Search results

Flattop: either you are deliberately antagonizing me, or you're too stupid to be driving a CMV. Which is it? :confused:

Flattop: I responded in public because I have nothing to hide - if you wish to supply examples of my 'targeting' you, please feel free, but start another thread, ok? To reply to your question [though you ignored mine: what string?] your response to Pilgrim's post indicates that you believe there...

Hey! I've said that for a long time, too. I think the sole criteria should be "too fast for prevailing conditions" which means that in heavy fog, 40mph may be too fast to drive. Just not sure that every LEO can be trusted to use good judgement....

If 'hearsay' is what you wanted, there's no shortage at the truckstops - but if the info that can save your butt is what you need, I offered the best information at my disposal. How you use it is up to you, but the snide response was uncalled for, IMO.

Quoting the abovementioned handbook: "Drivers are responsible for following the requirements prescribed in the HM regulations. Drivers can be fined for not complying with the parts of the HM regs that relate to them. A person who violates the requirement in the regulation is liable for a penalty...

Reading your comments in post 173 ["even you", "get off your perch and quit acting high and mighty with me" "I can see the string"] might lead one to think that YOU are targeting ME, eh? I'm not complaining, mind you - it seems as if folks complain of being targeted only when they feel...

I think both you and your friend have been poorly served by your Safety Depts [if any], and are risking a great deal, in consequence.

If you may haul HM, it is extremely important that you know what the law requires. 'Hearsay' isn't going to help you, if faced by a DOT inspection, either - you need to know what the law says, not what other drivers say, ok? Best source is the manual "Hazardous Materials Compliance Pocketbook"...

O yeah: what string? Please elaborate, I'm all ears.:confused:

"Targeting" you? Puhleeze - a classic deflection, that one. [Responding to the messenger instead of the message]. I replied to your query re: allowing our children to sleep with MJ. The question was irrelevant, and inflammatory, which indicates to me that you believe MJ was a pedophile. It is...

Dream on, Phil - how many 4 wheelers are going to drive 55 to gain fuel economy? :rolleyes: Now, if Il & Ca would follow suit, the interstates would be far safer, IMO.

Um Carol - the link doesn't work.....:confused:

An entry from my favorite [and only] blog "Boobs, injuries, & Dr Pepper" that reminds me of why I love my work. A customer called me, frustrated. "You have to do something about this premium!" "Let me take a look, ma'am." "Gah! High! We're broke! You have to do something!" I was stunned. "You...

I've complained about the required drug testing - no hypocrisy here! But like nearly every law, it was created because of those bad apples who spoil the bunch. Aristotle: at least 3 posters have asked where you get your info on "more allegations" against MJ - no response?

Agree 100% with Inkasnana - it's not MJ being defended, it's the need for people to learn the facts before jumping to conclusions. I don't want anyone's erroneous convictions leading to my conviction in a court of law, or public opinion, ok? Aristotle, I bet you're one who thinks the woman who...