Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Musical Interpretation on the Internet Petition

Author
Message
Underworld 1020
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Mar 2004
Location: NY, USA
Posted: 13th Aug 2006 11:29 Edited at: 13th Aug 2006 11:52
I am NOT looking for a debate here, I'm just putting it out there...

Many tablature and musical interpretation websites have been shuting down because they have been receiving all kinds of threats from the Music Publishers' Association. I choose to support tablature and musical interpretation websites, therefore I have signed a petition directed at the MPA to stop making these threats. And if you too want to support these kinds of sites, I suggest you also sign the petition at:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mioti/petition.html

Quote: "To: Music Publishers' Association

We the Undersigned hereby formally petition the Music Publishers' Association (MPA) of the United States of America on behalf of musicians across the globe regarding the MPA's decision to take legal action against guitar, bass, and other tablature and musical interpretation websites. We believe that interpretation of copyrighted musical scores does not constitute copyright infringement as the interpretations are the sole property of the interpretor. Furthermore, we believe that the ability of any musician with access to the Internet to view and download these interpretations is essential to the vitality of the music industry as well as paramount to the spirit of the music itself. On these grounds we urge the MPA to reconsider its decision to take legal action against websites hosting the aforementioned interpretations.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned"


Quote: "14870 Total Signatures"



[href]http://www.michaelstaertow.com/[href]
[href]http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/staertow/from/starpolish[href]
Saikoro
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2003
Location: California
Posted: 13th Aug 2006 12:05
As much as I agree with you:
1. Theres already a thread about this and
2. It is technically illegal to have exact tablature... although some interpretations are so far off that they are legal and still being taken down.


Wiggett
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st May 2003
Location: Australia
Posted: 13th Aug 2006 12:29
wow 14k isn't much for an internet petition.

Syndicate remastered: Corporate persuasion through urban violence.
Underworld 1020
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Mar 2004
Location: NY, USA
Posted: 13th Aug 2006 12:33 Edited at: 13th Aug 2006 12:37
@Saikoro

I didn't realize there was a thread on the MPA already, BUT the thread that I think you're refering to, doesn't mention anything about this petition. And yes, exact tablature is illegal, but people's own interpretations are not and by signing the petition we can keep it that way.

@Wiggett

I guess that means we need more people to sign it then, right? .


[href]http://www.michaelstaertow.com/[href]
[href]http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/staertow/from/starpolish[href]
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 13th Aug 2006 12:47
Quote: "but people's own interpretations are not and by signing the petition we can keep it that way."


Not trying to move a debate into this thread, but if you look at your own quote above they use the word "we believe" when referring to legality of individual transcriptions. Regardless of what key, mode, transferring guitar to clarinet, or inacuracies are in the Tab they are illegal. They are not changing this to be illegal it already is and they have just not been enforcing it.

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Underworld 1020
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Mar 2004
Location: NY, USA
Posted: 13th Aug 2006 13:11 Edited at: 13th Aug 2006 13:13
@Hobgoblin Lord

You may be right, but either way by signing we help support tablature websites, that help us. Those websites are generating more new guitarists every day simply because musicians finally have somewhere to go when the need some help. My point is simple, if you want to support tab sites, then here's you're chance:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mioti/petition.html

And if sharing your own intrepetations on a piece of music is illegal, then I guess guitar teachers are in some serious trouble...


[href]http://www.michaelstaertow.com/[href]
[href]http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/staertow/from/starpolish[href]
Saikoro
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2003
Location: California
Posted: 13th Aug 2006 13:40
Quote: "Regardless of what key, mode, transferring guitar to clarinet, or inacuracies are in the Tab they are illegal. They are not changing this to be illegal it already is and they have just not been enforcing it."

Hate to tell you you're wrong, but you're wrong. If it's innacurate enough, it isn't illegal anymore.


indi
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 13th Aug 2006 14:50 Edited at: 13th Aug 2006 15:26
the usa sounds like a yukky place to be.
we have different laws in australia regarding copyright material.
we have an abridged form of the westminster system.
if you want to get keyed up heres the link
http://www.copyright.org.au/

and more specific

OZ music & performing arts copyright
litigious dasdards is all i can say for these "companies" (I doubt they do things for free even if they say they are an org) that are trying to prevent tabulator sites.

a website can always be moved offshore.

think of the goodies with a walk in the black forest

Kevin Picone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posted: 13th Aug 2006 15:04 Edited at: 13th Aug 2006 15:09
If deriving a work from another is plagiarism, and it is. They don't have leg to stand on.

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 00:37
And--- online petitions do *what*, exactly? Nothing.


"I understand creative people. After all, I worked with towel designers." - Ray Kassar, former head of Atari
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 00:44
Quote: "And--- online petitions do *what*, exactly? Nothing."


I suppose it is better than doing nothing at all.

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 00:53
How so?

As if the RIAA will change their ways because of some internet petition that doesn't consist of real names anyways

The rule that "something is better than nothing" is not always true.


"I understand creative people. After all, I worked with towel designers." - Ray Kassar, former head of Atari
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 01:05
I'm with Jeku here. Example: If I released a game and it contained content that you guys didn't like, and you went around and had an internet petition signed to get me to stop making the game, I probably wouldn't even pay attention to it. Well, bad example, because in this case I'd probably spin the petition into a media web to boost sales lol. Point is, I seriously don't think this will accomplish anything. At best it might raise awareness, but the MPA won't take it seriously. It'll have about the same effect as a "meat is murder" protest. I'm on your side here, too... tabs are used to teach and I don't think I've ever known of a single person in history who has ever made any degree of money off of something that anyone with more than a year's worth of guitar-playing experience could do for free. But at the end of the day the law is on their side. I agree with Dave also though in that at least you're making an effort, and that's usually better than rolling over to "assume the position." But plan out your battle better


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 01:12
Yah, if you want to make a difference then get 20,000 people together and march--- make sure all of the cable stations are reporting it.


"I understand creative people. After all, I worked with towel designers." - Ray Kassar, former head of Atari
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 01:27
A good speech always helps too. Try opening it like this:

I have a dream! That guitar players can visit websites and rip of cheesy Pantera songs using power chord tabs! I have a dream! That Stairway to Heaven won't get us kicked out of music stores! I have a dream! That the RIAA won't think we're stealing from them every time we use midi sequencers!

And continue from there.


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Megaton Cat
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 01:32 Edited at: 14th Aug 2006 01:34
Quote: "The rule that "something is better than nothing" is not always true."


So damn true. It's often better sticking with nothing then going out of your way and acting like a fool just to get a little "something".

That's like telling all homeless women to become prostitutes and earn money because it's "better then nothing". It just doesn't always do the trick.

I am not saying this petition is futile, but since when do any big-names care about petitions?
Underworld 1020
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Mar 2004
Location: NY, USA
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 07:30 Edited at: 14th Aug 2006 07:34
This petition can't make the MPA do anything, but what it can do is make them think twice about their actions. Let's say we got a over a million people to sign, which I doubt will happen because most people would rather just bend over for 'em, but if we did you don't think they would even consider the consequences? What if those million people decided not to have anything to do with tab or songbooks anymore? What if those million stop buying cds and other merchandise?

My point is why not give it a shot? Is it really that hard to type your name in? Well, i guess if you have a really long name it may be a pain, but just give it a shot man, you have nothing to loose.

And I believe that everyone should sign this thing, even if you don't use tabs. First their going to take away the torrent sites, then the tab sites, then the TGC fourms for posting remakes and clones of copyrighted material, then the porn sites because it's offensive, then their going to ban certain music from satelite radio just like they did to the AM/FM channels, then their going bust in your house and arrest you for taping your favorite tv show.

It will be one thing after the next, I don't understand how people can just let them do whatever they want and not even try to fight back. I can't even smoke in the bar, because the drunks might get lung cancer, hell I can't even take my seat belt off anymore because if I fly out the window I might hurt someone else walking on the street or crap like that

This sums it up pretty well:

Quote: "First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."


Update:

Quote: "14882 Total Signatures"



[href]http://www.michaelstaertow.com/[href]
[href]http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/staertow/from/starpolish[href]
Saikoro
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2003
Location: California
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 08:02
Well, I agree with you on one thing at least: that the amount of signatures you just posted is indeed an update.

The people lost control over the government long ago. We can't give up the fight, because there is no fight, and if there were, it would be pointless. Big business might know deep down that there is something very morally wrong with what they're doing, but the fat check at the end of every day kills any motions they might have from that.


Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 08:48
Quote: "First their going to take away the torrent sites"


Yah, and there's a reason for that

Quote: "I can't even smoke in the bar, because the drunks might get lung cancer"


No, it's for the staff.

Keep so-called "fighting the system" all you want, but an Internet petition is just dumb. Sorry to be blunt, but so much on the Internet can be faked. It *might* actually mean something if you had people's real signatures on paper.

There are signatures on there from people with names like "J4M32" and "". Nobody takes online petitions seriously, dude


"I understand creative people. After all, I worked with towel designers." - Ray Kassar, former head of Atari
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 12:35
Quote: "No, it's for the staff. "

I already know I'm walking into a firestorm on this, and I don't care. Being a bartender and saying you don't want to smell cigarette smoke is THE SAME as being a proctologist and saying you don't want to smell hiney-fume all day. Either deal with it, or get a new job. Period. There are far more dangerous jobs out there than one that puts you around cigarette smoke (which may or may not give you cancer, it's a 50/50 chance), and it's not like you can't go out and find a different job. And in the case of New York, it was a petition that landed moron Bloomberg his new smoking ban, and of course Pataki ate it up, and because 400 people didn't like cigarette smoke those of us who smoke were driven out of the bars (and bars were driven out of business... LOTS of bars). And I don't care what anyone thinks about cigarette smoke, that's just DEE DEE DEE. I don't want to look at fat people anymore... so let's ban cake. I don't like the smell of some cheese, so let's ban cheese. Or here's one for you: I don't like the smell of car exaust, AND it's harmful to my body, AND it's harmful to the planet, so let's ban cars


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 12:55
Quote: "No, it's for the staff."


No it's for political gain. There are no options here, at least in my state. I go to a corner bar owned and operated by my friend John and his brother who both smoke. There is no other staff, he owns the building and he can not smoke in his own building, there is no staff to "protect". He tried to get classified as a Cigar bar but here you need to generate 50% of your revenue from tobacco to get that classification (basically need to sell a pack of cigarretts for every two beers you sell) which is an insane standard. SO now he just lets people smoke and says "Hell, let them fine me I want to go to court." Now in Mass we have ridiculous enforcement of these laws, the Store 24(basically a 7-11) next to me got fined because they did not check the ID of a 25 year old, a person more than old enough to smoke, because they, as determined by the tobbacco officer not the employee, did not look 18. I can understand that an employee has the right not to be subjected to second hand smoke, which has NEVER been proven to cause anything it is all speculation, but if you have no employees you should damn well be allowed to smoke in your place of buisness. Customers have an option, go somewhere else.

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 13:31 Edited at: 14th Aug 2006 13:37
Oh yeah, forgot about that. There has never been a credible study conducted on second hand smoke that has proven that it can cause cancer. And the best part, now that smoking has been made evil, the american cancer society is going after red meat. Fact is, there are a lot of places where you can get cancer, alot of things even more likely to cause cancer than cigarettes, and at the end of the day, it all comes down to people not liking the smell of cigarettes. Well too bad. A restaurant just opened nearby that has a "cigar room" and it's one of the first in NY state, and business is booming for them because of it. Pataki should pay attention to public interest.

Oh, and before someone says "smoking bans don't kill businesses," and I'm sure someone will, here's a list of businesses that have gone under thanks to smoking bans across the nation. For every employee that hates being around cigarette smoke, at least 3 have lost their jobs because the businesses they worked for were shut down as a result of customers not wanting to come in anymore. The law sucks, the people who support it are selfish jerks, there's no two ways around it




"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 15:00
Quote: "Gold Mine Restaraunt Bar/Restaraunt 50% 50% 2 Fall River MA
"There should be places for both the smoker and nonsmoker. I do not smoke but you are killing our business!!! " "


This was right next to the place I go, literally 30 feet, They are out of buisness now, two others have tried to open there, a regular bar and a hip hop club both lasted less then 6 months. The Gold Mine or Casablanca as it was 15 years ago, had been there forever and was always packed especially on Karoke nights, a band I was in used to practice in their back room and play twice a week. The last time I went in was during a Patriots playoff game, a time they were usually jammed so tight you felt like you were in a Mosh Pit and there were less then a dozen people there and that included the bartender, the owner who laid out a bunch of free food to bring people in and some of the owners family, sad really. I think someone is trying to open it again now looks like construction.

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
indi
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 15:04
i used to run night club bars in my 20's and yeah the smoke was bad but the perks were insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111.

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 22:30
Well, speaking as someone whose mother was a waitress for several decades and has long-term symptoms to second hand smoke, I say shut it. If you can't have a meal or a drink for half an hour without a smoke break, then that's your own choice. Plus, the doors are so close, just step outside to have a smoke.

I don't know how it is in the US, but in my province they banned smoking from all restaurants INDOORS since 2000, and it has been heaven. When I visit with my sister we sit outside and eat so she can smoke--- if I'm with my wife who is ALLERGIC to cigarette smoke, we eat inside. That's the best of both worlds IMHO.


"I understand creative people. After all, I worked with towel designers." - Ray Kassar, former head of Atari
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 22:45
Quote: "I don't know how it is in the US, but in my province they banned smoking from all restaurants INDOORS since 2000, and it has been heaven. When I visit with my sister we sit outside and eat so she can smoke--- if I'm with my wife who is ALLERGIC to cigarette smoke, we eat inside. That's the best of both worlds IMHO."


Nice in the summer awful in the winter and alot of places dont have the option of outdoor tables so you get a gang of people blocking the sidewalk outside. The thing is the owner should have the right to determine if he wants his establishment to be smoke free or not. Customers and employees can go elsewhere if they don't like it. Another bar/grill near me, Fatso's, went smoke free years before the ban and they did really well as one of the few such establishments. It comes down to the money the politicians got from insurance company lobbyists to pass such a ban.

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 15th Aug 2006 12:42
A restaurant I can understand, that's different... people go there to eat. But banning smoking in a bar? What's next, music and dancing? (sorry, had to quote Eddie Izzard there). A bartender complaining about cigarette smoke is one huge dee-dee-dee. Someone in a restaurant, I can understand that... but if you said she worked in a bar and reacted that way I'd be forced to argue.

Quote: "Nice in the summer awful in the winter and alot of places dont have the option of outdoor tables so you get a gang of people blocking the sidewalk outside. "

It's hilarious. In NY the law is 15 feet from the door, but no one does it. And people walk through a huge cloud of smoke every time they enter the bar, then they complain about having to walk through it. Well too bad, the law sucks, drink at home. Call the police... they'll just laugh at you Sue me and I'll pull a mcdonald's hot cup of coffee counter-sue If they're going to make a rediculous law about smoking in bars, us smokers will make it as uncomfortable as humanly possible for them

Again, restaurants I can understand... and who wants to smell cigarette smoke while eating anyway. Airports I can understand to a degree, but here's an idea: GIVE US A PATIO. Seriously, if you're a non-smoker and you can deal with cigarette smoke for 3 minutes, go into those little smoking rooms in an airport the next time you're flying around. Sit there for 3 minutes. You feel like a circus act. Like people are walking by and staring at you in your little yellow room through huge glass windows. Kids are pointing and their parents are giving funny looks. I swear, the next time I'm in an airport and some jerk walks by googly-eying us smokers like we're in a zoo, I'm going to fling poop at them monkey-style. That'll teach 'em! We shouldn't be made to look like jerks... we're the same as everyone else, we just have a habit that some people don't like. At least give us an outdoor patio and make it look decent. Some people are addicted to prescription drugs (most of which they don't need: restless leg syndrome my ___)... so lets group those idiots into a room and make them feel stupid


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Saikoro
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2003
Location: California
Posted: 15th Aug 2006 13:14
Quote: "What's next, music and dancing? (sorry, had to quote Eddie Izzard there)."

No, its no drinking and no talking, haha.


Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 15th Aug 2006 13:17
Let me just ask a simple question. Are the "Undersigned" Musicians? Are they in any way affected by this poll besides the fact that they are downloading these songs so they don't pay for the real ones? The answer is no, it is like getting a petition to get nominated for public office and having 6 year olds sign it, their signatures do not count.

Besides, it is copyright infringment anyways and the MPA has the total right to take down those sites. Why is it copyright infringment? Because the SOUND is their property, not the score, the SOUND. There have been suits over songs that sounded too similar, I can't say on the ruling but they do exist.

Now besides that fact, what do you have to SUPPORT tabs. Give



Quote: "For every employee that hates being around cigarette smoke, at least 3 have lost their jobs because the businesses they worked for were shut down as a result of customers not wanting to come in anymore. "

Source. That is bull and you know it, if so many people lost their jobs due to the smoking ban then this would be a poverty nation.

Quote: "There has never been a credible study conducted on second hand smoke that has proven that it can cause cancer."

Quote: "The law sucks, the people who support it are selfish jerks, there's no two ways around it "


Has there been a study proving that second hand smoke DOES NOT exist? What is more selfish, punishing those who punish themselves or saving those who wish to live in peace? If you want to have a 'credible study' try finding an asthmatic and blowing smoke in his face, unless fully stabilized by the meds...


Finally, because people are use to an idea they conform to that idea and protect it. There is no reason you should treat bars any differently then restaurants, on top of that, you are 'smoking' around flamable material, MORE reason why you shouldn't smoke in a bar. Finally, bars are crowed places, if you are going to get secondhand smoke anywhere it will be in a bar.

Your Mod was deleted by the Government.
Saikoro
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2003
Location: California
Posted: 15th Aug 2006 13:18
Quote: "Let me just ask a simple question. Are the "Undersigned" Musicians? Are they in any way affected by this poll besides the fact that they are downloading these songs so they don't pay for the real ones? The answer is no, it is like getting a petition to get nominated for public office and having 6 year olds sign it, their signatures do not count."

Haha, do you even know what a tab is, merranvo?


Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 15th Aug 2006 13:33 Edited at: 15th Aug 2006 13:33
From what I read, it is a musical interpretation of a copyrighted song.

What I implied was that the people SIGNING the petition were not 'tabers' but people who download the tab. Personally interpret all you want, that isn't illegal. The Distribution of it is what appears to be illegal, and in that aspect, tabbers really aren't affected, their interpretation will just have to be heard locally.

Your Mod was deleted by the Government.
Saikoro
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2003
Location: California
Posted: 15th Aug 2006 13:39
Here is a tab. Have fun with this in your iPod.

http://www.guitaretab.com/m/metallica/11887.html


Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 15th Aug 2006 15:53
Quote: "There is no reason you should treat bars any differently then restaurants, on top of that, you are 'smoking' around flamable material, MORE reason why you shouldn't smoke in a bar. Finally, bars are crowed places, if you are going to get secondhand smoke anywhere it will be in a bar."


I can understand a seperation for another reason, people are all on protecting children and quite frankly you can expect to find kids in most restaurants, and unlike an adult they do not generally have a choice to just get up in leave, thats up to mom and dad. A child however should not be in a bar for any reason, and anyone who does not like smoke does not have to go to said establisment.

As for the quote in Matt's post, I have seen something similar in an article at one point, but I believe it was referring only to employees in bars and clubs who hated the smoke, not all employees as the quote seems to suggest. Makes sense to me anyway, I personally have not yet met a bartender who does not smoke (Talking about small local bars not clubs) and as often there is only the bartender working we all get a nice 3 minute break from getting a drink while the bartender goes outside to have their smoke.

Quote: "Has there been a study proving that second hand smoke DOES NOT exist?"


Don't be a Yutz. No one said it does not exist, just that very often things are blown way out of proportion by the government or various agencies to get the result they want regardless of any actual facts in an attempt to form the populace into what they deem best. As for the asthmatic, you can also expose them to Pollen (Burn all the flowers quick), Perfume (We want women to smell like sweat not roses), Pet Hair (send all the pets to an underfed country and let them eat for a change), as well as thousands of other irritants.

Quote: "There have been suits over songs that sounded too similar, I can't say on the ruling but they do exist."


However sounding similar is not the standard used to prove infringment, the scores will be broken down and compared mathmatically by an "Expert" and that generally pulls the greatest weight.

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 15th Aug 2006 22:28
Quote: "The law sucks, the people who support it are selfish jerks, there's no two ways around it"


Way to go all extreme again, Matt. You are really something. I guess I'm a selfish jerk for supporting a public smoking ban--- as opposed to the selfish jerks who want to blow smoke in my face rather than have a meal without smoking every 15 minutes.


"I understand creative people. After all, I worked with towel designers." - Ray Kassar, former head of Atari
Megaton Cat
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posted: 15th Aug 2006 22:40 Edited at: 15th Aug 2006 22:42
Quote: "From what I read, it is a musical interpretation of a copyrighted song."


Lawl. Good ol' Merranvo jumping headfirst into a discussion having no clue what he's even stating an opinion on...

Quote: "
The law sucks, the people who support it are selfish jerks, there's no two ways around it"


Another lawl here.

Man I love this forum.
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 15th Aug 2006 23:06
Quote: "I guess I'm a selfish jerk for supporting a public smoking ban--- as opposed to the selfish jerks who want to blow smoke in my face rather than have a meal without smoking every 15 minutes."


Now I don't think people want to annoy you with smoke, if they do they are an ass. I just think a buisness owner should have the right to determine if they want to open a place that does allow smoking and let the customer and employee decide if they want to go there or not. Not sure how things are where you are, but here even private clubs, like the VFW, are included in the ban. I could not open up a meeting place for smokers as a buisness even if there are no employees and the only people allowed in are card carrying members of the club. To me this just seems to go to far.

Another step too far is places of buisness (Scott's for instance) that are firing all employees who smoke, not smoke on company property or company time, but at all including home. This is insane, hell if you have 12 or more employees in this country you can't fire someone for using crack (an illegal activity) under the ADA, but you can fire someone for doing something that is legal in their own darn home.

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Megaton Cat
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posted: 15th Aug 2006 23:15 Edited at: 15th Aug 2006 23:16
I think they fire employees who smoke on their own time because they don't want those potentially sick employees leeching the company's health benefits, rather then just doing it to be jerks.

Hell if I was the company, I wouldn't want my employees to choose such an unhealthy habbit and then have me paying for the consequences.
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 16th Aug 2006 00:40
Quote: " I just think a buisness owner should have the right to determine if they want to open a place that does allow smoking and let the customer and employee decide if they want to go there or not. "


The issue with that is the sad fact that places the owner in a dilemma, more people WILL come if you can smoke there, and there is no denying that, especially since there are few places here that allow indoor smoking.

Also, there are sadly few places that actually enclose the smoking section from the non-smoking section. That means that you are in the smoking section with or without being sitting there. It has been said that there are allergies to smoke, so it is more then just discomfort. The fact is that because this person is smoking it affects multiple people.

Think of it like a person pulling out a cold one in an AA meeting. True, it is your right to get drunk, but you are causing an effect to people who are trying to NOT get drunk. Or if you feel that is too different lets say that you refuse to bathe, the fragrance of smoke does not appeal to all such as the fragrance of an unclean body may be found repulsive.



As for scotts, that is just a bull crap movement set in to force people to make the smart choice and quit. I mean, everything I've been taught about 'how smoking is evil' says that it does nothing but kill you, and that the feeling you get from lighting up a smoke is nothing more then alleviation of a chemical addiction. Telling people they can't work if they smoke basically means that they will quit and live longer. Be happy for the movement, but I agree thatit is wrong.

Your Mod was deleted by the Government.
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 16th Aug 2006 00:57 Edited at: 16th Aug 2006 01:01
Quote: "No, its no drinking and no talking, haha."

Yep, you're right. I haven't seen it in a while, hehe

Quote: "Source. That is bull and you know it, if so many people lost their jobs due to the smoking ban then this would be a poverty nation."

The number of bars that have gone out of business is staggering. My brother and his girlfriend were both bartenders and they both lost their jobs when their pub went under because of this law. Go to the link I posted and read about all of the businesses that went under and/ or lost business as a direct result of this stupid law.

And Merranvo, before you open your mouth about tablature, know what it is. You obviously don't, so your opinions are invalid on the subject.

Quote: "Way to go all extreme again, Matt. You are really something. I guess I'm a selfish jerk for supporting a public smoking ban--- as opposed to the selfish jerks who want to blow smoke in my face rather than have a meal without smoking every 15 minutes."

Way to not read my post (as usual) Jake I agreed with you fully on restaurants. It's bars I have a problem with. Smoking should not be banned from bars, and it's rediculous that people could be that stupid about it. It's a bar. If you don't like the smell of shoes, don't walk into the shoe shop. Here's an idea for non-smokers who want to drink in a smoke-free environment: Drink at home, or better yet, open your OWN bar that doesn't allow smoking. Because for every person I've met who supports the law against smoking in bars, I've met 10 who think that person needs to grow up. It's a BAR. You're poisoning yourself with booze, but smoking is *too* much Give me a break.

I don't care, you guys are making this radical, not me. I agreed fully on restaurants, smoking should be segregated or banned entirely from there, and I hate smelling smoke while I'm eating (unless I'm eating pizza at home or something). But bars? Anyone who supports a law against smoking in pubs is incompetent. It's okay to be drunk in public, but oh no, don't make me smell cigarette smoke, gasp! Open your own bar where smoking isn't allowed, or don't come to the bar at all. If I walked into my job and said "I don't want to be around all of this old dusty stuff" they'd laugh me out of the joint, and all of you would call me a loser for taking a job where I work with old documents when I know for a fact that dust makes me sneezy. Well, I sneeze a lot at work, and that's fine, because I knew before taking the job that it would make me that way. If you go to work at a bar, you should be smart enough to know that people are going to be smoking... it's what people do in bars, they drink and smoke and tell bad jokes and try to pick up girls way out of their league. There's nothing "radical" about calling a non-smoker who doesn't like cigarette smoke in bars a cry-baby. There's 200 things in that bar that are more likely to kill you on any given night, and they're called "drunks."

Here's my point: I HATE Billy Joel. I can't stand him. I know a zillion other people who feel the same way. So we should ban Billy Joel from being played in bars. Ever. If you want to listen to Billy Joel, you need to be at least 15 feet from the door, and you'll be fined for humming Piano Man. How is that going to make the Billy Joel fans feel? Too bad, because I hate Billy Joel, and these people over here hate Billy Joel, so tough. Make sense? BUT, you could open your OWN bar where you can play Billy Joel all day and all night, and doing that wouldn't be against the law, and Billy Joel fans who go to the non-Billy bars are doing so of their own accord and have to deal with it, too bad for them. It makes a lot more sense.

Edit: If I were fired for being a smoker, I'd sue the company into the ground. Smokers are a "group." We're already treated like crap by people who do far worse things to their bodies. I could easily build a case against that company and win it, no contest.


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 16th Aug 2006 02:42
Quote: "Edit: If I were fired for being a smoker, I'd sue the company into the ground. Smokers are a "group." We're already treated like crap by people who do far worse things to their bodies. I could easily build a case against that company and win it, no contest."


The problem with that is there is already case law that supports it, in many states Police and firefighters who were hired after a certain date (think 1992 is when most places adopted it) are not allowed to smoke at all, it is cause for termination and can void your pension once you are no longer employed. The states did this to get cheaper health insurance rates. This was upheld by various state supreme courts and the federal court refused to hear it saying it was a state matter.

This has nothing to do with who likes the smell and who doesn't it is all about money, money politicians line their pockets with from lobbyists, face it the tobacco companies do not have the pull they once did and insurance companies have more clout now. It really is getting to a point where people who are engaging in a legal activity are ostracized more then illegal drug users. Don't think it won't eventually carry over into other things as well because everytime people let something pass without saying anything it builds case law. That foundation will be used to rip other rights away and people will say "Hey you can't do that" and the courts will have to say "yes they can there is precedence. Sorry Charlie."

Quote: "Think of it like a person pulling out a cold one in an AA meeting. True, it is your right to get drunk, but you are causing an effect to people who are trying to NOT get drunk. Or if you feel that is too different lets say that you refuse to bathe, the fragrance of smoke does not appeal to all such as the fragrance of an unclean body may be found repulsive."


The first is a little to different since you are using a substance these people are addicted to, non smokers are not addicted to cigarettes. The second is a good statement, however there are no laws that require you to bathe, wear deodorant, perfume or anything else to be indoors.

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 16th Aug 2006 02:49 Edited at: 16th Aug 2006 02:58
Quote: "Way to not read my post "

HEY that is MY LINE!

Quote: "The number of bars that have gone out of business is staggering. My brother and his girlfriend were both bartenders and they both lost their jobs when their pub went under because of this law. Go to the link I posted and read about all of the businesses that went under and/ or lost business as a direct result of this stupid law."


Lets make a guess, I would guess there is at most 2000 listings. Please tell me how INSIGNIFIGANT that is compared to the rest of the world. Include the fact that the listing includes 'phone in' listings which may or may not have been confirmed.

Quote: "Anyone who supports a law against smoking in pubs is incompetent. It's okay to be drunk in public, but oh no, don't make me smell cigarette smoke, gasp! "

Uhh, I don't think it is 'okay to be drunk in public' if it was then why are there signs on every bar saying that you can not drink alcoholic beverages within 1000 feet of the place (I think). Furthermore, I believe there is an open bottle policy, you can not have an open bottle of alcohol in public. FInally drunks are a danger to themselves and others, the irrational thinking and poor cordination can result in incedents which may injure themselves or others. If it isn't illigal, it should be.

I also see you still haven't said anything about the myth of the drunk guy spilling his drink and droping his ciggerette resulting in hard to see blue flames. And because the flames are so hard to see everyone gets burned alive and dies. (okay, over exaggerated). Handling fire around flammable material constitutes a saftey hazard, expecally if you are not of your right mind.


Also, your argument is that restaurants are okay because there are kids there and kids don't have a choice to be there or not. Sorry, but that is lame. Fast food restaurants should be closed because parents who buy their kids that food make their kids fat, and because the kids are kids they don't have a choice of eating the fatty food or not.

People asked for restaurants to ban smoking, not the kids, people asked for the bars to ban smoking. It is as simple as that.


Look, only 20% (give or take) of people are trying to commit suicide by ciggarettes currently, that means that the non-smokers are a majority and thus in a democracy we, the people that will still be alive when you're dead, take precedence.

percentages.htm


I asked you before and I ask again, give me one good reason to smoke that is not a symptom caused by the addiction. You are just killing yourself for no reason, you shouldn't need to display your need to die infront of others.


Quote: "The first is a little to different since you are using a substance these people are addicted to, non smokers are not addicted to cigarettes. The second is a good statement, however there are no laws that require you to bathe, wear deodorant, perfume or anything else to be indoors."


The idea was to try and show how smoking affects others, the only law I can think of to support this idea was the right to protect your rights from others. Now I don't think I can match a right to smoke inhalation, besides posioning, but I can say that smoking isn't between you and the butt, it is between you and everyone around you. If they don't want you smoking THEY shouldn't be the ones to leave, you should.

Your Mod was deleted by the Government.
Xenocythe
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2005
Location: You Essay.
Posted: 16th Aug 2006 03:03 Edited at: 16th Aug 2006 03:04
mxtabs.net was the greatest tablature website to ever come. I can not beleive it shut down. I mean, I learned drums and guitar from that.




PS: What the hell does smoking have to do with this?

Applyby has Flies in his Eyes.
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 16th Aug 2006 03:14
Quote: "PS: What the hell does smoking have to do with this?"

No clue, I think matt rock brought the topic up (it may have been the OP I think he brought up torrent sites [omgz they banned illegal torrents] okay, there are are a 'few' legal ones) but who knows.

Your Mod was deleted by the Government.
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 16th Aug 2006 04:13 Edited at: 16th Aug 2006 04:14
Quote: "People asked for restaurants to ban smoking, not the kids, people asked for the bars to ban smoking. It is as simple as that."


