Two kinds of idiots

In article >, Joe wrote:

> Newsflash: If it's a law, then you either obey it or risk the
> consequences if you're caught breaking it. Don't like it? Change it.

In other words, just obey. With people like you, this nation deserves
where it's headed. Removing bad laws is a huge and expensive undertaking
if you haven't noticed. That's why most people simply ignore them. And
it's really the people whom they are selectively enforced against that
have the problem anyway. Most people voicing opinons such as yours simply
think they'll never be that person.

Let me guess, you favor tool laws, like the ones where if a person has
$10,000 in cash all a cop has to do is think it's from illegal drug sales
and he can take it. You then have to go to court and prove it isn't. Like
that law? How about IL's hidden compartment law. Make a hidden
compartment in your mustang? Get pulled over and cop finds it, kiss your
car goodbye. Doesn't matter if all you had in it was a box of jelly
doughnuts.

>> Or because the man with the gun says so. Someone says the speed
>> limit change is wrong and unreasonable. A cop type responds 'the law
>> is the law, obey'. Figure it out.

> Nothing to figure out. If it's a law and you break it, you take the
> consequences. Simple.

What is the purpose of having so many laws such that people cannot get
through the day without breaking laws? What is the purpose of having laws
that define common, reasonable behavior as illegal? Many laws in this
nation are only enforced selectively. Against people who are not liked,
or have a certain appearance, etc and so forth.

I don't understand how people cannot realize the basic and fundamental
problems with this set up.

>> Law enforcement types consistantly don't respect the concepts of
>> liberty and rule by the people for the people. They are consistantly
>> in the camps of people who think that kings and emperors and other
>> self proclaimed elites should decide what's best for all of us.
>> Occasionally there is one that believes in the tyranny of courts or
>> tyranny of the majority.

> Brent, you're living on another planet. Stop playing video games and
> get back down to earth.

No, I am paying attention on this planet, in this nation. And I haven't
played video games since the atari 2600 was still the most popular game
system in use. You might want to pay attention to the laws that are being
enacted. You might want to take notice of the road side checkpoints, the
war on drugs laws, the war on terror laws, etc and so forth.

>> And many traffic lights are set up poorly encouraging the practice.
>> Because in the USA, because the mentality isn't one of sound
>> practice, it's one of authority and obedence.

> Sure, the traffic lights suck, but you simply don't run red lights.
> You might kill someone. D-oh.

Fact remains, engineering solutions are not used, instead of safety we
get red light camera profit centers. There is a reason why the USA has
gone from 1st in the world to a low of 16th and presently 10th with
regard to road safety.

> After reading your stuff, I'm wondering if you're drunk. And that's
> based on your own definition.

Kookify. Fine. Stay asleep if you choose. You might be that other guy
before you know it. Let's see how cheery you are if the TSA accidently
identifies you as a terrorist. Or maybe the town/city you live in decides
a developer can do more with the property your home is on than you can
and decides to kick you out and give it to the developer. Or maybe an
endangered insect drifts in one day and now the government decides you
can't use half your property and does not compensate you for the loss.
Sure, they aren't coming for you now. They aren't coming for me now. But
I when I hear of the people they've already come for, I can understand
that I shouldn't ignore it thinking it will never be me.

>> We should have emperors, kings, and dictators.
>
> Last time I checked, this was a democracy.

It's never been a democracy. It has been a republic, one that is now
failing just as many of the founders predicted.

>> Parents who tell us
>> what is right and what is wrong.

> Damn friggin' straight. Or would you rather have Lord Of The Flies?

So how far can government micromange your life, being your parent?
You do know now there is an effort to control fatty foods. I hope you
don't enjoy a good burger. Mommy government is going to step in and tell
you what you can and cannot eat if some of the control freaks get their
way.

>> The people have voted with their right foot. BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE
>> PEOPLE. Not by the elite for good of the people.

> Well, one of those voters may just end up ramming your sorry ass
> because they ran through the red light and t-boned you believing that
> they're excercising their right to do what they think is right.

Lovely debate ability you have. Again, what purpose do laws that the vast
majority find unreasonable and ignore have? Things like 55 mph interstate
speed limits? Not even the cops obey them. When some laws don't make
sense, soon it errodes other laws. We are seeing that with the vehicle
code right now.

>> Read documents like:
>> The Constitution of the United States of America.
>> The Bill of Rights.
>> The Federalist Papers.
>>
>> Then get back to me.
>
> Go have dinner with the family of the person killed by the moron who
> decided to ignore the law because they felt oppressed by the police
> state. Then get back to me.

Emotional appeals. Even less. Do you obey 55 mph interstate speed limits?
I'll wager in any give day you commit more moving violations than I do.

>>> Police State? You have never lived under a true Police State. Not
>>> even close.

>> We are headed there. We already get the checkpoints here in Chicago.
>> The TSA searches, the patriot act, etc and so forth. Most of the
>> tools are in place for one. All we need now is an event and someone
>> to take power.

> Dude, if it's so horrible here then go where it's better. Yeah, it's
> a challenge.

Ahh. Love it or leave it. The lamest arguement of all.

>> A 3kiloton suitcase nuke in a large city and we might be crowning
>> King George the first.

>> Just keep obeying orders. Maybe you'll get to be the cop that hawls
>> me away to the re-education facility or gets to stuff me in the rail
>> car in a few years time.

> And maybe you'll be the asshole that decides to ignore the law and
> kills someone.
> Dude, you need to get your brain rewired. It's pretty screwed up.

Stay asleep. I hope you end up being the other guy. Maybe the DEA will
have an address mistake. You'll probably understand some of the problems
then.

Sorry Garth,
I disagree. I much prefer to read the reply right there on top.

And as much as I hate to **** you off, I will continue to post in this
fashion.
It's not as if I will go to jail for it. I've always done it this way,
sometimes on the bottom, sometimes intertwined within a post.

Why would someone prefer top scroll to the bottom of a post then read from
to to bottom?
It's unnatural.
Here in the USA we read left to right, top to bottom. You know that.

I have only known a few people that make a fuss over it one way or another.
Like I said, I'm not trying to start a ****ing match, but I'm not going to
change my ways.


Kate


"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
| Around 4/22/2005 8:26 AM, SVTKate wrote:
|
| > Because someone top posts that makes them disrespectful?
|
| Eyup, especially when they are enlightened as to the error of their ways
| (or rather, Microsoft's intentionally broken newsreader's ways) and yet
| continue to top post.
|
| Most people prefer to read top to bottom. I've yet to see anything
| written that was easier to follow from bottom to top.
|
|
| --
| / Garth - '83 GL V6stang Hatch <Former MW #7> \
|| My V6stang: http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang |
|| RAMFM Merchandise: http://www.cafeshops.com/ramfm |
| \ Mail for secure reply information /

"Brent P" > wrote

| In article .net>,
SVTKate wrote:
|
| Yes, because it forces all the work on the other person. and it puts
| things out out of order. Most top posters, including the one I responded
| to, don't even bother to trim.

How do you figure that?
I think that bottom posting makes it harder to find the replies.
You have to sort through all the rest to find a single response.


|
| The only reason top posting occurs so much now, is because of microsoft
| crapware.

Ya know what? I am damn sick and tired of people capping on OE.
I happen to LIKE it. So do allot of other people. I've tried a bunch of
other readers, and have yet to find anything I liked as well.

I like it's format, I like the fact that it is integrated with my email and
I like the way it works.
It has some bugs.. so what!
So does my ****ing Mustang, that doesn't make me like it any less.

Kate

Wasteful?
How so?
Is it ruining our rain forests? Using ink? Polluting something?
Taking up valuable space in an overcrowded world?

Wasting Bandwidth? In today's world? Seriously?.
In a plain text format?
WHoo hoo.. the message I am responding to is a WHOLE 4kb!

That's like comparing a Mustnag II to today's '05.
Things have changed!

Now, if it's in a group that posts photos and html, then yea, you have a
point. Deleting images from a reply is just courtesy.

"Brent P" >
| Well it slows things down, is wasteful, hard to follow, messy. If you are
| refering to pushing the work on others, well it's just plain rude.
|


Pushing WHAT work on others??????
No one says you HAVE to delete it or pick through it.

Te reason for top posting is so you DON'T have to wade through it. Even
bottom feeders leave all the junk in a post.

C'mon Brent... it's really not that big of a deal who's on top.

Kate
"I'll post where I want to until it's a ticketable offence"

"Brent P" > wrote

*snipped*

| What is the purpose of having so many laws such that people cannot get
| through the day without breaking laws? What is the purpose of having laws
| that define common, reasonable behavior as illegal? Many laws in this
| nation are only enforced selectively. Against people who are not liked,
| or have a certain appearance, etc and so forth.

Because without all of those laws, the jackasses in Washington wouldn't have
a job making more.
Your paragraph above Brent is, IMHO, right on the money.



|
| Emotional appeals. Even less. Do you obey 55 mph interstate speed limits?
| I'll wager in any give day you commit more moving violations than I do.
|

Again I agree. I always push the interstate speed limits 5-9 mph over.
Out here, if the speed limit is 45, they drive 55-60.
If it's 70, they are driving 80-85.
I feel like an idiot allot of the time because everyone is passing me.
It's not as though I don't WANT to go that fast, BUT I just do not want that
ticket.


Kate

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
| In Chicago I had to walk clear across the airport and out the front of
| the terminal to smoke when I was going back for my son's estate
| settlement. Then go back through all the checks to get back in time to
| get on the pane.... While in San Francisco, they had a glassed in room
| on each concourse.... The smoke was so thick in there that you could
| barely see the smokers. They didn't even vent the place to the
| outside. Glad I quit. Skip the smoke and head straight for the bar.
| LOL

That's the way the one was in Atlanta too.
It was terrible.
Had to take the train across the airport to get to the free one.

Actually, there is a pretty good story there, I thought for a little while I
might end up in an Atlanta jail.

Glad I quit too.



|
| On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:31:24 GMT, "SVTKate"
| > wrote:
|
| >
| >"Spike" > wrote in message
| .. .
| >| Thought they outlawed smoking on planes and in most terminals so who
| >| needs a lighter?
| >
| >I do, just in case the plane crashes and I get stranded on a deserted
| >island.
| >You can still smoke in some airports. Atlanta I think is one of them.
| >
| >Kate
| >
|
| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Using your own logic, wouldn't it be just dandy if someone decided
they had a great reason to hunt you down and blow you away? Of
course, it would be just fine because they didn't agree with the
concept that killing people is against the law.

Let's all feel good and do whatever the hell we want. Brent for
President of the World. Yay!

Last newsflash: If the world worked like you wanted it to, mankind
would be extinct in a matter of weeks.


(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Joe wrote:
>
>> Newsflash: If it's a law, then you either obey it or risk the
>> consequences if you're caught breaking it. Don't like it? Change
>> it.
>
> In other words, just obey. With people like you, this nation
> deserves where it's headed. Removing bad laws is a huge and
> expensive undertaking if you haven't noticed. That's why most people
> simply ignore them. And it's really the people whom they are
> selectively enforced against that have the problem anyway. Most
> people voicing opinons such as yours simply think they'll never be
> that person.
>
> Let me guess, you favor tool laws, like the ones where if a person
> has $10,000 in cash all a cop has to do is think it's from illegal
> drug sales and he can take it. You then have to go to court and
> prove it isn't. Like that law? How about IL's hidden compartment
> law. Make a hidden compartment in your mustang? Get pulled over and
> cop finds it, kiss your car goodbye. Doesn't matter if all you had
> in it was a box of jelly doughnuts.
>
>>> Or because the man with the gun says so. Someone says the speed
>>> limit change is wrong and unreasonable. A cop type responds 'the
>>> law is the law, obey'. Figure it out.
>
>> Nothing to figure out. If it's a law and you break it, you take
>> the consequences. Simple.
>
> What is the purpose of having so many laws such that people cannot
> get through the day without breaking laws? What is the purpose of
> having laws that define common, reasonable behavior as illegal?
> Many laws in this nation are only enforced selectively. Against
> people who are not liked, or have a certain appearance, etc and so
> forth.
>
> I don't understand how people cannot realize the basic and
> fundamental problems with this set up.
>
>>> Law enforcement types consistantly don't respect the concepts of
>>> liberty and rule by the people for the people. They are
>>> consistantly in the camps of people who think that kings and
>>> emperors and other self proclaimed elites should decide what's
>>> best for all of us. Occasionally there is one that believes in the
>>> tyranny of courts or tyranny of the majority.
>
>> Brent, you're living on another planet. Stop playing video games
>> and get back down to earth.
>
> No, I am paying attention on this planet, in this nation. And I
> haven't played video games since the atari 2600 was still the most
> popular game system in use. You might want to pay attention to the
> laws that are being enacted. You might want to take notice of the
> road side checkpoints, the war on drugs laws, the war on terror
> laws, etc and so forth.
>
>>> And many traffic lights are set up poorly encouraging the
>>> practice. Because in the USA, because the mentality isn't one of
>>> sound practice, it's one of authority and obedence.
>
>> Sure, the traffic lights suck, but you simply don't run red lights.
>> You might kill someone. D-oh.
>
> Fact remains, engineering solutions are not used, instead of safety
> we get red light camera profit centers. There is a reason why the
> USA has gone from 1st in the world to a low of 16th and presently
> 10th with regard to road safety.
>
>> After reading your stuff, I'm wondering if you're drunk. And
>> that's based on your own definition.
>
> Kookify. Fine. Stay asleep if you choose. You might be that other
> guy before you know it. Let's see how cheery you are if the TSA
> accidently identifies you as a terrorist. Or maybe the town/city you
> live in decides a developer can do more with the property your home
> is on than you can and decides to kick you out and give it to the
> developer. Or maybe an endangered insect drifts in one day and now
> the government decides you can't use half your property and does not
> compensate you for the loss. Sure, they aren't coming for you now.
> They aren't coming for me now. But I when I hear of the people
> they've already come for, I can understand that I shouldn't ignore
> it thinking it will never be me.
>
>>> We should have emperors, kings, and dictators.
>>
>> Last time I checked, this was a democracy.
>
> It's never been a democracy. It has been a republic, one that is now
> failing just as many of the founders predicted.
>
>>> Parents who tell us
>>> what is right and what is wrong.
>
>> Damn friggin' straight. Or would you rather have Lord Of The
>> Flies?
>
> So how far can government micromange your life, being your parent?
> You do know now there is an effort to control fatty foods. I hope
> you don't enjoy a good burger. Mommy government is going to step in
> and tell you what you can and cannot eat if some of the control
> freaks get their way.
>
>>> The people have voted with their right foot. BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE
>>> PEOPLE. Not by the elite for good of the people.
>
>> Well, one of those voters may just end up ramming your sorry ass
>> because they ran through the red light and t-boned you believing
>> that they're excercising their right to do what they think is
>> right.
>
> Lovely debate ability you have. Again, what purpose do laws that the
> vast majority find unreasonable and ignore have? Things like 55 mph
> interstate speed limits? Not even the cops obey them. When some laws
> don't make sense, soon it errodes other laws. We are seeing that
> with the vehicle code right now.
>
>>> Read documents like:
>>> The Constitution of the United States of America.
>>> The Bill of Rights.
>>> The Federalist Papers.
>>>
>>> Then get back to me.
>>
>> Go have dinner with the family of the person killed by the moron
>> who decided to ignore the law because they felt oppressed by the
>> police state. Then get back to me.
>
> Emotional appeals. Even less. Do you obey 55 mph interstate speed
> limits? I'll wager in any give day you commit more moving violations
> than I do.
>
>>>> Police State? You have never lived under a true Police State. Not
>>>> even close.
>
>>> We are headed there. We already get the checkpoints here in
>>> Chicago. The TSA searches, the patriot act, etc and so forth. Most
>>> of the tools are in place for one. All we need now is an event and
>>> someone to take power.
>
>> Dude, if it's so horrible here then go where it's better. Yeah,
>> it's a challenge.
>
> Ahh. Love it or leave it. The lamest arguement of all.
>
>>> A 3kiloton suitcase nuke in a large city and we might be crowning
>>> King George the first.
>
>>> Just keep obeying orders. Maybe you'll get to be the cop that
>>> hawls me away to the re-education facility or gets to stuff me in
>>> the rail car in a few years time.
>
>> And maybe you'll be the asshole that decides to ignore the law and
>> kills someone.
>> Dude, you need to get your brain rewired. It's pretty screwed up.
>
> Stay asleep. I hope you end up being the other guy. Maybe the DEA
> will have an address mistake. You'll probably understand some of the
> problems then.
>
>

"SVTKate" > wrote in
nk.net:

>
> "Brent P" > wrote
>
> *snipped*
>
>| What is the purpose of having so many laws such that people cannot
>| get through the day without breaking laws? What is the purpose of
>| having laws that define common, reasonable behavior as illegal?
>| Many laws in this nation are only enforced selectively. Against
>| people who are not liked, or have a certain appearance, etc and so
>| forth.
>
> Because without all of those laws, the jackasses in Washington
> wouldn't have a job making more.
> Your paragraph above Brent is, IMHO, right on the money.
>
>
>
>|
>| Emotional appeals. Even less. Do you obey 55 mph interstate speed
>| limits? I'll wager in any give day you commit more moving
>| violations than I do.
>|
>
> Again I agree. I always push the interstate speed limits 5-9 mph
> over. Out here, if the speed limit is 45, they drive 55-60.
> If it's 70, they are driving 80-85.
> I feel like an idiot allot of the time because everyone is passing
> me. It's not as though I don't WANT to go that fast, BUT I just do
> not want that ticket.
>
>
> Kate

Kate, I really thought you had more sense than this. What did you
tell your kids when they learned to drive? That going 5mph over the
limit is just fine because "everybody does it"? Did you tell them
that the law is only a "suggestion"?

Around 4/23/2005 4:14 AM, SVTKate wrote:

> Why would someone prefer top scroll to the bottom of a post then read from
> top to bottom?
> It's unnatural.

Indeed, and that's exactly what I had to do to figure out what I had
said that you're replying to. I agree; top posting is completely
unnatural, and was virtually unheard of before Microsoft introduced it's
broken mail and news client.

> Here in the USA we read left to right, top to bottom. You know that.

Which is why top posting makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like
putting chapter one *after* chapter two in a novel.

> I have only known a few people that make a fuss over it one way or another.
> Like I said, I'm not trying to start a ****ing match, but I'm not going to
> change my ways.

I don't usually make a fuss over it either, but since you asked I
couldn't help answering.


--
/ Garth - '83 GL V6stang Hatch <Former MW #7> \
| My V6stang: http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang |
| RAMFM Merchandise: http://www.cafeshops.com/ramfm |
\ Mail for secure reply information /

Around 4/22/2005 4:00 PM, Spike wrote:

> What an idiot. What is it you actually want?

I would love to see speed limits set by traffic engineers using the 85th
percentile method instead of legislators looking to make up for a budget
shortfall. I also want traffic enforcement to focus not on revenue
generation and speeding but on behavior that make roads dangerous for
everyone, such as tailgating, weaving, red light running, drunk driving,
and failing to keep right except to pass.

> People push the limits every day. If the speed limit is 55 they push
> for 65. If it's 65, they push for 75.

That is a false perception, most likely due to excessively underposted
speed limits.

The speed limit actually has very little effect on the safe speed people
choose for themselves, in the absence of artificial influences such as
enforcement. See http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html for a FHWA
report on the effects of raising and lowering speed limits on actual speeds.

What that means is that you could keep raising the speed limits all you
want, but people will only go as fast as they feel comfortable.

> Still, you want to let people drive on the honor system.

WRT speed limits, that's been proven time and again to be the safest and
most effective way to set limits, if safety and effectiveness are your goal.

Google for the "85th percentile," or take a look at this nice summary
page from the WSDOT:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/traffico...fic/limits.htm


--
/ Garth - '83 GL V6stang Hatch <Former MW #7> \
| My V6stang: http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang |
| RAMFM Merchandise: http://www.cafeshops.com/ramfm |
\ Mail for secure reply information /