Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:Dr2dncO8ufx1ckPcRVn-vA@rogers.com...
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3488q6F44nbc0U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
>> news:qaSdndgmBtkfcUPcRVn-tA@rogers.com...
>>> "Wickeddoll®" <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

Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3488lbF49pjtlU1@individual.net...
>
> "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>,
> >> "Wickeddoll®" <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.

Bars are not primarily smoker's havens, and I don't know if the majority of
patrons were smokers before smoking bans. It's not the same as dietary salt
at all. You can put all the salt in your food you want, and it won't make
my food saltier.

Before smoking bans, people argued that smoking and drinking went together.
It was a stupid argument. Most of the adult population in my state drinks
on occasion. Only about 18% smoke. Most drinkers are not smokers. On
average, bars did not suffer a loss of business. For many, business
increased. Instead of taking away rights from people, the rule gave rights
back to four out of five drinkers who can now go to a smoke-free bar.

Your argument may make sense for a smoking club, but it makes no sense for a
bar since there's no reason to believe that people there smoke in any
greater percentage than people anywhere else. Decades ago, people said that
smoking and eating went together. 100% of people eat (rounded to the nearest
percent) and most of them don't want to do it where people smoke.

In my state, workers are protected from health risks, and bars are no
exception. If you were advocating that people should have the right to smoke
in the privacy of their own homes, and I don't have to go there, then I'd
agree with you. I don't see that same argument for a public place. If the
owner of a greeting card store knew that most of his customers smoked, I
suppose you could make the same argument that it's a smoker's haven, but
even if smoking were allowed there, I'd bet that it would be a smoker's
haven because it turned other potential customers off.

>
> > 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

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 don't know if it did any good either, but taking steps to minimize
exposure to harmful particles is what it's all about. Automobiles have
pollution controls, and so do many other things. The easiest way to get rid
of pollution from smoking is to disallow it where it can affect others.

> >
> > 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 :-)

No, I'm not.

> >
> > 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'

If you are going to be a pothead, you shouldn't force it on others.

> >
> > 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!
>

I would notice the smell, but that's because I'm almost never around smokers
any more.

Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3488lbF49pjtlU1@individual.net...
>
> "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>,
> >> "Wickeddoll®" <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.

Bars are not primarily smoker's havens, and I don't know if the majority of
patrons were smokers before smoking bans. It's not the same as dietary salt
at all. You can put all the salt in your food you want, and it won't make
my food saltier.

Before smoking bans, people argued that smoking and drinking went together.
It was a stupid argument. Most of the adult population in my state drinks
on occasion. Only about 18% smoke. Most drinkers are not smokers. On
average, bars did not suffer a loss of business. For many, business
increased. Instead of taking away rights from people, the rule gave rights
back to four out of five drinkers who can now go to a smoke-free bar.

Your argument may make sense for a smoking club, but it makes no sense for a
bar since there's no reason to believe that people there smoke in any
greater percentage than people anywhere else. Decades ago, people said that
smoking and eating went together. 100% of people eat (rounded to the nearest
percent) and most of them don't want to do it where people smoke.

In my state, workers are protected from health risks, and bars are no
exception. If you were advocating that people should have the right to smoke
in the privacy of their own homes, and I don't have to go there, then I'd
agree with you. I don't see that same argument for a public place. If the
owner of a greeting card store knew that most of his customers smoked, I
suppose you could make the same argument that it's a smoker's haven, but
even if smoking were allowed there, I'd bet that it would be a smoker's
haven because it turned other potential customers off.

>
> > 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

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 don't know if it did any good either, but taking steps to minimize
exposure to harmful particles is what it's all about. Automobiles have
pollution controls, and so do many other things. The easiest way to get rid
of pollution from smoking is to disallow it where it can affect others.

> >
> > 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 :-)

No, I'm not.

> >
> > 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'

If you are going to be a pothead, you shouldn't force it on others.

> >
> > 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!
>

I would notice the smell, but that's because I'm almost never around smokers
any more.

Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348bujF1t8rlgU1@individual.net...
> 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

Sadly, there is no reasoning with the likes of you and your ilk. If you
think your meandering diatribe is good for us, then you impose yourself upon
us. If you have to label something as "OT", has it ever occurred to you
that perhaps you should not post it and impose your compulsive obsessive
behaviour upon us? No, of course not. Such are the inane ramblings and and
selfish motives of your type. "Why should I stop posting off-topic when I
can force all the legitimate users of these automotive NewsGroups, to filter
the topic and killfile all who respond?" I find your demeanor quite selfish
and your rationale more than just a bit absurd. ;-) Natalie, if I may offer
some gentle advice, take a walk outside, take a deep breath of fresh air,
give your head a shake and then proceed to get a life and move your soapbox
down the street! If we feel the need to be saved from ourselves, I'm sure
that we will be able to find you or someone just like you. Thanks for caring
about our well being. Now do us all a favor and find a new pulpit. Your
welcome is worn out here.

Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348bujF1t8rlgU1@individual.net...
> 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

Sadly, there is no reasoning with the likes of you and your ilk. If you
think your meandering diatribe is good for us, then you impose yourself upon
us. If you have to label something as "OT", has it ever occurred to you
that perhaps you should not post it and impose your compulsive obsessive
behaviour upon us? No, of course not. Such are the inane ramblings and and
selfish motives of your type. "Why should I stop posting off-topic when I
can force all the legitimate users of these automotive NewsGroups, to filter
the topic and killfile all who respond?" I find your demeanor quite selfish
and your rationale more than just a bit absurd. ;-) Natalie, if I may offer
some gentle advice, take a walk outside, take a deep breath of fresh air,
give your head a shake and then proceed to get a life and move your soapbox
down the street! If we feel the need to be saved from ourselves, I'm sure
that we will be able to find you or someone just like you. Thanks for caring
about our well being. Now do us all a favor and find a new pulpit. Your
welcome is worn out here.

Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:A-SdnfZxPe6OmELcRVn-vg@giganews.com...
>
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>> "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.
>
> Bars are not primarily smoker's havens, and I don't know if the majority of
> patrons were smokers before smoking bans. It's not the same as dietary salt
> at all. You can put all the salt in your food you want, and it won't make
> my food saltier.

I'm not saying they are, I'm just saying that some bars in AZ decided to make
themselves 'smoker-friendly'. I think they have the right to serve their
customers as they (legally) see fit.
>
> Before smoking bans, people argued that smoking and drinking went together.
> It was a stupid argument. Most of the adult population in my state drinks
> on occasion. Only about 18% smoke. Most drinkers are not smokers. On
> average, bars did not suffer a loss of business. For many, business
> increased. Instead of taking away rights from people, the rule gave rights
> back to four out of five drinkers who can now go to a smoke-free bar.

Interesting
>
> Your argument may make sense for a smoking club, but it makes no sense for
> a
> bar since there's no reason to believe that people there smoke in any
> greater percentage than people anywhere else. Decades ago, people said
> that
> smoking and eating went together. 100% of people eat (rounded to the
> nearest
> percent) and most of them don't want to do it where people smoke.

I dunno. Back in my single days, it seemed like at least 1 in 3 of the
patrons at bars were puffing away. Maybe that's changed since the late
70s/early 80s
>
> In my state, workers are protected from health risks, and bars are no
> exception. If you were advocating that people should have the right to
> smoke
> in the privacy of their own homes, and I don't have to go there, then I'd
> agree with you. I don't see that same argument for a public place. If the
> owner of a greeting card store knew that most of his customers smoked, I
> suppose you could make the same argument that it's a smoker's haven, but
> even if smoking were allowed there, I'd bet that it would be a smoker's
> haven because it turned other potential customers off.

No, what I was talking about were places that catered to smokers in
particular. I don't see that as a loss of rights. There are certainly more
non-smoking public places than the reverse, so I don't see the harm. If I
know a bar caters to smokers, I'll stay the hell away from there. Some
people who are non-smokers don't mind being in a nicotine permeated
environment. Bottome line: If you know what you're getting into, don't
complain when you see it (in this case smoking)
>
>>
>> > 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
>
> See above

I did - I still stand by my statements :-)

Hmmm while I agree that cig/cigar smoke is harmful, I don't know that it
equals the amount of toxicity you get from machine exhaust. If we're talking
sheer numbers here, I tend to believe cars emit much more harmful fumes than
smokers. Do you have some data I could see? Seriously, I'd like to know.
>
>> >
>> >> 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 don't know if it did any good either, but taking steps to minimize
> exposure to harmful particles is what it's all about. Automobiles have
> pollution controls, and so do many other things. The easiest way to get
> rid
> of pollution from smoking is to disallow it where it can affect others.

See above :-)
>
>> >
>> > 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 :-)
>
> No, I'm not.

You say that like it's a good thing :-)
>
>> >
>> > 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'
>
> If you are going to be a pothead, you shouldn't force it on others.

And they didn't. I saw it, of course, but my parents never tried to get me
into it. One of my mom's friends did, but I flatly refused.
>
>> >
>> > 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!
>>
>
> I would notice the smell, but that's because I'm almost never around
> smokers
> any more.

Wish I could say that. It always saddens me to take a pregnant woman back to
the exam room and notice that the room is filling up with that odor. I feel
sorry for the baby as well as the mom.

Natalie

Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:A-SdnfZxPe6OmELcRVn-vg@giganews.com...
>
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>> "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.
>
> Bars are not primarily smoker's havens, and I don't know if the majority of
> patrons were smokers before smoking bans. It's not the same as dietary salt
> at all. You can put all the salt in your food you want, and it won't make
> my food saltier.

I'm not saying they are, I'm just saying that some bars in AZ decided to make
themselves 'smoker-friendly'. I think they have the right to serve their
customers as they (legally) see fit.
>
> Before smoking bans, people argued that smoking and drinking went together.
> It was a stupid argument. Most of the adult population in my state drinks
> on occasion. Only about 18% smoke. Most drinkers are not smokers. On
> average, bars did not suffer a loss of business. For many, business
> increased. Instead of taking away rights from people, the rule gave rights
> back to four out of five drinkers who can now go to a smoke-free bar.

Interesting
>
> Your argument may make sense for a smoking club, but it makes no sense for
> a
> bar since there's no reason to believe that people there smoke in any
> greater percentage than people anywhere else. Decades ago, people said
> that
> smoking and eating went together. 100% of people eat (rounded to the
> nearest
> percent) and most of them don't want to do it where people smoke.

I dunno. Back in my single days, it seemed like at least 1 in 3 of the
patrons at bars were puffing away. Maybe that's changed since the late
70s/early 80s
>
> In my state, workers are protected from health risks, and bars are no
> exception. If you were advocating that people should have the right to
> smoke
> in the privacy of their own homes, and I don't have to go there, then I'd
> agree with you. I don't see that same argument for a public place. If the
> owner of a greeting card store knew that most of his customers smoked, I
> suppose you could make the same argument that it's a smoker's haven, but
> even if smoking were allowed there, I'd bet that it would be a smoker's
> haven because it turned other potential customers off.

No, what I was talking about were places that catered to smokers in
particular. I don't see that as a loss of rights. There are certainly more
non-smoking public places than the reverse, so I don't see the harm. If I
know a bar caters to smokers, I'll stay the hell away from there. Some
people who are non-smokers don't mind being in a nicotine permeated
environment. Bottome line: If you know what you're getting into, don't
complain when you see it (in this case smoking)
>
>>
>> > 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
>
> See above

I did - I still stand by my statements :-)

Hmmm while I agree that cig/cigar smoke is harmful, I don't know that it
equals the amount of toxicity you get from machine exhaust. If we're talking
sheer numbers here, I tend to believe cars emit much more harmful fumes than
smokers. Do you have some data I could see? Seriously, I'd like to know.
>
>> >
>> >> 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 don't know if it did any good either, but taking steps to minimize
> exposure to harmful particles is what it's all about. Automobiles have
> pollution controls, and so do many other things. The easiest way to get
> rid
> of pollution from smoking is to disallow it where it can affect others.

See above :-)
>
>> >
>> > 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 :-)
>
> No, I'm not.

You say that like it's a good thing :-)
>
>> >
>> > 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'
>
> If you are going to be a pothead, you shouldn't force it on others.

And they didn't. I saw it, of course, but my parents never tried to get me
into it. One of my mom's friends did, but I flatly refused.
>
>> >
>> > 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!
>>
>
> I would notice the smell, but that's because I'm almost never around
> smokers
> any more.

Wish I could say that. It always saddens me to take a pregnant woman back to
the exam room and notice that the room is filling up with that odor. I feel
sorry for the baby as well as the mom.

Natalie

Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:FvqdnemSu6ellkLcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:348bujF1t8rlgU1@individual.net...
>> 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
>
> Sadly, there is no reasoning with the likes of you and your ilk. If you
> think your meandering diatribe is good for us, then you impose yourself
> upon us. If you have to label something as "OT", has it ever occurred to
> you that perhaps you should not post it and impose your compulsive
> obsessive behaviour upon us? No, of course not. Such are the inane
> ramblings and and selfish motives of your type. "Why should I stop posting
> off-topic when I can force all the legitimate users of these automotive
> NewsGroups, to filter the topic and killfile all who respond?" I find your
> demeanor quite selfish and your rationale more than just a bit absurd. ;-)
> Natalie, if I may offer some gentle advice, take a walk outside, take a
> deep breath of fresh air, give your head a shake and then proceed to get a
> life and move your soapbox down the street! If we feel the need to be saved
> from ourselves, I'm sure that we will be able to find you or someone just
> like you. Thanks for caring about our well being. Now do us all a favor and
> find a new pulpit. Your welcome is worn out here.
>
Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me

By the way, I didn't even start this thread, so how about lambasting the rest
of them while you're at it. Hey, it's lonely down here in the dungeon of
your displeasure.

Natalie, sighing at the human capacity to attack

Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:FvqdnemSu6ellkLcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:348bujF1t8rlgU1@individual.net...
>> 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
>
> Sadly, there is no reasoning with the likes of you and your ilk. If you
> think your meandering diatribe is good for us, then you impose yourself
> upon us. If you have to label something as "OT", has it ever occurred to
> you that perhaps you should not post it and impose your compulsive
> obsessive behaviour upon us? No, of course not. Such are the inane
> ramblings and and selfish motives of your type. "Why should I stop posting
> off-topic when I can force all the legitimate users of these automotive
> NewsGroups, to filter the topic and killfile all who respond?" I find your
> demeanor quite selfish and your rationale more than just a bit absurd. ;-)
> Natalie, if I may offer some gentle advice, take a walk outside, take a
> deep breath of fresh air, give your head a shake and then proceed to get a
> life and move your soapbox down the street! If we feel the need to be saved
> from ourselves, I'm sure that we will be able to find you or someone just
> like you. Thanks for caring about our well being. Now do us all a favor and
> find a new pulpit. Your welcome is worn out here.
>
Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me

By the way, I didn't even start this thread, so how about lambasting the rest
of them while you're at it. Hey, it's lonely down here in the dungeon of
your displeasure.

Natalie, sighing at the human capacity to attack

Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:348833F468eg0U1@individual.net...
>
> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
> > Huw wrote:
> >> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
> >> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
> >>
> >>>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
> >>>
> >>>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that cigarettes
have
> >>>very dire consequences on ones health. Creating yet another study
proving
> >>>that won't help. Educating adolescents is the only solution to smoking,
> >>>because they are the most vulnerable to peer pressure and other
> >>>influences.
> >>
> >>
> >> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much
> >> relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight the
> >> well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated until now
by
> >> millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but it highlights the
> >> absurd negative press about particulates directed by pressure groups
> >> against diesel engined cars.
> >> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create as
much
> >> particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
> >>
> >> Huw
> > But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with highly
> > carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>
> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>
> Huw


I am interested in your comment that it "takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars
to create as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette". Based on
what duration of runtime or miles or gallons of fuel or whatever is a
cigarette worse than 3.5 diesel automobiles? I'm not arguing, just asking
for clarification on something that sounds quite extraordinary.

Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:348833F468eg0U1@individual.net...
>
> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
> > Huw wrote:
> >> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
> >> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
> >>
> >>>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
> >>>
> >>>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that cigarettes
have
> >>>very dire consequences on ones health. Creating yet another study
proving
> >>>that won't help. Educating adolescents is the only solution to smoking,
> >>>because they are the most vulnerable to peer pressure and other
> >>>influences.
> >>
> >>
> >> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much
> >> relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight the
> >> well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated until now
by
> >> millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but it highlights the
> >> absurd negative press about particulates directed by pressure groups
> >> against diesel engined cars.
> >> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create as
much
> >> particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
> >>
> >> Huw
> > But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with highly
> > carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>
> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>
> Huw


I am interested in your comment that it "takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars
to create as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette". Based on
what duration of runtime or miles or gallons of fuel or whatever is a
cigarette worse than 3.5 diesel automobiles? I'm not arguing, just asking
for clarification on something that sounds quite extraordinary.

Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:FvqdnemSu6ellkLcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:348bujF1t8rlgU1@individual.net...
> > 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
>
> Sadly, there is no reasoning with the likes of you and your ilk. If you
> think your meandering diatribe is good for us, then you impose yourself
upon
> us. If you have to label something as "OT", has it ever occurred to you
> that perhaps you should not post it and impose your compulsive obsessive
> behaviour upon us? No, of course not. Such are the inane ramblings and and
> selfish motives of your type. "Why should I stop posting off-topic when I
> can force all the legitimate users of these automotive NewsGroups, to
filter
> the topic and killfile all who respond?" I find your demeanor quite
selfish
> and your rationale more than just a bit absurd. ;-) Natalie, if I may
offer
> some gentle advice, take a walk outside, take a deep breath of fresh air,
> give your head a shake and then proceed to get a life and move your
soapbox
> down the street! If we feel the need to be saved from ourselves, I'm sure
> that we will be able to find you or someone just like you. Thanks for
caring
> about our well being. Now do us all a favor and find a new pulpit. Your
> welcome is worn out here.
>

That does not strike me as gentle advice, any more on topic than the rest of
the thread, or anything but a personal attack, but as long as we are giving
advice, the best way to make a thread go away is to ignore it.

Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:FvqdnemSu6ellkLcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:348bujF1t8rlgU1@individual.net...
> > 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
>
> Sadly, there is no reasoning with the likes of you and your ilk. If you
> think your meandering diatribe is good for us, then you impose yourself
upon
> us. If you have to label something as "OT", has it ever occurred to you
> that perhaps you should not post it and impose your compulsive obsessive
> behaviour upon us? No, of course not. Such are the inane ramblings and and
> selfish motives of your type. "Why should I stop posting off-topic when I
> can force all the legitimate users of these automotive NewsGroups, to
filter
> the topic and killfile all who respond?" I find your demeanor quite
selfish
> and your rationale more than just a bit absurd. ;-) Natalie, if I may
offer
> some gentle advice, take a walk outside, take a deep breath of fresh air,
> give your head a shake and then proceed to get a life and move your
soapbox
> down the street! If we feel the need to be saved from ourselves, I'm sure
> that we will be able to find you or someone just like you. Thanks for
caring
> about our well being. Now do us all a favor and find a new pulpit. Your
> welcome is worn out here.
>

That does not strike me as gentle advice, any more on topic than the rest of
the thread, or anything but a personal attack, but as long as we are giving
advice, the best way to make a thread go away is to ignore it.

Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348gprF48aar6U1@individual.net...
> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me

Natalie, you simply cannot rationalize your propagation of such an intrusive
topic in an automotive NG. Your persecution complex goes hand-in-hand with
your intrusive behaviour. Trust your instincts grasshopper - if you think
you've dragged this string on long enough, you probably have!

>
> By the way, I didn't even start this thread, so how about lambasting the
> rest of them while you're at it. Hey, it's lonely down here in the
> dungeon of your displeasure.

Nat, (May I call you Nat?) you may not have started this thread, but you
have certainly been keeping it going. Isn't it time to give it up? We all
know your opinions inside out and we are exhausted.

>
> Natalie, sighing at the human capacity to attack

Funny how you consider yourself as being attacked, when it is you who
perpetuate an OT post. We were feeling the same. *sigh*

Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
 

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348gprF48aar6U1@individual.net...
> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me

Natalie, you simply cannot rationalize your propagation of such an intrusive
topic in an automotive NG. Your persecution complex goes hand-in-hand with
your intrusive behaviour. Trust your instincts grasshopper - if you think
you've dragged this string on long enough, you probably have!

>
> By the way, I didn't even start this thread, so how about lambasting the
> rest of them while you're at it. Hey, it's lonely down here in the
> dungeon of your displeasure.

Nat, (May I call you Nat?) you may not have started this thread, but you
have certainly been keeping it going. Isn't it time to give it up? We all
know your opinions inside out and we are exhausted.

>
> Natalie, sighing at the human capacity to attack

Funny how you consider yourself as being attacked, when it is you who
perpetuate an OT post. We were feeling the same. *sigh*