Less happy than usual.

Yeah, years ago I had a brand new Ducati 851 Tricolour [1] and walked
out of the building to find some idiot mum loading her 4 year old kid
onto the bike. FFS, it had an auto retract sidestand. If she had
pushed the bike just a little it would have landed on the ground [2].
What do these people think they are doing?

[1] Never again.
[2]Hopefully with said child trapped underneath screaming its head
off.

 

It's tempting to hire people to **** with Nige's bike, just so we can
enjoy the ranting.

 

But when he has an aneurysm, you'll be liable.

 

Do you know many Motherf*cking c*nting f*ckragging snivelling fat blob
of c*nting lardarsed shitblasts perchance ?

Paul.

 

You mean, apart from ukrm?

 

Yeah, i lost a point for repetion, must do better

--


Nige,

'Candygram for Mongo'

R1

 

Andy Bonwick escribió:

Even before he's noticed that he hasn't been dazzled by a double negative?

 

....and the best bit is, it would be your fault, not the stupid breeder.

 

You think so?

 

I don't know why but I find myself regarding people who refer to
parents as 'breeders' with the same contempt as the idiots that write
Micro$oft instead of using the correct name.

I suspect it's because both sets of people are obviously suffering
from an inferiority complex because they're either incapable of
producing children or deeply envious of Bill Gates.

 

wrote;

(Considers extended diatribe on the development of 'the nanny state',
and it's associated legislation...)

Yes.

 

Bill who?
Hang on, I'll ask the kids.

 

I think you're completely wrong here.

Maybe the manufacturer may be liable (though I doubt it) but a
non-modified bike being used as the manufacturer designed it. No.

 

wrote;

I'd like to think you're right, but, if the parent was even slightly
litigious, the bike owner would be forced to jump through several legal
hoops, would end up out of pocket, and probably end up paying an
increased premium, even if the claim against said owner was rejected.
It's quite likely the owner of the property on which the incident
occurred would suffer too.

The only way this wouldn't happen is if the bike owner didn't claim for
damage, and the parent accepted responsibility on the spot for placing
their own child in danger. How likely is that?

 

**** knows but nothing's hit the press to date.

I'd agree it would be hard to get the damage fixed but I really think
you're exaggerating litigation risks.

 

Fucking micro$oft loving breeder.
--


Nige,

'Candygram for Mongo'

R1

 

Im not sure why but that really winds me up too.

My boss has the habit of using M$ which I think should be a shooting offence.
--
Gavin.

Moto Guzzi California Aquila Nera
GSXR600K1
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gavin_wilby
Blog: http://www.stoof.co.uk

 

Andy Bonwick escribió:

Somebody recently (Blaney?) tarred me with that brush for referring to the
yookay as the yuk. I think I shrugged my shoulders. I may have caught that
habit from the locals. It's their answer to everything.

 

Now fucking hold on!
For the record, I look down on MS bitchers as much as the next man, and
my definition of 'breeders' in the context just used, is as follows;

Those that produce offspring without any consideration for their
subsequent finance, education, manners, morals and behaviour, relying
instead on the services of the state, Sky TV, and drugs.

Thus, all breeders are parents, but not all parents are breeders.

 

That's the thing. They don't. To these twats, a bike isn't an item belonging
to someone and has cost tem thousands, they're just things for their kids to
play on after saying "I want to sit to that".

I know it's regarded as inappropriate, but those kids need fucking. [1]
No-one would go near their munter mothers.

[1] Not in the biblical sense.