|
Rage is the New Fad
On 8/13/2010 08:27, Pete C. wrote:
<more drivel snipped> Yes sir. Will that be all, sir? <and while I'm at it... oh, no, I'd better not say that ;) > |
Rage is the New Fad
Pete C. > wrote:
>Steve Pope wrote: >> Pete C. > wrote: >> >Advocate for population control, not high density housing. >> False dichotomy. Advocate for both. >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. Which I clipped because it is total B.S. Steve |
Rage is the New Fad
On 8/13/2010 08:43, Pete C. wrote:
> 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. But you have not yet given us any examples of how health care workers "ego trip," other than telling you to do things you don't want to do. That's not a problem with their egos. That's a problem with yours. |
Rage is the New Fad
J. Clarke > wrote:
>On 8/13/2010 12:23 PM, Steve Pope wrote: >> Well, "dictate" works both ways. Overly-high resource consumption >> directly causes about forty percent of human fatalities.. >Prove it. I've posted my references for this figure before. But, even if you don't believe the 40% number, it is astoudingly clear that excessive resource use is harming and killing humans in significant numbers. And that's not even counting the effects on other species and the environment in general. >The easiest way to conserve resources would be to blow every city with a >population of more than 1 million off the face of the Earth. Would you >favor that? You don't want to face the facts so you engage in speaking absurdities. Steve |
Rage is the New Fad
Steve Pope wrote: > > Pete C. > wrote: > > >Steve Pope wrote: > > >> Pete C. > wrote: > > >> >Advocate for population control, not high density housing. > > >> False dichotomy. Advocate for both. > > >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. > > Which I clipped because it is total B.S. Nope, it's long proven fact. |
Rage is the New Fad
Pennyaline wrote: > > On 8/13/2010 08:27, Pete C. wrote: > > <more drivel snipped> > > Yes sir. Will that be all, sir? > > <and while I'm at it... oh, no, I'd better not say that ;) > Suggest you stuff your ego in a biohazard bag and dispose of properly. |
Rage is the New Fad
Pennyaline wrote: > > On 8/13/2010 08:43, Pete C. wrote: > > 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. > > But you have not yet given us any examples of how health care workers > "ego trip," other than telling you to do things you don't want to do. > That's not a problem with their egos. That's a problem with yours. Health care service workers routinely give bad recommendations and then ego trip when they're called on them. They routinely have great difficulty admitting that their recommendation is not the only viable option, or that a proposed alternate may well be a better option. As I noted some time back in this thread, I would be dead if I complacently followed a doctor's bad recommendations. I have at least one relative who is dead as a result of blindly following bad advice from a doctor. |
Rage is the New Fad
Pete C. > wrote:
>Steve Pope wrote: >> Pete C. > wrote: >> >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. >> Which I clipped because it is total B.S. >Nope, it's long proven fact. It was first suggested by Malthus then debunked. Let's compare for example the murder rate, and the housing density, in London UK to Juarez MX. Steve |
Rage is the New Fad
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:35:41 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> "Charlotte L. Blackmer" wrote: >> >> In article >, >> Pennyaline > wrote: >>>On 8/12/2010 07:23, Pete C. wrote: >>>> >>>> Pennyaline wrote: >> >> (people astonishingly rude to other people who are trying to keep them >> alive) >> >>>> Like it or not, your customers are the ones who give the orders, and if >>>> you don't follow them those customers have every right to fire you and >>>> take their business elsewhere. >> >> Um, no, the doctors and other medical professionals give the orders. > > No, sorry, they give *recommendations* and the customer has the legal > right to refuse those recommendations. Just because historically the > customers have blindly followed those recommendations does not change > the legalities. The fact that more and more of those customers are > waking up, educating themselves and saying *NO* is a very positive > change. they say a man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. i'd say that's doubly true for someone who acts as their own doctor. blake |
Rage is the New Fad
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:32:42 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> sf wrote: >> >> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:35:41 -0500, "Pete C." > >> wrote: >> >>> Nope, it seems the medical service industry is the only one plagued by >>> ego issues. All those other service industries you mention realize that >>> they are a service industry and are there to service their customers, >>> not the other way around. >> >> The other industries are not responsible for their customer's physical >> well being and are not routinely sued when a client's health >> deteriorates or life terminates. > > 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. wait - aren't you the fruitcake who wanted 'do not resuscitate' tattooed on his chest? blake |
Rage is the New Fad
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:44:18 -0400, Cheryl wrote:
> "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. it was guiliani time! your pal, blake |
Rage is the New Fad
blake murphy wrote:
> > wait - aren't you the fruitcake who wanted 'do not resuscitate' tattooed on > his chest? I'm one of the people who have considered that. I'm thinking of getting a tattoo of that on my chest on my 70th birthday. Maybe also a medic alert bracklet that says the same thing as a double check. |
Rage is the New Fad
Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>blake murphy wrote: >> wait - aren't you the fruitcake who wanted 'do not resuscitate' tattooed on >> his chest? >I'm one of the people who have considered that. I'm thinking of getting >a tattoo of that on my chest on my 70th birthday. Maybe also a medic >alert bracklet that says the same thing as a double check. This may be of no interest, but a local tattoo shop has a $13 dollar tattoo special on any Friday the 13th (which happens to be today). I'm not sure how large a one they'll do for the special price but a simple "DNR" might be within range. Steve |
Rage is the New Fad
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 05:41:45 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
> 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. One? Every Giants, A's, Raiders, and Bears game was a pretty major BART event. And after the games were always pretty nasty. I assume this is still so - probably even moreso - but it's a been a while since I attended a game on BART. Berkeley and Oakland cops would be spread pretty thin for a lot of those games. -sw |
Rage is the New Fad
Doug Freyburger wrote: > > blake murphy wrote: > > > > wait - aren't you the fruitcake who wanted 'do not resuscitate' tattooed on > > his chest? > > I'm one of the people who have considered that. I'm thinking of getting > a tattoo of that on my chest on my 70th birthday. Maybe also a medic > alert bracklet that says the same thing as a double check. Yes, it's important to make very clear that you do not want to be yet another victim of the grotesque medical machine. |
Rage is the New Fad
blake murphy wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:35:41 -0500, Pete C. wrote: > > > "Charlotte L. Blackmer" wrote: > >> > >> In article >, > >> Pennyaline > wrote: > >>>On 8/12/2010 07:23, Pete C. wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Pennyaline wrote: > >> > >> (people astonishingly rude to other people who are trying to keep them > >> alive) > >> > >>>> Like it or not, your customers are the ones who give the orders, and if > >>>> you don't follow them those customers have every right to fire you and > >>>> take their business elsewhere. > >> > >> Um, no, the doctors and other medical professionals give the orders. > > > > No, sorry, they give *recommendations* and the customer has the legal > > right to refuse those recommendations. Just because historically the > > customers have blindly followed those recommendations does not change > > the legalities. The fact that more and more of those customers are > > waking up, educating themselves and saying *NO* is a very positive > > change. > > they say a man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. i'd say > that's doubly true for someone who acts as their own doctor. You might say that, however you would be wrong. I am alive today precisely because I didn't blindly follow a doctor's recommendations. |
Quote:
I'll say. Medellin, Colombia is a nice example of place turning it around. I think education is key. I'm a teacher, though, so I have great bias. I think you're right, Steve. Population doesn't murder, the underclass with no hopes of furthering themselves has much more relevance to crime. |
Rage is the New Fad
In article >,
Steve Pope > wrote: >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 (quote snipped) > >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.) True dat. Although whenever I've seen someone being really harassed on a train there *was* an officer waiting on the platform at the next station. Those little call boxes got results. Charlotte -- |
Rage is the New Fad
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:00:28 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:35:41 -0500, Pete C. wrote: > > > "Charlotte L. Blackmer" wrote: > >> > > > > No, sorry, they give *recommendations* and the customer has the legal > > right to refuse those recommendations. Just because historically the > > customers have blindly followed those recommendations does not change > > the legalities. The fact that more and more of those customers are > > waking up, educating themselves and saying *NO* is a very positive > > change. > > they say a man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. i'd say > that's doubly true for someone who acts as their own doctor. > People often change their minds when push comes to shove. The others often don't have advanced directives in place and neglected to inform their families of their wishes. -- Carrot cake counts as a serving of vegetables. |
Rage is the New Fad
In article >,
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. No, it acknowledges realities on the ground in areas served by most BART stations in the East Bay: much of the existing housing stock is either poorly served by public transit or not served at all since the streetcar lines got ripped up and thrown away. Another reality on the ground is that a lot of people transport children to/from school or day care. And getting people to drive to a station and take the train from there gets them off the damn freeways just the same and reduces the time their vehicle is operated. Anything I've seen being redeveloped in the general area of a BART station is coming in as high-density and mixed-use. It's not just Berkeley; when I was interviewing out in Deepest Suburbia near the Pleasant Hill station, there were HD condos being built on an adjacent lot. I'm just far enough away from a station that I appreciate the "park" option when it's raining, I'm in formal clothing, or my knee is gimpy. It also helps to have the car when I'm pretty tightly scheduled. That is, when my work trip is BART-able; which hasn't been a given. My last 3 jobs were decidedly not. Charlotte -- |
Rage is the New Fad
Charlotte L. Blackmer > wrote:
>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. > No, it acknowledges realities on the ground in areas served by most BART stations in the East Bay: much of the existing housing stock is either poorly served by public transit or not served at all since the streetcar lines got ripped up and thrown away. That's an important part of local history, and I agree with what you just said; but it is just my opinion that I don't think it argues against what I was advocating -- building more high-density housing near BART stations. (Which as you point out has been done for some stations.) >Anything I've seen being redeveloped in the general area of a BART station >is coming in as high-density and mixed-use. It's not just Berkeley; when >I was interviewing out in Deepest Suburbia near the Pleasant Hill station, >there were HD condos being built on an adjacent lot. >I'm just far enough away from a station that I appreciate the "park" >option when it's raining, I'm in formal clothing, or my knee is gimpy. It >also helps to have the car when I'm pretty tightly scheduled. That is, >when my work trip is BART-able; which hasn't been a given. My last 3 >jobs were decidedly not. The current development around North Berkeley BART is the exact opposite of mixed use: all there is is a parking lot. (The space for which they created by bulldozing dozens of historic craftsman houses...) There is no reason in my mind there should not be residential housing on that site, in my opinion a whole bunch of units. I think drivers should be able to park in parking lots near BART stations, but I think they should be paying the market rate for a parking space in the area ... $80 to $150/month. Or if it's subsidized, the cost should (somehow) not be passed along to riders in general. Steve |
Rage is the New Fad
In article >,
Steve Pope > wrote: >Charlotte L. Blackmer > wrote: > >>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. > >> No, it acknowledges realities on the ground in areas served by most BART >stations in the East Bay: much of the existing housing stock is either >poorly served by public transit or not served at all since the streetcar >lines got ripped up and thrown away. > >That's an important part of local history, and I agree with what you >just said; but it is just my opinion that I don't think it argues >against what I was advocating -- building more high-density housing >near BART stations. (Which as you point out has been done >for some stations.) If that was all you were saying, you wouldn't be getting pushback. What you said is that you wanted all parking lots to be razed, high-high density housing built (yeah that 20-story tower is going to look really "integrated into the neighborhood" @ North Berkeley) and the people with bartable jobs apparently forcibly moved from whereever they are living now to those units. Which is just so fscking wack on so many levels. Seriously, it's like The Usual Suspects here on a bender wack. My reaction was "funny, I know Steve doesn't work for the city planning department" because they're the only ones I know of who are that fscking crazy. (Easy for them with their jobs they can't be fired from that are on all the local transit routes.) If that wasn't what you *really meant*, dial it down a few levels already. What you're saying above is sane. What you said elsewhere isn't and is counterproductive to the goal of getting people to think about their living/shopping/working patterns. Charlotte -- |
