Truck Driving Jobs

golfhobo · Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:33 am Post subject:

Rev.Vassago wrote: golfhobo wrote: Okay, hmmm..... I really didn't want to, I was having so much fun "debating" and learning from you.

We are just going in circles, and frankly, it's getting kind of boring.

Well.... I WOULD tell you to quit clicking on the thread.... but that would only make sense if "I" was arguing with Dawn! :lol: Let's not get mad at each other on THIS thread.... when we're making so much progress on the other! :lol:

Quote: Maybe I can remember one of YOUR snappy comebacks! Hmmm.... nope, not working.

Oh wait...wait! Here's one of your favorites!

:roll:

That one always works well. :wink:

It was the lesser of two evils! I've been known to have a sharp tongue, and I had to bite it to keep from being too sarcastic! :lol:

I'm not trying to be your nemesis, Rev! I enjoy our debates. In fact, I have to fake it sometimes just to keep you on your toes. I'm not out to "pick apart" each of your posts. Usually you ARE "dead on accurate." But, occaissionally we disagree.... and, well.... you know how it goes! :lol:

Hey... at LEAST I speak English! :wink:

Rev.Vassago · Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:06 am Post subject:

golfhobo wrote: But, occaissionally we disagree.... and, well.... you know how it goes! :lol:

Yeah - we disagree when you are wrong. :lol:

Quote: Hey... at LEAST I speak English! :wink:

And you write it too................ fairly well. :wink:

Dawn · Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 323 Location: Indianapolis, In

Malaki86 wrote: I've never been questioned by the DOT as to whether I actually spent the entire 34hrs sitting in the sleeper. They know we're going to get out of the truck, walk into the truckstop for meals/shower/restroom.

I've also logged a 34hr restart as off-duty, even though I was in the sleeper. Again, never had it become an issue.

One last thing - For the life of me I still can't figure out how they came up with the 34hr restart. Why not 36, 40, or 48? It'd make more sense if it was in a 4hr increment.

It's kind of ironic I know, but I saw a DOT inspection come across my desk that said: Falsified log: "Drivers name" logged off duty while in sleeper.
Now my statement to everyone was the fact it is "unbeliveable" that you would NOT get out of the sleeper for 34 hours. I would have to agree. Now is there drivers out there who have EVERYTHING on their trucks, yes and all I tell drivers is if you log 34 hours in the sleeper (heck 18 hours in the sleeper) you "MIGHT" be questioned and you better be ready to explain. When you say no I got out and ate dinner or I went to the casino. That he can write you up and fine you for falsifying your logs.

In the drivers write up, I will be getting with him to ask him how the officer knew he was logging as such. But it is a fact and I am here to tell you that DOT WILL question you if you are in the sleeper for so many hours. If you again choose not to listen that is fine, but be prepared and make up your lie really quick and hope he/she was not watching what you was doing :).

And no I will not submit a copy of this drivers write up! I could block out some information so hey maybe I will! :lol:

Rev.Vassago · Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject:

Dawn wrote: yes and all I tell drivers is if you log 34 hours in the sleeper (heck 18 hours in the sleeper) you "MIGHT" be questioned and you better be ready to explain.

Dawn wrote: But it is a fact and I am here to tell you that DOT WILL question you if you are in the sleeper for so many hours.

So which is it? "Might" they question you, or "WILL" they question you? Since I've had many log book inspections, and have NEVER been questioned about a 34 hour sleeper berth all on the same line. Others have said the same thing.

Absolutes don't work here, Dawn. All DOT does not act the same, and all DOT officers don't do things the same way.

bikerboy · Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject:

Dawn wrote: Malaki86 wrote: I've never been questioned by the DOT as to whether I actually spent the entire 34hrs sitting in the sleeper. They know we're going to get out of the truck, walk into the truckstop for meals/shower/restroom.

I've also logged a 34hr restart as off-duty, even though I was in the sleeper. Again, never had it become an issue.

One last thing - For the life of me I still can't figure out how they came up with the 34hr restart. Why not 36, 40, or 48? It'd make more sense if it was in a 4hr increment.

