# mad txxt on the m6 yesterday



## kingcutter (Aug 1, 2003)

ok we were going over to knutsford to see some friends it was fairly quiet so i was going fast i did not realise how fast till a mad twat in an alfa something or other tried to undertake me,looked at the speedo i was doing 110 mph yes i know i was a bit fast but what the hell was he thinking,i slowed down straight away,then we both got stuck in the 40 mph road works.
fucking dickhead who ever you are. :evil:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

kingcutter said:


> ok we were going over to knutsford to see some friends it was fairly quiet so i was going fast i did not realise how fast till a mad twat in an alfa something or other tried to undertake me,looked at the speedo i was doing 110 mph yes i know i was a bit fast but what the hell was he thinking,i slowed down straight away,then we both got stuck in the 40 mph road works.
> fucking dickhead who ever you are. :evil:


Maybe you should keep left, and let through faster vehicles that you are holding up?


----------



## Widget (May 7, 2002)

garyc said:


> Maybe you should keep left, and let through faster vehicles that you are holding up?


Here, here. What were you doing with an empty lane to your left? :roll:


----------



## kingcutter (Aug 1, 2003)

it was not empty he was weaving in and out.


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

Interesting that the two replies were not 'why were you doing 110'?, but 'why didn't you pull over?' :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

It's very hard to undertake using a lane that is full. :?

Lane hogging begats undertaking. Cause and effect.

At the speeds you were going any coming together would probably have been disasterous, possibly fatal for someone, probably an innocent bystander.

Sorry King, that you were driving at 110mph (allegedly), you should have been acutely aware of your speed and _exactly_ what was happening around you. And just let the idiots go.


----------



## ttimp (Jul 9, 2003)

garyc said:


> At the speeds you were going any coming together would probably have been disasterous, possibly fatal for someone, probably an innocent bystander.


How stupid would that be, 'bystanding' on the M6 :wink:


----------



## Hannibal (Dec 1, 2003)

> How stupid would that be, 'bystanding' on the M6


You have to remember the bit he's talking about is between Wigan and Haydock......

H


----------



## justtin (May 6, 2002)

kingcutter said:


> ok we were going over to knutsford to see some friends it was fairly quiet so i was going fast i did not realise how fast till a mad twat in an alfa something or other tried to undertake me,looked at the speedo i was doing 110 mph yes i know i was a bit fast but what the hell was he thinking,i slowed down straight away,then we both got stuck in the 40 mph road works.
> fucking dickhead who ever you are. :evil:


yt


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Hannibal said:


> > How stupid would that be, 'bystanding' on the M6
> 
> 
> You have to remember the bit he's talking about is between Wigan and Haydock......
> ...


I live near Wigan & i don't go bystanding on the M6 (well not that often yesterday). 

How can you conclude that he was between Wigan & Haydock when he was heading to Knutsford. There's about 40 miles between the Wigan Junction & Knutsford.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Oi you lot. Since when does bystander mean pedestrian?

Main Entry: byÂ·standÂ·er 
Pronunciation: 'bI-"stan-d&r
Function: noun
: *one present but not taking part in a situation or event : a chance spectator*

Fools. :roll: :wink:


----------



## Hannibal (Dec 1, 2003)

W7 PMC said:


> How can you conclude that he was between Wigan & Haydock when he was heading to Knutsford. There's about 40 miles between the Wigan Junction & Knutsford.


...because that's the bit before the 40 zone he mentioned.....well before Knutsford.

and as the pedants are out we might as well take a look in dictionary corner too.....


```
bystander 
 noun [C]
a person who is standing near and watching something that is happening but is not taking part in it:
Many innocent bystanders were injured by the explosion.

(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
```
whilst it doesn't strictly state that the person is walking in a vehicular area, I think we can take it that they aren't bystanding from the comfort of their range rover vogue....

H :roll:


----------



## SBJ (Jun 29, 2002)

You should be ashamed of yourself doing 110mph :x What do you think the pedal on the right is for? 

SBJ


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Hannibal said:


> ]
> [code:1a9j88k3 said:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Hannibal (Dec 1, 2003)

garyc said:


> Hannibal said:
> 
> 
> > ]
> ...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Hannibal said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Hannibal said:
> ...


----------



## paulb (May 6, 2002)

Gary,

Can you find your definition of bystander in any English reference rather than American English?

Paul


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

paulb said:


> Gary,
> 
> Can you find your definition of bystander in any English reference rather than American English?
> 
> Paul


You mean definition*S* Paul! Hannibal only posted the one that one that suited his pedantry, and in the very narrowest sense. Coincidentally it is also the first Google item that comes up.

But these are all of pure English publication and origin:

Websters 1927 :
One who stands near or one present but not taking part.
_syntax_ - Looker on, spectator, observer, beholder.

Oxford University Press:
byâ€¢standâ€¢er /bastÃ¦nd(r)/ noun a person who sees sth that is happening but is not involved

_syntax_ onlooker

Longman English:
bystander noun [countable] 
someone who watches what is happening without taking part; onlooker : innocent bystander: Several innocent bystanders were killed by the blast.

In fact the _only_ interpretation that specifically mentions 'standing' as the _exclusive_ meaning is the Cambridge Learner that H so conveniently homed in on. Others present additional and alternative definitions. Onlooking without involvement is the recurrent theme.

None whatsoever mention 'pedestrians' and it is the syntax of _onlooking_ that caused me to chose the word in the first place. That of observing but not participating. Either standing in one spot or sitting in a car does not define onlooking or bystanding as a concept or construct.

I should have just said 'innocent onlookers', but 'innocent bystanders' actually sounded better at the time. I specifically did not use 'innocent pedestrians' but regret that anyone might think that is what I was actually indirectly referring to. I don't think I culd have been any clearer:roll:

Perhaps we can explore the meanings of 'etiquette' later. Although I really like the wonderfully ascerbic Dorothy Parkers view;

"_*Etiquette is for people without any breeding*_ :wink:


----------



## kingcutter (Aug 1, 2003)

is this thread now hijacked


----------



## SaulTTR (Apr 30, 2003)

Looks that way M8 :?


----------



## Hannibal (Dec 1, 2003)

garyc said:


> And as for etiquette? What the fuck are you on about? I suppose you also have a dictionary that defines etiquette as 'not swearing in the Flame Room.'


No, but I can read the sticky at the top of the flame room.Here is a link if you're having trouble finding it, and if you really can't be arsed, then I'll cut and paste the relevant parts as well.....

"A couple of things though, please do NOT use a large font on a explicit word."

"The flame room will NOT tolerate personal attacks against any individual on this forum."

The thread has now gone very OT but your original question was...

"Since when does bystander mean pedestrian?" followed by one definition to suit your pedantry....

and the answer is, it doesn't, but a bystander can be a pedestrian as is clear from the many definitions you have found. are you saying a pedestrian is not a bystander?!?! I doubt it.

For the record, I was being ironic with my post, rather than pedantic...it was a parody on your post (statement, then dictionary definition, recognise the construct?).

This is now pedantry...sorry i couldn't resist.

You found that standing came into the definiton in Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary as well as the cambridge dictionary, so that will be 2, not 1 as you state. Also you may like to look up the origins of the word 'bystander' in any one of your many reference dictionaries and find one that doesn't come up with something to do with 'standing' and 'nearby'.

Yes your 'innocent bystander' statement was hijacked for a comical 'how stupid would that be, bystanding on the M6' to infer pedestrian, rather than occupant of another vehicle and I'm sure whoever it was is very sorry to have upset you. I personally am sorry that I have upset you enough for you to feel the need to keep telling me to 'fuck off pedant'. I am also sorry that you have taken it all so personally - it wasn't intended to be a personal insult.

If you feel the need to keep flaming me, feel free, i really am not bothered in the slightest and don't worry, I won't post again in this thread to clarify things any further I think that it's gone OTT already  .

H


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

garyc said:


> In a nutshell, fuck off pedant. :wink:


The clue was in the ":wink: " bit. Sorry if you thought that was a personal attack. I have actually been around here long enough to know the guidelines, but thank you anyway for pointing them out twice in as many posts.

'Pedestrian' and 'bystander' will now assume interchangeable word status in my vernacular.

_"Directions to Pedantry? Sure, just turn right after the bystander crossing and over the next two sets of lights. You can't park there because it's a bystanderised zone in the town centre."_

Apologies for hijacking thread - but it had run it's cause anyway. Kingcutter was absoutely within his rights to drive in a daydream at 110mph, whilst not pulling into the inside lane.

Ta :lol:


----------



## SteveS (Oct 20, 2003)

Run it's _course_ surely?

I'll get my coat.....


----------



## Hannibal (Dec 1, 2003)

garyc said:


> I have actually been around here long enough to know the guidelines, but thank you anyway for pointing them out twice in as many posts.


Not a problem  - sorry, I didn't realise 24 point wasn't considered large  ....

H


----------

