Bicyclist killed, trucker guilty

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:07:54 GMT, the black rose
wrote (more or less):

Frank Krygowski wrote:
R15757 wrote:


I think we should raise the driving age to 17 or 18, first of all.


I've been saying 35. But at least we agree on the direction.

In Germany it's 20 or 21, isn't it? I can't recall exactly. I don't
know if that could be implemented in the US, but after reading about
some horrible accidents in our local paper involving teenagers driving
too fast, it sounds like an awfully good idea.

When we visited Germany, my sons found it amusing that they were old
enough to drink but not to drive, when at home in the US they're old
enough to drive but not to drink. :-)

Yep - it's easier to kill someone with a 2 tonne lump of metal than
with a beer stein.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:07:54 GMT, the black rose
wrote (more or less):

Frank Krygowski wrote:
R15757 wrote:


I think we should raise the driving age to 17 or 18, first of all.


I've been saying 35. But at least we agree on the direction.

In Germany it's 20 or 21, isn't it? I can't recall exactly. I don't
know if that could be implemented in the US, but after reading about
some horrible accidents in our local paper involving teenagers driving
too fast, it sounds like an awfully good idea.

When we visited Germany, my sons found it amusing that they were old
enough to drink but not to drive, when at home in the US they're old
enough to drive but not to drink. :-)

Yep - it's easier to kill someone with a 2 tonne lump of metal than
with a beer stein.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

the black rose :

Frank Krygowski wrote:
R15757 wrote:


I think we should raise the driving age to 17 or 18, first of all.


I've been saying 35. But at least we agree on the direction.

In Germany it's 20 or 21, isn't it? I can't recall exactly.

Unfortunaly, no. It's 18, and there is a momentum to reduce this to 17.
:-(


--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions

the black rose :

Frank Krygowski wrote:
R15757 wrote:


I think we should raise the driving age to 17 or 18, first of all.


I've been saying 35. But at least we agree on the direction.

In Germany it's 20 or 21, isn't it? I can't recall exactly.

Unfortunaly, no. It's 18, and there is a momentum to reduce this to 17.
:-(


--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions

Zoot Katz

wrote:

(Hunrobe) wrote:

Jym Dyer

wrote:

Yes, it really did. That's what I told you in another
thread, and you said you refused to believe it. I personally
know of other cases in the Bay Area and Boston like this.
It *is* a problem.

I've often disagreed with you or your interpretation of events but I've
never
called you a liar or accused you of fabrication. Please point out the thread
where we have had such an exchange.

This one maybe?
Date: 12 Aug 2004 18:56:07 GMT
Message-ID:
References:
--
zk

Huh? I'm not sure what you're smoking Zoot but that message is not even close
to calling him a liar or accusing him of fabrication. Here's the pertinent
section:

=v= Claims that the bicyclist "suddenly swerved out of nowhere"
should, in my opinion, be verified with forensics. Instead,
it's accepted as an excuse, no investigation needed, no cites.

---snip---

Just as you refuse to accept that claim, I refuse to accept that it is
routinely accepted as an 'excuse' without any questions being asked. I do
wonder what kind of forensic testing you think should be done.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

09 Sep 2004 01:14:58 GMT,
,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

Huh? I'm not sure what you're smoking Zoot but that message is not even close
to calling him a liar or accusing him of fabrication.


The question was when had you refused to believe Jym not whether you'd
called him a liar.

That's what the Message-ID pointed too.
--
zk

Zoot Katz

wrote:

The question was when had you refused to believe Jym not whether you'd
called him a liar.

That's what the Message-ID pointed too.
--
zk


Maybe that is the question you're answering but it is not the question I asked.
I told Jym I had never called him a liar or accused him of fabrications. I
asked if he or anyone could point me to a thread where I had done that. It's
all semantics anyway. I can refuse to agree with someone's conclusions just as
they can refuse to agree with mine without either of us calling the other a
liar.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

11 Sep 2004 01:03:21 GMT,
,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

Zoot Katz

wrote:

The question was when had you refused to believe Jym not whether you'd
called him a liar.

That's what the Message-ID pointed too.

Maybe that is the question you're answering but it is not the question I asked.
I told Jym I had never called him a liar or accused him of fabrications. I
asked if he or anyone could point me to a thread where I had done that. It's
all semantics anyway. I can refuse to agree with someone's conclusions just as
they can refuse to agree with mine without either of us calling the other a
liar.

Nice move. I'd make a moderate wager that you're a whiz at chess.

In the "Fatality in D.C." thread, Jym said:


=v= Claims that the bicyclist "suddenly swerved out of nowhere"
should, in my opinion, be verified with forensics. Instead,
it's accepted as an excuse, no investigation needed, no cites.

In response, you said:
,
I refuse to accept that it is
routinely accepted as an 'excuse' without any questions being asked.

'kay? You're with me so far?

Now in this thread, you said:
If it really did take a court order obtained by a private
legal firm to get critical (and basic) investigative steps
taken, then shame on the agency that had jurisdiction.

and what did Jym say:
=v= Yes, it really did. That's what I told you in another
thread, and you said you refused to believe it. I personally
know of other cases in the Bay Area and Boston like this.
It *is* a problem.
click

Then you said:
I've often disagreed with you or your interpretation of events but I've never
called you a liar or accused you of fabrication. Please point out the thread
where we have had such an exchange.

You introduced the word "liar" in a frilly skirt hoping it would slide
by. We know you never called Jym a liar nor did he claim you had.
That non-existant "exchange" was in your head.

The Message-ID: referred to the previous actual exchange where you'd
clearly stated that you refused to believe Jym.
--
zk

Zoot Katz

wrote in part:

In the "Fatality in D.C." thread, Jym said:


=v= Claims that the bicyclist "suddenly swerved out of nowhere"
should, in my opinion, be verified with forensics. Instead,
it's accepted as an excuse, no investigation needed, no cites.

In response, you said:
,
I refuse to accept that it is
routinely accepted as an 'excuse' without any questions being asked.

'kay? You're with me so far?

Jym stated his opinion that "the bicyclist suddenly swerved out of nowhere" is
routinely accepted as an excuse with no further investigation being done.
I disagreed with that opinion.
Are you with me so far?
Even if the question had been, "When have I refused to believe you?", since
when is disagreeing with someone's stated opinion the same as not believing
them? You may say that Shimano is better than Campy. I can accept that you hold
honestly that opinion without sharing that opinion. That's where Jym and I are
on this subject.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

P.S.- I haven't played chess in at least 30 years. I was a poor chess player
then and I have no reason to think the long layoff has improved my game.

11 Sep 2004 18:22:13 GMT,
,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

P.S.- I haven't played chess in at least 30 years. I was a poor chess player
then and I have no reason to think the long layoff has improved my game.

Thankfully when sarcasm bombs, nobody's injured.

I love to dance but I've really gotta pee.
Maybe next time, thnaks.
--
zk