OT: traffic cameras

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:56:38 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" ran around screaming and yelling:

dude you need to carry a digital video camera with you to every toll booth...you can record the whole scenario to use as "proof" the tollboth is wrong...if you are lucky they will be able to make out the video camera in front of your face in the picture the machine takes to further your point..see easy (BTW, what is "full proof"? are you that much of a fool?)

make your own video, as i stated above...if video footage is better proof than the still picture, you will have no problem proving your "innocence"... J(who believes nothing is "fool proof")

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:50:01 -0400, Joey Tribiani , who was sitting in a corner eating his Xmas pie stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum and began to run off at the mouth like so:

Dude, you're not listening to him. HE DOES KNOT RECOGNIZE A MACHINE'S AUTHORITY SO HIS OWN CAMERA HE WOOD CARRY WOOD SAY HE WAS INNOCENT BECAUSE NO HARM NO FOUL BUT HE WAS INNOCENT AND THE MACHINE SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED AND THE CAMERA HE WOULD HAVE IS ALSO A MACHINE THAT CAN KNOT BE TRUSTED OR RECOGNIZED AS AN AUTHORITY BECAUSE BIG BROTHER WOOD MAYBE HAVE ALTERED HIS CAMERA AND HE WOOD KNOT RECOGNIZE THE AUTHORITY OF THAT CAMERA WHICH HAD BEEN BIG-BROTHER-ALTERED PLUS HE IS INNOCENT ANYWAY BECAUSE NO HARM NO FOUL PASS THE JELLY DONUT PLEASE.

-- Travis (Shaggie) '63 VW Camo Baja...

When are the batteries going to die on this thread?????

Move along the horse is dead, the flies are 100 generation along now and are now waiting for the energizer bunny to die so they can start on generation #101...........

-- Terry B AKA VDUBBS Buggin in Bama

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------

If you did what you ask of me we would not be having this discussion.

the red light incident composes less than 1% in reality of this discussion. the only reason it has more than that is because you (and others) keep harping on it. Not me.

I have said what my point is from post one. and every post hence. it is not my problem that you keep ignoring it and trying to claim other than what is. you CAN google this thread you know.

IT is not my opinion. it is fact just google it.

Chris Taylor

so I should have to record myself 100% of my life and store all this to protect myself from automated systems ? the point was such methods are INSANE and even then they can dispute they happened on the day in question.

No one is going to do this. they will jsut be forced to pay the fine.

and I did not ever say full proof. not one single time till not in the prior sentence.

I said NEARLY full proof.

Chris Taylor

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:22:58 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" scribbled this interesting note:

"Discussing this with you is pointless.

you are clearly mentally deficient if you can not see the difference between....."

Sorry, but it somehow seemed to fit.

See, the issue is simple-it does not matter what your opinion is regarding possible abuses of power by police. You are in no position to know what just came over that police officer's radio. You are in no position to know if he may have seen some other vehicle that might, from a distance, have seemed suspicious. You are in no position to know anything at all with regards to what that particular police officer was doing, therefore your opinion as to the validity of his activities is groundless, meritless, and without basis.

-- John Willis

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:32:36 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" scribbled this interesting note:

Revenue from fines is not a tax. Fines are fines (as well as being fine!:~) A tax is a tax. A levy is a levy. A permit fee is a permit fee. A toll is a toll. An administrative fee is an administrative fee. Ad Nauseum.

Again, precision is important, in mechanical terms as well as in writing. A tax is only a tax and emphatically not a fine and vice versa. Each has its intended goal and consequences. Taxes can be used in a number of ways to stimulate or retard economic activities. Fines are a response to illegal activity only and are easily avoidable in most cases. Taxes are not easily avoidable, much like death...........

To call any governmental revenue source of any kind a tax amounts to painting with a rather broad brush and demonstrates a lack of understanding or obvious and unreasonable obtuseness. Either way it amounts to the same thing in the end-a failure to study in high school civics classes or a genuine inability to grasp simple concepts.

-- John Willis

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:59:52 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" ran around screaming and yelling:

so you don't know what the subject line on a post is? that explains alot...i won't agree to your point of view, so give up...i have never "caved" to you and i won't here...we do not agree and that will not change no matter how many hypothetical situations you throw my way...you break the law, you pay the fine...period, you are not an exception....so *their*.... J

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:01:43 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" ran around screaming and yelling:

do tell...what is "full proof"...is that where the liquor is proven to be the exact alcohol content that the label says it is?....you have alot of nerve to call someone else ignorant when you can't even type a coherent thought...

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:20:51 -0500, John Willis ran around screaming and yelling:

i think its the latter... j

these are the retorts that cause huge flame wars chris,...................Not necessary.

You and I both know that you are smart enough to not call people names and'or imply infer or whatever, that they are such.

Now,.....................I am not a rocket scientist,.............However, and I believe I've stated this before also,..............I do play one on TV.

I think that's the kind of toe stepping that is not to be tolerated.

I am no less a genius than you think you are.

The simple part of the equation is coming into focus quickly, and I , to date, have not called you any name for any reason. I would appreciate the same respect I show.

The very fact that you can , at a very young age , raush to conclusions that anyone is a moron , or mentally deficient is , to say the least, DISTURBING. As it makes me ever more aware that your maturity is falling short of your intelligence........... Like I said before , chris, I think you are a pretty smart guy. I just have a much better understanding that the whole " I won't stop till I destroy the world" approach to things is going to do just that eventually. If not by you, someone else with no self discipline. I have agreed with you on almost everything that you argue about, with the exception of what you say you will do if you get a ticket issued by a machine...............I have not agreed to that. But I have not disagreed either....................

I am likely very mentally ok for the most part. My self disciplines are weak to say the least, but not so destructive and controlling as your set of self controls...................That does not seperate us by much and also makes me aware that I am a bit selfish and self centered about a lot of things too. But I am also 40-ish and experienced a bit more too.That in and of itself you cannot read in a book, or learn in class...................or gather from the internet or TV or radio.......................without spending the time to actually experience it all.

Please keep the accusatory types of words to accusatory about what I might do, not what I am/ am not................I will return the favor.

Remove "YOURPANTIES" to reply MUADIB®

I disagree. we were the only 2 cars withing as far as the eye could see and it was what ? 0330 in the morning or so ?

He stopped like normal looked both way and just "went"

I caugt up because he got stopped at the next light too. he was about to go through this one but a car was coming from the crossroad so he stayed. he went almost all the way to the burlington bristol bridge turn off before we parted ways. no lights. no stops no other cars.

Your right I can not know with certaintly. but I can know pretty damned closely.

your kind of reply is simply a cop out. nothing more.

And I AM in a position to do something about it. I can complain to the police. I can complain to congress etc.. etc..

it might not and probably will not result in much but I CAN do it and if enough people complain it CAN effect a change.

Chris Taylor

Taken alone and out of the context for which it was spoken (written) this quote means nothing. you know this. I also did not rush into anything. HOW LONG has this discussion been going on (over a week now ?) and how much if it has left trying to discuss the point and entered Lets piss on Chris because we do not like him this week. ?

I would say most of it.

When it becomes a piss on chris thread how else should I react ?

I am by no means a genius and I could care less what the IQ test says I am. hell if I took it again today I would probably flunk it being out of practice so long.

But I can see right from wrong. Proper from improper. and creating a system that is effectively a revenue source with no way for an innocent person to defend themselves is wrong and improper to me.

it if is not to you then I have no idea how to proceed.

Chris Taylor

and when those fine are levied against someone innocent of the accusation what is it called then ?

in the least a revenue source as admitted by many state officials.

"TAX" has more emotion behind it. call it a "catch" word to get attention and cause emotional feeling to develop toward it.

Chris Taylor

Again the phrase "full proof" was NEVER uttered by me as an original statement (IE outside a reply)

so a responce to it is not only not forthcoming but irrelevant.

I said "nearly full proof"

and by that statement that I DID make I mean a speed bump can not cause

it can NEVER mistakenly damage a car not speeding over its safe cross over speed. (assuming the car is not already damaged which is another issue not relevant here)

it can NEVER mistakenly give me a ticket I do not deserve.

it can NEVER accuse me of a crime that I did not commit and can not defend against.

it simple can not do these things. hence the use of nearly full proof.

it can however fail to stop someone from speeding and not damaging their car with a high enough quality suspension of "tough" enough car that can suck up the abuse. again hence the use of nearly fully proof.

Spin it as you like what I said stands and what I said holds up in the face of facts and reality. the use of the phrase "full proof" was yours and yours alone. not mine. so its your problem. not mine.

Chris Taylor

unless it is 100% accurate without chance of failure (not possible) I do not accept it if it ALSO contains NO WAY for which an innocent person can defend themselves against it.

Chris Taylor

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:53:29 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" ran around screaming and yelling:

i should hope not sir...you may come off as an ignorant troll, but i do admire you for sticking to your guns no matter how many people don't agree....

do i really need to answer this? is this just more bait?

