Renamed: Sigh! Moron hits train

[Anonymous]

On one hand, you have a town that is fuming about the routine blockage of grade crossings for excessive periods.  On the other hand, you have a guy who gets killed by running into a train stopped on a crossing.  I'm not at all surprised to see the two items being linked.  Logic notwithstanding, the linkage will probably make it all the way to the courtroom.

[n012944]

Posted, without comment:

Oshkosh, Wis.: The Northwestern

Posted October 29, 2007

Letters: Railroad creates fatal conditions at crossing

I would just like to comment on the train accident that happened near Van Dyne on Oct. 6 and 7. This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad.

As soon as the train was stopped there it was an accident waiting to happen. The first vehicle to come along would be carrying a victim of the train. Whether a person was drunk, speeding or just not paying attention we don't know but the road disappeared so there was no place to go. They were dead either way. There was no place to turn around or go around because the train covered the whole road!

Why? Why? Why? Why? Do the people have to put up with the antics of the railroad? That train should have stopped already in North Fond du Lac because they already knew they would have to stop and block a crossing some where in between! The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. Or if they had hit a ditch it would have been better than a sheet of steel like a train!

I hope someone with a bit of authority will do something about this before it happens again and it will. Make the railroad accountable for their actions. Not bury them.

Sheila Miller, Van Dyne

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071029/OSH06/710290371/1189

I don't know what to say.....WOW....

[Soo 6604]

But still, wasn't there a stop sign that he ran? Or was that alright to run the stop sign, even when drunk, speeding or not paying attention. Eventually (and unfortunately) all 3 could end in tragedy. It's all in the odds. Sometimes the odds are 1-in-1 or 1-in-35,000,000, one never knows. 

Just getting out of the bed in the morning, tripping over your cat and ramming your head on something could kill ya. Who's to blame on that? I'm going to put 99% of the blame on my landlord for not noticing that I have a cat in which is against the rules.....IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!! 

[TimChgo9]

Posted, without comment:

Oshkosh, Wis.: The Northwestern

Posted October 29, 2007

Letters: Railroad creates fatal conditions at crossing

I would just like to comment on the train accident that happened near Van Dyne on Oct. 6 and 7. This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad.

As soon as the train was stopped there it was an accident waiting to happen. The first vehicle to come along would be carrying a victim of the train. Whether a person was drunk, speeding or just not paying attention we don't know but the road disappeared so there was no place to go. They were dead either way. There was no place to turn around or go around because the train covered the whole road!

Why? Why? Why? Why? Do the people have to put up with the antics of the railroad? That train should have stopped already in North Fond du Lac because they already knew they would have to stop and block a crossing some where in between! The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. Or if they had hit a ditch it would have been better than a sheet of steel like a train!

I hope someone with a bit of authority will do something about this before it happens again and it will. Make the railroad accountable for their actions. Not bury them.

Sheila Miller, Van Dyne

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071029/OSH06/710290371/1189

 

Speechless, absolutely speechless.....

I could say something, but I can't find the words.

Unbelievable.......

[Poppa_Zit]

Posted, without comment:

Oshkosh, Wis.: The Northwestern

Posted October 29, 2007

Letters: Railroad creates fatal conditions at crossing

I would just like to comment on the train accident that happened near Van Dyne on Oct. 6 and 7. This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad.

As soon as the train was stopped there it was an accident waiting to happen. The first vehicle to come along would be carrying a victim of the train. Whether a person was drunk, speeding or just not paying attention we don't know but the road disappeared so there was no place to go. They were dead either way. There was no place to turn around or go around because the train covered the whole road!

Why? Why? Why? Why? Do the people have to put up with the antics of the railroad? That train should have stopped already in North Fond du Lac because they already knew they would have to stop and block a crossing some where in between! The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. Or if they had hit a ditch it would have been better than a sheet of steel like a train!

I hope someone with a bit of authority will do something about this before it happens again and it will. Make the railroad accountable for their actions. Not bury them.

Sheila Miller, Van Dyne

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071029/OSH06/710290371/1189

 

[oscaletrains]

im so tired of hearing all this BULL about pepole just being stuped around trains and paying the consequences. THEY DID SOME THING DUMB, THEY DIED, ARE WE TO FEEL PITY?!?!?! NO, WERE NOT! we would not do this if someone was walking the edge of a skyscraper and triped. (splat) as far as im conserened if people continue to do this, let them more stupid people rid from the world!!

