[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] License plates and covers.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Thu Dec 11 23:55:52 UTC 2003


On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> On the other hand, I think spouting vulgar words is not needed, and
> quite rational.

Not needed, but rational.  Got it.  More clear-headed advice, sir.

> I figure there are better ways to express myself.

Figure away.  You've got a ways to go.

> > "Vulgar" is a matter of community standards.  I'm working to reshape
> > that.
>
> I consider what you did abusive.

You think it's abusive to imply that the shape of a car is MUCH more
important than keeping the car legally compliant?

> > > It IDs the owner of the CAR, not the driver.
> >
> > No, it doesn't.  The plate identifies the car and the plate database
> > identifies the registrar and the registration database identifies the
> > owner and the time and place of the plate identification can identify the
> > driver.  It's a whole process of identification.
>
> Picky picky. It's still iding the owner of the car. I just got to point
> z without stating the obvious.

It DOES ID the owner of the car... AND it IDs the driver.  You wrote that
it does NOT ID the driver.  Both require the application of additional
information, of course.  That's the obvious bit that you missed.

> > I'm absolutely not ignorant of the fantastic One Percent law.  Any
> > public works project needs to spend one percent on public art.  It's a
> > great way to solve the problem of public art funding without it
> > getting in the way of arguments about practicality and budget
> > constraints.  The pragmatists and penny-pinchers wouldn't ever support
> > public artwork otherwise.
>
> Have you seen some of this "art"? The entrance to Autzen Stadium in
> Eugene is an especially bad example of what "enforced art" can create.

Art is a matter of taste.

Personally, I think Autzen Stadium is a waste of public money.

> > I was jokingly implying that it's really a Ninety-Nine Percent Law
> > where we have to spend most of our public art money on building more
> > practical structures.
>
> It's forcing us to spend more of our tax dollars, on something that
> isn't necessary for the function of the building. That's not good public
> policy, especially in tough economic times.

Art is always impractical.  It isn't necessary for function.  However, it
makes functioning things BETTER.  You think public buildings should just
be poured concrete structures based on one design with no ornament
whatsoever?

Sounds like some dystopian nightmare world.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list