Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #281   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Ed Huntress says...

I wonder what Mary Jo Kopechne said?


What does that have to do with running stop signs and lights?


Um, there was an implicit stop sign that told Ted not to
drive off the bridge?

Oh well. Gunner's point, while not on topic for this
discussion, is correct: if you are a politician, or
a realative of a politician, you can pretty much take
*all* those fancy road ornaments as optional.

Same as if you are an off-duty cop. They're the only
ones who drive worse than politicians.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #282   Report Post  
Lew Hartswick
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jim rozen wrote:

I think I should be allowed to disregard the posted speed
limits. It's only unskilled drivers who pose a danger to
themselves and others on the road, by driving above the
speed limit.

Jim


There must be a lot of that sort of logic around Albuquerque.
Every morning as I drive down Menaul (3 lanes each way) at
about 40 mph (even in the 35 areas) staying with trafic, there
is always a bunch of cars and trucks zipping by cutting in and out
doing at least 10 mph faster and at the next trafic light there
they are waiting for the light to change. :-)
...lew...
  #283   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 17 Feb 2005 19:57:10 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

Good point. I think I should be able to run red lights.


Hardly the same thing, and even you know that.


OK, fine. You don't like *that* analogy, I'll propose
another one.


Imagine my surprise.

I think I should be allowed to disregard the posted speed
limits. It's only unskilled drivers who pose a danger to
themselves and others on the road, by driving above the
speed limit.


You are continuing to miss the point. You keep coming up
with examples that are unsafe for anyone, equally. Alcohol
can't NOT make you a worse driver. It's a biological
influence. Running a red light, (if by "running" you
mean "ignore and go through without looking") is unsafe
for anyone, equally.

Talking on a cellphone is only unsafe for people who are
unsafe drivers.

*I'm* a safe, skilled driver so I should be allowed to
ignore the sign and drive as fast as I want. After all,
they should punish the poor drivers who cause crashes,
and I don't cause crashes. Just driving fast shouldn't
be illegal, driving poorly should. Because I'm highly
skilled and mentally acute, the limit shouldn't apply to
me.

I dunno Dave. If you don't like that analogy, I could
probably come up with a few more.


You keep missing the basic difference between your examples
and a cell phone, so I don't see that there's any point, do you?

My point is that *all* the folks who disagree with, or flat
out disregard, those kinds of laws use exactly the same
rational that you do for cell phone use.


Those are examples of the _BAD DRIVING_ that I'm saying should
be the punishable offense, Jim.

Aw, I'm not hurting anyone.


Indeed. I'm not.

You don't drive like a ****** when you use your phone in
the car. I'm perfectly willing to grant that. But
90 percent of those that do, drive *exactly* that way.


So punish the bad driving, Jim. It's very simple.
First you say it's so hard to define, then you go and define
it. Those are the things to give tickets to people for, not
the guy who is doing none of that.

As the classic third grade teacher line goes, "it's a
real shame that the bad actions of a few rotten apples
have to spoil the fun for the rest of you..."


Yes, it's a very much a coward's approach. I used to work
in an office where one guy got lots of personal calls during
the day. Instead of the boss having the balls to go talk to
him, telling him to knock it off, the boss decided _nobody_
could have personal calls. It's a perfect example of what
you want to do with cellphones.

Most folks in NY drive like ******s when they have their
ears glued to a phone.


In your opinion. Based on your biased observations.

Because of that, you can't use
a hand-held in that state.


(another) good reason to avoid living there.

I'm happy because at least when some soccer mom shoots
across three lanes on the taconic parkway,


Ah, so you mean, she's DRIVING POORLY.

deeply
immersed in whatever *vital* phone call she's doing,
I can have the miniscule, faint, microscopic hope that
maybe someday she'll get a ticket for it.


If the cops don't pull her over for driving like an idiot, why
would they pull her over for the phone, Jim?
  #284   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In general I agree with you, Dave. What should be punished is bad
driving. And there are lots of laws to do that. But in this case I
think that outlawing driving while talking on a cell phone is
reasonable. My reasoning is that most drivers don't drive as well
while using a cell phone. In fact
I suspect that all drivers drive less well. Excellent drivers may
still be good drivers, but still not as good as when they are not using
a cell phone.
But average drivens become sub-average.

Now the problem is that all drivens think they are above average ( or
if they are really poor, they think they are average ). So if you
permit driving while talking on cell phones, close to all drivers will
do it.

Now while I consider myself as an above average driver, I really don't
want to contend with a lot of average drivers driving while talking on
a cell phone.

Dan


Dave Hinz wrote:



Talking on a cellphone is only unsafe for people who are
unsafe drivers.



You keep missing the basic difference between your examples
and a cell phone, so I don't see that there's any point, do you?



Those are examples of the _BAD DRIVING_ that I'm saying should
be the punishable offense, Jim.



So punish the bad driving, Jim. It's very simple.
First you say it's so hard to define, then you go and define
it. Those are the things to give tickets to people for, not
the guy who is doing none of that.





If the cops don't pull her over for driving like an idiot, why
would they pull her over for the phone, Jim?


  #285   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha?


I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem
awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer.

Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in
prison.

--
Ed Huntress




  #286   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

I wonder what Mary Jo Kopechne said?


What does that have to do with running stop signs and lights?


Um, there was an implicit stop sign that told Ted not to
drive off the bridge?

Oh well. Gunner's point, while not on topic for this
discussion, is correct: if you are a politician, or
a realative of a politician, you can pretty much take
*all* those fancy road ornaments as optional.


Laura Bush (she wasn't "Bush" yet) was neither a politician nor, as far as I
recall, the relative of a politician. She was just from a well-off family
that threw a lot of weight at that time.

--
Ed Huntress



  #287   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message
...


But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha?


I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem
awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer.


Your colors are shining brightly, Ed.

Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in
prison.


Perhaps the people involved in the case know more about it than,
oh, say, you.

  #288   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, Ed Huntress

wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message
...


But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha?


I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you

seem
awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer.


Your colors are shining brightly, Ed.


That's right. Confirmed moderate, registered Republican for 23 years, former
delegate to my county Republican convention, PR writer for a former local
Republican politician.


Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in
prison.


Perhaps the people involved in the case know more about it than,
oh, say, you.


Oh, yeah, they certainly do. They know it was a fix.

Do you know what she did, Dave?

--
Ed Huntress


  #289   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:14:02 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, Ed Huntress

wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message
...


But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha?

I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you

seem
awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer.


Your colors are shining brightly, Ed.


That's right. Confirmed moderate, registered Republican for 23 years, former
delegate to my county Republican convention, PR writer for a former local
Republican politician.


And yet, you resort to the name-calling.

Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in
prison.


Perhaps the people involved in the case know more about it than,
oh, say, you.


Oh, yeah, they certainly do. They know it was a fix.
Do you know what she did, Dave?


Yes, I'm familiar with the accident in question.


  #290   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:14:02 -0500, Ed Huntress

wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, Ed Huntress


wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message
...


But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha?

I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you

seem
awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer.

Your colors are shining brightly, Ed.


That's right. Confirmed moderate, registered Republican for 23 years,

former
delegate to my county Republican convention, PR writer for a former

local
Republican politician.


And yet, you resort to the name-calling.


Jesus. And this from the guy who, with no provocation, called my statements
"insane."


Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be

in
prison.

Perhaps the people involved in the case know more about it than,
oh, say, you.


Oh, yeah, they certainly do. They know it was a fix.
Do you know what she did, Dave?


Yes, I'm familiar with the accident in question.


Good. Then you know she ran a stop sign at 8:00 PM on a clear night and a
dry road, killed a 17-year-old kid, but was never charged with anything.
?!?

--
Ed Huntress





  #291   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .


But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha?


I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem
awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer.

Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in
prison.


Why are they both walking around loose?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
  #292   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:44:11 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:14:02 -0500, Ed Huntress

wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, Ed Huntress


wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message
...


But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha?

I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you
seem
awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer.

Your colors are shining brightly, Ed.

That's right. Confirmed moderate, registered Republican for 23 years,

former
delegate to my county Republican convention, PR writer for a former

local
Republican politician.


And yet, you resort to the name-calling.


Jesus. And this from the guy who, with no provocation, called my statements
"insane."


Yeah, because "Gee, Ed, that's insane" or whatever, is _so_ much
like "Laura the Highway Killer".

Yes, I'm familiar with the accident in question.


Good. Then you know she ran a stop sign at 8:00 PM on a clear night and a
dry road, killed a 17-year-old kid, but was never charged with anything.


Apparently the DA knows more about it than you do, Ed. Or are you going
to say that the Bush Family somehow interceded?

  #293   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Good. Then you know she ran a stop sign at 8:00 PM on a clear night and

a
dry road, killed a 17-year-old kid, but was never charged with anything.


Apparently the DA knows more about it than you do, Ed.


Apparently not. Questioned about it by several news sources, neither the
DA's office nor the police dept. could explain why the box for "charges" was
left empty.

Or are you going
to say that the Bush Family somehow interceded?


Bush didn't even know her until 13 years later. Her own family was
well-connected in Midland all by itself.

--
Ed Huntress



  #294   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .


But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha?


I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem
awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer.

Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in
prison.


