This guy was hammering it - even by my standards!
Vicko Zoomba
A motorcyclist has been banned from the roads after being caught doing
what is thought to be the fastest speed ever recorded on a Scottish
road.
Hairdresser Neil Purves was detected by police as he travelled at
166mph on a 60mph stretch of the A702 near West Linton in the Scottish
Borders.
He pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving when he appeared at
Peebles Sheriff Court.
Sentence was deferred for background reports.
The court was told Purves, 27, from Cockburnspath, Berwickshire, was
clocked by police on the Dolphinton straight stretch of the road on 13
May.
The speed of 166mph leaves most of us speechless and he is deeply
ashamed
Graham Walker
Defence lawyer
Fiscal depute Morag McLintock said: "We believe this is the highest
speed that the police have ever recorded in Scotland.
"A police speed check was taking place when officers were alerted by a
high pitched whine from the motorcycle's engine."
Purves has since sold his Suzuki GSX-R 1000 motorcycle, the court
heard.
Defence lawyer Graham Walker said: "The speed of 166mph leaves most of
us speechless and he is deeply ashamed.
"He undertook an advanced motorcycle training course after this
incident but later decided to just sell his bike."
'Background facts'
Sheriff Neil Mackinnon disqualified Purves on an interim basis until
sentencing takes place on 28 October.
He said: "This is an extremely high speed and we should know all the
background facts."
Purves, who works at a salon in Edinburgh, was accompanied in court by
his parents.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8283693.stm
Fuck me! Even by my "freedom" standards of the being onthe open road
(any biker will tell you what the "open road" means), this guy was
hammering the tits off his bike. If youve ever travelled around the
south of Scotland then you'll know that it's a pleasant, scenic area
and you're never long on a straight, level road. To hit 166 mph is -
quite frankly -outstanding. To hit 166 and not actually hit anything
or anyone or be be hit by anything or anyone is even more out
standing!
It's purely luck that this guy is alive.
McKevvy
Halmyre
Absolutely incredible. A hairdresser on a motorbike?
--
Halmyre
SeaWoe
If you have to go to court, at least Peebles is a nice town to do it.
loopy livernose
"Halmyre" <flashgord...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fef12ded-8f6e-46a6...@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
We keep hearing "speed kills", well now we know 166 on a public road
doesn't kill, will they stop broadcasting this fallacy?
Not that I am condoning this kind of lunacy..
LL
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Bod
All you hairdressers stick together. :-)
Bod
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
Vicko Zoomba <vicko_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hairdresser Neil Purves was detected by police as he travelled at
>166mph on a 60mph stretch of the A702 near West Linton in the Scottish
>Borders.
Probably just wanted a good blow dry.
>It's purely luck that this guy is alive.
And others. If he'd hit a car or van at that speed he'd have easily killed
their drivers as well as himself.
B2003
Halmyre
> >Hairdresser Neil Purves was detected by police as he travelled at
> >166mph on a 60mph stretch of the A702 near West Linton in the Scottish
> >Borders.
>
> Probably just wanted a good blow dry.
>
> >It's purely luck that this guy is alive.
>
> And others. If he'd hit a car or van at that speed he'd have easily killed
> their drivers as well as himself.
>
If.
--
Halmyre.
Adrian
like they were saying:
>> >Hairdresser Neil Purves was detected by police as he travelled at
>> >166mph on a 60mph stretch of the A702 near West Linton in the Scottish
>> >Borders.
>> Probably just wanted a good blow dry.
>> >It's purely luck that this guy is alive.
>> And others. If he'd hit a car or van at that speed he'd have easily
>> killed their drivers as well as himself.
> If.
Quite.
If a car and a motorbike hit head on, each doing 60mph perfectly legally,
the car driver's unlikely to survive.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Quite.
>
>If a car and a motorbike hit head on, each doing 60mph perfectly legally,
>the car driver's unlikely to survive.
Depends if the biker goes through the windscreen or does a somersault
over the top of the car. At a closing speed of 120 the front of the car is
going to be a mess but the passenger compartment will probably survive ok.
At a closing speed of 240 it probably won't.
B2003
Adrian
saying:
>>Quite.
>>
>>If a car and a motorbike hit head on, each doing 60mph perfectly
>>legally, the car driver's unlikely to survive.
> Depends if the biker goes through the windscreen or does a somersault
> over the top of the car. At a closing speed of 120 the front of the car
> is going to be a mess but the passenger compartment will probably
> survive ok. At a closing speed of 240 it probably won't.
As well as the c.75kg of nice squishy person, you seem to be forgetting
the effect of c.200kg of foot-wide bike - and of course, the subsequent
impact as the out-of-control car hits whatever else is about.
Yitzhak McSchwartz
Would it be too much to ask that you demonstrate this for us?
Bod
motorcyclist straight through the screen?
At that sort of speed, I imagine that the
m/cyclist would be catapulted straight ahead, as
opposed to up over the roof.
Bod
Yitzhak McSchwartz
wrote:
I've never tried it. I hope Adrienne does.
Bod
Bod
Yitzhak McSchwartz
Halmyre
wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2009 10:56:52 GMT, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >boltar2...@yahoo.co.uk gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
Only if you are the "whatever else is about" part of the equation.
--
Halmyre
Yitzhak McSchwartz
Ah, another one of Adrienne's lovers.
Peter Hucker
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8283693.stm
>
> Fuck me! Even by my "freedom" standards of the being onthe open road
> (any biker will tell you what the "open road" means), this guy was
> hammering the tits off his bike. If youve ever travelled around the
> south of Scotland then you'll know that it's a pleasant, scenic area
> and you're never long on a straight, level road. To hit 166 mph is -
> quite frankly -outstanding. To hit 166 and not actually hit anything
> or anyone or be be hit by anything or anyone is even more out
> standing!
