XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, comp.mobile.android, sac.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: mgmt1b@ucl.a   
      
   On 12/17/2024 5:27 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:   
   > On 12/12/2024 7:09 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless   
   > chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> "bad sector"  wrote in message   
   >> news:KPSdnamkC5Kjncf6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com...   
   >>> On 12/11/24 15:52, Andrew wrote:   
   >>>> super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of   
   >>>>>> evidence is   
   >>>>>> not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these   
   >>>>>> accidents that   
   >>>>>> you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to   
   >>>>>> exist.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile   
   >>>>> friend crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight,   
   >>>>> causing a chain reaction and sending herself and others to the   
   >>>>> hospital. I'm willing to bet she was on the phone.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using   
   >>>> Mercedes   
   >>>> vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your   
   >>>> world).   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are   
   >>>>> needed.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion   
   >>>> distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to   
   >>>> handle   
   >>>> those distractions should be driving.   
   >>>> That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds   
   >>>> (maybe   
   >>>> thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or   
   >>>> otherwise.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a   
   >>>> license.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount   
   >>>> and a   
   >>>> "good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle   
   >>>> distractions.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire   
   >>>> driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this   
   >>>> conversation.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a   
   >>>> good   
   >>>> driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> --   
   >>> Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good   
   >>> driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.   
   >>>   
   >>> Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not   
   >>> brain-free, argue with that.   
   >>   
   >> Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same   
   >> time.   
   >   
   > You cannot intelligently think of even *one* thing at a time, scooter.   
      
   Did you have to unzip your pants first to count that high again?   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)