Titanic Horror! Tourist Submersible Goes Missing While Attempting to View Wreckage of Titanic.

[LongRider]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Rush killed others with his hubris and recklessness.  I do not delight in anyone’s death… even Rush.  But… wow was he tempting fate with other people’s lives.

Being late to this thread I thought you were talking about Rush Limbaugh.  Wouldn't say I was sad when he shuffled off this mortal coil.   

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Pinochet is famous in England for a number of reasons, but principally his friendship with Maggie and the court case that resulted in...nothing whatsoever happening to him.  Was Lucia complicit in his tortures and crimes?

indeed she was, and kept a lot of power even after the end of the dictatorship, she was president of CEMA (an institution that had allot of property ceded by the state under pinochet) until 2016!

[polishgenius]

Disagreement over whether it's okay to celebrate the death of a person is a board tradition that goes all the way back to the impromptu block topic party that broke out when Maggie Thatcher died, and probably further. 

 

 

This one's a little different because Rush wasn't directly oppressing most of the people celebrating and there were people on board who didn't do shit to anyone, but I do get why some people have reacted that way, with the current climate in many countries of poorer people being told to tighten their belts for the good of the economy while the wealthy just get wealthier. He and the Titan temporarily became the symbol of the whole broken system for some people being constantly kicked in the teeth by it. I didn't celebrate, but I don't really care if anyone did. Eat the rich and all that innit.

[Gaston de Foix]

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well there is that issue.

Wouldn't the question be if governments he wasn't a citizen of had standing considering massive negligence and/or fraud is in play? The company might not have much money after this, but personally I believe whatever they have should be fair game at the very least.

He didn't commit fraud against the government or negligently impair government personnel though.  The survivors of those who died have a claim against him subject to a heated debate about the validity of the waiver.  That's a fairly straightforward claim.  The government claim would be based on knowingly taking risks necessitating massive governmental expenditure.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Disagreement over whether it's okay to celebrate the death of a person is a board tradition that goes all the way back to the impromptu block topic party that broke out when Maggie Thatcher died, and probably further. 

 

 

This one's a little different because Rush wasn't directly oppressing most of the people celebrating and there were people on board who didn't do shit to anyone, but I do get why some people have reacted that way, with the current climate in many countries of poorer people being told to tighten their belts for the good of the economy while the wealthy just get wealthier. He and the Titan temporarily became the symbol of the whole broken system for some people being constantly kicked in the teeth by it. I didn't celebrate, but I don't really care if anyone did. Eat the rich and all that innit.

I will say what I always say… I believe it is karmicly uncool to… celebrate… anyone’s death.  That said not being particularly mournful over the passing of someone you find unpleasant is understandable.

[Tywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

He didn't commit fraud against the government or negligently impair government personnel though.  The survivors of those who died have a claim against him subject to a heated debate about the validity of the waiver.  That's a fairly straightforward claim.  The government claim would be based on knowingly taking risks necessitating massive governmental expenditure.  

Which they did, because who else could help them?

[Zorral]

12 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's how the world works

You say potaahto and I say murder.

I rejoiced that Epstein was so scared he killed himself.  If, indeed, he killed himself.  That international trafficking ring he ran for the powerful, wealthy and celebrated meant he had info dirt on every one of them, and the wealthy and powerful when scared are rats in a corner and they will, and they do, do anything to a perceived threat. So if others murdered him, I will rejoice if they are found out and killed too.  None of them deserve a bit of the little oxygen this planet has left.

[A wilding]

On 7/4/2023 at 1:25 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I will say what I always say… I believe it is karmicly uncool to… celebrate… anyone’s death.  That said not being particularly mournful over the passing of someone you find unpleasant is understandable.

The Maggie Thatcher case was complicated by a bunch of right wingers trying to use her death to canonise her. I still remember clearly someone on the BBC describe her as being "uniquely revered". Not surprising that people felt the need to push back against that.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

 

[Darzin]

On 7/4/2023 at 10:13 AM, Zorral said:

Which means, at best, obscenely wealthy people get off with a relatively tiny fine that for others would put them in prison at the least.

And people get upset that the People loathe the obscenely wealthy, who, at the very first whisper of putting that out there, hear the tumbrils and scream bloody murder, that they commit, one way and another, multiple times, day after day after day.

This isn't a case of the rich getting away with anything though. We have charges for manslaughter and gross negligence  for a reason and this case fits those to a T. Plus he didn't get away with it cause he's ya know dead.

As for the waivers, waivers usually hold up less in court then people think and don't absolve people from negligence which this case certainly has.  It's very likely Ocearngate will be found liable, but  I don't think there will be much to take from Oceangate in the end. The company wasn't profitable and was barely scraping by. A big reason for some of the cut corners is they simply didn't have the money to do better. They just didn't have the cashflow for what they were doing. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

On 7/3/2023 at 6:57 PM, Conflicting Thought said:

i will celebrate when kissinger dies to

With fireworks.

On 7/3/2023 at 8:13 PM, Zorral said:

Which means, at best, obscenely wealthy people get off with a relatively tiny fine that for others would put them in prison at the least.

@Tywin et al. take note.

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, Darzin said:

 A big reason for some of the cut corners is they simply didn't have the money to do better. 

I mean this isn't true is it. That there might not be much to sue for, sure, that seems likely. But this isn't a sports club, there aren't financial doping rules preventing the billionaire owner dumping his own money in. The corners were cut because he wanted to run a profit-making ocean exploration company, not because he had no other option.

[Darzin]

13 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I mean this isn't true is it. That there might not be much to sue for, sure, that seems likely. But this isn't a sports club, there aren't financial doping rules preventing the billionaire owner dumping his own money in. The corners were cut because he wanted to run a profit-making ocean exploration company, not because he had no other option.

It very much is true. Stockton Rush wasn't a billionaire, he was wealthy and had a few million to his name but the venture capital  invested in Oceangate was several times that of his small fortune and still wasn't enough to do things properly. He could have never floated this venture on his own and even with all the investment and high ticket prices Oceangate was losing money each trip. It was all around unsustainable with too high overhead (even with every corner cut) and not enough paying customers. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 hours ago, Darzin said:

. He could have never floated this venture . 

Qft

[Zorral]

10 hours ago, Darzin said:

It very much is true. Stockton Rush wasn't a billionaire, he was wealthy and had a few million to his name but the venture capital  invested in Oceangate was several times that of his small fortune and still wasn't enough to do things properly. He could have never floated this venture on his own and even with all the investment and high ticket prices Oceangate was losing money each trip. It was all around unsustainable with too high overhead (even with every corner cut) and not enough paying customers. 

Are you are saying he was a mere millionaire, thus couldn't do it right, couldn't do it safely, couldn't do it all, and knew it, but he went did it anyway, so hey, poor him, who himself died, no problem that he murdered all those other people too?

[Darzin]

On 7/10/2023 at 1:55 AM, Zorral said:

Are you are saying he was a mere millionaire, thus couldn't do it right, couldn't do it safely, couldn't do it all, and knew it, but he went did it anyway, so hey, poor him, who himself died, no problem that he murdered all those other people too?

I was saying the first part but not the bold. I mentioned he was a millionaire because there is a common belief going around that he was a billionaire when he wasn't. Stockton's pockets weren't that deep and Oceangate wasn't profitable. 

[Lord of Oop North]

On 7/9/2023 at 1:55 PM, Zorral said:

Are you are saying he was a mere millionaire, thus couldn't do it right, couldn't do it safely, couldn't do it all, and knew it, but he went did it anyway, so hey, poor him, who himself died, no problem that he murdered all those other people too?

No matter how many times you say it, he didn't murder anyone. 

[Tywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, Lord of Oop North said:

No matter how many times you say it, he didn't murder anyone. 

But he certainly did cause people to die and in retrospect he was flagrantly reckless, hence why the contracts signed should be voided. Just for example, if you signed something similar to go deep sea fishing and an unexpected storm capsized the boat, well that's shitty luck. If you went on the same fishing trip and the boat was not up to standard, that's on the company that offered the service. It's pretty clear buddy was being reckless and the families of the dead should be able to get every dollar they can from his estate.  

[Derfel Cadarn]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But he certainly did cause people to die and in retrospect he was flagrantly reckless, hence why the contracts signed should be voided. Just for example, if you signed something similar to go deep sea fishing and an unexpected storm capsized the boat, well that's shitty luck. If you went on the same fishing trip and the boat was not up to standard, that's on the company that offered the service. It's pretty clear buddy was being reckless and the families of the dead should be able to get every dollar they can from his estate.  

Yes but that’s not murder, which requires intent.

[Zorral]

How many times do courts hear, "I didn't mean to kill him/her/anyone."  Yet somehow, w/o intent, the person did murder someone.

Edited July 22 by Zorral