🚀 go-pugleaf

>
> >the cost
> >of gasoline keeps rising and lowering, people
> >in California have to pay double for power,
>
> Their own damn fault for tolerating all those envirowackos that made
> it difficult to build a new power plant.  Couldn't happen to a nicer
> bunch.  They should suffer this for a summer to help change their
> minds about the policy of routinely attempting to stop progress.
>

Damn tree-hugging hippies.

> >and Ford won't admit that it is really their design
> >fault - not Firestones.
>
> Design, and stupidly telling people that the proper inflation level
> was 26 psi (if I remember right.)  It should be able to lose a wheel
> and still not roll over...
>

I think it was Car & Driver TV that did a test on this. They rigged an
Explorer with a set of Firestones with a quick release valve that would let
the air out of a tire almost instantly to simulate a blowout.  They started
the test at 20 mph deflating the tire again and again in 10 mph increments
all the way up to 70mph, the driver in the car didn't even need to touch the
steering wheel.  Each time the Explorer continued tracking straight on down
the road.  So obviously the cause of the rollovers is inexperienced drivers
panicking and swerving when they get a blowout. But if the media reported
the truth on this, they wouldn't get the ratings.

> >What's next?
>
> An asteroid the size of North Carolina on a collision course for
> earth?  Wouldn't have anything at all to worry about after that hit!
>
That reminds me, I really should get a cover for my bike. <G>

-Wolf
01 SV650

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 03:32:33 -0400, Karen Carroll <kcar21@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I can't handle much more. I thought things would be
>better in the millennium but the world has gone
>nuts - maybe I have!

Its not you.


>Alan Greenspan has ruined our economy,

Yep - the dickwad went off track 2 years ago when he said something
about, "Maybe we ought to look at the stock market, too" and proceeded
to try to keep the NASDAQ and DOW from increasing, and succeeded.

>the cost
>of gasoline keeps rising and lowering, people
>in California have to pay double for power,

Their own damn fault for tolerating all those envirowackos that made
it difficult to build a new power plant.  Couldn't happen to a nicer
bunch.  They should suffer this for a summer to help change their
minds about the policy of routinely attempting to stop progress.

>McDonald's cheated their customers in their
>Monopoly game,

No, some criminals did that, not McDonalds.

>Gary Condit (SOB) is being
>interviewed by Connie Chung,

He's going down, tho, I think.

>my brother is
>called A "racial profiler" if he pulls over
>a speeder (he's a cop),

Don't know your brother, but know that cops get a lot of unjust
criticism, quite a bit of it coming from criminals.

> Jesse Helms announced
>he's retiring,

Can't do it forever...  You wanna work 'til your 81 years old?

>sharks are biting record numbers
>of swimmers in Florida,

They swim, they eat, they make little sharks and that's all they do...
<G>

>NOBODY won Powerball
>tonight!

Grrr.

>Thousands of kids under 16 are being
>injured on cycles because they won't wear helmets,

They'll get injured even if they do wear helmets.  In the 60's, it was
go-karts that was the big boogey man...

>and Ford won't admit that it is really their design
>fault - not Firestones.

Design, and stupidly telling people that the proper inflation level
was 26 psi (if I remember right.)  It should be able to lose a wheel
and still not roll over...

>And rioters are heading to
>DC to protest and destroy the IMF conference!

They're going to jail... <G>

>What's next?

An asteroid the size of North Carolina on a collision course for
earth?  Wouldn't have anything at all to worry about after that hit!

>It goes on and on and on......

>Am I going nuts? Or is it this world?

Its the world.  You'd be nuts if you _didn't_ think there was
something wrong.

>Is Gary Condit really the winner?

Not for long, I think.  Of course, he's a democrap, and they fawned
over and defended intern-abusing Bill Clinton, so anything is
possible.

DPH

>---Karen

I voted for Gary before and probably would again.  Didn't vote against 
his brother when he ran for Sheriff, worked with his dad on many issues 
regarding drug abuse in that community.

But that's my politics, yours apparently differs.

Kybob 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 8/23/01, 3:32:33 AM, Karen Carroll <kcar21@nospam.com> wrote regarding 
Help me Am I going NuTz??:


> I can't handle much more. I thought things would be
> better in the millennium but the world has gone
> nuts - maybe I have!

> Alan Greenspan has ruined our economy, the cost
> of gasoline keeps rising and lowering, people
> in California have to pay double for power,
> McDonald's cheated their customers in their
> Monopoly game, Gary Condit (SOB) is being
> interviewed by Connie Chung, my brother is
> called A "racial profiler" if he pulls over
> a speeder (he's a cop), Jesse Helms announced
> he's retiring, sharks are biting record numbers
> of swimmers in Florida, NOBODY won Powerball
> tonight! Thousands of kids under 16 are being
> injured on cycles because they won't wear helmets,
> and Ford won't admit that it is really their design
> fault - not Firestones. And rioters are heading to
> DC to protest and destroy the IMF conference!

