"If a dog will not come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience."SteveShaw wrote:... (if I had a dog it would be .... dead).
--Woodrow Wilson
"If a dog will not come to me after having looked at me in the face, and not jump up and "playfully" put its muddy feet all up my jumper, nor foul my very shoes with its street-ordure, nor yet sh1t in my garden or bark all night, then a happy chappie I shall be." --Steve Shawscottielvr wrote:"If a dog will not come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience." --Woodrow WilsonSteveShaw wrote:... (if I had a dog it would be .... dead).
wink:
Dude! I am fine with smoking outside away from everyone. I prefer it. It makes an excellent excuse to leave off trying to make conversation for a few blessed minutes. I pick up my butts and put them in ziploc bags. I don't think people should have to breathe my smoke. So I don't blame you on that one.Martin Milner wrote:I can tell at one whiff if someone at work has had a cigarette in the last twenty minutes, and of course a couple of hours in a smoky pub session are slow torture. Roll on the day when the smokers are all dead and the rest of us can breathe untainted air again.
Fran Liebowitz wrote:I understand, of course, that many people find smoking objectionable. That is their right. I would, I assure you, be the very last to criticize the annoyed. I myself find many-- even most-- things objectionable. Being offended is the natural consequence of leaving one's home. I do not like aftershave lotion, adults who roller-skate, children who speak French, or anyone who is unduly tan. I do not, however, go around enacting legislation and putting up signs. In private I avoid such people; in public they have the run of the place. I stay at home as much as possible, and so should they. When it is necessary, however, to go out of the house, they must be prepared, as I am, to deal with the unpleasant personal habits of others. That is what "public" means.
Absolutely! Knowing that they themselves are sickly wussies, they have no right to impinge on the personal freedom of others. They exist at the goodwill of the majority, but are looking for trouble when they try to browbeat others with their weakness.Rod Sprague wrote:does that make someone who takes insulin a sissy and they should stop and not complain?
Fran Liebowitz is Goddess.Cynth wrote:As far as people stinking from smoking, well, that doesn't injure a person's health so I go along with Fran Liebowitz on that one ...
Amen.Cynth wrote:Dude! I am fine with smoking outside away from everyone. I prefer it. It makes an excellent excuse to leave off trying to make conversation for a few blessed minutes. I pick up my butts and put them in ziploc bags. I don't think people should have to breathe my smoke. So I don't blame you on that one.Martin Milner wrote:I can tell at one whiff if someone at work has had a cigarette in the last twenty minutes, and of course a couple of hours in a smoky pub session are slow torture. Roll on the day when the smokers are all dead and the rest of us can breathe untainted air again.
As far as people stinking from smoking, well, that doesn't injure a person's health so I go along with Fran Liebowitz on that one (although she was actually talking about the act of smoking, not just the remaining odor---so I don't go along with being able to smoke anywhere, just on being allowed to smell like a smoker without being given the death sentence ).
Fran Liebowitz wrote:I understand, of course, that many people find smoking objectionable. That is their right. I would, I assure you, be the very last to criticize the annoyed. I myself find many-- even most-- things objectionable. Being offended is the natural consequence of leaving one's home. I do not like aftershave lotion, adults who roller-skate, children who speak French, or anyone who is unduly tan. I do not, however, go around enacting legislation and putting up signs. In private I avoid such people; in public they have the run of the place. I stay at home as much as possible, and so should they. When it is necessary, however, to go out of the house, they must be prepared, as I am, to deal with the unpleasant personal habits of others. That is what "public" means.
djm wrote:Absolutely! Knowing that they themselves are sickly wussies, they have no right to impinge on the personal freedom of others. They exist at the goodwill of the majority, but are looking for trouble when they try to browbeat others with their weakness.Rod Sprague wrote:does that make someone who takes insulin a sissy and they should stop and not complain?
djm
There's another issue that even an aromatherapy is approached with a science based theory needs to address, how the essential oils used (derived from actual plant sources) affect those exposed to their scents as second hand aromatherapy.Rod Sprague wrote:I have no problem with aromatherapy done using sound theory, I just happen to agree that using arbitrary odors is a form of air pollution, especially if people are having allergic or other bad reactions to it. It sounds like calling the obnoxiously scented stuff aromatherapy products is a form of fraud, even if they can get away with it legally.
Are there farts without side-effects, favourable or otherwise?GaryKelly wrote:Kinda like a ƒart with side-effects?hyldemoer wrote:it suddenly becomes arbitrary and invasive to my innocent companions.
SteveShaw wrote: "If a dog will not come to me after having looked at me in the face, and not jump up and "playfully" put its muddy feet all up my jumper, nor foul my very shoes with its street-ordure, nor yet sh1t in my garden or bark all night, then a happy chappie I shall be." --Steve Shaw
: