Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

Why is life becoming more like grade school? Someone is a total MFFY to
you, and if you object in the least you're the one that's the problem.

http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_10634834

"According to court documents, York and his wife were in their car,
looking for a parking spot in the Target lot on East Lohman Avenue, when
they spotted a vehicle pulling out of a parking space. Before the Yorks
could pull into the space, an unidentified woman whipped into the spot
and parked.

Gallegos, who happened to be on duty and in the parking lot, overheard
York, whose car windows were down, say either "bitch" or "what a bitch,"
the documents state.

Gallegos said the comment was heard by him as well as man and a
5-year-old child, who were nearby.

Once out of his car, York was confronted by Gallegos, who told him he
could be arrested for causing a disturbance. An argument between the two
ensued. Gallegos called for backup, and Lucero and Martinez responded."

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:35:22 -0500, Brent P
> wrote:

>
>Why is life becoming more like grade school? Someone is a total MFFY to
>you, and if you object in the least you're the one that's the problem.
>
>http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_10634834
>
>"According to court documents, York and his wife were in their car,
>looking for a parking spot in the Target lot on East Lohman Avenue, when
>they spotted a vehicle pulling out of a parking space. Before the Yorks
>could pull into the space, an unidentified woman whipped into the spot
>and parked.
>
>Gallegos, who happened to be on duty and in the parking lot, overheard
>York, whose car windows were down, say either "bitch" or "what a bitch,"
>the documents state.
>
>Gallegos said the comment was heard by him as well as man and a
>5-year-old child, who were nearby.
>
>Once out of his car, York was confronted by Gallegos, who told him he
>could be arrested for causing a disturbance. An argument between the two
>ensued. Gallegos called for backup, and Lucero and Martinez responded."
>


Allah Bless America (sic).....

--
Never forget the Golden Rule:
He who has the Gold makes the Rules.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

> Why is life becoming more like grade school? Someone is a total MFFY to
> you, and if you object in the least you're the one that's the problem.

Maybe it's because the idiots that are trying to force you to believe
that you're the problem are used to these "grade school" rules and never
learned otherwise.

> http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_10634834
>
> "According to court documents, York and his wife were in their car,
> looking for a parking spot in the Target lot on East Lohman Avenue, when
> they spotted a vehicle pulling out of a parking space. Before the Yorks
> could pull into the space, an unidentified woman whipped into the spot
> and parked.
>
> Gallegos, who happened to be on duty and in the parking lot, overheard
> York, whose car windows were down, say either "bitch" or "what a bitch,"
> the documents state.
>
> Gallegos said the comment was heard by him as well as man and a
> 5-year-old child, who were nearby.

I really dislike the drivers that wait in the middle of the aisle for
somebody to pull out of a parking space.

I had such a driver last week that saw me getting into the car and
blocked me from leaving. There were other available parking spaces, but
she wanted the closest one to the store. These MFFYs block other
traffic too, which can be a hazard if I can't see another driver going
around the MFFY because of the oversized SUV that's parked next to me.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Why is life becoming more like grade school? Someone is a total MFFY to
> you, and if you object in the least you're the one that's the problem.
>
> http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_10634834
>
> "According to court documents, York and his wife were in their car,
> looking for a parking spot in the Target lot on East Lohman Avenue, when
> they spotted a vehicle pulling out of a parking space. Before the Yorks
> could pull into the space, an unidentified woman whipped into the spot
> and parked.
>
I happen to have a different viewpoint of this reported incident and court
settlement...

That someone else gets into a parking space first happens in many crowded
places, including shopping malls and beach area parking lots. It sucks, and
is very inconsiderate, but parking is always about the one who can get into
the spot first. That said, I would also agree that courtesy should be used,
but technically it's not required by law (i.e., there is no vehicle code
that I can find that requires yielding general/non-reserved/non-restricted
parking spaces).

(So if someone passed me while I was waiting for a parking spot and pulled
in first, I would certainly have a very low opinion of them but then again
if someone is that inconsiderate, it's probably also not a good idea to
provoke them with angry speech or profanity. If they came in the other
direction and pulled in first, then it's somewhat debatable whether or not
they cut me off or if I was just too slow in pulling into the spot. If they
cut me off as I was in the motion of actually pulling into the parking lot,
then that's more than just being inconsiderate and borders on reckless
driving. A good long honk of the horn might be called for, but again if they
are that dangerous in their driving then it's probably also not a good idea
to provoke them with angry speech or profanity.)

> Gallegos, who happened to be on duty and in the parking lot, overheard
> York, whose car windows were down, say either "bitch" or "what a bitch,"
> the documents state.
>
Certainly not the worst of profane words, but it's profanity nevertheless
and maybe could even eventually escalate to a road rage type of incident of
some type if the profanity ends up getting a followup verbal response.

> Gallegos said the comment was heard by him as well as man and a
> 5-year-old child, who were nearby.
>
> Once out of his car, York was confronted by Gallegos, who told him he
> could be arrested for causing a disturbance. An argument between the two
> ensued. Gallegos called for backup, and Lucero and Martinez responded."
>
>
If he was out of his car, presumably, he had already found another parking
space. So then cop says he *could* be arrested, and the guy doesn't leave
well enough alone and argues with the cop? How STUPID is that? Just
apologize to the officer and then let it be. (As I read it, the arrest
didn't occur until after the argument and backup was called.)

That means the settlement probably came down to the police officer's arrest
technique, as in had the police officer not used a technique that was
contrary to his training, it's likely that the city would have not had to
settle at all.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-05, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:

> (So if someone passed me while I was waiting for a parking spot and pulled
> in first, I would certainly have a very low opinion of them but then again
> if someone is that inconsiderate, it's probably also not a good idea to
> provoke them with angry speech or profanity.

That's just let them do it in a nutshell. Be affraid, be scared, don't
'provoke' people by reacting. Which is bizarre, because one doesn't
provoke with a reaction.

> driving. A good long honk of the horn might be called for, but again if they
> are that dangerous in their driving then it's probably also not a good idea
> to provoke them with angry speech or profanity.)

The key to just let them do it is being affraid of other people. This
only enables those who are aggressive. Under this rule, why not cut off
other people? Why not be a total and complete aggressive arsehole?
Afterall what you're arguing here is to back down and never even voice
disapproval out of fear. It's writing a blank check to the aggressive.
It just creates a sense of entitlement. Then it's monkey see, monkey do,
as people see what behaviors are being rewarded.

