christensen@apollo.uucp (Wendy Christensen) (03/14/86)
I have been following this mall discussion for a while now, and I can no longer resist. (I think the "social property" piece was the straw that broke this camel's back. I don't think I've ever seen such idiotic semantic contortion.) berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman @ Pennsylvania State Univ.) says: > I NEVER heard about somebody who > prefers mall shopping over down-town shopping BECAUSE in a mall one is not > exposed to pamphleteers. (Did anyone avoid some airports because of the > presence of Hare Krishna?) Well, now you have. I cannot stand being asaulted by every variety of flake and nut, of whatever persuasion, when I go shopping. Downtown shopping died because people got tired of contending with bums, drunks, nuts, soapbox orators, obnoxious adherents of causes, and other assorted "diversions." I guess college students think it's *cool* to be "in the middle of the action," but they are usually young and healthy, responsible only for themselves, and can run away fast if necessary. What about a pregnant woman with small children? or a person who needs a cane to walk? or elderly people? or school-age children? or ordinary folks that just want to shop and be left alone? There are good reasons, lots of them, why people *choose* to shop in malls, and freedom from unwanted intrusions on their privacy is one of the major ones. Why do you think malls have become so popular? Because evil capitalist pigs have forced them on an unwitting populace of sheep?? Or because they offer a clean, safe, predictable, and controlled environment, appropriate to the business at hand? The mall *owner* is just that - the owner. He has every right to allow or disallow any use of his property to anyone at any time. If you feel you can be of benefit to the mall owner, by bringing in more potential customers, or by providing entertainment to customers, go ahead and present your case to him as a business proposition. But be prepared to pay for the privilege (just like anyone else) and abide by his rules. Freedom of speech does not require anyone - the government or private property owners - to provide you with a free soapbox. As for airports, remember that scene in "Airplane" where Robert Stack strides through the terminal, decking every variety of flake? Remember how everyone in the theatre applauded and cheered? And yes, I *DO* know *many* people (including me) who have avoided particular airports and airlines because their terminals were infested with these critters. (BTW, those Hare Krishna are among the worst offenders - pushy, arrogant, insulting, and obnoxious.) As for "quiet, well-dressed, unobtrusive pamphleteers" - I have yet to see one. People who go in for this type of activity are usually the type that can't or won't take no for an answer. They just *have* to try to convert you. Their basic purpose is not dissemination of information, it is prosyletizing. I can't count how many times I have politely refused pamphlets, or just walked by and ignored them, only to be loudly cursed at, insulted, and, on more than a few occasions, physically assaulted (pushed or grabbed). w. christensen ...decvax!wanginst!apollo!christensen I am responsible for what I have written here.
rastaman@ihdev.UUCP (Floyd Hydrozoan) (03/15/86)
In article <2c79d5e5.a51@apollo.uucp> christensen@apollo.uucp (Wendy Christensen) writes: >... Downtown shopping died because people got tired of contending with >bums, drunks, nuts, soapbox >orators, obnoxious adherents of causes, and >other assorted "diversions." Wrong! Downtown shopping died because of middle class exodus to suburbia and the convenience (for most) of mall shopping. Yuppies have somewhat reversed this trend but not to a tremendous extent. Read the business section of a newspaper sometime; lotsa enlightening info there.