Critical Mass: Douchebag of the Month - March 2011

**All Dice** · Posted On: 4/19/2011 9:25pm

Originally Posted by florkle

I've done a few CMs. What's this got to do with martial arts?

People have a right to protest whatever the **** they want and do it whatever the fucking way they can get away with. So far CM has not been able to be stopped despite arrests, fines, "police escorts" you name it.

I say more power to them.

****
5char

**Gustard** · Posted On: 5/04/2011 10:13pm

Originally Posted by Phrost

Attachment 12458

.

I dont care how ridiculous you think these cyclists are - that you seem to be happy to point out how spoilt, misguided and stupid they are and yet seem relatively uncritical of the utterly psychopathic behaviour of the driver in this youtube video makes you, Phrost, MY douchebag of the month.

**joan ranger** · Posted On: 7/10/2011 7:15am

i say take all bike riders off the road. they are a bunch of spandex-wearing yupppy-old men who should take up the sport of 'rocking chair'. get off the road, it was never built for you and it is you, and only you who are to blame for accidents.

**Homernoid** · Posted On: 7/10/2011 2:24pm

Originally Posted by joan ranger

i say take all bike riders off the road. they are a bunch of spandex-wearing yupppy-old men who should take up the sport of 'rocking chair'. get off the road, it was never built for you and it is you, and only you who are to blame for accidents.

joan ranger, you are a fucking moron.
the question, who is to blame for what, usually is a judical question. and in that quiet obvious way, more often than not, the party with more ability to harm or injure is bearing more responsibility and therefore, in case of an accident, is (more) to blame, at least.

And this is, why Gustard is absolutely right, when he's saying:

Originally Posted by Gustard

I dont care how ridiculous you think these cyclists are - that you seem to be happy to point out how spoilt, misguided and stupid they are and yet seem relatively uncritical of the utterly psychopathic behaviour of the driver in this youtube video makes you, Phrost, MY douchebag of the month.

**joan ranger** · Posted On: 7/10/2011 4:43pm

homernoid: speaking in generalities, two cars collide. the onus is on the one who hit the other first. regardless of whether or not the one who hits two, is by law, guilty of a number of infractions according the The Highway Traffic Act. what you are saying is that one is by law, the defendant as one had 'more ability to harm or injure is bearing more responsibility. of course because he struck two first. without speaking legal ease, how do you justify your incoherent statement. ps. here's a bar of soap. go wash out your mouth.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 7/10/2011 5:17pm

Originally Posted by joan ranger

homernoid: speaking in generalities, two cars collide. the onus is on the one who hit the other first. regardless of whether or not the one who hits two, is by law, guilty of a number of infractions according the The Highway Traffic Act. what you are saying is that one is by law, the defendant as one had 'more ability to harm or injure is bearing more responsibility. of course because he struck two first. without speaking legal ease, how do you justify your incoherent statement. ps. here's a bar of soap. go wash out your mouth.

When he's done you need to use that soap as well.

**Yoj** · Posted On: 7/10/2011 5:59pm

Originally Posted by joan ranger

speaking in generalities, two cars collide. the onus is on the one who hit the other first.

You are an idiot, the cars hit each other at the same time. Physics is not your friend is it?

**Homernoid** · Posted On: 7/11/2011 2:31am

joan ranger you are a MORON.
Imagine folowing picture:
a pedestrian, while totally ignoring traffic rules, crosses a street in a very dangerous way. the driver of that car aproaching realizes in a blink the pedestrians mistake. The named driver is still in a comfortable distance to stop his vehicle thus avoiding an accident.

now the prized question:
is that driver allowed to run over the foolish pedestrian or is there the easy to comprehend rule to be cautious and to avoid accidents for the sake of it?

tell me, please.
not understanding that very basic fact makes you a moron indeed.

***TaeBo_Master*** · Posted On: 7/11/2011 2:39am

Originally Posted by joan ranger

homernoid: speaking in generalities, two cars collide. the onus is on the one who hit the other first. regardless of whether or not the one who hits two, is by law, guilty of a number of infractions according the The Highway Traffic Act. what you are saying is that one is by law, the defendant as one had 'more ability to harm or injure is bearing more responsibility. of course because he struck two first. without speaking legal ease, how do you justify your incoherent statement. ps. here's a bar of soap. go wash out your mouth.

Whereas typically, a 4-month necro isn't that big of a deal... in this case, I lobby to have this poster dragged out and shot.

Originally Posted by Yoj

You are an idiot, the cars hit each other at the same time. Physics is not your friend is it?

This is the true. Unless of course, you want to involve some funky Relativity where each car is traveling at different speeds, and therefore the occupants of each car are operating under a different meaning of time.

**Yoj** · Posted On: 7/11/2011 8:07am

Originally Posted by TaeBo_Master

This is the true. Unless of course, you want to involve some funky Relativity where each car is traveling at different speeds, and therefore the occupants of each car are operating under a different meaning of time.

So if they are both moving at different speeds then at some point car A has a collision with car B, but B does not collide with A?

Did the accident occur because Schroedingers cat escaped and ran across the road?