Richard Hammond

[Softus]

I disagree, in a general sense (i.e. I have no idea if in this case the vehicle was or was not as safe as it could possibly be, or if the owner did or could reasonably know if it was as safe as it could possibly be.)

You might be discussing the general sense, but I'm not.

...new knowledge, not previously available, then previously it could not have been used to make things safer...

I disagree. Knowledge is one thing, whilst imagination, intuition and vision are others. I have my opinion, and I stated it clearly and concisely. Whether you're capable of understanding it is a separate issue that doesn't involve me, and I've said enough about my view that any other reader(s) may now reach their own conclusion.

Indeed - but it is a good analogy.

Its 'goodness' is subjective, and I'm content to agree to disagree.

It is an example of a situation where somebody could do absolutely every safety related thing that is known, i.e. he can make it as safe as it can possibly be, but it can still be dangerous, and there can still be things to learn that will make it safer in the future.

It's a valid example only for as long as one can suspend disbelief in the dissimilarity, and ignore the inherent mountaininess of the mountain, i.e. that it's tall, sharp and rocky, and subject to the mercy of an unpredictable weather system, (i.e. its dangers don't get worse over time), and pretend to yourself that it's like a prototype car whose top speed increases as technology and knowledge extend the engineering capabilities.

Whether he should have allowed a novice to drive it is a reasonable question, but at the end of the day Richard Hammond is an adult capable of making his own decisions.

Again, you've embarked on a discussion that has nothing to do with my original point, being that the owner made a criminally crass statement.

The fact that the vehicle crashed does not mean that it was not as safe as it could possibly be, for two reasons:

1) It may have crashed due to a previously unknown cause.

I never once suggested that the cause was previously known.

2) It may have crashed because of driver error.

It may have done lots of things, for lots of reasons, none of which have anything to do with me or my post about the owner.

A passenger jet is as safe as it can possibly be, but it I tried to fly one and crashed, would that invalidate a statement from the owner saying that the plane was as safe as it could possibly be?

This particular analogy is so far from being a valid one that I have no comment to make about it.

To reach any other reasoned conclusion is to believe that the owner did his best, and to be agnostic about it is to be suspiciously naive.

Presumption of innocence?

Why should we not be agnostic at this stage about whether the owner did his best?

Well, pray continue to be agnostic, while I continue to have a quiet bet with myself.

I come back to my fundamental point. The fact that the car crashed does not prove that it was not as safe as it could possibly be.

Your fundamental point is exactly parallel to my point, and therefore does not touch it or affect it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

...new knowledge, not previously available, then previously it could not have been used to make things safer...

I disagree. Knowledge is one thing, whilst imagination, intuition and vision are others.

Well - you might like a system whereby safety measures are based on what people imagine to be the truth, I prefer them to be based on known facts.

I have my opinion, and I stated it clearly and concisely. Whether you're capable of understanding it is a separate issue that doesn't involve me,

Oh I'm quite capable of understanding it.

Indeed - but it is a good analogy.

Its 'goodness' is subjective, and I'm content to agree to disagree.

And I'm quite capable of understanding why every analogy I present you dismiss as being irrelevant.

It's a valid example only for as long as one can suspend disbelief in the dissimilarity, and ignore the inherent mountaininess of the mountain, i.e. that it's tall, sharp and rocky, and subject to the mercy of an unpredictable weather system, (i.e. its dangers don't get worse over time), and pretend to yourself that it's like a prototype car whose top speed increases as technology and knowledge extend the engineering capabilities.

It's a valid example of an environment which can truthfully be said to be as safe as possible, and yet still be dangerous, a combination you seem unable to accept can exist.

Whether he should have allowed a novice to drive it is a reasonable question, but at the end of the day Richard Hammond is an adult capable of making his own decisions.

Again, you've embarked on a discussion that has nothing to do with my original point, being that the owner made a criminally crass statement.

I think you've roundly missed my point - my beef is against the bloke who provided the car, in which he knew a rank amateur would become as a passenger and risk his demise.

I never once suggested that the cause was previously known.

But by refusing to accept the idea that the car was as safe as possible, are you not suggesting that there was more they could have done?
And if so, how would you suggest that they could have done something about things they didn't know about?

It may have done lots of things, for lots of reasons, none of which have anything to do with me or my post about the owner.

They have a great deal to do with your post. You have accused the owner of all sorts of things relating to his statement about the safety of his vehicle. Do you think it reasonable to say that he was talking absolute b*llocks, and call him criminally crass without considering the possibility that the only thing that went wrong was the driver?

A passenger jet is as safe as it can possibly be, but it I tried to fly one and crashed, would that invalidate a statement from the owner saying that the plane was as safe as it could possibly be?

This particular analogy is so far from being a valid one that I have no comment to make about it.

That's understandable - it's probably another refusal to accept reality, or that you could be wrong.

What makes it invalid? Is it the statement that passenger jets are as safe as they can possibly be?

Or that if I crashed one it would mean that the maker would have been wrong to say that it was as safe as it could possibly be?

Is what lies at the heart of all this some ridiculous notion of yours that nothing can ever be described as "as safe as it can possibly be" because future improvements might be discovered?

Well, pray continue to be agnostic, while I continue to have a quiet bet with myself.

Fine - you have a quiet bet with yourself. I suggest you also adopt a position of silence with regard to accusing someone of lying with no shred of evidence whatsoever, just your weird idea about what the word "possible" means.

Your fundamental point is exactly parallel to my point, and therefore does not touch it or affect it.

Hello - Earth to Softus - are you receiving me? WTF does that mean? "Your fundamental point is exactly parallel to my point, and therefore does not touch it or affect it"??

My fundamental point is that you are wrong. Does that touch or affect your point?

 

[mlb3c]

were you two on the debating team by chance?

 

[Softus]

And I'm quite capable of understanding why every analogy I present you dismiss as being irrelevant.

Your word; not mine.

But by refusing to accept the idea that the car was as safe as possible..

I don't refuse to accept the idea; I choose to deny this instance of it. These are two distinct and non-overlapping concepts.

...are you not suggesting that there was more they could have done?

Incredible as it may seem, you seem to have only just grasped that this is exactly what I'm suggesting.

And if so, how would you suggest that they could have done something about things they didn't know about?

Finding out those things is the purpose of modelling and testing. Unforeseen, and yet foreseeable, accidents are the hallmark of inadequate effort on both counts.

Do you think it reasonable to say that he was talking absolute b*llocks, and call him criminally crass without considering the possibility that the only thing that went wrong was the driver?

No, which is exactly why I considered the possibilty before making my assertion.

...it's probably another refusal to accept reality, or that you could be wrong.

I'm perfectly ready to find out that I'm wrong. The time will come when the enquiry is complete, and, if I'm wrong, then, as per every other occasion, I'll readily post an acknowledgement of that.

The reality of which you write, however, is your opinion, which, no matter how reasoned and/or reasonable, is demonstrably not the same as reality or truth.

Or that if I crashed one it would mean that the maker would have been wrong to say that it was as safe as it could possibly be?

That you find it relevant to persist with the fanciful hypothesis of you crashing a plane is an illuminating window into the basis of a large part of your reasoning on this topic.

Is what lies at the heart of all this some ridiculous notion of yours that nothing can ever be described as "as safe as it can possibly be" because future improvements might be discovered?

This notion, that you attribute to me, is rather wide-ranging, and I've persistently pointed out that I'm talking about this car, this owner, this driver, and this accident.

I suggest you also adopt a position of silence with regard to accusing someone of lying with no shred of evidence whatsoever

You appear to need reminding that this isn't a court of law in which evidence is heard, not is it a forum in which you control whether or not people keep or break silence.

Your fundamental point is exactly parallel to my point, and therefore does not touch it or affect it.

Hello - Earth to Softus - are you receiving me? WTF does that mean? "Your fundamental point is exactly parallel to my point, and therefore does not touch it or affect it"??

I have no problem with the idea of becoming an observer while you make the sneering jibe your ultimate tool of debate.

My fundamental point is that you are wrong. Does that touch or affect your point?

I already knew that, so... no.

You have many opinions that coincide with mine. This isn't one of them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And I'm quite capable of understanding why every analogy I present you dismiss as being irrelevant.

Your word; not mine.

So how would you describe my analogies? Relevant, or not?

But by refusing to accept the idea that the car was as safe as possible..

I don't refuse to accept the idea; I choose to deny this instance of it. These are two distinct and non-overlapping concepts.

OK - in this instance, do you think that the car was as safe as it could be?

...are you not suggesting that there was more they could have done?

Incredible as it may seem, you seem to have only just grasped that this is exactly what I'm suggesting.

OK - please tell us what more they could have done?

And if so, how would you suggest that they could have done something about things they didn't know about?

Finding out those things is the purpose of modelling and testing. Unforeseen, and yet foreseeable, accidents are the hallmark of inadequate effort on both counts.

Models can only be built according to the state of knowledge at the time. Do you believe either that the car has failed the way that it did in testing or modelling, or that they left something out of the model that they knew about?

Do you think it reasonable to say that he was talking absolute b*llocks, and call him criminally crass without considering the possibility that the only thing that went wrong was the driver?

No, which is exactly why I considered the possibilty before making my assertion.

If you considered the possibility, did you reject it? If so, on what basis did you decide that the driver did not make a mistake?

...it's probably another refusal to accept reality, or that you could be wrong.

I'm perfectly ready to find out that I'm wrong. The time will come when the enquiry is complete, and, if I'm wrong, then, as per every other occasion, I'll readily post an acknowledgement of that.

How certain are you that you are correct?

The reality of which you write, however, is your opinion, which, no matter how reasoned and/or reasonable, is demonstrably not the same as reality or truth.

And the reality of which you write is also your opinion, which, no matter how reasoned and/or reasonable, is demonstrably not the same as reality or truth. So where does that get us?

Or that if I crashed one it would mean that the maker would have been wrong to say that it was as safe as it could possibly be?

That you find it relevant to persist with the fanciful hypothesis of you crashing a plane is an illuminating window into the basis of a large part of your reasoning on this topic.

It is not a fanciful hypothesis, it is, as I repeatedly try to get you to understand, an example of how something can truthfully be described as being as safe as possible, or prepared to the highest standards, and yet still fail.

The fact that you find it relevant to persist with the fanciful hypothesis that my analogy is not valid is an illuminating window into the basis of a large part of your reasoning on this topic.

Is what lies at the heart of all this some ridiculous notion of yours that nothing can ever be described as "as safe as it can possibly be" because future improvements might be discovered?

This notion, that you attribute to me, is rather wide-ranging, and I've persistently pointed out that I'm talking about this car, this owner, this driver, and this accident.

OK - for this car, this owner and this accident (I've left out "this driver" because you have considered, and rejected the possibility that he made an error), what improvements that will be discovered in the future should have been made to the car beforehand?

I suggest you also adopt a position of silence with regard to accusing someone of lying with no shred of evidence whatsoever

You appear to need reminding that this isn't a court of law in which evidence is heard, not is it a forum in which you control whether or not people keep or break silence.

I never said I controlled it - I just made a suggestion. But regarding evidence - do you have some that you will not reveal because you are not obliged to, or do you in fact have no evidence?

I have no problem with the idea of becoming an observer while you make the sneering jibe your ultimate tool of debate.

Sneering jibe, eh?

I have my opinion, and I stated it clearly and concisely. Whether you're capable of understanding it is a separate issue

 

[Thermo]

christ can you two ever make a point without have to regurgetate another post and cut and paste it down to the smallest point?

 

[markie]

We have to call them the, Disscector's

 

[mlb3c]

We have to call them the, Disscector's

we have another name for it....'nit pickers'

battle of the egos---they probably both have valid points, too.....but who can tell....by the time i get to the bottom of the page, i forgot who said what

 

[Softus]

So how would you describe my analogies? Relevant, or not?

I believe (but without double-checking, so I might be wrong), that I've described most of your analogies on this topic. I doubt that they can be described as all relevant or all irrelevant. I don't feel inclined to try, because I think your attempt to get me to is just a means of starting an argument.

OK - in this instance, do you think that the car was as safe as it could be?

It doesn't matter whether or not I think it was; the whole point about this car is that the owner has made a specific statement in the specific context of this accident, and that I have implicitly challenged the credibility of his statement.

OK - please tell us what more they could have done?

I can but repeat my previous answer to this very question, viz:

Finding out those things is the purpose of modelling and testing. Unforeseen, and yet foreseeable, accidents are the hallmark of inadequate effort on both counts.

Models can only be built according to the state of knowledge at the time. Do you believe either that the car has failed the way that it did in testing or modelling...

I have no opinion about that.

...or that they left something out of the model that they knew about?

Yeeees; don't think that I can't see where you're going with this. By asking only two questions, you goad me into answers that open the path to challenging my opinion on the basis of your opinion. Well, whilst I'll tell you now that I'm not interested in that challenge, because neither of us has any new facts at the moment, but the answer to this question is that I don't know whether ir not they left something out of the modelling exercise that they know about. If they did, then clearly a whole new realm of culpability opens up.

For what it's worth, I also think that you have a narrow-minded view of modelling. Using your thinking, space exploration, as a project, would either never have got off the ground, or would have spectacularly crashed and burned.

Do you think it reasonable to say that he was talking absolute b*llocks, and call him criminally crass without considering the possibility that the only thing that went wrong was the driver?

No, which is exactly why I considered the possibilty before making my assertion.

If you considered the possibility, did you reject it?

No; not wholly. But then I don't share your insistance on everything being utterly black and white. It's a grey world, and dissecting everything with logic doesn't always work.

If so, on what basis did you decide that the driver did not make a mistake?

I haven't made that decision, so I can't answer that question. And before you stampede triumphantly towards your next assertion, being that I must have decided it in order to [partly] reject driver error, I would remind you that I'm not the one who made the decision to issue a public statement, after the accident, asserting that everything had been done in order to make the car as safe as was possible.

What you're failing to see is that many enquiries, thanks to the power of independence, are able to see failings that those close to an implementation are, by human nature, unable to see. If that turns out to have been the failing, then culpability remains with the owner, because, in this example, he could have sought such an independant viewpoint before the accident.

This is only one example of a way in which the owner might have failed to do everything that was possible, so don't think that me presenting it here gives you a way of starting a whole new realm of arguing about that one specific point, because I will choose not to be drawn into it.

...it's probably another refusal to accept reality, or that you could be wrong.

I'm perfectly ready to find out that I'm wrong. The time will come when the enquiry is complete, and, if I'm wrong, then, as per every other occasion, I'll readily post an acknowledgement of that.

How certain are you that you are correct?

Do you feel lucky, punk?

The reality of which you write, however, is your opinion, which, no matter how reasoned and/or reasonable, is demonstrably not the same as reality or truth.

And the reality of which you write is also your opinion, which, no matter how reasoned and/or reasonable, is demonstrably not the same as reality or truth. So where does that get us?

I don't know why you have this expectation that you have to persuade me to share your opinion, or me to persuade you to share mine.

As I've said, many times, I am waiting for more facts to emerge, but in the meantime, I continue to believe that the owner made a defensive statement that is lacking in credibility. If you don't wish to believe the same thing as me, then that's just fine.

Or that if I crashed one it would mean that the maker would have been wrong to say that it was as safe as it could possibly be?

That you find it relevant to persist with the fanciful hypothesis of you crashing a plane is an illuminating window into the basis of a large part of your reasoning on this topic.

It is not a fanciful hypothesis

If you don't already fly, then it is a hypothesis; if you have no intention to learn to fly, then it is fanciful. I presumed, albeit presumptuously, then you don't fly and don't intend to.

...it is, as I repeatedly try to get you to understand, an example of how something can truthfully be described as being as safe as possible, or prepared to the highest standards, and yet still fail.

You can save your effort in getting me to understand, but I did understand, from the outset. I agree that there are things that exist today that fit your model of something failing; what I continue to assert is that this dragster isn't one of them.

Is what lies at the heart of all this some ridiculous notion of yours that nothing can ever be described as "as safe as it can possibly be" because future improvements might be discovered?

This notion, that you attribute to me, is rather wide-ranging, and I've persistently pointed out that I'm talking about this car, this owner, this driver, and this accident.

OK - for this car, this owner and this accident (I've left out "this driver" because you have considered, and rejected [no I haven't] the possibility that he made an error), what improvements that will be discovered in the future should have been made to the car beforehand?

Ask me when they're discovered and I'll tell you.

It isn't my car, and I'm not the one who openly claimed that it was made as safe as was possible.

Sneering jibe, eh?

