 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2007The hyprocrisy of Speed kills believers shows itself AGAIN.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/ <...> Auburn, Washington residents who had insisted that police do something about "outsiders" blazing through their neighborhoods at high speeds have themselves been nabbed exceeding the limit. <...> http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/6402216p-5709145c.html <...> Take Evergreen Way Southeast near Lakeland Hills Elementary School in the Lakeland Hills neighborhood. Auburn police set up shop there a few weeks ago, and 21 of the 24 violators ticketed were residents of that neighborhood. <...> Auburn Mayor Pete Lewis was not surprised to learn the Lakeland Hills speeders were home-grown. .It usually turns out to be the neighbors,. he said. <...> In another area, police reportedly ticketed a woman who had called them about the speeding on her street. Her reaction, according to police? .But I was the one who complained!. <...> The results indicated the PTA wasn.t exaggerating the speeding problem. Of the 3,000 cars recorded, nearly half were traveling at 30 mph or over on the 25 mph street. Only 483 cars were going 25 mph or slower. <...> On Mar 7, 11:38 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In another area, police reportedly ticketed a woman who had called them > about the speeding on her street. > > Her reaction, according to police? .But I was the one who complained!. My response: HA HA HA HA HA HA. bed, made, lie etc. serves her right. nate Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: > In another area, police reportedly ticketed a woman who had called them > about the speeding on her street. > > Her reaction, according to police? .But I was the one who complained!. Now, *that's what I call karma!  Signaturenecromancer Criminal Coddler. And Proud of it, Man!! > http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/6402216p-5709145c.html > In another area, police reportedly ticketed a woman who had called them > about the speeding on her street. > > Her reaction, according to police? .But I was the one who complained!. It's those control freaks trying to tell everyone else how to drive. They're often seen LLBing, CLBing, failing to yield, failing to signal turns and lane changes, driving without lights, and doing MFFY parking, but they complain about everyone else. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Alexander Rogge said in rec.autos.driving: > > http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/6402216p-5709145c.html > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > turns and lane changes, driving without lights, and doing MFFY parking, > but they complain about everyone else. Or practicing DAIS NAID hypocrisy.... SignatureN ever S eeing A nything On Mar 7, 11:38 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: <brevity snip> > In another area, police reportedly ticketed a woman who had called them > about the speeding on her street. > > Her reaction, according to police? .But I was the one who complained!. Hmmm... so you've got one hypocrite. Due to your subject line I presume you have extrapolated this one practically perfect idiot as representative of a group. Perhaps an examination of your biases are in order... ----- - gpsman > On Mar 7, 11:38 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Perhaps an examination of your biases are in order... Actually there have been numerous cases of this effect being seen... people complain about those "bad speeders" while underestimating their own speed. nate >> On Mar 7, 11:38 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > people complain about those "bad speeders" while underestimating their > own speed. Gpstroll scores a double idiotcy there.... first like you point out, again means this is a repeated topic in this ng. 2nd, reading the article shows it was more than just that woman of those in that complaining neighborhood that was ticketed. On Mar 8, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1173370838.724164.222...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, N8N wrote: > >> On Mar 7, 11:38 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > shows it was more than just that woman of those in that complaining > neighborhood that was ticketed. So... you believe you read that the "neighborhood" complained. No wonder you think you have more than one example of hypocrisy when, in fact, only one was reported. What, again, did you say you engineered...? You're probably capable of adding 2+2. I think two plus two would confuse the sh.t out of you. Your comprehension of the written word is substandard. ----- - gpsman On Mar 8, 9:54 am, "PMStroll" <gps...@driversmail.com> blathered in the presense of adults: > On Mar 8, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wonder you think you have more than one example of hypocrisy when, in > fact, only one was reported. "Auburn, Washington ****residents**** who had insisted that police do something about "outsiders" blazing through their neighborhoods at high speeds have themselves been nabbed exceeding the limit." > Your comprehension of the written word > is substandard. The irony of your postings knows no bounds. E.P. > On Mar 8, 9:54 am, "PMStroll" <gps...@driversmail.com> blathered in > the presense of adults: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > The irony of your postings knows no bounds. Hah! That was a fabrication by thenewspaper.com, a site of no repute. The article from which it was derived makes no such mention. ----- - gpsman > > On Mar 8, 9:54 am, "PMStroll" <gps...@driversmail.com> blathered in > > the presense of adults: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Hah! That was a fabrication by thenewspaper.com, a site of no > repute. Certainly more reputable than known Usenet trolls of limited intelligence and reading comprehension. > The article from which it was derived makes no such mention. Yes, yes it does. See my last post (which used direct quotes from the News Tribune of Tacoma, WA,) or next time, try actually reading the articles you attempt to summarize before you collapse into a black hole of stupid (or completely disappear up your own colon.) nate On Mar 8, 10:08 am, "PMStroll" <gps...