Mr. Ulrich complains my 91 year-old deceased mother's concept of her
right to smoke is "provocative to me." Wow! Either he has too much
time on his hands or some really serious problems that can't be solved
through a statistics newsgroup. How my dead mother's attitude toward
smoking created such an emotional tirade is beyond me. The bizarre
and convoluted allusion to Justices Scalia and Thomas seems to be
another of Mr. Ulrich's "hot buttons" my mother inadvertently pushed
from her grave. I suppose he thinks she was a part of the "vast right
wing conspiracy" he seems to be railing about. What Mr. Ulrich
doesn't know is she was not only a lifelong smoker, but a Democratic
Party activist as well. As yet, Mr. Ulrich has not provided the case
law attributed to the two Justices re: smoking "rights" vis a vis
Natural Law. IMHO, his apparent need to spout Democratic Party
ideology would be more appropriate for a political science grouping.
Possibly, his political ranting plays well to the gallery in
Pittsburgh. Are they lucky, or what?
On Sun, 01 Jul 2001 19:08:44 -0400, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> - in respect of the up-coming U.S. holiday -
>
>On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:49:47 GMT, mackeral@remove~this~first~yahoo.com
>(J. Williams) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:37:48 -0400, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >What rights are denied to smokers?
>JW >
>> Many smokers, including my late mother, feel being unable to smoke on
>> a commerical aircraft, sit anywhere in a restaurant, etc. were
>> violation of her "rights." I don't agree as a non-smoker, but that
>> was her viewpoint until the day she died.
>
>What's your point: She was a crabby old lady, whining (or
>whinging) about fancied 'rights'?
>
>You don't introduce anything that seems "inalienable" or
>"self-evident" (if I may introduce July-4th language).
>Nobody stopped her from smoking as long as she kept it away
>from other people-who-would-be-offended.
>
>Okay, we form governments to help assure each other of rights.
>Lately, the law sees fit to stop some assaults from happening,
>even though it did not always do that in the past. - the offender
>still has quite a bit of leeway; if you don't cause fatal diseases,
>you legally can offend quite a lot. We finally have laws about
>smoking.
>
>But she wants the law to stop at HER convenience?
>
>[ snip, various ]
>JW >
>> Talking about confused and/or politically driven, what do Scalia and
>> Thomas have to do with smoking rights? Please cite the case law.
>
>I mention "rights" because that did seem to be a attitude you
>mentioned that was (as you see) provocative to me.
>
>I toss in S & T, because I think that, to a large extent, they
>share your mother's preference for a casual, self-centered
>definition of rights. And they are Supreme Court justices.
>[ Well, they don't say, "This is what *I* want".... these two
>translate the blame/ credit to Nature (euphemism for God).]
>
>So: I don't fault your mother *too* harshly, when Justices
>hardly do better. Even though a prolonged skew was needed,
>to end up with two like this.
>
>
>--
>Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
