More On Left Lane Driving

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:18:38 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:31:28 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:
>
>ATTENTION: I'm about to coin TWO new terms!
>
>So let it be written; so let it be done!!
>
>>>>Um no. an _enabler_ is a person who stops/slows all the traffic behind
>>>>him by letting a shoulder passer or some other MFFY type in.
>
>That's an ACTIVE enabler.
>
>>>An enabler is someone who allows a dangerous situation to exist when they could
>>>do something about it.
>
>That's a PASSIVE enabler.
>
>>>That would be someone in the right lane, allowing some
>>>a-hole to pace him for mile after mile, or worse, allowing him to catch the
>>>next slower car ahead, predictably slowing down, and creating at least a 3-car
>>>clump.
>>
>>No, an enabler does something to *encourage* a behaviour.
>
>Um, no, that would be an ENCOURAGER.
>
>An ENABLER, by definition, ENABLES. If there's something you want to
>do, but you are not ABLE to do it without some sort of complicity on
>my part, then I have ENABLED you.
>
>>Simply driving while someone else does something isn't enabling.
>
>There is passive enabling and active enabling.
>
>Active enabling is the dumb**** who stops to let the driver cut in
>front of him from the shopping center driveway.
>
>Passive enabling is the dumb**** who does not shake loose an LLBing
>duckling.
>
>So now we can give Dave Head a new title: "P. E." (Passive Enabler)

No you can't. I've told you and told you for months that I specifically do not
allow this condition to exist.

Dave Head

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:18:38 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:31:28 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:
>
>ATTENTION: I'm about to coin TWO new terms!
>
>So let it be written; so let it be done!!
>
>>>>Um no. an _enabler_ is a person who stops/slows all the traffic behind
>>>>him by letting a shoulder passer or some other MFFY type in.
>
>That's an ACTIVE enabler.
>
>>>An enabler is someone who allows a dangerous situation to exist when they could
>>>do something about it.
>
>That's a PASSIVE enabler.
>
>>>That would be someone in the right lane, allowing some
>>>a-hole to pace him for mile after mile, or worse, allowing him to catch the
>>>next slower car ahead, predictably slowing down, and creating at least a 3-car
>>>clump.
>>
>>No, an enabler does something to *encourage* a behaviour.
>
>Um, no, that would be an ENCOURAGER.
>
>An ENABLER, by definition, ENABLES. If there's something you want to
>do, but you are not ABLE to do it without some sort of complicity on
>my part, then I have ENABLED you.
>
>>Simply driving while someone else does something isn't enabling.
>
>There is passive enabling and active enabling.
>
>Active enabling is the dumb**** who stops to let the driver cut in
>front of him from the shopping center driveway.
>
>Passive enabling is the dumb**** who does not shake loose an LLBing
>duckling.
>
>So now we can give Dave Head a new title: "P. E." (Passive Enabler)

No you can't. I've told you and told you for months that I specifically do not
allow this condition to exist.

Dave Head

In a previous posting, 223rem > had the
audacity to say:

:Most drivers keep right except to pass.
:Unfortunately, it only takes a few idiot
:LLBs to screw up traffic on the interstate.

It only takes ONE LLB to do that.

It is amazing the effect that ONE inconsiderate LLB can cause in
terms of backing up traffic. This can even hold true in many
situations where it is theoretically possible to pass on the
right legally.

--
E.R. aka SJG aka Ricardo
present location: vancouver bc canada

In a previous posting, 223rem > had the
audacity to say:

:Most drivers keep right except to pass.
:Unfortunately, it only takes a few idiot
:LLBs to screw up traffic on the interstate.

It only takes ONE LLB to do that.

It is amazing the effect that ONE inconsiderate LLB can cause in
terms of backing up traffic. This can even hold true in many
situations where it is theoretically possible to pass on the
right legally.

--
E.R. aka SJG aka Ricardo
present location: vancouver bc canada

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:18:38 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:31:28 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:
>
>ATTENTION: I'm about to coin TWO new terms!
>
>So let it be written; so let it be done!!
>
>>>>Um no. an _enabler_ is a person who stops/slows all the traffic behind
>>>>him by letting a shoulder passer or some other MFFY type in.
>
>That's an ACTIVE enabler.
>
>>>An enabler is someone who allows a dangerous situation to exist when they could
>>>do something about it.
>
>That's a PASSIVE enabler.
>
>>>That would be someone in the right lane, allowing some
>>>a-hole to pace him for mile after mile, or worse, allowing him to catch the
>>>next slower car ahead, predictably slowing down, and creating at least a 3-car
>>>clump.
>>
>>No, an enabler does something to *encourage* a behaviour.
>
>Um, no, that would be an ENCOURAGER.

No, that's an enabler.
Google on "define: enabler" (sans quotes) and see; this actually is
defined.
>
>An ENABLER, by definition, ENABLES. If there's something you want to
>do, but you are not ABLE to do it without some sort of complicity on
>my part, then I have ENABLED you.
>
>>Simply driving while someone else does something isn't enabling.
>
>There is passive enabling and active enabling.
>
>Active enabling is the dumb**** who stops to let the driver cut in
>front of him from the shopping center driveway.
>
>Passive enabling is the dumb**** who does not shake loose an LLBing
>duckling.
>
>So now we can give Dave Head a new title: "P. E." (Passive Enabler)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:18:38 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:31:28 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:
>
>ATTENTION: I'm about to coin TWO new terms!
>
>So let it be written; so let it be done!!
>
>>>>Um no. an _enabler_ is a person who stops/slows all the traffic behind
>>>>him by letting a shoulder passer or some other MFFY type in.
>
>That's an ACTIVE enabler.
>
>>>An enabler is someone who allows a dangerous situation to exist when they could
>>>do something about it.
>
>That's a PASSIVE enabler.
>
>>>That would be someone in the right lane, allowing some
>>>a-hole to pace him for mile after mile, or worse, allowing him to catch the
>>>next slower car ahead, predictably slowing down, and creating at least a 3-car
>>>clump.
>>
>>No, an enabler does something to *encourage* a behaviour.
>
>Um, no, that would be an ENCOURAGER.

No, that's an enabler.
Google on "define: enabler" (sans quotes) and see; this actually is
defined.
>
>An ENABLER, by definition, ENABLES. If there's something you want to
>do, but you are not ABLE to do it without some sort of complicity on
>my part, then I have ENABLED you.
>
>>Simply driving while someone else does something isn't enabling.
>
>There is passive enabling and active enabling.
>
>Active enabling is the dumb**** who stops to let the driver cut in
>front of him from the shopping center driveway.
>
>Passive enabling is the dumb**** who does not shake loose an LLBing
>duckling.
>
>So now we can give Dave Head a new title: "P. E." (Passive Enabler)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:46:01 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:34:29 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>
>>>Passive enabling is the dumb**** who does not shake loose an LLBing
>>>duckling.
>>>
>>>So now we can give Dave Head a new title: "P. E." (Passive Enabler)
>>
>>No you can't. I've told you and told you for months that I specifically do not
>>allow this condition to exist.
>
>Sure I can. You said yourself that you refuse to alter your speed, and
>that you depend solely on slower vehicles in the right lane to scrap
>off your Klingons. Since it could be miles until the next Sloth, you
>and Commander Koloth could be blocking traffic for quite some time.

U

don't

understand.

I said I don't jump out in front of people from the left lane to block them, or
race ahead of a LLB on my left rear to get in front of him... Its dangerous,
it attracts the attention of the cops, it _can_ be considered road rage if its
performed with a lot of wild gyrations and speed changes, and it tends to ****
off the person that's in the left lane.

If there's someone on my right rear, and it looks like it will be a while,
yeah, I'll pop the cruise control once or twice to increase the speed in order
to reach the next car in the right and scrape the guy off. Getting to +9 or
+11 _gradually_, and not having to floor it as one would for an LLB on my left
rear, is a _slight_ risk of a ticket, and something I don't have to execute for
long.

I will let a tailgater who is simply too hardheaded to pass on the right sit
back there all the way to Texas, but I won't let a someone pose a hazard _and_
block up the right lane by driving on my right rear for very long. I detest
having the road blocked, and I detest having a duckling on either quarter panel
(as if this isn't obvious by now.) The true duckling I can even _lower_ my
speed, and they will too, and then during some uphill section I can floor the
throttle enough to get way in front... U can do that fairly safely since the
cops don't set up radar on _uphill_ sections - not much profit in that -
they'll usually give up the chase. If not, in the _rare_ instance that none of
this works, I'll actually pull in front of the guy to block 'em. I mean, this
is _really_ rare. Most of the time, these other methods work. These people
are clueless and _rarely_ attempt to pass after that.

And, as I've said a thousand times if I've said it once, the right lane is
_almost always_ open for someone to go around if they want to.

DPH

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:46:01 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:34:29 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>
>>>Passive enabling is the dumb**** who does not shake loose an LLBing
>>>duckling.
>>>
>>>So now we can give Dave Head a new title: "P. E." (Passive Enabler)
>>
>>No you can't. I've told you and told you for months that I specifically do not
>>allow this condition to exist.
>
>Sure I can. You said yourself that you refuse to alter your speed, and
>that you depend solely on slower vehicles in the right lane to scrap
>off your Klingons. Since it could be miles until the next Sloth, you
>and Commander Koloth could be blocking traffic for quite some time.

U

don't

understand.

I said I don't jump out in front of people from the left lane to block them, or
race ahead of a LLB on my left rear to get in front of him... Its dangerous,
it attracts the attention of the cops, it _can_ be considered road rage if its
performed with a lot of wild gyrations and speed changes, and it tends to ****
off the person that's in the left lane.

If there's someone on my right rear, and it looks like it will be a while,
yeah, I'll pop the cruise control once or twice to increase the speed in order
to reach the next car in the right and scrape the guy off. Getting to +9 or
+11 _gradually_, and not having to floor it as one would for an LLB on my left
rear, is a _slight_ risk of a ticket, and something I don't have to execute for
long.

I will let a tailgater who is simply too hardheaded to pass on the right sit
back there all the way to Texas, but I won't let a someone pose a hazard _and_
block up the right lane by driving on my right rear for very long. I detest
having the road blocked, and I detest having a duckling on either quarter panel
(as if this isn't obvious by now.) The true duckling I can even _lower_ my
speed, and they will too, and then during some uphill section I can floor the
throttle enough to get way in front... U can do that fairly safely since the
cops don't set up radar on _uphill_ sections - not much profit in that -
they'll usually give up the chase. If not, in the _rare_ instance that none of
this works, I'll actually pull in front of the guy to block 'em. I mean, this
is _really_ rare. Most of the time, these other methods work. These people
are clueless and _rarely_ attempt to pass after that.

And, as I've said a thousand times if I've said it once, the right lane is
_almost always_ open for someone to go around if they want to.

DPH

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:48:04 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:00:15 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:
>
>>>>No, an enabler does something to *encourage* a behaviour.
>>>
>>>Um, no, that would be an ENCOURAGER.
>>
>>No, that's an enabler.
>
>Wrong. The word "encourage" does not appear anywhere in the definition
>of "enable."
>
>en·a·ble Audio pronunciation of "enabler" ( P ) Pronunciation Key
>(-nbl)
>tr.v. en·a·bled, en·a·bling, en·a·bles
>
> 1.
> 1. To supply with the means, knowledge, or opportunity; make
>able: a hole in the fence that enabled us to watch; techniques that
>enable surgeons to open and repair the heart.
> 2. To make feasible or possible: funds that will enable
>construction of new schools.
> 2. To give legal power, capacity, or sanction to: a law enabling
>the new federal agency.
> 3. To make operational; activate: enabled the computer's modem;
>enable a nuclear warhead.

Wrong word: enabler is the word we're discussing, not enable.


Main Entry: en·abler
Pronunciation: i-'nA-b(&-)l&r
Function: noun
: one that enables another to achieve an end; especially : one who
enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance
abuse) by providing excuses or by helping that individual avoid the
consequences of such behavior

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster,
Inc.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:48:04 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:00:15 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:
>
>>>>No, an enabler does something to *encourage* a behaviour.
>>>
>>>Um, no, that would be an ENCOURAGER.
>>
>>No, that's an enabler.
>
>Wrong. The word "encourage" does not appear anywhere in the definition
>of "enable."
>
>en·a·ble Audio pronunciation of "enabler" ( P ) Pronunciation Key
>(-nbl)
>tr.v. en·a·bled, en·a·bling, en·a·bles
>
> 1.
> 1. To supply with the means, knowledge, or opportunity; make
>able: a hole in the fence that enabled us to watch; techniques that
>enable surgeons to open and repair the heart.
> 2. To make feasible or possible: funds that will enable
>construction of new schools.
> 2. To give legal power, capacity, or sanction to: a law enabling
>the new federal agency.
> 3. To make operational; activate: enabled the computer's modem;
>enable a nuclear warhead.

Wrong word: enabler is the word we're discussing, not enable.


Main Entry: en·abler
Pronunciation: i-'nA-b(&-)l&r
Function: noun
: one that enables another to achieve an end; especially : one who
enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance
abuse) by providing excuses or by helping that individual avoid the
consequences of such behavior

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster,
Inc.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"