extendor Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 He choose to jump the barrier... Says it all really. He did not look to me like he was about to commit suicide or any one of a hundred other bleeding heart causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extendor Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 You make an argument for the culling of stupid or low intellect people, Carl I suggested sterilisation for idiots. Is that as bad? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyP Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Hello Branners, Quoting your post: So he may be killed without you caring just becuase he has a disability, temporary or otherwise. Nice! So you care more about the people delayed than what led the person onto the tracks? How do you know that he did it with the full presence of his faculties and how do you know anything else about his actual mental state while he followed these actions? You make an argument for the culling of stupid or low intellect people, or even people who have disabilites, temporary or otherwise that are unable to make well informed decisions by level crossing or road traffic accidents. Nice! Carl Thank you for reminding me why you are the only person on my ignore list. Now would everyone else please stop quoting him so I don't have to read any more of this drivel. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Thank you for your reply Branners. It is interesting to discuss this issue with someone who appears to have a view diametrically opposed to my own, and to do so in a calm and intelligent manner. I will quote from your post again, if I may, as it is a convenient way of structuring my reply to you. What disability did he have? A complete inability to care about the repercussions of his actions is not a disability. Let's not get into masturbatory semantics here, like whether complete inability in something infers a disability in something, or about the nature of disability itself. If it helps our discussion progress, let me apologise for stating that he has a disability. I am sorry for that. Let us rather focus on about his lack of awareness about the repercussions of his actions. What could have led him to the point of this lack of awareness? Let us rule out suicide, serious mental illness, and severe learning difficulties, as I am sure that would take this dicussion in a direction where we would both agree that the person was not in a fit state to be held fully in account for his or her actions. Let us then talk about someone who, due to whatever reason, felt themselves to be "invincible" or somehow disrespectful of law and order, or simply having an incredibly reckless attitude or unrealistic impression of how the real world functions, or any combination of the above. The following scenarios then appear plausible: 1) A young white man, aged say 23, loves PSP and his nintendo console, plays gears of war every night online with an internet connection funded by state benefits. His father is a drunk, never worked a day in his life, his mother used to work as a checkout operator before she got sacked for stealing money from the tills she never worked again and that was 13 years ago. The young man has a few f*ckbuddies, one of whom he got clamidiya from, and the rest to which he spread it. He once keyed a modded MR2 becuase he "felt like it". You freely call this person SCUM. And he almost got killed on that level crossing that day. 2) A young white girl, aged 16, bunked off school since she was 11 out with her mates, going to chill out near the local station's chippy where they hang out most nights if it's not too cold or rainy. Sometimes they drink, and almost always they buy or ponce fags off people. Some of her mates are only 13. And they smoke fags given to them by her. She just crossed under the barrier becuase she doesn't give a sh!t, and the train always takes ages to come past anyway. She had her mp3 player in and was listening to music at the time she was hit. You freely call this person SCUM. 3) A young white professional woman, a laywer aged 28, she had lived in the area for only two weeks but had already seen how long it takes for the train to come past when the barrier was down. She was on foot. It was early in the morning and was still dark. She had to get to work even early that morning as she was going into Leeds Crown Court to support the barrister in an important case and there were things she needed to prepare, and needed to make sure she arrived there in good time. She was frustrated as she saw the barrier come down, and she knew that she would possibly miss her bus if she had to wait 10 minutes until the barrier came up again. So she decided to chance it, epecially as she heard no train coming, and it took about 40 seconds from when you first heard the train, to it actually going past anyway. To cross the track only took five seconds anyway, so it was safe. Unfortunately for her she tripped on one of the sleepers and hit her head on the track and passed out. She died from her injurys when the train hit her. You freely call this person SCUM. 4) A young black man also a professional, but in IT, into his hard house though, aged 32, and had his iPod on doing its thing. He was late, but not majorly so, thought he would chance it. Felt a little superior I guess, had enough of signs telling him what to do, felt he had to live a little, besides the music was really pumping and it would be ghey to just stop and wait for the train. As he crossed he looked at the time, and having pulled his hand out of his pocked to do so, his wallet dropped onto the track and spilt open, his pound coins rolling out. With a quick look down the track he saw nothing coming far into to distance. And leisurely picked up every one of his pound coins before a train came from the direction he did not look in, and killed him instantly. You freely call this person SCUM. Of course these are just examples just to illustrate that when you call someone scum, then the target of that insult is a real person with real history and a real life - however flawed, however distingushed, however normal. It is the sign of somebody for whom morals have been rejected. Since when has morality been a litmus test for one's ability to cross a level crossing in safety? Or for that matter perform any potentially dangerous daily event in safety? I put him in the same league as somebody who carries a knife and stabs someboby else for 'looking at them funny'. A very interesting comparision. Getting hit by a train, and stabbing someone. Yes, I can really see the similarites there, uhuh, clear as day. Someone who gets hit by a train, may have made an error of judgement. We are all capable of errors of judgement, and fortunately most do not result in a life or death situation. Stabbing someone through getting "looked at funny" is not a simple error of judgement in my opinion, it is the result of someone who has 1) a serious mental condition, or 2) been brought up in an environment of fear, aggression, and lack of positive role models and family stability, or 3) any combination of the above. Are those people disabled? No, they are scum, and that bloke who nearly got hit by the train is scum. Granted, they may not be disabled, but we will agree to disagree on the point on whether or not they are scum. Why should 99% of the world follow the rules and live their life as it should be lived while the 1% dont give a toss and abuse all trust and freedom put in them. What rules are you talking about, the laws of the land, or any rule, including workplace rules? I would struggle to think that the figure was as high as 99% of British people following all the rules laid down before them all the time. It is interesting that you now bring out these statistics to help support your case. Where did they come from; the university of life? Or do you have an actual academic study to refer to? Are you saying if that bloke had somehow caused the train to be derailed and caused the death of people on there then its okay because he was slightly mental at the time? It is a good question you ask there, Branners. A rather emotive one, if I may say so, but good. I am not saying it is "okay". Such a blanket waving away of the gravity of the situation would be both inappropriate and erroneous. It is not okay if by "okay" you mean "fair" - life is not "fair". It may or not be okay if by "okay" you mean "forgivable" that is for the relatives of the deceased and the wider public to decide. And if by okay you mean "okay" in a legal sense that that is for the courts to decide. When looking into legal culpability the courts may ask for an assessment of the state of mind of the individual at the time of, and leading up to the incident, and take into account any mitigating circumstances before passing judgement. But whilst I am certainly no legal expert, last time I looked being hit by a train and surviving was not a criminal offence, regardless of how many people were killed should the train somehow have derailed becuase if it. Perhaps you can elucidate on how you think a person could cause a moving train to derail by placing himself in the way of it? I feverishly await your response on that one. And i suppose the final piece of this is that I really dont care if he dies. 100 Bonus points and a hug from your nearest care bear for that one. Perhaps you should focus your good samaritan efforts on places like Iraq where people are blown up just for being in the wrong place, or even on London where children are sleeping in the streets. Just becuase I apparently take a different, perhaps more caring, standpoint to your own, does not make me Watford's next answer to Mother Theresa. I am entitled to hold a differing view, which I may or may not practice in my daily life, and the extent to which I do, or do not do that, is certainly dictated by own current willingness and limitatations. Sell your Supra and your worldly goods and then you can be in a position to preach to all of us. Is it preaching, or is it just trying to express my point of view? You choose to parody my apparent caring stance by holding me up as a wannabe quasi-relgious figure who needs to forgo using his most prized possesions to be worth listening to. My argument, is that it is far more challenging to remain real and be caring within certain boundaries, whilst enjoying the supra, and any other other pleasures for what they are. And being caring does not mean you have to care for every single person with a cause. hugs and respect, Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branners Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Carl_S, you have the ramblings of somebody on the edge of a breakdown. You dont even warrant me taking time to read your drivel. I have been sitting back watching your posting style for some time and I dont like what I see. You totally failed to grasp what people told you in the recent thread asking you to shut up. If you want to spout your 'goodwill to all men' crap then please find another forum to do it on. This place is not a sounding board for your obscure and quite frankly strange views and observations. We met at Ace Cafe and you seemed normal enough then, but if I had not met you I would actually put you down as somebody either on the edge of madness or somebody trying out an experiment on the forum to see what responses you can get. I will be watching your posts carefully as will the rest of the mod team as there is a general feeling of oddness about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extendor Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Shut up Carl. The bloke is plainly an idiot and you are making yourself out to be a twat when you argue against the obvious. Don't you feel even slightly out of step with what others are saying. Have some balls and say it like it is. Its easy, just write "The guy is an idiot". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Thank you for your reply Branners. I'm a bit odd. hugs and respect, Carl PS. The guy was an idiot. There, said it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extendor Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 There, said it for you. Naughty........but, nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soop Dogg Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 We are all capable of errors of judgement, and fortunately most do not result in a life or death situation. 'Error of judgement'? Yeah - only just! Big barrier, flashing lights, sirens, signs telling you not to cross for your own safety because you might die etc etc. A little more than a simple 'error of judgement' I'd say. And i doubt if anyone is actually saying that people like this have any less right to live than anyone else, but if they choose to put their head in the lion's mouth, then sooner or later they can expect to have it bitten off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Post removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 And i doubt if anyone is actually saying that people like this have any less right to live than anyone else, I think that some of the posters on the thread do believe this. Herbert Spencer is alive and well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Carl, I hope you are taking notice of the very serious points raised in this thread. Your views are becoming increasingly different fromthose of other people. A little bit different is OK and can be tolerated, but radically different and questioning moral fundamentals is really not on. You can't expect to come on here and keep spouting your own personal views when so many find your - shall we say humanitarian - world view stings like a lash across the back. Please try to develop a more healthy sense of scorn for the appropriate people, club members find it infuriating when you do not. Anyone who reaches such different conclusions as you do, who is so 'out of step', is obviously having mental health problems. And though it may appear that at first glance, your points have an internal logic to them, obviously this cannot be the case, because the conclusions you reach are entirely different and therefore must be wrong. What you write is actually just gibberish, as I have just proven. I agree to Extendor that you need to grow some balls and agree with everyone else rather than your current cowardly stance of having a wilfully contrarian opinion. I agree, what's the matter with you Carl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I agree, what's the matter with you Carl? Carl is nuttier than squirrel sh!t...... My bet on him being the next member to get banned still stands but he is like a harmless idiot rather than someone who deserves to be banned.......hmm, decisions, decisions!! H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branners Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Carl is nuttier than squirrel sh!t...... My bet on him being the next member to get banned still stands but he is like a harmless idiot rather than someone who deserves to be banned.......hmm, decisions, decisions!! H. I believe Tannhauser was being sarcastic with his post, he does not believe Carl was rambling like a nutter and believes has some valid points. Naturally if Tannhausers comments were accurate he would be burned at a stake too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I believe Tannhauser was being sarcastic with his post, he does not believe Carl was rambling like a nutter and believes has some valid points. Naturally if Tannhausers comments were accurate he would be burned at a stake too. Maybe we should just lock Carl up in a phone box and let him argue with himself?? I did read into the sarcasm with the cowardly stance comment but lately this has all got a bit too much for me..... H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extendor Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Please try to develop a more healthy sense of scorn for the appropriate people. Pure gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flukey-lukey Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I agree with Carl Anyway, I've never seen a person splattered by a train (know people who have though, including drivers) but I've seen the remains of many horses and cows splattered by trains. Its ugly... I wouldn't wish for anyone to see that sort of thing. A person being hit by a train would not cause a derailment. Imagine flies hitting the windscreen of your car on the motorway, same kind of thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Good morning Branners, Thank you again for your esteemed response to my post. Your reply reads rather like the wimpering of a small child or animal, so let me pick you up in my arms and give you a pat and a stroke, and some nice warm milk. If you find that you are unable to debate a point with me becuase of your insufficient intellect or your general short-sightedness, then I suggest that you bow out at the earliest opportunity and not reply to me. You chose to join the debate, and chose to question my point of view. I answered. You answered. Then I answered again, and you, like a peacock, you now show your colours as a way of scaring me off. Your colours though, are not like those of the wonderful peacock, your colours are diahorrea brown, baby-poo yellow, and greenish school-boy snot. If you cannot "hang" with me in a reasoned discussion where we respect the other's point of view, even when it is diametrically opposed to our own, then do not respond to my posts. Doing so, just makes you look like a fool, and may expose you to further embarassment. If you still want to continue to reply to me, you may do well to improve your spelling and punctuation. I, of course, have no need to do this as my posts to you are intelligent enough and do not need bolstering by sunday-school perfect sentences. Let me reply to your loathesome, knee-jerk post then: Carl_S, you have the ramblings of somebody on the edge of a breakdown. You wish. Have you ever conversed with a person on the edge of a nervous breakdown? How would you recognise such a person? And what qualifications do you have that makes you think you are able to make this judgement with any credibility? You dont even warrant me taking time to read your drivel. I am hurt, I truly am. I was really feeling valued by you, until you dropped that bombshell. I have been sitting back watching your posting style for some time and I dont like what I see. I am sorry that you do not like what you see, but I cannot be held responsible for the feelings that my posts create in your mind. Perhaps you will one day find time to question your own responses, before lashing out. You totally failed to grasp what people told you in the recent thread asking you to shut up. And it seems you totally failed to grasp and hold onto the other side of the coin too. Go re-read that thread. Selective memory huh? Don't blame it on your age, you are not quite ready for your pipe and slippers yet. If you want to spout your 'goodwill to all men' crap then please find another forum to do it on. This place is not a sounding board for your obscure and quite frankly strange views and observations. Again, you wish. I post my honest views on things. If you do not like seeing them, then perhaps it is you that should seek out other forums, or at least, if it affects you so seriously, have me on ignore like Michael, until you find the reasons for your issues with my posts. We met at Ace Cafe and you seemed normal enough then, but if I had not met you I would actually put you down as somebody either on the edge of madness or somebody trying out an experiment on the forum to see what responses you can get. I feel I need to console you here and make it absolutely clear to you, so that you are under no delusions about who I am. I own a supra. I come on this forum to amuse myself, and pass time. I have paid the membership fee, and as such I have every right to post here as anyone else. I believe in the internet entity that is mkivsupra.net, I value and embrace the club spirit, and I am excited by the opportunities that this club makes in meeting other supra owners and seeing their cars. I am NOT on the edge of madness. I do NOT come here as an experiment to find out what kind of responses my posts illicit. I come here becuase I belong here, and deserve to be here, and I like it. I will be watching your posts carefully as will the rest of the mod team as there is a general feeling of oddness about you. Have fun, and I wish the same on the esteemed mod team too. All I can say to you is that I am sorry if I cause you and others offence, but I am not going to censor myself, becuase I truly believe that any offence caused is due to your own issues and not my posts. If you think otherwise, feel free to take me up on it, and I will gladly discuss, and apologise if appropriate. I, after all, make mistakes, and errors of judgement, like anyone else, and strive to learn and better myself. I wish you a good day Branners, Respectfully, Carl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 An insulting and deliberately provocative post that does not sit easily with the general philosophy you espouse. If that's what you want to do with your freedom of speech, I'm embarrassed to support it. Earlier satirical post edited and unsubscribed from thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 In before the ban..... I can't wait for Branners to read your last post Carl. As the owner of the forum your condescending tone will only inflame the situation further. I always thought that you were more intelligent than that. You need to know who you can wind up and people who it's not worth winding up as they'll get you back quite easily..!! H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Good morning Branners, I'm just a bit odd. And now a bit spiteful. Respectfully, Carl. In before the ban..... Me too! Oh, and before I forget, bye! I'd like to say it's been a pleasure knowing you, but its been really quite painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extendor Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Carl, I too am about to bow out. My point has always been, that IN MY OPINION the CCTV showed someone who was acting like an idiot. From the evidense it was impossible for me to see any other intent with the person other than to cross the crossing at any cost and flout any commonly held regards for safety, legality or common sense. These acts of folly do cause untold and far reaching misery. I have experienced a tiny bit of it as I explained and I thank you for your kind thoughts on that. Yes, I said a deliberately provokative think like having people like him sterilised. That was unfair but it does represent the anger I feel about the actions of some people who obviously CAN help themselves. This is where you and I part company on the thread. You rightly raise the issue of people who cannot help themselves and I agree with a lot of what you say. BUT from my point of view you did not address the issue of someone who deliberately discards common sense and vaults a barrier and crosses in front of a train with no obvious intent to kill themselves or be distracted. I call that person an idiot and you remain silent. My comment about balls etc relates purely to that issue. I have to be honest and say I retract that, because you are certainly fighting your corner now. However, the discussion has moved on and I will not take part. See you on other threads. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 An inn before the Loch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyP Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Blah blah blah load of bollox blah blah blah Carl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 An inn before the Loch ooh, that looks nice, do they have a lunch menu? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts