HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

Bill Funk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:01:09 GMT, Rebecca Ore
wrote:

In article ,
Bill Funk wrote:

Mass transit is paid for by the aera the system serves, usually
through taxes.
There's a very big difference between mass transit and the airline
companies.
This is a relatively new way of funding mass transit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport

is more like what I'm talking about.

That may be, but you did say, "mass transit."
Wikipedia is often fine, but when I look up the definition of "mass
transit", I get a different thing than "public transit."
For example, a Google query on "define: mass transit" gets:
========
Definitions of mass transit on the Web:

* Travel by public transportation system such as bus or subway.
commpres.env.state.ma.us/content/glossary.asp

* A term used to describe public transportation facilities and
vehicles such as rapid rail and buses.
http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/dpz/comp...glossary/m.htm

* Public transport comprises all transport systems in which the
passengers do not travel in their own vehicles. It is also called
public transit or mass transit. While it is generally taken to mean
rail and bus services, wider definitions would include scheduled
airline services, ferries, taxicab services etc. — any system that
transports members of the general public.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_transit
========

I know of no one myself who looks at airlines and railroads as mass
transit, though all would agree they are public transportation.
And, paying for mass transit by governments is hardly new; ever hear
of city trolleys?
I would consider ANY form of transport that conveys the general public
in groups larger than can fit in a personal vehicle as 'mass transit'.
How else would one define it?

William Graham wrote:
wrote in message
s.com...

William Graham wrote:

A truck is made for hauling garbage.....A race car is made for
racing....There is no comparison between the two. Go and look at an Indy
racing car. Compare it to your pick-up truck.

Okay, I'm back. Wow, you're right! There is no comparison between my
truck and an Indy race car, other than the fact that they both have
four wheels, a V-8 internal combustion engine that drives the rear
wheels, disk brakes, a steering wheel, racket pinned-on steering
(whatever THAT is) and a seat for the driver, them two ain't got much
o' innythang in common. Why, did you know that Indy car got's sumpin
called a "mono cock"? Hell, it's a wonder they let them lil' ol' girls
drive 'em these days!

It's rack and pinion steering......When you turn your steering wheel, you
turn a pinion gear which is attached to the bottom of the steering
column....This gear moves a rack, which is a flat piece of steel with gear
teeth on it, to the left and right, which is what turns your wheels......

Why, I never! Thanks for the explanation! Now, what do you s'pose
that mono cock design is?

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 03:49:23 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:01:09 GMT, Rebecca Ore
wrote:

In article ,
Bill Funk wrote:

Mass transit is paid for by the aera the system serves, usually
through taxes.
There's a very big difference between mass transit and the airline
companies.
This is a relatively new way of funding mass transit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport

is more like what I'm talking about.

That may be, but you did say, "mass transit."
Wikipedia is often fine, but when I look up the definition of "mass
transit", I get a different thing than "public transit."
For example, a Google query on "define: mass transit" gets:
========
Definitions of mass transit on the Web:

* Travel by public transportation system such as bus or subway.
commpres.env.state.ma.us/content/glossary.asp

* A term used to describe public transportation facilities and
vehicles such as rapid rail and buses.
http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/dpz/comp...glossary/m.htm

* Public transport comprises all transport systems in which the
passengers do not travel in their own vehicles. It is also called
public transit or mass transit. While it is generally taken to mean
rail and bus services, wider definitions would include scheduled
airline services, ferries, taxicab services etc. — any system that
transports members of the general public.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_transit
========

I know of no one myself who looks at airlines and railroads as mass
transit, though all would agree they are public transportation.
And, paying for mass transit by governments is hardly new; ever hear
of city trolleys?
I would consider ANY form of transport that conveys the general public
in groups larger than can fit in a personal vehicle as 'mass transit'.
How else would one define it?

As public transport.
Try looking for a definition of "mass transit".
Other places than Wikipedia, anyway.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 03:41:28 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:25:57 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:58:06 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

As with cars, experience and exposure both go into the rate makeup.
Along with one's credit history (which is insane).
Not as insane as you might think.
There are a *LOT* of people who get insurance when they actually need
it, then just don't pay the premiums.
Until the coverage is dropped for non-payment, coverage remains in
force; often for more than a month.
Any chargable crashes in that time must still be covered by the
insurance company.
The people who do this also, by and large, have poor credit ratings (I
wonder why?).
This is a case of self-fulfilling prophesy. If the price they are
forced (we MUST have insurance here) goes up, then they will have
problems paying, which will then lower their credit score, which
fulfills the prophesy of the insurance company when they can't pay.

If you assume that the people who do this are *forced* to be
dishonest, then we are going to have a problem discussing it.

Who said anything about anyone being dishonest? IN these days, a bad
credit rating can result from a person losing his job, or incurring
excessive expenses due to any number of perfectly legitimate unexpected
situations.

TYhose who buy insurance only to fill a legal need, then refuse to pay
the premiums, and have a crash before the policy is canceled for
non-payment but expect the insurance company to pay out anyway, are
dishonest.
It's called insurance fraud.
And *I* said it was dishonest.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

And lo, Ron Hunter emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
Ron Hunter wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
Ron Hunter wrote:

That's sane?
And if those people are so sane, why do they manage to kill so many of
their fellow men each year? I suppose it depends on how one defines
'sane'.
The per capita murder rate in NYC is actually quite a bit lower than the
per capital murder rate in any number of southern states, but we know
that people in capital punishment state are insane (they all have higher
murder rates than the states without capital punishment).
Perhaps, but they don't do it AGAIN.

Yes, but the State has told its citizens that killing to solve problems
is totally okay. Someone irritates you -- blow them away.

The question is then would these people be even more murderous without
killing a few of them (and even in capital punishment states, very few
people are actually executed)? I assume that without capital
punishment, everyone in Texas would be blasting at everyone else in
Texas.

Nope. You totally miss the point. I consider it very strange that a
state which allows innocent unborn children to be killed for no reason
more significant than convenience, but seems to be horrified at killing
a person who has raped and murdered people. It seems the innocent are
good for killing, but the guilty, are protected. What sense does this make?

If a rapist and murderer were embedded within his mother's womb and
attached to her body for survival, then it would be within the
mother's rights to terminate him. Insofar as these "innocent unborn
children" are not able to survive without that umbilical connection,
that makes them indisputably part of the mother's body and I fail to
see how it should be anyone's decision but hers what becomes of them.

Furthermore, to imply that abortions are performed at the drop of a
hat, and that most women would undergo such an invasive,
uncomfortable, and emotionally difficult procedure for "no reason more
significant than convenience" is presumptuous at best and insulting at
worst. Many abortions are performed with the child's interests in
mind, its mother being unable to care for it, perhaps herself the
victim of a sex crime.

The bottom line is that it is hardly your place, or the place of
stuffy legislators, to tell a woman what she can do with her body, or
what is medically safe for her. It is for a woman and her doctor to
decide. Nobody else.

Legislators do not set laws regarding the amount of radiation that a
person may be exposed to during cancer therapy; those levels are
determined by physicians--scientists. People with knowledge and
experience who have taken a Hippocratic oath.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

And lo, Rebecca Ore emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
In article ,
"William Graham" wrote:

My "excuse" as you put it, is that I just had an eye check up, and got a new
6 year license from the DMV. The fact that I can barely see after dark,
didn't even enter the picture.....that's not my fault. I use the
transportation method chosen for me by the society, and I comply with all
their regulations.....If that is inadequate, then whose fault is that?
Just be advised that there are lots of people like me out there on the
roads, and our number is growing as more and more of us retire and move up
here to Oregon. - If you want to keep your roads safe, then you'd better do
something about us, because we aren't going to go away, and we do have to
get where we are going.

Driving eye exams only show problems under normal lighting conditions.

You should not be driving at night -- and it's just too bad that you
don't live somewhere with decent public transportation.

If Oregon wants to keep its roads safe, they need to take geezers who
can't see in the dark well enough to drive off the roads.

Fact: America's motor vehicle licensing standards are lax at best and
lethal at worst. I have friends who passed the licensing test on the
first try who, in my humble opinion, have no business being in control
of a several thousand pound, explosive container barrelling down the
highway at sixty miles per hour.

Not only do I support more stringent examinations, but I also support
driver re-testing. The idea that someone can pass this examination
when they're 16 years old and continue to drive until they're 85 and
effectively blind is scary.

The reason air travel is so safe (and so much safer than terrestrial
motor vehicle travel) is the strict regulation of its pilots as well
as the capability to automate much of the navigation. Thanks to
autopilot and national and international air traffic control, the
pilot really doesn't have to worry about hitting other planes.
Nevertheless, in today's very competitive atmosphere, you basically
have to be an ex-air force pilot to even think about getting hired by
an airline. Most pilots today are ex-air force pilots with hundreds of
hours of jet fighter experience and flying a 747 is like a joke to
them.

Clearly we cannot afford to train drivers so well.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

William Graham wrote:

"Ken Lucke" wrote in message


You are a scary, arrogant, and thoughtless person, only interested in
what YOU want - from your posts, all that matters to you is that you be
able to get to your music playing gig in Mt Angel, despite the fact
that you admit that you are literally so f%*^$^&ing night blind that
you are a considerable danger to everyone else. Your "freedom" is all
important, even when it starts impinging on the freedom and safety of
others.


And what about the other ten thousand or so of us that retire up here every
year? Are you going to plonk them too? (you idiot)


No, asshat. I'd expect them to excercise some personal responsibility.
Your self serving whine, "It's not MY fault - society made me do it!" is
something I'd expect from a whimpering Feinstein supporter, not a
Limbaugh worshipping blowhard like you. "Buy (me) lights on all the
streets" is no different than that New Orleans welfare queen whining
"Where's MY trailer?!"

Classic Fundyf**k. You talk the talk, but cut and run when the going
gets tough.

--
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece
of paper!" - George W. Bush.

William Graham wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

William Graham wrote:


My "excuse" as you put it, is that I just had an eye check up, and got a
new 6 year license from the DMV. The fact that I can barely see after
dark, didn't even enter the picture.....that's not my fault. I use the
transportation method chosen for me by the society, and I comply with all
their regulations.....If that is inadequate, then whose fault is that?
Just be advised that there are lots of people like me out there on
the roads, and our number is growing as more and more of us retire and
move up here to Oregon. - If you want to keep your roads safe, then you'd
better do something about us, because we aren't going to go away, and we
do have to get where we are going.

Oh *now* you want somebody else to meddle? A bunch of liberal *******s
perhaps?


Meddle? - Is that what you call spending this taxpayers money? - Meddling?
I think I have the right to inform the city fathers that the best way to
prevent accidents is to light our roads at night. - That this is how I
would prefer them to spend my tax dollars.......As far as I know, there
exists no liberal law that prevents me from giving them advice. they may
(and have) ignore it at their own peril.

Here you are self-diagnosed medically incopmetent to drive at night, but
you'll continue to drive at night becasue nobody told you you couldn't.
Even my SO's father, one of the most stubborn people on the planet,
won't drive after dark despite being licenced to do so.

Stop being a hypocrite.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

William Graham wrote:
"Rebecca Ore" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"William Graham" wrote:


My "excuse" as you put it, is that I just had an eye check up, and got a
new
6 year license from the DMV. The fact that I can barely see after dark,
didn't even enter the picture.....that's not my fault. I use the
transportation method chosen for me by the society, and I comply with all
their regulations.....If that is inadequate, then whose fault is that?
Just be advised that there are lots of people like me out there on
the
roads, and our number is growing as more and more of us retire and move
up
here to Oregon. - If you want to keep your roads safe, then you'd better
do
something about us, because we aren't going to go away, and we do have to
get where we are going.

Driving eye exams only show problems under normal lighting conditions.

You should not be driving at night -- and it's just too bad that you
don't live somewhere with decent public transportation.

If Oregon wants to keep its roads safe, they need to take geezers who
can't see in the dark well enough to drive off the roads.


I won't say you are wrong, but how about lighting the roads a little better
to lesson the number of those people? One of the greatest advancements in


Boy that is Liberal with a capital "L". Now that YOU need something you
want the public to pay for it. Tell ya what Mr. Capitalist Rules, hire
yourself a driver and don't expect the long suffering tax payer to
subsidize your driving habits. Get off the road at night.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On 28 Dec 2006 05:02:08 -0800, "
wrote:

Since I'm selling my truck, which is the correct automobile for hauling
my 800 pound Harley FLHXI to the dealer (60 miles away) for regular
service?

Won't it make a 60 mile trip? :-)
Surely the dealer will lend you something to get home on, if he has to
keep yours for a few days? How long does a service take, anyway?