> What's next?

> It goes on and on and on......

> Am I going nuts? Or is it this world?

> Is Gary Condit really the winner?

> ---Karen

In rec.motorcycles Karen Carroll <kcar21@nospam.com> wrote:
<snip!>

> Jesse Helms announced
> he's retiring,

Geez, you seem to think this is a BAD thing.  High time for "Senator No"
to get the hell out the way.

"See ya, Jesse, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out!!!"

> ---Karen

	-Phil

--
                                                     GREYMOUSER CONSULTING
              System, Network and Security Architecture and Administration
                          for Central Virginia (http://www.greymouser.com)
* S o l a r i s  *  H P - U X  *   L I N U X   *   W  i n d o w s   N T  *

Karen Carroll wrote:

> I can't handle much more. I thought things would be
> better in the millennium but the world has gone
> nuts - maybe I have!

Americas greatest problems will never be solved completely... however
they can be out grown... don't fight it... decide it...
Larry L
94 RC45 #2
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/

In article <3B84B191.F793896D@nospam.com>, Karen Carroll wrote:
> I can't handle much more. I thought things would be
> better in the millennium but the world has gone
> nuts - maybe I have!
>
> Alan Greenspan has ruined our economy,

How so?

> the cost
> of gasoline keeps rising and lowering,

Thank big oil searching for maximum profit. Don't like
the price, don't buy it, they'll get the message if enough
people do that.

> people
> in California have to pay double for power,

Thank the local regulations

> McDonald's cheated their customers in their
> Monopoly game.

Their contractor did. Anyone could see that game was too easy too
rig back when they first did it in the 1980s. (though I thought it
was rigged through distribution of wining and non-winning game pieces
so no one could ever win, not that selected people would)


> Gary Condit (SOB) is being  interviewed by Connie Chung,

Keep your eyes on another intern affair while the government
is doing things people should really be paying attention to
no doubt.


> my brother is
> called A "racial profiler" if he pulls over
> a speeder (he's a cop),

Ahh yes, our wonderfully underposted limits designed to allow
police to pull over anyone anytime. Go over the limit like
everyone else it's a violation, drive at or below the limit
and it's odd enough behavior to warrant 'reasonable suspicion'
and get pulled over for not wanting to be pulled over.

Profiling, for reasons from the model of one's car to the color
of one's skin occurs. After all, when traffic is used as a way
to catch criminals some ordinary citizens are going to get caught
in the fishing net too.

> Jesse Helms announced he's retiring,

So?

> sharks are biting record numbers of swimmers in Florida,

awww.... people have become too accustomed to not having nature
bite back I suppose.

> NOBODY won Powerball tonight!

What do you expect from a state run numbers racket?

> Thousands of kids under 16 are being
> injured on cycles because they won't wear helmets,

Bicycle helmets are look-good-feel-good item. It's a sytrofoam hat,
nothing more, nothing less. It isn't going to help junior when he
gets hit by buick as he rides on the wrong side of the road, at night
without a light wearing dark clothing and running a stop sign. Teach
them how to ride properly, forget the hat.  Then maybe when they
turn 16 and start driving a motor vehicle, they won't need the air
bags and won't kill someone because they'll already know the rules
of the road.


> and Ford won't admit that it is really their design
> fault - not Firestones.

Firestone makes crappy tires, though not deadly ones. It's a TRUCK,
not a car. CR's test prefers sliding hence lower recommended pressure.
Idiots don't check their tire pressure on a regular basis let alone the
condition of their tires.

Go through a parking lot and look at the condition of tires on people's
vehicles. Some nearly flat, some bald, some with steel belts sticking
out.

> And rioters are heading to
> DC to protest and destroy the IMF conference!

You forgot the digital mmil. copyright law that takes another
bite out of the bill of rights.

"Wolf2600" <wolf2600@hotmail.com> wrote in
<n67h7.58110$aW5.827861@dfw-read.news.verio.net>:

>I think it was Car & Driver TV that did a test on this. They rigged an
>Explorer with a set of Firestones with a quick release valve that would
>let the air out of a tire almost instantly to simulate a blowout.  They
>started the test at 20 mph deflating the tire again and again in 10 mph
>increments all the way up to 70mph, the driver in the car didn't even
>need to touch the steering wheel.  Each time the Explorer continued
>tracking straight on down the road.  So obviously the cause of the
>rollovers is inexperienced drivers panicking and swerving when they get
>a blowout. But if the media reported the truth on this, they wouldn't
>get the ratings.

IIRC, he did weave a bit when they deflated it on a 70MPH curve, but I've
seen two of these rolled on straights.

OTOH, I only saw it tested with a rear wheel.  Fronts are *much* more
likely to cause serious control problems.

Karen Carroll wrote

> I can't handle much more.
    -----------
    Then don't.
      ----------
> Alan Greenspan has ruined our economy, the cost
> of gasoline keeps rising and lowering, people
> in California have to pay double for power,
    ------------
    Supply and demand.
    ------------
> McDonald's cheated their customers in their
> Monopoly game,
    ------------
    Well-said. Altho, I'd say the customers cheated themselves.
     ------------
> What's next?
    -------------
    More of same. Until the public reduce their attention span below 8
minutes. Then it will be more and more of same.
    -------------
> Am I going nuts? Or is it this world?
    --------------
    The world, obviously. Whether you go along with them is up to you.

BA

<prscarr@greymouser.com.SPAMFREEZONE.invalid> wrote in message
news:9m31l6125qq@enews4.newsguy.com...
> "See ya, Jesse,

Ya bitter, vitrol filled, bigoted old fossil and...


>don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out!!!"

--

  -- jenner

Brent Peterson <bap9@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7L8h7.597$0O6.114946@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
> Ahh yes, our wonderfully underposted limits designed to allow
> police to pull over anyone anytime.

...they speed.


--

  -- jenner

"Brent Peterson" <bap9@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7L8h7.597$0O6.114946@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...

> Thank big oil searching for maximum profit. Don't like
> the price, don't buy it, they'll get the message if enough
> people do that.
>

An economist at IU studied who gets what in the gas prices, and Uncle Sam was the biggest winner,
getting the highest percentage of the profits.

Autumn

Karen Carroll <kcar21@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3B84B191.F793896D@nospam.com>...
> I can't handle much more. I thought things would be
> better in the millennium but the world has gone
> nuts - maybe I have!
No, the world hasn't gone nuts. I think it's just your over-reaction
to very common occurrences. You sound like you were just born
yesterday.....or maybe you just dropped in from  Outer Space??
I think you should have posted this in Current Events and/or Politics
groups. Personally, I would have chosen a Mental Health group for you.
Not because you're going "Nutz", just cuz it seems you could benefit
from some emotional support. Someone to assure you..."there, there,
everything's going to be ok"

Alpha Male (newleaf_79@yahoo.com) wrote:
: No, the world hasn't gone nuts. I think it's just your over-reaction
: to very common occurrences. You sound like you were just born
: yesterday.....or maybe you just dropped in from  Outer Space??
: I think you should have posted this in Current Events and/or Politics
: groups.

She did.  This is Reeky, welcome stranger. (yeh, cross-posts noted)

: Not because you're going "Nutz", just cuz it seems you could benefit
: from some emotional support. Someone to assure you..."there, there,
: everything's going to be ok"

Here, I'll do my bit.  "Hiya Karen, what shakes?  Don't worry babe,
there will be conservatives around to fuck things up for a long
time to come... here, give us a HUG!"

That better?
--

          !!!!!!!!!
         !! ^   ^ !!        Dave Green
         (.(0)-(0).)       '83 CB750SC    DoD#1468
         !!   U   !!
          | (---) |
              w            http://imagearts.ryerson.ca/dgreen

In article <zIfh7.899$MK5.735748@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com>, jenner wrote:
>
> Brent Peterson <bap9@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7L8h7.597$0O6.114946@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
>> Ahh yes, our wonderfully underposted limits designed to allow
>> police to pull over anyone anytime.
>
> ...they speed.

They = people or they = police ?

Autumn wrote:

> An economist at IU studied who gets what in the gas prices, and
> Uncle Sam was the biggest winner

Huh!

Don't trust economists!

Uncle Sam is a wimp in this regard, compared with our Chancellor of the
Exchequer.

On 8/23/01 6:57 AM, in article
n67h7.58110$aW5.827861@dfw-read.news.verio.net, "Wolf2600"
<wolf2600@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>> the cost
>>> of gasoline keeps rising and lowering, people
>>> in California have to pay double for power,
>>
>> Their own damn fault for tolerating all those envirowackos that made
>> it difficult to build a new power plant.  Couldn't happen to a nicer
>> bunch.  They should suffer this for a summer to help change their
>> minds about the policy of routinely attempting to stop progress.
>>
>
> Damn tree-hugging hippies.
>
>>> and Ford won't admit that it is really their design
>>> fault - not Firestones.
>>
>> Design, and stupidly telling people that the proper inflation level
>> was 26 psi (if I remember right.)  It should be able to lose a wheel
>> and still not roll over...
>>
>
> I think it was Car & Driver TV that did a test on this. They rigged an
> Explorer with a set of Firestones with a quick release valve that would let
> the air out of a tire almost instantly to simulate a blowout.  They started
> the test at 20 mph deflating the tire again and again in 10 mph increments
> all the way up to 70mph, the driver in the car didn't even need to touch the
> steering wheel.  Each time the Explorer continued tracking straight on down
> the road.  So obviously the cause of the rollovers is inexperienced drivers
> panicking and swerving when they get a blowout. But if the media reported
> the truth on this, they wouldn't get the ratings.

Unless this test was done on the same type of road and traffic conditions
that were involved with the rollovers, it makes no sense to state that the
drivers in those rollovers were inexperienced. It is likely comparing apples
to oranges. All the conditions of the test have to be controlled, not just
the type of tire and vehicle.

On 8/23/01 3:32 AM, in article 3B84B191.F793896D@nospam.com, "Karen Carroll"
<kcar21@nospam.com> wrote:

> I can't handle much more. I thought things would be
> better in the millennium but the world has gone
> nuts - maybe I have!
>
> Alan Greenspan has ruined our economy, the cost
> of gasoline keeps rising and lowering, people

Alan Greenspan has not ruined our economy. Greedy investors looking for a
quick buck and greedy companies looking to satisfy investors are what's
causing the problem. Besides, ups and downs in the economy are quite normal.

Me wrote:
> Wolf2600 wrote:

> > I think it was Car & Driver TV that did a test on this. They rigged an
> > Explorer with a set of Firestones with a quick release valve that would let
> > the air out of a tire almost instantly to simulate a blowout.  They started
> > the test at 20 mph deflating the tire again and again in 10 mph increments
> > all the way up to 70mph, the driver in the car didn't even need to touch the
> > steering wheel.  Each time the Explorer continued tracking straight on down
> > the road.  So obviously the cause of the rollovers is inexperienced drivers
> > panicking and swerving when they get a blowout. But if the media reported
> > the truth on this, they wouldn't get the ratings.
>
> Unless this test was done on the same type of road and traffic conditions
> that were involved with the rollovers, it makes no sense to state that the
> drivers in those rollovers were inexperienced. It is likely comparing apples
> to oranges. All the conditions of the test have to be controlled, not just
> the type of tire and vehicle.

If you are simply testing for controllability of the vehicle, you do NOT
have to reproduce all the conditions of any particular crash.

A fairly comment technique in testing is to use conditions which will
maximise the likelihood of failure.  If what you are testing *still*
doesn't fail then you can be pretty sure that the apparent pass is
genuine.

For example, if a manufacturer wants to specify a maximum rating (speed,
lifting capacity, or whatever) for a product then that product will have
been tested *beyond* the rating, to be sure that a modest overload won't
break it.

With the Explorer example, suppose you choose test conditions which
stack the odds AGAINST controllability, yet you find that the vehicle is
always readily controllable.  Then you know that the vehicle *is*
controllable.

OTOH, suppose you stack the odds IN FAVOUR OF controllability, and then
find that the vehicle is controllable.  *NOW* you don't know whether the
vehicle is controllable in "real" conditions.

In article <3b85ded8_3@news.iglou.com>, "Autumn" <Autumn@noonehome> wrote:

>"Brent Peterson" <bap9@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:7L8h7.597$0O6.114946@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
>
>> Thank big oil searching for maximum profit. Don't like
>> the price, don't buy it, they'll get the message if enough
>> people do that.
>>
>
>An economist at IU studied who gets what in the gas prices, and Uncle Sam was
>the biggest winner,
>getting the highest percentage of the profits.
>
>Autumn


Sammy doesn't buy gas and resell it, therefore he makes no profit.  This is
called "revenue" or "taxes."

Charles

--

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1979 KZ650, 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"
Free Tibet!*
* With purchase of equal or greater value.  Not available in all stores.
While supplies last.  Void where prohibited by law.  As seen on TV.
(If you can't figure out my email, you should unplug the WebTV and lie down.)

On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:03:35 GMT, Me <srhi@home.com> wrote:

>On 8/23/01 3:32 AM, in article 3B84B191.F793896D@nospam.com, "Karen Carroll"
><kcar21@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't handle much more. I thought things would be
>> better in the millennium but the world has gone
>> nuts - maybe I have!
>>
>> Alan Greenspan has ruined our economy, the cost
>> of gasoline keeps rising and lowering, people
>
>Alan Greenspan has not ruined our economy. Greedy investors looking for a
>quick buck and greedy companies looking to satisfy investors are what's
>causing the problem. Besides, ups and downs in the economy are quite normal.

No, Alan Greenspan DID ruin our ecomomy by raising interest rates
until it wrung all the money out of the dot-coms.

As for greed, our form of economy runs on it.  Want an economy based
on altruism?  Try communism.  But that failed.

