Re: Cyclist killers in local paper.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:58:50 GMT, "Sniper8052(L96A1)"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

BIG Snip

Sniper, you are onto a loser here, mate.

People who drive recklessly do it because they seriously overestimate
their driving skills. They don't do it because they expect to have an
accident and don't care.

As to the meaning of accident, I'm over police retirement age, and
people have been calling things that happen through negligence
accidents for as long as I can remember. I think it started in the
late 1800s when refering to train crashes.

If you're a policeman, you know perfectly well that people are
sucessfully prosecuted for various offences as a result of accidents,
so calling something an accident doesn't let anyone off the hook.

BTW, I'm wondering why you refuted the suggestion that the law
disagreed with you on whether the incident was an accident or not.
Surely if it was not regarded as an accident, they would have been
charged with manslaughter at the very least?

Just out of interest, what was the legal verdict as registered by the
coroner's court?

Chas said:

Surely if it was not regarded as an accident, they would have been
charged with manslaughter at the very least?

(Presumably) only if the CPS thought there was a realistic chance of
conviction with the manslaughter charge. They don't go around charging
people with crime X just because they think they did X; they need a
decent amount of evidence first. Sadly that's all too hard to come by
in driving cases.

Just look at Gary Hart, the guy who caused the Selby rail crash. Do
you think he would've been convicted if there wasn't the evidence that
he was chatting to his girlfriend until 5am or whatever it was the night
before?

R.

Richard said:

Chas said:

Surely if it was not regarded as an accident, they would have been
charged with manslaughter at the very least?

(Presumably) only if the CPS thought there was a realistic chance of
conviction with the manslaughter charge. They don't go around charging
people with crime X just because they think they did X; they need a
decent amount of evidence first. Sadly that's all too hard to come by
in driving cases.

Quoted message said:

Just look at Gary Hart, the guy who caused the Selby rail crash. Do
you think he would've been convicted if there wasn't the evidence that
he was chatting to his girlfriend until 5am or whatever it was the night
before?

True enough, but surely if there is not enough evidence for a court to convict
someone of the more serious offence, then it is not for sniper, or any of the
other "not an accident" brigade to find them guilty out of court.

In this country you are presumed innocent until *proven* guilty.

In order for this not to be deemed an accident, it would be necessary to *prove*
that the offenders *expected* to kill or seriously injure someone.

I can see no evidence of that whatsoever. A *great* deal of assertion, but no
actual *evidence*.

Of course, they *should* have expected it (and thus stopped their reckless
activity), but they didn't, and they had an accident. And they were punished
because they failed to do what they should have done.

Richard said:

Chas said:

Surely if it was not regarded as an accident, they would have been
charged with manslaughter at the very least?

(Presumably) only if the CPS thought there was a realistic chance of
conviction with the manslaughter charge. They don't go around charging
people with crime X just because they think they did X; they need a
decent amount of evidence first. Sadly that's all too hard to come by
in driving cases.

That's a fair point, I suppose, but if the police and CPS with all
their resources cannot show that a manslaughter charge could be
proved, surely it isn't for someone on a cycling newsgroup to second
guess them.

If it was as cut and dried as Sniper makes out they /would/ have been
charged with a more serious offence.

Frankly, I think all this "let's not call accidents accidents any
more" is just a fools errand.

Surely everyone knows /perfectly/ well that accidents are not always
the results of blameless activity.

"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Could you not use more normal quoting techniques?

How so?

Stop quoting massive chunks of text that are 100% unnecessary, for one
thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Otherwise your stuff just looks like aimless ramblings, and it's quite
an interesting debate.

Aimless is something no defence lawyer has ever called any of my
statements...

They don't have to read your usenet postings ;-)

Quoted message said:

Do you mean you think my argument is confused or that Steven's argument
has merit?

Both. In particular though, you are not comparing like with like here. AND
you've snipped out the context.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>It is only necessary to demonstrate that the pair were' more likely
>than not, on the balance of probability and to a reasonable standard
>aware that their actions were dangerous and likely to result in a
>collision for their continued actions to be shown as reckless of the
>concequences

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Erm, says who?

Steven actually, that's why I want him to explain his new assertion that
they,

I thought that was YOUR point, and the counter was that you actually needed
to PROVE something rather than just say it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The law seems to disagree with you!

No the law does not, they were convicted of causing death by dangerous
driving.

Yes, not some offence that needs them to have known what was going to
happen.

Quoted message said:

The fact that the word has been hijacked to now mean something it never
meant to me as a child or in my adult life does not mean that I wish to
redefine it.

I find it VERY hard to believe that ANYONE was not fully aware of the way
accident is used and has been for a considerable time. I think it is YOU who
is trying to hijack the word for political motives.

Quoted message said:

As I said before these are all aggravating factors which bear to the point
that this was not an accident. One must ask what the 'reasonable man'
would class the combination of factors as resulting in. Would a
'reasonable man' expect there to be serious consequences of driving a
motor vehicle on a road, at speed, where the car was unroadworthy and when
the driver had not passed a test? The answer has to be 'Yes'.

I agree with that.

Quoted message said:

If a 'reasonable man' would expect those consequences then the law and
common sense dictate that we ascribe that realisation to those persons
driving at the time of the incident unless it can be shown that they were
of a sufficiently clinically reduced mental capacity that they could not
appreciate the consequences of their actions.

Ignoring pompous expressions such as 'clinically reduced mental capacity',
and substituting simply 'inadequate mental capacity', that was apparantly
the case. Or do you think they were trying to killl themselves?

Quoted message said:

You are seeking to apply an arbitrary rule to this which cannot be so
applied

Just pointing out that if you hijack the word to have new limitations on its
use, you need to state what those limitations are. If you can't make the
decision without doing a major case study of each accident, or waiting for
the outcome of a court case, hardly anyone will go along with your new
scheme.

Steven,

My replies to yourself and others are normally in the form of a letter
and include everything which is required for the sense of that post
within the post itself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> With this post, for example, you've quoted the entire post that you were
>> replying to, then quoted it again. Why?

Because I used it as a crib to get quotes from it has no meaning within
the reply and this can clearly be ascertained from reading the post
which conforms to the standard above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason I had intended to stop debating with you was because your quoting
methods made it too boring to continue. (Plus you habit of obsessing about
tangential matters).

My arguments have been and still are reasoned, I have not digressed into
any argument which has not been in direct response to an objection to a
previous argument raised by yourself or in direct response to a stated
position on your part. I shall not comment on your reason for leaving
the debate, others can judge the truth of that statement. As to the
observation that I have been comparing statements out of context that is
an accusation which I utterly refute. I have highlighted the
contradictions and fallacies within the arguments you have put forward
or demonstrated the balance of probability arising from those
statements. Nowhere have I misquoted or displaced any of these examples
to make the sense of my reply misleading or unfairly favourable to my
point of view.

Now as to your further statement from this,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>> It is only necessary to demonstrate that the pair were' more likely
>>>>>>>> than not, on the balance of probability and to a reasonable standard
>>>>>>>> aware that their actions were dangerous and likely to result in a
>>>>>>>> collision for their continued actions to be shown as reckless of the
>>>>>>>> consequences

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>> Erm, says who?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Steven actually, that's why I want him to explain his new assertion that
>> they,

That you,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...have never said that. Please provide the message ID where you believe I
said that.

I refer you to the following statements made by you and which have been
well documented within this debate,

1)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

127. Steven Aug 1, 4:51 pm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 reasonably demonstrated was, on the balance of probability,
the case that these drivers knew of the likelihood that a collision
would occur and that they then ignored that knowledge.

2)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

135. Steven Aug 2, 10:54 am

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you could somehow show that, at some point, either or both of them actually
realised that their driving was probably going to result in a crash, then you
would be able to remove the incident from the domain of 'accidents'.

However, considering that their insane behaviour was quite likely to result in
their *own* deaths, I really doubt if, as the race developed and their
adrenaline addled brains became more focused, they never even *considered* the
possibility of crashing.

and again answered to a standard that showed they were on a balance of
probability aware that their actions were dangerous and more likely than
not to result in a collision in which one or more parties would be
seriously injured.

However the meaning of these two quotes is unmistakeable, that I had to
demonstrate, from your statements, that it could be shown these drivers
knew their actions to be dangerous and that they "...foresaw or expected
the incident (or one very similar)." I have demonstrated that to a
standard that I believe any reasonable person would accept. There is no
absolute proofs in cases of this type so we have to rely on the basis of
the 'reasonable man'. By implication this is what your statements required.

You even agree that their actions were reckless in your last post!