Why are they both walking around loose?


That's a good question. I guess they're both good examples that having the
right connections can keep you out of jail even if you kill somebody.

--
Ed Huntress


  #295   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:22:50 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Good. Then you know she ran a stop sign at 8:00 PM on a clear night and

a
dry road, killed a 17-year-old kid, but was never charged with anything.


Apparently the DA knows more about it than you do, Ed.


Apparently not. Questioned about it by several news sources, neither the
DA's office nor the police dept. could explain why the box for "charges" was
left empty.


Um, OK. I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this, if those
most closely involved didn't press charges.



  #296   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:22:50 -0500, Ed Huntress

wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Good. Then you know she ran a stop sign at 8:00 PM on a clear night

and
a
dry road, killed a 17-year-old kid, but was never charged with

anything.

Apparently the DA knows more about it than you do, Ed.


Apparently not. Questioned about it by several news sources, neither the
DA's office nor the police dept. could explain why the box for "charges"

was
left empty.


Um, OK. I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this, if those
most closely involved didn't press charges.


Family friends with the Welches, the father of the boy who was killed was in
the car right behind him at the time.

Some journalists have tried to dig deeper but everybody clams up. There is a
swarm of speculation surrounding the case but it looks like something the
families handled between themselves. Elder editors from local news sources
said that's the way a lot of things were done in Midland at the time. It was
all a matter of connections, and the well-connected stayed out of jail and
mostly out of the news.

--
Ed Huntress


  #297   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Dave Hinz says...

I think I should be allowed to disregard the posted speed
limits. It's only unskilled drivers who pose a danger to
themselves and others on the road, by driving above the
speed limit.


You are continuing to miss the point. You keep coming up
with examples that are unsafe for anyone, equally. Alcohol
can't NOT make you a worse driver. It's a biological
influence. Running a red light, (if by "running" you
mean "ignore and go through without looking") is unsafe
for anyone, equally.


No. I *always* look both ways before going through a red
light. That makes me a super-safe driver, so I should be
allowed to do that. Only the poor drivers don't look both ways,
and crash when they go through red lights.

We should make stopping at red lights optional, but only
punish the bad drivers who crash when doing so. Don't ticket
the act of passing through a red light, only ticket actual poor
driving as demonstrated by crashing.

This is exactly the same as your view of cell phone use as
far as I can determine.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #298   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 18 Feb 2005 12:27:42 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

I think I should be allowed to disregard the posted speed
limits. It's only unskilled drivers who pose a danger to
themselves and others on the road, by driving above the
speed limit.


You are continuing to miss the point. You keep coming up
with examples that are unsafe for anyone, equally. Alcohol
can't NOT make you a worse driver. It's a biological
influence. Running a red light, (if by "running" you
mean "ignore and go through without looking") is unsafe
for anyone, equally.


No. I *always* look both ways before going through a red
light. That makes me a super-safe driver, so I should be
allowed to do that.


That's not "running a red light" in any defintion I can think of,
but whatever.

Only the poor drivers don't look both ways,
and crash when they go through red lights.


Anyone not stopping and looking both ways at a red light is
subjecting themselves and others to the same risk - who it is
doesn't matter, it's what they do. That's an example of an unsafe
act, which is already illegal.

We should make stopping at red lights optional, but only
punish the bad drivers who crash when doing so.


You're, once again, equating an inherently unsafe act with
talking on the cellphone, which sometimes coincides with people
doing inherently unsafe acts.

Don't ticket
the act of passing through a red light, only ticket actual poor
driving as demonstrated by crashing.

This is exactly the same as your view of cell phone use as
far as I can determine.


What is this, national "Mis-state Dave's point" day?

  #299   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Dave Hinz says...

Anyone not stopping and looking both ways at a red light is
subjecting themselves and others to the same risk - who it is
doesn't matter, it's what they do. That's an example of an unsafe
act, which is already illegal.


It is *not* legal to stop, look both ways, and then proceed
on through, even if there is no cross traffic. It's illegal
if you sail on through without looking, it's also illegal
if you stop, look both ways to be sure it's clear, and
then go on through.

This is an example of a 'bright line rule' that police
can use to issue tickets to offenders. There is no need
for the cop to watch and see if the driver is passing the
intersection safely or not. The light's red, the car
went through, he gets a ticket. End of story.

GOING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WITH A RED LIGHT OVER IT
IS NOT AN INHERENTLY UNSAFE ACT.

It's the societal convention which says folks go on
green and stop on red, punishable by law, that implies
one is a raving mad dog lunatic if one does not stop
at red lights.

Society has decided that passing through red light
intersections often coincides with inherently unsafe
acts, namely two cars crashing into each other.

