Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

<[email protected]> wrote:

[]
    > but the Viennese are dull formal types

I don't know aboutg that, but as I said in another post, it's the only
place we were turned away from an establishment due to dress on a recent
trip!

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
pictures at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer

Timothy Kroesen

Bottom posters don't "own" Usenet convention.

They may however be akin to the Dinosaurs, who slowly faded from
existence as a group while huddling together and making pitiful noises
as they were passed by natural selection and changing environment
...<g>

Thanks Bill Gates!

Tim K

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
    > Timothy Kroesen wrote:
    > > When *others* host the event, or 'own the event' (as in a
restaurant) it
    > > is YOU who need to conform, or better still offer regrets as to your
    > > non-attendance...
    > >
    > > So you do not intentionally irritate others??? All the while
knowing
    > > your hippie-dippy lefto-loungewear is not welcome at some events,
yet
    > > attend anyway??? So, what you're really saying is that others
should
    > > f-off their own irritations with your garb, since you have none
    > > yourself? Typical lefto-fuzzy logic; "*I* am right to ignore
convention
    > > since it makes *me* content to do so; damn the rest'....
    > >
    > > Tim K
    > >
    > like top posting !!

Mxsmanic

Timothy Kroesen writes:

    > I went to mass at Notre Dame one Sunday this May and found the tourist
    > spectacle (around the outside isles) appalling during the service. Loud
    > talking, flash photography, virtual beach attire, etc...
    >
    > Get a clue fellow travelers; particularly *during* services... All the
    > above mentioned activity was clearly posted as banned, at the door, in
    > international symbols...

Notre-Dame in Paris is state property; it doesn't belong to the
Catholic church.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

michaelnewport

Timothy Kroesen wrote:
    > Bottom posters don't "own" Usenet convention.
When *others* host the event, or 'own the event' (as on usenet) it
is YOU who need to conform, or better still offer regrets as to your
non-attendance...

So you do not intentionally irritate others???......yada yada yada

Timothy Kroesen

I'm curious, did you find some fault over the restaurant's stated
dressing policy or not?

Tim K

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
offy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1h1axl2.1pzyjnl1nrhogN%this_address_is_for_sp [email protected]...
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > []
    > > but the Viennese are dull formal types
    > I don't know aboutg that, but as I said in another post, it's the only
    > place we were turned away from an establishment due to dress on a
recent
    > trip!
    > --
    > David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
    > usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
    > pictures at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer

Mxsmanic

Timothy Kroesen writes:

    > When *others* host the event, or 'own the event' (as in a restaurant) it
    > is YOU who need to conform, or better still offer regrets as to your
    > non-attendance...

I usually do the latter, if they insist on special attire.

    > So you do not intentionally irritate others???

No.

    > All the while knowing
    > your hippie-dippy lefto-loungewear is not welcome at some events, yet
    > attend anyway???

There's nothing hippy-dippy about my attire. It is adapted to
environment conditions and the activities in which I engage.

    > So, what you're really saying is that others should
    > f-off their own irritations with your garb, since you have none
    > yourself?

Yes. I don't tell them how to dress; neither should they tell me.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Timothy Kroesen

Bottom posters, again, don't host (own or make the rules) of Usenet;
should there indeed be any such 'rules' to begin with. Bottom posting
is increasingly becoming an anachronism as outdated as Fido-Net hubbers;
'irritating' as you may find it.

We all observe you can easily follow this 'Usenet conversation'
propagated in a whole Five minutes since my last post... What again was
your grouse? Please top post it so I don't have to dig for your
answer...<g>

Tim K

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
    > Timothy Kroesen wrote:
    > > Bottom posters don't "own" Usenet convention.
    > >
    > When *others* host the event, or 'own the event' (as on usenet) it
    > is YOU who need to conform, or better still offer regrets as to your
    > non-attendance...
    > So you do not intentionally irritate others???......yada yada yada

Mxsmanic

Timothy Kroesen writes:

    > Bottom posters, again, don't host (own or make the rules) of Usenet;
    > should there indeed be any such 'rules' to begin with. Bottom posting
    > is increasingly becoming an anachronism as outdated as Fido-Net hubbers;
    > 'irritating' as you may find it.

I've seen no decline in the frequency of bottom posting. Experienced
users of Internet routinely intersperse their replies with backquoted
original text, not only here but in many different discussion media.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

barney2

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:

    > *From:* Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
    > *Date:* Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:51:15 +0200
    >
    > Timothy Kroesen writes:
    >
    > > I went to mass at Notre Dame one Sunday this May and found the tourist
    > > spectacle (around the outside isles) appalling during the service.
    > > Loud
    > > talking, flash photography, virtual beach attire, etc...
    > >
    > > Get a clue fellow travelers; particularly *during* services... All
    > > the
    > > above mentioned activity was clearly posted as banned, at the door, in
    > > international symbols...
    >
    > Notre-Dame in Paris is state property; it doesn't belong to the
    > Catholic church.

Nevertheless it is a church used for Roman Catholic worship.


----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as [email protected].
My new email address is that one, with the first digit of years in the
current century placed after the first word.

Mxsmanic

[email protected] writes:

    > Nevertheless it is a church used for Roman Catholic worship.

If the Catholics don't own it, they have no right to dictate how
people should dress inside. Not on my dime.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

barney2

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:

    > *From:* Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
    > *Date:* Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:31:33 +0200
    >
    > [email protected] writes:
    >
    > > Nevertheless it is a church used for Roman Catholic worship.
    >
    > If the Catholics don't own it, they have no right to dictate how
    > people should dress inside. Not on my dime.

I guess there are two issues here.

The first issue is whether the Catholic church has the right to /compel/ a
particular dress code in Notre Dame. I don't know how the arrangement with
the government works; if the church pays the government some money for its
use of the building (or compensates the government in some other way, for
example by taking responsibility for some of the maintenance and
management of the building), then one could argue that the church is
effectively renting the building at least during service times, and does
have a right to insist on certain dress.

The second issue is one of consideration, not only for those participating
in the service but also for future tourists (if tourists annoy locals,
that doesn't do future tourists any favours). Consideration is, of course,
entirely voluntary, but that doesn't mean it's a pointless thing.

As a matter of interest, is Sacre-Coeur also state-owned?

----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as [email protected].
My new email address is that one, with the first digit of years in the
current century placed after the first word.

Mxsmanic

[email protected] writes:

    > As a matter of interest, is Sacre-Coeur also state-owned?

I'm not sure, since the church was consecrated after the separation of
church and state. I think it is.

In any case, those who truly wish to worship have churches on every
street corner in Paris, and they are almost all empty.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Timothy Kroesen

Whoever 'owns the structure is not material; the rules of entry are
clearly and publicly posted then went largely ignored by the 'masses'...

Tim K

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Timothy Kroesen writes:
    > > I went to mass at Notre Dame one Sunday this May and found the
tourist
    > > spectacle (around the outside isles) appalling during the service.
Loud
    > > talking, flash photography, virtual beach attire, etc...
    > >
    > > Get a clue fellow travelers; particularly *during* services... All
the
    > > above mentioned activity was clearly posted as banned, at the door,
in
    > > international symbols...
    > Notre-Dame in Paris is state property; it doesn't belong to the
    > Catholic church.
    > --
    > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Timothy Kroesen

Of course not, old habit as they say die hard. What apparently irks
some are the huge increase of those top posting; which in itself
*establishes* 'convention'...

Tim K

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Timothy Kroesen writes:
    > > Bottom posters, again, don't host (own or make the rules) of
Usenet;
    > > should there indeed be any such 'rules' to begin with. Bottom
posting
    > > is increasingly becoming an anachronism as outdated as Fido-Net
hubbers;
    > > 'irritating' as you may find it.
    > I've seen no decline in the frequency of bottom posting. Experienced
    > users of Internet routinely intersperse their replies with backquoted
    > original text, not only here but in many different discussion media.
    > --
    > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

Timothy Kroesen writes:

    > Whoever 'owns the structure is not material; the rules of entry are
    > clearly and publicly posted then went largely ignored by the 'masses'...

What happens if the person entering is Jewish?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.