Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.flame
Subject: Six-pack units, going for it, and sudden death
Message-ID: <2359@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Mar-85 13:59:12 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2359
Posted: Fri Mar 22 13:59:12 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Mar-85 02:27:30 EST
References: <292@bgsuvax.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 32
Xref: watmath net.singles:6407 net.flame:8949

OK folks, we have a genuine FLAME here:

Let's just say that there are certain groups of people who are never,
never, ever amused by drunk driving:

    1) People who have had a friend killed or maimed by a drunk driver.
	[I have]
    2) People who have had a relative killed or maimed by a drunk driver.
	[I have]
    3) People who have had a child killed or maimed by a drunk driver.
	[I haven't, but that might be because I've never had kids]
    4) People who themselves have been in accidents involving drunk
       drivers [I have]
    5) People who are sensitive to crucial social issues.
	[ I try to be]
    6) People who realize that of all criminals, the criminal you are most
       likely to be killed by is the drunk driver.
	[ Compare the homicide rate to the rate of death from alcohol-
	  related automobile accidents ]

Pray tell, why on earth should I ``lighten up'' about this?  Isn't the
problem more that some people refuse to take a deadly problem seriously?

[I note that the original poster of the article has decided to give
the lame excuse that he meant only drinking *passengers*.  Funny how
he forgot that in the original article... perhaps he hadn't thought
of it yet.  And as for those who say, ``ah, come on, we've all been
guilty of this at one time or another''--do you really believe this
nonesense?  Soothes your conscience a bit, I'll bet...  Fie.]

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall