Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon

ian lincoln wrote:
wrote in message

Not a chance -- he'd rather stay home and bitch about the
lousy care, then have mommy make one call so he can jump to the head
of the line ahead of those less fortunate or less well-connected.

Mama's boy does just fine where he is. Too bad someone else
had to get stiffed so he could have his comfort. And then consider it
his "right" by virtue of his wealth. Self-obsessed pansy.

I sense the green eyed monster at work. Don't expect me to believe
for a second that you wouldn't have done the same in a heart beat
should the opportunity arise.

What a nice thing to only notice "kashe" in echoes from the kill-file...

ian lincoln wrote:
"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...

In article , William Graham
writes

"ian lincoln" wrote in message
.uk...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:wdidnas0Ab_16MjenZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast .com...
of course the

license plates are another 250$ per year. And so on...

Well, I left California just as soon as possible after I retired, and
I
didn't go to Quebec....:^) - I went to Oregon, where we don't have any
sales taxes, and the vehicle registration fees were $15 a year,
regardless of what you drove. Since then, however, they have
arbitrarily
raised the DMV fees to about $28 a year,

Ha try £161 a year.


Well, at least that's "fixed", regardless of what you drive. In
California,
it varies with the price of the automobile.....IOW, it's a property tax.
So,
if you collect Hasselblads, you pay no property tax, but if you collect
automobiles, they stick it to you every year. This has nothing to do with
wear and tear on the roads, since a new Ferrari puts a lot less wear on
them, and has a lot less pollution than a 20 year old clunker. The
unfairness of this seems only apparent to us conservatives.........



It also seems to me unfair in that a single person is not going to put
more wear on the roads whether he has one car or 20.

David


Now you are going to get me off on my liability insurance rant....That's
where I thrash the insurance companies for charging for a separate
liability insurance policy on each car, even though those cars are parked
while you drive only one at a time.


Haven't got a wife, girfriend, kids of driving age?




Then let their personal driver policy cover them. Calling it an auto
policy is a misnomer, it doesn't cover the vehicle, it covers the driver
while they're driving whichever car they borrow. Auto insurance is one
of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on Americans, with mandated
coverage a gift to the insurance lobby.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:19:29 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:


Paul Bielec wrote:

RobGN wrote:

Jennifer,

I sympathize with you on your frustration on your job; my sister-in-law
is a nurse in Ottawa and I hear her complain about the shortages
constantly.

However, I must mention that our healthcare system, with all its
faults, has one advantage we cannot take for granted: Should anyone of
us have a serious accident which would cause us to be hospitalized, our
healthcare system pays for our stay, our Doctors, our Therapists, our
Nurses, our medications while in hospital. I cannot imagine the cost I
would have had to incure when I was involved in a highway accident last
winter and was in the hospital for 3 weeks.

Jennifer, yours is a wonderful job.

I live in Quebec.

I needed a shoulder surgery. The waiting list for this type of surgery
is months, if not a year or two. One call my mother made to a doctor we
know and I had it done within a month. With the amount of taxes I pay
because of my high income, I'm in a my right to expect this level of
services without having contacts.

Drive across the border with $30,000 in your checking account.

You can get all the service you want.

What? You don't want to pay $30,000? Then wait.


Not a chance -- he'd rather stay home and bitch about the
lousy care, then have mommy make one call so he can jump to the head
of the line ahead of those less fortunate or less well-connected.

Mama's boy does just fine where he is. Too bad someone else
had to get stiffed so he could have his comfort. And then consider it
his "right" by virtue of his wealth. Self-obsessed pansy.


What's wrong with one using one's resources to maximize one's
opportunities for improved health, comfort, or even survival? Is
financial wealth somehow expected to include a some measure of social
guilt? Being financially able to afford a better car, house or school
is acceptable, but being financially able to afford better health care
isn't?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:55:02 -0500, Jer wrote:



Then let their personal driver policy cover them. Calling it an auto
policy is a misnomer, it doesn't cover the vehicle, it covers the driver
while they're driving whichever car they borrow. Auto insurance is one
of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on Americans, with mandated
coverage a gift to the insurance lobby.

I've often thought the same thing - my wife and I have seven vehicles
between us, and I'm charged liability premiums for all of them all the
time, even though we can physically only have two of them on the road
at any given moment.

Having more vehicles doesn't mean that I drive more miles in a given
year - it just means that I have more choices when I go out to the
garage in the morning. So why am I paying more money in liability
premiums than a household that only has one vehicle per person?


--
Scott Gardner

"Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian". - Lee Simonson

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:20:52 -0500, Jer wrote:


Not a chance -- he'd rather stay home and bitch about the
lousy care, then have mommy make one call so he can jump to the head
of the line ahead of those less fortunate or less well-connected.

Mama's boy does just fine where he is. Too bad someone else
had to get stiffed so he could have his comfort. And then consider it
his "right" by virtue of his wealth. Self-obsessed pansy.


What's wrong with one using one's resources to maximize one's
opportunities for improved health, comfort, or even survival? Is
financial wealth somehow expected to include a some measure of social
guilt? Being financially able to afford a better car, house or school
is acceptable, but being financially able to afford better health care
isn't?

It's not a matter of wealth - if he had paid for the surgery
out-of-pocket in order to be treated immediately, I don't think anyone
could reasonably begrudge him the fact that he had the financial means
to do so.

But what he did was use family connections to "back-door" the system
and jump to the head of the line, while still receiving the treatment
for free.

It's the same as if he had a friend on the police force, and used his
influence to arrange for additional police patrols in his neighborhood
at no cost. If he wants increased presence in his neighborhood, he
should pay a private security firm for the service.

Likewise, if he wants to pay for a private doctor in order to reduce
his wait time, that's fine, but instead, he's taken a system that's
supposed to provide equal care for all, and subverted it for his own
convenience/comfort without paying for the privilege.
--
Scott Gardner

"If the pilot screws up, the pilot dies. If Air Traffic Control screws up, the pilot dies."

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:55:02 -0500, Jer wrote:



Then let their personal driver policy cover them. Calling it an auto
policy is a misnomer, it doesn't cover the vehicle, it covers the driver
while they're driving whichever car they borrow. Auto insurance is one
of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on Americans, with mandated
coverage a gift to the insurance lobby.

I've often thought the same thing - my wife and I have seven vehicles
between us, and I'm charged liability premiums for all of them all the
time, even though we can physically only have two of them on the road
at any given moment.

Having more vehicles doesn't mean that I drive more miles in a given
year - it just means that I have more choices when I go out to the
garage in the morning. So why am I paying more money in liability
premiums than a household that only has one vehicle per person?


perhaps you have 5 vehicles too many?

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:07:56 GMT, "ian lincoln"
wrote:


"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:55:02 -0500, Jer wrote:



Then let their personal driver policy cover them. Calling it an auto
policy is a misnomer, it doesn't cover the vehicle, it covers the driver
while they're driving whichever car they borrow. Auto insurance is one
of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on Americans, with mandated
coverage a gift to the insurance lobby.

I've often thought the same thing - my wife and I have seven vehicles
between us, and I'm charged liability premiums for all of them all the
time, even though we can physically only have two of them on the road
at any given moment.

Having more vehicles doesn't mean that I drive more miles in a given
year - it just means that I have more choices when I go out to the
garage in the morning. So why am I paying more money in liability
premiums than a household that only has one vehicle per person?


perhaps you have 5 vehicles too many?


Maybe so, but it doesn't change the fact that the legal implementation
of liability insurance for motor vehicles is asinine, at best.

I like having options when it comes to my vehicles. If the weather's
nice and I don't have to carry much, I can take the motorcycle and get
45+ MPG. The daily-driver Honda has A/C, decent luggage capacity and
still gets 38 MPG. The big honkin' Dodge pickup truck isn't very
comfortable to drive and only gets 12 MPG, but it's hard to beat for
making runs to the landfill or picking up building supplies/furniture.

I *could* try to find one vehicle to do everything passably well, but
it wouldn't excel at *anything*, and I'd probably be one of those
people driving a gas-guzzling SUV 50 miles to and from work each day
with no passengers and no cargo, complaining about the price of gas.


--
Scott Gardner

"Sense is not cognition but sensation." (Douglas Robinson)

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:55:02 -0500, Jer wrote:

Haven't got a wife, girfriend, kids of driving age?




Then let their personal driver policy cover them. Calling it an auto
policy is a misnomer, it doesn't cover the vehicle, it covers the driver
while they're driving whichever car they borrow. Auto insurance is one
of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on Americans, with mandated
coverage a gift to the insurance lobby.

Usually, people with that opinion change it the first time they are
hit by a driver with no insurance, especially if they don't carry the
optional uninsured/underinsured driver insurance.
I do understand your angst. However, since legislators seem incapable
of writing laws that seriously punish uninsured drivers, the mandatory
insurance laws seem reasonable.

BTW, here in AZ., there is alaw that says a vehicle involved in a
crash with no insurance can, and should be, impounded. The law was in
effect for over 5 years before such an impoundment was actually made.
Or so I read in the local paper.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

Bill Funk wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:55:02 -0500, Jer wrote:


Haven't got a wife, girfriend, kids of driving age?




Then let their personal driver policy cover them. Calling it an auto
policy is a misnomer, it doesn't cover the vehicle, it covers the driver
while they're driving whichever car they borrow. Auto insurance is one
of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on Americans, with mandated
coverage a gift to the insurance lobby.


Usually, people with that opinion change it the first time they are
hit by a driver with no insurance, especially if they don't carry the
optional uninsured/underinsured driver insurance.
I do understand your angst. However, since legislators seem incapable
of writing laws that seriously punish uninsured drivers, the mandatory
insurance laws seem reasonable.

My personal angst over this issue didn't really get a good start until
mandated coverage began. The insurance lobby spent millions wining and
dining our state representatives, despite their lack of having a dog in
the hunt. I communicated my personal opinion (sans the millions to go
with it) to my own representatives, some to no avail, but not all. My
idea? Since the state is requiring it, let the state purchase block
no-fault policies (minimum coverage limits), each for an entire county
based on driver census, and recover the premium cost with an exise tax
levied at the retail/commercial pump (they already do this for road
taxes). Every vehicle with fuel in the tank is covered - no such thing
as an uninsured driver. Of course, the insurance lobby wants to sell
policies at premium individual rates, not bulk rates. Any driver could
purchase a separate rider for increased coverage limits if/when
preferred. But no, our state legislators, pockets bulging with lobby
dollars, made mandated coverage into a gift to the insurance industry
that we pay more for every time our policies are renewed. Talk about
letting the fox rule the hen house.


BTW, here in AZ., there is alaw that says a vehicle involved in a
crash with no insurance can, and should be, impounded. The law was in
effect for over 5 years before such an impoundment was actually made.
Or so I read in the local paper.

In Mexico, all vehicles involved in a crash are impounded immediately.
Owners (not drivers) retrieve their vehicles after financial
responsibility is proven. I've heard in some areas of the U.S., if a
driver is stopped for any reason, and can't show valid insurance
coverage, the vehicle is impounded immediately, even if the driver
doesn't receive a traffic citation. Back to my point above, if the
vehicle was under it's own power, the vehicle is covered by an insurance
policy.



--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Scott Gardner wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:20:52 -0500, Jer wrote:



Not a chance -- he'd rather stay home and bitch about the
lousy care, then have mommy make one call so he can jump to the head
of the line ahead of those less fortunate or less well-connected.

Mama's boy does just fine where he is. Too bad someone else
had to get stiffed so he could have his comfort. And then consider it
his "right" by virtue of his wealth. Self-obsessed pansy.


What's wrong with one using one's resources to maximize one's
opportunities for improved health, comfort, or even survival? Is
financial wealth somehow expected to include a some measure of social
guilt? Being financially able to afford a better car, house or school
is acceptable, but being financially able to afford better health care
isn't?


It's not a matter of wealth - if he had paid for the surgery
out-of-pocket in order to be treated immediately, I don't think anyone
could reasonably begrudge him the fact that he had the financial means
to do so.

But what he did was use family connections to "back-door" the system
and jump to the head of the line, while still receiving the treatment
for free.

It's the same as if he had a friend on the police force, and used his
influence to arrange for additional police patrols in his neighborhood
at no cost. If he wants increased presence in his neighborhood, he
should pay a private security firm for the service.

Likewise, if he wants to pay for a private doctor in order to reduce
his wait time, that's fine, but instead, he's taken a system that's
supposed to provide equal care for all, and subverted it for his own
convenience/comfort without paying for the privilege.


I understand all that. Mr. Kashe's comment... "Mama's boy does just
fine where he is. Too bad someone else had to get stiffed so he could
have his comfort. And then consider it his "right" by virtue of his
wealth. Self-obsessed pansy" implied Ian's wealth bought privilege of
moving up the line. From Ian's comments, I didn't get that impression
at all, I was simply trying to draw a distinction between having wealth,
and having something given to you (and stiffing someone else) simply
because of well-connected friends. There's a difference, IMO.

Socialized health care *is* expected to be equal for everybody. The
reality of such is often very different.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'