Michael "Dog3" said...

> Andy, you do not want to try either. I have seen the results in both
> heroin and cocaine addicts at a hospice I volunteer at. It's ugly.
> Especially when the patient is HIV+.
>
> Michael


Michael,

Give up cigs!!!

Your body will thank you!

I've had HIV+ family and got to nurse them to death. ((

Andy
Safe.

Steve Pope wrote:
> Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>
>> When I lived in Cherry Creek (Denver),
>> there was a complete ban on wood burning, leaf burning, etc. My
>> townhouse had gas "logs."
>
> That makes sense, given that Denver often ranked as the most
> polluted city in the U.S.
>
> Steve


Yes, it is. Not because its residents live a different lifestyle, but
because it is smack against the Rocky Mountains to the west and winds
and weather fronts coming over the mountains usually sweep high above
the area, not helping to sweep dirty eastward and dilute it as the winds
do in the flatlands.

gloria p

On Sun 08 Jun 2008 07:07:02a, Michael "Dog3" told us...

> Wayne Boatwright >
> 6.120: in
> rec.food.cooking
>
>> As a smoker, I would agree, Barbara, but I would also say that non-
>> smokers' attitudes are all about themselves. I'm a polite and neat
>> smoker, but I'm still damned by the non-smokers. Well, those that
>> damn me can go to hell, too. And there's no trying to defend the
>> non-smokers' attitudes as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Ahmen! I could write a book on people's unruly children, public cell
> phone usage and careless driving while gabbing. But then... they're all
> about themselves aren't they? It's an entitlement attitude. Many
> non-smokers have just as obnoxious habits as smokers but they just don't
> see it. They're entitled ya' know.
>
> Michael
>
>

Exactly!

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/08(VIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Any closet is a walk-in closet if you
try hard enough.
-------------------------------------------

On Sun 08 Jun 2008 07:18:40a, BOB told us...

> "Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> Ahmen! I could write a book on people's unruly children, public cell
>> phone usage and careless driving while gabbing. But then... they're all
>> about themselves aren't they? It's an entitlement attitude. Many
>> non-smokers have just as obnoxious habits as smokers but they just don't
>> see it. They're entitled ya' know.
>>
>> Michael
>
> I have a habit. It's very common, too. It also has an obnoxious
> by-product.
>
> On occasion, I like to drink a beer or three. Maybe more.
>
> The obnoxious by-product from my beer is urine.
>
> How about I stand on the table and **** all over your clothes and hair?
> Wait, I wouldn't have to stand on the table if you're still sitting down
> eating, would I?
>
> BOB

There are places for people like you. They're call bathrooms or restrooms,
or perhaps you haven't heard.

Equally so, there should be places provided for smokers where our "nasty"
habit could be confined and away from non-smokers.

I don't inflict my smoking habit on others. Why should you **** on us?


--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/08(VIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Any closet is a walk-in closet if you
try hard enough.
-------------------------------------------

On Sun 08 Jun 2008 07:10:25a, Michael "Dog3" told us...

> sf <.> : in
> rec.food.cooking
>>
>> Yes, it's all about me and my self preservation. At least we're not
>> starting fires or littering our environment with our cast off
>> cigarette butts.
>
> No but... my bitching people blabbing on a cell phone in the car while
> weaving is all about me and my self preservation. Bitching about unruly,
> snot nosed kids who don't give a crap about anyone else is about self
> preservation.
>
>>
>> The worst flight I ever took was when the airlines still had a smoking
>> section (and the same poor ventilation they have today). I was
>> assigned a seat the row in front of two cigar smokers and there was no
>> place to move (I asked). After being stuck on that plane for a cross
>> country flight, I emerged looking green and feeling like I had the flu
>> - I was actually barfing. It took me more than 24 hours to feel
>> better.
>
> I'm all for banning smoking in flights, office buildings and other public
> places. As a smoker I'll allow that it stinks up and inside place. I
> can't see banning it in bars... at all. The outside doesn't belong to
> just non-smokers.
>
> Michael
>
>
>

Agreed.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/08(VIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Save the whales! Collect the whole set!
-------------------------------------------

On Sun 08 Jun 2008 07:30:38a, Giusi told us...

> "Michael "Dog3"" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> . ..
>> sf <.> : in
>> rec.food.cooking
>>>
>>> Yes, it's all about me and my self preservation. At least we're not
>>> starting fires or littering our environment with our cast off
>>> cigarette butts.
>>
>> No but... my bitching people blabbing on a cell phone in the car while
>> weaving is all about me and my self preservation. Bitching about
>> unruly, snot nosed kids who don't give a crap about anyone else is
>> about self preservation.
>>
>>>
>>> The worst flight I ever took was when the airlines still had a smoking
>>> section (and the same poor ventilation they have today). I was
>>> assigned a seat the row in front of two cigar smokers and there was no
>>> place to move (I asked). After being stuck on that plane for a cross
>>> country flight, I emerged looking green and feeling like I had the flu
>>> - I was actually barfing. It took me more than 24 hours to feel
>>> better.
>>
>> I'm all for banning smoking in flights, office buildings and other
>> public places. As a smoker I'll allow that it stinks up and inside
>> place. I can't see banning it in bars... at all. The outside doesn't
>> belong to just non-smokers.
>>
>> Michael
>
> You know, I thought I was one of the more mature people here, but as
> hard as I try I can not remember a time when smoking cigars or pipes was
> EVER allowed on a flight. AAMOF, I recall that it was specifically
> stated that the smoking area was strictly for cigarettes and pipes or
> cigars were not permitted.

That's what I recall, too, Giusi. In fact, many restaurants used to have a
discrete comment on the menus that cigarettes were acceptable but cigar and
pipe smoking was not.

> Now maybe if you go back to cloth covered biplane beginnings of aviation
> it's different.
>
>
>



--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/08(VIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Save the whales! Collect the whole set!
-------------------------------------------

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 16:30:38 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>Now maybe if you go back to cloth covered biplane beginnings of aviation
>it's different.

We're talking about Jets here.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:07:02 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> wrote:

>Wayne Boatwright >
86.120: in
>rec.food.cooking
>
>> As a smoker, I would agree, Barbara, but I would also say that non-
>> smokers' attitudes are all about themselves. I'm a polite and neat
>> smoker, but I'm still damned by the non-smokers. Well, those that
>> damn me can go to hell, too. And there's no trying to defend the
>> non-smokers' attitudes as far as I'm concerned.
>
>Ahmen! I could write a book on people's unruly children, public cell phone
>usage and careless driving while gabbing. But then... they're all about
>themselves aren't they? It's an entitlement attitude. Many non-smokers
>have just as obnoxious habits as smokers but they just don't see it.
>They're entitled ya' know.
>
How about that SUV driver with a cigarette in one hand, a cell in the
other and a bunch of kids in the back?


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

On Sun 08 Jun 2008 07:31:06a, blake murphy told us...

<snip>

> But while herbal smoke generally doesn't linger on the audience as
> much as the tobacco equivalent, theater staff admit that some audience
> members see it as an intrusion from a less socially aware time.

Social awareness, social sensitivity, social bias, and self-entitlement are
nothing more than a crock of bullshit when it cannot be afforded to and
applied to everyone. Personal freedoms of every ilk are disappearing in
this country by the day.

It is, indeed, a very sad state of affairs.

There is absolutely no reason why accomodations cannot be made for
everyone.

I was recently in a restaurant that had a section where cell phones and
pagers were strictly prohibited, and another section where they were
permitted. I sat in the prohibited section, and was positively gleeful
when a woman received a call on her cell phone, and was quickly asked to
move to the other section of the restaurant.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/08(VIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
This country needs more unemployed
politicians.
-------------------------------------------

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:01:54 -0700, sf <.> fired up random neurons and
synapses to opine:

>On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 05:06:55 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
>Pope) wrote:
>
>>Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>>
>>>When I lived in Cherry Creek (Denver),
>>>there was a complete ban on wood burning, leaf burning, etc. My
>>>townhouse had gas "logs."
>>
>>That makes sense, given that Denver often ranked as the most
>>polluted city in the U.S.
>>
>That's hard to believe.... LA is in a sea level-ish basin, Denver is
>on a mountain.

Actually, Denver isn't on a mountain. It's on the flats and pushed up
against the Rockies, which accounts for the pollution. The pollution
has nowhere to go. When I used to drive down to Denver from 8,500',
once I rounded the bend at Windy Hill and got my first glimpse of
Denver, a brown smudge covered the city from one end to the other.
Always kind of mentally held my breath the whole time I was in town.

--

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

"Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch!"

-- W.C. Fields

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:31:06 GMT, blake murphy
> fired up random neurons and synapses to
opine:

>Some actors report that anti-smoking protests are far worse in
>health-conscious Los Angeles.
>
>Geraldine Hughes, who played Sylvester Stallone's love interest in
>2006's "Rocky Balboa," recalls taking a single drag from a cigarette
>during a performance of "Kevin's Bed" at the Laguna Playhouse.
>
>"There were huge signs in the lobby that said: 'THERE WILL BE SMOKING
>ON STAGE.' I was only allowed to take one puff and put it out, and
>even then people coughed and made a big stink about it," she says.

I've been to both the Laguna Playhouse and the Old Globe in San Diego
where there was smoking in (a) scene(s) and, yes, there was a warning
in the lobby *and* in the playlist. Ditto if there is strobe-effect
lighting, special effects, etc. that certain people might find
disturbing/annoying. And, IIRC, strobe-effect lighting can trigger
seizures in some people.

To my certain knowledge, there was no "coughing" due to the cigarette
smoking in the performances I attended.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:02:56 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> wrote:

>sf <.> : in
>rec.food.cooking
>
>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:09:46 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>at times i wouldn't be kidding. bitching about having to 'run a
>>>gauntlet' of smokers by the door? unless they're holding you down and
>>>giving you shotgun tokes, i think you'll survive.
>>>
>>
>> You tried to make it into a joke, but it's not funny.
>
>Of course it was funny. Well written too.
>
>> By passing
>> through a fog of cigarette smoke, a non smoker is literally bathed in
>> it and the smell doesn't go away.
>
>Barb, you get the same thing walking by someone that has just plastered
>their hair down with Final Net. Been in a condominium or apartment
>building elevator lately?
>
>> Non smokers don't like the smell of
>> cigarette smoke, and they don't want to wear someone else's second
>> hand smoke for the rest of the day/evening. Smokers also add to dry
>> cleaning bills because non smokers want that smell gone, not hanging
>> around in the closet.
>
>Yeahbut... Whaddya do about the exhaust fumes from the busses, cars, taxi
>cabs etc.? Ya' dry clean those clothes don't ya'? Or do you just hang
>'em in the closet and stink up the rest of the clothes?

As I said before, the clothing needs to be dry cleaned to get the
stink out. I don't dry clean something just because it's been worn
once, so that's a bill I should be hand to the smokers. I also need
to take a shower to get the smoke smell off my skin and hair. I don't
usually shower before and after an event.

>You seem to be
>one of the people that takes it to the extreme.

Not really, but I certainly can when arguing about smoking with a
person who has the POV that smoking only affects themselves, not
others.

>Sure, ban it in public
>buildings and especially airline flights. Lots of things in life can be a
>nuisance. Cigarettes, cell phones and just about anything else you can
>think of that people do that is objectionable to you, me or anyone else.
>Eventually people stop listening when something is pushed to the extreme.
>
I don't have to talk about it. Smoking is banned as much as it needs
to be here, in fact I think the current laws about public smoking are
too strict. Oh - a new cell phone law is going into effect in July,
so hopefully the weaving cell phone driver syndrome will decrease too.


