"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
HONUS,
.
For most my 'reasoning' (or lack of same) is always "Obscure" [.]
.
That's one way to put it.
.
[ Most would say about your reply - Don't Feed The Jack Asses :]
.
Are you saying that they would be telling me not to reply to you?
Or that I'm the jack ass, and that you shouldn't be replying to me?
.
-R- What Other May Suggest to You . . .
Yes I have a California Driver's License
[ I Am Who I Am - Hey, That's Me ! ]
Knowing What I Know about Our Society and Legal System ;
and then Freely Making "The Personal Choice" To Do So !
.
Then clearly you don't understand what I was driving at.
So the issue is moot. You seemed to be one of those people
(and I knew one once) that feel you don't need a license to drive
legally.
They lose in court.
.
-R- I Do "Choose" to Have a Drivers License
and I Do Carry the DL on 'my' Person
and I Do Present the DL when Requied [.]

Fair enough.

Traffic and Parking Tickets ? What Are They ?
As a "Good US Citizen" 'i' Obey The Law :-}
.
If you drive on a regular basis, and have done so for an appreciable
length
of time, I'd damned near be willing to bet my life (contingent upon the

wager being for something of equal value) that you've broken the law on

several occasions. You've never signaled a few feet too short of the
legal
requirements for a turn at an intersection? You've never driven with a
light
out? It doesn't matter whether you knew it or not; it's an infraction.
You've never exceeded the legal limit? And while observing the legal
limit
you're never blocked faster traffic that was behind you in the passing
lane?
.
On the other hand, if that remark was purely meant to be tongue in
cheek,
ignore all of the above.
.
-R- Notice the small 'i' in my post.
While "I" may in-good-faith "Intend" to Obey the Law;
'i' may in-practice by happenstance break the law.

There! See what that unconventional grammatical style and off the wall
punctuation gets you? How am I supposed to know the difference between
definitions of a capital I and a lower-case one when you write? Argh[.]

FWIW - Most of 'us' on average
simply fail to get caught when
'we' unintensionally break the law ;-)

I was going to make that point myself when I thought you were saying you
never broke the law.

Although I'm certain that you only obey
what you feel are "just" laws, correct?
.
-R- The Law -IS- The Law [.]
Now... That - There Ought To Be A Law !

Actually, I was hoping that you would say you only obey just laws. I'll even
give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

FWIW - For 'me' Life is Simple :
To OBEY "The Law" -and- To BE a "Good Citizen"

Again, hoping that you don't obey blindly.

BAD - Did Not Mark 'her original' Post as Off-Topic (OT)
and my Reply with a 'modified' Subject Line was not marked (OT).
I would Note that 'you' yourself did not mark your Reply as (OT)
.
That's because I very rarely change thread titles or subjects. I try to

follow convention for the sake of other people's reading enjoyment, and

allow the thread to flow along as a single entity that can be easily
filtered or ignored. What you do is essentially evade killfiles. Anyone

using Outlook and the "ignore conversation" feature is still subject to
the
thread.
.
-R- Most Readers of this NewsGroup that choose have 'my'
Screen Name and/or eMail Address in Their KillFiles.
So "They" Do NOT Have To Read 'me'.
However, if you post after 'me' then 'you' may be exposing
them to some of 'my' posts and as such the admonition :
"Please Don't Feed the Jack Ass !" C'est Moi !

It wouldn't matter either way. They either read my replies to you in the
original thread, or they'll read them to you in the new thread. There's no
point to making a new thread...that's my point.

That's also where the "ignore conversation" filter may come in handy. Not
that I ever use it anyway. And I think that particular horse is dead by now.