doug russell wrote:
> If you aren't a blithering idiot, then you should have
> no problems with any law.
>
> Clearly, I do not consider myself to be a blithering idiot but I do have a
> problem with this law. Thus, your statement can only be interpreted to mean
> that you consider people like me to be blithering idiots because we have a
> problem with this law. How arrogant and irritating!
That's not even what I meant, read again. This time read
it without the preconceived notion that everything I say goes
against your freedom. It causes you to misinterpret things
in the worst and silliest possible way.
You implied that the test only tested for stupid things. You
stated that you would have to be a blithering idiot to drive
a car with those problems, jeapordizing your safety and family
and so on.
You also stated that the car in question passed without
incident. Probably because, as stated, you are NOT a blithering
idiot.
Which is why I logically stated:
> If you aren't a blithering idiot, then you should have
> no problems with any law.
...makes sense now?
In other words, if you are NOT a blithering idiot, then the
law should not affect your abilities to drive your car, it should
merely be a formality.
If the test is NOT a formality to someone, that person is likely
the "blithering idiot" you speak of who will endanger themselves
and others with an unsafe vehicle.
> I say> When did I say a safety test is a waste of time???? And is there a
> reason why I need to wait a few months to buy the tester a beer, if I so
> choose, other than it's your utterance????
The original email stated that the test was "new". I presume that
the tester as well is also newly trained for this job, and does not
have a long history of stories to tell.
The "waiting a few months" is so the tester has time to see
more cars, get more good stories, and become an old hand at
this. The type of old hand that is worth buying a beer and
asking "so, tell me some stories".
*THIS* is what I mean when I say that you are so eager to jump to
the worst possible scenario.
Actual reason for waiting: Let tester get experience.
Your misinterpretation: I have decided to limit your freedom
to have a beer now, rather I in my controlling omnipotent ways
have mandated that thou shalt have to wait months for no
reason to have said beer, for I am the ultimate socialist.
With this thinking style, can you not see why all laws
seem instantly hatable to you? You don't look at something
to see if you like it, you decide that you hate it and then
skim it over looking for a reason why.
(totally redundant side issue, my votes around here tend
to go to the least socialist party in this country. Fact.)
--
Trevor Boicey
Ottawa, Canada
tboicey@brit.ca
http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
|