The Irony is simply delicious!

Stolen from the Corner Carvers forum


read first:
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews...1d?in_archive=1

then read:
http://www.journalstar.com/articles...59784029686.txt


Darwinism at its most succinct.

StuK

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:47:17 -0500, Stuart&Janet rearranged some electrons
to form:

> Stolen from the Corner Carvers forum
>
>
> read first:
> http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews...1d?in_archive=1
>
> then read:
> http://www.journalstar.com/articles...59784029686.txt
>
>
> Darwinism at its most succinct.
>
> StuK

Links were broken?

--
David M (dmacchiarolo)
http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
T/S 53
sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 1:13 1 user

Lets try this again.

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews/...d?in_archive=1


http://www.journalstar.com/articles/...9784029686.txt


It's rather sad. However one my break the laws of Man but not of Physics. StuK




"David M" > wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.13.01.24.51.801966@sled351...
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:47:17 -0500, Stuart&Janet rearranged some electrons
> to form:
>
> > Stolen from the Corner Carvers forum
> >
> >
> > read first:
> > http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews...1d?in_archive=1
> >
> > then read:
> > http://www.journalstar.com/articles...59784029686.txt
> >
> >
> > Darwinism at its most succinct.
> >
> > StuK
>
> Links were broken?
>
> --
> David M (dmacchiarolo)
> http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
> T/S 53
> sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 1:13 1 user
>

He practiced what he preached! That's refreshing to see these days. I
think he was very smart, but I *know* he didn't have any common sense!

--
John
ThunderSnake #59

"Stuart&Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Lets try this again.
>
> http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews/...d?in_archive=1
>
>
> http://www.journalstar.com/articles/...9784029686.txt
>
>
> It's rather sad. However one my break the laws of Man but not of Physics.
> StuK
>
>
>
>
> "David M" > wrote in message
> newsan.2005.01.13.01.24.51.801966@sled351...
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:47:17 -0500, Stuart&Janet rearranged some
>> electrons
>> to form:
>>
>> > Stolen from the Corner Carvers forum
>> >
>> >
>> > read first:
>> > http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews...1d?in_archive=1
>> >
>> > then read:
>> > http://www.journalstar.com/articles...59784029686.txt
>> >
>> >
>> > Darwinism at its most succinct.
>> >
>> > StuK
>>
>> Links were broken?
>>
>> --
>> David M (dmacchiarolo)
>> http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
>> T/S 53
>> sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 1:13 1 user
>>
>
>

Darwinism at its finest!!

--
Jafo
'02 GT Black
Not eggzackly stock.

"Stuart&Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Lets try this again.
>
>
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews/...d?in_archive=1
>
>
>
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/...9784029686.txt
>
>
> It's rather sad. However one my break the laws of Man but not of Physics.
StuK
>
>
>
>
> "David M" > wrote in message
> newsan.2005.01.13.01.24.51.801966@sled351...
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:47:17 -0500, Stuart&Janet rearranged some
electrons
> > to form:
> >
> > > Stolen from the Corner Carvers forum
> > >
> > >
> > > read first:
> > > http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews...1d?in_archive=1
> > >
> > > then read:
> > > http://www.journalstar.com/articles...59784029686.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > Darwinism at its most succinct.
> > >
> > > StuK
> >
> > Links were broken?
> >
> > --
> > David M (dmacchiarolo)
> > http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
> > T/S 53
> > sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 1:13 1 user
> >
>
>

Seat Belt laws are a source of raising revenue and nothing else. They
have saved many lives while on the other hand people who weren't wearing a
seat belt were ejected from the vehicle and lived while the seat belted
occupants all died. Personal preference should be the point of interest. I
used to write tickets and investigate accidents for a living and I've yet to
see a seat belt being the cause for and accident unless someone tried to put
it on while the vehicle was in motion and this probably was the result of
seeing a cop coming and the driver then attempted to buckle up to avoid a
possible citation.
If the government and law enforcement had any balls they would be a lot
more concerned about cell phone usage while the vehicle is in motion. I
can't count the amount of traffic accidents that cell phone users cause or
are involved in. Yet, most states don't have a law outlawing their usage
while traveling down the road. Give me a break. Communication companies
and lobbiests for them have derailed such laws so they can make money at our
expense.
Now do you expect an intelligent person to accept the seat belt law which
is being forced upon you so local jurisdictions can profit from the fines
levied for failure to comply with this totally ridiculous law. Wake up
people! You're being sold a bill of goods. Furthermore, many states
insurance laws allow them to consider the failure to comply with the wearing
of a seat belt, as a moviing violation which leads to additional increase in
your insurance rates. The seat belt laws are a joke but why am I not
laughing?
Some day just for the fun of it count the people you see using a cell
phone along the route you take to work and I can only imagine if this
doesn't alarm you, you obviously are living in your own happy place and will
need the government to make more decisions for you in the years to come.
Seat belts equal personal choice. Cell phone usage while driving equals
an accident waiting to happen.

Steve
04 Cobra

"Stuart&Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Stolen from the Corner Carvers forum
>
>
> read first:
> http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews...1d?in_archive=1
>
> then read:
> http://www.journalstar.com/articles...59784029686.txt
>
>
> Darwinism at its most succinct.
>
> StuK
>
>

If you don't wear a seat belt, and get in an accident you are much more
likely to be injured and taken to an emergency room. EMS and the emergency
room will treat you. Even if you have insurance, this costs me money. I
want seat belts to be the law so that your own stupidity doesn't cost me in
higher insurance bills. If you don't want to have to wear a seat belt you
need to agree to pay for all your emergency medical treatment out of pocket.
You talk about taking responsibility for yourself, try doing it! You better
keep at least $30,000 in a bank account so that I know you can afford
medical treatment. It's your life, and you can do whatever you want with it.
Just don't make me pay for your idiocy. If you're on the side of the road
and bleeding to death, you'd want others to take a little responsibility for
you.


Jim S.
'92 LX Coupe



"Steve Porter" > wrote in message
...
> Seat Belt laws are a source of raising revenue and nothing else. They
> have saved many lives while on the other hand people who weren't wearing a
> seat belt were ejected from the vehicle and lived while the seat belted
> occupants all died. Personal preference should be the point of interest.
> I used to write tickets and investigate accidents for a living and I've
> yet to see a seat belt being the cause for and accident unless someone
> tried to put it on while the vehicle was in motion and this probably was
> the result of seeing a cop coming and the driver then attempted to buckle
> up to avoid a possible citation.
> If the government and law enforcement had any balls they would be a lot
> more concerned about cell phone usage while the vehicle is in motion. I
> can't count the amount of traffic accidents that cell phone users cause or
> are involved in. Yet, most states don't have a law outlawing their usage
> while traveling down the road. Give me a break. Communication companies
> and lobbiests for them have derailed such laws so they can make money at
> our expense.
> Now do you expect an intelligent person to accept the seat belt law which
> is being forced upon you so local jurisdictions can profit from the fines
> levied for failure to comply with this totally ridiculous law. Wake up
> people! You're being sold a bill of goods. Furthermore, many states
> insurance laws allow them to consider the failure to comply with the
> wearing of a seat belt, as a moviing violation which leads to additional
> increase in your insurance rates. The seat belt laws are a joke but why
> am I not laughing?
> Some day just for the fun of it count the people you see using a cell
> phone along the route you take to work and I can only imagine if this
> doesn't alarm you, you obviously are living in your own happy place and
> will need the government to make more decisions for you in the years to
> come.
> Seat belts equal personal choice. Cell phone usage while driving equals
> an accident waiting to happen.
>
> Steve
> 04 Cobra
>
> "Stuart&Janet" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Stolen from the Corner Carvers forum
>>
>>
>> read first:
>> http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews...1d?in_archive=1
>>
>> then read:
>> http://www.journalstar.com/articles...59784029686.txt
>>
>>
>> Darwinism at its most succinct.
>>
>> StuK
>>
>>
>
>

In article >, Steve Porter
> wrote:

> Seat Belt laws are a source of raising revenue and nothing else. They
> have saved many lives while on the other hand people who weren't wearing a
> seat belt were ejected from the vehicle and lived while the seat belted
> occupants all died.

What's the statistics on that, though? From what I have read, those
cases are the aberrations, and not the norm.

Do you prepare for the 5 sigma case or the 1 sigma case?

*shrug* I always belt up, so I couldn't give a flip about the issue.

Agree on the cell phones, though. People point to the raw numbers
without weighting the market penetration.

For example, say radio fiddling accounted for 50% of accidents and cell
phones 10%. But radios are, effectively, found in 100% of all cars
while cell phones are actively used in, say, 5% of cars.

If there are 100 accidents in a population of 100,000 cars, then 50
will be caused by radios and 10 by call phones. Ah! Radios are 5 times
worse than cell phones.

But all 100,000 cars have radios, so the accident rate for radios is
0.05%. Only 5,000 of the cars have active cell phone users, so the rate
for them is 0.20%, or 4 times that of radios.

They reported the actual numbers earlier this year in a study, and I
think the real world results were worse. I know that the last dozen
close calls I have had have been instigated by people on cell phones.
One woman almost blew through a stop sign. She would have broadsided
me, and her three VISIBLY UNBELTED kids wandering around the back seat
would have been S.O.L.

In article >, Steve Porter wrote:
> Seat Belt laws are a source of raising revenue and nothing else.

I agree with you on this being their motivation. In addition to it, there is a control
freakism to it.

But all and all I am for not only seat belt usage better better seats and
better restraint systems to keep the driver in place and in control of the
vehicle. I have no objection to a simple law that requires seatbelt usage.
I don't find them any different than those requiring headlamp use at
night. However that is as far as it should go. No seat belt checkpoints and
other nonsense this crusade is being used for.

In article >, Steve Porter wrote:
> Our town is so
> wacked out that now everyone has to where a bicycle helmet when riding a
> bicycle regardless of your age.

Bicycle helmets are really the object to show the insanity of the safety
groups. Bicycle helmets don't do anything but protect from falling over.
There is no protection beyond that. A bicycle helmet would probably be
more useful as a safety device while climbing stairs.

> Yet our police department can't and won't
> necessarily investigate a home burglary or car prowlings because they don't
> have the needed manpower. They have time to write tickets, look for seat
> belt violators and stop people who are old enough to go to war or vote and
> harass or cite them for not wearing a bicycle helmet.

Of course. The bosses are the elected officals. Robbery investigations
cost money. Writing tickets make money. So what are the bosses going to
make a police priority? Plus there isn't a special interest group
demanding robbery investigations.


> My son
> used to come home and complain about the cops pulling him over whenever they
> felt like it for no front license plate (required in Wash), loud music, loud
> muffler, and no working rear license plate light bulb. I drove his car a
> few times and immediately cops would see the car do a u-turn and quickly
> fall in behind the vehicle or pull up alongside it and once they saw an old
> man driving they peeled off and left me alone.

A few years ago, when I could still pass as a teenager by a glance at
night, I would have cops following me, looking for any excuse to pull me
over I suppose. It doesn't happen any more. I don't drive any
differently and I am driving the same cars. They would peel off in
frustration when I reached home. Cops on usenet have called me
'paranoid', so I find it very refreshing to see you relate this similiar
experience.

> to 3 years even if your were deemed a high risk driver and quit driving, as
> soon as you apply for insurance they still can charge high risk rates for 3
> years. They are going to get there money one way or another.

Yep. they demand that you have insurance even if you don't own a car and
don't drive. If you go a few years without a car expect to pay through
the ass when you get one again. I've heard this over and over again from
people who lived overseas for a few years, lived in big cities and had no
need for a car, etc and so forth.

> When I investigated accidents we wrote a citation to cover the cost of the
> time required to do so because the insurance industry didn't and wasn't
> about to pay for the investigation. There again though, when it came time
> to go to court on the civil end of the collision who did they subpeona, the
> police department investigator. Accident investigation should funded by the
> insurance companies. The police department shouldn't be the insurance
> companies secretaries.

I had a kid cut me off, and while I was adjusting for that, avoiding
him, someone cut him off, he over-reacted and slammed on the brakes and
there was no way I could get that much more decel out of the brakes. So
*Bang*. Cop writes me a ticket for no seatbelt. I tell him I was wearing
it, he changes it to failure to reduce speed. motherf'er. I'd like to see
him avoid that one. If I did that to him, he wouldn't write himself that
ticket.


> Our state had the seat belt law where if you were stopped for some other
> vilolation and observed you didn't have a seat belt on, then they could
> write you a citation for it too. The problem with the law now is that can
> be the reason for the initial traffic stop. This becomes a fishing
> expedition stop especially in the nighttime. An over zealous police officer
> can stop anything that moves in his district and justify it by saying he was
> making a traffic stop based on the seat belt law when in reality he or she
> is looking for drugs or some kind of criminal activity afoot. In Washington
> I've seen citations written for improper positioning of the seat belt such
> as when a person tucks the shoulder portion of the seat belt under his or
> her arm for comfort purposes.

Here they have checkpoints for seatbelt usage. Checkpoints, like the
Gestopho(sp?) or KGB would have. Of course I've been stopped for a papers
check where the cop couldn't come up with anything I had done wrong so he
claimed that 'a similiar vehicle' had been involved in 'a crime'. Yeah,
lot's of '73 mavericks were being used for crimes in the late 1990s.
Bull****. I might see another maverick once a year around here.

I've come to the conclusion that a great deal of the vehicle code has
been subverted for police state like purposes. To get around that pesky
bill of rights. Because 'driving' isn't protected, it's been made that
the moment we get in our vehicles, most of our rights are effectively
suspended.

Now with the war on terror, we have to surrendor our rights to take
various other forms of transporation. A Supreme court decision has made
even being on foot subject to a police paper's stop. So we aren't left
with much are we?

Get the wrong people into office and the structure to turn the USA into
something that would rival the USSR is very much in place and ready to
go. It just takes the right kind of people to use it that way. I find
this to be objectionable wrt the very basis of the US of A.