"*" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:01c61449$6334a340$d4a6c3d8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Budd Cochran <mr-d150@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SPAM.net> wrote in article
> <43c084c2$0$3034$6d36acad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>>
>>
>> Yes, especially if you pull out too close to the truck. Try dropping
back
> a
>> bit ( gives better view around the truck as well) accelerate in your
lane
>
>> and pull out before you get to the rooster tail. You'll zip thru much
> faster
>> and lose your vision for a shorter time.
>
> My point being that I could STAY in the rooster tail and STILL have good
> vision with the Rain-X......no loss of vision passing through.......
Which is idiocy. Better and smarter to plan ahead so you avoid that
situation, Rain-X or no Rain-X.
>
>>
>> If you are in the lane behind the truck before pulling to the other
lane,
>
>> you are following . . or about to be in a head on accident.
>
> If I pull out into the adjacent lane on an Interstate highway, I put
> myself
> in jeopardy of a head-on accident???????
Now who has the comprehension problems. Read the first half of the
sentence
also.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> RESPONSIBILITY is to pass the truck safely. By pulling out before you
are
> so
>> close as to get soaked in the rooster tail, you reduce the chances of
an
>> accident due to reduced visibility . . .( sarcasm mode at full) talk
> about
>> needing to spell it out . . .
>
> As I have pointed out time and time again.......on an Interstate
highway,
> I
> could be approaching the truck from a quarter-mile back in the passing
> lane
> - not even directly behind the truck.
No . . .You DID NOT say that time and time again, unless it's echoing in
your empty skull, spammer.
And if you position yourself a bit farther over in the lane from the truck
you'll also avoid much of his bow wave.
>
> When I pull up NEXT to the truck, I'm going to get washed over with the
> rooster tail.
Then I'll be sure to neve ride with you. You're already halfway under his
wheels.
>
> Going through quickly - as you suggest - does, indeed reduce the time of
> vision loss due to water from the truck's rooster tail......
>
> BUT.......
>
> Using Rain-X ELIMINATES the buildup of water on the windshield, and you
go
> through ZERO time of vision loss due to the layer of water on the
> windshield.
ROTFLMBO!!!!! Boy, you are the spamming fool. Tell me something, if your
crap works so good, how come there has not been a significant reduction in
highway accidents attributed to it's use?
Tell us again how Rain-X does a Moses and parts the thick layer of water
that a tractor trailer rig can throw on a windshield, (I've seen it, but I
wasn't driving at the time). Prove your zero time claim.
>
> Yes....talk about the need to spell things out........
No, you're not spelling things out, you're just repeating your sales
mantra.
>
>
>>
>> Only those that have not learned you don't have to be on a truck's
bumper
>
>> before pulling out to pass.
>
> No, but you DO have to go through the rooster tail as you come up
> alongside
> the truck....
Really? So how come in 40 years of driving, I've never had that horrific
loss of vision you claim?
>
> What an idiot!!!!!
A self-description? Really, you must learn to be more critical of
yourself.
You wouldn't make an infectded pimple on an idiot's butt.
>
>>
>> And spammers annoy me.
>
> You obviously don't know what constitutes SPAMMING, which causes me to
> seriously question if you know ANYTHING about driving.......
You're selling an item, for personal financial gain, unsolicited, in a
newsgroup (or as you've done, crossposted it) . . . yep, that's spamming.
If you had just been giving a testimonial on a product, you would have let
mine, and other posts to your detraction, slide by, afterall, each of us
is
entitled to an opinion and you would have kept you comments in one or two
favorite groups without crossposting, but you hit the entire prime set for
spammers, didn't you?
'Tis you that are the idiot, methinks.
Budd
|
