A woman from Vaughn On. (near Toronto) is upset about being cyber
bullied because of comments made in response to a course of actions that
she had suggested in regard to peanut allergies. She thinks that people
should be able to make suggestions without fear of public ridicule.

The woman had previously spearheaded a drive to make her son's school
nut free because the kid is allergic to peanuts and there might have
been other children with nut allergies.

Last week she contacted the town council to ask them to move some oak
trees from a street near the school. He concern was that children with
but allergies might come in contact with the acorns and suffer a
reaction. Even if they did not go into a full reaction they would face
the stress of the fear of being around a potential trigger for a full
reaction.

Maybe she just wanted her 15 minutes of fame, but she got a lot more
than she had hoped for. People were outraged at the suggestion and, as
it turns out, acorns are not the kind of tree nuts that cause allergic
reactions. They can cause problems to some people if they eat them.
Acorns are very bitter and they are not eaten in North America.

Now the woman is whinging that in a a free, civilized society we should
be able to voice our opinions and make our requests to elected officials
without fear of reprisal, ridicule, or regret. While I agree with the
general idea of that, it does not protect you in cases were your
requests are ridiculous and unwarranted. We reserve the right not to
take people seriously when they are being ridiculous. There was
absolutely no reason for her to even be concerned about oak trees and
acorns, but that didn't stop her little brain from looking for some
cheap celebrity.

Dave Smith > wrote:

>Now the woman is whinging that in a a free, civilized society we should
>be able to voice our opinions and make our requests to elected officials
>without fear of reprisal, ridicule, or regret. While I agree with the
>general idea of that, it does not protect you in cases were your
>requests are ridiculous and unwarranted. We reserve the right not to
>take people seriously when they are being ridiculous. There was
>absolutely no reason for her to even be concerned about oak trees and
>acorns, but that didn't stop her little brain from looking for some
>cheap celebrity.

We have a few allergic-tree-moving requests in process here in Berkeley.
There's merit to it in that many allergies are caused by stuff that
blows off plants... in Berkeley you can only plant approved species
of trees from a master list kept by the city. The problem being
litigated is whether certain trees on that list are still a problem.

Steve

On 26/11/2012 12:52 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> Now the woman is whinging that in a a free, civilized society we should
>> be able to voice our opinions and make our requests to elected officials
>> without fear of reprisal, ridicule, or regret. While I agree with the
>> general idea of that, it does not protect you in cases were your
>> requests are ridiculous and unwarranted. We reserve the right not to
>> take people seriously when they are being ridiculous. There was
>> absolutely no reason for her to even be concerned about oak trees and
>> acorns, but that didn't stop her little brain from looking for some
>> cheap celebrity.
>
> We have a few allergic-tree-moving requests in process here in Berkeley.
> There's merit to it in that many allergies are caused by stuff that
> blows off plants... in Berkeley you can only plant approved species
> of trees from a master list kept by the city. The problem being
> litigated is whether certain trees on that list are still a problem.

That was the problem here. There is no problem with oak trees. Sure,
there are lots of people with various allergy issues that cause sneezing
and nasal congestion, maybe even asthma, but those people tend to be
allergic to lots of pollens and molds.

This woman had already campaigned to make her son's school nut free.
Having been given some public recognition for that battle she went
looking for another related issue and decided that the oak trees had to
be removed, not just because of her misunderstanding about the risk of
anaphelactic reactions, but because some nut allergic child would be
intimidated by presence of oak trees and it would cause them stress.

So... she got her 15 minutes of fame, but she resents the ridicule to
which she was rejected and is whining about cyber bullying..... negative
comments posted on news media sites. I guess she doesn't realize that
when you launch a public campaign based on something idiotic you risk
making yourself look ridiculous.

On 11/26/2012 10:06 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> A woman from Vaughn On. (near Toronto) is upset about being cyber
> bullied because of comments made in response to a course of actions
> that she had suggested in regard to peanut allergies. She thinks that
> people should be able to make suggestions without fear of public
> ridicule.

This is the latest victimization ploy by the lunatic fringe: ridicule
= bullying.
No, it doesn't. Your crackpot notion simply got the reception it
deserved. In the marketplace of ideas, it failed.

>
> The woman had previously spearheaded a drive to make her son's school
> nut free because the kid is allergic to peanuts and there might have
> been other children with nut allergies.
>
> Last week she contacted the town council to ask them to move some oak
> trees from a street near the school. He concern was that children with
> but allergies might come in contact with the acorns and suffer a
> reaction.

