 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / December 2005::: OT ::: Arrrggghhhhh..........
I try to avoid driving at night. All those bright blue and white super nova headlights burn a hole in my brain pan. I drive with my mirrors angled down, but that doesn't prevent the on-coming traffic or the determined SUV'ers who like to get close to shine them in your rear window. Sure, maybe you look cool or can see for miles, but is blinding oncoming traffic such a great safety idea? Wild (mini-rant) Monkshood > I try to avoid driving at night. All those bright blue and white > super nova headlights burn a hole in my brain pan. I drive with my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Wild (mini-rant) Monkshood Excellent gripe. Those lights burn my retinas. One can only hope that the drivers of the vehicles with these gimmicks will get their noses caught in their wheel spinners. > I try to avoid driving at night. All those bright blue and white super > nova headlights burn a hole in my brain pan. I drive with my mirrors [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Wild (mini-rant) Monkshood ======= Many parts of my neighborhood have no sidewalks, so we pedestrians are forced to walk along the edge of the street. I cannot count the number of times that people have dimmed their headlights for other cars that are coming from the opposite direction, but then they turn the high beams back on right in my face as they approach me while I am walking. I am so blinded that I must actually stop walking and cover my eyes with my hands until the car passes. On *rare* occasions the driver will then dim his headlights because he sees my obvious distress. I have often wanted to write a book: "My 1,001 Pet Peeves". Which would include spending 1 hour in the waiting room so that I can see the doctor for 3 minutes. Items on the store shelf that have no price shown either on the item or on the shelf so that I must ask some employee to scan the price for me. People who throw trash on the ground at the bus stop in front of my house. People who walk together 2 or 3 people side-by-side so that when I come walking down the sidewalk from the opposite direction I must step into the grass to let them pass (I walk with crutches which makes their behavior even more deplorable). Liberal Democrats (I just threw that one in for fun :^) - moshe Good rants, guys - except Moshe, I'd have to rephrase your last to "reactionary republicans"!! - my winderful husband is a RR, and I am the LD in our house. Makes for very interesting conversations held at sometime above normal level : ) I wish there was a way I could hold up a mirror to reflect those awful purple/blue lights right back at their owners, blinding them Perhaps we sweet geniuses can came up with one? Barbara >Good rants, guys - except Moshe, I'd have to rephrase your last to >"reactionary republicans"!! - my winderful husband is a RR, and I am [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >we sweet geniuses can came up with one? >Barbara Just make sure hubby doesn't vote...... Sleepy "I used to think I was poor. Then they told me I wasn't poor, I was needy. Then they told me it was self-defeating to think of myself as needy, I was deprived. Then they told me deprived was a bad image, I was underprivileged. Then they told me underprivileged was overused, I was disadvantaged. I still don't have a dime, but I sure have a great vocabulary." -Unknown 1.Boom boxes, any kind. 2.People in big SUV's who never look left or right when backing out of parking spots. 3.People who think the end of the supermarket aisle is the place to catch up on the news of the past twenty years with three or four old chums. 4. People who finally realize that they must actually pay for their purchases, and start digging in their purses to pull out their checkbook after everything is rung up and bagged. 5. "Ask for assistance for things on the top shelf," when there is no assistance to be had. 6. Impatient men,(sorry guys but in my experience, it's always the men,) who think they have better things to do than to stand in line like everyone else. -- Cheri joesterl@hotmail.com wrote in message >Which would include spending 1 hour in the waiting room so that I can >see the doctor for 3 minutes. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >- moshe > 1.Boom boxes, any kind. > 2.People in big SUV's who never look left or right when backing out of [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> >>- moshe Living in CA, when a bozo drives into our neighborhood with his/her subwoofers "woofing", I can't tell if we are having an earthquake, or it's just another selfish driver waking up the dead with their 2,000 watt stereo and 3' diameter speakers. There is a law on the books that a vehicle's stereo must be inaudible at 50'. I doubt anyone's ever been given a ticket in our area, or we wouldn't be subjected to those earth shakers on a daily basis. Dave ... > 6. Impatient men,(sorry guys but in my experience, it's always the men,) > who think they have better things to do than to stand in line like > everyone else. ========= Because we men are blessed with an abundance of testosterone, we are genetically in a constant "hunter" mode. Hence our urge to get out of the store as quickly as possible and continue the hunt. Which also explains our urge to channel surf with the remote control. Because women are cursed with too much estrogen, it acts like a constant tranquilizer. Hence their willingness to watch "Oprah" even though a simple click on the remote control would take them to the movie "Lethal Weapon" on an adjacent channel. Although we men are fully aware of our superiority over women, we try to be as patient and understanding as possible toward the weaker sex :^) LOL :-) -- Cheri joesterl@hotmail.com wrote in message > >Because we men are blessed with an abundance of testosterone, we are >genetically in a constant "hunter" mode. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >to be as patient and understanding as possible toward the weaker sex :^) > joesterl@hotmail.com wrote in message > > >Because we men are blessed with an abundance of testosterone, we are [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >to be as patient and understanding as possible toward the weaker sex > :^) > LOL :-) > > -- > Cheri ========== When I was younger I used to assume that women were laughing at my comments because they were thinking, "He's incredibly witty!" Now I'm starting to suspect that they are laughing because they are thinking, "He's such a Neanderthal idiot!" I guess that restaurant scene in "When Harry Met Sally" has made us men a little bit paranoid :^) I thought your answer was pretty witty...for a man. ;-) -- Cheri joesterl@hotmail.com wrote in message >When I was younger I used to assume that women were laughing at my >comments because they were thinking, "He's incredibly witty!" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I guess that restaurant scene in "When Harry Met Sally" has made us men >a little bit paranoid :^) >1.Boom boxes, any kind. >2.People in big SUV's who never look left or right when backing out of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >who think they have better things to do than to stand in line like >everyone else. May I add one more? 7. Cell phone users who think everyone within 100 yards wants to hear their conversation. ok, just one more... 8. People chatting on their cell phone while they drive. BessieBee Oh my, yes! :-) -- Cheri BessieBee wrote in message ... >May I add one more? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >BessieBee > May I add one more? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 8. People chatting on their cell phone while they drive. Now why does that bother you? You'd rather they do it sitting next to you in the theater? I don't understand all the fuss. Of course, some people can not talk and drive at the same time. These people also can't change the channel on the radio and drive at the same time. So does it make sense to tell them AND everyone else that they can't talk on a cellphone while driving? While continuing to allow the person with the problem to talk to their passengers or work the radio? To me this response makes just as much sense as telling all diabetics to avoid protein because some of them might have kidney disease. Let's bring back prohibition, because a half-percent of the population drives while drunk.  SignatureWes Groleau Alive and Well http://freepages.religions.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/ >> 8. People chatting on their cell phone while they drive. People should be required to pass a civility test before being allowed to buy a cell phone. JMHO. >Now why does that bother you? You'd rather they >do it sitting next to you in the theater? Remember phone booths? They had three walls and a door that closed. Ever wonder why? So people could talk on the phone in PRIVATE. >I don't understand all the fuss. Of course, some people >can not talk and drive at the same time. These people [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >with the problem to talk to their passengers or work >the radio? Talking on a cell phone while driving should be illegal. The reasons are obvious. >To me this response makes just as much sense as >telling all diabetics to avoid protein because >some of them might have kidney disease. > >Let's bring back prohibition, because a half-percent >of the population drives while drunk. Lousy analogy. I'm sure you can do better than that!! BessieBee On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:36:04 GMT, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet: >> May I add one more? >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Let's bring back prohibition, because a half-percent >of the population drives while drunk. sometimes you prove you have no clue. talking on the cell phone while driving is a distraction from driving that is on going for the length of the call. and has caused or contributed to many accidents world wide. you'll learn the hard way. either after you cause an accident and get jailed and sued or you get hit by another driver distracted by their phone, or someone you love dies because of it. but by then it will be too late. your prohibition rant doesn't change the fact that driving while under the influence of alcohol is illegal. making it illegal to drive while chatting on the phone is no different. no one is preventing you from owning and using your cell phone. driving is not a right, it is a privilege that can be taken away at time. SignatureMâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o o) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Jesus never hated anyone. http://tinyurl.com/dgb3q http://tinyurl.com/aw4mh Ma����������������������������� wrote: > sometimes you prove you have no clue. talking on the cell phone while > driving is a distraction from driving that is on going for the length > of the call. and has caused or contributed to many accidents world > wide. Answering a cellphone is no more distraction than talking to your wife in the other seat. Some people can do it, some can't. It's less of a distraction than adjusting your mirror while driving. Should we outlaw that? Some people can do it, some can't. It's less of a distraction than having a wasp blow in your open window and land in your lap. Should we outlaw open windows? For some people, chewing gum while driving is dangerous. Should we outlaw gum? Many things have caused or contributed to many accidents world-wide. We only outlaw the ones that the politicians know people get up in arms about. Or the ones that a few demagogues succeed in getting people up in arms about. Now if you want to outlaw cellphones on grounds of politeness, I'm wholeheartedly with you. SignatureWes Groleau On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:15:10 GMT, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet: >Ma????????????????????????????? wrote: >> sometimes you prove you have no clue. talking on the cell phone while [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Now if you want to outlaw cellphones on grounds of politeness, >I'm wholeheartedly with you. so many errors and exaggerations. I thought you were being serious. my mistake. cell phones in the car should be for emergencies only. SignatureMâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o o) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Jesus never hated anyone. http://tinyurl.com/dgb3q http://tinyurl.com/aw4mh >On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:15:10 GMT, Wes Groleau ><groleau+news@freeshell.org> Huffed and Puffed the following into the [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >cell phones in the car should be for emergencies only. Like phone sex? Ma����������������������������� wrote: > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:15:10 GMT, Wes Groleau > so many errors and exaggerations. I thought you were being serious. I was serious. The sentence above does not convince me that anything in particular is an error or exaggeration. Care to be specific? I will--you said "no one is preventing you from owning and using your cell phone" This sounds like an assumption that I am trying to justify using my cellphone while driving. If so, that would be an error. (My cellphone has not left my house in weeks and has not been turned on in months). No, I am just opposing the knee-jerk tendency to outlaw the latest popular pet peeve. The fact that it happens to be my pet peeve as well doesn't justify a law against it. Can anyone accurately identify - the percentage of people using and not using a cellphone while driving during any particular one week period? - the percentage of each of those people causing an accident during that period? Without those four numbers I have no way of knowing whether the issue is worth another law. SignatureWes Groleau People would have more leisure time if it weren't for all the leisure-time activities that use it up. -- Peg Bracken On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:01:03 GMT, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet: >Ma????????????????????????????? wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:15:10 GMT, Wes Groleau [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Without those four numbers I have no way of >knowing whether the issue is worth another law. just do a simple google search on cell phone related auto accidents and go to any state DMV web site and any state police web site and look up the data and reports made available to everyone. you can call your insurance agent and ask for directions to reports online and any reports they can provide. it's right in front of your face, take a few "seconds", I mean that literally, and look it up. SignatureMâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o o) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Jesus never hated anyone. http://tinyurl.com/dgb3q http://tinyurl.com/aw4mh Ma����������������������������� wrote: > just do a simple google search on cell phone related auto accidents This is the second best comment seen in this thread so far. (The best was a statement that there seemed to be a correlation somewhere between outlawing the practice and reducing accidents.) Now for Mack's search suggestion: First hit: an argument that "cellphones kill more people than handguns, so stop picking on us gun-owners" Second hit: A page from an auto insurance company, NOT asking you to refrain from using a cellphone while driving, but instead giving advice on how to do it safely. Third: An article in a legal journal that carefully avoids saying that cellphone use is a significant cause of accidents, but which on the other hand clearly proposes that when one DOES contribute to an accident, the manufacturer of the phone should be sued! 4: Letter to a newspaper. No longer online. 5: Only available to registered users. Sorry, I'm not giving them my e-mail address. 6: Doesn't oppose cell phone use, but warns you might get sued if you give one to your employee. 