OT Now we know what T bone air does with his spare time

From : redneck tookover hell

Q: bordentown n.j. sept. 29 - as if staying alive were not enough of an incentive motorists in new jersey have another reason to make sure they are well-rested when they get behind the wheel - a first-in-the-nation law against driving while drowsy. drowsy drivers ap graphic the new jersy law is the first of its kind in the u.s. under maggies law police will not be pulling over drivers whose eyelids look heavy. but the law allows prosecutors to charge a motorist with vehicular homicide punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $100000 fine in the event of a deadly crash if there is evidence the accident was caused by sleepiness. a dyslexic man walks into a bra. .

Replies:

From : tbone

lol besides me living here for now what does this have to do with me. bordentown n.j. sept. 29 - as if staying alive were not enough of an incentive motorists in new jersey have another reason to make sure they are well-rested when they get behind the wheel - a first-in-the-nation law against driving while drowsy. if that were the case them maggie would not be dead and this law would never need to exist. drowsy drivers ap graphic the new jersy law is the first of its kind in the u.s. but it will probably not be the last. under maggies law police will not be pulling over drivers whose eyelids look heavy. but the law allows prosecutors to charge a motorist with vehicular homicide punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $100000 fine in the event of a deadly crash if there is evidence the accident was caused by sleepiness. all you right wingers should love this law since it is based completely on personal responsibility. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : hodad

if that were the case them maggie would not be dead and this law would never need to exist. the law doesnt need to exist. nj leos should be charging manslaughter in a case of negligent/careless driving which by definition should include driving while too tired to do so. no need for more bullshit on the books. max might as well add laws against putting on make-up eating talking on cell phones and swatting at bees while theyre at it. hd .

From : jerry

tbone wrote all you right wingers should love this law since it is based completely on personal responsibility. really! ........ senator stephen m. sweeney d-salem cumberland and gloucester prime sponsor of legislation that would establish driving while seriously fatigued as a form of driver recklessness offered the following statement today upon assembly approval of the measure ....... nothing like a left wing liberal trying to whistle past the grave yard. .

From : old travelertom lawrence

feel the heater hoses input and return. the return hose should be much cooler than the input hose. if both are the same temperature the shutoff valve may be bad or the vacuum to the valve may be missing. careful those hoses may be very hot. ot i have a 98 ram 1500 that recently last week stopped blowing cold air with the air conditioning switch on. what are some troubleshooting techniques for determining a failed component or leak thanks a lot! matt .

From : tom lawrence

might as well add laws against putting on make-up cant - this would be directed at a minority group... eating this ones coming talking on cell phones got that one and swatting at bees while theyre at it. now youre just giving the environmentalists more ideas .

From : tbone

if that were the case them maggie would not be dead and this law would never need to exist. the law doesnt need to exist. nj leos should be charging manslaughter in a case of negligent/careless driving which by definition should include driving while too tired to do so. no need for more bullshit on the books. iirc that is what they did try but the guy had a good lawyer and got off with nothing more than a tickets and a few points on his license. tuff punishment for killing someone huh after that if anyone else did the same thing they could use that case to get away with it as well. now that door has been closed at least here in nj. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

that was sarcasm jerry lol. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving tbone wrote all you right wingers should love this law since it is based completely on personal responsibility. really! ........ senator stephen m. sweeney d-salem cumberland and gloucester prime sponsor of legislation that would establish driving while seriously fatigued as a form of driver recklessness offered the following statement today upon assembly approval of the measure ....... nothing like a left wing liberal trying to whistle past the grave yard. .

From : tbone

might as well add laws against putting on make-up cant - this would be directed at a minority group... in todays world which one eating this ones coming actually it already exists in many areas just seldom enforced. talking on cell phones got that one and swatting at bees while theyre at it. now youre just giving the environmentalists more ideas thats right and you might also piss greg off - -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : roy

perhaps you might want to put some valid input into the conversation. is that beyond your ability nah tom with all that you input there is no need for any additional. ill just read and chuckle thank you. roy .

From : roy

again! i dont friggin believe it. man you are good!!bfg roy .

From : max340

iirc that is what they did try but the guy had a good lawyer and got off with nothing more than a tickets and a few points on his license. a good lawyer or a good liar tuff punishment for killing someone huh after that if anyone else did the same thing they could use that case to get away with it as well. while true the hope is that the lawyers and judges would look at the laws and look for justice not bullshit. what it comes down to is the reason why red directed it at you the laws how they are enforced prosecuted and how the loop holes are closed are a direct result of the voters and society who creates them. iow red has noted that a bunch of jerseyites couldnt take responsibulity for themselves or allowed one of their own to get away with something and now you all get to pay for it. the very fact that you approve of this loophole closure and note the use of a good lawyer indicates that you support the lack of personal responsibility and endorse the dependance on being spoon fed the rules of society. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

perhaps you might want to put some valid input into the conversation. is that beyond your ability -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving again! i dont friggin believe it. man you are good!!bfg roy .

From : tbone

iirc that is what they did try but the guy had a good lawyer and got off with nothing more than a tickets and a few points on his license. a good lawyer or a good liar lol like those two terms can be seperated. i guess that it all depends on your point of view at the time. tuff punishment for killing someone huh after that if anyone else did the same thing they could use that case to get away with it as well. while true the hope is that the lawyers and judges would look at the laws and look for justice not bullshit. well max that is sadly not the way the world works. the judge is bound by the rules of the courts and the lawyers are obligated to use all legal means to win for their clients. what it comes down to is the reason why red directed it at you that makes no sense at all unless you are trying to say that the whole state is like me or that i am like everyone else in the state. the laws how they are enforced prosecuted and how the loop holes are closed are a direct result of the voters and society who creates them. this is not completely true. the police arrested the man but the law had no provisions to convict him. now it does. times change max and sometimes the laws have to change to keep up. iow red has noted that a bunch of jerseyites couldnt take responsibulity for themselves or allowed one of their own to get away with something and now you all get to pay for it. if people would take responsibility for themselves this law and many like it would never need to exist sorry to point this out to you max but this happens in more that just nj. this is sadly becoming an american attitude in general. the very fact that you approve of this loophole closure of course i approve of this loophole closure so would anyone else with a functioning brainstem. its loopholes like this that give people a get out of jail free card for not taking personal responsibility for their actions. and note the use of a good lawyer any lawyer that can twist the facts and law and get a win for their clients is considered a good lawyer. that does not make them a good or even an honest person. perhaps you should try it with the way that you twist facts and other peoples words i think that you already have what it takes. indicates that you support the lack of personal responsibility and endorse the dependance on being spoon fed the rules of society. lol what a load of crap. you and others like you whine about laws like these taking away from your freedoms when in reality all they do is hold people responsible for there actions and the only rights that they take away is the right be irresponsible and pay nothing for it and people like you just hate that. people who actually are responsible have no fear of these laws because they just dont effect us. all this law does is define what is considered irresponsible behavior and the punishment for doing it. if you are as responsible as you claim to be this law would have no effect on you either. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

might as well add laws against putting on make-up eating talking on cell phones and swatting at bees while theyre at it. some states including nj already have tried. yep when a growing number of people begin to behave in an irresponsible manor and endanger others the laws need to be adjusted to allow the police to deal with it. problem is simple rules get contorted by jackass lawyers who would rather win a case than see truth and justice prevail. so much for professional conduct. well at least we agree on this much. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

