scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> When visiting some suburb of Detroit (don't remember the name, near to 
> the Ford place) it was exactly like this. I could see a shopping mall 
> from my hotel window, but to walk there was a nightmare, involving 
> walking along the road (no footpath leading up to the hotel), climbing 
> over a barrier and crossing 4 lanes of traffic (although it wasn't that 
> busy). The same thing happened when I tried to walk home from the office 
> to my hotel, and I also noticed signs forbidding cycling on various 
> roads near to the shops (such signs I would expect to cause an uproar 
> amongst cyclists in any European country).

I don't understand how that can be in any way practical.

Not every single person who might want to move from point A to point B
inside that suburb owns a car, or even has a license. Some might have
bikes, but from your description it sounds like the suburb isn't very
bike-friendly either. Even then, some people *don't* own even a bike.

What happens if your car breaks, and you need to go to the grocery store
*right now*? Do you call a taxi? Seems rather unreasonable. (Friends and
neighbors might not be there to help you as they may be somewhere else or
just busy otherwise.)

What about plain old exercising? What if you want to go jogging? I suppose
you are expected to drive to some place dedicated precisely to that
purpose, such as a park. You have to drive to a place where you can
exercise... sound *so* American. :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/22/2012 6:45, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> On 10/21/2012 1:14, Warp wrote:
>>> of weirdo when he wanted to go to the grocery store by foot.
>
>> I've done that. The problem is not so much the walking as the fact that
>> you're lugging groceries back. Buy a gallon of milk, and you won't be
>> lifting your elbow above your shoulder for several days.
>
> I really think you need more exercise... :P

I don't think so. I think it was actually closer to 2 miles, and might have 
been two gallon-jugs. But whatever.

> (Personally, I always use a backpack.)

That would have been much wiser in my case. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."

Post a reply to this message

> What about plain old exercising? What if you want to go jogging? I suppose
> you are expected to drive to some place dedicated precisely to that
> purpose, such as a park. You have to drive to a place where you can
> exercise... sound *so* American. :P

Funnily enough that exact shopping mall advertised some kind of 
walking/jogging event inside the mall before the shops opened (it's the 
first time I had ever heard of such events and it still seems strange to 
me).

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> It depends where, in Raleigh, North Carolina, being the "wrong" kind of 
> Christian is sometimes enough.

Politics in the United States used to be like that not so long ago.
Back then politicians generally avoided the subject of religion like the
plague because it would have been a political suicide to proclaim your
religious affiliation. It would have driven a good portion of the voters
away. ("Oh, he's a catholic! It's the church of Satan! I'm definitely not
voting for him!" or "Oh, he's a baptist. Those are nutjob religious
fundamentalists. Definitely not for me!")

Somehow this has turned completely on its head during the last years.
Nowadays it would be a political suicide *not* to profess one's religion.
Of course as long as you keep it vague enough. Just talk about "God" and
"Christian values" in a very vague and non-specific manner, without going
too much into specifics about exactly which one of the 30000+ different
denominations you are talking about.

Nowadays people there still get an uneasy feeling if a candidate represents
a denomination they don't like (such as mormonism), but are too afraid to
complain about it too loudly... What was once a definitive show-stopper
has been turned into a "well, maybe it's not *that* bad; he's a Christian
after all..."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Le 10/10/2012 19:59, Warp nous fit lire :
> > Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Seriously. You realise I'm never more than 17 feet from a computer,
> >> right? What do I need a phone for?
> >
> > Some people have friends who are not always 17 feet from a computer.
> >
> Two shocking ideas:
>  * people have friends
>  * 17 feet from a computer is already too much away.

a true poet

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 04:14:03 -0400, Warp wrote:

> I have heard rumors that there are neighborhoods in the US where there
> are no sidewalks at all, only streets. You are *supposed* to *always*
> drive a car there and, in fact, if you were to walk there, people would
> look at you suspiciously (because they would think you might be some
> kind of thief scouting the premises or something.) I don't know if this
> is true. (Sounds rather impractical to me.)

IME, having grown up in an area that had streets with no curbs (much less 
sidewalks), that's bogus.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 05:22:46 -0400, Warp wrote:

> I have heard that there are many shops there where the parking space in
> front of them is actually owned by the shops, and it's forbidden to have
> your car parked in front of a shop while you are visiting a different
> one.

That, however, is sometimes true.  Parking spaces are generally part of 
the shop property, and some business owners are a real pain the ass about 
it, even hiring towing companies who camp out to tow or boot cars of non-
customers.

In our neighborhood, we've got a shop like that in an area where space is 
restricted - and they're *never* busy (they're a beauty supply store, and 
rarely do they have more than a couple of customers at any given time).

They could probably pay their bills by letting people use their lot and 
charging for parking, and provide validations for their own customers.  
Instead, they prefer to have the entire neigborhood hate them.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:41:17 +0100, scott wrote:

> Funnily enough that exact shopping mall advertised some kind of
> walking/jogging event inside the mall before the shops opened (it's the
> first time I had ever heard of such events and it still seems strange to
> me).

Indeed, when I was in high school, I worked in a mall and it was very 
common, especially with the older population, for them to even organize 
walks before the stores opened.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:24:49 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>> (Personally, I always use a backpack.)
> 
> That would have been much wiser in my case. :-)

Some stores really look down on people bringing in backpacks, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 04:09:11 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> There are places that can be true, particularly in the colder climes. 
>> I remember days growing up where it was -70F outside (with the wind
>> chill)
>> - you wouldn't WANT to go outdoors in that if you could avoid it. ;)
> 
> -70F sounds refreshing.

Until your nose falls off from exposure.  Frostbite sets in very quickly 
at temperatures like that.

(I would, however, note that at least in the US how wind chill is 
calculated changed, and using the 'modern' calculation it wasn't as 
severe sounding as it was when I was a kid, but it still was damned cold).

Jim

Post a reply to this message