Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
They outlawed them to be in the hands and yakin on them.

How about automatic answer in radios and headsets ?

They should also outlaw newspaper reading, makeup on face, making
love, etc.

In CT, they outlawed "any distraction" so it includes all of those things.
A little common sense on the driver's side goes a long way.

On Dec 27, 8:49*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
They outlawed them to be in the hands and yakin on them.

How about automatic answer in radios and headsets ?

They should also outlaw newspaper reading, makeup on face, making
love, etc.

In CT, they outlawed "any distraction" so it includes all of those things..
A little common sense on the driver's side goes a long way.

Was it Voltaire who said, "Common sense is not so common?"

Indeed.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:37:07 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
wrote:

On Dec 27, 8:31*pm, Swingman wrote:
Dave Balderstone wrote:
I welcome new regulation on what we can and cannot do, enforced by all
levels of government. The sooner we become like the UK, or Vancouver,
the better.

Welcome to our Bureaucrat Overlords! Stop me from thinking or having to
accept responsibility for my actions! Make ME a victim TOO!

No kidding ... our forefathers came here _specifically_ so we wouldn't
end up like Europe.

Luckily, a Great Deal has changed since then.

Or unluckily, a New Deal.

uOn 2009-12-28, Swingman wrote:
notbob wrote:

The same as your toothless "jammerectomy" threat, which carries no
further than the muzzle of my .45 compact.

Careful there nutjob, you're way out of your league with that kind of
online threat ... reconsider, very carefully, those words.

I make no threat. I declare only that I countenance no threats from
newsgroup whackjobs such as yourself.

nb

Dave Balderstone wrote:

Actually, ours didn't. AND they burned down your White House.

Yep, the British did indeed ... wars are like that, win a few, lose a
few. But damn, were they happy to see us when it really counted in 1917
and 1941.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

notbob wrote:
uOn 2009-12-28, Swingman wrote:
notbob wrote:

The same as your toothless "jammerectomy" threat, which carries no
further than the muzzle of my .45 compact.

Careful there nutjob, you're way out of your league with that kind of
online threat ... reconsider, very carefully, those words.

I make no threat. snip

That's much better, nutbob ... keep in mind it's there for future
reference in case you forget yourself again with further irrational
behavior.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 12/27/2009 7:43 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Steve Turner wrote:

Some drivers can deal
with the multitasking WAY better than others.

True.

I can handle it just
fine, thank you very much; my mirrors, my turn signals, the road, and
the world around me continue to get my undivided attention, while the
person on the other end of the phone gets what's left.

That statement alone proves you wrong. Read what you wrote.

You know, I thought about using something other than "undivided attention", but
I decided to leave it in just to see how many people would call me on it. :-)

Fine; I'll restate. For many people, there *are* situations where driving does
not require 100% of their attention (Mario Andretti driving a Honda Civic at
28mph in a 35mph zone might be one example). If a careful and alert driver
deems the risk factor to be low enough, many can give the act of driving all
the attention it needs yet still have plenty of brain capacity left over for
other things; other people, not so much. For some, anything other than their
"undivided attention" would make them an unsafe driver.

However, some
(most?) people can't even drive correctly when they're carrying on a
normal conversation with a passenger sitting next to them, so how do
you propose that we handle that? Should we "scientifically" block
all interaction with a driver that *might* "impair" them? Unless the
activity is *actually* impairing their ability and causing them to
commit infractions, why should there be any reason to interfere with
their activities?

There is a difference between talking to a passenger and talking on the
phone. Really, there is. Talking to a passenger, you are more likely to
stop the conversation if a situation happens that needs more attention
compared to talking on the phone.

I only used that as one example of the zillion things that drivers do *instead*
of paying attention to the road. All I'm saying is that some people are such
idiots they can't even have a simple conversation with a passenger without
weaving all over the road.

Unlike the other poster, I'm not going to stop you from talking. I do it
myself. The amount of attention and likelihood of distraction depends on
many factors, Traffic, weather, who you are talking to, the subject, etc.
In light or no traffic and asking the wife what is for dinner is far
different that being in heavy fast moving traffic while trying to give
detailed technical support to a customer.

Yes, and because of that idiot, those of us who just want to call our wives in
light traffic to ask if we need to bring some milk home will be banned from
doing so.

In the past couple of years, quite a few teenagers have been killed while
driving and talking.

Teenagers have been inventing new and outrageous ways to get themselves killed
on the highway for decades.

Where do you draw the line?

By leaving the line where it is and enforcing the existing careless and
imprudent driving laws.

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Dec 27, 10:27*pm, Steve Turner
wrote:

Yes, and because of that idiot, those of us who just want to call our wives in
light traffic to ask if we need to bring some milk home will be banned from
doing so.

IIRC, I've been online since about 1994.

In that time, I cannot EVER remember me saying this, but ... it's
time:

When you have to resort to name-calling, it's the surest sign that
you've lost the debate.

Bravo!!!

On 12/27/09 11:35 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:

So don't be TOO proud of yourselves.


Said the condescending Canadian who'd be speaking in a German accent if
it wasn't for the ones for whom he has such contempt.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:27:32 -0600, Steve Turner
Fine; I'll restate. For many people, there *are* situations where driving does
not require 100% of their attention (Mario Andretti driving a Honda Civic at
28mph in a 35mph zone might be one example).

Just the fact that you're arguing this topic shows everybody that
*you* are one of those people that doesn't have the requisite
awareness to qualify for your ridiculous statement of having enough
brain power left over for something else.

The real fact is that no one, not even your Mario Andretti example is
capable of being aware of everything around them when they're driving.
There's just too many things that can happen. There are people however
that are much more aware than others. They are the safer driver.

It's like taking martial arts training. As you progress through the
ranks, you gain additional awareness of what is happening around you
and that gives you greater control in a given situation. But, even the
top ranked in martial arts will admit that no one knows it all,
there's always something additional to learn. Driving can be
considered the same way. It's common sense.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Swingman
wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote:

Actually, ours didn't. AND they burned down your White House.
Yep, the British did indeed ... wars are like that, win a few, lose a
few. But damn, were they happy to see us when it really counted in 1917
and 1941.

Yeah, but we Canucks were there before you, both times.
In WWII you knew you had to come in, but your congress was comprised of
chicken****s afraid of the Nazi sympathizers in your voting population.

Your own president had to result to surreptitious support of what WE
were ACTIVELY doing because he was afraid of the public backlash.
Unable to to actually tell the American people what he actually
believed and was doing.

So don't be TOO proud of yourselves.

We were there for you in Korea and Vietnam, too, BTW.

A little bit of complex peeking out there, Dave? Who really gives a ****
who got there first, eh? If it makes you feel better, gloat away, Bubba.

And BTW, our congress has always been comprised of chicken ****s ...
it's a prerequisite.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:51:56 -0600, Swingman wrote:
A little bit of complex peeking out there, Dave? Who really gives a ****
who got there first, eh? If it makes you feel better, gloat away, Bubba.

Agreed. Just as long as they got in there eventually and did their
best, the rest is just poking with a sharp stick.

Despite the barbs and the arguments, I for one am glad that Canada is
as closely tied to the US as it is. I can envision a lot of other
locations that Canada could be placed other than North America and not
one of them appeals to me.

wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:51:56 -0600, Swingman wrote:
A little bit of complex peeking out there, Dave? Who really gives a ****
who got there first, eh? If it makes you feel better, gloat away, Bubba.

Agreed. Just as long as they got in there eventually and did their
best, the rest is just poking with a sharp stick.

Despite the barbs and the arguments, I for one am glad that Canada is
as closely tied to the US as it is. I can envision a lot of other
locations that Canada could be placed other than North America and not
one of them appeals to me.

You won't hear any argument on that count from me ... I'm a big fan of
both Canada and England, with relatives in both countries, and, AAMOF,
fought side by side with a Canadian outfit in RVN ... they were in my
fire support fan for 7 months and I called in artillery fire for them
almost daily.

I don't understand why Dave would go off on that tangent ... but we all
do strange things on a Sunday after Christmas ... maybe the eggnog, eh?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 12/27/2009 11:39 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
On Dec 27, 10:27 pm, Steve Turner
wrote:

Yes, and because of that idiot, those of us who just want to call our wives in
light traffic to ask if we need to bring some milk home will be banned from
doing so.

IIRC, I've been online since about 1994.

In that time, I cannot EVER remember me saying this, but ... it's
time:

When you have to resort to name-calling, it's the surest sign that
you've lost the debate.

Bravo!!!

Oh, you're a real sharp tack. I didn't call *anybody* involved in this
"debate" an idiot (though with you I'm getting pretty close). The "idiot" in
this case (and let me just repaste the relevant context that you snipped) is
the guy "in heavy fast moving traffic while trying to give detailed technical
support to a customer". If you disagree with me that this guy's operating in
an idiotic fashion, then perhaps your argument for banning his use of a cell
phone just disappeared into thin air, no?

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

"Swingman" wrote:

You brought the CA law in to this, dude ... are you telling me that
the great state of CA would pass a law based on incomplete/faulty
research??

Merely stated that CA had enacted cell phone legislation, and that
they had some company since they weren't the only state with
legislation on their respective books.

Lew

Swingman wrote:

You won't hear any argument on that count from me ... I'm a big fan of
both Canada and England, with relatives in both countries, and, AAMOF,
fought side by side with a Canadian outfit in RVN ... they were in my
fire support fan for 7 months and I called in artillery fire for them
almost daily.

A question for you Canucks ... I always wondered about these guys ...
there was a small group of them (Canadians) serving as advisers (US) to
a Montangard tribe in the Central Highlands and were reportedly indians
themselves. Although I heard them daily on the radio, I actually ran
across a couple of them in Dalat when the ARVN Ranger outfit I was with
occupied a firebase there for a few weeks. Besides decidedly Candian
accented English, they spoke Quebecois French, similar to what I heard
as a kid and what my Dad spoke natively. Since Dalat had been under
French rule for some time, and French was as prevalent as Vietnamese in
that region, I figured that was why they were in the area.

Where and what kind of Canadian indians would be serving in the US Army
during that time?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Dec 27, 11:16*pm, Steve Turner
wrote:
On 12/27/2009 11:39 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:



On Dec 27, 10:27 pm, Steve Turner
*wrote:

Yes, and because of that idiot, those of us who just want to call our wives in
light traffic to ask if we need to bring some milk home will be banned from
doing so.

IIRC, I've been online since about 1994.

In that time, I cannot EVER remember me saying this, but ... it's
time:

When you have to resort to name-calling, it's the surest sign that
you've lost the debate.

Bravo!!!

Oh, you're a real sharp tack.

Hm.

No sense in me checking to verify whether or not I made a mistake ...
since ... you just did it (again?) :-)

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:35:28 -0600, Swingman wrote:
Where and what kind of Canadian indians would be serving in the US Army
during that time?

Best guess from me would be volunteers. I have heard of a number of
instances where Canadian natives volunteered for US service since
Canada was not actively involved in a war or 'police' action.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:37:14 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
No sense in me checking to verify whether or not I made a mistake ...
since ... you just did it (again?) :-)

Hope it doesn't put you off. Name calling and insinuations are fairly
common. Hell, I specialize in name calling. If I couldn't do it, I'd
be cut off at the knees.

On 12/27/2009 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:27:32 -0600, Steve Turner
Fine; I'll restate. For many people, there *are* situations where driving does
not require 100% of their attention (Mario Andretti driving a Honda Civic at
28mph in a 35mph zone might be one example).

Just the fact that you're arguing this topic shows everybody that
*you* are one of those people that doesn't have the requisite
awareness to qualify for your ridiculous statement of having enough
brain power left over for something else.

What the hell does that even mean? You have no idea how aware I am of my
surroundings when I'm driving. I *know* my awareness is as good as it gets,
and I *know* it's better than 90% of the other people on the road. Of course,
I can't *prove* it to you, and even though I've had a clean driving slate for
15 over years, I'm sure statistics will "prove" that my use of a cellphone on
the road makes me an unsafe driver.

The real fact is that no one, not even your Mario Andretti example is
capable of being aware of everything around them when they're driving.
There's just too many things that can happen. There are people however
that are much more aware than others. They are the safer driver.

Oh yeah; that safer driver? That's me. Does that earn me the right to use my
cellphone when *I* deem it to be safe? No, I didn't think so.

It's like taking martial arts training. As you progress through the
ranks, you gain additional awareness of what is happening around you
and that gives you greater control in a given situation. But, even the
top ranked in martial arts will admit that no one knows it all,
there's always something additional to learn. Driving can be
considered the same way. It's common sense.

I see. Since nobody can ever be perfect, I guess nobody can ever be trusted to
operate a cellphone in motor vehicle in a responsible fashion. What about all
those commercial drivers out there that use other forms of "contraptions" to
communicate with their central office or co-workers? Two-way radios? I don't
recall this issue ever coming up with CB radios.

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Dec 28, 1:35*am, Swingman wrote:
Swingman wrote:
You won't hear any argument on that count from me ... I'm a big fan of
both Canada and England, with relatives in both countries, and, AAMOF,
fought side by side with a Canadian outfit in RVN ... they were in my
fire support fan for 7 months and I called in artillery fire for them
almost daily.

A question for you Canucks ... I always wondered about these guys ...
there was a small group of them (Canadians) serving as advisers (US) to
a Montangard tribe in the Central Highlands and were reportedly indians
themselves. Although I heard them daily on the radio, I actually ran
across a couple of them in Dalat when the ARVN Ranger outfit I was with
occupied a firebase there for a few weeks. Besides decidedly Candian
accented English, they spoke Quebecois French, similar to what I heard
as a kid and what my Dad spoke natively. Since Dalat had been under
French rule for some time, and French was as prevalent as Vietnamese in
that region, I figured that was why they were in the area.

Where and what kind of Canadian indians would be serving in the US Army
during that time?

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Native Americanadian Indians don't recognize the border between the US
and Canada. At least, around these parts, they can work and live on
either side of the border. Maybe that applies to all Native Americans.

On 12/28/2009 12:37 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
On Dec 27, 11:16 pm, Steve
wrote:
On 12/27/2009 11:39 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:



On Dec 27, 10:27 pm, Steve Turner
wrote:

Yes, and because of that idiot, those of us who just want to call our wives in
light traffic to ask if we need to bring some milk home will be banned from
doing so.

IIRC, I've been online since about 1994.

In that time, I cannot EVER remember me saying this, but ... it's
time:

When you have to resort to name-calling, it's the surest sign that
you've lost the debate.

Bravo!!!

Oh, you're a real sharp tack.

Hm.

No sense in me checking to verify whether or not I made a mistake ...
since ... you just did it (again?) :-)

Do you know how to read? You certainly seem able to snip things that don't
play into your "argument"...

--
Repeat after me:
"I am we Todd it. I am sofa king we Todd it."
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Robatoy wrote:


Native Americanadian Indians don't recognize the border between the US
and Canada. At least, around these parts, they can work and live on
either side of the border. Maybe that applies to all Native Americans.

Don't think I've ever met a Canadian overseas that wasn't proudly, and
obviously, just that. These guys were the same.

But maybe it was just the times ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:51:56 -0600, Swingman wrote:
A little bit of complex peeking out there, Dave? Who really gives a ****
who got there first, eh? If it makes you feel better, gloat away, Bubba.

Agreed. Just as long as they got in there eventually and did their
best, the rest is just poking with a sharp stick.

Well, that got it back on topic ...

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:45:57 -0600, Steve Turner
those commercial drivers out there that use other forms of "contraptions" to
communicate with their central office or co-workers? Two-way radios? I don't
recall this issue ever coming up with CB radios.

Just because trucker's two way radios are currently in the news
doesn't mean that they're safe. It just means they're not currently up
for discussion.

I think even you'll admit that cell phones on the road out number
truckers two way radios by a very large margin. Cars outnumber trucks
by a large margin. To me anyway, it makes sense that cell phone use by
regular drivers is what should be targeted.

I don't see too many truckers applying their make up or putting on
lipstick while holding a mirror and cell phone and driving at the same
time. Or perhaps reading stock market results while driving and
talking on the cell phone? Cars and cell phones? I've seen all
instances a number of times and I don't even have a car. How can you
refute that cell phones are not a distraction... a distraction for
everybody, no matter who you are?

"Steve Turner" wrote in message
...
On 12/27/2009 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:27:32 -0600, Steve Turner
Fine; I'll restate. For many people, there *are* situations where
driving does
not require 100% of their attention (Mario Andretti driving a Honda
Civic at
28mph in a 35mph zone might be one example).

Just the fact that you're arguing this topic shows everybody that
*you* are one of those people that doesn't have the requisite
awareness to qualify for your ridiculous statement of having enough
brain power left over for something else.

What the hell does that even mean? You have no idea how aware I am of my
surroundings when I'm driving. I *know* my awareness is as good as it
gets, and I *know* it's better than 90% of the other people on the road.
Of course, I can't *prove* it to you, and even though I've had a clean
driving slate for 15 over years,

Come back when you've got Fifty.

On Dec 27, 11:54*pm, Steve Turner
wrote:
On 12/28/2009 12:37 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:



On Dec 27, 11:16 pm, Steve
wrote:
On 12/27/2009 11:39 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:

On Dec 27, 10:27 pm, Steve Turner
* *wrote:

Yes, and because of that idiot, those of us who just want to call our wives in
light traffic to ask if we need to bring some milk home will be banned from
doing so.

IIRC, I've been online since about 1994.

In that time, I cannot EVER remember me saying this, but ... it's
time:

When you have to resort to name-calling, it's the surest sign that
you've lost the debate.

Bravo!!!

Oh, you're a real sharp tack.

Hm.

No sense in me checking to verify whether or not I made a mistake ...
since ... you just did it (again?) :-)

Do you know how to read? *

Exceptionally well. Thank you!

You certainly seem able to snip things that don't
play into your "argument"...

Your argument.

I was interested in a discussion.

Carry on.

On Dec 28, 2:30*am, Neil Brooks wrote:
..

I was interested in a discussion.


No you're not. You're being a dick.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:45:57 -0600, Steve Turner
those commercial drivers out there that use other forms of "contraptions"
to
communicate with their central office or co-workers? Two-way radios? I
don't
recall this issue ever coming up with CB radios.

Just because trucker's two way radios are currently in the news
doesn't mean that they're safe. It just means they're not currently up
for discussion.

I think even you'll admit that cell phones on the road out number
truckers two way radios by a very large margin. Cars outnumber trucks
by a large margin. To me anyway, it makes sense that cell phone use by
regular drivers is what should be targeted.

I don't see too many truckers applying their make up or putting on
lipstick while holding a mirror and cell phone and driving at the same
time. Or perhaps reading stock market results while driving and
talking on the cell phone?

Unfortunately far too many of them are travelling tired or wired.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:31:42 -0800, "LDosser"
wrote:
Unfortunately far too many of them are travelling tired or wired.

That, I have heard and also that there's a move in Ontario underway
(or might already be in effect) to limit the number of hours they can
drive.

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...


A cell phone might be the only link to a loved one dying or needing
help right now.


The infamous long stretch of the imagination. How did we ever survive
without them? I've been a cell phone user since shortly after they hit the
market, so I'm not anti-cell phone, but this kind of reasoning is very much
like the line "if it saves just one life, it's worth all of the
inconvenience...". Both are built upon an emotional statement, and not at
all supportable.

--

-Mike-

On 2009-12-28, Swingman wrote:

.....further irrational behavior.

Oh, you mean like your not-so-couched threat to visit great physical
harm on those who offend. Momma notbob never raised such a foolish
child, whackman.

nb

On Dec 28, 12:44*am, Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 28, 2:30*am, Neil Brooks wrote:
.



I was interested in a discussion.

No you're not. You're being a dick.

Ouch.

On 2009-12-28, Mike Marlow wrote:


like the line "if it saves just one life, it's worth all of the
inconvenience...". Both are built upon an emotional statement, and not at
all supportable.

Are you really that thick?

