OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

JT wrote:


A great deal of what I'm reading about Canadian health care leads me to
believe people are put on long waiting lists for serious surgeries and many
time die waiting. I find it hard to believe your annual maximum out of
pocket medical insurance deductible would force you to sell your home? We
don't have a great plan by any means and my maximum out of pocket is
$2250.00 on the value plan. If I were on the core plan it would be $900.00
out of pocket.

JT



Most of what you read is garbage. I live in the Canada, wouldn't trade
our health care system for the US one ever. Urgent care is immediately
provided (happened to me), cosmetic or elective surgery has waiting lists.

The following: http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/O_Canada_KP.html

Tim Lysyk

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

Tim J. wrote:
rw typed:

Tim J. wrote:


If we have a law for one, we *must* have a law for all!

No, we don't.


But . . .
"There's also the question of culpability. A cell-phone talking driver
(or, for that matter, a drunk driver) is a risk to others; as, for
example, a helmetless motorcycle rider or non-seat-belt-wearing driver
isn't.

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety."

All of the actions I mentioned can cause the same harm to others as cell
phone usage. Where are you *really* drawing the line?

Some laws are unambiguous and enforceable, and some aren't. That's where
I draw the line.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:42:58 -0700, rw
wrote:

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety.

If you are in favor of laws that mandate the public safety, then you
have to be for seatbelt laws. I not only use a seatbelt to save my
life, but also to prevent an accident. In an emergency move, it is
*very* important that the driver stay *behind* the wheel, not sliding
left or right. It used to be demonstrated with students at the school
I used to teach. In most situations, they lost control of the car
without a seatbelt.

The same school convinced lawmakers from the State of Vermont to
mandate seat belts when they were given the chance to witness what
happens when they are not buckled up.

Dave

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:10:23 -0700, rw
wrote:

I don't want to see a bunch of laws telling us what we can't
do, or must do, for our own good.

If you or anyone drives without a seatbelt, they are puting every
other driver on the road at risk. I could shiv a git whether the
driver next to be ends up on his hood; I just don't want him to take
me with him.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:42:58 -0700, rw
wrote:


I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety.


If you are in favor of laws that mandate the public safety, then you
have to be for seatbelt laws.

I wear a seatbelt. I don't give a **** whether you do or not.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:39:51 -0700, rw
wrote:

I wear a seatbelt. I don't give a **** whether you do or not.

What a **** you are. I am glad *you* wear a seatbelt because of
those around you. People who do not wear seatbelts endanger other
drivers and themselves.

Does the seatbelt muss up your skirt? Probably does, but even so,
continue to wear it *for my sake*.

d;o)

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Dec 19, 4:22*pm, "Larry L" wrote:

Being a bit "cell phone conscious" lately I really noticed the number of
people with the damn things stuck to their ears as they whipped through
lanes of traffic, eager to save, maybe, a second or two.


One time I was out fly fishing and--I swear I'm not making this up--
took a call from RDean. Fortunately, I was able to continue casting
with my right hand while my left hand held the cell phone up to my ear
or someone might have been seriously injured. I did have to put RDean
momentarily on hold a couple of times while I released fish back to
the water but he probably didn't notice.

--Steve

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:33:57 -0700, rw
wrote:

Tim J. wrote:
rw typed:

Tim J. wrote:


If we have a law for one, we *must* have a law for all!

No, we don't.


But . . .
"There's also the question of culpability. A cell-phone talking driver
(or, for that matter, a drunk driver) is a risk to others; as, for
example, a helmetless motorcycle rider or non-seat-belt-wearing driver
isn't.

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety."

All of the actions I mentioned can cause the same harm to others as cell
phone usage. Where are you *really* drawing the line?

Some laws are unambiguous and enforceable, and some aren't. That's where
I draw the line.

OK. A law that makes it a capital offense for anyone named "Steve" (or
any variation thereof) to operate or ride in a motorized vehicle of any
kind is both unambiguous and enforceable (and almost certainly
Constitutional in the US), as would be a law prohibiting _any_ civilian
to do so. In fact, I'd offer that it would be more difficult to draft
an _un_Constitutional law strictly relating to the operating of a
motorized vehicle than to draft one that would be Constitutional. Where
laws relating to motor vehicles get iffy is in the difference between
malum in se (a legally-responsible person purposefully, intentionally,
with forethought running someone over with the intent to cause bodily
injury to them) versus laws intended to safeguard the public welfare
(you can't drive while "impaired," even though not all "impaired"
drivers cause a "problem" to the "public welfare") versus those purely
or mainly malum prohibitum (not being allowed to carry a handgun in the
glovebox unless "traveling").

HTH,
R

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:20:22 -0800 (PST), Zimbo
wrote:

On Dec 19, 4:22*pm, "Larry L" wrote:

Being a bit "cell phone conscious" lately I really noticed the number of
people with the damn things stuck to their ears as they whipped through
lanes of traffic, eager to save, maybe, a second or two.


One time I was out fly fishing and--I swear I'm not making this up--
took a call from RDean. Fortunately, I was able to continue casting
with my right hand while my left hand held the cell phone up to my ear
or someone might have been seriously injured. I did have to put RDean
momentarily on hold a couple of times while I released fish back to
the water but he probably didn't notice.

I did notice, and if you recall, I offered to call you at a
more-convenient time, but you continued the call. And if you further
recall, I called you without knowledge of where you were. I'd offer
that if your story has any meaning, it is the fact that you had your
cell phone on astream and were taking calls there says something about
you and nothing whatsoever about anyone who happened to call your cell
phone - at your invitation - without any knowledge that you were
astream.

RDean

--Steve

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:01:44 GMT, Frank Church
wrote:

"Tim J." wrote in
:

Frank, you liberal weenie (who loves ya?). ;-)

Bite me Timmy!! Liberal, HA! Them's fightin' words.
Come to think of it, bite me again!

Frank Sr.


Frothing at the mouth in Fremont

You, Howard Dean, Paul Begala, and James Carville....

TC,
R

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:17:20 -0500, "Tim J."
wrote:

Jeff typed:
snip
But, i'm not representing the ass-wipers...i'll leave that group to my
friends jim and wayno. They know how to turn ****e into shinola.

I've heard they can also change it back again. Is there any truth to that?

Sure...well, with a suitably large retainer against a rather steep
hourly rate, IAC...

Oh, this won't help,
R

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

Zimbo wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:22 pm, "Larry L" wrote:

Being a bit "cell phone conscious" lately I really noticed the number of
people with the damn things stuck to their ears as they whipped through
lanes of traffic, eager to save, maybe, a second or two.



One time I was out fly fishing and--I swear I'm not making this up--
took a call from RDean. Fortunately, I was able to continue casting
with my right hand while my left hand held the cell phone up to my ear
or someone might have been seriously injured. I did have to put RDean
momentarily on hold a couple of times while I released fish back to
the water but he probably didn't notice.

--Steve

You should have declined the call and blocked all further ones.

I've never received a call from RDean, but if I ever do he'll get an earful.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

In article , Gordon
MacPherson writes

"Larry L" wrote in message
...
I just took a short, hour each way, drive to help my son with a couple
things at his place.

Being a bit "cell phone conscious" lately I really noticed the number of
people with the damn things stuck to their ears as they whipped through
lanes of traffic, eager to save, maybe, a second or two. I wonder what
percentage of those calls were even vaguely "important." ... certainly all
were dangerous.

Got me thinking that each day several people probably hear a friend or
loved one die as the attempts at cell phone/ driving multi-tasking fail
and
end in a crash.

Damn I'm glad I'm so very, very, unimportant. The world won't end if I
I'm a bit late and it gets by well enough without my being on a phone 85%
of
the time ... or ever while driving


.... or fishing

Just announced in the UK that using the phone while driving, in some
circumstances could lead to imprisonment - reckoned to be as dangerous as
drunk driving

Gordon


Quite right too. !
--
Bill Grey

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

In article , rw
writes
Why not? We could enact a "lip movement" law that restricts
conversation of any sort. Of course, that won't fix the "wiping their
ass" thing, but we could just pass a law per day until we've hit all
the possibilities.

When it comes to laws, I'm a utilitarian. Laws can reasonably solve
some problems, but not others. So I'm against a lip movement law. It's
not practical.

Ventriloquism lessons - here! Cheap :-)
--
Bill Grey

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

rw typed:
Zimbo wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:22 pm, "Larry L" wrote:

Being a bit "cell phone conscious" lately I really noticed the
number of people with the damn things stuck to their ears as they
whipped through lanes of traffic, eager to save, maybe, a second or
two.

One time I was out fly fishing and--I swear I'm not making this up--
took a call from RDean. Fortunately, I was able to continue casting
with my right hand while my left hand held the cell phone up to my
ear or someone might have been seriously injured. I did have to put
RDean momentarily on hold a couple of times while I released fish
back to the water but he probably didn't notice.

You should have declined the call and blocked all further ones.

I've never received a call from RDean, but if I ever do he'll get an
earful.

I'm sure he'll stay on the line and listen to the entire rant. I know *I*
would! :)

I've had the pleasure of taking a call from rdean, and it's one I very much
appreciated.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"JT" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

The "guy/gal working for a living" are simply the largest sub-set of the
larger class of consumers. Consumers, you will doubtless be surprised to
learn, pay for EVERYTHING. The precise route the money takes in its
endless circulation may be of interest for any number of reasons, but
whether the feds or the insurance companies get a larger chunk of the
bits that go to health care on its way round and round is irrelevant in
and of itself. The real question is who makes more efficient use of it
en route.

That troubles me...

It should.....but not for the reasons you think.

What I think and my concerns are having our no-so efficient government
take over something as huge and complex as health care,

In which case, one shudders to speculate on what you might think about our
no-so efficient government take over something as huge and complex as,
say.....government.

"free" health care would need to be paid for through higher taxes or
spending cuts in other areas,

To be sure. So, are we to suppose that despite your keen insight into
efficiency and good governance, you can't of any areas in which spending
cuts might not be such a terrible idea? One would think that education
should come immediately to mind. After all, a lack thereof hasn't done you
any harm......right?

how flexibile would a government mandated system be,

That would depend to a great extent on what is mandated.

will people increase doctor visits,

Quite possibly. One would hope so.

medications,

Hard to say, but there is no good reason to suppose so.

etc...

Kind of vague.....impossible to evaluate with any hope of accuracy.

making the cost for health care much more than they currently are,

The conventional wisdom is that early detection and intervention drastically
reduces both the cost and necessary rigor or severity of treatment. You
should call the AMA and tell them that they've got it all wrong.

will healthy people pay the burden for people that are not so healthy,

You mean like they do now and, to one degree or another, have always done
(you HAVE heard of insurance.......right?)? Yes.

transitioning to a universal health care,

Yes.

lost jobs, business closure,

I'll be generous and assume that means something......but you're going to
have to explain just what.

if spending is out of control

and it most certainly is.

there will be no turning back with a government run plan.

Once again, it would be most helpful if the words provided some clues as to
the intended meaning.

Wolfgang

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

wrote in message
...

...malum prohibitum (not being allowed to carry a handgun in the
glovebox unless "traveling").

Damned nuisance (not to mention distracting) having to take the thing out at
every traffic light and stop sign, if you ask me.

Wolfgang

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Zimbo wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:22 pm, "Larry L" wrote:

Being a bit "cell phone conscious" lately I really noticed the number of
people with the damn things stuck to their ears as they whipped through
lanes of traffic, eager to save, maybe, a second or two.



One time I was out fly fishing and--I swear I'm not making this up--
took a call from RDean. Fortunately, I was able to continue casting
with my right hand while my left hand held the cell phone up to my ear
or someone might have been seriously injured. I did have to put RDean
momentarily on hold a couple of times while I released fish back to
the water but he probably didn't notice.

--Steve

You should have declined the call and blocked all further ones.

I've never received a call from RDean, but if I ever do he'll get an
earful.

I received a call from dicklet.....I got a pantload.

Wolfgang

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Dec 21, 12:35*am, wrote:

I did notice, and if you recall, I offered to call you at a
more-convenient time, but you continued the call. *And if you further
recall, I called you without knowledge of where you were. *I'd offer
that if your story has any meaning, it is the fact that you had your
cell phone on astream and were taking calls there says something about
you and nothing whatsoever about anyone who happened to call your cell
phone - at your invitation - without any knowledge that you were
astream.


Why on earth would I not gladly take a call from someone on ROFF
whilst fly fishing? It seemed like kismet at the time and still does.

--Steve

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"jeff" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:17:20 -0500, "Tim J."
wrote:


I've heard they can also change it back again. Is there any truth to
that?


Sure...well, with a suitably large retainer against a rather steep
hourly rate, IAC...

Oh, this won't help,
R

magic can be expensive at times, and we have too few genuine magicians
(those who have the talent to perform wonders, not just charge for
admission). g

On the other hand, as television producers and advertisers (among many
others.....this is just the most obvious and familiar example) know only to
well, the ability to successfully and repeatedly charge for admission, while
performing nothing even vaguely resembling wonders in return, is its own
special sort of genuine magic. :)

Wolfgang
THIS WAY TO THE EGRESS!!--

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

Tim J. wrote:

rw typed:

Zimbo wrote:

On Dec 19, 4:22 pm, "Larry L" wrote:


Being a bit "cell phone conscious" lately I really noticed the
number of people with the damn things stuck to their ears as they
whipped through lanes of traffic, eager to save, maybe, a second or
two.

One time I was out fly fishing and--I swear I'm not making this up--
took a call from RDean. Fortunately, I was able to continue casting
with my right hand while my left hand held the cell phone up to my
ear or someone might have been seriously injured. I did have to put
RDean momentarily on hold a couple of times while I released fish
back to the water but he probably didn't notice.

You should have declined the call and blocked all further ones.

I've never received a call from RDean, but if I ever do he'll get an
earful.


I'm sure he'll stay on the line and listen to the entire rant. I know *I*
would! :)

I've had the pleasure of taking a call from rdean, and it's one I very much
appreciated.

likewise...i received an unexpected call at my office and had a pleasant
chat with aruhdean. i've also tele'd with zimbo...and, hell, i recall
driving back from penns one year when that "fish thief" makela called my
cell phone (actually my wife's, loaned to me for the trip) as he was
standing in penns releasing the 24" brown in miller's run that i tried
to catch for more than 3 hours the day before... no telling how many
other drivers and pedestrians were placed in jeopardy during that call.
can't remember if i had my seatbelt on...

jeff

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:16:44 -0800 (PST), Zimbo
wrote:

On Dec 21, 12:35*am, wrote:

I did notice, and if you recall, I offered to call you at a
more-convenient time, but you continued the call. *And if you further
recall, I called you without knowledge of where you were. *I'd offer
that if your story has any meaning, it is the fact that you had your
cell phone on astream and were taking calls there says something about
you and nothing whatsoever about anyone who happened to call your cell
phone - at your invitation - without any knowledge that you were
astream.


Why on earth would I not gladly take a call from someone on ROFF
whilst fly fishing? It seemed like kismet at the time and still does.

Again, speaking for myself, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the
identity or purpose of the caller, it's the fact that you had your cell
on and were answering it while FFing. I don't think it "wrong" per se,
just, well, seemingly out-of-place. Apparently, based on some of the
replies, some take varying degrees of offense to cell phone use while
astream. I don't, but for me, they aren't activities I'd care to
combine. I do confess, however, that there are damned few activities I
care to combine with using a cell. Unless I am expecting a series of
real communications via cell - i.e., coordinating something back and
forth - I leave mine on silent 90-plus% of the time and answer or
return calls as time and circumstance permit. Fortunately, I actually
am important enough, business-wise, to do whatever the hell I please
with regard to taking calls, and if _any_ caller, business or personal,
reaches me via cell, they can be assured that I _wanted_ to take the
call and speak with them rather than felt any _need_ to do so. My
father used to say that his cell was there purely for his convenience
and use, not the caller's, and that pretty well fits into my feelings
toward them. Much like reading posts on ROFF, it is purely a matter of
choices.

Happy Holidays,
R

--Steve

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:16:44 -0800 (PST), Zimbo
wrote:

On Dec 21, 12:35 am, wrote:

I did notice, and if you recall, I offered to call you at a
more-convenient time, but you continued the call. And if you further
recall, I called you without knowledge of where you were. I'd offer
that if your story has any meaning, it is the fact that you had your
cell phone on astream and were taking calls there says something about
you and nothing whatsoever about anyone who happened to call your cell
phone - at your invitation - without any knowledge that you were
astream.


Why on earth would I not gladly take a call from someone on ROFF
whilst fly fishing? It seemed like kismet at the time and still does.

Again, speaking for myself, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the
identity or purpose of the caller, it's the fact that you had your cell
on and were answering it while FFing. I don't think it "wrong" per se,
just, well, seemingly out-of-place. Apparently, based on some of the
replies, some take varying degrees of offense to cell phone use while
astream. I don't, but for me, they aren't activities I'd care to
combine. I do confess, however, that there are damned few activities I
care to combine with using a cell. Unless I am expecting a series of
real communications via cell - i.e., coordinating something back and
forth - I leave mine on silent 90-plus% of the time and answer or
return calls as time and circumstance permit. Fortunately, I actually
am important enough, business-wise, to do whatever the hell I please
with regard to taking calls, and if _any_ caller, business or personal,
reaches me via cell, they can be assured that I _wanted_ to take the
call and speak with them rather than felt any _need_ to do so. My
father used to say that his cell was there purely for his convenience
and use, not the caller's, and that pretty well fits into my feelings
toward them. Much like reading posts on ROFF, it is purely a matter of
choices.

Wow, you really ARE important!

I, however, am MORE important. I ALWAYS leave my cell phone on.....wherever
I am.....and no dares to call and disturb me.....EVER!

HAH!

Wolfgang
but let no one suppose that this sort of power goes to my head......i am
approachable, so long as the proprieties are observed with due diligence and
deference.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:03:01 -0700, rw
wrote:

Zimbo wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:22 pm, "Larry L" wrote:

Being a bit "cell phone conscious" lately I really noticed the number of
people with the damn things stuck to their ears as they whipped through
lanes of traffic, eager to save, maybe, a second or two.



One time I was out fly fishing and--I swear I'm not making this up--
took a call from RDean. Fortunately, I was able to continue casting
with my right hand while my left hand held the cell phone up to my ear
or someone might have been seriously injured. I did have to put RDean
momentarily on hold a couple of times while I released fish back to
the water but he probably didn't notice.

--Steve

You should have declined the call and blocked all further ones.

I've never received a call from RDean, but if I ever do he'll get an earful.

Good to know, thanks....if I ever find myself wishing to hear Cole
Porter, Judy Garland, or another of you boys' "standards," er, "sung"
with a nasally and lispily effeminate flair by the Marlboro Girl, you'll
be the first one I call...

HTH,
R
....fair's fair, though, Cow Patty - I'll bet your version of "Love For
Sale" really knocks 'em out on Beefcake in Brown Gravy Night down at The
Real He-Man Disco Grille there in good ol' Ketchem, Jr....

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

Wolfgang typed:
snip
I, however, am MORE important. I ALWAYS leave my cell phone
on.....wherever I am.....and no dares to call and disturb me.....EVER!

Ahem.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Tim J." wrote in message
...
Wolfgang typed:
snip
I, however, am MORE important. I ALWAYS leave my cell phone
on.....wherever I am.....and no dares to call and disturb me.....EVER!

Ahem.

Huh?



Oh.

Wolfgang
:(

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"JT" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

The "guy/gal working for a living" are simply the largest sub-set of the
larger class of consumers. Consumers, you will doubtless be surprised
to learn, pay for EVERYTHING. The precise route the money takes in its
endless circulation may be of interest for any number of reasons, but
whether the feds or the insurance companies get a larger chunk of the
bits that go to health care on its way round and round is irrelevant in
and of itself. The real question is who makes more efficient use of it
en route.

That troubles me...

It should.....but not for the reasons you think.

What I think and my concerns are having our no-so efficient government
take over something as huge and complex as health care,

In which case, one shudders to speculate on what you might think about our
no-so efficient government take over something as huge and complex as,
say.....government.

"free" health care would need to be paid for through higher taxes or
spending cuts in other areas,

To be sure. So, are we to suppose that despite your keen insight into
efficiency and good governance, you can't of any areas in which spending
cuts might not be such a terrible idea? One would think that education
should come immediately to mind. After all, a lack thereof hasn't done
you any harm......right?

how flexibile would a government mandated system be,

That would depend to a great extent on what is mandated.

will people increase doctor visits,

Quite possibly. One would hope so.

medications,

Hard to say, but there is no good reason to suppose so.

etc...

Kind of vague.....impossible to evaluate with any hope of accuracy.

making the cost for health care much more than they currently are,

The conventional wisdom is that early detection and intervention
drastically reduces both the cost and necessary rigor or severity of
treatment. You should call the AMA and tell them that they've got it all
wrong.

will healthy people pay the burden for people that are not so healthy,

You mean like they do now and, to one degree or another, have always done
(you HAVE heard of insurance.......right?)? Yes.

transitioning to a universal health care,

Yes.

lost jobs, business closure,

I'll be generous and assume that means something......but you're going to
have to explain just what.

if spending is out of control

and it most certainly is.

there will be no turning back with a government run plan.

Once again, it would be most helpful if the words provided some clues as
to the intended meaning.

Wolfgang

It comes as no surprise that you can't carry on a civil conversation without
throwing cheap shots...

Carry on,
JT

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"JT" wrote in message
...

It comes as no surprise that you can't carry on a civil conversation
without throwing cheap shots...

It comes as no surprise that you feel ill-informed, self-satisfied, canned
tripe is deserving of a civil response.

Carry on,

Bank on it.

Wolfgang

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"JT" wrote in message
...

It comes as no surprise that you can't carry on a civil conversation
without throwing cheap shots...

It comes as no surprise that you feel ill-informed, self-satisfied, canned
tripe is deserving of a civil response.

Carry on,

Bank on it.

Wolfgang

Carry on big boy,
JT
It must hurt to be you... Enjoy the holidays in your one bedroom apartment.
Who are you going to spend it with, yourself?

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Dec 21, 9:01*am, wrote:

Again, speaking for myself, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the
identity or purpose of the caller, it's the fact that you had your cell
on and were answering it while FFing. *I don't think it "wrong" per se,
just, well, seemingly out-of-place.


I agree. On the occasion in question, I was fishing at the bass pond
within walking distance of my front porch. So, some would say, not
*really* fly fishing. For the record, whilst in a trout stream I do
not carry a phone, I never wear a vest, and I almost always wade wet.
In my earlier post I was mostly trying to compare/contrast the evils
of taking a phone call while fishing to taking a phone call while
driving. Depending upon the intensity of the occasion, I've been known
to do both.

--Steve

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"JT" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"JT" wrote in message
...

It comes as no surprise that you can't carry on a civil conversation
without throwing cheap shots...

It comes as no surprise that you feel ill-informed, self-satisfied,
canned tripe is deserving of a civil response.

Carry on,

Bank on it.

Wolfgang

Carry on big boy,

I thought we'd already covered that.

JT
It must hurt to be you...

Occasionally, as is true of anyone, I suppose. Hardly enough to dwell on,
though.

Enjoy the holidays in your one bedroom apartment.

Two, actually, and thank you.

Who are you going to spend it with, yourself?

Yep. Going to try to catch up on my reading. An exotic pursuit you should
try sometime, by the way.

Wolfgang

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"JT" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"JT" wrote in message
...

It comes as no surprise that you can't carry on a civil conversation
without throwing cheap shots...

It comes as no surprise that you feel ill-informed, self-satisfied,
canned tripe is deserving of a civil response.

Carry on,

Bank on it.

Wolfgang

Carry on big boy,

I thought we'd already covered that.

JT
It must hurt to be you...

Occasionally, as is true of anyone, I suppose. Hardly enough to dwell on,
though.

Enjoy the holidays in your one bedroom apartment.

Two, actually, and thank you.

Who are you going to spend it with, yourself?

Yep. Going to try to catch up on my reading. An exotic pursuit you
should try sometime, by the way.

Wolfgang

Okay ol' great one... Enjoy the holidays, although it sounds like you will
be in pretty poor company.

You can have the last word, so EOT for me,

Bub-bye,
JT
JT

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Zimbo" wrote in message
...

In my earlier post I was mostly trying to compare/contrast the evils
of taking a phone call while fishing to taking a phone call while
driving. Depending upon the intensity of the occasion, I've been known
to do both.

Not simultaneously, one hopes.

Taking a phone call while sitting in a kayak in three foot swells a mile or
so off shore in Lake Michigan is a pretty surreal experience.

And I was pretty sure that I have a photo of you......wearing a vest.....in
Hazel Creek. But I can't find it right now. :)

Wolfgang
who, admittedly, may have imagined the whole thing.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"JT" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"JT" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"JT" wrote in message
...

It comes as no surprise that you can't carry on a civil conversation
without throwing cheap shots...

It comes as no surprise that you feel ill-informed, self-satisfied,
canned tripe is deserving of a civil response.

Carry on,

Bank on it.

Wolfgang

Carry on big boy,

I thought we'd already covered that.

JT
It must hurt to be you...

Occasionally, as is true of anyone, I suppose. Hardly enough to dwell
on, though.

Enjoy the holidays in your one bedroom apartment.

Two, actually, and thank you.

Who are you going to spend it with, yourself?

Yep. Going to try to catch up on my reading. An exotic pursuit you
should try sometime, by the way.

Wolfgang

Okay

O.k.

ol' great one...

Huh?

Enjoy the holidays,

Um......hm......I thought we'd already done this part, too.

although it sounds like you will be in pretty poor company.

Maybe so. But then, I haven't heard any complaints......yet.

You can have the last word,

Very kind of you. Gosh, just try to imagine what a lovely place this would
be if everybody followed your sterling example! :)

so EOT for me,

O.k. So......uh.....I guess we'll just reconnect in another one sometime,
huh?

Bub-bye,

TTFN.

Wolfgang
see? people CAN disagree and still get along famously!

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

Zimbo wrote:

.... I did have to put RDean
momentarily on hold a couple of times while I released fish back to
the water but he probably didn't notice.

Fish notice a lot, but don't care much....

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

In article , Dave LaCourse
writes
f you are in favor of laws that mandate the public safety, then you
have to be for seatbelt laws. I not only use a seatbelt to save my
life, but also to prevent an accident. In an emergency move, it is
*very* important that the driver stay *behind* the wheel, not sliding
left or right. It used to be demonstrated with students at the school
I used to teach. In most situations, they lost control of the car
without a seatbelt.

.......not forgetting the unrestrained rear seat passenger who could
easily become a missile who could collide with the driver in the event
of an accident.
--
Bill Grey

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Frank Church" wrote in message
96...
"Gordon MacPherson" wrote in
:


Just announced in the UK that using the phone while driving, in some
circumstances could lead to imprisonment - reckoned to be as dangerous
as drunk driving

... it'll make it to this side of the pond eventually, and not a minute
too
soon.

Frank Sr.

I have mixed feelings about outlawing things like that. One one hand I
believe we need to maintain a certain amount of freedom of choice. On the
other...I *@#$%&! HATE cell phones. Three years ago I bought a new (to me)
used truck that was owned by an elderly retired couple. Pristine inside and
out, low low miles, etc. Owned it two months when I was stopped at a red
light at the bottom of a hill. Didn't see the car in my rearview that hit me
at about 50mph. I was pushed nearly 40 yards through the intersection and
back uphill with my foot on the brake. The driver got out with cell phone in
one hand and smoke in the other. When giving the police report she swore
that she was slowing down for the stop. No matter, she had no insurance, an
already suspended license, and an expired registration...and since I keep my
hitch in the reciever, a totaled car. I had almost forgot about the incident
when my wife's uncle was killed under almost the same circumstances four
months later. I have not honestly been able to think of a realistic or
reasonable solution to the problem. After all, I don't think it is possible
or ethical to legislate common sense or common courtesy. Cell phones
themselves don't bother me, the (already) inconsiderate *******s that use
them as a way of saying "Look at me, i'm important/cool/big ****" iritate me
to no ends. They are the same people who insist that thier calls are
ultimately more important than the consideration of the people around them,
even when talking in the most inappropriate places.

Jeremy Moe