headset for cellphone and GPS

"Bob Mann" <Bobo.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3nvgr35bslfpa9jden0emi1tf8b731okgt@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:54:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
>>There's a reason that airliners are required to have two people in the
>>front seat and it's not just in case one of them gets sick. A second
>>pair of eyes _in_ _the_ _vehicle_ improves the chances of spotting a
>>problem in time to avoid it. A person on the other end of a cell
>>phone is a pure distraction.
>
> A trained co-pilot and a yakking passenger are not really too
> equivalent are they?
> Flying a Jet at 35,000 feet is not quite the same as driving a car on
> a crowded freeway either is it?

Since it's on topic, FAA sterile cockpit rules (Sec. 121.542) have been in
effect since 1981. They specifically prohibit nonessential communications
among or by flight crewmembers during a critical flight phase, which is
defined to mean "all ground operations involving taxi, takeoff and landing,
and all other flight operations conducted below 10,000 feet, except cruise
flight."
 >> Stay informed about: headset for cellphone and GPS 

MikeWhy wrote:

> Since it's on topic, FAA sterile cockpit rules (Sec. 121.542) have been
> in effect since 1981. They specifically prohibit nonessential
> communications among or by flight crewmembers during a critical flight
> phase, which is defined to mean "all ground operations involving taxi,
> takeoff and landing, and all other flight operations conducted below
> 10,000 feet, except cruise flight."
>
>

Captain Oveur: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

--
"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE
outback_jon.TakeThisOut@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net
AMD Opteron 165 (@2.5) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power...
http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 53560

2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157
 >> Stay informed about: headset for cellphone and GPS 

Bob Mann wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:29:30 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Bob Mann wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:36:14 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>> <jclarke.usenet RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Mann wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:54:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>>>> <jclarke.usenet RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Mann wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:40:32 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>>>>>> <jclarke.usenet RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Further, statistically it doesn't seem to matter if you're
>>>>>>>> holding
>>>>>>>> the phone to your ear or using a handsfree in a car. And
>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>> that's dangerous for someone driving a car to do is more so
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> someone riding a motorcycle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've also seen stats that say the same for talking with a
>>>>>>> passenger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've seen stats, or you've seen somebody express their
>>>>>> opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that fun?
>>>>
>>>> Instead of giving a straight answer, you come back with a
>>>> wisecrack.
>>>> That pretty much says that you haven't seen stats.
>>>
>>> You think that was a wisecrack?
>>> It was a reaction to your question.
>>> I've read articles quoting stats that say that talking to a
>>> passenger
>>> (having a conversation) is just as distracting as having the same
>>> conversation over the phone.
>>> It isn't the appliance, it's the conversation.
>>
>> I've never seen stats on talking to passengers. I'd like to read
>> one
>> of those articles. Among other things I'm curious as to how the
>> statistics were gathered. Cell phone is easy--check the logs and
>> the
>> time of crash. Conversation is harder.
>>
>> However many states do have restrictions on the carrying of
>> passengers by inexperienced drivers.
>>
>>>>>> There's a reason that airliners are required to have two people
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the front seat and it's not just in case one of them gets sick.
>>>>>> A
>>>>>> second pair of eyes _in_ _the_ _vehicle_ improves the chances
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> spotting a problem in time to avoid it. A person on the other
>>>>>> end
>>>>>> of a cell phone is a pure distraction.
>>>>>
>>>>> A trained co-pilot and a yakking passenger are not really too
>>>>> equivalent are they?
>>>>
>>>> In the sense that both are capable of looking out the window and
>>>> asking if it is your intention to run into that
>>>> truck/mountain/other
>>>> obstacle, well, yes, they are equivalent.
>>>
>>> Yammering passengers are generally less aware than yammering
>>> drivers.
>>> If a plane is about to plow into a mountain conversation is likely
>>> to
>>> be the last thing on anyone's mind in the cockpit.
>>
>> So they're all going to just sit there and stare as the plane flys
>> straight and level and under complete control right into the side
>> of
>> the mountain? Nobody is going to say "uh, shouldn't we be
>> turning"?
>
> Do you dream this stuff up?
> This was your statement, not mine.

Huh? Dream what stuff up? You claim there would be no conversation
in the cockpit of an airplane approaching a mountan. Since mentioning
the possibility of flying into the mountain and suggesting that one
might want to do something about it is "conversation", by your own
argument nobody would mention it, they'd just fly into the mountain.

In the real world, the wingman's comment was "Sir, is it your
intention to fly into that mountain?"

>> If we accept your premise that talking to a passenger is no more
>> and
>> no less distracting than talking on a cell phone, then you have to
>> consider that the passenger, while perhaps less aware of what is
>> going on around him than the driver, is still going to be far more
>> aware of what is going on around the driver than is the person
>> talking on the cell phone. And if he sees something that is about
>> to kill him, do you not think it likely that he will say something
>> about it?
>
> On the other hand, a real live person is likely to bge more of a
> distrction to the driver than a voice over the phone.

Likely? Based on what research?

>>>>> Flying a Jet at 35,000 feet is not quite the same as driving a
>>>>> car
>>>>> on
>>>>> a crowded freeway either is it?
>>>>
>>>> Are you familiar with the word "landing"? Less crowded perhaps
>>>> but
>>>> you are also maneuvering something that weighs more than a fully
>>>> laden tandem-trailer truck in three dimensions, not two, at
>>>> speeds
>>>> that on the road would be decidedly illegal, while being blown
>>>> about
>>>> by whatever wind there happens to be, with no option to slow down
>>>> or
>>>> speed up or pull off to the side of the road, and attempting to
>>>> bring
>>>> it into gentle contact with the ground.
>>>
>>> Landing is akin to parallel parking.
>>
>> So how many people do you know who parallel park at 200 knots?
>
> You know, I was one of the few here who still gave you the benefit
> of
> the doubt.
> You've really eroded that with your specious arguments.
> You either just like to argue for the sake of it or you're a moron.
> Or both.

You're the one who claimed that landing was like parallel parking. If
you parallel park at 200 knots then maybe it is for you.

>>> Sure it's more skill intensive
>>> but take off and landing are the only real times when a pilot has
>>> to
>>> be completely on his or her toes.
>>> Most of the flight is controlled by computers with assist from
>>> ground
>>> control.
>>> No chance of wandering out of your lane or not noticing that the
>>> light
>>> has changed.
>>
>> I think that you have some serious misconceptions about the way
>> planes are flown. Air Route Traffic Control has no control at all
>> over the airplane, it can only tell the pilot what it wants him to
>> do.
>
> Much of it is automated.
> Even if not, the ground control tells the pilot where they should
> be.
> If pilot interaction is involved at all, it is minimal.
> Descend 2000 feet and come around to 270 degrees.
> It's not like he's watching out for the soccer mum in the next lane.

No, he's watching out for the 767 that's not where it's supposed to
be. Bottom line is that in a mid air it's not the air traffic
controller that dies.

>>>> I do hope that when your celluyammering catches up with you you
>>>> are
>>>> the only one who dies.
>>>>
>>> Highly presumptive of you but not very surprising.
>>
>> Why is it "presumptive"? If you don't yammer on your cell phone
>> while you're riding then why are you defending the practice?
>
> Who said I was?

If you think that you are not defending the practice then what exactly
are you trying to accomplish?

> I keep it to a minimium and never at the expense of my awareness of
> what is happening around me and not at all on a bike.

Then why are you defending it?

> Frankly, we have all the careless driving laws we need and IMHO they
> cover driving while distracted by cellphones or passengers.

Then why do so many people drive around weaving back and forth with
cell phones glued to their ears?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: headset for cellphone and GPS 

"Bob Mann" <Bobo.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:q2mhr3pq3ed1bsmk0gg7jrlbj7gojf36rj@4ax.com...

>>
> Exactly.
> In other words, they can talk all they like at cruising altitude.

Yup. So why can't I listen to a few tunes while
cruising down the mind-numbing endless expanse
of I-70 on my way through western Kansas?

Bob M.
 >> Stay informed about: headset for cellphone and GPS 

Bob Myers wrote:
> "Bob Mann" <Bobo RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:q2mhr3pq3ed1bsmk0gg7jrlbj7gojf36rj@4ax.com...
>
>>>
>> Exactly.
>> In other words, they can talk all they like at cruising altitude.
>
> Yup. So why can't I listen to a few tunes while
> cruising down the mind-numbing endless expanse
> of I-70 on my way through western Kansas?

Who said anything about listening to tunes? That's not the same as
yammering on a cell phone. A moment's inattention at the wrong time
even on an Interstate can land you in deep doodoo. Ask David Derrick.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: headset for cellphone and GPS 

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message
news:fpfg0v02ace@news2.newsguy.com...

>> Yup. So why can't I listen to a few tunes while
>> cruising down the mind-numbing endless expanse
>> of I-70 on my way through western Kansas?
>
> Who said anything about listening to tunes? That's not the same as
> yammering on a cell phone. A moment's inattention at the wrong time
> even on an Interstate can land you in deep doodoo. Ask David Derrick.

Well, ya may recall that this thread started with the
origina poster innocently asking for recommendations
re a wireless headset, and quickly devolved into a
discussion on the Evils of Cellphone Use While Driving
(Riding)(Breathing). I posted a follow-up re just
wanting to have something that would wirelessly get
some music into my helmet...so, in answer to your
question, >I< did!

Bob M.

>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: headset for cellphone and GPS 

Bob Myers wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:fpfg0v02ace@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>>> Yup. So why can't I listen to a few tunes while
>>> cruising down the mind-numbing endless expanse
>>> of I-70 on my way through western Kansas?
>>
>> Who said anything about listening to tunes? That's not the same as
>> yammering on a cell phone. A moment's inattention at the wrong
>> time
>> even on an Interstate can land you in deep doodoo. Ask David
>> Derrick.
>
> Well, ya may recall that this thread started with the
> origina poster innocently asking for recommendations
> re a wireless headset, and quickly devolved into a
> discussion on the Evils of Cellphone Use While Driving
> (Riding)(Breathing). I posted a follow-up re just
> wanting to have something that would wirelessly get
> some music into my helmet...so, in answer to your
> question, >I< did!

Ah. Ritalin quite working and Strattera made me psychotic so I just
plain can't keep these threads straight anymore.

Personally I repeat my suggestion to go for a set of Skullcandy or the
like--wireless is nice but find it more convenient to just plug
something in when I get on the bike than to have to worry about yet
another charger. Besides, I can fit three spare sets into the space
that a Bluetooth headset and charger would take up and they cost less
besides.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: headset for cellphone and GPS 

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote in message
news:fpfn1i02rg4@news2.newsguy.com...

> Personally I repeat my suggestion to go for a set of Skullcandy or the
> like--wireless is nice but find it more convenient to just plug
> something in when I get on the bike than to have to worry about yet
> another charger. Besides, I can fit three spare sets into the space
> that a Bluetooth headset and charger would take up and they cost less
> besides.

I'll take a look at 'em, but I have a bias against just about
any in-ear/earbud sort of things - they just never seem to
fit me well, and I'm always having to fiddle with them.
Having something like that inside a helmet where I couldn't
adjust them sounds like hell to me, but I will try to keep an
open mind when I look...

Bob M.
 >> Stay informed about: headset for cellphone and GPS 

Bob Mann wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:55:28 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Bob Myers wrote:
>>> "Bob Mann" <Bobo.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:q2mhr3pq3ed1bsmk0gg7jrlbj7gojf36rj@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>> In other words, they can talk all they like at cruising altitude.
>>>
>>> Yup. So why can't I listen to a few tunes while
>>> cruising down the mind-numbing endless expanse
>>> of I-70 on my way through western Kansas?
>>
>> Who said anything about listening to tunes? That's not the same as
>> yammering on a cell phone. A moment's inattention at the wrong
>> time
>> even on an Interstate can land you in deep doodoo. Ask David
>> Derrick.
>>
> Anyone who can't talk and drive at the same time shouldn't be
> driving
> at all.

In that case, get a cell phone and be sure to yammer on it at all
times while riding to prove your manhood. Make sure your next of kin
are informed to let us know where the funeral will be held.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: headset for cellphone and GPS 

Bob Myers wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message
> news:fpfn1i02rg4@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>> Personally I repeat my suggestion to go for a set of Skullcandy or
>> the like--wireless is nice but find it more convenient to just plug
>> something in when I get on the bike than to have to worry about yet
>> another charger. Besides, I can fit three spare sets into the
>> space
>> that a Bluetooth headset and charger would take up and they cost
>> less
>> besides.
>
> I'll take a look at 'em, but I have a bias against just about
> any in-ear/earbud sort of things - they just never seem to
> fit me well, and I'm always having to fiddle with them.
> Having something like that inside a helmet where I couldn't
> adjust them sounds like hell to me, but I will try to keep an
> open mind when I look...

In that case you might want to spend the extra for the Sonys EX51 or
EX71 that have a variety of earpieces of difference sizes and
different materials.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: headset for cellphone and GPS 

Bob Mann wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:21:59 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Bob Mann wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:55:28 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>> <jclarke.usenet.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Myers wrote:
>>>>> "Bob Mann" <Bobo.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:q2mhr3pq3ed1bsmk0gg7jrlbj7gojf36rj@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>> In other words, they can talk all they like at cruising
>>>>>> altitude.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup. So why can't I listen to a few tunes while
>>>>> cruising down the mind-numbing endless expanse
>>>>> of I-70 on my way through western Kansas?
>>>>
>>>> Who said anything about listening to tunes? That's not the same
>>>> as
>>>> yammering on a cell phone. A moment's inattention at the wrong
>>>> time
>>>> even on an Interstate can land you in deep doodoo. Ask David
>>>> Derrick.
>>>>
>>> Anyone who can't talk and drive at the same time shouldn't be
>>> driving
>>> at all.
>>
>> In that case, get a cell phone and be sure to yammer on it at all
>> times while riding to prove your manhood. Make sure your next of
>> kin
>> are informed to let us know where the funeral will be held.
>>
> I have two cell phones which I hardly ever use.
> Did you notice where I never actually mentioned a cell phone in my
> statement above oh holier than thou one?

Since they're so safe, start yammering on them while driving. Make
sure you do it all the time you drive everywhere you drive. Since
you're so sure that the only people who can't do that safely are those
who "shouldn't be driving at all".

Since you seem to want us to believe that you don't yammer on them
constantly while driving one is forced to conclude that your adamant
assertion that doing so is safe is one that you don't believe
yourself.

> Talking on a cell phone while looking straight ahead can't be any
> more
> dangerous than talking to a passenger while looking at them.

Statistics seem to suggest otherwise.

> Too many people drive like that too. Maybe we should ban passengers?
> Oh, we don't need to. We already have careless driving laws.
> Driving without paying attention is a ticketable offence. They just
> need to enforce that.

I see. If "careless driving laws" are sufficient then perhaps we
should not have laws against doing things like driving in the wrong
lane since they are covered by "careless driving laws"? Perhaps we
should legalize DUI for the same reason? I'm sorry, but "reckless
driving" (in what state is "careless driving" an offense) is a catch
all to cover situations where clearly some charge needs to be brought
but there's not a statute to cover it, furthermore it's hard to prove
since it's a judgment call. So it's _not_ going to stop people from
yammering on their cell phones while weaving all over the road no
matter what _you_ think. I'm sorry, but while I object to laws that
interfere with civil liberties when the only person at risk is the
person committing the act, yammering on a cell phone while driving
endangers not only that person but whoever he hits.

Ultimately, I suspect that there's going to be a technological
solution imposed that makes it difficult or impossible to use a cell
phone while driving a motor vehicle.


> Meanwhile, maybe you should stop projecting your own shortcomings on
> the rest of us.

Let me ask you a question. Is your last memory of someone you cared
about "Oh, SH<CRASH>" coming across a cell phone? If it was then you
wouldn't be quite so high and mighty about them.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: headset for cellphone and GPS 

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message
news:fphkit12r6b@news2.newsguy.com...
> Let me ask you a question. Is your last memory of someone you cared
> about "Oh, SH<CRASH>" coming across a cell phone? If it was then you
> wouldn't be quite so high and mighty about them.

John, I hate to pry in what likely is a pretty sensitive area,
IF the answer to this question is what I think it is - but...is
YOUR last memory of someone per the above? If so, I'd
submit that your opinions here may also be a little biased.
Not that you're wrong, necessarily, but you may not be
all that objective. Just a thought.

I don't "yammer" on a cell phone incessantly while driving,
and never at all when riding. However, I HAVE used a
cell phone in the car, with a hands-free Bluetooth headset,
and only for brief periods when it was needed. When that
happens, I try to remain very aware of the choice I'm
making and ratchet my attentiveness up even more to
compensate - and when I'm driving, my head is usually
on a swivel anyway. There's risk in any such activity -
including the one we're supposedly concerned about in
this group - and IF you take that risk on properly, it
is something that can be dealt with (again, as in all such
activities). I cringe every time I see a clueless cell phone
user who is obviously just "yammering" and not paying
attention to their driving also - but that doesn't automatically
mean that a cell phone is the ultimate evil and that even
touching one while driving is a recipe for certain death.

If statistics were all there were to questions of this nature,
we should all park our bikes, hang up our gear, and take
up something nice and safe like knitting. For some reason,
I don't think that answer's going to be very popular here.

The bottom line is something that any of us who are on
two wheels ought to be very familiar with - personal
responsibility. When you choose to pursue an activity
that has increased risk to you and those around you, it
is up to YOU to weigh that risk vs. the importance of the
activity, and to take whatever steps you can to minimize
it.

Bob M.
 >> Stay informed about: headset for cellphone and GPS 

Bob Myers wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message
> news:fphkit12r6b@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Let me ask you a question. Is your last memory of someone you
>> cared
>> about "Oh, SH<CRASH>" coming across a cell phone? If it was then
>> you
>> wouldn't be quite so high and mighty about them.
>
> John, I hate to pry in what likely is a pretty sensitive area,
> IF the answer to this question is what I think it is - but...is
> YOUR last memory of someone per the above? If so, I'd
> submit that your opinions here may also be a little biased.
> Not that you're wrong, necessarily, but you may not be
> all that objective. Just a thought.

No, it's not, but considering how my GF drives and the fact that she
is one of those who really should just have the phone surgically
attached to her ear, every time she calls me while negotiating traffic
I worry about that being the outcome of the conversation.

> I don't "yammer" on a cell phone incessantly while driving,
> and never at all when riding. However, I HAVE used a
> cell phone in the car, with a hands-free Bluetooth headset,
> and only for brief periods when it was needed. When that
> happens, I try to remain very aware of the choice I'm
> making and ratchet my attentiveness up even more to
> compensate - and when I'm driving, my head is usually
> on a swivel anyway. There's risk in any such activity -
> including the one we're supposedly concerned about in
> this group - and IF you take that risk on properly, it
> is something that can be dealt with (again, as in all such
> activities). I cringe every time I see a clueless cell phone
> user who is obviously just "yammering" and not paying
> attention to their driving also - but that doesn't automatically
> mean that a cell phone is the ultimate evil and that even
> touching one while driving is a recipe for certain death.

It's not the ultimate evil, and if people would use them minimally and
responsibly then there wouldn't be enough of a problem to need a
legislative remedy, however even here, where using a cell phone while
driving _is_ unlawful we see people cruising down the road yammering
away and weaving back and forth, or speeding up and slowing down
without rhyme or reason, often with their eyes on something in the
passenger seat, occasionally glancing at the road.

If you personally are normally more vigilant than others, and the cell
phone takes you down to the "average" level of vigilance, that may be
OK for you but it's difficult to make excepctions in the law for
individuals unless you want to propose some kind of skills testing to
allow cell phone use while driving.

The trouble is that if people use a privilege irresponsibly they lose
it, and enough people are using cell phones in vehicles irresponsibly
at this point that they're becoming a social problem.

> If statistics were all there were to questions of this nature,
> we should all park our bikes, hang up our gear, and take
> up something nice and safe like knitting. For some reason,
> I don't think that answer's going to be very popular here.

If the only person a cell-yammerer endangered was himself then I'd
think the government should stay out of it--I'm of the opinion that
where it's only his own life at stake a person should be able to
choose what risks he takes--I'm opposed to helmet laws for that
reason, for example, even though I always wear one myself. Seat belt
laws the same. But somebody yammering on a cell phone and not paying
as much attention to the road as he should is not just endangering
himself, he's endangering others as well.

Further, I have more of a problem with car drivers and truckers doing
it than motorcyclists doing it--lose it on the bike and you're liable
to get dead while the guy in the car or truck who runs over you after
you go down is going to mostly be out the cost of car repairs. Lose
it while driving a car and hit a bike and the economic outcome is the
same, the guy in the car is out car repairs while the guy on the bike
may be dead. But if he hits another car then everybody involved may
end up dead.

The trouble is that you're going to play Hell getting a legislature to
say "motorcyclists may yammer on the phone as they please but people
driving cars are not allowed to do so", so it it's banned for the one
it's going to be banned for the other.

> The bottom line is something that any of us who are on
> two wheels ought to be very familiar with - personal
> responsibility. When you choose to pursue an activity
> that has increased risk to you and those around you, it
> is up to YOU to weigh that risk vs. the importance of the
> activity, and to take whatever steps you can to minimize
> it.

If it's endangering others without their knowledge or consent then
it's not entirely "up to you" or shouldn't be.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: headset for cellphone and GPS