Sounds like the crazy lady from hereabouts who had a son drown in a
nearby pond. She wanted to pass laws requiring that all bodies of
water be fenced off, and she also wanted to outlaw backyard ponds.

On 26/11/2012 2:41 PM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 10:06 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> A woman from Vaughn On. (near Toronto) is upset about being cyber
>> bullied because of comments made in response to a course of actions
>> that she had suggested in regard to peanut allergies. She thinks that
>> people should be able to make suggestions without fear of public
>> ridicule.
>
> This is the latest victimization ploy by the lunatic fringe: ridicule =
> bullying.
> No, it doesn't. Your crackpot notion simply got the reception it
> deserved. In the marketplace of ideas, it failed.


Yep. Cyber bullying..... being picked on in a medium which is one of the
easiest to filter. Go out and get yourself an silly agenda and make a
public spectacle of yourself and then sit back and wait for the
accolades. But what happens when the issue is something as stupid as the
acorn allergy?

I am sure we are all familiar with people on usenet who live to make
spectacles of themselves. Some of them obviously enjoy the negative
feedback. They are such attention whores that they would rather have
people poking fun at them than not getting any attention at all. Some of
them even change their user names to get past filters, and there can't
be anything more pathetic than that. Imagine the frustration of having
to nymshift because you know that the people who want to annoy have you
filtered. Imagine how pathetic you have to be to think that you are
clever to know to do that to be heard.

There was a recent case of a girl who was being cyber bullied and ended
up killing herself, but not before she made a video about how she was
being bullied. Heaven forbid that she could have simply stopped going
online, stopped making a public spectacle of herself, stop reacting to
the "bullies" . There are so many of them on the net that as soon as one
stops being a willing victim another will take her place.



>> Last week she contacted the town council to ask them to move some oak
>> trees from a street near the school. He concern was that children with
>> but allergies might come in contact with the acorns and suffer a
>> reaction.
>
> Sounds like the crazy lady from hereabouts who had a son drown in a
> nearby pond. She wanted to pass laws requiring that all bodies of water
> be fenced off, and she also wanted to outlaw backyard ponds.

There is a growing controversy around here about roadside memorials. It
seems that whenever there is a traffic fatality the friends and family
want to to build shrines in their memory. There is one on a nearby road
to three victims of a horrific crash in which a car with four youths
from another area missed a curve, rammed into a car full of local people
and burst into flames.

One of the victims had just buried his younger brother that morning and
he had gone to the casino to celebrate <?> The last text he sent said
how drunk they were. It didn't say anything to support the gossip I
heard from one of their neighbours about the brother's death being a
drug overdose and who he got the drugs from. So we are supposed to
feel sorry for the family of those two Darwin award honorary mentions.
Now the friends and many relatives of the four local people injured by
those idiots have to drive by the little shrine.

Curiously, in every case I know of where there are roadside shrines they
were cases of self destruction. They are not to the innocent victims who
were stuck by someone else's stupidity. They were speeding / drunk/
texting/ on the cell phone.

Dave Smith wrote:

> I am sure we are all familiar with people on usenet who live to make
> spectacles of themselves. Some of them obviously enjoy the negative
> feedback. They are such attention whores that they would rather have
> people poking fun at them than not getting any attention at all. Some of
> them even change their user names to get past filters, and there can't
> be anything more pathetic than that. Imagine the frustration of having
> to nymshift because you know that the people who want to annoy have you
> filtered. Imagine how pathetic you have to be to think that you are
> clever to know to do that to be heard.

Can you give a few examples?

Bob

On Nov 26, 12:31*pm, Bob Terwilliger >
wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > I am sure we are all familiar with people on usenet who live to make
> > spectacles of themselves. Some of them obviously enjoy the negative
> > feedback. They are such attention whores that they would rather have
> > people poking fun at them than not getting any attention at all. Some of
> > them even change their user names to get past filters, and there can't
> > be anything more pathetic than that. Imagine the frustration of having
> > to nymshift because you know that the people who want to annoy have you
> > filtered. Imagine how pathetic you have to be to think that you are
> > clever to know to do that to be heard.
>
> Can you give a few examples?
>
> Bob

Look under the meat lollipop thread.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Acorns are very bitter and they are not eaten in North America.

I saw some Indians preparing and eating them
on TV. Apparently, they mostly do it as a way
of maintaining their culture, not because they
like it. One of the Indians declined to eat
any. The acorn meats are ground and soaked
to remove the bitter tannins.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:11:16 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> There was a recent case of a girl who was being cyber bullied and ended
> up killing herself, but not before she made a video about how she was
> being bullied. Heaven forbid that she could have simply stopped going
> online, stopped making a public spectacle of herself, stop reacting to
> the "bullies" . There are so many of them on the net that as soon as one
> stops being a willing victim another will take her place.

