|
"Dave Heil" wrote:
Sheesh, Dwight! White just isn't worn after Labor Day. Well, gee, Dave. If people are going to run around wearing a single glove for decoration, there has to be some rules of etiquette. I just have to wonder what Ms. Manners would say about all this. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: It's a pretty near given that I (nor many others in this newsgroup) would find anything like the death of someone else "hilarious." Kim: Ahem -- care to look over the above sentence and, perhaps, add something to it? Or "not"? 73 de Larry, K3LT Oh, hell, let me go ahead and do it: It's a pretty near given that I, nor many others in this newsgroup, would find anything like the death of someone else "hilarious." There, maybe the parentheses confused Larry... Kim W5TIT Kim: Yawn! Ok, apparently you need some help here. I *think* that what you meant to say goes something like this: "It's a pretty near given that neither I, nor many others in this newsgroup, would find anything like the death of someone else "hilarious."" Yeah. You're correct. *IF* you want to give the appearance of being rather archaic in the use of the English Language. I believe an English professor would bear me out that by the use of the word "nor" directly after the word "I" is the proper way in which to construct that sentence. If I am wrong, and I don't think I am, then you are absolutely correct. An alternative version would be: "It's a pretty near given that I, or any others in this newsgroup, would not find anything like the death of someone else "hilarious."" Good grief, that's miserably constructed and you'd be one of those who would construct a sentence thusly, not I. Is that what you meant to say, Kim? If so, I think that you could benefit from some basic classes on English composition, with an emphasis on sentence structure. 73 de Larry, K3LT Uh huh. Who could? Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: OK. Well, I'll start then. I wish you'd review how much you sound like Larry here recently... Really. Read your posts without looking at them as being from you. You'll confuse yourself as to who, exactly, posted them... You did not *used* to post like that... Perhaps much of that impression is caused by whether you agree or disagree with what being said at the moment. Dwight, I am not like that. I can totally dislike someone and totally agree with what they are saying. The *reason* I don't like Larry--or people like him--isn't because of their opinion. It is because of their arrogance and dictatorial style of impression that everyone must think just like them. It is also that, once again, the *impression* is given that anyone who thinks differently than they are somehow of less stature than they. Whether I agree or disagree with someone has no bearing on how I accept their message. For instance, someone could be exactly of the thought of Larry and preach the thought and I am all for engagement on an intellectual level. But, when someone begins preaching their thoughts while at the same time acting as though they are superior because of them--all I want to is reach out and bitch slap 'em. I can get just as lofty as anyone else on an intellectual level and be very articulate about how I communicate. I can also get down at the level of someone such as Larry if I need to--or just plain want to. I agree with Larry on some things, and don't on others. I agree with you on some things, and don't on others. When anybody agrees with another, their comments are going to, of course, sound similar. When I agree with you, Larry accuses me of sounding like you. You're now accusing me of sounding like Larry. Unless I agree with everything each has to say, I can't possibly satisfy both of you. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Nope, you are incorrect. I don't care whether you agree with me or not. It is when you start telling me things that depict the nature of a personality *because* of something I am saying that you'll see me pushing back in like manner. Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: Nope. You see? Your question proves that you understood what it is I *meant* to say, asshole... Such language, Kim. And you talk about me posting differently than I used to. ;-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Oooo, I know. I sure am getting short with people lately. Y'know why, I think? It's kind of like all those who are nearly always as good as we can possibly be--at the *expense* of ourselves around all the creeps in this world. I am getting tired of it--and I ain't takin' it no more... GRIN Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net... "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: Yawn! Ok, apparently you need some help here. I *think* that what you meant to say goes something like this: "It's a pretty near given that neither I, nor many others in this newsgroup, would find anything like the death of someone else "hilarious."" (snip) You must be getting old or something, Larry. You gave up much too quickly. It was surely a mistake when she first wrote it, but a real surprise when she actually wrote it again without catching the mistake. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Ask an English professor, Dwight. Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net... "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: Yawn! Ok, apparently you need some help here. I *think* that what you meant to say goes something like this: "It's a pretty near given that neither I, nor many others in this newsgroup, would find anything like the death of someone else "hilarious."" (snip) You must be getting old or something, Larry. You gave up much too quickly. It was surely a mistake when she first wrote it, but a real surprise when she actually wrote it again without catching the mistake. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ I meant to add that I'll check with our grammar department today... Kim W5TIT |
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote: Sheesh, Dwight! White just isn't worn after Labor Day. Well, gee, Dave. If people are going to run around wearing a single glove for decoration, there has to be some rules of etiquette. I just have to wonder what Ms. Manners would say about all this. "ICK"? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: Yawn! Ok, apparently you need some help here. I *think* that what you meant to say goes something like this: "It's a pretty near given that neither I, nor many others in this newsgroup, would find anything like the death of someone else "hilarious."" (snip) You must be getting old or something, Larry. You gave up much too quickly. It was surely a mistake when she first wrote it, but a real surprise when she actually wrote it again without catching the mistake. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ I meant to add that I'll check with our grammar department today... Kim W5TIT ACK!!! Man, I am still stunned over this one--I *must* be getting old. The grammar department indeed reminded me of the old "either/neither" "neither/nor" argument to be used in deciding upon correct grammar! So, yes, Larry was correct! Wow, what a hoot! Larry being correct Big Evil Grin. However, it was stated that, in a casual conversation, inference is 98% of the communication. Deductive reasoning would lend itself to knowing what was intended to be said (sorry, Jim). I did remind them that I do not consider this venue as much "casual" as I do a debate environment. So, they said in a debate I'd lose points. Consider the points lost. Anyway, yep, the sentence should have been as Larry stated in the above reposted, reposted, reposted(?) post. All I can say is I am proud to have given Larry the opportunity to be correct *and* intellectual, for once...Big Evil Grin again. What a hoot, eh? Oh wait, upon review, could it look to JJ like I am backpedaling? Hmmm.....nope, don't think so... Now, back to cooking a fine, fine cook-ahead Thanksgiving dinner that neither I nor anyone could deny being delightfully delicious! ;) Kim W5TIT |
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:06:57 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dr." Laura would likely have a heart attack if she saw how some people live today in places *inside* her privileged neighborhood. Whew! Definitely. That woman is so far detached from reality it's scarey... This topic was kicked around in depth several months ago in the ba.broadcast group, where she is usually referred to as "Quack-tor Laura". As expected, we came up with the same conclusion as you did above... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
Here is a link to a site that has lotts of information about the
molestation laws in california. Also it has information and photos from the Jackson case... http://www.geocities.com/theTruthAbout288a "Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net... On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:06:57 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote: "Dr." Laura would likely have a heart attack if she saw how some people live today in places *inside* her privileged neighborhood. Whew! Definitely. That woman is so far detached from reality it's scarey... This topic was kicked around in depth several months ago in the ba.broadcast group, where she is usually referred to as "Quack-tor Laura". As expected, we came up with the same conclusion as you did above... |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
Nope, you are incorrect. I don't care whether you agree with me or not. It is when you start telling me things that depict the nature of a personality *because* of something I am saying that you'll see me pushing back in like manner. Well, that doesn't always come across so clearly in what you post in the newsgroup. We can't read your mind, only your words. And, in those words, I often see you giving as much as you get. Larry does like to throw punches at you, but I've seen you throw a few at him too. At this point, which one started first is somewhat hard to determine. Instead, most simply go with whatever is being said at the moment. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:
Michael Jackson Jokes Q: How do you know when it's bedtime at the Jackson residence? A: When the big hand touches the little hand... Oh, my. Sick. Discusting. Horrible. Funny!! Thanks, Ryan. A copy is now on my hard drive. I'm sure my wife will get a laugh out of some of them too. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart wrote: Well, gee, Dave. If people are going to run around wearing a single glove for decoration, there has to be some rules of etiquette. I just have to wonder what Ms. Manners would say about all this. "ICK"? Yep. That about covers it. :-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
Oooo, I know. I sure am getting short with people lately. Y'know why, I think? It's kind of like all those who are nearly always as good as we can possibly be--at the *expense* of ourselves around all the creeps in this world. I am getting tired of it--and I ain't takin' it no more... Yea, but, if you're going to declare war, you're supposed to fly the "Don't Tread On Me" flag or something first. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: Nope, you are incorrect. I don't care whether you agree with me or not. It is when you start telling me things that depict the nature of a personality *because* of something I am saying that you'll see me pushing back in like manner. Well, that doesn't always come across so clearly in what you post in the newsgroup. We can't read your mind, only your words. And, in those words, I often see you giving as much as you get. Larry does like to throw punches at you, but I've seen you throw a few at him too. At this point, which one started first is somewhat hard to determine. Instead, most simply go with whatever is being said at the moment. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ The key phrase up there, Dwight, is: "give as much as you get." That is why I said I will push back in like manner. Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote: Ask an English professor, Dwight. Writing is something I greatly enjoy, Kim. As written, your sentence, without the reference to others, basically says "it's a pretty near given that I would find anything like the death of someone else "hilarious."" Clearly, something else is needed to change that to fit your intent (for example, "...I would NOT find..."). With your reference to others, the missing "neither" is necessary (the basic "neither/nor" grammar rule, as in "neither I nor others would find"). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
ACK!!! Man, I am still stunned over this one--I *must* be getting old. The grammar department indeed reminded me of the old "either/neither" "neither/nor" argument to be used in deciding upon correct grammar! So, yes, Larry was correct! Wow, what a hoot! Larry being correct Big Evil Grin. (snip) Ah, I see you've already figured it out. Ignore my last message. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
a whole bunch snipped Well, as I've been doing this more and more over the past 5-6 months or so, I am also noticing that there are others doing this. I don't know that it's always been done by others and I've just never noticed, but I notice that there *are* others who are doing it. I am refreshed by that. I am tired of always being the friendly, patient, kind one--just to keep getting stepped on by the creeps... Well, we can all react to the world as we wish. I find that a rude reaction to rudity just validates all the rudity. Of course we can't be all well mannered all the time, but IMO, its best to try. Grace is a habit. And the best revenge is living well. Illegitemi non Carborundum! |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Hmmm, not only no, but hell no. I can be treaded on all "they" want. I've declared war on the road, tell ya that. I travel a good number of miles to work. And, it's so bad "out there" that when I do 70-75 (in a 60 zone), there will be creeps that pull up behind me and start this moving to the left so they're on the shoulder and can see the traffic around the front of me; or flashing their headlights so I'll move outta "their" way; or pulling up so close that all I see of their lights behind me is a halo because they're only about 2' distance from my rear bumper. What lane are you in when they do this? Or, they'll do the ultimate stupidity and pass then pull into the spot that I have created in front of me so that they can start leapfrogging from one lane to the next. Well, used to be I'd move. No more. I sit right there. And, they still go around but now I creep up just ever so slightly (still maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front of me) and see if they'll still dare slide in. Well, sometimes they do. So, since they've usually been behind me flashing their headlights, I'll go the lazy man's route and just leave mine on high beam--and I've got some bright lights. And if an accident occurs, you'll hit them, and the judgement may be that it was *your* fault! I go on the "Duel" philosophy (from the old TV movie by Speilberg): I'd rather have a nutcase driver in front of me, where I can watch him/her, than behind me. I've actually pulled over and let 'em go by rather than have them follow me. Then, there's the folks in the store. You'll know who I'm talking about here. The folks who walk up behind you and have a couple of things in their hands and start practically doing calisthenics (sp) to careen in front of you so you'll see they only have a couple of things and let them go ahead. I haven't encountered that yet. Must be a Texas thing... Used to do that, too. No more. It's my turn dammit and they can wait. Now, don't get me wrong: if I happen to turn to one side or the other and I notice someone patiently waiting their turn, I let them go ahead. But these creeps who think that they are entitled to getting around just because they are far more important than anyone else...nope, not doin' it any more. And, depending upon how showy they are about how important they are is how slow I am to slowly unload my cart, slowly find my checkbook, confirm the price however many times it needs confirming, very carefully write my check, etc. I use a different approach completely in stores. I call it the CQT (Cuteness Queueing Theory) method. Works like this: Whenever you're in a store that has two or more checkout lines, choose which line to be in by how attractive/cute/sexy/whatever the checkout person is. Doesn't matter how long the line is - get in the line with the checkout person you find most attractive. For some reason, that line always seems to move the fastest. Or, the teeny-bopper eh-heh couple that thinks everyone wants to see them practically making love in public. If we are all in a line at a store or something and I see another person who is as dismayed by this as me, I'll say something like, "thank goodness for birth control." The other person will usually say something back (having just *waited* for the opportunity) like, "doesn't look like they use it." Or some such thing. For some reason, *that* is when these creeps get embarrassed. I like that! Here's another, copied from the "Seinfeld" episode, but you have to be with your SO to do it. Simply start talking all sweet to each other (the episode had Jerry and his girlfriend calling each other "schmoopie"). Folks of our age look ancient to many kids that age, and when we behave that way it drives them nuts. Of course, it takes some discipline to keep a straight face while calling each other "Bunny" and "Huggybear" and such, plus you hafta have the right person with you to do it at all. Then, there's what I call the "buddy" creeps. The philosophy is to shop in pairs and have one stand in line while the other keeps going back and getting things that were "forgotten." And, the one standing in line will keep turning and saying please excuse us...giggle. I used to just throw a fake smile. Not any more. Now I say, "no, I won't excuse you, you are holding all of us up here and it's rude and inconsiderate of you." I don't mind a thing or two, but after that it's a different story. And restaurants. Oh my goodness how many times have you been at an eatery, only to have some creep's misbehaving little future creep keep popping up over the booth seat to let out a shrill of a scream with laughter right behind--over and over and over again...or let the little tyrant run rampant while the beautiful couple (yeah right) sits and eats in peace while their monster runs to every table standing there like you're supposed to applaud them or something. I used to grin and bear that, too. Now, I get up, and I'll actually say something to the parents about how disruptive their "child" (term used loosely) is being to everyone else's table--so can I sit at theirs. That one there gets real sneers. Ask me if I care. They don't, I ain't gonna. Fortunately I haven't run into that very much. Yet. Well, as I've been doing this more and more over the past 5-6 months or so, I am also noticing that there are others doing this. I don't know that it's always been done by others and I've just never noticed, but I notice that there *are* others who are doing it. I am refreshed by that. I am tired of always being the friendly, patient, kind one--just to keep getting stepped on by the creeps... Maybe we've all had it... grin One can be assertive without being nasty, though. It sure sounds like people are in one heck of a hurry down there, though... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
No problem... a little laughter is a good thing once in a while. Had to do
a little cleanup with the file, due to some F words etc..... Ryan "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote: Michael Jackson Jokes Q: How do you know when it's bedtime at the Jackson residence? A: When the big hand touches the little hand... Oh, my. Sick. Discusting. Horrible. Funny!! Thanks, Ryan. A copy is now on my hard drive. I'm sure my wife will get a laugh out of some of them too. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et... Kim W5TIT wrote: a whole bunch snipped Well, as I've been doing this more and more over the past 5-6 months or so, I am also noticing that there are others doing this. I don't know that it's always been done by others and I've just never noticed, but I notice that there *are* others who are doing it. I am refreshed by that. I am tired of always being the friendly, patient, kind one--just to keep getting stepped on by the creeps... Well, we can all react to the world as we wish. I find that a rude reaction to rudity just validates all the rudity. Of course we can't be all well mannered all the time, but IMO, its best to try. Grace is a habit. And the best revenge is living well. Illegitemi non Carborundum! Yeah....well, my years of Grace ain't done a damned thing to correct a thing. So, I am tired of being "correct." Kim W5TIT |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: Hmmm, not only no, but hell no. I can be treaded on all "they" want. I've declared war on the road, tell ya that. I travel a good number of miles to work. And, it's so bad "out there" that when I do 70-75 (in a 60 zone), there will be creeps that pull up behind me and start this moving to the left so they're on the shoulder and can see the traffic around the front of me; or flashing their headlights so I'll move outta "their" way; or pulling up so close that all I see of their lights behind me is a halo because they're only about 2' distance from my rear bumper. What lane are you in when they do this? The far left--the "fast" lane as it is called. Funny thing is, if you mention to people at the office or wherever, that it doesn't mean the "break the speed limit lane," you ought to hear the validations for people doing just that. The argument is along the lines that this is the lane where, if someone needs to pass, speeding is legal to get around them; or, this is the lane where if the majority of drivers wants to go a little faster than the flow of traffic, they do it there! There's more validations, but that's the gist of it...!! Note that I let you know that I am already speeding, as it is. Up to about 15 MPH over the posted speed. Or, they'll do the ultimate stupidity and pass then pull into the spot that I have created in front of me so that they can start leapfrogging from one lane to the next. Well, used to be I'd move. No more. I sit right there. And, they still go around but now I creep up just ever so slightly (still maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front of me) and see if they'll still dare slide in. Well, sometimes they do. So, since they've usually been behind me flashing their headlights, I'll go the lazy man's route and just leave mine on high beam--and I've got some bright lights. And if an accident occurs, you'll hit them, and the judgement may be that it was *your* fault! I hope I've got enough leverage between them and me. I prefer, and usually can manage to, approx. 6 or more carlengths in front of me. More if I can maintain it, but that's hard. I go on the "Duel" philosophy (from the old TV movie by Speilberg): I'd rather have a nutcase driver in front of me, where I can watch him/her, than behind me. I've actually pulled over and let 'em go by rather than have them follow me. Know what happens here? If one is cautiously staying behind a fruitcake driver, all the hurry-up-and-get-me-knowwhere nitiwits start passing like they are the charging brigade--never taking just a moment to see what they are pulling up on (a very dangerous situation with a driver ahead way too close to the vehicle in front of them) or someone who's been doing a bit of weaving; or whatever. So, depending upon the situation, letting this person stay in front instead of taking the first opportunity to get around them, can be more hazardous. Then, there's the folks in the store. You'll know who I'm talking about here. The folks who walk up behind you and have a couple of things in their hands and start practically doing calisthenics (sp) to careen in front of you so you'll see they only have a couple of things and let them go ahead. I haven't encountered that yet. Must be a Texas thing... Wow. Really? Maybe I just need to move. This is so commonplace down here, you're considered the idiot if you don't let these folks get ahead. Used to do that, too. No more. It's my turn dammit and they can wait. Now, don't get me wrong: if I happen to turn to one side or the other and I notice someone patiently waiting their turn, I let them go ahead. But these creeps who think that they are entitled to getting around just because th ey are far more important than anyone else...nope, not doin' it any more. And, depending upon how showy they are about how important they are is how slow I am to slowly unload my cart, slowly find my checkbook, confirm the price however many times it needs confirming, very carefully write my check, etc. I use a different approach completely in stores. I call it the CQT (Cuteness Queueing Theory) method. Works like this: Whenever you're in a store that has two or more checkout lines, choose which line to be in by how attractive/cute/sexy/whatever the checkout person is. Doesn't matter how long the line is - get in the line with the checkout person you find most attractive. For some reason, that line always seems to move the fastest. Now, Jim. Forgive me for being non-male here, but I don't generally find myself "checking out" at the check out. GRIN Or, the teeny-bopper eh-heh couple that thinks everyone wants to see them practically making love in public. If we are all in a line at a store or something and I see another person who is as dismayed by this as me, I'll say something like, "thank goodness for birth control." The other person will usually say something back (having just *waited* for the opportunity) like, "doesn't look like they use it." Or some such thing. For some reason, *that* is when these creeps get embarrassed. I like that! Here's another, copied from the "Seinfeld" episode, but you have to be with your SO to do it. Simply start talking all sweet to each other (the episode had Jerry and his girlfriend calling each other "schmoopie"). Folks of our age look ancient to many kids that age, and when we behave that way it drives them nuts. Of course, it takes some discipline to keep a straight face while calling each other "Bunny" and "Huggybear" and such, plus you hafta have the right person with you to do it at all. Hey, now. I like that one!! My darlin' would never do that, though. He's still in the phase that he puts up with this stuff and then crabs about it later--the phase I used to be in. BUT, it'd be neat to get in line with one of my girlfriends and start acting gay! If I get the courage to do that, and have one of my girlfriends who'll join in, I'll have to let you know how it turns out. I love that scene in "Ghost" with (was it?) Meg Ryan simulating an orgasm at the restaraunt table! I cracked up. Then, there's what I call the "buddy" creeps. The philosophy is to shop in pairs and have one stand in line while the other keeps going back and getting things that were "forgotten." And, the one standing in line will keep turning and saying please excuse us...giggle. I used to just throw a fake smile. Not any more. Now I say, "no, I won't excuse you, you are holding all of us up here and it's rude and inconsiderate of you." I don't mind a thing or two, but after that it's a different story. I've gotten disgusted enough with all this crappy behavior that no one gets the benefit of the doubt anymore, either. And, it's not just me. I've talked to folks at the office and they are all the same way. In fact, we've all forgiven each other for our behavior ahead of time...;o And restaurants. Oh my goodness how many times have you been at an eatery, only to have some creep's misbehaving little future creep keep popping up over the booth seat to let out a shrill of a scream with laughter right behind--over and over and over again...or let the little tyrant run rampant while the beautiful couple (yeah right) sits and eats in peace while their monster runs to every table standing there like you're supposed to applaud them or something. I used to grin and bear that, too. Now, I get up, and I'll actually say something to the parents about how disruptive their "child" (term used loosely) is being to everyone else's table--so can I sit at theirs. That one there gets real sneers. Ask me if I care. They don't, I ain't gonna. Fortunately I haven't run into that very much. Yet. Yeah, I tried to take my parents out to a very nice dinner and there was one of these kids in the "booth" (yeah, I know...a booth at a nice restaraunt, go figure) next to us. Well, this kid was directly behind my parents. After about the 3rd or 4th time the kid kept doing this, I became the obnoxious one. I kept saying, "SIR!" over and over again until the dad, who was trying his hardest to ignore me, looked at me and I said, "could you keep your kid reigned in? We are trying to have a family dinner ourselves over here." Well, these folks were so offended that they demonstratively got up, and abruptly left. As they were walking away I thanked them. I hope they talk about that for the next 20 years. Well, as I've been doing this more and more over the past 5-6 months or so, I am also noticing that there are others doing this. I don't know that it's always been done by others and I've just never noticed, but I notice that there *are* others who are doing it. I am refreshed by that. I am tired of always being the friendly, patient, kind one--just to keep getting stepped on by the creeps... Maybe we've all had it... grin One can be assertive without being nasty, though. It sure sounds like people are in one heck of a hurry down there, though... 73 de Jim, N2EY Yes. They are. And, while my behavior is not "forgiveable," I am no where as nasty as these folks are being. Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message et... Kim W5TIT wrote: a whole bunch snipped Well, as I've been doing this more and more over the past 5-6 months or so, I am also noticing that there are others doing this. I don't know that it's always been done by others and I've just never noticed, but I notice that there *are* others who are doing it. I am refreshed by that. I am tired of always being the friendly, patient, kind one--just to keep getting stepped on by the creeps... Well, we can all react to the world as we wish. I find that a rude reaction to rudity just validates all the rudity. Of course we can't be all well mannered all the time, but IMO, its best to try. Grace is a habit. And the best revenge is living well. Illegitemi non Carborundum! Yeah....well, my years of Grace ain't done a damned thing to correct a thing. So, I am tired of being "correct." Kim W5TIT You cannot know that. One kind or encouraging word could have changed the direction of someone's life and you would never know it. If even a single person has been inspired by any word or act of mine, then I have indeed had an impact on the world. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... The far left--the "fast" lane as it is called. Funny thing is, if you mention to people at the office or wherever, that it doesn't mean the "break the speed limit lane," you ought to hear the validations for people doing just that. The argument is along the lines that this is the lane where, if someone needs to pass, speeding is legal to get around them; or, this is the lane where if the majority of drivers wants to go a little faster than the flow of traffic, they do it there! There's more validations, but that's the gist of it...!! Note that I let you know that I am already speeding, as it is. Up to about 15 MPH over the posted speed. It just goes to show the exams for a driver's license are not tough enough. The "going over the speed limit to complete passing" applies ONLY to TWO lane highways not multi-lane highways. Some states don't even allow that. In those states, if you can't safely pass and stay within the speed limit, you aren't supposed to pass at all. According to state laws, the speed limit is the maximum that one is supposed to drive even in the "fast lane" with the exception of passing on a TWO lane highway in some states. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
Maybe we've all had it... grin Well, did you get it all out of your system? Is there anyone else you missed? :-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" writes: The far left--the "fast" lane as it is called. Funny thing is, if you mention to people at the office or wherever, that it doesn't mean the "break the speed limit lane," you ought to hear the validations for people doing just that. The argument is along the lines that this is the lane where, if someone needs to pass, speeding is legal to get around them; or, this is the lane where if the majority of drivers wants to go a little faster than the flow of traffic, they do it there! (snip) It just goes to show the exams for a driver's license are not tough enough. The "going over the speed limit to complete passing" applies ONLY to TWO lane highways not multi-lane highways. Some states don't even allow that. In those states, if you can't safely pass and stay within the speed limit, you aren't supposed to pass at all. According to state laws, the speed limit is the maximum that one is supposed to drive even in the "fast lane" with the exception of passing on a TWO lane highway in some states. However, in most states, the laws also say slower traffic on multi-lane highways must move to the right lane to allow others to pass. There are usually no exceptions to those laws, such as not moving over for speeders. It is law enforcement's job to enforce the speed limits, not other drivers. Vehicles impeding other traffic, causing traffic jams and others to take risks to pass the slower vehicle, is a very common cause of accidents on multi-lane highways. In Europe, it's routine to see maximum and minimum speed limits for each lane of a multi-lane highway. In some countries, you can often get a ticket faster for going too slow rather than too fast. They also have the requirement to move to the right to allow faster vehicles to pass. The general idea of all this is to prevent accidents by keeping traffic in each lane flowing smoothly, without excessive congestions (crowding) behind slower moving vehicles. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article , "Kim"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Kim " writes: Hmmm, not only no, but hell no. I can be treaded on all "they" want. I've declared war on the road, tell ya that. I travel a good number of miles to work. By your own choice. And, it's so bad "out there" that when I do 70-75 (in a 60 zone), there will be creeps that pull up behind me and start this moving to the left so they're on the shoulder and can see the traffic around the front of me; or flashing their headlights so I'll move outta "their" way; or pulling up so close that all I see of their lights behind me is a halo because they're only about 2' distance from my rear bumper. What lane are you in when they do this? The far left--the "fast" lane as it is called. Funny thing is, if you mention to people at the office or wherever, that it doesn't mean the "break the speed limit lane," you ought to hear the validations for people doing just that. But you're already speeding, Kim. And not by an amount that can be explained by the usual inaccuraccies and imperfections of speedometers. Yet your getting ticked off because someone wants to go even faster. The argument is along the lines that this is the lane where, if someone needs to pass, speeding is legal to get around them; Ah - but why does someone *need* to pass? As Dee points out, on a two-lane, two direction road, it may be necessary to go fast to get out of a tough passing situation. But on a multilane divided highway where traffic is already zooming at the speed limit or above, why does anyone not in a life-and-death emergency situation *need* to pass? or, this is the lane where if the majority of drivers wants to go a little faster than the flow of traffic, they do it there! There's more validations, but that's the gist of it...!! And they take the risk of being fined, or worse. Note that I let you know that I am already speeding, as it is. Up to about 15 MPH over the posted speed. Right. So you have justified such speeding to yourself, even though it violates the law. The person behind you who wants to go 20-25 MPH over the limit has almost certainly justified their behavior to him/herself, even though it also violates the law. Or, they'll do the ultimate stupidity and pass then pull into the spot that I have created in front of me so that they can start leapfrogging from one lane to the next. Well, used to be I'd move. No more. I sit right there. And, they still go around but now I creep up just ever so slightly (still maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front of me) and see if they'll still dare slide in. Well, sometimes they do. So, since they've usually been behind me flashing their headlights, I'll go the lazy man's route and just leave mine on high beam--and I've got some bright lights. And if an accident occurs, you'll hit them, and the judgement may be that it was *your* fault! I hope I've got enough leverage between them and me. I hope so too, but if they don't, you might be in a bad spot. Particularly if someone dies or is seriously injured. Try arguing your high beams at a graveside.... I prefer, and usually can manage to, approx. 