Search results

Adam you are so clutching at straws here. You ignored all my other responses and are trying desperately to side-step this one. If you go to a party and eat peanuts ... well that is voluntary. If the host decides a prank is in order and announces there's no peanuts in the dip for an entertaining...

...and here we come down to the nub. This will probably be my last contribution to this thread as I'm just repeating myself. You see the thing is, is that if you continue to insist on having freedom at any cost you're not going to have any lines left to draw. Yeah sure you can prank but you...

Participation in a physical contact sport is voluntary unlike prank calls By law, peanuts must be contained in the list of ingredients. To not warn of a well-known potential hazard of your product would be...wait for it... negligent. :D You've just put 99% of Wal-mart door greeters out of a...

I'd love to hear some examples. Bubble-wrapped cars? A valium before every unsolicited call? You're impeding the lives of the less fortunate so the negligent can be negligent. Why is it so important that there are no consequences for negligence? How about the less fortunate carry the...

There is a fundamental principle you are missing here. The DJ's have admitted that they thought their call would be one in a hundred of such calls and used such rationale to justify their actions. What the hospital was, what time of day it was and whether the switchboard was manned by the FBI...

I worked with a network engineer once whose typing skills consisted of ctrl-c and ctrl-v

It takes less effort to acknowledge a physical manifestation of suffering. It stems backs to the empathy thing. Probably for another day though, feeling disinclined at the moment.

Oh dear, this is so disappointing. Firstly it is pure conjecture. Secondly in what way do you think that a radio station, or anyone for that matter, has the right to insist on a hospital redirecting its resources from the care of its patients to shielding itself from the harmful effects of...

It's difficult to continue the discussion without getting too personal about this comment. We are simply looking at the world from two very different viewpoints. I think we should leave it at that.

I've addressed this point before. For me, this increases their negligence because they darn well knew the media storm that they were trying to provoke. They knew they were one of a hundred prank callers all vying for a juicy response. This approach actually lessens my sympathy for them because...

I'm beginning to form a theory as to why this lack of empathy is becoming increasingly widespread. Perhaps I'll start a thread on it. A breeze compared to the Rich and Col experience :D

You're missing the point with these examples. It's about negligence. If you neglect to behave in a civil manner and that causes harm you become liable for that harm. If you reprimand someone in a professional manner, if you are not negligent in your actions then you are not liable. But if you...

Completely agree with you. This is why "We couldn't believe that it had worked, absolutely. You didn't expect it to. We thought 100 people before us would've tried the same thing. We just did not see that actually working." would have had their lawyers crying in their cheerios. It's an...

Right because they never receive the impact of the consequences of their actions. This is why law attempts to prevent the shifting of blame to the vulnerable or the victim as it were. Otherwise the transgressor is never corrected and the victim shoulders the burden for something they did not cause.

All you had to do was read my posts. http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1215019&postcount=14

Yes absolutely. If the nurse had to undergo prolonged psychiatric treatment for a stress-related illness then who would have known? But the death has forced us all to consider the actual reality that there is usually always a penalty to such uncivil behavior regardless of whether it's...

It's interesting that many intelligent people on this thread do not agree with a basic principle of law. It would be interesting to discuss whether the "eggshell skull" rule is outdated but perhaps not within the bounds of this thread.

Yes and I was quickly taught the error of my ways by nearly being choked out. I was forced to accept both the responsibility of my own actions and the emotional cost to the recipient of the prank. I believe that choke hold made me a better person.

Beyond all the trite, coached, blame shifting rhetoric, this part speaks volumes. "We couldn't believe that it had worked, absolutely. You didn't expect it to. We thought 100 people before us would've tried the same thing. We just did not see that actually working." They knew they were a part...

Perhaps Maybe They have to live with the fact that this would never have happened without their unworthy actions. I doubt they'll ever do such a foolish thing again. I hope they'll be able to readjust their behavior accordingly and they themselves are not wrecked by the events they...