Which committee?
 

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!

Which committee?
 

On Oct 9, 10:16*pm, "Lu Powell" wrote:

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!

hey Vic!

he's bragging on your city again!

?;^ Q

Which committee?
 

"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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Which committee?
 

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.

Which committee?
 

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 23:16:54 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

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!

Maybe they got on the wrong plane in Frankfurt? Flew to Oslo instead
of Zurich?

Which committee?
 

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.

Which committee?
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"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.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Quoting you from your recent post on who's whining: "Friendly reminder...
it's a comedy show. You're supposed to laugh at the jokes (sic) not take
them too seriously."

How do you spell "hypocrite"?

Which committee?
 

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.

Which committee?
 

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:32:14 -0400, 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.

Oh, my bad.

I saw this, "I'm getting dizzy." Then I made a typo, perhaps a
Freudian Typo. I should have said, "Sometimes dizziness makes one talk
funny."

Thanks ever so much for point out my boo-boo.

I hope hesheit (pronounce that really fast) doesn't come after me.

Which committee?
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
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.


I thought I was Harry? Can't even keep your ranting straight (no pun
intended).

--
Nom=de=Plume

Which committee?
 

"John H Rant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:32:14 -0400, 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.

Oh, my bad.

I saw this, "I'm getting dizzy." Then I made a typo, perhaps a
Freudian Typo. I should have said, "Sometimes dizziness makes one talk
funny."

Thanks ever so much for point out my boo-boo.

I hope hesheit (pronounce that really fast) doesn't come after me.


Looks like some people aren't much men.... "most" men get freaked out by a
snake? Give me a break.

I have a healthy respect for rattlesnakes, but I'm not afraid of them. They
are God's creatures, and they deserve our respect. I don't kill them unless
it's absolutely necessary. I have a shovel and it works if it comes to that.
Jeeeze... even my cat can deal with rattlesnakes. Are you less than a cat?
No, don't answer.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Which committee?
 

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"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.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Quoting you from your recent post on who's whining: "Friendly reminder...
it's a comedy show. You're supposed to laugh at the jokes (sic) not take
them too seriously."

How do you spell "hypocrite"?



Not sure what you're getting at Lu. SNL is a comedy show. You attempted to
make a joke about the IOC, but it wasn't that funny, especially considering
so many righties are freaked out by the Nobel prize going to Obama.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Which committee?
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H Rant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:32:14 -0400, 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.
Oh, my bad.

I saw this, "I'm getting dizzy." Then I made a typo, perhaps a
Freudian Typo. I should have said, "Sometimes dizziness makes one talk
funny."

Thanks ever so much for point out my boo-boo.

I hope hesheit (pronounce that really fast) doesn't come after me.


Looks like some people aren't much men.... "most" men get freaked out by a
snake? Give me a break.

I have a healthy respect for rattlesnakes, but I'm not afraid of them. They
are God's creatures, and they deserve our respect. I don't kill them unless
it's absolutely necessary. I have a shovel and it works if it comes to that.
Jeeeze... even my cat can deal with rattlesnakes. Are you less than a cat?
No, don't answer.


The only good rattlesnake is a dead one. The only reason I tolerate
black snakes is because they eat rattle snakes and coral snakes.

Which committee?
 

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:20:09 -0400, Jim wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H Rant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:32:14 -0400, 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.
Oh, my bad.

I saw this, "I'm getting dizzy." Then I made a typo, perhaps a
Freudian Typo. I should have said, "Sometimes dizziness makes one talk
funny."

Thanks ever so much for point out my boo-boo.

I hope hesheit (pronounce that really fast) doesn't come after me.


Looks like some people aren't much men.... "most" men get freaked out by a
snake? Give me a break.

I have a healthy respect for rattlesnakes, but I'm not afraid of them. They
are God's creatures, and they deserve our respect. I don't kill them unless
it's absolutely necessary. I have a shovel and it works if it comes to that.
Jeeeze... even my cat can deal with rattlesnakes. Are you less than a cat?
No, don't answer.


The only good rattlesnake is a dead one. The only reason I tolerate
black snakes is because they eat rattle snakes and coral snakes.

If you were more of a manly man, like nomdeplum, rattlesnakes wouldn't
bother you at all.

Which committee?
 

John H Rant wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:20:09 -0400, Jim wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H Rant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:32:14 -0400, 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.
Oh, my bad.

I saw this, "I'm getting dizzy." Then I made a typo, perhaps a
Freudian Typo. I should have said, "Sometimes dizziness makes one talk
funny."

Thanks ever so much for point out my boo-boo.

I hope hesheit (pronounce that really fast) doesn't come after me.

Looks like some people aren't much men.... "most" men get freaked out by a
snake? Give me a break.

