New Antioch bistro to feature French cuisine

[Mystery Man]

Pauly wrote:

Best food in town! So glad they are here.

try this place instead
http://eatatvegas.com/
owned by a really nice family that respect family values.
You won't find potty mouth people in here.

[Pauly]

Mystery Man wrote:

<quoted text>
try this place instead
http://eatatvegas.com/
owned by a really nice family that respect family values.
You won't find potty mouth people in here.

No thanks, dont like to do links, lots of spam. Besides Bistro is a great family place. My kids love it too. Lot closer for me.

[Antioch Voter]

Mystery Man wrote:

<quoted text>
I doubt my calculator can count up all your profanity.
I do go into insulting people.
You do a fine job of insulting yourself with your profanity.
If you're an example of the clientele at the Bistro then i'm not missing much.

Thats why he is doing a land office business , David will not allow ass's like you in there.

[Pauly]

They have a kids menu and i see his daughter there alot. Lot better family atmosphere than most of the restaurants in town. Doesnt get a rowdy crowd at all. Great food at reasonable prices for it. Not your typical antioch diner type food at all.

[Mystery Man]

Pauly wrote:

They have a kids menu and i see his daughter there alot. Lot better family atmosphere than most of the restaurants in town. Doesnt get a rowdy crowd at all. Great food at reasonable prices for it. Not your typical antioch diner type food at all.

Each to their own.
But i've found the patrons ( see posters above ) to be foul mouth around kids.
The link i had was to a local place walking distance AND it is very family friendly.
Without the foul mouths who swear in here and at David's place.
If that is what you like then good luck.

[Pauly]

Been to the Bistro a lot with my family. Never heard anyone swearing or rowdy once so I'm not sure who you saw or what but I go there all the time. The place and people are great.

[jailmaish]

Just noticed that he is doing "land office business". If that is true than how about starting college scholarships for Jimmy's kids since their dad isn't around to start one for them.

[Scu ssa me]

jailmaish wrote:

Just noticed that he is doing "land office business". If that is true than how about starting college scholarships for Jimmy's kids since their dad isn't around to start one for them.

You are one sorry malcontent. How about you attending a how to be a husband training? And as for Jimmy's kids, from what I have heard, Jimmy was not the one to create one for them in the first place. I'm sorry he is gone and I hope for the best for his kids, but your obsession with this situation is alarming. Have you no life?

How about you moving on? Or away? Or getting off Topix. And getting some mental health help?

[TokusNo]

Jimmy,
You are missed by so many.
We shall never forget this day for the rest of our lives.
Rest in Peace Santiago.

[Antioch Voter]

jailmaish wrote:

Just noticed that he is doing "land office business". If that is true than how about starting college scholarships for Jimmy's kids since their dad isn't around to start one for them.

How about Jimmy Taking care of his own kids instead of spending his money and time at Dockers all night.Than walking down the middle of Rt 59.

[Mystery Man]

You guys need to talk to an insurance agent.
The driver of a car is ALWAYS responsible for what happens.
Doesn't matter if the driver hits a light post or a person they are responsible.
Being drunk behind the wheel of the car only adds to his responsibility.

The kids are the true innocent victims in all of this.
It doesn't matter if their dad was an idiot or a great guy.
It doesn't matter why he was out walking down the road.
He died because an irresponsible drunk driver hit him.
the kids didn't deserve to lose a dad like that.
Now go and enjoy your food at the drunks bistro.
Just make sure he's not out driving when you leave there.

[Not True]

Mystery Man wrote:

You guys need to talk to an insurance agent.
The driver of a car is ALWAYS responsible for what happens.
Doesn't matter if the driver hits a light post or a person they are responsible.
Being drunk behind the wheel of the car only adds to his responsibility.

The kids are the true innocent victims in all of this.
It doesn't matter if their dad was an idiot or a great guy.
It doesn't matter why he was out walking down the road.
He died because an irresponsible drunk driver hit him.
the kids didn't deserve to lose a dad like that.
Now go and enjoy your food at the drunks bistro.
Just make sure he's not out driving when you leave there.

Your blanket statement is simply not correct. While drivers have responsibility for obeying traffic laws and avoiding other vehicles and pedestrians, there are many circumstances in which a driver is not responsible for another persons injury or death.

Don't bother talking to your insurance agent. That's a stupid waste of time. Talk to your local police or an attorney who can explain case law.

[Mystery Man]

Not True wrote:

<quoted text>
Your blanket statement is simply not correct. While drivers have responsibility for obeying traffic laws and avoiding other vehicles and pedestrians, there are many circumstances in which a driver is not responsible for another persons injury or death.
Don't bother talking to your insurance agent. That's a stupid waste of time. Talk to your local police or an attorney who can explain case law.

Sorry but you're just out and out wrong.
You are always responsible when driving.
There is NO circumstance where a driver is not responsible.
Even if someone fell out of the sky and landed right in front of you and you hit him you still would be held accountable.
I've seen plenty of near misses by idiots walking and running out into traffic.
I've seen cars backing up out of a parking spot without checking behind them.
You are always 100% responsible.
And David was 100% responsible.

[Mystery Man]

Mystery Man wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry but you're just out and out wrong.
You are always responsible when driving.
There is NO circumstance where a driver is not responsible.
Even if someone fell out of the sky and landed right in front of you and you hit him you still would be held accountable.
I've seen plenty of near misses by idiots walking and running out into traffic.
I've seen cars backing up out of a parking spot without checking behind them.
You are always 100% responsible.
And David was 100% responsible.

BLA BLA BLA BLA!I know everything , how dare you.

[Not True]

Mystery Man wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry but you're just out and out wrong.
You are always responsible when driving.
There is NO circumstance where a driver is not responsible.
Even if someone fell out of the sky and landed right in front of you and you hit him you still would be held accountable.
I've seen plenty of near misses by idiots walking and running out into traffic.
I've seen cars backing up out of a parking spot without checking behind them.
You are always 100% responsible.
And David was 100% responsible.

Wrong. But then so are you on your comments about much. I notice a significant presence by you all over Topix. Most of your comments are balanced and I assume you are either a shut in, unemployed person, retiree, or a person with an obsessive hobby. Any way you cut it, there's no lack of your pressing your viewpoint in many subjects. I am not saying that is bad, but man, you come across as someone who needs to be heard all the time, everywhere.

Please check with your lawyer on circumstances in which a driver is not liable. Or start with the link below and research on the Internet. You should really get your facts straight on this serious issue - especially since the deceased was walking down the middle of the road in black at night while drunk.

http://www.accidentinfo.com/blog/pedestrian-a...

[Mystery Man]

Not True wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. But then so are you on your comments about much. I notice a significant presence by you all over Topix. Most of your comments are balanced and I assume you are either a shut in, unemployed person, retiree, or a person with an obsessive hobby. Any way you cut it, there's no lack of your pressing your viewpoint in many subjects. I am not saying that is bad, but man, you come across as someone who needs to be heard all the time, everywhere.
Please check with your lawyer on circumstances in which a driver is not liable. Or start with the link below and research on the Internet. You should really get your facts straight on this serious issue - especially since the deceased was walking down the middle of the road in black at night while drunk.
http://www.accidentinfo.com/blog/pedestrian-a...

In the interest of the debate i've looked at your link.
No where does it say the driver is never held responsible.
It talks mostly about the rights of the victim to sue.
But even if the victim doesn't sue the police can and do hold every driver responsible.
If you hit someone you will get a ticket.
You will go to court.
You might get off light ( see David ) but you will be held responsible for the accident.

It was unnecessary of you to bring up what you believe my life to be to try and make your point.
I don't really care about your life why should you care about mine.
As a matter of record i DON'T post in every thread.
A lot of topics ( including most of the top 5 ) hold no interest to me and i've never posted in them.
I know how to manage my time better then most. Why is that a problem for those who can't.

Please stick to the issues you guys are always way off base on my life when you try and guess it.

[Resident]

Best place in town to eat! A little pricey but worth every dime.

[Not True]

Mystery Man wrote:

<quoted text>In the interest of the debate i've looked at your link.
No where does it say the driver is never held responsible.
It talks mostly about the rights of the victim to sue.
But even if the victim doesn't sue the police can and do hold every driver responsible.
If you hit someone you will get a ticket.
You will go to court.
You might get off light ( see David ) but you will be held responsible for the accident.

It was unnecessary of you to bring up what you believe my life to be to try and make your point.
I don't really care about your life why should you care about mine.
As a matter of record i DON'T post in every thread.
A lot of topics ( including most of the top 5 ) hold no interest to me and i've never posted in them.
I know how to manage my time better then most. Why is that a problem for those who can't.

Please stick to the issues you guys are always way off base on my life when you try and guess it.

OK. Lets "stick with the issues":

Nowhere did I say "the driver is never held responsible". Where did you come up with THAT? What YOU said was that "the driver is ALWAYS responsible". In fact, you said it more than once. I said not true, and I am right A quick search of Google will bring you dozens of links on the issue. Of course, to make that effort requires an open mind, and I get the fact that that does not represent what you have.

What is also interesting about your response is your ignoring the information about the condition and location of the pedestrian. Again, I am not surprised. Were you also aware of allegations that the deceased had issues with suicide?

Here is the point to you and everyone else who refuses to see the full picture: The judge and the decedents family did. You cannot because of lack of information and personal bias'. That's a sad state of affairs for you.

I personally am sick of reading all the self righteous blather about this issue. Some would say you are beating a dead horse. Others would say you are an egotist, while yet others would say you are the worlds foremost authority and the conscious of mankind. I would say you are a person with narrow vision and crippled compassion.

[News Reader 2011]

Mystery Man wrote:

You guys need to talk to an insurance agent.
The driver of a car is ALWAYS responsible for what happens.
Doesn't matter if the driver hits a light post or a person they are responsible.
Being drunk behind the wheel of the car only adds to his responsibility.
The kids are the true innocent victims in all of this.
It doesn't matter if their dad was an idiot or a great guy.
It doesn't matter why he was out walking down the road.
He died because an irresponsible drunk driver hit him.
the kids didn't deserve to lose a dad like that.
Now go and enjoy your food at the drunks bistro.
Just make sure he's not out driving when you leave there.

Sorry to continue this debate, but you are incorrect on this issue. The driver is NOT always at fault. And in reality - I am an insurance agent.

[Mystery Man]

News Reader 2011 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry to continue this debate, but you are incorrect on this issue. The driver is NOT always at fault. And in reality - I am an insurance agent.

Now i know why my rates are so high.
Just Kidding You.:)

Maybe i should clarify fault.
In any given accident there's plenty to go around.
So much at times that we now have no fault insurance.
Which is a great way for some to claim there were never at fault.
But the truth of the matter is the driver always is RESPONSIBLE.
The driver accepts ( at least in my family ) that fact every time we get behind the wheel of a car. That is why cars must be proper maintained. Saying you brakes just gave out won't get you a win in court.

Lets get back to David it is his thread.
David was drunk.
No matter what else driving drunk is irresponsible.
And that fact alone makes it David's fault.
You can throw out all the links you guys want to but it won't change the fact David drove drunk and killed a person.
He is at fault.