 |
Re: Mr. Bruce: Re: Metrolink Safety Panel report
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 01-12-2009 - 02:27
Let us all pause for another minute of silence in observance of National Armchair Expert Day.
--snip--
>1. Connex, a company with a bad safety reputation,
Cite your authorities, giving dates and incidents /prior/ to this one. If you can't, then you're just trying to blow smoke up everyone's a**.
--snip--
>2. Sanchez is the engineer in a head-on which is 99.999% certain caused by Sanchez texting. It appears that this is a habit he's picked up over time. Common sense (aka armchair expertise) suggests this is conduct so bizarre that it had to have attracted notice.
It's not bizarre at all. People do it while driving, and the highways are far more deadly than train travel. Why aren't you carping about that?
>3. A lawyer for some of the victims says he has a witness who in fact had noticed Sanchez's texting and had complained about it. (Some news accounts say twice, by the way.) Connex, accourding to this account, blew it off. The allegation also asserts a supervisor found a personal cell phone switched on in Sanchez's grip, but this also came to nothing. Again, assuming Sanchez had a habit of texting while at the throttle, it sounds completely credible that someone would notice this and report it.
Urban legends until proven, or are you discarding the innocent until proven guilty concept of "our legal system".
"If you ask me, Professor, her kind of woman doesn't belong in any library. SHE advocates /dirty books/!!! Chaucer, Rabelais, BAALLZZZAAAC" (with apologies to Hermione Gingold and Merideth Wilson).
>It seems to me that there are two interesting points of view on this forum. One, represented by Dr. Zarkoff, seems based on a primitive sense of job entitlement, and says nobody should be penalized for rule violations,
Your putting words into my mouth which were never there. You're setting yourself up to being sued for libel.
>and anyone who says otherwise is just an armchair expert. After all, Dr. Z wasn't one of the killed and injured at CP Topanga.
It more than seems you have reading comprehension problems. I suggest you enroll at UC and take Bonehead English (formerly "Subject A").
>Another, represented by OPRRMS, who it seems to me should know better, seems to be that by a series of logical hail-Mary plays, you can argue that nothing happened here that was anybody's fault.
Are you actually here in this solar system?
>The rules against x,y, and z weren't exactly in effect at exactly the right time, in exactly the right ambient temperature, and so we're all just gonna shrug it off.
If a rule/regulation/statute wasn't in effect at the time of some event, it can't be made retroactive, see the Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws (also part of "our legal system").
> Anyhow, Hillenbrand claims the signal was green. Sounds like the elderly railroaders I've come to know elsewhere.
You know all about Fresnel lens optics and collimation too? Where'd you get your PhD, out of a Crackerjack box?
>Our legal system provides for accountability in situations like this when all else fails, and it does seem that all else has failed, at least for the dead and injured. OPRRMS seems all bent out of shape that a lawyer with expertise in the rail industry should be representing some of these victims.
Ed Pfiester is a FELA specialist. How FELA relates to involvement with this incident is puzzling.
>As a member of the informed public, I'm entitled to draw my own conclusions, about Sanchez and about the guys who seem to want to circle the wagons.
Nowhere have I nor OPRRMS defended Sanchez nor his alledged actions. What we have both been doing is criticizing and debunking irresponsible scandal mongering.
"Quasi-informed" is closer to the truth, and you do draw a lot of hare-brained conclusions.
--snip--
>1. Connex, a company with a bad safety reputation,
Cite your authorities, giving dates and incidents /prior/ to this one. If you can't, then you're just trying to blow smoke up everyone's a**.
--snip--
>2. Sanchez is the engineer in a head-on which is 99.999% certain caused by Sanchez texting. It appears that this is a habit he's picked up over time. Common sense (aka armchair expertise) suggests this is conduct so bizarre that it had to have attracted notice.
It's not bizarre at all. People do it while driving, and the highways are far more deadly than train travel. Why aren't you carping about that?
>3. A lawyer for some of the victims says he has a witness who in fact had noticed Sanchez's texting and had complained about it. (Some news accounts say twice, by the way.) Connex, accourding to this account, blew it off. The allegation also asserts a supervisor found a personal cell phone switched on in Sanchez's grip, but this also came to nothing. Again, assuming Sanchez had a habit of texting while at the throttle, it sounds completely credible that someone would notice this and report it.
Urban legends until proven, or are you discarding the innocent until proven guilty concept of "our legal system".
"If you ask me, Professor, her kind of woman doesn't belong in any library. SHE advocates /dirty books/!!! Chaucer, Rabelais, BAALLZZZAAAC" (with apologies to Hermione Gingold and Merideth Wilson).
>It seems to me that there are two interesting points of view on this forum. One, represented by Dr. Zarkoff, seems based on a primitive sense of job entitlement, and says nobody should be penalized for rule violations,
Your putting words into my mouth which were never there. You're setting yourself up to being sued for libel.
>and anyone who says otherwise is just an armchair expert. After all, Dr. Z wasn't one of the killed and injured at CP Topanga.
It more than seems you have reading comprehension problems. I suggest you enroll at UC and take Bonehead English (formerly "Subject A").
>Another, represented by OPRRMS, who it seems to me should know better, seems to be that by a series of logical hail-Mary plays, you can argue that nothing happened here that was anybody's fault.
Are you actually here in this solar system?
>The rules against x,y, and z weren't exactly in effect at exactly the right time, in exactly the right ambient temperature, and so we're all just gonna shrug it off.
If a rule/regulation/statute wasn't in effect at the time of some event, it can't be made retroactive, see the Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws (also part of "our legal system").
> Anyhow, Hillenbrand claims the signal was green. Sounds like the elderly railroaders I've come to know elsewhere.
You know all about Fresnel lens optics and collimation too? Where'd you get your PhD, out of a Crackerjack box?
>Our legal system provides for accountability in situations like this when all else fails, and it does seem that all else has failed, at least for the dead and injured. OPRRMS seems all bent out of shape that a lawyer with expertise in the rail industry should be representing some of these victims.
Ed Pfiester is a FELA specialist. How FELA relates to involvement with this incident is puzzling.
>As a member of the informed public, I'm entitled to draw my own conclusions, about Sanchez and about the guys who seem to want to circle the wagons.
Nowhere have I nor OPRRMS defended Sanchez nor his alledged actions. What we have both been doing is criticizing and debunking irresponsible scandal mongering.
"Quasi-informed" is closer to the truth, and you do draw a lot of hare-brained conclusions.
