"JJ" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

And, while I'm at it...since you're so obsessed with my tits, perhaps
you
can't think clearly enough...

Lets see now, you pick that call sign and you think I am obsessed with
your breasts? Looks like you are more obsessed with them than anyone else.


Ummmm, well, yuh. You are right about that--I picked a *VANITY* callsign
that has everything to do with *VANITY*. However, my tits aren't a
distraction or obsession to me; they are a distraction to those who are too
simple minded to get passed them and carry on with some resemblance of real
dialogue--without the reference to tits all the time.

Try it, JJ, you may sound a lot more intelligent--but that's a stretch so
don't be disappointed... 'Course, if you want to keep referring to my tits,
I can keep referring to your dick...or lack thereof; you *are* demonstrating
the characteristics of a man with a little dick, or who is short. There's
absolutely nothing wrong with either, mind you, except usually in the man
who holds either or both titles. Maybe some counseling would help you.

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Ummmm, well, yuh. You are right about that--I picked a *VANITY* callsign
that has everything to do with *VANITY*. However, my tits aren't a
distraction or obsession to me; they are a distraction to those who are too
simple minded to get passed them and carry on with some resemblance of real
dialogue--without the reference to tits all the time.

Try it, JJ, you may sound a lot more intelligent--but that's a stretch so
don't be disappointed... 'Course, if you want to keep referring to my tits,
I can keep referring to your dick...or lack thereof; you *are* demonstrating
the characteristics of a man with a little dick, or who is short. There's
absolutely nothing wrong with either, mind you, except usually in the man
who holds either or both titles. Maybe some counseling would help you.

Kim W5TIT


You certainly seem to be enamored with a certain part of my anatomy. At
least I didn't pick a tasteless callsign like W5DIK, I have more taste,
commone sense and class than that, something you obviously lack to a
great degree. You must be pretty simple minded yourself as your
tasteless callsign is a reference to and a reminder to everyone of your
tits every time you post.
You demonstrate the characteristics of a woman who must call attention
to herself constantly, probably short and dumpy. You would be a real hit
with the cb crowd.

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim "
writes:

I've really never given the "behavior"
such thought, i.e. analogy, etc.

Think about it. You've dealt with children - isn't it true that they will
tend
to repeat behavior that gets them what they want? If whining works, don't
you
get more whining?

What I meant by my comment was that I've never really thought of it much
beyond just making a conscious decision not to "give in," "yield," "cave,"
whatever one wishes to call it. But I agree, it'd be much the same as with
a child.

My point exactly.

It's illogical to think that sort of thing isn't present in adults.

I agree again, and it is...I see it in my training sessions and elsewhere
every day at work ;)

Of course.

BUT, I am generally a very even tempered
person and I don't feel I'm in any way wrong to stay in the lane I've
chosen
to drive in, above the posted speed, safely, forming safe distances
between
myself and drivers ahead of me, and never-minding nitwits behind me who
think I should "yield" to them so they can speed faster and keep making
each successive vehicle move.

Would you agree that if you *do* yield, you validate their behavior and in
a small way encourage them to do more of it?

Absolutely.

That was my point.

Personally, I move, because I care more about my own safety. But that's
just me.

I am probably lately more apt to be ignorant of my own safety in a steady
determination to "dammit, stop allowing others to treat me like that"
attitude. I've been in one of those attitudes for a while now. I'm kind of
liking it.

Which means *your* behavior is being rewarded....

However, I recommend the safer alternative. Let the "idiot" be ahead of you.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Remember the scenario Kim describes:

- multilane divided highway
- all vehicles at or above the posted speed limit.
- vehicle comes up behind her, flashes brights,
follows too closely, tries to get around on the
*inside* shoulder. IOW, unsafe, aggressive
driving actions intended to intimidate Kim.
(as if!!)

That's your (and/or perhaps Kim's) interpretation of the scenario.

I'd call it an accurate description, not an interpretation.


Me too.


Others
may interpret it as Kim being an inattentive driver that is not acting
courteously to others by driving to the right, causing others to take
extraordinary steps to get her attention back on the road and courteous
driving (with extraordinary steps being necessary to get someone to drive
courteously only adding to the fustration of other drivers).

Hmmm...

She's going with the flow of traffic, *above* the posted speed limit, but
she
should slow down and change lanes so that someone who wants to go even
faster
can get by?


Thank you. Doesn't make much sense to me, either.

But it appears to be the law.

She's not being "courteous" enough to do the above, so that somehow
validates
the dangerous actions of another driver (following too closely, trying to
pass
on the shoulder)?

She's only blocking those who want to speed
faster than she wants to speed.

Exactly.

Well, there you have it.


Haw...as you would say! :o

Exactly. But the law seems to have a different take.


However, as you well know, she doesn't have a mandate, or a
right, to self-enforce how fast others drive.

Nor do *they* (or Kim) have a right to speed.


Correct as correct can be.

Which puts everyone in the wrong. Ticketing opportunities galore.

Instead, she has the same
obligations as other drivers, including an obligation to move to the
right
to allow others to pass.

Where is it in the motor vehicle code that a driver on a multilane divided
highway has to change lanes and slow down to allow a speeder to pass in a
non-emergency situation?


They have *some* (one that I know of) of those highways down here. The only
one I know of is well north of the DFW metroplex, up above Lewisville,
even...almost to the OK border.

Then what kind of road are we talking about?

If others are driving too fast while doing so, that
is law enforcement's business - not the business of a self-styled road
vigilante.

It's everyone's business.

Yep.

But the behavior/reward model I gave is valid.
For both children and alleged adults.

I disagree. For it to be valid, you would have to establish there is
nothing more than childhood impulse behind the decision drive fast -
impulse
that can be easily modified by simple rewards.

The behaviors described by Kim go far beyond driving fast. They are
obviously
childish - and often dangerous. Following too closely is simply unsafe.


Uh, *especially* at near 70-75 and above mph!!!!!!!!!!!!

And that's the problem.

If you think childish impulses are easily modified by simple rewards, you
obviously haven't spent much time with impulsive children.

And you haven't established
that.

It's self-evident.


Oh, I'm here to tell you that strategy works on children, groups, etc.

Of course. The problem is that they're usually not in hurtling pieces of
machinery.

Adults can make decisions based on some level of knowledge,
experience, and review of the situation, not impulse.

Of course!

But the behaviors Kim describes are not those of a responsible adult.

In the case of fast
drivers, perhaps the driver feels, based on a consideration of his/her
skills and experience, that he/she can drive safely at faster speeds.

The driver *feels*?

So the driver's *feelings* supersede the judgement of the traffic
engineers and
lawmakers who determine the posted speed limits?

I'd like to see that argument defended in court!

My daily commute to work is often made longer by school buses and school
zones.
It's gotten so I know exactly where the zones, the children, and the bus
stops
are. Is it adult behavior for me to go faster than 15 in a school zone, or
zoom
past a bus with its red lights flashing, because I *feel* I can do so
safely?


The adult thing to do is either get up and leave earlier, or leave after the
school zones are relinquished to normal traffic.

How about simply doing what the law requires? I wait for the school bus to turn
off the lights and I only go the safe speed (15 max) in a school zone. I lose a
few seconds here and there - big deal.

Or how about the ham who *feels* he "needs" 10 kW output? Suppose said ham
can
safely assemble and operate a 10 kW transmitter that meets all of the FCC
requirements for spurious emissions and RF exposure. Is it therefre OK for
him
to do so because he *feels* it's OK?

For
example, I've driven many thousands of miles on German autobahns, and
know
full well I can drive safely at speeds faster than 55-65 mph (therefore
only
the laws and conditions attenuate my driving speeds).

You know you can do it on German autobahns. But we're not in Germany. You
want
to drive faster, go to Germany.

Perhaps the person has
a legitimate reason for driving faster. For example, the driver may be
taking someone to the hospital (and Kim is blocking his way).

Sure. That's an emergency situation. But Kim says it's an every-day thing.
Hardly an emergency. And if there's only one person in the car....

I could go on,
but these examples alone should make it clear that not all are acting
solely
on impulse that can be easily modified by simple rewards.

The only valid counterexample you give is the emergency case.

I don't exactly agree with Kim's behavior either, because a person who is
childishly impulsive enough to do what she describes may do other, even
more
dangerous things. And I don't want Kim (or me) to be a victim of someone
else's
childish impulses.

'Zactly.

The problem is that if you do the highway vigilante thing you may be the victim
of someone else's childish impulses. Or mistake. How many people died on Texas
highways last year?

Please don't be a statistic.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
"Kim" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Kim"
writes:


Sorry for the delay - thought I'd answered this, Kim


It's fine for them to go 20 mph above the speed limit. It's fine if they
want to go 30-40 mph above the speed limit. But, they won't find me
moving
out of their way; they'll have to go around because I am not moving into

a

lane where I have to slow down, or even get "stuck" there for a while, if
there happens to be more than one vehicle that wants to go past.

Ah, I see. The right lane is going 60-65, the left lane (with you in it by
yourself) is going 70-75, and you're not going to lose a few seconds in

order

to accomodate someone who wants to go 80-85.

It's not the matter of being kind and courteous and moving over so someone
who's acting like an idiot can go by. It's the principle of the matter
that
*because* of the way they are being self-important, it's going to be *them*
that does the moving around. I.E., I see them in kind of like the "bully"
role of a little kid. Well, I'm not giving in to the bully.


After some thought, it occurred to me to restate your posstion in
slightly different terms. How about this:

People tend to do what works for them. If a certain behavior produces
a desired result, they will tend to repeat and expand that behavior if
they want the result another time. This is a basic concept in child
rearing - you reward the behaviors you want and do not reward the
behaviors you don't want. And "reward" can take many forms - arguing
with a child from 7:30 to 7:35 about the fact that their bedtime is
7:30 is "rewarding" the arguing behavior because it results in a 7:35
bedtime.

And the effects go beyond the people directly involved. If another
child sees that arguing with a parent "works", then they're much more
likely to try arguing or some variation of it somewhere down the line.
Maybe the argument won't be about bedtime but the same tactics will be
used.

This doesn't mean the child has consciously figured all that out and
is working from a preconceived plan. It just means that the effects
are the same, and a parent has to take a different approach that
doesn't effectively reward the unwanted behavior. Good parents know
all this - again, sometimes not consciously.

Another important concept is to be consistent. The child needs to
learn not only that arguing over bedtime at bedtime doesn't work but
that it *never* works.

So in the case of the driver who "behaves like an idiot", Kim is being
very careful and consistent to *not* reward the "idiot" behavior by
pulling over and letting the person go by. Because if such behavior
works, we'll see more and more of it. Not just from the current batch
of idiots but from presently non-idiot drivers who see that it works
and try it themselves.

So you are saying that in order to show the idiot where the bear went
in the buckwheat that you have to act like the idiot?

No, just the opposite. Kim is making sure that "acting like an idiot" doesn't
get the "idiot" what he-she wants (to pass and go faster).

Agressive drivers are known to do some pretty insane things. Even if
that piece of incorrect logic would be correct, the aggressive driver
may be "provoked" (in his or her mind) to get even with the person ahead
of him in the lane by doing something like a high speed rear-ending.

Agreed! Or, more likely, an accident could result that is much more severe
because of the behavior of both Kim and the "idiot". For example, if someone
cut in front of Kim and she had to hit the brakes, a rearender is almost
guaranteed.

"Rewarding" or "teaching a lesson" or "showing them" or whatever doesn't
work.

Sure it does. The question is whether it's legal and/or justified at 70+ mph in
the left lane. You, Dwight and JJ have convinced me that it's neither legal nor
justified.

No thanks, if someone is going to be an idiot on the road, they can do
it in front of me. I'll pull off and let 'em pass!

Same here!

OTOH, if "behaving like an idiot" on the road is not rewarded, the
driver may try something else (like courtesy, or getting on the road a
few minutes earlier).

The time for teaching courtesy to them has long passed. Ain't gonna
happen.

Even if it works, it's a dangerous game. Too dangerous.

73 de Jim, N2EY