fsaffer (anonymous) says...

Hey Alex, you have simply been living too close to the tracks.

When we moved to town from the country, we lived in a house two doors south of the tracks on Merchant Street. For the first several months, the old steam locomotives kept us awake. However, we soon got used to it and didn't notice the noise at night. Then one night we woke up and realized there was a different noise coming from the tracks. The Santa Fe had switched to diesel engines. But again, after several months we could sleep thorugh that NEW noise.

Now real noise is living under the runway approach to a busy airport.

Fred Saffer

September 8, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

krnelso2000 (anonymous) says...

put your self in the train drivers shoes for a moment. Immagine the horror of killing someone while driving a train. I would lay on the horn too.

September 8, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

spectator (anonymous) says...

I can sympathize with the engineers' plight but a constant loud noise is just that - loud and constant. A screaming ambulance siren can hold the same tone but a "warble" or "yelp" gains more attention. Why do you think the civil defense sirens are "louder and softer, louder and softer ? I gotta agree with Alex, some of them seem to delight in one loooooong, constant honk from city limit to city limit.

September 8, 2009 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nks (anonymous) says...

I personally know a former engineer who had to live and still does with the horror of running over someone on the tracks. He soon retired after only a few years on the job.
But, my wife and I live 10 blocks to the north of the tracks and it sounds like they are in our back yard. Like mentioned before, it seems as though some engineers do get a kick out of the number of horn blows between intesections. Some crossings are only 100 yards apart and it is hard to beleive that 4 or 5 blasts of the horn are needed in that time frame.

September 8, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

Tort reform = less honks.

September 8, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I would rather hear a locomotive horn or whistle anyday than the loud " BOOM, BOOM, THUMP, THUMP no sense at all, so called music that emminates from houses, next door or three or four block away and vehicles in Emporia ! Man, what a blathering, deafening, nerve racking din and at all hours of the day and night !

September 8, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

coldhardtruth (anonymous) says...

methusla,

I didn't realize my booming was keeping you up at night. I have always wondered if people actually wake up when I drive by, and now I know they do, so mission accomplished!

September 8, 2009 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

I know, methusla! Those darn kids! I wish they'd stay off my lawn too! (shakes fist in air)

I think it is strange how you are in favor of SHS exposure, but opposed to SHB (second hand bass) exposure.
People have the right to listen to any music they want, correct? Are you saying something should be done about it when the music disturbs others? Why can't you see how something should also be done about SHS when it disturbs others? Is it because SHS has "always been that way" and SHB is a relatively new annoyance? Probably so.

Luckily, we now have both a sound ordinance and a smoking ordinance. As long as the police enforce them, we shouldn’t have a problem.
'enry

September 8, 2009 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

deluvly1 (anonymous) says...

“Luckily, we now have both a sound ordinance and a smoking ordinance. As long as the police enforce them, we shouldn’t have a problem.”

And what color is the sky in YOUR world??? Have you seen EITHER of these ordinances being enforced? Of course not! You can drive by Natasha’s any night of the week and see folks puffing away right outside the door, certainly nowhere near ten feet away. And look at the cigarette butts around most bars and restaurants. They are nuisance in and of themselves and how we’ve not had fires started on windy days is nothing short of a miracle!

As to the noise? Please! Like j-turns and jay-walking, just more laws that will not, can not or simply are not enforced. Today in the rain a gray car was tailgating me; I did not see it and nearly had a major incident. Interesting that state law requires head lamps to be operational whenever the wipers are running. Have you EVER seen that enforced? Of course you haven’t. Meantime gray and dark blue cars simply blend into the roadway during the rain and/or fog, and god help you if you don’t see them. The law could be enforced and the money from the fines put into the general fund. But it’s just easier to raise sales tax and property taxes. Who want to enforce some dumb old law? The fun comes in ramming them down our throats, make a big production about public safety, and then simply forget that they exist. It is the Emporia way.

Any the meantime, and town that wants to pretend it is a city but allows the cacophonous disruptions brought on by train whistles every ten minutes (let alone having it’s major traffic thoroughfare blocked umpteen times a day) is simply kidding itself. There are solutions and other towns have implemented them.

September 8, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

truckers_wife (anonymous) says...

We live in the country two plus miles from the nearest train crossing and we still hear the train horns with our windows closed in a new - well insulated house. There are engineers in our town who make it a habit to honk from one end of town to the other at 3:00 a.m. We chuckle that many towns have "no jake brake signs" at their city limits as we are crossing train tracks entering the town. Go figure! Crossing arms are so prevelent now surely the horns could be replaced with lower decibel ones.

September 8, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

deluvly1,
My point was that methusla could simply phone the police if it is such a problem because it is already illegal. The cops are always willing to enforce the law when you call regarding a noise complaint. The beauty of making these things illegal is that it gives you the option to call the police if the problem persists. Having that options as a last resort if very reassuring.

The noise from train horns is beneficial to society. The benefit of the horns clearly outweighs any "harm" (annoyance) they may cause. Besides, I live about 10 blocks from the tracks and I don’t hear a thing at night! If it bothers you, just move or buy thicker windows. Why put others in danger for your selfish wants?
‘enry

September 8, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

it is regulation (i think federal) that trains must sound their warning devices a certain number of times prior to a crossing.
this link should answer some of those questions.
http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/...
their warning devices, like ambulances, fire trucks, and others, have to be loud enough to be heard, especially by the bass loving ppl who drive around the crossing arms thinking that they are annoying...any why are they all lit up like that?? omw...that light wakes all of us up too!!!
second, the city has a noise ordinance and a smoking ordinance. anybody has a right to sign a complaint against somebody not paying attention to those ordinances...so quit fussin and call the police...and then sign the complaint instead of not wanting anybody to know who called.
lastly, if you don't like the sounds of the city, move to the country. i guarantee that if you live in wichita, topeka, kc, or anywhere else with a population over 12, there is going to be noise.

September 8, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

coldhardtruth (anonymous) says...

"You can drive by Natasha’s any night of the week and see folks puffing away right outside the door, certainly nowhere near ten feet away. And look at the cigarette butts around most bars and restaurants. They are nuisance in and of themselves and how we’ve not had fires started on windy days is nothing short of a miracle!"

Thank the smoking ban for this. The butts used to go into ashtrays, and then into the trash. This is what you wanted smoking ban people.

September 8, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

joecitizen (anonymous) says...

Years ago, when the crossing arms, and systems were already being replaced, the city had the option of upgrading the systems, at minimal cost, and emporia could have been a no whistle blow zone. But guess what? it never went to the public, and our decision makers don't live near the tracks. No tracks in NW Emporia, let em blow right?

September 8, 2009 at 6:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

d23_66801 (anonymous) says...

basically I was told by santa fe to move away from the tracks if i did not like the whistles. So I did!

September 8, 2009 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kansasgirl (anonymous) says...

I grew up 4 houses away from the train tracks and we loved the sound coming through. My parents still live within a few blocks of the tracks and I still love hearing them at nite when I'm visiting. I within a mile of one of the largest airports in the US and planes can be pretty noisy flying over your house at all hours of the day & nite. But after 9/11 those planes didn't fly for several days and it was the worse silence I have ever experienced. At least Emporia still has those trains going through the town. Think of the towns that don't anymore. Most of those towns don't exist anymore.

September 8, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

HenryVIII, I have called the police many times about the excessive amount of noisy music and it does quiet down for, oh, maybe a day or two and then it starts all over again !
After the police make a certain number of visits, they just seem to stop answering the complaint calls, why, I don't have a clue, I have even been told at times to take care of the problem myself and even said that I would sign a complaint, but one was never made available for me to sign, so I just gave up calling in a complaint and put up with it, so much for enforcing laws and ordinances . Its kind of like enforcing the no shooting of fireworks inside the city limits ordinance !
And deluvly1 has a very valid point about ordinances, laws and bans not being enforced.
For example I was driving west on 6th ave., last Friday, right where the two schools are located, at a steady 20 MPH and noticed a new white Toyota Sequoia pretty close behind me being driven by one of Emporias' prominent citizens, well apparantely 20 mph was not fast enough and the driver of the Sequoia swung into the passing lane and zipped by me like I wasn't even there, law enforcement, 20 MPH school zone, not likely !
Oh, and Henry VIII, some of this music that I was complaining about, to me is not music at all, only noise, Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, Greig, Mozart, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Glen Miller, Gershwin, Benny Goodman, The Dorseys' The Beatles, The Who, KIZZ, Wylon Jennings, Kris Kristopherson, Flat and Scrugs, to name just a few, these were composers of music and performers of music that one could listen to, enjoy and make sense of . I do enjoy music, if it is music to my ears and played at a respectable decible level !
To each his own, but keep it your own and not the whole neighborhoods' !

September 8, 2009 at 11:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

methusla,
Nice side-step of my SHS to SHB comparison! You say, "To each his own, but keep it your own and not the whole neighborhoods' !" Wouldn't that apply to SHS too?
'enry

September 9, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bloomsbury (SC DIXON) says...

Henry must live somewhere over the rainbow…I did move to the country, in a stone house, probably 3 miles from the tracks and both my wife and I have been awakened at night by train whistle …of course, shame on us, sometimes we like to open our windows and have fresh air, good for the environment, and all that.
As to the noise being “beneficial,” you are apparently delusional. I understand that trains are a great way to move freight, good economically, good (relatively) ecologically, but if you’ve gone so far as to convince yourself that arbitrary unregulated noise is “good…” well, you’re scaring me.
Simply put, you’re just making excuses. In the real world---where I live---I know personally folks who have called about partying neighbors, about fireworks outside their windows, and as has already been said, eventually the cops simply stop responding.
Besides, people shouldn’t have to call to have the law enforced. That’s why we have a police department, and yes, things can be done about train whistles. Take a trip to Louisville, KY and see how they’ve handled it…concrete barricades from the tracks about half a block back up the street, in order to attempt to keep the idiots from having the room to drive around the guard rails (which, if they do, I personally figure is no great loss to the gene pool…)
There are many other options out there as well.
It is a shame that businesses and offices and apartments anywhere downtown don’t usually have the “luxury” of fresh air, at least not if they want to have a conversation or listen to the telly or to music.
Two officers posted daily on 6th street around where the old Wendy's is could do more to fill the city coffers in one day than just about anything else…they could probably write more valid tickets than the local court system could handle…simply by enforcing the law.
It is, in case you’ve forgotten, illegal to exceed posted speed limits, to litter, to jaywalk, to drive with your headlights off after dark, to pass on the right, to change lanes without using a turn indicator, to “run” stop lights or stop signs, etc… but you see it each and every day in Emporia, everywhere, particularly on 6th but even on Commercial as well.
By they way, these are laws that already exist and which were passed for the public good. I see myriad reasons to enforce them, but no good reason not to. And, no, Hank, we should not have to call every time we see an infraction. We pay people to be on the lookout for them.

September 9, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

bloomsbury,
You say, "...if you’ve gone so far as to convince yourself that arbitrary unregulated noise is “good…” well, you’re scaring me." Please let me explain. The "unregulated" noise of train horns saves lives. Suppose your hard-of-hearing (or blind) grandmother was shuffling across the rail-road tracks when with a train approaching. Suppose your teenage son was driving towards the tracks with his music loud and windows up. That train horn is load enough to let those people know to get out of the way. Therefore it saves their lives. Wouldn't you say the prevention of your loved ones being smashed by a train is "beneficial"? If not, well, you're scaring me.

You say, "Besides, people shouldn’t have to call to have the law enforced." Yeah, because we have a cop on every street corner...NOT! They can't be everywhere at once, you foolish dip. When a citizen reports a crime, it's called being vigilant.

You say, "...we should not have to call every time we see an infraction…" Well, that’s obvious. Unless, of course, it is endangering lives or (as in methusla's case) significantly and repeatedly encroaching on your freedoms.

Finally, who is Hank?
'enry

September 9, 2009 at 3:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

deluvly 1

Please get your facts straight before you bring up the smoking ban. If the folks are on the city sidewalk smoking they are 10 feet from the door of Natasha's. You probably voted for that ordinance without even reading it.

sorry people, I did'nt start it.

September 9, 2009 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

HenryVIII, or is it crackinsack,
I sidestepped nothing, the SHS thing is done and over with, let it rest, that is if you can !
I see by your logic, you are either crackinsack using another sign in monacer or have been taught by crackinsack, because, SHS and as you call it, SHB, have absolutely nothing in common, a typical crackinsack ploy ! Again I say, SHS LAY IT TO REST ALLREADY AND STOP BEATING A LONG DEAD HORSE !

September 9, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

methusla,
Both SHS and SHB are byproducts that are created by some people who enjoy the activity. That's 1 commonality.
Both can annoy and/or harm others. That's another commonality.
There are city ordinances regarding both actions. That's a third commonality.
There are people regarding both issues who think the second-hand results of the activity should be restricted so it doesn't affect anyone other than the person doing it. That's a forth commonality.

Yeah, you're right. They have nothing in common... I called you out on being a hypocrite and you have no defense. Instead, you say I'm "crackinsack" in an attempted to invalidate my point. If you can't see how your opposing positions are contradictory, then I feel bad for you.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you stance. Please answer this for me:
Why is being exposed to second-hand-smoke in public places ok, but you don’t think you should be exposed to second-hand-music while waiting at a stop light?

I ask the question because I usually enjoy your posts and you typically introduce interesting points. I feel, however, you’re a bit mixed up on this one. Have a great day.
'enry

September 10, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Paccifier (anonymous) says...

Those train whistles were here long before most of us were born, and will be here for a long time in the future. If you talk to some of the old railroad families, you will find that each train that came into town had a very individual whistle pattern. Blowing that pattern let the wives at home know that their husband or son was in town and would be walking in the door soon. But, that was back when crews lived and worked out of here too.

