Conference back40::soapbox

    The President of the United States is forbidden to sign any document
    he/she has not read in its entirety.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    All tax penalties, interest, and rules of evidence shall be reciprocal.
    That is, any penalty assessed upon a taxpayer for late payment shall
    also be assessed upon the IRS when it pays late.  The IRS must pay the
    same rate of interest to taxpayers that taxpayers pay to the IRS.  And
    any standard of proof by the IRS of error by a taxpayer shall also
    suffice for the taxpayer to prove error by the IRS.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                                       

    Any person who falsifies evidence, withholds exculpatory evidence,
    perjures him or herself, or otherwise seeks to deny a defendant a fair
    trial shall be subjected to the maximum punishment available to the
    judge for the crime the defendant was charged with.

    
    .3
    
    I second that.  All in favour, say "aye".
    

    15 years in the slammer for ending a sentence with a preposition.

    
    	A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
    

    Well, a preposition is a lot cheaper than a room in a half-way house,
    which is how they normally end a sentence.

 It shall be against the law for any motorized vehicle with license plate
 other than New Hampshire, to be present on I93 North between Methuen, Mass
 and Exit 4 Derry New Hampshire on a Friday evening between the hours of
 5PM and 7PM on a Friday evening between November 15 and March 31 of any
 calendar year.


 

    CONSTITUTION
    
    Article 1.	No person, group of persons or government may initiate
    		force, threat of force or fraud against the person or
    		property of any individual.
    
    Article 2.	Force may be morally and legally used only in defense
    		against those who violate Article 1.
    
    Article 3.	No exceptions shall ever exist to Articles 1. and 2.

    1.  The President shall not deploy American armed forces in an actual
        or potential combat situation in a foreign land without the prior
        approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress.
    
    2.  The President shall not deploy American troops so as to comprise
        or represent a subset of a foreign or multi-national military
        force, nor to represent any other nation or body other than the
        United States of America.
    

    Agree with 2, not sure about 1.

  > not sure about 1.

	why?

    "The 16th amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America
     is hereby repealed."

Z    1. The President shall not deploy American armed forces in an actual
Z    or potential combat situation in a foreign land without the
Z    prior approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress.
    
    Okay Di, I thought about it and your right!

    What about her right?

    .10
    
    > 1.  The President shall not deploy American armed forces...
    
    The prez is stumping somewhere.  Congress is in session.  Someone drops
    a nuke on the Capitol.  Oopsie.  Guess we'll never go to war.

    
    >What about her right?
    
    
    	It's a little bigger than her left?
    

    You've been looking in certain sweaters, haven't you?

    
    
    Word a proposed law something to the effect...
    
    Judges and  members of parole boards shall be held responsible, in any
    civil and/or criminal action involving their decision to release
    criminals into society should these same criminals commit another
    crime (During the time they would have been in jail had they not been
    released).

>    Okay Di, I thought about it and your right!

  I'm right?  I didn't even say what I thought about it.  I was
  just asking what your uncertainty was about.

    
    That no retail establishment make the customer wait ten minutes
    to have a check approved, only to have some service desk and/or
    manager dweeb come by and wave a pen over it without so much as
    even looking at the customer, let alone any of the information
    printed on the check.
    
    [This will be known as the "putting effing HQ outta business"
    law.]
    
    -b
    

    
    	Actually, all department stores are the same way, Brian.
    

    
    >	Actually, all department stores are the same way, Brian.
    
    Not all are as bad. Once, when this happened to me (at an HQ),
    I demanded to see a manager. I then told him that I think their
    check policy is stupid. He told me "we have to protect ourselves
    from our customers", to which I replied: "well, you have
    successfully managed to protect yourself from this one."
                                                       
    This is a true story, it happened at the Shrewsbury Mass store.
    
    -b

   No piggyback bills may be presented for vote in either house.

    
    
    
    If a person is sued for monetary damages and loses the suit, the
    attorney and the plantiff shall be responsible for court costs and
    legal fees of the party found not guilty.
    
    
    

    -1 only if the defendant can prove malice or a frivolous suit.
    Otherwise, big corporations would almost never be sued, due to the
    downside risk. If you sue somebody and they have way more resources
    than you, and you lose the suit because they have an army of lawyers
    casting doubt, and expert witnesses up the wazoo saying exactly what
    they're paid to say, you shouldn't be forced to bear their costs if you
    lose. 

    
    All automobiles shall be equipped with a Tazer-like device, installed
    in and/or around the driver's seat. When said drivers fail to heed the:
    
    "Keep right except to pass" law, the vehicle immediately behind the
    law-breaker will have the ability to initiate said device in the
    vehicle ahead, for a period of 1 second... with a wait of 1 minute
    between recharges, and for no more than 6 applications.
    

    
    	Andy, I foresee some problems with people "zapping" others
    	just for the fun of it.
    
    	But it is a really good concept.
    
    	The last time I got someone to pull over to the right for me
    	was right after I "swept" the car's rear bumper while doing
    	a 2-lane shift to pass and a 2-lane shift to go back to the
    	right lane.  Just close enough to get the driver's attention.
    

    
    re: .28
    
    Shawn
    
    >just for the fun of it.
    
    Nope... not for the fun of it...
    
    I expect the car to have a reasonably intelligent computer chip to tell
    when it's driver is in violation of the law!!
    
    :) :) :) :)
    

    
    <-- Excessive apostrophe alert.
     

    
                                  ,.',.',.'
                              ,.',.',.' ,.',.
    8^pPppPPppPppPpPppPppPpPppPPpP,.',.',.',.'
                                ,.',.',.',.'
                                    ,. ' ,.
    
    
    
    
    

    
    Spit & Polish?

    
    Oh? So you want to talk to my lawyer too?????
    
    
     :) :) :)
    

    No law shall be enacted that gives the right for customers
    to have legal access to the toilet in a small store just
    because they are elderly, incontinent, or have an infection
    that renders them incontinent.  No registry of incontinents
    shall be formed or official ID cards issued that gives the
    holders legal access to a stores toilet.  No parent shall
    be given the legal right to demand access to said toilet 
    for a child's potty needs.
                                                             

    
    	How sweet.
    

    "In cases to which federal, state or local government are party to, the
     jury shall be informed of its right to judge both law and fact in
     rendering a decision."

     Z   to have legal access to the toilet in a small store just
     Z   because they are elderly, incontinent, or have an infection
     Z   that renders them incontinent.
    
    Pray I don't walk into your White Hen Pantry...you'll be sorry...you'll
    be veeeeery veeery sorry!!! (Insert voice of Dan Akroyd from Trading
    Places here!)

    1. The Federal Reserve Act is hereby repealed.
    
    2. The gold and silver standard set up by the Constitution of the
       United States of America is hereby reinstated.  All acts and/or
       laws set up to repeal this Constitutional standard are hereby
       repealed. 
    
    3. There shall be no tax on land purchased, over and above original
       sales tax.  Tax on the reselling of land may be applied.
    
    4. The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of 
       America is hereby repealed.  (I know, someone else already mentioned
       this one, but I thought it worth mentioning again.)
    
    5. Congress must have a balanced budget every fiscal year.  The only
       excemption to this rule is when the United States is officially at 
       war with a foreign power.
    
    
    
    These will do for starters.
                               
    

    Every bill that is proposed must contain language, that if the bill is 
    passed into law, will repeal two existing laws.
    
    This should help shrink government back to a manageable size.
    
    --Geoff

In a room with two copiers, one large, self-feeding and collating, and
the other small, lift-up-the-glass, if a person uses the large copier
for an hour to make transparencies one at a time using the
lift-up-the-glass-cover thingy while the small copier is unused, shall
be auto-stapled in some part of sensitive anatomy, pnce for each
slide.

    RE: .19
    
    Relative to holding judges, parole boards accountable for crimes
    committed by released criminals..........Add psychiatrists and all others 
    who assert that their patients present no threat to society and are safe 
    to be released.
    
    In addition, I like to see a law that permits blood relatives or
    spouses to have the unrestricted right to determine the penalty for the 
    convicted murderer of a relative or loved one. If no relatives are
    available a local victim's rights group should be designated to act in
    lieu of family.

    
    <-----
    
    I'll drink to that!!!
    

    .38, and .39.
    
    Although the 16th is eyewash anyway, it wouldn't hurt to lose it.
    
    ... or ...
    
    Simply repeal any and all federal laws, and all amendments after the
    tenth.  Fire all members of all three branches of government.  Then we
    just re-elect/appoint using the Constitution as the document upon which
    to rebuild the federal government.

All laws shall be limited to no more than three typewritten pages, and use
the common language of the people, understanable by all.

All previously enacted laws in violation of this act are hereby declared
unconstitional and void.

  .44 understanable, and not unconstitional at that.

    
    Sounds like what we'd get if Foster Brooks was in Congress.
    
    -b

   .46  aagagag!  exactly.

    
    hhmmmmmm   maybe, we could get the box denizens to either write or
    review all new laws being proposed. 

    re: .43
    
    That would certainly be easier, but the federal government has created
    too many problems currently, to do that without serious repercussions.  
    
    Of course, if you look at this from my perspective, there will be riots 
    in the streets anyway (since gubmint is not serious about CUTTING 
    spending- as normal human being define CUTTING).  Sooner or later, the 
    government teat will run dry, and won't that be a thrill a minute for the 
    entire nation.
    
    If you really want to get me going on conpiracies and such, our current
    situation, if you look at it from oh, 1913 on, has been engineered.  
    
    
    -steve

    An Act for the Purpose of Protecting Law Against Incorrect
    Interpretation.
    
    Section 1.  To preserve the meaning intended by the framers of a given
    law, all laws shall be written in a language constructed for the
    specific purpose of legislation and for no other purpose.
    
    Section 2.  Because the meanings of words in all natural languages
    change over time, such legislative language shall not be any natural
    language, existing or obsolete; nor shall such legislative language be
    extended, or modified in any other way, except by the passage of laws
    written in such legislative language itself.  Concepts of law that are
    new to the legislative language shall be defined into the language as
    specifically as possible, using terms not part of the language only
    where necessary; the definitions of such foreign terms, once they shall
    have been adopted into the legislative language by law, shall
    thenceforth not be altered except as described in this Section.
    
    3.  The new legislative language required by this Act shall be
    developed by a committee of twenty members, of whom four shall be
    attorneys at law, four shall be recognized experts on the Constitution
    but shall not also be attorneys, four shall be recognized experts in
    the English language as it was spoken and written during the period
    from A.D. 1770 to A.D. 1800 but shall not also be either attorneys or
    Constitutional experts, and eight shall be ordinary citizens chosen by
    lot from among the registered voters of the entire United States.  The
    eight Committee members chosen by lot from among the citizenry shall
    not be attorneys, Constitutional experts, or language experts.  Each of
    the four groups making up the Committee shall consist of both men and
    women in equal number.  The eight Committee members who are ordinary
    citizens shall individually and collectively have the power to veto the
    implementation of any element of the language that they cannot be made
    to understand by the other twelve members of the committee.  The entire
    development of said new legislative language shall require a period of
    not more than seven years from the enactment of this Act.  Failure of
    the Committee to comply with this time requirement shall be punished by
    imprisonment for a period of ten years of the twelve members who are
    not ordinary citizens.
    
    4.  All laws written prior to the enactment of this Act, and this Act
    itself, shall be rewritten in the new legislative language within ten
    years after the new legislative language required by this Act shall
    have been made public.  Any such law not rewritten within the said
    ten-year period shall at the expiration of the said period become null
    and void.

Congress shall meet each year for a period not longer than three consecutive
months, or ninety-one days. No lawful legislation shall be passed outside of
this period.

Members shall be compensated at 3/12 the current rate.

No member of Congress shall be allowed any special priviledge or immunity
while Congress is not in session.

Members of Congress shall be allowed a leave of absence from employment while
Congress is in session. Employers shall be freed of any compensation to the
members during this time. The Congress shall be empowered to enforce this
act.

> No lawful legislation shall be passed outside of

    I guess that gives them 8 months to pass all the unlawful legislation.

    -- Dave

> Members shall be compensated at 3/12 the current rate.

Compensation shall not be increased at a rate greater than the rate of
inflation.

    Hell with it.
    
    Congress shall get the same insurance that the mean of the population
    of the US has, and will have to pay out as much in pocket as the
    average person in their demograpic group, regarding age, race, and
    habits.  
    
    Health care reform could rapidly become meaningful with this one.
    
    meg

    
    re:.27
    
    > All automobiles shall be equipped with a Tazer-like device, installed
    > .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .
    > .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .
    > .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .
    > vehicle ahead, for a period of 1 second... with a wait of 1 minute
    > between recharges, and for no more than 6 applications.
    
    "6 applications" per day, per hour, or less than that?
    

    
    
    per day...
    
    So you can learn to use them properly...
    

    
    
    
    
    All laws that specify a Dollar amount will be replaced by a computation
    variable.
    
    
    I just hate laws passed specifying something like $5 payment for land
    is required. When the law was passed in 1808.
    
    Or $50 in a three month period before for social security has to be
    paid and the law was written in 1950. 
    
    
    

  All laws must have an expiration date.
  Once all congress pipples who voted on a bill are no longer in office,
   that law becomes null and void.

  If it was such a good law, then it can be voted in again.

kb

    
    
    	Or the $200 transfer tax for machine guns, written in 1938...(when
    you could buy a "Tommy gun" for $40 at the local hardware store). :)
    
    

    .38>
     >   2. The gold and silver standard set up by the Constitution of the
     >      United States of America is hereby reinstated.  All acts and/or
     >      laws set up to repeal this Constitutional standard are hereby
     >      repealed.
     
