If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Speeding teen kills self and friend - Described as an " incredibly outgoing, beautiful person"
In article >, far2go4 wrote:
> A Troll, is someone who posts threads with only chaos and disruption > in mind, then reply to various threads with 'flaming' remarks...well, > unfortunately, they post such posts as both you and Brent posted. I've posted nothing of the kind. If you have a problem with a specific post, cite it. The fact remains, Teenagers are driving cars that they couldn't possibily own without the help of mommie and daddie. That is not a flame in anyway. Neither is the strict definition of a sports car. It's existed since before I was born, and like I posted wether or not I believe in the strict definition is irrelevant and does not change what it is. BTW, try to post 80 or less characters per line. Usenet is not a web forum where CRs are used every paragraph. It's an old-school conventional text forum where CRs are used every line. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Speeding teen kills self and friend - Described as an " incredibly outgoing, beautiful person"
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:02:35 +0100, far2go4
> wrote: >Scott-I own and administrate a forum, I also moderate at several forums >and I am well aware of Trolls and Flamers Odd... One would expect a forum owner/administrator to know how to quote properly and how to set their line wrap correctly. > Perhaps, past experience has hardened you. "Hardened" is not the word I would use. "Wisened" is more like it. You have to admit that's an AMAZING coincidence that, of all the billions of people in this world, that the mother of someone being discussed in this obscure little newsgroup should just happen to be passing by. Of course, another possible explanation is that "theprincessmother" is NOT the mother of the girl who died, but is actually just some troll who took advantage of an opportunity to play a role and post some inflammatory remarks. Given your vast experience owning and administrating online message fora, which do you think is more likely? >I cannot speak for other family members that respond to other threads, >but we stumbled on a link that brought us to this thread. Who are "we?" Are you also claiming to be a relative of this dead girl? If not, why do you care so much? >At the very least, how would you feel if it was your Mother, sister, >daughter, son, brother and IT posted their tragedy on a site that >you came across, and you read things that were in-human. If one of my relatives won a Darwin award, I would certainly not blame anyone for pointing that out. |
#4
|
||||||
|
||||||
Speeding teen kills self and friend - Described as an " incredibly outgoing, beautiful person"
Quote:
had this not been there, probably myself or Staci's mom would never had posted anything. It was that one line that motivated a response. Perhaps, you meant no harm. Quote:
I understand your stand on the importance of how these 'children' can afford such vehicles. However, there isn't a debate on whether your opinion is right or wrong, albeit, in hind-thought, I can assure you his family have their regret and are overwhelmed by guilt, and still, whether he paid for it in cash, his parents co-signed a loan, or even he borrowed the car is not going to bring Staci back. I agree, parents need to take responsibilty when they provide them with a car without providing the child with the training to use it responsibly. The consequence is much too high. Brent Wrote: Quote:
The blame is on Eric, the driver who drove recklessly and hadn't considered Staci's well fare. What I guess I would like to know is what 'irresponsible' manuevers would cause a vehicle that is made and designed to handle over 100 mph speeds, to spin out on a straight-way, with no other 'known' vehicles on the roadway and crash, breaking into two halfs and shattered pieces. I wonder...if this question will remain unanswered. Brent Wrote: Quote:
over the situation, no one caused it, life just happens. I agree, the teenagers today have no respect, no concern for consequence and unfortunately, have never learned to take responsibility for their actions. It appears they don't care. Quote:
to take responsibility for their own actions. Like the lawsuit on Mcdonalds and the hot coffee. Again, the point was not to find blame but to clarify that Staci didn't think herself to be a princess, but rather her mother did. Quote:
however, feel that the opinion and points made through this thread could be presented with respect for the families. Just like your most recent post. The points are strong, clearly written and are respectful. I appreciate your input and I apologize for intruding on your USENET forums. Regards, Elizabeth |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Speeding teen kills self and friend - Described as an " incredibly outgoing, beautiful person"
Scott:
