actually, I think they are really the same person. They think a lot alike. Maybe he is trying to go good cop bad cop on us.
:) Dana William Wheatley writes: > ah oh now i will picture Tim & Dan together like tag team partners. > Since you guys are a tag team now you have to think up good names like. > > In the red corner Tim "The Animal" and Dan "The Hulk". hehe > :> > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nagy, Daniel J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:34 AM > Subject: RE: woo hoo > > > > the way he does it would be evident if you'd read your email before > letting > > us know you haven't read your email. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:33 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: woo hoo > > > > > > mmm? Didn't see it but then I am not all the way through my mail. I am > > curious to see how you refute something that seems to be a > well-established > > tenet of English law and its derivations.... > > > > Dana > > > > Heald, Tim writes: > > > > > I refuted them all, and await your response. > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:24 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: Re: woo hoo > > > > > > > > > Well, I sent an email with about four links showing that legally a > > > restaurant is a public place. And even Philip Morris says smoking in > > public > > > places warrants regulation. I assume that is still kicking around > > > cyberspace and will show up in a while. > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:39:41 -0400, Heald, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > By what rational do you claim the right to tell the owner that he must > > > > not > > > > allow smoking? What facts, legal, historical, constitutional or > > > > otherwise, > > > > make you think that the government should have this ability? > > > > > > > > Timothy Heald > > > > Information Systems Specialist > > > > Overseas Security Advisory Council > > > > U.S. Department of State > > > > 571.345.2235 > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:41 PM > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > Subject: Re: woo hoo > > > > > > > > > > > > well, all ideology aside, i was thinking about this. Using my local > > > > restaurants as a sample I have 2 Vietnamese restaurants (NS) one Thai > > > > restaurant (NS) one Mexican "family" restaurant (S) one Carrows, a > chain > > > > > > a lot like Denny's (S) and a Cici's (unknown). The Carrows is a chain? > > > > Does that have something to do with it? Most of the smokers I see here > > > > are old guys that sit at the counter and drink coffee and flirt with > the > > > > > > waitresses, possibly to get out of the house. I doubt the place is > > making > > > > a lot of money on them. There is a flaw in my hyothesis though, which > is > > > > > > that one I am not at the counter because of the smokers, I might not > > > > notice people in the smoking section. At the Mexican restaurant, which > > is > > > > a red-checked plastic table cloth kind of place, I do not see any > > > > particular pattern to smokers except that they are mostly male. > However, > > > > > > the owner smokes and that is probably the key fact. > > > > > > > > But in my own particular case, it isnt really a matter of just pass > on. > > I > > > > deal with the restaurants withing walking distance and if I really > want > > > > huevos rancheros for example both options involve sitting at the far > end > > > > > > of non-smoking. Until today. Albuquerque did just pass a smoking ban > for > > > > > > restaurants (not bars) which is a guess a reasonable compromise... > > though > > > > it might be nice to go to a bar some time. > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:09:25 -0500, Raymond Camden > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Dana, I think you are 100% right in your attitude. The question is > then > > > >> - why do we need to legislate this? If a restaurant loses business > > > >> because there are more non-smokers than smokers, they don't need a > law > > > >> telling them what to do - all they need is common sense. > > > >> > > > >> -rc > > > >> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July > > 01, > > > >>> 2003 9:02 AM > > > >>> To: CF-Community > > > >>> Subject: Re: woo hoo > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> First of all, the way I nomally notice that a restaurant allows > > smoking > > > >>> is when someone next to me lights up. > > > >>> > > > >>> Better restaurants tend to be non-smoking anyway, but there are two > > > >>> within walking distance of my house that used to allow smoking. I > > don't > > > >>> know if they will be necessarily losing profit though; I guess you > are > > > > > >>> assuming that the smokers just won't go any more. But where *would* > > > >>> they go? I think that if they want to eat out they will still go to > > > >>> restaurants, but smoke after they leave, or before they come. And I > on > > > > > >>> the other hand will be more likely to frequent those restaurants, > > > >>> along, presumably, with the other non-smokers in the neighborhood. > > > >>> > > > >>> Dana > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