>
> It's purely luck that this guy is alive.
>
> McKevvy
Or skill.
--
I'm no. 2736 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 85th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 202nd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
You know you've spent too much time on the computer when you spill milk and the first thing you think is, 'Edit, Undo.'
Peter Hucker
Stop this closing speed bullshit. If you are in a car and hit a wall at 30mph, you will suffer precisely the same injuries as if you hit an identical car traveling at 30mph towards you. The only time it is different is if he's a lorry. Then you get the effect of almost 60mph and he gets almost nothing.
--
I'm no. 2736 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 85th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 202nd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
15 Easy Steps to Poo like a Man:
1. Select reading material (can be anything except a porn-mag; tried by every man once, but never repeated - see step 4).
2. Tell everyone along the way, "Just going for a dump, okay?" Always tell girlfriend/wife, especially when she has visitors.
3. Pull pants and trousers around ankles, then sit down.
4 Adjust penis and testicles to hang comfortably without touching the toilet rim.
5. Open reading material and relax.
6. Whilst waiting, it is traditional to audibly fart.
7. Sigh loudly as the first one bullets out. It is quite normal to experience a cold jet of water rocket up your anus as a result of the first bomb. This is to be endured if you want to be a real man.
8. Remain sitting and reading until pins-and-needles set in to your legs and buttocks.
9. Rise and look at the poo. Make mental notes of any irregularities to report to friends and girlfriend/wife, e.g. colour, consistency, any visible traces of peanuts, etc. You must tell people about it.
10. Take long length of paper and wipe anus. You must look at the paper before throwing it into the pan.
11. Repeat step 10 until there is no longer any evidence of faeces on the paper.
12. Flush. If there is any residue left on the pan, under no circumstances attempt to clean it off. In due course, it will come away by itself. Or, when your girlfriend/wife next uses the loo.
13. Leave the seat up. Leave the reading material on the floor (you can use it again later).
14. Wash your hands once.
15. Vacate the bathroom, leaving the door open. It is important to a man's self-esteem that other people smell his produce.
Peter Hucker
Adrian made a valid point. Did you not understand it?
--
I'm no. 2736 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 85th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 202nd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
A great way to lose weight is to eat naked in front of a mirror. Restaurants will almost always throw you out before you can eat too much.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
"Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com> wrote:
>> Depends if the biker goes through the windscreen or does a somersault
>> over the top of the car. At a closing speed of 120 the front of the car is
>> going to be a mess but the passenger compartment will probably survive ok.
>> At a closing speed of 240 it probably won't.
>>
>> B2003
>
>Stop this closing speed bullshit. If you are in a car and hit a wall at
>30mph, you will suffer precisely the same injuries as if you hit an identical
>car traveling at 30mph towards you. The only time it is different is if he's
>a lorry. Then you get the effect of almost 60mph and he gets almost nothing.
Err, we're not talking about identical cars colliding , we're talking about
a bike hitting a car. And generally speaking if you hit a wall the wall
doesn't do much. If you hit another vehicle head on then bits of that
vehicle are probably going to detach from it and carry on moving. In this
case the rider.
B2003
Peter Hucker
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:43:56 +0100
> "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> Depends if the biker goes through the windscreen or does a somersault
>>> over the top of the car. At a closing speed of 120 the front of the car is
>>> going to be a mess but the passenger compartment will probably survive ok.
>>> At a closing speed of 240 it probably won't.
>>>
>>> B2003
>>
>> Stop this closing speed bullshit. If you are in a car and hit a wall at
>> 30mph, you will suffer precisely the same injuries as if you hit an identical
>> car traveling at 30mph towards you. The only time it is different is if he's
>> a lorry. Then you get the effect of almost 60mph and he gets almost nothing.
>
> Err, we're not talking about identical cars colliding , we're talking about
> a bike hitting a car.
I was more getting at people who always use the closing speed argument, whatever the situation.
> And generally speaking if you hit a wall the wall
> doesn't do much. If you hit another vehicle head on then bits of that
> vehicle are probably going to detach from it and carry on moving. In this
> case the rider.
Oh I don't know, what about bricks?
--
I'm no. 2736 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 85th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 202nd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
One of the first things you learn on your honeymoon is,
when you're carrying your bride over the threshold, always go in sideways,
unless of course two broken ankles and a concussion turn you on.
Halmyre
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:49:23 +0100, <bolta...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Oct 2009 09:38:48 GMT
> > Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Quite.
> >>
> >> If a car and a motorbike hit head on, each doing 60mph perfectly legally,
> >> the car driver's unlikely to survive.
> >
> > Depends if the biker goes through the windscreen or does a somersault
> > over the top of the car. At a closing speed of 120 the front of the car is
> > going to be a mess but the passenger compartment will probably survive ok.
> > At a closing speed of 240 it probably won't.
> >
> > B2003
>
> Stop this closing speed bullshit. If you are in a car and hit a wall at 30mph, you will suffer precisely the same injuries as if you hit an identical car traveling at 30mph towards you. The only time it is different is if he's a lorry. Then you get the effect of almost 60mph and he gets almost nothing.
>
>
No, if two masses travelling at the same speed collide head-on, then it's the
same as one mass travelling at twice the speed coming to a dead halt.
--
Halmyre
The more you know the less the better.
Adrian
were saying:
> I was more getting at people who always use the closing speed argument,
> whatever the situation.
Here's a clue for you.
Drive into a parked car at 30mph.
Hit an oncoming car head-on at 30mph each.
Steve Firth
> "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> > I was more getting at people who always use the closing speed argument,
> > whatever the situation.
>
> Here's a clue for you.
Don't waste your breath. Phucker is incapable of getting one. He makes
Naked Gonad look clever by comparison.
Yitzhak McSchwartz
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:33:24 +0100, Yitzhak McSchwartz <rene...@whoknowswhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 05:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Halmyre
>> <flashgord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 Oct, 12:20, reneg...@whoknowswhere.com (Yitzhak McSchwartz)
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 1 Oct 2009 10:56:52 GMT, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >boltar2...@yahoo.co.uk gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>>> >saying:
>>>>
>>>> >>>Quite.
>>>>
>>>> >>>If a car and a motorbike hit head on, each doing 60mph perfectly
>>>> >>>legally, the car driver's unlikely to survive.
>>>>
>>>> >> Depends if the biker goes through the windscreen or does a somersault
>>>> >> over the top of the car. At a closing speed of 120 the front of the car
>>>> >> is going to be a mess but the passenger compartment will probably
>>>> >> survive ok. At a closing speed of 240 it probably won't.
>>>>
>>>> >As well as the c.75kg of nice squishy person, you seem to be forgetting
>>>> >the effect of c.200kg of foot-wide bike - and of course, the subsequent
>>>> >impact as the out-of-control car hits whatever else is about.
>>>>
>>>> Would it be too much to ask that you demonstrate this for us?
>>>
>>> Only if you are the "whatever else is about" part of the equation.
>>
>> Ah, another one of Adrienne's lovers.
>
>Adrian made a valid point. Did you not understand it?
Adrienne is a typical Little Englander arsehole. Do you not
understand that?
Yitzhak McSchwartz
wrote:
Filth and Adrienne licking each other's butts. Ain't that a sight for
sore eyes!
Adrian
much like they were saying:
> Adrienne is a typical Little Englander arsehole. Do you not understand
> that?
"Little Englander"?
G'wan, what on earth makes you use that particular term of abuse?
JNugent
> rene...@whoknowswhere.com (Yitzhak McSchwartz):
>> Adrienne is a typical Little Englander arsehole. Do you not understand
>> that?
> "Little Englander"?
> G'wan, what on earth makes you use that particular term of abuse?
The ones who use it don't even know what it means.
They just know that they like the sound of it.
Abusing someone on the basis of Welsh, Scottish or Irish ancestry is non-PC,
but having a go at the English (of whom, of course, I am not genetically one)
seems to have the iprimatur of Livingstone, Harman and co.
Steve Firth
It's most amusing given Pooch's racist tendencies that he chooses to
describe anyone as a "little Englander".
Peter Hucker
Wrong. Think of your initial and final speeds. If you hit an immovable object at 30mph, you change from 30mph to 0mph. If you hit an object similar to yourself, and both of you are going at 30mph, you will also change from 30mph to 0mph. If however you are a car and the other is a lorry, you change from 30mph to minus 30mph and he carries on as though nothing happened. This is the same as hitting the immovable object at 60mph.
--
I'm no. 2736 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 85th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 202nd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
/\
/ \
/\ / /\ \ /\
/ \ / / \ \ / \
/ /\ \ | | | | / /\ \
/ / \ \ ___| |____|_|___ / / \ \
/ / \/ ___| |__________/ / \ \
\ \ / /\ | | | | / /\ / /
\ \ / /\ \ | | | | / /\ \ / /
\ \/ / \ \| | | |/ / \ \/ /
\ \/ | || | | || | \ \/
/\ \ | || | | || | /\ \
/ /\ \ | || | | || | / /\ \
/ / \ \_|_|| |____|_|| |_/ / \ \
\ \ \_____| |_______| |__/ / /
\ \ | || | | || | / /
_| |____|_|| |____|_|| |____|_|_
/ | |_______| |_______| |_______ \
/ /| | | || | | || | | |\ \
| | \ \ | || | | || | / / | |
\ \ \ \ \ \/ / \ \/ / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \/ \ \/ / / / /
\ \ \ \ /\ \ /\ \ / / / /
\ \ \ \/ /\ \ / /\ \/ / / /
\ \ \/ / / / / / \/ / / /
\ \/ /\/ / / / / /\/ /
\ \/\/ / / / / /\ /
/\ \/ /\__/ /___/ / \/
/ /\ /\__/ /_____/
\ \_\/___/ /
\________/
Peter Hucker
The parked car will move out of the way. I was comparing a brick wall with a moving car.
--
I'm no. 2736 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 85th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 202nd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
One day a salesman stopped by the Jammer Jones farm, knocked, and Jammer's wife Frannie came to the door.
"Is your husband home, Ma'am?" he asked.
"Sure is. He's over to the cow barn."
"Well, I got something to show him, Ma'am. Will I have any difficulty finding him?"
"Shouldn't have any difficulties... He's the one with the beard and mustache."
Peter Hucker
State your reasoning or desist.
--
I'm no. 2736 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 85th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 202nd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
It said, "Insert disk #3," but only two will fit!
loopy livernose
"Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com> wrote in message news:op.u1aiii2k4buhsv@i7...
if both vehicles are travelling you might stop from 30, but the combined
hit to the metal your sitting in is 60mph.. therefore, the damage to the
two vehicles will be much more than a single car hitting something at 30..
Simples..
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Peter Hucker
If the other object is a stationary car, then the damage will be less as the other car takes half the energy. But if you hit a brick wall, your car takes all your energy, just as if you'd hit another car at 30.
--
I'm no. 2736 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 85th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 202nd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
Two poor kids were invited by a rich kid to a swimming party at his pool.
When they were changing into their swim trunks, one turned to the other and said:
"Did you notice the small dicks on the rich kids?"
The other answered: "Yeah! It's probably because they have toys to play with!"
