Sloth Kills Two More

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:37:39 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> However, experience tells us that the liberal
>> media tends to spin the "cause" in certain ways, i.e. calling it
>> "speed related" or noting that a deceased victim was not wearing a
>> seat belt - so they filter the information they provide in order to
>> support their own preconceived notions.
>
>What about the other type of report where the vehicle loses control or
>flips spontaneously? Then again, they never ever state the PKE readings
>were higher than normal in the immediate area ...

LOL!! Maybe there was so much psychokinetic slime on the road the
vehicle lost traction and skidded into the ditch?

On 10 Jul 2005 19:03:07 -0700, "Harry K" >
wrote:

>
>
>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> On 10 Jul 2005 11:00:51 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >How, from the evidence in that article, are you able to determine that
>> >sloth had anything to do with this?
>>
>> By reading between the lines, of course. As with most news reports of
>> vehicle collisions, there is not enough information presented to draw
>> an accurate conclusion. However, experience tells us that the liberal
>> media tends to spin the "cause" in certain ways, i.e. calling it
>> "speed related" or noting that a deceased victim was not wearing a
>> seat belt - so they filter the information they provide in order to
>> support their own preconceived notions. You'll notice they don't say
>> what the result of the driver's blood test was. Did he have any
>> alcohol in his blood, or was that "strong alcohol smell" simply the
>> result of a bottle of legally-transported liquor being damaged in the
>> crash?
>>
>
>So now you have been called on one of your trolls

Troll? WTF are you talking about?

My post was a SATIRE, not a troll, you top-posting ninny.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:24:40 -0700, "C.H." >
wrote:

>That you defend a driver, who killed someone else because he was too
>stupid and too drunk

There is no information in the story that says he was drunk - or even
that he was drinking.

Now, let's suppose you were driving down a two-lane road with a
double-yellow centerline and a car pulled out directly in front of
you. Your options are to rear-end the car or to swerve into the
oncoming traffic lane. Suppose you do the latter and you end up dead
in a head-on collision while the idiot who pulled out in front of you
drives off without a scratch. Who is at fault for this collision? You?

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
> By reading between the lines, of course. As with most news reports of
> vehicle collisions, there is not enough information presented to draw
> an accurate conclusion. However, experience tells us that the liberal
> media tends to spin the "cause" in certain ways, i.e. calling it
> "speed related" or noting that a deceased victim was not wearing a
> seat belt - so they filter the information they provide in order to
> support their own preconceived notions. You'll notice they don't say
> what the result of the driver's blood test was. Did he have any
> alcohol in his blood, or was that "strong alcohol smell" simply the
> result of a bottle of legally-transported liquor being damaged in the
> crash?

Must be a similiar thing to how bicycle fatalities are reported. They go
something like this: A man was riding a bicycle when he was hit and run
over by a gravel truck that ran a red signal. His rib cage was crushed by
the tires of truck. The bicycle rider was not wearing a helmet. No
tickets have been issued.

> I disagree. There is not enough information presented to either prove
> or disprove any conclusions regarding cause. My hypothesis is as good
> as any other right now. It's certainly as good as the insinuations of
> a slanted news report from the liberal media...

I am going to have to side with you here scott. A few months ago I was
pulled over. I had a sloth driver pull out in front of me. She was doing
30 in a 40. Fine... I got make a left. Sure enough sloth decides to make
the same left. She brakes down to 10mph for the turn lane. (just for
reference, I go down this left turn lane at 22mph on my bicycle) She then
proceeds to make the turn at FIVE mph. (for reference, I don't even brake
with the bicycle, taking the turn at ~20mph give or take, similiar speed
while driving as I was that day) Of course the sloth cannot handle her
car and goes wide. Wonderful I think, I have an open lane, before the
lane she's in ends shortly up the road. I go near and punch it up to the
speed limit and pass the sloth who is now going ~20mph. She flags down a
cop and tells him I was driving recklessly. I end up with a papers stop
to deal with.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:35:05 -0700, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Now, let's suppose you were driving down a two-lane road with a
> double-yellow centerline and a car pulled out directly in front of you.
> Your options are to rear-end the car or to swerve into the oncoming
> traffic lane. Suppose you do the latter and you end up dead in a head-on
> collision while the idiot who pulled out in front of you drives off
> without a scratch. Who is at fault for this collision? You?