I was recently in an auto accident in which I had to hike half a mile in
snow and freezing cold to reach the nearest phone. I now carry a
pre-paid cell when traveling, despite my dislike of the damn things.
Yes, they are inconvenient and yes, they are worth it.

nb

On Dec 28, 8:50*am, notbob wrote:
On 2009-12-28, Mike Marlow wrote:

like the line "if it saves just one life, it's worth all of the
inconvenience...". *Both are built upon an emotional statement, and not at
all supportable.

Are you really that thick? *

I was recently in an auto accident in which I had to hike half a mile in
snow and freezing cold to reach the nearest phone. *I now carry a
pre-paid cell when traveling, despite my dislike of the damn things.
Yes, they are inconvenient and yes, they are worth it. *

nb

Sounds like you wouldn't have been driving at the time, if you had
one.

No danger to others, then.

On 12/28/2009 1:29 AM, LDosser wrote:
"Steve Turner" wrote in message
...
I *know* my awareness is as good as
it gets, and I *know* it's better than 90% of the other people on the
road. Of course, I can't *prove* it to you, and even though I've had a
clean driving slate for 15 over years,

Come back when you've got Fifty.

Ok, so you've always been a perfect driver, whereas I've made a few mistakes
along the way before I learned my lessons. The fact is, we're both
demonstrably "safe" drivers, but that means nothing in the face of the crusade
to ban the use of cellphones while driving. I can still have my hot cup of
McDonald's coffee in one hand, a hash brown in the other, fiddling the controls
on my road shaking stereo system while checking my look in the vanity mirror,
but the minute I put that cellphone to my ear I'm a *criminal*.

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Dec 28, 9:00*am, Steve Turner
wrote:
On 12/28/2009 1:29 AM, LDosser wrote:

"Steve Turner" wrote in message
...
I *know* my awareness is as good as
it gets, and I *know* it's better than 90% of the other people on the
road. Of course, I can't *prove* it to you, and even though I've had a
clean driving slate for 15 over years,

Come back when you've got Fifty.

Ok, so you've always been a perfect driver, whereas I've made a few mistakes
along the way before I learned my lessons. *The fact is, we're both
demonstrably "safe" drivers, but that means nothing in the face of the crusade
to ban the use of cellphones while driving. *I can still have my hot cup of
McDonald's coffee in one hand, a hash brown in the other, fiddling the controls
on my road shaking stereo system while checking my look in the vanity mirror,
but the minute I put that cellphone to my ear I'm a *criminal*.

Nah.

HUGE numbers of people vocally advocate for enforcement of "distracted
driver" laws that are already on the books of so many municipalities.

But ... those cries seem to fall on deaf (or cell phone distracted)
ears.

Why? I can only speculate.

If municipalities WOULD start enforcing distracted driver laws -- a
proposition with just about zero downside -- then there would BE no
additional law needed.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Swingman
wrote:

Where and what kind of Canadian indians would be serving in the US Army
during that time?

Likely Mohawk, and likely from Akwesasne, which is in both Canada and
the US (NY State).

Sounds like Quebec, which would explain the particular French dialect?

Apparently there were a number of them. If I hadn't gone through it
myself I would be surprised that their participation in that particular
operational area would not be better known.

No one wanted to hear about it then, and obviously fewer could care less
now.

My hat goes off to them in any event ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 12/28/09 9:50 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2009-12-28, Mike wrote:


like the line "if it saves just one life, it's worth all of the
inconvenience...". Both are built upon an emotional statement, and not at
all supportable.

Are you really that thick?

I was recently in an auto accident in which I had to hike half a mile in
snow and freezing cold to reach the nearest phone. I now carry a
pre-paid cell when traveling, despite my dislike of the damn things.
Yes, they are inconvenient and yes, they are worth it.

nb

You're the one being dense.

Yes, the huge spike in cell phone related traffic accidents we've seen
in the last several years is all the result of people calling loved ones
on their death beds or giving instructions on how to diffuse a ticking
time bomb and not people texting or making convenience calls for no
other reason than impatience.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2009-12-28, -MIKE- wrote:

Yes, the huge spike in cell phone related traffic accidents we've seen
in the last several years is all the result of people calling loved ones
on their death beds or giving instructions on how to diffuse a ticking
time bomb and not people texting or making convenience calls for no
other reason than impatience.

Yeah, that's the same thing.

nb