Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 08:30 AM   #21
 
Posts: n/a
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Quote:
Sometimes I wish the ACLU were bigger and more powerful, sort of like the
NRA.
I'm glad you finally realized that the ACLU was on your 'side'.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 09:30 AM   #22
 
Posts: n/a
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles
I respectfully disagree with cell phone restrictions ... though your point about MADD is well taken.

We use cell phones a great deal to keep in contact with 19 stores, the corporate office, vendors /* bankers, etc.* More restrictions will damage our business, and I don't agree with the cited great difference between passenger conversation and cell phone conversations.* This doesn't begin to take into account our ability to keep in touch with our kids, spouse, etc.* [And "scientific studies" these days always need to be scrutinized to see who funded them, and what ax they had to grind ...]

I know this is politically incorrect, but please ... don't we have enough laws regulating our behavior?* I'm sick of it.* If I'm driving recklessly, passing inappropriately, speeding, running a light, etc.* ... ticket me, as I'll deserve it.* But if I'm having a peaceful conversation on the freeway, leave me alone.* Hold me responsible if I commit a transgression against a fellow citizen.

For every additional law we pass to restrict behavior, we should recognize we're saying that we're comfortable empowering armed citizens (the police / LEO's) to forcibly interfere with our neighbors' lives.

Tell me I can't use my cell phone in the car, and I'll use the speaker phone ... and give me another law to break.* We're all criminals these days ... it dilutes true crime.

Anyone remember tht comic strip "There Oughta be a Law"?* Doesn't exist anymore.* My theory is that it disappeared because the premise became obsolete ... many of those formerly humerous law ideas became reality
OK Charles,

Using your logic, I assume that you would be in favor of removing all penalities for Drunk Driving!

I happen to know many folks that enjoy drinking more than you enjoy talking on the cell phone.

If both cell phone conversations and Drunk driving cause accidents (and a lot of studies have shown that cell phone conversations are more deadly than alcohol) - Let's get rid of the DUI laws also.

If you agree that all DUI laws should be removed, then I agree with you totally. The laws should stay off our backs. However, if you want the DUI laws and don't want cell laws, then you are as bad the folks who want to have cell phone laws. You would be restricting 'freedom' also.

You obviously can see the problem with society and laws. Some want this law, but not others. We all do not agree.

So, tell me - Do want to get rid of the DUI laws?
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 09:51 AM   #23
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7,408
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

yES!
__________________
unclemick is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 09:55 AM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cut-Throat
OK Charles,

Using your logic, I assume that you would be in favor of removing all penalities for Drunk Driving!

I happen to know many folks that enjoy drinking more than you enjoy talking on the cell phone.

If both cell phone conversations and Drunk driving cause accidents (and a lot of studies have shown that cell phone conversations are more deadly than alcohol) - Let's get rid of the DUI laws also.

If you agree that all DUI laws should be removed, then I agree with you totally. The laws should stay off our backs. However, if you want the DUI laws and don't want cell laws, then you are as bad the folks who want to have cell phone laws. You would be restricting 'freedom' also.

You obviously can see the problem with society and laws. Some want this law, but not others. We all do not agree.

So, tell me - Do want to get rid of the DUI laws?
Come on C-T. A fallacious analogy. Get serious!

JG
__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 11:50 AM   #25
 
Posts: n/a
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRGALT2U
Come on C-T.* A fallacious analogy.* Get serious!

JG
I am deadly serious ! - What is the difference if a loved one gets killed by a drunk driver or a cell phone user? Your loved one is still dead? -

You 'libertarians', or whatever politics you label yourself as, need to understand how and why laws get enacted, instead of just talking shots at the laws you happen not to like. This is why you guys always blame politicans instead of youselves. You claim to want a lawfree society, like the old west, Driving Drunk was considered fairly humerous in the 1940's.

You can't have it both ways! Either you are in favor of impared drving or you're not!

__________________
  Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 12:07 PM   #26
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mesa
Posts: 3,588
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Just to follow up on CT's point . . . Here's Charles' argument with only a few words altered:

Quote:
I know this is politically incorrect, but please ... don't we have enough laws regulating our behavior? I'm sick of it. If I'm driving recklessly, passing inappropriately, speeding, running a light, etc. ... ticket me, as I'll deserve it. But if I've meerly had a few drinks and am on the freeway, leave me alone. Hold me responsible if I commit a transgression against a fellow citizen.
Nothing fallacious about this analogy.

I happen to think this argument has merit. And I am also against laws restricting cell phone use while driving or laws agains gun ownership. (That one surprises a lot of you). Laws that make the potential to perform harm illegal need to be scrutinized very carefully.
__________________
sgeeeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 01:42 PM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Quote:
Originally Posted by ((^+^)) SG
Just to follow up on CT's point . . . Here's Charles' argument with only a few words altered:

Nothing fallacious about this analogy.

I happen to think this argument has merit.* And I am also against laws restricting cell phone use while driving or laws agains gun ownership. (That one surprises a lot of you).* Laws that make the potential to perform harm illegal need to be scrutinized very carefully.
And, if carried to nutty excess (which the gov. and PC types do
consistently), virtually everything has the "potential" to cause
harm, real or imagined. Your child read a book and was traumatized,
or ate BIg Macs and got fat. You smoked and got sick. Etc etc,
ad nauseum. The "potential" should not be a crime, ever; only the
commission. That is one reason I favor legal personal ownership
of all sorts of powerful weapons. Unless you injure someone,
they are no more dangerous than a potted plant, which by the way someone
could kill you with if they wished.

JG
__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 04:24 PM   #28
Moderator Emeritus
Martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: minnesota
Posts: 13,212
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

John, (you ignorant slut ), it is not CT's argument that is the fallacy, it is yours.

CT's argument:

* We have decided as a society to make driving while drunk illegal because it is likely to cause an accident

* Driving while talking on a cell phone causes more accidents than driving while drunk

* So driving while talking on a cell phone should be illegal too.

This is a logical argument if the premise is correct; that driving while talking on a cell phone causes as many or more accidents as driving while drunk.

Instead of arguing that CT's premise is incorrect, or arguing that both drunk driving and driving while talking on a cell phone should be legal, you argue the slippery slope argument, which is generally a weak argument if not a downright fallacy.

You argue that:

* It might be bad to talk on a cell phone while driving

* It might be bad to eat too much meat

* If we make it illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving

* Then pretty soon it will be illegal to eat too much meat

* We don't want it to be illegal to eat too much meat

* Therefore it shouldn't be illegal to talk on a cell phone.

The problem with this argument is that the links between the third and fourth steps are tenuous if existent at all.

__________________
.


No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

Martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 04:28 PM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha
John, (you ignorant slut* ), it is not CT's argument that is the fallacy, it is yours.

CT's argument:

** We have decided as a society to make driving while drunk illegal because it is* likely to cause an accident

** Driving while talking on a cell phone causes more accidents than driving while drunk

** So driving while talking on a cell phone should be illegal too.

This is a logical argument if the premise is correct; that driving while talking on a cell phone causes as many or more accidents as driving while drunk.

Instead of arguing that CT's premise is incorrect, or arguing that both drunk driving and driving while talking on a cell phone should be legal, you argue the slippery slope argument, which is generally a weak argument if not a downright fallacy.

You argue that:

** It might be bad to talk on a cell phone while driving

** It might be bad to eat too much meat

** If we make it illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving

** Then pretty soon it will be illegal to eat too much* meat

** We don't want it to be illegal to eat too much* meat

** Therefore it shouldn't be illegal to talk on a cell phone.

The problem with this argument is that the links between the third and fourth steps are tenuous if existent at all.

I'm sorry that I can not respond to this as I am not too sure
you have a point. CHP?

JG
__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 04:41 PM   #30
Moderator Emeritus
Martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: minnesota
Posts: 13,212
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

The point to bringing up smoking, big macs, etc. appeared to be a slippery slope argument, which is a very weak argument. If both drunk driving and talking on a cellphone while driving are equally dangerous, then there are very few ways to argue that talking on a cellphone while driving should remain legal. One is the slippery slope argument--too weak, really a fallacy. A second possible argument is that people in general will not follow the law so it is bad public policy to make that law. The last argument is that drunk driving should be legal too.

You did not directly say that driving while drunk should be legal. Is that what you are saying? If that is the case, it still does not make CTs argument a fallacy because society did in fact decide that driving while drunk should be illegal.

So, your attack should not be that CT made a fallacious analogy. Instead, your argument should have been that drunk driving should be legal because of x, y and z. I invite you to make your argument.

__________________
.


No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

Martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 04:53 PM   #31
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha
The point to bringing up smoking, big macs, etc. appeared to be a slippery slope argument, which is a very weak argument.* If both drunk driving and talking on a cellphone while driving are equally dangerous, then there are very few ways to argue that talking on a cellphone while driving should remain legal.* One is the slippery slope argument--too weak, really a fallacy.* A second possible* argument is that people in general will not follow the law so it is bad public policy to make that law.* The last argument is that drunk driving should be legal too.*

You did not directly say that driving while drunk should be legal. Is that what you are saying?* If that is the case, it still does not make CTs argument a fallacy because society did in fact decide that driving while drunk should be illegal.

So, your attack should not be that CT made a fallacious analogy.* Instead, your argument should have been that drunk driving should be legal because of x, y and z.* I invite you to make your argument.* **

I am not defending drunk driving. Agree it should be illegal.
The question is, where do we stop? Cell phones? Eating a sandwich?
Drinking coffee?
Tuning the radio? Talking to your passengers? Gazing at the sunset?
Looking at the birds? Smoking (still legal
but endangered)? Opening the glove box? Adjusting your seat?
Come on Martha. I know you are smarter than this.

I probably should add that what "society decides" carries no weight
with me whatsoever.

JG
__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 05:05 PM   #32
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mesa
Posts: 3,588
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhodaThunkit
JG -- danger ahead!!!* Martha's fixin to whup your ass on this one.* *
He's so arrogant oblivious, he won't even know it happened.
__________________
sgeeeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 05:13 PM   #33
Moderator Emeritus
Martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: minnesota
Posts: 13,212
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRGALT2U
I am not defending drunk driving. Agree it should be illegal.
The question is, where do we stop? Cell phones? Eating a sandwich?
Drinking coffee?
Tuning the radio? Talking to your passengers? Gazing at the sunset?
Looking at the birds? Smoking (still legal
but endangered)? Opening the glove box? Adjusting your seat?
Come on Martha. I know you are smarter than this.

I probably should add that what "society decides" carries no weight
with me whatsoever.



JG
So you are making the slippery slope argument?
I already refuted that argument in my first post.

Or, you could be arguing that there are already too many laws, so no more. Not even if an activity is more dangerous than already illegal activities. Are you making that argument?

Come on JG, give me some logical analysis. Greg got me off the couch and away from an interesting novel for this.
__________________
.


No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

Martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 05:26 PM   #34
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha
Or, you could be arguing that there are already too many laws, so no more.* Not even if an activity is more dangerous than already illegal activities. Are you making that argument?*

Come on JG, give me some logical analysis.* Greg got me off the couch and away from an interesting novel for this.* *
Martha, I love you (strictly cyberspace/platonic). Yes, I am saying there
are way too many laws now, and yes............even if an activity is
"more dangerous" the lawmakers (mostly morons anyway) should lay off.
Clear now? We're a nation of whiners who want someone to protect us from all perils and compensate us if we have some bad luck. Go back to your novel.

JG
__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 05:36 PM   #35
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Okanagan Valley
Posts: 805
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

FWIW, I hate people talking on cell phones while driving than virtually any other road behavior. They wander in their lanes, they do not match trafffic flow and quite frankly are an accident looking for a place to happen. Martha and C-T have my strong vote on this one.

It is pure bulldung that those who use cell phones for their businesses suffer. The phones have a voice messaging system. Use it.

I blast such idiots with the horn as I drive beside them and give them that "look". Sometimes it has the needed effect and other times it doesn't.
__________________
AltaRed is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 07:35 PM   #36
 
Posts: n/a
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

JG,

I just went to the movie "Good night and Good Luck". It probably has a 'hero' of yours in it. Joseph McCarthy. - He used a lot of the same reasoning you do. Almost exactly when you claimed that the Uof W at Madison should have a hammer and sickle for their emblem.

I suggest you see the movie. - They use actual footage of McCarthy, so it's not 'distorted' by Hollywood. The only person that plays McCarthy is McCarthy.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-25-2005, 08:48 PM   #37
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Ok dammit, since theres obviously a conspiracy involved here to force me to post something, here ya go.

Please allow me to clear up a few misconceptions I see here, and make a few other notes and observations. This whole topic actually came up a while back, but nobody has a good memory so....

Point #1: There are absolutely no 'studies' that show that driving with a cell phone causes accidents. In point of fact, there was *a* study that i'm aware of that measured people sober, on a phone, and legally drunk. In that test, in fact the cell phone driver was worse than the drunk driver. Both were also negligibly different from the 'sober' driver. The whole test is worthless because the 'sober' drivers (and the others) were well aware that their driving skills were being measured, so all were on their best behavior. I'm betting that the average driver doesnt drive as well when they're not on a simulator being measured.

Point #2: Since studies that self-immolate their results and trying to determine the cause of accidents is fairly fruitless, this calls for a 'prarie dog' analysis. Pop up out of the hole a minute and note that cell phones in cars were fairly non-existent 10-15 years ago. Hence, as cell phone adoption increased, we should see a fairly linear and related increase in car accidents. *BZZZT*...accidents per driver per mile have been dropping in the last 10-15 years, not increasing.

Point #3: In every country or state that has banned driving while talking on a cell phone, accident rates have remained just about the same or gone up.

Point #4: The california legislature decided to push for an outlaw of driving with a cell phone. They charged the california highway patrol to analyze accident data to find the correlation between talking on a cell phone and getting into an accident. The CHP couldnt find one. They looked really hard in fact. Unsatisfied with this obviously incorrect result, incorrect because it didnt back up their intiuition, they asked the CHP to change the way they looked at the data such that if a cell phone was present in either car after an accident, it was listed as a causative factor. Even if it wasnt being used. Then there was a nominal causative factor attributed to driving while talking on a phone.

Point #5: Some half decent studies have found no difference between the distractive factors of talking on a cell phone, talking to a passenger, changing the radio station, looking at a billboard, or simply daydreaming. I'm aware of no studies that show that theres a less distractive distraction than the cell phone.

Drawing correlations between MADD and the anti cell phone effort is well taken. MADD is an anti-drinking organization, not an anti-drunk driving organization. The nice lady that started the outfit (lived a few streets over from me before I moved) walked away from them a few years ago when they started turning into what they are now. They twist an awful lot of data. And who the hell will walk into the line of fire to question madd mothers? Nobody.

Two examples: a sober driver gets rear ended at a light by another sober driver. One of them has a few empty beer cans on the floor in the back seat. A woman drinking a glass of wine at an outdoor table is hit and killed by a sober driver who jumped the curb. Both are classified as alcohol related accidents and the latter as an alcohol related fatality - due to the presence of empty cans in the former and the fact that the victim was drinking alcohol in the latter.

The NHTSA is also a wonderful source of absolute horsepuckey with regards to accident data. A few years back the GAO wrote them an official document asking them to stop wasting the taxpayers money running bogus study after bogus study.

Most people are considered legally too drunk to drive after two 16oz glasses of beer or two restaurant poured glasses of wine or regular bar drinks consumed in less than 2 hours. The state DMV's give you a nice chart that says you can probably have 2 or 3 drinks with no problems, but four might put you over .08. Look hard at that chart...some of them specify 5 or 8oz beers (nobody here sells 5 or 8 oz beers), 3 oz of wine, and a drink with 1oz of hard liquor. Tell me you'd ever order another drink at a bar or restaurant that poured you a lousy 3 oz glass of wine or put 1 oz of booze in your cocktail? The chart also specifies that you have one drink per hour.

The bottom line is that most people who stop for a couple of quick ones on their way home from work are driving home legally drunk.

That .08 thing is also interesting. Back 3 decades or so ago when the government first started considering drunk driving laws, the American Medical Association was charged with determining the point at which someone was too drunk to safely operate a motor vehicle. They came back with .15 BAC. A few years later when MADD was pushing for .10, somehow the AMA was convinced to drop their findings to .10. A few years after that when MADD was pushing for .08...well...you can guess what happened.

So whats it all about? People are easily distracted. You take one distraction away, they'll fill it with another. For years we yapped with our buddies in the car, changed the radio station, checked out the hot babe on the sidewalk, tried to read that bumper sticker, daydreamed...now we talk on a phone. Since a lot of people hate people walking or driving around in public talking on a cell phone, it becomes a causative factor.

The data doesnt agree with that, however.

One thing for sure, our government friends will keep making things illegal so they can keep collecting fines to keep supporting foolish levels of spending...
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-26-2005, 05:56 AM   #38
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Quote:
Originally Posted by ()

One thing for sure, our government friends will keep making things illegal so they can keep collecting fines to keep supporting foolish levels of spending...
Something else we can count on (along with "death and taxes")
Excellent excellent post!

JG
__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-26-2005, 06:02 AM   #39
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cut-Throat
JG,

I just went to the movie "Good night and Good Luck". It probably has a 'hero' of yours in it. Joseph McCarthy.* - He used a lot of the same reasoning you do. Almost exactly when you claimed that the Uof W at Madison should have a hammer and sickle for their emblem.

I suggest you see the movie. - They use actual footage of McCarthy, so it's not 'distorted' by Hollywood. The only person that plays McCarthy is McCarthy.
No "hero". A demagogue and all-around nut job. However, I will see
the movie and report back. I should add that while I agree with neither
his methods nor his conclusions, he did have some good ideas. But,
so did Hitler.

JG
__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??
Old 11-26-2005, 06:45 AM   #40
Full time employment: Posting here.
bruce1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hagersville
Posts: 793
Re: MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaRed

I blast such idiots with the horn as I drive beside them and give them that "look". Sometimes it has the needed effect and other times it doesn't.
Heck with the horn I want a rocket launcher mounted on the hood of my car. I don't really think talking on cell phones while driving should be made illegal though. It strikes me as a flavour of the month problem ...er cover up.

I concur with the nation (s) of whiners. People should be taking a lot more responsibility for their own selves and not seeking compensation and protection for every real or imagined injury, danger or slight.

At the same time short sighted next quarter results driven corporate entities would be foisting more garbage on us than they already are if there were not some control over their activites.

Government vs corporations ah heck they little guy is done like a goose.

Luckily I have to go shovel snow or this could turn into a rant.
have a good day
Bruce
__________________

__________________
I wish I was half as good as my dog thinks I am!
bruce1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Talking on Cell phones while driving is todays biggest problem on the Highways.. Cut-Throat Other topics 40 12-13-2006 02:26 PM
nTelos cell phone plan? Dreamer Other topics 3 07-14-2006 01:27 PM
Latest cheap emergency cell phone deal cute fuzzy bunny FIRE and Money 68 05-29-2006 08:55 AM
Savings, Cable TV, Cell Phones & Internet Attitudes mb FIRE and Money 59 01-25-2006 09:01 AM
Cheap "glove compartment" Cell phones redux cute fuzzy bunny Other topics 29 05-14-2005 01:31 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:25 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.