Sorry to post again so quickly, but the one comment under that video interview was too good not to share (bolding mine):
Frankly, I tried engaging him for a while, but I felt like I wasn’t making any headway at all in even approaching the concept of “reasonable people can disagree”. I’m not going to make any judgments about trollery, but when I simply stopped engaging him on that topic at that point because it wasn’t enjoyable for me or worth my time and effort.
This, however, I will respond to, because this sort of reasoning utterly baffles me. I didn’t read about any of this, so I’ll take what you said at face value and, well, I have to disagree. The underlying point is that, whether the disability resulted directly from the accident or from substandard care after the accident, he wouldn’t have the disability if he hadn’t made the poor decision to begin with. It’s hardly an unforeseeable result that one could get disabled from driving drunk, that it happened as an indirect result rather than a direct result doesn’t somehow make the reason that he was in care to begin with irrelevant.
That said, it doesn’t necessarily make suing unreasonable if it was a blatant mistake, of which I can’t speak since I didn’t read the thread in which it was mentioned. However, I don’t think you can morally separate those two events. It is the doctor providing the care who is on morally equal grounds despite the reason the person is there.
As such, I would argue that while it may be morally justified, that he was drunk driving and sued the doctor who cared for him is still a valid reason for questioning his moral judgment IMO. Afterall, though sometimes consequences are well beyond the expected result of a decision, we cannot be absolved of responsibility when it is that decision that placed us in such a situation.
I can’t remember for sure, but I want to say that Jamie’s blood alcohol level was lower than the legal limit. If so, his drinking becomes totally irrelevant in my eyes.
She said 100%.
Regards,
Shodan
Usually I pass out.
blushes You can increase your whiskey supply too (and then send it to me).
I’m not sure I can increase it too much more than it is… I’m ready for stage 2.
Simply bypass my boring entries on this message board. It’s much easier, and less stressful (for all) than complaining about what I do post. That being said, I fully expect more snarky comments from you in the future, since that is all you have ever produced in any of my threads.
Or maybe, you could stop being such a one trick pony instead of requesting that everybody ignores your one-dimensional and repetitive posts.
+1
To be fair, he also produces a fair amount of smegma but we’re mostly too polite to mention it.
I missed that–mainly because, as has been pointed out, the OTP just isn’t all that interesting. Can you provide a link please?
The “one trick pony” allegation rears it’s ugly head. SMH
Go and take a look at my profile and go tally up my “threads started” list. :rolleyes: You have quite a selective eye for what I post.
That might be true.
Then again, on the other hand if I recall correctly, you did not start any threads not related to your pet cause until somebody complained about it.
I said it before and I’ll say it again. You need to lay off posting about your pet cause. I don’t think its good for you personally in real life. And its not good for your reputation here. You are not accomplishing anything here. You are just raising your blood pressure and pissing off people.
I love when someone says something like this in response to a demand for explanations.
FWIW, I’ve got a lot of time for jamiemcgarry. He gave me some really good advice in a thread I started a while back about my difficulties with insomnia, and was very understanding. He’s a good guy, and based on what I’ve read, the worst you can accuse him of is refusing to take any shit.
And her perspiration makes a lovely vinaigrette, which is a nice bonus.
Jamie - What precisely are you hoping to achieve via mediation with the HMCC? I don’t expect they’ll actually go through that process with you, as their lawyers will laugh their asses off at your case against them, but let’s say they decide they’d like to sit down with you and work something out… What do you envision as the end result of that?
You say you’re not in it for the money, yet in another thread you’ve stated multiple times that the HMCC is going to “pay” and that this is going to cost them money. If you don’t want money from them, then what?
A of all, you should read more of his posts.
B of all, that’s better advice than anything he could have given you.
I haven’t read all the threads, but at least occasionally jamie’s disability situations point up legitimate issues. For example I think he was perfectly justified in wanting to keep his chair (folded) with him in the restaurant, not have it taken and put somewhere by staff. Now, he may not have handled it ideally, and he may not have presented it in the best possible terms here, but there was a real thing there.