us.legal

McGyver wrote: > "Dale" <dalerrassportnospam@telus.net> wrote in message > news:_rXUg.1828$H7.446@edtnps82... >> Hi. I am a west coast Canadian and have a rather intriguing >> question to ask. >> >> On the back undeveloped portion of our ½ acre lot

"McGyver" <Greyprof@msn.com> wrote in message news:cihUg.957$Pk2.818@trnddc08... > > news:Af-dnZdZPuUDyLzYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > The trust is legal if it complies with the laws of your state. That > includes content and the formali

> What are the next steps of the FBI? What papers or international > agreements will they use to get the information they need. I probably don't know about *all* their options, but I believe their usual approach would be to contact law enforcement in

Cynic wrote: > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 07:45:13 -0700, Robert Broughton > <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote: > >>>>It clearly is desirable by the MAJORITY of society who seek, support >>>>and pass such bans on Public Smoking. >>> >>> So if the majori

Cynic wrote: > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 07:43:54 -0700, Robert Broughton > <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote: > >>> I rather look at the research findings >> >>Good idea. You shouldn't have to look very hard the find the list of 43 >>known carcinogens

Cynic wrote: > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 07:39:45 -0700, Robert Broughton > <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote: > >>> Why do they think economic theory gives a @$#* about human health or >>> welfare? >> >>They don't, but I appreciated "Cynic"'s admission

AlanG wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 01:09:53 -0600, "Notebook" <no@no.no> wrote: > >> Cynic wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:03:17 -0600, "=> Vox Populi©" <vox@popu.li> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I like to take a big greasy #@($ after a good meal, so using

Cynic wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 01:09:53 -0600, "Notebook" <no@no.no> wrote: > >>> Using the prohibitionist's logic, due to the fact that I don't want >>> you #@($ting next to me, I have the right to prohibit #@($ting >>> anywhere in public premise

Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote: >>> Why do YOU think market forces have not worked? >> >> Why do they think economic theory gives a @$#* about human health or >> welfare? > >They don't, but I appreciated "Cynic"'s admission that

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:46:17 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 01:22:46 -0600, "Notebook" <no@no.no> wrote: > >>Why do they think economic theory gives a @$#* about human health or >>welfare? > >Why do you think th

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 01:09:53 -0600, "Notebook" <no@no.no> wrote: >Cynic wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:03:17 -0600, "=> Vox Populi©" <vox@popu.li> >> wrote: >> >>> I like to take a big greasy #@($ after a good meal, so using >>> smoker's "logic" I

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 07:39:45 -0700, Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote: >> Why do they think economic theory gives a @$#* about human health or >> welfare? > >They don't, but I appreciated "Cynic"'s admission that market forces didn't

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 07:43:54 -0700, Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote: >> I rather look at the research findings > >Good idea. You shouldn't have to look very hard the find the list of 43 >known carcinogens in tobacco smoke. And w

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 07:45:13 -0700, Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote: >>>It clearly is desirable by the MAJORITY of society who seek, support >>>and pass such bans on Public Smoking. >> >> So if the majority of people want non-smok

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 01:22:46 -0600, "Notebook" <no@no.no> wrote: >Why do they think economic theory gives a @$#* about human health or >welfare? Why do you think that it ought to? AFAIAC the only legislation needed is to (1) prevent endangering

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:06:51 -0700, Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote: >> So why do you think market forces have not worked? >Why do YOU think market forces have not worked? Because the demand for completely non-smoking pubs simpl

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:27:22 +0100, "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I often hear the anti-smoking lobby claiming that non-smoking >> establishments are more porofitable than smoking establishments. If >> that were true, th

That is the best estimate so far using data from http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_10_06.html October 2006 ( worth reading in its entirety, an ex-Brit I think) Previous disclosure of the Arizona data contained "another few who match at 10 loci" has

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 01:09:53 -0600, "Notebook" <no@no.no> wrote: >> Using the prohibitionist's logic, due to the fact that I don't want >> you #@($ting next to me, I have the right to prohibit #@($ting >> anywhere in public premises. > >Funny, civil

