|
rufusandcompany
May 8, 2006, 7:16 PM
Post #51 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: Ad hominem is easier than admitting you're wrong. :wink:
You would know. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
May 8, 2006, 7:42 PM
Post #52 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: Ad hominem is easier than admitting you're wrong. :wink: You would know. :wink:
Oh look. Rufus makes some claims that are complete bullshit. When called on them, he resorts to his standard "I know you are but what am I".
Must be a day that ends in Y. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
May 8, 2006, 8:01 PM
Post #53 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Ad hominem is easier than admitting you're wrong. :wink: You would know. :wink: Oh look. Rufus makes some claims that are complete s---. When called on them, he resorts to his standard "I know you are but what am I". Must be a day that ends in Y. :roll:
I never grow tired of watching you paint yourself into a corner. Please continue.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
May 8, 2006, 8:12 PM
Post #54 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Your world must be a very ugly place to you, Thorne, if you consider everything that you do not understand to be bad.What don't I understand? You should work on your reading comprehension. And I'll ask again - What is it (specific to my posts in this thread) that I don't understand?
How about answering the question?
Why did you say I'm quite sure that you're offended by my saying that Di's death was a direct result of the accident?
It seems like you just make this stuff up.
In reply to: Some think a pathological liar is different from a normal liar in that a pathological liar believes the lie he or she is telling to be true |
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
May 8, 2006, 10:52 PM
Post #55 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: It was a bad analogy. Princess Di was trying to evade a harassing paparazzi. Considering the constant attention she was given, her only reasonable option was to have a driver. Kennedy was just "out for a drive". He wasn't being per sued or harassed by anyone.
Having a driver is OK...having a drunk/impaired/speeding one is not. That is were this (Ken point) goes over your and Reno head.
There is no doubt that things when wrong after the accident...that wasn't Ken point. What made her need medical help was the the injuries that she sustained IN A CAR ACCIDENT CAUSE BY A DRUNK/IMPAIRED/SPEEDING DRIVER. Plain and fecking simple.
Wearing a seat belt would have save her life.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 8, 2006, 11:06 PM
Post #56 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: In reply to: It was a bad analogy. Princess Di was trying to evade a harassing paparazzi. Considering the constant attention she was given, her only reasonable option was to have a driver. Kennedy was just "out for a drive". He wasn't being per sued or harassed by anyone. Having a driver is OK...having a drunk/impaired/speeding one is not. That is were this (Ken point) goes over your and Reno head.
Bob, it didn't go over anyone's head. It's just that that argument is overly simplified, and fails to acknowledge the multiplicity of factors involved in her death.
THAT is what went over your head.
In your view, as you've expressed it here, the only single factor in Diana's death was that she had someone else driving the car. That's the simpleton argument, though easy to make as it effectively excuses one from being forced to examine the issue in depth.
In reply to: There is no doubt that things when wrong after the accident...
That's an understatement. Look at it this way: If Diana had arrived at the ER suffering from a heart attack, and the doctors failed to give her the clot-busting drugs used to treat heart attacks, would you place the blame on the doctor for failing to treat properly, or on Diana for eating one too many bacon cheeseburgers?
In reply to: Wearing a seat belt would have save her life.
Wow... we actually agree on something. Wonders never cease.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
May 8, 2006, 11:21 PM
Post #57 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Reno wrote: In your view, as you've expressed it here, the only single factor in Diana's death was that she had someone else driving the car. That's the simpleton argument, though easy to make as it effectively excuses one from being forced to examine the issue in depth.
You wrong Reno. I said that getting in the car with a drunk/impaired/speeding driver was the reason for her INJURIES... THAT IN THE LONG RUN COST HER HER LIFE.
No accident, no injuries, no ride in the ambulance and so forth.
There was a doctor at the scene of the accident about two to three minutes after the crash.
She also had cardiac arrest at the scene of the accident.
I post a fact about the sad state of medical care in this country. The American medical community does a much better job of killing people than the French medical community but you took it upon yourself to hammer the French system...which by all standards take much better care of their citizens than the US.
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
May 9, 2006, 12:18 AM
Post #58 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: Bob, it didn't go over anyone's head. It's just that that argument is overly simplified, and fails to acknowledge the multiplicity of factors involved in her death.
My argument was not over-simplified, nor is the cause of her death. She died as a direct result of injuries sustained in the accident. If you doubt that, prove me wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
jred
May 9, 2006, 2:03 AM
Post #59 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
Reno, P Di died in an auto wreck.
Rufus, Reno is merely trying to make a point about the French ambulance system, his statement was brought up at a strange time in an awkward fashion, that is the problem.
I don't really think Reno believes that the accident was not the cause of P Di's death, he just thinks that more could/should have been done.
For fuck sakes guys.
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
May 9, 2006, 2:10 AM
Post #60 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: Reno, P Di died in an auto wreck. Rufus, Reno is merely trying to make a point about the French ambulance system, his statement was brought up at a strange time in an awkward fashion, that is the problem. I don't really think Reno believes that the accident was not the cause of P Di's death, he just thinks that more could/should have been done. For f--- sakes guys.
With all due respect, J, I think Reno and I can handle this, but your input is always welcome. All is well here, so there is no need for you to get your panties in a wad.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 9, 2006, 4:28 AM
Post #61 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: In reply to: Reno wrote: In your view, as you've expressed it here, the only single factor in Diana's death was that she had someone else driving the car. That's the simpleton argument, though easy to make as it effectively excuses one from being forced to examine the issue in depth. You wrong Reno. I said that getting in the car with a drunk/impaired/speeding driver was the reason for her INJURIES... THAT IN THE LONG RUN COST HER HER LIFE.
So you absolve the doctors on the ambulance of all culpability? Is it then your position that those doctors had no role whatsoever in her death?
Simple questions, Bob. Care to answer?
In reply to: There was a doctor at the scene of the accident about two to three minutes after the crash. She also had cardiac arrest at the scene of the accident.
Well, that's just wrong.
In reply to: I post a fact about the sad state of medical care in this country. The American medical community does a much better job of killing people than the French medical community but you took it upon yourself to hammer the French system...which by all standards take much better care of their citizens than the US.
Right... the same French system that let thousands of people die during a "heat wave" that wouldn't have made the news in Arizona or Texas?
I posted that the French ambulance system (specifically, the Paris ambulance system) failed to provide the standard of care for Princess Diana. I've proven that. Now, since you're so bent on defending the Parisian ambulance service, please tell us how you think they did an adequate job. I'll ask you to back up your statements with fact, please. If not fact, then perhaps multiple expert testimony to support your position.
Here's your chance to prove me wrong, Bob. Bring it.
|
|
|
|
|
republiclimber
May 9, 2006, 5:54 AM
Post #62 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2004
Posts: 345
|
interesting story, you don't have to believe me if you want, but i promise it's true.
I once played hacky sack with Patrick Kennedy. I grew up in RI and he spoke to a small group of us one time. After the speech I went up to shake his hand (i'm pretty right wing but meeting a one of your congressman is still cool) and as i spoke with him i told him me and some friends were going to have a hack session outside after and he was welcome to join us. He did and he was pretty good too, even in wingtips....thus leading me to not be suprised when he admitted a drug problem.
i don't think many people can say they have played hack with their US congressman
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
May 9, 2006, 4:34 PM
Post #63 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
Frankly, Republiclimber, it doesn't surprise me that Patrick Kennedy's a political hack.
|
|
|
|
|
republiclimber
May 9, 2006, 8:10 PM
Post #64 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2004
Posts: 345
|
ZING!!!
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
May 9, 2006, 9:30 PM
Post #65 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: bill wrote: You'd think after a certain incident involving a certain Ms. Mary Jo Kopechne the Kennedy family would see the advantages of chaffeurs. Princess Diana might see it differently.
Reno...I go as slow as I can.
This was Ken's original statement: Princess Diana might see it differently. This was in response to Bill's post and the advantage of a chauffeur.
Can you understand what Ken was implying? That having a chauffeur did not help her when she got in that accident??
This is really simple shit. You distorted what Ken said (like you do so often) for the sake of an argument.
Where in my posts did I ever defend the ambulance or the doctors or said what the cause of death was??
More on health care in the US...from CNN
U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says
www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
May 10, 2006, 12:26 AM
Post #66 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Ken wrote to Thorne: I'm quite sure that you're offended by my saying that Di's death was a direct result of the accident. Rolling Eyes Do you also cry at chick flicks? And don't flatter yourself. Your insipid trolls can hardly be considered a backlash.
I bet he cried when he watched Brokeback Mountain. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
May 10, 2006, 11:56 AM
Post #67 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
In reply to: In reply to: You guys are arguing about something in terms of causality, trying to reduce everything to one efficient "cause." Not at all. Your following statement is the point that Myself and Bob have half-heartedly been trying to make to Reno. In reply to: Next--the injuries. Certainly "caused" by the wreck. That is, if you removed the wreck from the equation, you don't get any injuries. Hence, the wreck is the efficient cause of the injuries. No rocket science here. In reply to: Immediate treatment might have saved her from dying, but the lack of said treatment did not "kill" her, her injuries killed her. Again, pretty straight forward.
Hahaha! Look at rufus trying to hang with Largo!
Rufus, do you need help getting your tongue unstuck from The Great Largo's Ass? What's next? Blowjobs for Bachar?
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 10, 2006, 2:39 PM
Post #68 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Reno...I go as slow as I can.
Thanks. I don't read so good, cause I didn't take that "hookt on foniks" class I heard about.
In reply to: This was Ken's original statement: Princess Diana might see it differently. This was in response to Bill's post and the advantage of a chauffeur. Can you understand what Ken was implying? That having a chauffeur did not help her when she got in that accident??
Yes, I understand that. Now, can you understand what I am implying: That the simple act of having a chauffeur is not, in and of itself, the lethal issue you and Rufus seem to think it is?
My issue with the statement is the generality of it: Again, if it's simply "having a chauffeur" that is so deadly, then WHY do other people who have chauffeurs (corporate CEOs, VIPs, etc.,) not die in masses?
If you want to place blame on the driver, then the statement should be qualified with "a drunken, impaired chauffeur." In which case it STILL wouldn't be a chauffeur that killed her, but the intoxicated status of the person behind the wheel.
And the bad ambulance care, but I've beaten that horse enough.
In reply to: This is really simple s---.
Agreed, which is why I find it puzzling that you don't see my point.
In reply to: Where in my posts did I ever defend the ambulance or the doctors or said what the cause of death was??
OK, Bob... whatever. You never said anything in defense of the doctors, never said what you think caused the death, or anything else of substance.
In reply to: More on health care in the US...from CNN U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says
Try to stay on track: We're talking about PRE-hospital TRAUMA care in FRANCE. Not newborns in the US. What, exactly, does neonatal survival rates in the US have to do with auto accident victims in Paris? Where do you come up with your analogies?
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
May 10, 2006, 3:17 PM
Post #69 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: Ken wrote to Thorne: I'm quite sure that you're offended by my saying that Di's death was a direct result of the accident. Rolling Eyes Do you also cry at chick flicks? And don't flatter yourself. Your insipid trolls can hardly be considered a backlash. I bet he cried when he watched Brokeback Mountain. :lol:
Meanwhile, you and roofie were under a blanket that seemed to be moving alot.
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
May 10, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #70 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: In reply to: This was Ken's original statement: Princess Diana might see it differently. This was in response to Bill's post and the advantage of a chauffeur. Can you understand what Ken was implying? That having a chauffeur did not help her when she got in that accident?? Yes, I understand that. Now, can you understand what I am implying: That the simple act of having a chauffeur is not, in and of itself, the lethal issue you and Rufus seem to think it is?
Every time I start to think that you are brighter than you appear, you say something like this.
In reply to: My issue with the statement is the generality of it:
The generality of my original statement should have been your immediate clue that it was meant to be taken in a light-hearted way, which is why I subsequently reminded you that your clock is wound a too tightly.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 10, 2006, 5:04 PM
Post #71 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: This was Ken's original statement: Princess Diana might see it differently. This was in response to Bill's post and the advantage of a chauffeur. Can you understand what Ken was implying? That having a chauffeur did not help her when she got in that accident?? Yes, I understand that. Now, can you understand what I am implying: That the simple act of having a chauffeur is not, in and of itself, the lethal issue you and Rufus seem to think it is?Every time I start to think that you are brighter than you appear, you say something like this.
Start losing ground, and out come the personal attacks. Typical, but still disappointing.
In reply to: In reply to: My issue with the statement is the generality of it: The generality of my original statement should have been your immediate clue that it was meant to be taken in a light-hearted way, which is why I subsequently reminded you that your clock is wound a too tightly.
Oh, so making "light hearted" comments about the death of another person is OK now?
And my clock is not wound tightly a'tall, actually. It's nice to put things in neutral now that the semester is over, but I'll assure you that "ain't nothing wound too tightly here."
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
May 10, 2006, 10:05 PM
Post #72 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: Start losing ground, and out come the personal attacks. Typical, but still disappointing.
Are you speaking for yourself, because your dispute is the only thing losing ground? It fact, it plummeted, pages ago. You could say that your strawman burned at the stake.
On another note - are you actually going to get some climbing in, now that school is out?
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 10, 2006, 10:22 PM
Post #73 of 73
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: On another note - are you actually going to get some climbing in, now that school is out?
I sure hope so... I'm heading either to Flagstaff or Tucson this weekend, and trying to sort out details for many trips this summer (Colorado, two or three times for alpine, maybe Toul. Meadows, too.) Wouldn't mind heading back to the Cirque of the Towers, but the logistics aren't working out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
