On 6/10/2014 7:21 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> Usually, no. I don't talk to the passengers unless I need to as in
> trying to find some place. But from what I have read, talking to a live
> passenger is not the same at all as using a cell phone even with blue
> tooth. Has something to do with the person being right there with you.
> Less distracting than talking to someone who is not there. If I am
> driving through a tricky area such as one with lots of construction or I
> am looking for an address, I won't have the radio on either.

I talk to passengers when I'm driving but I don't turn to look at them
when I'm doing so. I'm busy paying attention to the road and the traffic.

I know it's not "real life" but when I see people on television shows
turn their head to talk to the person in passenger seat, I cringe. Yes,
I know they aren't really driving but I'm sure lots of people do so.
I'm not one of them.

Jill

On 6/10/2014 7:18 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:25:54 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>>
>> I hear complaints that one ought not to use the phone, even hands free -
>> because it is distracting! What about when you are talking to someone in
>> the car? Yet that is not frowned on!
>
>
> There is a difference. If you are talking to someone in the car and
> the traffic up ahead becomes more complicated you tend (at least I do)
> to stop talking and concentrate because you know the passenger can see
> what's happening. However that doesn't apply to a phone call, the
> person wonders if the connection has dropped, or something.
>
Excellent point! My SO only has a cell phone. I refuse to talk to him
if I know he's driving. Call me when you get to your destination.

Jill

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:23:35 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 19:14:57 -0300, wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:17:57 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:09:24 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll join you in the mud ! Who cares whether the people ahead of you
>>>>>>have two kids, ninety kids, five dogs, three cats. I have started
>>>>>>to see some pushback stickers now, one the other day indicated no kids
>>>>>>and no desire to have any
>>>>>
>>>>>I've seen one with just a couple and a coat hanger...
>>>>
>>>>That's a bit rough !
>>>
>>> Very much black humour...
>>
>>'fraid you will need to explain that one to me
>
> Back in the day, abortions were often achieved with wire coat hangers.

OMG I won't ask how(

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:25:54 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>>
>>I hear complaints that one ought not to use the phone, even hands free -
>>because it is distracting! What about when you are talking to someone in
>>the car? Yet that is not frowned on!
>
>
> There is a difference. If you are talking to someone in the car and
> the traffic up ahead becomes more complicated you tend (at least I do)
> to stop talking and concentrate because you know the passenger can see
> what's happening. However that doesn't apply to a phone call, the
> person wonders if the connection has dropped, or something.

Hmm not too sure I could care if the connection dropped. If I needed to
concentrate I would, but I do take your point.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 6/10/2014 12:26 AM, Cheri wrote:
>
> > wrote

>> On Monday, June 9, 2014 5:10:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> > Guess I'm the proverbial stick in the mud. No way am I putting decals
>>> on my car. Or bumper stickers or anything else.
>>>
>>>
>> Same here.
>
> I always buy plain license plate holders to replace the ones that come
> with it, because I don't even want to advertise where I bought the car at.

Ditto! I make sure up front, do not put your decal on the car
I'm buying. I think that's really nervy. I don't stick things
on my own car, so unless you're paying me for advertising your
dealership, I don't want your name stuck to my paint job. At
least the license plate frame takes a few minutes to replace.

nancy

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/9/2014 8:12 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>> Back when cell phones were fairly new and service prices dropped, I can
>> remember someone talking in the toilet in the stall next to me. I
>> thought they were talking to me.
>
> That happens to me occasionally if someone is wearing one of those
> bluetooth (I think) fits over the ear phones. A guy standing in line next
> to me said "Hello" so I said hello, then I realized he'd just answered a
> phone call. LOL

<g> That has happened to me with my daughter in law She was in the
kitchen washing dishes. I was waiting for hubby to call but I was very
busy so I used my Bluetooth thingy. I was talking to DH and realised DIL
was answering everything I said. Funny )


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 6/10/2014 5:25 AM, Ophelia wrote:

> I hear complaints that one ought not to use the phone, even hands free -
> because it is distracting! What about when you are talking to someone
> in the car? Yet that is not frowned on!

There are plenty of studies to show that talking on the phone
(hand held or blue tooth) is far more distracting than talking
to someone in the car.

If nothing else, if you have a passenger, it's one more
person to notice impending danger.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/10/2014 5:25 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>> I hear complaints that one ought not to use the phone, even hands free -
>> because it is distracting! What about when you are talking to someone
>> in the car? Yet that is not frowned on!
>
> There are plenty of studies to show that talking on the phone
> (hand held or blue tooth) is far more distracting than talking
> to someone in the car.
>
> If nothing else, if you have a passenger, it's one more
> person to notice impending danger.

Good point I won't use my phone in the car if I am driving, Bluetooth or
not.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 6/10/2014 9:18 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/9/2014 8:12 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>>> Back when cell phones were fairly new and service prices dropped, I can
>>> remember someone talking in the toilet in the stall next to me. I
>>> thought they were talking to me.
>>
>> That happens to me occasionally if someone is wearing one of those
>> bluetooth (I think) fits over the ear phones. A guy standing in line
>> next to me said "Hello" so I said hello, then I realized he'd just
>> answered a phone call. LOL
>
> <g> That has happened to me with my daughter in law She was in the
> kitchen washing dishes. I was waiting for hubby to call but I was very
> busy so I used my Bluetooth thingy. I was talking to DH and realised
> DIL was answering everything I said. Funny )
>
>
That *is* funny! Were their responses the same? :-D

Jill

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:28:19 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

> So, do you not talk to Angela when you are driving? If so, what is the
> difference?

The difference is there's no second pair of eyes watching the road.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 04:21:36 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> But from what I have read, talking to a live passenger
> is not the same at all as using a cell phone even with blue tooth. Has
> something to do with the person being right there with you. Less
> distracting than talking to someone who is not there. If I am driving
> through a tricky area such as one with lots of construction or I am looking
> for an address, I won't have the radio on either.

Lots of accidents are caused by "distracted moms" (crying baby, kids
fighting in the back seat, etc). Talking to a second adult or at
least someone of driving age is not safe, but at least it's safer than
yakking on the phone while driving.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

They sell that stuff all over Detroit.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:52:42 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:34 -0400, Nancy Young
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/9/2014 9:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Incidentally it is illegal here to use your cellphone while driving.
> >> > Not that it seems to stop some people.
> >>
> >> Clearly it's not stopping anyone here, either. Texting seems
> >> to have replaced talking, for the most part.
> >>
> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now and
> > you can talk hands free.
>
> No. Every new car does not. Mine does not. I wouldn't want it. Studies
> have shown that is just as dangerous as using the phone otherwise.

*You* were not the subject. Apparently it was an option you chose not
to install. so you haven't proven me wrong if that was your intent.
Someone who is so married to their cellphone that they text while
driving most certainly would choose the option. My cars came with it
- the option part would be to choose NOT to use it by NOT syncing the
bluetooth in the car with the bluetooth in the phone.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/10/2014 9:18 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 6/9/2014 8:12 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>>>> Back when cell phones were fairly new and service prices dropped, I can
>>>> remember someone talking in the toilet in the stall next to me. I
>>>> thought they were talking to me.
>>>
>>> That happens to me occasionally if someone is wearing one of those
>>> bluetooth (I think) fits over the ear phones. A guy standing in line
>>> next to me said "Hello" so I said hello, then I realized he'd just
>>> answered a phone call. LOL
>>
>> <g> That has happened to me with my daughter in law She was in the
>> kitchen washing dishes. I was waiting for hubby to call but I was very
>> busy so I used my Bluetooth thingy. I was talking to DH and realised
>> DIL was answering everything I said. Funny )
>>
>>
> That *is* funny! Were their responses the same? :-D

I don't know, it is hard to listen to two people at the same time)

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:23:35 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

>
>
> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 19:14:57 -0300, wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:17:57 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>I've seen one with just a couple and a coat hanger...
> >>
> >>That's a bit rough !
> >
> > Very much black humour...
>
> 'fraid you will need to explain that one to me

No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
made so hard for so many to get.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:28:19 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>> So, do you not talk to Angela when you are driving? If so, what is the
>> difference?
>
> The difference is there's no second pair of eyes watching the road.

I guess. I hadn't give it a lot of thought because it is not something I
do.


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:23:35 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 19:14:57 -0300, wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:17:57 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>I've seen one with just a couple and a coat hanger...
>> >>
>> >>That's a bit rough !
>> >
>> > Very much black humour...
>>
>> 'fraid you will need to explain that one to me
>
> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
> made so hard for so many to get.

From what I hear they are available almost on demand here

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:31:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/9/2014 12:45 PM, sf wrote:
>>> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:34 -0400, Nancy Young
>>> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 6/9/2014 9:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Incidentally it is illegal here to use your cellphone while driving.
>>> >>> Not that it seems to stop some people.
>>> >>
>>> >> Clearly it's not stopping anyone here, either. Texting seems
>>> >> to have replaced talking, for the most part.
>>> >>
>>> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now and
>>> > you can talk hands free.
>>> >
>>> Sure hope it's optional. I can't think of any reason to talk on the
>>> phone, hands-free or not, while driving. It's still a distraction.
>>> Gotta make a call? Pull over. My 2 cents.
>>>
>>
>> The point is that they don't need to take their hands off the steering
>> wheel if they want to gab.
>>
> It's still just as dangerous.

I don't think so. Is it any more dangerous than talking to your passengers?

Cheri

On 6/10/2014 10:09 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/10/2014 9:18 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> That happens to me occasionally if someone is wearing one of those
>>>> bluetooth (I think) fits over the ear phones. A guy standing in line
>>>> next to me said "Hello" so I said hello, then I realized he'd just
>>>> answered a phone call. LOL
>>>
>>> <g> That has happened to me with my daughter in law She was in the
>>> kitchen washing dishes. I was waiting for hubby to call but I was very
>>> busy so I used my Bluetooth thingy. I was talking to DH and realised
>>> DIL was answering everything I said. Funny )
>>>
>>>
>> That *is* funny! Were their responses the same? :-D
>
> I don't know, it is hard to listen to two people at the same time)
>
Tell me about it! It drives me crazy when I'm on the phone and
someone else is also talking to me. "Don't forget to tell them..."
Whisht! I can't talk to both of you at at the same time!

Jill

On 6/10/2014 10:20 AM, Cheri wrote:
>
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:31:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/9/2014 12:45 PM, sf wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:34 -0400, Nancy Young
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 6/9/2014 9:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Incidentally it is illegal here to use your cellphone while
>>>> driving.
>>>> >>> Not that it seems to stop some people.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Clearly it's not stopping anyone here, either. Texting seems
>>>> >> to have replaced talking, for the most part.
>>>> >>
>>>> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now and
>>>> > you can talk hands free.
>>>> >
>>>> Sure hope it's optional. I can't think of any reason to talk on the
>>>> phone, hands-free or not, while driving. It's still a distraction.
>>>> Gotta make a call? Pull over. My 2 cents.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that they don't need to take their hands off the steering
>>> wheel if they want to gab.
>>>
>> It's still just as dangerous.
>
> I don't think so. Is it any more dangerous than talking to your passengers?
>
> Cheri
>
Nope. A passenger (of driving age) provides another set of eyes. The
person on the phone (hands free or not) is just a distraction.

Jill

On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
> made so hard for so many to get.

Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.

Jill

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:29:03 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
> > No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
> > It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
> > abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
> > made so hard for so many to get.
>
> Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.
>

Ignorance of what is happening to reproductive rights occurs when
Clear Channel dominates the airwaves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us...ures.html?_r=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio..._United_States
Are you aware there is voter suppression now too?

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 6/10/2014 11:22 AM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:29:03 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
>>> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
>>> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
>>> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
>>> made so hard for so many to get.
>>
>> Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.
>>
>
> Ignorance of what is happening to reproductive rights occurs when
> Clear Channel dominates the airwaves.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us...ures.html?_r=0
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio..._United_States
> Are you aware there is voter suppression now too?
>
I've told you many times I don't listen to Clear Channel stations or
whatever you may think is dominating my thinking. Abortion is still
legal, whether people agree with it or not.

Jill

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:24:19 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> On 6/10/2014 11:22 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:29:03 -0400, jmcquown >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
> >>> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
> >>> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
> >>> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
> >>> made so hard for so many to get.
> >>
> >> Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.
> >>
> >
> > Ignorance of what is happening to reproductive rights occurs when
> > Clear Channel dominates the airwaves.
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us...ures.html?_r=0
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio..._United_States
> > Are you aware there is voter suppression now too?
> >
> I've told you many times I don't listen to Clear Channel stations or
> whatever you may think is dominating my thinking.

You probably don't even know that the radio station you listen to is
owned by Clear Channel.

> Abortion is still legal, whether people agree with it or not.
>
R v W might be legal, but that's in name only because restrictions at
the state level have severely limited it in 30 states. Educate
yourself.


--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 6/9/2014 8:16 PM, Earl wrote:

>> Sure hope it's optional. I can't think of any reason to talk on the
>> phone, hands-free or not, while driving. It's still a distraction.
>> Gotta make a call? Pull over. My 2 cents.
>>
>> Jill
> Some people have jobs that require it and can handle it.


What job "requires" you to have it? I know a lot of sales people choose
to use mobile phones but I've never seen it as a requirement of
employment to drive and talk. Tests have also shown that most people
dont' handle it as well as they think they do.

On 6/10/2014 10:20 AM, Cheri wrote:
>


>>> The point is that they don't need to take their hands off the steering
>>> wheel if they want to gab.
>>>
>> It's still just as dangerous.
>
> I don't think so. Is it any more dangerous than talking to your passengers?
>
> Cheri
>

There are differences. Same with the radio. When traffic conditions
warrant more attention, you block out the radio and concentrate on
driving. Talking with a passenger is similar in that you can easily
stop the conversation if traffic is dicey.

Talking on the phone takes a bit more of the brain power. Even there,
there is a difference between "what's for dinner" and giving tech
support to a bomb deactivation. People on the phone are more apt to
keep the conversation going.

I use my phone very day on the way home from work. Usually, it is on a
stretch of road with no cross traffic and modest speed. Conversation is
minimal. I don't use it in fast moving rush hour traffic on congested
highways.

On 6/10/2014 5:23 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>


>>>>
>>>> I've seen one with just a couple and a coat hanger...
>>>
>>> That's a bit rough !
>>
>> Very much black humour...
>
> 'fraid you will need to explain that one to me
>

Coat hanger = abortion.

On 6/10/2014 11:44 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:24:19 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2014 11:22 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:29:03 -0400, jmcquown >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
>>>>> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
>>>>> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
>>>>> made so hard for so many to get.
>>>>
>>>> Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ignorance of what is happening to reproductive rights occurs when
>>> Clear Channel dominates the airwaves.
>>>
>> I've told you many times I don't listen to Clear Channel stations or
>> whatever you may think is dominating my thinking. Abortion is still
>> legal, whether people agree with it or not.
>>
>> Jill
>
> But can women, especially ones without much cash, find it ?
>
That, I couldn't begin to answer. Still, I sincerely doubt most women
have to resort to what we used to call "back alley butchers". People
who performed abortions on the sly. Not since it became legal.

It might be harder to find a doctor to perform one, I don't know. If
so, it's probably due to protests and threats from rabid anti-abortion
fanatics.

I do know birth *control* methods such as the pill used to be available
at relatively low (or no) cost at some clinics. In the US, Planned
Parenthood comes to mind. And hey! condoms have been around forever.
They don't cost an arm and a leg. It also doesn't put the birth control
responsibility strictly on the woman.

Jill

On 6/10/2014 11:46 AM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:24:19 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2014 11:22 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:29:03 -0400, jmcquown >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
>>>>> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
>>>>> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
>>>>> made so hard for so many to get.
>>>>
>>>> Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ignorance of what is happening to reproductive rights occurs when
>>> Clear Channel dominates the airwaves.
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us...ures.html?_r=0
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio..._United_States
>>> Are you aware there is voter suppression now too?
>>>
>> I've told you many times I don't listen to Clear Channel stations or
>> whatever you may think is dominating my thinking.
>
> You probably don't even know that the radio station you listen to is
> owned by Clear Channel.
>
I don't care who owns the damn radio station. I only listen to the
radio when I'm driving to/from the store. I'm listening to MUSIC, not
some talking heads driving drivel into my head. Are you suggesting
they're sending me subliminal messages via classic rock?

>> Abortion is still legal, whether people agree with it or not.
>>
> R v W might be legal, but that's in name only because restrictions at
> the state level have severely limited it in 30 states. Educate
> yourself.
>
Sorry, I don't feel like going back to school ATM. It's yet another
anti-Republican rant. (sigh)

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/10/2014 10:09 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 6/10/2014 9:18 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> That happens to me occasionally if someone is wearing one of those
>>>>> bluetooth (I think) fits over the ear phones. A guy standing in line
>>>>> next to me said "Hello" so I said hello, then I realized he'd just
>>>>> answered a phone call. LOL
>>>>
>>>> <g> That has happened to me with my daughter in law She was in the
>>>> kitchen washing dishes. I was waiting for hubby to call but I was
>>>> very
>>>> busy so I used my Bluetooth thingy. I was talking to DH and realised
>>>> DIL was answering everything I said. Funny )
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That *is* funny! Were their responses the same? :-D
>>
>> I don't know, it is hard to listen to two people at the same time)
>>
> Tell me about it! It drives me crazy when I'm on the phone and someone
> else is also talking to me. "Don't forget to tell them..." Whisht! I
> can't talk to both of you at at the same time!

Yep)
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/10/2014 5:23 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen one with just a couple and a coat hanger...
>>>>
>>>> That's a bit rough !
>>>
>>> Very much black humour...
>>
>> 'fraid you will need to explain that one to me
>>
>
> Coat hanger = abortion.

Yes

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:24:01 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> On 6/10/2014 11:46 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:24:19 -0400, jmcquown >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/10/2014 11:22 AM, sf wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:29:03 -0400, jmcquown >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
> >>>>> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
> >>>>> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
> >>>>> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
> >>>>> made so hard for so many to get.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.
> >>>>
<snip>
>
> >> Abortion is still legal, whether people agree with it or not.
> >>
> > R v W might be legal, but that's in name only because restrictions at
> > the state level have severely limited it in 30 states. Educate
> > yourself.
> >
> Sorry, I don't feel like going back to school ATM. It's yet another
> anti-Republican rant. (sigh)
>

Keep your head in the sand and think happy thoughts.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

Ophelia wrote:
>
> I hear complaints that one ought not to use the phone, even hands free -
> because it is distracting! What about when you are talking to someone in
> the car? Yet that is not frowned on!

Good point, Ophy. Listening to radio is the same.

G.

wrote:
>
> I've read that, rather like the drunk who believes he is an even
> better driver after a couple of drinks !

All drunks are better drivers after a couple of drinks vs after
several more drinks.

G.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:42:24 -0300, wrote:

>
>I've heard it all now - on local radio they were just warning parents
>that if you are the one in charge of a young child at a pool, lake or
>beach - turn off your electronics and watch them, really watch them
>because it only takes seconds for a child to drown.
>
>I'm glad I'm in the checkout generation

Imagine what it'll like in just another 20 years?
I can only laugh about it and be grateful I'm middle aged now

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:23:35 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 19:14:57 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:17:57 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:09:24 -0300, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll join you in the mud ! Who cares whether the people ahead of you
>>>>>have two kids, ninety kids, five dogs, three cats. I have started
>>>>>to see some pushback stickers now, one the other day indicated no kids
>>>>>and no desire to have any
>>>>
>>>>I've seen one with just a couple and a coat hanger...
>>>
>>>That's a bit rough !
>>
>> Very much black humour...
>
>'fraid you will need to explain that one to me

I see lucretiaborgia has done that.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/10/2014 10:20 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:31:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/9/2014 12:45 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:34 -0400, Nancy Young
>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> On 6/9/2014 9:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Incidentally it is illegal here to use your cellphone while
>>>>> driving.
>>>>> >>> Not that it seems to stop some people.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Clearly it's not stopping anyone here, either. Texting seems
>>>>> >> to have replaced talking, for the most part.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now and
>>>>> > you can talk hands free.
>>>>> >
>>>>> Sure hope it's optional. I can't think of any reason to talk on the
>>>>> phone, hands-free or not, while driving. It's still a distraction.
>>>>> Gotta make a call? Pull over. My 2 cents.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The point is that they don't need to take their hands off the steering
>>>> wheel if they want to gab.
>>>>
>>> It's still just as dangerous.
>>
>> I don't think so. Is it any more dangerous than talking to your
>> passengers?
>>
>> Cheri
>>
> Nope. A passenger (of driving age) provides another set of eyes. The
> person on the phone (hands free or not) is just a distraction.
>
> Jill

I disagree, totally.

Cheri

On 6/9/2014 11:26 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Monday, June 9, 2014 5:10:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> > Guess I'm the proverbial stick in the mud. No way am I putting decals
>>> on my car. Or bumper stickers or anything else.
>>>
>>>
>> Same here.
>
> I always buy plain license plate holders to replace the ones that come
> with it, because I don't even want to advertise where I bought the car at.
>
> Cheri
>
The license plate holder on my car says "my other ride is a cruise ship"

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

jmcquown wrote:
> On 6/10/2014 11:22 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:29:03 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
>>>> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
>>>> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
>>>> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
>>>> made so hard for so many to get.
>>>
>>> Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.
>>>
>>
>> Ignorance of what is happening to reproductive rights occurs when
>> Clear Channel dominates the airwaves.
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us...ures.html?_r=0
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio..._United_States
>> Are you aware there is voter suppression now too?
>>
> I've told you many times I don't listen to Clear Channel stations or
> whatever you may think is dominating my thinking. Abortion is still
> legal, whether people agree with it or not.
>
> Jill
>
Fortunately, it was available for you!

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:52:42 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:34 -0400, Nancy Young
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 6/9/2014 9:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Incidentally it is illegal here to use your cellphone while driving.
>> >> > Not that it seems to stop some people.
>> >>
>> >> Clearly it's not stopping anyone here, either. Texting seems
>> >> to have replaced talking, for the most part.
>> >>
>> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now and
>> > you can talk hands free.
>>
>> No. Every new car does not. Mine does not. I wouldn't want it.
>> Studies
>> have shown that is just as dangerous as using the phone otherwise.
>
> *You* were not the subject. Apparently it was an option you chose not
> to install. so you haven't proven me wrong if that was your intent.
> Someone who is so married to their cellphone that they text while
> driving most certainly would choose the option. My cars came with it
> - the option part would be to choose NOT to use it by NOT syncing the
> bluetooth in the car with the bluetooth in the phone.

You said that EVERY new car comes with it. Every car does not come with it!
So yes, I did prove you wrong. I specifically got a car that did not have
it because I do not want it and will not use it. Just because *your* cars
came with it doesn't mean that all cars do.

There are a lot of other options that I do not want. CD player, fancy
radio, a motor to move the seats back and forth, windows that roll up and
down at the touch of a button, cruise control, heated seats, I could go on
and on. The car that I have does have windows that I don't want in the
front but the back seat ones are the old crank type. Why do I prefer those?
Because the motors will eventually break down and need to be replaced or
repaired.