Sue or go bankrupt?

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 00:00:21 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
wrote:

John B. wrote:

You, apparently, are in the minority with this theory.

So were abolitionists. They were right.

If you are talking about U.S. history, of the 34 states in 1861 19
were free states.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 11:57:56 +0700, John B. wrote:


You know, in considering your thesis
Nope, you cherry picked a few word from the proposal.

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 12:16:22 +0700, John B. wrote:

Again.
Shrug, it is country thaty cosiders the "right" to bear arms and
discharge a firearm surpasses any other right right.

You obviously agree with that and are ready to absolve anyone of
responsibility so long as they do it with a gun, or car.

On Saturday, June 29, 2019 at 10:52:48 PM UTC-7, Chalo wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
Yikes, the UVC and slavery in the same sentence? Wow.

Yep. Cars will be the thing that people of the future use to conclude we were all assholes. Gluttonous, callously indifferent, and flagrantly unethical. Sociopathic even.

How do you see the 9B future people getting around? Depending on your view of the future, the ICE may even make a come-back, along with flame-throwers! https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...v2/1000x-1.jpg

In the meantime, I like having rules of the road. Most of them work to my advantage when I'm riding a bike (assuming they're followed) -- and certainly when I'm indifferently, flagrantly and unethically driving my gluttonous car.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/29/2019 8:59 PM, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:37:29 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 19:53:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 9:25:53 PM UTC-5, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:46:08 -0700, Chalo wrote:

Thing is, a ped is wildly unlikely to hurt anyone by running into
them.
Fundamentally false premise, e.g. ped into ped and ped into bicyclist.

So it's not the ped's ethical responsibility to mitigate the risk
that's being imposed unilaterally by a cyclist, the same way it's
not a cyclist's ethical duty to mitigate the lethal risks
unilaterally imposed by car drivers.

The one who brings the hazard into a situation is the one
responsible if anybody gets hurt.

Which was the ped . Their action lead to the collission.


Your logic is badly flawed. Example: Hunter in the forest,
countryside, hunting. There is also a known and used trail, path,
through the woods, countryside. Hunter fires the gun. Hits walker on
or near the trail. Lets say near because the walker stepped 10 feet off
the trail to do his business behind a bush. So by your very bad logic,
the pedestrian is at fault because he walked into the gun shot. Or an
area where gun shots are possible. He was officially "off" the trail,
being 10 feet off to do his business.






Once the ped launched the civil suit, the cyclist should have launched
a counter suit. This is how the law is an ass as is judges $$$ as more
important than any thing else.

Rule one, if you get knocked down here is to wait for an ambulance and
a ride to hospital for medical examinsation and never make light or
underplay any symptions. This is the world that the arseholes have
created.

Ah but... The hunter says "Oh! I thought it was a deer and I shot. A
regrettable accident, but an accident never the less..

Nope, clearly the "deer" wasn't clearly indentified.
Bzzt, end of that line.


When I lived in Maine there were one or two cases like that every year.
Usually by the time anyone got there the guy that was shot had a white
handkerchief or a roll of toilet paper in his hand or something else
white. ( a white tailed deer flicks his white tail when he is alarmed) .
It was invariably ruled an accident.

Supports my point exactly, the "deer' was not clearly identified.

I knew a couple of State Policemen pretty well and they told me that
they reckoned that at least some of them were some guy shooting his
father-in-law or something like that, but there was no proof.

Shrug, it is country thaty cosiders the "right" to bear arms and
discharge a firearm surpasses any other right right.


I would hope the above is simple ignorance and not your
deliberate scrambling of principles.

A free people remain so in part by armed resistance to
enslavement:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-29308509

(an armed populace is necessary but not sufficient)

History is filled with tragic heartbreaking examples.

No civilized place allows negligent discharge or wanton
assault. sheesh.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 6/30/2019 3:53 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 00:00:21 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
wrote:

John B. wrote:

You, apparently, are in the minority with this theory.

So were abolitionists. They were right.

If you are talking about U.S. history, of the 34 states in 1861 19
were free states.


A not-unrelated observation in that before oil energy all
the world ran on slavery, draft animals and dung in the streets.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 6/30/2019 11:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/29/2019 8:59 PM, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:37:29 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 19:53:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 9:25:53 PM UTC-5, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:46:08 -0700, Chalo wrote:

Thing is, a ped is wildly unlikely to hurt anyone by running into
them.
Fundamentally false premise, e.g. ped into ped and ped into bicyclist.

So it's not the ped's ethical responsibility to mitigate the risk
that's being imposed unilaterally by a cyclist, the same way it's
not a cyclist's ethical duty to mitigate the lethal risks
unilaterally imposed by car drivers.

The one who brings the hazard into a situation is the one
responsible if anybody gets hurt.

Which was the ped . Their action lead to the collission.


Your logic is badly flawed.Â* Example:Â* Hunter in the forest,
countryside, hunting.Â* There is also a known and used trail, path,
through the woods, countryside.Â* Hunter fires the gun.Â* Hits walker on
or near the trail.Â* Lets say near because the walker stepped 10 feet
off
the trail to do his business behind a bush.Â* So by your very bad logic,
the pedestrian is at fault because he walked into the gun shot.Â* Or an
area where gun shots are possible.Â* He was officially "off" the trail,
being 10 feet off to do his business.






Once the ped launched the civil suit, the cyclist should have launched
a counter suit. This is how the law is an ass as is judges $$$ as more
important than any thing else.

