Yet Another Tragic Case......

On Dec 1, 11:29 am, Larry <no... DeleteThis @home.com> wrote:

>
> Larry
> --
> Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
> you're downloads threaten their networks......
> ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v


I remember the phone companies telling us they could not boost the
speed of our dialups because there was copper wire running from our
homes, to the poles and they could not take the speed. Then cable
came, and dsl, and guess what, for dsl they did not have to replace
any of the wiring from my pole out front to the modem,,, hummmmmm...
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Dec 1, 11:54 am, BAR <Screw....DeleteThis@Your.Place> wrote:
> justwaitafrekinmin....DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 11:29 am, Larry <no....DeleteThis@home.com> wrote:
>
> >> Larry
> >> --
> >> Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
> >> you're downloads threaten their networks......
> >> ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v
>
> > I remember the phone companies telling us they could not boost the
> > speed of our dialups because there was copper wire running from our
> > homes, to the poles and they could not take the speed. Then cable
> > came, and dsl, and guess what, for dsl they did not have to replace
> > any of the wiring from my pole out front to the modem,,, hummmmmm...
>
> Let's talk about "conditioned" vs. "unconditioned" lines. Unconditioned
> lines could not be used for data transmission above 1200 baud but, a
> conditioned line could go above 1200 baud. What is the difference
> between the two? You paid more for a conditioned line. What happened in
> 1984 that as soon as ATT was broken up undonditioned lines could now
> support up to 56Kbps? Absolutely nothing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yep, I got that. The phone and cable companies have been doing this
for a long time so they could bring in services as "extras" or
upgrades and charge more. When we had DSL in one location, I knew a
guy that worked at the local NOC where our line met the others. He
went down the street one day and "flipped a switch" and our DSL went
ballistic with speed, anything we could throw at it;)
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Dec 1, 12:18 pm, justwaitafrekinmin... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 1, 11:54 am, BAR <Screw... DeleteThis @Your.Place> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > justwaitafrekinmin... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Dec 1, 11:29 am, Larry <no... DeleteThis @home.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Larry
> > >> --
> > >> Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
> > >> you're downloads threaten their networks......
> > >> ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v
>
> > > I remember the phone companies telling us they could not boost the
> > > speed of our dialups because there was copper wire running from our
> > > homes, to the poles and they could not take the speed. Then cable
> > > came, and dsl, and guess what, for dsl they did not have to replace
> > > any of the wiring from my pole out front to the modem,,, hummmmmm...
>
> > Let's talk about "conditioned" vs. "unconditioned" lines. Unconditioned
> > lines could not be used for data transmission above 1200 baud but, a
> > conditioned line could go above 1200 baud. What is the difference
> > between the two? You paid more for a conditioned line. What happened in
> > 1984 that as soon as ATT was broken up undonditioned lines could now
> > support up to 56Kbps? Absolutely nothing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yep, I got that. The phone and cable companies have been doing this
> for a long time so they could bring in services as "extras" or
> upgrades and charge more. When we had DSL in one location, I knew a
> guy that worked at the local NOC where our line met the others. He
> went down the street one day and "flipped a switch" and our DSL went
> ballistic with speed, anything we could throw at it;)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh yeah, all of this with the same delivery hardware from pole to
house they years earlier told us would not support faster than 1200
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Nov 30, 7:35�pm, Larry <no....RemoveThis@home.com> wrote:
> Chuck Gould <chuckgould.ch....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in news:0b23b105-
> d482-4504-8c14-c1620915b....RemoveThis@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > Then there's the old "it's my life, I'll risk it" BS.
> Unfortunately,
> > society doesn't work that way.
>
> It does or we'd bust anyone's ass that was caught with beer or
> wine or other booze not sealed away in the trunk.....just like we
> do to CARS.
>
> We'd piss on the boat dealers' feet by making them all take a
> competency boat DRIVERS LICENSE test BEFORE we allowed them to
> drive off in a 55 ton Hatteras with 1500 HP diesels. �Just having
> money isn't a competency test, but that's all we got now.
>
> At least SOME of the drivers on the road don't do the really
> stupid things boaters do, like driving drunk on booze, for fear
> of losing that LICENSE TO DRIVE. �I know lots of boaters who
> drink and wouldn't do so if they lost that Boat Driver's License,
> or stood a chance of losing it...
>
> Of course, if we really cared, we'd say:
> NO PFD....NO BOATING
> But, a thousand yachties will come to that aid.
>
> Larry
> --
> Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
> you're downloads threaten their networks......
> ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

In my state, as in most others (over 40 states now) you are required
to pass a basic boating knowledge test. The requirement applies to
everybody by age group, and over the next few years the bracket
expands to include everybody born after 1955. We old geezers literally
get "grandfathered" in.

A new boat buyer has 90 days, by law, to complete the education
course. Yes, one could argue "But look at all the damage that guy
could do in 90 days!"

The tests are probably so simple that they are almost meaningless.
You can take one "on-line", and I can't imagine what would prevent you
from simply swtiching back and forth between the test page and some
page with answers on it, or looking everything up in Chapman's as you
go. The downside of that is that Boobus Americanus and his two
brothers may decide, "Well, that's all we will ever have to know about
boating safety. We met all the qualifications. Didn't take two long,
either. What do you say we take the runabout and a couple of cases of
beer out to that island in the middle of the lake?"

The biggest controlling factor discouraging unqualified operators
isn't actually a law at all. It's the free enterprise system. Most
people purchasing a large boat like you use in your example will
either be financing a portion of it (which will require insurance), or
if they have been smart, thrifty, and lucky enough to arrange their
personal finanaces to allow them to pay cash they are likely to have
other and substantial assets that they will want to protect by
insuring the boat.

Can't say about where you live, but around here the insurance
companies get pretty restrictive with first time operators buying a
big boat, or even a case where somebody steps up from a 22-footer to a
48.
The insurance companies typically issue only a temporary, conditional
binder that can be converted to a permanent policy only *after* the
new owner gets professional instruction from a licensed master and (if
he or she has never done so) completes a USCGA or USPS class. The
neophyte who buys that 50-foot yacht will need to have a licensed
captain aboard for his first few cruises, at least if he expects to
have insurance in place.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Nov 30, 7:28�pm, Larry <no... DeleteThis @home.com> wrote:
> Chuck Gould <chuckgould.ch... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in news:98b13773-
> 8f78-489f-86c6-bdbc77c07... DeleteThis @a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > If the boat was still floating, upside down,
>
> Of course, we COULD force "them" to build boats that SELF-RIGHT
> like a monohull sailboat, couldn't we? �That's not rocket science
> to do with a little scrap iron.
>
> Maybe if we weren't so set on making the damned boats so light
> and thin and cheap-as-possible with some old iron in the keel so
> it COULDN'T stay upside down for more than an instance...these
> guys and hundreds to thousands like them over the years would
> still be alive.
>
> Forget it. �Brunswick profits is all that matters. �Just look in
> any hull made in the last 40 years.....
>
> Larry
> --
> Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
> you're downloads threaten their networks......
> ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

Yeah, you're right........assuming noboby want's to go more than 7-8
knots. Stick a big old keel on the bottom, pour in enough lead,
maintain a low superstructure- and joila, you've got a self-righting
boat.

The guys who want to go fishing 60 miles off shore at sunrise will
simply have to get underway shortly after dinner the night before.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Dec 1, 5:49�am, sa....DeleteThis@dog.com wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing <em....DeleteThis@swsports.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> ><dishborea....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Short Wave Sportfishing" <em....DeleteThis@swsports.org> wrote in message
> >>news:svd1l3h8dkfiqj55bulv8ck401rrpq7f7v@4ax.com...
> >>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" <r....DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. �All the arguements
> >>>>about
> >>>>beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance
> >>>>premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
>
> >>> Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that
> >>> if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it
> >>> will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also
> >>> be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
> >>> riders.
>
> >>> The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
> >>> the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
> >>> reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics.
>
> >>Let's consider the opposite: �In the subset consisting of people ejected
> >>from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?
>
> >If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
> >as a motorcycle rider's.
>
> >However, the more important question is how many major accidents
> >result in ejection? �Probably about the same number as high speed
> >motorcycle accidents.
>
> FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head injuries in cars
> than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car, you are
> simply asking for it!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Twisted statistic. What percentage of automobile drivers or passengers
suffer brain injury in an accident vs the percentage of motorcyclists?

