Amazing video: baby survives being hit by train

Published on October 16th, 2009

Posted by Eideard in Video

Phew!

74 users responded in " Amazing video: baby survives being hit by train "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 qb said, on October 16th, 2009 at 5:10 am

Holy crapola!

Here’s the news story.

# 2 amodedoma said, on October 16th, 2009 at 5:11 am

Thank God! OR for the non believer, Thank chaos for the incredibly improbable survival of this tiny infant.

# 3 Mr Diesel said, on October 16th, 2009 at 5:26 am

I’d like to thank the fact that the kid was smaller than the distance between the wheels and also smaller than the height of the train as it rolled overhead.

Now, if the stroller and kid survived without a scratch THAT would have been a miracle.

# 4 The Monster's Lawyer said, on October 16th, 2009 at 5:27 am

The mother had to have her sphincter surgically loosened after that.

# 5 Rich said, on October 16th, 2009 at 5:31 am

The Grace of God in full color on the Internet. Imagine how she felt when the train passed over her little one!!!!

BTW, Isn’t that more of a “guy” move?

# 6 gmknobl said, on October 16th, 2009 at 5:45 am

Now, if this kid grows up and starts seeing Neil Diamond or Michael Constantine in his dreams, I’ll believe it. (See previous article.)

# 7 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 5:48 am

Sometimes its good to be Mimi-Me.

Ammarammadingdong==heh, heh. Yes, a small child on the track having dimensions being IMPOSSIBLE to be hit by the train, not being hit by the train, is certainly a MIRACLE. The question should be: “Why didn’t god suspend the operation of gravity so that the pram did not roll downhill?” Why didn’t an all loving god do that?

Its enough to make one lose faith, I tells ya.

# 8 Hmeyers said, on October 16th, 2009 at 5:58 am

Wretched Gnu would like to complain that you mentioned it was a baby therefore discriminating on the basis of age — making the poster of the article an “ageist”!

# 9 wapcaplets said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:05 am

I love how practically every comment thread on this blog descends into atheists getting pissed off when someone says “Thank God.”

# 10 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:09 am

#9–craplets==the descent was completed by the retards “thanking god.” By inference, you would hate it then if the blog did nothing but cheer in with additional Amens?

Sheep, complaining of non-sheep. BAAAAAAA!!!

# 11 waltersobchack said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:09 am

“The pram slips out of the mothers grasp, without her noticing…”

What a bunch of bullshit by the voice-over.

He should have said “The mother clearly lets go of the pram while reaching for her cell phone to check her voicemail…”

Ok so maybe she wasn’t checking her cell phone but it somewhat vaguely kind of looks like she is.

What’s obvious is that she clearly lets go of the stroller, it does not slip out of her hands- nice mother, she should be fired Donald Trump style.

On a side note wouldn’t the platform be better designed with a very slight slope away from the tracks instead of toward them?

I wonder why god designed the platform to slope toward the tracks.

# 12 wapcaplets said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:21 am

I don’t judge. If people want to thank God or not that’s fine. Anyone that’s threatened by and lashes out against someone else’s expression of “thanks” within the context of his/her world-view is an insecure prick. That goes for believers and non-believers alike.

# 13 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:24 am

#11–craplets==thanks for continuing to demonstrate the stupidity and hypocrisy of the religious crowd. You don’t think your comment at #9 was condescending sarcastic crap??? Hint–yes, it is.

Evidently, you are so biased you think YOUR shit is ice cream and we should all enjoy it. We don’t.

Evidently, your bias skips over ammarammadingdongs additional statements past “Thank God.” That alone would not have prompted my own response===but on invitation, it would be impolite not to oblige. Just as you have done.

Back on your knees dolt.

# 14 Dallas said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:25 am

Wow. That gave me goose bumps watching this terrible accident. What a stroke of luck this poor kid survived.

# 15 aRtFrEeK101 said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:26 am

#11 Agreed.

Well said.

# 16 Heinrich Moltke said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:27 am

That kid needed to be hit.

# 17 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:27 am

#13 Agreed.

Well said.

# 18 amodedoma said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:29 am

#7 Bobbo

If the child hadn’t fallen out of the carriage and if it hadn’t fallen in front of it some how. Use your head, that aluminum carriage must’ve rolled up like a ball of tinfoil. The number of things that could have killed that baby at the moment in question is quite impressive. But you go ahead and interpret it in the way which best suits your character. I should’ve known better than to use the ‘g’ word.

# 19 wapcaplets said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:35 am

I also love how bobbo assumes all kinds of things about my temperament even though I’ve disclosed nothing other than a distaste for others mocking people’s world-views. To quote him/her with one small edit: “You don’t think your comment at #7 was condescending sarcastic crap???” And before you respond, *yes* #2 was the same.

# 20 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:35 am

!7–amodedoma==as a bibble/testual scholar, I’m surprised you don’t read more accurately. It was not your use of the “g” word, but rather your continuation thereafter. “Thank God” for those who miss his thunderbolts is so meaningless as to be cultural and is not comment worth. An invitation to comment is impolite not to rsvp.

Why does god punish/kill/maim the innocent?

# 21 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:37 am

#18–craplet==exactly so. So why the comment addressing one, and not the other?

# 22 Jopie said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:46 am

holy moly (pun intendend)

This is one of the most horrifying things i’ve ever seen, i screamed when the pram started rolling. Why is this trainplatform inclined towards the tracks for gods sake? (another intended pun)

# 23 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:51 am

#21, there is no incline, the invisible hand of god pushed it toward the tracks.

Sometimes ya just get frickin lucky.

# 24 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:54 am

#21–Jopie==probably the building code in order to shed water away from the structure. Too bad it sheds baby carriages as well? I have to look more closely next time. I thought there was only inches of clearance under “the front” of the train. More room underneath but a bumper of sorts on the first car?

How much would a “caring society” alter the building code to prevent this type of occurrence==or should everything be kept as is with parents being cautioned not to let loose of their kiddies? I tend towards the “no changes” position==but perhaps a change for future projects==downward slope but a lip at the end with sculpers for the water to escape? ((Hmmm, evidently sculpers is not a word==what is that structure that lets water escape?))

# 25 wapcaplets said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:58 am

Re: #20

Because I have a working funny-bone. #2 was funny and so was #3. Both were clearly jokes (at least I thought so), condescending and sarcastic though they may have been. You’re attacking specific individuals’ deeply held beliefs behind a veil of online anonymity. That’s not cool.

# 26 qb said, on October 16th, 2009 at 7:05 am

I’ve shown that video to a few parents now. They all cringe like someone dropped a snake down their shirt.

# 27 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 7:06 am

#24–craplet==you are starting to babble. Its humor but deeply held belief? Which is it?

YES—–blogs serve the function of testing your deeply held beliefs. If you don’t like it, go to a church group instead.

F*cking Retard.

# 28 chuck said, on October 16th, 2009 at 7:07 am

Thank god there was a CCTV camera to prevent this from happening. Oh, wait…

The baby suffered only a mild bump to the head. And once they re-attach the head they hope it will make a full recovery.

# 29 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 7:07 am

Just came to me: scupper.

# 30 chuck said, on October 16th, 2009 at 7:09 am

Later, God released a statement saying “It was pure luck the kid wasn’t killed. I pushed the stroller. I sent the train. I’m gonna keep trying until I get the little bugger. It’s all part of my plan. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!”.

# 31 Dallas said, on October 16th, 2009 at 7:11 am

Folks, let’s come together on this.

It doesn’t matter if it was good luck or the work of a space god that saved this child.

Thank godness/goodness for the outcome.

# 32 wapcaplets said, on October 16th, 2009 at 7:12 am

#26 – There’s a difference between being intellectually challenged and childish, bigoted name calling which, based on this comment thread, seems to be what bobbo navigates towards.

# 33 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 7:13 am

#25–qb==I’ve been reading up on God=Yahweh. Yahweh battling other gods. Polytheis leading to monolatry (a new word/idea for me) leading to monotheism.

Is it your opinion that Yahweh in early jewish scripture did indeed defeat Baal or whoever to take control of the universe and does the old testament actively “change” these earlier accounts or does it more innocently pick and choose what accounts it uses, perhaps picking up the story at a later time.

Or am I missing something else?

# 34 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 7:13 am

#31–craplet==what do you have against name calling?

# 35 ECA said, on October 16th, 2009 at 7:43 am

theres a lip on most locations to let Water roll Off the walk way. Its not much.
You can FEEL it if you roll things over it.
Why did she release the buggy? DIDNT the buggy have a BREAK, to stop it from moving??
That thing really ran away.

# 36 chuck said, on October 16th, 2009 at 8:18 am

The mother should have tethered the stroller securely to a large balloon.

# 37 Andy said, on October 16th, 2009 at 8:23 am

It wasn’t god. It was the child’s imaginary friend.

# 38 amodedoma said, on October 16th, 2009 at 8:27 am

#19 Bobbo

Having read the bible doesn’t make one a scholar, however, if you’re interested in my opinion, God, if such a thing exsists is symbolic. I believe that the symbolic governs change everywhere in the universe, and that the physical is just the residue of the symbolic. If there is a God I doubt it exsists to protect us, more logically it would defend the universe. If a little girl dies it’s a tragedy for family and friends, because of their loss, but there are broader forces at work. Nobody here gets out alive, it can end at any moment for any or all. Near as I can tell we’re here to learn and grow from the experience. Certain lessons have to do with context, others are character, but those that don’t learn suffer because of it. Not because god wants that, it’s because of the structure in the symbolic itself. That’s why every decision you make conditions your self image and influences the way you perceive and interpret your experience. The physical universe is the place where all the potential of the symbolic must eventually come into expression.
Surviving the unexpected isn’t a matter of divine intervention, but it is the test and the filter of values that enables the expression of symbolic potential. It’s what we judge by and how we’ll be judged.
I’ve come to equate god with love because that’s what I want from life.

# 39 Hal said, on October 16th, 2009 at 8:29 am

This would not have happened if the mother had not let go of the stroller to talk on her cell phone! How stupid. And, this has nothing to do with god gods or chaos! Idiots.

# 40 The Monster's Lawyer said, on October 16th, 2009 at 8:34 am

#35 Chuckles – You win!

# 41 JimR said, on October 16th, 2009 at 8:35 am

Chuck, you have put a smile on an otherwise nasty day for me.

THANKS.

# 42 Hmeyers said, on October 16th, 2009 at 8:44 am

Thank God a good argument on religion is going on here!

Oh wait … that happens every day.

Why do people care about religion so much?

A universe with a God or no god or 15 gods, you still have to sleep, eat some tasty animals or dead plant matter, breathe air and use the restroom.

# 43 Hmeyers said, on October 16th, 2009 at 8:47 am

@ Bobbo

Civility is the true test of intellect.

The reason is that name calling generally doesn’t inspire someone to listen to your point of view.

(Name calling does have a use though. Like easily offended politically-correct dittohead robots with irrational points of view, those people you are supposed to offend them more to help desensitize them.)

# 44 bobbo, libertarianism fails when it becomes dogma said, on October 16th, 2009 at 8:55 am

#37–amodedoma==didn’t we already try at a serious conversation? I think we use/understand “words” so differently that an exchange of “ideas” becomes problematic if not impossible.

for instance==you use the word/concept of “symbolic” in ways that are complete nonsense to me. Maybe that is only fitting in a discussion about god.

But from a thread last week, I am still learning about the genesis of god, the single diety, worshipped by christians, jews, and muslims. Interesting that, the “same god” notion. How dissimilar can the religion/dogma be before it really isn’t the same god? Same god, but different bibbles. Same god but different basic concepts about what he is after “all powerful, all good, got hell waiting for disbelievers”

The thread last week was about “bara” and how god did not create the universe out of nothing, but rather separted the earth from the water. I’m not quite sure if that leaves who created the earth/water combo to begin with==Yahweh or some other god that got vanquished.

As I think about it more, I do wonder how interesting/relevant it really is. I did think the God of the Bible was a version of Zeus or Ra which is interesting ((ideas forming as I type))==so, monolatry really has been a large part of my unconscious god image.

I’m just curious in how “formal” the evolution of god is from actually being a member of a contesting group of gods.
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me” only indicates to me that the worship of false gods, ie==”they” don’t exist” is not approved. Course, that really is also consistent with don’t worship those other gods that do exist that I just beat in a contest.

This is all about a “factual” investigation, not a theological one.

Amodedoma==there are some subjects wherein maximum benefit is derived from maximum disagreement and resolution ((kinda like name calling)) and others where the maximum, if not only progress, can be made from minimal disagreement in shades only to bring one side along with the other.

For me, I can only learn on this subject from someone who agrees with me with slight differences, and those differences are interesting to explore. You and I are too far apart to learn from each other====I suspect. But in good faith, I’m always willing to be surprised.

# 45 bobbo, libertarianism fails when it becomes dogma said, on October 16th, 2009 at 8:58 am

#42–HMyers==you say: “@ Bobbo

Civility is the true test of intellect.” /// and I agree–except from the other direction as you hint at with your continuing post. I just take that idea a little farther. That and an inward directed issue==I think it is funny, it amuses me and since contesting issues of faith/ideology with bibble thumpers has little return outside what can be self derived, the temptation is too much.

Besides==I am just as insulted by statements demanding/assuming faith as the faithful are by my name calling. Civility becomes a false sense of legitimacy that I reject.

# 46 Phydeau said, on October 16th, 2009 at 9:26 am

Harold Kushner’s When Bad Things Happen To Good People is an interesting take on the problem of theodicy (which I didn’t even know was a term until I saw it in wikipedia). Basically you have three statements, of which only two can be true:

1. God is a loving God.
2. God is an all-powerful God.
3. Bad things happen to good people.

Spoiler alert: Kushner believes 1 and 3 are true. It’s an interesting problem for a theist. Some people’s prayers are “answered”, some people’s prayers aren’t. Why?

# 47 bobbo, libertarianism fails when it becomes dogma said, on October 16th, 2009 at 9:31 am

#45–Phydeau==when you start with a false premise, logic will take you to many strange places.

I like the thought experiment ((a hypothetical if you will===YIKES!!))

Imagine a universe with a god with whatever properties you imagine he has. What would that universe look like: ((fill this in yourself.))

Now–imagine a universe without any gods at all==completely materialistic. What would that universe look like: and the answer is===just like the one we are in.

Question: what kind of universe do you think we are in?

# 48 amodedoma said, on October 16th, 2009 at 9:37 am

#43 Bobbo

I must admit I enjoy contrasting my opinions with yours regardless of your difficulty to comprehend or your desire to learn from said experience. I derive no personal pleasure from your agreement or disagreement on the subject of any of my opinions. I’m not here to teach or to evangelize. For some reason I do not fully comprehend many of your opinions inspire a reaction in me. I just follow it to see where it takes me. Creative self expression is enjoyable and it gives one a chance to reflect and learn from oneself. I appreciate your patience, If you find it distasteful that I should ‘use’ you in this way, just say so and I shall refrain from directing my posts to you.

# 49 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 9:41 am

#47–amodedoma==I’m sure you are being consistent with what I posted, but somehow you have me wrong. Hah, hah. That word thingy again = OR = we are both so self involved we can brook no disagreement====except from those who basically agree with us with only slight ripples to be leveled out?

But–don’t you find “personality postings” to be quite tedious==or do you want to continue?

# 50 Phydeau said, on October 16th, 2009 at 9:52 am

#46 lol, well bobbo, I consider the existence of God as beyond the realm of science and logic. I don’t think you can prove or disprove it. So logic doesn’t really apply.

So that theodicy scenario obviously only applies to some who assumes as a given the existence of a God.

# 51 Phydeau said, on October 16th, 2009 at 9:54 am

Whoops, I meant logic doesn’t apply when you’re trying to figure out whether God exists. If you take the existence of God as a given, then logic applies to the theodicy problem, within that context.

# 52 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 9:58 am

#49–phydeau==well, thanks for levelling that little ripple==but its “deeper” than that isn’t it?

If your god is “beyond logic” then he could exist but formal rules of logic as used in theodicky would have no use.

Kinda like infinity. Who knows?

# 53 Phydeau said, on October 16th, 2009 at 10:02 am

#51 True, who says a God would have to follow our rules of logic?

# 54 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 10:06 am

Said the ant to Hal 6000.

# 55 amodedoma said, on October 16th, 2009 at 10:31 am

#48

This particular line of discussion would be impossible to continue on the base of insufficient commonality in terms. My use of the word symbolic to you is meaningless to you because symbolic to you is just a word. I see symbolic as the perfect potential in a perfect universe. It is the incipient cause and the universe is it’s effect. In your own DNA you carry a physical reperesentation of a symbolic entity powerful enough to have created the shell that contains you. None of this communication will make any sense to you unless you’re capable of interpreting it symbolically.

# 56 dcphill said, on October 16th, 2009 at 10:32 am

That might not have happened had the platform
not been sloaped towards the tracks.The pram
only rolled when it was directed toward the track but did not roll when parallel with the track. It is extremely stupid to have the platform sloaping toward the track.
She should sue the subway company.

# 57 Hal said, on October 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am

#55 “Sue the subway company?”

The mother is completely at fault for not watching the stroller while talking on the cell phone. God has nothing to do with this one way or another.

# 58 bobbo, the cunning linquist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 10:54 am

#54–amodedoma==your use of the word symbolic is meaningless to me because I don’t make up my own definitions to confound the sheep. I use the dictionary:

http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/symbol

sym·bol·ic
Pronunciation: \sim-ˈbä-lik\
Variant(s): also sym·bol·i·cal \-li-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1610

1 a : using, employing, or exhibiting a symbol b : consisting of or proceeding by means of symbols
2 : of, relating to, or constituting a symbol
3 : characterized by or terminating in symbols
4 : characterized by symbolism

Which isn’t very helpful unless one defines symbol:

http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/symbol

Main Entry: 1sym·bol
Pronunciation: \ˈsim-bəl\
Function: noun
Etymology: in sense 1, from Late Latin symbolum, from Late Greek symbolon, from Greek, token, sign; in other senses from Latin symbolum token, sign, symbol, from Greek symbolon, literally, token of identity verified by comparing its other half, from symballein to throw together, compare, from syn- + ballein to throw — more at devil
Date: 15th century

1 : an authoritative summary of faith or doctrine : creed
2 : something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible
3 : an arbitrary or conventional sign used in writing or printing relating to a particular field to represent operations, quantities, elements, relations, or qualities
4 : an object or act representing something in the unconscious mind that has been repressed
5 : an act, sound, or object having cultural significance and the capacity to excite or objectify a response

With the foregoing, my understanding of a god would be that he is not symbolic of anything else but rather is that thing. So, you don’t understand the nature of god, nor of symbols. How can we discuss either?

# 59 The Monster's Lawyer said, on October 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am

That white stripe is there so this sort of thing doesn’t happen. It looks like it malfunctioned somehow. They should look into this.

# 60 qb said, on October 16th, 2009 at 11:18 am

# 33 bobbo

I think there was a battle for the hearts and minds of the Jewish people between Yahweh and Ba’al (1 Kings for example). In other words, the fight between Yahweh and Ba’al was a fight for the control of the Jews. (e.g. left vs. right in US)

They didn’t move en masse to monotheism (like you’re finding out) but evolved as a people and nation. It was intertwined with their final settlement and was as much social and political as it was religious. In other words, it was an identity issue. The wording of the texts probably changed over time due to differences in language, errors, or points of view.

Later, as Greek philosophy (especially Socratic/Platonic school) permeated the Mediterranean there was a natural alignment between with the new monotheism which made it more credible. This is the reason why Christianity (which was just another Jewish sect at first) spread so easily among the Greeks and Hellenistic Jews.

BTW, before anyone jumps on me again for claiming that I’m bad mouthing the Bible – I don’t feel this diminishes your faith in any way.

# 61 deowll said, on October 16th, 2009 at 11:27 am

The mother was distraught? Yeah, I would think so and when the father sees that film he’s going to be distraught.

It doesn’t take long for the universe to go from all’s well to all’s #ell.

# 62 amodedoma said, on October 16th, 2009 at 11:44 am

#58
I’m done. Thanks for the websters quote, sorry if I overestimated your interpretive skills.

# 63 bobbo, the cunning linquist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 11:46 am

#60–qb==thanks but I think you are equivocating==obviously you are in fear of being stoned to death.

You say: “The wording of the texts probably changed over time due to differences in language, errors, or points of view.” /// I say to get from MANY GODS to one god would require INTENTION TO DO SO—not a lazy drift in translation skills.

Specifically on point: what do you think? Did the Jews that wrote the Old Testament FALSIFY the earlier record, or just begin a new one?

# 64 R.O.P. said, on October 16th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

The weirdest thing about this video, for me anyway, is the number of ads for baby strollers that appeared at the bottom of the screen.

# 65 Zybch said, on October 16th, 2009 at 1:35 pm

#56 I lived a short 2 minute walk from the train station in the story for a couple of years some time back.
The platform IS slightly ’tilted’ away from the edge, and the stripe is raised (for blind people) and would usually stop this from happening. You can even see where an additional layer of asphalt has been added to increase the tilt near the edge.

Also, on the day this event took place the whole state of Victoria was being buffeted quite strongly by winds that (coupled with the wind tunnel effect you quite often see at train stations) could quite easily have caused the stroller to shift.

# 66 Hugh Ripper said, on October 16th, 2009 at 3:04 pm

It amuses me greatly that this incident has turned into a debate about religion. Here in Oz, everyone just glad the baby wasn’t hurt badly. God is nowhere to be seen

I’m sure if this was Britain, the mother would probably have been arrested for negligence or baby hating or some such nonsense. Note the statement by the cop.

# 67 bobbo, the cunning linquist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 3:37 pm

#66–Hugh–yes, and the family won’t have to pay $5000 in emergency charges either. Happiness all around.

“There’s no suggesting the Mother did anything wrong?” Well thats wrong==she let go of her kiddie and ran the kid onto the tracks!!!!! I assume the cop meant the mother did nothing “criminally chargeable.” But that is very different.

In my own god like view, parents should have the right to kill their own kiddies at least until the kids can herd sheep on their own. That old testament position even fits with the Golden rule===not that everything is religious, you know. Just saying.

# 68 Hugh Ripper said, on October 16th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

#67 Bobbo

Actually I got the impression the cop was really just saying ‘its an accident – nothing to see here’. Of course is was an act of stupidity. If stupidity was illegal, parliament would be vacant.

I wonder what the response would have been if the baby had been killed. I’m pretty sure finger pointing would have ensued from all quarters.

# 69 bobbo, the cunning linquist said, on October 16th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

#68–Hugh==yes, unfairly as the Mother’s actions were the same, death and mangleation would likely have been treated differently.

I’d like to have heard her conversation with her husband===before the video clip made the local news. “The tram spilled over but the baby is ok.” Hah, haw.

I can see the lady having problems for years over that kind of thing. My mom took a lot of grief for putting us on dog leashes attached to vests. “Let them complain, I never lost one of you.” And she never did.

# 70 young jack said, on October 16th, 2009 at 5:57 pm

#64 Haha, yes I found that amusing myself.

# 71 SIDs said, on October 16th, 2009 at 8:30 pm

And another suicide attempt is foiled by underestimating the distance of trains from the tracks.

Baby suicide is a growing problem among six month olds.

# 72 brian t said, on October 17th, 2009 at 4:01 am

“DIDNT the buggy have a BREAK, to stop it from moving??”
How would a BREAK stop it from moving? Perhaps a BRAKE might be more useful ..?

No, I’m not being pedantic. The words may sound the same, but they are written differently because they have totally different meanings. If you don’t get that, stop writing and stick to talking. If you think English has a homophone problem, you should try Japanese, in which it’s possible to eat with a bridge (hashi) or write on a ghost (kami).

# 73 ECA said, on October 17th, 2009 at 2:10 pm

72,
My fingers dont interpret what I am saying, they only type what they hear.

and either way..would mean an ending..
1 is specifically for momentum, as the other is for Most anything else and is more abrupt.
Let me put it this way..
There should have been a DEAD MANS Switch on the stroller. AS soon as she released it, it would STOP. as any USA made lawn mower has.

# 74 Amusement said, on October 17th, 2009 at 4:36 pm

There’s nothing quite like seeing an idiot with no life pursue an ideology relentlessly – regardless of time, place or social courtesy.

Bobbo, you need to get laid. It’ll improve your outlook on life immensely.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!