Re: Precognition?
Dave
"Scott in SoCal" <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h7ics49t4suos4eoa...@4ax.com...
> While getting onto the freeway the other day I pulled up to the light
> behind an older (1999 - 2004) white Rousch Mustang with black racing
> stripes. When the light turned green, he pulled away very sedately and
> accelerated pretty darn slothily relative to the potential of his car.
> He levelled off at the 60 MPH speed limit and held his speed steady. I
> stayed behind him, also doing exactly the PSL.
>
> A couple of miles down the road, we came upon a motorcycle cop
> shooting LIDAR. When he saw a Mustang with racing stripes and a bright
> yellow Corvette coming down the road he must have started salivating;
> perhaps he even had visions of pulling us BOTH over for street racing
> or somesuch. What a letdown it must have been when he clocked us both
> going exactly 60 MPH. :)
>
> Anyway, it's interesting how that Rousch driver seemed to know there
> was a cop ahead. There were several intervening hills between the
> initial traffic light and the cop's position, so even if he had a
> LIDAR detector there would have been no possible way for him to have
> detected it. And I find it hard to believe that anyone who drives like
> a Grandma all the time would buy a V8 Mustang, let alone spend the
> extra money for a Rousch. Precognition? ESP? Or was he just waiting
> for me to pull up next to him so he could tempt me into a race? :)
Most likely explanation is that the driver (not necessarily ALWAYS in a
Rousch Mustang) is more familiar with the area than you are. I know the few
times I've moved in my lifetime I've had to be really careful driving near
my new home the first couple of years until I find MOST of the local cops'
favorite revenue collection areas. But you won't find -all- of them until
you've been living in a particular area for several years. I've got two
speed traps within walking distance of my home. One of them is 24/7 (very
unusual to NOT see a statie there on speed patrol), the other one is once
every several months. (very occasional use). In the few counties I
usually drive (when I'm "home") there's probably a couple dozen speed traps
that I could name off the top of my head. Some of them get used more
regularly than others. Other than those specific locations, you will hardly
ever see speed enforcement, and you will never see any other type of
enforcement. So once you get used to the patterns, you can pretty much
speed at will.
My point is, where the motorcycle cop was running lidar is probably a
well-known speed trap to some people. But it might only get occasional use,
so YOU haven't noticed it's a speed trap area YET. But the Rousch driver
knew that there might be a cop there. No precognition, just good memory.
:)
What gets me is, even in the worst speed trap areas, you will see lots of
local drivers get nabbed. People just not paying attention, I guess. I
mean, you drive the same roads day in and day out for years, see that people
are getting nailed for speeding in the same location over and over and over
and then YOU get nabbed for speeding in that area? No excuse for that.
Just plain stupidity. -Dave
SeaWoe
> "Scott in SoCal" <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:h7ics49t4suos4eoa...@4ax.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would be tempted to WALK up to the nearby trap and ask the operator
if his boss would let him work in a
location where speed was actually dangerous. He might be so pissed at
letting safety have the hind tit that he would actually give you some
interesting, if not useful, information as nto the reality of life
behind a badge.
This also applies to those manning a "stop line site" for easy cash.
Whn the 55 limit came intp effect in CA, the CHP would often NOT show
up in court if there was no safety involved.
Thus, those who went to court were punished by just the going there
and not by the fine and points that come from technically unsafe
driving.
Dave
>I would be tempted to WALK up to the nearby trap and ask the operator
>if his boss would let him work in a
>location where speed was actually dangerous.
Wow, you must be the psychic in the group. :) The nearest speed trap is
manned 24/7 by staties on speed patrol. It's on a super two divided
highway, posted 65MPH. Average speed in the area is about 75MPH. It's a
rural area, the worst danger of speeding is wildlife crossings. Lots of
dead deer littering the highway. But depending on weather and traffic
(usually sparse) and what I'm driving at the time, I could maintain triple
digits on that stretch SAFELY. Speed is only dangerous in the area AS A
DIRECT RESULT OF the speed trap.
> He might be so pissed at
>letting safety have the hind tit that he would actually give you some
>interesting, if not useful, information as nto the reality of life
>behind a badge.
Whoa. Are you implying that you think there is a cop in the known universe
who gives a rat's ass about safety? I average about 3000 miles per week
behind the wheel of various vehicles. Hardly a day goes by that I don't
witness truly dangerous, illegal activity by another driver that is ALSO
witnessed by a cop, who totally ignores it, as long as (whatever) is done
close to the speed limit. But dare to go 10 over, or just faster than the
flow (often 15 or 20 over), and you will attract LEO attention, usually
while driving in a perfectly SAFE manner.
>This also applies to those manning a "stop line site" for easy cash.
>Whn the 55 limit came intp effect in CA, the CHP would often NOT show
>up in court if there was no safety involved.
>Thus, those who went to court were punished by just the going there
>and not by the fine and points that come from technically unsafe
>driving.
God I know what that means, about being punished by "just the going there".
About 6 years ago, I was wrongfully accused of speeding in Boston. When I
say wrongfully accused, I don't mean it was my word against the cops. What
I mean is, the cop who wrote the ticket didn't know the law. What the cop
accused me of doing was in fact NOT ILLEGAL. I had a perfect driving record
at the time (still do), so I wasn't going to pay the fine or get the points
on my license. I decided to fight it. Only problem is, I had to take two
days off work to do it. First time I had a court date, I was allowed to
talk to a magistrate who didn't want to hear anything about me having the
law on my side, so he marked some form responsible or some such, and told me
I could appeal to a judge. So I had to come back another day, to a second
court date, to talk to the judge. The judge was willing to listen as I
calmly explained that ACCORDING TO THE TICKET (and the cited law), I had in
fact violated no law. The judge agreed and the charge was dismissed. On a
side note, it is truly fucked that I had to prove that I hadn't violated the
law (the burden of proof is on WHOM???), but that's a whole other can of
worms...
But I still felt thoroughly fucked by the experience. Having to show up in
traffic court is cruel and unusual punishment all by itself. And some of
the accused there are in fact INNOCENT (as opposed to just pleading "not
guilty"). IMHO, if you are found not guilty, the state should pay your
court costs and lost wages, etc. But then, we'd all just pay higher taxes.
You can't win. -Dave
Brent
> On Mar 22, 3:08 pm, "Dave" <now...@noway2.not> wrote:
>> "Scott in SoCal" <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:h7ics49t4suos4eoa...@4ax.com...
>> > Anyway, it's interesting how that Rousch driver seemed to know there
>> > was a cop ahead. There were several intervening hills between the
>> > initial traffic light and the cop's position, so even if he had a
>> > LIDAR detector there would have been no possible way for him to have
>> > detected it. And I find it hard to believe that anyone who drives like
>> > a Grandma all the time would buy a V8 Mustang, let alone spend the
>> > extra money for a Rousch. Precognition? ESP? Or was he just waiting
>> > for me to pull up next to him so he could tempt me into a race? :)
1) He knew the cop was likely there because he sees a cop there
frequently.
2) He didn't feel like playing with you at that time.
Now if I had some guy in vette behind me wanting to play games I would
have taken off fairly fast hoping the vette driver would show me what
his car can do.... while I level off at exactly the speed limit the
vette driver would go through the speed trap at a rather high rate of
speed :)
> I would be tempted to WALK up to the nearby trap and ask the operator
> if his boss would let him work in a
> location where speed was actually dangerous. He might be so pissed at
> letting safety have the hind tit that he would actually give you some
> interesting, if not useful, information as nto the reality of life
> behind a badge.
A beating and an arrest for questioning him.
SeaWoe
In Somerville (near Boston) if the police caught a local driving drunk
and the driver was co-operative, they would put him/her in the slammer
overnight and the next day the baddie would plead guilty to public
drunkenness.
If the driver acted up when stopped, they would get him for DWI.
Mate things have changed, but I find POs on generally co-operatuve in
GB, and Calif as I did in Boston back before 1972, when I left.
It must be my attitude.
harry k
Do you enjoy your masochistic daydreams?
Harry K
Brent
You need to interact with cops more. I politely asked one a simple
question of why he was on the property on friday afternoon (one which I
have some responsibility for) and he got angry and snapped back. Going
up to one and telling him to do something more productive is very likely
going to lead to negative results.
N8N
Saw that maybe half a mile from my house. Officer was parked right up
at the corner, not more than four feet from the stop sign, several
days in a row. Don't know how many violators she caught, but it sure
made a mess of traffic - vehicles approaching from behind had to go
around the cruiser (putting them slightly over the midline of this
residential street) and also had a real hard time seeing traffic
approaching from the right. A citizen certainly should have received
a ticket for parking in that space...
nate
SeaWoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Our local newspaper has someone assignewd to xome out andtake a look
at civic "oddities.:
Does yours?
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you you "snapped back" equals "getting beat up"?...got it.
Harry K
Brent
Are you trolling or just stupid?
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just trying to understand your idiotic view point.
Harry K
Brent
It's not idiotic for anyone who has interacted with cops especially
post-sept-2001. Go for it Harry, walk up to a cop and tell him he should
be doing something other than what he is doing. See what happens.
N8N
I don't think anyone reads our local paper, to be honest with you :)
(it's one of those free 10-page deals)
It does make handy packing filler though...
I believe that the Washington Post has someone like that, but hardly
worth bothering them about in the grand scheme of things. Of more
concern to me is the way the cops drive when they're *not* sitting
still...
nate
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unlike you, I don't walk around in fear of my shadow.
Harry K
Brent
How does knowing that cops will generally react badly to something
translate to 'fear of my shadow'?
Remeber Harry, it's other people in this group that tell me that I
should be affraid of people because they *MIGHT* have a gun.... lol.
IME Cops do not like any one who is critical of their actions. So why
don't you go try it some time Harry?
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you _really do_ believe that asking a cop a civil question will
result in them beating you. Amazing.
Harry K
Brent
I meant it half joking to get a point across. A point you clearly missed
and continue to miss.
It depends on the cop. I predict most will react badly. An arrest and a
beating is a possibility if the cop is a bad enough mood. So, if you
like playing with a loaded gun, go ahead and ask a cop why he isn't
doing something more productive than running a revenue gathering speed
trap. To a cop it's not a "civil question". It's questioning their
actions, their 'authority', their 'job'.
I'll just highlight the few times I've done something that slightly
questioned the wisdom of a cop's actions when they put me in danger.
I had a cop turn left across my path (I had a green signal) while he was
on his cell phone. I stopped and shrugged. He did a U-turn and came
after me at high speed. He then proceeded to scream at me for 'making
faces' at him. The guy was very close to losing control.
In another instance I was bicycling at 25mph on a 25mph residential
street. A car brush passes me and I sound the horn. Car stops. A cop
gets out (after opening the door open into my path) of the passenger
seat and proceeds to sceam at me and threaten me.
In december I was pulled over for looking at a cop who had nearly
clipped the corner of my car. He asks me 'do you have something to say
to me?' with all the volume and tone that a typical bully would use. All
I did was look at him when passed by, but that was enough to upset him
enough that suddenly he was willing to delay his trip ( he was
speeding and tailgating at various points in the previous few miles).