But they decided to make it easy for all citizens
to understand, they decided to take the option of
individual evaluation of each separate intersection
by each individual driver.

You're, once again, equating an inherently unsafe act with
talking on the cellphone, which sometimes coincides with people
doing inherently unsafe acts.


The state in this case has done the same thing with hand-held
cell phones. The statistical probability of performing
an unsafe act is so high that they've made using them
illegal. Not an individual choice. Because using them
is sufficiently distracting that on average it is a 'bad
idea.'

In the same way that a driver deciding on his own, if a
red light means 'stop' or not, is a bad idea.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #300   Report Post  
Jeff R.
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

You are continuing to miss the point. You keep coming up
with examples that are unsafe for anyone, equally. Alcohol
can't NOT make you a worse driver. It's a biological
influence.


Sure?
What if you are a very nervous, highly strung, tense driver (stone-cold sober)
who typically over-reacts to normal stimuli (horns, backfires etc)?

One or two drinks (depressants) could calm you down sufficiently to control
this nervous over-reaction. Bring you back down to the community norm.
No more than one or two, mind.

Result: Improved driving.

Talking on a cellphone is only unsafe for people who are
unsafe drivers.


Maybe.
But: Talking on a cellphone requires the driver's attention. Maybe only a
small fraction of that attention, but it does take some of the sum total of
the driver's cognitive skills away from the road. Especially when answering a
call (picking up), dialling (deity forbid) or hanging up.

You can't NOT be distracted by using a cellphone.

Ok Ok
You and I have done it without incident hundreds of times.
But the next time?

There ain't no absolutes when dealing with human critters. Infinite shades of
grey.

--
Jeff R.
(light grey, tending to mid-light grey)




  #301   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:36:26 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .


But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha?

I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem
awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer.

Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in
prison.


Why are they both walking around loose?


That's a good question. I guess they're both good examples that having the
right connections can keep you out of jail even if you kill somebody.


If it works for the Kennedys and the Kerrys, its good enough for
everyone else.

Gunner

It's better to be a red person in a blue state
than a blue person in a red state. As a red
person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob
at least you have a gun to protect yourself.
As a blue person, your only hope is to appease
the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)
  #302   Report Post  
Dan Murphy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

That's a good question. I guess they're both good examples that having
the right connections can keep you out of jail even if you kill
somebody.


Apples and oranges. Leaving the scene and not reporting the accident
until the next day would leave you or me in a bigger pickle than running
a stop sign and killing someone. Assuming she wasn't intoxicated and
there was a cover up about that. Pretty safe assumption old Ted was
liquored up. But even if he wasn't, he would face all the charges Laura
should have faced plus a bunch more. It's pretty rare that someone will
recieve a long jail term for running a stop sign in a fatal accident.
It's a given in a failure to report / leaving the scene fatality
scenario.


Dan

Let’s swim to the moon
Let’s climb through the tide
You reach your hand to hold me
But I can’t be your guide

Easy, I to love you
As I watch you glide
Falling through wet forests
On our moonlight drive
Moonlight drive
Moonlight drive

Come on, baby, gonna take a little ride
Goin’ down by the ocean side
Get real close
Get real tight
Baby gonna drown tonight
Goin’ down, down, down, down
- Jim Morrison

Teddy, I think I'm pregnant.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it Mary Jo. - Anon.
  #303   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. .
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

That's a good question. I guess they're both good examples that having
the right connections can keep you out of jail even if you kill
somebody.


Apples and oranges. Leaving the scene and not reporting the accident
until the next day would leave you or me in a bigger pickle than running
a stop sign and killing someone. Assuming she wasn't intoxicated and
there was a cover up about that. Pretty safe assumption old Ted was
liquored up. But even if he wasn't, he would face all the charges Laura
should have faced plus a bunch more. It's pretty rare that someone will
recieve a long jail term for running a stop sign in a fatal accident.


And how common is it that someone will run a stop sign and kill someone, and
not even get a traffic ticket?

Do you have facts on this?

--
Ed Huntress


  #304   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

If it works for the Kennedys and the Kerrys, its good enough for
everyone else.


Or the Welches.

--
Ed Huntress


  #305   Report Post  
Dan Murphy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. .
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

That's a good question. I guess they're both good examples that
having the right connections can keep you out of jail even if you
kill somebody.


Apples and oranges. Leaving the scene and not reporting the accident
until the next day would leave you or me in a bigger pickle than
running a stop sign and killing someone. Assuming she wasn't
intoxicated and there was a cover up about that. Pretty safe
assumption old Ted was liquored up. But even if he wasn't, he would
face all the charges Laura should have faced plus a bunch more. It's
pretty rare that someone will recieve a long jail term for running a
stop sign in a fatal accident.