DPH

On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:03:35 GMT, Me <srhi@home.com> opined:

>Alan Greenspan has not ruined our economy. Greedy investors looking for a
>quick buck and greedy companies looking to satisfy investors are what's
>causing the problem. Besides, ups and downs in the economy are quite normal.

No, that's what started it all.  Business investment was through the
roof (because of the stock market), causing the economy to overheat.
Inflation was a very real danger (if inflation was really, really bad,
like Brazil currently is, prices at the end of the day would be a lot
higher than at the beginning of the day).  To fight against inflation,
Greenspan burst the "tech bubble" by raising interest rates, only he
over corrected, and was too slow to start lowering rates again,
resulting in a recession that really shouldn't have occured.

Larynx

-----
Remove the two *ME's to reply by e-mail.

"This life isn't about you, man, it's about the people you love."
-Charles Barkley

On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:17:31 -0400, the person known as DPH yelled
out:

>No, Alan Greenspan DID ruin our ecomomy by raising interest rates
>until it wrung all the money out of the dot-coms.

The dot-coms ran themselves out of business by trying to make a buck
on the"newness" of the internet.  It's hard to turn a profit when your
product is free, has no solid income base, and a long list of
competitors offering the same product for free.

Ben Randle http://www.beatnikonline.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Caution: Cape does not enable user to fly."
-Batman Costume warning label

>

>
>
> No, Alan Greenspan DID ruin our ecomomy by raising interest rates
> until it wrung all the money out of the dot-coms.

I would not suggest scrapping our unjust... sacrilegious... undemocratic...
unfair economic system... for it has proven time and again to be the best system
ever invented... perhaps what is good economics is bad politics and what's bad
economics is good politics...
Larry L
94 RC45 #2
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/

On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:17:31 -0400, DPH <rally2xs@compuserve.com>
wrote:


>No, Alan Greenspan DID ruin our ecomomy by raising interest rates
>until it wrung all the money out of the dot-coms.
>
>As for greed, our form of economy runs on it.  Want an economy based
>on altruism?  Try communism.  But that failed.
>
>DPH

The bursting of the dot-com bubble was due to:

investors finally realizing that no matter how much cash they poured
into it there's was never going to be a profit made by giving things
away.

advertisers and ad agencies realizing that "page hits" do not equate
to "sales" of anything and that net users would go to extremes to
*avoid* seeing their ads.

Only one net business model has been profitable from its inception and
that is the on-line porn industry.

When's the last time you heard of a porn site going bankrupt and
shutting down?

In article <99ofot83kqsl1fhuib6s7gocju7k07oud9@news.alt.net>,
 Uncle Jerry <bubbaworld@hotmail.com> wrote:

  > Only one net business model has been profitable from its inception and
  > that is the on-line porn industry.

That's the going theory, but in fact at least one other Internet-based
business is spinning right along, making money, accruing happy loyal
customers and growing <gasp!>: NetFlix <http://www.netflix.com/Default>.

I don't use them (because I don't own a DVD player), but I know lots of
people who do, and their number seems to grow weekly.

I suspect that there are other I-businesses that are as successful, but
that we don't hear about them over the media drumbeat of bad news.

In article <99ofot83kqsl1fhuib6s7gocju7k07oud9@news.alt.net>, Uncle Jerry wrote:
>
> The bursting of the dot-com bubble was due to:
>
> investors finally realizing that no matter how much cash they poured
> into it there's was never going to be a profit made by giving things
> away.

Well, prehaps they finally realized that these companies they were
pouring money into were in some cases not much more than a server
in a closet as well.

I didn't put any money into such stocks because I knew that it was
all vapor and that the net users disliked commericalism. I made that
decision early on based upon what in 95ish was 6 years using the internet.
(not that I had any money to risk at the time either)  I expected
established mail-order companies to use the internet effectively as
an extentsion to their existing catalog buisness.  What I under
estimated was the stupidity of people. Would have been better
to get in early rather than stay out and then dump it all before
everyone else did.

DPH wrote:
>
> No, Alan Greenspan DID ruin our ecomomy by raising interest rates
> until it wrung all the money out of the dot-coms.

???  There was only one thing wrong with the dotcoms.  Too much focus on burning
through their VC by buying their employees $800 Aeron chairs and not enough
focus on producing a viable business model or hiring anyone capable of running a
business in an intelligent manner.

Go cruise a place like overstock.com and see for yourself the material excess.

Brent Peterson wrote:

> I didn't put any money into such stocks because I knew that it was
> all vapor and that the net users disliked commericalism. I made that
> decision early on based upon what in 95ish was 6 years using the internet.
> (not that I had any money to risk at the time either)  I expected
> established mail-order companies to use the internet effectively as
> an extentsion to their existing catalog buisness.  What I under
> estimated was the stupidity of people. Would have been better
> to get in early rather than stay out and then dump it all before
> everyone else did.

I had some money in the NASDAQ. I got out, despite everyone telling me
not to, when the market was over 6,000. A few days later it went down. I
put some of it in bonds and some just in the good old savings account.
Might not be the best long term investment, but I didn't lose a dime. In
fact I made quite a bit.
Serene

In this group, you ask that question?  If you ain't there yet, you haven't far to go, from here. he-hehe

Actually....

Karen Carroll wrote:

> I can't handle much more. I thought things would be
> better in the millennium but the world has gone
> nuts - maybe I have!
>
> Alan Greenspan has ruined our economy,

Alan Greenspan, while having far too much power over our economy, has
probably done more to save our economy than to ruin it.  He's a much
better, less interfering Fed chair than the previous one, Paul Volcker,
was.

> the cost
> of gasoline keeps rising and lowering, people
> in California have to pay double for power,

The state of California brought that problem down on their own people
with their environmental regulations and their price controls.  It's
funny that their governor seems to be doing everything in his power to
aggravate the electrical situation, instead of relieving it.

>
> McDonald's cheated their customers in their
> Monopoly game,

Apparently McDonald's and its employees had nothing to do with rigging
the games.  That was done by a third party.

> Gary Condit (SOB) is being
> interviewed by Connie Chung,

While Condit may have cheated on his wife, there has been nothing to
indicate that he was involved in Chandra Levy's disappearance.  Do YOU
know something that you haven't told the police?  Or is this just your
intuition?  And is being interviewed by Connie Chung on national TV a
reward, or a punishment?  I wouldn't want to do it.

> my brother is
> called A "racial profiler" if he pulls over
> a speeder (he's a cop),

> Jesse Helms announced he's retiring,

And that's a BAD thing?

> sharks are biting record numbers of swimmers in Florida,

Apparently, there are more sharks along the Florida coastline because of
a government program to protect an endangered species of shark.  I was
trying to find an internet link for more info, but I didn't.  Maybe I'll
find it later.

> NOBODY won Powerballtonight!

Darn!

> Thousands of kids under 16 are being injured on cycles because they
> won't wear helmets,

You mean they're not being taught to drive safely and responsibly?  Oh,
the shame of our public education system!

> and Ford won't admit that it is really their design
> fault - not Firestones.

Again, do you have information that you're not telling us?  Maybe we
should do an interrogation--we have ways of making you talk...

> And rioters are heading to
> DC to protest and destroy the IMF conference!

Well, the IMF IS pretty sleazy, the way they interfere in foreign
economies.  But if this is like the WTO protests in Seattle, the
protesters are probably protesting against the wrong things...

>
> What's next?
>
> It goes on and on and on......
>
> Am I going nuts? Or is it this world?
>
> Is Gary Condit really the winner?
>
> ---Karen

Is being interviewed by Connie Chung really a *prize*?

Take a deep breath, count to ten, and relax.  Read a good, timeless
book, listen to some good music, and forget about everything else for a
while.

--Michael Clem--------------------------------------
But if you don't stand up, you don't stand a chance.
  -Squonk, by Genesis
--http://macsnafu.freeyellow.com--------------------

csoto wrote:

> In article <3b85ded8_3@news.iglou.com>, "Autumn" <Autumn@noonehome> wrote:
>
> >"Brent Peterson" <bap9@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:7L8h7.597$0O6.114946@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
> >
> >> Thank big oil searching for maximum profit. Don't like
> >> the price, don't buy it, they'll get the message if enough
> >> people do that.
> >>
> >
> >An economist at IU studied who gets what in the gas prices, and Uncle Sam was
> >the biggest winner,
> >getting the highest percentage of the profits.
> >
> >Autumn
>
> Sammy doesn't buy gas and resell it, therefore he makes no profit.  This is
> called "revenue" or "taxes."
>
> Charles
>

A whopping 40 cents worth of taxes, isn't it?  Sounds pretty profitable to me...

--
--Michael Clem--------------------------------------
But if you don't stand up, you don't stand a chance.
  -Squonk, by Genesis
--http://macsnafu.freeyellow.com--------------------

Larynx wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:03:35 GMT, Me <srhi@home.com> opined:
>
> >Alan Greenspan has not ruined our economy. Greedy investors looking for a
> >quick buck and greedy companies looking to satisfy investors are what's
> >causing the problem. Besides, ups and downs in the economy are quite normal.
>
> No, that's what started it all.  Business investment was through the
> roof (because of the stock market), causing the economy to overheat.
> Inflation was a very real danger (if inflation was really, really bad,
> like Brazil currently is, prices at the end of the day would be a lot
> higher than at the beginning of the day).  To fight against inflation,
> Greenspan burst the "tech bubble" by raising interest rates, only he
> over corrected, and was too slow to start lowering rates again,
> resulting in a recession that really shouldn't have occured.
>
> Larynx
>
>

Ups and downs in the economy ARE normal, and these normal ups and downs DID start
it all.  The boom and bust cycles in the late 1800s and the turn of the century
finally got enough politicians to decide that the government could handle the
economy better, and they created the Federal Reserve system in 1913.
  Of course, the unnatural boom of the 20s and the Great Depression of the 1930s
were not perceived as having ANYTHING TO DO with their wonderful Federal Reserve
system--"it was obviously market failure"--and so we're stuck with individual
people having too much power over our economy.
  Not that I think Greenspan is doing a bad job, he's doing a rather good job of
it.  It's just that it shouldn't be anybody's job to control the economy like
that.



--
--Michael Clem--------------------------------------
But if you don't stand up, you don't stand a chance.
  -Squonk, by Genesis
--http://macsnafu.freeyellow.com--------------------

In article <3B87CA7E.F88FD51D@vigoris.net>,
 "Michael A. Clem" <mclem@vigoris.net> wrote:

>csoto wrote:
>
>> In article <3b85ded8_3@news.iglou.com>, "Autumn" <Autumn@noonehome> wrote:
>>
>> >"Brent Peterson" <bap9@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> >news:7L8h7.597$0O6.114946@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
>> >
>> >> Thank big oil searching for maximum profit. Don't like
>> >> the price, don't buy it, they'll get the message if enough
>> >> people do that.
>> >>
>> >
>> >An economist at IU studied who gets what in the gas prices, and Uncle Sam
>> >was
>> >the biggest winner,
>> >getting the highest percentage of the profits.
>> >
>> >Autumn
>>
>> Sammy doesn't buy gas and resell it, therefore he makes no profit.  This is
>> called "revenue" or "taxes."
>>
>> Charles
>>
>
>A whopping 40 cents worth of taxes, isn't it?  Sounds pretty profitable to
>me...
>
>--
>--Michael Clem--------------------------------------
>But if you don't stand up, you don't stand a chance.
>  -Squonk, by Genesis
>--http://macsnafu.freeyellow.com--------------------


Someone please explain "profit" to Mikey.

Charles

--

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1979 KZ650, 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"
Free Tibet!*
* With purchase of equal or greater value.  Not available in all stores.
While supplies last.  Void where prohibited by law.  As seen on TV.
(If you can't figure out my email, you should unplug the WebTV and lie down.)

DPH <rally2xs@compuserve.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:03:35 GMT, Me <srhi@home.com> wrote:
>
>>On 8/23/01 3:32 AM, in article 3B84B191.F793896D@nospam.com, "Karen Carroll"
>><kcar21@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I can't handle much more. I thought things would be
>>> better in the millennium but the world has gone
>>> nuts - maybe I have!
>>>
>>> Alan Greenspan has ruined our economy, the cost
>>> of gasoline keeps rising and lowering, people
>>
>>Alan Greenspan has not ruined our economy. Greedy investors looking for a
>>quick buck and greedy companies looking to satisfy investors are what's
>>causing the problem. Besides, ups and downs in the economy are quite normal.
>
>No, Alan Greenspan DID ruin our ecomomy by raising interest rates
>until it wrung all the money out of the dot-coms.

Billions of dollars spent on organizations (I can't even call them
businesses because a business implies the desire for profits) whose
idea of a "business plan" was the architectural design of their
office, when they didn't even have a product or service is what wrung
all the money out of the dot-coms.

After the rates went down severely, the three biggest CLECs went into
bankruptcy.  If it were just the rates, you wouldn't see Rhythms
pulling out of the DSL business and the currently-in-chapter-11 Covad
trying to scrape by with the scraps.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"jenner" <j5nn5r@home.com> wrote:
>
>Brent Peterson <bap9@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:7L8h7.597$0O6.114946@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
>> Ahh yes, our wonderfully underposted limits designed to allow
>> police to pull over anyone anytime.
>
>...they speed.

Nope.  There has been a court ruling that someone may be pulled over
for not speeding because (with the grossly underposted limits) anyone
obeying the limit is acting suspiciously.

If you speed, you can be pulled over.  If you don't speed you can be
pulled over.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

whineryy@yifan.net (Marc) wrote:

>Nope.  There has been a court ruling that someone may be pulled over
>for not speeding because (with the grossly underposted limits) anyone
>obeying the limit is acting suspiciously.

Please post a reference to this ruling.  It sounds interesting.

Derek

In article <3b8cdf28.25621341@news1.denver1.co.home.com>, Derek wrote:
> whineryy@yifan.net (Marc) wrote:
>
>>Nope.  There has been a court ruling that someone may be pulled over
>>for not speeding because (with the grossly underposted limits) anyone
>>obeying the limit is acting suspiciously.
>
> Please post a reference to this ruling.  It sounds interesting.

It was posted in r.a.d. a few weeks ago, it confirmed my long standing
feelings on the subject. Basically an officer encountered two vehicles
leaving a nature reserve at an odd hour. He decided that one going above
the limit and with the required park stickers was 'normal' traffic. But
the other, a work truck that was going the limit was suspicous.

He then followed the truck for several miles and the driver of the
truck was obeying every single rule of the road to the letter. He
drove at or below the speed limit and obeyed a school zone speed limit
in the middle of the night when it didn't apply. By driving in complete
obedence to the traffic law the officer decided that they were clearly
hiding something. He pulled over the truck and found drugs on board.

The ruling was that because the driver was obeying the traffic laws
perfectly, it was odd behavior and thusly the officer had reasonable
suspicion to pull them over.

Of course had driver been driving like most people the officer could
have picked from a number of traffic offenses to make the stop.
Nowhere did seem to be even considered that most people would make
an attempt to drive perfectly with an officer following them.

So, if you don't obey the traffic laws you can be pulled over the
violation. If you obey them, that's reasonable suspicion because
the driver is trying to avoid being pulled over.

Stop anyone, anytime. Papers, Comrade?

bap9@my-deja.com (Brent Peterson) wrote:

>The ruling was that because the driver was obeying the traffic laws
>perfectly, it was odd behavior and thusly the officer had reasonable
>suspicion to pull them over.

Thanks Brent.  No disrespect intended but what I'm looking for is a
specific reference to the case.  IOW case number, who, when, where,
that kind of thing.  It's needed for a paper I'm doing which is why
second hand references won't work.

Derek

In article <3b8cf981.32367237@news1.denver1.co.home.com>, Derek wrote:
> bap9@my-deja.com (Brent Peterson) wrote:
>
>>The ruling was that because the driver was obeying the traffic laws
>>perfectly, it was odd behavior and thusly the officer had reasonable
>>suspicion to pull them over.

> Thanks Brent.  No disrespect intended but what I'm looking for is a
> specific reference to the case.  IOW case number, who, when, where,
> that kind of thing.  It's needed for a paper I'm doing which is why
> second hand references won't work.

I don't have it, however I should have provided enough to indentify
it in a google search.

I found it for ya.... from groups.google.com

-> From: John F. Carr (jfc@carrsw.com)
-> Subject: Re: Do police cars deliberately tailgate at night to
-> make people speed?
-> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
-> Date: 2001-08-11 07:29:07 PST

-> In article <3B74F33D.41D043D4@optonline.net>,
-> Anonymous  <anonymous@anonymous.anonymous> wrote:
-> >Do police cars deliberately tailgate at night to
-> >make people speed?

-> When police want to stop somebody who is driving legally they have to
-> manufacture a reason.  Courts have found that any reaction to police is
-> suspicious.  If you speed up, you are speeding.  If you slow down, you
-> have something to hide.

-> See, for example:
-> http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/00/00-50757-cr0.htm

-> In this case the LEOs got in front of the truck, then let it pass and
-> tailgated.  The driver reacted to this dangerous situation by slowing
-> down.  He also stopped for a few seconds at a stop sign.  The fifth
-> circuit court of appeals agreed that this was suspicious behavior
-> justifying a stop and search.

Marc wrote:

> Billions of dollars spent on organizations (I can't even call them
> businesses because a business implies the desire for profits) whose
> idea of a "business plan" was the architectural design of their
> office

There was some great architecture, though, wasn't there?  ;-)

Serene

bap9@my-deja.com (Brent Peterson) wrote:

> http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/00/00-50757-cr0.htm

This case focuses on a number of factors including the defendant
driving -below- the speed limit rather than -at- it.  Still, it was an
interesting read and I'll hang onto it for possible future reference.
Thanks for locating the link for me.

Derek

In article <3b8d272e.11277990@news1.denver1.co.home.com>, Derek wrote:
> bap9@my-deja.com (Brent Peterson) wrote:
>
>> http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/00/00-50757-cr0.htm
>
> This case focuses on a number of factors including the defendant
> driving -below- the speed limit rather than -at- it.

It's still legal driving. The speed limit is supposed to be the upper
bound, not a suggested speed or minimum speed. Under the law, we should
all be driving below the posted limit in all but the best road conditions
or durring passing when we could be at the limit.

Your words above show how the low speed limits work. We have become
so used to the speed limits being set low, that it's now a minimum
or suggested speed. That someone going slower is an abbration.
Below the limit, suspiscion, above the limit, a violator, at the limit,
wait awhile and the driver will either do someing 'suspiscious' by
driving slower and/or with care to detail or he will commit a violation.