Re: Gotta keep it from The Children [Archive]

abacus

June 23rd 03, 04:06 PM

Banty > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >Banty > wrote in message
> >...
> >> In article >,
> >> says...
> >> >
>
> >> >> Non-smokers didn't *choose* to breathe in cigarette smoke. Many directly
> >>>> *chose* NOT to breathe in cigarette smoke. It's harmful in a way that goes
> >> >> beyond momentary irritation, and it *is* irritating besides. One *has* to
> >>>>breathe. On the other hand, smokers can leave the ciggies as home for awhile.
> >> >
> >> >Sure, that's one solution. But is it really the best compromise that
> >> >our society can come up with to resolve the conflict between those who
> >> >wish to smoke in an public outdoor setting and those who wish to avoid
> >> >all exposure to their smoke? I don't think so.
> >>
> >> My preference also would be that smokers would be considerate, such that
> >> non-smokers don't have to resort to the broad hammer of the law, and everyone
> >> would come out ahead.
> >
> >Sounds ideal to me too. But even given inconsiderate smokers, the
> >broad hammer of law seems just too big a weapon to wield for such a
> >minor matter. Does more harm than good.
>
> Well, the law being that certain folks will have to leave a nasty, destructive
> habit at home, the only harm would be that there's a law. Unecessary laws are
> bad.

Yes, unnecessary laws are, IMO, VERY bad. I don't like restricting
anyone's freedom unnecessary.

> But, in tha face of "**** you", "what's your problem", butts and ashes flicked
> everywhere, folks have not much option but to put up with the crap, not use the
> park, or take public spaces back via laws. Folks are tired of it. I put the
> blame for the laws square at the feet of a lot of the smokers.

I put the blame for the laws square at the feet of those who propose
them and lobby for them. Why are they seeking a solution through the
law and why are they insisting on banning smoking whether they are
around to be bothered or not?

> >> Unfortunately, we ban smoking because we don't have considerate smokers, just
> >> like we ban music from the parks often because of those who think they have a
> >>"right" to blast it, and many places ban or restrict dogs because so many owners
> >> can't seem to keep the dogs under control and clean up after them.
> >
> >I wasn't aware that either had been banned. Not in my vicinity
> >anyway. Loud music bothers me a great deal more than smoke
> >personally.
>
> Both are banned to one extent or another in parks around here.

>
> >
> >> If I heard from folks like you more noise about inconsideration, instead of
> >>whining only about the laws people turn to as a last resort, I'd give you more
> >>credibility. So let's hear it - what are the responsibilities of smokers in an
> >> ideal no-law situation?
> >
> >I think that smokers should always be considerate and never smoke
> >around those who object. I don't complain about inconsiderate smokers
> >because I don't know any personally, nor do I see any posts
> >proclaiming their right to smoke whenever and wherever, so I don't
> >address that issue.
>
> We've seen at least one person here say something on the order of "what's your
> problem lady, it isn't like someone is shooting your cat", and we haven't
> exactly seen smoking apologists come out of the woodwork to say they try to do
> differently.
>
> So there you have it.

Actually, the person I think you're referring to has stated that he
would, if requested, stop or move. He's also talked about how rudely
he has seen non-smokers behave when asking smokers to quit. I think he
has a point. I've never had a smoker be rude to me and insist on
continuing to blow smoke into my face. I suspect that those who
regularly encounter rude smokers are, to some extent, creating the
situation by being rude in way they phrase their request to stop. Not
always, but I'm certain it happens sometimes. I don't think that the
smokers are entirely to blame for the problem.

abacus

June 23rd 03, 04:14 PM

"CBI" > wrote in message >...
> "abacus" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Sounds ideal to me too. But even given inconsiderate smokers, the
> > broad hammer of law seems just too big a weapon to wield for such a
> > minor matter. Does more harm than good.

> What harm?

Restricts individuals freedom unnecessary. A bad thing IMO. In
addition, such laws breeds contempt for the law.

> > I think that smokers should always be considerate and never smoke
> > around those who object.
>
> How do you know whether the person objects? Wouldn't the only truly
> considerate thing be to not smoke around others unless you have determined
> that they don't object?

I don't think it's asking too much of non-smokers to make their
objections known. I do think it's asking too much of smokers to never
smoke in an outdoor public place just become someone *might* object.

Frankly, I was glad to see smoking banned from the place I worked at
15 years ago. I didn't bother me too much, but it was more pleasant
without the smoke.
I'm undecided about whether or not blanket bans for restaurants and
bars are appropriate. But I definitely think that banning smoking in
outdoor public places is going too far. It's reasonable to expect
smokers to quit if asked, but unreasonable to expect them to refrain
completely.

0tterbot

June 23rd 03, 04:24 PM

"Banty" > wrote in message
...

> >> Do not put all smokers in the same basket. When my DH and I
> >> smoked, we always, always, always threw out butts in a bin. It
> >> is rubbish and belongs in a bin.
> >
> >as i do & many smokers also do (although at this point i feel like i'm
> >talking to the walls. sigh. people just *want* to believe all smokers
smoke
> >all over everyone & throw butts everywhere.)
>
> Hello, walls :-)

EGADS!
;-)

> The problem is, *enough* smokers are rude and sloppy about it such that
it's a
> problem. No one's saying all smokers should be deemed rude.

yeah, but read this thread, & observe that *enough* anti-smokers are rude &
obnoxious to smokers - people making grand statements about what smokers do,
& getting frightfully in a flap at the same time (& never noticing the
smokers who don't **** them off.) i'm certain it's quite identical to the
militantly <whatever> who simply never *notice* how many of the subject/s of
their disapproval are being perfectly polite about it, they only see what
they want to see & extrapolate it to a ridiculous degree.

but at any rate, pardon my momentary exasperation on that matter. :-)

(snippage)
> I'm really, really down deep disgusted with the whole tobacco thing. It's
a
> really stupid, addictive, expensive (personally and to society),
destructive,
> valueless thing to be defending, to be calling on others' tolerance
continually
> for.

it is - you'd be hard pressed to find anyone, smoker or not, who would
disagree with this. it's not rocket science, & precious few smokers "defend"
their habit. it just IS - going on about it's not going to change anything.

my point is that many smokers are polite people who go out of their way to
avoid littering, offending people, exposing people (unless by explicit or
implied consent) bla de bla, & only ever get lumped in with rude litterbug
smokers for our trouble.

i also concur that before various laws changed, people (including me - but
then again i had heedless youth on my side in those days) would & did smoke
in the most amazing locations & never really think about it, & possibly
affronted one or two people in the process... but - the way things are now,
non-smokers are given carte blanche to be gaspingly rude to smokers, &
smokers are considered to be right down there with used car salesmen,
paedophiles & junkies, & it's simply ridiculous. it's become a taboo out of
all proportion. it's been MY experience, (as a general person, not as a
smoker) that the rudeness (round here, god only knows what your laws are
like) is quite the reverse. people who wouldn't dream of criticising the
overweight, the junk-food addicted, the terminally miserable, the abjectly
lazy (etc) about their health matters start on at smokers as though
something they have to say is actually *news* - & it's often not polite,
either. we smokers are well appraised of the fact that we are killing
ourselves, & don't need to know. we know some smokers are rude, we don't
need to hear that either. it's my experience that anti-smokers need to be
watching their manners more carefully than the smokers do.

i barely know 3 people who will smoke in their own house these days. i think
the militants need to find a new category of person to oppress, quite
frankly. they made their point about 15 years ago.

& if people want to be worried about what they breathe, they need to get
more information on the substances that are actually killing them, & not
worry so much about some poor dweeb having a fag in the park.

pardon my exasperation. :-(
kylie

Banty

June 23rd 03, 04:24 PM

In article >,
says...
>

>>Well, the law being that certain folks will have to leave a nasty, destructive
>>habit at home, the only harm would be that there's a law. Unecessary laws are
>> bad.
>
>Yes, unnecessary laws are, IMO, VERY bad. I don't like restricting
>anyone's freedom unnecessary.
>
>>But, in tha face of "**** you", "what's your problem", butts and ashes flicked
>>everywhere, folks have not much option but to put up with the crap, not use the
>>park, or take public spaces back via laws. Folks are tired of it. I put the
>> blame for the laws square at the feet of a lot of the smokers.
>
>I put the blame for the laws square at the feet of those who propose
>them and lobby for them. Why are they seeking a solution through the
>law and why are they insisting on banning smoking whether they are
>around to be bothered or not?

Oh - I dunno - mebbe it's "**** You", keyed cars, and other general intimidation
that people meet up with nowdays when asking for consideration. It's the only
real answser to pervasive social intimidation - the force of law.

You should pretty much assume that there are *always* people around to be
bothered. It fits reality much better (in fact, pusing this notion in itself is
a form of social intimidation) than assuming that folks who are bothered by
smoking are a small group of curmugeons.

>Actually, the person I think you're referring to has stated that he
>would, if requested, stop or move. He's also talked about how rudely
>he has seen non-smokers behave when asking smokers to quit. I think he
>has a point. I've never had a smoker be rude to me and insist on
>continuing to blow smoke into my face. I suspect that those who
>regularly encounter rude smokers are, to some extent, creating the
>situation by being rude in way they phrase their request to stop. Not
>always, but I'm certain it happens sometimes. I don't think that the
>smokers are entirely to blame for the problem.

I *have* seen smokers be rude in response to reasonable, quiet requests. And,
like I've said elsewhere, smoking being so inherently intrusive and
trash-producing, it doens't take much inconsideration to make a huge impact.

And, as has been pointed out, as with other innately smelly and bothersome and
intrusive things, the burden is on the SMOKER to be discreet and polite.

"Mind if I fart?"

Banty

0tterbot

June 23rd 03, 04:39 PM

"Tom Enright" > wrote in message
m...

> > > Considering Communists have long employed the "knock in the middle of
the
> > > night" I've always felt this quote a bit out of date.
>
> > what?
>
> Because communist governments have killed around 100,000,000 people and
> have no problem denying simple rights to the people it is somewhat
> hyprocritcal for them to be viewed as an oppressed group. Most especially
> when you consider the time in which the quote was made.

what, the 60s when he said it? :-D

i don't think communists are an oppressed group overall, although they are
in some quarters (much like people of any political persuasion). on a
day-to-day basis, i don't think about communists at all, actually. and while
i think i'm correct in surmising that you are an anti-communist, you are not
correct in surmising that i am a communist or am pro-communist. where that
came from is anybody's guess - goodness knows i'm not going to go there.

> > are you mccarthy's grandson-in-a-jar or something?
>
> What? Are you suggesting that communists have not come for
> for "Trade Unionists" and others?

nooooooooo - i think i'm asking wtf are you fussing about my sig for.

just to spell it out for you - it means (& just to reiterate, it has nothing
to do with communism):

speak out for others, even if you have nothing in common with them,
otherwise the powers-that-be will take your silence for consent. if nobody
speaks out, eventually there won't *be* anyone to speak out - they will all
have been silenced one way or another.
quite simple, really.
kylie

Banty

June 23rd 03, 04:49 PM

In article >, "0tterbot" says...
>
>"Banty" > wrote in message
...
>
>> >> Do not put all smokers in the same basket. When my DH and I
>> >> smoked, we always, always, always threw out butts in a bin. It
>> >> is rubbish and belongs in a bin.
>> >
>> >as i do & many smokers also do (although at this point i feel like i'm
>> >talking to the walls. sigh. people just *want* to believe all smokers
>smoke
>> >all over everyone & throw butts everywhere.)
>>
>> Hello, walls :-)
>
>EGADS!
>;-)
>
>> The problem is, *enough* smokers are rude and sloppy about it such that
>it's a
>> problem. No one's saying all smokers should be deemed rude.
>
>yeah, but read this thread, & observe that *enough* anti-smokers are rude &
>obnoxious to smokers - people making grand statements about what smokers do,
>& getting frightfully in a flap at the same time (& never noticing the
>smokers who don't **** them off.) i'm certain it's quite identical to the
>militantly <whatever> who simply never *notice* how many of the subject/s of
>their disapproval are being perfectly polite about it, they only see what
>they want to see & extrapolate it to a ridiculous degree.
>
>but at any rate, pardon my momentary exasperation on that matter. :-)

Exasperation allowed :-)

IT's just that it only takes a FEW rude smokers to make a HUGE impact. Yes, I
know and notice considerate smokers. I do think more smokers are considerate.
They've been just about beaten into it ;-)

And I do think smokers are somewhat of a whipping boy as to a lot of general
social irritation being dumped upon them. So I'll grant you that, too. Western
society seems to put a huge spotlight on things, ignore others, then turn the
spotlight on other things, and ignore previous focusses, etc. But it's that
it's such an especially CLEAR CASE of doing things at others' expense with no
benefit to self OR others other than "I do this". And folks are getting
increasingly irritated at the general degredation of "I do this 'cause I wanna
it's my RIGHT dare ya to say anyting about it" in many areas of life. Given a
consensus and an "opening" concerning smoking - yeah, smokers are getting really
dumped on.

Paint me as a converted previous smoking-tolerant. Still a current
smoker-tolerant. But the positive impact of anti-smoking laws have really
turned me around. Not to defend them now would be like asking me to advocate
repealing anti-dumping laws.

But seeing this thread, apparently meant initially as a "look aint-it-awwwful a
stupid law is being passed 'For the chiiiilllldren'", but the law is addressing
something demonstrably crappy for EVERYBODY, shows a blindness to how gross the
thing is, that just BEGS to be pointed out - again - what a stupid awful thing
is being defended. I don't rightly care if it was being done for the remote
possibility of offending Little Green Men From Mars - it sucks and it has to go!
Come back with another "Aint it Awful" about something else "for the
chiiiillldren" - the OP really blew it and picked the wrong subject for this
one!

Cheers,
Banty

Banty

June 23rd 03, 05:51 PM

In article >, Pockets says...
>
>On 23 Jun 2003 08:49:31 -0700, Banty > wrote:
>
>>Come back with another "Aint it Awful" about something else "for the
>>chiiiillldren" - the OP really blew it and picked the wrong subject for this
>>one!
>
>No, I didn't.
>
>The law was specifically passed to keep the very *sight* of people
>smoking away from The Children. It explains why smoking is allowed in
>parts of the park where The Children are not encouraged to congregate.

>
>I guess today's parents are so gutless and uninfluential in their
>children's lives that such protection is needed.

In general, I would agree with you, that a lot of social-legislation crap like
certain anti-porn and certain government subsidies of questionable wisdom jammed
into legislatures using the emotional strings of "for the children" (I hate
guilting in general, anyway), and some Dumb Stuff has been proposed this way.
And that parents can darn well raise their kids so that they can deal with the
world.

If this were an anti-cursing law, I'd be with you. But my understanding is that
this was how folks could get the non-smoking area extended. (Kinda like getting
Al Capone on tax evasion.) I only wish other consdierations would have been
considered suficient. Like my adult eyes and lungs.

So - how can I get a playground put in the parts where "children are not
encouraged to congregate", because I don't want to "see" the smoking too! ;-)

Cheers,
Banty

Stevet Thompson

June 23rd 03, 07:39 PM

Banty > wrote in message >...
[snip]
> I'm really, really down deep disgusted with the whole tobacco thing. It's a
> really stupid, addictive, expensive (personally and to society), destructive,
> valueless thing to be defending, to be calling on others' tolerance continually
> for.

As a smoker who finds many common habits of non-smoker's somewhat
irritating, I'll state that as long as people like you can find
nothing better to whine about, I will be grinding my cigarette butts
into the sidewalk, or tossing them wherever I want. I will smoke
indoors whenever I feel there's a reasonable chance that I won't get
caught. Your complaints, dirty looks, and legislation will be
entirely ineffective (as a practical matter) unless every cubic
centimetre of the country is put under video surveillance -- and when
that happens, you won't be bitching about smokers.

The short of it is that I simply don't give a **** about your delicate
sensibilities, r.e. smoking.

Get a life.

Regards,

Steve

Banty

June 23rd 03, 07:43 PM

In article >,
says...
>

>The short of it is that I simply don't give a **** about your delicate
>sensibilities, r.e. smoking.
>
>Get a life.

I have one.

Yours, on the other hand, you've taken upon yourself to endanger.

Cheers,
Banty

Dan Evans

June 23rd 03, 08:33 PM

"Banty" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
>
> >The short of it is that I simply don't give a **** about your delicate
> >sensibilities, r.e. smoking.
> >
> >Get a life.
>
> I have one.
>
> Yours, on the other hand, you've taken upon yourself to endanger.

Is that it? Is that the best you can do? A little originality *please*. Of
all the tired, worn out phrases to choose from, you have to show yourself to
be among the most unoriginal cliche quoting self righteous idiots.

Here's a tip, why not get whiney about the quantity of DU dust floating
around the Persian Gulf - oh, that's right, it's not *your* kids/grandkids
that are going to be born deformed, it's not *you* or *your* family that has
to live in an irradiated country is it? Why not get all hot and bothered
about the US's total disregard for the Kyoto Protocol, what about India and
it's almost total lack of control over toxins being dumped into surface
water?

All of these things, my dear, are going to kill more kids than smoking in
the park.

Dan

Banty

June 23rd 03, 08:54 PM

In article >, "Dan says...
>
>
>"Banty" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> says...
>> >
>>
>> >The short of it is that I simply don't give a **** about your delicate
>> >sensibilities, r.e. smoking.
>> >
>> >Get a life.
>>
>> I have one.
>>
>> Yours, on the other hand, you've taken upon yourself to endanger.
>
>Is that it? Is that the best you can do? A little originality *please*. Of
>all the tired, worn out phrases to choose from, you have to show yourself to
>be among the most unoriginal cliche quoting self righteous idiots.

Who's trying for a prize in originality?? *Why* should your respondants be
trying to be original??

There's a reason why you're reading the same thing over and over in responses to
your posts on this subject. Of course, below (retained below my sig) you dont'
have anything even *close* to an answer to this, because there isn't one. It's
fact.

You only have red herrings like "you're not original", and as to the one you're
dragging below, I'm much more concerned about landmines. But it has nothing to
do with the subject either, and no one in this thread, if you've noticed, no one
even posting from misc.kids, as I am, have brought up the "for the kids"
argument save yourself and the OP. It's enough to point out the impact on
everybody of a really nasty destuctive addiction. And I don't claim or need
originality on that statement.

Banty
_____________
>
>Here's a tip, why not get whiney about the quantity of DU dust floating
>around the Persian Gulf - oh, that's right, it's not *your* kids/grandkids
>that are going to be born deformed, it's not *you* or *your* family that has
>to live in an irradiated country is it? Why not get all hot and bothered
>about the US's total disregard for the Kyoto Protocol, what about India and
>it's almost total lack of control over toxins being dumped into surface
>water?
>
>All of these things, my dear, are going to kill more kids than smoking in
>the park.
>
>Dan
>
>

LaTreen Washington

June 23rd 03, 10:02 PM

x-no-archive: yes

Do you raise as big a fuss when people change diapers in public?

Do you object when people bring their children into public pools
wearing swim diapers (that release fecal matter - a PROVEN
health hazard) into public pools?

Both are an entitlement issue with parents. How many times are
diapers changed in cafes and airplanes?

I WILL smoke outside. When I wait for a bus - I go under the shelter
with everyone else and I DO light up. If people are there with children
I make a point to stand by them. You can take your ill-behaved children
anywhere you want. I WILL smoke where ever I am allowed to by law.
If they don't like it, they can move - that's the entitlement attitude that
applies to me when your children are obnoxious and ill-mannered.

There is an law against smoking in an athletic field near my house and I
will
smoke there until I am fined for it. If I am fined, I will drag the case out
in
court as long as I can to run up the cost and waste the town's money.

I see the litter left behind by breeders from little league and the feces
left
from the dog owners.

These people don't care about the public - why should I?

LaTreen Washington

"Banty" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
>
> >The short of it is that I simply don't give a **** about your delicate
> >sensibilities, r.e. smoking.
> >
> >Get a life.
>
> I have one.
>
> Yours, on the other hand, you've taken upon yourself to endanger.
>
> Cheers,
> Banty
>

==Daye==

June 23rd 03, 10:33 PM

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:16:27 +1000, "0tterbot" >
wrote:

>anyway, in australia butts *are* litter & you can be fined for dropping
>them, same as all litter (althought it operates on a sliding scale.). you
>get a special special fine for throwing them out your car window. (well, you
>don't, because the police & litter regulation are rarely acquainted, but it
>*is* possible.)

Actually, there is a number you can call and tell on people who
throw them out their window. You receive your ticket in the
mail. My SIL got busted once doing that. She has never thrown
another butt out of her window.

==Daye==
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au
moderator of the proposed group misc.kids.family-life

==Daye==

June 23rd 03, 10:48 PM

On 23 Jun 2003 09:51:05 -0700, Banty >
wrote:

>If this were an anti-cursing law, I'd be with you.

I wouldn't. Cursing happens in the real world. Children hear
whether you want them to or not. Words like "ass," "hell," and
"damn" are even on TV.

==Daye==
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au
moderator of the proposed group misc.kids.family-life

P. Tierney

June 23rd 03, 10:50 PM

"Stevet Thompson" > wrote in message
om...
> Banty > wrote in message
>...
> [snip]
> > I'm really, really down deep disgusted with the whole tobacco thing.
It's a
> > really stupid, addictive, expensive (personally and to society),
destructive,
> > valueless thing to be defending, to be calling on others' tolerance
continually
> > for.
>
> As a smoker who finds many common habits of non-smoker's somewhat
> irritating, I'll state that as long as people like you can find
> nothing better to whine about, I will be grinding my cigarette butts
> into the sidewalk, or tossing them wherever I want. I will smoke
> indoors whenever I feel there's a reasonable chance that I won't get
> caught.

The Problem, Exhibit A.

P. Tierney

0tterbot

June 24th 03, 12:39 AM

"Pockets of Resistance" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 Jun 2003 08:49:31 -0700, Banty > wrote:
>
> >Come back with another "Aint it Awful" about something else "for the
> >chiiiillldren" - the OP really blew it and picked the wrong subject for
this
> >one!
>
> No, I didn't.
>
> The law was specifically passed to keep the very *sight* of people
> smoking away from The Children. It explains why smoking is allowed in
> parts of the park where The Children are not encouraged to congregate.

a local anti-smoking lobby released last week the scintillating fact that,
in the year prior to taking up smoking, x percent of teenagers had seen a
character in a film smoking - therefore characters in films shouldn't smoke
because it clearly leads to children commencing the habit. it's hard to know
whether to laugh or cry, sometimes.

> I guess today's parents are so gutless and uninfluential in their
> children's lives that such protection is needed.

no - you're just trying to have a dig at parents which is unwarranted. by
the time children commence smoking their parent's influence is, by nature,
greatly lessened, because it is the nature of humans to break free of
parental bonds at that age.

if you want to have a dig at someone, put it at the feet of people who
propose dubious laws. it sounds to me like *they* wish to have control out
of all proportion to their entitlement to do so.
kylie
--
First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not
speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I
was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was
not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no
one left to speak out for me.
~ Martin Niemoeller

==Daye==

June 24th 03, 01:56 AM

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:33:13 +1000, "0tterbot" >
wrote:

>but from a practical p.o.v. - who on earth would know the number, be able to
>write down the car's numberplate while tooling down the highway, etc. it's
>all a bit hard in practice, innit. it *is* nice to see that it will work if
>pursued, though!

There was a story on "A Current Affair" or "Today Tonight" about
a man who has a notepad attached to his dash. He writes down all
the number plates of people throwing butts out the window. He
then calls and dobs them in.

He probably isn't the only person who does it.

==Daye==
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au
moderator of the proposed group misc.kids.family-life

Stevet Thompson

June 24th 03, 02:13 AM

Banty > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
>
> >The short of it is that I simply don't give a #### about your delicate

[Peeve: Net Nanny. It's not like any children (other than the mental
kind) use this computer, so I don't really see the logic involved in
its mandated installation at this location. But it probably make some
militant bible-thumper happy.]

> >sensibilities, r.e. smoking.
> >
> >Get a life.
>
> I have one.

How big is it?

> Yours, on the other hand, you've taken upon yourself to endanger.

Well, you're correct on purely technical grounds. It's true, my
smoking increases my risk of heart `disease' and a number of other
maladies. However, I happen to be subject to much more severe risks
that are not of my own making, and that does tend to push awareness of
smoking risks outside of my normal day-to-day considerations.

I suppose that's an excuse.

Regards,

Steve

> Cheers,
> Banty

Stevet Thompson

June 24th 03, 02:24 AM

"P. Tierney" > wrote in message news:<zCKJa.2217$3d.1395@sccrnsc02>...
> "Stevet Thompson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Banty > wrote in message
> >...
> > [snip]
> > > I'm really, really down deep disgusted with the whole tobacco thing.
> It's a
> > > really stupid, addictive, expensive (personally and to society),
> destructive,
> > > valueless thing to be defending, to be calling on others' tolerance
> continually
> > > for.
> >
> > As a smoker who finds many common habits of non-smoker's somewhat
> > irritating, I'll state that as long as people like you can find
> > nothing better to whine about, I will be grinding my cigarette butts
> > into the sidewalk, or tossing them wherever I want. I will smoke
> > indoors whenever I feel there's a reasonable chance that I won't get
> > caught.
>
> The Problem, Exhibit A.

Fortunately, there is no anti-smoker SWAT battalion in this city, and
so the burden of proof is on non-smokers, who will have to follow me
around wherever I travel in the hopes of catching me with a lit smoke.
Further, since anti-smoking laws are by nature municipal, there is no
legal precident which would allow j. random citizen to apprehend or
detain. Therefore, I feel quite confident that when I smoke in your
office-tower's stairwell, or in the bathroom, or even when I blow
smoke in your church's HVAC intake, there is little chance that I'll
be inconvenienced in the slightest even if caught.

Regards,

Steve

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

P. Tierney

June 24th 03, 03:49 AM

"Stevet Thompson" > wrote in message
om...
> "P. Tierney" > wrote in message
news:<zCKJa.2217$3d.1395@sccrnsc02>...
> > "Stevet Thompson" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Banty > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > [snip]
> > > > I'm really, really down deep disgusted with the whole tobacco thing.
> > It's a
> > > > really stupid, addictive, expensive (personally and to society),
> > destructive,
> > > > valueless thing to be defending, to be calling on others' tolerance
> > continually
> > > > for.
> > >
> > > As a smoker who finds many common habits of non-smoker's somewhat
> > > irritating, I'll state that as long as people like you can find
> > > nothing better to whine about, I will be grinding my cigarette butts
> > > into the sidewalk, or tossing them wherever I want. I will smoke
> > > indoors whenever I feel there's a reasonable chance that I won't get
> > > caught.
> >
> > The Problem, Exhibit A.
>
> Fortunately, there is no anti-smoker SWAT battalion in this city, and
> so the burden of proof is on non-smokers, who will have to follow me
> around wherever I travel in the hopes of catching me with a lit smoke.
> Further, since anti-smoking laws are by nature municipal, there is no
> legal precident which would allow j. random citizen to apprehend or
> detain. Therefore, I feel quite confident that when I smoke in your
> office-tower's stairwell, or in the bathroom, or even when I blow
> smoke in your church's HVAC intake, there is little chance that I'll
> be inconvenienced in the slightest even if caught.

Maybe I'll leave by your credo and start dropping the drawers
and crapping in public places. And they don't like the smell -- tough!
I'm livin' free, man!!! And there are no anti-crapper SWAT battalions
in this city, so people will have to follow me around to catch me.
And then what?!?! No legal precedent allows j.random citizen to
apprehend and detain me and my crap.

So... yeah! Let's give those uptight !^@#@ what they deserve!!!
If they don't like the smell of my feces on the street, they can go
to freakin' China!

Man, I feel so intelligent.

P.
Tierney

Banty

June 24th 03, 04:22 AM

In article >, ==Daye== says...
>
>On 23 Jun 2003 09:51:05 -0700, Banty >
>wrote:
>
>>If this were an anti-cursing law, I'd be with you.
>
>I wouldn't. Cursing happens in the real world. Children hear
>whether you want them to or not. Words like "ass," "hell," and
>"damn" are even on TV.

You misunderstand. Read it again. I wouldn't support an anti-cursing law.

Banty

Banty

June 24th 03, 04:25 AM

In article >, "LaTreen says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Do you raise as big a fuss when people change diapers in public?
>
>Do you object when people bring their children into public pools
>wearing swim diapers (that release fecal matter - a PROVEN
>health hazard) into public pools?
>
>Both are an entitlement issue with parents. How many times are
>diapers changed in cafes and airplanes?
>
>I WILL smoke outside. When I wait for a bus - I go under the shelter
>with everyone else and I DO light up. If people are there with children
>I make a point to stand by them. You can take your ill-behaved children
>anywhere you want. I WILL smoke where ever I am allowed to by law.
>If they don't like it, they can move - that's the entitlement attitude that
>applies to me when your children are obnoxious and ill-mannered.
>
>There is an law against smoking in an athletic field near my house and I
>will
>smoke there until I am fined for it. If I am fined, I will drag the case out
>in
>court as long as I can to run up the cost and waste the town's money.
>
>I see the litter left behind by breeders from little league and the feces
>left
>from the dog owners.
>
>These people don't care about the public - why should I?
>
>LaTreen Washington

The Problem Exhibit B.

Banty

abacus

June 24th 03, 05:04 AM

Banty > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
>
> >>Well, the law being that certain folks will have to leave a nasty, destructive
> >>habit at home, the only harm would be that there's a law. Unecessary laws are
> >> bad.
> >
> >Yes, unnecessary laws are, IMO, VERY bad. I don't like restricting
> >anyone's freedom unnecessary.
> >
> >>But, in tha face of "**** you", "what's your problem", butts and ashes flicked
> >>everywhere, folks have not much option but to put up with the crap, not use the
> >>park, or take public spaces back via laws. Folks are tired of it. I put the
> >> blame for the laws square at the feet of a lot of the smokers.
> >
> >I put the blame for the laws square at the feet of those who propose
> >them and lobby for them. Why are they seeking a solution through the
> >law and why are they insisting on banning smoking whether they are
> >around to be bothered or not?
>
> Oh - I dunno - mebbe it's "**** You", keyed cars, and other general intimidation
> that people meet up with nowdays when asking for consideration. It's the only
> real answser to pervasive social intimidation - the force of law.
>
I'm sorry, but let me see if I have this straight. You feel that the
society you live in is so pervasively rude that we need to require
courtesy (such as not smoking around those who object) by force of law
if we expect to get it? And that requiring people not to smoke
OUTDOORS WHEN NO ONE ELSE IS AROUND is a reasonable cost if that's
what it takes? Am I correctly interpreting your opinon?

> You should pretty much assume that there are *always* people around to be
> bothered. It fits reality much better (in fact, pusing this notion in itself is
> a form of social intimidation) than assuming that folks who are bothered by
> smoking are a small group of curmugeons.

I'm not assuming that folks who are bothered by smoking are a small
group of curmugeons. I'm assuming that it isn't too much trouble, in
an outdoor setting, for them to either remove themselves from the
offender or to ask the offender to stop. I'll grant you that the
offender may not always stop, but that's really a rare occurrance,
especially if one asks politely. Further, I think the small minority
of smokers who won't accomodate such a request is going to be the same
small minority that would flaut the law if there were one.

> >Actually, the person I think you're referring to has stated that he
> >would, if requested, stop or move. He's also talked about how rudely
> >he has seen non-smokers behave when asking smokers to quit. I think he
> >has a point. I've never had a smoker be rude to me and insist on
> >continuing to blow smoke into my face. I suspect that those who
> >regularly encounter rude smokers are, to some extent, creating the
> >situation by being rude in way they phrase their request to stop. Not
> >always, but I'm certain it happens sometimes. I don't think that the
> >smokers are entirely to blame for the problem.
>
> I *have* seen smokers be rude in response to reasonable, quiet requests. And,
> like I've said elsewhere, smoking being so inherently intrusive and
> trash-producing, it doens't take much inconsideration to make a huge impact.

A *huge* impact in an outdoor setting? I think this is an
exaggeration.

> And, as has been pointed out, as with other innately smelly and bothersome and
> intrusive things, the burden is on the SMOKER to be discreet and polite.
>
> "Mind if I fart?"

Not at all madam. Fart all you like. However, I think I will take
this opportune time to bid you adieu. It's been an interesting
conversation, but I have other things to attend to. ANd I'd just as
soon leave before the atmosphere deteriates.

0tterbot

June 24th 03, 11:05 AM

"==Daye==" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:33:13 +1000, "0tterbot" >
> wrote:
>
> >but from a practical p.o.v. - who on earth would know the number, be able
to
> >write down the car's numberplate while tooling down the highway, etc.
it's
> >all a bit hard in practice, innit. it *is* nice to see that it will work
if
> >pursued, though!
>
> There was a story on "A Current Affair" or "Today Tonight" about
> a man who has a notepad attached to his dash. He writes down all
> the number plates of people throwing butts out the window. He
> then calls and dobs them in.
>
> He probably isn't the only person who does it.

probably not. i hope he also writes down people who run red lights - a habit
which has reached epic proportions in my area.
kylie

Nathan Nagel

June 24th 03, 11:10 AM

0tterbot wrote:
>
> "==Daye==" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:33:13 +1000, "0tterbot" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >but from a practical p.o.v. - who on earth would know the number, be able
> to
> > >write down the car's numberplate while tooling down the highway, etc.
> it's
> > >all a bit hard in practice, innit. it *is* nice to see that it will work
> if
> > >pursued, though!
> >
> > There was a story on "A Current Affair" or "Today Tonight" about
> > a man who has a notepad attached to his dash. He writes down all
> > the number plates of people throwing butts out the window. He
> > then calls and dobs them in.
> >
> > He probably isn't the only person who does it.
>
> probably not. i hope he also writes down people who run red lights - a habit
> which has reached epic proportions in my area.
> kylie

Now I think that both of these are bad habits for one to acquire, but
what's to stop someone from, say, writing down all the license numbers
of people he doesn't like and reporting them for littering? Will the
police really take the word of a citizen complaint in something like
this? (or are Ozzies so generally honest that this isn't a problem?)

nate

Pockets of Resistance

June 24th 03, 04:25 PM

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:39:39 +1000, "0tterbot" > wrote:

>if you want to have a dig at someone, put it at the feet of people who
>propose dubious laws. it sounds to me like *they* wish to have control out
>of all proportion to their entitlement to do so.
>kylie

How about if I'd like to take a dig at people who feel they can argue
complicated subjects but somehow can't manage the shift key?

Banty

June 24th 03, 05:16 PM

In article >, Nan says...
>
>On 23 Jun 2003 20:25:03 -0700, Banty > wrote:
>
>>In article >, "LaTreen says...
>>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>
>>>Do you raise as big a fuss when people change diapers in public?
>>>
>>>Do you object when people bring their children into public pools
>>>wearing swim diapers (that release fecal matter - a PROVEN
>>>health hazard) into public pools?
>>>
>>>Both are an entitlement issue with parents. How many times are
>>>diapers changed in cafes and airplanes?
>>>
>>>I WILL smoke outside. When I wait for a bus - I go under the shelter
>>>with everyone else and I DO light up. If people are there with children
>>>I make a point to stand by them. You can take your ill-behaved children
>>>anywhere you want. I WILL smoke where ever I am allowed to by law.
>>>If they don't like it, they can move - that's the entitlement attitude that
>>>applies to me when your children are obnoxious and ill-mannered.
>>>
>>>There is an law against smoking in an athletic field near my house and I
>>>will
>>>smoke there until I am fined for it. If I am fined, I will drag the case out
>>>in
>>>court as long as I can to run up the cost and waste the town's money.
>>>
>>>I see the litter left behind by breeders from little league and the feces
>>>left
>>>from the dog owners.
>>>
>>>These people don't care about the public - why should I?
>>>
>>>LaTreen Washington
>>
>>The Problem Exhibit B.
>>
>>Banty
>
>No, just another CF troll.
>
>Nan
>

OK - Problem Smoker's Attitude Exhibit B.
Problem CF Attitude Exhibit A :-)

Banty

Banty

June 24th 03, 05:34 PM

In article >, Pockets says...
>
>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:39:39 +1000, "0tterbot" > wrote:
>
>>if you want to have a dig at someone, put it at the feet of people who
>>propose dubious laws. it sounds to me like *they* wish to have control out
>>of all proportion to their entitlement to do so.
>>kylie
>
>How about if I'd like to take a dig at people who feel they can argue
>complicated subjects but somehow can't manage the shift key?

Look - a compatriot of yours, or possibly even you, from alt.peeves set up the
original post in this thread as a crosspost to misc.kids. Even if it wasn't you,
I'm sure you've noticed that by now - you being so able to manage complicated
subjects and all, at least by your own report.

"Otterbot" is a well-established personage here in misc.kids, with a
well-established posting style. You're basically an interloper here, riding on
a thread which was cross-posted from your 'group from the get go.

We have no obligation whatsoever to you - no obligation to alter posting style,
to amuse you or to "be original". Let alone to breathe your poison.

Grow up, get over yourself, or see a shrink about your authority/extent of
boundary issues. For one thing, seems to be a compulsive problem - the poster
you slammed for posting style is sympathetic to your point.

Banty

P. Tierney

June 24th 03, 08:39 PM

"Banty" > wrote:
> >>
> >>The Problem Exhibit B.
> >>
> >
> >No, just another CF troll.
> >
> >Nan
> >
>
> OK - Problem Smoker's Attitude Exhibit B.
> Problem CF Attitude Exhibit A :-)

CF?

P. Tierney

Pockets of Resistance

June 24th 03, 09:22 PM

On 24 Jun 2003 09:34:36 -0700, Banty > wrote:

>In article >, Pockets says...
>>
>>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:39:39 +1000, "0tterbot" > wrote:
>>
>>>if you want to have a dig at someone, put it at the feet of people who
>>>propose dubious laws. it sounds to me like *they* wish to have control out
>>>of all proportion to their entitlement to do so.
>>>kylie
>>
>>How about if I'd like to take a dig at people who feel they can argue
>>complicated subjects but somehow can't manage the shift key?
>
>
>Look - a compatriot of yours, or possibly even you, from alt.peeves set up the
>original post in this thread as a crosspost to misc.kids. Even if it wasn't you,
>I'm sure you've noticed that by now - you being so able to manage complicated
>subjects and all, at least by your own report.
>
>"Otterbot" is a well-established personage here in misc.kids, with a
>well-established posting style. You're basically an interloper here, riding on
>a thread which was cross-posted from your 'group from the get go.
>
>We have no obligation whatsoever to you - no obligation to alter posting style,
>to amuse you or to "be original". Let alone to breathe your poison.
>
>Grow up, get over yourself, or see a shrink about your authority/extent of
>boundary issues. For one thing, seems to be a compulsive problem - the poster
>you slammed for posting style is sympathetic to your point.

Make sure you let that White Charger cool off before you put him up in
the barn. Doesn't it get hot under all of that armor?

Nathan Nagel

June 25th 03, 01:29 AM

Pockets of Resistance wrote:
>
> On 24 Jun 2003 09:34:36 -0700, Banty > wrote:
>
> >In article >, Pockets says...
> >>
> >>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:39:39 +1000, "0tterbot" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>if you want to have a dig at someone, put it at the feet of people who
> >>>propose dubious laws. it sounds to me like *they* wish to have control out
> >>>of all proportion to their entitlement to do so.
> >>>kylie
> >>
> >>How about if I'd like to take a dig at people who feel they can argue
> >>complicated subjects but somehow can't manage the shift key?
> >
> >
> >Look - a compatriot of yours, or possibly even you, from alt.peeves set up the
> >original post in this thread as a crosspost to misc.kids. Even if it wasn't you,
> >I'm sure you've noticed that by now - you being so able to manage complicated
> >subjects and all, at least by your own report.
> >
> >"Otterbot" is a well-established personage here in misc.kids, with a
> >well-established posting style. You're basically an interloper here, riding on
> >a thread which was cross-posted from your 'group from the get go.
> >
> >We have no obligation whatsoever to you - no obligation to alter posting style,
> >to amuse you or to "be original". Let alone to breathe your poison.
> >
> >Grow up, get over yourself, or see a shrink about your authority/extent of
> >boundary issues. For one thing, seems to be a compulsive problem - the poster
> >you slammed for posting style is sympathetic to your point.
>
> Make sure you let that White Charger cool off before you put him up in
> the barn. Doesn't it get hot under all of that armor?

It's a 426, to be sure, but runs a bit cooler with the 4-speed and the
air works.

oh... never mind.

nate

0tterbot

June 25th 03, 01:41 AM

"Pockets of Resistance" > wrote in message
...

