Most awful hack job, but my kid likes it

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

Ah, so smoking is _good_ for you then. Well, great. Glad you cleared
it up.

Well, if you're going to go all rail-to-rail on me, then there's no point
trying to have a rational discussion.

Thanks anyway,
Rich

 

[Dave Hinz]

Well, if you're going to go all rail-to-rail on me, then there's no point
trying to have a rational discussion.

Glad to point out to you what your tactic is, and why it doesn't work.

Dave

 

[tillius]

Well, if you're going to go all rail-to-rail on me, then there's no point

trying to have a rational discussion.

Still, your honesty is refreshing.

 

[Harold and Susan Vordos]

Well, if you're going to go all rail-to-rail on me, then there's no point
trying to have a rational discussion.

Defending smoking is having a rational discussion? How so?

*Please*, tell all of us:

What good has come from smoking aside from reducing the overpopulation? How
can you defend something that has brought so much misery to humanity?

Harold (who used to smoke a pipe)

 

[Robert Latest]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:50:44 -0800,

snip---
Explanation, please? (Please post your reply on RCM. I do not follow SED)

It's a common system in Europe (having originated probably in Germany,
hence the name which is an abbreviation for "Schutzkontakt", meaning
"protection contact", meaning ground).

It's not the best system all around (I like the Swiss better), but the
whole socket is in a recess, so the live prongs cannot be touched by
anything. Even if you wanted to it'd be near impossible to get to the
engaged prongs with a piece of bent wire.

robert

 

[Robert Latest]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On 16 Nov 2005 16:04:13 GMT,

Last I checked, the US hasn't been the recipeint of the promised "event
which would make 9/11 look like nothing".


Hm. Let's see. US responds strongly, keeps someone known to have used
WMDs from giving them to the group which has attacked us. US doesn't
get attacked.

Four years of absence of terrorism on US soil doesn't mean it won't
happen again. Just how frequent were terrorist attacks in the US before
the "strong response"?

And, quite honestly, do you think that the number of people who are
mentally prepared to perform acts of terrorism against the West has
decreased or increased since that response?

robert

 

[David Brown]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:01:42 GMT,

What really disgusts me about the antis is the huge amount of money - tax
money, _our_ money - that they're lavishing on that "oh, do you need help
quitting" kind of propaganda.

****, man! If you don't want to smoke, just fucking _DON'T SMOKE_! "Gee,
I couldn't prevent myself from pulling my car into the store lot, getting
out, and plunking down four and a half bucks for these things I'm so
desperately trying to get out from under the grip of ..."

As much as I'd like to agree with you, smoking is an addiction and as
such more comparable to a (possibly curable) illness than to just a bad
habit.

From what I have read, only part of the addiction is due to the tobacco
itself. Tobacco and cigarette manufacturers add extra ingredients with
the specific aim of getting you more addicted to their brand rather than
just the nicotine.

 

[Robert Latest]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:41:04 -0800,

Defending smoking is having a rational discussion? How so?

*Please*, tell all of us:

What good has come from smoking aside from reducing the overpopulation?
Nothing.

How can you defend something that has brought so much misery to
humanity?

What should be defended is

1) The right to use drugs (for adults who know the consequences of their
actions)

2) The right of everybody to stay unmolested by the effects of drug
usage.

Both are politically difficult. 1) because of irrational, superstitious
policymaking, and 2) because of the definition of what constitutes a
direct effect of the drug usage, and of the circumstances under which
someone can be expected to just avoid (for instance) smoke-infested
areas. Of course the impact on the public health system, if applicable,
is an impact in the sense of 2).

robert

 

[Robert Latest]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:01:42 GMT,

What really disgusts me about the antis is the huge amount of money - tax
money, _our_ money - that they're lavishing on that "oh, do you need help
quitting" kind of propaganda.

****, man! If you don't want to smoke, just fucking _DON'T SMOKE_! "Gee,
I couldn't prevent myself from pulling my car into the store lot, getting
out, and plunking down four and a half bucks for these things I'm so
desperately trying to get out from under the grip of ..."

As much as I'd like to agree with you, smoking is an addiction and as
such more comparable to a (possibly curable) illness than to just a bad
habit.