Don't know about everywhere else but this was not brought in a petition or bill by the people, employees or general public in MA. The bill was based on insurance qutoes to the state for their health insurance (i.e government employees) and was pushed by insurance lobbyists. The "people", as always have no real say as to what gets introduced or passed into law.

Quote: "Also, your argument is that restaurants are okay because there are kids there and kids don't have a choice to be there or not. Sorry, but that is lame. Fast food restaurants should be closed because parents who buy their kids that food make their kids fat, and because the kids are kids they don't have a choice of eating the fatty food or not."


Quote: "If they don't want you smoking THEY shouldn't be the ones to leave, you should."



While often a younger child has little say as to what he is given to eat, they can later choose what they want from the menu be it soup and salad or the 90 oz ribeye, don't think your comparison is the same. I do not see to many eight year olds getting up from the table at a restaurant and telling the family "I'm leaving". However in an Adult enviroment it should be up to the OWNER, not the customers, not the state, not anyone else, what kind of buisness he wants, then he will sink or swim on his buisness plan. If I own a magazine stand and I want to sell Adult Magazines that's my choice, if a customer does not like it he is welcome to take his buisness elsewhere, if he want's to complain he can STFU and open his own place.

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Megaton Cat
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posted: 16th Aug 2006 06:54 Edited at: 16th Aug 2006 07:27
Quote: "Anyone who supports a law against smoking in pubs is incompetent. It's okay to be drunk in public, but oh no, don't make me smell cigarette smoke, gasp!"


So you've pretty much just banned anyone with allergies from pubs? That's nice. I'm sure the people who'll have to sit out trips to the pub with their buddies will think of your compassion. Or just plain people like me who can't stand cigarette smoke while eating/drinking/just standing there.

You wanna smoke? That's what the outdoors and nature and trees and all that crap is for. They make it illegal to "expose yourself" because it bothers people, but you expect it to be legal to smoke in front of people when it bothers them too? C'mon. (Seeing someone naked doesn't damage your health, but second-hand smoke does)

Also, it is illegal to be intoxicated in publics places in many states. Where you get your facts from, I don't know.

It's illegal even in your own state and you don't know about it. You're so naive sometimes.



Edit:

Quote: "There's nothing "radical" about calling a non-smoker who doesn't like cigarette smoke in bars a cry-baby."


Just as there's nothing radical in calling a smoker a cry-baby because he can't go 3 hours without smoking a cigarette.

"Aww what's wrong? Baby wants his bottle-er-cigarette? Can't even go on one train ride without a cigarette? Sissy. Man up and take it, you won't die if you don't get your smoking fix in the next 10 minutes."

See my point?
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 16th Aug 2006 09:59 Edited at: 16th Aug 2006 10:00
Quote: "Please tell me how INSIGNIFIGANT that is compared to the rest of the world."

Let's see how INSIGNIFICANT you'd think it was if you were one of the people who lost your business, one that had been around for generations, because of a law that shouldn't exist in the first place. Yeah, I bet they think it's real insignificant... I bet they think about that all day while they're out trying to find new jobs. Let me go ask the previous owners of Edigans, a local pub that was forced to close because of this stupid law. A pub that was open since the early 1800's. Let's go ask them shall we?

Quote: "Uhh, I don't think it is 'okay to be drunk in public' if it was then why are there signs on every bar saying that you can not drink alcoholic beverages within 1000 feet of the place (I think). Furthermore, I believe there is an open bottle policy, you can not have an open bottle of alcohol in public."

When you're in a bar, you're IN PUBLIC. "In public" doesn't mean always mean "outside" When you're in a bar, or a mall, or a movie theater, or a park, you're in public. My new favorite quote: Dee dee dee!

Quote: "People asked for restaurants to ban smoking, not the kids, people asked for the bars to ban smoking. It is as simple as that.
"

Wrong and wrong again. People had nothing to do with it. A small handful of elitists with political tout influenced the creation of these laws. The people never asked for any such law and not many people support the bar ban (I've never met anyone who was against the restaurant ban though). Do you honestly think the government does everything it does because the public wants things a certain way? If you do, you need a labotomy. Seriously, next time the minimum wage topic comes up, watch what happens

Quote: "Look, only 20% (give or take) of people are trying to commit suicide by ciggarettes currently, that means that the non-smokers are a majority and thus in a democracy we, the people that will still be alive when you're dead, take precedence.
"

Oh, I forgot that the majority is always right and everyone else is just scum We're a group of people and we do something that is perfectly legal and of our own accord. You have absolutely NO right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body, and just because we're a minority in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't make us bad people. You have a lot of growing up to do.

Quote: "I asked you before and I ask again, give me one good reason to smoke that is not a symptom caused by the addiction. You are just killing yourself for no reason, you shouldn't need to display your need to die infront of others."

You shouldn't need to display your lack of arguing qualities either Smoking is harmful for your health... yeah, we get it. You MIGHT get cancer smoking... yup, know about that too. But do you have any idea how many things there are in this world that are FAR more dangerous than smoking? Did you know more non-smokers die from cancer every year than smokers? When you're smoking, you're gambling with your life, just like when you go for a drive in your car, or drink, or eat meat, or rent a Paris Hilton movie, or about a zillion other things that you do in every day life. We made a choice to smoke and you'll just have to deal with it. Oh yeah, and cigarette's relieve stress. That is probably the only positive effect of smoking them, but that should answer your question: you DID only ask for one.

Quote: "No clue, I think matt rock brought the topic up "

Actually, Underworld mentioned it, Jeku commented on it, I commented on that, then this all happened. It wasn't an arguement or getting out of hand until you poked your nose into it.

At the end of the day Merranvo, you're sort of fighting with yourself. Some people are ignoring the conversation, some people are debating it, and you are arguing it. I'd stop digging that hole if I were you... I'm a master-debater

Quote: "So you've pretty much just banned anyone with allergies from pubs? That's nice. I'm sure the people who'll have to sit out trips to the pub with their buddies will think of your compassion. Or just plain people like me who can't stand cigarette smoke while eating/drinking/just standing there."

Exactly why I keep repeating myself saying that there should be smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs. As Hobgoblin said, let the owners make up their own minds and let the public choose between them. And if non-smokers are so adamant about it, they should open their own bars.

No Megaton, I don't see your point. Why should we need to go outside when it's freezing out to smoke. We shouldn't have to. Non-smokers should be "man enough" to open their own pubs, simple as that. No one would complain, we'd just go to a different bar. And of the times I've gone to the bar, I've only met a few people who were for the law; most other people, even non-smokers, think a smoking-in-bars law is rediculous.

Quote: "Also, it is illegal to be intoxicated in publics places in many states. Where you get your facts from, I don't know. It's illegal even in your own state and you don't know about it. You're so naive sometimes."

Again, being drunk in public doesn't have to mean being drunk outside. You're in public when you're in a bar, and there are LOTS of drunks at bars. You're [rul=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_public]in public[/url] whenever you leave your house, by definition. "A place where anyone has a right to come without being excluded because of economic or social conditions. I'm not being naive, you're in fact being naive without thinking about what was said for a few seconds before commenting on it

Anyway, I shouldn't have to go without smoking. There should be smoking bars and non-smoking bars and it's absolutely rediculous that people should expect us to change our habits or be forced to go without just because other people don't like it. Please review my previous Billy Joel and fat people analogies.


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 16th Aug 2006 10:08
Quote: "Way to not read my post (as usual) Jake I agreed with you fully on restaurants. It's bars I have a problem with. Smoking should not be banned from bars, and it's rediculous that people could be that stupid about it."


I frigging did read your post--- where I'm from people go to BARS to eat FOOD and drink too. I quite ENJOY going to bars and eating, because the food is cheaper. THEREFORE I don't want them blowing smoke in my face. What do you mean "as usual"--- notice I didn't say RESTAURANT in my post. Geez.

Quote: "Exactly why I keep repeating myself saying that there should be smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs."


What dream world do you live in where an owner will choose to open a smoke-free bar if it's legal to own a smoke bar? You know as well as I do that bars will lose their business when the smoke ban comes down (at least that happened here), so no owner is going to willfully do this.

Sure somebody in this thread had an example of this, but it's so rare it's not even conceivable.

You're telling me that I'm drinking beer but not smoking--- i.e. making a hypocritical assertion. That is SO not the same, because the staff will not get cancer from second-hand alcohol fumes.


"I understand creative people. After all, I worked with towel designers." - Ray Kassar, former head of Atari
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 16th Aug 2006 10:21 Edited at: 16th Aug 2006 10:24
Sorry... here, bars and restaurants as separate entities (usually) and legally, any place that serves food is considered a restaurant.

Quote: "You know as well as I do that bars will lose their business when the smoke ban comes down"

I think this went over my head. Either you're saying that bars will lose business by the smoking ban being taken off (which isn't true in the least, not here anyway), or you're saying something else that I'm too tired to understand... it's 3am here, you need to talk slower lol

Quote: "You're telling me that I'm drinking beer but not smoking--- i.e. making a hypocritical assertion. That is SO not the same, because the staff will not get cancer from second-hand alcohol fumes."

No, I'm telling you that you pose more of a risk to me when you get in your car after a night of drinking than I MIGHT pose to you by smoking in your vicinity. Not that I'm saying that you drink and drive, but there are A LOT of other people who do, and I highly doubt anyone would contest that. No one has ever started a bar-brawl because they smoked too many cigarettes. No one has ever slept with a stranger and contracted a disease, or cheated on their significant other, or gotten arrested, or ran someone over, or urinated in public (yes, outside OR inside in a public place) because they smoke too much. Drinking kills almost as many people every year as cigarette smoking does, and yet no one goes after it. I can tell you from first hand experience that drunk driving kills people, innocent people. I'd have you ask my high school girlfriend for comfirmation, but unfortunately she won't be able to answer.

Non-smokers ride this high-horse when in reality it's their initiative to open non-smoking bars and not only set an example for other potential business owners, but to provide for the public an alternative if that's what they want. Fly out here to Binghamton Jake and I'll introduce you to a bar owner who doesn't smoke and will keep his bar non-smoking if they lift it (edit: His bar was non-smoking BEFORE the ban and he did quite well). I'll also introduce you to non-smokers who think the law is crap, as many as you'd like. It isn't unreasonable for us to want to be allowed to smoke in bars, and it isn't unreasonable for the small number of non-smokers who actually like this law to open their own bars.


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Megaton Cat
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posted: 16th Aug 2006 10:53 Edited at: 16th Aug 2006 10:55
Quote: "Again, being drunk in public doesn't have to mean being drunk outside.You're in public when you're in a bar, and there are LOTS of drunks at bars."


A bar is a private buisness, not "public".

Obviously you can be drunk in a bar.

What's that about me being naive again?
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 16th Aug 2006 10:54
uh... when you were in a mall when you were a kid and your mom smacked you for acting like an idiot, what did she say? "Don't act like that in public!"


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-17 13:39:22
Your offset time is: 2024-11-17 13:39:22