| |
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by nater
on Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:18 pm |
|
Seriously, nothing interesting has been posted here in quite sometime. The news on the homepage is from July 2005! Over a year ago!
It's always the same people arguing back and forth, about the same topic, "I love smoking, hate smoking bans, hate taxes" vs. "smokers are dumber than rocks, and should be shot onsite" etc.
Whatever happened to Bettie Page's smoking mandate? He made it sound like it would make the news like Weyco, but he has disappeared.
Anyway, the argument continues, the smokers just keep smoking (albeit outside these days), and the antis lose interest in arguing once there is a ban in their state.
If something interesting doesn't happen here at this forum soon, I'm leaving. (My guess is no one will care).
Nate |
|
|
nater
Newbie
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Posts: 20
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by DC
on Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:17 pm |
|
Nate:
Bettie Page was not a he.
Sorry you're disappointed that smokers are still fighting for choice and compromise and the antis are still presenting their same old abstract reasoning [doodee].
That's the way it is. If it displeases you, then, vaya con Dios. |
|
|
DC
Smokers Rights Activist
Joined: Apr 04, 2005
Posts: 820
Location: MD
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by nater
on Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:59 pm |
|
Sorry, I didn't mean to insult Bettie_Page, for some reason I genuinely thought she was a he.
How did her plan go, anyway? I missed how it turned out. (It sounded interesting).
Nate |
|
|
nater
Newbie
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Posts: 20
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by HAL9000
on Sat Aug 26, 2006 8:28 am |
|
Nater:
In some respects, Bettie Page (at least the one who posted here) is a he. |
|
|
HAL9000
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 242
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by ericblair2084
on Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:27 pm |
|
nater, you've got to be kidding me.
You had a great thread regarding your friend with the restaurant who had a smoking ban shoved down his throat. He said it was the best thing that ever happened to him.
Your post/thread cut right to the heart of everything we've been talking about. You never once responded to my comments.
It's not complicated:
It's his restaurant. He makes the rules. If a non-smoking establishment was the way to go and was such a Godsend, he should have done it years ago.
He would have been a rich man on his yacht in the carribean.
I think you have other motives here. I'll resurrect the post. |
|
|
ericblair2084
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 19, 2006
Posts: 714
Location: Exit 13/Sulfur Dioxide, Toxic Waste, Superfund, Landfill, $5 Billion in debt, Socialist, NJ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by ericblair2084
on Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:53 pm |
|
|
|
ericblair2084
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 19, 2006
Posts: 714
Location: Exit 13/Sulfur Dioxide, Toxic Waste, Superfund, Landfill, $5 Billion in debt, Socialist, NJ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by BWilliams
on Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:28 pm |
|
nater wrote: Seriously, nothing interesting has been posted here in quite sometime. The news on the homepage is from July 2005! Over a year ago!
It's always the same people arguing back and forth, about the same topic, "I love smoking, hate smoking bans, hate taxes" vs. "smokers are dumber than rocks, and should be shot onsite" etc.
Whatever happened to Bettie Page's smoking mandate? He made it sound like it would make the news like Weyco, but he has disappeared.
Anyway, the argument continues, the smokers just keep smoking (albeit outside these days), and the antis lose interest in arguing once there is a ban in their state.
If something interesting doesn't happen here at this forum soon, I'm leaving. (My guess is no one will care).
Nate
The home page news module is broken, but since noone ever really read it anyway, I never bothered to fix it. People just post news in the forum now.
Bettie page turned out to be a seriously disturbed individual. I believe she took her own life. That's what I like to believe, anyway. |
|
|
BWilliams
Site Owner
Joined: Jun 05, 2003
Posts: 1082
Location: New York City
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by ericblair2084
on Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:37 pm |
|
| Bill, she was here a few weeks ago. Isn't it possible she went to one of the other 765 million forums on the web? |
|
|
ericblair2084
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 19, 2006
Posts: 714
Location: Exit 13/Sulfur Dioxide, Toxic Waste, Superfund, Landfill, $5 Billion in debt, Socialist, NJ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by nater
on Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:22 pm |
|
Okay, so that explains the news thing.
Still curious about Bettie...
Eric, not sure how to respond to your post. (Are you expecting me too?) I didn't respond earlier because I didn't think I had anything more to add.
It would be nice for smokers and antis to come to some sort of resolution.
I was once in a restaurant that was shaped like a T. The entrance was at the bottom the T. The kitchen was in the back, dead center. There was no smoking in the front area or left rear, but the right rear was smoking. There were windows from the kitchen that faced the front and right wing, to set food out for the smoke-free area and seperately for the smoking area.
The smoking area was properly ventilated to the roof, with fresh air drawn in near the front door and left wing. This meant that all persons could enter, eat, pay, use the bathroom in the left wing, etc without going into the smoking area, AND, most importantly, the smoke absolutely, positively, did not enter the non-smoking sections.
This whole layout seemed reasonable to me. It seems like such a setup could please everyone, provided that the employees don't mind (I'm sure you can find a smoking waiter for that section).
Why can't such a compromise be reached? Is it too hard to enforce by health inspectors?
I don't see what a smoker or non-smoker could complain about in this type of layout, but no one seems to want to compromise.
Nate |
|
|
nater
Newbie
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Posts: 20
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Torquemeda
on Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:38 am |
|
I don't see what a smoker or non-smoker could complain about in this type of layout, but no one seems to want to compromise.
Comprimises have been offered.
The anti-smoker crowd here has refused any compromise.
You have to remember these groups are just like MADD.
They want more and more and more for their cause which means more profit, but no matter what you do to satisfy them it's never enough and they will continue to hound people until they get their way.
I know this because Tyler Durden knows this.
I also know this because like MADD the only reason anti-smoking organizaitions exist is to attack smokers and make some cash. It's the ONLY reason they exist.
Once they get a little bit their way, they'll try for more.
Otherwise the organization goes under and they get no profit.
This is not and never has been a health issue it's a power-play control issue.
See, what else I know is once MADD got the DUI limit lowered to what they wanted, they still kept going.
This is about people who don't like smokers and that's the bottom line.
Personally, I think these pricks want the same thing MADD has and that's to be federally funded. A lot of them are locally funded and RWJF has just proposed more money in the fight against alcohol and obesity so you, since you seem a little brighter than HAL, may be joining all of us a lot quicker than you think. |
|
|
Torquemeda
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: May 23, 2005
Posts: 1088
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
|
|
