"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:E35Ka.11156$XG4.9594@rwcrnsc53... In article <0X4Ka.24035$hV.1054735@twister.austin.rr.com>, jaybird wrote: "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Zx4Ka.11777$e26.8837@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.ne t... In article <bV3Ka.12000$XV.996996@twister.austin.rr.com>, jaybird
wrote: > > "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> In article <RZ2Ka.11996$XV.987159@twister.austin.rr.com>, jaybird
wrote: >> >> Now we get to the interesting part. Is their behaviour
unreasonable >> >> because they're breaking the law by speeding, or is the law that >> >> they're breaking unreasonable? >> > >> > Neither, if in the context of it being necessary during work.
Their >> > behavior is not unreasonable because they're not breaking the law. And, > the >> > law is reasonable. >> >> Nice doublespeak. > > Well, if you want me to post one sentence per post I can do that for
you > next time. You've historically done that. Fact remains, it's hypocritical to get a ticket from a cop for cruising safely at say 80mph when that cop cruises at 85mph. It's not, and the reasons for that have been explained several times. The only reason you can come up with is: 'they're cops, that's why'. Sorry it doesn't wash. If it's danagerous to drive those speeds as one side of the doublespeak says the ISP has needlessly endangered me about once a week for last month or more. Or, they are hypocrits. Having driven that fast and more safely, I vote for the later.

My vote will cancel yours................obviously no matter who it is
explained to you, you refuse to read or except it......
So go out and speed at 80........see you in court!

In article <vfhnun6fghst59@corp.supernews.com>, Just a Cyclist wrote: "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message In article <0X4Ka.24035$hV.1054735@twister.austin.rr.com>, jaybird wrote:
It's not, and the reasons for that have been explained several times.
The only reason you can come up with is: 'they're cops, that's why'. Sorry it doesn't wash. If it's danagerous to drive those speeds as one side of the doublespeak says the ISP has needlessly endangered me about once a week for last month or more. Or, they are hypocrits. Having driven that fast and more safely, I vote for the later.
My vote will cancel yours................obviously no matter who it is explained to you, you refuse to read or except it...... So go out and speed at 80........see you in court!

So you are voting that the ISP officers who have passed me in excess
of the speed limit with no particular place to go are driving unsafely.
Hrm.

Court is not relevant here.

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:837Ka.10361$R73.2684@sccrnsc04... In article <vfhnun6fghst59@corp.supernews.com>, Just a Cyclist wrote: "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message In article <0X4Ka.24035$hV.1054735@twister.austin.rr.com>, jaybird
wrote: > It's not, and the reasons for that have been explained several times. The only reason you can come up with is: 'they're cops, that's why'. Sorry it doesn't wash. If it's danagerous to drive those speeds as one side of the doublespeak says the ISP has needlessly endangered me about once a week for last month or more. Or, they are hypocrits. Having
driven that fast and more safely, I vote for the later. My vote will cancel yours................obviously no matter who it is explained to you, you refuse to read or except it...... So go out and speed at 80........see you in court! So you are voting that the ISP officers who have passed me in excess of the speed limit with no particular place to go are driving unsafely. Hrm.

No don't change the subject...... I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU!
Court is relevant.........always want to change things as the story
develops........mmmmmmmmm Court is not relevant here.

In article <vfi1l9pbc0uge3@corp.supernews.com>, Just a Cyclist wrote:
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> The only reason you can come up with is: 'they're cops, that's why'.> Sorry it doesn't wash. If it's danagerous to drive those speeds as one> side of the doublespeak says the ISP has needlessly endangered me about> once a week for last month or more. Or, they are hypocrits. Having driven> that fast and more safely, I vote for the later.
My vote will cancel yours................obviously no matter who it is explained to you, you refuse to read or except it...... So go out and speed at 80........see you in court!
So you are voting that the ISP officers who have passed me in excess of the speed limit with no particular place to go are driving unsafely. Hrm.
No don't change the subject...... I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU!

I didn't change the subject, you said your vote cancels mine, so it
must logically be the other choice I presented, the ISP officers driving
unsafely. If this isn't what you ment, please clairify.
Court is relevant.........always want to change things as the story develops........mmmmmmmmm

Court is not relevant to the question at hand. Are these officers driving
a safe and reasonable speed or are they driving unsafely? If safe then
they are ticketing safe drivers doing as they do. If it's unsafe they
shouldn't be doing it without damn good reason. Simple as that. Court
is your tangent because you do not wish to address the key issue.