> Certainly not the worst of profane words, but it's profanity nevertheless
> and maybe could even eventually escalate to a road rage type of incident of
> some type if the profanity ends up getting a followup verbal response.

To me this sounds like gun control 'logic' applied to speach.

> If he was out of his car, presumably, he had already found another parking
> space. So then cop says he *could* be arrested, and the guy doesn't leave
> well enough alone and argues with the cop? How STUPID is that? Just
> apologize to the officer and then let it be. (As I read it, the arrest
> didn't occur until after the argument and backup was called.)

Just lick the boots of the guy in the government issued costume? Cops
are not our masters and it's not 'stupid' to argue with them, one just
has to understand what they really are.

> That means the settlement probably came down to the police officer's arrest
> technique, as in had the police officer not used a technique that was
> contrary to his training, it's likely that the city would have not had to
> settle at all.

Cities make all sorts of absurd behaviors policies as if that makes it
okay.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 5, 1:48*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 01:09:17 -0700, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >"Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Why is life becoming more like grade school? Someone is a total MFFY to
> >> you, and if you object in the least you're the one that's the problem.
>
> >>http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_10634834
>
> >> "According to court documents, York and his wife were in their car,
> >> looking for a parking spot in the Target lot on East Lohman Avenue, when
> >> they spotted a vehicle pulling out of a parking space. Before the Yorks
> >> could pull into the space, an unidentified woman whipped into the spot
> >> and parked.
>
> >I happen to have a different viewpoint of this reported incident and court
> >settlement...
>
> >That someone else gets into a parking space first happens in many crowded
> >places, including shopping malls and beach area parking lots. It sucks, and
> >is very inconsiderate, but parking is always about the one who can get into
> >the spot first. That said, I would also agree that courtesy should be used,
> >but technically it's not required by law (i.e., there is no vehicle code
> >that I can find that requires yielding general/non-reserved/non-restricted
> >parking spaces).
>
> >(So if someone passed me while I was waiting for a parking spot and pulled
> >in first, I would certainly have a very low opinion of them but then again
> >if someone is that inconsiderate, it's probably also not a good idea to
> >provoke them with angry speech or profanity. If they came in the other
> >direction and pulled in first, then it's somewhat debatable whether or not
> >they cut me off or if I was just too slow in pulling into the spot. If they
> >cut me off as I was in the motion of actually pulling into the parking lot,
> >then that's more than just being inconsiderate and borders on reckless
> >driving. A good long honk of the horn might be called for, but again if they
> >are that dangerous in their driving then it's probably also not a good idea
> >to provoke them with angry speech or profanity.)
>
> >> Gallegos, who happened to be on duty and in the parking lot, overheard
> >> York, whose car windows were down, say either "bitch" or "what a bitch,"
> >> the documents state.
>
> >Certainly not the worst of profane words, but it's profanity nevertheless
> >and maybe could even eventually escalate to a road rage type of incident of
> >some type if the profanity ends up getting a followup verbal response.
>
> >> Gallegos said the comment was heard by him as well as man and a
> >> 5-year-old child, who were nearby.
>
> >> Once out of his car, York was confronted by Gallegos, who told him he
> >> could be arrested for causing a disturbance. An argument between the two
> >> ensued. Gallegos called for backup, and Lucero and Martinez responded."
>
> >If he was out of his car, presumably, he had already found another parking
> >space. So then cop says he *could* be arrested, and the guy doesn't leave
> >well enough alone and argues with the cop? How STUPID is that? Just
> >apologize to the officer and then let it be. (As I read it, the arrest
> >didn't occur until after the argument and backup was called.)
>
> >That means the settlement probably came down to the police officer's arrest
> >technique, as in had the police officer not used a technique that was
> >contrary to his training, it's likely that the city would have not had to
> >settle at all.
>
> I agree with you on the last part but only because we have become a
> police state. *There is ZERO basis for the cops to have even stuck
> their nose in this whole incident. *In fact, it appears there was NO
> incident until the cops decided they couldn't just mind their own
> business but simply had to throw their authority around. *It's too bad
> that some people may have heard the word "bitch" but that's what
> happens in a free society. *If you want to talk "how stupid is that"
> you need to direct the comment to the cops who took what was a
> situation that was OVER and turned it into a quarter million dollar
> expense for the city. *In a free society there should be no fear to
> telling a cop he's an ass when he's an ass. *I'm sure you are a nice
> guy but the attitude you display (drop trow and bend over on command
> of a cop) is why this country is on a downhill slide. *If you read
> between the lines on this you can tell that the city could care less
> about the cops behavior and rather then condemn his actions, as should
> have happened, the pass it off as a "non-standard" arrest technique.
> NON-Standard??? *How about ILLEGAL!! *What teh cop did is plain
> assault and he should have been arrested and convicted of it. *if you
> or I did the same thing that's what would have happened to us. *But as
> always, the cops are given a pass for their illegal behavior. *The
> only way to stop it is to sue the *******s, something most people have
> neither the time nor money to do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I happen to agree that that is what _should_ be. Reality though is
that you will rarely win an argument with a cop. Pushing it will
usually result in a trip to the grey bar hotel. Thus one must decide
just how far one wants to stick up for principles in view of the high
cost and probability of losing.

Harry K

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-06, Harry K > wrote:

> I happen to agree that that is what _should_ be. Reality though is
> that you will rarely win an argument with a cop. Pushing it will
> usually result in a trip to the grey bar hotel. Thus one must decide
> just how far one wants to stick up for principles in view of the high
> cost and probability of losing.

There is something to be said for learning *how* to argue with cops. The
problem is it takes practice and understanding.

The biggest problem is cops have one tool, a hammer, so all problems to
them look like nails.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:41:57 -0500, Brent P
> wrote:

>On 2008-10-06, Harry K > wrote:
>
>> I happen to agree that that is what _should_ be. Reality though is
>> that you will rarely win an argument with a cop. Pushing it will
>> usually result in a trip to the grey bar hotel. Thus one must decide
>> just how far one wants to stick up for principles in view of the high
>> cost and probability of losing.
>
>There is something to be said for learning *how* to argue with cops. The
>problem is it takes practice and understanding.
>
>The biggest problem is cops have one tool, a hammer, so all problems to
>them look like nails.
>

Unfortunately, the judges like to believe the cops even though they
know they are purgering themsleves much of the time. Secondly, they
like to throw around the phrase Contempt of Court. I'm waiting to hold
a judge in contempt of common sense...

In many incidents, I *have* argued with a cop and walked away from it,
generally with an apology. Having a solid foundation for the argument
and being plainly in the right has made all the world of difference
for me.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-06, adventuremyk <adventuremyk> wrote:

> Unfortunately, the judges like to believe the cops even though they
> know they are purgering themsleves much of the time.

Look at where the judges' paychecks come from. Either the judge works
for the same government as the cop or the judge feeds off the same
incoming revenue stream as the cop. In either case the judge's interests
as he sees them are the same as the cop's.

> In many incidents, I *have* argued with a cop and walked away from it,
> generally with an apology. Having a solid foundation for the argument
> and being plainly in the right has made all the world of difference
> for me.

Yep. You have to know the law and right and wrong an order of magnitude
above the cop.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

In article >,
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Why is life becoming more like grade school? Someone is a total MFFY to
>> you, and if you object in the least you're the one that's the problem.
>>
>> http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_10634834
>>
>> "According to court documents, York and his wife were in their car,
>> looking for a parking spot in the Target lot on East Lohman Avenue, when
>> they spotted a vehicle pulling out of a parking space. Before the Yorks
>> could pull into the space, an unidentified woman whipped into the spot
>> and parked.
>>
>I happen to have a different viewpoint of this reported incident and court
>settlement...
>
>That someone else gets into a parking space first happens in many crowded
>places, including shopping malls and beach area parking lots. It sucks, and
>is very inconsiderate, but parking is always about the one who can get into
>the spot first. That said, I would also agree that courtesy should be used,
>but technically it's not required by law (i.e., there is no vehicle code
>that I can find that requires yielding general/non-reserved/non-restricted
>parking spaces).
>
[...]
>
>> Gallegos, who happened to be on duty and in the parking lot, overheard
>> York, whose car windows were down, say either "bitch" or "what a bitch,"
>> the documents state.
>>
>Certainly not the worst of profane words, but it's profanity nevertheless

No, "bitch" is not profanity.

>and maybe could even eventually escalate to a road rage type of incident of
>some type if the profanity ends up getting a followup verbal response.

The taking of the spot by the bitch was the first move, so if you're
going to play "but fors", you have to start earlier than the verbal response.

>If he was out of his car, presumably, he had already found another parking
>space. So then cop says he *could* be arrested, and the guy doesn't leave
>well enough alone and argues with the cop? How STUPID is that? Just
>apologize to the officer and then let it be. (As I read it, the arrest
>didn't occur until after the argument and backup was called.)

You don't have to just smile and say "yes master, I'm sorry master";
that's not required by law. It's imprudent to do otherwise only
because cops are out of control.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>On 2008-10-06, Harry K > wrote:
>
>> I happen to agree that that is what _should_ be. Reality though is
>> that you will rarely win an argument with a cop. Pushing it will
>> usually result in a trip to the grey bar hotel. Thus one must decide
>> just how far one wants to stick up for principles in view of the high
>> cost and probability of losing.
>
>There is something to be said for learning *how* to argue with cops. The
>problem is it takes practice and understanding.

There isn't a way, because you could use the softest words possible
(or none at all), and it will go down in the police report that you
were shouting, waving your arms, etc. Cops lie. They don't report
the facts, they report a story designed to get a conviction, with some
specific details added to provide verisimilitude.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 6, 12:41*am, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-10-06, Harry K > wrote:
>
> > I happen to agree that that is what _should_ be. *Reality though is
> > that you will rarely win an argument with a cop. *Pushing it will
> > usually result in a trip to the grey bar hotel. *Thus one must decide
> > just how far one wants to stick up for principles in view of the high
> > cost and probability of losing.
>
> There is something to be said for learning *how* to argue with cops. The
> problem is it takes practice and understanding.
>
> The biggest problem is cops have one tool, a hammer, so all problems to
> them look like nails.

I'm not sure I want to know how one acquires practice at arguing with
a cop. It seems to me that it would not be a pleasant learning curve.

nate

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-06, Matthew Russotto > wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent P > wrote:
>>On 2008-10-06, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>>> I happen to agree that that is what _should_ be. Reality though is
>>> that you will rarely win an argument with a cop. Pushing it will
>>> usually result in a trip to the grey bar hotel. Thus one must decide
>>> just how far one wants to stick up for principles in view of the high
>>> cost and probability of losing.
>>
>>There is something to be said for learning *how* to argue with cops. The
>>problem is it takes practice and understanding.

> There isn't a way, because you could use the softest words possible
> (or none at all), and it will go down in the police report that you
> were shouting, waving your arms, etc. Cops lie. They don't report
> the facts, they report a story designed to get a conviction, with some
> specific details added to provide verisimilitude.

There is a way so long as you aren't dealing with a total scumbag of a
cop. I wouldn't be typing this if there wasn't. When dealing with a
total scumbag with a badge even total submission is a risk. When someone
is that evil, submission may send a message that he can take more and he
will. Submission has its own set of risks. Cases of women being raped by
cops they submitted to are not unheard of.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-06, N8N > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:41*am, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-10-06, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> > I happen to agree that that is what _should_ be. *Reality though is
>> > that you will rarely win an argument with a cop. *Pushing it will
>> > usually result in a trip to the grey bar hotel. *Thus one must decide
>> > just how far one wants to stick up for principles in view of the high
>> > cost and probability of losing.
>>
>> There is something to be said for learning *how* to argue with cops. The
>> problem is it takes practice and understanding.
>>
>> The biggest problem is cops have one tool, a hammer, so all problems to
>> them look like nails.
>
> I'm not sure I want to know how one acquires practice at arguing with
> a cop. It seems to me that it would not be a pleasant learning curve.

It hasn't been pleasant but I have no intention of giving up vehicular
bicycling, so I've had to learn how to deal with them. I don't even have
to be bicycling now... two of the last three.... one came after me
because I 'made a face' at him when he turned left in front me forcing
me to stop, the other I was just walking home with my sammich and fries
and they decided I fit an extremely vague description they had of
someone who broke a window and did the full COPs rutine. I just about
lost it when the lead cop started his loud commanding forcible 'just
tell us you did it' routine on me....

I understand Bush has northcom setting up or set up a unit to do
policing. People should have resisted a long time ago, the longer they
go without resisting these violations of their liberty the harder it
will become to resist.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 6, 9:15*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:13:44 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Oct 5, 1:48*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 01:09:17 -0700, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >"Brent P" > wrote in message
> >> ...
>
> >> >> Why is life becoming more like grade school? Someone is a total MFFY to
> >> >> you, and if you object in the least you're the one that's the problem.
>
> >> >>http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_10634834
>
> >> >> "According to court documents, York and his wife were in their car,
> >> >> looking for a parking spot in the Target lot on East Lohman Avenue, when
> >> >> they spotted a vehicle pulling out of a parking space. Before the Yorks
> >> >> could pull into the space, an unidentified woman whipped into the spot
> >> >> and parked.
>
> >> >I happen to have a different viewpoint of this reported incident and court
> >> >settlement...
>
> >> >That someone else gets into a parking space first happens in many crowded
> >> >places, including shopping malls and beach area parking lots. It sucks, and
> >> >is very inconsiderate, but parking is always about the one who can get into
> >> >the spot first. That said, I would also agree that courtesy should be used,
> >> >but technically it's not required by law (i.e., there is no vehicle code
> >> >that I can find that requires yielding general/non-reserved/non-restricted
> >> >parking spaces).
>
> >> >(So if someone passed me while I was waiting for a parking spot and pulled
> >> >in first, I would certainly have a very low opinion of them but then again
> >> >if someone is that inconsiderate, it's probably also not a good idea to
> >> >provoke them with angry speech or profanity. If they came in the other
> >> >direction and pulled in first, then it's somewhat debatable whether or not
> >> >they cut me off or if I was just too slow in pulling into the spot. If they
> >> >cut me off as I was in the motion of actually pulling into the parking lot,
> >> >then that's more than just being inconsiderate and borders on reckless
> >> >driving. A good long honk of the horn might be called for, but again if they
> >> >are that dangerous in their driving then it's probably also not a good idea
> >> >to provoke them with angry speech or profanity.)
>
> >> >> Gallegos, who happened to be on duty and in the parking lot, overheard
> >> >> York, whose car windows were down, say either "bitch" or "what a bitch,"
> >> >> the documents state.
>
> >> >Certainly not the worst of profane words, but it's profanity nevertheless
> >> >and maybe could even eventually escalate to a road rage type of incident of
> >> >some type if the profanity ends up getting a followup verbal response..
>
> >> >> Gallegos said the comment was heard by him as well as man and a
> >> >> 5-year-old child, who were nearby.
>
> >> >> Once out of his car, York was confronted by Gallegos, who told him he
> >> >> could be arrested for causing a disturbance. An argument between the two
> >> >> ensued. Gallegos called for backup, and Lucero and Martinez responded."
>
> >> >If he was out of his car, presumably, he had already found another parking
> >> >space. So then cop says he *could* be arrested, and the guy doesn't leave
> >> >well enough alone and argues with the cop? How STUPID is that? Just
> >> >apologize to the officer and then let it be. (As I read it, the arrest
> >> >didn't occur until after the argument and backup was called.)
>
> >> >That means the settlement probably came down to the police officer's arrest
> >> >technique, as in had the police officer not used a technique that was
> >> >contrary to his training, it's likely that the city would have not had to
> >> >settle at all.
>
> >> I agree with you on the last part but only because we have become a
> >> police state. *There is ZERO basis for the cops to have even stuck
> >> their nose in this whole incident. *In fact, it appears there was NO
> >> incident until the cops decided they couldn't just mind their own
> >> business but simply had to throw their authority around. *It's too bad
> >> that some people may have heard the word "bitch" but that's what
> >> happens in a free society. *If you want to talk "how stupid is that"
> >> you need to direct the comment to the cops who took what was a
> >> situation that was OVER and turned it into a quarter million dollar
> >> expense for the city. *In a free society there should be no fear to
> >> telling a cop he's an ass when he's an ass. *I'm sure you are a nice
> >> guy but the attitude you display (drop trow and bend over on command
> >> of a cop) is why this country is on a downhill slide. *If you read
> >> between the lines on this you can tell that the city could care less
> >> about the cops behavior and rather then condemn his actions, as should
> >> have happened, the pass it off as a "non-standard" arrest technique.
> >> NON-Standard??? *How about ILLEGAL!! *What teh cop did is plain
> >> assault and he should have been arrested and convicted of it. *if you
> >> or I did the same thing that's what would have happened to us. *But as
> >> always, the cops are given a pass for their illegal behavior. *The
> >> only way to stop it is to sue the *******s, something most people have
> >> neither the time nor money to do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >I happen to agree that that is what _should_ be. *Reality though is
> >that you will rarely win an argument with a cop. *Pushing it will
> >usually result in a trip to the grey bar hotel. *Thus one must decide
> >just how far one wants to stick up for principles in view of the high
> >cost and probability of losing.
>
> >Harry K
>
> If no one challenges them then they win by default and the police
> state continues unabated. *And they know it's a high cost to challenge
> them, just as you do and noted above. *That's why the whole thing is
> so pernicious.

Except you draw the wrong conclusion from the reported events.

Calling names is a childish way of registering your displeasure. And
offensive. And just plain rude.

Standing up to MFFY is not a license to be MFFY in return - you still
have to be polite. Otherwise it's just two assholes yelling at one
another.

Being verbally abusive to a police officer has NEVER been a ticket to
success. Which is why you have to THINK before you try and teach
someone a lesson.

E.P.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote:

> Calling names is a childish way of registering your displeasure. And
> offensive. And just plain rude.

Hmm... sounds like someone, who was that, oh wait, it was you who just
posted a couple times calling me names.. The irony.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 5, 4:09*am, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." >
wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
> > Why is life becoming more like grade school? Someone is a total MFFY to
> > you, and if you object in the least you're the one that's the problem.
>
> >http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_10634834
>
> > "According to court documents, York and his wife were in their car,
> > looking for a parking spot in the Target lot on East Lohman Avenue, when
> > they spotted a vehicle pulling out of a parking space. Before the Yorks
> > could pull into the space, an unidentified woman whipped into the spot
> > and parked.
>
> I happen to have a different viewpoint of this reported incident and court
> settlement...
>
> That someone else gets into a parking space first happens in many crowded
> places, including shopping malls and beach area parking lots. It sucks, and
> is very inconsiderate, but parking is always about the one who can get into
> the spot first. That said, I would also agree that courtesy should be used,
> but technically it's not required by law (i.e., there is no vehicle code
> that I can find that requires yielding general/non-reserved/non-restricted
> parking spaces).
>
> (So if someone passed me while I was waiting for a parking spot and pulled
> in first, I would certainly have a very low opinion of them but then again
> if someone is that inconsiderate, it's probably also not a good idea to
> provoke them with angry speech or profanity. If they came in the other
> direction and pulled in first, then it's somewhat debatable whether or not
> they cut me off or if I was just too slow in pulling into the spot. If they
> cut me off as I was in the motion of actually pulling into the parking lot,
> then that's more than just being inconsiderate and borders on reckless
> driving. A good long honk of the horn might be called for, but again if they
> are that dangerous in their driving then it's probably also not a good idea
> to provoke them with angry speech or profanity.)
>
> > Gallegos, who happened to be on duty and in the parking lot, overheard
> > York, whose car windows were down, say either "bitch" or "what a bitch,"
> > the documents state.
>
> Certainly not the worst of profane words, but it's profanity nevertheless
> and maybe could even eventually escalate to a road rage type of incident of
> some type if the profanity ends up getting a followup verbal response.
>
> > Gallegos said the comment was heard by him as well as man and a
> > 5-year-old child, who were nearby.
>
> > Once out of his car, York was confronted by Gallegos, who told him he
> > could be arrested for causing a disturbance. An argument between the two
> > ensued. Gallegos called for backup, and Lucero and Martinez responded."
>
> If he was out of his car, presumably, he had already found another parking
> space. So then cop says he *could* be arrested, and the guy doesn't leave
> well enough alone and argues with the cop? How STUPID is that? Just
> apologize to the officer and then let it be. (As I read it, the arrest
> didn't occur until after the argument and backup was called.)
>
> That means the settlement probably came down to the police officer's arrest
> technique, as in had the police officer not used a technique that was
> contrary to his training, it's likely that the city would have not had to
> settle at all.

I would have calmy told the cop "No, you can't arrest me for that" and
walked away.


Dave

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 6, 9:15*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:13:44 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Oct 5, 1:48*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 01:09:17 -0700, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >"Brent P" > wrote in message
> >> ...
>
> >> >> Why is life becoming more like grade school? Someone is a total MFFY to
> >> >> you, and if you object in the least you're the one that's the problem.
>
> >> >>http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_10634834
>
> >> >> "According to court documents, York and his wife were in their car,
> >> >> looking for a parking spot in the Target lot on East Lohman Avenue, when
> >> >> they spotted a vehicle pulling out of a parking space. Before the Yorks
> >> >> could pull into the space, an unidentified woman whipped into the spot
> >> >> and parked.
>
> >> >I happen to have a different viewpoint of this reported incident and court
> >> >settlement...
>
> >> >That someone else gets into a parking space first happens in many crowded
> >> >places, including shopping malls and beach area parking lots. It sucks, and
> >> >is very inconsiderate, but parking is always about the one who can get into
> >> >the spot first. That said, I would also agree that courtesy should be used,
> >> >but technically it's not required by law (i.e., there is no vehicle code
> >> >that I can find that requires yielding general/non-reserved/non-restricted
> >> >parking spaces).
>
> >> >(So if someone passed me while I was waiting for a parking spot and pulled
> >> >in first, I would certainly have a very low opinion of them but then again
> >> >if someone is that inconsiderate, it's probably also not a good idea to
> >> >provoke them with angry speech or profanity. If they came in the other
> >> >direction and pulled in first, then it's somewhat debatable whether or not
> >> >they cut me off or if I was just too slow in pulling into the spot. If they
> >> >cut me off as I was in the motion of actually pulling into the parking lot,
> >> >then that's more than just being inconsiderate and borders on reckless
> >> >driving. A good long honk of the horn might be called for, but again if they
> >> >are that dangerous in their driving then it's probably also not a good idea
> >> >to provoke them with angry speech or profanity.)
>
> >> >> Gallegos, who happened to be on duty and in the parking lot, overheard
> >> >> York, whose car windows were down, say either "bitch" or "what a bitch,"
> >> >> the documents state.
>
> >> >Certainly not the worst of profane words, but it's profanity nevertheless
> >> >and maybe could even eventually escalate to a road rage type of incident of
> >> >some type if the profanity ends up getting a followup verbal response..
>
> >> >> Gallegos said the comment was heard by him as well as man and a
> >> >> 5-year-old child, who were nearby.
>
> >> >> Once out of his car, York was confronted by Gallegos, who told him he
> >> >> could be arrested for causing a disturbance. An argument between the two
> >> >> ensued. Gallegos called for backup, and Lucero and Martinez responded."
>
> >> >If he was out of his car, presumably, he had already found another parking
> >> >space. So then cop says he *could* be arrested, and the guy doesn't leave
> >> >well enough alone and argues with the cop? How STUPID is that? Just
> >> >apologize to the officer and then let it be. (As I read it, the arrest
> >> >didn't occur until after the argument and backup was called.)
>
> >> >That means the settlement probably came down to the police officer's arrest
> >> >technique, as in had the police officer not used a technique that was
> >> >contrary to his training, it's likely that the city would have not had to
> >> >settle at all.
>
> >> I agree with you on the last part but only because we have become a
> >> police state. *There is ZERO basis for the cops to have even stuck
> >> their nose in this whole incident. *In fact, it appears there was NO
> >> incident until the cops decided they couldn't just mind their own
> >> business but simply had to throw their authority around. *It's too bad
> >> that some people may have heard the word "bitch" but that's what
> >> happens in a free society. *If you want to talk "how stupid is that"
> >> you need to direct the comment to the cops who took what was a
> >> situation that was OVER and turned it into a quarter million dollar
> >> expense for the city. *In a free society there should be no fear to
> >> telling a cop he's an ass when he's an ass. *I'm sure you are a nice
> >> guy but the attitude you display (drop trow and bend over on command
> >> of a cop) is why this country is on a downhill slide. *If you read
> >> between the lines on this you can tell that the city could care less
> >> about the cops behavior and rather then condemn his actions, as should
> >> have happened, the pass it off as a "non-standard" arrest technique.
> >> NON-Standard??? *How about ILLEGAL!! *What teh cop did is plain
> >> assault and he should have been arrested and convicted of it. *if you
> >> or I did the same thing that's what would have happened to us. *But as
> >> always, the cops are given a pass for their illegal behavior. *The
> >> only way to stop it is to sue the *******s, something most people have
> >> neither the time nor money to do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >I happen to agree that that is what _should_ be. *Reality though is
> >that you will rarely win an argument with a cop. *Pushing it will
> >usually result in a trip to the grey bar hotel. *Thus one must decide
> >just how far one wants to stick up for principles in view of the high
> >cost and probability of losing.
>
> >Harry K
>
> If no one challenges them then they win by default and the police
> state continues unabated. *And they know it's a high cost to challenge
> them, just as you do and noted above. *That's why the whole thing is
> so pernicious.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But you see the cop _was_ challenged and lost and if he still has a
job he isn't about to do that ever again. The _effective_ challenge
was not one-on-one on the street though, it was in the courts. The
street challenge was not only ineffective, it cost the person big
time.

Harry K

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-07, Harry K > wrote:
> But you see the cop _was_ challenged and lost and if he still has a
> job he isn't about to do that ever again. The _effective_ challenge
> was not one-on-one on the street though, it was in the courts. The
> street challenge was not only ineffective, it cost the person big
> time.

You don't get the court case without standing up in the one-on-one. If
you lick the cops boots and the cop is satisified with the boot licking
there is no court challenge. The actions of the cop are never reviewed
and they will be repeated until he's no longer satisified with someone
licking his boots and he goes ape on someone who did submit or someone
else stands up to him.

That's assuming that the courts are the independent body we are told
they are. In reality, the courts are part of government. Sure, sometimes
in specific instance the court may be the part of a different or larger
government body than one being challenged, but often they will be the
same. It's really a crap shoot if one is going to get anything even
approaching 'fair' in a government court when challenging the
government.

Also, if people don't resist 'on the street' then the government
employees become more bold, they will push further, as any bully would
do. What's the quote...

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have
been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make
an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to
say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as
for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire
city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror
at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase,
but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up
in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes,
hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . ." -Alexander
Solzhenitsyn

Certainly not to that extreme yet, but the theme is the same. The reason
we have the mess we do have is that people don't stand up. A cop becomes
conditioned to being the law when 99 people back down to him and then
when one stands up to him he explodes. These government employees would
learn their place if more people would simply stand up for themselves.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 7, 10:10 am, Brent P >
wrote:
>
> Certainly not to that extreme yet, but the theme is the same.

Yeah, and a hurricane and light breeze are both "winds".

> The reason
> we have the mess we do have is that people don't stand up. A cop becomes
> conditioned to being the law when 99 people back down to him and then
> when one stands up to him he explodes. These government employees would
> learn their place if more people would simply stand up for themselves.

Please relate some of your "standing up to a cop" stories. You've
reported more interactions with cops than anyone I've ever heard of,
so this should be an easy one...
-----

- gpsman

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 7, 7:10*am, Brent P > wrote:
> On 2008-10-07, Harry K > wrote:
>
> > But you see the cop _was_ challenged and lost and if he still has a
> > job he isn't about to do that ever again. *The _effective_ challenge
> > was not one-on-one on the street though, it was in the courts. *The
> > street challenge was not only ineffective, it cost the person big
> > time.
>
> You don't get the court case without standing up in the one-on-one. If
> you lick the cops boots and the cop is satisified with the boot licking
> there is no court challenge. The actions of the cop are never reviewed
> and they will be repeated until he's no longer satisified with someone
> licking his boots and he goes ape on someone who did submit or someone
> else stands up to him.


Your're right. I realized that there never would have been a case if
the street conflict hadn't occurred after I posted.

<snip>

Harry K

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 6, 11:14*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > Calling names is a childish way of registering your displeasure. *And
> > offensive. *And just plain rude.
>
> Hmm... sounds like someone, who was that, oh wait, it was you who just
> posted a couple times calling me names.. The irony.

No, I'm just ridiculing you, Brent - a moron with a tenuous grip on
reality (at best). Far from an actual, real-life issue of confronting
MFFYism, ridiculing you in a newgroup is nothing more than poking fun
at the less-abled.

If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. But, from
experience, I know that's a waste of my time.

So, ridicule it is. And no irony involved! LOL.

E.P.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:14*pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>>
>> > Calling names is a childish way of registering your displeasure. *And
>> > offensive. *And just plain rude.
>>
>> Hmm... sounds like someone, who was that, oh wait, it was you who just
>> posted a couple times calling me names.. The irony.

> No, I'm just ridiculing you, Brent - a moron with a tenuous grip on
> reality (at best). Far from an actual, real-life issue of confronting
> MFFYism, ridiculing you in a newgroup is nothing more than poking fun
> at the less-abled.

I am well familiar you structure things so you can give yourself
exceptions to the rules you want others to follow.

> If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
> where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. But, from
> experience, I know that's a waste of my time.

Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed? I think
it's called alt.net.kooks or something like that. Affraid that you'd be
laughed at? Oh wait, that's right, you don't live by what you preach.

> So, ridicule it is. And no irony involved! LOL.

It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you
create for others. Something you do continually.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 7, 12:26*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 11:14*pm, Brent P >
> > wrote:
> >> On 2008-10-07, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> >> > Calling names is a childish way of registering your displeasure. *And
> >> > offensive. *And just plain rude.
>
> >> Hmm... sounds like someone, who was that, oh wait, it was you who just
> >> posted a couple times calling me names.. The irony.
> > No, I'm just ridiculing you, Brent - a moron with a tenuous grip on
> > reality (at best). *Far from an actual, real-life issue of confronting
> > MFFYism, ridiculing you in a newgroup is nothing more than poking fun
> > at the less-abled.
>
> I am well familiar you structure things so you can give yourself
> exceptions to the rules you want others to follow.

Actually, you aren't. It's just more made up **** for an idiot.

> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from
> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time.
>
> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed?

As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to
your posts. The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my
control.


> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL.
>
> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you
> create for others. Something you do continually.

Wrong, yet again. I didn't make the rules. They existed before even
you showed up in USENET. I just abide by them (something that you
seem to be unable to do).

Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. Thanks!

E.P.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:

> Actually, you aren't. It's just more made up **** for an idiot.

*yawn* name calling to get out. lame.

>> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
>> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from
>> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time.
>>
>> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed?
>
> As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to
> your posts. The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my
> control.

Another exception you make for yourself.


>> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL.
>>
>> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you
>> create for others. Something you do continually.

> Wrong, yet again. I didn't make the rules. They existed before even
> you showed up in USENET. I just abide by them (something that you
> seem to be unable to do).

You're not abiding by jack **** Ed. You've reduced yourself to whiny
little troll who has to mention me in threads I am not even
participating in.

> Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. Thanks!

So please explain how the initial thread was so fundamentally different
than a speeding ticket or one of scott's 'look at the MFFY parking'
threads that it doesn't belong here?

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 5, 9:18 pm, Brent P > wrote:
>
> Cops
> are not our masters and it's not 'stupid' to argue with them, one just
> has to understand what they really are.

Uh huh... armed with multiple weapons, and police powers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH_qVJfaYZA
-----

- gpsman

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 7, 8:44*pm, Brent P > wrote:
> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > Actually, you aren't. *It's just more made up **** for an idiot.
>
> *yawn* name calling to get out. lame.

Uh, no. But nice context-trimming. Dishonest, much? LOL.

> >> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
> >> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from
> >> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time.
>
> >> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed?
>
> > As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to
> > your posts. *The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my
> > control.
>
> Another exception you make for yourself.

The fact that you don't understand it's not an "exception" is freakin'
hilarious.

> >> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL.
>
> >> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you
> >> create for others. Something you do continually.
> > Wrong, yet again. *I didn't make the rules. *They existed before even
> > you showed up in USENET. *I just abide by them (something that you
> > seem to be unable to do).
>
> You're not abiding by jack **** Ed.

As usual, you are wrong, and embarrassing yourself by your lack of
knowledge. But I love the "troll" thing - anyone who disagrees with
you is a "troll". Or uninformed, or in denial, or something else.

My gosh, someone might get the idea you think you're perfect.

> > Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. *Thanks!
>
> So please explain how the initial thread was so fundamentally different
> than a speeding ticket or one of scott's 'look at the MFFY parking'
> threads that it doesn't belong here?

*sigh*

Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
*driving*, you drooling dip****.

I realize that you love to take even the slightest opportunity to take
any thread off to your lala-land world of Zionists and aliens and
brownshirts, but seriously - looking around to blame someone else?

L-****ing-OL.

E.P.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 8:44*pm, Brent P > wrote:
>> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>>
>> > Actually, you aren't. *It's just more made up **** for an idiot.
>>
>> *yawn* name calling to get out. lame.
>
> Uh, no. But nice context-trimming. Dishonest, much? LOL.
>
>> >> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
>> >> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from
>> >> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time.
>>
>> >> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed?
>>
>> > As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to
>> > your posts. *The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my
>> > control.
>>
>> Another exception you make for yourself.
>
> The fact that you don't understand it's not an "exception" is freakin'
> hilarious.
>
>> >> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL.
>>
>> >> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you
>> >> create for others. Something you do continually.
>> > Wrong, yet again. *I didn't make the rules. *They existed before even
>> > you showed up in USENET. *I just abide by them (something that you
>> > seem to be unable to do).
>>
>> You're not abiding by jack **** Ed.
>
> As usual, you are wrong, and embarrassing yourself by your lack of
> knowledge. But I love the "troll" thing - anyone who disagrees with
> you is a "troll". Or uninformed, or in denial, or something else.
>
> My gosh, someone might get the idea you think you're perfect.
>
>> > Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. *Thanks!
>>
>> So please explain how the initial thread was so fundamentally different
>> than a speeding ticket or one of scott's 'look at the MFFY parking'
>> threads that it doesn't belong here?
>
> *sigh*
>
> Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
> *driving*, you drooling dip****.
>
> I realize that you love to take even the slightest opportunity to take
> any thread off to your lala-land world of Zionists and aliens and
> brownshirts, but seriously - looking around to blame someone else?
>
> L-****ing-OL.
>
> E.P.
>

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 8:44*pm, Brent P > wrote:
>> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>>
>> > Actually, you aren't. *It's just more made up **** for an idiot.
>>
>> *yawn* name calling to get out. lame.
>
> Uh, no. But nice context-trimming. Dishonest, much? LOL.

The king of context trimming getting all bent out of shape because of a
little extra aggressiveness in the clean up. There was no thought put to
it at all, Ed. But here you go seeing malice where there was none...
gee that's a behavior you accuse other people of...

>> >> > If I thought for a moment you'd ACTUALLY take your drivel to a place
>> >> > where it's topical, I'd engage you in adult discussion. *But, from
>> >> > experience, I know that's a waste of my time.
>>
>> >> Why don't you post your ridicule in the forum it belongs in Ed?
>>
>> > As I have explained previously, it *does* belong in direct response to
>> > your posts. *The fact that you can't understand that is beyond my
>> > control.
>>
>> Another exception you make for yourself.
>
> The fact that you don't understand it's not an "exception" is freakin'
> hilarious.

What is hilarious is that you complain I am littering the newsgroup but
by your own actions, you increase what you are complaining about by no
less than 10 fold.

>> >> > So, ridicule it is. *And no irony involved! *LOL.

>> >> It is so fitting that you give yourself an exception for the rules you
>> >> create for others. Something you do continually.
>> > Wrong, yet again. *I didn't make the rules. *They existed before even
>> > you showed up in USENET. *I just abide by them (something that you
>> > seem to be unable to do).
>>
>> You're not abiding by jack **** Ed.

> As usual, you are wrong, and embarrassing yourself by your lack of
> knowledge. But I love the "troll" thing - anyone who disagrees with
> you is a "troll". Or uninformed, or in denial, or something else.
> My gosh, someone might get the idea you think you're perfect.

What do you call a person who sprinkles his posts with insults directed
at people who aren't even participating in the thread at the time? Is
there a special term for that now or does still fall under 'trolling'?
As far as denial or uninformed, well some are. But not all. Your use of
'anyone' is clearly false.

>> > Yet again, you prove my point better than I could ever. *Thanks!
>>
>> So please explain how the initial thread was so fundamentally different
>> than a speeding ticket or one of scott's 'look at the MFFY parking'
>> threads that it doesn't belong here?
> *sigh*
> Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
> *driving*, you drooling dip****.

How about you point out specifically where I started a 'tin foil hatted'
tangent in this very typical topic I posted on with elements of MFFY,
'just let them do it', and 'road rage'? Put up or shut up. And I mean
started, not replied into, because replying into a tangent is someone
else's tangent, not mine.

> I realize that you love to take even the slightest opportunity to take
> any thread off to your lala-land world of Zionists and aliens and
> brownshirts, but seriously - looking around to blame someone else?
> L-****ing-OL.

See, this is why it's pretty clear you have some inner need to discredit
me. You just spout lies like the above. Care to show where I mentioned
any of the above, ever, in any serious fashion? (I have mentioned aliens
in jest or in an anology of the absurd a few times over the years, but
never the other two in any form or fashion) Care to put up or shut up,
motha-****a?

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 8, 10:30 am, Brent P >
wrote:
>
> The king of context trimming getting all bent out of shape because of a
> little extra aggressiveness in the clean up. There was no thought put to
> it at all, Ed.

Now there's a surprise. Not that you act without thinking, that's
obvious, but that you realize it yourself.
-----

- gpsman

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
> *driving*, you drooling dip****.

What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. For
instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
single response from you.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 8, 10:09*am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
> > *driving*, you drooling dip****.
>
> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. *For
> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
> single response from you.

Because it was actually on-topic?

Nah, that can't be it.

E.P.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:09*am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
>> > *driving*, you drooling dip****.
>>
>> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
>> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
>> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. *For
>> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
>> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
>> single response from you.
>
> Because it was actually on-topic?
>
> Nah, that can't be it.

What is off topic on a MFFY,'just let them do it', 'road rage',
conversion thread? Which is what this was until you came in to it.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-08, Brent P > wrote:
> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 10:09*am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> > Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
>>> > *driving*, you drooling dip****.
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
>>> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
>>> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. *For
>>> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
>>> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
>>> single response from you.
>>
>> Because it was actually on-topic?
>>
>> Nah, that can't be it.
>
> What is off topic on a MFFY,'just let them do it', 'road rage',
> conversion thread? Which is what this was until you came in to it.

ack... convergence thread...

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:09 am, Arif Khokar > wrote:

>> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
>> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
>> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. For
>> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
>> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
>> single response from you.

> Because it was actually on-topic?

Your point? My point was that all you appear to do is just post to this
group to continue your long standing dispute with Brent. Or is there
another reason why you don't participate in other threads (some of which
are actually on-topic)?

I don't agree with everything that everyone else posts here, but that
doesn't result in me participating in meta-subthreads where I just
engage in name calling.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 8, 12:03*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 10:09*am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
> >> > *driving*, you drooling dip****.
>
> >> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
> >> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
> >> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. *For
> >> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
> >> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
> >> single response from you.
>
> > Because it was actually on-topic?
>
> > Nah, that can't be it.
>
> What is off topic on a MFFY,'just let them do it', 'road rage',
> conversion thread? Which is what this was until you came in to it.

Actually, it was that until you whined about namecalling in another
thread. But nice attempt at shifting the blame. LOL.

E.P.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On Oct 8, 12:19*pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 10:09 am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> >> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
> >> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
> >> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. *For
> >> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
> >> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
> >> single response from you.
> > Because it was actually on-topic?
>
> Your point? *My point was that all you appear to do is just post to this
> group to continue your long standing dispute with Brent.

I used to post a lot, when the group actually had use. But then it
degenerated into half driving, half political bull****.

The VAST majority of OT B.S. comes from Brent. All you need to do is
read the last 2 years of the newsgroup to see that.

Remember all those great guys that used to post about driving? A lot
of them sought greener pastures right about the time Brent ratchetted
up his political B.S.

Call it a coincidence if you like.

> Or is there
> another reason why you don't participate in other threads (some of which
> are actually on-topic)?

Why bother when it is almost inevitable that we get yet another dose
of tinfoilhattery?

> I don't agree with everything that everyone else posts here, but that
> doesn't result in me participating in meta-subthreads where I just
> engage in name calling.

JLEDI, IOW.

That's fine, and your choice. But bitching about me is lame
considering the very small volume of anything I post here.

E.P.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-09, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 12:03*pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 8, 10:09*am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >> > Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
>> >> > *driving*, you drooling dip****.
>>
>> >> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
>> >> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
>> >> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. *For
>> >> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
>> >> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
>> >> single response from you.
>>
>> > Because it was actually on-topic?
>>
>> > Nah, that can't be it.
>>
>> What is off topic on a MFFY,'just let them do it', 'road rage',
>> conversion thread? Which is what this was until you came in to it.
>
> Actually, it was that until you whined about namecalling in another
> thread. But nice attempt at shifting the blame. LOL.

Again, I taunted you with 'is that all you got?' Of course in your
reality you call that a 'whine'.

Again, what was off topic about *THIS* thread before you touched it?

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-09, Ed Pirrero > wrote:

>> Your point? *My point was that all you appear to do is just post to this
>> group to continue your long standing dispute with Brent.

> I used to post a lot, when the group actually had use. But then it
> degenerated into half driving, half political bull****.

> The VAST majority of OT B.S. comes from Brent. All you need to do is
> read the last 2 years of the newsgroup to see that.

Totally false. The *VAST* majority comes from the xposted treads from
'judy' et all. My contribution is tiny unless you decide to magnify it
by creating the very 'problem' you complain about. Even then the noise
contribution is fraction of what comes from the x-posted threads from
'judy' and 'don' alone. Of course you can't prove your theory with
logic or data, either.

> Remember all those great guys that used to post about driving? A lot
> of them sought greener pastures right about the time Brent ratchetted
> up his political B.S.

And you have proof of this connection you're making? Sounds like you are
doing the exact same thing you complain about it. The hyprocrisy.

> Call it a coincidence if you like.

All my fault... lol. The death of usenet is *my* fault. How come those
people no longer frequent usenet at all? If a group goes bad most people
just stop with *that* group. Furthermore if your thesis were true you
should be able to point to the same thing in *other* groups I frequent.
A simple check of google groups show they completely left usenet. For
instance, Brandon Sommerville followed rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled.
I never touched that group, he hasn't posted to since nov 2005, and
before that he had not posted since aug 2004, when still following rad
and vw groups. C.R. left usenet entirely as well. He used to follow the
groups alt.autos.audi and rec.models.scale along with bmw and jaguar and
music groups. He fell off of usenet as well, all at the same time in all
groups. Scott has disappeared from all groups he frequented as well. I
could go on but your thesis is falling apart rapidly. Maybe you should
have bothered to spend a minute or so trying to back it up before
spewing it forth.

I used to play backup for some of those 'great guys' in countless
threads. Or maybe you forgot that. Guys like Jim Walker who would
discuss his experiences in the political arena wrt driving.

If you really want threads on technical things, feel free to *START*
some Ed. I just don't come across much of a technical nature
these days. The threads I've started on the pluses and minus of
cars I've been considering didn't go to far. Maybe that's because
you ignored them? Instead what you do is contribute noise in the name of
fighting *noise*.

> That's fine, and your choice. But bitching about me is lame
> considering the very small volume of anything I post here.

Take away my posts and the 'noise' you complain about from me drops to
nearly nothing. You'd get about 100 times more bank for your buck
fighting the 'noise' from judy alone.

Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
 

On 2008-10-09, Brent P > wrote:
> Take away _your_ posts and the 'noise' you complain about from me
drops to nearly nothing. You'd get about 100 times more bank for your buck
fighting the 'noise' from judy alone.

correction underlined.