 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / October 2005Thermacare Wrap on Kami
I was using a thermacare wrap for my neck because my car was totalled with me in it a week ago, and when it started to fizzle out, I plopped it over Kami's shoulders. She seemed to really like it. I know she loves the heating pad to sleep on in the windert (with lots of padding in between) so I was wondering if anyone ever used the self-heating thermacare things on arthritic kitties. Comments?  SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? >I was using a thermacare wrap for my neck because my car was totalled >with me in it a week ago, and when it started to fizzle out, I plopped [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Comments? I'm concerned about your injuries from the car accident. What happened, anyway? Do you really need the wrap or did your lawyer tell you to use it? Cats are notorious for seeking heat where they can find it. I have one of these 800-watt reflective infrared heaters -- very nice and economical. Tweaker camps in front of it. I have an exposed partition with the back of the refrigerator on one side and a nook between the partition and my desk on the other. I have set up a quilt adjacent to where the refrigerator vents its heat. That is Tweaker's favorite spot when the heat lamp isn't on. I would not hesitate to apply a thermacare pad to a cat as long as it doesn't get too hot. Charlie Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >>I was using a thermacare wrap for my neck because my car was >>totalled with me in it a week ago, and when it started to fizzle [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Charlie It only feels hot if you lay on it, but no hotter than Kami has felt to the touch in front of the fireplace. I'm surprised she doesn't combust. I was leaning forward with my head turned all the way to the left watching for traffic coming around a blind curve when I was hit. It torn a muscle in my neck in the front right all the way from my ear to my clavicle and, yes, whiplash. The chiropractor said I was in the worst position for getting struck. I was using the heat because my shoulders were getting a little spasm-y. My was "totalled" because it's old. It was like a gigantic wreck, just $3,000 in damage on a $1,000 car. But it was in PERFECT condition. I'm more mad about that than anything. Why should I have to bear the expense of buying a new car and paying higher insurance to carry comp for the lender because some bozo was yapping on his friggin' cell phone??? BUT, I'm getting a 2006 Civic Coupe. The new model is sweet! I just have to wait for it to get here. They're still scarce. In the meantime, I'm driving this hulk of a Ford Explorer because the rental agency doesn't have any cars (Katrina victims have them all, apparently). The different in gas mileage is astounding. SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: <brandyalx@kittylittercomcast.net> > Why should I >have to bear the expense of buying a new car and paying higher >insurance to carry comp for the lender because some bozo was yapping >on his friggin' cell phone??? It's because there are so many "bozo"s on the road and the standards of competence are so low. There's a reason why it costs me less money to insure my $70k airplane each year than it did to insure my $2000 Chevy Blazer. There's a (way OT) discussion going on in one of the pilots groups that's branched into "what if drivers were held to the same standards as pilots?" How much safer do you think the roads would be if: A) To get a drivers license you had to: 1) Be able to discuss with an examiner how the car actually worked (brakes, transmission, engine, etc) 2) Know how to read a map. 3) Be able to do a maximum performance stop. 4) Drive at the speed limit within 5% on a winding road. 5) Know how much less power your engine puts out in Denver than at Venice Beach. 6) Be able to recover from an "out of control" skid that was induced by an examiner who just fishtailed around a parking lot for a minute while your eyes were closed. 7) Be able to smoothly interact with all other traffic on the road. 8) Know where the dipstick is and how to check the oil level. 9) Know what your gas mileage was at a given speed. 10) Know the maximim speed that you can take a given radius turn at . AND ALSO: B) Had to prove you could still do that every 2 years. C) Had to have a doctor certify (every 2 years) that you were still physically capable of driving. And (assuming that the person that hit you was 100% at fault) they had their license automatically suspended for 1 - 5 years and had to prove they weren't negligent, in an appeal, to even have a chance of getting it reinstated. I would guess that would take at least 75% of the current drivers off the road and put them on a bus where they belong. And it would probably cost you less than $100 a year to fully insure your new car. > A) To get a drivers license you had to: > 1) Be able to discuss with an examiner how the [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > And it would probably cost you less than $100 a year > to fully insure your new car. True. But we all have to spend thousands to get educated. >I would guess that would take at least 75% of the >current drivers off the road and put them on a bus >where they belong. I think caution is more important than training. I live up here in Whatcom Co., in Western WA, land of the blind intersection, with cars emerging from what looks like a solid forest. Every time I go down one of the local conduits I end up with someone in a big pickup truck hanging off my bumper. The speed limit is 45 or 50 on most of these roads, and half the people drive 60 or 70 if the road ahead looks clear. Go over to rec.autos.driving, and you can meet the boneheads who think their driving skills are so good they are exempt from the laws of physics. "I'm a safer driver at 100 mph than most people are at 55," they tell me. That kind of thinking works great until the day it doesn't work at all. Charlie Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >>I would guess that would take at least 75% of the >>current drivers off the road and put them on a bus [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Charlie It's like that here. They drive insane fast and think nothing about crossing all lanes of traffic at once. There is an interchange I have to use once in a while that it a left-hand exit. First, you have to be in the fast lane with SUVs on your a.s going 80 miles an hour, and then you exit and have to immediately slow down to about 30 because of the curve. And if you happen to screw up, it's elevated--200 foot drop over the side. Gives me the heebies. SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? >Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in >rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Gives me the heebies. Yeah, there's a few spots like that on the I-5 corridor in W. Wa., such as getting on I-5 north at Mercer St. and scooting across 4 lanes to take the exit for Bellevue. This is why they need to dig giant tunnels underneath Seattle and put in dozens of lanes going every which way. They can pay for it by (a) legalizing marijuana as a state franchise and (b) eliminating the public transit system that no one rides. Set up flexible minivan services instead of all these giant, lumbering buses. They should tear down that goddamn monorail too. It's the Berlin Wall of Seattle, a monument to Bolshevik thinking. It turns what should be a big, bright thoroughfare into a dismal eyesore and it soaks up money that should be spent on MORE LANES FOR CARS. Charlie > On 4 Oct 2005 20:13:08 GMT, "Brandy Alexandre" > <brandyalx@kittylittercomcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > a big, bright thoroughfare into a dismal eyesore and it soaks up money > that should be spent on MORE LANES FOR CARS. Actually the exisiting Seattle Center Monorail is one of the few self funded transit options in the country. It's totally supported by the riders and even turns a profit now and then. Of course as it gets older it will be harder to make ends meet. But they won't tear it down - not yet anyway. Heh, our City is so do nothing it's silly - well ok, they made sure if you go in a strip club it will be well lit. Boggle. >> On 4 Oct 2005 20:13:08 GMT, "Brandy Alexandre" >> <brandyalx@kittylittercomcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >yet anyway. Heh, our City is so do nothing it's silly - well ok, they >made sure if you go in a strip club it will be well lit. Boggle. Maybe they can use the profits from the monorail to dig a tunnel and put it underground. It's an eyesore and an obstruction when viewed from street level. Charlie >>> On 4 Oct 2005 20:13:08 GMT, "Brandy Alexandre" >>> <brandyalx@kittylittercomcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >put it underground. It's an eyesore and an obstruction when viewed >from street level. Whoa, you're on to something. combine the two projects. Pull the monorail through the tunnel at downtown! ---------------- "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 <retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >>Maybe they can use the profits from the monorail to dig a tunnel and >>put it underground. It's an eyesore and an obstruction when viewed >>from street level. > > Whoa, you're on to something. combine the two projects. Pull the > monorail through the tunnel at downtown! The problem is that, like California, you guys are seismically active. I thought tunneling was a bad idea in LA and I think it would be a bad idea up there. SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? > <retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I thought tunneling was a bad idea in LA and I think it would be a bad >idea up there. Tunnels can be quite well designed to cope with seismic activity as I understand it. But I wonder why they don't lay pipe and cover it rather than actually tunnel. Most of the area they want to regrade from the hill down to the water front. It would seeman (comparatively) inexpensive alternative. ---------------- "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 >> <retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >the water front. It would seeman (comparatively) inexpensive >alternative. Yeah, I think so too. Like a giant culvert, big enough for a roadbed. They could shut down I-5 for a few years, make everyone use Aurora, and dig giant trenches and fill them with giant culverts, each of which could hold several lanes of traffic. 50 lanes -- 25 north, 25 south, from Tacoma to Everett. Seattle needs a visionary like Robert Moses to squash the nimbies and make things happen. Charlie > <retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I thought tunneling was a bad idea in LA and I think it would be a bad >idea up there. They will have to engineer tunnels that can withstand a big earthquake. They can do that, can't they? They could make the whole structure out of some sort of synthetic rubber/concrete hybrid. Sooner or later, something is going to have to give in Seattle, because the traffic situation is terrible. And public transit ain't gonna cut it, because people want to drive their own cars, and they don't want to be sitting next to a wino who is talking to an imaginary friend. There is a stretch of downtown where it's free to get on and off the bus, and the winos pile on when the bus gets to the first free stop. Charlie > > <retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Charlie wow sounds like seattle really sucks. i saw a special on HBO about the really bad heroin problems in seattle. it showed most addicts men & women were HIV postive and were selling their bodies on one particular street. terrible, just terrible. Harry >>>> On 4 Oct 2005 20:13:08 GMT, "Brandy Alexandre" >>>> <brandyalx@kittylittercomcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >Whoa, you're on to something. combine the two projects. Pull the >monorail through the tunnel at downtown! Seattle could be home to the world's first underground elevated train. NYC got rid of elevated trains, in Manhattan at least, because they breed slums and create a geographic boundary where one should not be. Seattle is an all-around world-class mess. All the ideas for solving its problems are thwarted by block-level political groups, the same a.sholes who insist on having planters in the middle of intersections so their street won't be used as a cross-town route, even though it is the most efficient one. I think the dank climate and dark winters degrade the human spirit. Seattle is a city where people wait for their neighbors to go on vacation so they can sneak over and cut down their trees. It's just hopeless. Charlie >---------------- >"Should any political party attempt to abolish [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 > Seattle could be home to the world's first underground elevated train. > > NYC got rid of elevated trains, in Manhattan at least, because they > breed slums and create a geographic boundary where one should not be. xxxx In Chicago I picked Damen as the worst stop in the USA. It's dank, dirty and noisy. Apartments so close you can reach out a window and touch the train. > Seattle is an all-around world-class mess. All the ideas for solving > its problems are thwarted by block-level political groups, the same > a.sholes who insist on having planters in the middle of intersections > so their street won't be used as a cross-town route, even though it is > the most efficient one. xxxx The planters are meant to prevent intersection carnage from drivers who don't know how to drive. That's courtesy your Democrat heiarchy that licenses any yayhoo that has the money for a license. > I think the dank climate and dark winters degrade the human spirit. xxxx It's a fact. Howsomever the smart people recreate in the stuff at the beach fishing or Claving or partying in the R/V or the casino. Others go East a few miles and bask in the sunny Eastern desert where you can lay nude in a recliner mid winter. > Seattle is a city where people wait for their neighbors to go on > vacation so they can sneak over and cut down their trees. It's just > hopeless. xxxx Where did you get that idea? I gave my neighbor money and he cut down his offending trees. 29 > Charlie > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >>- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 >> Seattle could be home to the world's first underground elevated train. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >The planters are meant to prevent intersection carnage from >drivers who don't know how to drive. I don't think it helps matters when people can't see across the intersection because of the goddamn foliage. >That's courtesy your Democrat heiarchy that licenses any >yayhoo that has the money for a license. Maybe we should import a good Republican governor from the heartland to straighten things out. What is Bill Janklow doing these days I wonder? >> I think the dank climate and dark winters degrade the human spirit. >xxxx [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Where did you get that idea? >I gave my neighbor money and he cut down his offending trees. That is a very reasonable solution. Did you buy a view easement? Otherwise he could put in some of those fast-growing poplars and shake you down again in a few more years. Charlie >>>Seattle could be home to the world's first underground elevated train. >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Charlie xxxx He's a kind old gent from the UK and I paid to have the trees out because he is on a pension with limited funds and I have money so I did it. He won't be planting trees... P.S. How's the 350 doing? 29:-) >>>>Seattle could be home to the world's first underground elevated train. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > >29:-) The 350 is done. It runs fine, but I still have to spend some money to finish the overall project. But, I don't want to use the rig, with gas at $3 and climbing. I don't get the Republican discount like you do. Anyway, I'm glad you got a reasonable neighbor. From what I have seen, that is a rarity in Seattle and the northwest in general. My theory is that people from the UK are bred for the dark winters and rainy climate. They know how to deal with it gracefully. But a lot of Americans move to Seattle and do about as well over the winter as a truckload of sheetrock. They end up like Timmy the Toidy-mouth, snarling at the world and examining their windshields for fresh pits. BTW, Smith, welcome to the rec.cats domain, home of the psycho cat ladies. Be careful with them. Some of them have gotten so carried away the police have had to get involved. I sh.t you not. Charlie >>>I don't think it helps matters when people can't see across the >>>intersection because of the goddamn foliage. xxxx Another left wing idea that grew out of control. Kinda like welfare did:-) >>>>That's courtesy your Democrat heiarchy that licenses any >>>>yayhoo that has the money for a license. >>> >>>Maybe we should import a good Republican governor from the heartland >>>to straighten things out. What is Bill Janklow doing these days I >>>wonder? xxxx Janklow was a bad apple and not representative of the Mid West. Daschle WAS a good example of the Democrat crowd till he got fired. >>P.S. How's the 350 doing? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gas at $3 and climbing. I don't get the Republican discount like you > do. xxxx Pity! > Anyway, I'm glad you got a reasonable neighbor. From what I have > seen, that is a rarity in Seattle and the northwest in general. xxxx That's true, most are real butts. > My theory is that people from the UK are bred for the dark winters and > rainy climate. They know how to deal with it gracefully. But a lot > of Americans move to Seattle and do about as well over the winter as a > truckload of sheetrock. They end up like Timmy the Toidy-mouth, > snarling at the world and examining their windshields for fresh pits. xxxx Toilet Tongue Tim is our example of fine Eljer urinal mouth technology. He has done zip for the country butt runs veterans down. > BTW, Smith, welcome to the rec.cats domain, home of the psycho cat > ladies. Be careful with them. Some of them have gotten so carried > away the police have had to get involved. I sh.t you not. xxxx Thanks Butt no thanks. Not after you been in their stirring them all up. :-) > Charlie > >>>> On 4 Oct 2005 20:13:08 GMT, "Brandy Alexandre" > >>>> <brandyalx@kittylittercomcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > Charlie Please stay the f.ck out then. <timmyturdoil@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1128696931.060289.151130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > >>>> On 4 Oct 2005 20:13:08 GMT, "Brandy Alexandre" > > >>>> <brandyalx@kittylittercomcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > Please stay the f.ck out then. xxxx toilettongue -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> >I think caution is more important than training. But you have to be trained to be cautious. Cats tend to be rather cautious by nature. Yet they don't know the danger of chewing on electrical cords. So some have to be trained. TK got his training when he bit into a cord under an end table, bounced off the table a couple of times, and ran out WIDE EYED. He now knows to be cautious of electrical cords. :) If people are allowed to make up their own rules as to what is being cautious, they come up with some awfully bonehead ideas. One example of that is the little old lady, that we've all seen, who thinks caution is slamming on the brakes every time she sees an oncoming car. >Every time I go down >one of the local conduits I end up with someone in a big pickup truck >hanging off my bumper. Again.....TRAINING!!!!! You never see pilots "tailgating" in the landing pattern. >Go over to rec.autos.driving, and you can meet the boneheads who think >their driving skills are so good they are exempt from the laws of >physics. Maybe they just have a better understanding, and feel, for physics than you do. > "I'm a safer driver at 100 mph than most people are at 55," >they tell me. Maybe they are. One can only look down the ladder of competence to measure someone's ability. You really can't measure the competence of someone above you. you can look down and say someone is "half as good at that as I am". But looking up, you can only say someone is "Better at that than I am". Only the BEST can quantitatively judge all others. I think I'm a damn good pilot. Surely in the top 5%. But I'll never know if I'm in the top 4%, 3%, 2%, or 1% unless someone like Sean Tucker evaluates my abilities. >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >that we've all seen, who thinks caution is slamming on the >brakes every time she sees an oncoming car. To me, caution is not hanging out in someone's blind spot, or taking three minutes to pass a semi because you don't wanna touch the cruise control. I see this sh.t on the freeway all the time. >>Every time I go down >>one of the local conduits I end up with someone in a big pickup truck >>hanging off my bumper. > >Again.....TRAINING!!!!! >You never see