Jeep thing or sheep thing?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
> >
> >Are your students as stupid as you are? And are they as liberal?
> >
> >Jeep is a noun, but Jeeping is an activity, and therefore a verb -- it's
> >what one does.

>
> Unless you're named Webster, you don't get to deem sounds to be words.
>
>
> >There are not many vehicles that the owners of can use them
> >in a manner that the vehicles name becomes a verb.

>
> I can't think of any that you can, in proper English.
>
>
> > Chevrolet, Chevroletting,
> >Ford, Fording, Volvo, Volvoing. Motorcycle operators ride bikes, they go
> >biking, and are called bikers. Technically, most bikers ride Harlies, and
> >bikers that ride other brands are not called bikers, and Harleyers just
> >doesn't roll off the tongue very well, so we accept them as bikers.
> >
> >I drive a BMW, but do not relate to the lifestyle that BMW operators

might
> >be involved with. I do not attend BMW rallies, and BMWs are a

dime-a-dozen,
> >so there is no camaraderie.

>
> BMWs are a dime-a-dozen? Looked at BMW vs Jeep sales here?
>
>
> >
> >I also drive a Jeep, and look forward to going on Jeep runs, called

Jeeping.
>
> You can call them anything you want; just don't tell others that's proper
> English.
>


I never said it was "proper" english (and language is english, not English,
BTW). It is a colloquialism at best, but it works for Jeepers that drive
Jeeps in an activity known as Jeeping. It's a Jeep thing, you wouldn't
understand.



> >We have a great deal of camaraderie, and we call ourselves Jeepers, and

we
> >wave to each other as we pass on the highway -- except for the Harley
> >riders, and perhaps owners of obscure British makes of cars, the practice

of
> >waving to each other is unique among Jeep owners.

>
> Maybe Wrangler owners, but I've never seen Grand Cherokee drivers do this.
>
>

Yeah, what's your point?



> >Owning and driving an open
> >top Jeep is a lifestyle choice.

>
> So it is just Wranglers you're talking about. Why didn't you make that

clear?
>
>

Jeepers Jeeping in Jeeps don't need anymore clarity, they get it.


> >People that make this choice can recognize
> >other people that have made this choice, frequently when the vehicle is
> >nowhere to be seen. It's a Jeep thing, you wouldn't understand.
> >
> >You drive a Volvo, and this is cause for other Volvo owners to sell and

get
> >a BMW.
> >
> >

>
>
> I do not drive a Volvo. I've never owned or driven a Volvo.


Do you own a BMW? Please don't say yes, because I really don't want to sell
mine just to not belong to a group that you belong to.


 


Barry White wrote:
>
> in light of the recent supreme court decision,
> can't we all just love one another? :)


Legally, yes :)

nate
 

"Nathan Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Barry White wrote:
> >
> > in light of the recent supreme court decision,
> > can't we all just love one another? :)

>
> Legally, yes :)
>
> nate


a toast to "Pope" Scalia..... :)


 
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:11:39 -0700, "Barry White"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Let's hope so. There are plenty of unthinking conservs who run around like
>little trains on a track


The whole definition of "conservative" is messed up. The only real
conservatives now - those who are conservative about the role
and influence of government in our lives - are the Libertarians.
The only ones actively defending our rights to privacy and freedom
from government intrusions are some of the Liberals (although it
was refreshing to see some of the neo-conservatives join in the
effort to defeat the Bush "search everyone's credit card records"
proposal. And where does that leave people like Bush and Cheney
who allege to be conservatives ? As shameless self-promoters
interested in only furthering their own business interests and
fattening their wallets.

There. I said it.

BTW - Barry White - you had a great voice before you was dead.

Bob
 

"Bobert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:11:39 -0700, "Barry White"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >Let's hope so. There are plenty of unthinking conservs who run around like
> >little trains on a track

>
> The whole definition of "conservative" is messed up. The only real
> conservatives now - those who are conservative about the role
> and influence of government in our lives - are the Libertarians.
> The only ones actively defending our rights to privacy and freedom
> from government intrusions are some of the Liberals (although it
> was refreshing to see some of the neo-conservatives join in the
> effort to defeat the Bush "search everyone's credit card records"
> proposal. And where does that leave people like Bush and Cheney
> who allege to be conservatives ? As shameless self-promoters
> interested in only furthering their own business interests and
> fattening their wallets.
>
> There. I said it.
>
> BTW - Barry White - you had a great voice before you was dead.
>


Whatever is squatting in the Brown House defies description! They are surely not liberal
nor conservative. Sorry I had to die. I loved my voice too..... Me & Aretha make these
current day (music) punks look like chaff in the wind...


 
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 11:13:03 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>They bought and paid for Windows whether they wanted it or not.

>
>No they did not.


Yes, they did. When the vendor pays a per-computer license, the cost is -
now here is the part you seemed to miss, so pay attention - per computer.
That is, if someone wants to buy a computer, the vendor is charged. It
doesn't matter what OS is installed. So they paid for it, regardless of
whether they wanted it or not. I understand your "total cost" argument. I
don't agree that lowering the cost makes the scheme any more legal. In
fact, I'd assert that fixing the price low to stifle competition only
supports the idea of a monopoly.

>Ignore the per unit cost. If Microsoft charges a vendor $500,000 for
>the total number of Windows systems they buy, but offers them a per
>system (including non-Microsoft OSs) cost that comes out to $499,000,
>then the vendor is paying less, and should pass the savings on to the
>people who are buying Windows, without charging those who do not. Any
>vendor who does not is the problem, not MS.


It lowers the total costs to buy MS OS for all systems (given that nearly
all systems will end up with MS OS). All systems that don't get MS OS
already have paid for MS OS. At the very least, this encourages the
installation of MS OS on all systems.

>However, however - I really am tired of other things they do, and no
>longer want to argue why i feel they are being unfairly criticized.
>So, feel free to respond, feel free to state why you disagree, feel
>free to give information showing my errors. I just don't know if I
>will respond.


It is quite simple. They manipulated the pricing scheme to encourage
everyone (at least the major players) to essentially pay for MS OS on all
systems. I think that is illegal, as it constitutes a complete monopoly
(getting a fee for all computer systems sold, regardless of what is
installed). You are disagreeing that a complete monopoly of this nature is
illegal.

I don't see why you'd bother to respond. There isn't much else I think can
be added.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
Nathan Nagel wrote:
>
> Barry White wrote:
> >
> > in light of the recent supreme court decision,
> > can't we all just love one another? :)

>
> Legally, yes :)
>
> nate


But would we respect each other in the morning? 8^)

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


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:42:14 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >...and if the same wonderful human "logic" and "wisdom" continue to be
> >applied by our lawyer friends, with one more very thin layer of the
> >onion being pulled away, the laws barring incest and polygamy will also
> >be obsolete.

>
> As long as the relationship is between consenting adults, who cares
> what goes on?
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.


Like I said...the ultimate conclusion of the application of human
"logic" and "wisdom".

BTW - I also like this definition of "lottery": A tax on people who are
bad at math.

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


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:22:32 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>It is quite simple. They manipulated the pricing scheme to encourage
>everyone (at least the major players) to essentially pay for MS OS on all
>systems. I think that is illegal, as it constitutes a complete monopoly
>(getting a fee for all computer systems sold, regardless of what is
>installed). You are disagreeing that a complete monopoly of this nature is
>illegal.


Not only that, but they strong armed vendors into selling only their
operating system (i.e. no Linux). That is an antitrust violation
that would stop a truck.

But, don't take my word for it. Read the court judgement. Here's the
latest status direct from the U.S. District Court. Take note of what
actions they are monitoring.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/microsoft/usms70303statrpt.pdf

You also might find this interesting as it pertains to alleged
(current) behavior:

http://www.globe.com/dailynews/188/economy/Massachusetts_investigating_Mi:.shtml


Bob
 

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Nathan Nagel wrote:
> >
> > Barry White wrote:
> > >
> > > in light of the recent supreme court decision,
> > > can't we all just love one another? :)

> >
> > Legally, yes :)
> >
> > nate

>
> But would we respect each other in the morning? 8^)
>


Who wants to spend the night? Party hearty and get the hell out before daylight (you might
not like what you see next to you when the lights go on)


 
Yes, we can, but do we have too?




"Barry White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:lKnOa.2434$7e.850@fed1read07...
> in light of the recent supreme court decision,
> can't we all just love one another? :)
>
>



 

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yes, we can, but do we have too?
>
>
>
>
> "Barry White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:lKnOa.2434$7e.850@fed1read07...
> > in light of the recent supreme court decision,
> > can't we all just love one another? :)
> >


Well Americans are so good at hating, killing and blowing things up I see no reason to
change


 
Barry White wrote:
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > in light of the recent supreme court decision,
> > > can't we all just love one another? :)
> > >

>
> Well Americans are so good at hating, killing and blowing things up I see no reason to
> change


Name one nation that is more generous or tolerant than the U.S. But
don't worry - after 9/11, that is all changing.

You obviously don't have a clue.

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


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:46:59 GMT, "Dave Milne"
<jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:

>I think we'll have to settle for an amicable disagreement since its come
>down to a fairly clear cut belief of facts ! I do think Sun and Netscape
>have produced superior products, but thanks for debating !


