On 10/09/2020 15:52, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/09/2020 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2020 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2020 13:05, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2020 08:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless.
Perhaps bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate
action, just like a cyclist deliberately using a bike without a
front brake. The sentence really does look lenient.

The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he
crashed into the tree.

Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything?
Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that.

Only an incredidibly stupid person could add that last sentence.

Hardly.

Oh definitely. You're defending the action of the driver.

The exact *opposite* (but then, you *often* have trouble in
deciphering English and exercising logic), don't you?

You decided your opinion was the only possible one and closed off
discussion.

My opinion, here and elsewhere, is that you cannot condemn anyone for
anything without evidence which *credibly* supports it. The only
evidence here supports the opposite view from the one you wanted to take
(without your having to bother with little things like evidence).

snipped unread

....andd reinstated because (a) it is central to the esponse to TMS320's
dishonest posts, and (b) it embarrasses him by exposing the unthinking
nature of his "conclusions".

QUOTE:
[in response to: "You're defending the action of the driver":]

The exact *opposite* (but then, you *often* have trouble in deciphering
English and exercising logic), don't you?

I am declining to condemn him as having done something deliberately when
there is no evidence to support such a view and when there is good
reason for believing that the accident happened other than as a result
of deliberate or wilful behaviour on the part of the driver.

If you wouldn't deliberately endanger the lives of your own children
(I'm being very charitable to you in assuming that without eliciting it
directly from you), what makes you "think" that the driver in the case
would have done so?

But you, of course, don't need tiresome things like evidence, do you?
ENDQUOTE

Your attempt at a response was laughable. And you knew that.