Driver charged with criminal vehicular homicide in cycling death

[Tim McNamara]

http://preview.tinyurl.com/p35nd58


"Boeve, 33, of Steen, Minn., was killed June 30 while bicycling with her
two young daughters, Claire and Mallorie.

Boeve, who was wearing a helmet, was pulling her daughters, ages 4 and
1, in a bike trailer on Minnesota 270 near her home when she was struck
by a 1-ton 2003 Chevrolet pickup truck.

The truck was driven by Christopher M. Weber, 25, of Madison, S.D., who
was on his cellphone navigating his bank's automated phone system,
according to a criminal complaint filed last week in Rock County
District Court. He has been charged with criminal vehicular homicide."

[Duane]

Very sad. I hope the guys gets the maximum and that it starts a trend.

[Andre Jute]

+1

Andre Jute

[AMuzi]

Negligent homicide while texting is already a trend.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Duane]

Yeah so I'm hoping getting the max for it becomes a trend as well.

[avag...@gmail.com]

WELL THERE's THE 4 FOOT RULE BUT ONE isn't a parade. When I read this the other surface in memory...

GooImages has a point to make...


http://goo.gl/shkG46

[Mrcheerful]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:43:42 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 7/11/2014 11:06 AM, Duane wrote:
>> On 7/11/2014 11:19 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>
>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/p35nd58
>>>
>>>
>>> "Boeve, 33, of Steen, Minn., was killed June 30 while
>>> bicycling with her
>>> two young daughters, Claire and Mallorie.
>>>
>>> Boeve, who was wearing a helmet, was pulling her
>>> daughters, ages 4 and
>>> 1, in a bike trailer on Minnesota 270 near her home when
>>> she was struck
>>> by a 1-ton 2003 Chevrolet pickup truck.
>>>

What was she doing cycling on a highway with children? This rather
sounds like another "Darwin in action" event - an adult who has failed
to grow up teaching their sprogs "let's go play in the traffic"
reaping the entirely foreseeeable consequences.

The solution is not to punish the driver but to recogize that roads
are not the place for children's toys (no matter how old the preson
using them is), and to set aside places - playgounds, parks, and so on
- where they can be used. It is madness to mix traffic with a speed
differential in excess of 50 miles an hour, and then to blame the
party who may have only had a fraction of a second to see and react
for a collision.

[Duane]

The guy was doing online banking while driving and you blame the cyclist?

This was hardly an interstate highway.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_State_Highway_270


--
duane

[Mrcheerful]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 11:57:46 +0000 (UTC), Duane <sp...@flarn.com>
wrote:

No, I am blaming a mother for exposing her children to risk. The
highways are dangerous places, many cars travelling at speed and their
drivers capable of being momentarilly distracted for a multitude of
reasons. Whe the relative speed is small, such moments do not result
in a collision; but get some bimbo wobbling along with her screaming
kids, more than likely distracted by them to a greater degree than any
driver would be, and any fule would know a disaster was likely to
happen, and who would be responsible.

[JNugent]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:49:50 -0700 (PDT), avag...@gmail.com wrote:

>WELL THERE's THE 4 FOOT RULE BUT ONE isn't a parade. When I read this the other surface in memory...
>

Four feet is nowhere near enough - better twenty and a physical
barrier. A woman towing an articulated machine, probably more than
twice her own weight - some of it "live" (and as I understand it
noisey and distracting as well) is going to wander much more than
that.

If the type of fool who would ride a bicycle in amongst normal traffic
does not understand the risk they are needlessly exposing themselves
(and others) to, they should be prevented from doing so.

[avag...@gmail.com]

Driver is from SD, victims from Minn. One look at the driver's photo in GooImages n you know...

Usually childhood lung exposure to excessive particulates ground off the road/tires/IC is a complete negative for this activity but these are the great open spaces with clear air if the ground is moist n plowing ect minimal....pesticides.

'Like' sunglasses for kids at the beach or...?

The exposure question/intellligence has foundations.

A past search for child carrier accidents was fruitless given out the vast avalanche of auto child carrier stats.

In reality such as it is not seeing the bike and doing this texting thing is separate/disjointed to a level of criminal behavior. The pop is Ag and equipment aware.

How was the wind that day ?

[Frank Krygowski]

Troll alert. Or dunce alert. Hard to tell which.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Mrcheerful]

It is a forger alert.

[JNugent]

Hmmm...

Minnesota State Route 270 (mentioned as the location of the incident)
does not appear to be a freeway or even a divided highway (as the
American nomenclature has it). It is arrow-straight, aligned due east
and west and extends for exactly seven miles between its eastern end at
the interchange with I75 and its western terminus in the town of Hills.
It looks pretty ordinary: two lanes (one each way) with a continuous
hard shoulder on each side. Absolutely none of it runs through an urban
area and it is clearly not a busy route (the Google car shows no
vehicles on it from end to end on the day it was photographed).

See:
<https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=State+route+270,+Luverne,+Minnesota,+United+States&hl=en&ll=43.529337,-96.28755&spn=0.180962,0.363579&sll=43.655857,-96.205258&sspn=0.022573,0.045447&hnear=Minnesota+270,+Steen,+Minnesota+56173,+United+States&t=m&z=12&layer=c&cbll=43.529337,-96.28755&panoid=c_KmYG5dOE2XX6er1scZAA&cbp=12,91.02,,0,4.42>

If ever a rural road was safe for cycling, it's Minnesota State Route
270. How a collision could occur between vehicles travelling in the same
direction is totally mysterious. The truck would be on the right-hand
lane and the bike and trailer would be on one of the shoulders (which is
continuous on either side for all seven miles).

Did the collision occur with one of the vehicles turning at a junction?
There's more to this than meets the eye - and certainly more than is
being reported.

[JNugent]

Quite.

[JNugent]

Look up the road on Google Maps and Streetview.

The likelihood is that the cyclist and trailer were on a separate
hard-shoulder.
>

[JNugent]

The above is a forgery written by an idiot.

[avag...@gmail.com]

I75 down the road is a big deal. If the textor came from I75 then his perceptual ability is prob fuzzed from the speed differential.

[Free Spirit]

No wonder everybody lives in fear in America. Even an idiot can drive an automatic car and be on "auto pilot."

[Free Spirit]

I suggest to give the whole inner traffic lane to bicyclists AND other slow vehicles.

Let faster traffic pass you on the other lanes. One thing that is crucial is that speed cameras are implemented everywhere.

Drivers are the sacred cows but they must tamed and brought under control. Yes, I'm a driver too.

[Free Spirit]

On Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:39:08 PM UTC-4, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> I75 down the road is a big deal. If the textor came from I75 then his perceptual ability is prob fuzzed from the speed differential.

Talking about speed differentials:

Around here they place sharrows on blind curves where the speed differential may be as high as 40mph.

Should those engineers be charged for criminal design?

[JNugent]

On 12/07/2014 18:00, Ariel wrote:
> From JNugent:

>
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> Minnesota State Route 270 (mentioned as the location of the incident)
>> does not appear to be a freeway or even a divided highway (as the
>> American nomenclature has it). It is arrow-straight, aligned due east
>> and west and extends for exactly seven miles between its eastern end at
>> the interchange with I75 and its western terminus in the town of Hills.
>> It looks pretty ordinary: two lanes (one each way) with a continuous
>> hard shoulder on each side. Absolutely none of it runs through an urban
>> area and it is clearly not a busy route (the Google car shows no
>> vehicles on it from end to end on the day it was photographed).
>>
>> See:
>> <https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=State+route+270,+Luverne,+Minnesota,+United+States&hl=en&ll=43.529337,-96.28755&spn=0.180962,0.363579&sll=43.655857,-96.205258&sspn=0.022573,0.045447&hnear=Minnesota+270,+Steen,+Minnesota+56173,+United+States&t=m&z=12&layer=c&cbll=43.529337,-96.28755&panoid=c_KmYG5dOE2XX6er1scZAA&cbp=12,91.02,,0,4.42>
>>
>> If ever a rural road was safe for cycling, it's Minnesota State Route
>> 270. How a collision could occur between vehicles travelling in the same
>> direction is totally mysterious. The truck would be on the right-hand
>> lane and the bike and trailer would be on one of the shoulders (which is
>> continuous on either side for all seven miles).
>>
>> Did the collision occur with one of the vehicles turning at a junction?
>> There's more to this than meets the eye - and certainly more than is
>> being reported.
>

> Even if there is certainly more to this than is being reported, the fact that
> the truck driver involved has been charged with criminal vehicular homicide
> does kind of give us a clue that he may be at fault in all this.

Agreed.

Stories of this sort, though, *usually* leave out detail essential for
an adequate understanding of the incident, and this one is no exception.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Saturday, July 12, 2014 1:00:56 PM UTC-4, Ariel wrote:
> From JNugent:

>
>
>
> >Hmmm...
>
> >
>
> >Minnesota State Route 270 (mentioned as the location of the incident)
>
> >does not appear to be a freeway or even a divided highway (as the
>
> >American nomenclature has it). It is arrow-straight, aligned due east
>
> >and west and extends for exactly seven miles between its eastern end at
>
> >the interchange with I75 and its western terminus in the town of Hills.
>
> >It looks pretty ordinary: two lanes (one each way) with a continuous
>
> >hard shoulder on each side. Absolutely none of it runs through an urban
>
> >area and it is clearly not a busy route (the Google car shows no
>
> >vehicles on it from end to end on the day it was photographed).
>
> >
>
> >See:
>
> ><https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=State+route+270,+Luverne,+Minnesota,+United+States&hl=en&ll=43.529337,-96.28755&spn=0.180962,0.363579&sll=43.655857,-96.205258&sspn=0.022573,0.045447&hnear=Minnesota+270,+Steen,+Minnesota+56173,+United+States&t=m&z=12&layer=c&cbll=43.529337,-96.28755&panoid=c_KmYG5dOE2XX6er1scZAA&cbp=12,91.02,,0,4.42>
>
> >
>
> >If ever a rural road was safe for cycling, it's Minnesota State Route
>
> >270. How a collision could occur between vehicles travelling in the same
>
> >direction is totally mysterious. The truck would be on the right-hand
>
> >lane and the bike and trailer would be on one of the shoulders (which is
>
> >continuous on either side for all seven miles).
>
> >
>
> >Did the collision occur with one of the vehicles turning at a junction?
>
> >There's more to this than meets the eye - and certainly more than is
>
> >being reported.
>
>
>

> Even if there is certainly more to this than is being reported, the fact that
>
> the truck driver involved has been charged with criminal vehicular homicide
>
> does kind of give us a clue that he may be at fault in all this.

From the OP in this thread:

"The truck was driven by Christopher M. Weber, 25, of Madison, S.D., who
was on his cellphone navigating his bank's automated phone system,
according to a criminal complaint filed last week in Rock County
District Court. He has been charged with criminal vehicular homicide."

Obviouisly the driver was NOT paying attention to driving. A quiet road with paved sholulders = why the heck didn't he pull over to do his banking and then continue driving once he was finished? No, he was in too much of a hurry to get to where he was going and thought that he's try to do two totally different activities at the exact same time. The result is that he killed someone. I hope he gets hard time for this. Distracted drivers need stiffer penalties enforce if there is to be any hope of cutting down on it.

