It says nothing about people rushing to stoke the engine with more and more coal, or how much actual coal is added (thus the actual range of speeds to expect), or the possibility of a precipice with bridge out up ahead (runaway GW), how dangerous that might be at various speeds, entailing greater or less number of deaths, or how far or close that precipice is, which we don't know either (except we have some fossil
evidence of train wrecks in which 90 % of life died, so we know it could be bad).
Not exact matches
Second, «a group
of qualified and mature people» to review the
evidence — Brian is saying here that everyone participating in the conversation here are neither qualified (despite the many who say they are survivors
of experiences just like this one, not to mention Julie herself), nor mature (this follows the party line that people here are mere internet rubberneckers taking voyeuristic pleasure in watching the
train wreck of a marriage).
Yet what got obscured in all
of the titillating
evidence and testimony is whether this
train wreck could have been avoided if the Law Society
of Manitoba had opened a formal investigation into King back in 2004 when they first learned
of his actions — a year before Douglas was first appointed to the bench.