玩命碌齡 巨水樽撼巴士 炮台山長命斜頑童闖禍

原帖由 da93 於 2011-4-15 20:50 發表


講真,
你班靚仔俾麻煩個巴士佬,
佢係咪都話你玩都仲可以,
但途人呢?

但依家情況係, 新巴司機深受呢次事件影響, 但係佢都冇對班學生作出不利的口供喎
(如果有, 警察就唔會話係意外啦)

當講下reasonableness吧..

咁的確係柴都好難好難可以撞到支水碌落山...
一支滿載18L的水,你係石屎地上面,水平推郁都唔係咁順.
你唔好話撞到佢成支失平衡反左,跟住碌落山...18L水,個底仲咁闊,
我相信都冇咁易成支水失平衡跌低.
班0靚仔唔係玩,唔係起飛腳踢支樽個頂,我睇好難成支水會跌低.

同埋巴士司機講到佢地嬉皮笑臉,咁更加冇乜可能係唔小心.

原帖由 cn2661_2d32 於 2011-4-16 11:46 發表
當講下reasonableness吧..

咁的確係柴都好難好難可以撞到支水碌落山...
一支滿載18L的水,你係石屎地上面,水平推郁都唔係咁順.
你唔好話撞到佢成支失平衡反左,跟住碌落山...18L水,個底仲咁闊,
我相信都冇咁易成支 ...

點解好難?
失平衡撞冧前面既人都出現過
失平衡撞冧個水樽點解會係唔可能?
仲有喎
同樣係推冧個水樽
點解刻意推冧就可行, 失平衡推冧就係唔可行?
咁樣講法好矛盾喎....

巴士司機講既就一定係事實? 佢一定係無誤會到班小朋友?
呢度板友又唔係現場, 單憑巴士司機片面之詞就認定班小朋友係蓄意推跌個水樽
比佢地做警察或者訓導老師就真係慘喇....

原帖由 teddybus 於 2011-4-16 14:00 發表


點解好難?
失平衡撞冧前面既人都出現過
失平衡撞冧個水樽點解會係唔可能?
仲有喎
同樣係推冧個水樽
點解刻意推冧就可行, 失平衡推冧就係唔可行?
咁樣講法好矛盾喎....

巴士司機講既就一定係事實? 佢一定係無誤 ...

我唔係針對你ge言論...純講自己對呢單新聞睇法.
唔洗咁激動ge.

人咁高,腳咁細,
重心點同水樽又重又矮底又闊
不如你都可以話點解部雙層巴士咁重,過灣點會反車. 呢個係重心ge問題. 闊度高度比例同重量分佈好大關係.
你倒轉支水擺手指尾都跌添.

同埋你咁講司機+車房+學生講都一定唔準確,以後法庭審案可以撇除召見証人上庭呢part
因為所有人講ge野都唔一定準. 退庭

真係interesting的logic

原帖由 cn2661_2d32 於 2011-4-16 14:43 發表
我唔係針對你ge言論...純講自己對呢單新聞睇法.
唔洗咁激動ge.

人咁高,腳咁細,
重心點同水樽又重又矮底又闊
不如你都可以話點解部雙層巴士咁重,過灣點會反車. 呢個係重心ge問題. 闊度高度比例同重量分佈好大關係.
你倒轉支水擺手指尾都跌添.

同埋你咁講司機+車房+學生講都一定唔準確,以後法庭審案可以撇除召見証人上庭呢part
因為所有人講ge野都唔一定準. 退庭

真係interesting的logic

敢問我何來激動?

講多一次, 如果真係咁難, 照道理無論係有心定無意, 班細路都唔會推得郁個水樽
呢個矛盾到而家都無人察覺得到

講審案, 就算召見証人, 法官都唔係個證人講乜就照單全收
証人都係人, 一樣有機會搞錯誤會
但呢個thread 我見到有好多板友係個witness 講乜就信晒100%
仲要迴避, 甚至歪曲持唔同觀點板友既argument
咁接納唔到其他人地意見, 唔怪得趕住宣佈退庭啦...

講多句, 隔離thread 有板友講既野真係好中point

原帖由 dbat98D 於 2011-4-16 13:17 發表

晌香港, 一個人嘅生死好睇兩樣嘢, 一個係高登, 一個係壹傳媒
佢地嘅判決影響仲緊要過法官

蘋果一個標題 "玩命碌齡　... 頑童闖禍 "
呢度既板友就認定小朋友係蓄意
學校唔向班小朋友紀律處分就係錯錯錯.....

原帖由 teddybus 於 2011-4-16 15:07 發表
講多句, 隔離thread 有板友講既野真係好中point



蘋果一個標題 "玩命碌齡　... 頑童闖禍 "
呢度既板友就認定小朋友係蓄意
學校唔向班小朋友紀律處分就係錯錯錯..... ...

你講得出呢啲說話
只顯得你技窮
咩叫「晌香港, 一個人嘅生死好睇兩樣嘢, 一個係高登, 一個係壹傳媒
佢地嘅判決影響仲緊要過法官」？
討論三句唔埋就彈呢句咁嘅嘢出嚟
暗示對方係打橫嚟講
根本唔係一個討論

既然你覺得我地覺得班O靚仔係蓄意
你又何以見得佢地唔係蓄意？
何解學校冇向班O靚仔處分又係冇問題？

del

原帖由 sea1986 於 2011-4-16 15:12 發表


你講得出呢啲說話
只顯得你技窮
咩叫「晌香港, 一個人嘅生死好睇兩樣嘢, 一個係高登, 一個係壹傳媒
佢地嘅判決影響仲緊要過法官」？
討論三句唔埋就彈呢句咁嘅嘢出嚟
暗示對方係打橫嚟講
根本唔係一個討論

既然你覺得我地覺得班O靚仔係蓄意
你又何以見得佢地唔係蓄意？
何解學校冇向班O靚仔處分又係冇問題？

Firstly, this statement was not typed by me. I just quoted it from another member in another thread. I dont know where you feel like Im implying someone here is irrational, but I didnt mean that frankly.

Well, I have repeated again and again in the previous post why I think it COULD BE their carelessness in causing this incident (I use COULD BE here doesnt mean I think they MUST be careless, it is just showing the possiblility) I also explained already why it is inproper for the school to give disciplinary punishment to the students in this incident. Please kindly read the previous posts and I am sorry Im not going to repeat it tons of times for you. On the other hand, I also pointed out some contradictions in your argument from the early beginning and expect toe receive any reply on these contradictions, but no one is going to do so. Instead you guys just ask me to give explanation on your faulty argument again and again. How can I explain to something that I think it is faulty?

And now, some one is even saying that I am 技窮... I really dont know who should be the one not discussing...