I have a healthy respect for rattlesnakes, but I'm not afraid of them. They
are God's creatures, and they deserve our respect. I don't kill them unless
it's absolutely necessary. I have a shovel and it works if it comes to that.
Jeeeze... even my cat can deal with rattlesnakes. Are you less than a cat?
No, don't answer.

The only good rattlesnake is a dead one. The only reason I tolerate
black snakes is because they eat rattle snakes and coral snakes.

If you were more of a manly man, like nomdeplum, rattlesnakes wouldn't
bother you at all.

Ya. She probably bites their heads off. I'm impressed.

Which committee?
 

"John H Rant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:20:09 -0400, Jim wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H Rant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:32:14 -0400, 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.
Oh, my bad.

I saw this, "I'm getting dizzy." Then I made a typo, perhaps a
Freudian Typo. I should have said, "Sometimes dizziness makes one talk
funny."

Thanks ever so much for point out my boo-boo.

I hope hesheit (pronounce that really fast) doesn't come after me.


Looks like some people aren't much men.... "most" men get freaked out by
a
snake? Give me a break.

I have a healthy respect for rattlesnakes, but I'm not afraid of them.
They
are God's creatures, and they deserve our respect. I don't kill them
unless
it's absolutely necessary. I have a shovel and it works if it comes to
that.
Jeeeze... even my cat can deal with rattlesnakes. Are you less than a
cat?
No, don't answer.


The only good rattlesnake is a dead one. The only reason I tolerate
black snakes is because they eat rattle snakes and coral snakes.

If you were more of a manly man, like nomdeplum, rattlesnakes wouldn't
bother you at all.


I didn't say they don't bother me at all. I'm just used to them. But, maybe
someone does have to "man up." If my cat can deal with them....


--
Nom=de=Plume

R
 

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:29:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H Rant" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:20:09 -0400, Jim wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H Rant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:32:14 -0400, 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.
Oh, my bad.

I saw this, "I'm getting dizzy." Then I made a typo, perhaps a
Freudian Typo. I should have said, "Sometimes dizziness makes one talk
funny."

Thanks ever so much for point out my boo-boo.

I hope hesheit (pronounce that really fast) doesn't come after me.


Looks like some people aren't much men.... "most" men get freaked out by
a
snake? Give me a break.

I have a healthy respect for rattlesnakes, but I'm not afraid of them.
They
are God's creatures, and they deserve our respect. I don't kill them
unless
it's absolutely necessary. I have a shovel and it works if it comes to
that.
Jeeeze... even my cat can deal with rattlesnakes. Are you less than a
cat?
No, don't answer.


The only good rattlesnake is a dead one. The only reason I tolerate
black snakes is because they eat rattle snakes and coral snakes.

If you were more of a manly man, like nomdeplum, rattlesnakes wouldn't
bother you at all.


I didn't say they don't bother me at all. I'm just used to them. But, maybe
someone does have to "man up." If my cat can deal with them....

We're happy for you and your cat.

Why the name change?

Why 'R' and not 'M'?

R
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:29:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H Rant" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:20:09 -0400, Jim wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H Rant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:32:14 -0400, 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.
Oh, my bad.

I saw this, "I'm getting dizzy." Then I made a typo, perhaps a
Freudian Typo. I should have said, "Sometimes dizziness makes one
talk
funny."

Thanks ever so much for point out my boo-boo.

I hope hesheit (pronounce that really fast) doesn't come after me.


Looks like some people aren't much men.... "most" men get freaked out
by
a
snake? Give me a break.

I have a healthy respect for rattlesnakes, but I'm not afraid of them.
They
are God's creatures, and they deserve our respect. I don't kill them
unless
it's absolutely necessary. I have a shovel and it works if it comes to
that.
Jeeeze... even my cat can deal with rattlesnakes. Are you less than a
cat?
No, don't answer.


The only good rattlesnake is a dead one. The only reason I tolerate
black snakes is because they eat rattle snakes and coral snakes.

If you were more of a manly man, like nomdeplum, rattlesnakes wouldn't
bother you at all.


I didn't say they don't bother me at all. I'm just used to them. But,
maybe
someone does have to "man up." If my cat can deal with them....

We're happy for you and your cat.

I figured you would be..

Why the name change?

Why 'R' and not 'M'?

Huh? I haven't changed anything..

--
Nom=de=Plume

R
 

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:12:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:29:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H Rant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:20:09 -0400, Jim wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H Rant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:32:14 -0400, 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.
Oh, my bad.

I saw this, "I'm getting dizzy." Then I made a typo, perhaps a
Freudian Typo. I should have said, "Sometimes dizziness makes one
talk
funny."

Thanks ever so much for point out my boo-boo.

I hope hesheit (pronounce that really fast) doesn't come after me.


Looks like some people aren't much men.... "most" men get freaked out
by
a
snake? Give me a break.

I have a healthy respect for rattlesnakes, but I'm not afraid of them.
They
are God's creatures, and they deserve our respect. I don't kill them
unless
it's absolutely necessary. I have a shovel and it works if it comes to
that.
Jeeeze... even my cat can deal with rattlesnakes. Are you less than a
cat?
No, don't answer.


The only good rattlesnake is a dead one. The only reason I tolerate
black snakes is because they eat rattle snakes and coral snakes.

If you were more of a manly man, like nomdeplum, rattlesnakes wouldn't
bother you at all.


I didn't say they don't bother me at all. I'm just used to them. But,
maybe
someone does have to "man up." If my cat can deal with them....

We're happy for you and your cat.

I figured you would be..

Why the name change?

Why 'R' and not 'M'?

Huh? I haven't changed anything..

Must have been a glitch.

Now that I've unfiltered you I can see that you haven't.

R
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:12:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:29:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H Rant" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:20:09 -0400, Jim wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H Rant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:32:14 -0400, 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.
Oh, my bad.

I saw this, "I'm getting dizzy." Then I made a typo, perhaps a
Freudian Typo. I should have said, "Sometimes dizziness makes one
talk
funny."

Thanks ever so much for point out my boo-boo.

I hope hesheit (pronounce that really fast) doesn't come after me.


Looks like some people aren't much men.... "most" men get freaked
out
by
a
snake? Give me a break.

I have a healthy respect for rattlesnakes, but I'm not afraid of
them.
They
are God's creatures, and they deserve our respect. I don't kill them
unless
it's absolutely necessary. I have a shovel and it works if it comes
to
that.
Jeeeze... even my cat can deal with rattlesnakes. Are you less than
a
cat?
No, don't answer.


The only good rattlesnake is a dead one. The only reason I tolerate
black snakes is because they eat rattle snakes and coral snakes.

If you were more of a manly man, like nomdeplum, rattlesnakes wouldn't
bother you at all.


I didn't say they don't bother me at all. I'm just used to them. But,
maybe
someone does have to "man up." If my cat can deal with them....

We're happy for you and your cat.

I figured you would be..

Why the name change?

Why 'R' and not 'M'?

Huh? I haven't changed anything..

Must have been a glitch.

Now that I've unfiltered you I can see that you haven't.


Every once in a while Outlook seems to go crazy. Even my iPhone can't seem
to keep things straight. I have bluetooth in the car and I'd tell it to call
home, and it would call a completely different place. Last time I tried to
call my friend Susan, and it tried to call the cat vet. I had to turn the
phone off to get it to reset.

--
Nom=de=Plume

R
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:12:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:29:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H Rant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:20:09 -0400, Jim wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H Rant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:32:14 -0400, 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.
Oh, my bad.

I saw this, "I'm getting dizzy." Then I made a typo, perhaps a
Freudian Typo. I should have said, "Sometimes dizziness makes one
talk
funny."

Thanks ever so much for point out my boo-boo.

I hope hesheit (pronounce that really fast) doesn't come after me.

Looks like some people aren't much men.... "most" men get freaked
out
by
a
snake? Give me a break.

I have a healthy respect for rattlesnakes, but I'm not afraid of
them.
They
are God's creatures, and they deserve our respect. I don't kill them
unless
it's absolutely necessary. I have a shovel and it works if it comes
to
that.
Jeeeze... even my cat can deal with rattlesnakes. Are you less than
a
cat?
No, don't answer.

The only good rattlesnake is a dead one. The only reason I tolerate
black snakes is because they eat rattle snakes and coral snakes.
If you were more of a manly man, like nomdeplum, rattlesnakes wouldn't
bother you at all.

I didn't say they don't bother me at all. I'm just used to them. But,
maybe
someone does have to "man up." If my cat can deal with them....
We're happy for you and your cat.
I figured you would be..

Why the name change?

Why 'R' and not 'M'?
Huh? I haven't changed anything..
Must have been a glitch.

Now that I've unfiltered you I can see that you haven't.


Every once in a while Outlook seems to go crazy. Even my iPhone can't seem
to keep things straight. I have bluetooth in the car and I'd tell it to call
home, and it would call a completely different place. Last time I tried to
call my friend Susan, and it tried to call the cat vet. I had to turn the
phone off to get it to reset.


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.

R
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

R
 

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

R
 

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:50:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Which committee?
 

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.

R
 

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

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..
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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Which committee?
 

"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).
--
Nom=de=Plume

R
 

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
...
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.

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

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


Enough on that subject.

Which committee?
 

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.

R
 

"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
m...
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


--
Nom=de=Plume

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