the judge is bound by the rules of the courts which they often forget to abide by. and the lawyers are obligated to use all legal means to win for their clients. bullshit. they are obligated to represent their clients and assist the individual with the legal system. no where does it say they are obligated to lie cheat steal purjure etc to get a win. what it comes down to is the reason why red directed it at you that makes no sense at all unless you are trying to say that the whole state is like me or that i am like everyone else in the state. no dude i am saying that red seems to think your attitude is the driving force behind this new law and that your attitude is shared by far too many people. i think he may very well be correct. the laws how they are enforced prosecuted and how the loop holes are closed are a direct result of the voters and society who creates them. this is not completely true. that is exactly true. who else makes the laws an alien from overseas or outer space the legal system of any region area state county nation reflects directly on the society that created it. the police arrested the man but the law had no provisions to convict him. bulshit. if you kill someone with a motor vehicle you are negligent on some level be it reckless careless or deliberate. there is no need for extra laws to place responsibility... unless the legal system allows lawyers to pervert and twist reality and responsibility. now it does. times change max and sometimes the laws have to change to keep up. there is no need for change in the laws i am sure there is a careless/reckless driving or involuntary manslaughter law already on the books. there is a need for the amount of truth used by lawyers to change. if people would take responsibility for themselves this law and many like it would never need to exist ding. now whos fault is that sorry to point this out to you max but this happens in more that just nj. this is sadly becoming an american attitude in general. noshitr sherlock wtf do ya think ive been saying wtf do ya think red was saying only part you dont get is you want more rules not better enforcment and better conviction based on truth. of course i approve of this loophole closure so would anyone else with a functioning brainstem. its loopholes like this that give people a get out of jail free card for not taking personal responsibility for their actions. wrong. its the lawyers and judges that have created the loop holes. now they want to close them with rules instead of common sense truth and justice. in so doing they have created a rats nest of problems. who has a sleep meter and can tell if a driver is too tired are they going to sit someone in jail because they are too tired what is probable cause to pull over a vehicle when an officer feels the driver is too tired or is this a law that will be one of the additional charges filed when involuntary manslaughter with a motor vehicle charges are filed and if so what is the cost in time for all the extra paperwork processing etc you know all the stuff that wouldnt be needed if the first jackass had taken responsibility for himself any lawyer that can twist the facts and law and get a win for their clients is considered a good lawyer. wrong. thats a liar a cheat and a liability to truth justice honor and honesty. if you are as responsible as you claim to be this law would have no effect on you either. wrong. more laws equals more cost to enforce prosecute and house the guilty. and you say you want a smaller government. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

yep when a growing number of people begin to behave in an irresponsible manor and endanger others the laws need to be adjusted to allow the police to deal with it. no the laws already in place need to be enforced. you are suggesting that a law needs to tell people not to use cell phones while driving when the reality is there are laws already in place against reckless driving. unless you are also saying that cell phone use while driving isnt negligent in those cases where an accident occurred. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

i thought as much oh well. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving perhaps you might want to put some valid input into the conversation. is that beyond your ability nah tom with all that you input there is no need for any additional. ill just read and chuckle thank you. roy .

From : max340

the judge is bound by the rules of the courts which they often forget to abide by. really you seem to be painting with a broad brush now. lol when a five time offender of dui finds himself on the street again the only person responsible is the judge. thats just one example of many that happen every day all across the nation. that is not what i said since lie cheat steal perjure etc are not legal means. apparently thats not true if you look at reality. then he and you would be completely correct. since people refuse to take responsibility for their actions on their own something needs to be done to force the issue. and making more lawsis not the way to force the issue. enforcing the laws already on the books is. which is why ultimately the judges are the ones responsible. they are voted into power by the people. they start out as lawyers. thus it tracks back to what i said before. the legal system reflects on the society that created it. too bad that reflection keeps looking like you and those like you. i was referring to the ways that they are enforced and prosecuted. once the law is written it has to fit the crime and that is not always the case especially as times change. so vehicular manslaughter has changed over the years bulshit. if you kill someone with a motor vehicle you are negligent on some level be it reckless careless or deliberate. yea but which one doesnt matter. and for that matter what if someone runs a blind intersection and you slam into the side of them and kill them how could it be reckless careless or deliberate to you obviously thats not the point. if you arent possibly guilty you wont be charged with a crime. unless its in nj and you are tired. there is no need for extra laws to place responsibility... no the new laws are needed to define what the responsibility is and the punishment for not taking it. wrong. if you kill someone while driving and you are too tired you are operating the vehicle in a reckless/careless manner. this law already exists. no reason to make more laws. unless the legal system allows lawyers to pervert and twist reality and responsibility. i guess that you didnt watch the oj case on tv. sorry i had more productive things to do than watch that all day. there is no need for change in the laws i am sure there is a careless/reckless driving or involuntary manslaughter law already on the books. yea which one precisely fits this situation careless driving fits a driver sleeping at the wheel very nicely. there is a need for the amount of truth used by lawyers to change. on this we both agree but the chances of this happening are slim to none. unless of course we start enforcing the laws regarding perjury. or do we need to be more specific about telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth if people would take responsibility for themselves this law and many like it would never need to exist ding. now whos fault is that whose fault it is means nothing. if it doesnt matter whose fault it is why have laws if people refuse to take the responsibility on their own then it needs to be forced on them. yup by enforcing the laws already written not by legislating every little thing. only part you dont get is you want more rules not better enforcment and better conviction based on truth. conviction based on what truth. oh yeah thats a word you seem to have little use for im not sure why i expected you to recognize it now...... what the law now needs are clear definitions and this is what this new law does. bullshit. the law needs common sense truth and justice to be administered by those that run the system. until then more writing in a book will do nothing to stop the lack of personal responsibility. once the rules are clear enforcement becomes very efficient. bullshit. got that sleep meter invented yet exactly how do you test a driver for how tired he was at the exact moment of the incident in so doing they have created a rats nest of problems. actually these specific laws reduce and help to eliminate this rats nest. bullshit and you know it. nobody will get pulled over for driving too tired but if you stay awake too long as specified by the law and this will be proven how just a simple investigation as to what the person was doing prior to getting behind the wheel and was he/she awake longer that the law maximum. do naps count being a good lawyer and being a good person are not the same thing. bullshit. a lawyer is entrusted by society to work within the very framework of civilized society. as such a good lawyer must be a good person if they are to live up to the responsibility. there are many who do not. any lawyer that wins his cases is considered a good lawyer. bullshit. i know of one lawyer who got a guy off on a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict after the

From : budd cochran

i rest my case. budd tbone wrote it wouldnt matter anyway roy. this just demonstrates what i said about him months ago but no one listened then . . . . and no one is listening now either because you have become nothing more than a bitter nasty old man that has no problem dishing it out but cannot take his own medicine. .

From : max340

if that were the case them maggie would not be dead and this law would never need to exist. the law doesnt need to exist. nj leos should be charging manslaughter in a case of negligent/careless driving which by definition should include driving while too tired to do so. no need for more bullshit on the books. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

the judge is bound by the rules of the courts which they often forget to abide by. really you seem to be painting with a broad brush now. and the lawyers are obligated to use all legal means to win for their clients. bullshit. they are obligated to represent their clients and assist the individual with the legal system. no where does it say they are obligated to lie cheat steal purjure etc to get a win. that is not what i said since lie cheat steal perjure etc are not legal means. what it comes down to is the reason why red directed it at you that makes no sense at all unless you are trying to say that the whole state is like me or that i am like everyone else in the state. no dude i am saying that red seems to think your attitude is the driving force behind this new law and that your attitude is shared by far too many people. i think he may very well be correct. then he and you would be completely correct. since people refuse to take responsibility for their actions on their own something needs to be done to force the issue. the laws how they are enforced prosecuted and how the loop holes are closed are a direct result of the voters and society who creates them. this is not completely true. that is exactly true. who else makes the laws an alien from overseas or outer space the legal system of any region area state county nation reflects directly on the society that created it. i was referring to the ways that they are enforced and prosecuted. once the law is written it has to fit the crime and that is not always the case especially as times change. the police arrested the man but the law had no provisions to convict him. bulshit. if you kill someone with a motor vehicle you are negligent on some level be it reckless careless or deliberate. yea but which one and for that matter what if someone runs a blind intersection and you slam into the side of them and kill them how could it be reckless careless or deliberate to you there is no need for extra laws to place responsibility... no the new laws are needed to define what the responsibility is and the punishment for not taking it. unless the legal system allows lawyers to pervert and twist reality and responsibility. i guess that you didnt watch the oj case on tv. now it does. times change max and sometimes the laws have to change to keep up. there is no need for change in the laws i am sure there is a careless/reckless driving or involuntary manslaughter law already on the books. yea which one precisely fits this situation there is a need for the amount of truth used by lawyers to change. on this we both agree but the chances of this happening are slim to none. if people would take responsibility for themselves this law and many like it would never need to exist ding. now whos fault is that whose fault it is means nothing. the problem still exists and still needs to be delt with. if people refuse to take the responsibility on their own then it needs to be forced on them. sorry to point this out to you max but this happens in more that just nj. this is sadly becoming an american attitude in general. noshitr sherlock wtf do ya think ive been saying wtf do ya think red was saying only part you dont get is you want more rules not better enforcment and better conviction based on truth. conviction based on what what the law now needs are clear definitions and this is what this new law does. once the rules are clear enforcement becomes very efficient. of course i approve of this loophole closure so would anyone else with a functioning brainstem. its loopholes like this that give people a get out of jail free card for not taking personal responsibility for their actions. wrong. its the lawyers and judges that have created the loop holes. no it is the laws that have the loopholes and the lawyers are just good at finding them sorta like the auto industry and their suvs where vehicle is about the only part of the name that is still valid. now they want to close them with rules instead of common sense truth and justice. common sense truth and justice can all be just forms of interpretation of laws that dont really fit the situation. if we really open that door that allows judges and lawyers to stretch laws into areas where they dont really fit you will find far more of your freedoms and rights in jeopardy than these extra rules could ever do. in so doing they have created a rats nest of problems. actually these specific laws reduce and help to eliminate this rats nest. who has a sleep meter and can tell if a driver is too tired are they going to sit someone in jail because they are too tired what is probable cause to pull over a vehicle when an officer feels the driver is too tired or is this a law that will be one of the additional charges filed when involuntary

From : tbone

yep when a growing number of people begin to behave in an irresponsible manor and endanger others the laws need to be adjusted to allow the police to deal with it. no the laws already in place need to be enforced. lol. they need to properly fit the crime and they dont. you are suggesting that a law needs to tell people not to use cell phones while driving when the reality is there are laws already in place against reckless driving. lol yea right. now you want to associate cell phone use with reckless driving. how would you do that what would be next talking to your passenger perhaps changing the radio station or looking at a gps unless you are also saying that cell phone use while driving isnt negligent in those cases where an accident occurred. neglect and reckless are two very different things. people also get into accidents when there is no cell phone involved. how do you know that the cell phone had anything to do with it or more importantly how do you prove it in court -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

whoa now cell phone use is reckless driving maxie youd have to prove that one. but in this case you cant because it isnt. precisely how astute you are this fine day. cell phone use and being tired are not proven to cause accidents but certainly can be a contributing factor. neither one can be conclusively proven to be the cause of any one incident but we all know that laws against cell phone use while driving are on the books and now there is one about tired drivers in nj. i find it very interesting that you both claim that cell phone use isnt reckless when clearly it takes from the drivers concentration on the road but you are both willing to accept a tired driver law as needed. it comes down to what ive said from the beginning people will do strange things while driving and if it causes an accident its negligence/reckless and would be found as such under laws already regulating operation of a motor vehicle in such a manner. yep. another maxie trick. change horses in midstream. start out in reckless then call it negligence. lol recklessness is negligence. no change there and further ive not used the terms interchangably since the laws define it as two different degrees of the same thing. cell phone usage in a case where it diverted the drivers attention and an accident took place certainly would justify a citation for negligent driving an infraction but would never support a charge of reckless driving a crime. it is classic that you accuse me of changing horses and then proceed to claim one offense is an infraction lol and the other is a crime. funny i thought an infraction of the law was a crime. recklessness and negligence while operating a motor vehicle are both summary offenses in this state. this link clearly states that careless driving is a summary offense and that sleeping at the wheel falls into this category. no need for an extra law here. http//members.aol.com/statutesp2/75pa3714.html this link clearly states that reckless driving is a summary offense. http//members.aol.com/statutespa/75pa3736.html a summary offense is punishable by a fine and if under the motor vehicle code points assessed to the offenders operators license. once again tbone is absolutely correct. maxie is talking out his ass again. lol says he who calls one offense an infraction and the other a crime. once again its been interesting to hear from the horses ass while you jump from one to the other..... but maxie will just say that he is baiting you for a response. baiting hell why use bait when youll jump out of the water voluntarily that is generally his excuse for his extreme ignorance and stupidity. no thats my excuse for making fun of your extreme ignorance and stupidity. which youve handily proven with that silly infraction/crime bullshit. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

lol yea right. now you want to associate cell phone use with reckless driving. how would you do that what would be next talking to your passenger perhaps changing the radio station or looking at a gps or sleeping neglect and reckless are two very different things. wrong. in both cases if something happens the negligent or reckless party is guilty. how do you know that the cell phone had anything to do with it or more importantly how do you prove it in court hmmm and how do you prove a tired driver had anything to do with it you make this terribly easy. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

tom care to point out where i posted anything having to do with this thread/conversation in support of maxs position or opinion hed love to roy but hes too busy scrambling to figure out which spin he neeeds to use now that his buddy guy is helping him out. is this the place where i say how complimented i feel that he needs help from his buddy i bet if i shot a worm up into the air over paris one of these two fish would be scrambling to get to the top of the eiffel tower. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : aguy

ya thought of that after i hit send.... should be an idiot light!! thanks anyway - 97 dodge ram 1500 ... 318 ci 2wd with 3 sp auto od .... not sure what else to add.... well a little background information such as model year engine transmission type 2 or 4 wd would be helpful............. hello.... just joined this group not aware it existed before..... so here goes my first question which i am sure has come up several times in good and bad context..... check engine light - use to come on every 6k or so and would go off within 100 miles... figured it was a programmed service call. well it came on at 72k not too surprised and has stayed on now for about 2400 miles or 2 months... everything seems to be in good working order .new everything as far as typical service and owners manual.. hate to take to garage just to have them turn it off..... is there a way to read codes or just turn the thing off.. thanks lite up in florida .

From : aguy

on 03 oct 2003 213657 gmt max340@aol.compost max340 wrote tom care to point out where i posted anything having to do with this thread/conversation in support of maxs position or opinion hed love to roy but hes too busy scrambling to figure out which spin he neeeds to use now that his buddy guy is helping him out. i changed it maxie. its aguy now. will probably change it again soon too. oh and i thought that i was your buddy maxie. is this the place where i say how complimented i feel that he needs help from his buddy i bet if i shot a worm up into the air over paris one of these two fish would be scrambling to get to the top of the eiffel tower. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : roy

tom care to point out where i posted anything having to do with this thread/conversation in support of maxs position or opinion hed love to roy but hes too busy scrambling to figure out which spin he neeeds to use now that his buddy guy is helping him out. sort of so many threads so many spins i guess.g roy is this the place where i say how complimented i feel that he needs help from his buddy i bet if i shot a worm up into the air over paris one of these two fish would be scrambling to get to the top of the eiffel tower. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : redneck tookover hell

does that mean you wont be saved anytime soon it seems that drivers from your state cant drive to save their asses. a dyslexic man walks into a bra. .

From : tbone

how old are you -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving does that mean you wont be saved anytime soon it seems that drivers from your state cant drive to save their asses. a dyslexic man walks into a bra. .

From : tbone

it wouldnt matter anyway roy. this just demonstrates what i said about him months ago but no one listened then . . . . and no one is listening now either because you have become nothing more than a bitter nasty old man that has no problem dishing it out but cannot take his own medicine. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochrantbone

you really need to have your paranoia treated. budd tbone wrote i never said that it did. what it did do is support your buddy max himself not his incorrect points. .

From : tbone

on thu 2 oct 2003 145437 -0400 tbone fatchance@noway.now wrote yep when a growing number of people begin to behave in an irresponsible manor and endanger others the laws need to be adjusted to allow the police to deal with it. no the laws already in place need to be enforced. lol. they need to properly fit the crime and they dont. you are suggesting that a law needs to tell people not to use cell phones while driving when the reality is there are laws already in place against reckless driving. lol yea right. now you want to associate cell phone use with reckless driving. how would you do that what would be next talking to your passenger perhaps changing the radio station or looking at a gps whoa now cell phone use is reckless driving maxie youd have to prove that one. but in this case you cant because it isnt. unless you are also saying that cell phone use while driving isnt negligent in those cases where an accident occurred. neglect and reckless are two very different things. people also get into accidents when there is no cell phone involved. how do you know that the cell phone had anything to do with it or more importantly how do you prove it in court yep. another maxie trick. change horses in midstream. start out in reckless then call it negligence. cell phone usage in a case where it diverted the drivers attention and an accident took place certainly would justify a citation for negligent driving an infraction but would never support a charge of reckless driving a crime. once again tbone is absolutely correct. maxie is talking out his ass again. but maxie will just say that he is baiting you for a response. that is generally his excuse for his extreme ignorance and stupidity. i know and now he has his buddy roy helping him. i guess that i should take it as a compliment that his friends feel the need to help him. the sad part is that this time it is just a conversation . tom care to point out where i posted anything having to do with this thread/conversation in support of maxs position or opinion roy gee how about your post that only said - again! i dont friggin believe it. man you are good!!bfg what is the point of this incorrect statement but support for you buddy max. if you actually had a valid input into the thread i wouldnt have said anything. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tom care to point out where i posted anything having to do with this thread/conversation in support of maxs position or opinion hed love to roy but hes too busy scrambling to figure out which spin he neeeds to use now that his buddy guy is helping him out. what spin lol. the only spin master in this thread is you maxi. is this the place where i say how complimented i feel that he needs help from his buddy do you mean like budd tries to help you i bet if i shot a worm up into the air over paris one of these two fish would be scrambling to get to the top of the eiffel tower. lol still trying to make it look like you knew you were wrong once again it is sad that you have become so desperate. perhaps if you actually stood up and admitted when you were wrong you would actually be believable and not the class clown. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

lol i see that he didnt respond to this one. i guess that it is hard for him to type with his foot that far down his throat. yeah i suppose guy would have to swallow pretty hard when faced with facts straight out of pa code since he claims the code isnt telling the truth about what is a crime and what is an infraction. too bad his response wasnt worth a second look. btw whats your interest in replying after so much time enjoy getting made to look foolish max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

i was at the new house in n.c. this weekend and just got back today but dont worry ill be sure to respond to your replys later. btw i got stuck behind a few pa drivers for part of the way home and it seems that drivers from your state cant drive to save their asses. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving lol i see that he didnt respond to this one. i guess that it is hard for him to type with his foot that far down his throat. yeah i suppose guy would have to swallow pretty hard when faced with facts straight out of pa code since he claims the code isnt telling the truth about what is a crime and what is an infraction. too bad his response wasnt worth a second look. btw whats your interest in replying after so much time enjoy getting made to look foolish max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

on thu 2 oct 2003 145437 -0400 tbone fatchance@noway.now wrote yep when a growing number of people begin to behave in an irresponsible manor and endanger others the laws need to be adjusted to allow the police to deal with it. no the laws already in place need to be enforced. lol. they need to properly fit the crime and they dont. you are suggesting that a law needs to tell people not to use cell phones while driving when the reality is there are laws already in place against reckless driving. lol yea right. now you want to associate cell phone use with reckless driving. how would you do that what would be next talking to your passenger perhaps changing the radio station or looking at a gps whoa now cell phone use is reckless driving maxie youd have to prove that one. but in this case you cant because it isnt. unless you are also saying that cell phone use while driving isnt negligent in those cases where an accident occurred. neglect and reckless are two very different things. people also get into accidents when there is no cell phone involved. how do you know that the cell phone had anything to do with it or more importantly how do you prove it in court yep. another maxie trick. change horses in midstream. start out in reckless then call it negligence. cell phone usage in a case where it diverted the drivers attention and an accident took place certainly would justify a citation for negligent driving an infraction but would never support a charge of reckless driving a crime. once again tbone is absolutely correct. maxie is talking out his ass again. but maxie will just say that he is baiting you for a response. that is generally his excuse for his extreme ignorance and stupidity. i know and now he has his buddy roy helping him. i guess that i should take it as a compliment that his friends feel the need to help him. the sad part is that this time it is just a conversation . tom care to point out where i posted anything having to do with this thread/conversation in support of maxs position or opinion roy gee how about your post that only said - again! i dont friggin believe it. man you are good!!bfg what i posted did not have a thing to do maxs position or opinions nor did it support them. i never said that it did. what it did do is support your buddy max himself not his incorrect points. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

what i posted did not have a thing to do maxs position or opinions nor did it support them. i never said that it did. what it did do is support your buddy max himself not his incorrect points. just the methods he employes to induce certain people to play his game over and over again. what methods would that be roy being wrong and trying to spin his way out of it i actually enjoy watching him spin. since i am the one who responded to reds post first the real question might be who is inducing who to play now -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran

it wouldnt matter anyway roy. this just demonstrates what i said about him months ago but no one listened then . . . . budd roy wrote on thu 2 oct 2003 145437 -0400 tbone fatchance@noway.now wrote yep when a growing number of people begin to behave in an irresponsible manor and endanger others the laws need to be adjusted to allow the police to deal with it. no the laws already in place need to be enforced. lol. they need to properly fit the crime and they dont. you are suggesting that a law needs to tell people not to use cell phones while driving when the reality is there are laws already in place against reckless driving. lol yea right. now you want to associate cell phone use with reckless driving. how would you do that what would be next talking to your passenger perhaps changing the radio station or looking at a gps whoa now cell phone use is reckless driving maxie youd have to prove that one. but in this case you cant because it isnt. unless you are also saying that cell phone use while driving isnt negligent in those cases where an accident occurred. neglect and reckless are two very different things. people also get into accidents when there is no cell phone involved. how do you know that the cell phone had anything to do with it or more importantly how do you prove it in court yep. another maxie trick. change horses in midstream. start out in reckless then call it negligence. cell phone usage in a case where it diverted the drivers attention and an accident took place certainly would justify a citation for negligent driving an infraction but would never support a charge of reckless driving a crime. once again tbone is absolutely correct. maxie is talking out his ass again. but maxie will just say that he is baiting you for a response. that is generally his excuse for his extreme ignorance and stupidity. i know and now he has his buddy roy helping him. i guess that i should take it as a compliment that his friends feel the need to help him. the sad part is that this time it is just a conversation . tom care to point out where i posted anything having to do with this thread/conversation in support of maxs position or opinion roy gee how about your post that only said - again! i dont friggin believe it. man you are good!!bfg what i posted did not have a thing to do maxs position or opinions nor did it support them. what is the point of this incorrect statement but support for you buddy max. if you actually had a valid input into the thread i wouldnt have said anything. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : hdinnyroy

roy wrote snipped no i said i wasnt really sure what a parking brake had to do with adjusting rear brakes. not questioning him merely making a statement. you in turn replied that on many vehicles that was how the rears were adjusted. im a little surprised that is the way to adjust rears on dodge trucks. further i wonder if it would apply to the truck in question a 92 also what years is that the prescribed method. im not sure about dodge. this is the first chrysler product ive owned since the 53 plymouth i bought one day and junked that same week. iirc my 96 sierra adjusted with the parking brake. the 02 had disk brakes all around like the ram i have now. i know the rice burner vehicles started the parking brake thing and my wifes 95 lesabre adjusts with the parking brake. and no i dont think it would apply to a 92 but we could be wrong g. hd in ny for now 2003 ram qc sb 1500 hemi 2000 hr alumascape 29fsk .

From : roy

on thu 2 oct 2003 145437 -0400 tbone fatchance@noway.now wrote yep when a growing number of people begin to behave in an irresponsible manor and endanger others the laws need to be adjusted to allow the police to deal with it. no the laws already in place need to be enforced. lol. they need to properly fit the crime and they dont. you are suggesting that a law needs to tell people not to use cell phones while driving when the reality is there are laws already in place against reckless driving. lol yea right. now you want to associate cell phone use with reckless driving. how would you do that what would be next talking to your passenger perhaps changing the radio station or looking at a gps whoa now cell phone use is reckless driving maxie youd have to prove that one. but in this case you cant because it isnt. unless you are also saying that cell phone use while driving isnt negligent in those cases where an accident occurred. neglect and reckless are two very different things. people also get into accidents when there is no cell phone involved. how do you know that the cell phone had anything to do with it or more importantly how do you prove it in court yep. another maxie trick. change horses in midstream. start out in reckless then call it negligence. cell phone usage in a case where it diverted the drivers attention and an accident took place certainly would justify a citation for negligent driving an infraction but would never support a charge of reckless driving a crime. once again tbone is absolutely correct. maxie is talking out his ass again. but maxie will just say that he is baiting you for a response. that is generally his excuse for his extreme ignorance and stupidity. i know and now he has his buddy roy helping him. i guess that i should take it as a compliment that his friends feel the need to help him. the sad part is that this time it is just a conversation . tom care to point out where i posted anything having to do with this thread/conversation in support of maxs position or opinion roy .

From : budd cochran

geetom would you rather we laugh at you behind your back we can do that too. budd tbone wrote tom care to point out where i posted anything having to do with this thread/conversation in support of maxs position or opinion hed love to roy but hes too busy scrambling to figure out which spin he neeeds to use now that his buddy guy is helping him out. what spin lol. the only spin master in this thread is you maxi. is this the place where i say how complimented i feel that he needs help from his buddy do you mean like budd tries to help you i bet if i shot a worm up into the air over paris one of these two fish would be scrambling to get to the top of the eiffel tower. lol still trying to make it look like you knew you were wrong once again it is sad that you have become so desperate. perhaps if you actually stood up and admitted when you were wrong you would actually be believable and not the class clown. .

From : roy

just the methods he employes to induce certain people to play his game over and over again. ya cant induce the willing. max that is obvious! oh shit! tom im agreeing with max does that mean i support him too roy .

From : tbonetbone

geetom would you rather we laugh at you behind your back once again you choose to do the non-christian thing imagine that. we can do that too. according to your buddy max you already are. the sad thing is that you probably think that he is right. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving tbone wrote tom care to point out where i posted anything having to do with this thread/conversation in support of maxs position or opinion hed love to roy but hes too busy scrambling to figure out which spin he neeeds to use now that his buddy guy is helping him out. what spin lol. the only spin master in this thread is you maxi. is this the place where i say how complimented i feel that he needs help from his buddy do you mean like budd tries to help you i bet if i shot a worm up into the air over paris one of these two fish would be scrambling to get to the top of the eiffel tower. lol still trying to make it look like you knew you were wrong once again it is sad that you have become so desperate. perhaps if you actually stood up and admitted when you were wrong you would actually be believable and not the class clown. .

From : tbone

yep! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving just the methods he employes to induce certain people to play his game over and over again. ya cant induce the willing. max that is obvious! oh shit! tom im agreeing with max does that mean i support him too roy .

From : roy

actually i think that it is you who hasnt figured it out yet. lucky for me that i am not doing it for your entertainment. ah but you are tom. im sure others here find your behavior mildly entertaining as well .

From : roy

what i posted did not have a thing to do maxs position or opinions nor did it support them. i never said that it did. what it did do is support your buddy max himself not his incorrect points. just the methods he employes to induce certain people to play his game over and over again. .

From : tbone

lol yea right. now you want to associate cell phone use with reckless driving. how would you do that what would be next talking to your passenger perhaps changing the radio station or looking at a gps or sleeping can you sleep and drive at the same time neglect and reckless are two very different things. wrong. in both cases if something happens the negligent or reckless party is guilty. they are s t i l l very different things and have different punnishments neither of which covers killing someone. how do you know that the cell phone had anything to do with it or more importantly how do you prove it in court hmmm and how do you prove a tired driver had anything to do with it thats the great thing aout this law you dont have to. you make this terribly easy. actually max that would be you. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran

tbone wrote geetom would you rather we laugh at you behind your back once again you choose to do the non-christian thing imagine that. how would you know the way you treat me is certainly not christian with all the verbal abuse. you have no authority to judge me. for certain theres no evidence of you having any christian beliefs. we can do that too. according to your buddy max you already are. the sad thing is that you probably think that he is right. hes right more often than you but no matter i love watching you fall into his traps and try to spin your way out. keep up the lousy work. budd .

From : tbone

you have no case to rest budd. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving i rest my case. budd tbone wrote it wouldnt matter anyway roy. this just demonstrates what i said about him months ago but no one listened then . . . . and no one is listening now either because you have become nothing more than a bitter nasty old man that has no problem dishing it out but cannot take his own medicine. .

From : tbone

rm wrote i have a 4x4 1500/360/4.10 gears on 36x12.50 tires. i get about 10mpg. think it would help and what settings increased your mpg the most i only ran it at the top tune for a few minutes. knocked and pinged like there was no tomorrow. with the heavy load those tires cause i would only use the mid tune; which is really only a few hp off the top tune. of course a big truck with a big engine and big tires is never going to get good mileage. but it probably would improve 1-2 mpg. but i was most impressed with the power increase. the mileage increase was just a bonus. -- ..bob 01 dakota quad cab 5.9/auto/4x4 97 h-d fxdwg - turbocharged! 84 gmc jimmy - mountain beater 65 427sc cobra ffr replica - project 66 mustang coup - daily driver -----= posted via feeds.com uncensored usenet =----- http//www.feeds.com - the #1 group service in the world! -----== over 100000 groups - 19 different servers! =----- .

From : noseyroy

denny wrote my 1975 dodge 1/2 ton powerwagon is a fulltime 4x4. i see that summit has conversion kits with hubs one by milemarker and one by superwinch to convert to part time 4 wheel drive. does anyone have any experience with these kits what are the pros and cons of making the conversion im looking at the fuel economy improvement hopefully offered by part time 2 wheel drive. thanks for your help! lance carpenter my suggestion save your money. after putting the conversion kit in you will still get 9-11 mpg. back in the late 70s when the gas crunch hit these kits were selling like hotcakes but they really didnt make much difference. denny its a worthwhile conversion even if its not done for fuel economy. less parts are spinning around needlesly. wear and driveline vibrations are reduced. you also have the option of driving in low range with the fronts unlocked. this is useful when a low speed range is needed on hard surfaces. i have done this many times backing a heavy trailer up a long steep driveway. .

From : tbone

oh really then why exactly did he post it and btw i thought that you were done with me -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving you really need to have your paranoia treated. budd tbone wrote i never said that it did. what it did do is support your buddy max himself not his incorrect points. .

From : tbone

whoa now cell phone use is reckless driving maxie youd have to prove that one. but in this case you cant because it isnt. precisely how astute you are this fine day. cell phone use and being tired are not proven to cause accidents but certainly can be a contributing factor. here we go with this line of bs again. tell me max what exactly causes an accident neither one can be conclusively proven to be the cause of any one incident but we all know that laws against cell phone use while driving are on the books and now there is one about tired drivers in nj. these are two very different things and you know that. the cell phone law was written to help eliminate a significant contributing factor much like speed limits and the overtired law just raises the bar for commiting that type of offence to a full crime. i find it very interesting that you both claim that cell phone use isnt reckless when clearly it takes from the drivers concentration on the road but you are both willing to accept a tired driver law as needed. reckless no but possibly careless. that really depends on the person. some people can switch their attention between multiple things very quickly and have no real problem using a cell phone while others cannot and put others in danger trying to use them while driving. since it is to hard to tell and the rate of accidents attributed to them is rising it is just easier and safer to prohibit their use while driving. the tired drivers law just sets an appropriate punishment for killing someone while knowingly driving tired sorta like killing someone while driving drunk. it comes down to what ive said from the beginning people will do strange things while driving and if it causes an accident its negligence/reckless and would be found as such under laws already regulating operation of a motor vehicle in such a manner. but the laws dont allow for the proper punnishments for the crimes and do nothing to help prevent the accidents from happening in the first place. yep. another maxie trick. change horses in midstream. start out in reckless then call it negligence. lol recklessness is negligence. really that is not that the dictionary says. no change there and further ive not used the terms interchangably since the laws define it as two different degrees of the same thing. yes you have. cell phone usage in a case where it diverted the drivers attention and an accident took place certainly would justify a citation for negligent driving an infraction but would never support a charge of reckless driving a crime. it is classic that you accuse me of changing horses and then proceed to claim one offense is an infraction lol and the other is a crime. funny i thought an infraction of the law was a crime. recklessness and negligence while operating a motor vehicle are both summary offenses in this state. this link clearly states that careless driving is a summary offense and that sleeping at the wheel falls into this category. no need for an extra law here. so if a person knowingly drives tired falls asleep while driving and kills someone they should only be subjuct to a few points and a small fine as in pa. that is exactly why the new law was written. http//members.aol.com/statutesp2/75pa3714.html this link clearly states that reckless driving is a summary offense. it is also listed as a serious traffic offense. homicide by motorvehicle is also listed in this group. to bad that it cannot be applied to someone falling asleep behind the wheel. hey maybe that is why it was changed in nj. http//members.aol.com/statutespa/75pa3736.html a summary offense is punishable by a fine and if under the motor vehicle code points assessed to the offenders operators license. yea a valid punishment for someone who couldnt be bothered taking some time to be properly rested and winds up killing someone else. once again tbone is absolutely correct. maxie is talking out his ass again. lol says he who calls one offense an infraction and the other a crime. once again its been interesting to hear from the horses ass while you jump from one to the other..... but maxie will just say that he is baiting you for a response. baiting hell why use bait when youll jump out of the water voluntarily that is generally his excuse for his extreme ignorance and stupidity. no thats my excuse for making fun of your extreme ignorance and stupidity. which youve handily proven with that silly infraction/crime bullshit. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

the judge is bound by the rules of the courts which they often forget to abide by. really you seem to be painting with a broad brush now. lol when a five time offender of dui finds himself on the street again the only person responsible is the judge. thats just one example of many that happen every day all across the nation. no that would be the prison system and the fact that it is out of space. then you can add irresponsible tax cuts preventing us from building more of them and non-violent criminals are kicked early. that is not what i said since lie cheat steal perjure etc are not legal means. apparently thats not true if you look at reality. i am speaking about reality. i didnt say that it was never done just that they are not legal means. you seem to think that it is so clear cut and that is not the case. as long as there is some need for interpretation in the law the defense lawyers have a killer edge on the prosecutors. then he and you would be completely correct. since people refuse to take responsibility for their actions on their own something needs to be done to force the issue. and making more lawsis not the way to force the issue. it is a way to remove the cloud of interpetation and clearly state what is right and wrong. enforcing the laws already on the books is. which is why ultimately the judges are the ones responsible. they are voted into power by the people. they start out as lawyers. thus it tracks back to what i said before. the legal system reflects on the society that created it. lol any port in a storm huh max. even in your state under your current mv laws no judge could give the proper punishment for the crime either. in order for the judge to claim vehicular homicide there has to be a cause of recklessness or gross neglect and sleeping is a careless offence and doesnt meet either requirement. too bad that reflection keeps looking like you and those like you. perhaps because people like me are just smarter than you. i was referring to the ways that they are enforced and prosecuted. once the law is written it has to fit the crime and that is not always the case especially as times change. so vehicular manslaughter has changed over the years you really should read your own laws. bulshit. if you kill someone with a motor vehicle you are negligent on some level be it reckless careless or deliberate. yea but which one doesnt matter. yes it does. the punishments are very different for each one. and for that matter what if someone runs a blind intersection and you slam into the side of them and kill them how could it be reckless careless or deliberate to you obviously thats not the point. if you arent possibly guilty you wont be charged with a crime. unless its in nj and you are tired. ya see i just blew your argument to hell here. you just said that someone is always responsible and now that is not true. there is no need for extra laws to place responsibility... no the new laws are needed to define what the responsibility is and the punishment for not taking it. wrong. if you kill someone while driving and you are too tired you are operating the vehicle in a reckless/careless manner. this law already exists. no reason to make more laws. here you go with that reckless/careless interchangeable bs again and after denying that you do that to boot. falling asleep is considered a careless act and is not subject to the same added punishments and fines that reckless is. unless the legal system allows lawyers to pervert and twist reality and responsibility. i guess that you didnt watch the oj case on tv. sorry i had more productive things to do than watch that all day. but you seem to have the time to get involved in this crap i see. there is no need for change in the laws i am sure there is a careless/reckless driving or involuntary manslaughter law already on the books. yea which one precisely fits this situation careless driving fits a driver sleeping at the wheel very nicely. and has minimal fines and punishments that are not valid if you wind up killing someone. there is a need for the amount of truth used by lawyers to change. on this we both agree but the chances of this happening are slim to none. unless of course we start enforcing the laws regarding perjury. if they could they would. or do we need to be more specific about telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth well max telling the truth in court is nothing more than saying what you believe to be the truth. if people would take responsibility for themselves this law and many like it would never need to exist ding. now whos fault is that whose fault it is means nothing. if it doesnt matter whose fault it is why have laws see taking what i say completely out of context is also lying yet you do it ever

From : royroy

what i posted did not have a thing to do maxs position or opinions nor did it support them. i never said that it did. what it did do is support your buddy max himself not his incorrect points. just the methods he employes to induce certain people to play his game over and over again. what methods would that be roy being wrong and trying to spin his way out of it i actually enjoy watching him spin. i guess you should look at it from the spectator seat. since i am the one who responded to reds post first the real question might be who is inducing who to play now tom its obvious that you havent figured that out yet. .

From : tbone

actually i think that it is you who hasnt figured it out yet. lucky for me that i am not doing it for your entertainment. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving what i posted did not have a thing to do maxs position or opinions nor did it support them. i never said that it did. what it did do is support your buddy max himself not his incorrect points. just the methods he employes to induce certain people to play his game over and over again. what methods would that be roy being wrong and trying to spin his way out of it i actually enjoy watching him spin. i guess you should look at it from the spectator seat. since i am the one who responded to reds post first the real question might be who is inducing who to play now tom its obvious that you havent figured that out yet. .

From : aguy

on mon 6 oct 2003 214401 -0400 tbone fatchance@noway.now wrote how old are you good question. .

From : max340

ive a 2k cummins for sale 2500 4x4 with most of the toys 410 ls in the rear. it aint cheap. roy if i remember right i offered $6999.99 and a few assorted spiffs and you didnt even acknowledge my offer. you must not want to sell it very bad...... bg denny .

From : aguy

on tue 07 oct 2003 005447 gmt budd cochran mr-d150spam@citlink.net wrote geetom would you rather we laugh at you behind your back we can do that too. budd how how tf can you laugh behind his back you cant even get behind his back budd. you are miles away man. tbone wrote tom care to point out where i posted anything having to do with this thread/conversation in support of maxs position or opinion hed love to roy but hes too busy scrambling to figure out which spin he neeeds to use now that his buddy guy is helping him out. what spin lol. the only spin master in this thread is you maxi. is this the place where i say how complimented i feel that he needs help from his buddy do you mean like budd tries to help you i bet if i shot a worm up into the air over paris one of these two fish would be scrambling to get to the top of the eiffel tower. lol still trying to make it look like you knew you were wrong once again it is sad that you have become so desperate. perhaps if you actually stood up and admitted when you were wrong you would actually be believable and not the class clown. .

From : mac davismax340

thanks to all that responded... we decided not to do the gear change and to be very careful towing a 4700 pound trailer with the dak... then today we went to our dodge dealer to have the 38000 mile service done on the dak and while we were there we fell in love with a forest green ram.. lol we traded in the wifes cougar and got a 99 ram 1500... 5.9l auto quad cab laramie slt etc ect..... tow weight is 7600 pounds and it already has a receiver hitch were ready for the trailer to be done in a week... thanks again to all that responded not only the techs with prices but especially the ones that cautioned against towing the beast with our dak.. we love our lil ram and were really worried that wed shorten its life by towing the beast with it... well have peace of mind now as well as one hell of a truck! the green one *g* mac .

From : max340

according to your vehicular homicide law it can only be evoked if the person was either reckless or grossly negligent. which also covers a person who knowingly drives a motor vehicle with too little sleep or under the influence of sleep inducing drugs. what you fail to realize is in pa they use proof not simply being asleep to decide on carelessness or recklessness. that is why despite what you claim there are two degrees of infraction one a summary one a misdemeanor. if a death is involved its no longer a motor vehicle code infraction but a crimes code infraction. thus while nj seems to feel they need a person to be asleep to indict them on a felony charge pa checks to see if a felony has been committed before indicting on a felony charge. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

according to your vehicular homicide law it can only be evoked if the person was either reckless or grossly negligent. which also covers a person who knowingly drives a motor vehicle with too little sleep wrong. not the way that your laws are currently written and you were the one to prove that. sleeping is a careless driving offense and that is considered neither reckless or grossly negligent under a careless driving charge. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

on mon 13 oct 2003 104320 -0400 tbone fatchance@noway.now wrote lol lets see you claim a crime and an infraction of the law are not the same. i prove they arent put up links where you can see that pa law recognizes the two as being the same and that the legality in question reckless driving is considered to cover the bullshit law that nj felt it needed and that reckless driving has several degrees of severity. well max not to beat this dead horse any further but once again you are both wrong and lying again. you really should understand what you are looking at before posting it as a defense. the pa dmv laws that you posted clearly show that the way that their laws are currently written also prevent them from giving the proper punishment for falling asleep behind the wheel and killing someone just like nj used to. according to your vehicular homicide law it can only be evoked if the person was either reckless or grossly negligent. the problem is that falling asleep behind the wheel is covered under your careless driving statute and that is not considered either a reckless or a grossly negligent act. the way that your laws are written any lawyer can get the guy off on that alone with just a few points and a small fine just like the nj lawyer did. i am now done with this thread as anything further that you could come up with would be nothing more than more lies and spin such as reckless and careless are the same thing and they are not so thanks again max and later dud. tbone the thing that everyone is telling you is that maxie is well aware that he is wrong. he posts this stupid shit just to get us to tell him that he wrong. then he keeps postng this stupid shit to get us to answer his stupid postings so that he can get a belly laugh out of the fact that we are responding to his postings. the fact that his shit is so stupid and he makes such an imbecile out of himself seems to go right over his head as well as several others. i dont have any more of an explaination about maxies logic and the others that belly laugh with him than that. if you think about it it gives you some unique insights into the pile of shit that he calls his mind. i guess when you are a broke bar bouncer you gotta take what ever you can get. pretty sad but apparently that is all the man has. anyway just thought id pass that on to you. me well i enjoy getting maxie to respond to these threads for ever. i dont read his shit though it is just too sad to see a mind wasted like that. but i do enjoy leading him around. then you are missing out on most of the fun. watching the way his little mind operates is a real kick and far more fun than leading him around. the sad thing is that the others here really do believe that he is doing this on purpose. i guess that it is because he really does know his shit with history and it is kinda hard to believe that he has so little knowledge of the sciences that even the common sense things seem to throw him but how true it is. while spin is an effective weapon when discussing politics and history it doesnt work well when discussing scientific rules especially once you get used to the way that he does it. hell once you get used to the way that he does it it loses most of its effectiveness on everything. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : aguy

on 06 oct 2003 213814 gmt max340@aol.compost max340 wrote lol i see that he didnt respond to this one. i guess that it is hard for him to type with his foot that far down his throat. yeah i suppose guy would have to swallow pretty hard when faced with facts straight out of pa code since he claims the code isnt telling the truth about what is a crime and what is an infraction. too bad his response wasnt worth a second look. hey maxie pad it is still aguy. dude im still waiting for your answer since you are so fucked up again. btw whats your interest in replying after so much time enjoy getting made to look foolish max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : aguy

on tue 07 oct 2003 121716 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote what i posted did not have a thing to do maxs position or opinions nor did it support them. i never said that it did. what it did do is support your buddy max himself not his incorrect points. just the methods he employes to induce certain people to play his game over and over again. i just have to ask again roy. whos game is it when maxie pad writes such sophomorice stupid shit i just dont think that it is his game unless his game is to see how stupid he can make himself look. .

From : max340

i just have to ask again roy. whos game is it when maxie pad writes such sophomorice stupid shit i just dont think that it is his game unless his game is to see how stupid he can make himself look. lol lets see you claim a crime and an infraction of the law are not the same. i prove they arent put up links where you can see that pa law recognizes the two as being the same and that the legality in question reckless driving is considered to cover the bullshit law that nj felt it needed and that reckless driving has several degrees of severity. youve simply proven that i can in fact get far more response from yourself and t-bone than the issue requires all of which is bullshit you cannot or will not prove. the things that make it my game are the fact that you and t-bone respond ad infinitum to one post of mine and fail to prove your lame points at all while challenging others. i know you fail to provide proof because i deliberately leave openings for you to jump on which you fail miserably to even see let alone disprove. some others know this and enjoy the game. then when i let you and tbone alone you whine about being left alone where a mature adult would go about his business and place the ng chatter where it belongs... after real life. so we all get a laugh at your expense especially when you post what four posts after the discussion has been effectively over for almost a week. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : aguy

on 11 oct 2003 015427 gmt max340@aol.compost max340 wrote i just have to ask again roy. whos game is it when maxie pad writes such sophomorice stupid shit i just dont think that it is his game unless his game is to see how stupid he can make himself look. lol lets see you claim a crime and an infraction of the law are not the same. i prove they arent wtf are you talking about you are an idiot. yes i said they are not the same. so you then proved that they are not ok you must have proved me right. put up links where you can see that pa law recognizes the two as being the same you are right here they are not the same. thanks you fucking moron. and that the legality in question reckless driving is considered to cover the bullshit law that nj felt it needed and that reckless driving has several degrees of severity. wow. you are really going over the edge. bye. youve simply proven that i can in fact get far more response from yourself and t-bone than the issue requires all of which is bullshit you cannot or will not prove. the things that make it my game are the fact that you and t-bone respond ad infinitum to one post of mine dude i think you continually respond to me. that makes it fun. fish on. and fail to prove your lame points at all while challenging

From : roy

on tue 07 oct 2003 121716 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote what i posted did not have a thing to do maxs position or opinions nor did it support them. i never said that it did. what it did do is support your buddy max himself not his incorrect points. just the methods he employes to induce certain people to play his game over and over again. i just have to ask again roy. whos game is it when maxie pad writes such sophomorice stupid shit i just dont think that it is his game unless his game is to see how stupid he can make himself look. i would think if a person responds to what he considers sophomoric stupid shit trying to help with you spelling... well it should become obvious whos game it is dont ya think .

From : roy

on sat 11 oct 2003 071153 -0400 roy roy@home.net wrote on tue 07 oct 2003 121716 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote what i posted did not have a thing to do maxs position or opinions nor did it support them. i never said that it did. what it did do is support your buddy max himself not his incorrect points. just the methods he employes to induce certain people to play his game over and over again. i just have to ask again roy. whos game is it when maxie pad writes such sophomorice stupid shit i just dont think that it is his game unless his game is to see how stupid he can make himself look. i would think if a person responds to what he considers sophomoric stupid shit trying to help with you spelling... thanks. that is sooo nice of you. i would use spell checker but then you wouldnt be able to respond to my sophomoric stupid shit. hmmm. well it should become obvious whos game it is dont ya think its all just a game man. it sure is. .

From : aguy

on sat 11 oct 2003 071153 -0400 roy roy@home.net wrote on tue 07 oct 2003 121716 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote what i posted did not have a thing to do maxs position or opinions nor did it support them. i never said that it did. what it did do is support your buddy max himself not his incorrect points. just the methods he employes to induce certain people to play his game over and over again. i just have to ask again roy. whos game is it when maxie pad writes such sophomorice stupid shit i just dont think that it is his game unless his game is to see how stupid he can make himself look. i would think if a person responds to what he considers sophomoric stupid shit trying to help with you spelling... thanks. that is sooo nice of you. i would use spell checker but then you wouldnt be able to respond to my sophomoric stupid shit. hmmm. well it should become obvious whos game it is dont ya think yep. i do. it is all sophomoric stupid shit. maxie pads game has been quite obvious for some time. so turning it back on him becomes quite enjoyable. and he just keeps responding. he just keeps answering. he just keeps going on. now me when i got a few minutes i sit down and write just enough to keep his game going. his buttons are very easy to see any more. as for the subject matter well i could give a shit less about what he actually thinks about it. in fact i could not even tell you what he thinks about the subject matter. in fact roy most of the time i just budd in i dont even know what the fucking subject matter is. doesnt matter. doesnt count. its all just a game man. .

From : tbone

lol lets see you claim a crime and an infraction of the law are not the same. i prove they arent put up links where you can see that pa law recognizes the two as being the same and that the legality in question reckless driving is considered to cover the bullshit law that nj felt it needed and that reckless driving has several degrees of severity. well max not to beat this dead horse any further but once again you are both wrong and lying again. you really should understand what you are looking at before posting it as a defense. the pa dmv laws that you posted clearly show that the way that their laws are currently written also prevent them from giving the proper punishment for falling asleep behind the wheel and killing someone just like nj used to. according to your vehicular homicide law it can only be evoked if the person was either reckless or grossly negligent. the problem is that falling asleep behind the wheel is covered under your careless driving statute and that is not considered either a reckless or a grossly negligent act. the way that your laws are written any lawyer can get the guy off on that alone with just a few points and a small fine just like the nj lawyer did. i am now done with this thread as anything further that you could come up with would be nothing more than more lies and spin such as reckless and careless are the same thing and they are not so thanks again max and later dud. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : aguy

on mon 13 oct 2003 104320 -0400 tbone fatchance@noway.now wrote lol lets see you claim a crime and an infraction of the law are not the same. i prove they arent put up links where you can see that pa law recognizes the two as being the same and that the legality in question reckless driving is considered to cover the bullshit law that nj felt it needed and that reckless driving has several degrees of severity. well max not to beat this dead horse any further but once again you are both wrong and lying again. you really should understand what you are looking at before posting it as a defense. the pa dmv laws that you posted clearly show that the way that their laws are currently written also prevent them from giving the proper punishment for falling asleep behind the wheel and killing someone just like nj used to. according to your vehicular homicide law it can only be evoked if the person was either reckless or grossly negligent. the problem is that falling asleep behind the wheel is covered under your careless driving statute and that is not considered either a reckless or a grossly negligent act. the way that your laws are written any lawyer can get the guy off on that alone with just a few points and a small fine just like the nj lawyer did. i am now done with this thread as anything further that you could come up with would be nothing more than more lies and spin such as reckless and careless are the same thing and they are not so thanks again max and later dud. tbone the thing that everyone is telling you is that maxie is well aware that he is wrong. he posts this stupid shit just to get us to tell him that he wrong. then he keeps postng this stupid shit to get us to answer his stupid postings so that he can get a belly laugh out of the fact that we are responding to his postings. the fact that his shit is so stupid and he makes such an imbecile out of himself seems to go right over his head as well as several others. i dont have any more of an explaination about maxies logic and the others that belly laugh with him than that. if you think about it it gives you some unique insights into the pile of shit that he calls his mind. i guess when you are a broke bar bouncer you gotta take what ever you can get. pretty sad but apparently that is all the man has. anyway just thought id pass that on to you. me well i enjoy getting maxie to respond to these threads for ever. i dont read his shit though it is just too sad to see a mind wasted like that. but i do enjoy leading him around. .