In October I had two police cruisers gun it by me within inches while I
was bicycling. When I caught up to them at the light (red signal)
several seconds later I was in the neighboring lane and glared at the
second cop. He did nothing, did not even react.
So, yeah, it makes going up to one and telling him he should be doing
something that actually promotes road safety to be a stupid thing to do
unless one likes taking risks with armed men that are a ball of 'roid
rage and PTSD. So go ahead harry, roll those dice. You're not affraid of
your shadow now are you? (oh, yeah and you have to it in the big city,
not mayberry where Andy and Barney might just still be on duty)
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh goody, more stories from Brent's experiences.
Harry K
harry k
> In message
> <1e41f012-8bbd-4081-b007-1ae71e809...@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Unlike you, I don't walk around in fear of my shadow.
>
> >> How does knowing that cops will generally react badly to something
> >> translate to 'fear of my shadow'?
>
> >> Remeber Harry, it's other people in this group that tell me that I
> >> should be affraid of people because they *MIGHT* have a gun.... lol.
>
> >> IME Cops do not like any one who is critical of their actions. So why
> >> don't you go try it some time Harry?
>
> >result in them beating you. Amazing.
>
> has reported on USENET he must fit every single criminal profile known
> to man. According to him, he is constantly getting pulled over for
> "papers checks," being stopped on the street for questioning, he's
> even targeted when he rides his bike. I guess maybe when you're living
> in your own private circle of Police Harrassment Hell such a beating
> is to be expected.
Ayup! Must be hell to have to look under the bed every time you crawl
into it.
Harry K
DanKMTB
> In message
> <1e41f012-8bbd-4081-b007-1ae71e809...@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> How does knowing that cops will generally react badly to something
> >> translate to 'fear of my shadow'?
>
> >> Remeber Harry, it's other people in this group that tell me that I
> >> should be affraid of people because they *MIGHT* have a gun.... lol.
>
> >> IME Cops do not like any one who is critical of their actions. So why
> >> don't you go try it some time Harry?
>
> >result in them beating you. Amazing.
>
> has reported on USENET he must fit every single criminal profile known
> to man. According to him, he is constantly getting pulled over for
> "papers checks," being stopped on the street for questioning, he's
> even targeted when he rides his bike. I guess maybe when you're living
> in your own private circle of Police Harrassment Hell such a beating
> is to be expected.
I've been stopped for stupid shit, and harassed quite a bit on a
bicycle. I attribute it to my choice in vehicles, now how I look.
I'm a pretty average looking (yet stunningly handsome <g>) guy, but I
drive a beater 4x4 truck with some tree & rock shaped body mods,
usually covered in mud. I also ride pedal bikes a whole lot. I've
never been in fear of being beaten for it, but harassment sort of
comes with the territory. Riding a bike through a small suburban town
in the middle of the night when they don't usually see people results
in a stop probably 5% of the time. That's a small percentage, but
it's still one in 20, so if you do it oftten you'll get stopped/
harassed sometimes. Just about never happens in my own city (actually
only once that I can recall in the 4 years I've lived there) but in
the smaller towns that go to sleep @ 10PM, a guy on a bike @ 2AM can
raise some eyebrows.
Brent
> In message
><1e41f012-8bbd-4081...@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> harry k <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> > Unlike you, I don't walk around in fear of my shadow.
>>>
>>> How does knowing that cops will generally react badly to something
>>> translate to 'fear of my shadow'?
>>>
>>> Remeber Harry, it's other people in this group that tell me that I
>>> should be affraid of people because they *MIGHT* have a gun.... lol.
>>>
>>> IME Cops do not like any one who is critical of their actions. So why
>>> don't you go try it some time Harry?
>>
>>result in them beating you. Amazing.
>
> has reported on USENET he must fit every single criminal profile known
> to man. According to him, he is constantly getting pulled over for
> "papers checks,"
Strawman. Never said constantly.
> being stopped on the street for questioning,
Once.
> he's
> even targeted when he rides his bike.
A good half dozen times.
> I guess maybe when you're living
> in your own private circle of Police Harrassment Hell such a beating
> is to be expected.
Try being different than mainstream white-bread america, Scott. Just a
little tiny bit.
gpsman
>
> So, if you
> like playing with a loaded gun, go ahead and ask a cop why he isn't
> doing something more productive than running a revenue gathering speed
> trap. To a cop it's not a "civil question". It's questioning their
> actions, their 'authority', their 'job'.
Kinda like me asking why all the r.a.d. "engineers" seem to lack
anything better to do than peruse the internet all day?
Cops do what their bosses tell them to do... as if they have a "job"!
"Speed enforcement" is an important part of that "job".
<q>Speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to
traffic crashes. The economic cost to society of speeding-related
crashes is estimated by NHTSA to be $40.4 billion per year. In 2007,
speeding was a contributing factor in 31 percent of all fatal crashes,
and 13,040 lives were lost in speeding-related crashes.
Speeding reduces a driver’s ability to steer safely around curves or
objects in the roadway, extends the distance necessary to stop a
vehicle, and increases the distance a vehicle travels while the driver
reacts to a dangerous situation.</q>
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/TSF/2007/810998.pdf
-----
- gpsman
Brent
My riding season is roughly 200 days long. I get stopped on average once
a year. That probably works out to be about 1% of my bicycling trips. It
usually has to do with bicycling vehicularly in one aspect or another.
The best way to get stopped IME is to be different and/or do something
that makes the cop think you are not bowing to his authoritah. It's
rather odd that I get called 'scared' when I am one of those in this
group that is considered crazy for not bowing down and groveling to
cops.
Keep in mind my comment about a beating and arrest was in regards to
confronting a cop out of the blue and telling him what a better use of
his time would be.
DanKMTB
>
> - Show quoted text -
I ride year round (not that my season is any better, I'm just stubborn
and dress for it), so it seems like I actually get stopped more than
you. I do fit the "typical white raised american" profile, or
whatever it was you said. It's all about when, where and how though.
Most of my riding I figure I'm going to be ok. Set off ona trip
through small towns from MA to Dover, NH that isn't going to get me
home to Dover until the wee hours of the morn, and there's a good
chance i'll be stopped. Ride home @ 5PM... not likely. A few of my
stops have been because "people called to report me weaving around".
which has to be what they decided what they thought would work when
they called pissed because I was riding on "their' road. I don't
weave when I ride, I've been riding a long time and can hold a line
just fine. Sunny Sunday afternoon ride... no chance I'll be
stopped. It's all about when/where/how, at least for me.
Brent
> I ride year round (not that my season is any better, I'm just stubborn
> and dress for it), so it seems like I actually get stopped more than
> you. I do fit the "typical white raised american" profile, or
> whatever it was you said.
You don't. You're older than 16 and ride a bicycle. Good americans
throw their bicycles away the day they turn 16 or if they still ride
they do so submissively on sidewalks and only on streets when there is
a bike lane at low speeds. ;)
Seriously though, you're bicycling through multiple towns on a single
trip, normal people in the US don't do that. Especially at 2am. That's
well out of the acceptable mainstream. It's not all about looks, it's
about behavior and not being like everybody else. We all free
until we decide not to be like everyone else.
> It's all about when, where and how though.
> Most of my riding I figure I'm going to be ok. Set off ona trip
> through small towns from MA to Dover, NH that isn't going to get me
> home to Dover until the wee hours of the morn, and there's a good
> chance i'll be stopped. Ride home @ 5PM... not likely. A few of my
> stops have been because "people called to report me weaving around".
> which has to be what they decided what they thought would work when
> they called pissed because I was riding on "their' road. I don't
> weave when I ride, I've been riding a long time and can hold a line
> just fine. Sunny Sunday afternoon ride... no chance I'll be
> stopped. It's all about when/where/how, at least for me.
There wasn't likely a call about you. The cop makes it up. Cops lie.
They are allowed to and encouraged to.
Dave
> I've never seen (a picture of) Brent, but based on the experiences he
> has reported on USENET he must fit every single criminal profile known
> to man. According to him, he is constantly getting pulled over for
> "papers checks," being stopped on the street for questioning, he's
> even targeted when he rides his bike. I guess maybe when you're living
> in your own private circle of Police Harrassment Hell such a beating
> is to be expected.
Hey, to be fair to Brent, I've had my fair share of bad experiences with
cops. One deliberately ran me off the road, almost killing me and my
passenger. A lesser driver wouldn't have SURVIVED the experience, but I was
able to keep the rubber side down and avoid a few trees while I was crashing
through the brush at highway speed. Why did he do that? Because he thought
I was driving about 10MPH over the posted speed limit. And honestly, I was
speeding, but I didn't know that was a capital offense! But apparently to
at least one local cop in Shirley, MA, speeding is a crime which deserves
instant death penalty. Then there was the local cop in Leominster, MA, who
pulled me over for "speeding" (55MPH in a 55MPH zone) so he could stare at
my gorgeous fiances' tits. I wish I made that up. But I was engaged to a
drop-dead gorgeous brunette (like 49 on a scale of 1 to 10!) with NICE tits
and it was a nice day and she was wearing a low neckline tank top with no
bra and the cop pulled me over just so he could stick his head through the
PASSENGER window and stare right down her shirt for a few minutes, never
once looking at me. Not that I blame him for enjoying the view, but what if
I'd been a crazy person with a weapon or something? And the fact that he
made up an excuse to do it makes me think he might have been a sexual
predator with a badge. I'd literally JUST entered the highway, was still
accelerating when he lit me up. If he'd have waited a few seconds, I might
have been speeding, but just after I saw the disco lights I looked down and
the needle was JUST THEN starting to creep past the 55 mark. So while he
claimed he was pulling me over for speeding, I know the real deal. Then
there was the fricking moron in the Chicago area who walked right out in
front of my 18 wheeler and just stood there as I panic-braked trying not to
squash his ass. He was dressed in blue jeans, sneakers and a unmarked
black rain parka. When I honked at him to get the fuck out of my way, he
went fucking ballistic and threatened to throw my ass in prison for failing
to obey orders from an LEO. Sometime AFTER that he finally mentioned that
he was a state police officer doing roadside inspections of commercial
vehicles. Well how the fuck was I supposed to know that? The only vehicle
in the area was a dark colored SUV that had civilian plates and no unusual
markings of any kind. And Mr. Suicide By 18 Wheeler was definitely out of
uniform, if he was a LEO. He did present identification when I asked him
to, but he again repeated his threat to throw my ass in prison for
disrespecting him. OH! And a couple of months ago, I almost got arrested
by NY statie number 2 for OBEYING the lawful order of NY statie number 1!!!
I was driving an 18 wheeler up 81 Northbound, and there was a truck
inspection area (and rest area) that had the lights flashing for all trucks
to enter for inspection. So I pulled into the entrance ramp, was getting
ready to veer RIGHT into the truck area for inspection when I look over and
see a NY State Police officer pointing directly at me, and then vigorously
gesturing with both hands that I should stay to the left (go straight). So
at the last moment, I veered back to the left, AS ORDERED and proceeded
through the "car" area of the rest area and then back onto Route 81 North.
A couple miles down the road, Statie number 2 pulls me over and threatens to
arrest me for bypassing the truck inspection. (?!?)
Maybe you think Brent is a bit paranoid, and he may be a bit paranoid. But
if so, it's likely that he has good reason. It's almost never a good thing
to interact with cops. I sure as Hell wouldn't provoke one by suggesting
that they might have better things to do. -Dave
DanKMTB
> On 2009-03-25, DanKMTB <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I ride year round (not that my season is any better, I'm just stubborn
> > and dress for it), so it seems like I actually get stopped more than
> > you. I do fit the "typical white raised american" profile, or
> > whatever it was you said.
>
> You don't. You're older than 16 and ride a bicycle. Good americans
> throw their bicycles away the day they turn 16 or if they still ride
> they do so submissively on sidewalks and only on streets when there is
> a bike lane at low speeds. ;)
Fair enough. The “white” thing made me think you were referring to
racial profiling. I’m definitely a wackjob in the sense of what I do
and when I do it.
> Seriously though, you're bicycling through multiple towns on a single
> trip, normal people in the US don't do that. Especially at 2am. That's
> well out of the acceptable mainstream. It's not all about looks, it's
> about behavior and not being like everybody else. We all free
> until we decide not to be like everyone else.
Funny you mention the multiple towns thing. I was on a ride from
Newburyport, MA to Dover, NH one night when I was stopped (for
weaving, which I was not doing). He asked where I was coming from,
and I said Newburyport. He didn’t believe me, and we had to debate it
for a bit. (The route I took, I was about 16 miles from my start
point. In other words, nothing). He then asked where I was going,
and I told him Dover. He proceeded to tell me there was no way I was
going to Dover, I couldn’t make it that far, I had to call for a ride,
etc. etc. My destination in Dover was about 23 miles more from where
I was). I explained to him that 40 miles was really no big deal, and
that I’d done the ride before, etc. etc. It was an absolute shit-
show.
> > It's all about when, where and how though.
> > Most of my riding I figure I'm going to be ok. Set off ona trip
> > through small towns from MA to Dover, NH that isn't going to get me
> > home to Dover until the wee hours of the morn, and there's a good
> > chance i'll be stopped. Ride home @ 5PM... not likely. A few of my
> > stops have been because "people called to report me weaving around".
> > which has to be what they decided what they thought would work when
> > they called pissed because I was riding on "their' road. I don't
> > weave when I ride, I've been riding a long time and can hold a line
> > just fine. Sunny Sunday afternoon ride... no chance I'll be
> > stopped. It's all about when/where/how, at least for me.
>
> There wasn't likely a call about you. The cop makes it up. Cops lie.
> They are allowed to and encouraged to.
Maybe, or maybe not. I have no way of knowing. It could have been an
excuse to stop me, or there could have been a call. I’ll never know.
I won’t lose sleep over it. The entire stop was a hassle and a bunch
of bullshit, but it’s an interesting story to have under my belt
anyway.
The one time I was stopped in my own city, it was more like 3:30 AM.
I was stopped for a breather in a gas station parking lot. The cop
told me flat out he stopped to see what I was doing. I told him I
couldn’t sleep and was out for a ride. After a debate he left me with
an option: I get booked for trespassing or I take a ride home from
him. I doubt the gas station would have prosecuted but didn’t want to
deal with it. I ended up letting him bring me home, since he wouldn’t
let me ride (even though I was about a mile from my house). Note to
self: In the future, always stop on the sidewalk or the side of the
road. The parking lot of a closed business seemed like a good, out of
the way place to stop and relax, but it gave the cop some leverage on
the trespassing thing. I was already annoyed from something else and
just wasn’t up to getting arrested and fighting it in court, even if I
was sure I would have won.
Arif Khokar
> I've never seen (a picture of) Brent, but based on the experiences he
> has reported on USENET he must fit every single criminal profile known
> to man. According to him, he is constantly getting pulled over for
> "papers checks," being stopped on the street for questioning, he's
> even targeted when he rides his bike. I guess maybe when you're living
> in your own private circle of Police Harrassment Hell such a beating
> is to be expected.
I haven't been targeted by police while riding, but I do know for a fact
that police will target you if you do something that's legal but they
don't approve of.
Brent
>> On 2009-03-25, DanKMTB <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I ride year round (not that my season is any better, I'm just stubborn
>> > and dress for it), so it seems like I actually get stopped more than
>> > you. I do fit the "typical white raised american" profile, or
>> > whatever it was you said.
>>
>> You don't. You're older than 16 and ride a bicycle. Good americans
>> throw their bicycles away the day they turn 16 or if they still ride
>> they do so submissively on sidewalks and only on streets when there is
>> a bike lane at low speeds. ;)
>
> racial profiling. I?m definitely a wackjob in the sense of what I do
> and when I do it.
that is part of the white-bread term... but it's that over all generic
soleless consumer suburban blandness overall. Everyone the same.
>> Seriously though, you're bicycling through multiple towns on a single
>> trip, normal people in the US don't do that. Especially at 2am. That's
>> well out of the acceptable mainstream. It's not all about looks, it's
>> about behavior and not being like everybody else. We all free
>> until we decide not to be like everyone else.
> Funny you mention the multiple towns thing. I was on a ride from
> Newburyport, MA to Dover, NH one night when I was stopped (for
> weaving, which I was not doing). He asked where I was coming from,
> and I said Newburyport. He didn?t believe me, and we had to debate it
> for a bit. (The route I took, I was about 16 miles from my start
> point. In other words, nothing). He then asked where I was going,
> and I told him Dover. He proceeded to tell me there was no way I was
> going to Dover, I couldn?t make it that far, I had to call for a ride,
> etc. etc. My destination in Dover was about 23 miles more from where
> I was). I explained to him that 40 miles was really no big deal, and
> that I?d done the ride before, etc. etc. It was an absolute shit-
> show.
I've never been stopped on a ride that long. I was expecting to be
stopped when I biking past woodfield mall out in schaumburg when I've
had cops pull up behind me but they didn't do it. It's a major arterial
street 6 lanes wide at that point.
> the trespassing thing. I was already annoyed from something else and
> just wasn?t up to getting arrested and fighting it in court, even if I
> was sure I would have won.
Yeah... its the hassle of court that has caused me to eventually give in
to some cops. Then again c(r)ook county court isn't fair nor does actual
law matter.
Nick Naim
"Dave" <now...@noway2.not> wrote in message
news:gq6sq0$7hm$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
>
>>I would be tempted to WALK up to the nearby trap and ask the operator
>>if his boss would let him work in a
>>location where speed was actually dangerous.
>
> manned 24/7 by staties on speed patrol. It's on a super two divided
> highway, posted 65MPH. Average speed in the area is about 75MPH. It's a
> rural area, the worst danger of speeding is wildlife crossings. Lots of
> dead deer littering the highway. But depending on weather and traffic
> (usually sparse) and what I'm driving at the time, I could maintain triple
> digits on that stretch SAFELY. Speed is only dangerous in the area AS A
> DIRECT RESULT OF the speed trap.
>
>> He might be so pissed at
>>letting safety have the hind tit that he would actually give you some
>>interesting, if not useful, information as nto the reality of life
>>behind a badge.
>
> universe
> who gives a rat's ass about safety? I average about 3000 miles per week
> behind the wheel of various vehicles.
3000/5=600 mpd mon thru fri
3000/6=500 mpd mon thru sat.
3000/7=428 mpd mon thru sun
when do you stop to take a shit?
Hardly a day goes by that I don't
> witness truly dangerous, illegal activity by another driver that is ALSO
> witnessed by a cop, who totally ignores it, as long as (whatever) is done
> close to the speed limit. But dare to go 10 over, or just faster than the
> flow (often 15 or 20 over), and you will attract LEO attention, usually
> while driving in a perfectly SAFE manner.
>
>>This also applies to those manning a "stop line site" for easy cash.
>
>>up in court if there was no safety involved.
>>Thus, those who went to court were punished by just the going there
>>and not by the fine and points that come from technically unsafe
>>driving.
>
> God I know what that means, about being punished by "just the going
> there".
> About 6 years ago, I was wrongfully accused of speeding in Boston. When I
> say wrongfully accused, I don't mean it was my word against the cops.
> What
> I mean is, the cop who wrote the ticket didn't know the law. What the cop
> accused me of doing was in fact NOT ILLEGAL. I had a perfect driving
> record
> at the time (still do), so I wasn't going to pay the fine or get the
> points
> on my license. I decided to fight it. Only problem is, I had to take two
> days off work to do it. First time I had a court date, I was allowed to
> talk to a magistrate who didn't want to hear anything about me having the
> law on my side, so he marked some form responsible or some such, and told
> me
> I could appeal to a judge. So I had to come back another day, to a second
> court date, to talk to the judge. The judge was willing to listen as I
> calmly explained that ACCORDING TO THE TICKET (and the cited law), I had
> in
> fact violated no law. The judge agreed and the charge was dismissed. On
> a
> side note, it is truly fucked that I had to prove that I hadn't violated
> the
> law (the burden of proof is on WHOM???), but that's a whole other can of
> worms...
>
> But I still felt thoroughly fucked by the experience. Having to show up
> in
> traffic court is cruel and unusual punishment all by itself. And some of
> the accused there are in fact INNOCENT (as opposed to just pleading "not
> guilty"). IMHO, if you are found not guilty, the state should pay your
> court costs and lost wages, etc. But then, we'd all just pay higher
> taxes.
> You can't win. -Dave
>
>
Dave
> > behind the wheel of various vehicles.
> 3000/5=600 mpd mon thru fri
> 3000/6=500 mpd mon thru sat.
Yup, that's about right. I'll drive more than 600 miles some days, but
usually I'm between 480-540, somewhere in that range. In an 18 wheeler, you
can only average (note I said AVERAGE, and that's MOVING average, not
including stopped time) about 56MPH no matter how your equipment is
"limited", and how hard you push the right pedal. With 9-11 hours of
driving a day, you're doing good to exceed 500 miles in a single day, and
REALLY good to exceed 600 miles in a day. Driving a "truck" for 500 miles
will tire you out about as much as if you drove a car for 1000 miles, so
it's definitely something you need to get used to. The most you can really
do in one week is about 2800 miles on a REGULAR basis, due to other
regulations. If you log it legal, that is. I'm one of the few truck
drivers who always runs legal. I'm about 1 in a million. But I've
shattered 3000 miles many weeks. One week I covered almost 7000 miles, but
I had help. :) And yes, the tractor was almost constantly moving.
> 3000/7=428 mpd mon thru sun
> when do you stop to take a shit?
Good question. Most rest areas have little or no truck parking. Gotta try
to find a truck stop if you can, but those restrooms are truly disgusting.
And if it's between about 11PM and 6AM, you won't find a place to stop to
take a shit. Not a place with running water. In fact, you won't find a
legal place to stop, period, during those hours. The truck stops, rest
areas and other areas where trucks can legally park are all FULL (and that's
a huge problem, with states closing more and more rest areas all the time).
That's why you see so many trucks parked on Interstate entrance/exit ramps
late at night. That's not legal, but they have no choice. They can park
illegally, or they can DRIVE illegally. Some choice, huh? Lately I've
limited my food intake partly to reduce the number of bathroom breaks I need
to take when I'm on the road. Some professional drivers have gone so far as
to purchase a small porta-potty to carry with them in the tractor.
Sometimes I wish I had one myself.
On a side note though, I'm about done with truck driving. I think I'm gonna
go back to being an IT manager. Both are very stressful jobs, but I need
more time with my family. -Dave
DanKMTB
> In message <gqdgji$p6...@news.motzarella.org>, Brent
>
> <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Try being different than mainstream white-bread america, Scott. Just a
> >little tiny bit.
>
> Arrest-Me Red 1998 Mustang GT) but was never pulled over even once
> while driving it. So clearly it's not the car you drive.
>
> I've also seen your videos, and haven't seen anything that would get
> you pulled over, so it's not the WAY you drive, either.
>
> So what do I need to do to be "different" enough to get stopped for a
> papers check?
Try being out in small towns, far from your home where nobody is used
to seeing you around, at 2am, 3am, etc. Bonus points, do it on a
bicycle.
Brent
> In message <gqdgji$p6r$1...@news.motzarella.org>, Brent
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Try being different than mainstream white-bread america, Scott. Just a
>>little tiny bit.
>
> Arrest-Me Red 1998 Mustang GT) but was never pulled over even once
> while driving it. So clearly it's not the car you drive.
The frequency I've been harrassed in my mustang is inversely
proportional to its age. Respectable americans buy new cars frequently,
not driving cars a dozen years old.
> I've also seen your videos, and haven't seen anything that would get
> you pulled over, so it's not the WAY you drive, either.
Which is why I've never gotten a ticket from one of these harrassment
stops.
> So what do I need to do to be "different" enough to get stopped for a
> papers check?
1) Move to a place where government is more criminal, like c(r)ook
county.
2) De-age yourself.
3) Don't kiss the cops' boots.
4) bicycle vehicularly on roads without bike lanes.
5) Be on the road at odd times of day.
Dave
> proportional to its age. Respectable americans buy new cars frequently,
> not driving cars a dozen years old.
Actually, you are partially correct. Cops make decisions on who to harrass
based partially on how much money and/or "influence" they think you might
have. Thus a NEW car is less of a target than an old car. But then a 10
year old Mercedes SUV is less likely to be pulled over than a brand new
Corolla is. -Dave
Brent
> In message <gqgqfq$hdb$1...@news.motzarella.org>, Brent
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> So what do I need to do to be "different" enough to get stopped for a
>>> papers check?
>>
>>1) Move to a place where government is more criminal, like c(r)ook
>>county.
>
so your total exposure driving is 20-16=4 years a couple decades ago
which isn't relevant to what goes on today for the most part.
>>2) De-age yourself.
>
> I was born there and learned to drive there. Check.
>
>>3) Don't kiss the cops' boots.
>
> Never really had the opportunity, as I was only pulled over once.
>>5) Be on the road at odd times of day.
> Did that a lot. Check.
20+ fracking years ago. Try now when cops drive up and down the road on
friday night looking to make their DUI numbers.
Brent
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-03-27, Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> In message <gqgqfq$hdb$1...@news.motzarella.org>, Brent
>>><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So what do I need to do to be "different" enough to get stopped for a
>>>>> papers check?
>>>>
>>>>1) Move to a place where government is more criminal, like c(r)ook
>>>>county.
>>>
>>> Lived there for 20 years. Check.
>>
>>so your total exposure driving is 20-16=4 years a couple decades ago
>>which isn't relevant to what goes on today for the most part.
>
Considering I said this was a post 11-sept-2001 thing for the most part
several posts up how is your 1980s experience relevant again?
gpsman
> On 2009-03-27, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In message <gqiije$ek...@news.motzarella.org>, Brent
> ><tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>On 2009-03-27, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> In message <gqgqfq$hd...@news.motzarella.org>, Brent
> >>><tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> So what do I need to do to be "different" enough to get stopped for a
> >>>>> papers check?
>
> >>>>1) Move to a place where government is more criminal, like c(r)ook
> >>>>county.
>
> >>> Lived there for 20 years. Check.
>
> >>so your total exposure driving is 20-16=4 years a couple decades ago
> >>which isn't relevant to what goes on today for the most part.
>
> > Yes, with a simple wave of your hand you can win any argument.
>
> Considering I said this was a post 11-sept-2001 thing for the most part
> several posts up how is your 1980s experience relevant again?
Lol.
See: Solomon (1964).
-----
- gpsman
gcmsc...@gmail.com
> In message <gqiije$ek...@news.motzarella.org>, Brent
>
> <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 2009-03-27, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> In message <gqgqfq$hd...@news.motzarella.org>, Brent
>
> >>>> So what do I need to do to be "different" enough to get stopped for a
> >>>> papers check?
>
> >>>1) Move to a place where government is more criminal, like c(r)ook
> >>>county.
>
> >> Lived there for 20 years. Check.
>
> >so your total exposure driving is 20-16=4 years a couple decades ago
> >which isn't relevant to what goes on today for the most part.
>
No, the on and on and *on* and ON with constantly changing points of
contention is how he wins arguments.
Remember, nobody is as smart, or as experienced, as Brent on all
matters having to do with driving, cars or politics.
What? You don't believe me? Just try and contradict him. You'll get
your "lesson" in how wonderful Brent is.
E.P.
Brent
> What? You don't believe me? Just try and contradict him. You'll get
> your "lesson" in how wonderful Brent is.
It's pretty sad what you've become.
Have you read the news lately?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5051075/A-world-currency-moves-nearer-after-Tim-Geithners-slip.html
Guess some want to skip a step.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
> On 2009-03-28, gcmschem...@gmail.com <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What? You don't believe me? Just try and contradict him. You'll get
> > your "lesson" in how wonderful Brent is.
>
> It's pretty sad what you've become.
A more ironic comment has never before been uttered on the internet.
But I do very much appreciate you making my point for me in about as
few words as could be written. Thanks!
E.P.
Brent
That's all you got? The fact you only come here to post about me now
says everything that has to be said.
harry k
The fact that people are attacking you for both your beliefs and your
style and noone is defendingyou says worlds.
Harry K
gcmsc...@gmail.com
Yes, it certainly does.
The fact that r.a.d. is a shell of what it formerly was doesn't mean
anything. Have reasonable discussions with rational folks was once
the very best thing about r.a.d. Back when Kenny Crudup would defend
one-handed driving. Or C.R. Kreiger would put the intellectual smack-
down on someone who richly deserved it. Or when Daniel Stern would
enLIGHTen us about, umm, stuff. But those folks are now gone. And
you, of all people, remain. But *of course* it's about you, Brent.
Everything is about you. Celebrate it.
After all, Brent, when it's all about you, what in the world would I
have else to post about?
E.P.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
Ah heck, Harry, it doesn't matter much. Brent has been approaching
this state for years. It's been a slow evolution, but amusing and sad
all at the same time. I mean, emotional arguments are fun and all,
but there's no "there" there. Which means that it has become dead-
boring in r.a.d. There are so many other places to have reasonable
chats about cars and driving - it won't be long before there is no
r.a.d. any more. Well, Judy Diarrhea and Brent. A match made in
heaven if ever there was one. A driving troll, and a poster who
doesn't know what newsgroup he's in. Hmmm, those might be
interchangeable descriptions...
In any case, it used to be a lively and fun place, with hundreds of
posts per day. Now?
On life support, waiting for the plug to be pulled.
That's really the worst part about the dying of r.a.d. Most of the
quality posters with all the great info to offer have gone on to do
different stuff. Now, r.a.d. has Brent as the current savant. That
in and of itself is head-shakingly sad.
Popping in and periodically laughing at Brent's latest fictional tale
of woe is a great way to kill a few minutes, but r.a.d. isn't worth
any effort any more. Oh, well.
E.P.
Brent
> The fact that r.a.d. is a shell of what it formerly was doesn't mean
> anything. Have reasonable discussions with rational folks was once
> the very best thing about r.a.d. Back when Kenny Crudup would defend
> one-handed driving. Or C.R. Kreiger would put the intellectual smack-
> down on someone who richly deserved it. Or when Daniel Stern would
> enLIGHTen us about, umm, stuff. But those folks are now gone. And
> you, of all people, remain. But *of course* it's about you, Brent.
You apparently blame me for driving them away. Wierd since I was in
agreement with those people about 98% of the time. You just need someone
to blame, I understand.
The reason they are gone is because you can only discuss the same topics
over and over and over again for so long. Maybe you want to hear why the
85th percentile speed limit is the best for the 1000th time?
You don't like me pushing into new areas... well, why don't you do
something? Anything?
> After all, Brent, when it's all about you, what in the world would I
> have else to post about?
Or you could actually post some content some time. Maybe a story, maybe
a link... maybe something.... anything even close to the topic of
driving.
Brent
>> The fact that people are attacking you for both your beliefs and your
>> style and noone is defendingyou says worlds.
> Ah heck, Harry, it doesn't matter much. Brent has been approaching
> this state for years. It's been a slow evolution, but amusing and sad
> all at the same time.
Funny, I do recall two maybe three chime in to this thread alone with
their own experiences that parallel mine and agreement on at least some
of my 'beliefs'. The last one was with regard to police harrassment
based on vehicle age and make.
> I mean, emotional arguments are fun and all, but there's no "there"
> there. Which means that it has become dead boring in r.a.d.
So put in some contribution of your own. Your main point of contention
is that I don't post what you would like to see... woe is you. You're
helpless.
> In any case, it used to be a lively and fun place, with hundreds of
> posts per day. Now?
Yeah, because people got sick of the same old topics over and over and
over and over and over again. Of those hundreds of posts a day, the bulk
would be sucked up by the latest defense of the 85th percentile speed
limit and whatever lloyd was wrong on. I got sick of them too. I try
exploring more areas... going deeper into the ticket scams and what is
behind them. About making everyone who uses a motor vehicle into a
violator. Deeper into the tracking and control issues. Deeper into
the personal transportation issues. But you don't like that because
those have a political element. But where were you posting on how to
take certain corners in snow or something? no where. You spent your time
in r.a.d. sniping and complaining.
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Been wondering why the forum died. One day it was normal operation,
the next almost nothing.
Harry K
gpsman
>
> Funny, I do recall two maybe three chime in to this thread alone with
> their own experiences that parallel mine and agreement on at least some
> of my 'beliefs'. The last one was with regard to police harrassment
> based on vehicle age and make.
That is funny, but only because you seem to think finding other k00ks
who believe what you believe is relevant to something other than being
a k00k and/or how desperately k00ks will cling to fallacious thinking.
> I try
> exploring more areas... going deeper into the ticket scams and what is
> behind them. About making everyone who uses a motor vehicle into a
> violator.
Endless repetition of your victim mentality is not "exploration".
-----
- gpsman
harry k
> On 2009-03-29, gcmschem...@gmail.com <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 8:27 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> The fact that people are attacking you for both your beliefs and your
> >> style and noone is defendingyou says worlds.
> > Ah heck, Harry, it doesn't matter much. Brent has been approaching
> > this state for years. It's been a slow evolution, but amusing and sad
> > all at the same time.
>
> Funny, I do recall two maybe three chime in to this thread alone with
> their own experiences that parallel mine and agreement on at least some
> of my 'beliefs'. The last one was with regard to police harrassment
> based on vehicle age and make.
>
<snip>
I figured you would cite that as jusitification. You did note the
"PARTIAL DEFENSE" bit I hope. Their 'defense' consisted of citing
instances of perhaps harassment. IMO, the stops cited were valid
police operation - what happened later could easily have been
harrassment.
Then there is the difference betweent citing actual cases as opposed
to your paranoid, masochistic dreams of getting beat up for nothing
more than talking to an officer.
Harry K
harry k
>
> gcmschem...@gmail.com wrote:
> >The fact that r.a.d. is a shell of what it formerly was doesn't mean
> >anything. Have reasonable discussions with rational folks was once
> >the very best thing about r.a.d. Back when Kenny Crudup would defend
> >one-handed driving.
>
> of those guys who drives with only his wrist in contact with the
> steering wheel).
>
> /me hopes to goad Kenny into making a return appearance. :)
I had forgotten about him. He _was_ fun. An idiot, but fun.
Harry K
DanKMTB
Oh what the hell, I'm bored, I'll bite.
Please do provide a link to me acting as a kook, or any fallacious
thinking I cling to. I cited examples of my actually being stopped.
I didn't extrapolate it to a beating or anything of the sort, just
pointed out that I've been stopped pointlessly before, and that all it
appears to take is being somewhere at a time that people are not
expected to be. If you can somehow explain how being stopped for
being out @ 2am, or being harassed and told that a 40 mile bicycle
trip that someone is in the middle of and has done before (just a
commute mind you, nowhere near the outer limits of a reasonable ride
limit for said person) is not possible and the cyclist can't possibly
make his destination puts me in line for a hat of foil, I'll be
entertained.
I agree with Brent to some degree. Our rights are being thrown away,
and it's troublesome that nobody seems to care. Where I'm coming from
and where I'm headed is not the business of a cop who stopped me for
reports of "weaving" on my bicycle. The only cause for a stop i can
think of is possible DUI (which would be a pretty BS charge on a bike,
but has happened to people before). Once it's decided that I'm not
intoxicated, what business is it of anyone where I'm coming from or
headed? It's not like I was stopped for fitting the description of an
assailant or robber.
Hell, reading the news shows how quickly our rights are being
discarded. Innocent until proven guilty is going away, as is our
right to privacy. Sad but true.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
>
> gcmschem...@gmail.com wrote:
> >The fact that r.a.d. is a shell of what it formerly was doesn't mean
> >anything. Have reasonable discussions with rational folks was once
> >the very best thing about r.a.d. Back when Kenny Crudup would defend
> >one-handed driving.
>
> of those guys who drives with only his wrist in contact with the
> steering wheel).
>
> /me hopes to goad Kenny into making a return appearance. :)
Damn, that's right - I had forgotten! Thanks for the reminder.
He was damn funny. And with some pretty accurate observations about
L.A. traffic, IIRC.
Yes, I'd love to see him come back, but face it Scott, there's not
really anything to come back *to*.
E.P.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
> On 2009-03-29, gcmschem...@gmail.com <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact that r.a.d. is a shell of what it formerly was doesn't mean
> > anything. Have reasonable discussions with rational folks was once
> > the very best thing about r.a.d. Back when Kenny Crudup would defend
> > one-handed driving. Or C.R. Kreiger would put the intellectual smack-
> > down on someone who richly deserved it. Or when Daniel Stern would
> > enLIGHTen us about, umm, stuff. But those folks are now gone. And
> > you, of all people, remain. But *of course* it's about you, Brent.
>
> You apparently blame me for driving them away.
You apparently have a vivid imagination.
> The reason they are gone is because you can only discuss the same topics
> over and over and over again for so long.
And yet it worked just fine that way for years. Strange that USENET
has a hierarchy and different groups for different subjects. Want to
take a crack at guessing *why* that might be???
> You don't like me pushing into new areas.
You're mistaken on that. New areas directly related to driving would
be great. But you can't seem to manage that, so...
> > After all, Brent, when it's all about you, what in the world would I
> > have else to post about?
>
> Or you could actually post some content some time.
Why? When anything posted becomes fodder for your latest political
foaming at the mouth, posting content is a worthless exercise.
Brent, if I were the only one to have come to this conclusion, I might
re-examine my position. But, damn, there I go again. I forgot who
this newsgroup is *really* about.
My apologies.
E.P.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
> On 2009-03-29, gcmschem...@gmail.com <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 8:27 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> The fact that people are attacking you for both your beliefs and your
> >> style and noone is defendingyou says worlds.
> > Ah heck, Harry, it doesn't matter much. Brent has been approaching
> > this state for years. It's been a slow evolution, but amusing and sad
> > all at the same time.
>
> Funny, I do recall two maybe three chime in to this thread alone with
> their own experiences that parallel mine and agreement on at least some
> of my 'beliefs'.
If that's how you validate yourself, far be it from me to suggest how
much of an idiot you appear to be. I'll let you in on a secret - when
I was younger, I got pulled over a couple of times for B.S. stuff,
too.
Odd, isn't it, that somehow I never made the connection to state-
sponsored fascism. I must not be as smart as you.
> > I mean, emotional arguments are fun and all, but there's no "there"
> > there. Which means that it has become dead boring in r.a.d.
>
> So put in some contribution of your own.
I have. Pointing out your idiotic comments has borne some nice
fruit. Folks have woken up to the fact that you are a k00k. It won't
be long before they figure out you're an idiot as well. ANd I don't
have to do it every day - I can just stop by once every few months and
throw down a little reality check. Then, I let you go into full k00k
mode, and walk away. Viola!
> Your main point of contention
> is that I don't post what you would like to see.
Oh, you would never mischaracterize my position to try and make a
point, would you?
Ooops. I guess if you can't use reason and logic, best to use emotion
and misdirection, yes?
> > In any case, it used to be a lively and fun place, with hundreds of
> > posts per day. Now?
>
> Yeah, because people got sick of the same old topics over and over and
> over and over and over again.
No, they didn't. I have e-mail proof.
> I try
> exploring more areas... going deeper into the ticket scams and what is
> behind them.
= load of shit.
> About making everyone who uses a motor vehicle into a
> violator. Deeper into the tracking and control issues. Deeper into
> the personal transportation issues.
More bullshit. Using r.a.d. as an excuse to post your religious
screeds is no different than Aunt Judy doing the same. If discussions
about driving bore you, then maybe you should move on to a place where
folks talk about the politics you enjoy discussing -
alt.k00ks.idiots.conspiracy-theory. After all, the folks that
actually talk about issues surrounding *driving* have moved on, for
the most part.
> But you don't like that because
> those have a political element.
No. I don't like your political screeds even though they are
tangentially related to automobiles. But hey, it won't be long until
you're shouting back and forth at Judy. Which is fine by me, because
I rarely come here any more.
> But where were you posting on how to
> take certain corners in snow or something? no where.
Nowhere? Really? You're *sure* about that?
Prove it.
> You spent your time
> in r.a.d. sniping and complaining.
I'm sorry that you are unable to stand even the smallest bit of
criticism. Your ego is so big, and yet so fragile....
And I'm literally LOLing at the "complaining" quip - that is the sum
total of your r.a.d. existence. THat's why I come back ever so often
- you are so unintentionally funny that it makes a good break from
actually talking about cars and automotive issues.
E.P.
P.S. Hate to break it to you, but I frequent automotive forums that
are not USENET based, and still discuss the things we all used to
discuss back before you got "bored" and began to turn r.a.d. into
alt.kook.brent.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
Yeah, like the Second Amendment being turned from a collective right
to an individual one.
Ooops, bad example.
E.P.
gpsman
> On Mar 29, 11:28 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 1:23 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Funny, I do recall two maybe three chime in to this thread alone with
> > > their own experiences that parallel mine and agreement on at least some
> > > of my 'beliefs'. The last one was with regard to police harrassment
> > > based on vehicle age and make.
>
> > That is funny, but only because you seem to think finding other k00ks
> > who believe what you believe is relevant to something other than being
> > a k00k and/or how desperately k00ks will cling to fallacious thinking.
>
>
> Please do provide a link to me acting as a kook, or any fallacious
> thinking I cling to.
I didn't mean you, specifically.
> I agree with Brent to some degree. Our rights are being thrown away,
> and it's troublesome that nobody seems to care.
Our rights to what?
Have you made a contribution to the ACLU?
> Once it's decided that I'm not
> intoxicated, what business is it of anyone where I'm coming from or
> headed?
None. Your right to remain silent does not negate a cop's right to
ask you questions.
"Man" is basically a criminal creature. That's why we needs laws to
begin with; people don't act as they know they should, even when there
are big reflective signs telling them in no uncertain terms. A cop
would be derelict in his duties to act otherwise.
> Hell, reading the news shows how quickly our rights are being
> discarded.
Our rights to what?
You can't hang out at a closed gas station without drawing the
attention of an LEO?
What did you do to exercise your rights? Or, were you, in fact,
"trespassing", beyond your rights?
> Innocent until proven guilty is going away, as is our
> right to privacy. Sad but true.
The problem/s with "innocent until proven guilty" lies with the
general stupidity of those who make up juries. It may be "going away"
as the average stupidity of jury members increases, but I don't know
what might be done about that.
-----
- gpsman
Brent
> Then there is the difference betweent citing actual cases as opposed
> to your paranoid, masochistic dreams of getting beat up for nothing
> more than talking to an officer.
It wasn't merely talking to an officer. It was finding a cop parked
behind a billboard or some such hiding place, parking your vehicle, then
walking up to the cop and discussing the practical usage of his time on
the job. That is today, in 2009, when cops are violently paranoid and
think that everyone and anyone is a threat to them.
As I was doing some baking today I had G4 or whatever the channel is
called on watching some OLD episodes of cops. From the early 1990s or
late 80s I guess. An incredible difference. In one instance a cop has
someone pulled over when a drunk clips the cruiser and plows into the
back of the pickup truck of the pulled over driver. The drunk's civic?
had the whole front end destroyed. Truck didn't look too bad. The
cruiser's 1/4 panel was seriously damaged. Anyway the cop calmly orders
the drunk out of the car, and quite calmly arrests him. It is a huge
contrast compared to now.
In that world you would be right. But things are quite different today,
at least 'in the big city'. But feel free to walk up to a cop running
radar, surprise him and then proceed to discuss better uses of his time.
You might not get beaten, but it should be rather amusing for those
watching.
Brent
> You're mistaken on that. New areas directly related to driving would
> be great. But you can't seem to manage that, so...
And you decide what is driving related.
You just don't want to look at the larger picture and how
controling private transporation works into that. The attacks on
personal transportation, that is driving, are not happening in a vacume.
>> Or you could actually post some content some time.
> Why? When anything posted becomes fodder for your latest political
> foaming at the mouth, posting content is a worthless exercise.
False, obviously false. And there's a feature to weed out content
you don't want to see in all half-way modern or better news readers.
Anyway, the real problem is that you don't like it that I don't
subscribe to Coincidence Theory.
> Brent, if I were the only one to have come to this conclusion, I might
> re-examine my position. But, damn, there I go again. I forgot who
> this newsgroup is *really* about.
> My apologies.
Want me to leave Ed? You got your wish. I'll unsubscribe after I am done
with this reading/posting session. (don't worry, I was toying with the
idea of dropping all but chi.general as of april 1 long before you
showed up again, but you've made up my mind.)
Brent
> Ooops, bad example.
I could discuss/debate that with you, but it would be off topic.
pot-kettle-black.
Brent
> I have. Pointing out your idiotic comments has borne some nice
> fruit. Folks have woken up to the fact that you are a k00k. It won't
> be long before they figure out you're an idiot as well. ANd I don't
> have to do it every day - I can just stop by once every few months and
> throw down a little reality check. Then, I let you go into full k00k
> mode, and walk away. Viola!
I've learned something, not being called a kook means you're not taking
any intellectual risks. Staying comfortably in the accepted stream. I
don't mind the risk of having an open mind and exploring topics that
have that 'kook' risk associated with them. But, hey, after tonight
I'll be gone from r.a.d for some undecided period of time... so you're
free to do as you want.
> Oh, you would never mischaracterize my position to try and make a
> point, would you?
pot-kettle-black.
>> Yeah, because people got sick of the same old topics over and over and
>> over and over and over again.
> No, they didn't. I have e-mail proof.
So if it's not me (as per your other post), and it's not bordom, what is
it?
>> I try
>> exploring more areas... going deeper into the ticket scams and what is
>> behind them.
>
>= load of shit.
If you say so Ed.
>> About making everyone who uses a motor vehicle into a
>> violator. Deeper into the tracking and control issues. Deeper into
>> the personal transportation issues.
> More bullshit. Using r.a.d. as an excuse to post your religious
> screeds is no different than Aunt Judy doing the same. If discussions
> about driving bore you, then maybe you should move on to a place where
> folks talk about the politics you enjoy discussing -
> alt.k00ks.idiots.conspiracy-theory. After all, the folks that
> actually talk about issues surrounding *driving* have moved on, for
> the most part.
And I'm joining them.
>> But you don't like that because those have a political element.
> No. I don't like your political screeds even though they are
> tangentially related to automobiles.
Well at least you finally admit the relation exists. Progress is being
made. Then again I suppose the 55mph NMSL was only tangentially related
to driving too. Most of the discussion material here was the result of
the political process on driving.
> But hey, it won't be long until
> you're shouting back and forth at Judy. Which is fine by me, because
> I rarely come here any more.
LOL. I don't even see its posts.
>> But where were you posting on how to
>> take certain corners in snow or something? no where.
> Nowhere? Really? You're *sure* about that?
> Prove it.
Lately, easy. You admit it yourself. You come here for me.
> P.S. Hate to break it to you, but I frequent automotive forums that
> are not USENET based, and still discuss the things we all used to
> discuss back before you got "bored" and began to turn r.a.d. into
> alt.kook.brent.
So now it's my fault again? Which is it?
gcmsc...@gmail.com
gcmsc...@gmail.com
> On 2009-03-29, gcmschem...@gmail.com <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have. Pointing out your idiotic comments has borne some nice
> > fruit. Folks have woken up to the fact that you are a k00k. It won't
> > be long before they figure out you're an idiot as well. ANd I don't
> > have to do it every day - I can just stop by once every few months and
> > throw down a little reality check. Then, I let you go into full k00k
> > mode, and walk away. Viola!
>
> I've learned something, not being called a kook means you're not taking
> any intellectual risks. Staying comfortably in the accepted stream. I
> don't mind the risk of having an open mind and exploring topics that
> have that 'kook' risk associated with them. But, hey, after tonight
> I'll be gone from r.a.d for some undecided period of time... so you're
> free to do as you want.
Here's a helpful hint (mind the word wrap)
I'm sure you can find something there of interest.
E.P.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
>
>
> Want me to leave Ed? You got your wish. I'll unsubscribe after I am done
> with this reading/posting session. (don't worry, I was toying with the
> idea of dropping all but chi.general as of april 1 long before you
> showed up again, but you've made up my mind.)
LOL. I don't believe it for a second. Like all the other crap you've
made up, this is the most hilarious.
We'll see how long *this* lasts - like when you pretend to killfile
someone, then reply to them not too much later.
Moving your political rants to the appropriate newsgroup would be a
bit of growth for you. But that seems VERY unlikely.
It is all about you, I do realize...
E.P.
Arif Khokar
> The fact that r.a.d. is a shell of what it formerly was doesn't mean
> anything. Have reasonable discussions with rational folks was once
> the very best thing about r.a.d. Back when Kenny Crudup would defend
> one-handed driving. Or C.R. Kreiger would put the intellectual smack-
> down on someone who richly deserved it. Or when Daniel Stern would
> enLIGHTen us about, umm, stuff. But those folks are now gone. And
> you, of all people, remain.
Are you implying that people left because of Brent? I don't buy that
line of reasoning. Many people have their own reasons for leaving (lack
of time, moving on to new interests, etc.).
In my case, I'm still here but don't post as much as I used to. This is
due to several reasons (none of which have to do with Brent).
1. I don't have as much spare time as I used to
2. I don't have as much interest discussing driving issues. So even if a
thread about speed limits is started, I'm less likely to post about it
because I've posted my views and examples ad nauseum in the past.
3. Some topics I find interesting enough to read, but I feel I lack the
necessary knowledge or experience to post about them. So while I'm still
reading, I'm not posting (IOW, I'm just lurking).
Brent
> Moving your political rants to the appropriate newsgroup would be a
> bit of growth for you. But that seems VERY unlikely.
Because there's no politics in driving... none. ;) Speed cameras,
NMSL, CAFE, RLCs, property siezure at the roadside, underposted speed
limits, short yellows, driving a privilege and much more just happened
by random dice rolls of the universe. Gotcha. No politics in driving,
no other motivations than our safety. LOL.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/
HTH.
goodnight.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
> gcmschem...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The fact that r.a.d. is a shell of what it formerly was doesn't mean
> > anything. Have reasonable discussions with rational folks was once
> > the very best thing about r.a.d. Back when Kenny Crudup would defend
> > one-handed driving. Or C.R. Kreiger would put the intellectual smack-
> > down on someone who richly deserved it. Or when Daniel Stern would
> > enLIGHTen us about, umm, stuff. But those folks are now gone. And
> > you, of all people, remain.
>
> Are you implying that people left because of Brent? I don't buy that
> line of reasoning. Many people have their own reasons for leaving (lack
> of time, moving on to new interests, etc.).
The way it came across to me was that Brent's crap was a factor.
All your examples are completely valid. I have carried on e-mail
friendships with some of the old crew. The ones with whom I
correspond had similar reasons, but were also tired of Brent's
digression into the world of politics, and the way he turned every
thread into some screed about "The Man". If you're short of time, and
don't post as much, and the posting you do is buried in a bunch of OT
crap, well...
All the issues that used to get discussed here are still being
discussed.
One place they are discussed is quattroworld.com. In fact, some of
the crap Brent writes about is discussed there too - in a forum
dedicated to politics. Heck, if you don't want to talk about cars at
all - there's an off-topic forum, separate from the politics forum.
There's even a B5 S4 forum, for all you weird 2.7TT folks.
;)
We often talk about driving issues in the OT forum. And about the
same issues discussed here, back in the day. The big difference is
that if you want to talk politics, you go to the appropriate place.
If you want to talk driving, you go to a different place. If there
are *truly* issues for which both things apply, then the moderators
will probably look kindly upon them being posted in either place.
And, there's no aunt judy or gpstard. Bonus. :)
E.P.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
> On 2009-03-30, gcmschem...@gmail.com <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Moving your political rants to the appropriate newsgroup would be a
> > bit of growth for you. But that seems VERY unlikely.
>
> Because there's no politics in driving... none. ;)
I'm sure that you think you have a point.
When you bring in stuff like the Amero, the SPP, super reserve
currency, etc, etc...
Again, here you go:
E.P.
Arif Khokar
>> Are you implying that people left because of Brent? I don't buy that
>> line of reasoning. Many people have their own reasons for leaving (lack
>> of time, moving on to new interests, etc.).
> The way it came across to me was that Brent's crap was a factor.
>
> All your examples are completely valid. I have carried on e-mail
> friendships with some of the old crew. The ones with whom I
> correspond had similar reasons, but were also tired of Brent's
> digression into the world of politics, and the way he turned every
> thread into some screed about "The Man". If you're short of time, and
> don't post as much, and the posting you do is buried in a bunch of OT
> crap, well...
Well I've corresponded with one former poster from time to time, but he
never explicitly mentioned Brent as a reason for leaving. He did say
that there was a lot of spam, off-topic stuff, etc. I don't know about
others, but to name a few (Brandon Sommerville, Marc Whinery, Jim
Walker) left quite some time ago. Some of the best threads IMO
(cross-posted to m.t.r) took place not too long before they quit
posting. I certainly don't think that Brent's posts were a factor in at
least those three individuals leaving (though since I have never
corresponded and asked them why they left, my assumptions could be
without merit).
> All the issues that used to get discussed here are still being
> discussed.
>
> One place they are discussed is quattroworld.com. In fact, some of
> the crap Brent writes about is discussed there too - in a forum
> dedicated to politics. Heck, if you don't want to talk about cars at
> all - there's an off-topic forum, separate from the politics forum.
> There's even a B5 S4 forum, for all you weird 2.7TT folks.
>
> ;)
Hey it's not a bad car ;), but it's certainly been the source of a
number of problems for me (bearings ... having the third of 4 go bad in
the last week or so, diff seals, intake leak with a bad MAF sensor,
clutch nearing end of life, etc.).
I'm trying to gain more experience working on my own car so I don't have
to pay stealership prices for repair work (I've already made that
mistake a couple of times :( )
> We often talk about driving issues in the OT forum. And about the
> same issues discussed here, back in the day. The big difference is
> that if you want to talk politics, you go to the appropriate place.
> If you want to talk driving, you go to a different place. If there
> are *truly* issues for which both things apply, then the moderators
> will probably look kindly upon them being posted in either place.
>
> And, there's no aunt judy or gpstard. Bonus. :)
Thanks for pointing it out. I may stop by :)
gcmsc...@gmail.com
> gcmschem...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 9:46 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> >> Are you implying that people left because of Brent? I don't buy that
> >> line of reasoning. Many people have their own reasons for leaving (lack
> >> of time, moving on to new interests, etc.).
> > The way it came across to me was that Brent's crap was a factor.
>
> > All your examples are completely valid. I have carried on e-mail
> > friendships with some of the old crew. The ones with whom I
> > correspond had similar reasons, but were also tired of Brent's
> > digression into the world of politics, and the way he turned every
> > thread into some screed about "The Man". If you're short of time, and
> > don't post as much, and the posting you do is buried in a bunch of OT
> > crap, well...
>
> Well I've corresponded with one former poster from time to time, but he
> never explicitly mentioned Brent as a reason for leaving. He did say
> that there was a lot of spam, off-topic stuff, etc. I don't know about
> others, but to name a few (Brandon Sommerville, Marc Whinery, Jim
> Walker) left quite some time ago. Some of the best threads IMO
> (cross-posted to m.t.r) took place not too long before they quit
> posting. I certainly don't think that Brent's posts were a factor in at
> least those three individuals leaving (though since I have never
> corresponded and asked them why they left, my assumptions could be
> without merit).
Let's just say that One of those folks an I still talk. :)
> > All the issues that used to get discussed here are still being
> > discussed.
>
> > One place they are discussed is quattroworld.com. In fact, some of
> > the crap Brent writes about is discussed there too - in a forum
> > dedicated to politics. Heck, if you don't want to talk about cars at
> > all - there's an off-topic forum, separate from the politics forum.
> > There's even a B5 S4 forum, for all you weird 2.7TT folks.
>
> > ;)
>
> Hey it's not a bad car ;), but it's certainly been the source of a
> number of problems for me (bearings ... having the third of 4 go bad in
> the last week or so, diff seals, intake leak with a bad MAF sensor,
> clutch nearing end of life, etc.).
>
> I'm trying to gain more experience working on my own car so I don't have
> to pay stealership prices for repair work (I've already made that
> mistake a couple of times :( )
My 1995 S6 would EAT ME ALIVE if I paid the stealership to do the
work. I love the B5, but there is no damn place to work in that
engine bay.
The I5 of my S6 means everything is right there. Easy. :)
BUT, if you are capable, fixing the B5s isn't that bad. Plus, the
Brain Trust over at quattroworld can help. A lot.
> > We often talk about driving issues in the OT forum. And about the
> > same issues discussed here, back in the day. The big difference is
> > that if you want to talk politics, you go to the appropriate place.
> > If you want to talk driving, you go to a different place. If there
> > are *truly* issues for which both things apply, then the moderators
> > will probably look kindly upon them being posted in either place.
>
> > And, there's no aunt judy or gpstard. Bonus. :)
>
> Thanks for pointing it out. I may stop by :)
Hell, just lurk for a while. You might find you like it. :)
E.P.
Brent
> gcmsc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 9:46 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Are you implying that people left because of Brent? I don't buy that
>>> line of reasoning. Many people have their own reasons for leaving (lack
>>> of time, moving on to new interests, etc.).
>
>> The way it came across to me was that Brent's crap was a factor.
>>
>> All your examples are completely valid. I have carried on e-mail
>> friendships with some of the old crew. The ones with whom I
>> correspond had similar reasons, but were also tired of Brent's
>> digression into the world of politics, and the way he turned every
>> thread into some screed about "The Man". If you're short of time, and
>> don't post as much, and the posting you do is buried in a bunch of OT
>> crap, well...
>
> Well I've corresponded with one former poster from time to time, but he
> never explicitly mentioned Brent as a reason for leaving. He did say
> that there was a lot of spam, off-topic stuff, etc. I don't know about
> others, but to name a few (Brandon Sommerville, Marc Whinery, Jim
> Walker) left quite some time ago. Some of the best threads IMO
> (cross-posted to m.t.r) took place not too long before they quit
> posting. I certainly don't think that Brent's posts were a factor in at
> least those three individuals leaving (though since I have never
> corresponded and asked them why they left, my assumptions could be
> without merit).
Most left before Ed said I 'went crazy' in one of his previous pop ins.
Last thread I remember posting in with Brandon was one on invading Iraq.
(and that was before I went 'crazy'. My views were considerably
different at the time too) Jim Walker discussed the political situation
around driving often as I recall.
> Hey it's not a bad car ;), but it's certainly been the source of a
> number of problems for me (bearings ... having the third of 4 go bad in
> the last week or so, diff seals, intake leak with a bad MAF sensor,
> clutch nearing end of life, etc.).
> I'm trying to gain more experience working on my own car so I don't have
> to pay stealership prices for repair work (I've already made that
> mistake a couple of times :( )
That's the fear I have of buying a German car. Lots of odd problems and
even more expensive stealerships and less ways to go around them. I am
sick of how ford markets the better performance mustangs so the
stealerships can charge more than sticker, but I still like how long the
one I have has lasted without anything more major than a new clutch,
which was only replaced because the TO bearing started screaming at 150K
or so. I have to replace every suspension bushing now, but at a 187K
that can't be the fault of the car in this climate. The huge aftermarket
where ford itself has to compete on price for parts is also something
I've come to really like.
>> We often talk about driving issues in the OT forum. And about the
>> same issues discussed here, back in the day. The big difference is
>> that if you want to talk politics, you go to the appropriate place.
But there isn't a rec.autos.driving.politics. And a general politics
group isn't the place for things specialized with a driving bent.
Anyway, if Ed wants to blame me for the decline of r.a.d so be it. He
can blame me for the decline of usenet as whole if he wishes.
The real death of usenet is form the specialization you point out. Web
forums can be very specific and then splinter from there to be even more
specialized. I still don't like how most of them function though.
I even occasionally participate in a sub-forum just for 6 cylinder ford
mavericks.
anyway... I'll be in chi.*
DanKMTB
> On Mar 29, 1:42 pm, DanKMTB <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 11:28 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 1:23 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Funny, I do recall two maybe three chime in to this thread alone with
> > > > their own experiences that parallel mine and agreement on at least some
> > > > of my 'beliefs'. The last one was with regard to police harrassment
> > > > based on vehicle age and make.
>
> > > That is funny, but only because you seem to think finding other k00ks
> > > who believe what you believe is relevant to something other than being
> > > a k00k and/or how desperately k00ks will cling to fallacious thinking.
>
> > Oh what the hell, I'm bored, I'll bite.
>
> > Please do provide a link to me acting as a kook, or any fallacious
> > thinking I cling to.
>
> I didn't mean you, specifically.
That prettymuch negates the rest of this, doesn’t it?
> > I agree with Brent to some degree. Our rights are being thrown away,
> > and it's troublesome that nobody seems to care.
>
> Our rights to what?
Presumption of innocence. Right to a fair trial. Right to bear
arms. Free speech. The list goes on, but I’m not as bored as I was
yesterday (somewhat busy now) so I’ll keep it brief.
-Stopped with a large amount of cash, say your life savings. You must
prove the source of the $, or risk losing it.
-If on probation, an arrest for ANY reason is a violation and can get
you sent back to jail. So if you are on probation for something
stupid, say driving too fast, and you get picked up for fitting the
description of a criminal and then released when the actual fugitive
is found, you have still violated your probation and if you have
suspended time can go back to jail. Same situation if you’re forced
to defend youself, as the police will typically arrest all involved
parties and drop charges and release those found to have been
defending themselves after the fact.
-Tagged for a BS charge driving, and you have no fair trial, it’s up
to a magistrate to decide your fate. Good luck with that.
-Many towns/cities are now issuing firearms licenses at the discretion
of the police department. Some cities, it’s nearly impossible to get
one, because the police have decided that there is no need for the
public to have firearms.
-Political assemblies/parades. If you’re showing support, you can
rally right beside the parade. In some instances if you are wearing
clothes or carrying a sign that disagrees with the policies of the
event in session you can be moved to a separate zone to protest, far
removed from the people, media, fanfare, etc.
-NH is an open carry state. No permit is required to carry a firearm
in plain sight. Yet those that open carry of frequently accosted,
harassed, and sometimes required to produce a concealed weapons permit
for their non-concealed weapons.
> Have you made a contribution to the ACLU?
In the past, but they’ve also done a lot I don’t agree with, so it’s a
difficult decision to make.
> > Once it's decided that I'm not
> > intoxicated, what business is it of anyone where I'm coming from or
> > headed?
>
> None. Your right to remain silent does not negate a cop's right to
> ask you questions.
The questions he asks should be relevant. Where I’m going and coming
from is not his business. To assume and boldly state that there is no
way I can ride 40 miles, probably because his out of shape ass
couldn’t, is far from any reasonable line of questioning.
> "Man" is basically a criminal creature. That's why we needs laws to
> begin with; people don't act as they know they should, even when there
> are big reflective signs telling them in no uncertain terms. A cop
> would be derelict in his duties to act otherwise.
This comes into play in the stops I mentioned how?
> > Hell, reading the news shows how quickly our rights are being
> > discarded.
>
> Our rights to what?
You already asked that. See above.
> You can't hang out at a closed gas station without drawing the
> attention of an LEO?
I was nowhere near the buildings, pumps, etc. I was on the outside
corner of the parking lot, right near the road, pausing for a breather
and a drink. That should not cause a stop from LEO, IMO.
> What did you do to exercise your rights? Or, were you, in fact,
> "trespassing", beyond your rights?
We went through this too. Easily beaten in court, but not worth my
hassle and time off work. It was easier to comply, which is an
attitude that admittedly leads to the perpetuation of these BS
displays of authority. Unfortunately with limited time off from work
and other obligations consuming much of that time, taking the time to
dispute this in court is not worth it to me. Especially when the best
I could hope for is a “not guilty” or “dismissed”, neither of which is
likely to have any effect on the cop pulling this same shit in the
future.
> > Innocent until proven guilty is going away, as is our
> > right to privacy. Sad but true.
>
> The problem/s with "innocent until proven guilty" lies with the
> general stupidity of those who make up juries. It may be "going away"
> as the average stupidity of jury members increases, but I don't know
> what might be done about that.
So you believe harassing innocent citizens is an appropriate stopgap?
gcmsc...@gmail.com
> On 2009-03-30, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >> We often talk about driving issues in the OT forum. And about the
> >> same issues discussed here, back in the day. The big difference is
> >> that if you want to talk politics, you go to the appropriate place.
>
> But there isn't a rec.autos.driving.politics.
That doesn't imply that you get to make r.a.d. into that. You *can*
author your own newsgroup, you know.
And certainly the SPP and the Amero and the "conspiracy" behind 9/11
do not have one damn thing to do about driving.
Even tangentially.
E.P.
harry k
Rather a lot of assumptions there. Where did you get the "hiding
behind a sign" "surprising him", etc. I hope you are using your
mirrors when back pedalling like that.
Harry K
beaure...@gmail.com
Weren't all those Lou Dobbs watching OMG we're merging with mexico
loons were fighting something they called the NAFTA Superhighway?
Arif Khokar
> But there isn't a rec.autos.driving.politics. And a general politics
> group isn't the place for things specialized with a driving bent.
> Anyway, if Ed wants to blame me for the decline of r.a.d so be it. He
> can blame me for the decline of usenet as whole if he wishes.
Filtering on usenet is purely the responsibility of the client. If one
isn't interested in a particular post or thread, one ignores it.
FWIW, there are several posters on another related group
(misc.transport.road) that I have debated on and off again about traffic
laws (including speed limits), driving etiquette, etc. 6 or 7 years
ago, threads on those subjects would easily approach several hundred
posts. Nowadays threads on those subjects rarely exceed 10 to 20 posts.
This is because the interest in rehashing the same arguments has
decreased over the years. I certainly don't feel like engaging in a 100
post debate and I'm quite sure others who participated back then do either.
IMO, for interesting discussions to take place, there must be at least
two different view points. These days, the opposing viewpoint on
traffic laws is mainly represented by cross-posting troll and a
long-time poster who now makes use of an anonymous remailer to post
here. I think that, as a result, the regulars here either left or
became far more jaded and harsh (than they otherwise would have) with
those who had an opposing viewpoint. Those people stop posting after a
short time or hardly post at all. That's the real reason behind the
decline of this group..
> anyway... I'll be in chi.*
Sorry to see you go ...
gcmsc...@gmail.com
Yes.
The imaginary NAFTA superhighway.
But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, I say.
E.P.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
> Brent wrote:
> > But there isn't a rec.autos.driving.politics. And a general politics
> > group isn't the place for things specialized with a driving bent.
> > Anyway, if Ed wants to blame me for the decline of r.a.d so be it. He
> > can blame me for the decline of usenet as whole if he wishes.
>
> Filtering on usenet is purely the responsibility of the client. If one
> isn't interested in a particular post or thread, one ignores it.
But pointing out a trend of rude posting can also mobilize the
community to speak out against the rude person. Sometimes it works.
Mostly it doesn't.
People are moving to moderated web forums for discussion. They get
tired of the SPAM and OT crappola. And the deliberate trolls.
So here's a serious question for you: if sorting content is solely
the responsibility of the reader, why bother having usenet groups.
Why not just have one discussion group called "usenet"?
E.P.
E.P.
beaure...@gmail.com
I've not known CNN to report on imaginary things in such detail. (I
checked youtube just to be sure :) )
It's not news, it's CNN? :)
gcmsc...@gmail.com
A Lou Dobbs opinion piece ain't "news".
While it may have been an idea at one time, the thing isn't being
built.
I remember a story in the newspaper about a moon colony once...
E.P.
beaure...@gmail.com
The loons must have stopped it :)
Arif Khokar
>> Filtering on usenet is purely the responsibility of the client. If one
>> isn't interested in a particular post or thread, one ignores it.
> But pointing out a trend of rude posting can also mobilize the
> community to speak out against the rude person. Sometimes it works.
> Mostly it doesn't.
I believe ignoring the person is a better tactic. There's one troll on
another group I frequent who also spams his road related website in this
group and always cross-posts inane announcements. Because people didn't
ignore him and kept bad-mouthing him, he's resorted to posting daily
updates about site operations as well as posting with sockpuppets
complimenting his own posts.
When OSTT (Operation Starve The Troll) was started by Scott, I believe
it had a profound impact on the group such that the irrelevant post
traffic died down.
Your tactic results in the opposite effect and actually increases
irrelevant post traffic. To illustrate my point, I need only ask how
long a thread posted by the xposting troll is when no one responds to it
as opposed to ones where 5 or 6 people start arguing with it? Has it
changed its behavior due to multiple occurrences of the latter? It
definitely has not. Does the latter situation result in more irrelevant
post traffic? It most certainly does.
> So here's a serious question for you: if sorting content is solely
> the responsibility of the reader, why bother having usenet groups.
> Why not just have one discussion group called "usenet"?
1. It would take too much memory on the client's computer to download
the daily amount of posts (300 is a lot more manageable compared to 3000000)
2. Filtering would take too long since now you would have to filter
1000s of posters who are posting about topics you have no interest in.
If you don't believe me, try downloading all the headers from the last 5
days from alt.binaries.multimedia from one of the paid binary news
servers and see how long it takes before your computer "chokes" from
lack of physical and virtual memory. That's probably what it would be
like if we combined all the text groups into one single group.
gpsman
> On Mar 29, 8:58 pm, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I didn't mean you, specifically.
>
> That prettymuch negates the rest of this, doesn’t it?
Pretty much.
> > Our rights to what?
>
> Presumption of innocence. Right to a fair trial. Right to bear
> arms. Free speech.
Are you talking Brent's idealistic fairy tale versions, or what we can
realistically expect?
> -Stopped with a large amount of cash, say your life savings. You must
> prove the source of the $, or risk losing it.
Pfft. Who runs around with large amounts of legitimate cash?
I don't like it, but I notice that there aren't too many instances of
the confiscatees petitioning to get it back.
The "war on drugs" is a fucking abortion, but OTOH, the gubmint has an
interest, some might say an obligation, to ensure that it collects all
the taxes due "the people".
> -If on probation, an arrest for ANY reason is a violation and can get
> you sent back to jail. So if you are on probation for something
> stupid, say driving too fast, and you get picked up for fitting the
> description of a criminal and then released when the actual fugitive
> is found, you have still violated your probation and if you have
> suspended time can go back to jail.
That sounds like a pretty rare example. Still, who got their ass put
on probation to begin with?
IMO, if you're on probation you ought to limit your activities to work
and home until released from your obligations to act like an angel.
> Same situation if you’re forced
> to defend youself, as the police will typically arrest all involved
> parties and drop charges and release those found to have been
> defending themselves after the fact.
Well, what the fuck else are they going to do, take one party's word
over another?
> -Tagged for a BS charge driving, and you have no fair trial, it’s up
> to a magistrate to decide your fate. Good luck with that.
How is having your fate decided by a magistrate "lack of a fair
trial"?
Sure, I imagine mistakes are made every day, but a lack of perfection
condemns any and everything.
That's "Brent Think". Can't have cops issuing tickets, because
they're not perfect. Can't have cameras issuing tickets, because
they're not human.
With the plethora of traffic violations *I* see in each and every mile
*I* drive I don't think cops often resort to BS traffic charges.
> -Many towns/cities are now issuing firearms licenses at the discretion
> of the police department. Some cities, it’s nearly impossible to get
> one, because the police have decided that there is no need for the
> public to have firearms.
I guess people should drag their asses to the polls every once in a
while.
> -Political assemblies/parades. If you’re showing support, you can
> rally right beside the parade. In some instances if you are wearing
> clothes or carrying a sign that disagrees with the policies of the
> event in session you can be moved to a separate zone to protest, far
> removed from the people, media, fanfare, etc.
We kicked the worst offender in that regard to the curb.
> -NH is an open carry state. No permit is required to carry a firearm
> in plain sight. Yet those that open carry of frequently accosted,
> harassed,
What else do you expect?
> and sometimes required to produce a concealed weapons permit
> for their non-concealed weapons.
Or what?
> > Have you made a contribution to the ACLU?
>
> In the past, but they’ve also done a lot I don’t agree with, so it’s a
> difficult decision to make.
Yeah, nobody does everything the way I think it should be done, but I
give them money anyway. The ASPCA seems to spend 25% of my annual
contribution on mailing me requests for more contributions.
> > Your right to remain silent does not negate a cop's right to
> > ask you questions.
>
> The questions he asks should be relevant. Where I’m going and coming
> from is not his business.
It's "investigatory" questioning. You have the right to remain
silent.
> To assume and boldly state that there is no
> way I can ride 40 miles, probably because his out of shape ass
> couldn’t, is far from any reasonable line of questioning.
"It's all about when/where/how, at least for me."
> > "Man" is basically a criminal creature. That's why we needs laws to
> > begin with; people don't act as they know they should, even when there
> > are big reflective signs telling them in no uncertain terms. A cop
> > would be derelict in his duties to act otherwise.
>
> This comes into play in the stops I mentioned how?
"It could have been an excuse to stop me, or there could have been a
call. I’ll never know."
> > > Hell, reading the news shows how quickly our rights are being
> > > discarded.
>
> > Our rights to what?
>
> You already asked that. See above.
>
> > You can't hang out at a closed gas station without drawing the
> > attention of an LEO?
>
> I was nowhere near the buildings, pumps, etc. I was on the outside
> corner of the parking lot, right near the road, pausing for a breather
> and a drink. That should not cause a stop from LEO, IMO.
So, you were already stopped. All he did was ask you a few questions.
> > What did you do to exercise your rights? Or, were you, in fact,
> > "trespassing", beyond your rights?
>
> We went through this too. Easily beaten in court, but not worth my
> hassle and time off work. It was easier to comply, which is an
> attitude that admittedly leads to the perpetuation of these BS
> displays of authority. Unfortunately with limited time off from work
> and other obligations consuming much of that time, taking the time to
> dispute this in court is not worth it to me. Especially when the best
> I could hope for is a “not guilty” or “dismissed”, neither of which is
> likely to have any effect on the cop pulling this same shit in the
> future.
Then you file a civil suit.
You can bitch about your rights being violated, but it sounds kind of
silly if you won't stand up for them.
> > > Innocent until proven guilty is going away, as is our
> > > right to privacy. Sad but true.
>
> > The problem/s with "innocent until proven guilty" lies with the
> > general stupidity of those who make up juries. It may be "going away"
> > as the average stupidity of jury members increases, but I don't know
> > what might be done about that.
>
> So you believe harassing innocent citizens is an appropriate stopgap?
"Innocent" citizens are pretty rare, and getting rarer, IMO.
And I think our definitions of "harass" differ.
-----
- gpsman
gcmsc...@gmail.com
To which "it" are you referring?
E.P.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
> gcmschem...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 7:28 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> >> Filtering on usenet is purely the responsibility of the client. If one
> >> isn't interested in a particular post or thread, one ignores it.
> > But pointing out a trend of rude posting can also mobilize the
> > community to speak out against the rude person. Sometimes it works.
> > Mostly it doesn't.
>
> I believe ignoring the person is a better tactic.
Depends on the intent of the person.
If the intent is to troll, then you are correct. But one size does
not fit all.
> When OSTT (Operation Starve The Troll) was started by Scott, I believe
> it had a profound impact on the group such that the irrelevant post
> traffic died down.
Because a troll is an attention whore, not somebody to calims to be
passing along info or "insights".
The two folks are different. I refuse to see Brent as a troll, just a
rude poster.
> Your tactic results in the opposite effect and actually increases
> irrelevant post traffic.
Gotta take the long view. Ignoring a troll might make them go away
(although this has not worked for the most dedicated trolls). I'm not
interested in Brent going away, just in him posting to the appropriate
newsgroup.
> > So here's a serious question for you: if sorting content is solely
> > the responsibility of the reader, why bother having usenet groups.
> > Why not just have one discussion group called "usenet"?
>
> 1. It would take too much memory on the client's computer to download
> the daily amount of posts (300 is a lot more manageable compared to 3000000)
So, you view the groups merely as vague suggestions to content, and
not as an indicator of the kinds of posts one might find there?
> 2. Filtering would take too long since now you would have to filter
> 1000s of posters who are posting about topics you have no interest in.
I dicard your hypothesis as ridiculous that the newgroup names are
merely arbitrary size separators. Netiquette does as well.
OT posts marked OT are perfectly acceptable. Turning every thread OT
without actually bothering to change the subject line to include "OT"
is rude.
But, under your scheme, nothing is OT anywhere. Netiquette
notwithstanding.
E.P.