In article m, "Leon" wrote:
Give up my freedom... No. That is a very broad term. I am only talking
about adding 1 more to the thousands of already government mandated
requirements.

So because the government has already overstepped its Constitutional authority
a thousand times, it's OK for it to do so again? I think not.

This certainly is not the first of or the last of these type proposals. I
just happen to go along with it. You on the other hand choose not to go
along with it. That is OK with me.

Trouble is, you're advocating that government *remove* that freedom of choice
from me.

Yes. I would voluntarily give up my freedom to choose a TS with or with
out this feature.

Then go buy one. But don't demand that the rest of us give up our freedom to
make the same choice.

That's it in a nut shell. If I have to sacrifice having a choice for what I
would consider a better out come, I have no problem with that. I guess this
is the beauty of living in the US. You have the freedom to voice your
preferences most of the time.


You don't have to sacrifice having a choice. Go buy one. Now. Then shut up,
and let the rest of us decide _for_ourselves_ whether we want one too.

Now, changing the subject a bit and to give you an example of some thing you
may or may not be aware of. My professional career was in the Automotive
industry. I was in upper management and successfully retired at age 40. If
you recall back in the 80's the Freon used in automotive air conditioning
systems was called R-12. There was a big deal about this freon damaging the
environment so a new type refrigerent was Mandated by the government so that
the R-12 would be phased out. That is what the manufacturers wanted you to
know.
Actually the patent for R-12 ran out for the manufacturer and every one was
able to make it and sell it. The manufacturer lobbied and convinced that
govermant that the R-12 was damaging the environment and should be phased
out and replaced with a more friendly refrigerant which they already had a
new patent on. Then the new refrigerant was introduced under a new patent
and that company is all warm and fuzzy again. One problem with this is that
while the new refrigerant is more friendly to the environmant, it is more
dangerous to be around if you are a human being. If you will notice, with
the new refrigerent, mechanics are required if possible to recapture the
freon gas if he has to open up the AC system. This is mostly for his long
term health. If the new Freon gas is so much friendlier, why not let it
excape into the atmosphere like the old freon gas was allowed to do.

Now this is a great example of a manufacturer making up a reason to require
the government to become involved. No one really benefits from this mandate
expept the manufacturer.

Yeah, it would be a great example if it were true, but it's not. This account
is absolute nonsense. The initiative to ban chlorofluorocarbons started with
ecologists and organic chemists, not with refrigerant manufacturers. And
that's what it was at the beginnig, too -- an attempt to ban *all* CFCs, not
just one or two specific refrigerants, because they *do* destroy the ozone
layer. Recapture of the new refrigerants is required by law for protection of
the atmosphere, not mechanics. Why not let it escape? Because it's destructive
of the ozone layer *too*, just not *as* destructive as the old stuff -- and
now that we know what's breaking down the ozone layer, we'd better stop
pumping more of that crap into the air.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW