Madeline McCann

[Honkytonk]

This thread is too depressing.

[Arriba]

Those poor puppies have been abandoned

[Samdy Gray]

Not to mention the fifth one that's suffocating at the bottom of the basket

[Gnasher]

I hate dogs 

[dalumpimunki]

Speeding with children in the car is not neglect or stupid then,is that what you are saying

Driving recklessly fast is indeed stupid. My argument is with you defining that with reference to speed limits. Explain to me which one of the many speed limits for motorway / highway driving that are in place around the world is the "safe" and non-neglectful one? The laws of physics don't vary from one continent to another.

I drive at 60mph and I'm safely within the speed limit here, speeding in most US states, driving (probably dangerously) slowly on German autobahns, and it's impossible to tell whether I'm being reckless in any of those circumstances. Depends on the road conditions.

I'm also curious about your use of the phrase "with children in the car", meaning presumably that you think it's fine to speed when there aren't kids in your car, despite the fact that there may be kids on the street that you may run over, or in other cars that you may crash into. Don't feel you have any responsibility for them?

[Tails]

I'm also curious about your use of the phrase "with children in the car", meaning presumably that you think it's fine to speed when there aren't kids in your car, despite the fact that there may be kids on the street that you may run over, or in other cars that you may crash into. Don't feel you have any responsibility for them?

How did you work that out? I didn't see him say that, or anything remotely close to that once.

[dalumpimunki]

How did you work that out? I didn't see him say that, or anything remotely close to that once.

He didn't write it expcilitly but then meaning is there implicitly. Because if he thought speeding was a terrible thing to do in general he wouldn't have found it necessary to add the subordinate modifying clause "with children in the car" to the sentence. That's what modifying clauses do, they modify (in this case limit the applicability of), the main part of the sentence.

And it's not just a poorly worded post, as he's use the same sentence structure twice, once in his original post and then again in the post I quoted in my response.

[DRS]

He didn't write it expcilitly but then meaning is there implicitly. Because if he thought speeding was a terrible thing to do in general he wouldn't have found it necessary to add the subordinate modifying clause "with children in the car" to the sentence. That's what modifying clauses do, they modify (in this case limit the applicability of), the main part of the sentence.

And it's not just a poorly worded post, as he's use the same sentence structure twice, once in his original post and then again in the post I quoted in my response.

Fuck me you like to ramble on don't you

[4D]

Lumps ought to run for parliament 

[jayohaitchenn]

He didn't write it expcilitly but then meaning is there implicitly. Because if he thought speeding was a terrible thing to do in general he wouldn't have found it necessary to add the subordinate modifying clause "with children in the car" to the sentence. That's what modifying clauses do, they modify (in this case limit the applicability of), the main part of the sentence.

And it's not just a poorly worded post, as he's use the same sentence structure twice, once in his original post and then again in the post I quoted in my response.

[Tails]

He didn't write it expcilitly but then meaning is there implicitly. Because if he thought speeding was a terrible thing to do in general he wouldn't have found it necessary to add the subordinate modifying clause "with children in the car" to the sentence. That's what modifying clauses do, they modify (in this case limit the applicability of), the main part of the sentence.

And it's not just a poorly worded post, as he's use the same sentence structure twice, once in his original post and then again in the post I quoted in my response.

You knew what his point was though.

[mystical_goat]

What's that from?

Both of those actors are great.

Rafe Spall or whatever his name is was a superb madman in the BBC series The Shadow Line, and that Pete vs Life show is good too.

[leefer]

Those poor puppies have been abandoned

I used to say that as a chat up line.

[axs]

What's that from?

Both of those actors are great.

Rafe Spall or whatever his name is was a superb madman in the BBC series The Shadow Line, and that Pete vs Life show is good too.

Hot fuzz

[jayohaitchenn]

Yeah Hot Fuzz. Top film.