"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 4:15*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2011-02-08, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
><snip another attempt to divert attention>

You mean like this entire semantic "braking" tanget you created.

> Did you try that little experiment? Find anyone who agreed with your
> asinine "braking" definition?

Braking is slowing, it is retarding motion. The method by which that is
done is irrelevant. It's braking with the hydraulic brakes on my car. It
is braking by engine vacuume. It is braking by the cable operated
calipers on my bicycle. Braking is retarding motion, the actual device
used is not relevant.

Your argument's reliance on the general ignorance of the american public
only shows that you are one of the ignorant members of that population.

On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 6:15*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>> On 02/08/2011 10:36 AM, Jordon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Arif Khokar wrote:
>> >> Jordon wrote:
>>
>> >>> I suppose you've never experienced anyone speeding up when
>> >>> you put your turn signal on?
>>
>> >> I guess you're one of those marginally competent drivers who switches
>> >> his signal on and relies on other enablers to let you in instead of one
>> >> of those competent drivers who actually checks for traffic and finds a
>> >> gap first before signaling.
>>
>> > Enablers?
>>
>> > You are obviously not a courteous driver that gives someone the
>> > space when they ask for it. Otherwise you'd be accused of being
>> > an enabler. I bet you get a little thrill when you step on the
>> > gas after seeing a turn signal in front of you.
>>
>> A good driver never needs to "ask" for space. *Possible exception: slow
>> speed bumper-to-bumper traffic (following distance typically less than
>> one car length.) *I can't think of any other exceptions to that rule, at
>> least not for a typical four-wheeler.
>>
>> nate
>>
>> --
>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I can show you an intersection in Spokane WA where _everyone_ requests
> and gets the consideration. It involves one of heaviest traffic load
> ones there where freeway traffic coming off has to merge and if not
> going straight through has to either imediately get one lane over to
> the left or 3 lanes over to the right in one block if they want to
> turn. And that while vehicles on the through street have to get 2
> lanes to the left or one lane to the right in the same distance. Oddly
> the locals use the 'my turn, your turn' approach to the problem and it
> works out just fine.

In chicago enablers stop in the through lane and let upwards of a half
dozen people in the closing lane in. Many just stop and let one in. But
they stop. When there is a lane ending ahead it is best to be in the
lane furthest away from it or in the lane that closes. Being in the lane
next to the closing lane means getting pinned down as traffic streams by
on both sides.

On Feb 9, 10:45*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 6:15 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> >> On 02/08/2011 10:36 AM, Jordon wrote:
>
> >> > Arif Khokar wrote:
> >> >> Jordon wrote:
>
> >> >>> I suppose you've never experienced anyone speeding up when
> >> >>> you put your turn signal on?
>
> >> >> I guess you're one of those marginally competent drivers who switches
> >> >> his signal on and relies on other enablers to let you in instead of one
> >> >> of those competent drivers who actually checks for traffic and finds a
> >> >> gap first before signaling.
>
> >> > Enablers?
>
> >> > You are obviously not a courteous driver that gives someone the
> >> > space when they ask for it. Otherwise you'd be accused of being
> >> > an enabler. I bet you get a little thrill when you step on the
> >> > gas after seeing a turn signal in front of you.
>
> >> A good driver never needs to "ask" for space. Possible exception: slow
> >> speed bumper-to-bumper traffic (following distance typically less than
> >> one car length.) I can't think of any other exceptions to that rule, at
> >> least not for a typical four-wheeler.
>
> >> nate
>
> >> --
> >> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I can show you an intersection in Spokane WA where _everyone_ requests
> > and gets the consideration. *It involves one of heaviest traffic load
> > ones there *where freeway traffic coming off has to merge and if not
> > going straight through has to either imediately get one lane over to
> > the left or 3 lanes over to the right *in one block if they want to
> > turn. And that while vehicles on the through street have to get 2
> > lanes to the left or one lane to the right in the same distance. Oddly
> > the locals use the 'my turn, your turn' approach to the problem and it
> > works out just fine.
>
> In chicago enablers stop in the through lane and let upwards of a half
> dozen people in the closing lane in. Many just stop and let one in. But
> they stop. *When there is a lane ending ahead it is best to be in the
> lane furthest away from it or in the lane that closes. Being in the lane
> next to the closing lane means getting pinned down as traffic streams by
> on both sides.

AKA "Doing It Wrong." Allow exactly enough space to let one vehicle
merge in, but for the love of all that's good and holy, don't come to
a stop unless you absolutely have to. And don't let more than one car
in, the guy behind you can let the next guy in.

nate

N8N wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:45 am, > wrote:
>> On 2011-02-09, Harry > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 8, 6:15 pm, Nate > wrote:
>>>> On 02/08/2011 10:36 AM, Jordon wrote:
>>
>>>>> Arif Khokar wrote:
>>>>>> Jordon wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> I suppose you've never experienced anyone speeding up when
>>>>>>> you put your turn signal on?
>>
>>>>>> I guess you're one of those marginally competent drivers who switches
>>>>>> his signal on and relies on other enablers to let you in instead of one
>>>>>> of those competent drivers who actually checks for traffic and finds a
>>>>>> gap first before signaling.
>>
>>>>> Enablers?
>>
>>>>> You are obviously not a courteous driver that gives someone the
>>>>> space when they ask for it. Otherwise you'd be accused of being
>>>>> an enabler. I bet you get a little thrill when you step on the
>>>>> gas after seeing a turn signal in front of you.
>>
>>>> A good driver never needs to "ask" for space. Possible exception: slow
>>>> speed bumper-to-bumper traffic (following distance typically less than
>>>> one car length.) I can't think of any other exceptions to that rule, at
>>>> least not for a typical four-wheeler.
>>
>>>> nate
>>
>>>> --
>>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> I can show you an intersection in Spokane WA where _everyone_ requests
>>> and gets the consideration. It involves one of heaviest traffic load
>>> ones there where freeway traffic coming off has to merge and if not
>>> going straight through has to either imediately get one lane over to
>>> the left or 3 lanes over to the right in one block if they want to
>>> turn. And that while vehicles on the through street have to get 2
>>> lanes to the left or one lane to the right in the same distance. Oddly
>>> the locals use the 'my turn, your turn' approach to the problem and it
>>> works out just fine.
>>
>> In chicago enablers stop in the through lane and let upwards of a half
>> dozen people in the closing lane in. Many just stop and let one in. But
>> they stop. When there is a lane ending ahead it is best to be in the
>> lane furthest away from it or in the lane that closes. Being in the lane
>> next to the closing lane means getting pinned down as traffic streams by
>> on both sides.
>
> AKA "Doing It Wrong." Allow exactly enough space to let one vehicle
> merge in

According to Brent, that would be a enabling.

On Feb 9, 7:37*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 4:15 pm, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2011-02-08, Harry K > wrote:
>
> ><snip another attempt to divert attention>
>
> You mean like this entire semantic "braking" tanget you created.
>
> > Did you try that little experiment? *Find anyone who agreed with your
> > asinine "braking" definition?
>
> Braking is slowing, it is retarding motion. The method by which that is
> done is irrelevant. It's braking with the hydraulic brakes on my car. It
> is braking by engine vacuume. It is braking by the cable operated
> calipers on my bicycle. Braking is retarding motion, the actual device
> used is not relevant.
>
> Your argument's reliance on the general ignorance of the american public
> only shows that you are one of the ignorant members of that population.

ROFL

So you know you won't find anyone agreeing with you.
Harry K

On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 7:37*am, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 8, 4:15 pm, Brent > wrote:
>> >> On 2011-02-08, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> ><snip another attempt to divert attention>
>>
>> You mean like this entire semantic "braking" tanget you created.
>>
>> > Did you try that little experiment? *Find anyone who agreed with your
>> > asinine "braking" definition?
>>
>> Braking is slowing, it is retarding motion. The method by which that is
>> done is irrelevant. It's braking with the hydraulic brakes on my car. It
>> is braking by engine vacuume. It is braking by the cable operated
>> calipers on my bicycle. Braking is retarding motion, the actual device
>> used is not relevant.
>>
>> Your argument's reliance on the general ignorance of the american public
>> only shows that you are one of the ignorant members of that population.
>
> ROFL
>
> So you know you won't find anyone agreeing with you.

They aren't participants of this newsgroup should have a basic knowledge
level of auto mechanics. To the average person the automobile is a giant
black box.

What is interesting is that the complainer of tangents creates a
semantic tangent.

On Feb 9, 12:17*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 7:37 am, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 8, 4:15 pm, Brent > wrote:
> >> >> On 2011-02-08, Harry K > wrote:
>
> >> ><snip another attempt to divert attention>
>
> >> You mean like this entire semantic "braking" tanget you created.
>
> >> > Did you try that little experiment? Find anyone who agreed with your
> >> > asinine "braking" definition?
>
> >> Braking is slowing, it is retarding motion. The method by which that is
> >> done is irrelevant. It's braking with the hydraulic brakes on my car. It
> >> is braking by engine vacuume. It is braking by the cable operated
> >> calipers on my bicycle. Braking is retarding motion, the actual device
> >> used is not relevant.
>
> >> Your argument's reliance on the general ignorance of the american public
> >> only shows that you are one of the ignorant members of that population..
>
> > ROFL
>
> > So you know you won't find anyone agreeing with you.
>
> They aren't participants of this newsgroup should have a basic knowledge
> level of auto mechanics. To the average person the automobile is a giant
> black box.
>
> What is interesting is that the complainer of tangents creates a
> semantic tangent.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Didn't create anything. You are the one who went off into the wild
blue. I'm jsut asking you to come up with at least one driver who
agrees with your cockamaie explanation for you having to "brake" to
avoid hitting someone 1/2 mile ahead.

Harry K

On 2011-02-10, Harry K > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 12:17*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 9, 7:37 am, Brent > wrote:
>> >> On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 8, 4:15 pm, Brent > wrote:
>> >> >> On 2011-02-08, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> >> ><snip another attempt to divert attention>
>>
>> >> You mean like this entire semantic "braking" tanget you created.
>>
>> >> > Did you try that little experiment? Find anyone who agreed with your
>> >> > asinine "braking" definition?
>>
>> >> Braking is slowing, it is retarding motion. The method by which that is
>> >> done is irrelevant. It's braking with the hydraulic brakes on my car. It
>> >> is braking by engine vacuume. It is braking by the cable operated
>> >> calipers on my bicycle. Braking is retarding motion, the actual device
>> >> used is not relevant.
>>
>> >> Your argument's reliance on the general ignorance of the american public
>> >> only shows that you are one of the ignorant members of that population.
>>
>> > ROFL
>>
>> > So you know you won't find anyone agreeing with you.
>>
>> They aren't participants of this newsgroup should have a basic knowledge
>> level of auto mechanics. To the average person the automobile is a giant
>> black box.
>>
>> What is interesting is that the complainer of tangents creates a
>> semantic tangent.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Didn't create anything. You are the one who went off into the wild
> blue. I'm jsut asking you to come up with at least one driver who
> agrees with your cockamaie explanation for you having to "brake" to
> avoid hitting someone 1/2 mile ahead.

You keep tying a 1/2 mile to what I wrote. More of your dishonesty.
I also wrote brake/slow in many of the instances because I know what an
asshat you are.

On Feb 9, 9:24*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-02-10, Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 12:17 pm, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 9, 7:37 am, Brent > wrote:
> >> >> On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Feb 8, 4:15 pm, Brent > wrote:
> >> >> >> On 2011-02-08, Harry K > wrote:
>
> >> >> ><snip another attempt to divert attention>
>
> >> >> You mean like this entire semantic "braking" tanget you created.
>
> >> >> > Did you try that little experiment? Find anyone who agreed with your
> >> >> > asinine "braking" definition?
>
> >> >> Braking is slowing, it is retarding motion. The method by which that is
> >> >> done is irrelevant. It's braking with the hydraulic brakes on my car. It
> >> >> is braking by engine vacuume. It is braking by the cable operated
> >> >> calipers on my bicycle. Braking is retarding motion, the actual device
> >> >> used is not relevant.
>
> >> >> Your argument's reliance on the general ignorance of the american public
> >> >> only shows that you are one of the ignorant members of that population.
>
> >> > ROFL
>
> >> > So you know you won't find anyone agreeing with you.
>
> >> They aren't participants of this newsgroup should have a basic knowledge
> >> level of auto mechanics. To the average person the automobile is a giant
> >> black box.
>
> >> What is interesting is that the complainer of tangents creates a
> >> semantic tangent.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Didn't create anything. * You are the one who went off into the wild
> > blue. *I'm jsut asking you to come up with at least one driver who
> > agrees with your cockamaie explanation for you having to "brake" to
> > avoid hitting someone 1/2 mile ahead.
>
> You keep tying a 1/2 mile to what I wrote. More of your dishonesty.
> I also wrote brake/slow in many of the instances because I know what an
> asshat you are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are learning!!! I didn't think that was possible.

Harry K

On 2011-02-10, Harry K > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:24*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2011-02-10, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 9, 12:17 pm, Brent > wrote:
>> >> On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 9, 7:37 am, Brent > wrote:
>> >> >> On 2011-02-09, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Feb 8, 4:15 pm, Brent > wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 2011-02-08, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> ><snip another attempt to divert attention>
>>
>> >> >> You mean like this entire semantic "braking" tanget you created.
>>
>> >> >> > Did you try that little experiment? Find anyone who agreed with your
>> >> >> > asinine "braking" definition?
>>
>> >> >> Braking is slowing, it is retarding motion. The method by which that is
>> >> >> done is irrelevant. It's braking with the hydraulic brakes on my car. It
>> >> >> is braking by engine vacuume. It is braking by the cable operated
>> >> >> calipers on my bicycle. Braking is retarding motion, the actual device
>> >> >> used is not relevant.
>>
>> >> >> Your argument's reliance on the general ignorance of the american public
>> >> >> only shows that you are one of the ignorant members of that population.
>>
>> >> > ROFL
>>
>> >> > So you know you won't find anyone agreeing with you.
>>
>> >> They aren't participants of this newsgroup should have a basic knowledge
>> >> level of auto mechanics. To the average person the automobile is a giant
>> >> black box.
>>
>> >> What is interesting is that the complainer of tangents creates a
>> >> semantic tangent.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Didn't create anything. * You are the one who went off into the wild
>> > blue. *I'm jsut asking you to come up with at least one driver who
>> > agrees with your cockamaie explanation for you having to "brake" to
>> > avoid hitting someone 1/2 mile ahead.
>>
>> You keep tying a 1/2 mile to what I wrote. More of your dishonesty.
>> I also wrote brake/slow in many of the instances because I know what an
>> asshat you are.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You are learning!!! I didn't think that was possible.

That you're a dishonest asshat, yes.