On 2016-01-22, Jack Kevorkian wrote:
On 01/22/2016 09:54 AM, nospam wrote:
In ,
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.

Crying babies don't bother me a bit. If they did, I'd just pop in some ear plugs.

Headphones with a music player work wonders too.

What really cheeses me off are fat people that take up a seat and a half.

While it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, some people can't help
being overweight. Rather than being upset with them, how about being
upset with airlines who continually make seating smaller and smaller to
squeeze every last cent of profit out of your wallet.

--
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 , Frank Slootweg
wrote:
Your Name wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:
Your Name wrote:
[...]
Ah, the ridiculous "flappy paddle" system that's becoming a fad in the
car industry these days. :-( Usually that means it's not a real manual
/ "stick shift" car, but a silly automatic pretending to be a manual /
"stick shift".

Well, in the Formula 1 (and most of the rest of the car racing) world
they don't consider them "silly" at all.

Remember that most of what we consider quite normal or even standard
now, was a "fad" once or/and came from other industries (like my car
racing example).

That doesn't make it a right nor sensible thing to change. The road
isn't the same as a racing circuit (no matter what boy racer hoons like
to think).

It's not a change, at least not yet for a long time. It's just another
option.

Unfortunately the silly flappy paddle system is becoming more and more
common and is the only option. Currently it's mainly high-end cars like
Ferrari, Maserati, etc., but as usual it's trickling down to more
normal cars.



They tend to be a pain in the backside when wanting to go to reverse
(especially in something like a multi-point turn where you have to go
backwards and forwards a number of times because you have to keep going
through neutral. That is something racing drivers don't usually have to
worry about doing!

Same thing. Just two clicks with the paddles, instead of two movements
with the gear-stick. And the gear-stick also goes through neutral.

Precisely. The proper manual gear stick goes *through* neutral. It
doesn't stop there and require another press of the clutch peddle to
get past it.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:45:11 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:40:43 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:34:35 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:21:52 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:55:18 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:46:56 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:49:41 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:56:55 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

thickos like you

Personal insults. Not surprised. You lose.

No, an observation that you can't do a simple task like multitasking.

You haven't observed any such thing, liar. You lose.

You're the one that said it was true, did you lie?

You haven't observed my driving. You lose.

So you're admitting your claim was false?

Name the claim I made that was false.

You said it was scientifically proven that people cannot multitask.

Nope. You have a reading comprehension problem. Read what I actually
said again and get back with me. Or don't - I care not. Your trolls are
boring.

You've snipped it, paste it back in.

Go back and read it again. For someone who chides others for supposedly
being novices at Usenet, you sure seem ill equipped... *YAWN*

No, I'm just too lazy to spend time finding the post.

You're too lazy to read for comprehension too; so no surprise there.

What you said was quite clear.

Yet you got it wrong, and even after being told you got it wrong, you
continue to claim I said something I did not say, which says a lot about
you.

I was told by the person who ****ed up that they didn't **** up, excuse me if I choose not to believe you.

--
You can listen to thunder after lightning to tell how close you came to getting hit. If you don't hear it nevermind.

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:43:43 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:34:56 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:24:04 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:55:42 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:49:28 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:

I can't remember what I said

...the least of your problems.

At least I know how to operate a newsreader, is there any wonder you can't drive?

Another lie. Lame.

Snipping is trolling.

Awww let's break out the violins for the troll who gets trolled.
Boo-hoo, poor you! Get over yourself, trollboi.

Only gays spell it "boi".

Another personal insult. Shocked...

I find it interesting that you think it was an insult.

You said it for a reason; and that reason is ultra-clear to anyone with
a brain. So not only are you a hater bigot, but you are also a coward
for not standing behind your word. You make your momma proud, silly boy.

No

Yep. Bye now, I'm bored with you.

--
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 Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:53:47 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:43:43 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:34:56 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:24:04 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:55:42 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:49:28 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:

I can't remember what I said

...the least of your problems.

At least I know how to operate a newsreader, is there any wonder you can't drive?

Another lie. Lame.

Snipping is trolling.

Awww let's break out the violins for the troll who gets trolled.
Boo-hoo, poor you! Get over yourself, trollboi.

Only gays spell it "boi".

Another personal insult. Shocked...

I find it interesting that you think it was an insult.

You said it for a reason; and that reason is ultra-clear to anyone with
a brain. So not only are you a hater bigot, but you are also a coward
for not standing behind your word. You make your momma proud, silly boy.

No

Yep. Bye now, I'm bored with you.

Troll, cutting my sentences short too now.


--
My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met.

On 01/22/2016 04:51 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
While it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, some people can't help
being overweight. Rather than being upset with them, how about being
upset with airlines who continually make seating smaller and smaller to
squeeze every last cent of profit out of your wallet.


If people need help, they can get it.


Meet Duke University's Dr. Eric Westman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSLf4bzAyOM



and Dr Jason Fung has a series of 6 videos titled The Aetiology of Obesity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpllomiDMX0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dimP7IdM2Og

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbnshVO4PRM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG89j432w-Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yoOx_7MLn0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QetsIU-3k7Y

On 2016-01-22, Jack Kevorkian wrote:
On 01/22/2016 04:51 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
While it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, some people can't help
being overweight. Rather than being upset with them, how about being
upset with airlines who continually make seating smaller and smaller to
squeeze every last cent of profit out of your wallet.

If people need help, they can get it.

Again, some people can't help it due to various conditions. And medical
care is very expensive, especially for those who are less fortunate.
Airlines are to squarely to blame for cramped seating.

--
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 , Jolly Roger
wrote:


What really cheeses me off are fat people that take up a seat and a half.

While it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, some people can't help
being overweight. Rather than being upset with them, how about being
upset with airlines who continually make seating smaller and smaller to
squeeze every last cent of profit out of your wallet.

the solution is simple. if someone is big enough to where two seats are
needed, then that person must buy two seats.

buying one seat and using two is the problem.

In article , Your Name
wrote:

even better, cops have a laptop sitting right next to them, where they
type and drive all the time, checking license plates or pulling up
information relevant to a call.

I hadn't thought of that! I wonder if that should be illegal while
driving, too.

It is for most people, but as I've said the police have exclusions when
it's part of their job. That said, they rarely use the laptop / iPad
while driving.

they use it constantly while they drive.

Such devices are usually used to, for example, quickly
check the details of a car they have just stopped before the police get
out to talk to the driver.

nope.

they use the mdt to check the details *before* making contact to see if
they have pc to actually pull them over in the first place, such as
suspended license, car reported stolen, etc. or if the driver has a rap
sheet and to where a high risk stop.

they do all of that while following behind the suspect vehicle. they
also use the mdt for a variety of other things, all while driving.

On 2016-01-22, nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

What really cheeses me off are fat people that take up a seat and a half.

While it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, some people can't help
being overweight. Rather than being upset with them, how about being
upset with airlines who continually make seating smaller and smaller to
squeeze every last cent of profit out of your wallet.

the solution is simple. if someone is big enough to where two seats are
needed, then that person must buy two seats.

buying one seat and using two is the problem.

What about people who are overweight through no fault of their own
though? They just get to pay double?

--
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 , Jolly Roger
wrote:


What really cheeses me off are fat people that take up a seat and a half.

While it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, some people can't help
being overweight. Rather than being upset with them, how about being
upset with airlines who continually make seating smaller and smaller to
squeeze every last cent of profit out of your wallet.

the solution is simple. if someone is big enough to where two seats are
needed, then that person must buy two seats.

buying one seat and using two is the problem.

What about people who are overweight through no fault of their own
though? They just get to pay double?

they're not paying double. if they take two seats, they pay for two
seats.

i saw someone once buy a seat for his cello. it was in the seat next to
him, buckled in. he paid for two seats.

This **** is why usenet has so few viable groups left. Do you really
want to kill this one too?


On 01/22/2016 01:52 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:45:11 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:40:43 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:34:35 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:21:52 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:55:18 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:46:56 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:49:41 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:56:55 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

thickos like you

Personal insults. Not surprised. You lose.

No, an observation that you can't do a simple task like multitasking.

You haven't observed any such thing, liar. You lose.

You're the one that said it was true, did you lie?

You haven't observed my driving. You lose.

So you're admitting your claim was false?

Name the claim I made that was false.

You said it was scientifically proven that people cannot multitask.

Nope. You have a reading comprehension problem. Read what I actually
said again and get back with me. Or don't - I care not. Your trolls are
boring.

You've snipped it, paste it back in.

Go back and read it again. For someone who chides others for supposedly
being novices at Usenet, you sure seem ill equipped... *YAWN*

No, I'm just too lazy to spend time finding the post.

You're too lazy to read for comprehension too; so no surprise there.

What you said was quite clear.

Yet you got it wrong, and even after being told you got it wrong, you
continue to claim I said something I did not say, which says a lot about
you.

I was told by the person who ****ed up that they didn't **** up, excuse me if I choose not to believe you.



--
Cheers,
Bev
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
"One's chances of winning the lottery are not appreciably
improved by actually buying a ticket."

On 2016-01-22, nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:


What really cheeses me off are fat people that take up a seat and a half.

While it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, some people can't help
being overweight. Rather than being upset with them, how about being
upset with airlines who continually make seating smaller and smaller to
squeeze every last cent of profit out of your wallet.

the solution is simple. if someone is big enough to where two seats are
needed, then that person must buy two seats.

buying one seat and using two is the problem.

What about people who are overweight through no fault of their own
though? They just get to pay double?

they're not paying double. if they take two seats, they pay for two
seats.

Translation" **** 'em.

I get that viewpoint - just not sure I would take it, personally.

--
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

Which one? And don't toppost. And you're lying, killfiles prevent boredom.


On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 22:47:14 -0000, The Real Bev wrote:

This **** is why usenet has so few viable groups left. Do you really
want to kill this one too?


On 01/22/2016 01:52 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:45:11 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:40:43 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:34:35 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:21:52 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:55:18 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:46:56 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:49:41 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:56:55 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

thickos like you

Personal insults. Not surprised. You lose.

No, an observation that you can't do a simple task like multitasking.

You haven't observed any such thing, liar. You lose.

You're the one that said it was true, did you lie?

You haven't observed my driving. You lose.

So you're admitting your claim was false?

Name the claim I made that was false.

You said it was scientifically proven that people cannot multitask.

Nope. You have a reading comprehension problem. Read what I actually
said again and get back with me. Or don't - I care not. Your trolls are
boring.

You've snipped it, paste it back in.

Go back and read it again. For someone who chides others for supposedly
being novices at Usenet, you sure seem ill equipped... *YAWN*

No, I'm just too lazy to spend time finding the post.

You're too lazy to read for comprehension too; so no surprise there.

What you said was quite clear.

Yet you got it wrong, and even after being told you got it wrong, you
continue to claim I said something I did not say, which says a lot about
you.

I was told by the person who ****ed up that they didn't **** up, excuse me if I choose not to believe you.





--
A group of cowboys were branding some cattle.
While they were out the cook saw a sheep tied to a post. Thinking it was for that nights dinner he cooked it.
That night after dinner the cowboys were all sulking and ignoring the cook. He pulled one aside and asked, "Did I screw up the cooking?"
"No", the cowboy replied, "You cooked up the screwing."

Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-22, nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

What really cheeses me off are fat people that take up a seat and a half.

While it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, some people can't help
being overweight. Rather than being upset with them, how about being
upset with airlines who continually make seating smaller and smaller to
squeeze every last cent of profit out of your wallet.

the solution is simple. if someone is big enough to where two seats are
needed, then that person must buy two seats.

buying one seat and using two is the problem.

What about people who are overweight through no fault of their own
though? They just get to pay double?

What do you mean, no fault of their own. It is almost their own fault.
Bad eating habit, life style, no exercise,... They never became over
weight over night.

On 2016-01-22, Tony Hwang wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-22, nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

What really cheeses me off are fat people that take up a seat and a half.

While it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, some people can't help
being overweight. Rather than being upset with them, how about being
upset with airlines who continually make seating smaller and smaller to
squeeze every last cent of profit out of your wallet.

the solution is simple. if someone is big enough to where two seats are
needed, then that person must buy two seats.

buying one seat and using two is the problem.

What about people who are overweight through no fault of their own
though? They just get to pay double?

What do you mean, no fault of their own. It is almost their own fault.
Bad eating habit, life style, no exercise,... They never became over
weight over night.

That's sometimes not the case. Sometimes it's hereditary, or the result
of a medical condition (the result of thyroid problems for instance).
And what I hear some people saying is "**** them. They can just deal with
it".

--
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 22 Jan 2016 22:32:57 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:


Airlines are to squarely to blame for cramped seating.


I have mixed feelings about that. Yes, the airlines could have bigger
seats. But if they did, they would be able to carry fewer people on a
flight and they would therefore raise the cost of the seats.

In fact, they do have bigger seats which are an option for all of us.
It's called Business Class or First Class. As much as I would like to
always fly that way, its price is such that I seldom do.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:38:22 -0500, nospam
wrote:


the solution is simple. if someone is big enough to where two seats are
needed, then that person must buy two seats.


One of my favorite stories is about the woman who, while on a skiing
trip, broke her leg. On the return flight the airline required her to
buy two seats, one to sit on, the other to stretch her leg in a cast
out on.

The only problem was that her two seats were 16A and 24 D.

On 01/22/2016 02:39 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-22, nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

What really cheeses me off are fat people that take up a seat and a half.

While it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, some people can't help
being overweight. Rather than being upset with them, how about being
upset with airlines who continually make seating smaller and smaller to
squeeze every last cent of profit out of your wallet.

the solution is simple. if someone is big enough to where two seats are
needed, then that person must buy two seats.

buying one seat and using two is the problem.

What about people who are overweight through no fault of their own
though? They just get to pay double?

What people are buying is seat space. If they need more space than one
seat provides it's not unreasonable that they should pay for the extra.
Moreover, it IS unreasonable to expect that adjacent passengers give
up some of their space because their neighbor requires more.

Yeah. Measure maximum breadth, and if it's greater than nn(n) inches
the person should have to buy one of the special seats for people with
breadth greater than nn(s) inches. It's not a question of morality or
fault, just space.

--
Cheers, Bev
66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 6
"I wish I had more time to seek out the dark forces
and join their hellish crusade." -- Clarice

On 1/22/2016 5:38 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:


What really cheeses me off are fat people that take up a seat and a half.

While it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, some people can't help
being overweight. Rather than being upset with them, how about being
upset with airlines who continually make seating smaller and smaller to
squeeze every last cent of profit out of your wallet.

the solution is simple. if someone is big enough to where two seats are
needed, then that person must buy two seats.

buying one seat and using two is the problem.


I do know of one case where Southwest required a second seat. Not sure
if it is a strict policy of if the ticket person was just bitchy that day.

In article , Ken Blake
wrote:


Airlines are to squarely to blame for cramped seating.

I have mixed feelings about that. Yes, the airlines could have bigger
seats. But if they did, they would be able to carry fewer people on a
flight and they would therefore raise the cost of the seats.

american airlines tried that a decade ago (mrtc) and what they learned
was that it wasn't a competitive advantage so they removed it.

they recently brought it back for a portion of economy and now sell
those seats at a slight premium rather than offer it to everyone for
free, as do other airlines.

In fact, they do have bigger seats which are an option for all of us.
It's called Business Class or First Class.

as well as premium economy and also the exit rows.

As much as I would like to
always fly that way, its price is such that I seldom do.

very few people pay for f/j. they upgrade, sometimes via complimentary
upgrades.

In article , Ken Blake
wrote:

the solution is simple. if someone is big enough to where two seats are
needed, then that person must buy two seats.

One of my favorite stories is about the woman who, while on a skiing
trip, broke her leg. On the return flight the airline required her to
buy two seats, one to sit on, the other to stretch her leg in a cast
out on.

The only problem was that her two seats were 16A and 24 D.

that sounds like an urban legend.

airlines will move other pax around in that situation, or they'll put
the injured person in a bulkhead seat where there's sufficient legroom
or maybe even op-up them to f.

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? 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.

On 2016-01-22, Ken Blake wrote:
On 22 Jan 2016 22:32:57 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

Airlines are to squarely to blame for cramped seating.

I have mixed feelings about that. Yes, the airlines could have bigger
seats. But if they did, they would be able to carry fewer people on a
flight and they would therefore raise the cost of the seats.

I admit I have mixed feelings about it too.

In fact, they do have bigger seats which are an option for all of us.
It's called Business Class or First Class. As much as I would like to
always fly that way, its price is such that I seldom do.

True.

--
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 2016-01-23, The Real Bev wrote:
On 01/22/2016 02:39 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-22, nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

What really cheeses me off are fat people that take up a seat and a half.

While it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, some people can't help
being overweight. Rather than being upset with them, how about being
upset with airlines who continually make seating smaller and smaller to
squeeze every last cent of profit out of your wallet.

the solution is simple. if someone is big enough to where two seats are
needed, then that person must buy two seats.

buying one seat and using two is the problem.

What about people who are overweight through no fault of their own
though? They just get to pay double?

What people are buying is seat space. If they need more space than one
seat provides it's not unreasonable that they should pay for the extra.

That's one perspective, sure.

Moreover, it IS unreasonable to expect that adjacent passengers give
up some of their space because their neighbor requires more.

I agree with that.

--
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

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:40:28 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Most people (there are thickos like
you who can't) multitask well, as I just said, it's required to drive,
driving in itself requires several things to be done at once. Adding
one (the phone) to that makes **** all difference.

You're special,

No, I'm normal. People can multitask easily, that's a fact. If you
cannot, you're retarded and unlikely to have passed your driving test, you
couldn't control speed and direction and gears and watch for hazards and
use indicators and operate the wipers etc etc.

People can quickly switch attention easily. They do not multitask well.
It amazes me people still confuse the two. But you're a special
snowflake. Normality doesn't apply to you.

so you can multitask perfectly. And even be unaffected
by adding another task to the mix, this one requiring removing a hand
from driving duties and occasional looking away from driving :-D

So does changing gear.

You have to look for the gearstick?

Do you also believe you don't need to wear a seatbelt?

I never wear a seatbelt unless I'm driving fast in deep snow. The chances
of a bump big enough to need one are remote.

And the world stands shocked, both at your arrogance, and ignorance of
what a seatbelt in a car is primarily for :-D

A helmet while biking?

Cycling or motorbiking?

Does one magically prevent head injuries?

A safety line while up high?

Depends how well I can hold onto things. Am I using lots of tools which
need a hand or two?

If you had any reason I'd suggest you make a rational judgement call.
But then you're the person who thinks you don't need to wear a seatbelt
unless it gets bumpy :-D

Heh. Of course not.

Invalid assumption.

An assumption born out by the above :-) But thanks for playing.

It's only other
people who do not perform perfectly, have accidents, and have to have
society deal with the consequences. Stupid other people! Why can't they
be more like you?

Meanwhile back in reality... :-)

You're clearly a **** driver and are making yourself feel better by
claiming many others are the same. The fact remains the vast majority of
people never have anything more than a minor bump in their entire life of
driving.

When the state is paying to put you back together or just keep you on
life support, my vote is not to waste the money, and go after your
estate for the damage you'll have done in your accident.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:40:28 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

Do you also believe you don't need to wear a seatbelt?

I never wear a seatbelt unless I'm driving fast in deep snow. The
chances of a bump big enough to need one are remote.

Color me shocked...

Yeah, heh heh heh. It was perhaps the easiest guess I've ever made. You
just know sometimes that a certain kind of fool will screw up with b, c,
and d as well as a.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:28:15 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:40:28 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

Do you also believe you don't need to wear a seatbelt?

I never wear a seatbelt unless I'm driving fast in deep snow. The
chances of a bump big enough to need one are remote.

Color me shocked...

Put more effort into your reply.

You're clearly a **** driver

Sure he is - just because you say so...

I can't remember what I said, as you've snipped it again.

You can't remember or read what isn't snipped, but in fact quoted right
there in JR's and this very reply from me? :-D
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:49:28 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:

I can't remember what I said

...the least of your problems.

At least I know how to operate a newsreader, is there any wonder you can't
drive?

You don't seem to know how to read quoted material or easily skip back
through posts. Life is hard if you're a stupid, eh?

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

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:24:04 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:55:42 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:49:28 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:

I can't remember what I said

...the least of your problems.

At least I know how to operate a newsreader, is there any wonder you
can't drive?

Another lie. Lame.

Snipping is trolling.

Awww let's break out the violins for the troll who gets trolled.
Boo-hoo, poor you! Get over yourself, trollboi.

Only gays spell it "boi".

Oh, he's homophobic too! LMAO! It's just too perfect :-D
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:02:11 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Ken Blake
wrote:


Airlines are to squarely to blame for cramped seating.

I have mixed feelings about that. Yes, the airlines could have bigger
seats. But if they did, they would be able to carry fewer people on a
flight and they would therefore raise the cost of the seats.

american airlines tried that a decade ago (mrtc) and what they learned
was that it wasn't a competitive advantage so they removed it.

they recently brought it back for a portion of economy and now sell
those seats at a slight premium rather than offer it to everyone for
free, as do other airlines.

In fact, they do have bigger seats which are an option for all of us.
It's called Business Class or First Class.

as well as premium economy and also the exit rows.


They provide more leg room, but not more width. This discussion was
about fat people, so width is the issue, not leg room.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:02:11 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Ken Blake
wrote:

the solution is simple. if someone is big enough to where two seats are
needed, then that person must buy two seats.

One of my favorite stories is about the woman who, while on a skiing
trip, broke her leg. On the return flight the airline required her to
buy two seats, one to sit on, the other to stretch her leg in a cast
out on.

The only problem was that her two seats were 16A and 24 D.

that sounds like an urban legend.


Yes, it probably is, but I still think it's a great story.

On 1/22/2016 9:36 PM, Ken Blake wrote:



They provide more leg room, but not more width. This discussion was
about fat people, so width is the issue, not leg room.


Width can be done but is more difficult. If you have four seats in the
center you can drop back to three and add a couple of inches to each of
the others. Most are 17.2 inches. First class can get you 30 or so
http://www.seatguru.com/charts/generalcharts.php

In article , Ken Blake
wrote:

In fact, they do have bigger seats which are an option for all of us.
It's called Business Class or First Class.

as well as premium economy and also the exit rows.

They provide more leg room, but not more width. This discussion was
about fat people, so width is the issue, not leg room.

the difference in width for f/j is not a whole lot, typically only a
couple of inches, but what's worse for larger people is that the arm
rests don't go up.

in economy, the arm rests do go up (other than the exit rows), which is
how someone can take up more than one seat.

In article z, Jamie
Kahn Genet wrote:

No, I'm normal. People can multitask easily, that's a fact. If you
cannot, you're retarded and unlikely to have passed your driving test, you
couldn't control speed and direction and gears and watch for hazards and
use indicators and operate the wipers etc etc.

People can quickly switch attention easily. They do not multitask well.
It amazes me people still confuse the two. But you're a special
snowflake. Normality doesn't apply to you.

actually, a cpu doesn't multitask at all. the operating system switches
tasks really fast which gives the illusion of everything running at the
same time.

only if there are multiple cores can two threads run at the same time.

Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 2:36 PM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
Muggles wrote:

On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
Paul M. Cook wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:59:18 +1300, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

I have to wonder at people who think not looking at the road and
thinking about something else as well, isn't dangerous.

Driving isn't an inherently safe thing to do, so, sure, of course
there are myriad distractions inherent in the mere act of driving.

The fact that almost anyone can drive means that driving is,
essentially, in the scope of the easiest tasks humans can do.

So, it's *easy* to drive and *not safe* to be distracted.

Since most of us never have a single accident in our entire lives,
and yet, most of us have been distracted a billion times while
driving, what that means is that we constantly safely handle
distractions.

That *some* people can't handle distractions is probably partially
why the accident rate remains at the low level that it is today.

However, the fact that this accident rate was wholly unaffected
by the absolutely astoundingly huge increase in cellphone ownership
numbers (hence, most people assume, in cellphone use distractions),
simply means exactly what it shows.

That is, cellphone use is not any more distracting than any other
distraction that most drivers handle safely every single day.


It is simplicity itself to demonstrate that TXTing while driving impairs
reaction times, as many have shown, for many years now e.g.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...g-how-dangerou
s-is-it

But continue to deny that you are affected by distractions, and that
magically you are a better driver and better able to multitask than
others.
Of course an accident resulting from distractions such as TXTing would
never happen to _you_! That is only something that happens to '_other_
people'. _You're_ special :-)

I guess some people never quite manage to mature past the teenage
feeling of invulnerability, to instead deal with reality and take
responsibility...


I'm reading this thread from the repair group, so I don't recognize the
names of the people in this discussion. I do have a question about your
last comment, here.

Do you think that since teens and those who grew up using cell phones
are more adept at using the technology and would, therefore, also be
more inclined to use it while driving without it being a bigger
distraction to them than say listening to a radio?

In my personal and unscientific experience those who have grown up with
the technology are often more adept and comfortable with firing off a
quick TXT as they drive. A previous younger girlfriend in her 20's was
very comfortable with this, but comfort doesn't equal safe. However as
she was very quick at TXTing one handed while driving, I suppose she
lessened the danger time compared to worse TXTers. Still, given her age
she lacked the experience of older drivers that has been shown to
improve their responses to dangerous situations, so I still wouldn't
have said she was safer at TXTing and driving.
And the last couple jackasses to try to run me down while TXTing were
over 30. But I see as many over 30's TXTing while driving as I do
younger drivers.
Though the more scientific tests I've read show _anyone's_ reaction time
is affected by TXTing, even the most familiar and comfortable with the
tech.

I really don't like TXTing, let alone trying to do it while driving. I
just don't get what's so important that can't wait a few minutes 'til
you get stopped. I may look at an incoming text when I'm sitting at a
red light waiting for it to turn green, but I'm not coordinated enough
to drive and txt at the same time. Maybe I'm just old, or maybe I'm
just lazy at txting. I have been known to answer a phone call using
wi-fi in stop and go traffic, but on the interstate I just let it ring
and go to voice mail. It's scary enough dodging all the nuts without
trying to talk to someone on the phone at the same time.

The difference between passively listening to radio and TXTing, is
TXTing requires removing a hand from the vehicle's controls, and some
amount of looking at the mobile device instead of the driving
conditions.

I've been told that some new cars have hand controls on the steering
wheel that allow the stereo system to answer phone calls AND text calls
and convert the text to voice msgs and any voice responses to text. I
don't understand why the technology is being put in new cars if the
trend is to stop people from using the technology while driving.


Tests I've read have shown listening to the radio can also
affect concentration and reaction time if the driver doesn't retain
focus on driving, but not to the same degree as TXTing. A comparable
distraction would be fiddling with tapes and CDs as one drives, in that
a hand is removed from the wheel and the eyes from the road.


Sneezing while driving is just as bad as any other distraction, I think,
but the difference between fiddling with a CD is many people have
mastered inserting cd's without ever taking their eyes off the road.
Sneezing while driving a person nearly ALWAYS has to shut their eyes
when they sneeze. "UH officer! I swear I wasn't texting - I SNEEZED and
then I rear-ended the guy in front of me!"

Sneezing can be much worse, it can cause blackouts.

burfordTjustice wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:11:29 -0500
nospam wrote:

In article , burfordTjustice
wrote:


There is always this other distraction option to try out.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/0...ice-fine-man-f
or-dwr- driving-while-reading/


Broken link! WTF??

Consider your broken Usenet client.
...but just for you;
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/0...-fine-man-for-
dwr-driving-while-reading/

See, now why could you not do that correctly first time?
lazy?

he did.

Oh dear..usenet police....noted and ignored.

Ever consider taking some personal responsibility? I'm guessing not...

Hell, if even copying, pasting, and then editing out a line break (all
of three seconds work - far less time that it takes you to whinge about
others not accommodating your use of a Usenet client that ignores and
breaks standards) is too hard for you, I guess I can see how you
actually getting a decent client would be unfathomable :-D

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

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 22:35:28 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/22/2016 9:36 PM, Ken Blake wrote:



They provide more leg room, but not more width. This discussion was
about fat people, so width is the issue, not leg room.


Width can be done but is more difficult. If you have four seats in the
center you can drop back to three and add a couple of inches to each of
the others.


Can be? Yes, but it means fewer seats they can sell.

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:13:44 PM UTC-8, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:22:28 +0000, chris wrote:

All of which makes perfect sense. The original article is he
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2014.302537

Except, where are the accidents everyone seems to say are *caused*
by driving while using a cell phone?

The *accidents* don't seem to exist.

There have been several fatalidty accidents in my vicinity (widthing 20 mile radius) in which it was proven the driver was on CP when they happened. One in whick there is a suspicion it was a suicide as he was texting good-by as he went through the 18 wheeler's radiator at 60.

Harry K

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:06:09 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:40:28 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

Do you also believe you don't need to wear a seatbelt?

I never wear a seatbelt unless I'm driving fast in deep snow. The
chances of a bump big enough to need one are remote.

Color me shocked...

Yeah, heh heh heh. It was perhaps the easiest guess I've ever made. You
just know sometimes that a certain kind of fool will screw up with b, c,
and d as well as a.

In what way is not being pessimistic "screwing up"?

--
What's a Scotsman's cure for seasickness?
He hangs his head over the side of the boat with a pound coin between his teeth!