And how common is it that someone will run a stop sign and kill
someone, and not even get a traffic ticket?


Not very. You missed the point.


Do you have facts on this?


Read the paper. Google "sentenced fatal car crash". Use common sense.
Leaving the scene and failing to report an accident involving a fatality
usually results in a long sentence. A fatal accident, even one involving
reckless driving usually results in a suspended sentence and probation,
unless you're drunk or racing.

Dan


--
Ed Huntress






  #306   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. .
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. .
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:



And how common is it that someone will run a stop sign and kill
someone, and not even get a traffic ticket?


Not very. You missed the point.


No, Dan, I think you did. My question was my point. The issue here is that
she ran a stop sign and killed a 17-year-old boy, and wound up with no
charges at all.

I've never heard of such a thing. That's what I was asking about.

Do you have facts on this?


Read the paper. Google "sentenced fatal car crash". Use common sense.
Leaving the scene and failing to report an accident involving a fatality
usually results in a long sentence. A fatal accident, even one involving
reckless driving usually results in a suspended sentence and probation,
unless you're drunk or racing.


I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning how likely it is that you or I,
for example, could run a stop sign, kill someone, and not even get a ticket.

The point is, it appears she got very, very special treatment. She should
have a felony record for vehicular homicide -- or she might have had such a
record as a minor, which could, feasibly, now be expunged. I don't know how
Texas law treats minors.

But she never even got that. You would and I would. But Laura Welch Bush did
not. That's the point.

--
Ed Huntress


  #307   Report Post  
wws
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:


"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
. 4...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:



And how common is it that someone will run a stop sign and kill
someone, and not even get a traffic ticket?


Not very. You missed the point.



No, Dan, I think you did. My question was my point. The issue here is that
she ran a stop sign and killed a 17-year-old boy, and wound up with no
charges at all.

I've never heard of such a thing. That's what I was asking about.


Do you have facts on this?


Read the paper. Google "sentenced fatal car crash". Use common sense.
Leaving the scene and failing to report an accident involving a fatality
usually results in a long sentence. A fatal accident, even one involving
reckless driving usually results in a suspended sentence and probation,
unless you're drunk or racing.



I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning how likely it is that you or I,
for example, could run a stop sign, kill someone, and not even get a ticket.

The point is, it appears she got very, very special treatment. She should
have a felony record for vehicular homicide -- or she might have had such a
record as a minor, which could, feasibly, now be expunged. I don't know how
Texas law treats minors.

But she never even got that. You would and I would. But Laura Welch Bush did
not. That's the point.

--
Ed Huntress


Manslaughter, not homicide.
Homicide requires (implies) intent.
Including prior Disregard, such as intoxication Or knowledge of
unsafe(?} equipment.

I think...
  #308   Report Post  
Dan Murphy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. .
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. .
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:



And how common is it that someone will run a stop sign and kill
someone, and not even get a traffic ticket?


Not very. You missed the point.


No, Dan, I think you did. My question was my point. The issue here is
that she ran a stop sign and killed a 17-year-old boy, and wound up
with no charges at all.

I've never heard of such a thing. That's what I was asking about.

Do you have facts on this?


Read the paper. Google "sentenced fatal car crash". Use common sense.
Leaving the scene and failing to report an accident involving a
fatality usually results in a long sentence. A fatal accident, even
one involving reckless driving usually results in a suspended
sentence and probation, unless you're drunk or racing.


I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning how likely it is that you or
I, for example, could run a stop sign, kill someone, and not even get
a ticket.

The point is, it appears she got very, very special treatment. She
should have a felony record for vehicular homicide -- or she might
have had such a record as a minor, which could, feasibly, now be
expunged. I don't know how Texas law treats minors.

But she never even got that. You would and I would. But Laura Welch
Bush did not. That's the point.


Sorry, but I thought that it was a given that we would be strung up by
our thumbs, while they walk away. I happen to think Teddy's exploits are
far more serious than Laura's based on what's known. Equating the two is
apples and oranges in my book. I've seen cases like hers where charges
were dropped, not filed, or the defendant was granted some sort of "first
offense" status where the conviction is removed from their record after a
probationary period. That's not going to happen in a case where you flee
the scene of a fatality and don't report it.

Dan

  #309   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. .
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

The point is, it appears she got very, very special treatment. She
should have a felony record for vehicular homicide -- or she might
have had such a record as a minor, which could, feasibly, now be
expunged. I don't know how Texas law treats minors.

But she never even got that. You would and I would. But Laura Welch
Bush did not. That's the point.


Sorry, but I thought that it was a given that we would be strung up by
our thumbs, while they walk away. I happen to think Teddy's exploits are
far more serious than Laura's based on what's known. Equating the two is
apples and oranges in my book.


I don't disagree. I wasn't comparing the two. I made a comment about the
penalties for running traffic lights or stop signs, in a message to Jim, and
Gunner brought up Ted Kennedy because he sees almost everything as a
political affront. g

Laura Bush wasn't Laura Bush then. She was Laura Welch. She didn't even meet
George Bush until 13 years later. I wasn't making a comment about
conservatives, I was making a comment about how well-connected people are
treated under the law. She was handy because nearly everyone has heard of
this case.

The thread got twisted, as usual. g

I've seen cases like hers where charges
were dropped, not filed, or the defendant was granted some sort of "first
offense" status where the conviction is removed from their record after a
probationary period. That's not going to happen in a case where you flee
the scene of a fatality and don't report it.


Well, I haven't seen such cases. I can't imagine that someone in any normal
circumstances could violate a traffic law, kill another driver as a result,
and not be charged with anything at all. She didn't even get a ticket for
running a stop sign, fer chrissake.

--
Ed Huntress


  #310   Report Post  
Dan Murphy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. .
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

The point is, it appears she got very, very special treatment. She
should have a felony record for vehicular homicide -- or she might
have had such a record as a minor, which could, feasibly, now be
expunged. I don't know how Texas law treats minors.

But she never even got that. You would and I would. But Laura Welch
Bush did not. That's the point.


Sorry, but I thought that it was a given that we would be strung up
by our thumbs, while they walk away. I happen to think Teddy's
exploits are far more serious than Laura's based on what's known.
Equating the two is apples and oranges in my book.


I don't disagree. I wasn't comparing the two. I made a comment about
the penalties for running traffic lights or stop signs, in a message
to Jim, and Gunner brought up Ted Kennedy because he sees almost
everything as a political affront. g

Laura Bush wasn't Laura Bush then. She was Laura Welch. She didn't
even meet George Bush until 13 years later. I wasn't making a comment
about conservatives, I was making a comment about how well-connected
people are treated under the law. She was handy because nearly
everyone has heard of this case.

The thread got twisted, as usual. g


Well it's prolly my fault too. I've been marking this thread read for the
most part. Teddy's name caught my eye.


I've seen cases like hers where charges
were dropped, not filed, or the defendant was granted some sort of
"first offense" status where the conviction is removed from their
record after a probationary period. That's not going to happen in a
case where you flee the scene of a fatality and don't report it.


Well, I haven't seen such cases. I can't imagine that someone in any
normal circumstances could violate a traffic law, kill another driver
as a result, and not be charged with anything at all. She didn't even
get a ticket for running a stop sign, fer chrissake.


There was a case out here recently, where no charges were filed. I can't
remember the particulars, but it was a high school kid that ran a light
or something. I tried to Google "no charges filed fatal car crash" and
got a bunch of hits, but not the case I'm thinking of. As far as Laura
Bush's case it's not clear that no charges were filed. IIRC, the files
remain sealed due to the fact that all involved were minors. The accident
report which is available doesn't list ant charges or tickets. But that
in itself is not unusual when all involved are injured. Wasn't the kid
that was killed driving a Corvair convertable and not wearing a seatbelt?
Not that he deserved to be T-boned by a ditzy 17 year old girl, but that
could also enter into the decision on whether or not to file criminal
charges. Also 1963 in rural Texas puts the story in a whole different
context than looking at it through "todays" eyes.

Dan


  #311   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Ed Huntress says...

I don't disagree. I wasn't comparing the two. I made a comment about the
penalties for running traffic lights or stop signs, in a message to Jim, and
Gunner brought up Ted Kennedy because he sees almost everything as a
political affront. g

Laura Bush wasn't Laura Bush then. She was Laura Welch. She didn't even meet
George Bush until 13 years later. I wasn't making a comment about
conservatives, ...


You need to be more politically sensitive Ed. Anything that might
even be possibly, remotely, indirectly construed as a disrespectful
comment about republicans has to be muzzled now that they have
their "mandate."

Is the fact that Rep Janklow got away nearly scott-free after
killing another motorist a directly result of his being one of
the mandated republicans? Or is he just another political
turd who thinks he can drive as fast as he wants, ignoring any
and all traffic laws, because he's one of the chosen ones?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #312   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

I don't disagree. I wasn't comparing the two. I made a comment about the
penalties for running traffic lights or stop signs, in a message to Jim,

and
Gunner brought up Ted Kennedy because he sees almost everything as a
political affront. g

Laura Bush wasn't Laura Bush then. She was Laura Welch. She didn't even

meet
George Bush until 13 years later. I wasn't making a comment about
conservatives, ...


You need to be more politically sensitive Ed. Anything that might
even be possibly, remotely, indirectly construed as a disrespectful
comment about republicans has to be muzzled now that they have
their "mandate."


It's making me jumpy, too. d8-)


Is the fact that Rep Janklow got away nearly scott-free after
killing another motorist a directly result of his being one of
the mandated republicans? Or is he just another political
turd who thinks he can drive as fast as he wants, ignoring any
and all traffic laws, because he's one of the chosen ones?


The question I always have about those guys is whether being a turd makes
them want to get into politics, or whether being a politician makes them
into a turd. I can't decide.

--
Ed Huntress


  #313   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. .

There was a case out here recently, where no charges were filed. I can't
remember the particulars, but it was a high school kid that ran a light
or something. I tried to Google "no charges filed fatal car crash" and
got a bunch of hits, but not the case I'm thinking of. As far as Laura
Bush's case it's not clear that no charges were filed. IIRC, the files
remain sealed due to the fact that all involved were minors.


Well, both the police dept. and the D.A.'s office have said in interviews,
since the accident report was released a few years ago, that no charges were
filed. I assume they were quoted correctly but I couldn't swear to it.

The accident
report which is available doesn't list ant charges or tickets. But that
in itself is not unusual when all involved are injured. Wasn't the kid
that was killed driving a Corvair convertable and not wearing a seatbelt?


It was a '62 Corvair. Whether it was a convertible, or whether he was
wearing a seatbelt, I don't know. I haven't read the stories for a long
time. I remember the '62 Corvair because I had a '63.

Not that he deserved to be T-boned by a ditzy 17 year old girl, but that
could also enter into the decision on whether or not to file criminal
charges. Also 1963 in rural Texas puts the story in a whole different
context than looking at it through "todays" eyes.


Local newsmen, some old-timers, have made a big point of that.

--
Ed Huntress


  #314   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 20 Feb 2005 09:32:46 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

I don't disagree. I wasn't comparing the two. I made a comment about the
penalties for running traffic lights or stop signs, in a message to Jim, and
Gunner brought up Ted Kennedy because he sees almost everything as a
political affront. g

Laura Bush wasn't Laura Bush then. She was Laura Welch. She didn't even meet
George Bush until 13 years later. I wasn't making a comment about
conservatives, ...


You need to be more politically sensitive Ed. Anything that might
even be possibly, remotely, indirectly construed as a disrespectful
comment about republicans has to be muzzled now that they have
their "mandate."

Is the fact that Rep Janklow got away nearly scott-free after
killing another motorist a directly result of his being one of
the mandated republicans? Or is he just another political
turd who thinks he can drive as fast as he wants, ignoring any
and all traffic laws, because he's one of the chosen ones?

Jim


then there is Carl Rowan....

Gunner

It's better to be a red person in a blue state
than a blue person in a red state. As a red
person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob
at least you have a gun to protect yourself.
As a blue person, your only hope is to appease
the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)
  #315   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 18 Feb 2005 14:12:13 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

Anyone not stopping and looking both ways at a red light is
subjecting themselves and others to the same risk - who it is
doesn't matter, it's what they do. That's an example of an unsafe
act, which is already illegal.


It is *not* legal to stop, look both ways, and then proceed
on through, even if there is no cross traffic.


In some cases, Jim, it is. I have done it on many occassions. Before
you hyperventilate, these times have been in an emergency vehicle.

It's illegal
if you sail on through without looking, it's also illegal
if you stop, look both ways to be sure it's clear, and
then go on through.


Unless you are operating an emergency vehicle, yes.

This is an example of a 'bright line rule' that police
can use to issue tickets to offenders. There is no need
for the cop to watch and see if the driver is passing the
intersection safely or not. The light's red, the car
went through, he gets a ticket. End of story.


So then why don't you agree about the other inherently
unsafe acts? They're equally observe-able.

GOING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WITH A RED LIGHT OVER IT
IS NOT AN INHERENTLY UNSAFE ACT.


Agreed.

It's the societal convention which says folks go on
green and stop on red, punishable by law, that implies
one is a raving mad dog lunatic if one does not stop
at red lights.


I think this point was made about 4 posts ago.

You're, once again, equating an inherently unsafe act with
talking on the cellphone, which sometimes coincides with people
doing inherently unsafe acts.


The state in this case has done the same thing with hand-held
cell phones. The statistical probability of performing
an unsafe act is so high that they've made using them
illegal. Not an individual choice. Because using them
is sufficiently distracting that on average it is a 'bad
idea.'


Yes, well, the state of California has also found that certain
solvents cause cancer. Does that mean they do? Of course not,
it just means that if you want to buy Polyurethane in California, you
get to read the label that tells you it's dangerous. Odd that
it doesn't cause cancer in other states. It doesn't mean it's true,
it just means that some special interest group convinced a group of
people who don't understand math, logic, and technology (that would
be, a state legislature) that they're right. Doesn't reflect fact,
just reflects that their story was better than the one based on
facts and logic.

In the same way that a driver deciding on his own, if a
red light means 'stop' or not, is a bad idea.


Apples and oranges. Again, running a red light is bad for anyone,
equally. Bad drivers with cellphones are bad drivers.



  #316   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:53:45 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On 20 Feb 2005 09:32:46 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

I don't disagree. I wasn't comparing the two. I made a comment about the
penalties for running traffic lights or stop signs, in a message to Jim, and
Gunner brought up Ted Kennedy because he sees almost everything as a
political affront. g

Laura Bush wasn't Laura Bush then. She was Laura Welch. She didn't even meet
George Bush until 13 years later. I wasn't making a comment about
conservatives, ...


You need to be more politically sensitive Ed. Anything that might
even be possibly, remotely, indirectly construed as a disrespectful
comment about republicans has to be muzzled now that they have
their "mandate."

Is the fact that Rep Janklow got away nearly scott-free after
killing another motorist a directly result of his being one of
the mandated republicans? Or is he just another political
turd who thinks he can drive as fast as he wants, ignoring any
and all traffic laws, because he's one of the chosen ones?

Jim


then there is Carl Rowan....


Man, I _loved_ that show. Especially that dirty old guy on the park
bench.
  #317   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Dave Hinz says...

then there is Carl Rowan....


Man, I _loved_ that show. Especially that dirty old guy on the park
bench.


You sir have just dated yourself rather severely.

You would not have known about that unless you were...

Rats.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #318   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 21 Feb 2005 09:27:13 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

then there is Carl Rowan....


Man, I _loved_ that show. Especially that dirty old guy on the park
bench.


You sir have just dated yourself rather severely.


Oh, damn. "Do you believe in the hereafter? Well, then I guess
you know what I'm here after..."

You would not have known about that unless you were...


Er, Old?

Rats.


Yup.

Dave Hinz

  #319   Report Post  
pyotr filipivich
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Dave Hinz
wrote back on 21 Feb 2005 18:33:34 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 21 Feb 2005 09:27:13 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

then there is Carl Rowan....

Man, I _loved_ that show. Especially that dirty old guy on the park
bench.


You sir have just dated yourself rather severely.


Oh, damn. "Do you believe in the hereafter? Well, then I guess
you know what I'm here after..."

You would not have known about that unless you were...


Er, Old?


Yes, old.

Or possibly just suffering from premature Senior Moments.

It was "Gary Owens". Not the guy who wrote the tune for the 7th Cav,
but "This is Gary Owens saying 'this is Gary Owens.'"

Carl Rowan was some nut in a tree suit, thought he was the fourth
singer in the Trio "Oak Ash and Thorn".


tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."
  #320   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:19:04 GMT, pyotr filipivich wrote:
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Dave Hinz
wrote back on 21 Feb 2005 18:33:34 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 21 Feb 2005 09:27:13 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

You sir have just dated yourself rather severely.


Oh, damn. "Do you believe in the hereafter? Well, then I guess
you know what I'm here after..."
You would not have known about that unless you were...

Er, Old?


Yes, old.


Ouch. That's harsh, you know that?

Or possibly just suffering from premature Senior Moments.


Does it help to mention I first watched 'em as reruns? That's not
entirely true, I remember as a young kid watching them with my
folks and not laughing at the same times or (apparently) for the
same reasons as my parents were laughing.

It was "Gary Owens". Not the guy who wrote the tune for the 7th Cav,
but "This is Gary Owens saying 'this is Gary Owens.'"


Right, he was the announcer guy, right?

Carl Rowan was some nut in a tree suit, thought he was the fourth
singer in the Trio "Oak Ash and Thorn".


Ah, the fourth member of the trio. Is that like the Hitchhiker's Guide
trilogy (all 5 books)?

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
««««««NEW AND UNLOCKED CELL PHONES FOR ONLY US$40»»»»»»» Paulo Electronics 0 January 2nd 05 03:48 AM
Are there any REALLY good cordless phones out there? Dana Electronics Repair 6 January 23rd 04 08:59 PM
Headsets for cordless phones Lloyd Randall Electronics Repair 8 December 11th 03 02:59 PM
Cell Phone Jammer Loose Cannon Electronics Repair 26 November 23rd 03 02:10 AM
Chasing computer wiring (Cat-5) into plaster over brick wall Zymurgy UK diy 69 August 26th 03 06:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"