firstly, you have not been there, so you do not know what happened and
whose fault was that. Secondly, the motorbike drivers should realise
that they drive a vehicle of the increased  danger. If they care about
their life, they should not be riding the bikes. Simple as that.

..
David Springthorpe - 28 Nov 2006 13:23 GMT
>Firstly, you have not been there, so you do not know what happened and
>whose fault was that. Secondly, the motorbike drivers should realise
>that they drive a vehicle of the increased  danger. If they care about
>their life, they should not be riding the bikes. Simple as that.

You're not by any chance related to some character named "Borat" are you ?
Tsunami - 28 Nov 2006 15:57 GMT
> >Firstly, you have not been there, so you do not know what happened and
> >whose fault was that. Secondly, the motorbike drivers should realise
> >that they drive a vehicle of the increased  danger. If they care about
> >their life, they should not be riding the bikes. Simple as that.
>
> You're not by any chance related to some character named "Borat" are you ?

Thankyou Dave, hardest I laugh for long ages.
10/10
David Springthorpe - 28 Nov 2006 22:47 GMT
>Thankyou Dave, hardest I laugh for long ages.
>10/10

It was a little cruel 'tho, wasn't it ?
Just JT - 29 Nov 2006 00:31 GMT
>>Firstly, you have not been there, so you do not know what happened and
>>whose fault was that. Secondly, the motorbike drivers should realise
>>that they drive a vehicle of the increased  danger. If they care about
>>their life, they should not be riding the bikes. Simple as that.
>
> You're not by any chance related to some character named "Borat" are you ?
~~~~~~~~~~~
In my language, "Borat" spelled slightly different means DICKHEAD.

--
OP.sounds.like.a.DICKHEAD.indeed
Rod Speed - 28 Nov 2006 21:01 GMT
> GB wrote

> I work for the finance industry. Each time I apply for a new job,
> they put me through a police check. I have to be concerned
> what is written the police database against my name.

Then you had better get your act into gear and drive better.

>>  You've had a polite warning. Learn from it, and look-the-f.ck
>> over your shoulder before doing stupid things with your car. I
>> for one am sick to f.cking death of attending funerals 'cos
>> twits like you can't be arsed looking out anything but the front
>> f.cking window.

> Firstly, you have not been there, so you do not
> know what happened and whose fault was that.

We do know that you pissed someone off enough to get
them to make a formal complaint about you to the cops.

> Secondly, the motorbike drivers should realise
> that they drive a vehicle of the increased  danger.

Try telling that to the cops when they shaft you after another formal complaint.

> If they care about their life, they should not be riding the bikes. Simple as that.

Try telling that to the cops when they shaft you after another formal complaint.
GB - 28 Nov 2006 21:48 GMT
> I work for the finance industry. Each time I apply for a new job, they
> put me through a police check. I have to be concerned what is written
> the police database against my name.

Ah, so you're in a position of some sensitivity, a position
where you need to be "concerned what is written the police
database" against your name. So the logical way to manage
that would to take particular care when you find or place
yourself in situations where an inappropriate action on your
part might render you 'of interest' to the police, no?

And yet you still drive like a maniac?

Sounds like you've set yourself up to fail, and then
achieved your goal. Nothing to see here folks...

> I should know it and be prepared for it.

All you need to know is that if you continue to fail to look
over your shoulder prior to doing stupid things with your car,
then one day you'll kill or injured someone. You'll be angry at
that person for your failure to act appropriately, but they'll
still be dead or injured, and you'll be stuck trying to figure
out how to get your local equivalent of vehicular manslaughter
off of your precious police record.

You'll blame everyone but yourself of course.

> Firstly, you have not been there, so you do not know what happened and
> whose fault was that.

You've had a polite warning. Learn from it, and look-the-f.ck
over your shoulder before doing stupid things with your car. I
for one am sick to f.cking death of attending funerals 'cos
twits like you can't be arsed looking out anything but the front
f.cking window.

> Secondly, the motorbike drivers should realise that they drive
> a vehicle of the increased  danger.

Too short sighted to realise *why* it is a "vehicle of increased
danger"? Ever consider that the danger in the city context might
be the direct result of self-important pricks like yourself
completely failing to look over their shoulders before doing
stupid things with their cars? No, I didn't think you would,
because the problem isn't your fault, it's everyone else's
fault.

> If they care about their life, they should not be riding
> the bikes. Simple as that.

If they care about their lives, they'd do things like...

