Critical Mass Tunnel F*cks



Ken [NY) wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:14:14 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>claims:
>
>
>
>>Ken [NY) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:25:30 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>>>claims:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you're between the ages of 18 and 36, have you enlisted? If you have
>>>>family members in that age range, have you helped them enlist? If not,
>>>>why not? Do you believe in terrorism, do you hate the American way of
>>>>life?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Have you enlisted yet, Jack?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'm too old and am a bit crippled up from a car accident. I have good
>>days and bad days. Boot camp would probably lay me out for a year. I
>>actually did bother to look at enlistment options recently.
>>
>>
>
> I am probably older than you, and actually served in a real
>war. But I am weary of seeing you chicken hawks, who never served,
>challenging our younger people to go to war. We of my generation for
>the most part had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the
>military. Some headed for Canada to hide, some future presidents hid
>in Europe.
> Today however, despite no draft, enlistments and reenlistments
>are actually on the increase. So please leave these folks alone. This
>younger generation is putting ours to shame.
>
>
>
>
On the news they keep saying recruitment is way down. The younger
enlistees like National Guardsmen are being reconscripted to keep the
numbers up.

With your experience in the military and policing, I bet they volunteer
you, sometime in the next four years. The fact that you once served
could legally make you an unwilling volunteer. All it requires is some
changes to legislation.

You see though that you didn't pick up on my sarcasm. But technically,
buying gasoline does support terrorism and war. I feel like a
chackenhawk everytime I fill up my tank and think of young men dying or
being injured and many more falling sick from DU poisoning, just to keep
gasoline cheap for me. I feel sick that we have to colonize other
nations so that Bush's friends can be the ones to profit, instead of
letting the market work.

Jack Dingler
 
Jack Dingler wrote:


....snip.....

> On the news they keep saying recruitment is way down. The younger
> enlistees like National Guardsmen are being reconscripted to keep the
> numbers up.
>
> With your experience in the military and policing,

Someone dropped a figure today that they are seeking 65,000 more
military policepersons.

Is this on the news in the USA?
 
"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
> >
> On the news they keep saying recruitment is way down. The younger
> enlistees like National Guardsmen are being reconscripted to keep the
> numbers up.

The active duty forces are easily meeting their recruitment goals. The
National Guard, I beleive, will be a few percentage points down. Mostly due
to people not going into the Guard from active duty in the same numbers as
before. Guys don't want to get out, and then turn right around and go back
on active duty. They'd rather just stay active.

>
> With your experience in the military and policing, I bet they volunteer
> you, sometime in the next four years. The fact that you once served
> could legally make you an unwilling volunteer. All it requires is some
> changes to legislation.

To bring back someone who is truly 'out' is a little more than "some changes
in legislation". Generally, when you are discharged, you are in the
Individual Ready Reserve for a couple of years. Inactive. No weekend drills,
no nothing. After that, your commitment ends. Period. EOS. Could it be done?
Sure. But not quite as easily as you make it out to be.

The force is structured like a pyramid. Lots of indians, few chiefs. People
who retired after 15-20 yrs are chiefs. Senior NCO's and midgrade officers.
They need more indians, not more chiefs. A draft would work better to shore
up those numbers, rather than bringing back a bunch of old guys. And the
administration has repeatedly said "we don't need or want a draft" (Charlie
Rangel notwithstanding)

About 5(?) years ago, I got a letter from the AF Reserve. They were looking
for recently retired (gotten out <5 yrs previous) military to join the
Reserve. I briefly considered it, but the pay structure they proposed made
it a bad deal. Of all the people I knew who were eligible, no one took them
up on it.
This was before Bush, before Iraq.

>
> You see though that you didn't pick up on my sarcasm. But technically,
> buying gasoline does support terrorism and war. I feel like a
> chackenhawk everytime I fill up my tank and think of young men dying or
> being injured and many more falling sick from DU poisoning, just to keep
> gasoline cheap for me. I feel sick that we have to colonize other
> nations so that Bush's friends can be the ones to profit, instead of
> letting the market work.

Who was the president when Halliburton got their first big ($2.2B) no-bid
contract for military logistics? (hint: it wasn't Bush-Sr or Jr)

Pete
 
Pete wrote:

>"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>
>>You see though that you didn't pick up on my sarcasm. But technically,
>>buying gasoline does support terrorism and war. I feel like a
>>chackenhawk everytime I fill up my tank and think of young men dying or
>>being injured and many more falling sick from DU poisoning, just to keep
>>gasoline cheap for me. I feel sick that we have to colonize other
>>nations so that Bush's friends can be the ones to profit, instead of
>>letting the market work.
>>
>>
>
>Who was the president when Halliburton got their first big ($2.2B) no-bid
>contract for military logistics? (hint: it wasn't Bush-Sr or Jr)
>
>Pete
>
>
>
Both Kerry and Bush represent the same interests and will perform the
same duties for them. All that differes between the two is personality.

The wars in the ME and Africa will heat up in 2005, and the troop
requirements won't be met by volunteer signups.

Jack Dingler
 
"Ken [NY)" wrote:
>
> No, if things got to that point, the US would simply ignore
> the protestations of the caribou and PETA, and drill in Alaska where
> there is plenty of oil.

Does anybody have the numbers?
I read somewhere that it was about 6-8 weeks of current USA consumption.

At any rate, using up what little we have left isn't the way to "reduce
dependence on foreign oil" as some politicians would have us believe.
I'm still opposed to ANY new drilling in USA with import prices below
$100/42 gallons. Keep using up theirs as long as they're willing to
sell it.

Mitch.
 
"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:41:55 -0400, <[email protected]>,
> Mitch Haley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> 3 - riding too fast or failure to see Opening Doors
> >
> >You mean "riding too close to parked cars"
>
> I mean failure to check for conflicting traffic before opening doors.

No, You mean Your failure to see the driver opening the door. You are in his
blindspot.
 
Right of Way did a "study", that is all.
It did not change any of the police reports,
It did not change any legal outcomes.
Too bad it was not truly independent either.
 
J Swartz wrote:
> No, You mean Your failure to see the driver opening the door. You are in his
> blindspot.

Are you saying that if you glance in the mirror without looking
over your shoulder and open your door into traffic, you expect
the operator of the vehicle which hits your door to get the
ticket?
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:01:15 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>claims:
>
>
>
>>Ken [NY) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I'm too old and am a bit crippled up from a car accident. I have good
>>>>days and bad days. Boot camp would probably lay me out for a year. I
>>>>actually did bother to look at enlistment options recently.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am probably older than you, and actually served in a real
>>>war. But I am weary of seeing you chicken hawks, who never served,
>>>challenging our younger people to go to war. We of my generation for
>>>the most part had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the
>>>military. Some headed for Canada to hide, some future presidents hid
>>>in Europe.
>>> Today however, despite no draft, enlistments and reenlistments
>>>are actually on the increase. So please leave these folks alone. This
>>>younger generation is putting ours to shame.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>On the news they keep saying recruitment is way down. The younger
>>enlistees like National Guardsmen are being reconscripted to keep the
>>numbers up.
>>
>>
>
> The US Defense Department says otherwise, but if you are not
>going to take them at their word, it doesn't matter I suppose.
>
>
>
>>With your experience in the military and policing, I bet they volunteer
>>you, sometime in the next four years. The fact that you once served
>>could legally make you an unwilling volunteer. All it requires is some
>>changes to legislation.
>>
>>
>
> No, I am way over age for the military. I tried looking into
>air marshall service after 9/11, and I was told that I was too old for
>that as well.
>
>
>
>>You see though that you didn't pick up on my sarcasm.
>>
>>
>
> Sorry, but I am such a sarcastic ******* myself, I am not used
>to seeing it in others. So I must have missed it.
>
>
>
>>But technically,
>>buying gasoline does support terrorism and war. I feel like a
>>chackenhawk everytime I fill up my tank and think of young men dying or
>>being injured and many more falling sick from DU poisoning, just to keep
>>gasoline cheap for me. I feel sick that we have to colonize other
>>nations so that Bush's friends can be the ones to profit, instead of
>>letting the market work.
>>
>>Jack Dingler
>>
>>
>
> Look at it this way: the billions of Chinese and other third
>world countries that use bikes to replace the autos they cannot afford
>and cannot produce, are taking up the slack for you. But if the sweet
>feelings of liberal guilt is what floats your boat, go for it.
>
>
>
>
Recently a Dallas resident and Vietnam Vet got called up. He's 57, a
diabetic and suffering from advanced skin cancer. The military wouldn't
take his word or his doctor's word for it. So in a couple of months he
has to report to Florida were an army doctor will examine him and
determine if he's fit for duty. It seems he has skills currently needed.
It made the paper because it's such an extreme case.

I don't know how old you are, but you maybe needed for training and
administrative purposes. You certainly have the skills they need.

Jack Dingler
 
> [Virginia]
> § 46.2-100. Definitions.
> "Bicycle" means a device propelled solely by human power, upon which a
> person may ride either on or astride a regular seat attached thereto,
having
> two or more wheels in tandem, including children's bicycles, except a toy
> vehicle intended for use by young children. For purposes of Chapter 8 (§
> 46.2-800 et seq.) of this title, a bicycle shall be a vehicle while
operated
> on the highway.

That makes sence, little children on bicycles on Highways legal as 18
wheelers!

>
> § 46.2-800
> Every person ........driving an animal on a highway .....driver of a
vehicle


Round up the Sheep, gotta take'm to market, lets hurd them down the freeway!

>
> [New York]
> ARTICLE 34S 1231. Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles or
> skating or gliding on in-line skates. Every person riding a bicycle or
skating or
> gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall be granted all of the
> rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driv-
> er of a vehicle by this title, except as to special regulations in this
> article and except as to those provisions of this title which by their
> nature can have no application.

I knew it, it's those damn "gliding on" in-line skaters causing all the
traffic accidents.


All these things say is that a Cop can give the above, traffic tickets.

Bicyclists have the same rights as a herd of sheep (in some states).
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:51:30 -0400, Mitch Haley <[email protected]>
>claims:
>
>
>
>>Raoul Duke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>[I have removed rec.bicycles.rides from the discussion.]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>**** them off really good and they will form an army and
>>>>>>FIGHT YOU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>=v= No, "**** them off" doesn't do it. Keeping oil addicts
>>>>>(and oil profit addicts) from their fix will, though.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>By this I presume you mean to somehow prevent people from legally
>>>>
>>>>
>>>purchasing
>>>
>>>
>>>>fuel for their vehicles. How do you propose to do this?
>>>>
>>>>Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>I believe that global lack of oil, upsetting the oil importing nations,
>>is what Jym appears to be referring to.
>>
>>Do you remember the oil embargo of 1974? The Saudis acting alone could cause
>>similar problems by cutting their output by half today. The same effect
>>can be achieved simply by waiting for demand to exceed the practical rate
>>of extraction. With demand monotone increasing, and available oil decreasing,
>>it will happen. Judging by the current supply problems, we won't have to
>>wait very long.
>>Mitch.
>>
>>
>
> No, if things got to that point, the US would simply ignore
>the protestations of the caribou and PETA, and drill in Alaska where
>there is plenty of oil.
>
>
>
It depends on the definition of plenty.

The most optimistic projections have it producing about 3 months of US
consumtion, but over a ten year period. Or less than 8% of current
consumption. And that's the top end of the estimates.

Not a number to sneeze at, but I would call it far short of plenty.

The downside is that the Chinese have been begging for a chance to bid
on it. Since it will be transported by tanker, they may be able to
outbid us and take it all.

Jack Dingler
 
Mitch Haley wrote:

>"Ken [NY)" wrote:
>
>
>> No, if things got to that point, the US would simply ignore
>>the protestations of the caribou and PETA, and drill in Alaska where
>>there is plenty of oil.
>>
>>
>
>Does anybody have the numbers?
>I read somewhere that it was about 6-8 weeks of current USA consumption.
>
>At any rate, using up what little we have left isn't the way to "reduce
>dependence on foreign oil" as some politicians would have us believe.
>I'm still opposed to ANY new drilling in USA with import prices below
>$100/42 gallons. Keep using up theirs as long as they're willing to
>sell it.
>
>Mitch.
>

That's about what the oil industry says. Some politicians have founf
bigger numbers and those are now used to justify drilling. After all the
more there is, the more reason to go for it.

Some radio personalities and politicians just before the Gulf War II
claimed that Iraq had undiscovered reserves larger than Saudi Arabia's.
And that this unfound, undiscovered oil would pay for everything. So the
Iraqis could in effect, pay to have their country bombed back to the
stone age and rebuilt. Now it seems that the original estimates were
correct.

Jack Dingler
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:27:06 -0400, Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>
>>Ken [NY) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, Bonjour.
>>>
>>>Ken (NY)
>>
>> Hey, Ken--
>>
>> Can you cite the source of your quotation of Kerry?
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> Which quotation? This one?

No, Ken. The "Bonjour" quote.

Steve


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
"Mike Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > [Virginia]
> > § 46.2-100. Definitions.
> > "Bicycle" means a device propelled solely by human power, upon which a
> > person may ride either on or astride a regular seat attached thereto,
> having
> > two or more wheels in tandem, including children's bicycles, except a
toy
> > vehicle intended for use by young children. For purposes of Chapter 8 (§
> > 46.2-800 et seq.) of this title, a bicycle shall be a vehicle while
> operated
> > on the highway.
>
> That makes sence, little children on bicycles on Highways legal as 18
> wheelers!

And here, it seems you are confused about the legal definition of "highway".
(Hint: its not just an interstate)
Quite easy to look up if you can be bothered.

>
> All these things say is that a Cop can give the above, traffic tickets.

Did you fail reading in the 3rd grade? If that's all you got out of the
above, evidently you did.

Pete
 
"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:08:13 -0500, <[email protected]>,
> "J Swartz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> >> 3 - riding too fast or failure to see Opening Doors
> >> >
> >> >You mean "riding too close to parked cars"
> >>
> >> I mean failure to check for conflicting traffic before opening doors.
> >
> >No, You mean Your failure to see the driver opening the door. You are in
his
> >blindspot.
>
> Guess again, scum clot.
>
> Uniform Vehicle Code - Article XI
>
> 11-1105.Opening and closing vehicle doors
> No person shall open any door on a motor vehicle unless and until it
> is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with
> the movement of other traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open
> on a side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of
> time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.
>
> Illinois Vehicle Code, Article XIV, Section 11-1407, requires that:
> "No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to
> moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so, and
> can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic."
>
> Australia - Victoria
> Rule 269. "Opening doors and getting out of a vehicle etc.... (3) A
> person must not cause a hazard to any person or vehicle by opening a
> door of a vehicle, leaving a door of a vehicle open, or getting off,
> or out of, a vehicle."
>
> Canada - Province of Ontario
> 165. "It is illegal for drivers or passengers to open their car doors
> without first making sure the action will not endanger a cyclist or
> any other person or vehicle."
> . . .etc.


To: microbrain

All the driver has to say is that he did not see you, and he might get small
fine.
Hard to make a judge believe you could not avoid door by moving over a foot.

If you assume that driver will always see you, that you have recourse in
court, and therefore you can ride fast close to parked cars, you gonna get
whacked, just a matter of time, that is your problem, not mine.

Better to take possession of the lane, away from door range. Driver can see
you better too.
 
James S <[email protected]> wrote:
>Right of Way did a "study", that is all.
>It did not change any of the police reports,
>It did not change any legal outcomes.
>Too bad it was not truly independent either.
>

Independent of what?

--
Steven O'Neill [email protected]
 
J Swartz wrote:
> "Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:41:55 -0400, <[email protected]>,
>>Mitch Haley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>3 - riding too fast or failure to see Opening Doors
>>>
>>>You mean "riding too close to parked cars"
>>
>>I mean failure to check for conflicting traffic before opening doors.
>
>
> No, You mean Your failure to see the driver opening the door. You are in his
> blindspot.
>
>
Wow. That really is an amazingly stupid statement. Sorry , my fault
you didnt look.
 
Zoot Katz wrote:
>
> Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:43:40 -0500, <[email protected]>,
> "J Swartz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >All the driver has to say is that he did not see you, and he might get small
> >fine.
>
> IOW, they've admitted fault for having broken a law.

But J Swartz is right, drivers (without alcohol in their systems)
can kill cyclists and pedestrians at will, as long as they say
the magic words. Just like an on-duty police officer can kill
anybody, as long as he claims that he thought the victim was armed.
"My gun just went off" is another one that works, but only for cops.

Last year, some idiot killed a high school valedictorian about a month
after she graduated. At the time, he claimed that he was passing at
a safe distance and she "swerved into my path". The prosecuting
attorney went for a negligent homicide charge. The defense attorney
claimed, among other things, that her shirt was the color of the sun
and you couldn't see her with the sun in your eyes. (at 2pm daylight
savings time, with the sun almost directly overhead, try claiming
that next time you rear end a school bus) A jury of his peers wasn't
even deadlocked, they found him innocent. (his peers being other idiots
who wouldn't want to go to jail if their stupidity killed somebody).

This is a big step forward from when I was 18, when some bozo ran a
stop sign and destroyed my motorcycle. The assistant prostituting attorney
at that time (1982) told me that "you just can't see motorcycles" when he
refused to take the ticket to court. I should have demanded that he
(the taxpayer funded lawyer) give me his license so I could rip it up if
he couldn't see a high beam headlight (which I had on at the time of the crash)
in clear weather.

Mitch.
 
Having read the bike ngs for awhile, I must take a bit of an issue
with the subject line.

Jym is hypocritical in that he has been known to take people to task
for discussing cycle racing topics in misc, while he himself goes off
topic. There's a lot of political OT stuff on the cycling ngs, I
guess you can expect that with the world being as it is nowadays.
Just going off-topic is not hypocritical, but bawling someone else out
for being OT and then going OT yourself is. If Jym wasn't an OT
poster, nobody would know he's a "leftist".

Now, as to his positions, he's definitely a leftist, and not a stealth
leftist, he's pretty up front with his political leanings, which to me
is the antithesis of hypocrisy.

YMMV.

--
Whiskey for my men,and cheese for my kitties.
 
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:43:40 -0500, J Swartz wrote:

>
> All the driver has to say is that he did not see you, and he might get small
> fine.
> Hard to make a judge believe you could not avoid door by moving over a foot.


That's four feet and there is no warning.

Here is the bottom line rule. When your driving 2 tons of Steal, it is
ALWAYS your god damn fault. More people die of Car accidents than any
other even in the US, but somehow when it comes to Bikes, it's the
bicyclists fault? Right.

Give up the crack man.

Ruben
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back