nklr: the nigerian scammer want my phone #

[David Critchley]

Shakespeare had the proper take on lawyers , when those plotters were planning a bit of regicide, and came up with the line "First, let us kill all the lawyers!" By the way, that was not to be construed as implying hate toward an identifiable group of people. DC Devon wrote:

> > judjonzz@... wrote: > > >>And the problem is not lawyers. There are lawyers on both sides of any case, >> > > > Lawyers are people too, and like all other people a fairly reliable > percentage are greedy, crooked, or flat out thieves. There's enough > ambulance-chasing, frivolous personal injury lawsuits, and other > examples of people going beserk that you can't say that lawyers are NOT > the problem. > > The problem is the damage that a frivolous lawsuit can do when the > defendant has to pay out of pocket for their lawyers, but the plaintiff > pays nothing until it's settled. It can easily bankrupt a small business > or an individual. > > Devon > > > > > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at www.dualsportnews.com. List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > Unsubscribe by sending a blank message to: > DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com . > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >

[KJ]

Another argument for making seatbelts mandatory is they could actually prevent or minimize the effect of an accident by keeping the driver behind the wheel and in control of the car. So it's not totally a "it's my life I'll do what I want" thing. With Helmets I figure if someone doesn't have the brain to use one than why bother protecting it. Karl on 3/15/04 11:45 AM, thad_carey at ttcarey1@... wrote:

> Well, the police ought to be able to pull you over if you're not > wearing your seatbelt. It's already a law in most states, and it's a > darned good one. I'm normally pretty "hands off" in a lot of my > views about what, when, or where the government should be involved in > our lives. Driving a vehicle is one of the biggest responsiblities > that most Americans participate in, and they do it practically on a > daily basis. It's also one of the most dangerous activities we > participate in. Some things ought to be "common sense", but since > that commodity seems to often be in short supply, that's one of those > times the government has to be involved in the form of a law or > regulation. Helmets and seat belts, in my opinion, are an area where > some folks let their "it's-my-right" ego get in the way of common > sense. We don't live in a vacuum. With insurance, lawyers, medical > costs, and all the other tentacles that get attached to a bad vehicle > wreck's aftermath, it's pure ignorance to think that people are > always going to do the "right thing" when using the obvious safety > devices in their vehicles. Believe me, I've seen this played out > over and over. There's a bad wreck where some moron, who was even in > violation, is seriously injured or killed while not wearing a > seatbelt. Here comes the moron and/or the moron's family and/or > lawyer trying to take a bite out of the other involved party. Yeah, > the ultimate outcome will "probably" come out in favor of the other > involved party, but it doesn't stop the hell one has to go through in > the aftermath. Additionally, even it was the moron's fault, how many > of us want to be involved in a wreck where another person was killed > because a moron wasn't wearing his seatbelt? The same bravado > commentary I often hear before the fact is usually not the fact after > such an accident occurs. And I'm not some "scare-dy cat" who wants > to go around in life in a foam-wrapped bubble just to be "safe". > Mountainbiking, motorcycle riding/racing, river running, and even a > relatively dangerous job/career are all part of my life, but when I > participate in any of them, I use the tools available to insure that > I can do them with some relative safety--mainly because I want to > keep doing them--your wife and children might want you to be able to > keep doing them too. Wearing a seat belt is just as much a logical > law as the requirement to have a driver's license or headlights. > Some morons just don't get it yet. And if you want a real number > that points out how big this problem is, it's conservatively > estimated that around 15 thousand people are killed each year because > of not wearing seatbelts in vehicle crashes. The serious injury > aspect each year caused by not wearing seatbelts is many times that > number. When I see Nascar, Formula One, FIM, Indy Car, and other > racing organizations make the determination that driver's will be > able to "exercise their rights" on the helmet/seatbelt issue, maybe > I'll reconsider my take on this. Oh, and as to the motorcycle > seatbelt issue, some things actually are so illogical as to not need > further comment. Sorry for the soapbox session. > Thad Carey > A15 (with helmet but no seatbelt installed) > > > > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at www.dualsportnews.com. List FAQ courtesy > of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > Unsubscribe by sending a blank message to: > DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com . > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >

[Chris]

> > > kingsqueak@... wrote: > >>The shame here is that you have succumbed to the unfortunately >> popular >>belief that somehow society should protect people from themselves. > It's funny that you mention kids, because before I had kids I totally > agreed with you about the helmet/seat belt law. I thought anyone who > would go past the end of their driveway without either one was a > moron, > but it's a free country for everyone including morons. > > But I see too many kids jumping around in cars not belted in, and they > get killed this way with frightening regularity in accidents. In > certain > demographics, automobile accidents are one of the leading causes of > death for children. So I have to agree with Thad in this instance, > it's > one of the few areas where at least society should somewhat protect > children from their parent's stupidity, if not protecting the parents > from their own stupidity.

You know, you caught me here. As having formerly been an EMT I completely changed my view on the child restraint laws. I saw several children in one year needlessly killed in 40mph accidents. So I will qualify what I said by specifying that adults should have more freedom to do themselves in.

> As for the lawyers, there's far too many to kill them all at this > point.

Oh but it would make for some excellent revenue in hunting tag sales.

> And the whole contingency-fee thing was a way to ensure that rich > companies can't injure poor people at will, safe in the knowledge that > they can't afford to sue them. So the pendulum has swung too far in > the > other direction, it wil come back eventually. > > Devon

We can only hope.

[George Basinet]

Good heavens, while we are discussing helmet and seat belt laws the Federal Government has free rein to gather any and all information on us anytime they want. The Patriot Act is just a small part of what is happening. George Escondido, CA Mar 15, 10:16 AM (ET) By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN (AP) WASHINGTON (AP) - Two cutting-edge computer projects designed to preserve the privacy of Americans were quietly killed while Congress was restricting Pentagon data-gathering research in a widely publicized effort to protect innocent citizens from futuristic anti-terrorism tools. As a result, the government is quietly pressing ahead with research into high-powered computer data-mining technology without the two most advanced privacy protections developed to police those terror-fighting tools.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris" To: dsn_klr650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [DSN_klr650] Re: Scary laws NKLR > The shame here is that you have succumbed to the unfortunately popular > belief that somehow society should protect people from themselves. > > A free society is one where there is tremendous risk and instability. > That is the beauty of it. With freedom comes risk and some disarray. > > You hit the nail on the head with the mention of lawyers...therein are > the seeds of evil. The only reason you 'need' to protect anyone is > from fear of litigation. Had we not allowed the insidious cultural > infiltration by litigators we would not be in the paranoid state we > are in now. > > If people were not afraid of being liable for the actions of others or > somehow paying for the mistakes of others, we would still be a free > nation. Unfortunately this is not the case and will never be the case > again. It is one of several reasons I have chosen not to bring any > children of my own into this world. We will continue our downward > spiral into the toilet created by litigators and legislators alike. I > would not rest knowing that I forced this mess onto another person. > > Wake up and realize the freedoms we once had. Do not let yourself > succumb to the belief that somehow anyone but YOU are responsible for > your own happiness and security. > > > regulation. Helmets and seat belts, in my opinion, are an area where > > some folks let their "it's-my-right" ego get in the way of common > > sense. We don't live in a vacuum. With insurance, lawyers, medical > > costs, and all the other tentacles that get attached to a bad vehicle > > wreck's aftermath, it's pure ignorance to think that people are > > always going to do the "right thing" when using the obvious safety > > devices in their vehicles. > > > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at www.dualsportnews.com. List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > Unsubscribe by sending a blank message to: > DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com . > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >

[Frank Conley]

Not really wanting to join the fray here, but blaming lawyers for many of the problems of our society misses some vital points: 1) lawyers don't act on their own--a client is needed. 2) lawyers can't do anything without laws. The more complicated and numerous the laws are, the more tools you are providing for lawyers to use. The problem with our society is the people in it. Specifically, people who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, their own lives, their own children. Those irresponsible people have demanded that their elected officials pass more laws enabling them to contine to ignore their personal responsiblity by making the rest of society do the caretaking for them. The sad fact of the matter is that in a world of personal responsibility (and until a child reaches the age of the majority, the parent is responsible for making decisions for that child) many bad decisions will be made with dire consequences. The upside is that the freedom to make choices that others would not also leads to wonderful experiences and many good things. The soccer moms and dads of today want to make the world accident and hurt proof. This can't be done, no matter how totalitarian the regime. But in the effort to shield themselves from themselves, the risk averse are ruining the opportunities for those of us who do take personal responsibility. And for those of us who truly take personal responsibility, we must respect the decisions of others, good or bad, regardless of our own personal experiences and the conclusions we draw from them. The world ain't safe, and no number of laws is going to make it so. What CAN make it safer is letting people have as much information as possible to make their own informed choices. Spread the statistics on 40 mph accidents with kids and the facts about what can be done to prevent them, or accidents involving riders without helmets. But don't pass laws that will simply be manhandled by law enforcement to get around a different law he doesn't like, or by a lawyer hired by a plaintiff who doesn't want to take responsibility for his own deicisons. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and in this country those intentions are codified. No matter how good the law may seem on paper, in practice it usually will lead to more restraints that end up causing larger problems in the end. My two cents. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com

[denvowell@aol.com]

> >The Madam opened the brothel door to see a rather dignified,

well-dressed

> >Good looking man in his late 40s or early 50's. "Can I help you?" she > >Asked. > >"I want to see Natalie" the man replied. > > > >"Sir, Natalie is one of our most expensive ladies. Perhaps you would > >prefer someone else." said the Madam. > >"No I must see Natalie" was the man's reply. Just then, Natalie > >appeared and announced to the man that she charged $1,000 a visit.

Without

> >hesitation, the man pulled out ten one hundred-dollar bills and gave

them

> >to > >Natalie and they went upstairs. After an hour, the man calmly left. > > > >The next night, the same man appeared again, demanding to see

Natalie.

> >Natalie explained that no one had ever come back two nights in a row

-

> >too expensive - and there were no discounts. The price was still

$1,000.

> >Again the man pulled out the money, gave it to Natalie, and they went > >upstairs. After an hour, he left. > > > >The following night the man was there again. Everyone was astounded

that

> >he had come for the third consecutive night, but he paid Natalie and

they

> >went upstairs. > > > >After their session, Natalie questioned the man. "No one has ever

used

> >me three nights in a row. Where are you from?" she asked. > >The man replied, "Minnesota." > > > >"Really" she said. "I have family in Minnesota" > >"I know", the man said. "Your father died and I am your sister's > >attorney. > > > >She asked me to give you your $3,000 inheritance." > > > >The moral of the story is - Some things in life are certain: > > > >1. Taxes > >2. Death > >3. Being screwed by a lawyer > >

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mike Torst]

> -----Original Message----- > From: thad_carey [mailto:ttcarey1@...] > Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: Scary laws NKLR > > --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "pete88chester" > wrote: > > In the Friday Kingman, Arizona paper (Kingman Daily Miner) in > section > > titled "State", there was an article about a Bill that would make > it > > possible for police to pull over a driver for just not wearing a > seat > > belt. Now it requires another law to be broken before they can > pull > > you over. It was voted down.

SNIP----------------------------------------------------------

> > use the seat belts". Pete Chester A16 > Well, the police ought to be able to pull you over if you're not > wearing your seatbelt. It's already a law in most states, and it's a > darned good one. I'm normally pretty "hands off" in a lot of my > views about what, when, or where the government should be involved in > our lives. Driving a vehicle is one of the biggest responsiblities > that most Americans participate in, and they do it practically on a > daily basis. It's also one of the most dangerous activities we > participate in

SNIP---------------------------

> Thad Carey > A15 (with helmet but no seatbelt installed)

-reply-------------------------- Most of agree with laws that support our personal views. Seat Belt and helmet laws are included. I use both, so no problems in saying so what. One of my pet peeves has been the lack of mandatory driver testing/training that exceeds the current standard of simply playing taxi for a DMW employee's route selection and basic parking skills. How many citizens are truly capable of piloting the vehicle they drive when situations develop around them? ABS, and other passive solutions cannot protect everyone on the road from everyone else who have the same elementary skill levels. Soap box time over. :-/ Mike Torst Las Vegas

[Mike Torst]

> -----Original Message----- > From: Judson D. Jones [mailto:judjonzz@...] > Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: Scary laws NKLR > > Sorry, but I must disagree. I wear my helmet and my seatbelt, but we don't > need to be giving the government one more excuse to be nosing about in our > private lives. Too often a "reason" becomes a pretext. >

reply----------------------- The FACT is that Democrats love the lawyers PAC funds and the simple of mind believe that Millionaire Demos love the poor and middle class. What a crock. The Nanny State wants you. The new world order is on the way. (Grin) Wealth re-distribution is appropriate. Free everything to illegals. I am going to sue Microsoft for something, just waiting for the lawyers to tell me what for. Oh, I must also sue Rubio's for the criminal act of selling me delicious lobster burrito combos at lunch. Oh I hunt and eat animals, so I must donate my flesh upon my death not to science, but the PETA, so that they can feed me to the animals. (Ha-ha) Oh hell, I own to many guns - I must give all my money and investment accounts to evil people because we cause them to be the way they are. (Ha-ha) Got to go and cut the checks and transfer all my assets to BULLSHI#.org. (Ha-ha) Oh, please send all flames to - Hillary@... (ha-ha) Oh I am a middle-class republican, so let the flames begin (grin). Seriously, I want people that drive to be qualified to do so - FAT CHANCE! Mike Torst Las Vegas

[Mike Torst]

Amen. My IT practice is geared to law firms. I could tell stories that would curl your wallet, but my clients no longer include BI lawyers - I got fed up with there disclosed conduct. Mike Torst Las Vegas

> -----Original Message----- > From: Devon [mailto:bigfatgreenbike@...] > Subject: Re: [DSN_klr650] Re: Scary laws NKLR > > judjonzz@... wrote: > > >And the problem is not lawyers. There are lawyers on both sides of any > case, > > > > Lawyers are people too, and like all other people a fairly reliable > percentage are greedy, crooked, or flat out thieves. There's enough > ambulance-chasing, frivolous personal injury lawsuits, and other > examples of people going beserk that you can't say that lawyers are NOT > the problem. > > The problem is the damage that a frivolous lawsuit can do when the > defendant has to pay out of pocket for their lawyers, but the plaintiff > pays nothing until it's settled. It can easily bankrupt a small business > or an individual. > > Devon

[Mike Torst]

Mike Torst Las Vegas

> -----Original Message----- > From: pete88chester [mailto:ppchester@...] > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:53 AM > To: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: Scary laws NKLR > > The replies to my Post have shot off in a direction I didn't intend, > but that is alright. My Post was about the motorcycle seat belts. I > probable shouldn't have even mentioned anything about the police seat > belt enforcement part. My concern was that a politition wanted me to > wear a seat belt while on a motorcycle, I concider that total > stupidity. I believe in seat belt use in cars because they work. > That was my point, it is too easy for laws to be passed without the > people they affect being able to comment on them. > > The Lister from New Jersy said a law was passed there on this. I > hope you were talking about police being able to ticket you for non > seatbilt ust only & not that N. J. is requiring seat belt use on > motorcyles. Pete Chester A16 >

-Vents completed - Mike Torst Las Vegas