"Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
...
>
> The video was popular for a while. It's clear he thought it was a taser
> until he pulled the trigger and the wrong thing happened. He was
> astonished and mortified. It was tragic.
>

The problem goes much deeper. My boss is black, from NYC originally, and he
said he can remember the days when black men were detained by police and
they immediately thought they would be shot no matter whether they
cooperated or not. Many were detained for little to no reason and just shot
execution style and the police's defense was they felt endangered. That's
the reputation black males got, and ALL black males. That they were
dangerous. Every one of them. It's very sad and I can't imagine being in a
position where I felt my life was in danger because of the color of my skin
and my gender. Even in this day and age.

Dan Abel > wrote:

> (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
>> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
>> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
>> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.

>I haven't heard that. Where did you hear this? I looked at the BART
>web site:

>http://www.bart.gov/about/police/history.aspx

>In 1969, three years before BART opened for revenue service, the transit
>district's board of directors recommended that local police and
>sheriff's departments patrol the stations, trains, rights-of-way, and
>other BART-owned properties that were within their respective
>jurisdictions. The police chiefs and sheriffs, forecasting that BART's
>proposal would create jurisdictional disputes and inconsistent levels of
>police service, rejected the board's proposal. As a result, legislation
>was passed to form an autonomous law enforcement agency, the BART Police
>Department.

Yes, well, transit agitators assert that 90% of the BART police
spend has to do with parking lot security, and I personally
believe it. The next guy they shot after Oscar Grant was
in the parking lot at Fruitvale station.

I live near North Berkeley station and go through there at
night all the time. You always see several cops in the parking
lot, and you never see them in the station itself. (Although
at other stations in the system, you are more likely to see
a cop in the station proper or on a train going through.)

Steve

sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC),

>> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
>> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
>> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
>> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.

>Why? I don't see armed guards in regular parking lots.

I am not an adherent of this argument, I am just saying this
is the argument cop-types are promoting.

>> My proposed solution to that is to get rid of BART parking lots
>> as well.

>Get rid of BART parking lots and you'll put more people back on the
>roads. People drive to the parking lots because there is poor public
>transit from their home to the station.

If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
system would have the same ridership it does now.

Steve

My Shiny Plastic Head wrote:
> J. Clarke > wrote:
>> On 8/11/2010 10:56 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> First it was the CostCo rotisserie chickens, then the airplane
>>> steward, and now it's McNugget rage! This one tops the first two,
>>> IMNSHO. http://www.wpxi.com/video/24572107/index.html
>>>
>>> Has the world gone completely nuts?
>> I do wonder what else was going on in her life that not being able to
>> get McNuggets pushed her over the edge.
>
> Actually it's all part of a new BK Corp PR campaign. We've planted subminal
> messages worldwide which encourage irrational hatred. These messages are
> subconsciously loaded and triggered by the image of the hated golden arches.
> We call the new program Ronald Rage.
>
> We've just placed advanced mind-control kiosks in participating BKs which
> will automatically install the sublminal messages in your brain. Everyone
> who participates* gets a free Whopper, with fries, drink, and dessert!
>
> *Offer good for a limited time only. Legal fees, fines, and bail bonds are
> not the responsibility of the BK Corporation.
>
> Burger King King
> All fear my shiny plastic head
>
>


When I saw the McNugget lady, the first thing that I thought was
"The King would have kicked that lady's ass." (And probably
head-butted her.)

Bob

sf wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:34:18 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Goomba wrote:
> > >
> > > Pete C. wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's why they are paid better than those other service industries.
> > > > More risk = more pay. It does not however justify the ego issues seen,
> > > > nor does it change the legal and human right of the customers to refuse
> > > > their recommendations.
> > >
> > > ...and then there are the "customers" who refuse or are non-compliant
> > > with the care and later sue because they're not perfect or healthy.
> >
> > And they loose in court.
>
> Not before dragging the Dr and nurse's names through the mud, keeping
> them out of work & in court, paying for lawyers & court costs and
> generally causing needless stress.

Yes, but no profession is immune from that crap. Hell, you have people
suing dry cleaners.

On 8/12/2010 14:59, Pete C. wrote:

<Peter C.'s drivel snipped>

I'm sorry you've had such a hard time with health care providers, and
I'm sorry you think so little of flight attendants and fast food workers
and God knows probably everybody else. It is clear that you believe that
everyone who isn't you is in the business of serving you and our failure
to perform that function in it entirety frustrates you horribly. Your
world must be a beast. Please keep it on its leash.

On 8/12/2010 11:35, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:33:42 -0700, Peter >
> wrote:
>
>> Note this McNuggets rage happened back in January. It's in the news now
>> because they just released the video of it.
>
> Probably because the trial is over. She received two months in jail
> followed by a year of probation and she was ordered to pay for the
> broken window.


It's a miracle that the employee at the window wasn't fired for grabbing
her assailant by the hair during the event.

<"Mongo, never kill a customer!">

"Pennyaline" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/12/2010 14:59, Pete C. wrote:
>
> <Peter C.'s drivel snipped>
>
> I'm sorry you've had such a hard time with health care providers, and I'm
> sorry you think so little of flight attendants and fast food workers and
> God knows probably everybody else. It is clear that you believe that
> everyone who isn't you is in the business of serving you and our failure
> to perform that function in it entirety frustrates you horribly. Your
> world must be a beast. Please keep it on its leash.

One thing you said about help desk or IT people made me giggle. I think it
was you. Any way, when someone with a high sense of superiority finds an IT
person who comes to his beck and call, can make that IT person the most
important person in their corporate world, and the IT person benefits in
ways you'd never believe. I've seen it over and over again. Hell, I've
lived it. But I can't stand help desk work.

On Aug 12, 1:56*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
>
> keep your head movng up and down, bob.

He hears that every day in the men's room.

"projectile vomit chick" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 12, 1:56 pm, blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>> keep your head movng up and down, bob.
>
> He hears that every day in the men's room.

Post editing. How lame. *yawn*

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:04:52 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> Yes, but no profession is immune from that crap. Hell, you have people
> suing dry cleaners.

Is that supposed to make it okay?

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:53:01 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
> El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
> the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
> living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
> system would have the same ridership it does now.

Huh. I would have bet that you'd be in favor of getting as many
riders as possible off the bridges and onto BART.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:53:01 +0000 (UTC),

>> If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
>> El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
>> the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
>> living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
>> system would have the same ridership it does now.

>Huh. I would have bet that you'd be in favor of getting as many
>riders as possible off the bridges and onto BART.

Yes, and the way to do that is to build high-density housing near
BART stations. That makes people less dependent on their cars.
Building parking lots merely enables that depedency.

S.

On 8/12/2010 21:54, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:04:52 -0500, "Pete >
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but no profession is immune from that crap. Hell, you have people
>> suing dry cleaners.
>
> Is that supposed to make it okay?

It must, since a dry cleaners is a service business and the employees
are there to kiss his feet by virtue of that. His life must be hell on
earth, what with all the disrespect he gets from these shop clerks, fast
food kids, professional nurses, physicians and other menial laborers.
He's gotta take it out on somebody somehow.

<advice: don't do it on a plane, Pete C., or you might get shown the
slide yourself>

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 04:01:57 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:53:01 +0000 (UTC),
>
> >> If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
> >> El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
> >> the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
> >> living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
> >> system would have the same ridership it does now.
>
> >Huh. I would have bet that you'd be in favor of getting as many
> >riders as possible off the bridges and onto BART.
>
> Yes, and the way to do that is to build high-density housing near
> BART stations. That makes people less dependent on their cars.
> Building parking lots merely enables that depedency.
>

We need those parking lots and could use more.


--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:26:15 -0600, Pennyaline
> wrote:

> On 8/12/2010 11:35, sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:33:42 -0700, Peter >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Note this McNuggets rage happened back in January. It's in the news now
> >> because they just released the video of it.
> >
> > Probably because the trial is over. She received two months in jail
> > followed by a year of probation and she was ordered to pay for the
> > broken window.
>
>
> It's a miracle that the employee at the window wasn't fired for grabbing
> her assailant by the hair during the event.
>
The untrained react to stress in unpredictable ways. That employee
was probably scared to death.


--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf > wrote:

>(Steve Pope) wrote:

>> sf > wrote:

>> >Huh. I would have bet that you'd be in favor of getting as many
>> >riders as possible off the bridges and onto BART.

>> Yes, and the way to do that is to build high-density housing near
>> BART stations. That makes people less dependent on their cars.
>> Building parking lots merely enables that depedency.

>We need those parking lots and could use more.

Then hire your own private cops to patrol them, rather than making
every BART rider subsidize them...


S.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 04:19:08 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
> >(Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> >> sf > wrote:
>
> >> >Huh. I would have bet that you'd be in favor of getting as many
> >> >riders as possible off the bridges and onto BART.
>
> >> Yes, and the way to do that is to build high-density housing near
> >> BART stations. That makes people less dependent on their cars.
> >> Building parking lots merely enables that depedency.
>
> >We need those parking lots and could use more.
>
> Then hire your own private cops to patrol them, rather than making
> every BART rider subsidize them...
>

Who will protect BART passengers from pickpockets, rapists and fare
evaders?

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 04:19:08 +0000 (UTC),

>> sf > wrote:

>> >(Steve Pope) wrote:

>> >> sf > wrote:
>>
>> >> >Huh. I would have bet that you'd be in favor of getting as many
>> >> >riders as possible off the bridges and onto BART.
>>
>> >> Yes, and the way to do that is to build high-density housing near
>> >> BART stations. That makes people less dependent on their cars.
>> >> Building parking lots merely enables that depedency.
>>
>> >We need those parking lots and could use more.
>>
>> Then hire your own private cops to patrol them, rather than making
>> every BART rider subsidize them...

>Who will protect BART passengers from pickpockets, rapists and fare
>evaders?

Don't the Hells Angels still do security?


Steve

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 04:38:29 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Don't the Hells Angels still do security?

If I remember correctly, a few people died when they provided
security. Same ole, same ole.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:09:50 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> The problem with the "I thought it was my Taser" defense is that
> any cop could claim such a defense in any shooting. If a defendant
> makes a statement that is information-free in the sense that any defendant
> could make the same statement, the jurors should ignore it and should
> be instructed to ignore it.

It's clear that the cop announced the use of the tazer a couple times
before he used his revolver.

-sw

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:09:50 +0000 (UTC),
>
>>> I'm guessing the Taser Corporation salesmen are now telling their
>>> cop customers that they need to always carry a Taser so they
>>> can use the Taser Defense.
>
>>For me, there's the larger issue of BART police carrying firearms in
>>the first place. WHY???
>
> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary,

Why? There's more crime in and around BART property than in the Mission.
They are like regular police officers. They had already been in two prior
incidents earlier in the evening involving guns, and that not unusual.

What are the cops supposed to do any time perps have guns? Put their hands
up and get face down on the ground and say, "Have a Nice Day!"? Tghsoe
will be really effective cops.

-sw

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:53:01 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
> El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
> the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
> living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
> system would have the same ridership it does now.

That's tongue in cheek, I hope. Everybody who rides BART and wants to be
green must live in BART housing units?

Shirley you can't be serious?

This thread is getting too juicy to hang around much longer.

-sw

Sqwertz > wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

>> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary,

>Why? There's more crime in and around BART property than in the Mission.
>They are like regular police officers. They had already been in two prior
>incidents earlier in the evening involving guns, and that not unusual.

I agree a police force is in general necessary. What I object to
is all the individual empire-building police forces in the country,
each with its own jealously guarded turf. Transit cops, school cops,
port cops, railroad cops (did you know Southern Pacific runs
its own sworn police force?).

In a situation like the New Years Eve incident where they shot Grant,
you have a BART police force that feels it needs to prove itself
during its one big crowd event of the year. This leads to a mindset that
led to a major problem. If instead is was simply under the jurisdiction
of Oakland or Alameda County cops, you do not have that sort of
psychology, or you have less of it anyway.


Steve

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:19:21 -0700, Peter Lawrence wrote:

> On 8/12/10 6:33 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:54:57 -0400, Goomba wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I do wonder what else was going on in her life that not being able to
>>>> get McNuggets pushed her over the edge.
>>>
>>> My vote is a little crystal meth or crack....
>>
>> I voted meth when I first saw her. Probably hasn't eaten for 3 or 4 days
>> and that's probably all she eats when the need arises.
>>
>> Although crack is still a pretty close runner up. But I fiugure if she had
>> money for McNuggets, then she has money for crack. So she'd be smoking
>> that rather than wasting time eating.
>
> Note that according to news reports, this happened at around 6:00-6:30 AM on
> New Year's Day of this year. So she could have been out partying all night
> on New Years Eve. One my friends speculates that she had the serious case
> of the munchies.

The bottle she used to break the window looks to have been at least
partially full since you could see a short stream of liquid (foam?) form
inside the window after it was busted, but I saw no mention of an open
container (evidence destroyed?).

-sw

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:33:42 -0700, Peter Lawrence wrote:

> Also note that in the last paragraph of that article it mentions another
> woman, in Florida, who was cited by police when she called 911 *three times*
> to complain about not getting McNuggets she ordered back in March of 2009.

I always knew there was something funky about those nuggets.

-sw

PVC wrote:

>> keep your head movng up and down, bob.
>
> He hears that every day in the men's room.

