 | | Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
|
|
(...) " a priori " ??? (...) I agree in general with what Larry is saying, but I also agree with Richard. Some basic rules/safety standards should be in place. That, after all is the purpose of government. We collectively agree that we'll drive on (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned
|
|
(...) Whoops! c/tardy/long/ The deliveries are not tardy. Todd clearly states that some time will transpire between payment and shipment. Sorry about that, I made that particular joke too quickly. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned
|
|
(...) Do you hear that, Todd? People are joking about nuking Boston due to your tardy delivery times! :-) (...) Right. Those that call for regulation seem to think that some bureaucrat knows better what is safe and what isn't than the marketplace (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Yahoo is good for the 'net (was Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
(...) Well...a couple days ago I had a reply half written on the web interface, but unfortunately a computer freeze made me lose it. Here I go again, after I've had a bit more time to think it through :) (...) I'm no one to tell them what they (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned
|
|
(...) Though I wouldn't absolve the track and driver of all responsibility, but I agree that their liability is limited. Assuming that reasonable expectations of safety inspections etc. have been followed, there ought to be no liability (but if for (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