@driversmail.com> whined in the presense of adults: > > On Mar 8, 9:54 am, "PMStroll" <gps...@driversmail.com> blathered in > > the presense of adults: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Hah! That was a fabrication by thenewspaper.com Uh, no. The Tacoma News Tribune reported plural as well. > a site of no > repute. You say you use logic? I suggest you look up the term "ad hominem" and see how it applies here, in a logic sense. > The article from which it was derived makes no such mention. Bzzzt. I'll wait for the popping noise. E.P. > On Mar 8, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > wonder you think you have more than one example of hypocrisy when, in > fact, only one was reported. Bullshit. The first line of the article reads: "Some Auburn neighbors complaining of speeders in their quiet neighborhoods streets have met the enemy and discovered it is themselves." It doesn't say "An Auburn Resident..." and it doesn't say "in her quite neighborhood" and it doesn't say "discovered it herself". It's all plural. Several people complained. > On Mar 8, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - gpsman >From TFA: "Some Auburn neighbors complaining of speeders in their quiet neighborhoods streets have met the enemy and discovered it is themselves. " So apparently "some" people have been complaining, not just one. "Take Evergreen Way Southeast near Lakeland Hills Elementary School in the Lakeland Hills neighborhood. Auburn police set up shop there a few weeks ago, and 21 of the 24 violators ticketed were residents of that neighborhood." Hmmm... I'm starting to see a pattern here. Are you dumb, or just stupid? nate > > On Mar 8, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Hmmm... I'm starting to see a pattern here. I'm sure you are, but not relevant to the matter of discussion. There is only one example of hypocrisy. > Are you dumb, or just stupid? Your question suggests it's you, and I suspect you're both. ----- - gpsman > > > On Mar 8, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > I'm sure you are, but not relevant to the matter of discussion. There > is only one example of hypocrisy. Actually, the real number lies somewhere between one and twenty-one. Were I a betting man, I'd guess it's more than one. > > Are you dumb, or just stupid? > > Your question suggests it's you, and I suspect you're both. What you suspect, given your track record of accuracy (ahem) to date, is of little importance to most of us. nate > > > > On Mar 8, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Actually, the real number lies somewhere between one and twenty-one. Perhaps. But there's only one noted by the source of any reliability. > Were I a betting man, I'd guess it's more than one. You don't have to bet to guess. Twenty-one out of what... 1000, 5000, 10,000? > > > Are you dumb, or just stupid? > > > Your question suggests it's you, and I suspect you're both. > > What you suspect, given your track record of accuracy (ahem) to date, > is of little importance to most of us. That's because you probably make the mistake of confusing being disagreed with as an error. I have erred on occasion. And admitted it, and apologized for it, and thanked those who have pointed it out. And I'm sure I've erred otherwise as well, but I -can- count to one, and I don't believe everything I read that coincides with my beliefs, and illogically dispute that which conflicts with those beliefs. I can change my mind. And have. Flip-flopped, as no doubt the morons here would refer to it. ----- - gpsman > > > > > On Mar 8, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > You don't have to bet to guess. Twenty-one out of what... 1000, 5000, > 10,000? Twenty-four, according to TFA. Or do you mean people who regularly travel that road? > > > > Are you dumb, or just stupid? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > everything I read that coincides with my beliefs, and illogically > dispute that which conflicts with those beliefs. Um, yes, yes you do. Constantly. > I can change my mind. And have. Flip-flopped, as no doubt the morons > here would refer to it. Odd that you bring this up, as AFAICT you still hold to the same ignorant views that you held when you first showed up here. On Mar 8, 3:26 pm, "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: <brevity snip> > > I can change my mind. And have. Flip-flopped, as no doubt the morons > > here would refer to it. > > Odd that you bring this up, as AFAICT you still hold to the same > ignorant views that you held when you first showed up here. That's pretty funny coming from the guy whose example drivers are all experts, until a minor decrease in velocity is required. That's beyond their skill level, they could be killed! And the guy who must drive with the flow, or be run over and killed. And the guy who refuses to allow traffic to merge and assumes all entrance ramps, all vehicles, and all driver's skills, and all driver's attitudes, must match his own, or be found somehow deficient. And the guy who will agree that some collisions are due to a device on a pole. Have you -ever- seen me post here about -my- problems with traffic, or other drivers, or LE, or speed limits, or speed or red light cameras? You'll probably never guess why not, but I don't wonder why you won't. ----- - gpsman > On Mar 8, 3:26 pm, "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > experts, until a minor decrease in velocity is required. That's > beyond their skill level, they could be killed! Where have I ever said that? Please provide a cite, because that sounds an awful lot like a fabrication. > And the guy who must drive with the