Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private > ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money > with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing > some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I > didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe tangentially (if you squint hard).
It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
Government involvement (or non-involvement) in road-building has NOTHING to do with driving.
Removing huge trucks from the road not related to driving? Are you that dumb?
>> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private >> ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money >> with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing >> some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I >> didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
> IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe > tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently.
> Government involvement (or non-involvement) in road-building has > NOTHING to do with driving.
Silly me, I thought the roads, the quality there of, the traffic there on, etc and so forth had a lot to do with driving. You do know that some of these private company toll road projects include contract clauses where if the private company isn’t collecting enough in tolls the government will close down lanes on parallel routes or even prevent parallel routes from being build?
"The owners of the four-lane tollway, which runs for 10 miles down the middle of the Riverside Freeway, used the so-called noncompete clause to halt lane additions Caltrans wanted to build.
The clause, which was negotiated by Caltrans and never subject to legislative approval, can prevent improvements along 30 miles of the Riverside Freeway if they take business away from the Express Lanes."
> Removing huge trucks from the road not related to driving? Are you > that dumb?
Apparently you are. As the SPP plan will be ADDING the trucks of mexican trucking companies to the roads. That is in addition to significantly changing congestion and travel patterns overall.
I am only pointing out the inconsistancy of your attempt to police usenet.
> >> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private > >> ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money > >> with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing > >> some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I > >> didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
> > IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe > > tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
> And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently.
If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
At least have the decency to mark the thread "OT" if you’re going to persist in spreading your droppings in r.a.d.
> > Removing huge trucks from the road not related to driving? Are you > > that dumb?
> Apparently you are.
No. You trimmed the part that I was responding to, and wrote something completely non sequitur.
> I am only pointing out the inconsistancy of your attempt to police usenet.
You’re the only one going and finding primarily POLITICAL screeds to drop in a DRIVING newsgroup.
>> >> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private >> >> ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money >> >> with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing >> >> some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I >> >> didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
>> > IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe >> > tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
>> And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently. > If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
But only with me.
> At least have the decency to mark the thread "OT" if you’re going to > persist in spreading your droppings in r.a.d.
It’s not OT. Unless you think roads and traffic are OT to driving.
>> > Removing huge trucks from the road not related to driving? Are you >> > that dumb? >> Apparently you are. > No. You trimmed the part that I was responding to, and wrote > something completely non sequitur.
I haven’t trimmed anything in this thread.
>> I am only pointing out the inconsistancy of your attempt to police usenet. > You’re the only one going and finding primarily POLITICAL screeds to > drop in a DRIVING newsgroup. > It’s rude.
I don’t see you complaining that all the other driving topics from RLCs to speed cameras to under posted speed limits to inspections to everything about driving that has a government/political component to it except when I post it.
> And we both know it.
There’s nothing rude about how the driving landscape is going to change significantly through the center of the nation at minimum should these plans become reality. It’s no less on topic than any of the other threads on traffic, congestion, etc.
Feel free to start threads on how to hit the apex of a curve, tire grip, or similiar if you feel the group is lacking that.
Good question, Ed. If you purposely keep your vehicle off publicly- funded highways, absolutely nothing. If you drive expressways/ freeways frequently, it means dodging more Mexican trucks. True, the post probably is a better fit for m.t.r. but not completely OT for here. It might also fit some of the political ng’s as well.
The article claims that the plan will take 50 years to complete. Brent might live to see it, but most of the rest of us will likely be dead by then.
> Good question, Ed. If you purposely keep your vehicle off publicly- > funded highways, absolutely nothing.
Non sequitur. The posted screed has nothing to do with driving. Brent posts this shit here because his crap wouldn’t stand the onslaught of folks who actually inhabit political newsgroups. So he increasees the noise level in r.a.d. with it.
> If you drive expressways/ > freeways frequently, it means dodging more Mexican trucks. True, the > post probably is a better fit for m.t.r. but not completely OT for > here. It might also fit some of the political ng’s as well.
It’s pretty low on the on-topic scale. The subject, that is. Not that particular post.
> The article claims that the plan will take 50 years to complete. > Brent might live to see it, but most of the rest of us will likely be > dead by then.
Most likely. If it ever comes to fruition. The article posted has very little to do with freeway building, however. And since freeway- building already has a relevant newsgroup (m.t.r.), it’s really, really stretching the topicalness of the subject.
> >> >> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private > >> >> ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money > >> >> with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing > >> >> some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I > >> >> didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
> >> > IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe > >> > tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
> >> And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently. > > If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
> But only with me.
Wrong. Again.
> > At least have the decency to mark the thread "OT" if you’re going to > > persist in spreading your droppings in r.a.d.