my beliefs that everyone should abide by the same laws do not "cost you " your freedom at all...it just means that you, myself, and everyone else are treated equally....in a perfect world traffic cameras, tollbooth cameras, security cameras, etc, would *not* be needed...but who are we kidding here? these things have been developed for a reason...People(in general) can not be trusted to "self-police" themselves....especially behind the wheel of a motorvehicle...I am fairly comfortable with saying i'm sure you see those people on a regular basis while driving, andyou probably think the same thing i do, "where is the cop when you need him?"...well they can't be everywhere....do i think traffic cameras(and tollbooth cameras for that matter) are a good idea? well, yes i do...but they are much like the locks on your car and home, they keep the honest people honest...but the one up-side to the traffic cameras(and the tollbooth cameras that you hate) is that the folks who are not the "honest ones" can be punished for not abiding by the laws that we all abide by...will "innocent" people get nailed by these cameras? well i'd be lying if i said i believe they won't, but i do believe there is a better chance to prove your innocence than you think(not to disagree with you, but to state my opinion). the state and federal goverment do alot of things to bring in revenue that i don't agree with, but i *do not* have a problem with them doing so, by catching people that think the traffic laws are for everyone else....we have very few traffic cameras in my area, but i with there were more...i really do. everyday(and i am not exaggerating) when sitting at a light, waiting for my turn to go, i have to pause after the green to wait for the last several cars that "punched" it because they were too impatient to wait through a light cycle...would i have a problem with them getting a ticket? Hell no....I am in the construction business and i reguarly tow a trailer with materials behind my truck...when it is hooked to my mazda pu, i am pretty much over weight for my truck...yet i will still have time to stop when a light turns yellow safely, and then watch the two, or three cars in the lane beside me continue through the light...so when i see that, knowing that i am pulling the weight of my truck,tools, and a trailer and i can *safely* (without having to jam my brakes) when a light changes, yet the vehicle beside me and the two behind him decide not to, i have to assume that they don't feel the need to abide by the laws that we are expected to abide by...those are the ones that will be caught by the cameras...and i applaud that...not only for the safety issue of innocent people being t-boned at intersections by these types, but also because the law is the law, and they are no better or more important than anyone else on the road...so much like you, i think my "freedoms" are important to me...and i do believe that it is reasonable for me to think people should not run lights to get somewhere a few seconds faster, while putting my life and those around me in jeopardy... if common couresy, respect for others, respect of the law, and the true value of precious life, were still taught at home, then there would be less need for more traffic police...there simply is no respect out on the road...everyone feels it is thier road, they pay taxes, and they will drive as aggressively as they want...driving a motorvehicle is still a privilege, and *should* be taken from those who lack the responsibility to do it properly and safely...my youngest sister is pretty pissed at me because i agree with her losing her driving privileges here in Va...she has shown she will not abide by posted speedlimits repeatedly, she has proven her lack of ability behind the wheel by hitting two other vehicles, and a tree...she is pissed and cry's and moans about losing her liscense "when there are alot of people out there that drive worse than me", and gets pissed off when i point out that had she been capable and willing to drive correctly she would not be in her position... I am relatively young, but i can sit back and count ten "friends" that i had in highschool that are dead now due to vehicular accidents that wasn't thier fault...the fault lies on the others that excercised their "right" to drive aggressively, to drive while intoxicated, and yes also i lost a friend due to someone running a stopsign....life is too damn precious and short to take those kinds of chances... Anyway, i know this is long winded and most couldn't care less what i think, but hey its ironic because i am simply killing time till our local division of motor vehicles opens so i can renew my drivers liscence....come on eight'o'clock... J

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:57:43 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" ran around screaming and yelling:

all i asked is for a definition of what "full proof" is...thats pretty simple don't you think...if you define it, then i'm pretty capable of knowing what "nearly" would be...but i take it that you don't know D make I mean a speed bump can not cause

see your above statement for the spinning...i asked what a phrase you used meant so i could understand what you are trying to say...you refuse to define this phrase you coined. i can tell the difference between nearly, partly, mostly, and fully so that is not a definition i need... who is the one that gets upset when someone "ignores questions"? you "demand" answers to your questions, yet refuse to answer others...i see the hypocrisy J

I have no interesting in being treated equally. I DO have an interest in preserving and or getting back my rights and freedoms that do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.

if you mean treated THAT WAY equally across the board. fine they we agree.

Like I said I have no problem with a machine presence so long as their is a meaningful and practical means for an INNOCENT personal mistakent caught by said machine to defend themselves with.

Currently the Radar Camera's, Stop Light Camera's and Toll Camera's are Iron Clad against you. even if you are innocent (and it has been PROVEN they mistakenly nail people) you have ABSOLUTELY NO practical or feasible means with which to defend yourself.

you are GUILTY as charged the moment the flash fires regardless of whether you did anything wrong.

And I feel for your dead friends. I have lost friends and FAMILY in traffic incidents as well. it sucks. but I WILL NOT condone making innocent people PAY for it just to make the road a little safer.

there ARE ways to do it and still allow the innocent to defend themselves.

you say there are ways to defend yourself. Please describe one to me.

the classic example. Toll Camera says you did not pay but you did (we are assuming you had proper change you saw it go in and you even got the "green" light to go.

How do you prove your innocence. if you can not the system is severly flawed.

You are convicted when the flash fires. NO due process. No "trial" (you get the idea)

Chris Taylor