On 2016-01-24, nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

...and sometimes unavoidable due to circumstances.

chases are *always* avoidable.

Not for those not involved in the chase.

yes it is. either party can end the chase at any time.

Those uninvolved in the chase have no control over it. And they would be
generally better protected by seat belts.

they can't stop the chase, the but the point you keep missing is that
everyone would be even better protected if cops didn't chase people
with minor infractions and/or where it puts innocent people at risk.

I haven't missed it; I simply ignored it since it's not what we were
talking about before you mentioned it. You keep trying to change the
conversation. The conversation was originally about seatbelts and
whether they can protect you or not.

also, police chases are rare. fixating on something that's rare is
silly.

You seem to be the only one here fixated on them. There are many
situations where accidents cannot be avoided. Police chases are just one
example. In each of those situations, a seat belt can generally provide
you with more safety.

And sometimes people sped through
intersections even without being chased.

which is why it's important to pay attention to what's going on so that
evasive maneuvers can be taken if needed.

Again, even the most attentive driver can be blindsided by another reckless
driver. Fact of life.

nothing is perfect, but an attentive driver can often avoid collisions
that otherwise would have occurred.

Not always, which is why it is best to use the safety features that are
available, including the seat belt.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:

Agreed, as long as they DON'T get any punishment for driving while drunk and
NOT hitting anyone.

Oh joy, yet another completely brainless moron to add to the killfile.
:-\

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:56:30 -0000, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 19:07:54 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:
Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:36:04 -0000, tlvp
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:16:49 -0000, Mr Macaw wrote, re seatbelts:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Can't, not at 30mph.

At 30mph, one cn get killed. Depends what the driver runs in to.

For example, if you have a head-on collision with another car going
30mph, that's a 60mph crash.

Oh no not another idiot who flunked physics. 30mph into an identical car
doing 30mph in the opposite direction is the same, PRECISELY the same, as a
30mph car into an immovable concrete wall. You decelerate from 30mph to 0mph
in the same time. Your kinetic energy loss is the same. The other car has
the same kinetic energy, but that goes to damaging him, not you.

Ah, your "degree" is from a cornflakes packet ... good to know. What a
completely brainless moron. :-\

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:49:32 -0000, Your Name wrote:

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:

Agreed, as long as they DON'T get any punishment for driving while drunk and
NOT hitting anyone.

Oh joy, yet another completely brainless moron to add to the killfile.
:-\

Went right over your head didn't it? Why do you like punishing people for something that didn't happen?

--
Marital Status: Not Good
Wife's Name: Plaintiff

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:53:10 -0000, Your Name wrote:

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:56:30 -0000, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 19:07:54 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:
Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:36:04 -0000, tlvp
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:16:49 -0000, Mr Macaw wrote, re seatbelts:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Can't, not at 30mph.

At 30mph, one cn get killed. Depends what the driver runs in to.

For example, if you have a head-on collision with another car going
30mph, that's a 60mph crash.

Oh no not another idiot who flunked physics. 30mph into an identical car
doing 30mph in the opposite direction is the same, PRECISELY the same, as a
30mph car into an immovable concrete wall. You decelerate from 30mph to 0mph
in the same time. Your kinetic energy loss is the same. The other car has
the same kinetic energy, but that goes to damaging him, not you.

Ah, your "degree" is from a cornflakes packet ... good to know. What a
completely brainless moron. :-\

Says the guy who put me in his killfile then replied to me straight afterwards!!! You're either stupid or a liar.

And if you think the physics I've written is wrong, feel free to correct it. Or go discuss it in a physics newsgroup and get laughed at.

--
Create instant designer stubble by sucking a magnet and dipping your chin in a bowl of iron fillings.

In article , Your Name
wrote:

For example, if you have a head-on collision with another car going
30mph, that's a 60mph crash.

Oh no not another idiot who flunked physics. 30mph into an identical car
doing 30mph in the opposite direction is the same, PRECISELY the same, as a
30mph car into an immovable concrete wall. You decelerate from 30mph to
0mph
in the same time. Your kinetic energy loss is the same. The other car has
the same kinetic energy, but that goes to damaging him, not you.

Ah, your "degree" is from a cornflakes packet ... good to know. What a
completely brainless moron. :-\

he's right.

you're once again showing your ignorance.

two similar sized vehicles traveling at 30 mph that collide head-on is
equivalent to a collision of one hitting a brick wall at 30 mph.

it's simple math.