1) Passing through a multi-tiered array of formal training
  supervised at each stage by formally qualified expert
  instructors well before we go anywhere near the road,
  where drivers like you are lying in wait... check

2) Undertaking *regular* roadcraft and road safety training
  designed to re-establish and maintain the skills we need to
  survive drivers like you
  <http://world.honda.com/community/asia_oceania/hart/>... check

3) Train-our-own by doing everything we can to make sure that
  new riders get enough training at the beginning of their
  riding careers so that they start out with the skills they
  need to survive despite the best efforts of drivers like
  you... <http://www.girlsrideout.com/LearnnGRO.htm>.... check

4) Conduct persistent public education campaigns designed in
  a desperate attempt to get the attention of drivers like
  you <http://www.mccofnsw.org.au/a/181.html>.... check
  <http://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/www/html/3843-campaign-for-motorcycle-safety.asp>
  <http://www.alburycity.nsw.gov.au/news/ACC_News_20-Oct-05_1957.htm>
  <http://www.nabble.com/-Sydride--Motorcycle-Awareness-Week-2006-t2499376.html>

5) Design, fund, act in, produce and display television
  advertising in a desperate attempt to get the attention of
  drivers like you:
  <http://www.pleaselooktwice.com/>
  <http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bikers-buff-up-campaign/2006/10/27/116174929
2971.html
>
  <http://media.smh.com.au/?rid=23063&sy=smh&source=media.f2.com.au%2F%3Frid%3D23063>

* See the girl on the big black honda in the third advertisement
  on that page? I watched a driver come -->|  |<-- this close
  to killing her one day. She was wearing flouro clothing, lit
  up like a christmas tree, we both had horns blaring, and the
  stupid twit in the car drove straight across on top of her.
  Deaf, blind and stupid, and yet still allowed to drive a car.
 

6) Alert authorities to the actions of drivers like you so that
   once you're demonstrated to be a serial nasty, you can be
   removed from the road. (A bit of collateral unemployment
   wouldn't hurt either)

So while motorcyclists are doing all this work (and lots more, but
I won't go on, if you don't get the point by now there's no hope
for you) *just* to stay alive, you can't (won't?) even look
over your shoulder in a selfish attempt to keep yourself from
police attention and to protect the income that bought you the
bloody car in the first place.

Sounds like pure unmitigated stupidity to me. There's no hope
for you. Just top yourself now please.

You've had a polite warning. Learn from it, and look-the-f.ck
over your shoulder before doing stupid things with your car. I
for one am sick to f.cking death of attending funerals 'cos
twits like you can't be arsed looking out anything but the front
f.cking window.

I applaud the rider who dobbed you in to the police. I applaud
the strengh of character that allowed her to go straight to
the formal processes designed to control people like you.

I pray that you wake-the-f.ck up to yourself before you
kill someone.

GB
Signature

"Most police misconduct occurs when citizens challenge an individual
 officer's authority" (Reiss, 1971 c.in Jermier & Berkes 1979)

Judge Judy - 28 Nov 2006 23:17 GMT
I'ts rude trolls like you who give we lawyers
a bad name!

Any more of this and I'll be over to wash out
your mouth with coal-tar soap, and stick
what's left up your   furry a.s.

This would a GOOD time to start trembling!
GB - 30 Nov 2006 16:50 GMT
"Judge Judy" <jj@bloodyassize.com> wrote in news:ekig34$mvc$1
@otis.netspace.net.au:
> I'ts rude trolls like you who give we lawyers
> a bad name!

It's rude trolls like you who not only fail to exhibit the guts
required to post under a real name, but also see the need to
damage someone else's good name and standing by misusing their
identity that end up in my killfile.

Bye!

GB
Signature

"Most police misconduct occurs when citizens challenge an individual
 officer's authority" (Reiss, 1971 c.in Jermier & Berkes 1979)

the_dawggie - 28 Nov 2006 13:42 GMT
> spector@shinyfeet.com wrote in news:1164713342.763990.157230
> @l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:
> > A motorbike rider thought that he had issues with my driving, and he
> > had an altercation with me. I thought it was over.

>  You should think seriously about making a habit of looking
> over your shoulder before you do stupid sh.t with your
> car.

I Would agree with the look out for bikes thung.
Some of the vehicles these days are designed
to totally not see them, or are so far larger than
them. Gotta check out for.

A few years back I "ur humm" almost took out
a police bike when changing lanes. Got
abused and shouted at for, along with fist
bang on window to attract attention, and
rightly so.

Since then, tend to look out for.
Clockmeister - 28 Nov 2006 16:58 GMT
> spector@shinyfeet.com wrote in news:1164713342.763990.157230
> @l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> over your shoulder before you do stupid sh.t with your
> car.

Your in no position to judge what happened, it could very well have been the
riders fault.

I dobbed in the last bike rider that broke my side mirror off squeezing
between cars waiting at the lights and he got done :-)
Rod Speed - 28 Nov 2006 21:03 GMT
> GB <gb0506@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote

>>> A motorbike rider thought that he had issues with my driving, and he had an altercation with me.
>>> I thought it was over.

>> You should think seriously about making a habit of looking
>> over your shoulder before you do stupid sh.t with your car.

> Your in no position to judge what happened,

Wrong.

> it could very well have been the riders fault.

Unlikely that he would have been pissed off enough to make
a formal complaint to the cops if he was at fault himself.
Clockmeister - 28 Nov 2006 23:12 GMT
>> GB <gb0506@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Wrong.

Were you there?
Rod Speed - 29 Nov 2006 06:32 GMT
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> GB <gb0506@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote

>>>>> A motorbike rider thought that he had issues with my driving, and he had an altercation with
>>>>> me. I thought it was over.

>>>> You should think seriously about making a habit of looking
>>>> over your shoulder before you do stupid sh.t with your car.

>>> Your in no position to judge what happened,

>> Wrong.

> Were you there?

Dont need to be. No one goes that route without a good reason.
Clockmeister - 29 Nov 2006 10:15 GMT
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> GB <gb0506@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Dont need to be. No one goes that route without a good reason.

You don't know that.
Diesel Damo - 30 Nov 2006 01:09 GMT
<snip clairvoyant bullshit>

How's that axe coming along? Finished grinding it yet?
Rod Speed - 28 Nov 2006 20:57 GMT
> Hi there,
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> http://www.sapolice.sa.gov.au/public/download.jsp?id=18013 , but it
> does not say too much.

> It occurs to me that the Police can register the complaint against me,
> but they cannot do anything against me from the law point of view.

Corse they can. Whether they choose to or not is a different matter entirely.

> The only thing they can do is to write me a polite letter.

Wrong.

> They can begin the legal proceedings against me (or, issue me with a
> traffic ticket) only if there is an independent witness to a traffic violation.

Doesnt have to be 'independant'

> (The guy is not counted as an independent witness.)

Wrong if there was no accident, and even if there was,
there are plenty of successful prosecutions and traffic
tickets issued as a result of the a witness who was involved.

> I can tell the Police to stuff their letter up to where the Sun does not shine.

And the court can f.ck you over too.

> Am I correct,

Nope.

> or there is more to it ?

Yep, plenty get conviced or get a traffic ticket when the
other party involved in an accident is the only witness.

> And another issue. The puprose of the motorbike
> rider was to cause me an inconvenience.

Or to get you to change your behaviour.

> He obviously achieved this somewhat, because the Police
> sent me a letter, and I was concerned for a while figuring out
> how it affects me. Can I do anything to inconvenience the guy ?

Nope.
atec 77 - 28 Nov 2006 21:52 GMT
>> Hi there,

Still spreading misinformation and sucking philthys dick roddles ?
 nice to see you haven't changed for years and do give my regards to
Bubba next time you service him.
Elipsis - 28 Nov 2006 21:13 GMT
> Hi there,
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> Police sent me a letter, and I was concerned for a while figuring out
> how it affects me. Can I do anything to inconvenience the guy ?

It's just another w.nking exercise by dumb cops pretending to do something
about MVAs.
The real problem, of course, is with fuckwitted road users.

In your case, a road user was sufficiently annoyed about your driving to
make a complaint, and your reaction is to ask whether you can retaliate.
That makes you a self-confesssed fuckwit.

The sooner you kill yourself with minimal damage to anyone else, the better.
PHATRS - 28 Nov 2006 21:50 GMT
> It's just another w.nking exercise by dumb cops pretending to do something
> about MVAs.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> make a complaint, and your reaction is to ask whether you can retaliate.
> That makes you a self-confesssed fuckwit.

I think it is not unreasonable to assume that the original poster may
not have been the one at fault or in the wrong and was admonishing
another driver for their behaviour. It wouldn't surprise me if that was
the case and that the other driver was a typical 21st century human who
doesn't want to take responsibility for their own actions so they
thought they'd report it to the cops to try to scare or pay back the OP.

