BB2 - Shannon has killed a grandfather due to reckless driving
aalu...@webtv.net
accident tat killed a grandfather. She had been driving at 85 miles per
hour and was charged with reckless driving causing death. She had to go
to driving defense school and pay 1000 dollars - no alcohol or drugs
involved.
Sorry but if one drives 85 mph and a person dies from that she should
have lost her license for at least a year. Driving that fast is
inexcusable and control is nearly down to 0.
What is it about BB that brings in people that were involved with people
dying violently? George now Shannon.
David Johnston
Whenever you bring that many people together the odds are reasonable
that one of them was involved in a fatal accident.
>
Dave
>
> According to The Globe the "chaste" Shannon was involved in 1998 a car
> accident tat killed a grandfather. She had been driving at 85 miles per
> hour and was charged with reckless driving causing death. She had to go
> to driving defense school and pay 1000 dollars - no alcohol or drugs
> involved.
>
> Sorry but if one drives 85 mph and a person dies from that she should
> have lost her license for at least a year. Driving that fast is
> inexcusable and control is nearly down to 0.
Did the article mention what kind of road she was driving on at the
time? Did it mention any other actual details one can check out before
going off half-cocked? Which 'Globe' reported it, the respectable
newspaper from Boston or the Enquirer style tabloid rag from England?
Dave (routinely drives 90-95 on the highway and has no problem
controlling an automobile)
TC3
so she was at fault regardless... I would like to
see the link or article myself........I am sure
it will surface.
--
TC3
Twc6
the toilet, and let him brush his teeth with it. Then she broke it!
Then she and Will will spend hours making fun of everyone else in the house,
saying they are stupid, and then complain about people being "negative" in the
house. Meanwhile, everything deliberately mean that has happened has been
Shannon. And of course she has had zero guilt about cheating on her boyfriend
on national television. Can't wait until she gets out of the house and realizes
she is not the popular, attractive crowd-pleaser she thinks she is.
Twc6
>What is it about BB that brings in people that were involved with people
>dying violently? George now Shannon.
Whenever you bring that many people together the odds are reasonable
that one of them was involved in a fatal accident.
>>
That's two people out of 22 that were responsible for the death of another
person - that's a lot! Almost 10%. I don't think 10% of the general population
has been responsible for somone dying.
Cat
:>
:> According to The Globe the "chaste" Shannon was involved in 1998 a car
:> accident tat killed a grandfather. She had been driving at 85 miles per
:> hour and was charged with reckless driving causing death. She had to go
:> to driving defense school and pay 1000 dollars - no alcohol or drugs
:> involved.
:>
:> Sorry but if one drives 85 mph and a person dies from that she should
:> have lost her license for at least a year. Driving that fast is
:> inexcusable and control is nearly down to 0.
Agreed. Totally
:Did the article mention what kind of road she was driving on at the
:time?
Interstate
:Did it mention any other actual details one can check out before
:going off half-cocked? Which 'Globe' reported it, the respectable
:newspaper from Boston or the Enquirer style tabloid rag from England?
http://www.elitestv.com/bbusa.html
It has been backed up by an old newspaper article from the Colorodo
Springs area. (We do research before we publish :)
--
Cat
http://www.elitestv.com
~~~ for the best in reality ~~~
Mike Maxfield
>
>It has been backed up by an old newspaper article from the Colorodo
>Springs area. (We do research before we publish :)
Keep in mind that the "fine" was a mere $1000 with no additional punitive
or damages mentioned, nor any civil lawsuit (nor mention of one) from the
widow, not even any misdomeaner chargers filed... looks like the whole
thing was considered an infraction... Shit, isnt' DUI without an accident
in TX more costly than this case?
What doesn't surprise me though is that Shannon was driving an SUV... If I
had to guess the type of vehicle she drove, I would have figured as much
just from her holier than thou demeanor.
--
tw...@io.com
Cat
:>
:>It has been backed up by an old newspaper article from the Colorodo
:>Springs area. (We do research before we publish :)
tw...@bermuda.io.com (Mike Maxfield) wrote:
:Keep in mind that the "fine" was a mere $1000 with no additional punitive
:or damages mentioned, nor any civil lawsuit (nor mention of one) from the
:widow, not even any misdomeaner chargers filed... looks like the whole
:thing was considered an infraction... Shit, isnt' DUI without an accident
:in TX more costly than this case?
Dunno! From TN, me.
:What doesn't surprise me though is that Shannon was driving an SUV... If I
:had to guess the type of vehicle she drove, I would have figured as much
:just from her holier than thou demeanor.
She sent a measly check. Blew ME away that she never apologised! Well,
on second thoughts.. NOT.
