If you have something to say, do by all means state it, if you can
possibly manage to muster the necessary intestinal fortitude.
Yes, they're really rather fundamental circuit analysis techniques
and concepts students are introduced to (and are expected to
easily master) in a first year electrical circuits class. From your
approach. my guess would be that you're, at best, possibly a
vocationally trained electrician and have never in the past even so
much as heard of either, as I can't imagine any competent person
familiar with them posing such an otherwise brain dead pretense.
Your proposing such rudiments to be bullshit only serves to expose
you as the incompetent you clearly must be, and your bullshit
allusion, sans actual brilliant content (or any germane content
whatsoever), certainly hasn't attained its desired goal in successfully
leading to any confusion. But the truest form of bullshit pretension
was in fact Evan's attempt to once again lecture and display his
electrical "knowledge and insight" in his suggest to me, which, along
with other truncated comments, you've so conveniently, intentionally,
purposefully and cravenly snipped.
Is that an attempt to indicate that you too (or should that be two)
were totally flummoxed by that which wouldn't start to bewilder a
retarded 10 year old in a hurry, i.e., the ROT13? Or might it have
been the legal principle of res ipsa loquitur you mistook for "Pig
Latin"? You're evidently quite easily confused, particularly by "that
there book learnin'", or so you've provided every indication. Should
it have been your intention to serve as Evan's either "savior to the
rescue", or simply his surrogate, it is my considered opinion that you
too have failed most miserably and have accomplished nothing more
than joining him in the ranks of complete and utter embarrassments.
But don't let me stop you, do continue to keep digging that hole.
Other than using the fancy latin legal phraseology you have
yet to explain what duty of care exists as far as anything in
this thread OR how this unexplained phenomena speaks
anything let alone about itself in a legally sufficient way for
a lawsuit to be won or lost...
Let's look at the situation being discussed here:
OP installs the "mirror" and an accident occurs --
The existence of the mirror itself means that the OP was
aware of and took action to mitigate some deficiency of
design or installation of the driveway... The fact that the
mirror itself exists creates an increased duty of care on
the part of the OP because he has been aware of some
danger so when an accident eventually occurs he will
face a much greater burden to overcome in proving it
wasn't his fault...
OP cuts down all the brush to improve visibility --
The trimming of the bushes by themselves proves nothing,
it is just as reasonable an assertion to make that the brush
was trimmed and/or removed to allow for a wider path in the
driveway, to reduce the chance that brush overhanging the
driveway would scratch the OP's vehicles... Increasing the
visibility is only one reasonable explanation for explaining
the fact that the brush was cut down...
A mirror can only be used to increase visibility -- cutting
bushes/brush away can have many numerous causalities...
So do you want to fit your fancy words to the case at point
counselor or do you want to espouse more of your bullshit
and pig latin non-sense ?
Let's not, as none of my comments, nor any of those either you or
KW (hopefully the abbreviation won't also confuse you) have objected
to heretofore, had the slightest thing to do with anything other than
the posting of a picture, although, given your laughably indefensible
rebuttals, I can readily understand your desperate desire for
obfuscation and misdirection.
I'm not a counselor, in the legal sense you imply, I'm an engineer.
You've not come REMOTELY close to describing ANYTHING I've
penned as either bullshit, pig latin or nonsense. You should be
embarrassed, and would be, had you the capacity to be.
PS The reason for the truncated earlier osts is due to the
servers complaint and restriction of "too many quoted lines".
Not only was it clearly implicit, it was later explained in painful
detail to you already, so I'm quite sure any additional spoonfed
instruction is certain to also strike nothing save more dead brain
cells and would accordingly continue to only serve to mimic your
own "contributions" as a complete waste of time and bandwidth.
With the simple, astute deletion of a single element of
punctuation, I've fixed it for you and clarified its truth.
You're a good driver, definitely a good driver.
But here, one final time, is an analogous approach to the reasoning
for my N&TEC cite, although also unlikely, you just might be capable
of understanding, given that you haven't been able to grasp the
patently obvious presented to you umpteen times already:
In this scenario we have an umpire (me) calling the base runner
out at 3rd while the height challenged, one-eyed, bespectacled,
mental patient sitting at the rear of the far right field stands,
directly behind a roof post (you) screams at the top of his lungs
that the 3rd baseman missed the tag (with apologies to Uecker).
I'll waste not another nanosecond either reading or responding
to your inane posts or replies anywhere on usenet.
Why should I care about what a troll with all of 14 posts on
UseNet thinks... Go hide back under a bridge, or better yet
emerge with a new persona/identity in a few days on another
group like you trolls tend to do...
You added NOTHING to this topic discussion...
Hoping that you choose to find something useful to do with
yourself that doesn't involve the internet...
Ah, an engineer...
Let's give you something to ponder and study then:
Is it more difficult to design a system to extract your
head from your own ass, or a system to remove the
keyboard from your computer which I am more than
sure I am not the only one here which would gladly
insert into the aforementioned orifice for you...
The only thing you have done is use latin legal phrases
totally out of context to make your Engineering brain
seem more educated than the other people here...
It isn't and you have yet to explain how your use of
the phrase has any bearing on anything said here
thus far... Perhaps in addition to being an intelligent
Engineer, you have also lost touch with reality, hence
your need to speak in tongues and your flawed
perceptions and interpretations of what is being said...
Either that or you are just a stupid f***ing troll...
My vote is for troll...
I agree I did not fully describe the situation. This is my fault.
I fully understand why people who were trying to help me were suggesting
alternative solutions (such as backing out).
It's still dark outside but I'll snap a picture or two in the daylight
and post them so you can see the situation!
Based on the input for the guard rail idea, I'm gonna give up on putting
a strip on the guard rail.
As people said:
a) Cost too much to do it with permits
b) Risk too high of unintended consequences (e.g., blind other drivers)
c) It will get 'filthicated' at that low level
d) The town will remove it if they see it
So, I give up on the guardrail idea. :)
The only thing left (other than making a turnout) is the standard convex
If you pull your car in the driveway backwards off the road upon
approach when you can see all the traffic, then when you are pulling
out you can look both ways easily...
Those mirror things don't work out the best... It is better in the
term to remove any obstacles in the name of safety than it is to try
and look around them...
This gravel driveway is a couple hundred feet long, curved, hilly, and
unlit. I doubt backing up will be feasible in the long run.
Agreed. But, that would be a major multiple-thousands-of-dollars
construction project, and the land isn't all mine so it would require
agreement from neighbors and permits.
I think a $25 mirror is simpler - and cheaper (if/when I find it).
Then prepare an area at the end of your driveway near your house
on your land so you can turn vehicles around at the end of the
driveway near the house...
You think that it will be any easier to get permission from the
landowner on the opposite side of the road to attack the mirror,
which could be removed by the landowner or the DOT. at any
What am I missing here? Did he ever say he backs his car onto the road?
You think he is backing up his gravel driveway around unlit curves and
hills for a couple hundred feet every time he leaves? No turn around
spot at the house? Nothing he said gave me that impression, did I miss
a post or two? He said the problem was pulling out, not in.
You are missing what everyone is missing... An incomplete story
filled in piece by piece with each of the OP's replies after the
general consensus of the replies in the thread poo-poo'ed his
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.