On 05/06/2010 02:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Please, Jack. They're insured.

Please Larry, BP is self-insured, meaning, no, they are NOT insured.

Huh? "Self insured" IS insured.

Think about that for a second. The whole point of insurance is to pay
someone else to assume the risk on the behalf of the insured entity.
Generally it's done because the entity buying the insurance cannot or
doesn't want to incur all the risk themselves.

If BP is "self-insured" it means that they're not actually insured, but
rather that they've chosen to assume the risk themselves.

Chris

On Thu, 06 May 2010 15:00:44 -0600, Chris Friesen
wrote:

Think about that for a second. The whole point of insurance is to pay
someone else to assume the risk on the behalf of the insured entity.
Generally it's done because the entity buying the insurance cannot or
doesn't want to incur all the risk themselves.

YOU think about it for a second. If they're self insured then they've
had to prove to the powers that be that they have the secure funds on
hand to pay for whatever amount they're insured for. This secure fund
is an insurance entity completely set aside from other day to day
operations. In other words, if they went bankrupt immediately for some
reason, the money would still be available to pay off their insurance
debt.

If all a company had to do to declare self insurance was to put up
their company, then everybody would be going into business for
themselves, take in millions or billions of investor money and then
declare bankruptcy at the first sign of a loss. Self assurance doesn't
work that way.

On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:14:44 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

(Bear in mind that I am way, way, way, a pro-business, free market guy,
I just hate stealing in all its forms.)

Except as evidenced by your exact words below, that you've admitted
when the opportunity for you to steal comes along, you'll do it
happily singing all the way to the bank.

I too have had to pay into a vile public system and I too shall try to
extract what I can from it,

On 05/06/2010 03:19 PM, Upscale wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 15:00:44 -0600, Chris Friesen
wrote:

Think about that for a second. The whole point of insurance is to pay
someone else to assume the risk on the behalf of the insured entity.
Generally it's done because the entity buying the insurance cannot or
doesn't want to incur all the risk themselves.

YOU think about it for a second. If they're self insured then they've
had to prove to the powers that be that they have the secure funds on
hand to pay for whatever amount they're insured for. This secure fund
is an insurance entity completely set aside from other day to day
operations. In other words, if they went bankrupt immediately for some
reason, the money would still be available to pay off their insurance
debt.

I still think there's a distinction there since the corporation is
directly assuming the risk. This makes any claims a direct loss to the
company rather than just a possible increase in insurance rates.

As for having secure funds set aside, it may be different in this
particular case but it's easy to find examples of cases where
self-insured employers have gone bankrupt and there was no money to pay
the claims.

Chris

On 2010-05-06 00:05:49 -0400, Larry Jaques said:

And a 9x16x1/8" poly shield (which I installed as a Ford tech at the
time) fixed the problem Pintos had when they were so rudely rear-ended
at freeway speeds. I sure wish the engineers had foreseen that
horribly blatant "defect", don't you? thud

They did, but the bean counters decided cost of the number of 51-cent
shields required would outweigh the payouts from the inevitable
wrongful death lawsuits. Razzehfratchin' MBAs! (And I are one...)

Chris Friesen wrote:
On 05/06/2010 02:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Please, Jack. They're insured.

Please Larry, BP is self-insured, meaning, no, they are NOT insured.

Huh? "Self insured" IS insured.

Think about that for a second. The whole point of insurance is to pay
someone else to assume the risk on the behalf of the insured entity.
Generally it's done because the entity buying the insurance cannot or
doesn't want to incur all the risk themselves.

If BP is "self-insured" it means that they're not actually insured,
but rather that they've chosen to assume the risk themselves.


"Self-insured" and "Assumed risk" are the same thing. How much is this Gulf
business gonna cost BP? A billion dollars? Ten billion? A hundred billion?

BP total assests, 31 Dec 2009: $235,968,000,000.00.*

They can afford the liability, whatever it is.

You may be interested to know that over half the employer-provided health
insurance in Maine is "self-insured." That is, the employer pays the claim.

-----------

*
http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/js...=bp&period=qtr

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Please, Jack. They're insured.

Please Larry, BP is self-insured, meaning, no, they are NOT insured.

Huh? "Self insured" IS insured. You can't lie about the sufficiency
of your ability to cover potential liabilities to contractors,
employees, or, more importantly, the government who grants the lease.



Really? Do you seriously believe the government does anything remotely
like regular due diligence to ensure that the insurance escrow (or
whatever they use) remains consistent with the risk as the project is
ongoing? Note that this was also the belief when AIG was insuring CDOs
via CDSs and we saw how well that worked out. Trusting the government
to be a responsible overseer is a demonstrably bad bet.

I remain firmly in the camp that regulation should be minimized
because it actually doesn't work very well, BUT that tort remedies in
these sorts of cases should be almost limitless and painful. I know it
is a conservative mantra that we need 'tort reform' and some common
sense boundaries probably do make sense. But the reality here is that
the only thing that will cause needed behavioral change is a sharp
financial feedback mechanism. i.e., BP should have to pay for the mess
they created. Letting them hide behind limits on their self-insurance
(which I'm told do exist) is ridiculous. All that's going to happen is
that they'll continue to enjoy the upside of their investments (which
I heartily approve of) but lay off the downside to the public (which
is profoundly dishonest). BP peed in the pond, they should go clean it
up and make things right with the people affected.

I don't think BP did this intentionally or even negligently. It sure
looks like an accident. But that doesn't vitiate their culpability.
They are a $240B -ish revenue company. Think of how their behavior
might change if cleaning this mess up cost them $5-$10B. They'd
probably reconsider their safety and engineering practices, not to
mention their drilling strategy.

(Bear in mind that I am way, way, way, a pro-business, free market
guy,
I just hate stealing in all its forms.)

And how much contributory negligence is due the shrimp fishermen for plying
their trade in an area where such a contingency was possible? Would it be
your position that in the absence of insurance for the shrip-catchers - or
at the least income protection insurance - is their tough luck?

There is a defensible view that the fishermen took their chances and lost.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/6/2010 4:26 PM, Upscale wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:14:44 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

(Bear in mind that I am way, way, way, a pro-business, free market
guy, I just hate stealing in all its forms.)

Except as evidenced by your exact words below, that you've admitted
when the opportunity for you to steal comes along, you'll do it
happily singing all the way to the bank.

I too have had to pay into a vile public system and I too shall
try to extract what I can from it,

Uh oh, Uppy's awake, however briefly. (And we've already established
just who very heartily supports, endorses, and approves of theft on
a vast scale, haven't we... [and it ain't me]).

If it's legal, it's not theft; just good business.

On 5/6/2010 9:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Please, Jack. They're insured.

Please Larry, BP is self-insured, meaning, no, they are NOT insured.

Huh? "Self insured" IS insured. You can't lie about the sufficiency
of your ability to cover potential liabilities to contractors,
employees, or, more importantly, the government who grants the lease.



Really? Do you seriously believe the government does anything remotely
like regular due diligence to ensure that the insurance escrow (or
whatever they use) remains consistent with the risk as the project is
ongoing? Note that this was also the belief when AIG was insuring CDOs
via CDSs and we saw how well that worked out. Trusting the government
to be a responsible overseer is a demonstrably bad bet.

I remain firmly in the camp that regulation should be minimized
because it actually doesn't work very well, BUT that tort remedies in
these sorts of cases should be almost limitless and painful. I know it
is a conservative mantra that we need 'tort reform' and some common
sense boundaries probably do make sense. But the reality here is that
the only thing that will cause needed behavioral change is a sharp
financial feedback mechanism. i.e., BP should have to pay for the mess
they created. Letting them hide behind limits on their self-insurance
(which I'm told do exist) is ridiculous. All that's going to happen is
that they'll continue to enjoy the upside of their investments (which
I heartily approve of) but lay off the downside to the public (which
is profoundly dishonest). BP peed in the pond, they should go clean it
up and make things right with the people affected.

I don't think BP did this intentionally or even negligently. It sure
looks like an accident. But that doesn't vitiate their culpability.
They are a $240B -ish revenue company. Think of how their behavior
might change if cleaning this mess up cost them $5-$10B. They'd
probably reconsider their safety and engineering practices, not to
mention their drilling strategy.

(Bear in mind that I am way, way, way, a pro-business, free market
guy,
I just hate stealing in all its forms.)

And how much contributory negligence is due the shrimp fishermen for plying
their trade in an area where such a contingency was possible? Would it be
your position that in the absence of insurance for the shrip-catchers - or
at the least income protection insurance - is their tough luck?

There is a defensible view that the fishermen took their chances and lost.

You people have the weirdest notions about sea life. Shrimpers, of
necessity, ply their trade where the shrimp are. They don't put the
shrimp there, they don't control where the shrimp go or what the shrimp
do, all they can do is put their nets down where they hope to find shrimp.

So if there is negligence in the fishery it is on the part of the
shrimp. Perhaps you should explain to them the error of their ways.

On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:12:53 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

Right, they lose billions in loss of a platform, law suits and PR and
this is good for their business because they will have to raise prices
to cover the loss. What are you smoking?

No, they CAN raise prices, covering all that and making a tidy
(several $B) profit on it at the same time.

I quit smoking (2+ packs/day) in '89 and never missed it. I quit
smoking smoking long before that, even before I sobered up.

