 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) gun (...) If the gun had a trigger lock when the thief found it, would he have stolen it? He probably would have. It sure would have taken a lot more effort on his part to remove the lock and get the gun into working condition. I'm also (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) these (...) it? (...) a (...) of (...) the (...) on (...) killed (...) No need to be so smug. For one, we lose the liberty of choosing what to do with the additional money we are required to shell out - regardless of how small the amount. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: Look at tobacco. It started with (...) At the same time, though, the supposition of courtesy is inadequate against the average smoker in my experience--sufficiently so that "no smoking" areas in (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) As a non-smoker, I agree. Yet if a private property owner wants to have only smokers in his establishment, that should be up to him. (...) I think it was from the FDA, not an individual. I hear these things on the radio news while I'm driving (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) part (...) Smug? I didn't see any of my liberties being threatened. That was why I was asking. (...) The increase in price of a gun with a trigger lock would more than likely go towards defraying the gun manufacturers added cost of making or (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| Duane, I have to nitpick here a little. (...) No, the government is going after money. The smokers are the reason why they have health costs, they should be responsible. They don't give a whit about the children, or people's health, or that money (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Due Process
|
| (...) Certainly, as a privately-owned entity it should be allowed to admit or refuse smokers as it sees fit, without being subject to federal heavy- handedness (any more than I as a private citizen should be legally required to lock my guns in my (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Yeah, and they said that the lawsuit money was going to go toward repaying the states for medical costs. Guess what, it aint happenin'! The money's going to be spent where they (the feds) wish. It's all about the money, if they were really (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) the (...) in (...) They are making the smoker responsible by hiking the prices to cover those costs. Think of it as medical payments in advance for procedures that you will need in the future because of the habit. (...) Now remember that the (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Due Process
|
| Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) to (...) I agree BUT... The problem I have with smoking, and what leaves me with little sympathy for smokers is the continued disdain many smokers show for the rest of us. I have had smokers refuse my request (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Due Process
|
| To All, I read a fascinating article in Design Systems about how restaurants handle smoking / non smoking areas. Since I work in the Architectural / Mechanical Engineering realm, most engineers design for certain CFM's for certain areas, the smoking (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Due Process
|
| (...) I've always wondered if this was something that was implemented in the design phase or after the fact--it's interesting to hear the reality. My uncle is an architect in A^2 and has built or remodeled private residences and public buildings (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Due Process
|
| (...) "Aaahh yes, the o l d cone of silence trick!" (...) I was in Amsterdam in 89 and they have two Hard Rock Cafes - one for smokes and one for drinks. My friends and I walked into the wrong one by mistake - which being on active duty at the time (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Due Process
|
| Lindsay, (...) Ann Arbor, MI? Which one? (...) It depends on the contractor, some are good, some are bad, just like anything else. I know some of the projects here at AEI, we ran into problems with contractors short cutting. The process of building (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Due Process
|
| (...) Certainly, but that sticker seemed like Judge, Jury, and Excecutioner all in one shot, and its effects lingered long after it was removed. I understand your analogy about the suspected murderer, in that imprisonment removes a potentially (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Due Process
|
| Job talk! (...) I think there's only one A^2. ;) He has his own firm--F. H. Herrmann & Assoc., I think, is still its name. (...) For the subdivision my uncle built, people from the architectural firm had to physically be on-site almost every (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Due Process
|
| Good example! (...) This sounds like a massive usurpation. (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Due Process
|
| Lindsay, (...) Yes, indeed! I am at AEI right now, working on a funky Auburn Hills public Safety building, it looks like a house, divided up into a police and fire station, on a 120 degree angle! (...) Hmmm... there are many...100 or so, ah here it (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
