Leaving Your Engine Running

[Dark Shadows]

I feel so much better after emptying the cat box that I have to spout off about something.

I was in downtown Petaluma the other day on my way home and I noticed a woman parked on Kentucky Street in her Expedition with the engine running. It was hot and she was apparently using her air conditioner while talking on her cell phone. She had bug-like chrome sunglasses on, so I couldn’t tell if she saw me watching her or not. She seemed engrossed in her conversation, her talon-like fingers gripping the phone and her extra chin flapping in the breeze of the air conditioner. I thought, how wasteful, but continued on to the bookstore on my quest for something on Feynman for a friend. I noticed that the downstairs area of Copperfield’s was not air conditioned, but cooled by a few strategically positioned fans that blew the stale air around. It has a smell like an old building downstairs, kind of damp and rotting. Not finding exactly what I wanted, I walked back to my parking spot where I saw the same woman yakking away on her phone, the engine still running. I found it disgusting. Here was a woman with her bleached and molded hair, coated with a few layers of Mary Kay (or some other concoction), layered with at least an inch and a half of extra insulation, most likely from a steady diet of McDonald's fried matter, running her tank on fuel that would feed a family of four for a week. I envisioned her as a modern day Marie Antoinette, with her frosted helmet of hair in her Versailles-like vehicle, insulated from anything that remotely resembles reality for most folks in this economy. I’ve seen these women on my infrequent trips to the supermarket, on auto pilot, throwing boxes of frozen pizza, chicken nuggets and dripping containers of red meat into their overloaded carts. Their fat fingers and painted nails click the driver’s side of their SUVs, when they roll down the automatic windows and order from the fast food menu. Why don’t they just install an IV drip bottle on these SUVs so the fast food restaurants can fill it up with grease and they can insert a tube into their arteries, without opening the window and letting the hot air in. <o:p></o:p>

Once while I was at the stable brushing my horse, I watched my stable mate saying goodbye to her horse, nuzzling and scratching his forehead as her toddlers sat in the car with the engine running. I’m sure the air-conditioned, leather upholstered Audi was a comfortable haven for her kids, but come on, this is a ranch! We’re here to be outdoors with our animals, not inhaling exhaust. Plus, maybe my horse is weird, but he doesn’t like running car engines. He gets a little freaky, he’s only two. This was after he got tangled in the lead rope because he startled a little with the woman’s little dog tearing around the corner and the high-pitched barking. She knew he was a little freaked out and yet there she was nuzzling her horse and letting the Audi run on. She finally got in and waved good by to me, and I felt like saying “Leave already!” Also, if you’re gonna leave your kids in the car, why not leave them home, where it’s safe and they won’t get kicked? Then you won’t have to leave the Audi running so that your precious offspring won’t get over heated.<o:p></o:p>

Then there’s the neighbors across the street that have to be in the car, at the end of the driveway to use their cell phones, of course with the engine running…<o:p></o:p>

If they can give you a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, why not a ticket for leaving your engine running? I’m not for more laws and regulations, but its got to be just as unhealthy, in the long run adding carcinogens to the air we breathe. Maybe we could think of some kind of hand-signal to let people know that we've observed their waste?

[PeriodThree]

It must be really painful for you to carry all of that judgment with you in your day to day life.

As for your 'hand-signal' idea, my first response is that your little hand signal is an act of emotional violence. Emotional violence is more damaging than physical violence. So I recommend that anyone using your hand signal be punched in the face.



Maybe we could think of some kind of hand-signal to let people know that we've observed their waste? [/font]

[meherc]

Ouch and double ouch.



It must be really painful for you to carry all of that judgment with you in your day to day life.

As for your 'hand-signal' idea, my first response is that your little hand signal is an act of emotional violence. Emotional violence is more damaging than physical violence. So I recommend that anyone using your hand signal be punched in the face.

[Dark Shadows]

Oh, my skin is thicker than that! My nose will break, but then again you don't know how to find me.

What kind of SUV do you drive?


It must be really painful for you to carry all of that judgment with you in your day to day life.

As for your 'hand-signal' idea, my first response is that your little hand signal is an act of emotional violence. Emotional violence is more damaging than physical violence. So I recommend that anyone using your hand signal be punched in the face.

[shellebelle]

Ummm Kathy,

I hate to "punch" too hard here but the last I saw you I thought you drove a full size older van.



Oh, my skin is thicker than that! My nose will break, but then again you don't know how to find me.

What kind of SUV do you drive?

[Dark Shadows]

You missed the intent of the post entirely. My irritation was with waste, leaving the engine running with the air conditioner running when you could turn it off, open the windows, or step outside the vehicle and take the call. Yes, I did have a van, my intent was to have enough seats for my four children, a grandchild, and husband that would not fit into a regular size coupe if we wanted to go somewhere together. I admit, I drove three rows of seats around because I thought that driving 2 cars was less efficient than driving the one van, and it did come in very handy for those camping and girl scout trips. That van is sitting under my sycamore tree gathering dust, because I am driving a more fuel efficient vehcle around now. I totally understand that some people need more room for larger famlies. But the kind of waste I see is bewildering to me, especially with today's gas prices. Also, its not always feasible to have a fuel efficient vehicle for solo trips and then another for family trips. But you can offer to drive a friend somewhere if you're going some distance and save that way. My youngest kid is in college now, so I don't use the van now, except when I have to move stuff-and I couldn't afford an economy car before now. Have you seen the price of a Prius lately? So I had to drive the boat around for awhile. I tried not to drive it, especially when it was just me, the cost was horrendous.

Also, hand gesture is not particularly violent. What about American Sign Language and the universal sign for I Love You? I am not suggesting we flip off wasters. But give them a signal, in non-confrontational way that says, think twice-turn your air conditioner off and take that call outside.

And I think that everyone should think twice about where their food is coming from and how much is wasted by the time its consumed. Have you noticed how the bulk of your trash is reduced when you cook meals from scratch? The packaging for convenience foods is ridiculous. If you make your own pizza dough and grate your own cheese, you are giving your arms a good work out and making food that is healthier at the same time. After kneading the dough and grating the cheese, I feel like I've earned the right to eat those extra calories!



Ummm Kathy,

I hate to "punch" too hard here but the last I saw you I thought you drove a full size older van.

[shellebelle]

I think you missed my point.

Just a year ago you were driving that van around.

Just a year ago you were surprised when we told you how far Sonoma was from Santa Rosa and yet were driving it almost daily "wasting" gas. I never have figured out why since you were a care provider and lived at work.

You have not been a "family" from my knowledge for quite a while.

What I am hearing is that when you could no longer "afford" to drive the van around you parked it and got something else.

Now you want to talk about other waste. Okay.

Lets talk about what you are changing in your life.

Have you stopped buying your food at chain stores?

Have you started buying at least 80% of your food from local sources? If not where are you at?

Don't lecture/tell me (or anyone else) what you think is "wrong" until that stick you have in your own eye has been removed!


I tried not to drive it, especially when it was just me, the cost was horrendous.


And I think that everyone should think twice about where their food is coming from and how much is wasted by the time its consumed.

[PeriodThree]

Your assumption that I drive an SUV is more of your judgment coming through.

The wonderful and beautiful part of our country is that mostly we are free to make our own choices and to live our own lives without other people dumping their judgment on us.

You do not need to justify your reasons for owning or driving a van. Other people do not have to justify their choice to leave their engine running while they are on the phone.

Your 'irritation' was not truly with 'waste,' but with the fact that other people have made different choices from your own choices.

Freedom means other people get to make choices which you may not like.

Getting irritated and carrying the bitterness and anger which you appear to carry is your own problem.



Also, hand gesture is not particularly violent. What about American Sign Language and the universal sign for I Love You? I am not suggesting we flip off wasters. But give them a signal, in non-confrontational way that says, think twice-turn your air conditioner off and take that call outside.
[/quote=Dark Shadows;70605]

The general concept of a hand gesture is not violent. But a hand gesture that means "we've observed their waste?" is _intentionally_ emotionally abusive and violent.

The whole point of your gesture is to create a social signal that 'people are being watched.' And that some people, the watchers, are empowered by the 'conscious community' to render judgment on the behavior of others.

Creating judgments and us versus them separations is a destructive and violent act.

And, to be absolutely honest, I truly believe that you are advocating harmful emotional violence against people who you judge to be wasteful. And I honestly believe that emotionally abusive people do more damage than physical violence.

It is possible that there is a better response to your form of emotional violence than physical violence, but let me be clear that I categorically reject any 'non-confrontational' attempt you may have to tell me to live my life differently.

You want to create a hand signal in order to shame other people. That is the heart of 'confrontational' and I honestly hope that people react to your violence and hate.


[quote=Dark Shadows;70605]

And I think that everyone should think twice about where their food is coming from and how much is wasted by the time its consumed. Have you noticed how the bulk of your trash is reduced when you cook meals from scratch? The packaging for convenience foods is ridiculous. If you make your own pizza dough and grate your own cheese, you are giving your arms a good work out and making food that is healthier at the same time. After kneading the dough and grating the cheese, I feel like I've earned the right to eat those extra calories!

You are coming from exactly the same judgmental fundamentalism which powers the American fundamentalists and their puppet Bush, as well as the Taliban and their crap.

Drop your judgment and let other people live their lives.

[Zeno Swijtink]

The wonderful and beautiful part of our country is that mostly we are free to make our own choices and to live our own lives without other people dumping their judgment on us.

We may be "mostly ... free to make our own choices" but we are not free "to live our own lives without other people dumping their judgment on us."

In fact, people are free to dump their their judgment on us. It's called free speech, and is protected, as you know better then I do, by the First Amendment.

[PeriodThree]

It seems to me that almost always when one individual dumps their judgment on another individual, certainly when done in person, that regardless of the merits I will side with the person being dumped on.

Dark Shadow's idea to shame people based on her particular (and I will argue her particularly perverted) values is hateful.




person

We may be "mostly ... free to make our own choices" but we are not free "to live our own lives without other people dumping their judgment on us."

In fact, people are free to dump their their judgment on us. It's called free speech, and is protected, as you know better then I do, by the First Amendment.

[Zeno Swijtink]

It seems to me that almost always when one individual dumps their judgment on another individual, certainly when done in person, that regardless of the merits I will side with the person being dumped on.

Dark Shadow's idea to shame people based on her particular (and I will argue her particularly perverted) values is hateful.


That was not my point, Rich. It seemed to me that in your hurry to defend the freedom of people's consumption choices you are using arguments that dump Dark Shadow's First Amendment rights. What does this indicate? That you value the market over the agora?

[PeriodThree]

I don't understand what you are talking about in saying this has something to do with markets. This has to do with a person advocating emotional violence to push her personal judgment on how other people should live their lives.

I don't just care about people's consumption choices, I care about their choices in general, and the freedom to make those choices without emotionally abusive personal attacks.

I also care about self appointed moral watchdogs, like Dark Shadow, letting us all 'know they are watching.'

She may have a First Amendment right to be hateful, but I do not respect her, her judgment, her hate, or her First Amendment Rights.

The point where Dark Shadow decides to 'let me know' she is watching is the point where she has crossed my personal line, and my response may remain non violent, but it will not be 'non-confrontational.'

Her stance of moral superiority is intentionally confrontational.

So just a note to everyone who thinks they have a right or a duty to 'non-confrontationally' let others know they are being watched: please go away, and if you won't just go away be advised that the response won't be 'non' confrontational.






That was not my point, Rich. It seemed to me that in your hurry to defend the freedom of people's consumption choices you are using arguments that dump Dark Shadow's First Amendment rights. What does this indicate? That you value the market over the agora?

[Zeno Swijtink]

I don't understand what you are talking about in saying this has something to do with markets. This has to do with a person advocating emotional violence to push her personal judgment on how other people should live their lives.

I don't just care about people's consumption choices, I care about their choices in general, and the freedom to make those choices without emotionally abusive personal attacks.

I also care about self appointed moral watchdogs, like Dark Shadow, letting us all 'know they are watching.'

She may have a First Amendment right to be hateful, but I do not respect her, her judgment, her hate, or her First Amendment Rights.

The point where Dark Shadow decides to 'let me know' she is watching is the point where she has crossed my personal line, and my response may remain non violent, but it will not be 'non-confrontational.'

Her stance of moral superiority is intentionally confrontational.

So just a note to everyone who thinks they have a right or a duty to 'non-confrontationally' let others know they are being watched: please go away, and if you won't just go away be advised that the response won't be 'non' confrontational.

What makes your stand different from hers?

To me you both play equally the "self appointed moral watchdogs," want both to be "morally superior," are both "intentionally confrontational."

Difference between you and her is that you deny her her First Amendment rights.

[Braggi]

... It seemed to me that in your hurry to defend the freedom of people's consumption choices you are using arguments that dump Dark Shadow's First Amendment rights. What does this indicate? That you value the market over the agora?

I doubt this definition is what you mean because this is, basically, "the market" as you state it: "Agora (agorism), The term agora is also used by agorists to describe an open free market place where people buy and trade free from any government coercion." Wouldn't that be nice.

Perhaps you mean this one: "The Agora was an open "place of assembly" in ancient Greek city-states. Early in Greek history (900s–700s BCE), free-born male land-owners who were citizens would gather in the agora for military duty or to hear statements of the ruling king or council."

But if this one, then Dark Shadows wouldn't have been allowed unless she came in bearded drag.

So ...

-Jeff

[PeriodThree]

Perhaps I do play equally the self appointed moral watchdog. I am not sure.

I think you are actually full of it, and are intentionally misreading me, but I could be wrong there.

She thinks it appropriate to emotionally abuse someone who she doesn't know, who is engaged in a legal behavior that annoys her.

I think it is appropriate to make her emotional abuse have a cost. I am not quite sure how that denies her first amendment rights.

You don't have a first amendment right to speak in any way to another person without being subject to their response.

I don't think you are arguing that Dark Shadows has a first amendment right to 'say her piece' to me without my being able to respond - if you were to make that argument I would disagree.

She is lying to herself, and to us, when she says she wants to make a 'non-confrontational' statement. I argue that making a moral judgment, like she advocates, is intrinsically a confrontational act, and it is an act every bit as violent as throwing a punch. The recipients of her judgmental abuse have every right to respond to her violence.

I personally believe that the right, just, and moral response to one person's emotional abuse may include a physical component. One person's right to call me an asshole, at least in person, ends when I slug them in the face. It makes sense to me, or do you have a different way to deal with emotional abuse?

Putting it a different way, I think that if someone throws out racial, or sexist, or homophobic attacks (which are every bit as evil as this 'Dark' Shadows advocates) then the appropriate response could include physical violence.

Do you have the right to verbally abuse someone? Sure, I guess. And they have the right to kick your ass.



What makes your stand different from hers?

To me you both play equally the "self appointed moral watchdogs," want both to be "morally superior," are both "intentionally confrontational."

Difference between you and her is that you deny her her First Amendment rights.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I see your point.

I was thinking of "agora" as a meeting place of free citizens to express their opinions and discuss, freely, matters concerning governance and the regulation of public life, while "market" in my brief contribution stands for "voting [sic!!] by spending your dollars ($$$)" on salivary consumption choices, a place where we, citizens, are all so unequal.



I doubt this definition is what you mean because this is, basically, "the market" as you state it: "Agora (agorism), The term agora is also used by agorists to describe an open free market place where people buy and trade free from any government coercion." Wouldn't that be nice.

Perhaps you mean this one: "The Agora was an open "place of assembly" in ancient Greek city-states. Early in Greek history (900s–700s BCE), free-born male land-owners who were citizens would gather in the agora for military duty or to hear statements of the ruling king or council."

But if this one, then Dark Shadows wouldn't have been allowed unless she came in bearded drag.

So ...

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

She thinks it appropriate to emotionally abuse someone who she doesn't know, who is engaged in a legal behavior that annoys her.

So are you.


I think it is appropriate to make her emotional abuse have a cost. I am not quite sure how that denies her first amendment rights.

You claimed that "[t]he wonderful and beautiful part of our country is that mostly we are free to make our own choices and to live our own lives without other people dumping their judgment on us," denying her First Amendment rights.

[MsTerry]

This has to do with a person advocating emotional violence to push her personal judgment on how other people should live their lives.


If someone sits in their car, with their car running, they are polluting the air around them in a very inconsiderate way.
Their choice pushes Their pollution in to MY life.
At least that was my experience while working in an office and having their exhaust being sucked into the building.
Is that considered freedom of choice ?

[NudeTea]

I don't know much about the law of attraction, K, but it seems to me that your complaint brought back a bunch of complaints from others in return.

I know you didn't mean it as a complaint. You were trying to highlight the issue of needless waste. But your attempt to wave your hand about in the air and say, "Hey You!" only brought back a bunch of other people waving their hands in the air and saying "Hey You Yourself!" back at you.

[PeriodThree]

So are you.



You claimed that "[t]he wonderful and beautiful part of our country is that mostly we are free to make our own choices and to live our own lives without other people dumping their judgment on us," denying her First Amendment rights.

I don't follow your reasoning. Even staying within the specific quote you offer.

What part of this quote 'denies' her First amendment rights?

"mostly we are free to make our own choices and to live our own lives without other people dumping their judgment on us."

Where is the denial of her rights?

Or am I denying her 'rights' with my talk of a confrontational response?

Does it change your thinking if we shift things around, and take the homophobe writing something like 'I saw two men kissing in public and it made me sick and maybe we could create a hand signal that tells them that we are watching?" or the racist writing "I saw two black people acting like they were normal and it pissed me off, so maybe we could adopt a hand signal, like pretending to be lynched, to let them know we are watching."

We have first amendment rights. And the normal script is that someone excercises those rights, and other people feel bad or not, and the person or institution being protested against moves on.

But Dark Shadows wants a right to get into my face with a finely crafted emotional attack. And she wants to lie and say that is a 'non-confrontational' message.

And you argue that by refusing to sit and feel bad at her attacks, by refusing to simply internalize her rage and her attack, that I am denying her First Amendment rights?

As a private citizen the First Amendment protects my speech and expressive actions from government. The First Amendment does not protect Dark Shadows from the consequences of her assaults on others.

[Sylph]

I think and hope that Dark Shadows just wanted to vent about the wasteful person and wouldn't have actually given that woman a rude hand signal!
I agree that it's hurtful to go around giving people signals telling them how wrong they are.
Maybe it's better, when you see the car idling away, to remember how much money that person is wasting and know how bad this practice is for their car's engine and the environment. Just feel a little righteous and superior and leave it at that! Or you can print the following information out on a little slip of paper and put it on the idler's windshield. :wink::


<TABLE height=40 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=800 border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD width=979 colSpan=2 height=40><TABLE height=281 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=649 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=391 height=281 rowSpan=2 HVALIGN="MIDDLE">
Every 30 minutes of idling costs you nearly one-tenth of a gallon in wasted fuel – and more than three-tenths of a gallon if your vehicle has an eight-cylinder engine. As well, restarting a car many times doesn’t wear out the battery and starter motor too soon. And catalytic converters stay warm for up to 25 minutes after you turn off the engine, so frequent stops and starts don’t produce the large amount of harmful emissions seen with cold starts. There’s no question about it – idling gets you nowhere. Instead, it wastes fuel and money and damages the environment.

Can idling damage my car’s engine? </SPAN>
You bet it can! Because the engine isn’t working at its peak operating temperature when it’s idling, the fuel doesn’t undergo complete combustion. This leaves fuel residues that can contaminate engine oil and damage engine parts. For example, fuel residues tend to deposit on spark plugs. As the amount of engine idling increases, the plugs’ average temperature drops, and they get dirty more quickly. This, in turn, can increase fuel consumption by four to five percent. It’s a vicious circle of wasted fuel and needless greenhouse gas emissions. Excessive idling can also let water condense in the vehicle’s exhaust. This can lead to corrosion and reduce the life of the exhaust system.</SPAN>

How much fuel am I wasting, and how much CO<SUB>2</SUB> do I produce by idling my vehicle?
The cost of idling your vehicle for 10 minutes every morning can add up. You use about 0.026 gallons of gasoline for every 10 minutes, which costs us about 5 cents. This adds up to about 9.5 ounces of Carbon Dioxide for those 10 minutes. It may not sound like much, but it all adds up. Many people idle in the morning, at the ATM, at the drive-through for lunch, then waiting to pick the kids up from school. How long do you idle each day, each week, each year? And remember, millions of motorists have fallen into the idling trap.
</SPAN>
What are the most common reasons for idling? </SPAN>
Warming up a vehicle is the most common reason drivers give for idling – in both winter and summer! We also idle a lot at drive-through windows, when we are waiting on someone, and when we wait at railway crossings, wait to park, run quick errands, stop to talk to an acquaintance or friend, prepare to leave the house, wait to get gas – even wait in line to get our car washed. All of these situations waste energy and produce needless greenhouse gas emissions – and they are all avoidable.

What is the "profile" of the typical idler? It’s safe to say that most motorists do some amount of idling. However, Canadian research shows some interesting trends. For example, the amount of idling a driver does tends to increase with the number of people in the household. A driver living with children is more likely to idle than one without children. As well, the frequency of idling appears to decrease as a person ages – a retiree is the least likely to idle. A person living in a rural area is more likely to idle than a driver living in an urban centre.

What steps can I take to minimize idling?
It’s easy – think about fuel efficiency every time you use a car. Try these simple steps:</SPAN>
<LI class=list_spacer>Minimize warm-up idling. This is especially important in winter, because emissions can double in a cold engine. Drive away after no more than 30 seconds of idling, assuming the vehicle’s windows are clear.<LI class=list_spacer>Use a block heater to warm the engine before you start it. This reduces engine wear, improves fuel efficiency and reduces emissions by up to 20 percent in cold conditions. Use an automatic timer to turn on the block heater two hours before you plan to start the vehicle.<LI class=list_spacer>If you’re going to be stopped for more than 10 seconds, turn off the engine. Never leave the vehicle running while you zip into a corner store or fast-food restaurant – it’s hard on your pocketbook, bad for the environment and an invitation to car thieves.
Avoid using remote car starters. They encourage you to start your car before you’re ready to drive it, which just means needless idling.












</TD><TD width=4 height=281 rowSpan=2 HVALIGN="MIDDLE"></TD><TD vAlign=top width=5 height=281 rowSpan=2 HVALIGN="MIDDLE">

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#666666><TD width=800 colSpan=2 height=1></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cc0000><TD width=979 bgColor=#0000ff colSpan=2 height=60></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Zeno Swijtink]

You claimed that "[t]he wonderful and beautiful part of our country is that mostly we are free to make our own choices and to live our own lives without other people dumping their judgment on us," denying her First Amendment rights.


I don't follow your reasoning. Even staying within the specific quote you offer.

What part of this quote 'denies' her First amendment rights?

I may have overinterpreted what you wrote.

In the quote I heard you saying:

(i) mostly we are free to make our own choices;

(ii) [we are free] to live our own lives without other people dumping their judgment on us.

From (i) I took that you meant "free" in the sense of a constitutionally garanteed right, and I took it that you meant (ii) in the same way.

(ii) I paraphrased as saying: we have the right not be be interrupted by other people expressing their opinion.

This is not true, I think, we don't have that right, at least not in the public domain. [cf the whole discussion whether there is a right to free speech in shopping malls, as some form of privately owned, but semi public areas.]

Now you might argue that the infamous hand-signal is a form of hate speech, which would not be protected under the First Amendment. Is that part of your point?

[Sylph]

I think the hand signal could be interpreted as hate speech in some situations.

from an earlier post:


Putting it a different way, I think that if someone throws out racial, or sexist, or homophobic attacks (which are every bit as evil as this 'Dark' Shadows advocates) then the appropriate response could include physical violence.

Do you have the right to verbally abuse someone? Sure, I guess. And they have the right to kick your ass.




Nope, that's where your rights stop. No matter what verbal or 'gestural' harrassment you receive, in most cases, any physical response in retaliation will get you arrested. The racist or homophobic nature of the verbal abuse might get you a lighter sentence for assault!

[shellebelle]

Not always. If you feel threatened or in danger you were simply defending yourself. Seems to me it would be easy prove someone flailing their hands "feels" like a physical attack and required a defensive response which just happened to be backed by extreme passion.



Nope, that's where your rights stop. No matter what verbal or 'gestural' harrassment you receive, in most cases, any physical response in retaliation will get you arrested. The racist or homophobic nature of the verbal abuse might get you a lighter sentence for assault!

[MsTerry]

Can somebody make a drawing or short video on what "the hand signal" is going to look like?
It would be nice to s.ee if it is a thumbs up or a thumbs down

[Zeno Swijtink]

Can somebody make a drawing or short video on what "the hand signal" is going to look like?
It would be nice to s.ee if it is a thumbs up or a thumbs down


https://pages.citenet.net/users/ctmx1108/images/humour/handsignal.gif

Take your pick!

[MsTerry]

I see, yes that could get you in a lot of trouble.
I think # 10 to jismify is probable the most appropriate.
it could be flashed discreetly while sipping tea with fluoride



https://pages.citenet.net/users/ctmx1108/images/humour/handsignal.gif

Take your pick!

[PeriodThree]

I can understand why you interpreted my statement the way you did, but I did not add, nor intend, the semicolon you 'heard' in your (i).

"Mostly we are free" all goes together and applies to all of the things we are 'mostly free' to do without having people dump their judgment on us.

I believe that I punctuated the sentence correctly to convey my intended meaning. I further believe that using the new age/conscious community vernacular phrase 'dumping their judgment on us' was a signal that I was not making a legal argument, but a statement of general opinion.

Regardless of how you parse the sentence, I still don't see how my making the claim that "[t]he wonderful and beautiful part of our country is that mostly we are free to make our own choices and to live our own lives without other people dumping their judgment on us" could possibly deny her First Amendment Rights.

Seriously...I just can't figure out a way to parse it so that my words deny her her rights.

But then, language is interesting that way.

I don't think her hand signal is hate speech (but it borders on 'fighting words'). And I don't think there is a First Amendment issue here. I don't propose a legal remedy for what I see as abusive behavior on her part.

She wants to create a hand signal to convey that she is 'watching' us. She claims that she wants to use this in a 'non-confrontational way.'

I assert that her proposed conduct is deeply confrontational, personally abusive, and just plain rude. She justifies her position because of the importance she places in reducing what she sees as waste. But reading her message you enter her angry and resentful mind. Her talk of bug-like sunglasses and talon-fingers and double chins.

Her passive aggressive rudeness follows her in her description of her stable-mate happily waving good bye and her internal response is 'leave already.'

She resents people who are able to make choices she is unable to make, and she resents people who make choices, like eating meat, which she prefers not to make.

Creating a hand signal to let people know 'we are watching' is not 'connecting conscious community' but rather 'creating a lynch mob.' Or 'creating the other who we can dehumanize and attack and blame for our personal problems.'

To be honest, it makes me truly physically ill to imagine that I could have happily, and anonymously, waved at Dark Shadows while her internal monologue was spewing over the ways in which I was living my life wrong and how she wanted to 'non confrontationally' let me know that she was 'watching' me.

Seriously: I do not want to live in a community where substantial numbers of people do what Dark Shadows advocates!


(you wrote that hate speech is not protected, but I believe you are conflating hate speech, which is generally protected, with 'fighting words,' which are far less protected)






I may have overinterpreted what you wrote.

In the quote I heard you saying:

(i) mostly we are free to make our own choices;

(ii) [we are free] to live our own lives without other people dumping their judgment on us.

From (i) I took that you meant "free" in the sense of a constitutionally garanteed right, and I took it that you meant (ii) in the same way.

(ii) I paraphrased as saying: we have the right not be be interrupted by other people expressing their opinion.

This is not true, I think, we don't have that right, at least not in the public domain. [cf the whole discussion whether there is a right to free speech in shopping malls, as some form of privately owned, but semi public areas.]

Now you might argue that the infamous hand-signal is a form of hate speech, which would not be protected under the First Amendment. Is that part of your point?

[Zeno Swijtink]

Creating a hand signal to let people know 'we are watching' is not 'connecting conscious community' but rather 'creating a lynch mob.' Or 'creating the other who we can dehumanize and attack and blame for our personal problems.'

To be honest, it makes me truly physically ill to imagine that I could have happily, and anonymously, waved at Dark Shadows while her internal monologue was spewing over the ways in which I was living my life wrong and how she wanted to 'non confrontationally' let me know that she was 'watching' me.

Seriously: I do not want to live in a community where substantial numbers of people do what Dark Shadows advocates!


I would agree with you if I thought this was all meant literally. I thought the intro sentence ("I feel so much better after emptying the cat box that I have to spout off about something.") indicated DS recognized her writing as venting a frustration, an irrational aside. She got carried away when she tried to make her posting a literary piece of writing.

[Dixon]

Of course, the irony here is that you're negatively judging her for judging you or, in other words, shaming her, based on your particular values, for her shaming you based on hers.

Dixon


It seems to me that almost always when one individual dumps their judgment on another individual, certainly when done in person, that regardless of the merits I will side with the person being dumped on.
Dark Shadow's idea to shame people based on her particular (and I will argue her particularly perverted) values is hateful.

[PeriodThree]

Dark Shadows wants to emotionally abuse other people. I want her to stop.

I see no irony in telling emotional abusers to stop it.


Of course, the irony here is that you're negatively judging her for judging you or, in other words, shaming her, based on your particular values, for her shaming you based on hers.

Dixon

[wunda]

I think the basic word here is "pretentious" we hate it in others and rarely see it in ourselves. Better to turn off the engine, and better to just rant about the issue than come up with new moral codes to harass others.

Education and enlightenment speak louder than judgement. Its hard to see past all the bullshit one throws at you in their version of truth to see the wisdom behind it. So, set a good example, judge less, praise and encourage those who are moving towards your own beliefs and for goodness sake relax a little. (know i should follow that advice as well)

Trying to be less pretentious today than yesterday,

Wunda

[MsTerry]

P3
You are not going to stop emotional abuse by being emotional abusive yourself...........
That's all good ol' Dixie is trying to say


Dark Shadows wants to emotionally abuse other people. I want her to stop.

I see no irony in telling emotional abusers to stop it.

[PeriodThree]

I can see several different models of interpersonal communication here.

Under one view the way to respond to undesired communications is to
not respond in kind, which can diffuse the negative energy, and lower the conflict level.

My view in this particular case is that I want to make the person who 'throws the sign' feel as uncomfortable, or worse, as their actions make me feel in order to discourage the behavior.

In my view, and disregarding whether 'throwing a sign' qualifies, if someone is emotionally abusive towards you then it is wrong to label your response as emotional abuse.





P3
You are not going to stop emotional abuse by being emotional abusive yourself...........
That's all good ol' Dixie is trying to say

[MsTerry]

In my view, and disregarding whether 'throwing a sign' qualifies, if someone is emotionally abusive towards you then it is wrong to label your response as emotional abuse.

That is a rather simplistic oversimplification of interacting .
Since you are in control of your response, it doesn't give you the right to be abusive.
Even my 9 yr old knows, two wrongs don't make a right,



My view in this particular case is that I want to make the person who 'throws the sign' feel as uncomfortable, or worse, as their actions make me feel in order to discourage the behavior.You have succeeded in that.

[Zeno Swijtink]

In my view, and disregarding whether 'throwing a sign' qualifies, if someone is emotionally abusive towards you then it is wrong to label your response as emotional abuse.

But didn't the double-chinned, bug-like-chrome-sunglassesed owner of the "Expedition" equally emotionally abuse "Dark Shadows"?

Or did her - the owner of the


https://www.automedia.com/NewCarBuyersGuide/photos/2005/Ford/Expedition/SUV/2005_Ford_Expedition_ext_1.jpg' s-


obliviousness somehow exonerated her?

In short, to me you seem to have to spend a lot of effort here to carve out a moral high road for yourself in a case that started rather innocently as a need to have to empty a cat box.

[Fring]

No to useless idling. Save money by not idling, save the environment by nit idling and save your engine by not idling.

[handy]

No to useless idling. Save money by not idling, save the environment by nit idling and save your engine by not idling.

Given that, by design (or lack thereof), approximately half of all vehicles at any given moment are stopped at traffic lights or stop signs at any given moment, tremendous waste is built into the system.

In light of this, DS's self-righteous whining is petty and obnoxious.

In agreement with P3's response, I would remind us all that the Golden Rule has teeth.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, AND keep in mind that, AS you do unto others, so you will be done by them.

Be careful out there. Be kind.

[Bird Watcher]

Here's what Ideal Bite (a green tips email that I receive every day) had to say--

"Idling more than ten seconds takes more gas than turning your car off and starting it up again; 15 minutes of idling per weekday can cost you up to $100 per year. It also creates twice the emissions of a car in motion."

It's the last sentence that got me. Right, we probably shouldn't turn off the ignition at stop lights, but certainly other places, we could think about how long we're going to pull over to chat on the cell phone, visit an ATM or other drive-up, etc.

My :2cents:.

[Braggi]

... "Idling more than ten seconds takes more gas than turning your car off and starting it up again; 15 minutes of idling per weekday can cost you up to $100 per year. It also creates twice the emissions of a car in motion." ...

And how does that math not add up? When you consider wear and tear on the starter and other components that otherwise do just fine while idling. I often turn my engine off for short periods, but mostly so I don't have to breathe the exhaust. The money saving aspect goes down the tubes when you have to replace the starter motor which usually costs more than several years of savings on the plan above (both in terms of cash and energy expended).

There are always trade-offs. Damn it!

-Jeff

[anthony]

And how does that math not add up? When you consider wear and tear on the starter and other components that otherwise do just fine while idling. I often turn my engine off for short periods, but mostly so I don't have to breathe the exhaust. The money saving aspect goes down the tubes when you have to replace the starter motor which usually costs more than several years of savings on the plan above (both in terms of cash and energy expended).

There are always trade-offs. Damn it!

-Jeff

I got an 11 year old car. I don't idle as much meaning if I think I'm going to stay in 1 place for more than a minute then I switch the engine off. For 11 years, I haven't replace the starter motor yet. Also you save internal engine components by not idling. Engine needs to run not idle and everywhere you look its always bad for the engine just idling. So if you idle a lot, then engine components inside will accelerate wear and tear.

[Dark Shadows]

Shellebelle-I never saw this before, I was too busy working. But I can see that you weren't. I can tell by your size that you have not been eating the most healthy meals in the world. Also, why on earth are you so confrontational if it's not to make up for some kind of inadequacy? I used the van to commute to my horse that was in Cotati at the time because, unlike you I am (was-I'm a little side lined now) an athelete and worked/rode my horse daily. So when you aren't too busy clacking away at your keyboard or munching down those snackeroos, you should get out there in the fresh air and sunshine and burn some calories. It's healthy and your heart and family will love you for it.

I have a nice red raspberry just for you-and other mean, spiteful, overweight women who are envious of slim, smart and employed women.

I think you missed my point.

Just a year ago you were driving that van around.

Just a year ago you were surprised when we told you how far Sonoma was from Santa Rosa and yet were driving it almost daily "wasting" gas. I never have figured out why since you were a care provider and lived at work.

You have not been a "family" from my knowledge for quite a while.

What I am hearing is that when you could no longer "afford" to drive the van around you parked it and got something else.

Now you want to talk about other waste. Okay.

Lets talk about what you are changing in your life.

Have you stopped buying your food at chain stores?

Have you started buying at least 80% of your food from local sources? If not where are you at?

Don't lecture/tell me (or anyone else) what you think is "wrong" until that stick you have in your own eye has been removed!