 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007I didn't know the gun was loaded ...............
How many people really know the responsibility and liability they hold in their hands when driving a car? Or using a gun? Not a lot, in my experience. I would actually say that people who own and handle guns have a better grasp of the parameters of their experience than people who drive cars. You can be an idiot in a car a lot more times than you can be an idiot with a gun before something gets messy. Example: Look around. Piss poor drivers with the attitude of, "It can't happen to me ......... I'm a good driver .................. It's the other person who is the problem" and on and on and on. Lots of people who are over 16 (an arbitrary age I pulled out of the air for being the legal age to drive) have no idea what damage they can do when they turn the key. Have you ever anesthetized another human being and been in control of their life? Have you ever lowered four men in a basket over the side of a drilling rig to the deck of a waiting ship below in stormy conditions? Have you ever operated a hyperbaric chamber with a person inside, and had the ability to kill them with a wrong decision? I have been in two of three of those positions. Yet, we all have been in the position to hold the butterfly of life in our fists when we turn on the ignition of a car. And sadly, and maddeningly, many don't have a clue that they are in that position. GET OUT OF MY WAY! I'M LATE! ME FIRST! I KNOW HOW TO DRIVE! NOTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN. It reminds me of being an immature teenager .............. "What could happen?" No clue that something could actually happen, or how severe it could be. Yet, as we gain life experience, and as we age (unless Darwinism intervenes), we do find out "what can happen", and that it doesn't always happen to the other guy. We just keep going, hoping that one of these clueless uncaring twits doesn't smash into us and change our lives in a moment of stupidity. Or should I say because they are stupid and live that way, and don't consider any other way of living or looking at things? I didn't know the gun was loaded .................... The other car got in my way .......................... Rant off. Steve Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 29 Dec 2006 01:53 GMT Someone wrote: >How many people really know the responsibility and liability they hold in >their hands when driving a car? Not many. >Or using a gun? Yeah, there's some geniuses there, too. >Not a lot, in my experience. As is mine. >I would actually say that people who own and handle guns have a better grasp >of the parameters of their experience than people who drive cars. You can >be an idiot in a car a lot more times than you can be an idiot with a gun >before something gets messy. Yeah, but how many people need a gun to go to work or to the grocery store? You're comparing apples and oranges, and are too stupid to figure out why you're getting your results in pineapples. >Example: Sure, I'll give you one. I was driving home this evening, over the speed limit, when I noticed a vehicle about a quarter of a mile ahead. I caught up with it very shortly after my initial observation. The vehicle was a pick-up, and was driving a little below the speed limit. By the accounts of the trolls around here, since I was speeding, and the truck driver was not, I am the dangerous one. Within two minutes of my catching up to the vehicle, we approached a reasonably sharp curve. I, in my normal "driving ahead" mode, noticed (through the trees) the headlights of a vehicle coming around the curve from the other direction. As soon as I saw the oncoming (UNEXPECTED) lights, I began to decelerate. For some strange reason, the speed limit driving truck driver didn't notice the oncoming vehicle until they were both in the curve, at which time the truck driver hit his brakes hard because he was on the inside of the curve, in the oncoming traffic's lane; the oncoming traffic ended up doing a wee bit of off-roading. I just sat back and laughed at the dumb a.s truck driver. Sure, he was going the speed limit, but I'll be damned if I would ever consider his driving to be safe. >Look around. I do; it's a necessary component to survival when you're driving. >Piss poor drivers with the attitude of, "It can't happen to me ......... I'm >a good driver .................. It's the other person who is the problem" >and on and on and on. It *can* happen to me, but it's extremely unlikely, considering how much stupid sh.t I've already avoided from inept drivers such as yourself and the truck driver mentioned above. >Lots of people who are over 16 (an arbitrary age I pulled out of the air for >being the legal age to drive) have no idea what damage they can do when they >turn the key. And they should be immediately removed from the road. Driving is a serious activity, and is perhaps the most dangerous activity the majority of the population engages in. >Have you ever anesthetized another human being and been in control of their >life? Have you ever lowered four men in a basket over the side of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I have been in two of three of those positions. Never have anesthetized anyone, but I've cared for epileptics and provided assistance with autistic children. Not that one can be in "complete control" of either class of people, but you do have to know how to care for them in the event they endure a seizure. Have you ever written a piece of software that could kill someone, and have your boss want to use it to move him around equipment so he could inspect it? I have. >Yet, we all have been in the position to hold the butterfly of life in our >fists when we turn on the ignition of a car. And sadly, and maddeningly, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >intervenes), we do find out "what can happen", and that it doesn't always >happen to the other guy. You know, I find it interesting that out of all the people in this group, only the "speed kills" morons exist in the group that have lost "loved ones" to automobile accidents. Why is that? >We just keep going, hoping that one of these clueless uncaring twits doesn't >smash into us and change our lives in a moment of stupidity. Or should I I don't; I know how to drive defensively. You should study up on it sometime. It might save your life; it's saved mine on numerous occasions, and I wouldn't trade the knowledge for the world. >say because they are stupid and live that way, and don't consider any other >way of living or looking at things? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Rant off. As is your intelligence level. Later loser! --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> > I was driving home this evening, over the > speed limit, when I noticed a vehicle about a quarter of a mile ahead. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > in the oncoming traffic's lane; the oncoming traffic ended up doing a > wee bit of off-roading. What convenient timing of your example of your exceptional driving skills! Perhaps you could favor us with some details, you know, while your memory is so fresh: Why were oncoming headlights (UNEXPECTED)? That really seems to be an exceptionally high degree of surprise, with those caps and all. I'm certain I am not alone in being anxious to learn from your obviously superior collection of skills and knowledge. Do you decelerate every time a vehicle approaches from the opposite direction (or might you be the victim of a headlight phobia)...? Do you just do that whenever you encounter a driver to your front operating near the speed limit and are surprised by oncoming headlights, since operating near the speed limit is such a reliable indicator that the driver is incompetent and likely to demonstrate just how incompetent within the next few seconds? Has anyone ever told you that you are a piss-poor constructor of lies? Maybe your parent has mentioned it...? ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 29 Dec 2006 03:18 GMT Someone wrote: >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >skills! Perhaps you could favor us with some details, you know, while >your memory is so fresh: It was convenient timing, indeed! This happened within a mile or so of the house, so after the incident, I arrived at home, fed the dog, refreshed headers, and saw that I had the wonderful opportunity to share my experience with you guys. >Why were oncoming headlights (UNEXPECTED)? That really seems to be an >exceptionally high degree of surprise, with those caps and all. They would have been had one of your fellow trolls, Mr. Taylor, had encountered them. I'm smart enough to realize that headlights are usually attached to cars. >I'm certain I am not alone in being anxious to learn from your >obviously superior collection of skills and knowledge. It's really quite simple (which, in part, explains why it's way over your head): pay attention. I identified an oncoming vehicle before the driver in front me did. I guess the retard driving the truck is one of those morons who thinks "safe" == "legal", >Do you decelerate every time a vehicle approaches from the opposite >direction (or might you be the victim of a headlight phobia)...? Only when I get the feeling that the situation could turn nasty, which, considering the truck driver ran the other driver off the road, it could have been. Threat assessment; learn it, live it, love it. >Do you just do that whenever you encounter a driver to your front >operating near the speed limit and are surprised by oncoming >headlights, since operating near the speed limit is such a reliable >indicator that the driver is incompetent and likely to demonstrate just >how incompetent within the next few seconds? I don't always slow down when I encounter oncoming traffic, regardless of my position in a given line of traffic. I ALWAYS slow down when I perceive a situation to potentially lead to an accident, as I did on the way home this evening. >Has anyone ever told you that you are a piss-poor constructor of lies? Nope. >Maybe your parent has mentioned it...? Actually, what my parents have both mentioned, independently, is that I'm the most honest person they know. That's kind of an odd situation to be in, though, as while I haven't lied very much in my lifetime, the people I lied to most were my parents. But it was rare. I realized at a very early age that dishonesty isn't worth the effort. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> > Someone wrote: > >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > encountered them. I'm smart enough to realize that headlights are > usually attached to cars. So... you were surprised that a -car- approached from the opposite direction...? OK. WHY were you surprised that -a car- approached from the opposite direction? > >I'm certain I am not alone in being anxious to learn from your > >obviously superior collection of skills and knowledge. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > driver in front me did. I guess the retard driving the truck is one of > those morons who thinks "safe" == "legal", Ad hominum, quite the effective argument. But that doesn't delve quite as deeply as I had hoped. I had hoped you might share how and why oncoming traffic was such a surprise. Now, I wish you would explain how you discerned that you identified the oncoming vehicle before the driver to your front. It's ESP, ain't it? Boy, I wish I had it... > >Do you decelerate every time a vehicle approaches from the opposite > >direction (or might you be the victim of a headlight phobia)...? > > Only when I get the feeling that the situation could turn nasty, > which, considering the truck driver ran the other driver off the road, > it could have been. Threat assessment; learn it, live it, love it. Wow! You sure are smart! What leads to "the feeling that the situation could turn nasty"? Is it the surprise headlights suddenly appearing, off in the distance, through the trees, before the curve, and knowing that you saw them first? > >Do you just do that whenever you encounter a driver to your front > >operating near the speed limit and are surprised by oncoming [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > perceive a situation to potentially lead to an accident, as I did on > the way home this evening. But... HOW did you perceive that situation developing long before the other vehicles even approached the curve? > >Has anyone ever told you that you are a piss-poor constructor of lies? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Actually, what my parents have both mentioned, independently, is that > I'm the most honest person they know. So, your parents are idiots and tend to know the poorest liars on the planet, but among those, you're the best? Ok, now I've got -that-... thank you for your patience. BUHWAHAhahahaha...! ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 29 Dec 2006 04:01 GMT Someone wrote: >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> >> Someone wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >So... you were surprised that a -car- approached from the opposite >direction...? No, I wasn't. Where did I write that I was surprised? >OK. WHY were you surprised that -a car- approached from the opposite >direction? I wasn't surprised. Your inability to read is not a failure on my part. >> >I'm certain I am not alone in being anxious to learn from your >> >obviously superior collection of skills and knowledge. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Ad hominum, quite the effective argument. Works for me. Keeps me from getting involved in accidents. >But that doesn't delve quite as deeply as I had hoped. I had hoped you >might share how and why oncoming traffic was such a surprise. Now, I It wasn't a surprise. Show me where I said it was >wish you would explain how you discerned that you identified the >oncoming vehicle before the driver to your front. It's ESP, ain't it? >Boy, I wish I had it... Hell, you'd be lucky if you had the ability to read at a third grade level. I think ESP is far beyond your grasp. >> >Do you decelerate every time a vehicle approaches from the opposite >> >direction (or might you be the victim of a headlight phobia)...? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >appearing, off in the distance, through the trees, before the curve, >and knowing that you saw them first? Foremost, I wasn't surprised by the headlights, but I observed the driver in front me was. That's one of the benefits of proper driving. Perhaps if you learned to read, your ignorance wouldn't be so high. >> >Do you just do that whenever you encounter a driver to your front >> >operating near the speed limit and are surprised by oncoming [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >But... HOW did you perceive that situation developing long before the >other vehicles even approached the curve? As I've said in this group time and time again, driving ahead. An observant driver is going to recognize "threats" long before an incompetent one will. That's why I was able to recognize the oncoming vehicle before the driver of the pick-up truck, who, incidently, was going the speed limit and did manage to run the oncoming vehicle off the road due to his ineptitude. >> >Has anyone ever told you that you are a piss-poor constructor of lies? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Ok, now I've got -that-... thank you for your patience. I answered your questions truthfully; I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Now be a good little boy and go bury your head in the sand with your pals Carl and SADDAM; ya'll make a cute trio. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ted Kennedy wrote: > >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> > >> >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > No, I wasn't. Where did I write that I was surprised? When something (UNEXPECTED) happens, one is surprised. > >OK. WHY were you surprised that -a car- approached from the opposite > >direction? > > I wasn't surprised. Your inability to read is not a failure on my > part. Then why were the headlights/oncoming car (UNEXPECTED)? > >> >I'm certain I am not alone in being anxious to learn from your > >> >obviously superior collection of skills and knowledge. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Works for me. Keeps me from getting involved in accidents. How? > >But that doesn't delve quite as deeply as I had hoped. I had hoped you > >might share how and why oncoming traffic was such a surprise. Now, I > > It wasn't a surprise. Show me where I said it was I think I've already accomplished that... several times over. > Foremost, I wasn't surprised by the headlights, but I observed the > driver in front me was. That's one of the benefits of proper driving. > Perhaps if you learned to read, your ignorance wouldn't be so high. Maybe my bullshit detector is screaming too loudly. Lemme reset it. > >> >Do you just do that whenever you encounter a driver to your front > >> >operating near the speed limit and are surprised by oncoming [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > going the speed limit and did manage to run the oncoming vehicle off > the road due to his ineptitude. But that fails to explain how you identified the oncoming headlights/car as a "threat", while observing them/it through trees, at a distance, and before they/it rounded a corner. At best, all the most competent driver might discern is "a vehicle, heading in the opposite direction". > >> >Has anyone ever told you that you are a piss-poor constructor of lies? > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I answered your questions truthfully; I'm sorry you don't like the > answers. Only a true and confirmed idiot would consider your responses "answers". > Now be a good little boy and go bury your head in the sand > with your pals Carl and SADDAM; ya'll make a cute trio. You're a f.cking liar, and a piss-poor one. I suspect, mostly, because you are so stupid, and yet believe you are smarter than the average idiot, you believe your lies are plausible. They are not, and that is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Stop embarrassing yourself, if you have any sense of embarrassment. You are not going to lie your way out of obvious lie/s. You must lie again in the attempt. "I'm tru wit dis guy".- Vinnie Gambini ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 29 Dec 2006 04:40 GMT Someone wrote: >Ted Kennedy wrote: >> >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >When something (UNEXPECTED) happens, one is surprised. Read my follow up, moron. I was demonstrating sarcasm towards morons like yourself, particularly Carl Taylor. >> >OK. WHY were you surprised that -a car- approached from the opposite >> >direction? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Then why were the headlights/oncoming car (UNEXPECTED)? Do a google search through RAD for posts by Carl Taylor; all will become clear to both your brain cells. I would have though that as you've been in this group for a bit, you would have realized that. Please forgive me for giving you more credit than you're due. >> >> >I'm certain I am not alone in being anxious to learn from your >> >> >obviously superior collection of skills and knowledge. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >How? Dude, you *really* need to involve yourself in a remedial reading program; you might not look so stupid then. >> >But that doesn't delve quite as deeply as I had hoped. I had hoped you >> >might share how and why oncoming traffic was such a surprise. Now, I >> >> It wasn't a surprise. Show me where I said it was > >I think I've already accomplished that... several times over. Nope, like all other things in your life, you failed. Sorry; didn't mean to bust your bubble there. LMAO. >> Foremost, I wasn't surprised by the headlights, but I observed the >> driver in front me was. That's one of the benefits of proper driving. >> Perhaps if you learned to read, your ignorance wouldn't be so high. > >Maybe my bullshit detector is screaming too loudly. Lemme reset it. Place it as far as way as possible from you; that should settle it down. >> >> >Do you just do that whenever you encounter a driver to your front >> >> >operating near the speed limit and are surprised by oncoming [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >competent driver might discern is "a vehicle, heading in the opposite >direction". "At best, all the most competent driver might discern is "a vehicle, heading in the opposite direction?" If that's your idea of competency, I hope you've made your final arrangements. To me, the inability to recognize the situation as possibly life threatening is incompetency, and I'm convinced that's why 40,000+ morons buy it on an annual basis. >> >> >Has anyone ever told you that you are a piss-poor constructor of lies? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Only a true and confirmed idiot would consider your responses >"answers". And yet you deny them? How oxymoronic. >> Now be a good little boy and go bury your head in the sand >> with your pals Carl and SADDAM; ya'll make a cute trio. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You are not going to lie your way out of obvious lie/s. You must lie >again in the attempt. Is referring to someone else as a "liar" the only way you can "win" an argument? Damned, I thought "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers" was the biggest idiot in this group; you may have usurped that title from it. =)) --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 29 Dec 2006 04:10 GMT Someone wrote: >> >Why were oncoming headlights (UNEXPECTED)? That really seems to be an >> >exceptionally high degree of surprise, with those caps and all. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >So... you were surprised that a -car- approached from the opposite >direction...? Hey GPSman, I see how you could be so easily confused, now. I wasn't surprised by the oncoming headlights. The reason I emphasized (UNEXPECTED) is because that's a favorite term of another of those "legal" -- "safe" morons who post in this group, Carl Taylor. Sorry the sarcasm was lost on you, retard. By the way, enjoying life at the fry vat, loser? --- My book on pointers was delivered to the wrong address. Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) wrote: > Someone wrote: > >> >Why were oncoming headlights (UNEXPECTED)? That really seems to be an [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > morons who post in this group, Carl Taylor. Sorry the sarcasm was lost > on you, retard. Ok... so now you choose to grasp at the straw and explain your were only mocking another poster via sarcasm?! Slipped your mind the first, second, third and fourth time I pointed it out...? Or is it just another lie, to cover your previous lie/s? > By the way, enjoying life at the fry vat, loser? I don't know what a fry vat is, but if it's retirement at age 50, very much so. I have few demands between real estate transactions and am free to abuse dimwits on usenet to my heart's content: House 1: http://tinypic.com/j58fid.jpg House 2 (: http://tinypic.com/j58goy.jpg House 2.2: http://tinypic.com/j58h3r.jpg Property 1: http://tinypic.com/j58inl.jpg Not pictured: Much more real estate I owe zip on. Got any shots of your crib/s (not your parent's)? Or anything else stupid to say? ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 29 Dec 2006 06:00 GMT Someone wrote: >Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad >Mothers) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Slipped your mind the first, second, third and fourth time I pointed it >out...? Or is it just another lie, to cover your previous lie/s? ROTFLMAO. Learn to read, retard, if you can: <quote> Path: bigbe2.bellsouth.net!bigfeed.bellsouth.net!bigfeed2.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!news.glorb.com!feeder.xsnews.nl!82.197.223.99.MISMATCH!feeder1.cambrium.nl!feeder4.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!news.wiretrip.org!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news From: George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving Subject: Speediots piling up like dominoes Message-ID: <699107723138788cc9835a9efc31af5a@mixmaster.it> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 07:49:25 +0100 (CET) Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com Organization: mail2news@dizum.com Xref: bigfeed.bellsouth.net rec.autos.driving:761052 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbDwoj2cx1I Who do you think was doing most of the crashing in that gut- wrenching sequence; speediots or moderate drivers? Who was better prepared to stop or steer to safety when they came upon those _unexpected_ vehicles? A popular term is to "scrub off speed." The more of it you have, the harder the "scrubbing." Simple physics that requires no degree. Does anyone still not know what "unexpected" means? Look at all the dummies who wouldn't even slow down in that cone-zone where they know danger lurks. That's why State govts have to run ad campaigns. These are the SAME smugsters who tell you that nothing can ever catch them off guard, since they've got the corner on cool. F.W. http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/ </quote> Notice the emphasis on "unexpected?" Thought you might, moron. >> By the way, enjoying life at the fry vat, loser? > >I don't know what a fry vat is, but if it's retirement at age 50, very >much so. Ah, UAW, huh? I thought you were that incompetent. >I have few demands between real estate transactions and am free to >abuse dimwits on usenet to my heart's content: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Got any shots of your crib/s (not your parent's)? Or anything else >stupid to say? Nah, I prefer not to change the subject, the common tactic of losers everywhere. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) wrote: > Someone wrote: > >Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > </quote> What's that got to do with your powers of ESP? > Notice the emphasis on "unexpected?" Thought you might, moron. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ah, UAW, huh? I thought you were that incompetent. Spurious conclusion. I've never held a real job more than 3 years except the 7 years I spent in the military. > >I have few demands between real estate transactions and am free to > >abuse dimwits on usenet to my heart's content: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Nah, I prefer not to change the subject, the common tactic of losers > everywhere. You're a liar, and a shitty one, why change the subject from that? ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 29 Dec 2006 13:06 GMT Someone wrote: >Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad >Mothers) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > >What's that got to do with your powers of ESP? ROTFLMAO. It has nothing to do with ESP, and everything to do with "the unexpected." Sorry that staying on topic confuses you. >> Notice the emphasis on "unexpected?" Thought you might, moron. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Spurious conclusion. I've never held a real job more than 3 years Little surprise there. >except the 7 years I spent in the military. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >You're a liar, and a shitty one, why change the subject from that? So you accuse me of being a liar, and then expect me to believe you? LMAO. It's been my experience over the years that those who have trust issues with others do so because they aren't trustworthy themselves. But thanks, once again, for demonstrating your diminished reasoning capacity. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> > >You're a liar, and a shitty one, why change the subject from that? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But thanks, once again, for demonstrating your diminished reasoning > capacity. I'm sorry, why, again, are you attempting to change the subject? Speaking of reason... what reason did you eventually cite as your impetus to decelerate at the sight of oncoming headlights, off in the distance, through trees and before it rounded a corner? So far, I remember you stating it was because headlights are attached to cars, and that you seemed to feel you were some sort of wizard to link the two. What's the -real- reason...? I think you owe it to the group so that they might become safe drivers like yourself. ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 30 Dec 2006 18:57 GMT Someone wrote: >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> >> >You're a liar, and a shitty one, why change the subject from that? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I'm sorry, why, again, are you attempting to change the subject? I'm not. Your comprehensive skills are definitely on subject for this branch of the thread. >Speaking of reason... what reason did you eventually cite as your >impetus to decelerate at the sight of oncoming headlights, off in the >distance, through trees and before it rounded a corner? It was in the original post. Sorry I didn't explain it using monosyllabic words. Maybe then you wouldn't have such an issue struggling with the obvious. >So far, I remember you stating it was because headlights are attached >to cars, and that you seemed to feel you were some sort of wizard to >link the two. It must suck to have such poor reading comprehension skills. >What's the -real- reason...? I think you owe it to the group so that >they might become safe drivers like yourself. I think the majority of the group already knows. :-) --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ted Kennedy wrote: > >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> > >> >You're a liar, and a shitty one, why change the subject from that? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > monosyllabic words. Maybe then you wouldn't have such an issue > struggling with the obvious. Well... here are your original words: I, in my normal "driving ahead" mode, noticed (through the trees) the headlights of a vehicle coming around the curve from the other direction. As soon as I saw the oncoming (UNEXPECTED) lights, I began to decelerate. There's nothing other than the headlights, of a vehicle, not yet having rounded a curve. What obvious threat shall I conclude was posed? I'm inclined to conclude you have unwittingly, falsely, and unnecessarily embellished your story, and that you are such an idiot you think it might be believable, and that you will look smart and not a liar if you just keep repeating that I'm stupid. I don't believe that is working for you. ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 30 Dec 2006 20:32 GMT Someone wrote: >Ted Kennedy wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >There's nothing other than the headlights, of a vehicle, not yet having >rounded a curve. You seem to have conveniently ignored this, also in the original post: <quote> For some strange reason, the speed limit driving truck driver didn't notice the oncoming vehicle until they were both in the curve, at which time the truck driver hit his brakes hard because he was on the inside of the curve, in the oncoming traffic's lane </quote> What part of "in the oncoming traffic's lane" is beyond your comprehension? Let me see if I can simplify it for you: =)) The truck in front of me was in the wrong lane of traffic for the way he was going. Sorry, I had to use two multi-sylable words, but I hope that helps to clarify things for you. =)) >What obvious threat shall I conclude was posed? It was posted; I apologize for not posting it in simpler terms for you. >I'm inclined to conclude you have unwittingly, falsely, and >unnecessarily embellished your story, and that you are such an idiot >you think it might be believable, and that you will look smart and not >a liar if you just keep repeating that I'm stupid. You may wish to reconsider those remedial reading courses I suggested earlier. You have consistently misinterpreted everything I've written. I'd almost believe your stupidity was an act, but I've read enough of your other posts to realize it's genuine. >I don't believe that is working for you. So far, the only people who have complained have been yourself and another poster who's demonstrated his poor reasonability as well. So what do I care what your beliefs are? You two dullards are the only ones struggling to understand. =)) --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity and irrelevancy snip> > >Well... here are your original words: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the speed limit driving truck driver didn't notice the oncoming > vehicle until they were both in the curve, Yes, I did. Conclusions based on zero evidence stand out, even in this well fertilized and planted garden of spurious conclusions. A method of determining who noticed what first does not exist outside of tightly controlled testing. The truck driver could just has easily noticed the lights first, and not noticed he was in the wrong lane. We will not even delve into the fact that the human eye is naturally attracted to moving lights. > at which time the truck > driver hit his brakes hard because he was on the inside of the curve, > in the oncoming traffic's lane > > </quote> Yes, yes, but that happened -in- the curve, -after- you recognized your imaginary threat before either vehicle entered the curve. > What part of "in the oncoming traffic's lane" is beyond your > comprehension? Let me see if I can simplify it for you: =)) > > The truck in front of me was in the wrong lane of traffic for the way > he was going. In the curve. You made no mention of the truck in the other lane before you "expertly" perceived a threat, you claimed to have detected the threat before. <quote> As soon as I saw the oncoming (UNEXPECTED) lights, I began to decelerate. </quote> > >What obvious threat shall I conclude was posed? > > It was posted; I apologize for not posting it in simpler terms for > you. More effective would be posting it a first time. The instant you saw the headlights you perceived and reacted to a threat. Why... you have yet again failed to explain. Because you can't. Because your story is a poorly constructed lie, and solely intended to make you appear smart, and your driving skills appear superior to those of a driver who was operating near the speed limit... well, that, and probably to further bolster the idiotic but popular r.a.d. perspective that anyone who chooses to operate near the speed limit or at a lower velocity is an inferior driver, dangerous, stupid, and is somehow trampling all over the rights of any driver who might be to their rear and wish to operate at higher velocity. You're really not smart enough to make a qualified determination of who might be more stupid than yourself, and it's a rather small group. ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 30 Dec 2006 22:05 GMT Someone wrote: >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity and irrelevancy snip> >> >Well... here are your original words: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >of determining who noticed what first does not exist outside of tightly >controlled testing. Ah, ok. So you, not being at the scene, are a better judge of what actually occurred than someone present. That's a tactic of another mental giant in this group, "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend." >The truck driver could just has easily noticed the lights first, and Then the truck driver, who had demonstrated adherence to the speed limit, was obviously not paying heed to the task at hand. Which resulted in the driver of the oncoming vehicle to go off-roading to avoid a head-on collision. >not noticed he was in the wrong lane. We will not even delve into the >fact that the human eye is naturally attracted to moving lights. Not mine; I head away from them. My understanding of physics is not that diminished. >> at which time the truck >> driver hit his brakes hard because he was on the inside of the curve, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Yes, yes, but that happened -in- the curve, -after- you recognized your >imaginary threat before either vehicle entered the curve. If the threat had not been imagined, the driver of the oncoming vehicle would not have had to leave the asphalt. >> What part of "in the oncoming traffic's lane" is beyond your >> comprehension? Let me see if I can simplify it for you: =)) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >before you "expertly" perceived a threat, you claimed to have detected >the threat before. Un, the truck didn't just "hop" into the other lane when the oncoming traffic appeared. The driver of truck started crossing into the lane of oncoming traffic as it entered the curve, and didn't move out of that lane until he almost had a head-on collision with the oncoming traffic. Most of the people in RAD are smart enough to realize that vehicles just don't hop out in front of other vehicles. I'd almost like to say I'm sorry you're excluded from that group. ><quote> As soon as I saw the oncoming >(UNEXPECTED) lights, I began to decelerate. </quote> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >More effective would be posting it a first time. The instant you saw >the headlights you perceived and reacted to a threat. That's what I posted; I'm sorry your mental facilities didn't allow you to interpret it that way. Oddly enough no one else is asking the same moronic questions you are. That's indicative of a reasoning failure on your part, not anyone else's. >Why... you have yet again failed to explain. Because you can't. You're right; I'm sorry I can't dumb it down to your level for you. It's been a while since I've tried to have an intelligent conversation with someone who only writes at a sixth grade level; I have forgotten how difficult it is. >Because your story is a poorly constructed lie, and solely intended to >make you appear smart, and your driving skills appear superior to those [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >trampling all over the rights of any driver who might be to their rear >and wish to operate at higher velocity. Again you've missed the point, but that's no loss on my part. >You're really not smart enough to make a qualified determination of who >might be more stupid than yourself, and it's a rather small group. At least I'm smart enough to know the difference between "safe" and "legal", as well as "time" and "chance." You seem to have extreme difficulties understanding even the most trivial of concepts, and at the same time you're too stupid to understand what this says about you, and not the others. Have fun with that. =)) --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ted Kennedy wrote: > >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity and irrelevancy snip> > >> >Well... here are your original words: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Ah, ok. So you, not being at the scene, are a better judge of what > actually occurred than someone present. Avoidance of subject noted. The event never occurred, it is your invention. And you have attempted to change the subject from your spurious conclusion that you noticed the oncoming headlights before the driver of the truck. You may or may not have. The point is, you have formed a conclusion based on information you do not have, and have no method of obtaining. > >The truck driver could just has easily noticed the lights first, and > > Then the truck driver, who had demonstrated adherence to the speed > limit, was obviously not paying heed to the task at hand. Which > resulted in the driver of the oncoming vehicle to go off-roading to > avoid a head-on collision. Avoidance of subject noted. That might be true, if that driver existed, but he does not. > >not noticed he was in the wrong lane. We will not even delve into the > >fact that the human eye is naturally attracted to moving lights. > > Not mine; I head away from them. My understanding of physics is not > that diminished. Avoidance of subject noted. Then surely you would not misinterpret "human eye, attracted to moving lights" as "human, attracted to moving lights". > >> at which time the truck > >> driver hit his brakes hard because he was on the inside of the curve, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If the threat had not been imagined, the driver of the oncoming > vehicle would not have had to leave the asphalt. Avoidance of subject noted. Of course. Whatever the f.ck that gibberish is supposed to convey. You seem to be saying that if you had not imagined the threat, the driver of the truck would not have crossed the centerline. What school of physics is that? > >> What part of "in the oncoming traffic's lane" is beyond your > >> comprehension? Let me see if I can simplify it for you: =)) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that lane until he almost had a head-on collision with the oncoming > traffic. Avoidance of subject noted. Both vehicles must have occupied the corner at the same time, you perceived the threat before then, as soon as you "expertly" noticed the oncoming headlights, which were still approaching the curve, and not in the curve. > ><quote> As soon as I saw the oncoming > >(UNEXPECTED) lights, I began to decelerate. </quote> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > same moronic questions you are. That's indicative of a reasoning > failure on your part, not anyone else's. Spurious conclusion. Asking a question may be indicative of a lack of reasoning, in this case it's a request for unforthcoming information. A simple question you have avoided, been unable to answer, and have parried with nothing but sidestepping and ad hominem. That -still ain't working. > >Why... you have yet again failed to explain. Because you can't. > > You're right; I'm sorry I can't dumb it down to your level for you. > It's been a while since I've tried to have an intelligent conversation > with someone who only writes at a sixth grade level; I have forgotten > how difficult it is. Yes. The old "you're stupid because you can't understand what I didn't write". Not very effective. > >Because your story is a poorly constructed lie, and solely intended to > >make you appear smart, and your driving skills appear superior to those [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > At least I'm smart enough to know the difference between "safe" and > "legal", as well as "time" and "chance." So you say. But you can't provide a plausible answer as to why you immediately perceived oncoming headlights, in the distance, through trees, and beyond a curve as a threat which impelled you to decelerate. That's all I've wanted to know. And the only answer you have provided is that headlights are attached to cars. Real smart. > You seem to have extreme > difficulties understanding even the most trivial of concepts, and at > the same time you're too stupid to understand what this says about > you, and not the others. Have fun with that. =)) How many times are you going to resort to this ineffective tactic? False bravado and ad hominem is not an argument, nor an answer. If you could answer the question you would, and I would appear foolish instead of yourself. Give it up and admit the entire event is invention. ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 31 Dec 2006 16:16 GMT Someone wrote: >Ted Kennedy wrote: >> >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity and irrelevancy snip> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Avoidance of subject noted. Failure to answer the question: noted. >The event never occurred, it is your invention. And you have attempted >to change the subject from your spurious conclusion that you noticed >the oncoming headlights before the driver of the truck. You may or may >not have. The point is, you have formed a conclusion based on >information you do not have, and have no method of obtaining. Errant speculation: noted. >> >The truck driver could just has easily noticed the lights first, and >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Avoidance of subject noted. Your inability to recognize on-subject discussions: noted. >That might be true, if that driver existed, but he does not. Where's your proof? >> >not noticed he was in the wrong lane. We will not even delve into the >> >fact that the human eye is naturally attracted to moving lights. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Avoidance of subject noted. Your inability to recognize on-subject discussions: noted. >Then surely you would not misinterpret "human eye, attracted to moving >lights" as "human, attracted to moving lights". The "human eye" is attracted to whatever the "human brain" decides to focus it on. Your errant belief that the "human eye" operates as an autonomous object: noted. >> >> at which time the truck >> >> driver hit his brakes hard because he was on the inside of the curve, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Avoidance of subject noted. Inability to comprehend anything, no matter how trivial, noted. >Of course. Whatever the f.ck that gibberish is supposed to convey. Again, that's why I suggest you pick up some remedial reading courses. Perhaps then you'll learn the difference between "time" and "chance" (incidently, another subject you never seem to want to address, for some reason or another.) >You seem to be saying that if you had not imagined the threat, the >driver of the truck would not have crossed the centerline. What school >of physics is that? You seem to have some serious interpretational issues, as that's not what I said at all. >> >> What part of "in the oncoming traffic's lane" is beyond your >> >> comprehension? Let me see if I can simplify it for you: =)) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Avoidance of subject noted. Inability to communicate with adults: noted. >Both vehicles must have occupied the corner at the same time, you >perceived the threat before then, as soon as you "expertly" noticed the >oncoming headlights, which were still approaching the curve, and not in >the curve. Wow, that's almost as non-sensical as the statement you made proving your inability to distinguish between "time" and "chance." >> ><quote> As soon as I saw the oncoming >> >(UNEXPECTED) lights, I began to decelerate. </quote> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Spurious conclusion. Asking a question may be indicative of a lack of >reasoning, in this case it's a request for unforthcoming information. You've been provided with all of the information you've requested. Your inability or unwillingness to accept that information is not my problem. But then again, you consistently demonstrate, in this and other threads, your basic lack of understanding of the english language. >A simple question you have avoided, been unable to answer, and have >parried with nothing but sidestepping and ad hominem. I'm sorry your comprehension skills are so poor. >That -still ain't working. Perhaps you should consider a reading tutor? =)) >> >Why... you have yet again failed to explain. Because you can't. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Not very effective. Not, at least, for the moron with the reading comprehension issues. LMAO. >> >Because your story is a poorly constructed lie, and solely intended to >> >make you appear smart, and your driving skills appear superior to those [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >immediately perceived oncoming headlights, in the distance, through >trees, and beyond a curve as a threat which impelled you to decelerate. I've stated over and over again that because the truck driver was not in his lane of traffic, I perceived the threat of an accident, and took corrective actions to prevent involving myself in it. While the accident didn't occur, the driver of the oncoming vehicle had to leave the asphalt to avoid one. Had they had a head-on collision, and I not de-accelerated when I did, most likely it would have been a three car collision. >That's all I've wanted to know. And the only answer you have provided >is that headlights are attached to cars. Eh, the only answers you've been able to understand is that headlights are attached to cars. Sorry the rest was above your reasoning abilities. >Real smart. Says the genius who doesn't know the difference between "time" and "chance." You're funny, gpsboi. >> You seem to have extreme >> difficulties understanding even the most trivial of concepts, and at >> the same time you're too stupid to understand what this says about >> you, and not the others. Have fun with that. =)) > >How many times are you going to resort to this ineffective tactic? Probably about the same number of times you're going to avoid answering why you don't know the difference between "time" and "chance," loser. =)) Just because you don't understand or believe something doesn't mean it did not occur. >False bravado and ad hominem is not an argument, nor an answer. If you >could answer the question you would, and I would appear foolish instead >of yourself. LMAO. >Give it up and admit the entire event is invention. Sorry, it's not an invention, and you have no way to disprove that. Sucks to be you. By the way, considering how poor your comprehensive skills are, I'm going to leave your remedial reading exercises to you and someone else. Perhaps you can find a parent who can help explain these trivial issues to you? While you're at it, perhaps they can also explain the difference between "time" and "chance." Knowledge of such trivial differences may go a long way in helping you to understand more advanced concepts. Thanks for playing, and have a happy new year, loser!  SignatureWant to read some of the most innaccurate and pathetic content on the internet? Follow this link: http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=mcoF9BUAAADHbPq9LUkD5kQKX8oUgLR gwAGTRh6yivfCqR_xbMF2sw Content posted under several nyms: Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM) Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend Laura Bush - Vehicular Homicide Ted Kennedy wrote: >> >I, in my normal "driving ahead" mode, noticed >> >(through the trees) the headlights of a vehicle coming around the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >There's nothing other than the headlights, of a vehicle, not yet having >> >rounded a curve. Paraphrased: I was traveling at the speed of light in a speed of sound zone. I thought (in my expansive brain) that I would slow down to the speed of sound to see what was going on. But, since I was traveling at the speed of light, I arrived before I departed, and nothing had happened. Yet. And then I saw the sign, "Chappaquiddick Bridge Road ---->". I hate it when that happens ......... The rest is history ........... Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 31 Dec 2006 16:16 GMT Steve the retard scribbled: >Ted Kennedy wrote: >>> >I, in my normal "driving ahead" mode, noticed [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >I hate it when that happens ......... The rest is history ........... I thought you kill filled me. Nice to see you're a liar. =)) --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! > I don't know what a fry vat is, but if it's retirement at age 50, very > much so. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - gpsman Touché, gpsman. Very good dispatch of a pesky nuisance creature, I'd say. Owning property, and living on first deeds and other interest has its upsides, now, doesn't it? Steve Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 29 Dec 2006 12:57 GMT Someone wrote: >> I don't know what a fry vat is, but if it's retirement at age 50, very >> much so. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Owning property, and living on first deeds and other interest has its >upsides, now, doesn't it? ROTFLMAO. Let's see, gpsman accuses someone of being a liar, and you trust them? Not very bright; no wonder the two of you lose all your arguments. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! > > I don't know what a fry vat is, but if it's retirement at age 50, very > > much so. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Touché, gpsman. Very good dispatch of a pesky nuisance creature, I'd say. LMAO. Says the loser who tucks his tail and runs from every argument he loses! > Owning property, and living on first deeds and other interest has its > upsides, now, doesn't it? How do you know it's his? How can you trust one person who calls another a liar in an anonymous forum? Do you lose all your arguments so easily? So, what was it like riding the short bus to school, loser? > How many people really know the responsibility and liability they hold in > their hands when driving a car? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > be an idiot in a car a lot more times than you can be an idiot with a gun > before something gets messy. It's not stupidity, it's psychopathy. People like cars precisely because it enables them to kill innocent people and get away with it. Like Laura Bush did. Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 29 Dec 2006 03:31 GMT Someone wrote: >> How many people really know the responsibility and liability they hold in >> their hands when driving a car? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >because it enables them to kill innocent people and get away with it. >Like Laura Bush did. Or because they can hope in their cars, get wasted, and start driving. Just ask a Kennedy. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! >> How many people really know the responsibility and liability they hold in >> their hands when driving a car? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > because it enables them to kill innocent people and get away with it. > Like Laura Bush did. .................. yawn .................... Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS read some gay kid porn invilving 6MO boys and then released this in rec.autos.driving: > > How many people really know the responsibility and liability they hold in > > their hands when driving a car? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > because it enables them to kill innocent people and get away with it. > Like Teddy Kennedy did. There. Cleaned up the headers a little. SignatureGet back under your bridge, troll! "Hey stupid - I've tried to fix it and i can't. The cable adjusting nuts are rusted solid." --Laura Bush - Vehicular Homicide (a.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, Pride of America, aunt millie and Judy Dairya, among others. See: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj), 6 Apr 2005 11:05:54 -0700 Ref: or9851dpb7a4s8fduf7bf83gab02t9u...@4ax.com Ref: http://tinyurl.com/8exv3 > How many people really know the responsibility and liability they hold in > their hands when driving a car? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > be an idiot in a car a lot more times than you can be an idiot with a gun > before something gets messy. Why do you think so? People who drive do so on a daily basis and get an opportunity to gain experience. People who own guns rarely get this kind of experience. Some do, but spending an hour or so at the pistol range is the exception, not the rule. Heck, our local police force minimum annual firearms qualifications requirements will get them thrown out of the local civilian range as a hazard. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Senior staff curmudgeon. >> How many people really know the responsibility and liability they >> hold in their hands when driving a car? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> better grasp of the parameters of their experience than people who >> drive cars. Not in my view. There's far too many "I thought the gun was unloaded" negligent discharges,gunshot injuries and deaths.Then there's all the fools who think it's OK to fire their guns into the air for the 4th Of July and New Years,not considering where the bullets will end up.Some cities have a MAJOR problem with that.(like Detroit) Many people own guns but never use them,even to practice.Often,they are unaware their gun has been stolen or "borrowed" by a young family member. >> You can be an idiot in a car a lot more times than you >> can be an idiot with a gun before something gets messy. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > firearms qualifications requirements will get them thrown out of the > local civilian range as a hazard. Reminds me of that Orlando Sheriff giving a gun safety demonstration in a school,and shooting himself during the class. With an "unloaded" gun... SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net [snip] > > People who drive do so on a daily basis and get an opportunity to gain > > experience. People who own guns rarely get this kind of experience. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Reminds me of that Orlando Sheriff giving a gun safety demonstration in a > school,and shooting himself during the class. With an "unloaded" gun... I saw a bit about that on TV, but I thought it was an FBI agent. IIRC, it was an African American guy, off some sort of undercover assignment (or he was trying to look 'hip' for the school audience). He demonstrated how to make a semi-auto pistol 'safe' by racking the slide and then ejecting the clip. Doh! SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHIFT TO THE LEFT! SHIFT TO THE RIGHT! POP UP, PUSH DOWN, BYTE, BYTE, BYTE! >(or he was trying to look 'hip' for the school audience). He >demonstrated how to make a semi-auto pistol 'safe' by racking the slide >and then ejecting the clip. Doh! One of his ancestors was the guy who prompted the admonition "Rape, pillage and THEN burn!" SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.