|
Death statistics
|
Death statistics
On 2/20/2013 5:48 AM, Salmonbait wrote:
Yesterday I was scratching around in my desk drawer for something and felt something sharp, but not bad. Turned out to be a single edge razor blade. Had blood all over the place. I'm thinking, "Why the **** did I leave a razor blade in my desk drawer?" You forgot to get advise beforehand...? |
Death statistics
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:58:56 -0800, thumper wrote:
On 2/20/2013 5:48 AM, Salmonbait wrote: Yesterday I was scratching around in my desk drawer for something and felt something sharp, but not bad. Turned out to be a single edge razor blade. Had blood all over the place. I'm thinking, "Why the **** did I leave a razor blade in my desk drawer?" You forgot to get advise beforehand...? Let's see...am I looking for a verb or a noun. Better get some lessons from UrineAsshole. Salmonbait -- "That's not a baby kicking, dear Bride,it's only a fetus!" |
Death statistics
On 2/20/13 11:58 AM, thumper wrote:
On 2/20/2013 5:48 AM, Salmonbait wrote: Yesterday I was scratching around in my desk drawer for something and felt something sharp, but not bad. Turned out to be a single edge razor blade. Had blood all over the place. I'm thinking, "Why the **** did I leave a razor blade in my desk drawer?" You forgot to get advise beforehand...? Maybe a family member left it there as a fervent wish. -- I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work for me. |
Death statistics
On 2/20/2013 9:08 AM, Salmonbait wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:58:56 -0800, thumper wrote: On 2/20/2013 5:48 AM, Salmonbait wrote: Yesterday I was scratching around in my desk drawer for something and felt something sharp, but not bad. Turned out to be a single edge razor blade. Had blood all over the place. I'm thinking, "Why the **** did I leave a razor blade in my desk drawer?" You forgot to get advise beforehand...? Let's see...am I looking for a verb or a noun. Good catch. I shouldn't post before coffee. |
Death statistics
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:09:42 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/20/13 11:58 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/20/2013 5:48 AM, Salmonbait wrote: Yesterday I was scratching around in my desk drawer for something and felt something sharp, but not bad. Turned out to be a single edge razor blade. Had blood all over the place. I'm thinking, "Why the **** did I leave a razor blade in my desk drawer?" You forgot to get advise beforehand...? Maybe a family member left it there as a fervent wish. Nah.... Harry... you can confess to it! |
Death statistics
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. 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. |
Death statistics
|
Death statistics
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:37:14 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message om... 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??????? |
Death statistics
"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" ? 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. |
Death statistics
"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. |
Death statistics
"Urin Asshole" wrote in message ... On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:37:14 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message om... 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. |
Death statistics
On 2/20/13 4:25 PM, 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. Maryland severely restricts the number of "controlled" firearms that can be purchased each month to one, controlled meaning pistols of modern manufacture. There's a bill going through the legislative hearing process now that will, if enacted, "alter the authorization for a person to wear, carry, or transport a handgun to be within specified limitations; designating specified firearms as assault weapons; prohibiting, with specified exceptions, a person from transporting an assault weapon into the State or possessing, selling, offering to sell, transferring, purchasing, or receiving an assault weapon; authorizing specified licensed firearms dealers to continue to possess, sell, offer for sale, or transfer specified weapons under specified circumstances; etc." The bill as introduced: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0281f.pdf It prohibits mags that hold more than 10 rounds. I hope it passes. -- I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work for me. |
Death statistics
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 2/20/13 4:25 PM, 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. Maryland severely restricts the number of "controlled" firearms that can be purchased each month to one, controlled meaning pistols of modern manufacture. There's a bill going through the legislative hearing process now that will, if enacted, "alter the authorization for a person to wear, carry, or transport a handgun to be within specified limitations; designating specified firearms as assault weapons; prohibiting, with specified exceptions, a person from transporting an assault weapon into the State or possessing, selling, offering to sell, transferring, purchasing, or receiving an assault weapon; authorizing specified licensed firearms dealers to continue to possess, sell, offer for sale, or transfer specified weapons under specified circumstances; etc." The bill as introduced: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0281f.pdf It prohibits mags that hold more than 10 rounds. I hope it passes. --------------------------------------- I assume that means that concealed carry permits will also become limited in terms of when and why one may carry. Deval has that one on his list as well. I don't support that. |
Death statistics
On 2/20/13 4:58 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 2/20/13 4:25 PM, 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. Maryland severely restricts the number of "controlled" firearms that can be purchased each month to one, controlled meaning pistols of modern manufacture. There's a bill going through the legislative hearing process now that will, if enacted, "alter the authorization for a person to wear, carry, or transport a handgun to be within specified limitations; designating specified firearms as assault weapons; prohibiting, with specified exceptions, a person from transporting an assault weapon into the State or possessing, selling, offering to sell, transferring, purchasing, or receiving an assault weapon; authorizing specified licensed firearms dealers to continue to possess, sell, offer for sale, or transfer specified weapons under specified circumstances; etc." The bill as introduced: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0281f.pdf It prohibits mags that hold more than 10 rounds. I hope it passes. --------------------------------------- I assume that means that concealed carry permits will also become limited in terms of when and why one may carry. Deval has that one on his list as well. I don't support that. 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. -- I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work for me. |
Death statistics
On Feb 20, 7:04*am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/20/13 7:59 AM, Tim wrote: 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. |
Death statistics
On Feb 20, 5:42*pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/20/13 6:30 PM, Tim wrote: On Feb 20, 7:04 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 2/20/13 7:59 AM, Tim wrote: 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! Maybe you should drop your crazy right-wing friends from rec.boats off your Facebook friends list. :) -- I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work for me. Maybe you need to add a few. :) None of these righties have exhibited the sort of craziness, small-mindedness, racial hatred, and bile of some of the righties here, None on my friends list do either. |
Death statistics
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. |
Death statistics
True North wrote:
------------------------------------------------------ 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. He doesn't want to speak with you. Are you surprised? |
Death statistics
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. |
Death statistics
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. |
Death statistics
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. |
Death statistics
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. |
Death statistics
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... |
Death statistics
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. |
Death statistics
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 ****... |
Death statistics
|
Death statistics
|
Death statistics
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. |
Death statistics
On 2/21/13 12:23 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:15:44 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: 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. I am finally getting people to admit that talking on the phone is distracting. (hands free or not) One of my neighbors fell in a hole, walking and talking on a hands free. Didn't heed the hole or the cones. He said his mind was on the other end of that call. He says, in retrospect, he did see the cones but it did not register. I can walk and talk on the phone if I am wearing my earbuds and still concentrate on where I am walking. But if I added "chew gum" to that mix, I'd probably step in front of a bus without realizing it. Driving? No. If I have to make a call while in the car, I pull off the road into a safe spot. I don't answer calls while driving, though. -- I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work for me. |
Death statistics
In article , says...
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. Around here you'd be lucky to get out of that situation without a severe ass kicking or getting shot. Commutes suck enough without some asshole blasting the horn the second the light turns green. |
Death statistics
In article ,
says... On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:15:44 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: 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. I am finally getting people to admit that talking on the phone is distracting. (hands free or not) One of my neighbors fell in a hole, walking and talking on a hands free. Didn't heed the hole or the cones. He said his mind was on the other end of that call. He says, in retrospect, he did see the cones but it did not register. I agree, talking on a hands free phone is still very distracting and dangerous. |
Death statistics
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:15:12 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:
On Feb 20, 5:42*pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 2/20/13 6:30 PM, Tim wrote: On Feb 20, 7:04 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 2/20/13 7:59 AM, Tim wrote: 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! Maybe you should drop your crazy right-wing friends from rec.boats off your Facebook friends list. :) -- I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work for me. Maybe you need to add a few. :) None of these righties have exhibited the sort of craziness, small-mindedness, racial hatred, and bile of some of the righties here, None on my friends list do either. ....and the only person in the group who made use of the n-word, quite often, was a liberal. Salmonbait -- "That's not a baby kicking, dear Bride, it's just a fetus!" |
Death statistics
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:35:51 -0500, Earl wrote:
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. I would be willing to bet that less than 5% of the homicides committed in Maryland were committed with the types of guns the bill would outlaw. The bill is designed to appease liberals who don't have the sense to see that more wool is being pulled over their eyes. ESAD thinks it's great, not because it will accomplish anything, but because it's being put forth by liberals and some conservatives don't like it. And, that's fine. If all the liberals are in favor of the bill simply because it might **** off a few conservatives, they should go for it. At least they have a reason. The idea that it's going to save a lot of lives is simply bull****. Salmonbait -- "That's not a baby kicking, dear Bride, it's just a fetus!" |
Death statistics
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:04:37 PM UTC-5, 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. Oh sure, so do I. I should have more specific. Eating a whole meal when driving. You know, juggling the burger, fries and milkshake with a knee on the wheel. The other day on my way to work, I was doing 35mph in an active, flashing lights 35mph school zone. County deputy sheriff passed me IN THE ZONE doing 45-50, on his cell phone. Once we got past it to the 55mph stretch, I set my cruise on 60 and slowly passed him, still in the left lane, and still talking on his cell. Figured if he actually stopped me we'd have a calm, but interesting, discussion. |
Death statistics
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:27:45 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/21/13 12:23 PM, wrote: On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:15:44 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: 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. I am finally getting people to admit that talking on the phone is distracting. (hands free or not) One of my neighbors fell in a hole, walking and talking on a hands free. Didn't heed the hole or the cones. He said his mind was on the other end of that call. He says, in retrospect, he did see the cones but it did not register. I can walk and talk on the phone if I am wearing my earbuds and still concentrate on where I am walking. But if I added "chew gum" to that mix, I'd probably step in front of a bus without realizing it. Driving? No. If I have to make a call while in the car, I pull off the road into a safe spot. I don't answer calls while driving, though. I read somewhere that it makes no difference if its hands free or having the phone in your hand... like being drunk. that level of bad. |
Death statistics
In article ,
says... On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:04:37 PM UTC-5, 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. Oh sure, so do I. I should have more specific. Eating a whole meal when driving. You know, juggling the burger, fries and milkshake with a knee on the wheel. The other day on my way to work, I was doing 35mph in an active, flashing lights 35mph school zone. County deputy sheriff passed me IN THE ZONE doing 45-50, on his cell phone. Once we got past it to the 55mph stretch, I set my cruise on 60 and slowly passed him, still in the left lane, and still talking on his cell. Figured if he actually stopped me we'd have a calm, but interesting, discussion. Some of the worst drivers I encounter during rush hour is women putting on makeup. Mirror turned around, not paying one bit of attention. |
Death statistics
|
Death statistics
On 2/21/2013 10:51 PM, thumper wrote:
On 2/21/2013 10:56 AM, wrote: On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:04:37 PM UTC-5, thumper wrote: We agree on something... except I do take a sip of water occasionally. Oh sure, so do I. I should have more specific. Eating a whole meal when driving. You know, juggling the burger, fries and milkshake with a knee on the wheel. The other day on my way to work, I was doing 35mph in an active, flashing lights 35mph school zone. County deputy sheriff passed me IN THE ZONE doing 45-50, on his cell phone. Once we got past it to the 55mph stretch, I set my cruise on 60 and slowly passed him, still in the left lane, and still talking on his cell. Figured if he actually stopped me we'd have a calm, but interesting, discussion. A friend recently described seeing a driver eating a plate full of pancakes from his lap...! Oh well, not since I was a younger man but I have done pretty much anything you can think of in the drivers seat or going down the highway:) Including and not limited to switching seats with the driver of a big rig, while we were doing 70 down 65 out of Valley Forge somewhere heading for Scottsborough Alabama:) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com