🚀 go-pugleaf

you@somehost.somedomain (Sophie) writes:

>In article <matt.832702273@laraine.unidata.ucar.edu>, matt@unidata.ucar.edu 
>says...
>>
>>I can't walk down the Mall drinking a beer, you can't smoke in the
>>bar. Seems fair to me.

>Somewhere at the local university (or junior college) there is *someone* 
>teaching a 'baby logic' class (logic for poets).  Sign up for one of these 
>courses; you're reasoning skills are such that you are in danger of having 
>your frontal lobes repossessed for non-use.  

My frontal lobes will kick the crap out of your honor student. :-)

>I would even recommend that you 
>refrain from future voting until such time as you have completed one of 
>these courses with a grade of C+ or better.

Please, enlighten me, oh Wise One. Where is the fallacy? Where is the
illogic? I'm simply pointing out that an activity less harmful to others
than smoking is banned in most places, yet there is no public outcry that
the rights of beer drinkers are being unfairly trammeled. I'm sure that I
enjoy a beer as much as smokers enjoy their cigarettes, and I'm not forcing
those around me to enjoy my beer with me, but I can only have one at home or
in some noisy, crowded bar or restaurant. I see nothing wrong with the
prohibition of public intoxication, but moderate public imbibing poses no
threat so why should it be forbidden? 

I suspect that Sophie is one of the many whose own ability to reason when
tobacco is at issue has been severely compromised by the effects of
nicotine. If you're out there, Sophie, reply from a legit e-mail address and
I'll go toe-to-toe with you for as many rounds as you can stay on your feet.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Matthew  B.  Hicks     | "A friendship can survive anything except joint
matt@unidata.ucar.edu  |  boat ownership and deceit."
303/497-8676	       |	-Randy Wayne White