If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Gotta keep it from The Children
"Tom Enright" wrote in message
m... 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. what, the 60s when he said it? :-D i don't think communists are an oppressed group overall, although they are in some quarters (much like people of any political persuasion). on a day-to-day basis, i don't think about communists at all, actually. and while i think i'm correct in surmising that you are an anti-communist, you are not correct in surmising that i am a communist or am pro-communist. where that came from is anybody's guess - goodness knows i'm not going to go there. 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? nooooooooo - i think i'm asking wtf are you fussing about my sig for. just to spell it out for you - it means (& just to reiterate, it has nothing to do with communism): speak out for others, even if you have nothing in common with them, otherwise the powers-that-be will take your silence for consent. if nobody speaks out, eventually there won't *be* anyone to speak out - they will all have been silenced one way or another. quite simple, really. kylie |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Gotta keep it from The Children
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:16:27 +1000, "0tterbot"
wrote: 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.) Actually, there is a number you can call and tell on people who throw them out their window. You receive your ticket in the mail. My SIL got busted once doing that. She has never thrown another butt out of her window. ==Daye== E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au moderator of the proposed group misc.kids.family-life |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|