-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:47:26 GMT, Heck's Kitchen <upstart23@no-spam> wrote:
>>When was the last time it was put to a public vote?
>
> During the Eighties, before simple pay-at-the-pump was implemented.
It has to be more recently than that...
- --
.''`. Baloo Ursidae <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+/1KMJ5vLSqVpK2kRAmCwAJ9xFyLZcqgmS1ca1dorhWzSuRw4CACgnuO6
FFJ1bnSPgoWY3OSd4zucSpU=
=42IC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> "Heck's Kitchen" <upstart23@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3eff41db.171518659@no-spam
> > "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > >When was the last time it was put to a public vote?
> >
> > During the Eighties, before simple pay-at-the-pump was implemented.
>
> Well, that's interesting.
>
> Some of the posters are kinda making it sound like it was very recent. I
> wonder why they would do that?
>
> Maybe they're a bit reluctant to have it come up for a vote now that
> pay-at-the-pump is here. It certainly adds another item to the list of
> fallacies constructed to support mini-serve.
Not that my "vote" gets to count anymore but yeah, I'd like to how the
vote would turn out today.
There's also a possibility that, like a sales tax, it's an Oregon "thang"
to some voters.
"Russell Senior" <seniorr@no-spam> wrote in message
news:86el1c45ht.fsf@no-spam
> >>>>> "Joni" == Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@no-spam> writes:
>
> >> Maybe they're a bit reluctant to have it come up for a vote now
> >> that pay-at-the-pump is here. It certainly adds another item to the
> >> list of fallacies constructed to support mini-serve.
>
> Joni> Not that my "vote" gets to count anymore but yeah, I'd like to
> Joni> how the vote would turn out today.
>
> I doubt pay-at-the-pump would make the slightest difference, since it
> speeds up _both_ self-serve and traditional service.
>
> The only thing the pro self-serve folks can hope for is that enough
> out-of-stater brainwashees have registered to vote here. Personally,
> I am not that worried.
You should be.
If you're not, let's vote.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Dave Thompson wrote:
> "Heck's Kitchen" <upstart23@no-spam> wrote in message
> > During the Eighties, before simple pay-at-the-pump was implemented.
> Well, that's interesting.
> Some of the posters are kinda making it sound like it was very recent. I
> wonder why they would do that?
> Maybe they're a bit reluctant to have it come up for a vote now that
> pay-at-the-pump is here. It certainly adds another item to the list of
> fallacies constructed to support mini-serve.
Well it cuts both ways. The last sales tax vote was only slightly
more recent than the last self-service vote yet the anti-sales
tax folks never tire of carping, "Oregon has voted down a sales tax
NINE times".
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.
They don't - all their polls tell 'em that self-service is a loser
at the polls. Big time. Which is why you don't see 'em chipping
in for an initiative petition on this subject. If they thought it
was a winner, they'd have no problem raising the money to finance
the campaign. They don't think it's a winner.
Peace and justice,
Dateline: alt.culture.oregon, Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:39:41 -0700.
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Heck's Kitchen" <upstart23@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3eff41db.171518659@no-spam
>> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >When was the last time it was put to a public vote?
>>
>> During the Eighties, before simple pay-at-the-pump was implemented.
>
>Well, that's interesting.
>
>Some of the posters are kinda making it sound like it was very recent. I
>wonder why they would do that?
Maybe they're confusing one of the past ballot measures with the times
the issue has come up in the legislature.
Rep. Randy Miller has introduced an "un-ban self-serve" bill since the
early 90s or so. They've always gone nowhere, except for his last bill
which cleared committee but died in the House I think.
--
Aaron `Katt` O'Donnell
http://www.aaroncity.com
Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell wrote:
> Rep. Randy Miller has introduced an "un-ban self-serve" bill since the
> early 90s or so. They've always gone nowhere, except for his last bill
> which cleared committee but died in the House I think.
I called about this when I was tracking it. It passed
out of committee but since it was known by Miller
and others that there'd be fewer Ayes than they
expected to get on the floor, it was never voted
on by the full House.
Bob T
Dateline: alt.culture.oregon, Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:15:30 -0700.
Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote:
>
>Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell wrote:
>
>> Rep. Randy Miller has introduced an "un-ban self-serve" bill since the
>> early 90s or so. They've always gone nowhere, except for his last bill
>> which cleared committee but died in the House I think.
>
>
>I called about this when I was tracking it. It passed
>out of committee but since it was known by Miller
>and others that there'd be fewer Ayes than they
>expected to get on the floor, it was never voted
>on by the full House.
Wasn't the reasoning something like, "This turkey will never fly, but
let's vote it to the full House so we can have some debate on it and
see where everybody stands on the matter?"
But hey, if Miller's speed-limit raising bill actually passes this
year (on attempt, what... 5, 6?) maybe the self-serve one will too.
IIRC, the speed limit one was pretty close to passing in the Senate
before they got bogged down with $$$ and baseball.
I don't know why he doesn't just organize a ballot measure on speed
limits. It seems to me that if you ask someone, "Hey, sign this
petition to raise the speed limits!" 8 or 9 out of 10 will do it, no
matter what the measure actually does. It'd practically be a sure
thing.
--
Aaron `Katt` O'Donnell
http://www.aaroncity.com
In article <86el1c45ht.fsf@no-spam>,
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.
Actually with "service stations" now becoming fast food outlets and
people washing their own windows and checking their own oil etc the self
serv places a no faster and may be slower than ordinary service stations
who do such things quickly and do not have people inside warming up
their burritos.
In article <3f015299.241350838@no-spam>,
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.
>
> Sometimes, Oregonians are "special". As in "Special Olympics."
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.
CLW wrote:
> But, it seems that self serv is not anymore costly than
> the Oregon way.
Irrelevent when you get right down to it. This
should not be part of the debate about self-serve.
Bob T
In article
<Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0306301052320.7939@no-spam>,
Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote:
> CLW wrote:
>
> > But, it seems that self serv is not anymore costly than
> > the Oregon way.
>
>
> Irrelevent when you get right down to it. This
> should not be part of the debate about self-serve.
BT, getting self serv will require a vote. And, to get enough votes
will have to make some cogent arguments. And, cost is usually the most
cogent argument.
Seems totally relevant.
But, just what do you consider the most relevant arguments?
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.
-----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...
> 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...
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/AJgvJ5vLSqVpK2kRAmiFAJ9PLBQTITjZXJnt/lEKredYeTo9UQCdEpgs
oUM1hfPT2V7YIl72es0fGto=
=dmtO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
<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.
Which happens whether or not it's self-serve. Additionally, how often have
you had to go in to pay even with the supposed "attendant" there to pour gas
down the side of your car.
In article <3f009b1d$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> 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.
>
> Which happens whether or not it's self-serve.
Nope. You get your burrito while he pumps the gas etc.
> Additionally, how often have
> you had to go in to pay even with the supposed "attendant" there to pour gas
> down the side of your car.
Essentially never with pay at the pump. Or aren't you trusted with a
credit card?
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Dave Thompson wrote:
-snips-
> 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.
Like Freddie Kruger returning for yet another Halloween movie, this
self-service gas issue re-appears periodically to much Sturm und
Drang and little light.
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.
At such time as the majority of Oregonians are of a different opinion,
self-service will almost certainly be permitted.
'Til then, the self-serve advocates are mostly farting into
the wind. To about the same effect.
Peace and justice,
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, it was written:
-snips-
> Guess you must be one of the lucky ones to never go to a station that
> doesn't have "pay at the pump" ... in any event, while the tank is filling,
> go and get your drink.