Rage is the New Fad
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:13:24 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> As I noted some time back in this thread, I would be dead if I > complacently followed a doctor's bad recommendations. I have at least > one relative who is dead as a result of blindly following bad advice > from a doctor. Are you the one that has the 'Do Not Treat Under Any Circumstances' advance directive? Somebody here had a "Do not Administer Any Kind of Treatment" MedicAlert or tattoo on their chest - or something along that lines (yeah, I know - the tattoo DNR was on a TV show). -sw |
Rage is the New Fad
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:02:05 -0400, blake murphy wrote:
> wait - aren't you the fruitcake who wanted 'do not resuscitate' tattooed on > his chest? Oops. I should have read ahead. Drat, foiled again! -sw |
Rage is the New Fad
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
> This may be of no interest, but a local tattoo shop has a $13 > dollar tattoo special on any Friday the 13th (which happens to > be today). Because they don't disinfect the instruments that day? -sw |
Rage is the New Fad
Charlotte L. Blackmer > wrote:
>Steve Pope > wrote: >>That's an important part of local history, and I agree with what you >>just said; but it is just my opinion that I don't think it argues >>against what I was advocating -- building more high-density housing >>near BART stations. (Which as you point out has been done >>for some stations.) >If that was all you were saying, you wouldn't be getting pushback. > What you said is that you wanted all parking lots to be razed, > high-high density housing built (yeah that 20-story tower > is going to look really "integrated into the neighborhood" @ > North Berkeley) and the people with bartable jobs apparently > forcibly moved from whereever they are living now to those units. This is true. I do want a 20 story height limit for HD housing in Berkeley, and I do want it right near the BART stations. But multi-story (above and/or below ground) parking could be put in there also. What I object to is the current surface parking lots -- flat, using up tons of space that is right next to a transit station and that would be very practical for residential or mixed use... but said use is not there because a parking lot somehow has priority. That, to me, is what is wanked. That they eat a huge hole into BART's budget adds insult to injury. > Which is just so fscking wack on so many levels. Seriously, > it's like The Usual Suspects here on a bender wack. My reaction > was "funny, I know Steve doesn't work for the city planning > department" because they're the only ones I know of who are > that fscking crazy. (Easy for them with their jobs they can't > be fired from that are on all the local transit routes.) Nope, I'm not with the city. I admit to wanting them to get tax revenue from *somewhere* (other than a reversal of Prop 13), and new housing would be a great source of revenue. > If that wasn't what you *really meant*, dial it down a few > levels already. What you're saying above is sane. What you said > elsewhere isn't and is counterproductive to the goal of getting > people to think about their living/shopping/working patterns. I was mostly trying to describe, in response to sf, why a transit advocate might also be an HD housing advocate. In my mind, the two go together. But yes, I think Berkeley could be the next Vancouver if it developed correctly. Steve |
Rage is the New Fad
On 8/12/10 10:50 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> 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. My memory is kinda of foggy regarding this, but I think when McDonald's first brought out their Chicken Selects chicken strips, part of the plan was to phase out the Chicken McNuggets with the higher profit margin chicken strips, but in the few test markets where they temporarily pulled the Chicken McNuggets, the McNuggets fans went into revolt. I had a friend who was a big fan of Chicken McNuggets at that time, and she got worried sick that McDonald's was going to '86 her beloved McNuggets in favor of its Chicken Select chicken strips. - Peter |
Rage is the New Fad
On 8/13/2010 9:57 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> Charlotte L. > wrote: > >> Steve > wrote: > >>> > 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. > >> No, it acknowledges realities on the ground in areas served by most BART > stations in the East Bay: much of the existing housing stock is either > poorly served by public transit or not served at all since the streetcar > lines got ripped up and thrown away. > > That's an important part of local history, and I agree with what you > just said; but it is just my opinion that I don't think it argues > against what I was advocating -- building more high-density housing > near BART stations. (Which as you point out has been done > for some stations.) > >> Anything I've seen being redeveloped in the general area of a BART station >> is coming in as high-density and mixed-use. It's not just Berkeley; when >> I was interviewing out in Deepest Suburbia near the Pleasant Hill station, >> there were HD condos being built on an adjacent lot. > >> I'm just far enough away from a station that I appreciate the "park" >> option when it's raining, I'm in formal clothing, or my knee is gimpy. It >> also helps to have the car when I'm pretty tightly scheduled. That is, >> when my work trip is BART-able; which hasn't been a given. My last 3 >> jobs were decidedly not. > > The current development around North Berkeley BART is the exact > opposite of mixed use: all there is is a parking lot. (The space for > which they created by bulldozing dozens of historic craftsman > houses...) There is no reason in my mind there should not be > residential housing on that site, in my opinion a whole bunch of > units. > > I think drivers should be able to park in parking lots near BART > stations, but I think they should be paying the market rate for > a parking space in the area ... $80 to $150/month. Or if it's > subsidized, the cost should (somehow) not be passed along to riders in > general. In other words you want people to drive instead of using BART. You and Marx would have gotten along just fine--lots of ideas that look real good until you start trying to get real people to comply with them. |
Rage is the New Fad
On 8/14/2010 4:51 AM, Peter Lawrence wrote:
> On 8/12/10 10:50 PM, Sqwertz wrote: >> 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. > > My memory is kinda of foggy regarding this, but I think when McDonald's > first brought out their Chicken Selects chicken strips, part of the plan > was to phase out the Chicken McNuggets with the higher profit margin > chicken strips, but in the few test markets where they temporarily > pulled the Chicken McNuggets, the McNuggets fans went into revolt. > > I had a friend who was a big fan of Chicken McNuggets at that time, and > she got worried sick that McDonald's was going to '86 her beloved > McNuggets in favor of its Chicken Select chicken strips. I tried the chicken selects and found that while the quality of the chicken was better the quality of the meal wasn't--one doesn't eat chicken tenders for the chicken, one eats them for the sauce, and Chicken Selects don't work and play well with sauce--they're too big to dip conveniently. Friendlies chicken strips have the same problem but at least with them you have a knife and can cut them into nicely dippable pieces. And yes, I admit it, I'm a junk food junkie. > > > - Peter > |
Rage is the New Fad
Sqwertz wrote:
> 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. "Stop, or I shall yell stop again" -- Mort |
Rage is the New Fad
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:02:44 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> 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. plus high-density housing smells like poopie, right, pete? blake |
Rage is the New Fad
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:09:43 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote: >> >> On 8/13/2010 08:27, Pete C. wrote: >> >> <more drivel snipped> >> >> Yes sir. Will that be all, sir? >> >> <and while I'm at it... oh, no, I'd better not say that ;) > > > Suggest you stuff your ego in a biohazard bag and dispose of properly. jawohl, mein fuhrer! blake |
Rage is the New Fad
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:07:28 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> Steve Pope wrote: >> >> Pete C. > wrote: >> >>>Steve Pope wrote: >> >>>> Pete C. > wrote: >> >>>> >Advocate for population control, not high density housing. >> >>>> False dichotomy. Advocate for both. >> >>>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. >> >> Which I clipped because it is total B.S. > > Nope, it's long proven fact. especially in new york! don't go there, they'll steal your soul!!! blake |
Rage is the New Fad
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:58:52 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:13:24 -0500, Pete C. wrote: > >> As I noted some time back in this thread, I would be dead if I >> complacently followed a doctor's bad recommendations. I have at least >> one relative who is dead as a result of blindly following bad advice >> from a doctor. > > Are you the one that has the 'Do Not Treat Under Any Circumstances' advance > directive? Somebody here had a "Do not Administer Any Kind of Treatment" > MedicAlert or tattoo on their chest - or something along that lines (yeah, > I know - the tattoo DNR was on a TV show). > > -sw that's my recollection as well. he sounds like an all-around crank. your pal, blake |
Rage is the New Fad
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:23:45 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> blake murphy wrote: >> >> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:35:41 -0500, Pete C. wrote: >> >>> "Charlotte L. Blackmer" wrote: >>>> >>>> In article >, >>>> Pennyaline > wrote: >>>>>On 8/12/2010 07:23, Pete C. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Pennyaline wrote: >>>> >>>> (people astonishingly rude to other people who are trying to keep them >>>> alive) >>>> >>>>>> Like it or not, your customers are the ones who give the orders, and if >>>>>> you don't follow them those customers have every right to fire you and >>>>>> take their business elsewhere. >>>> >>>> Um, no, the doctors and other medical professionals give the orders. >>> >>> No, sorry, they give *recommendations* and the customer has the legal >>> right to refuse those recommendations. Just because historically the >>> customers have blindly followed those recommendations does not change >>> the legalities. The fact that more and more of those customers are >>> waking up, educating themselves and saying *NO* is a very positive >>> change. >> >> they say a man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. i'd say >> that's doubly true for someone who acts as their own doctor. > > You might say that, however you would be wrong. I am alive today > precisely because I didn't blindly follow a doctor's recommendations. well, then when you have a garden-variety heat attack you'll be dead. too bad, so sad. blake |
Rage is the New Fad
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:00:01 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:02:05 -0400, blake murphy wrote: > >> wait - aren't you the fruitcake who wanted 'do not resuscitate' tattooed on >> his chest? > > Oops. I should have read ahead. > > Drat, foiled again! > > -sw i welcome the confirmation. seems my memory is pretty good for a pre-codger. your pal, blake |
Rage is the New Fad
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 07:16:37 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 8/13/2010 9:57 PM, Steve Pope wrote: >> Charlotte L. > wrote: >> >>> Steve > wrote: >> >>>> > 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. >> >>> No, it acknowledges realities on the ground in areas served by most BART >> stations in the East Bay: much of the existing housing stock is either >> poorly served by public transit or not served at all since the streetcar >> lines got ripped up and thrown away. >> >> That's an important part of local history, and I agree with what you >> just said; but it is just my opinion that I don't think it argues >> against what I was advocating -- building more high-density housing >> near BART stations. (Which as you point out has been done >> for some stations.) >> >>> Anything I've seen being redeveloped in the general area of a BART station >>> is coming in as high-density and mixed-use. It's not just Berkeley; when >>> I was interviewing out in Deepest Suburbia near the Pleasant Hill station, >>> there were HD condos being built on an adjacent lot. >> >>> I'm just far enough away from a station that I appreciate the "park" >>> option when it's raining, I'm in formal clothing, or my knee is gimpy. It >>> also helps to have the car when I'm pretty tightly scheduled. That is, >>> when my work trip is BART-able; which hasn't been a given. My last 3 >>> jobs were decidedly not. >> >> The current development around North Berkeley BART is the exact >> opposite of mixed use: all there is is a parking lot. (The space for >> which they created by bulldozing dozens of historic craftsman >> houses...) There is no reason in my mind there should not be >> residential housing on that site, in my opinion a whole bunch of >> units. >> >> I think drivers should be able to park in parking lots near BART >> stations, but I think they should be paying the market rate for >> a parking space in the area ... $80 to $150/month. Or if it's >> subsidized, the cost should (somehow) not be passed along to riders in >> general. > > In other words you want people to drive instead of using BART. You and > Marx would have gotten along just fine--lots of ideas that look real > good until you start trying to get real people to comply with them. actually, most of the ideas you post don't even look good before then. blake |
Rage is the New Fad
Il 11/08/2010 17:46, blake murphy ha scritto:
>> 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 saw that earlier this morning. between that and the costco riot, it > makes you wonder what they're putting in the chicken. Brings you up the concept of "smoking a chicken" under a brand new point of view, ROTFL -- Vilco and the Family Stone |
Rage is the New Fad
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:06:13 +0200, ViLco wrote:
> Brings you up the concept of "smoking a chicken" under a brand new point > of view, ROTFL It even comes dried, ready for the bong or for rolling: http://compare.ebay.com/like/380157249712 -sw |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter