Is every speed limit too low

Some posters might try to be nicer to get higher karma or the reverse, see if they can break a record for negative karma.
Who is lowest now? And highest?

This Karma thing would be a little better if everyone could see who gave or took karma from someone else. But still it is silly and worthless imo.

I find I like the karma ratings. If I am not mistaken many people on this board seem to make more of an effort to give their point of view rather than a personal attack. And it gives feedback to the poster as to what others think of their posts. Granted some don't like the post and may be giving feedback for that reason? I always thought PrintSmith as being pretty logical and reasonable but recently his posts say not so much and his feedback reflects it. So he can decide that he can reword or ignore but at least he has some idea as to how others view him. And some will always ignore no matter what the feedback.

swansei wrote: Then work to change it, but until then comply with the speed limit and be a safer driver for all concerned.

Individual nullification, on a massive scale, is one way of working to change the law, isn't it? Civil disobedience has a long history in our Union when change is sought, doesn't it?

With regards to "safer driver for all concerned", I must not be making myself very clear because the premise I'm pursuing is that when all around you are doing 10 over you are actually making the road safer for everyone on it by doing 10 over yourself than you are by following the speed limit. Would you like to make a counter argument to that premise swansei? There are ample numbers of studies done which confirm that premise to be the correct one if you want to do some research on it. Why, even our own State Patrol gets out in front of traffic on I-70 when it is very congested and sets a moving roadblock to homogenize the speed of traffic with the end result sought being a safer journey on congested roads.

FredHayek wrote: Some posters might try to be nicer to get higher karma or the reverse, see if they can break a record for negative karma.
Who is lowest now? And highest?

I think I hold the record for lowest at -13, folks don't like to hear that science, not man, decides when your life began I guess.

Venturer wrote: I always thought PrintSmith as being pretty logical and reasonable but recently his posts say not so much and his feedback reflects it.

I'm actually one who knows I've hit a nerve with my logic and reason when I start getting "smites". When I get an emotional reaction in response to a logical argument I know I'm on target with the message.

Venturer wrote: I find I like the karma ratings. If I am not mistaken many people on this board seem to make more of an effort to give their point of view rather than a personal attack. And it gives feedback to the poster as to what others think of their posts. Granted some don't like the post and may be giving feedback for that reason? I always thought PrintSmith as being pretty logical and reasonable but recently his posts say not so much and his feedback reflects it. So he can decide that he can reword or ignore but at least he has some idea as to how others view him. And some will always ignore no matter what the feedback.

I thought it was a cumulative # that applies to the poster not a particular post. Am I wrong?

Ok so to remain off topic for a second, what does the "Thank You" mean and who gives those out? I got two and have no idea why. Better that a "F#@k You" so I'm not complaining.

Rick wrote: Ok so to remain off topic for a second, what does the "Thank You" mean and who gives those out? I got two and have no idea why. Better that a "F#@k You" so I'm not complaining.

I thought the thank you applied to specific posts and not posters. I might be suffering from cranial anal syndrome.

How about instead of calling it karma, rate the post with an optional like/dislike using the plus and minus. Then it isn't about the person or their karma but the content of the post. Perhaps improvement in how it is stated. And not limit it to one per person per six hours or whatever it is -assuming it is possible to change this feature.