It's kind of ironic I know, but I saw a DOT inspection come across my desk that said: Falsified log: "Drivers name" logged off duty while in sleeper.
Now my statement to everyone was the fact it is "unbeliveable" that you would NOT get out of the sleeper for 34 hours. I would have to agree. Now is there drivers out there who have EVERYTHING on their trucks, yes and all I tell drivers is if you log 34 hours in the sleeper (heck 18 hours in the sleeper) you "MIGHT" be questioned and you better be ready to explain. When you say no I got out and ate dinner or I went to the casino. That he can write you up and fine you for falsifying your logs.

In the drivers write up, I will be getting with him to ask him how the officer knew he was logging as such. But it is a fact and I am here to tell you that DOT WILL question you if you are in the sleeper for so many hours. If you again choose not to listen that is fine, but be prepared and make up your lie really quick and hope he/she was not watching what you was doing :).

And no I will not submit a copy of this drivers write up! I could block out some information so hey maybe I will! :lol:

Canada has a 36 hr reset! We also have 70 hours in 7 days cycle and 120 hours in 14 days cylce.

It must be noted on your log everyday, which cycle you are under, and 36 or 72 hours is required offduty, to switch cycles.
So if you run canada, but completed a 34 hr reset before entering canada, you might not be legal under canadian rules, you should have took a 36 hr reset before entering canada.
And we are allowed to drive 13 hrs per day, and must have 10 hours off per day.

Dawn · Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 323 Location: Indianapolis, In

bikerboy wrote: Dawn wrote: Malaki86 wrote: I've never been questioned by the DOT as to whether I actually spent the entire 34hrs sitting in the sleeper. They know we're going to get out of the truck, walk into the truckstop for meals/shower/restroom.

I've also logged a 34hr restart as off-duty, even though I was in the sleeper. Again, never had it become an issue.

One last thing - For the life of me I still can't figure out how they came up with the 34hr restart. Why not 36, 40, or 48? It'd make more sense if it was in a 4hr increment.

It's kind of ironic I know, but I saw a DOT inspection come across my desk that said: Falsified log: "Drivers name" logged off duty while in sleeper.
Now my statement to everyone was the fact it is "unbeliveable" that you would NOT get out of the sleeper for 34 hours. I would have to agree. Now is there drivers out there who have EVERYTHING on their trucks, yes and all I tell drivers is if you log 34 hours in the sleeper (heck 18 hours in the sleeper) you "MIGHT" be questioned and you better be ready to explain. When you say no I got out and ate dinner or I went to the casino. That he can write you up and fine you for falsifying your logs.

In the drivers write up, I will be getting with him to ask him how the officer knew he was logging as such. But it is a fact and I am here to tell you that DOT WILL question you if you are in the sleeper for so many hours. If you again choose not to listen that is fine, but be prepared and make up your lie really quick and hope he/she was not watching what you was doing :).

And no I will not submit a copy of this drivers write up! I could block out some information so hey maybe I will! :lol:

Canada has a 36 hr reset! We also have 70 hours in 7 days cycle and 120 hours in 14 days cylce.

It must be noted on your log everyday, which cycle you are under, and 36 or 72 hours is required offduty, to switch cycles.
So if you run canada, but completed a 34 hr reset before entering canada, you might not be legal under canadian rules, you should have took a 36 hr reset before entering canada.
And we are allowed to drive 13 hrs per day, and must have 10 hours off per day.

I like your 10 hour breaks for the reason you can break up the 2 hour break in 4 increments of 30 minutes if you would like. I feel for you guys running in Cananda and US to know all those regulations, but I am sure once you get used to them it is great to have all those options.

silvan · Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject:

Uturn2001 wrote: Well first off, taking 34 hours on lines 3 and 4 will get you into a bunch of trouble fast. :P :P I took 46 hours on line 3 one time, and then I had to eat my logbook.

golfhobo · Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:33 pm Post subject:

Rev.Vassago wrote: Dawn wrote: yes and all I tell drivers is if you log 34 hours in the sleeper (heck 18 hours in the sleeper) you "MIGHT" be questioned and you better be ready to explain.