Ummm, well, I think I -do- see a safety issue with this suggestion.
I'm thinking that leaving the gas pumping with just no one around
is not the safest practice.
Peace and justice,
In article <3f06c1ee.1860875@no-spam>,
upstart23@no-spam (Heck's Kitchen) wrote:
> 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?
It was an answer to try to clear up a failure to read exactly what I
said on a prior post. When one gets to these tertiary attempts to make
sense for you it is expected that you will not understand.
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?
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.
>
> 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?
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.
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".
I didn't take long for the real you to come out again.
Bob T
<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.
-gatt
In article
<Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0306301641270.12154@no-spam>,
Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote:
> 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".
Cummon Bob. Down to earth. There is absolutely no comparison between
the Texas sodomy laws and self serv gas in Oregon.
In one case absolute personal liberty was the (constitutional)
contention and in the other a minor impact on corporate practices with
no constitutional implications.
The level of privilege is totally different and the claim is of
eccentric merit.
It will take a monumental dialectic to raise self serv to a
constitutional level.
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in
news:vg26fe2cfhq923@no-spam
>
>
> <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.
You TIP in Gas Stations???!!
LD
>
>
>
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Dave Thompson wrote:
> "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
-snips-
> > Like Freddie Kruger returning for yet another Halloween movie, this
> > self-service gas issue re-appears periodically to much Sturm und
> > Drang and little light.
> > The best argument against self-serve is that the majority of Oregonians
> > don't want it and are uninterested in trying it.
> Of course you don't know this.
Ah, but I do.
> It's been over fifteen years since it's been
> to a vote. Plenty of the technology has changed and more enlightened people
> from other states have moved here. I think this spells disaster to the
> mini-serve people and you don't like it one bit.
This is something the Oregon Gasoline Dealers Association (the station
owners) and the Petroleum Manufacturers Association (the oil companies)
look at periodically as it is an issue rather near and dear to their
hearts - and their bottom lines.
Their public opinion polls rather routinely show 60% or better opposed to
the idea. Which is why they've elected not to finance an initiative
petition on self-service - it just doesn't look like a winner to them.
And, as I've stated previously, it's not that hard to get it on the
ballot - 60,000 signatures and some change would do it. That no one
is out there hustling signatures says a lot about the lack of any public
ground swell of support for the idea. Mostly, Oregonians are just
uninterested in self-service and see no particular need to change.
> 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.
Which is what the OGDA polling results rather routinely show.
> > At such time as the majority of Oregonians are of a different opinion,
> > self-service will almost certainly be permitted.
> > 'Til then, the self-serve advocates are mostly farting into
> > the wind. To about the same effect.
> Speaking of flatulence - yours certainly is obvious.
Ah, yet more Sturm und Drang and damn little light.
Oh well. Thank you for demonstrating my point.
Peace and justice,
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Dave Thompson wrote:
-snips-
> 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.
You -tip- at gas stations??
Sheesh!
Peace and justice,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:18:37 -0700, WinGuru <anonymous> wrote:
> Which happens whether or not it's self-serve. Additionally, how often have
> you had to go in to pay even with the supposed "attendant" there to pour gas
> down the side of your car.
You only have to if you stop at some Shell, most Texaco or any Arco
station. I avoid all but Arco if Arco isn't at least a nickle
cheaper, they make you get out and go inside to pay even on a card,
and even for self serve in self-serve states.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/ASPyJ5vLSqVpK2kRAt1hAKDTlqIMHvRKl8i2TmBB1VW8krXnaACeMFVc
Eo0Jifi46kG4xLm6yh3vNFM=
=9gJJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:46:00 -0700, Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
> I'm thinking that leaving the gas pumping with just no one around
> is not the safest practice.
That's why we have some guy paid to do that.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/ASQzJ5vLSqVpK2kRAuLFAJ4i32fHhZ7sBUtnNVpgkrMpyT4PLwCg2vCH
h1M2lLhSirRtbg+Tfdigl1E=
=dZub
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CLW wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > 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".
> Cummon Bob. Down to earth. There is absolutely no
> comparison between the Texas sodomy laws and self
> serv gas in Oregon.
Nobody said there was, but the comparison being made was
about Shatzer's love-it-or-leave-it addiction to majority
rule over the rights of the individual. When he
makes an exception (as in the sodomy cases) it's only
because he's too embarrassed to tell you what he really
thinks and wants to sound like a real freedom-lover.
[snip]
> It will take a monumental dialectic to raise self
> serv to a constitutional level.
Sadly, and that's a shame. Was a time when
the Constitution was properly interpreted
regarding decisions by business owners.
Like most other areas, it was twisted out
of existence.
Bob t
"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
Typical "tyranny of the majority" Shatzer logic.
Screw 'em, eh Shatzer?
> and no particular reason to change and many
> reasons to stick with what they've got.
One major reason cited by that now deceased
Lt. Colonel who was a champion in fighting
to keep it was that "it's a tradition".
Hmmm, sodomy laws are traditional as well.
Or were.
> 'Til then, the self-serve advocates are mostly farting
> into the wind.
Another "screw 'em" comment. I can just hear Bill
telling Rosa parks that she was "farting in the wind".
That would be just as funny as when Thompson used
to defend the act of arresting her without guilt.
Bob T
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Dave Thompson wrote:
> > You -tip- at gas stations??
> > Sheesh!
> I found another one. So concerned about the welfare of minimum wage class
> yet you can't pay for the service they provide.
One would think that the payment for the service they provide is
included in the price of the product.
Do you tip your cashier at Wal-Mart? Your clerk at T J Maxx?
The fellow who sells you a car at Ron Tonkin? Your cabin attendents
when you fly? How 'bout the crew in the cockpit?
The guys (and gals) who check yer car at DEQ? The bank teller who
cashes yer check? Do you include a "little extra" for yer insurance
agent when you send in your semi-annual premiums? And certainly you
tuck in a bit extra with yer monthly mortgage for the folks who process
yer payment?
Are there no limits to your generosity?
> Yes, I'm an ample tipper.
The cashiers at 7-11 must -just- love to see you coming then.
> I'm not an Oregonian that hasn't strayed outside the state borders. I pay
> for service. If someone gives me labor I pay for it and I am gratefull for
> it. Today I let an Albertson's bagger take my groceries to the truck (it's
> close to the 4th and I had a lot of groceries). I tipped her 5 bucks because
> I have money to spare. She liked it and it didn't hurt me at all. You'd
> trather a tax payed for your convenience.
Hmmmm! I was in Albertson's (whoops, Albertsons, they've officially
dropped the apostrophe!) and there was a sign which said "NO TIPPING
- carrying your groceries to your car is a part of our service" or
words to that effect.
Apparently you're willing to put the young lady's job in jeopardy -
although she should have refused your offer.
> The funny thing about you, Shatzer, is that you have a problem with this but
> wouldn't have a problem with taxing the shit out of everyone equally.
I don't have a "problem" with your tipping - 'cept in places like
Albertsons which say "no tipping" but I find it passing strange that
you feel the need to tip the fellow who pumps your gas - and your
7-11 clerks/car salesmen/T J Maxx cashiers/etc.
> I tip
> freely but you think taxing freely is a better option.
Huh?
I don't quite grasp the relationship. But it does sound to me like
you've voluntarily imposed a 15% sales tax on yerself.
> Sheesh, a thousand times over. freakin fuckin sheesh you goddamn hypocrite.
Content free, as usual. But, if it makes you feel better.......
> > Peace and justice,
> You may believe in peace like I do, but you don't believe in justice. Drop
> it. Just say "Peace but ram justice up your ass."
Clever. Witty. Intellegent. Deeply inciteful.
Exactly what I'd expect from a fellow who -claims- to tip gas pump
jockeys. And Wal-Mart checkers. And to bribe Albertson clerks into
violating company policy.
Oh well.
Peace and justice,
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> Another "screw 'em" comment. I can just hear Bill
> telling Rosa parks that she was "farting in the wind".
>
> That would be just as funny as when Thompson used
> to defend the act of arresting her without guilt.
Actually, it was worse than that - he also said he
would have participated in the arrest, relocation,
and property auctions of Japanese-Americans
in 1942 if only to honor his "oath".
Bob T
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Dave Thompson wrote:
> > I tip freely but you think taxing freely is a
> > better option.
> Huh?
Don't play dumb.
> I don't quite grasp the relationship.
You prefer coercion over voluntarism
when it comes to getting people to part
with their money. Your way reenforces
what you want to see, i.e. the concept
of people's money being "the public's"
money, with a certain percentage
allowed to be kept.
> But it does sound to me like you've voluntarily
> imposed a 15% sales tax on yerself.
Why is that not preferable to tyranny of the
majority forcing him to redistribute his income?
Bob T
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:45:36 -0700, Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote:
> 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".
Um, what? You're calling him a backwater bigot over self-serve
gasoline? Get real.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/AToXJ5vLSqVpK2kRAk6RAJ4s+3Nnl5+4E5RCuYiCZIH62Rt5ggCgv2qb
y+aKAqnR2MTSIYusiL30MjU=
=OTnU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
> 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".
You could do so, I suppose. At the risk of being thought completely
silly.
Are you -seriously- proposing to equate private sexual conduct
with the ability to pump yer own gas?
Sigh. I suppose you are.
> I didn't take long for the real you to come out again.
Nor for the real you. Assinine as usual and more or less irrelevant
to anything non-libertoonians care about. Although no doubt a real
personal liberty issue to you and just about no one else in the entire
world last time I checked.
But, you ARE an amusing diversion.
Peace and justice,
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, 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.
"Freedom" is defined as the ability to pump yer own gas?
> And a resident socialist manages to make it a conspiracy of big
> business to prevent people from being denied the freedom of choice.
And "socialism" is inherent in attendent-pumped gas?
Aux barricades, mes amis!
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. 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.
But, little chance of that, hank. You're a republican apologist with
no real regard for personal liberties.
Throwing folks in jail indefinitely without benefit of counsel 'cause
Ashcroft decides they're "enemy combatants" raises nary a grumble
but, by Gawd, should the state of oregon decide against self-sevice
gas, the Very Foundations Of Liberty Are In Danger!
Perhaps realigning one's priorities vis-a-vis personal liberties
might be in order?
Assuming one's priorities -really- are personal liberties rather than
being a republican shill. Bloody unlikely that.
Peace and justice,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:28:34 GMT, Heck's Kitchen <upstart23@no-spam> wrote:
> 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.
No, it demonstrates fairly clearly how making gas 20 cents more
expensive per gallon for no reason kills demand.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/AUDGJ5vLSqVpK2kRAi/EAKDRa98MKKHgzvEdAH71yrOGxZgHCQCg4/fS
Kr+7D0A2DtWURNMU2owYrkY=
=rtmV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
seniorr@no-spam wrote:
>>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Thompson <dav13795@no-spam> writes:
>
> Dave> [...] Only there isn't a wait and there is no tip.
>
> Russell> I really don't understand why you keep going to these lousy
> Russell> gas stations. At the station I usually go to, I get
> Russell> frequently get my windows washed and oil checked _and_ I
> Russell> don't wait for more than about 10 seconds for the attendant
> Russell> to walk over and put away the nozzle.
>
> Russell> And I have _never_ in my life paid an attendant a tip. Where
> Russell> do you get these ideas?
>
> Dave> Decency. Have you ever heard of that word?
>
> Service is built into the price of the gas. I go back to places that
> give good service. I don't "tip" waiters in France either. It isn't
> the custom.
Yes you do, unlike the U.S., they stick it on the tab for your
convenience.
If you can afford to go to France, you can afford to tip the poor
schmuck sacrificing his health to pump your gas.
zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam wrote:
>
> "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
>
>
> Typical "tyranny of the majority" Shatzer logic.
> Screw 'em, eh Shatzer?
>
Indeed, this is purely a pro choice issue.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Tue, 01 Jul 2003 11:35:06 GMT, cardboard <cardboard@no-spam> wrote:
> Also, that kind of speed may not be desirable unless you don't mind the
> paint splashes and little scratches on the paint.
Eh. It's the exterior of the vehicle. Trying to keep it totally free
of dirt, dings and scratches is ultimately futile for more reasons
than sloppy gas jockeys. It's not like you have to look at it all the
time.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/AX2rJ5vLSqVpK2kRAkwBAKC0siK2MKMpfF8fU/yL9ATWiE84fwCfXxYr
gMGap8SvndBDTtjcC7Fs3iU=
=XODC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In article <MP4Ma.2545$JY1.1093@no-spam>,
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote:
> 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.
Sort of off topic as fueling power boats is a relativly rare occurance
and their peculiar requirements (probably different for each fueling
system) are unique.
In article <3f05e2f3.10315333@no-spam>,
upstart23@no-spam (Heck's Kitchen) wrote:
> 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.
The only "freedom" that I have seen in the process is what the voters of
Oregon have done many times, rejected self serv. In other states the
self serv "option" was forced on them by the oil companies influence in
their legislatures. No freedom there!
>
> >> 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.
Well, as you said in a prior post, you can always move to another state.
The fact they are still here may indicate that they see making less than
a cent per gallon extra profit is not big deal.
>
> >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.
The absence of price differential (except during the times just before
Oregonians voted on self serv in the past) would seem to indicate that
there is no subsidy involved. The surcharges for "full serv" in
southern California (50 cents per gallon) are exhorbitant and designed
to undul;y influence customers away from the "full serv" pump.
In article <vg26fe2cfhq923@no-spam>,
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
> 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.
My last time pumping my own gas (in Vancouver on Fourth Plain) there was
no "latch". I looked at the other pumps and they did not have them
either. I asked the money taker (inside) why and she did not know, but
a guy in line to pay after me said that they wanted people holding the
spigot to speed up the process.
I guess they did not sell too many buritos!
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.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 clw@no-spam wrote:
> In article <vg26fe2cfhq923@no-spam>,
> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> My last time pumping my own gas (in Vancouver on Fourth Plain) there was
> no "latch". I looked at the other pumps and they did not have them
> either. I asked the money taker (inside) why and she did not know, but
> a guy in line to pay after me said that they wanted people holding the
> spigot to speed up the process.
>
About three weeks ago I found myself alone at the pumps (Las Vegas). The
fellow from the car in front of me had gone inside to do the burrito
thing. I did ten bucks worth and was twisting my gas cap closed when
the hose in the other car popped out of the tank and hit the ground.
I heard the clunk and felt the splash of gasoline across my feet.
Gas was spewing every which way. I waded through it and picked up
the hose thinking I'd just release latch and shut it off. But it
wouldn't release. It just kept pumping. I pushed and pulled and
cursed and starting hitting the button on the pump that says, "Push
here if you need help." NO response.
I finally set the hose down, nozzle pointing toward the far end of
the parking lot, and dashed inside where everyone was shooting
the breeze. "Have another hot dog, Howard! Yeah, Angel won $200
off that third slot machine over there the othernight." Of
course, they all figured I was just a ditzy girl type who didn't know how
to turn it off.
I had to laugh as I was driving away (going home to change out
of my gas-spewed clothing and take a shower) and they were
scrambling to pull the switch on the side of the bdlg that
turns off the pumps....
cardboard wrote:
> Indeed, this is purely a pro choice issue.
It is, but not in the way you think, or
in the way CLW thinks.
Bob T
In article <3f08a29f.59391189@no-spam>,
upstart23@no-spam (Heck's Kitchen) wrote:
> clw@no-spam wrote:
>
> >In article <vg27mncl5ig923@no-spam>,
> > "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Please, indulge me. And don't tell me it's because Oregonians have chosen a
> >> restrictive policy. I'm an Oregonian now and I have never been given that
> >> choice.
> >
> >If this move to self serv gets off the ground (ie, onto the ballot) you
> >will get your chance to choose the method you want. But, on the basis
> >of history, you might not get your choice.
>
> Your non-sequitur didn't answer his question. "It's the law" is not a
> justification for the law. (Been studying under Shatzer?)
No self serve is currently "the law" and will remain so until the
legislature passes self serve and that "law" is tested by referal.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
> cardboard wrote:
> > Indeed, this is purely a pro choice issue.
> It is, but not in the way you think, or
> in the way CLW thinks.
Is that supposed to be some sort of koan, BT?
Peace and justice,
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in
news:vg28iei6cel095@no-spam
>
> "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:MP4Ma.2545$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?
LD
>
>
>
>
Russell Senior <seniorr@no-spam> wrote in
news:868yriaevb.fsf@no-spam
>>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Thompson <dav13795@no-spam> writes:
>
> Dave> [...] Only there isn't a wait and there is no tip.
>
> Russell> I really don't understand why you keep going to these lousy
> Russell> gas stations. At the station I usually go to, I get
> Russell> frequently get my windows washed and oil checked _and_ I
> Russell> don't wait for more than about 10 seconds for the attendant
> Russell> to walk over and put away the nozzle.
>
> Russell> And I have _never_ in my life paid an attendant a tip. Where
> Russell> do you get these ideas?
>
> Dave> Decency. Have you ever heard of that word?
>
> Service is built into the price of the gas. I go back to places that
> give good service. I don't "tip" waiters in France either. It isn't
> the custom.
>
> Dave> Russel, who has supposedly killfiled me.
>
> In another group. Fixing that directly.
>
> Dave> Just keep it coming and make yourself look like more of an ass.
>
> Let's take a poll. What Oregonian here does and doesn't tip the gas
> station attendant when they wash your windows? Not only do I not do
> it, but I have never observed anyone else do it either.
Never done it, never seen it done. I have given $10.00 to a couple gas
jockeys who helped me with a flat, even though they protested it was not
necessary. Don't tip the bank teller either.
LD
>
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in
news:vg2dbs6fn6i406@no-spam
>
>
> "Paul Johnson" <baloo@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:88l7t-ho1.ln1@no-spam
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> The Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:19:30 -0700, Dave Thompson
>> <dav13795@no-spam>
> wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Never mind that people who pump gas all day every day can do it
>> faster than Joe Random Public.
>
> Boy, you must be pretty lacking in manual skills if sticking a nozzle
> in your own car causes you a delay.
>
> It's still pretty embarrassing to admit a highschool kid can do
> something better than you that takes no skill and a second. I prefer
> to think I can pump my own gas faster and get out quicker (which most
> people in this country can do except Oregonians who continue to think
> that being physically inept is something to be proud of.
Are you still here? In the midst of retarded, inept, moron Oregonians?
You must be a hell of a masochist.
>
> It's like saying, "Hey, I can't drive and the state says someone has
> to do it for me so I must be cool and better than anyone else because
> I'm an inept loser and the state has a ridiculous law." Oh, and the
> rest of the country can drive safely but they are slaves to the car
> industry. Whatever.
>
>
> Anybody who has sat through an Arco line in a
>> self serve state knows this. If you're really concerned about the
>> time you're wasting at gas stations, you really should live in the
>> same neighborhood that you work in to eliminate a long commute, or
>> own a Toyota Prius or some other gasoline-electric or
>> diesel-electric. They're *way* more efficient, eliminating two or
>> three out of four gas station trips.
>
> Maybe if you are worried about whatever issue haunts you about pumping
> your own gas you should get rid of your car and let the rest of us who
> are confident and capable have the roads rather than you self admitted
> retardos.
>
>
>
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > cardboard wrote:
> > > Indeed, this is purely a pro choice issue.
> > It is, but not in the way you think, or
> > in the way CLW thinks.
> Is that supposed to be some sort of koan, BT?
Not at all. Look, both sides lose sight of
the rights thing. People like Charlie
seem to think the "right" of the *consumer*
to have a choice is paramount (by having
the choice of having a self-serve ban or
not having one), while people like nobody
seem to think that the consumer also
is the one with the right to choose at stake,
but only in the case of the self-serve
ban being repealed.
Both are wrong.
This is a property issue, and the person
with the right to make the choice is
clearly the owner or manager of the
each station. What the pro-ban-repealers
don't want to admit is that there'll
be little choice afterwards since almost
all stations will have self-serve.
But again, that's irrelevant.
The pro-ban people don't want to admit
that they have no more of a right to
dictate this sort of service anymore
than they do the quality of silverware
at restaurants.
Charlie's point of view is similar to
one in which he would think that voters
have a "right" to decide by ballot
which magazines a store who be allowed
to sell.
Bob Tiernan
NOW is able to overlook wife-beating
and murder in the case of someone who's
a role model for young black men and the
sexual exploitation of subordinates in
the case of someone who can help the
organization politically and financially.
-- Tammy Bruce
Past President
Now (Los Angeles Chapter)
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> There are a number of Oregon laws I find fault with, but the
> majority of the VOTERS made the decisions and I respect that.
Did you respect their decision regarding Measure 7 ?
I gotta hear this!
Bob T
"Paul Johnson" <baloo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:88l7t-ho1.ln1@no-spam
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:19:30 -0700, Dave Thompson <dav13795@no-spam>
wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Never mind that people who pump gas all day every day can do it faster
> than Joe Random Public.
Not when they have to run around between six or eight cars and everybody
else has to wait in line for an available attendant.
If we were to race, I'd say a pro pump jockey could beat me by maybe a few
seconds at most. Then again, I've filled airplanes directly from the fuel
pump and boats from the dock, not to mention my own vehicle for three years
in Washington.
In my experience, it's MUCH faster to pump yourself unless of course you end
up having to pay inside.
-c
"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
> I'm thinking that leaving the gas pumping with just no one around
> is not the safest practice.
That's what happens when Jose the gas jockey is running around between pump
1 and pump 8 all day long.
But, gas stations just aren't blowing up in either Oregon or say, Washington
so it doesn't seem to be an issue.
-c
"Paul Johnson" <baloo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:7pl7t-ho1.ln1@no-spam
:
> > 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.
>
> Keeping this in mind, why not just refuel at the docks?
It's about 20 cents per gallon more expensive and you might have to go 10 or
12 miles upriver to get to the nearest fuel dock. The fuel dock nearest
where my boat is at right now is exclusive to members of a certain yacht
club. Plus,. at most docks there's only one pump and on a busy day, there
might be half a dozen or more people waiting in line for gas. Some of those
cruisers have 250-gallon capacities and if the docks are full, you have to
line up on the water, in the current, with the motor running and all to wait
your turn.
I just refuelled on the water today. $2/gallon, which is exactly what it
was this time last year.
