topless coffee shops in maine?

[alocispepraluger102]

hey, that's one way to get a jazz audience.

http://news.yahoo.com/maine-man-guilty-arson-topless-coffee-shop-235753940.html

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — A man blamed for a fire that destroyed acoffee shop where topless waitresses worked has been found guilty of arson.

A jury convicted Raymond Bellavance Jr. on Friday after deliberating for four hours.

Prosecutors said "anger and jealousy" caused Bellavance to set fire to the coffee shop, where his ex-girlfriend worked as a waitress.Deputy District Attorney Alan Kelley told jurors Bellavance was "a volatile man" who was quick to anger because his former girlfriend was having a relationship with the shop's owner, the Bangor Daily News reported.

The Grand View Coffee Shop in Vassalboro, a town of about 4,000 residents just north of the state capital, Augusta, burned down June 3, 2009.

The defense insisted Bellavance didn't do it.

Bellavance testified he wasn't jealous. He said other people, including a man who testified he helped set the fire, were lying.

A witness who recently finished a drug rehabilitation program testified last week that he was present when Bellavance poured and ignited gasoline behind the coffee shop in the early morning hours. Thomas Mulkern said Bellavance then became upset, telling him they could get life in prison because there were people inside the adjoining apartments.

Coffee shop owner Donald Crabtree and six other people, including two infants, were sleeping in a room connected to the shop. All escaped without injury.

___

Information from: Bangor Daily News, http://www.bangordailynews.com

[AllenLowe]

the story I heard from my aunt, who is the head waitress there (they call her Big Bertha), was that the heat broke down one night so they figured they'd burn some bras for warmth; but things got out of control.

[Larry Kart]

Alocis -- You were warned not too long ago about posting entire articles, which is contrary to forum rules (and that was far from your first offense). You said you would never do that again; you just have. Tell us why you should not be banned from Organissimo forthwith.

[Adam]

He/she is pretty good about doing just links. This article is so short; it seems pretty trivial.

[Larry Kart]

In December alone, Aloc (who is a he) posted copyrighted articles in full seven times. Each offense may or may not seem trivial; the accumulated record of indifference/refusal to pay attention/whatever the hell is going on here -- this despite being warned and having agreed to abide by the forum rules -- is not.

[paul secor]

Seems like a relatively minor offense, compared with other things that occur here. Hope banishment doesn't happen.

[J.A.W.]

When I was a moderator I also warned aloc not to post articles in full, yet he continued to do so. Whether it seems trivial or not is not the point, rules are rules and they're there for a reason. When rule violations cause problems, it is Jim who bears the brunt, not the offender.

Edited January 2, 2012 by J.A.W.

[JSngry]

I've long been familiar with the bottomless cup of coffee. How does topless cup work, exactly?

[BeBop]

News to me: They've got 'em on the left coast too, just down the street from where I'm working this week.

San Jose Mercury News: Three female Vietnamese coffee shop workers cited for being topless

San Jose Mercury News

[Van Basten II]

Here, we used to have sexy restaurants and sexy hairdressing salons where the ladies working would be wearing well as little clothing as possible. Why would you go to these places is beyond me,

[Dan Gould]

Regarding Aloc, it seems that the policing of the rule is inconsistent to say the least. I had to point out his violation last time; have the mods taken note of these other six occasions or let them slide until now? Has banishment been threatened previously?

My suggestion is to treat all of this as a "second strike" - if he does it again, do what you must but otherwise, now that he knows what is at stake, let him go in peace.

[Larry Kart]

Regarding Aloc, it seems that the policing of the rule is inconsistent to say the least. I had to point out his violation last time; have the mods taken note of these other six occasions or let them slide until now? Has banishment been threatened previously?

My suggestion is to treat all of this as a "second strike" - if he does it again, do what you must but otherwise, now that he knows what is at stake, let him go in peace.

He had been admonished many times, has agreed to never do it again at least once, and has not AFAIK been threatened with banishment until now. (Banishing someone, you should know, is not something I can do myself; that's Jim's decision.)

As for 'the policing of this rule being inconsistent," the moderators, despite what you may think, are human beings who have lives to live outside the boundaries of Organissimo, and thus we can't monitor every damn thing on a board that is brimful of posts everyday. We go on what we see ourselves and also rely on the reports/complaints of board members. Speaking for myself, the latter is the case at least half the time. Speaking for myself again, each of Aloc's missteps (or what you will) is like having a toy poodle drop his little craplets on your lawn twice a week while its master stands to one side, either lost in space or with a sly grin on his face (who can say?) It's not the biggest crime in the universe by far, but if you've been enough of a fool to accept the moderator role, it make you wonder what the f--- you're doing and why the f--- you even bother. Welcome to 2012, I guess.

[JSngry]

[Leeway]

Regarding Aloc, it seems that the policing of the rule is inconsistent to say the least. I had to point out his violation last time; have the mods taken note of these other six occasions or let them slide until now? Has banishment been threatened previously?

My suggestion is to treat all of this as a "second strike" - if he does it again, do what you must but otherwise, now that he knows what is at stake, let him go in peace.

He had been admonished many times, has agreed to never do it again at least once, and has not AFAIK been threatened with banishment until now. (Banishing someone, you should know, is not something I can do myself; that's Jim's decision.)

As for 'the policing of this rule being inconsistent," the moderators, despite what you may think, are human beings who have lives to live outside the boundaries of Organissimo, and thus we can't monitor every damn thing on a board that is brimful of posts everyday. We go on what we see ourselves and also rely on the reports/complaints of board members. Speaking for myself, the latter is the case at least half the time. Speaking for myself again, each of Aloc's missteps (or what you will) is like having a toy poodle drop his little craplets on your lawn twice a week while its master stands to one side, either lost in space or with a sly grin on his face (who can say?) It's not the biggest crime in the universe by far, but if you've been enough of a fool to accept the moderator role, it make you wonder what the f--- you're doing and why the f--- you even bother. Welcome to 2012, I guess.

Just thinking that maybe there should be a step between warnings and banishment. Maybe first warning, then 30 days suspension, 2nd infraction 90 days, 3rd banishment. Not sure if this can be done.

Odd to be discussing board policy on a topless waitress thread

[J.A.W.]

Regarding Aloc, it seems that the policing of the rule is inconsistent to say the least. I had to point out his violation last time; have the mods taken note of these other six occasions or let them slide until now? Has banishment been threatened previously?

My suggestion is to treat all of this as a "second strike" - if he does it again, do what you must but otherwise, now that he knows what is at stake, let him go in peace.

He had been admonished many times, has agreed to never do it again at least once, and has not AFAIK been threatened with banishment until now. (Banishing someone, you should know, is not something I can do myself; that's Jim's decision.)

As for 'the policing of this rule being inconsistent," the moderators, despite what you may think, are human beings who have lives to live outside the boundaries of Organissimo, and thus we can't monitor every damn thing on a board that is brimful of posts everyday. We go on what we see ourselves and also rely on the reports/complaints of board members. Speaking for myself, the latter is the case at least half the time. Speaking for myself again, each of Aloc's missteps (or what you will) is like having a toy poodle drop his little craplets on your lawn twice a week while its master stands to one side, either lost in space or with a sly grin on his face (who can say?) It's not the biggest crime in the universe by far, but if you've been enough of a fool to accept the moderator role, it make you wonder what the f--- you're doing and why the f--- you even bother. Welcome to 2012, I guess.

Just thinking that maybe there should be a step between warnings and banishment. Maybe first warning, then 30 days suspension, 2nd infraction 90 days, 3rd banishment. Not sure if this can be done.

Odd to be discussing board policy on a topless waitress thread

Both Larry and I (in my moderator days) have warned aloc more than once and Larry told him on another thread before this latest rule violation that he faced banishment if he'd do it again - and guess what, he did it again... It's not his second or third strike, it's his umpteenth strike.

A 3-step route from warnings to banishment would need monitoring and that might be a problem: apart from Jim there are only two active moderators left with Magnificent Goldberg on permanent leave and my resignation last spring, so you could say they're understaffed.

Edited January 2, 2012 by J.A.W.

[Tim McG]

With all due respect, there is a "fair use" clause in American copyright laws. Wherein, if the copyrighted material is not passed off as one's own or used to make money or used for anything other than educational purposes, no laws have been broken.

As a HS teacher, the "fair use" clause is exercised on a daily basis. If not for its existence, 99% of America's teachers would be in jail right now.

Shouldn't that apply here, as well?

Edited January 2, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[J.A.W.]

With all due respect, there is a "fair use" clause in American copyright laws. Wherein, if the copyrighted material is not passed off as one's own or used to make money or used for anything other than educational purposes, no laws have been broken.

As a HS teacher, the "fair use" clause is exercised on a daily basis. If not for it's existance, 99% of America's teachers would be in jail right now.

Shouldn't that apply here as well?

If you think the forum rule should be changed, you should take it up with Jim Alfredson. He's the one who makes the rules here. By the way, interesting to hear you're a teacher - it's "its existence"

Edited January 2, 2012 by J.A.W.

[Tim McG]

With all due respect, there is a "fair use" clause in American copyright laws. Wherein, if the copyrighted material is not passed off as one's own or used to make money or used for anything other than educational purposes, no laws have been broken.

As a HS teacher, the "fair use" clause is exercised on a daily basis. If not for it's existance, 99% of America's teachers would be in jail right now.

Shouldn't that apply here as well?

If you think the forum rule should be changed, you should take it up with Jim Alfredson. He's the one who makes the rules here. By the way, interesting to hear you're a teacher - it's "its existence"

Occupational hazard.

Once upon a time, I was a good speller. Oh, well.

[AllenLowe]

I agree with the fair use clause, but I don't want to piss off Larry until I know for sure he's sent in his Top 10 list.

Edited January 2, 2012 by AllenLowe

[Dave James]

You want topless? I'll give you topless. Dennis Rodman is starting a topless basketball team that will "play" for a so-called "gentleman's club" with which he is associated.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/34156246

[Quincy]

With all due respect, there is a "fair use" clause in American copyright laws. Wherein, if the copyrighted material is not passed off as one's own or used to make money or used for anything other than educational purposes, no laws have been broken.

As a HS teacher, the "fair use" clause is exercised on a daily basis. If not for its existence, 99% of America's teachers would be in jail right now.

Shouldn't that apply here, as well?

Not necessarily. Just as the rules for drinking alcohol are different in terms of where & how you can consume & how much, fair use is different when it's for non-profit educational purposes versus posting stuff on the web.

[papsrus]

With all due respect, there is a "fair use" clause in American copyright laws. Wherein, if the copyrighted material is not passed off as one's own or used to make money or used for anything other than educational purposes, no laws have been broken.

As a HS teacher, the "fair use" clause is exercised on a daily basis. If not for its existence, 99% of America's teachers would be in jail right now.

Shouldn't that apply here, as well?

Not necessarily. Just as the rules for drinking alcohol are different in terms of where & how you can consume & how much, fair use is different when it's for non-profit educational purposes versus posting stuff on the web.

Are for-profit schools restricted when it comes to fair use?

[Larry Kart]

In case anyone really wants to know about "fair use" and not throw it around like a slogan (like so many people do with "free speech"), here's a link -- get it, a link? -- to a very useful guide through the morass:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

[AllenLowe]

I'm going to exercise my 28th Amendment rights, make like a tree and go away.

[Christiern]

I think this steady diet of mindless tabloid material—whether linked to or pasted in—is both boring and out of place here. We all like a good laugh from time to time, but this is mostly Murdoch crap.