In message
nospam wrote:
In article , Your Name
wrote:

For example, if you have a head-on collision with another car going
30mph, that's a 60mph crash.

Oh no not another idiot who flunked physics. 30mph into an identical car
doing 30mph in the opposite direction is the same, PRECISELY the same, as a
30mph car into an immovable concrete wall. You decelerate from 30mph to
0mph
in the same time. Your kinetic energy loss is the same. The other car has
the same kinetic energy, but that goes to damaging him, not you.

Ah, your "degree" is from a cornflakes packet ... good to know. What a
completely brainless moron. :-\

he's right.

you're once again showing your ignorance.

He is dumber than a brick wall.

--
E is for ERNEST who choked on a peach
F is for FANNY sucked dry by a leech

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 20:14:06 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:

In message
nospam wrote:

In article , Your Name
wrote:

For example, if you have a head-on collision with another car going
30mph, that's a 60mph crash.

Oh no not another idiot who flunked physics. 30mph into an identical car
doing 30mph in the opposite direction is the same, PRECISELY the same, as a
30mph car into an immovable concrete wall. You decelerate from 30mph to
0mph
in the same time. Your kinetic energy loss is the same. The other car has
the same kinetic energy, but that goes to damaging him, not you.


What you say sounds like it's probably right and I was wrong. Assuming
that you are correct, my apologies for the error. But none of us is
perfect, not even you, and we all make mistakes from time to time.

But not all of is as nasty as you are. Just because I got something
wrong is not an excuse for your nastiness and rudeness.

And by the way, you have no idea whether I've ever taken a physics
class or flunked it.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:59:19 -0500, nospam wrote:

...
two similar sized vehicles traveling at 30 mph that collide head-on is
equivalent to a collision of one hitting a brick wall at 30 mph.
...

Really? Which of the two comes out damaged, as it would if "hitting a brick
wall", and which comes out undamaged, as it would if only the other were
"hitting a brick wall" :-) ?

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

In article , tlvp
wrote:

...
two similar sized vehicles traveling at 30 mph that collide head-on is
equivalent to a collision of one hitting a brick wall at 30 mph.
...

Really?

really.

Which of the two comes out damaged, as it would if "hitting a brick
wall", and which comes out undamaged, as it would if only the other were
"hitting a brick wall" :-) ?

both are damaged.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:53:14 -0500, nospam wrote:

there are a *lot* of situations where paying attention means being able
to avoid a collision.

And in the cases where it cannot be avoided.
Wearing a seatbelt is generally safer.

nobody said otherwise.

the key is to *avoid* the collision in the first place.

Yes, and all the more so "in the cases where it cannot be avoided."

:-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

In article , tlvp
wrote:


there are a *lot* of situations where paying attention means being able
to avoid a collision.

And in the cases where it cannot be avoided.
Wearing a seatbelt is generally safer.

nobody said otherwise.

the key is to *avoid* the collision in the first place.

Yes, and all the more so "in the cases where it cannot be avoided."

much of the time, a collision can be avoided. people need to take
responsibility for what happens.

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:19:26 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:49:32 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:

On 2016-01-24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:35:04 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

I'm British

Another dimwit ******. It all makes sense now.

It's well known that the Americans and Irish are stupid

...said the blow hard troll as he posted on the internet, which was
created by Americans... **** off to your pathetic little podunk
Queen-worshiping island where you belong, idiot ******.

Who invented the television?

Who invented the magical special snowflake life? You did! :-)

Either you're smoking weed, drinking alcohol, or American.

Actually I find drug taking to be utterly pointless, and I'm a New
Zealander. But thanks for playing Mr Snowflake :-)
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:49:32 -0000, Your Name wrote:

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:

Agreed, as long as they DON'T get any punishment for driving while
drunk and NOT hitting anyone.

Oh joy, yet another completely brainless moron to add to the killfile.
:-\

Went right over your head didn't it? Why do you like punishing people for
something that didn't happen?

Are you really that thick, or one of the more worthless trolls we've
seen of late?
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:16:32 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:39:37 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

tlvp wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:16:49 -0000, Mr Macaw wrote, re seatbelts:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Hopefully natural selection will do it's thing sooner rather than later
:-)

At town speeds it isn't nasty.

That must be why people die from crashes in town.

How much worse do you think a 70mph crash is than a 30mph one? If you
think 70mph with a seatbelt is ok, you must think 30mph without one is ok
too.

