HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
arguements about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased
insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics.
Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people
ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
as a motorcycle rider's.

However, the more important question is how many major accidents
result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
motorcycle accidents.

FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
injuries in cars
than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car, you
are
simply asking for it!




I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles in
as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other protective
gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of their fertile
family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a handgun is in
the saddlebag.


Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I
know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective
of most people I have meet.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
arguements about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased
insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion
that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational
that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should
also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety"
statistics.
Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people
ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
as a motorcycle rider's.

However, the more important question is how many major accidents
result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
motorcycle accidents.

FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
injuries in cars
than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car,
you are
simply asking for it!




I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles in
as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other protective
gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of their
fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a
handgun is in the saddlebag.


Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I
know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective
of most people I have meet.


Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
arguements about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased
insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion
that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational
that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should
also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety"
statistics.
Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people
ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
as a motorcycle rider's.

However, the more important question is how many major accidents
result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
motorcycle accidents.

FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
injuries in cars
than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car,
you are
simply asking for it!




I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles
in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other
protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of
their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a
handgun is in the saddlebag.


Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints,
I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not
reflective of most people I have meet.


Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.

What makes someone a responsible righties?

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
arguements about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased
insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the
opinion that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational
that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets
should also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons,
but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety"
statistics.
Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people
ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
as a motorcycle rider's.

However, the more important question is how many major accidents
result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
motorcycle accidents.

FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
injuries in cars
than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car,
you are
simply asking for it!




I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles
in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other
protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one
of their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make
sure a handgun is in the saddlebag.


Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints,
I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not
reflective of most people I have meet.


Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.

What makes someone a responsible righties?



You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head
between your knees and looking up.

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
arguements about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased
insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the
opinion that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational
that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets
should also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of
reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety"
statistics.
Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people
ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
as a motorcycle rider's.

However, the more important question is how many major accidents
result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
motorcycle accidents.

FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
injuries in cars
than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car,
you are
simply asking for it!




I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles
in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other
protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one
of their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make
sure a handgun is in the saddlebag.


Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While
I disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious
viewpoints, I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you
are not reflective of most people I have meet.


Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other
responsible righties here.

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.

What makes someone a responsible righties?



You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head
between your knees and looking up.

Harry,
I just want to join the club of responsible righties, and was wondering
what the membership requirements are.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
arguements about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and
increased insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the
opinion that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational
that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets
should also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for
motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of
reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety"
statistics.
Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of
people ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the
same
as a motorcycle rider's.

However, the more important question is how many major accidents
result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
motorcycle accidents.

FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
injuries in cars
than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a
car, you are
simply asking for it!




I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their
motorcycles in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets
or other protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at
least one of their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh.
And make sure a handgun is in the saddlebag.


Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While
I disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious
viewpoints, I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you
are not reflective of most people I have meet.


Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other
responsible righties here.

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.

What makes someone a responsible righties?



You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head
between your knees and looking up.

Harry,
I just want to join the club of responsible righties, and was wondering
what the membership requirements are.



You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head
between your knees and looking up.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:15:18 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
arguements about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased
insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion
that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational
that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should
also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety"
statistics.
Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people
ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
as a motorcycle rider's.

However, the more important question is how many major accidents
result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
motorcycle accidents.

FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
injuries in cars
than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car,
you are
simply asking for it!




I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles
in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other
protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of
their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a
handgun is in the saddlebag.


Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints,
I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not
reflective of most people I have meet.


Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.

What makes someone a responsible righties?

Not disagreeing with Harry. And, never trying to correct his behavior
although jumping quickly on the same behavior by others.
--
John H

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints,
I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not
reflective of most people I have meet.


Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.

What is your definition of a "responsible rightie?"

Why are you afraid of calling out SWS and Eisboch when they express the
same views as others that you choose to attack because of their same views?

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints,
I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not
reflective of most people I have meet.


Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.

What is your definition of a "responsible rightie?"

Why are you afraid of calling out SWS and Eisboch when they express the
same views as others that you choose to attack because of their same views?

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.


You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head
between your knees and looking up.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I
know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective
of most people I have meet.


Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.

What is your definition of a "responsible rightie?"

Why are you afraid of calling out SWS and Eisboch when they express the
same views as others that you choose to attack because of their same
views?

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.


You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head between
your knees and looking up.

That'd be an inprovement from what greets him in the mirror every morning!