Rule one, if you get knocked down here is to wait for an ambulance and
a ride to hospital for medical examinsation and never make light or
underplay any symptions. This is the world that the arseholes have
created.

Ah but... The hunter says "Oh! I thought it was a deer and I shot. A
regrettable accident, but an accident never the less..

Nope, clearly the "deer" wasn't clearly indentified.
Bzzt, end of that line.


When I lived in Maine there were one or two cases like that every year.
Usually by the time anyone got there the guy that was shot had a white
handkerchief or a roll of toilet paper in his hand orÂ* something else
white. ( a white tailed deer flicks his white tail when he is alarmed) .
It was invariably ruled an accident.

Supports my point exactly, the "deer' was not clearly identified.

I knew a couple of State Policemen pretty well and they told me that
they reckoned that at least some of them were some guy shooting his
father-in-law or something like that, but there was no proof.

Shrug, it is country thaty cosiders the "right" to bear arms and
discharge a firearm surpasses any other right right.


I would hope the above is simple ignorance and not your deliberate
scrambling of principles.

A free people remain so in part by armed resistance to enslavement:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-29308509

(an armed populace is necessary but not sufficient)

The "armed resistance to enslavement" that Canada has seems to be
sufficient. But to me, the "armed resistance" of the U.S. seems grossly
excessive.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/30/2019 12:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/30/2019 3:53 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 00:00:21 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
wrote:

John B. wrote:

You, apparently, are in theÂ*Â* minority with this theory.

So were abolitionists.Â* They were right.

If you are talking about U.S. history, of the 34 states in 1861 19
were free states.


A not-unrelated observation in that before oil energy all the world ran
on slavery, draft animals and dung in the streets.

Minor quibble: Shouldn't that be "before coal energy"?

Seems there were about 100 years before oil began making a dent in
coal's energy contribution.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 14:46:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/30/2019 11:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/29/2019 8:59 PM, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:37:29 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 19:53:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 9:25:53 PM UTC-5, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:46:08 -0700, Chalo wrote:

Thing is, a ped is wildly unlikely to hurt anyone by running into
them.
Fundamentally false premise, e.g. ped into ped and ped into bicyclist.

So it's not the ped's ethical responsibility to mitigate the risk
that's being imposed unilaterally by a cyclist, the same way it's
not a cyclist's ethical duty to mitigate the lethal risks
unilaterally imposed by car drivers.

The one who brings the hazard into a situation is the one
responsible if anybody gets hurt.

Which was the ped . Their action lead to the collission.


Your logic is badly flawed.* Example:* Hunter in the forest,
countryside, hunting.* There is also a known and used trail, path,
through the woods, countryside.* Hunter fires the gun.* Hits walker on
or near the trail.* Lets say near because the walker stepped 10 feet
off
the trail to do his business behind a bush.* So by your very bad logic,
the pedestrian is at fault because he walked into the gun shot.* Or an
area where gun shots are possible.* He was officially "off" the trail,
being 10 feet off to do his business.






Once the ped launched the civil suit, the cyclist should have launched
a counter suit. This is how the law is an ass as is judges $$$ as more
important than any thing else.

Rule one, if you get knocked down here is to wait for an ambulance and
a ride to hospital for medical examinsation and never make light or
underplay any symptions. This is the world that the arseholes have
created.

Ah but... The hunter says "Oh! I thought it was a deer and I shot. A
regrettable accident, but an accident never the less..

Nope, clearly the "deer" wasn't clearly indentified.
Bzzt, end of that line.


When I lived in Maine there were one or two cases like that every year.
Usually by the time anyone got there the guy that was shot had a white
handkerchief or a roll of toilet paper in his hand or* something else
white. ( a white tailed deer flicks his white tail when he is alarmed) .
It was invariably ruled an accident.

Supports my point exactly, the "deer' was not clearly identified.

I knew a couple of State Policemen pretty well and they told me that
they reckoned that at least some of them were some guy shooting his
father-in-law or something like that, but there was no proof.

Shrug, it is country thaty cosiders the "right" to bear arms and
discharge a firearm surpasses any other right right.


I would hope the above is simple ignorance and not your deliberate
scrambling of principles.

A free people remain so in part by armed resistance to enslavement:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-29308509

(an armed populace is necessary but not sufficient)

The "armed resistance to enslavement" that Canada has seems to be
sufficient. But to me, the "armed resistance" of the U.S. seems grossly
excessive.

The U.S. runs around all over the world bragging about their
democratic government and bemoaning the fact that "that country"
doesn't have a democratic system "like we do" and now someone talks
about "armed resistance" ... to a system that the U.S. promotes
internationally?

By the way, a bunch of guys got together and tried this "armed
resistance" back in 1861... with very poor results.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 11:06:58 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/30/2019 3:53 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 00:00:21 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
wrote:

John B. wrote:

You, apparently, are in the minority with this theory.

So were abolitionists. They were right.

If you are talking about U.S. history, of the 34 states in 1861 19
were free states.


A not-unrelated observation in that before oil energy all
the world ran on slavery, draft animals and dung in the streets.

Well, dung in the streets wasn't really a fundamental factor in
cavitation :-)
On other hand, dung in the streets gave a lot of otherwise unemployed
people a chance to "make a buck" by sweeping places where people
walked so perhaps it was a useful factor :-)
--
cheers,

John B.