Which committee?
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:52:02 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Oct 10, 9:32 am, Jim wrote:
John H wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:41:55 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 21:54:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
A Chicago poster hit a home run with the following. "The Chicago
democrat
machine ain't what it used to be. They were supposed to bribe the
Olympic
Committee!"

Priceless!

I thought the IOC was supposed to be the "one world gov't" sports
wing. You
guys cheered when the US didn't get the 2016 games, which meant no
jobs
(fyi, jobs that would have started almost immediately). Then, when
the
Nobel
committee confirms your belief that Obama is a one-worlder, you
scream
and
yell, claiming it's a fraud. Please pick one. I'm getting dizzy.
Don't expect a response.

They can't hold a position if it means they'd be on our President's
side.

If she gets no response, it'll be because her comment is devoid of
meaning. Sometimes ditziness makes one talk funny.

As for you, I'm on the President's side. He saved over 3.45 million
jobs while he was pushing for the Olympics. I think that's quite
worthwhile.

Careful who you are calling a ditz John. As Tom pointed out she might
not be who she claims to be. Do you know any woman that wouldn't freak
at the sight of a rattlesnake. Most men too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My wife doesn't discriminate.

She hates all snakes. I don't really like 'em either. except for
garden snakes. They keep the mice under control.


I've heard there are two kinds of people.. those that hate/fear snakes and
those that hate/fear spiders. If I had to pick which one to be near, I
guess
I'd pick snakes (those without arms/legs, otherwise, I'd pick spiders).

There are 10 kinds of people. Those who do binary, and those who
don't.


Funny.

--
Nom=de=Plume

R
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:26:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:50:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:50:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:04:08 -0700, Jim wrote:



Yesterday I was involved in ANOTHER parking lot accident caused by the
other party backing out of a parking space while dialing a number on
their phone.

That's four times in two years. Best not to get me in a cell phone
debate.

The best I can offer is that these guys are giving themselves brain
cancer while driving up insurance rates. They would put the damn
phone
down if they could understand why they should.

Just drove about 2500 miles and had only one "close-call."
Woman talking on a cell wandered over and almost got me.
Glad my wife screamed me onto the shoulder.

--Vic


I see people on the phone all the time. Around here, it's mostly guys in
big
pickups, although there's the occaisonal sedan with a woman talking. I
watched a van run a red (no side traffic fortunately) while she was
yacking
away. I don't think she noticed. I don't even like to talk via the
built-in
bluetooth. That's distracting too. I usually pull over or if not
possible,
slow down and move over, e.g., on the freeway.

I hate to say it, but it seems to me that females with cell phones
pose the big problem. Yes, there may be males using them, but they
don't seem to get as distracted as do the females. When a car slows
from 70 to 50 in the fast lane, it's usually a female on a cell phone.
Totally oblivious to cars behind her.


I think that's totally sexist and not supported by any facts I'm aware of.
There's no comparison between testonerone big wheels driving, while
yacking
about God knows what, while driving single-handed and smoking a cig.

That's like saying I'm racist because I'm not wild about the health
bill being held up by the friggin' Democrats.

It's sexist because it's not just about "getting distracted." It's your
opinion not supported by facts.


Facts are facts. 'Testonerone' big wheels driving while yacking don't
slow down to nothing and wander back and forth like the females do.

Pure supposition.

He "The following three points summarize the results from the
Poisson estimations. First, more phone usage while driving is
associated with higher accident risk for women in our sample. RT also
found that cell phone usage by women appears to be riskier than usage
by men."

from:
http://aei-brookings.org/admin/autho...POST1-4-07.pdf

or: http://tinyurl.com/2ygznv


That's one study. Here's another perspective:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/com...y_car_men.html

I gave you a legitimate study and you give me the Washington Post.

Give me a break. Can you understand why the word 'ditzy' comes to
mind?

R
 

"KotP-A" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:26:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:50:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:50:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
news:uj67d5dvkunrkg7otsrqdbmmkj21mgrtsi@4ax. com...
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:04:08 -0700, Jim wrote:



Yesterday I was involved in ANOTHER parking lot accident caused by
the
other party backing out of a parking space while dialing a number on
their phone.

That's four times in two years. Best not to get me in a cell phone
debate.

The best I can offer is that these guys are giving themselves brain
cancer while driving up insurance rates. They would put the damn
phone
down if they could understand why they should.

Just drove about 2500 miles and had only one "close-call."
Woman talking on a cell wandered over and almost got me.
Glad my wife screamed me onto the shoulder.

--Vic


I see people on the phone all the time. Around here, it's mostly guys
in
big
pickups, although there's the occaisonal sedan with a woman talking. I
watched a van run a red (no side traffic fortunately) while she was
yacking
away. I don't think she noticed. I don't even like to talk via the
built-in
bluetooth. That's distracting too. I usually pull over or if not
possible,
slow down and move over, e.g., on the freeway.

I hate to say it, but it seems to me that females with cell phones
pose the big problem. Yes, there may be males using them, but they
don't seem to get as distracted as do the females. When a car slows
from 70 to 50 in the fast lane, it's usually a female on a cell phone.
Totally oblivious to cars behind her.


I think that's totally sexist and not supported by any facts I'm aware
of.
There's no comparison between testonerone big wheels driving, while
yacking
about God knows what, while driving single-handed and smoking a cig.

That's like saying I'm racist because I'm not wild about the health
bill being held up by the friggin' Democrats.

It's sexist because it's not just about "getting distracted." It's your
opinion not supported by facts.


Facts are facts. 'Testonerone' big wheels driving while yacking don't
slow down to nothing and wander back and forth like the females do.

Pure supposition.

He "The following three points summarize the results from the
Poisson estimations. First, more phone usage while driving is
associated with higher accident risk for women in our sample. RT also
found that cell phone usage by women appears to be riskier than usage
by men."

from:
http://aei-brookings.org/admin/autho...POST1-4-07.pdf

or: http://tinyurl.com/2ygznv


That's one study. Here's another perspective:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/com...y_car_men.html

I gave you a legitimate study and you give me the Washington Post.

Give me a break. Can you understand why the word 'ditzy' comes to
mind?


You only used a portion of the study and it's only one study. I gave you
another opinion. Give _me_ a break. Can you understand why just about
everyone discounts what you say when you continually change identities?

--
Nom=de=Plume

R
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:58:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


That's one study. Here's another perspective:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/com...y_car_men.html

I gave you a legitimate study and you give me the Washington Post.

Give me a break. Can you understand why the word 'ditzy' comes to
mind?


You only used a portion of the study and it's only one study. I gave you
another opinion. Give _me_ a break. Can you understand why just about
everyone discounts what you say when you continually change identities?

If my author name is giving you a problem, what do you think
nom=de=plum gives? Anonimity is anonimity. You know who I am.

I am King of the Passive-Agressives. Remember? You didn't whine when
the name was called, why whine now?

I gave you the whole study. I quoted only a portion. Should I have
quoted the whole damn thing?

You didn't answer my question.

R
 

"KotP-A" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:58:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


That's one study. Here's another perspective:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/com...y_car_men.html

I gave you a legitimate study and you give me the Washington Post.

Give me a break. Can you understand why the word 'ditzy' comes to
mind?


You only used a portion of the study and it's only one study. I gave you
another opinion. Give _me_ a break. Can you understand why just about
everyone discounts what you say when you continually change identities?

If my author name is giving you a problem, what do you think
nom=de=plum gives? Anonimity is anonimity. You know who I am.

I am King of the Passive-Agressives. Remember? You didn't whine when
the name was called, why whine now?

I gave you the whole study. I quoted only a portion. Should I have
quoted the whole damn thing?

You didn't answer my question.


You quoted only a portion. Sorry if you can't admit that there were other
aspects that came to different conclusions.

Still didn't answer the question... why do you continually change
identities? (Clue: has nothing to do with anonymity).

Hmmm... you're "King" of something? Sounds pretty ego-centric to me.

--
Nom=de=Plume

R
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"KotP-A" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:58:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's one study. Here's another perspective:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/com...y_car_men.html
I gave you a legitimate study and you give me the Washington Post.

Give me a break. Can you understand why the word 'ditzy' comes to
mind?

You only used a portion of the study and it's only one study. I gave you
another opinion. Give _me_ a break. Can you understand why just about
everyone discounts what you say when you continually change identities?
If my author name is giving you a problem, what do you think
nom=de=plum gives? Anonimity is anonimity. You know who I am.

I am King of the Passive-Agressives. Remember? You didn't whine when
the name was called, why whine now?

I gave you the whole study. I quoted only a portion. Should I have
quoted the whole damn thing?

You didn't answer my question.


You quoted only a portion. Sorry if you can't admit that there were other
aspects that came to different conclusions.

Still didn't answer the question... why do you continually change
identities? (Clue: has nothing to do with anonymity).

Hmmm... you're "King" of something? Sounds pretty ego-centric to me.

R
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:35:34 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:27:40 -0400, KotP-A
wrote:

Here, I'll quote the whole thing. Is that better?

OK, concede..... John is right. In fact, in supplication, you really
need one of these on your car, motorcycle, and/or boat......

http://tinyurl.com/yjw4dy2

I love it! Did you read the whole study?

R
 

"KotP-A" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:43:45 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"KotP-A" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:58:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


That's one study. Here's another perspective:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/com...y_car_men.html

I gave you a legitimate study and you give me the Washington Post.

Give me a break. Can you understand why the word 'ditzy' comes to
mind?


You only used a portion of the study and it's only one study. I gave you
another opinion. Give _me_ a break. Can you understand why just about
everyone discounts what you say when you continually change identities?

If my author name is giving you a problem, what do you think
nom=de=plum gives? Anonimity is anonimity. You know who I am.

I am King of the Passive-Agressives. Remember? You didn't whine when
the name was called, why whine now?

I gave you the whole study. I quoted only a portion. Should I have
quoted the whole damn thing?

You didn't answer my question.


You quoted only a portion. Sorry if you can't admit that there were other
aspects that came to different conclusions.

Still didn't answer the question... why do you continually change
identities? (Clue: has nothing to do with anonymity).

Hmmm... you're "King" of something? Sounds pretty ego-centric to me.

I didn't name me. One of your liberal buddies did so.

Here, I'll quote the whole thing. Is that better?

Better than what? You quoted "King" so it's pretty easy to assume you
believe it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

R
 

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:27:40 -0400, KotP-A
wrote:

Here, I'll quote the whole thing. Is that better?

OK, concede..... John is right. In fact, in supplication, you really
need one of these on your car, motorcycle, and/or boat......

http://tinyurl.com/yjw4dy2
--

Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm




You want to shove a cell phone up his... never mind.

--
Nom=de=Plume

R
 

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:57:07 -0400, KotP-A
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:35:34 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:27:40 -0400, KotP-A
wrote:

Here, I'll quote the whole thing. Is that better?

OK, concede..... John is right. In fact, in supplication, you really
need one of these on your car, motorcycle, and/or boat......

http://tinyurl.com/yjw4dy2

I love it! Did you read the whole study?

Are you frikkin' crazy? I skimmed it, but hell, who needs to pick the
bones of that study to experience the obvious?
--

Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Around here, all the terrible drivers are men (aka boys with toys) driving
testosterone big wheels with no regard for anyone else. I see them getting
ticketed regularly for talking while driving.

--
Nom=de=Plume