Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Digiman on 14 Jul 2008 04:20 On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:35:19 +0100, judith <judithsmith(a)live.co.uk> wrote: When you have finished remedial English, could you brush up on netiquette and learn how to snip? Even trolls can usualy manage that. Thanks. > >I'll tell you what the problem was (yet again): > >I disagreed when you and others said that the unfortunate pedestrian >who was run down and killed by the cyclist was drunk. And I immediately realised that those who objected were correct and used the more correct term 'inebriated'. >You then argued as to the meaning of drunk I did not argue as to the meaning of drunk. I accepted that it was the wrong term to use. Unless she had an unusually low alcohol tolerance I doubt she was what any reasonable person would cal drunk > - and changed you view to >inebriated - and then again to intoxicated (the order may have been >the other way round). I did not change it to 'intoxicated' I started using 'intoxicated' as the OED2 gives 'intoxicated' as the first meaning for 'inebriated' and you need to go to 'intoxicated' to get a proper definition. >The point which I was making was that there was no evidence produced >in court that she was drunk. The point that you were trying to make >was that she contributed to he own death because she was >drunk/intoxicated/inebriated. She *may* have conributed to her own death because of her inebriation. There *was* evidence presented to the court that she had drunk two cans of Stella. According to the OED2 the first definitions of 'intoxicated' reating to alcohol are: "Stupefied or having the brain affected with a drug or alcoholic liquor; inebriated, drunk." The first of these cleary applies to the deceased This has been explained to again and again and again but still you either haven't grasped the fairly simple reasoning invoved or have decided that there is still mileage for your trolling. >The defence did not even mention the words drunk, intoxicated, or >inebriated (as far as I am aware). Which has no relevance whatsoever. I was refering to evidence which *was* given. >Therefore you and others were plain wrong to assert that she was drunk That was admitted way back. And that is why your continued prattling on an on about it can be considered as nothing other than puerile trolling.
From: Sniper8052 on 14 Jul 2008 05:34 On 14 Jul, 09:20, Digi...(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:35:19 +0100, judith <judithsm...(a)live.co.uk> > wrote: > > When you have finished remedial English, could you brush up on > netiquette and learn how to snip? > > Even trolls can usualy manage that. > > Thanks. > > > > >I'll tell you what the problem was (yet again): > > >I disagreed when you and others said that the unfortunate pedestrian > >who was run down and killed by the cyclist was drunk. > > And I immediately realised that those who objected were correct and used > the more correct term 'inebriated'. > > >You then argued as to the meaning of drunk > > I did not argue as to the meaning of drunk. > > I accepted that it was the wrong term to use. Unless she had an > unusually low alcohol tolerance I doubt she was what any reasonable > person would cal drunk > > > - and changed you view to > >inebriated - and then again to intoxicated (the order may have been > >the other way round). > > I did not change it to 'intoxicated' I started using 'intoxicated' as > the OED2 gives 'intoxicated' as the first meaning for 'inebriated' and > you need to go to 'intoxicated' to get a proper definition. > > >The point which I was making was that there was no evidence produced > >in court that she was drunk. The point that you were trying to make > >was that she contributed to he own death because she was > >drunk/intoxicated/inebriated. > > She *may* have conributed to her own death because of her inebriation. > > There *was* evidence presented to the court that she had drunk two cans > of Stella. > > According to the OED2 the first definitions of 'intoxicated' reating to > alcohol are: > > "Stupefied or having the brain affected with a drug or alcoholic liquor; > inebriated, drunk." > > The first of these cleary applies to the deceased > > This has been explained to again and again and again but still you > either haven't grasped the fairly simple reasoning invoved or have > decided that there is still mileage for your trolling. > > >The defence did not even mention the words drunk, intoxicated, or > >inebriated (as far as I am aware). > > Which has no relevance whatsoever. > > I was refering to evidence which *was* given. > > >Therefore you and others were plain wrong to assert that she was drunk > > That was admitted way back. > > And that is why your continued prattling on an on about it can be > considered as nothing other than puerile trolling. If a person can drive a vehicle with 80/100 ml I am damn sure a person can walk along a pavement with two cans of Stella washing around without too much of a problem. Your argument is facile, foolish, insensitive and blatantly constructed to excuse the cyclist from the consequences of his actions, if not wholly then in part. The cyclist was, I take it not drunk, intoxicated or inebriated so should have taken appropriate action to avoid a collision, he failed to do so and a young woman died needlessly, whilst walking on the pavement where she should have been save. The cyclist should not have been on the pavement so it doesn't matter if she was stone cold sober or 'pissed as a sapper on pay day' he was in the wrong and should have paid the proper 'moral' penalty...as should all who cause death on the roads though there own arrogance rather than 'true accident'. This is not the thread to discuss this so can we return to the real topic now? Sniper8052
From: Digiman on 14 Jul 2008 05:50 On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:34:31 -0700 (PDT), "Sniper8052(a)yahoo.co.uk" <Sniper8052(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >If a person can drive a vehicle with 80/100 ml I am damn sure a person >can walk along a pavement with two cans of Stella washing around >without too much of a problem. No one is suggesting otherwise. >Your argument is facile, foolish, >insensitive and blatantly constructed to excuse the cyclist from the >consequences of his actions, if not wholly then in part. Calm down! As we see further you have no idea what you're talking about and seem to have posted just so that you coud have a little rant > The cyclist >was, I take it not drunk, intoxicated or inebriated so should have >taken appropriate action to avoid a collision, he failed to do so and >a young woman died needlessly, whilst walking on the pavement where >she should have been save. Could you do me a favour, please? Could you go back and read the relevant reports as it will: 1) Stop you making a fool of yourself by making unsupportable accusations. 2) Prevent this thread needlessly erupting again with a pointless argument about what constitutes drunkenness and whether or not it's possible that the two pints of Stella drunk by the deceased coud conceivably have played any part in the incident > The cyclist should not have been on the >pavement According to reports, the police do not think he was. The do, however, think the deceased was on the road. > so it doesn't matter if she was stone cold sober or 'pissed >as a sapper on pay day' It may not matter much at all, but, if the police are correct it may have played some part. > >This is not the thread to discuss this so can we return to the real >topic now? Then why the *hell* did you have to wade in with you ill informed twittering - an action that was only likely to stir things up again?
From: joe on 14 Jul 2008 13:58 Digiman wrote: > I consider wholly unnecessary hair splitting to be part of the armoury > of the troll because it is ideal for accomplishing troll aims. I think you have to realise the thread is answered by people in uk.legal, where hairsplitting could be enough to get someone off in a court of law, or indeed make them guilty. Many cases are judged by such adherence to the letter of the law, and carefully worded statements. --
From: Alex Heney on 14 Jul 2008 16:43
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:13:42 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: >On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:25:03 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Being forced to stop by an obstruction in the crriageway does not >>>>>>>> equal "emergency stop" without further data. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The further data is a door opening. >>>>>> >>>>>> That could be further data, but it is not sufficient further data. A >>>>>> door opening half a mile in front of you in a narrow street with cars >>>>>> parked on both sides might still require you to stop by the time you >>>>>> got to that spot. Not by any stretch of the reasonable man's >>>>>> imagination could you call it an emergency stop - or even an >>>>>> emergency. Sometimes, and whether we like it or not, we all have to >>>>>> stop. It's just life. >>>>> >>>>>Are you quite determined to appear silly? >>>>> >>>> >>>>If he is, then what he posted was doing a VERY bad job of it, since >>>>there was nothing remotely "silly" in what he correctly said. >>> >>>He appears silly because he's using a standard troll technique of >>>imputing obviously inappropriate generality to what someone whrote >>>purely for the sake of causing or prolonging an argument. >> >>Wrong. >> >>It was completely appropriate, as it pointed out the absurdity of >>Nick's claim. > >No, you are falling into the troll mindset. > >It is extremely easy to start arguments and keep them going by being >unnecessarily pedantic. Which was what *Nick* was doing, not what either JNugent or I were doing when responding. > >If A says: "opening a car door in front of a cyclist is dangerous", >anyone with an IQ into double figures knows full well the poster means >"opening a car door immediately in front of a cyclist is dangerous". > >Only a fool or a troll really imagines that they mean "in front of a >cyclist at any distance". But only a bigger fool or troll thinks it means "only so long as the door is still in the act of opening when the cyclist reaches it". between those two, there is a huge range, and it is within that range (but strongly towards the closer end) that most of us would assume - but not Nick. >>>You really do make a habit of defending trolls and as such can be >>>considered nothing more than a troll yourself. >> >>Wrong. On both counts. > >Sadly not, as your post here clearly shows. No it doesn't. > >You are supporting someone who is being pedantic just for the sake of >it. I am NOT supporting Nick, I am arguing *against* his stupid pedanticism (as is JNugent). > >Because Nick said 'reasonable' when he obviously meant 'practical' It wasn't at all obvious >JNugent has cause a wodge of completely unnecessary posts that do not >move the discussion forward. (He could have simply pointed out that the >sentence required the word 'practial' or 'possible' to make sense. > >That is the action of a troll and it's a great pity that you cannot see >it's something he makes a practice of. It is a much greater pity that you are allowing your absurd decision that he is a troll to blind you to the points he is making. Even allowing for the fact that your definition of "troll" seems to be wildly different from most people's -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Bugs come in through open Windows To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |