Death in Greenwich Park - verdict



T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
[email protected] (Terry) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> >> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> 3. Rumours at the time were that the driver was a rastaurant
>> >> >> owner in Greenwich.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 4. Other later rumours were that the driver was pulling over
>> > > to >>> use the toilet.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Rumour is what you're spreading.
>> >>
>> >> I am not spreading rumour.
>> >
>> >Edited for clarity.

>>
>> Reporting a rumour as being just a rumour isn't spreading a rumour.

>
>On which planet does that hold true?
>
>The rumour you have spread is essential to connecting the driver to the
>restaurants. Your use of it constitutes conjecture. You would have done
>better to take your own advice & wait for the facts to emerge. As it
>stands you have set the table for the hard of thinking & bigots.


I have made no positive connection between Mr Voong and the
restaurants - only a possibility of their being a connection based on
fact and circumstantial evidence. I have always made that clear.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>>> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>>>>> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>> [email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>>>>>>> 3. Rumours at the time were that the driver was a rastaurant
>>>>>>> owner in Greenwich.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. Other later rumours were that the driver was pulling over
>>>>> to >>> use the toilet.
>>>>>> Rumour is what you're spreading.
>>>>> I am not spreading rumour.
>>>> Edited for clarity.
>>> Reporting a rumour as being just a rumour isn't spreading a rumour.

>> On which planet does that hold true?
>>
>> The rumour you have spread is essential to connecting the driver to the
>> restaurants. Your use of it constitutes conjecture. You would have done
>> better to take your own advice & wait for the facts to emerge. As it
>> stands you have set the table for the hard of thinking & bigots.

>
> I have made no positive connection between Mr Voong and the
> restaurants - only a possibility of their being a connection based on
> fact and circumstantial evidence. I have always made that clear.


That is true.

But there is another poster for whom one could say:

"Trifles light as air
Are to the jealous confirmations strong
As proofs of holy writ."

Based on the little that is known (and the much that has been
conjectured), he's almost ready to nuke Hanoi (if only he could).
 
N

Nick

Guest
JNugent wrote:
>
>
> Based on the little that is known (and the much that has been
> conjectured), he's almost ready to nuke Hanoi (if only he could).


Fair enough if you want people to think you are a troll rather than just
an idiot.

I suppose it was stupid of me to assume that you weren't.
 
T

Terry

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> >> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> >> >> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> 3. Rumours at the time were that the driver was a
> > > > rastaurant >>> >> owner in Greenwich.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 4. Other later rumours were that the driver was pulling
> > > > over >to >>> use the toilet.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Rumour is what you're spreading.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am not spreading rumour.
> >> >
> >> >Edited for clarity.
> >>
> >> Reporting a rumour as being just a rumour isn't spreading a rumour.

> >
> >On which planet does that hold true?
> >
> >The rumour you have spread is essential to connecting the driver to

> the >restaurants. Your use of it constitutes conjecture. You would
> have done >better to take your own advice & wait for the facts to
> emerge. As it >stands you have set the table for the hard of thinking
> & bigots.
>
> I have made no positive connection between Mr Voong and the
> restaurants - only a possibility of their being a connection based on
> fact and circumstantial evidence. I have always made that clear.


Semantics. You supplied a confection of rumour & conjecture without
which the few facts you provided would not have implied the connection
you were careful to state was left up to the reader. You didn't serve
the meal but you laid the table and invited the hard of thinking to
partake. All in all an unedifying spectacle.
 
N

Nick

Guest
Terry wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>>>> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> [email protected]this.bit.freeuk.com.munge (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>>>>>> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>> [email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>>>>>>>> 3. Rumours at the time were that the driver was a
>>>>> rastaurant >>> >> owner in Greenwich.
>>>>>>>> 4. Other later rumours were that the driver was pulling
>>>>> over >to >>> use the toilet.
>>>>>>> Rumour is what you're spreading.
>>>>>> I am not spreading rumour.
>>>>> Edited for clarity.
>>>> Reporting a rumour as being just a rumour isn't spreading a rumour.
>>> On which planet does that hold true?
>>>
>>> The rumour you have spread is essential to connecting the driver to

>> the >restaurants. Your use of it constitutes conjecture. You would
>> have done >better to take your own advice & wait for the facts to
>> emerge. As it >stands you have set the table for the hard of thinking
>> & bigots.
>>
>> I have made no positive connection between Mr Voong and the
>> restaurants - only a possibility of their being a connection based on
>> fact and circumstantial evidence. I have always made that clear.

>
> Semantics. You supplied a confection of rumour & conjecture without
> which the few facts you provided would not have implied the connection
> you were careful to state was left up to the reader. You didn't serve
> the meal but you laid the table and invited the hard of thinking to
> partake. All in all an unedifying spectacle.
>


Assuming you are not another troll like Mr Nugent. Exactly what is it
that you think is wrong. Do you think we should only ever act when we
are 100% certain. Do you think it is wrong for people to act as a group
to influence opinion? Do you think that it is never correct to use
ethnic characteristics of a person when trying to make make a
conjecture. Do you think the likely consequence of Tom's action, a few
people avoiding a restaurant is too terrible a sanction when expressing
our feelings about a person being killed. Do you think it is wrong to
take any extra judicial action as this kind of stuff is best left to the
authorities?

So what is it you find so terrible. You have had every opportunity to
correct the "hard of thinking" arguments you mention.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
[email protected] (Terry) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> >> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> >> >> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> >> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> 3. Rumours at the time were that the driver was a
>> > > > rastaurant >>> >> owner in Greenwich.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 4. Other later rumours were that the driver was pulling
>> > > > over >to >>> use the toilet.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Rumour is what you're spreading.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am not spreading rumour.
>> >> >
>> >> >Edited for clarity.
>> >>
>> >> Reporting a rumour as being just a rumour isn't spreading a rumour.
>> >
>> >On which planet does that hold true?
>> >
>> >The rumour you have spread is essential to connecting the driver to

>> the >restaurants. Your use of it constitutes conjecture. You would
>> have done >better to take your own advice & wait for the facts to
>> emerge. As it >stands you have set the table for the hard of thinking
>> & bigots.
>>
>> I have made no positive connection between Mr Voong and the
>> restaurants - only a possibility of their being a connection based on
>> fact and circumstantial evidence. I have always made that clear.

>
>Semantics. You supplied a confection of rumour & conjecture without
>which the few facts you provided would not have implied the connection
>you were careful to state was left up to the reader. You didn't serve
>the meal but you laid the table and invited the hard of thinking to
>partake. All in all an unedifying spectacle.


This is ridiculous.

Mr Voong is guilty of killing a cyclist while driving dangerously.
Whether or not he works in a Vietnamese restaurant in Greenwich is
unknown, but given his Vietmanese sounding name, and the rumours at
the time, it is a strong possibility.

I was going to suggest direct action - the same direct action that
Greenwich Cyclists took at the time. They left a bike painted white
on the footway alongside the road where the Mr Woods was killed.
www.greenwichcyclists.org.uk/img/white_bike.jpg

I was going to suggest that if Mr Voong is not sent down, and he does
indeed work at one of the restaurants, the bike should be chained up
outside his place of work.

However, I have faith that Mr Voong's fatal recklessness will cost him
his liberty for at least six months.
 
R

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Terry
[email protected] says...

> Semantics. You supplied a confection of rumour & conjecture without
> which the few facts you provided would not have implied the connection
> you were careful to state was left up to the reader. You didn't serve
> the meal but you laid the table and invited the hard of thinking to
> partake. All in all an unedifying spectacle.
>

He posted what he knew, what he had heard and what he thought about it.
He made it quite clear which was which. Are we not to discuss things in
case someone misunderstands our meaning or intent? Do you apply similar
logic to other aspects of your life, or do you only wring your hands
when there's political correctness to be inflicted upon others?
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Nick wrote:

> JNugent wrote:


>> Based on the little that is known (and the much that has been
>> conjectured), he's almost ready to nuke Hanoi (if only he could).


> Fair enough if you want people to think you are a troll rather than just
> an idiot.
> I suppose it was stupid of me to assume that you weren't.


Ah... you recognised yourself from the limited description I gave?
 
T

Terry

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Nick) wrote:

> > Terry wrote:
> > Semantics. You supplied a confection of rumour & conjecture without
> > which the few facts you provided would not have implied the
> > connection you were careful to state was left up to the reader. You
> > didn't serve the meal but you laid the table and invited the hard
> > of thinking to partake. All in all an unedifying spectacle.
> >

>
> Assuming you are not another troll like Mr Nugent. Exactly what is it
> that you think is wrong. Do you think we should only ever act when we
> are 100% certain. Do you think it is wrong for people to act as a
> group to influence opinion? Do you think that it is never correct to
> use ethnic characteristics of a person when trying to make make a
> conjecture. Do you think the likely consequence of Tom's action, a
> few people avoiding a restaurant is too terrible a sanction when
> expressing our feelings about a person being killed. Do you think it
> is wrong to take any extra judicial action as this kind of stuff is
> best left to the authorities?
>
> So what is it you find so terrible. You have had every opportunity to
> correct the "hard of thinking" arguments you mention.



What I think is that you would not encourage others to pass judgement on
your life based on rumour, speculation, & conjecture.
 
N

Nick

Guest
Terry wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> (Nick) wrote:
>
>>> Terry wrote:
>>> Semantics. You supplied a confection of rumour & conjecture without
>>> which the few facts you provided would not have implied the
>>> connection you were careful to state was left up to the reader. You
>>> didn't serve the meal but you laid the table and invited the hard
>>> of thinking to partake. All in all an unedifying spectacle.
>>>

>> Assuming you are not another troll like Mr Nugent. Exactly what is it
>> that you think is wrong. Do you think we should only ever act when we
>> are 100% certain. Do you think it is wrong for people to act as a
>> group to influence opinion? Do you think that it is never correct to
>> use ethnic characteristics of a person when trying to make make a
>> conjecture. Do you think the likely consequence of Tom's action, a
>> few people avoiding a restaurant is too terrible a sanction when
>> expressing our feelings about a person being killed. Do you think it
>> is wrong to take any extra judicial action as this kind of stuff is
>> best left to the authorities?
>>
>> So what is it you find so terrible. You have had every opportunity to
>> correct the "hard of thinking" arguments you mention.

>
>
> What I think is that you would not encourage others to pass judgement on
> your life based on rumour, speculation, & conjecture.


Well he did plead guilty and was convicted.

So do you mean that I think people shouldn't pass judgement on me based
on rumour, speculation, & conjecture before they do business with me?
Because that is exactly how it works in my profession. In fact in my
experience I have been much happier with the people I have employed
based on rumour rather than purely on facts on their cv, previous
employment, examination results etc. I certainly know others check up on
me via the grapevine before offering work.

Reputation is tremendously important in business. If I did something to
damage my reputation, it may reflect badly upon those associated with
me, I would expect them sever business contacts.

Remember you are debating with the "hard of thinking" so could you make
your objections a little more explicit because I really don't understand
them.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Nick wrote:

> Terry wrote:
>> [email protected] (Nick) wrote:
>>>> Terry wrote:


>>>> ... You supplied a confection of rumour & conjecture without
>>>> which the few facts you provided would not have implied the
>>>> connection you were careful to state was left up to the reader.


>>> ... Do you think the likely consequence of Tom's action, a
>>> few people avoiding a restaurant is too terrible a sanction when
>>> expressing our feelings about a person being killed. Do you think it
>>> is wrong to take any extra judicial action as this kind of stuff is
>>> best left to the authorities?
>>> So what is it you find so terrible. You have had every opportunity to
>>> correct the "hard of thinking" arguments you mention.


>> What I think is that you would not encourage others to pass judgement
>> on your life based on rumour, speculation, & conjecture.


> Well he did plead guilty and was convicted.


> Reputation is tremendously important in business. If I did something to
> damage my reputation, it may reflect badly upon those associated with
> me, I would expect them sever business contacts.


> Remember you are debating with the "hard of thinking" so could you make
> your objections a little more explicit because I really don't understand
> them.


It isn't my usual style to confront posters with accusations of
stupidity or malice, but I'm tempted to make an exception for you.

All you know about the driver is that he has a name that sounds
Vietnamese - and that the offence was committed in Greenwich.

From that (and from that *alone*), you are prepared to advocate a
boycott of Vietnamese businesses in the area.

Thank God his name wasn't Cohen, eh?
 
P

Paul Weaver

Guest
On 13 Mar, 23:29, "GeoffC" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:12:34 +0100, "GeoffC" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:

>
> >> Since when should a punishment be dealt on the basis of a
> >> "significant chance"

>
> > I boycott Nestle products and McDonalds on a "significant chance".
> > It's a choice I make.

>
> No that is more than a significant chance. Their products WILL make
> you fat.


Powwow water makes you fat?