Two kinds of idiots

In article >, Spike wrote:
> Seems like that is your prime response when someone points out your
> prime character flaws, and you have no legitimate response.

This is laughable. In typical poor fashion you want to make the thread
about me. Because you have no response to the issues. You cannot respond
in the realm of thoughts and ideas so you make it about me.


> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:14:15 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Joe wrote:
>>> No point in addressing things in line below - your post indicates
>>> quite clearly that you can't be reasoned with.
>>>
>>> Have a nice day, Brent, and please stay away from the streets I drive
>>> on. You're a total menace to society.
>>
>>Face saving nonsense above noted.
>>
>
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

In article >, Spike wrote:
> I imagine then that you do a lot of reflecting back. Perhaps it is
> because the attitude you present is of a self centered, holier than
> thou, egotist, who just wants to see his words in print, and feel that
> he is having true communications with others. This may not be who you
> are, not what you are about, but it is the way you come across.

When are you going to address the ideas, facts, and cites I presented
instead of attacking -me-?

> It's like the joke about the masochist and the sadist standing on the
> corner. The masochist pleads with the sadist, "beat me, beat me". To
> which the sadist replies, "NO!".

You're the one making this about me. I could care less, I prefer debating
issues using facts and reason. Something you've failed to be able to do.

Your reaction is typical of someone who has been outwitted in the realm
of facts and reason.

> And on that note, I place you on my ignore list, and say, "no more!".

Great. Another moron I don't have to deal with.

> I would suggest that the others take a similar course. Nothing you say
> will alter Brent's view, nor his response to anything you might have
> to say.

You haven't presented anything capable of swaying anyone with rational,
logical thought processes. You've made declarations and emotional
appeals. Feel free to make logical posts regarding facts and issues and
back them up with cites. That's what I've done. You on the other hand
have not. Instead, you attack me personally and try to make it about me.

ZW, where'd you hear about FL re-licensing people? Last I heard it
would never happen because of the policital clout of all the older
drivers.

BTW, I see lots of people yakking on cell phones doing 90 (only 10mph
slower than 100) down I-75 here in Broward County. None of them have
a clue.


ZombyWoof > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 04:07:48 GMT, "Wound Up" >
> wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >, RichA
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> who think
>>>> 40mph can mix with 60mph without problems.
>>>
>>> On a limited access highway where lane discipline is practiced, a
>>> wide speed variance is easy and safely delt with. Only in the USA
>>> is this a problem, because lane discipline is practically
>>> non-existant in much of the nation.
>>>
>>> Lane discipline is why a 911 and 2CV can be on the autobahn at the
>>> same time.
>>
>>Yes, the concept of "Rechtfahren" (sp?), "drive right", even though
>>a law, doesn't concern most people in the US. One reason said
>>autobahns are safer than US interstates is the German police take
>>this VERY seriously.
>>
>>I knew a German woman who was pulled over in the far left for going
>>140kmh - 90mph - because prevailing traffic is about 160-180kmh in
>>that lane. Too slow at 90, move over, here's your expensive ticket.
>> Makes complete sense. Also, people there (and in France, and
>>others) have to take a lengthy course, and actually know how to
>>drive a car, not just point and shoot, before they are permitted on
>>the road.
>>
> Many fines in Germany, and other parts of Europe are income based,
> you do not want to be in the position of having a really good job
> and get a ticket. Their fines are designed to sting rather badly.
>
>>Driving is a privelege. If I were in the proper rank of
>>governmental authority for a week, I would compel the entire nation
>>to begin this process. Don't pass? Don't drive. Sorry, too bad,
>>so sad. Carpool or take a bus until you do, or don't drive at all.
>>I would have no sympathy or grandfather clauses. Why should there
>>be? Fewer (incompetent) drivers = fewer accidents that competent
>>drivers have to deal with. "Oh, I'm broke, I don't have time, I got
>>five kids". I don't give a ****. You've got a lethal weapon. And,
>>outlaw all cellphone use with $1000 fines and suspensions for the
>>third offense. The human mind only has a finite amount of conscious
>>attention to devote to any give set of activities. Splitting it
>>further and further and putting less of it to the important task -
>>not talking on the ****ing phone - makes you dangerous. Period.
>>Basic psychology tells us this.
>>
> And I would be right behind you backing you up 100%. As a nation on
> a whole compared to the majority of European drivers we really are
> incompetent. When Germans first began importing cars to the US they
> could understand the need for cup holders. One of the reason many
> American drivers multi-process while driving is our speed limits are
> too slow. At 100mph one is fully concentrated on driving and would
> not be talking on a cell-phone, eating a Big Mac and slurp on a Big
> Gulp all at the same time. However, since we are a nation of lowest
> common denominator laws we will always have laws based on the lowest
> skill set as opposed to the highest with no requirement for skills
> improvement. At least Florida has started re-licensing people once
> they reach a certain age and are refusing to renew licenses to those
> who can't maintain even our low ass skill set.
>
>>You want a body count from me from this ****? It's sickening. Add
>>the people who have been maimed or paralyzed, and it's even moreso.
>>Think about it a minute yourselves. Think about all the near misses
>>you've had, maybe even today. The answer is clear - stiff
>>penalities, and tests that are actually difficult, and that actually
>>test driving skill.
>>
> Better policing as well. Right now all the damn cops focus on is
> catching those who are exceeding the speed limit. In the area I
> live in the biggest problem is tailgaters. The two major accidents
> I've been in during the ten years I have lived here have both been
> rear-enders with some idiot running into me both resulting in some
> pretty major damage. I bet easily 80% of the accidents here locally
> are because of tailgating, but the cops never pull anyone over for
> it.
>
>>My sister-in-law shouldn't drive; she's absolutely freaking
>>dangerous. She's totally absent-minded, and has no clue how to catch
>>a skid. She's wrecked more cars than I can count, and only hasn't
>>killed herself or others by the grace of God. Then she cries
>>(literally) that the car was to blame. I won't ride with her. And
>>I'd feel safer if people like her weren't out there, able to buy and
>>drive cars with (in this context) frightening performance
>>potentials.
>>
> I think we all have two or three in our families that we could point
> out that shouldn't be behind the wheel of a go-cart, let alone an
> automobile. More and more the manufacturers are focusing on drivers
> like your SIL coming up with traction control systems, anti-lock
> brakes, stabilization control systems, and of course all of the
> safety equipment so that when they are in an accident Darwin doesn't
> come into play and they are naturally selected out.
>
>>There are many kinds of idiots. And then there are many other, more
>>dangerous kinds out there. Take a good number of 'em off the
>>****ing roads, I say.
>>
> Me too.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:32:51 GMT, Joe > wrote:

>ZW, where'd you hear about FL re-licensing people? Last I heard it
>would never happen because of the policital clout of all the older
>drivers.
Anyone remember the "60 Minutes" story about how many
old geezers have plowed into things like bus sheltars,
houses, etc, down there? They had one guy in court
who couldn't even understand that he'd killed 4 people
and these demented octogenerians they let drive cars???
Judge basically throws up his hands and says "I can't
put them in jail."
-Rich

RichA > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:32:51 GMT, Joe >
wrote:
>
>>ZW, where'd you hear about FL re-licensing people? Last I heard it
>>would never happen because of the policital clout of all the older
>>drivers.
> Anyone remember the "60 Minutes" story about how many
> old geezers have plowed into things like bus sheltars,
> houses, etc, down there?

It's all over. You just hear more about it down here because there
are a lot more older people driving.

> They had one guy in court
> who couldn't even understand that he'd killed 4 people
> and these demented octogenerians they let drive cars???
> Judge basically throws up his hands and says "I can't
> put them in jail."
> -Rich

Because they'll vote his sorry ass out. They may not drive well, but
they sure as hell vote.

ZombyWoof > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 04:03:15 -0400, RichA > wrote
> something wonderfully witty:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 04:07:48 GMT, "Wound Up" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>>>> In article >, RichA
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> who think
>>>>> 40mph can mix with 60mph without problems.
>>>>
>>>> On a limited access highway where lane discipline is practiced, a
>>>> wide speed variance is easy and safely delt with. Only in the USA
>>>> is this a problem, because lane discipline is practically
>>>> non-existant in much of the nation.
>>>>
>>>> Lane discipline is why a 911 and 2CV can be on the autobahn at
>>>> the same time.
>>>
>>>Yes, the concept of "Rechtfahren" (sp?), "drive right", even though
>>>a law, doesn't concern most people in the US. One reason said
>>>autobahns are safer than US interstates is the German police take
>>>this VERY seriously.
>>>
>>>I knew a German woman who was pulled over in the far left for going
>>>140kmh - 90mph - because prevailing traffic is about 160-180kmh in
>>>that lane. Too slow at 90, move over, here's your expensive
>>>ticket. Makes complete sense. Also, people there (and in France,
>>>and others) have to take a lengthy course, and actually know how to
>>>drive a car, not just point and shoot, before they are permitted on
>>>the road.
>>>
>>>Driving is a privelege. If I were in the proper rank of
>>>governmental authority for a week, I would compel the entire nation
>>>to begin this process. Don't pass? Don't drive. Sorry, too bad,
>>>so sad. Carpool or take a bus until you do, or don't drive at all.
>>> I would have no sympathy or grandfather clauses. Why should there
>>>be? Fewer (incompetent) drivers = fewer accidents that competent
>>>drivers have to deal with. "Oh, I'm broke, I don't have time, I
>>>got five kids". I don't give a ****. You've got a lethal weapon.
>>>And, outlaw all cellphone use with $1000 fines and suspensions for
>>>the third offense. The human mind only has a finite amount of
>>>conscious attention to devote to any give set of activities.
>>>Splitting it further and further and putting less of it to the
>>>important task - not talking on the ****ing phone - makes you
>>>dangerous. Period. Basic psychology tells us this.
>>>
>>>You want a body count from me from this ****? It's sickening. Add
>>>the people who have been maimed or paralyzed, and it's even moreso.
>>> Think about it a minute yourselves. Think about all the near
>>>misses you've had, maybe even today. The answer is clear - stiff
>>>penalities, and tests that are actually difficult, and that
>>>actually test driving skill.
>>>
>>>My sister-in-law shouldn't drive; she's absolutely freaking
>>>dangerous. She's totally absent-minded, and has no clue how to
>>>catch a skid. She's wrecked more cars than I can count, and only
>>>hasn't killed herself or others by the grace of God. Then she
>>>cries (literally) that the car was to blame. I won't ride with her.
>>> And I'd feel safer if people like her weren't out there, able to
>>>buy and drive cars with (in this context) frightening performance
>>>potentials.
>>>
>>>There are many kinds of idiots. And then there are many other,
>>>more dangerous kinds out there. Take a good number of 'em off the
>>>****ing roads, I say.
>>
>>I agree with you completely. In the vast majority of cases where
>>accidents happen, it's the driver's fault and there are too many
>>who shouldn't be on the road. But in American (and Canada) driving
>>is looked at as some kind of God-given right, which it isn't.
>>I drive always assuming that the worst possible thing can happen
>>because of what's around me.
>>In more cases than I can recall, I've seen what "could" have
>>happened had I been nonchanlant about driving.
>>You want a good indication of a bad driver? Someone who says
>>that Mustangs are bad winter cars. This tells you right off that
>>that person likely drives thoughtlessly since they expect the
>>vehicle to drive for them.
>>But first things first; There is now study after study proving cell
>>phones pose a huge risk to motorists. It's time to ban their use
>>when driving, everywhere.
>>
> Some States, such as NJ, already have laws on the books making it
> illegal to drive without both hands on the wheel. However, they are
> very lightly inforced. Cell Phones are not the only issue either.
> There are all sorts of people who multi-task while behind the wheel.
> Why else do we need 20 different cup-holders? Part of the reason is
> our speed limits are so low that it allows people to have a false
> sense of security and think that they can perform multiple tasks
> while driving. Get one of these people up to 100mph+ and see if
> they can use their cell phone and suck on their Big Gulp at the same
> time.