You are welcome.

> I do think Sun


So do I, just not for PCs, but I am not qualified to debate that
issue!
 

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Barry White wrote:
> >
> > "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > > in light of the recent supreme court decision,
> > > > can't we all just love one another? :)
> > > >

> >
> > Well Americans are so good at hating, killing and blowing things up I see no reason to
> > change

>
> Name one nation that is more generous or tolerant than the U.S. But
> don't worry - after 9/11, that is all changing.
>
> You obviously don't have a clue.


generous or tolerant of what? I saw an outpouring of support which was quickly destroyed
by the brutally cold tactics of an infant pResident. My point still stands: this is a
violent nation and the American people are a violent lot. Clueless? Step away from the
mirror


 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Barry White wrote:
> >
> > "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > > in light of the recent supreme court decision,
> > > > can't we all just love one another? :)
> > > >

> >
> > Well Americans are so good at hating, killing and blowing things up I see no reason to
> > change

>
> Name one nation that is more generous or tolerant than the U.S. But
> don't worry - after 9/11, that is all changing.
>


Is this a trick question or what?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 

"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> No, you cannot argue for laws against incest on the basis of science and
> reproductive issues. The only justification for such laws is that most
> people find incest disgusting.
>


In defense of Bill P there are other reasons to outlaw incest. And I mean
incest
in the legal definition (ie: coupling between parent/child as well as
sibling/sibling)

First of all (whether this is a good reason or not) some of the anti-incest
laws were
rooted in America's rejection of the English Monarchy, which bordered on
incestious
relationships many times in order to keep power within the family. Remember
that back
in the 1700's the world's leaders virtually all were related to each other.
The early
States found this particularly repellent because there were many monarchs
that
were obviously unfit to rule, and were placed in positions of power merely
due to
their birth.

More importantly though, it is very difficult for an incestious relationship
to NOT be
coersive. If incest was legal, it would be in many cases impossible to
determine
whether an incestious relationship between, say, a father and daughter was
indeed
desired by both, instead of being the more obvious instance of a sick
pedophile and
a terrorized victim.

The same reasons exist for banning multiple wives or multiple husbands, such
relationships tend to be more about power of one person over multiple
people,
rather than a equality relationship. If you permitted it, I'm afraid you
would
have many "legal" instances of one man keeping a bunch of young girls
trapped as
sex slaves, or a gang keeping one girl as a group sex slave.

Frankly, there's nothing inherently contradictoral between legalizing gay
marriages and
banning polygamy. You could easily legalize man-to-man unions, and still
outlaw
polygamy, you would just need to expand the definition a bit to define 1 man
married
to multiple men or 1 woman married to multiple woman, as illegal polygamous
relationships.

Ted

PS So have I won the "most disgusting" contest yet? ;-)




 

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The court ruled that we have
> certain rights as "private" citizens. This was a basic premise of the
> Founding fathers of our country. Unfortunately it's been lost over
> the years by the (alleged) conservatives who forgot what conservative
> really means.


Exactly. I find it extremely hypocritical that conservatives seem to
be big States Rights proponents when it comes to issues of prayer
in the classroom, but when it comes to Death with Dignity (assisted
suicide) or medical marijuana, they seem to think that the States
Rights should be thrown on the ashcan.

And this isn't even touching on the 2000 election, when the conservatives
got the US Supreme Court to interfere in the State of Florida's voting.
That isn't just prohibited in the Bill of Rights, it's flat out banned in
the Constitution itself!

Ted


 
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> ...Frankly, there's nothing inherently contradictoral between legalizing gay
> marriages and
> banning polygamy. You could easily legalize man-to-man unions, and still
> outlaw
> polygamy, you would just need to expand the definition a bit to define 1 man
> married
> to multiple men or 1 woman married to multiple woman, as illegal polygamous
> relationships.


Thanks Ted. But if you look at the opinion of the justices and the
logic behind their decision, it's general application has only one
conclusion: Anything that you can think of that is mutually agreed to by
adults that doesn't directly damage others is OK.

I used to think that I was a liberterian in thought (i.e., that whatever
two adults mutually consent to is OK, and the gov't has no right to
interfere) but this issue has made me realize that some things are so
damaging to society as to be properly made illegal (IOW, there are
damaging affects to others that certain people and our legal system
would never admit to possibly thru ignorance, but mostly thru
intellectual dishonesty).

This gets over into assisted suicide and other things too that I might
feel differently on from one day to the next. Some of these matters I
decide by looking at what God has to say about it, but I know that
anything having to do with God in a positive light is extremely
offensive to many of certian political leanings and free speech ion
those areas is not tolerated, so I often just shut up.

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


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
Back
Top