text:
A friend and his wife were driving to dinner in their '12 T TOURING after registering and signing in on a Horseless Carriage Club tour today that starts thursday.
They were in the right lane going 45MPH when suddenly they were hit from behind by a BIG RIG DOING ABOUT 70.
They went off the road and through a fence into a field at a high rate of speed.
The car is totaled, but they were not hurt.............yet.
I have a feeling they're gonna be hurtin tomorrow (thursday)!
I don't know any more details. They were both taken to the local hospital but the driver assured me both he and his wife are okay. They said the truck driver told them they were going real slow?!
Guess he didn't see that big touring car with the top up in broad daylight.
I have noticed recently that the big rigs are increasingly being driven by very unprofessional and incompetent drivers. Anybody can get a CDL these days. There are many professional and courteous drivers out there, but they seem to be increasingly in the minority. I travel from Dallas to Austin once a week and the problem is getting worse, they pull out in front of you, tailgate, and the worst of the worst, the truck doing 64 trying to pass the truck doing 65.
1) This seams to be a Problem all over, these 6 week Tractor Trailer Schools teach, drive over everbody, I know I had a Cousing in a 17 T got drove over 2 years ago.
Excellent thing they were doing 45 mph, cause if under that in N.Y.S you are Liable 100%, is no t doing 45 Mph.
Know comes the Slow Moving: Honestly with out one in N.Y.S, You have no leg to stand on.
Be thankful they were not seroiusely hurt.
In Pa. in 2010, they 100% require Seat Bealts in Antique Cars.
Richard Henza Historical Vechicals Association
Vechical Sign
Well,being hit in the back end by a big rig is something I can say,Been there done that.Just not in a T.
I am glad they are alive and can heal up.
I just hope the truckers insurance lawyers will be fair in settleing with them on the car and the exspenses incured by the truck driver.Trust me when I say,fairness is not prevalent in that industry.They will be lucky if they get enough to repair-replace the car.And that wont take to long to get,the medical,3 years or better.
Please if the insurance company does not give you a better than new car AND 250,000 dollars hire the best private insurance adjustor and lawyer combination Let them do the work for 25 percent of recovery. It has saved me a ton of time and money
Things have sure changed since 1912. back then all of the roads were unpaved and the fastest thing to contend with was either another automobile, incapable of going faster than you, a galloping horse and rider, or horse and buggy.
I'm very happy that the unfortunate couple were unhurt, but if they were driving on an Interstate highway going 45mph (in that 1912 Touring, they were probably doing more like 35), the truck driver and his lawyer may have a case that the T was traveling at an unlawfully slow speed, without the proper slow moving warning signs.
It behooves all of us to keep in mind that, if we must drive on the highways along with modern fast moving traffic that it is imperative and our responsibility that we use as many warning devices as possible (flashing lights, signs, etc.) to warn fast moving traffic coming from behind, of our presence. A vehicle going so slow comes up awfully fast on a truck driver going 70 or 80, especially with the driver sitting so high above the road focused on the road way up ahead. Just saying. Jim Patrick
The exact opposite situation happened in Maryland yesterday afternoon, just outside the Washington Beltway on US 50 East. A semi-truck driver had his low air warning come on, so he pulled to the shoulder and stopped. A car driving on the shoulder at around 60 mph hit the truck in the rear. The driver almost got the car all the way under the truck and died instantly. Whether that was an accident or a suicide will remain a question difficult to answer.
Ditto on Davids advice. I had an accident 7 years ago and they showed right away that they didn't intend to be fair. I went and got an attourney right away to level the playing field. In TN it is 33% but that is still better than you'll get going it alone.
In Minnesota last week, a flat bed semi carrying hundreds of bee hives was stopped for road construction. Behind that semi were two automobiles. A second semi failed to stop and crushed both autos, killing both drivers. Fire men had to done protective suits and spray water on the crushed autos (to ward off the bees) to remove the bodies.
Cars and trucks do come up very fast. I've posted these pictures before but for anyone interested, I bought a battery powered LED flashing light from NAPA, it's magnetic an can be installed anywhere. I only cruise around 25 mph so I put on the removable SMV sign. Not very attractive, I'll admit but may save a life. Hopfully I spend a lot of time watching my rear view mirror. I know It's not possible for some people but I always pick a little used road to drive on. After all, when I drive my old truck, I'm not on a mission or going any where in particular. I was taught years ago not to play in the highway.
In California the maximum speed limit for big trucks is 55 MPH. It is rare to see one going under 70 unless it is going up a steep grade. They usually driven second lane from the right so they won't be slowed down by merging traffic or slow vehicles. Here we don't drive the T's on major highways if we can possibly avoid it.
In NC lawyers portion is 35% unless your lawyer stretches it to go past 3 years,so he can get 38%.To crawl with the snakes,you have to hire 1.
Those triangle signs are only allowed on farm vehicles and construction vehicles in some states and they will get you a ticket too. Check your state laws before using one.
The same thing is true of flashing red lights. They are only allowed and legit in some states.
A West Virginia T driver was hit on I-70 in Maryland a few years ago and seriously injured, along with his wife, even though he had a flashing white strobe lght on the back of his T.
Driving a T on any four lane highway with a speed limit above 45 mph is very dangerous and should be avoided at all times.
Anyone riding in a Model T that is hit from the rear has to have some damage to their body.
It would be a great comfort to know those two people are still feeling OK today.
David's advice is excellent. But there is a lot of malpractice out there, I know. To understate the problem, I mean the client gets much less than the full attention and efforts of the lawyer. Seems like workers comp plantiffs attorneys have the worst reputation. I had a girlfriend work as an attorney for a local big name workers comp firm and the stories she would tell made me shake my head in disgust. Hopefully you know a good lawyer or can find one. There are excellent ones out there too. I have seen representation so artful and convincing it brought a tear to my eye. Its just the bad get all the attention.
I put the triangle sign on the back of all of my T's that I drive. I do not care if it is only for Tractors or not. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Thanks, Dan
As James points out check your state laws.
"Iowa law requires all vehicles traveling
on public roads at speeds less than
30 miles per hour to display an SMV
emblem on the rear of the vehicle."
I'm actually required to have one at the speeds I drive my TT.
Displaying one does not become illegal until beyond 35 mph. Between 30 and 35 are optional.
Richard you mentioned seat belt requirements in antique cars.Please folkes,dont take it I am trying to start a crapy mess here.
I cant help but think they are opening themselves up to a huge can of worms the tax payers would be paying them to fish with for many years.Who would be the engineer to design proper installations for each antique car?Are they leaveing it to the owner?Is he trained in car design and can sign off on the plan he has come up with that it will not fail and save lives?Cars with seatbelts were designed for them with crush zones and such and the bodys reinforced at attachment points.We have discussed here many times and folkes all aggree,being bolted to a piece of 90 year old wood,probably aint much good.
I'm certainly no expert in this, but I believe that a large part of the problem with the big rigs is the economics of it. I'd be willing to bet that predominatley the properly operated big rigs are driven by salaried employees. The others, I believe, are predominately operated by "independent" operators who are paid by the mile.
Don't get me wrong. I truly believe in a "free and level" economic playing field for all ligitimate commerce. However, this is a good example of the right philosophy gone wrong!
Just my opinion.
Most truck drivers are very professional and the best drivers on the planet. Some push themselves to the point of exhaustion. My 93 year old Uncle drove a truck all of his working career. He started In a Ford TT at 14. Through the years, He had a lot of close call stories to tell. One of my favorite sayings is "You never go to sleep while driving....You just wake up". I wouldn't drive my modern car or truck at 40 mph on the Interstate and I certainly wouldn't drive an 85 year old one either, at least with out a large arrow board on a very large truck bringing up the rear.
Aaron, sorry about the thread drift and I'm happy to hear your friends are OK.
I have the triangular sign on the back of my 15 touring car here in North Carolina. It is attached with magnets so it is easily removed. I don't know if it is legal, but think that it helps.
In Califunny, there is no minimum speed limit on any highway in the state. BUT, ANY highway patrolman can pull you over and tell you to get off or declare you to be a hazard and write you a ticket for that, for any reason he wants to. I knew someone that was written a ticket for going too slow, 45 in a 35 zone, on a winding, narrow, two lane road at night in the rain. The Highway patrolman was in a hurry. No one else was on the road. He contested the ticket in court and lost. The patrolman had been doing about 70, he knew the road and it was late at night, rounded a curve and almost wrecked in his surprise to almost run into someone. He was angry.
And people wonder why I call it "Califunny".
Most of the Highway Patrolmen I have talked to are wonderful people. They even tell me they will look the other way when I drive my cars that have either no headlamps or gas headlamps in the "Daylight Safety Zone" which requires you to have your headlamps turned on. (Provided I am not driving slow enough to be a serious hazard.)
The car may have been part of this HCCA tour group:
The May 26-29, 2010 Old California / Blossom / Bay Area Tour in Soledad CA.
Hosted by - Central California & Santa Clara Regions in conjunction with the Bay Area, Modesto and Santa Cruz Regions.
somebody better give fair warning that there will be about 25 T speedsters driving around the south bay area on June 13th.
So glad nobody was hurt in the touring car.
I drove big rigs after retireing,and I believe that you can blame the bad driver(big rigs)mostly on our government creating N.A.F.T.A - Canadian and mexican drivers need not obay our laws and can drive any where in the US they like. But there some bad American ones also.
Bob mc.
My advice concerning a lawyer would be That you should be checked out by a doctor just in case it turns out to be something worse than a whiplash or bruises. That way you will have a record to prove it actually happened in the accident.
If the insurance company gives you a reasonable offer for the repair or replacement of the car, take it. The cost of lawyers other than insurance company lawyers will most likely not be worth it. They have a way of dragging things out to their own benefit. You would most likely get more from the insurance company than you would after deducting the cost of a personal lawyer. Only use a lawyer if the insurance company tries to get off the hook or wants to settle for a small amount. It should be the truck company or their insurance company who pays and your company would just take the bill if it is proven to be your fault.
Those of us with antique vehicles are concerned when laws change that have an effect on how we can use our vehicles. Richard Henza has posted on this forum and a couple others, several comments about certain laws that effect antique cars. Many of the things he has stated, I don't know anything about and I won't address them. However, when it comes to the seat belt issue in Pennsylvania, his statement that ALL antique cars (Brass era included) must have seat belts, I will challenge those comments. Having check with all published reports available on the Pennsylvania seat belt law, I find nothing that changes the previous interpretation. That states the requirement for seat belts applies to "motor vehicles manufactured AFTER July 1, 1966". I have also contacted an underwriter for the largest antique car insurance company to see if they knew anything about this change. His reply was that they had no knowledge of that law change but would investigate it. After several days, he got back to me with this reply:
" I spoke with a PA police officer last night, as well as checked the SEMA SAN website, both support that there was no change in the law, so only vehicles manufactured after July 1, 1966 need to be equipped with a seat belt system."
Richard has also stated on other boards, that people have been arrested and fined??? If this is true, the only way I can see this happening is if the cars involved were modified street rods which come under a different portion of the law. I have read nothing about this in either of the national Model T magazines or the HCCA publication. I'm sure there are plenty of Model T guys in Pennsylvania that can tell us if this is true or not. There are enough legitimate things to be concerned about in our hobby's future without getting upset about things that have no basis in fact.
If I'm all wet about this, would someone else (other than Richard) please fill us in.
I would not even think of driving my 16 T on the freeway. You miss too much by not driving the back roads.
With 35 years of accident free 3 1/2 million miles it is not hard to understand what went wrong. They do not teach speed and distance in driver ed, you either have it or you don't and it is seen every day weather you drive a car or truck. At 65 miles an hour your on top of another vehicle before you know it, you have to pay attention every second for that other vehicle. That is one of the problems with driving old cars on the highway. Every year vehicles run into the back of horse drawn buggies, you have got to pay attention to what is going on in back of you as well as the front and sides. Give the trucking industry climate it only get worse. I hope the people are ok, they were lucky
I find it interesting that this thread is spending so much time on whether or not to drive a T on a highway, or on an Interstate. I re-read Aaron's original post. He doesn't use the word "highway" anywhere. All he said was, "They were in the right lane going 45MPH when suddenly they were hit from behind by a BIG RIG DOING ABOUT 70." It could have been a four-lane urban boulevard with a 45 or 50 mph speed limit. Perhaps Aaron can get some more details and fill in some of the blanks.
Many were the times I followed a big rig up a long hill at frustratingly low speeds. Okay, they're heavy, they can't help it, I understand that. They turn on their flashers and the rest of us in modern cars simply have to deal with it and share the road. Well, pardon the pun, but I think that road should be a two-way street. Yes, America's needs move by truck, but antique cars, with their historical significance and simple smile value, also have something to offer the public and they're rare enough not to be an ever present nuisance. Then there's the statistical fact that antique cars are driven by some of the most responsible and conscientious people on the road. Guess I just feel that law enforcement should make legitimate, discretionary allowances for that.
I can appreciate some companys controlling the speeds of their trucks on the highway.May not help a thing but it makes me feel safer being on the road with them.Trust me,when I see the "renilthgierF" In my rearview,it makes me shiver a bit to this day.
1 or 3 bad drivers make them look bad.We dont notice the millions of miles the others drive without any problems.
I think the real issue is that, at a glance, antique cars simply do not register in people's minds. They have become so unlike anything else on the road that they don't click in people's subconscious minds and they get almost ignored.
At a split second glance we interpret a pedestrian, a stroller, a child, a modern car, etc. but, something as foriegn and unusual as an antique car needs a bit longer to process, if it ever does, and sometimes, the additional second or two spells disaster.
Wisconsin statutes state that the Slow Moving Sign can only be used on vehicles that normally travel at less than 25mph. I think the important distinction is the word 'normally', or at least that is how it is worded. So that would mean I could speed up to 40 as long as I normally travel less than 25.
Better not put any of that Tiger in the tank.
Regarding the seat belt law in PA. From other forums Richard Henza has posted on he refers to HR67. This bill in PA does address seat belt usage and it does mention antique cars. The first part refers to carrying children in a car seat, however it only applies where there is a seat belt originally installed.
Any person who is operating a passenger car, Class I truck, Class II truck, classic motor vehicle, antique motor vehicle or motor home and who transports a child four years of age or older but under eight years of age anywhere in the
motor vehicle, including the cargo area, shall fasten such child securely in a fastened safety seat belt system and in an appropriately fitting child booster seat, as defined in subsection (d). This paragraph shall apply to all persons
while they are operators of motor vehicles where a seating position is available which is equipped with a seat safety belt or other means to secure the systems or where the seating position was originally equipped with seat safety belts.
It also applies to the driver and front seat passengers, but there is the standard exception for vehicles manufactured before July 1, 1966.
See the complete text here:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sess Yr=2009&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0067&pn=0067
It's down at the very bottom of the document.
Dave S.
Here's the California law regarding minimum speed limits:
22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow
speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation,
because of a grade, or in compliance with law.
No person shall bring a vehicle to a complete stop upon a highway
so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic unless the stop is necessary for safe operation or in
compliance with law.
(b) Whenever the Department of Transportation determines on the
basis of an engineering and traffic survey that slow speeds on any
part of a state highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable
movement of traffic, the department may determine and declare a
minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle,
except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law,
when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected along the
part of the highway for which a minimum speed limit is established.
Subdivision (b) of this section shall apply only to vehicles
subject to registration.
My mom got a ticket for driving under 45 mph on the Harbor Freeway. As Subdivision (b) warns, there can be specific minimum limits on some roads.
I do know South Carolina has a minimum on the interstate of 45.
Motorcycles have suffered the not being seen problem for a long time but lately more are on the road than used to be.So folkes are learning to look for them.
Distractions from actually driveing can lead to alot of the problems.
Dick; 101 is a N-S 4 lane divided Highway in that area and the speed limit is either 65 or 70 there. All trucks and pass cars towing have a max speed limit of 55 MPH on any road in california. The hiway starts in San Diego runs thru L A, Santa Barbara and at Pismo beach leaves the coast. Runs up the Salinas valley to San Jose and San Francisco and then up to Oregon. It is a major hiway.
Jim Weir
Jim, what am I missing? I just re-read Aaron's opening post for the umpteenth time and don't see any mention of 101 or any other highway. How do we know he was on 101?
Sorrry guys, I can't read all of the posts.
They were NOT on an INTERSTATE! They were NOT on a freeway.
They were on 101 south of Salinas almost into Greenfield after the freeway ran out.
They had no seatbelts.
They broke the seatback when they were hit.
As they went through the fence it ripped off the windshield, bent the steering wheel and ripped off the top. whew!
I saw the car today.
I'm quite sure the cylinder head and waterpump are okay!
It had a luggage rack on the back with a leather suitcase full of things including a grease gun, a suction gun and some other metal containers.
I'me sure that all help absorbe some of the shock as that seems to be the point of impact.. The sitcase was shreaded.
The car was very original including the radiator, which was split open. It does have a new Warford.
I'll send pictures to anyone who would like to post them for me.
The car was insured with Hagerty.
Witnesses said the trucker just ran straight into them. There was not a problem of traffic shifting lanes.
The touring had no front doors. They were damn lucky they didn't get thrown out.
They are both in the limping stage today.
They were both taken to a hospital strapped to gurnies in ambulances after the accident yesterday.
They were checked and released. No broken bones but the lady had some nasty scrapes on her legs.
The driver hauled the car back to Oakland today and he is now limping but not hurting too much.
They put the car on a pile of pallets and had a forklift set it all on the trailer.
All trucks and towing vehicles -- whether pulling a little bitty trailer behind a motorcycle or a big rig with a 48 foot reefer behind it are limited to 55 mph on any California highway. (Ask me how I found this out.) If they were going 45 the truck should have only been running ten mph faster then they were. The guy should lose his CDL license and be sent back to Pakistan or wherever all these new drivers are coming from and the insurance company should take care of their loss and injuries.
Esimates as high as 75 MPH were heard on this one.
The driver of the T told me today that after impact his car went 175 yards. That includes going through a fence and traveling along side the ditch in a field without a left rear wheel and the two front wheels laying flat and no rim or tire on the rt. rear.
It was digging into the mud a good share of the way.
I'll send pictures by email to anyone who would like to post them for me.
There was one report that the car went end-over end, but I think that witness was mistaken.
Dick; Read my post "T accident". This was posted several hours before this post and I'm sure these are the same accidents.
Jim Weir
A big rig travelling 75mph is travelling 110 feet per second. If the driver's reaction time from the time he sees the Model T to the time he hits the brake is 3 seconds, he has already travelled the length of a football field. Add to that, the time it takes the brakes to engage and the heavy truck to skid to a slow enough speed to avoid rearending the Model T and you can conclude that the semi driver didn't have much time at all to avoid a rearend collision, even if he saw the Model T up ahead. The hazards are compounded on wet roads or at night, or in fog with the one dim rear light of the Model T, so it is best just to stay off of the highways in your Model T's.
