DougW

Steve wrote:
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
>>
>>> LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats backwards
>>> (for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on something
>>> stupid happening.
>>
>>
>> Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have
>> to be young.
>
> But the backward hat is always a dead giveawy....

That's a sign of junior-driver around here. Usually
found in a ricemobile. It's hard to put a cap on
backwards in a truck. Beak hits the window. ^_^

Now don't even get me going about the sideways ballcaps. :D

That video was a classic display of LNBW, Loose Nut Behind Wheel.
I've gone up steeper slopes in my unlifted ZJ. Low and slow.
Especially on rock where you can get good traction.

--
DougW

DougW

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> "Spdloader" writes:
>> "Joe Pfeiffer" wrote...
>>> Bill Putney writes:
>>>>
>>>> LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats
>>>> backwards (for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on
>>>> something stupid happening.
>>>
>>> Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have
>>> to be young.
>>
>> Making an accurate observation is neither.
>> It is merely a statement of the truth.
>
> My point was that it was unnecessarily narrow. When you see guys of
> other colors, and old guys, with their hats on backwards you can still
> bet on something stupid happening (it's arguable whether something
> stupid has *already* happened when he put his hat on).

The only time I had a hat on backwards was when I was slinging shingles
on a roofing job. Kept the back of my neck from getting charred. Left
a nice sunburned D on my forhead. :/

--
DougW

DougW

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> "Spdloader" writes:
>> "Joe Pfeiffer" wrote...
>>> Bill Putney writes:
>>>>
>>>> LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats
>>>> backwards (for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on
>>>> something stupid happening.
>>>
>>> Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have
>>> to be young.
>>
>> Making an accurate observation is neither.
>> It is merely a statement of the truth.
>
> My point was that it was unnecessarily narrow. When you see guys of
> other colors, and old guys, with their hats on backwards you can still
> bet on something stupid happening (it's arguable whether something
> stupid has *already* happened when he put his hat on).

The only time I had a hat on backwards was when I was slinging shingles
on a roofing job. Kept the back of my neck from getting charred. Left
a nice sunburned D on my forhead. :/

--
DougW

DougW

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> "Spdloader" writes:
>> "Joe Pfeiffer" wrote...
>>> Bill Putney writes:
>>>>
>>>> LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats
>>>> backwards (for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on
>>>> something stupid happening.
>>>
>>> Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have
>>> to be young.
>>
>> Making an accurate observation is neither.
>> It is merely a statement of the truth.
>
> My point was that it was unnecessarily narrow. When you see guys of
> other colors, and old guys, with their hats on backwards you can still
> bet on something stupid happening (it's arguable whether something
> stupid has *already* happened when he put his hat on).

The only time I had a hat on backwards was when I was slinging shingles
on a roofing job. Kept the back of my neck from getting charred. Left
a nice sunburned D on my forhead. :/

--
DougW

DougW

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> "Spdloader" writes:
>> "Joe Pfeiffer" wrote...
>>> Bill Putney writes:
>>>>
>>>> LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats
>>>> backwards (for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on
>>>> something stupid happening.
>>>
>>> Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have
>>> to be young.
>>
>> Making an accurate observation is neither.
>> It is merely a statement of the truth.
>
> My point was that it was unnecessarily narrow. When you see guys of
> other colors, and old guys, with their hats on backwards you can still
> bet on something stupid happening (it's arguable whether something
> stupid has *already* happened when he put his hat on).

The only time I had a hat on backwards was when I was slinging shingles
on a roofing job. Kept the back of my neck from getting charred. Left
a nice sunburned D on my forhead. :/

--
DougW

Dave Milne

"Frank_v7.0" <none@no.net> wrote in message
news:ZdcJi.17195$B25.16215@news01.roc.ny...
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
> > Dave Milne wrote:
> >> I've met plenty of people I'd trust with a gun, and plenty of people
who
> >> should never be allowed out by themselves.
> >>
> >> Just for an OT discussion, are the following statements true, scaled
> >> up to
> >> country level ?
> >>
> >> "an armed North Korea is a polite North Korea"
> >
> > No, you have to keep things in context. An armed society is a polite
> > society because you never know who might be armed so it's best to assume
> > everyone is. On a nation to nation level that doesn't work so well
> > because it's hardly ever the leaders that get hurt if the shooting
starts.
> >
> >> "Its not WMDs that kill people, its people that kill people".
> >
> > WMD's DON'T kill people, someone has to set off the WMD and it's that
> > someone that is doing the killing.
> >
> > The US and the old Soviet Union had insane amounts of nuclear weapons
> > pointed at each other and those weapons never hurt a soul because no one
> > used them (thank God), indeed it could be argued that WMD SAVE people
> > because all those weapons may have kept the cold war from becoming hot.
> >
> > Jeff DeWitt
> Yup! That was M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. You'd have to be nuts
> to start a nuclear war. The problem today is people who are nuts getting
> their hands on nukes. And I apologize in advance for getting so far O.T.
> in a Jeep Group :-)
>
> --
> FRH

oh well, since I agree with you both in the main, no point in arguing
further :-)

I not totally convinced an armed society is a polite society, as it depends
on how many nutters you have. Equally, nuclear societies like the US,
Britain and Russia are polite societies (for the MAD point you made).
However as you said "you'd have to be nuts..", and I'm sure Iran and N Korea
are nuts.

Dave. Milne, Scotland

Dave

Dave Milne

"Frank_v7.0" <none@no.net> wrote in message
news:ZdcJi.17195$B25.16215@news01.roc.ny...
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
> > Dave Milne wrote:
> >> I've met plenty of people I'd trust with a gun, and plenty of people
who
> >> should never be allowed out by themselves.
> >>
> >> Just for an OT discussion, are the following statements true, scaled
> >> up to
> >> country level ?
> >>
> >> "an armed North Korea is a polite North Korea"
> >
> > No, you have to keep things in context. An armed society is a polite
> > society because you never know who might be armed so it's best to assume
> > everyone is. On a nation to nation level that doesn't work so well
> > because it's hardly ever the leaders that get hurt if the shooting
starts.
> >
> >> "Its not WMDs that kill people, its people that kill people".
> >
> > WMD's DON'T kill people, someone has to set off the WMD and it's that
> > someone that is doing the killing.
> >
> > The US and the old Soviet Union had insane amounts of nuclear weapons
> > pointed at each other and those weapons never hurt a soul because no one
> > used them (thank God), indeed it could be argued that WMD SAVE people
> > because all those weapons may have kept the cold war from becoming hot.
> >
> > Jeff DeWitt
> Yup! That was M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. You'd have to be nuts
> to start a nuclear war. The problem today is people who are nuts getting
> their hands on nukes. And I apologize in advance for getting so far O.T.
> in a Jeep Group :-)
>
> --
> FRH

oh well, since I agree with you both in the main, no point in arguing
further :-)

I not totally convinced an armed society is a polite society, as it depends
on how many nutters you have. Equally, nuclear societies like the US,
Britain and Russia are polite societies (for the MAD point you made).
However as you said "you'd have to be nuts..", and I'm sure Iran and N Korea
are nuts.

Dave. Milne, Scotland

Dave

Dave Milne

"Frank_v7.0" <none@no.net> wrote in message
news:ZdcJi.17195$B25.16215@news01.roc.ny...
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
> > Dave Milne wrote:
> >> I've met plenty of people I'd trust with a gun, and plenty of people
who
> >> should never be allowed out by themselves.
> >>
> >> Just for an OT discussion, are the following statements true, scaled
> >> up to
> >> country level ?
> >>
> >> "an armed North Korea is a polite North Korea"
> >
> > No, you have to keep things in context. An armed society is a polite
> > society because you never know who might be armed so it's best to assume
> > everyone is. On a nation to nation level that doesn't work so well
> > because it's hardly ever the leaders that get hurt if the shooting
starts.
> >
> >> "Its not WMDs that kill people, its people that kill people".
> >
> > WMD's DON'T kill people, someone has to set off the WMD and it's that
> > someone that is doing the killing.
> >
> > The US and the old Soviet Union had insane amounts of nuclear weapons
> > pointed at each other and those weapons never hurt a soul because no one
> > used them (thank God), indeed it could be argued that WMD SAVE people
> > because all those weapons may have kept the cold war from becoming hot.
> >
> > Jeff DeWitt
> Yup! That was M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. You'd have to be nuts
> to start a nuclear war. The problem today is people who are nuts getting
> their hands on nukes. And I apologize in advance for getting so far O.T.
> in a Jeep Group :-)
>
> --
> FRH

oh well, since I agree with you both in the main, no point in arguing
further :-)

I not totally convinced an armed society is a polite society, as it depends
on how many nutters you have. Equally, nuclear societies like the US,
Britain and Russia are polite societies (for the MAD point you made).
However as you said "you'd have to be nuts..", and I'm sure Iran and N Korea
are nuts.

Dave. Milne, Scotland

Dave

Dave Milne

"Frank_v7.0" <none@no.net> wrote in message
news:ZdcJi.17195$B25.16215@news01.roc.ny...
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
> > Dave Milne wrote:
> >> I've met plenty of people I'd trust with a gun, and plenty of people
who
> >> should never be allowed out by themselves.
> >>
> >> Just for an OT discussion, are the following statements true, scaled
> >> up to
> >> country level ?
> >>
> >> "an armed North Korea is a polite North Korea"
> >
> > No, you have to keep things in context. An armed society is a polite
> > society because you never know who might be armed so it's best to assume
> > everyone is. On a nation to nation level that doesn't work so well
> > because it's hardly ever the leaders that get hurt if the shooting
starts.
> >
> >> "Its not WMDs that kill people, its people that kill people".
> >
> > WMD's DON'T kill people, someone has to set off the WMD and it's that
> > someone that is doing the killing.
> >
> > The US and the old Soviet Union had insane amounts of nuclear weapons
> > pointed at each other and those weapons never hurt a soul because no one
> > used them (thank God), indeed it could be argued that WMD SAVE people
> > because all those weapons may have kept the cold war from becoming hot.
> >
> > Jeff DeWitt
> Yup! That was M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. You'd have to be nuts
> to start a nuclear war. The problem today is people who are nuts getting
> their hands on nukes. And I apologize in advance for getting so far O.T.
> in a Jeep Group :-)
>
> --
> FRH

oh well, since I agree with you both in the main, no point in arguing
further :-)

I not totally convinced an armed society is a polite society, as it depends
on how many nutters you have. Equally, nuclear societies like the US,
Britain and Russia are polite societies (for the MAD point you made).
However as you said "you'd have to be nuts..", and I'm sure Iran and N Korea
are nuts.

Dave. Milne, Scotland

Dave

Bill Putney

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>"Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
>>news:1bwsuihdiy.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.n et...
>>
>>>Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats backwards
>>>>(for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on something stupid
>>>>happening.
>>>
>>>Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have to
>>>be young.
>>
>>
>>Making an accurate observation is neither.
>>It is merely a statement of the truth.
>
>
> My point was that it was unnecessarily narrow. When you see guys of
> other colors, and old guys, with their hats on backwards you can still
> bet on something stupid happening (it's arguable whether something
> stupid has *already* happened when he put his hat on).

You're reading *way* too much into it, Joe.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')