Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/10/2011 10:57 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, wrote:

I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

Hey Joe Camel, it puzzles me that you and De Plume don't get along.
Wassup with that?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/10/2011 2:49 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, wrote:

I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

Why sure it is little lady. Do you have a point to make?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/10/2011 2:51 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:16:36 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:52:36 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:04:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:46:01 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600,
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.


What unknown? Typical bull**** comment with no substance.


The unknown was what future lawsuits were coming down the poke. The
settlement blocked any future lawsuits so they knew what they were
dealing with and what price point they had to hit to continue being
profitable.

So, you believe that either there should never be a lawsuit against a
company (or an individual) or you believe that lawsuits should be
known about in advance?

Sounds like an interesting game you've got going with your crystal
ball.


Read up on the tobacco suits and get back to me.


So, you do believe that lawsuits (if any are allowed) should be known
in advance. Interesting.

Read up on fantasy and get back to me.

Comeon sweet cheeks. You and Greg are ideologically the same. Kiss and
make up.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/10/2011 4:08 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:03:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:03 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:15:14 -0400, wrote:



Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

Long on opinion short on facts.

And, in your case, not a medical professional. I think I'll go with
the people who actually have a degree and some expertise in the
subject. Feel free to take deep breaths.

Short on facts, no matter who they are.

Really? Show us the research to support the claim that second hand
smoke is safe.

Any discussion of airborne poisons that doesn't talk about threshold
limit values (an OSHA standard) is just conjecture.
There may be a dangerous concentration of second hand smoke but simply
being able to smell it (the current standard) is bull****.

According to you.

According to OSHA and they are the ones who actually regulate these
things.

OSHA doesn't make any claim about the beneficial or benign effects of
second hand smoke. Feel free to show otherwise.

I don't really smoke (maybe 6 cigars a year) but I don't think the
current persecution is warranted. That is particularly true when the
person has the ability not to go where people smoke and chooses to
just so they can be offended.
I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

You might want to cut out the cigars. It doesn't take much from
something like that to cause all sorts of health problems.

So is red meat and driving a car. I will chose my risks, you chose
yours. That is what freedom means.


Yes, so is red meat and driving. I have no problem with you smoking
your cigars in your home and driving, up to the point where you risk
my health or safety. Your "freedom" ends as soon as it impacts mine.

You tell him girlie. Smoking is a disgusting habit.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/10/2011 4:10 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:11:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:51:01 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:16:36 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:52:36 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:04:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:46:01 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600,
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.


What unknown? Typical bull**** comment with no substance.


The unknown was what future lawsuits were coming down the poke. The
settlement blocked any future lawsuits so they knew what they were
dealing with and what price point they had to hit to continue being
profitable.

So, you believe that either there should never be a lawsuit against a
company (or an individual) or you believe that lawsuits should be
known about in advance?

Sounds like an interesting game you've got going with your crystal
ball.


Read up on the tobacco suits and get back to me.


So, you do believe that lawsuits (if any are allowed) should be known
in advance. Interesting.

Read up on fantasy and get back to me.


The settlement was with the attorneys general of the states involved
and specified that this was going to be the end of it.

I am sure there might be some individual who might try to take on
Altria after this but they would get ground up and spit out. The idea
that anyone on the planet has not seen the warning on the side of a
cigarette pack is ludicrous.

Which has nothing to do with fantasy that lawsuits should be known
about in advance.

I suppose you consider 12 year olds cognizant of the dangers of cigar
smoke also. Typical "libertarian" nonsense.

Bad example. Any 12 year old with half a brain knows the use of tobacco
is harmful to your health.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/10/2011 3:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:03 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:15:14 -0400, wrote:



Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

Long on opinion short on facts.

And, in your case, not a medical professional. I think I'll go with
the people who actually have a degree and some expertise in the
subject. Feel free to take deep breaths.

Short on facts, no matter who they are.

Any discussion of airborne poisons that doesn't talk about threshold
limit values (an OSHA standard) is just conjecture.
There may be a dangerous concentration of second hand smoke but simply
being able to smell it (the current standard) is bull****.

According to you.

According to OSHA and they are the ones who actually regulate these
things.

It's funny how above she says "I think I'll go with
the people who actually have a degree and some expertise in the
subject", but then doesn't want to listen to OSHA folks who " actually
have a degree and some expertise in the subject". Funny but not
surprising coming from a progressive...



I don't really smoke (maybe 6 cigars a year) but I don't think the
current persecution is warranted. That is particularly true when the
person has the ability not to go where people smoke and chooses to
just so they can be offended.
I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

You might want to cut out the cigars. It doesn't take much from
something like that to cause all sorts of health problems.

So is red meat and driving a car. I will chose my risks, you chose
yours. That is what freedom means.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 10/09/2011 2:08 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:03:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:03 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:15:14 -0400, wrote:



Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

Long on opinion short on facts.

And, in your case, not a medical professional. I think I'll go with
the people who actually have a degree and some expertise in the
subject. Feel free to take deep breaths.

Short on facts, no matter who they are.

Really? Show us the research to support the claim that second hand
smoke is safe.

Any discussion of airborne poisons that doesn't talk about threshold
limit values (an OSHA standard) is just conjecture.
There may be a dangerous concentration of second hand smoke but simply
being able to smell it (the current standard) is bull****.

According to you.

According to OSHA and they are the ones who actually regulate these
things.

OSHA doesn't make any claim about the beneficial or benign effects of
second hand smoke. Feel free to show otherwise.

I don't really smoke (maybe 6 cigars a year) but I don't think the
current persecution is warranted. That is particularly true when the
person has the ability not to go where people smoke and chooses to
just so they can be offended.
I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

You might want to cut out the cigars. It doesn't take much from
something like that to cause all sorts of health problems.

So is red meat and driving a car. I will chose my risks, you chose
yours. That is what freedom means.


Yes, so is red meat and driving. I have no problem with you smoking
your cigars in your home and driving, up to the point where you risk
my health or safety. Your "freedom" ends as soon as it impacts mine.

Why? Do you prefer to snort?
--
First rule of holes: If your in one, don't keep digging.
So in the hole, why do we insanely want more debt?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 00:10:11 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 10/09/2011 2:08 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:03:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:03 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:15:14 -0400, wrote:



Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

Long on opinion short on facts.

And, in your case, not a medical professional. I think I'll go with
the people who actually have a degree and some expertise in the
subject. Feel free to take deep breaths.

Short on facts, no matter who they are.

Really? Show us the research to support the claim that second hand
smoke is safe.

Any discussion of airborne poisons that doesn't talk about threshold
limit values (an OSHA standard) is just conjecture.
There may be a dangerous concentration of second hand smoke but simply
being able to smell it (the current standard) is bull****.

According to you.

According to OSHA and they are the ones who actually regulate these
things.

OSHA doesn't make any claim about the beneficial or benign effects of
second hand smoke. Feel free to show otherwise.

I don't really smoke (maybe 6 cigars a year) but I don't think the
current persecution is warranted. That is particularly true when the
person has the ability not to go where people smoke and chooses to
just so they can be offended.
I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

You might want to cut out the cigars. It doesn't take much from
something like that to cause all sorts of health problems.

So is red meat and driving a car. I will chose my risks, you chose
yours. That is what freedom means.


Yes, so is red meat and driving. I have no problem with you smoking
your cigars in your home and driving, up to the point where you risk
my health or safety. Your "freedom" ends as soon as it impacts mine.

Why? Do you prefer to snort?

You certainly prefer being stupid.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sep 10, 3:08*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:03:09 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:03 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:15:14 -0400, wrote:

Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

Long on opinion short on facts.

And, in your case, not a medical professional. I think I'll go with
the people who actually have a degree and some expertise in the
subject. Feel free to take deep breaths.

Short on facts, no matter who they are.

Really? Show us the research to support the claim that second hand
smoke is safe.



Any discussion of airborne poisons that doesn't talk about threshold
limit values (an OSHA standard) is just conjecture.
There may be a dangerous concentration of second hand smoke but simply
being able to smell it (the current standard) is bull****.

According to you.

According to OSHA and they are the ones who actually regulate these
things.

OSHA doesn't make any claim about the beneficial or benign effects of
second hand smoke. Feel free to show otherwise.



I don't really smoke (maybe 6 cigars a year) but I don't think the
current persecution is warranted. That is particularly true when the
person has the ability not to go where people smoke and chooses to
just so they can be offended.
I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

You might want to cut out the cigars. It doesn't take much from
something like that to cause all sorts of health problems.

So is red meat and driving a car. I will chose my risks, you chose
yours. That is what freedom means.

Yes, so is red meat and driving. I have no problem with you smoking
your cigars in your home and driving, up to the point where you risk
my health or safety. Your "freedom" ends as soon as it impacts mine.

D'Plume, you are terminally 'impacted'

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:37:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:05:13 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:07:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:58 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, Drifter wrote:

I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

That is simply a perversion of the law.

It is not. It's been pretty well upheld by the courts.

I bet you would support the right of a restaurant owner to refuse
admittance of a person wearing a T shirt that said "Kill all the
fags" or something else offensive.

Don't have to, since most restaurants can refuse service to people who
are disruptive.


So public accommodation is not an absolute.

"Disruptive" is certainly an abstract assumption.

Have I ever said that is was? No shirt, no shoes, and now (in San
Francisco) no pants, no service.