In article , Jack Stein wrote:
krw wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

What's the difference? Two people were out having fun, got in an
accident, one dies. Kennedy most likely had no intention of killing
her, she most likely had no intention of dying. It was a ****ING
ACCIDENT.

No, it was a homicide, or manslaughter at the very minimum. Of course
the investigation was quashed before all the facts could be known.

I never saw anyone claim Kennedy intended to kill her?

Oh, I have, specifically that Mary Jo was pregnant with Teddy's child, and he
drove her off the bridge on purpose. As far as I know, there isn't a shred of
evidence to back up that claim, it's all rumor and innuendo, but I have seen
the claim made.

Driving off the bridge was an accident.
Leaving her in the car to die was not.
Waiting until the next day (after he had sobered up) to report it was not.
Trying to get his cousin to take the blame for it was not.

krw wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

What's the difference? Two people were out having fun, got in an
accident, one dies. Kennedy most likely had no intention of killing
her, she most likely had no intention of dying. It was a ****ING
ACCIDENT.

No, it was a homicide, or manslaughter at the very minimum. Of course
the investigation was quashed before all the facts could be known.

I never saw anyone claim Kennedy intended to kill her?

As much as the world would have been better off if Kennedy's
mother had a pre, or post-natal abortion, the fact the dude got in an
ACCIDENT and someone died is just how it goes sometimes.

It was no more an "accident" than if he had pointed a gun at her and
shot her.

Wow! An accident is any event that happens unexpectedly, without a
deliberate plan or cause. Had he pointed a gun at her head, and shot
her, it would not likely be an accident.

I know a guy
that cut the **** out of his hand on a table saw, so what, it was also
an accident. Neither of them did it on purpose.

Was he drunk at the time? If so, it was no "accident".

No, he was old. Old people have a propensity for accidents. New
drivers have a propensity for car accidents. People with high blood
pressure, high cholesterol and bad genetics have lots of heart attacks.
An old guy a few years ago had a heart attack and killed 4 people in a
park with his car. People involved in multiple accidents are more
likely to get in another accident more than those that never had an
accident. These people kill people on the road every day, they, imo,
are accidents, not homicides.

On the other hand,
Kennedy's left wing, socialist, anti-American positions on all things
political is on purpose, and could have been cured with the above
mentioned abortion.

Your emotional outburst doesn't change the facts at hand.

The facts are it was an accident. No facts presented show Kennedy
killed the girl on purpose, so, it was simply an accident. Just like
the 16 year old that drove himself and 3 of his friends into a tree and
killed them all was probably an accident, not intentional, even if he
was speeding, high on grass, drunk, had a heart condition and so on. He
didn't mean to do it, so it was an accident.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Jack Stein wrote:
krw wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
What's the difference? Two people were out having fun, got in an
accident, one dies. Kennedy most likely had no intention of killing
her, she most likely had no intention of dying. It was a ****ING
ACCIDENT.
No, it was a homicide, or manslaughter at the very minimum. Of course
the investigation was quashed before all the facts could be known.
I never saw anyone claim Kennedy intended to kill her?

Oh, I have, specifically that Mary Jo was pregnant with Teddy's child,

No autopsy was performed.


and he
drove her off the bridge on purpose. As far as I know, there isn't a shred of
evidence to back up that claim, it's all rumor and innuendo, but I have seen
the claim made.

Driving off the bridge was an accident.
Leaving her in the car to die was not.
Waiting until the next day (after he had sobered up) to report it was not.
Trying to get his cousin to take the blame for it was not.

In article , jo4hn wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Jack Stein
wrote:
krw wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
What's the difference? Two people were out having fun, got in an
accident, one dies. Kennedy most likely had no intention of killing
her, she most likely had no intention of dying. It was a ****ING
ACCIDENT.
No, it was a homicide, or manslaughter at the very minimum. Of course
the investigation was quashed before all the facts could be known.
I never saw anyone claim Kennedy intended to kill her?

Oh, I have, specifically that Mary Jo was pregnant with Teddy's child,

No autopsy was performed.

Which, in the minds of the loons, is "proof" of the claims...


and he
drove her off the bridge on purpose. As far as I know, there isn't a shred of

evidence to back up that claim, it's all rumor and innuendo, but I have seen
the claim made.

Driving off the bridge was an accident.
Leaving her in the car to die was not.
Waiting until the next day (after he had sobered up) to report it was not.
Trying to get his cousin to take the blame for it was not.

Jack Stein wrote:
krw wrote:

The facts are it was an accident. No facts presented show Kennedy
killed the girl on purpose, so, it was simply an accident. Just like
the 16 year old that drove himself and 3 of his friends into a tree
and killed them all was probably an accident, not intentional, even
if he was speeding, high on grass, drunk, had a heart condition and
so on. He didn't mean to do it, so it was an accident.

Homicide is the killing of one human by the actions or inactions of another.
Classically, there are five kinds of homicide:

Murder - Intentional and premeditated
Manslaughter - Intentional and not premeditated
Negligent - Leaving a hole uncovered, drunk driving
Justifiable - Self defense, execution of a criminal or enemy in time of war,
etc.
Excusable - The rest

All five can be illustrated by considering the case of one hunter killing
another

Murder - The shooter went hunting with the intent to eventually kill his
fellow hunter.
Manslaughter - The two get into a heated argument over who shot the deer
Negligent - The bush moved and the shooter shot it
Justifiable - The victim shot at the shooter first
Excusable - The victim was dressed in a deer costume

The first three have criminal penalties, the last two do not.

On 2009-09-01, HeyBub wrote:

Homicide is the killing of one human by the actions or inactions of another.
Classically, there are five kinds of homicide:


All five can be illustrated by considering the case of one hunter killing
another

Murder - The shooter went hunting with the intent to eventually kill his
fellow hunter.
Manslaughter - The two get into a heated argument over who shot the deer
Negligent - The bush moved and the shooter shot it
Justifiable - The victim shot at the shooter first
Excusable - The victim was dressed in a deer costume

What? Mary Jo was dressed like a Republican?

nb

Justifiable - The victim shot at the shooter first
Excusable - The victim was dressed in a deer costume

The first three have criminal penalties, the last two do not.

