Moron Crashes RV, Kills His Son, His Friend, and His Friend's Daughter

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:16:37 -0700, Scott en Aztl=E1n=20
> said the following in=20
rec.autos.driving... =20


> Delusions? OK, so why don't you set me straight and tell me what
> REALLY happened? What caused that RV to just drift off the road and
> crash into a concrete divider? If the driver was wide awake, why did
> he lose control?=20

Maybe he set the cruise control and then left the driver's seat to take a=
=20
nap?

--=20
Paul.=20

Self appointed unofficial overseer
of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Morons of a feather flock together, I guess.

I finally figured out that this is part of a thread you started a little
over 3 months ago. I'd totally forgotten about it. I'm still not sure
who Eleni is.

Scott,

We'll never know what really happened. If you'll recall, this whole thread started because you read one newspaper article and from that derived that "...another moron fell asleep at the wheel." How one comes to a conclusion such as that, with so little evidence in hand, is still beyond me. In my experience, real experts (and it's a foregone conclusion that you aren't in that group) don't venture wild guesses when they have no information to work with.

I offered the information about the memorial not as a refutation of your theory (which is self-refuting, to be honest, and hardly worthy of even being called a theory) but in defense of Lance's character, which you maligned with the name-calling in your original post. It's one thing to know someone and form an opinion of them. It's quite another to pre-judge people you know nothing about. I've read some of your posts (and their responses) in other forums and it seems that others have already learned this about you so perhaps it is just in your nature.

As for my spelling error, mea culpa. Those that pick apart discussions based on grammatical correctness rather than content detract from the purpose of these discussions so I won't grace them with any further attention.

Someone mentioned "posting personal email in a Usenet portal" and while it may have seemed that my response to Eleni was better served in email, it was as much to her as it was speaking to Scott's thread. Congrats on jumping to the wrong conclusion and further detracting from the discussion.

And finally, for the poster that said that car aficionados are "homicidal psychopaths" who "deserve to die", I don't even know how to respond except to suggest you seek professional help.

Jeff


--
pacific0

------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.carstalk.net/viewtopic-322066.html

Send from http://www.carstalk.net

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:13:00 +0200, pacific0 <pacific0.1w2sv5@no-
mx.carstalk.net> said the following in rec.autos.driving...


> And finally, for the poster that said that car aficionados are
> "homicidal psychopaths" who "deserve to die", I don't even know
> how to respond except to suggest you seek professional help.

Judy is *way* beyond professional help.

--
Paul.

Self appointed unofficial overseer
of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving

"Paul." > wrote in
> Judy is *way* beyond professional help.

Professional assassin, perhaps?

FloydR

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:13:00 +0200, pacific0
> wrote:


toll bull**** snipped and plonked...

pacific0 wrote:

>Someone mentioned "posting personal email in a Usenet portal" and while
>it may have seemed that my response to Eleni was better served in email,
>it was as much to her as it was speaking to Scott's thread. Congrats on
>jumping to the wrong conclusion and further detracting from the
>discussion.

First off, no one by the name of Eleni had ever posted in this
particular thread (as far as I can tell). Second, you reponded to a
post well after the thread "died" (i.e., no new responses had been
posted for several months). This means that the original post has
either been filtered out by the local news client software, or has
expired from the news server. Given that, and the fact that you failed
to quote any relevant text from the post you were responding to, people
reading the post aren't going to have any idea what exactly you're
referring to.

Second, I don't know if Eleni even reads rec.autos.driving, but
regardless of whether she does or not, any response directed at her
that's not in the context of the issue discussed in this thread belong
in email, IMO (her, her father, and the memorial service were never part
of the thread discussion). Keep in mind that the rest of us do not know
who you're referring to (she has never posted in this thread), and
addressing the response as a personal email makes it look like you don't
know the difference between newsgroups and email.

That type of mistake is understandable if you're using a combination
email/news client and type the group name instead of email address in
the "send to" field, but you were using a usenet portal.

Before you get on my case for detracting from a "discussion" that never
took place, perhaps you should learn how to tailor your message to the
appropriate audience and/or know the intended destination of your
message are going before sending them.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:00:46 -0700, Floyd Rogers
> said the following in rec.autos.driving...


> "Paul." > wrote in
> > Judy is *way* beyond professional help.
>
> Professional assassin, perhaps?

Sounds good to me... ;-)

--
Paul.

Self appointed unofficial overseer
of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving

Arif,

Suggestions: If you don't understand the topic; inquire further. If you aren't willing to understand, or not capable of understanding, the topic; move on. If people's posting habits don't meet your needs; get bent.

Enough time has been wasted on this off-topic stuff already. Respond if you wish, I'm done.

Jeff


--
pacific0

------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.carstalk.net/viewtopic-322066.html

Send from http://www.carstalk.net

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:13:00 +0200, pacific0
> wrote:

> We'll never know what really happened.

Then you'll never be able to prove I was wrong.

>If you'll recall, this whole thread started because you read one
>newspaper article and from that derived that "...another moron
>fell asleep at the wheel." How one comes to a conclusion such
>as that, with so little evidence in hand, is still beyond me.

The same way fire investigators determoine that a house fire was
caused by arson or a police detective determines that the cause of
death was suicide: you examine the gamut of possible explanations, and
you pick the most likely one that is consistent with the evidence.

Let's recap: single-vehicle collision, late at night, after driving
for many hours; no evidence of alcohol impairment or mechanical
failure. Yep, driver fatigue is the most reasonable explanation I can
think of.

If you have a more plausible explanation, let's hear it.

> I offered the information about the memorial not as a refutation of
>your theory (which is self-refuting, to be honest,

Hardly.

>but in defense of Lance's character, which you maligned with the name-calling in your original post.

I'm sorry you were offended, but falling asleep at the wheel and
killing yourself and several others is moronic - there's just no two
ways about it.

>It's one thing to know someone and form an opinion of them. It's quite another to pre-judge people
>you know nothing about. I've read some of your posts (and their responses) in other forums and it
>seems that others have already learned this about you so perhaps it is just in your nature.

LOL! In one breath, you chastize me for forming opinions about people
I don't know, and in the very next sentence, you proceed to do the
exact same thing! And an Ad Hominem attack, to boot!

Congratulations, I'm sure you've won everyone over with your debating
skill.