Tobacco companies to fight tobacco tax increase measure

In article ,
Sin Nombre wrote:

If you are concerned about offending people in alt.smokers, perhaps you
should just refrain from posting?

One can only go so far in trying to accommodate people. As we all saw,
this group was nearly empty when I stopped posting here for a few weeks.
This group's topic is smoking and that's what I will discuss here. I
won't discuss topics not related to smoking. You are certainly free to
engage me in discussion, or not. Its your choice.

On Aug 27, 6:40 pm, Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
Sin Nombre wrote:



If you are concerned about offending people in alt.smokers, perhaps you
should just refrain from posting?

One can only go so far in trying to accommodate people. As we all saw,
this group was nearly empty when I stopped posting here for a few weeks.
This group's topic is smoking and that's what I will discuss here. I
won't discuss topics not related to smoking. You are certainly free to
engage me in discussion, or not. Its your choice.

Then you honestly BELIEVE that YOU are the keeper of the newsgroup?

Salmon diligently protest mocking Albequerque, indeed!

In article om,
Picachu is a recovering sex slave
wrote:

On Aug 27, 6:40 pm, Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
Sin Nombre wrote:



If you are concerned about offending people in alt.smokers, perhaps you
should just refrain from posting?

One can only go so far in trying to accommodate people. As we all saw,
this group was nearly empty when I stopped posting here for a few weeks.
This group's topic is smoking and that's what I will discuss here. I
won't discuss topics not related to smoking. You are certainly free to
engage me in discussion, or not. Its your choice.

Then you honestly BELIEVE that YOU are the keeper of the newsgroup?

No, but I do have a knack for encouraging discussion here.

On Aug 27, 6:46 pm, Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article om,
Picachu is a recovering sex slave





wrote:
On Aug 27, 6:40 pm, Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
Sin Nombre wrote:

If you are concerned about offending people in alt.smokers, perhaps you
should just refrain from posting?

One can only go so far in trying to accommodate people. As we all saw,
this group was nearly empty when I stopped posting here for a few weeks.
This group's topic is smoking and that's what I will discuss here. I
won't discuss topics not related to smoking. You are certainly free to
engage me in discussion, or not. Its your choice.

Then you honestly BELIEVE that YOU are the keeper of the newsgroup?

No, but I do have a knack for encouraging discussion here.

If others are examples that may be a mixed blessing!

Be the first on your block to demolish your block!

On Aug 27, 8:32 pm, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
wrote:
On Aug 27, 6:29 pm, Sin Nombre wrote:





Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
Sin Nombre wrote:

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
Bill Shatzer wrote:

lein wrote:

-snip-

And big tobacco/smokers are subsidizing your social security by dying
earlier and not collecting as much, if any, social security.

You could pay for a ****load of years on social security for the costs
of treating one lung cancer case. Or one case of chronic emphysema.

Smokers may go earlier but they tend to go much more expensively. Any
savings on the social security side tend to get more than offset on the
Medicare side.
Not to mention, that if the leave a child behind, the kid gets to
collected on his or her addicted parents' social security benefits.
You are right. I would have been better for that smoker to have had
control of his own money. Then he could have saved the money himself,
at a much higher rate of return. He would have had much more to leave
his children.

And on the flip side, he could have NOT paid into medicare or medicade.
He would have been responsible for his own health related bills. Thus
not effecting anyone else.

Your points are worthy of consideration, but since I wouldn't want to
offend anyone on alt.smokers by discussing a topic unrelated to smoking,
I won't bother.

If you are concerned about offending people in alt.smokers, perhaps you
should just refrain from posting?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If they wanna bitch and jam out newsgroup with syphilis and vomit
about smokey smelling bike helmets while leaving a topless bar, LET
THEM!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Aug 27, 8:32 pm, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
wrote:
On Aug 27, 6:29 pm, Sin Nombre wrote:





Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
Sin Nombre wrote:

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
Bill Shatzer wrote:

lein wrote:

-snip-

And big tobacco/smokers are subsidizing your social security by dying
earlier and not collecting as much, if any, social security.

You could pay for a ****load of years on social security for the costs
of treating one lung cancer case. Or one case of chronic emphysema.

Smokers may go earlier but they tend to go much more expensively. Any
savings on the social security side tend to get more than offset on the
Medicare side.
Not to mention, that if the leave a child behind, the kid gets to
collected on his or her addicted parents' social security benefits.
You are right. I would have been better for that smoker to have had
control of his own money. Then he could have saved the money himself,
at a much higher rate of return. He would have had much more to leave
his children.

And on the flip side, he could have NOT paid into medicare or medicade.
He would have been responsible for his own health related bills. Thus
not effecting anyone else.

Your points are worthy of consideration, but since I wouldn't want to
offend anyone on alt.smokers by discussing a topic unrelated to smoking,
I won't bother.

If you are concerned about offending people in alt.smokers, perhaps you
should just refrain from posting?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If they wanna bitch and jam out newsgroup with syphilis and vomit
about smokey smelling bike helmets while leaving a topless bar, LET
THEM!- Hide quoted text -

______________________________________________

Good Decisions from the troll. "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg

You wanna let em **** in your beer too?
wrote Bjorn back.

Would ya think that there are plenty of groups for them to do just
that.?
Or is that the Boise thing to do?

It just seem like Shame Him wants to red flag the bull.


Smokers kinda extract their pound of flesh ya know...
Read the group back if ya know how...


How many years has he been doing this?
tell us...

Tell us why we need to tolerate it any further.

"Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at Sea"

Writes in dissappearing ink on aioe.org
so we'll Keep you from being disolved...

On Aug 28, 5:23 pm, wrote:
On Aug 27, 8:32 pm, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"





wrote:
On Aug 27, 6:29 pm, Sin Nombre wrote:

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
Sin Nombre wrote:

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
Bill Shatzer wrote:

lein wrote:

-snip-

And big tobacco/smokers are subsidizing your social security by dying
earlier and not collecting as much, if any, social security.

You could pay for a ****load of years on social security for the costs
of treating one lung cancer case. Or one case of chronic emphysema.

Smokers may go earlier but they tend to go much more expensively. Any
savings on the social security side tend to get more than offset on the
Medicare side.
Not to mention, that if the leave a child behind, the kid gets to
collected on his or her addicted parents' social security benefits.
You are right. I would have been better for that smoker to have had
control of his own money. Then he could have saved the money himself,
at a much higher rate of return. He would have had much more to leave
his children.

And on the flip side, he could have NOT paid into medicare or medicade.
He would have been responsible for his own health related bills. Thus
not effecting anyone else.

Your points are worthy of consideration, but since I wouldn't want to
offend anyone on alt.smokers by discussing a topic unrelated to smoking,
I won't bother.

If you are concerned about offending people in alt.smokers, perhaps you
should just refrain from posting?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If they wanna bitch and jam out newsgroup with syphilis and vomit
about smokey smelling bike helmets while leaving a topless bar, LET
THEM!- Hide quoted text -

______________________________________________

Good Decisions from the troll. "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg

You wanna let em **** in your beer too?
wrote Bjorn back.

Would ya think that there are plenty of groups for them to do just
that.?
Or is that the Boise thing to do?

It just seem like Shame Him wants to red flag the bull.

Smokers kinda extract their pound of flesh ya know...
Read the group back if ya know how...

How many years has he been doing this?
tell us...

Tell us why we need to tolerate it any further.

"Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at Sea"

Writes in dissappearing ink on aioe.org
so we'll Keep you from being disolved...

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been here seven years on this ****ant network and I will die on
it and be buried in the middle of your phone line. No other
explanations will be offered and MY WORD IS FINAL ON IT.

Do they teach ANYTHING in school?

BTW I sing Karaoke in BARS? Shut the **** up.

On Aug 28, 8:56 pm, Picachu is a recovering sex slave
wrote:
On Aug 28, 5:23 pm, wrote:





On Aug 27, 8:32 pm, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"

wrote:
On Aug 27, 6:29 pm, Sin Nombre wrote:

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
Sin Nombre wrote:

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
Bill Shatzer wrote:

lein wrote:

-snip-

And big tobacco/smokers are subsidizing your social security by dying
earlier and not collecting as much, if any, social security.

You could pay for a ****load of years on social security for the costs
of treating one lung cancer case. Or one case of chronic emphysema.

Smokers may go earlier but they tend to go much more expensively. Any
savings on the social security side tend to get more than offset on the
Medicare side.
Not to mention, that if the leave a child behind, the kid gets to
collected on his or her addicted parents' social security benefits.
You are right. I would have been better for that smoker to have had
control of his own money. Then he could have saved the money himself,
at a much higher rate of return. He would have had much more to leave
his children.

And on the flip side, he could have NOT paid into medicare or medicade.
He would have been responsible for his own health related bills. Thus
not effecting anyone else.

Your points are worthy of consideration, but since I wouldn't want to
offend anyone on alt.smokers by discussing a topic unrelated to smoking,
I won't bother.

If you are concerned about offending people in alt.smokers, perhaps you
should just refrain from posting?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If they wanna bitch and jam out newsgroup with syphilis and vomit
about smokey smelling bike helmets while leaving a topless bar, LET
THEM!- Hide quoted text -

______________________________________________

Good Decisions from the troll. "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg

You wanna let em **** in your beer too?
wrote Bjorn back.

Would ya think that there are plenty of groups for them to do just
that.?
Or is that the Boise thing to do?

It just seem like Shame Him wants to red flag the bull.

Smokers kinda extract their pound of flesh ya know...
Read the group back if ya know how...

How many years has he been doing this?
tell us...

Tell us why we need to tolerate it any further.

"Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at Sea"

Writes in dissappearing ink on aioe.org
so we'll Keep you from being disolved...

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been here seven years on this ****ant network and I will die on
it and be buried in the middle of your phone line. No other
explanations will be offered and MY WORD IS FINAL ON IT.

Do they teach ANYTHING in school?

BTW I sing Karaoke in BARS? Shut the **** up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Hey That's great, fish.
Sounds good to me.
We'll welcome the moment.
Don't forget about the part where I shove
up your ass real good.

You wrap the line around your neck, and I' ll pull for you.
till the drink hearty.

Chuggmy_Juggawhizz




71.221.178.244
WHOIS - 71.221.167.129
Email link to resultsGenerated by www.DNSstuff.com


Location: United States [City: Boise, Idaho]


OrgName: Qwest Communications Corporation
OrgID: QCC-22
Address: 1801 California Street
City: Denver
StateProv: CO
PostalCode: 80202
Country: US

NetRange: 71.208.0.0 - 71.223.255.255
CIDR: 71.208.0.0/12
NetName: QWEST-INET-118
NetHandle: NET-71-208-0-0-1
Parent: NET-71-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: AUTHNS1.MPLS.QWEST.NET
NameServer: AUTHNS2.DNVR.QWEST.NET
NameServer: AUTHNS3.STTL.QWEST.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 2005-05-06
Updated: 2006-05-11

RAbuseHandle: QIA2-ARIN
RAbuseName: Qwest Abuse
RAbusePhone: +1-877-886-6515
RAbuseEmail:

RNOCHandle: QIN-ARIN
RNOCName: Qwest IP NOC
RNOCPhone: +1-877-886-6515
RNOCEmail:

RTechHandle: QIA-ARIN
RTechName: Qwest IP Admin
RTechPhone: +1-877-886-6515
RTechEmail:

OrgAbuseHandle: QIA2-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Qwest Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-877-886-6515
OrgAbuseEmail:

OrgNOCHandle: QIN-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Qwest IP NOC
OrgNOCPhone: +1-877-886-6515
OrgNOCEmail:

OrgTechHandle: QIA-ARIN
OrgTechName: Qwest IP Admin
OrgTechPhone: +1-877-886-6515
OrgTechEmail:

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-08-28 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database
GoMsendbots