Note to self
make deer suit and send to Stein.
glue on some clay pigeons just for the **** of it.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:58:09 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

krw wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

What's the difference? Two people were out having fun, got in an
accident, one dies. Kennedy most likely had no intention of killing
her, she most likely had no intention of dying. It was a ****ING
ACCIDENT.

No, it was a homicide, or manslaughter at the very minimum. Of course
the investigation was quashed before all the facts could be known.

I never saw anyone claim Kennedy intended to kill her?

Though it has been claimed, intentions have nothing to do with it.

As much as the world would have been better off if Kennedy's
mother had a pre, or post-natal abortion, the fact the dude got in an
ACCIDENT and someone died is just how it goes sometimes.

It was no more an "accident" than if he had pointed a gun at her and
shot her.

Wow! An accident is any event that happens unexpectedly, without a
deliberate plan or cause. Had he pointed a gun at her head, and shot
her, it would not likely be an accident.

You are absolutely *wrong*. Do you have any idea what "manslaughter"
or "murder" mean? It is *NOT* "accidental" when someone dies during
the commission of a felony. It is at *least* manslaughter.


I know a guy
that cut the **** out of his hand on a table saw, so what, it was also
an accident. Neither of them did it on purpose.

Was he drunk at the time? If so, it was no "accident".

No, he was old.

Old? You're on drugs. He was 37, hardly old.

Old people have a propensity for accidents. New
drivers have a propensity for car accidents. People with high blood
pressure, high cholesterol and bad genetics have lots of heart attacks.

Simply amazing!

An old guy a few years ago had a heart attack and killed 4 people in a
park with his car. People involved in multiple accidents are more
likely to get in another accident more than those that never had an
accident. These people kill people on the road every day, they, imo,
are accidents, not homicides.

You are a nut case!

On the other hand,
Kennedy's left wing, socialist, anti-American positions on all things
political is on purpose, and could have been cured with the above
mentioned abortion.

Your emotional outburst doesn't change the facts at hand.

The facts are it was an accident.

Wrong. The facts are exactly the *opposite*.

No facts presented show Kennedy
killed the girl on purpose, so, it was simply an accident.

That has nothing to do with guilt. He was drunk. He left the scene
of an accident where death occurred. He lied to authorities. He
covered up the accident. He was guilty of at least a handful of
felonies. Someone died. He is guilty of at least manslaughter and if
it had been anyone else it would have been murder.

Just like
the 16 year old that drove himself and 3 of his friends into a tree and
killed them all was probably an accident, not intentional, even if he
was speeding, high on grass, drunk, had a heart condition and so on. He
didn't mean to do it, so it was an accident.

You need to check yourself in.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
krw wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
What's the difference? Two people were out having fun, got in an
accident, one dies. Kennedy most likely had no intention of killing
her, she most likely had no intention of dying. It was a ****ING
ACCIDENT.
No, it was a homicide, or manslaughter at the very minimum. Of course
the investigation was quashed before all the facts could be known.
I never saw anyone claim Kennedy intended to kill her?

As much as the world would have been better off if Kennedy's mother
had a pre, or post-natal abortion, the fact the dude got in an
ACCIDENT and someone died is just how it goes sometimes.
It was no more an "accident" than if he had pointed a gun at her and
shot her.
Wow! An accident is any event that happens unexpectedly, without a
deliberate plan or cause. Had he pointed a gun at her head, and shot
her, it would not likely be an accident.

I know a guy that cut the **** out of his hand on a table saw, so
what, it was also an accident. Neither of them did it on purpose.
Was he drunk at the time? If so, it was no "accident".
No, he was old. Old people have a propensity for accidents. New
drivers have a propensity for car accidents. People with high blood
pressure, high cholesterol and bad genetics have lots of heart attacks.
An old guy a few years ago had a heart attack and killed 4 people in a
park with his car. People involved in multiple accidents are more
likely to get in another accident more than those that never had an
accident. These people kill people on the road every day, they, imo,
are accidents, not homicides.

On the other hand, Kennedy's left wing, socialist, anti-American
positions on all things political is on purpose, and could have been
cured with the above mentioned abortion.
Your emotional outburst doesn't change the facts at hand.
The facts are it was an accident. No facts presented show Kennedy
killed the girl on purpose, so, it was simply an accident. Just like
the 16 year old that drove himself and 3 of his friends into a tree and
killed them all was probably an accident, not intentional, even if he
was speeding, high on grass, drunk, had a heart condition and so on. He
didn't mean to do it, so it was an accident.


I don't get why this subthread is so controversial. ISTM:

1) Kennedy clearly had no intent to kill the woman.

Ergo, an accident!

2) Kennedy DID have the intent to drink heavily.

Perhaps, drinking is a legal activity.

3) His impairment therefore was volitional (legally speaking) and he is thus
culpable for the consequences of his action.

Legally speaking, unless you can prove he was impaired, he wasn't.
Legally speaking, unless you can prove he killed someone on purpose, he
didn't. Legally speaking, money can be had anytime something goes awry.

When crime is considered, courts look at Motive, Means, and Opportunity.

Legally speaking, he didn't go to court, so nothing happened.

Kennedy's motive here was to drink. Everything that follows, therefore, is
in some significant degree his responsibility.

Of course. Just like the guy with a propensity to wreck runs into a
school bus and kills 20 kids is responsible, or, the guy with a heart
condition drives through a park a thousand times with no problem, then,
one dark day has a heart attack and kills 20 kids playing rugby...
Lawyers tend to think culpability and money, human beings tend to think
what a horrible accident.

I feel bad Mary Jo got herself killed. I feel bad Mrs. Kennedy didn't
have a post, or pre-natal abortion. She might still be alive, and the
USSA would not have had an anti-American, socialist ******* like Kennedy
to foul the air. Mary Jo's death was an accident, the foul air was
pre-meditated and no accident...

--
Jack
Got Change: Capitalism ===== Socialism!
http://jbstein.com

Doug Miller wrote:

Driving off the bridge was an accident.

Most likely!

Leaving her in the car to die was not.

My memory is he reported he dove in multiple times to get her out w/o
success. While I think he is a socialist scumbag, and is used to lying,
I have no way to prove he didn't do exactly that. Even if he didn't, it
would be a scary, scary thing to dive into 10-20 feet of unfamiliar
water at night to save someone. If he did it, he would be a hero, if he
didn't he wouldn't be a hero. If he didn't, the worse I'd do is grimace.

Waiting until the next day (after he had sobered up) to report it was not.

Yeah, that was pretty bad, but not near as bad as being an
anti-American, socialist *******, and a US senator.

Trying to get his cousin to take the blame for it was not.

I don't recall that, but OK, that would be bad, but still not as bad as
being an anti-American, socialist *******, and a US senator.

--
Jack
Got Change: Individualism ===== Collectivism!
http://jbstein.com

HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
krw wrote:

The facts are it was an accident. No facts presented show Kennedy
killed the girl on purpose, so, it was simply an accident. Just like
the 16 year old that drove himself and 3 of his friends into a tree
and killed them all was probably an accident, not intentional, even
if he was speeding, high on grass, drunk, had a heart condition and
so on. He didn't mean to do it, so it was an accident.

Homicide is the killing of one human by the actions or inactions of another.
Classically, there are five kinds of homicide:

Murder - Intentional and premeditated
Manslaughter - Intentional and not premeditated
Negligent - Leaving a hole uncovered, drunk driving
Justifiable - Self defense, execution of a criminal or enemy in time of war,
etc.
Excusable - The rest

All five can be illustrated by considering the case of one hunter killing
another

I guess if you are a lawyer, you care. As a human, I call it an
accident. There are legal definitions of an accident, I'm sure, but as
a human, and not a lawyer, here is the one I am using:

ACCIDENT: an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs
unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss;
casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.

For all I know, an alien space ship may have picked up his car, ****ed
his brains out, ****ed mj's brains out, put the car back on the road,
but missed by a few feet, and dropped them in the water... by accident.
The lawyers will consider at least negligence on behalf of the aliens
for missing the target by a bit. I'll just call it an accident without
proof it was done on purpose, even if the alien was old, near sighted,
prone to vertigo, high on coke, or drunk...

Murder - The shooter went hunting with the intent to eventually kill his
fellow hunter.
Manslaughter - The two get into a heated argument over who shot the deer
Negligent - The bush moved and the shooter shot it
Justifiable - The victim shot at the shooter first
Excusable - The victim was dressed in a deer costume

The first three have criminal penalties, the last two do not.

--
Jack
Got Change: Thieves in Chicago ===== Chicago thieves in DC.
http://jbstein.com

krw wrote:

I never saw anyone claim Kennedy intended to kill her?

Though it has been claimed, intentions have nothing to do with it.

You are wrong, intentions have a LOT to do with accidents.

It was no more an "accident" than if he had pointed a gun at her and
shot her.

Wow! An accident is any event that happens unexpectedly, without a
deliberate plan or cause. Had he pointed a gun at her head, and shot
her, it would not likely be an accident.

You are absolutely *wrong*.

I am absolutely **right**, according to the dictionary. Your problem
with the term "accident" should be addressed to someone else, I can't
help you.

Do you have any idea what "manslaughter"
or "murder" mean? It is *NOT* "accidental" when someone dies during
the commission of a felony. It is at *least* manslaughter.

Unless you can prove he did did it on purpose, it was an accident,
according me, and the dictionary.

I know a guy
that cut the **** out of his hand on a table saw, so what, it was also
an accident. Neither of them did it on purpose.

Was he drunk at the time? If so, it was no "accident".

No, he was old.

Old? You're on drugs. He was 37, hardly old.

How the **** do you know how old the guy was, I didn't even give you his
name. He was OLD, he was not drunk. Are YOU on drugs or what? I might
add, the old guy could have prevented the ACCIDENT by selling me his
tools before he cut his hand, instead, he waited until AFTER he cut his
hand before deciding he was probably too old to be negligently putting
his self at risk like this.

Old people have a propensity for accidents. New
drivers have a propensity for car accidents. People with high blood
pressure, high cholesterol and bad genetics have lots of heart attacks.

Simply amazing!

Why you didn't know this stuff? You live in a shell or what?

An old guy a few years ago had a heart attack and killed 4 people in a
park with his car. People involved in multiple accidents are more
likely to get in another accident more than those that never had an
accident. These people kill people on the road every day, they, imo,
are accidents, not homicides.

You are a nut case!

You are on drugs?

Your emotional outburst doesn't change the facts at hand.

The facts are it was an accident.

Wrong. The facts are exactly the *opposite*.

Wrong, facts are exactly it was an **accident**. Note my double stars
trump your single stars.... Sheesh!

No facts presented show Kennedy
killed the girl on purpose, so, it was simply an accident.

That has nothing to do with guilt.

Yes, guilty of being in an accident.

He was drunk.

Possibly. That doesn't mean it wasn't an accident.

He left the scene of an accident where death occurred.

That doesn't mean it wasn't an accident.

He lied to authorities.

That doesn't mean it wasn't an accident.

He covered up the accident.

The WHAT?

What happened to your "exactly opposite" to an accident crap?

He was guilty of at least a handful of
felonies. Someone died. He is guilty of at least manslaughter and if
it had been anyone else it would have been murder.

Well, if you want to get all legal about it, he was guilty of nothing,
unless proven in a court of law. Regardless, it was just as YOU said,
an accident.

Just like
the 16 year old that drove himself and 3 of his friends into a tree and
killed them all was probably an accident, not intentional, even if he
was speeding, high on grass, drunk, had a heart condition and so on. He
didn't mean to do it, so it was an accident.

You need to check yourself in.

And you need to get yourself a dictionary. I guess I can help a you
little:

http://dictionary.reference.com.

Give it a shot. You used the term correctly at least ONCE, but I'm not
certain it wasn't an ACCIDENT!

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:

I don't get why this subthread is so controversial. ISTM:

1) Kennedy clearly had no intent to kill the woman.

Ergo, an accident!

2) Kennedy DID have the intent to drink heavily.

Perhaps, drinking is a legal activity.

3) His impairment therefore was volitional (legally speaking) and he
is thus culpable for the consequences of his action.

Legally speaking, unless you can prove he was impaired, he wasn't.
Legally speaking, unless you can prove he killed someone on purpose,
he didn't. Legally speaking, money can be had anytime something goes
awry.

Homicide, per se, is not a crime. Homicide is defined as the killing of one
human by the agency of another. There is no such thing as "accidental
homicide."

Massachusetts has SEVEN kinds of homicide:

1st Degree Murder (life, no parole)
2nd Degree Murder (life, with parole)
Voluntary Manslaughter (20 years)
Involuntary Manslaughter (20 years)
Vehicular Manslaughter (20 years)

Justifiable homicide (not a crime)
Excusable homicide (not a crime)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

I don't get why this subthread is so controversial. ISTM:

1) Kennedy clearly had no intent to kill the woman.
Ergo, an accident!

Not necessarily. An "accident" is generally understood to be
something a normal person could not reasonably avoid. i.e. Their
behavior played no role in the event.

This is not correct. Even the legal definition doesn't say that. The
normal definition of an accident is, and I quote:

ACCIDENT: an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs
unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss;
casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.

Even the legal definition, according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of
Law, says, and I quote:

ACCIDENT: an unexpected usually sudden event that occurs without intent
or volition although sometimes through carelessness, unawareness,
ignorance, or a combination of causes and that produces an unfortunate
result (as an injury) for which the affected party may be entitled to
relief under the law or to compensation under an insurance policy —see
also UNAVOIDABLE ACCIDENT
NOTE: The term accident has been held to include intentional acts (such
as an assault and battery) under workers' compensation.

Now, I really don't care all that much, just find it amusing that so
many don't have a clue what an accident means.

This is abundantly NOT the case when someone drinks to impairment
and then endangers or kills another - however inadvertently - because
the event COULD have reasonably been avoided.

All sorts of accidents can be reasonably avoided. Many think ALL
accidents can be avoided. Lawyers think so, I don't. As far as
drinking goes, Kennedy probably drove drunk without an accident more
times than many people drove sober w/o an accident. He may have been
MORE sober than normal, and reasonably expected to NOT get in an
accident. A guy that worked over the hill from me drove home completely
drunk every night, 7 days a week, for many, many years. He never had an
accident, never put a scratch on his car. He eventually died from a
heart attack. Never did wreck, but I'll bet he would have wrecked had
he had the heart attack whilst driving.

For all you know Kennedy was getting road head and it was the orgasm
that caused the wreck, and not the booze.

Drinking to excess is
a decision, and driving thereafter is also a decision - one which, in
my view, constitutes an act of threat at the very least.

I think every time an inexperienced driver gets behind the wheel, lives
and property are in danger. Every time some old goat gets behind the
wheel, lives are in danger. Life is full of avoidable dangers.

2) Kennedy DID have the intent to drink heavily.
Perhaps, drinking is a legal activity.

But drinking to the point of impairment is not in pretty much
all states. Drinking to impairment and then driving is illegal
in EVERY state.

Yes, I'm aware of all that. I'm not aware Kennedy was so impaired he
intentionally drove himself into the water. Odds are just as good he
was getting road head at the time. Who knows?

3) His impairment therefore was volitional (legally speaking) and he
is thus culpable for the consequences of his action.

Perhaps, but still, legally and non-legally speaking, it was an accident.

Legally speaking, unless you can prove he was impaired, he wasn't.
Legally speaking, unless you can prove he killed someone on purpose, he
didn't. Legally speaking, money can be had anytime something goes awry.

The point of this subthread is that he was not held accountable *legally*
as he should have been.

That changed when I said it was an accident, get over it. Now, people
are trying to tell me it wasn't an accident. They are all wet, so to speak.

Had it not been for his standing as one of
the preeminent communist politicians in the US, he'd have been handed the
usual legal smackdown anyone else is.

At the time of the accident, accidents of this type were far less
persecuted.

When crime is considered, courts look at Motive, Means, and Opportunity.

Governments, generally, do not consider a crime happened until proven in
a court of law. Nothing was proven in a court of law, so, nothing
happened (legally) other than a simple accident.

condition drives through a park a thousand times with no problem, then,
one dark day has a heart attack and kills 20 kids playing rugby...

Again, it depends. If he *knew* there was a significant chance of
his having an attack as you describe, then, yes, he's culpable in some
degree.

And yet I, and Merriam Webster, would still consider it an accident.

If he did not, and could not reasonably have known, he was at
risk for heart failure, there is no culpability on his part.

ANYONE with a known heart condition knows there is some risk of heart
failure. Anyone with family history of heart conditions knows they are
at risk of heart failure. Anyone alive should be aware anyone can have
a heart attack at any time.

Lawyers tend to think culpability and money, human beings tend to think
what a horrible accident.

But human beings also thing about common sense accountability. If
you run over my yard in with your tractor because you're skunk drunk,
I assure you I would demand legal remedy (and lots of money)... and
probably get it.

If you run over my yard with a tractor because you are a bumbling idiot,
I assure you I would demand legal remedy as well. I'm not a thief, so
probably wouldn't go for any money over and above the damage done.

I feel bad Mary Jo got herself killed. I feel bad Mrs. Kennedy didn't
have a post, or pre-natal abortion. She might still be alive, and the
USSA would not have had an anti-American, socialist ******* like Kennedy
to foul the air. Mary Jo's death was an accident, the foul air was
pre-meditated and no accident...

I thought you were on the political right - now you endorse abortion?

Not only that, I'm an atheist. Hows that fit your mold of those on the
right. Moreover, I don't really support abortion all that much, but
since millions are performed every year, it would not have upset me at
all if Kennedy was one of the victims, or Chavez, or Hitler, or Obama,
or Castro, or most other socialist *******s that annoy me...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:31:34 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

krw wrote:

I never saw anyone claim Kennedy intended to kill her?

Though it has been claimed, intentions have nothing to do with it.

You are wrong, intentions have a LOT to do with accidents.

Wrong. Because he was driving drunk, it was no accident.

It was no more an "accident" than if he had pointed a gun at her and
shot her.

Wow! An accident is any event that happens unexpectedly, without a
deliberate plan or cause. Had he pointed a gun at her head, and shot
her, it would not likely be an accident.

You are absolutely *wrong*.

I am absolutely **right**, according to the dictionary. Your problem
with the term "accident" should be addressed to someone else, I can't
help you.

You can't even help yourself. Perhaps you should go get loaded and
kill someone on the way home tonight. See how far "I didn't mean to"
gets you.

Do you have any idea what "manslaughter"
or "murder" mean? It is *NOT* "accidental" when someone dies during
the commission of a felony. It is at *least* manslaughter.

Unless you can prove he did did it on purpose, it was an accident,
according me, and the dictionary.

Wrong, as usual. He *did* get drunk voluntarily. He was therefore
responsible for anything that happened after.


I know a guy
that cut the **** out of his hand on a table saw, so what, it was also
an accident. Neither of them did it on purpose.

Was he drunk at the time? If so, it was no "accident".

No, he was old.

Old? You're on drugs. He was 37, hardly old.

How the **** do you know how old the guy was, I didn't even give you his
name. He was OLD, he was not drunk. Are YOU on drugs or what? I might
add, the old guy could have prevented the ACCIDENT by selling me his
tools before he cut his hand, instead, he waited until AFTER he cut his
hand before deciding he was probably too old to be negligently putting
his self at risk like this.

Dumb ****! Read the thread!

Old people have a propensity for accidents. New
drivers have a propensity for car accidents. People with high blood
pressure, high cholesterol and bad genetics have lots of heart attacks.

Simply amazing!

Why you didn't know this stuff? You live in a shell or what?

Why are you so damned stupid?

An old guy a few years ago had a heart attack and killed 4 people in a
park with his car. People involved in multiple accidents are more
likely to get in another accident more than those that never had an
accident. These people kill people on the road every day, they, imo,
are accidents, not homicides.

You are a nut case!

You are on drugs?

No, but apparently you think it's a great idea. Indeed it's an excuse
to kill people.

Your emotional outburst doesn't change the facts at hand.

The facts are it was an accident.

Wrong. The facts are exactly the *opposite*.

Wrong, facts are exactly it was an **accident**. Note my double stars
trump your single stars.... Sheesh!

The only stars are circling your head. What a maroon!

No facts presented show Kennedy
killed the girl on purpose, so, it was simply an accident.

That has nothing to do with guilt.

Yes, guilty of being in an accident.

He killed someone while drunk, you stupid ****.

He was drunk.

Possibly. That doesn't mean it wasn't an accident.

It was therefore *NO* accident.

He left the scene of an accident where death occurred.

A felony.

That doesn't mean it wasn't an accident.

It does mean that someone died during the commission of a felony -
that is *murder*.

He lied to authorities.

That doesn't mean it wasn't an accident.

It is a felony. See above.

He covered up the accident.

The WHAT?

It wasn't first degree murder, or at least there is no proof of that.
There *was* proof of homicide. If he weren't the last male Kennedy
he'd have died in prison.


What happened to your "exactly opposite" to an accident crap?

He was guilty of at least a handful of
felonies. Someone died. He is guilty of at least manslaughter and if
it had been anyone else it would have been murder.

Well, if you want to get all legal about it, he was guilty of nothing,
unless proven in a court of law. Regardless, it was just as YOU said,
an accident.

You are as retarded as they come.

Just like
the 16 year old that drove himself and 3 of his friends into a tree and
killed them all was probably an accident, not intentional, even if he
was speeding, high on grass, drunk, had a heart condition and so on. He
didn't mean to do it, so it was an accident.

You need to check yourself in.

And you need to get yourself a dictionary. I guess I can help a you
little:

http://dictionary.reference.com.

Give it a shot. You used the term correctly at least ONCE, but I'm not
certain it wasn't an ACCIDENT!

I was being kind above.

On 2009-09-02, Jack Stein wrote:

Even the legal definition, according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of
Law, says, and I quote:

Wow! A legal ****ing contest. Those are the most complex and drawn
out kind. Anyone able to recommend a wood preservative against ****?

nb

notbob wrote:
On 2009-09-02, Jack Stein wrote:

Even the legal definition, according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of
Law, says, and I quote:

Wow! A legal ****ing contest. Those are the most complex and drawn
out kind. Anyone able to recommend a wood preservative against ****?

nb
Talk to Tanus. Seems like he had a super glue moment recently
yuk yuk,
jo4hn

krw wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:31:34 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

krw wrote:

I never saw anyone claim Kennedy intended to kill her?

Though it has been claimed, intentions have nothing to do with it.

You are wrong, intentions have a LOT to do with accidents.

Wrong. Because he was driving drunk, it was no accident.

It was no more an "accident" than if he had pointed a gun at her
and shot her.

Wow! An accident is any event that happens unexpectedly, without a
deliberate plan or cause. Had he pointed a gun at her head, and
shot her, it would not likely be an accident.

You are absolutely *wrong*.

I am absolutely **right**, according to the dictionary. Your problem
with the term "accident" should be addressed to someone else, I can't
help you.

You two are talking past each other.

The word "accident" does not appear in the Massachusetts penal code. The
common meaning of "accident" has no traction, at all, in the criminal
justice system. An act may be an "accident" is the normal sense and it may
or may not be a crime.

You simply cannot make a legal claim based on whether something was an
"accident."

krw wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

krw wrote:
Though it has been claimed, intentions have nothing to do with it.

You are wrong, intentions have a LOT to do with accidents.

Wrong. Because he was driving drunk, it was no accident.

You're still wrong. It was still an accident, based on the definition
of the word accident. I suggest you look it up.

It was no more an "accident" than if he had pointed a gun at her and
shot her.

Wow! An accident is any event that happens unexpectedly, without a
deliberate plan or cause. Had he pointed a gun at her head, and shot
her, it would not likely be an accident.
You are absolutely *wrong*.
I am absolutely **right**, according to the dictionary. Your problem
with the term "accident" should be addressed to someone else, I can't
help you.

You can't even help yourself.

Well, even though I thought I was correct, I still took the time to look
up the definition of the word accident, then after more silly ass
rebuttal's, looked up the legal definition of the word accident.
Apparently, you would rather attack me than spend a few minutes
investigating your wrong ass statements.

Perhaps you should go get loaded and
kill someone on the way home tonight. See how far "I didn't mean to"
gets you.

Not sure how far it will get me, but I'm absolutely certain it will not
change the meaning of the word accident one tiny bit.

Do you have any idea what "manslaughter"
or "murder" mean? It is *NOT* "accidental" when someone dies during
the commission of a felony. It is at *least* manslaughter.
Unless you can prove he did did it on purpose, it was an accident,
according me, and the dictionary.

Wrong, as usual. He *did* get drunk voluntarily. He was therefore
responsible for anything that happened after.

Yet it was still an accident. Besides, you don't have any legal proof
he was drunk. Doesn't really matter, it was still an accident, no
matter how much you huff and puff.

I know a guy
that cut the **** out of his hand on a table saw, so what, it was also
an accident. Neither of them did it on purpose.
Was he drunk at the time? If so, it was no "accident".
No, he was old.
Old? You're on drugs. He was 37, hardly old.
How the **** do you know how old the guy was, I didn't even give you his
name. He was OLD, he was not drunk. Are YOU on drugs or what? I might
add, the old guy could have prevented the ACCIDENT by selling me his
tools before he cut his hand, instead, he waited until AFTER he cut his
hand before deciding he was probably too old to be negligently putting
his self at risk like this.

Dumb ****! Read the thread!

Dumb ****, you read the thread. Here, let me help you.

ME: I know a guy that cut his hand on a saw,
You: Was he drunk,
ME: No, he was old,
You Are on drugs, he was only 37, hardly old,
ME: How the **** do you know how old the guy was?
You: Dumb ****! Read the thread!

Did I miss anything?

Keep reading it over and over and eventually it will sink in.

Old people have a propensity for accidents. New
drivers have a propensity for car accidents. People with high blood
pressure, high cholesterol and bad genetics have lots of heart attacks.
Simply amazing!
Why you didn't know this stuff? You live in a shell or what?

Why are you so damned stupid?

Not sure, but my guess is because you ran out of pertinent things to say.

An old guy a few years ago had a heart attack and killed 4 people in a
park with his car. People involved in multiple accidents are more
likely to get in another accident more than those that never had an
accident. These people kill people on the road every day, they, imo,
are accidents, not homicides.
You are a nut case!
You are on drugs?

No, but apparently you think it's a great idea. Indeed it's an excuse
to kill people.

The only good idea I supported in this thread was Old Lady Kennedy
having a pre, or post natal abortion. Some people think that would have
been murder, some think it wouldn't have been. I don't care, I think it
would have been a good idea, but hindsight is easy to get right.

Your emotional outburst doesn't change the facts at hand.
The facts are it was an accident.
Wrong. The facts are exactly the *opposite*.
Wrong, facts are exactly it was an **accident**. Note my double stars
trump your single stars.... Sheesh!

The only stars are circling your head. What a maroon!

Still out of pertinent things to say, cool beans!

No facts presented show Kennedy
killed the girl on purpose, so, it was simply an accident.
That has nothing to do with guilt.
Yes, guilty of being in an accident.

He killed someone while drunk, you stupid ****.

It was an accident, you stupid dick!

He covered up the accident.
The WHAT?

It wasn't first degree murder, or at least there is no proof of that.

It wasn't anything, never went to court. It was however, as you just
said, an accident.

There *was* proof of homicide. If he weren't the last male Kennedy
he'd have died in prison.

There was no proof it wasn't an accident, regardless of how much you
huff and puff, or make non-relevant, personal attacks.

What happened to your "exactly opposite" to an accident crap?

He was guilty of at least a handful of felonies.

What if he was to drunk to drive, and she was driving? What if he was
driving just fine, and she decided to give him road head, and that
caused the wreck. What if they were arguing about something, and she
grabbed the wheel and they wrecked. What if she was giving him a lap
dance, and he lost control. What if he was sober, but very tired from a
long day and she was boring him to tears and he fell asleep at the
wheel, and he drifted into the pond. Lots of things could have happened,
but regardless, it was still an accident unless one of them intended to
drive into the water, on purpose.

Well, if you want to get all legal about it, he was guilty of nothing,
unless proven in a court of law. Regardless, it was just as YOU said,
an accident.

You are as retarded as they come.

You waste my time arguing this was not an accident, then you blatantly
call it an accident, and then call ME retarded... You are simple as they
come!

Just like
the 16 year old that drove himself and 3 of his friends into a tree and
killed them all was probably an accident, not intentional, even if he
was speeding, high on grass, drunk, had a heart condition and so on. He
didn't mean to do it, so it was an accident.

You need to check yourself in.

And you need to get yourself a dictionary. I guess I can help a you
little:

http://dictionary.reference.com.

Give it a shot. You used the term correctly at least ONCE, but I'm not
certain it wasn't an ACCIDENT!

I was being kind above.

Kind? I suggest you look that word up as well. "Simple" would be more
like it, as in "lacking mental acuteness or sense."

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

HeyBub wrote:
krw wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

It was no more an "accident" than if he had pointed a gun at her
and shot her.

Wow! An accident is any event that happens unexpectedly, without a
deliberate plan or cause. Had he pointed a gun at her head, and
shot her, it would not likely be an accident.

You are absolutely *wrong*.

I am absolutely **right**, according to the dictionary. Your problem
with the term "accident" should be addressed to someone else, I can't
help you.

You two are talking past each other.

The word "accident" does not appear in the Massachusetts penal code.

But it does appear in the dictionary. What happened was an accident,
doesn't matter if he was drunk, sober, or getting head. This was NOT
the same as pointing a loaded gun at someones head and deliberately
shooting them. That would NOT be an accident.

The common meaning of "accident" has no traction, at all, in the criminal
justice system.

Assuming you are right, so what? I said it was an accident, he said it
wasn't an accident. The dictionary backs me up, including the legal
dictionary.

An act may be an "accident" is the normal sense and it may
or may not be a crime.

You are talking right at me, and right past krw!

You simply cannot make a legal claim based on whether something was an
"accident."

I wouldn't know, don't really care as far as Kennedy and his accident is
concerned. I guess it is possible she was pregnant with his kid, and
Kennedy actually killed her on purpose, thus, no accident occurred, just
a murder, but I doubt that very much. Her family sued to prevent an
autopsy, and Kennedy paid the legal fees. Far as I'm concerned I'm
going with it was an accident, and he had no intention of killing her,
may even made a valiant effort to save her, although his general
character as a socialist ******* doesn't push me hard in that direction.

Past that, legal claims vary like the wind. For example, if I kick your
ass because your a black dude, thats a hate crime with more severe
penalties than if I kick your ass because you simply **** me off. The
supreme court at one time said blacks were not human, and I'd bet
kicking your ass because you were black at that time was treated
lightly. What the law might say, and what is right or wrong are not
always the same or in alignment with what I think, or sometimes what any
sane person thinks.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:22:14 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:31:34 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

krw wrote:

I never saw anyone claim Kennedy intended to kill her?

Though it has been claimed, intentions have nothing to do with it.

You are wrong, intentions have a LOT to do with accidents.

Wrong. Because he was driving drunk, it was no accident.

It was no more an "accident" than if he had pointed a gun at her
and shot her.

Wow! An accident is any event that happens unexpectedly, without a
deliberate plan or cause. Had he pointed a gun at her head, and
shot her, it would not likely be an accident.

You are absolutely *wrong*.

I am absolutely **right**, according to the dictionary. Your problem
with the term "accident" should be addressed to someone else, I can't
help you.

You two are talking past each other.

The word "accident" does not appear in the Massachusetts penal code. The
common meaning of "accident" has no traction, at all, in the criminal
justice system. An act may be an "accident" is the normal sense and it may
or may not be a crime.

The dingbat is claiming that there was no crime committed because it
wasn't intentional.

You simply cannot make a legal claim based on whether something was an
"accident."

The dolt thinks the crime is in the intent.

On Sep 4, 10:45*am, Jack Stein wrote:
krw wrote:
The dingbat is claiming that there was no crime committed because it
wasn't intentional.

That explains a lot, you are delusional...

You simply cannot make a legal claim based on whether something was an
"accident."
The dolt thinks the crime is in the intent.

I think because their was no intent it was an accident. *Webster agrees
with me.


WTF does Emmanuel Lewis have to do with this?

In article , Jack Stein wrote:

I think because their was no intent it was an accident. Webster agrees
with me.

The aspect of this that you are missing is that an act can be a crime even
*without* intent. For example, even though it's vanishingly unlikely that any
drunk driver ever actually intends to kill someone, causing a death while DUI
is a felony in every state. Most people are prosecuted and imprisoned when
this occurs; exceptions are often made in the cases of the wealthy and the
politically connected.

Negligent homicide is another example in which an act (or failure to act) is
criminal, even in the complete absence of intent to cause death.

krw wrote:

The dingbat is claiming that there was no crime committed because it
wasn't intentional.

That explains a lot, you are delusional...

You simply cannot make a legal claim based on whether something was an
"accident."

The dolt thinks the crime is in the intent.

I think because their was no intent it was an accident. Webster agrees
with me.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:45:18 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

krw wrote:

The dingbat is claiming that there was no crime committed because it
wasn't intentional.

That explains a lot, you are delusional...

No, you're just plain stupid as a stump.

You simply cannot make a legal claim based on whether something was an
"accident."

The dolt thinks the crime is in the intent.

I think because their was no intent it was an accident. Webster agrees
with me.

Intent has nothing to do with it, idiot. The fact is that someone
died in the commission of a crime, making it felony manslaughter (at
least). The little point that royalty can get away with such things
doesn't make it any less of a crime.

"Jack Stein" wrote in message

But, the part I'm not missing is without intent, it is an accident. I
said it was an accident, he said it wasn't. He said it was no different
than if he put a gun to her head and shot her, or something stupid along
those lines. Obviously, he, and anyone that thinks these two types of
incidents are the same, is simply wrong.

Semantics. Call it an accident, but he was still 100% responsible. Even
though an incident comes about from an accident, there is always something
that causes that accident. Often, it is negligence or carelessness, such as
drinking too much. If the car ended up in the water because the bridge
collapsed, the driver is off the hook as he could not prevent it. If the
car ends up in the water because he knowingly drank, he is as responsible as
any other type of killing. He had the power to prevent the mishap and chose
not to.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Jack Stein wrote:
I think because their was no intent it was an accident. Webster agrees
with me.

The aspect of this that you are missing is that an act can be a crime even
*without* intent.

But, the part I'm not missing is without intent, it is an accident. I
said it was an accident, he said it wasn't. He said it was no different
than if he put a gun to her head and shot her, or something stupid along
those lines. Obviously, he, and anyone that thinks these two types of
incidents are the same, is simply wrong.


For example, even though it's vanishingly unlikely that any
drunk driver ever actually intends to kill someone, causing a death while DUI
is a felony in every state.

Perhaps, but that does not change the fact it was, by definition, an
accident. If our legal system wants to put people in jail for getting
in an accident, that doesn't change the fact it was an accident, by
definition. The law could say if you choose to drive while it is
snowing, and get in an accident, you have committed a felony. Still,
unless you deliberately got in the wreck, it's an accident.

Most people are prosecuted and imprisoned when
this occurs; exceptions are often made in the cases of the wealthy and the
politically connected.

Negligent homicide is another example in which an act (or failure to act) is
criminal, even in the complete absence of intent to cause death.

Personally, I think Kennedy was a criminal simply based on his left
wing, socialist, anti-American beliefs. That in no way changes the fact
that the wreck that got Mary Jo killed, was most likely just an accident.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

krw wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

krw wrote:

The dingbat is claiming that there was no crime committed because it
wasn't intentional.

That explains a lot, you are delusional...

No, you're just plain stupid as a stump.

I think it's rather stupid to make up **** that is easily dismissed in
the public record. You will find nothing in this thread where I said no
crime was committed. What you will find is a link to a dictionary that
you could have easily clicked on and read, verifying that you are dumb
as a stump.

The dolt thinks the crime is in the intent.

I think because their was no intent it was an accident. Webster agrees
with me.

Intent has nothing to do with it, idiot.

Intent has everything to do with it, fool.

The fact is that someone
died in the commission of a crime, making it felony manslaughter (at
least).

The fact someone could be charged with a crime after getting in an
accident doesn't make it not, by definition, an accident. Huff and puff
all you want, but there is no chance you will change the meaning of the
word "accident". If the legal system wants to make it a felony if you
drive in the snow, and get in an accident, so be it. If talking on a
cell phone, and getting in an accident is going to be a felony, cool.

If the legal system wants to say it was not an accident because he was
drinking (they don't), the legal system would be wrong and it would
still be an accident. Just as the legal system, stating blacks are not
human (they did), really doesn't change the fact that blacks really are
human.

One more time:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident?r=1

Rather than bore me with your stupidity, why not learn what an accident
is, and if you want the definition changed, start a letter writing
campaign to get it changed. I'm sure your brilliance will be welcomed
by all. Don't forget to throw in a few ad hominem attacks while you are
at it...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:05:49 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

krw wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

krw wrote:

The dingbat is claiming that there was no crime committed because it
wasn't intentional.

That explains a lot, you are delusional...

No, you're just plain stupid as a stump.

I think it's rather stupid to make up **** that is easily dismissed in
the public record. You will find nothing in this thread where I said no
crime was committed. What you will find is a link to a dictionary that
you could have easily clicked on and read, verifying that you are dumb
as a stump.

Yes it is stupid to make **** up, like your entire argument.

The dolt thinks the crime is in the intent.

I think because their was no intent it was an accident. Webster agrees
with me.

Intent has nothing to do with it, idiot.

Intent has everything to do with it, fool.

Intent has *nothing* to do with manslaughter (or even murder, in cases
like this), you dumb ****!

The fact is that someone
died in the commission of a crime, making it felony manslaughter (at
least).

The fact someone could be charged with a crime after getting in an
accident doesn't make it not, by definition, an accident. Huff and puff
all you want, but there is no chance you will change the meaning of the
word "accident". If the legal system wants to make it a felony if you
drive in the snow, and get in an accident, so be it. If talking on a
cell phone, and getting in an accident is going to be a felony, cool.

Ah, it is a good day to move the goal posts, if you're losing (your
mind). What a stupid piece of ****.

If the legal system wants to say it was not an accident because he was
drinking (they don't), the legal system would be wrong and it would
still be an accident. Just as the legal system, stating blacks are not
human (they did), really doesn't change the fact that blacks really are
human.

More goalpost movement, but the dumbass.

One more time:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident?r=1

Rather than bore me with your stupidity, why not learn what an accident
is, and if you want the definition changed, start a letter writing
campaign to get it changed. I'm sure your brilliance will be welcomed
by all. Don't forget to throw in a few ad hominem attacks while you are
at it...

Bore you? *You* insist on draging your stupid ass all over the floor
here.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
But, the part I'm not missing is without intent, it is an accident. I
said it was an accident, he said it wasn't. He said it was no different
than if he put a gun to her head and shot her, or something stupid along
those lines. Obviously, he, and anyone that thinks these two types of
incidents are the same, is simply wrong.

Semantics.

Yes, semantics. Words have meanings, and accident is a word that
basically means something bad happened without intent. You can't change
that by studying the meanings of words (semantics) but you can easily
confirm it.

Call it an accident,

Unless he intentionally drove off the road into the water thats what it
was, an accident. On the other hand, me pulling out a gun and shooting
you between the eyes because I don't like your attitude, is not an
accident. This is easily confirmed by simply looking up the meaning of
the word, which I made simple with a clickable link.

but he was still 100% responsible. Even
though an incident comes about from an accident, there is always something
that causes that accident.

Of course. If you go out on a snowy night, spin off the road and run
into a house full of kids, and and everyone dyes, you are responsible,
but it's still an accident.

Often, it is negligence or carelessness, such as
drinking too much.

Some, particularly lawyers, think it is ALWAYS someones fault, and they
are not wrong. Nonetheless, if there is no intent, it's an accident.

If the car ended up in the water because the bridge
collapsed, the driver is off the hook as he could not prevent it.

Right, but then the bridge builder, architect, maintenance crew,
government entity or someone is responsible. Ask any lawyer. Still,
unless intent is there, it is just an accident. Words have meanings,
and this is the meaning of the word "accident".

If the
car ends up in the water because he knowingly drank, he is as responsible as
any other type of killing. He had the power to prevent the mishap and chose
not to.

He is also just as responsible if he wasn't drinking, just as in any
other type of killing. Lets say he was tired from fighting the flu,
working all day, then going to a party, but NOT drinking. He is STILL
responsible if HE falls asleep and drives off the road. It is STILL an
accident, he is STILL responsible. If he drove off the road because he
wanted to drown his pregnant girlfriend, he is still responsible, but,
it would NOT be an accident. Intent makes all the difference, exactly
opposite to what krw has been saying.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

On Sep 6, 12:37*pm, Jack Stein wrote:
*

Of course. *If you go out on a snowy night, spin off the road and run
into a house full of kids, and and everyone dyes, you are responsible,
but it's still an accident.


Albeit a very colourful one.

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:37 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

Of course. If you go out on a snowy night, spin off the road and run
into a house full of kids, and and everyone dyes, you are responsible,
but it's still an accident.


Albeit a very colourful one.

Nice catch.
;-)

--
Froz...

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:37 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

Of course. If you go out on a snowy night, spin off the road and run
into a house full of kids, and and everyone dyes, you are responsible,
but it's still an accident.

Albeit a very colourful one.

A little color in ones life is a good thing...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com