|
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
In article ,
says... Blech. Everything about women who smoke smells bad...their breath, their skin, their hair, their clothes, their bed linens, their homes, their cars. Pretty funny example of The Politically Correct Mind. At your age you grew up around smokers. About half the population smoked until the '70's. In the trades there are plenty of smokers. So it's all old hat. The new part is Politically Correct. Suddenly smoking is the scourge of mankind. Like plume, you're a martinet. The smell of cigarette smoke gets all your Politically Correct brain synapses firing. You can't help it. I'm not saying that smoking is a good thing. Like being fat, burning leaves, or polluting the neighborhood with fireplace smoke. there's downsides to many things. But man, you anti-smokers are in a class by yourself. Anybody can say blech about any number of odors. I didn't smoke for a while, and I could smell smoke on smokers. Big deal. There's nothing offensive about cigarette smoke that isn't programmed into your mind by the need to be politically correct. Many colognes and perfumes are much more offensive to me. Not as offensive as you, but bad enough. I have no problem with reasonable anti-smoking laws. In fact I don't like eating near active smokers or being in smoke filled rooms. But I'll never be in the category of you and plume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-to...n_Nazi_Germany Yep. You're nazis, and don't even know it. Most of the time it happens that way. Propaganda works best on weak minds. Homosexuality is bad. Fat people are bad. Smokers are bad. And so it goes for those living with a stick up their ass. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 3:25 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 9/13/11 3:21 PM, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:19:53 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:51:56 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/13/11 12:45 PM, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT), North Star wrote: When I worked in an office we were glad when smoking restrictions came along in the 80's. Nothing worse than to have a co-worker at the desk next to yours smoking one after another. It was like heaven...although the 'smokers' got a whole lot more breaks than the non-smokers. I didn't begrudge them at that point. That brings up an interesting question. I wonder how much lost productivity arises from the number of people who are standing outside smoking a cigarette? I know that there seemed to be people who spent as much time outside our office smoking as they did inside. The smoking pit was right outside our window. Some of the guys were happy that it seemed to be the hottest women who smoked. Women who smell like an ashtray are hot? Who would want to kiss an ashtray? Another smoker Blech. Everything about women who smoke smells bad...their breath, their skin, their hair, their clothes, their bed linens, their homes, their cars. Do they smell as bad as Bob The Cat. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
In article ,
says... In article , says... Blech. Everything about women who smoke smells bad...their breath, their skin, their hair, their clothes, their bed linens, their homes, their cars. Pretty funny example of The Politically Correct Mind. At your age you grew up around smokers. About half the population smoked until the '70's. In the trades there are plenty of smokers. So it's all old hat. The new part is Politically Correct. Suddenly smoking is the scourge of mankind. Like plume, you're a martinet. The smell of cigarette smoke gets all your Politically Correct brain synapses firing. You can't help it. I'm not saying that smoking is a good thing. Like being fat, burning leaves, or polluting the neighborhood with fireplace smoke. there's downsides to many things. But man, you anti-smokers are in a class by yourself. Anybody can say blech about any number of odors. I didn't smoke for a while, and I could smell smoke on smokers. Big deal. There's nothing offensive about cigarette smoke that isn't programmed into your mind by the need to be politically correct. Many colognes and perfumes are much more offensive to me. Not as offensive as you, but bad enough. I have no problem with reasonable anti-smoking laws. In fact I don't like eating near active smokers or being in smoke filled rooms. But I'll never be in the category of you and plume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-to...n_Nazi_Germany Yep. You're nazis, and don't even know it. Most of the time it happens that way. Propaganda works best on weak minds. Homosexuality is bad. Fat people are bad. Smokers are bad. And so it goes for those living with a stick up their ass. I've seen TV game shows from the fifties that were sponsored by cigarette companies and the MC and everyone else smoked, had ashtrays, etc. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:21:26 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:19:53 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:51:56 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 9/13/11 12:45 PM, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT), North Star wrote: When I worked in an office we were glad when smoking restrictions came along in the 80's. Nothing worse than to have a co-worker at the desk next to yours smoking one after another. It was like heaven...although the 'smokers' got a whole lot more breaks than the non-smokers. I didn't begrudge them at that point. That brings up an interesting question. I wonder how much lost productivity arises from the number of people who are standing outside smoking a cigarette? I know that there seemed to be people who spent as much time outside our office smoking as they did inside. The smoking pit was right outside our window. Some of the guys were happy that it seemed to be the hottest women who smoked. Women who smell like an ashtray are hot? Who would want to kiss an ashtray? Another smoker I didn't realize ashtrays were smokers. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:25:12 -0400, X ` Man
wrote: On 9/13/11 3:21 PM, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:19:53 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:51:56 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/13/11 12:45 PM, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT), North Star wrote: When I worked in an office we were glad when smoking restrictions came along in the 80's. Nothing worse than to have a co-worker at the desk next to yours smoking one after another. It was like heaven...although the 'smokers' got a whole lot more breaks than the non-smokers. I didn't begrudge them at that point. That brings up an interesting question. I wonder how much lost productivity arises from the number of people who are standing outside smoking a cigarette? I know that there seemed to be people who spent as much time outside our office smoking as they did inside. The smoking pit was right outside our window. Some of the guys were happy that it seemed to be the hottest women who smoked. Women who smell like an ashtray are hot? Who would want to kiss an ashtray? Another smoker Blech. Everything about women who smoke smells bad...their breath, their skin, their hair, their clothes, their bed linens, their homes, their cars. I cannot drive in a car of a smoker. It seems to permeate everything and gets on my clothes. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:17:51 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:51:56 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 9/13/11 12:45 PM, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT), North Star wrote: When I worked in an office we were glad when smoking restrictions came along in the 80's. Nothing worse than to have a co-worker at the desk next to yours smoking one after another. It was like heaven...although the 'smokers' got a whole lot more breaks than the non-smokers. I didn't begrudge them at that point. That brings up an interesting question. I wonder how much lost productivity arises from the number of people who are standing outside smoking a cigarette? I know that there seemed to be people who spent as much time outside our office smoking as they did inside. The smoking pit was right outside our window. Some of the guys were happy that it seemed to be the hottest women who smoked. Women who smell like an ashtray are hot? Yup, they just want to have fun No idea what that means.. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:21:06 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:19:27 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:45:15 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT), North Star wrote: When I worked in an office we were glad when smoking restrictions came along in the 80's. Nothing worse than to have a co-worker at the desk next to yours smoking one after another. It was like heaven...although the 'smokers' got a whole lot more breaks than the non-smokers. I didn't begrudge them at that point. That brings up an interesting question. I wonder how much lost productivity arises from the number of people who are standing outside smoking a cigarette? I know that there seemed to be people who spent as much time outside our office smoking as they did inside. The smoking pit was right outside our window. Some of the guys were happy that it seemed to be the hottest women who smoked. I'm betting that the "hottest" women regret that they smoked. Every cig takes about 12 minutes off your life. They may regret it in 40 years but these are young hot women. It's almost a certainty. Even ex-smokers, people who stopped 40 years ago, are much more likely to have health problems. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:20:19 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:18:20 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:22:04 -0400, wrote: Harry, I appreciate your honesty. You just do not like the smell. You are not making outlandish "health" claims that you will die if you smell a little smoke. They are not outlandish. Sounds like the same argument made against human cause global climate change. The vast, vast majority of climate scientists agree, but the right wing doesn't. Ah changing the subject again. Oh give me a break. It's an example. Feel free to deliver some more of your false equivalent bs. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:28:49 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:21:51 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:14:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:01:24 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:20:31 -0400, wrote: 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? The particular restaurant that they wanted to make the "smoking" one did close shortly after the no smoking law was passed. Well, I guess the market forces spoke. Isn't that what you want? No the market was not allowed to speak, They made the restaurant no smoking, without allowing the market to decide how many people would choose the smoking location over a no smoking location about a mile away Sounds like the market spoke to me. You just don't like what it said. I will say this again. The market never had a chance to speak because the heavy hand of the government stopped the experiment. You can say it as many times as you like, but that doesn't make it more true. You continually assert correlation without causation. If they had allowed this location to stay open as a smoking restaurant and the one down the road as a non-smoking restaurant, then the market would have been able to speak. I think the anti smoking fascists did not want to hear the answer. Since the owner did his own market research and knew more than half of his customers in that location, smoked, he had the answer. So, now you're going to have the barkeep prevent people who are smoking, perhaps drunk people, walking in to the other area. Thanks for making MY point. Why not? The bar keep has lots of rules they enforce. Feel free to talk to the bartender. I am sure I know more bartenders than you do. My wife employs about a dozen at the country club. They are the bar cops. So, feel free to talk to them. 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. OSHA is the government agency that sets the standards, They are also the ones who certify the labs. (AKA NRTLs) Occupational Safety and Health Administration. They, like other agencies, need legislation to do their jobs. This is an example of that. Sorry if that bothers you! They already have legislation to regulate HAZARDOUS concentrations of airborne chemicals. They said they do not have a standard that would apply to the minuscule amounts in a typical concentration of cigarette smoke. They never used the word minuscule. Not having a standard is not the same as believing the airborne chemicals are safe. Nice try. OSHA standards do not say any chemical is safe, they just establish a safe TLV for them. Unfortunately for your case, that is not zero. Yet you claimed they do claim that it's safe. There is no safe level of cigarette smoking. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com