F.O.A.D. wrote:

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.

The "extreme righties" drove off your sock puppets, deadbeat? Go get a
job and pay your taxes, loser.

F.O.A.D. wrote:
At least you're not hiding assets, you have none. But you still owe
taxes and other debts.
I'm hiding assets? Another of PsychoSnotty's delusions.

Proof that deadbeats are dumb and can't read but are good schoolyard
name-callers.

F.O.A.D. wrote:


I haven't read through the bill yet, but...it is already fairly
difficult to get a concealed carry permit in Maryland. I doubt if the
bill "loosened" the regulations.

The people voting on it probably haven't read it either - just like the
health care bill. Maybe they can add some pork to prevent tax cheats
and welfare recipients from owning any firearms. That would be outstanding.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:16:25 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
.. .

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:08:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On 2/19/13 3:46 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:48:20 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:



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

On 2/19/13 9:00 AM, Eisboch wrote:
For kicks I looked up the leading causes of death in the USA.
Data
is
the final numbers from 2010 as published by the Center for
Disease
Control.
Surprisingly, firearms related deaths didn't make the top ten
and
firearms related homicides weren't even close to the top ten.
It's
interesting that deaths caused by traffic accidents numbered
about 3
times those of homicides involving firearms, but all the focus
is on
more gun control laws.

Personal note: This is not a excuse of deaths caused by
firearms,
but
rather an attempt to put it all in perspective.

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Traffic accidents: 33,808
Firearms: 30,470 (19,392 suicides, 11,078 homicides)


There are solid statistically based predictions that state that
firearms
deaths will exceed traffic accident deaths in a couple of years.

Oh, you forgot to list the number of Americans who die of old
age.

On a more serious note, I only took one college-level statistics
course
and have forgotten most of what I ever learned about that sort
of
math,
so I asked a family member who has taken four graduate-level
stats
courses about these sorts of comparisons (gun deaths vs. car
deaths
vs.
cancer deaths, et cetera) and got a chuckle in response. "Such
comparisions are based on silliness and are statistically
absurd.
Yes,
more people die of cancer than of gunshot wounds but...so what?"

==========================

The number that surprised me was deaths by homicide involving
firearms. I read the same thing you did regarding firearm
deaths
exceeding traffic deaths by 2015 however that includes suicides.
Unfortunately, although a gun is the method of choice for most
suicides, further gun restrictions won't eliminate them. As
stated
in my post, the data is presented simply to put things in
perspective. 11,078 firearms related homicides is too many of
course
but it's a reflection of violence in our society ... which also
cannot
be totally eliminated. There are bad people in the world.
But
the
number is not the huge number that some of the media and
proponents of
even more gun control measure would like you to believe.

My state has some of the strictest gun control laws in the
nation.
Permits require background checks and every purchase of a
firearm
at a
dealer involves a telephone check and taking of an electronic
fingerprint to verify that you are who you say you are and your
permit
is valid. You must present a valid permit even for ammunition
purchases. But, our me-too governor has proposed and is
pushing for
even more restrictive laws including jail time for purchasing
more
than one firearm per month for existing permit holders, making
getting a permit more difficult, and putting a heavy state tax
(up to
50%) on all ammunition sales (even range target practice
rounds). I
don't see how that is going to affect the homicide rate by
firearms in
the country.
All it is is political posturing in reaction to a horrible but
isolated event caused by a kid who was severely disturbed ....
as
are
all cases of mass murders.

By that twisted ****ing logic, we might as well do away with the
NTSB
and all the other safety protocols, since they result in fewer
deaths.
How about faulty cribs. What a load of horse****. You have a
product
that's killing 1000s of people, but since it doesn't kill as many
as
cancer, it's ok.

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

The numbers were presented to put things in perspective. Of
course any
deaths due to firearms is not ok .... but the number, especially
in
homicides, is not what is being hyped by the media and others and
some
politicians are over-reacting IMO, like the governor of my state.


How are they overreacting? Because more people die from cancer?

Is cancer made by others in a factory for the sole purpose of killing
like a gun is? THAT is where you idiots sound so stupid.

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

First of all, I am not an idiot.
Second of all, although guns can kill, not all gun owners own them to
kill.

Third, and for the final time, the numbers I presented were not
intended to compare cancer to guns.
It was simply to establish some realism in terms of the major causes
of all deaths, including those by guns.
For a nation with a population of over 315 million, the number of
homicide deaths involving guns is relatively small.
Don't go off your rocker assuming that I therefore think that's ok.
Of course it isn't. But people have to be realistic when babbling
about new gun laws.



Well, good. You're not an idiot. Umm... the major cause of death is
death. Everyone dies. Your list isn't inclusive or accurate. What
about hospital deaths?

Who is not being realistic about gun laws and what does that have to
do with cancer deaths? If the two are unrelated, then there's no
reason to list them together... unless you want to list all the
causes, which might be a****ing long list.

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

Instead of shooting your mouth off, you might want to re-read the
first sentence of my post.
Here .... I'll repeat it for you:

"For kicks I looked up the leading causes of death in the USA."

Notice the word, "leading" ?

I'm not shooting off my mouth dickhead. You didn't even list them
correctly. You just grabbed them from a website. What about hospital
mistakes? Not that they're related particularly to gun deaths. Oh,
sorry, I called you a ****ing dickhead.

http://chriskresser.com/medical-care...eath-in-the-us




If it's not ok, propose something that will help the situation...
here's a few... universal background checks, limiting the size of
clips, increase funding for mental health services, make it easier for
phychiatrists to report people who are dangerous, relax the limits on
how long transaction info can be stored, require all transactions of
guns to be recorded (just like a car.. if it's a family member, a
minimal fee is required), make these things federal not state, so guns
can't be bought in one state and moved to another without a record.

Feel free to add some of yourown.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:25:45 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
.. .


If it's not ok, propose something that will help the situation...
here's a few... universal background checks, limiting the size of
clips, increase funding for mental health services, make it easier for
phychiatrists to report people who are dangerous, relax the limits on
how long transaction info can be stored, require all transactions of
guns to be recorded (just like a car.. if it's a family member, a
minimal fee is required), make these things federal not state, so guns
can't be bought in one state and moved to another without a record.

Feel free to add some of yourown.

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

I agree with everything on your list and have stated so. What I am
*not* in favor of is limiting the number of purchases that may be made
in a month by legally licensed people, adding a 50% tax on ammunition
or any of the other hair brained proposals by some politicians that
will do absolutely nothing to curb firearm violence.


The "hair brained proposals" include those from the NRA and the gun
manufaxcturers? Just wondering...

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:30:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
.. .

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:37:14 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
news:EaudnaBeoqTElLnMnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@earthlink. com...

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.



Wait a sec... you're for banning smart phones, but not for some
reasonable restrictions on gun purchases???????

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

Do you do this on purpose or is it how you think? I never said I
was against reasonable restrictions on gun purchases.
In fact, I support many of them.

My proposed ban on smart phones was tongue-in-cheek but I guess in
your haste to pile on you must of missed that.

But, I do believe in the last paragraph.


Hey man it's a different thread. How the **** am I suppose to sort out
what you think or dont? I didn't see any indication of tongue.

On 2/20/2013 8:13 PM, Earl wrote:
Meyer wrote:
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.
The engine may pull it but the transmission won't like it. You already
covered the safety issue.

He's another selfish ****...

In article ,
says...

On 2/20/2013 8:13 PM, Earl wrote:
Meyer wrote:
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.
The engine may pull it but the transmission won't like it. You already
covered the safety issue.

He's another selfish ****...

Yet another post from Scotty proving that he can't post anything without
low life vulgarities.

On 2/19/2013 11:29 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:37:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:


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.

Nah... just install a device that blocks the driver from *all* smart phone usage, application of makeup, or eating/drinking, and we're saving thousands of lives.

Oh, and no dogs in your lap when driving. The kids damn well better be strapped in!

We agree on something... except I do take a sip of water occasionally.

On 2/21/13 12:04 PM, thumper wrote:
On 2/19/2013 11:29 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:37:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:


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.

Nah... just install a device that blocks the driver from *all* smart
phone usage, application of makeup, or eating/drinking, and we're
saving thousands of lives.

Oh, and no dogs in your lap when driving. The kids damn well better
be strapped in!

We agree on something... except I do take a sip of water occasionally.



I just love the drivers who start fiddling with their smart phones while
stopped at a traffic light and are still fiddling when the light turns
green. If I am right behind them, I'll lean on the horn until they
resuscitate themselves and start moving through the intersection.
Next time I stop at WaWa for coffee and there's a deputy in there, I
might ask how many tickets are handed out for hands-on cell phone use
while driving. I'm betting it isn't very many, but I see lots of people
doing it.