No Subject

[Unka Bart <mendicant@buddhist.com>]

Arryn has obviously not heard the old saying about the wisdom of remaining
silent and being thought a fool, when the alternative is inevitably to
remove all doubt.  Pity...

> Unka Bart is being more than a little simplistic.

No offense, Arryn old rutabaga, but you are mistaken, and rather
egregiously so.

> As with most tragedies, there was a series of events that had any one been
> broken, the tragedy probably wouldn't have happened.  If the driver wasn't
> drunk, if they were belted in,

Let's get one thing straight here, Arryn.  The two "ifs" you mention above
were both 100% the under the control of the persons concerned, and
*absolutely* no one else's.  The consequences are theirs alone.
Furthermore, the consequences of those "ifs" were as *predictable" as they
are unfortunate.  Parenthetically and for whatever it's worth, while I
*personally* think that is unfortunate that a rather nice lady died in the
affair, since no *innocent* parties were killed, no actual tradedy was
involved.  But you are welcome to a different assessment, it makes no
difference to me on *that* particular score...

But beyond that, the vehicle was clearly operating at a high rate of speed,
and doing so in an area where the limit was 30 mph.

This is discussion is list-relevant because anyone who thinks that laying
the responsibility for the consequences of folly squarely upon the heads of
the perpetrators is oversimplification, lacks the maturity to safely
operate a motor vehicle.  Period.

And further beyond that, the way that motor-vehicle was being operated
amounted to criminal negligence in many jurisdictions, and rightly so.  You
had damn well better stop a moment and think about this before you operate
any motor-vehicle at any speed above the legal limit.

if the paparazzi weren't chasing them,

Hmmmmm... to put this as nicely as I can, Bovine exctetia!  Bollocks!
Horsefeathers!  Frankly, it is outrageous to suggest that anyone other than
the driver (who operated the vehicle's controls) or the owner (who was
there and responsible for the conduct of his driver) had any responsibility
for the consequences.

Yes, I know that all the media are running around like a bunch of parrots
hooting this nonsense, but I mistook you for someone with an acutal brain
and not a media droid.  Sorry.

If the vehicle was operating within the legal speed-limits and not in a
manner that can only be described as reckless and criminally negligent - as
it was - then the presence or absence of the paparazzi would have had no
effect upon the outcome.  The paparazzi were not any threat to the safety
of the vehicle's occupants, but the vehicle, as it *was* being driven, was
definitely a threat to the safety of the general public at-large.
Fortunately, tragedy was averted and no innocents were injured.

>  The paparazzi chose to persue the car, which caused
> the driver to try and evade them, his drinking caused him to lose control,
> yada yada.  It's causality.

Here's a friendly word of advice to you, Arryn.  Stay in school until you
learn the difference between the concepts of "causality" and
"responsibility."  In fact, please do not opperate a motor-vehicle until
you *have* learned the difference.

Failing that, kindly stay a good distance away from the East Coast.  For
the present, it makes yer kindly ol' Unka Bart quite nervous knowing you're
out there on the roads somewhere...

> That said, I pick my moments to speed as well because some moron might do
> something unexpected, and as above, half of the blame would fall on my
> shoulders because as I am responsible for my actions, the other driver is
> responsible for theirs.

(heavy sigh...)  You just don't get it, do you Arryn?  You, and YOU ALONE
are responsible for the consequences of your own behavior.  We are talking
about *responsibility* here, not blame.  100% of the responsibility for
your actions is yours; 100%, not half.

> I'd place on the both of you because you both could have prevented it.

Did I mumble?  Was I speaking in a language that you have difficulty
comprehending?  Was there some equivocation in my message?

But more to the point, given your earlier arguments about the paparazzi
somehow sharing the responsibility, why don't you blame the cop that chased
my car?

After all, the cop *chose* to pursue it, which *caused* the driver to evade
him, his drinking *caused* him to lose control...

Get a grip!

Yer kindly (but rather testy at this foolishness) Unka Bart