Liberties, today, yesterday
Moira
number of documents from my dad.. employment records, discharge from
the army etc..
What is interesting is the number of times he was formally warned or
had to sign acknowledgment about certain groups.. At his discharge
there is a 3 page sheet listing organizations as Subversive,
Fascists, Communist and other categories. This particular document
was given to him to warn him away from joining these groups.
A sample of the groups (there must be at least 300 listed) are from:
the Communist Party,
American Christian Nationalist Party,
American Jewish Labor Council,
American League Against War and Fascism,
American Polish League - oh yeah this one is dangerous,
Columbians - that's right that's all it states - Columbians
Committee to Uphold the Bill of Rights
Congress of American Woman
Council of Greek Americans
German-American Republican League
Industrial Workers of the World
Harlem Trade Council
Michigan Civil Rights Federation
Michigan School of Social Science - michigan apparently is a hotbed of
Subversive activity
National Committee for Freedom of the Press
National Council of Americans of Croatian Descent - (there is at least
3 lines about Croats, must be bad group.)
National Negro Congress
Ku Klux Klan - get both sides on these 2 groups.
People's Radio Foundation
Polonia Society of the IWO
Sakura Kai
Samuel Adams School in Boston Mass
Santa Barbara Peace Forum
Ukranian-American Fraternal Union
Washington Bookshop Association
Yugoslav Seamen's Club
Yiddisher Kultur FArband
Later he applied for a job in engineering and had to sign a
"Certificate of NonAffiliation with Certain Organizations" - the list
is extensive.. many of the same names on list
Finally there is a 4 page document from one of his employers which was
to be signed stating you have read, understood and were prepared to
follow the enclosed "Federal Espionage and Sabotage Acts" and it
goes on and on..
So perhaps our Liberties back in the late 40's and 50's was not so
"open".. Have our liberties been expanded or contracted since early
1950.. Interesting
Moira
John W. Vinson
wrote:
>So perhaps our Liberties back in the late 40's and 50's was not so
>"open".. Have our liberties been expanded or contracted since early
>1950.. Interesting
When I went through my Selective Service draft physical in 1967, we were given
a very similar (more extensive, I think it was three columns on a page in
small type) list. Someone complained that there was no way to read the whole
list in the brief time allowed. The sergeant in charge growled that "These are
all Communist front organizations, you know if you belong to one of them!"
If I'd had more courage I would have replied (in my best Arkansas drawl) "Suh,
Ah had no idea that the Association of Georgia Klans was a Commie front!"
--
John the Wysard JVinson *at* Wysard Of Info *dot* com
Lemmiwinks
2d6627...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
We gain and we lose. Mcarthyism took away. Afterwards, we gained ground.
It has been eroding since.
Victor Belenko, the Soviet Mig pilot who defected remembered being told
that members of the American Communist Party were persecuted. His first
thought was WTF? They allow a Communist Party? The Soviets would have
never allowed a Democratic party.
Two meter troll
lol i picked up on the washington book sellers :) (look look its a
librarian and shes a commie; see what she has let that child read
its...................Irish red, by jim kilguard. obviously a comunist
book just look at the title.)
Barry Gold
>I have recently been going through family records and have found a
>number of documents from my dad.. employment records, discharge from
>the army etc..
>
>What is interesting is the number of times he was formally warned or
>had to sign acknowledgment about certain groups.. At his discharge
>there is a 3 page sheet listing organizations as Subversive,
>Fascists, Communist and other categories. This particular document
>was given to him to warn him away from joining these groups.
>Finally there is a 4 page document from one of his employers which was
>to be signed stating you have read, understood and were prepared to
>follow the enclosed "Federal Espionage and Sabotage Acts" and it
>goes on and on..
>
>So perhaps our Liberties back in the late 40's and 50's was not so
>"open".. Have our liberties been expanded or contracted since early
>1950.. Interesting
Overall, I would say we have more _personal_ liberty than in 1950s.
Books that were "banned in Boston" (and almost everywhere else) can
now be bought on bookstore shelves (or in "adult" bookstores). The
most amazing things can be found on the web.
It used to be illegal to be gay, then to engage in sex with another
man (or woman if you're a woman). Blacks: back of the bus, separate
waiting rooms, etc. Abortion was illegal.
There is _still_ a long list of organizations. You'll see it if
you're ever requird to fill out the e-QIP (electronic questionnaire).
But for the most part it only affects you if you want a job that
requires a security clearance -- basically work for a defense
contractor or for the DoD, an intelligence agency -- or certain jobs
in the White House or Congress (e.g., to be on the Joint Intelligence
Committee). I've held 3 jobs that required a clearance -- and 5 that
didn't.
To get a security clearance, you list your name, everywhere you've
lived in the past 7 years (10 for Top Secret), every organization
you've ever joined (LASFS,, ValSFA, every convention I ever attended,
Associated Students at two colleges, YMCA at Tech...), the names and
addresses of your parents, in-laws (if married). If you've seen a
mental health professional in the last 7 years they want to know about
it (and will probably inspect the recrods). Oddly enough, you don't
have to report marital counseling.
Our right to have a lawyer, to not be forced to testify against
ourselves, to "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures" are much stronger than when in the
1950s.
Women can work at almost any job (including serving in the regular
military as opposed to a separate corps that just provides "morale"
and nursing services).
OTOH, our right to "keep and bear arms" is more limited than in the
1950s (in most places). There a few bright points: some states have
"shall issue" laws that allow everybody except convicted felons to
possess and carry firearms (including concealed weapons). And SCOTUS
recently decided that the 2nd amendment applied to the states as well
as to Congress.
The area where we've lost the most, though, is in our economic
liberties. In the 1950s, you could make almost any deal you wanted.
Now there are laws against "price gouging" (charging more than some
prosecutor thinks you should), many large cities have "rent
control"(*), and an amazingly large number of activities carry
regulations of one sort or another.
Again, though, this is a mixed bag. Banking regulations, which were
quite strong from the 30s to the 70s, have been loosened up. (And we
saw how well that worked...) Tariffs are down and we have nearly
open trade with much of the rest of the world (WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA,
etc.)
Prostitution is still illegal in 49 states + DC (and the two biggest
cities in the 50th state), but... look up "erotic services" on
craigslist.com.
Overall, I would say that we have more freedom than back then, but
there are certainly areas where we've lost ground.
(*) This is as much a limit on how much a tenant is allowed to offer
as on how much a landlord can ask for. If you see a beautiful
apartment and would like to offer $2000/month to make sure it goes to
you instead of somebody else, that isn't allowed: the landlord can
only charge whatever the controlled rent is.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Alarums & Excursions, Xenofilkia: http://places.to/xeno
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.: http://www.lasfsinc.org
Harry Mary Andruschak
> Columbians - that's right that's all it states - Columbians
Perhaps the Knights Of Columbus. A Catholic Organization.
Surprised that The Legion Of Mary didn't make the list.
trinlay
> Moira <moi...@abraxasgroup.net> wrote in news:d033ad35-01a5-4dc0-99c2-
>
> > So perhaps our Liberties back in the late 40's and 50's was not so
> > "open".. Have our liberties been expanded or contracted since early
> > 1950.. Interesting
>
well, for starters, I have friends of various faiths, colors, sizes
and shapes...
My faith, color, at least theoretically doesn't limit where I can be
employed or where I can shop or eat.
(My parents remember being limited in their job opportunities by both
faith and race...)
In the 1950s I wouldn't be able to live in the neighborhood where I
currently live. (The deed for the home when my landlords parents
bought it in the early 60s, contained phrasing that said that the
house was only to be sold or rented to a White Christian person....)
Erin
> Moira <moi...@abraxasgroup.net> wrote in news:d033ad35-01a5-4dc0-99c2-
Additionally, if you're looking at "liberties" afforded to members of
the military vs. overall liberties for the general public, you're
trying to compare apples and oranges. As an army wife, I can tell you
that there are MANY organizations, activities, etc., that military
members are not permitted to engage in that would be "allowed" for the
general public.
Plus, when talking about eroding liberties, perhaps it's not fully
appropriate to compare to the 40s and 50s. I'd be more likely to
compare liberties and freedoms to a decade ago rather than 60 years
ago. I've rarely (if ever) heard someone say that we were more "free"
in the 40s than we are now. I do, however, hear comparisons to 10-15
years prior (especially wrt law enforcement encroachment into personal
liberties).
Erin
Two meter troll
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would actually have to disagree with this Erin i think you have to
look to before the 30's. IMO folks had much more freedom because it
was hard to track them all over the place there where few police and
local moors where the rule instead of some moronic law made in a place
50 miles away.
IMO the ease of travel and the speed of communications has taken many
freedoms away. at one time you could find communities that you could
be safe walking the streets and the fella poaching a deer would get a
fair shake if he actually had reasion for the poaching. these days the
brush runs from washington and spans the country so for any given
"crime" you get tried by some guy who has never lived in your
community, has no idea of what might have driven you to do the thing,
and the punishment these days is just stupid. putting old ron in jail
for brewing up 150 gallons of hootch has almost no effect; having a
whole town of church ladies cooning (keeping an eye on) old Ron sure
does. as a benifit to ron cutting down production from 150 to 100 gal
he now is on a first name bases with the local widow population.
importing or exporting some extreamist idea was alot harder and things
didnt catch very quickly. say a new religion springs up in the east
and spreads like wild fire to the missippi, it most likly would not
make it to oregon and certenly not to alaska. the push to connect the
country is what has killed our freedoms
Sean Cleary
background checked enough.
I had a Top Secret clearance. Likely as manager and as engineer that
Dad did too.
Under such a clearance, or if you desire such, your liberties are
restricted. But you are free to quit without going to jail or other
such.
Sean
Erin
I think what you're illustrating is the danger of lumping "liberties"
and "freedoms" into one broad category. As it's been mentioned
elsethread, we gain, we lose, and regardless of one's political stance
regarding personal liberties (or lack thereof) we could find arguments
and evidence on either side :-)
Erin
Two meter troll
point
they however look kinda the same from the north slope and 300 miles
from shore all over the world.
its kinda hard to not have freedoms or liberties if you dont have
folks to take them from you.
Sean Cleary
I feel that we lost some in the Carter era (mostly telecom/Ham radio
that I am familiar with),
and a huge amount in the Patriot act. I am voting Democrat until 1) we
get most of them back 2) the Dems do something equally stupid and
nasty.
Sean
Wes Struebing
Hmm. They must have done away with it when I went in for mine (this
was 1970). There WAS a paper that we had to sign - something about
never having been a member of the Communist Party or advocating the
overthrow of the US (as if someone might sign that. Um, no - not even
for failing the draft physical. (I did notice that "physical" was
somewhat a misnomer...)
--
Wes Struebing
Jan. 20, 2009 - the end of an error
John W. Vinson
wrote:
>There WAS a paper that we had to sign - something about
>never having been a member of the Communist Party or advocating the
>overthrow of the US
"Do you favor the overthrow of the US government by force or violence?"
"Well... I guess if I have to choose, I'd say force!"
Denny Wheeler
<eawi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>IMO the ease of travel and the speed of communications has taken many
>freedoms away. at one time you could find communities that you could
>be safe walking the streets and the fella poaching a deer would get a
>fair shake if he actually had reasion for the poaching.
Not only that, but you were free to have your sheriff tell the
coloreds, "Don't let the sun set on you in this town, niggah." And
you were free to exclude Jews from your neighborhood. Oh, and of
course you were free to chase godless heathens out of your area, too.
Want more? There was the freedom to die from polio or diabetes, or to
be a pariah because you were epileptic. Oh, and the freedom to look
down on someone who was still young but walked with a cane--he was
obviously a somewhat useless 'crip'. And you were free to love anyone
you wished--so long as they were of the opposite sex and the same skin
shade.
Shall we discuss the freedom to dump poisons by the ton into the air
and water? Had that freedom then, too.
All that said--I do see your point about big government vs local
sensibility. There were a lot of good things lost from those times,
but we can't forget the good changes, either.
-denny-
--
"...our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and
welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be
secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism:
'Our country--when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put
right.'" - Carl Schurz, in 1899
Lemmiwinks
73d1ff...@a17g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
I had a Top Secret clearance also. Those who have never served would not
believe the restrictions that imposes on you. Just the travel restictions
alone drove me to frustration. Back in the 70s I wanted to visit Berlin...
Not allowed. That was a wake up call.
Chris Zakes
One thing to bear in mind is that while the *name* may sound innocuous
enough, there's no telling--just from that name--what the group was
actually doing.
Pulling a few at random and doing a bit of googling...
The People's Radio Foundation was, apparently a "leftist" organization
trying to decrease corporate monopolies in broadcasting and radio
stations.
http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1759/1874
The Committee to Uphold the Bill of Rights "which has been created to
defend the Communist leaders who were indicted for violating the
provisions of the Smith Act."
http://www.archive.org/stream/annualreportfory1951unit/annualreportfory1951unit_djvu.txt
Yugoslav Seamen's Club "Primarily consisting of Croatian seamen and
shipyard and dockworkers, the Club was a Communist-controlled front
organization. It nevertheless achieved great importance in the
Croatian-American community and, during World War 11, became one of
the most vocal supporters- of Tito's Partisans."
http://www.croatians.com/BIOGRAPHY-AMERICA-A-J.htm
So from a McCarthyist point of view, these *are* subversive groups,
especially the last two.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
We shall swim out to that brooding reef in the sea and dive down through black
abysses to cyclopean and many-columned Y'ha-nthlei, and in that lair of the Deep
Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory for ever.
-H.P. Lovecraft, "The Shadow Over Innsmouth"
Two meter troll
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:37:32 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll
>
I have no argument with that.
somtime between then and now there was a point when freedoms and
liberties and fouls and haterids balanced.
the problem with most of the sociaty we have today is no one
(referring to social groups) is looking for real balance.
every one has an agenda and thinks the ball needs to swing over here
cause that wuold remove this thing i dont like.
Me i want the bloody ball to be in the middle with as little swinging
as possable.
while the argument "conflict causes evolution" may be true. we could
use a bit of getting used to an idea before we have to evolve again.
David
typed furiously:
>On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:42:48 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
>laser caused Moira <moi...@abraxasgroup.net> to write:
>
[,,,]
>
>One thing to bear in mind is that while the *name* may sound innocuous
>enough, there's no telling--just from that name--what the group was
>actually doing.
>
>Pulling a few at random and doing a bit of googling...
>
>The People's Radio Foundation was, apparently a "leftist" organization
>trying to decrease corporate monopolies in broadcasting and radio
>stations.
>http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1759/1874
>
Why would that be considered a bad thing?
--
David
No email replies please.
So I'm right. Period.
Anyone who believes different is retarded.
(Stolen from JJRussell, alt.funnytown)
(Originally posted by Jami JoAnne in alt.folklore.urban)
Matthew T. Russotto
>wrote:
>
>>There WAS a paper that we had to sign - something about
>>never having been a member of the Communist Party or advocating the
>>overthrow of the US
>
>"Do you favor the overthrow of the US government by force or violence?"
>"Well... I guess if I have to choose, I'd say force!"
Alternate answer: "Only if threats don't work".
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Wes Struebing
<jvinson@STOP_SPAM.WysardOfInfo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:52:01 -0600, Wes Struebing <str...@carpedementem.org>
>wrote:
>
>>There WAS a paper that we had to sign - something about
>>never having been a member of the Communist Party or advocating the
>>overthrow of the US
>
>"Do you favor the overthrow of the US government by force or violence?"
>"Well... I guess if I have to choose, I'd say force!"
(the Graybeard sprays his coffee over the monitor)
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
You've been reading the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers again,haven't
you? (remember Fat Freddie's Cat?)
Denny Wheeler
>So from a McCarthyist point of view, these *are* subversive groups,
>especially the last two.
From a McCarthyist pov, the DAR was a subversive group.
Denny Wheeler
Yeah. My brother is--or was, for many years (he's retired)--one of
the very top guys anywhere when it came to satellite guidance and
control. There was--in the 70s, I think--a very top-level scientific
conference involving matters of that sort. His invitation was
accompanied by a not-at-all-subtle "suggestion" that his best choice
was to politely decline.
Conference was in Moscow. (not Idaho)
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:54:26 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>typed furiously:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:42:48 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
>>laser caused Moira <moi...@abraxasgroup.net> to write:
>>
>[,,,]
>>
>>One thing to bear in mind is that while the *name* may sound innocuous
>>enough, there's no telling--just from that name--what the group was
>>actually doing.
>>
>>Pulling a few at random and doing a bit of googling...
>>
>>The People's Radio Foundation was, apparently a "leftist" organization
>>trying to decrease corporate monopolies in broadcasting and radio
>>stations.
>>http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1759/1874
>>
>Why would that be considered a bad thing?
Well, if you owe a 'sponsor-type' debt to Big Broadcasting...
John W. Vinson
wrote:
>>"Do you favor the overthrow of the US government by force or violence?"
>>"Well... I guess if I have to choose, I'd say force!"
>
>
>(the Graybeard sprays his coffee over the monitor)
>
>888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
>
>You've been reading the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers again,haven't
>you?
Not for a LONG time. I think I have a couple of books of them out in the boxes
in the garage though...
> (remember Fat Freddie's Cat?)
OHHHH yes.
Jim Hetley
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:54:26 -0500, Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So from a McCarthyist point of view, these *are* subversive groups,
> >especially the last two.
>
> From a McCarthyist pov, the DAR was a subversive group.
>
"If Mommy is a Commie then you've got to turn her in!"
Jim
Thorney
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:52:01 -0600, Wes Struebing <str...@carpedementem.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>> There WAS a paper that we had to sign - something about
>> never having been a member of the Communist Party or advocating the
>> overthrow of the US
>>
>
> "Do you favor the overthrow of the US government by force or violence?"
> "Well... I guess if I have to choose, I'd say force!"
>
It is amazing how often you run into these strange rules, and how often
they collapse if
you blow on them. (Not always, unfortunately.)
In the early 1960's, I took a US government job (not politically
sensitive.) Among the
papers they presented me to sign on hiring was one swearing that I was
not friends
with any homosexuals. I inquired of the personnel man whether I could
be friendly
with them as people rather than in their capacity as homosexuals."It's a
stupid rule,"
he said, "but Congress stuck us with it. Ignore it and sign." (Yes, I
was also required
to sign that I was not a member of any of that long list of
organizations. I wasn't
a member of any, but I did keep the list for awhile and managed to get
on the mailing
list of several of them. Most amusing stuff, mainly.)
In 1965, I applied for a Passport - in those days the Passport office
still required a
loyalty oath, with no legal foundation for the requirement (the courts
have since thrown
this out.) Instead of applying by mail, I went to a Passport office. I
filled out the form and
went to the window. The clerk stuck his right hand in my face and said,
so quickly as to be
unintelligible, something like "Do you solemnly swear to defend and
support the Constitution
and Laws of the United States, go help you God?" I stuck my right hand
up and said,
"No." Somewhat complex discussions ensued (I offered to affirm the
thing if he would let me
add "except by force of arms") and eventually the matter was referred to
Washington. Two or
three weeks later I received the passport, without taking the oath.
In the late 1960's (recall the context, Vietnam) I had a grant from
the National Science
Foundation. They also required the loyalty oath, and again I asked to
negotiate. They said
back, approximately, "Congress put the rule on, so we can't change it,
but we have no idea what
they meant to achieve by it, so you can mean anything you want by it."
I signed the paper,
and stapled to it a letter stating that it was my understanding that the
phrasing required by
Congress was not intended to require any action prohibited by my
conscientiously held
religious beliefs, nor to prohibit any action required by my
conscientiously held religious
beliefs.
As a consequence of this, I now consider myself morally bound not to
overthrow the
Constitution of the United States frivolously.
[Somehow that joke seemed much funnier 30 years ago than it does today.
Quite a few of
my former students work for the National Security Agency, mining e-mails
for provocative phrases.
OK, you guys, I'm joking.]
Much more recently, I have a son (now fully grown and very respectable)
who had a drug problem
in adolescence. Years after that, and years ago, he had a job requiring
a security clearance. He was
given a form to fill out with a very long list of drugs and an inquiry
as to whether he had taken any
of them. He checked off a few of them, and then added a footnote "I
probably took several of the
others too, but don't know which ones as I was on drugs at the time."
He got the security clearance,
although he was told "please don't apply for a higher level one."
--
Thorney
------------
A few of my past posts are at
http://www.geocities.com/Thorney1z/stories.html
Thorney
mp3s. I like playing that one.
Chris Zakes
So why didn't they want him to go to Texas?
http://www.texasescapes.com/EastTexasTowns/Moscow-Texas.htm
-Chris Zakes
Texas
As for myself, I am simply Hop-Frog, the jester--and this is my last jest.
-"Hop-Frog" by Edgar Allen Poe
Chris Zakes
caused Denny Wheeler <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> to write:
>On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:54:26 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>So from a McCarthyist point of view, these *are* subversive groups,
>>especially the last two.
>
>From a McCarthyist pov, the DAR was a subversive group.
>
>-denny-
Well, yeah, but that's because they had the word "revolution" in their
name. We all know revolutions are Bad. <G>
Chris Zakes
caused David <faro...@picknowl.com.au> to write:
>On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:54:26 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>typed furiously:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:42:48 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
>>laser caused Moira <moi...@abraxasgroup.net> to write:
>>
>[,,,]
>>
>>One thing to bear in mind is that while the *name* may sound innocuous
>>enough, there's no telling--just from that name--what the group was
>>actually doing.
>>
>>Pulling a few at random and doing a bit of googling...
>>
>>The People's Radio Foundation was, apparently a "leftist" organization
>>trying to decrease corporate monopolies in broadcasting and radio
>>stations.
>>http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1759/1874
>>
>Why would that be considered a bad thing?
Back in the fifties, in the US, "leftist" was pretty much synonymous
with "Communist", which, in turn, meant " Evil Godless Anti-American
Furriners." I'm guessing that was the objectionable part, not the fact
that they were trying to decrease broadcast monopolies.
On the other hand, considering some of the complaints in today's
"mainstream" media about non-mainstream information outlets like talk
radio or the blogosphere, maybe decreasing broadcasting monopolies in
those days was considered equally objectionable.
Wes Struebing
We think that Westbrook Pegler doth protest a bit too much...
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>Jim Hetley wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 9:58 pm, Denny Wheeler
>> <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:54:26 -0500, Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So from a McCarthyist point of view, these *are* subversive groups,
>>>> especially the last two.
>>>>
>>> From a McCarthyist pov, the DAR was a subversive group.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> "If Mommy is a Commie then you've got to turn her in!"
>>
>> Jim
>>
> I recently converted all my old records of the Chad Mitchell Trio to
>mp3s. I like playing that one.
Another of my favorites is "Barry's Boys"...
MajorOz
lost, in my opinion, due to the nanny aspects of society and the
increasing tolerance of nuisance lawsuits. viz:
1. Kids can't swim in the "old swimmin hole" of the creek that runs
through town, because someone may get hurt.
2. You can't drive out into (much of) the US National Forest and
camp. (yes, I know there are slobs; punish them, don't set the forest
off limits)
3. Diving boards have disappeared from municipal swimming pools,
because someone may get hurt.
4. Municipalities require bicyclists -- and sometimes tricyclists --
wear helmets.
5. Cruising is being outlawed by the same folks who bitch about the
kids running out to the woods and drinking.
6. Can't smoke in a bar -- IN A BAR ! I can understand setting aside
some non-smoking fern bars for the birkie set, but telling the steel
worker on his way home from work that he can't light up while downing
a boilermaker is pettiness.
7. No fireworks around her; no sir; might blow your fingers off.
8. Show me your papers, comrade.
cheers (I hope)
oz, sliding into bunker mentality
Saint Shaffer
When was he discharged (year, war) that they gave him that 3-page sheet?
What other times was he "warned or had to sign acknowledgement" and was
it by the potential employers?
One reason I ask, my dad was in the military and became an engineer, and
did not encounter that...but perhaps the place and time frame were
different.
Like slavery and other shameful artifacts from history, it's a vivid
reminder that those who do not remember what was bad about those times
are at risk of committing them once again.
Saint Shaffer
>
> 1. Kids can't swim in the "old swimmin hole" of the creek that runs
> through town,
Um...you did?
It was a mere fifty years ago or more, but if someone jumped in the
creek in my part of the world it was out in the country, or more likely
they went to the tiny beach at the tiny lake with their family. The
creek was full of cowpats, and all the pastures along its banks.
To each his (family's) own, but I see an awful lot of nostalgia for
stuff that's clearly secondhand, and has the look of
advertising-generated images that were never reality at all.
As for safety rules, people will always be damfools, but I can't get too
excited about the highway department rounding out the sharp corner the
bereaved nicknamed Dead Man's Curve just outside the city limits. And
there were kids who didn't join us in cruising Main Street because they
were reading, doing things with their families, studying for college,
pursuing hobbies, or doing things more productive than we idle
trouble-seekers were.
Do folks miss the bathtub gin that crippled drinkers?
The unregulated (mostly because of ignorance) handling of radium that
killed manufacturing workers horribly with disfiguring cancers?
Coal miners before the rudimentary addition of some safety rules?
Fireworks injuries to kids? Because they were a regular fact of life in
every community, and not funny at all.
I dunno. Every day something makes me thankful to be, as I often refer
to it, "living in the future." I miss very little about the quality of
life in the past, and didn't even care much for Leave it to Beaver. It
was Hollywood fantasy, and lame acting at that.
As always, your mileage may vary however, and I'm waiting to see some
fond memories of experiences one genuinely couldn't have today.
Oh, I did grow up reading Heinlein, stuff like Rocket Summer, and now
I'm saving for my trip into space...:-)
Jim Hetley
> Did the government itself give him the list of 300 groups?
> When was he discharged (year, war) that they gave him that 3-page sheet?
> What other times was he "warned or had to sign acknowledgement" and was
> it by the potential employers?
> One reason I ask, my dad was in the military and became an engineer, and
> did not encounter that...but perhaps the place and time frame were
> different.
>
I went into the army in 1970 or 1971 (not gonna drag out the papers to
get more precision) and faced such a list for my security clearance.
Jim
Denny Wheeler
<Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>Although it may not fall in the class of "liberties', there is much
>lost, in my opinion, due to the nanny aspects of society and the
>increasing tolerance of nuisance lawsuits. viz:
>
>1. Kids can't swim in the "old swimmin hole" of the creek that runs
>through town, because someone may get hurt.
In many, many places, they wouldn't want to because the creek is on
fire.
>2. You can't drive out into (much of) the US National Forest and
>camp. (yes, I know there are slobs; punish them, don't set the forest
>off limits)
To a certain extent, this is a byproduct of the major ill we see all
round the world: too damn many people.
>3. Diving boards have disappeared from municipal swimming pools,
>because someone may get hurt.
I haven't visited a municipal pool--or any other--in a coon's age, so
can't address this. But if it is true, and for the kind of reason you
specify, it's not the nanny society--it's the "sue the bastards"
mentality. Oh, and from where I sit, the tolerance of the nuisance
lawsuit has gone way way down.
>4. Municipalities require bicyclists -- and sometimes tricyclists --
>wear helmets.
Tricyclists are probably kids. Kids aren't possessed of the necessary
maturity and risk-assessment skills needed in order to make the
decision 'yes or no on a helmet.' Personally, I got no problem with
adult cyclists who choose to ride with no helmet--helps to weed out
the shallow end of the gene pool.
>5. Cruising is being outlawed by the same folks who bitch about the
>kids running out to the woods and drinking.
I have no real grasp of how 'cruising' is defined in this context. I
know that not far from here are "no cruising during <timeframe>"
signs. Much more amusing are the ones near Southcenter (a BIG
shopping mall surrounded by strip-mall type complexes. "No racing
between 9PM and 5AM" (I doubt I have the time right). So it's okay to
race the rest of the time? Really?
>6. Can't smoke in a bar -- IN A BAR ! I can understand setting aside
>some non-smoking fern bars for the birkie set, but telling the steel
>worker on his way home from work that he can't light up while downing
>a boilermaker is pettiness.
I can understand setting aside a few 'smoking is okay' bars and
restaurants for those who want to poison themselves and the people
surrounding 'em. Hell, let the bar owner choose whether or not to
allow smoking. None of this "no smoking tables" crap--it's either
smoking or not. Around here, the smart barkeep will keep the air
clear--because if he doesn't, he'll likely go broke.
>7. No fireworks around her; no sir; might blow your fingers off.
I'm really torn on this one. I *love* setting off fireworks, and I
grew up doing so--after having the safety precautions drilled into me
by my grandfather. (same one who taught me to shoot, after teaching
me gun safety) To a degree, I put some of the blame for the bans on
the "safe and sane" fireworks. They're no safer nor saner than the
ones which go BOOM--but their being labeled 'safe and sane' tends to
make for carelessness by the user.
All in all, I'd much prefer to see fireworks treated as they were when
I was a kid: a seasonal fun treat (though you could get 'em all year,
with a bit of effort) which were to be treated with respect. And it
was yer own damn fault if you screwed up with 'em.
>8. Show me your papers, comrade.
No comment--none needed, 'cause we're on the same page here.
Two meter troll
>
> >4. Municipalities require bicyclists -- and sometimes tricyclists --
> >wear helmets.
>
> Tricyclists are probably kids. Kids aren't possessed of the necessary
> maturity and risk-assessment skills needed in order to make the
> decision 'yes or no on a helmet.' Personally, I got no problem with
> adult cyclists who choose to ride with no helmet--helps to weed out
> the shallow end of the gene pool.
>
Ree
Do you wear a helmet??? :-P
Ree
0mn1vore
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:44:57 -0800 (PST), MajorOz
> <Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>>Although it may not fall in the class of "liberties', there is much
>>lost, in my opinion, due to the nanny aspects of society and the
>>increasing tolerance of nuisance lawsuits. viz:
>>
[...]
>
>>4. Municipalities require bicyclists -- and sometimes tricyclists --
>>wear helmets.
>
> Tricyclists are probably kids. Kids aren't possessed of the necessary
> maturity and risk-assessment skills needed in order to make the
> decision 'yes or no on a helmet.' Personally, I got no problem with
> adult cyclists who choose to ride with no helmet--helps to weed out
> the shallow end of the gene pool.
The funny thing is that I've never been in an accident that even scratched
a helmet. But the check-out stand conveyor belt at that grocery store...
crushed it under the change counter.
Better to wear one than not, though, just in case.
The main reason I'm uncomfortable riding without a helmet is, I can't see
behind me -- rear-view, mounted on helmet; much more frequently, and
palpably a life-saver, imv.
>
> -denny-
Patrick.
--
Email to; 0mn1-sneaking(a)sneakEmail,com
but fix the (a) and the comma first.
Hotels are tired of getting ripped off. I checked into a hotel and they
had towels from my house.
-- Mark Guido
Two meter troll
why.. yes I do.
my bent used to be able to get thirty pretty easy and at that speed
crashing anything like a bike is gonna bounce your melon off a rock.
no helmet your melon may not bounce.
Ree
Good boy!
Ree
Ree
> In <43gvg4pkpjfdsp5q9...@4ax.com> Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:39:37 -0800, Denny Wheeler said:
>
>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:44:57 -0800 (PST), MajorOz
>> <Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Although it may not fall in the class of "liberties', there is much
>>> lost, in my opinion, due to the nanny aspects of society and the
>>> increasing tolerance of nuisance lawsuits. viz:
>>>
> [...]
>>> 4. Municipalities require bicyclists -- and sometimes tricyclists --
>>> wear helmets.
>> Tricyclists are probably kids. Kids aren't possessed of the necessary
>> maturity and risk-assessment skills needed in order to make the
>> decision 'yes or no on a helmet.' Personally, I got no problem with
>> adult cyclists who choose to ride with no helmet--helps to weed out
>> the shallow end of the gene pool.
>
> The funny thing is that I've never been in an accident that even scratched
> a helmet. But the check-out stand conveyor belt at that grocery store...
> crushed it under the change counter.
>
> Better to wear one than not, though, just in case.
>
> The main reason I'm uncomfortable riding without a helmet is, I can't see
> behind me -- rear-view, mounted on helmet; much more frequently, and
> palpably a life-saver, imv.
>
>
>> -denny-
>
> Patrick.
How do you keep the rearview mirror from jiggling so much that it's
useless? Or does it work better than when it's on the bike?
Ree
David
typed furiously:
[...]
>
>Fireworks injuries to kids? Because they were a regular fact of life in
>every community, and not funny at all.
>
Funny but I can't remember _any_ kid receiving more than a slight burn
from fireworks during my youth. I have no doubt that there was the
occasional serious mishap, generally due to lack of adult supervision,
but they were the exception rather than the rule. I got some slightly
scorched finger-tips once. That cured me of being too adventurous with
fireworks. I lived both in rural communities and suburbia. Bonfires
and fireworks were the norm for Guy Fawkes Day from my birth till
after I became an adult.
--
David
No email replies please.
So I'm right. Period.
Anyone who believes different is retarded.
(Stolen from JJRussell, alt.funnytown)
(Originally posted by Jami JoAnne in alt.folklore.urban)
Tonnie
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>Tricyclists are probably kids. Kids aren't possessed of the necessary
>maturity and risk-assessment skills needed in order to make the
>decision 'yes or no on a helmet.' Personally, I got no problem with
>adult cyclists who choose to ride with no helmet--helps to weed out
>the shallow end of the gene pool.
Hey thanks! No helmet here (got a bike and no drivers licence)
You hardly see adult cyclists with a helmet over here, and we do have
lots of bikes.
My grandson (he's 3) has one alright. And I got a helmet for the
motorbike of course (just passenger, don't drive myself).
S
o I do presume you were talking about the USA gene pool.... ;o)
--
If you want a high performance woman, I can go from zero to
bitch in less than 2.1 seconds. Krystal Ann Kraus
0mn1vore
> 0mn1vore wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Better to wear one than not, though, just in case.
>>
>> The main reason I'm uncomfortable riding without a helmet is, I can't see
>> behind me -- rear-view, mounted on helmet; much more frequently, and
>> palpably a life-saver, imv.
>>
>>
>>> -denny-
>>
>> Patrick.
>
> How do you keep the rearview mirror from jiggling so much that it's
> useless? Or does it work better than when it's on the bike?
*Much* less vibration. I mean instead of having it mounted on the bare
frame, it's got your whole spine for a shock absorber. The view also
changes as you turn your head, to watch out for what's behind more
effectively [coming out of a tight curve, for example].
Does take some getting used to though. Getting it adjusted *just_right*
is also a bit finicky [*].
>
> Ree
Patrick.
[*] Basically, you get a wider angle of view the closer it is to your eye
[just think of how small binocular lenses are, until you look through
them], but if it's *too* close you'll have to look left too sharply
when checking it, and that can cause eyestrain headaches.
--
Email to; 0mn1-sneaking(a)sneakEmail,com
but fix the (a) and the comma first.
Hello? Enema Bondage? I'm calling because I want to be happy, I guess ...
John W. Vinson
>On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:06:42 -0800, Saint Shaffer <StSh...@aol.com>
>typed furiously:
>
>[...]
>>
>>Fireworks injuries to kids? Because they were a regular fact of life in
>>every community, and not funny at all.
>>
>Funny but I can't remember _any_ kid receiving more than a slight burn
>from fireworks during my youth.
It happened. A kid in my school lost an eye.
Matthew Russotto
If they need to wear a helmet on a tricycle, they need to wear one
while walking. Probably it's more important when walking, as their
head is higher up, and it's easier to fall.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
Jette
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:06:42 -0800, Saint Shaffer <StSh...@aol.com>
> typed furiously:
>
> [...]
>> Fireworks injuries to kids? Because they were a regular fact of life in
>> every community, and not funny at all.
>>
> Funny but I can't remember _any_ kid receiving more than a slight burn
> from fireworks during my youth.
I do. A schoolfriend was blinded - and she wasn't even playing with
the fireworks. :-(
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Leigh Claffey
> David wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:06:42 -0800, Saint Shaffer <StSh...@aol.com>
>> typed furiously:
>>
>> [...]
>>> Fireworks injuries to kids? Because they were a regular fact of life
>>> in every community, and not funny at all.
>>>
>> Funny but I can't remember _any_ kid receiving more than a slight burn
>> from fireworks during my youth.
>
> I do. A schoolfriend was blinded - and she wasn't even playing with the
> fireworks. :-(
>
>
The story in my family was that when my uncle was a small boy he went
and picked up a firecracker someone had just tossed (lit)
and he would've lost a hand (or worse) except that my grandfather grabbed
it away from him (and lost the tips of two fingers 'cause it went off as he
threw it).
So, yeah, fireworks are dangerous if you don't know what you're doing.
But I don't buy the total ban thing either (which CT had for most of my
life).
I think you should be able to go and get a free (must issue) permit if you
want to use the 'hard stuff' and maybe have to attend an orientation or
something so you know how to keep it safe,
(mind you we're not talking Grucci Bros. level stuff here but the much
smaller mortars that you can get from (for example) Phantom Fireworks
in PA*.....(I leave it up to the reader to find their homepage if
interested)).
It should not be any more difficult to obtain than, say, a driver's license
and the permit should probably be good for the same amount of time,
and revokeable if there's a failure to follow reasonable precautions on top
of any civil/criminal charges resulting from said failure.
(*PA is a wierd law state. They'll allow the sale of fireworks (just
about damned
near anything at all short of the 'professional show' level stuff, but
they can only
sell them to people from out of state because in PA it is illegal to
'operate' even sparklers....)
--Leigh
Matthew Russotto
Leigh Claffey <lcla...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>(*PA is a wierd law state. They'll allow the sale of fireworks (just
>about damned
>near anything at all short of the 'professional show' level stuff, but
>they can only
>sell them to people from out of state because in PA it is illegal to
>'operate' even sparklers....)
Maryland has a similar law, or so I'm told.
In PA, you can certainly buy sparklers (and lots of things which are
either skirting the edge of being legally sparklers or are flat-out over it)
at stands around the Fourth of July, whether they are legal to operate
or not.
Suits me. There's something distinctly unAmerican about being
restricted to government-sponsored fireworks shows.
Clovis Man
>Although it may not fall in the class of "liberties', there is much
>lost, in my opinion, due to the nanny aspects of society and the
>increasing tolerance of nuisance lawsuits. viz:
>
>1. Kids can't swim in the "old swimmin hole" of the creek that runs
>through town, because someone may get hurt.
>3. Diving boards have disappeared from municipal swimming pools,
>because someone may get hurt.
Liability issues. Careless kids, careless and litigious parents.
>4. Municipalities require bicyclists -- and sometimes tricyclists --
>wear helmets.
Thank the testosterone-poisoned teens of the world for that one.
Statewide here in NM for those under 18 for cyclists,
skateboarders. The fine is only $10, and can be waived if the
parents buy a helmet.
Similar requirements for ATVs and motorcycles. Once you're 18,
it's on you. Personally, I wouldn't ride without a helmet. I
like my brain the way it is (slightly askew), thank you very
much.
>6. Can't smoke in a bar -- IN A BAR ! I can understand setting aside
>some non-smoking fern bars for the birkie set, but telling the steel
>worker on his way home from work that he can't light up while downing
>a boilermaker is pettiness.
Starting June 15, 2007, smoking is still allowed in casinos,
bingo halls, non-profit private clubs, cigar bars, private
residences not used for child care or adult health care, tobacco
stores and manufacturers, limousines for private hire, up to 25%
of hotel rooms, enclosed areas in bars and restaurants used for
private functions and sole-proprietor businesses with fewer than
two employees. The law also prohibits smoking near the entrances,
windows and ventilation systems.
These restrictions don't bother me in the slightest. Your right
to pollute the air ends at my lungs.
The last time I got stuck in a smoking section at a local
restaurant, I damn near coughed my lungs out. The smoke was so
thick you'd have needed a power saw to cut it.
>7. No fireworks around her; no sir; might blow your fingers off.
Any fireworks sold here in New Mexico, except small bottle
rockets (less than 1/4" dia.) have to meet CPSC requirements.
Local authorities can and have restricted or prohibited sales
based on local fire conditions.
>8. Show me your papers, comrade.
Show ID to register and vote? Damn good idea, IMHO. There's
enough identity theft out there that it's a sensible precaution.
We both had to carry and show a government ID for a good part of
our lives. Doesn't bother me.
>cheers (I hope)
BOYC?
--
Clovis Man (aka George Ruch)
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishible from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke
Larisa
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:06:42 -0800, Saint Shaffer <StShaf...@aol.com>
> typed furiously:
>
> [...]
>
> >Fireworks injuries to kids? Because they were a regular fact of life in
> >every community, and not funny at all.
>
> Funny but I can't remember _any_ kid receiving more than a slight burn
> from fireworks during my youth. I have no doubt that there was the
> occasional serious mishap, generally due to lack of adult supervision,
> but they were the exception rather than the rule. I got some slightly
> scorched finger-tips once. That cured me of being too adventurous with
> fireworks. I lived both in rural communities and suburbia. Bonfires
> and fireworks were the norm for Guy Fawkes Day from my birth till
> after I became an adult.
My father knew a man who was missing a finger for just that reason -
fireworks.
LM
Chris Zakes
caused Saint Shaffer <StSh...@aol.com> to write:
(snip)
>Fireworks injuries to kids? Because they were a regular fact of life in
>every community, and not funny at all.
*Every* community? Well, I suppose it depends on how you define
"community." My folks were usually too cheap or too law-abiding to buy
fireworks, but several of the neighbor kids had them every year at New
Year's and 4th of July. In... call it fifteen years of biannual
fireworks orgies, none of those kids were injuried--no fingers blown
off, nobody blinded, no houses set on fire, no disfiguring burn scars.
I think the closest anybody ever came to getting injured was the one
time I picked up a firecracker that appeared to be a dud, only to have
it explode in my hand. It stung for a few minutes, and that was the
extent of my "injuries."
>
>I dunno. Every day something makes me thankful to be, as I often refer
>to it, "living in the future." I miss very little about the quality of
>life in the past, and didn't even care much for Leave it to Beaver. It
>was Hollywood fantasy, and lame acting at that.
>
>As always, your mileage may vary however, and I'm waiting to see some
>fond memories of experiences one genuinely couldn't have today.
Try this one: When I was in high school and college, I would
occasionally ride my bike out to Bear Creek Park, west of Houston. The
last five miles of that ride were in open country, where you might see
one car every five or ten minutes, and usually the only sound was the
wind in the grass and my tires on the pavement. In the park, you could
walk or ride along trails with a decent chance of seeing a deer, an
armadillo or an owl.
The last time I was out that way, Bear Creek Park was completely
surrounded by subdivisions, the park itself was *way* too crowded to
even find a quiet picnic spot, much less do any wildlife-watching.
As Denny Wheeler said "Too damn many people."
-Chris Zakes
Texas
If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise
them missionaries for dinner.
-H.L. Mencken
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>> Tricyclists are probably kids. Kids aren't possessed of the necessary
>> maturity and risk-assessment skills needed in order to make the
>> decision 'yes or no on a helmet.' Personally, I got no problem with
>> adult cyclists who choose to ride with no helmet--helps to weed out
>> the shallow end of the gene pool.
>
>The funny thing is that I've never been in an accident that even scratched
>a helmet. But the check-out stand conveyor belt at that grocery store...
>crushed it under the change counter.
>
>Better to wear one than not, though, just in case.
>
>The main reason I'm uncomfortable riding without a helmet is, I can't see
>behind me -- rear-view, mounted on helmet; much more frequently, and
>palpably a life-saver, imv.
Interesting thing about those mirrors. I believe they were 'invented'
in the margins of Mad Magazine in the Sixties. I distinctly remember
seeing such there, and thinking "that's not a bad idea." Didn't go
out and start making 'em though.
On helmets: my immediate boss's dad is a bike-rider and rode this
year's Seattle-to-Portland ride. Partway there, another rider clipped
his rear wheel hard enough to cause him to go down. He described the
result as road rash. But he sent pictures of the gashed completely
open by a curbstone helmet, commenting that it coulda been his head.
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:39:37 -0800, Denny Wheeler
><den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>Tricyclists are probably kids. Kids aren't possessed of the necessary
>>maturity and risk-assessment skills needed in order to make the
>>decision 'yes or no on a helmet.' Personally, I got no problem with
>>adult cyclists who choose to ride with no helmet--helps to weed out
>>the shallow end of the gene pool.
>
>Hey thanks! No helmet here (got a bike and no drivers licence)
>You hardly see adult cyclists with a helmet over here, and we do have
>lots of bikes.
>My grandson (he's 3) has one alright. And I got a helmet for the
>motorbike of course (just passenger, don't drive myself).
>S
>o I do presume you were talking about the USA gene pool.... ;o)
I was talking about *anyone* who rides a bike on any hard surface, or
any soft surface with hard things near it. See my reply to Omn1 about
my boss's dad's helmet.
I'll also mention my exwife. That'd be the lady who, at the age of 9,
went over her handlebars (there was a small stone on the street). It
was 7 years later that what had been happening to her since was
diagnosed as epilepsy. It was 17 years after that diagnosis that she
had the brain surgery which removed a walnut-sized chunk of scar
tissue from her brain. That, combined with medications, has kept her
almost seizure-free since. Note "almost."
And what does a driver's license have to do with riding a bike?
However--please get and wear a bike helmet. I value you, and you
don't need to break your head open.
Denny Wheeler
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>Tricyclists are probably kids. Kids aren't possessed of the necessary
>>maturity and risk-assessment skills needed in order to make the
>>decision 'yes or no on a helmet.'
>
>If they need to wear a helmet on a tricycle, they need to wear one
>while walking. Probably it's more important when walking, as their
>head is higher up, and it's easier to fall.
You either have no skills at observation, were never a kid with a
trike, or are fooling yourself. Kids dump trikes all the time.
And note that Ernie (2MT) rides a trike.
If I had small children riding bikes or trikes--especially the 'Big
Wheel' things, though they may be more stable than the average trike,
they're faster in turns--I'd have 'em wear helmets.
Once they were grown and legally adult, or had become 'emancipated
offspring' it'd be up to them whether to wear helmets or not. Since
I'd very likely care about 'em, I'd want them to wear, but more, I'd
want them to think about the choice.
0mn1vore
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:19:30 -0800, 0mn1vore <See...@BitBucket.nul>
> wrote:
>
>>> Tricyclists are probably kids. Kids aren't possessed of the necessary
>>> maturity and risk-assessment skills needed in order to make the
>>> decision 'yes or no on a helmet.' Personally, I got no problem with
>>> adult cyclists who choose to ride with no helmet--helps to weed out
>>> the shallow end of the gene pool.
>>
>>The funny thing is that I've never been in an accident that even scratched
>>a helmet. But the check-out stand conveyor belt at that grocery store...
>>crushed it under the change counter.
>>
>>Better to wear one than not, though, just in case.
>>
>>The main reason I'm uncomfortable riding without a helmet is, I can't see
>>behind me -- rear-view, mounted on helmet; much more frequently, and
>>palpably a life-saver, imv.
>
> Interesting thing about those mirrors. I believe they were 'invented'
> in the margins of Mad Magazine in the Sixties. I distinctly remember
> seeing such there, and thinking "that's not a bad idea." Didn't go
> out and start making 'em though.
Don't know, I'd heard they started with people taping dental mirrors to
their [sun]glasses or helmets, and bending the arm to adjust them.
>
> On helmets: my immediate boss's dad is a bike-rider and rode this
> year's Seattle-to-Portland ride. Partway there, another rider clipped
> his rear wheel hard enough to cause him to go down. He described the
> result as road rash. But he sent pictures of the gashed completely
> open by a curbstone helmet, commenting that it coulda been his head.
I watch light-posts go by, and realize the same thing, sometimes. When
you think about it, there are a lot of angular things going by quickly,
biking in the city.
>
> -denny-
Patrick.
--
Email to; 0mn1-sneaking(a)sneakEmail,com
but fix the (a) and the comma first.
The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct.
-- Ralph Hartley
Ree
I think the point is that one rides a bike a lot more often when one
doesn't drive a car. At least for Erik and I that is true.
>
> However--please get and wear a bike helmet. I value you, and you
> don't need to break your head open.
>
> -denny-
Also, cyclists are much more highly respected as a means of
transportation in Holland from what I've heard. The car drivers
actually expect them to be there and drive accordingly, again, I
believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong Tonnie.
Ree
Tonnie
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>I was talking about *anyone* who rides a bike on any hard surface, or
>any soft surface with hard things near it. See my reply to Omn1 about
>my boss's dad's helmet.
>
>I'll also mention my exwife. That'd be the lady who, at the age of 9,
>went over her handlebars (there was a small stone on the street). It
>was 7 years later that what had been happening to her since was
>diagnosed as epilepsy. It was 17 years after that diagnosis that she
>had the brain surgery which removed a walnut-sized chunk of scar
>tissue from her brain. That, combined with medications, has kept her
>almost seizure-free since. Note "almost."
That's awful. But eh... carcrash victims can undergo the same or even
worse. And you could fall from the stairs with the same results.
>And what does a driver's license have to do with riding a bike?
I don't have a driver's licence so I have to use my bike more often,
and I like it. Handy for shopping as well, I never need a
parkingplace.
As we do not have your schoolbus system here, I had to do 40 km. a day
to go to high school.
>However--please get and wear a bike helmet. I value you, and you
>don't need to break your head open.
Sure I don't need that - but actually I am more afraid in a car (my SO
has one), really. Usually I do feel more safe on my bike - you might
know that the Netherlands is a rather bike-loving country, lots of
small streets where cars aren't even allowed... and we do have more
than 22.000 km. bike-lanes as well, on a surface of 41.526 km2 ;o)
But thanks for your concern, I really appreciate it. BOYC?
(I won't wear a helmet though, sorry)
--
Life... is like a grapefruit. It's orange and squishy, and has a few
pips in it, and some folks have half a one for breakfast. Douglas Adams
Tonnie
>I think the point is that one rides a bike a lot more often when one
>doesn't drive a car. At least for Erik and I that is true.
Right! See my reply to Denny. And it is fun <g> - a bit less when it
is raining cats or dogs though...
>> However--please get and wear a bike helmet. I value you, and you
>> don't need to break your head open.
>>
>> -denny-
>
>Also, cyclists are much more highly respected as a means of
>transportation in Holland from what I've heard. The car drivers
>actually expect them to be there and drive accordingly, again, I
>believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong Tonnie.
I don't need to correct you - it is true. Not for 100%, you got
idiots everywhere and most of the time they drive a car <eg>.
In some of our narrow one-way streets it is often so that a car will
stay behind a bike, because he cannot pass. I love that <eg>
And don't forget the bike-paths...
So indeed, it is totally different. I had Canadian and Australian
guests, they were really flabbergasted..
--
Inhumanitas omni aetate molesta est - Inhumanity is harmful in
every age. (Cicero)
0mn1vore
[...]
>
> Also, cyclists are much more highly respected as a means of
> transportation in Holland from what I've heard.
Absolutely. I'd much rather ride a cyclist than a bike, but you know how
that turned out...
> The car drivers
> actually expect them to be there and drive accordingly, again, I
> believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong Tonnie.
>
> Ree
Patrick.
--
Email to; 0mn1-sneaking(a)sneakEmail,com
but fix the (a) and the comma first.
Unix, n.:
A computer operating system, once thought to be flabby and
impotent, that now shows a surprising interest in making off
with the workstation harem.
Summer Storms
<Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>Although it may not fall in the class of "liberties', there is much
>lost, in my opinion, due to the nanny aspects of society and the
>increasing tolerance of nuisance lawsuits. viz:
>
>1. Kids can't swim in the "old swimmin hole" of the creek that runs
>through town, because someone may get hurt.
>2. You can't drive out into (much of) the US National Forest and
>camp. (yes, I know there are slobs; punish them, don't set the forest
>off limits)
>3. Diving boards have disappeared from municipal swimming pools,
>because someone may get hurt.
>4. Municipalities require bicyclists -- and sometimes tricyclists --
>wear helmets.
>5. Cruising is being outlawed by the same folks who bitch about the
>kids running out to the woods and drinking.
>6. Can't smoke in a bar -- IN A BAR ! I can understand setting aside
>some non-smoking fern bars for the birkie set, but telling the steel
>worker on his way home from work that he can't light up while downing
>a boilermaker is pettiness.
>7. No fireworks around her; no sir; might blow your fingers off.
>8. Show me your papers, comrade.
>
>cheers (I hope)
>
>oz, sliding into bunker mentality
I wear Birkenstocks, don't like cigarette smoke, and wouldn't have the
first idea what to do in a "fern bar". Where, exactly, am I supposed
to go to have a drink? (Other than in here, of course?)
___
(Remove dotty rant to reply.)
"Ignorance is an abuse of free will." - comedian Chris Bliss
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From #Callahans on Undernet (IRC):
<C_90> You don't know the hallucinatory properties of
Polish Sausage and a Beer and a shot while dancing
to Polka Bands.
<SummerStorms> Dude... I live in Cleveland.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My Blogs:
http://summers-place.livejournal.com/
http://summerbythelakeside.blogspot.com/
Hubby's Blog for current events, sports, music & misc.:
Chris Zakes
caused Leigh Claffey <lcla...@comcast.net> to write:
>Jette wrote:
>> David wrote:
>>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:06:42 -0800, Saint Shaffer <StSh...@aol.com>
>>> typed furiously:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> Fireworks injuries to kids? Because they were a regular fact of life
>>>> in every community, and not funny at all.
>>>>
>>> Funny but I can't remember _any_ kid receiving more than a slight burn
>>> from fireworks during my youth.
>>
>> I do. A schoolfriend was blinded - and she wasn't even playing with the
>> fireworks. :-(
>>
>>
>
>The story in my family was that when my uncle was a small boy he went
>and picked up a firecracker someone had just tossed (lit)
>and he would've lost a hand (or worse) except that my grandfather grabbed
>it away from him (and lost the tips of two fingers 'cause it went off as he
>threw it).
>
>So, yeah, fireworks are dangerous if you don't know what you're doing.
>
>But I don't buy the total ban thing either (which CT had for most of my
>life).
>I think you should be able to go and get a free (must issue) permit if you
>want to use the 'hard stuff' and maybe have to attend an orientation or
>something so you know how to keep it safe,
If I had buckets of money, I'd buy a piece of land out in the country
with a stock tank or other body of water on it and every 4th of July
and New Year's, I'd do a "shoot your own" event. Rent a couple of
porta-cans, charge maybe five bucks a carload for people to come out
and shoot off fireworks, and donate most of the money to the local
volunteer fire department (maybe have a couple of their guys on hand,
just in case things got out of hand.)
Two meter troll
wrote:
> In article <43gvg4pkpjfdsp5q9h4jn85ao9m915r...@4ax.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Matt
I use a helmet all the time every time i am on my trike and almost any
one i could name that rides a tadpole or delta configuration recumbent
trike wears one as well. What folks who dont ride these bikes dont
know is that they are not as stable as you think and a twitch at speed
can and will dump you at velocity. Delta configurations are unstable
in tight turns and fall to the outside this puts you head first at an
angle to the trike but you are sitting down so your angle is more of a
whip over your bars and into the ground with your head in the lead. my
tadpole configuration is very very difficult to roll but if you slam
on the brakes which are on the front two wheels you will get
catapolted out of your seat at high speed head first into what ever
made you slam on the brakes. I have done this one time at 37.5 MPH it
shot me clear through an intersection and into the grass on the other
side. the only reasion i didnt die in the air was that i did it on
purpose. I am two hundred twenty pounds. I fitted my trike with a drag
brake because of that little experiment but i also got real carfeull
to make sure my helmet is on every time i ride.
the other thing folks who dont ride these type of bikes dont under
stand is that i am not limeted to an uprights thirty five MPH
threshold. I can get the bent up to 40 under my own power. the same
applies to those big wheels they go faster than you think just cause a
little kid is peddeling it dont make it slow. and those trikes have
very little wind resistance.
a saving grace for most kids trikes is the direct power application to
a wheel it keeps them going a bit slower and the manufactuers have
made them as low to the ground as possable so many of the stability
issues are not there at least on flat ground. put those things on a
good hill and all bets are off.
in short i use a helmet on my trike so i dont have to use a helmet
just walking around or sitting in my wheel chair waiting for a nurse
to push me to a sunny spot.
Chris Zakes
caused Clovis Man <georg...@3lefties.com> to write:
>MajorOz <Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>Although it may not fall in the class of "liberties', there is much
>>lost, in my opinion, due to the nanny aspects of society and the
>>increasing tolerance of nuisance lawsuits. viz:
>>
>>1. Kids can't swim in the "old swimmin hole" of the creek that runs
>>through town, because someone may get hurt.
>[...]
>>3. Diving boards have disappeared from municipal swimming pools,
>>because someone may get hurt.
>
>Liability issues. Careless kids, careless and litigious parents.
Maybe. Or maybe it's just paranoid municipal authorities thinking they
*might* get sued.
>>4. Municipalities require bicyclists -- and sometimes tricyclists --
>>wear helmets.
>
>Thank the testosterone-poisoned teens of the world for that one.
Nonsense. We've had testosterone-poisoned teens since the beginning of
time. Why is that only in the past twenty or thirty years have we
gotten so nanny-state-ish?
I've had several serious head injuries from bike wrecks--at least two
concussions and one fractured skull (after which I bought a helmet and
*always* wear it on my bike.) I insist that my kids wear helmets when
they ride, but I am adamantly opposed to the government *telling* me
that I must do so "for my own good." We know where that leads.
(snip)
>Any fireworks sold here in New Mexico, except small bottle
>rockets (less than 1/4" dia.) have to meet CPSC requirements.
>Local authorities can and have restricted or prohibited sales
>based on local fire conditions.
That bit actually makes sense. Fireworks aren't as controllable as,
say, the average barbecue grill, so further restrictions during high
fire danger times is a Good Thing.
Barbara Bailey
> If I had buckets of money, I'd buy a piece of land out in the country
> with a stock tank or other body of water on it and every 4th of July
> and New Year's, I'd do a "shoot your own" event. Rent a couple of
> porta-cans, charge maybe five bucks a carload for people to come out
> and shoot off fireworks, and donate most of the money to the local
> volunteer fire department (maybe have a couple of their guys on hand,
> just in case things got out of hand.)
You mean like this?
<http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2006/04/rockets-red-glare-bombs-bursting-
in-my.html#links>
tinyurl:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/5rpjsr>
Moira
> Did the government itself give him the list of 300 groups?
> When was he discharged (year, war) that they gave him that 3-page sheet?
> What other times was he "warned or had to sign acknowledgement" and was
> it by the potential employers?
> One reason I ask, my dad was in the military and became an engineer, and
> did not encounter that...but perhaps the place and time frame were
> different.
>
> Like slavery and other shameful artifacts from history, it's a vivid
> reminder that those who do not remember what was bad about those times
> are at risk of committing them once again.
>
My dad's discharge papers were 1947 among those paper was a handout
and that was one of the large papers with about 300 names on it.
He later attended Notre Dame while getting his masters and had a
summer job as well and it was at this summer job that he was given a
statement to read and sign.
Finally he worked at Sandia in 1959 and had a secret security
clearance and again was asked to sign a paper that stated he was not
currently nor had ever been associated with certain groups and these
groups were listed on a separate sheet of paper.
David
typed furiously:
>In <49118664$1...@news.bnb-lp.com> Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:41:24 -0500, Ree said:
>
>[...]
>>
>> Also, cyclists are much more highly respected as a means of
>> transportation in Holland from what I've heard.
>
>Absolutely. I'd much rather ride a cyclist than a bike, but you know how
>that turned out...
>
Ummm! Did you intend it that way? You misspelt "biker"
Ree
> In <49118664$1...@news.bnb-lp.com> Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:41:24 -0500, Ree said:
>
> [...]
>> Also, cyclists are much more highly respected as a means of
>> transportation in Holland from what I've heard.
>
> Absolutely. I'd much rather ride a cyclist than a bike, but you know how
> that turned out...
>
LOL. I'll keep that in mind!
MajorOz
wrote:
You drink -- usually white wine.
>Where, exactly, am I supposed
> to go to have a drink? (Other than in here, of course?)
To a non-smoking bar. Just don't legislate them all such.
cheers
oz, non-smoker for 35 years but usually sits in the smoking section of
restaurants, as he is less likely to have to put up with undisciplined
children
MajorOz
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:48:25 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Leigh Claffey <lclaf...@comcast.net> to write:
>
>
>
> >Jette wrote:
> >> David wrote:
Interesting.
I don't have buckets (or spoonfulls) of money, but do have 63 acres
with a pond in the middle. At my annual July 4th reunion, the hordes
of family, who have come from a number of states -- and each of which
have brought a trunk load or pickup load of fireworks -- are joined by
friends and neighbors (no charge) while we shoot them off from dusk
'till, usually, well after midnight. Kids and old folks (me included)
are sitting around various campfires, drinking a variety of things and
roasting weenies and making Smoores, while the adventurous among us
lights them off. Members of the VFD are usually here.
No fires or accidents in seven years.
cheers
oz, too cheap to buy them but provides the venue
Y'all come.
Clovis Man
>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:10:41 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Clovis Man <georg...@3lefties.com> to write:
>
>>MajorOz <Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>>Although it may not fall in the class of "liberties', there is much
>>>lost, in my opinion, due to the nanny aspects of society and the
>>>increasing tolerance of nuisance lawsuits. viz:
>>>
>>>1. Kids can't swim in the "old swimmin hole" of the creek that runs
>>>through town, because someone may get hurt.
>>[...]
>>>3. Diving boards have disappeared from municipal swimming pools,
>>>because someone may get hurt.
>>
>>Liability issues. Careless kids, careless and litigious parents.
>
>Maybe. Or maybe it's just paranoid municipal authorities thinking they
>*might* get sued.
^^^^^^^^
Have been, for failure to prevent stupid behavior that parents
should have dealt with years before.
>>>4. Municipalities require bicyclists -- and sometimes tricyclists --
>>>wear helmets.
>>
>>Thank the testosterone-poisoned teens of the world for that one.
>
>Nonsense. We've had testosterone-poisoned teens since the beginning of
>time. Why is that only in the past twenty or thirty years have we
>gotten so nanny-state-ish?
True. Now add some parents who, unlike you, aren't willing to
apply the appropriate corrective action[0] when their kid does
something stupid, and look anywhere else for someone to blame.
See 3 above.
Example: School truancy is something of a problem around here,
with something like 17 parents convicted in the past year.
http://www.cnjonline.com/news/clovis_30713___article.html/woman_convicted.html
For some reason, these parents haven't been able or willing to
get through to their kids.
<quote>
District Attorney Matt Chandler said of the 16 parents previously
convicted since the program began more than a year ago, only one
has been convicted a second time.
</quote>
Another example: Shortly after my niece started driving, one of
her high school "friends" decided she would try to "surf" the
hood of my niece's car ("Hey, watch this!"). Short version: My
niece gets spooked, tries to stop, "friend" ends up under the
front wheel of the car and has some bruises and soft tissue
injuries, with time in hospital. Come time for court, my niece
stands up and takes what comes, and her "friend"'s dad gets the
charges dropped and won't stand up for my niece in court.
>I've had several serious head injuries from bike wrecks--at least two
>concussions and one fractured skull (after which I bought a helmet and
>*always* wear it on my bike.) I insist that my kids wear helmets when they ride,
It only took me one ride without a helmet. It took my eyes a
week to forgive me (dust, meet hard contact lenses).
>but I am adamantly opposed to the government *telling* me
>that I must do so "for my own good." We know where that leads.
That seems to be the approach in New Mexico law. If you're of
age and competent, it's your business. Until then, it's law or
consequences.
[0] A full-strength dope slap[1], followed by the words "You
idiot! What the *&#$ were you thinking?" screamed at 140 dBa.
[1] http://www.cartalk.com/content/DopeSlap/technique.html
Desideria
Wish I *could*, dear. Sounds like fun! ('sides, your hunky sons and
your hunky self would be there ;-)
Desideria
Desideria
Yeah. Bars here are ALL non-smoking (which I'm thankful for since I
had to admit I had asthma), and Denny and I regularly sit in the
non-child section. ;-)
Desideria
Chris Zakes
Well... maybe not *precisely* like that. <G>
-Chris Zakes
Texas
A politician may be distinguished from a statesman in that the former is,
unfortunately, not dead.
Adapted from "The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce
David
<deside...@gmail.com> typed furiously:
Your bars have child sections?
Desideria
wrote:
Nope. But usually children aren't seated in the 'bar' section of any
restaurant. I shoulda been more specific--bars and restaurants are all
non-smoking in my area now.
Desideria
Stella Starr
1959 and had a secret security
> clearance and again was asked to sign a paper that stated he was not
> currently nor had ever been associated with certain groups and these
> groups were listed on a separate sheet of paper.
Man, I thought the red-baiting had subsided and Joe McCarthy thoroughly
spanked by then! Of course I was learning to ride a bike that year and
suffered from a severe lack of both news sources and political awareness...
Matthew Russotto
Denny Wheeler <den...@zipcon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:03:15 -0600, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>>Tricyclists are probably kids. Kids aren't possessed of the necessary
>>>maturity and risk-assessment skills needed in order to make the
>>>decision 'yes or no on a helmet.'
>>
>>If they need to wear a helmet on a tricycle, they need to wear one
>>while walking. Probably it's more important when walking, as their
>>head is higher up, and it's easier to fall.
>
>You either have no skills at observation, were never a kid with a
>trike, or are fooling yourself. Kids dump trikes all the time.
They fall down without them all the time too.
Jette
In Scotland there is no smoking in any indoor public space - bars,
restaurants, shopping malls, libraries, churches, shops, offices. Any
"enclosed public space" (defined as three walls and a roof), including
company cars and workmen's trucks, is non-smoking. The only
exceptions are places like prisons and some mental hospitals.
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Denny Wheeler
<deside...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Yeah. Bars here are ALL non-smoking (which I'm thankful for since I
>>>had to admit I had asthma), and Denny and I regularly sit in the
>>>non-child section. ;-)
>>>
(David)
>>
>>Your bars have child sections?
>
>Nope. But usually children aren't seated in the 'bar' section of any
>restaurant. I shoulda been more specific--bars and restaurants are all
>non-smoking in my area now.
We often go to a brewpub near her place; it's a place that serves
wines and beers (and brews a number of very good beers) but not
liquor. Therefore, kids are allowed.
Restaurants which serve liquor have separate bar areas in which kids
aren't allowed. We like those.
I'll slightly expand another thing Desi said--ALL buildings open to
the public are non-smoking here. Bars, restaurants, shops, government
buildings, workplaces. I think the only indoor areas where smoking is
legal are private residences--and of course in rental buildings,
that's up to the landlord/management, and most opt for non-smoking.
I personally feel that the law went a bit too far. F'rinstance, there
were 'hookah clubs'--places folks went to join others in smoking from
the hookah. Similarly, cigar bars. I think such places should be
allowed. Just because I don't want to go there doesn't mean nobody
should be allowed to.
I think though, that if the 'no smoking in bars' law were changed to
allow smoking where beer/wine/liquor is served, few of them would opt
for smoking. (I'd favor such a rule--IF the rule specified that a
place is either smoking or non-smoking. None of this "smoking
section" BS.)
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>In Scotland there is no smoking in any indoor public space - bars,
>restaurants, shopping malls, libraries, churches, shops, offices. Any
>"enclosed public space" (defined as three walls and a roof), including
>company cars and workmen's trucks, is non-smoking. The only
>exceptions are places like prisons and some mental hospitals.
That's the law here as well (not sure about the '3 walls and a roof'
or the vehicle provisions)--though I suspect if a church wanted to
push it, they could overturn the rule applying to them.
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
Oh, Tailgunner Joe was gone, but his legacy lived. And 'dirty Commie'
was *not* a joke, even well into the Sixties.
Chris Zakes
caused Denny Wheeler <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> to write:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:49:06 -0800, Stella Starr <ste...@noone.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Moira wrote:
>> 1959 and had a secret security
>>> clearance and again was asked to sign a paper that stated he was not
>>> currently nor had ever been associated with certain groups and these
>>> groups were listed on a separate sheet of paper.
>>
>>Man, I thought the red-baiting had subsided and Joe McCarthy thoroughly
>>spanked by then! Of course I was learning to ride a bike that year and
>>suffered from a severe lack of both news sources and political awareness...
>
>Oh, Tailgunner Joe was gone, but his legacy lived. And 'dirty Commie'
>was *not* a joke, even well into the Sixties.
>
>-denny-
Oh, my, yes... I was a bit of a radical in the late '60s and early
'70s, and recall getting into a shouting match with several people at
a Houston school board meeting, along the lines of "I'm an American
too, and I'm no Communist!"
All I did was use the Black Power salute
(http://www.iolani.org/upload/image.jpg) during the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Denny Wheeler
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <pnu1h45jns2jvdngo...@4ax.com>,
>Denny Wheeler <den...@zipcon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:03:15 -0600, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>>Tricyclists are probably kids. Kids aren't possessed of the necessary
>>>>maturity and risk-assessment skills needed in order to make the
>>>>decision 'yes or no on a helmet.'
>>>
>>>If they need to wear a helmet on a tricycle, they need to wear one
>>>while walking. Probably it's more important when walking, as their
>>>head is higher up, and it's easier to fall.
>>
>>You either have no skills at observation, were never a kid with a
>>trike, or are fooling yourself. Kids dump trikes all the time.
>
>They fall down without them all the time too.
Even when a kid runs, he or she doesn't go as fast as any reasonably
healthy kid can on a bike or trike. But have it your way.
(I do feel sorry for any kids you may eventually raise)
Denny Wheeler
<rabr...@yayhu.comm> wrote:
>You mean like this?
><http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2006/04/rockets-red-glare-bombs-bursting-
>in-my.html#links>
>
>tinyurl:
><http://preview.tinyurl.com/5rpjsr>
Priceless. Thank you, rabrab!!!
Barbara Bailey
> rabrab wrote:
>>You mean like this?
>><http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2006/04/rockets-red-glare-bombs-bur
>>sting- in-my.html#links>
>>
>>tinyurl:
>><http://preview.tinyurl.com/5rpjsr>
> Priceless. Thank you, rabrab!!!
That site is actually an excellent example of why I have such difficulty
clumping people into a monolithic group because of one of their set of
beliefs: I disagree vehemently with the man's political stance, but I
can't call him stupid, or thoughtless, or an idiot. I have his blog
bookmarked in my "Thought-provoking" folder, and I check it daily. Even
when I'm reading it,and wondering to myself, "what world does he live in,
that that makes sense?" I'm reminded that his world is different from
mine in a couple of fundamental ways: He faces the possibility of being
shot at on a regular basis; I don't. He sees the worst of people more
often than I do. The city I live in is largely industrial, and is in no
real danger of losing jobs unless Oscar Mayer stops making hotdogs or
John Deere stops making tractors and earth-moving equipment; his town
seems to be one of those where there is no single large employer and
everybody's scratching for a living as best they can.
Here's some other examples of his writing:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5zwz7e
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5klag6
Two meter troll
>
> These restrictions don't bother me in the slightest. Your right
> to pollute the air ends at my lungs.
>
so i was making a bucket yesterday and it struck me. how often i have
heard this saying.
I thought thats right! so will you please stop driving a moter vehicle.
Matthew Russotto
Denny Wheeler <den...@zipcon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:12:39 -0600, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article <pnu1h45jns2jvdngo...@4ax.com>,
>>Denny Wheeler <den...@zipcon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:03:15 -0600, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Tricyclists are probably kids. Kids aren't possessed of the necessary
>>>>>maturity and risk-assessment skills needed in order to make the
>>>>>decision 'yes or no on a helmet.'
>>>>
>>>>If they need to wear a helmet on a tricycle, they need to wear one
>>>>while walking. Probably it's more important when walking, as their
>>>>head is higher up, and it's easier to fall.
>>>
>>>You either have no skills at observation, were never a kid with a
>>>trike, or are fooling yourself. Kids dump trikes all the time.
>>
>>They fall down without them all the time too.
>
>Even when a kid runs, he or she doesn't go as fast as any reasonably
>healthy kid can on a bike or trike. But have it your way.
>(I do feel sorry for any kids you may eventually raise)
A bike, sure. But a trike (a kid's trike, not the adult recumbent
trikes 2MT is talking about) is severely limited in speed unless you
get it going down a hill with your feet off the pedals. Even then,
it's difficult to tip over in such a way as to hit your head.
Personally I feel sorry for all the kids pedaling their trike around,
fully supervised, on a flat surface at <3mph, with helmet and full
padding on, because their parents are absolutely paranoid.
Clovis Man
In a perfect world, I'd live within walking distance of my
regular haunts, and have good, reliable public transport for the
rest. Or, as an alternative, be able to afford a Toyota Prius or
VW Passat Diesel.
Sadly, that's not the case. Clovis, NM is at least 95 miles from
anything resembling Civilization, and is laid out based on road
transport.
That said, I keep my '96 Sable (don't laugh - it's paid for)
properly maintained and tuned. And having seen some of the old
junk that's still on the road around here, I suspect you'd rather
be stuck in traffic behind me.
Also, I don't smoke. Never started. When the DOD declared all
of their facilities non-smoking (1989 - 90), the air in our
avionics facility (a semi-underground bunker designed to NATO
standards) was much easier on the lungs.
Two meter troll
the comment was not aimed at you Clovis Man but thanks for the info.
have a drink on my tab.
it's just one of those things to me.
today in the local stupididty rag folks where complaining of the cargo
ships running gen sets in the harbor.
However no crack down is planned for the millions of cars and trucks
that drive around portland daily spewing smoke.
its always easy to stop the other guy rather than stop yourself seems
to be the message these days.
Clovis Man
>> Two meter troll <eawis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> These restrictions don't bother me in the slightest. Your right
>> >> to pollute the air ends at my lungs.
>>
>> >so i was making a bucket yesterday and it struck me. how often i have
>> >heard this saying.
>> >I thought thats right! so will you please stop driving a moter vehicle.
>>
>
>the comment was not aimed at you Clovis Man but thanks for the info.
>have a drink on my tab.
Thanks. I'll save it for after supper.
>it's just one of those things to me.
>today in the local stupididty rag folks where complaining of the cargo
>ships running gen sets in the harbor.
If the ships systems aren't compatible with the local power
supply, or the local supply isn't all that reliable... You get
the idea. Some people don't get all the information or think
these things through properly.
>However no crack down is planned for the millions of cars and trucks
>that drive around portland daily spewing smoke.
Q: Does Portland have to require vehicle emissions testing to
meet EPA air quality standards? We don't have that requirement
locally, but Albuquerque does.
>its always easy to stop the other guy rather than stop yourself seems
>to be the message these days.
True.
David
<eawi...@gmail.com> typed:
"There's a hole in my bucket ..."
--
David
No email replies please.
Q:What is purple and concord the world?| A:Alexander the Grape.
David
russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) typed:
>In article <nue7h45h37vcj8e26...@4ax.com>,
>Denny Wheeler <den...@zipcon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:12:39 -0600, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <pnu1h45jns2jvdngo...@4ax.com>,
>>>Denny Wheeler <den...@zipcon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:03:15 -0600, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Tricyclists are probably kids. Kids aren't possessed of the necessary
>>>>>>maturity and risk-assessment skills needed in order to make the
>>>>>>decision 'yes or no on a helmet.'
>>>>>
>>>>>If they need to wear a helmet on a tricycle, they need to wear one
>>>>>while walking. Probably it's more important when walking, as their
>>>>>head is higher up, and it's easier to fall.
>>>>
>>>>You either have no skills at observation, were never a kid with a
>>>>trike, or are fooling yourself. Kids dump trikes all the time.
>>>
>>>They fall down without them all the time too.
>>
>>Even when a kid runs, he or she doesn't go as fast as any reasonably
>>healthy kid can on a bike or trike. But have it your way.
>>(I do feel sorry for any kids you may eventually raise)
>
>A bike, sure. But a trike (a kid's trike, not the adult recumbent
>trikes 2MT is talking about) is severely limited in speed unless you
>get it going down a hill with your feet off the pedals. Even then,
>it's difficult to tip over in such a way as to hit your head.
>
Try turning the front wheel sharply in either direction and watch
yourself sail gracefully over the handlebars head first.
Wes Struebing
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:49:06 -0800, Stella Starr <ste...@noone.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Moira wrote:
>> 1959 and had a secret security
>>> clearance and again was asked to sign a paper that stated he was not
>>> currently nor had ever been associated with certain groups and these
>>> groups were listed on a separate sheet of paper.
>>
>>Man, I thought the red-baiting had subsided and Joe McCarthy thoroughly
>>spanked by then! Of course I was learning to ride a bike that year and
>>suffered from a severe lack of both news sources and political awareness...
>
>Oh, Tailgunner Joe was gone, but his legacy lived. And 'dirty Commie'
>was *not* a joke, even well into the Sixties.
>
Yup, including one guy, who, as a military man I admired, but as a man
and a putative politician I hated - Gen. Curtis LeMay.
(I truly think the man thought there WAS a Commie under every bed in
America)
--
Wes Struebing
Jan. 20, 2009 - the end of an error
Wes Struebing
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
Hell, no - it's not hard! (I've even done it - which may explain a
lot<G>)
But it is truly not difficult, especially when trying like hell to get
some speed up on the damn thing.
>Personally I feel sorry for all the kids pedaling their trike around,
>fully supervised, on a flat surface at <3mph, with helmet and full
>padding on, because their parents are absolutely paranoid.
Sorry, in that case, I'll opt for safe.
YMMV - obviously. (agreeing with Denny)
Two meter troll
> [Default] On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:25:55 -0800 (PST), Two meter troll
>
>
>
> >> These restrictions don't bother me in the slightest. Your right
> >> to pollute the air ends at my lungs.
>
> >so i was making a bucket yesterday and it struck me. how often i have
> >heard this saying.
> >I thought thats right! so will you please stop driving a moter vehicle.
>
> "There's a hole in my bucket ..."
> --
> David
> No email replies please.
> Q:What is purple and concord the world?| A:Alexander the Grap
Dont tell Liza