Gotta keep it from The Children
CBI wrote:
A comedian (whose name is on the tip of my tongue) said it best. When asked, "mind if I smoke?" he replied, "no, mind if I fart." Steve Martin, in the mid/late 1970s Bob |
Gotta keep it from The Children
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:34:40 -0400, something compelled "CBI"
, to say: O`Bob" wrote in message ... CBI wrote: A comedian (whose name is on the tip of my tongue) said it best. When asked, "mind if I smoke?" he replied, "no, mind if I fart." Steve Martin, in the mid/late 1970s I don't think so. It was the Jewish guy - something Brenner? Nope. Put "no, mind if I fart" into Google and see what comes up. |
Gotta keep it from The Children
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:25:56 -0700, Bob O`Bob wrote:
CBI wrote: A comedian (whose name is on the tip of my tongue) said it best. When asked, "mind if I smoke?" he replied, "no, mind if I fart." Steve Martin, in the mid/late 1970s It wasn't funny then. It isn't funny now. The only funny thing about Steve Martin is that his live in ****piece left him to become a lesbian. -- If you're not entertaining, you will be flamed. Even if you are entertaining, you well may be flamed anyway by someone who's just tearing your belly open to see what sort of guts are inside it. -- Lenore Levine in a.t |
Gotta keep it from The Children
"==Daye==" wrote in message
... On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:19:02 -0400, "CBI" wrote: Another good point: Why do smokers think their butts are not litter? At the very least we should be fining them for this. Do not put all smokers in the same basket. When my DH and I smoked, we always, always, always threw out butts in a bin. It is rubbish and belongs in a bin. as i do & many smokers also do (although at this point i feel like i'm talking to the walls. sigh. people just *want* to believe all smokers smoke all over everyone & throw butts everywhere.) anyway, in australia butts *are* litter & you can be fined for dropping them, same as all litter (althought it operates on a sliding scale.). you get a special special fine for throwing them out your car window. (well, you don't, because the police & litter regulation are rarely acquainted, but it *is* possible.) kylie |
Gotta keep it from The Children
"0tterbot" wrote in message . ..
he's cranky, not offended. i vote it's not just him. kylie First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me. ~ Martin Niemoeller Considering Communists have long employed the "knock in the middle of the night" I've always felt this quote a bit out of date. |
Gotta keep it from The Children
0tterbot wrote:
"Tom Enright" wrote in message om... "0tterbot" wrote in message . .. he's cranky, not offended. i vote it's not just him. kylie First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me. ~ Martin Niemoeller Considering Communists have long employed the "knock in the middle of the night" I've always felt this quote a bit out of date. what? Because communist governments have killed around 100,000,000 people and have no problem denying simple rights to the people it is somewhat hyprocritcal for them to be viewed as an oppressed group. Most especially when you consider the time in which the quote was made. are you mccarthy's grandson-in-a-jar or something? What? Are you suggesting that communists have not come for for "Trade Unionists" and others? kylie |
Gotta keep it from The Children
Banty wrote in message ...
In article , says... Banty wrote in message ... In article , says... Non-smokers didn't *choose* to breathe in cigarette smoke. Many directly *chose* NOT to breathe in cigarette smoke. It's harmful in a way that goes beyond momentary irritation, and it *is* irritating besides. One *has* to breathe. On the other hand, smokers can leave the ciggies as home for awhile. Sure, that's one solution. But is it really the best compromise that our society can come up with to resolve the conflict between those who wish to smoke in an public outdoor setting and those who wish to avoid all exposure to their smoke? I don't think so. My preference also would be that smokers would be considerate, such that non-smokers don't have to resort to the broad hammer of the law, and everyone would come out ahead. Sounds ideal to me too. But even given inconsiderate smokers, the broad hammer of law seems just too big a weapon to wield for such a minor matter. Does more harm than good. Well, the law being that certain folks will have to leave a nasty, destructive habit at home, the only harm would be that there's a law. Unecessary laws are bad. Yes, unnecessary laws are, IMO, VERY bad. I don't like restricting anyone's freedom unnecessary. But, in tha face of "**** you", "what's your problem", butts and ashes flicked everywhere, folks have not much option but to put up with the crap, not use the park, or take public spaces back via laws. Folks are tired of it. I put the blame for the laws square at the feet of a lot of the smokers. I put the blame for the laws square at the feet of those who propose them and lobby for them. Why are they seeking a solution through the law and why are they insisting on banning smoking whether they are around to be bothered or not? Unfortunately, we ban smoking because we don't have considerate smokers, just like we ban music from the parks often because of those who think they have a "right" to blast it, and many places ban or restrict dogs because so many owners can't seem to keep the dogs under control and clean up after them. I wasn't aware that either had been banned. Not in my vicinity anyway. Loud music bothers me a great deal more than smoke personally. Both are banned to one extent or another in parks around here. If I heard from folks like you more noise about inconsideration, instead of whining only about the laws people turn to as a last resort, I'd give you more credibility. So let's hear it - what are the responsibilities of smokers in an ideal no-law situation? I think that smokers should always be considerate and never smoke around those who object. I don't complain about inconsiderate smokers because I don't know any personally, nor do I see any posts proclaiming their right to smoke whenever and wherever, so I don't address that issue. We've seen at least one person here say something on the order of "what's your problem lady, it isn't like someone is shooting your cat", and we haven't exactly seen smoking apologists come out of the woodwork to say they try to do differently. So there you have it. Actually, the person I think you're referring to has stated that he would, if requested, stop or move. He's also talked about how rudely he has seen non-smokers behave when asking smokers to quit. I think he has a point. I've never had a smoker be rude to me and insist on continuing to blow smoke into my face. I suspect that those who regularly encounter rude smokers are, to some extent, creating the situation by being rude in way they phrase their request to stop. Not always, but I'm certain it happens sometimes. I don't think that the smokers are entirely to blame for the problem. |
Gotta keep it from The Children
"CBI" wrote in message ...