Model T's are very rare and as nice as it is to see one out and about, most drivers don't realize just how slow they are going and are not expecting them, especially if they are distracted, which is almost always the case. If you cannot heed this advice then please take all the precautions posible to protect you, your loved ones and your Model T because no one else is going to do it and you cannot know what kind drivers, you will encounter... especially with all of the dangerous distractions built into the cars, these days, that take the attention of the driver from the road. Distractions, such as, dialing or talking on the cellphone, texting, adjusting the radio, looking through a stack of CD's, watching the GPS direction finder, applying makeup, reading the morning paper, eating breakfast, or even watching movies, are all a recipe for disaster for the Model T driver who is determined to assert his right to drive wherever he wants on whatever highway he chooses. Above all, use your common sense and be careful. Jim Patrick
I wonder if the accident would have been avoided if the car had been fitted with LED safety lights.
Legal or not, as Dan Hatch stated above, "Better to by tried by 12 than carried by 6."
Jim, I did read your post. It speaks of two T's caravanning and one driving into a ditch and flipping over. I didn't see anything to link the two accidents.
Hate to challenge your math, Mr. Patrick, but your calculation seems to assume the T is stopped. The 75 vs 45 mph speed difference is 44 fps, or 130 feet in 3 seconds.
It's very rare to see a big rig doing over 65 anywhere in Calif, especially that section of 101. Fuel tankers and other hazmat rigs will be ticketed for driving 56 mph, and the fine is over $1500, I've been told.
Regardless, the bigrig driver was impaired, either mentally or by distraction, for this accident to happen. If he was a professional driver, he will have to find a different career. If he was one of the thousands of farmworkers in the area, he is probably back in Mexico already.
Earier many were talking about the legal use of the SMV sign. Jim brings up a good point regarding peoples perception of the speed of a vehicle especially when approaching from behind.
Though we all relate the SMV sign to typicaly AG equipment or the Omish in their buggys, the SMV sign is a nationally reconized traffic warning device and i believe would give attention to up coming traffic at a great distance. At the very least, IF traffic coming up from the rear does see the sign it at least SHOULD convey a warning of caution.
Personally I would rather pay a fine then a hospital bill or worse if the sign helps even a little bit. Then if recieving fines in states for the illigal use of the sign, the law needs to be twicked to include antigue cars and these cars can have certain restrictions upon what roads they can travel.
If you don't see a whole friggin' car in broad daylight, how are you going to see a little triangle? It would help at night, however.
That trucker obviously would have hit whatever was in front of him.
www.maps.google.com shows some alternates to 101 between Soledad and Greenfield. They are single lane each way, and presumably more risky for a slow car than the 101. Look at the satellite view.
Stan if that truck driver was treated as well as the 1 that hit me,he werent even drug tested.A requirement of any cdl driver involved in a accident.
sad thing is these newer rigs,have such quite exhaust systems you dont hear them comeing till the crash.That was the case in my wreck anyhow.Noone heard anything except CERASH!
These pix of a 1912T were taken at 07:30, certainly no worse conditions than on 101 going southeast in late afternoon. What's so tough about seeing this car?
Bob McDonald, I can assure you that NAFTA in no way negates your local traffic laws. We Canadians are absolutely required to obey your laws when we are in whatever jusdiction we are visiting or passing through. My uncle and many of my friends did and still do long haul into the US, and they assure me that having a Canadian passport does not mean you can drive like a maniac out of country!!!!!!
It was not a farm truck, or a mexican trucker.
It was a pro in an 18 wheeler.
RD has offered to post pics later this afternoon. I should be home by 6PM to forward them to him.
Rob, I-15, which is the main north/south corridor Interstate for transportation in the western US and Canada runs about a block from my house. Truckers from Alberta are a problem as are tourists from Alberta. They know good and well that the highway patrol can't do much to them. They get stopped, they get a ticket, they pay it or throw it away and head off down the road. The points that would go on your license here and cost you thousands of dollars in additional insurance fees or the loss of your CDL do not have any effect on their Alberta license. Come out here and drive this road this time of year and you'll find that most of the Canadian trucks are running 10 to 25 MPH over the speed limit. Likewise, Albertan tourists routinely run 85-100 MPH once they get to Montana because they know it will just be a fine to pay if they get stopped but won't affect their license in Alberta.
The other side of that is that the BC drivers all tend to drive about 45 -- not the truckers, the ones with the big motorhomes. A lot of tourists in general can't read. There is a sign where you start up the gulch that says, "Warning to Motorhomes and large vehicles...." Every once in awhile the cops have to go help some guy get his motorhome out of one of the little narrow streets up in the historic part of town. funny.
I just hope the trucker didn't brake his cellphone.
I would like to piggy-back on what Jerry stated:
"I think the real issue is that, at a glance, antique cars simply do not register in people's minds. They have become so unlike anything else on the road that they don't click in people's subconscious minds and they get almost ignored."
That is so true. Most People today that I encouter have absolutely no concept nor appreciation for pre-muscle car era automobiles. It seems to be all related to speed and creature comforts. They kinda appreciate cars from the 1950's and late 1940's, but not earlier. They have no understanding as to how they operate and can't figure out why someone would want to own a rig that "slow" and "antiquated." They also can't understand why I won't hot-rod my car. It seems if they weren't brought up to appreciate the antique cars, it's very hard to convince them that the hobby is worthwhile.
Canada has maximum and minimum posted limits. If you cannot maintain 60 kph (36 mph)on a 100-110 kph road, stick to the secondaries, where the maximum posted limits are 50-80 kph.
Seatbelts required on 1967 and up cars. Turn signals required where they were original equipment for that car/YOM.
Cars with antique plates must drive on secondary roads only.
You are right Stan, however, and correct me if I'm wrong, an unpaid fine will result in a bench warrant. You get pulled over again, and you are SOL. While it may vary from state to state, I believe an unpaid fine will get you arrested on the spot if a bench warrant has been issued. Never had any issues with American Law enforcement, so I dont know it for a fact, but thats what I have been told. And I think I would die laughing at watching a guy try to move a big motorhome in a narrow street! The Albertans drive like that here in Nova Scotia as well!!!
Bob, I believe the antique plates sticking to secondaries is a provincial thing. Here in Nova Scotia, they can travel on any road they wish, however must maintain a minimum speed. Fine for a 58 Impala, not so easy for a T!!!!
But to reiterate what the post was originally about, Watch out when you are driving your T, Lord knows not everyone is watching out for you
Stan - We see the same thing here on I-5 thru' the Seattle/Tacoma area. Many Canadian truckers drive those big rigs much too fast. I never knew the reason for it until your explanation. I guess it's all about $$$, right? Getting over the road with a load, getting it delivered and getting back on the road with the next load is apparently worth more than the risk of a fine. I've seen Canadian semi's driving in excess of 80mph with no more than one car-length space between the truck and the car ahead of him. CRAZY!!! (Some of those truckers don't really care what lane their in either!)
There doesn't have to be an antique car involved. This accident happened a couple of years ago in suburban St. Louis.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/2B16398AEE518A2 C862577070057861D?OpenDocument
So many idiots, so few antique autos. Too many things to comment upon.
I have been fortunate to have never been at the scene of a serious crash involving an antique auto. I know too many people that have not been so lucky. One close friend has been rear-ended seriously twice. Once by a drunk, once by a distracted college student, on a secondary road.
I was with a friend in his antique when we were rear ended by a bone-brain doing about 80mph asleep at the wheel. His late model Mustang was totaled. My friends 1925 Lincoln sedan cost $350. to repair. We were not going that slow.
Peoples reaction to unusual objects is an interesting concept. I once was driving in the dead of night on a rain slick two lane highway (101 in way north Califunny), shall we say a wee bit over the speed limit. I had to swerve to miss a large black bear standing in the middle of the road. Now, I am very strict about watching the road ahead and not driving faster than I can stop in the event that an object is there. I could have stopped in the distance I had, but my brain registered the "object" as a sofa. Why? Because twice in my life I had to avoid sofas (and once a recliner, fully reclined) and I had never in all my hundreds of thousands of miles on Califunnys outer highways, about half at night, seen a bear on the road.
On that note, please, please, drive safely, W2
"Cars with antique plates must drive on secondary roads only.
Is this every province and territory in Canada or just Ontario?
What is the source of this? Is it a direct law or implied? Does it mean a Corvette with antique tags can't be driven on non-secondary roads?
My understanding (no personal experience) is Ontario and Michigan share traffic violation information. Get a ticket in Ontario and points appear on your Michigan driving record and vice-versa.
Ontario now has a law that commercial trucks have to have a speed limiter to keep speeds at or below 100 kph.
Very, very glad to hear the folks involved were not badly injuried.
I was with the folks yeasterday for a couple of hours and most of the day today.
Today I found out the guy has 13 staples in the back of his head.
He is limpng and sore all over.
His wife stayed home since wednesday night. She has plenty of scrapes and bruises. Yesterday she walked around with a walker but she'll be okay.
The car took out 5 state fence posts along the highway (State owned fence) and dragged the fence behind.
The car only went 75 yards after impact not 175 as I stated yesterday.
The truck driver was a regular white guy, no accent, 51 years old.
We will be able to get the accident report in two weeks.
I do not know what he was hauling.
The T owner was president of the Horseless Carriage Club of America a few years ago. He has a one cylinder Cad, a 4 cylinder ('13 I think) Caddilac and a big '10 Buick.
He has hauled those carsall over the west for many years. He always tows at 50 but has gone 55 in ideal conditions.
Now he has never had a complain about going to slow on a n Interstste or anyother road. So he was drivivng the T on a non-freeway road at 5 MPH slower than he tows. So what would be the proble.?
If they'd been doin 50 they'd still have been rammed.
I think it was RD and maybe Stan that said the trucks in Ca. keep it at 55.
Today I went down Interstste 880 10 miles to Freemont, dropped off my youngster at her school and drove to work in oakland, another 20 miles of fast freeway traffic.
I went 58MPH all the way. I passed every truck I saw, and there were a bunch, I saw one for a long time that was doing about 56 or 57.
He had an empty cargo trailer. I was passed by a motorhome towing a small SUV and many cars, pickups and mini-vans going much faster.
THE SPEED LIMIT in the San Francisco Bay area(S.F., Oakland, San Jose) is 65.
The T accident was not in the Bay Area but over 100 miles south.
The truck speed limit (anything towing anything) is 55. Normally the car speed limit would be 70. I don't know what it is on that non-freeway bit but as I remember from a year ago it is about 65.
It seems to me anything not on a freeway is 65 or less. 70 is freeways only.
Is a regular white guy one that has plenty of fiber in his diet?
Here are the pix from Aaron. I could have shrunk them further, but somebody might like to do some forensics.
Accidents don't get much uglier without serious injury or worse..
Was the part of 880 that you were on today the mega-rough part that jars your teeth out? I think the state is not fixing it just as a speed deterrent.
Hiway 101 above Greenfield IS a fast piece of road and it is heavily patroled by the CHP. In the last few years there have been some NASTY wrecks there usually caused by speed and the fact that drivers don't notice vehicles turning on or off the road from side roads. The speed limit is 65 and that strip of road is NOT a limited-access road. That does not happen until Greenfield. The speed limit jumps to 70 just south of King City.
I have driven that road many times in the last 40 years and the drivers are getting stupider every year.
It never dawned on me that there are two Greenfields. One is on 101 between King City and Soledad, and the other is on old 99 (Union Avenue) south of Bakersfield.
Wow, it looks like the right front spindle must be bent over--but the spokes look to be intact.
Must be hickory!
It's getting very scary out there.
As for today's folks not appreciating pre-40s cars, and wanting "turn key" with air conditioning, etc. Yes--there is a real loss of appreciation of anything historical with many of today's under 30 crowd.
Gee, when we were young, it was "Don't trust anyone over 35." Now it's "Don't trust anyone under 40!"
David D.
tO FOUR OF US t MECHANICS AND t OWNERS IT LOOKS LIKE BOTH FRONT WHEELS ARE STILL JUST FINE.
they found the tire from the left rear but never did find the rim and felloe. It probably went into a pond nearby.
The right rear wheel also broke up but the parts all stayed with the car.
The front axle has bent forward. The radius rods are bent giving the axle about 50 degrees negative caster. The right steeing arm that comes out of the spindle broke off.
Remember, this car broke 5 fence posts off after going through the ditch.
Some guys and the owner(John Morrison) went back the next morning to look for John's glasses.
They found the bent glasses rims but never did find the wheel rim.
Notice how the steering wheel is almost ripped off by the brbed wire fence they went through after they were rear ended and the seat back broke leaving the two of them laying back as the barbed wire went over them and ripped the entire top right off!
They are damn lucky to be alive. John and Carolee Morrison.
Did anyone take any pictures at the actual scene of the accident? Newspaper, local tv or individuals, etc.?
The Calif. Highway Patrol took lots of pictures at the scene.
Other than that nobody that I know got pictures there right after the accident.
Some of the traffic stopped and took pictures and went on.
A nice laDY stopped and went out there and asked if the couple in the car if they could hear her.
They seemed to have been knocked out untill then.
They said they could hear her and she then asked if they thought they were well enough to move because they were sitting over a big bunch of gasolene on the ground. The fuel tank had ruptured.
They both decided they were so they sat up and walked out of the car.
They asked the lady what had happened. The lady told them they had been hit by a big truck.
Untill then they had no idea what was happening to them.
The car was a Wide-Track 1912 touring.
It has repro Rockie Mountain brakes and a Layne Warford.
I personally had installed a new aluminum lower pulley (the split kind) the day before.
It also had a water pump and a 12 volt battery under the back seat.
When the nice lady told the they were sitting on top of the gasolene on th ground and dripping from the tank John said he suddenly hear the coils buzzing so the first thing he did was sit up and turn the switch off.
He runs on battery because occasionally the mag would just go dead.
Now emagine this: what if they didn't break the seat back and the car caught fire?
remember the fence?
A little more back ground on the car. It was formerly owned by HCCA member George Kober, George's father bought the car new, it's a very original car.
Pete eastwood
Thanks for all the followup on this, Aaron.
There was nothing in the Salinas rag about the wreck. The Monterey Herald might be worth a check, but my son who lives there say his browser always gets shut down when he tries to view their site.
Maybe the "Doin' Times" (Soledad prison) would have something. .
That steering wheel likely saved them from having their heads cut off by the barbed wire fence. They were unlucky that they lost their car, but very very lucky they kept their lives.
George Kober... I remember George and Helen from when I was a kid. Their family imigrated from Alsfeld, Germany. Somewhere I've got pictures of a street sign in Alsfeld named 'Kober Strasse'. George was the local equivalent of 'Ron the Coilman' for all of us in the bay area back in the 60s and 70s... at least around the Berkeley area. Always replaced the capacitors, always used a HCCT. I spent a lot of time in the back of that car as a kid. I'm sure it was dark blue back then, though. Not trying to get off track, just reminising.
I drove a truck for 36 yrs and could see the deterionation(?) of the quality of truckdriver when they started these truck driving schools where in 3 weeks you could be a truck driver. The joke was "3 weeks I couldn't spell truck driver, now I are one"
I was proud of my profession and proud to tell anyone what I did for a living,but I hesitate to tell anyone now.
When I retired, I had a 1 million mile award and was almost up for my 2 million miles.
These guys and gals now days think they own the road and it is a big joke to run someone off the road.
More, thanks to Aaron:
Looks like the truck just clipped the left rear of the car..
Actually the right frame rail is pushed foreward about 4 inches. As it took the body with it it broke the firewall against the engine and ripped the right pan arm bolt out.
I suspect he hit pretty square on just as he tried to swerve left which swung the rear of the T to the left causing it to head for the ditch.
Both rear wheesl were shattered.
Seems that as it went across the ditch and into the fence it started going a bit left and parralled the road knocking down 5 fence posts and dragging fence with it.
They say it was 75 yards from impact to stop.
The way that steering wheel spider is bent backward, it could very well have saved their lives by taking the brunt of whatever it was that bent it so bad, instead of the driver and passenger.
The steering wheel got that way from the car going through a fence. The windshild got wipe off first.
The driver and his wife were laying flat on their backs because the initial impact broke the seat back.
They were probably both knocked out. The driver has 13 staples in the back of his head where the scalp broke open.
Whiplash is real and serious. It showed up on my wife two years after an accident. They are going to suffer from it, for sure.


text:
At this time, there are no generally accepted recommendations for reducing your risk of thyroid cancer.
Medullary thyroid cancer often is genetically inherited. If anyone in your family has been diagnosed with medullary or other endocrine cancers or if your family is known to carry a mutation (abnormal change) in the RET gene, you may wish to be tested to see if you have this mutation. Medullary thyroid cancers may be part of syndromes that involve other types of endocrine or other cancers, thus a careful family history for cancer is important.
If you carry the RET gene, you may be advised to have your thyroid removed at a very early age to avoid the very high risk of developing medullary thyroid cancer.
Revision Information
- Reviewer: Mohei Abouzied, MD, FACP
- Review Date: 09/2016 -
- Update Date: 09/17/2014 -

subset: commoncrawl


text:
goduke.com link
media portal link
duke store link
article link
signup for email updates
search website
Home Page
Courtesy: Duke Photography
Chelsea Gray
Gray, Peters Push No. 3 Duke Past NC State 67-57
Courtesy: Associated Press
BDN+ Premium Content
Related Links
Duke at N.C. State Highlights
Postgame Press Conference: Duke 67, NC State 57
Box Score: Duke 67, NC State 57
Box Score: Duke 67, NC State 57
Notes: Duke 67, NC State 57
Final Book: Duke 67, NC State 57
Photos: Duke 67, NC State 57
Quotes: Duke 67, NC State 57
Sign Up For Email Updates
– Duke waited until the last eight minutes or so to play its best at North Carolina State.
It was still good enough to keep the third-ranked Blue Devils unbeaten.
Haley Peters
had 18 points and 11 rebounds to help Duke beat N.C. State 67-57 on Thursday night, winning its eighth straight meeting in Raleigh.
Chelsea Gray
added 20 points and six rebounds for the Blue Devils (12-0, 2-0 Atlantic Coast Conference), who had to fight into the final minutes to put away the Wolfpack.
While Duke coach
Joanne P. McCallie
could feel good about Peters' play the entire night or Gray's late surge, she described the game itself as "a good lesson for us."
"You've got to play your game for 40 minutes or you can get into this kind of game," she said, "and this is not the way we've been playing when we've played better."
Duke led by just one with 8 minutes left before going on a 12-3 spurt, which helped the Blue Devils retake control and build a 10-point lead with 3:18 left.
The Wolfpack (8-6, 0-2) kept fighting and pulled as close as four points in the final minute, but never could make up that deficit.
"We just started to play our game offensively," Peters said. "That was a stretch where we started to have some assists, where we made a few extra passes, drove it and kicked and things like that - the things we need to do for 40 minutes. ... We just started to be more of who we are."
Still, Duke's offensive totals weren't spectacular. The Blue Devils shot 39 percent for their second-worst outing of the season, while their 11 assists were a season low and their two made 3s matched a season low.
The Blue Devils helped themselves by grabbing 19 offensive rebounds, which led to 13 second-chance points and kept the pressure on the Wolfpack even when those rebounds didn't lead directly to a score.
The Blue Devils forced a season-low 13 turnovers, but still scored 17 points off those miscues.
They also made 16 of 20 free throws after halftime. Gray knocked down all eight of her attempts in the final 8 minutes, six coming during the 12-3 spurt.
"During halftime, coach stressed that we needed to take it to the rack," Gray said. "We're not going to get our baskets if we don't attack the baskets."
Peters was the only Duke player to make better than half her shots, finishing 8 for 15 from the floor to go with three assists, two blocks and two steals in 35 minutes. It was her second straight double-double.
"She's just a very well-rounded player," N.C. State coach Kellie Harper said. "She's intelligent, scrappy. She's one of those kids that at the end of the season she may not be an All-American, but she doesn't do anything bad."
Kody Burke scored 11 of her 15 points after halftime to lead N.C. State, which shot just 32 percent. Marissa Kastanek added 12 points and was the only other Wolfpack player to reach double figures.
The Wolfpack trailed 45-44 before Gray started the run with a pair of free throws. Then Peters scored off an offensive rebound of a missed free throw by
Elizabeth Williams
, followed by a straightaway 3 - Duke was 1 for 13 from behind the arc before that shot - that pushed the lead to 53-47.
By the time Gray added four more free throws, Duke led 57-47 with 3:18 left.
N.C. State fought back to within 61-57 with 47.6 seconds left, but Duke scored the game's last six points - all coming at the free-throw line.
"I think we've got a chance to beat any team in our league playing like this," Harper said. "It's not the execution piece. It's the focus piece. It's the energy and competitiveness - and those are things you can do every night."
N.C. State hasn't beaten Duke at home since February 2001. In their last visit, the Blue Devils rallied from 20 down in the second half to win 65-64 on Gray's last-second basket nearly two years ago.
The Wolfpack won the last meeting, upsetting the top-seeded Blue Devils in the ACC tournament quarterfinals in March for the program's first win against Duke in five years.
Duke Trio Among Top 33 in Initial NCAA Rankings
NCAA Rankings Release
Duke Rowing Recruit Spotlight: Mia Johnson
Johnston Announces Retirement from Diving
Johnston Retirement Announcement
Duke Welcomes NC State, Navy to Cameron This Weekend
Match Notes
Watch Duke vs. Navy
Duke vs. Navy Live Scoring
POSTPONED: Quick Lane Bowl Trophy Tour
Duke Concludes Day One at Rainbow Invitational
Rainbow Invitational Results
GoDuke Weekly: May 7th, 2015
GoDuke Weekly: April 30th, 2015
GoDuke Weekly: April 23rd, 2015
GoDuke Weekly: April 16th, 2015
GoDuke Weekly: April 9th, 2015
GoDuke Weekly: April 2nd, 2015
GoDuke Weekly: March 26th, 2015
GoDuke Weekly: March 5th, 2015
go to media portal
GoDuke Weekly: May 7th, 2015
GoDuke Weekly: April 30th, 2015
GoDuke Weekly: April 23rd, 2015
GoDuke Weekly: April 16th, 2015
Women's Basketball vs. Virginia Tech
Thu, Jan 18 at 6:30 PM
Listen Live
Men's Basketball vs. Pittsburgh Radio
Sat, Jan 20 at 3:00 PM
Listen Live
Women's Basketball vs. North Carolina
Sun, Jan 21 at 2:00 PM
Listen Live
Women's Basketball vs. Boston College
Thu, Jan 25 at 6:30 PM
Listen Live


text:
Admissions Information
We invite you to learn more about our five graduate degree programs:
- Master of Arts in International Economics and Finance (MA)
- Master of Business Administration (MBA)
- Master of Science in Finance (MSF)
- Master of Science in Business Analytics (MSBA)
- PhD in International Economics and Finance (PhD)
- Accelerated MA (For undergraduates studying business or economics in the U.S.)
- BA/MA (Brandeis/Wellesley undergraduates only)
Learn More
As you explore our graduate programs, be sure to:
- Review our rankings
- Discover our unique concentrations
- Learn more about our dynamic alumni network
- Plan a visit to meet us on campus or on the road!
Applying to Brandeis IBS
Be sure to utilize our online resources when preparing your application to Brandeis IBS by reviewing application requirements and deadlines by program.
The Brandeis IBS Admissions team looks forward to assisting you in your graduate degree search and application process. Contact us with any questions by email or phone, or join us for an upcoming online chat.


text:
April 12, 2010
Make of these what you will... while I take a cruise in Egypt...
62 comments:
So - this means Something and I'm still trying to process it... BUUUTTTTTTTReplyDelete
I guess I don't care as long as their happy, IF they are seriously together I just pray it stays good till BD is done because if not that would royally FUK up the chemistry and prolly the movie and ultimately my Life so yeah...
*le sigh* she's a very lucky bish tho LOL
- AnonymousApril 12, 2010 at 12:01 PM
This proves... absolutely nothing.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 12, 2010 at 12:16 PM
I'd say it's pretty unusual for someone to fly to a different country on their birthday to be with a member of the opposite sex unless there is something going on...ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 12, 2010 at 12:30 PM
I would say this proves a lot, actually. There is already more than enough evidence to suggest a relationship, I think this proves they've stopped being so darn sneaky about it.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 12, 2010 at 12:53 PM
I don't get it, they have admitted they're together so where's the confusion?ReplyDelete
"This proves... absolutely nothing."ReplyDelete
This proves EVERYTHING!
No more evidence is EVER needed for me to believe Robsten is real.
I am amazed at how silent the vid was. No fans screaming and no stupid questions being shouted at them by the pap.ReplyDelete
Have a great trip Lorabell:)) I love all the gossip that gets ppl fired up from a few/lot of pictures, makes my average day entertaining:))ReplyDelete
Kristen, hunh? Where?? Looking at the first pic, all I see is Rob's neck. Oh my word - YUM!ReplyDelete
You can spend NY with a friend, even fly to another country to spend New Years with friends but you do NOT go to another country to spend your birthday with ONE friend.ReplyDelete
I'm so freakin happy for them. Damn, being right is satisfying.
- AnonymousApril 12, 2010 at 1:44 PM
the McD stop cracked me up cos they just came out of a hotel xDReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 12, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Rob is too sweet. He makes my heart melt a little in that video. I really do hope they eventually get to a point where they feel okay about holding hands and stuff in public. Sometimes I totally get the sense that he's holding himself back from it even when it's his natural instinct.ReplyDelete
Also, the way he keeps looking back to check on her totally reminded me of that interview he did with Rachelle, where they both said Kristen is the most freaked out by the crowds. "It's cause she's so little." Awwww.......
- AnonymousApril 12, 2010 at 2:17 PM
@Lorna: "You can spend NY with a friend, even fly to another country to spend New Years with friends but you do NOT go to another country to spend your birthday with ONE friend." - LMFAOOO!ReplyDelete
For some reason though, I just don't like them being a couple. Not that I don't think they're all cute and deserve to be happy and in love, etc... maybe it's because it might all go south before BD is done? Awkward!
Previous video got taken down, here's the new link:ReplyDelete
- ChristinApril 12, 2010 at 3:08 PM
Jeez - I think they don't want to show their affection in public because that's their own lil' precious thing they have because everything else is public. I'm happy for them and I don't need to see them hugging and kissing and dry humping everywhere they go. They should enjoy their time and make the sheets dirty, they sleep in *winkwink*.ReplyDelete
Love you Lorabell!!!!!!!
- AnonymousApril 12, 2010 at 4:37 PM
I love how Rob keeps glancing back to see if Kristen is still right behind him. Together or not they are so cute!ReplyDelete
@ Lorabell- You crack me up! You love Kristen so much then why wouldn't you want her to be with the most eligible & hottest bachelor in the world?!!LOL! What if it were *dry heaving* Zack Efron or one of the Jonas Bro's? Uhh... yeah, so be glad! hahaReplyDelete
I love that they're together and that Kristen would travel all that way to get her (Rob in a) Birthday (suit) present ;)
@Christy<3Twilight: Lol, because I'm jealous - short and simple :) Worst is, I don't know who I'm jealous of most!ReplyDelete
- Lorabell *pout*
I just watched the video again and noticed the glancing back over the shoulder, so sweet :) Lorabell I'm pouting too - r u really going to Egypt or are you being crytpic?ReplyDelete
I'm too happy for them, my total girl crush on Kstew and my total inappropriate-cause-he's-way-too-young boy crush (and I'm married) on RPatz -means that together they just make me happy! ...Sigh... I want to leave them alone to let them be happy but I was checking online last night for updates. Torn! Happy!
Isn't the river of De Nile in Egypt? lol love it..I think they're totally together and it's kinda funny that they're keeping people guessing. At least there aren't pics of them sucking face in a car somewhere (Avril Levine, Brodie Jenner) lmao good for them!ReplyDelete
People will see what they want to see with pictures like this - Robsten shippers will see it as *proof*, while people who are anti-Robsten will see that they could be just friends.ReplyDelete
I don't think it proves anything except that they're close - whether it's romantically close or just as friends, I don't know. This doesn't prove anything either way. *shrugs*
Although, to the people saying you wouldn't go to another country to spend your birthday with one friend of the opposite sex - yes, some people do (especially seeing as spending your birthday in another country would be pretty awesome anyway). I've known people who have done that and, if I had the money, then I would too.
Considering Rob and Kristen are like multi-millionaires now, the whole jumping on a plane and flying across the world isn't a big deal - if I had the money, I'd fly to America and Australia all the time just to hang out with some friends. (Plus, who is to say it was just ONE friend she was going to see? Rob is just the only one who happens to be famous, doesn't mean other people she's friends with won't be there too.)
Basically, until there are pictures of them actually acting like a couple or either one of them confirms it, then I'm still on the fence, doesn't bother me either way. :]
@ lanna-lovely- lol! Well here's my opinion:ReplyDelete
1)Kristen didn't fly to Paris to be with her good friend Taylor Lautner for her Birthday.
2) She wasn't holding her good friend Taylor's hand on her way to the plane heading out from the UK (or was it Paris?) for the New Moon Premier there.
3)And, she didn't stay in California with Taylor and ALL of her friends and family who live there for New Years Eve. Nope she flew off the get her Midnight Kiss from Rob!! LOL!! (I use Taylor as an example because she has publicly said in so many interviews how she loves him and she's so proud of him and they're really good friends)
I'm sooo team Robsten if you couldn't tell:) And they are sooo together!! Come on, You know it!!
- AnonymousApril 12, 2010 at 7:29 PM
Awww, I love them together, I think they make such a cute couple - whether they're together or not.ReplyDelete
Can't help but feel slightly jelous of Kristen though haha
"1)Kristen didn't fly to Paris to be with her good friend Taylor Lautner for her Birthday."
Why is that even relevant? Are you saying that if someone has more than one male friend and they go to visit one of them that they must be screwing that one? And really, it seems more like Taylor and Kristen have that sibling kind of friendship while Rob and Kristen are both adults and are into the same kind of things, it's a different kind of friendship (not saying that Rob and Kristen aren't together - like I said, I don't know either way, I'm on the fence - but it's different being friends with someone who is more in your maturity level than someone younger, I'm just a year older than Kristen and my little brother is Taylor's age... it'd be so different hanging out with someone that young)
"2) She wasn't holding her good friend Taylor's hand on her way to the plane heading out from the UK (or was it Paris?) for the New Moon Premier there."
Actually, in those pictures she was just holding onto Robs wrist and his hand was holding his hat... and, there actually are pictures of her doing the same thing with Taylor. I do that when walking with male friends all the time, especially at night.
"3)And, she didn't stay in California with Taylor and ALL of her friends and family who live there for New Years Eve. Nope she flew off the get her Midnight Kiss from Rob!! LOL!!"
Okay... for New Year, would you rather stay where you live and do your usual new year thing or visit a different country with a group of friends? I'd go with the latter (and it was a group thing, the rest of the "Brit Pack" were there too).
"(I use Taylor as an example because she has publicly said in so many interviews how she loves him and she's so proud of him and they're really good friends)"
And like I've said, it's an irrelevant example. People can have more than one friend and you can't hang out with them all at the same time, especially when they're living in different places.
Believe what you want to, you're just proving my point that people see what they want to see.
If they're a couple? Then fair enough. If they're not? That's fine too, I don't know them so it's not like either will have any sort of impact on my life.
Robsten fans look at pictures like this and jump to conclusions - they're like optimists. Then the people that don't want them together are more like pessimists with pictures like this. I'm more of a realist, I'm just saying it doesn't prove anything - they might be together, they might not, this just isn't solid proof either way.
"I'm sooo team Robsten if you couldn't tell:) And they are sooo together!! Come on, You know it!!"
Yes, that was blatantly obvious. And they're not "soooo together" - they MIGHT be together, they might NOT be together. Only they, and the people in their lives, know it. You don't know either of them and neither do I, none of their fans even know enough about them to make those ridiculous "they're so perfect for each other" claims - it's like going up to two strangers on the street and declaring them perfect for each other (calling them a cute couple? That's fair enough, s'just a physical thing and they would make a cute couple, but you can't judge that they're right for each other beyond that). Beyond what we see of them in interviews, they're strangers to us.
I'm curious though, why do Robsten shippers get so obsessive and defensive about this? I mean, how does them being a couple or not being a couple actually affect you and your day to day life? Like I said, they're strangers...
IMO i see this as further proof.ReplyDelete
If they are together then yay for her doing something for herself and spending her birthday the way she wanted...just like any other normal 20 year old would do. Her day people should lay off.
It must be great though to have the wherewithal to travel across the world to visit the person you want to be with (for whatever reason) as and when you like it?ReplyDelete
Lanna-Lovely is completely and utterly correct. Technically the pictures prove nothing but the fact that they like to hang out.ReplyDelete
That being said, I totally think they're together. I mean, seriously, if KStew is hanging around Rob that much and NOT boffing him or at least trying to persuade him to boff her... bitch be crazy.
Amen TK!!!!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 12, 2010 at 9:43 PM
I'm seriously amazed how some people still are determined to say that these pictures prove nothing, expect that they are hanging out...it's getting quite sad tbh.ReplyDelete
Yes, technically these pictures don't prove anything. Neither do they no way prove that they are in love, or perfect for each other.. or blah, blah, blah. Dunno know if they are a 'real' couple, but just hanging out... come on people, open your eyes.
It's not that one single thing they have done is makes them more than platonic friends, but put them all together and it's a totally different thing. Rob was working on Budapest, it was no freaking holiday, and still Kristen went there for her birthday. It's just not simply hanging out because she has nothing better to do.
LMAO TK...good one!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 12, 2010 at 11:21 PM
@ Anon 4:43 (above) - I completely agree. They're just in denial.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 12, 2010 at 11:37 PM
@ lanna-lovely:ReplyDelete
I'm curious as well. Why do Nonsteners have to be obsessive about them not being together? They go to great strengths just to prove Robsten shippers wrong. Why do you care so much about what Robsten shippers think? Why do you care so much if we're happy that Rob and Kristen are happy together? Why do you people CONSTANTLY have to put us down. "I mean, how does them being a couple or not being a couple actually affect you and your day to day life?"
And my favorite of all, why do you keep coming back to this post after saying, "I don't know them so it's not like either will have any sort of impact on my life"?
"I'm curious as well. Why do Nonsteners have to be obsessive about them not being together?"ReplyDelete
I wouldn't know, I'm not a "Nonstener" - If they're together then I think that's great for them, I hope they're happy together and they make a cute couple. If they're not, then fair enough.
"Why do you care so much about what Robsten shippers think? Why do you care so much if we're happy that Rob and Kristen are happy together? Why do you people CONSTANTLY have to put us down."
Trust me, these comments aren't me "putting you down", I could get way more insulting than this. Like I said, I'm literally just curious about why it affects you so much.
Also, as to the "why do I care what you think" - it just kind of bothers me that everywhere I go online there will be comments from them or they'll reply to comments getting pissy at the people that don't think they're a couple (I'm talking youtube, deviantart, livejournal etc.)
I'm just asking the question here because a bunch of Robsten fans are commenting and I figured it would be easier to get an answer because you lot seem to be less immature and irritating than the Robsten shippers on other sites I see them on. (Plus, I read this blog all the time anyway.)
"And my favorite of all, why do you keep coming back to this post after saying, "I don't know them so it's not like either will have any sort of impact on my life"?"
I pretty much just covered this above, but I'll expand my answer a little. I keep coming back to this post because I like reading comments on posts and I comment back on things I want to reply to or when people reply to things I've said. It's that simple and I'm an insomniac, so it kills the boredom.
Plus, I said Rob and Kristen being together wouldn't have an impact on my life - and it wouldn't, it's the fans (well, more specifically, the obsessed fans - there are Robsten shippers that are lovely and not annoying about the fact they'd like to see them together) that bug me... for the reasons I mentioned above.
And you still didn't answer my question, instead you answered it with another question. So back to my original question: why does them being together or not together affect you so much? To the point where you'll get defensive and pounce on any people that say they're not a couple?
Hell, I didn't even say they're not a couple - I said they might be, they might not be - I just won't believe it until either of them confirms it or a picture of them actually behaving like a couple is released.
All of the "proof" so far has just proved they're close, not which way they're close - everything they've been spotted doing, I do that with my male friends too (jeez, I've even slept in the same bed and snuggled with male friends).
I know a lot of girls who are friends with guys (myself being one of them) so I'm well aware of the fact that girls and guys can just be friends (and I said before, I know people who have flown to a different country to visit someone of the opposite sex who is just a friend - they get a holiday out of it AND they get to hang out with their friend, it's like double the awesomeness).
If those were pictures of Kristen visiting or hanging out with a female friend, no one would be accusing them of being a couple but the fact he's a male the people that can't grasp the fact that guys and girls can just be friends jump to all sorts of conclusions (and maybe the conclusions are right, I don't know, all I'm saying is that none of the "proof" is actually proof, it's all just speculation and people seeing what they want to see).
@TK: LMFAO - Ooooh, Kitten - you crack me up!ReplyDelete
- Lorabell x
If Kristen were a "Kristofer" would we still be making this big of a deal & trying to push them together? My bff is a guy & it pisses me off when ppl assume we are a couple & constantly ask when we're getting married, etc (my moms one of the worst!)ReplyDelete
I think they're in the same boat, just in a grander scale.
- AnonymousApril 13, 2010 at 12:39 AM
lanna-lovely, there's a difference between stating your opinion and trying to prove someone is wrong. You are doing more of the latter. And there really is no point. We are not "pouncing" on you. But yes, we are defensive. Why do you ask? Because it's quite pathetic that people like you feel the need to be little our opinions on this situation. We are simply happy that they are together. That does not effect you in ANY way. It's funny how you sit there and call us immature and irritating, cause we could say the same damn thing about you.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 13, 2010 at 12:42 AM
Everyone... CALM THE FUCK DOWN!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 13, 2010 at 12:46 AM
Seriously?! We're all gonna fight about this? Why can't we all just be happy that they are happy together? MotherfuckingA.ReplyDelete
So, has anyone read Bel Ami? I just finished what are your thoughts?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 13, 2010 at 1:06 AM
@ C: Loved it. It could easily be transported to present day and loose nothing of its impact. Scandal, political intrigue and sexual manipulation are described with Maupassant's cutting pessimism, yet beautifully balanced by his black wit and appreciation for the simple joys of life. Duroy, even at his most calculating, retains somewhat of a sympathetic quality that allows us to relate to him and root for his success. Despite its length, this novel is a fast read. One of my favorites of the year.ReplyDelete
"there's a difference between stating your opinion and trying to prove someone is wrong. You are doing more of the latter."ReplyDelete
I'm well aware there is a difference and no, my comments aren't trying to prove anyone is wrong about the Robsten thing, I was simply stating why I personally don't think it proves anything. I don't recall asking anyone to agree with me.
"But yes, we are defensive. Why do you ask? Because it's quite pathetic that people like you feel the need to be little our opinions on this situation."
And how am I belittling your opinions? I was just asking a question and I didn't say anyones opinions were wrong, I simply said I didn't agree and gave my reasons why.
And hello pot, you're black too - I've lost count of the amount of rude Robsten fans I've spoken to who get all bitchy just because someone doesn't take pictures like this to mean they're practically married or something (saying things like people are just in denial or jealous, which is kind of laughable). My comments are tame compared to the majority of those.
Also, I think you'll find some of the commenters here are making comments just like mine in the exact same tone as mine (saying people are in denial/calling people "sad" for not reading too much into these pictures etc.) - the only difference is, you're not getting pissy with them because they happen to share the same opinion as you.
Although, for the record, I find it absolutely hilarious that you have the nerve to call someone pathetic when you're practically creaming your panties over the idea of two strangers as a couple and you're getting all pissy and defensive simply because there are people who don't jump to conclusions and see simple pictures as "proof" that Robsten is real.
"We are simply happy that they are together."
And I was just pointing out why I don't think pictures like this prove they're together and asking a simple question (for the record, you're stating they're together as fact - it's not fact, it's just an assumption that may or may not be true).
"That does not effect you in ANY way."
I've already said how it affects me, or did you just choose to ignore that part?
My annoyance isn't with Robsten fans, it's with the ones who get irritating and obsessive so unless you're shoving yourself into the irritating and obsessive catagory then my comments don't really apply to you now, do they?
"It's funny how you sit there and call us immature and irritating, cause we could say the same damn thing about you."
I think you'll find I said some Robsten fans are lovely and aren't annoying and that I asked my question here because the Robsten fans in these comments are generally less irritating and immature (you seem to just selectively read the comments and ignore those bits though)... but once again, you're the one shoving yourself into the immature/irritating/obsessive/annoying catagory and by your comments, I think I'm starting to agree with you that you probably belong to the latter catagories.
Lorabell: I'm amazed you and some of your readers are so unhappy Rob and Kristen are together. If you were true Rob fans you'd want him to be happy.ReplyDelete
Asking for more proof is quite funny because there is plenty of proof they're together but you just are unwilling to accept it.
Hmmm....let's see now. Rob finished filming NM in Italy but stayed on a couple of days to fly home with Kristen once she was done with her scenes...there are pics of them together at the airport in Italy.
Pics of them together at Charlie House after the MTV Awards last year. Sorry, doubters those shots are way too personal on many levels to be discounted.
Pics of them together during the Xmas holidays on the Isle of Wight.
Pics of them leaving London and arriving at JFK after the New Year.
Sightings of them together in London in a pub and at a concert in February of this year. English politican Nicolas Clark tweeted about seeing them all cozy in the pub and he's not a fan. They were together later that evening at Lizzy's (Rob's sis) concert.
Pics of them at the Chateau Marmont in LA in August of last year.
Pics of them together eating lunch with Marcus Foster and his gf at Palihouse in LA...a couple show Rob's hand on Kristen's leg and knee.
Pics of them arriving together at LAX after finishing Eclipse in Vancouver.
Okay, there's a lot more sightings and pics I could add to the list but you get the idea.
I seriously doubt more proof would make you willing to believe it. In fact, I'm betting if they publically announced they are together you'd still claim they're just friends. LOL! Please let go of your Rob fantasy and be happy they have each other. They deserve to be happy together and to have our support!
- AnonymousApril 13, 2010 at 3:01 AM
I REALLY do not have time for this...ReplyDelete
@Little, just wanted to say:ReplyDelete
"Lorabell: I'm amazed you and some of your readers are so unhappy Rob and Kristen are together. If you were true Rob fans you'd want him to be happy."
Who is "unhappy" that they're together? I just said the pictures don't PROVE they're together... not that they're not together and not that I don't want them to be together. My issue is with the Robsten fans that get obsessive and annoying (not saying ALL Robsten fans are obsessive and annoying, just some).
"Asking for more proof is quite funny because there is plenty of proof they're together but you just are unwilling to accept it."
My point has been that none of that is "proof" that they're a couple. It's proof they're close, yes, but it doesn't prove whether they're romantically close or not (because all of the things mentioned I either have done, would do or know other people that have done those things with members of the opposite sex that are just friends).
I don't know if they're together, maybe they are, I just don't consider any of that stuff as proof. *shrugs*
"I seriously doubt more proof would make you willing to believe it. In fact, I'm betting if they publically announced they are together you'd still claim they're just friends."
"More" proof? Basically I'm saying that what has been shown so far ISN'T proof, so there's no "more" about it. If there was actualy proof, that proved without a doubt they were a couple - or Rob or Kristen said it themselves then I'd happily believe it.
"LOL! Please let go of your Rob fantasy and be happy they have each other."
Rob fantasy? Nonexistent. I like some of his movies, he's a decent actor but he's not my type (really, if I was going to turn into a pile of girl goo swooning over any of the cast of Twilight then it would be Jackson or one of the wolf boys, not Rob).
"They deserve to be happy together and to have our support!"
They deserve to be happy... if that is together, then fair enough. But do you actually think all of this "ZOMG! They're so perfect for each other" stuff is support?
They've made it clear they want to keep their private lives private but their so called hardcore fans are the ones fuelling the media circus surrounding them and seeming to think they know more about what is best for them than they themselves do (like back when Kristen was clearly still with her ex-boyfriend Michael Angarano, the Robsten shippers were insulting him and saying she should be with Rob instead - was THAT respectful and supportive of her? Was that caring about her happiness? I don't think so).
So yeah, they deserve to be happy - which is why I pity them for having some of the fans they have ("some" being the operative word, because a lot of them really are lovely, respectful and supportive). And if they're a couple, then I genuinely hope they're happy together and think they make a cute couple (back in the early Twilight interviews, they were quite funny and adorable together - and no one can say they were a couple then without accusing Kristen of being the type of girl who would cheat on her long term boyfriend, because she was still with Michael up until some point during New Moon filming at least). I just won't read too much into things that could easily be interpreted as friendship (really, if it were a girl or any guy but Rob, can you say in all honesty there would be the same speculation about them?)
- AnonymousApril 13, 2010 at 4:05 AM
Nonsteners = OBSTINATE. There's an app for that.ReplyDelete
I'm reading Bel Ami now, and I must say its pretty good so far. I like that I can picture Rob's face as George Duroy, especially when I'm reading the love scenes ;-P However, the translation from Frent to English is aweful. As someone who is taking translation classes I can tell alot of what was meant to be said, is "lost in translation" and can be difficult to understand the meaning at times. Overall though, the point comes across and I recommend it to anyone who likes Romantic novels. I can't wait to see the movie if its gonna be anything like the book :-) sigh....ReplyDelete
Holy Crap!! What happened on here?? Oh, I know, "OPINIONS" LOL!ReplyDelete
@ lanna-lovely- you are one long winded girl. WOW! You seem to be the most passionate one on here. But in all honesty, you knew the reaction you were gonna get and I guess I was the first to take the bait :) lol
You're right about me: 100% optimist + huge Rob & Kristen fan = 100% Robsten believer! And there's nothing wrong with that :) Just like there's nothing wrong with you NOT believing it!
Let's just agree to disagree :)
...but seriously, come on, you don't think any of the facts, pic's and video are leaning even slightly towards Robsten being true?
(A simple yes, no, sort of, well maybe, possibly or a hell no will do. No copy/paste or disecting of paragraphs is necessary. That craps gotta take you forever!)
...yeah, yeah, yeah, I just might be stoking the fire with that last question...lol
- AnonymousApril 13, 2010 at 3:32 PM
@ lanna-lovely: You've just proven my point. EVEN THEM BEING IN BED TOGETHER will not convince you.ReplyDelete
Dudes, lanna-lovely is just saying that pictures of Rob and Kristen hanging out together doesn't PROVE that they're dating. It's not PROOF. The pictures are evidence of something, yes, but no one can be absolutely, without a doubt, positively SURE until it is confirmed or denied by the parties involved or there is a "money shot", so to speak. Like them tonguing each other, Clone High style.ReplyDelete
It's like a science experiment. Your opinions and assumptions are absolute crap until you can prove, without any sort of doubt, that your results are correct.
P.S. Cupcake, you look really pretty today. xReplyDelete
@Christy♥Twilight and AnonymousReplyDelete
"you are one long winded girl. WOW! You seem to be the most passionate one on here. But in all honesty, you knew the reaction you were gonna get and I guess I was the first to take the bait :) lol"
Haha, this isn't passionate - I just have a tendency to ramble and I'm really overly opinionated... you should see the kind of comments I write when I *am* passionate about something.
"You're right about me: 100% optimist + huge Rob & Kristen fan = 100% Robsten believer! And there's nothing wrong with that :) Just like there's nothing wrong with you NOT believing it!"