Kathy Frederick
Here ya go......................
Copyright 1998 Denver Publishing Company
The Denver Rocky Mountain News(Denver, Co.)
September 19, 1998, Saturday,
SECTION: LOCAL; Ed. F; Pg. 6A
LENGTH: 93 words
HEADLINE: I-25 COLLISION KILLS 1 NEAR SPRINGS
BYLINE: News staff and wire reports
A Las Animas man was killed Friday morning in a head-on collision on
Interstate 25 near the Air Force Academy. Jack LaSalle, 66, was pronounced
dead at the scene. The Colorado State Patrol said Shannon Dragoo, 26, of Fort
Lauderdale, Fla., was southbound when she bumped another vehicle while
changing lanes and lost control. Her car rolled across the median and collided
with LaSalle's northbound car.
Dragoo was flown to Penrose Hospital in Colorado Springs, where she was in
serious but stable condition.
LOAD-DATE: September 22, 1998
Copyright © 2001, LEXIS-NEXIS®, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
Dave
>
> :aalu...@webtv.net wrote:
> :>
> :> According to The Globe the "chaste" Shannon was involved in 1998 a car
> :> accident tat killed a grandfather. She had been driving at 85 miles per
> :> hour and was charged with reckless driving causing death. She had to go
> :> to driving defense school and pay 1000 dollars - no alcohol or drugs
> :> involved.
> :>
> :> Sorry but if one drives 85 mph and a person dies from that she should
> :> have lost her license for at least a year. Driving that fast is
> :> inexcusable and control is nearly down to 0.
>
> Agreed. Totally
For the elderly and for children, perhaps, but to say someone cannot
control a car travelling 85 mph is ludicrous. I do it every day, twice,
forty miles at a time.
>
> :Did the article mention what kind of road she was driving on at the
> :time?
> Interstate
Anyone who thinks driving 85 on an Interstate is inexcusable had better
stick to the side roads. Interstates are not for the timid. My mom
will go miles out of her way to avoid highway driving. "They're
animals!" she says.
>
> :Did it mention any other actual details one can check out before
> :going off half-cocked? Which 'Globe' reported it, the respectable
> :newspaper from Boston or the Enquirer style tabloid rag from England?
> http://www.elitestv.com/bbusa.html
>
> It has been backed up by an old newspaper article from the Colorodo
> Springs area. (We do research before we publish :)
"A killer in the house!"?
"Scheming sexpot... ...has blood on her hands!"?
"Zooming along", "roared by him"
Sounds sensationalistic to the point of being fictitious.
Dave (I was right, it is a trash rag.)
Dave
>
> Cat <digi...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >It has been backed up by an old newspaper article from the Colorodo
> >Springs area. (We do research before we publish :)
>
> Keep in mind that the "fine" was a mere $1000 with no additional punitive
> or damages mentioned, nor any civil lawsuit (nor mention of one) from the
> widow, not even any misdomeaner chargers filed... looks like the whole
> thing was considered an infraction... Shit, isnt' DUI without an accident
> in TX more costly than this case?
Not having any information about the incident other than the "eye
witness" account of someone who was involved, all we can do is look to
the penalties as a sign of the seriousness of the infraction. It didn't
look very serious. More of an unfortunate accident than anything else.
So she was convicted of "Careless driving causing death" Anyone
familiar with Texas state law?
Dave (is that just a misdemeanor?)
David Levy
> For the elderly and for children, perhaps, but to say
> someone cannot control a car travelling 85 mph is
> ludicrous. I do it every day, twice, forty miles at a time.
1. Where are you doing this driving?
2. What is the posted speed limit?
David Levy
Dwayne Allen Day
: For the elderly and for children, perhaps, but to say someone cannot
: control a car travelling 85 mph is ludicrous. I do it every day, twice,
: forty miles at a time.
It tends to be a regional thing too. Outside of Washington DC, say down
near Manassass where the posted speed limit is 65, most traffic will move
around 70-75, rarely higher than that. But I've been on some interstates
(I think Illinois rings a bell) where the traffic was ALL moving at
80. And certainly they tolerate higher speeds in the more open states,
like Colorado.
So while she was cited for going 85, it could be that most of the traffic
there was already moving at 75 to 80.
D
Dave
>
> Dave wrote:
>
> > For the elderly and for children, perhaps, but to say
> > someone cannot control a car travelling 85 mph is
> > ludicrous. I do it every day, twice, forty miles at a time.
>
> 1. Where are you doing this driving?
Florida State Turnpike
>
> 2. What is the posted speed limit?
>
55 in construction zones, 70-75 everywhere else. But I've found that
the easiest way to cause problems for other drivers is to stick to the
limit when the surrounding traffic wants to go faster. I don't drive 90
to pass people, I drive 90 to stay behind the guy in front of me.
I just take exception with the blanket statement "Driving that fast [85]
is inexcusable and control is nearly down to 0."
It may indicate one person's experience, but it's absolutely false
AFAIC.
Dave (and I wear my seat belt, I'm not *stupid*)
David Levy
> > What is the posted speed limit?
> 55 in construction zones, 70-75 everywhere else.
The majority of my long-distance driving is on the Garden State
Parkway. The speed limit is 65 MPH in most parts, and that's the
maximum speed at which I'm willing to drive. (This isn't a criticism
of people who drive at faster speeds; I'd simply be uncomfortable
doing so myself.)
> But I've found that the easiest way to cause problems
> for other drivers is to stick to the limit when the surrounding
> traffic wants to go faster. I don't drive 90 to pass people, I
> drive 90 to stay behind the guy in front of me.
I don't allow the impatience of other drivers to influence my
behavior. I remain in the right-hand lane. If the person behind me
insists upon speeding, they're welcome to pass me. (Many do.)
> I just take exception with the blanket statement "Driving that
> fast [85] is inexcusable and control is nearly down to 0."
Yes, that is an absurd generalization. Many people are capable of
maintaining control at such a speed, but quite a few aren't; the line
must be drawn somewhere, and it's best to err on the side of caution.
For the record, my mother (who was driving the speed limit) was
severely injured in a head-on collision with a driver who lost control
of her vehicle while traveling at approximately 85-90 miles per hour.
She was fortunate to survive. She sustained a concussion, a severed
optical nerve, a broken hip, a broken arm, a broken leg and numerous
bruises and contusions. Her right foot was horribly mangled, and
almost needed to be amputated. More than 2 ½ years later, she walks
with a major limp. The doctors say that eventual arthritis in her hip
is unavoidable, and she may be forced to use a wheelchair.
Among other injuries, the offending driver sustained permanent brain
damage, and one of her passengers (who happened to be my friend's
sister) was killed. The other escaped with a broken jaw and various
other broken bones.
> Dave (and I wear my seat belt, I'm not *stupid*)
Thank goodness for governmental intervention. Had she not been forced
to, my mother probably wouldn't have begun wearing her seat belt. (a
"hassle" that has since become automatic) According to the
paramedics, what she once thought of as "unfair intrusion" ended up
saving her life.
It could be argued that adults should have the right to place their
own lives in jeopardy, but I'm certain that seat belts have prevented
the deaths of numerous children who were merely following their
parents' legally mandated example.
David Levy
Emanuel Brown
wrote:
Wow, I'm amazed that people think this is dangerous or unusual. I'm
in Chicago and on the interstates running through going less than 80
could be considered a death wish. On average, people are driving
around 15 mph over the posted limit everywhere I've ever been in the
US, because in most places the penalties don't escalate until then.
Second point - I doubt the woman hit the guy while coincidentally
being tracked by a radar gun for a ticket. Some witness decided "she
looked to be doin' 85" and that was that. The woman crossed the
centerline and hit someone head on with an SUV at highway speeds- Mr.
LaSalle didn't stand much of a chance at *any* speed with those
factors, even legal speed limits.
Emanuel
"Everybody wants a normal life and a cool car;
most people settle for the car." Chris Titus
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1966-rolls.jpg
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1983-porsche.jpg
Dave
>
> Dave wrote:
>
> > > What is the posted speed limit?
>
> > 55 in construction zones, 70-75 everywhere else.
>
> The majority of my long-distance driving is on the Garden State
> Parkway. The speed limit is 65 MPH in most parts, and that's the
> maximum speed at which I'm willing to drive. (This isn't a criticism
> of people who drive at faster speeds; I'd simply be uncomfortable
> doing so myself.)
I don't have a problem with that as long as you stick to the slow lanes
and don't impede the progress of those who choose to drive faster.
Remember, speed limits, at least initially, had nothing at all to do
with safety, it was just a plan to improve the nation's gas mileage.
>
> > But I've found that the easiest way to cause problems
> > for other drivers is to stick to the limit when the surrounding
> > traffic wants to go faster. I don't drive 90 to pass people, I
> > drive 90 to stay behind the guy in front of me.
>
> I don't allow the impatience of other drivers to influence my
> behavior. I remain in the right-hand lane. If the person behind me
> insists upon speeding, they're welcome to pass me. (Many do.)
Excellent. This is the way it should be done. But too many people are
oblivious to road courtesy.
>
> > I just take exception with the blanket statement "Driving that
> > fast [85] is inexcusable and control is nearly down to 0."
>
> Yes, that is an absurd generalization. Many people are capable of
> maintaining control at such a speed, but quite a few aren't; the line
> must be drawn somewhere, and it's best to err on the side of caution.
I love you man! People who don't know their limits and drive faster
(and follow closer) than their reaction time should allow (or those who
feel 'bullied' into driving faster) are often the ones causing the
problems.
>
> For the record, my mother (who was driving the speed limit) was
> severely injured in a head-on collision with a driver who lost control
> of her vehicle while traveling at approximately 85-90 miles per hour.
>
> She was fortunate to survive. She sustained a concussion, a severed
> optical nerve, a broken hip, a broken arm, a broken leg and numerous
> bruises and contusions. Her right foot was horribly mangled, and
> almost needed to be amputated. More than 2 ½ years later, she walks
> with a major limp. The doctors say that eventual arthritis in her hip
> is unavoidable, and she may be forced to use a wheelchair.
I'm sorry to hear about this. I know people who have had similar
experiences, though none as close to me as immediate family, so I've
never really had to deal with the impact of a tragedy such as this. I
have been in my share of accidents, but mostly at low speeds on surface
streets and nothing that resulted in so much as an ambulance ride.
>
> Among other injuries, the offending driver sustained permanent brain
> damage, and one of her passengers (who happened to be my friend's
> sister) was killed. The other escaped with a broken jaw and various
> other broken bones.
I'm confused. The offending oncoming driver's passenger was your
friend's sister? Did I read that right or was this just a horrible
coincidence?
>
> > Dave (and I wear my seat belt, I'm not *stupid*)
>
> Thank goodness for governmental intervention. Had she not been forced
> to, my mother probably wouldn't have begun wearing her seat belt. (a
> "hassle" that has since become automatic) According to the
> paramedics, what she once thought of as "unfair intrusion" ended up
> saving her life.
I think most people who don't wear seat belts have never seen a real car
accident. Unfortunately, it often takes a close brush to get some
people to do it in the first place. Same with tailgaters. They have no
idea how much danger they put themselves in.
But they'll usually counter with a "friend of a friend" story about
someone who was thrown free from their car and survived where, if they
were strapped in, they surely would have died.
>
> It could be argued that adults should have the right to place their
> own lives in jeopardy,
It's a very selfish thing to do.
> but I'm certain that seat belts have prevented
> the deaths of numerous children who were merely following their
> parents' legally mandated example.
I agree with this.
Dave (and don't get me started on motorcycle helmets)
Dave
>
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 18:30:28 GMT, David Levy <d_l...@lifeisunfair.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Dave wrote:
> >
> >> For the elderly and for children, perhaps, but to say
> >> someone cannot control a car travelling 85 mph is
> >> ludicrous. I do it every day, twice, forty miles at a time.
> >
> >1. Where are you doing this driving?
> >
> >2. What is the posted speed limit?
> >
> >
> Wow, I'm amazed that people think this is dangerous or unusual. I'm
> in Chicago and on the interstates running through going less than 80
> could be considered a death wish. On average, people are driving
> around 15 mph over the posted limit everywhere I've ever been in the
> US, because in most places the penalties don't escalate until then.
> Second point - I doubt the woman hit the guy while coincidentally
> being tracked by a radar gun for a ticket. Some witness decided "she
> looked to be doin' 85" and that was that. The woman crossed the
> centerline and hit someone head on with an SUV at highway speeds- Mr.
> LaSalle didn't stand much of a chance at *any* speed with those
> factors, even legal speed limits.
If you read the *real* article and not that bullshit 'Globe' piece,
you'll notice the only 'eye-witness' didn't really even see the
accident. He was still in a cloud of smoke at the time.
Dave (You're right though. Even if it was only 60, 60+60 is 120 and
that's death.)
Travln' John
wrote:
>> 1. Where are you doing this driving?
>
>Florida State Turnpike
Been down that route and got me a coupla speeding tickets on the same
day, one for doing about 90 the other for doing about 100... Driving
a taxi cab... <bfg>
My first speeding ticket (at 17 in 1964) was at night on I-10 west of
Beaumont, Tx... Cop said I was doing in excess of 140, wrote the
ticket for 100+ as he said he couldn't prove it... I never dissed the
family car as a "boat" after that... Moved to Oklahoma in '65 with my
parents and made a number of "high speed" trips back down to the
Beaumont/Houston areas (I-35 all the way)... One trip ('69) I raced a
yellow Firebird near the entire distance between Dallas and Houston in
my '68 Charger... Speedometer showed up to 160mph and the needle
pretty much stayed in the 140 to 160 range when we didn't really have
to slow down...
I've always pretty much "pushed the envelope" driving, mostly just 5
to 10 above posted limits, more so these days than when I was
younger... I've never had an accident and those 3 speeding tickets
are the only ones I've ever gotten for speeding...
I agree, however, that it is extremely irresponsible and I agree there
are varying degrees of ability to maintain control, many people
misjudging exactly how much control they truly have...
Kenneth Crudup
Dave <rat...@hellsouth.net> says:
>Interstates are not for the timid.
Unless you live in CA, then that's all you've got out here. :-(
-Kenny
--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Washington, D.C.
Home1: PO Box 914 Silver Spring, MD 20910-0914 ke...@panix.com
Home2: 38010 Village Cmn. #217 Fremont, CA 94536-7525 (510) 745-8181
Work: See: "Home2". The hell with slow Bay Area drivers! (510) 745-0101
Kenneth Crudup
trav...@my.house (Travln' John) says:
>I've always pretty much "pushed the envelope" driving
I guess you're an alright guy after all, eh? :-)
To...@fred.net
: According to The Globe the "chaste" Shannon was involved in 1998 a car
: accident tat killed a grandfather. She had been driving at 85 miles per
: hour and was charged with reckless driving causing death. She had to go
: to driving defense school and pay 1000 dollars - no alcohol or drugs
: involved.
That only qualifies her for First Lady.
But thank you for the nightmare fuel of Dr Will as President in 2040.
--
To...@Fred.Net http://www.fred.net/tomr
* Faith Manages...... But Willow is in Tech Support
* "Hello, girls.... I'm the Easter Bunny!" - Janet Reno, "South Park"
* Look out! If Bender says "ass", Katherine Harris will appear!
* This .sig brought to you by the "Boxleitner/Doyle-2004" Election
Committee.
"But then, if I did everything perfectly, wouldn't it be boring? " - jms
Mary Kay Bergman 1961-1999 -
http://tvcomedy.about.com/tvradio/tvcomedy/library/weekly/aa111899.htm
David Levy
> Remember, speed limits, at least initially, had nothing at all to do
> with safety, it was just a plan to improve the nation's gas mileage.
Yes, and both are legitimate concerns.
The Garden State Parkway's 65 MPH limit is fairly recent. (It was 55
MPH for years.)
> Excellent. This is the way it should be done. But
> too many people are oblivious to road courtesy.
Agreed. Countless drivers (both fast and slow) often behave as though
they own the roads.
> I'm confused. The offending oncoming driver's
> passenger was your friend's sister?
That's correct.
I was an eighteen-year-old high school senior at the time. The driver,
(also an eighteen-year-old high school senior) both passengers, my
friend and I all attended the same school.
A teenager (who obviously has very little motor vehicle experience)
has no business driving at such a high speed. The girl who passed
away was only fifteen years old.
> Did I read that right or was this just a horrible coincidence?
There were further coincidences:
I was at my school with the aforementioned friend at the time of the
accident, videotaping him for a class project.
A group of students shouted obscenities, (deliberately spoiling an
interview) and I angrily pointed the camera at them, exclaiming "I
have you on tape!" Upon later viewing, I learned that my friend's
sister happened to be walking directly behind them, on her way out of
the building. (with the date ominously visible on a nearby chalkboard)
This was the last time that he would see her alive; she was killed
approximately twenty minutes later.
> I think most people who don't wear seat belts
> have never seen a real car accident.
I can only assume.
> Unfortunately, it often takes a close brush to get some
> people to do it in the first place. Same with tailgaters. They
> have no idea how much danger they put themselves in.
Tailgaters aggravate me to no end!
> (and don't get me started on motorcycle helmets)
Oh, don't get *me* started! If someone is idiotic enough to ride a
motorcycle without wearing a helmet, they must already have fallen on
their head!
David Levy
Richard Hudson
>>According to The Globe the "chaste" Shannon was involved in 1998 a car
>>accident tat killed a grandfather. She had been driving at 85 miles per
>>hour and was charged with reckless driving causing death. She had to go
>>to driving defense school and pay 1000 dollars - no alcohol or drugs
>>involved.
>>
>>Sorry but if one drives 85 mph and a person dies from that she should
>>have lost her license for at least a year. Driving that fast is
>>inexcusable and control is nearly down to 0.
>>
How about vechiular <sp> manslaughter for starters. Or neglibile homicide.
Richard Hudson
Richard Hudson I'm an 25 year old Autistic Disability Right Activist & Computer
Tech currently single and looking
Mine is
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Resort/3613/index.htm
Cat
:"A killer in the house!"?
:
:"Scheming sexpot... ...has blood on her hands!"?
:
:"Zooming along", "roared by him"
:
:
:Sounds sensationalistic to the point of being fictitious.
Aha! Guess what? We tracked back the original article.
http://www.elitestv.com/bbusa.html
The Gazette.
PS PLEASE quote ElitesTV if copying this article elsewhere.
TIA
TC3
--
TC3
"David Levy" <d_l...@lifeisunfair.net> wrote in message
news:3b5b28b3...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> Dave wrote:
>
> > > What is the posted speed limit?
>
> > 55 in construction zones, 70-75 everywhere else.
>
> The majority of my long-distance driving is on the Garden State
> Parkway. The speed limit is 65 MPH in most parts, and that's the
> maximum speed at which I'm willing to drive. (This isn't a criticism
> of people who drive at faster speeds; I'd simply be uncomfortable
> doing so myself.)
UGH NJ driving is like giving birth. Painful and messy and
very lengthy.
>
>
> > But I've found that the easiest way to cause problems
> > for other drivers is to stick to the limit when the surrounding
> > traffic wants to go faster. I don't drive 90 to pass people, I
> > drive 90 to stay behind the guy in front of me.
>
> I don't allow the impatience of other drivers to influence my
> behavior. I remain in the right-hand lane. If the person behind me
> insists upon speeding, they're welcome to pass me. (Many do.)
>
>
> > I just take exception with the blanket statement "Driving that
> > fast [85] is inexcusable and control is nearly down to 0."
>
> Yes, that is an absurd generalization. Many people are capable of
> maintaining control at such a speed, but quite a few aren't; the line
> must be drawn somewhere, and it's best to err on the side of caution.
>
> For the record, my mother (who was driving the speed limit) was
> severely injured in a head-on collision with a driver who lost control
> of her vehicle while traveling at approximately 85-90 miles per hour.
>
>
> She was fortunate to survive. She sustained a concussion, a severed
> optical nerve, a broken hip, a broken arm, a broken leg and numerous
> bruises and contusions. Her right foot was horribly mangled, and
> almost needed to be amputated. More than 2 ½ years later, she walks
> with a major limp. The doctors say that eventual arthritis in her hip
> is unavoidable, and she may be forced to use a wheelchair.
I am truly sorry to hear this. :o( xo to her
Diane H.
> Aha! Guess what? We tracked back the original article.
> http://www.elitestv.com/bbusa.html
>
> The Gazette.
>
> PS PLEASE quote ElitesTV if copying this article elsewhere.
> TIA
So it wasn't her speed that caused the accident, but her agressive
lane-changing. I see the type on the freeways all the time.
Nice. Why am I not surprised?
Diane H.
HudsonGrl
>Date: 7/22/01 1:07 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3b5b16f5...@news.earthlink.net>
>
>On 21 Jul 2001 23:38:03 GMT, tw...@aol.com.org (Twc6) wrote:
>>
>>Meanwhile, everything deliberately mean that has happened has been
>>Shannon. And of course she has had zero guilt about cheating on her
>boyfriend
>>on national television. Can't wait until she gets out of the house and
>realizes
>>she is not the popular, attractive crowd-pleaser she thinks she is.
>
>
>
Julie doesn't have to tell Shannon. Shannon is going to get to actually LIVE
it. :-)
HudsonGrl
>From: David Levy d_l...@lifeisunfair.net
>Date: 7/22/01 3:54 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3b5b28b3...@news.cis.dfn.de>
>The majority of my long-distance driving is on the Garden State
>Parkway. The speed limit is 65 MPH in most parts, and that's the
>maximum speed at which I'm willing to drive. (This isn't a criticism
>of people who drive at faster speeds; I'd simply be uncomfortable
>doing so myself.)
don't come to the chicagoland area then....seems the majority go at least 10MPH
over the posted speed limit .
Dave
>
> Dave wrote:
>
> > Remember, speed limits, at least initially, had nothing at all to do
> > with safety, it was just a plan to improve the nation's gas mileage.
>
> Yes, and both are legitimate concerns.
>
> The Garden State Parkway's 65 MPH limit is fairly recent. (It was 55
> MPH for years.)
Same with the Florida Turnpike. It used to be 55 until, I dunno,
someone put pressure on someone and next thing you know it's up to 70 on
some stretches.
>
> > Excellent. This is the way it should be done. But
> > too many people are oblivious to road courtesy.
>
> Agreed. Countless drivers (both fast and slow) often behave as though
> they own the roads.
>
> > I'm confused. The offending oncoming driver's
> > passenger was your friend's sister?
>
> That's correct.
>
> I was an eighteen-year-old high school senior at the time. The driver,
> (also an eighteen-year-old high school senior) both passengers, my
> friend and I all attended the same school.
>
> A teenager (who obviously has very little motor vehicle experience)
> has no business driving at such a high speed. The girl who passed
> away was only fifteen years old.
>
> > Did I read that right or was this just a horrible coincidence?
>
> There were further coincidences:
>
> I was at my school with the aforementioned friend at the time of the
> accident, videotaping him for a class project.
>
> A group of students shouted obscenities, (deliberately spoiling an
> interview) and I angrily pointed the camera at them, exclaiming "I
> have you on tape!" Upon later viewing, I learned that my friend's
> sister happened to be walking directly behind them, on her way out of
> the building. (with the date ominously visible on a nearby chalkboard)
> This was the last time that he would see her alive; she was killed
> approximately twenty minutes later.
Jeez, this story is simply horrific. I don't know what to say.
>
> > I think most people who don't wear seat belts
> > have never seen a real car accident.
>
> I can only assume.
>
> > Unfortunately, it often takes a close brush to get some
> > people to do it in the first place. Same with tailgaters. They
> > have no idea how much danger they put themselves in.
>
> Tailgaters aggravate me to no end!
>
> > (and don't get me started on motorcycle helmets)
>
> Oh, don't get *me* started! If someone is idiotic enough to ride a
> motorcycle without wearing a helmet, they must already have fallen on
> their head!
Last year not too far from me, a teenage girl died from head injuries
after falling off a horse while she was trail riding. Now there's a law
on the books that helmets are required for horseback riding too. The
horse lovers were up in arms over it, claiming she was a novice and
shouldn't have been riding alone to begin with. I can see their point
sorta, if safety regulations are based on what the least responsible
person is likely to do, they create problems for the majority. As far
as I know, there hasn't been a falling-off-a-horse death in this county
for years before this incident and none since.
Dave (maybe there's such a thing as 'too safe'?)
Soapy
"Dave" <rat...@hellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3B5DEC2C...@hellsouth.net...
> Last year not too far from me, a teenage girl died from head injuries
> after falling off a horse while she was trail riding. Now there's a law
> on the books that helmets are required for horseback riding too. The
> horse lovers were up in arms over it, claiming she was a novice and
> shouldn't have been riding alone to begin with. I can see their point
> sorta, if safety regulations are based on what the least responsible
> person is likely to do, they create problems for the majority. As far
> as I know, there hasn't been a falling-off-a-horse death in this county
> for years before this incident and none since.
>
> Dave (maybe there's such a thing as 'too safe'?)
>
I know two people who have died as a result of trail riding. The first one,
I used to work with. She was in her forties and had ridden horses for
years. She was riding with some friends along the road, a dog came at them,
spooked the horse. It fell, she went with it and hit her head on the
pavement. She lived for about 5 years in a nursing home. Couldn't walk,
couldn't feed herself. She developed pneumonia this past year and died.
The second one was a guy in his forties, rode horses for years. He fell
off, hit his head on a rock. Killed him.
You don't hear much about it, because they don't put that sort of thing in
the news much.
Dwayne Allen Day
I watched the show tonight. Man, that Shannon is a piece of work! Then
again, all the members of Chilltown aren't exactly adults now, are they?
D
--
HudsonGrl
>From: Dwayne Allen Day wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
>Date: 7/24/01 8:39 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <mrp77.451$We7....@grover.nit.gwu.edu>
>
>
>I watched the show tonight. Man, that Shannon is a piece of work! Then
>again, all the members of Chilltown aren't exactly adults now, are they?
>
>
week, just to watch Shannon completely unravel.
Dwayne Allen Day
: Shannon is a nut case. personally, i think they are going to vote Will off this
: week, just to watch Shannon completely unravel.
I have to admit, when I heard that other woman (I forget her name) suggest
this, I thought it was brilliant. She's right that Shannon could quite
easily get herself removed by other means. She is unstable enough for
that to be a possibility.
They never showed what happened when she got called into the diary
room. Was she put on probation? Do they get some kind of "three strikes
and you're out" warning? What if she had simply said "No, I'm not going
to do anything to correct the toothbrush incident"? What would Big
Brother have done?
I'll admit, I'm starting to get interested in the show. But once Shannon
is gone, I might just give it up. She is the most interesting character.