> >Grow up, get over yourself, or see a shrink about your authority/extent
of
> >boundary issues. For one thing, seems to be a compulsive problem - the
poster
> >you slammed for posting style is sympathetic to your point.
>
> Make sure you let that White Charger cool off before you put him up in
> the barn. Doesn't it get hot under all of that armor?

mm, i'd spell that "armour" but since your valid, sage & timely point about
my capitalisation, i have seen the light about other people's posting
choices (who are these people anyway, i say?!) & henceforth shall defer to
you on all matters. plus, i'm pretty sure that americans are allowed to
spell it that way. just as i'm allowed to post without capitals if i want
to.

and anyway, if you were a regular *here*, you'd be well appraised of the
fact that my family & i live in penury & cannot afford capital letters. we
go without food sometimes in order to be able to afford punctuation marks. i
had to sell my baby on the internet to buy some exclamation marks one time
when i was having an argument with a cranky cross-poster from alt.peeves. i
have to go away & cry now; you are SO INSENSITIVE.
kylie

Nathan Nagel

June 25th 03, 02:09 AM

0tterbot wrote:
>
> "Nathan Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > probably not. i hope he also writes down people who run red lights - a
> habit
> > > which has reached epic proportions in my area.
> > > kylie
> >
> > Now I think that both of these are bad habits for one to acquire, but
> > what's to stop someone from, say, writing down all the license numbers
> > of people he doesn't like and reporting them for littering?
>
> well that's a very good question & i'm glad you asked. i don't know the
> answer though :-)
>
> Will the
> > police really take the word of a citizen complaint in something like
> > this? (or are Ozzies so generally honest that this isn't a problem?)
>
> my best guess is that it would work the same way as if you are caught by a
> speed or red-light camera or if you neglect to vote - you'd be issued with a
> notice to pay a fine & then have the option of either paying the fine
> without discussion, or explaining yourself, or disputing the event in court.
> most people who really are guilty aren't going to go to court - they'd pay
> the fine instead, so despite the fact that the assumption is that you are
> guilty i'm sure you have the option of taking it to court instead *or*
> making a statutory declaration that some other person did it in your car (if
> that's what happened), in which case i suppose it's transferred to them
> instead, after a suitable amount of grinding of bureaucratic machinery.
> kylie

You have speed and red light cameras there? Sheesh, I thought it was
only in DC where we'd sunk so low. Hopefully yours don't work on a
commission basis (don't get me started. Seriously. This has been
discussed in another newsgroup which I frequent beyond the point of
nausea to nearly shoving sharp desktop implements through my nostrils
and eardrums in an attempt to avoid inadvertantly reading another post
on the subject. And yet some people still don't see the blatant
corruption...)

nate

Nathan Nagel

June 25th 03, 02:57 AM

0tterbot wrote:
>
> "Nathan Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > 0tterbot wrote:
> >
> > > i
> > > had to sell my baby on the internet to buy some exclamation marks one
> time
> > > when i was having an argument with a cranky cross-poster from
> alt.peeves. i
> > > have to go away & cry now; you are SO INSENSITIVE.
> > > kylie
> >
> > *ahem*
> >
> > I'd like to point out for the record that I did *not* cross-post this
> > thread, it came pre-crossposted for my convenience.
>
> oh nathan, i wasn't talking about *you*.
> in fact, i was making it up completely!!!!!!!!!!!!! <--- whoops, there goes
> a week of lunches
> so stop stomping all over my joke.
>

I'll buy ya dinner next time you're in DC-land then.

> > So how's archy, anyway?
>
> who?
>

Now we're even apparently.

http://www.donmarquis.com/archy/index.html

Somehow it's less funny with an explanation (I *knew* I should have gone
with an e.e.cummings reference.)

> > nate
> >
> > (still smarting about the "cranky" comment...)
>
> i love cranky people. i am one. :-)
> kylie

I'm just practicing to be a curmudgeon someday.

nate

0tterbot

June 25th 03, 03:19 AM

"Nathan Nagel" > wrote in message
...

> > oh nathan, i wasn't talking about *you*.
> > in fact, i was making it up completely!!!!!!!!!!!!! <--- whoops, there
goes
> > a week of lunches
> > so stop stomping all over my joke.
> >
>
> I'll buy ya dinner next time you're in DC-land then.

at this rate you'll owe me 27 courses.

> > > So how's archy, anyway?
> >
> > who?
> >
>
> Now we're even apparently.
>
> http://www.donmarquis.com/archy/index.html
>
> Somehow it's less funny with an explanation (I *knew* I should have gone
> with an e.e.cummings reference.)

hahaha, yes you SHOULD.

> I'm just practicing to be a curmudgeon someday.

i would like to be a fractious old biddy with a polyester dress, a drinking
habit, & a hairy chin. i shall elbow young & muscular people out of the way
in my furious attempts to claim the best seat on the bus. once i get it,
i'll sit there having a spit-flyingly animated conversation with myself in
order to keep the seat next to me free as well.
kylie

Nathan Nagel

June 25th 03, 03:21 AM

0tterbot wrote:
>
> "Nathan Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You have speed and red light cameras there? Sheesh, I thought it was
> > only in DC where we'd sunk so low. Hopefully yours don't work on a
> > commission basis (don't get me started. Seriously. This has been
> > discussed in another newsgroup which I frequent beyond the point of
> > nausea to nearly shoving sharp desktop implements through my nostrils
> > and eardrums in an attempt to avoid inadvertantly reading another post
> > on the subject.
>
> all right, you better read this with your eyes shut, then. ;-)

Kind of like watching football with your eyes shut after thanksgiving
dinner? (oh, wait, you don't have football or thanksgiving. Ummm...
you get the idea anyway, I hope.)

>
> And yet some people still don't see the blatant
> > corruption...)
>
> i must say, a lot of my compatriots agree with your view - which is that
> they are for revenue-raising & not to promote safety. *i* think that since
> everyone knows you're not allowed to speed & not allowed to run red lights,
> that they are ok. also, there are signs posted in camera areas. it's simply
> not possible not to know they're there (unlike the cops hiding behind a tree
> with a radar, which one often doesn't know are there) - so in terms of
> fairness i just can't see what the problem is. people get caught doing what
> they are perfectly well aware they shouldn't do, therefore no problem imo.
> certainly they do raise a lot of revenue, but that's not really the point.
> if someone breaks the law & gets caught, they have only themselves to blame.

Ah, see, there's a difference. There's a speed camera in the 3rd street
tunnel in DC... just found out when a coworker got nabbed. No signs
anywhere. It's entirely possible that someone commuting through the
tunnel every day could rack up a ticket a day until the first one came
in the mail, which could be months! The red light cameras are another
issue - they're generally installed by subcontractors, not the
government themselves, and the subcontractors often get paid not a flat
fee for installing and maintaining the cameras but instead their pay is
based on *how many tickets* the camera generates. It's been shown that
the most profitable cameras are often installed at intersections where
the yellow light is either shorter than recommended by various
guidelines, or *has actually been shortened* to artificially increase
the number of violations. Obviously properly setting the yellow light
time would reduce violations and make the roads safer, but it doesn't
generate the same profit for the state (or District) or the
subcontractor, so until a private citizen makes a stink about it it's
ignored.

The biggest tip-off that they're really about revenue and not safety is
that unlike a ticket issued by an officer, the only consequence of
receiving a photo ticket is that you have to pay the fine. No points on
your license or anything. (I suppose if there *were* points, that would
raise some sort of Constitutional issue, but we haven't really paid much
attention to it over the past few decades anyway, especially that pesky
Bill of Rights. But now I'm getting all political on you, and I can see
your eyes starting to glaze halfway around the globe.)

>
> my issue about it is that there's a speed limit on freeways of 110km/hour,
> which i think is stupidly slow for a wide, well-made (& usually quite empty)
> freeway, which is then enforced with cameras. but (like smoking) speeding's
> quite the taboo around here, to the point where the lawmakers aren't
> sensible about it. (e.g. you're usually allowed the state limit of 100 on a
> pocked, narrow, winding country road in the dark with cows all over it & a
> stream of semi-trailers coming the other way, & that's clearly too fast in
> some instances, but on a fabulous freeway you can only go 10km/hour faster &
> it simply defies logic.) as well as that, there's the preassumption that
> everybody speeds, which i find annoying because i rarely speed.

Same problem here, speed limits of 55 MPH (89km/h) or 65 (105) on
freeways, depending on whether they're "urban" or not - some states even
allow a heady 70 MPH now. Traffic in my area regularly flows at 80 or
higher outside rush hour. I've exceeded the speed limit in just about
every car I've ever driven, including a '41 Studebaker. (yes, it
handled the heady speed of 70 MPH quite well.) The presence of an
officer usually accomplishes nothing other than to create a traffic jam
as everyone stands on their brakes simultaneously. Secondary road speed
limits are usually more reasonable though.

>
> but we don't want to get into duelling rants here, do we. :-)
> kylie

Oh, why the hell not, this *is* ADFP after all...

nate

0tterbot

June 25th 03, 04:09 AM

"Nathan Nagel" > wrote in message
...

> Kind of like watching football with your eyes shut after thanksgiving
> dinner? (oh, wait, you don't have football or thanksgiving. Ummm...
> you get the idea anyway, I hope.)

we've got football & lots of it! *four* professional codes & other codes
played non-professionally. beat that, alleged football person!!!!

> Ah, see, there's a difference. There's a speed camera in the 3rd street
> tunnel in DC... just found out when a coworker got nabbed. No signs
> anywhere. It's entirely possible that someone commuting through the
> tunnel every day could rack up a ticket a day until the first one came
> in the mail, which could be months!

oh my, that's revenue raising in a big way. oh dear.

The red light cameras are another
> issue - they're generally installed by subcontractors, not the
> government themselves, and the subcontractors often get paid not a flat
> fee for installing and maintaining the cameras but instead their pay is
> based on *how many tickets* the camera generates. It's been shown that
> the most profitable cameras are often installed at intersections where
> the yellow light is either shorter than recommended by various
> guidelines, or *has actually been shortened* to artificially increase
> the number of violations. Obviously properly setting the yellow light
> time would reduce violations and make the roads safer, but it doesn't
> generate the same profit for the state (or District) or the
> subcontractor, so until a private citizen makes a stink about it it's
> ignored.

how wrong is that?! that's wrong, nate. not only is it wrong, but i hope tom
enright read that & is presently eating his words about socialistic
governments!!!!!! READ IT, TOM! but i won't get into it, because we can
easily agree how warped it is to have private subcontrators policing the
roads.

> The biggest tip-off that they're really about revenue and not safety is
> that unlike a ticket issued by an officer, the only consequence of
> receiving a photo ticket is that you have to pay the fine. No points on
> your license or anything. (I suppose if there *were* points, that would
> raise some sort of Constitutional issue, but we haven't really paid much
> attention to it over the past few decades anyway, especially that pesky
> Bill of Rights. But now I'm getting all political on you, and I can see
> your eyes starting to glaze halfway around the globe.)

no, i'm all fired up with the wrongness of it all ;-) i have sparky things
coming out. i'm not sure (not having read your bill of rights, naturally)
that there would be a constitutional issue: my husband would tell you in
scintillating detail about the one (1) time i was caught by a speeding
camera in our car, which is registered in his name, thus causing him 2
demerit points on his licence for the aforementioned offence. but as stated
elsewhere, he could have signed a stat dec claiming that *i* was driving &
have the points on my licence instead. but he had the full component of
points & couldn't be bothered pursuing it. i doubt it would come to a matter
of the consititution - if so, how?
of course, the assumption as above is that the revenue raising aspect is the
sole motivator (in d.c.) so therefore it may well be unamended because
they'd need to bring in private subcontrators to rewrite the law at the
cheapest possible price ;-)

> Same problem here, speed limits of 55 MPH (89km/h) or 65 (105) on
> freeways, depending on whether they're "urban" or not - some states even
> allow a heady 70 MPH now. Traffic in my area regularly flows at 80 or
> higher outside rush hour. I've exceeded the speed limit in just about
> every car I've ever driven, including a '41 Studebaker. (yes, it
> handled the heady speed of 70 MPH quite well.) The presence of an
> officer usually accomplishes nothing other than to create a traffic jam
> as everyone stands on their brakes simultaneously. Secondary road speed
> limits are usually more reasonable though.

not sure what you mean by secondary road speed limits...? (for secondary
roads?)

tell me what you think - we have 60km/h standard speed in town (or any built
up area), many places have 50km/h in suburban streets, & all have 40km/h
school zones which operate (iirc) from 8-10am & again 2.30-4pm. this means
someone could come off a freeway (110km/h) & slow down to 60 for the main
thoroughfare, drop to 50 when s/he enters a suburban street, has to check
the time & slow down to 40 because there's a school zone (or not slow down
outside those hours), increase to 50 at the end of the school zone, turn a
corner into a main thoroughfare (60), join an arterial road (70 to 90, it
all depends) & in the meantime not go completely insane. i think it's sheer
unadulterated madness, but nobody else seems to share my view. i have a
school child & still can't be guaranteed to know exactly when i should be
slowing for a school zone, because they're wider than school hours & the
middle of the school day doesn't count! argh!!

i completely sympathise with the thinking behind it (some people DO drive
too fast in suburban streets, & SHOULD be stopped) but your ordinary person
has so much to deal with in terms of signage already (varying speed limits,
trying to ascertain clearway hours, notices for not turning left or right,
merging signs, humps, watching for pedestrians & god knows what) whilst
trying to drive that it's simply impossible to follow the law exactly in
conditions like this. if all extraneous advertising, good-looking male
pedestrians, attractive buildings, other vehicles & pedestrians etc were all
removed, one could possibly concentrate solely on the actual road signage &
driving the actual car.

man, sorry about that but alt.peeves must be good for something ;-)
kylie

Nathan Nagel

June 25th 03, 11:57 PM

0tterbot wrote:
>
> "Nathan Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > oh nathan, i wasn't talking about *you*.
> > > in fact, i was making it up completely!!!!!!!!!!!!! <--- whoops, there
> goes
> > > a week of lunches
> > > so stop stomping all over my joke.
> > >
> >
> > I'll buy ya dinner next time you're in DC-land then.
>
> at this rate you'll owe me 27 courses.

Well, that'll be a long dinner then!

>
> > > > So how's archy, anyway?
> > >
> > > who?
> > >
> >
> > Now we're even apparently.
> >
> > http://www.donmarquis.com/archy/index.html
> >
> > Somehow it's less funny with an explanation (I *knew* I should have gone
> > with an e.e.cummings reference.)
>
> hahaha, yes you SHOULD.
>
> > I'm just practicing to be a curmudgeon someday.
>
> i would like to be a fractious old biddy with a polyester dress, a drinking
> habit, & a hairy chin. i shall elbow young & muscular people out of the way
> in my furious attempts to claim the best seat on the bus. once i get it,
> i'll sit there having a spit-flyingly animated conversation with myself in
> order to keep the seat next to me free as well.
> kylie

I can sympathise completely, except for the hairy chin part. The only
reason *I* have one is I'm too lazy to be arsed to shave. I find it
singularly unattractive on females, although I suppose if you're trying
to get people to leave you alone, it doesn't really matter...

nate

Nathan Nagel

June 26th 03, 03:08 AM

0tterbot wrote:
>
> "Nathan Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I do not think that word means what you think it means. In other words,
> > what we call "football" here is somewhat akin to rugby, although
> > different enough that a rugby fan would still be confused by it.
> > Sometimes called "american football" outside the YooEss. What you call
> > "football" is probably what we call "soccer."
>
> not at all. robert summed it up pretty nicely (although he's writing from
> his own local p.o.v. i note - what he calls association is known here as the
> rugby union, aka rugby). soccer is the least professional & lowest profile
> of the 4 professional codes here. shame, that, but there you are.
>
> might i add my utter affrontment at any parallel between american "football"
> & the grand game of rugby!!!!! rugby is a wonderful game, fast-moving,
> thrilling & exceptionally violent.
>

Don't take the comparison too far... I'd probably categorize american
football as "rugby lite" if pressed.

