Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Any Golfers Out There?

I just won a one year subscription to Golfer's Digest and I have absolutely no interest in golf (or any other sports for that matter). Anyone out there into golf that would be interested in the magazines? I could just send a change of address to the distributor and have the magazines sent to your place instead of mine.

Priority goes to those nice Freddy fans that pitched in for the laptop and, if there's more than one interested, whoever's e-mail response I open first wins. If no one's interested, no big deal. I can just give it to some customers of mine that are really into golf.

This assumes I end up getting the magazines. I won something last week that was supposed to be sent here 2nd day shipping, or whatever that's called, and I still haven't seen it.

3 Comments:

At 3:55 PM, Anonymous pz said...

REPOSTED FOR YOUR CONVENIECE

fred:
I believe that the ruling does indeed say that if someone has no other place to go, it is unreasonably cruel punishment to harass that person night after night, preventing her from getting enough sleep, when she is braking no other laws, and is just trying to sleep, even if she is trying to sleep on the sidewalk on the plaza.
(United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on the web at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8138B5E4723C6FE988257150005B327E/$file/0455324.pdf?openelement).

The current approach to "homelessness" is in the process of changing. What good is a fancy statue in the park to the man who has no shelter from the rain at night? How does the well-manincured baseball field benefit the youth who can never afford to go inside and has nowhere to even sit down to rest for a moment?

It has always been against the law for anyone to sleep in your backyard - even when your backyard belonged to a different entity than a land owner. And some people will always consider a law that denies them existance an immoral law, to be disobeyed.

Please elaborate on what you mean by "protection for the general public." Does the "general public" include people of a lower economic class than some local highschool kids?


to kat:
It is true that some people who are "homeless" are jerks, but it's also true that some people of every recognizable group are jerks. Car-drivers, for example. Some car-drivers are rude, obnoxious, use pofane language, etcetera, and are dangerous. Or how about "college students?"

to the greek-letters name:
These laws were already unconstitutional before the ruling, and were in fact defeated in court here in Arcata (People v. Porter T0310779M 2005 and People v. Theodore Lewis Robinson T0304959M 2003) years ago, as well as elsewhere (Portland, Oregon - State of Oregon v. Wickes; Santa Ana, California - the “Eichorn decision”; Miami, Florida - Potinger v. City of Miami”; and Austin, Texas - ruling by Magistrate Jim Coronado).
So much for "the law."

to other anonymous:
Why do you assume that all "homless" want to live "like a wildman"?
How do you know if the "homeless" guy over there is harmless or not? How do you know if your neighbors are harmless or not?

 
At 7:28 PM, Anonymous Kat said...

to kat:
It is true that some people who are "homeless" are jerks, but it's also true that some people of every recognizable group are jerks. Car-drivers, for example. Some car-drivers are rude, obnoxious, use pofane language, etcetera, and are dangerous. Or how about "college students?"


Really? I never would have guessed.

Your point is....???

 
At 8:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

homeless golfers?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home