Local man dies for freedom of choice

[arrow]

By the way, how does one get the quote from another on ones thread. I've attempted different ways but fail each time and obtain no darkened field.

I don't think I'm sure I understand what you are trying to do.

If you click on "QUOTE" the entire post is quoted. You can delete some of the text if you are only interested in only a part as I did above. I also eliminated the markup, i.e. quote and /quote. If this is not what you are asking then please rephrase your query so I can get it through my head and if able I will be glad to help you. More likely someone else will chime in with an answer while I'm still thinking about it.

Give more input regarding "darkening."

Pat

Ok you see your "do -dah" text. The field behind it is darkened. My attempts to do what I see others do (that is darkening the field to give notice of the quotation) end up being what you did to quote my thread that is no darkening. As a result, the mistake can be made by others that indeed no quote was made and that it was just part of the posters thread as what happened when Zeuspaul confused my text with yours. How does one obtain the darkened back ground or field? \\

Crap, I just did it by simply clicking "quote" My mistake was highlighting what I wanted quoted first but how does one separate original posters text to be quoted when you only want part of the text darkened?

ok, I just answered my last part of the question as well. I simply deleted the part I didn't want with the edit device. Its tough being left brained sometimes.

Thank you Pat for your input

 

[Soundguy]

All I can say is that as risky behavior goes.. there are levels.. and you weight your riss and go based on the gains.

For instance.. trator operating without a rops... this entails a risk with a tangible gain.

Now.. jumping out of a perfectly good airplane with a fabric bag and some strings tied to yuor back.... not much tangible gain there.. but entials a good bit of risk.

If we are going to mandate 100% safety on any task.. that means inherently dangerous activities must be completely abolished if they have no tangible gain.. this includes pleasure equine eventing.. which is considered an inherently dangerous activit by many states.. as evidenced by the equine reduced and -0- libility laws for participants in many states.. florida being one of those states.

Before you outlaw driving a tractor with no rops to get real tangible work done.. you MUST outlaw other dangerous activities that have no tanginble gain... Heck.. if we had passed legislation like this years ago....we could all be little government owned subjects/automatons.. and superman might still be alive... remember.. if we give up all our rights and it saves one person..... ( 100% pure BS!!!!! )..

I still say you are headed down the wrong road when you are ready to trade freedom for security..

soundguy

 

[redneckford]

Long as that road ain't Wall STREET!!!!

 

[gemini5362]

Since I have been known to ride a motorcycle without a helmet I guess I am one of those people who have the potential to cause everyones taxes and health insurance to go up. There is a very good arguement about that subject. Which is better to have an accident and be wearing a helmet or not have an accident by not wearing a helmet. There is no doubt in my mind that the most dangerous things to a motorcycle is people in 4 wheeled vehicles. Ask any motorcycle rider how many times a day they have to dodge stupid drivers. Helmets restrict all of your hearing and a lot of peripheal vision. not wearing them helps you to be more aware of what is going on around you. Pat made a good arguement about hitting bugs. That is why i have a windshield on my motorcycle and a lot of others do also.

I think maybe we should look at everything that costs us money and see if we can do something about laws to take care of those problems.

1. welfare costs a lot of money. sterilize couples that are on welfare and have one child already. That would save a ton of money

2. Older people are sick a lot that raises all of our health insurance plus the tremendous amount of money spent on medicaid. Lets euthanize everyone over the age of 50

3. Cancer costs a lot of money to treat raising my health insurance. Euthanize everyone that has cancer that will help a lot

4. Schools eat a lot of my tax dollars. Maybe we need to pass a law that all chidren have to be home schooled, let the parents take 100 per cent of the expense of educating their children.


5. My county spends a lot on paved roads. Lets pass laws that all roads are to be dirt that if you want pavement on your road everyone that lives along that road should pay for it.


6. Government costs a whole lot of money lets just do the smart thing and abolish all government and live in anarchy.



I am sure there are several more things that I could add to the list but I think those pretty well make my point. If someone wants to legislate everything that costs me money exactly where do you stop.

 

[Soundguy]

Gemini.. I think your point illustrates 'personal responsibility' to the extreme... If more people had some personal responsibilty.. this mess of 'others' costing 'us' money wouldn't be as big of an issue.

soundguy

 

[MossRoad]

Which goes back to Pat's original post...

Members of his family, neighbors, and friends are saddened by his death from a "freak accident" that there was no way to prevent.

I was not a personal friend but regret the results of his application of freedom of choice. I am somewhat amazed and regret the fact that the general consensus of opinion is that it was a freak accident, impossible to prevent or survive and none of his fault. This sends a bad message. His death was most likely totally preventable with a ROPS.

The guy chose to use a machine without a ROPS and it may have saved his life if he did. I used the word MAY because we will never know for SURE.

No where does Pat say the government should require all of us to use these things, he says we have the choice to use them or not.

So let's leave the government requirements and politics out of this discussion and just stick to the aspect of personal choice.

Even if you buy a brand new tractor with a ROPS, you can remove the ROPS if you want to. You have that choice. Go ahead and do it. But don't be offended or surprised if people tell your surviving kin that you were a stubborn old coot and you died doing what you loved.

I doubt anyone would love being pinned underwater gasping for air, face in the mud with a tractor on top of them. In fact, I bet they did not love that at all. If they weren't knocked unconscious they died a horrible death that MAY have been preventable.

 

[Soundguy]

Which goes back to Pat's original post...


.....

No where does Pat say the government should require all of us to use these things, he says we have the choice to use them or not.

.

A quick review of the very first page shows what i believe started the 'law' issue.

In post 4, pat tells a story of a firearm that was bought that had to have a safety feature by -*LAW*-.. From that point on.. the concept of gov't mandated safety features ( consumer protection laws ) seems like fair game. between there and post 9 some one talks about consumer protection, and in post 9n, even Bird chimes in on the subject..

As i stated.. My guess is that PAT himself opend the floor for the discussion of consumer protection laws.. and thus all that ensued from there by making his analogy using a story that had a leagle tie to it.

soundguy

 

[MossRoad]

A quick review of the very first page shows what i believe started the 'law' issue.

In post 4, pat tells a story of a firearm that was bought that had to have a safety feature by -*LAW*-.. From that point on.. the concept of gov't mandated safety features ( consumer protection laws ) seems like fair game. between there and post 9 some one talks about consumer protection, and in post 9n, even Bird chimes in on the subject..

As i stated.. My guess is that PAT himself opend the floor for the discussion of consumer protection laws.. and thus all that ensued from there by making his analogy using a story that had a leagle tie to it.

soundguy

Well, there you have it. Stinking door to the government...

I agree that life is full of choices. I choose to do dumb stuff once in a while too. However, I also appreciate it when people point out the dumb stuff before I damage myself or someone else and take no offense when they do.

 

[Soundguy]

It's all about choices.. and more importantly.. repercussions. I believe.. -most- o fthe choices shoul dbe leagal, but with the understanding that my 'personal responsibility' kicks in and I must bear the repercussions of my actions.

Do I want the heavy duty mower for 1500$.. or the light duty mower for 500$? If i save money and buy the light duty mower.. the repercussions are that I will likely need to replace it sooner than the heavy duty mower.. and if i do.. that's my nickle.. my choice.. my issue to deal with.. not the companies fault for making an 'inferior' machine.

soundguy

 

[unreconstructed]

Wonder if one risky behavior offsets one nonrisky behavior. A-B=0.

For example, riding a motorcyle while wearing a helmet but after 6 beers.

(Now how would I have thought that one up--maybe still have the scars??)