Read the post on the 1st page
I alread said that IF the driver was speeding,than i dun think any
form of sympathy shld b given
And its not juz directed at that particular driver who crash
it applies to any driver
1. This obviously does not coincide with your poorly misinformed
judgement that he was speeding. If you haven't learnt the
differences yet, let me show you. Saying that "IF the driver was
speeding" and "well the way the driver was driving,i'm pretty sure
he was speeding" are two unmistakably different statements. First,
you said you are pretty sure, given the way he was driving. God
knows how you saw it, or learnt about it. Then, you contradict it
to claim that you said "IF the driver was speeding". I would have
an easier time conversing with apes in Sanskrit. Edgar Davids made
it clear by adding "if he was speeding". You said you were pretty
sure.
well the way the driver was
driving,i'm pretty sure he was speeding,correct me if im
wrong
Norx too read the article and claim that the driver was rushing
to the workshop and driving faster than usual
hence the happening of the accident
That is why,initially,I claim that the
guy was speeding base on what the others
have read about the article
2. nOx did not claim anything. Don't put things in other people's
mouths again. He said "the article in the link above says tt the
guy was rushing back to his workshop cos his customer got some last
min request..", which is quite distinctly different from him
claiming anything at all. "prob tt constitutes to him driving
faster than usual" is a suggestion of possibility that he MIGHT
have sped, vastly contrasting to your claim that you are pretty
sure he was speeding, based on whatever witness accounts you might
claim to have.
3. Based on what others have read about the article, the only
comment which surfaced cited the report that it was raining and he
crashed. I want you to justify how you
managed to conclude that he was speeding, based on that one and
only reference to the contents of the article.
its not that the rx-7 speed... its just that the wheel nut came
of,
tyre den came of, rear axle came of, differential came of and the
car
vanished. case closed. And also my condolences
4. SBS9828X said that of the accident. Whether or not is true, I
have no idea. I am not trying to say that he is spouting rubbish
either. What I am saying is, since you have claimed to base your
comments on the speculations from other forummers, how and why did
you fail to pick up this crucial piece of information, given your
admittedly great propensity to poorly expound on such speculatory
comments?
if he sped i wun feel sorry
if he werent speeding,i'll have given my
condolence
well the way the driver was driving,i'm pretty sure he was
speeding,correct me if
im wrong
If one speed,den he shld not b pitied,If fact hes already a
nusciance on the road..
If i were to race on the road,I'll have the preparation that if i
die racing,I expect
no condolence bcuz what i do i do is purely risky...no need for
condolence
5. Most importantly, LOOK HERE. You
want me to deconstruct your statement? I'll do just that.
Firstly, by mentioning that judging from the way the driver was
driving, and then proceeding to allege that he was quite definitely
speeding, you have, whether unintentionally or not, implicated the
aforementioned driver of the RX-7. By doing so, without shifting
your focus of the person in mention, all your following statements
will be quite reasonably regarded as in reference to the
victim.
Continuing on with your speculation that he had been speeding, you
pressed on to call him a "nusciance" ( "nuisance" ). Furthermore,
you introduced the idea of racing, which was clearly never brought
up by anyone but you, despite your admittance of making comments
based on what the other readers "have read". This, obviously, was
only surfaced by yourself and is a clear indication that you have
attempted to draw a connection between speeding and racing as the
cause of the accident.
Ending that, you declared that there is "no need for condolence" if
you died racing. It is, quite explicitly shown, that you had
concluded he was racing and therefore need no condolence.
Two days after that, on page 3, you finally declare your "deepest
condolence" to his family, and now even try to uphold your
despicable show of righteousness by claiming to have apologised,
while it is evidently absent. Such an act, as to express one's
condolences, is clearly incongruent in comparison to one who is
truly sympathetic with the victim's family and friends. It is
disgusting and abusive, and most definitely not one of an
easily
forgettable action.
Quote from page 3:
ok...then thats really good
Yes,feel sad that life have been lost and family have to pick the
pieces
But note that the previous post are about speeding and nt directly
posted about the driver..
thanks alot
Deepest condolence to the family
To add
after hearing what his aquaintance had said
I've already apologise since he mentioned the driver wasnt
speeding
Now, again, you dare to perverse the facts which have been
openly shown and claim that you have already apologised, when it is
clearly lacking?
There is really no hope for you. Let me make it clear. Even
exceeding the speed limit by 1kmh is already considered speeding by
law. Are you going to withdraw any sense of sympathy if the
circumstances were so? You apologise now or I will continue to make
you face your own embarrassing bullsh1t.
Refer to the example of the apology above. I expect no less.