I still don't understand that one. It was Facebook, a site where you
can do a lot to protect yourself.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-pictures.html

Why didn't she use FB's private chat function on the night in
question? Where her posts Public? Change the setting (no Friends of
Friends either). Why didn't she create lists of "Friends" and use the
Block ability so that cyberbullies wouldn't see her and best of all,
she wouldn't see them?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>>Now the woman is whinging that in a a free, civilized society we should
>>be able to voice our opinions and make our requests to elected officials
>>without fear of reprisal, ridicule, or regret. While I agree with the
>>general idea of that, it does not protect you in cases were your
>>requests are ridiculous and unwarranted. We reserve the right not to
>>take people seriously when they are being ridiculous. There was
>>absolutely no reason for her to even be concerned about oak trees and
>>acorns, but that didn't stop her little brain from looking for some
>>cheap celebrity.
>
> We have a few allergic-tree-moving requests in process here in Berkeley.
> There's merit to it in that many allergies are caused by stuff that
> blows off plants... in Berkeley you can only plant approved species
> of trees from a master list kept by the city. The problem being
> litigated is whether certain trees on that list are still a problem.

Stuff like this drives me nuts! You could never make a school truly nut
free. Even if people don't bring in obvious sources of nuts, something like
a piece of bread or a cupcake from a bakery is likely to be cross
contaminated by nuts. And IMO, something like this is more of a danger to a
nut allergic person than the out right nuts themselves! Because if they see
the nuts they are going to stay away.

People who do not have nut allergies do not understand. At my daughter's
dance studio, they often sell candy grams backstage. Because there were
several nut allergic students one year, they advertised that the candy grams
would have no nuts in them. And then as my daughter was eating hers, she
freaked when she bit into an M & M which clearly has a peanut warning on the
package. Luckily it didn't case a problem for her. She is not allergic but
intolerant. She gets sick and gets weird watery seeping nosebleeds from
peanuts. So it is best for her to avoid them but they won't kill her.
But... Those candies could have killed someone else. We bought assumed
they were Skittles which are safe for those with a nut allergy. She has
also been forced to touch M & Ms in math because they were using them to
teach some point.

So you see how difficult it would be to keep a school truly nut free and
people who do not have to avoid nuts are just not going to read every single
package or think about each food that they buy to decide whether or not it
might be cross contaminated.

My health food store has a warning on the door asking us not to wear scented
products when we shop there because some people are allergic. My friend
said there was a similar note on the door where she was going for physical
therapy. This angers me too! I always wear perfume. I like it. And I use
scent in my laundry. I am always going to have scent in my laundry. If I
go early enough in the day and if I remember not to use perfume before I
shop there, I will go in with somewhat less scent than usual. But I also
have packs of lavender in my drawers.

I do understand how hard it can be to have allergies. I have them myself.
And the food intolerances. But I don't expect the whole rest of the world
to stop eating or doing things that might set *my* allergies off. That's
just wrong.

sf > wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:11:16 -0500, Dave Smith

>> There was a recent case of a girl who was being cyber bullied and ended
>> up killing herself, but not before she made a video about how she was
>> being bullied. Heaven forbid that she could have simply stopped going
>> online, stopped making a public spectacle of herself, stop reacting to
>> the "bullies" . There are so many of them on the net that as soon as one
>> stops being a willing victim another will take her place.

>I still don't understand that one. It was Facebook, a site where you
>can do a lot to protect yourself.
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-pictures.html
>
>Why didn't she use FB's private chat function on the night in
>question? Where her posts Public? Change the setting (no Friends of
>Friends either). Why didn't she create lists of "Friends" and use the
>Block ability so that cyberbullies wouldn't see her and best of all,
>she wouldn't see them?

I think what is misleading about the Amanda Todd case is the buzzword
"cyberbullying". I think it is more accurate to say Todd was being stalked.
At least two older men went after her. She was then later bullied, but
it was not just "cyber-bullying", it was real-life bullying, including
being assaulted.

In any case, it was much more than a case of online bullying, and
is extremely tragic.


Steve

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> My health food store has a warning on the door asking us not to wear scented
> products when we shop there because some people are allergic. My friend
> said there was a similar note on the door where she was going for physical
> therapy. This angers me too! I always wear perfume. I like it. And I use
> scent in my laundry. I am always going to have scent in my laundry. If I
> go early enough in the day and if I remember not to use perfume before I
> shop there, I will go in with somewhat less scent than usual. But I also
> have packs of lavender in my drawers.

They aren't truly allergic. It's called
"multiple chemical sensitivity", and it is
a psychological response to "chemical" odors.

On 26/11/2012 5:03 PM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:11:16 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> There was a recent case of a girl who was being cyber bullied and ended
>> up killing herself, but not before she made a video about how she was
>> being bullied. Heaven forbid that she could have simply stopped going
>> online, stopped making a public spectacle of herself, stop reacting to
>> the "bullies" . There are so many of them on the net that as soon as one
>> stops being a willing victim another will take her place.
>
> I still don't understand that one. It was Facebook, a site where you
> can do a lot to protect yourself.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-pictures.html
>
> Why didn't she use FB's private chat function on the night in
> question? Where her posts Public? Change the setting (no Friends of
> Friends either). Why didn't she create lists of "Friends" and use the
> Block ability so that cyberbullies wouldn't see her and best of all,
> she wouldn't see them?

Well, that's petty much the problem the way I see it. They could go
into private chat but that is not why they are there. They crave
attention and social media give them the opportunity to makes fools of
themselves in ever grander scales. It would seem that this girl opted
instead to log into large chat venues and then set herself up for abuse.

Coincidentally, I read that some sort of FB pages were set up in her
memory and they quickly filled with abusive remarks and "cyber bullying"
I guess the deal is that if you posted something on the site that
would be good, but if you posted something to the effect that she was an
attention whore who should have simply stayed out of social media or
block her detractors that would constitute cyber bullying.

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> My health food store has a warning on the door asking us not to wear
>> scented
>> products when we shop there because some people are allergic. My friend
>> said there was a similar note on the door where she was going for
>> physical
>> therapy. This angers me too! I always wear perfume. I like it. And I
>> use
>> scent in my laundry. I am always going to have scent in my laundry. If
>> I
>> go early enough in the day and if I remember not to use perfume before I
>> shop there, I will go in with somewhat less scent than usual. But I also
>> have packs of lavender in my drawers.
>
> They aren't truly allergic. It's called
> "multiple chemical sensitivity", and it is
> a psychological response to "chemical" odors.

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> My health food store has a warning on the door asking us not to wear
>> scented
>> products when we shop there because some people are allergic. My friend
>> said there was a similar note on the door where she was going for
>> physical
>> therapy. This angers me too! I always wear perfume. I like it. And I
>> use
>> scent in my laundry. I am always going to have scent in my laundry. If
>> I
>> go early enough in the day and if I remember not to use perfume before I
>> shop there, I will go in with somewhat less scent than usual. But I also
>> have packs of lavender in my drawers.
>
> They aren't truly allergic. It's called
> "multiple chemical sensitivity", and it is
> a psychological response to "chemical" odors.

Oops! Sent a blank response.

That could be but I also know that I am allergic to something in some
perfumes. I don't know exactly what it is. But one that does give me
trouble is Giorgio. Thankfully that seemed to go out with the 80's although
I do still occasionally encounter women who have it on. And I was once
given a gift of something I was allergic to. In both cases I broke out in
head to toe hives, my eyes began streaming and I sneezed my head off. In
the case of the gift, I just had to throw it away. You see my mom gave it
to me and she was also allergic to it! She had the same reaction as I did.
And it wasn't something we could return, because it didn't come from a
store. Her friend's daughter was in the business of giving out perfume
samples and she sold this stuff to her. It was a case of samples! All the
same scent. But even if it had come from the store... Neither of us could
have driven it back to the store because just having it in our vehicle set
us off. And the stuff was in a box too!

But the thing with the health food store is that they sell essential oils,
scented candles and some of the smelliest creams and other cosmetics I have
ever run across. So how can they tell people not to wear scent into their
store?

Dave Smith wrote:
> Maybe she just wanted her 15 minutes of fame, but she got a lot more
> than she had hoped for. People were outraged at the suggestion and, as
> it turns out, acorns are not the kind of tree nuts that cause allergic
> reactions. They can cause problems to some people if they eat them.
> Acorns are very bitter and they are not eaten in North America.
>
> Now the woman is whinging that in a a free, civilized society we should
> be able to voice our opinions and make our requests to elected officials
> without fear of reprisal, ridicule, or regret. While I agree with the
> general idea of that, it does not protect you in cases were your
> requests are ridiculous and unwarranted. We reserve the right not to
> take people seriously when they are being ridiculous. There was
> absolutely no reason for her to even be concerned about oak trees and
> acorns, but that didn't stop her little brain from looking for some
> cheap celebrity.

She should be able to voice her opinion to elected officials, no matter
how dumb it is. But not the "without fear of ridicule" part.

BTW, "whinging" is a great word. It should be used more often,
especially for silly people complaining about stupid things.

Bob

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...

> But the thing with the health food store is that they sell essential oils,
> scented candles and some of the smelliest creams and other cosmetics I
> have ever run across. So how can they tell people not to wear scent into
> their store?

Probably because the owner doesn't like the "smell." There are some perfumes
that I really hate, and don't like to smell them on people, not allergic or
anything, but just don't like the smell. If you own the store, you can tell
them anything you want.

Cheri

On 11/26/2012 5:22 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>>> , but not before she made a video about how she was
>>> >>being bullied. Heaven forbid that she could have simply stopped going
>>> >>online,

The fact of the matter is, online, Facebook or not, teens have been
bullied or made to feel left out throughout history. There's no reason
to kill yourself over it.

I went to high school with a guy whose girlfriend broke up with him. He
was 16. He took his father's gun, loaded it, went to the school and
blew his brains out on the steps that led down to the cafeteria. That
was his grand contribution to life.

(and yes, I remember his name. I choose not to publish it here.)

Jill

On 26/11/2012 7:01 PM, zxcvbob wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Maybe she just wanted her 15 minutes of fame, but she got a lot more
>> than she had hoped for. People were outraged at the suggestion and,
>> as it turns out, acorns are not the kind of tree nuts that cause
>> allergic reactions. They can cause problems to some people if they eat
>> them. Acorns are very bitter and they are not eaten in North America.
>>
>> Now the woman is whinging that in a a free, civilized society we
>> should be able to voice our opinions and make our requests to elected
>> officials without fear of reprisal, ridicule, or regret. While I agree
>> with the general idea of that, it does not protect you in cases were
>> your requests are ridiculous and unwarranted. We reserve the right not
>> to take people seriously when they are being ridiculous. There was
>> absolutely no reason for her to even be concerned about oak trees and
>> acorns, but that didn't stop her little brain from looking for some
>> cheap celebrity.
>
> She should be able to voice her opinion to elected officials, no matter
> how dumb it is. But not the "without fear of ridicule" part.


None of the people ridiculed her was trying to deny the right to make
her idiotic suggestion. She has the right to make any stupid demands she
wants. We reserve the right to deny her requests and to ridicule them
when they are that stupid.

My wife is allergic to grass. Maybe we should demand that the town enact
bylaws to prohibit grass lawns.


> BTW, "whinging" is a great word. It should be used more often,
> especially for silly people complaining about stupid things.

I confess that it was a typo on my part, but, surprisingly, it was not
caught by my spell checker. It turns out to be a word. Not only is it a
real word but it is defined as "To complain or protest, especially in an
annoying or persistent manner". I was accidentally correct in my error.
;-)

On 26/11/2012 7:31 PM, Cheri wrote:
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> But the thing with the health food store is that they sell essential
>> oils, scented candles and some of the smelliest creams and other
>> cosmetics I have ever run across. So how can they tell people not to
>> wear scent into their store?
>
> Probably because the owner doesn't like the "smell." There are some
> perfumes that I really hate, and don't like to smell them on people, not
> allergic or anything, but just don't like the smell. If you own the
> store, you can tell them anything you want.

Just remember.... it;s the Bovine talking. Credibility factor ... 0.

On 26/11/2012 8:40 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 5:22 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>>>> , but not before she made a video about how she was
>>>> >>being bullied. Heaven forbid that she could have simply stopped
>>>> going
>>>> >>online,
>
> The fact of the matter is, online, Facebook or not, teens have been
> bullied or made to feel left out throughout history. There's no reason
> to kill yourself over it.
>
> I went to high school with a guy whose girlfriend broke up with him. He
> was 16. He took his father's gun, loaded it, went to the school and
> blew his brains out on the steps that led down to the cafeteria. That
> was his grand contribution to life.
>
> (and yes, I remember his name. I choose not to publish it here.)
>


Thank goodness he opted to kill himself and not shoot the girl who had
broken up with him. Teens have issues. You will likely find that even
those that do the bullying often have self image problems and they
probably see themselves as the bullies.

It is surprising to hear what is being classified as bullying. When I
was a kid the bullies were the bigger kids who picked on the smaller
kids, and bullying was always something that involved actual violence.
There was always lots of different kinds of social pressure, like being
accepted into a group, people not bothering with others or not talking
to them, shunning and ostracism. Now is seems that anything short of a
pat on the back or a warm hug is seen as bullying. Nuts to that. We are
all individuals with our strange little quirks. We don't have to put up
with the idiocy of others when it gets out of hand.

When some teenager commits suicide because of "bullying" you will
probably find that the person was a little messed up and had some issues
they were having trouble dealing with. When it is a kid who gets picked
on everywhere he or she goes it is probably because they have a hard
time figuring out how to deal with people. They are likely narcissistic
and instead of accepting that not everyone is going to automatically
like and accept them. They have to be the centre of everyone's
attention. Inevitably, the people who expect that are goign to be
sorely disappointed.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2012 7:01 PM, zxcvbob wrote:
>
> > BTW, "whinging" is a great word. It should be used more often,
> > especially for silly people complaining about stupid things.
>
> I confess that it was a typo on my part, but, surprisingly, it was not
> caught by my spell checker. It turns out to be a word. Not only is it a
> real word but it is defined as "To complain or protest, especially in an
> annoying or persistent manner". I was accidentally correct in my error.
> ;-)

I think that is a British word. I see it now and then
in _The_Daily_Mail_. From context, I assumed it meant
the same thing as "whine".

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> But the thing with the health food store is that they sell essential
>> oils, scented candles and some of the smelliest creams and other
>> cosmetics I have ever run across. So how can they tell people not to
>> wear scent into their store?
>
> Probably because the owner doesn't like the "smell." There are some
> perfumes that I really hate, and don't like to smell them on people, not
> allergic or anything, but just don't like the smell. If you own the store,
> you can tell them anything you want.

No. I know the owner. She tells me that she loves perfume and wishes that
she could wear it but that she can't because some of her customers are
allergic. She also practices Naturopathy in there and at times has other
Drs. and various practitioners come in for things. I just find it strange
that they would make the rule and then also sell scented products! I have
issues with scented candles and generally don't like them, especially when
there are all sorts of mixed scents together. Not allergic but just don't
like them. So I never go to that part of the store.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Curiously, in every case I know of where there are roadside shrines they
> were cases of self destruction. They are not to the innocent victims who
> were stuck by someone else's stupidity. They were speeding / drunk/
> texting/ on the cell phone.

When I was a kid, I lived in Europe. I remember
in Yugoslavia that they would put little crosses
at the side of the road where people had died.
This was actually useful information. You'd
go around a curve, see a bunch of crosses, and
know to slow down. Yugoslavia is rather mountainous
and they have lots of dangerous curves.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 26/11/2012 7:31 PM, Cheri wrote:
>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> But the thing with the health food store is that they sell essential
>>> oils, scented candles and some of the smelliest creams and other
>>> cosmetics I have ever run across. So how can they tell people not to
>>> wear scent into their store?
>>
>> Probably because the owner doesn't like the "smell." There are some
>> perfumes that I really hate, and don't like to smell them on people, not
>> allergic or anything, but just don't like the smell. If you own the
>> store, you can tell them anything you want.
>
> Just remember.... it;s the Bovine talking. Credibility factor ... 0.

Okay then. Here's a link to their website. Oh! There's even a pic of the
door. Make yourself happy and blow it up really big and maybe you can read
the sign. I believe it is one of he ones on the right side of the door. I
believe the other one has to do with them selling raw milk. But I could be
wrong.

http://truhealth.com/

The pic of the door is on the "About Us" page.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2012 7:31 PM, Cheri wrote:
> > "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> But the thing with the health food store is that they sell essential
> >> oils, scented candles and some of the smelliest creams and other
> >> cosmetics I have ever run across. So how can they tell people not to
> >> wear scent into their store?
> >
> > Probably because the owner doesn't like the "smell." There are some
> > perfumes that I really hate, and don't like to smell them on people, not
> > allergic or anything, but just don't like the smell. If you own the
> > store, you can tell them anything you want.
>
> Just remember.... it;s the Bovine talking. Credibility factor ... 0.

Whoa whoa! That's bullying!
You gonna stand for that, Julie?