[zardoz]

To which I replied regarding how living a life like that is usually a choice, which by it's very nature indicates something about the priorities an individual has.

I took exception to the blaming the incident on fatigue, rather than stupdity, thus defending my original title of the thread.

And if you are refering to my description of lifestyle as "mediocrity", I can live with that (although I prefer to call it "contentment".

zardoz, whoa! I agree with you. My comment referred to the irrelevant sermon written by the other guy who began his diatribe by quoting you. I just copied his whole post in its entirety. Your concept of lifestyle isn't mediocrity to me. It's normal.

My apologies, poppa!

[Semper Vaporo]

...

Your concept of lifestyle isn't mediocrity to me. It's normal.

 So.... uh... whut's da difference? 

[Poppa_Zit]

BOTH OF YOU KEEP THE LEAGLEASE SPEAK IN THE COURTROOM WERE IT BELONGS IN FRONT OF THE JUDGES WERE WE AT LEAST GET PAID TO HEAR IT AS JURORS.  YOU ARGUE MORE THAN MY 2 TODDLERS AND THEY ARE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND THEY CAN BARELY TALK.  Get off you high horses and agree this is a tragic accident for all involed and MOVE THE HECK ON.  Futuremodal and me do not agrue this MUCH OVER OPEN ACCESS.

With all due respect, Ed, why don't you do what I and the others do when you and FM get involved like that? We ignore you and the thread. We respect your right to free speech.

But I do not butt in, yelling in large, obnoxious boldface type, telling you the intellectual level of your discussion is way over my head and therefore it should stop.

   

[Poppa_Zit]

To which I replied regarding how living a life like that is usually a choice, which by it's very nature indicates something about the priorities an individual has.

I took exception to the blaming the incident on fatigue, rather than stupdity, thus defending my original title of the thread.

And if you are refering to my description of lifestyle as "mediocrity", I can live with that (although I prefer to call it "contentment".

zardoz, whoa! I agree with you. My comment referred to the irrelevant sermon written by the other guy who began his diatribe by quoting you. I just copied his whole post in its entirety. Your concept of lifestyle isn't mediocrity to me. It's normal.

[spokyone]

Now that we have a new page, let's review all that we know.
  Man runs stop sign. He is now dead.

[KCSfan]

I think it's amazing that this topic has generated 99 replies that are full of characterizations, allegations, irritations, aggravations, obfuscations, speculations as to possible intoxication, mental deprivation and even attempted levitation, which will likely be followed by litigation and even legislation. That's 5 pages full of "ations" when all that is known is that for  reasons unknown a man ran at high speed into the side of a stopped train at a rural grade crossing in the dark of night and was killed. That is most unfortunate and hopefuly the recent requiement for reflectors on the sides of rail cars will minimize the possibility of similar accidents in the future. My thoughts and prayers go out to the deceased's family and friends which I think is far more appropriate than to suggest that he was a moron!

Mark 

 

[CNW 6000]

...And anyway, what the heck does any of this have to do with this dolt smashing into a train at high speed?

AMEN!

[edbenton]

Zardoz I have to agree with you there.  People asked me all the time at my last company why I ran like I did running 17-19K a month every month simple I knew when I was tired and would stop.  I never pushed harder than I needed to get the loads delivered on time and SAFETLY with no claims.  However at the time I was doing that the Federal Dot Regulations were alot easier to get around the HOS one anyway and yet I never got caught.  When the load had to go who did the boss come to ME no one else could have been a team there waiting on a load and it had to be in CA 46 hours later I would get the call everytime he knew I would make it then 60 hours later be back in the Midwest.  Now do not even try it.

[zardoz]

zardoz said:

First of all, I'm nothing like you.  I keep my life organized, and I am content with what I have.  I do not need to live a "harried existence"--I prefer to 'live', not 'exist'.

I only turn on my cell phone when I need to, I work only enough hours such that I can actually enjoy my life, and getting enough sleep is a priority.

Certainly, there are some people that, due to no fault of their own, have had life setbacks such that they need to scramble for a while in order to get back on their feet (been there, done that).  However, for the majority, it is the ceaseless desire to always have more, bigger, better, faster, etc...a path can only lead to frustration and unhappiness.  If one is not content with what one has, one will never be content.  No matter what you have, there will always be something better, bigger, faster, etc.  And no matter how many hours you work, how many jobs you have, how many things you buy, it will never be enough.