<snip>

> it does sound sensible off the top of people's heads. it's not a question of
> "how" fast, it's more a question of speed limits going up & down like a
> yoyo. it sounds wonderful until you're trying to do it in a busy &
> unfamiliar area. its only saving grace is that the cops in town are
> apparently unfamiliar with the fact they're responsible for monitoring
> traffic speed when they're out & about.
>

heh... good thing eh? actually they're all out on the interstate
writing people for 73 in a 65.

> (I still think in miles and feet, although I do have more
> > familiarity with the metric system than most 'murricans thanks to an
> > engineering degree) The same sort of thing happens here - trying to
> > guess what a speed limit shoud be is near pointless, you have to
> > constantly watch for the signs. Unfortunately, it's always about 20 MPH
> > lower than I feel safe driving, except in residential areas...
>
> > Speed limits etc. are generally pretty clear (clearly posted, that is)
> > here, but for some reason the "speed kills" crowd has taken over the
> > machinery of deciding speed limits here
>
> yes, same here, exactly.
>
> (snip) I was under the impression that Australia was much more
> > rational and in some provinces
>
> states ;-)
>

Sorry, thinking of Canada and ASSuming that all the ex-British colonies
used similar terminology. (yeah, I know, technically we are one too, at
least the East Coast, but that was a LONG time ago.)

> actually had German-style unlimited speed
> > freeways - is my info out of date?
>
> yes, sort of. in the northern territory afaik all roads except within towns
> are a free-for-all. everywhere else (again afaik) has a limit.

Sigh. Guess that limits the vacation options then...

>
> > > man, sorry about that but alt.peeves must be good for something ;-)
> > > kylie
> >
> > I find it very cathartic at times. You should stop by sometime,
>
> i shall!

Just don't tell 'em I invited you. I haven't been taught the secret
handshake myself yet.

>
> but
> > should you ever post here regularly I must warn you that use of
> > emoticons is almost universally :('d upon. Summat about writing snobs,
>
> like me old mate pockets?
>
> > although I have to admit, it does make one think about what one is
> > writing more carefully and tends to make one's words more exact as
> > well. (also forces one to develop a dry sense of humor, if one doesn't
> > already posess same, unless one wishes to be completely serious all the
> > time.)
>
> :-O
> heh.
> those emoticons fly out of my fingers cos in the rest of usenet doesn't
> understand & previous expressions of my dryness (not to mention local
> vernacular) have led to misunderstandings. i'm sure you understand where
> pockets would not.
> kylie

Aside from not knowing pockets, I think I do...

nate

Cheryl

June 26th 03, 05:30 AM

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:09:55 +1000, "0tterbot" > wrote:

>tell me what you think - we have 60km/h standard speed in town (or any built
>up area), many places have 50km/h in suburban streets, & all have 40km/h
>school zones which operate (iirc) from 8-10am & again 2.30-4pm. this means
>someone could come off a freeway (110km/h) & slow down to 60 for the main
>thoroughfare, drop to 50 when s/he enters a suburban street, has to check
>the time & slow down to 40 because there's a school zone (or not slow down
>outside those hours), increase to 50 at the end of the school zone, turn a
>corner into a main thoroughfare (60), join an arterial road (70 to 90, it
>all depends) & in the meantime not go completely insane. i think it's sheer
>unadulterated madness, but nobody else seems to share my view. i have a
>school child & still can't be guaranteed to know exactly when i should be
>slowing for a school zone, because they're wider than school hours & the
>middle of the school day doesn't count! argh!!
>
Move to Qld. My father-in-law made the exact same argument when he
came to visit last year. He hated driving down the Pacific Hwy
because he had NO idea of what speed he was supposed to be doing at
any given time. From what he said there are only 3 speed limits in
Qld - 60km, 80km and 100km (except for two roads which have 110km
but he doesn't count them because they are still "trial" speed
limits, 4 years at least since they started).

There is a new push in North Sydney to have all suburban streets
dropped to 40km permanently, does that help your blood pressure?

--
Cheryl

DS#1 (Mar 99), DS#2 (Oct 00)
DD born 30 Jul 02

Robert Sneddon

June 26th 03, 09:22 AM

In article >, Dan Evans <mailer.da
> writes
>
>"Robert Sneddon" > wrote in message
...
>
>> There are two distinct Rugby football games, League and Association.

>UNION. Association Football is "Soccer" football.

I know that. Now. I woke up this morning thinking some smart *******
will have pointed this out by now. Set theory strikes again.
>
>You'll be calling the British Flag the "Union Jack" next, which is a MAJOR
>peeve of mine.

Well, it's the Union Flag. If it's on the jackstaff of a ship or a boat
it's the Union Jack. The real British Flag would probably be the Royal
Standard.

--

Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk

Dan Evans

June 26th 03, 01:02 PM

"Robert Sneddon" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Dan Evans <mailer.da
> > writes

> >You'll be calling the British Flag the "Union Jack" next, which is a
MAJOR
> >peeve of mine.
>
> Well, it's the Union Flag. If it's on the jackstaff of a ship or a boat
> it's the Union Jack.

Thank gh0d for that, at least one other person knows that. It always ****s
me off big time when it gets called the Union Jack.

> The real British Flag would probably be the Royal
> Standard.

Nah, that's the Royal Standard. The British flag, ie the Flag of the Union
between the 4 nations in corporating all 4 flags, is the Union Flag.

Bad luck about your tranny - I've had several over the years and found you
either got a gem or a turd. Seems like you got a turd.

Dan

0tterbot

June 26th 03, 02:50 PM

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...

> There is a new push in North Sydney to have all suburban streets
> dropped to 40km permanently, does that help your blood pressure?

that sounds marvellous, thank you. although, like all sensible girls, i
avoid north sydney like the plague. oh well!
kylie

Dan Evans

June 26th 03, 04:49 PM

"0tterbot" > wrote in message
...
> "Nathan Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Don't take the comparison too far... I'd probably categorize american
> > football as "rugby lite" if pressed.
>
> *cough!* rugby league is "rugby lite" if you want to go there. (you
don't!!)

League is "lite" my arse. I used to live near Featherstone Rovers and
Castelford - those are ****ing big guys who train ****ing hard.

Your thinking of Union being the "lite" version

Dan

0tterbot

June 27th 03, 12:20 AM

"Dan Evans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "0tterbot" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Nathan Nagel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Don't take the comparison too far... I'd probably categorize american
> > > football as "rugby lite" if pressed.
> >
> > *cough!* rugby league is "rugby lite" if you want to go there. (you
> don't!!)
>
> League is "lite" my arse. I used to live near Featherstone Rovers and
> Castelford - those are ****ing big guys who train ****ing hard.
>
> Your thinking of Union being the "lite" version

no i'm not. union was the original game. league has nancy-boy alterations to
it, such as a dummy-half after a tackle, & so forth.
kylie

Dan Evans

June 27th 03, 12:36 AM

"0tterbot" > wrote in message
...
> "Dan Evans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "0tterbot" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Nathan Nagel" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Don't take the comparison too far... I'd probably categorize
american
> > > > football as "rugby lite" if pressed.
> > >
> > > *cough!* rugby league is "rugby lite" if you want to go there. (you
> > don't!!)
> >
> > League is "lite" my arse. I used to live near Featherstone Rovers and
> > Castelford - those are ****ing big guys who train ****ing hard.
> >
> > Your thinking of Union being the "lite" version
>
> no i'm not. union was the original game. league has nancy-boy alterations
to
> it, such as a dummy-half after a tackle, & so forth.

I take your word for which is the original, but League is by *far* the
harder game.

Dan

silvasurfa

June 27th 03, 11:29 AM

silvasurfa

June 27th 03, 11:37 AM

"LaTreen Washington" > wrote in message
...
>
> I WILL smoke outside. When I wait for a bus - I go under the shelter
> with everyone else and I DO light up.

It will reduce your life expectancy Ms Washington. Somehow that doesn't
distress me much.

Banty

June 27th 03, 12:47 PM

In article >, Nathan says...
>
>
>
>silvasurfa wrote:
>>
>> "Pockets of Resistance" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 23 Jun 2003 08:49:31 -0700, Banty > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Come back with another "Aint it Awful" about something else "for the
>> > >chiiiillldren" - the OP really blew it and picked the wrong subject for
>> this
>> > >one!
>> >
>> > No, I didn't.
>> >
>> > The law was specifically passed to keep the very *sight* of people
>> > smoking away from The Children.
>>
>> As someone who has to regularly make legal determinations, I must say it
>> really doesn't matter a flying **** why a law was passed.... the law is
>> there to stay and does what it does, and what it does isn't even always what
>> they legislators intended it to do.
>>
>> So yeah... no smoking is a damn good idea and I don't care if the law was
>> passed for the children, the adults, the environment or the benefit of a
>> small grey rabbit living halfway up a drainpipe. End result = good.
>
>Nope, less personal freedom always = bad.

Just sucks that you can't drive a car into my living room, then.

Banty

toto

June 27th 03, 01:50 PM

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:59:41 +0930, "silvasurfa"
> wrote:

>
>"Pockets of Resistance" > wrote in message
...
>> On 23 Jun 2003 08:49:31 -0700, Banty > wrote:
>>
>> >Come back with another "Aint it Awful" about something else "for the
>> >chiiiillldren" - the OP really blew it and picked the wrong subject for
>this
>> >one!
>>
>> No, I didn't.
>>
>> The law was specifically passed to keep the very *sight* of people
>> smoking away from The Children.
>
>As someone who has to regularly make legal determinations, I must say it
>really doesn't matter a flying **** why a law was passed.... the law is
>there to stay and does what it does, and what it does isn't even always what
>they legislators intended it to do.
>
Laws can be repealed. They can also be challenged and struck down by
the courts.

Laws are made by legislatures and they are not always right.

If laws were here to stay, then prohibition would still be around.

>So yeah... no smoking is a damn good idea and I don't care if the law was
>passed for the children, the adults, the environment or the benefit of a
>small grey rabbit living halfway up a drainpipe. End result = good.
>
So you believe that the end justifies the means in all cases?

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

silvasurfa

June 27th 03, 04:09 PM

"toto" > wrote in message
...

> >So yeah... no smoking is a damn good idea and I don't care if the law was
> >passed for the children, the adults, the environment or the benefit of a
> >small grey rabbit living halfway up a drainpipe. End result = good.
> >
> So you believe that the end justifies the means in all cases?
>
>
> --
> Dorothy

And you believe that the end never justifies the means?

Banty

June 27th 03, 05:46 PM

In article >, toto says...
>
>On 27 Jun 2003 04:47:46 -0700, Banty > wrote:
>
>>>Nope, less personal freedom always = bad.
>>
>>Just sucks that you can't drive a car into my living room, then.
>>
>>Banty
>
>Personal freedom does not extend into private space.
>
>But public space is a different story.
>

My comment addressed the overarching "less personal freedom always = bad"
statement. "Always"??

Personal freedom is necessarily limited in public spaces as well. Especially
concerning befouling the public space. You can't pee against a tree, litter,
allow pets to leave excrement, etc., etc. That includes the air.

Banty

toto

June 27th 03, 05:52 PM

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:39:00 +0930, "silvasurfa"
> wrote:

>
>"toto" > wrote in message
...
>
>> >So yeah... no smoking is a damn good idea and I don't care if the law was
>> >passed for the children, the adults, the environment or the benefit of a
>> >small grey rabbit living halfway up a drainpipe. End result = good.
>> >
>> So you believe that the end justifies the means in all cases?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dorothy
>
>And you believe that the end never justifies the means?
>
>
In general, yes. The means must be appropriate to the ends, imho.
Otherwise you can justify all kinds of draconian measure because the
object is you are trying to achieve is a good one. I think that you
must use means that are good as well as having a good result.

CBI

June 27th 03, 09:29 PM

"Nathan Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > So yeah... no smoking is a damn good idea and I don't care if the law
was
> > passed for the children, the adults, the environment or the benefit of a
> > small grey rabbit living halfway up a drainpipe. End result = good.
>
> Nope, less personal freedom always = bad.

Yes, but in this case the increased freedom of the about 75% of the
population that does not smoke to be free of the smell, fumes, and sights of
butts outweighs the freedom of the 25% who do smoke to create all that. The
net effect on freedom is an increase and so by your standards it is still a
good thing.

--
CBI

Banty

June 27th 03, 09:55 PM

In article >, "LaTreen says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>So address the issue, Banty.
>
>You sure talk a lot but I don't see any arguments about the diaper
>complaints.
>
>Just another mother, blowing her horn - hiding her head in the sand.
>
>LaTreen Washington

You misspelled "hey not fair you didn't chase my red herring"!

And top posting to boot. Alt.peeves sure has some winners..

Banty

>
>"Banty" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Nan says...
>> >
>> >On 23 Jun 2003 20:25:03 -0700, Banty > wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article >, "LaTreen says...
>> >>>
>> >>>x-no-archive: yes
>> >>>
>> >>>Do you raise as big a fuss when people change diapers in public?
>> >>>
>> >>>Do you object when people bring their children into public pools
>> >>>wearing swim diapers (that release fecal matter - a PROVEN
>> >>>health hazard) into public pools?
>> >>>
>> >>>Both are an entitlement issue with parents. How many times are
>> >>>diapers changed in cafes and airplanes?
>> >>>
>> >>>I WILL smoke outside. When I wait for a bus - I go under the shelter
>> >>>with everyone else and I DO light up. If people are there with children
>> >>>I make a point to stand by them. You can take your ill-behaved children
>> >>>anywhere you want. I WILL smoke where ever I am allowed to by law.
>> >>>If they don't like it, they can move - that's the entitlement attitude
>that
>> >>>applies to me when your children are obnoxious and ill-mannered.
>> >>>
>> >>>There is an law against smoking in an athletic field near my house and
>I
>> >>>will
>> >>>smoke there until I am fined for it. If I am fined, I will drag the
>case out
>> >>>in
>> >>>court as long as I can to run up the cost and waste the town's money.
>> >>>
>> >>>I see the litter left behind by breeders from little league and the
>feces
>> >>>left
>> >>>from the dog owners.
>> >>>
>> >>>These people don't care about the public - why should I?
>> >>>
>> >>>LaTreen Washington
>> >>
>> >>The Problem Exhibit B.
>> >>
>> >>Banty
>> >
>> >No, just another CF troll.
>> >
>> >Nan
>> >
>>
>> OK - Problem Smoker's Attitude Exhibit B.
>> Problem CF Attitude Exhibit A :-)
>>
>> Banty
>>
>
>
>

silvasurfa

June 28th 03, 10:58 AM

"toto" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:39:00 +0930, "silvasurfa"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"toto" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> >So yeah... no smoking is a damn good idea and I don't care if the law
was
> >> >passed for the children, the adults, the environment or the benefit of
a
> >> >small grey rabbit living halfway up a drainpipe. End result = good.
> >> >
> >> So you believe that the end justifies the means in all cases?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dorothy
> >
> >And you believe that the end never justifies the means?
> >
> >
> In general, yes. The means must be appropriate to the ends, imho.
> Otherwise you can justify all kinds of draconian measure because the
> object is you are trying to achieve is a good one. I think that you
> must use means that are good as well as having a good result.
>
>

Ah. So it is just that we disagree about *when* the end justifies the means,
not that the end can justify the means.

For example.... I hate causing my children pain, yet I will remove splinters
if they have 'em. End, Means, Justified. I guess you agree?

So how about you quit with the hyperbole? It makes it a good deal easier to
discuss things if we stick to the topic and avoid generalising and
exaggeration.

silvasurfa

June 28th 03, 11:07 AM

Why don't you want this archived?
(no further text added, don't bother scrolling unless you actually want to
read Ms Latreen's post)

"LaTreen Washington" > wrote in message
...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Gee banty, once again you fail to address the point I made.
> I guess I score as winning the argument by default.
>
> It's funny that you should attribute my top posting to alt.peeves.
> YOU know that isn't where I read the thread.
>
> It's not like misc.kids is moderated or anything.
>
> You know banty, you sure post frequently. Who's watching the "children"?
>
> LaTreen Washington
>
> "Banty" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "LaTreen says...
> > >
> > >x-no-archive: yes
> > >
> > >So address the issue, Banty.
> > >
> > >You sure talk a lot but I don't see any arguments about the diaper
> > >complaints.
> > >
> > >Just another mother, blowing her horn - hiding her head in the sand.
> > >
> > >LaTreen Washington
> >
> > You misspelled "hey not fair you didn't chase my red herring"!
> >
> > And top posting to boot. Alt.peeves sure has some winners..
> >
> > Banty
> >
> >
> > >
> > >"Banty" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> In article >, Nan says...
> > >> >
> > >> >On 23 Jun 2003 20:25:03 -0700, Banty >
wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>In article >, "LaTreen
> says...
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>x-no-archive: yes
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Do you raise as big a fuss when people change diapers in public?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Do you object when people bring their children into public pools
> > >> >>>wearing swim diapers (that release fecal matter - a PROVEN
> > >> >>>health hazard) into public pools?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Both are an entitlement issue with parents. How many times are
> > >> >>>diapers changed in cafes and airplanes?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>I WILL smoke outside. When I wait for a bus - I go under the
shelter
> > >> >>>with everyone else and I DO light up. If people are there with
> children
> > >> >>>I make a point to stand by them. You can take your ill-behaved
> children
> > >> >>>anywhere you want. I WILL smoke where ever I am allowed to by law.
> > >> >>>If they don't like it, they can move - that's the entitlement
> attitude
> > >that
> > >> >>>applies to me when your children are obnoxious and ill-mannered.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>There is an law against smoking in an athletic field near my house
> and
> > >I
> > >> >>>will
> > >> >>>smoke there until I am fined for it. If I am fined, I will drag
the
> > >case out
> > >> >>>in
> > >> >>>court as long as I can to run up the cost and waste the town's
> money.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>I see the litter left behind by breeders from little league and
the
> > >feces
> > >> >>>left
> > >> >>>from the dog owners.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>These people don't care about the public - why should I?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>LaTreen Washington
> > >> >>
> > >> >>The Problem Exhibit B.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Banty
> > >> >
> > >> >No, just another CF troll.
> > >> >
> > >> >Nan
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> OK - Problem Smoker's Attitude Exhibit B.
> > >> Problem CF Attitude Exhibit A :-)
> > >>
> > >> Banty
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Shelly

June 28th 03, 09:52 PM

ok here is a question, Between American football and Rugby, playing AF
rules and Rugby no padding, who do you think would win this match? or to
make it simpler each team traveled to the opposing country and played
"their"way who would win?

--
Shelly
Mommy to Zachariah
January 24, 2003
"0tterbot" > wrote in message
...
> "Dan Evans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "0tterbot" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Dan Evans" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "0tterbot" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > "Nathan Nagel" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Don't take the comparison too far... I'd probably categorize
> > american
> > > > > > football as "rugby lite" if pressed.
> > > > >
> > > > > *cough!* rugby league is "rugby lite" if you want to go there.
(you
> > > > don't!!)
> > > >
> > > > League is "lite" my arse. I used to live near Featherstone Rovers
and
> > > > Castelford - those are ****ing big guys who train ****ing hard.
> > > >
> > > > Your thinking of Union being the "lite" version
> > >
> > > no i'm not. union was the original game. league has nancy-boy
> alterations
> > to
> > > it, such as a dummy-half after a tackle, & so forth.
> >
> > I take your word for which is the original, but League is by *far* the
> > harder game.
>
> why?!
> you may like it better, which is fine, but i'd have thought simple
> observation would determine which is "harder". do you mean more physically
> exertive because play stops after a tackle & the defence must run back,
etc?
> (that's the only thing i can think of).
>
> the real difference between the two is glaringly obvious during a scrum.
> unlike a league scrum, a union scrum is not for the sake of appearances or
> tradition. both sides actually have a chance at getting the ball & work
> accordingly...
> kylie
>
>

CBI

June 28th 03, 10:34 PM

"Shelly" > wrote in message
.. .
> ok here is a question, Between American football and Rugby, playing AF
> rules and Rugby no padding, who do you think would win this match? or to
> make it simpler each team traveled to the opposing country and played
> "their"way who would win?

Growing up we had something like this happen. An English high school
(American) football team traveled to the US to play some scrimmage games.
The American HS freshmen beat the English team (what would have been the
equivalent of their HS varsity team). Later they played an exhibition soccer
match where the English guys (who never practiced soccer as a team) utterly
destroyed the HS varsity soccer team.

The Americans would kill the Rugby players at American football and vice
versa.

--
CBI

0tterbot

June 29th 03, 02:26 AM

"Shelly" > wrote in message
.. .
> ok here is a question, Between American football and Rugby, playing AF
> rules and Rugby no padding, who do you think would win this match? or to
> make it simpler each team traveled to the opposing country and played
> "their"way who would win?

we were discussing rugby league vs rugby union. to the best of my limited
knowledge of american football, american football & either rugby code have
little in common so there's no real comparison & it would be impossible for
someone to play a game of the other & maintain the same professional
advantage they'd normally have.

are you suggesting american football is "harder"? i watched a game once. i'd
strongly disagree with that.
kylie

CBI

June 29th 03, 02:35 AM

"0tterbot" > wrote in message
...
> "Shelly" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > ok here is a question, Between American football and Rugby, playing AF
> > rules and Rugby no padding, who do you think would win this match? or to
> > make it simpler each team traveled to the opposing country and played
> > "their"way who would win?
>
> we were discussing rugby league vs rugby union. to the best of my limited
> knowledge of american football, american football & either rugby code have
> little in common so there's no real comparison & it would be impossible
for
> someone to play a game of the other & maintain the same professional
> advantage they'd normally have.
>
> are you suggesting american football is "harder"? i watched a game once.
i'd
> strongly disagree with that.
> kylie
>

I think you had it right when you said it would be hard to compare. The
physical demands are entirely different. It would be impossible to say
either is "harder" than the other.

--
CBI

silvasurfa

June 29th 03, 07:35 AM

"CBI" > wrote in message
...

>
> I think you had it right when you said it would be hard to compare. The
> physical demands are entirely different. It would be impossible to say
> either is "harder" than the other.
>
> --
> CBI
>
>

Australian football is harder on the knees, apparently this is why Australia
has the world's best knee reconstruction surgeons.

0tterbot

June 29th 03, 12:00 PM

"CBI" > wrote in message
...

> > are you suggesting american football is "harder"? i watched a game once.
> i'd
> > strongly disagree with that.
> > kylie
> >
>
>
> I think you had it right when you said it would be hard to compare. The
> physical demands are entirely different. It would be impossible to say
> either is "harder" than the other.

"harder" in the context that was being discussed by dan evans & me. not
"harder" as in "more difficult".
kylie

Dan Evans

June 29th 03, 05:51 PM

"silvasurfa" > wrote in message
...

> Australian football is harder on the knees, apparently this is why
Australia
> has the world's best knee reconstruction surgeons.

I think it's an honour they share with the Orthpods at Belfasts "Royal
Victoria".

Dan

Tom Enright

June 29th 03, 06:17 PM

Dan Evans wrote:
>
> "Shelly" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > ok here is a question, Between American football and Rugby, playing AF
> > rules and Rugby no padding, who do you think would win this match? or to
> > make it simpler each team traveled to the opposing country and played
> > "their"way who would win?

American football is much more a sport of specialisation. You have players
on the field that weigh over 350 pounds and players who weigh in at 180 and
could easily start on the majority of the world's Olympic track and field
teams. This alone would make comparisons nearly impossible. Your average
American football player is going to be bigger, faster and stronger than
your average rugby player, but the rugby player is going to have much more
satmina.

> When I was in Düsseldorf, our rugby team played against one of the Americans
> Football teams at one of their barracks (Rhienberg IIRC). One match each
> rugby and American football. We won both.

I don't know if you are American or not, I am thinking not, but unless all
the players on your rugby team had played American football I'm calling BS
on this one. American football is far too complicated to learn in an
afternoon.

When you guys huddled up before the snap and the quaterback called the
play, a very common, simple play like: "pro right 32 counter trap" did each
of the 11 players on your team know their assignment for that particular
play?

> Dan

abacus

June 29th 03, 07:30 PM

"0tterbot" > wrote in message >...
> "CBI" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "toto" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > The method must be justifiable in terms of its necessity not in terms
> > > of the result alone
> >
> > I think you have come full circle with this. By this logic if the end is
> > necessary and there is no other way to achieve it (or all the other ways
> are
> > more onerous) then the ends do justify the means. Not that I disagree but
> I
> > think the only difference between what the two of you are saying is that
> > silva is saying "sometimes" and you are being a tiny bit more explicit in
> > when those times are.
>
> i'd say silvasurfa's saying if she doesn't like the act which is the reason
> for the law, she doesn't care about ends/means justification because of her
> dislike of the act itself (which would be pro-ends, with a disregard for
> means). whereas toto is saying she may or may not dislike the act, but
> rather that the means (rather than the ends) should be in proportion to the
> act itself.
>
> that's just my interpretation.
> kylie

Took me a while to sort this out, but I think I understand what
everyone is saying. Let me rephrase and see if I've got this right?

Silvasurfa's saying that the act of the smoking is so dispictable that
the justification (means) for banning it in a public park (end) is
fine with her. She considers the means appropriate for the end. Toto
is saying that even though she might dislike smoking, the
justification used is not sufficient to ban it in a public park and
fears that the justification of setting a bad example for children, if
considered a legimate reason for banning an otherwise acceptable act,
could be used quite extensively for many different things and that
could be detrimental to the freedom of individuals in our society. If
I've got this right, I agree with Toto.

Any corrections?

Dan Evans

June 29th 03, 10:46 PM

"Tom Enright" > wrote in message
om...

> the players on your rugby team had played American football I'm calling BS
> on this one. American football is far too complicated to learn in an
> afternoon.

OK, this is a global forum, so it's not as if anyone else who was there
can't post to deny it.

If anyone here, or anyone here knows anyone, that was either at the US
barracks at Rhineberg ( think it was Rhineberg, not 100% though. It was the
big PX for the US troops that were stationed out of the US Corps areas, 1
and 2 US Corps IIRC) or Canaervon Barracks in Düsseldorf in 1989 that
remembers the UK/US Football/Rugby matches, or indeed the *non* event,
please post here.

Can't say fairer than that, now can you?

Dan

CBI

June 30th 03, 03:33 AM

"Dan Evans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Enright" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Dan Evans wrote:
>
> > Your average
> > American football player is going to be bigger, faster and stronger than
> > your average rugby player,
>
> In the scrums, we pushed them almost every time. As a wing three quarter,
I
> can tell you that *I* personally never got tackled, though others did.
>

Yeah but it is a learned skill. Line up for a pass blocking drill in full
gear and I'll bet you wouldn't be pushing anyone around.

> > but the rugby player is going to have much more
> > satmina.
>
> Absolutely we did. They were changing blokes all the time, we only had
about
> 25, IIRC, in total

Of course you did. Rugby is a sport with much more continuous running. The
exertion in American football is much more explosive. The fatigue that sets
in is entirely different.