They do it around here doing 90 down I-75. Is that close enough to
100?

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Joe
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> wager I commit fewer moving violations than you do. I am not
>>>> talking being caught, but actual moving violations. See, I pay a
>>>> great deal of attention to that other part of the vehicle code
>>>> that doesn't have to do with speed. I even signal turns and lane
>>>> changes when using a bicycle.
>>
>>> Dude, if you're on a bicycle in a lane that vehicles use, you're a
>>> complete idiot.
>>
>> Bicycle = vehicle. Just not motor vehicle. It's the safest way to
>> ride btw.
>>
>> http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/pamanual.pdf
>
> That file is over 5 years old; it certainly doesn't apply to roads
> around here. Today it's downright dangerous to follow. Anyone who
> rides a bicycle in the same space that a car would occupy has a death
> wish.

Not my fault you don't know the first thing about bicycling. Maybe you
should refrain from commenting on things you don't know about.

BTW 5 year olds ride on the sidewalk. Adults ride on the roadway.

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article > , Joe
> wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>
>> <snipping what joe is too lazy to trim>
>
> I saved it all just for you.
>
>>>> For instance, the shoulder work I mentioned. It's 3am on an IL
>>>> interstate. all regular lanes are open, same normal road surface,
>>>> there is a few feet of shoulder blocked off with cones. There are
> no
>>>> holes in it. Just some cones off the side of the road and a 45mph
>>>> construction zone speed limit.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that the speed limit on an interstate should drop to
>>>> 45mph if a car is parked on the shoulder?
>>>>
>>>> The parked car on the shoulder is more of a hazard than these
>>>> 'construction' sites.
>>
>>> Here's the first one that comes to mind: The real possibility that
>>> some debris could be in the lane you're travelling on.
>>
>> If you only look for debris when there is road construction, you're
> an
>> idiot.
>
> As usual, you missed the point entirely. The fact that you've said
> you'd blast through a construction zone at or above the posted speed
> limit tells me who the idiot is. Loud and clear.

I stated nothing of the kind. Please learn to read.

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:

<does anyone in this newsgroup trim anything?>

> Some States, such as NJ, already have laws on the books making it
> illegal to drive without both hands on the wheel.

Do cops ticket anyone with a manual transmission?

> our speed limits are so low that it allows people to have a false
> sense of security and think that they can perform multiple tasks while
> driving. Get one of these people up to 100mph+ and see if they can
> use their cell phone and suck on their Big Gulp at the same time.

And the speed limit isn't stopping them now. I don't understand this
mentality of limiting an entire population based on it's idiots.

Seriously, everything from grade schools on up now seem to operate at a
slowest-ship-in-the-fleet pace. The USA will be a third world nation in
no time.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:03:02 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:
>
><does anyone in this newsgroup trim anything?>
>
>> Some States, such as NJ, already have laws on the books making it
>> illegal to drive without both hands on the wheel.
>
>Do cops ticket anyone with a manual transmission?
>
>> our speed limits are so low that it allows people to have a false
>> sense of security and think that they can perform multiple tasks while
>> driving. Get one of these people up to 100mph+ and see if they can
>> use their cell phone and suck on their Big Gulp at the same time.
>
>And the speed limit isn't stopping them now. I don't understand this
>mentality of limiting an entire population based on it's idiots.

The main rule of this World is you are always held back by the weakest
link. Because of the interlinks of everything in our society, it's
inevitable.

>
>Seriously, everything from grade schools on up now seem to operate at a
>slowest-ship-in-the-fleet pace. The USA will be a third world nation in
>no time.
>

Well, when third World countries have people coming out of grade 10
with math skills like a first year university student in the U.S.,
it's no wonder.
-Rich