How new religions get started

[Belly Bionic]

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/07/smoking_ban_leads_to_new_relig.php

Smoking ban leads to new religion

Wednesday 16 July 2008

Café owners in the Netherlands are joining religious movement known as
the One and Universal Smokers Church of God, the Telegraaf reports on
Wednesday.

‘We stand firmly behind the church’s teachings and that is smoking,’
Cor Busch, owner of the former Lindeboom café in Alkmaar told the
paper. ‘Smokers are being discriminated against… but a beer and a
cigarette belong together.’

Smoking has been banned in Dutch bars since July 1.

Several dozen bars have joined the movement which claims the Dutch
constitution and European rules give it legitimacy under the right to
freedom of religion, the paper says.

People who join the church get a membership card entitling them to
smoke inside the building. Worshippers believe in the trinity of
smoke, fire and ash and honour their god by smoking.

Church founder Michiel Eijsbouts says café owners who are trying to
get round the ban on smoking will not be allowed to join. The church,
he says, takes smoking very seriously.

‘It has ritual aspects, it is something you experience and we follow
our faith very strictly,’ he told the Telegraaf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Things like this really make me wonder about the real reasons that
older religions started. If I'm not mistaken, the Church of England
started because King Henry VIII wanted a divorce and the Pope wouldn't
let him have one. This one started because people want to smoke in
bars. It seems that people don't need much of an excuse to start a
new religion. Makes you wonder. Was Jesus really a deity? Or was he
just pissed off at Judaism for some reason so he decided to start his
own church?

[Trance Gemini]

Hah. Brilliant. I think I just saw the light (pun intended) and became religious.

I think I'll start a Canadian branch of the Church. ;-)

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown

Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown

[Belly Bionic]

Ha! Portland will have a ban on smoking in bars in effect starting in
2009. I can't wait. Of course, I'm not a smoker.

On Jul 16, 4:11 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hah. Brilliant. I think I just saw the light (pun intended) and became
> religious.
> I think I'll start a Canadian branch of the Church. ;-)
>
>
>

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/07/smoking_ban_leads_to_ne...

[4praise]

You know smoking will not send a person to hell. It just makes them
smell like they've been there.

> Was Jesus really a deity?

No. He is the deity.

> Or was he just pissed off at Judaism for some reason

Yeah, that too.

On Jul 16, 4:08 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/07/smoking_ban_leads_to_ne...
>

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Belly Bionic <belly...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ha!  Portland will have a ban on smoking in bars in effect starting in
2009.  I can't wait.  Of course, I'm not a smoker.

I am and I demand my right to religious freedom and to blow smoke in everone's faces everywhere because it's a religious rite of my Church. :-)

[DreadGeekGrrl]

I think that scientists should declare our work religion, Nature,
SciAm, NEJM, and all of the peer reviewed journals would then be
sacred texts. That way that cosmologists could say "this is my
religion" and the evolutionary biologists could say "this is my
religion" and people would be *obliged* not to say anything. In the
West, certainly in America, if you say that you believe that
Atlanteans communicate through washed-up actresses everyone in earshot
is obliged to say "I respect that". If, on the other hand, you say
"Human beings share 98% of their genome with chimps" people who barely
know what a genome is feel qualified to say "that's just wrong". I
think that doctor's should do the same thing so that evidence-based
medical practice will be on an even footing with homeopathy and reiki
and other CAM therapies.

Cheers
DGG

On Jul 17, 4:26 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com>

[Ted Goas]

Isn't this how we got so many version of Christianity? "I share
similar beliefs but don't like the existing rules, so I'll start my
own religion with those beliefs and my own rules"? Yes, it's a rough
draft, but is that a very basic principle?

-Ted Goas
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com

On Jul 16, 7:08 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/07/smoking_ban_leads_to_ne...
>

[Ted Goas]

"I am so sick of people hiding behind the Bill of Rights" Can anyone
name that Simpsons quote?

Funny development, though, haha.

-Ted Goas
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com


On Jul 17, 7:26 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com>

[Medusa]

Belly Bionic wrote:

> Ha! Portland will have a ban on smoking in bars in effect starting in
> 2009. I can't wait. Of course, I'm not a smoker.

This new religion has many potential converts in Illinois. Smoking in
any public place has been banned since January.

Medusa

[BlueSci]

On Jul 16, 8:28 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ha!  Portland will have a ban on smoking in bars in effect starting in
> 2009.  I can't wait.  Of course, I'm not a smoker.

The real question is: will you actually go out more? The smoking ban
has been in effect in WA for about 3 yrs. and most bars have had a
20-40% drop in business since it went into effect. Plus, the tips
that many depend on to suppliment their paychecks has dropped even
more. The bar that I frequent has had a 30% drop in business and I
haven't seen many new faces there. The only places in the state that
have seen an increase are Indian casinos because the ban doesn't cover
them. So where are all these people who claimed they were going to be
going out more often?

What's more, people are now starting to complain about having to walk
through clouds of smoke from people out on the sidewalk. And
neighborhood bars are getting more complaints about noise because of
all the people gathered outside to smoke. There is a bar about 1/2
block from me and I rarely heard much noise from it. Now I can tell
how busy a night they're having by listening to the crowd of smokers
outside. Honestly, I don't see that the law has done any good at all
(except for the casinos) and has caused more problems than it solved.

> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----------------------

> > > Things like this really make me wonder about the real reasons that
> > > older religions started.  If I'm not mistaken, the Church of England
> > > started because King Henry VIII wanted a divorce and the Pope wouldn't
> > > let him have one.  This one started because people want to smoke in
> > > bars.  It seems that people don't need much of an excuse to start a
> > > new religion.  Makes you wonder.  Was Jesus really a deity?  Or was he
> > > just pissed off at Judaism for some reason so he decided to start his
> > > own church?
>
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > Trance Gemini
> > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> > --Voltaire
>
> > Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown
>

> > Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:50 AM, DreadGeekGrrl <drea...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think that scientists should declare our work religion, Nature,
SciAm, NEJM, and all of the peer reviewed journals would then be
sacred texts.  That way that cosmologists could say "this is my
religion" and the evolutionary biologists could say "this is my
religion" and people would be *obliged* not to say anything.  In the
West, certainly in America, if you say that you believe that
Atlanteans communicate through washed-up actresses everyone in earshot
is obliged to say "I respect that".  If, on the other hand, you say
"Human beings share 98% of their genome with chimps" people who barely
know what a genome is feel qualified to say "that's just wrong".  I
think that doctor's should do the same thing so that evidence-based
medical practice will be on an even footing with homeopathy and reiki
and other CAM therapies.

Well of course DGG. I agree completely. I particularly like the sacred texts part. Nice touch. The really cool thing is that if anyone disputed you could accuse them of insulting your beliefs. You know, let's Ban Expelled because it's an insult to our religion type of thing.

Love it.

Now back to organizing my Church ....

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:

"I am so sick of people hiding behind the Bill of Rights" Can anyone
name that Simpsons quote?

Funny development, though, haha.

Yes well I'll be organizing my branch of the Church in a province which has the most extreme anti-smoking laws in the world.

They just banned smoking in people's personal property, their cars, if there are children in the car.

Now I don't think people should smoke around their children and most don't but to make it illegal in your own property?

That's extreme and sets a pretty bad legal precedent.

Ontarions are crying out for a branch of the One and Universal Smokers Church of God ;-)

[Trance Gemini]

In Ontario it's been banned everywhere including patios and 30 feet from front doors, people's private property, their cars, if children are in the car. 

I don't know the rates, but the news media has reported that restaurants and bars have been seriously hurt.

Of course, the Ontario government hasn't banned smoking in the Government run Casinos where there profits might be hurt.

More than a little hypocrisy in all that self righteousness they're spewing.

[Medusa]

BlueSci;

> On Jul 16, 8:28�pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ha! �Portland will have a ban on smoking in bars in effect starting in
> > 2009. �I can't wait. �Of course, I'm not a smoker.
>
> The real question is: will you actually go out more? The smoking ban
> has been in effect in WA for about 3 yrs. and most bars have had a
> 20-40% drop in business since it went into effect. Plus, the tips
> that many depend on to suppliment their paychecks has dropped even
> more. The bar that I frequent has had a 30% drop in business and I
> haven't seen many new faces there.

Not to start a flame war (lousy pun intended), but I wonder how much
the drop in business in bars has to do with the smoking ban. Maybe
it's because of the bad economy? Less people have the extra money for
a night on the town.

>The only places in the state that
> have seen an increase are Indian casinos because the ban doesn't cover
> them. So where are all these people who claimed they were going to be
> going out more often?

I don't go out more often. but it is nice to go out to eat or drink
and not come home smelling like an ashtray. And, yes, I used to leave
places earlier than I intended because the smoke was getting to me. I
even did this years ago when I was a smoker.

I have heard DJs and music critics on the radio hailing the law
because they can go to concerts without sitting in a smoke cloud.

> What's more, people are now starting to complain about having to walk
> through clouds of smoke from people out on the sidewalk. And
> neighborhood bars are getting more complaints about noise because of
> all the people gathered outside to smoke. There is a bar about 1/2
> block from me and I rarely heard much noise from it. Now I can tell
> how busy a night they're having by listening to the crowd of smokers
> outside. Honestly, I don't see that the law has done any good at all
> (except for the casinos) and has caused more problems than it solved.

That happened in Chicago when smoking in most public buildings was
banned (about 10 years ago,) The result was another law banning
smoking in front of the doors of the buildings.

As for noisy bars, I knew when the bars in my neighborhood were busy;
people spilled out into the streets even when they could smoke
inside. I think the cops loved this because they could always issue
tickets to people who had taken their drinks with them. Drinking
alcohol outside has been illegal since forever.

Medusa

[Dag Yo]

Have they banned smoking in restaurants already?

On Jul 16, 8:28 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:

[BlueSci]

On Jul 17, 6:44 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BlueSci;
>
> > On Jul 16, 8:28�pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ha! �Portland will have a ban on smoking in bars in effect starting in
> > > 2009. �I can't wait. �Of course, I'm not a smoker.
>
> > The real question is: will you actually go out more?  The smoking ban
> > has been in effect in WA for about 3 yrs. and most bars have had a
> > 20-40% drop in business since it went into effect.  Plus, the tips
> > that many depend on to suppliment their paychecks has dropped even
> > more.  The bar that I frequent has had a 30% drop in business and I
> > haven't seen many new faces there.
>
> Not to start a flame war (lousy pun intended), but I wonder how much
> the drop in business in bars has to do with the smoking ban.  Maybe
> it's because of the bad economy?  Less people have the extra money for
> a night on the town.

It's pretty easy to pinpoint it to when the law went into effect and
it doesn't correlate to the economy. If it did, there should be a
greater drop now because the economy is worse than it was 3 yrs. ago
and the decline in business has been pretty constant during that time.

>
> >The only places in the state that
> > have seen an increase are Indian casinos because the ban doesn't cover
> > them.  So where are all these people who claimed they were going to be
> > going out more often?
>
> I don't go out more often. but it is nice to go out to eat or drink
> and not come home smelling like an ashtray.  And, yes, I used to leave
> places earlier than I intended because the smoke was getting to me.  I
> even did this years ago when I was a smoker.

I'm allergic to perfume and I've had to leave places early because
someone's pefume was too strong (it clings to clothes and hair too),
but I've never advocated banning perfume.

>
> I have heard DJs and music critics on the radio hailing the law
> because they can go to concerts without sitting in a smoke cloud.
>
> > What's more, people are now starting to complain about having to walk
> > through clouds of smoke from people out on the sidewalk.  And
> > neighborhood bars are getting more complaints about noise because of
> > all the people gathered outside to smoke.  There is a bar about 1/2
> > block from me and I rarely heard much noise from it.  Now I can tell
> > how busy a night they're having by listening to the crowd of smokers
> > outside.  Honestly, I don't see that the law has done any good at all
> > (except for the casinos) and has caused more problems than it solved.
>
> That happened in Chicago when smoking in most public buildings was
> banned (about 10 years ago,)  The result was another law banning
> smoking in front of the doors of the buildings.

Our law is 25 ft. from doors, windows or vents. All that does is
force larger groups into fewer places, but it doesn't eliminate the
fact that you have to walk through these crowds when you walk down the
sidewalk. Either that or keep crossing the street every few feet.

>
> As for noisy bars, I knew when the bars in my neighborhood were busy;
> people spilled out into the streets even when they could smoke
> inside.  I think the cops loved this because they could always issue
> tickets to people who had taken their drinks with them.  Drinking
> alcohol outside has been illegal since forever.

I didn't say the bar was never noisy before. It's a sports bar so I'd
often hear noise when there was a big game going on. The difference
now is that I hear noise much, much more often than I used to. I live
in Seattle and there's not much time in the year that is pleasant for
hanging out outside especially at night, so the noise was most often
in the summer when the beergarden was open. Now it's all year long,
no matter what the weather is like. It doesn't really bother me that
much, but my neighbors that are closer are really upset. But then
they voted for the ban, so I find it hard to feel too sorry for them.

>
> Medusa

[Belly Bionic]

Absolutely. Portland is interesting in that it's the law here that
all bars have to serve food (not just standard bar food, but food that
requires a cook other than the bartender to make it). As a result,
the bars here tend to have really good food and fantastic Happy Hour
specials. Foodie that I am, I love this. Unfortunately, it's kind of
hard to enjoy the food when all you can smell is smoke, so when I am
eating out, I generally end up in a restaurant with a few screaming
children, which ruins the experience in a whole new way. I predict
that as soon as the smoking ban goes into effect, nearly all of my
eating out will be in bars since there will no longer be a down side.
I can rarely manage more than an hour or two around cigarette smoke,
at most, and then I'll still feel sick and headachey for several days
after. Without the cloud of smoke to contend with, I'll no longer
have to ration out my bar attendance to make sure I'll still be able
to function in the days following.

Honestly, it surprises me that business has dropped off so much
elsewhere. Are smokers really that whiney that they'll refuse to go
out at all unless they can smoke? It's not like smoking indoors is
totally safe, but smoking outside will kill you.

[Belly Bionic]

Of course not. The vast majority of people who wear perfume don't
wear an amount that would cause a problem for anyone else, and the
vast majority of people aren't in any way harmed by perfume.
Cigarette smoke is harmful to everyone, and there is no way to smoke
just enough for others to only smell it if they get really close to
you.

[BlueSci]

On Jul 18, 9:58 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Absolutely.  Portland is interesting in that it's the law here that
> all bars have to serve food (not just standard bar food, but food that
> requires a cook other than the bartender to make it).  As a result,
> the bars here tend to have really good food and fantastic Happy Hour
> specials.  Foodie that I am, I love this.  Unfortunately, it's kind of
> hard to enjoy the food when all you can smell is smoke, so when I am
> eating out, I generally end up in a restaurant with a few screaming
> children, which ruins the experience in a whole new way.  I predict
> that as soon as the smoking ban goes into effect, nearly all of my
> eating out will be in bars since there will no longer be a down side.
> I can rarely manage more than an hour or two around cigarette smoke,
> at most, and then I'll still feel sick and headachey for several days
> after.  Without the cloud of smoke to contend with, I'll no longer
> have to ration out my bar attendance to make sure I'll still be able
> to function in the days following.

I'm glad to hear that you will, but will others? Doesn't seem like it
here.

But I'm not unsympathetic. I don't like smoke around when I'm eating
either and I'm a smoker. I just don't think that bars should be
forced into it if it ruins their business. Here, there were several
cigar bars that were forced out of business completely. I don't know
what a reasonable solution would be, but I think that there ought to
be some compromise.

What I really don't understand, though is why there weren't more smoke-
free bars. There are many more non-smokers than smokers, so you'd
think that there would be a lot of places that would voluntarily go
smoke-free to cater to them.

>
> Honestly, it surprises me that business has dropped off so much
> elsewhere.  Are smokers really that whiney that they'll refuse to go
> out at all unless they can smoke?  It's not like smoking indoors is
> totally safe, but smoking outside will kill you.

Your weather is pretty much the same as it is here. Would you think
twice about going out if you knew you were going to have to stand
outside at night in January? In a way, I understand your confusion
because I don't know why so many smokers are staying home either, but
you know how much people whine and bitch about our weather. Then
again, I've seen the same statistics for places like CA and FL, so I'm
not so sure that weather is a factor.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[BlueSci]

I agree with most of that, though it doesn't take very much perfume to
set me off. My real point is that I simply avoid places where I'm
likely to run into it. I don't go into stores where I have to go
through the cosmetics dept. first, I avoid the detergent aisle at the
store unless I need to get something there and I frequent a bar where
few women wear make-up and avoid bars that attract the type of women
who do. This sometimes means that I can't go to see a certain
concert or eat at a some restaurants and I haven't been to the ballet
or opera for years. But I don't feel that businesses should be forced
to change to accomodate people like me. It would be nice if they
would so something voluntarily though, such as offering a perfume-free
night or a no perfume section.

> > > Medusa- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[rappoccio]

On Jul 16, 6:08 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/07/smoking_ban_leads_to_ne...

Either that, or Constantine "embellished" some ;)

[rappoccio]

Most East Coast states have had the ban for years (New York,
Massachusetts, etc, and Illinois just joined them). I like being able
to have a beer without choking half to death :)

[rappoccio]

On Jul 17, 7:50 am, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that scientists should declare our work religion, Nature,
> SciAm, NEJM, and all of the peer reviewed journals would then be
> sacred texts. That way that cosmologists could say "this is my
> religion" and the evolutionary biologists could say "this is my
> religion" and people would be *obliged* not to say anything. In the
> West, certainly in America, if you say that you believe that
> Atlanteans communicate through washed-up actresses everyone in earshot
> is obliged to say "I respect that". If, on the other hand, you say
> "Human beings share 98% of their genome with chimps" people who barely
> know what a genome is feel qualified to say "that's just wrong". I
> think that doctor's should do the same thing so that evidence-based
> medical practice will be on an even footing with homeopathy and reiki
> and other CAM therapies.
>
> Cheers
> DGG

Yeah, but then we can't tell them that they're delusional and we're
not. :)

[rappoccio]

On Jul 17, 4:38 pm, BlueSci <blue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 8:28 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ha! Portland will have a ban on smoking in bars in effect starting in
> > 2009. I can't wait. Of course, I'm not a smoker.
>
> The real question is: will you actually go out more? The smoking ban
> has been in effect in WA for about 3 yrs. and most bars have had a
> 20-40% drop in business since it went into effect. Plus, the tips
> that many depend on to suppliment their paychecks has dropped even
> more. The bar that I frequent has had a 30% drop in business and I
> haven't seen many new faces there. The only places in the state that
> have seen an increase are Indian casinos because the ban doesn't cover
> them. So where are all these people who claimed they were going to be
> going out more often?

Depends where you are. There has been no loss of business in
Massachusetts and New York (and none reported in Illinois so far).

>
> What's more, people are now starting to complain about having to walk
> through clouds of smoke from people out on the sidewalk. And
> neighborhood bars are getting more complaints about noise because of
> all the people gathered outside to smoke. There is a bar about 1/2
> block from me and I rarely heard much noise from it. Now I can tell
> how busy a night they're having by listening to the crowd of smokers
> outside. Honestly, I don't see that the law has done any good at all
> (except for the casinos) and has caused more problems than it solved.
>

The actual clincher was that people that worked in the restaurant
business were not interested in a higher risk of lung cancer due to
second hand smoke. It's a shame that they would have to give up on
something they might actually enjoy because they just can't stand the
smoke.

[Dag Yo]

Here's two more cents from me.

I remember when I was growing up going into restaurants and it always
being a pretty smelly affair even when my family always sat in the non-
smoking section of the restaurant. But i'm so used to California's
laws that say you can't smoke in restaurants, that it's outright
disgusting whenever I visit other states. And not that i'm a smoker
at all anyway, but I swear it's much better this way where you don't
get to smoke in restaurants and bars.

[Trance Gemini]

I guess that means you won't be joining my Branch of the Church? :-)

[Medusa]

BlueSci

> I agree with most of that, though it doesn't take very much perfume to
> set me off.

I have a problem with perfume and other "fragranced" products. Some
deordorants really stink, worse than the body odor they're taking care
of.

> My real point is that I simply avoid places where I'm
> likely to run into it. I don't go into stores where I have to go
> through the cosmetics dept. first, I avoid the detergent aisle at the
> store unless I need to get something there and I frequent a bar where
> few women wear make-up and avoid bars that attract the type of women
> who do. This sometimes means that I can't go to see a certain
> concert or eat at a some restaurants and I haven't been to the ballet
> or opera for years. But I don't feel that businesses should be forced
> to change to accomodate people like me. It would be nice if they
> would so something voluntarily though, such as offering a perfume-free
> night or a no perfume section.

A very expensive restaurant (never went there because it's waaaay out
of my price range) has had a "no perfume" rule for many years. The
management says that the odor of oerfume can ruin the enjoyment of
their food. Of course, they have also had a "no smoking" policy as
well.

It is my belief that perfume-free areas will be the new controversey;
already I have heard of concert halls and churches that ban scented
products.

Perfume has gotten stronger over the past couple of decades. I have
left places because an overwhelming scent has made me nauseated and
dizzy. I wish people would just wear a small amount rather than drench
themselves in it.

Medusa

[Dag Yo]

Usually i'm all for fake religions for the sake of fighting some sort
of injustice, make a joke of religion, or even just for laughs. But
in this case I think laws that keep people from smoking really are a
public good, and so I think i'll pass for now.

On Jul 19, 4:32 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess that means you won't be joining my Branch of the Church? :-)
>

[Dag Yo]

> and I frequent a bar where
> few women wear make-up and avoid bars that attract the type of women
> who do.

Sounds like a cool bar actually.

[BlueSci]

Amen to that! While a small amount can still set me off, sometimes
even when I can't detect the scent, the symptoms aren't nearly so bad
and I can usually move far enough away that it doesn't bother me.

I have an idea (just to bring this thread back on topic). Perhaps we
should start a religion and claim that the wearing of perfume is a
violation of our beliefs. Got any ideas for a name?

[BlueSci]

On Jul 19, 5:25 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > and I frequent a bar where
> > few women wear make-up and avoid bars that attract the type of women
> > who do.
>
> Sounds like a cool bar actually.

It's the one-and-only, world famous Blue Moon Tavern! It even has a
Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Moon_Tavern

BTW, if you saw the pictures of my friend rollerskating in the parade
on AvC, she's a bartender there. If you missed it here's one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/levyavi/2601235043/
She's also the model on the new sign. http://www.myspace.com/bluemoonseattle

So if you're ever in Seattle, you should stop by.

[Dag Yo]

I'm afraid I haven't been to Seattle in a few years, but I still have
some relatives in Portland and Seattle (which I recall being
relatively close, not that I've made the drive myself), but if i'm
ever in the area i'll be sure to check it out.