From the Whiskey Tango Foxtrot files...
- Thread starter SkaredShtles
- Start date
Really shoddy journalism there... I count 3 dead and 3 injured.
Who the f**k still drives without wearing a seatbelt? 
Oh - and the Denver news outlets are RIFE with shoddy journalism. It's painful to read/watch.
Oh - and the Denver news outlets are RIFE with shoddy journalism. It's painful to read/watch.
First thing I thought too. Who ever owned the animal better have a good umbrella policy.Who the f**k still drives without wearing a seatbelt?
Not a chance. Most will wind up with maybe a $1mil umbrella at best, unless it's a wealthy rancher with a $5Mil commercial umbrella.
One of the people killed was wearing it, and one not killed wasn't wearing it.Who the f**k still drives without wearing a seatbelt?
FT - the title was right; 2 dead, 3 injured.
Last edited:
And your point would be...?
Appears the editors FINALLY got to the story - it seems to be fixed.
Last edited:
My point would be this isn't the best example of "SEATBELTS ALWAYS SAVE LIVES!"And your point would be...?
Who the f**k ever said anything like that?
Who the f**k ever said anything like that?
Did you say that because seatbelts are known to save lives, or not wearing a seatbelt isn't trendy?Who the f**k still drives without wearing a seatbelt?
EDIT - you should see if BV can create some code that automatically starts your posts with "Who the f**k" to save you some time. Kinda like an email signature.
Last edited:
Please tell me you're not this dumb in real life.
Answer the question....Please tell me you're not this dumb in real life.
I said it because you have to be dumber than a jar of frogs to NOT wear a seatbelt. And if you go back and re-read the article I think you will see that:
1) Seatbelts = good
2) No seatbelts = bad
I never said it wasn't. I'm saying this isn't exactly the best example to support that notion. If everyone wearing a seatbelt lived and everyone that wasn't got killed....that's a good example.
Now that I've stated that twice, maybe it will sink in.
You really are dumber than a jar of frogs... and pretty bad at critical thinking.
Do I need to get Syadasti in here to break you two up?
You gotta agree he *appears* to be dumber than a bag of hammers, no?
Last edited:
The fact that I'm arguing with you on the interwebz actually supports your claim. Though arguing on the internetz with a guy that's dumber than a jar of frogs puts you in an even worse position, eh?
You make a lot of valid points.The fact that I'm arguing with you on the interwebz actually supports your claim. Though arguing on the internetz with a guy that's dumber than a jar of frogs puts you in an even worse position, eh?
I'm too smart to be this stupid. Or too stupid to be this smart. Haven't figured that one out yet.
Repeat after me:
I am an engineer.
That a hard or soft 'g'?
Fvck if I know, I ain't been learned all formal like.
Only if you don't count the horse.
Why did the horse cross the road?
Was this the owners high horse?
Did it forget too jump like a frog?
Was the drive of audi at fault breaking in fence of possible high horse causing frogger fail because the horse wanted to get higher?
Was this the owners high horse?
Did it forget too jump like a frog?
Was the drive of audi at fault breaking in fence of possible high horse causing frogger fail because the horse wanted to get higher?
Awesome.