Signature

Ben
Car related lyric of the week: "Rollin', in my 5.0, with my ragtop down
so my hair can blow"

Elipsis - 28 Nov 2006 22:15 GMT
>> It's just another w.nking exercise by dumb cops pretending to do
>> something about MVAs.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> want to take responsibility for their own actions so they thought they'd
> report it to the cops to try to scare or pay back the OP.

You don't think at all. The question the OP asked is clear enough.  He's
just a fuckwit.

Even if you hypothesise that the other driver was entirely at fault, the
OP's reaction indicates that the hypotheses is not reasonable.
Rod Speed - 28 Nov 2006 22:27 GMT
>> It's just another w.nking exercise by dumb cops pretending to do
>> something about MVAs.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> so they thought they'd report it to the cops to try to scare or pay
> back the OP.

Its MUCH more likely that he didnt like the idea of almost getting
killed and that that is the reason he f.cked over the fuckwit OP.
Clockmeister - 28 Nov 2006 23:14 GMT
>>> It's just another w.nking exercise by dumb cops pretending to do
>>> something about MVAs.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Its MUCH more likely that he didnt like the idea of almost getting
> killed and that that is the reason he f.cked over the fuckwit OP.

Speculative.
Rod Speed - 29 Nov 2006 06:33 GMT
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Elipsis wrote

>>>> It's just another w.nking exercise by dumb cops pretending to do
>>>> something about MVAs.

>>>> The real problem, of course, is with fuckwitted road users.

>>>> In your case, a road user was sufficiently annoyed about your
>>>> driving to make a complaint, and your reaction is to ask whether
>>>> you can retaliate. That makes you a self-confesssed fuckwit.

>>> I think it is not unreasonable to assume that the original poster
>>> may not have been the one at fault or in the wrong and was
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>> for their own actions so they thought they'd report it to the cops
>>> to try to scare or pay back the OP.

>> Its MUCH more likely that he didnt like the idea of almost getting
>> killed and that that is the reason he f.cked over the fuckwit OP.

> Speculative.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist car crashing fuckwits ?
Clockmeister - 29 Nov 2006 10:16 GMT
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Elipsis wrote
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist car crashing
> fuckwits ?

Yep.

Are you sure you're not one of those people that jump to conclusions without
knowing any of the facts?

That's a rhetorical question btw...
David Springthorpe - 28 Nov 2006 22:50 GMT
>I think it is not unreasonable to assume that the original poster may
>not have been the one at fault or in the wrong and was admonishing
>another driver for their behaviour. It wouldn't surprise me if that was
>the case and that the other driver was a typical 21st century human who
>doesn't want to take responsibility for their own actions so they
>thought they'd report it to the cops to try to scare or pay back the OP.

Ignore your critics - your's is the most sensible and reasoned response to date.....
Sylvia Else - 29 Nov 2006 00:18 GMT
> Hi there,
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Am I correct, or there is more to it ?

That's pretty much it where one driver takes exception to another
driver's conduct, and there are no other witnesses. It's his word
against yours. Case dismissed.

> And another issue. The puprose of the motorbike rider was to cause me
> an inconvenience. He obviously achieved this somewhat, because the
> Police sent me a letter, and I was concerned for a while figuring out
> how it affects me. Can I do anything to inconvenience the guy ?

No. Even if you took his registration number, the police would likely
see a complaint made by you now as nothing more than retaliation.

If you're sure that your driving was not at fault, then forget it. If
you know deep down that you could have done better, then make a vow to
improve.

Either way, it's time to move on.

Sylvia.

> Thanks.
>
> ..
Andy - 29 Nov 2006 07:54 GMT
<snip utter shite>

Folks, fairly certain this clown is nothing but a (fairly well
constructed, admittedly) troll, who was responsible for this thread
("Australians are Loud Mouthed w.nkers):

http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.legal/browse_frm/thread/382b3513a52e01a/f5
12770e61fc6691?lnk=st&q=spector%40shinyfeet.com&rnum=3&hl=en#f512770e61fc6691


Unless of course he's serious, in which case he should self administer
broken beer glass to anus repeatedly, and pronto.

HTH.

Cheers,

Andy.  (the other Andy.)
atec 77 - 29 Nov 2006 08:11 GMT
> <snip utter shite>
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Andy.  (the other Andy.)
I don't understand why you bother ?
 he is a troll and actually in some cases accurate ..
Andy - 29 Nov 2006 08:51 GMT
>> <snip utter shite>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>>
>> Andy.  (the other Andy.)

> I don't understand why you bother ?
>  he is a troll and actually in some cases accurate ..

I dunno.  English as a second language?  Twirly round handled
indifferent yet articulate flying machine?  Some other non sequitur,
perhaps?

Whatever suits you.

Cheers,

Andy.  (The other Andy.)
atec 77 - 29 Nov 2006 09:13 GMT
>>> <snip utter shite>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> Andy.  (The other Andy.)
Very Heath Robinson
Otter - 29 Nov 2006 08:48 GMT
> <snip utter shite>
>
> Australians are Loud Mouthed w.nkers

Correct.
atec 77 - 29 Nov 2006 09:16 GMT
>> <snip utter shite>
>>
>> Australians are Loud Mouthed w.nkers
>
> Correct.

Well we do take after Mother Ungland in that respect.
Otter - 29 Nov 2006 22:45 GMT
>>> <snip utter shite>
>>>
>>> Australians are Loud Mouthed w.nkers
>>
>> Correct.
> Well we do take after Mother Ungland in that respect.

Speak only for yourself.
atec 77 - 30 Nov 2006 04:38 GMT
>>>> <snip utter shite>
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Speak only for yourself.

I will speak for as many as I please

 and if you don't like guess what you should do.
Otter - 30 Nov 2006 04:47 GMT
>>>>> <snip utter shite>
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> Speak only for yourself.
> I will speak for as many as I please

Oh, no, you won't!

>  and if you don't like guess what you should do.

<  Another illiterate cretin falls on its sword >
atec 77 - 30 Nov 2006 05:18 GMT
>>>>>> <snip utter shite>
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Oh, no, you won't!\

Then stop me Mr Machismo...

>>  and if you don't like guess what you should do.
>
> <  Another illiterate cretin falls on its sword >

Oh you killed your self.. Jolly good what ?
Otter - 30 Nov 2006 05:31 GMT
>>>>>>> <snip utter shite>
>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Then stop me Mr Machismo..

Why would I stop you making a fool of yourself?  I have never done so in the
past, and can see no reason to do so in the future.

>>>  and if you don't like guess what you should do.
>>
>> <  Another illiterate cretin falls on its sword >
>
> Oh you killed your self.. Jolly good what ?

Google on projection, you silly little illiterate cretin.

HTH
atec 77 - 30 Nov 2006 06:27 GMT
>>>>>>>> <snip utter shite>
>>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Why would I stop you making a fool of yourself?  I have never done so in the
> past, and can see no reason to do so in the future.

In other words your f.cked and have no way of making me stop

>>>>  and if you don't like guess what you should do.
>>> <  Another illiterate cretin falls on its sword >
>>
>> Oh you killed your self.. Jolly good what ?
>
> Google on projection, you silly little illiterate cretin.

I have previously and fully understand your weak attempt to project your
brand of masturbation
 happily you failed again roddles
Pap - 30 Nov 2006 10:26 GMT
> A motorbike rider thought that he had issues with my driving, and he
> had an altercation with me. I thought it was over.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> obtained, this may result in a visit by a police officer or even "the
> driver being reported for an offence under the Australian Road Rules".

What a crock of dogshit!  So anyone can make a report about anyone else,
with no proof of any kind.  Guilty till proven innocent!  Glad I don't
live in SA.  With this sort of scheme, me and a team of my friends could
get my boss reported just out of spite!  f.ck Australia.  f.ck it hard.
Sylvia Else - 30 Nov 2006 10:27 GMT
>>A motorbike rider thought that he had issues with my driving, and he
>>had an altercation with me. I thought it was over.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> live in SA.  With this sort of scheme, me and a team of my friends could
> get my boss reported just out of spite!  f.ck Australia.  f.ck it hard.

Did you even read the rest of the original posting, much less the
responses to it?

Sylvia.
Noddy - 30 Nov 2006 10:54 GMT
> What a crock of dogshit!  So anyone can make a report about anyone else,
> with no proof of any kind.  Guilty till proven innocent!  Glad I don't
> live in SA.  With this sort of scheme, me and a team of my friends could
> get my boss reported just out of spite!  f.ck Australia.  f.ck it hard.

You take prescription medication to be this stupid, huh?

--
Regards,
Noddy.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.