D
--
HudsonGrl
>Message-id: <5Or77.469$We7....@grover.nit.gwu.edu>
>I have to admit, when I heard that other woman (I forget her name) suggest
>this, I thought it was brilliant. She's right that Shannon could quite
>easily get herself removed by other means. She is unstable enough for
>that to be a possibility.
this "swap" with the hg's possibly voting for Will and not Shannon has been
brewing a bit. from reading the live feed transcripts it has been mentioned on
and off the last few days. it is only Shannon herself (and i think Will is
hoping it is so) who seems certain that she is the one who will be voted
out.Their thinking originally was that Shannon almost beat out Hardy for head
of household last time and they perceived her as more of a threat than Will. so
they wanted her gone. Now i think their thinking may have changed somewhat, as
we see how "mentally off" Shannon is becoming. Plus Shannon has alluded to
leaving with Will if he is indeed the one to be voted off. Notice, Will has
never once offered to walk out with Shannon.
>
>They never showed what happened when she got called into the diary
>room. Was she put on probation? Do they get some kind of "three strikes
>and you're out" warning? What if she had simply said "No, I'm not going to do
anything to correct the thoothbrush incident".
Since using a toothbrush with fecal matter on it could lead to health issues
for Hardy (i.e. giardia and other parasitic intestinal infections) it is
doubtful Big Brother would let Shannon get away without correcting the
situation. most likley they gave her an ultimatum, that she would remedy the
toothbrush issue or THEY would. No way, could they let Hardy use that
toothbrush. It was almost unbelieveable to watch her in that restroom. the
woman really has a few screws loose.
Dwayne Allen Day
: out.Their thinking originally was that Shannon almost beat out Hardy for head
: of household last time and they perceived her as more of a threat than Will. so
: they wanted her gone. Now i think their thinking may have changed somewhat, as
: we see how "mentally off" Shannon is becoming.
I think the move makes sense because it keeps the whole group off
guard. It would be a shrewd tactical move. And as a few of them have
recognized, it makes sense to keep some of the nasty people around because
they don't have a chance of winning.
: Plus Shannon has alluded to
: leaving with Will if he is indeed the one to be voted off. Notice, Will has
: never once offered to walk out with Shannon.
She says a lot of things and never does them. She originally said that
she would break down and cry if she got picked, for example.
: Since using a toothbrush with fecal matter on it could lead to health issues
: for Hardy (i.e. giardia and other parasitic intestinal infections) it is
: doubtful Big Brother would let Shannon get away without correcting the
: situation. most likley they gave her an ultimatum, that she would remedy the
: toothbrush issue or THEY would.
Yeah, I imagine that they told her she had to fess up or they would make
the announcement themselves.
: No way, could they let Hardy use that
: toothbrush. It was almost unbelieveable to watch her in that restroom. the
: woman really has a few screws loose.
She's great, she really is. I have only seen that personality type a few
times, but that was back in high school. It's rare that you see someone
so self-centered and nasty. I have to admit that she's very physically
attractive, but as soon as she opens her mouth she becomes repulsive.
D
Twc6
>this, I thought it was brilliant. She's right that Shannon could quite
>easily get herself removed by other means. She is unstable enough for
>that to be a possibility.
this "swap" with the hg's possibly voting for Will and not Shannon has been
brewing a bit. from reading the live feed transcripts it has been mentioned on
and off the last few days. it is only Shannon herself (and i think Will is
hoping it is so) who seems certain that she is the one who will be voted
out.>>
Their latest plan is to have the vote be tied, so that Hardy, as Head of
Household gets to cast the deciding vote. This is Shannon's worst nightmare.
HudsonGrl
>From: tw...@aol.com.org (Twc6)
>Date: 7/25/01 10:10 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010725111035...@ng-cv1.aol.c
>
>Their latest plan is to have the vote be tied, so that Hardy, as Head of
>Household gets to cast the deciding vote. This is Shannon's worst nightmare.
oooh..i like that plan :-)
Dwayne Allen Day
: Their latest plan is to have the vote be tied, so that Hardy, as Head of
: Household gets to cast the deciding vote. This is Shannon's worst nightmare.
That would be hard to manufacture, however. How do they know who Mike
will vote for?
But it would be great to have Hardy cast the deciding vote and then pick
Will. He would drive Shannon nuts.
D
Twc6
: Household gets to cast the deciding vote. This is Shannon's worst nightmare.
That would be hard to manufacture, however. How do they know who Mike
will vote for?>>
Shannon has been trying to control the situation and has told everyone she
wants to be voted out unanimously, so Mike is voting for her to leave. She
desperately doesn't want it to be a tie and have her fate be in Hardy's hands.
Shannon really makes me wish I was inthe BB house. I would love to be there
after each one of her little rants and just calmly comment "You are a crazy
person." And then when she whines that Hardy is being "cowardist" for
nominating her and Will, I would say, "He nominated you two because you are two
shallow, vain, awful evil people that no one in the house can stand, except for
your idiot friend who thinks lame pseudo-rapping is cool."