From: John De Armond
Subject: Heads Up!
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:34:47 EST
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel

Just another little heads-up.

I had noticed that the spare tire holder on my new used MH rattled a
little.  I also thought that my very lightweight utility trailer
caused more sway than it should.  Got under the thing to find out
what was going on.  I found that the previous owner had, ahem,
rigged things a bit too much for my tastes.  His homemade hitch was
attached to the MH frame with 2, count 'em 2 (one more than 1) 1/2"
Grade 5 bolts!  And not only were these two bolts holding on the
trailer hitch, they were also holding on the spare tire holder! 
They were loose and needless to say, the holes were wallowed out.
The entire hitch was moving back and forth probably 3/4".  

A couple hours' work with the welder and the porta-band fixed the
problem.  What's scary is this guy towed a Jeep Cherokee as his
toad!  This is on a 20' very light weight MH!  I know I should have
looked at the hitch before using it but the way it is constructed
makes it look like it is a welded structure.

Hmmm, I wonder how the petty fascists in this group would propose
that requiring CDLs would remedy THIS type hazard?  I suspect that
this kind of stuff is a much higher risk to the public than some guy
who can't name every part in his air brake control valve.

Anyway, just a heads-up to anyone buying a used RV.  Take a good
hard look at EVERYTHING on the RV, particularly structural items.

John

From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Heads Up!
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:19:30 EST
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel

Scott Leahy wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:35:46 -0500, Neon John
> <johngdNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 
> A solid post except for:
> 
> >Hmmm, I wonder how the petty fascists in this group would propose
> >that requiring CDLs would remedy THIS type hazard?  I suspect that
> >this kind of stuff is a much higher risk to the public than some guy
> >who can't name every part in his air brake control valve.
> 
> Petty fascists? Since when is it fascist to opine for tighter
> licensing requirements?

Since I said so, of course.  You DID ask...

 
> In many states they require special licenses to drive a scooter.
> What's so out of the ordinary about calling for tighter licensing for
> people driving 15 ton Subaru-flatteners?

Well let's see.  When I was 15 I got my motorcycle endorsement on my
learner's permit.  My "road test" consisted of riding a wheelie
around the block on my dirt bike.  Even the staties weren't so analy
retentive in those days. What that endorsement has to do with my
riding my Goldwing touring bike today escapes me.


> And no, I don't happen to agree that any drastic change in licensure
> is called for myself. I think things are working out pretty good the
> way they are. But I sure wouldn't characterize someone whose opinion
> differs as a fascist, petty or otherwise, and wonder why anyone would.

Well, Scott, about the only thing that makes me madder than the
state trying to grab yet another right, turn it into a privilege and
then charge me for using it (as it did for driving) is to see others
trying to give the state another right it wasn't particularly
looking for at the moment.  Actually petty fascist is about the
nicest thing I can think to call them.  Other names are not suitable
for a public forum.

Licensing almost never has anything to do with safety, though the
proponents usually wrap themselves in the banner to help move things
along.  Licensing almost always has to do either with power or
exclusion or both.  My state recently passed a mandatory licensing
requirement for burglar alarm installers.  Has nothing to do with
safety - the requirement being to take a one-time piddly little
open-book test and pay a fee.  It has everything to do with raising
the barrier to entry for would-be dealers and to exclude the
part-timers such as myself.  The only licenses that actually relate
to qualifications or safety are those that require continuing
education and annual testing or requalification.  Driver's licensing
does none of this.  Tn requires a periodic eye test but what is
interesting is that I can pass the test without my glasses even
though I'm practically blind without them.  I imagine the only
people who fail the eye tests are those who can't distinguish light
from dark.

Usually when you scratch around underneath the verneer of the petty
fascist/busybodies you find that they've spent so much time minding
other peoples' business that their own house is in shambles.  Me, I
have more than enough to do attending to my own business.

John

From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Heads Up!
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 15:49:17 EST
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel

Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie wrote:
> 
> In article <38618716.E03E1CDE@bellsouth.net>, Neon John
> <johngdNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 
> > Well, Scott, about the only thing that makes me madder than the
> > state trying to grab yet another right, turn it into a privilege
> > ...
> 
>   John, I do recall that the courts do, and have, considered driving a
> privilege and not a right, and have for more years then most of us have
> been driving.

The courts routinely batter the 2nd amendment and not so long ago
they enforced the Jim Crow laws too.  It's a sign of just how bad
things have become when anyone quotes anything a court has said as
the reason to justify the taking of a right.  The court is just
another branch of government.  I believe it was Warren Burger who
said that anyone who looked to the Supreme Court to protect personal
liberties was a fool.  He proved himself so very right.

Try as I might, I simply cannot find anywhere in the Constitution
where the regulation of driving is a power assigned to the
government.  Regulating drivers may or may not be a good thing (I
think not personally.)  But assuming it is, the Constitution
provided a means of changing what the government is allowed to do
and that is the amendment process.  The process was made difficult,
bordering on impossible precisely because our founders, having just
been bloodied by another totalitarian government (which was much
less onerous than our current one), KNEW that government would run
amok if given any lead.  

The 2nd amendment was not put in the constitution to facilitate
personal protection, as so many pro-gun people think.  The right of
personal protection was a given.  The 2nd amendment was put in place
to facilitate the overthrow of corrupt government.  In other words,
the killing of politicians who endeavored to steal rights.  This
meaning is plainly evident in the writings of the founders.  That
was the check that balanced the almost unlimited power of a
government with a standing army and state police.  That we've failed
in our duties as citizens is tragic.  I'm as guilty as the rest,
much to my shame.

Up until the late 60s, the premise of government in most parts of
the country (NY and a few other yankee states excepted) was that
everyone had the right to do just about anything and that
appropriate punishment would be meted out to those who stepped over
the clearly prescribed lines.  The concept of "preventing" someone
from doing something was considered absurd.  A close parallel was
the way our national forests were managed.  Everything was OK unless
specifically prohibited.  The pendulum has swung completely to the
other side nowadays.  One can do very little without official state
permissions (permits, licenses, etc).  In the forest, everything is
prohibited unless explicitly permitted.  "Prohibiting" a behavior in
the US has been a dismal failure.  Prohibition (back when the
government still amended the constitution in order to take away
rights) failed.  The Drug War on the Constitution has failed
miserably.  The War on Crime (sic) has failed miserably. (the dip in
crime statistics is completely explained by the momentary dip in
people of the crime-prone age.)  Even trying to regulate out bad
drivers has failed.

We're seeing the "frog in the pan of water" syndrome in action. 
Sad, very sad.

John

John De Armond
johngdSPAMNOT@bellsouth.net
http://neonjohn.4mg.com
Neon John's Custom Neon
Cleveland, TN
"Bendin' Glass 'n Passin' Gas"

From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Heads Up!
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 13:41:59 EST
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel

altar@nospam.net wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 15:51:21 -0500, Neon John
> <johngdNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 
> > In the forest, everything is
> >prohibited unless explicitly permitted.
>
> Chapter and verse quotation, please. I do what I damn well want to in
> the forest, have good relationships with the local law there, and the
> rangers. The few things that are prohibited, I don't do.

Let me make a little suggestion to you (and anyone else who wants to
discuss issues with me).  Don't ever waste your breath on that
"chapter and verse" crap.  I never waste MY time on such rot.  You
can assign whatever value you like to my writings - including zero. 
But if you get up off your ass and check, you'll find that I'm
invariably correct.  In this instance, you do "what you dam well
want" only either because whatever these activities are permitted in
a Forest Service Land Use Plan or you simply have not been caught
yet.  Just on the off-chance you do get up and investigate, go to
your forest service regional office and ask to view their land use
plan.  You might also want to look at the forest service
authorization bills starting in about 1974.  Me, I don't need to
look because I know this stuff by heart, having been in battle to
keep our forests open to multiple uses since about 1974.

> I cannot sit by and have our government (which admitedly has many
> faults) trashed with wild inuendo and half truths. I believe we CAN
> make things better within the existing framework. To think otherwise
> would dishonor those who fought and died for our freedom.      Tom

Spoken by an armchair general who is coward enough not to sign his
messages.  perhaps while you're up off your dark side (ha!), you
might want to read some American history.  Not the sanitized stuff
used in the schools nowadays but the real documents (or
reproductions thereof).  You would learn that your attitude is the
type our founding fathers feared - sympathizers of a strong central
government.  I agree with Jefferson, a little revolution ever couple
of decades is the remedy to preserve freedom.  We're long overdue.

And I WILL sign my writings, just like another famous John.

John

From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Save the presidents reputation
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:01:40 EST
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel

HHamp5246 wrote:
> 
> >I like to camp in the Smokies, a national park.
> >Horses are permitted on the trails, bicycles are NOT.
> >From the perspective of trail damage, I would like to see someone explain
> THAT. >
> 
> As I said, tires make ruts.  But, is that why bicycles are not allowed?  Maybe
> they aren't allowed because they frighten the horses and can then hurt/kill a
> rider.  Horses, being prey animals, have the instinct to freak and run then
> wonder what that was.  I've been on horses who have panicked when an unexpected
> bicycle comes up behind them.  From that stand point I would rather have a
> motorized something coming at me... at least I can hear it coming.
> Have you asked why bikes are not allowed. Maybe it's because the trails are
> "nature" trails.
> Horses can be considered nature.... bikes can't.

Actually being imports from Spain, horses are the intruders here. 
for all the reasons you cited, it would seem to be the horses who
should be banned.  I just *HATE* it when a bunch of horse types
invade our bike trails.  The horse crap aside, the digging hooves
utterly DESTROY the trail bed.  Since we work with the forest
service to maintain our trails and pay recreation fees that horse
riders don't to use our trails, it really pisses us off!  Of course,
the horse people claim to have some divine right to ride ANYWHERE. 
They seem to take offense when WE want to do the same.

To answer the original question, the reason horses are allowed where
others are not is because many aristocrats (and those who think they
are) are horse riders and therefore can cook the laws to their
tastes.  A read of either the forest service authorization bill or
the Eastern wilderness act will nauseate you if you're sensitive to
the actions of selfish special interests.