I have my opinion, and I stated it clearly and concisely. Whether you're capable of understanding it is a separate issue

The old 'two wrongs make a right' justification: Aw, Mum - he did it first! I wondered if that would come out of your toolbox.

You appear to need reminding that this isn't a court of law in which evidence is heard, not is it a forum in which you control whether or not people keep or break silence.

I never said I controlled it - I just made a suggestion. But regarding evidence - do you have some that you will not reveal because you are not obliged to, or do you in fact have no evidence?

Whatever motive force you use to deploy new ways of introducing pointless arguements could have been used to power that dragster far beyond the current land speed record. I'll say it again - I'm waiting for more facts to emerge. You, and the owner, really should do the same.

 

[Softus]

christ can you two ever make a point without have to regurgetate another post

Yes.

...and cut and paste it

I don't cut or paste anything - I just click on the 'quote' button.

...down

But if I did, would it be down, up, or along?

...to the smallest point?

Yes.

BTW, you misspelt "regurgitate".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK Softus - that's an end to it.

An end to it all, and forever.

Well done - you've made the list, I hope that's what you wanted.

 

[Softus]

Pram asunder, toys everywhere....

http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/managing_anger.html

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No - not toys out of the pram, I'm just not prepared to play your game any more - you know, the one where you argue over the minutiae of what words were used, and what their precise meaning might be instead of discussing the points you know full well are being raised. Ironic, really, considering your refusal to discuss what you mean by your words.

And since I've been on the receiving end of advice concerning my style of posts, I don't see why I shouldn't remind you that I'm not the only person to have observed this behaviour in you.

Finally, what convinces me beyond any doubt that you are treating this as a daft game, and not a real discussion of the issues, is the breathtaking hypocrisy you are displaying here, with your judgements on the owner of the car, and his statements, given that here there was this little exchange:

I have seen pipes have thats burst

So, you returned the faulty pipe to Hepworth? And what did they say - manufacturing fault, or installation fault?

Or did you not return the pipe? Surely you can't just be slagging it off without knowing the cause of the failure?

So you can keep your games, you can keep your pointless diversions, you can keep your laughable attempts to claim that I was using a "he did it first" defence for a "sneering jibe" when what I was actually doing was highlighting more hypocrisy, for I no longer have any interest in this, or anything you write.

So having now fully explained, I hope, my position, I shall say goodbye.

Goodbye.

 

[Softus]

No - not toys out of the pram, I'm just not prepared to play your game any more - you know, the one where you argue over the minutiae of what words were used, and what their precise meaning might be instead of discussing the points you know full well are being raised.

Oh, go on, you're only saying this as an example of breathtaking hypocrisy, surely.

And since I've been on the receiving end of advice concerning my style of posts, I don't see why I shouldn't remind you that I'm not the only person to have observed this behaviour in you.

I have no issue with you, or anyone, observing that behaviour. Heck, I don't think I've ever denied it.

My name is Softus, and I... I... I'm a pedant.

Finally, what convinces me beyond any doubt that you are treating this as a daft game, and not a real discussion of the issues, is the breathtaking hypocrisy you are displaying here, with your judgements on the owner of the car, and his statements, given that here there was this little exchange:

an example of an exchange with doitall

You've quoted something out of context - the whole debate about plastic vs. copper is a long-running one, and I doubt that you've read up on the subject enough to understand the history of the debates on the plumbing forum. If you have, then I admire your stamina and envy your free time.

I've never said that part of that plumbing discussion wasn't playful, but you've also missed the nuance of a long-running discussion between me and doitall, on different topics, some of which has occurred by Email and to which you wouldn't have been privy. In short, that plumbing discussion is a poor example of your point.

Notwithstanding that, that has certainly been a playful element to this topic. After all, did you expect me to take you entirely seriously after your post to Slogger on the recent topic that you caused to be locked? Especially since you weren't prepared to apologise? I think you know the one.

Anyway, I haven't let the fun mislead me into making any statements that I don't believe, so your stroppy reaction is certainly an over-reaction.

...I no longer have any interest in this, or anything you write.

So having now fully explained, I hope, my position, I shall say goodbye.

Goodbye.

Okey dokey. Your loss. I trust you've learned that it's unwise to enter a debate about a news story that you know little or nothing about.

BTW, you never said hello.

 

[Thermo]

BTW, you misspelt "regurgitate".

i dont care!