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

Russ Johnson russj at dimstar.net
Fri Dec 12 00:23:11 UTC 2003


* Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-12-11 15:56]:
> 
> 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 left a word out... Should have been, "...and *that's* quite rational."

> > 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?

No, I consider you implying that I have "fucked up" priorities to be
abusive. Specifically, when using that combination of words.

> 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.

The key word being "obvious" and hense, not needed for a full
understanding. 

However, I believe the reason the photo red lights are required to have
a shot of the front of the car is because they lost the fight when they
claimed having a shot of the license plate was enough. They needed a
shot of the driver.

> > 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.

This "art" looked like it came from "Toys-r-Us" or should be give out
with Happy Meals. 

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

You do realize that most of the costs are not paid with taxes, don't
you? Alums and others make HUGE donations to fund it. In fact, it was a
Portland Philanthopist who donated the first large sum to finance it's
construction. That's where it got it's name.

Here's the rub. The 1% law requires 1% of the construction cost, even if
the costs are 99% privately funded. 

> 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?

Why not? I see lots of private structures that are nothing but blank
walls.

I really have no problem with art. I have a problem requiring art.

-- 
Russ Johnson
Dimension 7/Stargate Online
http://www.dimstar.net

Top post? http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Random thought #21 (Collect all 22)
Is it a co-incidence that there are 42 characters, including spaces, in the following sentence: "Answer to life the universe and everything"




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list