A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1141  
Old August 25th 05, 07:15 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , toto wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:03:12 GMT, (Brent P) wrote:


A teacher has to teach three years and be rehired for a fourth
year before receiving tenure, which guarantees a teacher
cannot be fired without due process.


Wonderful. I could have used protection like that when my previous
job was moved to somewhere in asia.


If the number of students is less, teachers are *not* protected from
being laid off by tenure.


That's nice. But it's protected from hiring a new teacher fresh out
of school for less money.




Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Ford commercial on Super Bowl
References: 7TjUb.225106$xy6.1155270@attbi_s02 SokUb.182162$nt4.781908@attbi_s51 fykUb.150$t16.227215

@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , 223rem wrote:
Brent P wrote:


I drove my mustang every winter in chicago until I got the TW. And
the reason I drive the TW is because of the road salt and grime. I
actually prefer the mustang in the snow. (with the right tires, which
it isn't wearing atm because I have no intention of driving it in the
snow)


OK. So you need to be


1) an expert Mustang driver and


No, someone who knows how to handle a RWD car.

2) have expensive winter tires
to drive your Mustang in winter. No thanks.


I the last set of all seasons I had on the car were $130 something
a tire. That's peanuts for a 17 inch tire.

Its not a matter of RWD vs FWD drive. There are other RWD, powerful
cars--BMW for example. I suspect that a BMW handles much better in the
snow than a GT.


And probably in the dry. But so does an expensive FWD compared to
a less expensive FWD.

The Detroit recipe for the 'performance' car seems to be: powerful
engine on a cheap platform. Get lots of HP & torque (that's what sells),
and not worry about things like independent suspension, good handling,
proper F/R weight distribution, good brakes, latest engine technology, etc.


The SN95 mustang has a weight distribution as close to 50/50 as any
other front engined, RWD car. Check for yourself. I posted it the last
time some one brought up the nose-heavy myth. Latest engine technology?
What exactly are you claiming the mustang is lacking here? Sure it
isn't lean-burn or some other less used cutting edge technology, but
neither are the bulk of BMWs out there. Cheap platform? Well yeah, that's
what happens when the car lists for HALF as much, but even that's going
away for '05. And the rest, sure it's not as good as cars that cost
TWICE as much.

But to me, it sounds like you just want to hang on to myths or blame
your inability to handle a car in the snow on the car. After the first
few snow falls with the mustang I got pretty good with it. When I got
tires that actually had a snow rating I didn't have any problem that
wouldn't happen this side of an audi quattro. Frick, the TW spins
it's front wheels trying to get going in the snow....




Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Bicyclist shoots motorist
References: k.net %j8Yb.335032$na.493890@attbi_s04 3cgYb.201956$U%5.1107782@attbi_s03
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , John F. Carr wrote:

But it does say there is no obligation to allow for unsafe passing.


Where does it say this?


See IL vehicle, code as posted for matt.

UVC 11-303(b) obligates the overtaken vehicle to move right.
It does not make this duty conditional on whether the pass
is safe or not. In clear contrast to 11-1205(a), 11-303(b)
does not make exceptions for narrow lanes.


I could care less right now what the UVC says as I don't have
to live with the UVC. IL, not unlike many other states does not
obligate the bicyclist to allow for unsafe passing.

"Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted,
the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right
in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall
not increase the speed of the vehicle until completely passed
by the overtaking vehicle."


This implies there is enough space to begin with, ie multiple
lanens.

When 11-303(b) and 11-1205(a) are read together, they say a
bicycle may ordinarily use the middle of the lane on a narrow
road but must move to the right edge of the lane when signaled
by traffic intended to pass.


They can wait until it's safe. As per state law. If it's safe
I wouldn't be out towards the middle of the lane to begin with.

And since when to motorists pull over to the edge when signaled
with an intent to pass? Even on the interstate they often throw
a fit when so signaled.


In fact, the usual response is to move all the way left and accelerate.


I saw a report on TV about a guy who went to jail for doing that,
because the car he wouldn't let back into the right lane crashed
head-on into oncoming traffic.


1 out of a billion....



Newsgroups: us.talk.headline-news,alt.law-enforcement.traffic,rec.autos.driving,talk.politic s.misc,alt.law-enforcement
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: ILL POLICE CRACK DOWN ON KID SEAT SCOFFLAWS
References: Lpl4c.17248$C51.72770@attbi_s52 sio4c.18053$YG.190774@attbi_s01 dvq4c.18109$ft4.185806@attbi_s54 j5e450104qljbtlev57t6


Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Diogenes wrote:

People crash cars. It happens. 5mph or 50mph or 150 mph. Subjecting a
child to something potentially unsafe (in terms of their life) is
criminal, is it not? Punishable by law, no?


Then ban all transport of children in motor vehicles if you are so
concerned about the risk.

I personally don't care if
you don't want to wear a seatbelt, that's your prerogative.


We are not discussing adult use of seatbelts. But of course you
use this in an effort to frame me as something that I am not.

Children are another thing entirely.


They are an excuse for people to justify whatever they wish.

Fear is not being used here, tickets are being given to people
who fail to comply with child-seat laws. Noone's intruding, and
nothing's eroding save the fatal injury accident rate. Don't you think
you're being a little alarmist?


It's more nanny state nonsense to sell products and tell us how to
live our lives. Maybe you want a parent to tell you what to do. I DON'T.
What's next? That's my question. Each one of these things leads to
something more.


Unless you're living some other "when" or are entirely funded by
welfare, having children is expensive. You already accept the fact
that you must...gasp..."buy products".


So what next? Gonna mandate everyone buy an armored SUV to protect their
children? Where does it end? WHERE?

Carseats are one of those
thousand things that you will probably need when your children are
small, to protect them from the FACT that accidents happen.


Most collisions are collisions. Someone is at fault. It's not an
act of god, someone screweed up.

So many
people, unfortunately, have children with no understanding of this
FACT.


Let me guess, you believe in styrofoam hats too.

They thumb their noses at anti-seatbelt legislation and zoom
around until they slam into a car or a car slams into them and they
are injured, if not killed, for lack of proper driving knowledge, i.e.
put your seltbelt on.


This isn't a seat belt law type issue. For seatbelts there are other
people involved because the driver needs to remain in his seat to remain
in control of the vehicle. Passengers also need to be secured as not to
fly into the driver. This law is about the method people must use to
secure a child capable of utilizing the restraint system the automobile
comes with. It mandates the use of a product. It has no effect on anyone
else how passengers are secured in their vehicles to people in other
vehicles so long as they are secured and remain so. Thusly this law
is yet another intrusion of the state upon people.

If people always took the proper precautions and
acted with the proper mindset toward something as simple as driving
(much less raising children), these horrible tickets would never need
be given out. We are still talking about child carseats, aren't we?


This law is for BOOSTER SEATS. A second generation product conceived of
and designed for making a profit. The need manufactured one. Are you
going to also force midgets and dwarves to use booster seats too? If
the 3 point seat belt system as mandated is defective, then address that
point.


It's another law that will be used as a tool. It's another law to force
people to buy products. And let me guess the damn things have to replaced
3 times before the kid can legally not use them...


Most of them are adjustable as your child grows, and they're really
not terribly expensive, either. Especially if you already thought
about having children.


Another person who doesn't understand concepts. It doesn't matter if they
are $5 or $500,000.

If you care about your child, you're going to want a carseat
for them.


I don't have a child, but I am still offended at that comment. It implies
that anyone who doesn't think like you doesn't care for children. It's
how this crap is constantly sold. By making it appear that anyone who
objects hates children or something. Nothing of the kind.


It's fairly obvious you don't have children. That's why you think of a
child's carseat as "crap".


Again this law IS NOT ABOUT CARSEATS! why don't you pay attention? It's
about booster seats.

It's a protective device. If you had to
throw your child in the swimming pool, wouldn't you put a lifevest on
them first? The seatbelts in a car are designed for adults, not
children who, if you haven't noticed, are a bit smaller.


Do you wear a helmet when you drive? Have you modified your auto with a
roll cage and 5 point racing harnesses? Why not? They are all protective
devices far superior than what comes in a car stock. They really don't
cost all that much either. So why don't you use them? Why aren't your
children wearing helmets in the car? Why aren't they wearing them on
the school buses? Obviously you are about maximizing their safety. Have
you dressed them up in racing suits to protect them from vehicle fires?

Did you know that school buses and church vans and other such vehicles
that transport *CHILDREN* are exempt from the *BOOSTER*
seat law? If it's such a nesscary thing that they cannot use the normal
seatbelts as they have been for years, then why the exemptions?

See, there is something called a risk benefit analysis, and in a free
country we get to make those decisions for ourselves and our families
when they have no effect on anyone else. The method of securing a child
in passenger vehicle has no bearing on anyone else. Only that the child
*IS* secured. If I have a child, and dress him up in nomex, put in a roll
cage, get him a kidding helmet and install 5 point harness sized to him,
that's up to *ME*. Not you and your busybody allies. But, because of
mandates like booster seats, my idea of protecting children with much
superior racing quality protection is illegal.

It is
BECAUSE you don't have children that you are offended.


You want to play like this? Fine. It's gonna be rough ride from hear on out
so strap yourself in.

But people still don't do it. So do we have classes for
people with children at the DMV? Start telling people how to raise
their children?


That's exactly what the nanny state loving busybodies want, telling
people how to raise their children and how to live.


So why are they ticketing instead? You're sort of thrashing around
here.


What do you think fines are for? They are to force people to obey the
will of people who pass these laws.

Again, the premise that anyone who isn't for it is against children.
Not the case. I am against the state and the busy bodies forcing the
sale of products and telling people what they have to do.


Anyone against it seriously underestimates the importance of safety on
the road. Again, if everyone was driving like angels already, no law
or nasty old ticket would come into effect.


Is this your idea of debate? These thinly vailed insults and the like?
I am all for road safety. I've got a few thousand posts on the topic.
I just don't approach it the same noneffective nannystate, local busybody,
controlling, parental methods that you and people like you blindly
support because you don't understand a damn thing about road safety and
nothing about trying to pass laws compatible with individual liberty
instead of taking it away so that your ideas are forced upon everyone.


Noone's liberty is taken away, it's just a ticket, man. relax.

It's just a ticket. So is a speeding ticket. So the speed limits get
set too low. The point is that you are giving police more power to stop
and check people out by defining more and more people as violators of
the law. Do you understand the consquences of this?


Safer Freeways? They don't pull people over at random, you know...


They certainly pull over anyone they feel like.

How fast do you think we should go, by the way? 75? 100? whatever?


Another person fixated on numerical speed. 100mph is just fine on some
roads in some conditions, dangerous on some others in some other
conditions. Some of the safest driving I've done in my life was done
on the high side of a 100mph. Some of the most dangerous done on the low
side of 55mph. That's why we have engineering methods to determine speed
limits. The 85th percentile *METHOD* is the best to date.

With babies strapped to the hood and kids playing grabass in the back
of the SUV?
I'll say it again: live your life in a decent, humble, intelligent,
law-abiding way and you need never fear intrusion of the state.


Have you read patriot acts one and two. I suggest you do.

If your worry about the State is that it's taking away all the things
you like to do, you should look at yourself and your habits; or
perhaps ask someone who knows you to be honest with you.


I see your primary debate tatic is insult.

We are still talking about child carseats, yes?


The law is about *BOOSTER SEATS* learn how to read.

OBEY YOUR PARENTAL MASTERS OR ELSE.


Seriously, take it easy.


You are the one with the law-is-the-law attitude.

Well, I don't want a parental government. This used to be the land of
the free. The existing laws requiring kids to be strapped in do all that
is needed. It keeps the kid from being a projectile in the vehicle
leading to a (further) loss of control by the driver. Does it matter
to anyone in any other vehicle if a child is in a booster seat or using
the factory seat belts? No. Therefore the law is needlessly intrusive.


It's only a "parental" government if you live and think like a
"child".


You want the local busy bodies to tell us what to do. They love booster
seats, so now everyone has to use em.

We're still free,


You haven't read the patriot acts.

you're free to ride around with no carseat and free to get a ticket.


You're free too kill your neighbor and go to prison.


If your worry about the child in the
accident is to stop them from "being a projectile", that goes a long
way towards telling me you're too far removed from the reality of this
topic to speak in any lucid fashion.


Primary debate tatic is insult. The law should only step in where one
persons actions go against anothers. Maintaining control of a vehicle is
one of those. A booster seat or stock seat belt makes no significant
difference in this regard.

And YES, if I happened to
accidentally hit a car with kids in it, I would pray that they in
protective seating. How could you live with it otherwise? The law is
unfortunately NEEDED.


Ahh yes, the I'll feel better arguement. See this in the foam hat wars.
A bicyclist has to wear a foam hat so when a driver hits him with her
canyonero, rolls over his chest and parks on him. She can feel better
knowing he had a foam hat on to protect himself from her ignorance.

Here's a hint for you, learn how to drive. Really drive. Sign up
for course. A real one, like an autocross school or bob bondurant type
thing. It's alot more effective in saving lives than making sure everyone
is padded up to share the roadways with you.

The booster seat is about marketing and selling product. Just like the
you-can't-reuse-that-baby-carseat. It's about selling more product.
Forcing people to buy and consume more. And the busy body do gooders
lap it up.


WRONG. A booster seat is about child safety. Having a child means
planning (in a rational universe) and consuming....


No ****. But you don't get to tell other people how to do it.

And I'm not sure what's wrong with doing good.
BTW, who are the "busy body do gooders" and what are they "lapping
up"?


Busy body do-gooders, people like you that want to force everyone into
their idea of safety.

I should stop, but I can't help myself. He's getting more paranoid by
the post. It's almost funny.


And your insults are coming ever more frequently because you don't have
a rational basis for this mandate. It just makes you feel good.



Newsgroups: us.talk.headline-news,alt.law-enforcement.traffic,rec.autos.driving,talk.politic s.misc,alt.law-enforcement
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: ILL POLICE CRACK DOWN ON KID SEAT SCOFFLAWS
References: Lpl4c.17248$C51.72770@attbi_s52
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Jonesy wrote:

It's their job to force people to buy the products legislated
to be manditory by the representives that probably got money
from the companies that made the product or were motivated to
be everyone's parent.


A charge for which you have no evidence. A lie at best.


What do you think is behind legislation these days? MONEY.
The cops carry out the enforcement.

Children cannot make informed choices about automotive safety devices.
And automotive saftey devices made for adults can injure or kill
children. (Airbags, poorly-fitted shoulder harnesses.)


But magically, seatbelts didn't start killing children until the
booster seat appeared on store shelves.

when the child weighs more than 40 pounds and the car's
back seat is not equipped with a combination lap and
shoulder belt.


Keep your old cars folks. It's going to be the only way for us
to escape more intrusion by the state. (then they will outlaw old
cars)


The black helicopters are coming for you...


Ahh yes. the insults an the parnoid label. That's all you got because
there is no rational reason why your idea of a proper child restraint
has to be imposed upon everyone.

Oh, and BTW, read hemmings motor news. I haven't in a number of years
but when I was they were constantly fighting against legislation to
outlaw older cars.

And before anyone goes off on how we 'have to protect the children'
or any of the other excuse that's typically used to justify things
that take choice away from people needlessly.


What automotive safety device choices can be left to children?
CHildren are not allowed to make adult decisions in this society.


THEIR PARENTS MAKE THE DECISION. NOT THE STATE.

A child can use a regular
seatbelt to prevent him from becoming a missile in the car.


An infant? Sure....


This is about the *BOOSTER SEATS*. You people must be morons, afterall,
you want to use descriptive insults like paranoid, you're gonna get them
flung back at you.

This right
there ends any reason for a law requiring a booster seat. And on top
of that, the kid can put the seatbelt on himself.


An infant? A two-year-old?
Logic is your friend. Try it sometime.


I was putting on my own seatbelt in the backseat of a '69 mach 1 mustang.
One of my earliest memories. Couldn't have been more than 3 at the time.
And those old seat belts weren't as easy to use as todays.





Newsgroups: us.talk.headline-news,alt.law-enforcement.traffic,rec.autos.driving,talk.politic s.misc,alt.law-enforcement
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: ILL POLICE CRACK DOWN ON KID SEAT SCOFFLAWS
References: Lpl4c.17248$C51.72770@attbi_s52 sio4c.18053$YG.190774@attbi_s01 dvq4c.18109$ft4.185806@attbi_s54 j5e450104qljbtlev57t6

Ttt4c.18511$zS4.183207@attbi_s51
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Diogenes wrote:

Then ban all transport of children in motor vehicles if you are so
concerned about the risk.


I think a reasonable amount of safety is not too much too ask for.


Why do you get to choose for everyone what "reasonable" is?

I
don't need to take it to the far extreme of five point whatevers and
roll cage super cars, but I realize the need to adjust seatbelts to
fit and protect small children. You mock my concern.


If it only saves one life it will be worth it. That's the mantra
behind laws of this nature.

Children are another thing entirely.


They are an excuse for people to justify whatever they wish.


Children are not an "excuse". They are a responsibilty. I said this to
point out that children do not make safety decisions for themselves.


Children are constantly used an excuse to pass more laws.

Unless you're living some other "when" or are entirely funded by
welfare, having children is expensive. You already accept the fact
that you must...gasp..."buy products".


So what next? Gonna mandate everyone buy an armored SUV to protect their
children? Where does it end? WHERE?


Oh, I don't know, probably somewhere after bottles, baby food,
clothes, toys, wipes, strollers, cribs, carseats or BOOSTER seats,
etc. ad infinitum. I was speaking of all the things that need to be
bought when you have children. I never said anything about armored
SUVs. So that is where it ends. THERE...


You are talking about mandating things to make children safe. But now
there's a line? It's supposed to be about safety, right? What did
you write before? "anything" was the term you used. There are all
sorts of safety things we can mandate that would make children safer
in crash. I've mentioned but a few, but you don't seem to want to
go that far. Why do you want to let children die on the highway
needlessly?

Regardless of the cause, accidents still do happen on a daily basis.


No excuse to impose your will on to others.

Let me guess, you believe in styrofoam hats too.


I believe that this issue is less about Big Brother government
intrusion, and more about simple safety issues.


Like the war on terror. Keep us safe oh father government. Even if
it's from ourselves, eh?

Not MASSIVE safety
issues, but simple ones. Like asking that children have safety rated
seat when they ride in cars.


Why stop there? Why let so many kids die needlessly who could have been
saved from a fire by a racing suit? Or saved from head injury by a helmet
in the car? Why stop short?


They thumb their noses at anti-seatbelt legislation and zoom
around until they slam into a car or a car slams into them and they
are injured, if not killed, for lack of proper driving knowledge, i.e.
put your seltbelt on.


This isn't a seat belt law type issue. For seatbelts there are other
people involved because the driver needs to remain in his seat to remain
in control of the vehicle. Passengers also need to be secured as not to
fly into the driver.


Passengers need to be secured so as to LESSEN INJURY. Flying into the
driver is of secondary importance. Can you really think that the worst
thing in an accident is that you could be struck by a flying child?
WHAT ABOUT THE KID, MAN.....?


The law doesn't get to decide. It makes no difference to *OTHER* people
how the kid is secured. Therefore there is no basis for the law. The
law is mandating that people protect their children in a given method.
If someone wants to do something better it's illegal. Right there this
tells us it's a bad law. It's deciding for everyone what the
risk/benefit/cost point is. That's all this law does and that's not
the government's business in a free society.

What's to stop the state from telling you what to feed your children?
What time they have to be in bed? What you have to teach them? What
you cannot teach them? The list of things the government can mandate
for the good and safety of the children is endless. That's why laws
cannot intrude into the area of simple personal choices.

A free society has RESPONSIBILITIES. We don't pass those off to the
government, because in doing so, we lose freedom. Freedom and
responsibility are tied together. If you have a problem with
irresponsible parents not doing what you think is best it's your
job to persaude them, not to get the government to force them.

There is and has been far too much of busy-body-do-gooders trying
to enforce their will on to everyone else. Another good for instance
is prohibition. Where the womens christian temperance union decided
that because they didn't like alcoholic beverages, nobody could have
them. Look what that did.

This law is about the method people must use to
secure a child capable of utilizing the restraint system the automobile
comes with. It mandates the use of a product. It has no effect on anyone
else how passengers are secured in their vehicles to people in other
vehicles so long as they are secured and remain so. Thusly this law
is yet another intrusion of the state upon people.


I want you to reread what you wrote and explain to me:
a) how child restraint is NOT a seatbelt law type issue


I've already explained it to you. Seatbelt laws can be justified by
the fact that sliding around in the interior can lead to harm to *OTHER*
road users. This law is mandating a SPECIFIC METHOD of securing a
passenger.

b) how, "thusly this law is an intrusion...etc."


You don't get to choose how others secure their children in the car.

Having children mandates the use of a great many products, like it or
not.


The government pick out what kinds of babyfood you can feed your
child? What clothes he wears? What toys he can play with? What TV
he can watch? What radio he can listen to? Right now we've got the
FCC et al trying to make sure there's no tv or radio beyond a 7 year
old's level to make it safe for children. Where does it all end?
So much can be excused by it being 'for the children'. People need
to be responsible parents and stop shoving the responsibility on
to government. And just because some parent makes a choice you don't
like doesn't give the government an excuse to step in either.

A second generation product conceived of and designed for making a
profit.


Not for protecting children? Are you sure?


They aren't selling them at cost.

The need manufactured one.


huh?


The need a manufactured one.

Are you
going to also force midgets and dwarves to use booster seats too? If
the 3 point seat belt system as mandated is defective, then address that
point.


Some of them do use carseats or BOOSTER seats, because they recognize
the difference in size between themselves and the people the car was
designed for. Children are not able to make this decision for
themselves, tho.


Their parents get to. Not the government.

Another person who doesn't understand concepts. It doesn't matter if they
are $5 or $500,000.


It does if you have children. I understand your "concept" about how
the BOOSTER seat laws are going to undermine your freedom and liberty,
I just don't feel the same way.


Just because you agree with where this line was placed. What happens
when the government crosses the line that you set? What's to stop them?
You've already decided to pass this responsibility on to them. Your freedom
to set that line for yourself and your family is gone. They pick it now,
and like it or not you'll have to obey it. I don't like these sorts of
things on that conceptual basis. Wether I agree with what the government
decided for everyone is neither here nor there. What I personally find
reasonable isn't better than anyone else's. The government has no
business deciding this for people. It's business ends at the interaction
between people here.

Another for instance, drug laws. I wouldn't touch the poison. But
it's none of my business if someone wants to smoke a joint in his
bedroom. But some people can't let that happen, so they made the
stuff illegal. Now the government has far reaching powers to stop
people from smoking a joint in their bedroom.

It's a protective device. If you had to
throw your child in the swimming pool, wouldn't you put a lifevest on
them first? The seatbelts in a car are designed for adults, not
children who, if you haven't noticed, are a bit smaller.


Do you wear a helmet when you drive? Have you modified your auto with a
roll cage and 5 point racing harnesses? Why not? They are all protective
devices far superior than what comes in a car stock. They really don't
cost all that much either. So why don't you use them? Why aren't your
children wearing helmets in the car? Why aren't they wearing them on
the school buses? Obviously you are about maximizing their safety. Have
you dressed them up in racing suits to protect them from vehicle fires?


I am an adult, and as such am just the right size for the seatbelts in
my car. I don't race cars, so no I don't need all the extra crap.


It would make you far safer on the street. Prevent head injuries, burns
from fire, make the passenger compartment stronger. These are the things
that let occupants survive crashes at 150mph. Think how much good they'll
do you at 55mph. But see look at your reaction. They are beyond your
line. You don't want to pay for them. You don't want them mandated.
Maybe I do. Maybe I really want to protect children and the irresponsible
adults who can't drive worth a damn. So I call up representives and find
one that agrees the law gets to the floor, and it's for the children
and anyone who's against it gets treated like you treated me, as someone
who doesn't care about the children, so it ends up passing. Just like
many of these laws do. But now you find it unreasonable, because the
government is no longer in agreement with you. This is why we don't
let the government do these things. EVER.


Did you know that school buses and church vans and other such vehicles
that transport *CHILDREN* are exempt from the *BOOSTER*
seat law? If it's such a nesscary thing that they cannot use the normal
seatbelts as they have been for years, then why the exemptions?


The cutoff for a child seat is 8 years old or 80 lbs., or
approximately the size of a small adult.
I dont know about the buses, man, (yawn) maybe it's a conspiracy.


They are exempt. Don't have em. Frick don't even have to have seatbelts
still as far as I know.

See, there is something called a risk benefit analysis, and in a free
country we get to make those decisions for ourselves and our families
when they have no effect on anyone else. The method of securing a child
in passenger vehicle has no bearing on anyone else. Only that the child
*IS* secured. If I have a child, and dress him up in nomex, put in a roll
cage, get him a kidding helmet and install 5 point harness sized to him,
that's up to *ME*. Not you and your busybody allies. But, because of
mandates like booster seats, my idea of protecting children with much
superior racing quality protection is illegal.


Of course the method has bearing. You're going to the extreme in
desperation but I'm not impressed.


You just aren't grasping the concept then. You like this law because
it fits the line you chose. But you don't want it to be any other line.

I don't have any allies that I know
of, I just expressing my views on the internet. None of which are
extreme like say, wrapping up a child like a Formula 1 driver. I'm
just thinking something like a BOOSTER seat would be just the trick
for transporting Junior to market.


Why do you get to decide that line for everyone? Why does the government
get to decide? What else do they get to decide for us? Where does our
responsibility (and with it our freedom) end and the government's begin?
We end up with a fuzzy line that keeps getting pushed closer and closer
and closer to us.

So why are they ticketing instead? You're sort of thrashing around
here.


What do you think fines are for? They are to force people to obey the
will of people who pass these laws.


In this case, to force people to have their children restrained safely
within the vehicle. Safe for the CHILD, not the driver who may have
his vision blocked by flying baby. God, what an oppressive country we
live in...snif


Are you really so stupid as to not be able to grasp this SIMPLE
FUNDAMENTAL concept of liberty? Just because you like where this line
is doesn't make it ok. Next time the government may pick a line you
don't agree with. What are you going to do then? It's obvious you
have a line in mind, since you don't like my idea of race driver
level protection there's a line somewhere that you think is too much.

I am all for road safety. I've got a few thousand posts on the topic.
I just don't approach it the same noneffective nannystate, local busybody,
controlling, parental methods that you and people like you blindly
support because you don't understand a damn thing about road safety and
nothing about trying to pass laws compatible with individual liberty
instead of taking it away so that your ideas are forced upon everyone.


Wow, an expert. Well, all due respect sir, but I don't think having
kids in BOOSTER seats is taking away individual liberty. And you just
called me a lot of names there.


You with your thinly vailed insults. And I didn't do anything more than
you did. I told you where you crossed the line with me, I'm not going
to play nice when someone uses the tatics you have.

And it's *NOT* the booster seat itself that's the problem. It's allowing
the government to mandate something it has no business mandating. Just
because they chose a line you like and one I could even probably live
with isn't the point. The point is they are choosing the line. That's
the problem. this law doesn't have purpose because it isn't about one
person intruding upon another. It's deciding for the people what's good
for them. That's why I don't like it and all laws like it. Next it could be
cheese burgers. I don't like cheese burgers but I'll be against a law
mandating them.

But while the government is telling us what's best for us, it's falling
flat with the job it's supposed to be doing with regulation to insure
a quality food supply, non glaring headlamps, and a whole host of other
areas where the actions of a person or company have a direct consquence
to other people. The place where laws should be. I wonder if there is
even a law mandating a particular level of booster seat performance.
Probably not.

So, as I've tried to explain to you, it's about where government should
go and where they should not go. If government decided the seat belt
system be adjustable in new cars that would be acceptable, because these
minimium standards for sale are something that has to be done one way
or another.

Safer Freeways? They don't pull people over at random, you know...


They certainly pull over anyone they feel like.


Are you feeling alarmist yet? even a little?


Ahhh another trust the cop type. I got to be the subject of a few
papers stops some years ago. I found it surprising this happened in the
US of A. Oh BTW, this sort of thing is coming up to the supreme court
later this month. We'll see how much freedom we really have left.

How fast do you think we should go, by the way? 75? 100? whatever?


Another person fixated on numerical speed. 100mph is just fine on some
roads in some conditions, dangerous on some others in some other
conditions. Some of the safest driving I've done in my life was done
on the high side of a 100mph. Some of the most dangerous done on the low
side of 55mph. That's why we have engineering methods to determine speed
limits. The 85th percentile *METHOD* is the best to date.


Well, you're obviously a driving ace. They should invent a new class
of license for you and people like you. Also a new lane on the freeway
devoid of children so you can be safe at 100 mph. The rest of us clods
will just have to putter along in Caravans with our kids in BOOSTER
seats, all of us just hoping we get to where we're going without some
much-more skilled driver plowing into us at high speed.


In other words you have no reply. The 100mph driving was done on the
autobahn in northern Germany if you must know. Safest driving I've ever
done. Safest I've ever felt in a car. Sharing the road with competent
people. Instead of lowest common demonator clods looking for the
government to keep them safe and decide things for them.

I'll say it again: live your life in a decent, humble, intelligent,
law-abiding way and you need never fear intrusion of the state.


Have you read patriot acts one and two. I suggest you do.


Is there a section on BOOSTER seats?


You need to pay attention to your government.

If your worry about the State is that it's taking away all the things
you like to do, you should look at yourself and your habits; or
perhaps ask someone who knows you to be honest with you.


I see your primary debate tatic is insult.


Not you specifically, you in the general sense. replace the word you
with one or me.


I have not insulted you once. If you feel insulted, walk away from the
computer, go race your car.


You've used a method of debate that is rather low. The exact one used
to push laws through under the guise that anyone against them is against
children. You've used that tatic multiple times so it isn't a mistake on
your part.



Health and safety of the child is the chief concern, here; and BOOSTER
seats make a significant difference to be sure.


Not the government's choice. Roll cages could make a huge difference too.
Let me guess though, the booster seat research was done by the companies
selling booster seats.


You're a driving stud,


See this kind of comment, that's what I am talking about.

haven't you had belt burn before? A painful, abraded bruise where the
seat belt dug into your flesh? Now, pretend you're a small child or
that you have a small child. Do you want that? Or is all you're
concerned about is the child striking the driver mid-accident?


Again the attack making it seem as if I don't care about children.
I've had it with you. It's clear you don't understand the concept
and you are going to continue with this line of attack. It's sickening.

And YES, if I happened to
accidentally hit a car with kids in it, I would pray that they in
protective seating. How could you live with it otherwise? The law is
unfortunately NEEDED.


Ahh yes, the I'll feel better arguement. See this in the foam hat wars.
A bicyclist has to wear a foam hat so when a driver hits him with her
canyonero, rolls over his chest and parks on him. She can feel better
knowing he had a foam hat on to protect himself from her ignorance.


So you would accidentally hit the car with the loose kids and say
proudly, "Those were American kids with American parents who were
exercising the right to secure (or not) their child safely in the
vehicle...snif" As you zoom away at a safe 100 mph.


See this crap you are doing? It's uncalled for. You have no arguement
here. You're just trying to characterize me as an uncaring menance.
The fact remains, government doesn't get to decide for other people what
their risk tolerance is when it has no bearing on other people what so ever.

Here's a hint for you, learn how to drive. Really drive. Sign up
for course. A real one, like an autocross school or bob bondurant type
thing. It's alot more effective in saving lives than making sure everyone
is padded up to share the roadways with you.


Hee. Look, stud, lose yourself in a mercedes commercial if you want;
the rest of us are just trying to get our families from A to B without
being scattered across the highway. I haven't even said what I do for
a living, but I guarantee you'd feel a little stupid for the above
comment.


I don't care what you do for living. Judging by your posts it's
probably as a cop.

The booster seat is about marketing and selling product. Just like the
you-can't-reuse-that-baby-carseat. It's about selling more product.
Forcing people to buy and consume more. And the busy body do gooders
lap it up.


WRONG. A booster seat is about child safety. Having a child means
planning (in a rational universe) and consuming....


No ****. But you don't get to tell other people how to do it.


YOu get to set minimum safe guidelines, and you get revenue from
people who break those guidelines; and you do this for the common
greater good.


1) You don't get to. Not for situations that don't have negative
consquences for other road users.
2) This isn't a minimum guideline, it's a fixed requirement. All safety
measures that aren't a booster seat are illegal even if superior.

The greater good? Another universal excuse for shoving yourself into
other people's lives. LIBERTY comes first. LIBERTY is the greater good.
Not the 'if it saves but one life it's worth it'.

Busy body do-gooders, people like you that want to force everyone into
their idea of safety.


God forbid we force people towards safety.


The means do not justify the ends.


I haven't insulted you once, and I've been as rational as I can.


You've done your best at character frame job.


Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Local asshole cop retires
References: m Pine.GSO.4.58.0404191234460

ich.edu fxahc.33752$yD1.98762@attbi_s54 2a29bd7963f89683

Wodhc.175974$K91.442067@attbi_s02 wwvhc.180527$K91.448477@attbi_s02 f_yhc.30901$hw5.48509@attbi_s53


Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , jaybird wrote:

"Brent P" wrote in message
news:f_yhc.30901$hw5.48509@attbi_s53...
In article , jaybird wrote:

"Brent P" wrote in message
news:wwvhc.180527$K91.448477@attbi_s02...
In article , jaybird wrote:

"Brent P" wrote in message
news:Wodhc.175974$K91.442067@attbi_s02...
In article , jaybird wrote:

Not necessarily. People can choose whether or not they want to

speed
to
put
themselves in that situation.

1) Why don't cops drive the speed limit or lower?

They are not normal traffic while on duty.

2) Why is driving slower than the posted limit considered a symptom
of impared driving?

That, in itself is not considered impared driving.

It is a symptom there of and a great way to attract attention from
the PD.

No it's not. You don't understand the totality of suspicion of impared
driving.


Jaybird once again forgets his previous posts. Anyway, It's quite
effective in attracting the attention of the local PD. Height of
effectiveness at bar closing time.


Well see, right there's you've added another element to it. Keep going and
you may eventually end up with reasonable suspicion... maybe even someday
probable cause.


I didn't add anything jaybird. it's all old hat with you.



They think they can get away with it, so they speed.

Why don't they go faster yet? I can get away with the top speed of
each of my cars. Why have I never driven the top speed of any of

these
cars? Why did I find the top speed of the rental car I had in

Germany?

Those are questions you'll have to ask yourself. I can't speak for

you.

Ok, I'll rephrase it, you already feel that you are above the law, so
you can get away with anything. Why don't you cruise at 110mph on the
interstate?


I am not above the law;


You already have posted that you are for all effective purposes.


I've never posted anything of the sort.


Everytime you say 'police aren't ordinary traffic' and defend the
multitude of traffic violations officers make as they drive around.


everything I do is within those guidelines. I can't
see violators if I'm at 110mph.


Interferes with your tax collection duties. See, it's about what you
can get away with. Because you can get away with it.


I can only get away with what the law allows me to do. Anything beyond and
I become a criminal.


You just ran over your own arguement. Cops can get away with all sorts
of illegal activities. Why don't you do it? Your arguement is people will
do what they can get away with.





Others see that and they speed up too thinking there's safety in
numbers.

Cite?

Common sense.

In other words, you made it up.

To you it would seem that way I'm sure.


then provide a cite.


If you can't come up with an example of common sense then I feel sorry for
you. It doesn't really surprise me though.


You are claiming people speed because of 'safety in numbers' from
roadside taxation. This is something that can be verified, just as
we have verfied that people drive the speed they feel comfortable at.





That ends up being true because there aren't enough cops to get
them all. It becomes a game of chance. It doesn't make me happy

to
pull
someone over, it actually makes me a little upset that I have to

do
it
because of their disrespect to others.

Disrespect? How is it disrespect? Oh, that's right, you are from the
school of thought that being passed is 'disrespect', like

practically
all cops. Hint, it's not disrespect. I get passed all the time, if

the
person isn't rude about it then it doesn't bother me. Since I keep
right
there usually isn't a problem. The people who are a problem would be
a problem at any speed.

It's disrespectful of your peers and our society's laws.

My peers exceed the posted limit, our society's lawmakers need to pass
laws that can be respected instead of laws for their power and money.

Well get to work on that right away.


police departments and their masters in government don't want to lose
the power and money.


Then you've given up before you've begun the fight. I expected nothing
less.


Again, trying to make it appear that I do nothing is a lame tatic
that doesn't change anything with regard to my arguements.




Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Deceptive gas station tactics
References: r1vkc.4272$J71.545933@attbi_s03 Gnxkc.4944$J71.592093@attbi_s03

v vtDkc.1950$TD4.179520@attbi_s01 X%Skc.6229$IG1.174706@attbi_s04
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , CobraJet wrote:

Let's see now. *I* misunderstood, but you *know* this girl was
giving you a look that said, "You're too poor".


No, it's a guess based on past experience. And I am not the only person
who has moved into this area that experiences it. Two guys I know go
back home on friday after work because of the way things are around here.
The one's who have married don't marry people from here either.

And I do get it from men up here too. But the stories, short of the guy with
the aston martin aren't amusing enough to mention. There was the 50year
old white guy in the MB convertible blasting rap music from his stereo,
that was funny too.. There are some guys who just can't stand when I out
drive them with the torqueless wonder. I could go on. I could tell you
about how I noticed a dramatic difference between how I am treated by
other drivers when I use the '73 vs. the mustang. There are all sorts
of amusing stories along these lines that have no sexual nature to
them.


But you didn't post about the men, did you?


Oh, I'm sure I've told that aston martin story before, if not in this
ng, in another. The comment had to fit in with JD's to make sense.

You extrapolated your
own frustrations by assigning an attitude to a strange *woman* that you
cannot possibly prove she was thinking, backed it up with a second
instance of another female friend who supposedly cooled off to you
because of your reduction in income,


And you took my post assigned me the behaviors of your friend, where
you cannot possibly prove what I was thinking or doing. I admitted I
might be wrong regarding her perceptions, a couple of posts ago.
Seems you cannot admit that maybe, just maybe, I am not the same as your
buddy.

and appended this to a post about
gas station rip-off tactics that only casually mentioned females. Uh
huh.


The post JD made had two distict sections. I replied to both of them.
You replied to one of them. Threads branch and fork, if you can't handle
it, take your own advice and don't post.

I don't have the time to pursue this further. If you have a fragile
ego, I suggest that you refrain from posting about personal issues. I
can't help anyone in deep denial. And believe me, I've helped many
people over the years in big and small ways.


I suggest you don't jump to conclusions in the future. Nahh, that's too
simple for you. Much more fun to fill in the gaps with whatever you
want to create. Maybe you should examine other posibilities than just
the ones you leap to for whatever reason.


If you had no issues, you wouldn't be griping about female
attitudes, would you? It's all as simple and obvious as that, Brent. If
you keep your mind nice and closed, you'll be in the same situation 30
years from now. Or you'll be dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to
the temporal lobe. Or the basal ganglia via the mouth. Your choice.


In this area, yeah I gripe about it, I haven't found a person who has
been displaced into this area from one like I come from who hasn't. I
date women that come here from elsewhere and stay away from
the natives. I find the behavior of the natives amusing at times.

But it does greatly cut down the opertunities, so yeah I don't like it.
Have you ever dated a woman who down graded you beacuse you didn't valet
your car assuming that you were just too cheap to pay for it? Come on, I
know you don't hand the keys of a big block ford to some russian who
can't speak english or some HS kid.... You aren't stupid like ferris are
you?

Sure, like your boasting it's a simple matter to hook up with
someone and bang her. It's just playing the animal mating game
like you describe. You just use one form of it. But expensive
clothes and car are just as a valid form of it as any other.
Look at the behaviors on a crusing night, it's like watching a nature
show on wildabeast mating or something...

Oh no, I understand you much better than you think.


Nope. You've committed the same errors you are now accusing me of.
Think of it like this, imagine yourself a black person who's just
moved into a lillywhite old-money area where your kind isn't welcome.
It's kinda like that, but much more minor.

See, if I was like your tounge dragging friend, I should get the same
reaction both here and back home, right? A good looking woman is the same
here as there, they should have the same frustration. (and here vs back
home is about 60 miles BTW, just opposite ends of the same metro area)

If it's my behavior, it should move with me. It doesn't. I can go
in a bar elsewhere, and no scowls, no problems. I never get that 'look'
even in the torqueless wonder car. 'Tounge dragging dweeb' should have
no geographical borders.









Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Me First law
References: UXVoc.5829$_Z4.416718@attbi_s51 doWoc.44775$xw3.2755151@attbi_s04 t7Xoc.44940$xw3.2769237@attbi_s04 OUXoc.44

956$z06.6597011@attbi_s01 EDapc.49931$z06.7059835@attbi_s01 CXhpc.52237$xw3.3162953@attbi_s04 2gmnvoF4e3m4U1@u

ni-berlin.de FPspc.16335$6f5.1426241@attbi_s54
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Nate Nagel wrote:
Brent P wrote:

In article , Nate Nagel wrote:


If you can't manage to merge within a couple hundred yards, either you
shouldn't be on the road, the other drivers around you shouldn't be on
the road, or both. Therefore there's no need to merge a mile or more
before the lane closure, or expect other drivers to do so.



You're not giving people a couple hundred yards to merge. You are arguing
they should merge at the closure point itself, which is in the 10s of feet.


I never said right at the closure point, but what I was envisioning is
within 100 yards or so thereof.


300 feet... given the standards of 'preventing queue jumping assholes'
300 feet is a long way early. I've seen people do alot more than just be
a garden variety asshole for 10 feet, let alone a 300 foot jump. That's
passing what? 15 cars? If you don't think people aren't going to run
that all the way to end as your obedient turn takers turn in 300 feet
from the end, you're in fantasy land.

All your turn taking a 100 yards before the closure point is gonna do
is enable assholes, at least when implied to be *AT* the closure point
it would have at least made everyone miserable.

So, we are left with expecting civil behavior from people, and if we
are going to expect civil behavior, there is nothing wrong with merging
over a distance. We just have to expect people to do it. And if we are
going to go through the effort of making laws and enforcing them, we
should pick what has the maximum throughput.




Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Me First law
References: zX7oc.72623$kh4.4172751@attbi_s52 19Qoc.83723$Ik.6381206@attbi_s53 eb5pc.10203$6f5.832912@attbi_s54

m 568pc.1134$gr.66264@attbi_s52 m RVhpc.52234$xw3.3162546@attbi_s04 m eKspc.98070$Ik.7644577@at


tbi_s53
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Nate Nagel wrote:

As far as assholes are concerned, taking turns doesn't stop them either.
Don't let the ****ing assholes in, and that will discourage them. Leave
them jammed up looking into a jersey barrier. The reason they jump ahead
is because somebody will back down and let them in. Same with turn taking,
they'll just ride somebody's bumper.


Brent, don't take this personally (because I usually respect your
opinion) but you come off like a ****ing moron and a complete asshole in
this post. Reading it makes me hope I'm never driving on the same road
as you in a merge situation. You've got some serious issues with
merging, bro.


This thread as become very annoying. Both of you keep arguing against
something that isn't my point, and doing so repeatedly, after multiple
corrections. Some put in all caps in an attempt to illustrate the
frustration and highlight it.

I am not arguing for everyone merging early, I don't know how many times I
have to repeat that. Also, I am arguing for civil behavior, the problem
is if there isn't civil behavior nothing works. If there isn't going to
be civil behavior when following my idea, there won't be following
yours. And I was trying to express that.

There is nothing about whats above that others
haven't expressed all ready. The thing is, if you're going to make the
basis of invalidating my prefered method that there are 'assholes'
to take advantage of it, and their won't be the civil behavior required,
then fine, the solution is easy, stand up to them, it becomes a self
correcting problem. It's the same thing that will have to be done in
turn taking. You'll have to stand up and defend your turn. Otherwise
someone else will take it from you. That is if we're going to use
no-civil-behavior standard as what determines the better method.

So, that's what I am expressing there, the standard of preventing
assholish moves. If that is what we're trying to come up with a solution
for, well, its the same either way, hold your ground and let them sit
stopped looking at the wall. Wether it's turn taking or merging over a
distance that's what will have to be done.



Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Me First law
References: 19Qoc.83723$Ik.6381206@attbi_s53 eb5pc.10203$6f5.832912@attbi_s54 m 568pc.1134$gr.66264@attbi_s52 . c

om RVhpc.52234$xw3.3162546@attbi_s04 m eKspc.98070$Ik.7644577@attbi_s53 m zrypc.18340$6f5.1596074@attbi_s54 53d5514c526dd2b365770c2bfa873982@news

..teranews.com
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article m, Brandon Sommerville wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2004 00:18:39 GMT,

(Brent P) wrote:

In article m, Brandon Sommerville wrote:

And chaotic merging, which you're suggesting, accomplishes this how?


I am not suggesting chaotic merging.


Everyone merging at one point is orderly merging. Everyone merging
over an unspecified distance is chaotic merging.


unspecified != chaotic. If that's the case, then every on ramp is chaotic.
So, why don't you support your 'orderly merging' everywhere?

Lane changes are not always chaotic. Smooth lane changes over a distance
are perfectly orderly and fluid.

IMO you are confusing control with order. You seek to control and call that
order. It's a mistake people often make.

It penalizes those who merge early by having lots of people pass them
to merge and it penalizes those who are behind the early mergers
because now they get lots of cars in front of them instead of just a
few.


And we're back at the road-is-a-line scott wiser arguement. I got
on the road first, none shall pass me, ever. You are using the same
basis of arguement.


Sigh. When there is an open highway, there is no line. When there is
a choke point that everyone is trying to get through, there is a line.
There is a significant difference between the two circumstances.


No there isn't. Either we have a line everywhere, or we have traffic
everywhere. Roads have a series of choke points, on ramps, etc, what you are
essentially saying is that at every choke point passing should stop. In any
kind of urban setting that means no passing. Wait your turn behind those
people who are in the line.

Traffic we try to make into a smooth flow, turn taking lines are not smooth.

Merging over a distance requires people to *GASP* behave in a civil
manner. Your turn taking has the same requirement. Yet, you seem to
think that turn taking will somehow make people act in a civil manner.


Because turn taking makes it obvious that no one is "taking advantage"
of anyone else.


So I just imagine those people riding each other's bumper in turn taking?
Maybe I imagined that pickup taking a left turn right in front of me after
his arrow expired today too... turn taking isn't going to stop people
from "taking advantage" of others in and of itself.

You let one car in front of you, no more, no less,


That's blocking, that's the kind of combative behavior your turn taking
is supposed to prevent.

knowing that everyone else is doing the same.


Yeah right. They don't have to.

Merging over a distance
means that you will get a larger number of cars passing you to get
ahead of you and get to the choke point first. More cars in front of
you means you'll have to slow down.


If done in a correct in civil manner, it won't. Once again you are claiming that
it's impossible for turn taking to be uncivil. I am telling you it is very possible
for it to be uncivil. I see it frequently. If you get to expect civil behavior
for your turn taking to work, I get to expect for my idea too.

See a traffic light that's gone out recently? me-first-****-you. They
can't even take turns there. I have to sieze my turn and protect it
when I am in such a situation. Hell, even when the lights are working
it's me-first-****-you. Traffic backs up the light turns yellow and they
all pile into the intersection to block it for cross traffic. I have
to just lay on the horn and achieve ramming speed to get through.

So, if we cannot expect civil behavior, your little scheme doesn't
****in' work. Because people will ride each others bumpers and ram their
way in as well.


If there is no civil behaviour, then no "little scheme" will work,
period.


bingo.

But, if we say that civil behavior can be achieved, the most efficent
manner is the way we do every other merge, over a distance. With no
requirement to go all the way down to end.


In very low traffic volumes, you're right. In heavy traffic, you're
wrong.


In heavy traffic it matters even more as gaps are more likely to close up and
a braking wave can tip the road. Heavy traffic requires more attention to
smoothness. The skill level to achieve smoothness in turn taking just isn't
there. Not to mention no way of recovering from or preventing a third party from
changing lanes at a time where it blocks out the person in the closing lane.

Good lord, how can it be an issue in low traffic volume situations?
Any braking will be absorbed by the excess capacity of the road.


Because your 'low' isn't the same as my 'low'. My idea of low traffic
volume is likely significantly higher than yours. 1am on the dan ryan
is light traffic for me. That's rush hour volumes in many places.

And the guys who move over at the end are going to be thought of as
assholes by everyone else for "taking advantage" of the situation.
Read some of Yanik's posts to see what I mean.


No, they are assholes when they *FORCE* their way in. I've already stated
how I take a optimal gap to move over, but don't force my way in. I don't
recall seeing a reply calling me an 'asshole'.


And as you get closer to the end, if Yanik is beside you he'll close
the gap because he considers you to be an asshole.


If that's the case, he won't have left a gap in the first place.

As far as assholes are concerned, taking turns doesn't stop them either.
Don't let the ****ing assholes in, and that will discourage them. Leave
them jammed up looking into a jersey barrier. The reason they jump ahead
is because somebody will back down and let them in. Same with turn taking,
they'll just ride somebody's bumper.


Didn't seem to happen when I was involved in it.


I90/94 southbound, just after the last left hand on ramp. 24 hours a day
7 days a week.


Maybe it's because I'm in Canada?


maybe. Yesterday's backup stretched back to a mile north of ogden. That's
late sunday morning.




Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: What kind of idiot passes on a blind curve???
References: yZvvc.39043$js4.32758@attbi_s51 osxvc.44070$Ly.14987@attbi_s01 GEyvc.38755$eY2.11622@attbi_s02 Mazvc.44220$Ly.15953@attbi_s01 22Avc.44299$Ly.37087@attbi_s01 d901215e.0406030722.13415525@p

osting.google.com 6PIvc.988$Sw.16@attbi_s51 XuUvc.5250$%F2.2014@attbi_s04 976wc.44257$3x.1053@attbi_s54 _98wc.41906$pt3.31691@attbi_s03 d901215e.


Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Eric wrote:

I've read your posts for about 5 years or so now. I used to post with
a little more frequency on R.A.D. back in my earlier days of reading
this group. I've always apreciated and respected your views towards
cyclists and have found you to be even handed with the critisism of
those that bike without regard to the law. I ask you, have you ever
seen a bigger tool than Dmitry?


Only while on the road

And thanks . it's because I am cyclist too that I have those views.
I stick to r.a.d these days for this sort of topic. I used to read
rec.bicycles.soc as well, but a significant portion of the regulars
are very anti-car and didn't take well to 85th percentile speed limits
and the like and I wasn't winning anyone over. R.a.d on the other
hand has more bicyclists who are also interested in driving and skilled
drivers so it's alot easier.

Just to get into driving, I never really know a road until I bike it.
My biking and driving go hand in hand, one feeds into the other and
it's mostly from bicycling to driving. It seems though that SCCA
realizes that people like me exist so it's against the rules to preview
an autocross course on a bicycle. If I biked the course, I'd be good
to go If I could do that, I probably would have taken to autoXing.








Newsgroups: alt.smokers,rec.autos.driving
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Smokers tossing out the window?
References: IltDc.103212$Hg2.86248@attbi_s04 RzLDc.127070$Sw.72062@attbi_s51 r9WDc.124290$HG.123606@attbi_s53 NhZDc.130

329$Sw.76696@attbi_s51 pU5Ec.131499$0y.91868@attbi_s0 3 pA7Ec.132943$Sw.76940@attbi_s51 SHpEc.1619$IQ4.1005@attbi_s02 rik5e0hdfmttvf0drgnevf2pi4b4h


Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Marky wrote:

"Mike Z. Helm" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:37:38 GMT,

(Brent P)

At some point, an amber from a cigarette or one of the lit fireworks fell
on the back seat of the car and ignited several other explosives.



You trust a news source that can't even spell "ember"?


I would imagine that this was brents mistake...good catch though...


Seriously, it's clear I delt you quite a blow when you have to take
snipes like this. Why don't you follow the URL and see for yourself?




Newsgroups: chi.general,milw.general
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: stainless steel rod (1/4")
References:
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Errol Holt wrote:
I am looking for a local (Chicago or Milwaukee) source of 1/4"
diameter stainless steel rod in a length of 18" (minimum) or longer.

I checked Menards & Home Depot without success.

Any other ideas of where I might find a retailer that sells stainless
steel rod in small quantities?

I need a minimum of two (2) 18" pieces but I would happily purchase a
longer rod (48", 60", 72", etc.) if that is how it is sold.


NakMan is one place, might be out of business can't find them listed. Metal
supermarkets (
http://www.metalsupermarkets.com/) is another. Otherwise
see http://www.smartpages.com/




Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: (Brent P)
Subject: NEVER jaywalk
References: ich.edu
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Jim Yanik wrote:

I waited for the "walk" light,began crossing,got across the three
southbound lanes of SR436,started across the Norhtbound 3 lanes,and a guy
blew thru the RED light and nearly tagged me,even with a Country Sheriff
sitting in the turn lane,who incidentally sat there and did nothing,until I
began jumping up and down,pointing at the schmuck to go get the RLrunner.
By then,the RLrunner was long down the road.


You actually expected a cop to do something about road safety?
Sounds like the typical situation to me. Cop right there, a violation
that causes a clear safety hazard occurs, he does nothing. But be sure
when you're driving the regular speed of traffic at 1am with nobody
else in visual range, he'll be hiding in the bushes to ticket you.




Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Hydraulic Hybrid On Speed Channel This Morning
References: DZTGc.6912$WX.1036@attbi_s51
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Dave Head wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:42:44 GMT,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , Dave Head wrote:

The 5000 - 7000 psi, 15 - 22 gallon accumulators blowing up should be fairly
impressive all right. The cars jumping high into the air in hollywood movies
will not be so far-fetched any more...


I wonder mechanically how the power gets to the wheels. In other words,
how the wheels are turned. How the driver controls the driveline, etc.


From the diagrams in one of the web pages I posted, it appears to be via
hydraulic pressure. Hydraulic motors on each of the wheels powers the thing,
and when braking, the hydraulic motors become hydraulic pumps to capture the
braking energy back into the accumulators.


CEO level diagrams don't do it for me at all. I need mechanical
drawings, cad models, photographs, that sort of thing.

Controls I would imagine are simple hydraulic valves, although the actuating of
those valves I would expect to be electronic and precisely controlled to
recapture the most energy.


Again, I'd like to see it.

The vehicle concept EPA wise sounds like a boring vehicle to drive that
only toastermobile and SUV drivers could love.


It appears to me that it could be used to build some killer sports cars. Why
not?


This is going to be a 'fly-by-wire' system of some sort. Maybe I need
alot more feed back than most people, but I want to be involved in the
process. Not just pushing the go pedal.

There's nothing that says it has to be big and clunky. 15 or 22 gallon
accumulators in a Ford Expedition could be 8 - 10 gallon accumulators in a
small car, and provide a really whopping power increase under acceleration.
Couple that with a high-output turbo diesel, and it would probably light
anyone's fire.


I wasn't refering to clunkiness, but rather what I imagine to be a
disconnected feel. I need to feel what the car is doing or I am going
to have trouble driving it. I can never have too much feedback
from the car, too little is very un-nerving to me. Like the steering
on a dodge dipolmat where it doesn't even feel like it's attached to
anything. I am generally very poor at first-person driving/flying games
for the very reason that the game cannot simulate the feedback of a
real, mechanical vehicle. Generally I do better with the 'outside'
view on such games.

The user-selectable automatics and automatic clutch manuals also
have no appeal to me, because I feel disconnected, like in a video
game. That mechanical feedback has to be there for me.

Of course that is a
considerable number of the vehicles on US roads that could benefit.


Uh-huh.


Look around



Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: MORE recalls from Ford
References: ich.edu _ueHc.30167$JR4.7563@attbi_s54 NfhHc.47790$Oq2.10768@attbi_s52

lurp.net
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Roger Blake wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 01:09:57 GMT, Bill 2 wrote:
Both the Chrysler and the Taurus 4 speed transmissions sucked horribly over


I always thought Chrysler automatics were pretty much the cream of the
crop. My car has one, and it has needed little attention over the last
25 years or so.


A ford C4/C6 from that time serves similiarly. That era has ended.




Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Smart technology to outrage motorists!
References: VNHHc.59232$XM6.34838@attbi_s53 7ULHc.51178$MB3.41237@attbi_s04 qt3Ic.65952$XM6.44320

@attbi_s53 FwnIc.37171$WX.28576@attbi_s51 pUGIc.77290$Oq2.26067@attbi_s52 UC%Ic.72899$IQ4.62586@attbi_s02 130720041

wu0Jc.72062$%_6.54187@attbi_s01 Gy4Jc.86553$XM6.34514@attbi_s53
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , CobraJet wrote:
In article Gy4Jc.86553$XM6.34514@attbi_s53, Brent P
wrote:

In article , CobraJet wrote:

It's not a "tactic", Brent. You and I basically agree in general.
The main difference is that you think American life as dictated by the
Powers that Be can be changed. I don't.

Usually the tatic


I've spent years observing clues that people provide in written
text. The fact that you insist on misspelling a word that was just
highlighted for you tells me you don't learn very well.


No, it proves I can't spell/type well. But I see you also believe
in falsehood that spelling ability is related to intelligence and
learning ability. Sorry, if there is any relation at all, it's an
inverse one.


At 12, I repeatedly outspelled the student body and most of the
faculty at my private school. At 14, I was tested at an IQ of 165. I
guess I must be an moe-ron


Please try a logic course. No relationship means just that, there isn't
one. And the inverse relationship usually deals with people in technical
fields such as engineering.


is that a persons arguement is invalid unless he
himself can make it so. Making it so and being correct are two different
things. And resigning one's self to an ever worsening status quo a third.


You know, some people in this group get tired of all the whining and
bitching from basket cases who are powerless to correct the source of
their mental anguish. You ever hear the expressions "put up or shut"
and "**** or get off the pot"?


Ahh Another way of saying you get to whine about those evil speeders


*I* wasn't the one whining, numbnuts. I was observing human nature,
as I have done for a long time. If it were up to me, there would be no
speed limit. Pay attention.


Ahh.. for you it's just expressing reality, for others it's whining. Sorry.

who don't obey the law, but other people don't. If you don't want to
be exposed to the viewpoints of other people then usenet is not a good
place for you.


Usenet is a cesspool devoid of rules or compassion. Welcome aboard


Then why are you trying to create rules if that's what you believe?


Crying about nonsense like tactics, conversely, does not make your
"argument" any more digestible. We've heard it all before. Ain't a
citizen around that thinks this country's scams are nirvana, but look
at what else you have to pick from.


Why don't you put up or shut up? What are you doing to lower speed limits?


Why the hell would I want to? You just don't get it, do you? You're
no smarter now that when you were whining about females dissing your
ass. Here's a clue, Brent: you're an idiot.


Name calling another lame tactic surfaces. I think you've hit them all.


What are you doing to bring about your utopia where driving is an
automated task or whatever it was you mentioned earlier? It's a debate
tactic, plain and simple. And I could use it to just as effectively. I
try to get above such tired old nonsense, but if that's the way you
want to play, fine. Since you want to talk about putting up or shutting
up, you first. Put yours and I'll put up mine.


You are so stubborn you don't see that I have no agenda here.


So you're just a troll then and you should be kill filed?

No, the *problem* is that the government will not allow Americans
even the remote chance of eradicating the archaic bipartisan system.


It's still possible, difficult, but still possible. Wait much longer
and it won't even be that.


That's right. All the more reason to get a little more out of life
while you can instead of wasting time worrying about what other people
think.


Who's worrying? Why do you insist on such projections?

snip more of the same


Idealism for mental
exercise is fine, but the system is too complex for your kind of
theoretical anarchy to hold even a drop of water.


The very idealism this nation was founded on. Silly that I believe
in such things eh? But in doing so I am in some pretty good company.


No, it's not silly. But is it wise to do lose sleep over it?


Who said I am losing sleep over it? Not I. That's your creation.


It's a figure of speech, but the fact that you posted a ****load of
links just concerning the speed limit thing shows me you are a bit too
passionate about stuff out of your influence.


You mean a simple include file of URLs that I've cut and pasted into
over time? Gee. I think my time investment in that file might be a
whole minute and half. It's simply a list of articles I've come across
(generally someone on usenet refering to them) and figures from a book
I've read. It's website was so hard to fine, it was the book's title.

I am sure you have 'bookmarks' in your favorite web-browser. This is
nothing more than that for one particular subject.

I grow tired of all this reading into of simple ordinary things.



Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,alt.politics.greens,talk.environ ment,sci.environment,soc.culture.europe
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: tax SUVs, subsidize cleaner cars
References:

lglobal.com nPfLc.127408$a24.120163@attbi_s03
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Ian St. John wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article , Ian St.
John wrote:

Bull****. The people put money in over their lifetime and collect it
when they retire *with the built up interest*.


What interest rate am I getting on the SS tax I've paid thus far? You
can't tell me, because it's not like a savings account. It's a
government entitlement program which can be adjusted or eliminated at
any time. It bares no resemblence to a savings account.


Well, it is true that the government can adjust it at any time. They are the
ones paying interest so they are the ones that set the rate of payout to
payin. However it is not hard to calculate for the average of the program.
Just look at what the average paying has been over the working mans career
vs the payout levels. Even an idiot ought to be able to figure that one out.


It's still not a savings account. And because they can change it at
anytime and we cannot go elsewhere to save our money, we become dependent
on elected officals. This increases their power over us.

The idea of it as a pyramid scheme is a lie promoted by rightwing
propagandists.


According to social security it works very much like a pyramid scheme.


No. It is neither described as a pyramid scheme nor operates as one. You are
just blowing smoke.


Sorry, the material on the Social Security Administration says otherwise.
Like a pyramid scheme, it's pay-as-you-go. Those on the bottom of pyramid
(taxpayers) have money transfered from them to those on the top of the
pyramid (retires).

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
- Does Social Security have dedicated assets invested for my
retirement?

- Social Security is largely a "pay-as-you-go" system with today's
- taxpayers paying for the benefits of today's retirees. Money not
needed
- to pay today's benefits is invested in special-issue Treasury
bonds.


Which is basically equivalent to sahing that money deposited in the bank by
customer X is paid out to customer Y when he draws on his account. It is
*cashflow* description, not an accounting.


If any citizen of the USA were to put together this same scheme and call it
"cashflow" or "equivalent to sahing that money deposited in the bank" he
would still go to jail for running a pyramid scheme.


The proof is here, where they declare there is not sufficently large
bottom of the pyramid for the futu


It is not proof of anything except a discussion of how the cashflow is
managed. This does not make your bank a 'pyramid scheme' and it does not
make the SS a pyramid scheme. This is the basic lie promoted by right wing
idiots that cannot understand basic accounting.


You snip it because it shows the collaspe of the pyramid. A bank account
doesn't require new accounts to be opened. A bank account does not require
others to keep making deposits for the bank to stay solvent. A pyramid
scheme on the other hand does require the base to grow sufficently with
those on top of the pyramid to remain functional. The collaspe of a
pyramid scheme is characterized by not finding enough people to make up
that base. This is the problem social security is projected to have. Not
enough people to feed the payouts. If I put a $100000 in the bank, I don't
have to worry about there being 6 people to open new accounts so I can
get my money back. With social security, this is a very real problem. When
and if I ever retire, I do have to worry about there being enough workers
to pay enough into the system so I can get the same amount I put in back,
let alone any 'interest'.


Discussing the problem with cash flow, NOT the accounts. The fact is that as
the 'customers' withdraw their moeny from their accounts, they may have to
recall some of the loans made from the previous surpluses when the cashflow
becomes critical.


Elected officals could tell us all tomorrow that
they are canceling the program and we're **** out of luck. If a bank did
that there would be legal recourse to recover the funds. There is no
parallel between social security and savings in a bank account. None, zero,
zilch. It is now, IMO, at best a risky long term investment that I am being
forced to make. At worst, and as I consider it most of the time, just
another income tax.

Regardless of how much of a reserve may exist at that time, once pay
ins do not meet pay outs, the pyramid is collasping.


Only if the surplus paid in before is wasted rather than invested as in SS.
Show me how the workers investments were blown on mansions, wild parties,
booze and fast cars for the government and maybe I'll give you some
credibility. Oh. wait! It cannot be spent on such things! It is REQUIRED by
law to be invested for the future payout.


Ahh divert the issue. Cute, but totally irrelevant. A lack of corruption
doesn't make it any less of a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes can be run
without corruption too. Run by the book and they still collaspe. The
reason is that the base eventually cannot be big enough to support all
the people who are further up. That's social security's future problem, not
enough people working and paying taxes to fund those getting a payout.
This is right from their website.

It seems I'm speaking to a horses ass...


I knew you would react badly to the actual information from a source you
cannot call 'right wing' and dismiss.

more specious crap deleted


You mean the Q and A from the social security admin.

Note: The bookkeeping does not have to keep specific account information.
Basically the governmetn got the money and the government will repay the
money with interest. None of it was 'wasted' for a fancy lifestyle by a
scammer. The only scam here is the one that is being run by rightwing idiots
trying to lie about it.


Again, you try to divert the issue. By the information from the social
security administration, it doesn't work like a bank account (as you
claim) in any shape or form. Given what they wrote, it most resembles
a pyramid scheme. Those low on the pyramid (workers) paying those high
on the pyramid (retirees). There are no savings accounts, no interest,
you work your way to the top, paying your way up, and if the pyramid
hasn't collasped, and you haven't died, then you get a payout.

If social security was anything like a bank account, it wouldn't go
*poof* with an act of congress or one's death.




Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,alt.politics.greens,talk.environ ment,sci.environment,soc.culture.europe
From: (Brent P)
Subject: tax SUVs, subsidize cleaner cars
References: nPfLc.127408$a24.120163@attbi_s03 6KlLc.114204$WX.76909@attbi_s51 NNRLc.161704$Oq2.131589@attbi_s52 3%TLc.1431

19$%_6.124205@attbi_s01 8AXLc.145801$JR4.138228@attbi_s54
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article 8AXLc.145801$JR4.138228@attbi_s54,
(Brent P) wrote:

snippage of what parker didn't reply to because he's too lazy to edit

To review these are the points I have made:

1) Social Security is not like a bank account.
2) Social Securtiy has key common similiarities and weaknesses with
pryamid schemes.
3) If social Security is insurance, it is not cost effective insurance.


Actually it is, as SS pays out far more of what it takes in than any
insurance company does.


Cite?

4) If social security is an investment, it's a risky (as in expecting it
to pay out as advertised) one for anyone under the age of 35.


I have supported all four of these points with information directly
from the SSA's web site.
http://www.ssa.gov/ You on the other hand
have provided nothing to back up your arguement.


No, you've added your libertarian-anarchist twist.


It's right there parker. You're free to find your own supporting
information. You have yet to do so. You just spout one democrat
slogan-view after another.

And I suppose my idea of government is anarchy compared your ideal
of parental control via government.


I have not claimed the government is about to collaspe or anything
of the kind. That is your creation because you cannot support your
weak arguements that SS will always be there, not be cut, etc etc.
The fact that governments do and have fallen apart, that there have
been such things as runaway inflation and so forth, show only that
your arguement of absolute belief that social security will be there
is unfounded.

I have mentioned that SSA will collaspe (greatly reduced benefits or
significantly increased taxes) due the lack of sufficent worker base
to support it. This is directly from the SSA website. What the government
intends to do about this is as of yet unknown.


Fund it, obviously. Have you heard any elected official say otherwise?


With WHAT? There is no infinite source of money. That money has to
come from the people. Other people. You might as well rob them at
gunpoint as have the government take from them.


I know Dr. Parker is considerably older than 35, Ian, I have no idea
if you are even in the USA, let alone your age. But the older people
do have to keep the illusion for younger folk that SS is a good thing
and could never go away. After all, as you well know, if younger folk
stopped paying,


And how would they do that?


Ahh that's right, you don't have a problem taking the money from them
by force. When taxes become too high, I'll just quit working.

Oh I know, let them divert the funds to
something else, like Bush wants to do.


sarcasm
Heaven forbid that SS actually become like a savings account or
investment account or retirement account. People might have control
of their *OWN* money. You can't have that now can we? That's
a job for central control, for mommy and daddy government. The individual
doesn't have the brains or ability for it, special elites in government
have to take care of us.
/sarcasm

then the collaspe happens when people parker's age are
taking the money out instead of when the younger folks reach retirement
age. Because simply, it's not like a bank account, it's not just an
issue of 'cash flow'. Those on the bottom pay those on the top. If
those on the bottom become disillusioned and stop paying then the
older folks don't get the benefits they were expecting. Like a
pyramid scheme.






Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc,rec.autos.driving,alt.planning.u rban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides
From: (Brent P)
Subject: Should you get a Free (Bicycle) Ride?
References: xnVLc.143658$%_6.25670@attbi_s01 2ndMc.152918$JR4.143360@attbi_s54
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Matthew Russotto wrote:

But they aren't related to you as a bicyclist. If you merely walked,
you'd still pay those. People who drive everywhere pay those too.


So what?

I paid to use 3 cars, but used a bicycle instead.


Unless your state is vastly different than mine (which is possible,
e.g. Virginia and the hated personal property tax on automobiles), the
majority of road money comes from gas tax, not fixed amounts such as
registration fees. So if you're not driving the three cars, you're
not paying (much) for them.


registration, vehicle stickers, etc and so forth. More than enough
to cover the pennies per year. And since Smallish V8 powered cars
and smallish old cars use more fuel per mile than average cars of
the same weight, well that's even more coverage.

The whole tax thing on bicycles is just pure bull**** anyway. Any
fairly assessed tax on bicyclists wouldn't amount more than $0.50 a
year anyway.




Newsgroups: chi.general
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Alan Keyes is out of his mind
References: 58 gMVTc.18998$TI1.15785@attbi_s52 pan.2004.08.16.20.52.04.97698

75aUc.136148$8_6.78860@attbi_s04 JiPUc.147947$8_6.143215@attbi_s04 NPcWc.71334$TI1.66103@attbi_s52 mKdWc.296843$a24.2

89148@attbi_s03
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Mark Anderson wrote:
In article
says...
You're no better, Blennie, with this statement that paints all those you
don't like.


Has nothing to do with who I like or don't like. It's a statement of
fact wrt my experiences on usenet.


That's not a fact, that's an opinion based upon your observations.


No, most of those I have encountered is a fact.

Like most of those posting to chi.general once lived or do live in or around
chicago.





Newsgroups: chi.general
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Alan Keyes is out of his mind
References: 58 gMVTc.18998$TI1.15785@attbi_s52 pan.2004.08.16.20.52.04.97698

75aUc.136148$8_6.78860@attbi_s04 JiPUc.147947$8_6.143215@attbi_s04 NPcWc.71334$TI1.66103@attbi_s52
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Nexus7 wrote:
(Brent P) wrote in message news:NPcWc.71334$TI1.66103@attbi_s52...
In article , Nexus7 wrote:
ridicule the democratic position. So once again, for or against:

Why are you trying to make this about me personally? This has nothing
to do with me personally. You were talking about libertarians. You listed
a bunch of fringe crapola as if it was what all libertarians believe. I
refered you to the offical posistions of the party.


It isn't about you personally, it about your arguments (lack thereof).


It's not about me, but about me. A change from your lack of knowledge
of libertarian view point.

As seen below you've failed to state an explicit position (or good
reason to equivocate) on every issue presented.


There is no reason for me to do so. This isn't a call for me to do so.
I replied simply to point out that you don't know what the libertarian
party's views are.

IOW, you denigrate the
democratic position on specific issues, but will argue for libwackoism
in the most general terms only.


Insult me, make it about me, try to associate me with wackos. Typical
usenet. Tiresome.

Furthermore when the argument was
about libw, you inserted yourself into it, claiming people attacked
you for apparently no reason at all. So I'm trying to determine where
you stand, because no libertarian will ever take a consistent stand on
more than 2 issues.


Cite?


1 Deregulation of energy, leading to deteriorating grid infrastructure,
price gouging, pollution

See, here's your problem. You reduce the posistion to two words and
insert your opinion of it.


So make a bloody argument. State that you disagree or agree with part
A, don't think B follows, whatever.


Again, this is you assigning. My view is not relevant here. You are
trying to make this about me, because you wish to hide the fact you
were wrong about libertarian party views.

2 Deregulation of education, leading to parochial/wingnut-schooled
creationists so it remains necessary to import half the graduate school
class


Same as above. You reduce the posistion to two words and insert your
opinion of it.


More moralizing.


How about I do this for a democrat party issue as a republican would:
For gay marriage, leading to the destruction of family and the
institution of marriage and the rise of groups such as NAMBLA
Do you understand what you are doing now?

3 Elimination of capital gains and real estate taxes, leading to the tax
burden being borne by income or consumption based taxes, so we have once
again a burgeouis and proletariat


This is outright wrong with what the search for taxes pulls up on the
lp party website. It pulls up a posisition that is looking for the repeal
of income taxes and an end to ALL corporate welfare. Of course that
doesn't stop you from spinning it your way.


The libw platform is sufficiently abstracted to hide the internal
inconsistencies and complete lack os practicality. I'm not interested
in their intellectually bankrupt philosophy unless they argue in
specific terms, how the roads are going to get fixed, how the
occupation is ending, etc. What I want to know is where you stand,
since all you do is run interference for the wackos.


Why is where I stand relevant to this discussion regarding your incorrect
notions of libertarian party views? Why do you want to make this about
me?

Cite? The lp.org has the exact opposite listed, calling for the a drastic
reform in presidental war powers that would prevent presidents from doing
that sort of thing.


My website calls for world peace too, but you know the libwacko is
going to vote the 2nd amendment,


Change the subject. Declaring war has nothing to do with the citizens
being allowed to have weapons.

irrespective of whether or not it
means giving the keys to a preemptive warmonger. You haven't presented
an example of libertarians taking a practical (not ideological)
stance, successfully legislated or implemented it, and seen beneficial
conseuqences.


And you have presented an example showing the success of team work
between the CIA and the alien race known as 'the greys'. I'm not going
to fall for stupid usenet games today.

That's nice. We were discussing the libertarian party, not me personally.
Why are you trying to make this personal? Because you don't know ****
about libertarians and it's far easier to insult me than to look the fool
as you post what someone on the internet who claimed to be a libertarian
tells you he believes?


Yes, no one but you in the whole wide world is intimately acquainted
with the machinations of the omniscient libertarian party. As I've
stated before, their platform is impractical, their practice is
inconsistent with it. If you're not going to venture examples, and
even take a stand on those given to you, then we're going to have to
leave it at that.


I fail to see any reason to morph a thread that started about alan keyes
and ended up on your incorrect ideas of libertarian party views into a
discussion of Brent P's views on whatever issue you feel like bringing
up. So you can get me defending myself and the topic diverted away from
you not being able to correctly state the libertarian party's views,
instead picking what some wackos online who called themselves
liberatarians said their views were. Again, this can be done with
any group or party, including democrats.




Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Way OT, but VERY Interesting!
References: lsrZc.353233$%_6.53325@attbi_s01 OjvZc.10960$3l3.1861@attbi_s03 XSQZc.227797$

8_6.73369@attbi_s04
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

guess I am the only one who knows how to trim AGAIN!

http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/f4_image1.jpg
http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/f4_image2.jpg
http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/f4_image3.jpg


Something after the big bang? This doesn't show anything of value to this
discussion.


Of course it does. It shows what happens to an aircraft when hitting a
hardened structure. Granted, it's not a plane hitting the Pentagon but
there is some similarities between them. It shows that an airplane can
be pulverized in a high speed collision.


You have a picture of an explosion. Not what's left afterwards.


You can find a link to the video of the test he
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm


I've tried this in both IE and mozilla. neither will load and play it.


As you can see the plane is completely destroyed.


I see nothing of the kind in the photos. I see an explosion. I don't see an
aircraft turning completely into dust and vapor. A photo of what's left
would be needed for that.


I remember that 60 Minutes or 20/20 did a segment on this experiment
several years ago. The video doesn't show the debris but they did on
that program. Most people wouldn't have been able to tell it was debris
from a jet crash. It looked like it went through a car shredder. It
stuck in my mind because the concrete block was hardly damaged.


I've seen a melted and rehardened blob of aluminium alloy mixed in with
the dirt and rocks at a crash site that had been cleaned up and graded
with earth moving equipment and could still tell it came from an aircraft.
So I am not your average bear... (chared carbon fiber emmbedded in it was
a dead give away)

How? what would grate a ductile material into confetti?
I have found one photo online of a piece of aircraft that bounced off,
as I stated should happen to at least some of it.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg


This picture doesn't support a conspiracy theory.


ARG! I am trying to DISCUSS THIS and support my view that airplane bits
should be out on the lawn, should have survived the fire, etc, not to
support a conspiracy theory! We are back at the elvis comment.

To discuss this, requires searching things out. My belief is that there
should be airplane parts out on the lawn. This photo *GASP* shows an
airplane part on the lawn, supporting my view. That's why I mention it.

I would expect a fair amount of this type of sizable material or larger
that wasn't in the fire. Also, even in the heart of the fire, components
such as significant parts of the engines should be present.
More photos:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon..._20020316.html


I have no doubts that parts of the engine, among other parts, were found
in larger pieces in the building. Especially those pieces that escaped
the fire.


Ahh... so now you agree that that pieces should have survived. Thusly if
our government didn't keep everything it could secret alot of problems in
this regard could be avoided.

All the pictures on the page you linked further disproves a
conspiracy theory.


I am not supporting a conspiracy theory. I am looking into something. I
have a view that states, if aircraft of that size, parts should be on the
lawn, and should have survived. So I have sought out proof of that,
that's what's in the pictures linked to. If you are going to keep doing
this, there's no point to it.

IMO, it's obvious that physics
does not support this conspiracy theory.



Physics does not support the entire plane turning into vapor and dust.


I never said it did turn to completely to dust. Most of it went into
the building and probably melted in the fire.


Your whole line has been everything gone, nothing indentifiable. Should I
go back and quote you? That the photos in the flash presentation are
exactly what one would expect, nothing on the lawn, the whole plane in
the building and no surprise nothing being being found. That's the line
you took against the flash presentation. That the photos were normal. My
view is that they aren't normal. And I found out why, creative people
taking what they wanted and deleting what didn't fit their view.

Do you see that the
pictures in the web pages you linked help to disprove this conspiracy
theory?


Three strikes. You're out.

You can't discuss this without labeling, without this line of thinking
that because I disagree with you, I must believe the whole thing. I only
believe that there should be parts on the lawn and parts that survived.
Those pictures prove what I believe. Which means the flash presentation
is as manipulitive as a michael moore movie.




Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc,rec.autos.driving,alt.planning.u rban,rec.bicycles.soc
From: (Brent P)
Subject: Cities Turning to Bicycles
References: SFL6d.284647$mD.278591@attbi_s02 X0Z6d.142059$MQ5.51477@attbi_s52 g017d.393998$8_6.111280@attbi_s04 m2hdpfw2tu.fsf@S

tella-Blue.local 4b6d2dd6.041002134

WKGdnd2biqn5aP

Yoo8d.69216$He1.45162@attbi_s01
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:
Brent P wrote:


Personally, I've seen ramps that are practically straight posted with
25mph warning signs. Everytime I see a warning sign, it's
'do-they-really-mean-it-this-time.


I am absolutely astounded that this is such a problem for you guys!


Frank insults. No arguement.

Really, what on earth do you do driving curving mountain roads?


There are no mountains in IL.

Do you
need a backseat driver to say "Hmmm - this looks like a 37 mph curve to
me. Better slow down."


Frank insults again, being without arguement regarding inconsistant road
signage.

Can't you judge these things properly on your own??


Frank's primary debate tactic continues to be one of personal attack.
This isn't about me Frank. It's about accurate signage. I'll find out
soon enough if the signage is accurate. It would simply be nicer if I
could trust the sign and get accurate information sooner.

What's the purpose of the sign Frank? To give the driver information. I
only want the signs to be ACCURATE AND CONSISTANT. If they aren't going
to provide useful information, remove them. Do not put them up and save
the tax money for fixing frost heaves or something.






Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,az.general
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: I'm Not the Only One Who Hates Driving in Tucson
References:

m
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Cashew wrote:

I've been rear ended 3 times while at a dead stop at a traffic light.


You must have a magnet in your trunk.
Most drivers NEVER get rear-ended.


One of them somebody rear ended the guy behind me and pushed
him into my car.





Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.autos.driving,misc .transport.road,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politic s.republicans
From:
(Brent P)
Subject: Hawaii institutes price limits on gasoline
References:
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article , Michael G. Koerner wrote:

This assumes, of course, that the retailers will be able to get any fuel to
sell. For those who cannot remember or were not alive at that time, price
controls were imposed on fuel during the Arab oil embargo in the early 1970s -
with the only result being a serious drying up of the supply - followed by the
imfamous gas lines.

Econ-101 lesson: *NOBODY* will sell anything like that at a mandated loss.



The price cap law in question is not a fixed cap. It's a cap calculated
from the cost of fuel in the lower 48 at any given time.

Considering that now fuel in chicago now costs about the same as it did
on Maui last month I don't think this cap should be all that big of a
deal on a functional standpoint.

My objections to government control in general still apply of course.


  #1142  
Old August 25th 05, 08:03 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Please ignore the previous post... my error, I tried to repost something
that failed to post when my connection died and instead got every failed
post since the last time I cleaned things out.

I sent out a cancel, but I doubt it will do anything.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
WSJ: How to Give Your Child A Longer Life Jean B. General 0 December 9th 03 07:10 PM
Kids should work. LaVonne Carlson General 22 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Mom goes AWOL from Iraq - says children need her at home John Stone General 179 November 19th 03 12:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.