First, carstalk.net is a webwide forum that connects into USENET and therefore, links can be easily stumbled upon by googling a name or using any search engine. Second, Had you been raised properly you might consider that the person or persons you are replying to 'COULD" be the mother. The chance of a person replying to a thread about their child is always a possibility and so therefore, you have the choice of either, not replying or at the very least, making considerate postings--with this in mind. Third, my reference to my experience with forums was to express my sympathies and understanding pertaining to troll postings and flamers. I've dealt with my share. However, it still would not give me the right to be so blatantly disrespectful to someone who 'claims' they have just suffered such a grievious loss. And last but not least, Jackie, is truly Anastasia's mother and had only read through the thread hoping to learn something about the cars performance, hoping to make some sense of what happened. Not to place blame. Not to flame or even to have a conversation with anyone about her loss. Searching for answers. Normally I wouldn't give much importance to your immature and disrespectful suspicions...however- Here is a link to Anastasia's Obituary Guest Book. I hope, that at the very least, for no other reason at all, you might look closely at her mothers heartache and come back with an apology to her. If you have any respect for your mother, you would understand that you've been unnecessarily disrespectful towards her and as one might say, own up to your own misunderstandings. http://www.legacy.com/palmbeachpost/...sonID=15751088 I wish I could say this is all a bad dream! Hopefully you never know the heartache. Elizabeth-- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Speeding teen kills self and friend - Described as an " incredibly outgoing, beautiful person"
"far2go4" > wrote
> I appreciate your input and I apologize for intruding on your USENET > forums. Under *NO* circumstances should you apologize for "intruding". Usenet was, (arguably still is) before the advent of chat groups, forums and such based upon IM, the freest forum for expression extant. It is open to all, excludes none, and has a very rich and extensive subject list that you are free and welcome to explore. The non-moderated groups are mostly rants and infested with trolls, but there is still a great deal of value there. We only ask that you read and follow the posting guidelines, which include pure text (not HTML), 80-character lines, no graphics, etc. These guidelines are readily available, as are many free newsreaders (including Outlook Express, which you probably have.) FloydR |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Speeding teen kills self and friend - Described as an " incrediblyoutgoing, beautiful person"
far2go4 wrote:
> Quote:
> It was pertaining to the 'Another self-proclaimed princess..." Which > had this not been there, probably myself or Staci's mom would never had > posted anything. It was that one line that > motivated a response. Perhaps, you meant no harm. From my search through both my usenet feed and Google groups, I was not able to find anyone who made any such remark. In fact, searching for the word "princess" in rec.autos.driving only returned the post that I'm responding to. > I appreciate your input and I apologize for intruding on your USENET > forums. Anyone is welcome to post to usenet. It's just that there are established conventions regarding formatting a given post as well as how to place followups to a certain post. For instance, does not work on usenet since it's solely a text based means of communication. The established convention for quoting material is to prepend each line with a '>' character as shown above with the material you previously typed. As Brent mentioned, each line should have a <CR> at the end of it and line lengths should be between 72 to 76 characters. Also, when responding to a post, you should try replying directly to it so that your post actually comes directly below the post you're responding to when people see it in a threaded view. Pretty much all software used to post to usenet does this for you and even Google groups does a good job with keeping followups in the right place as well as properly quoting text (as long as you click on the correct reply button). Unfortunately, carstalk doesn't allow you to do that. If I were you, I'd try posting through Google groups. Go to http://groups.google.com and type rec.autos.driving in the group field. Then you can post if you have an account. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Speeding teen kills self and friend - Described as an " incredibly outgoing, beautiful person"
In article . com>, far2go4 wrote:
> Quote:
