Gotta keep it from The Children

"Dan Evans" wrote in message
...

"0tterbot" wrote in message
...
"Nathan Nagel" wrote in message
...
Don't take the comparison too far... I'd probably categorize american
football as "rugby lite" if pressed.

*cough!* rugby league is "rugby lite" if you want to go there. (you
don't!!)

League is "lite" my arse. I used to live near Featherstone Rovers and
Castelford - those are ****ing big guys who train ****ing hard.

Your thinking of Union being the "lite" version

no i'm not. union was the original game. league has nancy-boy alterations to
it, such as a dummy-half after a tackle, & so forth.
kylie

"0tterbot" wrote in message
...
"Dan Evans" wrote in message
...

"0tterbot" wrote in message
...
"Nathan Nagel" wrote in message
...
Don't take the comparison too far... I'd probably categorize
american
football as "rugby lite" if pressed.

*cough!* rugby league is "rugby lite" if you want to go there. (you
don't!!)

League is "lite" my arse. I used to live near Featherstone Rovers and
Castelford - those are ****ing big guys who train ****ing hard.

Your thinking of Union being the "lite" version

no i'm not. union was the original game. league has nancy-boy alterations
to
it, such as a dummy-half after a tackle, & so forth.

I take your word for which is the original, but League is by *far* the
harder game.

Dan

"Pockets of Resistance" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jun 2003 08:49:31 -0700, Banty wrote:

Come back with another "Aint it Awful" about something else "for the
chiiiillldren" - the OP really blew it and picked the wrong subject for
this
one!

No, I didn't.

The law was specifically passed to keep the very *sight* of people
smoking away from The Children.

As someone who has to regularly make legal determinations, I must say it
really doesn't matter a flying **** why a law was passed.... the law is
there to stay and does what it does, and what it does isn't even always what
they legislators intended it to do.

So yeah... no smoking is a damn good idea and I don't care if the law was
passed for the children, the adults, the environment or the benefit of a
small grey rabbit living halfway up a drainpipe. End result = good.

"LaTreen Washington" wrote in message
...

I WILL smoke outside. When I wait for a bus - I go under the shelter
with everyone else and I DO light up.

It will reduce your life expectancy Ms Washington. Somehow that doesn't
distress me much.

In article , Nathan says...



silvasurfa wrote:

"Pockets of Resistance" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jun 2003 08:49:31 -0700, Banty wrote:

Come back with another "Aint it Awful" about something else "for the
chiiiillldren" - the OP really blew it and picked the wrong subject for
this
one!

No, I didn't.

The law was specifically passed to keep the very *sight* of people
smoking away from The Children.

As someone who has to regularly make legal determinations, I must say it
really doesn't matter a flying **** why a law was passed.... the law is
there to stay and does what it does, and what it does isn't even always what
they legislators intended it to do.

So yeah... no smoking is a damn good idea and I don't care if the law was
passed for the children, the adults, the environment or the benefit of a
small grey rabbit living halfway up a drainpipe. End result = good.

Nope, less personal freedom always = bad.

Just sucks that you can't drive a car into my living room, then.

Banty

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:59:41 +0930, "silvasurfa"
wrote:


"Pockets of Resistance" wrote in message
.. .
On 23 Jun 2003 08:49:31 -0700, Banty wrote:

Come back with another "Aint it Awful" about something else "for the
chiiiillldren" - the OP really blew it and picked the wrong subject for
this
one!

No, I didn't.

The law was specifically passed to keep the very *sight* of people
smoking away from The Children.

As someone who has to regularly make legal determinations, I must say it
really doesn't matter a flying **** why a law was passed.... the law is
there to stay and does what it does, and what it does isn't even always what
they legislators intended it to do.

Laws can be repealed. They can also be challenged and struck down by
the courts.

Laws are made by legislatures and they are not always right.

If laws were here to stay, then prohibition would still be around.

So yeah... no smoking is a damn good idea and I don't care if the law was
passed for the children, the adults, the environment or the benefit of a
small grey rabbit living halfway up a drainpipe. End result = good.

So you believe that the end justifies the means in all cases?


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

"toto" wrote in message
...

So yeah... no smoking is a damn good idea and I don't care if the law was
passed for the children, the adults, the environment or the benefit of a
small grey rabbit living halfway up a drainpipe. End result = good.

So you believe that the end justifies the means in all cases?


--
Dorothy

And you believe that the end never justifies the means?

In article , toto says...

On 27 Jun 2003 04:47:46 -0700, Banty wrote:

Nope, less personal freedom always = bad.

Just sucks that you can't drive a car into my living room, then.

Banty

Personal freedom does not extend into private space.

But public space is a different story.


My comment addressed the overarching "less personal freedom always = bad"
statement. "Always"??

Personal freedom is necessarily limited in public spaces as well. Especially
concerning befouling the public space. You can't pee against a tree, litter,
allow pets to leave excrement, etc., etc. That includes the air.

Banty

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:39:00 +0930, "silvasurfa"
wrote:


"toto" wrote in message
.. .

So yeah... no smoking is a damn good idea and I don't care if the law was
passed for the children, the adults, the environment or the benefit of a
small grey rabbit living halfway up a drainpipe. End result = good.

So you believe that the end justifies the means in all cases?


--
Dorothy

And you believe that the end never justifies the means?


In general, yes. The means must be appropriate to the ends, imho.
Otherwise you can justify all kinds of draconian measure because the
object is you are trying to achieve is a good one. I think that you
must use means that are good as well as having a good result.

"Nathan Nagel" wrote in message
...

So yeah... no smoking is a damn good idea and I don't care if the law
was
passed for the children, the adults, the environment or the benefit of a
small grey rabbit living halfway up a drainpipe. End result = good.

Nope, less personal freedom always = bad.

Yes, but in this case the increased freedom of the about 75% of the
population that does not smoke to be free of the smell, fumes, and sights of
butts outweighs the freedom of the 25% who do smoke to create all that. The
net effect on freedom is an increase and so by your standards it is still a
good thing.

--
CBI