teenage insurance

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:47:05 -0500, "Cory Dunkle" >
> wrote:
>
> >> It's one thing for a
> >> breadwinning adult to have a car to get to work, because that work
> >> earns the money that makes life possible. The typical suburban
> >> teenager does not have to work to support himself or his family; his
> >> needs are already taken acre of. Teenagers work because they WANT
> >> things, like extra clothes, entertainment, and automobiles. If they
> >> don't get a job, they will still have a roof over their heads, and
> >> food in their stomachs. Working is not a NEED for a typical suburban
> >> high school kid, and you know it.
> >
> >So now it's a high school kid, eh?
>
> Most teenagers of driving age who still live at home are also still in
> high school, so yeah.
>
> >I agree, the typical high school kid
> >doesn't have a real job, and doesn't have much need for a car.
>
> Then I see we are basically in agreement.
>
> >A typical high school student eitehr not working, or working some lame
pump
> >jockey or food service job doesn't 'need' a car in most cases. It is a
> >luxury for him.
>
> And from our discussion I see you don't fit that mold, so my comments
> don't apply to you.
>
> How's that?

Well I suppose that works. There are groups you can classify everyone into.
It's just not so simple as to say everone under age 'x' does not "need" a
car. Everyone had their own circumstances which necessitate different things
in their lives. You can group people to some degree according to the various
circumstances or whatever you like. You just cant lump everyone's needs into
the same catagory based on age alone.

Cory

Cory Dunkle wrote:
> I'm through with reading any of your posts in this thread.

Of course you are. You don't want your closely-held beliefs to be
challenged.

> It's not wirth
> the aggrivation and wasting my time with it.

Translation: my mind is made up, and I can't even imagine being wrong.

> You just don't get it, and
> likely never will.

I *get it* just fine. You're just plain wrong. End of story.

> You are too stubborn and closed minded...

LOL. Pot, kettle, black.

> You show no
> desire to better yourself or have an open mind and take in new
information,

Double LOL. You are so hilarious I can't stand it.


> so nothing I say matters as far as a discussion with you is
concerned.

Since your *new information* is wrong, and based on very limited
experience, why in the heck should I consider it? What makes your
opinion so special?

> I
> only got througha shrot amount of your post before I decided this.

Exactly. You knew that I had a point, but you're not mature enough to
admit it. When you grow up, you'll find that adults can admit when
they make mistakes, and people will [horrors] think better of them for
it! Maybe you are too much like your conservative heros, who never
admit mistakes. They make 'em, just don't admit 'em. Nice "taking
responsibility" and all.

> I've
> jsut had enough of you.

Of course you have. I pointed out your youth, and lack of experience.
The truth hurts sometimes, but it's necessary to tell the truth in this
day and age of amorality.

> Like I said, people like you make the world a worse
> place.

When you grow up, your opinion may differ. After all, when I was
young, I didn't trust anyone over thirty. Things are different now.
They will be for you, too.

> I'd prefer not to have much of anything to do with your type.

I've got some horrible news for you then: "my type" are everywhere.
We grin when young people spout foolishness and remember with some
nostalgia to our own youth, when we thought we knew everything too. We
all grew up, had families, bought houses, and do our best to bring
young people wisdom, so that they don't have to go and pull all the
boneheaded stuff we did to learn those lessons. But strangely, they
ignore us and pull that same stuff, with the same consequences. Kids
these days... (a phrase that's been used since the invention of
language, I am certain.)

> You've
> wasted enough of my time for now.

One day, you'll come to the terrible realization that you have become
just like me. It won't hurt, I promise. But you'll be laughing at a
foolish young kid in usenet and suddenly think "hey, that was me 25
years ago!" And laugh at yourself.

HAND,

E.P.

Cory Dunkle wrote:
> I'm through with reading any of your posts in this thread.

Of course you are. You don't want your closely-held beliefs to be
challenged.

> It's not wirth
> the aggrivation and wasting my time with it.

Translation: my mind is made up, and I can't even imagine being wrong.

> You just don't get it, and
> likely never will.

I *get it* just fine. You're just plain wrong. End of story.

> You are too stubborn and closed minded...

LOL. Pot, kettle, black.

> You show no
> desire to better yourself or have an open mind and take in new
information,

Double LOL. You are so hilarious I can't stand it.


> so nothing I say matters as far as a discussion with you is
concerned.

Since your *new information* is wrong, and based on very limited
experience, why in the heck should I consider it? What makes your
opinion so special?

> I
> only got througha shrot amount of your post before I decided this.

Exactly. You knew that I had a point, but you're not mature enough to
admit it. When you grow up, you'll find that adults can admit when
they make mistakes, and people will [horrors] think better of them for
it! Maybe you are too much like your conservative heros, who never
admit mistakes. They make 'em, just don't admit 'em. Nice "taking
responsibility" and all.

> I've
> jsut had enough of you.

Of course you have. I pointed out your youth, and lack of experience.
The truth hurts sometimes, but it's necessary to tell the truth in this
day and age of amorality.

> Like I said, people like you make the world a worse
> place.

When you grow up, your opinion may differ. After all, when I was
young, I didn't trust anyone over thirty. Things are different now.
They will be for you, too.

> I'd prefer not to have much of anything to do with your type.

I've got some horrible news for you then: "my type" are everywhere.
We grin when young people spout foolishness and remember with some
nostalgia to our own youth, when we thought we knew everything too. We
all grew up, had families, bought houses, and do our best to bring
young people wisdom, so that they don't have to go and pull all the
boneheaded stuff we did to learn those lessons. But strangely, they
ignore us and pull that same stuff, with the same consequences. Kids
these days... (a phrase that's been used since the invention of
language, I am certain.)

> You've
> wasted enough of my time for now.

One day, you'll come to the terrible realization that you have become
just like me. It won't hurt, I promise. But you'll be laughing at a
foolish young kid in usenet and suddenly think "hey, that was me 25
years ago!" And laugh at yourself.

HAND,

E.P.

Cory Dunkle wrote:
> "Scott en Aztl=E1n" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:48:41 -0500, "Cory Dunkle"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Scott en Aztl=E1n" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:39:10 GMT, DTJ > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Get real. 90% of college students are there for the parties.
> > >>
> > >> That's ridiculous. Who would spend $30,000/year on tuition,
room,
> > >> board, books, etc. etc. when they could just rent a double-wide
for
> > >> $250/month and have a lot more money with which to buy beer and
pot?
> > >
> > >The parents of that 90% who's main reason for going to college is
> partying.


No matter how many times this number gets repeated, it's still made up,
and absoultely false.

> > Excessive partying is a self-correcting vice - if you party too
much,
> > you get poor grades and you flunk out.
> >
> > This is why the idea that 90% of college students are there to
party
> > is so ridiculous - the student churn rates as the party animals
flunk
> > out and are replaced with fresh party animals would be phenomenal.

Heck, even moderate partying, and the accompanying time spent
recovering, can get you in to GPA hot water. Going to class and
cracking books is required for all except scholarship athletes. (They
get some weak-willed non-athlete to do their work for them.)

> That's only if all they do is party. I never said that all they do is
party.

Even a moderate amount of partying will find you in a heap of trouble.
Even the Greek system has to keep a lid on it, because chapters can be
put on probation or given the "death penalty" if they have academic
problems.

You may get away with one or two semesters of wildness, but then you'll
have to get serious, or you'll find yourself kicked out.

> The main point of all that I've been saying is that the vast majority
of
> college students are immature brats who arent' serious about their
education
> or their lives in general.

With your vast amount of experience in this, of course you opinion is
meaningful...

> That doesn't mean that they won't try to at least
> do well enough to stay in the college.

Ooops, sounds kind of mature and serious to me - accepting
responsibility for mistakes, and thinking about one's future. Yup,
that's adult thinking.

> After all, mommy and daddy would be
> ****ed if they flunked out, and many have at least enough sense to
realize
> that the piece of paper they get at the end is worth something.

In some cases, it's worth a lot. Mommy's and Daddy's opinions might
actually mean something to a lot of people. In fact, I'll guess the
"vast majority" actually care what their folks think, and want them to
be proud. Kind of pushes them to succeed.

> Doesn't mean
> they are serious about it, and sure as heck doesn't mean they are
mature or
> respectful.

Of course they are serious. You can't get good grades just screwing
around. It's hard to get passable grades just screwing around (unless
you're some sort of brilliant student.) You can't mail it in - you
actually have to do work. Unlike high school, where they might just
pass you along to get out from under your nonsense.

Contemplating consequences of not studying, writing that paper,
attending that lecture - that's called maturity. Since the vast
majority of college students seem to get that, it seems that you have
some sort of weird thing going on.

Respect? Well, it's hard to be respected when one doesn't have much
experience. You sort of have to earn it. Just like when you take a
new job - you can't just mail it in and expect respect. You actually
have to do the work, and get better at it. But let me tell you, the
students that show their professors respect will do better than those
who do not. Smart students figure that out before they get to college.
Not-so-bright ones figure it out once they are there. The really dumb
ones don't figure it out, and never get any breaks, even when they
deserve them. And in return, the professors respect the respectful
(and studious) students. That's sort of how respect works.
HAND,

E=2EP.

Cory Dunkle wrote:
> "Scott en Aztl=E1n" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:48:41 -0500, "Cory Dunkle"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Scott en Aztl=E1n" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:39:10 GMT, DTJ > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Get real. 90% of college students are there for the parties.
> > >>
> > >> That's ridiculous. Who would spend $30,000/year on tuition,
room,
> > >> board, books, etc. etc. when they could just rent a double-wide
for
> > >> $250/month and have a lot more money with which to buy beer and
pot?
> > >
> > >The parents of that 90% who's main reason for going to college is
> partying.


No matter how many times this number gets repeated, it's still made up,
and absoultely false.

> > Excessive partying is a self-correcting vice - if you party too
much,
> > you get poor grades and you flunk out.
> >
> > This is why the idea that 90% of college students are there to
party
> > is so ridiculous - the student churn rates as the party animals
flunk
> > out and are replaced with fresh party animals would be phenomenal.

Heck, even moderate partying, and the accompanying time spent
recovering, can get you in to GPA hot water. Going to class and
cracking books is required for all except scholarship athletes. (They
get some weak-willed non-athlete to do their work for them.)

> That's only if all they do is party. I never said that all they do is
party.

Even a moderate amount of partying will find you in a heap of trouble.
Even the Greek system has to keep a lid on it, because chapters can be
put on probation or given the "death penalty" if they have academic
problems.

You may get away with one or two semesters of wildness, but then you'll
have to get serious, or you'll find yourself kicked out.

> The main point of all that I've been saying is that the vast majority
of
> college students are immature brats who arent' serious about their
education
> or their lives in general.

With your vast amount of experience in this, of course you opinion is
meaningful...

> That doesn't mean that they won't try to at least
> do well enough to stay in the college.

Ooops, sounds kind of mature and serious to me - accepting
responsibility for mistakes, and thinking about one's future. Yup,
that's adult thinking.

> After all, mommy and daddy would be
> ****ed if they flunked out, and many have at least enough sense to
realize
> that the piece of paper they get at the end is worth something.

In some cases, it's worth a lot. Mommy's and Daddy's opinions might
actually mean something to a lot of people. In fact, I'll guess the
"vast majority" actually care what their folks think, and want them to
be proud. Kind of pushes them to succeed.

> Doesn't mean
> they are serious about it, and sure as heck doesn't mean they are
mature or
> respectful.

Of course they are serious. You can't get good grades just screwing
around. It's hard to get passable grades just screwing around (unless
you're some sort of brilliant student.) You can't mail it in - you
actually have to do work. Unlike high school, where they might just
pass you along to get out from under your nonsense.

Contemplating consequences of not studying, writing that paper,
attending that lecture - that's called maturity. Since the vast
majority of college students seem to get that, it seems that you have
some sort of weird thing going on.

Respect? Well, it's hard to be respected when one doesn't have much
experience. You sort of have to earn it. Just like when you take a
new job - you can't just mail it in and expect respect. You actually
have to do the work, and get better at it. But let me tell you, the
students that show their professors respect will do better than those
who do not. Smart students figure that out before they get to college.
Not-so-bright ones figure it out once they are there. The really dumb
ones don't figure it out, and never get any breaks, even when they
deserve them. And in return, the professors respect the respectful
(and studious) students. That's sort of how respect works.
HAND,

E=2EP.

Cory Dunkle wrote:

> Well I suppose that works. There are groups you can classify everyone
into.
> It's just not so simple as to say everone under age 'x' does not
"need" a
> car. Everyone had their own circumstances which necessitate different
things
> in their lives. You can group people to some degree according to the
various
> circumstances or whatever you like. You just cant lump everyone's
needs into
> the same catagory based on age alone.

Nobody under the age of 16 needs a car of their own for everyday use.
No one under the age of 18 needs a ballot.

Your categorical statements are just as silly as the ones you
criticize.

HAND,

E.P.

Cory Dunkle wrote:

> Well I suppose that works. There are groups you can classify everyone
into.
> It's just not so simple as to say everone under age 'x' does not
"need" a
> car. Everyone had their own circumstances which necessitate different
things
> in their lives. You can group people to some degree according to the
various
> circumstances or whatever you like. You just cant lump everyone's
needs into
> the same catagory based on age alone.

Nobody under the age of 16 needs a car of their own for everyday use.
No one under the age of 18 needs a ballot.

Your categorical statements are just as silly as the ones you
criticize.

HAND,

E.P.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:08:19 -0500, "Cory Dunkle" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Excessive partying is a self-correcting vice - if you party too much,
> >> you get poor grades and you flunk out.
> >>
> >> This is why the idea that 90% of college students are there to party
> >> is so ridiculous - the student churn rates as the party animals flunk
> >> out and are replaced with fresh party animals would be phenomenal.
> >
> >That's only if all they do is party. I never said that all they do is
party.
>
> It sure sounded to me as though you felt that way.

Nah, it's the whole selfishly immature and completely disrespectful attitude
that bothers me. It's rarely any better than high school. Most college
'students' (that I've seen at least) are just immature ungrateful brats.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:08:19 -0500, "Cory Dunkle" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Excessive partying is a self-correcting vice - if you party too much,
> >> you get poor grades and you flunk out.
> >>
> >> This is why the idea that 90% of college students are there to party
> >> is so ridiculous - the student churn rates as the party animals flunk
> >> out and are replaced with fresh party animals would be phenomenal.
> >
> >That's only if all they do is party. I never said that all they do is
party.
>
> It sure sounded to me as though you felt that way.

Nah, it's the whole selfishly immature and completely disrespectful attitude
that bothers me. It's rarely any better than high school. Most college
'students' (that I've seen at least) are just immature ungrateful brats.