This is not a web forum, tags do not work here. This is usenet. If it didn't exist in 1985, it doesn't work here. Usenet is a very old part of the net and predates most people's knowledge of it. Communication is in ascii text. Even binary files are uuencoded (or more modern versions there of) into 70col text for transmission on usenet (in binary groups). > It was pertaining to the 'Another self-proclaimed princess..." Which > had this not been there, probably myself or Staci's mom would never had > posted anything. It was that one line that > motivated a response. Perhaps, you meant no harm. So repeating, as a side note, what was in the article, is a 'troll'? The article spent a good deal of words on the 'princess' aspect. Was it inaccurate? Because the only reason one would take offense is due to inaccuracy, in which case your beef is with the news media, not me or my unstated opinion of "princesses". correcting quoting... >> The fact remains, Teenagers are driving cars that they couldn't >> possibily own without the help of mommie and daddie. That is not a >> flame in anyway. Neither is the strict definition of a sports car. It's >> existed since before I was born, and like I posted wether or not I >> believe in the strict definition is irrelevant and does not change what >> it is. > I understand your stand on the importance of how these 'children' can > afford such vehicles. However, there isn't a debate on whether your > opinion is right or wrong, albeit, in hind-thought, I can assure you > his family have their regret and are overwhelmed by guilt, and still, > whether he paid for it in cash, his parents co-signed a loan, or even > he borrowed the car is not going to bring Staci back. I agree, parents > need to take responsibilty when they provide them with a car without > providing the child with the training to use it responsibly. The > consequence is much too high. Exactly. Now imagine if you've been the victim of bad teenage driving three times over and the near victim too many times to count. 2 out of three times I got lame teenage excuses of 'cleaning the windshield' while driving 40mph... and 'I was in a hurry'. At least the most recent one didn't give a lame excuse but took responsibility. He'll probably grow up to be the best adult of the three. >> Here lies the problem in US society. It's "heartless" to examine real >> causes of incidents. We are supposed to be feeling for the loss or >> looking for someone else or something to blame. > No. Making sense and finding blame are two separate things. This is more or less a technical forum. We've lost most of our best contributors regarding autocross, vehicle handling and so forth due to the constant speed-kills trolls and the like. We've lost the best contributor regarding engineering of road systems. But a good number of us learned from them and on our own and get rather tired of the 'speeding teen driver kills self and friend(s)' articles being used as an excuse for absurdly low speed limits and other nonsenical laws. > The blame is on Eric, the driver who drove recklessly and hadn't > considered Staci's well fare. What I guess I would like to know is > what 'irresponsible' manuevers would cause a vehicle that is made > and designed to handle over 100 mph speeds, to spin out on a > straight-way, with no other 'known' vehicles on the roadway and crash, > breaking into two halfs and shattered pieces. I wonder...if this > question will remain unanswered. It broke in half because it's a unit body car. Unit body automobiles don't have much in the way of solid structure in the middle because the middle doesn't support anything, it is supported. Thusly a solid object like a strong tree or old fashioned non-breakway light pole will slice through the middle of the vehicle given sufficent (ie, well above what should be driven on any road with such hazards near the roadway) vehicle speed. As to why he lost control, if you provide pictures of the road (as a url to somewhere on the web) I am sure someone here can make reasonable guesses. My guess is that it is not a 100mph road. I know many roads where a full out super car like a Ford GT could be wrecked at speeds much lower than 100mph. >> I've been in one major collision in my life. I've told the story here >> before. The front driver's side tire of my 1975 maverick blew out while >> braking from aproximately 55mph on an interstate. The car spun and I >> pulled it out of the spin to a stop where it was then hit on the >> passenger side by a semi truck. > I would consider this situation an accident. No one has any control > over the situation, no one caused it, life just happens. That was my point in bringing it up. I looked at myself, my actions regarding it, even though it was something that could have killed far better drivers in far better cars than a then 19 year old ford compact with technology straight out of the 1950s. > I agree, the teenagers today have no respect, no concern for > consequence and unfortunately, have never learned to take > responsibility for their actions. It appears they don't care. And I've been hit by a couple of them. >> There was recently a decision in a lawsuit where ford was successfully >> sued for 65 million dollars in damages because a ford explorer flipped >> over when the teenaged driver fell asleep at the wheel, woke up and >> gave the steering wheel a yank in an effort to get back on the road. >> How in the world is the crash of an essentially driverless vehicle, >> hell worse than a driverless vehicle, someone giving steering inputs >> that are exactly what one would do to cause a flip and there is no >> examination of driver training or responsibility. It's ford's fault. >> There are countless lawsuits like this. > And that is only because society once again, does not expect everyone > to take responsibility for their own actions. Like the lawsuit on > Mcdonalds and the hot coffee. BINGO. > Again, the point was not to find blame but to clarify that Staci didn't > think herself to be a princess, but rather her mother did. So your beef is with the news media then. I am somehow at fault for getting that impression from the news story? >> Yeah, I'm the heartless one, calling for real training, engineered road >> systems, better performing vehicles (braking,handling,lighting,etc), >> and other things to prevent crashes while the "feeling" members of society >> pass another <insert child's name> law that does absolutely nothing but >> annoy people. > No, I don't consider the desire for real training heartless, I do > however, feel that the opinion and points made through this thread > could be presented with respect for the families. Just like your most > recent post. The points are strong, clearly written and are respectful. Then your beef should be with the speed kills types who use every family tragedy to advance their agenda of government control and lowest common demonator driving with rigid enforcement and excessive penalties. I'm tired of it, as is practically everyone else who is interested in driving, bicycling, motorcycling, rollerblading, or any other form of transport. Everytime I turn around it seems there is another preventable tragedy being used to push someone's agenda of control. If there is a drunk driver with a 0.25 BAC that kills someone we get the neoprohibitionists calling for new lower BAC limits of .03. If some kid finds daddy's gun and it comes to a tragic end we have the gun control lobby demanding handguns be illegal. If some guy on a bicycle gets run over by a cement truck that ran a red signal crushing the bicyclist's chest the helmet lobby comes out and demands laws forcing us to wear foam hats while using a bicycle and baning bicycling from various roads and building of more glorified sidewalks. If some crotch rocket rider offs himself on the dan-ryan doing a 120mph while lane splitting in heavy traffic we get demands for helmet laws. (last time for bicyclists and roller bladers, make sense of that one) If some one who is 125 years old and half blind mistakes the accelerator for the brake and plows through a farmers market, there is call to ban driving for those over age 55 or some other nonsense. And lastly, if some teen is driving excessively fast for conditions loses control and kills himself or others we get calls for pushing up the driving age, lower speed limits, and anything else that could be tangentially justified using that event but does nothing to address root cause. In the USA, this society, and it's government and media refuse to actually deal with problems. They are quickly brushed over with a coat of paint and that's it. Meanwhile, like rust that is just painted over, it doesn't go away, it just grows and pops up again. > I appreciate your input and I apologize for intruding on your USENET > forums. Thanks, there is no intrusion because it is free and open for all. The annoyance comes in when the simple formating conventions are not used. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Speeding teen kills self and friend - Described as an " incredibly outgoing, beautiful person"
In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:
> From my search through both my usenet feed and Google groups, I was not > able to find anyone who made any such remark. In fact, searching for > the word "princess" in rec.autos.driving only returned the post that I'm > responding to. I made a side reference to what was in the article. And it does exist in the google archive. Google has it as two threads and I reviewed all my posts in this thread before posting asking for a cite. My comment wasn't a troll in any sense, but a couple words relating what was in the article. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Speeding teen kills self and friend - Described as an " incrediblyoutgoing, beautiful person"
Brent P wrote:
> I made a side reference to what was in the article. And it does exist in > the google archive. Google has it as two threads and I reviewed all my > posts in this thread before posting asking for a cite. My comment wasn't > a troll in any sense, but a couple words relating what was in the > article. Ah ok. I limited my search to December which is why I missed it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|