From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #166 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, April 19 2007 Volume 16 : Number 166 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... ["vivien lyon" ] Re: virginia tech reap [Capuchin ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [Capuchin ] Can somebody please change the subject? [kevin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:20:53 -0700 From: "vivien lyon" Subject: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... I don't weigh in much on these things, and I really oughtn't rush to the "defense" of someone who's perfectly capable of defending his own statements and arguments, but ... well, whatever. On 4/18/07, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > > "It's legal" is not a better argument for target shooting than > > "It's illegal" is an argument against casual drug use. > > > > > What is *not* a legitimate use for these guns is killing innocent > > > people. > > > > No one is innocent. > > And no one deserved to get killed by Seung Cho either. Oh wow, you sure got him with that one. Because that's exactly what he was saying, that the people who got killed deserved it. I think you know perfectly well that was not the point he was making, and to throw up this kind of "gotcha" faux-argument is just dishonest and sad. Capuchin makes difficult points. Sometimes they are uncomfortable points. Sometimes they make one feel kind of bad about oneself, or maybe just angry at him. But instead of examining why those arguments make for uncomfortable or angry feelings, people willfully misunderstand and reduce the arguments to some kind of over-the-top misanthropy. Let's talk about innocence. Most kinds of innocence are inappropriate for adults. Experience, almost by definition, eliminates innocence. Those adults who truly believe themselves to be innocent are actually what the psychologist Rollo May calls "pseudo-innocent." Pseudo-innocence is a willful blinding of oneself because reality simply will not conform to your expectations. It is most importantly a blinding of yourself to knowledge of your own potential for power and misuse of power (read: evil). This resonated with me because I feel that pseudo-innocence is what I have fought against my whole life, starting with rebelling against my mother's view of the world. My mother, as it happens, sincerely belives that the war in Iraq is a good thing if it opens up opportunities to convert a few people to Christianity. Hundreds of thousands can die, but as long as we're doing a good job for Jesus, it'll all be okay. She just can't admit that being there is a horrific mistake (and a crime), and that our government and by extension, she herself, is to blame. "Anti-understanding" is a very good way of putting it. And "anti-understanding" is what I see most often when people address Capuchin merely to assert that he hates people. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:21:35 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... 2fs wrote: > You know what Cap said about giving wackjobs a hug? If Ferris ever posts > that he's leaving the list and moving to a shack in Montana, someone give > him a hug, okay? Montana's not my speed. > Oh puh-lease: if your life is so wonderful peachy that *taxes* are the > biggest infringement upon your freedom, maybe you should sell the yacht, get > rid of your portfolio, and simply make less money. How did the current majority of elected officials get elected in this country? By offering change to the status quo? In part, yes. They also got there (or are trying to get there) by promising expanded goods and services. How do they pay for these expanded goods and services? Taxation, obviously. What this country needs is *not* a larger, more intrusive federal government, it needs less. That's all. > Please explain to me how > 'the government" infringes upon your "personal rights" Attempts to make a national ban on same-sex marriage? Doesn't directly affect me, but it affects friends of mine. Drug laws? I could come up with more if I had time. > Not to mention that the Bush administration's tax-rate changes consistently > have reduced the amount the wealthy pay in, by reducing the highest marginal > rate. So what's this "disparity" you're talking about? The tax policies currently in place are responsible for the current economic state of the nation, so he's doing something right. Secondly, if the current tax cuts are allowed to expire (a defacto tax hike), the economy will suffer. Lastly, an incredibly small percentage of people in this country pay the vast majority of the taxes, with somewhere around 15% paying nothing at all. Let's not forget, too, the alternative minimum tax which is going to start hitting more and more people as time goes by because it hasn't been adjusted in decades. > This assumes that the individual only ever wishes to evade the state - > rather than relies upon it, or expects some protection from it. Expecting protection from it is one thing, but relying on it is something entirely different. We've migrated from an independent, self-sufficient society to one that's relying more and more on the government (state and federal) and less on ourselves. It's "the state's failure" in this, "the government's fault" in that, or "the government should do something" more than "damn, I dropped the ball there and it's my fault. I'd better try harder next time." - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:24:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > > > >> And according to the US Census Bureau 2006 demographic survey, about > >> 1.5% of the households in the USA have an income of US$250,000 or > >> higher (the vast majority of which are multi-income households, so > >> individual income of that amount will be less than that percentage of > >> the population). According to the USA population clock, there are just > >> about 300,000,000 people in the USA. 1% of that is 3 million. Without > >> harder numbers, it's hard to tell how much the real difference between > >> the number of homeless and the number of ultra-high income people > >> really is. But they both seem to hover around 1% of the total > >> population. > > > > Is the US to the rest of the world as the US rich are to the rest of the > > US? If so, is everyone prepared to make the same demands regarding > > GLOBAL wealth-sharing? How far are you willing to reduce your own > > standards of living? > > That's a good point. Some kind of global taxation to help the entire > world's poor might not be a bad plan. > > My pesronal income is somewhere around US$7,000 annually. What do you > suppose my tax rate should be? Your US tax rate, or your UN tax rate? :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:24:52 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > What if Kelo wasn't the owner of a small house in New London but the > landlord of your apartment block? U was going to bring up that case but couldn't recall the plaintiff. It's a fine example of a complete disregard for personal property and a vile, vile precedent. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:27:29 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Apr 19, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Capuchin wrote: > My pesronal income is somewhere around US$7,000 annually. What do > you suppose my tax rate should be? 0%, plus free cheese. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:28:18 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: rights >Why should an employer pay $20/hr for a welder, say, when they could >find an equally qualified person who would work for $17.50? Or twenty bucks a week and he glad to have it? If workers >unite and walk off the job in an attempt to get a raise or some added >benefit, why can't the employer make a decision to just fire the lot of >them and start over? Or just ask the National Guard to step in and *shoot* the lot of them, for that matter? I mean if we're trying to turn back the clock to the good ol' days of the Gilded Age, why not go all the way? Some of us in this neck of the woods haven't forgotten the Everett Massacre yet. (Even if the bulk of working people in this country have gotten fat & lazy enough to acquiesce to a labor climate that's manifestly against their own best interests.) http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/11/05/100loc_b1massacre001.cfm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:36:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: virginia tech reap On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, 2fs wrote: >>> You meant "imply" rather than "infer." Anyway: my other job is doing >>> administrative work at a tax accounting firm. Several clients have >>> investments such that their little seven-year-old kids have income of >>> $100,000 per year. You tell me that that kid "earned" that money. >> >> The Declaration of Independence makes a very bold statement that I >> happen to support: that people should be able to live free from remote >> tyranny. Inherited wealth is nothing short of transgenerational remote >> tyranny. > > I'm not saying the estate tax should be eliminated (though it does need > some tweaking), but the idea that other members of the family do NOTHING > to contribute to the parents' earning is rather silly. There are two ways to look a this: from the perspective of the Haves and the perspective of the Have-nots. The stuff that makes the Haves what they are was ultimately just appropriated from the Earth. You can make all kinds of noises about "improving" things, but the exclusive dominion remains after the improvement has ceased to have meaning (or even after it's been destroyed). Every piece of real property is just a spot where somebody, at some point, put up a fence and yelled, "MINE!" The idea that this exclusive dominion passes beyond the immediate utility (let alone LIFETIME) of the one who made the claim doesn't appear to have any basis at all. Through one mechanism or another, this appropriated stuff ended up in the hands of today's Haves. On the other hand, the Have-nots didn't get the stuff. And since all the useful places were claimed at least a century ago (and most of the accessible, useful places were claimed way before that), the current generation is just out of luck. It's not just that being born rich is an entitlement, but that being born poor is a burden. How do you justify the addition stress and strain of poverty on an infant? I guess you probably blame the parents. But if the poor didn't keep reproducing, the rich wouldn't have anyone to do their work for them. And I personally don't think "earning" means anything at all. It's like "deserving" -- a word people made up to justify their having much while others have little. They're just a means of avoiding guilt and responsibility. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:38:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: >>> Is the US to the rest of the world as the US rich are to the rest of >>> the US? If so, is everyone prepared to make the same demands regarding >>> GLOBAL wealth-sharing? How far are you willing to reduce your own >>> standards of living? >> >> My pesronal income is somewhere around US$7,000 annually. What do you >> suppose my tax rate should be? > > Your US tax rate, or your UN tax rate? :) Whatever I should pay to mitigate the poverty of the world. I don't understand the smiley. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:43:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Tom Clark wrote: > On Apr 19, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Capuchin wrote: >> My pesronal income is somewhere around US$7,000 annually. What do you >> suppose my tax rate should be? > > 0%, plus free cheese. Is it GOOD cheese? I won't eat nasty processed cheeses. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:40:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, FSThomas wrote: > Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > What if Kelo wasn't the owner of a small house in New London but the > > landlord of your apartment block? > > U was going to bring up that case but couldn't recall the plaintiff. > > It's a fine example of a complete disregard for personal property and a > vile, vile precedent. And the "liberal" wing was in the majority on this one. Most people couldn't believe that when they found out. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:45:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > >>> Is the US to the rest of the world as the US rich are to the rest of > >>> the US? If so, is everyone prepared to make the same demands regarding > >>> GLOBAL wealth-sharing? How far are you willing to reduce your own > >>> standards of living? > >> > >> My pesronal income is somewhere around US$7,000 annually. What do you > >> suppose my tax rate should be? > > > > Your US tax rate, or your UN tax rate? :) > > Whatever I should pay to mitigate the poverty of the world. Who decides that? What if it was 90%? > I don't understand the smiley. Not surprised. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:46:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Tom Clark wrote: > > On Apr 19, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Capuchin wrote: > >> My pesronal income is somewhere around US$7,000 annually. What do you > >> suppose my tax rate should be? > > > > 0%, plus free cheese. > > Is it GOOD cheese? I won't eat nasty processed cheeses. You're out of luck, then. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:00:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: >>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: >>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: >>>>> Is the US to the rest of the world as the US rich are to the rest of >>>>> the US? If so, is everyone prepared to make the same demands >>>>> regarding GLOBAL wealth-sharing? How far are you willing to reduce >>>>> your own standards of living? >>>> My pesronal income is somewhere around US$7,000 annually. What do >>>> you suppose my tax rate should be? >>> >>> Your US tax rate, or your UN tax rate? :) >> >> Whatever I should pay to mitigate the poverty of the world. > > Who decides that? What if it was 90%? You do realize that we're not actually proposing a real policy to be instituted by any existing governmental body, right? I'm just asking what you would think a reasonable tax for a person of my income would be if the intent of the tax was to subsidize the world's poor. >> I don't understand the smiley. > > Not surprised. Seriously. I wonder what point you were trying to make with the question and the smiley. Obviously, I have the ability to find out the tax rate for my own income in the USA. Not only do I not need to ask you, but I don't have to ask you to "suppose" about an established fact. Was the joke that you mentioned the UN? Is it some half-assed implication that the UN itself is a joke? If you're going to have an opinion, just state it. The little winks and smiles and nods might make you feel superior, but they do nothing for anyone else and provide no content for reply (and, hence, there's no reason for you to bother us with them). J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:04:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > >>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > >>>>> Is the US to the rest of the world as the US rich are to the rest of > >>>>> the US? If so, is everyone prepared to make the same demands > >>>>> regarding GLOBAL wealth-sharing? How far are you willing to reduce > >>>>> your own standards of living? > >>>> My pesronal income is somewhere around US$7,000 annually. What do > >>>> you suppose my tax rate should be? > >>> > >>> Your US tax rate, or your UN tax rate? :) > >> > >> Whatever I should pay to mitigate the poverty of the world. > > > > Who decides that? What if it was 90%? > > You do realize that we're not actually proposing a real policy to be > instituted by any existing governmental body, right? Really? Thanks for clearing that up. > I'm just asking what you would think a reasonable tax for a person of my > income would be if the intent of the tax was to subsidize the world's > poor. I really don't know. > >> I don't understand the smiley. > > > > Not surprised. > > Seriously. I wonder what point you were trying to make with the question > and the smiley. You're probably the only one. > Obviously, I have the ability to find out the tax rate for my own income > in the USA. Not only do I not need to ask you, but I don't have to ask > you to "suppose" about an established fact. Well, that's good to know. Again, thanks for clearing that up. > Was the joke that you mentioned the UN? Is it some half-assed implication > that the UN itself is a joke? No, the UN does a lot of good things, and if I were to make a joke about it, it'd be better. > If you're going to have an opinion, just state it. The little winks and > smiles and nods might make you feel superior, but they do nothing for > anyone else and provide no content for reply (and, hence, there's no > reason for you to bother us with them). Speak for yourself. What I post on this list has absolutely nothing to do with making me feel superior. That may be the case for others here, but certainly not me. This list is an insignificant part of my life...if posting here DID make me feel superior I'd be a sad sight indeed. I think I've stated my opinion plenty of times here before. You, my friend, are too quick to react with personal attacks. My opinion on this particular issue is that for all the people calling for wealth redistribution on a national scale, I bet very few of them would be willing to do it on a worldwide scale. You are apparently the exception. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:16:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, The Great Quail wrote: >> My comment was meant to point out that killing is bad no matter who >> gets it. This distinction between the "innocent" and the "guilty" is a >> false dichotomy that only serves to support more killing. > > I am afraid that my disagreement with your so-called "false" dichotomy > can only be described as "deep" and perhaps, dare I say, "bitter," my > good fellow. The (only) funny thing here is that I claimed that the dichotomy only exists to justify killing and you went on to explain that the dichotomy is real because it supports a killing that you believe is justified (by the dichotomy which supports the killing which is justified by...). > To wit: a psychotic individual discharging his firearm into a crowd of > unarmed and unsuspecting people is to my imagination inarguably more > "guilty" than his victims, and would very much "deserve" to be stopped > with lethal force if needed. Of course, while such moral mathematics are > not in your personal calculus, a simple census of the average citizenry > would no doubt result in a statistical majority on my side. I think it is likely that a statistical majority would agree with you. Shall we all take our morality from this moral majority? Mohandas K. Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been outside your statistical majority, also. That doesn't make them wrong. > I therefore think of you as a "crank," sir, for your opinions are > generally ludicrous when actually introduced into the discourse of > reasonable men and women. Got it. Ghandi and MLK were cranks, says TGQ. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:12:49 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: rights Jeff wrote: > On 4/19/07, FSThomas wrote: > > > > > > 3.) Collective bargaining > > > > Differ on this one. Unions' times have passed. Wages > shouldn't be > > dictated by a collective, but rather what the market can bear. > > > > Uh...so what does the "market" do when clearly heads of corporations > have > the power to compensate themselves mightily while paying workers > diddly? Corporations are also getting sued by their shareholders for violating their fiduciary duty in exec pay, so it's not like they have unilateral power. On the other side, workers are hardly paid "diddly." The median family income is over $50k per year, which may not make you rich but certainly isn't "diddly." > More specifically, what do workers do? Why, they form unions, of course And what do unions do? They restrict employment to their members and then by creating an artificially small supply of labor drive up costs at the expense of those who choose not to join a union. Saying unions are good for workers is like saying protectionism is good for consumers for the exact same reasons. > - > under the assumption that their influence *in the labor market* will > thereby > be increased. > > Let's say a store in your area is the only one to sell a certain > essential > item. It's difficult to impossible to set up a new store to compete > (let us > stipulate: the community's desperately poor, say). The citizens feel > the > prices are higher than they should be. Individually, each one can do > little > but grouse. Collectively, though, they could organize a boycott - and, > say, > a carpool to a nearby city to buy the item cheaper in bulk. The store > starts > losing money, because the community has found a way to get around its > overpricing. > > In other words, unions are workers' way of gaining more steering power > over > the market - power that otherwise is fairly clearly in management's > hands. And the flip side, getting back into the labor market, the employers