Adrian
were saying:
>>> Wrong. Think of your initial and final speeds. If you hit an
>>> immovable object at 30mph, you change from 30mph to 0mph. If you hit
>>> an object similar to yourself, and both of you are going at 30mph, you
>>> will also change from 30mph to 0mph. If however you are a car and the
>>> other is a lorry, you change from 30mph to minus 30mph and he carries
>>> on as though nothing happened. This is the same as hitting the
>>> immovable object at 60mph.
>> if both vehicles are travelling you might stop from 30, but the
>> combined hit to the metal your sitting in is 60mph.. therefore, the
>> damage to the two vehicles will be much more than a single car hitting
>> something at 30..
>>
>> Simples..
> If the other object is a stationary car, then the damage will be less as
> the other car takes half the energy. But if you hit a brick wall, your
> car takes all your energy, just as if you'd hit another car at 30.
Because - of course - cars never go through brick walls, and walls never
fall down.
You could try sitting in a stationary car whilst somebody drives into it
at 30mph...?
Yitzhak McSchwartz
WE ask the questions, shithead.
Yitzhak McSchwartz
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>Adrian wrote:
>
>> rene...@whoknowswhere.com (Yitzhak McSchwartz):
>
>>> Adrienne is a typical Little Englander arsehole. Do you not understand
>>> that?
>
>> "Little Englander"?
>> G'wan, what on earth makes you use that particular term of abuse?
>
>The ones who use it don't even know what it means.
I know exactly what it means, thanks. This country is full of such
prats.
>They just know that they like the sound of it.
>
>Abusing someone on the basis of Welsh, Scottish or Irish ancestry is non-PC,
>but having a go at the English (of whom, of course, I am not genetically one)
>seems to have the iprimatur of Livingstone, Harman and co.
I am as far from them on the political spectrum as it's possible to
be.
Yitzhak McSchwartz
wrote:
>Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Shut up, grocerboi, you silly little wop. Go back to Africa.
Yitzhak McSchwartz
Adrian
much like they were saying:
>>>> Adrienne is a typical Little Englander arsehole. Do you not
>>>> understand that?
>>> "Little Englander"?
>>> G'wan, what on earth makes you use that particular term of abuse?
>>The ones who use it don't even know what it means.
> I know exactly what it means, thanks.
Would you care to enlighten me, because I don't have the faintest clue
what you're implying.
JNugent
> rene...@whoknowswhere.com (Yitzhak McSchwartz):
>>>>> Adrienne is a typical Little Englander arsehole. Do you not
>>>>> understand that?
>>>> "Little Englander"?
>>>> G'wan, what on earth makes you use that particular term of abuse?
>>> The ones who use it don't even know what it means.
>> I know exactly what it means, thanks.
> Would you care to enlighten me, because I don't have the faintest clue
> what you're implying.
Hmmm...
<draws up chair, looks round for popcorn>
Peter Hucker
A tree then. A car wrapped around a tree seldom shifts the tree by much.
> You could try sitting in a stationary car whilst somebody drives into it
> at 30mph...?
What's your point?
--
I'm no. 2736 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 85th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 202nd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
CONGRESS.SYS corrupted... Re-boot Washington D.C. (Y/N)?
Ed Chilada
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:26:04 +0100, Vicko Zoomba <vicko_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8283693.stm
>>
>> Fuck me! Even by my "freedom" standards of the being onthe open road
>> (any biker will tell you what the "open road" means), this guy was
>> hammering the tits off his bike. If youve ever travelled around the
>> south of Scotland then you'll know that it's a pleasant, scenic area
>> and you're never long on a straight, level road. To hit 166 mph is -
>> quite frankly -outstanding. To hit 166 and not actually hit anything
>> or anyone or be be hit by anything or anyone is even more out
>> standing!
>>
>> It's purely luck that this guy is alive.
>>
>> McKevvy
>
>Or skill.
How do you tell the difference between skill and luck?
When skill becomes kills?
Adrian
were saying:
>>> If the other object is a stationary car, then the damage will be less
>>> as the other car takes half the energy. But if you hit a brick wall,
>>> your car takes all your energy, just as if you'd hit another car at
>>> 30.
>> Because - of course - cars never go through brick walls, and walls
>> never fall down.
> A tree then. A car wrapped around a tree seldom shifts the tree by
> much.
Umm, what about a sack of anvils? An elephant? A black hole that suddenly
appears from nowhere?
>> You could try sitting in a stationary car whilst somebody drives into
>> it at 30mph...?
> What's your point?
Well, by your logic, the velocity of the vehicle you hit is irrelevant -
so it wouldn't hurt a bit.
Yitzhak McSchwartz
Little Englanders rarely do.
Peter Hucker
Correct. Until then he is innocent until proven guilty.
--
I'm no. 2736 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 85th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 202nd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
You can ship a 40 lb child UPS 2nd day air for around $60.00, but don't forget the air holes.
Peter Hucker
> "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>>>> If the other object is a stationary car, then the damage will be less
>>>> as the other car takes half the energy. But if you hit a brick wall,
>>>> your car takes all your energy, just as if you'd hit another car at
>>>> 30.
>
>>> Because - of course - cars never go through brick walls, and walls
>>> never fall down.
>
>> A tree then. A car wrapped around a tree seldom shifts the tree by
>> much.
>
> Umm, what about a sack of anvils? An elephant? A black hole that suddenly
> appears from nowhere?
The first two are equivalent to the tree. The black hole would accelerate you not decelerate you.
>>> You could try sitting in a stationary car whilst somebody drives into
>>> it at 30mph...?
>
>> What's your point?
>
> Well, by your logic, the velocity of the vehicle you hit is irrelevant -
> so it wouldn't hurt a bit.
My only point was a vehicle with the same mass as you going at the opposite velocity to you will be precisely the same as a stationary immovable object.
--
I'm no. 2736 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 85th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 202nd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
A guy was playing golf at some fancy club, and just as he was
about to tee off , a cart drives up. These two guys get out and
hand him a note saying, "We are deaf, may we play
through?"
The guy says, "Hell no!", and tees off anyway.
Later on (after six shots), he is on the green about to putt when
a ball comes from out of nowhere and misses his head by an
inch. "What the @#$%^&*?", he yells.
The deaf guys drive up and hand him a note. On the note is
written, "FORE".
Ed Chilada
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:35:32 +0100, Ed Chilada <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:41:53 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:26:04 +0100, Vicko Zoomba <vicko_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8283693.stm
>>>>
>>>> Fuck me! Even by my "freedom" standards of the being onthe open road
>>>> (any biker will tell you what the "open road" means), this guy was
>>>> hammering the tits off his bike. If youve ever travelled around the
>>>> south of Scotland then you'll know that it's a pleasant, scenic area
>>>> and you're never long on a straight, level road. To hit 166 mph is -
>>>> quite frankly -outstanding. To hit 166 and not actually hit anything
>>>> or anyone or be be hit by anything or anyone is even more out
>>>> standing!
>>>>
>>>> It's purely luck that this guy is alive.
>>>>
>>>> McKevvy
>>>
>>> Or skill.
>>
>> How do you tell the difference between skill and luck?
>>
>> When skill becomes kills?
>
>Correct. Until then he is innocent until proven guilty.
I'd rather he was prevented from killing someone, rather than simply
punished when he does.
Peter Hucker
You're making an invalid assumption about someone before they've done it. I believe that's commonly referred to as a witch hunt.
--
I'm no. 2736 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 85th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 202nd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
A man takes the day off work and decides to go out golfing. He is on the second hole when he notices a frog sitting next to the green. He thinks nothing of it and is about to shoot when he hears, "Ribbit, 9 Iron" The man looks around and doesn't see anyone. "Ribbit, 9 Iron." He looks at the frog and decides to prove the frog wrong, puts his other club away, and grabs a 9 iron. Boom! He hits it 10 inches from the cup. He is shocked.
He says to the frog, "Wow that's amazing. You must be a lucky frog, eh?" The frog reply's "Ribbit, Lucky frog."
The man decides to take the frog with him to the next hole. "What do you think frog?" the man asks. "Ribbit, 3 wood." The guy takes out a 3 wood and Boom! Hole in one. The man is befuddled and doesn't know what to say. By the end of the day, the man golfed the best game of golf in his life and asks the frog,"OK where to next?"
The frog replies, "Ribbit. Las Vegas." They go to "Las Vegas and the guy says, "OK frog, now what?" The frog says, "Ribbit, Roulette." Upon approaching the roulette table, the man asks, " What do you think I should bet?" The frog replies, "Ribbit, $3000, black 6." Now, this is a million-to-one shot to win, but after the golf game, the man figures what the heck. Boom! Tons of cash comes sliding back across them table.
The man takes his winnings and buys the best room in the hotel. He sits the frog down and says, "Frog, I don't know how to repay you. You've won me all this money and I am forever grateful." The frog replies, "Ribbit, Kiss Me."
He figures why not, since after all the frog did for him he deserves it. With a kiss, the frog turns into a gorgeous 15-year-old girl.
"And that, your honour, is how the girl ended up in my room."
Ed Chilada
wrote:
It's called prevention. I'd rather he was prevented from killing
someone, rather than simply punished when he does.
Do you disagree?
Peter Hucker
Yes.
--
I'm no. 2623 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 78th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 203rd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
One workman asks another, "How long have you been working here?"
The other one replies, "Since they threatened to fire me."
Ed Chilada
wrote:
You should probably hope that you're never presented with a scenario
that would sharply change your mind. Consider how much the death of a
family member wouldn't even remotely be compensated by the
incarceration of someone you didn't even know existed in the first
place.
Peter Hucker
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:47:37 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:06:47 +0100, Ed Chilada <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:44:33 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:40:52 +0100, Ed Chilada <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:07:28 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:35:32 +0100, Ed Chilada <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:41:53 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
<snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you tell the difference between skill and luck?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When skill becomes kills?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct. Until then he is innocent until proven guilty.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather he was prevented from killing someone, rather than simply
>>>>> punished when he does.
>>>>
>>>> You're making an invalid assumption about someone before they've done it. I believe that's commonly referred to as a witch hunt.
>>>
>>> It's called prevention. I'd rather he was prevented from killing
>>> someone, rather than simply punished when he does.
>>> Do you disagree?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> You should probably hope that you're never presented with a scenario
> that would sharply change your mind. Consider how much the death of a
> family member wouldn't even remotely be compensated by the
> incarceration of someone you didn't even know existed in the first
> place.
That would not change my mind. Why would I want people to be punished who have never had anything to do with injuring or killing someone?
--
I'm no. 2623 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 78th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 203rd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
You've heard of "Virgin Wool from New Zealand?"
It's a myth.
Ed Chilada
wrote:
They're punished for endangering lives. Let's say there's an arsonist
on the loose who keeps setting fire to old people's homes. However, in
all cases so far, the fire has been spotted early and nobody was hurt.
Do you try and prevent him from repeating this behaviour, or do you
wait until he kills someone and then punish him retrospectively for
doing so?
Peter Hucker
He is TRYING to kill someone.
--
I'm no. 2623 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 78th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 203rd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
TV takes over your life when you could be doing useful things like smoking crack and stealing car stereos.
Ed Chilada
wrote:
Not necessarily - maybe he just gets a cheap thrill out of fires the
same way you like speeding - and in both cases doesn't care what
danger other people are put in. So - do you wait until he kills people
and then punish him, or do you try and prevent his dangerous behaviour
before anyone comes to harm?