7: Finally: "Japan banned the use of handheld phones while driving just prior to 2000, and since then cell phone related auto accidents have been reduced by 75%. No matter how a mobile phone is accessed in a car, the risk of accident is four times higher when it's in use as compared to not." The second sentence seems highly unlikely, but confirmation of the first will probably win my support. 8: This guy approves of the NY law that bans hand-helds in a car, but thinks dash-mounted cellphones are "a great idea" 9: Lawyers trying to cash in on the chance to sue somebody. 10 & 11: Same as #6 12: A test of reading comprehension. In favor of banning cellphones for safety, but also in favor of raising speed limit to 150 KPH, also to increase safety. Text probably fake, created just for the test. etc. up to hit number 58 (the last for the particular search string used). Several more like #6 One newspaper article about a politician who has tried unsuccessfully to get hand-helds outlawed in cars. A couple of them convinced me without intending to that the ONE study several keep mentioning was as inconclusive as some of the medical tripe we criticize here. That #7 is the only one that I thought worth pursuing. Some of them mention the number 2600 from that "ONE study" but like an urban legend, they can't agree on 2600 _what_. Just from #7, I'm leaning toward a general ban. A law that would save 2000 of those 2600 lives would be a Good Thing-- UNLESS a different approach would save 2500 of them. SignatureWes Groleau It seems a pity that psychology should have destroyed all our knowledge of human nature. -- G. K. Chesterton You either haven't been paying attention to the studies that have been published about just how dangerous people talking on cell phones while driving are, or you don't want to admit it because you talk on yours. They have been shown to be just as dangerous as people who are driving while intoxicated. Any kind of driving while distracted is dangerous, but talking on the cell phone is very dangerous for many people because they lose all focus while talking on the phone. I had a lady fly through a stop sign directly in front of the street sweeper I was operating. She never saw the stop sign; didn't slow down; never saw me; never stopped gesturing with her other hand. Instead she went right through the stop sign, crossing a busy thoroughfare going at least 30 miles per hour. Had her vehicle and the street sweeper collided it would have been likely that she would have been hurt or worse. I was coming from her left and street sweepers are very heavy well constructed pieces of equipment, especially compared to her car. >Ma????????????????????????????? wrote: >> sometimes you prove you have no clue. talking on the cell phone while [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Now if you want to outlaw cellphones on grounds of politeness, >I'm wholeheartedly with you. SignatureGrandpa Chuck -ô¿ô- ~ The following information is given with the utmost respect for the armed forces and civilians who have died in the current war in Iraq. According to http://icasualties.org/oif/ The number of Americans killed in Iraq as of Dec. 19, 2005 is 2,158. United Kingdom = 98 Other = 103 ITA. :-) -- Cheri Grandpa Chuck > wrote in message ... >You either haven't been paying attention to the studies that have been >published about just how dangerous people talking on cell phones while >driving are, or you don't want to admit it because you talk on yours. >They have been shown to be just as dangerous as people who are driving >while intoxicated. >ITA. :-) Okay Cheri: You got me. I don't know what that abbreviation stands for. SignatureGrandpa Chuck -ô¿ô- ~ The following information is given with the utmost respect for the armed forces and civilians who have died in the current war in Iraq. According to http://icasualties.org/oif/ The number of Americans killed in Iraq as of Dec. 19, 2005 is 2,158. United Kingdom = 98 Other = 103 I totally agree. :-) -- Cheri Grandpa Chuck > wrote in message ... >>ITA. :-) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >The number of Americans killed in Iraq as of Dec. 19, 2005 is 2,158. >United Kingdom = 98 Other = 103 > >>ITA. :-) > >Okay Cheri: You got me. > >I don't know what that abbreviation stands for. > I totally agree. :-) ======= You don't know what it stands for, either? - moshe, taking the great risk that "Hi_Therre" will call me a "smart a.s" again, but life is short so what the heck :^) > ITA. :-) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>They have been shown to be just as dangerous as people who are driving >>while intoxicated. I think that all cell phones should have a chip that cuts power if the phone is moving at 2 miles or more.... Wild Monkshood > You either haven't been paying attention to the studies that have been > published about just how dangerous people talking on cell phones while > driving are, or you don't want to admit it because you talk on yours. > They have been shown to be just as dangerous as people who are driving > while intoxicated. The number of road traffic accidents, and their seriousness, have dropped quite sharply since we banned driving and cell phone use over here. No quotes, though, I'm afraid - I just remember an article on the news. Nicky. SignatureA1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine 95/72/72Kg > The number of road traffic accidents, and their seriousness, have dropped > quite sharply since we banned driving and cell phone use over here. No > quotes, though, I'm afraid - I just remember an article on the news. Finally some actual evidence. Where is "over here"? Were there any other laws close to the same time that MIGHT have contributed? SignatureWes Groleau "Would the prodigal have gone home if the elder brother was running the farm?" -- James Jordan >> The number of road traffic accidents, and their seriousness, have dropped >> quite sharply since we banned driving and cell phone use over here. No [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Were there any other laws close to the same time that > MIGHT have contributed? England - no. We brought the law in last year sometime, but didn't enforce it for several months; the RTA numbers and severity dropped once we did. It's becoming completely unacceptable over here, in the same way as drinking and driving is. Nicky. SignatureA1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine 95/72/72Kg > England - no. We brought the law in last year sometime, but didn't enforce > it for several months; the RTA numbers and severity dropped once we did. > It's becoming completely unacceptable over here, in the same way as drinking > and driving is. If it works, I'm for it. I couldn't care less about public opinion--I remember when public opinion glorified drug abuse and considered drunk driving amusing. SignatureWes Groleau It seems a pity that psychology should have destroyed all our knowledge of human nature. -- G. K. Chesterton >> England - no. We brought the law in last year sometime, but didn't >> enforce it for several months; the RTA numbers and severity dropped once [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > opinion glorified drug abuse and considered > drunk driving amusing. Sure. But these days, you're likely to be informed on if you drink and drive, and the police told of your registration if you're on the phone on the road. Dunno about the drug abuse : ) Nicky. SignatureA1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine 95/72/72Kg > You either haven't been paying attention to the studies that have been > published about just how dangerous people talking on cell phones while > driving are, or you don't want to admit it because you talk on yours. Citations? > They have been shown to be just as dangerous as people who are driving > while intoxicated. It will take more than one citation to make me believe that. > Any kind of driving while distracted is dangerous, but talking on the > cell phone is very dangerous for many people because they lose all > focus while talking on the phone. Do those people _not_ lose all focus while talking to a passenger? Or is it possible these people never had a lot of focus? It's still a question in my mind: Should we outlaw cellphones because they make EVERYone dangerous, or should we outlaw driving by certain people who are inherently dangerous themselves? > focus while talking on the phone. I had a lady fly through a stop sign > directly in front of the street sweeper I was operating. She never saw > the stop sign; didn't slow down; never saw me; never stopped gesturing > with her other hand. Instead she went right through the stop sign, Obviously she doesn't belong on the road. How often has she done that without a cellphone? How many people without cellphones have you witnessed running stop signs? SignatureWes Groleau Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before ... He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. -- Kurt Vonnegut > Ma? wrote: >> sometimes you prove you have no clue. talking on the cell phone while >> driving is a distraction from driving that is on going for the length >> of the call. and has caused or contributed to many accidents world >> wide. > Answering a cellphone is no more distraction than > talking to your wife in the other seat. Some people > can do it, some can't. After some studies which showed that it was a *lot* more distracting that talking to people who were physically in the car with you, studies which were verified by the UK Dept of Transport, talking on a cell phone while driving has been made illegal in the UK. It's now routine in a serious traffic accident not only to check the driver's alcohol level, but to check his mobile phone records to see if he was on the phone at the time. There have been a number of horrific cases in the papers of pedestrians and cyclists run down by drivers who "didn't see them" and were later found to have chatting on the phone at the time. If some people can't do it, and you can't tell who those people are, and the consequences can be very serious, then of course we have to pass a general law against it. We wouldn't even need to have driver's licences if everyone could be trusted to behave responsibly. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > If some people can't do it, and you can't tell who those people are, Now we're adding _another_ if to the plot. > and the consequences can be very serious, then of course we have to > pass a general law against it. ... Yes. However, the penalties would have to be severe enough to actually deter. I'm not sure the hundred dollar fines in some places do much good. And enforce- ment must be possible. In the USA, liberals AND conservatives would scream about privacy if you wanted to check cellphone records after an accident. I am tentatively convinced. I want to verify some of the claims. But I also wonder whether it might not work even better to educate people (who might try to get away with it anyway) about what it is about cellphone use that causes the problem--and then REALLY issue incredibly severe penalties for actually causing an accident, rather than a slap on the wrist for merely risking one. SignatureWes Groleau It seems a pity that psychology should have destroyed all our knowledge of human nature. -- G. K. Chesterton Ma����������������������������� wrote: > your prohibition rant doesn't change the fact that driving while under > the influence of alcohol is illegal. making it illegal to drive while > chatting on the phone is no different. no one is preventing you from > owning and using your cell phone. driving is not a right, it is a Driving is not a right, it is a privilege given to far too many unqualified people. Making it illegal to do what NO ONE can do safely is most certainly VERY different from making illegal what a few klutzes can't do safely. SignatureWes Groleau Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ? On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:18:32 GMT, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet: >Ma????????????????????????????? wrote: >> your prohibition rant doesn't change the fact that driving while under [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >VERY different from making illegal what a few klutzes >can't do safely. those who believe they are better and safer drivers than others are often the most dangerous and most aggressive drivers and don't even realize it. SignatureMâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o o) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Jesus never hated anyone. http://tinyurl.com/dgb3q http://tinyurl.com/aw4mh > 6. Impatient men,(sorry guys but in my experience, it's always the men,) > who think they have better things to do than to stand in line like > everyone else. My wife is a cashier. She'll tell you that bad attitudes, bad manners, and bad language are NOT correlated with gender. SignatureWes Groleau ----------- "Thinking I'm dumb gives people something to feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?" -- Charles Wallace (in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_) I worked in food service and having cashiered for many years, I can tell you...there is a huge difference in the patience level. -- Cheri Wes Groleau wrote in message ... >My wife is a cashier. She'll tell you that >bad attitudes, bad manners, and bad language [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- Charles Wallace > (in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_) >1.Boom boxes, any kind. >2.People in big SUV's who never look left or right when backing out of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >who think they have better things to do than to stand in line like >everyone else. I have to park under pine trees. Whenever the wind blows, I get needles all over the car. That in itself doesn't bother me, what does is that when I turn the windshield wipers on, the only pine needles left are stuck in the wiper directly in my line of vision. The passenger side is always clear as a bell. Just the drivers side is screwed up, and it is always right in front of eyes. Sleepy "I used to think I was poor. Then they told me I wasn't poor, I was needy. Then they told me it was self-defeating to think of myself as needy, I was deprived. Then they told me deprived was a bad image, I was underprivileged. Then they told me underprivileged was overused, I was disadvantaged. I still don't have a dime, but I sure have a great vocabulary." -Unknown LOL, I wonder why that is. Sort of the same thing as when you drop a piece of buttered bread, and it always lands buttered side down, but the alternative to life's little annoyances ain't good either. Bet Tookie wouldn't mind being annoyed. ;-) -- Cheri Sleepyman wrote in message ... >I have to park under pine trees. Whenever the wind blows, I get >needles all over the car. That in itself doesn't bother me, what does [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >-Unknown >>I try to avoid driving at night. All those bright blue and white super >>nova headlights burn a hole in my brain pan. I drive with my mirrors [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - moshe Dittos on all your gripes. [snip] (Sorry Wild Monkshood <g>.) >======= [snip] >I have often wanted to write a book: "My 1,001 Pet Peeves". > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Items on the store shelf that have no price shown either on the item or >on the shelf so that I must ask some employee to scan the price for me. Mine is trying to compare prices where the price of item 1 is in one unit and the price of item 2 is in another (completely useless) unit. Like sliced meat where one is at X cents/ounce and another is at X dollars/pound. Or my favorite, where they list the unit price at one whole item! (as in the same as the shelf price). >People who throw trash on the ground at the bus stop in front of my >house. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the grass to let them pass (I walk with crutches which makes their >behavior even more deplorable). "Two's company, three's a crowd. Four on the sidewalk is not allowed". <G> >Liberal Democrats (I just threw that one in for fun :^) Isn't that redundant? <g> >- moshe ... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.