Dawn wrote: But it is a fact and I am here to tell you that DOT WILL question you if you are in the sleeper for so many hours.

So which is it? "Might" they question you, or "WILL" they question you?

What difference does it make? Either way, you are subject to being questioned. And since we are ALL here to help the noobies, it would not be wise to say, "they WON'T question you. That $500 fine is hard to swallow!

Since I've had many log book inspections, and have NEVER been questioned about a 34 hour sleeper berth all on the same line. Others have said the same thing.

And I've had ONE logbook inspection, and I WAS questioned about it. That pretty much makes Dawn's point, and makes YOURS moot.

Absolutes don't work here, Dawn. All DOT does not act the same, and all DOT officers don't do things the same way.

Which is ALL the more reason to take Dawn's advice.... and not YOURS. You've encountered what?..... .005% of ALL DOT officers? And NONE of THEM questioned your entry?

Are you MORE intent on disproving Dawn's "absolute statements" than giving accurate advice to noobies?

Rev.Vassago · Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:54 pm Post subject:

golfhobo wrote: Absolutely nothing of any value to the thread

Just sayin'.

golfhobo · Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:41 am Post subject:

Rev.Vassago wrote: golfhobo wrote: Absolutely nothing of any value to the thread

Just sayin'.

I beg to differ. (And I noted the lack of the wink smilie.) If you'll start at the beginning and read the original question of the thread, and all posts that followed, (which you probably won't do,) you'll find that I contributed quite a bit to the thread, whereas YOU almost immediately and consistently spent your time attacking ME and then Dawn.

We're ALL aware of Dawn's deficiencies. And we're ALL aware of your animosity towards her. And we ALL are aware that you think that YOUR experiences are LAW and no one else is allowed to have suffered anything that YOU haven't experienced. But, there ONCE was a different reason for this forum.

As I've said before, I usually only engage when I see someone giving the wrong information. YOU have been guilty of that more than once. I'm sure that "I" have done so a time or two. But, I immediately corrected myself or accepted correction.

I'm not here to defend Dawn. But, as long as the bulk of YOUR posts have nothing to do with anything but putting her down, I don't think YOU'VE got the moral high ground on saying what does or does NOT add any VALUE to a thread.

If I understand it correctly, the bulk of YOUR advice on this thread is that one can log 34 hours in the sleeper if one wants to, and the DOT can't disprove it. Because it's never happened to YOU.

You have NOT proven that SOME of them won't question it. You even say that it should be logged in relation to what one does. So, how is THAT any differnent from what Dawn said? And aren't YOU also saying two different things?

The Noobie here doesn't CARE what you think of Dawn. Nor do they care if you want to hide away in a sleeper for 34 hours without "touching" the world. We're all probably SAFER if you DO!

But, I DO object to you "quoting" me by inserting your OWN commentary on what I said. Maybe, you don't understand what the word QUOTE means. You jumped me for changing the username of someone who has since been banned. I'd appreciate it if you'd apply the same "moral standards" to your quoting of me!

If you don't HAVE an answer to the questions I raise, or the comments I make, that's fine! We won't MISS your NON POST. But, if you continue to use the QUOTE function to make commentary on my posts, I think we will have a problem, even "IF" it's not a violation of the TOS.

Just sayin' :wink:

Rev.Vassago · Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:39 am Post subject:

golfhobo wrote: If you'll start at the beginning and read the original question of the thread, and all posts that followed, (which you probably won't do,) you'll find that I contributed quite a bit to the thread, whereas YOU almost immediately and consistently spent your time attacking ME and then Dawn.

I was referring to your last post. :roll:

Quote: We're ALL aware of Dawn's deficiencies. And we're ALL aware of your animosity towards her. And we ALL are aware that you think that YOUR experiences are LAW and no one else is allowed to have suffered anything that YOU haven't experienced. But, there ONCE was a different reason for this forum.

When were you elected to speak for the entire board? :roll:

Quote: As I've said before, I usually only engage when I see someone giving the wrong information. YOU have been guilty of that more than once. I'm sure that "I" have done so a time or two. But, I immediately corrected myself or accepted correction.

Ummm......okay. Whatever you say.

Quote: I'm not here to defend Dawn.

Except when you defend her.

Quote: But, as long as the bulk of YOUR posts have nothing to do with anything but putting her down, I don't think YOU'VE got the moral high ground on saying what does or does NOT add any VALUE to a thread.

Yes, I do. And your prior post added nothing of value to the thread.

Quote: If I understand it correctly, the bulk of YOUR advice on this thread is that one can log 34 hours in the sleeper if one wants to, and the DOT can't disprove it. Because it's never happened to YOU.

Then obviously you don't understand it correctly, as I never stated anything even remotely close to that. Perhaps a remedial reading course would help.

Quote: You have NOT proven that SOME of them won't question it.

You know what? You're right. But I didn't set out to prove that. I did, however, prove that ALL of them would not question it, which is what Dawn's original (and then re-hashed) statement was.

Quote: You even say that it should be logged in relation to what one does. So, how is THAT any differnent from what Dawn said?

Because Dawn says you should log it as you do it, except when you spend the entire 34 hours in the sleeper, to avoid the questions that DOT WILL ask you about it. Even when presented with several options that contradicted her statement (by different posters), she still stood her ground.

Quote: And aren't YOU also saying two different things?

No, I'm not. You just aren't understanding.

Quote: The Noobie here doesn't CARE what you think of Dawn.

Good for them.

Quote: Nor do they care if you want to hide away in a sleeper for 34 hours without "touching" the world. We're all probably SAFER if you DO!

What is bringing on this personal attack? You better have something to back up this statement.

Quote: But, I DO object to you "quoting" me by inserting your OWN commentary on what I said. Maybe, you don't understand what the word QUOTE means.

This coming from someone who makes a habit of inserting their own comments into other people's quotes, because they don't want to take the time to properly quote someone. :roll:

Quote: You jumped me for changing the username of someone who has since been banned. I'd appreciate it if you'd apply the same "moral standards" to your quoting of me!

Nope - not until you start quoting properly.

Quote: If you don't HAVE an answer to the questions I raise, or the comments I make, that's fine! We won't MISS your NON POST.

Who is this "we" that you refer to? Are you speaking for everyone again?

Quote: But, if you continue to use the QUOTE function to make commentary on my posts, I think we will have a problem, even "IF" it's not a violation of the TOS.

Wow - personal attacks and threats, all in the same thread.

golfhobo · Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject:

Rev.Vassago wrote: golfhobo wrote: If you'll start at the beginning and read the original question of the thread, and all posts that followed, (which you probably won't do,) you'll find that I contributed quite a bit to the thread, whereas YOU almost immediately and consistently spent your time attacking ME and then Dawn.

I was referring to your last post. :roll:

Not very specifically.... and therefore, not successfully.

Quote: We're ALL aware of Dawn's deficiencies. And we're ALL aware of your animosity towards her. And we ALL are aware that you think that YOUR experiences are LAW and no one else is allowed to have suffered anything that YOU haven't experienced. But, there ONCE was a different reason for this forum.

When were you elected to speak for the entire board? :roll:

I refer you to your OWN sig line! :roll:

Quote: I'm not here to defend Dawn.

Except when you defend her.

I'll defend anyone when I feel they deserve it. Even you.

Quote: But, as long as the bulk of YOUR posts have nothing to do with anything but putting her down, I don't think YOU'VE got the moral high ground on saying what does or does NOT add any VALUE to a thread.

Yes, I do. And your prior post added nothing of value to the thread.

IYHO, God. [In Your High Opinion]

Quote: You have NOT proven that SOME of them won't question it.

You know what? You're right. But I didn't set out to prove that. I did, however, prove that ALL of them would not question it, which is what Dawn's original (and then re-hashed) statement was.

Did you? Did you prove that ALL DOT officers, on any given day, might not question it? Just because SOME didn't question it on the day YOU were inspected? Can you assure the noobie that when it comes HIS turn, he will get the officer that chooses NOT to question it... on THAT day?

Quote: You even say that it should be logged in relation to what one does. So, how is THAT any different from what Dawn said?

Because Dawn says you should log it as you do it, except when you spend the entire 34 hours in the sleeper...

I didn't read THAT into her post. Perhaps, it is YOU who needs the remedial reading class.

Quote: Nor do they care if you want to hide away in a sleeper for 34 hours without "touching" the world. We're all probably SAFER if you DO!

What is bringing on this personal attack? You better have something to back up this statement.

Your misuse of the quote function to replace what I said with YOUR opinion of it. I "BETTER HAVE?"..... or WHAT?

Quote: But, I DO object to you "quoting" me by inserting your OWN commentary on what I said. Maybe, you don't understand what the word QUOTE means.

This coming from someone who makes a habit of inserting their own comments into other people's quotes, because they don't want to take the time to properly quote someone. :roll:

We've covered this before, Rev. Sometimes it is just easier to insert replies within someone's quote. And I ALWAYS indicate which part is MY RESPONSE, either by boldfacing or coloring. If YOU'RE having trouble following it.... I'll make an exception for you..... But, not THIS time!

Quote: You jumped me for changing the username of someone who has since been banned. I'd appreciate it if you'd apply the same "moral standards" to your quoting of me!

Nope - not until you start quoting properly.

So.... THAT would be the basis for your morality? :roll:

Quote: If you don't HAVE an answer to the questions I raise, or the comments I make, that's fine! We won't MISS your NON POST.

Who is this "we" that you refer to? Are you speaking for everyone again?

No. But my pet mouse said I could speak for him, too.

Quote: But, if you continue to use the QUOTE function to make commentary on my posts, I think we will have a problem, even "IF" it's not a violation of the TOS.

Wow - personal attacks and threats, all in the same thread.

No more of a "threat" than your statement that I "better have...." and no more of a personal attack than your implication that I need remedial education.

Could you FOLLOW the conversation, Rev?? Or was my style of replying to your quotes over your head? I must have missed the part of the TOS that told me just HOW I had to formulate my replies.

But, somehow I got the impression that I was not permitted to EDIT someone else's post. If you want to rag on something I said, go for it! But, I respectfully ask you NOT to edit it, enclose it in a quote box, and attribute it to me.

For the record, the FIRST time you did it... ["a whole bunch of stuff"] I found it amusing. THIS time.... I did NOT. I'm sure you can see why.

Rev.Vassago · Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject:

golfhobo wrote: Not very specifically.... and therefore, not successfully.

Reading comprehension will help this.

Quote: Quote:

When were you elected to speak for the entire board? :roll:

I refer you to your OWN sig line! :roll:

Sarcasm is apparently lost on you as well.

Quote: Quote: I'm not here to defend Dawn.

Except when you defend her.

I'll defend anyone when I feel they deserve it. Even you.

No thanks.

Quote: IYHO, God. [In Your High Opinion]

At least we're on the same page. Finally.

Quote: Quote: Quote: You have NOT proven that SOME of them won't question it.

You know what? You're right. But I didn't set out to prove that. I did, however, prove that ALL of them would not question it, which is what Dawn's original (and then re-hashed) statement was.

Did you? Did you prove that ALL DOT officers, on any given day, might not question it?

Yes, I did. I certainly proved that not all DOT officers will question it.

Quote: Quote: You even say that it should be logged in relation to what one does. So, how is THAT any different from what Dawn said?

Because Dawn says you should log it as you do it, except when you spend the entire 34 hours in the sleeper...

I didn't read THAT into her post. Perhaps, it is YOU who needs the remedial reading class.

Dawn wrote: Keep in mind no one is going to believe you was in the sleeper 34 hours straight. DOT will question you on this.

:roll:

Quote: Quote: Quote: Nor do they care if you want to hide away in a sleeper for 34 hours without "touching" the world. We're all probably SAFER if you DO!

What is bringing on this personal attack? You better have something to back up this statement.

Your misuse of the quote function to replace what I said with YOUR opinion of it. I "BETTER HAVE?"..... or WHAT?

How did I misuse the quote function? Show me in the site rules where I misused it. :roll:

Quote: Quote: Quote: But, I DO object to you "quoting" me by inserting your OWN commentary on what I said. Maybe, you don't understand what the word QUOTE means.

This coming from someone who makes a habit of inserting their own comments into other people's quotes, because they don't want to take the time to properly quote someone. :roll:

We've covered this before, Rev. Sometimes it is just easier to insert replies within someone's quote. And I ALWAYS indicate which part is MY RESPONSE, either by boldfacing or coloring. If YOU'RE having trouble following it.... I'll make an exception for you..... But, not THIS time!

Perhaps I was doing the same thing. :wink:

Quote: Quote: Quote: You jumped me for changing the username of someone who has since been banned. I'd appreciate it if you'd apply the same "moral standards" to your quoting of me!

Nope - not until you start quoting properly.

So.... THAT would be the basis for your morality? :roll:

No different than you claiming that a post on a message board has anything to do with "morals".

Quote: Quote: Quote: If you don't HAVE an answer to the questions I raise, or the comments I make, that's fine! We won't MISS your NON POST.

Who is this "we" that you refer to? Are you speaking for everyone again?

No. But my pet mouse said I could speak for him, too.

(EDITED) because it was too easy.

Quote: Quote: Quote: But, if you continue to use the QUOTE function to make commentary on my posts, I think we will have a problem, even "IF" it's not a violation of the TOS.

Wow - personal attacks and threats, all in the same thread.

No more of a "threat" than your statement that I "better have...." and no more of a personal attack than your implication that I need remedial education.

Actually, I implied that you needed remedial reading courses, not remedial education. Keep it straight.

Quote: Could you FOLLOW the conversation, Rev?? Or was my style of replying to your quotes over your head?

Nope - it was just really difficult to respond. I had to enter (quote)(/quote) about 30 times just to reply to your drivel, not to mention the 12 previews just to make sure I had all the code correct. My time is precious :P , and I don't have all the time in the world :lol: to be fixing your responses. :wink:

Quote: I must have missed the part of the TOS that told me just HOW I had to formulate my replies.

Just like I missed the part in the TOS that told me how I had to formulate quotes.

Quote: But, somehow I got the impression that I was not permitted to EDIT someone else's post.

Nope - nothing in the TOS about it.

Quote: If you want to rag on something I said, go for it! But, I respectfully ask you to edit it, enclose it in a quote box, and attribute it to me.

Okay. :wink: :P :lol:

Quote: For the record, the FIRST time you did it... ["a whole bunch of stuff"] I found it amusing. THIS time.... I did NOT. I'm sure you can see why.

I don't know - maybe your tighty whities are a bit too tight today? :lol:

golfhobo · Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject:

Rev.Vassago wrote: golfhobo wrote: Not very specifically.... and therefore, not successfully.

Reading "Comprehension" will help this.

Is that a Books on Tape offering? I've read Dr. Zhivago... does that count?

Quote: When were you elected to speak for the entire board? :roll:

I refer you to your OWN sig line! :roll:

Sarcasm is apparently lost on you as well.

Et Tu, aussie!

Quote: Quote: I'm not here to defend Dawn.

Except when you defend her.

I'll defend anyone when I feel they deserve it. Even you.

Thanks, HOBO!!! You're a SWELL guy!!!!

You're welcome, Rev! :wink:

Quote: Quote: IYHO, God. [In Your High Opinion]

At least we're on the same page. Finally.

Too bad I'm an atheist! :wink:

Quote: Quote: You have NOT proven that SOME of them won't question it.

You know what? You're right. But I didn't set out to prove that. I did, however, prove that ALL of them would not question it, which is what Dawn's original (and then re-hashed) statement was.

Quote: Did you? Did you prove that ALL DOT officers, on any given day, might not question it?

