And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped up
and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they can't
make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the park?


Two words:

HOMELESS SHELTER

OK so we lock them away in 'shelters' from which they are not free to
leave. That's f***ing brilliant.


I have yet to see a homeless shelter in which the homeless are "locked away"
and are "not free to leave." Do these exist in your country? They don't in
mine.

My point was the OPs apparent hypocrisy in being outraged about kayaking
being banned as 'potentially dangerous' and in the same breath condemning
the homeless as 'potentially threatening'. The fact is, a park is a much
nicer place to be than a homeless shelter. Have you ever seen the inside
of one? My reading of his arguments (which really needn't have involved
the homeless at all, as they were irrelevant to his kayaking problem) was
a sort of juvenille, "If I can't play here then why should they?"


The public in general *does* feel uncomfortable with homeless people,
warranted or not. A park may be a much nicer place than a shelter to a
homeless person, but a park is *not* a nicer place for the public when it
becomes a collecting point for the homeless. You obviously have some sort
of thing for the homeless, and that's good. But I think if you're going to
intellectually honest, you're going to have to realize that the public at
large in general does not approve of having their parks turned into
impromptu homeless shelters.

So... you've missed the point. People typically feel somewhat threatened by
the homeless, yet they have free rein of the place. People do *not*
typically feel threatened by sea kayakers, yet they're prohibited. This
makes no sense. It's not an issue of "play."

It's easy to
see how the most common complaints one might have about the homeless (IE
they're dirt poor, are probably crazy and are homeless because they can't
manage a real lifestyle, they're an inconvenience and a hazard to the rest
of us) could easily be applied to a cyclist by a motorist.

Huh? That's silly hyperbole. Unless, of course, you truly believe that
bicyclists are dirt poor, crazy, and can't manage a real lifestyle.

And if we can
say nothing else for homelessness, we can be sure it has less
environmental impact than owning a home, even a home with no SUVs.

What does this have to do with the whole thing? Within the context of this
thread, where does the environmental impact of homelessness come into play?

Felsenmeer wrote:
And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped
up and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they
can't make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the
park?


Two words:

HOMELESS SHELTER

OK so we lock them away in 'shelters' from which they are not free to
leave. That's f***ing brilliant.


I have yet to see a homeless shelter in which the homeless are
"locked away" and are "not free to leave." Do these exist in your
country? They don't in mine.

You'll have to forgive me if I misunderstood your two words, I was filling
in some blanks for myself. I assumed that you meant for the homeless in
question to be removed to a homeless shelter, either forcibly or through
strong encouragement. If it's the case that the homeless are not kept
prisoner in their shelters (and it is, both in your country and mine),
then how do the two words 'HOMELESS SHELTER' solve the problem of homeless
that choose to inhabit a public piece of land?

The public in general *does* feel uncomfortable with homeless people,
warranted or not.

The general driving public *does* feel uncomfortable sharing the road with
cyclists.

A park may be a much nicer place than a shelter to
a homeless person, but a park is *not* a nicer place for the public
when it becomes a collecting point for the homeless.

The road may be the nicest place for a cyclist on the go, but it is *not*
the nicest place for SUVs when it becomes a collecting point for slow
moving poorly protected vehicles.

You obviously
have some sort of thing for the homeless, and that's good. But I
think if you're going to intellectually honest, you're going to have
to realize that the public at large in general does not approve of
having their parks turned into impromptu homeless shelters.

If the public is so concerned about some homeless people in a park, whom
to the best of my knowledge have never been known to do anything illegal
or threatening, then maybe there's a problem with the public? Maybe, and
bear with me here, we should treat the homeless like others, innocent
until proven guilty?

So... you've missed the point. People typically feel somewhat
threatened by the homeless, yet they have free rein of the place.
People do *not* typically feel threatened by sea kayakers, yet
they're prohibited. This makes no sense. It's not an issue of
"play."

You've missed *my* point. The OP was expressing his dissatisfaction with
being marginalized by society. He feels that he is being oppressed by the
LAW OF THE JUNGLE, by which the mightier creatures, those driving cars and
motorboats, backed by money and the law, are keeping him from pursuing his
innocent interests. He also has a holier-than-thou attitude towards those
making use of polluting forms of transportation/recreation. In the same
sentences he tries to marginalize the homeless in the exact same way, on
the same flimsy pretexts, using the same laws of the land, and completely
ignores the environmental impact of his owning a home (not insignificant).

I was not arguing that the homeless are more fun to have around than
kayakers, or safer, or anything like that. I was pointing out a glaring
double standard in the OP. This kind of hypocrisy upsets me, like the
person who will gladly steal from a big corporation (it's not like they
need the money, piracy is a victimless crime) but refuses to give to the
needy (why should they get handouts from MY pocket?). In the end, his
arguments boil down to a very selfish demand for respect, and respect is
not something he's willing to give in return.

"Jacobe Hazzard" wrote in message
...

If the public is so concerned about some homeless people in a park, whom
to the best of my knowledge have never been known to do anything illegal
or threatening, then maybe there's a problem with the public? Maybe, and
bear with me here, we should treat the homeless like others, innocent
until proven guilty?

I don't know where you live, but where I live urinating and defecating in
public, performing sex acts in public, drinking to the point of
unconsciousness in public, injecting illegal drugs and leaving used needles
laying around, leaving garbage laying around and agressive panhandling are
all illegal.

Cheto

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:30:27 -0800, "Cheto"
wrote:


"Jacobe Hazzard" wrote in message
...

If the public is so concerned about some homeless people in a park, whom
to the best of my knowledge have never been known to do anything illegal
or threatening, then maybe there's a problem with the public? Maybe, and
bear with me here, we should treat the homeless like others, innocent
until proven guilty?

I don't know where you live, but where I live urinating and defecating in
public, performing sex acts in public, drinking to the point of
unconsciousness in public, injecting illegal drugs and leaving used needles
laying around, leaving garbage laying around and agressive panhandling are
all illegal.

Where do you live that *injecting* illegal drugs is illegal. I know many
places where possession of certain substances is illegal, and I know many
places where selling certain substances is illegal, but I know of none
where *injecting* (or any other form of consumption) illegal drugs can
result in charges. Can you tell me where this is true and possibly provide
a pointer to the relevant statute?

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Guns don't kill people, religions do

"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:30:27 -0800, "Cheto"
wrote:
Where do you live that *injecting* illegal drugs is illegal. I know many
places where possession of certain substances is illegal, and I know many
places where selling certain substances is illegal, but I know of none
where *injecting* (or any other form of consumption) illegal drugs can
result in charges. Can you tell me where this is true and possibly
provide
a pointer to the relevant statute?

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Guns don't kill people, religions do

It would be difficult to consume without first possessing. Even if someone
else held the consumable as it was being consumed in a public park, both
would probably be candidates for arrest.

--
Sincerely,
Joanne

If it's right for you, then it's right, . . . . . for you!!!

Play - http://www.jobird.com
Pay for Play - http://www.jobird.com/refund.htm
Looking for Love? - http://www.jobird.com/hearts.htm
Garden Kinder CDs
http://www.jobird.com/cd/gardenkinderhome.html

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:47:24 GMT, "Joanne" wrote:

It would be difficult to consume without first possessing. Even if someone
else held the consumable as it was being consumed in a public park, both
would probably be candidates for arrest.

I realize that, but the original poster claimed that *injecting* was
illegal. I know of no statute anywhere that makes that specific action a
crime.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Guns don't kill people, religions do

"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message
...

Where do you live that *injecting* illegal drugs is illegal. I know many
places where possession of certain substances is illegal, and I know many
places where selling certain substances is illegal, but I know of none
where *injecting* (or any other form of consumption) illegal drugs can
result in charges. Can you tell me where this is true and possibly
provide
a pointer to the relevant statute?

Are you being purposely idiotic? If so, you're doing an excellent job.

Cheto

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:50:27 -0800, "Cheto"
wrote:


"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message
.. .

Where do you live that *injecting* illegal drugs is illegal. I know many
places where possession of certain substances is illegal, and I know many
places where selling certain substances is illegal, but I know of none
where *injecting* (or any other form of consumption) illegal drugs can
result in charges. Can you tell me where this is true and possibly
provide
a pointer to the relevant statute?

Are you being purposely idiotic? If so, you're doing an excellent job.

No. I'm asking a question. It is a simple matter to say you merely wrote
one thing (which is technically inaccurate) when you meant to make a point.
Why do you not do that instead of calling me "idiotic"?

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Guns don't kill people, religions do

"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message
...

Are you being purposely idiotic? If so, you're doing an excellent job.

No. I'm asking a question. It is a simple matter to say you merely wrote
one thing (which is technically inaccurate) when you meant to make a
point.

It's not inaccurate. I'll defer to Mr. Hunts' expertise on the subject.

Why do you not do that instead of calling me "idiotic"?

Because you're trolling. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that
one cannot use unless one posesses.

Cheto

Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:37:30 -0500,
, Galen Hekhuis
wrote:

I know many
places where possession of certain substances is illegal, and I know many
places where selling certain substances is illegal, but I know of none
where *injecting* (or any other form of consumption) illegal drugs can
result in charges.

Drunk driving.
There are several states with laws against a minor being in possession
of alcohol by consumption.

In South Dakota you can be busted for "internal possession".

If a cop suspects you're stoned, he can get a warrant and you can be
taken to hospital to have a urine sample forcibly removed.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/...thdakota.shtml
--
zk