"abacus" wrote in message om... Sounds ideal to me too. But even given inconsiderate smokers, the broad hammer of law seems just too big a weapon to wield for such a minor matter. Does more harm than good. What harm? Restricts individuals freedom unnecessary. A bad thing IMO. In addition, such laws breeds contempt for the law. I think that smokers should always be considerate and never smoke around those who object. How do you know whether the person objects? Wouldn't the only truly considerate thing be to not smoke around others unless you have determined that they don't object? I don't think it's asking too much of non-smokers to make their objections known. I do think it's asking too much of smokers to never smoke in an outdoor public place just become someone *might* object. Frankly, I was glad to see smoking banned from the place I worked at 15 years ago. I didn't bother me too much, but it was more pleasant without the smoke. I'm undecided about whether or not blanket bans for restaurants and bars are appropriate. But I definitely think that banning smoking in outdoor public places is going too far. It's reasonable to expect smokers to quit if asked, but unreasonable to expect them to refrain completely. |
Gotta keep it from The Children
"Banty" wrote in message
... Do not put all smokers in the same basket. When my DH and I smoked, we always, always, always threw out butts in a bin. It is rubbish and belongs in a bin. as i do & many smokers also do (although at this point i feel like i'm talking to the walls. sigh. people just *want* to believe all smokers smoke all over everyone & throw butts everywhere.) Hello, walls :-) EGADS! ;-) The problem is, *enough* smokers are rude and sloppy about it such that it's a problem. No one's saying all smokers should be deemed rude. yeah, but read this thread, & observe that *enough* anti-smokers are rude & obnoxious to smokers - people making grand statements about what smokers do, & getting frightfully in a flap at the same time (& never noticing the smokers who don't **** them off.) i'm certain it's quite identical to the militantly whatever who simply never *notice* how many of the subject/s of their disapproval are being perfectly polite about it, they only see what they want to see & extrapolate it to a ridiculous degree. but at any rate, pardon my momentary exasperation on that matter. :-) (snippage) I'm really, really down deep disgusted with the whole tobacco thing. It's a really stupid, addictive, expensive (personally and to society), destructive, valueless thing to be defending, to be calling on others' tolerance continually for. it is - you'd be hard pressed to find anyone, smoker or not, who would disagree with this. it's not rocket science, & precious few smokers "defend" their habit. it just IS - going on about it's not going to change anything. my point is that many smokers are polite people who go out of their way to avoid littering, offending people, exposing people (unless by explicit or implied consent) bla de bla, & only ever get lumped in with rude litterbug smokers for our trouble. i also concur that before various laws changed, people (including me - but then again i had heedless youth on my side in those days) would & did smoke in the most amazing locations & never really think about it, & possibly affronted one or two people in the process... but - the way things are now, non-smokers are given carte blanche to be gaspingly rude to smokers, & smokers are considered to be right down there with used car salesmen, paedophiles & junkies, & it's simply ridiculous. it's become a taboo out of all proportion. it's been MY experience, (as a general person, not as a smoker) that the rudeness (round here, god only knows what your laws are like) is quite the reverse. people who wouldn't dream of criticising the overweight, the junk-food addicted, the terminally miserable, the abjectly lazy (etc) about their health matters start on at smokers as though something they have to say is actually *news* - & it's often not polite, either. we smokers are well appraised of the fact that we are killing ourselves, & don't need to know. we know some smokers are rude, we don't need to hear that either. it's my experience that anti-smokers need to be watching their manners more carefully than the smokers do. i barely know 3 people who will smoke in their own house these days. i think the militants need to find a new category of person to oppress, quite frankly. they made their point about 15 years ago. & if people want to be worried about what they breathe, they need to get more information on the substances that are actually killing them, & not worry so much about some poor dweeb having a fag in the park. pardon my exasperation. :-( kylie |
Gotta keep it from The Children
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com