Why does any of that matter? You're a special snowflake, remember? :-)

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

"Ashton Crusher" Wrote in message:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:24:41 +0000, chris wrote:

On 21/01/2016 01:06, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:44:05 -0800, Jack Black
wrote:

Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes
accidents!

Here is the quote!

Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7 percent
versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American Journal
of Public Health.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texting-...-a-difference/

how do they know texting laws, which I assume are almost completely
ignored anyway, are the cause of the decline in hospitalizations?

Showing cause and effect is really hard with real people in the real world.

In this study they took hospitalisation data caused by car accidents and
tried to measure if there is any difference between states that have a
ban with those that don't. By creating a mathematical model against 8
years worth of data they could test whether the presence of the ban
results in a measurable and meaningful difference. They found a 7%
difference which given the amount of data they had was strong enough to
be explained by the presence or not a texting ban.


Did they do this comparison of the different states for several years
before the ban as well as for a several year period after the ban?

It's unclear. The look at data over the same period of 8 years
(IIRC), for all states in the study.

If
not I don't see how they can claim their result has any statistically
valid meaning. What were the trends before the ban (that's why you
need several years of data) as well as the trend after the ban. A lot
of studies that claim to show gun control working actually are just
ongoing decreases that were going on before the so called gun control
law and that trend continued after the gun control law. It's a
common statistical error (often done on purpose I think) to get a
politically desirable result.


The study covers ban vs no-ban states over the same period of
time, so any 'global' trends should unaffect the
comparison.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

nospam Wrote in message:
In article , Chris
wrote:

and airplanes. nothing sucks more than a screaming baby nearby, or
worse, in the next seat.

And how do you suggest we ban 'crying babies'?

easy. have baby flights and no baby flights.

pax with babies take the former, pax who want peace and quiet take the
latter and pax who don't care can take either one.

at a minimum, put pax with babies in the back of the plane, so if one
does scream, those in the front, who are paying a premium fare to be in
the front, aren't bothered as much.

Sounds very much like segregation. That's worked well
historically, hasn't it?

Do you suggest we also have separate flights for loud drunks, the
obnoxious, ppl with bad breath, etc?


there are places where babies are not allowed at all. guess why that
is.

that includes some restaurants, movie theaters, stage performances,
churches and synagogues, museums, schools and more.

These are all public places. Banning ppl from them is ridiculous.

some movie theaters even have a soundproof cry room to accommodate
parents who bring a baby to a movie. why a parent would do that i don't
know, but there are really bad parents in this world and movie theaters
to accommodate them.

That's utterly horrific! Why is taking a child to the cinema 'bad
parenting'? These ppl are part of society, not a section to be
shunned.

Many cinemas in the UK have specific parent and child screenings,
which is a nice idea, but there's no ban or 'cages' for other
screenings.

A more tolerant attitude to children and their parents (yes,
they're not keen on the noise either) would make everyone a bit
less uptight filtering down to make the kids happier and in
return, you.

more tolerant???

i once was on a flight with a kid behind me who kept on banging the
tray table, the one that was attached to my seat. he thought it was
fun. i didn't.

i asked the mother several times to do something and she did nothing.
she didn't give a **** and the kid knew that, so he did whatever he
wanted. that right there is bad parenting. i asked the flight attendant
to help and that wasn't any more effective. six hours of hell.

i'm supposed to tolerate that?? are you ****ing kidding me?

So should we ban kids on planes as well now? Or just their mothers?

There are ****s all over the place and we all experience them from
time to time. Can't ban them all. That's life. Deal with
it.

there are places where people expect to have peace and quiet. that's
what makes them happy.

Yup, but not in public spaces. Hence the term 'public' - they are
for everyone. If you want peace and quiet, live in the
mountains.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 1/25/2016 7:02 AM, Chris wrote:

there are places where people expect to have peace and quiet. that's
what makes them happy.

Yup, but not in public spaces. Hence the term 'public' - they are
for everyone. If you want peace and quiet, live in the
mountains.


I have to disagree with that, at least in part. If I go to a public park
and it is noisy, kids crying, people talking loudly, I don't care. I
can always leave if it is not to my liking. As you state, it is a
public place.

Restaurants are open to the public, but they are not owned by the
public, they are privately owned. The owner can make some rules. When I
go to a fast food place, especially one that has kids meal, I expect
there may be children, some ill behaved. My choice to go, I have to put
up with it. When I go to a restaurant for fine dining, I have
different expectations. I expect to have a quiet meal. If that means
banning young children or otherwise censoring them, so be it.

Same with differing expectations at a Guns & Roses concert versus Perry
Como or the symphony.

If people have respect for others, there would be no need for such
roles. Too many people are ignorant of others though and only care about
themselves.

In article , Chris
wrote:

and airplanes. nothing sucks more than a screaming baby nearby, or
worse, in the next seat.

And how do you suggest we ban 'crying babies'?

easy. have baby flights and no baby flights.

pax with babies take the former, pax who want peace and quiet take the
latter and pax who don't care can take either one.

at a minimum, put pax with babies in the back of the plane, so if one
does scream, those in the front, who are paying a premium fare to be in
the front, aren't bothered as much.

Sounds very much like segregation. That's worked well
historically, hasn't it?

Do you suggest we also have separate flights for loud drunks, the
obnoxious, ppl with bad breath, etc?

a loud drunk on a plane will generally cause a diversion, or at a
minimum, greeted by cops upon arrival.

obnoxious anti-social behavior is *not* tolerated.

there are places where babies are not allowed at all. guess why that
is.

that includes some restaurants, movie theaters, stage performances,
churches and synagogues, museums, schools and more.

These are all public places. Banning ppl from them is ridiculous.

it's not ridiculous at all and those are *not* public places.

they're privately owned. you are a guest, and you must abide by the
rules set out by the venue. if you don't, you'll likely be asked to
either cease doing whatever is causing the disturbance or leave and
forcibly removed if you don't.

put simply: people who cause a disturbance are not welcome.

some movie theaters even have a soundproof cry room to accommodate
parents who bring a baby to a movie. why a parent would do that i don't
know, but there are really bad parents in this world and movie theaters
to accommodate them.

That's utterly horrific! Why is taking a child to the cinema 'bad
parenting'? These ppl are part of society, not a section to be
shunned.

because they're not old enough to understand what's going on (and i
don't mean the story line).

movies tend to have loud moments, explosions, bright scenes, etc, and
that's *not* good for babies or even young kids.

Many cinemas in the UK have specific parent and child screenings,
which is a nice idea, but there's no ban or 'cages' for other
screenings.

having screenings for kids if fine. then the adults who don't want a
kid-free experience will go at a different time.

A more tolerant attitude to children and their parents (yes,
they're not keen on the noise either) would make everyone a bit
less uptight filtering down to make the kids happier and in
return, you.

more tolerant???

i once was on a flight with a kid behind me who kept on banging the
tray table, the one that was attached to my seat. he thought it was
fun. i didn't.

i asked the mother several times to do something and she did nothing.
she didn't give a **** and the kid knew that, so he did whatever he
wanted. that right there is bad parenting. i asked the flight attendant
to help and that wasn't any more effective. six hours of hell.

i'm supposed to tolerate that?? are you ****ing kidding me?

So should we ban kids on planes as well now? Or just their mothers?

babies are the ones that scream. some kids also do, but generally they
learned how to behave themselves when in public.

There are ****s all over the place and we all experience them from
time to time. Can't ban them all. That's life. Deal with
it.

nobody said all of them but those who cause disturbances *do* get
punished and/or banned.

go to a restaurant or museum or whatever and make a scene. you'll be
kicked out and quite possibly, asked never to return.

there are places where people expect to have peace and quiet. that's
what makes them happy.

Yup, but not in public spaces. Hence the term 'public' - they are
for everyone. If you want peace and quiet, live in the
mountains.

restaurants, museums, etc., are *not* public spaces. if you don't play
by the rules set out by the owners, you're not going to be welcome
there and *will* be removed by the cops if necessary.

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

there are places where people expect to have peace and quiet. that's
what makes them happy.

Yup, but not in public spaces. Hence the term 'public' - they are
for everyone. If you want peace and quiet, live in the
mountains.


I have to disagree with that, at least in part. If I go to a public park
and it is noisy, kids crying, people talking loudly, I don't care. I
can always leave if it is not to my liking. As you state, it is a
public place.

Restaurants are open to the public, but they are not owned by the
public, they are privately owned. The owner can make some rules. When I
go to a fast food place, especially one that has kids meal, I expect
there may be children, some ill behaved. My choice to go, I have to put
up with it. When I go to a restaurant for fine dining, I have
different expectations. I expect to have a quiet meal. If that means
banning young children or otherwise censoring them, so be it.

exactly.

Same with differing expectations at a Guns & Roses concert versus Perry
Como or the symphony.

If people have respect for others, there would be no need for such
roles. Too many people are ignorant of others though and only care about
themselves.

yep.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 03:58:33 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:19:26 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:49:32 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:

On 2016-01-24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:35:04 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

I'm British

Another dimwit ******. It all makes sense now.

It's well known that the Americans and Irish are stupid

...said the blow hard troll as he posted on the internet, which was
created by Americans... **** off to your pathetic little podunk
Queen-worshiping island where you belong, idiot ******.

Who invented the television?

Who invented the magical special snowflake life? You did! :-)

Either you're smoking weed, drinking alcohol, or American.

Actually I find drug taking to be utterly pointless,

What?!? That makes no sense whatsoever.

and I'm a New Zealander.

I wasn't aware there were morons in New Zealand.

But thanks for playing Mr Snowflake :-)

I am unfamiliar with this childish game.

--
Confucius say lion with small penis must compensate with mighty roar.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Same with differing expectations at a Guns & Roses concert versus
Perry Como

A Perry Como concert's bound to be a quiet one. He died in 2001.

--
Bobby G.


If people have respect for others, there would be no need for such
roles. Too many people are ignorant of others though and only care about
themselves.

In article , Robert Green
wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Same with differing expectations at a Guns & Roses concert versus
Perry Como

A Perry Como concert's bound to be a quiet one. He died in 2001.

Maybe they're using a holographic Perry. ;-)

On 1/25/2016 6:45 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Same with differing expectations at a Guns & Roses concert versus
Perry Como

A Perry Como concert's bound to be a quiet one. He died in 2001.


Don't believe it. John Denver is supposed to be dead too, but I
recently saw a concert on TV "John Denver Live in Japan". Still looks
good for his age too.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 1/25/2016 6:45 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Same with differing expectations at a Guns & Roses concert versus
Perry Como

A Perry Como concert's bound to be a quiet one. He died in 2001.


Don't believe it. John Denver is supposed to be dead too, but I
recently saw a concert on TV "John Denver Live in Japan". Still looks
good for his age too.

Ah. John Denver:

And the Colorado rocky mountain high
I've seen it raining fire in the sky
You better fill your gas tank
Or for sure you're going to die
Rocky mountain high.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/celebs/denver

On October 12, 1997 singer, songwriter, and actor John Denver was killed
when he crashed the Long-EZ aircraft he was piloting after it ran out of
fuel just off the coast at Pacific Grove, CA. Denver, who was the sole
occupant of the aircraft, apparently lost control of the aircraft while
attempting to manipulate the fuel selector handle. Denver had recently
purchased the aircraft and had about a half-hour orientation flight the day
before the accident.

--
Bobby G.

On 22/01/2016 22:47, The Real Bev wrote:
This **** is why usenet has so few viable groups left. Do you really
want to kill this one too?

That's what killfiles are for. You never need to hear from the
trolls/idiots/flamers again.

Jack Black schrieb am 2016-01-18 um 20:44:

Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes
accidents!

Here is the quote!

Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7 percent
versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American Journal
of Public Health.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texting-...-a-difference/

After seeing how many posts and "discussiosn" between just 2 or 3 people
this simple reference generated I get a good impression about how wars
started in the history of mankind :-(.


--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

Robert Green posted for all of us...


A Perry Como concert's bound to be a quiet one. He died in 2001.

--
Bobby G.


Has Elvis left the room?

--
Tekkie

In message
Arno Welzel wrote:
Jack Black schrieb am 2016-01-18 um 20:44:

Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes
accidents!

Here is the quote!

Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7 percent
versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American Journal
of Public Health.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texting-...-a-difference/

After seeing how many posts and "discussiosn" between just 2 or 3 people
this simple reference generated I get a good impression about how wars
started in the history of mankind :-(.

Yep, you have religious nutters on one side saying "This is the TRUTH!
We have proof" and non-nutters on the other side saying, "No, Cleetus,
that's not proof."

--
I am by nature made for my own good, not my own evil

On 2016-01-27, The Real Bev wrote:
On 01/26/2016 06:11 AM, chris wrote:
On 22/01/2016 22:47, The Real Bev wrote:
This **** is why usenet has so few viable groups left. Do you really
want to kill this one too?

That's what killfiles are for. You never need to hear from the
trolls/idiots/flamers again.

Of course. It's also possible to just not look at things. But when the
overwhelming majority of posts are pure trash, reasonable people just
stop reading. I'm tougher than most, I don't give up easily, and I
know how useless taking a group moderated can be. If people would just
stop responding to the ****heads (clearly an impossibility, as history
shows) the problem would disappear; unfortunately, it's more likely
that the group disappears.

Of the groups into which this is x-posted, I only read
comp.mobile.android. I really hope that this crap doesn't kill that
group.

People have been trying and failing to kill Usenet for a long, long
time. I wouldn't worry about it. Anyhow, you can thank "Jack Black", the
OP, for x-posting this to misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android,
and alt.home.repair. He's a well-known troll in the Apple news groups
who has a habit of x-posting to these news groups and changing his nym
on a regular basis.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 03:58:34 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:49:32 -0000, Your Name wrote:

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:

Agreed, as long as they DON'T get any punishment for driving while
drunk and NOT hitting anyone.

Oh joy, yet another completely brainless moron to add to the killfile.
:-\

Went right over your head didn't it? Why do you like punishing people for
something that didn't happen?

Are you really that thick, or one of the more worthless trolls we've
seen of late?

Are you incapable of showing reasoning for your side of the argument? Again, if nothing bad happened, why punish anyone?

--
Sex drive: a physical craving that begins in adolescence and ends at marriage.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 03:58:35 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:16:32 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:39:37 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

tlvp wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:16:49 -0000, Mr Macaw wrote, re seatbelts:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Hopefully natural selection will do it's thing sooner rather than later
:-)

At town speeds it isn't nasty.

That must be why people die from crashes in town.

How much worse do you think a 70mph crash is than a 30mph one? If you
think 70mph with a seatbelt is ok, you must think 30mph without one is ok
too.

Why does any of that matter? You're a special snowflake, remember? :-)

Why am I trying to have an intelligent conversation with someone with the mental age of 12?

--
Sex drive: a physical craving that begins in adolescence and ends at marriage.

On 01/27/2016 11:52 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-27, The Real Bev wrote:
On 01/26/2016 06:11 AM, chris wrote:
On 22/01/2016 22:47, The Real Bev wrote:
This **** is why usenet has so few viable groups left. Do you really
want to kill this one too?

That's what killfiles are for. You never need to hear from the
trolls/idiots/flamers again.

Of course. It's also possible to just not look at things. But when the
overwhelming majority of posts are pure trash, reasonable people just
stop reading. I'm tougher than most, I don't give up easily, and I
know how useless taking a group moderated can be. If people would just
stop responding to the ****heads (clearly an impossibility, as history
shows) the problem would disappear; unfortunately, it's more likely
that the group disappears.

Of the groups into which this is x-posted, I only read
comp.mobile.android. I really hope that this crap doesn't kill that
group.

People have been trying and failing to kill Usenet for a long, long
time. I wouldn't worry about it.

The groups that I reallly liked and was involved with are all dead.
Perhaps people just find facebook easier to deal with. Or more
pleasant. Or something.

Anyhow, you can thank "Jack Black", the
OP, for x-posting this to misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android,
and alt.home.repair. He's a well-known troll in the Apple news groups
who has a habit of x-posting to these news groups and changing his nym
on a regular basis.

I suppose I should add an entry to the killfile, but it's just easier to
avoid a thread that has clearly turned to ****.

--
Cheers, Bev
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"I read about this syndrome called hypochondria in a
magazine. I think I've got it." -- DA

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
On 01/27/2016 11:52 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-27, The Real Bev wrote:
On 01/26/2016 06:11 AM, chris wrote:
On 22/01/2016 22:47, The Real Bev wrote:
This **** is why usenet has so few viable groups left. Do you really
want to kill this one too?

That's what killfiles are for. You never need to hear from the
trolls/idiots/flamers again.

Of course. It's also possible to just not look at things. But when the
overwhelming majority of posts are pure trash, reasonable people just
stop reading. I'm tougher than most, I don't give up easily, and I
know how useless taking a group moderated can be. If people would just
stop responding to the ****heads (clearly an impossibility, as history
shows) the problem would disappear; unfortunately, it's more likely
that the group disappears.

Of the groups into which this is x-posted, I only read
comp.mobile.android. I really hope that this crap doesn't kill that
group.

People have been trying and failing to kill Usenet for a long, long
time. I wouldn't worry about it.

The groups that I reallly liked and was involved with are all dead.
Perhaps people just find facebook easier to deal with. Or more pleasant.
Or something.

What has actually happened is that almost no one has even
heard of usenet, so inevitably it fades away as people die off
or stop using it.

Anyhow, you can thank "Jack Black", the
OP, for x-posting this to misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android,
and alt.home.repair. He's a well-known troll in the Apple news groups
who has a habit of x-posting to these news groups and changing his nym
on a regular basis.

I suppose I should add an entry to the killfile, but it's just easier to
avoid a thread that has clearly turned to ****.

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 20:08:13 -0000, Mr Macaw wrote:

Why am I trying to have an intelligent conversation with someone with the mental age of 12?

You're trying to expand your horizons ;-) ? Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On 01/27/2016 05:07 PM, Orange wrote:
"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
On 01/27/2016 11:52 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-27, The Real Bev wrote:
On 01/26/2016 06:11 AM, chris wrote:
On 22/01/2016 22:47, The Real Bev wrote:
This **** is why usenet has so few viable groups left. Do you really
want to kill this one too?

That's what killfiles are for. You never need to hear from the
trolls/idiots/flamers again.

Of course. It's also possible to just not look at things. But when the
overwhelming majority of posts are pure trash, reasonable people just
stop reading. I'm tougher than most, I don't give up easily, and I
know how useless taking a group moderated can be. If people would just
stop responding to the ****heads (clearly an impossibility, as history
shows) the problem would disappear; unfortunately, it's more likely
that the group disappears.

Of the groups into which this is x-posted, I only read
comp.mobile.android. I really hope that this crap doesn't kill that
group.

People have been trying and failing to kill Usenet for a long, long
time. I wouldn't worry about it.

The groups that I reallly liked and was involved with are all dead.
Perhaps people just find facebook easier to deal with. Or more pleasant.
Or something.

What has actually happened is that almost no one has even
heard of usenet, so inevitably it fades away as people die off
or stop using it.

Few used it even when it was highly active. When I rode on the ski
lifts with strangers I asked them if they ever used any of the skiing or
other newsgroups. Granted, a small sample -- maybe 100 people, if that
-- but you'd think that ONE might have been an addict. Nope.

For swift help from strangers, many of whom are actually qualified to
offer it, nothing has even come close. The "forums" are maddeningly
inefficient and the users are frequently... of negative utility.

--
Cheers, Bev
I'd tell you a UDP joke, but you might not get it.
-- K.E. Long

In article , Orange
wrote:

What has actually happened is that almost no one has even
heard of usenet, so inevitably it fades away as people die off
or stop using it.

Nailed it!

leo

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
On 01/27/2016 05:07 PM, Orange wrote:
"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
On 01/27/2016 11:52 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-27, The Real Bev wrote:
On 01/26/2016 06:11 AM, chris wrote:
On 22/01/2016 22:47, The Real Bev wrote:
This **** is why usenet has so few viable groups left. Do you
really
want to kill this one too?

That's what killfiles are for. You never need to hear from the
trolls/idiots/flamers again.

Of course. It's also possible to just not look at things. But when
the
overwhelming majority of posts are pure trash, reasonable people just
stop reading. I'm tougher than most, I don't give up easily, and I
know how useless taking a group moderated can be. If people would
just
stop responding to the ****heads (clearly an impossibility, as history
shows) the problem would disappear; unfortunately, it's more likely
that the group disappears.

Of the groups into which this is x-posted, I only read
comp.mobile.android. I really hope that this crap doesn't kill that
group.

People have been trying and failing to kill Usenet for a long, long
time. I wouldn't worry about it.

The groups that I reallly liked and was involved with are all dead.
Perhaps people just find facebook easier to deal with. Or more
pleasant.
Or something.

What has actually happened is that almost no one has even
heard of usenet, so inevitably it fades away as people die off
or stop using it.

Few used it even when it was highly active.

And few had even heard about it even then.

When I rode on the ski
lifts with strangers I asked them if they ever used any of the skiing or
other newsgroups. Granted, a small sample -- maybe 100 people, if that --
but you'd think that ONE might have been an addict. Nope.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if almost none of them had even heard about it.

For swift help from strangers, many of whom are actually qualified to
offer it, nothing has even come close.

You clearly don’t use facebook. Even with the most basic question
like what shops are open on Xmas day or who is the best vet to
get a pet microchipped at most cheaply, you normally get an
answer very quickly, even if you ask at say 4am.

The "forums" are maddeningly
inefficient and the users are frequently... of negative utility.

Yeah, facebook works a lot better with some questions.

Much worse with other questions like say how to get
an iphone to auto answer in speakerphone mode etc.
But that one is much better answered with google than
either.

In article , The Real Bev
wrote:

On 01/27/2016 05:07 PM, Orange wrote:
"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
On 01/27/2016 11:52 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-27, The Real Bev wrote:
On 01/26/2016 06:11 AM, chris wrote:
On 22/01/2016 22:47, The Real Bev wrote:
This **** is why usenet has so few viable groups left. Do you really
want to kill this one too?

That's what killfiles are for. You never need to hear from the
trolls/idiots/flamers again.

Of course. It's also possible to just not look at things. But when the
overwhelming majority of posts are pure trash, reasonable people just
stop reading. I'm tougher than most, I don't give up easily, and I
know how useless taking a group moderated can be. If people would just
stop responding to the ****heads (clearly an impossibility, as history
shows) the problem would disappear; unfortunately, it's more likely
that the group disappears.

Of the groups into which this is x-posted, I only read
comp.mobile.android. I really hope that this crap doesn't kill that
group.

People have been trying and failing to kill Usenet for a long, long
time. I wouldn't worry about it.

The groups that I reallly liked and was involved with are all dead.
Perhaps people just find facebook easier to deal with. Or more pleasant.
Or something.

What has actually happened is that almost no one has even
heard of usenet, so inevitably it fades away as people die off
or stop using it.

Few used it even when it was highly active. When I rode on the ski
lifts with strangers I asked them if they ever used any of the skiing or
other newsgroups. Granted, a small sample -- maybe 100 people, if that
-- but you'd think that ONE might have been an addict. Nope.

For swift help from strangers, many of whom are actually qualified to
offer it, nothing has even come close. The "forums" are maddeningly
inefficient and the users are frequently... of negative utility.

Hi, you must be new to the internet. ;-)

*All* internet forums, including Usenet, Facebook, Wikipedia, IMDB,
etc., etc., are infested with idiots, know-nothings, and trolls
claiming to be experts. The reality is most of them are 12 year olds
(either physically or mentally).

The benefit of proper Usenet software or good forum software is that
you can killfile such imbeciles and ignore them.

On 01/27/2016 08:28 PM, Orange wrote:


"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
On 01/27/2016 05:07 PM, Orange wrote:
"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
On 01/27/2016 11:52 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-27, The Real Bev wrote:
On 01/26/2016 06:11 AM, chris wrote:
On 22/01/2016 22:47, The Real Bev wrote:
This **** is why usenet has so few viable groups left. Do you
really
want to kill this one too?

That's what killfiles are for. You never need to hear from the
trolls/idiots/flamers again.

Of course. It's also possible to just not look at things. But when
the
overwhelming majority of posts are pure trash, reasonable people just
stop reading. I'm tougher than most, I don't give up easily, and I
know how useless taking a group moderated can be. If people would
just
stop responding to the ****heads (clearly an impossibility, as history
shows) the problem would disappear; unfortunately, it's more likely
that the group disappears.

Of the groups into which this is x-posted, I only read
comp.mobile.android. I really hope that this crap doesn't kill that
group.

People have been trying and failing to kill Usenet for a long, long
time. I wouldn't worry about it.

The groups that I reallly liked and was involved with are all dead.
Perhaps people just find facebook easier to deal with. Or more
pleasant.
Or something.

What has actually happened is that almost no one has even
heard of usenet, so inevitably it fades away as people die off
or stop using it.

Few used it even when it was highly active.

And few had even heard about it even then.

When I rode on the ski
lifts with strangers I asked them if they ever used any of the skiing or
other newsgroups. Granted, a small sample -- maybe 100 people, if that --
but you'd think that ONE might have been an addict. Nope.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if almost none of them had even heard about it.

Exactly. The closest response was "You mean like myspace?"

For swift help from strangers, many of whom are actually qualified to
offer it, nothing has even come close.

You clearly don’t use facebook. Even with the most basic question
like what shops are open on Xmas day or who is the best vet to
get a pet microchipped at most cheaply, you normally get an
answer very quickly, even if you ask at say 4am.

Most of my FB friends live in other states and are unlikely to know such
things. What do you mean?

--
Cheers, Bev
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Nobody needs to speak on behalf of idiots, they manage
to speak entirely too much for themselves already.