Seeking advice: Running Reds on a Bike [Archive]

David L. Johnson

May 10th 05, 04:13 AM

On Mon, 09 May 2005 19:38:59 -0700, john wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.
>
> I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side
> (the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an
> an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the
> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I
> proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190
> ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.
>
> What are my chances in court with this one?

Slim.

> I know what the law is,
> but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily
> (running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help my
> case, shouldn't it?

Of course it won't help your case. Lots of drivers speed everyday, and
darned if that doesn't help the case for the next one caught.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists is
_`\(,_ | not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant.
(_)/ (_) | --Robert F. Kennedy

Bob

May 10th 05, 04:54 AM

wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.
>
> I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side
> (the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to
an
> an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the
> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so
I
> proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a
$190
> ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.
>
> What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law is,
> but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily
> (running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help
my
> case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these
> circumstances?
>
> Not that rich,
> >>john

What are you asking, what are your chances of being found not guilty in
court? Maybe the prosecutor will see that you were on a bicycle and
decide not to prosecute. Or maybe the prosecutor will prosecute and the
judge will reduce the fine. Or maybe neither will happen and you'll
have to pay the full amount. No one can accurately predict what the
outcome will be. What *can* be predicted is if you plead not guilty and
offer as a defense of, "Everyone does it and I checked to make sure it
was safe" that the judge may very well at least think to himself, "That
laws are broken with regularity doesn't mean they should not be
enforced and if this person looked so carefully, why didn't he see the
police officer's car?".
My best advice? Go to court, plead guilty, apologize, and hope the
judge is in a charitable mood.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Jim

May 10th 05, 12:55 PM

Michael

May 10th 05, 01:52 PM

wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.
>
> I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side
> (the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an
> an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the
> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I
> proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190
> ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.
>
> What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law is,
> but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily
> (running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help my
> case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these
> circumstances?
>
> Not that rich,
> >>john

When/if the judge gives you an opportunity to speak on your own behalf, a
contrite demeanor and an apology will best serve you. *Do*not* justify the
transgression.

This applies equally when talking to cops. Yes, sir. No, sir. No excuse, sir.

When you're wrong, you're wrong. Own up to it. But it's best to not break the
law while a COP IS WATCHING!

Maggie

May 10th 05, 02:18 PM

wrote:
I know what the law is, but that hundreds of people in this city do
the same thing daily
john

My mother instincts are coming out.

YOU KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS BUT DID IT ANYWAY...
because hundreds of other people do it.

This is the "IF YOUR FRIENDS JUMPED OFF A BRIDGE, WOULD YOU??

You broke the law. You know you broke the law. You got caught.

Bottom line, you got caught. Hundreds may get away with it, but you
got caught. Not much more to say.

Throw yourself on the mercy of the court. ;-)

Maggie

Peter Cole

May 10th 05, 02:44 PM

wrote:
I checked for peds, checked the
> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I
> proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190
> ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.

What sucky bike laws. The punishment should fit the crime, that's absurd.

Neil Brooks

May 10th 05, 02:47 PM

wrote:

[snip]

John,

This may help not one whit, but here's a joke for you:

Cop pulls a guy over for rolling through a stop sign. He tells the
driver that he's going to give him a citation for failure to stop at a
Stop sign.

The guy tells the officer, "Hey, I slowed down!"

"Yes," the officer says, "but you didn't *stop*."

"But I *slowed down*," says the motorist, "What's the difference?"

The cop grabs the guy, bodily, slams him against his car and starts
punching him--just pummeling him mightily, in a series of alternating
lefts and rights.

Suddenly, the officer stops for a second and asks the motorist, "What
would you like me to do? Stop or slow down??"

Good luck in court....

Neil

Maggie

May 10th 05, 03:43 PM

Neil Brooks wrote:
Snip

> Suddenly, the officer stops for a second and asks the motorist, "What
> would you like me to do? Stop or slow down??"
> Good luck in court....
> Neil

Good one. Makes you realize the difference between STOP and just
slowing down.

I just received a call that a woman smashed my sons car which was
parked in front of my house. He took his motorcycle to work today. I'm
glad I drove my car in today. I was thinking of taking my bike. She
probably would have taken both cars out.

My daughter answered the doorbell to see two police officers standing
there. She thought someone died. Even if we are law abiding citizens we
hate to see the police come to the door. At least I do. ;-)

When my boys were teenagers, it always meant trouble. Usually having to
do with skateboarding on private property. ;-)

Love and Stuff,
Maggie

Stephen Harding

May 10th 05, 04:29 PM

wrote:

> Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.
>
> I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side
> (the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an
> an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the
> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I
> proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190
> ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.

I'm a stickler for stopping at red lights on my bike. I
feel I don't deserve respect from motorists if I don't
behave like a motorist (legally) when traveling the roads.

But I must confess, the type of intersection you describe,
top of a T, I generally do not stop. Like you did, I slow
down, always give pedestrians or cars navigating into the
intersection the right of way, but if it's clear, I go.

I think a $190 fine for this, even in CDN money, is rather
extreme! The very fact that you slowed to a "near stop"
should have warranted a warning at most IMHO.

But you're probably stuck with it. You "ran" a red light!

SMH

Bill Sornson

May 10th 05, 04:55 PM

Claire Petersky wrote:
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>
>> When/if the judge gives you an opportunity to speak on your own
>> behalf, a contrite demeanor and an apology will best serve you.
>> *Do*not* justify the transgression.
>
> Further, it is my experience that if you are low on funds, it is
> always better to go to the court than to simply pay a fine. Dress
> neatly, be polite, don't be defensive. Describe the devestating
> impact of the fine on your impecunious self. You've learned your
> lesson, you've taken the trouble to show up and apologize, now you
> throw yourself on the mercy of the court.

Except don't use 25-cent words like impecunious, or the judge might tack on
some community service or something!

rdclark

May 10th 05, 04:57 PM

So this morning I'm behind some POB, northbound in the bike lane on
22nd Street about to cross South. Red light. On my left, waiting for
the light to change, a Philadelphia Police squad car. I stop at the
light as I would normally do, squad car or no. The POB blithely
continues, not slowing, hardly looking.

Who's the idiot, the POB ignoring traffic law right in front of the
cop, or me, stopping at lights when there's no traffic, certain in the
knowledge that no Philadelphia cop would ever bestir himself to enforce
the law against a cyclist.

Hell, even the Philadelphia bike cops routinely and habitually ignore
all traffic rules, and the next time I hear of a cyclist getting cited
in Philadelphia will be the first.

I say be grateful for cops that actually pay attention to cyclists and
correctly understand their rights and responsibilities under the law.
Sure, go ahead and plead for mercy and you might well get the fine
reduced, based on the fact you were on a bike. Judges have discretion,
and if you're respectful and contrite they often use it.

RichC

Fritz M

May 10th 05, 05:01 PM

John wrote:
> Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.

I can't help you on the particulars of Toronto law, but I do the same
thing. One variation, though, is that I hop on the sidewalk and become
a pedestrian, cross the top of the T-intersection, then rejoin the
traffic flow.

If there's no sidewalk, I generally stay stopped and feel like a dork.

RFM

Leo Lichtman

May 10th 05, 05:29 PM

"Jim" wrote: Sounds to me like you 'stopped'. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you raise a very good point. I don't know what the law says, but,
in my mind, if you are "paused" at the intersection well enough so you can
see in all directions, and you don't proceed into someone else's right of
way, you are actually less of a burden on the other traffic than a cyclist
who unclips, puts a foot down, then restarts and has to worry about clipping
in as he/she crosses the intersection.

I think a modest, non-defiant presentation of that point to a judge might be
effective.

Pat Lamb

May 10th 05, 05:41 PM

Stephen Harding wrote:
> wrote:
>> I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side
>> (the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an
>> an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the
>> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I
>> proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190
>> ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.
>
>
> I'm a stickler for stopping at red lights on my bike. I
> feel I don't deserve respect from motorists if I don't
> behave like a motorist (legally) when traveling the roads.
>
> But I must confess, the type of intersection you describe,
> top of a T, I generally do not stop. Like you did, I slow
> down, always give pedestrians or cars navigating into the
> intersection the right of way, but if it's clear, I go.
>
> I think a $190 fine for this, even in CDN money, is rather
> extreme! The very fact that you slowed to a "near stop"
> should have warranted a warning at most IMHO.
>
> But you're probably stuck with it. You "ran" a red light!

I started out with the attitude, the OP deserves to get a ticket and
have to pay it. I think I have to modify that slightly. (And this may
be the way out of paying the ticket...) IF, and only if, you (the OP)
have been through this intersection before, and you're quite sure the
light does not respond to a cyclist, then you may be able to pull off
the "non-functional light" defense. If the light is on a sensor, not a
timer; if you've waited for two minutes previously, and only the
approach of a car could trigger the light; if there was no other traffic
in sight (assuming the cop car was parked off the road but could see the
intersection); and if you checked for traffic and pedestrians before
proceeding, then you have a chance to beat the ticket. So far, you're
one for four. If you can't improve those odds, you're at the mercy of
the court.

Pat

bbaka

May 10th 05, 05:49 PM

Michael wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.
>>
>>I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side
>>(the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an
>>an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the
>>light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I
>>proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190
>>ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.
>>
>>What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law is,
>>but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily
>>(running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help my
>>case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these
>>circumstances?
>>
>>Not that rich,
>>
>>>>john
>
>
>
> When/if the judge gives you an opportunity to speak on your own behalf, a
> contrite demeanor and an apology will best serve you. *Do*not* justify the
> transgression.
>
> This applies equally when talking to cops. Yes, sir. No, sir. No excuse, sir.
>
> When you're wrong, you're wrong. Own up to it. But it's best to not break the
> law while a COP IS WATCHING!

Advice.
Don't do it.
We just had a bicyclist killed here in my small country town area over
the weekend and it was at a traffic light controlled area. There are no
official reports out yet as the dead biker collided with an SUV, (what
else?) and they are still investigating. I ride weird sometimes out in
the country but in town I get off the bike and act like a pedestrian,
pushing little buttons for the crosswalk and all. The article got a
write up in the local paper sometime in the last few days so feel free
to have a look at www.appealdemocrat.com. They keep things up for a week
and then you have to pay to get into the archive. Here is the actual link.

http://www.appealdemocrat.com/articles/2005/05/08/news/local_news/news3.txt

Pay attention to those lights because the car drivers just see a green
light and stomp on it.

Bill Baka

gds

May 10th 05, 06:01 PM

bbaka wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.
> >>
> >>I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous
side
> >>(the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to
an
> >>an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked
the
> >>light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars
so I
> >>proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a
$190
> >>ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.
> >>
> >>What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law
is,
> >>but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily
> >>(running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help
my
> >>case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these
> >>circumstances?
> >>
> >>Not that rich,
> >>
> >>>>john
> >
> >
> >
> > When/if the judge gives you an opportunity to speak on your own
behalf, a
> > contrite demeanor and an apology will best serve you. *Do*not*
justify the
> > transgression.
> >
> > This applies equally when talking to cops. Yes, sir. No, sir. No
excuse, sir.
> >
> > When you're wrong, you're wrong. Own up to it. But it's best to
not break the
> > law while a COP IS WATCHING!
>
> Advice.
> Don't do it.
> We just had a bicyclist killed here in my small country town area
over
> the weekend and it was at a traffic light controlled area. There are
no
> official reports out yet as the dead biker collided with an SUV,
(what
> else?) and they are still investigating. I ride weird sometimes out
in
> the country but in town I get off the bike and act like a pedestrian,

> pushing little buttons for the crosswalk and all. The article got a
> write up in the local paper sometime in the last few days so feel
free
> to have a look at www.appealdemocrat.com. They keep things up for a
week
> and then you have to pay to get into the archive. Here is the actual
link.
>
>
http://www.appealdemocrat.com/articles/2005/05/08/news/local_news/news3.txt
>
> Pay attention to those lights because the car drivers just see a
green
> light and stomp on it.
>
> Bill Baka

Well I agree that the right answer is "don't do it."
But the reason is the situation the OP has gotten into not the safety
issue.. In reality the risk of a collision with a car by running a
light accross the top ot T as described seems pretty low. Anf if there
is a big shoulder or bike lane it seems it would be negligible. In such
a case there is no time at which the cyclist would be in or crossing a
motor vehicle lane.
I think the cop must have been in a bad mood or something set him off.
While this is certainly a violation it is really minor in he sense of
creating danger.

OK, now the admission. I am very good about stoping at red lights and
stop signs- but I will often run a light (on my bike not my car) when
going accross the top of a T.(I do watch for cars swinging wide through
the turn)

Chris B.

May 10th 05, 06:02 PM

On 9 May 2005 19:38:59 -0700, wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.
>
>I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side
>(the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an
>an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the
>light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I
>proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190
>ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.
>
>What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law is,
>but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily
>(running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help my
>case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these
>circumstances?

The Toronto cops do "blitzes" in the Spring where they ticket
cyclists. They do the same with jaywalking pedestrians when a bunch
of people are run over in a short space of time. Two months ago the
same cop wouldn't have bothered you for the same violation.

I got the same ticket from a pig in an unmarked.car in the Spring of
2003 for turning right on a red (from a bike lane to a bike lane)
without stopping, also in Toronto. For those who don't live here,
it's legal here to turn right at a red light here provided that you
stop first and that you yield right-of-way to pedestrians and cross
traffic.

Since I had gotten away with blatently blowing through so many red
lights over the years (and I still do sometimes) I figured that I
should just pay the ticket this time - so I did.

Whenever I am with someone complaining about cyclist scofflaws I tell
them about my ticket so that they understand that Toronto cyclists do
indeed get ticketed, sometimes harshly. They are usually shocked that
the fine is so high, that the fine is the same as it is in a car and
they are surprised that I paid it without a fight. They are car
drivers after all and so they run red lights too (fail to stop when
they could do so safely, turn right on red without coming to a
complete stop, etc).

1oki

May 10th 05, 06:03 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.
>
> I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side
> (the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an
> an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the
> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I
> proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190
> ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.

I did something similar in Guelph, Ont.

Several years ago, early Sunday morning I was on my way to work. I was
going down hill along the top of the 'T'. The only other traffic was a
police cruiser that turned from the bottom of the 'T' so that he was going
the same direction but a goodly distance ahead of me.

As it was a down slope I was loathe to lose momentum and figured; 'Waht are
the odds he'd be looking back at me?'

Turned out they were pretty good. I was apologetic and he let me go with a
warning.

> What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law is,
> but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily
> (running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help my
> case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these
> circumstances?

Not of getting the ticket. I'd say your chances are pretty much nil unless:

- the information on the ticket is incorrect. Misspelled name, incorrect
address, etc.

- the officer does not show up at court.

Dunno how true these are but I've been told that if either is the case the
ticket gets tossed.

--
'The wisest of the wise may err.'
-aeschylus

rdclark

May 10th 05, 06:14 PM

Chris B. wrote:

> I got the same ticket from a pig

Pig? That's not very nice.

RichC

Mike Latondresse

May 10th 05, 06:25 PM

"rdclark" > wrote in news:1115745268.051772.126010
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
> Chris B. wrote:
>
>> I got the same ticket from a pig
>
> Pig? That's not very nice.
>
> RichC
>

He is obvious a 60's left-over.

Maggie

May 10th 05, 06:47 PM

Mike Latondresse wrote:
> "rdclark" > wrote in
news:1115745268.051772.126010
> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Chris B. wrote:
> >
> >> I got the same ticket from a pig
> >
> > Pig? That's not very nice.
> >
> > RichC
> >
>
> He is obvious a 60's left-over.

I'm from the 60's and I never used the term. Don't generalize. I think
we called them "the fuzz". (or was that the 50's?) ;-)

Maggie

Bill Sornson

May 10th 05, 07:12 PM

I wouldn't take reds and then ride.

(Hey, the discussion turned to the '60s, didn't it?)

Peter Cole

May 10th 05, 07:13 PM

rdclark wrote:
>
> Who's the idiot, the POB ignoring traffic law right in front of the
> cop, or me, stopping at lights when there's no traffic, certain in the
> knowledge that no Philadelphia cop would ever bestir himself to enforce
> the law against a cyclist.

Erm, I'd have to say you...

Booker C. Bense

May 10th 05, 08:12 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article >,
Leo Lichtman > wrote:
>
>"Jim" wrote: Sounds to me like you 'stopped'. (clip)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I think you raise a very good point. I don't know what the law says, but,
>in my mind, if you are "paused" at the intersection well enough so you can
>see in all directions, and you don't proceed into someone else's right of
>way, you are actually less of a burden on the other traffic than a cyclist
>who unclips, puts a foot down, then restarts and has to worry about clipping
>in as he/she crosses the intersection.
>
>I think a modest, non-defiant presentation of that point to a judge might be
>effective.
>

_ It's a RED LIGHT, not a stop sign. It's not a question of
stopping or not....

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQoEHgmTWTAjn5N/lAQEr4QQAuYmsXhlev00+3GXjFMUqAPDB4qmrjvIj
YkhJkwP3g0buzmvXLRQNPt9M5U6YqCPBLTFL3i2DXjkIYFbZSd fd7T/igFFCrjT9
ocEo2MMnxdgxoeTfeVI9DA/MfBjnDxwE4VRZyKNrC4BKCOJtqrjPl0QcTpk6EMjM
k0xj1u5T4CE=
=vAi6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tom Keats

May 10th 05, 09:27 PM

In article . com>,
writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.
>
> I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side
> (the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an
> an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the
> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just a few more seconds' wait and you would have had
your green. And no ticket.

"That's how she goes."
-- Randy's dad (Ray), from Trailer Park Boys,
on stealing the drinking money and blowing
it on video lottery terminals.

better days,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Michael

May 10th 05, 10:20 PM

Maggie wrote:
>
> wrote:
> I know what the law is, but that hundreds of people in this city do
> the same thing daily
> john
>
> My mother instincts are coming out.
>
> YOU KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS BUT DID IT ANYWAY...
> because hundreds of other people do it.
>
> This is the "IF YOUR FRIENDS JUMPED OFF A BRIDGE, WOULD YOU??
>
> You broke the law. You know you broke the law. You got caught.
>
> Bottom line, you got caught. Hundreds may get away with it, but you
> got caught. Not much more to say.
>
> Throw yourself on the mercy of the court. ;-)
>
> Maggie

Aw-w-w Mom! ;-)

Michael

May 10th 05, 10:23 PM

Maggie wrote:
>
> Mike Latondresse wrote:
> > "rdclark" > wrote in
> news:1115745268.051772.126010
> > @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > >
> > > Chris B. wrote:
> > >
> > >> I got the same ticket from a pig
> > >
> > > Pig? That's not very nice.
> > >
> > > RichC
> > >
> >
> > He is obvious a 60's left-over.
>
> I'm from the 60's and I never used the term. Don't generalize. I think
> we called them "the fuzz". (or was that the 50's?) ;-)
>
> Maggie

Yep, 60's. (I can remember the 50's, but just barely.)

bbaka

May 10th 05, 10:34 PM

Maggie wrote:
> Mike Latondresse wrote:
>
>>"rdclark" > wrote in
>
> news:1115745268.051772.126010
>
:
>>
>>
>>>Chris B. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I got the same ticket from a pig
>>>
>>>Pig? That's not very nice.
>>>
>>>RichC
>>>
>>
>>He is obvious a 60's left-over.
>
>
>
> I'm from the 60's and I never used the term. Don't generalize. I think
> we called them "the fuzz". (or was that the 50's?) ;-)
>
> Maggie
>
Uh, Maggie?
Pig was later 60's, fuzz was 50's and early 60's. Been there, done that.
Now I just call them "youngsters with badges.".
Bill Baka

bbaka

May 10th 05, 10:39 PM

1oki wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.
>>
>>I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side
>>(the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to an
>>an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the
>>light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so I
>>proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a $190
>>ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.
>
>
> I did something similar in Guelph, Ont.
>
> Several years ago, early Sunday morning I was on my way to work. I was
> going down hill along the top of the 'T'. The only other traffic was a
> police cruiser that turned from the bottom of the 'T' so that he was going
> the same direction but a goodly distance ahead of me.
>
> As it was a down slope I was loathe to lose momentum and figured; 'Waht are
> the odds he'd be looking back at me?'
>
> Turned out they were pretty good. I was apologetic and he let me go with a
> warning.
>
>
>
>>What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law is,
>>but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily
>>(running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help my
>>case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these
>>circumstances?
>
>
> Not of getting the ticket. I'd say your chances are pretty much nil unless:
>
> - the information on the ticket is incorrect. Misspelled name, incorrect
> address, etc.

I think that is a myth since I have never known anyone that it has
happened to.
>
> - the officer does not show up at court.

This one is a fact as it has happened to me when the officer knew it was
a set up or margin ticket anyway. For something trivial like rolling
through a stop sign at maybe 1/2 MPH the judge is going to ask how the
officer 'knew' you did not stop. Often the judge winds up ****ed off at
the officer for not issuing real tickets, like blasting through the stop
sign at 20 or so. I have had an officer not show up on a 20 MPH over
speeding ticket because he just happened to be on vacation and out of
town, lucky me.
Bill Baka
>
> Dunno how true these are but I've been told that if either is the case the
> ticket gets tossed.
>
> --
> 'The wisest of the wise may err.'
> -aeschylus
>
>

bbaka

May 10th 05, 10:44 PM

Bill Sornson wrote:
> I wouldn't take reds and then ride.
>
> (Hey, the discussion turned to the '60s, didn't it?)
>
>
A friend (dead now) tried that on a motorcycle and tried passing into
oncoming traffic and lost. 1973. He literally left his face on the
windshield as the rest of him scraped over the top of the car. His
handle was 'Mad Max' before Mel Gibson, and he could handle a motorcycle
better than anyone I have ever seen. Too bad he didn't have any common
sense about drugs and bikes.
Kinda glad that era is over, stoners I could deal with but not reds freaks.
Bill Baka

Chris B.

May 10th 05, 11:37 PM

On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:25:57 GMT, Mike Latondresse
> wrote:

>"rdclark" > wrote in news:1115745268.051772.126010
:
>
>>
>> Chris B. wrote:
>>
>>> I got the same ticket from a pig
>>
>> Pig? That's not very nice.

A person who volunteers to be offended for other people is heard from.

You are a rare specimen indeed nowadays!

>> RichC
>>
>
>He is obvious a 60's left-over.

You think I'm a baby boomer? Certainly not. I'm nowhere near
shallow, greedy or self-absorbed enough.

That's the worst insult that has been hurled in my direction in a very
long time. Seriously.

Leo Lichtman

May 10th 05, 11:51 PM

"Booker C. Bense" wrote: It's a RED LIGHT, not a stop sign. It's not a
question of stopping or not....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Right you are! My thinking got derailed by something I read earlier (no
names.)

Jeff Starr

May 11th 05, 12:31 AM

On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:37:48 -0400, Chris B.
> wrote:

>>He is obvious a 60's left-over.
>
>You think I'm a baby boomer? Certainly not. I'm nowhere near
>shallow, greedy or self-absorbed enough.
>
>That's the worst insult that has been hurled in my direction in a very
>long time. Seriously.

Generalize much?

It didn't bother me when you used the term pig, although I thought it
was unnecessary and showed a lack of class. But now you insult a whole
generation, and I have to agree that you are not of the 60s.

What I can't recall is which decade spawned the dickhead generation.
I'm sure that you know.

Life is Good!
Jeff

Joe Canuck

May 11th 05, 12:49 AM

[email protected]

May 11th 05, 03:34 AM

Chris B. wrote:
> The Toronto cops do "blitzes" in the Spring where they ticket
> cyclists. They do the same with jaywalking pedestrians when a bunch
> of people are run over in a short space of time. Two months ago the
> same cop wouldn't have bothered you for the same violation.

You got it. Springtime <=> bike crackdown. Someone I've talked to
since has also told me they're on the bikes right about this time of
year. I've blown through fully red intersections, that weren't
T-shaped, very recently in front of a cop without incident.

But any idea why/how it's legal for a cop to issue a ticket to someone
without I.D. based on full name, date of birth, and mailing address?
It's a full ticket, with driver's license number and such.

> I got the same ticket from a pig in an unmarked.car in the Spring of
> 2003 for turning right on a red (from a bike lane to a bike lane)
> without stopping, also in Toronto. For those who don't live here,
> it's legal here to turn right at a red light here provided that you
> stop first and that you yield right-of-way to pedestrians and cross
> traffic.

Incredible... It's one thing to educate cyclists who don't know the
rules of the road through warnings & such; but, this is obviously
taking it a bit too far.

cheers
=john

Bob

May 11th 05, 06:43 AM

wrote:
> You got it. Springtime <=> bike crackdown. Someone I've talked to
> since has also told me they're on the bikes right about this time of
> year. I've blown through fully red intersections, that weren't
> T-shaped, very recently in front of a cop without incident.
>
> But any idea why/how it's legal for a cop to issue a ticket to
someone
> without I.D. based on full name, date of birth, and mailing address?
> It's a full ticket, with driver's license number and such.
>
>
> Incredible... It's one thing to educate cyclists who don't know the
> rules of the road through warnings & such; but, this is obviously
> taking it a bit too far.
>
> cheers
> =john

How is it legal? Simple- the officer ran a computerized name check on
the information you provided and got your D/L number. Consider this- if
it were illegal for a police officer to issue a ticket when the
offender failed to produce State issued ID exactly how many people
would furnish/carry said ID? Would *you*?
As for your comment that "this is obviously taking it a bit too far", I
agree with the sentiment but probably not the way you meant it. You
*knew* the light was red and you knew red means stop so you didn't need
"education". What is obvious is that you broke the law and got caught
this time so you got a ticket. Get over it.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Maggie

May 11th 05, 10:56 AM

Chris B. wrote:
> You think I'm a baby boomer? Certainly not. I'm nowhere near
> shallow, greedy or self-absorbed enough.
>
> That's the worst insult that has been hurled in my direction in a
very
> long time. Seriously.

The worst insult for me would be to be lumped into Generation X.
Being a part of the sixties is something I cherish. Don't bash my
generation bucko. Being a part of the sixties is something I am very
proud of......extremely proud.
Maggie.

Time in a Bottle From the Boomers Website.

In the sixties we all watched the same television shows, listened to
the same news broadcasts, and followed the same baseball and football
teams. The colors of the jerseys never changed; and for the most part,
neither did the players. Mickey Mantle was a Yankee; Sandy Kofax was a
Dodger; And Muhammad Ali was The Greatest! Those were constant
throughout our childhood... relatively speaking.

But in the seventies and eighties, when the Gen-X'ers were growing up,
hardly anything stayed the same. But how many artists from the
eighties do you think the Gen-X'ers will be listening to 20 years from
now? Anybody seen "Best of Menudo" albums flying off the shelves
lately? When did Culture Club have their last hit?

Some people called it the "decade of discontent" because of the
demonstrations against the war and the race riots in Detroit, Los
Angeles, and other cities. Others called it the decade of "peace, love,
and harmony" because of the peace movement and the emergence of the
"flower children." To some, it was acid trips and mind expansion: "Far
out, man." For us teenagers, it was surely the decade of rock and
roll... from Elvis to the Beatles... and a thousand places in between.
It was an active decade in the Congress as President Johnson signed
major civil rights legislation and the laws enacting Medicare and the
first round of the war on poverty. Oh wait; I left out the race to the
moon, major political assassinations, the Berlin Wall.....

rdclark

May 11th 05, 04:11 PM

bbaka wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > I wouldn't take reds and then ride.
> >
> > (Hey, the discussion turned to the '60s, didn't it?)
> >
> >
> A friend (dead now) tried that on a motorcycle and tried passing into

> oncoming traffic and lost.

See, Bill, we keep telling you about riding against traffic.

RichC

Paul R

May 11th 05, 04:13 PM

"Booker C. Bense"
tanford.edu> wrote in
message ...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> In article >,
> Leo Lichtman > wrote:
> >
> >"Jim" wrote: Sounds to me like you 'stopped'. (clip)
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >I think you raise a very good point. I don't know what the law says,
but,
> >in my mind, if you are "paused" at the intersection well enough so you
can
> >see in all directions, and you don't proceed into someone else's right of
> >way, you are actually less of a burden on the other traffic than a
cyclist
> >who unclips, puts a foot down, then restarts and has to worry about
clipping
> >in as he/she crosses the intersection.
> >
> >I think a modest, non-defiant presentation of that point to a judge might
be
> >effective.
> >
>
> _ It's a RED LIGHT, not a stop sign. It's not a question of
> stopping or not....
>

Amazingly, in Toronto, the cops have ticketed cyclists, even though they
came to a complete stop (at a stop sign, by doing a track stand), because
they didn't put thier foot on the ground. That certainly seems more like
harassment than anything.

The fact of the matter is that you were putting no one in danger. You
inconvenienced no one and you got yourself out of the intersection before
any cars came around.

I'd also advise you to take it to court - you might get lucky.

Paul

gds

May 11th 05, 05:44 PM

Paul R wrote:
> Amazingly, in Toronto, the cops have ticketed cyclists,

Probably because Canada is so resource rich and underpopulated the
government is trying to force people off of bikes and into poor mileage
cars :)

Chris B.

May 12th 05, 02:06 AM

On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:31:57 GMT, Jeff Starr >
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:37:48 -0400, Chris B.
> wrote:
>
>>>He is obvious a 60's left-over.
>>
>>You think I'm a baby boomer? Certainly not. I'm nowhere near
>>shallow, greedy or self-absorbed enough.
>>
>>That's the worst insult that has been hurled in my direction in a very
>>long time. Seriously.
>
>Generalize much?
>
>It didn't bother me when you used the term pig, although I thought it
>was unnecessary and showed a lack of class. But now you insult a whole
>generation, and I have to agree that you are not of the 60s.
>
>What I can't recall is which decade spawned the dickhead generation.
>I'm sure that you know.

Generalize much?

Add hypocritical to the list.

Chris B.

May 12th 05, 02:15 AM

On 11 May 2005 02:56:34 -0700, "Maggie" >
wrote:

>
>Chris B. wrote:
>> You think I'm a baby boomer? Certainly not. I'm nowhere near
>> shallow, greedy or self-absorbed enough.
>>
>> That's the worst insult that has been hurled in my direction in a
>very
>> long time. Seriously.
>
>
>The worst insult for me would be to be lumped into Generation X.

I can't blame you for that.

You boomers ****ed them but good.

>Being a part of the sixties is something I cherish. Don't bash my
>generation bucko. Being a part of the sixties is something I am very
>proud of......extremely proud.
>Maggie.

Have a Prozac.

>Time in a Bottle From the Boomers Website.
>
>In the sixties we all watched the same television shows, listened to
>the same news broadcasts, and followed the same baseball and football
>teams. The colors of the jerseys never changed; and for the most part,
>neither did the players. Mickey Mantle was a Yankee; Sandy Kofax was a
>Dodger; And Muhammad Ali was The Greatest! Those were constant
>throughout our childhood... relatively speaking.

>But in the seventies and eighties, when the Gen-X'ers were growing up,

The boomers were just starting to run things.

>hardly anything stayed the same. But how many artists from the
>eighties do you think the Gen-X'ers will be listening to 20 years from
>now? Anybody seen "Best of Menudo" albums flying off the shelves
>lately? When did Culture Club have their last hit?
>
>Some people called it the "decade of discontent" because of the
>demonstrations against the war and the race riots in Detroit, Los
>Angeles, and other cities. Others called it the decade of "peace, love,
>and harmony" because of the peace movement and the emergence of the
>"flower children." To some, it was acid trips and mind expansion: "Far
>out, man." For us teenagers, it was surely the decade of rock and
>roll... from Elvis to the Beatles... and a thousand places in between.
>It was an active decade in the Congress as President Johnson signed
>major civil rights legislation and the laws enacting Medicare and the
>first round of the war on poverty. Oh wait; I left out the race to the
>moon, major political assassinations, the Berlin Wall.....

Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.

Bob

May 12th 05, 02:41 AM

Chris B. wrote on behalf of Gen Xers:

> Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
> glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.

"With few exceptions, every generation in recent history has denigrated
and derided their immediate predecessors yet each has, in the fullness
of time, been judged on their own shortcomings. It's wise therefore to
take the long view and realize that, in 100 years, we'll all be
idiots."

Regards,
Bob Hunt

P.S.- Any bets on how Gen Y will view Generation X in twenty years? <g>

Chris B.

May 12th 05, 03:47 AM

On 11 May 2005 18:41:00 -0700, "Bob" > wrote:

>
>Chris B. wrote on behalf of Gen Xers:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=them&db=*

>> Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
>> glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.
>
>"With few exceptions, every generation in recent history has denigrated
>and derided their immediate predecessors yet each has, in the fullness
>of time, been judged on their own shortcomings. It's wise therefore to
>take the long view and realize that, in 100 years, we'll all be
>idiots."

"With few exceptions, every generation in recent history"

?

"...in 100 years, we'll all be idiots."

All?

You preferred to quote this **** (sans the name of the Author) rather
than present your own ideas? How embarassing for you.

Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to feel
how you'll be remembered by future generations.

>P.S.- Any bets on how Gen Y will view Generation X in twenty years? <g>

As I just said: ****ed.

I'm glad that you added the sneer. It's absolutely perfect.

Mike Kruger

May 12th 05, 03:53 AM

Bob wrote:
> Chris B. wrote on behalf of Gen Xers:
>
>> Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of
you to
>> glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.
>
> "With few exceptions, every generation in recent history has
> denigrated and derided their immediate predecessors yet each
has, in
> the fullness of time, been judged on their own shortcomings.
It's
> wise therefore to take the long view and realize that, in
100 years,
> we'll all be idiots."
>
Alas, how true. My parents' generation was called in a recent
best-seller "The Greatest Generation", but there have been a
number of recent articles on the 60th anniversary of the end
of WW2 that have noted how much of that is a convenient myth.
A couple of examples:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/08/how_good_was_the_good_war?pg=full
http://www.signandsight.com/features/96.html
Still, the old geezers lived through the depression and WW2,
so they start two legs up on those of us who've lived in
affluence all of our lives and have managed to (legitimately)
avoid being drafted into active combat.

bbaka

May 12th 05, 05:43 AM

Bob wrote:
> Chris B. wrote on behalf of Gen Xers:
>
>
>>Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
>>glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.
>
>
> "With few exceptions, every generation in recent history has denigrated
> and derided their immediate predecessors yet each has, in the fullness
> of time, been judged on their own shortcomings. It's wise therefore to
> take the long view and realize that, in 100 years, we'll all be
> idiots."
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>
> P.S.- Any bets on how Gen Y will view Generation X in twenty years? <g>
>
Any bets on which country will have become a second class nation and
which will evolve as the dominator? If I live another 100 years I will
still live in disbelief of the stupidity and greed of politicians.
Bill Baka

bbaka

May 12th 05, 05:51 AM

Mike Kruger wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
>>Chris B. wrote on behalf of Gen Xers:
>>
>>
>>>Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of
>
> you to
>
>>>glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.
>>
>>"With few exceptions, every generation in recent history has
>>denigrated and derided their immediate predecessors yet each
>
> has, in
>
>>the fullness of time, been judged on their own shortcomings.
>
> It's
>
>>wise therefore to take the long view and realize that, in
>
> 100 years,
>
>>we'll all be idiots."
>>
>
> Alas, how true. My parents' generation was called in a recent
> best-seller "The Greatest Generation", but there have been a
> number of recent articles on the 60th anniversary of the end
> of WW2 that have noted how much of that is a convenient myth.
> A couple of examples:
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/08/how_good_was_the_good_war?pg=full
> http://www.signandsight.com/features/96.html
> Still, the old geezers lived through the depression and WW2,
> so they start two legs up on those of us who've lived in
> affluence all of our lives and have managed to (legitimately)
> avoid being drafted into active combat.
>
>
What the Hell, anyway. My parents generation landed men on the moon and
this generation just seems to be playing computer games. Progress is
being made, but what is the use of a cell phone you can lose it in the
lint in your pocket? And the great President Bush II with his vision of
landing a man on the moon by (maybe) 2020 or so. I think we are
backsliding. My generation had Vietnam and the 'now' generation has
Iraq. Two stupid wars started by two stupid presidents of different
parties, but both, interestingly enough, from Texas. What's up with
Texas getting idiots elected? Is the present generation better or just
too absorbed in themselves to notice what is going on around the world?
Adding fuel to the way OT fire.
Bill Baka

David L. Johnson

May 12th 05, 06:01 AM

On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:43:42 -0700, bbaka wrote:

> Any bets on which country will have become a second class nation

Will have become?

--

David L. Johnson

__o | If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a
_`\(,_ | conclusion. -- George Bernard Shaw
(_)/ (_) |

bbaka

May 12th 05, 06:48 AM

David L. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:43:42 -0700, bbaka wrote:
>
>
>>Any bets on which country will have become a second class nation
>
>
> Will have become?
>
OK, I should have said are already. We have about a $4 trillion national
debt and China holds a note on about a trillion of it. Without
international loans we are beyond bankrupt but we still have bleeding
hearts who want to give our money to needier nations. I am waiting and
hoping for a politician with the guts to say "We need to reduce the
national debt, not the deficit.". Bush sure isn't the one.
Any bets on that one?
Bill Baka

Maggie

May 12th 05, 10:40 AM

Chris B. wrote:
>
> You boomers ****ed them but good.
>

We ****ed each other and they were born.

> Have a Prozac.

I prefer Valium.

> Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
> glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.

We are already on the history channel.

Maggie

bbaka

May 12th 05, 11:02 AM

Maggie wrote:
> Chris B. wrote:
>
>>You boomers ****ed them but good.
>>
>
>
> We ****ed each other and they were born.
>
>
>
>>Have a Prozac.
>
>
>
> I prefer Valium.
>
>
>
>>Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
>>glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.
>
>
>
> We are already on the history channel.
>
> Maggie
>
It's a fair way for us oldies to remember the 60's. Hell, I remember
watching the Kennedy/Nixon debate in 1960 and a guy with a new Ford
Skyliner showing it off in 1957, putting the steel top up and down for
the girls to watch. In 1955 in Chicago my dad bought a new 1955 Mercury
from a dealership inside a medium high rise and we drove the car into an
elevator up to the showroom. After buying the new car we went back down
to the street level and drove home. Very unique. I also miss those x-ray
machines that were in any self respecting department store that let you
wiggle your toes and see them in x-ray. I miss standing near a steam
locomotive starting out in the early 50's, raw power just spinning them
big old steel wheels. If I was younger I would have missed all that and
not had a proper perspective on things. When we bought stuff it was
supposed to last ten years and not just until the next fashionable
replacement came out. I have about 10-15 cell phones around, not because
they broke, but because another 'Must have' came out. My 5 color NTSC
televisions and VHS decks will be in service until they absolutely die
and I don't want the digital 'experience', (blocking up on the action
scenes).
It is kind of interesting to see footage of the 60's and now 70's and
think "Wow, I was there. I wonder if I am on camera?".
Bill Baka

Maggie

May 12th 05, 02:49 PM

> It is kind of interesting to see footage of the 60's and now 70's and

> think "Wow, I was there. I wonder if I am on camera?".
> Bill Baka

It even more interesting that the kids are learning about the 60's in
their history books in school. JFK to them is like Honest Abe is to
me. That is scary in a way. I'll never forget when some very young
person looked at me in shock when I said John Lennon was a Beatle. I
looked back in shock.

I did not understand how this person could know John Lennon and not
know he was a Beatle. I wonder if he knew Rod Stewart was part of
Faces. I wonder if he knows the Rolling Stones are not all the
original members. I wonder how Keith Richard managed to live this
long. I think I am going to stop wondering.

Maggie

1oki

May 12th 05, 03:04 PM

"Maggie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
[...]
> It even more interesting that the kids are learning about the 60's in
> their history books in school. JFK to them is like Honest Abe is to
> me. That is scary in a way. I'll never forget when some very young
> person looked at me in shock when I said John Lennon was a Beatle. I
> looked back in shock.

True story: A co-worker is mom to 3 daughters ages 5 to 10-ish.

Back when Reagan died they were showing a lot of old clips on TV including
his 'Tear down that wall.' speech. My friend the mom told me how one of her
daughters, upon seeing that particlular clip asked her in confusion; 'There
used to be a wall in Berlin??'

If that wasn't enough to make one feel old, their was the semester we
realized that the current crop of co-op students at work had been born in
the _80's_. I pointed out that pretty soon the students doing their co-op
term will have been born in the _90's_!

> I wonder if he knew Rod Stewart was part of
> Faces.

I admit I did not know that.

> I wonder if he knows the Rolling Stones are not all the
> original members. I wonder how Keith Richard managed to live this
> long.

He made a pact with the devil. You think 'Sympathy for the devil' is just a
song???

--
'And then one day you find,
Ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run
You missed the starting gun' -pink floyd

bbaka

May 12th 05, 03:47 PM

Maggie wrote:
>>It is kind of interesting to see footage of the 60's and now 70's and
>
>
>>think "Wow, I was there. I wonder if I am on camera?".
>>Bill Baka
>
>
>
> It even more interesting that the kids are learning about the 60's in
> their history books in school. JFK to them is like Honest Abe is to
> me. That is scary in a way.

I was a sophomore in high school in 1963 and will never forget the
crying girls and the general look of shock on everyones face on November
22, 1963. The whole world just kind of stopped and went into shock.

I'll never forget when some very young
> person looked at me in shock when I said John Lennon was a Beatle. I
> looked back in shock.

Yeah, someone did the same with the Rolling Stones and the air headed
response was "Were they some kind of classical group?".
>
> I did not understand how this person could know John Lennon and not
> know he was a Beatle. I wonder if he knew Rod Stewart was part of
> Faces. I wonder if he knows the Rolling Stones are not all the
> original members. I wonder how Keith Richard managed to live this
> long. I think I am going to stop wondering.

These days you might get the same response about KISS. Kids don't seem
to remember anything that came out before they hit ten or so. On the
bright side my daughter, now 26, has made it a point to get familiar
with some of my music and now prefers a lot of the 60's to early 80's
music over the new stuff. Real classical too, so I am proud of her
motivation to hear it all and judge for herself.
Bill Baka

>
> Maggie
>

Fritz M

May 12th 05, 05:31 PM

Back in the day, we didn't have programming languages. We had to
manually enter the ones and zeros manually. And because that was before
electricity was invented, the ones and zeros were programmed using
torches.

And the fires were started the OLD way. We waited patiently for a
LIGHTNING strike and hoped to God it would set something on fire. If
not, we had to scrap the whole computer program and start over.

Oh wait, I'm not in the comp.old-timers newsgroups. Switching gears
here:

We all rode our bikes uphill both ways through twenty foot snow drifts.
And we always had snow drifts, because this was in the days before
sunshine was invented. And you can imagine how hard it was to bike
because the wheel wasn't invented yet.

And WE LIKED IT!

RFM

Bob

May 12th 05, 06:27 PM

Chris B. wrote:
> On 11 May 2005 18:41:00 -0700, "Bob" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Chris B. wrote on behalf of Gen Xers:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=them&db=*
>
> >> Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
> >> glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.
> >
> >"With few exceptions, every generation in recent history has
denigrated
> >and derided their immediate predecessors yet each has, in the
fullness
> >of time, been judged on their own shortcomings. It's wise therefore
to
> >take the long view and realize that, in 100 years, we'll all be
> >idiots."
>
> "With few exceptions, every generation in recent history"
>
> ?
>
> "...in 100 years, we'll all be idiots."
>
> All?
>
> You preferred to quote this **** (sans the name of the Author) rather
> than present your own ideas? How embarassing for you.
>
> Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
feel
> how you'll be remembered by future generations.
>
> >P.S.- Any bets on how Gen Y will view Generation X in twenty years?
<g>
>
> As I just said: ****ed.
>
> I'm glad that you added the sneer. It's absolutely perfect.

Bob

May 12th 05, 06:41 PM

Chris B.

May 12th 05, 08:01 PM

On 12 May 2005 10:41:32 -0700, "Bob" > wrote:

>Chris B. wrote:
>> On 11 May 2005 18:41:00 -0700, "Bob" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Chris B. wrote on behalf of Gen Xers:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=them&db=*

>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=them&db=*
>>
>> >> Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
>> >> glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.
>> >
>> >"With few exceptions, every generation in recent history has
>denigrated
>> >and derided their immediate predecessors yet each has, in the
>fullness
>> >of time, been judged on their own shortcomings. It's wise therefore
>to
>> >take the long view and realize that, in 100 years, we'll all be
>> >idiots."
>>
>> "With few exceptions, every generation in recent history"
>>
>> ?
>>
>> "...in 100 years, we'll all be idiots."
>>
>> All?
>>
>> You preferred to quote this **** (sans the name of the Author) rather
>> than present your own ideas? How embarassing for you.
>>
>> Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
>feel
>> how you'll be remembered by future generations.
>>
>> >P.S.- Any bets on how Gen Y will view Generation X in twenty years?
><g>
>>
>> As I just said: ****ed.
>>
>> I'm glad that you added the sneer. It's absolutely perfect.
>
>The quotation marks were accidental

LOL!

>because those are my words. You
>tried to find an attribution? How embarrassing for you.

I didn't write the meaningless, self-contradictory blather above and
then claim to "accidentally" enclose it in quotation marks.

So no, no embarassment here. That was almost a nice try though.

>In any event it seems that you agree with me-

Do you really expect these facile tactics to work with me?

Your customers must be severely clouding your judgement of your
intellectual abilities.

>> >P.S.- Any bets on how Gen Y will view Generation X in twenty years?
><g>
>>
>> As I just said: ****ed.
>which means that you realize that you are wrong but prefer insulting
>others to admitting your error.
>By the way, a <g> is not a sneer.

For a pig, you're not much of a liar.

Sorry Bob, your intellectual dishonesty and adolescent games - which
I'm sure suit your profession very well - are rather wasted on me.

This might be a good time for you to employ your oh-so-predictable
hit-and-run last word routine.

Peter Cole

May 12th 05, 08:13 PM

Fritz M wrote:
> Back in the day, we didn't have programming languages. We had to
> manually enter the ones and zeros manually.

PDP-11, 1973, toggling in the bootstrap loader, been there, done that.

> And WE LIKED IT!

Not me, man. I don't like friction shifting, either.

Chris B.

May 12th 05, 08:15 PM

On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:51:00 -0700, bbaka > wrote:

>Mike Kruger wrote:
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>>>Chris B. wrote on behalf of Gen Xers:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of
>>
>> you to
>>
>>>>glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.
>>>
>>>"With few exceptions, every generation in recent history has
>>>denigrated and derided their immediate predecessors yet each
>>
>> has, in
>>
>>>the fullness of time, been judged on their own shortcomings.
>>
>> It's
>>
>>>wise therefore to take the long view and realize that, in
>>
>> 100 years,
>>
>>>we'll all be idiots."
>>>
>>
>> Alas, how true. My parents' generation was called in a recent
>> best-seller "The Greatest Generation", but there have been a
>> number of recent articles on the 60th anniversary of the end
>> of WW2 that have noted how much of that is a convenient myth.
>> A couple of examples:
>> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/08/how_good_was_the_good_war?pg=full
>> http://www.signandsight.com/features/96.html
>> Still, the old geezers lived through the depression and WW2,
>> so they start two legs up on those of us who've lived in
>> affluence all of our lives and have managed to (legitimately)
>> avoid being drafted into active combat.
>>
>>
>What the Hell, anyway. My parents generation landed men on the moon and
>this generation just seems to be playing computer games. Progress is
>being made, but what is the use of a cell phone you can lose it in the
>lint in your pocket? And the great President Bush II

DoB: 6 July 1946 (New Haven, Connecticut),

>with his vision of
>landing a man on the moon by (maybe) 2020 or so. I think we are
>backsliding.

Must be!

>My generation had Vietnam and the 'now' generation has
>Iraq. Two stupid wars started by two stupid presidents of different
>parties, but both, interestingly enough, from Texas.

DoB: 6 July 1946 (New Haven, Connecticut),

>What's up with
>Texas getting idiots elected? Is the present generation better or just
>too absorbed in themselves to notice what is going on around the world?

Some (most) manage to be as shallow and decadent as you boomers while
some of us saw the writing on the wall years ago and will be far
better prepared for the dismal times that lie just ahead.

Anyhow, enough of this unpleasantness. Focus on enjoying your
retirements!

Maggie

May 12th 05, 08:28 PM

Fritz M wrote:>
> And the fires were started the OLD way. We waited patiently for a
> LIGHTNING strike and hoped to God it would set something on fire. If
> not, we had to scrap the whole computer program and start over.
>

WOW!!!....What do you attribute your longevity too Fritz? You are
older than dirt. ;-)

Maggie.

Tanya Quinn

May 12th 05, 11:27 PM

Generally I'd say if you want to be treated with the same respect as
another vehicle on the road, follow the same rules of the road as if
you were in a car. Of course a $190 ticket is pretty stiff relative to
the low consequences of what you did.

Go to court, plead guilty with justification. The judge will almost
certainly reduce your fine because you were on a bicycle. I wouldn't
try the because everyone else does it argument. Maybe that be
preceeding the light you felt you were in a safer situation from the
traffic behind you? Or just go for the I'm a broke cyclist and see if
you can get some mercy.

If you contact Advocacy for Respect for Cyclists in Toronto
(http://www.respect.to) they may be able to give you some advice from
past experiences. They have a page on how to fight traffic tickets
http://www.respect.to/legal/tickets.html and suggest basically guilty
with explanation, you're poor, you were slow and careful about it and
you won't do it again.

Make sure the ticket indicates "BICYCLE" on it, otherwise if you have a
drivers license you may have inadvertently lost points. (but you can
fight to rectify this)

wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today I got into trouble with the law. Naughty naughty, I know.
>
> I approached the intersection, a T shaped one, on the continuous side
> (the top of the T). The light I was facing was red, so I slowed to
an
> an awful imitation of a trackstand. I checked for peds, checked the
> light on the perpendicular street, saw a yellow there and no cars so
I
> proceeded through the red. I was pulled over by a cop and given a
$190
> ticket on my bike. This, in Toronto, Canada.
>
> What are my chances in court with this one? I know what the law is,
> but that hundreds of people in this city do the same thing daily
> (running through the continuous side of a T facing a red) must help
my
> case, shouldn't it? Anyone have prior experience under these
> circumstances?
>
> Not that rich,
> >>john

Bob

May 13th 05, 01:15 AM

Chris B. wrote:
> On 12 May 2005 10:41:32 -0700, "Bob" > wrote:
>
> >Chris B. wrote:
> >> On 11 May 2005 18:41:00 -0700, "Bob" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Chris B. wrote on behalf of Gen Xers:
>
>
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=them&db=*
>
> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=them&db=*
> >>
> >> >> Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you
to
> >> >> glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.
> >> >
> >> >"With few exceptions, every generation in recent history has
> >denigrated
> >> >and derided their immediate predecessors yet each has, in the
> >fullness
> >> >of time, been judged on their own shortcomings. It's wise
therefore
> >to
> >> >take the long view and realize that, in 100 years, we'll all be
> >> >idiots."
> >>
> >> "With few exceptions, every generation in recent history"
> >>
> >> ?
> >>
> >> "...in 100 years, we'll all be idiots."
> >>
> >> All?
> >>
> >> You preferred to quote this **** (sans the name of the Author)
rather
> >> than present your own ideas? How embarassing for you.
> >>
> >> Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
> >feel
> >> how you'll be remembered by future generations.
> >>
> >> >P.S.- Any bets on how Gen Y will view Generation X in twenty
years?
> ><g>
> >>
> >> As I just said: ****ed.
> >>
> >> I'm glad that you added the sneer. It's absolutely perfect.
> >
> >The quotation marks were accidental
>
> LOL!
>
> >because those are my words. You
> >tried to find an attribution? How embarrassing for you.
>
> I didn't write the meaningless, self-contradictory blather above and
> then claim to "accidentally" enclose it in quotation marks.
>
> So no, no embarassment here. That was almost a nice try though.
>
> >In any event it seems that you agree with me-
>
> Do you really expect these facile tactics to work with me?
>
> Your customers must be severely clouding your judgement of your
> intellectual abilities.
>
> >> >P.S.- Any bets on how Gen Y will view Generation X in twenty
years?
> ><g>
> >>
> >> As I just said: ****ed.
> >which means that you realize that you are wrong but prefer insulting
> >others to admitting your error.
> >By the way, a <g> is not a sneer.
>
> For a pig, you're not much of a liar.
>
> Sorry Bob, your intellectual dishonesty and adolescent games - which
> I'm sure suit your profession very well - are rather wasted on me.
>
> This might be a good time for you to employ your oh-so-predictable
> hit-and-run last word routine.

It seems that all you want to do is trade insults with people. Sorry,
I'm not interested. You may now have the last word.

Bob Hunt

Bob

May 13th 05, 01:19 AM

1oki wrote:

> 'And then one day you find,
> Ten years have got behind you.
> No one told you when to run
> You missed the starting gun' -pink floyd

Given the general tone of this thread perhaps a better lyric for a sig.
line would be....

'Everyday when I look in the mirror
All these lines in my face getting clearer' - Aerosmith

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Mike Kruger

May 13th 05, 02:21 AM

Peter Cole wrote:
> Fritz M wrote:
>> Back in the day, we didn't have programming languages. We
had to
>> manually enter the ones and zeros manually.
>
> PDP-11, 1973, toggling in the bootstrap loader, been there,
done that.
>
That brings back memories. All unpleasant.

--
Mike Kruger
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is
no path
and leave a trail. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writing before the
mountain
bike was invented.

Mike Kruger

May 13th 05, 02:27 AM

Chris B. wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:51:00 -0700, bbaka >
wrote:
>
>> What the Hell, anyway. My parents generation landed men on
the moon
>> and this generation just seems to be playing computer
games.
>> Progress is being made, but what is the use of a cell phone
you can
>> lose it in the lint in your pocket? And the great President
Bush II
>
> DoB: 6 July 1946 (New Haven, Connecticut),
>
>> My generation had Vietnam and the 'now' generation has
>> Iraq. Two stupid wars started by two stupid presidents of
different
>> parties, but both, interestingly enough, from Texas.
>
> DoB: 6 July 1946 (New Haven, Connecticut),
>
This round goes to Chris B., for correctly noting that G. W.
Bush is a boomer president.

Geezer Boy

May 13th 05, 03:24 AM

On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:15:17 -0400, Chris B.
> wrote:

>On 11 May 2005 02:56:34 -0700, "Maggie" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Chris B. wrote:
>>> You think I'm a baby boomer? Certainly not. I'm nowhere near
>>> shallow, greedy or self-absorbed enough.
>>>
>>> That's the worst insult that has been hurled in my direction in a
>>very
>>> long time. Seriously.
>>
>>
>>The worst insult for me would be to be lumped into Generation X.
>
>I can't blame you for that.
>
>You boomers ****ed them but good.
>
>>Being a part of the sixties is something I cherish. Don't bash my
>>generation bucko. Being a part of the sixties is something I am very
>>proud of......extremely proud.
>>Maggie.
>
>Have a Prozac.
>
>>Time in a Bottle From the Boomers Website.
>>
>>In the sixties we all watched the same television shows, listened to
>>the same news broadcasts, and followed the same baseball and football
>>teams. The colors of the jerseys never changed; and for the most part,
>>neither did the players. Mickey Mantle was a Yankee; Sandy Kofax was a
>>Dodger; And Muhammad Ali was The Greatest! Those were constant
>>throughout our childhood... relatively speaking.
>
>>But in the seventies and eighties, when the Gen-X'ers were growing up,
>
>The boomers were just starting to run things.
>
>>hardly anything stayed the same. But how many artists from the
>>eighties do you think the Gen-X'ers will be listening to 20 years from
>>now? Anybody seen "Best of Menudo" albums flying off the shelves
>>lately? When did Culture Club have their last hit?
>>
>>Some people called it the "decade of discontent" because of the
>>demonstrations against the war and the race riots in Detroit, Los
>>Angeles, and other cities. Others called it the decade of "peace, love,
>>and harmony" because of the peace movement and the emergence of the
>>"flower children." To some, it was acid trips and mind expansion: "Far
>>out, man." For us teenagers, it was surely the decade of rock and
>>roll... from Elvis to the Beatles... and a thousand places in between.
>>It was an active decade in the Congress as President Johnson signed
>>major civil rights legislation and the laws enacting Medicare and the
>>first round of the war on poverty. Oh wait; I left out the race to the
>>moon, major political assassinations, the Berlin Wall.....
>
>Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
>glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.

Like we care!

Mike Latondresse

May 13th 05, 04:07 AM

Peter Cole > wrote in
:

> Fritz M wrote:
>> Back in the day, we didn't have programming languages. We had to
>> manually enter the ones and zeros manually.
>
> PDP-11, 1973, toggling in the bootstrap loader, been there, done
> that.
>
>> And WE LIKED IT!
>
> Not me, man. I don't like friction shifting, either.
>
Hand built IMSAI 8080 a couple years later, same drill and it even
looked like a PDP-11

bbaka

May 13th 05, 04:15 AM

Chris B. wrote:
>>What's up with
>>Texas getting idiots elected? Is the present generation better or just
>>too absorbed in themselves to notice what is going on around the world?
>
>
> Some (most) manage to be as shallow and decadent as you boomers while
> some of us saw the writing on the wall years ago and will be far
> better prepared for the dismal times that lie just ahead.
>
> Anyhow, enough of this unpleasantness. Focus on enjoying your
> retirements!

I plan to ride off into the sunset and just keep going some day. Of
course then they will say I have to be locked up for my own good. Funny
how the younger generation gets to mess with the older ones who raised them.
Bill Baka

bbaka

May 13th 05, 04:19 AM

Mike Kruger wrote:
> Chris B. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:51:00 -0700, bbaka >
>
> wrote:
>
>>>What the Hell, anyway. My parents generation landed men on
>
> the moon
>
>>>and this generation just seems to be playing computer
>
> games.
>
>>>Progress is being made, but what is the use of a cell phone
>
> you can
>
>>>lose it in the lint in your pocket? And the great President
>
> Bush II
>
>>DoB: 6 July 1946 (New Haven, Connecticut),
>>
>>
>>>My generation had Vietnam and the 'now' generation has
>>>Iraq. Two stupid wars started by two stupid presidents of
>
> different
>
>>>parties, but both, interestingly enough, from Texas.
>>
>>DoB: 6 July 1946 (New Haven, Connecticut),
>>
>
> This round goes to Chris B., for correctly noting that G. W.
> Bush is a boomer president.
>
>
We already knew that much. His father probably got an early discharge
because they didn't want him wasting any more planes by getting shot
down again. Bush Sr. sure didn't waste any time making a dumber clone of
himself considering the war was only over at the middle of August.
Bill Baka

Claire Petersky

May 13th 05, 08:20 AM

"Maggie" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> The Baby Boomer Generation includes those born after World War II from
> 1946-1964 inclusive. Which means anyone 41 to 59 is a Baby Boomer. Did
> I do that math right? That's a hell of a lot of people. And a big age
> span.

Anyone born after 1960 will tell you they are not boomers. Boomers have a
mind-set we don't share. We don't know where we were when Kennedy was shot
(other than in utereo, or toddling on the floor). We didn't watch Leave it
to Beaver except in re-runs. It was our *parents* who marched in anti-war
marches, if at all. The Beatles were long broken up before we started
listening to popular music in earnest.

At the same time, we aren't Gen X, either. We are Tweeners, a forgotten
generation born from 1960 - 1965. We were the most drug- and sex- saturated
generation, because the Boomers paved the way for us, and cultural and
biological forces had not yet set in against that tide.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky

Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Maggie

May 13th 05, 01:29 PM

Geezer Boy wrote:
> >Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
> >glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.
>

The Baby Boomer Generation includes those born after World War II from
1946-1964 inclusive. Which means anyone 41 to 59 is a Baby Boomer. Did
I do that math right? That's a hell of a lot of people. And a big age
span.

I wrote a paper on this generation and I was shocked by the dates. For
some reason I did not know boomers were still being BORN in the
sixties. You are talking about a hell of alot of people here.
1946-1964??? That spans three decades. Amazing. No wonder generation
X wants us dead.. ;-)

Maggie

Marty

May 13th 05, 01:55 PM

Maggie

May 13th 05, 02:02 PM

> What mathematical definition defines a baby boomer?
>
> Marty

I'll bite. What?

Maggie...born between 1946 and 1964

bbaka

May 13th 05, 02:28 PM

Maggie wrote:
> Geezer Boy wrote:
>
>>>Hopefully the wheels will fall off soon enough for most of you to
>>>glimpse how you'll be remembered by future generations.
>>
>
>
> The Baby Boomer Generation includes those born after World War II from
> 1946-1964 inclusive. Which means anyone 41 to 59 is a Baby Boomer. Did
> I do that math right? That's a hell of a lot of people. And a big age
> span.
>
> I wrote a paper on this generation and I was shocked by the dates. For
> some reason I did not know boomers were still being BORN in the
> sixties. You are talking about a hell of alot of people here.
> 1946-1964??? That spans three decades. Amazing. No wonder generation
> X wants us dead.. ;-)
>
> Maggie
>
After our generation gets done with the world they can have the
leftovers. What amazes me is that after 'welfare reform' in the 60's and
70's how fast our Hispanic and 'white trash' population went up. Paying
the useless to breed more of their kind was a big, big mistake. Actually
giving tax breaks to people who choose to have more than 3 kids is a
mistake too since they should have to pay for the schools and services
they use up. Ever notice just how bad you get taxed for being single and
not a 'breeder'?
Stir, stir, stir the ****.
Bill Baka

Marty

May 13th 05, 02:37 PM

Maggie wrote:
>
>>What mathematical definition defines a baby boomer?
>>
>>Marty
>
>
> I'll bite. What?
>
> Maggie...born between 1946 and 1964
>

I mean what defines the boom?
Why are those dates chosen?

Marty

Maggie

May 13th 05, 03:07 PM

bbaka wrote:
Ever notice just how bad you get taxed for being single and not a
'breeder'?
> Stir, stir, stir the ****.
> Bill Baka

I wouldn't know......I am married and I am a breeder. I did my fair
share of breeding.

Now they are all grown but I still pay taxes. Plus college tuitions and
weddings. Plus the taxes in my town are ridiculously high.

Stay single and get taxed or get married and have kids and find out if
its cheaper to support yourself (with taxes and all) or support and
raise a family.

Somehow I can't cry too many tears for single people who have to pay
taxes. Not that I would ever go back and do anything differently.

Raising three crazy kids to adulthood was my finest accomplishment. ;-)
I am now waiting for my reward...which will be grandchildren.
Hopefully while I am young enough to enjoy them.

Continuing to stir the ****.

Maggie - Taxpayer

1oki

May 13th 05, 04:56 PM

"Bob" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> 1oki wrote:
>
>> 'And then one day you find,
>> Ten years have got behind you.
>> No one told you when to run
>> You missed the starting gun' -pink floyd
>
> Given the general tone of this thread perhaps a better lyric for a sig.
> line would be....
>
> 'Everyday when I look in the mirror
> All these lines in my face getting clearer' - Aerosmith

I have a few other possibles:

--
'We're only immortal - for a limited time'
-rush

--
'As your looks start slipping,
so should your standards.'
-red green

--
'When did Motley Crew become classic rock?
And when did Ozzy become an actor?'
-bowling for soup

--
'In the days of my youth
I was told what it means to be a man
Now that I've reached that age
I've tried to do all those things as best I can' -led zeppelin

Maggie

May 13th 05, 05:03 PM

Bob wrote:
> 'Everyday when I look in the mirror
> All these lines in my face getting clearer' - Aerosmith
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt

If Steven Tyler said that.......why did he get that face lift?

Check myself out in the mirror
Lines on my face so much clearer than... before
Run to the Plastic Surgeon....
I'm young again.

Maggie

PS...but he does look hot.

Fritz M

May 13th 05, 05:50 PM

Maggie asked:
> WOW!!!....What do you attribute your longevity too Fritz?

Good gloves, noseless bicycle saddles, and knockin on wood.

RFM

Bill Sornson

May 13th 05, 05:56 PM

Fritz M wrote:
> Maggie asked:
>> WOW!!!....What do you attribute your longevity too Fritz?
>
> Good gloves, noseless bicycle saddles, and knockin on wood.

Pah-LEEZE don't delve into the relation of those three!

Maggie

May 13th 05, 06:23 PM

Marty wrote:

> I mean what defines the boom?
> Why are those dates chosen?
>
> Marty

I cannot find out why those years define the baby boomers. But
everything I read defines the same years. 1946, which makes sense
because of the war....and up to and including 1964. I have no idea
where 1964 came from as the end. Isn't there a history buff who rides a
bike who can explain it?
The demographic anomaly is that the baby boom stretched from 1946 to
1964. While the oldest of the early boomers graduated from college
during the Summer of Love, the youngest of the late boomers left
college during the Reagan years.

Maggie

1oki

May 13th 05, 06:42 PM

"Maggie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Marty wrote:
>
>> I mean what defines the boom?
>> Why are those dates chosen?
>>
>> Marty
>
> I cannot find out why those years define the baby boomers. But
> everything I read defines the same years. 1946, which makes sense
> because of the war....and up to and including 1964. I have no idea
> where 1964 came from as the end. Isn't there a history buff who rides a
> bike who can explain it?

Pure speculation but if you take, as you say, the end of WW2 and the
massive release of... errrr... 'other tensions' with the return of all those
soldiers who were in their late teens at the youngest and mostly early 20's
to wives and girlfriends
assumed to be of similar age then they are pretty much done with
reproduction in ~20 years.

Males are up to the task as they get older but the ability of women to
conceive carry and deliver pretty much plummets by 40 does it not? Keep in
mind they didn't have the modern fertility treatments that exist today.

So by 1964 pretty much every one who was old enough to concieve/impregnate
in 1946, everyone who counts WW2 as a first hand experience, is now too old
to reproduce.

But that does not explain why the exact date of 1964 was chosen
[i]
> The demographic anomaly is that the baby boom stretched from 1946 to
> 1964. While the oldest of the early boomers graduated from college
> during the Summer of Love, the youngest of the late boomers left
> college during the Reagan years.

Seeing as I was intuitive enough to be born in 1965, I guess that makes me
the first Gen-Xer.

--
'Well don't get him wrong
and don't get him mad.
He might be a father
but he sure ain't a dad.' -crash test dummies

Maggie

May 13th 05, 08:26 PM

1oki wrote:
> Pure speculation but if you take, as you say, the end of WW2 and the

> massive release of... errrr... 'other tensions' with the return of
all those
> soldiers who were in their late teens at the youngest and mostly
early 20's
>
> Males are up to the task as they get older but the ability of women
to
> conceive carry and deliver pretty much plummets by 40 does it not?
Keep in
> mind they didn't have the modern fertility treatments that exist
today.
>
Seeing as I was intuitive enough to be born in 1965, I guess that makes
me
> the first Gen-Xer.

That actually makes sense mathmatically. Congratulations on being in
the first Gen-Xer group. My husband is in the group of first baby
boomers. Born in 1946.

I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the end.
Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? ;-)

Maggie

Tanya Quinn

May 13th 05, 08:56 PM

> But any idea why/how it's legal for a cop to issue a ticket to
someone
> without I.D. based on full name, date of birth, and mailing address?
> It's a full ticket, with driver's license number and such.

Why give them your driver's license? You weren't driving. All that is
required is for you to give them your name and address. They don't need
to see ID unless they suspect you are lying. If you give them your
driver's license the ticket can inadvertently get entered in the system
as if you were driving a car in which case you could lose points.

[email protected]

May 13th 05, 09:54 PM

Maggie wrote in part:

> Marty wrote:
>
> > I mean what defines the boom?
> > Why are those dates chosen?
> >
> > Marty
>
> I cannot find out why those years define the baby boomers. But
> everything I read defines the same years. 1946, which makes sense
> because of the war....and up to and including 1964. I have no idea
> where 1964 came from as the end. Isn't there a history buff who rides
a
> bike who can explain it?

Perhaps because 1965 marked the sharp increase in
American military involvement in Viet-Nam that to
many signifies the beginning of the "Vietnam War."
1965 was certainly very different from 1964 in that
regard.

www.mishalov.com/death_ia_drang_valley.html

Robert

Demon-warp is coming alive in nineteen sixty..Fiiiive yeah.
--White Zombie

1oki

May 13th 05, 10:00 PM

"Maggie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 1oki wrote:
[...]
>> Seeing as I was intuitive enough to be born in 1965, I guess that makes
>> me the first Gen-Xer.
>
>
> That actually makes sense mathmatically. Congratulations on being in
> the first Gen-Xer group.

I'm still waiting for my prize.

Some other things that I considered on my rain shortened ride:

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and then JFK being assassinated in the
autumn of1963 might be the reason why the Boomer gen was considered ended
specifically by 1964: the end of the post-war optimism perhaps.

I'm guessing the generation currently being born will look at Sept 11 the
same way Gen-Xers look at JFK's assassination and CMC.

I dunno where they place the division between Gen X and Gen Y. If we
asssume Gen X lasted 20 years then Gen Y goes from 1994-ish.

Thus Gen X is the era when 'all' parents were free-love hippies living in
communes - the Woodstock generation. If JFK marked the end of optimism for
the Boomers then perhaps Watergate marked the end of innocence for Gen X.

The end of Gen Y, I'm guessing, would be marked by end of the Cold War.

> My husband is in the group of first baby
> boomers. Born in 1946.
>
> I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the end.
> Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? ;-)

....gooooogle...

You decide which are bad and which are good:

1954

-US Supreme Court ruling, Brown vs Board of Education, finds segregation
unconstitutional
-Marilyn Monroe marries Joe DiMaggio
-the battle and fall of Dien Bien Phu
-first mass polio vaccination campaign for children begins in Pittsburgh
-first hydrogen bomb test at Bikini atoll
-Canada's first subway opens in Toronto
-Lt. Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser is made premier of Egypt
-The Federal German Republic [West Germany] is granted sovereignty and
admitted into NATO.
-Pierre Mendes-France becomes prime minister of France
-The words 'under god' added to the US pledge of allegiance
-Krushchev visits China , marks the high point of Sino-Soviet relations.
-Roger Bannister runs the first four minute mile
-world's first atomic power plant opens near Moscow.
-Viet nam partitioned into North and South. US begins sending aid directly
to South Viet Nam.
-Algerian War of Independence against France begins
-First issue of _Dissent_ appears, edited by Irving Howe published
-Senator McCarthy censured for; 'contempt of a Senate subcommittee, abuse of
its members and insults to the Senate' and 'conduct that tends to bring the
Senate into dishonor and disrepute'
-First issue of Sports Illustrated published
-CIA sponsored coup overthrows Guatemalan government.
-WHBQ becomes the first radio station to air an Elvis Presley record
-Ellis Island closes as immigration point-of-entry
-Louison Bobet of France wins the Tour de France.
-NY Giants win the World Series
-Detroit Red Wings win Stanley Cup.
-Minneapolis Lakers win the NBA championship
-West Germany wins the World Cup.

I know. Too much information.

--
'I've got a bad reputation in this town
It's something I can't live down
I wish I could be what people want me to be
But somehow I can't come around' -david wilcox

1oki

May 13th 05, 10:17 PM

"1oki" > wrote in message
...

> I dunno where they place the division between Gen X and Gen Y. If we
> asssume Gen X lasted 20 years then Gen Y goes from 1994-ish.

> Thus Gen X is the era when 'all' parents were free-love hippies living in
> communes - the Woodstock generation. If JFK marked the end of optimism
> for the Boomers then perhaps Watergate marked the end of innocence for Gen
> X.

> The end of Gen Y, I'm guessing, would be marked by end of the Cold War.

D'oh! Too much cut&pasting. One shouldn't read what I wrote but what I
meant!

I meant to say:

I dunno where they place the division between Gen X and Gen Y. If we assume
Gen X lasted 20 years or so then Gen X runs from 1965 to 1984-ish and Gen Y
goes from 1985 to 2004-ish.

Dunno what seminal event you could pick from the mid-80's... Teased hair
and cordless phones the size of airline luggage? Gen X seems to cover a
broad swathe from the 60's hippies to '70's Watergate narcissism and malaise
to 80's gauche greed and glitz.

GenY's big event is easier: Sep 11 will be the defining event for them:

If one wanted to be depressing:

Boomers/JFK: The end of optimism
X-ers/Watergate: The end of innocence
Y-ers/Sep 11: The end of hope?

--
'It is terrible to speak well and be wrong.'
-sophocles

bbaka

May 13th 05, 10:35 PM

Maggie wrote:
> bbaka wrote:
> Ever notice just how bad you get taxed for being single and not a
> 'breeder'?
>
>>Stir, stir, stir the ****.
>>Bill Baka
>
>
> I wouldn't know......I am married and I am a breeder. I did my fair
> share of breeding.
>
> Now they are all grown but I still pay taxes. Plus college tuitions and
> weddings. Plus the taxes in my town are ridiculously high.
>
> Stay single and get taxed or get married and have kids and find out if
> its cheaper to support yourself (with taxes and all) or support and
> raise a family.
>
> Somehow I can't cry too many tears for single people who have to pay
> taxes. Not that I would ever go back and do anything differently.
>
> Raising three crazy kids to adulthood was my finest accomplishment. ;-)
> I am now waiting for my reward...which will be grandchildren.
> Hopefully while I am young enough to enjoy them.
>
> Continuing to stir the ****.
>
> Maggie - Taxpayer
>
Well,
I got 5+ grandchildren by way of step kids when I got married. My own
daughter at 26 has decided not to add to the burden but to be a school
teacher instead. Now I am working on trying to bring up the grandkids
the right way, which their mother does not even try. An ongoing job for me.
Bill Baka

bbaka

May 13th 05, 10:39 PM

Maggie wrote:
> Marty wrote:
>
>
>>I mean what defines the boom?
>>Why are those dates chosen?
>>
>>Marty
>
>
> I cannot find out why those years define the baby boomers. But
> everything I read defines the same years. 1946, which makes sense
> because of the war....and up to and including 1964. I have no idea
> where 1964 came from as the end. Isn't there a history buff who rides a
> bike who can explain it?
> The demographic anomaly is that the baby boom stretched from 1946 to
> 1964. While the oldest of the early boomers graduated from college
> during the Summer of Love, the youngest of the late boomers left
> college during the Reagan years.
>
> Maggie
>
It probably refers to children born as a result of all them soldiers
coming home and they were pretty well getting too old by 1964, or their
wives were hitting menopause and they couldn't have anymore.
That's the only flat out guess I have.
Bill Baka

bbaka

May 13th 05, 10:42 PM

Maggie wrote:
> 1oki wrote:
>
>> Pure speculation but if you take, as you say, the end of WW2 and the
>
>
>>massive release of... errrr... 'other tensions' with the return of
>
> all those
>
>>soldiers who were in their late teens at the youngest and mostly
>
> early 20's
>
>> Males are up to the task as they get older but the ability of women
>
> to
>
>>conceive carry and deliver pretty much plummets by 40 does it not?
>
> Keep in
>
>>mind they didn't have the modern fertility treatments that exist
>
> today.
>
> Seeing as I was intuitive enough to be born in 1965, I guess that makes
> me
>
>>the first Gen-Xer.
>
>
>
> That actually makes sense mathmatically. Congratulations on being in
> the first Gen-Xer group. My husband is in the group of first baby
> boomers. Born in 1946.
>
> I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the end.
> Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? ;-)
>
> Maggie
>
Maggie,
Now you admitted to being a bit on the young side, more than you claim
with your 'old lady' stuff. Hell, girl, you ain't even 50 yet, and I'm
56, wife is 58 (5 days younger than Herr Bush II).
Bill Baka

[email protected]

May 13th 05, 10:43 PM

Bill Sornson

May 13th 05, 10:49 PM

Maggie wrote:

> I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the end.
> Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? ;-)

Well, since I was born in July, 1955, I'd say ONE good thing happened in
late-ish '54.

Bill "needs brain image removed ASAP" S.

Bill Sornson

May 13th 05, 10:52 PM

bbaka wrote:
> Maggie wrote:

>> I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the
>> end. Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? ;-)

> Maggie,
> Now you admitted to being a bit on the young side, more than you claim
> with your 'old lady' stuff. Hell, girl, you ain't even 50 yet, and I'm
> 56, wife is 58 (5 days younger than Herr Bush II).

Bill, you should ease up on your Bush obsession and bone up on your math
skills. (Hint: Mags is slightly over 50, maybe even 51.)

Keep an eye out for an abacus on those scavenger rides... B

bbaka

May 13th 05, 10:59 PM

1oki wrote:
> "Maggie" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>1oki wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>Seeing as I was intuitive enough to be born in 1965, I guess that makes
>>>me the first Gen-Xer.
>>
>>
>>That actually makes sense mathmatically. Congratulations on being in
>>the first Gen-Xer group.
>
>
> I'm still waiting for my prize.
>
> Some other things that I considered on my rain shortened ride:
>
> The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and then JFK being assassinated in the
> autumn of1963 might be the reason why the Boomer gen was considered ended
> specifically by 1964: the end of the post-war optimism perhaps.

The Cuban missile crisis and Francis Gary Powers getting shot down on a
U-2 spy mission over Russia paled in comparison to the assassination of
JFK. The whole country came to a stop that day. That was the defining
moment. Yeah, there was MLK, Malcolm X, and the Watts riots, but it was
Kennedy getting shot that blew the whole thing for my age group. Bobby
getting shot in 1968 didn't help much either.
>
> I'm guessing the generation currently being born will look at Sept 11 the
> same way Gen-Xers look at JFK's assassination and CMC.

Sept 11 was nothing compared to JFK, it has just been blown way out of
proportion by Bush II so he can play soldier.
>
> I dunno where they place the division between Gen X and Gen Y. If we
> asssume Gen X lasted 20 years then Gen Y goes from 1994-ish.
>
> Thus Gen X is the era when 'all' parents were free-love hippies living in
> communes - the Woodstock generation.

No commune here, but man was 1966-1969 a wild ride.

If JFK marked the end of optimism for
> the Boomers then perhaps Watergate marked the end of innocence for Gen X.

Everybody keeps forgetting that presidents do Watergate stuff all the
time but don't get caught, and Nixon did get us out of that stupid war
in Vietnam. You think Bush II goes by the book with all his CIA buddies?
>
> The end of Gen Y, I'm guessing, would be marked by end of the Cold War.
>
>
>> My husband is in the group of first baby
>>boomers. Born in 1946.
>>
>>I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the end.
>>Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? ;-)
>
>
>
> ....gooooogle...
>
> You decide which are bad and which are good:
>
> 1954
>
> -US Supreme Court ruling, Brown vs Board of Education, finds segregation
> unconstitutional
> -Marilyn Monroe marries Joe DiMaggio
> -the battle and fall of Dien Bien Phu
> -first mass polio vaccination campaign for children begins in Pittsburgh
> -first hydrogen bomb test at Bikini atoll
> -Canada's first subway opens in Toronto
> -Lt. Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser is made premier of Egypt
> -The Federal German Republic [West Germany] is granted sovereignty and
> admitted into NATO.
> -Pierre Mendes-France becomes prime minister of France
> -The words 'under god' added to the US pledge of allegiance
> -Krushchev visits China , marks the high point of Sino-Soviet relations.
> -Roger Bannister runs the first four minute mile
> -world's first atomic power plant opens near Moscow.
> -Viet nam partitioned into North and South. US begins sending aid directly
> to South Viet Nam.
> -Algerian War of Independence against France begins
> -First issue of _Dissent_ appears, edited by Irving Howe published
> -Senator McCarthy censured for; 'contempt of a Senate subcommittee, abuse of
> its members and insults to the Senate' and 'conduct that tends to bring the
> Senate into dishonor and disrepute'

You forgot all the people's lives the son of a bitch ruined before he
got thrown out. Even Oppenheimer, co-inventor of the atomic bomb, was
kicked out of the H-bomb stuff, and work in general, just because he
talked to a guy about communism before pearl harbor. That was some of
the worst government abuse of power ever seen

> -First issue of Sports Illustrated published
> -CIA sponsored coup overthrows Guatemalan government.
> -WHBQ becomes the first radio station to air an Elvis Presley record
Good for them.
> -Ellis Island closes as immigration point-of-entry
Yeah, more of em coming up from Mexico anyway.
> -Louison Bobet of France wins the Tour de France.
> -NY Giants win the World Series
NY Giants, not SF, that says a lot.
> -Detroit Red Wings win Stanley Cup.
> -Minneapolis Lakers win the NBA championship
> -West Germany wins the World Cup.
>
> I know. Too much information.

Actually a small but accurate assessment of the times. Half the kids I
knew in grade school had bomb shelters built under their driveways and
they made some neat play hideouts when the parents would let us.
Bill Baka, memories of a strange time, but what will the 9/11 Bush II
paranoia go down in history as? Good, bad, or the beginning of the end
for real freedom in this country.
OT as usual.
Bill Baka
>
> --
> 'I've got a bad reputation in this town
> It's something I can't live down
> I wish I could be what people want me to be
> But somehow I can't come around' -david wilcox
>
>

bbaka

May 13th 05, 11:03 PM

1oki wrote:
> "1oki" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>I dunno where they place the division between Gen X and Gen Y. If we
>>asssume Gen X lasted 20 years then Gen Y goes from 1994-ish.
>
>
>>Thus Gen X is the era when 'all' parents were free-love hippies living in
>>communes - the Woodstock generation. If JFK marked the end of optimism
>>for the Boomers then perhaps Watergate marked the end of innocence for Gen
>>X.
>
>
>>The end of Gen Y, I'm guessing, would be marked by end of the Cold War.
>
>
>
> D'oh! Too much cut&pasting. One shouldn't read what I wrote but what I
> meant!
>
> I meant to say:
>
> I dunno where they place the division between Gen X and Gen Y. If we assume
> Gen X lasted 20 years or so then Gen X runs from 1965 to 1984-ish and Gen Y
> goes from 1985 to 2004-ish.

That makes my daughter a Gen X, version 0.7, I think.
>
> Dunno what seminal event you could pick from the mid-80's... Teased hair
> and cordless phones the size of airline luggage? Gen X seems to cover a
> broad swathe from the 60's hippies to '70's Watergate narcissism and malaise
> to 80's gauche greed and glitz.

What I remember most is that some flaming assed idiot came up with rap
music and it stuck, still is.
>
> GenY's big event is easier: Sep 11 will be the defining event for them:
>
> If one wanted to be depressing:
>
> Boomers/JFK: The end of optimism
> X-ers/Watergate: The end of innocence
> Y-ers/Sep 11: The end of hope?

The beginning of 1984 as pertains to the book of that name. he just
missed it by about 20 years.
Bill Baka
>
> --
> 'It is terrible to speak well and be wrong.'
> -sophocles
>
>

bbaka

May 13th 05, 11:05 PM

wrote:
> Maggie wrote in part:
>
>
>>Marty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I mean what defines the boom?
>>>Why are those dates chosen?
>>>
>>>Marty
>>
>>I cannot find out why those years define the baby boomers. But
>>everything I read defines the same years. 1946, which makes sense
>>because of the war....and up to and including 1964. I have no idea
>>where 1964 came from as the end. Isn't there a history buff who rides
>
> a
>
>>bike who can explain it?
>
>
> Perhaps because 1965 marked the sharp increase in
> American military involvement in Viet-Nam that to
> many signifies the beginning of the "Vietnam War."
> 1965 was certainly very different from 1964 in that
> regard.
Johnson, Democrat idiot/a$$hole.
Bush, Republican/a$$hole.
Bill Baka
>
> www.mishalov.com/death_ia_drang_valley.html
>
> Robert
>
> Demon-warp is coming alive in nineteen sixty..Fiiiive yeah.
> --White Zombie
>

bbaka

May 13th 05, 11:07 PM

Tanya Quinn wrote:
>>But any idea why/how it's legal for a cop to issue a ticket to
>
> someone
>
>>without I.D. based on full name, date of birth, and mailing address?
>>It's a full ticket, with driver's license number and such.
>
>
> Why give them your driver's license? You weren't driving. All that is
> required is for you to give them your name and address. They don't need
> to see ID unless they suspect you are lying. If you give them your
> driver's license the ticket can inadvertently get entered in the system
> as if you were driving a car in which case you could lose points.
>
Just carry you SS card for ID.
Only one number and I don't think a cop is looking for identity theft.
Bill Baka

bbaka

May 13th 05, 11:51 PM

Bill Sornson wrote:
> bbaka wrote:
>
>>Maggie wrote:
>
>
>>>I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the
>>>end. Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? ;-)
>
>
>>Maggie,
>>Now you admitted to being a bit on the young side, more than you claim
>>with your 'old lady' stuff. Hell, girl, you ain't even 50 yet, and I'm
>>56, wife is 58 (5 days younger than Herr Bush II).
>
>
> Bill, you should ease up on your Bush obsession and bone up on your math
> skills. (Hint: Mags is slightly over 50, maybe even 51.)
>
> Keep an eye out for an abacus on those scavenger rides... B
>
>
I was in a hurry, not in calculator mode. I still can't believe it is
not the late 90's anymore. Time really does fly.
Bill Baka

Jeff Starr

May 14th 05, 12:38 AM

On Fri, 13 May 2005 21:49:22 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> wrote:

>
>Well, since I was born in July, 1955, I'd say ONE good thing happened in
>late-ish '54.
>
At least two, I was born in Dec '54.

Life is Good!
Jeff
>

Jeff Starr

May 14th 05, 12:44 AM

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:07:06 -0700, bbaka > wrote:

>>
>Just carry you SS card for ID.
>Only one number and I don't think a cop is looking for identity theft.
>Bill Baka

Let me guess in bakaland, there are photos on your SS card.

Another example of little bill's crappy advice. There is no reason to
carry your SS card and if your wallet is lost or stolen, you have
provided a very valuable set of numbers.

Life is Good!
Jeff

Marty

May 14th 05, 03:27 AM

Maggie wrote:
> 1oki wrote:
>
>> Pure speculation but if you take, as you say, the end of WW2 and the
>
>
>>massive release of... errrr... 'other tensions' with the return of
>
> all those
>
>>soldiers who were in their late teens at the youngest and mostly
>
> early 20's
>
>> Males are up to the task as they get older but the ability of women
>
> to
>
>>conceive carry and deliver pretty much plummets by 40 does it not?
>
> Keep in
>
>>mind they didn't have the modern fertility treatments that exist
>
> today.
>
> Seeing as I was intuitive enough to be born in 1965, I guess that makes
> me
>
>>the first Gen-Xer.
>
>
>
> That actually makes sense mathmatically. Congratulations on being in
> the first Gen-Xer group. My husband is in the group of first baby
> boomers. Born in 1946.
>
> I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the end.
> Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? ;-)
>
> Maggie
>

I think it's a group of years when the Total Fertility Index (TFR) is
greater than two. That is, the population is growing. The avergage of
the boom years was 3.8

Marty

Mike Kruger

May 14th 05, 04:24 AM

"Marty" > wrote in message
...
>
> I mean what defines the boom?
> Why are those dates chosen?
>
The dates are arbitrary, and not fully agreed on. See
http://tinyurl.com/9yg2c

"In the United States, demographers have put the generation's
birth years at 1946 to 1964, despite the fact that the US
birth rate (per 1,000 population) actually began to decline
after 1957. William Strauss and Neil Howe,... put the
generation's birth years at 1943 to 1960. ...

"Interestingly, the birth rate actually began to climb in
1940: From that year through 1943, the US birth rate rose four
years in a row for the first time since at least the beginning
of the 19th Century...

"In Canada, the baby boom is usually defined as the generation
born from 1947 to 1966 - Canadian servicemen were repatriated
later than American servicemen, and Canada's birth rate did
not start to rise till 1947, and most Canadian demographers
prefer to use the later date of 1966 as the boom's end in that
country."

Maggie

May 14th 05, 03:28 PM

Bill Sornson wrote:
> bbaka wrote:
> > Maggie wrote:
>
> >> I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the
> >> end. Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? ;-)
>
> > Maggie,
> > Now you admitted to being a bit on the young side, more than you
claim
> > with your 'old lady' stuff. Hell, girl, you ain't even 50 yet, and
I'm
> > 56, wife is 58 (5 days younger than Herr Bush II).
>
> Bill, you should ease up on your Bush obsession and bone up on your
math
> skills. (Hint: Mags is slightly over 50, maybe even 51.)
>

Thanks guys........AND I WON'T BE 51 UNTIL MAY 22nd. (send
presents)...so...I AM STILL 50. But if anyone did the math wrong...and
kept me in my forties...that's ok. I'll be doing the charity ride on
my birthday...remember. My first charity ride on a bike.

Anyway, Forties, fifties, whats the difference? I had my midlife
crisis when I turned forty, glad its over. It lasted a about 8 years.
;-)

My husband is going to be 59.......whoa...almost 60. I married an old
fart. ;-)

Only kidding.....I like older men.....young guys are too into
themselves. Who needs that. ;-) Wait, I am married. I forgot, I
can't date anymore. :-O oops. I better break that date I have Friday
with that 42 year old guy. And I was really looking forward to going
to that Sushi Bar.

Love,
Maggie.

Maggie

May 14th 05, 03:44 PM

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill "needs brain image removed ASAP" S.

Why does the image of your parental units having sex bring horror to
ones mind. I know they did it or I would not be here.........but the
thought of them doing it still makes me feel a little weird.

I guess my kids can't imagine me having sex either. Or maybe they
can. Who knows.

Maggie.

Bill Sornson

May 14th 05, 05:08 PM

Maggie wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Bill "needs brain image removed ASAP" S.
>
> Why does the image of your parental units having sex bring horror to
> ones mind. I know they did it or I would not be here.........but the
> thought of them doing it still makes me feel a little weird.

I'm the result of divine implantation.

{Zaumenesque la-la-la-la-la I'm not listening!}

Bob

May 14th 05, 05:23 PM

Tanya Quinn wrote:
> > But any idea why/how it's legal for a cop to issue a ticket to
> someone
> > without I.D. based on full name, date of birth, and mailing
address?
> > It's a full ticket, with driver's license number and such.
>
> Why give them your driver's license? You weren't driving. All that is
> required is for you to give them your name and address. They don't
need
> to see ID unless they suspect you are lying. If you give them your
> driver's license the ticket can inadvertently get entered in the
system
> as if you were driving a car in which case you could lose points.

Why refuse to give your d/l if you have it with you? As the OP
discovered, the ticket is going to list your d/l number anyway so what
you point out as a legitimate concern can occur whether you furnish the
d/l or not.
Just as an aside- *IF* the police officer suspects you are lying? Call
it an occupational mindset or simply a lesson learned from experience
but when they encounter someone in an enforcement situation that is
unable to furnish some form of ID most if not all police officers
immediately suspect that person is lying about their identity. Some
people may find that offensive but it's nothing personal.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

bbaka

May 14th 05, 09:05 PM

Jeff Starr wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:07:06 -0700, bbaka > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Just carry you SS card for ID.
>>Only one number and I don't think a cop is looking for identity theft.
>>Bill Baka
>
>
> Let me guess in bakaland, there are photos on your SS card.
>
> Another example of little bill's crappy advice. There is no reason to
> carry your SS card and if your wallet is lost or stolen, you have
> provided a very valuable set of numbers.
>
>
> Life is Good!
> Jeff
>
Why in the hell would I want to carry all my ID, Drivers license, credit
cards, money and everything else to ride? If the cop wants more than
just an SS card then he is definitely out to hassle me. I don't recall
any "Show me your papers.", since the USSR was dissolved. My SS card
fits neatly into a small pocket area reserved for it, plus I always have
my cell phone on me so he could just verify me as the owner and have the
station call it so it would ring.
The isn't 1943 Germany, yet.
Bill Baka
Bill Baka

bbaka

May 14th 05, 09:11 PM

Maggie wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>bbaka wrote:
>>
>>>Maggie wrote:
>>
>>>>I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and the
>>>>end. Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? ;-)
>>
>>>Maggie,
>>>Now you admitted to being a bit on the young side, more than you
>
> claim
>
>>>with your 'old lady' stuff. Hell, girl, you ain't even 50 yet, and
>
> I'm
>
>>>56, wife is 58 (5 days younger than Herr Bush II).
>>
>>Bill, you should ease up on your Bush obsession and bone up on your
>
> math
>
>>skills. (Hint: Mags is slightly over 50, maybe even 51.)
>>
>
>
> Thanks guys........AND I WON'T BE 51 UNTIL MAY 22nd. (send
> presents)...so...I AM STILL 50. But if anyone did the math wrong...and
> kept me in my forties...that's ok.

That was me, but I got jumped for it.
You can always be in your 40's or even 30's in your mind.

I'll be doing the charity ride on
> my birthday...remember. My first charity ride on a bike.
>
> Anyway, Forties, fifties, whats the difference? I had my midlife
> crisis when I turned forty, glad its over. It lasted a about 8 years.
> ;-)
>
> My husband is going to be 59.......whoa...almost 60. I married an old
> fart. ;-)

I have yet to see what a mid-life crisis is for men. Maybe I am there
and don't know it since all the hormonal equipment still works just
fine. I was just thinking about having another child when my wife
pointed out to me that SHE was a little old for that. Oh well.
>
> Only kidding.....I like older men.....young guys are too into
> themselves. Who needs that. ;-) Wait, I am married. I forgot, I
> can't date anymore. :-O oops. I better break that date I have Friday
> with that 42 year old guy. And I was really looking forward to going
> to that Sushi Bar.
>
> Love,
> Maggie.
>
Keep on going girl.
Bill Baka

bbaka

May 14th 05, 09:28 PM

Maggie wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>Bill "needs brain image removed ASAP" S.
>
>
> Why does the image of your parental units having sex bring horror to
> ones mind. I know they did it or I would not be here.........but the
> thought of them doing it still makes me feel a little weird.
>
> I guess my kids can't imagine me having sex either. Or maybe they
> can. Who knows.
>
> Maggie.
>
My daughter (genetic) still lives at home at 26 while going through
college and it still grosses her out, same as the grandchildren from my
stepdaughter. Why?????????????
I know my daughter has plenty of boyfriends, and the 13 year old
grandson is thinking about girls so...????
Bill Baka

bbaka

May 14th 05, 09:33 PM

Bob wrote:
> Tanya Quinn wrote:
>
>>>But any idea why/how it's legal for a cop to issue a ticket to
>>
>>someone
>>
>>>without I.D. based on full name, date of birth, and mailing
>
> address?
>
>>>It's a full ticket, with driver's license number and such.
>>
>>Why give them your driver's license? You weren't driving. All that is
>>required is for you to give them your name and address. They don't
>
> need
>
>>to see ID unless they suspect you are lying. If you give them your
>>driver's license the ticket can inadvertently get entered in the
>
> system
>
>>as if you were driving a car in which case you could lose points.
>
>
> Why refuse to give your d/l if you have it with you? As the OP
> discovered, the ticket is going to list your d/l number anyway so what
> you point out as a legitimate concern can occur whether you furnish the
> d/l or not.
> Just as an aside- *IF* the police officer suspects you are lying? Call
> it an occupational mindset or simply a lesson learned from experience
> but when they encounter someone in an enforcement situation that is
> unable to furnish some form of ID most if not all police officers
> immediately suspect that person is lying about their identity. Some
> people may find that offensive but it's nothing personal.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>
Bob,
Sometimes I only take my cell phone and no ID at all since it really is
not a legal requirement to ride a bike. I have never found myself in an
'enforcement' situation except one time riding too close to Beale AFB
but on that occasion I did have my CDL and wallet with me. Those orange
alerts make everybody too paranoid, which is the only reason I got detained.
Bill Baka

Jeff Starr

May 14th 05, 11:57 PM

On Sat, 14 May 2005 13:05:48 -0700, bbaka > wrote:

>
>>
>> Let me guess in bakaland, there are photos on your SS card.
>>
>> Another example of little bill's crappy advice. There is no reason to
>> carry your SS card and if your wallet is lost or stolen, you have
>> provided a very valuable set of numbers.
>>
>>
>> Life is Good!
>> Jeff
>>
>Why in the hell would I want to carry all my ID, Drivers license, credit
>cards, money and everything else to ride? If the cop wants more than
>just an SS card then he is definitely out to hassle me. I don't recall
>any "Show me your papers.", since the USSR was dissolved. My SS card
>fits neatly into a small pocket area reserved for it, plus I always have
>my cell phone on me so he could just verify me as the owner and have the
>station call it so it would ring.
>The isn't 1943 Germany, yet.
>Bill Baka
>Bill Baka

I don't know, why would you want to carry all of your ID? All I said,
was that an SS card shouldn't be carried. I mentioned wallets, but I
certainly didn't tell you to take it on rides. It was a general
statement. If you have a pocket for your SS card, remove that and
carry a picture ID of some sort.

I carry my drivers license and some cash, in a small business card
carrier. I never carry my SS card, not anywhere.

That cell phone confirmation, is quite useless. Or did you forget? As
I recall, you are often out of range. I guess consistency and facts
shouldn't get in the way of you spewing more nonsense.

Life is Good!
Jeff

Maggie

May 15th 05, 12:40 AM

Claire Petersky wrote:
>
> At the same time, we aren't Gen X, either. We are Tweeners, a
forgotten
> generation born from 1960 - 1965. We were the most drug- and sex-
saturated
> generation, because the Boomers paved the way for us, and cultural
and
> biological forces had not yet set in against that tide.
>

Thinking about this....I was pretty young in 1960. A mere child. And
in 1965 I was 11.

Time creates the definition of the baby boom...not what we all have in
common. It is a very long span of time. 1946 - 1964. What do I have
in common with someone born in 1946? Except for the fact that I
married a guy born that year. And I can see how we have very different
memories.

He won't even go to the Rolling Stones Concert with me in September. I
am going with my brother. My husband likes Doo-Wop. When the stones
hit the US, he was out of HS.

The thing you are saying about people your age, I can say about people
born before and after me....as I am in the middle somewhere.

I don't think it is what the baby boomers have in common...as it is too
long a time period.

I think its just the years people were having children....it was the
baby boom years and it lasted a long time. I can't say I have much in
common with my 59 year old husband. I was in Grammar school when he
was in High School. Its the time line of post war births.

Maggie

Mike Latondresse

May 15th 05, 01:40 AM

bbaka > wrote in
:

> Maggie wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>bbaka wrote:
>>>
>>>>Maggie wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I am just caught in there somewhere between the beginning and
>>>>>the end. Anything good happen in 1954? Besides my birth? ;-)
>>>
>>>>Maggie,
>>>>Now you admitted to being a bit on the young side, more than you
>>
>> claim
>>
>>>>with your 'old lady' stuff. Hell, girl, you ain't even 50 yet,
>>>>and
>>
>> I'm
>>
>>>>56, wife is 58 (5 days younger than Herr Bush II).
>>>
>>>Bill, you should ease up on your Bush obsession and bone up on
>>>your
>>
>> math
>>
>>>skills. (Hint: Mags is slightly over 50, maybe even 51.)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks guys........AND I WON'T BE 51 UNTIL MAY 22nd. (send
>> presents)...so...I AM STILL 50. But if anyone did the math
>> wrong...and kept me in my forties...that's ok.
>
> That was me, but I got jumped for it.
> You can always be in your 40's or even 30's in your mind.
>
Yeah, you are only young once but you can be immature forever.

Marty

May 15th 05, 05:29 AM

Mike Latondresse wrote:
> bbaka > wrote in
> :
>
>
> Yeah, you are only young once but you can be immature forever.

I like that. That would go well on a family crest. I wonder how you say
it in latin?

Marty

Bob

May 15th 05, 08:27 AM

bbaka wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> > Why refuse to give your d/l if you have it with you? As the OP
> > discovered, the ticket is going to list your d/l number anyway so
what
> > you point out as a legitimate concern can occur whether you furnish
the
> > d/l or not.
> > Just as an aside- *IF* the police officer suspects you are lying?
Call
> > it an occupational mindset or simply a lesson learned from
experience
> > but when they encounter someone in an enforcement situation that is
> > unable to furnish some form of ID most if not all police officers
> > immediately suspect that person is lying about their identity. Some
> > people may find that offensive but it's nothing personal.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bob Hunt
> >
> Bob,
> Sometimes I only take my cell phone and no ID at all since it really
is
> not a legal requirement to ride a bike. I have never found myself in
an
> 'enforcement' situation except one time riding too close to Beale AFB

> but on that occasion I did have my CDL and wallet with me. Those
orange
> alerts make everybody too paranoid, which is the only reason I got
detained.
> Bill Baka

Nowhere that I'm aware of is a cyclist required by law to carry ID but
not every bit of commonsense needs to be codified as a legal
requirement. Ask yourself, "If someday I'm unlucky enough to be brought
into a hospital ER injured and unconscious do I also want to be
unidentified?"
BTW, a SS card is *not* ID. It's merely the convenient little reminder
that the Social Security Administration gave you when they issued you
your taxpayer identification number.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Veloise

May 15th 05, 08:55 PM

Jeff Starr wrote:
> At least two, I was born in Dec '54.

Yea, Sagittarius!

--Karen M.
Dec '56

Tom Keats

May 15th 05, 09:05 PM

In article . com>,
"Veloise" > writes:
> Jeff Starr wrote:
>> At least two, I was born in Dec '54.
>
> Yea, Sagittarius!
>
> --Karen M.
> Dec '56

Dec '53, myself.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Matt O'Toole

May 16th 05, 12:44 AM

Claire Petersky wrote:

> "Maggie" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> The Baby Boomer Generation includes those born after World War II
>> from 1946-1964 inclusive. Which means anyone 41 to 59 is a Baby
>> Boomer. Did I do that math right? That's a hell of a lot of
>> people. And a big age span.
>
> Anyone born after 1960 will tell you they are not boomers. Boomers
> have a mind-set we don't share. We don't know where we were when
> Kennedy was shot (other than in utereo, or toddling on the floor). We
> didn't watch Leave it to Beaver except in re-runs. It was our
> *parents* who marched in anti-war marches, if at all. The Beatles
> were long broken up before we started listening to popular music in
> earnest.

Yup.

> At the same time, we aren't Gen X, either. We are Tweeners, a
> forgotten generation born from 1960 - 1965. We were the most drug-
> and sex- saturated generation, because the Boomers paved the way for
> us, and cultural and biological forces had not yet set in against
> that tide.

Actually we are Gen-X, according to Doug Coupland; who coined the term to
describe the post-Boomer, pre-MTV generation. But then the media
misappropriated the term to describe the MTV generation, which Coupland had
actually called Global Teens.

There may be better novelists than Doug Coupland, but despite the hype he's an
astute cultural observer.

Matt O.

Maggie

May 16th 05, 03:04 AM

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> Actually we are Gen-X, according to Doug Coupland; who coined the
term to
> describe the post-Boomer, pre-MTV generation. But then the media
> misappropriated the term to describe the MTV generation, which
Coupland had
> actually called Global Teens.
>
> There may be better novelists than Doug Coupland, but despite the
hype he's an
> astute cultural observer.
>
> Matt O.

And Doug Coupland states the following in his book........
Generation X was born between 1965 and 1980.

Generation Xers were brought up on television, Atari 2600s and personal
computers. They are the generation that was raised in the 1970s and
1980s, and saw this country undergo a selfish phase that they do not
want to repeat.

"Generation X grew up in the 'me generation' of the 1980s.

He describes Generation X as "underemployed and overeducated.

The media found elements of Coupland's characters' lives in America's
youth and labeled them Generation X. This stereotypical definition
leads society to believe that Generation X is made up of cynical,
hopeless, frustrated and unmotivated slackers who wear grunge clothing,
listen to alternative music and still live at home because they cannot
get real jobs. It is a label that has stuck, stereotypes and all.

it's actually a good read.
Maggie

bbaka

May 16th 05, 03:24 PM

Jeff Starr wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 13:05:48 -0700, bbaka > wrote:
>
>
>>>Let me guess in bakaland, there are photos on your SS card.
>>>
>>>Another example of little bill's crappy advice. There is no reason to
>>>carry your SS card and if your wallet is lost or stolen, you have
>>>provided a very valuable set of numbers.
>>>
>>>
>>>Life is Good!
>>>Jeff
>>>
>>
>>Why in the hell would I want to carry all my ID, Drivers license, credit
>>cards, money and everything else to ride? If the cop wants more than
>>just an SS card then he is definitely out to hassle me. I don't recall
>>any "Show me your papers.", since the USSR was dissolved. My SS card
>>fits neatly into a small pocket area reserved for it, plus I always have
>>my cell phone on me so he could just verify me as the owner and have the
>>station call it so it would ring.
>>The isn't 1943 Germany, yet.
>>Bill Baka
>>Bill Baka
>
>
> I don't know, why would you want to carry all of your ID? All I said,
> was that an SS card shouldn't be carried. I mentioned wallets, but I
> certainly didn't tell you to take it on rides. It was a general
> statement. If you have a pocket for your SS card, remove that and
> carry a picture ID of some sort.
>
> I carry my drivers license and some cash, in a small business card
> carrier. I never carry my SS card, not anywhere.
>
> That cell phone confirmation, is quite useless. Or did you forget? As
> I recall, you are often out of range. I guess consistency and facts
> shouldn't get in the way of you spewing more nonsense.
>
>
> Life is Good!
> Jeff

When I am out of cell phone range I am also out of police range and
there are no stop signs to run.
Bill Baka

bbaka

May 16th 05, 03:26 PM

Bob wrote:
> bbaka wrote:
>
>>Bob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why refuse to give your d/l if you have it with you? As the OP
>>>discovered, the ticket is going to list your d/l number anyway so
>
> what
>
>>>you point out as a legitimate concern can occur whether you furnish
>
> the
>
>>>d/l or not.
>>>Just as an aside- *IF* the police officer suspects you are lying?
>
> Call
>
>>>it an occupational mindset or simply a lesson learned from
>
> experience
>
>>>but when they encounter someone in an enforcement situation that is
>>>unable to furnish some form of ID most if not all police officers
>>>immediately suspect that person is lying about their identity. Some
>>>people may find that offensive but it's nothing personal.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Bob Hunt
>>>
>>
>>Bob,
>>Sometimes I only take my cell phone and no ID at all since it really
>
> is
>
>>not a legal requirement to ride a bike. I have never found myself in
>
> an
>
>>'enforcement' situation except one time riding too close to Beale AFB
>
>
>>but on that occasion I did have my CDL and wallet with me. Those
>
> orange
>
>>alerts make everybody too paranoid, which is the only reason I got
>
> detained.
>
>>Bill Baka
>
>
> Nowhere that I'm aware of is a cyclist required by law to carry ID but
> not every bit of commonsense needs to be codified as a legal
> requirement. Ask yourself, "If someday I'm unlucky enough to be brought
> into a hospital ER injured and unconscious do I also want to be
> unidentified?"
> BTW, a SS card is *not* ID. It's merely the convenient little reminder
> that the Social Security Administration gave you when they issued you
> your taxpayer identification number.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>
I usually carry my blood donor card so they can at least give me a
transfusion of the right type if need be. Assuming they ever do find me.
Bill Baka

Jim Smith

May 16th 05, 04:52 PM

bbaka > writes:

> I usually carry my blood donor card so they can at least give me a
> transfusion of the right type if need be. Assuming they ever do find
> me.

I can assure you that no one looks at those things. Think about it
for a minute and you will realize how crazy it would be to pay
attention to the card. If it looks like you would die in the next 15
minutes without some blood, you will get a couple of units of O
negative on the rapid infuser *right now* while your blood is sent for
type and cross match. If your situation is a bit less entertaining,
you will get your blood in half an hour, when the T&C is done.

If you have a serious drug allergy, that is useful information to
carry with you, but blood type is worthless.

Matt O'Toole

May 16th 05, 06:36 PM

bbaka wrote:

> Bob wrote:

>> Ask yourself, "If someday I'm unlucky enough to be
>> brought into a hospital ER injured and unconscious do I also want to
>> be unidentified?"

Perhaps -- they may be more likely to fix you up right away, rather than wait to
verify your insurance first. So says my trauma surgeon friend. These days,
"stopping the bleeding" refers to the green stuff as much as the red. It's
disgusting but often true.

> I usually carry my blood donor card so they can at least give me a
> transfusion of the right type if need be.

Helmets usually come with stickers for ID and blood type. AFAIK, EMTs are
trained to look for them.

Matt O.

Jim Smith

May 16th 05, 10:15 PM

"Matt O'Toole" > writes:

> bbaka wrote:
>
>> Bob wrote:
>
>>> Ask yourself, "If someday I'm unlucky enough to be
>>> brought into a hospital ER injured and unconscious do I also want to
>>> be unidentified?"
>
> Perhaps -- they may be more likely to fix you up right away, rather than wait to
> verify your insurance first. So says my trauma surgeon friend. These days,
> "stopping the bleeding" refers to the green stuff as much as the red. It's
> disgusting but often true.

Your friend is yanking your chain. Everyone who is seriously injured
is going to get the same care, at least initialy. Your friends
malpractice carrier would not be amused if she sat around waiting for
billing information before treating her trauma patients. She would be
flipping burgers in no time. Not that there's anything wrong with
that...

>> I usually carry my blood donor card so they can at least give me a
>> transfusion of the right type if need be.
>
> Helmets usually come with stickers for ID and blood type. AFAIK, EMTs are
> trained to look for them.
>
> Matt O.

Bill Baka

May 18th 05, 04:48 PM

Jim Smith wrote:
> bbaka > writes:
>
>
>>I usually carry my blood donor card so they can at least give me a
>>transfusion of the right type if need be. Assuming they ever do find
>>me.
>
>
> I can assure you that no one looks at those things. Think about it
> for a minute and you will realize how crazy it would be to pay
> attention to the card. If it looks like you would die in the next 15
> minutes without some blood, you will get a couple of units of O
> negative on the rapid infuser *right now* while your blood is sent for
> type and cross match. If your situation is a bit less entertaining,
> you will get your blood in half an hour, when the T&C is done.
>
> If you have a serious drug allergy, that is useful information to
> carry with you, but blood type is worthless.
>
I am B negative. I always thought that getting a transusion of the wrong
kind could kill you,like an A positiveor something like that.
Not that I ever plan on bleeding that much (I hope not).
Bill Baka

Mike Quin

May 18th 05, 04:57 PM

In article >, Bill Baka wrote:

> I am B negative. I always thought that getting a transusion of the wrong
> kind could kill you,like an A positiveor something like that.
> Not that I ever plan on bleeding that much (I hope not).

That's correct, with the exception of O negative blood, which can be
safely transfused into anyone, regardless of their blood type.

--
Mike Quin >

Jim Smith

May 18th 05, 05:32 PM

Bill Baka > writes:

> Jim Smith wrote:
>> bbaka > writes:
>>
>>>I usually carry my blood donor card so they can at least give me a
>>>transfusion of the right type if need be. Assuming they ever do find
>>>me.
>> I can assure you that no one looks at those things. Think about it
>> for a minute and you will realize how crazy it would be to pay
>> attention to the card. If it looks like you would die in the next 15
>> minutes without some blood, you will get a couple of units of O
>> negative on the rapid infuser *right now* while your blood is sent for
>> type and cross match. If your situation is a bit less entertaining,
>> you will get your blood in half an hour, when the T&C is done.
>> If you have a serious drug allergy, that is useful information to
>> carry with you, but blood type is worthless.
>>
> I am B negative. I always thought that getting a transusion of the
> wrong kind could kill you,like an A positiveor something like that.
> Not that I ever plan on bleeding that much (I hope not).

Oh yeah, if you are B negative A positive could kill you, but O
negative is pretty safe for everybody.

It is always preferable to trasfuse the same type blood. (As a matter
of fact, when there is time, they always mix a little of your blood
with the donor blood in a test tube first and watch it for a little
while to make sure they are compatible.) But if they don't have time
to do that, like if you are going to bleed to death in the next 10
minutes, the thing to do is just squeeze in a couple of units of O
negative while they are checking your blood type and doing the mixing
in the test tube thing. Writing your blood type on a card or in your
helmet doesn't do any good because there are only two possible
scenarios: 1) either you have half an hour to check the blood type and
test for compatability, or 2) you just give O negative.

Nobody is going to trust what is writen on the card or in the helmet
because it is basically always safe to give O negative, but if the
card is wrong and you pay attention to it, you might give something
that could kill. For example, if you had a brother with type A and he
happend to be wearing your helmet that said "type B." It would be a
very bad thing(TM) to give him type B, but it would be just fine to
give him type O.

Bill Baka

May 18th 05, 10:41 PM

Jim Smith wrote:
> Bill Baka > writes:
>
>
>>Jim Smith wrote:
>>
>>>bbaka > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I usually carry my blood donor card so they can at least give me a
>>>>transfusion of the right type if need be. Assuming they ever do find
>>>>me.
>>>
>>>I can assure you that no one looks at those things. Think about it
>>>for a minute and you will realize how crazy it would be to pay
>>>attention to the card. If it looks like you would die in the next 15
>>>minutes without some blood, you will get a couple of units of O
>>>negative on the rapid infuser *right now* while your blood is sent for
>>>type and cross match. If your situation is a bit less entertaining,
>>>you will get your blood in half an hour, when the T&C is done.
>>>If you have a serious drug allergy, that is useful information to
>>>carry with you, but blood type is worthless.
>>>
>>
>>I am B negative. I always thought that getting a transusion of the
>>wrong kind could kill you,like an A positiveor something like that.
>>Not that I ever plan on bleeding that much (I hope not).
>
>
> Oh yeah, if you are B negative A positive could kill you, but O
> negative is pretty safe for everybody.
>
> It is always preferable to trasfuse the same type blood. (As a matter
> of fact, when there is time, they always mix a little of your blood
> with the donor blood in a test tube first and watch it for a little
> while to make sure they are compatible.) But if they don't have time
> to do that, like if you are going to bleed to death in the next 10
> minutes, the thing to do is just squeeze in a couple of units of O
> negative while they are checking your blood type and doing the mixing
> in the test tube thing. Writing your blood type on a card or in your
> helmet doesn't do any good because there are only two possible
> scenarios: 1) either you have half an hour to check the blood type and
> test for compatability, or 2) you just give O negative.
>
> Nobody is going to trust what is writen on the card or in the helmet
> because it is basically always safe to give O negative, but if the
> card is wrong and you pay attention to it, you might give something
> that could kill. For example, if you had a brother with type A and he
> happend to be wearing your helmet that said "type B." It would be a
> very bad thing(TM) to give him type B, but it would be just fine to
> give him type O.
>
>
I never really put that much thought into it, since I give blood as
regularly as I can, but it is 6 miles each way through city traffic.
Then when I go to leave I sometimes get the "Oh my God, you're riding a
bicycle after giving blood?".
Beats walking. 12 miles on a bike is short, on foot it's sore feet.
Bill (non doctor, obviously) Baka