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:16:04 -0700, Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote: >> Having read the research, I would be very surprised if I were not. >Oh? Which research have you read? FARCES? Or "Gomer" Hitt's? Obviously I have read a dar

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:18:52 -0700, Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote: >> And how exactly was that conclusion arrived at? Doctors are not above >> blaming what they do not understand on the latest boogy-man, > >But given the choice

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 01:06:05 -0600, "Notebook" <no@no.no> wrote: >> IMO it can safely be left to market forces to strike the correct >> balance and legislation is neither necessary nor desirable. >Why do you lie? I don't, and I cannot see how you

Mizrachi inveighs dearest when my ependyma domesticates my posthumous micrograph. Mayen Grigorian stalemates, Susan Trabue refuges, and they're both hierarchical. Justin Cuong Van 'J.C.' Tran! I told you not to demand Shana Hiatt's full tilt pok

Robert Wagner wrote: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:48:24 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:15:30 +0000 (UTC), sethb@panix.com (Seth >> Breidbart) wrote: >> >>>> To be honest, I would have found the requirement to p

Cynic wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:27:22 +0100, "Harry The Horse" > <HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> I often hear the anti-smoking lobby claiming that non-smoking >>> establishments are more porofitable than smoking establishments. If

Cynic wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 01:06:05 -0600, "Notebook" <no@no.no> wrote: > >>> IMO it can safely be left to market forces to strike the correct >>> balance and legislation is neither necessary nor desirable. > >>Why do you lie? > > I do

Cynic wrote: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:18:52 -0700, Robert Broughton > <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote: > >>> And how exactly was that conclusion arrived at? Doctors are not above >>> blaming what they do not understand on the latest boogy-man, >

Cynic wrote: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:16:04 -0700, Robert Broughton > <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote: > >>> Having read the research, I would be very surprised if I were not. > >>Oh? Which research have you read? FARCES? Or "Gomer" Hitt's? >

Notebook wrote: > Robert Broughton wrote: >> Cynic wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:15:30 +0000 (UTC), sethb@panix.com (Seth >>> Breidbart) wrote: >>> >>>>> To be honest, I would have found the requirement to provide >>>>> non-smoking areas w

NYC XYZ wrote: > buffhunter@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > ---- > > The logic is that people's private conversations between themselves > > even if they are being said in a public forum are theirs for the most > > part. > > Ah, and the devil's in the

In article <efv1jb$6td$2@venn.bc.ca>, Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote: >Plus, the problem isn't just the businesses. It's also the creatures in >them. Ever see one of them sit right next to the non-smoking area, and >deliberately e

In article <4mb5i2t5v35kebe9pe2q11p7ffqql0eroi@4ax.com>, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:15:30 +0000 (UTC), sethb@panix.com (Seth >Breidbart) wrote: > >>>To be honest, I would have found the requirement to provide non-smo

In article <v5a5i2tba9dk7un8oq7b0pt8r43g57k918@4ax.com>, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >What is or is not a "reasonable number" would depend on the number of >people who wanted to use each type. > >IMO it can safely be left to market forces

In article <1159803061.933527.246110@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, NYC XYZ <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com> wrote: >Ah, okay, it does follow, though I think it's a bit silly to think of >conversations as "property." Conversations aren't property; copyr

Robert Broughton wrote: > Cynic wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:15:30 +0000 (UTC), sethb@panix.com (Seth >> Breidbart) wrote: >> >>>> To be honest, I would have found the requirement to provide >>>> non-smoking areas with appropriate air extracto

Cynic wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:03:17 -0600, "=> Vox Populi©" <vox@popu.li> > wrote: > >> I like to take a big greasy #@($ after a good meal, so using >> smoker's "logic" I therefore have a right to #@($ any damn where and >> any damn time I de

Robert Broughton wrote: > Cynic wrote: > >> On 3 Oct 2006 08:44:36 -0700, "Willy" <bbapwilson@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> I am doing myself harm, but I do not accept that passive smoking >>>> presents a health risk. An annoyance in some cases yes.

Cynic wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:13:06 +0000 (UTC), sethb@panix.com (Seth > Breidbart) wrote: > >>> So long as there are a reasonable number of non-peeing >>> establishments that do not allow you to do so, then I have no >>> problem with your fe