pilots "tailgating" in the landing pattern. You can't get a driver's license without passing a test with basic stuff like that. Everyone knows it, but a lot of people don't bother because it only matters one out of 1,000 times. >>Go over to rec.autos.driving, and you can meet the boneheads who think >>their driving skills are so good they are exempt from the laws of >>physics. > >Maybe they just have a better understanding, and feel, for >physics than you do. The laws of motion are what they are. Having a feel for them doesn't change them. >> "I'm a safer driver at 100 mph than most people are at 55," >>they tell me. > >Maybe they are. One can only look down the ladder >of competence to measure someone's ability. You really >can't measure the competence of someone above you. People tend to overrate themselves on Usenet because they don't have to prove their claims. But my point about physics is this: if you're going 100 mph, it requires more distance to stop a 2,000 pound car than if you are going 55. A skilled driver can't overcome that fact any more than a skilled pilot can fly the plane backwards. It is relevant if something unexpected happens on the road ahead, whether it's an animal, or something coming off of a truck, or a blowout in the next lane. Charlie >you can look down and say someone is "half as good >at that as I am". But looking up, you can only say someone [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >=EZRo >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> >To me, caution is not hanging out in someone's blind spot, or taking >three minutes to pass a semi because you don't wanna touch the cruise >control. I see this sh.t on the freeway all the time. I can't argue with you there. I see the same stupid stuff, and worse, every day. But I say that goes right to the TRAINING and TESTING weakness, again. To get my drivers license, I never had to go faster than 30 mph and never had prove myself able to drive on the highway. All I had to do was drive 2 miles without hitting anything, stop at 2 stop signs, make 4 left turns, 4 right turns, 1 "3 point" turn, and parallel park. And during that time, I never saw another car on the road. Hell, a trained chimp could have passed that test. :) I had to take a more difficult test to get my motorcycle license, but even that only entailed a couple of left and right 360's and figure eights, on a dead end road, at a speed of less than 5 mph. My point is that any idiot can pass those tests, and a lot of them do. Contrast that with the lowest level pilots license, the private pilot license. You have to show that you can......literally drop the plane out of the sky and recover......fly on only instruments (although it's illegal to intentionally get into a situation where you need to do so) and be able to stabilize the plane from some very bad situations (ie. graveyard spirals) using only instruments.......handle various inflight emergencies (ie. "Your engine's on fire, what do you do now?" or having the examiner pull the throttle to idle at an inopportune time and declare "Your engine just failed. Do an emergency landing.").....You used to even have to recover from a spin but the FAA eliminated that 'cause too many student pilots were killing themselves while practicing the maneuver. Now you have to demonstrate "spin avoidance"....Add in things like crosswind landings, short field landings, soft field landings, landing without flaps, steep turns (gaining or losing 100' altitude during a 720 turn busts the checkride), I could go on..and on...and on... >You can't get a driver's license without passing a test with basic >stuff like that. Yes you can! >Everyone knows it, but a lot of people don't bother >because it only matters one out of 1,000 times. They may know it, but they don't UNDERSTAND IT! >The laws of motion are what they are. Having a feel for them doesn't >change them. But it does change how you work with, and use them. >People tend to overrate themselves on Usenet because they don't have >to prove their claims. No argument there. But if you ever visit Springfield, Mass., let me know. I'll hand you a parachute and a barf bag and PROVE that I know how to fly. :) >But my point about physics is this: if you're going 100 mph, it >requires more distance to stop a 2,000 pound car than if you are going >55. Sure! But I know EXACTLY how much more distance is required to stop from 100 mph than stopping from 55 mph. Do most drivers? Do you? ROT13 the line below for the answer guerr uhaqerq naq guvegl creprag ybatre > A skilled driver can't overcome that fact any more than a skilled >pilot can fly the plane backwards. I fly backwards all the time. >It is relevant if something >unexpected happens on the road ahead, whether it's an animal, or >something coming off of a truck, or a blowout in the next lane. We're right back to my original point.....TRAINING. >>People tend to overrate themselves on Usenet because they don't have >>to prove their claims. > >No argument there. But if you ever visit Springfield, Mass., >let me know. I'll hand you a parachute and a barf bag and >PROVE that I know how to fly. :) I have a utilitarian view of airplanes. I seek to avoid situations where I might need a parachute and barf bag. >>But my point about physics is this: if you're going 100 mph, it >>requires more distance to stop a 2,000 pound car than if you are going [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >ROT13 the line below for the answer >guerr uhaqerq naq guvegl creprag ybatre This information is posted all over the web. I'm not trying to prove I'm an expert driver. I don't think it takes an expert to make the observation that a lot of people drive way too fast. >> A skilled driver can't overcome that fact any more than a skilled >>pilot can fly the plane backwards. > >I fly backwards all the time. ??? I have always had the impression fixed-wing aircraft get their lift from an airfoil that only works in one direction. >>It is relevant if something >>unexpected happens on the road ahead, whether it's an animal, or >>something coming off of a truck, or a blowout in the next lane. > >We're right back to my original point.....TRAINING. Which, as we agree, doesn't change the distance needed to stop a car or its inertial force. That guy who was driving Princess Di and her boy-toy probably thought he was an expert... and maybe he was. Charlie -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> >I have a utilitarian view of airplanes. I seek to avoid situations >where I might need a parachute and barf bag. WUSS!! Actually, the 'chute is a legal requirement for aerobatics. The barf bag is optional.:) Never needed or used a 'chute in my life. And there's no way I'd ever jump out of a perfectly good airplane since I'm scared to sh.t of heights. In over 30 yrs of flying, the barf bag has come into play only a few times and only once during some aerobatics. What's given passengers the most trouble has been bumpy air in instrument conditions on a normal point a to point b flight. >This information is posted all over the web. I'm not trying to prove >I'm an expert driver. I don't think it takes an expert to make the >observation that a lot of people drive way too fast. It's not the speed, dammit. It's the speed differential. You put a bunch of people on the highway going a speeds between 55 and 100 mph, with half of them driving with their heads up their a.ses, and you're going to have problems if everyone isn't playing by the same rules. Hell, on the Autobahn you have car going at speeds from 80 to 180 mph in relative safety. But on the Autobahn, there are strict rules that people obey and cops enforce. Have you ever seen some idiot in the US get ticketed for hogging the left lane at 50 mph with a line of cars backed up behind them? On the Autobahn, you'll get pulled over for doing 150 in the left lane if your not in the process of passing someone (even if there's not another car on the road). Passing on the right can cost you your license. And in Germany, drivers actually go through TRAINING. I'll take the Autobahn, over the highways in New York, anyday. >??? I have always had the impression fixed-wing aircraft get their >lift from an airfoil that only works in one direction. There was an engineer that was given the task of selecting an airfoil for a project that a defense contractor was working on. After months of design, and wind tunnel testing, this engineer still hadn't finalized his choice. His boss finally got so frustrated with this guy that he marched down to the wind tunnel with a piece of plywood, fixed it to the test aparatus, fired up the wind tunnel, and showed the guy that a plain piece of plywood flys pretty damn good. 'Nuff said? :) >Which, as we agree, doesn't change the distance needed to stop a car >or its inertial force. That guy who was driving Princess Di and her >boy-toy probably thought he was an expert... and maybe he was. I don't want to sound like one of those conspiracy nuts, but I think there's a little more to that story than we'll ever be told. >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Hell, on the Autobahn you have car going at speeds from >80 to 180 mph in relative safety. But on the Autobahn, there 180 mph, on a public highway, in relative safety? Maybe if you are braced into a cockpit, wearing a helmet, on a road that has been checked for debris. Race drivers crack up left and right at speeds lower than that. >are strict rules that people obey and cops enforce. Have >you ever seen some idiot in the US get ticketed for hogging [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >a plain piece of plywood flys pretty damn good. >'Nuff said? :) Hmm. So much for airfoil geometry. But I have yet to see a plane fly backwards. >>Which, as we agree, doesn't change the distance needed to stop a car >>or its inertial force. That guy who was driving Princess Di and her >>boy-toy probably thought he was an expert... and maybe he was. > >I don't want to sound like one of those conspiracy nuts, but >I think there's a little more to that story than we'll ever be told. Maybe it was a gov't conspiracy to dupe people into thinking it is dangerous to drive at twice the speed limit. Charlie Suddenly, without warning, Charlie Wilkes exclaimed (06-Oct-05 6:23 PM): >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >>From: Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> >>On the Autobahn, you'll get pulled over for doing 150 >>in the left lane if your not in the process of passing someone >>(even if there's not another car on the road). Ok, here's something I don't understand. I always thought, when people said, "on the Autobahn", they're talking about one particular road. I've been to Germany (for a short time), and driven on the so-called "Autobahn". It's German for freeway (motorway), that's all. Drove from near Frankfurt to Rothenburgh. And, not being insane, I drove at a relatively sedate 80mph or so, which was fast enough not to get a line behind me. Heck, I even passed some cars. There was no WAY everyone else around me was doing 150mph or above. One or two, probably, but by relative speed, most weren't going more than 10 -20mph faster than I. Sure you're not talking KPH? Oh, and here in the UK the rules are the same (well. same but reversed) - stay to the left, unless you're passing. Passing on the right will get you a ticket. Slow drivers in the middle and/or right lanes really tick people off. I seem to remember in driver's ed (I'm American) that it's the law in the US too, it's just that it's not enforced any more. jmc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: jmc <NOnewsgroupsSPAM@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> >Ok, here's something I don't understand. I always thought, when people >said, "on the Autobahn", they're talking about one particular road. > >I've been to Germany (for a short time), and driven on the so-called >"Autobahn". It's German for freeway (motorway), that's all. Drove from >near Frankfurt to Rothenburgh. Technically. you are correct. The "autobahn" is a network of highways that would be the basic equivalent of the interstate highway system here in the US. Hell, there are some places on the autobahn where they actually have speed limits. But there are still vast expanses of highway with NO speed limit. And yet (and this was the point that I was trying to make to Charlie) the incidence of fatal accidents is significantly lower on the autobahn than on US highways. >And, not being insane, I drove at a relatively sedate 80mph or so, which >was fast enough not to get a line behind me. I get the feeling that Charlie wouldn't consider 80 mph to be "sedate". >Heck, I even passed some >cars. There was no WAY everyone else around me was doing 150mph or >above. One or two, probably, but by relative speed, most weren't going >more than 10 -20mph faster than I. So you were doing 80 while a bunch of cars were doing a (as Charlie would put it) DANGEROUS 100 mph and a few (again, as Charlie would put it) SUICIDAL drivers were doing 100 to 150 mph. You sure are lucky that you survived that insanity. :-) >Sure you're not talking KPH? I'm drawing a blank with "KPH". My wife was born in Germany (Bad Canstadt, just outside of Stuttgart) and would probably know what "KPH" is. She's asleep right now, so I can't get an answer at the moment. >Oh, and here in the UK the rules are the same (well. same but reversed) >- stay to the left, unless you're passing. Passing on the right will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I seem to remember in driver's ed (I'm American) that it's the law in >the US too, it's just that it's not enforced any more. That's the big problem, here. It's NOT enforced. Cops seem think that the only rule for driving is the speed limit. 14 years ago I was stuck on the highway behind a drunk doing 40 -50 mph in a 65 mph limit....weaving back and forth across 3 lanes. I finally got a chance to get around him and floored my Porsche to pass. As I got around him I was doing about 85 and, just my luck, a state cop was coming around the corner in the opposite lane with his radar on. Guess who got pulled over! :( >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >100 to 150 mph. You sure are lucky that you survived that >insanity. :-) I will drive 80 on a wide-open freeway, but not 100. There is a huge difference between 80 vs. 100 in terms of inertia and turning force. It's a log function, not a linear function. If you hit a brick on the road going 80, it's a hell of a note and you might have a bent frame. If you're going 100, you might cartwheel your way to the pearly gates. Talk to a professional auto racer if you doubt me. 150 mph is asking for trouble in an ordinary street car. Not if you do it for a mile and a half, to see what your top end is, but if you cruise at anywhere near that speed. Sure, you'll probably get by with it, but that doesn't make it safe. >>Sure you're not talking KPH? > >I'm drawing a blank with "KPH". My wife was born in >Germany (Bad Canstadt, just outside of Stuttgart) and >would probably know what "KPH" is. She's asleep right >now, so I can't get an answer at the moment. Konrad P. Hoffstedder, Nazi physicist... he established a rational basis for measuring speed in the metric system. It's an example of good science for a bad cause. Charlie >>Oh, and here in the UK the rules are the same (well. same but reversed) >>- stay to the left, unless you're passing. Passing on the right will [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >=fFos >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hey Charlie, Just in case you thought I was saying that driver training to standards similar to that of pilots would eliminate ALL accidents on the roads. I thought I'd point out that even trained and licensed pilots die from some bonehead things. But unlike drivers, pilots will end up with their indiscretion posted in a national database for all to see. - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X18632&key=1 - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NTSB Identification: MIA92FA051 . The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 46312. 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Monday, December 23, 1991 in RAINBOW LAKE, FL Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/5/1993 Aircraft: PIPER PA-34-200T, registration: N47506 Injuries: 2 Fatal. THE PRIVATE PILOT AND A PILOT RATED PASSENGER WERE GOING TO PRACTICE SIMULATED INSTRUMENT FLIGHT. WITNESSES OBSERVED THE AIRPLANE'S RIGHT WING FAIL IN A DIVE AND CRASH. EXAMINATION OF THE WRECKAGE AND BODIES REVEALED THAT BOTH OCCUPANTS WERE PARTIALLY CLOTHED AND THE FRONT RIGHT SEAT WAS IN THE FULL AFT RECLINING POSITION. NEITHER BODY SHOWED EVIDENCE OF SEATBELTS OR SHOULDER HARNESSES BEING WORN. EXAMINATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS' CLOTHING REVEALED NO EVIDENCE OF RIPPING OR DISTRESS TO THE ZIPPERS AND BELTS. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: THE PILOT IN COMMAND'S IMPROPER INFLIGHT DECISION TO DIVERT HER ATTENTION TO OTHER ACTIVITIES NOT RELATED TO THE CONDUCT OF THE FLIGHT. CONTRIBUTING TO THE ACCIDENT WAS THE EXCEEDING OF THE DESIGN LIMITS OF THE AIRPLANE LEADING TO A WING FAILURE. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suddenly, without warning, Nomen Nescio exclaimed (07-Oct-05 5:00 AM): > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I get the feeling that Charlie wouldn't consider 80 mph > to be "sedate". I don't either. >>Heck, I even passed some >>cars. There was no WAY everyone else around me was doing 150mph or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 100 to 150 mph. You sure are lucky that you survived that > insanity. :-) fortunately, traffic was rather thin. If it was thicker, and faster >>Sure you're not talking KPH? > > I'm drawing a blank with "KPH". My wife was born in > Germany (Bad Canstadt, just outside of Stuttgart) and > would probably know what "KPH" is. She's asleep right > now, so I can't get an answer at the moment. Kilometers per hour. I don't know where Charlie's from, so thought perhaps there was a measurement misunderstanding... >>Oh, and here in the UK the rules are the same (well. same but reversed) >>- stay to the left, unless you're passing. Passing on the right will [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > luck, a state cop was coming around the corner in the opposite > lane with his radar on. Guess who got pulled over! :( Gads that sucks. Did you tell him about the drunk? In some places I think they actually enforce the "no slower than 20mph below the speed limit" rule... Problem is, Porsches, sports cars and red cars (I read that somewhere) are speed-ticket magnets I think, no matter how fast one is going. In the late 1980's, I was accidentally speeding in my 1976 Chevette (down a hill, with a tail wind), and went right by a NY State Trooper while doing about 80. He didn't stop me. Probably couldn't believe what he was seeing - I know I couldn't. Didn't know the ol' gal had it in her :) Her normal top speed, pedal to the metal, was perhaps 65 - and nearly rattled to pieces at that speed. Oddly, I miss that car sometimes. I saw her once, in the late 1990s, still on the road! jmc > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: N/A [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > =fFos > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >From: jmc <NOnewsgroupsSPAM@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> >> I'm drawing a blank with "KPH". My wife was born in >> Germany (Bad Canstadt, just outside of Stuttgart) and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Kilometers per hour. I don't know where Charlie's from, so thought >perhaps there was a measurement misunderstanding... OK, major brain fart on my part. I was trying to think of some highway in Germany that was known as "KPH". Duh! >As I got around him I was doing about 85 and, just my >> luck, a state cop was coming around the corner in the opposite >> lane with his radar on. Guess who got pulled over! :( >> >Gads that sucks. Did you tell him about the drunk? Sure did! But he had ME pulled over and that was that! Can't complain too much. The cop was real nice about it. Asked me a few questions about the Porsche...... "What's the year on that?" .... "1974" "How fast do those things go?"....."About 140 on a good day" "Ever gone that fast?"......"No comment (wink)" He let me off with a written warning and apologized for doing that by explaining that he would have just let me go, but he called in the stop and needed to have some paperwork to go with the stop. Meanwhile, some drunk SOB probably managed to make it home. We've used "Snuggle Safe", which is a plastic frizbee-looking thing with the gel inside. It's made for pets -- it's hard and they cannot puncture it. We'd put it in the microwave every 10 hrs or so for our elderly CRF kitty, and wrap it in a towel and put it in her bed. She loved it. Rhonda Brandy Alexandre wrote: > I was using a thermacare wrap for my neck because my car was totalled > with me in it a week ago, and when it started to fizzle out, I plopped [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Comments? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.