On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:34:42 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>Except for those non-smokers in the immediate vicinity.
True, but in those days we weren't so grossed out by people smoking
nearby. It was just a background noise. You never would have
complained about someone smoking at a nearby table in a restaurant, at
least in the south.
These days I can smell a cig sixty feet away at an outdoor event, and
I'll move. But when I was a kid my folks smoked in the car with only
the wing-windows open and it was "normal."
>Side note: Did the electrostatic precipitators clear out the gunk from the >air or just cause it to stick to the walls? Some of those home air cleaner >systems just seem to provide a static charge to the grime which then sticks >to everything near the device.
These were nuclear-powered precipitators. The concern was the
electronics, not the people. Those suckers blasted smoke, dust, and
especially grease droplets from the deep fat fryer into component
atoms. Air flows through them were a stiff, roaring wind, not the
gentle breeze of a household furnace fan. The residue was trapped and
cleaned by A-gangers during weekly field day.
Besides precipitators we had CO2 scrubbers, CO burners, pure O2 bleed,
and activated charcoal beds to eat organic odors from the heads and
galley. Also, a thousand miles at sea, ventilation at PD brought in
some sweet, sweet air. Partial pressures were also measured every hour
and when any gas component got out of whack it was fixed.
The air was very, very good. I remember coming out the hatch in Kings
Bay after one patrol, several months underwater. It was 95 degrees,
the humidity was about 85, and there was a stench of rotting organic
matter and diesel smoke. I literally gagged.
(Hunter) wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:51:06 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com>
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:14:42 -0700, jess stone <jessst...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Tonight I'm watching Survivor, Modern (recording), The Neighbors
>>>(recording) and recording Nashville for Summer '13 viewing but have
>>>zero interest in Fire.
>>No interest until they have five guys with beer guts and big
>>moustaches in the fire house. And a lot of farting. I've seen the
>>previews and there aren't that many pretty people in the Chicago
>>metroplex, let alone in one fire station.
>-------
>Damn, if that is your standard then I guess you will never watch tv.
>In this case the closest you are describing is "Lou" on "Rescue Me".
>Who wants to look at a bunch of guy's like that?
>Plus I have seen plenty firemen in real life. Only a tiny minority are
>like that. You have to be a really fit man to be on a job like that
>despite what you apparently think.
>Also who cares about the men? I like the georgeous Latina Paramedic
>who was on "Lie To Me".
To each his own. I can see fire fighters with my own lyin' eyes--the
firehouse is half a mile from the house--and they don't look like
House Boy.
<VForVende...@portman.natalie.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:00:52 -0700, jess stone wrote:
>> Is that you, Grandpa? : )
>I was not alive in 1963 and enjoyed the show immensely and better than >many of my other favorites
And delicious irony that its replacement is doing worse. "PanAm"
needed new writers, but it was a great platform to explore the world
in that era. Far more expansive than "Mad Men."
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:56:15 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:34:42 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Except for those non-smokers in the immediate vicinity.
>True, but in those days we weren't so grossed out by people smoking
>nearby. It was just a background noise. You never would have
>complained about someone smoking at a nearby table in a restaurant, at
>least in the south.
Geez, when I started college, we'd walk into the classroom, slap down the
pack of Marlboros and the Zippo on the desk, and light up at will. Ashes
and butts went on the floor!
"Steve Bartman" <sbart...@visi.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:25:50 GMT, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com>
> (Hunter) wrote:
>>Plus I have seen plenty firemen in real life. Only a tiny minority are
>>like that. You have to be a really fit man to be on a job like that
>>despite what you apparently think.
> To each his own. I can see fire fighters with my own lyin' eyes--the
> firehouse is half a mile from the house
Is there anyone living in non-rural America that doesn't have a firehouse within a mile or so of their house? If there is any single place where taxpayer money is most wasted, it is with local taxes paying for firemen/firehicles/fire stations. All the laws were set up in the late 1800s when everything was build of wood and built inches apart from everything else. Now, people are just continuing to pay for a huge amount of 'wasted overhead'...though it has gotten a bit better now that they are being cross-trained to EMT status.
>--and they don't look like House Boy.
Agreed, though I will say that the police and EMTs are far more fat/old/weak/undersized/incapable of physical efforts compared with firemen.
"Mason Barge" <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:56:15 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com>
> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:34:42 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Except for those non-smokers in the immediate vicinity.
>>True, but in those days we weren't so grossed out by people smoking
>>nearby. It was just a background noise. You never would have
>>complained about someone smoking at a nearby table in a restaurant, at
>>least in the south.
> Geez, when I started college, we'd walk into the classroom, slap down the
> pack of Marlboros and the Zippo on the desk, and light up at will.
I sure am glad this country offers people less individual freedom than 'the good old days'.
> Ashes and butts went on the floor!