Where did it say the sloth pulled out right in front of him and he was
unable to brake? It says that a guy from Texas tried to pass another car
over double yellow and killed the driver of the oncoming traffic.

Unfortunately that happens every day on 152, idiot sloths and even bigger
idiots passing the sloths where passing is not feasible.

Chris

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> Now, let's suppose you were driving down a two-lane road with a
> double-yellow centerline and a car pulled out directly in front of
> you. Your options are to rear-end the car or to swerve into the
> oncoming traffic lane. Suppose you do the latter and you end up dead
> in a head-on collision while the idiot who pulled out in front of you
> drives off without a scratch. Who is at fault for this collision? You?

This happened to someone I know, except it was on a motorway with
median barriers, and the guy behind swerved off and drove into
the barrier. The guy behind's insurance co. then successfully sued
for the damages to his car.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2005 11:00:51 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >How, from the evidence in that article, are you able to determine that
> >sloth had anything to do with this?
>
> By reading between the lines, of course. As with most news reports of
> vehicle collisions, there is not enough information presented to draw
> an accurate conclusion. However, experience tells us that the liberal
> media tends to spin the "cause" in certain ways, i.e. calling it
> "speed related" or noting that a deceased victim was not wearing a
> seat belt - so they filter the information they provide in order to
> support their own preconceived notions. You'll notice they don't say
> what the result of the driver's blood test was. Did he have any
> alcohol in his blood, or was that "strong alcohol smell" simply the
> result of a bottle of legally-transported liquor being damaged in the
> crash?

A problem in this crash is that it happened too recently. It takes
several days to perform the autopsy, which the blood tests are a part
of.

I'd chalk this up to a stupidity related collision, someone decided to
pass in a really bad spot, and ended up killing someone who did nothing
wrong as well as themself because of a stupid decision.

As long as we're assuming things, from the erratic driving witnesses,
and the smell of alcohol, he probably was an impatient drunk who wanted
to drive 95.

It's a shame he killed someone either way though.

Dave

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2005 19:03:07 -0700, "Harry K" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> >> On 10 Jul 2005 11:00:51 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >How, from the evidence in that article, are you able to determine that
> >> >sloth had anything to do with this?
> >>
> >> By reading between the lines, of course. As with most news reports of
> >> vehicle collisions, there is not enough information presented to draw
> >> an accurate conclusion. However, experience tells us that the liberal
> >> media tends to spin the "cause" in certain ways, i.e. calling it
> >> "speed related" or noting that a deceased victim was not wearing a
> >> seat belt - so they filter the information they provide in order to
> >> support their own preconceived notions. You'll notice they don't say
> >> what the result of the driver's blood test was. Did he have any
> >> alcohol in his blood, or was that "strong alcohol smell" simply the
> >> result of a bottle of legally-transported liquor being damaged in the
> >> crash?
> >>
> >
> >So now you have been called on one of your trolls
>
> Troll? WTF are you talking about?
>
> My post was a SATIRE, not a troll, you top-posting ninny.

So in addition to posting dishonest headers you don't even know what
top posting is?

Harry K

On 10 Jul 2005 23:23:23 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>I'd chalk this up to a stupidity related collision, someone decided to
>pass in a really bad spot, and ended up killing someone who did nothing
>wrong as well as themself because of a stupid decision.

There's no question that the Ford driver has the lion's share of the
blame, and that the loss of an innocent driver's life was a needless
tragedy. But if it weren't for the Sloth RRB, would any of it have
happened?

>As long as we're assuming things, from the erratic driving witnesses,
>and the smell of alcohol, he probably was an impatient drunk who wanted
>to drive 95.

You gotta admit, my assumptions are more original.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:08:24 -0700, "C.H." >
wrote:

>> Now, let's suppose you were driving down a two-lane road with a
>> double-yellow centerline and a car pulled out directly in front of you.
>> Your options are to rear-end the car or to swerve into the oncoming
>> traffic lane. Suppose you do the latter and you end up dead in a head-on
>> collision while the idiot who pulled out in front of you drives off
>> without a scratch. Who is at fault for this collision? You?
>
>Where did it say the sloth pulled out right in front of him and he was
>unable to brake?

You seem to have missed the "let's suppose" part. I was merely making
an analogy to help illustrate how the Sloth RRB is not completely
blameless in such a situation.

>Unfortunately that happens every day on 152, idiot sloths and even bigger
>idiots passing the sloths where passing is not feasible.

So you agree that my interpretation is probably correct?