--
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up
to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine

On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:18:41 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:

If you look at all thats involved in getting oil out of the ground,
refined into gas, distributed to the pumps, and sell it at far less than
Pepsi, Coke, Water and other significant products AFTER taxing the ****
out of it, I generally think about how "they" manage to keep the price
so low.

Can you say "economies of scale", Jack? I knew you could.

I Can, if you can say "return on investment", Larry?

I'm lazy and use ROI instead.


The truth is, Ali Bama, AlGore and the gang won't rest until gas is
around $8 gallon so they can sell their hot air fans to the unsuspecting
public.

True. Ali Bama? New one, deeper than it first looks. vbg

I made it up all by myself, so thanks.

Jewelcome.


--
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up
to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine

On 2010-05-06 21:41:34 -0400, "HeyBub" said:

"Self-insured" and "Assumed risk" are the same thing. How much is this
Gulf business gonna cost BP? A billion dollars? Ten billion? A hundred
billion?

BP total assests, 31 Dec 2009: $235,968,000,000.00.*

They can afford the liability, whatever it is.

How's Halliburton fixed? The fingers are being pointed -- they finshed
cementing the shaft about 20 hours before things went south. This
wasn't the first time one of their cementing jobs failed
catstrophically.

BTW, the latest conspiracy theories claim a North Korean suicide sub
caused the destruction, hoping to force America into detonating a
tactical nulear device to fuse the leaks, thereby compromising the US
position in upcoming non-proliforation talks. (We haven't heard this on
the news because, of course, the government has ordered a blackout on
the conspiracy.* And the US has gone to "Cocked Pistol Alert Status".
) Rush is merely blaming "enviromental whackos." Mark Levin says Obama
dispatched swat teams as a "presursor" to nationalizing the oil
industry!

*Hey -- I don't write 'em, I just report 'em.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1367.htm
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1368.htm

On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:43:19 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

The big difference between the two of us is that I approve of the
benefits of universal healthcare whole heartedly and support it
unconditionally.

Unlike you who consider that healthcare to be a form of stealing, but
admit at the same time that you'd be happy to take from it when you
could.

You see dip****, I don't have any conflict of interest when using
universal healthcare whereas you're completely prepared to immediately
dispose of any ethics you have to benefit from it. That says that
you're a greedy, self-interested hypocrite without the morals to
follow your own code.

Uh oh, Uppy's awake, however briefly. (And we've already established
just who very heartily supports, endorses, and approves of theft on
a vast scale, haven't we... [and it ain't me]).

On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:19:58 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

If it's legal, it's not theft; just good business.

it to another private party. Legal? Yes. Theft? Absolutely.

It's disgusting how you're limited intellect focuses on something as
critical as healthcare to label as theft when daily, there's thousands
of examples of legal monetary but unsavory practices going on that
you're prepared to turn a blind eye to.

On May 6, 10:19*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/6/2010 8:45 PM, HeyBub wrote:





Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/6/2010 4:26 PM, Upscale wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:14:44 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

(Bear in mind that I am way, way, way, a pro-business, free market
guy, I just hate stealing in all its forms.)

Except as evidenced by your exact words below, that you've admitted
when the opportunity for you to steal comes along, you'll do it
happily singing all the way to the bank.

I too have had to pay into a vile public system and I too shall
try to extract what I can from it,

Uh oh, Uppy's awake, however briefly. *(And we've already established
just who very heartily supports, endorses, and approves of theft on
a vast scale, haven't we... [and it ain't me]).

If it's legal, it's not theft; just good business.

Hmm. *I read most of your posts and largely find myself in agreement.
This is somewhat of a turnabout on your part. *

At least HeyBub is being honest and not hypocritical.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Maybe. But I have to tell you that this is a kind of inverted logic
when the victim of negligence/accident/poor judgment is somehow made
culpable. We're not talking about a rudder that got sheared because
it ran afoul
of some flotsam when a shrimper got too close to an oil rig. We're
talking about an entire fishery being neutered. By this line of
reasoning, I'm responsible for the drunk driver that hits me, the
unbalanced psycho that illegally uses a weapon to shoot me, or the
guy that cuts me off in traffic and causes me to roll my truck over
on the highway. Your dog doesn't hunt.

Harrumph. You probably think that women who wear short skirts aren't
inviting rape.

On May 6, 9:17*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
On 5/6/2010 9:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:



Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Please, Jack. *They're insured.

Please Larry, BP is self-insured, meaning, no, they are NOT insured.

Huh? "Self insured" IS insured. You can't lie about the sufficiency
of your ability to cover potential liabilities to contractors,
employees, or, more importantly, the government who grants the lease.

