a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Steve House" wrote in message
...

Similarly further expanding the law to
now include same sex couples is exactly the same process. Contrary to
the desires of social conservatives to live in the never-existant
mythological land portrayed by Norman Rockwell, society evolves. We
can learn to recognize when traditional values perpetuate injustice
and can take steps to redefine the formal matrix of society in order
to correct them. Laws that include same-sex marriage on an equal
footing with opposite sex marriage in every respect reflect social
institutions evolving to be more inclusive and humane. Societies that
do not continue to evolve, die out.

chuckle

"Die out," indeed. What do you suppose would happen to any society in
which all "marriages" were same-sex?


Are you saying that procreation can only occur in a marriage?

Hardly. Are you saying that illegitimacy would still be as much of a
problem in a completely homosexual society? How would that work, exactly?
Parthenogenesis?



Did I ever say illegitimacy is a problem, in a procreational context?

You didn't. I acknowledged that it is.


Why do you think is it a problem, anyway?.

Nearly 40% of children born in the U.S. today are born out of wedlock. Among
blacks, it's over 70%. If you don't see that as a problem you just aren't
paying attention.


I was simply pointing out that homosexual marriage will not, by itself,
decrease our population.

It would if it became a standard, as conventional marriage has been for
millennia. Do you really believe homosexuals who "marry" would then look for
opposite-sex illicit sex partners just to keep the population up? How noble
and patriotic of them if they did, but the likelihood is vanishingly small.
Married people who look for sex outside of that institution are generally
just interested in the sex, not boosting the population, and homosexuals for
the most part have little if any interest in the opposite sex.

There are many other ways do to that. Wars, disease, etc.

Wars usually do not depopulate countries in any meaningful sort of way. Low
national birthrates do. In virtually all European countries today (I think
Greece is an exception, and perhaps Albania if you consider that European)
the birthrate is below subsistence level, i.e. too low to maintain the
population. It's a major reason for the continuing influx of non-Europeans.

On Sat, 15 May 2010 22:54:47 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Steve House" wrote in message
...

Similarly further expanding the law to
now include same sex couples is exactly the same process. Contrary to
the desires of social conservatives to live in the never-existant
mythological land portrayed by Norman Rockwell, society evolves. We
can learn to recognize when traditional values perpetuate injustice
and can take steps to redefine the formal matrix of society in order
to correct them. Laws that include same-sex marriage on an equal
footing with opposite sex marriage in every respect reflect social
institutions evolving to be more inclusive and humane. Societies that
do not continue to evolve, die out.

chuckle

"Die out," indeed. What do you suppose would happen to any society in
which all "marriages" were same-sex?


Are you saying that procreation can only occur in a marriage?

Hardly. Are you saying that illegitimacy would still be as much of a
problem in a completely homosexual society? How would that work, exactly?
Parthenogenesis?



Did I ever say illegitimacy is a problem, in a procreational context?

You didn't. I acknowledged that it is.


Why do you think is it a problem, anyway?.

Nearly 40% of children born in the U.S. today are born out of wedlock. Among
blacks, it's over 70%. If you don't see that as a problem you just aren't
paying attention.


I was simply pointing out that homosexual marriage will not, by itself,
decrease our population.

It would if it became a standard, as conventional marriage has been for
millennia. Do you really believe homosexuals who "marry" would then look for
opposite-sex illicit sex partners just to keep the population up? How noble
and patriotic of them if they did, but the likelihood is vanishingly small.
Married people who look for sex outside of that institution are generally
just interested in the sex, not boosting the population, and homosexuals for
the most part have little if any interest in the opposite sex.

There are many other ways do to that. Wars, disease, etc.

Wars usually do not depopulate countries in any meaningful sort of way. Low
national birthrates do. In virtually all European countries today (I think
Greece is an exception, and perhaps Albania if you consider that European)
the birthrate is below subsistence level, i.e. too low to maintain the
population. It's a major reason for the continuing influx of non-Europeans.


You're worried about population decrease on the planet? There were 5
billion people on the planet just 30 years ago. Today there's over 7
billion people and that rate is increasing exponentially. Every last
problem we face today is due to overpopulation of the earth. Homosexual
marriage will only help the survival of the species by bringing numbers
down that are more in balance with available natural resources. If not then
nature will have to devise another way to reduce reproduction rates in
ignorant and selfishly overbreeding heterosexuals, by making heterosexuals
either sterile, or more preferably dead.

****, are you ever living in the 12th century. I bet you still light your
lamps with seal and whale oil.

In message , Neil
Harrington writes

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Steve House" wrote in message
...
I was simply pointing out that homosexual marriage will not, by itself,
decrease our population.

It would if it became a standard, as conventional marriage has been for
millennia.

There is no such thing as a "conventional Marriage" as you describe it.
For several millennia as I showed with some 20+ references (and it was
only 20 because I though that would be enough and could not be bothered
to do any more) some days (weeks?) ago is two *OR MORE* people of one or
more sexes in some sort of union.

There have been same sex and multiple (same or mixed sex) partner
marriages for as long as history has been recorded. One man to one woman
whilst the most common form of marriage (not counting the serial
marriage/divorce/marriage/ divorcee) cycle) Same sex and multiple
partner marriages/unions are not and never have been uncommon in almost
every society.

It is YOU, Neil, who are artificially restricting what marriage is by
equivocation and ignoring any evidence you don't like.

Do you really believe homosexuals who "marry" would then look for
opposite-sex illicit sex partners just to keep the population up?

Not "just to keep the population up" but certainly to have children. It
is quite common for Lesbian couples to have children either by
artificial insemination or "one night stands".

It is more problematical for Gays to have children where one is the
natural father as this requires a female to give birth and therefore
giving legal complications. However many Gays do adopt children, some
technically have female partners (often lesbians) for a while to get
children.

On the other hand permitting Gay marriage is going to have a ZERO effect
on the population. Gay "marriages" or certainly civil unions and
informal partnerships are de facto now and permitting formal gay
marriages will change nothing as regards the population.


How noble
and patriotic of them if they did,

What has patriotic go to do with it?


You do have to remember that Neil lives in a fantasy world. Last week he
told some one who was at a NATO meeting that both the meeting did not
happen and that the Neil know more about the technology than some on who
had documentary evidence he was there (and Neil was not) and had
multiple independent and evidence to back him up... but Neil knew
better. Despite not being involved at all but having read a couple of
books.

Neil also ignored the large number of references I found for same sex
marriages across the world spanning some 5,000 years. It is hardly
worth arguing with him until he gets his medication sorted out and he
comes back to the real world.

What with Harrington and PAilin I am beginning to think Alaska is one
large asylum where the USA puts the real lunatics.



--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , Phil H Armonick
writes
On Sat, 15 May 2010 22:54:47 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Steve House" wrote in message
...

Similarly further expanding the law to
now include same sex couples is exactly the same process. Contrary to
the desires of social conservatives to live in the never-existant
mythological land portrayed by Norman Rockwell, society evolves. We
can learn to recognize when traditional values perpetuate injustice
and can take steps to redefine the formal matrix of society in order
to correct them. Laws that include same-sex marriage on an equal
footing with opposite sex marriage in every respect reflect social
institutions evolving to be more inclusive and humane. Societies that
do not continue to evolve, die out.

chuckle

"Die out," indeed. What do you suppose would happen to any society in
which all "marriages" were same-sex?


Are you saying that procreation can only occur in a marriage?

Hardly. Are you saying that illegitimacy would still be as much of a
problem in a completely homosexual society? How would that work, exactly?
Parthenogenesis?



Did I ever say illegitimacy is a problem, in a procreational context?

You didn't. I acknowledged that it is.


Why do you think is it a problem, anyway?.

Nearly 40% of children born in the U.S. today are born out of wedlock. Among
blacks, it's over 70%. If you don't see that as a problem you just aren't
paying attention.


I was simply pointing out that homosexual marriage will not, by itself,
decrease our population.

It would if it became a standard, as conventional marriage has been for
millennia. Do you really believe homosexuals who "marry" would then look for
opposite-sex illicit sex partners just to keep the population up? How noble
and patriotic of them if they did, but the likelihood is vanishingly small.
Married people who look for sex outside of that institution are generally
just interested in the sex, not boosting the population, and homosexuals for
the most part have little if any interest in the opposite sex.

There are many other ways do to that. Wars, disease, etc.

Wars usually do not depopulate countries in any meaningful sort of way. Low
national birthrates do. In virtually all European countries today (I think
Greece is an exception, and perhaps Albania if you consider that European)
the birthrate is below subsistence level, i.e. too low to maintain the
population. It's a major reason for the continuing influx of non-Europeans.


You're worried about population decrease on the planet? There were 5
billion people on the planet just 30 years ago. Today there's over 7
billion people and that rate is increasing exponentially. Every last
problem we face today is due to overpopulation of the earth. Homosexual
marriage will only help the survival of the species by bringing numbers
down that are more in balance with available natural resources. If not then
nature will have to devise another way to reduce reproduction rates in
ignorant and selfishly overbreeding heterosexuals, by making heterosexuals
either sterile, or more preferably dead.

****, are you ever living in the 12th century. I bet you still light your
lamps with seal and whale oil.

You do have to remember that Neil lives in a fantasy world. Last week he
told some one who was at a NATO meeting that both the meeting did not
happen and that the Neil know more about the technology than some on who
had published documentary evidence he was there (and Neil was not) and
had multiple independent and evidence to back him up... but Neil knew
better. Despite not being involved at all but having read a couple of
books.

Neil also ignored the large number of references I found for same sex
marriages across the world spanning some 5,000 years. It is hardly
worth arguing with him until he gets his medication sorted out and he
comes back to the real world.

What with Harrington and Palin I am beginning to think Alaska is one
large asylum where the USA puts the real lunatics.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:45:47 +0100, Chris H wrote:


What with Harrington and Palin I am beginning to think Alaska is one
large asylum where the USA puts the real lunatics.

If only that were true. The USA tends to spread them out equally amongst
all the states. This gives everyone the false perception that this level of
mental illness is "the norm". The number of Alaskan representatives only
making it more visible on the news due to the severity of their illness.
Floridians are next on the list of highest-per-capita of mentally deranged.
Partially due to how many who are senile that migrate to a warmer climate
to retire there (during their pre-senility phase).

Driving in Florida is an interesting experience. If you don't spot at least
3-5 motor vehicles per day parked on sidewalks, medians, and other areas
clearly delineated as greenery; because someone who is senile doesn't even
know how they got there; then consider yourself lucky. The rate of this
occurrence increasing with the amount of rainfall. For some bizarre reason
Floridians do not cope well with rainfall and motor vehicles. During any
rain you will find an accident at every 3rd intersection. Surprisingly too,
the rate of accidents on perfectly straight roads with no hills nor valleys
(as mild as they are everywhere in FL), during rainfall is even higher than
that on roads riddled with intersections. Perhaps the old and senile fall
asleep from their medication while driving on a boring straight and
intersectionless roads.

I strongly suspect that Neil has had his own share of "how did my car get
here?" experiences for the last few years, no matter what state of the USA
he lives in. It would fit (justify) all his other words.

"Phil H Armonick" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 May 2010 22:54:47 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Steve House" wrote in message
...

Similarly further expanding the law to
now include same sex couples is exactly the same process. Contrary
to
the desires of social conservatives to live in the never-existant
mythological land portrayed by Norman Rockwell, society evolves. We
can learn to recognize when traditional values perpetuate injustice
and can take steps to redefine the formal matrix of society in order
to correct them. Laws that include same-sex marriage on an equal
footing with opposite sex marriage in every respect reflect social
institutions evolving to be more inclusive and humane. Societies
that
do not continue to evolve, die out.

chuckle

"Die out," indeed. What do you suppose would happen to any society in
which all "marriages" were same-sex?


Are you saying that procreation can only occur in a marriage?

Hardly. Are you saying that illegitimacy would still be as much of a
problem in a completely homosexual society? How would that work,
exactly?
Parthenogenesis?



Did I ever say illegitimacy is a problem, in a procreational context?

You didn't. I acknowledged that it is.


Why do you think is it a problem, anyway?.

Nearly 40% of children born in the U.S. today are born out of wedlock.
Among
blacks, it's over 70%. If you don't see that as a problem you just aren't
paying attention.


I was simply pointing out that homosexual marriage will not, by itself,
decrease our population.

It would if it became a standard, as conventional marriage has been for
millennia. Do you really believe homosexuals who "marry" would then look
for
opposite-sex illicit sex partners just to keep the population up? How
noble
and patriotic of them if they did, but the likelihood is vanishingly
small.
Married people who look for sex outside of that institution are generally
just interested in the sex, not boosting the population, and homosexuals
for
the most part have little if any interest in the opposite sex.

There are many other ways do to that. Wars, disease, etc.

Wars usually do not depopulate countries in any meaningful sort of way.
Low
national birthrates do. In virtually all European countries today (I think
Greece is an exception, and perhaps Albania if you consider that European)
the birthrate is below subsistence level, i.e. too low to maintain the
population. It's a major reason for the continuing influx of
non-Europeans.


You're worried about population decrease on the planet?

Hardly!

There were 5
billion people on the planet just 30 years ago. Today there's over 7
billion people and that rate is increasing exponentially.

Exactly. It is encouraging to see you stumble into an actual, correct
observation, however accidentally. I suppose this is yet another example of
the old saying, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

Every last
problem we face today is due to overpopulation of the earth.

Well, no. Overpopulation is a severe and growing problem, but hardly the
cause of "every last problem we face today."

Homosexual
marriage will only help the survival of the species by bringing numbers
down that are more in balance with available natural resources.

guffaw!

"Homosexual marriage" (by which you mean same-sex marriage, I presume) would
do THAT? I'd be all for it if that were the case. It isn't.

Remember that 7 billion you were just complaining about? They aren't here in
the U.S., or Canada, or Europe. Europeans as I've already mentioned are
gradually dying out, as far as western culture is concerned. Their birth
rate is already too low to sustain their population numbers. And they are
NOT a significant part of the overpopulation problem.

Where is the exponential population growth occurring? Mostly in the third
world, in Asia and Africa. Here in the western hemisphere, in countries such
as the almost-all-African Haiti, where girls typically become sexually
active by age 12 and on average have about four children. This is why
Haiti's population has exploded to 10 million, an increase of about three
million in just the last decade.

If not then
nature will have to devise another way to reduce reproduction rates in
ignorant and selfishly overbreeding heterosexuals, by making heterosexuals
either sterile, or more preferably dead.

Oh, so you're a Mother Nature worshipper. Well, maybe you ought to pray to
the old slattern to get started on Haiti and do something about all those
"selfishly overbreeding heterosexuals" there, because she seems to have
fallen down on the job.

Meanwhile, think about how you're going to adapt to the increasing
Islamicization of the west. THEY don't brook any such nonsense as same-sex
"marriage" you know, and may cut your head off just for mentioning the idea.
And unlike us of western culture, their populations are steadily and rapidly
increasing. Better prepare to explain yourself to your neighborhood mullah.
Don't forget to touch the carpet with your forehead when you kneel and bow
down (WAY down is the rule).

On Sun, 16 May 2010 09:06:19 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


Remember that 7 billion you were just complaining about? They aren't here in
the U.S., or Canada, or Europe. Europeans as I've already mentioned are
gradually dying out, as far as western culture is concerned. Their birth
rate is already too low to sustain their population numbers. And they are
NOT a significant part of the overpopulation problem.

OH! I get it! You're a racist bigot ****head born from some ignorant ****!
Now it all makes sense.

On Sun, 16 May 2010 05:18:39 -0500, Phil H Armonick
wrote:

Driving in Florida is an interesting experience. If you don't spot at least
3-5 motor vehicles per day parked on sidewalks, medians, and other areas
clearly delineated as greenery; because someone who is senile doesn't even
know how they got there; then consider yourself lucky. The rate of this
occurrence increasing with the amount of rainfall. For some bizarre reason
Floridians do not cope well with rainfall and motor vehicles. During any
rain you will find an accident at every 3rd intersection. Surprisingly too,
the rate of accidents on perfectly straight roads with no hills nor valleys
(as mild as they are everywhere in FL), during rainfall is even higher than
that on roads riddled with intersections. Perhaps the old and senile fall
asleep from their medication while driving on a boring straight and
intersectionless roads.


Where is this "Florida" of which you speak? I've lived in two
midwestern states and in Florida for over 30 years. Florida drivers,
on-average, are no better or worse than drivers from other states.

Driving in the Miami area is a frightening and dangerous experience.
Road rage is common, and often results in gunfire. Driving in
southwest Florida is frustrating, but it's the northern tourists who
are the problem. Tampa and Jacksonville drive the drivers up the
wall, but that's because the road system was planned by drunken
monkeys.

Many accidents happen in the rain, but that's because rain is frequent
and unexpected during certain times of the year. Older drivers in
cities like St Petersburg and around The Villages can be a problem,
but a less dangerous problem than young crotch rocket motorcyclists.

I've traveled around the US extensively on business and rate Boston
drivers as the absolute worst in the US. Entering a rotary in Boston
is akin to driving a bumper car in a kamikaze pilot training school.
Driving anywhere in Washington DC is difficult since no one knows
where they are going or how to get there because of the way the
streets veer off. Los Angeles isn't bad if you stay off the freeways,
but you can't get off the freeways once you are on them.

Some Floridians may park on sidewalks, but in Baltimore and
Philadelphia drivers unable to park simply abandon their cars in the
middle of a busy street when they go to some store to do business.

NYC expressways can be hazardous, but that's because you have to weave
around disabled vehicles being stripped by vandals. Then there's the
cab drivers who stop to let their goats graze in the median or get
distracted by a chicken flopping around the front seat.

Chicago's OK if you avoid Lake Shore Drive and the Dan Ryan, but the
smaller streets can be a problem if everyone is moving their cars at
the same time from the snow removal side to the other side. This can
be just as serious a problem in August as it is in February because
the parking rules stay in effect.

While Boston may have the worst drivers when they're home, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and all of Canada send their worst drivers to
Florida in huge RVs to clog our highways. That wreck you saw was
caused by some motorist who finally got tired of following an RV going
40 in a 55 zone on a two-lane road for 27 miles and finally zoomed out
in a no passing zone.






--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris H"
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 5:44 AM
Subject: a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)


In message , Neil
Harrington writes

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Steve House" wrote in message
...
I was simply pointing out that homosexual marriage will not, by itself,
decrease our population.

It would if it became a standard, as conventional marriage has been for
millennia.

There is no such thing as a "conventional Marriage" as you describe it.

Eh? What color is the sky on your world?

For several millennia as I showed with some 20+ references (and it was
only 20 because I though that would be enough and could not be bothered

I did read the first two or three of your "references" and found them
essentially worthless. You seem to believe that lacking a SINGLE GOOD
reference to support your position, you can make up for the lack by throwing
in 20 junk ones. That does not work.

to do any more) some days (weeks?) ago is two *OR MORE* people of one or
more sexes in some sort of union.

There have been same sex and multiple (same or mixed sex) partner
marriages for as long as history has been recorded. One man to one woman
whilst the most common form of marriage (not counting the serial
marriage/divorce/marriage/ divorcee) cycle) Same sex and multiple
partner marriages/unions are not and never have been uncommon in almost
every society.

Then you should have not the slightest trouble in supplying a SINGLE GOOD
reference in English showing this to be true. Yet evidently you cannot. I
asked you to and got no reply at all.

I am neither interested in nor impressed by the rantings of some pot-smoking
dingbats or Laputian academics no one has ever heard of. Just show me
something in English about any historical same-sex "marriage" among
English-speaking peoples anywhere, at any time, written by an established
author that people have actually heard of. By all means include works of
fiction, if you like. Anything in the writings of Dickens, Thackeray, Hardy,
Swift, Marlowe or Shakespeare? If as you claim same-sex marriages "are not
and never have been uncommon in almost every society," then surely among all
those millions of words there must be some reference to it showing it as a
common practice.

Please do not continue to try to muddy the issue by bringing in "multiple
partner marriages/unions" blah blah blah. There is no question whatever
about men having multiple wives in various cultures -- everyone knows this
and no one disputes it. That has nothing to do with your claims about
same-sex marriage, which is the ONLY issue we're discussing here.



It is YOU, Neil, who are artificially restricting what marriage is by
equivocation and ignoring any evidence you don't like.

Do you really believe homosexuals who "marry" would then look for
opposite-sex illicit sex partners just to keep the population up?

Not "just to keep the population up" but certainly to have children. It
is quite common for Lesbian couples to have children either by
artificial insemination or "one night stands".

I doubt it. There are a lot of celebrity lesbians and I haven't heard of any
one of them actually giving birth. They always seem to acquire "their"
children by adoption.


It is more problematical for Gays to have children where one is the
natural father as this requires a female to give birth and therefore
giving legal complications. However many Gays do adopt children, some
technically have female partners (often lesbians) for a while to get
children.

On the other hand permitting Gay marriage is going to have a ZERO effect
on the population. Gay "marriages" or certainly civil unions and
informal partnerships are de facto now and permitting formal gay
marriages will change nothing as regards the population.

Yes. Most homosexuals don't produce children, excepting of course those who
become homosexual later in life and who already have had children. There are
quite a few of those -- which rather upsets the popular homosexual claim
that the sexual preference is something you're "born with" and "can't be
changed."



How noble
and patriotic of them if they did,

What has patriotic go to do with it?

The idea of keeping their country's birth rate up. As I mentioned, that's a
continuing problem in almost all of Europe.



You do have to remember that Neil lives in a fantasy world. Last week he
told some one who was at a NATO meeting that both the meeting did not
happen and that the Neil know more about the technology than some on who
had documentary evidence he was there (and Neil was not) and had
multiple independent and evidence to back him up... but Neil knew
better. Despite not being involved at all but having read a couple of
books.

What on earth are you talking about? What NATO meeting? Before yesterday I
hadn't even visited this NG for a week.


Neil also ignored the large number of references I found for same sex
marriages across the world spanning some 5,000 years. It is hardly

Again: As I recall them (which admittedly is dimly) your "references" were
worthless. A "large number" of worthless references is still worthless. It's
like multiplying by zero, you see.

worth arguing with him until he gets his medication sorted out and he
comes back to the real world.

What with Harrington and PAilin I am beginning to think Alaska is one
large asylum where the USA puts the real lunatics.

What has Alaska to do with anything? This is beyond your usual fuzzy
thinking, Chris. You're becoming really rather weird. Maybe "one large
asylum" is something you should be looking into, at that.

On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:22:18 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

Older drivers in
cities like St Petersburg and around The Villages can be a problem,
but a less dangerous problem than young crotch rocket motorcyclists.

There's no such thing as "young crotch rocket motorcyclists" in Florida.
Every last person I saw on a motorcycle in Florida looked to be well over
65 years old. I suspect that's where bikers go to die because they can ride
there year-round until they do. Funniest thing in the world is to see a
large group of bikers in the distance, you think it's a bunch of rugged
guys with their trophy-bitches on back. Then as they get near there's
nothing but gray and white beards and hair flying, or bald glinting in the
sun. Some with their canes strapped to the sides of their bikes (no lie). I
laughed the first few times I saw this, then it became just an ordinary
grin-worthy spectacle. More power to 'em, I guess! But I'd rather die on
some precarious mountain-pass before that age on a bike. Seeing that
spectacle is like seeing someone's great-grandmother trying to wear a thong
or string-bikini. There's just some things you shouldn't do out in public
after a certain age. Riding motorcycles and trying to look young and macho
is one of them. Then too they probably shouldn't even bother wearing
leathers. There's not a whole lot of difference between where their leather
vests end and their arms and necks start.