Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon

William Graham wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message

I am not whining about my business costs. I am trying to get the society
to
save its drivers millions and millions of dollars every year that they
are
now giving to insurance companies because those companies have lobbied
to
get laws on the books that allow them to sell liability insurance
policies
to each car, rather than to the drivers who are the ones that incur the
liability.

Oh! You want a nanny state to protect you from the big bad insurance
companies!

No, I just don't want the "nanny state" to force me to give extra money to
the insurance companies,

Since you're not forced to give any money to insurance companies it
would appear that you're whining without cause.

Post a bond to cover any liability and you're free of the insurance
companies. Or simply don't drive a car.

That's what I like about you Ray.....You're always so full of useful
suggestions.......And how exactly is this going to help save the drivers of
this country money?

It isn't.

You can vote republican and end up giving your money to corporations,
or you vote democrat and end up giving your money to the government.

Personally I have no desire to further enrich corporate execs.

In my own case, I have already said that my wife and I
only have two cars, so it is no longer a personal issue with me. If you are
happy with the insurance companies stealing billions of dollars from the

Whine, whine, whine. With your type it's always somebody stealing
something. You seem to think you shouldn't have to pay for anything.

--
Ray Fischer

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:38:28 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:42:33 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:14:14 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


I have nothing against common contracts, and/or regulated contracts.
(whatever you want to call them) I just don't like it when the
government
forces you to only buy these contracts by law. If I want to "take a
chance"
and buy some other contract, then that should be my right. I am forced
by
law to buy a liability policy for each vehicle I own.

So ...? Go out and make enough money to self-insure and you
can write any contract with yourself that you like.

See my answer to Ray above......Ditto to you.

Why? It was a POS answer. You don't like the way insurance
companies treat you and you were given two ways around it.

So you come back with your red herring that the whole
discussion doesn't apply to you. Big ****ing deal then. STFU and quit
bothering people with your silly ass theories on insurance which, in
any case, will not be implemented.

If it's not implemented, it will be because of blind AH's like you who
automatically assume that if that's the way the law reads now, then it has
to be right, because the all knowing, and all good government never screws
anyone.


You dip**** -- quit using that lame-ass red herring on anyone
who disagrees with your position. I don't believe anything is right
just because the law says it's OK. Argue for yourself, not for me.

On 10/29/05 7:52 PM, in article , "Eugene"
wrote:


I do understand that. I grew up in the country myself. Obviously there's
situations where public transport isn't practical or even possible.
However I'm talking about people who live near the city and still refuse
to use public transport simply because they think it's beneath them.


How did you get to be such an excellent judge of the motives
of others?



I don't obviously know everyone's motives, but a lot of people I've
spoken to scoff at the mere suggestion of taking a train or tram rather
than driving. I also know that when I used to take the tram into work
each morning often we'd be stuck for quite a while because of the
congestion of cars on the road, almost all of them with only one person,
and that road was not a road people would use if coming from the outer
suburbs.

Just another little anectdote. I had a another girlfriend once insist
that she drive me home from the city because as she put it "no boyfriend
of mine is going to take a train". I know she was trying to be nice (and
I thanked her accordingly), but at the same time I couldn't help but
feel a little insulted, because I believe very strongly in the public
transport system, and I certainly do not consider myself too good for
it. I know it has problems but most of these problems would go away if
it had more commuters, and therefore more money.

Public transport is a fantastic social leveller, and I think it helps
people to avoid getting to up themselves. Each morning and evening they
have to mix with people from all different social levels. These people
who walk out of their fancy houses and drive their fancy Porsches or
Jaguars to their fancy offices become so detached from the real world
and forget that 99.99 percent of the worlds population can never live
like they do.

Just what we need in this venue - another liberal elitist who forgot or
doesn't care what this venue is about....!

Get back to DSLRs or take this silly discussion elsewhere...just a
suggestion.....

PC

On 10/29/05 7:55 PM, in article , "Eugene"
wrote:


I'm amazed that a liberal is able to actually put himself in someone else's
shoes and think of a reason why a law that forces everyone to live the way
he does might not be the best thing to have.....Congratulations.


Condescending POS.

I thought that previous comment was directed at me? Oh, also I was
talking about the inner city, just the downtown area. I'm not about to
suggest that all private vehicle ownership should be banned or anything.

Noooooo - you think you should have it your way and pay for it with someone
else's money.....

PC

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:38:28 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:42:33 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:14:14 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


I have nothing against common contracts, and/or regulated contracts.
(whatever you want to call them) I just don't like it when the
government
forces you to only buy these contracts by law. If I want to "take a
chance"
and buy some other contract, then that should be my right. I am forced
by
law to buy a liability policy for each vehicle I own.

So ...? Go out and make enough money to self-insure and you
can write any contract with yourself that you like.

See my answer to Ray above......Ditto to you.

Why? It was a POS answer. You don't like the way insurance
companies treat you and you were given two ways around it.

So you come back with your red herring that the whole
discussion doesn't apply to you. Big ****ing deal then. STFU and quit
bothering people with your silly ass theories on insurance which, in
any case, will not be implemented.

If it's not implemented, it will be because of blind AH's like you who
automatically assume that if that's the way the law reads now, then it has
to be right, because the all knowing, and all good government never screws
anyone.


You dip**** -- quit using that lame-ass red herring on anyone
who disagrees with your position. I don't believe anything is right
just because the law says it's OK. Argue for yourself, not for me.

OK......I'm still waiting for your objection to insuring drivers for
liability, instead of cars.
This is the essential question, and I haven't gotten a reasonable answer
from anyone yet......You can do all the hand waving you want, and bring the
discussion down to a personal attack on me, (as you have done) but you still
can't answer the essential question, can you?
Instead of saying, "I don't care", and "You just don't want to pay your
own way, Graham". Why don't you just say, "Yes. Liability insurance should
logically be written on the drivers, and not the vehicles."?

"That_Rich" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:28:36 -0700, "Frank ess"
wrote:

Whether any or all of what you thought up to say is true, I dunno;
however, I have been greatly enriched by travel on public
transportation. Grab a handful of change and always ask for a
transfer. That can keep you on the go for most of a day.

I've found it to be a quick and fruitful way to learn a new city.
Places I have explored using that method include Los Angeles
metropolitan area: Wichita Falls, Texas; Little Ark, Rockinsas;
Shreveport-Bossier City and Nawlins, Louisiana; San
Bernardino-Riverside, California; San Diego, California; Tijuana, Baja
California Norte, Mexico. And a couple of cross-country bus rides
before onboard conveniences.

Several of these cities' bus and trolley riders show up in my photo
files. All the cities show up in my appreciated environments memories.
I don't use public transportation-or any other, for that matter-as
much as I once did, but I wouldn't have missed it for the world, to
hyperbolize a bit.

Frank!

I am truly disappointed that Chicago is not on your list.
The CTA is one of the most efficient public transportation systems on
the planet. Not to mention the fact we have more worthwhile
destinations than most cities.

SSSSSsssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,

RP©

People from less developed countries have noted how rude and selfish
everyone is. Nobody smiles, everyone avoids eye contact. It is a sad state
of affairs. One of the most likely places to be mugged is on a bus. Never
travel on the upper deck unless you are very drunk or as hard as nails. As
for a leveller its not. At least not in the city. A very small woman in a
smart trouser suit came towards me. The path was narrow so i stopped and
got as close to the wall as I called. She muttered very loudly and waved at
me to move further to the wall and practically shoulder barged me further
out the way. She barely came up to my shoulder. Having a name tag and
JESSOPS written across my shoulders meant i behaved myself. Should it
happen now someone would get a lesson in manners.


