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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
cracked head....ouch! | Antonio Garcia | BMW | 10 | September 20th 04 03:56 AM |
Dodge 2.5L eats another head (and how long is the bottom end good for) | Bob Fourney | Dodge | 6 | August 28th 04 01:07 AM |
1987 Landcruiser FJ60 2F head removal | Jabran | 4x4 | 1 | August 23rd 04 04:11 PM |
Head Gasket 98 Neon? | Simon Cooke | Dodge | 6 | July 29th 04 12:49 PM |