CHOKE on this!
#181
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:54adnTeqi_vZkkLcRVn-1A@rogers.com...
> "WickeddollŽ" <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!
Lie number one - I never said I was going on too long. You pulled that outta
your ***
>
>>
>> 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.
>
No, you may call me Mrs. Larkowski, and just stop reading it! You can
killfile me and then you don't have to worry about seeing *any* of my
comments. For that matter, kill the others that are contributing to the
thread that you now are keeping alive as well! Sheesh - you will see
off-topic stuff in any unmoderated forum. If it really bothers you that
much, you're in for a lot of grief.
>>
>> 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*
>
I never personally attacked you, but with that condescending you said
earlier, you certainly attacked me.
OT posts will never disappear from the whole of Usenet. Deal with it, as you
seem to be the only one really upset about it.
Natalie
#182
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348hhgF49dg2lU1@individual.net...
> Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can
> help you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so
> amazing I can hardly believe it. Here is yet another wannabe netcop who's
> going on the offensive for something that has been around since the
> inception of Usenet. OT netkkkops are always so quick to forget that while
> a forum may be created for discussion of a particular subject, it's also
> another mode of socialization. I have yet to see any forums that do not
> allow off-topic discussion (they try, but to no avail). Most insist that
> the thread is marked OT, but that's about it. I really was trying to be
> nice and maybe a bit helpful, and as usual, there's a turd in the
> punchbowl who overreacts and attacks. He/she/it should just frequent
> moderated NGs and see all the netkkkopping anyone could want...
>
> and like all netkkkops, he keeps reading the thread. Go figure.
>
> *rolling eyes*
>
> Natalie
That's it Nat. When you sense that you've lost a battle of wits (One that
you were completely unarmed for!), don't respond to the one who has
outwitted you, just talk to the air and hope that your ilk will join the
chorus! LMAO!!!
news:348hhgF49dg2lU1@individual.net...
> Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can
> help you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so
> amazing I can hardly believe it. Here is yet another wannabe netcop who's
> going on the offensive for something that has been around since the
> inception of Usenet. OT netkkkops are always so quick to forget that while
> a forum may be created for discussion of a particular subject, it's also
> another mode of socialization. I have yet to see any forums that do not
> allow off-topic discussion (they try, but to no avail). Most insist that
> the thread is marked OT, but that's about it. I really was trying to be
> nice and maybe a bit helpful, and as usual, there's a turd in the
> punchbowl who overreacts and attacks. He/she/it should just frequent
> moderated NGs and see all the netkkkopping anyone could want...
>
> and like all netkkkops, he keeps reading the thread. Go figure.
>
> *rolling eyes*
>
> Natalie
That's it Nat. When you sense that you've lost a battle of wits (One that
you were completely unarmed for!), don't respond to the one who has
outwitted you, just talk to the air and hope that your ilk will join the
chorus! LMAO!!!
#183
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348hhgF49dg2lU1@individual.net...
> Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can
> help you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so
> amazing I can hardly believe it. Here is yet another wannabe netcop who's
> going on the offensive for something that has been around since the
> inception of Usenet. OT netkkkops are always so quick to forget that while
> a forum may be created for discussion of a particular subject, it's also
> another mode of socialization. I have yet to see any forums that do not
> allow off-topic discussion (they try, but to no avail). Most insist that
> the thread is marked OT, but that's about it. I really was trying to be
> nice and maybe a bit helpful, and as usual, there's a turd in the
> punchbowl who overreacts and attacks. He/she/it should just frequent
> moderated NGs and see all the netkkkopping anyone could want...
>
> and like all netkkkops, he keeps reading the thread. Go figure.
>
> *rolling eyes*
>
> Natalie
That's it Nat. When you sense that you've lost a battle of wits (One that
you were completely unarmed for!), don't respond to the one who has
outwitted you, just talk to the air and hope that your ilk will join the
chorus! LMAO!!!
news:348hhgF49dg2lU1@individual.net...
> Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can
> help you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so
> amazing I can hardly believe it. Here is yet another wannabe netcop who's
> going on the offensive for something that has been around since the
> inception of Usenet. OT netkkkops are always so quick to forget that while
> a forum may be created for discussion of a particular subject, it's also
> another mode of socialization. I have yet to see any forums that do not
> allow off-topic discussion (they try, but to no avail). Most insist that
> the thread is marked OT, but that's about it. I really was trying to be
> nice and maybe a bit helpful, and as usual, there's a turd in the
> punchbowl who overreacts and attacks. He/she/it should just frequent
> moderated NGs and see all the netkkkopping anyone could want...
>
> and like all netkkkops, he keeps reading the thread. Go figure.
>
> *rolling eyes*
>
> Natalie
That's it Nat. When you sense that you've lost a battle of wits (One that
you were completely unarmed for!), don't respond to the one who has
outwitted you, just talk to the air and hope that your ilk will join the
chorus! LMAO!!!
#184
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348hhgF49dg2lU1@individual.net...
> Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can
help
> you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so amazing
I
> can hardly believe it. Here is yet another wannabe netcop who's going on
the
> offensive for something that has been around since the inception of
Usenet.
> OT netkkkops are always so quick to forget that while a forum may be
created
> for discussion of a particular subject, it's also another mode of
> socialization. I have yet to see any forums that do not allow off-topic
> discussion (they try, but to no avail). Most insist that the thread is
> marked OT, but that's about it. I really was trying to be nice and maybe
a
> bit helpful, and as usual, there's a turd in the punchbowl who overreacts
and
> attacks. He/she/it should just frequent moderated NGs and see all the
> netkkkopping anyone could want...
>
> and like all netkkkops, he keeps reading the thread. Go figure.
>
> *rolling eyes*
Rolling eyes not withstanding, there are 10 or 11 groups this is being
posted to so I don't which one he is actually concerned with, but if the
charter for the group in question exists (and for many groups they don't)
and the charter dictates that OT posts are not allowed, then one should
desist. After all newgroups basically work on the honor system and that is
the only thing that keeps unmoderated groups effective.
I suggest he post the charter here for you to see, and then you can strike
that group from the cross-posting list. If he can't, then it would appear
you haven't done anything remotely wrong.
#185
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348hhgF49dg2lU1@individual.net...
> Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can
help
> you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so amazing
I
> can hardly believe it. Here is yet another wannabe netcop who's going on
the
> offensive for something that has been around since the inception of
Usenet.
> OT netkkkops are always so quick to forget that while a forum may be
created
> for discussion of a particular subject, it's also another mode of
> socialization. I have yet to see any forums that do not allow off-topic
> discussion (they try, but to no avail). Most insist that the thread is
> marked OT, but that's about it. I really was trying to be nice and maybe
a
> bit helpful, and as usual, there's a turd in the punchbowl who overreacts
and
> attacks. He/she/it should just frequent moderated NGs and see all the
> netkkkopping anyone could want...
>
> and like all netkkkops, he keeps reading the thread. Go figure.
>
> *rolling eyes*
Rolling eyes not withstanding, there are 10 or 11 groups this is being
posted to so I don't which one he is actually concerned with, but if the
charter for the group in question exists (and for many groups they don't)
and the charter dictates that OT posts are not allowed, then one should
desist. After all newgroups basically work on the honor system and that is
the only thing that keeps unmoderated groups effective.
I suggest he post the charter here for you to see, and then you can strike
that group from the cross-posting list. If he can't, then it would appear
you haven't done anything remotely wrong.
#186
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348hnkF49499mU1@individual.net...
>
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:54adnTeqi_vZkkLcRVn-1A@rogers.com...
>> "WickeddollŽ" <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!
>
> Lie number one - I never said I was going on too long. You pulled that
> outta your ***
Oooh! Temper, temper!
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> No, you may call me Mrs. Larkowski, and just stop reading it! You can
> killfile me and then you don't have to worry about seeing *any* of my
> comments. For that matter, kill the others that are contributing to the
> thread that you now are keeping alive as well! Sheesh - you will see
> off-topic stuff in any unmoderated forum. If it really bothers you that
> much, you're in for a lot of grief.
My gosh Nat, with all your aggresive talk of "killfile me", "kill the
others", we can only hope that you don't have a pointy object in your hand!
>>>
>>> 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*
>>
> I never personally attacked you, but with that condescending you said
> earlier, you certainly attacked me.
Hmmm, could I buy a vowel? What the hell are you talking about? What
personal attack? Quote?
>
> OT posts will never disappear from the whole of Usenet. Deal with it, as
> you seem to be the only one really upset about it.
No Nat, I'm not the only one upset about it. I am the only one to challenge
it and that's a big difference. The rest have probably either filtered the
thread or killfiled us both. That's reality!
>
> Natalie
>
news:348hnkF49499mU1@individual.net...
>
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:54adnTeqi_vZkkLcRVn-1A@rogers.com...
>> "WickeddollŽ" <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!
>
> Lie number one - I never said I was going on too long. You pulled that
> outta your ***
Oooh! Temper, temper!
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> No, you may call me Mrs. Larkowski, and just stop reading it! You can
> killfile me and then you don't have to worry about seeing *any* of my
> comments. For that matter, kill the others that are contributing to the
> thread that you now are keeping alive as well! Sheesh - you will see
> off-topic stuff in any unmoderated forum. If it really bothers you that
> much, you're in for a lot of grief.
My gosh Nat, with all your aggresive talk of "killfile me", "kill the
others", we can only hope that you don't have a pointy object in your hand!
>>>
>>> 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*
>>
> I never personally attacked you, but with that condescending you said
> earlier, you certainly attacked me.
Hmmm, could I buy a vowel? What the hell are you talking about? What
personal attack? Quote?
>
> OT posts will never disappear from the whole of Usenet. Deal with it, as
> you seem to be the only one really upset about it.
No Nat, I'm not the only one upset about it. I am the only one to challenge
it and that's a big difference. The rest have probably either filtered the
thread or killfiled us both. That's reality!
>
> Natalie
>
#187
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348hnkF49499mU1@individual.net...
>
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:54adnTeqi_vZkkLcRVn-1A@rogers.com...
>> "WickeddollŽ" <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!
>
> Lie number one - I never said I was going on too long. You pulled that
> outta your ***
Oooh! Temper, temper!
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> No, you may call me Mrs. Larkowski, and just stop reading it! You can
> killfile me and then you don't have to worry about seeing *any* of my
> comments. For that matter, kill the others that are contributing to the
> thread that you now are keeping alive as well! Sheesh - you will see
> off-topic stuff in any unmoderated forum. If it really bothers you that
> much, you're in for a lot of grief.
My gosh Nat, with all your aggresive talk of "killfile me", "kill the
others", we can only hope that you don't have a pointy object in your hand!
>>>
>>> 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*
>>
> I never personally attacked you, but with that condescending you said
> earlier, you certainly attacked me.
Hmmm, could I buy a vowel? What the hell are you talking about? What
personal attack? Quote?
>
> OT posts will never disappear from the whole of Usenet. Deal with it, as
> you seem to be the only one really upset about it.
No Nat, I'm not the only one upset about it. I am the only one to challenge
it and that's a big difference. The rest have probably either filtered the
thread or killfiled us both. That's reality!
>
> Natalie
>
news:348hnkF49499mU1@individual.net...
>
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:54adnTeqi_vZkkLcRVn-1A@rogers.com...
>> "WickeddollŽ" <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!
>
> Lie number one - I never said I was going on too long. You pulled that
> outta your ***
Oooh! Temper, temper!
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> No, you may call me Mrs. Larkowski, and just stop reading it! You can
> killfile me and then you don't have to worry about seeing *any* of my
> comments. For that matter, kill the others that are contributing to the
> thread that you now are keeping alive as well! Sheesh - you will see
> off-topic stuff in any unmoderated forum. If it really bothers you that
> much, you're in for a lot of grief.
My gosh Nat, with all your aggresive talk of "killfile me", "kill the
others", we can only hope that you don't have a pointy object in your hand!
>>>
>>> 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*
>>
> I never personally attacked you, but with that condescending you said
> earlier, you certainly attacked me.
Hmmm, could I buy a vowel? What the hell are you talking about? What
personal attack? Quote?
>
> OT posts will never disappear from the whole of Usenet. Deal with it, as
> you seem to be the only one really upset about it.
No Nat, I'm not the only one upset about it. I am the only one to challenge
it and that's a big difference. The rest have probably either filtered the
thread or killfiled us both. That's reality!
>
> Natalie
>
#188
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
newskEDd.48$Y86.2831@news.uswest.net...
> Rolling eyes not withstanding, there are 10 or 11 groups this is being
> posted to so I don't which one he is actually concerned with, but if the
> charter for the group in question exists (and for many groups they don't)
> and the charter dictates that OT posts are not allowed, then one should
> desist. After all newgroups basically work on the honor system and that is
> the only thing that keeps unmoderated groups effective.
>
> I suggest he post the charter here for you to see, and then you can strike
> that group from the cross-posting list. If he can't, then it would appear
> you haven't done anything remotely wrong.
>
Bradburn, you are such a wuss! Take your meds now honey!
newskEDd.48$Y86.2831@news.uswest.net...
> Rolling eyes not withstanding, there are 10 or 11 groups this is being
> posted to so I don't which one he is actually concerned with, but if the
> charter for the group in question exists (and for many groups they don't)
> and the charter dictates that OT posts are not allowed, then one should
> desist. After all newgroups basically work on the honor system and that is
> the only thing that keeps unmoderated groups effective.
>
> I suggest he post the charter here for you to see, and then you can strike
> that group from the cross-posting list. If he can't, then it would appear
> you haven't done anything remotely wrong.
>
Bradburn, you are such a wuss! Take your meds now honey!
#189
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
newskEDd.48$Y86.2831@news.uswest.net...
> Rolling eyes not withstanding, there are 10 or 11 groups this is being
> posted to so I don't which one he is actually concerned with, but if the
> charter for the group in question exists (and for many groups they don't)
> and the charter dictates that OT posts are not allowed, then one should
> desist. After all newgroups basically work on the honor system and that is
> the only thing that keeps unmoderated groups effective.
>
> I suggest he post the charter here for you to see, and then you can strike
> that group from the cross-posting list. If he can't, then it would appear
> you haven't done anything remotely wrong.
>
Bradburn, you are such a wuss! Take your meds now honey!
newskEDd.48$Y86.2831@news.uswest.net...
> Rolling eyes not withstanding, there are 10 or 11 groups this is being
> posted to so I don't which one he is actually concerned with, but if the
> charter for the group in question exists (and for many groups they don't)
> and the charter dictates that OT posts are not allowed, then one should
> desist. After all newgroups basically work on the honor system and that is
> the only thing that keeps unmoderated groups effective.
>
> I suggest he post the charter here for you to see, and then you can strike
> that group from the cross-posting list. If he can't, then it would appear
> you haven't done anything remotely wrong.
>
Bradburn, you are such a wuss! Take your meds now honey!
#190
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348gm6F46nc07U1@individual.net...
>
> "Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:A-SdnfZxPe6OmELcRVn-vg@giganews.com...
> >
> > "WickeddollŽ" <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 *****. 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.
That would depend on your state's laws. I found AZ too smoky for my
likings. It would have been nice to be able to sell a million dollars in
real estate and buy an equivalent house in Phoenix with more land for
$135,000, but the idea of not being able to go to a restaurant was not my
idea of where I'd like to live. I found myself walking out of too many
restaurants right after walking in because they made no attempt to segregate
the smokers (if that's even possible.)
> >
> > 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
If that was true, then 2 in 3 were not smoking. There were also some
potential customers who stayed away because of the smoky atmosphere. I used
to stay away from bowling alleys for the same reason. Now I take my kids,
and kids have birthday parties there. The percentage who smoked did not
necessarily reflect the percentage of potential customers who smoked.
> >
> > 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)
The idea of the California law was not to protect the bar patrons. It was to
protect employees. I think it's still theoretically possible to open a bar
and allow smoking if the owner is the bartender and there are no employees.
(Possibly, other family members could work there.) I haven't paid much
attention to that aspect of the law since it was passed years ago, but I
wouldn't rule out the possiblity of a group of bartenders owning something
jointly and having enough owners to cover all shifts. I don't know of any
bars like that, but if I got that aspect of the law right, they would be
able to allow smoking as long as they had a sign in the entrance that says
that they allow smoking and that it's a substance known to the state of
California to cause cancer, etc.
> >
> >>
> >> > 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 :-)
We'll have to respectfully disagree and leave it at that, then.
>
> 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.
This thread did start with a study that aluded to that, at least with
respect to cars. I don't know if there is comprehensive data, but I do know
that I've never come home stinking of exhaust from driving behind another
car. I've had occasions where the person in front of me is a gross polluter,
and I had to switch to recirc, but I've had far more occasions when I had to
do it because somebody in the car in front of me lit up at a red light and
had the window open.
