"Webmasta" says: http://www.dolemite.com/blog/index.php?/archives/4-I-hate-cyclists.html
"I see you every day, riding around in your gay little uniforms with sponsorships all over them. Wise up jackass! You sit in a cubicle all day and wipe boogers in the carpet. No one is sponsoring you while you ride around my fucking neighborhood."
Nice! And I see *you* in your straight little jeans-and-tucked-in-Tshirt-and-baseball-cap uniform. Yay uniforms! Wait, you see me riding around your neighbourhood AND at my job leaning over to rub my boogers in the carpet? You're following me around! You have a crush on me! [blush]. But nobody is sponsoring you while you drive your truck around your neighbourhood, so I'm not terribly impressed. Sorry. Also, I'm not terribly impressed by anyone who stalks a person who rubs boogers in carpets. That's some lame stalking.
"The next asshole that runs a stop sign while I'm in the crosswalk is going to get a broom handle in the spokes."
So, YOU'RE the person who's been following me around! I totally thought I was seeing the crazy person with the broom an awful lot around my workplace lately.
"Take the asshole that wanted to see how tightly he could hug a turn at full speed."
I WILL take him! He sounds scrumptious. You haven't hurt him with your broom yet though, have you? Will you be jealous if I take him?
"I can thank the great and mighty George Hincapie (apparent heir to the Lance Armstrong legacy) who lives in the area. Fuck him and fuck his no riding ass in the Tour de France."
I'm glad you can thank him. Thanking is fun, hey? And you want me to violate him during the Tour de France while he's not riding? I assume you want to watch, too, you naughty voyeur.
"None of you can rebut a single word I've said because you know I'm 100% right."
Well, yeah, you're right. I can't rebut you. I can't even but you. You're just too, I dunno, out there. Too kinky for me. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the boogers, the broom, the voyeurism... it's all too much for me.
"Don't you have some ointment to put on your chaffed thighs or something?"
Ok, see, I appreciate your interest. I don't judge you for having desires that are, well, racier than mine. But wait! Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! I can rebut you now! Obviously my thighs aren't chapped, because, as you have pointed out, I wear my "gay little uniform" to prevent chapping. I know, I know, now you want my gorgeous booger-rubbing, non-chafed self even more. Sorry! But nice ruse, you trickster.
"While your response is heartfelt and I can really feel your pain, you still did not address the fundamental issue. Why do cyclists refuse to obey simple road rules?"
Well, back before I knew how much of a kinky bad boy you really are, I thought you were just a regular-type bad boy, and I kinda wanted to impress you, so I was all law-breaky when I saw the broom-person. ... Oh, wait, you mean why do cyclists other than me break the law? Well, have you ever ridden a bike? It's actually physically impossible to obey the law when you're on a bike. It's kind of like lifting yourself up by the collar. Just against the laws of physics. I think maybe bikes are magic. Or cursed. Well, lots of people think that magic IS a curse. But I don't. I like magic. Hence my cycling.
"You failed the first rule my father taught me when I used to cycle with him: DON'T RIDE ON BUSY ROADS."
Damn, that's the first time I've failed a rule. I have no excuse, but I'll tell you the reasons I failed your father's rule. First, I didn't know your father. He sounds like a wild, zany guy, though. Second, I didn't see the rule at first because I generally don't see text that's typed in all-caps. I think it might be the magic from my cursed bike lingering on me when I get off my bike and cruise the net looking for sexy crazy broom-people. It's caused me a lot of grief over the years. Apparently I've missed a lot of important messages about making my manhood bigger, receiving millions of money from people in various African nations, staying happy with the help of angels, and hump day.
Well, Webmasta, it's been fun, but I think I covered everything I need to cover here. I invite my readers, though, to check out all the lovely bike-hating comments and bike-hater-hating counter-comments on your blog.
Good luck in your search, Webmasta, and thanks for the laughs!
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
James Martin hates cyclists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1211917/JAMES-MARTIN-The-Tesla-Roadster-electric-supercar-thats-fast-Ferrari.html#ixzz0R5re16Nz
It's so sad these days that people born with the unfortunate intolerance gene and people raised by parents who have that same gene just can't get away with much bigotry these days. Obama's in the Whitehouse, and his main competitors were Clinton and Palin--two women! What's a bigot to do? Well, ask James Martin. This BBC personality recently wrote the following in his review of a high-end car:
"[W]henever I drive to London, dutifully paying my £8 for the privilege (on top of my road tax, petrol tax, parking and all the other rip-offs), without fail a cyclist will rap on my window and make some holier-than-thou comment, before zooming off through a red light where he knows I can't get him.