flow, or be run over and killed. What I have said is that statistically, driving with or slightly faster than the flow of traffic is safest. That is a true statement. > And the guy who refuses to allow traffic to merge and assumes all > entrance ramps, all vehicles, and all driver's skills, and all > driver's attitudes, must match his own, or be found somehow deficient. I do not refuse to allow traffic to merge. However, it is not my responsibility to compensate for others' poor driving, if doing so will inconvenience other drivers who are driving correctly. > And the guy who will agree that some collisions are due to a device on > a pole. You mean a RLC? That's documented fact as well. > Have you -ever- seen me post here about -my- problems with traffic, or > other drivers, or LE, or speed limits, or speed or red light cameras? > You'll probably never guess why not, but I don't wonder why you won't. We've seen you demonstrate *lots* of problems in your posts. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > On Mar 8, 3:26 pm, "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > What I have said is that statistically, driving with or slightly faster > than the flow of traffic is safest. That is a true statement. That depends on the interpretation of those statistics. AFAICT, that interpetation is false. You may also drive slightly slower than the flow with identical safety. > > And the guy who refuses to allow traffic to merge and assumes all > > entrance ramps, all vehicles, and all driver's skills, and all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > responsibility to compensate for others' poor driving, if doing so will > inconvenience other drivers who are driving correctly. That depends on your concept of "correctly". You fail to take into account that a ramp may be designed to allow the typical vehicle to accelerate to the SL, and not to 15 or 20 over that velocity. > > And the guy who will agree that some collisions are due to a device on > > a pole. > > You mean a RLC? That's documented fact as well. No, it f.cking is not. Can't be, won't ever be. Physically (and that includes physics-ly) impossible. Collisions are the fault of drivers. You can slam on your f.cking brakes in front of me anytime you want, I won't hit you, driving a f.cking Class 8 truck, bobtailing. > > Have you -ever- seen me post here about -my- problems with traffic, or > > other drivers, or LE, or speed limits, or speed or red light cameras? > > You'll probably never guess why not, but I don't wonder why you won't. > > We've seen you demonstrate *lots* of problems in your posts. That's an opinion, and a damn uneducated one at that. What are your qualifications? Forty hours of Driver's Ed (if that), a Class D license, and a bad driving attitude? My foremost concern while driving is safety, and doing everything in my power to ensure nobody gets hurt, no matter if they drive as I think is correct or not. You could learn something from that, but you won't, because you lack the 'nads to not conform to peer pressure, and will interpret all statistics to conform to your ignorant and/or preconceived notions of what constitutes driving "correctly". Take an advanced (not hi-performance) driving course, graduate, then get back to me about who is ignorant. What? You don't need it, because you already know it all...? That's what I thought. ----- - gpsman >>>On Mar 8, 3:26 pm, "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: <brevity snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > interpetation is false. You may also drive slightly slower than the > flow with identical safety. That's simply not true. The statistically safest speed at which to drive is actually slightly (~5 MPH) above the flow. >>>And the guy who refuses to allow traffic to merge and assumes all >>>entrance ramps, all vehicles, and all driver's skills, and all [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > account that a ramp may be designed to allow the typical vehicle to > accelerate to the SL, and not to 15 or 20 over that velocity. If I'm in the rightmost lane, it's likely that I'm not going 20 over. >>>And the guy who will agree that some collisions are due to a device on >>>a pole. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you want, I won't hit you, driving a f.cking Class 8 truck, > bobtailing. Well, every driver is not you. Blame it on whatever you want, the fact remains that RLCs increase the incidence of panic stops at intersections, and that causes an increase in rear-enders. I'm sure that your fancy wordplay is of great comfort to all those aching necks and backs. >>>Have you -ever- seen me post here about -my- problems with traffic, or >>>other drivers, or LE, or speed limits, or speed or red light cameras? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > my power to ensure nobody gets hurt, no matter if they drive as I > think is correct or not. That is completely inconsistent with your positions on so many driving issues. > You could learn something from that, but you won't, because you lack > the 'nads to not conform to peer pressure, and will interpret all > statistics to conform to your ignorant and/or preconceived notions of > what constitutes driving "correctly". You mean like the motor vehicle code? > Take an advanced (not hi-performance) driving course, graduate, then > get back to me about who is ignorant. It's you. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel On Mar 9, 1:11 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: <brevity snip> > > You could learn something from that, but you won't, because you lack > > the 'nads to not conform to peer pressure, and will interpret all > > statistics to conform to your ignorant and/or preconceived notions of > > what constitutes driving "correctly". > > You mean like the motor vehicle code? You?! You're going to cite traffic code as the standard of proper driving?! BUHWAHAHAHAHA! > > Take an advanced (not hi-performance) driving course, graduate, then > > get back to me about who is ignorant. > > It's you. Wow, that was fast. From which course did you graduate? ----- - gpsman > On Mar 9, 1:11 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: <brevity > snip> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > BUHWAHAHAHAHA! It has its flaws, yes, but other than the lack of proper "keep right" laws in a few states and speed limits not set according to proper engineering practices, most of it makes perfect sense. >>>Take an advanced (not hi-performance) driving course, graduate, then >>>get back to me about who is ignorant. >> >>It's you. > > Wow, that was fast. From which course did you graduate? Couldn't tell you the names of all of them... one was the Bridgestone winter driving one, which you'd probably consider high-performance, and then there've been countless little refresher safety classes dating back to when I was in college (yup, I had a job that involved driving back then.) nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > On Mar 9, 1:11 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: <brevity > > snip> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Couldn't tell you the names of all of them... Isn't that special...? So many advanced driving schools you can't remember them all? Can you remember which one taught you should not yield to drivers if you feel they're not driving correctly? How 'bout the one that suggested that if you crash it might be the fault of a device on a pole? > one was the Bridgestone > winter driving one, which you'd probably consider high-performance, and > then there've been countless little refresher safety classes dating back > to when I was in college (yup, I had a job that involved driving back then.) What, delivering pizza? Can you at least recall the educational institution that qualified you to test for and acquire something other than a Class D license that's issued to practically any and every idiot? ----- - gpsman > > > On Mar 9, 1:11 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: <brevity > > > snip> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > remember them all? Can you remember which one taught you should not > yield to drivers if you feel they're not driving correctly? AFAIR, *all* of them stated that it was unsafe to unexepectedly slow in front of or cut off traffic driving normally and legally. > How 'bout the one that suggested that if you crash it might be the > fault of a device on a pole? That wasn't covered; however, the concept of the "delimma zone" and proper go/no go decision making definitely was. And of course you are twisting my words yet again - I never said that a RLC would cause *me* to crash, I stated that it might *cause someone to crash into me.* Which is documented many times and links to various studies and reports have been posted quite recently. > > one was the Bridgestone > > winter driving one, which you'd probably consider high-performance, and > > then there've been countless little refresher safety classes dating back > > to when I was in college (yup, I had a job that involved driving back then.) > > What, delivering pizza? Yes, a.shole, delivering pizza. When was the last time you saw a driving safety course being required to deliver pizzas? > Can you at least recall the educational institution that qualified you > to test for and acquire something other than a Class D license that's > issued to practically any and every idiot? I've never had anything but a regular license. I have no need to drive a truck large enough to require a CDL, so why should I apply for one? nate On Mar 12, 1:01 pm, "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: <brevity snip> > > How 'bout the one that suggested that if you crash it might be the > > fault of a device on a pole? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Which is documented many times and links to various studies and > reports have been posted quite recently. No it hasn't, and it never will be. When crashes occur in the presence of a camera they are no more attributable to the camera than they are to the pole upon which it is mounted. If a camera is to be found responsible for crashes it must cause every vehicle in the vicinity to crash for it has no method of determining which vehicle to cause to crash and which to allow to pass unmolested. > > Can you at least recall the educational institution that qualified you > > to test for and acquire something other than a Class D license that's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > drive a truck large enough to require a CDL, so why should I apply for > one? Is English your second language? "Qualified you to test for and acquire" doesn't suggest that you have necessarily tested -or- acquired. But to answer your question, you shouldn't. If you think people drive dangerously around you now you won't believe the sh.t they pull around a vehicle that requires a CDL to operate, and with your attitude you wouldn't make it 50 miles. ----- - gpsman > On Mar 12, 1:01 pm, "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > presence of a camera they are no more attributable to the camera than > they are to the pole upon which it is mounted. I agree that correlation does not imply causation, but the correlation is pretty damned strong. Do you have an alternate explanation for why rear-enders might increase at an intersection with RLCs? > If a camera is to be found responsible for crashes it must cause every > vehicle in the vicinity to crash for it has no method of determining > which vehicle to cause to crash and which to allow to pass unmolested. Now you're just being stupid. Of course it will not cause everyone to crash. When it will cause a crash is when you have a driver approaching the intersection and the light turns yellow while the driver is past the beginning of the delimma zone, and there is another vehicle close behind. If the lead driver panic-stops, there is a real possibility that the