Smoking Ban

Touchee!

Good call Ron.

Touchee!

Good call Ron.

Actually Kurt there was no touchee. Ron is just stating the obvious. Voting for change is the outcome of sharing "buying into" alternate perceptions. I am trying to inform (or misinform ) the people who think a smoking ban is right that perhaps they might want to rethink it. I do that by stating an alternative point of view about the ban, about the government about whatever. It's all an attempt to put my perception into the majority.
Ron's rebuttal is no rebuttal at all so don't let it shut you down. Perhaps it's his way to try to either deflect or end the discussion. I can't speak for him. Perhaps he thinks its futile to reason with people and is saying "don't bother and just do your part and hope? Perhaps he thinks it futile to complain about elected officials?....well I would disagree and say that its just one way that a person can change another persons mind. Change a a majority of peoples mind and then you can get to what Ron is talking about. So when he says "well, go vote" then you say, well that is the byproduct of the first step. Which is changing the way the majority thinks.

Touchee!

Good call Ron.

Actually Kurt there was no touchee. Ron is just stating the obvious. Voting for change is the outcome of sharing "buying into" alternate perceptions. I am trying to inform (or misinform ) the people who think a smoking ban is right that perhaps they might want to rethink it. I do that by stating an alternative point of view about the ban, about the government about whatever. It's all an attempt to put my perception into the majority.
Ron's rebuttal is no rebuttal at all so don't let it shut you down. Perhaps it's his way to try to either deflect or end the discussion. I can't speak for him. Perhaps he thinks its futile to reason with people and is saying "don't bother and just do your part and hope? Perhaps he thinks it futile to complain about elected officials?....well I would disagree and say that its just one way that a person can change another persons mind. Change a a majority of peoples mind and then you can get to what Ron is talking about. So when he says "well, go vote" then you say, well that is the byproduct of the first step. Which is changing the way the majority thinks.

John, it's not a rebuttal. I simply explained how the smoking ban became a valid and enfoceable ordinance, and how to repeal it for those who oppose it. That's what I keep doing over and over again in this thread. You keep arguing with me, but you have yet to figure out that I am not arguing with you. I can't. I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said complaining about elected leaders is futile, as you say I did. I never said "just do your part and hope." Perhaps if you stopped putting words in my mouth, you would realize that no one is debating anything with you.

Touchee!

Good call Ron.

Actually Kurt there was no touchee. Ron is just stating the obvious. Voting for change is the outcome of sharing "buying into" alternate perceptions. I am trying to inform (or misinform ) the people who think a smoking ban is right that perhaps they might want to rethink it. I do that by stating an alternative point of view about the ban, about the government about whatever. It's all an attempt to put my perception into the majority.
Ron's rebuttal is no rebuttal at all so don't let it shut you down. Perhaps it's his way to try to either deflect or end the discussion. I can't speak for him. Perhaps he thinks its futile to reason with people and is saying "don't bother and just do your part and hope? Perhaps he thinks it futile to complain about elected officials?....well I would disagree and say that its just one way that a person can change another persons mind. Change a a majority of peoples mind and then you can get to what Ron is talking about. So when he says "well, go vote" then you say, well that is the byproduct of the first step. Which is changing the way the majority thinks.

John, it's not a rebuttal. I simply explained how the smoking ban became a valid and enfoceable ordinance, and how to repeal it for those who oppose it. That's what I keep doing over and over again in this thread. You keep arguing with me, but you have yet to figure out that I am not arguing with you. I can't. I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said complaining about elected leaders is futile, as you say I did. I never said "just do your part and hope." Perhaps if you stopped putting words in my mouth, you would realize that no one is debating anything with you.

I won't insult your intelligence by questioning your reading comprehension but, I never put words in your mouth other than "go vote". Do I need the court reporter to read back my statement? I believe I said that I can't speak for you. I wrote some possibilities as to why you unintentionally or intentionally insist on insulting peoples intelligence by stating the obvious over and over again. I used the word "perhaps" in my previous post when stating reasons for your exercise in "duh". That should have tipped you off that I am not putting words in your mouth. Now, you are putting words in my mouth by saying that I don't know that you aren't arguing with me....well that is wrong too, although I may have mislead you by using the word rebuttal but I did say that it wasn't a rebuttal, just like you said! I called it a rebuttal because Kurt said touchee! I was telling him that it wasn't a rebuttal. Then you elude to the fact that I was referring to it as a rebuttal..........ahem let's say that you are reinforcing what I said to Kurt? Anyway, I am trying to explain that what you are saying IS what I am saying but I am starting at the lowest level. You keep saying it incessantly to whatever end and I am saying, "yeah we got it Ron and nothing I have said has stated that I don't know what you are saying". Last I checked, you have to have an opposing views to argue, I would be foolish to say that the democratic process is not how you eventually get this ban changed. I was saying that things come first and that voting is the logical end.

The fact that you don't know what I am talking about might have something to do with my lack of articulation or your lack of reading comprehension or your lack of caring at all? Perhaps if you would actually READ what I write, you would understand that I am not arguing with you, I am dismissing you......respectfully of course.

Touchee!

Good call Ron.

Actually Kurt there was no touchee. Ron is just stating the obvious.

(Most of repetitive quote deleted)

sounds good John.

Could someone please explain or point me to a resource that explains how the "public" in public places is defined by the proposed ban, i.e., place x is public but place y isn't and what the determining factors for making that call are?

I've no interest in arguing with anyone for or against the ban. I just think it's an interesting procedural question that may or may not be applical to other areas.

Thanks.

Touchee!

Good call Ron.

Actually Kurt there was no touchee. Ron is just stating the obvious.

(Most of repetitive quote deleted)

sounds good John.

That last part is classic... about the repetitive quote. Thats hilarious! Ron is awesome!

Could someone please explain or point me to a resource that explains how the "public" in public places is defined by the proposed ban, i.e., place x is public but place y isn't and what the determining factors for making that call are?

I've no interest in arguing with anyone for or against the ban. I just think it's an interesting procedural question that may or may not be applical to other areas.

Thanks.

I found this interesting as well but I am sure there is something explaining the minutiae of this. I always thought that restaurants are private places that offer public services but what I think and the law are usually a lot different.