Back from your latest bender, are ya? How many Twinkies, Camels, and
Budweisers did you lay waste to *this* time?

Bob

On 8/12/2010 8:33 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC),
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
>> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
>> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
>> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.
>
> Why? I don't see armed guards in regular parking lots.

BART cops are cop cops, not security guards who have to call the cops
when something bad goes down.

>> My proposed solution to that is to get rid of BART parking lots
>> as well.
>
> Get rid of BART parking lots and you'll put more people back on the
> roads. People drive to the parking lots because there is poor public
> transit from their home to the station.

Yep. This is one that Amtrak got wrong. If I want to take the train to
New Haven, my choices are to buy a ticket a week in advance, drive 20
miles the opposite direction and park in a downtown commercial lot,
drive 20 miles the opposite direction, buy a ticket, then drive another
30 miles to a station with a parking lot but no ticket service, or pay a
premium for buying the ticket on the train. By the time I've done all
that driving around I could be halfway to New Haven and by the time I've
paid the ticket, parking and gas to do the driving around I'm not saving
anything anyways.

On 8/12/2010 8:53 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC),
>
>>> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
>>> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
>>> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
>>> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.
>
>> Why? I don't see armed guards in regular parking lots.
>
> I am not an adherent of this argument, I am just saying this
> is the argument cop-types are promoting.
>
>>> My proposed solution to that is to get rid of BART parking lots
>>> as well.
>
>> Get rid of BART parking lots and you'll put more people back on the
>> roads. People drive to the parking lots because there is poor public
>> transit from their home to the station.
>
> If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
> El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
> the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
> living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
> system would have the same ridership it does now.

So you're saying that the people who now drive would all abandon their
current domiciles and relocate to those buildings?

You really seem to be missing the point of a transportation system.

On 8/13/2010 1:41 AM, Steve Pope wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary,
>
>> Why? There's more crime in and around BART property than in the Mission.
>> They are like regular police officers. They had already been in two prior
>> incidents earlier in the evening involving guns, and that not unusual.
>
> I agree a police force is in general necessary. What I object to
> is all the individual empire-building police forces in the country,
> each with its own jealously guarded turf. Transit cops, school cops,
> port cops, railroad cops (did you know Southern Pacific runs
> its own sworn police force?).

So what's the railroad supposed to do? Stop at the county border, let
off one set of cops and board another? Or just go without the services
of any law enforcement officer until after the passengers get raped,
robbed, and murdered and the perp has long since scarpered?

> In a situation like the New Years Eve incident where they shot Grant,
> you have a BART police force that feels it needs to prove itself
> during its one big crowd event of the year. This leads to a mindset that
> led to a major problem. If instead is was simply under the jurisdiction
> of Oakland or Alameda County cops, you do not have that sort of
> psychology, or you have less of it anyway.

So what happens when the train moves from one county to another?

On 8/12/2010 22:16, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:26:15 -0600, Pennyaline
> > wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/2010 11:35, sf wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:33:42 -0700, Peter >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Note this McNuggets rage happened back in January. It's in the news now
>>>> because they just released the video of it.
>>>
>>> Probably because the trial is over. She received two months in jail
>>> followed by a year of probation and she was ordered to pay for the
>>> broken window.
>>
>>
>> It's a miracle that the employee at the window wasn't fired for grabbing
>> her assailant by the hair during the event.
>>
> The untrained react to stress in unpredictable ways. That employee
> was probably scared to death.


Oh, I'm aware of that. But liability and other issues of law can be a
strange brew for employers.

J. Clarke > wrote:

>On 8/12/2010 8:53 PM, Steve Pope wrote:

>> If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
>> El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
>> the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
>> living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
>> system would have the same ridership it does now.

>So you're saying that the people who now drive would all abandon their
>current domiciles and relocate to those buildings?

>You really seem to be missing the point of a transportation system.

You're not taking a long enough point of view. Part of transportation
planning, an important part, is to build housing near transportation,
something California has historically failed to do. (Although
there is finally a state law requiring this.)


Steve

Pennyaline wrote:
>
> On 8/12/2010 14:59, Pete C. wrote:
>
> <Peter C.'s drivel snipped>
>
> I'm sorry you've had such a hard time with health care providers,

I've been given good reason to think little of their egos.

> and
> I'm sorry you think so little of flight attendants and fast food workers
> and God knows probably everybody else.

Sorry, you are entirely incorrect. I expect people working in a service
industry to do their job, nothing more. As an example, the fast food
worker is there to take my order and get my my food, nothing more,
nothing less. I don't expect them to do anything beyond their job
description, give me any special attention, etc. but I do expect them to
know how to press the correct picture icon buttons to enter my order
properly.

> It is clear that you believe that
> everyone who isn't you is in the business of serving you and our failure
> to perform that function in it entirety frustrates you horribly. Your
> world must be a beast. Please keep it on its leash.

Not at all, I clearly understand which businesses are service
businesses, and expect those in service businesses to do their job and
not have ego trips. The ego issues mainly exist in the medical service
business where far too many people working in that industry falsely
believe that they are not a service business.

sf wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:04:52 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but no profession is immune from that crap. Hell, you have people
> > suing dry cleaners.
>
> Is that supposed to make it okay?

Nope, but it does not provide an excuse for the medical service industry
to have ego trips.

Pennyaline wrote:
>
> On 8/12/2010 21:54, sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:04:52 -0500, "Pete >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, but no profession is immune from that crap. Hell, you have people
> >> suing dry cleaners.
> >
> > Is that supposed to make it okay?
>
> It must, since a dry cleaners is a service business and the employees
> are there to kiss his feet by virtue of that. His life must be hell on
> earth, what with all the disrespect he gets from these shop clerks, fast
> food kids, professional nurses, physicians and other menial laborers.
> He's gotta take it out on somebody somehow.
>
> <advice: don't do it on a plane, Pete C., or you might get shown the
> slide yourself>

The funny thing is that I've yet to have an issue with *any* of those
other service industries. Only the medical service industry has ego
issues.

Dry cleaners clean my clothes without ego tripping. Shop clerks ring up
my purchases and check if they have stock in the back when something
isn't on the shelf without ego tripping. Fast food kids take my order
and get my food without ego tripping. The folks at the tire place put
new tires on my truck without ego tripping. The surveyor surveys my
property without ego tripping. The civil engineer designs my driveway
and septic system without ego tripping.

Christine Dabney > wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 04:01:57 +0000 (UTC),

>>Yes, and the way to do that is to build high-density housing near
>>BART stations. That makes people less dependent on their cars.
>>Building parking lots merely enables that depedency.

>And there are quite a few of us who can't stand high density
>housing.... I go into climbing the walls when I have to live like that
>for too long...

I understand this, but the net effect of too many people living
high-resource-usage lifestyles has been pretty disastrous, and
will become even more so. Hence the advocacy for high-density
housing.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Christine Dabney > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 04:01:57 +0000 (UTC),
>
> >>Yes, and the way to do that is to build high-density housing near
> >>BART stations. That makes people less dependent on their cars.
> >>Building parking lots merely enables that depedency.
>
> >And there are quite a few of us who can't stand high density
> >housing.... I go into climbing the walls when I have to live like that
> >for too long...
>
> I understand this, but the net effect of too many people living
> high-resource-usage lifestyles has been pretty disastrous, and
> will become even more so. Hence the advocacy for high-density
> housing.
>
> Steve

Advocate for population control, not high density housing. High density
housing invariably leads to conflict and crime, it's human nature.

Christine Dabney > wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:27:06 +0000 (UTC),

>>I understand this, but the net effect of too many people living
>>high-resource-usage lifestyles has been pretty disastrous, and
>>will become even more so. Hence the advocacy for high-density
>>housing.

>It would be disastrous for some of us to live like this..as we would
>go postal. Thank you, but no. If you want to live like that, go
>ahead, but I think I will do what works for me. There is a
>tradeoff, and for me, I need space and greenery around me. I don't
>care to have others dictate how people should live, or say we are
>making bad decisions as to how we live... That may be so...but it is
>personal choice...

Well, "dictate" works both ways. Overly-high resource consumption
directly causes about forty percent of human fatalities.. so those
who don't conserve resource use are definitely having negative
impact on others. To me, that's about the same as "dictating".

This does not mean that everyone must live in a certain way. It
does means public policy (housing, transportation) must reasonably
be aimed at conserving resource use, otherwise the policies are
harmful. For me, it means that individuals must reasonably be looking
at their consumption, but obviously it doesn't mean everyone must make
the same decisions on everything.

Steve

Pete C. > wrote:

>Advocate for population control, not high density housing.

False dichotomy. Advocate for both.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Pete C. > wrote:
>
> >Advocate for population control, not high density housing.
>
> False dichotomy. Advocate for both.
>
> Steve

As I said "High density housing invariably leads to conflict and crime,
it's human nature", therefore advocates of high density housing are
invariable advocates of conflict and crime.

I only advocate for population control, and limiting population to what
can be supported by the environment and at a sane density.