"John Kuthe" wrote in message
...
Scott Weiser wrote:

As for driving in the left lane, that's true, though the speed was "the
legal speed limit," not necessarily 55 mph. I still do it, though there
are
now some legal hoops to jump through to do it legally in Colorado.

I'm a left lane driver too Scott! Because as I understand it, the left
lane is
for faster traffic, and I *am* faster traffic! If I drive in the right
lane, I
have to keep changing lanes into the left lane to pass the person driving
slower
than I am in the right lane, then changing lanes back again, thereby
increasing
the miles I must drive to go the same linear distance, plus all the
hazards
associated with changing lanes!

Of couse, one responsibility of any left lane driver is they must always
be
mindful of their rear view, because if someone is driving faster that they
are
and coming up behind them in the left lane, they *must* get over to the
right
lane to allow them to pass, as passing on the right is very unsafe!! ;-)


You, of course, know where this is headed, don't you? If you are driving the
maximum legal speed limit in the left lane, then there is not legal reason
that anyone should be passing you. If someone is approaching at a rate of
speed high enough to force you to move over, then you are within the legal
rights to follow them and identify them so that they can be apprehended. If
someone passes you on the right, they are violating two laws: speed limits
and passing-on-the-left. Basically, driving at the maximum legal speed limit
in the left lane is a perfect 'Weiser' type of thing...legally unassailable,
and discourteous and irritating as hell. But who cares about being
irritating or discourteous, as they are not legally relevant.

Let my quote Weiser on Weiser: this is from an old usenet post on another
group that I found on google. Gotta give him credit for being consistent!

"In most cases, and this thread in
particular, I am debating a point with a statement of the law, and my
opinion about
a particular group of people (speeders) about whom participants here are
speaking.
I *always* assume that a participant here is, like me, taking a particular,
though
unsavory position for the sake of argument, *not* that they are, have, or
will
indulge in unsafe, illegal conduct. I try to be careful to separate the
two, and
if I inadvertently respond to self-professed statements of conduct with a
personal
attribution, I apologize, but it's hard to avoid sometimes, although I try
to, or
at least *intend* to use "you" in the context of the debate, not as a
statement of
the true personality of the debator.

I choose to argue the law and order viewpoint, since, in this case, as in
the
smoking ordinance debate, it is fairly easy to refute baseless arguments
about
"speeders/smokers rights" with statements of fact and law. I inject my
opinions
about speeders partly because I find them to be as I have characterized them
and
partly because it stimulates debate. If a participant wishes to wear a
particular
shoe I have place before them, that is their prerogative, but no *personal*
offense
in intended by me.

You may perceive a common thread of support of law, order and our present
system of
government in my various arguments, but you should not assume, based upon my
participation here, that it is the defining characteristic of my
personality.
Mostly, I argue such viewpoints in opposition to the large number of
liberal-type
arguments made here. I feel that it is useful, educational and entertaining
to
have an equally polar opposite opinion which balances the argument,
stimulates
thought, hones the wit and challenges assumptions, which is the essence of
debate.
Without me, and people like me, this forum would be a bland, boring
peroration (my
new word for the week) and mutual backslapping club.

I also choose to argue, by and large, without anger or emotion, with humor,
including sarcasm and satire, and I don't usually take offense at the
counter
arguments because I choose to give the participants the benefit of the
doubt, and
assume they are, again, like me, simply engaging in a philosophical
argument. The
primary weakness of this group seems to be the inability to engage in a
lively and
even heated debate without rancor and without inappropriately attributing
overall
moral stands or negative character traits to other participants because of
provocative or disagreeable statements made here.

When someone goes too far, as Evan did, and others have done, and attack me
*personally*, I am quite willing and perfectly capable of defending myself
and can
flame at least as well as some people and better than most. If I have a
fault, it
is that I am sometimes too subtle for some of the people here, and they take
offense where none should be taken. I tend to go for the slow-roast,
hoist-on-their-own-petard method of flamage rather than dangerously libelous
emotional outbursts.

Generally, I don't respond to criticisim with personal threats, (except as
humor,
however obscure, obtuse and lame, or in response to a personal threat from
someone
else) and I don't assume that just because someone disagrees with me, or
espouses a
position that I find objectionable, that they are "out to get me", or even
that
they are a "bad" person. I recognize the debate for what it is, just a
debate."

--riverman