Peter Hucker
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:59:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:10:18 -0000, Ed Chilada <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:41:26 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:16:24 -0000, Ed Chilada <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:47:37 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:06:47 +0100, Ed Chilada <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:44:33 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
<snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's called prevention. I'd rather he was prevented from killing
>>>>>>> someone, rather than simply punished when he does.
>>>>>>> Do you disagree?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> You should probably hope that you're never presented with a scenario
>>>>> that would sharply change your mind. Consider how much the death of a
>>>>> family member wouldn't even remotely be compensated by the
>>>>> incarceration of someone you didn't even know existed in the first
>>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> That would not change my mind. Why would I want people to be punished who have never had anything to do with injuring or killing someone?
>>>
>>> They're punished for endangering lives. Let's say there's an arsonist
>>> on the loose who keeps setting fire to old people's homes. However, in
>>> all cases so far, the fire has been spotted early and nobody was hurt.
>>> Do you try and prevent him from repeating this behaviour, or do you
>>> wait until he kills someone and then punish him retrospectively for
>>> doing so?
>>
>> He is TRYING to kill someone.
>
> Not necessarily - maybe he just gets a cheap thrill out of fires the
> same way you like speeding - and in both cases doesn't care what
> danger other people are put in. So - do you wait until he kills people
> and then punish him, or do you try and prevent his dangerous behaviour
> before anyone comes to harm?
Setting fire to someone's house is obviously going to hurt someone. Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.
--
I'm no. 2623 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 78th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 203rd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
In the 60's people took acid to make the world weird.
Now the world is weird, people take prozac to make it normal.
Ed Chilada
wrote:
Well when I said old people's homes, I kinda meant those old people's
homes rather than the homes of old people, if you see what I mean.
Let's say that he just keeps letting off fireworks in a crowded play
park. He's doing no harm, right? He's never hit anyone. So do you
intervene to prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he
disfigures a child and then punish him?
> Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.
Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
makes sense?
Peter Hucker
The children shouldn't be standing so close.
>> Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.
>
> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>
>
> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
> makes sense?
I can't think of one.
--
I'm no. 2623 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 78th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 203rd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....
What is the first thing a blonde learns when she takes driving lessons?
You can also sit upright in a car.
Ed Chilada
wrote:
They aren't*. So stop dodging the question. So do you intervene to
prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child
and then punish him?
*Or if you do believe they're too close, do you think someone should
intervene and get them to move away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>> Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.
>>
>> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>>
>>
>> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
>> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
>> makes sense?
>
>I can't think of one.
I'm not surprised, you do appear a little erm, hard-of-thinking. Try
and think a little more. Consider this recent sad tale perhaps:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm
Peter Hucker
Life's no fun without danger.
> *Or if you do believe they're too close, do you think someone should
> intervene and get them to move away, or punish them when they get hit?
Experience is the best form of education.
>>>> Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.
>>>
>>> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>>>
>>> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
>>> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
>>> makes sense?
>>
>> I can't think of one.
>
> I'm not surprised, you do appear a little erm, hard-of-thinking. Try
> and think a little more. Consider this recent sad tale perhaps:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm
If a boy mauls a dog to death, is he put down?
--
I'm 2623rd worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Join here: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm 78th in protein research systems alpha testing.
And 118th in extreme weather event research.
And 203rd in 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Advice for office managers:
If you keep the sexual harassment complaint forms in the bottom drawer, then when a woman gets one out you'll get a great view of her arse.
Ed Chilada
wrote:
Make your own danger if you wish, don't inflict it on others. Anyway,
you're dodging the question again. So do you intervene to prevent the
clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child and then
punish him?
>> *Or if you do believe they're too close, do you think someone should
>> intervene and get them to move away, or punish them when they get hit?
>
>Experience is the best form of education.
Stupid people often can't be told, sure. But smart people learn from
other people's mistakes, especially the mistakes that result in injury
or death.
So then, do you think someone should intervene and get them to move
away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>>>> Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>>>>
>>>> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
>>>> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
>>>> makes sense?
>>>
>>> I can't think of one.
>>
>> I'm not surprised, you do appear a little erm, hard-of-thinking. Try
>> and think a little more. Consider this recent sad tale perhaps:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm
>
>If a boy mauls a dog to death, is he put down?
No.
So then, have you yet managed to think of a scenario where prevention
rather than retrospective punishment makes sense? How might you think
that should apply to the story I referred to?
Peter Hucker
You're expecting me to put a stranger's life above my own. How absurd.
> Anyway,
> you're dodging the question again. So do you intervene to prevent the
> clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child and then
> punish him?
I would only intervene in a certainty, not a slight danger.
>>> *Or if you do believe they're too close, do you think someone should
>>> intervene and get them to move away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>
>> Experience is the best form of education.
>
> Stupid people often can't be told, sure. But smart people learn from
> other people's mistakes, especially the mistakes that result in injury
> or death.
>
> So then, do you think someone should intervene and get them to move
> away, or punish them when they get hit?
Think how many would learn from the others' mistake when they're too close!
>>>>>> Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
>>>>> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
>>>>> makes sense?
>>>>
>>>> I can't think of one.
>>>
>>> I'm not surprised, you do appear a little erm, hard-of-thinking. Try
>>> and think a little more. Consider this recent sad tale perhaps:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm
>>
>> If a boy mauls a dog to death, is he put down?
>
> No.
Why not?
> So then, have you yet managed to think of a scenario where prevention
> rather than retrospective punishment makes sense? How might you think
> that should apply to the story I referred to?
Some people might keep those kind of dogs safely locked up, why prevent them too?
--
I'm 2615th worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Join here: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm 81st in protein research systems alpha testing.
And 118th in extreme weather event research.
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
Federal Expresso: When you absolutely, positively have to stay up all night.
Ed Chilada
wrote:
No I'm not. In what way do you think I am doing so?
> How absurd.
Your suggestion is, certainly.
>> Anyway,
>> you're dodging the question again. So do you intervene to prevent the
>> clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child and then
>> punish him?
>
>I would only intervene in a certainty, not a slight danger.
How do you ascertain that something is a certainty before it happens?
And of course this will come down to what you consider a slight
danger. Naivety and inexperience will lead you to not properly judging
the level of danger. Pretty much everyone that has a fault crash
didn't realise the danger they were in/causing. Of course, they don't
realise that before the crash, only afterwards, usually with great
regret.
>>>> *Or if you do believe they're too close, do you think someone should
>>>> intervene and get them to move away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>>
>>> Experience is the best form of education.
>>
>> Stupid people often can't be told, sure. But smart people learn from
>> other people's mistakes, especially the mistakes that result in injury
>> or death.
>>
>> So then, do you think someone should intervene and get them to move
>> away, or punish them when they get hit?
>
>Think how many would learn from the others' mistake when they're too close!
This is a public park, the kids aren't too close to the fireworks, the
bloke is too close to them. So I'll ask once again:
Do you think someone should intervene and get them to move away, or
punish them when they get hit?
>>>>>>> Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
>>>>>> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
>>>>>> makes sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't think of one.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not surprised, you do appear a little erm, hard-of-thinking. Try
>>>> and think a little more. Consider this recent sad tale perhaps:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm
>>>
>>> If a boy mauls a dog to death, is he put down?
>>
>> No.
>
>Why not?
<facepalm>
Do you *really* need help answering these sorts of questions?
>> So then, have you yet managed to think of a scenario where prevention
>> rather than retrospective punishment makes sense? How might you think
>> that should apply to the story I referred to?
>
>Some people might keep those kind of dogs safely locked up, why prevent them too?
Do you honestly think that the people in this story didn't think their
dog was safely locked up? Do you think they foresaw that this might
happen and chose to ignore it? Do you think the best outcome from this
scenario is that:
(a) The kid is killed and the uncle is subsequently punished for
manslaughter.
(b) The uncle is fined for keeping a dangerous animal and has it taken
away. The kid is fine and unharmed.
Have you yet managed to think of a scenario where prevention rather
Peter Hucker
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:04:56 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:50:41 -0000, Ed Chilada <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:36:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:39:21 -0000, Ed Chilada <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:39:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:33:09 -0000, Ed Chilada <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well when I said old people's homes, I kinda meant those old people's
>>>>>>> homes rather than the homes of old people, if you see what I mean.
>>>>>>> Let's say that he just keeps letting off fireworks in a crowded play
>>>>>>> park. He's doing no harm, right? He's never hit anyone. So do you
>>>>>>> intervene to prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he
>>>>>>> disfigures a child and then punish him?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The children shouldn't be standing so close.
>>>>>
>>>>> They aren't*. So stop dodging the question. So do you intervene to
>>>>> prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child
>>>>> and then punish him?
>>>>
>>>> Life's no fun without danger.
>>>
>>> Make your own danger if you wish, don't inflict it on others.
>>
>> You're expecting me to put a stranger's life above my own.
>
> No I'm not. In what way do you think I am doing so?
Because you told me to endanger myself rather than others.
>>> Anyway,
>>> you're dodging the question again. So do you intervene to prevent the
>>> clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child and then
>>> punish him?
>>
>> I would only intervene in a certainty, not a slight danger.
>
> How do you ascertain that something is a certainty before it happens?
> And of course this will come down to what you consider a slight
> danger. Naivety and inexperience will lead you to not properly judging
> the level of danger. Pretty much everyone that has a fault crash
> didn't realise the danger they were in/causing. Of course, they don't
> realise that before the crash, only afterwards, usually with great
> regret.
You have to draw a line somewhere. Simply driving a car is risky.
>>>>> *Or if you do believe they're too close, do you think someone should
>>>>> intervene and get them to move away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>>>
>>>> Experience is the best form of education.
>>>
>>> Stupid people often can't be told, sure. But smart people learn from
>>> other people's mistakes, especially the mistakes that result in injury
>>> or death.
>>>
>>> So then, do you think someone should intervene and get them to move
>>> away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>
>> Think how many would learn from the others' mistake when they're too close!
>
> This is a public park, the kids aren't too close to the fireworks, the
> bloke is too close to them. So I'll ask once again:
>
> Do you think someone should intervene and get them to move away, or
> punish them when they get hit?
If the kids aren't too close to the fireworks, what's the problem?
>>>>>>> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
>>>>>>> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
>>>>>>> makes sense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't think of one.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not surprised, you do appear a little erm, hard-of-thinking. Try
>>>>> and think a little more. Consider this recent sad tale perhaps:
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm
>>>>
>>>> If a boy mauls a dog to death, is he put down?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> <facepalm>
>
> Do you *really* need help answering these sorts of questions?
Yes. You seem to be treating a dog as unimportant.
>>> So then, have you yet managed to think of a scenario where prevention
>>> rather than retrospective punishment makes sense? How might you think
>>> that should apply to the story I referred to?
>>
>> Some people might keep those kind of dogs safely locked up, why prevent them too?
>
> Do you honestly think that the people in this story didn't think their
> dog was safely locked up?
In most cases where attacks occur, people have not.
> Do you think they foresaw that this might
> happen and chose to ignore it? Do you think the best outcome from this
> scenario is that:
>
> (a) The kid is killed and the uncle is subsequently punished for
> manslaughter.
>
> (b) The uncle is fined for keeping a dangerous animal and has it taken
> away. The kid is fine and unharmed.
(c) The uncle is warned of the dangers.
--
I'm 2615th worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Join here: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm 81st in protein research systems alpha testing.
And 118th in extreme weather event research.
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.petersphotos.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
A conscience just costs you money.
Ed Chilada
wrote:
I told you not to endanger others. Whether you choose to endanger
yourself is entirely up to you.
>>>> Anyway,
>>>> you're dodging the question again. So do you intervene to prevent the
>>>> clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child and then
>>>> punish him?
>>>
>>> I would only intervene in a certainty, not a slight danger.
>>
>> How do you ascertain that something is a certainty before it happens?
>> And of course this will come down to what you consider a slight
>> danger. Naivety and inexperience will lead you to not properly judging
>> the level of danger. Pretty much everyone that has a fault crash
>> didn't realise the danger they were in/causing. Of course, they don't
>> realise that before the crash, only afterwards, usually with great
>> regret.
>
>You have to draw a line somewhere. Simply driving a car is risky.
Driving a car in a sensible, mature and patient manner isn't actually
that risky. People do it for decades without any major incident.
However, some idiot boy racers kill themselves after mere months of
having a driving licence. They make it risky for themselves, but no
doubt that's in the pursuit of "fun".
>>>>>> *Or if you do believe they're too close, do you think someone should
>>>>>> intervene and get them to move away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Experience is the best form of education.
>>>>
>>>> Stupid people often can't be told, sure. But smart people learn from
>>>> other people's mistakes, especially the mistakes that result in injury
>>>> or death.
>>>>
>>>> So then, do you think someone should intervene and get them to move
>>>> away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>>
>>> Think how many would learn from the others' mistake when they're too close!
>>
>> This is a public park, the kids aren't too close to the fireworks, the
>> bloke is too close to them. So I'll ask once again:
>>
>> Do you think someone should intervene and get them to move away, or
>> punish them when they get hit?
>
>If the kids aren't too close to the fireworks, what's the problem?
Oh how you struggle to avoid the question!
This is a public park, the kids aren't too close to the fireworks as
such, the bloke is too close to them and is causing them a danger.
So I'll ask once again:
Do you think someone should intervene and get them to move away, or
punish them when they get hit?
>>>>>>>> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
>>>>>>>> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
>>>>>>>> makes sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't think of one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not surprised, you do appear a little erm, hard-of-thinking. Try
>>>>>> and think a little more. Consider this recent sad tale perhaps:
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> If a boy mauls a dog to death, is he put down?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> <facepalm>
>>
>> Do you *really* need help answering these sorts of questions?
>
>Yes. You seem to be treating a dog as unimportant.
Compared to a human life, it is.
>>>> So then, have you yet managed to think of a scenario where prevention
>>>> rather than retrospective punishment makes sense? How might you think
>>>> that should apply to the story I referred to?
>>>
>>> Some people might keep those kind of dogs safely locked up, why prevent them too?
>>
>> Do you honestly think that the people in this story didn't think their
>> dog was safely locked up?
>
>In most cases where attacks occur, people have not.
Indeed they have not, but they *think* they have, because there's a
breed of people who know best, they're always right. No-one needs to
tell them how to secure their dog or which dogs are just too dangerous
to have around children. No-one needs to tell them how to climb a
ladder..
>> Do you think they foresaw that this might
>> happen and chose to ignore it? Do you think the best outcome from this
>> scenario is that:
>>
>> (a) The kid is killed and the uncle is subsequently punished for
>> manslaughter.
>>
>> (b) The uncle is fined for keeping a dangerous animal and has it taken
>> away. The kid is fine and unharmed.
>
>(c) The uncle is warned of the dangers.
The uncle is probably already aware of the dangers, or at least
believes he is. The uncle would probably react to subsequent warnings
in the same way you would. So let's say that (c) has occurred, it
still brings us back round to the same two options. Which do you think
is the best outcome?
Extreme Rambler
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:40:01 -0000, Ed Chilada <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fucking hell, hes still going on with himself about how cool it is to
wreck other peoples lives by driving like a lunatic.
What really pisses me off is when these lunatic drivers cause
accidents they normally kill or maim someone else, and they walk away
uninjured getting just a tiny fine.
If you've not yet killed anyone Hucker, thats just luck, and its only
a matter of time with your horrifying attitude to road safety.
Ed, why you bother? Can't you see theres something wrong with him?
Ed Chilada
<extreme...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>Fucking hell, hes still going on with himself about how cool it is to
>wreck other peoples lives by driving like a lunatic.
>What really pisses me off is when these lunatic drivers cause
>accidents they normally kill or maim someone else, and they walk away
>uninjured getting just a tiny fine.
>If you've not yet killed anyone Hucker, thats just luck, and its only
>a matter of time with your horrifying attitude to road safety.
>Ed, why you bother? Can't you see theres something wrong with him?
Yes, I think you're right. I was hoping that by discussing the issues
I could help to make a penny drop, but whenever he's faced with
answering what's usually a rhetorical question which would make him
acknowledge something, he either answers in a stupid way or avoids
answering the question entirely in one way or another. He knows when
he's backed into a corner, but rather than having the maturity,
humility and class to ever acknowledge it, he'd rather post some
drivel and make a further cretin of himself. A strange personality
trait that is, for sure.
If he really drives in the way he says then he deserves to Darwin
himself - but like you say, the only downside to that is if he kills
or injures other people in doing so.
Extreme Rambler
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:01:07 -0800 (PST), Extreme Rambler
>
Hes not as daft as he appears. He knows how to be nasty and sneaky and
spiteful.
Hes just a billy no mates coming on here as no one else will talk to
the prick.
Extreme Rambler
>
Well he seems to have buggered off anyway. Good ridance. Perhaps hes
gone off to have a word with himself and get his act together. Perhaps
he understands now, that no one agrees with anything he says as he
talks BOLLOCKS. Though he probably still thinks hes right about
everything and the rest of the world is wrong, no matter how many
people tell him he talks complete SHITE.