Mhmm, there isn't anything wrong with believing it. I just don't like it when the more annoying and obsessed Robsten shippers (and I'm not including you in that group, you're not one of the annoyingly obnoxious ones) start saying they're together as if it's fact instead of speculation. The pictures actually don't prove anything, it's all just a matter of how you interpret them. Like, when I look at them I see two people who are close that may or may not be dating - you look at them and see proof that they're together.
"...but seriously, come on, you don't think any of the facts, pic's and video are leaning even slightly towards Robsten being true?"
I've never said they didn't. I just said the pictures and things aren't proof because they could just as easily be interpreted as friendship. Just because I don't see the pictures as proof, doesn't mean I'm saying they're not together - like I've said countless times, they might be together, my point is just that none of the fans KNOW if they are and the pictures aren't proof that they are. (& I like copy & pasting paragraphs - it's habit, reminds me what/who I'm replying to cause I have a tendecy to stray off topic when I don't.)
"You've just proven my point. EVEN THEM BEING IN BED TOGETHER will not convince you."
And with that statement you've just proven you either have difficulty reading or difficulting understanding my comments. Would it help if I used smaller words for you?
Have I said Rob and Kristen aren't together? That would be a firm "NO"
Have I said I don't want them to be together?
Once again, no.
All I've said is that these pictures aren't proof that they are a couple - which they aren't. They could very well be a couple and if they are then good for them, I truly hope they're happy together and think they're quite adorable to be honest but these pictures aren't proof.
Just like if you someone hires a detective to see if their spouse is cheating on them, just pictures of them hanging out with another man/woman wouldn't prove they're sleeping together - now pictures of them kissing or acting like a couple? Yeah, that would be proof.
@TK, you seem to be the only one who has managed to read and understand my point. =P
@lanna-lovely I not only read and understood your point, I completely agree with you. I don't care one way or the other if they're together, but the fact is that technically pictures of them hanging out together, no matter where that may be, isn't actual proof of a romantic relationship.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 14, 2010 at 12:31 AM
@ lanna-lovelyReplyDelete
Your exact words: "The whole jumping on a plane and flying across the world isn't a big deal."
"I've even slept in the same bed and snuggled with male friends."
Maybe your judgment on how friends are and/or aren't suppose to act isn't exactly the same as the rest of us. THIS is my point. If they were to be photographed sleeping and snuggling in the same bed together, you'd STILL believe it isn't proof because you'd say you do that with your friends. The flight distance from LA, California to Budapest, Hungary is 6,228 miles. I personally, wouldn't fly to another country to spend my own birthday with just a friend even if I had the money. But, maybe that's just me. And considering that Kristen isn't the type to just throw around money to pop into a random country to visit a friend on her own birthday. In the end, if you really don't believe that they are together, that's fine. But I believe it, and I honestly don't get why that matters so much to you.
I'll try and keep this short:ReplyDelete
-I mentioned that I've done those things with male friends because people are instantly jumping to romantic conclusions after seeing pictures that don't even show any couple-like behaviour, really, they're just spending time together... which friends do. And people are saying that friends don't go to visit friends or hold hands with them (although, Kristen was holding his wrist in those pictures - there are pictures of her doing the same with Taylor), but friends do infact do those things and more and it can be totally innocent.
+If YOU wouldn't fly to a different country to spend time with a friend (on your birthday no less), then you clearly just don't have any long distant friendships with people you're particularly close to. If I had the money I'd jump on a plane to visit my friends across the world in a heartbeat and I've known people that have done the same.
+You don't know Kristen personally, you just know tiny fragments of her life and personality that is revealed in interviews - that is not enough for you to judge the kind of person that she is (although, when you're a multi-millionaire, the cost of flying to visit a friend is practically pocket change and spending your birthday with someone you're close to isn't just "popping into a random country")
+"In the end, if you really don't believe that they are together." - wow, you truly are one of the slowest people I've ever talked to in blog comments.
I have said, more times than I can be assed counting, that I don't KNOW if they're together. MAYBE they are, maybe they aren't - I'm pretty much on the fence. I have simply said that whether they are a couple or not, these pictures are not the thing that proves it either way because they aren't doing anything that is particularly romantic/couple-like in the pictures.
Do I believe they're a couple? I don't know, they might be.
Do I think these pictures prove they're a couple? No. They don't.
Now, if you haven't gotten the point yet then you're a lost cause.
+"I believe it" - fair enough, I never said there was anything wrong with believing it. I'm just making it clear that it is a BELIEF... you believe they're together, you see pictures like this and your interpretation of them is that it proves they're a couple. But in actual fact, the pictures are just two people hanging out - they may be friends, they may be a couple, the picture doesn't prove either as fact. How people view the pictures is subjective, only Rob, Kristen and people in their lives know the actual meaning behind them.
"I honestly don't get why that matters so much to you" - Whether they're a couple or not doesn't matter to me... annoying fans are the issue. Plus, these comments kill the boredom at 3am when I can't sleep.
Why does the fact that not everyone sees those pictures and instantly jumps to the "ZOMG! They're a couple! *squee!!11!!!*" conclusion matter to YOU so much? Because you do keep commenting as well...
- AnonymousApril 14, 2010 at 2:55 AM
Oh. My. God. Same. Damn. Thing. Whether you are on the fence or not, in the end you don't believe that they are together. I KNOW that you'd be fine if they were or if they weren't. But getting to the main idea, you DON'T believe that they are together. You don't believe that this is proof. You do believe that they are friends. That is it. You act all high and mighty by not picking a side but it still shows that you HAVE chosen a side and that is to believe that they are not together. I have nothing against you, but you come here saying that them being together has no influence on you yet you continue to come here. But if you really are on the fence, what are the things that convince you that they are and are not together?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 14, 2010 at 3:21 AM
awww lanna-lovely, just let it go ok....one day your Rob will come way too... just be patience.ReplyDelete
@Anonymous 1ReplyDelete
"But getting to the main idea, you DON'T believe that they are together. You don't believe that this is proof."
First statement = false. Second = true.
It's not that I don't believe they're together (there IS a difference between saying they're not together and not knowing either way), I just don't believe that the pictures are proof.
"You act all high and mighty by not picking a side but it still shows that you HAVE chosen a side and that is to believe that they are not together."
Actually, I've not chosen a side on whether they're together or not - that is kind of the definition of "on the fence"... it's kind of the difference between being Agnostic (which I am) and being an Atheist as far as religion goes - the former won't believe without definite proof but won't rule possibilities out, the latter just doesn't believe at all. If you don't understand those terms, google it, maybe that little analogy will help you grasp the point.
"But if you really are on the fence, what are the things that convince you that they are and are not together?"
I stand by that previous statement saying you're truly one of the slowest people I've ever come across in blog comments.
I. Do. Not. Know. If. They. Are. Together.
Meaning, I don't believe the pictures prove that they are together... but there is also NOTHING to prove that they aren't together. Basically, there is a lack of proof on either side. The pictures show that they're close, for sure, and they very well may be romantically close but the pictures don't prove whether or not that is the case, BUT it is a definite possibility... as I've stated before but you seem unable to understand that, sorry, I can't dumb it down any further.
@Anonymous 2 (although there isn't any way to tell if you're the same as 1)
"awww lanna-lovely, just let it go ok...."
First, it works both ways. People could ignore me - if they did, I'd have nothing to respond to. Secondly, I'd rather not, this is kind of amusing to me.
"one day your Rob will come way too... just be patience."
My "Rob"? That is seriously laughable.
Rob is a complete stranger to me but from what I've seen of him in interviews, he is really not my type at all (as far as the physical thing goes, he's attractive, but again, not particularly my type - easy on the eyes but not swoon-worthy).
And also, you don't know me at all so making assumptions about me is just making you look like a complete asshat, for all you know I could have already met my "Rob" as you put it (although that is an insult to the guy I'm referring to).
But it truly cracks me up that the "your just jealous" response is the only comeback a whole bunch of idiots like you can come up with (because of course, the *only* possible reason someone couldn't possibly agree with you is because they're jealous of guess at the truth) when in reality, YOU are the ones that are thoroughly obsessed with Rob (and Kristen and their love lives - if you actually read the comments, you'd know that what I'm saying isn't even about Rob and Kristen, it's about the more obsessed fans).
- AnonymousApril 14, 2010 at 4:31 AM
tsk-tsk lanna-lovely...ReplyDelete
Good grief! Let's end the soap boxes! Everyones right!! There, let it be done :) lol!ReplyDelete
It has been quite amusing though...
- AnonymousApril 14, 2010 at 10:56 AM
One last re: Budapest. Where did they stash Kris' folks? I understand they accompanied her...ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 14, 2010 at 1:28 PM
:::takes a big swig of gin::::ReplyDelete


text: On Friday, Dec. 21, the Cub Scouts of Den 519 and Girl Scout Troops 2619 and 3043 entertained the residents of Vista Grande Nursing Home by singing Christmas carols. The residents enjoyed the young voices and were very appreciative, applauding after each song. The Scouts enjoyed visiting with the residents and said that it gave them a "good feeling" to be able to sing for them.


text:
I don't know if this is a conversation that's already happened here at some point, but the whole "New Orleans Pelicans" thing has got me thinking a lot about team names lately. We probably owe the Raptors name to the Jurassic Park craze of the 90s. But if for some reason Toronto was just now about to get its franchise, what name would you pick?
Some of the finalists in the name game back in the day were Beavers, Bobcats, Dragons, Grizzlies, Hogs, Scorpions, T-Rex, Tarantulas, and Terriers.
Obviously Bobcats isn't available anymore. I kind of like Dragons. Or maybe Towers. Which of the above would you pick? Or do you have a better idea?