    I always find it interesting when people assume that one relatively
    worthless item (gold and silver) is a better standard of money than any
    other money standard.  When it comes right down to it, money in all of
    its forms is a huge fiction that is perpetuated by the belief that it
    actually has some intrinsic value.  It doesn't.  It only has a value
    that society places on it.
    
    There were as many if not more problems throughout history with gold
    and silver as a monatary base, as with any other form of currency.
    
    
    	Skip

    <--- But it's hard to run up a $5 Trillion debt when there isn't $5
    Trillion worth of gold to back it.
    
    There are reasons to base our monetary system on gold and silver,
    rather than the imagination of world bankers and paper IOUs.
    
    
    -steve

     >   2. The gold and silver standard set up by the Constitution of the
     >      United States of America is hereby reinstated.  All acts and/or
     >      laws set up to repeal this Constitutional standard are hereby
     >      repealed.
     
I was never much on economics, but wouldn't a relatively quick reinstatement
of a precious metals standard in the USofA have some rather disastrous (if not 
merely critically traumatic) effects on economies world-wide?

    
    .62>
       > <--- But it's hard to run up a $5 Trillion debt when there isn't $5
       > Trillion worth of gold to back it.
    
       > There are reasons to base our monetary system on gold and silver,
       > rather than the imagination of world bankers and paper IOUs.
    
    Sorry, try again.  First off, how much a country borrows has nothing to
    do with its gold reserve.  The gold reserve is used to determine
    basicaly M1 (cash and checking/now/moneymarket accounts).  Many times
    the Feds borrowed more than their gold reserve (check out the war of
    1812, Civil War, WW1 and WW2 for examples).
    
    All that gold does is change how money flows around the world and how
    banks issue cash and credit.
    
    	Skip

    I agree that the gold reserve of a nation does not mean they won't
    borrow more money than they can back by gold.  However, they cannot
    print money, legally, that is not backed by gold or silver (under the
    gold and silver standards).  I think there are solvency issues created
    when a government has no way to back its currency (and its debt).
    
    The government cannot back what is currently being circulated, nor is
    it required to any more (a federal reserve note is not a government
    note).  The government is only obligated (that is, you and I are
    obligated) to pay off this currency + interest, to the FRB.
    
    Of course, the real issues I have with the current monetary system is as
    follows:
    
    * The Federal Reserve system is bogus.  It is not a government agency.
    * The gold and silver standard is a CONSTITUTIONAL standard.  As such,
    it should have taken an amendment to the Constitution to change it.  No
    Act or EO or law is superior to the Constitution of the United States. 
    
    As bogus as I think the XVI Amendment is, at least they bothered to go
    through the motions of constitutional law.  Personally, the 16th seems
    to go against the verbiage of intent in Article I section 8.  That
    which contradicts the body of the Constitution is inharently
    unconstitutional, thus should never pass SCOTUS to begin with.
     
    
    -steve  

inhErently

    
    Ignoring the constitution for a moment, let us look at the current way
    money is valued around the world.  There are two basic stabilizing
    forces - exchange rates and interest rates.  Exhange rates being the
    rate of exchange of currency between one country and another, while
    interest rates are the rate paid by that country on bills, notes and
    bonds.
    
    A third factor is involved with international banking.  By treaty with
    all of the major players, a rating system was designed to allow rating
    the various banks based on their reserves.  A reserve is defined as
    hard currency (the actual paper money), gold and silver, or short term
    notes (90 days or less) of various countries.  There were second tier
    reserves that consisted of longer term obligations (up to 2 years) and
    short term bonds from A rated companies as well as short term
    obligations from additional countries that didn't make the tier 1 cut. 
    Finally there is a third tier with even greater leeway.
    
    To get the highest ratings, a bank needed something like 5% of its
    assets in tier one items and around 20-30% in tier 3 or better.  Note -
    none of the Japanese banks (as of 1994) made it to the highest ratings.
    
    From all of this, global market forces come to play to keep a currency
    under control or punish a country that doesn't.
    
    A similar kind of market force works if just gold and silver is used as
    a reserve for currency.  This showed itself to a large degree in this
    country in 1929 and again in 1970-1972.  In 1929, gold reserves were
    withheld from some banks that where not on the "approved" list.  The
    result was that during the bank runs, banks would run out of cash and
    be forced to close down.  If loan payments weren't made and new
    reserves weren't added, the bank folded with the disaster that everyone
    with deposits in that bank lost those deposits.
    
    In the '70s, inflation was hitting the country.  But, being a gold
    based economy (even though people were not allowed to own gold).  So,
    the official price of gold was $35.00/ounce, yet the value of the
    dollar was such that gold was really worth $110.  The result was that
    foreigners were shipping all sorts of gold from the US, eroding the
    country's reserve.  That is when Nixon disconnected gold from the
    dollar.
    
    Gold prices then immediately climbed to $110. and then inched up until
    the early '80s when they passed $800/ounce.
    
    Note that manipulating gold reserves is a lot easier to do than
    manipulating exchange rates.  Moving around $1 billion in gold is
    relatively simple, yet could effect $100-200 billion in economy
    (depending on reserve rates which have hit a low of 1/2 percent in the
    past).  On bill on the exchange markets is nothing (as the Fed has seen
    in the past).  So non-market forces are much harder to bring to bear,
    which I consider good.
    
    	Skip

    That's pretty much what I recall from my IoB courses.  The gold
    standards may now be impossible to apply in an international economy.
    The US has never *always* been on the gold standard. Bimetallism was
    the previous standard. I don't think the gold standard was implemented
    until the 1830's.
    
    If I remember correctly, one theoretical problem with the gold standard
    is that there simply is not enough gold to go round, and its use in
    industry is increasing annually.  At some point, an economy could be
    capped by the lack of gold to increse the money supply.  The second
    major danger at that time was that rogue net producers of gold like
    South Africa and the USSR could influence the world's money supply and
    the establishment of gold cartels was a real danger.  (If diamonds had
    been chosen as a standard than the world economies would be owned by
    the DeBeers cartel.)
    
    In the second sense of the standard, determining "true" value of a
    backed note becomes a daily problem in an international market.  Gold
    as a commodity can fluctuate widely and currency values would change
    depending on the market. In a true floating gold standard, it could
    mean that you don't make enough money to pay your mortgage next month,
    although that's probably an extreme example.  The most practical
    example was the depression, which was probably caused (according to
    Friedmann) by the London-centered world economy at that time.  London
    dropped interest rates causing gold to move to London and the US to run
    short of currency.   Incidentally, there has not been a major currency
    panic or depression since most economies came off the gold standard. 
    There were many before, including the 1893 panic and ensuing depression
    which was also attributed to the gold standard and the row over the
    Sherman Silver Purchase Act.
    
    I guess If you want an economy that's based on Joe Public paying for
    the gov't to buy gold and silver so that the value of wealthy
    investor's fortunes remains constant AND you're prepared to take a
    depression every 30 or so years, the the gold standard is for you. 
    (There was some famous quotation about this - something about "not
    crucifying the nation on a cross of gold".)
    
    Incidentally,  I can't seem to find a relevant statement about the
    "gold standard" in the US Constitution.  All I can find that seems
    directly relevant is:
    
    Section. 8.  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
    Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
    common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
    Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
    States; . . .
    
    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix
    the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . .
    
    Section. 10.  No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or
    Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit
    Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in
    Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law
    impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
    
    Pointer please?
    [End of file]
     Buffer: temp.lis                                    | Write | Insert |
    Forward
    
    

    Why not base it on Nitrogen? There's plenty of that stuff around isn't
    there? Oh, I suppose that would create yet another gas giant.

    
    :^)  :^)  :^)
    

    To my knowledge, this has never been repealed.  So, the only
    LAWFULL money would be gold/silver/copper COIN.  I suppose 
    paper money would be ok for transfers between states and banks.
    
    Right now, what is our money "worth"?  An IOU, nothing.  It's
    worth "a dollar".  I can't put my hands on "a dollar" if I want.
    What is a dollar?  A unit of measurement.  If I have a dollar
    backed by something tangible, like gold, I can walk into a bank 
    and trade my paper for gold.  Now, assuming "something happens"
    the value of my paper goes POOF... I can't put my hands on anything.
    The green paper marked "dollars" can then come in handy when I need 
    to wipe my arss. 
    
    
    {this may be incomplete.  I didn't proof read it}
    
                                 MONEY LAW
                        The Coinage Act of April 2, 1792
                                  (1 Stat. 246)

Statute I.

April 2, 1792       Chapter XVI.--An Act establishing a Mint, and
                    regulating the coins of the United States.

Mint established    Section I.  Be it enacted by the Senate and
at the seat of      House of Representatives of the United States
government.         of American in Congress assembled, and it is
                    hereby enacted and declared, That a mint for
                    the purpose of a national coinage be, and the
                    same is established, to be situate and
                    carried on at the seat of the government of
                    the United States, for the time being; and
                    that for the well conducting of the business
                    of the said mint, there shall be the
                    following officers and persons, namely, --a
                    Director, an Assayer, a Chief Coiner, an
                    Engarver, a Treasurer.    ...

Species of the      Section 9.  And be it further enacted, That
coins to be         there shall be from time to time struck and
struck.             coined at the said mint, coins of gold,
                    silver, and copper, of the following denomi-
                    nations, values and descriptions, viz.
Eagles              EAGLES--each to be of he value of ten dollars
                    or units, and to contain two hundred and
                    forty-seven grains and four eighths of a
                    grain of pure, or two hundred and seventy
                    grains of standard gold.
Half Eagles         HALF EAGLES--each to be of the value of five
                    dollars, and to contain one hundred and
                    twenty-three grains and six eighths of a
                    grain of pure, or one hundred and thirty-five
                    grains of standard gold.
Quarter Eagles      QUARTER EAGLES--each to be of the value of
                    two dollars and a half dollar, and to contain
                    sixty-one grains and seven eighths of a grain
                    of pure, or sixty-seven grains and four
                    eighths of a grain of standard gold.
Dollars or Units    DOLLARS OR UNITS--each to be of the value of
                    a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now
                    current, and to contain three hundred and
                    seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts
                    of a grain of pure, or four hundred and
                    sixteen grains of standard silver.
Half Dollars        HALF DOLLARS--each to be of half the value of
                    the dollar or unit, and to contain one
                    hundred and eighty-five grains and ten
                    sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or two
                    hundred and eight grains of standard silver.
Quarter Dollars     QUARTER DOLLAR--each to be of one fourth the
                    value of the dollar or unit, and to contain
                    ninety-two grains and thirteen sixteenth
                    parts of a grain of pure, or one hundred and
                    four grains of standard silver.
Dismes              DISMES--each to be of the value of one tenth
                    of a dollar or unit, and to contain thirty-
                    seven grains and two sixteenth parts of a
                    grain of pure, or forty-one grains and three
                    fifths parts of a grain of standard silver.
Half Dismes         HALF DISMES--each to be of the value of one
                    twentieth of a dollar, and to contain
                    eighteen grains and nine sixteenth parts of a
                    grain of pure, or twenty grains and four
                    fifths parts of a grain of standard silver.
Cents               CENTS--each to be of the value of the one
                    hundredth part of a dollar, and to contain
                    eleven penny-weights of copper.
Half Cents          HALF CENTS--each to be of the value of half a
Act of May 8,       a cent, and to contain five penny-weights and
1792.               a half a penny-weight of copper.

Of what devices     Section 10.  And be it further enacted, That,
                    upon the said coins respectively, there shall
                    be the following devices and legends, namely:
                    Upon one side of each of the said coins there
                    shall be an impression emblematic of liberty,
                    with an inscription of the word Liberty, and
                    the year of the coinage; and upon the reverse
                    of each of the gold and silver coins there
                    shall be the figure or representation of an
                    eagle, with this inscription, "UNITED STATES
                    OF AMERICA" and upon the reverse of each of
                    the copper coins, there shall be an
                    inscription which shall express the
                    denomination of the piece, namely, cent or
                    half cent, as the case may require.

Proportional value  Section 11.  And be it further enacted, That
of gold and silver  the proportional value of gold and silver in
                    all coins which shall by law be current as
                    money within the United States, shall be
                    fifteen to one, according to quantity in
                    weight, of pure gold or pure silver; that is
                    to say, every fifteen payments, with one
                    pound weight of pure gold, and so in
                    proportion as to any greater or less
                    quantities of the respective metals.

Standard for gold   Section 12.  And be it further enacted, That
coins, and alloy    the standard for all gold coins of the United
how to be regulated States shall be eleven parts fine to one part
                    alloy; and accordingly that eleven parts fine
                    to one part alloy; and accordingly that
                    eleven parts in twelve of the entire weight
                    of each of the said coins shall consist of
                    pure gold, and the remaining one twelfth part
                    of alloy; and the said alloy shall be
                    composed of silver and copper, in such
                    proportions not exceeding one half silver as
                    shall be found convenient; to be regulated by
                    the director of the mint, for the time being,
                    with the approbation of the President of the
                    United States, until further provision shall
                    be made by law.  And to the end that the
                    necessary information may be had in order to
                    the making of such further provision, it
Director to report  shall be the duty of the director of the
the practice of     mint, at the expiration of a year commencing
mint touching the   the operations of the said mint, to report to
alloy of gold       Congress the practice thereof during the said
coins.              year, touching the composition of the alloy
                    of the said gold coins, the reasons for such
                    practice, and the experiments and
                    observations which shall have been made
                    concerning the effects of different
                    proportions of silver and copper in the said
                    alloy.

Standard for silver Section 13.  And be it further enacted, That
coins--alloy how    the standard for all silver coins of the
to be regulated.    United States, shall be one thousand four
                    hundred and eighty-five parts fine to one
                    hundred and seventy-nine parts alloy; and
                    accordingly that one thousand four hundred
                    and eighty-five parts in one thousand six
                    hundred and sixty-four parts of the entire
                    weight of each of the said coins shall
                    consist of pure silver, and the remaining
Alloy.              one hundred and seventy-nine parts of alloy;
                    which alloy shall be wholly of copper.

Penalty on de-      Section 19.  And be it further enacted, That
basing the coins.   if any of the gold or silver coins which
                    shall be struck or coined at the said mint
                    shall be debased or made worse as to the
                    proportion of the fine gold or fine silver
                    therein contained, or shall be of less weight
                    or value than the same out to be pursuant to
                    the directions of this act, through the
                    default or with the connivance of any of the
                    officers or persons who shall be employed at
                    the said mint, for the purpose of profit or
                    gain, or otherwise with a fraudulent intent,
                    and if any of the said officers or persons
                    shall embezzle any of the metals which shall
                    at any time be committed to their charge for
                    the purpose of being coined, or any of the
                    coins which shall be struck or coined at the
                    said mint, every such officer or person who
                    shall commit any or either of the said
                    offenses, shall be deemed guilty of felony,
                    and shall suffer death.

Money of account    Section 20.  And be if further enacted, That
to be expressed in  the money of account of the United States
dollars, etc.       shall be expressed in dollars, or units,
                    dismes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and
                    the milles or thousandths, a disme being the
                    tenth part of a dollar, a cent the hundredth
                    part of a dollar, a mille the thousandth part
                    of a dollar, and that all accounts in the
                    public offices and all proceedings in the
                    courts of the United States shall be kept and
                    had in conformity to this regulation.

    While we're talking about money... take a simple quiz.
    
    What word is on EVERY ("silver", at least) COIN minted, but is not 
    found on any paper printed?
    
    Why?

    MadMike,
    
    Your money is backed. Have no fear.
    
    It's simply backed by your current mortgage, as you well know.  Or your
    current "fee simple" land transactions.
    
    Have no fear.  Money is now denominated in land. Yours.
    
    

    Not necessarily.  Not everyone is a landholder.  Money is backed
    by commercial agreement.  They own your ASS.  For the privilege
    of using a debt instrument, you are under contract.
    
    Since you brought this up, this is good to compare with the
    7th amendment.  Opps, you didn't use lawful money to make that
    purchase, so you have SQUAT for rights.  This is why you signed
    all that paperwork that allowed us to foreclose without a trial,
    etc...  if we're not talking about land, maybe it's a car... it
    wasn't purchased with lawful money... therefore it IS NOT YOURS.
    Go look at your auto title.  IT's a certificate.  Where's the
    origonal?  If you OWNED the thing, it can't be taxed.  Yet,
    you pay car tax, house tax.... tax tax tax tax tax.... SLAVE.
    
    Now, take my quiz. :^)

    PS.  You were wunderin about me a while back.
    
    Ya, I used crap to obtain my house, but I went the extra step and
    secured it properly.  I'll get paid in Gold or Silver thank you.  :^)

Liberty.

    Why?

    .71
    
    There's a later coinage act of 1873, revised in 1890, revision repealed
    in 1893.  But I haven't looked at any of them yet.

    1.Immediately pardon and free all individuals convicted of "crimes"
      created from political-agenda laws.
    
    2.Veto and work to repeal every political-agenda law passed by
      Congress, current and past.
    
    3.Work to end all welfare and social programs.
    
    4.Privatize Social Security. Fully meet all obligations by paying back 
      with market-rate interest all monies paid into Social Security. Finance 
      this payback by selling government businesses and assets.
    
    5.Permit government activity only in areas of national defense, local 
      police, and the courts to protect individual and property rights. 
      Eliminate all other force-backed government powers and programs.
      Disarm all bureaucrats, not honest citizens. 
    
    6.Replace the income tax with a consumption tax -- a national sales tax.
      Then phase out sales taxes with major budget reductions and market-rate 
      user fees. Use revenues only for national defense and the protection of 
      individuals and their property from objective crime.
    
    

    re: Note 612.78 by SMURF::WALTERS
    
    } There's a later coinage act of 1873, revised in 1890, revision
    } repealed in 1893.  But I haven't looked at any of them yet.
    
    Do you know where to find these acts?  Or do you know generally
    what these acts did?  We were still on the gold standard at this
    time, but this occured after the civil war.  This probably mentioned
    paper money and junked conferederate money.  Did any of this stuff 
    repeal the coinage act of 1792?
    
    Regards,
    MadMike

    I think you can find a detailed discussion in Freidman/Schwarz
    Monetary History of the United States.  There are other acts
    such as the Gold Standard Act of 1900 and even party splits
    on the matter.  A nice tangled web of legislation.

    
    }  A nice tangled web of legislation.
    
    Very well then.  Somewhere it sounds like congress got off the
    Constitutional path.  Therefore the supreme court could/should have
    ruled our monetary system was unconstitutional.  We all know that
    the supreme Court switched from ruling on the Constitution to
    ruling by public policy in 1938.  We switched from a republic to
    a "democracy" at this time.  Mob Rules, etc....
    
    MadMike

    Awww, what the hell, let's have fun.
    
    FWIW: This was challenged by the clerk of superior court.  She said
    this pertained to Louisiana.  I said she missed the supreme Court 
    cites.  Since then, the said squat.  Therefore this is in effect.
    
    
    Liberty = Dedt free.  Coins are worth something.  Paper is worth
    ZERO.  Therefore there is no "liberty" in owning paper.  If you 
    possess coin, you are free.  You have liberty, as the coin says.
    
    
    
				 DEED

Tender Regarding lands made this 28th day of July, 1995 by GRANTEE
Michael Maciolek, Sui Juris
c/o (my location)
Dawsonville Georgia

who does hereby agree to accept, as a tender of amends from
Dawson County
Superior Court
Dawsonville, Georgia pz 30534
PREVIOUS GRANTOR

There is no consideration of $1.00 lawful money of the united States of
America needed for the purposes of this instrument, to be paid to the
Grantors in hand, nor need any such tender be made by the Grantees, at
or before the sealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof
is not acknowledged, and the Grantors need not be fully satisfied, but
by these presents can tender of amends, by settlement or conveyance unto
Grantees forever.

ALL that tract or parcel of land lying and being in Land Lot 308 of the
(specific description of property)

 as per plat recorded
in Plat Book 25, Page 1, Dawson County, Georgia.

Being the same lands conveyed unto Michael D. Maciolek and Laura J.
Maciolek by deed of Dawson County, etal, dated 11-15-93  and filed for record 
in the Clerks Office, Superior Court in and for Dawson County, Georgia in 
deed book 175, Page 619.

The aforesaid offer regarding a tender of amends is made to secure grantees
common law lien and give NOTICE to the world, the object of which action 
is to enable the GRANTEE to secure money damages and exercise Civil
and Constitutional Rights.  The particular property described will be
subject to prosecution to satisfy judgment(s) in this action.  The Failure,
refusal, or neglect of the Respondent to demand the Sheriff to convene
said Common Law Court within ninety (90) days from the date of filing this
instrument will be deemed to be "prima-facie" evidence of an admission of
"waiver" to all their rights to the property described hereinafter.
DEMAND is made upon all public officials under penalty not to modify or
remove this lien in any manner.  This lien is made to secure Rights
pursuant to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.

Common Law Liens at law supersede mortgages and equity liens, Drummond
Carriage Co. V. Mills, (1898) 74 N.W. 966; Hewitt v. William, 47 La. Ann.
742.17 So. 269; Carr v. Dail. 19 S.E. 235; McMahon v. Lundin. 58 N.W.,
827, and may be satisfied only when a Court of Common Law is called to
convene pursuant to order of the elected sheriff under Amendment 7 of the
Bill of Rights.
Such Common Law Court forbids the presence of any Judge or Lawyer from 
participating or presiding, or the practice of any equity law.  The ruling
of the United States supreme Court in Rich v. Braxton, 158 u.s. 375
specifically forbids Judges from invoking equity jurisdiction to remove
common law liens or similar "Clouds on Title". Further even if a preponderance
of evidence displays the lien to be void or voidable, the equity court
still may not proceed until the moving party has proven that he asks for
and comes "to equity" with "clean hands", Trice v. Constock 121 Fed.
620; West v. Washburn, 138 NY Supp. Any official who attempts to modify
or remove this common law lien is fully liable for damages.  U.S. Supreme
Ct.; Butz v. Economou, 478 US 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894; Bell v. Hood, 327 US 678;
Belknap v. Schild, 161 US 10; U.S. v. Lee, 106 US 196; Bivens v. 6 Unknown
Agents, 400 US 862.

(This lien is not dischargable for 100 years and cannot be extinguished due
to my death, whether accidentally or purposely, or by my heirs, assigns
or executors.)

NOW THEREFORE; if said lien shall be well and truly paid according to its
tenor to the lienor or rescinded by the lienor herein named, then this
control of the herein described property will remain in Full Force and 
Effect Forever to the lienor herein named or his or her heirs and/or assigns.

TOGETHER will all and singular the buildings, improvements, ways, woods,
waters, watercourses, rights, liberties, privileges, hereditaments and
appurtenances to the same belonging or in anywise appertaining; and the
reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents issues and
profits thereof, any of every part and parcel thereof; AND also all the
estate, allodial rights, title, interest, use, possession, property right,
claims and demand whatsoever, of the Grantors, in and to the premises
herein described, and every part and parcel thereof, with the
appurtenances.  TO HAVE and to HOLD all and singular, the premises herein
described, together with the appurtenances, unto the Grantees and to
Grantees' proper use and benefit forever under the protection of the
"Law of the Land".  To wit: for One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) in
gold or silver coin as defined in the Coinage Act of 1792.

In all references herein to any parties, persons, entities or corporations,
the use of an particular gender or the plural or singular number is intended
to include the appropriate gender or number as the text of the within
instrument may require.

Wherever in this instrument any party shall be designated or referred to
by name or general reference, such designation is intended to and shall
have the same effect as if the words "heirs, executors, personal or legal
representatives, successors and assigns" had been inserted after each and
every such designation.

AUTHORITIES:  

It has been held to be wholly immaterial how imperfect or defective the 
writing may be, considered as a deed; if it is in writing and defines the
extent of the claim, it is a sign, semblance or claim of title.  SEE Street
v. Collier 45 S.E. 294; Mullan's Adm'r. v. Carper 16 S.E. 527; that
strictly speaking it cannot rest in parol SEE Armijo v. Armijo 4 N.M.
(Gild.) 57, 13 Pac. 92.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantees have hereunto set their hand and seal
the day and year first above written.

Signed, Sealed and Delivered:


in the presence of


Georgia State County of Dawson  s.s: BE IT REMEMBERED


that on July 28 1995, before me, the subscriber 
                 personally appeared
who, I am satisfied, is the person named in and who executed the within
instrument, and thereupon acknowledged that he signed, sealed and
delivered the same as his act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein
expressed, and that the full and actual consideration paid or to be paid
for the transfer of title to realty evidenced by the within deed.                                                      

Witness:


Witness:

    If anyone, especially in the law dept can beat .83.
    Please let me know....

 Patrons of shopping malls during the period 11/20-12/24 of any given year
 shall be required to wear hats equipped with signal lights indicating that
 the wearer is a) stopping b) turning c) backing up and d) just standing and
 not moving.  Failure to comply will result in immediate expulsion from the 
 mall for that day, or a 5% surcharge on all purchases for the remainder of
 the day.

 Further, all shopping malls, during the above period of time, will provide
 passing lanes, turn lanes and "just standing lanes".  Patrons will be allowed
 to change lanes, providing the proper signal is given at least 20 seconds 
 before executing the intended manuever.

 Collisions resulting from failure to comply with the above will result
 in a mandatory 15 minute time out in the food court.  Patrons will not
 be allowed to find seating during this penalty period.

    Jim:
    
    Do like me...we purchased over 80% of our "stuff" through
    mail-order...the other stuff was at two local stores going outta
    bizness...

    
    Addendum to .85:
    
    Strollers are NOT allowed in stores during this time period.
    
    During the rest of the year, parents who let their child push his
    own stroller and parents who let their child push the shopping cart
    in the supermarket will be taken out and dummyslapped.
    
    Other patrons who wish to be part of the dummyslap patrol will pay a
    small fee for the privilege.  All proceeds will be used to purchase
    first-aid supplies for those patrons who are hit in the legs by
    strollers while shopping.
    

 Further addendum to .85/.87


 "Patrons of shopping malls who bump into, trip over, or otherwise make
 nonintentional contact with another patron shall be required to say 
 "excuse me" or "pardon me" to the recipeient of the bump/trip/nonintentional
 contact. Punishment will be similar to .85.  The parents of under 18
 offenders will serve the punishment.



 Jim

 I haven't figured out the penalty for "associates" in retail establishements
 who, upon the purchase of some electronic item inquire "would you like the
 extended warranty/service contract with that?"



 Jim

    Don't punish the associates, they are only following orders like the
    counterperson at McDonald's that is required to ask if you want every
    item on the menu when you simply wanted a Coke.   

