Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site nmtvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!unm-cvax!nmtvax!keaton
From: keaton@nmtvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: RE: Six-pack as a unit of measurement - GO FOR IT!!
Message-ID: <371@nmtvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Mar-85 23:19:52 EST
Article-I.D.: nmtvax.371
Posted: Thu Mar 21 23:19:52 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Mar-85 00:36:19 EST
References: <286@bgsuvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: keaton@nmtvax.UUCP (David Keaton)
Followup-To: net.jokes
Organization: New Mexico Tech, Socorro
Lines: 64
Keywords: DWI, Drinking, Driving


*** CLEAN AND REPLACE LINT FILTER BEFORE LOADING ***

In <286@bgsuvax.UUCP>, schultz@bgsuvax.UUCP (Steven Schultz) writes:
> . . . (and nearly everyone of us
> has committed this dastardly crime at one point of our life or another) . . .

Probably not, unless one is careful about defining "us."

>     I sent the original author a reply giving my six-pack measurements.  My
> reply was also humourous, which is how I took the article . . . it was funny.

That's interesting since the original author said it was neither
humorous nor serious.

> Strange enough many, net.singles.christians, net.single.temperance.activists,
> net.singles.I-can't-handle-alcohol, and most importantly the
> net.singles.wimps replied with their repetitive postings of the same B.S.

Since there's nothing wrong with what the anti-DWI people are saying,
Steven feels he has to try to attack the individuals.  But it's a pretty
wimpy attempt.  It's full of holes:
	net.singles.christians:  This isn't even related to the subject.
		People against DWI come from the whole spectrum of
		beliefs.  Besides that, only a small minority of
		Christians believe alcohol is bad in itself.
	net.single.temperance.activists, net.singles.I-can't-handle-alcohol:
		The people in these categories believe that alcohol is
		always bad.  None of these people have entered this argument.
	net.singles.wimps:  It's supposed to be macho to go out and kill
		people on the highway?

> (Now sonny-boy, y'all shouldn't drink and drive, it's naughty).  

Naughty ain't the word, sonny-boy.  Can you say murder?  I knew you could.
And, Steven, if you believe that's B.S., as you say above, then this statement
from the first part of your article:
>     I think that everyone knows
> that drinking and driving is stupid and dangerous . . .
is false.

Now, I can see why I would be more sensitive to this subject than
Steven.  New Mexico has the highest number of alcohol-related traffic
deaths of any state in the U.S. and some of my friends have lost
family members to drunk drivers.  Still, that doesn't make it ok to
drive drunk if you happen to be someplace else.

Steven apparently intended the rest of his article to be humorous, so
here's some data for the *non*-DWI group.
	Albuquerque, NM -- Coronodo shopping center to the southern city limits
	via I-40 and I-25:
		One 24oz Pepsi, with one bathroom stop because those
		Albuquerque drivers will scare it right out of you as
		soon as you drink it!  The caffeine is important because
		the heightened alertness is needed to avoid being
		hit by one of those crazy drivers, especially if there's
		snow on the ground!  :-)

BTW, why is this in net.singles anyway?  If we want to continue it as a
joke, let's move it to net.jokes.
-- 
                                   David Keaton
                                   New Mexico Tech
                                   ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!keaton