Cheers

[Duane]

Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 12, 2014 1:00:56 PM UTC-4, Ariel wrote:
>> From JNugent:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hmmm...
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Minnesota State Route 270 (mentioned as the location of the incident)
>>
>>> does not appear to be a freeway or even a divided highway (as the
>>
>>> American nomenclature has it). It is arrow-straight, aligned due east
>>
>>> and west and extends for exactly seven miles between its eastern end at
>>
>>> the interchange with I75 and its western terminus in the town of Hills.
>>
>>> It looks pretty ordinary: two lanes (one each way) with a continuous
>>
>>> hard shoulder on each side. Absolutely none of it runs through an urban
>>
>>> area and it is clearly not a busy route (the Google car shows no
>>
>>> vehicles on it from end to end on the day it was photographed).
>>
>>>
>>
>>> See:
>>

>>> <https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=State+route+270,+Luverne,+Minnesota,+United+States&hl=en&llC.529337,-96.28755&spn=0.180962,0.363579&sllC.655857,-96.205258&sspn=0.022573,0.045447&hnear=Minnesota+270,+Steen,+Minnesota+56173,+United+States&t=m&z &layer=c&cbllC.529337,-96.28755&panoid=c_KmYG5dOE2XX6er1scZAA&cbp ,91.02,,0,4.42>

+1
--
duane

[Dan O]

On Saturday, July 12, 2014 4:49:39 AM UTC-7, Mrcheerful wrote:

<snip>

> What was she doing cycling on a highway with children?

Exercising her right to the public space, dickhead!

<"madness" snipped>

I will say, though, that it occurred to me this might not
have happened at all in the more enlightened societies -
which just happen to provide lots of safer places for
bicyclists (wait for it... ) from 8 to 80 (and beyond
in both ways)

[James]

On 12/07/14 22:06, Mrcheerful wrote:

>
> No, I am blaming a mother for exposing her children to risk. The
> highways are dangerous places, many cars travelling at speed and their
> drivers capable of being momentarilly distracted for a multitude of
> reasons. Whe the relative speed is small, such moments do not result
> in a collision; but get some bimbo wobbling along with her screaming
> kids, more than likely distracted by them to a greater degree than any
> driver would be, and any fule would know a disaster was likely to
> happen, and who would be responsible.
>

Oh, so it's acceptable to drive, not pay attention, and kill other
people. Justifiable homicide!

Wow.

[Andre Jute]

"Mr Cheerful" is either a raving lunatic or deliberately provocative.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Quite. But there is something else really advanced societies provide the value of which is daily felt that we who are less fortunate tend to overlook. It is that the balance of power is different to what we in our own societies assume axiomatically because we have no experience of the alternative: motorists are held responsible for their actions in The Netherlands, they cannot get away with murder by saying, "Well, I didn't expect a cyclist to pop up just as I was texting my boyfriend." (Basically what that girl in Australia was claiming when she maimed a cyclist and said she didn't feel guilty.) When judges stop going along with this crap, and apply the law, you'll see a change of attitude and expression soon enough.

Andre Jute

Andre

[Tim McNamara]

Did you read the article before you spouted out your stupidity for all
to see? And WhyTF did you cross post this to unrelated newsgroups?

[Tim McNamara]

Goodness, you are an idiot *and* a douchebag. The driver in question
was not momentarily distracted. He was doing his fucking backing on his
fucking phone while irresponsibly and recklessly driving a motor vehicle
on the public roads.

Take a reading class, eh?

[Tim McNamara]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:51:12 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

Huh? The idiot behind the wheel wasn't paying attention, drifted onto
the shoulder and ran into the lady and her kids. There is nothing
mysterious about it. This is a familiar scenario responsible for close
to half of all cycling related traffic deaths.

[Tim McNamara]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:54:35 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

That makes more sense.

[Peter Keller]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:49:39 -0300, Mrcheerful wrote:

> children's toys

My children's toy is a very convenient economical pleasant viable means
of transport.

[Tim McNamara]

The very use of which triggers seething, insane rage in a small portion
of the population using other means of transportation. That's bad
enough, but it's usually the oblivious idiots using other means of
transportation that cause the most problems- mainly because there are
far more of them.

[Duane]

That seems right. At least the small portion with the seething insane rage
see us. It's the oblivious ones that do the most damage.
--
duane

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Saturday, July 12, 2014 10:34:40 PM UTC-4, Hiroko wrote:
> America has over the years instituted too many rules and laws that cannot be
>
> functioned. It crippled them. They will add more rules and laws to them when
>
> they found they have to overcome those rules and laws that they deemed did
>
> not function well on them.
>
>
>
> A good example of this, is the 3 feet rule to the cyclist when it is not
>
> possible to enforce or determine it when an accident occurred.

It is clear to me that the system promotes homelessness while it discourages cycling. After all, a cyclist is too independent and proud to be tolerated. The drivers themselves deliver the punishment.

You may attack a cyclist and get away with it, you may insult a cyclist and get away with it, but don't try that with the homeless. The homeless remain free, we must ride a bike in a limited area.

This is a dysfunctional democracy.

[Simon Jester]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:14:40 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 12/07/2014 15:30, Simon Jester wrote:

>> On Saturday, 12 July 2014 13:20:09 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Four feet is nowhere near enough - better twenty and a physical
>>> barrier.
>>

>> Separating motor vehicles from primary traffic is a good idea in theory.
>> In reality where do you propose to build these 'car paths'?
>> It just is not possible to build a car path alongside every road.
>> It would also require massive car parks at every motorway junction
>> and storage facilities for motorists to store their walking shoes/horses/bicycles.
>>
>
>Motor vehicles are the primary traffic, just stand at the side of any
>regular road and do your own little traffic survey for a half hour.
>Count motor vehicles, count all other forms of traffic. See which one
>is the bigger number.


No, "primary" traffic is that which consists of the sort of locomotion for which there is no extra
permission required; walking, pushing a handcart or pram, riding a horse or other beast of burden,
driving a flock of sheep/geese/etc, and cycling.

Secondary traffic is that which uses the highways by permission, i.e. driving a motor-car.

[JNugent]

You don't know the difference and distinction between "ie" ("id est")
and "eg") ("exempli gratia"), do you?

You also don't know the meaning of "primary", but that was obvious a few
posts back.

[James]

On 13/07/14 08:36, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, July 12, 2014 11:17:49 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
>> On 12/07/14 22:06, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>

[snipped deranged opinion]

>>
>>
>> Oh, so it's acceptable to drive, not pay attention, and kill other
>>
>> people. Justifiable homicide!
>>
>>
>>
>> Wow.
>
> "Mr Cheerful" is either a raving lunatic or deliberately provocative.
>

I'll assume for now he's a "raving lunatic", and is not deliberately
being a jerkoff.

--
JS

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 8:45:37 PM UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:

> This is a dysfunctional democracy.

How old are you, monkey face? You must be very young if you haven't yet grasped the truth of the notion, first encapsulated by Winston Churchill, that democracy, while the most successful system for governance yet devised, is by definition imperfect because it works in fits and starts and depends on natural corrections. In short, it can, by definition, never be less than dysfunctional in some ever-shifting part. You want perfection, go live under a dictatorship, see how long a fellow with diarrhea of the mouth lasts.

Andre Jute

[Mrcheerful]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 15:03:33 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 12, 2014 4:49:39 AM UTC-7, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> What was she doing cycling on a highway with children?
>
>Exercising her right to the public space, dickhead!
>

She has a right to take them swimming in alligator-infested canals in Florida too.

Would you applaud that behavious as well?

Now she's DEAD right.

Looks like she was ultimately at fault, deliverately exposing herself and her children to
unecessary risk, with the entirely predictable result.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/13/2014 7:57 PM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> She has a right to take them swimming in alligator-infested canals in Florida too.
> Would you applaud that behavious as well?

I doubt that would be considered a right. Feel free to prove me wrong.

>
> Now she's DEAD right.

So are about 40,000 American motorists every year. And BTW, car travel
is the leading cause of kids' accidental death. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Causes_of_accidental_death_by_age_group_%28percent%29.png

But I suspect your interest in logic and data is even less than your
interest in correct spelling.

>
> Looks like she was ultimately at fault, deliverately exposing herself and her children to
> unecessary risk, with the entirely predictable result.
>

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:24:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 7/13/2014 7:57 PM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>> She has a right to take them swimming in alligator-infested canals in Florida too.
>> Would you applaud that behavious as well?
>
>I doubt that would be considered a right. Feel free to prove me wrong.
>>
>> Now she's DEAD right.
>
>So are about 40,000 American motorists every year. And BTW, car travel
>is the leading cause of kids' accidental death. See:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Causes_of_accidental_death_by_age_group_%28percent%29.png
>
>But I suspect your interest in logic and data is even less than your
>interest in correct spelling.

Ah Frank, don't you know that English is a very dynamic language and
constantly changing.

Perhaps modern usage would have it something like "Oh Man! His
behavious is wayout, man; sooo cool."
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Mrcheerful]

Primary means of chief importance, a synonym would be dominant.

[Peter Keller]

So true.
Isn't an eye test a prerequisite for getting a licence?

[JNugent]

On 14/07/2014 09:47, Peter Keller wrote:

> Duane wrote:
>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:

>>> Peter Keller <muzh...@centrum.sk> wrote:
>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>>>>> children's toys
>
>>>> My children's toy is a very convenient economical pleasant viable
>>>> means of transport.
>
>>> The very use of which triggers seething, insane rage in a small portion
>>> of the population using other means of transportation. That's bad
>>> enough, but it's usually the oblivious idiots using other means of
>>> transportation that cause the most problems- mainly because there are
>>> far more of them.
>
>> That seems right. At least the small portion with the seething insane
>> rage see us. It's the oblivious ones that do the most damage.
>
> So true.
> Isn't an eye test a prerequisite for getting a licence?

No (not in the UK, anyway).

[Robert Cooper]

Cyclists are drivers:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/cyclistsaredrivers/

[Robert Cooper]

See quote from news item, below. He runs over someone, plus bike, plus trailer, plus two children, and only sees it AFTER he "heard a thump."
===
"I was on my mobile banking, listening to the voice recorder," Weber told police, according to the complaint filed Wednesday. "I was listening to menu options, listening for a touch tone -- which one I needed to push."

Then, he said, "I heard a thump, like I hit something. I looked in my rearview mirror. I saw a bicycle.

[Duane]

Like I posted last year, a guy in his car hit me from behind at a stop
(I was driving at the time) and got out to talk to me with his hand
raised like "wait a second" and his phone in his ear. The day before I
was at that same stop in the same place on my bike. Instead of a dented
bumper it could have been much worse. These guys need jail time.

[Mrcheerful]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:24:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 7/13/2014 7:57 PM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>> She has a right to take them swimming in alligator-infested canals in Florida too.
>> Would you applaud that behavious as well?
>
>I doubt that would be considered a right. Feel free to prove me wrong.
>>

What are you, some some of commie, you want to live in a state where everything not required is
forbidden?

Not that having that name helps...

[Andre Jute]

> ===

Thing is, it takes only a moment's distraction. If she was traveling at 10mph and he was driving at 50mph, he was closing at on her 59ft a second. That's dangerous enough with a bad driver who doesn't know how wide his vehicle is. But this guy wasn't momentarily distracted, he deliberately turned his attention away from the road for what seems heavy chunks of time. If he actually saw her a 590 feet ahead, a good way down the road, then paid attention to his phone instead of the road for ten seconds, he'd run her over.

Andre Jute

[Mark Williams]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:15:09 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On 14/07/2014 19:55, Mark Williams wrote:

>> Simon Jester <sj81...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Four feet is nowhere near enough - better twenty and a physical
>>>> barrier.
>>>
>>> Separating motor vehicles from primary traffic is a good idea in
>>> theory. In reality where do you propose to build these 'car paths'?
>>> It just is not possible to build a car path alongside every road. It
>>> would also require massive car parks at every motorway junction and
>>> storage facilities for motorists to store their walking
>>> shoes/horses/bicycles.
>>

>> They have already been built at phenomenal expense and there is no need
>> to build any more (no demand, as evidenced by the M600 experiment).
>> Their use just needs to be made compulsory. You can prevent the motor
>> vehicles from escaping them by installing permeability for walking and
>> cycling across the exit slip lanes. Then you can simply update one of
>> the Highway Code rules for motorists to read something like `use
>> motoring facilities, such as traffic lights and motorways, where
>> provided'. All very easy to do. It does not even require any rights of
>> way to be extinguished, because motor vehicles have no such right of
>> way.
>
>Extraordinary.


No, what is extraordinary is that motor vehicles kill about 400 pedestrians per year, and seriously
injure about thirty times as many; yet we do nothing effective to control this public health menace.

--
Mark

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 9:48:40 PM UTC+1, Mark Williams wrote:

>what is extraordinary is that motor vehicles kill about 400 pedestrians per year, and seriously
> injure about thirty times as many; yet we do nothing effective to control this public health menace.

+1. Now that's what I call clear thinking.

Andre Jute

[JNugent]

Even more extraordinary. The writer anthropomorphises mechanical objects
and reserves them as hate figures. Perhaps he indulges in a Daily Hate.

[Tim McNamara]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:27:02 +0100, Mrcheerful

At least you're consistent. Wrong, but consistent. Primary has other
(primary) definitions...

[avag...@gmail.com]

No wonder everybody lives in fear in America. Even an idiot can drive an automatic car and be on "auto pilot."

analysis of psychological brain states would be a very high percentage are 'preoccupied'....you have an inside your head ongoing conversation.

Then, sedan drivers baseline believe or unconsciously accept while inner conversing, fantasizing... verstehen ?

that driving is automatically safely done without trauma or accidents.

so when was the last time you practiced an emergency stop and swerve on wet pavement from 70 mph ?

[Mrcheerful]

If some psycholist special definition is intended, then it should be
used, rather than expecting others to divine how a particular word is
intended to be interpreted.

Make a Google search for "primary traffic" (with quotes) and see where
there are any hits for anything to do with road traffic, certainly not
on the first few pages of results. Even adding the word bicycle outside
the quotes only brings up something about not weaving in and out of the
cycle lane into the "primary traffic" lane, so that actually shows my
interpretation of the phrase as correct.

[Peter Keller]

Oh. It was some years ago I believe. One had to be able to read a
number plate from 25 yards* away.

*Yards. That shows how long ago that was. Has this requirement or
something similar been dropped?

[JNugent]

On 15/07/2014 03:15, Tim McNamara wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:27:02 +0100, Mrcheerful
> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 13/07/2014 23:30, Simon Jester wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:14:40 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 12/07/2014 15:30, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 12 July 2014 13:20:09 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>> Four feet is nowhere near enough - better twenty and a physical
>>>>>> barrier.
>

>>>>> Separating motor vehicles from primary school traffic is a good

>>>>> idea in theory. In reality where do you propose to build these
>>>>> 'car paths'? It just is not possible to build a car path alongside
>>>>> every road. It would also require massive car parks at every

>>>>> motorway junctionand storage facilities for motorists to store

>>>>> their walking shoes/horses/bicycles.
>
>>>> Motor vehicles are the primary traffic, just stand at the side of
>>>> any regular road and do your own little traffic survey for a half
>>>> hour. Count motor vehicles, count all other forms of traffic. See
>>>> which one is the bigger number.
>>>
>>> No, "primary" traffic is that which consists of the sort of
>>> locomotion for which there is no extra permission required; walking,
>>> pushing a handcart or pram, riding a horse or other beast of burden,
>>> driving a flock of sheep/geese/etc, and cycling.
>>> Secondary traffic is that which uses the highways by permission, i.e.
>>> driving a motor-car.

Nobody needs permission to drive a motor car unless they are borrowing
or hiring it.

I need no-one's permission to drive my car.

Can you not afford your own?

>> Primary means of chief importance, a synonym would be dominant.
>>
> At least you're consistent. Wrong, but consistent. Primary has other
> (primary) definitions...

Interesting.

So what *is* this other meaning, and from whence do you derive it?

[JNugent]

I believe that it has not been dropped (mind you, my - sole - test was
more than forty years ago).

But it is hardly an "eye test".

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

You know what, you make think. I do not want dictatorship. I want FUNCTIONAL DEMOCRACY. Northern Europe are functional democracies where life has priority over machine. Think about it: Mexico is a democracy and so is Venezuela. What do they deliver, violence?

Castro had a shot and fucked up, but Ecuador is making strides toward a happy nation. If you are happy with dysfunctional democracy, enjoy! See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. There are many shades of gray out there. I do not give the people the benefit of doubt. You know what the people want? Cheap gas, that's all they want. Corruption? It's not in their radar.

The world --the whole wide world-- is going to the pits while happy consumers exercise a brand of consumerism often disguised as globalization. Yes, of course, climate change is a ploy of the left. We can afford to be on automatic pilot until the end of times. If a presidential candidate is honest, and proposes to raise the price of fuel at the pump, he's out.

Oh wait, there's one more hope for the masses: Pray for peace and vote for war. Now our hope is not with democracy, but with a strong man. We are all hoping the new president of Egypt delivers peace and prosperity.

Sorry to introduce you to the "jungle of ideas."

[Frank Krygowski]

Nobody said they did.

What they need the permission for is to use it on the road.

>Can you not afford your own?
>

What has that to do with anything?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/15/2014 12:02 PM, someone appended my name to the response below.
I did not write it. The associated email address (m...@privacy.net) has
nothing to do with me.

=============================================================

[JNugent]

Really?

I could have sworn that someone by the posting name of "Tim McNamara"
said: "Secondary traffic is that which uses the highways by permission,

i.e. driving a motor-car".

But that's obvious nonsense, so perhaps he really meant something quite
different.

> What they need the permission for is to use it on the road.

I need no-one's permission to drive my car on the road. That is the case
with the vast majority of the users of motor-vehicles. The only obvious
exceptions would be people who were borrowing or hiring the vehicles.

>> Can you not afford your own?

> What has that to do with anything?

It's the only explanation for needing permission to drive it. I need my
wife's (admittedly only implied) permission to driver *her* car, but I
need no permission to drive mine. That's because it's mine, you see, and
there is no permission needed. And absolutely no-one to seek it from.

[Duane]

In Quebec you need a license, registration, liability insurance as a
minimum to drive your car. You also have to pay fees for public
transportation and various other taxes or you have no registration, no
license plates and no driver's license. If you don't have these, you
have no permission to drive anywhere.

[JNugent]

It sometimes happens, even to the best of us.

[JNugent]

But not permission?

[Duane]

Well they can say no. For example if you have a tendency to drive
drunk, they can revoke your permission to drive. And to get this back
on topic for this thread, I hope that when this clown gets out of jail
they don't give him permission to drive a car again.

[Free Spirit]

Canada is a civilized country for the most part. More so than America and Mexico.

[Mrcheerful]

The test of reading a number plate at x yards is not a pre-requisite for
getting a licence to ride or drive as a learner.

[JNugent]

But why would you seek permission when it isn't necessary and there is
in any case no right to refuse it (unless it is the owner of the vehicle
refusing it)?

> For example if you have a tendency to drive
> drunk, they can revoke your permission to drive.

What "permission"?

Are we speaking two different languages?

In the UK no-one needs permission to drive unless they are borrowing or
hiring a car. The same is true in the USA. I have never driven in Canada
but can't imagine that the situation is any different there.

> And to get this back
> on topic for this thread, I hope that when this clown gets out of jail
> they don't give him permission to drive a car again.

He can just buy his own (assuming he has the money) and then he won't
need permission.

[JNugent]

Good point.

[Duane]

You seem to be insisting on a very narrow definition of the word
permission for some reason. Not sure what your point is exactly.

World English Dictionary

permission (pəˈmɪʃən)

— n
authorization to do something

[JNugent]

Ah...

You've woken up.

> Not sure what your point is exactly.

My point is that I do not need permission to drive my car. No-one's
permission. There is no-one whose permission I need.If I don't need
permission (and I don't), the "point" made by a PP that there is a class
of road user who need "permission" is nonsense.

> World English Dictionary
> permission (pəˈmɪʃən)
> — n
> authorization to do something

That's right.

I don't need authorisation (nor even "authorization") from anyone to
drive my car. I can do it any time I like on my own say-so and no-one
else's.


>

[Radey Shouman]

You're serious. I need my government's permission to drive a motor
vehicle on any public way, and am required to carry a small card (we
call it a "driver's license") to show to any snappy civil servant with a
blue light and a pistol that might stop me and ask. Were I to keep
driving a car after this permission were withdrawn I might well be
thrown in jail.

Many of the reasons for revoking permission have to do with poor
driving, but not all. For example, many US states will now revoke a
driver's license for unpaid child support -- this is stupid, but
illustrates the nature of the permission to drive.

On the other hand, I am free, at least for now, to walk or bike on
public ways without any documentation whatsoever.

--

[Duane]

I think this guy is just looking for an argument.

>
> On the other hand, I am free, at least for now, to walk or bike on
> public ways without any documentation whatsoever.
>

Except for limited access roads like interstates. Many of those don't
allow bikes.

[Frank Krygowski]

Exactly.

This JNugent (whoever he is) is deliberately avoiding the "public road" aspect of it. Of course he
could drive a car, or a motorcycle, or a restored Sherman tank in his back yard without a license.
Nobody said he couldn't, but that's what he wants to argue.

What he won't argue is that a licence is not required to drive a car on the highway. At least I
think he won't, unless he's also one of the posse comitatus/admiralty law variety of whacko usenet
lunatic...

--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 16/07/14 02:25, JNugent wrote:

> I could have sworn that someone by the posting name of "Tim McNamara"
> said: "Secondary traffic is that which uses the highways by permission,
> i.e. driving a motor-car".

Whether or not it was Tim, it is correct.

> But that's obvious nonsense, so perhaps he really meant something quite
> different.

No, not nonsense at all.

The permission you may have is called a license. Without a license to
drive a motor vehicle on the road, you do not have permission to do so.

Driving a motor vehicle on the road is a *privilege* that may be revoked
- by cancelling a drivers license.

Riding a bicycle on a road is a *right*. Rights cannot simply be revoked.

--
JS

[James]

On 16/07/14 06:20, Duane wrote:

> Except for limited access roads like interstates. Many of those don't
> allow bikes.

Yes, motorways are a special breed of non public thoroughfare.

--
JS

[Sir Ridesalot]

Perhaps simply an Internet troll?

Cheers

[JNugent]

What nonsense.

A licence is not permission. One needs permission to drive someone
else's vehicle, but not to drive one's own vehicle.

I can go out right now, if I wanted to (but I don't want to), without
seeking anyone's permission, and I can drive on the public roads to ny
heart's content.

I don't need to consult anyone and I certainly don't need their permission.

"Riding a bicycle on a road is a *right*."

When did you last ride it on the M1? Or through the Mersey Tunnel?

"Rights cannot simply be revoked".

Are you sure?

At one time, there was no such thing as a driving licence.

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:52:18 PM UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> On Sunday, July 13, 2014 7:54:34 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, July 13, 2014 8:45:37 PM UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
>
> > > This is a dysfunctional democracy.
>
> > How old are you, monkey face? You must be very young if you haven't yet grasped the truth of the notion, first encapsulated by Winston Churchill, that democracy, while the most successful system for governance yet devised, is by definition imperfect because it works in fits and starts and depends on natural corrections. In short, it can, by definition, never be less than dysfunctional in some ever-shifting part. You want perfection, go live under a dictatorship, see how long a fellow with diarrhea of the mouth lasts.
>
>
>
> You know what, you make think.

Now there's a novelty. How did you feel after you thought? Liberated? Fancy that. Unshackling yourself by merely putting your mind in gear.

Andre Jute

[John B. Slocomb]

Dies this mean that blind people can get a driver's license in the
U.K. ?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tim McNamara]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 05:24:56 +0100, Mrcheerful

<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 15/07/2014 03:15, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:27:02 +0100, Mrcheerful
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2014 23:30, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:14:40 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/07/2014 15:30, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, 12 July 2014 13:20:09 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Four feet is nowhere near enough - better twenty and a physical
>>>>>>> barrier.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Separating motor vehicles from primary traffic is a good idea in

>>>>>> theory. In reality where do you propose to build these 'car
>>>>>> paths'? It just is not possible to build a car path alongside
>>>>>> every road. It would also require massive car parks at every

>>>>>> motorway junction and storage facilities for motorists to store

>>>>>> their walking shoes/horses/bicycles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Motor vehicles are the primary traffic, just stand at the side of
>>>>> any regular road and do your own little traffic survey for a half
>>>>> hour. Count motor vehicles, count all other forms of traffic. See
>>>>> which one is the bigger number.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, "primary" traffic is that which consists of the sort of
>>>> locomotion for which there is no extra permission required;
>>>> walking, pushing a handcart or pram, riding a horse or other beast
>>>> of burden, driving a flock of sheep/geese/etc, and cycling.
>>>>

>>>> Secondary traffic is that which uses the highways by permission,
>>>> i.e. driving a motor-car.
>>>>
>>>

>>> Primary means of chief importance, a synonym would be dominant.
>>>
>>
>> At least you're consistent. Wrong, but consistent. Primary has
>> other (primary) definitions...
>>
>

> If some psycholist special definition is intended, then it should be
> used, rather than expecting others to divine how a particular word is
> intended to be interpreted.
>
> Make a Google search for "primary traffic" (with quotes) and see where
> there are any hits for anything to do with road traffic, certainly not
> on the first few pages of results. Even adding the word bicycle
> outside the quotes only brings up something about not weaving in and
> out of the cycle lane into the "primary traffic" lane, so that
> actually shows my interpretation of the phrase as correct.

Ah, you are a homunculus, aren't you. Do you seriously think a Google
search proves you correct? LOL!

As the saying goes, never argue with an idiot lest he reduce you to his
level and beat you down with his greater experience.

Adios, "Mr. Cheerful." You're a waste of time.

[Tim McNamara]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:43:42 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

wrote:
> On 15/07/2014 03:15, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:27:02 +0100, Mrcheerful
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2014 23:30, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:14:40 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/07/2014 15:30, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, 12 July 2014 13:20:09 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Four feet is nowhere near enough - better twenty and a physical
>>>>>>> barrier.
>>

>>>>>> Separating motor vehicles from primary school traffic is a good

>>>>>> idea in theory. In reality where do you propose to build these
>>>>>> 'car paths'? It just is not possible to build a car path
>>>>>> alongside every road. It would also require massive car parks at

>>>>>> every motorway junctionand storage facilities for motorists to

>>>>>> store their walking shoes/horses/bicycles.
>>
>>>>> Motor vehicles are the primary traffic, just stand at the side of
>>>>> any regular road and do your own little traffic survey for a half
>>>>> hour. Count motor vehicles, count all other forms of traffic. See
>>>>> which one is the bigger number.
>>>>
>>>> No, "primary" traffic is that which consists of the sort of
>>>> locomotion for which there is no extra permission required;
>>>> walking, pushing a handcart or pram, riding a horse or other beast
>>>> of burden, driving a flock of sheep/geese/etc, and cycling.
>>>> Secondary traffic is that which uses the highways by permission,
>>>> i.e. driving a motor-car.
>

> Nobody needs permission to drive a motor car unless they are borrowing
> or hiring it.
>
> I need no-one's permission to drive my car.

Really? So you have not bothered with getting a driver's license, motor
vehicle registration, license plates, insurance, perhaps taking out a
bank loan to buy a car, etc. Perhaps you just "borrow" one for a joy
ride when you need to go somewhere?

So you continue with the clarion call of nuts everywhere that your
rights are primary over everyone else's. LOL.

> Can you not afford your own?

I have three cars, just adding a fourth this week.