6 or more carlengths in front of me. More if I can maintain it, but that's hard. That's good. I go on the "Duel" philosophy (from the old TV movie by Speilberg): I'd rather have a nutcase driver in front of me, where I can watch him/her, than behind me. I've actually pulled over and let 'em go by rather than have them follow me. Know what happens here? If one is cautiously staying behind a fruitcake driver, all the hurry-up-and-get-me-knowwhere nitiwits start passing like they are the charging brigade--never taking just a moment to see what they are pulling up on (a very dangerous situation with a driver ahead way too close to the vehicle in front of them) or someone who's been doing a bit of weaving; or whatever. So, depending upon the situation, letting this person stay in front instead of taking the first opportunity to get around them, can be more hazardous. I disagree. I simply pull over and let the whacko get farther ahead. Miles, if necessary. At 60 MPH, one minute of delay buys me a mile of space. I can spare that minute. Then, there's the folks in the store. You'll know who I'm talking about here. The folks who walk up behind you and have a couple of things in their hands and start practically doing calisthenics (sp) to careen in front of you so you'll see they only have a couple of things and let them go ahead. I haven't encountered that yet. Must be a Texas thing... Wow. Really? Honest. Stores here mostly have express lanes (10 items or less) - some have two or even three levels of express (8 items or less, 15 items or less, etc.). And they enforce the item count. Maybe I just need to move. This is so commonplace down here, you're considered the idiot if you don't let these folks get ahead. I've never encountered that sort of behavior. Line discipline/courtesy around here is really very good, even around the holidays. Maybe it *is* a regional thing. Used to do that, too. No more. It's my turn dammit and they can wait. Now, don't get me wrong: if I happen to turn to one side or the other and I notice someone patiently waiting their turn, I let them go ahead. But these creeps who think that they are entitled to getting around just because th ey are far more important than anyone else...nope, not doin' it any more. And, depending upon how showy they are about how important they are is how slow I am to slowly unload my cart, slowly find my checkbook, confirm the price however many times it needs confirming, very carefully write my check, etc. Passive aggressive behavior, IOW. I use a different approach completely in stores. I call it the CQT (Cuteness Queueing Theory) method. Works like this: Whenever you're in a store that has two or more checkout lines, choose which line to be in by how attractive/cute/sexy/whatever the checkout person is. Doesn't matter how long the line is - get in the line with the checkout person you find most attractive. For some reason, that line always seems to move the fastest. It may not be the fastest, but it sure seems that way! Now, Jim. Forgive me for being non-male here, but I don't generally find myself "checking out" at the check out. GRIN Try it. Enjoy the scenery. Why not? And remember, the criteria of attractiveness is yours alone. Or, the teeny-bopper eh-heh couple that thinks everyone wants to see them practically making love in public. If we are all in a line at a store or something and I see another person who is as dismayed by this as me, I'll say something like, "thank goodness for birth control." The other person will usually say something back (having just *waited* for the opportunity) like, "doesn't look like they use it." Or some such thing. For some reason, *that* is when these creeps get embarrassed. I like that! Here's another, copied from the "Seinfeld" episode, but you have to be with your SO to do it. Simply start talking all sweet to each other (the episode had Jerry and his girlfriend calling each other "schmoopie"). Folks of our age look ancient to many kids that age, and when we behave that way it drives them nuts. Of course, it takes some discipline to keep a straight face while calling each other "Bunny" and "Huggybear" and such, plus you hafta have the right person with you to do it at all. "Snookums" causes wide-area gagging and retching if done right. Hey, now. I like that one!! My darlin' would never do that, though. Doesn't have to be your spouse... He's still in the phase that he puts up with this stuff and then crabs about it later--the phase I used to be in. BUT, it'd be neat to get in line with one of my girlfriends and start acting gay! "Not that there's anyhting wrong with that!" (also from Seinfeld) If I get the courage to do that, and have one of my girlfriends who'll join in, I'll have to let you know how it turns out. bwaahaahaa I love that scene in "Ghost" with (was it?) Meg Ryan simulating an orgasm at the restaraunt table! I cracked up. That was Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal in "When Harry Met Sally". He had said she couldn't convincingly fake it. The topper to her performance was the little old lady (played by the director's real-life mom) who said "I'll have what she's having"... There was also a Seinfeld about faking.... Then, there's what I call the "buddy" creeps. The philosophy is to shop in pairs and have one stand in line while the other keeps going back and getting things that were "forgotten." And, the one standing in line will keep turning and saying please excuse us...giggle. I used to just throw a fake smile. Not any more. Now I say, "no, I won't excuse you, you are holding all of us up here and it's rude and inconsiderate of you." I don't mind a thing or two, but after that it's a different story. Such shenanigans are unknown around here. I've seen people one cart from the belt pull out of line and go to the rear because they forgot something. I've gotten disgusted enough with all this crappy behavior that no one gets the benefit of the doubt anymore, either. And, it's not just me. I've talked to folks at the office and they are all the same way. In fact, we've all forgiven each other for our behavior ahead of time...;o The problem is that your anger makes *you* miserable. And restaurants. Oh my goodness how many times have you been at an eatery, only to have some creep's misbehaving little future creep keep popping up over the booth seat to let out a shrill of a scream with laughter right behind--over and over and over again...or let the little tyrant run rampant while the beautiful couple (yeah right) sits and eats in peace while their monster runs to every table standing there like you're supposed to applaud them or something. I used to grin and bear that, too. Now, I get up, and I'll actually say something to the parents about how disruptive their "child" (term used loosely) is being to everyone else's table--so can I sit at theirs. That one there gets real sneers. Ask me if I care. They don't, I ain't gonna. Fortunately I haven't run into that very much. Yet. Yeah, I tried to take my parents out to a very nice dinner and there was one of these kids in the "booth" (yeah, I know...a booth at a nice restaraunt, go figure) next to us. Well, this kid was directly behind my parents. After about the 3rd or 4th time the kid kept doing this, I became the obnoxious one. I kept saying, "SIR!" over and over again until the dad, who was trying his hardest to ignore me, looked at me and I said, "could you keep your kid reigned in? We are trying to have a family dinner ourselves over here." Well, these folks were so offended that they demonstratively got up, and abruptly left. As they were walking away I thanked them. I hope they talk about that for the next 20 years. That was a pretty good example of being assertive, I think. Well, as I've been doing this more and more over the past 5-6 months or so, I am also noticing that there are others doing this. I don't know that it's always been done by others and I've just never noticed, but I notice that there *are* others who are doing it. I am refreshed by that. I am tired of always being the friendly, patient, kind one--just to keep getting stepped on by the creeps... Maybe we've all had it... grin One can be assertive without being nasty, though. It sure sounds like people are in one heck of a hurry down there, though... Yes. They are. I wonder why? And, while my behavior is not "forgiveable," I am no where as nasty as these folks are being. Isn't that an entirely subjective judgement? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Kim " writes: Hmmm, not only no, but hell no. I can be treaded on all "they" want. I've declared war on the road, tell ya that. I travel a good number of miles to work. By your own choice. Didn't make the point because I don't like the drive. I made the point to illustrate that I have a lot of exposure to the topic I was going to post about. What lane are you in when they do this? The far left--the "fast" lane as it is called. Funny thing is, if you mention to people at the office or wherever, that it doesn't mean the "break the speed limit lane," you ought to hear the validations for people doing just that. But you're already speeding, Kim. And not by an amount that can be explained by the usual inaccuraccies and imperfections of speedometers. Yet your getting ticked off because someone wants to go even faster. Nope. Not at all. I am ticked because they think I should move for them. I am already going faster than the posted speed is my point. Why should someone expect me to move if I am already going faster than I should be? The argument is along the lines that this is the lane where, if someone needs to pass, speeding is legal to get around them; Ah - but why does someone *need* to pass? That's the proverbial 60 million dollar question--and yes, why does someone *need* to pass someone else who's already speeding? As Dee points out, on a two-lane, two direction road, it may be necessary to go fast to get out of a tough passing situation. But on a multilane divided highway where traffic is already zooming at the speed limit or above, why does anyone not in a life-and-death emergency situation *need* to pass? This is a four lane divided highway--two lanes in each direction. And, I ask the same question. or, this is the lane where if the majority of drivers wants to go a little faster than the flow of traffic, they do it there! There's more validations, but that's the gist of it...!! And they take the risk of being fined, or worse. Well, myself included, one does not think of these things (tickets) happening when one is breaking the speed limit. Note that I let you know that I am already speeding, as it is. Up to about 15 MPH over the posted speed. Right. So you have justified such speeding to yourself, even though it violates the law. The person behind you who wants to go 20-25 MPH over the limit has almost certainly justified their behavior to him/herself, even though it also violates the law. Exactly, but if I happened upon someone who's already breaking the speek limit, I am not going to act like an idiot behind them--expecting them to get out of my way. I go on the "Duel" philosophy (from the old TV movie by Speilberg): I'd rather have a nutcase driver in front of me, where I can watch him/her, than behind me. I've actually pulled over and let 'em go by rather than have them follow me. Know what happens here? If one is cautiously staying behind a fruitcake driver, all the hurry-up-and-get-me-knowwhere nitiwits start passing like they are the charging brigade--never taking just a moment to see what they are pulling up on (a very dangerous situation with a driver ahead way too close to the vehicle in front of them) or someone who's been doing a bit of weaving; or whatever. So, depending upon the situation, letting this person stay in front instead of taking the first opportunity to get around them, can be more hazardous. I disagree. I simply pull over and let the whacko get farther ahead. Miles, if necessary. At 60 MPH, one minute of delay buys me a mile of space. I can spare that minute. Your patience serves you well. I haven't encountered that yet. Must be a Texas thing... Wow. Really? Honest. Stores here mostly have express lanes (10 items or less) - some have two or even three levels of express (8 items or less, 15 items or less, etc.). And they enforce the item count. OH...well, they have those here, too. WHEN they are open...grin Used to do that, too. No more. It's my turn dammit and they can wait. Now, don't get me wrong: if I happen to turn to one side or the other and I notice someone patiently waiting their turn, I let them go ahead. But these creeps who think that they are entitled to getting around just because th ey are far more important than anyone else...nope, not doin' it any more. And, depending upon how showy they are about how important they are is how slow I am to slowly unload my cart, slowly find my checkbook, confirm the price however many times it needs confirming, very carefully write my check, etc. Passive aggressive behavior, IOW. Yep, 'zackly. And, while my behavior is not "forgiveable," I am no where as nasty as these folks are being. Isn't that an entirely subjective judgement? 73 de Jim, N2EY Yep. And it's mine...(grin) Kim W5TIT |
"Kim" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Kim" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Kim " writes: Hmmm, not only no, but hell no. I can be treaded on all "they" want. I've declared war on the road, tell ya that. I travel a good number of miles to work. By your own choice. Didn't make the point because I don't like the drive. I made the point to illustrate that I have a lot of exposure to the topic I was going to post about. OK, fine. I'm making the point that you have a long commute because of where you *choose* to live. What lane are you in when they do this? The far left--the "fast" lane as it is called. Funny thing is, if you mention to people at the office or wherever, that it doesn't mean the "break the speed limit lane," you ought to hear the validations for people doing just that. But you're already speeding, Kim. And not by an amount that can be explained by the usual inaccuraccies and imperfections of speedometers. Yet your getting ticked off because someone wants to go even faster. Nope. Not at all. I am ticked because they think I should move for them. Why shouldn't you move? If it's OK for you to go 15 mph above the limit, why isn't it OK for them to go 20 mph above the limit? By refusing to move, you're enforcing your own personal judgement on what the speed limit should be. Suppose you're sailing along on your 60 mph 4-lane-divided (2 lanes each way) road and you come across two (non police) cars side-by-side going exactly the speed limit. What would you do? Would their behavior bother you? I am already going faster than the posted speed is my point. Why should someone expect me to move if I am already going faster than I should be? Because you're preventing them from going as fast as *they* want, even though you're going as fast as *you* want. The argument is along the lines that this is the lane where, if someone needs to pass, speeding is legal to get around them; Ah - but why does someone *need* to pass? That's the proverbial 60 million dollar question--and yes, why does someone *need* to pass someone else who's already speeding? Why does anyone *need* to speed in a nonemergency situation? How much time does going 70-75 save vs. 60 on that same road? As Dee points out, on a two-lane, two direction road, it may be necessary to go fast to get out of a tough passing situation. But on a multilane divided highway where traffic is already zooming at the speed limit or above, why does anyone not in a life-and-death emergency situation *need* to pass? This is a four lane divided highway--two lanes in each direction. And, I ask the same question. See above. or, this is the lane where if the majority of drivers wants to go a little faster than the flow of traffic, they do it there! There's more validations, but that's the gist of it...!! And they take the risk of being fined, or worse. Well, myself included, one does not think of these things (tickets) happening when one is breaking the speed limit. I think about 'em all the time. Not just the fine but the points. Note that I let you know that I am already speeding, as it is. Up to about 15 MPH over the posted speed. Right. So you have justified such speeding to yourself, even though it violates the law. The person behind you who wants to go 20-25 MPH over the limit has almost certainly justified their behavior to him/herself, even though it also violates the law. Exactly, but if I happened upon someone who's already breaking the speek limit, I am not going to act like an idiot behind them--expecting them to get out of my way. What if they're going the speed limit? Why is it OK for you to go 15 over but not OK for someone else to go 20 over? I go on the "Duel" philosophy (from the old TV movie by Speilberg): I'd rather have a nutcase driver in front of me, where I can watch him/her, than behind me. I've actually pulled over and let 'em go by rather than have them follow me. Know what happens here? If one is cautiously staying behind a fruitcake driver, all the hurry-up-and-get-me-knowwhere nitiwits start passing like they are the charging brigade--never taking just a moment to see what they are pulling up on (a very dangerous situation with a driver ahead way too close to the vehicle in front of them) or someone who's been doing a bit of weaving; or whatever. So, depending upon the situation, letting this person stay in front instead of taking the first opportunity to get around them, can be more hazardous. I disagree. I simply pull over and let the whacko get farther ahead. Miles, if necessary. At 60 MPH, one minute of delay buys me a mile of space. I can spare that minute. Your patience serves you well. I've seen too many accidents where it could have been me. I haven't encountered that yet. Must be a Texas thing... Wow. Really? Honest. Stores here mostly have express lanes (10 items or less) - some have two or even three levels of express (8 items or less, 15 items or less, etc.). And they enforce the item count. OH...well, they have those here, too. WHEN they are open...grin They're always open when a store is busy here. They don't want customers waiting. The managers know that if the Acme (pronounced "Ack-ah-me") gets a rep for lines, folks will go to Genuardi's. Etc. Used to do that, too. No more. It's my turn dammit and they can wait. Now, don't get me wrong: if I happen to turn to one side or the other and I notice someone patiently waiting their turn, I let them go ahead. But these creeps who think that they are entitled to getting around just because th ey are far more important than anyone else...nope, not doin' it any more. And, depending upon how showy they are about how important they are is how slow I am to slowly unload my cart, slowly find my checkbook, confirm the price however many times it needs confirming, very carefully write my check, etc. Passive aggressive behavior, IOW. Yep, 'zackly. Well, there you have it. And, while my behavior is not "forgiveable," I am no where as nasty as these folks are being. Isn't that an entirely subjective judgement? Yep. And it's mine...(grin) HAW! I do believe some of all this is regional, however. And I've done a few tricks myself.... Way back in the late '80s, I had reason to go back and forth between Philly and Washington, DC about every other weekend. I noticed that the aggressiveness of drivers increased in direct proportion to proximity to the nation's capital. The worst part of the run was the BWP (Baltimore Washington Parkway), a no-trucks 4 lane road with trees on both sides, and also between the northbound and southbound lanes. Lots of traffic on a Friday night, and as one approached The District the cars got more expensive and the drivers more aggressive. Back then the limit was 55 and traffic tended to stay below about 59 because enforcement was pretty good, and there were lots of places for the troopers to hide in the trees, around curves, etc. The troopers would not go after anyone below about 62 because speedometers and radar are not 100% accurate. Above that they were ruthless, and above 65 the fines went up and up and up... I got to know their whereabouts pretty good by observing where others got tickets. (I was *never* stopped, in part because my 1980 Rabbit Diesel looked like it couldn't even go the speed limit anyway). Radar detectors were illegal in MD back then, too, and they'd do things like set up a radar gun on an overpass and watch whose brake lights came on for no reason.... One night I'm sailing down the BWP in the *right* lane, and up behind me comes a new Saab (Saabs were the hot car back then among the yuppie-but-no-Beemer crowd). Dude flashes his brights at me - he wants *me* to get in the *left* lane so he can pass without having to change lanes! So I ease up on the throttle and slow down to 53...52....51.... He gets ticked and crawls up but now I'm down to 50...49... Flashes the brights, gets ticked, and I keep easing up.... Finally he gets ticked and goes into the left lane. Whereupon I start speeding up again...52...55...58...62... He pulls alongside and now is really steamed because it is taking far more effort to get past me than he expected. So he drops down a gear and stomps it and goes off in a cloud of dust, over the next rise and around the curve..... and I bring it back down to the limit... and I wave as I go by him, because he's now stopped by a trooper for going WAY over the limit..... I wouldn't play games like that today, though... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
om... "Kim" wrote in message ... The far left--the "fast" lane as it is called. Funny thing is, if you mention to people at the office or wherever, that it doesn't mean the "break the speed limit lane," you ought to hear the validations for people doing just that. But you're already speeding, Kim. And not by an amount that can be explained by the usual inaccuraccies and imperfections of speedometers. Yet your getting ticked off because someone wants to go even faster. Nope. Not at all. I am ticked because they think I should move for them. Why shouldn't you move? If it's OK for you to go 15 mph above the limit, why isn't it OK for them to go 20 mph above the limit? By refusing to move, you're enforcing your own personal judgement on what the speed limit should be. 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. This is an "every morning" thing. If they want to get to where they are going quicker, then they need to adjust their scheduling, not make others on the road cater to their needs. I would not think of being obnoxious because I have to get somewhere quicker than anyone else--I would make the decision to get on the road earlier. Suppose you're sailing along on your 60 mph 4-lane-divided (2 lanes each way) road and you come across two (non police) cars side-by-side going exactly the speed limit. What would you do? Would their behavior bother you? Yes, their behavior would bother me--*but* they're the cops...and they have that latitude. What would I do? I'd follow along, in the left hand lane. The fun part would be when someone angrily pulls out to the right and would be jumping up alongside to go around before they'd notice that they were acting like that with cops right there. GRIN I am already going faster than the posted speed is my point. Why should someone expect me to move if I am already going faster than I should be? Because you're preventing them from going as fast as *they* want, even though you're going as fast as *you* want. Then they should have gotten out earlier than me. It's the same principle as someone who's standing in the "fast" lane (misnomer most of the time--GRIN) at the grocery store and I am ahead of them with 10 items and they only have one or two. If they're prone to it, they'll tap their foot; sigh real loud, etc. Practically fall over trying to get me to notice that they only have "just this little bit." And, how dare I *not* yield to them and let them go ahead...and the next with one or two...and the next, etc. Hey, next time, get there before me. Why does anyone *need* to speed in a nonemergency situation? How much time does going 70-75 save vs. 60 on that same road? Actually, none...and I learned that in Driver's Education in High School. It was proven out a few times, too. I don't know if I am really speeding because of having to get somewhere quicker--in fact in the mornings that would be probably not. I leave 45 min. ahead of time most of the time, to get to a 20-25 min. destination. I leave early enough to account for traffic also. And, I am very fortunate to have a job that doesn't make me punch the timeclock. In my case, my 70-75 mph (more near 70 most of the time) is probably more due to the fact that, that is where my foot lands on the gas pedal. And, it is the predominant flow of traffic...70-75, with the exception of those obnoxious folks we're discussing here. Well, myself included, one does not think of these things (tickets) happening when one is breaking the speed limit. I think about 'em all the time. Not just the fine but the points. I should probably count my blessings here, because this will jinx me. I've been stopped three times in my driving "career." Little enough that I still don't "know the routine" when I do get stopped. Only once I've been ticketed and that was for taking a turn onto a street that doesn't allow those turns at the time of morning I was doing it. Exactly, but if I happened upon someone who's already breaking the speek limit, I am not going to act like an idiot behind them--expecting them to get out of my way. What if they're going the speed limit? Why is it OK for you to go 15 over but not OK for someone else to go 20 over? If they are going the speed limit where I am at (in the left lane), I'd still calmly make the move to the right lane and go around them--when it was safe to--and wouldn't act like an idiot to them. It is not any more "right" for me to speed than the next person--it's just that they'd better decide to go around, because I will not be moving for them just because they are going to act like an idiot. I will move if I decide to...and I usually don't. But it's just as OK for them to be speeding as me...I don't care. You seem to be stuck on the idea that I think they are wrong to speed faster than I speed. No. We're all just as wrong as each other for speeding, no matter how fast. But, I don't like their "I gotta get there faster than you gotta get there" attitude. And, since I am the one in the lead at that point--well, then, my attitude is the one that's important GRIN. And, while my behavior is not "forgiveable," I am no where as nasty as these folks are being. Isn't that an entirely subjective judgement? Yep. And it's mine...(grin) HAW! I do believe some of all this is regional, however. And I've done a few tricks myself.... Way back in the late '80s, I had reason to go back and forth between Philly and Washington, DC about every other weekend. I noticed that the aggressiveness of drivers increased in direct proportion to proximity to the nation's capital. The worst part of the run was the BWP (Baltimore Washington Parkway), a no-trucks 4 lane road with trees on both sides, and also between the northbound and southbound lanes. Lots of traffic on a Friday night, and as one approached The District the cars got more expensive and the drivers more aggressive. Heh, heh...funny you should mention that. Back then the limit was 55 and traffic tended to stay below about 59 because enforcement was pretty good, and there were lots of places for the troopers to hide in the trees, around curves, etc. The troopers would not go after anyone below about 62 because speedometers and radar are not 100% accurate. Above that they were ruthless, and above 65 the fines went up and up and up... I got to know their whereabouts pretty good by observing where others got tickets. (I was *never* stopped, in part because my 1980 Rabbit Diesel looked like it couldn't even go the speed limit anyway). Radar detectors were illegal in MD back then, too, and they'd do things like set up a radar gun on an overpass and watch whose brake lights came on for no reason.... One night I'm sailing down the BWP in the *right* lane, and up behind me comes a new Saab (Saabs were the hot car back then among the yuppie-but-no-Beemer crowd). Dude flashes his brights at me - he wants *me* to get in the *left* lane so he can pass without having to change lanes! So I ease up on the throttle and slow down to 53...52....51.... He gets ticked and crawls up but now I'm down to 50...49... Flashes the brights, gets ticked, and I keep easing up.... Finally he gets ticked and goes into the left lane. Whereupon I start speeding up again...52...55...58...62... He pulls alongside and now is really steamed because it is taking far more effort to get past me than he expected. So he drops down a gear and stomps it and goes off in a cloud of dust, over the next rise and around the curve..... and I bring it back down to the limit... and I wave as I go by him, because he's now stopped by a trooper for going WAY over the limit..... I wouldn't play games like that today, though... 73 de Jim, N2EY Yeah, that was what I did a few...OK, more than a few...years ago. I'd always do just that, as a matter of fact. BUT, one day, this guy began throwing things out his window at me when I did finally move over and let him go passed me! Scared the heck outta me...he was throwing anything loose in his car, bottle caps, cracker jack box, etc. Thank goodness he didn't come across the bottle! That's another reason I'm not so sure about letting creepy people get ahead of me...it may be me having to come upon them once again... Kim W5TIT |
Kim W5TIT the texas twit wrote:
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. This is an "every morning" thing. If they want to get to where they are going quicker, then they need to adjust their scheduling, not make others on the road cater to their needs. I would not think of being obnoxious because I have to get somewhere quicker than anyone else--I would make the decision to get on the road earlier. So why do you go 20 mph over the speed limit as you admit to? Why don't you get on the road earlier so you can drive within the speed limit to get where you need to on time? I suppose if someone is going 10 mph over the limit, you expect them to get out of your way so you can do 20 mph over, right? |
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: You must be getting old or something, Larry. You gave up much too quickly. It was surely a mistake when she first wrote it, but a real surprise when she actually wrote it again without catching the mistake. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Dwight: Yes, she did make a mistake, but I recognized it as such, and instead of beating up on her, I made an attempt to help her out. I now find it necessary to go a step farther, and say that since she did make a simple (and common) grammatical error, that I apologize to Kim for the inference that she would have found the death of your brother to be "hilarious." Of course, had she not used that term in the first place, the confusion never would have occurred. Perhaps she will be more careful in the future. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: Yawn! Ok, apparently you need some help here. I *think* that what you meant to say goes something like this: "It's a pretty near given that neither I, nor many others in this newsgroup, would find anything like the death of someone else "hilarious."" (snip) You must be getting old or something, Larry. You gave up much too quickly. It was surely a mistake when she first wrote it, but a real surprise when she actually wrote it again without catching the mistake. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ I meant to add that I'll check with our grammar department today... Kim W5TIT ACK!!! Man, I am still stunned over this one--I *must* be getting old. The grammar department indeed reminded me of the old "either/neither" "neither/nor" argument to be used in deciding upon correct grammar! So, yes, Larry was correct! Wow, what a hoot! Larry being correct . However, it was stated that, in a casual conversation, inference is 98% of the communication. Deductive reasoning would lend itself to knowing what was intended to be said (sorry, Jim). I did remind them that I do not consider this venue as much "casual" as I do a debate environment. So, they said in a debate I'd lose points. Consider the points lost. Anyway, yep, the sentence should have been as Larry stated in the above reposted, reposted, reposted(?) post. All I can say is I am proud to have given Larry the opportunity to be correct *and* intellectual, for once... again. What a hoot, eh? Oh wait, upon review, could it look to JJ like I am backpedaling? Hmmm.....nope, don't think so... Now, back to cooking a fine, fine cook-ahead Thanksgiving dinner that neither I nor anyone could deny being delightfully delicious! ;) Kim W5TIT Well, how about THAT? Kim, in her own way, actually admitting that she was wrong about something! Gee, if only this would become a trend… 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Kim" wrote in message ... The far left--the "fast" lane as it is called. Funny thing is, if you mention to people at the office or wherever, that it doesn't mean the "break the speed limit lane," you ought to hear the validations for people doing just that. But you're already speeding, Kim. And not by an amount that can be explained by the usual inaccuraccies and imperfections of speedometers. Yet your getting ticked off because someone wants to go even faster. Nope. Not at all. I am ticked because they think I should move for them. Why shouldn't you move? If it's OK for you to go 15 mph above the limit, why isn't it OK for them to go 20 mph above the limit? By refusing to move, you're enforcing your own personal judgement on what the speed limit should be. 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. This is an "every morning" thing. If they want to get to where they are going quicker, then they need to adjust their scheduling, not make others on the road cater to their needs. I would not think of being obnoxious because I have to get somewhere quicker than anyone else--I would make the decision to get on the road earlier. Sure. Then why not apply that philosophy to yourself and get on the road early enough that the right lane gets you there on time? Suppose you're sailing along on your 60 mph 4-lane-divided (2 lanes each way) road and you come across two (non police) cars side-by-side going exactly the speed limit. What would you do? Would their behavior bother you? Yes, their behavior would bother me--*but* they're the cops... No, they're not! I wrote: " two (non police) cars". Sorry if that wasn't clear! What I meant was two ordinary drivers in ordinary vehicles - not police or officials of any kind. Just two folks who decided to go the posted speed limit and no faster. What would you do? and they have that latitude. What would I do? I'd follow along, in the left hand lane. The fun part would be when someone angrily pulls out to the right and would be jumping up alongside to go around before they'd notice that they were acting like that with cops right there. GRIN Except they're not cops. I am already going faster than the posted speed is my point. Why should someone expect me to move if I am already going faster than I should be? Because you're preventing them from going as fast as *they* want, even though you're going as fast as *you* want. Then they should have gotten out earlier than me. Why should *they* move to accomodate *you*? *You* won't accomodate them! It's the same principle as someone who's standing in the "fast" lane (misnomer most of the time--GRIN) at the grocery store and I am ahead of them with 10 items and they only have one or two. If they're prone to it, they'll tap their foot; sigh real loud, etc. Practically fall over trying to get me to notice that they only have "just this little bit." And, how dare I *not* yield to them and let them go ahead...and the next with one or two...and the next, etc. Must be another regional thing - I've never encountered that around here. Hey, next time, get there before me. Different situation and principle. Why does anyone *need* to speed in a nonemergency situation? How much time does going 70-75 save vs. 60 on that same road? Actually, none...and I learned that in Driver's Education in High School. It was proven out a few times, too. I don't know if I am really speeding because of having to get somewhere quicker--in fact in the mornings that would be probably not. I leave 45 min. ahead of time most of the time, to get to a 20-25 min. destination. I leave early enough to account for traffic also. And, I am very fortunate to have a job that doesn't make me punch the timeclock. But you still speed. In my case, my 70-75 mph (more near 70 most of the time) is probably more due to the fact that, that is where my foot lands on the gas pedal. ?? "Where your foot lands"? Two words: Cruise control. And, it is the predominant flow of traffic...70-75, with the exception of those obnoxious folks we're discussing here. In both lanes? Well, myself included, one does not think of these things (tickets) happening when one is breaking the speed limit. I think about 'em all the time. Not just the fine but the points. I should probably count my blessings here, because this will jinx me. I've been stopped three times in my driving "career." Little enough that I still don't "know the routine" when I do get stopped. Only once I've been ticketed I wonder why....;-) and that was for taking a turn onto a street that doesn't allow those turns at the time of morning I was doing it. About 20 years ago, on a cold rainy Sunday night, I made a wrong turn onto a one way street in Philly. No "One Way" sign at the intersection, no "No Right Turn", just a stop sign. No cars on the street either. Of course it didn't take long after the turn to realize something wasn't right, so I did a quick three-point turn. But it wasn't quick enough to avoid the notice of two of Philadelphia's finest, who turned on the lights and pulled me over. By the time he got to my car I had the license, registration and insurance card out, both hands on the wheel, and the window down so he could talk to me. He took my papers and proceeded to run them through the computer in his patrol car. Meanwhile, the young lady who was with me started giving me the third degree as to how I was going to handle the cop, how it wasn't my fault, how I should "be a man" and "stand up to him" and "talk my way out of it". I held up one hand and said "Be quiet. I'm the driver, it's my car and my license, and I don't argue with the police over something as minor as a ticket. That's what traffic court is for." Officer came back, asked if I knew why he stopped me. I said "I was going the wrong way on a one-way street because there's no sign at the intersection with Pine Street. I turned around as soon as I realized it was a one-way street, but you were right to stop me and I can understand if you decide to give me a ticket." Officer handed me back my papers and said: "No ticket for you, your papers are all in order. We know all about the sign. Just be careful." The young lady kept quiet, which was quite a miracle. IOW, he was just waiting for somebody to give him a hard time. Exactly, but if I happened upon someone who's already breaking the speek limit, I am not going to act like an idiot behind them--expecting them to get out of my way. What if they're going the speed limit? Why is it OK for you to go 15 over but not OK for someone else to go 20 over? If they are going the speed limit where I am at (in the left lane), I'd still calmly make the move to the right lane and go around them--when it was safe to--and wouldn't act like an idiot to them. What if there was another car on the right and you couldn't go around? It is not any more "right" for me to speed than the next person--it's just that they'd better decide to go around, because I will not be moving for them just because they are going to act like an idiot. I will move if I decide to...and I usually don't. But it's just as OK for them to be speeding as me...I don't care. You seem to be stuck on the idea that I think they are wrong to speed faster than I speed. Nope. I'm stuck on the idea that you want to control the speed on the road. No. We're all just as wrong as each other for speeding, no matter how fast. But, I don't like their "I gotta get there faster than you gotta get there" attitude. But that's *your* attitude, too. Otherwise you'd be in the right lane. And, since I am the one in the lead at that point--well, then, my attitude is the one that's important GRIN. And, while my behavior is not "forgiveable," I am no where as nasty as these folks are being. Isn't that an entirely subjective judgement? Yep. And it's mine...(grin) HAW! I do believe some of all this is regional, however. And I've done a few tricks myself.... Way back in the late '80s, I had reason to go back and forth between Philly and Washington, DC about every other weekend. I noticed that the aggressiveness of drivers increased in direct proportion to proximity to the nation's capital. The worst part of the run was the BWP (Baltimore Washington Parkway), a no-trucks 4 lane road with trees on both sides, and also between the northbound and southbound lanes. Lots of traffic on a Friday night, and as one approached The District the cars got more expensive and the drivers more aggressive. Heh, heh...funny you should mention that. It happened way too many times. Back then the limit was 55 and traffic tended to stay below about 59 because enforcement was pretty good, and there were lots of places for the troopers to hide in the trees, around curves, etc. The troopers would not go after anyone below about 62 because speedometers and radar are not 100% accurate. Above that they were ruthless, and above 65 the fines went up and up and up... I got to know their whereabouts pretty good by observing where others got tickets. (I was *never* stopped, in part because my 1980 Rabbit Diesel looked like it couldn't even go the speed limit anyway). Radar detectors were illegal in MD back then, too, and they'd do things like set up a radar gun on an overpass and watch whose brake lights came on for no reason.... One night I'm sailing down the BWP in the *right* lane, and up behind me comes a new Saab (Saabs were the hot car back then among the yuppie-but-no-Beemer crowd). Dude flashes his brights at me - he wants *me* to get in the *left* lane so he can pass without having to change lanes! So I ease up on the throttle and slow down to 53...52....51.... He gets ticked and crawls up but now I'm down to 50...49... Flashes the brights, gets ticked, and I keep easing up.... Finally he gets ticked and goes into the left lane. Whereupon I start speeding up again...52...55...58...62... He pulls alongside and now is really steamed because it is taking far more effort to get past me than he expected. So he drops down a gear and stomps it and goes off in a cloud of dust, over the next rise and around the curve..... and I bring it back down to the limit... and I wave as I go by him, because he's now stopped by a trooper for going WAY over the limit..... I wouldn't play games like that today, though... 73 de Jim, N2EY Yeah, that was what I did a few...OK, more than a few...years ago. I'd always do just that, as a matter of fact. BUT, one day, this guy began throwing things out his window at me when I did finally move over and let him go passed me! Scared the heck outta me...he was throwing anything loose in his car, bottle caps, cracker jack box, etc. Thank goodness he didn't come across the bottle! Or the gun. That's another reason I'm not so sure about letting creepy people get ahead of me...it may be me having to come upon them once again... Better than having them behind you... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim" writes: 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. This is an "every morning" thing. If they want to get to where they are going quicker, then they need to adjust their scheduling, not make others on the road cater to their needs. I would not think of being obnoxious because I have to get somewhere quicker than anyone else--I would make the decision to get on the road earlier. Sure. Then why not apply that philosophy to yourself and get on the road early enough that the right lane gets you there on time? Suppose you're sailing along on your 60 mph 4-lane-divided (2 lanes each way) road and you come across two (non police) cars side-by-side going exactly the speed limit. What would you do? Would their behavior bother you? Yes, their behavior would bother me--*but* they're the cops... No, they're not! I wrote: " two (non police) cars". Sorry if that wasn't clear! Whoops, yeah, I missed that. You were clear. What I meant was two ordinary drivers in ordinary vehicles - not police or officials of any kind. Just two folks who decided to go the posted speed limit and no faster. What would you do? Regardless of who it is that is driving, I don't act like an idiot to them, around them, about them, or anything. I would pace myself at my comfort zone behind them--6, 7, or more carglengths, and cruise with them. Then they should have gotten out earlier than me. Why should *they* move to accomodate *you*? *You* won't accomodate them! Yeah, I suppose...but my justification is that they can accommodate themselves, by moving around. A) We are both speeding; B) At the point this person is behind me wanting me to move over so he/she can get by, it's a given that it's because we're both around a driver(s) in the right lane that are going slower, right? So, what is it about the driver behind me...practically shoving their hood up under my vehicle...that would compel me to slow down, move over, reposition myself, when all they have to do is allow *both* of us to keep speeding, i.e., stay above a speed limit we don't want to drive, and wait the bit of time it will take to get passed the "slower" traffic? It's the same principle as someone who's standing in the "fast" lane (misnomer most of the time--GRIN) at the grocery store and I am ahead of them with 10 items and they only have one or two. If they're prone to it, they'll tap their foot; sigh real loud, etc. Practically fall over trying to get me to notice that they only have "just this little bit." And, how dare I *not* yield to them and let them go ahead...and the next with one or two...and the next, etc. Must be another regional thing - I've never encountered that around here. Hey, next time, get there before me. Different situation and principle. I think the priniciple is the same. The root of my angst toward the driver we are speaking of, is their attitude. The attitude that has them convinced that they need to speed faster than someone else. Or that where they are going is far more important than where I am going (when neither of us has that information available to us). In my case, my 70-75 mph (more near 70 most of the time) is probably more due to the fact that, that is where my foot lands on the gas pedal. ?? "Where your foot lands"? Two words: Cruise control. Yeah. I thought when I got my truck with that on it, that I would always be using it. I don't like it...don't know where to put my foot that I can still have the same tactile feel with the brake pedal and gas pedal in alignment with my placement of the foot. I don't feel "safe" with cruise control engaged--plus the speeds of drivers is so erradic that one must keep disengaging and reengaging it anyway. Never fails...set it to the flow of traffic and 5-6 miles down the road, set it again. I should probably count my blessings here, because this will jinx me. I've been stopped three times in my driving "career." Little enough that I still don't "know the routine" when I do get stopped. Only once I've been ticketed I wonder why....;-) Once when I was speeding. And, by all rights that cop should have nailed me. It was 11:30 at night, and my registration sticker (of which the new one was at home) was out, inspection sticker was out--which I'd not paid any attention to, *and* I couldn't find my insurance card. But, he let me go! WOW! and that was for taking a turn onto a street that doesn't allow those turns at the time of morning I was doing it. About 20 years ago, on a cold rainy Sunday night, I made a wrong turn onto a one way street in Philly. No "One Way" sign at the intersection, no "No Right Turn", just a stop sign. No cars on the street either. Of course it didn't take long after the turn to realize something wasn't right, so I did a quick three-point turn. But it wasn't quick enough to avoid the notice of two of Philadelphia's finest, who turned on the lights and pulled me over. By the time he got to my car I had the license, registration and insurance card out, both hands on the wheel, and the window down so he could talk to me. He took my papers and proceeded to run them through the computer in his patrol car. Meanwhile, the young lady who was with me started giving me the third degree as to how I was going to handle the cop, how it wasn't my fault, how I should "be a man" and "stand up to him" and "talk my way out of it". I held up one hand and said "Be quiet. I'm the driver, it's my car and my license, and I don't argue with the police over something as minor as a ticket. That's what traffic court is for." Officer came back, asked if I knew why he stopped me. I said "I was going the wrong way on a one-way street because there's no sign at the intersection with Pine Street. I turned around as soon as I realized it was a one-way street, but you were right to stop me and I can understand if you decide to give me a ticket." Officer handed me back my papers and said: "No ticket for you, your papers are all in order. We know all about the sign. Just be careful." The young lady kept quiet, which was quite a miracle. IOW, he was just waiting for somebody to give him a hard time. Uh, I have a problem with cops in general. Most I've encountered are not friendly. However, most I've encountered in a casual setting are great guys/gals. I don't like the military form of communication--stern, expressionless, etc., and it puts me on edge. If they are going the speed limit where I am at (in the left lane), I'd still calmly make the move to the right lane and go around them--when it was safe to--and wouldn't act like an idiot to them. What if there was another car on the right and you couldn't go around? Same as the non police (grin) scenario you gave me. I'd pace myself and cruise. I also don't care or get all upset about traffic jams. I look at them as an example to notice the birds flying around, look up under the bridges to see if there's a poor homeless person up under there, look at all the beauty I usually don't get to pay a whole lot of attention to--in fact the traffic jam gives me the opportunity to find some sense of pleasantry in places that really do require "closer inspection" to find it...(grin) It is not any more "right" for me to speed than the next person--it's just that they'd better decide to go around, because I will not be moving for them just because they are going to act like an idiot. I will move if I decide to...and I usually don't. But it's just as OK for them to be speeding as me...I don't care. You seem to be stuck on the idea that I think they are wrong to speed faster than I speed. Nope. I'm stuck on the idea that you want to control the speed on the road. Hmmm. You see it as me wanting to control the speed, I only think of it as not giving in to the way I perceive someone to be acting. Yep. And it's mine...(grin) HAW! I do believe some of all this is regional, however. And I've done a few tricks myself.... Way back in the late '80s, I had reason to go back and forth between Philly and Washington, DC about every other weekend. I noticed that the aggressiveness of drivers increased in direct proportion to proximity to the nation's capital. The worst part of the run was the BWP (Baltimore Washington Parkway), a no-trucks 4 lane road with trees on both sides, and also between the northbound and southbound lanes. Lots of traffic on a Friday night, and as one approached The District the cars got more expensive and the drivers more aggressive. Heh, heh...funny you should mention that. It happened way too many times. Sir, this is "Dallas" Texas, where arrogance and extravagance are not rare things... BUT, I gotta say, I've never, ever seen a stretch limo or "driven" car acting like that...they are generally over in the right lane! This discussion just made me realize that, I think. Back then the limit was 55 and traffic tended to stay below about 59 because enforcement was pretty good, and there were lots of places for the troopers to hide in the trees, around curves, etc. The troopers would not go after anyone below about 62 because speedometers and radar are not 100% accurate. Above that they were ruthless, and above 65 the fines went up and up and up... I got to know their whereabouts pretty good by observing where others got tickets. (I was *never* stopped, in part because my 1980 Rabbit Diesel looked like it couldn't even go the speed limit anyway). Radar detectors were illegal in MD back then, too, and they'd do things like set up a radar gun on an overpass and watch whose brake lights came on for no reason.... One night I'm sailing down the BWP in the *right* lane, and up behind me comes a new Saab (Saabs were the hot car back then among the yuppie-but-no-Beemer crowd). Dude flashes his brights at me - he wants *me* to get in the *left* lane so he can pass without having to change lanes! So I ease up on the throttle and slow down to 53...52....51.... He gets ticked and crawls up but now I'm down to 50...49... Flashes the brights, gets ticked, and I keep easing up.... Finally he gets ticked and goes into the left lane. Whereupon I start speeding up again...52...55...58...62... He pulls alongside and now is really steamed because it is taking far more effort to get past me than he expected. So he drops down a gear and stomps it and goes off in a cloud of dust, over the next rise and around the curve..... and I bring it back down to the limit... and I wave as I go by him, because he's now stopped by a trooper for going WAY over the limit..... Oh, I forgot to add when you originally noted this story...I toot and wave! I wouldn't play games like that today, though... 73 de Jim, N2EY Yeah, that was what I did a few...OK, more than a few...years ago. I'd always do just that, as a matter of fact. BUT, one day, this guy began throwing things out his window at me when I did finally move over and let him go passed me! Scared the heck outta me...he was throwing anything loose in his car, bottle caps, cracker jack box, etc. Thank goodness he didn't come across the bottle! Or the gun. Yeah, for sure :( That's another reason I'm not so sure about letting creepy people get ahead of me...it may be me having to come upon them once again... Better than having them behind you... 73 de Jim, N2EY To each his own...unless they're acting like an idiot ;) Kim W5TIT |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
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. At least you're consistent. This is much the way you've defined your behavior at cocktail parties and sporting events. It is also similar to the way you act here. Yeah, I suppose...but my justification is that they can accommodate themselves, by moving around. A) We are both speeding; B) At the point this person is behind me wanting me to move over so he/she can get by, it's a given that it's because we're both around a driver(s) in the right lane that are going slower, right? So, what is it about the driver behind me...practically shoving their hood up under my vehicle...that would compel me to slow down, move over, reposition myself, when all they have to do is allow *both* of us to keep speeding, i.e., stay above a speed limit we don't want to drive, and wait the bit of time it will take to get passed the "slower" traffic? I think the priniciple is the same. The root of my angst toward the driver we are speaking of, is their attitude. The attitude that has them convinced that they need to speed faster than someone else. *They* need to speed faster than someone else? Aren't you speeding in order to go faster than those who aren't speeding? Please express the subtle nuances which make your case different. Or that where they are going is far more important than where I am going (when neither of us has that information available to us). I can't believe that these things cross your mind. You actually believe that someone behind you has it in his head that where he's going is more important than where you're going? Yeah. I thought when I got my truck with that on it, that I would always be using it. I don't like it...don't know where to put my foot that I can still have the same tactile feel with the brake pedal and gas pedal in alignment with my placement of the foot. I don't feel "safe" with cruise control engaged--plus the speeds of drivers is so erradic that one must keep disengaging and reengaging it anyway. Never fails...set it to the flow of traffic and 5-6 miles down the road, set it again. That's why they make it easy to cancel and set. Once when I was speeding. And, by all rights that cop should have nailed me. It was 11:30 at night, and my registration sticker (of which the new one was at home) was out, inspection sticker was out--which I'd not paid any attention to, *and* I couldn't find my insurance card. But, he let me go! WOW! Uh, I have a problem with cops in general. Most I've encountered are not friendly. That runs counter to those I've encountered. Maybe it's all in your attitude toward them. However, most I've encountered in a casual setting are great guys/gals. I don't like the military form of communication--stern, expressionless, etc., and it puts me on edge. Same as the non police (grin) scenario you gave me. I'd pace myself and cruise. I also don't care or get all upset about traffic jams. I look at them as an example to notice the birds flying around, look up under the bridges to see if there's a poor homeless person up under there, look at all the beauty I usually don't get to pay a whole lot of attention to--in fact the traffic jam gives me the opportunity to find some sense of pleasantry in places that really do require "closer inspection" to find it...(grin) Hmmm. You see it as me wanting to control the speed, I only think of it as not giving in to the way I perceive someone to be acting. Why should someone have to give in to the way they perceive you to be acting? Dave K8MN |
"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. 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). Does all this agree with your thinking, Kim? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote:
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). However, your child analogy falls apart when you remember that you're talking about an adult - an adult that is going to get very angry at a person blocking the fast lane while he and others are trying to pass. Lets be realistic here. If Kim is intentionally blocking others on the roads, she doesn't deserve courtesy. Instead, she is more likely to be a victim of road rage (something else she doesn't deserve, but far more likely). If she manages to avoid that, and if one of those people she is blocking just happens to be a cop, she may instead eventually get a ticket for not driving on the right. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
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? 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. "Rewarding" or "teaching a lesson" or "showing them" or whatever doesn't work. 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! 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. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote: 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). However, your child analogy falls apart when you remember that you're talking about an adult - an adult that is going to get very angry at a person blocking the fast lane while he and others are trying to pass. Lets be realistic here. If Kim is intentionally blocking others on the roads, she doesn't deserve courtesy. Instead, she is more likely to be a victim of road rage (something else she doesn't deserve, but far more likely). If she manages to avoid that, and if one of those people she is blocking just happens to be a cop, she may instead eventually get a ticket for not driving on the right. In some states, like Washington, you are in violation if you have 5 cars behind you regardless of the speed, and are required to pull over. And yes, the police will ticket a person for interfereing with the flow of traffic. - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com