3)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> 170. Steven Aug 10, 9:49 am

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Do you not call such actions reckless?

Quoted message said:

Of course they're reckless. Because if you drink and drive you are more likely
to have an accident. Also if you speed.

They were speeding, therefore they were reckless, your words.

You have made a further statement in your latest reply that,

4)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> 170. Steven Aug 10, 9:49 am

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

These two were not reasonable and did not adequately consider the possible
results of what they were doing. Thus they failed to expect the outcome. Thus
it was an accident.

and state that the law disagrees with me, accusing me of sidestepping
the issue,

5)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> 170. Steven Aug 10, 9:49 am

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes it does. I note you sidestepped the point that if the law *hadn't*
considered it an accident, they would have been charged with murder (or
manslaughter).

You then agree my statement,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> ergo they were reckless and their conviction shows that the law holds
>> that any competent and careful driver, who is assumed to have reasonable
>> behavioural patterns, would also reach that conclusion.

and draw a conclusion that,

6)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> 170. Steven Aug 10, 9:49 am

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...they were punished for the accident they caused

The premise of a 'reasonable man' ascribes certain behavioural patterns
upon the majority of the population. Those exempt from that behavioural
norm are those who cannot reasonably be expected to be able to reason
right from wrong, I.E. Persons who suffer from a clinically reduced
mental capability and children under the age of criminal responsibility.
Any other defence of diminished responsibility has to be proved in court.

It is not required that you consider them to be reasonable people, the
law considers their actions against that of a 'reasonable man' if they
are not of a significantly diminished mental standard to be classed
otherwise. Hence they were legally reckless and drove in a manner that a
careful and competent driver would regard as dangerous.

That they were found guilty at court shows the application of that
standard. They were not tried for 'having an accident' they were tried
for causing death by dangerous driving. It is for that they have been
punished.

I have now debated with you at length and to this point you have raised
no serious argument to show that these people were not aware of their
actions, the consequences of those actions or the likelihood of those
consequences becoming an eventuality. You stated that if it could be
shown that they knew or realised the likely outcome of their actions and
carried on regardless this would not have been an accident. I have
shown that they were aware on a 'balance of probability' that a
'reasonable person' would accept.

If you can show a reasonable and demonstrable argument, that they were
not aware of their actions and justify that against your assertion that
the level of proof required to prove otherwise is that they expected
their actions to result in their own death with reference to the
contradictions this engenders with your previous statements at 1,2 and 3
and refuting through verifiable debate those answers you have received
already I will continue to debate with you. If on the other hand you
continue to raise one sentence objections with no proof other than you
say so I will consider that you have no argument to offer and the
discussion will be at an end.

The matter is with you, demonstrate your argument or retire.

Sniper8052

Graham said:

"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Could you not use more normal quoting techniques?

How so?

Stop quoting massive chunks of text that are 100% unnecessary, for one
thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Otherwise your stuff just looks like aimless ramblings, and it's quite
>an interesting debate.

Aimless is something no defence lawyer has ever called any of my
statements...

They don't have to read your usenet postings ;-)

Quoted message said:

Do you mean you think my argument is confused or that Steven's argument
has merit?

Both. In particular though, you are not comparing like with like here. AND
you've snipped out the context.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>It is only necessary to demonstrate that the pair were' more likely
>>than not, on the balance of probability and to a reasonable standard
>>aware that their actions were dangerous and likely to result in a
>>collision for their continued actions to be shown as reckless of the
>>concequences

Quoted message said:

>Erm, says who?

Steven actually, that's why I want him to explain his new assertion that
they,

I thought that was YOUR point, and the counter was that you actually needed
to PROVE something rather than just say it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The law seems to disagree with you!

No the law does not, they were convicted of causing death by dangerous
driving.

Yes, not some offence that needs them to have known what was going to
happen.

Quoted message said:

The fact that the word has been hijacked to now mean something it never
meant to me as a child or in my adult life does not mean that I wish to
redefine it.

I find it VERY hard to believe that ANYONE was not fully aware of the way
accident is used and has been for a considerable time. I think it is YOU who
is trying to hijack the word for political motives.

Quoted message said:

As I said before these are all aggravating factors which bear to the point
that this was not an accident. One must ask what the 'reasonable man'
would class the combination of factors as resulting in. Would a
'reasonable man' expect there to be serious consequences of driving a
motor vehicle on a road, at speed, where the car was unroadworthy and when
the driver had not passed a test? The answer has to be 'Yes'.

I agree with that.

Quoted message said:

If a 'reasonable man' would expect those consequences then the law and
common sense dictate that we ascribe that realisation to those persons
driving at the time of the incident unless it can be shown that they were
of a sufficiently clinically reduced mental capacity that they could not
appreciate the consequences of their actions.

Ignoring pompous expressions such as 'clinically reduced mental capacity',
and substituting simply 'inadequate mental capacity', that was apparantly
the case. Or do you think they were trying to killl themselves?

Quoted message said:

You are seeking to apply an arbitrary rule to this which cannot be so
applied

Just pointing out that if you hijack the word to have new limitations on its
use, you need to state what those limitations are. If you can't make the
decision without doing a major case study of each accident, or waiting for
the outcome of a court case, hardly anyone will go along with your new
scheme.

Graham,

Firstly don't shout, it's rude and I can hear you perfectly well without
you shouting. I have the grace not to be rude to you I request you
extend the same courtesy to me.

While you may find that you do not understand that which I have written
I can assure you that it is written in correct English and that it has
one precise meaning. The matter that a section of quotation is included
is immaterial to the content of the post which contains all reference
points within itself and is written to be read as such.

If I had included each and every reference point from previous posts and
cross-referenced that with each posting we would still be here swapping
reference points at doomsday. If you wish to find the context of each
section which I have quoted in the body of the text you will need to
look through the debate. I can assure you now there is nothing in the
body of any of the posts I have made which is quoted that requires a
context that is not supplied by that post and that I have not
selectively cut or abused those quotes to present an argument unfairly.

The assertion that they would need to have a suicidal disregard for
their safety is an assertion made by Steven. It was Steven who stated
that if it could be shown that they knew of but disregarded the danger
they were placing themselves and others in then the incident could be
removed from the realm of 'accident'. I proved that it was wholly
possible for them to do so and provided extensive examples to back up
that viewpoint.

It is my assertion that the burden of 'suicidal knowledge' is not valid,
having been in near suicidal situations myself I wish him to justify his
argument through reasoned debate and not merely make a statement without
any supporting foundation.

The defendants were charged with causing death by dangerous driving
which is a charge in law applicable to the incident at hand. That they
had to know that their actions were dangerous was proved beyond
reasonable doubt by the application of that law and their conviction.
The law held that they knew the consequences of their actions hence your
argument about their needing to know what would happen to be charged
with manslaughter fails. They knew and were shown to have known in court.

That I use a term that has a precise and unambiguous structure such as
"clinically reduced mental capacity" requires the reader to understand
fully its meaning without ambiguity. If you wish to communicate your
ideas in a sloppy and slipshod fashion feel free to do so, I however
will continue to communicate in a manner that displays the true meaning
of my argument without miss-cutting or confused statements.

Sniper8052

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:53:08 GMT, "Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Steven,

My replies to yourself and others are normally in the form of a letter

Can you not bring yourself to follow Usenet guidelines and quote in the accepted
manner?

You are not above long winded and patronising lectures to others so the least
you could do is follow the guidelines yourself.

Quoted message said:

and include everything which is required for the sense of that post
within the post itself.

Wrong. You quote out of context and have stated that I, at least, have said
things I never said.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> With this post, for example, you've quoted the entire post that you were
>>> replying to, then quoted it again. Why?

Because I used it as a crib to get quotes from it has no meaning within
the reply

So why could you not have had the courtesy to delete your crib sheet before
posting? It just shows a lamentable lack of concern for others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The reason I had intended to stop debating with you was because your quoting
> methods made it too boring to continue. (Plus you habit of obsessing about
> tangential matters).

My arguments have been and still are reasoned,

I'm sure you think so.

Quoted message said:

I have not digressed into
any argument which has not been in direct response to an objection to a
previous argument raised by yourself or in direct response to a stated
position on your part.

Quoted message said:

I shall not comment on your reason for leaving
the debate,

Simply your (very) long winded, often irrelevant, confused arguments and your
strange posting style that makes it hard to disentangle what is relevant from
the mindless waffle in which you like to indulge.

That and the fact that you simply ignore any argument that defeats your case and
concentrate on the irrelevancies.

Face facts:

The inquest returned a verdict of accidental death, not unlawful killing.

The culprits were charged with lesser offences than manslaughter or murder which
would have been appropriate if your little fancies were correct.

It is for the courts to decide on a persons guilt. They found these two guilty
of certain crimes, but *not* manslaughter or murder.

It's *their* decision, not yours.

Quoted message said:

As to the
observation that I have been comparing statements out of context that is
an accusation which I utterly refute.

But which you did, nontheless.

You were also guilty of an outright lie in that you claimed I had said something
that I had never said.

Quoted message said:

I have highlighted the
contradictions and fallacies within the arguments you have put forward
or demonstrated the balance of probability arising from those
statements.

No, you've just asserted that I'm wrong, and done a lot of speculating about
things of which you can have no knowledge.

Quoted message said:

Nowhere have I misquoted or displaced any of these examples
to make the sense of my reply misleading or unfairly favourable to my
point of view.

Apart from comparing two statements from different contexts and lying about what
I had said ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> ...have never said that. Please provide the message ID where you believe I
> said that.

I refer you to the following statements made by you and which have been
well documented within this debate,

1)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 127. Steven Aug 1, 4:51 pm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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.

Which is most emphatically *not* the passage that you told someone else was mine
(and that you have dishonestly snipped from this response in the hope that
nobody would notice).

Quoted message said:

and which I reasonably demonstrated was, on the balance of probability,
the case that these drivers knew of the likelihood that a collision
would occur and that they then ignored that knowledge.

You must learn the difference between 'reasonably demonstrated' and 'asserted
and wildly speculated'

Quoted message said:

and again answered

Nope, just more assertion, speculation and bluster.

Quoted message said:

However the meaning of these two quotes is unmistakeable, that I had to
demonstrate, from your statements, that it could be shown these drivers
knew their actions to be dangerous and that they "...foresaw or expected
the incident (or one very similar)." I have demonstrated that to a

Nope, you've just speculated and asserted.

Quoted message said:

You even agree that their actions were reckless in your last post!

Of course. But the whole point is that it isn't what you and I believe; it's
what the culprits believe. You know: Mens Rea

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Of course they're reckless. Because if you drink and drive you are more likely
> to have an accident. Also if you speed.

They were speeding, therefore they were reckless, your words.

Quite right.

Quoted message said:

You have made a further statement in your latest reply that,

4)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> 170. Steven Aug 10, 9:49 am

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> These two were not reasonable and did not adequately consider the possible
> results of what they were doing. Thus they failed to expect the outcome. Thus
> it was an accident.

and state that the law disagrees with me,

Which it does.

Quoted message said:

accusing me of sidestepping the issue,

Which you have done, again and again.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> 170. Steven Aug 10, 9:49 am

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Yes it does. I note you sidestepped the point that if the law *hadn't*
> considered it an accident, they would have been charged with murder (or
> manslaughter).

You then agree my statement,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> ergo they were reckless and their conviction shows that the law holds
>>> that any competent and careful driver, who is assumed to have reasonable
>>> behavioural patterns, would also reach that conclusion.

and draw a conclusion that,

6)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> 170. Steven Aug 10, 9:49 am

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> ...they were punished for the accident they caused

Yes, this is all correct. I've never said that every statement you made was
wrong.

Here begineth the waffle.

Quoted message said:

The premise of a 'reasonable man' ascribes certain behavioural patterns
upon the majority of the population. Those exempt from that behavioural
norm are those who cannot reasonably be expected to be able to reason
right from wrong, I.E. Persons who suffer from a clinically reduced
mental capability and children under the age of criminal responsibility.
Any other defence of diminished responsibility has to be proved in court.

It is not required that you consider them to be reasonable people, the
law considers their actions against that of a 'reasonable man' if they
are not of a significantly diminished mental standard to be classed
otherwise. Hence they were legally reckless and drove in a manner that a
careful and competent driver would regard as dangerous.

You are confusing culpability with 'reasonableness'. I think this accounts for
most of your confusion.

Quoted message said:

That they were found guilty at court shows the application of that
standard. They were not tried for 'having an accident' they were tried
for causing death by dangerous driving. It is for that they have been
punished.

Yes. And if it han't been an accident, they would have been charged with
manslaughter or murder, and the coroner's court would have found that the victim
had been unlawfully killed.

Quoted message said:

I have now debated with you at length and to this point you have raised
no serious argument to show that these people were not aware of their
actions,

That is another outright lie.

I can't debate with someone who is going to keep lying about what I have and
haven't said.

Quoted message said:

I have
shown that they were aware on a 'balance of probability' that a
'reasonable person' would accept.

Nope, you've asserted and speculated. Not the same thing.

You really *must* try and learn the difference.

Quoted message said:

If you can show a reasonable and demonstrable argument

I have done.

On several occasions.

As usualy, you ignore it and just waffle on and on about irrelevancies.

Just to recap:

For your fanciful argument to hold, we have to assume that the culprits firstly:

1) Realised that they were likely to attract the attention of the police and get
into serious trouble because of the offences they were already commiting - and
ignored that.

2) Realised that they could damage their vehicles and involve themselves in a
great deal of expense and wasted time - and ignored that.

3) Realsed that they could have been in a serious accident in which they were
killed or maimed - and ignored that.

In other words, before they 'expected' to kill someone else, they must have
'expected' to be involved in a serious accident in which they were killed or
maimed.

You are claiming that they expected to kill or maim someone else, but somehow
did not expect to hurt themselves.

It just doesn't hold water, does it?

And all your wild speculation, assertions, and cod science will not change that.

Just accept the fact that they were very stupid people who acted in a very
unreasonable and reckless manner and had an accident.

The coroner's court found that.

The CPS decided that.

That is what they were sentenced for.

It is not for you, much as you might like it to be, to single handedly change
that.

You're just a plod, not an appeal court judge.

Steven,

Or should I call you Graham?

That a person should enter into the debate at such a late stage is not
unknown. That the person may support one side or another is not of
consequence.

However when that person has no history within any other Goggle Group
before that debate questions begin to be raised.

If Graham were not a pseudonym, why then did he start his first post as
if he was fully conversant with all the rules and etiquette of posting
to Usenet and an old hand? It seems oddly incongruous.

If Graham were not a pseudonym, why then is his posting path the same as
your own? I would imagine the chances of a novice selecting a
subscription net newsgroup service provider are relatively slim in
themselves, the odds on that net newsgroup service provider being the
same as your own would seem somewhat smaller. That they should then
enter into a debate to support your part is stretching credulity beyond
breaking point.

If Graham were not a pseudonym, why then does he make exactly same
observation, which has not been used anywhere, by any other or yourself
in uk.rec.cycling, but was used by you in uk.alt.english.

If Graham were not a pseudonym, why then is his prose style so markedly
similar to your own and displaying the same abrasive, confrontational
and non supported single sentence counter exchanges. I cannot call them
arguments because they have no basis of proof, only assertions.

I for one do not believe in coincidences, neither I imagine do many
others; and certainly not as many coincidences as this.

That you again failed to show any desire to demonstrate your argument
through debate was no of any great surprise to me, or I should imagine
to any who may read that debate at a later date. That you continued to
deny the meanings of the statements you made on the one hand whilst
owning their creation on the other is again on no surprise, you have
after all been doing little else since you mistakenly made them.
Presumably in the belief that no one would be able to show a reasonable
probability that they, the drivers, knew their actions to be reckless
and dangerous and that they disregarded that knowledge. I am sure you
wish you could call those statements back but they are now a matter of
record; a record that I am happy to let stand.

Throughout our correspondence you have continually asserted one thing
after another where your objections, I will not call them arguments as
you have not proved them through debate, have been shown to be unsound.
Indeed your entire manner is one of fallacious testimony to the truth
of your statements or their meanings and the reporting of what I have
demonstrated.

I will reiterate this,

It is you who said that the drivers need only to have been shown to be
aware of their actions being likely to cause a collision.

Which I showed.

It is you who said that they did not appreciate the consequences of
those actions because the presence of adrenaline made them incapable of
being so aware.

Which I disproved.

It is you who tried to demonstrate that it was possible to have an
'adrenaline rush' without being aware of danger.

Which I also disproved.

It was you who raised the mention of suicide in relation to danger and
who has never entered into debate to prove the assertion which you made.

Despite being invited to do so.

However so be it. I shall no longer try to raise a debate with you on
the subject.

You may reply if you wish, I shall not be reading it.

You may deny everything if you wish, I do not care, you have been shown,
in my opinion, as false.

You may be abusive if you want, I have demonstrated my contentions and
abuse will not change those contentions or raise the level of your
wrangling to debate.

You have, in my opinion, acted as a troll,

Shown yourself to be a troll and,

Been shown to be a troll.

I wish you a good day.

Sniper8052

Steven,

Or should I call you Graham?

That a person should enter into the debate at such a late stage is not
unknown. That the person may support one side or another is not of
consequence.

However when that person has no history within any other Goggle Group
before that debate questions begin to be raised.

If Graham were not a pseudonym, why then did he start his first post as
if he was fully conversant with all the rules and etiquette of posting
to Usenet and an old hand? It seems oddly incongruous.

If Graham were not a pseudonym, why then is his posting path the same as
your own? I would imagine the chances of a novice selecting a
subscription net newsgroup service provider are relatively slim in
themselves, the odds on that net newsgroup service provider being the
same as your own would seem somewhat smaller. That they should then
enter into a debate to support your part is stretching credulity beyond
breaking point.

If Graham were not a pseudonym, why then does he make exactly same
observation, which has not been used anywhere, by any other or yourself
in uk.rec.cycling, but was used by you in uk.alt.english.

If Graham were not a pseudonym, why then is his prose style so markedly
similar to your own and displaying the same abrasive, confrontational
and non supported single sentence counter exchanges. I cannot call them
arguments because they have no basis of proof, only assertions.

I for one do not believe in coincidences, neither I imagine do many
others; and certainly not as many coincidences as this.

That you again failed to show any desire to demonstrate your argument
through debate was no of any great surprise to me, or I should imagine
to any who may read that debate at a later date. That you continued to
deny the meanings of the statements you made on the one hand whilst
owning their creation on the other is again on no surprise, you have
after all been doing little else since you mistakenly made them.
Presumably in the belief that no one would be able to show a reasonable
probability that they, the drivers, knew their actions to be reckless
and dangerous and that they disregarded that knowledge. I am sure you
wish you could call those statements back but they are now a matter of
record; a record that I am happy to let stand.

Throughout our correspondence you have continually asserted one thing
after another where your objections, I will not call them arguments as
you have not proved them through debate, have been shown to be unsound.
Indeed your entire manner is one of fallacious testimony to the truth
of your statements or their meanings and the reporting of what I have
demonstrated.

I will reiterate this,

It is you who said that the drivers need only to have been shown to be
aware of their actions being likely to cause an accident.

It is you who said that they did not appreciate the consequences of
those actions because the presence of adrenaline made them incapable of
being so aware.

It is you who tried to demonstrate that it was possible to have an
'adrenaline rush' without being aware of danger.

It was you who raised the mention of suicide in relation to danger and
who has never entered into debate to prove the assertion which you made.

However so be it. I shall no longer try to raise a debate with you on
the subject.

You may reply if you wish, I shall not be reading it.

You may deny everything if you wish, I do not care, you have been shown,
in my opinion, as false.

You may be abusive if you want, I have demonstrated my contentions and
abuse will not change those contentions or raise the level of your
wrangling to debate.

You have acted as a troll,

Shown yourself to be a troll and,

Been shown to be a troll.

I wish you a good day.

Sniper8052

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:32:08 GMT, "Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Snip of sniper (a pseudonym, or is that what's on your birth certificate?) doing
his usual trick of trying to divert attention from the weakness of his argument.

I've no idea who Graham is, but the fact that quite a few ISP's are no longer
supporting Usenet means that a lot of people have switched to Individual.

I don't need the support of avatars, I'm quite capable of showing the absurdity
of you silly argument by myself.

The fact that you need to make wild an unproven accusations about a poster
rather than concentrating of the actual salient points is instructive.

-------

Sniper trick 1 : Bluster

Quoted message said:

That you again failed to show any desire to demonstrate your argument
through debate was no of any great surprise to me, or I should imagine
to any who may read that debate at a later date. That you continued to
deny the meanings of the statements you made on the one hand whilst
owning their creation on the other is again on no surprise, you have
after all been doing little else since you mistakenly made them.

-------

-------

Sniper trick 2 : Make confused statements that look as if they mean something
significant but actually mean nothing

Quoted message said:

Presumably in the belief that no one would be able to show a reasonable
probability that they, the drivers, knew their actions to be reckless
and dangerous and that they disregarded that knowledge. I am sure you
wish you could call those statements back but they are now a matter of
record; a record that I am happy to let stand.

-------

-------

Sniper trick 3 : Asserting that his opponent has failed to make a case and that
he has.

Simply, worthless argument by assertion.

Quoted message said:

Throughout our correspondence you have continually asserted one thing
after another where your objections, I will not call them arguments as
you have not proved them through debate, have been shown to be unsound.

-------

-------

Sniper trick 3 : Asserting that his opponent has failed to make a case.

Simply, worthless argument by assertion.

Quoted message said:

Indeed your entire manner is one of fallacious testimony to the truth
of your statements or their meanings and the reporting of what I have
demonstrated.

-------

Quoted message said:

I will reiterate this,

It is you who said that the drivers need only to have been shown to be
aware of their actions being likely to cause a collision.

True.

--------
Sniper trick 4 : Claiming he's shown something that he's singlarly failed to do.

Quoted message said:

Which I showed.

Which no one on earth (other than a mindreader) could show. You certainly
haven't.

----------

----------

Sniper trick 5 Concentration on irrelevancies.

Quoted message said:

It is you who said that they did not appreciate the consequences of
those actions because the presence of adrenaline made them incapable of
being so aware.

Incorrect.

I merely used the expression "adrenaline addled". Exactly what the effect of the
adrenaline was cannot be determined. But you copied a lot of largely irrelevant
stuff from a medical text and then acted as if you made an important point.

You hadn't.

--------
Sniper trick 4 : Claiming he's shown something that he's singlarly failed to do.

Quoted message said:

Which I disproved.

It is you who tried to demonstrate that it was possible to have an
'adrenaline rush' without being aware of danger.

*Consciously* aware of the danger. That is the point.
---------

--------
Sniper trick 4 : Claiming he's shown something that he's singlarly failed to do.

Quoted message said:

Which I also disproved.

--------

--------
Sniper trick 6 : Waffle on for ages about irrelevanmt and peripheral matters and
then complain that they haven't been addressed.

Quoted message said:

It was you who raised the mention of suicide in relation to danger and
who has never entered into debate to prove the assertion which you made.

Despite being invited to do so.

--------

Quoted message said:

You may reply if you wish, I shall not be reading it.

That's fine. Anyone who reads the end of this post will see the specific points
that I've made and that you have sidestepped in every reply you've made.

Quoted message said:

You may deny everything if you wish,

How very magnanemous of you!

Quoted message said:

You may be abusive if you want,

There is no need, other than to say that your debating skills are very weak, but
that's your problem, not mine.

Quoted message said:

I have demonstrated my contentions

I'm sure you think you have.

Quoted message said:

and
abuse will not change those contentions or raise the level of your
wrangling to debate.

Although you seem to like to be a little abusive, yourself ;-)

Quoted message said:

You have, in my opinion, acted as a troll,

Shown yourself to be a troll and,

Been shown to be a troll.

If you belive that I'm a troll, what does it say for your intelligence that
you've been feeding me all week?

In fact, I'm not a troll. I just do not belive that the English language can be
abused by those who want to make a political point, and I refuse to be
intimidated by a few of the group's silverbacks.

The salient points are these:

1) Two imbeciles had an illegal road race as a result of which a woman was
killed.

2) The coroner's court returned a verdict of accidental death (*not* unlawful
killing)

3) The CPS charged, and the defendants were conviceted on a charge of causing
death by dangerous driving, *not* manslaughter of murder, as would have been
appropriate if the death had not be accidental.

4) To show that the death was not accidental, you would need to show that the
culprits were *expecting* to have an accident of sufficient seriousness that
their own lives could well have been ended. i.e. you would need to show that
they acted in a suicidal manner.

5) In order to justify your desired redefinition of the word accident, you would
need to explain exactly how the general public would be able to use what is
currently an everyday, non-technical word when your definition would require a
complex and arguable judgement to be made in each case as to whether or not each
incident was an accident.

You have never even *attempted to answer points 2 and 3, have blustered and
waffled about point 4 and then claimed you have countered it when you plainly
have not, and you have never attempted to come up with an explanation of how
point 5 could be solved.

You also seem to be confused about the fact that the law will punish people who
behave in an unreasonable manner, but the actual charge will depend on 'mens
rea', or the extent to which they had a guilty mind.

You have the lamentable attitude so common in police in the past that people are
guilty because you say they are guilty. In this case, the coroner's court and
the CPS disagree with your assessment.

You are just a plod that was not involved with the case, not an appeal court
judge.