Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: Brent P on 10 Mar 2007 02:13 In article <1173510041.851386.78880(a)p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > On Mar 9, 10:26 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: >> In article <1173505623.925929.296...(a)v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: >> > On Mar 9, 4:29 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >> >> I for one am sick of being called a 'kook' >> >> and a 'conspircy theorist' because I can read a newsapaper article. >> >> > Funny, I read newspaper articles all the time, and am never called a >> > kook. >> >> > You're called a kook because your ideas are idiotically nonsensical >> > and bizarre. It's just that simple. >> >> Yeah... I'm so kooky.... Government office holders say red light cameras are for >> money and it makes me think they are doing it for money. Yeah all so kooky. > > > If it were just about your views on RLCs, the word kook would never > come out of folks' keyboards. But that's a nice try. You'll believe it about RLCs, just not when the office holders say/do other things. When Cheney is on TV joking about how he kept his CFR membership secret, I am kook for thinking he is a CFR member... I might as well be a kook for thinking RLCs are about money when some councilman is quoted saying they are about the money too.
From: Brent P on 10 Mar 2007 02:14 In article <gvOdnbyvRqS0xW_YnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Fred G. Mackey wrote: > That's only because people like Brent and I are too polite and > reasonable to resort to such name-calling. I fall into name calling sometimes... I'm not perfect.
From: Ed Pirrero on 10 Mar 2007 02:23 On Mar 9, 11:03 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...(a)dont.spam> wrote: > Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Mar 9, 4:29 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > > >>I for one am sick of being called a 'kook' > >>and a 'conspircy theorist' because I can read a newsapaper article. > > > Funny, I read newspaper articles all the time, and am never called a > > kook. > > That's only because people like Brent and I are too polite and > reasonable to resort to such name-calling. What Brent and you think is of no import. > > You're called a kook because > > (I can finish that statement for you) > > you're unwilling to discuss facts and are quick to simply call people names. "Facts" are what people spin to prove their point. Look at the global warming debate for a clue there. You pick bits and pieces that support your argument, and leave out anything that may not. Then try and connect a bunch of dots that don't actually have connection, and draw a conclusion. The "you" is a global "you", not necesaarily you personally. > > your ideas are idiotically nonsensical > > and bizarre. > > In case you haven't realized it by now, that's NOT a convincing argument. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. > > It's just that simple. > > It really is. It's too bad you don't get it. LOL. I get it just fine. I just don't accept it at face value. E.P.
From: Ed Pirrero on 10 Mar 2007 02:28 On Mar 9, 11:13 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1173510041.851386.78...(a)p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Mar 9, 10:26 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: > >> In article <1173505623.925929.296...(a)v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> > On Mar 9, 4:29 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > >> >> I for one am sick of being called a 'kook' > >> >> and a 'conspircy theorist' because I can read a newsapaper article. > >> > Funny, I read newspaper articles all the time, and am never called a >> > kook. > > >> > You're called a kook because your ideas are idiotically nonsensical >> > and bizarre. It's just that simple. > > >> Yeah... I'm so kooky.... Government office holders say red light cameras are for > >> money and it makes me think they are doing it for money. Yeah all so kooky. > > > If it were just about your views on RLCs, the word kook would never > > come out of folks' keyboards. But that's a nice try. > > You'll believe it about RLCs, just not when the office holders say/do other > things. I believe it when there's hard evidence. I don't believe it when it's supposition and innuendo. I guess I just have a higher standard for what I'll consider "fact" and what conclusions I'll draw from the facts available. Some folks will believe anything. Others will believe only what they want to believe. I believe what the facts support, nothing more, nothing less. > I might as well be a kook > for thinking RLCs are about money when some councilman is quoted saying they > are about the money too. Well, you say it's about money when folks claim it's about safety. Some of those folks might actually believe it's about safety. I give them the benefit of the doubt about their intentions, even if I think their conclusions are wrong. E.P.
From: Ed Pirrero on 10 Mar 2007 10:49
On Mar 9, 11:49 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1173511719.732686.223...(a)n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > I believe it when there's hard evidence. I don't believe it when it's > > supposition and innuendo. > > Government documents, news stories, TV interviews.... all the same > 'supposition and innuendo' that says RLCs are about the money. A blanket statement that isn't true in all cases. > > Well, you say it's about money when folks claim it's about safety. > > The news stories I post in the 'it's about the revenue' line are ones where > the government office holder quite clearly states it's about the money. Implying *every* one of these situations is about the money is dishonest. Or that a conspiracy exists in each and every case... > > Some of those folks might actually believe it's about safety. I give > > them the benefit of the doubt about their intentions, even if I think > > their conclusions are wrong. > > Which is why I don't put those stories under the 'it's about the revenue' > banner. No, you ignore them entirely. Which is another symptom of cherry- picking the data to paint a picture - a picture which is not necessarily complete or accurate. In Spokane recently, the city council decided to study RLCs for the most dangerous intersections in the city. Adding revenue was never discussed, from what I've read. I don't believe, right now, that there's a conspiracy to separate citizens from their money. I don't doubt, however, that once they figure out that it *can* be, that they'll jump on that bandwagon. The local rag is running 100% anti- RLC in letters to the editor. I don't think they will end up installing them. E.P. |