God, I hate those cyclists. Every last herbal tea-drinking, Harriet Harman-voting one of them. That's one of the reasons I live in the countryside, where birds tweet, horses roam, pigs grunt and Lycra-clad buttocks are miles away. But recently, there's been a disturbing development.
Each Saturday, a big black truck appears at the bottom of my road, with bikes stuck to the roof and rear. Out of it step a bunch of City-boy ponces in fluorescent Spider-Man outfits, shades, bum bags and stupid cleated shoes, who then pedal around our narrow lanes four abreast with their private parts alarmingly apparent. Do they enjoy it? They never smile. I'm sure they just come here to wind me up.
[...]
Twenty minutes into my test drive I pulled round a leafy bend, enjoying the birdsong - and spotted those damned Spider-Man cyclists. Knowing they wouldn't hear me coming, I stepped on the gas, waited until the split second before I overtook them, then gave them an almighty blast on the horn at the exact same time I passed them at speed.
The look of sheer terror as they tottered into the hedge was the best thing I've ever seen in my rear-view mirror. I think this could be the car for me."
This is a popular sentiment anywhere one looks. Anti-cycling hatred abounds (hence this blog). And so, of course, our lovely bigot had found his outlet. But then public outrage ensued. It looks good, hard-working, decent, self-centred, solipsistic folk just can't find any freedom of hatred this days!
So, in response to the public outrage, he wrote this:
"It was never my intention to offend the many cyclists who share our roads across the country. What was intended to be a humorous piece was clearly misjudged. Further more I do not condone any form of reckless driving.
Once again, I am sincerely sorry for any upset caused in relation to this article."
Of course that was humour! Duh! "Clearly" it was everyone else's fault that you were deliberately and dangerously cruel. It's our fault for misjudging your angelic humour. Phrases like "all the other rip-offs", "holier-than-thou", "God, I hate those [insert people here]", "city-boy ponces", "tree-huggers", and "bleeding-heart" are clearly light-hearted fun aimed at building community through mirth and joy. Ah, the healing power of laughter. Thanks, Jimmie.
But Jim, it's so embarrassingly obvious that the people who pay you forced you to write your apology. I mean, it's mostly passive voice: "was intended", "was clearly misjudged", "upset caused". Nice try pal. Intended by who? By you. Misjudged by who? By the people you hurt. Caused by who? By you, guy. You, the person who wrote nasty, hurtful things. You, who are so flagrantly self-obsessed as to actually write "I'm sure they just come here to wind me up." Yes, athletes drive out to the countryside because you're such a rich-and-famous megastar and they just have to irritate you. Their lives revolve around you, as does everything else in the universe. Call Copernicus; we found the true centre of the universe! No, I see through your passive voice sentence structure there, guy.
I also see through your use of a noun instead of an active voice verb: "It was never my intention to offend..." No, you mean "I never intended..." Take credit for your hatred, dear fellow!
And when this guy does get around to an active-voice apology ("I am sincerely sorry"), he uses the dismissive "any" ("...for any upset..."). This "any" means "you know, if there really *was* any upset, which I doubt". Dear readers, don't say "any" when you apologize. It's just a bad strategy.
Then he ends with "...caused in relation to this article." Dude, the upset was not caused *in relation* to the article. It was caused BY the article. And not "by *this* article"; rather, "by YOUR article". Your underhanded, sneaky, slimy, scuzzy follow-up made you look just as bad as your hateful car review made you look.
When James Martin complains about something, that something is a "rip-off". But when a cyclist complains, the cyclist is being "holier-than-though". When someone who cares about clean air and water complains, that person is a "bleeding heart". Nice try. Cute little insults can't mask your hypocrisy, pal.
James Martin just deosn't seem like a very good guy. Sure he recycles and composts. Then he gets unabashed glee from literally terrorizing innocent people.
Really, the BBC ought to just let him go.
Of course, now the web version of the car review he wrote no longer includes his anecdote about terrorizing cyclists. That's been deleted by brilliant editors who thought the terrorizing and hatred were fine to print originally. Search "James martin cyclists" in Google. You'll find the original text.
Most of the comments on the online text of the car review disparage Martin for his hatred. But one sure didn't! Ms. Julie Barnes of Sydney, Australia (if that's your real name), please take a bow:
"James, I could not agree more with you on the subject of these arrogant cyclists. Here in Sydney we have many, many cycle lanes to accommodate these 'car' haters, yet so many of them refuse to use them, instead risking their own lives by driving on the road. They simply have no right to be on the road, end of story!!! Car drivers pay for it, unlike the cyclists. I have myself been faced with cyclists clogging the roads (mainly around our Olympic site). One morning no less than 4 riders abreast across the road. I had no choice but to use my horn to get them out of the way. For what it's worth James I read your column on the net every week with much anticipation and you never fail to make my day and make me laugh. Keep up the good work. Oh by they way I also loooooove your cooking shows."
So, friends, watch for James Martin and Julie Barnes. They are in a hurry and don't like having to share the road with anybody who slows them down or disagrees with them.
Thanks, James and Julie, for the laughs!
It's so sad these days that people born with the unfortunate intolerance gene and people raised by parents who have that same gene just can't get away with much bigotry these days. Obama's in the Whitehouse, and his main competitors were Clinton and Palin--two women! What's a bigot to do? Well, ask James Martin. This BBC personality recently wrote the following in his review of a high-end car:
"[W]henever I drive to London, dutifully paying my £8 for the privilege (on top of my road tax, petrol tax, parking and all the other rip-offs), without fail a cyclist will rap on my window and make some holier-than-thou comment, before zooming off through a red light where he knows I can't get him.
God, I hate those cyclists. Every last herbal tea-drinking, Harriet Harman-voting one of them. That's one of the reasons I live in the countryside, where birds tweet, horses roam, pigs grunt and Lycra-clad buttocks are miles away. But recently, there's been a disturbing development.
Each Saturday, a big black truck appears at the bottom of my road, with bikes stuck to the roof and rear. Out of it step a bunch of City-boy ponces in fluorescent Spider-Man outfits, shades, bum bags and stupid cleated shoes, who then pedal around our narrow lanes four abreast with their private parts alarmingly apparent. Do they enjoy it? They never smile. I'm sure they just come here to wind me up.
[...]
Twenty minutes into my test drive I pulled round a leafy bend, enjoying the birdsong - and spotted those damned Spider-Man cyclists. Knowing they wouldn't hear me coming, I stepped on the gas, waited until the split second before I overtook them, then gave them an almighty blast on the horn at the exact same time I passed them at speed.
The look of sheer terror as they tottered into the hedge was the best thing I've ever seen in my rear-view mirror. I think this could be the car for me."
This is a popular sentiment anywhere one looks. Anti-cycling hatred abounds (hence this blog). And so, of course, our lovely bigot had found his outlet. But then public outrage ensued. It looks good, hard-working, decent, self-centred, solipsistic folk just can't find any freedom of hatred this days!
So, in response to the public outrage, he wrote this:
"It was never my intention to offend the many cyclists who share our roads across the country. What was intended to be a humorous piece was clearly misjudged. Further more I do not condone any form of reckless driving.
Once again, I am sincerely sorry for any upset caused in relation to this article."
Of course that was humour! Duh! "Clearly" it was everyone else's fault that you were deliberately and dangerously cruel. It's our fault for misjudging your angelic humour. Phrases like "all the other rip-offs", "holier-than-thou", "God, I hate those [insert people here]", "city-boy ponces", "tree-huggers", and "bleeding-heart" are clearly light-hearted fun aimed at building community through mirth and joy. Ah, the healing power of laughter. Thanks, Jimmie.
But Jim, it's so embarrassingly obvious that the people who pay you forced you to write your apology. I mean, it's mostly passive voice: "was intended", "was clearly misjudged", "upset caused". Nice try pal. Intended by who? By you. Misjudged by who? By the people you hurt. Caused by who? By you, guy. You, the person who wrote nasty, hurtful things. You, who are so flagrantly self-obsessed as to actually write "I'm sure they just come here to wind me up." Yes, athletes drive out to the countryside because you're such a rich-and-famous megastar and they just have to irritate you. Their lives revolve around you, as does everything else in the universe. Call Copernicus; we found the true centre of the universe! No, I see through your passive voice sentence structure there, guy.
I also see through your use of a noun instead of an active voice verb: "It was never my intention to offend..." No, you mean "I never intended..." Take credit for your hatred, dear fellow!
And when this guy does get around to an active-voice apology ("I am sincerely sorry"), he uses the dismissive "any" ("...for any upset..."). This "any" means "you know, if there really *was* any upset, which I doubt". Dear readers, don't say "any" when you apologize. It's just a bad strategy.
Then he ends with "...caused in relation to this article." Dude, the upset was not caused *in relation* to the article. It was caused BY the article. And not "by *this* article"; rather, "by YOUR article". Your underhanded, sneaky, slimy, scuzzy follow-up made you look just as bad as your hateful car review made you look.