If your philosophy is "He who dies with the most, wins", then you better stop reading this and go ouit there and work harder, work more, and buy more; then perhaps you will "win", although your 'victory' will likely come sooner for you than for me.

            Zardoz, you're exactly like me, I think. I didn't work over 40 hours a week the last ten years of my working life. And if i took a pill for some sniffles I stayed home 'cuz I could afford to do so. I wouldn't have made a pimple on a rail crewman's arss. I guess you wouldn't either if "getting sleep" is your priority.

            Do you really think they could work all those 12 hour+ days and be FIT TO WORK every one of those hours? Do you think they had any more choice in that decision than those equally driven, just as distracted souls on the highways? They can't after all, "step off" after 8 hours or "work 'til noon" can they?

            I'd think if one's going to sit on his keister passing judgement from a keyboard they ought to have some appreciation for what these folks are enduring in their working days. And be less quick to judge when we haven't been there and haven't done that.

And this sermon about settling for mediocrity relates to the topic how?

Well, there was this posting, made on the 22nd:

No, your "willingly" implies an omniscience that's pretty widespread in this forum but goes suddenly absent when it's rail employees doing head-ons or playing on the tracks. Your very self-serving in your witlessness if you can exercise your know it all only on non RR types. Better that some RR should hire you to tell why, despite, the millions spent on safety campaigns, RR workers insist on being victimized.

             Has it ever entered your head that we're, all of us, pretty much alike living a harried existence, with not enough sleep, too much to do, so little time, tracked by GPS, hounded by cellphone, working more hours than any other industrialized nation, some working a couple three jobs maybe and , in a nod or a blink, we're dead, which is bad enough. But does that death have to validate a bunch of foamers in a RR forum?

To which I replied regarding how living a life like that is usually a choice, which by it's very nature indicates something about the priorities an individual has.

I took exception to the blaming the incident on fatigue, rather than stupdity, thus defending my original title of the thread.

And if you are refering to my description of lifestyle as "mediocrity", I can live with that (although I prefer to call it "contentment".

[zardoz]

            Zardoz, you're exactly like me, I think. I didn't work over 40 hours a week the last ten years of my working life. And if i took a pill for some sniffles I stayed home 'cuz I could afford to do so. I wouldn't have made a pimple on a rail crewman's arss. I guess you wouldn't either if "getting sleep" is your priority.

            Do you really think they could work all those 12 hour+ days and be FIT TO WORK every one of those hours? Do you think they had any more choice in that decision than those equally driven, just as distracted souls on the highways? They can't after all, "step off" after 8 hours or "work 'til noon" can they?

            I'd think if one's going to sit on his keister passing judgement from a keyboard they ought to have some appreciation for what these folks are enduring in their working days. And be less quick to judge when we haven't been there and haven't done that.

in response to the highlighted part of your post:

Actually, I think I AM qualified to 'pass judgement' (as you call it).  I put in 20 years of railroading as an Engineer.  I worked on call for most of those 20 years: never knowing when I would have to go to work, never knowing when I would be home, never getting good meals, never getting enough rest.  Those are the reasons why I left railraoding...I learned my lesson, and was fortunate (or determined) enough to start a new life.

And anyway, what the heck does any of this have to do with this dolt smashing into a train at high speed?

[edbenton]

[

The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.

I understand.  I just wanted to know who asserted without proof that the victim attempted to jump the crossing.  From your third person allegation, I could not tell if it was only your personal opinion, or if it was made by others who actually had some evidence.

If there is any other evidence, the police have not been forthcoming. BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.

I am not referring to first, second, or third-hand, which indicates the number of parties in the chain of information transfer.

 

You said:

"He illegally ran a stop sign at night at a very high speed, allegedly attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill."

 

By third-person, I mean your structure indicating that there is an allegation that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill without revealing that the only allegation is your personal allegation.  You make it seem as if the allegation stands separate from your own opinion, and thus lends credence to it. 

This would be in contrast to what I would call a first-person allegation such as, "I allege that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill."

With regard to the handedness of your allegation, I would call it first-hand.  The police never said anything about the victim trying to go airborne.

This argument is ludicrous as well as pointless. This is how news stories are written. I have NEVER seen one instance where the author of a well-written news story says something like "this writer alleges ..." In fact, the majority of stories never identify who the "alleger" is, do they? As in a story about an "alleged rape". Or "alleged fraud". Or my personal local favorite, "alleged mob connections".

Attribution is done to give credibility to a thought, idea or quotation in a story. The concept that one allegation could have more or less credence than another is ridiculous, as long as both accurately employ known facts in a case.   

When we're dealing in "assertations without proof" the "alleger" need not be identified because the statement is not a fact -- it is someone's speculation. Therefore, it needs no attribution.

There is no such thing as "chain of information transfer" when dealing with speculation. There are no such things as "first-hand allegations", "second-hand allegations" or "third person allegations", either. In my attempt to form a speculative theory, I used first-hand news reports and the photo of the crossing. That's how it is done.

The news reports I read did their job properly -- presenting the facts without editorializing. So did the police. They did  not offer theories or make any announcements until all of the evidence has been examined and considered. I was one of several here who speculated on what might have happened. 

OK, that's it. I'm not getting paid here to teach Journalism 101.      

You say this:

I have NEVER seen one instance where the author of a well-written news story says something like "this writer alleges ..."

You are correct that the news reporter does not say, "This reporter alleges..." The reason for that is that they, as reporters, don't allege anything.  When they refer to something being alleged, it is being alleged by someone else, such as the police, witnesses, the victim or a combination of them, and the allegation usually flows from some kind of evidence even though there is no proof.  

Here you say this:

There is no such thing as "chain of information transfer" when dealing with speculation. There are no such things as "first-hand allegations", "second-hand allegations" or "third person allegations", either.

You established the existence of first and second hand allegations earlier when you said this:

BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.

Here you said this:

The news reports I read did their job properly -- presenting the facts without editorializing. So did the police. They did not offer theories or make any announcements until all of the evidence has been examined and considered.

I agree, but I have not accused the police or the news reports of editorializing.  All they said is that the guy ran a stop sign, collided with a tank car and under-ran it, and that there were no skid marks.  

BOTH OF YOU KEEP THE LEAGLEASE SPEAK IN THE COURTROOM WERE IT BELONGS IN FRONT OF THE JUDGES WERE WE AT LEAST GET PAID TO HEAR IT AS JURORS.  YOU ARGUE MORE THAN MY 2 TODDLERS AND THEY ARE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND THEY CAN BARELY TALK.  Get off you high horses and agree this is a tragic accident for all involed and MOVE THE HECK ON.  Futuremodal and me do not agrue this MUCH OVER OPEN ACCESS.

 

[Anonymous]

SHAME ON YOU - you helpless soul. Do you know the absolute facts about what happened? Did you even stop to think that family and close friends of Nate's might be reading this?!!! SHAME ON YOU. Maybe you should read the facts before you go mouthing off about someone's loved one. No where is it written that alcohol or drugs played a part. It was also an extremely dark that night as it was overcast with no moon. Growing up in that area - I've almost hit the trains myself - when there are no markings on the trains, they're not that easy to see. I know for a solid fact that you are not from the rural Oshkosh area, because if you were, you would know how unbelievably annoying the trains are that sit on the tracks that block MILES of crossings to main roads. Getting from one side of a country block to the other can take an unbelievably long amount of time to cross - it's annoying, and quite frankly a hazard. It blocks access for rescue vehicles. Dealing with the issue of parked trains is long overdue. Its too bad that it took the death of a fine human being to get things rolling.

 

 

Maybe he got so sick of waiting he thought if he got up enough speed the tardis effect would take place and he would pass right though unscathed?.

If this man was a local to the area he should have known the risks more than a stranger to that area, If hes a local he should have known the road maybe thus adjusted his driving to suit the road conditions.

He may not have been drunk, but the whole thing stinks a drunk driver.

[Steam Is King]

I think if for some reason you don't agree with a thread, just skip it.Nobody is forcnig you to read them.

Chico

[locomutt]

People, we can speculate all we want, it won't bring the person back or find out if any

fault can be blamed on anyone. Enough is enough.

The person gambled and he lost. Lets give this one a rest.

Thoughts and prayers to all family & friends. 

[Poppa_Zit]

zardoz said:

First of all, I'm nothing like you.  I keep my life organized, and I am content with what I have.  I do not need to live a "harried existence"--I prefer to 'live', not 'exist'.

I only turn on my cell phone when I need to, I work only enough hours such that I can actually enjoy my life, and getting enough sleep is a priority.

Certainly, there are some people that, due to no fault of their own, have had life setbacks such that they need to scramble for a while in order to get back on their feet (been there, done that).  However, for the majority, it is the ceaseless desire to always have more, bigger, better, faster, etc...a path can only lead to frustration and unhappiness.  If one is not content with what one has, one will never be content.  No matter what you have, there will always be something better, bigger, faster, etc.  And no matter how many hours you work, how many jobs you have, how many things you buy, it will never be enough.

If your philosophy is "He who dies with the most, wins", then you better stop reading this and go ouit there and work harder, work more, and buy more; then perhaps you will "win", although your 'victory' will likely come sooner for you than for me.

            Zardoz, you're exactly like me, I think. I didn't work over 40 hours a week the last ten years of my working life. And if i took a pill for some sniffles I stayed home 'cuz I could afford to do so. I wouldn't have made a pimple on a rail crewman's arss. I guess you wouldn't either if "getting sleep" is your priority.

            Do you really think they could work all those 12 hour+ days and be FIT TO WORK every one of those hours? Do you think they had any more choice in that decision than those equally driven, just as distracted souls on the highways? They can't after all, "step off" after 8 hours or "work 'til noon" can they?

            I'd think if one's going to sit on his keister passing judgement from a keyboard they ought to have some appreciation for what these folks are enduring in their working days. And be less quick to judge when we haven't been there and haven't done that.

And this sermon about settling for mediocrity relates to the topic how?

[djjoe]

zardoz said:

First of all, I'm nothing like you.  I keep my life organized, and I am content with what I have.  I do not need to live a "harried existence"--I prefer to 'live', not 'exist'.

I only turn on my cell phone when I need to, I work only enough hours such that I can actually enjoy my life, and getting enough sleep is a priority.

Certainly, there are some people that, due to no fault of their own, have had life setbacks such that they need to scramble for a while in order to get back on their feet (been there, done that).  However, for the majority, it is the ceaseless desire to always have more, bigger, better, faster, etc...a path can only lead to frustration and unhappiness.  If one is not content with what one has, one will never be content.  No matter what you have, there will always be something better, bigger, faster, etc.  And no matter how many hours you work, how many jobs you have, how many things you buy, it will never be enough.

If your philosophy is "He who dies with the most, wins", then you better stop reading this and go ouit there and work harder, work more, and buy more; then perhaps you will "win", although your 'victory' will likely come sooner for you than for me.

            Zardoz, you're exactly like me, I think. I didn't work over 40 hours a week the last ten years of my working life. And if i took a pill for some sniffles I stayed home 'cuz I could afford to do so. I wouldn't have made a pimple on a rail crewman's arss. I guess you wouldn't either if "getting sleep" is your priority.

            Do you really think they could work all those 12 hour+ days and be FIT TO WORK every one of those hours? Do you think they had any more choice in that decision than those equally driven, just as distracted souls on the highways? They can't after all, "step off" after 8 hours or "work 'til noon" can they?

            I'd think if one's going to sit on his keister passing judgement from a keyboard they ought to have some appreciation for what these folks are enduring in their working days. And be less quick to judge when we haven't been there and haven't done that.

[jcitron]

I would daresay, that in all grade-crossing, and train vs pedestrian accidents, the accident occurs because someone decided that trying to beat the train was a good idea, or they were playing, walking, running, etc.  on the railroad tracks where they don't belong, because that is trespassing.

Actually, trying to beat the train or trespassing isn't the only two reasons for people getting hit or killed by trains.  In the case of a friend of mine (http://chatanuga.org/HOL.html), he had his license for only about three months before he drove his car into the side of the first locomotive of Amtrak's Capitol Limited back in 1990.  Our high school was out in the country and just north of the crossing where the crash happened.  He, like many other people, got used to there not being many trains on the route (Conrail's former Pennsy route through Bucyrus, Ohio).  As a result, he just quit stopping at the stop signs at the crossing and apparently stopped looking, thinking there would never be a train.  On that morning however, the Capitol Limited was over an hour late and entered the crossing at the same time he did.  He wasn't trying to beat the train since he was only doing 50MPH (speed limit is 55).  He just didn't look and see the train coming.

Kevin

This is my take on ths situation as well. It's possible that he did in fact speed through the crossing for the thrill of going over the bump, and most likely did this often without thinking about it. The thing is he did this one time too many without noticing the train in front of him, and sadly this is the end result.

 I see this type of behavior all the time on the highway. The B &W (Bob and Weave) drivers will slip between the passing lane and the first lane in a slalom moves, zig-zagging between cars in the middle lane within inches of bumpers (There's nothing like a Ford Explorer doing this at 75 mph right in front of you. You can actually feel the air pressure as the vehicle whizzes by). The problem is they're playing a little bit of risk taking because at some point in their lane changing , they'll eventually hit someone or vise versa because they underestimated the distance, or the gap between the cars that they're trying to squeeze in between.

John

[Steam Is King]

You say this:

I have NEVER seen one instance where the author of a well-written news story says something like "this writer alleges ..."

You are correct that the news reporter does not say, "This reporter alleges..." The reason for that is that they, as reporters, don't allege anything.  When they refer to something being alleged, it is being alleged by someone else, such as the police, witnesses, the victim or a combination of them, and the allegation usually flows from some kind of evidence even though there is no proof.  

Here you say this:

There is no such thing as "chain of information transfer" when dealing with speculation. There are no such things as "first-hand allegations", "second-hand allegations" or "third person allegations", either.

You established the existence of first and second hand allegations earlier when you said this:

BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.

Here you said this:

The news reports I read did their job properly -- presenting the facts without editorializing. So did the police. They did not offer theories or make any announcements until all of the evidence has been examined and considered.

I agree, but I have not accused the police or the news reports of editorializing.  All they said is that the guy ran a stop sign, collided with a tank car and under-ran it, and that there were no skid marks.  

Do you just like to argue with poeple or do you have a need to get the last word in? wqhat you are now saying in response makes no sense. Who cares about this nitpicking besides you?If you have so much time, go back to the unsafe bridges thread and explain your sourcres on the series of general statments you made. you present several bold statements to make a point. I would like to know how you know these things..  

Chico

[Boyd]

I just read the first post, but I'm guessing since his SUV went "under" the train that the roof got torn off and this would have been one very ugly scene to come upon. The poor possibly drunk driver had but maybe a few seconds to have his life flash before his eyes.

[Anonymous]

[

The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.

I understand.  I just wanted to know who asserted without proof that the victim attempted to jump the crossing.  From your third person allegation, I could not tell if it was only your personal opinion, or if it was made by others who actually had some evidence.

If there is any other evidence, the police have not been forthcoming. BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.

I am not referring to first, second, or third-hand, which indicates the number of parties in the chain of information transfer.

 

You said:

"He illegally ran a stop sign at night at a very high speed, allegedly attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill."

 

By third-person, I mean your structure indicating that there is an allegation that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill without revealing that the only allegation is your personal allegation.  You make it seem as if the allegation stands separate from your own opinion, and thus lends credence to it. 

This would be in contrast to what I would call a first-person allegation such as, "I allege that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill."

With regard to the handedness of your allegation, I would call it first-hand.  The police never said anything about the victim trying to go airborne.

This argument is ludicrous as well as pointless. This is how news stories are written. I have NEVER seen one instance where the author of a well-written news story says something like "this writer alleges ..." In fact, the majority of stories never identify who the "alleger" is, do they? As in a story about an "alleged rape". Or "alleged fraud". Or my personal local favorite, "alleged mob connections".

Attribution is done to give credibility to a thought, idea or quotation in a story. The concept that one allegation could have more or less credence than another is ridiculous, as long as both accurately employ known facts in a case.   

When we're dealing in "assertations without proof" the "alleger" need not be identified because the statement is not a fact -- it is someone's speculation. Therefore, it needs no attribution.

There is no such thing as "chain of information transfer" when dealing with speculation. There are no such things as "first-hand allegations", "second-hand allegations" or "third person allegations", either. In my attempt to form a speculative theory, I used first-hand news reports and the photo of the crossing. That's how it is done.

The news reports I read did their job properly -- presenting the facts without editorializing. So did the police. They did  not offer theories or make any announcements until all of the evidence has been examined and considered. I was one of several here who speculated on what might have happened. 

OK, that's it. I'm not getting paid here to teach Journalism 101.      

You say this:

I have NEVER seen one instance where the author of a well-written news story says something like "this writer alleges ..."

You are correct that the news reporter does not say, "This reporter alleges..." The reason for that is that they, as reporters, don't allege anything.  When they refer to something being alleged, it is being alleged by someone else, such as the police, witnesses, the victim or a combination of them, and the allegation usually flows from some kind of evidence even though there is no proof.  

Here you say this:

There is no such thing as "chain of information transfer" when dealing with speculation. There are no such things as "first-hand allegations", "second-hand allegations" or "third person allegations", either.

You established the existence of first and second hand allegations earlier when you said this:

BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.

Here you said this:

The news reports I read did their job properly -- presenting the facts without editorializing. So did the police. They did not offer theories or make any announcements until all of the evidence has been examined and considered.

I agree, but I have not accused the police or the news reports of editorializing.  All they said is that the guy ran a stop sign, collided with a tank car and under-ran it, and that there were no skid marks.  

[Poppa_Zit]

[

The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.

I understand.  I just wanted to know who asserted without proof that the victim attempted to jump the crossing.  From your third person allegation, I could not tell if it was only your personal opinion, or if it was made by others who actually had some evidence.

If there is any other evidence, the police have not been forthcoming. BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.

I am not referring to first, second, or third-hand, which indicates the number of parties in the chain of information transfer.

 

You said:

"He illegally ran a stop sign at night at a very high speed, allegedly attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill."

 

By third-person, I mean your structure indicating that there is an allegation that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill without revealing that the only allegation is your personal allegation.  You make it seem as if the allegation stands separate from your own opinion, and thus lends credence to it. 

This would be in contrast to what I would call a first-person allegation such as, "I allege that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill."

With regard to the handedness of your allegation, I would call it first-hand.  The police never said anything about the victim trying to go airborne.

This argument is ludicrous as well as pointless. This is how news stories are written. I have NEVER seen one instance where the author of a well-written news story says something like "this writer alleges ..." In fact, the majority of stories never identify who the "alleger" is, do they? As in a story about an "alleged rape". Or "alleged fraud". Or my personal local favorite, "alleged mob connections".

Attribution is done to give credibility to a thought, idea or quotation in a story. The concept that one allegation could have more or less credence than another is ridiculous, as long as both accurately employ known facts in a case.   

When we're dealing in "assertations without proof" the "alleger" need not be identified because the statement is not a fact -- it is someone's speculation. Therefore, it needs no attribution.

There is no such thing as "chain of information transfer" when dealing with speculation. There are no such things as "first-hand allegations", "second-hand allegations" or "third person allegations", either. In my attempt to form a speculative theory, I used first-hand news reports and the photo of the crossing. That's how it is done.

The news reports I read did their job properly -- presenting the facts without editorializing. So did the police. They did  not offer theories or make any announcements until all of the evidence has been examined and considered. I was one of several here who speculated on what might have happened. 

OK, that's it. I'm not getting paid here to teach Journalism 101.      

[Anonymous]

[

The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.

I understand.  I just wanted to know who asserted without proof that the victim attempted to jump the crossing.  From your third person allegation, I could not tell if it was only your personal opinion, or if it was made by others who actually had some evidence.

If there is any other evidence, the police have not been forthcoming. BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.

I am not referring to first, second, or third-hand, which indicates the number of parties in the chain of information transfer.

 

You said:

"He illegally ran a stop sign at night at a very high speed, allegedly attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill."

 

By third-person, I mean your structure indicating that there is an allegation that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill without revealing that the only allegation is your personal allegation.  You make it seem as if the allegation stands separate from your own opinion, and thus lends credence to it. 

This would be in contrast to what I would call a first-person allegation such as, "I allege that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill."

With regard to the handedness of your allegation, I would call it first-hand.  The police never said anything about the victim trying to go airborne.

[Poppa_Zit]

[

The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.

I understand.  I just wanted to know who asserted without proof that the victim attempted to jump the crossing.  From your third person allegation, I could not tell if it was only your personal opinion, or if it was made by others who actually had some evidence.

If there is any other evidence, the police have not been forthcoming. BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.

[Anonymous]

[

The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.

I understand.  I just wanted to know who asserted without proof that the victim attempted to jump the crossing.  From your third person allegation, I could not tell if it was only your personal opinion, or if it was made by others who actually had some evidence.