On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:55:09 GMT, blake murphy
> shouted from the highest rooftop:

>On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:19:52 +1300, bob wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:22:56 -0500, "cybercat" >
>> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>>>
>>>"bob" > wrote
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's clear, however, is his totally inability to explain how a ban
>>>> on ethnic food in the historic section of an Italian town can be
>>>> interpreted as racial discrimination by anyone except him.
>>>
>>>It isn't in Italy, but imagine if, say, Key West, FL banned hispanic foods.
>>>Or Miami banned Cuban foods. From a US perspective I can see why Blake might
>>>think this. Say, my Raleigh NC city government decided to bann Boar's Head
>>>lunchmeats because they are a largely "ethnic" import from Yankee land, or
>>>banned hispanic sections in groceries because this is Amurrica. I see what
>>>he is saying. But Italy is different. It sounds lame, but it just is.
>>
>> Despite the purpose of the Lucca ban being the preservation and
>> protection of the local culinary & cultural heritage in the town's
>> historic centre, it is still discrimination. But it's not "racial
>> discrimination" and anyone but a complete idiot can see that.
>>
>> Nor is discrimination or being discriminating a bad thing in itself.
>> What would the opinions of any foodie be worth if he or she *wasn't*
>> discriminating about ingredients, tastes, quality, etc, etc?
>>
>> Speaking of discrimination, I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever
>> with the Little Saigon, Thai Town, Alavera Street, Little India, China
>> Town or Little Tokyo sections of Los Angeles being kept as exclusive
>> enclaves for their ethnic culinary foods. It's part of what make these
>> areas special. But there would always be some fool who'd equate that
>> to racial discrimination because you couldn't open a Taco Bell or a
>> Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet in Little Saigon.
>
>i defy you to point to any *legislation* that would forbid you from doing
>so. that is the point here.

1. The point here is that a town in Italy - not the United States -
has decided to preserve and protect the culinary and cultural
heritage, and reduce litter in a historic section of the town by
banning new ethnic food and fastfood outlets.

Most rfc posters understand the reasons and need for the ban -
especially those posters who actually know something about Lucca or
have been there. And some don't support the ban because they think
it's unduly harsh, won't work or there are other alternatives.

Only one poster equates the ban to racial discrimination ... and that
one poster is you.

But you either cannot or will not justify that claim other than repeat
it in different ways like a child thinking that saying something over
and over again will somehow make it true.

2. Little Saigon, Thai Town, Alavera Street, Little India, China Town
and Little Tokyo sections of Los Angeles are examples of small areas
in the USA where there's an ethnic theme that could, arguably, be
compromised should outside ethnic influences or generic fastfood
outlets be allowed to operate in their ethnically themed precinct.

For example, Alavera Street's reputation for Mexican food, clothes,
craftwork, etc would not be enhanced by a Taco Bell or Walmart.

As far as I know there are no local ordinances or rules in Los Angeles
that prohibit anyone from opening, say, a kebab place, in Thai Town or
Little Tokyo, etc. It could be that these areas are self-regulating or
that good business sense and local pressures keep that from happening.

3. However, I would certainly support the idea of ordinances that
would protect these areas should protection become an issue.

And, as this thread so clearly demonstrates, there would always be
some fool who would equate that kind of protection to racial
discrimination because someone couldn't open a Kentucky Fried Chicken
or kebab outlet in LA's Little Saigon, etc.

4. I can't "point to any *legislation* that would forbid you from
doing so," because I haven't a clue what "legislation" or "doing so"
you're referring to.



Ignorance is the coin of the masses ... and some are richer than others.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

In article >,
bob > wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:55:09 GMT, blake murphy
> > shouted from the highest rooftop:

> >i defy you to point to any *legislation* that would forbid you from doing
> >so. that is the point here.

> As far as I know there are no local ordinances or rules in Los Angeles
> that prohibit anyone from opening, say, a kebab place, in Thai Town or
> Little Tokyo, etc. It could be that these areas are self-regulating or
> that good business sense and local pressures keep that from happening.
>
> 3. However, I would certainly support the idea of ordinances that
> would protect these areas should protection become an issue.
>
> And, as this thread so clearly demonstrates, there would always be
> some fool who would equate that kind of protection to racial
> discrimination because someone couldn't open a Kentucky Fried Chicken
> or kebab outlet in LA's Little Saigon, etc.
>
> 4. I can't "point to any *legislation* that would forbid you from
> doing so," because I haven't a clue what "legislation" or "doing so"
> you're referring to.

How about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/us/03taco.html

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:00:30 -0800, Dan Abel > shouted
from the highest rooftop:

>In article >,
> bob > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:55:09 GMT, blake murphy
>> > shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>> >i defy you to point to any *legislation* that would forbid you from doing
>> >so. that is the point here.
>
>> As far as I know there are no local ordinances or rules in Los Angeles
>> that prohibit anyone from opening, say, a kebab place, in Thai Town or
>> Little Tokyo, etc. It could be that these areas are self-regulating or
>> that good business sense and local pressures keep that from happening.
>>
>> 3. However, I would certainly support the idea of ordinances that
>> would protect these areas should protection become an issue.
>>
>> And, as this thread so clearly demonstrates, there would always be
>> some fool who would equate that kind of protection to racial
>> discrimination because someone couldn't open a Kentucky Fried Chicken
>> or kebab outlet in LA's Little Saigon, etc.
>>
>> 4. I can't "point to any *legislation* that would forbid you from
>> doing so," because I haven't a clue what "legislation" or "doing so"
>> you're referring to.
>
>How about:
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/us/03taco.html

Gadzooks. Clearly another case of racial discrimination.

Seriously, I used to live for the guy who'd come around to some of the
places I worked in one of those trucks with the fold up sides and fill
me full of burritos that would keep me going the rest of the day. Sure
.... I was a walking fart factory, but there's no law against that, is
there?


--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

"bob" > wrote in message
> ... I was a walking fart factory, but there's no law against that, is
> there?
>

Farting is historically correct in most places in the world. Blast away.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:09:17 -0600, Gregory Morrow wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:31:46 +1300, bob wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:01:06 +1300, bob >
>>> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>>
>>>>>i'm done explaining it, thank you very much. you can lead a horse to
>>>>>water, etc.
>>>
>>> Other than making childish statements about Lucca's ban on ethnic food
>>> being racial discrimination you haven't even begun to justify those
>>> statements.
>>>
>>> Your blustering retreat doesn't fool anyone. You're taking the
>>> coward's way out because you simply cannot justify your ridiculous
>>> claims of racial discrimination - and you know it.
>>
>> i've made my points. you have done nothing to rebut them but insult me.
> i
>> see no profit in continuing the discussion with you.
>
> You forgot to add: "And you, sir, are a PRAT...!!!"
>
> ;-)

just trying to be polite.

your pal,
blake