"Doc" <u1@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3eff302c-n530@no-spam
>
> >So why can't we put it up to a vote? I'd bet Oregon would overwhelmingly
> >vote for a law that let us have self-serve AND gave us some of the lowest
> >gas prices in the country by lowering taxes and letting station owners
> >decide what their customers preferred rather than the state.
> -
> We -DO- vote on it. And every time we vote, it gets turned down. Haven't
been
> paying attention, have you? As for the taxes, that wouldn't change in the
> least. Taxes on gas and self service are totally seperate issues and have
> nothing to do with each other.
When was the last time it was put to a public vote?
clw@no-spam wrote:
> I
>know that several of our visitors were amazed that we did not have to
>pump our own gas and thought it was a great idea.
There will always be a few free-loaders who are happy to let others
pay the freight for the services that they happen to value.
<clw@no-spam> wrote in message
news:clw-1DDC45.06492530062003@no-spam
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306292204480.3616-100000@no-spam>,
> Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
> > But, if self-service proponents wish it to come up for another vote, the
> > process is not difficult. A bit over 60,000 signatures need but be
> > gathered - a goal well within the capabilities of the oil companies and
> > the gas station owners association if they saw any future in that.
>
> I wonder what the vote would be in states where self serv is allowed.
I'd say you could tell by the lack of demand for it in other states. Usually
just a row of rarely used pumps usually used by elderly and handicapped
drivers. Full serve lanes tend to be more common around retirement
communities and less common around college towns.
I
> know that several of our visitors were amazed that we did not have to
> pump our own gas and thought it was a great idea.
They probably do, untill one day they find out they can't pump their own gas
at all when they are in a hurry and realize how stupid the law is.
They also did not
> know how they had lost such a service at home. Did not like the idea
> that their legislaters had been bought off by the oil companies.
That's a rather gross mis-characterization of why other states have
self-serve.
"Joyce Reynolds-Ward" <jrw@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f00681a.3325521@no-spam
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:12:26 GMT, upstart23@no-spam (Heck's Kitchen)
> wrote:
>
> >clw@no-spam wrote:
> >
> >>the self
> >>serv places a no faster and may be slower than ordinary service stations
> >
> >Not with pay-at-the-pump. The fastest possible option of all. If
> >there is a pump open, the only thing you wait for is the fuel to
> >finish flowing.
> >
> >You really need to get out of state and expose yourself to how freely
> >the rest of the country lives.
>
> Yawn.
>
> Benny-boy, "pay at the pump" has been an option for credit card users
> in Oregon even before you left the place.
Then why do we keep seeing people in this group whine that it would take
longer for self-serve because you would have to go inside to pay? I believe
someone in this thread was complaining that employees would be too busy
making burritos to take their money. I can't say what Benny was responding
to but I do know it's grating to read the same fallacious arguments used
against self-serve that have been debunked long ago. I'm sure we'll soon see
Don weigh in that it's a safety issue despite the data to the contrary just
because the courts said it could be considered when justifying the law -
even though it never actually had to decide that it was.
"Paul Johnson" <baloo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:gqh6t-1jj.ln1@no-spam
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The 29 Jun 2003 20:19:10 -0700, Russell Senior <seniorr@no-spam>
wrote:
> > I doubt pay-at-the-pump would make the slightest difference, since it
> > speeds up _both_ self-serve and traditional service.
>
> And anybody to stop at an Arco or Texaco in Oregon knows this. Both
> make you go inside, never mind there's really no good reason for you
> to even get out of your car...
I don't know where you are but that's not true. All the Texacos before and
after the name change around me have never required that. As a matter of
fact I've only come across a couple and both were in Beaverton near 26. Face
it - no one with pay at the pump makes you go inside.
> > The only thing the pro self-serve folks can hope for is that enough
> > out-of-stater brainwashees have registered to vote here.
>
> Yeah. I'm not quite sure why any state lets tourists vote...
I moved here three years ago and my vote counts the same as yours.
clw@no-spam wrote:
>You cut out the reasons I gave why my assertion would be true. Typical
>of you, nose pick the phrase you can answer with your notions.
Fine. For the few fatty losers who need a big gulp and burrito every
time they tank up, they might not enjoy the speedy benefits of
pay-at-the pump. Same goes for chronic self-abusers who spend lots of
time in the station rest room, and those who change the air in their
tires each visit.
However, for those in the rest of the world, pay-at-the-pump self
serve is very popular and fast. There is even time to wash your
windows and check your oil while the fuel fills the tank.
clw@no-spam wrote:
>Not the employees, but the guy parked at the pump (and keeping you away
>from the pump) who has disappeared into the store to get his snack.
>Have had that happen to me.
And how does being anti-choice on pumping relate to this problem?
clw@no-spam wrote:
>If everyone is paying for someone to pump the gas, there are no
>freeloaders.
If everyone is paying to subsidize opera, then there are no
freeloaders?
clw@no-spam wrote:
>Did not like the idea
>that their legislaters had been bought off by the oil companies.
Funny. 48 states have a condition known by some as "freedom" (to
offer your choice of service levels, and to select among those service
levels offered.
And a resident socialist manages to make it a conspiracy of big
business to prevent people from being denied the freedom of choice.
clw@no-spam wrote:
>In article <3f08c2a4.2043505@no-spam>,
> upstart23@no-spam (Heck's Kitchen) wrote:
>
>> clw@no-spam wrote:
>>
>> >If everyone is paying for someone to pump the gas, there are no
>> >freeloaders.
>>
>> If everyone is paying to subsidize opera, then there are no
>> freeloaders?
>
>Is there no end to your ability to deflect sequential argument?
Is the analogy really too complex for you?
has it occurred to you that many or most people "paying for someone to
pump gas" would prefer not to have them pump the gas, and would prefer
not to be paying the subsidy you enjoy?
Most people hate opera. Most people hate needlessly being forced to
wait for a pump jockey.
clw@no-spam wrote:
>No, most people do not recognize that their freedom to choose between
>self serv and the Oregon system was sold away by their state
>legislators. What you call freedom is actually absence of freedom, the
>loss of the right to choose.
Companies are free to offer it, customers are free to patronize them.
The fact that freedom reveals how unpopular the service is (at its
true cost) makes my case, not yours.
>> And a resident socialist manages to make it a conspiracy of big
>> business to prevent people from being denied the freedom of choice.
>
>Then, Why, Bennie, were the prior efforts to institute self serv in
>Oregon under-written by the oil companies?
Because their freedom is being denied, and perhaps because hiring
needless employees is a pain.
>And, there is no "freedom of choice". There would only be the freedom
>of self serv or pay extra for what we now get free.
The second option would be freedom to pay the true cost of the
service, without forced subsidies from your neighbors.
<clw@no-spam> wrote in message
news:clw-CC6DF8.15102430062003@no-spam
> In article <vg16o2kc69laac@no-spam>,
> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > <clw@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:clw-2FAA34.12165230062003@no-spam
> > > In article <vg11qo17m7tr87@no-spam>,
> > > "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Then why do we keep seeing people in this group whine that it would
take
> > > > longer for self-serve because you would have to go inside to pay? I
> > believe
> > > > someone in this thread was complaining that employees would be too
busy
> > > > making burritos to take their money.
> > >
> > > Not the employees, but the guy parked at the pump (and keeping you
away
> > > from the pump) who has disappeared into the store to get his snack.
> > > Have had that happen to me.
> >
> > How would this be any different with self-serve?
> >
> >
>
> You coulkd get your burrito while someone else pumped the gas, washed
> the windows etc.
I don't buy gas station burritos or ask gas monkeys to do what I can do.
The fastest is for someone to pump the gas while you
> wash your own windows, check iol etc.
Charlie, this is complete B.S. You put the nozzle in and set the latch, you
wash your own friggin windows and when the latch disconnects you pull the
nozzle out. Just like the gas monkeys do. Only there isn't a wait and there
is no tip.
<clw@no-spam> wrote in message
news:clw-4303BF.16403430062003@no-spam
> In article <3f09c2ff.2134067@no-spam>,
> upstart23@no-spam (Heck's Kitchen) wrote:
>
> > clw@no-spam wrote:
> >
> > >Did not like the idea
> > >that their legislaters had been bought off by the oil companies.
> >
> > Funny. 48 states have a condition known by some as "freedom" (to
> > offer your choice of service levels, and to select among those service
> > levels offered.
>
> No, most people do not recognize that their freedom to choose between
> self serv and the Oregon system was sold away by their state
> legislators. What you call freedom is actually absence of freedom, the
> loss of the right to choose.
C'mon, Charlie. You're a reasonable person. Explain to me how no choice is
the right to choose and two choices is not.
Please, indulge me. And don't tell me it's because Oregonians have chosen a
restrictive policy. I'm an Oregonian now and I have never been given that
choice.
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:MP4Ma.2545$JY1.1093@no-spam
>
> <clw@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:clw-2FAA34.12165230062003@no-spam
>
> > Not the employees, but the guy parked at the pump (and keeping you away
> > from the pump) who has disappeared into the store to get his snack.
> > Have had that happen to me.
>
> That's the only good argument.
>
> Look, if it doesn't cost anybody in extra money to hire gas attendants (as
> the anti-self-serve types insist), then why would any jobs be at stake?
And
> if you want somebody to pump your gas, whatever, fine. But why must there
> be a law saying that OTHER people can't do it if they choose to do so.
When
> everybody is simultaneously pumping their gas, that's called parallel
> processing. It's faster than one or two guys running around trying to do
it
> all at once although occasionally some jackass in other states will in
fact
> leave his car there while he goes inside to shop and read truck trader and
> take a dump and call his wife, etc.
>
> I love (sarcasm) watching the idiot at the pump fuel my boat until gas
> sprays out from the vent all over the back of the boat and onto the
pavement
> AFTER I've told him that it doesn't automatically shut the pump off when
the
> tank is full. At boat docks, the attendant has to take the pump from the
> machine and give it to you, and you fill your own boat, and then you give
it
> back to him and he places it back in the machine.
The ultimate honest answer to all of this is that restricting self-serve
doesn't make a bit of difference other than piss people off. It isn't safer,
it's not more convenient, it doesn't save money, it doesn't serve a direct
purpose. If for no other reason, giving people the opportunity to pump their
own gas would make them feel like they were in a progressive state where
they have a choice rather than be restricted by a bunch of backward-ass
technologically ignorant morons.
Next time someone thinks it's intrusive to regulate someone having butt-sex,
remind them how much more progressive Oregon is for not letting people pump
gas.
Get it? Pump gas. Boy are you Oregonians insular.
Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam> wrote:
>...making gas 20 cents more
>expensive per gallon...
...is evidence that people don't value service enough to pay much for
it, or demand for service would lead to a smaller price difference.
clw@no-spam wrote:
>The only "freedom" that I have seen in the process is what the voters of
>Oregon have done many times, rejected self serv.
That was nearly a generation ago.
Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
>Why don't you get a bit excited about things which -genuinely- impact
>personal liberties. John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act would be a good
>place to start.
I do oppose it.
> John Poindexter and the Total Information System (or
>whatever they're calling it in its current incarnation) would be a good
>place to visit second.
I oppose that as well.
>But, little chance of that, hank. You're a republican apologist with
>no real regard for personal liberties.
You are quite wrong.
>Throwing folks in jail indefinitely without benefit of counsel 'cause
>Ashcroft decides they're "enemy combatants" raises nary a grumble
How would you know?
>Perhaps realigning one's priorities vis-a-vis personal liberties
>might be in order?
If you have a shred of evidence that I hold a position contrary to
personal liberties, please let it out. I am tired of your
fabrications. (And consult Tiernan to see if even he can find an area
where I do not hold the pro-liberty position. You may note the
conspicuous absence of disagreement with him over the years.)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0306301641270.12154@no-spam
>
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> > The best argument against self-serve is that the majority of
> > Oregonians don't want it and are uninterested in trying it.
> > They simply see nothing at all "in it" for them and no particular
> > reason to change and many reasons to stick with what they've got.
>
>
> You could say the same exact thing about other issues,
> one example arrived at by substitutig "Texas" for
> "Oregon", and "repeal of sodomy laws" for "self-serve".
Well, you could say the same thing. Doesn't mean that you'd be right.
>
> I didn't take long for the real you to come out again.
>
It didn't take long for the real you to show once again, Bob T.
<clw@no-spam> wrote in message
news:clw-9D38E5.06582201072003@no-spam
> In article <vg27mncl5ig923@no-spam>,
> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > <clw@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:clw-4303BF.16403430062003@no-spam
>
>
> > > No, most people do not recognize that their freedom to choose between
> > > self serv and the Oregon system was sold away by their state
> > > legislators. What you call freedom is actually absence of freedom,
the
> > > loss of the right to choose.