can just boycott the local unions and get in their proverbial carpool and head towards labor markets that are willing to charge much less. This is why unions need to change or they need to die--the market for labor isn't a community anymore (nor is the market for the one local store in your analogy local anymore since people can just buy over the internet if they think local prices are too high), and as such local unions artificially driving up labor prices tend to kill the employment in the end. Either the employers move to other markets, or they stay with the unions and fail to compete until they're virtually dead (see Motor Company, Ford). > > 4.) Cheap medical attention > > > > Costs are out of control on some treatments, true. This is > due > > mostly > > to rising malpractice insurance rates, due largely in part to > frivolous > > lawsuits. > > > > "Largely in part"? To "frivolous" lawsuits? Find some objective > statistics > indicating that high insurance costs are due primarily to lawsuits > (frivolous or not), and then define "frivolous" for me. I'm pretty sure > some > male cattle just defecated nearby. I have to agree with you there. I spent a good part of my masters' program studying medical economics and lawsuit costs tend to have little effect on pricing but a larger effect on the supply of doctors in specific high-lawsuit areas. The costs in medicine are far more directly related to the fact that the US doesn't believe in rationing care like they do in federalized systems. Where lawsuits do have an effect, however, is in unnecessary care. This is becoming increasingly problematic, but it still isn't a huge factor in health care costs in any study I've seen conducted in the last decade. > > > as the science proves there is a problem, but ultra right > > > wingers ( and extreme left wingers too ) really piss me off as they > > > are so fucking unable to see any other perspective other than their > > > own . > > > > I don't know about where you are, but it's unseasonably cold here at > the > > moment. > > > > This may be the stupidest thing ever said on the feglist. "Global > warming" > (as anyone who looks into it for more than three seconds will find out) > refers to the overall trend. It does not mean that always and > everywhere it > will be warmer; in fact, it specifically indicates that weather will > become > more variable, less predictable, and more extreme: i.e., cold spring > weather > in Georgia will be *more* common. I have to disagree a bit--global warming does posit that weather will be more variable but it also specifies that the overall trend is towards warmer temperatures. That as never a part of the controversy, though, but rather a straw man made up by the global warming crowd. The issue is how much of a factor man is in global warming, what man can do about global warming and what the proper response for global warming should be. If Al Gore is right (and even the IPCC, which has a vested interest due to its government funding to say that governments must get involved to counter global warming, disagrees with Gore's conclusions) and that we're going to see 20' rises in sea levels, then what should we do about it? Should we A) keep people from driving and hope that the trend slows enough so that we don't see as much of a rise; or B) invest in systems to protect people in low-laying levels, provide tax incentives to those who would relocate to higher ground, etc.; or C) nothing we can do will really matter anyway because everything is too unpredictable so we should just watch it for now and develop policies based on real harms since any real rise in sea levels will be so gradual that we'll have a good amount of time to figure this stuff out? That is where the debate really is. Or, at least, where it should be. Focusing on blaming man instead of solutions is real bass-ackwards. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:18:07 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Can somebody please change the subject? So Robyn Hitchcock, Peter Buck and Scott Macaughey walked into a bar...you'd think one of them would have noticed it... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:21:42 -0400 From: "m swedene" Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? Where was Bill? Was he unloading his drums on his own? Was he working on a list (or a t-shirt) on reasons to hate Tom Clark? On 4/19/07, kevin wrote: > So Robyn Hitchcock, Peter Buck and Scott Macaughey walked into a bar...you'd think one of them would have noticed it... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:29:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: reap at virginia tech On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, 2fs wrote: > installing reflective bits into the pavement (which don't work well in > snowy climates, as plows tend to destroy them) No comment on the snow, but the cat eyes (little reflective thingies) used on the roads in England are in little spring-loaded cups so that they go below road level when they're struck. Also, since the cups fill with rain, this has the effect of washing them as well. I just thought that was pretty cool. Oh, and since I need to put more moral condemnation into my fegposts, I'll just add that y'all shouldn't be driving personal autos all the time. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #166 ********************************