# Hey, Phinn: RED MEAT!



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Have at it.

https://apnews.excite.com/article/20070208/D8N5PDH82.html

For the record, I think it's ludicrous too.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

It certainly will seem ridiculous to most Americans, but slightly less ridiculous to those of us who have lived in Manhattan. It's easy to say if they're that dumb, let them be hit by a bus, but their death will inconvenience those who are on that bus, waiting for that bus, or riding behind that bus. These people absorbed in their IPods and cells are a problem on a crowded place like a street corner in a city where everybody walks and takes public transportation.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Have at it.
> 
> https://apnews.excite.com/article/20070208/D8N5PDH82.html
> 
> For the record, I think it's ludicrous too.


We finally agree. You must be wrong!


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

crs said:


> It certainly will seem ridiculous to most Americans, but slightly less ridiculous to those of us who have lived in Manhattan. It's easy to say if they're that dumb, let them be hit by a bus, but their death will inconvenience those who are on that bus, waiting for that bus, or riding behind that bus. These people absorbed in their IPods and cells are a problem on a crowded place like a street corner in a city where everybody walks and takes public transportation.


I think if anything more people would be at risk for creating an accident while distracted by sorting out their headphones wires in the intersection, as this law would require.

Two people die--tragic, mind you--and this legislation is the result?

That said, I /would/ be grateful if vehicles would mind the pedestrians attempting the perilous journey from one side of the street to another. Every day traffic roars through the marked crosswalk near my university even as a gaggle of us timorously venture forth. They're supposed to stop (or at least S L O W down). Rarely if ever happens.

And, yes, I wear my iPod.


----------



## Chase Hamilton (Jan 15, 2007)

I don't think people should talk on mobile phones or use other portable electronics (e.g., blackberries, ipods, etc.) while driving.

I also don't think that commuters should use such devices while attempting to cross a busy intersection.

My take is that if it saves only a few lives, it is well worth people losing some of their "civil liberties" (as the Attorney quoted in the article attested.)

Kind Regards,

Chase

P.S. I also think there should be laws banning folks from talking on mobile phones in public places (such as Restaurants and Movie Theatres), but I understand that is _quite_ another matter.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Darwin at work, why get in the way?


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Darwin at work, why get in the way?


Are you referring to 'hard selection'? - LOL


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Are you referring to 'hard selection'? - LOL


Heh, I was not really but Manhattan is a good place to think about that because if I remember right, mortality is density independent


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

This sort of interference into daily life is easy enough for most people to understand, and anyone who cares about liberty naturally finds this sort of thing annoying. It's a symbolic act of a bully government, of course, and therefore illustrative of the larger problem.

Thank you for thinking of me, but I tend to get more exercised about larger issues, like the way that Lyndon Johnson changed the way that the federal government accounts for its money. The parasitic organization that goes by the name of "government" not only steals for a living, but then lies about the magnitude of its stealing it in its accounting reports, using accounting methods that would land a private CFO in jail. That's hundreds of billions of dollars, representing the time, effort and sacrifice of hard-working, productive people, stolen with a few simple accounting tricks.

Such is our great society.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Certainly ludicrous.

Soon, they will want to pass a law that mandates wearing your coat when the temperature reaches a particular degree.

Hey, it might save a few lives.


----------



## Chase Hamilton (Jan 15, 2007)

Relayer said:


> Soon, they will want to pass a law that mandates wearing your coat when the temperature reaches a particular degree.


We would never need a law like that in my house.

When I was growing up, if the temperature reached a certain point and I didn't wear a coat, my Mother would kill me. :icon_smile_wink:

--Chase


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Chase Hamilton said:


> We would never need a law like that in my house.
> 
> When I was growing up, if the temperature reached a certain point and I didn't wear a coat, my Mother would kill me. :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> --Chase


Chase:

Perfect example. The Nanny State indeed!

Cheers


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Certainly ludicrous.
> 
> Soon, they will want to pass a law that mandates wearing your coat when the temperature reaches a particular degree.
> 
> Hey, it might save a few lives.


lol

And mittens!


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Chase Hamilton said:


> My take is that if it saves only a few lives, it is well worth people losing some of their "civil liberties" (as the Attorney quoted in the article attested.)
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Chase


There is no end to potential legislation that can save a few lives at the expense of civil liberties. Where do we draw the line? Should annual check-ups by a doctor be mandatory? Should smoking be banned completely? How about fines for excessive consumption of junk food and red meat?


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> There is no end to potential legislation that can save a few lives at the expense of civil liberties. Where do we draw the line? Should annual check-ups by a doctor be mandatory? Should smoking be banned completely? How about fines for excessive consumption of junk food and red meat?


Please don't give them any more ideas. Someone might take you up on these suggestions.

I know it's another thread, but the Forumite I find myself agreeing with most often: Phinn.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> There is no end to potential legislation that can save a few lives at the expense of civil liberties. Where do we draw the line? Should annual check-ups by a doctor be mandatory? Should smoking be banned completely? How about fines for excessive consumption of junk food and red meat?


We will also need to ban planes, trains, automobiles and if I remember correctly, WA wanted to get rid of stairs.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> We will also need to ban planes, trains, automobiles and if I remember correctly, WA wanted to get rid of stairs.


I think banning stairs is a good point. Many people, especially the elderly, have fallen down a flight of stairs with fatal consequences. Therefore, all new homes must be built with ramps only. My take is that if it saves only a few lives, it is well worth people losing some of their "civil liberties" (as the Attorney quoted in the article attested.)


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

It would take the addition of an entire level of federal beaurocracy to keep all those who lack a minimal level of common sense from killing or injuring themselves. Unfortunately many of them drive cars.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

What about making eating/drinking while reading webboards illegal? One could easily lose concentration and injure one's self in the process, i.e. poke eye out with fork, swallow incorrectly and aspirate, etc.


----------



## Chase Hamilton (Jan 15, 2007)

rkipperman said:


> I think banning stairs is a good point. Many people, especially the elderly, have fallen down a flight of stairs with fatal consequences. Therefore, all new homes must be built with ramps only. My take is that if it saves only a few lives, it is well worth people losing some of their "civil liberties" (as the Attorney quoted in the article attested.)


Interesting post. I believe the thrust of it is "where should the line be drawn." I agree, that is not an easy decision, although things such as this are debated in our legislatures all the time.

As I have already posted, I agree that legislature banning people listening to Ipods while crossing a busy intersection is a good idea. I gather from this post that you do not.

Although your opinion differs from mine, I respect it. Through your post, you obviously have strong views in this instance and it is obvious that nothing I can say or do would change them.

So, vive le difference! :icon_smile:

Kind Regards,

Chase


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

rkipperman said:


> I think banning stairs is a good point. Many people, especially the elderly, have fallen down a flight of stairs with fatal consequences. Therefore, all new homes must be built with ramps only. My take is that if it saves only a few lives, it is well worth people losing some of their "civil liberties" (as the Attorney quoted in the article attested.)


I'm with you.

Better yet, ban the sale of homes with stairs to anyone who cannot pass an agility test! :^)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Let's not forget to protect those who might put their eyes out opening a can of pop.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Whole lotta bannin' going on.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Again, NYC is not the wide-open frontier. You are in close quarters with these zombies who are tuned into their own world, oblivious to the very real one that is scurrying about them. Their death-by-bus inconveniences a great many people. Consider this: If someone wants to kill himself by locking himself in his apartment and swallowing some pills, that's a damned shame. If the same person wants to commit suicide by diving out his 12th-story window while people are walking below and drivers are attempting to negotiate already-serious traffic and I am already 5 minutes late for my haircut, well, that is damned inconsiderate. I understand the inclination to view this in ideological terms, but I think you are ignoring the realities of living in a crowded, walking city. I believe they ought to outlaw being plugged in on city sidewalks completely -- they are a danger not only to themselves but to others. And how would you like to be driving the vehicle that one of these Living Dead walks in front of?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I find mothers pushing their babies in walkers are often rather distracted and besotted with the bundle of joy they are proudly pushing. I think we need to outlaw that....after, do not want crs late for a hair cut.

Ditto fat people and people with walkers...slow moving, too easy to hit. Hmm, anyone over 80? Logan's Run anyone?

Where do we draw the line?

The easier thing to do would be to exempt drivers that hit plugged in people from any liability, in fact, place it on the plugged in walker. That would make more sense IMO, presonal responsibility. What a concept!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I find mothers pushing their babies in walkers are often rather distracted and besotted with the bundle of joy they are proudly pushing. I think we need to outlaw that....after, do not want crs late for a hair cut.
> 
> Ditto fat people and people with walkers...slow moving, too easy to hit. Hmm, anyone over 80? Logan's Run anyone?
> 
> ...


Oh, that would never fly. It's not their fault, it's society, their background, the media, TV, video games etc. Please don't hold people responsible for things they cannot control. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I find mothers pushing their babies in walkers are often rather distracted and besotted with the bundle of joy they are proudly pushing. I think we need to outlaw that....after, do not want crs late for a hair cut.
> 
> Ditto fat people and people with walkers...slow moving, too easy to hit. Hmm, anyone over 80? Logan's Run anyone?
> 
> ...


There is a huge difference between these people and people wearing earplugs. I know you would be playing a different tune on your bagpipes (windbags?) if you had lived there. You can try to imagine it, but this is not something that can be gleaned from a visit or translated into Tucson X 20 = NYC. The annoyance factor is cummulative and detracts from the quality of life of people who already live with bars on their windows like caged rodents and endure watching people urinating on sidewalks in broad daylight. I suppose it was OK when tough guy Rudy Giuliani decided the mere presence of homeless people and "squeegie men" on those same sidewalks detracted from the quality of life of people who live there and basically banished them from Manhattan, but take away someone's iPod and we have fascism! Thankfully, the flyover-country hayseeds who haunt the tourist traps will have absolutely no say in this matter. Nor will police likely expend a lot of energy enforcing such a law (if you can pee in public with impunity, you aren't going to get the chair for listening to an iPod), it is more of a symbolic statement to these zombies: ENOUGH! PAY ATTENTION, IDIOTS!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> There is a huge difference between these people and people wearing earplugs. I know you would be playing a different tune on your bagpipes (windbags?) if you had lived there. You can try to imagine it, but this is not something that can be gleaned from a visit or translated into Tucson X 20 = NYC. The annoyance factor is cummulative and detracts from the quality of life of people who already live with bars on their windows like caged rodents and endure watching people urinating on sidewalks in broad daylight. I suppose it was OK when tough guy Rudy Giuliani decided the mere presence of homeless people and "squeegie men" on those same sidewalks detracted from the quality of life of people who live there and basically banished them from Manhattan, but take away someone's iPod and we have fascism! Thankfully, the flyover-country hayseeds who haunt the tourist traps will have absolutely no say in this matter. Nor will police likely expend a lot of energy enforcing such a law (if you can pee in public with impunity, you aren't going to get the chair for listening to an iPod), it is more of a symbolic statement to these zombies: ENOUGH! PAY ATTENTION, IDIOTS!


Detroit and Chicago, both cities I am familiar with, had squeegie men. Somehow I cannot equate an unkept, often hostile/biligerent person that leans on my car, usually under the influence of something, perhaps scratching my paint, wets my windshield, and often wipes it with crumpled newspaper, then demands money = idiot walking with an Ipod. I guess we just think differently crs. Well actually, there's no "guess" about it. I apply logic and reason.

If you deem me a "hayseed", I will take that as a compliment, as it seems anything you deem "bad" is "good" by most standards.

Cheers


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I have a question. 

I'm deaf. 

In this efficient urban utopia where the police are authorized to use force to do whatever it takes to keep crs from being annoyed, will I be banned from crossing streets, so as to ensure that his haircut schedule is not disrupted in any way? 

Considering the magnitude of the safety threat, I can't see a legitimate reason why I should be exempt from the needs of the almighty State. Blind people can't be allowed to drive. Will I need a waiver, perhaps? 

(By the way, I may be a Southern hayseed, but I did live in New York for quite a while. I found it to be very uncivilized in many ways.)


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> I have a question.
> 
> I'm deaf.
> 
> In this efficient urban utopia where the police are authorized to use force to do whatever it takes to keep crs from being annoyed, will I be banned from crossing streets, so as to ensure that his haircut schedule is not disrupted in any way?


People with a disability are keenly aware of it and those with survival skills compensate for it. Not so with the iPod morons, who wander in a daze, oblivious to all around them. As anyone whose car has nearly been hit by cellphone-using drivers is aware, it is not simply that they can't hear, but their minds are not on the task at hand.

There are towns in New Jersey that have made it illegal to drive while talking on a cellphone (there is a state law against using a hand-held cellphone while driving). These laws have been endorsed by the majority of residents who are tired of these cretins causing accidents. I do not see the proposed iPod law as significantly different.



Phinn said:


> I did live in New York for quite a while. I found it to be very uncivilized in many ways.


Indeed it is. I met my wife a few months after moving to Manhattan and when she asked me how I liked it so far, I said, "The people here are animals." Civic order there is a delicate balance. It amazes me that the same people who were cheering Rudy Giuliani as he trampled everyone's civil rights are now in an uproar that their iPod usage might be somewhat restricted. Those people need to get a grip.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> it seems anything you deem "bad" is "good" by most standards.


Given November's results, I don't think people such as Wayfarer can claim that their viewpoints are in the majority.

The politician from Brooklyn who proposed this law likely wants to be reelected. Would he propose such a law if it would displease most of his constituents? I think not. Therefore, it is your views that are out of the mainstream, at least in the state that would be affected by such a law.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

I think the use of electronic equipment in public is at best, rude. ipods are less disturbing to me than cell phones, but I do believe they distract people from what is around them and this may be a safety issue in more ways than one. The use of cell phones in public is just plain rude. I try to never do it, I carry my phone in public only if I am expecting a call from my daugher or I think I need to be available for her, otherwise it stays in the car or the ringer is off. I think all of these things take away people making contact with people, that is a bad thing, we have enough obstacles in that area as it is.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Given November's results, I don't think people such as Wayfarer can claim that their viewpoints are in the majority.
> 
> Therefore, it is your views that are out of the mainstream, at least in the state that would be affected by such a law.


*Yawn* Yet again trying to make me an ideologue Republican when I am not even close to being just a plain old Repub. Do you ever tire of demagoguery? (rhetorical question, everyone knows the answer my dear crs: you never tire of it).

So now our rather illogical fellow crs has tied Ipods into the November elections. I think most of you will be as surprised as me to know it was a referendum on Ipods. To show even further how pitiful crs's attempts at thought are, how many times have I stated the US should never have started this war? Yet because I think people should not have the goverment tell them when they can and cannot wear an Ipod, crs would have you believe I am a Bush bot, blindly cheering on happenings in the ME. How sad this man alleges he is a professional journalist. If this is what passes for thought and truth in the national newspaper world, I can see why circulation continues to fall.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Eee Hee Hee

My mission in life is to invite Wayfarer and CRS to dinner with each other, serve lots of drinks and have someone with a camera cell phone at the next table record what happens.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> *Yawn* Yet again trying to make me an ideologue Republican when I am not even close to being just a plain old Repub. Do you ever tire of demagoguery? (rhetorical question, everyone knows the answer my dear crs: you never tire of it).
> 
> So now our rather illogical fellow crs has tied Ipods into the November elections. I think most of you will be as surprised as me to know it was a referendum on Ipods. To show even further how pitiful crs's attempts at thought are, how many times have I stated the US should never have started this war? Yet because I think people should not have the goverment tell them when they can and cannot wear an Ipod, crs would have you believe I am a Bush bot, blindly cheering on happenings in the ME. How sad this man alleges he is a professional journalist. If this is what passes for thought and truth in the national newspaper world, I can see why circulation continues to fall.


You're raving. I think all that blowing on those bagpipes has deprived your brain of oxygen.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Eee Hee Hee
> 
> My mission in life is to invite Wayfarer and CRS to dinner with each other, serve lots of drinks and have someone with a camera cell phone at the next table record what happens.


LOL.....if you pay for the drinks, I'm there.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Eee Hee Hee
> 
> My mission in life is to invite Wayfarer and CRS to dinner with each other, serve lots of drinks and have someone with a camera cell phone at the next table record what happens.


First we must find out when visiting hours are for poor Waysie. He says he disagrees with the Republicans and disagrees with the Dems, which would place him on the far fringe politically, yet believes his views are validated by many people. Perhaps they have reached such a consensus on his ward. Do not fret -- when Hilary implements her health-care plan, people such as Wayfarer finally will receive the help they need. Until then, we must remember to be "patient" with him, no pun intended.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> First we must find out when visiting hours are for poor Waysie. He says he disagrees with the Republicans and disagrees with the Dems, which would place him on the far fringe politically, yet believes his views are validated by many people. Perhaps they have reached such a consensus on his ward. Do not fret -- when Hilary implements her health-care plan, people such as Wayfarer finally will receive the help they need. Until then, we must remember to be "patient" with him, no pun intended.


One person gladly accepts a social offer, another uses it as yet another reason to give some lame _ad homs_. Interesting juxtaposition.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

If you guys wear suits, it looks like I had best tell the waiter NOT to stop by with a dessert tray.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> If you guys wear suits, it looks like I had best tell the waiter NOT to stop by with a dessert tray.


I am not worried. He will be wearing a straitjacket.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> If you guys wear suits, it looks like I had best tell the waiter NOT to stop by with a dessert tray.


No concerns on my part forsberg. I doubt our dear crs would be so cheeky in person.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> No concerns on my part forsberg. I doubt our dear crs would be so cheeky in person.


With you sedated and restrained, why would I demure?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> With you sedated and restrained, why would I demure?


Again, notice the difference. I merely put forward our good crs is less likely to be so caustic in person and the good fellow only wishes to face me IRL drugged and tied down. You really are revealing a most nasty streak crs.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Again, notice the difference. I merely put forward our good crs is less likely to be so caustic in person and the good fellow only wishes to face me IRL drugged and tied down. You really are revealing a most nasty streak crs.


I believe you hurled the first insults on this thread:



Wayfarer said:


> I guess we just think differently crs. Well actually, there's no "guess" about it. I apply logic and reason.
> 
> If you deem me a "hayseed", I will take that as a compliment, as it seems anything you deem "bad" is "good" by most standards.


It is not my fault that you interpreted "hayseed" as directed at you. I forgot, the entire world revolves around Wayfarer. One can not write about the totality of "flyover country" without Waysie taking personal offense. There is a psychological term for that, I believe, but I can't recall it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It is not my fault that you interpreted "hayseed" as directed at you. I forgot, the entire world revolves around Wayfarer. One can not write about the totality of "flyover country" without Waysie taking personal offense. There is a psychological term for that, I believe, but I can't recall it.


Well you have been rather fixated on me lately so I think it is excusable. However, I do apologize if that insult was meant for another poster and stand corrected.

Cheers


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Well you have been rather fixated on me lately so I think it is excusable. However, I do apologize if that insult was meant for another poster and stand corrected.
> 
> Cheers


It was directed at no one. I was saying that the issue will be decided by New Yorkers, not by people who do not know what it's like to live there.

Aren't you folks big on "states' rights"?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It was directed at no one. I was saying that the issue will be decided by New Yorkers, not by people who do not know what it's like to live there.
> 
> Aren't you folks big on "states' rights"?


Ah, I see. So non-New Yorkers are all hayseeds? Insightful.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah, I see. So non-New Yorkers are all hayseeds? Insightful.


That would include me as a hayseed, then, wouldn't it? No, I specified "flyover country."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> That would include me as a hayseed, then, wouldn't it? No, I specified "flyover country."


Ah, so you have excluded yourself from your insult. Clever of you.

I fear with are boring others now though crs. Please have the last word and we can move on to our next disagreement......


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

crs said:


> That would include me as a hayseed, then, wouldn't it? No, I specified "flyover country."


I suppose you think this is an insult. You can have New York and the congestion, noise, pollution and miles and miles of concrete. I'll take the trees, my own yard and the clean air of our quiet suburb any day.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> I suppose you think this is an insult. You can have New York and the congestion, noise, pollution and miles and miles of concrete. I'll take the trees, my own yard and the clean air of our quiet suburb any day.


I live in the burbs now, I could walk to a farm. I grew up in a rural area. I am in touch with my inner hick.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

crs said:


> I live in the burbs now, I could walk to a farm. I grew up in a rural area. I am in touch with my inner hick.


My grandmother was born in Charleston, WV and then grew up in Absecon, NJ.


----------

