|
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:41de9ed9$0$19161$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... > Next time you fry your bacon just lean over and take a deep breath...and > get a nice lungful of nitrosamines, which are reckoned to be > carcinogenic... > > DAS So much crap gets into our systems, it's a wonder any of us live past age 50 Natalie > <diel@spim.com> wrote in message > news:diel-BB978F.03381207012005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com... > [...] > >> I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from fireplace >> or pit), cooking smoke ect.? >> -- >> > > |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:41de9ed9$0$19161$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... > Next time you fry your bacon just lean over and take a deep breath...and > get a nice lungful of nitrosamines, which are reckoned to be > carcinogenic... > > DAS So much crap gets into our systems, it's a wonder any of us live past age 50 Natalie > <diel@spim.com> wrote in message > news:diel-BB978F.03381207012005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com... > [...] > >> I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from fireplace >> or pit), cooking smoke ect.? >> -- >> > > |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34888lF47nra4U1@individual.net... > > "So much crap gets into our systems..." > > Natalie > Exactly! How did this crappy thread get into an automotive NewsGroup? ;-) Please kill this annoying thread! |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34888lF47nra4U1@individual.net... > > "So much crap gets into our systems..." > > Natalie > Exactly! How did this crappy thread get into an automotive NewsGroup? ;-) Please kill this annoying thread! |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:KLCdnQ2VG_GbSkPcRVn-2g@giganews.com... > > > diel@spim.com wrote: >> In article <345q1pF46qf2aU1@individual.net>, >> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:41dd9696$0$16589$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >>>> Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>>> appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home >>>> and never in front of our son. >>>> >>>> Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... >>> >>> *ahem* >>> >>> HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one >>>> >>>> In fact I enjoy an occasional cigar myself and I am very concerned >>>> that our (UK) government is going the North American way by trying >>>> to impose a near-blanket ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. >>>> Luckily there are two years for consultation and I hope they will >>>> back off. Measures to protect workers in smoky establishments are >>>> already being taken on a voluntary basis and this can be >>>> strengthened, perhaps even with legislation. >>>> >>>> DAS >>> >>> cigars stink very badly, IMO, but I do like the smell of cherry >>> tobacco in a pipe. >>> >>> See, the big fight here in the U.S. is that smokers want to be able >>> to go out and have drinks and smoke. The problem is that everyone >>> has to inhale that crap with them, so they're discouraged about >>> going out. In Arizona(I left there in June), they now have smoker's >>> bars, where you can smoke all you want without being stigmatized by >>> us smoking Nazis. I think that's a good idea - as everyone present >>> wants to be around other smokers. >>> > > It's not true that everybody present wants to be around other smokers. > It's > just that most patrons present want to smoke. There's a difference. Some > patrons will have gone because their friends went, but there's no reason to > believe that bartenders and waitresses want to be around smokers. They are > being told that they must put up with a threat to their life or they cannot > work. > If you go to (or work in) a place that you know was primarily a smoker's haven, then that's *your* problem, IMO. The fact is that there are a lot of smokers, of course, so I don't see anything wrong with a group of people participating in a legal activity (health risks or not), as I think they have a right to poison their lungs, just as I have the right to use way too much salt in my diet. I know the risks of eating so much salt, but I choose to disregard it. I see a smoking club/bar as the same category. > In California, bartenders typically had the same problems as two-pack-a-day > smokers before the laws were changed. Now, not only are bartenders > healthier, but there is also even significant improvement in the lungs of > bartenders who smoke. See above > >> I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from >> fireplace or pit), cooking smoke ect.? > > Those are not good for you either. Wood smoke is highly carcinogenic. The > builder of my home could have put in a media room and even thrown in the > equipment for the cost of the fireplace, chimney, and gas lines (that's for > lighting the wood fire.) Also, fireplaces are not very efficient ways to > heat a home, especially when you have a furnace on anyway. They suck air > up > the chimney, and much of that is air that you paid to heat. We had ours modified in some way that was supposed to decrease the residue, but I doubt it did very much (back when we lived in New Hampshire and burned firewood) > > I suppose I could convert my fireplace to gas logs, but right now I hardly > use it at all. You must not be in New England :-) > > I don't know of specific studies on incense, but I'm sure there are some. > What people miss is that you don't need studies to show many things. When I > was growing up, there were no studies on second hand smoke. Yet, people > who > were around smokers ended up with red eyes, coughs, headaches, > stomachaches, > etc. It should not have been hard to figure out that if somebody came near > me with a cigarette and it made me cough that my body did not like it. It > should not have been hard for a smoker to figure out on the day he started > that his body didn't like it either. My parents were both potheads in the 70s (ironically, I never could stand the smell of the stuff), and burned incense regularly, of course. I usually left the house when they were tokin' > > I grew up being told I had hay fever. I took medicine for my allergy. Yes, > I had an allergy, but it was to a poison, not to a growing plant. I was > told that getting headaches at the end of the day was just a normal part of > life. That's what aspirin was for, and everybody used it regularly. I also > thought that coughing was normal. I knew that people coughed a lot when > they > were sick, but I also thought that coughing was something that people > normally did occasionally on a daily basis as a way of reacting with the > environment. Having clothing that needed washing at the end of the day was > normal too. It didn't matter if it still looked clean, or never came in > contact with anything dirty. It was understood that if I went to any > affair, > I would have to get my suit dry cleaned the next day. How anybody could > believe that smoke could impregnate everything around it, stink up rooms, > clothing, cars, and anything it contacted, turn ceilings brown, and cause > obvious symptoms in people who don't smoke, but not be harmful is a sure > sign of how people can delude themselves. > Whenever we visited my mother-in-law for the weekend, we'd come back and wash all of our clothes, both clean and dirty. Nasty smell, that. It does permeate everything. The bitch of it is that while in her house, you don't notice the smell, but as soon as you go outside, you realize you reek of it! I hated going anyplace while we were visiting my MIL, because we smelled like heavy smokers. - yuck! Natalie |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:KLCdnQ2VG_GbSkPcRVn-2g@giganews.com... > > > diel@spim.com wrote: >> In article <345q1pF46qf2aU1@individual.net>, >> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:41dd9696$0$16589$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >>>> Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>>> appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home >>>> and never in front of our son. >>>> >>>> Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... >>> >>> *ahem* >>> >>> HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one >>>> >>>> In fact I enjoy an occasional cigar myself and I am very concerned >>>> that our (UK) government is going the North American way by trying >>>> to impose a near-blanket ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. >>>> Luckily there are two years for consultation and I hope they will >>>> back off. Measures to protect workers in smoky establishments are >>>> already being taken on a voluntary basis and this can be >>>> strengthened, perhaps even with legislation. >>>> >>>> DAS >>> >>> cigars stink very badly, IMO, but I do like the smell of cherry >>> tobacco in a pipe. >>> >>> See, the big fight here in the U.S. is that smokers want to be able >>> to go out and have drinks and smoke. The problem is that everyone >>> has to inhale that crap with them, so they're discouraged about >>> going out. In Arizona(I left there in June), they now have smoker's >>> bars, where you can smoke all you want without being stigmatized by >>> us smoking Nazis. I think that's a good idea - as everyone present >>> wants to be around other smokers. >>> > > It's not true that everybody present wants to be around other smokers. > It's > just that most patrons present want to smoke. There's a difference. Some > patrons will have gone because their friends went, but there's no reason to > believe that bartenders and waitresses want to be around smokers. They are > being told that they must put up with a threat to their life or they cannot > work. > If you go to (or work in) a place that you know was primarily a smoker's haven, then that's *your* problem, IMO. The fact is that there are a lot of smokers, of course, so I don't see anything wrong with a group of people participating in a legal activity (health risks or not), as I think they have a right to poison their lungs, just as I have the right to use way too much salt in my diet. I know the risks of eating so much salt, but I choose to disregard it. I see a smoking club/bar as the same category. > In California, bartenders typically had the same problems as two-pack-a-day > smokers before the laws were changed. Now, not only are bartenders > healthier, but there is also even significant improvement in the lungs of > bartenders who smoke. See above > >> I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from >> fireplace or pit), cooking smoke ect.? > > Those are not good for you either. Wood smoke is highly carcinogenic. The > builder of my home could have put in a media room and even thrown in the > equipment for the cost of the fireplace, chimney, and gas lines (that's for > lighting the wood fire.) Also, fireplaces are not very efficient ways to > heat a home, especially when you have a furnace on anyway. They suck air > up > the chimney, and much of that is air that you paid to heat. We had ours modified in some way that was supposed to decrease the residue, but I doubt it did very much (back when we lived in New Hampshire and burned firewood) > > I suppose I could convert my fireplace to gas logs, but right now I hardly > use it at all. You must not be in New England :-) > > I don't know of specific studies on incense, but I'm sure there are some. > What people miss is that you don't need studies to show many things. When I > was growing up, there were no studies on second hand smoke. Yet, people > who > were around smokers ended up with red eyes, coughs, headaches, > stomachaches, > etc. It should not have been hard to figure out that if somebody came near > me with a cigarette and it made me cough that my body did not like it. It > should not have been hard for a smoker to figure out on the day he started > that his body didn't like it either. My parents were both potheads in the 70s (ironically, I never could stand the smell of the stuff), and burned incense regularly, of course. I usually left the house when they were tokin' > > I grew up being told I had hay fever. I took medicine for my allergy. Yes, > I had an allergy, but it was to a poison, not to a growing plant. I was > told that getting headaches at the end of the day was just a normal part of > life. That's what aspirin was for, and everybody used it regularly. I also > thought that coughing was normal. I knew that people coughed a lot when > they > were sick, but I also thought that coughing was something that people > normally did occasionally on a daily basis as a way of reacting with the > environment. Having clothing that needed washing at the end of the day was > normal too. It didn't matter if it still looked clean, or never came in > contact with anything dirty. It was understood that if I went to any > affair, > I would have to get my suit dry cleaned the next day. How anybody could > believe that smoke could impregnate everything around it, stink up rooms, > clothing, cars, and anything it contacted, turn ceilings brown, and cause > obvious symptoms in people who don't smoke, but not be harmful is a sure > sign of how people can delude themselves. > Whenever we visited my mother-in-law for the weekend, we'd come back and wash all of our clothes, both clean and dirty. Nasty smell, that. It does permeate everything. The bitch of it is that while in her house, you don't notice the smell, but as soon as you go outside, you realize you reek of it! I hated going anyplace while we were visiting my MIL, because we smelled like heavy smokers. - yuck! Natalie |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:ivBDd.1638$6l.793@pd7tw2no... > > > Hagrinas Mivali wrote: >> diel@spim.com wrote: >> >>>In article <345q1pF46qf2aU1@individual.net>, >>> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>news:41dd9696$0$16589$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >>>> >>>>>Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>>>>appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home >>>>>and never in front of our son. >>>>> >>>>>Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... >>>> >>>>*ahem* >>>> >>>>HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one >>>> >>>>>In fact I enjoy an occasional cigar myself and I am very concerned >>>>>that our (UK) government is going the North American way by trying >>>>>to impose a near-blanket ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. >>>>>Luckily there are two years for consultation and I hope they will >>>>>back off. Measures to protect workers in smoky establishments are >>>>>already being taken on a voluntary basis and this can be >>>>>strengthened, perhaps even with legislation. >>>>> >>>>>DAS >>>> >>>>cigars stink very badly, IMO, but I do like the smell of cherry >>>>tobacco in a pipe. >>>> >>>>See, the big fight here in the U.S. is that smokers want to be able >>>>to go out and have drinks and smoke. The problem is that everyone >>>>has to inhale that crap with them, so they're discouraged about >>>>going out. In Arizona(I left there in June), they now have smoker's >>>>bars, where you can smoke all you want without being stigmatized by >>>>us smoking Nazis. I think that's a good idea - as everyone present >>>>wants to be around other smokers. >>>> >> >> >> It's not true that everybody present wants to be around other smokers. >> It's >> just that most patrons present want to smoke. There's a difference. Some >> patrons will have gone because their friends went, but there's no reason >> to >> believe that bartenders and waitresses want to be around smokers. They are >> being told that they must put up with a threat to their life or they >> cannot >> work. > > No No No, a thousand times no! > > Finish your sentence, please. .... they cannot work > in a smoking environment. Very different, eh? > > If they dislike booze or it's effects, they cannot work? > Or they can choose not to work in a bar. > > If they dislike/distrust engine exhaust fumes to any > degree at all, they cannot work in a garage. > > If they're allergic to perfume, they cannot work in > a perfume factory. > > Darn, guess my smallest grand daughter is never going to > be able to work. Allergic to peanuts. I guess the > rest of the world will have to outlaw peanuts, right? > > I totally agree - if you know how things are before you start a job, then you decide to put up with everything legally associated with that job. Natalie |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:ivBDd.1638$6l.793@pd7tw2no... > > > Hagrinas Mivali wrote: >> diel@spim.com wrote: >> >>>In article <345q1pF46qf2aU1@individual.net>, >>> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>news:41dd9696$0$16589$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >>>> >>>>>Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>>>>appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home >>>>>and never in front of our son. >>>>> >>>>>Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... >>>> >>>>*ahem* >>>> >>>>HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one >>>> >>>>>In fact I enjoy an occasional cigar myself and I am very concerned >>>>>that our (UK) government is going the North American way by trying >>>>>to impose a near-blanket ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. >>>>>Luckily there are two years for consultation and I hope they will >>>>>back off. Measures to protect workers in smoky establishments are >>>>>already being taken on a voluntary basis and this can be >>>>>strengthened, perhaps even with legislation. >>>>> >>>>>DAS >>>> >>>>cigars stink very badly, IMO, but I do like the smell of cherry >>>>tobacco in a pipe. >>>> >>>>See, the big fight here in the U.S. is that smokers want to be able >>>>to go out and have drinks and smoke. The problem is that everyone >>>>has to inhale that crap with them, so they're discouraged about >>>>going out. In Arizona(I left there in June), they now have smoker's >>>>bars, where you can smoke all you want without being stigmatized by >>>>us smoking Nazis. I think that's a good idea - as everyone present >>>>wants to be around other smokers. >>>> >> >> >> It's not true that everybody present wants to be around other smokers. >> It's >> just that most patrons present want to smoke. There's a difference. Some >> patrons will have gone because their friends went, but there's no reason >> to >> believe that bartenders and waitresses want to be around smokers. They are >> being told that they must put up with a threat to their life or they >> cannot >> work. > > No No No, a thousand times no! > > Finish your sentence, please. .... they cannot work > in a smoking environment. Very different, eh? > > If they dislike booze or it's effects, they cannot work? > Or they can choose not to work in a bar. > > If they dislike/distrust engine exhaust fumes to any > degree at all, they cannot work in a garage. > > If they're allergic to perfume, they cannot work in > a perfume factory. > > Darn, guess my smallest grand daughter is never going to > be able to work. Allergic to peanuts. I guess the > rest of the world will have to outlaw peanuts, right? > > I totally agree - if you know how things are before you start a job, then you decide to put up with everything legally associated with that job. Natalie |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message news:qaSdndgmBtkfcUPcRVn-tA@rogers.com... > "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:34888lF47nra4U1@individual.net... >> >> "So much crap gets into our systems..." >> >> Natalie >> > > Exactly! How did this crappy thread get into an automotive NewsGroup? ;-) > Please kill this annoying thread! > Sorry, I don't have the power, but at least I marked it 'OT' for the remainder of it. I think this thread is actually useful, though. I think folks are learning more about this deadly addiction, and how can that be a bad thing? You can kill the thread yourself, by filtering the word "choke" or "OT" :-) Natalie |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message news:qaSdndgmBtkfcUPcRVn-tA@rogers.com... > "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:34888lF47nra4U1@individual.net... >> >> "So much crap gets into our systems..." >> >> Natalie >> > > Exactly! How did this crappy thread get into an automotive NewsGroup? ;-) > Please kill this annoying thread! > Sorry, I don't have the power, but at least I marked it 'OT' for the remainder of it. I think this thread is actually useful, though. I think folks are learning more about this deadly addiction, and how can that be a bad thing? You can kill the thread yourself, by filtering the word "choke" or "OT" :-) Natalie |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:41de9eda$0$19161$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... > You're as evangelical as an ex-smoker... :-) Thanks...I think :-) If trying it once and barfing counts, then that's me! > > In Manhattan in 2003 (or was it 2002?) I was in a smokers' bar (attached to > a great steak restaurant) that had been given a one-month extension in the > implementation of the smoking ban. It was very peculiar, almost pointless. > Ok for me as I was visiting and fancied that smoke & drink, but for the > locals? The extra month was not a solution. Sounds dumb > > The problem with pure smoking establishments is that the smoke density is > too great. Stink my clothes out. What's more, I don't inhale (....) and I > don't want to breathe in smoke...bit of a paradox here, but who cares? LOL OK, but I find that it really doesn't take all that many smokers to stink the place up, and the 'smoker' bars had some sort of filtering mechanism to try to trap as much of the harmful ingredients as possible. I don't know what they used. > > And I am pleased to say the ashtrays in my cars stay pristinely clean, and > in my latest car I don't even have one, having deleted it when ordering (to > be vaguely in-topic). > > DAS *gasp* You were on-topic! Shame on you! ;-) Natalie > > "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:345q1pF46qf2aU1@individual.net... >> >> "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:41dd9696$0$16589$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >>> Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>> appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home and >>> never in front of our son. >>> >>> Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... >> >> *ahem* >> >> HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one > [...] >> there in June), they now have smoker's bars, where you can smoke all you >> want without being stigmatized by we smoking Nazis. I think that's a good >> idea - as everyone present wants to be around other smokers. >> >> Natalie >> > > |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:41de9eda$0$19161$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... > You're as evangelical as an ex-smoker... :-) Thanks...I think :-) If trying it once and barfing counts, then that's me! > > In Manhattan in 2003 (or was it 2002?) I was in a smokers' bar (attached to > a great steak restaurant) that had been given a one-month extension in the > implementation of the smoking ban. It was very peculiar, almost pointless. > Ok for me as I was visiting and fancied that smoke & drink, but for the > locals? The extra month was not a solution. Sounds dumb > > The problem with pure smoking establishments is that the smoke density is > too great. Stink my clothes out. What's more, I don't inhale (....) and I > don't want to breathe in smoke...bit of a paradox here, but who cares? LOL OK, but I find that it really doesn't take all that many smokers to stink the place up, and the 'smoker' bars had some sort of filtering mechanism to try to trap as much of the harmful ingredients as possible. I don't know what they used. > > And I am pleased to say the ashtrays in my cars stay pristinely clean, and > in my latest car I don't even have one, having deleted it when ordering (to > be vaguely in-topic). > > DAS *gasp* You were on-topic! Shame on you! ;-) Natalie > > "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:345q1pF46qf2aU1@individual.net... >> >> "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:41dd9696$0$16589$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >>> Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>> appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home and >>> never in front of our son. >>> >>> Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... >> >> *ahem* >> >> HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one > [...] >> there in June), they now have smoker's bars, where you can smoke all you >> want without being stigmatized by we smoking Nazis. I think that's a good >> idea - as everyone present wants to be around other smokers. >> >> Natalie >> > > |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3488q6F44nbc0U1@individual.net... > > "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message > news:qaSdndgmBtkfcUPcRVn-tA@rogers.com... >> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:34888lF47nra4U1@individual.net... >>> >>> "So much crap gets into our systems..." >>> >>> Natalie >>> >> >> Exactly! How did this crappy thread get into an automotive NewsGroup? ;-) >> Please kill this annoying thread! >> > > Sorry, I don't have the power, but at least I marked it 'OT' for the > remainder of it. I think this thread is actually useful, though. I think > folks are learning more about this deadly addiction, and how can that be a > bad thing? > > You can kill the thread yourself, by filtering the word "choke" or "OT" > > :-) > > Natalie Re: You can kill the thread yourself, by filtering the word "choke" or "OT" In theory that should work, but in practice, it hasn't. The thread keeps reappearing through my I.S.P.'s NewsGroup. As far as "folks learning more about this deadly addiction", you are preaching to the converted. But there is nothing in this thread that is new or particularly informative. Nor does it belong in an automotive NG. Amen. |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3488q6F44nbc0U1@individual.net... > > "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message > news:qaSdndgmBtkfcUPcRVn-tA@rogers.com... >> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:34888lF47nra4U1@individual.net... >>> >>> "So much crap gets into our systems..." >>> >>> Natalie >>> >> >> Exactly! How did this crappy thread get into an automotive NewsGroup? ;-) >> Please kill this annoying thread! >> > > Sorry, I don't have the power, but at least I marked it 'OT' for the > remainder of it. I think this thread is actually useful, though. I think > folks are learning more about this deadly addiction, and how can that be a > bad thing? > > You can kill the thread yourself, by filtering the word "choke" or "OT" > > :-) > > Natalie Re: You can kill the thread yourself, by filtering the word "choke" or "OT" In theory that should work, but in practice, it hasn't. The thread keeps reappearing through my I.S.P.'s NewsGroup. As far as "folks learning more about this deadly addiction", you are preaching to the converted. But there is nothing in this thread that is new or particularly informative. Nor does it belong in an automotive NG. Amen. |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message news:Dr2dncO8ufx1ckPcRVn-vA@rogers.com... > "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:3488q6F44nbc0U1@individual.net... >> >> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message >> news:qaSdndgmBtkfcUPcRVn-tA@rogers.com... >>> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:34888lF47nra4U1@individual.net... >>>> >>>> "So much crap gets into our systems..." >>>> >>>> Natalie >>>> >>> >>> Exactly! How did this crappy thread get into an automotive NewsGroup? ;-) >>> Please kill this annoying thread! >>> >> >> Sorry, I don't have the power, but at least I marked it 'OT' for the >> remainder of it. I think this thread is actually useful, though. I think >> folks are learning more about this deadly addiction, and how can that be a >> bad thing? >> >> You can kill the thread yourself, by filtering the word "choke" or "OT" >> >> :-) >> >> Natalie > Re: You can kill the thread yourself, by filtering the word "choke" or "OT" > > In theory that should work, but in practice, it hasn't. The thread keeps > reappearing through my I.S.P.'s NewsGroup. And we're to blame for that? When I kill something with OE and Individual, it dies - no other outcome > > As far as "folks learning more about this deadly addiction", you are > preaching to the converted. But there is nothing in this thread that is new > or particularly informative. Nor does it belong in an automotive NG. Amen. > You have no way of knowing who is reading this thread. It's clearly marked OT, so why do you keep reading it? I still believe there are people reading the info here for the first time. Yes, it's old news, but it's still relevant, as the struggle between smokers and non-smokers is ongoing. Killfile those of us you find offensive, because I can tell you without reservation, that trying to get people to stop discussing a subject, no matter how inappropriate one feels the topic is, will simply not work. For instance, when some moron posts spoilers in their subject line regarding a movie or show I haven't watched yet, I killfile them without making a big fuss. All that happens when you try to 'netcop' is a flame war. It's not worth it. Natalie |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:28 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands