Dude threatens to call 911 because I "didn't yield" to him!

<dickhead the troll> wrote in message
...
> <FLUSH TROLLERCOASTER'S TROLLING>
> Thank you! That's all I was looking for.

That's the real point, isn't it? You desperately need someone to
justify your pathetic existence by telling you you're right. Unable to
masturbate for yourself, you depend on others for gratification, and
you obviously don't have any friends and family to do its, so you
troll the internet begging desperately for validation. Of course, when
you make stupid post and nobody responds, you stamp your widdoo foots
and throw a tantrum like the toddler you are.

You didn't bother to say how you came to the conclusion that it was
your imaginary failure to yield that ****ed him off. Especially if you
were near the speed limit and there was room to pass. More likely, you
had been riding his bumper, and he was returning the favor. Or you had
cut him off with an oblivious lane change without signaling. Or you
were doing something else to **** him off, since you live to ****
people off. After all, you admit that you were blissfully ignorant of
what was going on. As always, you jump to some ridiculous conclusion,
and then you heap piles of your bull**** on a newsgroup until someone
pats you on the head and says, there, there, and you big up your chest
about how right you were all along.

Why don't you learn to gratify yourself without trolling the internet.
Obviously, you can't find real friends, because of your personality
defects, but really, give it rest, trollercoaster. Your little story
is full of holes. Either it's total fiction, you left something
important out on purpose, or you're just too stupid to understand what
happened. Based on your history, any or all of those are probably
true.

> I do not engage in "brake checks" and other childish behavior as
> others have suggested.

Your trolling is childish behavior. Why don't you go take a dump in a
newsgroup I don't read, **** head.

On Oct 16, 6:27*am, wrote:
> Daniel Rouse:
> "up so that they could also speed up and get into the gap to
> pass you more quickly. But, as you were already at 61 in a 55
> as in your original post:
>
> "I'm in cruise control, 61 in a 55 in the RH lane, and this guy
> comes up and attaches himself to my rear bumper, plain looking
> *Subaru..."
>
> There was technically no obligation to yield to him. If he called
> *911 then the call would have probably resulted in him being told it was not an "
>
> Thank you! *That's all I was looking for. *So given my cirumstances I was within my rights to ignore him. *I do not engage in "brake checks" and other childish behavior as others have suggested.

Apologies, I only just noticed I missed the rest of this thread a
couple months ago.

As others have pointed out, a story like this has grey areas where
there are dependencies on what you have left out. When you are
driving, to think that all circumstances are reducible to logical yes/
no decisions is a mistake. You don't have perfect information, you
don't see what the other person sees, there are holes in everyone's
perception. Mulishly standing on your "rights" can be just plain
stupid - ignore the laws of physics and you lose. Just because you
have no technical obligation to do something doesn't mean that is the
best response. If you are even wondering if you did the right thing,
that says something. If you are wondering why somebody acted a
certain way, that means you don't know the whole story. He could be a
complete douche, he could be honestly mistaken, he could be trying to
be helpful about something that is wrong and might hurt you, he could
be reacting to some dumbass thing you don't even know you did and
wants to kick the **** out of you, he could be reacting to something
completely unrelated and wants to kick the **** out of you.

So that's why I made the earbuds comment, it wasn't to drift the
thread (though that sounds like fun anyways). Your reaction was
informative. Sounds like you need an attitude adjustment.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.poemhunter.com/song/bad-habit/

jgar: "thread (though that sounds like fun anyways). *Your reaction
was informative. *Sounds like you need an attitude adjustment. "

My only "attitude" was directed at the multiple mentions of earbuds
on this thread. In the incident I described, no such items were in
use.

All the facts of this incident are given in my OP.

<lilkrisie @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> jgar: "thread (though that sounds like fun anyways). Your reaction
> was informative. Sounds like you need an attitude adjustment. "
>
> My only "attitude" was directed at the multiple mentions of earbuds
> on this thread. In the incident I described, no such items were in
> use.

YOu spewed a variety of "attidude" at anyone and
everyone that questioned your account or disagreed
with you in any way. Your denial is utter bull****

> All the facts of this incident are given in my OP.

Why should anyone believe that? You can't understand
simple descriptions. You are woefully unaware of what
you post, and you don't seem to acknowledge the
consequences for your being a total asshole. Always
denying and blaming others. You made some wild
assumption about why the other driver was angry at
you, and it didn't pass the stink test of credibility.

There's no way that all the facts were in your original
post. In fact, there's no way in hell that you ever knew
all the facts. You just wanted people to tell you how
right you were, and you became a whining little brat
when that didn't happen.

On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:35:07 PM UTC-5, None wrote:
> <lilkrisie @gmail.com> wrote in message
>

>
>
>
> Why should anyone believe that? You can't understand
>
> simple descriptions. You are woefully unaware of what
>
> you post, and you don't seem to acknowledge the
>
> consequences for your being a total asshole. Always
>
> denying and blaming others. You made some wild
>
> assumption about why the other driver was angry at
>
> you, and it didn't pass the stink test of credibility.
>
>
>
> There's no way that all the facts were in your original
>
> post. In fact, there's no way in hell that you ever knew
>
> all the facts. You just wanted people to tell you how
>
> right you were, and you became a whining little brat
>
> when that didn't happen.
___________________

Are you a cop or something, following me around on Usenet??

Your IP address has already been reported to the proper authorities so I'd say as you are reading this you are on thin ice.

<li'l crissie crybaby @gmail.com> wept in message
...
>
> Are you a cop or something, following me around on Usenet??

A cop? No, you just came along to a coule
of newsgroups I read, and started filling them
up with you piles of horse ****. I don't like
the stink, so I got out the shovel.

>
> Your IP address

I'm sure you don't even know what an IP address
means.

> has already been reported

Bwahahaha! Reported? Now who's playing
netkop? Reported ... that's a good one.

> to the proper authorities

who would that be? The cabal that controls
Usenet? Funny stuff, trollercoaster. You actually
think a "report" to the "proper authorities" will
have any effect? Are you really that stupid? Oh,
that's right, you are, and you like to prove it
repeatedly.

> so I'd say as you are reading this you are on thin ice.
I'm quaking in my skates, li'll boy. Now **** off
and stop pretending you have a brain.