Yes, I did. I certainly proved that not all DOT officers will question it.

I'll be sure to tell the nice officer that he is a "nonconformist!" :D

Quote: Quote: You even say that it should be logged in relation to what one does. So, how is THAT any different from what Dawn said?

Because Dawn says you should log it as you do it, except when you spend the entire 34 hours in the sleeper...

Quote: I didn't read THAT into her post. Perhaps, it is YOU who needs the remedial reading class.

Dawn wrote: Keep in mind no one is going to believe you was in the sleeper 34 hours straight. DOT will question you on this.

:roll:

NO one (but you,) took her that literally. :shock:

Quote: How did I misuse the quote function? Show me in the site rules where I misused it. :roll:

My words are my "intellectual property." Check the section on copyright infringement! :D

Quote: We've covered this before, Rev. Sometimes it is just easier to insert replies within someone's quote.

Perhaps I was doing the same thing. :wink:

And "perhaps" if a frog had wings....

Quote: Wow - personal attacks and threats, all in the same thread.

No more of a "threat" than your statement that I "better have...." and no more of a personal attack than your implication that I need remedial education.

Actually, I implied that you needed remedial reading courses, not remedial education. Keep it straight.

Umm.... can you show how ONE is not part of the OTHER? Cuz if you can't, then IMHO, it doesn't "apply" and therefore, I don't have to do it! :shock:

Quote: Could you FOLLOW the conversation, Rev?? Or was my style of replying to your quotes over your head?

Nope - it was just really difficult to respond. I had to enter (quote)(/quote) about 30 times just to reply to your drivel, not to mention the 12 previews just to make sure I had all the code correct. My time is precious :P , and I don't have all the time in the world :lol: to be fixing your responses. :wink:

You're absolutely RIGHT, REV.... that MY WAY is much easier!!! I've been deleting (quote/quotes) for nearly an HOUR now!! :evil:

Quote: Quote: If you want to rag on something I said, go for it! But, I respectfully ask you to edit it, enclose it in a quote box, and attribute it to me.

Okay. :wink: :P :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote: Quote: For the record, the FIRST time you did it... ["a whole bunch of stuff"] I found it amusing. THIS time.... I did NOT. I'm sure you can see why.

I don't know - maybe your tighty whities are a bit too tight today? :lol:

Maybe so, REV!! ...... maybe so!!! :cry:

Dawn · Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 323 Location: Indianapolis, In

Ok I have copied every statement prior to being accused of stating something false again and making a statement Rev claims I made that I can find no where to the exact words?

PAGE 2
It should be logged as it happened. If you were in the sleeper berth, then it should be logged as sleeper berth. If you got out of the truck, then it should be off duty. The 34 hour reset can be any combination of the two, as long as it isn't broken up with any on duty time.

PAGE 3

Dawns Statement:
It should be logged as it happened. If you were in the sleeper berth, then it should be logged as sleeper berth. If you got out of the truck, then it should be off duty. The 34 hour reset can be any combination of the two, as long as it isn't broken up with any on duty time.

Again: You should not log 34 hours in the sleeper if you was not really in the sleeper for 34 hours.

DOT Q&A:

Question 26: May a driver record sleeper berth time as off-duty time on line one of the record of duty status?
Guidance: No. The driver's record of duty status must accurately reflect the driver's activities

Sounds pretty clear you should not be logging in the sleeper when you are really in the truck stop.

As we all know some officers will question you on something and some won't. Learn before you get the citation . Again not false information, it is facts!

Rev: You claim I made this statement would you or anyone else please find where I stated this exact comment?
Dawn wrote:
Keep in mind no one is going to believe you was in the sleeper 34 hours straight. DOT will question you on this

Maybe I overlooked it? I would like anyone�s information as to where I typed these exact statement.

Drivers I would take my advice and never log you are in the sleeper while you are really off duty (in truck stop). Let me add I would not do the opposite either. Log off duty while I am in the sleeper.

Truck Driving Jobs

Trucking Jobs

Truck Drivers

Trucking Companies

Class A Drivers.com