Out of servile 'mere pleb' uniform in my home town complete strangers
apologise if they bump into me and actually move out the way if i walk
anywhere near them. (I'm 14 stones not too tall and with very short hair).
Even your average tattooed face pierced yob will be polite to me. It seems
everyone has to sit and absorb the negative vibes and partially repressed
bile from other people due to the 'good customer service' phenomenon. Then
on their lunch hour they will leave their comfy office and have a go at
someone in the coffee house or retail establishment and will look for any
excuse to vent their frustrations and demand to see the manager unless they
are treated like absolute royalty.

'hey i didn't pay to have this kind of service'
'actually madam that print cost 25p so actually you did.' If you want a
print that lies absolutely flat without the sligtht curl that comes froma
large roll of paper being unrolled washed heated cut and dried then get it
done lovingly by hand and pay £5 a time.

As for an enriched culture and social experience, nobody wishes to interact
incase 'what you looking at?' is the response followed by having your head
kicked in.

On 10/30/05 8:45 AM, in article
, "William Graham" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:38:28 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:42:33 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:14:14 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


I have nothing against common contracts, and/or regulated contracts.
(whatever you want to call them) I just don't like it when the
government
forces you to only buy these contracts by law. If I want to "take a
chance"
and buy some other contract, then that should be my right. I am forced
by
law to buy a liability policy for each vehicle I own.

So ...? Go out and make enough money to self-insure and you
can write any contract with yourself that you like.

See my answer to Ray above......Ditto to you.

Why? It was a POS answer. You don't like the way insurance
companies treat you and you were given two ways around it.

So you come back with your red herring that the whole
discussion doesn't apply to you. Big ****ing deal then. STFU and quit
bothering people with your silly ass theories on insurance which, in
any case, will not be implemented.

If it's not implemented, it will be because of blind AH's like you who
automatically assume that if that's the way the law reads now, then it has
to be right, because the all knowing, and all good government never screws
anyone.


You dip**** -- quit using that lame-ass red herring on anyone
who disagrees with your position. I don't believe anything is right
just because the law says it's OK. Argue for yourself, not for me.

OK......I'm still waiting for your objection to insuring drivers for
liability, instead of cars.
This is the essential question, and I haven't gotten a reasonable answer
from anyone yet......You can do all the hand waving you want, and bring the
discussion down to a personal attack on me, (as you have done) but you still
can't answer the essential question, can you?
Instead of saying, "I don't care", and "You just don't want to pay your
own way, Graham". Why don't you just say, "Yes. Liability insurance should
logically be written on the drivers, and not the vehicles."?

No - premiums are based on both driver and vehicle.

you've forgotten that the "RISK" you expect the insurance company takes is
based on what they would have to repay in the event of a claim. IF you drive
a car that is more likely to cause more damage, i.e., a Ford GT versus a
Honda Civic, they take that into account since you are likely to cause
higher claims. Same reasoning causes higher premiums for sixteen year olds
driving Corvettes - more likely to cause higher claims. If you are driving
the Honda Civic, your premiums would be lower since you would be less likely
to cause higher claims.

No rocket science involved, it's a matter of statistical probability of risk
and concomitant costs to the insurance company....

PC

Noooooo - you think you should have it your way and pay for it with someone
else's money.....

PC


Huh??

I thought that previous comment was directed at me? Oh, also I was
talking about the inner city, just the downtown area. I'm not about to
suggest that all private vehicle ownership should be banned or anything.


Noooooo - you think you should have it your way and pay for it with someone
else's money.....


I own a vehicle and I pay insurance like everyone else. I just don't
complain about it. I know that there is a real world cost for me having
the privilege of owning a car (yes it's a privilege not a God given
right) and I know this cost has to be recovered somehow.

Just what we need in this venue - another liberal elitist who forgot or
doesn't care what this venue is about....!

Get back to DSLRs or take this silly discussion elsewhere...just a
suggestion.....


Point taken. My appologies people, my comments were way off topic.