XPost: nyc.transit, nyc.politics, nyc.general 
 From: tls@panix.com 
  
 In article <84589925.0405241425.37afaf12@posting.google.com>, 
 Allston Parking Refugee  wrote: 
 >Agent_C  wrote: 
 >> Not saying that at all. We're (as in a bill in the City Council) 
 >> contend that one shouldn't be permitted to use AUDIO as a means of 
 >> protection, because of the negative impact it has on quality of life. 
 >> There are many, more effective, alternative technologies available to 
 >> protect a car from theft. 
 > 
 >Once again I'll propose the objection that vehicle equipment laws 
 >should not be passed by local governments.  What is someone supposed 
 >to do if he lives outside NYC, has an audible car alarm, and one day 
 >wants to travel to the city?  The same applies to things like local 
  
 It's not a "vehicle equipment law", it's a noise law.  He's perfectly 
 free to disable his alarm when he's in New York City; and if his alarm 
 can't be reliably disabled, he has no business having it _wherever_ 
 he parks his car. 
  
 -- 
  Thor Lancelot Simon                                       tls@rek.tjls.com 
    But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common 
  objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp!  You towel! 
 You 
  plate!" and so on.              --Sigmund Freud 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)