-c
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:28:50 -0700, Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote:
> Not at all. Look, both sides lose sight of
> the rights thing. People like Charlie
> seem to think the "right" of the *consumer*
> to have a choice is paramount (by having
> the choice of having a self-serve ban or
> not having one),
Most consumers have that choice now. More than half the state's
population lives barely across town from a state line. Get gas in
Oregon, or drive to Vancouver. Considering nobody other than you has
given me reason to think that they're not in northwestern Oregon or
also talking out of their ass from out of state (Vegas area), I'd say
this is a uniquely urban Portland issue. Honestly folks, if you don't
know how to get to Vancouver from Portland, should you really be
driving? It's not *that* hard to figure out.
> Now (Los Angeles Chapter)
Keep your opinions off my state, California's south of here.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/AphAJ5vLSqVpK2kRAoyvAJ90b6kb7r2bjQSZ3dJB/1sAFQTNcgCeM80G
BAtPJHeeISuwdXlv83pFqoc=
=d/xO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
<clw@no-spam> wrote in message
news:clw-92C49B.06402801072003@no-spam
> > 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.
>
> Sort of off topic as fueling power boats is a relativly rare occurance
> and their peculiar requirements (probably different for each fueling
> system) are unique.
Right. It's actually more dangerous, requires more skill, and if you screw
up, the spillover goes into the waterway rather than onto the ashphalt. In
most power boats, you know it's full when fuel starts shooting out the fuel
vent which means you have to watch it very closely. But most boats can be
filled at gas stations, too.
Just be glad you don't have to drive your vehicle against a current and dock
alongside the pump. You landlubbers would NEVER figure that out. ;>
-c
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:05:23 GMT, gatt <gatt@no-spam> wrote:
> Hehe. Well, Dave, you're the first guy I've ever heard of tipping a gas
> station attendant. I don't think it ever even occurs to most people.
You said this last time he brought it up, last time we discussed
self-serve. A couple other people, myself included, piped up to say
that they at least occasionally tip the attendants for going the extra
mile beyond just throwing the hose in and going. Though that's one
way you could help fix the slower stations: Tip the fast guy if you
get him.
> As for me, I tip waitresses, cab drivers, bartenders (strippers, once), etc
> pretty generously, mainly because I expect and appreciate the service. Since
> I've never particularly wanted anybody to pump my gas or otherwise molest my
> perfectly good vehicle, it's just not something I've ever conceived of doing
> anymore than I'd tip, say, a MAX driver.
Well, if you value your public employees (MAX drivers), don't tip
them. Same with security officers (yes, someone once did offer to
give me a tip, I declined). Public employees and security officers
can't use their position for personal gain, tipping them puts them in
a bad legal spot. This is also why the Oregon Zoo and the Metro
recycling facilities have signs up telling you not to tip the
employees.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/AqO5J5vLSqVpK2kRAkmNAKCBjoItY+M/sylpwMFIgrpzGPDbYACfUtwk
9r8rosQMXDkGIqKkPIXfjrY=
=910X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:11:45 GMT, gatt <gatt@no-spam> wrote:
> That's what happens when Jose the gas jockey is running around between pump
> 1 and pump 8 all day long.
I've only seen a gas jockey have a running nozzle fall out on them
once, and he made the comment that it was his first day on the job.
This was six years ago.
I think all of us have seen a running nozzle spraying gas across the
tarmac at self serve stations at one point or another. Nice
environmental and fire hazard there.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/AqXGJ5vLSqVpK2kRAro7AJ9UeYqq9/lufPzpMuZ4d8pCMTPXSQCeMVLP
0ZXT6Etv82OlNj/8Z7yasqI=
=ILTE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0306301543360.21083-100000@no-spam>...
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, it was written:
>
> -snips-
>
> > Guess you must be one of the lucky ones to never go to a station that
> > doesn't have "pay at the pump" ... in any event, while the tank is filling,
> > go and get your drink.
>
> Ummm, well, I think I -do- see a safety issue with this suggestion.
>
> I'm thinking that leaving the gas pumping with just no one around
> is not the safest practice.
>
Another reasons for self service. One person per car pumping. The way
it is now, there is one person pumping multiple cars at the same time.
Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam> wrote in message news:<77lat-p98.ln1@no-spam>...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:11:45 GMT, gatt <gatt@no-spam> wrote:
> > That's what happens when Jose the gas jockey is running around between pump
> > 1 and pump 8 all day long.
>
> I've only seen a gas jockey have a running nozzle fall out on them
> once, and he made the comment that it was his first day on the job.
> This was six years ago.
>
> I think all of us have seen a running nozzle spraying gas across the
> tarmac at self serve stations at one point or another. Nice
> environmental and fire hazard there.
I've seen a person drive away with the nozzle still in the car. It's
a bit harder for that to happen when you're out of the car pumping gas.
Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307012329140.60@no-spam
>
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> There are a number of Oregon laws I find fault with, but the
>> majority of the VOTERS made the decisions and I respect that.
>
>
> Did you respect their decision regarding Measure 7 ?
> I gotta hear this!
>
>
> Bob T
Liking a decision or agreeing with a decision are entirely different from
respecting a decision. I did not like or agree with the decision to raise
Beaverton property taxes, but I respect the decision and I'll pay the
money. Seems to me that anyone who finds their fellow citizens as
contemptible as Mr. Thompson does really needs to move.
LD
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in news:vg4ov3sp51ek90
@no-spam
>
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:EXoMa.377$n%5.78@no-spam
>> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in
>> news:vg2dbs6fn6i406@no-spam
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > "Paul Johnson" <baloo@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > news:88l7t-ho1.ln1@no-spam
>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >> Hash: SHA1
>> >>
>> >> The Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:19:30 -0700, Dave Thompson
>> >> <dav13795@no-spam>
>> > wrote:
>> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> Never mind that people who pump gas all day every day can do it
>> >> faster than Joe Random Public.
>> >
>> > Boy, you must be pretty lacking in manual skills if sticking a
nozzle
>> > in your own car causes you a delay.
>> >
>> > It's still pretty embarrassing to admit a highschool kid can do
>> > something better than you that takes no skill and a second. I prefer
>> > to think I can pump my own gas faster and get out quicker (which
most
>> > people in this country can do except Oregonians who continue to
think
>> > that being physically inept is something to be proud of.
>>
>> Are you still here? In the midst of retarded, inept, moron Oregonians?
>> You must be a hell of a masochist.
>
> No, just a big fish in a small pond.
Not even a minnow.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > It's like saying, "Hey, I can't drive and the state says someone has
>> > to do it for me so I must be cool and better than anyone else
because
>> > I'm an inept loser and the state has a ridiculous law." Oh, and the
>> > rest of the country can drive safely but they are slaves to the car
>> > industry. Whatever.
>> >
>> >
>> > Anybody who has sat through an Arco line in a
>> >> self serve state knows this. If you're really concerned about the
>> >> time you're wasting at gas stations, you really should live in the
>> >> same neighborhood that you work in to eliminate a long commute, or
>> >> own a Toyota Prius or some other gasoline-electric or
>> >> diesel-electric. They're *way* more efficient, eliminating two or
>> >> three out of four gas station trips.
>> >
>> > Maybe if you are worried about whatever issue haunts you about
pumping
>> > your own gas you should get rid of your car and let the rest of us
who
>> > are confident and capable have the roads rather than you self
admitted
>> > retardos.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307012320400.60@no-spam
>
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>> Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
>
>> > cardboard wrote:
>
>
>> > > Indeed, this is purely a pro choice issue.
>
>
>> > It is, but not in the way you think, or
>> > in the way CLW thinks.
>
>
>
>> Is that supposed to be some sort of koan, BT?
>
>
> Not at all. Look, both sides lose sight of
> the rights thing. People like Charlie
> seem to think the "right" of the *consumer*
> to have a choice is paramount (by having
> the choice of having a self-serve ban or
> not having one), while people like nobody
> seem to think that the consumer also
> is the one with the right to choose at stake,
> but only in the case of the self-serve
> ban being repealed.
>
> Both are wrong.
>
> This is a property issue, and the person
> with the right to make the choice is
> clearly the owner or manager of the
> each station. What the pro-ban-repealers
> don't want to admit is that there'll
> be little choice afterwards since almost
> all stations will have self-serve.
> But again, that's irrelevant.
>
> The pro-ban people don't want to admit
> that they have no more of a right to
> dictate this sort of service anymore
> than they do the quality of silverware
> at restaurants.
How about the quality of the kitchen? Want to defend property rights to
the extent of salmonella or botulism? What about fire exits and sprinkler
systems? There are a whole bunch of things which are regulated and could
be construed to be the right of the property owner.
LD
>
> Charlie's point of view is similar to
> one in which he would think that voters
> have a "right" to decide by ballot
> which magazines a store who be allowed
> to sell.
>
>
> Bob Tiernan
>
> NOW is able to overlook wife-beating
> and murder in the case of someone who's
> a role model for young black men and the
> sexual exploitation of subordinates in
> the case of someone who can help the
> organization politically and financially.
>
> -- Tammy Bruce
> Past President
> Now (Los Angeles Chapter)
>
>
>
On 2 Jul 2003, cardboard wrote:
> Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam> wrote in message news:<77lat-p98.ln1@no-spam>...
> > I think all of us have seen a running nozzle spraying gas across the
> > tarmac at self serve stations at one point or another. Nice
> > environmental and fire hazard there.
> I've seen a person drive away with the nozzle still in the car. It's
> a bit harder for that to happen when you're out of the car pumping gas.
I shouldn't think so unless they disable the automatic dispensor
and make everyone stand there squeezing the lever to make the
pump run.
Absent minded is absent minded. At mini-serve, someone who drives
away with the nozzle still in the tank is not only driving away with
the nozzle in the tank, they're driving away without paying.
Peace and justice,
"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307021319450.25602-100000@no-spam
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, gatt wrote:
>
> > "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> > > I'm thinking that leaving the gas pumping with just no one around
> > > is not the safest practice.
>
> > That's what happens when Jose the gas jockey is running around between
pump
> > 1 and pump 8 all day long.
>
> Yeah, but Jose is at least -there-, not inside getting a burrito.
>
> And, if he's bouncing between pump one and pump eight, there
> are likely serveral motorists there as well - 'cept at an Arco
> Station where they're all lined up inside to pay.
>
> My scenario involves the lone motorist who pulls in at 10:30
> on a cold night and retires to the interior for warmth and a
> bit of serious burrito shopping. Meanwhile, the hose falls
> out or the automatic shut off malfunctions.
>
> I'm guessing Jose notices the problem some considerably
> sooner than our burrito shopper.
On such a night, Jose, as you stereotype it, is probably inside as well.
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.
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
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> > Another "screw 'em" comment. I can just hear Bill
> > telling Rosa parks that she was "farting in the wind".
> >
> > That would be just as funny as when Thompson used
> > to defend the act of arresting her without guilt.
> Actually, it was worse than that - he also said he
> would have participated in the arrest, relocation,
> and property auctions of Japanese-Americans
> in 1942 if only to honor his "oath".
------------------------------------------
I should have pointed out that the Thompson
referred to was *Mike* Thompson, not the
Dave of more recent times. Mike was an
ex-cop or something and believed in
enforcing every law no matter how unjust
or cruel they are. I dug up a post which
included references to the above cases
and still find it amusing to see
Mike Thompson painting himself into
a corner and getting so embarrassed
over it that he got mad and spewed
expletives. For some newer people,
here it is:
_____________________________
Hello everybody. I was doubted a few weeks back
when I said that someone on this list admitted that
he was glad Rosa Parks was arrested, if only to
avoid having selective law enforcement. I then replied:
> > 'Twas Mike Thompson who did the dirty deed.
> > He also admitted that he'd participate in rounding up
> > Japanese Americans in 1942, if "ordered", and taking them
> > to camps and helping to auction off their homes and farms.
> > Yes, 'twas Mike Thompson.
Mike himself read this and wrote:
> Bob T., you dirty pathetic lying fuck. I never said I would help
> to auction off anyone's homes or farms. I did not say I would have
> participated in such an action. If you remember, we were talking
> about orders, legal and illegal, and you made the leap that, since
> I support legal orders, I would have done all that you say.
> Please discontinue posting this obfuscation of the facts, Bob.
> This is untrue and makes you look slimier and more spineless than
> you already do.....
> Mike
I then found the post in which I based my claim:
>From mthomps@no-spam Tue Sep 16 21:22:53 1997
> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:05:21 -0700
> From: Mike <mthomps@no-spam>
> Newsgroups: or.politics
> Subject: Re: " The Framers and Rosa Parks
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> > Good example we all too often forget. I wonder what Mike thinks of
> > that sad episode in American history? And Mike, what would you do
> > if you were around back then and ordered to either round them up,
> > or conduct an auctioning off of a lot of their farms?
> >
> > Bob T.
> Oh, I'd probably do what I swore and took an oath to do, whatever that
> might be. Might not like it, but I consider myself a man of my word who
> follows through with his promises and contracts. Too bad you're such a
> cowardly invertebrate to not do the same.
> I continue to pity you.
"And Mike, what would you do if you were around back then
and ordered to either round them up, or conduct an auctioning
off of a lot of their farms?"
> Oh, I'd probably do what I swore and took an oath to do, whatever that
> might be. Might not like it, but I consider myself a man of my word who
> follows through with his promises and contracts. Too bad you're such a
> cowardly invertebrate to not do the same.
> I continue to pity you.
Confronted with this, Mike then replied with:
> Within the context of legal orders, I would do what I am
> obligated to do. If such an order is legal, that is what I
> would do. ...... Bob, where does it say that I would auction
> off farms? Where does it say that I would auction off homes?
Well, perhaps you hadn't read my message carefully, and
foolishly answered in the affirmative.
I had asked:
"And Mike, what would you do if you were around back then
and ordered to either round them up, or conduct an auctioning
off of a lot of their farms?"
And you replied:
"Oh, I'd probably do what I swore and took an oath to do,
whatever that might be. Might not like it...."
Sounds like you admitted that you would, for whatever
reason you care to explain.
Since then, Mike has tried to talk about "legal" vs.
"illegal" orders:
> If such an auction was illegal, I would not do it.
Which makes my point, namely, that it's a pity that
American government agents, whether soldier, sailor,
FBI agent, BATF agent, armed US Forest Service agent,
armed IRS agent, or whatever, have done and still do
terrible things even if they are deemed "legal", which
means absolutely nothing except that they are "legal".
Perhaps things like the Japanese-American camps won't
happen again due to civil disobedience on the part of
soldiers or cops who refuse to participate, but I'll
bet that the government will always find some who
will do this sort of work.
Mike added:
> However, to expect me to know if such an action was legal
> in 1940's California is beyond my knowledge or my care. Do you
> know if such an action was legal in 1940's California?
> Remember, I'm asking legal, not "moral" or "right" or "correct"
> or any other spin term you will put on it.
I don't know if it was "legal" at the time, but two years
later the Supreme Court (or *A* Supreme Court) rubber-stamped
this travesty (by a government supposedly fighting for freedom
and justice for all) in Korematsu v. United States. Some
people, like Feldman, believe that a law or whatever is
Constitutional from the start until declared otherwise
(if ever). Since it's expected for laws or Executive
directives to be carried out in the meantime, I do not see
how anyone looking for an excuse to not participate in
this travesty could have used anything other than the
moral or conscience reason. If, back then, soldiers
and other armed government agents were taught all
about their right to disobey "illegal" orders, what
makes you think that this one would be so considered?
If a Supreme Court ruling, or a President using some
"possible" powers of executive orders, adds "legality"
to such a travesty as this Japanese-American episode, then
I can safely assume that these deportations would have
been carried out even if your so-called training on
what's legal or not was around back then. And that's
my point. This is America, and we should not have to
rely on some Pentagon guidebook to help soldiers
recognize an illegal order from a legal order, but
instead rely on the consciences of those involved,
and their ability to recognize an unAmerican act
such as deporting Japanese-Americans to camps and
selling off their property while they're locked up.
Being raised in America alone should have been
enough, but the fact that it wasn't is proof that
it may be a lot easier than you think for the
government to get armed agents to do some really
nasty things to some of our fellow citizens, tho'
you seem unconcerned about this. In conclusion,
I'm disturbed that when faced with some nasty
orders, agents will have to check a book before
proceeding to either carry it out or refuse to
do what's ordered of them. I prefer those who
know what's wrong right away without even looking
at the book, or trying to recall what was said
to them about what's legal and illegal. Take a
look at all those Soviet soldiers who refused to
fire on their own people some years ago now. No
guidebook was needed.
If you want your modern example, try Waco. Or
any of those midnight raids looking for plants.
These were the cases that led to this discussion.
Finally, you add:
> Again, you're trying to interchange legal with moral to fit
> your own arguments. I'm on to you.
And I'm on to YOU, buddy.
> > PS - Mike, comin' to lunch soon?
> I was there last Friday. Where were you?
>
> Mike
I don't make those that aren't along Macadam at all.
But you must come to those more often so we can
talk of other things before this all deteriorates
beyond repair. And don't sit at the far end of the
table from me again.
Bob T.
CLW wrote:
> "Dave Thompson" wrote:
> > 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.
> My last time pumping my own gas (in Vancouver on Fourth Plain) there
> was no "latch". I looked at the other pumps and they did not have
> them either. I asked the money taker (inside) why and she did
> not know, but a guy in line to pay after me said that they wanted
> people holding the spigot to speed up the process.
Charlie, this is all the more reason we need to
go to self-serve as soon as possible -- so you
and others can *get used to doing this* . It
will become second nature before too long
and you'll then wonder why there was ever a
big deal about this.
Bob Tiernan
NOW is able to overlook wife-beating
and murder in the case of someone who's
a role model for young black men and the
sexual exploitation of subordinates in
the case of someone who can help the
organization politically and financially.
-- Tammy Bruce
Past President
Now (Los Angeles Chapter)
CLW wrote:
> "Dave Thompson" wrote:
> > 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.
> If this move to self serv gets off the ground (ie, onto
> the ballot) you will get your chance to choose the method
> you want.
Nonsense, Charlie. A "one-size-fits-all" choice
is hardly the stuff of personal choice. Don't
you get it, yet?
Bob T
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > The pro-ban people don't want to admit
> > that they have no more of a right to
> > dictate this sort of service anymore
> > than they do the quality of silverware
> > at restaurants.
> How about the quality of the kitchen? Want to
> defend property rights to the extent of salmonella
> or botulism? What about fire exits and sprinkler
> systems? There are a whole bunch of things which
> are regulated and could be construed to be the
> right of the property owner.
Apples, oranges, bananas and watermelons.
There was a reason why I chose "quality of
the silverware" as an example, and could have
easily substituted "choosing round tables
instead of square ones".
Hard to argue that banning self serve is
akin to demanding that a restaurant
wash its dishes after use, and clean
the ovens periodically. The fact that
48 states have self serve, and in the
remaining two there are thousands of
employees (no smarter than anyone else)
who engage in the pumping activity
that the consumer is barred from doing,
makes these comparison absurd and
worthless. If they weren't, you'd see
laws allowing some restaurants to be
dirty and germ-ridden while others can't.
Pumping gas is not akin to serving food
found in a dumpster, or on dishes
that weren't washed.
Bob Tiernan
NOW is able to overlook wife-beating
and murder in the case of someone who's
a role model for young black men and the
sexual exploitation of subordinates in
the case of someone who can help the
organization politically and financially.
-- Tammy Bruce
Past President
Now (Los Angeles Chapter)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:53:32 -0700, Baxter <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
>> Which one is it?
>>
> Why should I tell *you*, asshole?
Which one is it? Your credability is hurting. Here's a chance to
keep it from getting worse.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/BBSIJ5vLSqVpK2kRAuI9AKCvx36qOzMQS/5Wqm9p3mzvl6HF1gCg3XCo
F3htMo3xWVnJjRF1xRBjqp4=
=g4ld
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The 2 Jul 2003 10:07:38 -0700, cardboard <cardboard@no-spam> wrote:
> I've seen a person drive away with the nozzle still in the car. It's
> a bit harder for that to happen when you're out of the car pumping gas.
I've seen that several times. A few took the nozzle with them in LA,
saw one dragging the hose along behind it in Tacoma on I-705. Never
seen it in Oregon, but then again, all you've gotta do is listen for
the guy and watch your mirror. Personally, I think driving off with
the nozzle is one of those things so stupid that for everyone else's
safety you should get your license suspended for a while for.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/BBaXJ5vLSqVpK2kRAlALAJ9iqfNGSAzcWwCGkrd6zvdio4yLYgCdEL5z
gyK3k5ZKkKvzO5/0XotATaA=
=pf0i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Wed, 2 Jul 2003 22:42:10 -0700, WinGuru <anonymous> wrote:
>> I'm guessing Jose notices the problem some considerably
>> sooner than our burrito shopper.
>
> On such a night, Jose, as you stereotype it, is probably inside as well.
Except for the few minutes he's outside pumping gas while the motorist
is in getting a burrito. I've never seen the attendants leave the
pumping lanes for more than a few seconds, a minute tops, while pumps
are running.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/BClxJ5vLSqVpK2kRAkgrAJ9+T4AZQYPkkqa007eN89pqNs9wLQCeMtLG
sAWfrgBEf3t3k5lN9kyu29k=
=185+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In article
<Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307022340560.13611@no-spam>,
Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote:
> 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.
They may be too meek or disorganized to ask properly. Or, most
probably, those states do not the I&R option that Oregon has.
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vg7cm1b7ep9l2b@no-spam
>
>
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vg7bq6euejn267@no-spam
> > --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:vg6u2fipjm8i28@no-spam
> > >
> > >
>
> You could show me up by telling us where those cheap gas stations are.
But then you would know where the weapons of mass destruction are and Baxter
would have to kill you.
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? That is the usual reason people will struggle with self serve.
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.
In article <vg8vpbdb9sp504@no-spam>,
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
> I've pumped gas plenty of times in both cities. I've never had a wait like
> you describe. Besides, Portland is no Los Angeles or Seattle. Since the
> Arcos here acording to you are always crowded it's obvious that self-serve
> really has nothing to do with it.
There will always be a group that will choose the cheapest, even with
more inconvinence. Usually the young and broke.
In or.politics Baxter <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.
I just swipe my credit card through the reader on the gas pump, then fill
the tank. I never need to get more than a 10" away from my car. You
twits in Poortland need to get with the program. Of course, you probably
don't have a valid credit card...
--
"When the need arises, any tool or object closest to you becomes a hammer."
-- found on www.dsm.org
"Canada is like a loft apartment over a really great party" -- Robin Williams
In or.politics Baxter <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
>"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:vg6rueaagd8nf4@no-spam
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:vg6qp5ebvv7gaa@no-spam
>> > --
>> > >
>> > Nope. The station is usually among the lowest priced in the area.
>> They're
>> > simply efficient in getting the cars filled and 'out the door.'
>>
>> Which one is it?
>>
>Why should I tell *you*, asshole?
Because only an asshole such as you, BaxBrat would fail to provide that
info and have to advertise free crapware you tried to write.
--
"When the need arises, any tool or object closest to you becomes a hammer."
-- found on www.dsm.org
"Canada is like a loft apartment over a really great party" -- Robin Williams
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:33:54 -0700, clw@no-spam wrote:
> Fine, Dave, but what was the price differential between full and self
> serve?
That's not a good comparison. What is the difference between self and
*mini* serve? Full serve does cost more, because they do things like
clean your windows, check your oil, put air in the tires, check your
lights, etc and really does consume enough staff time to justify
higher prices. Mini serve, they just cram the nozzle in and call it
good, and they got to have someone manning the gas station anyway so
it's not like there's a difference. Self serve they don't even go
that far.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/BOYZJ5vLSqVpK2kRAo/xAJ4oX/hbsu83LVhLJNzq8Hodmk1yOgCgn6Jl
IU2DAbRa0sK05q4FGeJjGrc=
=OkSX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CLW wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > 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.
> They may be too meek or disorganized to ask properly.
> Or, most probably, those states do not have the I&R
> option that Oregon has.
C'mon, Chuck, what a bunch of nonsense. Give it
up. I really doubt that states like Massachusetts
have legislatures that are forcing self-serve on
their mostly non-conservative citizens. Gimme
a break. Tell ya what -- contact people in those
states and find out how some things are going
with self-serve, such as service for the handicapped,
and the aged. Somehow it's being dealt with. If
real problems existed, I'm sure their mostly
non-conservative populations would be demanding
changes up to and including banning station
owners' freedom to offer self-serve.
Bob Tiernan
"NOW is able to overlook wife-beating
and murder in the case of someone who's
a role model for young black men and the
sexual exploitation of subordinates in
the case of someone who can help the
organization politically and financially."
-- Tammy Bruce
Past President
Now (Los Angeles Chapter)
From: "The New Thought Police: Inside
the Left's Assault on Free Speech and
Free Minds"
Charlie wrote:
> Dave Thompson wrote:
> > I've pumped gas plenty of times in both cities. I've
> > never had a wait like you describe. Besides, Portland
> > is no Los Angeles or Seattle. Since the Arcos here
> > according to you are always crowded it's obvious that
> > self-serve really has nothing to do with it.
> There will always be a group that will choose the cheapest,
> even with more inconvinence. Usually the young and broke.
See, it isn't that hard to get used to it. I bet if
they start making a few more bucks they'd still
use self serve.
Bob t
In article <vgbg5ffqkrrh39@no-spam>,
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vgb83bicklk52d@no-spam
> > --
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307040323050.28297@no-spam
> > >
> > > Charlie wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Fine, Dave, but what was the price differential between
> > > > full and self serve? That is the usual reason people
> > > > will struggle with self serve. Om Pasadena, CA it is
> > > > about 50 cents per gallon.
> > >
> > >
> > > So much for curtis' claim that having a guy
> > > pump it for you is "free".
> >
> > Doesn't disprove curtis' claim at all. Just because the gas station
> charges
> > 50 cents per gallon to pump it doesn't mean it cost that much to provide
> > that service.
>
> It's called "profit". Do you work for free?
>
>
Considering that the pump jockies are minimum wage employees, they could
make their hours wage with one ten gallon two minute fillup. Every
other car would be pure profit for the station/oil company.
The point is that such a charge is exhorbitant. And, I am mildly
surprized that they do not make self serv more difficult to push people
into the full serv lanes.
CLW wrote:
> Considering that the pump jockies are minimum wage
> employees, they could make their hours wage with
> one ten gallon two minute fillup. Every other
> car would be pure profit for the station/oil company.
Well, not really. You forget the other costs to
a business per each employee. The costs that
are not seen in the paycheck. Further proof that
far too many people don't realize the real cost
per hour of an employee.
[snip]
> And, I am mildly surprized that they do not make
> self serv more difficult to push people into the
> full serv lanes.
You're suprised only because you go into
the debate with a very skewed view of
the issue.
Bob t
there he goes again...learn some frickin manners
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vgbpi6e5jvfd53@no-spam
>
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vgbojr3pn8l1cb@no-spam
> > --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:vgbg5ffqkrrh39@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:vgb83bicklk52d@no-spam
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in
message
> > > > news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307040323050.28297@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > Charlie wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Fine, Dave, but what was the price differential between
> > > > > > full and self serve? That is the usual reason people
> > > > > > will struggle with self serve. Om Pasadena, CA it is
> > > > > > about 50 cents per gallon.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So much for curtis' claim that having a guy
> > > > > pump it for you is "free".
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't disprove curtis' claim at all. Just because the gas station
> > > charges
> > > > 50 cents per gallon to pump it doesn't mean it cost that much to
> provide
> > > > that service.
> > >
> > > It's called "profit". Do you work for free?
> > >
> > So, basically you're undermining your own argument about how self-serve
> > would be cheaper.
>
> And you are showing what an idiot you are.
>
> Are you unaware that gas stations are a "for profit" business? And just
how
> does pointing out that owners profit on the labor of their attendants
> undermine the argument that self-serve would be cheaper? Here's a clue for
> you. Self-serve doesn't require an attendant.
>
>
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Dave Thompson wrote:
>
>
> "John" <jawod@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3f07975b$0$88050$a0465688@no-spam
> > there he goes again...learn some frickin manners
>
> Let's try this one more time. Maybe you can address the post rather than
> dodging it.
>
> > > So, basically you're undermining your own argument about how self-serve
> > > would be cheaper.
>
> > And you are showing what an idiot you are.
> >
> > Are you unaware that gas stations are a "for profit" business? And just
> how
> > does pointing out that owners profit on the labor of their attendants
> > undermine the argument that self-serve would be cheaper? Here's a clue for
> > you. Self-serve doesn't require an attendant.
>
> Go ahead. Try to make some sense.
>
Here's an honest question for you; I don't know the answer. But are
there any requirements in other states that attendants be available
for handicapped customers? Or in case of emergency, etc? I'm thinking
of the time I was at the station and the hose in the car in front
of me flopped out and flooded the place with gas. The pump wouldn't
switch off.
Joni Rathbun wrote:
> Here's an honest question for you; I don't know the answer. But are
> there any requirements in other states that attendants be available
> for handicapped customers?
This is what I've been asking opponents to do since we've
been discussing this going back a few years. My point
was that instead of opponents making up stuff or imagining
that seniors and handicapped people are sitting in their cars
for days and weeks waiting to get served (or are never
served at all), they should use their head and realize
that in the 48 states with choice (including many states
with majorities of the so-called caring Democrats)
they *must* have resolved these matters long ago.
Find out what they do there, and the opponents will
have less to play chicken little over. They'll
be left with just that "tradition" argument that
is totally worthless.
Bob T
"Paul Johnson" <baloo@no-spam> wrote in message ne
> > 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.
Seems to me there's as likely to be a "pay inside" sign as not.
I like the stations in eastern Washington...there's no