Really? Do you seriously believe the government does anything remotely
like regular due diligence to ensure that the insurance escrow (or
whatever they use) remains consistent with the risk as the project is
ongoing? Note that this was also the belief when AIG was insuring CDOs
via CDSs and we saw how well that worked out. Trusting the government
to be a responsible overseer is a demonstrably bad bet.

I remain firmly in the camp that regulation should be minimized
because it actually doesn't work very well, BUT that tort remedies in
these sorts of cases should be almost limitless and painful. I know it
is a conservative mantra that we need 'tort reform' and some common
sense boundaries probably do make sense. But the reality here is that
the only thing that will cause needed behavioral change is a sharp
financial feedback mechanism. i.e., BP should have to pay for the mess
they created. Letting them hide behind limits on their self-insurance
(which I'm told do exist) is ridiculous. All that's going to happen is
that they'll continue to enjoy the upside of their investments (which
I heartily approve of) but lay off the downside to the public (which
is profoundly dishonest). BP peed in the pond, they should go clean it
up and make things right with the people affected.

I don't think BP did this intentionally or even negligently. *It sure
looks like an accident. *But that doesn't vitiate their culpability.
They are a $240B -ish revenue company. *Think of how their behavior
might change if cleaning this mess up cost them $5-$10B. *They'd
probably reconsider their safety and engineering practices, not to
mention their drilling strategy.

(Bear in mind that I am way, way, way, a pro-business, free market
guy,
I just hate stealing in all its forms.)

And how much contributory negligence is due the shrimp fishermen for plying
their trade in an area where such a contingency was possible? Would it be
your position that in the absence of insurance for the shrip-catchers - or
at the least income protection insurance - is their tough luck?

There is a defensible view that the fishermen took their chances and lost.

You people have the weirdest notions about sea life. *Shrimpers, of
necessity, ply their trade where the shrimp are. *They don't put the
shrimp there, they don't control where the shrimp go or what the shrimp
do, all they can do is put their nets down where they hope to find shrimp..

In what way are the oil companies different. They have to put their
oil rigs where the oil lives.

So if there is negligence in the fishery it is on the part of the
shrimp. *Perhaps you should explain to them the error of their ways.

s/shrimp/oil/

On 5/7/2010 8:26 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Maybe. But I have to tell you that this is a kind of inverted logic
when the victim of negligence/accident/poor judgment is somehow made
culpable. We're not talking about a rudder that got sheared because
it ran afoul
of some flotsam when a shrimper got too close to an oil rig. We're
talking about an entire fishery being neutered. By this line of
reasoning, I'm responsible for the drunk driver that hits me, the
unbalanced psycho that illegally uses a weapon to shoot me, or the
guy that cuts me off in traffic and causes me to roll my truck over
on the highway. Your dog doesn't hunt.

Harrumph. You probably think that women who wear short skirts aren't
inviting rape.

So you would favor legislation that says that any woman raped while not
dressed in accordance with the hijab is at fault and the man who did it
should not be punished for accepting her obvious invitation?

You do realize that what you're saying is the straight Islamic party
line do you not?

On May 7, 8:53*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
On 5/7/2010 8:26 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Maybe. *But I have to tell you that this is a kind of inverted logic
when the victim of negligence/accident/poor judgment is somehow made
culpable. We're not talking about a rudder that got sheared because
it ran afoul
of some flotsam when a shrimper got too close to an oil rig. *We're
talking about an entire fishery being neutered. *By this line of
reasoning, I'm responsible for the drunk driver that hits me, the
unbalanced psycho that illegally uses a weapon to shoot me, or the
guy that cuts me off in traffic and causes me to roll my truck over
on the highway. *Your dog doesn't hunt.

Harrumph. You probably think that women who wear short skirts aren't
inviting rape.

So you would favor legislation that says that any woman raped while not
dressed in accordance with the hijab is at fault and the man who did it
should not be punished for accepting her obvious invitation?

You do realize that what you're saying is the straight Islamic party
line do you not?

Whooooosh!

On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:02:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

I never thought he was being hypocritical, not did I intimate this.

As a whining greedy little baby, your whole existence is based on
being hypocritical.

You hate universal healthcare, but you'll take advantage of it when it
comes your way.

You criticize whatever political party is under discussion, but you
fail in your duty to vote or support anyone.

You are the epitome of hypocrisy. You contribute nothing to this
newsgroup except to inflame rhetoric and argument. Quite the
disgusting little asshole aren't you?

On May 7, 12:56*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/7/2010 11:23 AM, Upscale wrote:

On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:02:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

I never thought he was being hypocritical, not did I intimate this.

As a whining greedy little baby, your whole existence is based on
being hypocritical.

My whole existence is based on being honest and *fair to my fellow
man.



You hate universal healthcare, but you'll take advantage of it when it
comes your way.

I will have no choice. *You and the rest of the villagers with torches
have made it or will make it so. *Since I am not suicidal, I will do what
I need to in order to survive. *This will not keep from calling it what
it is - a wealth redistribution system based on theft... with folks
like you as the armorers.

Situational ethics are your friend.

wrote:
Jack Stein
wrote:

The problem with the Pinto was pretty serious. There were some
mounting bolts for the gas tank that were placed such that when the
car got rear ended, the bolts would pierce the gas tank, and cause the
Pinto to essentially blow up in a fireball.

Gas tanks rupture and cars blow up routinely in car accidents.

I knew two people burned to death in a Pinto during a crash that would
have otherwise been not much more than a fender bender. They were 16
years old.

I witnessed a VW beetle run into the back of a truck and put two small
dents in the hood. The 25 year old driver was dead as a door nail. The
VW had no significant damage to it and the truck didn't even have the
dirt scraped off the bumper. I've seen cars shredded by trains and the
driver lived. Corvairs, VW, Isetta's and todays smart cars (and more)
are/were death traps looking for a place to happen.

Going after just Ford for the Pinto was a Ralph Nader witch hunt. Your
chances of surviving being rear ended by a truck in a pinto had to be
better than getting rear ended in a smart car. Hell, I think a murder
cycle stands a good chance against a smart car or an Isetta.

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

Upscale wrote:
On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:02:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

I never thought he was being hypocritical, not did I intimate this.

As a whining greedy little baby, your whole existence is based on
being hypocritical.

Hypocrisy has a bad rap. Ninety-plus percent of gynecologists are males.

Hypocrisy is perfectly normal: There are those who say it takes a union
journeyman, permits, inspections, certified plans and notaries public
without number to do the simplest things but have no qualms about changing
their own lightbulbs. Anybody who's ever said: "Hold my beer and watch this"
is, in a small way, being a hypocrite. Almost all the time, the advice given
by the "hypocrite" is appropriate for the listener.


You hate universal healthcare, but you'll take advantage of it when it
comes your way.

Uh, yeah. I didn't make the rules so I don't see how I can be criticized for
playing by them. Even if so doing is hypocritical.


You criticize whatever political party is under discussion, but you
fail in your duty to vote or support anyone.

That's not me. I've served on the staff of a U.S. Senator, been elected to
small and large party office, and been elected to (very minor) public
office. I've attended campaign management schools, raised a ****-load of
money, and worked in campaigns. I specialized in dirty tricks, er, "ballot
security."


You are the epitome of hypocrisy. You contribute nothing to this
newsgroup except to inflame rhetoric and argument. Quite the
disgusting little asshole aren't you?

Not ALL assholes are disgusting; after all, who wants to put a round peg in
an oval hole?

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/7/2010 11:23 AM, Upscale wrote:
On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:02:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

I never thought he was being hypocritical, not did I intimate this.

As a whining greedy little baby, your whole existence is based on
being hypocritical.

My whole existence is based on being honest and fair to my fellow
man.


You, of course, are not the only one involved - there's the other party's
actions to consider. By far, the most successful, long-term, strategy is
"Tit-for-Tat." You start off by being fair, and repeat what the other party
does in the fair/not-fair realm.

For example, if you agree that walnuts are $5 for a one-pound sack, you give
an envelope containing $5 for the sack. If the sack contains only four
pounds, the next time you put only $4 in the envelope. If, on the second
exchange, you get a fair weight, you go back to the original agreement.

I, on the other hand, prefer the "Scorched Earth" strategy. I start off by
being fair, and if I am ever treated unfairly, I change my tactic to unfair.
Forever.

Robatoy wrote:

I will have no choice. You and the rest of the villagers with torches
have made it or will make it so. Since I am not suicidal, I will do
what I need to in order to survive. This will not keep from calling
it what it is - a wealth redistribution system based on theft...
with folks like you as the armorers.

Situational ethics are your friend.

That's the liberal view. Put another way, "The end justifies the means."

The religious person holds that morality is absolute and that no good can
come from an immoral act.

The God-fearing person asks: "Is an hour's worth of pleasure worth an
eternity of damnation and being immersed in a firey pit of burning offal?"
The progressive asks: "How can I make it last an hour?"

J. Clarke wrote:
On 5/7/2010 8:26 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Maybe. But I have to tell you that this is a kind of inverted logic
when the victim of negligence/accident/poor judgment is somehow made
culpable. We're not talking about a rudder that got sheared because
it ran afoul
of some flotsam when a shrimper got too close to an oil rig. We're
talking about an entire fishery being neutered. By this line of
reasoning, I'm responsible for the drunk driver that hits me, the
unbalanced psycho that illegally uses a weapon to shoot me, or the
guy that cuts me off in traffic and causes me to roll my truck over
on the highway. Your dog doesn't hunt.

Harrumph. You probably think that women who wear short skirts aren't
inviting rape.

So you would favor legislation that says that any woman raped while
not dressed in accordance with the hijab is at fault and the man who
did it should not be punished for accepting her obvious invitation?

You do realize that what you're saying is the straight Islamic party
line do you not?

Careful. You are attributing thoughts, holdings, and opinions to me that
have no foundation.

It IS true that in 57 nations a woman who gets raped is sometimes considered
at fault for inciting the rapist by her dress. I ask you can 1.3 billion
people be wrong?

On May 7, 4:17*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

Uhhhh, no, Bub... Robatoy did not write that except the last line.

I will have no choice. You and the rest of the villagers with torches
have made it or will make it so. Since I am not suicidal, I will do
what I need to in order to survive. This will not keep from calling
it what it is - a wealth redistribution system based on theft...
with folks like you as the armorers.

Situational ethics are your friend.

That's the liberal view. Put another way, "The end justifies the means."

The religious person holds that morality is absolute and that no good can
come from an immoral act.

The God-fearing person asks: "Is an hour's worth of pleasure worth an
eternity of damnation and being immersed in a firey pit of burning offal?"
The progressive asks: "How can I make it last an hour?"

Yo, Bub!

Robatoy did not write that first quoted paragraph... orrrrr, is that
one of those 'tricks' you learned on the campaign trail? G

Robatoy wrote:
On May 7, 4:17 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

Uhhhh, no, Bub... Robatoy did not write that except the last line.

I will have no choice. You and the rest of the villagers with
torches have made it or will make it so. Since I am not suicidal,
I will do what I need to in order to survive. This will not keep
from calling it what it is - a wealth redistribution system based
on theft... with folks like you as the armorers.

Situational ethics are your friend.

That's the liberal view. Put another way, "The end justifies the
means."

The religious person holds that morality is absolute and that no
good can come from an immoral act.

The God-fearing person asks: "Is an hour's worth of pleasure worth an
eternity of damnation and being immersed in a firey pit of burning
offal?" The progressive asks: "How can I make it last an hour?"

Yo, Bub!

Robatoy did not write that first quoted paragraph.

Didn't he say "situational ethics is your friend?"

... orrrrr, is that
one of those 'tricks' you learned on the campaign trail? G

My hero was Dick Tuck (who had a hard-on for Richard Nixon).

In one whistle-stop tour, Tuck hired four VERY pregnant women to stand on
the rope-line carrying signs that said "Nixon's the One!"

You can imagine what photo appeared in every newspaper in the country the
next day.

Speaking of pictures... When George Murphy ran against Pierre Salinger for
California's senate seat, Murphy paid one of the press members traveling
with the Salinger campaign to keep Salinger supplied with quality cigars.
Virtually every photo of Salinger that ran in the press showed him with a
fat stogie stuck in his face. Murphy was able to pin the label of Mob Boss
on Salinger, and had art to prove it.

wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:22:11 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
On 5/7/2010 8:26 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Maybe. But I have to tell you that this is a kind of inverted
logic when the victim of negligence/accident/poor judgment is
somehow made culpable. We're not talking about a rudder that got
sheared because it ran afoul
of some flotsam when a shrimper got too close to an oil rig.
We're talking about an entire fishery being neutered. By this
line of reasoning, I'm responsible for the drunk driver that hits
me, the unbalanced psycho that illegally uses a weapon to shoot
me, or the guy that cuts me off in traffic and causes me to roll
my truck over on the highway. Your dog doesn't hunt.

Harrumph. You probably think that women who wear short skirts
aren't inviting rape.

So you would favor legislation that says that any woman raped while
not dressed in accordance with the hijab is at fault and the man who
did it should not be punished for accepting her obvious invitation?

You do realize that what you're saying is the straight Islamic party
line do you not?

Careful. You are attributing thoughts, holdings, and opinions to me
that have no foundation.

It IS true that in 57 nations a woman who gets raped is sometimes
considered at fault for inciting the rapist by her dress. I ask you
can 1.3 billion people be wrong?


Please relocate to one of those countries that you feel is superior to
the United States of America.

And just what make you think I feel any country is superior to the US of A?
I merely asked a non-rhetorical question.

There seems to be a good bit of jumping to conclusions around. Perhaps you
should heed the advice of one of our greatest generals: "We-he-ell, uh, I'd
like to hold off judgement on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts
are in."

"Jack Stein" wrote
Corvairs, VW, Isetta's and todays smart cars (and more) are/were death
traps looking for a place to happen.

I got T-boned on the driver's door in my Corvair by a Mach truck pulling a
flatbed. I needed a Band-Aid. Sturdy thing; with I still had it.



Going after just Ford for the Pinto was a Ralph Nader witch hunt. Your
chances of surviving being rear ended by a truck in a pinto had to be
better than getting rear ended in a smart car. Hell, I think a murder
cycle stands a good chance against a smart car or an Isetta.

You've seen the Smart crash tests on You Tube right?

On 2010-05-07 23:11:24 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" said:

You've seen the Smart crash tests on You Tube right?

And you've seen the Chery (sic) crash tests as well?

On 2010-05-07 21:19:23 -0400, "HeyBub" said:

In one whistle-stop tour, Tuck hired four VERY pregnant women to stand
on the rope-line carrying signs that said "Nixon's the One!"

But, of course, Dick didn't smear Helen Gahagen Douglas...

On 5/7/2010 11:11 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Jack Stein" wrote
Corvairs, VW, Isetta's and todays smart cars (and more) are/were death
traps looking for a place to happen.

I got T-boned on the driver's door in my Corvair by a Mach truck pulling
a flatbed. I needed a Band-Aid. Sturdy thing; with I still had it.



Going after just Ford for the Pinto was a Ralph Nader witch hunt.

Uh, Nader made his reputation going after GM for the Corvair, then
flushed it going after the Beetle.

Your
chances of surviving being rear ended by a truck in a pinto had to be
better than getting rear ended in a smart car. Hell, I think a murder
cycle stands a good chance against a smart car or an Isetta.

You've seen the Smart crash tests on You Tube right?

wrote:

On May 7, 8:53Â*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
On 5/7/2010 8:26 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Maybe. Â*But I have to tell you that this is a kind of inverted logic
when the victim of negligence/accident/poor judgment is somehow made
culpable. We're not talking about a rudder that got sheared because
it ran afoul
of some flotsam when a shrimper got too close to an oil rig. Â*We're
talking about an entire fishery being neutered. Â*By this line of
reasoning, I'm responsible for the drunk driver that hits me, the
unbalanced psycho that illegally uses a weapon to shoot me, or the
guy that cuts me off in traffic and causes me to roll my truck over
on the highway. Â*Your dog doesn't hunt.

Harrumph. You probably think that women who wear short skirts aren't
inviting rape.

So you would favor legislation that says that any woman raped while not
dressed in accordance with the hijab is at fault and the man who did it
should not be punished for accepting her obvious invitation?

You do realize that what you're saying is the straight Islamic party
line do you not?

Whooooosh!

Yeah, some people don't catch sarcasm very well, do they?

[Hint to the clueless -- HeyBub's comment did not in any way imply *he*
thinks that women wearing short skirts invite rape]
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Fri, 07 May 2010 23:36:13 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

wrote:

On May 7, 8:53Â*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
On 5/7/2010 8:26 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Maybe. Â*But I have to tell you that this is a kind of inverted logic
when the victim of negligence/accident/poor judgment is somehow made
culpable. We're not talking about a rudder that got sheared because
it ran afoul
of some flotsam when a shrimper got too close to an oil rig. Â*We're
talking about an entire fishery being neutered. Â*By this line of
reasoning, I'm responsible for the drunk driver that hits me, the
unbalanced psycho that illegally uses a weapon to shoot me, or the
guy that cuts me off in traffic and causes me to roll my truck over
on the highway. Â*Your dog doesn't hunt.

Harrumph. You probably think that women who wear short skirts aren't
inviting rape.

So you would favor legislation that says that any woman raped while not
dressed in accordance with the hijab is at fault and the man who did it
should not be punished for accepting her obvious invitation?

You do realize that what you're saying is the straight Islamic party
line do you not?

Whooooosh!

Yeah, some people don't catch sarcasm very well, do they?

[Hint to the clueless -- HeyBub's comment did not in any way imply *he*
thinks that women wearing short skirts invite rape]

Some only will see what they want to see.

On Sat, 08 May 2010 06:46:16 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 20:25:23 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:22:11 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
On 5/7/2010 8:26 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Maybe. But I have to tell you that this is a kind of inverted
logic when the victim of negligence/accident/poor judgment is
somehow made culpable. We're not talking about a rudder that got
sheared because it ran afoul
of some flotsam when a shrimper got too close to an oil rig.
We're talking about an entire fishery being neutered. By this
line of reasoning, I'm responsible for the drunk driver that hits
me, the unbalanced psycho that illegally uses a weapon to shoot
me, or the guy that cuts me off in traffic and causes me to roll
my truck over on the highway. Your dog doesn't hunt.

Harrumph. You probably think that women who wear short skirts
aren't inviting rape.

So you would favor legislation that says that any woman raped while
not dressed in accordance with the hijab is at fault and the man who
did it should not be punished for accepting her obvious invitation?

You do realize that what you're saying is the straight Islamic party
line do you not?

Careful. You are attributing thoughts, holdings, and opinions to me
that have no foundation.

It IS true that in 57 nations a woman who gets raped is sometimes
considered at fault for inciting the rapist by her dress. I ask you
can 1.3 billion people be wrong?


Please relocate to one of those countries that you feel is superior to
the United States of America.

And just what make you think I feel any country is superior to the US of A?

Your own post makes me think that. You clearly think that what those
57 other countries do makes it right, and superior to the way the
United States views the same issue.

No, no, it's 57 *states* of the United States. Haven't you listened to Obama?

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Jack Stein" wrote
Corvairs, VW, Isetta's and todays smart cars (and more) are/were
death traps looking for a place to happen.

I got T-boned on the driver's door in my Corvair by a Mach truck pulling
a flatbed. I needed a Band-Aid. Sturdy thing; with I still had it.

Sturdy my ass. The Corvair was a death trap, just like the Pinto and
about every other small car of it's day.

Going after just Ford for the Pinto was a Ralph Nader witch hunt.
Your chances of surviving being rear ended by a truck in a pinto had
to be better than getting rear ended in a smart car. Hell, I think a
murder cycle stands a good chance against a smart car or an Isetta.

You've seen the Smart crash tests on You Tube right?

No, have they done something to defy the laws of physics?

--
Jack
Got Change: Now CHANGE IT BACK!
http://jbstein.com

wrote:
On Fri, 07 May 2010 13:50:50 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote:

wrote:
Jack Stein
wrote:
The problem with the Pinto was pretty serious. There were some
mounting bolts for the gas tank that were placed such that when the
car got rear ended, the bolts would pierce the gas tank, and cause the
Pinto to essentially blow up in a fireball.
Gas tanks rupture and cars blow up routinely in car accidents.


Not like this. Pinto's were known as "gas bombs".

Yes, thats what they were known as. Turns out that about as many people
died in fiery crashes in Pintos as in other popular cars of that time.
You could get dead in a VW or a Corvair simply by a dirty look from a
pickup truck.

They
additionally had a problem with doors that jammed when the car was
rear ended, that made it impossible to get out of the burning car.

Yeah, laws of physics are a bitch.

--
Jack
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
http://jbstein.com

J. Clarke wrote:
On 5/7/2010 11:11 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Jack Stein" wrote
Corvairs, VW, Isetta's and todays smart cars (and more) are/were death
traps looking for a place to happen.

I got T-boned on the driver's door in my Corvair by a Mach truck pulling
a flatbed. I needed a Band-Aid. Sturdy thing; with I still had it.

Going after just Ford for the Pinto was a Ralph Nader witch hunt.

Uh, Nader made his reputation going after GM for the Corvair, then
flushed it going after the Beetle.

You could be right, my memory is him going after the Pinto. The Corvair
and the Beetle were death traps as well, but I only recall news stories
about him and the Pinto. Some people still think the Corvair was a
"Sturdy thing" It wasn't, and neither were the VW or the Isetta or a
slew of other small cars. People burning up in fiery crashes were
about the same in the Pinto as any other car, but the world was
convinced Pinto's had a corner on the market, and they didn't.

The real danger was simply physics. Low weight, small vehicle hitting a
higher weight, large vehicle. The small guy loses most every time.

--
Jack
Got Change: Now CHANGE IT BACK!
http://jbstein.com

On Fri, 07 May 2010 14:11:11 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 07 May 2010 13:50:50 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote:

wrote:
Jack Stein
wrote:

The problem with the Pinto was pretty serious. There were some
mounting bolts for the gas tank that were placed such that when the
car got rear ended, the bolts would pierce the gas tank, and cause the
Pinto to essentially blow up in a fireball.

Gas tanks rupture and cars blow up routinely in car accidents.


Not like this. Pinto's were known as "gas bombs". This wasn't one or
two isolated instances. The Pinto had a fatal design defect that made
them extremely vulnerable in even a minor rear end collision. They
additionally had a problem with doors that jammed when the car was
rear ended, that made it impossible to get out of the burning car.
Ford acknowledged the problem existed. They knew about the problem
before the first Pinto was ever sold. They were bursting into flame
during pre-production safety testing. Ford did a cost benefit
analysis, and the accountants said it was cheaper to pay out
settlements than provide an $11 fix to each Pinto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcNeorjXMrE

http://motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness

Remember following one on the Jersey Pike with one of these on the rear deck:

http://www.mysafetylabels.com/Explos...wizardid=23403

I thought it strange that they'd be using such a small car to carry
explosives, until I noticed that it was a Pinto.