🚀 go-pugleaf

Anonymous wrote:
> This ain't right!
> 
> The San Diego Padres have some kind of streak going. 
> And it's got nothing to do with playing ball.
> 
> The team's organization has raised most beer prices 
> every year since moving downtown to Petco Park in 
> 2004. Opening Day is Monday and guess what: The streak 
> lives on.
> 
> This season, prices will increase on all beer sold at 
> the stadium, with the most expensive being $9 for 
> premium brands. Last season, they were 50 cents less. 
> The cheapest beer is now $6.50 for a 16-ounce domestic 
> draft, up 75 cents.

Then you should be come an Angel fan. The L.A. Angels of Anaheim only 
charge $4.00 for a beer at their ballpark.

- Peter

Anonymous wrote:
> This ain't right!
> 
> The San Diego Padres have some kind of streak going. 
> And it's got nothing to do with playing ball.
> 
> The team's organization has raised most beer prices 
> every year since moving downtown to Petco Park in 
> 2004. Opening Day is Monday and guess what: The streak 
> lives on.
> 
> This season, prices will increase on all beer sold at 
> the stadium, with the most expensive being $9 for 
> premium brands. Last season, they were 50 cents less. 
> The cheapest beer is now $6.50 for a 16-ounce domestic 
> draft, up 75 cents.
> 

As long as people are dumb enough to pay $6.50 for a 16 ounce domestic 
beer, the streak will continue.

On Mar 29, 6:30 pm, Anonymous <x...@hermetix.org> wrote:
> This ain't right!
>
> The San Diego Padres have some kind of streak going.
> And it's got nothing to do with playing ball.
>
> The team's organization has raised most beer prices
> every year since moving downtown to Petco Park in
> 2004. Opening Day is Monday and guess what: The streak
> lives on.
>
> This season, prices will increase on all beer sold at
> the stadium, with the most expensive being $9 for
> premium brands. Last season, they were 50 cents less.
> The cheapest beer is now $6.50 for a 16-ounce domestic
> draft, up 75 cents.

The solution is pregaming. Just don't leave your empties in the
parking lot.

On Mar 29, 6:32 pm, Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com> wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
> > This ain't right!
>
> > The San Diego Padres have some kind of streak going.
> > And it's got nothing to do with playing ball.
>
> > The team's organization has raised most beer prices
> > every year since moving downtown to Petco Park in
> > 2004. Opening Day is Monday and guess what: The streak
> > lives on.
>
> > This season, prices will increase on all beer sold at
> > the stadium, with the most expensive being $9 for
> > premium brands. Last season, they were 50 cents less.
> > The cheapest beer is now $6.50 for a 16-ounce domestic
> > draft, up 75 cents.
>
> Then you should be come an Angel fan. The L.A. Angels of Anaheim only
> charge $4.00 for a beer at their ballpark.
>
> - Peter

good point Peter

> > This season, prices will increase on all beer sold at
> > the stadium, with the most expensive being $9 for
> > premium brands. Last season, they were 50 cents less.
> > The cheapest beer is now $6.50 for a 16-ounce domestic
> > draft, up 75 cents.
>
> As long as people are dumb enough to pay $6.50 for a 16 ounce domestic
> beer, the streak will continue

And I bet by "domestic" beer, they mean "cheap mega-brewery swill
beer" ...
not domestic microbrewery beer, right?

And I'm guessing they wouldn't be to happy if someone sat in the
parking lot
selling cans of it for $5. :-)

I treat baseball parks like I do movie theaters ... I eat and drink a
lot
before and after I go there.

jswatson@yahoo.com wrote:

> I treat baseball parks like I do movie theaters ... I eat and drink a
> lot before and after I go there.

I've only been to the San Francisco Giants stadium (Pac Bell Park) once, 
  and it was for a football game (Emerald Bowl) not a baseball game, but 
people were allowed to bring in food and drinks. I don't know about 
alcohol, I had a cup of coffee with me and the ticket person saw me 
trying to finish it, and he said to me that it was allowable to bring in 
food and drinks.

I wouldn't spend $6.50 on bad beer just on moral grounds.

For the movies, it seems like everyone is bringing in food and drinks, 
and even appliances. One guy had a stir crazy popcorn popper plugged 
into an outlet in the back of the local AMC megaplex, and someone else 
was brewing coffee with one of those pod-type coffee makers. One funny 
thing I saw when going to a ski area (Mount Rose) was the lady in front 
of me was carrying a large rice cooker, clearly planning to cook a meal 
for her kids using the resort's electricity. I got a picture of it too, 
see "http://i29.tinypic.com/260fwcm.jpg". Geez, she could of at least 
put it into a big canvas bag!

On Mar 31, 2:34 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> jswat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I treat baseball parks like I do movie theaters ... I eat and drink a
> > lot before and after I go there.
>
> I've only been to the San Francisco Giants stadium (Pac Bell Park) once,
>   and it was for a football game (Emerald Bowl) not a baseball game, but
> people were allowed to bring in food and drinks. I don't know about
> alcohol, I had a cup of coffee with me and the ticket person saw me
> trying to finish it, and he said to me that it was allowable to bring in
> food and drinks.
>
> I wouldn't spend $6.50 on bad beer just on moral grounds.
>
> For the movies, it seems like everyone is bringing in food and drinks,
> and even appliances. One guy had a stir crazy popcorn popper plugged
> into an outlet in the back of the local AMC megaplex, and someone else
> was brewing coffee with one of those pod-type coffee makers. One funny
> thing I saw when going to a ski area (Mount Rose) was the lady in front
> of me was carrying a large rice cooker, clearly planning to cook a meal
> for her kids using the resort's electricity. I got a picture of it too,
> see "http://i29.tinypic.com/260fwcm.jpg". Geez, she could of at least
> put it into a big canvas bag!

Generally when they say domestic in a derogatory way they mean Miller,
Bud, Michelob, Bud Light, Coors, MGD and the like....Not Sam Adams,
Gordon Biersch etc...

Rizzo

On Mar 31, 3:34 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> jswat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I treat baseball parks like I do movie theaters ... I eat and drink a
> > lot before and after I go there.
>
> I've only been to the San Francisco Giants stadium (Pac Bell Park) once,
>   and it was for a football game (Emerald Bowl) not a baseball game, but
> people were allowed to bring in food and drinks. I don't know about
> alcohol, I had a cup of coffee with me and the ticket person saw me
> trying to finish it, and he said to me that it was allowable to bring in
> food and drinks.

I always bring at least popcorn and sparkling water to the As games.
Sometimes I make sub sandwiches, too. You can bring in compact, soft-
sided coolers. I used to sit by season ticket holders who even brought
in their own pepsi and ice -- they figured they spent enough on the
tickets that they had to economize elsewhere.

SMS wrote:
> jswatson@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> I treat baseball parks like I do movie theaters ... I eat and drink a
>> lot before and after I go there.
> 
> I've only been to the San Francisco Giants stadium (Pac Bell Park) once, 
> and it was for a football game (Emerald Bowl) not a baseball game, but 
> people were allowed to bring in food and drinks. I don't know about 
> alcohol, I had a cup of coffee with me and the ticket person saw me 
> trying to finish it, and he said to me that it was allowable to bring in 
> food and drinks.

The Giants, A's, 49ers (and I think the Raiders) all allow you to bring 
in food and non-alcoholic drinks (in non-glass bottles) to the game.

The Warriors and Sharks technically do not allow you to bring in food or 
drink inside their arenas, but that doesn't stop fans from doing so.

Also, the Giants and 49ers (and I think the A's and Raiders too) allow 
you go in and out of the stadium during the games.  The Warriors and 
Sharks in general do not allow in and out privileges.

- Peter

In article <310308.203050le+bf1.740@sqwertz.com>,
 Sqwertz <swertz@cluemail.compost> wrote:

> Peter Lawrence <hummbaby@aol.com> wrote:
> 
> > The Giants, A's, 49ers (and I think the Raiders) all allow you to bring 
> > in food and non-alcoholic drinks (in non-glass bottles) to the game.
> 
> And if you manage to get smuggle in some alcoholic drinks, and you
> get caught drinking them, they lock you up in their holding cells
> until the end of the game and give you a ticket on your way out.
> 
> I know that from first-hand experience.

Just curious, what where the grounds for arrest?  It seems pretty 
serious to lock someone up, for depriving the vendors of their money, so 
I'm sure they nailed you for something else.

I just got back from a plane trip.  I like the flying, but I sure hate 
security.  Everybody, including little tiny kids, has to take their 
shoes off.  Do I have any needles?  Yeah, a couple of hundred, with 
enough drugs to maybe kill some people.  That's OK, I *need* them.  The 
9/11 terrorists *needed* those boxcutters, too.  But no boxcutters.

-- 
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic.net

SMS  <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:

> For the movies, it seems like everyone is bringing in
> food and drinks, and even appliances. 

What is it about being in a movie theater that impels some
people to eat and drink?  Like the way some people drive a
car without talking on their cell phone or defecate without
smoking a cigarette, I don't understand why the one implies
the other.  There've been a couple of times when I had a 
meal with somebody prior to taking in a movie, and they
*still* headed for the snack bar, just out of habit.


> One guy had a stir crazy popcorn popper plugged into an 
> outlet in the back of the local AMC megaplex, and someone
> else was brewing coffee with one of those pod-type coffee
> makers. 

That's pretty blatant.  Were they Asian, by any chance?
They're known to be rather, uh, _frugal_.



Geoff

--
"If I had a hammer, I'd hammer all
 the folksingers." -- Andy R.

Sqwertz  <swertz@cluemail.compost> writes:

> And if you manage to get smuggle in some alcoholic drinks, and you
> get caught drinking them, they lock you up in their holding cells
> until the end of the game and give you a ticket on your way out.


I had no idea that Pac Bell Park (or whatever they're calling it
this week) had holding cells.  You'd think they'd just eject people
who violate the rules, and let it go at that.

(Cue Tim May, who will say this is "old news" and that anyone who
 wasn't aware of it shouldn't be taken seriously.  Yawn.)

You can get fake binoculars that are actually disguised flasks;
I've seen them at House Of Humor.  



Geoff

--
"If I had a hammer, I'd hammer all
 the folksingers." -- Andy R.

Geoff Miller wrote:

> What is it about being in a movie theater that impels some
> people to eat and drink?  Like the way some people drive a
> car without talking on their cell phone or defecate without
> smoking a cigarette, I don't understand why the one implies
> the other.

Good question. It's almost a compulsion to multi-task.

It's really annoying when someone brings in a meal with a distinctive 
odor, i.e. KFC, or some types of fish, even a fish burrito.

At least I haven't encountered anyone eating stinky tofu in the movies! 
I was recently in Taipei, and right across from my hotel was a place 
selling stinky tofu. I could smell my way back to the hotel.

> And if you manage to get smuggle in some alcoholic drinks, and you
> get caught drinking them, they lock you up in their holding cells
> until the end of the game and give you a ticket on your way out.
> 
> I know that from first-hand experience.
> 
> -sw

Once at an A's game I saw security guards confiscate someone's bottle of 
brandy. They didn't arrest the guy. This was several years ago, so the 
policy may have changed.

From the ballpark guide on the A's web site ( 
http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/oak/ballpark/oak_ballpark_guide.jsp ):

*****************
Oakland City Ordinances: Oakland Municipal Codes
8.44.030 Activities prohibited within the stadium and arena.

...

D. No person shall bring into or possess within the stadium or the arena 
any can or bottle or any thermos, vacuum bottle, canteen or other 
similar container containing alcohol unless expressly authorized by the 
authorized representative. 
*****************

-- 
               -        Jeff Lichtman
                        Author, Baseball for Rookies
                        http://baseball-for-rookies.com/

On Apr 1, 10:56 am, Jeffrey Lichtman <swa...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > And if you manage to get smuggle in some alcoholic drinks, and you
> > get caught drinking them, they lock you up in their holding cells
> > until the end of the game and give you a ticket on your way out.
>
> > I know that from first-hand experience.
>
> > -sw
>
> Once at an A's game I saw security guards confiscate someone's bottle of
> brandy. They didn't arrest the guy. This was several years ago, so the
> policy may have changed.
>
> From the ballpark guide on the A's web site (http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/oak/ballpark/oak_ballpark_guide.jsp):
>
> *****************
> Oakland City Ordinances: Oakland Municipal Codes
> 8.44.030 Activities prohibited within the stadium and arena.
>
> ...
>
> D. No person shall bring into or possess within the stadium or the arena
> any can or bottle or any thermos, vacuum bottle, canteen or other
> similar container containing alcohol unless expressly authorized by the
> authorized representative.
> *****************
>
> --
>                -        Jeff Lichtman
>                         Author, Baseball for Rookies
>                        http://baseball-for-rookies.com/

They don't arrest you by rule for carrying booze unless you're
resisting the confiscation, or acting like a jackass.

Rizzo

On Apr 1, 11:56 am, Jeffrey Lichtman <swa...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > And if you manage to get smuggle in some alcoholic drinks, and you
> > get caught drinking them, they lock you up in their holding cells
> > until the end of the game and give you a ticket on your way out.
>
> > I know that from first-hand experience.
>
> > -sw
>
> Once at an A's game I saw security guards confiscate someone's bottle of
> brandy. They didn't arrest the guy. This was several years ago, so the
> policy may have changed.
>
> From the ballpark guide on the A's web site (http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/oak/ballpark/oak_ballpark_guide.jsp):
>
> *****************
> Oakland City Ordinances: Oakland Municipal Codes
> 8.44.030 Activities prohibited within the stadium and arena.
>
> ...
>
> D. No person shall bring into or possess within the stadium or the arena
> any can or bottle or any thermos, vacuum bottle, canteen or other
> similar container containing alcohol unless expressly authorized by the
> authorized representative.
> *****************
                     

Reading further in that section of the muni code: As a penalty the
miscreant "may be" ejected. If you come back in after ejection your
penalty is stiffer.

In article
<1d5aa459-2b99-4c81-98b7-57936c91fc20@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Rizzo <champ91917@yahoo.com> wrote:

....
> They don't arrest you by rule for carrying booze unless you're
> resisting the confiscation, or acting like a jackass.
> 

This has been covered in the past, re: how hotels, inns, restaurants,
stadiums, etc. can hold those they claim defrauded them.

To wit, "innkeeper's laws." Enshrined in 700+ years of law. You try to
sneak out of a hotel, you get held. You try to skate on a restaurant
bill, you get held. You try to take beverages into a bar, you get 
held. And so on.

Seems to me just that repeat offenders ought to get boiled. Or pay a
Danegeld to the offended party.

(But, of course, such laws would hit our negro brethren most harshly,
them being the offenders in 96% of crimes, so such laws are ipso facto
"disskimminatorie!!!" Fuck, if the negroes hate us so much, why don't
they return ot the Land of Cannibal Stew Pots and Poverty?



--Tim May


--Tim May

On Apr 1, 8:59 pm, Tim May <timc...@removethis.got.net> wrote:
> In article
> <1d5aa459-2b99-4c81-98b7-57936c91f...@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Frank Rizzo <champ91...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ....
>
> > They don't arrest you by rule for carrying booze unless you're
> > resisting the confiscation, or acting like a jackass.
>
> This has been covered in the past, re: how hotels, inns, restaurants,
> stadiums, etc. can hold those they claim defrauded them.
>
> To wit, "innkeeper's laws." Enshrined in 700+ years of law. You try to
> sneak out of a hotel, you get held.

Agreed.  That is theft..

You try to skate on a restaurant
> bill, you get held.

Theft...

You try to take beverages into a bar, you get
> held.


Umm, no....Do it all the time.....

On Apr 1, 9:59 pm, Tim May <timc...@removethis.got.net> wrote:

> (But, of course, such laws would hit our negro brethren most harshly,
> them being the offenders in 96% of crimes, so such laws are ipso facto
> "disskimminatorie!!!" Fuck, if the negroes hate us so much, why don't
> they return ot the Land of Cannibal Stew Pots and Poverty?

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the
poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
bread."
--Anatole France

Ciccio

On Mar 29, 6:30 pm, Anonymous <x...@hermetix.org> wrote:
> The team's organization has raised most beer prices
> every year since moving downtown to Petco Park in
> 2004. Opening Day is Monday and guess what: The streak
> lives on.

Went to A's opening day on Tuesday and was pretty shocked to find that
Budweisers are being sold at $8 now. Ricockulous. (Coors and MGD for
$7.75...still ricockulous.)

But on a brighter note, despite the post-9/11 security levels, it's
ridiculously easy to smuggle pretty much anything of any size shy of a
pony keg.

Chester

Chester wrote:
> On Mar 29, 6:30 pm, Anonymous <x...@hermetix.org> wrote:
>> The team's organization has raised most beer prices
>> every year since moving downtown to Petco Park in
>> 2004. Opening Day is Monday and guess what: The streak
>> lives on.
> 
> Went to A's opening day on Tuesday and was pretty shocked to find that
> Budweisers are being sold at $8 now. Ricockulous. (Coors and MGD for
> $7.75...still ricockulous.)

But what size was the cup?

At the Oracle Arena next door, they sell a large 24oz. beer (Bud, Bud 
Lite, Bud Select) for $8.00 which I personally think is a better deal 
than the $5.00 they want for a 20oz. bottle of water.

Since I've been to many restaurants that now charge $4.00 for a 12oz 
bottle of beer, $8.00 for 24oz. doesn't seem as outrageous to me than 
spending $5.00 for a bottle of purified water (Aquafina).  :(


- Peter

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 16:42:27 -0700 (PDT), Chester 
<chesterusenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But on a brighter note, despite the post-9/11 security levels, it's
> ridiculously easy to smuggle pretty much anything of any size shy of a
> pony keg.

	Terrorists drink beer? Good reason to tighten up sporting
events. Can't have terrorists smuggling beer into ballparks.
There is after all the "War on Moisture" that prevents you
bringing any wet stuff on planes.


-- 
You can't trust people who have such terrible food. - Jaques
Chirac about the British.

On Apr 3, 6:33 pm, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:

>         Terrorists drink beer? Good reason to tighten up sporting
> events. Can't have terrorists smuggling beer into ballparks.
> There is after all the "War on Moisture" that prevents you
> bringing any wet stuff on planes.

I suddenly had a possibly brilliant idea: The alcoholic Wet-Nap.

I believe the Wet-Nap is alcohol-based anyway. Simply adjust the
production line to dispense, say, Stroh 80% into the fibrous part, and
seal it up as usual. Once in the venue, open it up and dunk in your
Coke cup.

Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:

> There is after all the "War on Moisture" that prevents you
> bringing any wet stuff on planes.


http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xnabh



Geoff

-- 
"I don't know what provokes it, but vegetarianism pisses me off.
 I can't understand the mindset, the special considerations these
 folks demand, and the sanctimony that comes with it." --Rob Novak

Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:

> Terrorists drink beer? Good reason to tighten up sporting
> events. Can't have terrorists smuggling beer into ballparks.
> There is after all the "War on Moisture" that prevents you
> bringing any wet stuff on planes.


http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xnabh



Geoff

--
"All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could
 really set the darkness on -- and you perverted his work
 into those horrible machines!" -- Mark Sachs

Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:

> Terrorists drink beer? Good reason to tighten up sporting
> events. Can't have terrorists smuggling beer into ballparks.
> There is after all the "War on Moisture" that prevents you
> bringing any wet stuff on planes.


http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xnabh



Geoff

--
"All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could
 really set the darkness on -- and you perverted his work
 into those horrible machines!" -- Mark Sachs

Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:

> Terrorists drink beer? Good reason to tighten up sporting
> events. Can't have terrorists smuggling beer into ballparks.
> There is after all the "War on Moisture" that prevents you
> bringing any wet stuff on planes.


http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xnabh



Geoff

--
"All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could
 really set the darkness on -- and you perverted his work
 into those horrible machines!" -- Mark Sachs

Geoff Miller wrote:
> Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:
> 
>> There is after all the "War on Moisture" that prevents you
>> bringing any wet stuff on planes.
> 
> 
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xnabh

That part about condom's and porno, now we all look like terrorists!

Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:

> Terrorists drink beer? Good reason to tighten up sporting
> events. Can't have terrorists smuggling beer into ballparks.
> There is after all the "War on Moisture" that prevents you
> bringing any wet stuff on planes.


http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xnabh



Geoff

--
"All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could
 really set the darkness on -- and you perverted his work
 into those horrible machines!" -- Mark Sachs

"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@lava.net> wrote in message 
news:tImdneHK9IJhzGvanZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@lavanet...
>
>
> Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:
>
>> Terrorists drink beer? Good reason to tighten up sporting
>> events. Can't have terrorists smuggling beer into ballparks.
>> There is after all the "War on Moisture" that prevents you
>> bringing any wet stuff on planes.
>
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xnabh

I'm unsure how long it would take the liquid explosives to act as a poison. 
It seems that it would be fairly fast. Heh. So... "Oh, you have a beverage 
you want to bring on board, then let me see you take a big swig..."

Ciccio 

Sorry about the multiple posts.  My newsreader made it
look as thogh my article wasn't being posted, so I kept
trying.



Geoff

-- 
"I don't know what provokes it, but vegetarianism pisses me off.
 I can't understand the mindset, the special considerations these
 folks demand, and the sanctimony that comes with it." --Rob Novak

On 4 Apr 2008 07:47:29 -0700, Geoff Miller <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote:
>
>
> Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:
>
>> There is after all the "War on Moisture" that prevents you
>> bringing any wet stuff on planes.
>
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xnabh

	Some kids with intent. Possible?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

Looks like more "thought crime" to me like the alleged
conspiracies to blow up Kennedu airport fuel lines, flood the
Holland tunnel etc.


-- 
You can't trust people who have such terrible food. - Jaques
Chirac about the British.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:58:29 GMT, Golden California Girls 
<gldncagrls@aol.com.mil> wrote:
> Geoff Miller wrote:
>> Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:
>> 
>>> There is after all the "War on Moisture" that prevents you
>>> bringing any wet stuff on planes.
>> 
>> 
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xnabh
>
> That part about condom's and porno, now we all look like terrorists!

	Note that most of these desperadoes that were going to
blow up transatlantic planes lacked a vital item - Passports.

	They had as much chance of boarding a transatlantic
flight as Geoff Miller. But they had dreams.

-- 
You can't trust people who have such terrible food. - Jaques
Chirac about the British.

Julian Macassey wrote:
> Looks like more "thought crime" to me like the alleged
> conspiracies to blow up Kennedu airport fuel lines, flood the
> Holland tunnel etc.

All crimes are thought crimes until they are real crimes.

Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:

> Some kids with intent. Possible?

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

> Looks like more "thought crime" to me like the alleged
> conspiracies to blow up Kennedu airport fuel lines, flood the
> Holland tunnel etc.

"'Thought crime!'  Yeah, that's the ticket!  Nobody actually *did*
anything, so what's the problem?  It's much ado about nothing!"

Isn't intent enough?  The legal establishment thinks so.  That's
why conspiracy to commit a crime is itself a crime.

Julian, you're impossible.  You're in complete denial.  I ought to
start calling you Tendentious Ted.  You refuse to believe that there's
any danger whatsoever to the traveling public from Islamic terrorists,
despite a string of such incidents that goes back to 1970.  

And so rather than considering the matter with anything approaching
an open mind, you start with the premise that any attempts to thwart
such crimes are creeping fascism, a violation of the Rights Of Man(tm),
and go into high dudgeon.  You claim that airport safety is somehow a 
violation of your right to travel, nevermind that all you have to do
in order to be allowed onto an airplane is empty your pockets and take
off your shoes.

(Where does this "Rights Of Man" concept you're so enamored of come
from, anyway?  In what supranational uber-constitution is it enshrined?
I never heard of it until you started nattering about it in connection 
with the WoT.)

I read the Register article you posted the link to.  The gist is that
these guys are incompetent when it comes to the chemistry of explo-
sives.  Okay, what if they are?  What if they'd tried and failed, the
mixture of the TATP precursors resulting in "only" a "violent reaction"
as opposed to a full-on detonation?  

It's entirely possible that some of their fellow passengers would've
been injured, even if the plane didn't fall out of the sky.  It 
could've started a fire when a plane was out over the Atlantic, 
hours from any airfield.  Here's an example of what happens when
there's a fire aboard an airplane, even when there's a place to
make an emergency landing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797

As a matter of principle, would you want to be on a plane with 
somebody who wanted to bring it down, even if he were incompetent?

At the very least, there could've been damage to the airplane itself,
costing the airline money in the form of downtime even though the 
damage would've been covered by insurance, and causing delays to 
passengers due to the plane's being taken out of service for repairs.
No good would've come of it, however it might've turned out.

And what if they'd never actually put their plan to the test?  Their
intent is significant in itself.  Who's to say that someone with a 
better knowledge of explosives wouldn't have set them straight and
given them a better method before they'd made any attempt to put
their plan into practice?



Geoff

--
"All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could
 really set the darkness on -- and you perverted his work
 into those horrible machines!" -- Mark Sachs

Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:

> Some kids with intent. Possible?

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

> Looks like more "thought crime" to me like the alleged
> conspiracies to blow up Kennedu airport fuel lines, flood the
> Holland tunnel etc.

"'Thought crime!'  Yeah, that's the ticket!  Nobody actually *did*
anything, so what's the problem?  It's much ado about nothing!"

Isn't intent enough?  The legal establishment thinks so.  That's
why conspiracy to commit a crime is itself a crime.

Julian, you're impossible.  You're in complete denial.  I ought to
start calling you Tendentious Ted.  You refuse to believe that there's
any danger whatsoever to the traveling public from Islamic terrorists,
despite a string of such incidents that goes back to 1970.  

And so rather than considering the matter with anything approaching
an open mind, you start with the premise that any attempts to thwart
such crimes are creeping fascism, a violation of the Rights Of Man(tm),
and go into high dudgeon.  You claim that airport safety is somehow a 
violation of your right to travel, nevermind that all you have to do
in order to be allowed onto an airplane is empty your pockets and take
off your shoes.

(Where does this "Rights Of Man" concept you're so enamored of come
from, anyway?  In what supranational uber-constitution is it enshrined?
I never heard of it until you started nattering about it in connection 
with the WoT.)

I read the Register article you posted the link to.  The gist is that
these guys are incompetent when it comes to the chemistry of explo-
sives.  Okay, what if they are?  What if they'd tried and failed, the
mixture of the TATP precursors resulting in "only" a "violent reaction"
as opposed to a full-on detonation?  

It's entirely possible that some of their fellow passengers would've
been injured, even if the plane didn't fall out of the sky.  It 
could've started a fire when a plane was out over the Atlantic, 
hours from any airfield.  Here's an example of what happens when
there's a fire aboard an airplane, even when there's a place to
make an emergency landing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797

As a matter of principle, would you want to be on a plane with 
somebody who wanted to bring it down, even if he were incompetent?

At the very least, there could've been damage to the airplane itself,
costing the airline money in the form of downtime even though the 
damage would've been covered by insurance, and causing delays to 
passengers due to the plane's being taken out of service for repairs.
No good would've come of it, however it might've turned out.

And what if they'd never actually put their plan to the test?  Their
intent is significant in itself.  Who's to say that someone with a 
better knowledge of explosives wouldn't have set them straight and
given them a better method before they'd made any attempt to put
their plan into practice?



Geoff

--
"All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could
 really set the darkness on -- and you perverted his work
 into those horrible machines!" -- Mark Sachs

Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:

> Note that most of these desperadoes that were going to blow
> up transatlantic planes lacked a vital item - Passports.

Passports are simple to obtain, as you've told me many times.
Plotting to commit acts of terrorism is somewhat more involved
and time-consuming.  Getting passports could reasonably have 
been left for last, once the plan had been developed.  After
all, there'd have been no hurry.


> They had as much chance of boarding a transatlantic flight
> as Geoff Miller. But they had dreams.

And "if at first you don't succeed," then what?  How does the 
rest of that saying go?



Geoff

--
"All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could
 really set the darkness on -- and you perverted his work
 into those horrible machines!" -- Mark Sachs

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:37:30 -0500, Geoff  Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
>
>
> Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:
>
>> Some kids with intent. Possible?
>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/
>
>> Looks like more "thought crime" to me like the alleged
>> conspiracies to blow up Kennedu airport fuel lines, flood the
>> Holland tunnel etc.
>
> "'Thought crime!'  Yeah, that's the ticket!  Nobody actually *did*
> anything, so what's the problem?  It's much ado about nothing!"
>
> Isn't intent enough?  The legal establishment thinks so.  That's
> why conspiracy to commit a crime is itself a crime.
>
> Julian, you're impossible.  You're in complete denial.  I ought to
> start calling you Tendentious Ted.  You refuse to believe that there's
> any danger whatsoever to the traveling public from Islamic terrorists,
> despite a string of such incidents that goes back to 1970.  

	The difference between you and I is that I have travelled
in these areas and you haven't. If I am in denial, it might be
because I have experienced more than Fox News.

> (Where does this "Rights Of Man" concept you're so enamored of come
> from, anyway?  In what supranational uber-constitution is it enshrined?
> I never heard of it until you started nattering about it in connection 
> with the WoT.)

	The Enlightenment. Glad you asked.
>
> I read the Register article you posted the link to.  The gist is that
> these guys are incompetent when it comes to the chemistry of explo-
> sives.  Okay, what if they are?  What if they'd tried and failed, the
> mixture of the TATP precursors resulting in "only" a "violent reaction"
> as opposed to a full-on detonation?  

	Just how much ice would they used?

>
> It's entirely possible that some of their fellow passengers would've
> been injured, even if the plane didn't fall out of the sky.  It 
> could've started a fire when a plane was out over the Atlantic, 
> hours from any airfield.  Here's an example of what happens when
> there's a fire aboard an airplane, even when there's a place to
> make an emergency landing:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797
>
> As a matter of principle, would you want to be on a plane with 
> somebody who wanted to bring it down, even if he were incompetent?

	It seems you are also in danger at baggage claim, etc.
etc. etc.

	But, I don't live in fear.


-- 
You can't trust people who have such terrible food. - Jaques
Chirac about the British.

Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:

> The difference between you and I is that I have travelled
> in these areas and you haven't. If I am in denial, it might be
> because I have experienced more than Fox News.

Ad hominem.  If you can't stay on topic and address what I said 
on its merits, and must instead resort to petty dicksizing about
who's traveled more than whom, you might as well hang it up right
now.  You haven't got much of a case. 

Having traveled to far and exotic lands doesn't give you any
special insight as to airline security.  It's a pity that there's
no way for you to retroactively exchange some of your "world 
traveler" capital for critical reasoning skills.  You'd find the 
latter far more useful and compelling in the arena of debate.


> The Enlightenment. Glad you asked.

That was a period of history, not a legal document. 


> Just how much ice would they [have] used?

Enough to do the job.  If you're expecting an answer in terms
of pounds or kilos, I have no idea.


> It seems you are also in danger at baggage claim, etc.  etc. etc.

You mean like this?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_Massacre

But I'm not terribly concerned about that sort of thing, since
it's much more glamorous and theatrical to bring down an airplane
than it is to attack a building.  It packs a greater psychological
wallop because of passengers' inability to escape, and so terrorists
would get more "bang for their buck," as it were.  That's why they
focus on commercial aircraft instead of more mundane targets such as,
say, bus stations.


> But, I don't live in fear.

Nor do I.  In the bargain, I'm also not willfully ignorant of reality.
I wish airport security weren't necessary.  I don't like the indignity
of being searched prior to getting onto an airplane, or the increasing
restictions about what I can bring on bored, any more than you do. 
But it *is* necessary, and I've long since come to terms with that.

You remind me of my father.  He pines for the halcyon days when it
was possible to go away all day and leave one's house unlocked, go
into a downtown shop and leave the car parked at the curb with the
keys in the ignition, etc.  So he deals with the fact that things 
are different now by being passive-aggressive.  He doesn't like the
fact that things have changed, and so he simply goes into denial and
pretends that they haven't, becoming visibly angry at the mere mention
of any basic, common-sense form of physical security.  



Geoff

--
"All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could
 really set the darkness on -- and you perverted his work
 into those horrible machines!" -- Mark Sachs

Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:

> The difference between you and I is that I have travelled
> in these areas and you haven't. If I am in denial, it might be
> because I have experienced more than Fox News.

Ad hominem.  If you can't stay on topic and address what I said 
on its merits, and must instead resort to petty dicksizing about
who's traveled more than whom, you might as well hang it up right
now.  You haven't got much of a case. 

Having traveled to far and exotic lands doesn't give you any
special insight as to airline security.  It's a pity that there's
no way for you to retroactively exchange some of your "world 
traveler" capital for critical reasoning skills.  You'd find the 
latter far more useful and compelling in the arena of debate.


> The Enlightenment. Glad you asked.

That was a period of history, not a legal document. 


> Just how much ice would they [have] used?

Enough to do the job.  If you're expecting an answer in terms
of pounds or kilos, I have no idea.


> It seems you are also in danger at baggage claim, etc.  etc. etc.

You mean like this?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_Massacre

But I'm not terribly concerned about that sort of thing, since
it's much more glamorous and theatrical to bring down an airplane
than it is to attack a building.  It packs a greater psychological
wallop because of passengers' inability to escape, and so terrorists
would get more "bang for their buck," as it were.  That's why they
focus on commercial aircraft instead of more mundane targets such as,
say, bus stations.


> But, I don't live in fear.

Nor do I.  In the bargain, I'm also not willfully ignorant of reality.
I wish airport security weren't necessary.  I don't like the indignity
of being searched prior to getting onto an airplane, or the increasing
restictions about what I can bring on bored, any more than you do. 
But it *is* necessary, and I've long since come to terms with that.

You remind me of my father.  He pines for the halcyon days when it
was possible to go away all day and leave one's house unlocked, go
into a downtown shop and leave the car parked at the curb with the
keys in the ignition, etc.  All that changed in the Sixties, he says,
when the hippies started coming down from the mountains (he lives in 
Los Gatos) and breaking into people's houses.

So he deals with the fact that things are different now by being 
passive-aggressive.  He doesn't like the fact that things have 
changed, and so he simply goes into denial and pretends that they
haven't, becoming visibly angry at the mere mention of any basic,
common-sense form of physical security.  I see the same sort of
response with you when it comes to the increased levels of security
that are a result of the war on terrorism: you don't like it, and so
you bury your head in the sand when it comes to present-day reality.



Geoff

--
"All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could
 really set the darkness on -- and you perverted his work
 into those horrible machines!" -- Mark Sachs

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 10:46:26 -0500, Geoff  Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
>
>
> Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:
>
>> The difference between you and I is that I have travelled
>> in these areas and you haven't. If I am in denial, it might be
>> because I have experienced more than Fox News.
>
> Ad hominem.  If you can't stay on topic and address what I said 
> on its merits, and must instead resort to petty dicksizing about
> who's traveled more than whom, you might as well hang it up right
> now.  You haven't got much of a case. 

	You may recall telling me I was in denial etc.

-- 
You can't trust people who have such terrible food. - Jaques
Chirac about the British.

Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:

>> The difference between you and I is that I have travelled
>> in these areas and you haven't. If I am in denial, it might be
>> because I have experienced more than Fox News.

: Ad hominem.  If you can't stay on topic and address what I said 
: on its merits, and must instead resort to petty dicksizing about
: who's traveled more than whom, you might as well hang it up right
: now.  You haven't got much of a case. 

> You may recall telling me I was in denial etc.


Yes.  And...?



Geoff

--
"All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could
 really set the darkness on -- and you perverted his work
 into those horrible machines!" -- Mark Sachs