Do you think that the NYC fire department would have ordered 343
firefighters into the buildings on 9/11 if they *knew* that they were
"rushing into a collapsing World Trade Center?"


Yeah. I'm sure they looked up at that mass of flame and said, "hey, no
worries, my boss says it's OK."


The NYFD went into the towers to fight the fires and save victims, fully
expecting to succeed in putting the fires out, not to pointlessly
sacrifice
their lives for nothing in a building doomed to imminent collapse.

Well, since you were obviously there...


Your implication that somebody else ought to throw their life away just to
try to pull your sorry ass out of some cleft stick you've stuck it into is
unbelievably arrogant.


And to sit there and and make sure there's no personal risk to you before
you do anything is pathetic.

Would you care to make an ass of yourself again, or have you had enough?

I'll leave that to you, hero.

Scott explains:
=================
In the mandatory liability policy model, when I cause a wreck, my
liability
insurer is liable for the damages, so my company will fight tooth and
nail
to deny the claim, defend me and my actions and place the blame on you,
and
you'll be lucky if you ever see a dime from my liability insurance
policy.
However, if YOU have insurance to protect YOU against harms caused by
others, then YOUR insurance company has to pay off and then try to
extract
compensation from me, or my insurance company. You're much more likely
to
actually get a timely settlement if YOU insure yourself rather than
trusting
to MY insurance company's altruism.
=============

In BC, MY company is YOUR company. You'll only go to court if you don't
like the settlement OUR company offers you (been there, done that). In
the case of most minor bang-ups, there's not much of an issue -- get a
couple of bodyshop quotes, get the isurance company OK and then get the
job done.

in article , BCITORGB at
wrote on 6/23/05 10:55 PM:

Scott explains:
=================
In the mandatory liability policy model, when I cause a wreck, my
liability
insurer is liable for the damages, so my company will fight tooth and
nail
to deny the claim, defend me and my actions and place the blame on you,
and
you'll be lucky if you ever see a dime from my liability insurance
policy.
However, if YOU have insurance to protect YOU against harms caused by
others, then YOUR insurance company has to pay off and then try to
extract
compensation from me, or my insurance company. You're much more likely
to
actually get a timely settlement if YOU insure yourself rather than
trusting
to MY insurance company's altruism.
=============

Scott, you aren't doing much in your campaign to be chosen as a non-idiot.

The rate to insure your car is going to be about $100000000000 given the
insurance company is going to have to spend all their time trying to squeeze
money out of deadbeat idiots driving uninsured cars.

I know the very concept of universal policies scares you to death, but only
an idiot (like yourself) fails to understand that it is necessary and
beneficial in many cases - including - and only an idiot would not see this
- automobile insurance.

The Unreal Franklin wrote:

You make the common mistake of attributing character traits to a person
based on a Usenet debate.

Which means that you actually know ****-all about me. What I know about
you,
however, is that you're a tiny-minded wiper of other people's bottoms who
makes snap judgments and post insulting comments because you're too stupid
to wrap you're puny intellect around the concept of "debate."



Lessee... oh, here it is:


You make the common mistake of attributing character traits to a person
based on a Usenet debate.

Pot...kettle...black.

Oooh, the Civil Air Patrol. Sorrreee, Colonel. I take it all back. Your
compassion is unrelenting. You are the savior of all humanity.

Dude, you haven't lived 'til you've seen Sadder-butt Weiser put his
hands together, making little rings with his thumbs and forefingers,
then rotate his wrists so the rings act like goggles and the rest of
his fingers form an oxygen mask. Then he sings "Junior Birdmen" and
revels in his humanitarianism.

Brings a lump to the throat of every gawd-fearing Merkin.


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
.. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
.. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
.. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
.. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

A Usenet persona calling itself The Unreal Franklin wrote:


You make the common mistake of attributing character traits to a person
based on a Usenet debate.

Which means that you actually know ****-all about me. What I know about
you,
however, is that you're a tiny-minded wiper of other people's bottoms who
makes snap judgments and post insulting comments because you're too stupid
to wrap you're puny intellect around the concept of "debate."



Lessee... oh, here it is:


You make the common mistake of attributing character traits to a person
based on a Usenet debate.

Pot...kettle...black.

Wrong. Your deliberate ad hominem insults were not "debate," they were just
insults, which makes an assessment of your character rather more accurate
and my analysis of it appropriate.


Oooh, the Civil Air Patrol. Sorrreee, Colonel. I take it all back. Your
compassion is unrelenting. You are the savior of all humanity.

Evidently to a much greater extent than you are. BTW, it's Lieutenant, not
Colonel.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself The Unreal Franklin wrote:


Do you think that the NYC fire department would have ordered 343
firefighters into the buildings on 9/11 if they *knew* that they were
"rushing into a collapsing World Trade Center?"


Yeah. I'm sure they looked up at that mass of flame and said, "hey, no
worries, my boss says it's OK."

Non sequitur.



The NYFD went into the towers to fight the fires and save victims, fully
expecting to succeed in putting the fires out, not to pointlessly
sacrifice
their lives for nothing in a building doomed to imminent collapse.

Well, since you were obviously there...

As I said, if you disbelieve me, then why don't you ask the NYFD? Because
you're an ass, that's why, and you know that asking would make you more of
an ass...if that's possible.



Your implication that somebody else ought to throw their life away just to
try to pull your sorry ass out of some cleft stick you've stuck it into is
unbelievably arrogant.


And to sit there and and make sure there's no personal risk to you before
you do anything is pathetic.

Where, exactly, did I say that I'd "make sure there's no personal risk?"
Nowhere, that's where.


Would you care to make an ass of yourself again, or have you had enough?

I'll leave that to you, hero.

Okay, my pleasu You're an ass.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott explains:
=================
In the mandatory liability policy model, when I cause a wreck, my
liability
insurer is liable for the damages, so my company will fight tooth and
nail
to deny the claim, defend me and my actions and place the blame on you,
and
you'll be lucky if you ever see a dime from my liability insurance
policy.
However, if YOU have insurance to protect YOU against harms caused by
others, then YOUR insurance company has to pay off and then try to
extract
compensation from me, or my insurance company. You're much more likely
to
actually get a timely settlement if YOU insure yourself rather than
trusting
to MY insurance company's altruism.
=============

In BC, MY company is YOUR company.

And therein lies the problem.

You'll only go to court if you don't
like the settlement OUR company offers you (been there, done that). In
the case of most minor bang-ups, there's not much of an issue -- get a
couple of bodyshop quotes, get the isurance company OK and then get the
job done.

Yeah, "No fault" seems like a fine thing until you consider that you're
paying WAY more for your no-fault insurance plan than you might have to pay
if you are a good driver and insured through a private company. That's why
Colorado dumped no-fault insurance. My rates went down more than 30% within
six months after they did so.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , BCITORGB at
wrote on 6/23/05 10:55 PM:

Scott explains:
=================
In the mandatory liability policy model, when I cause a wreck, my
liability
insurer is liable for the damages, so my company will fight tooth and
nail
to deny the claim, defend me and my actions and place the blame on you,
and
you'll be lucky if you ever see a dime from my liability insurance
policy.
However, if YOU have insurance to protect YOU against harms caused by
others, then YOUR insurance company has to pay off and then try to
extract
compensation from me, or my insurance company. You're much more likely
to
actually get a timely settlement if YOU insure yourself rather than
trusting
to MY insurance company's altruism.
=============

Scott, you aren't doing much in your campaign to be chosen as a non-idiot.

The rate to insure your car is going to be about $100000000000 given the
insurance company is going to have to spend all their time trying to squeeze
money out of deadbeat idiots driving uninsured cars.

You aren't looking any less idiotic yourself. Do you think money grows on
trees? Even with mandatory liability, the money has to come from somewhere,
and the insurance company that pays is always going to be looking for
someone's hide to take it out of in order to ensure their shareholder's
profit margins. The point of insurance is that the insurer insures large
numbers of people, only some of whom make claims. That's where they make
their profits, not by trying to squeeze money out of deadbeats. If the
person responsible is indeed a deadbeat, they just write off the loss.
Because they have to *compete* for customers (darn that free market model
anyway!) they cannot simply raise the rates because if they do, I'll just
cancel and find another company to insure me at a better rate. This ensures
that I can always get insurance at a reasonable rate if I'm a good driver,
not an inflated rate based on somebody else's bad driving record. And if
you're a rotten driver, then you justifiably can't be insured, and shouldn't
be allowed to drive.

I know the very concept of universal policies scares you to death, but only
an idiot (like yourself) fails to understand that it is necessary and
beneficial in many cases - including - and only an idiot would not see this
- automobile insurance.

Well, except that it's not beneficial to good drivers, it's only beneficial
to socialist leeches, and is entirely unnecessary because any person can
insure themselves against a particular risk for way less money than by
participating in a universal plan that lumps rotten drivers together with
good ones and makes the good ones pay for the bad ones as well. Such
policies, like government health care, makes people careless. If the
government will pay every time you have an accident, and you don't have to
pay any more for insurance as a result, why be careful?

And then there's the social implications of socialized insurance that are as
bad as those of socialized medicine.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

The Unreal Franklin wrote:

You make the common mistake of attributing character traits to a person
based on a Usenet debate.

Which means that you actually know ****-all about me. What I know about
you,
however, is that you're a tiny-minded wiper of other people's bottoms who
makes snap judgments and post insulting comments because you're too stupid
to wrap you're puny intellect around the concept of "debate."



Lessee... oh, here it is:


You make the common mistake of attributing character traits to a person
based on a Usenet debate.

Pot...kettle...black.

Oooh, the Civil Air Patrol. Sorrreee, Colonel. I take it all back. Your
compassion is unrelenting. You are the savior of all humanity.

Dude, you haven't lived 'til you've seen Sadder-butt Weiser put his
hands together, making little rings with his thumbs and forefingers,
then rotate his wrists so the rings act like goggles and the rest of
his fingers form an oxygen mask. Then he sings "Junior Birdmen" and
revels in his humanitarianism.

Brings a lump to the throat of every gawd-fearing Merkin.

How nice of you to denigrate tens of thousands of volunteers who find and
save aircraft accident victims, and have done so since before WWII. How very
respectful and diverse of you.

And all because you're too witless to actually form a cogent argument...

How typical.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 6/24/05 6:09 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , BCITORGB at
wrote on 6/23/05 10:55 PM:

Scott explains:
=================
In the mandatory liability policy model, when I cause a wreck, my
liability
insurer is liable for the damages, so my company will fight tooth and
nail
to deny the claim, defend me and my actions and place the blame on you,
and
you'll be lucky if you ever see a dime from my liability insurance
policy.
However, if YOU have insurance to protect YOU against harms caused by
others, then YOUR insurance company has to pay off and then try to
extract
compensation from me, or my insurance company. You're much more likely
to
actually get a timely settlement if YOU insure yourself rather than
trusting
to MY insurance company's altruism.
=============

Scott, you aren't doing much in your campaign to be chosen as a non-idiot.

The rate to insure your car is going to be about $100000000000 given the
insurance company is going to have to spend all their time trying to squeeze
money out of deadbeat idiots driving uninsured cars.

You aren't looking any less idiotic yourself.

Uh, compared to you, I am the biggest freaking genius of all time.

Do you think money grows on
trees? Even with mandatory liability, the money has to come from somewhere,
and the insurance company that pays is always going to be looking for
someone's hide to take it out of in order to ensure their shareholder's
profit margins. The point of insurance is that the insurer insures large
numbers of people, only some of whom make claims. That's where they make
their profits, not by trying to squeeze money out of deadbeats. If the
person responsible is indeed a deadbeat, they just write off the loss.

The just "write off the loss."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

Do you think money grows on trees? The money has to come from somewhere!

Anyone ever see that episode of Seinfeld where Kramer is explaining
"write-offs" to Jerry? Notice how Scott is playing the role of Kramer almost
perfectly here?

Because they have to *compete* for customers (darn that free market model
anyway!) they cannot simply raise the rates because if they do, I'll just
cancel and find another company to insure me at a better rate. This ensures
that I can always get insurance at a reasonable rate if I'm a good driver,
not an inflated rate based on somebody else's bad driving record. And if
you're a rotten driver, then you justifiably can't be insured, and shouldn't
be allowed to drive.

Your system punishes good drivers by forcing them to pay the skyrocketing
rate that will be necessary to sustain the profit levels of the insurance
company thanks to your idiotic "you don't have to have insurance" policy
which will result in huge numbers of claims where there are uninsured
parties resulting in "writing off the loss" also known as "passing on the
pain to the customer, because the money has to come from somewhere."


I know the very concept of universal policies scares you to death, but only
an idiot (like yourself) fails to understand that it is necessary and
beneficial in many cases - including - and only an idiot would not see this
- automobile insurance.

Well, except that it's not beneficial to good drivers

In fact, it is. It only benefits BAD drivers to remove universality of auto
insurance. How you cannot see this is only further tribute to your idiocy.

it's only beneficial
to socialist leeches, and is entirely unnecessary because any person can
insure themselves against a particular risk for way less money than by
participating in a universal plan that lumps rotten drivers together with
good ones and makes the good ones pay for the bad ones as well.

When the good drivers keep getting hit by the uninsured bad drivers what do
you think happens Scott? You think a system where only good drivers pay
somehow makes it more affordable for the good drivers? What a nut!

Such
policies, like government health care, makes people careless. If the
government will pay every time you have an accident, and you don't have to
pay any more for insurance as a result, why be careful?

ROFL. Yeah, that's the problem, insurance is just too affordable!

And then there's the social implications of socialized insurance that are as
bad as those of socialized medicine.

Neither are as rotten as your rapidly detereorating intellect.