|
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
|
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:22:35 -0400, X ` Man
wrote: On 9/12/11 9:14 PM, wrote: Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. The "fun people" aren't smokers. Smokers smell bad, they pollute the air with their stench, their smoke ruins the taste of food, the smoke sticks to your hair and your clothes *and* it is not healthy. Anything that can be done to discourage smoking should be done. It doesn't matter. Greg is going to smoke his cigars and to hell with anyone else. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
In article ,
says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/12/2011 9:39 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. You guys pretty much got it pinned... Every day I see mom's in huge SUV's texting and coming right at me. At least once a day, and I am supposed to worry about walking by someone smoking a cigarette? Gotta' love progressives, regressive in each and everything they do in their miserable lives... |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/12/2011 11:08 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:37:11 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:14:45 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:08:55 -0400, wrote: Unfortunately "smoking areas" were not enough to make the crusaders happy. Yet they do have "smoking areas" in airports. So, it looks like I was right. We were talking about bars and restaurants. Do they have smoking areas in restaurants, using the same technology? Why not? The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. I wouldn't care either way. I just don't want my health compromised because of an obnoxious habit someone has. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Huh? Who offered? The afore mentioned Sonny's Barbecue is one. That was proposed by many bar and restaurant owners here who wanted to maintain their smoking customer base. They wanted smoking and non smoking restaurants, in the same chain with exactly the same menu. Nope, it was ALL or nothing. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. Since it's not "a necessary component" there's no action that OSHA can take. Try again. What? The letter basically said OSHA does not have a standard for cigarette smoke. Yes, they don't have a standard. They just say there are tons of carcinogens in it, but it's not part of manufacturing processes. They do have a standard for all of the chemicals in question. It just would not be low enough to bar casual smoking. According to you. It would depend on several factors, like concentration and proximity, for example. Exactly, but that is not what you want. In reality it is the concentration in PPM usually taken at a couple locations on the site.. They imply that if they use the same standard they use for manufacturing it would not achieve the result desired by the administration and they should just deal with this with legislation. If they use the same standard for the listed pollutants that they use for manufacturing facilities you probably would not be able to get enough smokers in a room to exceed it and still be within the occupancy code. According to you. Nothing in the report claims the smoke is without risk. The letter from OSHA is basically begging off, telling the administration that this should be handled by separate legislation and getting them out of it.. And, it should be. So, what's your point? So this is simply legislation based on people being offended not any science confirming the hazard. (What OSHA does) Didn't she get on you earlier in this same thread about listening to the experts in the field? snerk |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:00:26 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:22:35 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 9/12/11 9:14 PM, wrote: Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. The "fun people" aren't smokers. Smokers smell bad, they pollute the air with their stench, their smoke ruins the taste of food, the smoke sticks to your hair and your clothes *and* it is not healthy. Then why is it so important that you go into a bar that allows smoking? Nobody said allowing a bar owner to allow smoking meant ANY of them have to. Let the bar owner decide who he wants to cater to. This makes no sense. He never said that. I've already pointed out the fallacies in your argument, but you refuse to think about it. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:08:41 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:37:11 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:14:45 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:08:55 -0400, wrote: Unfortunately "smoking areas" were not enough to make the crusaders happy. Yet they do have "smoking areas" in airports. So, it looks like I was right. We were talking about bars and restaurants. Do they have smoking areas in restaurants, using the same technology? Why not? The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. I wouldn't care either way. I just don't want my health compromised because of an obnoxious habit someone has. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Huh? Who offered? The afore mentioned Sonny's Barbecue is one. That was proposed by many bar and restaurant owners here who wanted to maintain their smoking customer base. They wanted smoking and non smoking restaurants, in the same chain with exactly the same menu. Nope, it was ALL or nothing. I'm sure their business was hurt terribly. I guess they're out of business. Good news? Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. Since it's not "a necessary component" there's no action that OSHA can take. Try again. What? The letter basically said OSHA does not have a standard for cigarette smoke. Yes, they don't have a standard. They just say there are tons of carcinogens in it, but it's not part of manufacturing processes. They do have a standard for all of the chemicals in question. It just would not be low enough to bar casual smoking. According to you. It would depend on several factors, like concentration and proximity, for example. Exactly, but that is not what you want. In reality it is the concentration in PPM usually taken at a couple locations on the site.. So, when someone is puffing their cigar in my face, I'm betting the PPM count is pretty high. They imply that if they use the same standard they use for manufacturing it would not achieve the result desired by the administration and they should just deal with this with legislation. If they use the same standard for the listed pollutants that they use for manufacturing facilities you probably would not be able to get enough smokers in a room to exceed it and still be within the occupancy code. According to you. Nothing in the report claims the smoke is without risk. The letter from OSHA is basically begging off, telling the administration that this should be handled by separate legislation and getting them out of it.. And, it should be. So, what's your point? So this is simply legislation based on people being offended not any science confirming the hazard. (What OSHA does) Really? OSHA is the only one who thinks about hazards like this? Nope. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:13:05 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:39:18 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. Well said. It is interesting how many people do tag along with the smokers, even if they are not smoking themselves. I am one of those people. I really am not a smoker but I know a lot of smokers. I have never really smoked cigarettes and my 5 or 6 cigars a year are usually out on the golf course. If someone bitches about that, all I can say is ... FORE! You are a smoker. You smoke cigars. So, to put it another way, you're a call girl not a hooker when it comes to tobacco? Yes, we can see that you're very uninterested in anyone else's rights to a clean, healthy environment. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:53:31 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:43 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:18:52 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:54:35 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:10:37 -0400, wrote: We were not talking about malls, we were talking about bars and restaurants. If a person wants to have a "smoking allowed" restaurant on a separate lot, you have no reason to be there if smoke bothers you. I bet you don't spend a lot of time in strip joints either, no matter how good the food is.. So, you're now claiming that there are no restaurants or bars in malls? Restaurants are by nature public. There's no Fed ban. These are local and state issued bans. Too bad if you don't like what your state has done. The law applies equally to a restaurant in a mall and one out on a lonely dead end road. Are you saying that if it was away from the mall it could allow smoking. Otherwise you are trying to change the subject again. Take a limiting case... Imagine driving down a highway in the middle of nowhere. You need to use the toilet and finally you come across the only restaurant for miles. Unfortunately, it's a smoking establishment and you're allergic to cig smoke. So, that's why it applies equally That is bull****. You really had to stretch for that one. The limiting case is a legitimate logic tool. Look it up. "There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on as a limiting case." Albert Einstein |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com