Car Crash - Child Injury claim

ILW

If your wife cared that much about the kids, she would not have driven into a lamp post. It's not as if the things jump out in front of you.

poet123

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Your ability to ignore what I actually write in favour of holding me to opinions that you infer on matters that we haven't actually discussed is staggering. I have never actually discussed the various opinions on personal injury litigation with you. My issue with you began with your interpretation of the words used in the OP, and continued on to the issue of whether matters of general discussion have a place in threads that request specific information. Yet in the course of this discussion you have seen fit to infer my opinion on matters that we have not discussed.

In fact, your faith in your ability to infer things in what people say has gone further than that in this thread. You have also chosen to suggest that the OP is lying on the basis of an inference that is shaky at best, and question the integrity of members of this forum who use their professional knowledge to help others on the basis of a frankly absurd inference based on what they don't say. The latter in particular leaves something of a sour taste.

I've already spent far more time going around in circles on this than I should have. I expect that a reply to this post will follow, but at this point I have no intention of wasting any more time on this.

Your issue is that you feel that you have the right to post what you will whilst not according that courtesy to others.;)

I did not say the OP was lying, in fact I stated I believed what he wrote in the OP.

I did not question the actual integrity of the professionals who post on the forum, I said that it would behoove them to add a caveat to any advice which is given when the circumstances could be construed as dubious, to ensure their integrity is not compromised.

With regard to your comments on PI litigation, is this not an overt reference to it?

Originally Posted by Crazy Jamie
The tendency of what is a constant cycle of members in this forum to jump into specific threads relating to personal injury litigation and throw in opinions based on little more than media sensationalism and pub talk irrespective of the specific issue within the thread as predictable as it is tiresome, and it benefits nobody, not least the individual who comes in to this forum seeking help.

So, tell me again I am inferring on matters we have not discussed. The problem is you don't like being picked up on on what you do imply, that being the case, perhaps you should concentrate on your own posts rather than choosing to try to control those of others. It rarely achieves the desired aim, which is as it should be in a democracy.

As you say, we have wasted time going around in circles here, but should you choose to respond so will I, refusing to do so in a fit of pique is rather silly and usually the last refuge of those who have nowhere else to go with their rebuttals, especially when they state that upfront.:D

Crazy_Jamie

EDIT: Problem with the timing of edits. See below.

poet123

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Alright, then. Let's be succinct about this.

Wrong. My issue was with members who post irrelevant replies to threads. I hold myself to that standard as well, and have never suggested otherwise.

Replies you deem irrelevant, that does not mean they are actually irrelevant. It is not your job to judge the posts of others and tell them not to post or to post elsewhere.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

You stated that you believe the true extent of the injuries was bruising after he had suggested whiplash etc was also suffered, and that the latter comment was an elaboration. How is that not suggesting that he was lying in his subsequent post?

I said I believed the OP, and the latter comment was exaggeration.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

If you suggest, as you clearly did, that the inclusion of a caveat is required to show a measure of integrity, the obvious implication is that not including that caveat displays a lack of integrity. This being against the backdrop of the members in question all choosing not to include that caveat very much suggests that you were questioning their integrity.

As you say it is a choice, if you do not do it I can only say what can be inferred from that. It does not mean that is necessarily the case but the inference could be made.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

[/I]No, it is a reference to the usual (though by no means exclusive) source of opinions that people tend to hold. You can infer nothing from that comment as to what extent I agree with those opinions (for the record, I agree with some and disagree with others). My point always has been in relation to the relevance of those opinions in threads such as this. In fact, you can see that for yourself if you just read the rest of the sentence that you didn't bold. I described as 'tiresome' the tendency for those opinions to be expressed irrespective of the of the issues within the thread, not the opinions themselves.

So I cannot infer that you disdain those who form their opinion from media sensationalism or pub talk, and that you give little credence to it? You clearly underestimate the power of the written word.

Again we return to "relevance" and who determines what that is, why should it be you? I deem it very relevant that in any discussion about PI it should be a given that the claim should be warranted. I deem it very relevant that when in any discussion about insurance companies it should be refuted when someone states they are fair game and we should play the system. I could go on, but you get my drift?

You can only be in control of your own posts and apply your standards to those posts. It is a simple concept.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

The problem is that you are inferring things that simply are not there.

No, I am not, you genuinely may not see them, or you may be being disingenuous, either way, it doesn't mean the inference is not there.

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote:

Replies you deem irrelevant, that does not mean they are actually irrelevant. It is not your job to judge the posts of others and tell them not to post or to post elsewhere.

poet123 wrote:

Again we return to "relevance" and who determines what that is, why should it be you?

You're just being pedantic now. Of course just because I think something is irrelevant it doesn't mean it is. Equally just because you think something is relevant it doesn't mean it is. That's why we have the discussion. I never suggested I should be the one to judge other people's posts. I simply expressed an opinion.

Your apparent view of me as someone who looks down on the opinions of others as inherently inferior is all in your own head. I obviously think that I am right in my views, but then again you think that your views are correct too.

poet123 wrote:

As you say it is a choice, if you do not do it I can only say what can be inferred from that. It does not mean that is necessarily the case but the inference could be made.

Indeed it doesn't, yet when you are told by someone within the profession (and, in a way, two people) that your inference is not correct, you seem somewhat reluctant to say the least to accept that.

poet123 wrote:

No, I am not, you genuinely may not see them, or you may be being disingenuous, either way, it doesn't mean the inference is not there.

Alright then, let me rephrase. Inferences that you draw from any given post may not be correct. Yet you use them in arguments as if they are correct, despite the fact that the ones you have drawn from my posts are generally not correct. Better?

poet123

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

You're just being pedantic now. Of course just because I think something is irrelevant it doesn't mean it is. Equally just because you think something is relevant it doesn't mean it is. That's why we have the discussion. I never suggested I should be the one to judge other people's posts. I simply expressed an opinion.

Your whole stance has been that posts other than those which directly address the question posed should not be on this thread (or indeed any other thread of this nature. Indeed you and another admonished myself and another poster for doing so, and you asked that I start another thread to discuss that aspect. That is not expressing an opinion, that is issuing a directive. Even when you were told that I did not agree, you continued to press the matter.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Your apparent view of me as someone who looks down on the opinions of others as inherently inferior is all in your own head. I obviously think that I am right in my views, but then again you think that your views are correct too.

Then how do you explain your dismissive comment re how others may form their opinions?

I do believe my opinions are relevant, the difference between us is that I have not attempted to say yours are not and ask or direct you to post them elsewhere. Threads evolve.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Indeed it doesn't, yet when you are told by someone within the profession (and, in a way, two people) that your inference is not correct, you seem somewhat reluctant to say the least to accept that.

But you miss the point, others will/could make that connection too and perception is key.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

You're just being pedantic now. Of course just because I think something is irrelevant it doesn't mean it is. Equally just because you think something is relevant it doesn't mean it is. That's why we have the discussion. I never suggested I should be the one to judge other people's posts. I simply expressed an opinion.

Your whole stance has been that posts other than those which directly address the question posed should not be on this thread (or indeed any other thread of this nature. Indeed you and another admonished myself and another poster for doing so, and you asked that I start another thread to discuss that aspect. That is not expressing and opinion, that is issuing a directive. Even when you were told that I did not agree, you continued to press the matter.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Your apparent view of me as someone who looks down on the opinions of others as inherently inferior is all in your own head. I obviously think that I am right in my views, but then again you think that your views are correct too.

Then how do you explain your dismissive comment re how others may form their opinions?

I do believe my opinions are relevant, the difference between us is that I have not attempted to say yours are not and ask or direct you to post them elsewhere. Threads evolve.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Indeed it doesn't, yet when you are told by someone within the profession (and, in a way, two people) that your inference is not correct, you seem somewhat reluctant to say the least to accept that.

But you miss the point, others will/could make that connection too and perception is key.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Alright then, let me rephrase. Inferences that you draw from any given post may not be correct. Yet you use them in arguments as if they are correct, despite the fact that the ones you have drawn from my posts are generally not correct. Better?

What someone draws from a post is not always correct, obviously, but equally when it is pointed out that a certain inference has been/could be drawn it is an arrogant poster who repeatedly denies that such an inference could be drawn from their words. Obviously, if you do draw an inference you then use that in subsequent posts, why would you not? It is your take on any given post.

This whole debate is predicated on the fact that you appear to believe only factual answers should be given in answer to a question. I do not. I believe that if you ask a question and include information, that information is open to question, particularly if there is a public interest aspect to it. Neither of us is wrong, but you sought to make my pov wrong in this thread and that was presumptuous and was not your call to make.

But we do digress......:rotfl:

Crazy_Jamie

Right, now I'm done with this thread. And it's not because I have no where else to go with my rebuttals, as you provocatively suggested in an earlier post. Actually quite the opposite, it's more that you are being contrary for the sake of it. I have reiterated my (relatively simple) position many times, whereas you keep shifting the argument seemingly just for the sake of coming up with an adversarial reply. The thread is already dizzy with the circles that we're going around in, so I'm stepping away.

poet123

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Right, now I'm done with this thread. And it's not because I have no where else to go with my rebuttals, as you provocatively suggested in an earlier post. Actually quite the opposite, it's more that you are being contrary for the sake of it. I have reiterated my (relatively simple) position many times, whereas you keep shifting the argument seemingly just for the sake of coming up with an adversarial reply. The thread is already dizzy with the circles that we're going around in, so I'm stepping away.

I have not shifted the argument at all, nor am I being contrary. I am quite happy to let the posts stand for me, and for anyone who is interested (very few I suspect) to make a judgement based on them.

We disagree...shock horror, it is as newsworthy as rugby player drinks beer, hang on, that ran and ran too.

System

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Right, now I'm done with this thread. And it's not because I have no where else to go with my rebuttals, as you provocatively suggested in an earlier post. Actually quite the opposite, it's more that you are being contrary for the sake of it. I have reiterated my (relatively simple) position many times, whereas you keep shifting the argument seemingly just for the sake of coming up with an adversarial reply. The thread is already dizzy with the circles that we're going around in, so I'm stepping away.

poet123 wrote: »

I have not shifted the argument at all, nor am I being contrary. I am quite happy to let the posts stand for me, and for anyone who is interested (very few I suspect) to make a judgement based on them.

We disagree...shock horror, it is as newsworthy as rugby player drinks beer, hang on, that ran and ran too.

This thread has gone so far off topic that it should be renamed as : "Crazy Jamie - v - poet123"

Get a room :rotfl:

Ellogg

Been a couple of days since I read this post and it has gone well out of hand. I would just like to make out that my post involving sleeping pills etc. was me taking the P***. My children did not make any false claims, they went to see the consultant about the injuries they sustained which the consultant noted as bruising then the insurance did not dispute this and made an offer which has now been accepted, and thats it. Everyone on there soap box can now stand down and live happily ever after.

Thanks again for all your advice people

Ellogg