I have yet to meet a smoker that doesn't toss their butts to the ground...even in their own back yard half the time.
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:56:15 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com>
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:34:42 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Except for those non-smokers in the immediate vicinity.
>>True, but in those days we weren't so grossed out by people smoking
>>nearby. It was just a background noise. You never would have
>>complained about someone smoking at a nearby table in a restaurant, at
>>least in the south.
>Geez, when I started college, we'd walk into the classroom, slap down the
>pack of Marlboros and the Zippo on the desk, and light up at will. Ashes
>and butts went on the floor!
Yep.
I remember being in a Food Lion in about 1995, in Winston-Salem, home
of RJ Reynolds, and seeing a woman bending over the meat case with a
two inch ash hanging off her Camel. When it bailed out it splashed all
over the meat, but she walked away, oblivious.
I'd say that smoking in public and commercial settings in those days
probably increased janitorial costs 30-50%. Every stoplight had piles
of butts in the gutter from where people emptied ashtrays in the
street as they waited for the light to change.
"Steve Bartman" <sbart...@visi.com> wrote:
> I'd say that smoking in public and commercial settings in those days
> probably increased janitorial costs 30-50%.
One of the big reasons for restaurants to go non-smoking is that it saves them a ton of money on continual repainting/reapolstering/recarpetting costs.
>Every stoplight had piles
> of butts in the gutter from where people emptied ashtrays in the
> street as they waited for the light to change.
How is that different from now? At best, the butt piles are more prevalent at highway on/off-ramp intersections than at other intersections, but smokers still litter everywhere.
"Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Mason Barge" <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:56:15 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:34:42 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Except for those non-smokers in the immediate vicinity.
>>> True, but in those days we weren't so grossed out by people smoking
>>> nearby. It was just a background noise. You never would have
>>> complained about someone smoking at a nearby table in a restaurant, at
>>> least in the south.
>> Geez, when I started college, we'd walk into the classroom, slap down the
>> pack of Marlboros and the Zippo on the desk, and light up at will.
> I sure am glad this country offers people less individual freedom than 'the > good old days'.
The country doesn't offer freedom. Freedom is the natural state. If
anything, the country offers restriction on freedom.
"BTR1701" <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "Mason Barge" <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:56:15 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:34:42 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Except for those non-smokers in the immediate vicinity.
>>>> True, but in those days we weren't so grossed out by people smoking
>>>> nearby. It was just a background noise. You never would have
>>>> complained about someone smoking at a nearby table in a restaurant, at
>>>> least in the south.
>>> Geez, when I started college, we'd walk into the classroom, slap down >>> the
>>> pack of Marlboros and the Zippo on the desk, and light up at will.
>> I sure am glad this country offers people less individual freedom than >> 'the
>> good old days'.
> The country doesn't offer freedom. Freedom is the natural state. If
> anything, the country offers restriction on freedom.
That would be the natural state of freedom that allows you to shoot your neighbor for his food supplies...ah, how you long for the day.
>> I'd say that smoking in public and commercial settings in those days
>> probably increased janitorial costs 30-50%.
> One of the big reasons for restaurants to go non-smoking is that it saves > them a ton of money on continual repainting/reapolstering/recarpetting > costs.
And one of the worst reasons to do it is because the government forced them
to.
>> "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> "Mason Barge" <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:56:15 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:34:42 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Except for those non-smokers in the immediate vicinity.
>>>>> True, but in those days we weren't so grossed out by people smoking
>>>>> nearby. It was just a background noise. You never would have
>>>>> complained about someone smoking at a nearby table in a restaurant, at
>>>>> least in the south.
>>>> Geez, when I started college, we'd walk into the classroom, slap down >>>> the
>>>> pack of Marlboros and the Zippo on the desk, and light up at will.
>>> I sure am glad this country offers people less individual freedom than >>> 'the
>>> good old days'.
>> The country doesn't offer freedom. Freedom is the natural state. If
>> anything, the country offers restriction on freedom.
> That would be the natural state of freedom that allows you to shoot your > neighbor for his food supplies...ah, how you long for the day.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:53:42 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Every stoplight had piles
>> of butts in the gutter from where people emptied ashtrays in the
>> street as they waited for the light to change.
>How is that different from now? At best, the butt piles are more prevalent >at highway on/off-ramp intersections than at other intersections, but >smokers still litter everywhere.
It's a LOT better now, youngster. :)
Go back to 1965 and drive through the suburbs.
I do miss the days when you could get rid of excess beer and amuse
yourself by trying to disassemble the butts clogging the urinal drain.
Cue George Carlin joke about a Kent micronite filter and a keg of beer
. . .
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:23 -0500, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>"Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "Mason Barge" <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Geez, when I started college, we'd walk into the classroom, slap down the
>>> pack of Marlboros and the Zippo on the desk, and light up at will.
