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

>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!

You have to read the whole post, Scott. If you take portions out of context your conclusions may not be valid. In this case, I have formed some opinions of you based on your posts, related to this topic and others. That at least is *something*. You read a newspaper article about a car accident someone was in and from that decided they must be a moron. Ever been in a car accident Scott? Careful how you answer.

Also, it was not an Ad Hominem attack because I'm not dismissing your theory based on your character. Your theory is being dismissed because it is based on so little information it can't even be called a theory. It's absurd to read one article and make a determination from that! Geez, give a guy a newspaper and he's a crash scene expert.

Let me share something I learned from this, through talking with the officers working on the scene and the crash scene investigator afterwards. "Falling asleep at the wheel" is listed as the reason for plenty of single-vehicle accidents, especially those occurring at night. Sometimes there is evidence to support that. For example, it was known that the driver had been driving for a long time or it was determined that alcohol or drugs (prescription or otherwise) were involved. I'm sure there are lots of other factors, those are just examples. Sometimes single-vehicle accidents are mislabeled in this way because there is no other way to label them. Here's an example that speaks to the contrary that was provided to me, which doesn't speak well to human nature unfortunately.

Two cars are on a remote stretch of 2-lane highway late at night. No one else is present to witness what transpires. The driver of one car swerves into the other car's lane, maybe because of drowsiness or overcompensating for an obstruction in the road...whatever. The other driver swerves out of their lane and onto the shoulder to avoid an accident. In doing so, they hit something unexpected, because they didn't notice it or it was too dark to see it before swerving. They crash and go up in flames.

Here's the part I found disturbing. It was the investigator's opinion that not everyone in this situation would stop to assist those in (and ultimately take accountability for) the accident they caused. We'd all like to think that anyone would stop, regardless of what the outcome might be, because we want to believe the best about our nature. But apparently that isn't a given.

That particular example is just as plausible as "oh, he must have fallen asleep at the wheel and by the way, he was a moron to boot". So explain why it is so much more likely that the driver feel asleep.

No one can say who is right or wrong about what really happened, so your challenge to "prove you wrong" is meaningless. What I'm trying to point out is that the assumption you made about the cause of the accident is without merit, not because it isn't possible but because so far the only thing you've based it on is a newspaper article and a personal opinion. What else have ya got?

Jeff


--
pacific0

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

Send from http://www.carstalk.net

pacific0 wrote:

> Suggestions: If you don't understand the topic; inquire further.

No, you're supposed to provide context for your posts and not reply to
dead threads.

>If you aren't willing to understand, or not capable of understanding

Oh, I'm capable of understanding. It's you who, for some reason, fail
to use their capability to learn how to properly post to usenet. Do you
even know how to post so that your reply is properly threaded? Do you
even know how to quote material you're responding to? Do you know how
to delimit your lines so that they don't scroll off the screen when
people try to read them?

>If people's posting habits don't meet your needs; get bent.

I try my best to educate a dense newbie, and this is what I get. Why
don't you go **** yourself, dip****.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:07:46 +0200, pacific0
> wrote:

>>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!
>
>You have to read the whole post, Scott.

It's pretty tough when your news software doesn't wrap the lines
correctly...

>Also, it was not an Ad Hominem attack because I'm not dismissing your theory based on your character.

Apparently you're unclear on the concept of Ad Hominem attack. Add
that to the long list of concepts on which you are unclear...

>Apparently you're unclear on the concept of Ad Hominem attack. Add
>that to the long list of concepts on which you are unclear...

>It's pretty tough when your news software doesn't wrap the lines correctly...

Take a quick look at your response above. The topic was completely evaded. Here it is again for you: other than one newspaper article and a personal opinion, what evidence do you have to support your assumption that this accident *must* have been caused by a driver who fell asleep at the wheel?

You can't talk about how others don't understand debating, Scott, and then throw red herrings out there. This was never about the merits of news software and regardless of whether you might like other people's news software or not, it doesn't preclude you from addressing the topic does it? Take that discussion to a forum on news readers, if that's your real interest but if you don't have anything substantive to offer on the topic consider that it *is* ok not to say anything at all.

Jeff


--
pacific0

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

Send from http://www.carstalk.net

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:14:12 +0200, pacific0
> wrote:

>
>>Apparently you're unclear on the concept of Ad Hominem attack. Add
>>that to the long list of concepts on which you are unclear...
>
>>It's pretty tough when your news software doesn't wrap the lines correctly...
>
>Take a quick look at your response above. The topic was completely evaded.

Indeed. Your lines are still too long, and you still don't know what
an Ad Hominem attack is.

Get your act together and then we'll talk.

>Indeed. Your lines are still too long, and you still don't know what
>an Ad Hominem attack is.

>Get your act together and then we'll talk.

"Your lines are still too long" and that's why you can't back up your statement?! Priceless! If my lines weren't "too long" what's next? Let's see, maybe you won't like where I put capital letters. Or you'll want me to use monosyllabic words because you're tired of using your dictionary so much. Wait, I know...you'll want me to stop using black letters on a white background, right?!

Why the obsession with Ad Hominem anyway? You love to complain about it and yet find nothing wrong with including it in your own posts. I mean, I've done my best to avoid saying in my responses to you, "Your original statement is baseless because you're a ****ing idiot." But I didn't. THERE would be your Ad Hominem, because regardless of how big (huge) of a ****ing idiot you may be (are), it has nothing to do with why your original statement is unsubstantiated and baseless (bull****).

I'm done with you. You finally demonstrated what I suspected all along. You made a statement that you can't back up. When confronted you find any excuse possible to avoid having to deal with it, even a lame one like "Your lines are still too long".

My parting advice to you is to learn something about debating before posting any more bull****. If you really know debate as well as you imply, you should know that a statement needs to be backed up with something. Cite a reference, a study, a statistic, personal experience, SOMETHING. Citing relevant information doesn’t carry with it any guarantees about your statement, but at least it will drastically reduce the chance you’ll be exposed as a fraud as you were in this instance.

Jeff


--
pacific0

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

Send from http://www.carstalk.net

pacific0 wrote:

> "Your lines are still too long" and that's why you can't back up your statement?!

Finally, the idiot troll decides to leave. It's amazing how many
retards post here, isn't it.