Re: Press release from Crown Prosecution Service

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:17:30 GMT, "Sniper8052(L96A1)" <sniper8052@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>> 89. Steven Aug 4, 10:15 am show options
>> Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling
>> From: stevenj3...@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Steven) - Find messages by this author
>> Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 09:15:08 GMT
>> And most of those reasonable people (unless primed on this debate) would, I
>> believe, automatically call the incident an 'accident'.
>
>Steven,
>
>It appears that whilst I have been conducting my discussion within one
>thread you have been continuing that debate within another thread

Indeed.

The fact that two different people started threads on this topic is something of
an annoyance as it means that different people make the same point, and then it
needs answering on more than one thread.

However, since the same thing happens within subthreads of the same thread,
there's not much point in complaining.

>along similar lines and in a similar manner.

Well, of *course* it's going to be along similar lines and in a similar manner.
It's the same debate!

Do you think I should have taken a contrary stance? Argued it in French?

>Aside from the quite appalling lack of manners in behaving in such a way
>without advising me

???

What on *earth* are you wittering on about?

You've been castigating me for being rude and now you are whining about the fact
that the same topic is being discussed on more than one thread.

Just because you are either too lazy or too stupid to keep up with what's going
on this group, that's no reason to accuse someone of bad manners.

Who the hell do you think you are?

Why would anyone have to inform *you* of what they are discussing, and with
whom, on a perfectly visible thread in a public group.

I think you may be getting delusions of grandeur.

>you also failed to advise the members of that other
>thread of your debated concession that,

Since most of them have been quite happily contributing to *this* thread, there
would have been little point. Anyway, it's just not something that's *done* on
usenet.

I would also point out that none of the other people posting to both threads
have mentioned that there are arging the same point elsewhere, and yet, once
again, you pick on me to whine at.

>>> The only way that you *cannot* call it an accident is if you believe that they
>>> foresaw or expected the incident (or one very similar) and carried on
>>> regardless.
>
>and which I fully and exploratively answered and demonstrated as being
>more likely than not to be the case.

In your opinion. I have carefully explained why I believe that opinion to be in
error.

>This I consider duplicitous and hypocritical.

That is your perogative. I find your whining about it utterly bizzare.

I don't even see in what way you have been hurt/damaged/disadvantaged by what
has been going on in a parallel thread.

As far as I can see you just want to throw a hissy fit about something, and, not
being able to find anything sensible to throw one about, you decide to throw one
about *absolutely* *nothing*.

I suppose this is how you carry on when working.

You want to 'do' someone, but can't find anything that they have done wrong, so
you start talking complete nonesense in the hope that they'll lose their temper
and you can arrest them on some trumped up charge.

I just cannot *beleve* this puerile, ridiculous outburst.

>I include under full transcripts of my arguments so that other members
>can discuss your apparent contradictions.

>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>*56. Sniper8052(L96A1) Jul 31, 9:08 am show options*
>
>1) An accident is legaly: Any unforeseen event which impacts to the
>detriment of person or property.
>This does not mean the event has to be unforeseeable merely that it was
>not at the time of the event thought of by the persons involved or
>causing that event.

Which is *exactly* the way I have seen it being used legally, by the media, and
by the general public for the last 40 years.

It is also the way the dictionary defines it using a perfectly sensible
interpretation of the words in the dictionary.

*That* is the only[1] point I have been trying to make over the last few days.

As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the story.

>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I make no comment on this other than to place it before the full
>scrutiny of the thread members for their information. You are free to
>reply at any point if you feel this treatment is in any way unfair
>toward you and I will try to accommodate any reasonable complaint.

Well, *isn't* that big of you?

My only complaint is that you are making a mountain, and there isn't even a
wormcast, let alone a molehill to make it from.

There is *nothing* whatever wrong with discussing the same subject on several
threads at once.

There is no Usenet tradition of informing people that you are discussing the
same subject on another thread, except that occasionally someone *might* mention
an earlier thread on a similar topic, or, more likely, complain that yet another
thread has been stated on an old topic.

Your complaint is just a pointless whine about nothing at all.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Barker up the wrong tree?
    ... you probably mistakenly see all his posts in the same ... a position of decency. ... but for how it hinders continuation of debate where such hindrance is ... its employees to publish a complaint made to them onto the internet. ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • ID Revisited
    ... It's not a debate - it's a querulous mob looking for comfort. ... You cannot reason with those to whom reason is ... or with those driven by fear and ignorance. ... desire to see science dethroned. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Whats the difference?
    ... particular reason to have a down on them. ... helps the reader to understand why the killing is taking place. ... escaping from answering but by honest debate of argument and counter ... density of rabbits in their gardens. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Define a clock
    ... >> But that's the debate, ... >> reason which they cannot dispute stems from the fact that these ... >> feelings of incompetence. ... openly and readily admitted my incompetence in the are of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Arguing with Fools was: OT: Get Well if you have the money
    ... Let me see if I can put my complaint about your "Arguing with Fools" ... debate by bragging about your compassion and stating that anyone that ... health plan to the evils of the president (who as we all know governs ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)