[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

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:

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:

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.

I'm not here to defend Dawn.

Except when you defend her.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And aren't YOU also saying two different things?

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

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

Good for them.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

I was referring to your last post. :roll:

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

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

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

Except when you defend her.

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

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

IYHO, God. [In Your High Opinion]

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?

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.

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?

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!

Nope - not until you start quoting properly.

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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

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

Reading comprehension will help this.

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

Sarcasm is apparently lost on you as well.

Except when you defend her.

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

No thanks.

IYHO, God. [In Your High Opinion]

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dawn

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

:roll:

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:

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:

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".

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

(EDITED) because it was too easy.

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.

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:

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.

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

Nope - nothing in the TOS about it.

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:

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]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

Reading "Comprehension" will help this.

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

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!

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:

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

Too bad I'm an atheist! :wink:

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.

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!"

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

:roll:

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

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!

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....

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:

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:

Okay. :wink: :P :lol:

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

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

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

[Dawn]

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.

[kc0iv]

Originally Posted by Dawn

Drivers I would take my advice and never log you are in the sleeper while you are really off duty (in truck stop)

Make it real simple on yourself. Log all the time as OFF-DUTY. Then NO ONE has any reason to question, be it D.O.T. or your log department, you what you did or when you did it.

There is NO rule or regulation that says you have to say what you were doing or when you did it when you are on line 1.

kc0iv

[Dawn]

Originally Posted by kc0iv

Make it real simple on yourself. Log all the time as OFF-DUTY. Then NO ONE has any reason to question, be it D.O.T. or your log department, you what you did or when you did it.

There is NO rule or regulation that says you have to say what you were doing or when you did it when you are on line 1.

kc0iv

That statement you quoted does not even come close to what Rev "Claimed" I said.
Sorry there is a rule that states your log must accurately reflect the drivers activities.
395.2
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

Make it simple on your pocket and log it as you do it.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by Dawn

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!

I cannot disagree with this.

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.

Page 2, about 3/4 of the way down. Your first appearance in this thread.

[golfhobo]

Dawn said:

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

Well... I see the Rev beat me to it. But, I was GONNA warn you, Dawn. Without even looking, my memory tells me that you DID say it!! :shock:

I can't defend you, or anyone else, from what you DID say. Maybe from what you MEANT by what you said.... but, when you say you looked through the thread and didn't SEE where you said it?..... I can't help you.

I WILL say that.... in THIS post, you ASKED for our help in finding your original statement, so MAYBE.... the wolves will be kind to you!

Good luck.

[shyykatt]

"I cannot disagree with this"

Rev, what on earth is wrong with U?! You feelin' ok? :P :lol: :lol: