Attention Dave "LLB" Head

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:42:26 GMT, E.R. >
> wrote:
>
>>In a previous posting, Jim Yanik .> had the
>>audacity to say:
>>
>>:>>Driving is a TASK; it takes a bit of work of do it properly.
>>:>
>>:> ... and this is "Rule #1".
>>:
>>:And LLB'ing does NOT fit into the category of "doing it PROPERLY".
>>
>>Didja hear that, Dave? :}
>
> Yeah but its just your strange little notion, tho.


Denial.

>
> Lemme know when more than 3 people per year per county get a ticket
> for it...

Simply because police aren't enforcing a law does not mean that it isn't
meaningful.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:15:45 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:42:26 GMT, E.R. > wrote:
>
>>In a previous posting, Jim Yanik .> had the
>>audacity to say:
>>
>>:>>Driving is a TASK; it takes a bit of work of do it properly.
>>:>
>>:> ... and this is "Rule #1".
>>:
>>:And LLB'ing does NOT fit into the category of "doing it PROPERLY".
>>
>>Didja hear that, Dave? :}
>
>Yeah but its just your strange little notion, tho.
>
>Lemme know when more than 3 people per year per county get a ticket for it...
>I figger global warming will have wrecked the planet before that happens (and
>no, I don't believe global warming is poised to do much significant damage much
>before about the year 2500.)
>
>DPH

I find it interesting that you seem to believe that only those things
that are actively enforced as being illegal, are illegal.
Or wrong.
You seem to believe that because there's no punishment, there's no
crime.
An interesting philosophy.

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

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:15:45 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:42:26 GMT, E.R. > wrote:
>
>>In a previous posting, Jim Yanik .> had the
>>audacity to say:
>>
>>:>>Driving is a TASK; it takes a bit of work of do it properly.
>>:>
>>:> ... and this is "Rule #1".
>>:
>>:And LLB'ing does NOT fit into the category of "doing it PROPERLY".
>>
>>Didja hear that, Dave? :}
>
>Yeah but its just your strange little notion, tho.
>
>Lemme know when more than 3 people per year per county get a ticket for it...
>I figger global warming will have wrecked the planet before that happens (and
>no, I don't believe global warming is poised to do much significant damage much
>before about the year 2500.)
>
>DPH

I find it interesting that you seem to believe that only those things
that are actively enforced as being illegal, are illegal.
Or wrong.
You seem to believe that because there's no punishment, there's no
crime.
An interesting philosophy.

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

On 20 Dec 2004 17:02:52 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:42:26 GMT, E.R. >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In a previous posting, Jim Yanik .> had the
>>>audacity to say:
>>>
>>>:>>Driving is a TASK; it takes a bit of work of do it properly.
>>>:>
>>>:> ... and this is "Rule #1".
>>>:
>>>:And LLB'ing does NOT fit into the category of "doing it PROPERLY".
>>>
>>>Didja hear that, Dave? :}
>>
>> Yeah but its just your strange little notion, tho.
>
>
>Denial.
>
>>
>> Lemme know when more than 3 people per year per county get a ticket
>> for it...
>
>Simply because police aren't enforcing a law does not mean that it isn't
>meaningful.

Yeah it does.

If it had significant negative consequences on the road, they would be
enforcing it. They know it doesn't. I know it doesn't. When the _road_ isn't
blocked, there is no consequence whether you have to go around on the right or
the left, just so's you can proceed.

DPH

On 20 Dec 2004 17:02:52 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:42:26 GMT, E.R. >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In a previous posting, Jim Yanik .> had the
>>>audacity to say:
>>>
>>>:>>Driving is a TASK; it takes a bit of work of do it properly.
>>>:>
>>>:> ... and this is "Rule #1".
>>>:
>>>:And LLB'ing does NOT fit into the category of "doing it PROPERLY".
>>>
>>>Didja hear that, Dave? :}
>>
>> Yeah but its just your strange little notion, tho.
>
>
>Denial.
>
>>
>> Lemme know when more than 3 people per year per county get a ticket
>> for it...
>
>Simply because police aren't enforcing a law does not mean that it isn't
>meaningful.

Yeah it does.

If it had significant negative consequences on the road, they would be
enforcing it. They know it doesn't. I know it doesn't. When the _road_ isn't
blocked, there is no consequence whether you have to go around on the right or
the left, just so's you can proceed.

DPH

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:17:14 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:15:45 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:42:26 GMT, E.R. > wrote:
>>
>>>In a previous posting, Jim Yanik .> had the
>>>audacity to say:
>>>
>>>:>>Driving is a TASK; it takes a bit of work of do it properly.
>>>:>
>>>:> ... and this is "Rule #1".
>>>:
>>>:And LLB'ing does NOT fit into the category of "doing it PROPERLY".
>>>
>>>Didja hear that, Dave? :}
>>
>>Yeah but its just your strange little notion, tho.
>>
>>Lemme know when more than 3 people per year per county get a ticket for it...
>>I figger global warming will have wrecked the planet before that happens (and
>>no, I don't believe global warming is poised to do much significant damage much
>>before about the year 2500.)
>>
>>DPH
>
>I find it interesting that you seem to believe that only those things
>that are actively enforced as being illegal, are illegal.
>Or wrong.

You think speeding is wrong? I didn't think so. But it _is_ illegal...

>You seem to believe that because there's no punishment, there's no
>crime.

Not the same thing - sure there _may_ be an infraction, depending on where
you're at. But, if it isn't inforced, then just like "straight sex is the only
thing that's legal", the law gets ignored.

