There are three things that conspire against the cyclist

The single biggest thing conspiring against the cyclist is idiot cyclists
like you.

In article
>,
"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> wrote:

> On Jun 22, 12:06*pm, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:
> > The single biggest thing conspiring against the cyclist is idiot cyclists
> > like you.
>
> It's economics. Cyclists are small consumers compared to drivers. And
> we are not subject to tickets either.
>
> That's why drivers are so bullish. It's a mix of hate and envy. We are
> free and they are not.

.... and cyclists don't pay a PENNY in taxes to support the roads and
bridges.

"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" >
wrote in message
...
On Jun 22, 12:06 pm, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:
> The single biggest thing conspiring against the cyclist is idiot cyclists
> like you.

It's economics. Cyclists are small consumers compared to drivers. And
we are not subject to tickets either.

That's why drivers are so bullish. It's a mix of hate and envy. We are
free and they are not.


++++++++++++++++++++++
Assuming all of that is true, and it isn't, the single biggest obsticle that
conspires against the cycling community is idiots like you.

Cry me a f---ing river with your crap.

You point to a small number of other idiots that drive cars, and paint all
drivers with the same brush. You are as bad as the old white guy sitting
around hurling insults and slurs at black people in the '50s and '60s, and
today for that matter. You see one person that is clearly a fool, and say
that everybody that has some shared trait is the same kind of fool.

I am just as free as you, and I can go further and enjoy more. I can also
carry an over-night bag that lets me stay in a sea-side motel.

On 6/22/2012 10:51 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article
> >,
> "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Jun 22, 12:06�pm, "Jeff > wrote:
>>> The single biggest thing conspiring against the cyclist is idiot cyclists
>>> like you.
>>
>> It's economics. Cyclists are small consumers compared to drivers. And
>> we are not subject to tickets either.
>>
>> That's why drivers are so bullish. It's a mix of hate and envy. We are
>> free and they are not.
>
> ... and cyclists don't pay a PENNY in taxes to support the roads and
> bridges.

Only if the cyclists are homeless. Most funding for local roads and
bridges comes from property taxes, which are paid directly by cyclists
if they own, and indirectly if they rent.

Stop being both ignorant and stupid.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

In article >,
"Tom $herman (-_-)" "> wrote:

> On 6/22/2012 10:51 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On Jun 22, 12:06?pm, "Jeff > wrote:
> >>> The single biggest thing conspiring against the cyclist is idiot cyclists
> >>> like you.
> >>
> >> It's economics. Cyclists are small consumers compared to drivers. And
> >> we are not subject to tickets either.
> >>
> >> That's why drivers are so bullish. It's a mix of hate and envy. We are
> >> free and they are not.
> >
> > ... and cyclists don't pay a PENNY in taxes to support the roads and
> > bridges.
>
> Only if the cyclists are homeless. Most funding for local roads and
> bridges comes from property taxes, which are paid directly by cyclists
> if they own, and indirectly if they rent.

Not true! Those funds come from fuel and license taxes -- none of which
bicyclists pay.

>
> Stop being both ignorant and stupid.

.... but they don't pay taxes on their USE of the roadways, like
motorists, who pay fuel and license taxes. Many states charge a personal
property tax on the value of vehicles as part of the license, but
virtually nobody charges such taxes on bicycles, some of which cost
thousands of dollars.

In article
>,
"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> wrote:

> On Jun 23, 1:41*pm, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:
> > "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" >
> > wrote in
> >
> > m...
> > On Jun 22, 12:06 pm, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:
> >
> > > The single biggest thing conspiring against the cyclist is idiot cyclists
> > > like you.
> >
> > It's economics. Cyclists are small consumers compared to drivers. And
> > we are not subject to tickets either.
> >
> > That's why drivers are so bullish. It's a mix of hate and envy. We are
> > free and they are not.
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Assuming all of that is true, and it isn't, the single biggest obsticle
> > that
> > conspires against the cycling community is idiots like you.
> >
> > Cry me a f---ing river with your crap.
> >
> > You point to a small number of other idiots that drive cars, and paint all
> > drivers with the same brush.
>
> True. But we should be able to recognize the bad drivers because they
> are missing the right foot:
>
> On Jun 23, 12:16 pm, Dan O > wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 6:15 am, John B. > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:11:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >John B. wrote:
> >
> > > >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
> > > >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
> > > >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
> > > >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
> >
> > > >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
> > > >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike
> > > >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
> > > >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
> >
> > > >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
> > > >look and mathematical enough to understand.
> >
> > > > > However, we do
> > > >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
> > > >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
> > > >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
> > > >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
> > > >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
> >
> > > >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
> > > >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
> > > >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
> >
> > > >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
> >
> > > >> At least I can't
> > > >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
> > > >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
> > > >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
> >
> > > >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
> >
> > > >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
> > > >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
> > > >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
> > > >attitude.
> >
> > > But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
> > > see the necessity for bike lanes.
> >
> > You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
> > them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
> > purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
> >
> > This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
> > unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
> > have to share lanes with them.
> >
> > This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
> > heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
> > facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
> > make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
> > that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
> > roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
> > you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
> >
> > > Of course, by the same token there
> > > should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
> > > with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
> > > "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
> > > spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
> > > teenager.
> >
> > > Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
> > > recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
> >
> > I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
> > demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
> > inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
> > transportation... take away these assholes right to private
> > transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible)
>
> Not really difficult to implement... Plant undercover cops to ride
> bikes, subject to the drivers' worst instincts, and then the second
> cop is waiting for them with a hefty fine/imprisonment. That's easy to
> do it.
>
> - restrict
> > their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
> > public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
> > there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
> > intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
> > rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
> > otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
> > compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
>
> What a relief, I thought you'd call for Sharia Law (amputation of
> right foot).

.... and what do we do about the bad cyclists -- like the "Critical Mass"
idiots? Do we let Darwin rule?

On 6/23/2012 11:41 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In >,
> "Tom $herman "> wrote:

>> Only if the cyclists are homeless. Most funding for local roads and
>> bridges comes from property taxes, which are paid directly by cyclists
>> if they own, and indirectly if they rent.
>
> Not true! Those funds come from fuel and license taxes -- none of which
> bicyclists pay.

If they own a car, they do pay when they drive and register their
vehicle(s).

>> Stop being both ignorant and stupid.
>
> ... but they don't pay taxes on their USE of the roadways, like
> motorists, who pay fuel and license taxes.

They do pay them. How many cyclists do you know who don't own/lease a
car/motorcycle?

> Many states charge a personal property tax on the value of vehicles
> as part of the license, but virtually nobody charges such taxes on
> bicycles, some of which cost thousands of dollars.

I'm sure they pay sales tax on the purchase.

In article
>,
"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> wrote:

> On Jun 24, 8:26 am, John B. > wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Dan O >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Jun 23, 5:04 pm, John B. > wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Dan O >
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > >> >On Jun 23, 6:15 am, John B. > wrote:
> > >> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:11:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> >John B. wrote:
> >
> > >> >> >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have
> > >> >> >> lived
> > >> >> >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
> > >> >> >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here)
> > >> >> >> we
> > >> >> >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
> >
> > >> >> >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
> > >> >> >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_
> > >> >> >bike
> > >> >> >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
> > >> >> >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
> >
> > >> >> >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
> > >> >> >look and mathematical enough to understand.
> >
> > >> >> > > However, we do
> > >> >> >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
> > >> >> >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits
> > >> >> >> a
> > >> >> >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
> > >> >> >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an
> > >> >> >> auto
> > >> >> >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
> >
> > >> >> >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
> > >> >> >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
> > >> >> >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
> >
> > >> >> >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
> >
> > >> >> >> At least I can't
> > >> >> >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer
> > >> >> >> cans
> > >> >> >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of
> > >> >> >> more
> > >> >> >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
> >
> > >> >> >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
> >
> > >> >> >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor
> > >> >> >incidents,
> > >> >> >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen
> > >> >> >to
> > >> >> >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's
> > >> >> >own
> > >> >> >attitude.
> >
> > >> >> But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
> > >> >> see the necessity for bike lanes.
> >
> > >> >You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
> > >> >them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
> > >> >purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
> >
> > >> >This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
> > >> >unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
> > >> >have to share lanes with them.
> >
> > >> >This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
> > >> >heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
> > >> >facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
> > >> >make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
> > >> >that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
> > >> >roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
> > >> >you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
> >
> > >> >> Of course, by the same token there
> > >> >> should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
> > >> >> with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
> > >> >> "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
> > >> >> spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
> > >> >> teenager.
> >
> > >> >> Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
> > >> >> recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
> >
> > >> >I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
> > >> >demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
> > >> >inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
> > >> >transportation... take away these assholes right to private
> > >> >transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible) - restrict
> > >> >their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
> > >> >public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
> > >> >there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
> > >> >intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
> > >> >rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
> > >> >otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
> > >> >compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
> >
> > >> Err... I kind of agree with you. But you are leaving out the assholes
> > >> who insist on impeding traffic by traveling slower then the average
> > >> traffic speed;
> >
> > >They're not assholes about it if they weave out of the way onto
> > >sidewalks and meadows, now are they? That would be the regard for
> > >cooperation I was talking about.
> >
> > >> weave around and even (horrors) leave the highway for
> > >> short sojourns onto sidewalks and curbs, or even across meadows and
> > >> fields, frequently disobey traffic laws - ignoring stop signs and
> > >> lights - and other (one might say) unfriendly acts?
> >
> > >One might say. "Reasonableness" is an interesting concept.
> >
> > >> Who was it that said, "let those without sin cast the first stone" ?
> >
> > >The concept crosses my mind fairly often. "Sin" is another interestng
> > >concept, as is "trespass".
> >
> > Given that I was quoting someone I thought it might be useful to quote
> > him as exactly as I could :-)
> >
> > But frankly I cannot for the live of me see what all the folderol and
> > furor is about. You bought a bike? Then go and ride it. You don't like
> > the road? Then do what the truckers do and use another road; or get
> > off and push it.
> >
> > The concept that one goes out and buys something and then discovers
> > that he/she doesn't want to play with their goodie because of some
> > perceived danger and therefore tax payer's money should be spent to
> > provide these people with a special venue for playing with their new
> > toys simply appears so ludicrous that I am truly amazed that anyone
> > even cares to advocate it.
> >
> > Hmmm.... I wonder whether I can get the NRA to advocate building a new
> > target range closer to my house.
>
> If they don't make one, then you may want to start aiming at people.
>
> But bikes don't need infrastructure if you are on a budget. All you
> need is to TAKE THE LANE every time. Nobody can deny you space, can
> they?

Tell that to the 18-wheeler that leaves a flat, greasy spot in the road!

Once again, Darwin rules!

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
news
> In article
> >,
> "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Jun 24, 8:26 am, John B. > wrote:
>> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Dan O >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >On Jun 23, 5:04 pm, John B. > wrote:
>> > >> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
>> > >> >
>> > >> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> >On Jun 23, 6:15 am, John B. > wrote:
>> > >> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:11:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >
>> > >> >> > wrote:
>> > >> >> >John B. wrote:
>> >
>> > >> >> >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have
>> > >> >> >> lived
>> > >> >> >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not
>> > >> >> >> have
>> > >> >> >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read
>> > >> >> >> here)
>> > >> >> >> we
>> > >> >> >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
>> >
>> > >> >> >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike
>> > >> >> >safety
>> > >> >> >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they
>> > >> >> >_need_
>> > >> >> >bike
>> > >> >> >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question
>> > >> >> >that
>> > >> >> >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
>> >
>> > >> >> >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious
>> > >> >> >enough to
>> > >> >> >look and mathematical enough to understand.
>> >
>> > >> >> > > However, we do
>> > >> >> >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
>> > >> >> >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike
>> > >> >> >> hits
>> > >> >> >> a
>> > >> >> >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
>> > >> >> >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an
>> > >> >> >> auto
>> > >> >> >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
>> >
>> > >> >> >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
>> > >> >> >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
>> > >> >> >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
>> >
>> > >> >> >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
>> >
>> > >> >> >> At least I can't
>> > >> >> >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer
>> > >> >> >> cans
>> > >> >> >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter
>> > >> >> >> of
>> > >> >> >> more
>> > >> >> >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
>> >
>> > >> >> >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
>> >
>> > >> >> >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor
>> > >> >> >incidents,
>> > >> >> >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I
>> > >> >> >happen
>> > >> >> >to
>> > >> >> >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the
>> > >> >> >person's
>> > >> >> >own
>> > >> >> >attitude.
>> >
>> > >> >> But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I
>> > >> >> can
>> > >> >> see the necessity for bike lanes.
>> >
>> > >> >You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
>> > >> >them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their
>> > >> >real
>> > >> >purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
>> >
>> > >> >This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
>> > >> >unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
>> > >> >have to share lanes with them.
>> >
>> > >> >This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what
>> > >> >the
>> > >> >heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
>> > >> >facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
>> > >> >make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates"
>> > >> >argue
>> > >> >that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of
>> > >> >existing
>> > >> >roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
>> > >> >you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
>> >
>> > >> >> Of course, by the same token there
>> > >> >> should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and
>> > >> >> perhaps
>> > >> >> with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
>> > >> >> "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't
>> > >> >> as
>> > >> >> spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
>> > >> >> teenager.
>> >
>> > >> >> Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I
>> > >> >> would
>> > >> >> recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
>> >
>> > >> >I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else,
>> > >> >or
>> > >> >demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
>> > >> >inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
>> > >> >transportation... take away these assholes right to private
>> > >> >transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible) -
>> > >> >restrict
>> > >> >their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
>> > >> >public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
>> > >> >there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
>> > >> >intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
>> > >> >rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
>> > >> >otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
>> > >> >compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
>> >
>> > >> Err... I kind of agree with you. But you are leaving out the
>> > >> assholes
>> > >> who insist on impeding traffic by traveling slower then the average
>> > >> traffic speed;
>> >
>> > >They're not assholes about it if they weave out of the way onto
>> > >sidewalks and meadows, now are they? That would be the regard for
>> > >cooperation I was talking about.
>> >
>> > >> weave around and even (horrors) leave the highway for
>> > >> short sojourns onto sidewalks and curbs, or even across meadows and
>> > >> fields, frequently disobey traffic laws - ignoring stop signs and
>> > >> lights - and other (one might say) unfriendly acts?
>> >
>> > >One might say. "Reasonableness" is an interesting concept.
>> >
>> > >> Who was it that said, "let those without sin cast the first stone" ?
>> >
>> > >The concept crosses my mind fairly often. "Sin" is another interestng
>> > >concept, as is "trespass".
>> >
>> > Given that I was quoting someone I thought it might be useful to quote
>> > him as exactly as I could :-)
>> >
>> > But frankly I cannot for the live of me see what all the folderol and
>> > furor is about. You bought a bike? Then go and ride it. You don't like
>> > the road? Then do what the truckers do and use another road; or get
>> > off and push it.
>> >
>> > The concept that one goes out and buys something and then discovers
>> > that he/she doesn't want to play with their goodie because of some
>> > perceived danger and therefore tax payer's money should be spent to
>> > provide these people with a special venue for playing with their new
>> > toys simply appears so ludicrous that I am truly amazed that anyone
>> > even cares to advocate it.
>> >
>> > Hmmm.... I wonder whether I can get the NRA to advocate building a new
>> > target range closer to my house.
>>
>> If they don't make one, then you may want to start aiming at people.
>>
>> But bikes don't need infrastructure if you are on a budget. All you
>> need is to TAKE THE LANE every time. Nobody can deny you space, can
>> they?
>
> Tell that to the 18-wheeler that leaves a flat, greasy spot in the road!
>
> Once again, Darwin rules!

Every time TibetanMonkey post such BS I'm remined he's dumber than a fence
post only softer.