>> I sure am glad this country offers people less individual freedom than 'the >> good old days'.
>The country doesn't offer freedom. Freedom is the natural state. If
>anything, the country offers restriction on freedom.
Thank goodness for that! Anarchy's not for me. (Yes, I'm aware of the
irony of posting that here on usenet.)
Steve Bartman wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:00:52 -0700, jess stone<jessst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:19:56 -0500, Steve Bartman<sbart...@visi.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:37:06 -0700, jess stone<jessst...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:10:18 -0500, Steve Bartman<sbart...@visi.com>
>>> ...but then I was alive in 1963.
>> Is that you, Grandpa? : )
> Yes, truly it is rare for one to be in his 50s. :)
> Steve
LOL... I don' think it is so rare, but "admitting" it, may be. ;)
bj
>Steve Bartman wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:00:52 -0700, jess stone<jessst...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:19:56 -0500, Steve Bartman<sbart...@visi.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:37:06 -0700, jess stone<jessst...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:10:18 -0500, Steve Bartman<sbart...@visi.com>
>>>> ...but then I was alive in 1963.
>>> Is that you, Grandpa? : )
>> Yes, truly it is rare for one to be in his 50s. :)
>> Steve
>LOL... I don' think it is so rare, but "admitting" it, may be. ;)
>bj
What I wouldn't give to spend a week in the 60s again.
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:51:06 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:14:42 -0700, jess stone <jessst...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>Tonight I'm watching Survivor, Modern (recording), The Neighbors
>>>>(recording) and recording Nashville for Summer '13 viewing but have
>>>>zero interest in Fire.
>>>No interest until they have five guys with beer guts and big
>>>moustaches in the fire house. And a lot of farting. I've seen the
>>>previews and there aren't that many pretty people in the Chicago
>>>metroplex, let alone in one fire station.
>>-------
>>Damn, if that is your standard then I guess you will never watch tv.
>>In this case the closest you are describing is "Lou" on "Rescue Me".
>>Who wants to look at a bunch of guy's like that?
>>Plus I have seen plenty firemen in real life. Only a tiny minority are
>>like that. You have to be a really fit man to be on a job like that
>>despite what you apparently think.
>>Also who cares about the men? I like the georgeous Latina Paramedic
>>who was on "Lie To Me".
>To each his own. I can see fire fighters with my own lyin' eyes--the
>firehouse is half a mile from the house--and they don't look like
>House Boy.
>Steve
-----
They don't have to look like "houseboy" whomever that is, but just
look fit and seeing the FDNY firefighters here in NYC most of them
are very fit. You have to be to lug 40 pounds of Bunker gear and tools
up flights of stairs stairs.
About the ones you see: Are you in a major city or small town? Are
they professional firefighters or volunteers?
Besides it is a common thing that the actors playing roles of real
life professions look a lot better than the real people in those jobs,
so if it is going to be your attitude not to watch a program because
the actors and actresses are prettier than they would be generally in
real life you are going to stop watching, what, 80% of television that
aren't news and documentaries.
------>Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
My only contribution to this is to say that I really have no interest after watching years of Rescue Me. To me that was one of the best portrayals I can imagine...combining sometimes absurd but always hilarious comedy with often moving and realistic moments of heroism and self sacrifice. Without being maudlin and too melodramatic. Guys doing their jobs and having each others backs while not taking themselves so seriously...except when they had to. All the foibles and flaws on display...heartbreak one minute and realistic humor combined with a dark edge and often absurdist philosophical touch. Even a bit of fantasy thrown in with Dennis Leary's unbalanced, crazed superhero of a firefighter. They found a way to blend all of it rather nicely for me. Certainly not to everyone's taste. But it spoiled me for any future firefighter shows.
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:51:06 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:14:42 -0700, jess stone <jessst...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>Tonight I'm watching Survivor, Modern (recording), The Neighbors
>>>>>(recording) and recording Nashville for Summer '13 viewing but have
>>>>>zero interest in Fire.
>>>>No interest until they have five guys with beer guts and big
>>>>moustaches in the fire house. And a lot of farting. I've seen the
>>>>previews and there aren't that many pretty people in the Chicago
>>>>metroplex, let alone in one fire station.
>>>-------
>>>Damn, if that is your standard then I guess you will never watch tv.
>>>In this case the closest you are describing is "Lou" on "Rescue Me".
>>>Who wants to look at a bunch of guy's like that?
>>>Plus I have seen plenty firemen in real life. Only a tiny minority are
>>>like that. You have to be a really fit man to be on a job like that
>>>despite what you apparently think.
>>>Also who cares about the men? I like the georgeous Latina Paramedic
>>>who was on "Lie To Me".
>>To each his own. I can see fire fighters with my own lyin' eyes--the
>>firehouse is half a mile from the house--and they don't look like
>>House Boy.
>>Steve
>-----
>They don't have to look like "houseboy" whomever that is,
Not "houseboy", House Boy. From "House." Try to keep up, man.
but just
>look fit and seeing the FDNY firefighters here in NYC most of them
>are very fit. You have to be to lug 40 pounds of Bunker gear and tools
>up flights of stairs stairs.
Yes, yes. There never was a fireman with a gut and mutton chops. Nope.
Never happen.
>About the ones you see: Are you in a major city or small town? Are
>they professional firefighters or volunteers?
Professional. Suburb of the Twin Cities. But I've lived in many places
and everywhere I've seen fire fighters of all shapes and sizes. But
never have I seen a fire house full of GQ models and Playboy
centerfolds, all with perfect skin and $500 haircuts.
>Besides it is a common thing that the actors playing roles of real
>life professions look a lot better than the real people in those jobs,
Sure, but there's a limit. Usually there's at least a few trolls. Even
our beloved "Revolution" has Google Guy. Take this cast and put them
in "NYPD Blue." Still a hit show? Nah. You need some butt crack.
>so if it is going to be your attitude not to watch a program because
>the actors and actresses are prettier than they would be generally in
>real life you are going to stop watching, what, 80% of television that
>aren't news and documentaries.
That's a ratio I'm approaching. Look at TV from 30, 20, and 10 years
ago. Look at the casts. Look at the dreck being served up now. See the
diff? They really do think we're that stupid.
Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com> writes:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:00:44 GMT, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com>
> (Hunter) wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:57:48 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:25:50 GMT, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com>
>>> (Hunter) wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:51:06 -0500, Steve Bartman >>>> <sbart...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>>> No interest [in _Chicago Fire_] until they have five guys with >>>>> beer guts and big moustaches in the fire house. And a lot of >>>>> farting. I've seen the previews and there aren't that many pretty >>>>> people in the Chicago metroplex, let alone in one fire station.
>>>> Damn, if that is your standard then I guess you will never watch >>>> tv. In this case the closest you are describing is "Lou" on "Rescue >>>> Me". Who wants to look at a bunch of guy's like that?
>>>> Plus I have seen plenty firemen in real life. Only a tiny minority >>>> are like that. You have to be a really fit man to be on a job like >>>> that despite what you apparently think.
>>>> Also who cares about the men? I like the georgeous Latina Paramedic
>>>> who was on "Lie To Me".
>>> To each his own. I can see fire fighters with my own lyin' eyes--the
>>> firehouse is half a mile from the house--and they don't look like
>>> House Boy.
>> They don't have to look like "houseboy" whomever that is ...
> Not "houseboy", House Boy. From "House." Try to keep up, man.
>> ... but just look fit and seeing the FDNY firefighters here in NYC >> most of them are very fit. You have to be to lug 40 pounds of Bunker >> gear and tools up flights of stairs stairs.
> Yes, yes. There never was a fireman with a gut and mutton chops. Nope.
> Never happen.
There are plenty, but in the first place, not all the males on _Chicago Fire_ are good-looking. Some are even allowed to be middle-aged. In the second place, even Jesse Spencer isn't as young and pretty as he was when he started on _House_. In the third place, it's typically true of TV casts that the males are allowed to run the gamut from ordinary to handsome, but the females all have to be young and good-looking unless they're a major character's mother or grandmother, and this is true of _Chicago Fire_.
It's also easier also for me to buy that an individual good-looking male might nevertheless decide to become a firefighter because of previous males in his family having been firefighters. He thinks he has something to live up to, and he'll get major respect from key males in his life for doing it. It's a lot harder for me to buy that an individual good-looking female would try to become a firefighter, and then having tried, would stick with it as a career, simply because the social incentive structure is so dead set against it for pretty females.
She wouldn't get the same respect for it, whereas she'd get huge social approval just for being decorative.
Finally, true of all TV, especially broadcast TV, there's been a right-shift in the curve towards prettier performers as the technical quality of the image has improved. Once you could see every single facial pore on a 60" HDTV, casting directors got more nervous about the quality of those pores. I don't think we'll ever see a return of the days when character actors like Richard Boone, Peter Falk, Telly
Savalas, and William Conrad will be go-to guys for headlining their own drama series (with the possible exception of original series on premium channels). They may be sought out for comedies,, but not for heroic over-the-air dramas. They are still allowed to be supporting players, though, and they're always allowed to be villains. For character actresses, though, the choices are pretty much mothers, grandmothers, and butts of jokes.
As for _Chicago Fire_ on its actual merits, it moves along and I've learned some things about firefighting I didn't know before, so it's above the average for the new shows, although that isn't setting the bar high. It's definitely better than _Revolution_, which is the big attention-getter so far and even more implausibly suffers from pretty catalog-people syndrome.