    .87
    
    Sounds like a plan to me :-)
    

    COME ON, one the most fun things to do, especially if your Christmas
    shopping is complete, is to go to the mall, on Christmas eve, and
    slowly stroll down the middle of the isle. Watching people try to get
    around you in a huff is a real kick!  :)

    I was one of the ones out doing last minute purchases.  Scored every
    item I needed without getting having to get to the mall.  Mostly
    stocking stuffers but the big item was a fleece pullover which I found
    at the mountain, under my nose, and even was able to save 20%.  
    
    Brian 

	Dan, I'm not sure I would ever want a gift that was under someone's
nose. I think it is kind of rude of you to be giving stuff like that to people.
It is snot nice.

Brian has a mountain under his nose?

| <<< Note 612.95 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| Brian has a mountain under his nose?

	A rather hairy one at that! 

    Er, no.  

    
    	right.  We parents should not bring our strollers along
    	when we have shopping to do.  We should either lock the
    	kids in the car, leave them home alone, or let them run 
    	through the stores and under the clothing racks.  I'm sure
    	you'd rather buy some clothes that a small child was gnawing
    	on than have to negotiate around a stroller.
    
    

    Re .98:
    
    First of all, the proposal wasn't to ban strollers from malls all the
    time, just during the peak period.  That leaves you with a number of
    solutions that apparently evaded your brain:
    
    	Don't take infants to the mall during the peak times.  There are
    	plenty of other hours when cumbersome strollers will have more
    	room to maneuver.
    
    	Leave the children with the other parent.
    
    	Leave the children with a babysitter.
    
    	Take turns babysitting with a neighbor.

    	Carry the infant in something other than a stroller.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>    	Don't take infants to the mall during the peak times.  There are
>    	plenty of other hours when cumbersome strollers will have more
>    	room to maneuver.

Some people can only get to malls during peak times.
    
>    	Leave the children with the other parent.

There may be no other parent, or the other parent may be unavailable.
    
>    	Leave the children with a babysitter.

Expensive, possibly unavailable.
    
>    	Take turns babysitting with a neighbor.

Possibly unavailable.

>    	Carry the infant in something other than a stroller.

Suppose the "infant" is a 30-pound toddler.  I've seen baby packs that
say they're OK for kids up to 30 or 40 pounds, but I can't imagine who'd
be able to use them.

Another point: if you're shopping for clothes for the kid, it's helpful
to have him along to check fit, looks, likes/dislikes.

>Suppose the "infant" is a 30-pound toddler.

Don't feed him for three or four days before each trip to the mall.

/john

 ..and bypass the Food Court.

/john, I'm going to report you to DSS.

    
    I still have scars on the backs of my ankles from being rammed 
    with a stroller in *1991*.  I'm sure the mother was most concerned 
    with the fact that I got blood on her effing stroller.
    
    Nobody is asking people not to have children, just to use some common
    sense with them in crowded public places.
    
    
    
                               

    
    	Eric, you are ever so helpful.
    
    	Those thoughts did not evade my brain.  They were just stupid
    	ideas which my thoughtful brain rejected.
    
    	How about if we allow only parents-with-small-children-in-tow in
    	the malls during peak periods?  All the single people have far
    	fewer arrangements to make, so they can get their shopping done
    	in, say, September.  Sounds like a positive "family oriented plan"
    	to me.  After all, my brother-in-law has determined that Christmas
    	is for children (which is why he refused to accept our Christmas
    	gift).
    
    
    	
    	

    
    
    I hate to be reasonable her, but how about if EVERYONE is considerate. 
    I've seen people use strollers as a plow before and I have seen people 
    go right in front of people with strollers and the stroller pusher had
    to stop short or weave to avoid hitting the other person.  Perhaps if
    we all slow down and use some courtesy, we'd all be better off.
    
    
    Mike

    
    	That's not what your original proposal was, mz_debra.
    
    	If it were, I could live with it.
    
    	BTW, sorry about your ankles.  I can prove I didn't do it ;-)
    
    

    
    My idea of common sense and a stroller-wielding parent's idea of common
    sense probably aren't the same thing 8^).
    
    I'm willing to compromise on allowing strollers in crowded shopping
    areas during the holiday season if everyone exercises courtesy.
    
    The dummyslap patrol was only intended for those parents who let the
    child push his own stroller or the grocery cart.  I won't bend on that
    one.  That's the stupidest move I've ever seen.  
    

|Suppose the "infant" is a 30-pound toddler.  I've seen baby packs that
|say they're OK for kids up to 30 or 40 pounds, but I can't imagine who'd
|be able to use them.
    
    Even with my bad back I'm still able to manage with Marsden in the back
    pack.  He's thirty-something pounds now.  More common is up on the
    shoulders.  That's probably how we'll do "First Night" this year.
    
    ( http://www.firstnight.org/ btw .... )
    
    Erica, however, definately can't do the backpack anymore.
    
    Even so, you can't manage to move about in your average mall store
    with a backpack either.  Let alone a bag filled with anything but
    a single penguin pocket book.
    
    -----
    
    What a brain dead "law."
    
    
    For what it's worth, one of the more disappointing things about SOHO
    these days is the malling of SOHO.  While there's still lots of
    interesting shops about, more and more of the major chain stores are
    moving in.  But that's life.
    
    
    But what's interesting is how *delightful* shopping in a mall store
    can be when it is not in the damn mall.
    
    
    Rents in SOHO are significantly cheaper than the miserable Pheasant
    Lane Malls of the world.  So, your typical "The Nature Company" which
    are impossible to move about in at a mall, are spacious, wide open,
    wonderful, browsing spaces.  In "rude" New York, you can take your
    time, look, even laugh! and not bump into six people or some damn
    dinosaur on a shelf behind you while you try to see what the hell
    is on a shelf in front of you.
    
    
    The smart retailer knows negative space is more valuable than positive
    space.  Merchandise is in positive space, but the *customer* lives in
    the negative space.  The customer needs negative space to see what is
    in the damn positive space!
    
    
    In Arlington, the "Everything for a buck store" finally closed shop.
    There had been a sign for a long time that said by order of the fire
    marshall, no strollers.  So that store managed to sell this customer
    *ZERO* dollars in merchandise.  Since it's gone out of buisness, I'd
    guess that I wasn't the only customer who spent this much money in
    the store.
    
    								-mr. bill

 How about if we have Christmas in July when the stores aren't so darned
 crowded as they are in Nov-Dec?

Bill, you've got to lay off those anabolic steroids.

    Re .100:
    
    > Some people can only get to malls during peak times.
    
    If you know of anybody who is chained to a desk 11 months a year and
    only allowed out in December, please notify the police.
    
    > There may be no other parent, or the other parent may be unavailable.
    
    Fix the problem.
    
    >> Take turns babysitting with a neighbor.
    >
    > Possibly unavailable.
    
    Given today's population, it's difficult to believe more than a few
    rare people don't have neighbors they can take turns with.  What most
    people mean when they say they don't have a neighbor they can do this
    with is that they don't know their neighbors.  Well, go introduce
    yourself.
    
    > Another point: if you're shopping for clothes for the kid, it's
    > helpful to have him along to check fit, looks, likes/dislikes.
    
    That's absurd for two reasons.  First, there's no point in buying
    clothes that fit, since they won't by the time you get home.  Second,
    parents are supposed to buy clothes kids don't like.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>    > Some people can only get to malls during peak times.
>    
>    If you know of anybody who is chained to a desk 11 months a year and
>    only allowed out in December, please notify the police.
>
>    > Another point: if you're shopping for clothes for the kid, it's
>    > helpful to have him along to check fit, looks, likes/dislikes.
>    
>    That's absurd for two reasons.  First, there's no point in buying
>    clothes that fit, since they won't by the time you get home.  Second,
>    parents are supposed to buy clothes kids don't like.

Cute.  If you shop for clothes before December, they won't fit in December.
FWIW, I try to avoid the stores in December (with or without stroller).
Of course it helps that I don't do Christmas shopping.

>    > There may be no other parent, or the other parent may be unavailable.
>    
>    Fix the problem.

Are you suggesting that all single parents get married to the first available
person of the appropriate sex?  If the other parent has been sent to Bosnia,
he go AWOL to help with child care?
    
>    >> Take turns babysitting with a neighbor.
>    >
>    > Possibly unavailable.
>    
>    Given today's population, it's difficult to believe more than a few
>    rare people don't have neighbors they can take turns with.  What most
>    people mean when they say they don't have a neighbor they can do this
>    with is that they don't know their neighbors.  Well, go introduce
>    yourself.

The neighbors may not have kids, so you can't take turns.  Your neighbors
who have kids may be not be able to manage another one.  Your child
may have a hard time separating from parents (as our younger one did
in the first few weeks after we got back from Moldova).  

    Re .113:
    
    > Cute.  If you shop for clothes before December, they won't fit in
    > December.
    
    Kids don't need 12 sets of clothes a year.  Therefore there is at least
    one month they do not need clothes.  A little planning can make that
    month December.
    
    > Of course it helps that I don't do Christmas shopping.
    
    December is the stupidest time to do Christmas shopping anyway.
    
    > Are you suggesting that all single parents get married to the first
    > available person of the appropriate sex?
    
    No.
    
    > The neighbors may not have kids, so you can't take turns.
    
    The next-door neighbors might not have kids, but almost nobody in any
    incorporated area doesn't have neighbors within walking distance with
    kids.           
    
    > Your neighbors who have kids may be not be able to manage another
    > one.
    
    Then they need you to help share the babysitting even more.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    You know, it's bad enough there are people acting affronted and
    seriously defending their need to take strollers to malls in December,
    and they are acting as if the suggestion to ban strollers weren't made
    in jest.  But it's really absurd when you realize that they are
    defending this need as if it were some absolute necessity of life.  Oh,
    no, there's NO other solution; we HAVE to have strollers, and they HAVE
    to be in the malls, and they HAVE to be at the peak time.  I wonder how
    people lived for millenia without being able to take strollers to malls
    in December?  Like I'm sure all during the Medieval Period, people
    gathered in the town squares to bemoan their combined lack of enclosed
    malls, December shopping sprees, and strollers, as if the absence of
    these things were some conspiracy of the gods against them.
    
    Hey, folks, Thanksgiving was only a month ago.  Did you forget so
    quickly how easy you have life today compared to any other time in
    history and even most people in the world today?  Stop whining about
    strollers.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

edp, this is soapbox.  I'll whine if I want to.  Not that I was, of course.

Of course, with all your experience in child-rearing, I should bow to your
superior knowledge.  A thousand pardons.

>Note 612.112                      Proposed Laws                       112 of 116
>RUSURE::EDP    
>    Given today's population, it's difficult to believe more than a few
>    rare people don't have neighbors they can take turns with.  What most
>    people mean when they say they don't have a neighbor they can do this
>    with is that they don't know their neighbors.  Well, go introduce
>    yourself.
    
    I'd be too afraid to find out your my neighbor.

    If we are going to ban strollers, shopping carts, handi-walkers, and
    aides pushing manual wheel chairs should also be banned in crowded
    areas.  I've been nailed by all of the above, with the motorized
    shopping cart in a crowded supermarket being the worst.
    
    

    
    Children have several design flaws. First, they tend to get
    heavy. Second, they tend to whine. Third, their legs tire
    easily and they don't want to walk.

    They also shriek at the least opportune time (like when my
    daughter managed, out of the blue, to get everyone in a
    Chinese restaurant to cringe and drop their silverware),
    carry on in toy stores, and do all sorts of other things
    that, despite what you might think, parents wish they
    wouldn't do.

    Given these built-in design flaws, there are certain devices
    which make life easier for everyone. A stroller is one of
    them. The alternative, children running about unrestrained
    and in a bad mood, has ugly implications of its own. Better
    EVERYONE pay a little more attention to where they're going.

    As for children pushing shopping carts; this again is a
    situation that has two sides. Until you've been hounded
    by a child who insists on doing it, you haven't lived.
    The solution, of course, is to let the child think they're
    pushing the cart while the parent surreptitiously guides
    it.

    Good parenting is a multi-dimensional maze in which the
    parent constantly makes a choice between the nagging,
    disapproving looks of strangers and the kid who grows up
    to write books about child abuse. Sorry, but I have more
    invested in that drooling pestilent little twerp than
    I have in the other random bozons at the mall, so the
    twerp wins.

    -b

    

                        
    >and do all sorts of other things
    >that, despite what you might think, parents wish they
    >wouldn't do.

    You know, I believe you when you say parents wish they wouldn't do
    these things, but then why don't the parents CONTROL the children who
    ARE doing these things?
    
    I spent a lovely 10 minutes or so looking for a video for my sister to
    the dulcet tones of a small child (4 or 5 maybe) screaming for his
    father to buy him "monster shows".  [The kid will probably be a musician
    when he grows up - he was in perfect 4/4.  Started mezzo piano, and
    crescendo'd to triple fortissimo, of course 8^p.]
     
    MON-STER-SHOWS-(beat)! MON-STER-SHOWS-(beat)! MON-STER-SHOWS-(beat)!
    MON-STER-SHOWS-(beat)! MON-STER-SHOWS-(beat)! MON-STER-SHOWS-(beat)!
    MON-STER-SHOWS-(beat)! MON-STER-SHOWS-(beat)! MON-STER-SHOWS-(beat)!
    
    The father, searching for a video himself, occasionally said "No, no 
    monster shows" and otherwise ignored the child.  The kid was turning red 
    in the face, pulling at his leg, rolling on the floor, and in general
    having a tantrum.  Every once in a while he left off the "monster
    shows" kick and just screamed.  And the father was doing nothing about
    it.  NOTHING!  I finally gave up and left the store.
    
    >The alternative, children running about unrestrained
    
    Get one of those leash-thingies 8^).
    
    >The solution, of course, is to let the child think they're
    >pushing the cart while the parent surreptitiously guides
    >it.

    Why must you give in?  Doesn't "no" mean "no"?   Is it doing the child
    any good to have every whim catered to?
    
    
    

    RE: .120

>    The father, searching for a video himself, occasionally said "No, no 
>    monster shows" and otherwise ignored the child.  The kid was turning red 

    Actually, ignoring hte kid was probably a good move on the father's
    part.  Someone somewhere along the lines has condition this kid to know
    that screaming and carrying on like this works.  (Of course at the
    first sign that my 3.5 year old is going to do this at a restaurant I
    tell her in a calm, even voice that she and daddy are going to spend
    the rest of the time in the car while mommy and Kenneth finish their
    meal; only had to sit in the car once.)

>    Why must you give in?  Doesn't "no" mean "no"?   Is it doing the child
>    any good to have every whim catered to?

    No must mean no (otherwise the kids are in control), but at the same
    time you can't always say no to a child without them developing a
    negative outlook on life.  It's a system of checks and balances with
    the formula for one kid not working with another.  

    If you don't have kids already, extract your comments from this stream
    and when and if you do have kids you might get a kick out of what you
    said.

    -- Dave

    
    Mz. Deb,

    I accept this as the extremely rare, perhaps only, case where
    you lack a clue. And sorry, I can't be of much help in getting
    you one... :-) :-)

    I can't explain it to you. It's like trying to explain to a
    blind person what red is. You lack the sensory apparatus to
    understand that father's dilemma, and to understand that he
    did the only thing he could do.

    > Why must you give in?  Doesn't "no" mean "no"?   Is it doing the child
    > any good to have every whim catered to?

    Aye-yey-yey... look, being a parent is a form of relationship.
    As with ANY healthy relationship, the object is not to control
    and dominate, it is to guide and assist. It sometimes means
    accommodating the other person's wishes within certain limits.
    Giving in to a child's desire to "drive" the shopping cart does
    not make one a total wimp... it allows the child to learn
    something useful, and it CAN be done without being a detriment
    to others.

    -b

I'm glad that Messrs. Markey and Flatman are finally saying something sensible.
I was wrong to consider them complete nincompoops.

I think, though, that it might have been better for the father in the video
store to remove the brat from the premises.

    > Why must you give in?  Doesn't "no" mean "no"?   Is it doing the child
    > any good to have every whim catered to?


	Also, you're seeing one event of the day - without more data
	this is pretty unfair.

	Pat

    
    
    edp,
    
    
    You sir, are indeed a loon when it comes to this subject matter.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Bri,
    
    Good note.  It sounds easy when someone says it, but when you are
    dealing with another person (which, after all, is what our children
    are) it is a relationship and the having of relationships that is being
    learned.  I don't want my children to learn to be dominated by someone
    else (especially my daughters).
    
    
    Mike

    
    Nincompoop eh? You still hurtin' from the thrashing I gave
    the dimocrats?  On the other hand, your silence about what
    I was accusing them of is duly noted...
    
    As for removing the brat from the store... he did, no doubt,
    when he was finished with his own business there. Or is
    it that parents are supposed to immediately drop everything
    they're doing the moment their kid acts up?
    
    -b

    
    >As for removing the brat from the store... he did, no doubt,
    >when he was finished with his own business there. Or is
    >it that parents are supposed to immediately drop everything
    >they're doing the moment their kid acts up?
    
    In a word - YES. 
    
    Dammit, YES!
     

    If my daughter would attempt to throw a "monster show" tantrum in
    public, one look from either myself or my wife is enough in 99% of the
    cases to have her straighten herself out.  That doesn't work, taking
    them aside, giving a little whack on the behind also shows her that we
    mean business.  
    
    Another tactic we've been using successfully with our 6.5 yr old is the
    deduction from her allowance each instance we n her and she doesn't
    obey.  "The next time, .25 comes off!"  Has worked wonders!  It also
    works when she doesn't have the awareness of how something works, or
    how something is really a delicate mechanism, I tell her, if you break
    that, you're spend the next two years allowance buying a new one. 
    Gives her a real good appreciation.
    
    The father that ignores the tantrum child is NOT doing anyone one bit
    of good.  The mother who doesn't believe in a whack on the behind isn't
    doing anyone one bit of good.  Kids love to know where their boundries
    are and actually understand the reward/punishment system.  Those that
    choose not to discipline are actually pawning off their kids onto
    society and they become crime statistics.
    
    NR  

    perhaps the father should have dropped his business.  the kid
    should have been given a warning.  when he continued, take him
    out of the store.  otherwise, the kid learns he can continue to
    behave that way, consistantly, with no negative consequences
    coming his way.

    
    
    
    What I do with the kids is reciprocate what they have done.  If they
    aren't listening, the next time they request something, I remind them
    of when they didn't listen and proceed in kind.  If that doesn't work,
    a few swift kicks to the head does the trick.
    
    
    hth,
    

    
    WRONG! BZZZZZZZT!!!!
    
    Here's the negative consequnces you think should happen: the
    child learns that by acting up, they can also phruck up
    whatever activity the parent happens to be engaged in. The
    child learns how to punish the parent !!!
    
    The wise parent, on the other hand, just waits it out,
    says nothing until they get home, watches what toy the
    child picks up first, takes it away and says, "we'll talk
    about getting this back when you stop giving me a hard
    time at the video store."
    
    -b

>    Nincompoop eh? You still hurtin' from the thrashing I gave
>    the dimocrats?  On the other hand, your silence about what
>    I was accusing them of is duly noted...

I'm afraid that was a string I next-unseened (next unsaw?).
    
>    As for removing the brat from the store... he did, no doubt,
>    when he was finished with his own business there. Or is
>    it that parents are supposed to immediately drop everything
>    they're doing the moment their kid acts up?

Not immediately, but there's a point at which one has pity on others.
Perhaps a time-out in the car would have calmed the kid down enough
that the father could have returned with junior in tow.  But I'll admit
that my child-raising experience is new enough that I haven't
experienced all these joys.

    I'm crtainny glad none of u were my parents...who knows how I'd of
    turned out!

    
    
    Just wait, Gerald....... :').  We'll hear what you have to say in a few
    years.......
    
    
    Mike

After .132, I revise my opinion somewhat in the nincompoopward direction.

    
    Gerald,

    Your low opinion of me is noted, and it is with great regret
    that I inform you, of no consequence whatsoever.

    -b

    Re .125:
    
    > You sir, are indeed a loon when it comes to this subject matter.

    You idiots never cease to amaze me.  _A Modest Proposal_ should be
    required reading for Soapbox participation.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    
    Eric, you write like the whole freakin world is there for your
    enjoyment and comfort and anyone who inconveniences you should be
    flogged.  get a life.

    
    	It seems, according to Eric, that he is the only one able to
    	recognize "jesting".  However, his failure to do so in this
    	topic would, I assume, mean there is now no one capable of
    	doing so.  How terribly sad.
    
    	

 I'd bring up giving the tantrum tossing toddler a mild spanking
 but I'm sure that would be met with huzzahs and jeers.



 Jim

    
    	{jeer}
    
    

Not Roger brought up spanking in .128, and there was nary a whimper.
Given the possibility of a busybody reporting a spanking parent to DSS,
I think anybody who spanks a kid in public is asking for trouble.

    Already been suggested by He who is known by someone other than Roger. 
    The pillorying of the those suggesting violence as a disciplinary tool 
    was carried out in the spanking topic.   

    
    
    Hey, what about my kicks to the head?!?!?!?!?!  Din't anyone say they
    liked that idea.....

Mike, I'm sure lots of us would like to give you a few swift kicks to the head.

    
    
    YOu say the sweetest things......

    
    I am a proponent of bottom paddling for misbehaviour.
    
    Like that's a surprise to anyone 8^).
    

    
    
    
    I've been a bad boy........ :')
    

    Re .138:
    
    > Eric, you write like the whole freakin world is there for your
    > enjoyment . . .
    
    That's because the whole freaking world acts like it.  There isn't any
    other rational explanation for the absurdness of humanity.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    	Deb, I've been bad this year.  I mean really bad.
    
    	I could use a severe paddling.
    

    
    	RE: Mike
    
    	Scooped again!!  I hate it when that happens.
    

    
    I need one of those deli 'take a number to be served' machines again
    this year, don't I 8^)?
    
    

    
    	Eric, with a little fine-tuning you would make an excellent
    	replacement for Topaz.
    
    	Do carry on ... not everyone in here is against you.
    

    
    
    Do I remember something about a little chamber of spankings some time
    back?????? :')  Funny how history repeats.

    Bad, bad Zoot!  Mean, naughty Zoot!  

>Not Roger brought up spanking in .128, and there was nary a whimper.
>Given the possibility of a busybody reporting a spanking parent to DSS,
>I think anybody who spanks a kid in public is asking for trouble.


  Forgot about that.  Well, since Hillary is for the "whole village 
 raising a child" why not have a law that says anybody in the mall can
 choose to discipline the kid should they desire to do so?




Jim

    
>    That's because the whole freaking world acts like it.  There isn't any
>    other rational explanation for the absurdness of humanity.
    
        
     of which we all are a part.




 Jim    

>  Forgot about that.  Well, since Hillary is for the "whole village 
> raising a child" why not have a law that says anybody in the mall can
> choose to discipline the kid should they desire to do so?

Deb?

    
    I'm for it!
    
    8^)
    
    

    Re .116:
    
    > Of course, with all your experience in child-rearing, I should bow to
    > your superior knowledge.  A thousand pardons.
    
    Right, and people who are struggling to get out of debt know more about
    financial management than the debt-free investor.  Anybody can have
    kids; it doesn't take brains (and often provides examples to the
    contrary) and doesn't prove you know what you're doing.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    
    Walk a mile in soomeone's moccasins and then see what you have to
    say........

    
    	Until you walk a mile in someone's moccassins ...
    
    
    	... you can't imagine the smell.
    
    
    
    	But anyways, "the absurdity of humanity" can be thought of to
    	be an average absurdity value which can be used to describe the
    	populace in general.  And as with any average value, the parts
    	that contribute to the average will fall either above, below or
    	on that line.
    
    	So it's just a matter of figuring out where you belong relative
    	to that line.
    

    fwiw
    
    my sister-in-law has 3 kids...pretty rowdy, etc in their own
    environment...when they come to our house, they behave and listen like
    our own, and we happen to be their fave aunt/uncle, also!

    
    Perhaps they know you won't put up with any BS.
    
    
    

>    Right, and people who are struggling to get out of debt know more about
>    financial management than the debt-free investor.

Faulty analogy.  The debt-free investor has experience managing money.

>                                                       Anybody can have
>    kids; it doesn't take brains (and often provides examples to the
>    contrary) and doesn't prove you know what you're doing.

Who's talking about having kids?  We're talking about raising kids.

    I think the main problem is, kids aren't taught that there's a time to
    play and for not playing.
    
    I had a temper tantrum once when I was a kid. Once.
    
    Same for my kids.
    
    In public, I control my kids with my eyes while the rest of the apes
    swing on the carts and furniture and roll on the floor kicking and
    screaming. 
    
    When I see kids like that, I want to give the parents a spanking for
    being so lazy with their kids.

>    In public, I control my kids with my eyes while the rest of the apes
>    swing on the carts and furniture and roll on the floor kicking and
>    screaming. 

Superman has X-ray vision.  Glenn has child control vision.

>>    In public, I control my kids with my eyes while the rest of the apes
>>    swing on the carts and furniture and roll on the floor kicking and
>>    screaming. 
 

	Before I enter a store/resturant etc  with my son's (ages 3 & 4) 
	we go over the 	"rules" before we get out of the car - No tantrums, 
	no running, no screaming, if Momma says 'No' then it's no etc
	We also talk about the results if this stuff happens - that
	depends on where we are and what were doing - i.e., we leave
	right away, we forget about getting the movie (whatever) and
	we leave, you will have to go to the car with Mom (or Dad) until
	the other is done - and if I'm alone - I've actaully picked up a 
	screeching child and walked out - Of course you get "$h*t for that 
	too from people, but....   - Usually all I need to do is to say
	"remember the rules" - and we're OK.   But we've found that this
	way we all know what's going on and we all have the same "plan"
	to go from.

	

    And if someone did try to disclipine my child they had best hope it is
    in an area where a concealed carry is illegal.  Assaulting my child
    will result in drastic actions.
    
    meg

    
    You don't pull the mask off the ol' Lone Ranger
    And you don't mess around with Glenn
    

Oprah's sis works for Digital?

>    And if someone did try to disclipine my child they had best hope it is
>    in an area where a concealed carry is illegal.  Assaulting my child
>    will result in drastic actions.

    meg, I'm sure your kids wouldn't act that way in public.

    A long while back, a friend of mine's mother was in a store and there
    was an unruly little brat behind her.  Without thinking she slapped the
    kid and to her horror realized that it wasn't her son.  Luckily the
    mother of the brat thanks her (versus suing the pants off her).

    -- Dave

    
    	Good thing she didn't have a gun or she might have shot the
    	poor little kid.
    

    
    So we're agreed. No strollers in the mall, capital punishment for
    unruly nippers, and see edp for investment advice.
    
    Got it.

    
    The children who aren't discipled today could grow up to be the bar
    brawlers of tomorrow.
    
    8^)
    
    

    I agree with Glenn, the bottom line deals w/how much the parents
    controls the child, not visa versa

 That's it.




 Jim

>    The children who aren't discipled today could grow up to be the bar
>    brawlers of tomorrow.

I always disciple my kids 12 times.

    
    {titter}
    
    Oops 8^).
    
    

    .127  Damn straight Deb, I with you on this one!!  Although Mz Deb
    	  and I do not have children, we WERE children, in my book that
    	  qualifies us to voice an opinion :-)
    
    .128  Agreed, good solutions.  I you are the parent ACT like a 
    	  parent; don't let the kid take charge!!
    
    .167  Same for me.  There were a few things I tried ONCE; I never
    	  tried it again.
    
    
    FWIW, I think I've mentioned it more than once in here; I had
    great parents.  My sister and I required one spanking each, a second
    spanking was not necessary.  IMHO, no one does a child any favors
    when they allow a child to act and think that the universe revolves
    around "lil ole me".  Ignoring a child's actions in public may
    eventually impact the kid, but is a little consideration for others
    out of the question?
    
    My mother had an interesting theory about the shennanigans of some
    children that I think has a lot of merit to it.  Nine times out of
    ten when I've witnessed a child throwing a tantrum or acting out;
    whining or crying in public etc., it's obvious the child is tired
    and irritable.  My mother often commented that she was amazed to be
    at the mall at closing time and still see so many young children 
    still there with the parents.  My mom felt most of these kids should
    have been home; fed, bathed, read to and in bed hours before.  I
    happen to think she's right.  A few nights ago I was in K-Mart right
    before closing time; a mother was going up and down the aisles with
    a toddler that was coughing, crying and looked (to me) obviously
    rather sick and feverish.  Why wasn't this child home in bed?
    
    I know it isn't easy in this day and age, but my parents weren't
    kids when they had me; they definitely weren't spring chickens when
    my sister came along 7 years later.  They shared the child rearing
    and responsibility.  If plans were made to do something and one of
    us was sick, one parent stayed home while the other parent took
    the other child out.
    
    My parents were strict, firm AND loving; they managed to raise
    reasonably well-balanced individuals without damaging our "self-
    esteem".  I know we're a "portable" society today, but when it
    comes to young children, sometimes a little common sense goes a
    long way.
    

    
    Oh yes, it's all so button down and tidy... and complete
    mythology. The reality is that most of the time the parent
    will prevail by sheer size and coercive capacity, but there
    will be the occasional psychotic outburst that would give
    Mr. Rogers fits... and if you happen to be the randomly
    selected schlep who happens to be in the store/theatre/
    restaurant at the moment, well chin up... $#+! happens.
    If you're upset about it, then it's just because in your
    middle-aged fog, you forgot all the times you made your
    parents wish they were sterile.
    
    -b

    Sorry Bri, as others pointed out.  All of have acted out on our
    parents; some of us only did it ONCE ;-)
    
    Psychotic outbursts usually occur initially at home; that should
    give parents a clue as to the merits of pursuing some activity
    or goal should they see indicators that another psychotic outburst
    might occur if they don't alter their plans.
    
    

    Karen:
    
    excellent note...
    
    Bri:
    
    u r full of it

    
    Karen,
    
    For what it's worth... I agree with you that children are
    much more difficult to manage when they are tired.
    
    -b

    > Bri:
    
    > u r full of it
    
    {Insert graphic representation of extended third digit here.}
    
    In fact, my note was not in response to Karen's note, but your
    previous total {cough} job of a note... talk about full of
    it!!
    
    -b

    
    Brian's getting awfully defensive 8^).
    
    

    
    	Yeah, he's been doing that alot lately.
    

    > Psychotic outbursts usually occur initially at home; that should
    > give parents a clue as to the merits of pursuing some activity
    > or goal should they see indicators that another psychotic outburst
    > might occur if they don't alter their plans.
    
    Nice theory... I suppose we could all hook up smoke detectors
    to our kids to warn us if they're about to go off...:-)
    
    -b

    I've also noticed that some parents seem to be completely immune to
    shrieks over 110 dB, yet can hear a whimper from 100 yards away.

    RE: .187

>    Brian's getting awfully defensive 8^).

    I'll admit that it is pretty amusing listening to all the "experts" on
    child raising who have never tried it.  Kind of reminds me of the
    accuracy of one seven year old telling another what sex is all about. 
    Occasionally a seven year old will get it right, but usually ...

    -- Dave

    
    > Brian's getting awfully defensive 8^).
    
    I see three camps here:
    
      1. Those who don't have kids but assume how it's supposed
         to work;
    
      2. Those who have kids but took their high-and-mighty pills
         today and are having hallucinations about controlling their
         kids with hairy eyeballs or timeouts in the family sedan;
    
      3. Those who admit that the owner's manual you get with
         kids is insufficient and that from time to time a
         parent really has no more clue than the rest of you
         smart asses about how to get a kid to behave.
    
    -b
    
    (who, if you could possibly believe it, might, just might,
     be kidding around a little ...)

    I take umbrage.

    
    You don't have to have children to have opinions on bad behaviour.
    
    What amuses me is how some people with children seem to think that 
    EVERYBODY has to love and understand the little darlings and that 
    EVERYBODY needs to sacrifice and make allowances for the little darlings. 
    
    Sorry, but your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.  You'd be
    pretty miffed if someone's dog barked all night or pooped on your path
    or dug up your vegetable garden, wouldn't you?  What's the diff between
    that and your kids driving me effing nuts?
    
    And as for the "they're our FUTURE {gasp}" comments, I'm sure we've got 
    plenty of well-behaved future out there.
    
    {crank, crank}
    
                  

    so brian, what camp in .192 r u falling in...if u care to admit...

    He's in the "I have brats and don't have a clue where the owner's manual
    is" category.

>    You don't have to have children to have opinions on bad behaviour.

    True.  I also don't have to know how to assemble a clock in order to
    tell time.  Just because your can recognize the wrong time (bad
    behavior) doesn't mean you can assemble the clock (know how to raise
    kids).

    -- Dave

    thank u Glenn, i kinda thot that but didn't know if he was brave enuf
    to admit it or not
    
    
    NR

    
    If your clock constantly displays the wrong time, you get it fixed!
    

               \|/ ____ \|/
                @~/ ,. \~@
               /_( \__/ )_\-------SNARF
               ~  \__U_/  ~

    RE: .199

>    If your clock constantly displays the wrong time, you get it fixed!

    Yeah, so what's your point?  

    My point is that people who have never turned a hand at raising kids
    sound pretty amusing when they try to tell others how to raise kids. 
    If the clocks broken, and you've never tried to fix one before, then
    you sound pretty silly standing over someone's shoulders giving advice
    on how to fix the it.

    As an irrelevent side note, my wife and I frequently get compliments
    about how well behaved our kids are ... which is a credit to my wife.

    -- Dave

        > You don't have to have children to have opinions on bad behaviour.

    Most parents probably share your opinion too..

    > What amuses me is how some people with children seem to think that 
    > EVERYBODY has to love and understand the little darlings and that 
    > EVERYBODY needs to sacrifice and make allowances for the little darlings. 

    Not really. My point earlier was that after soapbox, or that lady
    with the furrowed brow, is a distant memory, I'll still have two
    children. I doubt many of you will be visiting me in the nursing
    home when I'm old... and not a single one of you has EVER sat on
    my lap. :-) If given a choice between their perception of me as
    a parent and yours... I'll go with theirs. There's no requirement
    that you like it. Honest.

    Now, I'm not talking about subjecting you to truly bad behavior.
    Of course, if my kids did something truly harmful to somebody
    else they would be punished severely. But I've raised them well,
    and they don't harm other people. In fact, just the opposite.
    They're loving, respectful and courteous. But sometimes they need
    someone to cut 'em a break. They do not have adult emotions or
    intellects. They are not intentionally driving you nucking futz.
    They are not intentionally driving ME nucking futz either. It's
    the way young biological systems operate.

    -b

    
    Given that small children can go off with no warning into their
    "psychotic episodes;"  sunny one minute 90 db screams and mile a minute
    tears the next a "smoke alarm" would not be the DEW system that it
    appears some people would want it to be.  This usually subsides after
    age 4, but happens again sometime after 13
    
    I don't take my kids out when they are tired to avoid some of this, but
    there will always be a time when something may set a small child off
    with no warning.  While I prefer getting off to a quieter location to
    let her get herself under control, this isn't always possible,
    especially in a checkout line.  Yes I let them learn to control
    themselves, it leads to a safer adolescents when you can't always tell
    them what to do and how to control themselves.  
    
    meg
    
    

    Not intentional?!? Ever?!?
    
    {{{THUD}}}

>    Yes I let them learn to control
>    themselves, it leads to a safer adolescents when you can't always tell
>    them what to do and how to control themselves.  

    Gee meg, you're trying to get your kids to THINK for themselves and to
    control themselves without having big brother (or mommy or daddy)
    standing over them all the time.  Gee, the repercussions ;^)

    -- Dave

    I know!
    
    they will probably become libertarians or worse something like me!
    
    meg
    
    ;-)

    
    Maybe we should move this discussion to 290.* 8^).
    
    

    Re:
    
    Last several; that's what I meant about a little common sense.
    
    My mom's method of preventing psychotic episodes is similar to
    Meg's, i.e. if my sister missed her afternoon nap (mom was big on
    naps); odds are Susan wouldn't be included in an evening shopping
    excursion.  Built in "alarms" weren't necessary; as I said both
    my sister and I acted out in public ONCE!!  We weren't beaten into
    submission either, but it was made clear early on what was acceptable
    behavior and what wasn't.  My parents were really neat people, pleasing
    them wasn't a chore.....my sister and I figured that out early on,
    kids can't be that much different today.
    
    With babies and very young toddlers, I agree stuff happens.  When
    it happened in my family, i.e. crying in church, restaurant etc.,
    one of my parents usually removed us from the scene in deference to
    others.  I don't get out to a nice restaurant often these days, 
    but when I do go I'd prefer NOT to listen to a child screaming at
    the top of its lungs while both parents act oblivious to the commo-
    tion the child is creating.
    
    When I see a child crying but can tell it's obviously tired or ill,
    I'm not angered by the child, but I am angry at a parent who couldn't
    re-think their plans a little.
    
    When I see a child having a temper tantrum, then I get PO'd at the
    kid and the parents if the tantrum is allowed to go on longer than
    a few minutes.
    
    This whole discussion brought up thoughts of one of my favorite
    series of movies.....anyone out there remember Mr. Belvedere?  In
    one movie he was sort of a male nanny (I think Maureen O'Hara
    played the mom).  Anyway the youngest kid in a high-chair was having
    a tantrum and throwing his food; Mr. Belvedere didn't say a word,
    he just walked over to the kid, took the bowl of cereal and dumped
    it over the kid's head.  Shocked the heck (and the tantrum) right
    out of the kid ;-)
    

    RE: .208

    Just curious, did both of your parents work?  Or did one stay home with
    the kids?

    -- Dave

    Dave,
    
    Both parents worked; Mom's work was part-time when we were young,
    she didn't go to full-time until my sister was out of grade school.
    One thing that DID make a difference to me is that relatives
    on both sides were available to pull baby-sitting duty; I know that
    isn't an option for a lot of couples today because "granny" is
    still working.  NOTE:  My mother worked full-time while I was an
    infant, my dad was overseas in WWII; however, Mom had to give up
    their apartment and move in with her parents to do so.  And, as I
    said I had grandparents available on both sides, plus bunches of
    aunts/uncles (who were teens), but they did an admirable job of
    lending a hand.
    
    I'm not sure why that should be too much of a factor today (I'm a distant 
    cousin of Methuselah).  If a parent picks a child up at day care
    and the kid seems tired or out of sorts, if I were the parent I'd
    re-think plans (if I had any) to head to the local mall or do much
    shopping (trying to keep on topic here).
    
    I wasn't "blessed" with children (honest, I wanted them but wasn't
    able to get pregnant while married and I wasn't inclined to pursue
    that avenue after the marriage ended).  If I had children I prob-
    ably would have had to re-arrange priorities for the big house
    with all the trimmings in the 'burbs that I did have for a number of
    years, and settle for a more modest house elsewhere, etc.
    
    I've been told many times in the 'box that I need to get realistic;
    IMHO that applies to couples in today's world who "want to have it
    all" and still want kids.  We've been hearing that women can have
    a career and a family for quite some time now; IMHO something always
    suffers if the women try to combine both, unfortunately it's often
    the children who get the short end.  I don't want to rat-hole this
    topic because I think this could be a whole 'nother topic.  Some
    other time I'll talk about friends who went the "Mr. Mom" route;
    they REALLY make it work, but the adults were willing to prioritize the
    "goodies and toys" that they knew they'd have to give up in order to
    live on one salary.  
    
    Single parents who wound up that way through death of a spouse or
    a divorce don't always have too many choices because quite often
    the single parent doesn't have the family support system around
    them. I still think the children can suffer if that single parent
    tries to do too much, i.e. parent can't tell difference between
    necessity vs. "I wanna have".
    
    However, couples who are career oriented, upwardly mobile and strive
    for that need, IMHO to give serious thought to when (or if) to have
    kids.  I observed too many couples giving in to their kids all too
    often because deep down they have a big case of the "guilts" due to
    the fact that they know they aren't spending enough time with their kids.
    
    Sorry, didn't mean to run on.  I know I was damn lucky to be born
    into the hands of Dot and Tally Reese; I wouldn't change places with
    any kid today, nosireeee!!
    