September 10, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

HenryVIII
You are wrong about SHS and SHM, which by the way you changed from SHB to SHM !
SHS according to you and everyone else is an alleged health risk and Loud noise that is called music is nothing more than an annoyence, therefore the two have nothing in common, as you so wrongly suggest !
Also being exposed to SHS in a public place is or was a matter of choice, having to put up with incesant loud noise ( music ) comming from a private residence or a private vehicle is another matter entirely .
And it is I who feel sorry for you ! It is too bad that you have to resort to personal attacks and name calling to try and make a valid argument.

hyp⋅o⋅crite  /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/
–noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Please inform me to which of these definitions of a hypocrite I should be placed.
I certainly do not pretend to have any of those in 1. or 2., so which type of hypocrite am I exactly. I don't force any one to stop doing or living their lives as they see fit by imposing a ban or my will upon them, however I do expect others to have respect enough for me not to try and force their will upon me or have such disrespect for me to force me to listen or do what they have a penchant for doing, i.e. loud noisy so called annoying music ( noise ) at all hours, I only expect them to respect me as a fellow human being, who has to share the same world and think about and have a little respect for other people and not just themselves and what they want !
As I have said, absolutely nothing has been done, nor will be done about loud noisy music, so I have resigned myself to putting up with it, even though I myself have to turn everything up, t.v., radio, stereo, whatever, in order to hear them over the loud noisy music at times and some of these vehicles with the din comming from them, how do they hear anything else, such as an ambulance siren, fire engine siren, railroad warning bell or horn, etc., safety hazard, possibly !
You may not be crackinsack, but you do have the same mind set and mentality!
Now if you want to persist in beating a dead horse, so be it, beat away, I for one will not continue to beat the poor soul and let it rest ! Nuff said !

September 10, 2009 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justthinkin (anonymous) says...

Henry - the difference b/w SHS & SHB is that people that don't want to be exposed to SHS could make a choice not to patronize the establishment. SHB is unavoidable - it comes into private homes, public streets, parks, etc. That's what makes SHB unacceptable to me.

September 10, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

methusla,
You said, "SHS according to you and everyone else is an alleged health risk and Loud noise that is called music is nothing more than an annoyence..."
So you agree that SHS is worse than loud music then, right? Why are you in favor of the ban of the less harmful thing (loud music) and not the more harmful thing (SHS)? Your position seems a bit sketchy or, dare I say, hypocritical.

justthinkin,
That's a good point. It would seem, however, that the sound ordinance is actually stricter than the smoking ordinance even though the second-hand-sound is less harmful than the second-hand-smoke.
For instance, you are allowed to smoke in your car with the windows down as I sit in my car next to you at the stop light. There's nothing to stop the SHS from coming into my "private car". Are you suggesting we need to ban smoking in cars too?

Besides, SHB IS avoidable. All you have to do is buy some headphones or earplugs! If you don't like something, change YOUR behavior to avoid it. Isn't that what you are suggesting those who wish to avoid SHS do?
'enry

September 10, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

I rarely hear the whistles anymore and I live 5 blocks north of the tracks. Maybe once in awhile I hear a whistle long in the distance depending on which way the wind is blowing. I like that sound.

Don't forget, before long, the trees will have shed their leaves so without their buffer, train sounds will be extra loud until late next spring.

September 10, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Boy, oh Boy,
HenryVIII, you definately are the same as crackinsack in your thinking ! I used the word " ALLEGED" in describing the effects of SHS, which has not definately been proven to be the sole, only cause of health problems and you also say that those of us who object to loud noisy, noise, ( music), should go out and by ear phones or ear plugs or change our behavior to avoid it ! Sounds pretty petty, disrespectful, controlling and as you say " hyprocrital " to me, instead of the perveyors of the loud noise, ( music ) just lowering the volume a number of decibles and respecting others, yes sir, crack is back !
HenryVIII is a good monicre ( user name ) for you and anyone who is as controlling and disrespectful of others as you.
Keep beating the dead horse ! Have a terrible day !

September 10, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

methusla,
I'm not sure I like your attitude, buddy... Disagree with me all you like, but I don't deserve to be told to “have a terrible day”. How rude!

Let me get this straight... You say that ME telling people to avoid loud music (if they don't like it) is "petty, disrespectful, controlling and... hyprocrital". Right?
Wouldn't YOU telling people to avoid SHS (if they don't like it) also be "petty, disrespectful, controlling and... hyprocrital"?
It seems, in both situations, the people causing the problem should change their actions to remedy the situation. Whether this be done by turning down their music or not smoking around others. Right? Why do you think the victim needs to change their behavior in one case, but not the other?

I certainly didn't agree with everything crackinsack said, but with your unrelenting refusal to see the other side of a conversation I'm beginning to agree with her opinion of you...
Stay classy, methusla. You should change your moniker to “methusla - king of double standards” or “methusla the stubborn”.
'enry

September 10, 2009 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Before the ban it was very very easy for me to avoid SHS while still allowing smokers a place to hang out and for business owners to cater to that clientele.
I have never been able to easily avoid loud sounds such as train horns or loud car stereos that go through my neighbor hood or drive next to me on the street.
Will hearing aids be provided by the government run health insurance? That could get very expensive with as many people there are that like to "share" their music with everyone within a block of their car.

September 10, 2009 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks,
I'm glad SHS was easy for you to avoid. Do you think your situation was typical for most citizens? Do you think EVERYONE should live like you in order to avoid SHS?

That would be like me saying loud music was very very very easy for me to avoid because I live in the country. You don't see me telling everyone to live in the country, now do you? Everyone who doesn’t like loud music should just move to the country so the music lovers can have the whole town to “hang out” and then their actions won’t bother anyone.

What works for YOU may not work for everyone else. You sound awful selfish if you want one inconvenience banned and not another simply because it doesn't affect YOU. Think about the other people who can't avoid it so easily. I support the sound ordinance even though it doesn't benefit me. Why can't you do the same for the smoking ban?
'enry

September 10, 2009 at 2:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"Do you think your situation was typical for most citizens?" yes

September 10, 2009 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Like wise HenryVIII, I was not the first one to start throwing insults, " BUDDY" and I don' t give a big rats a$$ if you like my attitude or not, you seem to want to start the insult throwing, but like crack cannot seem to tolerate the return of same, in kind !
As I figured you and others want people to change their way of living and lives to accomodate you and others, the, " allmighty", " all-knowing", " all controlling " people, who just happen to believe you, (they) own the world !
Besides my having to change my life style in my own home, to accomodate the loud din coming from a neighbors, three blocks away or a vehicle passing or setting across the street or a block or two away, by wearing headphones or ear plugs !
You suggest I avoid the noisy din by leaving my home at all hours ! Definately not the same as trying to avoid SHS or smokers, what an intollerant, pompus, controlling a$$ you are and apparently always will be !
Boy talk about being exceptionally rude and crude ! Just like the real HenryVIII !
You may call me hypocrite, etc., but I think we both know, who the real hypocrite is here !

September 10, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks,
Wow! You must be all-knowing then! I didn't think it was possible for one person to know the situations, circumstances, and actions of EVERYONE else! Amazing!

You, sir, are VERY presumptuous to think your situation is "typical". Oh in case you missed it, the majority voted in favor of the ban, so it would seem "most citizens" disagree with you. You probably still think your way of life is best though, right?

methusla,
Buddy, pal, chum, friend, comrade… (these are friendly terms)
Specifically, how did I “start the insult throwing”? By disagreeing with you?
I still hope you have a wonderful day.
‘enry

September 10, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

"TRAIN TRAIN" a song by Black Oak Arkansas, who were influenced by "LOGJAM"

September 10, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

blulitespecial (anonymous) says...

"Lonesome Train" by J.J.Cale

September 10, 2009 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

"C'Mon N' Ride It (The Train)" by Quad City DJ's

September 10, 2009 at 5:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

In case you have forgotten already, HenryVIII, here is your exact quote to me and the first of your insults, " Your position seems a bit sketchy or, dare I say, hypocritical."
Please show me in any of my previous comments before this comment to me by you, where I called you anything but " crackinsack" using a different forum name or do you consider being compared to crackinsack an insult !
Oh, and I am not the only one you started throwing insults, etc. at. In fact you told deluvly to either move or buy thicker windows, remember ! Have a good evening !

September 10, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Here, take a couple of minutes to enjoy something really solid. Wait till you hear and see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiXQzw...

methusla, stop listening to Henry and give a listen. You'll love it.

September 10, 2009 at 8 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

enry
I don't have to know the situation of everybody to know that before the ban there were no places that anybody HAD to go to that still allowed smoking therefore it was easily avoidable. There were a few restaurants that still allowed smoking but not going to those places is very easier. It actually takes less effort to not go than it does to go. There was a bar that you could go to if you wanted to get your drink on without getting your smoke on and if the demand was so high for more of them surely someone would have supplied that demand, right? My point was that SHS was easy to avoid for the vast vast majority of people. The reason(in my OPINION) that it got more votes for it was not that people felt they NEEDed it but they wanted it so they could go to this restayrant or that and not have to smell a little smoke. Petty.

As far as my way of life being the best, I don't know? Look at it like this, I don't smoke but I didn't try to push a smoking ban.

R.

September 10, 2009 at 8:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

create,
That was wonderful, brought back a lot of memories of my mother and father, because my father not only worked for the R.R., but also played the harmonica, and my mother played the guitar, and my aunt played the piano, an uncle played the fiddle and we all had some great times playing and singing the old songs such as this one ! Now that was music that could be enjoyed without being loud or obnoctious ! Thank you very much for the link and god bless you !

September 10, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Thank you methusla, and for the blessing especially. You made me smile and put a tear in my eye too.

Hey you know what? I mopped my kitchen floor to that train song this evening and also listened to a few more of the tunes by that same couple. Really enjoyed it and it made the task of mopping practically fun. The floor is dry now and I'm smiling.

Just heard a train go by using a pretty whistle instead of the diesel horn. Maybe they're reading the paper.

September 10, 2009 at 8:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

methusla,
Calling your position on the subject "sketchy" or "hypocritical" is not an insult. That just means your stance doesn't seem very solid and I don't agree with you. It does seem like being called "crackinsack" is meant to be taken as an insult, but I can forgive you for that.

When I told deluvly to "move or buy thicker windows", that was just a suggestion to fix the problem without taking away the rights of others. Similar to when people would tell me, "If you don't like the SHS, don't go there." How can a suggestion to help fix the problem be an insult? I just want to quash this quarrel between us now otherwise you'll read everything I post with a snide tone and assume I'm trying to insult you.

seriouslyfolks,
Some people think they NEED to live in town when really they just want to. They COULD live in the country and not be exposed to loud music, but they think they NEED to live in town so they force others to change by lowering their music.

For the record, I think both the smoking ban and sound ordinance or good things. I’m merely playing the devil’s advocate when defending the “rights” of the loud music people to prove a point to people who support one and not the other.
‘enry

September 11, 2009 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

For the record I never said anything about banning loud noises, just that they are harded to avoid than shs.
Don't people that live in the country generally have to drive farther to get to work, thus having a bigger "carbon footprint"? I ride my bicycle to work most of the time, when it's not raining too bad or too cold. It's cheaper, better for me, and better for the environment. My way of life may not be the "best" but I'm pretty sure that Al Gore and Pres. Obama would approve.

R.

September 11, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

HenryVIII,
Calling me my position " sketchy " is not an insult and is wrong, as I have not wavered on my opposition to the smoking ban and was not taken as an insult.
However calling me a " hypocrite " is a blatant insult, so I returned the insult in like manner as a means of defending myself. What did you expect !
And telling someone to move or get thicker windows is an even worse insult, than being called a " hypocrite ".
Also, people " WANT " to live in the City, not " NEED " to live in the City, just like some people " WANT and NEED " to control others with unnecessary bans, instead of having tolerance for the wants and needs of others, like I tolerate the loud, noisy, din of those around me by changing the way I live in my own home and vehicle, when I should not have had to !
And when you insult or degrade someone with a comment and then tell them, " to have a wonderful day " is as insincere as " just joking " after an insult or degrading remark !
No sir, HenryVIII, you have succeeded in making me not like you and that, sir, is a situation that will probably never change, and you, sir, are to blame for that !
Have a wonderful day !

September 11, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S.
And I guess from your last comment you do believe in peoples " RIGHTS " , except when you want and need to ban certain of those " RIGHTS ", right !
What a joke you are !

September 11, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S.S.
Such as supporting a smoking ban and not a loud music ban, " RIGHT " !
Non, sketchy or hypocritical view ! Sad, Sad, Sad, HenryVIII !

September 11, 2009 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

methusla,
Alright then, at least I tried. I will try to refrain from addressing you in the future.

P.S. Here are a couple examples that might qualify as being hypocritical:
1. Saying people shouldn't insult others, but then you insult them yourself.
2. Saying the victims of one situation (SHS) should change their behavior to avoid it, but then you say you shouldn’t have to change your own behavior to avoid something you dislike.
Maybe you're not a hypocrite, but you certainly have double-standards.

As the late Paul Harvey said, "Good day".
'enry

September 11, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

methusla,
One more thing...

At 8:44 a.m. today I said, "For the record, I think both the smoking ban and sound ordinance or good things."

So, your comment at 9:24 a.m. doesn't apply.
'enry

September 11, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Talk about double standards, bans v ordinances, Duh !
Favor banning one and not the other, double standard, Duh !
And if you are on the record as believing a ban on one thing and not the other, is a good thing, then my comment does apply !
Oh, and for the record, I support neither a smoking ban nor a loud music ban ! I only support tolerance and respecting others wants and needs, within reason !
Thank you for not addressing me further, I will do the same !

September 11, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

Since I'm not talking to methusla anymore, could someone tell him the following?

It's just terminology. The public smoking ban is an ordinance! Duh! Excessively loud music is banned by the sound ordinance. PUBLIC smoking is banned by the smoking ordinance. Both of these ordinances keep people from disturbing others with their actions.
The smoking ban should have never been called a "ban" in the first place. Using the term "ban" only confused SOME people. Smoking isn't "banned". Smoking is simply regulated to prohibit smoking in specific places. Smoking isn't banned and neither is music; when these acts affect others is when the ordinances come into play.

You said, “I only support tolerance and respecting others wants and needs, within reason !” This raises several questions. What do you consider “disrespectful”? What do you consider “wants and needs”? What do you consider to be “within reason”? Different people may have different views on what all this means.
For example: You don’t think it’s “disrespectful” for a smoker to expose others to SHS in public places whereas I do. You think smokers “need” to smoke in public places whereas I don’t. You think it’s “unreasonable” to ask smokers to smoke outside whereas I don’t.
On the flip side… You think it’s “disrespectful” for people to play their music loud. You don’t think people “need” to play their music so loud. You think it is “reasonable” to force people to turn their music down.
You see? “Respecting others wants and needs, within reason” can have entirely different meanings depending on who you ask because we all have different views.

If you can’t see how you have double standards on these to ordinances, then there is no hope for you.
‘enry

September 11, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

By the way, I'm trying to get "the last word" in, so please stop replying so I can win. :)
Thanks,
'enry

September 11, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

There were already laws prohibiting smoking in MOST places people HAD to go. The demand for smoke free restaurants was growing so the number of smoke free restaurants was increasing while the number of smoking allowed restaurants was shrinking. There was really no NEED for further regulation. I have heard horror stories about people being forced to take their breaks at work in a breakroom with smokers smoking. Maybe it happens, I don't know. The person said that smoking wasn't allowed in the breakroom but people did it anyway. My question was, "If people aren't following the rules now, what makes you think that more rules are going to make a difference. It's obvious that these people don't particularly care about rules." Perhaps there was a need to enforce laws and rules more but a "ban" wasn't really necessary in my opinion. I think the people who started the push for the "ban" are the ones that first called it a "ban" so you would have to ask them why they called the "ban" a "ban".

R.

September 11, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Sounds like you are in a " no win" situation " enry " aka " crack " !

September 11, 2009 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Oh, and "enry", aka crack, since I don' t support a ban on either smoking or loud music and since both the previous smoking ban ordinance was a fair one, requiring simple respect for others, tolerance of others and the ability to choose what is right for you and others as is the loud noise ordinance and all that was required, was for rational and tolerant people to either choose not to expose themselves to the so called deadly SHS and those who make with the loud noise to just choose to turn it down to a tollerable level, where is the double standard ? Or is this a question that is beyond your ability to reason an answer to !

September 11, 2009 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

methusla,
If you disagree with both bans, I suppose you don't have a double-standard in that regard. From your original post, I gathered that you wanted the people who play loud music to change their behavior so it doesn't affect others. I thought that was interesting because you didn't think smokers needed to change their behavior so others wouldn't suffer their SHS. That is where I feel your double-standard comes into play.
Also, calling me "crackinsack" only hurts your credibility because your are placing judgement on me based on unsubstantiated (and false) claims.
'enry

September 13, 2009 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

HenryVIII
You finally do " get it ". I most certainly do not agree with a smoking ban or a loud music ban. In fact I do not agree with banning anything that someone has a constitutional right to do, as does YY4U, therefore neither of us believe in nor support the banning of a persons rights, that is guaranteed to them by not only the U. S. constitution, but also the constitution of the STATE of KANSAS !
However I do believe in tolerance, being fair and respectful of others, within reason and not controlling others or forcing my beliefs upon others, just for the sake of being able to do so.
As far as anyone who does not like smoking, they are the only ones harming themselves by exposing themselves to the harmful elements by entering those places of businesses that used to allow smoking. The business owners nor the customers, neither dragged nor forced anyone to enter such an establishment and be exposed to anything that is or was thought to be harmful to them.
There were more non-smoking businesses in the City for non-smokers, smoking haters, smoker haters and control freaks to shop, eat, drink and socialize at, that did not allow smokers or smoking before an unfair, discriminatory smoking ban ordinance .
As for loud music, as seriouslyfolks stated, in most cases you have no way to avoid the din, if there are several in the neighborhood or surrounding neighborhoods that persist in not respecting others, by toning the loud din down somewhat, to a tolerable level or if you have a vehicle behind you, beside you or parked in your neighbor hood you can't avoid the din, unless you leave your own vehicle or home, and that is not fair nor right, all it takes is a small effort to lower the volume or not enter a place that you believe may do you harm !
The problem with the world, as I see it, is the fact that people seem to be getting more intollerant, disrespectful and controlling of others and that is very sad indeed and this is how tyranny is born ! Have a good evening and better tomorrow !

September 13, 2009 at 11:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

If Henry VIII isn't crackinsack he sure missed s damned good opportunity...writes just exactly like her. I considered changing my user name a few times but figured my writing style would be an immediate give away.

September 14, 2009 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Absolutely, biscuitboy. Writing style or voice is an exact give away because it reveals the writer's personality. Also, writing style is the manner in which a writer addresses a subject so it's not only how the writer uses syntax, diction, and figures of speech.

I'm retired now, but as a long-time English teacher, I would catch students who had turned in someone else's essay as their own simply because of voice. Once, I found an entire research paper that had been lifted from the web and it was very easy to detect.

Voice is each person's writing trademark. Seen often enough, writing is very easy to identify. I'll have to agree with you about Henry and crack. If it 's not the same person, they live together and have picked up all the nuances of language from each other.

Changing one's style or voice is very difficult to do. Try it sometime. It becomes uncomfortable.

September 14, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86...

A cool little video I found on liberty. So simple even I can understand it. lol

R.

September 14, 2009 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

create, biscuitboy
I agree with both of you about HenryVIII, either being crack or very close to crack and picked up on the similarity immediatly! I know that my style is very recognizable, as I am somewhat straight forward and say and write what is in my heart and mind and I realize that my straight forward attitude and style can be irritating to some, but I was raised with the idea of be yourself, truthful and honest . Therefore it would be no use for me to write or comment using a different username !

September 14, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks
Thank you for the link, it is an excellant video that everyone should see.
But there are those that would vehemently disagree with it and the message it conveys .

September 14, 2009 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Yes, seriously, a very cool little video and well worth the viewing. If you understood that, then you would understand Shakespeare. Maybe not the language per se, but the philosophical ideas inherent in his writings. As I viewed the video, I thought of several of Shakespeare's works, Julius Caesar for one.

Thanks for posting it.

September 14, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

methusla, create, and biscuitboy,
You can THINK I am whomever you want, but don't call me "crackinsack" to insult me or as an attempt to divert the conversation away from the subject at hand.
'enry

September 14, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

HenryVIII,
I certainly did not think you to be or call you crackinsack to insult you, however your whole mind set and philosophy is very similar or exactly the same as crackinsacks' and if you are insulted by being thought of and called crackinsack, that is entirely your perogative.

September 14, 2009 at 9:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

For what it's worth: Henry joined on Dec 12th. I very clearly remember his posts alongside of crackinsack's throughout the ban debate. I am not saying he is or he's not still the same person, but their writing style was similar then too.
Also, biscuitboy, I almost stopped to say "hi" to you the other day as you were getting into your vehicle, as I wouldn't mind meeting you in person, but didn't because I had no such permission. I do not know your real name, but still knew it was you. I will send Steve C. a message and tell him how I knew and you can determine from that whether you'd like to change your user name. I don't necessarily think you should, but it would be determined by how anonymous you really want to be.

September 14, 2009 at 10:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof.....I believe I know the problem of which you speak, and in fact had a woman approach me in the park recently because of that situation. She however was a fan of my postings and we had a very pleasant conversation.

I am not ashamed of my viewpoint,,,nor of what I say. I chose to remain anonymous only so some past parts of my life won't constantly be used to challenge how I believe today. You see I give my self an opportunity we rarely allow our politicians...the chance to change my mind.

If the opportunity presents itself again I would be happy to meet you in person...and have always respected your views without always agreeing with them. I only request one thing....please don't come packing heat..... :-)

September 15, 2009 at 6:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

It is possible for a person to post under two names at the same time....I suppose by using two different computers. I recently learned what I had long suspected......that under_score and bisquickboy were one in the same person. And yet they posted on the same thread.

September 15, 2009 at 6:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kansasmarine (anonymous) says...

Biscutboy, I did truly enjoy meeting you. And...I still respect your views. Thank you for the opportunity to meet you. It was one of the highlights of my day. :)

September 15, 2009 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

buscuitboy,
Probably not such a good idea to have personalized tags after all... I saw you at a 4-way stop one day. You were turning south. I waved like a madman, but you acted like you didn't even see me. Probably because you didn't! ;)
'enry

September 15, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Personalized tags? Huh, guess I missed that one. There is another poster on here who's tag matches their user name, though. Good grief this town is small!!!
biscuitboy, you have my word that I will be friendly and respectful.....even more so in person, as I come with a disarming smile and friendly voice :-).....should the opportunity ever arise. You remind me of a former co-worker of mine, who I miss alot. While we disagreed on many policies, we had just enough philosophies in common to have respectful but very spirited conversations. Coming from a family of debaters, I find the challenge enlivening.

September 15, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )