Croc

OK, just to clarify...it isn't you, but everyone else in all of New England with a sociopathic disorder, taking grave offense to a friendly well-wisher over their wording? I'll just assume for the sake of this post that that is true, let alone makes a lick of sense. You have three options, then. Knowing that the people in your area are a certain way, i.e. PC, you can 1) Go with the herd and ONLY say "Happy Holidays," 2) Rebel against the herd and NEVER say "Happy Holidays," or 3) Not give a $h! about what the herd thinks of you and say what you feel like saying at each time. Now, I know you aren't a legal scholar from the other thread, but the Constitution has this pesky little thing called the Separation Clause in it, which bars the government fro interfering in religion, or treating different religions/sects differently. The "Holiday Tree" isn't something Boston passed an ordinance on fining any citizen $75 for calling it a "Christmas Tree." It likely came about (as others across the nation have) by a lawsuit from a non-Christian religion alleging that the Christmas tree on government property amounted to a violation of the Separation Clause. The courts have repeatedly (and IMO rightly) ruled over the years that a Christmas tree is NOT a religious tradition, but a secularized celebration of winter. Considering that Christmas trees are Pagan in origin, fine by me. What is the point of all this? To ensure that there is no ambiguity, the courts asked the government to call it a "Holiday Tree" in official communication. Really, it applies to the government--City of Boston, State of Massachussetts, or whatever other goerning entity(ies) funds and erects this "Holiday Tree." And the grumpy old people are just grumpy old people as long as that was a private homeowner...or unless it was so "garden gnome"-licious that they felt it disgraced their religion--in which case I'd be inclined to agree with them although they have no legal standing to ask for its removal...unless of course neighborhood covenants prohibit such decorations.

Why? Are certain people banned from saying "Happy Holidays" by their religion? Growing up Catholic I must have missed this sin in Sunday School. Is it mortal or venial? How many Hail Marys do I have to recite to be forgiven? By the way, is New Year's Eve/Day a holiday? I'm so confused. Why can't I say "Happy Holidays" to impart good wishes on people for both holidays? They ARE only 6 days apart...who's to say I'll see them again between the two? Am I obligated to list every holiday for which I'm wishing people well? What if they're half-Jewish and half-Christian? Must I say "Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, and Happy New Year"? It seems so cumbersome. Why again can't I say "Happy Holidays," again? Frankly, the real question is what the hell kind of problem do you have if someone wishes you "Happy Holidays" and you get OFFENDED? Do you get offended when someone says "Have a great day!" because they didn't specify that it's a THURSDAY? Or are you suffering from some kind of sociopathic disorder where you take grave offense to someone wishing you well in any way, shape or form?

Could somebody please explain to me under what circumstances people "can't" say "Merry Christmas"? I have never heard of such a prohibition. When was this exception added to the 1st Amendment? Could you cite a court case, please? I'd really love to have this confuson sorted out.

Really...how many times have you been there? As obsessed as you and several others seem to be on this site with denouncing California as being the home of some "crazy," "whacked out," and often "liberal" people, maybe you should think about how "crazy" and "whacked-out" you sound when painting such a broad brush across a state that, if separated from the US, would have the 9th largest GDP in the world and the 11th largest if measured by Purchasing Power Parity. What's funny is that in California, I never hear anyone obsessively deriding any other state in any way. There might be some NYC envy in LA, but Californians don't have pent-up hostility toward other states. It really says a lot more about you than it does us when you go on these ridiculous rants. Also, why do you care? How does it affect you in any other state what the Californian Supreme Court decides for the State of California? Oh, yeah, it doesn't! What this says to me is that whatever issue you have for whatever irrational reason, you're just looking for any possible reason to go on a rant about the good people of California. If what many of you typed about Californians were applied to different ethnicities or religions, it would be considered heinous bigotry and the mods would be taking care of it along with your memberships. But no. Frankly threads like these demonstrate just how low the common denominator at C&G has become since the gradual exodus began a year and a half ago. This site is but a shadow of itself, and it's the result of the assinine trolls and one-trick-ponies annoying all the intellectual members to the point of abandonment. Keep it up guys, and see where these kinds of ignorant, ridiculous attitudes toward other Americans get this site. Merry f@#king Christmas.

Exactly. And here's the thing: one of the issues to be decided is whether or not the GS' actions caused the injuries. ALL THIS ARTICLE HAS SAID IS THAT THE COURT APPARENTLY FOUND THIS ISSUE ENOUGH IN CONTENTION FOR THE LAWSUIT TO GO TO TRIAL Nothing more.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This person may have had the absolute best of intentions, but their alleged irresponsibility paralyzed someone for life. That person can no longer work, travel independently, or live anything close to a normal life. Lifespan is decreased, and the person is completely dependent on the care and goodwill of others for the rest of his/her life because of the "Good Samaritan's" good intentions but (alleged) utter gross negligence. What about a doctor who tries to save a patient by cutting off their arm when they had a papercut? Sure you can have great intentions, but you do not have carte blanche to be as reckless, thoughtless and irresponsible as you please simply because you "meant well."

Reminds me of a L&O: SVU episode where the store owner was taking advantage of a retarded girl by calling it "exercise."

Thank you, it's really heartening to find that all the intelligent life hasn't yet deserted the site. I know half of them are just arguing with me to be contrarian anyway...and because it's me.

It doesn't, but being confident in yourself sure does. Lots of people are insecure about their weight.

1) He has no obligation to, but more mportantly 2) Any ruling against the defendant will be a clarification or nuance to the GS law, not an invalidation of it. If he/she truly acted negligently and paralyzed someone, then they should learn from it and use those lessons in the future, whether they help someone or not.

Who said anything about a waiver? NO, THE RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO IN THIS SITUATION IS TO CALL THE PARAMEDICS ASAP AND THEN GO OVER TO THE VEHICLE AND SEE IF YOU CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE IN ANY WAY. UNLESS THE CAR IS ACTUALLY BURNING, AND IMMINENT DANGER EXISTS, YOU SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO EXTRICATE SOMEONE FROM A CAR BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR SPINAL INJURIES. THIS IS COMMON SENSE. BY TALKING TO THE PERSON IN AN ACCIDENT, YOU CAN BETTER TAKE STOCK OF THE SITUATION INSTEAD OF ACTING BRASHLY. IF THE VEHICLE IS MERELY LEAKING FUEL, AND NO FIRE HAS STARTED, WAIT TIL THE PARAMEDICS ARRIVE. IF THE LEAKING FUEL EVENTUALLY DOES CATCH FIRE, GUESS WHAT? YOU'RE ALREADY AT THE DOOR, TALKING TO THE PERSON, AND ARE IN A GREAT POSITION TO HELP THEM GET OUT IF NEED BE. WOW you just wished serious harm on someone for filing a lawsuit that YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS ANY MERIT? That's extremely low. Not cool.

No. The first scenario involved the beginnings of a fire, and the second merely involved leaking fuel--which may or may not progress. And from the perspectie of a GS, these should NOT be identical, ESPECIALLY when extricating someone from a vehicle. It's common sense to be careful with an injured person. According to the complaint, the GS was negligent in this regard. But this isn't what happened. Accordng to the article, the GS "believed" the car would explode. It said nothing about a GS removing someone from a burning vehicle, or anything about an actual fire. Doesn't sound like there was any imminent danger whatsoever. You're correct in this statement, but this is not necessarily what happened. If the vehicle is NOT burning/on fire, but the GS merely THINKS it will spontaneously explode...what then? Intent rarely negates responsibility/negligence in the eyes of the law. That's where the "lesser crimes" come into play. Voluntary/involuntary manslaughter, murder I, murder II, wrongful death, etc. Those are all crimes/misdemeaners relating to the death of a person at the hands of another. And involuntary manslaughter is pretty close to "I didn't mean to do it, it was an accident." Still a charge, still a sentence...because of negligence, not any malicious intent. Again, how so? The lawsuit was already filed. It goes to trial. The verdict has not been received, for all we know the GS law will remain upheld and the complaint against the GS will be dismissed. Or maybe there's something unique about this case and the GS parted ways with rationality a long time ago and in fact acted negligently. But again, the court merely said a lawsuit could go to trial. The GS/defendant had tried to preemptively dismiss the lawsuit under the Good Samaritan statute, and the court merely disagreed with that and said that the lawsuit can go to trial. Nothing has ACTUALLY been rendered against the GS. Here's another scenario that follows similar logic to this case: I'm walking in a parking lot, I see someone getting into the exact same car I saw featured on an investigative report on Sudden Acceleration by the local news station last night. They aren't paying attention, and had to flood the engine to get the car started. I see a little old lady walking behind the car, and then the driver puts the car in reverse. I rush over in a panic and knock the old woman down and out of the way of impending doom! But nothing happened, the car just backed out like normal. "Phew, crisis averted!" I think. But the old woman now has broken wrists, ribs, and a hip. She was going to go on a cruise the next day to see her granddaughter's wedding in the Carribbean, and now has to miss both to get hospital care because some random dude knocked her over because he was paranoid about sudden acceleration. I'd better be sued in that scenario...you can't go pushing old people down without any real evidence that that vehicle will strike her. Just like you can't reasonably go from zero to freak out that a car is OMG ABOUT TO EXPLODE and act impetuously, thereby seriously injuring someone. ALL PEOPLE need to practice sound judgment and evaluate the situation, ESPECIALLY good samaritans, due to the recent accidents, or whatever, just observed.

Strange, I've never made a comment about Southerners, so I don't know why you lumped me in with that...I have quite a bit of family in the South, and I'e found Southerners to be pretty much the paradigm of hospitality.

Never have. It's a crime show, right? I think I've seen promos, but nothing more. Just put my highly rational, legalistic mind to work. Exactly, hence the lawsuit may proceed.

Never saw it...no clue.

That wouldn't ever be me. I'm much more measured with my emotions toward people, and cannot stang a cling-on.

Wow, they're right. The steering wheel wood trim isn't the same as the rest of the interior wood trim. Bad Buick! The complaints about the same radio/climate controls as GMC and Saturn are somewhat picky, but I can't disagree that it would be nice if each DIVISION had their own radio/climate control units instead of each platform. Cadillac has usually had premium radios, and GM either has to have a really nice radio in a Chevrolet so the same is acceptable in a Buick, or an acceptable radio in a Chevrolet that is too budget-feeling for a Buick.

I really don't see what the big deal is. And FOG, your constant litany of didainful remarks toward west-coasters is becoming rather irksome. All this ruling says is that a "good samaritan" CAN BE SUED. Not that the plaintiff will win, but merely that a "good samaritan" could be liable for damages caused by them if they fail to use appropriate judgement during their "assistance." The article has virtually NO details on the case, and as anyone who knows anything about law knows, individual rulings are highly dependent on the facts of the individual case. That's how precedent is created. So, let's posit two scenarios: SCENARIO I: Car crashes into a light pole at 45 mph and is destroyed, leaking fuel, and starting to catch fire. Good Samaritan ruhes over, forces the car door open and forcefully extracts the incapacitated individual because he/she thinks the car is about to explode. Saved a life, right? SCENARIO II: Car crashes into a light pole at 45 mph and is damaged heavily, leaking fuel. The occupant is incapacitated due to shock from the collision and the deployment of the airbags, but otherwise fine. Bewildered, but suffering no life-threatening injuries, the occupant realizes someone is forcing their way into the car and forcefully removing them. Suddenly, the occupant feels a pop or snap, and can no longer move his/her limbs after being yanked out so forcefully. Pretty different, huh? These are two extremes, and it's best to see how things play out over the long term. But Yahoo! posting this means it must have been a very slow news day, as this is a ruling that only says a lawsuit may proceed after an attempt by the defendant to have it preemptively dismissed due to the Good Samaritan statute. Nothing earth-shattering about a court ruling that a lawsuit may proceed.

NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE

BAAAAAAAACK TO THE TOPIC Bench press or squats...it's a tossup. Walking around is my most-frequently utilized exercise.

The nasty ones are bitter/jealous, and the really nice ones know they can't coast by on looks alone.

I have to have both: the beach for recreation, and the mountains as a backdrop:

Gross.

Amazing: I have no words. Cool: ^^That's the cheer team one of my HS friends coaches. She's also an NFL Colt's cheerleader.

Well since we're talking about "what should be," instead of "what is," I merely said that something along those lines would be better at getting people to slim down. I'm certainly not suggesting that a perfect implementation is reasonably possible, or even remotely possible. But it would at least be more "fair" by targeting the obese, instead of everyone, including healthy people who exercise and eat responsibly, paying a tax on any indulgences.