On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:57:56 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:
>
>OB: while everyone is watching basketball tonight, we're going out to
>El Cortez for Mexican. Yum!
>
I had my second mojito today. Went to Park Chow for a late lunch, I
had a rare burger (influenced by the cover of Bon Appetite), hubby got
his usual short ribs. He had a short glass of a wheat beer that's on
draft, I had a *wine* mojito.... they don't serve hard liquor. It was
better than my first mojito made with top shelf rum! They used fresh
squeezed lime and really muddled the mint. YUMMERS. I'm all over
that drink the next time I go there.


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

"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
> 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


Denver is located in the center of the Front Range Urban Corridor between
the Rock Mountains to the west and the High Plains to the east. It may be
flat, but it was pushed up 5280 feet by something, sort of like mountains.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
>> 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
>
>
> Denver is located in the center of the Front Range Urban Corridor between
> the Rock Mountains to the west and the High Plains to the east. It may be
> flat, but it was pushed up 5280 feet by something, sort of like mountains.
>

When we first drove to Denver from the east coast, we noticed a
gradual rise begin shortly after we crossed the Mississippi River.
Denver may be 5280 ft. in altitude, but it is quite flat, honestly.
The altitude gain is very, very gradual until you actually begin to
climb in the foothills. Colorado does have 54 mountain peaks above
14,000 feet in altitude in the Rockies but I can assure you they are
nowhere near Denver and uninhabitable although they do provide a
challenge to intrepid climbers during the summer.

We live in the south-east suburbs, about 20 miles due east of where the
mountains begin. We look westward across Denver to see the mountains in
the distance.

If you've ever landed at DIA, Denver's airport, you know you can see
nothing but flat, cultivated land for miles around, with the mountains
in the distance to the west beyond the city.


gloria p

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:29:23 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:

>Denver is located in the center of the Front Range Urban Corridor between
>the Rock Mountains to the west and the High Plains to the east. It may be
>flat, but it was pushed up 5280 feet by something, sort of like mountains.
>
I used to live in Denver. It has altitude, but it ain't on a mountain.
Just because the ground under it is way above sea level doesn't put it
on a mountain. And when you reference the "Front Range," you're not
necessarily talking about the mountains. Have a look at this little
map:

http://coloradofrontrange.com/

One of the things this direction-challenged woman liked while I lived
in Denver was I always knew where west was! And if you look in the
lower left corner to US 285, if you continued up that road, past Windy
Point, on up between Confier and Pine, that's where my house was.

Here in SoCal, I don't always know where west is b/c so many of the
Orange County beaches are south facing <g>

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 21:27:32 -0400, "cybercat" >
fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:

>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.
>
Well, I guess my street lingo is just not up to the mark, as I had no
idea what you're talking about until I googled it. <head shaking>
The DH is still laughing.

It's official: you're an idiot.

Terry Pulliam Burd

--

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by
stupidity."

To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:53:09 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:27:32 -0400, "cybercat" >
>fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>
>>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.
>>
>Well, I guess my street lingo is just not up to the mark, as I had no
>idea what you're talking about until I googled it. <head shaking>
>The DH is still laughing.
>
>It's official: you're an idiot.
>
>Terry Pulliam Burd

Wow..you are getting it from all angles these days...

I should show everyone what you are really like... Can I post that pic
of you with the jar of limoncello?

Just kidding...

Squeaks is the best, everyone..the absolute best...

Christine

Christine Dabney > wrote in message
...
[snip Limoncello]
> Squeaks is the best, everyone..the absolute best...

Viva Villa Masa Limoncello!

The Ranger

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote in message
...
[snip cybertwit]
> It's official: you're an idiot.

It's been official for several months; didn't you absentee vote
last round?

The Ranger

"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:27:32 -0400, "cybercat" >
> fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>
>>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.
>>
> Well, I guess my street lingo is just not up to the mark, as I had no
> idea what you're talking about until I googled it. <head shaking>
> The DH is still laughing.
>
> It's official: you're an idiot.
>

Coming from you, that could not delight me more.

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. :-)


The "cybercat" is a "disembodied" person who talks to *herself*...and
she doesn't have to smoke *anything* to reach her zen - like level of
sheer imbecility...which is because her brain is *disembodied*, e.g.
it simply does not exist.


;-]


--
Best
Greg

Andy wrote:

> Nancy Young said...

> > "Andy" <q> wrote
>
> >> Also in town at the state liquor store when I stop in, there are always
> >> hundreds of cig butts right by the entrance. So I'd have to agree that
> >> smoking and alcohol are related, though the employees manage to stay
> sober
> >> during their shift.
>
> > What's the deal? *Where I worked they finally had to put out a memo,
> > use the cigarette (thing) and quit leaving your butts all around on the
> > sidewalk. *Disgusting. *Don't get me started about people who toss
> > their cigarettes out the car window, or use the beach as a giant ash
> > tray.
>
> > nancy
>
> nancy,
>
> 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.


Birds LOVE to use those filters for nest building...the filters are
lightweight, strong, waterproof, and well - insulated, so a PERFECT
nesting material...birds are pretty smart, after all, ya know.


--
Best
Greg

Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:

> sf <.> : in
> rec.food.cooking
>
> > Airplanes have notoriously poor ventilation. I can practically feel
> > all the recycled germs.
>
> The last time I flew from NY to SF was a really miserable flight as far as
> smoking was concerned. I could barely breathe when we landed. It was a long
> flight but we drank a lot of champagne.

As if it is not bad enough that you are crammed into those miniature seats for
extended periods but you have to share the air with people who may be carrying
germs from wherever it is they have been travelling. I am looking forward to
leaving on my Scandinavian holiday in two days but I am not looking forward to
sitting in an air plane for close to 13 hours.

On Jun 7, 10:21*am, "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:

> I've quit several times. *Sometimes for long stretches of time. Quitting is
> about the hardest thing for me. *I think next time I quit, and I will, I'll
> try it with some medical help. *Maybe a patch or something. Cold turkey
> just doesn't seem to be the way for me as it is some people.

My mother smoked for years, and tried a number of ways to quit.

When the doctor handed her the nitroglycerin tablets, she quit cold
turkey.

Cindy Hamilton

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:11:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> As if it is not bad enough that you are crammed into those miniature seats for
>extended periods but you have to share the air with people who may be carrying
>germs from wherever it is they have been travelling. I am looking forward to
>leaving on my Scandinavian holiday in two days but I am not looking forward to
>sitting in an air plane for close to 13 hours.


Have a safe (and healthy) trip!

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

Dave Smith wrote:

> As if it is not bad enough that you are crammed into those miniature seats for
> extended periods but you have to share the air with people who may be carrying
> germs from wherever it is they have been travelling. I am looking forward to
> leaving on my Scandinavian holiday in two days but I am not looking forward to
> sitting in an air plane for close to 13 hours.
>
>

You could don a surgical mask while you sleep. (Do try to sleep--it
makes the trip seem much shorter.)

Remember:
hej, hejdo
tak sa micket

and they'll love you in Scandinavia.

gloria p

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 07:22:55 -0700, sf <.> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:37:52 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:
>
>>it's outside, for god's sake, not in a pressurized chamber.
>
>It doesn't matter where they smoke. Nonsmokers end up wearing the
>smoke home and often have to take a shower and wash their hair to
>fully rid themselves of cigarette stink.

after spending ten seconds walking through an outdoor area where
people are smoking? if you say so.

maybe you folks can succeed in relocating all smoking areas to the
moon.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:18:40 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:

>"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
>

yes!!!! smoking is *exactly* the same thing!!!! omgomg, they should
make you go outside to ****, too!!!!

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:16:46 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> wrote:

>" BOB" > : in
>rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> 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?
>
>Ya' go right ahead and **** all over my clothes and hair Bob. Bubba is
>waiting for you and getting your prison cell all ready.
>
>Michael

i hear some people will pay good money for it. i don't think clothes
are involved, though.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:35:01 -0700, sf <.> wrote:

>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?

he should get rid of the cell phone and kids and substitute a beer.
yee-haw!

your pal,
blake

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.
>

in montgomery county, md, there was briefly a move to ban smoking in
you apartment unit if a neighbor objected. it didn't go far, thank
god.

if some folks had their way, smoking would be completely banned unless
you're already dead. even that probably would go far enough.

your pal,
blake

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. :-)

ah, the good old days.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:54:35 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

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

jesus, that's all we need. driving by committee.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:26:06 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"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.
>

i don't defend smoking so much as twit non-smoking zealots. life is
nasty, brutish and short with of without second-hand cigarette smoke.
man up.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:27:39 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"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?
>

no, it's not a good idea, but should the government really be involved
in preventing it? should they kick down the doors if you're feeding
the little hoo-hahs twinkies instead of fresh fruits?

if the government was successful at keeping the roads paved and
bridges from falling down, i might say go for it. but i think they
have enough to do as it is. (and i say this as a liberal, not as a
libertarian who thinks businesses should be free to poison whole
populations if they can get away with it.)

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 18:05:28 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"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.
>

well sure, if we get rid of the stupid people, all our problems would
be over. but then there'd still be left the not-very-smart people and
what to do about them?

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:11:39 -0500, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>"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?
>
>:->

not only that, but how would smart people make a buck?

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:11:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
>
>> sf <.> : in
>> rec.food.cooking
>>
>> > Airplanes have notoriously poor ventilation. I can practically feel
>> > all the recycled germs.
>>
>> The last time I flew from NY to SF was a really miserable flight as far as
>> smoking was concerned. I could barely breathe when we landed. It was a long
>> flight but we drank a lot of champagne.
>
> As if it is not bad enough that you are crammed into those miniature seats for
>extended periods but you have to share the air with people who may be carrying
>germs from wherever it is they have been travelling. I am looking forward to
>leaving on my Scandinavian holiday in two days but I am not looking forward to
>sitting in an air plane for close to 13 hours.
>

my advice is to drink heavily.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 16:43:59 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>"blake murphy" > ha scritto nel messaggio
.. .
>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:29:58 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>> Ever since 2003 when New York City banned smoking in enclosed public
>> spaces, theater directors have been walking a thin line between
>> artistic freedom and legal necessity. Under a special exemption for
>> the arts, theaters are allowed to use tobacco-free cigarettes --
>> usually sweet-smelling herbal cigarettes.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> "In a small theater, or where the audience surrounds the stage, the
>> audience is always out of control as soon as a cigarette is pulled
>> out," says Stiff.
>>
>> "Some people really do get worked up," reports Bartlett Sher, the
>> director of the Tony-nominated "South Pacific." "You will hear people
>> coughing their lungs out on purpose as soon as an actor lights a
>> single cigarette."
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> 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 mean, that's just ****ing sad.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>>
>It sounds like they think there ar Tony awards for the sudience.
>
<snort>

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:34:28 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> wrote:

>Gloria P >
: in rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> 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
>
>Hmmm... that means you're getting pollution from everywhere. Can you smell
>it when I light up a cigarette
>
>Michael

no, but the beer farts have got to go.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:29:23 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
>> 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
>
>
>Denver is located in the center of the Front Range Urban Corridor between
>the Rock Mountains to the west and the High Plains to the east. It may be
>flat, but it was pushed up 5280 feet by something, sort of like mountains.
>

the whole town is on stilts. should be handy when global warming
really kicks in.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:20:59 -0500, Janet Wilder
> wrote:

>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.
>

<nodding my head>

your pal,
blake

On Mon 09 Jun 2008 09:06:35a, blake murphy told us...

> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:18:40 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:
>
>>"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
>>
>
> yes!!!! smoking is *exactly* the same thing!!!! omgomg, they should
> make you go outside to ****, too!!!!
>
> your pal,
> blake
>
>

LOL!

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Monday, 06(VI)/09(IX)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
The four cat food groups: Dry, Canned,
Natural, Yours.
-------------------------------------------

On Mon 09 Jun 2008 09:13:59a, blake murphy 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. :-)
>
> ah, the good old days.
>
> your pal,
> blake
>

Indeed!

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Monday, 06(VI)/09(IX)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
The four cat food groups: Dry, Canned,
Natural, Yours.
-------------------------------------------

On Mon 09 Jun 2008 09:15:41a, blake murphy told us...

> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:54:35 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun 08 Jun 2008 11:45:17a, sf told us...
>>>
>>> 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. :-)
>
> jesus, that's all we need. driving by committee.
>
> your pal,
> blake
>
>

Some do anyway, with just one steering wheel and set of pedals.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Monday, 06(VI)/09(IX)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
The four cat food groups: Dry, Canned,
Natural, Yours.
-------------------------------------------

Gloria P wrote:

> > As if it is not bad enough that you are crammed into those miniature seats for
> > extended periods but you have to share the air with people who may be carrying
> > germs from wherever it is they have been travelling. I am looking forward to
> > leaving on my Scandinavian holiday in two days but I am not looking forward to
> > sitting in an air plane for close to 13 hours.
> >
> >
>
> You could don a surgical mask while you sleep. (Do try to sleep--it
> makes the trip seem much shorter.)

I wish that I could. I have never been able to sleep in any mode of transportation.
Every transatlantic flight I have ever been on I have been awake for the entire 7-8
hour flight, bored to tears. I thought that I would take a pass on coffee during the
flight, but I could never sleep in cars when I was a kid and before I drank coffee or
tea. When I travel by car with my wife she usually nods off within 20 minutes, and
when we went to Europe with my son (15 at the time) he slept on the plane and
throughout most of the train trips.

This should be an experience. I learned from my last trip that the best way to cope
is to have a power nap and then go to bed early, but we always stayed in hotels
before. When we get to Tallinn we will be staying with our niece and she has a two
year old and a 5 year old. I don't see a nap happening there.

blake murphy wrote:

>
> > As if it is not bad enough that you are crammed into those miniature seats for
> >extended periods but you have to share the air with people who may be carrying
> >germs from wherever it is they have been travelling. I am looking forward to
> >leaving on my Scandinavian holiday in two days but I am not looking forward to
> >sitting in an air plane for close to 13 hours.
> >
>
> my advice is to drink heavily.
>

LOL.... like I need to be told to drink :-)

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:26:06 -0400, "cybercat" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"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.
>>
>
> i don't defend smoking so much as twit non-smoking zealots.

I always have too. But of the two, SMOKING zealots are invariably
the more stupid. Stupid people get on my nerves, especially when they
are loud and persistant like Michael. And Greg. And ... well, hell, I
guess I am just ill tempered.


> life is
> nasty, brutish and short with of without second-hand cigarette smoke.

Only if you're doing it right.

> man up.
>

Is it too much to ask to expect less people to act like imbeciles?

Never mind.

By now I know it is.

Meanwhile, I do miss my cigs, and I always will. Talk about reliable
fwends. Stinky, but ever present.

"Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
...
> The message >
> from blake murphy > contains these words:
>
>
>> well sure, if we get rid of the stupid people, all our problems would
>> be over. but then there'd still be left the not-very-smart people and
>> what to do about them?
>
> let's get them all into a usenet group
>

What do you mean, "let's?" In this theoretical scenario, all you stupid
people would be gone.

"blake murphy" > wrote >
> well sure, if we get rid of the stupid people, all our problems would
> be over. but then there'd still be left the not-very-smart people and
> what to do about them?
>

We could form a club! But no assholes, we can't have ANY assholes
in our club. So, just not-very-smart, non-assholes.

Oh, and no namby, pamby, stupid people apologists, you know the
type. The ones who keep saying things like, "THAT wasn't very nice,"
or "Can't we all just get along."

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:27:39 -0400, "cybercat" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"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?
>>
>
> no, it's not a good idea, but should the government really be involved
> in preventing it? should they kick down the doors if you're feeding
> the little hoo-hahs twinkies instead of fresh fruits?
>
> if the government was successful at keeping the roads paved and
> bridges from falling down, i might say go for it. but i think they
> have enough to do as it is. (and i say this as a liberal, not as a
> libertarian who thinks businesses should be free to poison whole
> populations if they can get away with it.)
>

I do get the point, and I agree. To a point.

I really am not one of those rabid "reformed smokers."
But Michael's stance, to me, is just too ludicrous to put up with.
I mean, go ahead and smoke if you want, but have some sense.

You can't expect others to put up with your smoke, and only an
idiot can ever say that smoking is anything but asinine. It's expensive,
filthy, and it stinks. Not to mention the making-people-die-of-heinous
things factor. It also ****s up your house.