Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (15070)	1/7/1998 11:49:00 PM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

JFred, NOX devices were add-ons which were supposed to rid the air of nitrous oxide (or something like that) and were mandated in 1974 or 1975. They were to be installed on a rotating basis, month by month, according to the last numeral on the vehicles' license plates. This was in effect for about seven or eight months, at about which time it was discovered that these devices, while ridding the skies of nitrous oxide, created another, perhaps more harmful brand of pollution. Installations were abruptly halted. However, the folk who had already been foreced to install them were forbidden to remove them from their vehicles, and some probably remain unto this day. Somewhere back on this thread, I went into more detail about the NOX device debacle, offering it as a fine example on the mindless knee-jerk legislation which too frequently emits from Sacramento. While we're on the subject, do you remember the catalytic converters, circa 1971, which had a tendency to catch on fire? In those days, I believe, only cars manufactured for use in California had to have them. Just because you quit smoking is no reason to excuse yourself from the fight to stop a government taking of private property--which is what this newest anti-smoking law essentially boils down to. It should be left up to the property owner to decide what can and cannot be done on that owner's property. The following is especially for the benefit of Christine who seems to think I object to the law only because I smoke. Christine, are you following along? <vbg> It is a poorly written law, with enforcement provisions varying from county to county. In fact, there are no defined procedures for actual on-the-spot enforcement of this law, only provisions for punishment. It is a Health and Safety Code law. It may be a Labor Code law. In any event, it is NOT a Penal Code law. The individual businessperson is forced into the role of playing policeman, and this opens a whole 'nother can o worms, I think you will agree. Under the law as written, it is the businessperson who is punished/fined--NOT the smoker who may choose to violate this law. Being a smoker, I have long been aware of the restaurants and bars which did not permit the smoking of anything anywhere within their four walls, with this decision being made by the business owner--and rightly so--not the government. We always did have a choice as to where to go and where not to go, and we smokers and nonsmokers coexisted in peace--each unto one's own preference. In my opinion, this law was unneeded and unwanted. California stands to lose tourist and convention dollars as these factions choose other, more hospitable states in which to spend their money. The law is due to be reviewed by the State Legislature and will surely be modified or (hopefully) rescinded, as it is that bad in its present state of legalese. Please note: Were I a nonsmoker, my opinion as stated above would be no different. Holly

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (15070)	1/20/1998 5:12:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Freddy, there is a program about gulf war syndrome on PBS at ten o'clock tonight that you might find interesting. At this point, do you believe it is a real issue? I'm not sure what the show concludes, because it is brand new, but one of the shots in the advertisement is a man holding his baby, who has a sweet little FLIPPER sticking out from its shoulder instead of an arm. Incidentally, everyone, I'm watching tv tonight, because PSB has a really fascinating evening planned. There's a documentary on some Chinese mummies, which I HOPE are the blonde ones with brightly colored silk garments and ornate long braids and European backgrounds. I think the current controversy among archaeologists over very early cross-cultural travel/influences is fascinating. There is the Bay of Jars off South America, with hundreds of jars from second or third century Rome scattered all over the place after a shipwreck, but academic archaeologists still insist there was no travel to South America then! Anyway, I digress, but then there is another documentary about the Ice Man, which is a repeat, I think, but really a good one, and then the Frontline episode about gulf war syndrome.