Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to groupPost Subject:
another criminal anti-smoker outed
Bill <williamdochnahl@adelphia.net> wrote in
news:7510290a-f333-45af-80d5-8846f06bd218@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> Now just because he has no positive male role model doesn't mean he is
> going to become a democrat.
Again, it's not that _all_ children who eat candy cigarettes
will grow up to smoke, but only that _some_ might. So the
parallel holds. In _general_, it's not good that a child grow
up without a dad to whoop his ass once in a while. And in
_general_, it's not good to market adult pleasures to little
kids.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
news:7510290a-f333-45af-80d5-8846f06bd218@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> Now just because he has no positive male role model doesn't mean he is
> going to become a democrat.
Again, it's not that _all_ children who eat candy cigarettes
will grow up to smoke, but only that _some_ might. So the
parallel holds. In _general_, it's not good that a child grow
up without a dad to whoop his ass once in a while. And in
_general_, it's not good to market adult pleasures to little
kids.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
On May 8, 7:13 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Bill <williamdochn...@adelphia.net> wrote innews:7510290a-f333-45af-80d5-8846f06bd218@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Now just because he has no positive male role model doesn't mean he is
> > going to become a democrat.
>
> Again, it's not that _all_ children who eat candy cigarettes
> will grow up to smoke, but only that _some_ might. So the
> parallel holds. In _general_, it's not good that a child grow
> up without a dad to whoop his ass once in a while. And in
> _general_, it's not good to market adult pleasures to little
> kids.
>
> B.
>
> --
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
True. You should never market democrats to children. If they don't
have a male role model to kick their ass once in a while, they might
move to Berkley or vote for Ted Kennedy.
> Bill <williamdochn...@adelphia.net> wrote innews:7510290a-f333-45af-80d5-8846f06bd218@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Now just because he has no positive male role model doesn't mean he is
> > going to become a democrat.
>
> Again, it's not that _all_ children who eat candy cigarettes
> will grow up to smoke, but only that _some_ might. So the
> parallel holds. In _general_, it's not good that a child grow
> up without a dad to whoop his ass once in a while. And in
> _general_, it's not good to market adult pleasures to little
> kids.
>
> B.
>
> --
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
True. You should never market democrats to children. If they don't
have a male role model to kick their ass once in a while, they might
move to Berkley or vote for Ted Kennedy.
Bill <williamdochnahl@adelphia.net> wrote in
news:24416200-09b3-46c1-b516-5a656ad2ea88@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> True. You should never market democrats to children. If they don't
> have a male role model to kick their ass once in a while, they might
> move to Berkley or vote for Ted Kennedy.
Right. When your kid is talking to a strange adult on the
phone at 3 in the morning, who do _you_ want on the other
end? Obama or Hillary?
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
news:24416200-09b3-46c1-b516-5a656ad2ea88@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> True. You should never market democrats to children. If they don't
> have a male role model to kick their ass once in a while, they might
> move to Berkley or vote for Ted Kennedy.
Right. When your kid is talking to a strange adult on the
phone at 3 in the morning, who do _you_ want on the other
end? Obama or Hillary?
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Bart Goddard wrote:
> Bill <williamdochnahl@adelphia.net> wrote in
> news:7510290a-f333-45af-80d5-8846f06bd218@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> Now just because he has no positive male role model doesn't mean he
>> is going to become a democrat.
>
> Again, it's not that _all_ children who eat candy cigarettes
> will grow up to smoke, but only that _some_ might. --
And what about the ones who grow up to eat cigarettes?
bernie
"Official ASC Shaman"
> Bill <williamdochnahl@adelphia.net> wrote in
> news:7510290a-f333-45af-80d5-8846f06bd218@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> Now just because he has no positive male role model doesn't mean he
>> is going to become a democrat.
>
> Again, it's not that _all_ children who eat candy cigarettes
> will grow up to smoke, but only that _some_ might. --
And what about the ones who grow up to eat cigarettes?
bernie
"Official ASC Shaman"
On Thu, 8 May 2008 17:33:06 -0700 (PDT), Bill
<williamdochnahl@adelphia.net> wrote:
>Now just because he has no positive male role model doesn't mean he is
>going to become a democrat.
Yes, he might by chance overcome that fate.
CigarBaron
<williamdochnahl@adelphia.net> wrote:
>Now just because he has no positive male role model doesn't mean he is
>going to become a democrat.
Yes, he might by chance overcome that fate.
CigarBaron
Bart Goddard wrote:
> Bill <williamdochnahl@adelphia.net> wrote in
> news:fdd46239-ce94-41cc-a255-01b2f21bff0a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> Is adultery even illegal?
>
> Is smoking illegal?
>
> B.
It is in most restaurants.
Come to think of adultry probably is too.
bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
> Bill <williamdochnahl@adelphia.net> wrote in
> news:fdd46239-ce94-41cc-a255-01b2f21bff0a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> Is adultery even illegal?
>
> Is smoking illegal?
>
> B.
It is in most restaurants.
Come to think of adultry probably is too.
bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
In article <68j6fuF2t9u1qU1@mid.individual.net>,
"btorvik2" <btorvik2@aol.com> wrote:
> Bart Goddard wrote:
> > Bill <williamdochnahl@adelphia.net> wrote in
> > news:fdd46239-ce94-41cc-a255-01b2f21bff0a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> >> Is adultery even illegal?
> > Is smoking illegal?
> It is in most restaurants.
> Come to think of adultry probably is too.
> bernie
I would've guessed that restaurants were the [2nd] most common venue for
adultery...
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
"btorvik2" <btorvik2@aol.com> wrote:
> Bart Goddard wrote:
> > Bill <williamdochnahl@adelphia.net> wrote in
> > news:fdd46239-ce94-41cc-a255-01b2f21bff0a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> >> Is adultery even illegal?
> > Is smoking illegal?
> It is in most restaurants.
> Come to think of adultry probably is too.
> bernie
I would've guessed that restaurants were the [2nd] most common venue for
adultery...
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
> In article <68j6fuF2t9u1qU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "btorvik2" <btorvik2@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Bart Goddard wrote:
>>> Bill <williamdochnahl@adelphia.net> wrote in
>>> news:fdd46239-ce94-41cc-a255-01b2f21bff0a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>>>> Is adultery even illegal?
>
>>> Is smoking illegal?
>
>> It is in most restaurants.
>> Come to think of adultry probably is too.
>> bernie
>
> I would've guessed that restaurants were the [2nd] most common venue
> for adultery...
Maybe for the prelude to adultery but not the act itself.
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
> In article <68j6fuF2t9u1qU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "btorvik2" <btorvik2@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Bart Goddard wrote:
>>> Bill <williamdochnahl@adelphia.net> wrote in
>>> news:fdd46239-ce94-41cc-a255-01b2f21bff0a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>>>> Is adultery even illegal?
>
>>> Is smoking illegal?
>
>> It is in most restaurants.
>> Come to think of adultry probably is too.
>> bernie
>
> I would've guessed that restaurants were the [2nd] most common venue
> for adultery...
Maybe for the prelude to adultery but not the act itself.
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
"btorvik2" <btorvik2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:68j6fuF2t9u1qU1@mid.individual.net...
> Bart Goddard wrote:
>> Bill <williamdochnahl@adelphia.net> wrote in
>> news:fdd46239-ce94-41cc-a255-01b2f21bff0a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>> Is adultery even illegal?
>>
>> Is smoking illegal?
>>
>> B.
>
> It is in most restaurants.
>
> Come to think of adultry probably is too.
>
Adultery: An acorn, all grown up.
On May 9, 10:51 am, "btorvik2" <btorv...@aol.com> wrote:
> Bart Goddard wrote:
> > Bill <williamdochn...@adelphia.net> wrote in
> >news:fdd46239-ce94-41cc-a255-01b2f21bff0a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> Is adultery even illegal?
>
> > Is smoking illegal?
>
> > B.
>
> It is in most restaurants.
>
> Come to think of adultry probably is too.
>
> bernie
>
> --
> "Official ASC Shaman"
Why is it that all the stuff that is fun to do is illegal?
> Bart Goddard wrote:
> > Bill <williamdochn...@adelphia.net> wrote in
> >news:fdd46239-ce94-41cc-a255-01b2f21bff0a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> Is adultery even illegal?
>
> > Is smoking illegal?
>
> > B.
>
> It is in most restaurants.
>
> Come to think of adultry probably is too.
>
> bernie
>
> --
> "Official ASC Shaman"
Why is it that all the stuff that is fun to do is illegal?
"shakenbake" <agmazza@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d58589ac-39fd-43d1-8e93-1edbf4be61c3@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Why is it that all the stuff that is fun to do is illegal?
================
Eating pancakes is illegal?
shakenbake wrote:
> Why is it that all the stuff that is fun to do is illegal?
It isn't. First of all, there is some fun stuff that is
immoral, or fattening. Illegality is not the sole criterion.
Second, there are some things that fall in none of the three
categories but are fun, that are simply allowed to happen.
Granted, that may be because no blue-nose has ever been able
to devise a way to interfere with them, but fact remains,
there are some pleasures not subject to opprobrium.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
> Why is it that all the stuff that is fun to do is illegal?
It isn't. First of all, there is some fun stuff that is
immoral, or fattening. Illegality is not the sole criterion.
Second, there are some things that fall in none of the three
categories but are fun, that are simply allowed to happen.
Granted, that may be because no blue-nose has ever been able
to devise a way to interfere with them, but fact remains,
there are some pleasures not subject to opprobrium.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
On May 11, 11:24 pm, Jim Beard <jim.be...@verizon.net> wrote:
> shakenbake wrote:
> > Why is it that all the stuff that is fun to do is illegal?
>
> It isn't. First of all, there is some fun stuff that is
> immoral, or fattening. Illegality is not the sole criterion.
>
> Second, there are some things that fall in none of the three
> categories but are fun, that are simply allowed to happen.
> Granted, that may be because no blue-nose has ever been able
> to devise a way to interfere with them, but fact remains,
> there are some pleasures not subject to opprobrium.
>
> Cheers!
>
> jim b.
>
> --
> UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
> expects users to be computer-friendly.
Thank goodness for that! ;~)
> shakenbake wrote:
> > Why is it that all the stuff that is fun to do is illegal?
>
> It isn't. First of all, there is some fun stuff that is
> immoral, or fattening. Illegality is not the sole criterion.
>
> Second, there are some things that fall in none of the three
> categories but are fun, that are simply allowed to happen.
> Granted, that may be because no blue-nose has ever been able
> to devise a way to interfere with them, but fact remains,
> there are some pleasures not subject to opprobrium.
>
> Cheers!
>
> jim b.
>
> --
> UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
> expects users to be computer-friendly.
Thank goodness for that! ;~)
On 8 May 2008 21:44:39 GMT, Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape.net>
wrote:
> You cited some instances in
>which bastards grew up to be exemplary citizens, but that's
>hardly the case in general.
Quite true. I've always maintained that you can't legislate based
upon anecdotes. There will always be outliers.
CigarBaron
wrote:
> You cited some instances in
>which bastards grew up to be exemplary citizens, but that's
>hardly the case in general.
Quite true. I've always maintained that you can't legislate based
upon anecdotes. There will always be outliers.
CigarBaron
Marc Schneiderman <garbaron@telerama.com> wrote:
>On 8 May 2008 21:44:39 GMT, Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape.net>
>wrote:
>
>> You cited some instances in
>>which bastards grew up to be exemplary citizens, but that's
>>hardly the case in general.
>
>Quite true. I've always maintained that you can't legislate based
>upon anecdotes. There will always be outliers.
>CigarBaron
And when dealing with legislators, there will always be our liars.
>On 8 May 2008 21:44:39 GMT, Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape.net>
>wrote:
>
>> You cited some instances in
>>which bastards grew up to be exemplary citizens, but that's
>>hardly the case in general.
>
>Quite true. I've always maintained that you can't legislate based
>upon anecdotes. There will always be outliers.
>CigarBaron
And when dealing with legislators, there will always be our liars.
