Motorcyclist dead in Eskdale Rd Glenfield (21 March)

[ManDownUnder]

Just call me Claire

No mate I'm calling your bluff. C'mon - spill... I want comprehensive facts proving everything you've been claiming or an apology to those you're insulted.

Your call.

[ElCoyote]

No mate I'm calling your bluff. C'mon - spill... I want comprehensive facts proving everything you've been claiming or an apology to those you're insulted.

Your call.

Wait for the movie, it's better with popcorn

[ManDownUnder]

Wait for the movie, it's better with popcorn

No mate I'm calling your bluff. C'mon - spill... I want comprehensive facts proving everything you've been claiming or an apology to those you're insulted.

Your call.

You're either proficient in the use of weasel words or missed my point... thats an either/or.

Stump up with the facts OR apologise to those you've insulted. You're not getting away with it that lightly.

[ElCoyote]

You're either proficient in the use of weasel words or missed my point... thats an either/or.

Stump up with the facts OR apologise to those you've insulted. You're not getting away with it that lightly.

No apology necessary sweet thing and none coming. Get over it.

[ManDownUnder]

No apology necessary sweet thing and none coming. Get over it.

oh no no no - an apology is indeed necessary - let me put this in perspective for you - here's how I see it.

• You maintain the theft of a bike is worthy of the death penalty (a difference of opinion I can live with)
• You have cast aspersions on the reputation of a dead man stating he's a theif but not been able to prove it
• You've wished I was on the back of that bike for asking if you actually know all the facts here
• You claimed that a licensed rider would not have had the accident
• You've threatened to disable anyone wanting to celebrate the life of someone that ran into a wall on their bike (excluding incompetence)
• You've accused those writing on the wall of wanton vandalism when permisssion may have been was sought and granted and when I questioned that you said you wished I was on the back of the bike (inferring injury or death to me)
• You invited me to steal something of yours or graffiti something so you could put me in hospital and "hopefully your intravenous tubes will allow you to hear me."
• You've tried to make light of the whole thing and weasel out of all the above with three jokes (Claire, popcorn and calling me sweet thing) and don't have the balls to stand up and admit to anyone that you might... just possibly, have made an assumption or two and be wrong.

Here's yet another chance - prove me wrong. You got some facts to back you up, balls to admit you were speaking out of turn, or ***nothing***?

***I know where my money is***.

[Disco Dan]

Get over it.

[scumdog]

Stump up with the facts OR apologise to those you've insulted. You're not getting away with it that lightly.

What are you going to do if he does neither? - is it going to go International???

[idb]

Yeah do it...don't shag about!!!!
Get his number!!!!

[ManDownUnder]

What are you going to do if he does neither? - is it going to go International???

Done that already mate!!!!!

What's that saying every dog has it's day? That also applies to Coyotes...

[fire eyes]

Group Hug!

[MSTRS:Me]

Sorry that mean knowt, our little village shop got held up by some crims with shot guns, the husband of the women in the shop was in the back and realised what was going on phoned the cops, he was told not to upset the crims, and they would send some one when they were free, 3 days latter the cops arived, in the mean time less than 6 Ks away about 10 cops had a booze stop withabout 4 cars that never moved to the crime scene.

A scenario repeated all over the country...
A cop I know was sent to a bar brawl on his own. 'No-one else available'. Meanwhile 100 metres away was a booze checkpoint with at least 8 cops in attendance.

[SixPackBack]

I'm with Mandownunder....ElCoyote is way of the mark.
He has the distinction of being the first person to be firmly planted on my ignore list.
Good onya Nigel...big respect!

[ManDownUnder]

......................... copied here with permission

Actually - to correct that... am I ok to publish that response? You're welcome to if you want, or I can do it... whatever works for you

Let me put you straight on your rambling accusations.

You state that I think the theft of a bike is worthy of the death penalty (A difference of opinion you can live with) LIVE WITH IT.

You allege I have accused him of being a thief. At no stage have I said that, but did he know it was stolen, now that’s a different matter.

I wish you were on the back of the bike? If you condone the antics of his immature cronies in desecrating the property of a person who is already a victim, then ABSOLUTELY. You are obviously do not own property.

I have never claimed a licensed rider would not have crashed but, I did question (and was the first to do so) as to whether he was licensed. It appears not, go figure. Licensed or not, when somebody exceeds their ability………kaboom.

I threatened to disable anybody celebrating the life of somebody who had hit a wall?. Read it properly boofhead, it says MY WALL.

That I have accused people of wanton vandalism when permission may have been sought and granted. Which is it, may have been sought or may have been granted. It either was or it wasn’t. Who is making assumptions now?

Invited you to steal something of mine. Again you obviously aren’t a property owner. TRY IT AND SEE WHAT TRANSPIRES.

I use weasel words, perhaps that’s because I have come across a weasel or two.

You have used your own interpretation of what was said. Read it again and use a dictionary this time = NO APOLOGY.

Ciao Bubba,

El Coyote

Print it if you wish but alongside your accusations which have been proven. At the same time scroll through the back issues and refresh yourself as to who said what.

[ManDownUnder]

Let me put you straight on your rambling accusations.

Cool
===

You state that I think the theft of a bike is worthy of the death penalty (A difference of opinion you can live with) LIVE WITH IT.

I'm happy to disagree on that one, the subject of where the line gets drawn for capital punishment remains however. Let me know your thoughts.
===

You allege I have accused him of being a thief. At no stage have I said that, but did he know it was stolen, now that’s a different matter.

Disco Dans' response saying

Good - that there is one less bike thief,

+1 Very balanced reply

No direct statement he's a theif, but with respect - how else would I interpret this? (I have my dictionary handy...).

As you rightly ask - did he know it was stolen? I sure don't know... but have my suspicions - and you?
===

I wish you were on the back of the bike? If you condone the antics of his immature cronies in desecrating the property of a person who is already a victim, then ABSOLUTELY. You are obviously do not own property.

Please list what you DO know about me... again - the facts are certainly not to hand, and the assumptions and are getting tiresome

For the record I do own property, both real and a wide variety of other kinds. I've had it stolen by miscreants as well as the needy, I've had it vandalised and I've had it suffer a variety of other fates.

To ABSOLUTELY wish I was on the back of that bike? To be honest I think you have an anger management problem.
===

I have never claimed a licensed rider would not have crashed but, I did question (and was the first to do so) as to whether he was licensed. It appears not, go figure. Licensed or not, when somebody exceeds their ability………kaboom.

REALLY??? What does this bit mean then (quoted in context to make sure we have enough facts here)

Lets indeed get some perspective, the deceased was riding a stolen motorcycle, at an hour when respectable "family members" were at home, and spooked when a Police vehicle caused him (without reason) to accelerate and fail to take a corner. A licensed rider who had sat all the revelvant tests would have been able to control his vehicle and emotions at which point this tragedy would have not occured.

And he wasn't licensed? I missed that.
===

I threatened to disable anybody celebrating the life of somebody who had hit a wall?. Read it properly boofhead, it says MY WALL.

You would disable anyone celebrating the life of someone that hit YOUR wall?

Exactly what do you mean by disable (again dictionary handy)

1.	to make unable or unfit; weaken or destroy the capability of; cripple; incapacitate: He was disabled by blindness.

2.	to make legally incapable; disqualify.

Given the context (sorry for my personal interpretation on this one) I fail to see how option 2 is applicable, so I'm taking that as a physical threat to damage someone.

If I'm wrong - let me know what you really do mean?

And if I'm right - how badly damaged are you talking about?
===

That I have accused people of wanton vandalism when permission may have been sought and granted. Which is it, may have been sought or may have been granted. It either was or it wasn’t. Who is making assumptions now?

Or it could also mean (as was intended) may have been sought and (as a consequence) granted. Please if you're going to misinterpret what I say ... well... I believe you put it best

Read it again and use a dictionary this time

No assumptions. Permission may have been sought and granted - means "(used to express possibility): It may rain" (Thanks Mr Dictionary)

I note there is a variety of examples - but the first one fits best and will certainly suffice...

So I'm saying there is the possibility permission was sought and consequently granted. It's a fact - it might have happened. I'm not saying if it did happen or not. I'm saying I DON'T KNOW... and just as importantly I don't think you do either. If you do... please let me know how, and what the facts actually are.

In the absence of absolutely knowing, any reaction in respect of writing on the wall is totally unqualified and (by it's very definition) cannot be justified.

===

Invited you to steal something of mine. Again you obviously aren’t a property owner. TRY IT AND SEE WHAT TRANSPIRES.

Again wrong - again no, and again... cut the threats.
===

I use weasel words, perhaps that’s because I have come across a weasel or two.

Me too - makes 'em real easy to spot doesn't it...
===

You have used your own interpretation of what was said. Read it again and use a dictionary this time = NO APOLOGY.

A good point and it gave me reason to re-examine what I think, and wrote. I found I have no issue with any of it.

On the other hand, considering the range of accusations made against Grim, his friends and family - unless you have some basis in fact for making them (and again - the invitation is there to please share them)... then a simple "I'm sorry - I'm actually not sure" shouldn't be too hard.

Your thoughts?

[ManDownUnder]

Silence...

... odd...