DPH

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:17:14 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:15:45 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:42:26 GMT, E.R. > wrote:
>>
>>>In a previous posting, Jim Yanik .> had the
>>>audacity to say:
>>>
>>>:>>Driving is a TASK; it takes a bit of work of do it properly.
>>>:>
>>>:> ... and this is "Rule #1".
>>>:
>>>:And LLB'ing does NOT fit into the category of "doing it PROPERLY".
>>>
>>>Didja hear that, Dave? :}
>>
>>Yeah but its just your strange little notion, tho.
>>
>>Lemme know when more than 3 people per year per county get a ticket for it...
>>I figger global warming will have wrecked the planet before that happens (and
>>no, I don't believe global warming is poised to do much significant damage much
>>before about the year 2500.)
>>
>>DPH
>
>I find it interesting that you seem to believe that only those things
>that are actively enforced as being illegal, are illegal.
>Or wrong.

You think speeding is wrong? I didn't think so. But it _is_ illegal...

>You seem to believe that because there's no punishment, there's no
>crime.

Not the same thing - sure there _may_ be an infraction, depending on where
you're at. But, if it isn't inforced, then just like "straight sex is the only
thing that's legal", the law gets ignored.

DPH

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On 20 Dec 2004 17:02:52 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>Dave Head > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:42:26 GMT, E.R. >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In a previous posting, Jim Yanik .> had the
>>>>audacity to say:
>>>>
>>>>:>>Driving is a TASK; it takes a bit of work of do it properly.
>>>>:>
>>>>:> ... and this is "Rule #1".
>>>>:
>>>>:And LLB'ing does NOT fit into the category of "doing it PROPERLY".
>>>>
>>>>Didja hear that, Dave? :}
>>>
>>> Yeah but its just your strange little notion, tho.
>>
>>
>>Denial.
>>
>>>
>>> Lemme know when more than 3 people per year per county get a ticket
>>> for it...
>>
>>Simply because police aren't enforcing a law does not mean that it
>>isn't meaningful.
>
> Yeah it does.
>
> If it had significant negative consequences on the road, they would be
> enforcing it. They know it doesn't. I know it doesn't. When the
> _road_ isn't blocked, there is no consequence whether you have to go
> around on the right or the left, just so's you can proceed.
>
> DPH
>
>

Here in Orlando,red light running is rampant,many collisions every day,yet
enforcement is only a weekend perhaps twice a year.

Are you claiming that running red lights does not have negative
consequences on the roads,because police do not enforce it?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On 20 Dec 2004 17:02:52 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>Dave Head > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:42:26 GMT, E.R. >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In a previous posting, Jim Yanik .> had the
>>>>audacity to say:
>>>>
>>>>:>>Driving is a TASK; it takes a bit of work of do it properly.
>>>>:>
>>>>:> ... and this is "Rule #1".
>>>>:
>>>>:And LLB'ing does NOT fit into the category of "doing it PROPERLY".
>>>>
>>>>Didja hear that, Dave? :}
>>>
>>> Yeah but its just your strange little notion, tho.
>>
>>
>>Denial.
>>
>>>
>>> Lemme know when more than 3 people per year per county get a ticket
>>> for it...
>>
>>Simply because police aren't enforcing a law does not mean that it
>>isn't meaningful.
>
> Yeah it does.
>
> If it had significant negative consequences on the road, they would be
> enforcing it. They know it doesn't. I know it doesn't. When the
> _road_ isn't blocked, there is no consequence whether you have to go
> around on the right or the left, just so's you can proceed.
>
> DPH
>
>

Here in Orlando,red light running is rampant,many collisions every day,yet
enforcement is only a weekend perhaps twice a year.

Are you claiming that running red lights does not have negative
consequences on the roads,because police do not enforce it?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

On 20 Dec 2004 23:10:20 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On 20 Dec 2004 17:02:52 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:42:26 GMT, E.R. >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In a previous posting, Jim Yanik .> had the
>>>>>audacity to say:
>>>>>
>>>>>:>>Driving is a TASK; it takes a bit of work of do it properly.
>>>>>:>
>>>>>:> ... and this is "Rule #1".
>>>>>:
>>>>>:And LLB'ing does NOT fit into the category of "doing it PROPERLY".
>>>>>
>>>>>Didja hear that, Dave? :}
>>>>
>>>> Yeah but its just your strange little notion, tho.
>>>
>>>
>>>Denial.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lemme know when more than 3 people per year per county get a ticket
>>>> for it...
>>>
>>>Simply because police aren't enforcing a law does not mean that it
>>>isn't meaningful.
>>
>> Yeah it does.
>>
>> If it had significant negative consequences on the road, they would be
>> enforcing it. They know it doesn't. I know it doesn't. When the
>> _road_ isn't blocked, there is no consequence whether you have to go
>> around on the right or the left, just so's you can proceed.
>>
>> DPH
>>
>>
>
>Here in Orlando,red light running is rampant,many collisions every day,yet
>enforcement is only a weekend perhaps twice a year.

Just the enforcement you hear about. Go ahead and do it in front of a cop and
see if its enforced or not.
>
>Are you claiming that running red lights does not have negative
>consequences on the roads,because police do not enforce it?

If you have an isolated little area where they aren't enforcing red light
violations, which is something I believe you're mistaken about, then there's
lots of other communities that _are_ enforcing it to make the concept valid.

OTOH, try and find a place where they're enforcing what lane you can drive in.
The Michigan State Police, when there was that trucker strike some 20 years,
ago, said that it was just fine with them that 2 trucks went side-by-side down
the road for hundreds of miles at exactly 55 mph. Keeping right was not only
_not_ enforced, it was even disavowed.

DPH