XPost: nyc.transit, nyc.politics, nyc.general 
 From: ob110ob@att.net 
  
 On Sun, 23 May 2004 03:25:54 GMT, John Mann 
  wrote: 
  
 >On Sat, 22 May 2004 23:03:59 GMT, "Freedom Fighter"  
 >whipped out "The Mallet O' Understanding" and bashed *this* into my 
 >head: 
 > 
 >>"Agent_C"  wrote in message 
 >>news:12lva095uehrjlspf0ljag2chfpg00p5kj@4ax.com... 
 >>> Transportation Alternatives is sponsoring a rally at City Hall on 
 >>> Tuesday 5/25/2004 to support a bill in the City Council that would 
 >>> ban audible car alarms in New York City. 
 >> 
 >>Who the hell are you to tell others they do not have the right to protect 
 >>their property? 
 > 
 >I don't know about others, but when I am woken up by one of those at 
 >night, I lay there in bed and say to myself "oh, just drive *off* in 
 >it already, damn you."  I don't bother with calling the police. 
 > 
 >Wake me up out of sleep = I hope they steal your goddamn car. 
 > 
 >I think the fact that enough people share this view is what has 
 >*rendered* audible car alarms "obsolete". 
 > 
 >___________________________________________________ 
 > 
 >"Black shirted boys in the badlands 
 >play machine-gun rodeo; 
 >the downtown mission's packed too tight, 
 >with folks that got nowhere to go." 
 > 
 >--- David Baerwald, "River's Gonna Rise", 1986 
  
   So?  If people find them ineffective they'll stop 
 buying them right?  Why bother wasting your money? 
 Or...  Is it that all people who are annoyed by car 
 alarms don't own cars fitted with them?  If not, then 
 what's the point of having a law for a product that 
 will soon be obsolete anyway? 
  
   Laws are supposed to cure societies ills that are too 
 grievous to handle any other way,  not mere annoyances! 
  
   Obwon 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)