>>> Primary means of chief importance, a synonym would be dominant.
>>>
>> At least you're consistent. Wrong, but consistent. Primary has
>> other (primary) definitions...
>

> Interesting.
>
> So what *is* this other meaning, and from whence do you derive it?

Educate yourself. Try searching for "primary" at dictionary.com.
Hopefully your problem is one of ignorance, since that can be fixed,
rather than stupidity.

[Tim McNamara]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:25:07 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

You could have sworn it and you'd be wrong. I did not write the words
you misattribute to me. Perhaps you should go back and check with a
clearer eye.

> But that's obvious nonsense, so perhaps he really meant something
> quite different.

You would have to aske the person who wrote it what he or she meant.

>> What they need the permission for is to use it on the road.
>
> I need no-one's permission to drive my car on the road. That is the
> case with the vast majority of the users of motor-vehicles. The only
> obvious exceptions would be people who were borrowing or hiring the
> vehicles.

And that is where you are incorrect (again). Having a driver's license
and paying for registration of your vehicle, purchasing any required
insurance coverage, is indeed obtaining permission to drive your motor
vehicle on the road.

A bicyclist or pedestrian, on the other have, is not so bound to obtain
permission (although there are certain road from which they are legally
prohibited such as interstate highways in most cases).

>>> Can you not afford your own?
>
>> What has that to do with anything?
>
> It's the only explanation for needing permission to drive it. I need
> my wife's (admittedly only implied) permission to driver *her* car,
> but I need no permission to drive mine. That's because it's mine, you
> see, and there is no permission needed. And absolutely no-one to seek
> it from.

Ah, the supermacy of ownership! This is MINE, MINE I say, and you can't
make me! Nyahhh!

What is it about motor vehicles that infantalizes so many people?

[Frank Krygowsk]

They seem to let idiots have them, judging from the cycle-hating lot that's suddenly appeared here.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/15/2014 4:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:...

No, I didn't. The email address is not mine, and the post is not mine.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/15/2014 6:27 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps simply an Internet troll?

Oh, doubtlessly. Nobody can really be so clueless.

But who's the guy who uses my name, with the email "m...@privacy.net"?

Trolls and net cowards... things are getting worse.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/15/2014 8:17 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>
> What is it about motor vehicles that infantalizes so many people?

A very good question! And one that deserves a separate thread. The bad
effects are many.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/15/2014 8:11 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>>
>> [Someone wrote:] I need no-one's permission to drive my car.

>
> Really? So you have not bothered with getting a driver's license, motor
> vehicle registration, license plates, insurance, perhaps taking out a
> bank loan to buy a car, etc. Perhaps you just "borrow" one for a joy
> ride when you need to go somewhere?

I suspect that this person, whoever he is, drives around the dirt paths
on his private farm. For that, he needs nobody's permission.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 16/07/14 09:16, JNugent wrote:
> On 15/07/2014 23:07, James wrote:
>> On 16/07/14 02:25, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> I could have sworn that someone by the posting name of "Tim McNamara"
>>> said: "Secondary traffic is that which uses the highways by permission,
>>> i.e. driving a motor-car".
>>
>> Whether or not it was Tim, it is correct.
>>
>>> But that's obvious nonsense, so perhaps he really meant something quite
>>> different.
>>
>> No, not nonsense at all.
>>
>> The permission you may have is called a license. Without a license to
>> drive a motor vehicle on the road, you do not have permission to do so.
>>
>> Driving a motor vehicle on the road is a *privilege* that may be revoked
>> - by cancelling a drivers license.
>>
>> Riding a bicycle on a road is a *right*. Rights cannot simply be
>> revoked.
>
> What nonsense.
>
> A licence is not permission. One needs permission to drive someone
> else's vehicle, but not to drive one's own vehicle.

Wrong. When your license is cancelled, you no longer have permission to
drive on public roads.

>
> "Riding a bicycle on a road is a *right*."
>
> When did you last ride it on the M1? Or through the Mersey Tunnel?

It is legal to ride on the M1 <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_Freeway >, and I have done so.

Mersey Tunnel doesn't exist in Australia.

> "Rights cannot simply be revoked".
>
> Are you sure?
>
> At one time, there was no such thing as a driving licence.
>

It requires a change of law, not a simple cancellation of one's license.

--
JS

[Radey Shouman]

The wages of cross posting, to uk.rec.cycling in this case.

--

[John B. Slocomb]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:36:41 -0300, Frank Krygowsk <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

Immaturity. As a former Lecturer you certainly can identify
under-graduate foolishness :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:28:32 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The first mandatory license requirement for driving was introduced in
the Motor Car Act 1903 in the United Kingdom. Every car owner had to
register their automobile with their local government authority and be
able to prove registration of their vehicle on request. The minimum
qualifying age was set at 17. The license gave its holders 'freedom of
the road' with a maximum 20 mph (32 km/h) speed limit.

The bloke must be one of the "elder generation" to remember that :-)

He should also notice the definition of the word "license" to mean
"permission".

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

It simply demonstrates the value of "kill Files", "Bozo Bins", or
other devices of the same type :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Free Spirit]

You know, the only kind of liberation I need is to ride a bicycle far and wide. But things don't look good around here. All the money goes down the drain. Please send the money to Iraq!

Picture taken today:

http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac18/thetibetanmonkey/CORRUPTION/KIMG0049_zpsise3sfre.jpg

[Mrcheerful]

I make no claim that Google is the only answer, but it will usually find
something that is in question.

I note that you can provide no leads as to your assertions.

[myaq...@invalid.com]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:16:38 +0100, Mrcheerful

Interesting. the guy says he dumped you down the toilet and you answer
him?

But perhaps you are writing for the benefit of your vast reading
audience?

--

Cheers,

M.Y.Aquila