Quality of Life Crimes/Public Behaviour

[SD2]

Not if I can help it, for the stated reasons of course.

In fairness, I do quite like the parts of Scarborough that include the eastern beaches (Vic Park to the Bluffs, south of Kingston Road, and have friend with a house on Fenwood Heights that is very nice, almost castle-like, but the rest of the former city is mostly a write-off, for the reasons given, IMO.

I have a hard time believing you've ever been in Scarborough with the stereotypical crap you're spewing.

 

[The Mississauga Muse]

My! but my quote has been making the rounds!

Here it is again:

The biggest negative to public transit as I see it is the PUBLIC uses it. With public transit you are forced to sit in a mobile-box with some people who --if they approached you while you were in your car, you'd quickly roll up the windows.

to which AlvinofDiaspar commented:

Muse:

Quote:

This kind of behaviour is exacerbated due to socio-economic homogenity - one of the draws of the suburbs is not having to deal with the "other", and I suspect long term exposure to such leads to extreme levels of discomfort with anyone who isn't like "me" in a social setting.

Homogeneity is illusion --suburbs or otherwise.

Even in the homogeneity of one's own church, humans can find reason to divide up into "them"s and "us"es. Otherwise you wouldn't have an expression like "good Catholics". ("Good Catholics" implies there are bad ones.)

When you think about it, the Ultimate Champion of Homogeneity was Nazi Germany --and we-all know how THAT turned out.

This kind of behaviour is exacerbated due to socio-economic homogenity - one of the draws of the suburbs is not having to deal with the "other", and I suspect long term exposure to such leads to extreme levels of discomfort with anyone who isn't like "me" in a social setting.

Thinking about what you wrote, I can understand why I have problems in a public setting. You're correct in that it's my discomfort of the "others" --but Alvin, it's "others" who don't appear to share my Values.

And that sets my anxiety meter ticking.

There is one social setting where I feel perfectly at home in --no matter how crowded.

The YMCA --the "C" being in name only because you don't have to be Christian to be a member.

The Mississauga Y is a thing of Beauty. People --all colours, all religions, all abilities, all ages! --ALL feeling a part of something special.

Christian, Jew, Muslim you name it --or people like me who are still spiritually-searching, All Welcome. Black to White and every colour in between, All welcome. Millionaires and people receiving YMCA financial membership assistance --All Welcome.

Here's "Y" AlvinofDiaspar. Shared VALUES.

Here --from the Mississauga YMCA webpage:

YMCA Core Values:

Caring
Health
Honesty
Inclusiveness
Respect
Responsibility

or how about this from a YMCA webpage from across the Pacific?

"Maui Family YMCA seeks to promote the spiritual, mental, and physical welfare of people. The Maui Family YMCA is committed to providing programs to enhance the quality of life for all persons in the community regardless of race, religion, sex, age, or their ability to pay. Our programs are based on the values of caring, respect, honesty, and responsibility[/. These values are taught through education, example, and leadership"

"for all persons in the community regardless of race, religion, sex, age, or their ability to pay." is just a long way to say "inclusiveness".

All YMCA's in the entire world share those values. Like I said, a thing of Beauty!

I have problems, AlvinofDiaspar, when I'm forced to breathe the same air as people (AKA the "public") who don't share the values of "Caring, Honesty, Inclusiveness, Respect and Responsibility"

After all, that's what this thread was about "Quality of Life Crimes/Public Behaviour" --people who aren't "Caring, Honest, Inclusive, Respectful and Responsible."

 

[SD2]

Thinking about what you wrote, I can understand why I have problems in a public setting. You're correct in that it's my discomfort of the "others" --but Alvin, it's "others" who don't appear to share my Values.

And that sets my anxiety meter ticking.

There is one social setting where I feel perfectly at home in --no matter how crowded.

The YMCA --the "C" being in name only because you don't have to be Christian to be a member.

The Mississauga Y is a thing of Beauty. People --all colours, all religions, all abilities, all ages! --ALL feeling a part of something special.

Christian, Jew, Muslim you name it --or people like me who are still spiritually-searching, All Welcome. Black to White and every colour in between, All welcome. Millionaires and people receiving YMCA financial membership assistance --All Welcome.

Here's "Y" AlvinofDiaspar. Shared VALUES.


"for all persons in the community regardless of race, religion, sex, age, or their ability to pay." is just a long way to say "inclusiveness".

All YMCA's in the entire world share those values. Like I said, a thing of Beauty!

I have problems, AlvinofDiaspar, when I'm forced to breathe the same air as people (AKA the "public&quot who don't share the values of "Caring, Honesty, Inclusiveness, Respect and Responsibility"

After all, that's what this thread was about "Quality of Life Crimes/Public Behaviour" --people who aren't "Caring, Honest, Inclusive, Respectful and Responsible."

How can you possibly make the determination that nobody on the subway shares your values? How can you determine that all who use the YMCA do? I guarantee you that not everyone who use the YMCA share the values you adore.

The subway, like the YMCA, is diverse, open to everyone (all at the same price too) and democratic. It's all about inclusiveness.

One could argue that you're totally ignoring the values you claim to hold dear by applying such broad, inaccurate generalizations about those who use the subway, and your refusal to use it based on those generalizations.

 

[bizorky]

I have problems, AlvinofDiaspar, when I'm forced to breathe the same air as people (AKA the "public&quot who don't share the values of "Caring, Honesty, Inclusiveness, Respect and Responsibility"

After all, that's what this thread was about "Quality of Life Crimes/Public Behaviour" --people who aren't "Caring, Honest, Inclusive, Respectful and Responsible."

Forced to breathe the same air as the "public" who don't share YMCA values? Is this just restricted to public transit, or to the city in general? Does this mean that transit users have no values as such?

No, not all people are angels. But we are talking about exceptions here, not the rule. Besides, without pestering people with invasive questions, how exactly does one find out if someone shares those values? How does one prove that they actually practice those values rather than just say that they do?

 

[Canuck 36]

The Mississauga Muse, what the hell are you talking about?

How can you determine people's values by sitting beside them in silence for 10 minutes or so?

 

[adma]

Re the shared-value issue, keep in mind the big sort

 

[The Mississauga Muse]

SD2

How can you possibly make the determination that nobody on the subway shares your values? How can you determine that all who use the YMCA do? I guarantee you that not everyone who use the YMCA share the values you adore.

re: "How can you possibly make the determination that nobody on the subway shares your values? "

"nobody"? "Nobody" is an Absolute. Please go to my message and cut-and-paste the part where I said or even implied that "nobody on the subway" shared my values. Please.

How can you determine that all who use the YMCA do?

From your first questions "nobody" we now careen into your second question's use of the the Absolute "all".

Please go to my YMCA message and cut-and-paste the part where I said (or even implied) that "all" members of the YMCA share my values.

My message stated that all YMCA's have the same mission-statements values. I wrote this:

All YMCA's in the entire world share those values.

The planet's YMCA's (the institution/directors/staff). Not Members.

You then wrote:

"I guarantee you that not everyone who use the YMCA share the values you adore."

Cripes, you don't have to. There have been times when the Y has posted a Theft Alert. All lockers have prominent signs warning of locking up your property.

Related topic.

It's disturbing that my comment:

The biggest negative to public transit as I see it is the PUBLIC uses it. With public transit you are forced to sit in a mobile-box with some people who --if they approached you while you were in your car, you'd quickly roll up the windows.

can be so misinterpreted. Tell me that it's not true that it's possible for you to be sitting on a bus/subway car and the door can open and in stumbles a drunken sot who chooses to sit beside you and annoy you.

And how did my "some people" translate into "most transit users" or even "all"?

Some History.

Perhaps you never read the entire thread that began with:

AlchemisTO
Senior Forum Member
Posts: 4019
(26/11/06 4:03 am)
Reply &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Quality of Life Crimes/Public Behaviour

The last two nights in Toronto, whether I was on the TTC or just walking home from a pub, have been unpleasant, uncomfortable and, even though the stats prove otherwise, I felt at all times like I'd be safer in a large American city.

That released the spigot and lots of people shared their public transit experiences.

I'd cut-and-paste all the obnoxious incidents reported to this thread by others but it would make my own message even longer than it already is.

At some point, the " Quality of Life Crimes/Public Behaviour" thread shifted to "Supervision" --TTC "special constables" and personnel and I will cut-and-paste here.

AlchemisTO wrote:

The guy sitting next to me, a TTC employee, told me that drivers were helpless to do anything and the protocol is for the drivers to sit and wait there until the police or special constables arrive.

unimaginative2 wrote:

I would say that the biggest problem with policing in the City of Toronto (and other communities) is a total unwillingness to enforce the law in "minor" offences.

But it was Bogtrotter who really hit on a major issue when he wrote:

I've seen some pretty questionable behaviour as well but the TTC guys rarely seem to do anything. I also rarely see those constables on the trains. Are they roaming around daily or do they sit in an office and get dispatched when something is reported? When an incident is occuring how long does it take for the constables to show up?

A car-driving reader (me) can easily infer that there's little supervision at subways --in short, the public is essentially left on its own.

If Bogtrotter was wrong in his perception, he certainly wasn't corrected by the rest of transit users here.

In fact, Bogtrotter's message was followed immediately by spmarshall writing:

I confronted some dick smoking on the subway platform at Wilson. I started by pointing to the huge no smoking sign, then told him he can't smoke in here, then I saw a TTC employee, who told me of course that I'd have to get a constable to enforce the bylaw.

-a TTC employee told sp that he had to get a constable...

A reader can be forgiven if she infers transit behaviour is left pretty much to the public and TTC employees and "constables" --well, I'm still not sure what to conclude from comments about them here. Except where are they and when you do find one, it'd be tough to find a person who cares less.

Going back to Bogtrotter:

I've seen some pretty questionable behaviour as well but the TTC guys rarely seem to do anything. I also rarely see those constables on the trains. Are they roaming around daily or do they sit in an office and get dispatched when something is reported? When an incident is occuring how long does it take for the constables to show up?

I don't read in Bogtrotter's paragraph that he's being nasty or accusatory to TTC constables. He appears genuinely confused about how "rarely" he sees enforcement personnel. And when he had observed incidents, there's that word "rarely" again for what TTC employees do about stuff.

If you followed the entire thread, you do get reassured by readers that subway incidents are rare.

In fact it was you, SD1, who wrote:

I've never seen someone attacked in the subway - and I've been using it my entire life.

There have been moments when some stranger would harrass another, sitting quietly by themselves. As I mentioned, however, this isn't the norm, and more often than not people have spoken up.

I've never seen someone attacked in the subway - and I've been using it my entire life.

And your comment made complete sense to me. The vast majority of subway users had to be decent folk otherwise the tunnels would be bristling with armed guards/police.

Returning to your most recent message you wrote:

One could argue that you're totally ignoring the values you claim to hold dear by applying such broad, inaccurate generalizations about those who use the subway, and your refusal to use it based on those generalizations.

I don't believe that I've been applying broad generalizations about people who use the subway. (Please go back to my messages and cut-and-paste where I've said that. Because if I have, I do owe TOforumers an apology)

Here is what I know:

Most people who use the subway use it to get to work and back. That's why it's called "public transit". I don't think I'd get any arguments there.

Here is what I've concluded from discussion here:

1. While there are anti-social incidents that occur on buses/subways/stations, these are rare (as you, yourself pointed out).

2. Of these rare incidents, readers here have seen little (as in "close to zero") done by TTC personnel.

These observations plus revealing comments on a police/enforcement forum plus my own personal experience meld enough for me to conclude that the public is essentially left on its own on transit.

Enforcement is essentially in name only. (Perhaps that's the generalization, you're talking about?) Am I wrong to conclude that?

And that's the point I was trying to make about the YMCA and I now realize that I failed miserably.

You can take the identical "public" on that GO-train I last went on where the 10 young males drunkenly careened about the car, intimidating all of us and mooning each departing friend --and it Would Not Happen at the Y.

The YMCA is SUPERVISED. And it isn't just staff standing around looking "visible". The supervision is in fact Pro-active.

The message from YMCA Staff is "We care".

Contrast that to comments made here about not even seeing "special constables" or a TTC employee suggesting to spmarshall to a call in to police himself.

Now perhaps what I just wrote might be an inaccurate generalization. I don't know. Is it? If it is, then correct me(us).

When using the TTC, do staff transmit the message in their day-to-day behaviour that:

"We care"?

 

[The Mississauga Muse]

bizorky you wrote:

Forced to breathe the same air as the "public" who don't share YMCA values? Is this just restricted to public transit, or to the city in general? Does this mean that transit users have no values as such?

I can't believe you can draw such conclusions from what I'd written. You mean I wrote something that would lead you to conclude that I believe that "transit users have no values as such?"

Please. Cut-and-paste anything I wrote that implies that. I'd be horrified if I really did crap-out something that absurd and obnoxious and I'd need to apologize.

You wrote:

No, not all people are angels. But we are talking about exceptions here, not the rule.

Congrats! In two elegant sentences you've just summarized how I feel about --ta dahh --THE PUBLIC!

You continue:

Besides, without pestering people with invasive questions, how exactly does one find out if someone shares those values?

Oh that one's easy. Here:

ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW I LEARNED IN KINDERGARTEN

All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sand pile at school.

These are the things I learned:

Share everything.
Play fair.
Don't hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don't take things that aren't yours.
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.

Returning to your question:

Besides, without pestering people with invasive questions, how exactly does one find out if someone shares those values?

They'll share seats (and even give one up and stand to help someone)
They'll play fair (and treat others as they would like to be treated)
They won't hit people (or hit on people).
They'll put things back where you found them.
They'll clean up their own messes (and try not create messes in the first place).
They won't take things that aren't theirs.
And they'll say sorry when they do unintentionally hurt somebody.[/b][/font]
[/quote]

Like I said, easy to identify "if someone shares those values." Those values come without any need of language.

Last you asked:

How does one prove that they actually practice those values rather than just say that they do?

You can tell just about everything you need to know about a person by the behaviour he'd elicit when he's certain he's not being watched.

Example. Do you drive the speed limit because you believe that's the correct way for a citizen to behave? Or because you know the precise location of the radar traps?

bizorky, I want to end this message with your comment because it summarizes precisely what I believe:

No, not all people are angels. But we are talking about exceptions here, not the rule.

 

[The Mississauga Muse]

adma wrote:

Re the shared-value issue, keep in mind the big sort

Thanks for sharing that URL.

This part is especially important:

More chilling in Florida's article is not the mega-migrations of creatives from one city to another, or one country to another. It's the micro-migrations we all seem to be making within our community sphere. Says he:

City by city, neighborhood to neighborhood...our politics are becoming more concentrated and polarized. We may live in a 50-50 country, but the actual places we live (inner-ring v. outer-ring suburbs, San Francisco v. Fresno) are much more likely to distribute their loyalties 60-40, and getting more lopsided rather than less. These divisions arise not from some master plan but from millions upon millions of individual choices. Individuals are sorting themselves into communities of like-minded people which validate their choices and identities.

It's not only disturbing to see the U.S. split 50-50 as they have over the last few decades. It's scary because this polarization is actually getting more extreme --and for the reasons "the big sort" mentioned.

"Individuals are sorting themselves into communities of like-minded people which validate their choices and identities."

But also something else.

By sorting ourselves into communities of like-minded people, we separate ourselves from what we perceive as unlike. And that guarantees communication is blocked.

The article fails to mention the isolating impact of all those cable channels which help fuel The Big Sort.

I'm not sure but isn't the Mother of The Big Sorts, the Internet itself? Finding like-minded people can now be an active global experience.

Even our choices of cable stations we watch and what forums and webpages we experience assist The Big Global Sort.

Worst of all, and this is only my opinion here, The Big Sort is not so much about concentrating on what makes us Similar but rather focusing on human Differences.

And then intentionally or otherwise, avoiding those.

 

[bizorky]

I can't believe you can draw such conclusions from what I'd written. You mean I wrote something that would lead you to conclude that I believe that "transit users have no values as such?"

It read kind of like you were drawing such a conclusion. It was what you posted. I was asking questions.

Ah yes, life according to Robert Fulghum. If it were all that easy. Nevertheless, thanks for the lesson on values clarification. In answer to your question, as I don't own a car presently I don't concern myself with radar traps and the like.

 

[The Mississauga Muse]

Re. me writing:

I can't believe you can draw such conclusions from what I'd written. You mean I wrote something that would lead you to conclude that I believe that "transit users have no values as such?

bizorky, you wrote:

It read kind of like you were drawing such a conclusion. It was what you posted. I was asking questions.

"It was what you posted."

Yes. I gathered that. But specifically what was it that I posted that would lead you to conclude that I believed that "transit users have no values as such?"

I really want to read what I wrote to determine if I made a typo or it was careless wording or what. I find such potential mis-communication on my part like that alarming and embarrassing.

Related topic.

For the last couple of hours I've been considering taking a trip into Toronto (my first in years) by GO to Union and then fritter about the subway system for a while.

And share pics here. And video onto YOUTUBE.

Yes. And even walk Yonge Street...

You know, like show "A Trip to T.O." through the eyes of a 5 foot closer-to-60-than-50-year-old female Mississauga resident...

Above all, I'd like to observe TTC "presence".

What day would you suggest I go to get a typical feel of everything that was written in this thread?

 

[SD2]

re: "How can you possibly make the determination that nobody on the subway shares your values? "

"nobody"? "Nobody" is an Absolute. Please go to my message and cut-and-paste the part where I said or even implied that "nobody on the subway" shared my values. Please.

How can you determine that all who use the YMCA do?

From your first questions "nobody" we now careen into your second question's use of the the Absolute "all".

Please go to my YMCA message and cut-and-paste the part where I said (or even implied) that "all" members of the YMCA share my values.

My message stated that all YMCA's have the same mission-statements values. I wrote this:

Perhaps I misinterpreted, but the following:

"I have problems, AlvinofDiaspar, when I'm forced to breathe the same air as people (AKA the "public" who don't share the values of "Caring, Honesty, Inclusiveness, Respect and Responsibility"

After all, that's what this thread was about "Quality of Life Crimes/Public Behaviour" --people who aren't "Caring, Honest, Inclusive, Respectful and Responsible."




"There is one social setting where I feel perfectly at home in --no matter how crowded.

The YMCA --the "C" being in name only because you don't have to be Christian to be a member.

The Mississauga Y is a thing of Beauty. People --all colours, all religions, all abilities, all ages! --ALL feeling a part of something special.

Christian, Jew, Muslim you name it --or people like me who are still spiritually-searching, All Welcome. Black to White and every colour in between, All welcome. Millionaires and people receiving YMCA financial membership assistance --All Welcome."


certainly came across as such.

Tell me that it's not true that it's possible for you to be sitting on a bus/subway car and the door can open and in stumbles a drunken sot who chooses to sit beside you and annoy you.

Of course it is. That's possible almost anywhere. It's possible to have trouble at the YMCA as well. I know you're contention is that the YMCA is supervised, but if a drunk walks in to a train causing a disruption, anyone can press the yellow emergency strip to have someone come in a remove the said disruption.

And how did my "some people" translate into "most transit users" or even "all"?

Well, considering the odds of sitting next to someone like that are actually pretty rare (or at least someone who will express themselves in such a way), I assumed you meant "some" in a general sense. Sorry for any confusion.

That released the spigot and lots of people shared their public transit experiences.

I'd cut-and-paste all the obnoxious incidents reported to this thread by others but it would make my own message even longer than it already is.

At some point, the " Quality of Life Crimes/Public Behaviour" thread shifted to "Supervision" --TTC "special constables" and personnel and I will cut-and-paste here.

AlchemisTO wrote:

Quote:The guy sitting next to me, a TTC employee, told me that drivers were helpless to do anything and the protocol is for the drivers to sit and wait there until the police or special constables arrive.



unimaginative2 wrote:

Quote:I would say that the biggest problem with policing in the City of Toronto (and other communities) is a total unwillingness to enforce the law in "minor" offences.



But it was Bogtrotter who really hit on a major issue when he wrote:

Quote:I've seen some pretty questionable behaviour as well but the TTC guys rarely seem to do anything. I also rarely see those constables on the trains. Are they roaming around daily or do they sit in an office and get dispatched when something is reported? When an incident is occuring how long does it take for the constables to show up?



A car-driving reader (me) can easily infer that there's little supervision at subways --in short, the public is essentially left on its own.

If Bogtrotter was wrong in his perception, he certainly wasn't corrected by the rest of transit users here.

In fact, Bogtrotter's message was followed immediately by spmarshall writing:

Quote:I confronted some dick smoking on the subway platform at Wilson. I started by pointing to the huge no smoking sign, then told him he can't smoke in here, then I saw a TTC employee, who told me of course that I'd have to get a constable to enforce the bylaw.



-a TTC employee told sp that he had to get a constable...

A reader can be forgiven if she infers transit behaviour is left pretty much to the public and TTC employees and "constables" --well, I'm still not sure what to conclude from comments about them here. Except where are they and when you do find one, it'd be tough to find a person who cares less.

I've read the entire thread. Personally, I haven't had those kinds of experiences - I've seen instances where TTC employees have escorted distruptive riders out of the train and there's one memorable instance where a bus driver really put a brash, disrespectful kid in his place. The experiences I mentioned with disruptive riders were either taken care of by other riders or people simply let the person run his/her course and exit at the next stop. I can guarantee the TTC code of conduct demands respect and courtesy between fellow riders. In fact, there are numerous signs and messages around the system reminding passengers of such.

There are of course instances where things don't work out perfectly and employees are unwilling or can't enforce the rules - but generally speaking the system is very safe.

Most people who use the subway use it to get to work and back. That's why it's called "public transit". I don't think I'd get any arguments there.

Here is what I've concluded from discussion here:

1. While there are anti-social incidents that occur on buses/subways/stations, these are rare (as you, yourself pointed out).

2. Of these rare incidents, readers here have seen little (as in "close to zero&quot done by TTC personnel.

These observations plus revealing comments on a police/enforcement forum plus my own personal experience meld enough for me to conclude that the public is essentially left on its own on transit.

Well, I don't think that's quite accurate, but I can accept there are definitely instances where rules are not enforced.

Enforcement is essentially in name only. (Perhaps that's the generalization, you're talking about?) Am I wrong to conclude that?

Well in my experience, I wouldn't say you're wrong that it happens, but I also wouldn't say it's essentially in name only either.

And that's the point I was trying to make about the YMCA and I now realize that I failed miserably.

You can take the identical "public" on that GO-train I last went on where the 10 young males drunkenly careened about the car, intimidating all of us and mooning each departing friend --and it Would Not Happen at the Y.

The YMCA is SUPERVISED. And it isn't just staff standing around looking "visible". The supervision is in fact Pro-active.

The message from YMCA Staff is "We care".

Contrast that to comments made here about not even seeing "special constables" or a TTC employee suggesting to spmarshall to a call in to police himself.

Now perhaps what I just wrote might be an inaccurate generalization. I don't know. Is it? If it is, then correct me(us).

When using the TTC, do staff transmit the message in their day-to-day behaviour that:

"We care"?

The TTC isn't perfect, and I don't think you'd find anyone who claims it is. But it's a public transportation system, and as such it does a good job and I dont' think I've ever felt my safety threatened on it.


I think one of the problems with your comparison is that it doesn't quite seem valid. The YMCA is a series of charitable organizations, many of which charge membership fees. The TTC is a public transportation system (as you've pointed out). Sure, it isn't perfect, but then where in the public is? If the TTC at least has employees on hand and methods of getting help if in trouble. You can't exactly say that walking down the street.

If you won't use it because of the possibility of danger, despite the other benefits if offers to society, why go out at all? Might as well stay home and purchase everything you need off the Internet.

 

[The Mississauga Muse]

Hi there, SD2 you wrote:

Perhaps I misinterpreted, but the following:

"I have problems, AlvinofDiaspar, when I'm forced to breathe the same air as people (AKA the "public" who don't share the values of "Caring, Honesty, Inclusiveness, Respect and Responsibility"

After all, that's what this thread was about "Quality of Life Crimes/Public Behaviour" --people who aren't "Caring, Honest, Inclusive, Respectful and Responsible."

I'm embarrassed to say that I had to read those two paragraphs over several times before I finally figured out what I'd written that could make you conclude I believed that "nobody" on the subway shared my values. "

I now see the part. Here:

(AKA the "public" who don't share the values of "Caring, Honesty, Inclusiveness, Respect and Responsibility")

Yes, I can see how you'd think I was talking about the entire public --"all"! So not only was I careless in my wording, I was so stunned it took me several reads to figure out what you were on about!

I should've written something like:

(AKA those members of the "public" who don't share the values of "Caring, Honesty, Inclusiveness, Respect and Responsibility")

Ohhhhh well...

And of course I ask you to show where I wrote that all members of the YMCA shared my values. And then you quote my:

The Mississauga Y is a thing of Beauty. People --all colours, all religions, all abilities, all ages! --ALL feeling a part of something special.

SD2 you wrote:

certainly came across as such.

Yes, *groan*, it does... that's how I would interpret it also. I read/edit everything (and I do mean "everything") I write here before hitting "Add Reply" but sometimes that isn't enough.

Because I read my own words as how I think they mean --how I want them to mean. And not what's actually there.

Let me try that paragraph again.

The Mississauga Y is a thing of Beauty. People --all colours, all religions, all abilities, all ages! --ALL a part of something special.

I removed the word "feeling". You're correct, I haven't two clues as to how they're feeling. I can only hope they like to see "people --all colours, all religions, all abilities, all ages" getting along together as I do.

Thanks so much for taking the time to cut-and-paste like that to show me precisely where I wrote something I hadn't intended to say. It gives me the chance to see how my words went wrong --typo, omission, careless wording... or I really DID write something stupid (all possibilities for me)

So.

You're certainly correct in how you interpreted what I wrote all right. It sure looks like that's what I said/wrote. I was careless in wording and so I have to accept responsibility and sorry, SD2. I apologize.

I'm especially embarrassed about:

when I'm forced to breathe the same air as people AKA the "public"who don't share the values of "Caring, Honesty, Inclusiveness, Respect and Responsibility"

as if to imply that I'm the only advanced lifeform in the entire GTA who values Caring, Honesty, Inclusiveness ya da ya da...

*blush*

Pondering, reading this error, then pondering some more, I'm amused by it --how a simple omission can make you look like an insufferable arrogant and above all, hypocritical sot!

Finishing off with your comment:

If you won't use it (transit) because of the possibility of danger, despite the other benefits if offers to society, why go out at all? Might as well stay home and purchase everything you need off the Internet.

I think it's time I spent a day on the transit. I really do. Like go into T.O. and fuss about.

Yeah. Sounds like a Plan.

THANKS SD2!

 

[bizorky]

It's okay Muse, we understand now.

We won't be mugging you on the subway now.








But you'll still have to stand.

 

[spmarshall]

The biggest negative to public transit as I see it is the PUBLIC uses it. With public transit you are forced to sit in a mobile-box with some people who --if they approached you while you were in your car, you'd quickly roll up the windows.

Speaking of which, yesterday I got my first Zanta encounter yesterday on the 89 Weston bus. Loud and a bit unstable, he got on the bus around Eglinton SB. Dressed only in shorts, a light jacket and the Santa hat. He made me a bit uncomfortable, until I realized who he was, then enjoyed the moment.