That's like saying, "Only one guy died while walking a tightrope
between
two skyscrapers in NYC last year, but 16 pedestrians were killed in
the same city while trying to use a crosswalk- therefore it can be
statistically proven that it's 16 times safer to walk a tightrope
several hundred feet in the air than to use a crosswalk." Not.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

justwaitafrekinminute.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 1, 11:29 am, Larry <no....TakeThisOut@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Larry
>> --
>> Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
>> you're downloads threaten their networks......
>> ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v
>
>
> I remember the phone companies telling us they could not boost the
> speed of our dialups because there was copper wire running from our
> homes, to the poles and they could not take the speed. Then cable
> came, and dsl, and guess what, for dsl they did not have to replace
> any of the wiring from my pole out front to the modem,,, hummmmmm...
>

Let's talk about "conditioned" vs. "unconditioned" lines. Unconditioned
lines could not be used for data transmission above 1200 baud but, a
conditioned line could go above 1200 baud. What is the difference
between the two? You paid more for a conditioned line. What happened in
1984 that as soon as ATT was broken up undonditioned lines could now
support up to 56Kbps? Absolutely nothing.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:15:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<dishborealis.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:pse1l3dd7dofiacbopsmtg9ps796pnqsca@4ax.com...

>>>Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected
>>>from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?
>>>
>> My best Navy buddy didn't when he flipped his car on the DC loop
>> and it cut his legs off. He was 21.
>
>Losing my legs would not fall under my personal definition of survival. But,
>I'm funny that way. YMMV
>
"Didn't" means he was ejected and didn't survive. The car rolled on
him, cutting his legs off. He quickly bled to death.
Other mates who were in the same car told me what happened.
They were not wearing belts either, but didn't get ejected, and none
were even hurt beyond sprains and contusions.
It was a '53 Pontiac, a tank. Of course it didn't even *have*
seatbelts.
His name was Warren McKinnon and we were like brothers. I got out 4
months before him, and we had plans go to the West coast together.
Two weeks before his discharge I called the ship in Portsmouth talk to
him and was told he had been killed the previous week.
In the Warren McKinnon subset the survival rate was 0%.
Seat belts are a no-brainer, and I suspect those who resist them have
no problem strapping on a tin foil hat.
The first time my uncle saw me buckle mine he looked at me like I was
an idiot and said,
"What the hell's gonna happen if you go in the river!?!?"
I didn't pay any attention to him on that. Maybe he was thinking
about his horse and buggy days along the Wabash.
And I don't care what others wear if it's not my car, or my family.
I wore mine before it was law, and demanded my passengers wear theirs
so their heads wouldn't mess up my windshield. My prerogative in my
car. I'd do the same law is revoked. Besides, when buckling up I
always momentarily fancy myself as Mario Andretti.

--Vic
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

salty RemoveThis @dog.com wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing <email RemoveThis @swsports.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> <dishborealis RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Short Wave Sportfishing" <email RemoveThis @swsports.org> wrote in message
>>> news:svd1l3h8dkfiqj55bulv8ck401rrpq7f7v@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" <rce RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements
>>>>> about
>>>>> beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance
>>>>> premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
>>>> Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that
>>>> if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it
>>>> will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also
>>>> be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
>>>> riders.
>>>>
>>>> The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
>>>> the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
>>>> reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics.
>>> Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected
>> >from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?
>>
>> If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
>> as a motorcycle rider's.
>>
>> However, the more important question is how many major accidents
>> result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
>> motorcycle accidents.
>
> FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head injuries in cars
> than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car, you are
> simply asking for it!
>
>


I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles in
as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other protective
gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of their fertile
family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a handgun is in
the saddlebag.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

HK wrote:
> salty.TakeThisOut@dog.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
>> <email.TakeThisOut@swsports.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>> <dishborealis.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Short Wave Sportfishing" <email.TakeThisOut@swsports.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:svd1l3h8dkfiqj55bulv8ck401rrpq7f7v@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" <rce.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
>>>>>> arguements about
>>>>>> beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased
>>>>>> insurance
>>>>>> premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
>>>>> Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that
>>>>> if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it
>>>>> will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also
>>>>> be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
>>>>> riders.
>>>>>
>>>>> The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
>>>>> the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
>>>>> reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics.
>>>> Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people
>>>> ejected
>>> >from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?
>>>
>>> If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
>>> as a motorcycle rider's.
>>>
>>> However, the more important question is how many major accidents
>>> result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
>>> motorcycle accidents.
>>
>> FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
>> injuries in cars
>> than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car, you
>> are
>> simply asking for it!
>>
>>
>
>
> I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles in
> as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other protective
> gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of their fertile
> family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a handgun is in
> the saddlebag.
>

Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I
know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective
of most people I have meet.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
> HK wrote:
>> salty.TakeThisOut@dog.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
>>> <email.TakeThisOut@swsports.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>> <dishborealis.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Short Wave Sportfishing" <email.TakeThisOut@swsports.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:svd1l3h8dkfiqj55bulv8ck401rrpq7f7v@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" <rce.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
>>>>>>> arguements about
>>>>>>> beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased
>>>>>>> insurance
>>>>>>> premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
>>>>>> Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational
>>>>>> that it
>>>>>> will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should
>>>>>> also
>>>>>> be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
>>>>>> riders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
>>>>>> the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
>>>>>> reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety"
>>>>>> statistics.
>>>>> Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people
>>>>> ejected
>>>> >from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?
>>>>
>>>> If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
>>>> as a motorcycle rider's.
>>>>
>>>> However, the more important question is how many major accidents
>>>> result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
>>>> motorcycle accidents.
>>>
>>> FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
>>> injuries in cars
>>> than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car,
>>> you are
>>> simply asking for it!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles in
>> as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other protective
>> gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of their
>> fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a
>> handgun is in the saddlebag.
>>
>
> Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
> rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
> disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I
> know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective
> of most people I have meet.


Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

HK wrote:
> Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
>> HK wrote:
>>> salty DeleteThis @dog.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
>>>> <email DeleteThis @swsports.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>> <dishborealis DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Short Wave Sportfishing" <email DeleteThis @swsports.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:svd1l3h8dkfiqj55bulv8ck401rrpq7f7v@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" <rce DeleteThis @nowhere.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
>>>>>>>> arguements about
>>>>>>>> beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased
>>>>>>>> insurance
>>>>>>>> premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
>>>>>>> Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational
>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>> will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>> be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
>>>>>>> riders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
>>>>>>> the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
>>>>>>> reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety"
>>>>>>> statistics.
>>>>>> Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people
>>>>>> ejected
>>>>> >from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?
>>>>>
>>>>> If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
>>>>> as a motorcycle rider's.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the more important question is how many major accidents
>>>>> result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
>>>>> motorcycle accidents.
>>>>
>>>> FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
>>>> injuries in cars
>>>> than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car,
>>>> you are
>>>> simply asking for it!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles
>>> in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other
>>> protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of
>>> their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a
>>> handgun is in the saddlebag.
>>>
>>
>> Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
>> rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
>> disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints,
>> I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not
>> reflective of most people I have meet.
>
>
> Nice try, a**hole.
>
> No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
> righties here.
>
> But nice try.
>
> Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.

What makes someone a responsible righties?
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case......