When James Martin complains about something, that something is a "rip-off". But when a cyclist complains, the cyclist is being "holier-than-though". When someone who cares about clean air and water complains, that person is a "bleeding heart". Nice try. Cute little insults can't mask your hypocrisy, pal.
James Martin just deosn't seem like a very good guy. Sure he recycles and composts. Then he gets unabashed glee from literally terrorizing innocent people.
Really, the BBC ought to just let him go.
Of course, now the web version of the car review he wrote no longer includes his anecdote about terrorizing cyclists. That's been deleted by brilliant editors who thought the terrorizing and hatred were fine to print originally. Search "James martin cyclists" in Google. You'll find the original text.
Most of the comments on the online text of the car review disparage Martin for his hatred. But one sure didn't! Ms. Julie Barnes of Sydney, Australia (if that's your real name), please take a bow:
"James, I could not agree more with you on the subject of these arrogant cyclists. Here in Sydney we have many, many cycle lanes to accommodate these 'car' haters, yet so many of them refuse to use them, instead risking their own lives by driving on the road. They simply have no right to be on the road, end of story!!! Car drivers pay for it, unlike the cyclists. I have myself been faced with cyclists clogging the roads (mainly around our Olympic site). One morning no less than 4 riders abreast across the road. I had no choice but to use my horn to get them out of the way. For what it's worth James I read your column on the net every week with much anticipation and you never fail to make my day and make me laugh. Keep up the good work. Oh by they way I also loooooove your cooking shows."
So, friends, watch for James Martin and Julie Barnes. They are in a hurry and don't like having to share the road with anybody who slows them down or disagrees with them.
Thanks, James and Julie, for the laughs!
Saturday, September 26, 2009
J Baker hates cyclists
http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/mailbag/Reason-drivers-do-not-love.5655289.jp
J Baker feels a lack of love for cyclists because one time a cyclist ran a red light against J Baker's right of way. So, naturally, as J Baker points out, that is why J Baker does not love cyclists. J Baker writes further to explain that no motorists love any cyclists. J Baker thrusts home a brilliantly crafted argument by undeniably bringing up the point that "all" of "us" have seen cyclists riding on sidewalks/pavements. Finally, J Baker deals a crushing rhetorical blow by showing us a powerful logical link: the fact that "we all" have seen cyclists riding on sidewalks/pavements proves that all cyclists believe that no traffic laws apply to them. Deft and stunning, J Baker. Deft and stunning.
J Baker has since been seen refusing to love:
- all people in wheelchairs because J Baker saw a person in a wheelchair spit on the ground
- all dogs because J Baker read a news story about a dog hurting a child
- all women because a woman cut in front of J Baker in line at the grocery store
- all people who look Arabic because RCMP arrested a person who looked Arabic
- all men because a male politician once expressed an opinion that was the opposite of J Baker's opinon on the same topic
- all hammers because hammers sometimes hit people on the thumb causing people great pain
- all motorists because motorists sometimes fail to yield appropriate right of way to cyclists and almost or do injure cyclists
Also, J Baker has been heard to say on several occasions "Dang you punks, stay off my lawn!"
Thanks, J, for the laughs!
J Baker feels a lack of love for cyclists because one time a cyclist ran a red light against J Baker's right of way. So, naturally, as J Baker points out, that is why J Baker does not love cyclists. J Baker writes further to explain that no motorists love any cyclists. J Baker thrusts home a brilliantly crafted argument by undeniably bringing up the point that "all" of "us" have seen cyclists riding on sidewalks/pavements. Finally, J Baker deals a crushing rhetorical blow by showing us a powerful logical link: the fact that "we all" have seen cyclists riding on sidewalks/pavements proves that all cyclists believe that no traffic laws apply to them. Deft and stunning, J Baker. Deft and stunning.
J Baker has since been seen refusing to love:
- all people in wheelchairs because J Baker saw a person in a wheelchair spit on the ground
- all dogs because J Baker read a news story about a dog hurting a child
- all women because a woman cut in front of J Baker in line at the grocery store
- all people who look Arabic because RCMP arrested a person who looked Arabic
- all men because a male politician once expressed an opinion that was the opposite of J Baker's opinon on the same topic
- all hammers because hammers sometimes hit people on the thumb causing people great pain
- all motorists because motorists sometimes fail to yield appropriate right of way to cyclists and almost or do injure cyclists
Also, J Baker has been heard to say on several occasions "Dang you punks, stay off my lawn!"
Thanks, J, for the laughs!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
