Be Excellent To Each Other

Yep, this pretty much sums it up for me. It's the reason why I never get steaming drunk any more, too.

Right now, I could quite happily wander next door with a baseball bat. I'd smack seven bells of shit out of their TV, stereo and every can of alcoholic beverage in there.

Then drop 250 quid in shit-covered notes on their carpet. Should cover the replacement cost.

Anger. I've fucking heard of it.

This baffles me. I've seen people actually jumping up and down in their seat shouting and waving their arms at some perceived slight on the road (whilst travelling at 80 miles an hour, mind). I just cannot get my head around why people get this angry about such tiny, insignificant nothings. It can't be healthy.

I don't get very angry, except for an occasional rant at politicians on the telly, but that's not anger, really. I get irritated, I get upset, but I don't really get angry. The only time I can ever remember being properly angry was at age 18 or 19 when I had a fight with my brother, which scared the crap out of both of us and I've never, ever come even remotely close to getting worked up like that since.

If anyone did anything to a member of my family *that* would make me angry, but, as Craster's said, the sorts of things that would make me angry are the sorts of things I've been lucky enough not to experience.

Um, I hope you (or anyone else) haven't taken away that I hit living things. I've extremely rarely had the urge to, and never come close to actually doing so - not because it would be stupid, but because it would be wrong.

It's what I say it is. Are you trying to be clever? It's not working.



I feel for you chap, and given the shit time you seem to have had I'm totally with you on the 'whole system is broken' thing. You do seem even worse than me though, as I don't tend to break stuff

You're right though, I reckon bottling it up is worse.



Oh no, I understood you, and I agree Wrong *and* stupid.

I never get angry. I might cuss someone for talking on their mobile phone while driving, or driving like a prat, but it's always in more of a "Get off your phone, y'twat" way rather than a "GET OFF YOUR FUCKING PHONE YOU FUCKING TWAT RRAAAAAARRRGHHHHH" way.

No point in getting angry really, doesn't really solve much.

There's nothing more ugly* than some person's face contorted in rage, yelling at someone on the street for causing some minor inconvenience.


*other than Tracy Emin, obviously.

It is against the law for vets (or any pharmacies) to accept returns of drugs. If you know of a surgery that does, I wouldn't recommend taking any animals there. Especially if it's a doctor's surgery, or something.
But tangent, sorry!
Was the TV program any good? I thought the trailers made it look most dull.

It made me look entirely calm. It featured lots of people who like to throw plates and smash things. When you compare it to me, who merely swears and wishes extreme death on people, I'm really rather timid by comparison.

My mother threw (like, really threw) an ashtray at me in a fit of rage once. I caught it and put in on the table, which I doubt helped her mood.

Unlike most other situations in your life, someone being a twat on the road CAN FUCKING KILL YOU.

I get angrier when driving than I do normally, but I've no idea why. I don't change my driving, though, I just call the other drivers very rude names.

Yes.

Although at least those people are paying attention. The people who go 40 in a 60, then 40 in a 30 scare me a hell of a lot more.

Only if its Pizza Express.

As with most things, I won't complain angrily until The Line is crossed, where my desire to be polite is overcome by the amount of shit I've suffered thus far. This happens more regularly in Toyota dealerships than restaurants, I admit.

The last time I had cause to complain was when I was eating a burger in giraffe that I'd asked for well done, but it was served very red. I calmly pointed it out to the waiter and just asked him to assure me it was safe to eat, and wasn't undercooked. He assured me it was fine, so I went on with the meal. I was surprised when the manager came up to me, apologising profusely and insisted on taking the burger off the bill. I wasn't even miffed about it

While someone driving in the middle lane, driving a bit slow, not letting you turn out or change lane in slow moving traffic or a myriad other minor inconveniences could be considered by someone who is a bit het up to be "being a twat" and may, in their own head, justify seat bouncing rage, I'm not sure they're actually life threatening, you big drama queen.

I think it just gives people an opportunity to vent their anger, there's the justification "I could have been KILLED" together with the chance to swear and make rude signs in someone's face secure in the knowledge that nothing will probably come of it.

SHE WAS DOING 60 IN THE MIDDLE LANE, THE BITCH - SHE COULD HAVE KILLED MY LITTLE CHARMAINE WITH HER DAWDLING
\

Yes, obviously it depends on circumstance. You'd think a lawyer would recognise the concept.

Yesterday an Abbey machine ated my card. I put it in and it crashed. Now, this is very annoying as I needed to withdraw lots of money etc and the account is still registered to an account in Preston, meaning the time-to-new-card is massively extended. Was I angry? No, I just smiled. Why? Because a cash machine crashing unpon the insertion of a card is absurd, and because the exact same thing happened to a mate last year.

Moral of the story? If there's two Abbey cash machines, never use the one no the right. 100% crash&swallow rate.

In short: I rarely get angry. Infact I can't remember the last time I was angry.

Yes. And people that sit in the middle lane of an empty motorway.

No not trying to be clever.

If thats the case, why dont you practice what you preach?
Or is it like you say in the first post. Is the majority of your rhetoric mainly just to get a rise out of people for fun and personal amusement?

People probably tell you to calm down, or at least not vocalise your anger at that moment in time because they see past the actually issue itself and are concerned about escalating it for no reason other than to satisfy your ego.

If I was in the car with you, and someone cut up the car, by all means flag the guy or beep or flash your lights - I agree people need to be called out on bad drving (just one example). However, you mentioned a while back that you got into a bit of more serious altercation with some guy in a flashy car, lane filtering on the A34.

Now, for the sake of a bit of annoyance at him pushing in front of you car, you were at logger heads, windows wound down, effing and blinding.

At that point I would have been asking you to chill out too, because you have no idea who that person is, or what they will do in retaliation.

Sure, getting angry is something most people experience, but what gives you the right to damage their property, or potentially end up in a fight over it? Is it really worth it?


I can fully advocate getting angered by something, and no I dont think you should entirely suppress that, but at the other end of the scale talk of detroying property, physical violence etc is not the correct way to live your life, nor is escalating situations to the point where you either back down or get into some kinda fight. Neither of those two endings are positive.

I pass these middle lane people on the inside. It's got to be considerably more dangerous for me to change lanes for 4 times rather than just hold my line.

That shouldn't annoy you if the motorway is actually empty, as you've still got lane 3 available to overtake.

It's when the middle-lane-owners-club stay in the middle lane when lane 1 is empty but lane 3 is chocka that is a problem. I have no qualms whatsoever about undertaking people who are in lane 2 when they should be in lane 1, although I won't ever do it if there's no hard shoulder or escape route should they suddenly have a change of heart.

Again, they're forcing you to make 4 lane changes.

On my list : People who say "undertake". There. Is. No. Such. Thing. You. Are. Still. Overtaking.

Not directly, but they cause frustration/anger and compression of traffic to their back and right. The former triggers risky/dangerous driving in some people, the latter increases the risk and consequences of collision and causes frustration/anger.

They also show that the driver isn't paying attention, doesn't know the highway code, or is too scared to be driving (that car, in those conditions, or at all). Any one of those (potentially dangerous) things is worrying to sane people and angering to less-sane people (I am in the set of both) when hundreds of fast-moving, multi-tonne, potentially explosive lumps are involved.

And some cars as well, badum-tish!

Phew, just as well I don't listen to anything you say. The last time I checked you didn't even have the balls to properly harass the last person that failed to pay you rent. If I recall, me and my angry self had to harass him on your behalf.

Just as well there are people like me around, because if everybody was as passive as you, we'd be living in a chaos state.

Of course it is. Any time you make a movement is more dangerous than not doing so.

"Inside" and "Outside" are fabulous words for such a purpose.

I get confused when people talk about the outside and inside lanes on motorways, because they seem to say that the inside lane is actually the one on the outside or something. I don't get it.

And going apoplectic with rage at those situations can quite easily make you lose enough concentration while driving to kill you too.

I think the point is that changing lanes on an empty motorway is at worst an incredibly minor inconvenience and if you fly into a rage over it then you're being a bit of a silly berk. Besides the inside lanes often end up quite badly rutted and if the road is almost entirely empty then I can't see much wrong with avoiding it entirely, though I agree that the polite thing to do is to move back into the inside lane if you see a car approaching from behind.

Yes, you would, which was why I was talking about "perceived slights" and "insignifant nothings" in my initial post, clearly defining the sort of circumstances to which I referred. You'd think a pedant would be able to read things properly.

In an empty motorway? Really? Just how shit are you at using your steering wheel that having to move it slightly to the right and then to the left is likely to cause you to have an accident?

And if the motorway's not empty, passing on the inside is far more dangerous than some pensioner sat in the middle lane.

As we've been through before. I dislike people sitting in the middle lane as well, but it's not the END OF THE WORLD as some big flappers around here seem to think.

"I overtook him on the inside"
"I overtook him on the outside"
"I undertook him"

I use the latter simply for reasons of brevity, that and I've always wanted to drive a hearse.

I always thought the inside lane was the one closest to the centre, with the outside lane being furtherest away:


| Outside | Middle | Inside || Inside | Middle | Outside |

How do I get tickets for this?
I want to touch Harry Hill.

Does it sound like I'm flying into a rage? I just hold my line and go past them.



The Inside lane is always the left on a motorway. It's semi confusing because technically on a right hand bend this should not be the case.



0.01 > 0. MORE. Not "likely". More.

You're supposed to be a man of words damnit.



If you just screamed "BREE!" that'd be more brief yet no less wrong.

Besides, when you've just gone all the way across from Lane 1 to Lane 3, passed the twat in Lane 2, and then gone all the way back across to Lane 1 and continued on faster, it sometimes shakes the Lane 2 twat out of their torpor.

Really? Blimey, I've been getting it wrong all these years.

[FX: Sound of delusions being shattered]

Accepted.

Bik has a point though, the problem doesn't happen with these people, it happens a mile further back where the compression causes a rear ender.

Which is why these people get lower insurance because they "don't cause accidents" when actually they really do.

FTFY

Indeed, occasionally I do it, changing back slightly earlier than is strictly required just for this purpose.

Sorry I assumed that if you, a serious and sensible man, were making a fuss about it then it had passed the de minimis "oooh, you could get struck by lightning if you go outside" level of likelihood. Otherwise it's not really worth mentioning, let alone getting one's briefs in a twist over, is it?

Who's a safer driver - a calm one or one who is getting a in a FURIOUS RAGE about everything?

I had a fucking duvet.

Its kinda crap that I cant put forward a decent post without you degrading my personality- after all, you started this thread and asked for discussion, and ive provided a pretty decent answer to one of your first questions.

In response: Now, as than, your help was invaluable, thankyou. You are right to be proud of your involvement.

Although if I did that nobody would have a fucking clue what I was on about, whereas "undertake" has (rightly or wrongly) become a largely-accepted verb in the English language.

I get your point though, and as someone who's stupidly pedantic when it comes to English, I have to admit that I agree with you. But it's just a force of habit I guess.

Or "deliberately almost causing an accident" as it's known.

In the "likely to cause an accident" scheme of things it sounds like we've got

Dudley>>>>bloke in a Nova>>>>pensioner

Where was I making a fuss?

And "Deliberately causing an accident?" Where? I'm not touching them at all. Just swapping back across 2 lanes while I'm still very clearly in sight.

Please tell me we've not made the "Dudley's said nothing bad so let's make up things he didn't say and then condemn him for saying them" stage. Certain other people used that as their only posts to me ever and it got very tiring.