That said, I think the anti-smoking campaigns don't do any good and are
just a waste of money. I wonder, though, if they cost more tax money
than the income from the tobacco tax. I doubt it.

robert

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

From what I have read, only part of the addiction is due to the tobacco
itself. Tobacco and cigarette manufacturers add extra ingredients with
the specific aim of getting you more addicted to their brand rather than
just the nicotine.

You are insane. Addiction isn't in the substance - _ANY_ substance.
Addiction is in the person. I, for one, am an "addict". I'm "addicted" to
anything I've ever done that I liked. I like to do it again. The antis and
puritans and bluenosed neocons don't like me to do stuff they don't like,
so they label me, guilt me, tell me what a miserable sinner I am, and
generally try to convert me or otherwise make my life miserable.

Those people aren't addicted ot substances - they're addicted to the
illusion of control.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

Defending smoking is having a rational discussion? How so?

"Defending?" So, now, it's a crime, or a sin of some kind?

You antis are really addicted to your relegion, aren't you?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

Defending smoking is having a rational discussion? How so?

*Please*, tell all of us:

What good has come from smoking aside from reducing the overpopulation?

It gives me pleasure. But you antis have somehow convinced yourselves that
it's sinful to take pleasure, or that I have some kind of disease - you're
trying to create a whole new class of lepers.

How
can you defend something that has brought so much misery to humanity?

How can you? Religion has brought a HELL of a lot more misery to humanity
than smoking ever could. Smoking is _voluntary_, religious crusades use
_coercion_. That's one main difference. Remember "Free Will?"

Harold (who used to smoke a pipe)

Ah, there's nothing worse than a reformed sinner! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Dave Hinz]

Defending smoking is having a rational discussion? How so?

In the part you snipped, you'd see that I was interpreting _YOUR_
statement.

*Please*, tell all of us:

What good has come from smoking aside from reducing the overpopulation? How
can you defend something that has brought so much misery to humanity?

Pick a side. And then leave me out of it. I've got better things to
do.

 

[Dave Hinz]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]

Yeah, I notice you keep doing that. If you don't want me to continue in
the thread, just say so.

On 16 Nov 2005 16:04:13 GMT,
in Msg. <[email protected]>

Four years of absence of terrorism on US soil doesn't mean it won't
happen again.

I didn't say it won't happen again, I said that the constant escalation
which we saw previously has stopped.

Just how frequent were terrorist attacks in the US before
the "strong response"?

The weak response to events against our interests _elsewhere_, is why
they progressed to attacking us _here_.

And, quite honestly, do you think that the number of people who are
mentally prepared to perform acts of terrorism against the West has
decreased or increased since that response?

Evidence would seem to indicate that the number of terrorists attacking
the US, in the US, has decreased since that strong response. Granted,
it's a limited sample size. In this case, I think a small sample size
is a good thing.

Are they pissed at us? Yes. Of course. They should be. Are they
pissed at us enough to attack us here again? So far ,no.

I'd say that's improvement.

 

[Harold and Susan Vordos]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:50:44 -0800,
SED)

It's a common system in Europe (having originated probably in Germany,
hence the name which is an abbreviation for "Schutzkontakt", meaning
"protection contact", meaning ground).

It's not the best system all around (I like the Swiss better), but the
whole socket is in a recess, so the live prongs cannot be touched by
anything. Even if you wanted to it'd be near impossible to get to the
engaged prongs with a piece of bent wire.

robert

Thanks, Robert. Both sound better than what we use. While it's rare to
have a problem with our system, it certainly isn't impossible. I can't
help but wonder how many children are injured here in the US.

Harold

 

[Harold and Susan Vordos]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:01:42 GMT,

What really disgusts me about the antis is the huge amount of money - tax
money, _our_ money - that they're lavishing on that "oh, do you need help
quitting" kind of propaganda.

****, man! If you don't want to smoke, just fucking _DON'T SMOKE_! "Gee,
I couldn't prevent myself from pulling my car into the store lot, getting
out, and plunking down four and a half bucks for these things I'm so
desperately trying to get out from under the grip of ..."

As much as I'd like to agree with you, smoking is an addiction and as
such more comparable to a (possibly curable) illness than to just a bad
habit.

That said, I think the anti-smoking campaigns don't do any good and are
just a waste of money. I wonder, though, if they cost more tax money
than the income from the tobacco tax. I doubt it.

robert

The good the campaigns do, hopefully, is to discourage young people from
starting. I'm sure results are mixed. I remember all too well being
young------although smoking and drinking wasn't a problem for me. Sure as
hell did other bad things, though. It's what kids do, I guess.

One good thing comes from the higher taxes, though. Stores now protect
their supply from theft, generally behind locked cabinets---and fewer kids
are finding the money to buy smokes. The trend, at least here in
Washington, is lower smoking rates. Something is working, although I don't
know what.

Harold

 

[Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie]

Thanks, Robert. Both sound better than what we use. While it's rare
to have a problem with our system, it certainly isn't impossible. I
can't help but wonder how many children are injured here in the US.

Oh, feh. What a bunch of nervous nellies. I submit that it's bad for
society to protect people from their own stupidity. I still remember
the time I learned to keep my thumb out from between the prongs of
a lamp plug I was pluggin in! (Mom's assessment was, "More scared than
hurt.")

And personally, I like to mount the outlets with the ground hole
down, because it's like a little face. Problem is, it's an unhappy
face. What we need is 3-prong plugs where the flat on the ground
hole is up, so it's a happy face! =D

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

The good the campaigns do, hopefully, is to discourage young people from
starting.

Please define for me, in little words if possible, what is the intrinsic
value in manipulating children?

And please explain why taking my wages away to promote this ideology is
justifiable?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

In the part you snipped, you'd see that I was interpreting _YOUR_
statement.


Pick a side. And then leave me out of it. I've got better things to
do.

Ach! The thread's so deep that the tree has gone off the side of my
monitor, so I beg forgiveness for inappropriate attribution.

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Harold and Susan Vordos]

It gives me pleasure. But you antis have somehow convinced yourselves that
it's sinful to take pleasure, or that I have some kind of disease - you're
trying to create a whole new class of lepers.

Not exactly. I think it's safe to say that we that choose not to smoke (I
still enjoy the occasional cigar, and even light a pipe on occasion) would
like to live smoke free. That includes when we are dining, when at work, or
when walking in the park. The problem with smoking is that when you partake
of your pleasure, it doesn't stop with you----everyone around you must
endure it. For some it may be no bid deal, but what about those that have
allergies, or perhaps a serious medical condition?

I've long maintained that if people living in a civilized society don't self
regulate, they will be regulated. Smokers, for years, didn't give a rats
ass if their habit bothered others------they just lit 'em up----to hell with
the other guy and his needs and wants (I can say that, I used to smoke my
pipe). It's gone full circle now-----and while I respect your right to
smoke, I fully expect you to respect mine not to. If you must smoke in
public, do not exhale. Do not allow your ciggy to smoke away in an
ashtray, stinking up the environment so badly that anyone but a smoker is
repulsed. Now if you choose to smoke at home, that's your castle, and I
have a choice to visit, or not. I fully support your right to destroy your
own life with tobacco. Just please don't force me to destroy mine in the
process.

How can you? Religion has brought a HELL of a lot more misery to humanity
than smoking ever could. Smoking is _voluntary_, religious crusades use
_coercion_. That's one main difference. Remember "Free Will?"

Let me tell you, Richard TDL, you and I are on the same page where that is
concerned. I was born and raised in Utah, but was not of the faithful.
I know what it's like to be a minority from the standpoint of religion (you
can include ethnicity). That's one place you are truly made to feel like
a leper. We may be closer together than you realize on these issues.

Ah, there's nothing worse than a reformed sinner! ;-)

Chuckle! Except in this case, it was a bleeding ulcer that caused me to
abandon my cherished pipe, not religion or other things. The rest is just
good sense, self preservation. I'm old and want to live to be a little
older. I have a lot of unfinished business-----why shorten my limited time
on this earth with smoke induced cancer? (Yeah, I really believe it
does-----don't you?)

Harold