J. Clarke > wrote:

>On 8/13/2010 9:57 PM, Steve Pope wrote:

>> 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.

Again you're not taking the long-term view.

As we move towards deployment of only professionally-driven
motor vehicles on streets and highways, we approach an end-game
where persistent personal vehicle users must be marginalized.
So there's an initial phase, the phase we're in now, where you
coddle them and induce them through subsidies (e.g. parking) to use
transit, but you then transition to a later phase where they are
squeezed out and, eventually, sunsetted entirely.

Replacing these vast, non-mixed-use, subsidized parking lots with
something better is part of that transition.

Steve

On 8/14/2010 7:28 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> J. > wrote:
>
>> On 8/13/2010 9:57 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Again you're not taking the long-term view.

You're not taking the marketing view. If you discourage people from
using your public transportation then they will not use it.

> As we move towards deployment of only professionally-driven
> motor vehicles on streets and highways,

Which will happen only if it is more convenient to ride in
"professionaly driven" motor vehicles than to not do so. And that does
not happen if it is inconvenient to use them.

> we approach an end-game
> where persistent personal vehicle users must be marginalized.

And so your solution is to encourage people to use personal vehicles
instead of your beloved public transportation.

> So there's an initial phase, the phase we're in now, where you
> coddle them and induce them through subsidies (e.g. parking) to use
> transit, but you then transition to a later phase where they are
> squeezed out and, eventually, sunsetted entirely.

But you're not qoing to "squeeze them out" by making it difficult and
expensive for them to use public transportation. Instead one day
they're going to wake up and say "what the F are we paying all this
money for that damned train for anyway" and pull the plug on your
beloved public transportation.

> Replacing these vast, non-mixed-use, subsidized parking lots with
> something better is part of that transition.

And the something better is housing near the railroad tracks where
nobody but the desperate would want to live.

> Steve

"Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

I would prefer to let my husband choose...


--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

Steve replied to Sycophant:

>> Especially when JITB nuggets are so much better! <g>
>
> <boggle> Jack in the box doesn't have chicken nuggets.

I wonder what kind of nuggets she's been getting there.

Bob

Il 14/08/2010 21:31, Sqwertz ha scritto:

>> 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

LOL, it's hash or nothing, here in good ol' Italy
--
Vilco
and the Family Stone

Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> I would prefer to let my husband choose...
>
>

I once had a friend whose husband would never believe she was under the
weather. I told her she should get a tattoo that said "I TOLD you I was
sick!"

gloria p

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:36:31 +0200, ViLco wrote:

> Il 14/08/2010 21:31, Sqwertz ha scritto:
>
>>> 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
>
> LOL, it's hash or nothing, here in good ol' Italy

How boring! I thought hash carried a really stiff penalty there, whereas
weed is petty stuff. That's how it is here.

-sw

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 22:59:49 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:36:31 +0200, ViLco wrote:
>
>> Il 14/08/2010 21:31, Sqwertz ha scritto:
>>
>>>> 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
>>
>> LOL, it's hash or nothing, here in good ol' Italy
>
> How boring! I thought hash carried a really stiff penalty there, whereas
> weed is petty stuff. That's how it is here.
>
> -sw

i think it's absurd that we wage war on afghanistan, but still don't seem
to be getting any of their hash.

your pal,
blake

Sqwertz wrote:

>> LOL, it's hash or nothing, here in good ol' Italy

> How boring! I thought hash carried a really stiff penalty there,
> whereas weed is petty stuff. That's how it is here.

Here hash and weed have always been classified under the same section of the
law. I heard in many eastern european countries it's as there in the US:
weed is considered a soft drug and hash a hard one, in a system that sees
only soft and hard with no other levels. It makes very little sense to me,
IMHO hash is way more similar to weed then to heroin.

Anyway, the current government ****ed it all up again, just like in the
80's: no more distinction between soft and hard drugs, same legal treatment
for both.
The result? Heroin is spreading as never before since the 80's. Call that a
success...
--
Vilco
And the Family Stone

blake murphy wrote:

> i think it's absurd that we wage war on afghanistan, but still don't
> seem to be getting any of their hash.

Not only that, but when Afghanistan is at war the shipments of hash collapse
dramatically. In 1989, when the soviets got theyr sorry asses outta there,
you could find afghan hash in all europe, ansterdam's coffeeshops were
selling tons of it at a ridicolously cheap price, almost everybody smoked
it. Then this war, and afghan hash stopped showing up in europe till a
couple of years ago, then it started to reappear in some amount, but nowhere
near to the amounts of the 90's
--
Vilco
And the Family Stone

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:45:51 -0400, blake murphy wrote:

> i think it's absurd that we wage war on afghanistan, but still don't seem
> to be getting any of their hash.

Now that people can grow really potent weed in their bedroom closets,
there's really no sense [get it?] risking the higher penalties for selling
or possessing hash.

Of course if you're really good, you can get hash from your potent closet
weed, too.

-sw

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:54:26 +0200, ViLco wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> i think it's absurd that we wage war on afghanistan, but still don't
>> seem to be getting any of their hash.
>
> Not only that, but when Afghanistan is at war the shipments of hash collapse
> dramatically. In 1989, when the soviets got theyr sorry asses outta there,
> you could find afghan hash in all europe, ansterdam's coffeeshops were
> selling tons of it at a ridicolously cheap price, almost everybody smoked
> it. Then this war, and afghan hash stopped showing up in europe till a
> couple of years ago, then it started to reappear in some amount, but nowhere
> near to the amounts of the 90's

I haven't seen hash since 1989 or so. Nowadays it's all about these
designer strains of weed.

http://www.marijuanastrains.com/
(and that's probably only about 1/5th of them on the home page)

I have a friend that's really into obtaining all these different kinds from
various sources. He's pretty fanatical about it - most of those types are.
Just like the hardcore wine collectors.

-sw

On Aug 16, 11:16*am, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:54:26 +0200, ViLco wrote:
> > blake murphy wrote:
>
> >> i think it's absurd that we wage war on afghanistan, but still don't
> >> seem to be getting any of their hash.
>
> > Not only that, but when Afghanistan is at war the shipments of hash collapse
> > dramatically. In 1989, when the soviets got theyr sorry asses outta there,
> > you could find afghan hash in all europe, ansterdam's coffeeshops were
> > selling tons of it at a ridicolously cheap price, almost everybody smoked
> > it. Then this war, and afghan hash stopped showing up in europe till a
> > couple of years ago, then it started to reappear in some amount, but nowhere
> > near to the amounts of the 90's
>
> I haven't seen hash since 1989 or so. *Nowadays it's all about these
> designer strains of weed.
>
> http://www.marijuanastrains.com/
> (and that's probably only about 1/5th of them on the home page)
>
> I have a friend that's really into obtaining all these different kinds from
> various sources. *He's pretty fanatical about it - most of those types are.
> Just like the hardcore wine collectors.
>
> -sw

==
Thanks for the link...I bookmarked it under the "Health" label.
==

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:16:21 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:54:26 +0200, ViLco wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> i think it's absurd that we wage war on afghanistan, but still don't
>>> seem to be getting any of their hash.
>>
>> Not only that, but when Afghanistan is at war the shipments of hash collapse
>> dramatically. In 1989, when the soviets got theyr sorry asses outta there,
>> you could find afghan hash in all europe, ansterdam's coffeeshops were
>> selling tons of it at a ridicolously cheap price, almost everybody smoked
>> it. Then this war, and afghan hash stopped showing up in europe till a
>> couple of years ago, then it started to reappear in some amount, but nowhere
>> near to the amounts of the 90's
>
> I haven't seen hash since 1989 or so. Nowadays it's all about these
> designer strains of weed.
>
> http://www.marijuanastrains.com/
> (and that's probably only about 1/5th of them on the home page)
>
> I have a friend that's really into obtaining all these different kinds from
> various sources. He's pretty fanatical about it - most of those types are.
> Just like the hardcore wine collectors.
>
> -sw

i don't think i've seen hash since before the last time i saw LSD. and
that was a good while back, maybe fifteen or twenty years.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:07:12 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:45:51 -0400, blake murphy wrote:
>
>> i think it's absurd that we wage war on afghanistan, but still don't seem
>> to be getting any of their hash.
>
> Now that people can grow really potent weed in their bedroom closets,
> there's really no sense [get it?] risking the higher penalties for selling
> or possessing hash.
>
> Of course if you're really good, you can get hash from your potent closet
> weed, too.
>
> -sw

i can't get the leather pants in the half-leg sizes.

your pal,
blake

"Peter Lawrence" > wrote in message
...
> 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


What I don't understand is, why to people order chicken at Mcdonald's. yeah
they are good, but teh burger's taste a lot better.