In a message dated 12/2/01 2:26:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "Why was she in that particular situation?" She was much more concerned with her appearance than she was with her personal safety, thus, she eschewed wearing that nasty seat belt which might wrinkle her pretty party dress. > > "Answer carefully, because why she was in a car going 85mph through a > tunnel in Paris is very germaine to why she died." > > You're wanting to infer that the people chasing the car were at fault. Let's look at the same situation, but this time, it's a drunk running from a police > officer. When s/he cracks up their car, do we say it was the fault of the > police officer? Of course not, unless your logic says this: if the police > officer hadn't chased them, them wouldn't have cracked up their car. The damn fool drunk driving the car lost control of the car being the > of the accident. It was he who was rushing > though the streets of Paris at night driving like a mad hare, he whose > drunken sotted brain drove the car into the stanchion. **Had the car missed or glanced off the stanchion, she possibly would have escaped > injury altogether. But the car ~did~ hit the stanchion and she died because she wasn't wearing a seat belt. As has been previously noted, ~everyone~ in the car without seat belts died. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
