JIMNLIN wrote:
yeah, its quite evident some are to stupid to read/interpet and find guidence from your/our state dot/weight inforce division on regs in question.
The thread is a stickis about actual fed weight law rules wich FMCSA provides per part 658/571/573. Also NHTSA/FMZSS regs to consider with the same parts enters into weight regs per 49 CFRs. So far some refuse to admit they are revelent and bash the messenger.
That would be "too" stupid not "to" stupid, “interpret” not “interpet”, “guidance” not guidence”, “which” not “wich”, “enforce” not “inforce”, “relevant” not “revelent”.
I'm not sure what a "stickis" is, unless you are talking about a "sticky".
How do you expect to properly "interpet" the "guidence" you receive with this level (lack of) communication skills?
Perhaps the state of OK should be more focused on public education than highway weight enforcement.
So in response "to" stupid, I believe you have proven Dr. Albert Einstein correct.
The messenger should only be bashed when he screws up the message. In this case all bashing is clearly justified.