I don't know if *I* get more toxicity from machine exhaust than from
cigarettes, but if I do, it's because I'm not around cigarettes as much. I
do know that if I were in an open room such as a garage with a car's engine
running, I'd be bothered less than if a single person were smoking. The
former would not make me cough, smell up my clothes, or give me a headache.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> 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 think New England is a beautiful place. I haven't been there in a while
though.
> >
> >> >
> >> > 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.
In the 70's, I had friends whose parents smoked around them and around other
children. I can't see that happening today, and I don't know if your
parents would react the same way today either.
> >
> >> >
> >> > 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.
>
You could try discussing the benefits of not smoking rather than the scare
tactics and see if it works. In my case, it would be none of my business,
but as a health care worker, it would be reasonable.
#191
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348gm6F46nc07U1@individual.net...
>
> "Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:A-SdnfZxPe6OmELcRVn-vg@giganews.com...
> >
> > "WickeddollŽ" <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 *****. 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.
That would depend on your state's laws. I found AZ too smoky for my
likings. It would have been nice to be able to sell a million dollars in
real estate and buy an equivalent house in Phoenix with more land for
$135,000, but the idea of not being able to go to a restaurant was not my
idea of where I'd like to live. I found myself walking out of too many
restaurants right after walking in because they made no attempt to segregate
the smokers (if that's even possible.)
> >
> > 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
If that was true, then 2 in 3 were not smoking. There were also some
potential customers who stayed away because of the smoky atmosphere. I used
to stay away from bowling alleys for the same reason. Now I take my kids,
and kids have birthday parties there. The percentage who smoked did not
necessarily reflect the percentage of potential customers who smoked.
> >
> > 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)
The idea of the California law was not to protect the bar patrons. It was to
protect employees. I think it's still theoretically possible to open a bar
and allow smoking if the owner is the bartender and there are no employees.
(Possibly, other family members could work there.) I haven't paid much
attention to that aspect of the law since it was passed years ago, but I
wouldn't rule out the possiblity of a group of bartenders owning something
jointly and having enough owners to cover all shifts. I don't know of any
bars like that, but if I got that aspect of the law right, they would be
able to allow smoking as long as they had a sign in the entrance that says
that they allow smoking and that it's a substance known to the state of
California to cause cancer, etc.
> >
> >>
> >> > 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 :-)
We'll have to respectfully disagree and leave it at that, then.
>
> 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.
This thread did start with a study that aluded to that, at least with
respect to cars. I don't know if there is comprehensive data, but I do know
that I've never come home stinking of exhaust from driving behind another
car. I've had occasions where the person in front of me is a gross polluter,
and I had to switch to recirc, but I've had far more occasions when I had to
do it because somebody in the car in front of me lit up at a red light and
had the window open.
I don't know if *I* get more toxicity from machine exhaust than from
cigarettes, but if I do, it's because I'm not around cigarettes as much. I
do know that if I were in an open room such as a garage with a car's engine
running, I'd be bothered less than if a single person were smoking. The
former would not make me cough, smell up my clothes, or give me a headache.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> 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 think New England is a beautiful place. I haven't been there in a while
though.
> >
> >> >
> >> > 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.
In the 70's, I had friends whose parents smoked around them and around other
children. I can't see that happening today, and I don't know if your
parents would react the same way today either.
> >
> >> >
> >> > 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.
>
You could try discussing the benefits of not smoking rather than the scare
tactics and see if it works. In my case, it would be none of my business,
but as a health care worker, it would be reasonable.
#192
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
newskEDd.48$Y86.2831@news.uswest.net...
>
> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:348hhgF49dg2lU1@individual.net...
>
>> Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can
> help
>> you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so amazing
> I
>> can hardly believe it. Here is yet another wannabe netcop who's going on
> the
>> offensive for something that has been around since the inception of
> Usenet.
>> OT netkkkops are always so quick to forget that while a forum may be
> created
>> for discussion of a particular subject, it's also another mode of
>> socialization. I have yet to see any forums that do not allow off-topic
>> discussion (they try, but to no avail). Most insist that the thread is
>> marked OT, but that's about it. I really was trying to be nice and maybe
> a
>> bit helpful, and as usual, there's a turd in the punchbowl who overreacts
> and
>> attacks. He/she/it should just frequent moderated NGs and see all the
>> netkkkopping anyone could want...
>>
>> and like all netkkkops, he keeps reading the thread. Go figure.
>>
>> *rolling eyes*
>
> Rolling eyes not withstanding, there are 10 or 11 groups this is being
> posted to so I don't which one he is actually concerned with, but if the
> charter for the group in question exists (and for many groups they don't)
> and the charter dictates that OT posts are not allowed, then one should
> desist. After all newgroups basically work on the honor system and that is
> the only thing that keeps unmoderated groups effective.
>
> I suggest he post the charter here for you to see, and then you can strike
> that group from the cross-posting list. If he can't, then it would appear
> you haven't done anything remotely wrong.
>
>
Even if I had, he didn't say it in the same way you did. There is no need to
be nasty, but this guy feels there is
Natalie
#193
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
newskEDd.48$Y86.2831@news.uswest.net...
>
> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:348hhgF49dg2lU1@individual.net...
>
>> Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can
> help
>> you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so amazing
> I
>> can hardly believe it. Here is yet another wannabe netcop who's going on
> the
>> offensive for something that has been around since the inception of
> Usenet.
>> OT netkkkops are always so quick to forget that while a forum may be
> created
>> for discussion of a particular subject, it's also another mode of
>> socialization. I have yet to see any forums that do not allow off-topic
>> discussion (they try, but to no avail). Most insist that the thread is
>> marked OT, but that's about it. I really was trying to be nice and maybe
> a
>> bit helpful, and as usual, there's a turd in the punchbowl who overreacts
> and
>> attacks. He/she/it should just frequent moderated NGs and see all the
>> netkkkopping anyone could want...
>>
>> and like all netkkkops, he keeps reading the thread. Go figure.
>>
>> *rolling eyes*
>
> Rolling eyes not withstanding, there are 10 or 11 groups this is being
> posted to so I don't which one he is actually concerned with, but if the
> charter for the group in question exists (and for many groups they don't)
> and the charter dictates that OT posts are not allowed, then one should
> desist. After all newgroups basically work on the honor system and that is
> the only thing that keeps unmoderated groups effective.
>
> I suggest he post the charter here for you to see, and then you can strike
> that group from the cross-posting list. If he can't, then it would appear
> you haven't done anything remotely wrong.
>
>
Even if I had, he didn't say it in the same way you did. There is no need to
be nasty, but this guy feels there is
Natalie
#194
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> foolishly wrote in message
news:KMmdnRvHXKx5jkLcRVn-jA@giganews.com...
> That would depend on your state's laws. I found AZ too smoky for my
> likings.
Whew! That's quite a statement Hag! (May I call you Hag?) AZ is a pretty big
state! You're not generalizing are you? Couldn't find a single smokefree
spot in the state! Let me tell you Hag, your opinion is really important to
us all now. You really have our attention.
P.S. I'm breaking for dinner. Please feel free to bless us with your inane
comments and I will show you how silly you are when I return. Later Dude!
news:KMmdnRvHXKx5jkLcRVn-jA@giganews.com...
> That would depend on your state's laws. I found AZ too smoky for my
> likings.
Whew! That's quite a statement Hag! (May I call you Hag?) AZ is a pretty big
state! You're not generalizing are you? Couldn't find a single smokefree
spot in the state! Let me tell you Hag, your opinion is really important to
us all now. You really have our attention.
P.S. I'm breaking for dinner. Please feel free to bless us with your inane
comments and I will show you how silly you are when I return. Later Dude!
#195
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> foolishly wrote in message
news:KMmdnRvHXKx5jkLcRVn-jA@giganews.com...
> That would depend on your state's laws. I found AZ too smoky for my
> likings.
Whew! That's quite a statement Hag! (May I call you Hag?) AZ is a pretty big
state! You're not generalizing are you? Couldn't find a single smokefree
spot in the state! Let me tell you Hag, your opinion is really important to
us all now. You really have our attention.
P.S. I'm breaking for dinner. Please feel free to bless us with your inane
comments and I will show you how silly you are when I return. Later Dude!
news:KMmdnRvHXKx5jkLcRVn-jA@giganews.com...
> That would depend on your state's laws. I found AZ too smoky for my
> likings.
Whew! That's quite a statement Hag! (May I call you Hag?) AZ is a pretty big
state! You're not generalizing are you? Couldn't find a single smokefree
spot in the state! Let me tell you Hag, your opinion is really important to
us all now. You really have our attention.
P.S. I'm breaking for dinner. Please feel free to bless us with your inane
comments and I will show you how silly you are when I return. Later Dude!