> >
> > C'mon, Charlie. You're a reasonable person. Explain to me how no choice
is
> > the right to choose and two choices is not.
> >
> > Please, indulge me. And don't tell me it's because Oregonians have
chosen a
> > restrictive policy. I'm an Oregonian now and I have never been given
that
> > choice.
>
> Sorry, Dave, that is exactly what it is. With those votes people did
> choose how they want their gas pumped. The people in Washington were
> never even given that choice, they just got self serv and no other
> choice.
That would be news to my wife, who used full-serve the entire time she was
visiting there.
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:CPoMa.354$n%5.107@no-spam
> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in
> news:vg28iei6cel095@no-spam
>
> >
> > "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:MP4Ma.2545$JY1.1093@no-spam
> >>
> >> <clw@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> news:clw-2FAA34.12165230062003@no-spam
> >>
> >> > Not the employees, but the guy parked at the pump (and keeping you
> >> > away from the pump) who has disappeared into the store to get his
> >> > snack. Have had that happen to me.
> >>
> >> That's the only good argument.
> >>
> >> Look, if it doesn't cost anybody in extra money to hire gas
> >> attendants (as the anti-self-serve types insist), then why would any
> >> jobs be at stake?
> > And
> >> if you want somebody to pump your gas, whatever, fine. But why must
> >> there be a law saying that OTHER people can't do it if they choose to
> >> do so.
> > When
> >> everybody is simultaneously pumping their gas, that's called parallel
> >> processing. It's faster than one or two guys running around trying
> >> to do
> > it
> >> all at once although occasionally some jackass in other states will
> >> in
> > fact
> >> leave his car there while he goes inside to shop and read truck
> >> trader and take a dump and call his wife, etc.
> >>
> >> I love (sarcasm) watching the idiot at the pump fuel my boat until
> >> gas sprays out from the vent all over the back of the boat and onto
> >> the
> > pavement
> >> AFTER I've told him that it doesn't automatically shut the pump off
> >> when
> > the
> >> tank is full. At boat docks, the attendant has to take the pump
> >> from the machine and give it to you, and you fill your own boat, and
> >> then you give
> > it
> >> back to him and he places it back in the machine.
> >
> > The ultimate honest answer to all of this is that restricting
> > self-serve doesn't make a bit of difference other than piss people
> > off. It isn't safer, it's not more convenient, it doesn't save money,
> > it doesn't serve a direct purpose. If for no other reason, giving
> > people the opportunity to pump their own gas would make them feel like
> > they were in a progressive state where they have a choice rather than
> > be restricted by a bunch of backward-ass technologically ignorant
> > morons.
> >
> > Next time someone thinks it's intrusive to regulate someone having
> > butt-sex, remind them how much more progressive Oregon is for not
> > letting people pump gas.
> >
> > Get it? Pump gas. Boy are you Oregonians insular.
>
> No, you're the one with the problem. You are living in a state full of
> people you don't like and don't respect. There are a number of Oregon
> laws I find fault with, but the majority of the VOTERS made the decisions
> and I respect that. For those issues that I feel strongly about, I work
> constructively for change. Your phrase 'you Oregonians' tells us exactly
> where you are coming from: somewhere else - if we're all morons and
> ignorant, just why do you stay here? They run you out of the last place?
Hey, if I like the room I don't let the flies bother me.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paul Johnson" <baloo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:cvkat-p98.ln1@no-spam
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:08:23 GMT, gatt <gatt@no-spam> wrote:
> > In my experience, it's MUCH faster to pump yourself unless of course you
end
> > up having to pay inside.
>
> Or if you want to pay with cash. Then you have to get out, go inside,
> pay, go back to the pump, pump your gas, go back inside to get your
> change. How this is easier than pull up, tell the guy to fill it,
> hand him a $20 and wait for your change, I will never know.
>
Try the station at Interstate and Killingsworth - you'll find out. Biggest
problem there is that it's usually loaded with cars.
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307022340560.13611@no-spam
>
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > CLW wrote:
>
>
> > > I wonder what the vote would be in states where self
> > > serv is allowed.
>
>
> > I'd say you could tell by the lack of demand for it
> > in other states.
>
>
> Even in states where the legislature can simply
> implement a self serve ban you don't see this.
> Nope, not even those states with populations
> and legislatures apparently dedicated to looking
> out for the weak, aged, and feeble -- like
> Massachusetts, Vermont, Minnesota, Connecticut,
> New York, Delaware, and heck, even Florida with
> its large chunk of retired people.
When someone says something to the effect of "Those other states aren't the
ones with the real choice because all they have is self-serve." I like to
point out that in Phoenix there is one of the largest planned retirement
communities in the country called Sun City with what must be over 100,000
retirees. Supposedly it's the elderly that prefer full serve and if that's
true it would make sense that the stations in Sun City would have more full
serve lanes to satisfy their customers. When I was back in Phoenix I made it
a point to look and see if that were true. Yep, every station had a full
service lane (shattering the myth that it was unavailable because the evil
gas station owners were trying to bilk customers) but when I asked a guy at
one station in the heart of Sun City why they didn't have more lanes he said
they didn't need them because the full serve lanes didn't get used any more
than the self-serve lanes. And I would admit that you make a good point. If
self serve were so evil the most liberal states would have considered a law
like Oregon that created unnecessary jobs by removing people's options for
pumping gas. Conversely in the most conservative states (like AZ) or the
ones with oil (Texas) we would have seen a complete loss of full serve if
the station owners thought it would save money. Unfortunately for the ban
supporters there is no more or less availability of full serve in any of the
48 states because unlike Oregon the gas stations are free to react to the
market.
>
> Makes you wonder, doesn't it, Charlie?
>
> Your fear of self serve reminds me of someone
> wanting to have his meals spoon-fed to him.
>
> Pumping your own gas isn't like lifting
> 100 pounds, ya know. It's so minor a
> thing that it's really embarrassing that
> Oregon is one of two states that think
> it's beyond our capabilities.
>
> Bob T
>
>
>
<clw@no-spam> wrote in message
news:clw-87868A.16335403072003@no-spam
> In article <vg8vdanih4nk25@no-spam>,
> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > When someone says something to the effect of "Those other states aren't
the
> > ones with the real choice because all they have is self-serve." I like
to
> > point out that in Phoenix there is one of the largest planned retirement
> > communities in the country called Sun City with what must be over
100,000
> > retirees. Supposedly it's the elderly that prefer full serve and if
that's
> > true it would make sense that the stations in Sun City would have more
full
> > serve lanes to satisfy their customers. When I was back in Phoenix I
made it
> > a point to look and see if that were true. Yep, every station had a full
> > service lane (shattering the myth that it was unavailable because the
evil
> > gas station owners were trying to bilk customers) but when I asked a guy
at
> > one station in the heart of Sun City why they didn't have more lanes he
said
> > they didn't need them because the full serve lanes didn't get used any
more
> > than the self-serve lanes. And I would admit that you make a good point.
If
> > self serve were so evil the most liberal states would have considered a
law
> > like Oregon that created unnecessary jobs by removing people's options
for
> > pumping gas. Conversely in the most conservative states (like AZ) or the
> > ones with oil (Texas) we would have seen a complete loss of full serve
if
> > the station owners thought it would save money. Unfortunately for the
ban
> > supporters there is no more or less availability of full serve in any of
the
> > 48 states because unlike Oregon the gas stations are free to react to
the
> > market.
>
> Fine, Dave, but what was the price differential between full and self
> serve?
It was around ten cents.
> That is the usual reason people will struggle with self serve.
If someone will drive out of their way and sit in line in their car for ten
minutes or more (as I've seen them do at the King City Arco) then it's not
any more of a problem to get out of their car and pump their gas to save a
few extra bucks. Obviously those old people are capable of using self serve
even though Oregonians aren't.
> Om Pasadena, CA it is about 50 cents per gallon. Thus, for people on
> fixed incomes (like Sun City AZ) that may make a very large difference.
Those people on fixed incomes in Sun City own Quarter Million dollar homes.
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 06:25:21 -0700
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
> Russell, Don. "How Many Indians Were Killed? White Man
> Versus Red Man: The Facts and the Legend.", American West
> (Jul 1973): pp. 42-47 & 61-63.
>
Most of them.
x-no-archive: yes
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> Recently I summed up the pro-ban
> argument by stating:
>
> "Find out what [people] do [about pro-ban people's
> concerns in self-serve states], and the opponents
> will have less to play chicken little over. They'll
> be left with just that "tradition" argument that is
> totally worthless."
>
> To which Dave Thompson replied:
>
> "That's pretty much all they have left. All the other
> arguments: safety, cleanliness, weather, jobs, price,
> fairness, and convenience have been swept under
> the table."
>
> That's pretty much it. And note, too, that
> Dave and I, and sometimes one other person,
> always dealt with the issue itself, broken
> down into its various parts as each part
> was examined. That's what is meant by
> a *debate* of the *issue*.
>
> But there's one other argument besides
> the fatally weak "tradition" one that
> is brought up by the pro-ban people,
> ad nauseum. Actually, it's not really
> an argument at all, but a cop-out
> statement that all but serves as a
> confession that they could not win the
> arument, the debate, by actually
> discussing the issue.
>
> In response to my comment that no substantive
> argument was made defending the ban, Shatzer
> replied, aside from "Tough!":
>
> "The reasons for maintaining a self-service ban seem wholely
> 'substantive' unto the majority of Oregonians, whether you
> find them sufficient or not.
>
> "At such time as that changes, the self-service laws will as
> well. Whether you find the reasons for change "substantive"
> or not."
>
> And Homuth replied by breaking this feeble
> defense of the ban into three parts:
>
> "Legally: The state claims a specific safety problem.
> It passes the Rational Basis Test. It may be instituted,
> if Oregonians choose to do it.
>
> "Politically: Oregonians choose to do it.
>
> "Practically: Getting the ban overturned will require
> a vote of Oregonians to do so. Thus far, no entity,
> least of all the collected Net Weenies hereon, is
> prepared to undertake the effort to do so.
>
> "Taken individually or together, those observations
> are a Substantive Defense if there ever was one.
>
> "....you have no legal, political or practical way of
> being rid of it.
>
> "Tough!"
>
> In other words, the apparently slim to
> zero chance of getting the ban repealed
> is an "argument" in defense of the ban.
>
> That is no argument at all, and no defense
> at all, but merely a statement of facts
> regarding the chances of the ban being
> repealed.
>
> This is tantamount to realizing you are
> losing an argument on every level and
> then spewing expletives and walking away
> ("You want it repealed? Then go get
> the signatures!"). Yeah, what an argument.
>
> We were discussing the *issue* by its
> *merits*, not by the chances of the ban
> being repealed. That is a separate argument.
>
> But before I close, let me deal with
> the three-part "argument" as set down
> by Homuth.
>
> # 1
>
> "Legally: The state claims a specific safety problem.
> It passes the Rational Basis Test. It may be instituted,
> if Oregonians choose to do it."
>
> Sure, the State of Oregon claims "a specific
> safety problem". That's not an argument,
> but a fact of state power. The "specific
> safety problem" itself has been dispatched
> by Dave more than it was by me and besides,
> 48 other states, including some that generally
> have more big daddy laws than Oregon has,
> don't see this "problem" as anything more
> than a state's power to have an opinion.
> 48 other states allowing self-serve make
> a mockery of Oregon's "concern" for this
> "specific safety issue".
>
> # 2
>
> "Politically: Oregonians choose to do it."
>
> Sorry, not an argument nor a defense of
> the merits of maintaining the ban.
>
> # 3
>
> "Practically: Getting the ban overturned will
> require a vote of Oregonians to do so. Thus far,
> no entity, least of all the collected Net Weenies
> hereon, is prepared to undertake the effort to do so."
>
> Again (and I can't repeat this often enough),
> this is not an argument favoring the merits
> of maintaining the ban. It's merely a
> statement regarding the level of work
> needed to repeal it (at least in one
> scenario).
Uh..........there is ONE argument favoring the ban on self
serv.........The majority of Oregonians do not want it.
>
> Game, Set, Match.
>
> Take Care.
>
> Bob Tiernan
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Reimiller" <bob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:65c9308c.0307291342.6c0b2c95@no-spam
> Anyone knows what happens if you do pump your own gas? With pay at the
> pump (the Shell stations in John Day area have them) what's to stop
> you? If the attendant is busy, I'll start pumping, or move the hose
> from one tank to the other, or finish up. I've only lived in Oregon
> for about 15 months, but have at least 20 years experience pumping my
> own gas in other states. When I take the initiative and do any of the
> above actions nobody at the gas station has complained. Who exactly
> cares who pumps the gas?
The gas station could be fined or lose their license.