following driver may be expecting the lead driver to continue on through and his reaction time will thus be slower. Ergo, boom. > > > Can you at least recall the educational institution that qualified you > > > to test for and acquire something other than a Class D license that's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > acquire" doesn't suggest that you have necessarily tested -or- > acquired. So your question didn't make any sense, then. If I have a regular driver's license, then I'm qualified to test for a CDL. > But to answer your question, you shouldn't. If you think people drive > dangerously around you now you won't believe the sh.t they pull around > a vehicle that requires a CDL to operate, and with your attitude you > wouldn't make it 50 miles. My attitude being what? That I am interested in safety and playing nice with others? I don't understand your point. nate > > On Mar 12, 1:01 pm, "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Do you have an alternate explanation for why rear-enders might > increase at an intersection with RLCs? Duh. Because most drivers devote the bare minimum of their attention to driving? That's one of the first concepts you'll learn in an advanced driving course... ... ... > > If a camera is to be found responsible for crashes it must cause every > > vehicle in the vicinity to crash for it has no method of determining > > which vehicle to cause to crash and which to allow to pass unmolested. > > Now you're just being stupid. Of course it will not cause everyone to > crash. Then it doesn't cause -anyone- to crash. > When it will cause a crash is when you have a driver > approaching the intersection and the light turns yellow while the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to continue on through and his reaction time will thus be slower. > Ergo, boom. Ergo, my a.s. You don't need a camera for that to happen, and that crash would not be attributable to anything other than inadequate following distance for velocity and a false expectation, and those crashes occur often where no camera exists, and have since long before the concept of RLCs came into being. > > > > Can you at least recall the educational institution that qualified you > > > > to test for and acquire something other than a Class D license that's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So your question didn't make any sense, then. If I have a regular > driver's license, then I'm qualified to test for a CDL. Uh, no, you're not, but I can understand your confusion. You can start here if you wish: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration-licensing/cdl/cdl.htm and proceed to search for the "Other Requirements". > > But to answer your question, you shouldn't. If you think people drive > > dangerously around you now you won't believe the sh.t they pull around [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My attitude being what? That I am interested in safety and playing > nice with others? I don't understand your point. I believe you. My point is, you don't know how to drive, period, and aren't all that interested in driving safely. Your idiotic refusal to "inconvenience" the drivers to your rear to allow a vehicle to merge to your front is a single case in point. You don't give a sh.t about inconveniencing them, you find it an inconvenience to yourself. That's one of the stupidest driving concepts and excuses I've ever heard, except perhaps Brent's concept and practice of tailgating to prevent tailgating, or Scott's idea that not crashing is an extraordinary accomplishment of which to be very, very proud. ----- - gpsman > No it hasn't, and it never will be. When crashes occur in the > presence of a camera they are no more attributable to the camera than > they are to the pole upon which it is mounted. How many poles have you mounted today? > If a camera is to be found responsible for crashes it must cause every > vehicle in the vicinity to crash for it has no method of determining > which vehicle to cause to crash and which to allow to pass unmolested. Another pearl from the gpsman clam of wisdom. No doubt you would also say that a bank robber is not responsible for the robbery because he did not rob every bank in the vicinity. > But to answer your question, you shouldn't. If you think people drive > dangerously around you now you won't believe the sh.t they pull around > a vehicle that requires a CDL to operate, and with your attitude you > wouldn't make it 50 miles. Ooh, big bad truckie has to exert his macho on all the poor car drivers around him. Ph34r!!!!111TWELVE >> > On Mar 8, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > >Your question suggests it's you, and I suspect you're both. Nice to see you can't address the issue. Oh wait, that's your modus operandi. -- Ask me about drunk driving for fun and profit! >>>>On Mar 8, 11:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Oh wait, that's your modus operandi. There is no issue. You're a moron who's nearly always wrong, and pigheaded to boot. When I am bored, kicking you provides some momentary diversion. There's no serious discussion going on here, just people pointing out your consistent wrongness whenever you make a particularly moronic "point" and they feel like responding. When are you going to get the hint and STFU and try to learn something, rather than shooting your mouth off and embarrassing yourself all the time? nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel On Mar 7, 11:38 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > http://www.thenewspaper.com/ Not only that, but the hypocrisy of the government claiming that it's all for safety is revealed here: "The Stealth machine has no camera, but Auburn Deputy Police Chief Bob Lee said the information it collects is valuable because it gives police a chance to catch speeders." If they wanted people to slow down, the machine wouldn't be stealth. |
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.