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

In article >, sf <.> wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:09:46 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
> >
> >at times i wouldn't be kidding. bitching about having to 'run a
> >gauntlet' of smokers by the door? unless they're holding you down and
> >giving you shotgun tokes, i think you'll survive.
> >
>
> You tried to make it into a joke, but it's not funny. By passing
> through a fog of cigarette smoke, a non smoker is literally bathed in
> it and the smell doesn't go away. Non smokers don't like the smell of
> cigarette smoke, and they don't want to wear someone else's second
> hand smoke for the rest of the day/evening. Smokers also add to dry
> cleaning bills because non smokers want that smell gone, not hanging
> around in the closet.

Not to mention that they literally block the door sometimes.

Not to mention that every time the door opens, a cloud of smoke blows
into the building.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
"Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:

> Andy <q> : in rec.food.cooking
>
> >
> > Agreed. What's wrong with some people? Is the word "oblivious"? And
> > I'll one better ya. The filters don't decay. They'll be around for
> > hundreds of years.
>
> Now Andy. There has to be items you use on a regular basis whose containers
> are non degradable and will be around hundreds of years.


Yeah, but we don't throw them on the ground and pretend they aren't
there.

Certainly many smokers don't do this, but enough do.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:45:16 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>Actually, Denver isn't on a mountain. It's on the flats and pushed up
>against the Rockies, which accounts for the pollution. The pollution
>has nowhere to go. When I used to drive down to Denver from 8,500',
>once I rounded the bend at Windy Hill and got my first glimpse of
>Denver, a brown smudge covered the city from one end to the other.
>Always kind of mentally held my breath the whole time I was in town.

Isn't Denver called the Mile High City? I guess that's how I got the
impression it was up in the mountains.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

"sf" <.> wrote in message
> How about that SUV driver with a cigarette in one hand, a cell in the
> other and a bunch of kids in the back?
>

I keep hearing various states want to pass laws that you cannot smoke in a
car with kids. Much as I dislike smoking, I'm against such a law. My car is
sort of an extension of my home and aside from improper driving or
endangering, I should be free to do what I like.

"sf" <.> wrote in message

>
> Isn't Denver called the Mile High City? I guess that's how I got the
> impression it was up in the mountains.
>

The altitude of the city is 5280 feet, thus the name. It is high and sort
of part of mountains, but there are higher mountains surrounding it.

On Sun 08 Jun 2008 09:35:01a, sf told us...

> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:07:02 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> > wrote:
>
>>Wayne Boatwright >
. 186.120: in
>>rec.food.cooking
>>
>>> As a smoker, I would agree, Barbara, but I would also say that non-
>>> smokers' attitudes are all about themselves. I'm a polite and neat
>>> smoker, but I'm still damned by the non-smokers. Well, those that
>>> damn me can go to hell, too. And there's no trying to defend the
>>> non-smokers' attitudes as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>>Ahmen! I could write a book on people's unruly children, public cell
>>phone usage and careless driving while gabbing. But then... they're all
>>about themselves aren't they? It's an entitlement attitude. Many
>>non-smokers have just as obnoxious habits as smokers but they just don't
>>see it. They're entitled ya' know.
>>
> How about that SUV driver with a cigarette in one hand, a cell in the
> other and a bunch of kids in the back?
>
>

That's the type I'd like to slap from here to Tibet!

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/08(VIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Hail / Praise / Ia / **** / Grep / Eat
Eris / 'Bob' / Cthulhu / The
Conspiracy / Kibo / Spam
-------------------------------------------

On Sun 08 Jun 2008 10:26:49a, Edwin Pawlowski told us...

>
> "sf" <.> wrote in message
>> How about that SUV driver with a cigarette in one hand, a cell in the
>> other and a bunch of kids in the back?
>>
>
> I keep hearing various states want to pass laws that you cannot smoke in
> a car with kids. Much as I dislike smoking, I'm against such a law. My
> car is sort of an extension of my home and aside from improper driving
> or endangering, I should be free to do what I like.

How right you are!



--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/08(VIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Hail / Praise / Ia / **** / Grep / Eat
Eris / 'Bob' / Cthulhu / The
Conspiracy / Kibo / Spam
-------------------------------------------

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 13:26:49 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"sf" <.> wrote in message
>> How about that SUV driver with a cigarette in one hand, a cell in the
>> other and a bunch of kids in the back?
>>
>
>I keep hearing various states want to pass laws that you cannot smoke in a
>car with kids. Much as I dislike smoking, I'm against such a law. My car is
>sort of an extension of my home and aside from improper driving or
>endangering, I should be free to do what I like.
>
IMO, it's dangerous in the respect that it takes one hand off the
wheel - just like cell phones. Unlike cell phones, you're distracted
by talking to a disembodied person.


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

On Sun 08 Jun 2008 10:39:13a, sf told us...

> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 13:26:49 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"sf" <.> wrote in message
>>> How about that SUV driver with a cigarette in one hand, a cell in the
>>> other and a bunch of kids in the back?
>>>
>>
>>I keep hearing various states want to pass laws that you cannot smoke in
>>a car with kids. Much as I dislike smoking, I'm against such a law. My
>>car is sort of an extension of my home and aside from improper driving
>>or endangering, I should be free to do what I like.
>>
> IMO, it's dangerous in the respect that it takes one hand off the
> wheel - just like cell phones. Unlike cell phones, you're distracted
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> by talking to a disembodied person.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Huh? When you're smoking you're talking to a disembodied person? I guess
it depends greatly on what you're smoking. :-)

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/08(VIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies
like a banana.
-------------------------------------------

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:55:49 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sun 08 Jun 2008 10:39:13a, sf told us...
>
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 13:26:49 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"sf" <.> wrote in message
>>>> How about that SUV driver with a cigarette in one hand, a cell in the
>>>> other and a bunch of kids in the back?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I keep hearing various states want to pass laws that you cannot smoke in
>>>a car with kids. Much as I dislike smoking, I'm against such a law. My
>>>car is sort of an extension of my home and aside from improper driving
>>>or endangering, I should be free to do what I like.
>>>
>> IMO, it's dangerous in the respect that it takes one hand off the
>> wheel - just like cell phones. Unlike cell phones, you're distracted
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> by talking to a disembodied person.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Huh? When you're smoking you're talking to a disembodied person? I guess
>it depends greatly on what you're smoking. :-)

Sorry, that should have been edited before I hit send. Hopefully you
understood that cell phone users (who don't use hands free devices)
are not only driving one handed, they aren't talking to a person in
the car who is essentially another pair of eyes for them. I don't
know about you, but if I'm not the driver.... I might as well be
because I'm looking at the scenery from a defensive driving POV.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

On Sun 08 Jun 2008 11:45:17a, sf told us...

> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:55:49 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun 08 Jun 2008 10:39:13a, sf told us...
>>
>>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 13:26:49 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"sf" <.> wrote in message
>>>>> How about that SUV driver with a cigarette in one hand, a cell in the
>>>>> other and a bunch of kids in the back?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I keep hearing various states want to pass laws that you cannot smoke
in
>>>>a car with kids. Much as I dislike smoking, I'm against such a law. My
>>>>car is sort of an extension of my home and aside from improper driving
>>>>or endangering, I should be free to do what I like.
>>>>
>>> IMO, it's dangerous in the respect that it takes one hand off the wheel
-
>>> just like cell phones. Unlike cell phones, you're distracted
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ by talking to a disembodied
>>> person.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Huh? When you're smoking you're talking to a disembodied person? I
guess
>>it depends greatly on what you're smoking. :-)
>
> Sorry, that should have been edited before I hit send. Hopefully you
> understood that cell phone users (who don't use hands free devices)
> are not only driving one handed, they aren't talking to a person in
> the car who is essentially another pair of eyes for them. I don't
> know about you, but if I'm not the driver.... I might as well be
> because I'm looking at the scenery from a defensive driving POV.
>

You *know* I had to tease you!

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/08(VIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Help a man when he's in trouble, and
he will remember you when he's in
trouble again.
-------------------------------------------

On Sun 08 Jun 2008 11:45:17a, sf told us...

> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:55:49 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun 08 Jun 2008 10:39:13a, sf told us...
>>
>>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 13:26:49 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"sf" <.> wrote in message
>>>>> How about that SUV driver with a cigarette in one hand, a cell in the
>>>>> other and a bunch of kids in the back?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I keep hearing various states want to pass laws that you cannot smoke
in
>>>>a car with kids. Much as I dislike smoking, I'm against such a law. My
>>>>car is sort of an extension of my home and aside from improper driving
>>>>or endangering, I should be free to do what I like.
>>>>
>>> IMO, it's dangerous in the respect that it takes one hand off the wheel
-
>>> just like cell phones. Unlike cell phones, you're distracted
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ by talking to a disembodied
>>> person.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Huh? When you're smoking you're talking to a disembodied person? I
guess
>>it depends greatly on what you're smoking. :-)
>
> Sorry, that should have been edited before I hit send. Hopefully you
> understood that cell phone users (who don't use hands free devices)
> are not only driving one handed, they aren't talking to a person in
> the car who is essentially another pair of eyes for them. I don't
> know about you, but if I'm not the driver.... I might as well be
> because I'm looking at the scenery from a defensive driving POV.
>

I've come to think that they still should offer cars like the old driver's
training cars that had 2 steering wheels and 2 sets of pedals. :-)

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/08(VIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Sometimes I wake up grumpy. Other
times I let her sleep.
-------------------------------------------

"sf" <.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 13:26:49 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"sf" <.> wrote in message
>>> How about that SUV driver with a cigarette in one hand, a cell in the
>>> other and a bunch of kids in the back?
>>>
>>
>>I keep hearing various states want to pass laws that you cannot smoke in a
>>car with kids. Much as I dislike smoking, I'm against such a law. My car
>>is
>>sort of an extension of my home and aside from improper driving or
>>endangering, I should be free to do what I like.
>>
> IMO, it's dangerous in the respect that it takes one hand off the
> wheel - just like cell phones. Unlike cell phones, you're distracted
> by talking to a disembodied person.
>
>

I live in a tobacco state, smoked from age 15 to 40, and STILL know that
people who try to defend smoking are out of their ****ing minds.

Screw the health concerns, the expense, the contact smoke.

YOU ASSHOLES STINK!

You smell bad, your houses and cars smell bad, and anyone visiting you winds
up smelling bad.

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "sf" <.> wrote in message
>> How about that SUV driver with a cigarette in one hand, a cell in the
>> other and a bunch of kids in the back?
>>
>
> I keep hearing various states want to pass laws that you cannot smoke in a
> car with kids. Much as I dislike smoking, I'm against such a law. My car
> is sort of an extension of my home and aside from improper driving or
> endangering, I should be free to do what I like.
Should you be allowed to shove poison down your child's throat in your own
car? If you're allowed to force them to breathe your smoke, why not?

"sf" <.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:02:56 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> > wrote:
>
>>sf <.> : in
>>rec.food.cooking
>>
>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:09:46 GMT, blake murphy
>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>at times i wouldn't be kidding. bitching about having to 'run a
>>>>gauntlet' of smokers by the door? unless they're holding you down and
>>>>giving you shotgun tokes, i think you'll survive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You tried to make it into a joke, but it's not funny.
>>
>>Of course it was funny. Well written too.
>>
>>> By passing
>>> through a fog of cigarette smoke, a non smoker is literally bathed in
>>> it and the smell doesn't go away.
>>
>>Barb, you get the same thing walking by someone that has just plastered
>>their hair down with Final Net. Been in a condominium or apartment
>>building elevator lately?
>>
>>> Non smokers don't like the smell of
>>> cigarette smoke, and they don't want to wear someone else's second
>>> hand smoke for the rest of the day/evening. Smokers also add to dry
>>> cleaning bills because non smokers want that smell gone, not hanging
>>> around in the closet.
>>
>>Yeahbut... Whaddya do about the exhaust fumes from the busses, cars, taxi
>>cabs etc.? Ya' dry clean those clothes don't ya'? Or do you just hang
>>'em in the closet and stink up the rest of the clothes?
>
> As I said before, the clothing needs to be dry cleaned to get the
> stink out. I don't dry clean something just because it's been worn
> once, so that's a bill I should be hand to the smokers. I also need
> to take a shower to get the smoke smell off my skin and hair. I don't
> usually shower before and after an event.
>
>>You seem to be
>>one of the people that takes it to the extreme.
>
> Not really, but I certainly can when arguing about smoking with a
> person who has the POV that smoking only affects themselves, not
> others.
>
>>Sure, ban it in public
>>buildings and especially airline flights. Lots of things in life can be a
>>nuisance. Cigarettes, cell phones and just about anything else you can
>>think of that people do that is objectionable to you, me or anyone else.
>>Eventually people stop listening when something is pushed to the extreme.
>>
> I don't have to talk about it. Smoking is banned as much as it needs
> to be here, in fact I think the current laws about public smoking are
> too strict. Oh - a new cell phone law is going into effect in July,
> so hopefully the weaving cell phone driver syndrome will decrease too.
>
Michael has no idea how bad he smells, or how bad he makes other people
smell. Maybe he will smoke himself all the way to hell and there will be one
less stinky smoker aboveground.

