 | | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
|
|
(...) I know this idea rankles your Libertarian side, Lar, but easily 80% of the US needs "good ideas" to be regulated for them, because they wouldn't understand consensual logic and working together if it bit them on the apricots. Whether or not (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
|
|
(...) If you'd add onto this a policy of full disclosure, I think I'd agree here. My concern is that there could easily be a practice of rug-sweeping, under which companies do whatever they feel like doing, all the while spinning and respinning (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes: <snip> To .general readers. This thread was happily ensconsed in .debate, where it belongs. I'm not sure why SRC pointed it back to .general again. I didn't notice that, and I apologise that my (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
|
|
(...) Sorry, that Canadian education must have been letting you down: (URL) #3 sense 1: Made before or without examination) (...) Really? I wasn't aware that government was responsible for making the world safe. I don't see it in OUR constitution (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned
|
|
(...) The presumption is that government isn't (ideally) a throng of people who just happen to be in the same place. One hopes that the government is a body of individuals empowered to act on behalf of others, and likewise held in by a framework of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