    
    No one is saying that there's anything wrong with removing a
    screaming child from a restaurant or store; what's wrong is
    the perception that everytime a child makes a peep, the
    parent should whisk them off somewhere... sorry, the world
    does not revolve around anyone's delicate sensibilities.
    Parents have lives too..
    
    In a fine restaurant, or in a quiet place like a church,
    yes, I (and most people) would act immediately. In a video
    store? I'm likely to take my sweet time about it. I went there
    for a purpose. Most likely, a child is with me because he/she
    has to be; I didn't want to leave them unattended in a car.
    
    When I'm ready to go; that's when I go...
    
    -b

    Back a few, someone mentioned the absurdity present in the world. It
    appears to me that it starts out with the teaching of children. All
    children are dependent on their parents and teachers for acquiring
    initial knowledge. Thus, parents and teachers are responsible for
    infecting and debilitating the minds of children with irrational
    concepts. The minds of such children are manipulated and twisted with 
    dishonesties ranging from accepting parental irrationalities and mystical 
    religions to accepting the politically correct insanities and destructive
    actions of harmful 'teachers', 'authorities', and 'leaders'. Thus,
    children are dragged into this world's absurdities. This results in
    children losing their potential for growth, health, and happiness,
    which perpetuates the absurd.
    
    

That does it, Ralston.  No more Wheat Chex for _my_ kids.

>    The minds of such children are manipulated and twisted with 
>    dishonesties ranging from accepting parental irrationalities and mystical 
>    religions to accepting the politically correct insanities and destructive
>    actions of harmful 'teachers', 'authorities', and 'leaders'. Thus,
>    children are dragged into this world's absurdities. This results in
>    children losing their potential for growth, health, and happiness,
>    which perpetuates the absurd.
 
yes, but on the other hand, this bodes well for my future earning
potential.

    
    Brian, that sounds very selfish.  I was taught to be considerate of
    other people.  It may inconvenience *me* at times to be considerate of
    others, but that's the way I was brought up.
    
    It seems that not everyone was brought up that way.  So be it.
    
                                                                  

    re: .213
    
    ^That does it, Ralston.  No more Wheat Chex for _my_ kids.
    
    Sure, take the money out of my pocket and the food out of my childrens
    mouths!  :)
    
    re: .214
    
    ^yes, but on the other hand, this bodes well for my future earning potential.
    
    And you said you were humorless.  :)

    
    	Deb might have very different answers if she were on the other
    	side of the "screaming kid problem".
    

    
    My kids happen to be 10 and 8... well past the point where
    such things happen. What I have been trying to advocate is
    cutting _other_ folks with younger kids a break. But there's
    no sense suffering a barage of personal $#!+ slinging over
    it.
    
    -b

    
    I have two nieces and a nephew.  When they are in public with me, they
    behave or they are removed.  Immediately.
    
    Granted, I don't have them 24 hours a day.  Frankly, I'd probably commit
    suicide if I did.                                    
    
      

    
    me thinks .217 will be deleted shortly for <r.o>, but who knows I've
    been wrong before.

>>    	Deb might have very different answers if she were on the other
>>    	side of the "screaming kid problem".


	I think you may want to resonsider that MIGHT.   	
	Of course she WILL - the minute that child is placed in your
	arms - everything changes.
	
    

    
    My aunt always tells me "It's different when they're yours."  This is
    probably true.  
    
    I also think all babies look like Winston Churchill.
    

    
    >Granted, I don't have them 24 hours a day.  Frankly, I'd probably commit
    >suicide if I did.                                    
    
    
    	Don't flatter yourself ... they might beat you to it.
    
    	8^)
    

    
    deb and kids don't mix. Just like oil and water.

    
    .224
    
    Shawn must want a rematch with deb.

>    I also think all babies look like Winston Churchill.

Izzat why they give out cigars?

    
    	I'm still reeling from that "takes longer when you have to move
    	your lips and sound out all the words" crack from yesterday.
    
    	8^)
    

    
    Actually, kids like me.  Just like cats, they go for the person who
    can't stand them 8^).
    
    I got a letter and photos the other day from a little girl that was
    in the last show with me.  She drew a picture of us together and signed
    it "I love you forever" 8^).
    
                            

    
    	And it'd be just like you to rip up the picture and throw it back
    	at her, you heartbreaker.
    

No, she'll feed it to a cat.

    
    You're just steamed cuz I did that to the picture YOU drew of us
    together.
    
    

>   I also think all babies look like Winston Churchill
    
You are absolutely right! An interesting ontological development we 
have, eh? We all start out in the womb as females, are born as rotund male 
Torries, then finally go on our separate ways.

>    Actually, kids like me.  Just like cats, they go for the person who
>    can't stand them 8^).
    
Another astute observation. No wonder I admire you so! Dam cats. They give 
me the wheezes but always leap for my kneeses.

Tom
                            

    
    If I didn't know better, I would swear that mz_debra and Shawn have
    got the "hots" for each other.

    
    It's a good thing you know better.
    
    

    
    	One of us does have the hots for the other, and let me tell you,
    	it's pretty annoying to have to keep fighting her off like this.
    
    	You'd think she would have taken the hint by now.
    

    .217
    
    excellent arguement, Brian, well thought out, intriguing, full of
    insight...like my little toenail!

    
    Since everyone is speculating how long it will take for the
    mods to get rid of .217, I figure I'd save them the trouble
    and do it myself. Besides, .219 covers the same ground
    anyway...
    
    -b

    Bumber. I missed it. 8^/

    
    Oh, you didn't miss much. I was just being cranky and said
    the poo poo word. I awoke to the wrong exposure of the
    futon, I guess...
    
    -b

    
    He said "bullshit".
    
    (I can say that, 'cuz it's in quotes)
    
    :^)
    

    Apparently there are no Mods around this week. I am very offended by
    the use of the BS word, so phuc you!  :)

    Bri,
    
    As the parent of children ranging from 21 years, down to 2, I can
    appreciate what you said.  I know what it is like when you CAN'T avoid
    being someplace with a cranky toddler and some person who obviously
    never had children is glaring at you, like "can't you take that kid out
    and drown it?"  When I see a fellow parent in that situation, I try to
    give him or her a smile of support, I know what they are going through.  
    
    And Deb, unlike the dog that barks all night, the whining/crying jags
    are short-lived, (even though sometimes time seems to stretch in the
    presence of a weepy child) and they aren't in your apartment while you
    are trying to sleep.  
    
    meg

    
    It is amazing how often I, as a parent, receive advice and information
    about how to raise my son from people who have never even baby-sat let
    alone have a kid.  So, with that in mind, here is my proposed law:
    
    	- Do not try to tell me how to raise my children.
    
    	- If you break this law and do not have any children of your
    	  own, you will be punished by having to raise three children
    	  of random ages between 2 and 18.  If, after 10 years of this
    	  punishment you still feel you should tell people how to raise
    	  their children, you will be committed to the nearest assylum.
    
    
    	Skip
    

    
      Never entered a reply to this note, partly because of my general
     distrust of laws as a solution to anything.  However, I think I
     have one.  Call it "An Act to Rectify Euphemisms in Government."
     It came to me while reading from history about a long-ago US
     "Secretary of War".  I thought, "How truthful we were when the
     country was young - we named our departments for what they DID,
     not what they didn't do."  It was only later we misnamed it the
     "Department of Defense".  How wonderful it would be to name it back !
    
      A lot of them are easy : The Department of Debt, The Department of
     Crime, the Department of Disease, the Department of Ignorance.  The
     Federal Bureau of Concealment.  The Central Bewilderment Agency.
     The National Insecurity Advisor.  A few are more difficult - I
     guess I'd call Warren Christopher the Chief Negotiator of Secret
     Protocols with Foreign Despots.  You get the idea.
    
      We should institute a nonpartisan commission to rename everything
     in government.  The National Endowment of Ugliness.  The Lack of
     Postal Service.  The Department of Being Stuck in Traffic or
     Stranded in Airports.  We may disagree on some of them, but I
     think you'll agree this simple budget-neutral measure would, after
     a few years of the commission's work, lead to a much more healthy
     country, and be the most sweeping reform we've ever had.
    
      bb

    Two proposed laws:
    
    	Big print is binding.
    
    and
    
    	"Free" things are free.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    
    Any pronouncement/announcement/leak/statement made by any official of
    a corporation, the government, police, FBI, BATF, etc. etc. etc. will
    not be used and/or distributed by any media if accompanied by the
    caveat:
    
     "under the condition of anonymity"
    

    
    Taking my q from Lady Di...
    
    All those not understanding/complying with the law/concept of:
    
    "Keep right except to pass" shall have same tattooed on their
    foreheads.
    
     

Re: .248 Oh no! You'd be tied up implementing this until you're ready for
retirement, if you invoked it on Rt. 101A between Milford and Nashua
every morning. 

The *jerks* on that road line up like... well, never mind, they just line
up in the passing lane; 6, 8, sometimes 10 of them in the passing lane,
with the right-hand lane empty. And not all of them are wearing
suspenders and listening to their voicemail on their cellular phones,
either. 

Sheesh.

Art

    
    
    I agree Art...
    
    I take the same road into work, and my proposed law was based on the
    Rt. 101A example...

 Effective immediately, it shall be required of all Americans that they take
at least one cross country train trip every 4 years (tax deductable) to get
to know their fellow citizens.


Jim

    Jim,
    
    Welcome back.
    
    I agree with this law, starting with congresscritters.  They sure don't
    have a great hold on reality.  Sorry I couldn't make it to Denver.  To
    much stuff going down in my group right now.
    
    meg

Actually, I agree...I think Congress critters and any candidate for national
office should be required to ride on a long haul train and talk to people
to see what they really want..


No problem on Denver. We weren't there long, as we were a little bit 
behind schedule.  I had time to run into the terminal, grab a paper,
make a phone call, and get back on board.  

I've been on the route through Glenwood and other canyons before, but I'd
forgotten just how magnificent it is through there. and on the return trip
we had a conductor to provided commentary on the history of the area as
well as some personal observations and anecdotes of his years riding freights
through there.

    sounds neat. There are just so many interesting people around, eh? It
    bothers me when I think about how many I won't meet. 

 Absolutely.  I had occasion to get acquainted with a man who got on the
train in Sacramento, CA and was going all the way to Boston.  He took the
seat next to me and we didn't say much for a while.  He was quite dressed
up (slacks, white shirt, tie).  I started to make small talk with him, and
found that he hadn't been on a train since he was sent off to the army in
WWII (he is now 73 yrs old).  Eventualy I found that his wife of 48 years
had died in February, and he had just recently had a triple bypass.  He
was going east to spend some time at his brother's in Hyannis, Mass.  He
was unsure of how to deal with connecting trains in Chicago, or how to get
to a bus in Boston, and I assured him that I'd be happy to help him deal
with all of that.

The poor guy was lost without his wife, and I listened to many stories he had
to tell about her, and his time in the army and his service as a Boston
Police officer for 20 + years.  He could remember dates of different 
events as if they'd happened yesterday.

We arrived late in Chicago and I helped him off th train and into the
terminial and on to the next, and then when we found we were 3 hours
late (long story), we got off the train in Albany to call his brother..he
was having trouble dealing with the pay phones (aren't as easy to use as
they used to be) so I used my credit card to call for him.  And when we
arrived in Boston, I made sure he got on his bus..


What a great time it was getting to know this man.  And, I had the opportunity
to get to know many other folks..


Jim

    
    	I guess that's one difference between you and me ... within a-
    	bout 10 minutes of the start of his story, I would have either
    	dozed off or taken out a book and started reading.
    
    	Any book.  And I might not even have noticed if I was holding
    	it upside down.
    

    Re: .294
    
    Feds would just "charter" the train and sell influence for the ride. 
    No average American allowed.
    
    "All aboard Rail Force One!  $10K please ($15K for a window seat,
    $50K to speak to "the man")!  I feel your pain. Let me
    look into that..."
    
    BT

    Nope,
    
    Coach, plain Sloamtrack coach, including the pleasures of sleeping in
    semireclining chairs, helmet baths in the public facilities, and paying
    for ones own meals.  Only that way could a pol get the full flavor of
    the people he or she was elected to represent.

 Yep..



 actually, I got a pretty good routine going each morning for a quick
 cleanup/change of clothes..(though it worked better in the Superliner cars
 with the designated dressing rooms).


 Jim

Taking the train is the only way to fly!

Glad to know Amtrak still sort of works.  Must try them sometime.

>Glad to know Amtrak still sort of works.  Must try them sometime.



 Don't wait too long..more trains are likely to be cut in the current budget
 battle.  Already the "Pioneer" section which runs from Denver-Seattle is
 going to be cut as well as the "Desert Wind" which runs from Chicago-Denver-
 Salt Lake City-Las Vegas-Los Angeles.  Good news, however, is that the
 California Zephyr (Chicago-Denver-Salt Lake City-Oakland) will return to
 daily operation.

 From conversations I had with folks on the train, if you want to take a
 long haul train, the one to take is the Southwest Limited (Chicago-Los Angeles
 via the southwest) where the crews seem to recognize that the folks on board
 are actually "customers".


 Jim

    Thanks for the tips
    
    I always wanted to take the Zephyr.  Then again, I've heard it's always
    booked for months in advance ('specially the leg that covers Glenwood
    Canyon).
    
    Maybe some of the other lines will come back.  When I took Via's
    "Canadien" (which is actually their old "Super Continental" route), the
    word on the line was that it was all on the verge of being shut down. 
    Since then, I see they've even upgraded some of the equipment.
    
    Perhaps Amtrak will do the same.

  The trip through Glenwood Canyon is magnificent.  There were quite a few
 kayakers (?) on the river which made it fun as well.  The equipment Amtrak
 uses on these runs is nice..two level cars recently refurbished and new 
 locomotives that don't require "helpers" to get through the mountains..

 Sigh...I'm ready to go again.

re .302:

I have no experience with other runs but I can confirm the SW LA-Chicago run
is beautiful.

    wouldn't you end up in the Pacific if you went SW from LA?  8^)

>I have no experience with other runs but I can confirm the SW LA-Chicago run
>is beautiful.


 I'll have to do that trip some time.  



 Jim

The Boston/NYC line is being electrified with the target completion date
sometime in 1998.  

Once the line is completely electric the trip from Boston -> NYC will take 3
hours.  The trains should be able to hit 150mph.

Lots of footings for the electric lines had been constructed.  Be nice if they
were on schedule.

Currently it takes about 4 1/2 hours from Boston to NYC.

Tim

> hours.  The trains should be able to hit 150mph.

Really? How's the rails?

> hours.  The trains should be able to hit 150mph.
    
|Really? How's the rails?
    
    The goal is to have them travel at speeds approaching 0 mph.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	[whoosh!!]
    
    	Mr. Bill, do you facts to back that up?  Names of reports, etc.?
    

Duh, like, it's a funny.  8-|

Pardon the density, but mr. bill's writings in here aren't exactly a model of
clarity.

    Less you ask me to spell it.:)
    

They are replacing the old rails with newer rails that are welded to provide a
smoother and more stable ride.  The older wooden ties will be replaced with
cement ties.

I found the 4 hour trip to New York pretty enjoyable and fast.  Less than 3
hours would be great.

Tim

    
      Welded rails have been tried before..  Great until the contraction
    of colder temps pops the welds.
    
    ken
    

Well, they seem to be able to do continuously welded rails in Europe quite
well.

/john

    If I recall, conweld rails are not really continuous.
     
    It doesn't get that cold or that hot very often, and when it does, they
    have been known to buckle.  The welds don't break because there is a
    long scarfe joint every X miles to absorb the changes.
    

They also break the track into electrically insulated blocks for train
sensing and signalling purposes.

Or maybe not any longer, with higher tech stuff nowadays.

    my my
    
      i'm impressed.  must be some railroad buffs in here.
    
     eken
    

    The diddly-dit diddly-dah as they went over the fishplates
    is etched into my brain.   It just wasn't the same after they
    introduced the conweld rails for the HSTs.

    .315
    
    The ride to New York is over, what, ex-NYC or ex-NYNH&H trackage?  That
    ought to have been upgraded for the Metroliner a couple of decades ago. 
    Was supposed to be 100-MPH-capable trackage, 156-lb rail - and the trip
    was supposed to take under 3 hours.

    My proposed law...
    
    
    Anything labelled "Plug and Play" should do just that.  If not, the
    customer should get double his money back (money back from the place of
    purchase, and a refund for his time spent in aggravation split between
    the manufacturer and Miscrosoft, and perhaps the PC manufacturer).
    
    This would inspire all parties involved to make systems compatable and
    easy to upgrade.

 Yes!


 Also...any product in a retail establishment not clearly labeled with a price
 (either on the product itself or on the shelf by the product) shall be "free".
 The above will not apply if the associate responds to the customer "I'd be
 glad to check that price for you, sir (or ma'am)".



 Jim

 .322


 I think part of the problem is that the train has to convert from diesel
 to electric at New Haven (or thereabouts).  With the new trackage, equipment,
 etc, the entire trip will be electric (or is it diesel).


 Jim

    WHen they did the rebuild thru Natick MA I saw some of the trains with
    the tracks on them. The sections were like a 1/4 mile long spread
    naturally over many cars. I didn't see how they got these from the cars
    to the ground w/o doing a 52 rail (card) pickup

| I think part of the problem is that the train has to convert from diesel
| to electric at New Haven (or thereabouts).  With the new trackage, equipment,
| etc, the entire trip will be electric (or is it diesel).
    
    Currently:
    * diesel-electric Boston->New Haven.
    * very long delay at New Haven while the engines are changed.
    * electric New-Haven->New York.
    
    You'd be hard pressed to travel from Boston -> New York City by air
    in less than three hours.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >You'd be hard pressed to travel from Boston -> New York City by air
    >in less than three hours.
    
     rail?

 Speaking of Amtrak...it would appear that the Lake Shore Limited Boston
 section will remain in service after 5/10/97, and that any reservations
 made as "thru way bus connections" will be changed to train reservations.



Jim

|    rail?
    
    Air.
    
    								-mr. bill

The delay at New Haven was about 10 minutes, maybe 15 max.  The power to the
train is shut off while they switch from diesel -> electric to go on to NYC.

The goal is to have the whole run from Boston to NYC be electric when they are
done.

My calculations timing mile markers had us going 80mph most of the time.  I
think that the big problem with 150 mph trains is that crossings become pretty
dangerous.

Are they going to have bridges over/under the rails to get up to the 150mph
speed?   Or are they going to just have crossings with warning signals?

Tim

| The delay at New Haven was about 10 minutes, maybe 15 max.   
    
    Never ever sat at New Haven for only 10 to 15 minutes.
    
|   The power to the train is shut off while they switch from
|   diesel -> electric to go on to NYC.
    
    First you slow down to approach New Haven Station.  Then you slowly
    work through the switches to the changing yard.  Then you sit
    for at least three-to-five minutes with the power on.  Then the
    power goes off while they switch engines.  After 10-15 minuets,
    there's a gentle bump, and a minute or so later the power goes
    back on.  Then you sit for another five minutes while they check
    the systems.  Then you slowly pull out of the changing yard, through
    the switches back to the main line, and then back to speed.
    
    vrs.
    
    Blasting through New Haven on the express track.        
    
    The trip would be 30 minutes shorter without the engine switch.
    
|   I think that the big problem with 150 mph trains is that crossings
|   become pretty dangerous.
    
    To a first approximation, to anyone getting hit by a train in a
    crossing, it isn't any more dangerous to get hit at 150mph vrs.
    80mph.
    
    But for people sitting on the train, it is far more dangerous
    to have a grade crossing accident at 150mph vrs. 80mph.
    
|   Are they going to have bridges over/under the rails to get up to the
|   150mph speed?
    
    Many of the grade crossings will be eliminated.  But not all of them.
    
|   Or are they going to just have crossings with warning signals?
    
    They will have some crossings with warning signals (and gates) BUT
    they don't plan to blast through the grade crossings at top speed.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
      3 hrs to gotham i gotta see.  best chance is to get scotty to
     lock onto yer co-ordinates
    
      bb

 I was impressed with the switch that was done in Denver on my way back
 from my trip out west.


 The California Zephyr arrived in Denver about 40 minutes late.  The plan
 was to meet the Pioneer (eastbound from Seattle), which was also about
 40 minutes late.  They had to pull 2 private cars off the end of the Zephyr,
 pull 2 sleepers and 2 coaches from the Pioneer and tack them off on to
 the Zephyr, remove baggage and passengers from both, then load the Zephyr
 back up with passengers, baggage, fuel and a new crew and be outta there
 quick..they did it in less than half an hour.  


 Jim

>    Never ever sat at New Haven for only 10 to 15 minutes.

While it's rare for them to get it done on time, I have experienced that
they _can_ do this when everything is right.

The scheduled stop in New Haven is 10 minutes if _only_ the engine has to
be changed, and 20 minutes if a Springfield section also has to be connected
or disconnected from the Boston section.

/john

    waiting to see how things work under the new western amtrack for my
    daughter.  Looks like she'll be here the night of the 19th.  However
    the trip back may have some bussing involved if she takes the Chief out
    of La Junta to get back to So Cal.
    
    Already she will have to double back, taking the Stalight to visit a
    friend in Oregon, back to the Zephyr in Sacremento to get out here.
    
    Too bad, I was hoping she could get the Pioneer, out of Seattle, a trip
    I always wanted to make, but never found time to.
    
    I hope she likes trains the way I do.
    
    meg
    

EXPLORING NEW FRONTIERS IN FAIRNESS: THE DAILY OUTRAGE PLAN FOR EQUAL
SEXUAL OPPORTUNITY (see http://www.dailyoutrage.com/)

It is often argued that people in our society don't have equal economic
opportunities because some children are born into rich families while
others are born into poverty. Since the purpose of government is to
make life fair, it is argued that we should help the poor by taxing those
who are better off and redistributing the social product to increase
economic equality. While this policy of taxation to create equality is
obviously laudable, at present it is only directed towards the problem of
economic inequalities. 

There are other forms of gross unfairness which have been completely
and unjustly ignored by policy makers. For instance, through no fault of
our own, the editors here at the Daily Outrage
(http://www.dailyoutrage.com) look nothing like Richard Gere, Robert
Redford or George Michael. Clearly, we are at a disadvantage in seeking
a fulfilling sexual life. As evidenced by our mediocre appearance, we are
sexually disadvantaged. I would like to suggest that the social sexual
product be redistributed to help out disadvantaged guys like us. 
After all, the beautiful ones do nothing to earn their pretty faces - why
should they be entitled to the benefits of an unearned advantage? It is
their social duty to help out the aesthetically less fortunate. If there's ever
to be justice in this society we must design a social system according to
this dictum: From each according to his/her desirability; to each
according to his/her lust. 

It's true that we might be able to look more like Richard Gere or Tom
Cruise if we went through the exhausting ordeal of physical training,
cosmetic surgery, and endless shopping trips at Neiman- Marcus. But
Gere and Cruise didn't have to do any of that stuff -- I don't see why we
should. 

The sexual equality system would have a progressive tax scale, much
like the federal income tax system on which it is based. For example, a
guy like Bill Clinton must surely be in the 50% bracket. According to our
plan half of all the women that sleep with him would also be obligated to
sleep with us. The Daily Outrage plan is non-discriminatory; it would also
apply to someone like Madonna, who undoubtedly has more than her
fair share of lovers. Half of these men, or women as the case may be,
would be required to sleep with needy females. Of course, some of the
requisitioned men and women might object to taking a lover not of their
own choosing, but everyone must sacrifice for the greater good of the
whole society. 

Some will argue that, unlike dollar bills, not all sexual partners are of
equal value. We have anticipated that objection: a government agency,
sort of the sexual equivalent of comparable worth pay boards, would
assign each individual a desirability rating to be used in assigning
bedfellows. The system is complex, but no more so than, say, the tax code. 

Of course, everyone would need to keep records of their sexual
transactions. At the end of each year each citizen would be required to
file a form listing their sexual experiences. A short form would be
provided for the monogamous while the more sexually adventuresome
would be required to fill out the long form. All the forms would be fed into
a central computer which would figure out who owed what to whom
(We've asked Microsoft to look into developing the appropriate
software.) Periodic audits would be conducted, just to keep everyone
honest. Those who had more than an average amount of sex during the
year would be required to remain celibate until all of their less fortunate
neighbors had been satisfied. 

Good policy and brilliant ideas are never enough, if only because people
fail to see what's in their best interest. Hence, the Daily Outrage plan
would require an enforcement arm, analogous to the IRS. Perhaps we
would call it the ISS -- Internal Sexual Service. The ISS would hire agents
(Sex Police?) to patrol the country, making sure that no one was
under-reporting their sexual encounters. 

There are, we admit, quite a few technical problems with the plan, but
none that couldn't be solved by a lot of Harvard economists and social
engineers. The program would be led by a blue collar commission
composed of those who have spent their lives trying to make life fair for
all of us -- John Galbraith, Ted Kennedy, Jane Fonda, and other leading
lights of the intellectual and political world. The program would be
expensive, if one thinks in crass materialistic terms, but would more than
pay for itself in the form of satisfaction given to the sexually
underprivileged. 

Some reactionaries might suggest that government has no business
interfering in peoples' sexual lives; these silly romantics keep spouting
off about "personal liberty". The more enlightened among us can easily
see that if the government is entitled to a fair share of a person's
earnings, it must be equally entitled to a share of his or her sexual
opportunities. 

We're not ideologues here at the Daily Outrage -- all elements of the plan
are negotiable. We might even be willing to settle for a top sex tax
bracket of 40%. There are no absolutes -- what's needed is moderation
and a sense of fair play. The important thing is that everyone recognize
the need to remedy the problem of sexual inequality. Details can be
worked out later. The program, like the tax code, could be fine-tuned until
it reached perfection. 

Given the current universal cultural acceptance of sex and money as the
only things worthy of pursuit, government will have accomplished its
primary mission as an agent of fairness after it solves the tragedy of
unequal sexual opportunity. Those of us who are sexually oppressed
will seek the help of other oppressed groups in the battle to get the
necessary legislation passed. Women, minorities, union workers,
government employees, the handicapped, the economically
disadvantaged -- all will rally to our side to form a rainbow coalition of the
needy. 

We're mediocre looking and proud of it. We'll stand up and be counted.
We are tired of seeing an elitist group of beautiful people have all the fun.
They discriminate against the rest of us by never inviting us to their
parties. They never offer to share their trim waistlines, firm jaws, or
aquiline noses with the those of us in need. The pretty boys and girls
frolic in passion while we sit home and watch TV. You call that fair? Of
course not. Its time for government to step in and provide for those of us
who cannot provide for ourselves. All we need is a chance, and a few
sexual subsidies. 

    
    gee, that was a laugh riot.