"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
. ..
> blake murphy >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
> <snip for space>
>
>> "There were huge signs in the lobby that said: 'THERE WILL BE SMOKING
>> ON STAGE.' I was only allowed to take one puff and put it out, and
>> even then people coughed and made a big stink about it," she says.
>>
>> (more at:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../05/30/AR20080
>> 53002737.html )
>>
>> i mean, that's just ****ing sad.
>
> You're not kidding that's sad. Well, I've said it before and I'll say it
> again, if you are an extremist I'll gladly show you the door. Because of
> my rescue work with animals I've had people from PETA courting me for
> volunteer work. PETA folks tend to be extremists and I want nothing to
> do with their organization.
>
> These rabid types are always raising a stink about one issue or another.
> Eventually everyone will ignore them. Ignoring them is the best defense
> unless some of them become violent. I suspect many of these crazy people
> that are so rabid about cigarettes could get violent. I still think
> smoking allowed signs should be enough. Non-smokers have plenty of non-
> smoking places to hang out. AND I'll say it again... the outdoors does
> not belong to them.
>
You still stink.

"sf" <.> wrote in message
>>
> IMO, it's dangerous in the respect that it takes one hand off the
> wheel - just like cell phones.


What's so bad about taking one had off the wheel? Most of the time I have a
couple of fingers, not even a full grip on the wheel and it has been well
over 40 years since I was in an accident of my doing.

"cybercat" > wrote in message
>> I keep hearing various states want to pass laws that you cannot smoke in
>> a car with kids. Much as I dislike smoking, I'm against such a law. My
>> car is sort of an extension of my home and aside from improper driving or
>> endangering, I should be free to do what I like.

> Should you be allowed to shove poison down your child's throat in your own
> car? If you're allowed to force them to breathe your smoke, why not?
>

If you do it at home, you'll do it in the car. Fact is, many cars have
decent ventilation systems and it is probably more healthful that what they
breath at home. I'm not in favor of smoking, smoking around kids, but I'm
against the government telling me what to do inside of my car. We also
have laws against drunk driving, but every year, a few school bus drivers
get busted for it.

sf wrote:

>
> IMO, it's dangerous in the respect that it takes one hand off the
> wheel - just like cell phones. Unlike cell phones, you're distracted
> by talking to a disembodied person.
>

The danger from cell phones is not due the phone being held in one hand. It's
combination of that and the distraction of the phone conversation.

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
>>> I keep hearing various states want to pass laws that you cannot smoke in
>>> a car with kids. Much as I dislike smoking, I'm against such a law. My
>>> car is sort of an extension of my home and aside from improper driving
>>> or endangering, I should be free to do what I like.
>
>> Should you be allowed to shove poison down your child's throat in your
>> own car? If you're allowed to force them to breathe your smoke, why not?
>>
>
> If you do it at home, you'll do it in the car. Fact is, many cars have
> decent ventilation systems and it is probably more healthful that what
> they breath at home. I'm not in favor of smoking, smoking around kids, but
> I'm against the government telling me what to do inside of my car. We
> also have laws against drunk driving, but every year, a few school bus
> drivers get busted for it.
>

I agree with you in theory, but there are far too many stupid people
breeding.

"cybercat" > wrote in news:484c57a0$0$16912
:

> stupid people breeding

Sounds like a populatiuon expansion programme. I can hear soime say that
we need stupid people. After all, how else will conservatives ever get
elected?

:->

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
. ..
> "cybercat" > wrote in news:484c57a0$0$16912
> :
>
>> stupid people breeding
>
> Sounds like a populatiuon expansion programme. I can hear soime say that
> we need stupid people. After all, how else will conservatives ever get
> elected?
>
> :->

Well, well. I like you.

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 13:29:59 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:

>
>"sf" <.> wrote in message
>
>>
>> Isn't Denver called the Mile High City? I guess that's how I got the
>> impression it was up in the mountains.
>>
>
>The altitude of the city is 5280 feet, thus the name. It is high and sort
>of part of mountains, but there are higher mountains surrounding it.
>
None of Denver is "part of mountains." Denver is entirely flat, with
some areas that have gently rolling hillocks, but nothing that could
seriously be thought of as "mountains." Golden is between Denver and
the Rockies, and it's pretty flat, too. And there are parts of east
Denver where you could level pool tables.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:29:34 -0400, "cybercat" >
fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:

>Michael has no idea how bad he smells, or how bad he makes other people
>smell. Maybe he will smoke himself all the way to hell and there will be one
>less stinky smoker aboveground.
>
Well, that's not very nice. And with your attitude, I'm surprised
*you've* lived this long.

OB: while everyone is watching basketball tonight, we're going out to
El Cortez for Mexican. Yum!

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"

"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:29:34 -0400, "cybercat" >
> fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>
>>Michael has no idea how bad he smells, or how bad he makes other people
>>smell. Maybe he will smoke himself all the way to hell and there will be
>>one
>>less stinky smoker aboveground.
>>
> Well, that's not very nice. And with your attitude, I'm surprised
> *you've* lived this long.

:

That's me looking at you. You're looking more and more twit-like by the
moment, and that is not nice either. Worse, you are sounding like a
stereotypical fag hag.

"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:29:34 -0400, "cybercat" >
> fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>
>>Michael has no idea how bad he smells, or how bad he makes other people
>>smell. Maybe he will smoke himself all the way to hell and there will be
>>one
>>less stinky smoker aboveground.
>>
> Well, that's not very nice. And with your attitude, I'm surprised
> *you've* lived this long.
>

Honestly. Bragging on Usenet about your designer clothes? Ever heard of
B_A_D F_O_R_M?

And if you really loved Michael and the lovely and talented Wayne, you would
try to discourage them from smoking, not make excuses for it.

They would certainly still smell bad even if they quit, but think of all the
extra years
they might have to spread joy to superficial twits like you if they do.

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:25:15 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> wrote:

>sf <.> : in
>rec.food.cooking
>
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 16:30:38 +0200, "Giusi" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Now maybe if you go back to cloth covered biplane beginnings of aviation
>>>it's different.
>>
>> We're talking about Jets here.
>
>I don't care what we're talking. I seriously have issues with cigarettes on
>jets. I don't care how good the ventilation is the interior of the cabin
>is just insufferable if there is a full smoking section. I can remember
>flights that even I gasped for air after getting off the flight.
>
Airplanes have notoriously poor ventilation. I can practically feel
all the recycled germs.


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:51:07 -0500, Janet Wilder
> > wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> i talked to a guy who had quit ten years prior, and he said he still
>>> occasionally smoked in his dreams.
>> I did in my dreams for about 18 months after quitting.
>
> did you have a sense of dread? like 'oh, no! i'm not supposed to be
> doing this!'?

In the dreams I knew I wasn't supposed to do it. I kept telling myself
that I would quit again after that one, but it didn't happen. Of course,
that was just my subconscious warning me that I am an addict and one
puff would be my undoing.

>
> or was it more like, 'well, i'm glad this no smoking nonsense is over
> with'?
>
> your pal,
> blake


--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life