On 2013-10-14 01:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Anything not strapped down, including people, is going to bounce all over the place in a collision, no matter which part of the vehicle is struck. And in a rear end hit, the first instinct of both drivers is to immediately slam on their brakes.

I am amazed that anyone would actually question Slide's account of what happened to him in the accident. Is it necessary to argue about EVERYTHING?

On 2013-10-14 13:55, Circusman wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-10-13 11:30, Al Angello wrote:
Bob & Nick
You two are far too easily offended. It's a stamp get over it.

DITTO, Al !

On 2013-10-14 19:12, Devious wrote:

Let us endeavour to not judge the content of our character but the essence.
The essence of each participant in this forum is what keeps me coming back.
Play nice or I'll send my monkey over to you!

On 2013-10-14 19:03, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-10-14 01:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Anything not strapped down, including people, is going to bounce all over the place in a collision, no matter which part of the vehicle is struck. And in a rear end hit, the first instinct of both drivers is to immediately slam on their brakes.

I am amazed that anyone would actually question Slide's account of what happened to him in the accident. Is it necessary to argue about EVERYTHING?

No one argued. You butted in. I asked how he went through the windshield if he was read ended. He answered that he did not know. But again you butted in. His answer was enough for me but obviously not for you.

On 2013-10-14 20:53, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-10-14 19:03, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-10-14 01:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Anything not strapped down, including people, is going to bounce all over the place in a collision, no matter which part of the vehicle is struck. And in a rear end hit, the first instinct of both drivers is to immediately slam on their brakes.

I am amazed that anyone would actually question Slide's account of what happened to him in the accident. Is it necessary to argue about EVERYTHING?

No one argued. You butted in. I asked how he went through the windshield if he was read ended. He answered that he did not know. But again you butted in. His answer was enough for me but obviously not for you.

You practically called the guy a liar and I pointed out some facts in his defense that you were apparently completely unaware of. (Although being completely unaware is not something that seems to hold you back.)


Butted in???

Really? I could have sworn this was a discussion board open to any member who cared to participate. If you don't want to publicly discuss something, the answer is simple, send a PM.

On 2013-10-13 09:40, Dannydoyle wrote:
Not a fan of the first lady. But a cause such as this igniting controversy?

Good on her for picking this cause. But safer things are good as well. Caution. How much outrage would a stamp inspired accident cause?

On 2013-10-14 22:54, rockwall wrote:

Personally, I'm just amazed that there are actually people who would defend the Postal Service's decision.

On 2013-10-14 17:48, rockwall wrote:

•Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).

•Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

•Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

•Requires excessive admiration.

•Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.

•Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.

•Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

•Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.

•Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

On 2013-10-15 06:43, stoneunhinged wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-10-14 17:48, rockwall wrote:

•Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).

•Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

•Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

•Requires excessive admiration.

•Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.

•Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.

•Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

•Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.

•Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

Wow! You've got me down to a peg. But I didn't actually think that this thread (unlike all the others) was about me. But it is now.

Anyway, the mock up of the baseball stamp is interesting. BOTH of them ought to be wearing helmets. Like me!

On 2013-10-14 15:12, critter wrote:
You're gonna' need a bigger boat?

On 2013-10-14 15:53, Devious wrote:
"That's What She Said", Critter!

On 2013-10-14 19:42, NicholasD wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-10-14 13:55, Circusman wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-10-13 11:30, Al Angello wrote:
Bob & Nick
You two are far too easily offended. It's a stamp get over it.

DITTO, Al !

Where in the world did you guys get the idea that I was offended by anything? I was merely trying to imply that I was just glad that when I went outside to play as a child or when I put on my roller skates, my parents didn't slap a helmet on me.