> It’s not OT. Unless you think roads and traffic are OT to driving.
The post you made is only tangentially about roads, and not at all to do with traffic. So yes, off-topic.
> >> > Removing huge trucks from the road not related to driving? Are you > >> > that dumb? > >> Apparently you are. > > No. You trimmed the part that I was responding to, and wrote > > something completely non sequitur.
> I haven’t trimmed anything in this thread.
Liar.
"Has more to do with driving than removing some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance."
> >> I am only pointing out the inconsistancy of your attempt to police usenet. > > You’re the only one going and finding primarily POLITICAL screeds to > > drop in a DRIVING newsgroup. > > It’s rude.
> I don’t see you complaining that all the other driving topics from RLCs > to speed cameras to under posted speed limits to inspections to > everything about driving that has a government/political component to it > except when I post it.
Except this post is not primarily about driving, nor effects on driving, or even road capacity. In fact, it’s barely about roads. It’s so loaded with political screed that it’s almost OT for m.t.r.
Pretending otherwise is silly – anyone can read the link you posted.
> Feel free to start threads on how to hit the apex of a curve, tire grip, > or similiar if you feel the group is lacking that.
I’m going to feel free to call you on your rudeness. Maybe everyone else is a JLEDI, but I’m not going to let your MFFYism go uncommented.
In article <1174687951.685143.136…@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > Non sequitur. The posted screed has nothing to do with driving. > Brent posts this shit here because his crap wouldn’t stand the > onslaught of folks who actually inhabit political newsgroups. So he > increasees the noise level in r.a.d. with it.
And you’re such a expert on my thought processes and motives. Here’s a clue: you’re full of shit Ed. The "political newsgroups" never even crossed my mind. Or would you prefer a cross-post ala Aunt Judy style?
Of course you scream loudly everytime some even makes an obvious conclusion about your motives and thought processes, but you’re free to come up with these bizzare theories on mine… another famous double standard of yours.
> It’s pretty low on the on-topic scale. The subject, that is. Not > that particular post.
Yet, you reply to it to make it a thread rather than just letting it go.
In article <1174688346.778073.116…@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > On Mar 23, 12:20 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: >> In article <1174673890.888022.115…@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: >> > On Mar 23, 10:45 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> > wrote: >> >> In article <1174670852.998808.8…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: >> >> > On Mar 23, 10:22 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> In article <1174665127.884376.93…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: >> >> >> > On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
>> >> >> > What does this have to do with driving?
>> >> >> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private >> >> >> ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money >> >> >> with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing >> >> >> some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I >> >> >> didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
>> >> > IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe >> >> > tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
>> >> And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently. >> > If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
>> But only with me.
> Wrong. Again.
Yet you let scott’s post on a _RAIL_ project stand without complaint.
>> > At least have the decency to mark the thread "OT" if you’re going to >> > persist in spreading your droppings in r.a.d. >> It’s not OT. Unless you think roads and traffic are OT to driving. > The post you made is only tangentially about roads, and not at all to > do with traffic. So yes, off-topic.
Apparently you’re the only one complaining.
>> >> > Removing huge trucks from the road not related to driving? Are you >> >> > that dumb? >> >> Apparently you are. >> > No. You trimmed the part that I was responding to, and wrote >> > something completely non sequitur.
>> I haven’t trimmed anything in this thread. > Liar. > "Has more to do with driving than removing some trucks from the roads > for the CA inland port rail project and I didn’t see you questioning > that one’s relevance."
Go look again.. You’re lying as usual. I just checked the post… it’s right there, all I did was interperse my reply as per convention, I did not delete my previous text from the quoted material. Although this is your double standard whine anyway. You always whine about trimming but you routinely trim stuff out you don’t want to deal with or so you can insert your own spin or injection of ‘wacko’ in its place… I guess that goes well with your head burried in the sand ignore-it-and-it-will-go-away over all mentality.
>> >> I am only pointing out the inconsistancy of your attempt to police usenet. >> > You’re the only one going and finding primarily POLITICAL screeds to >> > drop in a DRIVING newsgroup. >> > It’s rude. >> I don’t see you complaining that all the other driving topics from RLCs >> to speed cameras to under posted speed limits to inspections to >> everything about driving that has a government/political component to it >> except when I post it. > Except this post is not primarily about driving, nor effects on > driving, or even road capacity. In fact, it’s barely about roads. > It’s so loaded with political screed that it’s almost OT for m.t.r.
The prime infastructure creation of the SPP is a huge friggin road project with costs to match. Might be good to actually know what is going on regarding it, instead of just calling people kooks. It’s no more off topic than the chicago skyway or the indiana toll roads. We discuss political topics all the time in this group. Red light cameras, speed cameras, road building to relieve congestion, projects to get trucks off the road, changes in tolling, tracking of drivers, smart roads, and a whole host of other things that are sorted out politically. Practically nothing about driving in the USA is done on a pure technical basis to objection of many here, including myself.
It’s not my fault you see the SPP as kookiness. But it is a huge road project with little technical merit. Wouldn’t you prefer spending hundreds of billions of road dollars on something more useful? We discuss things like that all the time here when much smaller amounts are at stake.
This article wasn’t any more off topic than those on how some local government is running a red light camera scam on motorists. But as with red light cameras, the first step is to show that there is a scam going on. I am no more ‘kooky’ with this than with RLCs.
> Pretending otherwise is silly – anyone can read the link you posted.
Let them. They can choose not to reply and it goes away. You on the other hand have to throw a little hissy fit. You made an acusation of my motive in posting that link in r.a.d, I’m surprised you can’t figure out why that is, especially with how the author constructed the article.
>> Feel free to start threads on how to hit the apex of a curve, tire grip, >> or similiar if you feel the group is lacking that. > I’m going to feel free to call you on your rudeness. Maybe everyone > else is a JLEDI, but I’m not going to let your MFFYism go uncommented.
My own little personal usenet enforcer. How about instead of playing the role a more enlightened gpsman, how about you bring some material to the table once and awhile…. oh wait, that’s right you apparently don’t actually want to take a stand on anything. You’d rather do what you mostly do, whine about other people’s posts lacking logic, being off topic, etc etc.
If you’re so concerned about off topic posts why do you turn what would have been single posts that would just fall by the wayside into threads 10s of posts long? If you were so concerned about things not being on topic, why do you make it worse by adding 10s if not 100s of off-topic posts of your own in your lame attempt to police the group to your topical standards?
Ed Pirrero wrote: > Non sequitur. The posted screed has nothing to do with driving. > Brent posts this shit here because his crap wouldn’t stand the > onslaught of folks who actually inhabit political newsgroups.
Political newsgroups are full of idiots and trolls. Just take a look at any thread cross-posted to one or more of them.
>>>>Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private >>>>ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money >>>>with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing >>>>some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I >>>>didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
>>>IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe >>>tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
>>And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently.
> If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
> At least have the decency to mark the thread "OT" if you’re going to > persist in spreading your droppings in r.a.d.
Your rants against other posters are completely OT.
On Mar 24, 1:21 am, Arif Khokar <akhokar1…@wvu.edu> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote: > > Non sequitur. The posted screed has nothing to do with driving. > > Brent posts this shit here because his crap wouldn’t stand the > > onslaught of folks who actually inhabit political newsgroups.
> Political newsgroups are full of idiots and trolls. Just take a look at > any thread cross-posted to one or more of them.
So why bring their subject matter to r.a.d.? It invites more noise. The discussions have their place, and this ain’t it.
> >>>>Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private > >>>>ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money > >>>>with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing > >>>>some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I > >>>>didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
> >>>IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe > >>>tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
> >>And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently.
> > If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
> > At least have the decency to mark the thread "OT" if you’re going to > > persist in spreading your droppings in r.a.d.
> Your rants against other posters are completely OT.
> In article <1174687951.685143.136…@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > Non sequitur. The posted screed has nothing to do with driving. > > Brent posts this shit here because his crap wouldn’t stand the > > onslaught of folks who actually inhabit political newsgroups. So he > > increasees the noise level in r.a.d. with it.
> The "political newsgroups" never > even crossed my mind.
Bullshit. You’d get eaten alive by those wonks, and you’re too chicken to expose your kookiness to people who actually care about this shit.
> Or would you prefer a cross-post ala Aunt Judy > style?
No, just *leave r.a.d. out of it*.
> > It’s pretty low on the on-topic scale. The subject, that is. Not > > that particular post.
> Yet, you reply to it to make it a thread rather than just letting it go.
Right. I’m not a JLEDI when MFFYs do their thing – on the road or in r.a.d.
> In article <1174688346.778073.116…@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Mar 23, 12:20 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: > >> In article <1174673890.888022.115…@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> > On Mar 23, 10:45 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) > >> > wrote: > >> >> In article <1174670852.998808.8…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> >> > On Mar 23, 10:22 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> In article <1174665127.884376.93…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> >> >> > On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
> >> >> >> > What does this have to do with driving?
> >> >> >> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private > >> >> >> ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money > >> >> >> with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing > >> >> >> some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I > >> >> >> didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
> >> >> > IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe > >> >> > tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
> >> >> And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently. > >> > If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
> >> But only with me.
> > Wrong. Again.
> Yet you let scott’s post on a _RAIL_ project stand without complaint.
When Scott posts several political screeds per day, or gets OT in every other post whining about the black helicopters, I’ll mention it.
> > The post you made is only tangentially about roads, and not at all to > > do with traffic. So yes, off-topic.
> Apparently you’re the only one complaining.
You’re assuming that silence = approval. JLEDIs don’t approve, but they don’t object, either.
> I guess that > goes well with your head burried in the sand ignore-it-and-it-will-go-away > over all mentality.
Or, that you are actually a kook, just like the One World Governement fools before you. Or, if we go far enough back, those who worried about the League of Nations. New generation, same kook-factor.
> > Except this post is not primarily about driving, nor effects on > > driving, or even road capacity. In fact, it’s barely about roads. > > It’s so loaded with political screed that it’s almost OT for m.t.r.
> The prime infastructure creation of the SPP is a huge friggin road > project with costs to match.
The cite is not primarily about that. Anyone who can read can see that.
> It’s not my fault you see the SPP as kookiness.
Strawman.
> This article wasn’t any more off topic than those on how some local > government is running a red light camera scam on motorists.
Sure it is. If it were primarily about building a road, then that’d be one thing. But the article is primarily a warning against a non- existent NAU.
RLCs have direct application to driving *regardless* of the motivations behind them.
> > I’m going to feel free to call you on your rudeness. Maybe everyone > > else is a JLEDI, but I’m not going to let your MFFYism go uncommented.
> My own little personal usenet enforcer.
More like conscience. Since you don’t seem to have one, Mr. MFFY.
Take your shit to a political newsgroup, and see how long your kookiness stands up to facts. By people with nothing better to do than refute your bullshit.
tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news:bNOdnQuvgN_
8857bnZ2dnUVZ_qKqn…@comcast.com:
> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
Don’t worry about it. Once they open this thing, all decent americans are
gonna be out there with caltrops and roofing nails to shut it down.
On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
What does this have to do with driving?
E.P.
In article <1174665127.884376.93…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
> What does this have to do with driving?
Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private
ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money
with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing
some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I
didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
On Mar 23, 10:22 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <1174665127.884376.93…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> >>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
> > What does this have to do with driving?
> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private
> ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money
> with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing
> some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I
> didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe
tangentially (if you squint hard).
It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
Government involvement (or non-involvement) in road-building has
NOTHING to do with driving.
Removing huge trucks from the road not related to driving? Are you
that dumb?
E.P.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <1174670852.998808.8…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 23, 10:22 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <1174665127.884376.93…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> > wrote:
>> >>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
>> > What does this have to do with driving?
>> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private
>> ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money
>> with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing
>> some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I
>> didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
> IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe
> tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently.
> Government involvement (or non-involvement) in road-building has
> NOTHING to do with driving.
Silly me, I thought the roads, the quality there of, the traffic there
on, etc and so forth had a lot to do with driving. You do know that some
of these private company toll road projects include contract clauses
where if the private company isn’t collecting enough in tolls the
government will close down lanes on parallel routes or even prevent
parallel routes from being build?
For instance… http://bicycleaustin.info/rogerbaker/tollroad-failure.html
"The owners of the four-lane tollway, which runs for 10 miles down the
middle of the Riverside Freeway, used the so-called noncompete clause to
halt lane additions Caltrans wanted to build.
The clause, which was negotiated by Caltrans and never subject to
legislative approval, can prevent improvements along 30 miles of the
Riverside Freeway if they take business away from the Express Lanes."
> Removing huge trucks from the road not related to driving? Are you
> that dumb?
Apparently you are. As the SPP plan will be ADDING the trucks of mexican
trucking companies to the roads. That is in addition to significantly
changing congestion and travel patterns overall.
I am only pointing out the inconsistancy of your attempt to police usenet.
On Mar 23, 10:45 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <1174670852.998808.8…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 10:22 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> >> In article <1174665127.884376.93…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
> >> > What does this have to do with driving?
> >> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private
> >> ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money
> >> with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing
> >> some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I
> >> didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
> > IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe
> > tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
> And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently.
If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
At least have the decency to mark the thread "OT" if you’re going to
persist in spreading your droppings in r.a.d.
> > Removing huge trucks from the road not related to driving? Are you
> > that dumb?
> Apparently you are.
No. You trimmed the part that I was responding to, and wrote
something completely non sequitur.
> I am only pointing out the inconsistancy of your attempt to police usenet.
You’re the only one going and finding primarily POLITICAL screeds to
drop in a DRIVING newsgroup.
It’s rude.
And we both know it.
E.P.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <1174673890.888022.115…@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 23, 10:45 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <1174670852.998808.8…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > On Mar 23, 10:22 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> > wrote:
>> >> In article <1174665127.884376.93…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >> > On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
>> >> > What does this have to do with driving?
>> >> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private
>> >> ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money
>> >> with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing
>> >> some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I
>> >> didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
>> > IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe
>> > tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
>> And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently.
> If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
But only with me.
> At least have the decency to mark the thread "OT" if you’re going to
> persist in spreading your droppings in r.a.d.
It’s not OT. Unless you think roads and traffic are OT to driving.
>> > Removing huge trucks from the road not related to driving? Are you
>> > that dumb?
>> Apparently you are.
> No. You trimmed the part that I was responding to, and wrote
> something completely non sequitur.
I haven’t trimmed anything in this thread.
>> I am only pointing out the inconsistancy of your attempt to police usenet.
> You’re the only one going and finding primarily POLITICAL screeds to
> drop in a DRIVING newsgroup.
> It’s rude.
I don’t see you complaining that all the other driving topics from RLCs
to speed cameras to under posted speed limits to inspections to
everything about driving that has a government/political component to it
except when I post it.
> And we both know it.
There’s nothing rude about how the driving landscape is going to change
significantly through the center of the nation at minimum should these
plans become reality. It’s no less on topic than any of the other threads
on traffic, congestion, etc.
Feel free to start threads on how to hit the apex of a curve, tire grip,
or similiar if you feel the group is lacking that.
On Mar 23, 10:50 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
<xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news:bNOdnQuvgN_
> 8857bnZ2dnUVZ_qKqn…@comcast.com:
> >http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
> Don’t worry about it. Once they open this thing, all decent americans are
> gonna be out there with caltrops and roofing nails to shut it down.
IEDs are more effective; just ask anyone who has served in Iraq, or
any of the Iraqis.
On Mar 23, 10:52 am, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschem…@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
> >http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
> What does this have to do with driving?
> E.P.
Good question, Ed. If you purposely keep your vehicle off publicly-
funded highways, absolutely nothing. If you drive expressways/
freeways frequently, it means dodging more Mexican trucks. True, the
post probably is a better fit for m.t.r. but not completely OT for
here. It might also fit some of the political ng’s as well.
The article claims that the plan will take 50 years to complete.
Brent might live to see it, but most of the rest of us will likely be
dead by then.
On Mar 23, 12:59 pm, "MLOM" <g…@netzero.net> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 10:52 am, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschem…@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> > >http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
> > What does this have to do with driving?
> > E.P.
> Good question, Ed. If you purposely keep your vehicle off publicly-
> funded highways, absolutely nothing.
Non sequitur. The posted screed has nothing to do with driving.
Brent posts this shit here because his crap wouldn’t stand the
onslaught of folks who actually inhabit political newsgroups. So he
increasees the noise level in r.a.d. with it.
> If you drive expressways/
> freeways frequently, it means dodging more Mexican trucks. True, the
> post probably is a better fit for m.t.r. but not completely OT for
> here. It might also fit some of the political ng’s as well.
It’s pretty low on the on-topic scale. The subject, that is. Not
that particular post.
> The article claims that the plan will take 50 years to complete.
> Brent might live to see it, but most of the rest of us will likely be
> dead by then.
Most likely. If it ever comes to fruition. The article posted has
very little to do with freeway building, however. And since freeway-
building already has a relevant newsgroup (m.t.r.), it’s really,
really stretching the topicalness of the subject.
E.P.
On Mar 23, 12:20 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <1174673890.888022.115…@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 10:45 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> >> In article <1174670852.998808.8…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > On Mar 23, 10:22 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> In article <1174665127.884376.93…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> >> > On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
> >> >> > What does this have to do with driving?
> >> >> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private
> >> >> ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money
> >> >> with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing
> >> >> some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I
> >> >> didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
> >> > IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe
> >> > tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
> >> And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently.
> > If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
> But only with me.
Wrong. Again.
> > At least have the decency to mark the thread "OT" if you’re going to
> > persist in spreading your droppings in r.a.d.
> It’s not OT. Unless you think roads and traffic are OT to driving.
The post you made is only tangentially about roads, and not at all to
do with traffic. So yes, off-topic.
> >> > Removing huge trucks from the road not related to driving? Are you
> >> > that dumb?
> >> Apparently you are.
> > No. You trimmed the part that I was responding to, and wrote
> > something completely non sequitur.
> I haven’t trimmed anything in this thread.
Liar.
"Has more to do with driving than removing some trucks from the roads
for the CA inland port rail project and I didn’t see you questioning
that one’s relevance."
> >> I am only pointing out the inconsistancy of your attempt to police usenet.
> > You’re the only one going and finding primarily POLITICAL screeds to
> > drop in a DRIVING newsgroup.
> > It’s rude.
> I don’t see you complaining that all the other driving topics from RLCs
> to speed cameras to under posted speed limits to inspections to
> everything about driving that has a government/political component to it
> except when I post it.
Except this post is not primarily about driving, nor effects on
driving, or even road capacity. In fact, it’s barely about roads.
It’s so loaded with political screed that it’s almost OT for m.t.r.
Pretending otherwise is silly – anyone can read the link you posted.
> Feel free to start threads on how to hit the apex of a curve, tire grip,
> or similiar if you feel the group is lacking that.
I’m going to feel free to call you on your rudeness. Maybe everyone
else is a JLEDI, but I’m not going to let your MFFYism go uncommented.
E.P.
In article <1174687951.685143.136…@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Non sequitur. The posted screed has nothing to do with driving.
> Brent posts this shit here because his crap wouldn’t stand the
> onslaught of folks who actually inhabit political newsgroups. So he
> increasees the noise level in r.a.d. with it.
And you’re such a expert on my thought processes and motives.
Here’s a clue: you’re full of shit Ed. The "political newsgroups" never
even crossed my mind. Or would you prefer a cross-post ala Aunt Judy
style?
Of course you scream loudly everytime some even makes an obvious
conclusion about your motives and thought processes, but you’re free to
come up with these bizzare theories on mine… another famous double
standard of yours.
> It’s pretty low on the on-topic scale. The subject, that is. Not
> that particular post.
Yet, you reply to it to make it a thread rather than just letting it go.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <1174688346.778073.116…@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 23, 12:20 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <1174673890.888022.115…@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > On Mar 23, 10:45 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> > wrote:
>> >> In article <1174670852.998808.8…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >> > On Mar 23, 10:22 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> In article <1174665127.884376.93…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >> >> > On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
>> >> >> > What does this have to do with driving?
>> >> >> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private
>> >> >> ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money
>> >> >> with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing
>> >> >> some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I
>> >> >> didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
>> >> > IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe
>> >> > tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
>> >> And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently.
>> > If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
>> But only with me.
> Wrong. Again.
Yet you let scott’s post on a _RAIL_ project stand without complaint.
>> > At least have the decency to mark the thread "OT" if you’re going to
>> > persist in spreading your droppings in r.a.d.
>> It’s not OT. Unless you think roads and traffic are OT to driving.
> The post you made is only tangentially about roads, and not at all to
> do with traffic. So yes, off-topic.
Apparently you’re the only one complaining.
>> >> > Removing huge trucks from the road not related to driving? Are you
>> >> > that dumb?
>> >> Apparently you are.
>> > No. You trimmed the part that I was responding to, and wrote
>> > something completely non sequitur.
>> I haven’t trimmed anything in this thread.
> Liar.
> "Has more to do with driving than removing some trucks from the roads
> for the CA inland port rail project and I didn’t see you questioning
> that one’s relevance."
Go look again.. You’re lying as usual. I just checked the post… it’s
right there, all I did was interperse my reply as per convention, I did
not delete my previous text from the quoted material. Although this is
your double standard whine anyway. You always whine about trimming but
you routinely trim stuff out you don’t want to deal with or so you can
insert your own spin or injection of ‘wacko’ in its place… I guess that
goes well with your head burried in the sand ignore-it-and-it-will-go-away
over all mentality.
>> >> I am only pointing out the inconsistancy of your attempt to police usenet.
>> > You’re the only one going and finding primarily POLITICAL screeds to
>> > drop in a DRIVING newsgroup.
>> > It’s rude.
>> I don’t see you complaining that all the other driving topics from RLCs
>> to speed cameras to under posted speed limits to inspections to
>> everything about driving that has a government/political component to it
>> except when I post it.
> Except this post is not primarily about driving, nor effects on
> driving, or even road capacity. In fact, it’s barely about roads.
> It’s so loaded with political screed that it’s almost OT for m.t.r.
The prime infastructure creation of the SPP is a huge friggin road
project with costs to match. Might be good to actually know what is going
on regarding it, instead of just calling people kooks. It’s no more off
topic than the chicago skyway or the indiana toll roads. We discuss
political topics all the time in this group. Red light cameras, speed
cameras, road building to relieve congestion, projects to get trucks off
the road, changes in tolling, tracking of drivers, smart roads, and a
whole host of other things that are sorted out politically. Practically
nothing about driving in the USA is done on a pure technical basis to
objection of many here, including myself.
It’s not my fault you see the SPP as kookiness. But it is a huge road
project with little technical merit. Wouldn’t you prefer spending
hundreds of billions of road dollars on something more useful? We discuss
things like that all the time here when much smaller amounts are at
stake.
This article wasn’t any more off topic than those on how some local
government is running a red light camera scam on motorists. But as with
red light cameras, the first step is to show that there is a scam going
on. I am no more ‘kooky’ with this than with RLCs.
> Pretending otherwise is silly – anyone can read the link you posted.
Let them. They can choose not to reply and it goes away. You on the other
hand have to throw a little hissy fit. You made an acusation of my
motive in posting that link in r.a.d, I’m surprised you can’t figure out
why that is, especially with how the author constructed the article.
>> Feel free to start threads on how to hit the apex of a curve, tire grip,
>> or similiar if you feel the group is lacking that.
> I’m going to feel free to call you on your rudeness. Maybe everyone
> else is a JLEDI, but I’m not going to let your MFFYism go uncommented.
My own little personal usenet enforcer. How about instead of playing the
role a more enlightened gpsman, how about you bring some material to the
table once and awhile…. oh wait, that’s right you apparently don’t
actually want to take a stand on anything. You’d rather do what you
mostly do, whine about other people’s posts lacking logic, being off
topic, etc etc.
If you’re so concerned about off topic posts why do you turn what would
have been single posts that would just fall by the wayside into threads
10s of posts long? If you were so concerned about things not being on
topic, why do you make it worse by adding 10s if not 100s of off-topic
posts of your own in your lame attempt to police the group to your
topical standards?
"MLOM" <gr…@netzero.net> wrote in
news:1174679247.005916.322110@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Mar 23, 10:50 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in
>> news:bNOdnQuvgN_ 8857bnZ2dnUVZ_qKqn…@comcast.com:
>> >http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
>> Don’t worry about it. Once they open this thing, all decent
>> americans are gonna be out there with caltrops and roofing nails to
>> shut it down.
> IEDs are more effective; just ask anyone who has served in Iraq, or
> any of the Iraqis.
Too complicated and dangerous. I’m not gonna go that route. But tossing
clatrops out the window while tooling down the road is another story.
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Non sequitur. The posted screed has nothing to do with driving.
> Brent posts this shit here because his crap wouldn’t stand the
> onslaught of folks who actually inhabit political newsgroups.
Political newsgroups are full of idiots and trolls. Just take a look at
any thread cross-posted to one or more of them.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 23, 10:45 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>>In article <1174670852.998808.8…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>On Mar 23, 10:22 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>>wrote:
>>>>In article <1174665127.884376.93…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>>On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
>>>>>What does this have to do with driving?
>>>>Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private
>>>>ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money
>>>>with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing
>>>>some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I
>>>>didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
>>>IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe
>>>tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
>>And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently.
> If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
> At least have the decency to mark the thread "OT" if you’re going to
> persist in spreading your droppings in r.a.d.
Your rants against other posters are completely OT.
Flame yourself, flamer.
On Mar 24, 1:21 am, Arif Khokar <akhokar1…@wvu.edu> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Non sequitur. The posted screed has nothing to do with driving.
> > Brent posts this shit here because his crap wouldn’t stand the
> > onslaught of folks who actually inhabit political newsgroups.
> Political newsgroups are full of idiots and trolls. Just take a look at
> any thread cross-posted to one or more of them.
So why bring their subject matter to r.a.d.? It invites more noise.
The discussions have their place, and this ain’t it.
E.P.
On Mar 24, 9:34 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos…@dont.spam> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 10:45 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> >>In article <1174670852.998808.8…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>>On Mar 23, 10:22 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>>In article <1174665127.884376.93…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>>>>On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
> >>>>>What does this have to do with driving?
> >>>>Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private
> >>>>ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money
> >>>>with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing
> >>>>some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I
> >>>>didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
> >>>IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe
> >>>tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
> >>And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently.
> > If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
> > At least have the decency to mark the thread "OT" if you’re going to
> > persist in spreading your droppings in r.a.d.
> Your rants against other posters are completely OT.
Look up the term "metadiscussion", fool.
E.P.
On Mar 23, 3:25 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <1174687951.685143.136…@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Non sequitur. The posted screed has nothing to do with driving.
> > Brent posts this shit here because his crap wouldn’t stand the
> > onslaught of folks who actually inhabit political newsgroups. So he
> > increasees the noise level in r.a.d. with it.
> The "political newsgroups" never
> even crossed my mind.
Bullshit. You’d get eaten alive by those wonks, and you’re too
chicken to expose your kookiness to people who actually care about
this shit.
> Or would you prefer a cross-post ala Aunt Judy
> style?
No, just *leave r.a.d. out of it*.
> > It’s pretty low on the on-topic scale. The subject, that is. Not
> > that particular post.
> Yet, you reply to it to make it a thread rather than just letting it go.
Right. I’m not a JLEDI when MFFYs do their thing – on the road or in
r.a.d.
E.P.
On Mar 23, 3:58 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <1174688346.778073.116…@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 12:20 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> >> In article <1174673890.888022.115…@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > On Mar 23, 10:45 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> In article <1174670852.998808.8…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> >> > On Mar 23, 10:22 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <1174665127.884376.93…@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Mar 22, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese032207.htm
> >> >> >> > What does this have to do with driving?
> >> >> >> Roads, tolls, trucking, vehicle regulation, government vs. private
> >> >> >> ownership of roads, taking private property to build roads, tax money
> >> >> >> with regard to road building. Has more to do with driving than removing
> >> >> >> some trucks from the roads for the CA inland port rail project and I
> >> >> >> didn’t see you questioning that one’s relevance.
> >> >> > IOW, it doesn’t have anything to do with driving, except maybe
> >> >> > tangentially (if you squint hard). It would be much more on-topic in m.t.r.
> >> >> And you’re my personal usenet enforcer apparently.
> >> > If you’re going to be rude, I’m not going to JLEDI.
> >> But only with me.
> > Wrong. Again.
> Yet you let scott’s post on a _RAIL_ project stand without complaint.
When Scott posts several political screeds per day, or gets OT in
every other post whining about the black helicopters, I’ll mention it.
> > The post you made is only tangentially about roads, and not at all to
> > do with traffic. So yes, off-topic.
> Apparently you’re the only one complaining.
You’re assuming that silence = approval. JLEDIs don’t approve, but
they don’t object, either.
> I guess that
> goes well with your head burried in the sand ignore-it-and-it-will-go-away
> over all mentality.
Or, that you are actually a kook, just like the One World Governement
fools before you. Or, if we go far enough back, those who worried
about the League of Nations. New generation, same kook-factor.
> > Except this post is not primarily about driving, nor effects on
> > driving, or even road capacity. In fact, it’s barely about roads.
> > It’s so loaded with political screed that it’s almost OT for m.t.r.
> The prime infastructure creation of the SPP is a huge friggin road
> project with costs to match.
The cite is not primarily about that. Anyone who can read can see
that.
> It’s not my fault you see the SPP as kookiness.
Strawman.
> This article wasn’t any more off topic than those on how some local
> government is running a red light camera scam on motorists.
Sure it is. If it were primarily about building a road, then that’d
be one thing. But the article is primarily a warning against a non-
existent NAU.
RLCs have direct application to driving *regardless* of the
motivations behind them.
> > I’m going to feel free to call you on your rudeness. Maybe everyone
> > else is a JLEDI, but I’m not going to let your MFFYism go uncommented.
> My own little personal usenet enforcer.
More like conscience. Since you don’t seem to have one, Mr. MFFY.
Take your shit to a political newsgroup, and see how long your
kookiness stands up to facts. By people with nothing better to do
than refute your bullshit.
E.P.
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:34 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos…@dont.spam> wrote:
>>Your rants against other posters are completely OT.
> Look up the term "metadiscussion", fool.
Look into kill filters rather than simply whining about OT posts and
calling other people names.
What are you, 5 years old?
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> E.P.
On Mar 24, 11:12 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos…@dont.spam> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 9:34 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos…@dont.spam> wrote:
> >>Your rants against other posters are completely OT.
> > Look up the term "metadiscussion", fool.
> Look into kill filters…
Can’t you just *smell* the irony?
E.P.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 24, 11:12 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos…@dont.spam> wrote:
>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>On Mar 24, 9:34 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos…@dont.spam> wrote:
>>>>Your rants against other posters are completely OT.
>>>Look up the term "metadiscussion", fool.
>>Look into kill filters…
> Can’t you just *smell* the irony?
I’m not telling you not to post your idiotic rantings here. I’m
pointing out your hypocrisy.
Get it?
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> E.P.
On Mar 24, 5:26 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos…@dont.spam> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 11:12 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos…@dont.spam> wrote:
> >>Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>>On Mar 24, 9:34 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos…@dont.spam> wrote:
> >>>>Your rants against other posters are completely OT.
> >>>Look up the term "metadiscussion", fool.
> >>Look into kill filters…
> > Can’t you just *smell* the irony?
> I’m not telling you not to post your idiotic rantings here. I’m
> pointing out your hypocrisy.
If it were hypocritical, then you’d have a point.
But it isn’t, so you don’t.
In fact, the person being hypocritical is you. So use your filters
and STFU already.
E.P.