RE: virus: Tabacco mind virus

Gifford, Nate F (
Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:13:08 -0400

> But WHAT REALLY PISSED ME OFF was that security then
>began patrolling the concert grounds enforcing order.

Ooh, security guards at camping sites, bad vibes man.

Its not the vibes Tony ... its the oppression. Once the guards are in
place you must have a fire ring, it must be at least 10.16 cm high, the
flames can't be higher then 60.96 cm, the fuel must be a hardwood with an
avg diameter of 15.24 cm etc. etc.. Once govt. authority is in place it
goes out of its way to propagate/perpetuate itself.

> You've missed the point again.
> I only care when I have to share the costs of the risks that you take.
> Climb all the mountains you want as long as my tax dollars don't get
>on your inevitable rescue.

You also reap the benefits of risks that I take.
If you engage in an activity that has a 1 in 100 chance of killing you
<Mercenary in Somalia?>
then the probability of you dieing before completing a series of these
activities is .99^(number of times you engage in the activity), For
example if you were a merc in Somalia for a year with a 1 in 100 chance of
dieing each day then the probability of you coming home alive at the end of
the year would be .99^365 <too bad it wasn't a leap year> ~ .03. If you
and ninety nine of your buddies went to Somalia with those odds then only 2
or 3 of you would return - assuming anyone is stupid enough to pick up your
return air fare. Unfortunately the activities you engage in are much
safer, and I suspect that you engage in them less often.....Unless its
unprotected anal sex with intravenous drug users. I'd be happy to pick up
the tab on a years worth of parties for you. But as for mountain climbing
in Great Britain what are the odds of you dieing? 1 in 100,000 seems
low....but still You would have to engage in that activity every day for
two years to get your odds of dieing down to 1 in 100.

How do I benefit from you taking these pathetic risks?

>Nate's reply:
>Frankly I would rather be ruled by an unelected conglomeration bent on
>manipulating demand then the elected shills who currently subjugate me.
> Economic boycotts seem more effective then voting.

This is a new angle on me. Please more info, I am listening.
Is this a new thread? My point is that selecting representatives in a
republic <House of commons, U.S. Congress> is similar to a product
purchase. Unfortunately there are no product safety rules for your
representative. During a campaign the candidates try to make you think you
like what you hear without actually contracting for a course of action ...
The 1992 "Contract With America" being a perfect example of this. The
whole electoral process selects for individuals with few deeply held
beliefs - so they can make deals. This leads to "Pork Trading" where the
results of the representative's work is slanted to maximize their
constituencies interests at the expense of the universal good. The
American military would be a prime example of this. We are unable to cut
our military budget because any cut has a major negative impact on a
particular representative. The bigger the cut the more likely that
representative is to be a powerful member of congress (since the most
powerful members have the best pork) and the less likely the cut is to
pass.... Thus, while trying to accomplish a worthwhile goal ... "balance
the federal budget ... lower the national debt" the only mechanisms
available for doing so are to attack programs with limited constituencies
... The arts, and social programs whose benefits are not immediately

On the other hand, corporations have immediate democratic feedback.
Examples include:

1. McDonalds ... whatever happened to the MC BLT ... hot side hot, cool
side cool?
2. Nestle and baby formula.
3. The fashion industry and fur.
4. The Auto industry and safety/reliability. <Hyundai vs. Yugo>.

You need to convince Mcdonalds it is in their economis best
interests to work towards global salvation.
My point is that the global harm McDonald's commits is minuscule compared
to the World Bank.

Its not the perpetrators of tabacco memes that I hate, its the
memes themselves, I cant think of a better way of reducing them than by
Worked for the Romans ... All hail Mithra.

>The reason that security was escalated at
>Lollapalooza was not because the promoters were worried about the welfare
>of the audience ... they were worried about torts.
This doesnt translate yet.

Promoters of a concert assume the responsibility for ensuring the safety of
the guests at the concert. For some reason in America when an idiot
cripples itself by being thrown up in a blanket that breaks at a concert
the promoter of the concert may be found liable. Society has come up with
this mechanism to ensure that concert promoters build the cost for safety
into the price of admission.

> Similarly, society
>controls behavior because society must pick up the cost of the
Explain this more please.

Its the basis for the current Tobacco settlement in America. ~40 states
are suing the tobacco companies to recover state funds spent on the health
costs incurred as a consequence of smoking. Never mind that one could
argue that these costs were already paid since the difference in risk
between smoker's and non-smokers was made up by sales taxes on cigarettes.
Following the settlement the tobacco companies will pass the cost of the
settlement onto consumers by raising the price of cigarettes. Part of the
reason the tobacco companies are being held liable are the memes they used
to promote their product. I just finished a Jeeves and Wooster book where
Bertie Wooster refers to his cigarette as a gasper. People know that
cigarettes did not promote aerobic fitness ... yet since Virginia Slims
sponser a tennis tournament they deny the severity of the risk. In my view
anti-smoking forces might be best served by enumerating the risks of
smoking ... sort of like the "Culture Jamming" Mr. Brodie referred to in an
earlier post. Instead the fight is occurring on economic turf ... trying
to make cigarettes a bad economic choice. Its not clear to me how
effective this will be since most economic choices we make are not totally
rational ... the cognac thread.

What is a copraphage, you snobby cunt?

A copraphage is an animal that survives on the feces of its betters. My
dictionary lists two examples: Tony Hindle and Dung Beetles.

Oh now I see, you think that I am a man?

No, I think you're a boy ... who may manufacture viable sperm. Fortunately
your description of yourself makes me think your chances of propagating are