|
Scott Construction Equipment
QUESTION:Anyway this is not space.policy. So let's cut the topic. Scott, sorry for
offending you, but understand that sometimes lapping your tounge freely what
you think may offend other people, even if you din't want or expect it.
Each of us has it's own view, so I understand your position, although don't
aprove it. Could say a lot more, explain my views, discuss, but this is not
the group adequate for that. If you wish we can keep it by e-mail, or in
another more fitting group. Personaly I think we have already told what we
wanted.
After certain point further discussion in internet groups is useless and
purposeless. People discuss just "to prove their point". I don't want to
follow this tradition. It smells to much ego and narrow mindeness. To sum
up, if you wish, think you are right or told the last word. Won't continue
and respond to this topic anymore. Sincerily, Linas Vytautas Slotkus.
ANSWER: I meant to say that no judge in the world would dismiss the case against
that car driver if his defence was "you can't prove I saw the guy". From
what you wrote, it seems as if you would try to excuse the buldozer driver
by using exactly that kind of "argument".
There is no excuse for either the chinese tank driver, nor for the
buldozer driver squashing one poor misguided girl standing in front of
his vehicle. I happen to know a few men who, at some point in their lives,
operated heavy construction equipment. All of them were quite paranoid
about the possibility to accidentially kill somebody by not paying
enough attention to what they did with that equipment. They always checked
twice what's in front of their vehicles before making a move. And if they
weren't in the position to be sure about it, they called for external
help.
Of course there is a *possibility* that it was an accident - that's
something only a thorough (and un-biased) investigation could find out.
However, you seem to be completely sure about it, without having anything
in support of that option but the word of the driver.
I decided to de-lurke because I'm not used to that behavior from you.
Probably I'll regret entering this emotinally loaded thread (that even has
Scott in it, but I couldn't resist.
|
|
|
|
