On Feb 19, 8:11*pm, True North wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 20:29:00 UTC-4, Meyer *wrote:
On 2/19/2013 4:55 PM, Salmonbait wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:19:17 -0500, Meyer wrote:

On 2/19/2013 12:52 PM, True North wrote:

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:37:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:08:57 -0800, jps wrote:

Why is it considered punishment to limit the number of guns and ammo

that are owned by the public?

What would be the point?

Is it punishment that I want to own a tank with the capacity to shell

an area of the desert that wouldn't be affected by my hobby? *Why

can't I own surface to air missles so that I can shoot down my own

drones? *Why can't I own a mortar setup so I can play with it when I

want to?

Why am I being punished?

That is a red herring, those things have been illegal for 50 years

I wonder what would happen with the suicide stats if guns were

incapable of shooting the person holding them. *Would they find

another way? *What percentage? *Should we make other, less violent

methods available to suicidal persons?

The lack of guns has not affected the suicide rate in Japan, one of

the left's favorite example of gun control.

Lastly, what do you suppose the percentages of young people (let's say

under 20) that die in gun related homicides or suicides vs all those

other maladies? *I'm sure a lot die in car accidents but all those

stats above? *Not so many.

The ratio of young people who die in cars is pretty close to guns.

Maybe we should ban any car that goes over 70 MPH, put mandatory

breatholizers on the ignition and keep them from running if the seat

belts are not fastened. (they actually tried that in 1974)

* *That might save more people than banning guns.

Might not be a bad idea...doesn't seem sensible to put autos on the road capable of double the legal speed...or more.

Some kind of limiter could keep speed down to 75 or so while not limiting towing capacity.

What's the towing capacity of your Rav 4?

If it's a 2009 with a v6, and he's really full of bravado, he can tow 2000lbs. That doesn't mean he

can *stop* it though.

Salmonbait

I don't think he has the gutsy V6 His new boat is 3 times the

princecraft. It's hard to believe he can tow that hefty boat with that

pyrite gray devil of a rave 4.

Actually, it's closer to 4X, StinkyOne.
BTW it's pyrite mica... that would be a very pleasing dark bronze when the sun is shinning.

Its ****-brown, you toothless coward-cocksucker.

On Feb 19, 10:50*pm, True North wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 22:23:47 UTC-4, Meyer *wrote:
On 2/19/2013 8:11 PM, True North wrote:

On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 20:29:00 UTC-4, Meyer *wrote:

On 2/19/2013 4:55 PM, Salmonbait wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:19:17 -0500, Meyer wrote:

On 2/19/2013 12:52 PM, True North wrote:

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:37:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:08:57 -0800, jps wrote:

Why is it considered punishment to limit the number of guns and ammo

that are owned by the public?

What would be the point?

Is it punishment that I want to own a tank with the capacity to shell

an area of the desert that wouldn't be affected by my hobby? *Why

can't I own surface to air missles so that I can shoot down my own

drones? *Why can't I own a mortar setup so I can play with it when I

want to?

Why am I being punished?

That is a red herring, those things have been illegal for 50 years

I wonder what would happen with the suicide stats if guns were

incapable of shooting the person holding them. *Would they find

another way? *What percentage? *Should we make other, less violent

methods available to suicidal persons?

The lack of guns has not affected the suicide rate in Japan, one of

the left's favorite example of gun control.

Lastly, what do you suppose the percentages of young people (let's say

under 20) that die in gun related homicides or suicides vs all those

other maladies? *I'm sure a lot die in car accidents but all those

stats above? *Not so many.

The ratio of young people who die in cars is pretty close to guns.

Maybe we should ban any car that goes over 70 MPH, put mandatory

breatholizers on the ignition and keep them from running if the seat

belts are not fastened. (they actually tried that in 1974)

* * That might save more people than banning guns.

Might not be a bad idea...doesn't seem sensible to put autos on the road capable of double the legal speed...or more.

Some kind of limiter could keep speed down to 75 or so while not limiting towing capacity.

What's the towing capacity of your Rav 4?

If it's a 2009 with a v6, and he's really full of bravado, he can tow 2000lbs. That doesn't mean he

can *stop* it though.

Salmonbait

I don't think he has the gutsy V6 His new boat is 3 times the

princecraft. It's hard to believe he can tow that hefty boat with that

pyrite gray devil of a rave 4.

Actually, it's closer to 4X, StinkyOne.

BTW it's pyrite mica... that would be a very pleasing dark bronze when the sun is shinning.

Didn't realize that the old boat was only 240 lbs You must have got 2

footitis and moved all the way up to 16 feets. Lessee 850 lbs for the

boat. 200 lbs for the engine. 500 lbs for the trlr. 200 lbs of gear and

batteries and you are a tad overloaded. It's not a matter of the engine

pulling it. But , CAN YOU STOP on a moderate downgrade with the car

loaded up with passengers and more gear. I think John already cautioned

you about that.

Boat alone weighs just over half a ton.
Johnny cautioning me... SNERK!

Well, since your ****-brown Rav 4 only has 175 horse at SIX THOUSAND
rpm....Im suprised if it could tow your ****ty boat UP a hill.

Its a tad overweight as well, at 3,675 pounds......

Only has 7.5 INCHES of ground clearance.....

4 cylinder ****box, with a toothless owner.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:22:15 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

You can use the handle I gave him... W'hine. Or, better, Lil W'hine.

====

So how are those IRS tax liens working out for you? Any fraudulent
transfers recently?

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 2/19/13 6:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

Do you really think I am gonna' read any of this? LOL!


Hey, most of your posts make absolutely no sense. Why should your
latest
idea of having everyone's cells shut off at 10 mph be any different.

Oh...my wife just messaged me from her iPhone. Her commuter bus, the
one
on which is she a passenger and the one that travels at more than 10
mph
except when it is stuck in traffic arrived at her stop downtown 10
minutes late so she probably will be home a littler later than usual.

Under your plan, she wouldn't be able to send such a message.

You're a moron.

------------------------------------------------------

If I were king one of the first commands I would issue is to
completely ban the use of smart phones and their manufacture.
Cell phones with voice-only would be permitted. No texting
capability, no internet access. Smart phones with people walking,
driving,
shopping and whatever with a phone stuck under their nose and thumbs
flying on the tiny keyboards would be outlawed.

I think smart phones are having a major affect on how people
communicate and relate to each other, much the same as how people
communicate here in this newsgroup. It's an inward, isolated world
without benefit of real human interaction and body language. Very
few of the foul mouthed, derogatory and insulting comments would be
made in this newsgroup if those involved were physically present to
each other.

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:37:14 AM UTC-4, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message

m...



On 2/19/13 6:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:



Do you really think I am gonna' read any of this? LOL!





Hey, most of your posts make absolutely no sense. Why should your

latest

idea of having everyone's cells shut off at 10 mph be any different.



Oh...my wife just messaged me from her iPhone. Her commuter bus, the

one

on which is she a passenger and the one that travels at more than 10

mph

except when it is stuck in traffic arrived at her stop downtown 10

minutes late so she probably will be home a littler later than usual.



Under your plan, she wouldn't be able to send such a message.



You're a moron.



------------------------------------------------------



If I were king one of the first commands I would issue is to

completely ban the use of smart phones and their manufacture.

Cell phones with voice-only would be permitted. No texting

capability, no internet access. Smart phones with people walking,

driving,

shopping and whatever with a phone stuck under their nose and thumbs

flying on the tiny keyboards would be outlawed.



I think smart phones are having a major affect on how people

communicate and relate to each other, much the same as how people

communicate here in this newsgroup. It's an inward, isolated world

without benefit of real human interaction and body language. Very

few of the foul mouthed, derogatory and insulting comments would be

made in this newsgroup if those involved were physically present to

each other.


I agree with this post.
My #2 son ignores my calls to his cellphone but will answer a text message back before I have a chance to set my cellphone down......and it costs me 15 cents for each text I send. Don't send enough to justify a monthly plan.

On 2/20/13 6:37 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 2/19/13 6:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

Do you really think I am gonna' read any of this? LOL!


Hey, most of your posts make absolutely no sense. Why should your latest
idea of having everyone's cells shut off at 10 mph be any different.

Oh...my wife just messaged me from her iPhone. Her commuter bus, the one
on which is she a passenger and the one that travels at more than 10 mph
except when it is stuck in traffic arrived at her stop downtown 10
minutes late so she probably will be home a littler later than usual.

Under your plan, she wouldn't be able to send such a message.

You're a moron.

------------------------------------------------------

If I were king one of the first commands I would issue is to completely
ban the use of smart phones and their manufacture.
Cell phones with voice-only would be permitted. No texting capability,
no internet access. Smart phones with people walking, driving,
shopping and whatever with a phone stuck under their nose and thumbs
flying on the tiny keyboards would be outlawed.

I think smart phones are having a major affect on how people communicate
and relate to each other, much the same as how people communicate here
in this newsgroup. It's an inward, isolated world without benefit of
real human interaction and body language. Very few of the foul
mouthed, derogatory and insulting comments would be made in this
newsgroup if those involved were physically present to each other.


I also am annoyed by people using their smartphones as computer
terminals while they drive, talk, shop, et cetera, and I wonder if there
ever is any enforcement invoked against those who are fiddling with
their phones while they drive. I know there are laws against it, but
enforcement and citations? I dunno.

On the other hand, there are many legitimate reasons to have access to
email and other applications when you are away from your home or office
computer, and the smartphones prove their value in those instances.

The decline in personal, face to face communications began in earnest
with the advent in the 1980s of bulletin boards and commercial services
like CompuServ. All the smart phones have done in that regard is make
such "communication" more accessible and portable.

I see virtually none of the foul behavior you mentioned on the moderated
boards I frequent for chatting and learning more about boating,
computers, smart phones. I see very little of it on FaceBook, but then,
I do pick and choose my friends there, and if I encounter someone who is
overly aggressive or foul-mouthed or insulting, I just drop that person.
I'm in a couple of affinity groups with literally hundreds of posters
and virtually everyone seems to behave reasonably.

rec.boats was a reasonably pleasant place until the extreme righties
drove almost everyone off. Most of the posters here are righties, and
they've tea-partied the joint. There's less than a handful of us
remaining here who are moderate right to moderate left and in the middle.

On 2/20/2013 7:29 AM, True North wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:37:14 AM UTC-4, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message

m...



On 2/19/13 6:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:



Do you really think I am gonna' read any of this? LOL!





Hey, most of your posts make absolutely no sense. Why should your

latest

idea of having everyone's cells shut off at 10 mph be any different.



Oh...my wife just messaged me from her iPhone. Her commuter bus, the

one

on which is she a passenger and the one that travels at more than 10

mph

except when it is stuck in traffic arrived at her stop downtown 10

minutes late so she probably will be home a littler later than usual.



Under your plan, she wouldn't be able to send such a message.



You're a moron.



------------------------------------------------------



If I were king one of the first commands I would issue is to

completely ban the use of smart phones and their manufacture.

Cell phones with voice-only would be permitted. No texting

capability, no internet access. Smart phones with people walking,

driving,

shopping and whatever with a phone stuck under their nose and thumbs

flying on the tiny keyboards would be outlawed.



I think smart phones are having a major affect on how people

communicate and relate to each other, much the same as how people

communicate here in this newsgroup. It's an inward, isolated world

without benefit of real human interaction and body language. Very

few of the foul mouthed, derogatory and insulting comments would be

made in this newsgroup if those involved were physically present to

each other.


I agree with this post.
My #2 son ignores my calls to his cellphone but will answer a text message back before I have a chance to set my cellphone down......and it costs me 15 cents for each text I send. Don't send enough to justify a monthly plan.

Mebbe he doesn't want to listen to your insulting and derogatory comments.

On 2/20/13 7:29 AM, True North wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:37:14 AM UTC-4, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message

m...



On 2/19/13 6:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:



Do you really think I am gonna' read any of this? LOL!





Hey, most of your posts make absolutely no sense. Why should your

latest

idea of having everyone's cells shut off at 10 mph be any different.



Oh...my wife just messaged me from her iPhone. Her commuter bus, the

one

on which is she a passenger and the one that travels at more than 10

mph

except when it is stuck in traffic arrived at her stop downtown 10

minutes late so she probably will be home a littler later than usual.



Under your plan, she wouldn't be able to send such a message.



You're a moron.



------------------------------------------------------



If I were king one of the first commands I would issue is to

completely ban the use of smart phones and their manufacture.

Cell phones with voice-only would be permitted. No texting

capability, no internet access. Smart phones with people walking,

driving,

shopping and whatever with a phone stuck under their nose and thumbs

flying on the tiny keyboards would be outlawed.



I think smart phones are having a major affect on how people

communicate and relate to each other, much the same as how people

communicate here in this newsgroup. It's an inward, isolated world

without benefit of real human interaction and body language. Very

few of the foul mouthed, derogatory and insulting comments would be

made in this newsgroup if those involved were physically present to

each other.


I agree with this post.
My #2 son ignores my calls to his cellphone but will answer a text message back before I have a chance to set my cellphone down......and it costs me 15 cents for each text I send. Don't send enough to justify a monthly plan.



I have a nephew in college and in his 20s on my family plan who somehow
manages to send/receive more than 2000 text messages a month and at the
same time barely uses the phone part of his smart phone. I pay $10 a
month extra for "unlimited" text messages on a family plan to
accommodate texting.

Most of the people I exchange texts with have iPhones, so our texting
via the apple iMessage servers costs us nothing.

On 2/20/2013 7:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/20/13 7:29 AM, True North wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:37:14 AM UTC-4, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message

m...



On 2/19/13 6:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:



Do you really think I am gonna' read any of this? LOL!





Hey, most of your posts make absolutely no sense. Why should your

latest

idea of having everyone's cells shut off at 10 mph be any different.



Oh...my wife just messaged me from her iPhone. Her commuter bus, the

one

on which is she a passenger and the one that travels at more than 10

mph

except when it is stuck in traffic arrived at her stop downtown 10

minutes late so she probably will be home a littler later than usual.



Under your plan, she wouldn't be able to send such a message.



You're a moron.



------------------------------------------------------



If I were king one of the first commands I would issue is to

completely ban the use of smart phones and their manufacture.

Cell phones with voice-only would be permitted. No texting

capability, no internet access. Smart phones with people walking,

driving,

shopping and whatever with a phone stuck under their nose and thumbs

flying on the tiny keyboards would be outlawed.



I think smart phones are having a major affect on how people

communicate and relate to each other, much the same as how people

communicate here in this newsgroup. It's an inward, isolated world

without benefit of real human interaction and body language. Very

few of the foul mouthed, derogatory and insulting comments would be

made in this newsgroup if those involved were physically present to

each other.


I agree with this post.
My #2 son ignores my calls to his cellphone but will answer a text
message back before I have a chance to set my cellphone down......and
it costs me 15 cents for each text I send. Don't send enough to
justify a monthly plan.



I have a nephew in college and in his 20s on my family plan who somehow
manages to send/receive more than 2000 text messages a month and at the
same time barely uses the phone part of his smart phone. I pay $10 a
month extra for "unlimited" text messages on a family plan to
accommodate texting.

Most of the people I exchange texts with have iPhones, so our texting
via the apple iMessage servers costs us nothing.


Taught the kid how to game the system, eh? Again proving Eisboch's point.

On Feb 20, 6:45*am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The decline in personal, face to face communications began in earnest
with the advent in the 1980s of bulletin boards and commercial services
like CompuServ. All the smart phones have done in that regard is make
such "communication" more accessible and portable.

I see virtually none of the foul behavior you mentioned on the moderated
boards I frequent for chatting and learning more about boating,
computers, smart phones. I see very little of it on FaceBook, but then,
I do pick and choose my friends there, and if I encounter someone who is
overly aggressive or foul-mouthed or insulting, I just drop that person.
I'm in a couple of affinity groups with literally hundreds of posters
and virtually everyone seems to behave reasonably.

rec.boats was a reasonably pleasant place until the extreme righties
drove almost everyone off. Most of the posters here are righties, and
they've tea-partied the joint. There's less than a handful of us
remaining here who are moderate right to moderate left and in the middle.

Harry, I'm glad I read this before I went to work. This was the laugh
of the day.

Thanks again!