On 26/11/2012 11:14 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> Curiously, in every case I know of where there are roadside shrines they
>> were cases of self destruction. They are not to the innocent victims who
>> were stuck by someone else's stupidity. They were speeding / drunk/
>> texting/ on the cell phone.
>
> When I was a kid, I lived in Europe. I remember
> in Yugoslavia that they would put little crosses
> at the side of the road where people had died.
> This was actually useful information. You'd
> go around a curve, see a bunch of crosses, and
> know to slow down. Yugoslavia is rather mountainous
> and they have lots of dangerous curves.
>


Maybe they should start putting up memorials at the bars where drunks
got loaded before crashing their cars.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:11:16 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> > There was a recent case of a girl who was being cyber bullied and ended
> > up killing herself, but not before she made a video about how she was
> > being bullied. Heaven forbid that she could have simply stopped going
> > online, stopped making a public spectacle of herself, stop reacting to
> > the "bullies" . There are so many of them on the net that as soon as one
> > stops being a willing victim another will take her place.
>
> I still don't understand that one. It was Facebook, a site where you
> can do a lot to protect yourself.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-pictures.html
>
> Why didn't she use FB's private chat function on the night in
> question? Where her posts Public? Change the setting (no Friends of
> Friends either). Why didn't she create lists of "Friends" and use the
> Block ability so that cyberbullies wouldn't see her and best of all,
> she wouldn't see them?

How would any of that have removed her tits from cyberspace? That was
the real problem, she flashed a guy and he posted it all over the place.

On 11/26/2012 12:52 PM, Steve Pope wrote:

> We have a few allergic-tree-moving requests in process here in Berkeley.
> There's merit to it in that many allergies are caused by stuff that
> blows off plants... in Berkeley you can only plant approved species
> of trees from a master list kept by the city. The problem being
> litigated is whether certain trees on that list are still a problem.

That's crazy, but I like it. I'm going to go read up about it.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/26/2012 12:52 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>
>> We have a few allergic-tree-moving requests in process here in Berkeley.
>> There's merit to it in that many allergies are caused by stuff that
>> blows off plants... in Berkeley you can only plant approved species
>> of trees from a master list kept by the city. The problem being
>> litigated is whether certain trees on that list are still a problem.
>
> That's crazy, but I like it. I'm going to go read up about it.


Of course it's crazy, it's Berkeley!

Cheri

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> Curiously, in every case I know of where there are roadside shrines they
>> were cases of self destruction. They are not to the innocent victims who
>> were stuck by someone else's stupidity. They were speeding / drunk/
>> texting/ on the cell phone.
>
> When I was a kid, I lived in Europe. I remember
> in Yugoslavia that they would put little crosses
> at the side of the road where people had died.
> This was actually useful information. You'd
> go around a curve, see a bunch of crosses, and
> know to slow down. Yugoslavia is rather mountainous
> and they have lots of dangerous curves.

They do that here too.

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 26/11/2012 7:31 PM, Cheri wrote:
>> > "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> But the thing with the health food store is that they sell essential
>> >> oils, scented candles and some of the smelliest creams and other
>> >> cosmetics I have ever run across. So how can they tell people not to
>> >> wear scent into their store?
>> >
>> > Probably because the owner doesn't like the "smell." There are some
>> > perfumes that I really hate, and don't like to smell them on people,
>> > not
>> > allergic or anything, but just don't like the smell. If you own the
>> > store, you can tell them anything you want.
>>
>> Just remember.... it;s the Bovine talking. Credibility factor ... 0.
>
> Whoa whoa! That's bullying!
> You gonna stand for that, Julie?

Dave *is* a bully. I'm just glad that he lives in Canada and not here in
the USA.

In article >,
Mark Thorson > wrote:

> When I was a kid, I lived in Europe. I remember
> in Yugoslavia that they would put little crosses
> at the side of the road where people had died.
> This was actually useful information. You'd
> go around a curve, see a bunch of crosses, and
> know to slow down. Yugoslavia is rather mountainous
> and they have lots of dangerous curves.

Montana did that in the sixties.

leo

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 11/26/2012 12:52 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>>> We have a few allergic-tree-moving requests in process here in Berkeley.
>>> There's merit to it in that many allergies are caused by stuff that
>>> blows off plants... in Berkeley you can only plant approved species
>>> of trees from a master list kept by the city. The problem being
>>> litigated is whether certain trees on that list are still a problem.
>>
>> That's crazy, but I like it. I'm going to go read up about it.
>
>
> Of course it's crazy, it's Berkeley!

I remember the tie dyed sidewalks there.

Julie Bove > wrote:
>
>"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 11/26/2012 12:52 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have a few allergic-tree-moving requests in process here in Berkeley.
>>>> There's merit to it in that many allergies are caused by stuff that
>>>> blows off plants... in Berkeley you can only plant approved species
>>>> of trees from a master list kept by the city. The problem being
>>>> litigated is whether certain trees on that list are still a problem.
>>>
>>> That's crazy, but I like it. I'm going to go read up about it.
>>
>>
>> Of course it's crazy, it's Berkeley!
>
>I remember the tie dyed sidewalks there.

They just set out a notice telling you precisely how you are
supposed to arrange your garbage, recycling and composting
containers on the street in front of your house on garbage day...
an extremely detailed description. We tried to adhere to it
but I noticed none of our neighbors did; I think people are
just overloaded by directives from the city and they can't
absorb any more.

And yes, Berkeley does periodically, without warning, go through your
garbage to try to catch you at putting recyclable or compostable
items in there.

In short, everything you have heard about Berkeley is true.


Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>>
>>"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 11/26/2012 12:52 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We have a few allergic-tree-moving requests in process here in
>>>>> Berkeley.
>>>>> There's merit to it in that many allergies are caused by stuff that
>>>>> blows off plants... in Berkeley you can only plant approved species
>>>>> of trees from a master list kept by the city. The problem being
>>>>> litigated is whether certain trees on that list are still a problem.
>>>>
>>>> That's crazy, but I like it. I'm going to go read up about it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course it's crazy, it's Berkeley!
>>
>>I remember the tie dyed sidewalks there.
>
> They just set out a notice telling you precisely how you are
> supposed to arrange your garbage, recycling and composting
> containers on the street in front of your house on garbage day...
> an extremely detailed description. We tried to adhere to it
> but I noticed none of our neighbors did; I think people are
> just overloaded by directives from the city and they can't
> absorb any more.
>
> And yes, Berkeley does periodically, without warning, go through your
> garbage to try to catch you at putting recyclable or compostable
> items in there.
>
> In short, everything you have heard about Berkeley is true.

That's how it was in Alameda but... I was living in military housing at the
time and those people there super picky. Once unbeknownst to me, my husband
set a broken microwave out in the alley. Within minutes (and of course he
had left for work) the powers that be were pounding on my front door,
telling me I had 10 minutes to remove it or we'd lose our housing.

Another time some kids were playing in the alley and tossed something in our
garbage can that should have been recycled. A neighbor saw it and told me
he had corrected it for me. Because yes, they did come by and check and you
never knew when they would.

They also check here but I think more during the summer and it seems to be
pretty random. At times they hand out rewards (store and restaurant gift
cards) for doing right. But they also fine for doing wrong.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:53:21 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> They are likely narcissistic
> and instead of accepting that not everyone is going to automatically
> like and accept them. They have to be the centre of everyone's
> attention. Inevitably, the people who expect that are goign to be
> sorely disappointed.
>

I knew someone in HS who was a very nice person, but seems so "into"
herself, commenting on her physical features (which were very nice,
but you don't want that person to constantly point them out to you as
if you can't see). She invited me to visit and then I found out where
she got it from. Her mother was constantly saying those things to
her. IOW her mother taught her that her self-worth was her looks.

As parents, we need to monitor what we say (both good and bad) because
children are sponges.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:28:00 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:11:16 -0500, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > There was a recent case of a girl who was being cyber bullied and ended
> > > up killing herself, but not before she made a video about how she was
> > > being bullied. Heaven forbid that she could have simply stopped going
> > > online, stopped making a public spectacle of herself, stop reacting to
> > > the "bullies" . There are so many of them on the net that as soon as one
> > > stops being a willing victim another will take her place.
> >
> > I still don't understand that one. It was Facebook, a site where you
> > can do a lot to protect yourself.
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-pictures.html
> >
> > Why didn't she use FB's private chat function on the night in
> > question? Where her posts Public? Change the setting (no Friends of
> > Friends either). Why didn't she create lists of "Friends" and use the
> > Block ability so that cyberbullies wouldn't see her and best of all,
> > she wouldn't see them?
>
> How would any of that have removed her tits from cyberspace? That was
> the real problem, she flashed a guy and he posted it all over the place.
>
>
Are you kidding? It would have stopped it from happening in the first
place.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Julie Bove > wrote:

>That's how it was in Alameda but... I was living in military housing at the
>time and those people there super picky. Once unbeknownst to me, my husband
>set a broken microwave out in the alley. Within minutes (and of course he
>had left for work) the powers that be were pounding on my front door,
>telling me I had 10 minutes to remove it or we'd lose our housing.

Yep. The U.S. Military, fighting fascism/communism while practicing it.
Gotta love it.

And the pacifists in Berkeley are not any different!


Steve

sf > wrote:

>I knew someone in HS who was a very nice person, but seems so "into"
>herself, commenting on her physical features (which were very nice,
>but you don't want that person to constantly point them out to you as
>if you can't see). She invited me to visit and then I found out where
>she got it from. Her mother was constantly saying those things to
>her. IOW her mother taught her that her self-worth was her looks.

So, basically a second-generation skank.


S.