>
> > > When I was in Düsseldorf, our rugby team played against one of the
> Americans
> > > Football teams at one of their barracks (Rhienberg IIRC). One match
each
> > > rugby and American football. We won both.
> >
> > American football is far too complicated to learn in an
> > afternoon.
>
> If you're playing pro, for sure. If you're having a frinedly "we'll play
> yours if you'll play ours", not at all.

He is talking about any fully equiped level of play. Your friendly gave was
just not the same sport.

--
CBI

CBI

June 30th 03, 03:35 AM

"Dan Evans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Enright" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > the players on your rugby team had played American football I'm calling
BS
> > on this one. American football is far too complicated to learn in an
> > afternoon.
>
> OK, this is a global forum, so it's not as if anyone else who was there
> can't post to deny it.
>
> If anyone here, or anyone here knows anyone, that was either at the US
> barracks at Rhineberg ( think it was Rhineberg, not 100% though. It was
the
> big PX for the US troops that were stationed out of the US Corps areas, 1
> and 2 US Corps IIRC) or Canaervon Barracks in Düsseldorf in 1989 that
> remembers the UK/US Football/Rugby matches, or indeed the *non* event,
> please post here.
>

You just don't get it. We are not saying the matches never happened - just
that you were not playing the sport of American football as it is played in
this country.

--
CBI

Dan Evans

July 1st 03, 12:32 AM

"CBI" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Dan Evans" > wrote in message
> ...

> > In the scrums, we pushed them almost every time. As a wing three
quarter,
> I
> > can tell you that *I* personally never got tackled, though others did.
> >
>
> Yeah but it is a learned skill. Line up for a pass blocking drill in full
> gear and I'll bet you wouldn't be pushing anyone around.

Yeah, but we managed to tackle them when we played their game, but they had
difficulty catching us (whilst playing thier game).

> > Absolutely we did. They were changing blokes all the time, we only had
> about
> > 25, IIRC, in total
>
> Of course you did. Rugby is a sport with much more continuous running.

I'm talking about when we played them at US football. My bad for not making
that clear. Had it been rugby, we wouldn't have been changing blokes unless
there was someone injured - someone who follows rugby would have realised
and I didn't think to explain, sorry.

The
> exertion in American football is much more explosive. The fatigue that
sets
> in is entirely different.
>

> He is talking about any fully equiped level of play. Your friendly gave
was
> just not the same sport.

Amateur level against amateur level - seems a fair match to me.

One thing that went in our favout was that we could almost play rugby, but
with obvious changes in position. It seems that their is (or at least was)
nothing in the rules that said US football *had* to be played the way it
was - or at least playing it the way we did didn't break any of them, but
was totally unexpected.

Dan

Dan Evans

July 1st 03, 12:32 AM

"CBI" > wrote in message
...

> You just don't get it. We are not saying the matches never happened - just
> that you were not playing the sport of American football as it is played
in
> this country.

They seemed to think they were playing the game they played when they were
back home (in the US), they were, after all , US servicemen.

The point I was contending was Tom saying our winning both US football and
Rugby was "BS".

Dan

CBI

July 1st 03, 04:41 AM

"silvasurfa" > wrote in message
...
>
> And as for my opinion about smokers and smoking... banning smoking in
public
> parks doesn't nearly go far enough.

Personally, I would issue hunting licenses and set the kill limit at a
billion. I'm troubled by people who derive enjoyment at killing Bambi but
smokers I could live with.

--
CBI

CBI

July 1st 03, 04:46 AM

"Dan Evans" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Yeah but it is a learned skill. Line up for a pass blocking drill in
full
> > gear and I'll bet you wouldn't be pushing anyone around.
>
> Yeah, but we managed to tackle them when we played their game, but they
had
> difficulty catching us (whilst playing thier game).
>

That is because tackling a guy running int he open (not right at you) with
no pads resembles rugby more than football. You were playing some game that
is neither but resembled rugby more than football and won. No kidding.

> > > Absolutely we did. They were changing blokes all the time, we only had
> > about
> > > 25, IIRC, in total
> >
> > Of course you did. Rugby is a sport with much more continuous running.
>
> I'm talking about when we played them at US football. My bad for not
making
> that clear.

You still don't get it. In the game you were playing there was no simulation
fot he full contact and line blocking that occurs in football. The fatigue
in football comes from making an all out effort pushing on a barely movable
object for short bursts of time (for the linemen) or from crashing through
a bunch of guys hitting you for 5 yards at a time (for backs).

>
> > He is talking about any fully equiped level of play. Your friendly gave
> was
> > just not the same sport.
>
> Amateur level against amateur level - seems a fair match to me.

The level of athletes isn't the issue.

Ameteur vs. Amateur is fair.

Playing rugby and then playing a sport more like rugby than football and
comparing the results is not.

>
> One thing that went in our favout was that we could almost play rugby, but
> with obvious changes in position. It seems that their is (or at least was)
> nothing in the rules that said US football *had* to be played the way it
> was - or at least playing it the way we did didn't break any of them, but
> was totally unexpected.

Chances are you broke some of the rules.

--
CBI

CBI

July 1st 03, 04:48 AM

"Dan Evans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "CBI" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You just don't get it. We are not saying the matches never happened -
just
> > that you were not playing the sport of American football as it is played
> in
> > this country.
>
> They seemed to think they were playing the game they played when they were
> back home (in the US), they were, after all , US servicemen.

They just didn't get into a discussion of the differences between sandlot,
or pick-up, football and the full fledged game.

>
> The point I was contending was Tom saying our winning both US football and
> Rugby was "BS".

It was.

--
CBI

Dan Evans

July 2nd 03, 02:54 AM

"CBI" > wrote in message
...

> You still don't get it. In the game you were playing there was no
simulation
> fot he full contact and line blocking that occurs in football. The fatigue
> in football comes from making an all out effort pushing on a barely
movable
> object for short bursts of time (for the linemen) or from crashing
through
> a bunch of guys hitting you for 5 yards at a time (for backs).

So you're saying that that didn't happen? Here's what happened.

The challenge was made (by whom to whom, I don't recall)
The US team got a book on rugby, and had one of our guys go up there to
train them
We got a book on American Football, and one of thier guys came to us.
We played a match of American Football, to the rules/instruction we had
received (we even had the padding/helmet etc)
We played a match of Rugby, to the rules/instructions they had received
(with *no* padding/helmet etc, which alarmed some of them).

If you have so little faith in the quality of Amateur American Football, or
if indeed the quality of amateur American Football is that bad, tough.
Equally matched teams, in terms of level the respective game was played at,
reulted in us winning. I can't see why similar result shouldn't happen with
teams at a higher standard.

Perhaps Shelly should tell us why the question was asked if the answer from
my personal experience "couldn't have happened because of X Y and Z"?

> Amateur level against amateur level - seems a fair match to me.
>
> The level of athletes isn't the issue.

Isn't to me either, but it seemed to be an issue with whoever it is that I
followed up to.

> Playing rugby and then playing a sport more like rugby than football and
> comparing the results is not.

Don't blame that American Football is nearly-but-not-the-same-as Rugby.

> Chances are you broke some of the rules.

I'm assuming that the US version of a PTI is as knowledgable of the rules of
American Football (Baseball, etc) as a British PTI is of the rules of Rubgy
(Association Football, Cricket, Hockey etc)

Dan

abacus

July 2nd 03, 04:34 PM

"silvasurfa" > wrote in message >...
> "abacus" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
> > Silvasurfa's saying that the act of the smoking is so dispictable that
> > the justification (means) for banning it in a public park (end) is
> > fine with her. She considers the means appropriate for the end. Toto
> > is saying that even though she might dislike smoking, the
> > justification used is not sufficient to ban it in a public park and
> > fears that the justification of setting a bad example for children, if
> > considered a legimate reason for banning an otherwise acceptable act,
> > could be used quite extensively for many different things and that
> > could be detrimental to the freedom of individuals in our society. If
> > I've got this right, I agree with Toto.
> >
> > Any corrections?
>
> Ok, time to restate my opinion, because people ain't getting it.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify. Sorry, I don't get it, but
I'll try to interpret your opinion again and see if I understand it
better now.

> It doesn't matter *now* (and now is what we can do something about eh?)
> whether the law was passed for the children, the environment, or for little
> green men from the planet Mars.... the law is there, the law is now the
> status quo, and if you want change you have to present a case for the future
> being different, not a case for the past having played out differently. So
> slopping your argument up with discussion of why the law was passed in order
> to try to score points is just a cheap and pointless distraction (hence I
> guess the crosspost from alt.peeves rather than
> alt.i-can-do-something-about-this) ... and if you are actually trying to get
> change happening it will detract from your attempts. There isn't a law on
> the books that didn't involve someone at some stage in its creation
> presenting a specious argument, because that's pretty much how all our laws
> are made in democracies.

I'm afraid this clarification has only made me more confused. If you
really want to change something, to make the future different from the
past, it's crucial to understand the *why*.

If you don't care at all about the past, only the result, then the
whole *ends justifying the means* argument is moot. Whatever has
happened in the past is past, no point in discussing whether or not
the means justified the end, the only question is where do we go from
here. Kinda like the whole WMD justification for the war in Iraq.
What difference does it make whether or not they really existed, or
whether or not the intelligence saying they did was reliable. it
sounds to me, if we applied your logic to that situation, like you're
saying: Okay, they lied to us about WMD. So what? Leaders have been
lying about why they wanted to go to war for as long as there has been
war. Let's move on and figure out what we're going to do next"? Or
am I still clueless about your opinion?

> And as for my opinion about smokers and smoking... banning smoking in public
> parks doesn't nearly go far enough. I wouldn't mind smoking banned in public
> places altogether. There are *plenty* of things that are banned in public
> because they are repulsive and nauseating, and smoking should be one of
> them.

Thanks for taking the time to help me understand where you're coming
from.
Just curious, aside from the air pollution issue which I don't
consider to be a legimate argument in an outdoor setting (if it were,
automobiles and charcoal grills could be banned), what argument can be
made against smoking in public versus breast feeding in public. Why
should one be allowed and not the other? After all, some people find
public breast feeding repulsive and nauseating.

silvasurfa

July 3rd 03, 02:37 AM

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...
> "silvasurfa" > wrote in message
>...
> > "abacus" > wrote in message
> > om...
Or
> am I still clueless about your opinion?

I suspect you are, but I'm getting to the stage where I can't be bothered
explaining. Remain clueless.

> > And as for my opinion about smokers and smoking... banning smoking in
public
> > parks doesn't nearly go far enough. I wouldn't mind smoking banned in
public
> > places altogether. There are *plenty* of things that are banned in
public
> > because they are repulsive and nauseating, and smoking should be one of
> > them.

> Just curious, aside from the air pollution issue which I don't
> consider to be a legimate argument in an outdoor setting (if it were,
> automobiles and charcoal grills could be banned), what argument can be
> made against smoking in public versus breast feeding in public. Why
> should one be allowed and not the other? After all, some people find
> public breast feeding repulsive and nauseating.

The health issues associated with smoking adds to people's distress at
witnessing it... it is pretty much like watching someone drop their pants
and take a ****... it doesn't matter that they are ****ting onto a nice
plastic ziploc baggy that they will be tucking away in their tote bag and
taken home to dispose of... the activity is one that taps into deep seated
feelings about what is safe and what isn't, deep seated beliefs about
hygiene. Whereas breastfeeding in public is more like public gum chewing...
could be a bit icky and not appropriate at certain times, but it isn't going
to make anyone reasonable think of either cancer or gastroenteritis.

If you wanted a parenting analogy, smoking in public is like changing a
smelly ****ty nappy in public. People don't care that the parent is going to
clean up the mess, the wind is blowing the other way etc, that's ****** and
people don't want it intruding on their day or on any of their senses, or
indeed upon their sensibilities. Likewise with cigarette smoke... the stuff
can be lethal and it is offensive in the extreme. It is equivalent to ****.
They can do it at home, they can do it in private but keep it the **** away
from other people. Even if smokers reduce the actual risk to zero for other
people, the substance itself is offensive and distressing. Like drawing a
gun in public.

CBI

July 3rd 03, 03:44 AM

"Dan Evans" > wrote in message
...
>
> > This leaves me with two equally likely possible conclusions. One is that
> the
> > guys you played were no more experienced football players than you were
>
> Always possible, but from what I gather - doesn't everyone do football at
> school to some degree?
>

Heck no. The vast majority of Americans have never worn pads or played in an
organized game. Nearly all American males have probably played touch
football (no where near the same sport) and "pick-up" games of basketball
(which resembles the organized game fairly closely in basic skills). Playing
on organized baseball teams is very popular for school aged kids. However,
most communities do not have organized football teams below the high school
level (although regional "pee wee" leagues are common) and only a relatively
low fraction of the students play on those teams.

--
CBI

Hillary Israeli

July 3rd 03, 01:11 PM

In >,
Dan Evans > wrote:

*
*Always possible, but from what I gather - doesn't everyone do football at
*school to some degree?

Absolutely not. Only a select few make the teams, at least around here.
The moms in my social circle (well, I'm talking about the now-grandmoms -
the women who are my own mom's peers) pretty much actively campaigned
against allowing their sons to play football, too - certainly none of my
friends played.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)

Dan Evans

July 3rd 03, 01:37 PM

"CBI" > wrote in message
...

> Heck no. The vast majority of Americans have never worn pads or played in
an
> organized game.

I'm stunned. In the UK, or at least in our area when I was at school, we
played the "national" sports, and when we played a sport, we played by that
sport governing bodies rules. Generally Rugby (winter term), Football
(Spring term) and Cricket (Summer term), though occasionally baseball,
basketball and tennis - and track and field got a look in as well during the
summer.

Dan

Penny Gaines

July 3rd 03, 06:19 PM

Dan Evans wrote in >:

>
> "CBI" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Heck no. The vast majority of Americans have never worn pads or played in
> an
>> organized game.
>
> I'm stunned. In the UK, or at least in our area when I was at school, we
> played the "national" sports, and when we played a sport, we played by
> that sport governing bodies rules. Generally Rugby (winter term), Football
> (Spring term) and Cricket (Summer term), though occasionally baseball,
> basketball and tennis - and track and field got a look in as well during
> the summer.

I'll join you in being stunned.

The games played at schools in the UK are the same as the games played
by adults who do them for a living. The only difference is the size of the
players and the skill level.

Over here we have pub/work football teams and the like, played by groups of
friends or colleagues against other people of a similar level. Ie by
amateurs who maybe practise once a week. Does this mean that there is no
equivalent in the US?

(FWIW five-a-side football is another popular game for amateur
competitions.)

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

abacus

July 3rd 03, 06:47 PM

"silvasurfa" > wrote in message >...
> "abacus" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "silvasurfa" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "abacus" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> Or
> > am I still clueless about your opinion?
>
> I suspect you are, but I'm getting to the stage where I can't be bothered
> explaining. Remain clueless.
>
As you wish ma'am. If you don't feel your opinion is worth the bother
of further explaination, I wouldn't dream of contradicting you in that
regard. However, my experience is that when people grow impatient
and/or irritated at my persistent questions trying to understand their
opinions and beliefs, it's because I've come close to identifying some
irrational aspect of it they do not wish to examine any further
themselves.

> > > And as for my opinion about smokers and smoking... banning smoking in
> public
> > > parks doesn't nearly go far enough. I wouldn't mind smoking banned in
> public
> > > places altogether. There are *plenty* of things that are banned in
> public
> > > because they are repulsive and nauseating, and smoking should be one of
> > > them.
>
> > Just curious, aside from the air pollution issue which I don't
> > consider to be a legimate argument in an outdoor setting (if it were,
> > automobiles and charcoal grills could be banned), what argument can be
> > made against smoking in public versus breast feeding in public. Why
> > should one be allowed and not the other? After all, some people find
> > public breast feeding repulsive and nauseating.
>
> The health issues associated with smoking adds to people's distress at
> witnessing it... it is pretty much like watching someone drop their pants
> and take a ****... it doesn't matter that they are ****ting onto a nice
> plastic ziploc baggy that they will be tucking away in their tote bag and
> taken home to dispose of... the activity is one that taps into deep seated
> feelings about what is safe and what isn't, deep seated beliefs about
> hygiene.

Ma'am, while your feelings regarding the matter may indeed be
deep-seated, they are hardly universal in the same way that feelings
about defecating in public are.

> Whereas breastfeeding in public is more like public gum chewing...
> could be a bit icky and not appropriate at certain times, but it isn't going
> to make anyone reasonable think of either cancer or gastroenteritis.

Well, smoking doesn't bring cancer or gastroenteritis to mind for me.
Nor do I find breast-feeding icky or inappropriate. However, I can't
abide gum-chewing and don't permit it in my house. (An affectation my
children find quite irritating). My point is that different people
have different ideas about what is nauseating and disgusting. Now, I
must admit, that glad as I would be to see the habit of chewing gum
banished from our society, I can't imagine supporting laws against the
public display of that disgusting habit.

> If you wanted a parenting analogy, smoking in public is like changing a
> smelly ****ty nappy in public. People don't care that the parent is going to
> clean up the mess, the wind is blowing the other way etc, that's ****** and
> people don't want it intruding on their day or on any of their senses, or
> indeed upon their sensibilities. Likewise with cigarette smoke... the stuff
> can be lethal and it is offensive in the extreme. It is equivalent to ****.
> They can do it at home, they can do it in private but keep it the **** away
> from other people. Even if smokers reduce the actual risk to zero for other
> people, the substance itself is offensive and distressing. Like drawing a
> gun in public.

Thanks for giving your opinion. I disagree with the analogy, but I
think you have successfully communicated your opinion at this time.
One further question if you will permit it: Why on earth do you find
smoking so disturbing as to be the equivalent of pooping or pulling a
gun in public?

Clearly, those analogies seem appropriate to you, though I think most
people in our society would consider smoking to be a much lower order
of offense. Your reasons seem legimate for disliking the habit, but
don't seem reasonable to justify the intensity of your feelings
regarding the activity.

Hillary Israeli

July 3rd 03, 07:13 PM

In >,
Dan Evans > wrote:

*
*"CBI" > wrote in message
...
*
*> Heck no. The vast majority of Americans have never worn pads or played in
*an
*> organized game.
*
*I'm stunned. In the UK, or at least in our area when I was at school, we
*played the "national" sports, and when we played a sport, we played by that
*sport governing bodies rules. Generally Rugby (winter term), Football
*(Spring term) and Cricket (Summer term), though occasionally baseball,
*basketball and tennis - and track and field got a look in as well during the
*summer.

An active lot, aren't you?

Football is a high-injury sport! Honestly, the moms I know don't let their
kids play :) and there is a LOT of competition to get onto the team among
those whose moms DO let them play - there are way fewer spots than kids!
Kids often play touch football, but that's a different sort of thing.
Also, in gym class, kids often play soccer, basketball, volleyball,
sometimes tennis if the school has courts -- but no, not football, not in
my experience!

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)

Dan Evans

July 3rd 03, 08:01 PM

"Hillary Israeli" > wrote in message
...
> In >,
> Dan Evans > wrote:

> *I'm stunned. In the UK, or at least in our area when I was at school, we
> *played the "national" sports, and when we played a sport, we played by
that
> *sport governing bodies rules. Generally Rugby (winter term), Football
> *(Spring term) and Cricket (Summer term), though occasionally baseball,
> *basketball and tennis - and track and field got a look in as well during
the
> *summer.
>
> An active lot, aren't you?

Not really. There was (and I suppose there still is) 2 hours a week minimum
devoted to PE (Phyical Education) and it was (and I think it still is) a
compulsory subject, along with Maths, English Language and Religeous
Education - meaning that if those were the only 4 subjecta school taught,
then that was fine.

When you think about it, 2 hours a week isn't much

> Football is a high-injury sport!

Rugby has its moments as well. A kid I was at school with broke his neck
(though it has to be said that is very rare for that to happen), and there
were several broken arms and legs a year, plus missing teeth, broken
noses/fingers/ribs etc

Dan

Michael Surbaugh

July 4th 03, 12:34 AM

"Dan Evans" > wrote in message >...
> "Hillary Israeli" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In >,
> > Dan Evans > wrote:
>
> > *I'm stunned. In the UK, or at least in our area when I was at school, we
> > *played the "national" sports, and when we played a sport, we played by
> that
> > *sport governing bodies rules. Generally Rugby (winter term), Football
> > *(Spring term) and Cricket (Summer term), though occasionally baseball,
> > *basketball and tennis - and track and field got a look in as well during
> the
> > *summer.
> >
> > An active lot, aren't you?
>
> Not really. There was (and I suppose there still is) 2 hours a week minimum
> devoted to PE (Phyical Education) and it was (and I think it still is) a
> compulsory subject, along with Maths, English Language and Religeous
> Education - meaning that if those were the only 4 subjecta school taught,
> then that was fine.
>
> When you think about it, 2 hours a week isn't much
>
> > Football is a high-injury sport!
>
> Rugby has its moments as well. A kid I was at school with broke his neck
> (though it has to be said that is very rare for that to happen), and there
> were several broken arms and legs a year, plus missing teeth, broken
> noses/fingers/ribs etc
>
> Dan

Rugby has its moments as well.

Cheryl

July 4th 03, 11:11 AM

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:13:47 +0000 (UTC),
(Hillary Israeli) wrote:

>In >,
>Dan Evans > wrote:
>
>*
>*"CBI" > wrote in message
...
>*
>*> Heck no. The vast majority of Americans have never worn pads or played in
>*an
>*> organized game.
>*
>*I'm stunned. In the UK, or at least in our area when I was at school, we
>*played the "national" sports, and when we played a sport, we played by that
>*sport governing bodies rules. Generally Rugby (winter term), Football
>*(Spring term) and Cricket (Summer term), though occasionally baseball,
>*basketball and tennis - and track and field got a look in as well during the
>*summer.
>
>An active lot, aren't you?

It's the same in Australia. All school kids must do at least one
Physical Education lesson a week which varies depending on the
season, and all school kids must participate in organised sport for
1.5 hours every week - this can be a team sport against other
schools or stuff like ice-skating, social tennis etc depending on
the school.
>
>Football is a high-injury sport! Honestly, the moms I know don't let their
>kids play :) and there is a LOT of competition to get onto the team among
>those whose moms DO let them play - there are way fewer spots than kids!
>Kids often play touch football, but that's a different sort of thing.
>Also, in gym class, kids often play soccer, basketball, volleyball,
>sometimes tennis if the school has courts -- but no, not football, not in
>my experience!

We play touch football in Australian public schools now due to
injuries but until I was 16 the proper tackle version was common.
Most kids can play the tackle version as a weekend sport if they or
their parents so choose.

--
Cheryl

DS#1 (Mar 99), DS#2 (Oct 00)
DD born 30 Jul 02

silvasurfa

July 4th 03, 11:22 AM

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...
> "silvasurfa" > wrote in message
>...
> > "abacus" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "silvasurfa" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "abacus" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > Or
> > > am I still clueless about your opinion?
> >
> > I suspect you are, but I'm getting to the stage where I can't be
bothered
> > explaining. Remain clueless.
> >
> As you wish ma'am. If you don't feel your opinion is worth the bother
> of further explaination, I wouldn't dream of contradicting you in that
> regard. However, my experience is that when people grow impatient
> and/or irritated at my persistent questions trying to understand their
> opinions and beliefs, it's because I've come close to identifying some
> irrational aspect of it they do not wish to examine any further
> themselves.

It is mainly that I spend a good deal of my working day explaining to people
why they've left it too late to do anything about the legislation they are
griping about, and why therefore this means they are stuck with the decision
I must make under the legislation. Which often enough involves debts to the
government in the four figure range, and subsequent recovery of such debts.

You are right that this has caused me to somewhat irrational... however I
don't think I am irrational in my logic about the absolute pointlessness of
nitpicking with regards to the reasons why legislation was passed... instead
my irrationality is in my almost overwhelming desire to say to people
something along the lines of "did you pay attention when the law was being
considered? did you speak to your local representative? did you write a
letter to the newspaper? did you even give a toss that the law existed and
could affect people until it affected *you*? did you read the letter we sent
you a year ago explaining the new law? do you ever read anything or listen
to the news? do you deserve to live in a democracy? have you got the laws
you deserve?" So yeah, when I talk too much about legislation and ****wits
griping after the event, I get uncomfortably angry.

>
> > > > And as for my opinion about smokers and smoking... banning smoking
in
> > public
> > > > parks doesn't nearly go far enough. I wouldn't mind smoking banned
in
> > public
> > > > places altogether. There are *plenty* of things that are banned in
> > public
> > > > because they are repulsive and nauseating, and smoking should be one
of
> > > > them.
> >
> > > Just curious, aside from the air pollution issue which I don't
> > > consider to be a legimate argument in an outdoor setting (if it were,
> > > automobiles and charcoal grills could be banned), what argument can be
> > > made against smoking in public versus breast feeding in public. Why
> > > should one be allowed and not the other? After all, some people find
> > > public breast feeding repulsive and nauseating.
> >
> > The health issues associated with smoking adds to people's distress at
> > witnessing it... it is pretty much like watching someone drop their
pants
> > and take a ****... it doesn't matter that they are ****ting onto a nice
> > plastic ziploc baggy that they will be tucking away in their tote bag
and
> > taken home to dispose of... the activity is one that taps into deep
seated
> > feelings about what is safe and what isn't, deep seated beliefs about
> > hygiene.
>
>
> Ma'am, while your feelings regarding the matter may indeed be
> deep-seated, they are hardly universal in the same way that feelings
> about defecating in public are.

I'm sure at various stages in humanity's history we were more relaxed about
****ting in public, rats and their fleas, open sewers, blood spilling
everywhere, opiate addiction, spitting in the street, lice and bedbugs. We
got smart, and mortality and morbidity improved We are getting smarter about
tobacco.

>
> > Whereas breastfeeding in public is more like public gum chewing...
> > could be a bit icky and not appropriate at certain times, but it isn't
going
> > to make anyone reasonable think of either cancer or gastroenteritis.
>
> Well, smoking doesn't bring cancer or gastroenteritis to mind for me.
> Nor do I find breast-feeding icky or inappropriate. However, I can't
> abide gum-chewing and don't permit it in my house. (An affectation my
> children find quite irritating). My point is that different people
> have different ideas about what is nauseating and disgusting.

But some things we all agree on. Smoking is heading to be one of those
things.

Now, I
> must admit, that glad as I would be to see the habit of chewing gum
> banished from our society, I can't imagine supporting laws against the
> public display of that disgusting habit.
>
> > If you wanted a parenting analogy, smoking in public is like changing a
> > smelly ****ty nappy in public. People don't care that the parent is
going to
> > clean up the mess, the wind is blowing the other way etc, that's ******
and
> > people don't want it intruding on their day or on any of their senses,
or
> > indeed upon their sensibilities. Likewise with cigarette smoke... the
stuff
> > can be lethal and it is offensive in the extreme. It is equivalent to
****.
> > They can do it at home, they can do it in private but keep it the ****
away
> > from other people. Even if smokers reduce the actual risk to zero for
other
> > people, the substance itself is offensive and distressing. Like drawing
a
> > gun in public.
>
>
> Thanks for giving your opinion. I disagree with the analogy, but I
> think you have successfully communicated your opinion at this time.
> One further question if you will permit it: Why on earth do you find
> smoking so disturbing as to be the equivalent of pooping or pulling a
> gun in public?

It causes death, sickness and disablement aplenty, some of it in damned
unpleasant ways. Why should anyone have to watch someone doing that to
themselves, or be put in a position where they are fearful the person is
doing it to them? Nicotine addicts can use patches (or gum tehehehe!)
instead if they simply must indulge their addictions in public. Or they can
organise to smoke in private.

>
> Clearly, those analogies seem appropriate to you, though I think most
> people in our society would consider smoking to be a much lower order
> of offense.

That's changing.

Your reasons seem legimate for disliking the habit, but
> don't seem reasonable to justify the intensity of your feelings
> regarding the activity.

I didn't feel this way 10 years ago, but lose a few friends and relatives to
cancer and heart disease, and you start getting radicalised.