🚀 go-pugleaf

c.c.eiftj@06.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
>tomlinsc@ix.netcom.com (Chuck Tomlinson) writes:
>
>>Yes, of course.  But the pertinent issue is how the blame is 
>>distributed for the CRASH.  It is NOT sufficient to say that only 
>>the drivers with damaged vehicles are at fault.  
>
>>Obviously, it is possible for a driver to share responsibility for a 
>>crash without being involved in a collision.[...]
>
>Blame is not a zero-sum game. 

Who said it was?  Not me.

>In the following scenario, tell me how you assign blame for the crash.
>
>   Two motorists approach from opposite directions on a very narrow
>   road.  Each figures the other will stop or move to the side.  When
>   they are about 20 feet apart each figures the other will make a panic
>   stop, and both keep going.  They crash head-on.
>
>I would say that each motorist was 100% responsible and has nobody
>to blame but himself.  If you were one of them, what would you do --
>blame the other guy for being 50% at fault?

I don't care about blame percentages.  You are the one wasting time 
with this straw man argument.  All I said was that multiple parties 
can share responsibility for a crash, including parties not involved 
in the crash's collision(s).  That's all.

[snip: more time and bandwidth wasted with the straw man]
>To reiterate, blame is not a zero-sum game.

Congratulations.  You've wasted an entire article trying to disprove 
a claim that no one (and certainly not I) made.  Not only that, but 
it's a claim which (had anyone besides you made it) would have been 
irrelevant to the topic of our discussion.  Good job. 

Since you had nothing to say about my distinction between inanimate 
obstructions and bad drivers who make themselves obstructions, I'll 
assume that you have no logical counterargument.     
--
Chuck Tomlinson