Cellular phones topics - Your cellphones are more dangerous than my smoke

Author

Your cellphones are more dangerous than my smoke

VietnamVet49@Notmail.com

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

I am a smoker and I enjoy smoking. I have nothing against people who
prefer not to smoke, as long as they dont bug me about smoking. In
fact in many ways I admire people who have quit smoking and are able
to quit without getting all stressed out. But you anti-smokers who
want to preach to me about smoking better get out of my face. I dont
bug you about not smoking, nor do I bug you about eating junk food,
spitting on the sidewalk, being obese or anything else you do. My
business is MY business, as well as yours. If it were as simple as
that, I'd tell you to shutup, and the discussion would be ended. But
you anti-smokers are brainwashed about the second hand smoke bullshit.
And that is exactly what it is, bullshit! I'll give you the benefit
of the doubt that if a non smoker is in a completely smoke filled
room, such as some bars, you will be inhaling some smoke. But those
are extreme situations and you have the choice to leave and go
elsewhere where the smoke is not thick.

With that said, I am going to make MY point. If you are an
anti-smoker who wants to get in my face about second hand smoke, you
goddamn well better not pull a cell phone out of your pocket and start
yacking on it anywhere near me. You want to claim that my smoke is
harming your health, I got something to tell you about the radiation
coming from your cell phone, which is far more dangerous to myself and
everyone else near you, than my smoke. I don't normally bug people
about using cell phones near me, simply because I dont care to bug
other people about anything, just like I dont want others bugging me.
When someone uses a cell phone near me, I move away. But if you want
to get in my face because of my smoking you damn well will hear from
me about your damn cell phone. If I have to walk away from people
because they are using cell phones, then you better get the XXXX out
of my smoking space. And, go ahead and try to take the cigarette out
of my mouth and stamp on it. Come on, make my day. I guarantee you
will go home phoneless, unless you want to take home all the broken
phone pieces after I stomp it into the floor.

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com wrote:
> I am a smoker and I enjoy smoking. I have nothing against people who
> prefer not to smoke, as long as they dont bug me about smoking.

Cool, a troll.

> to quit without getting all stressed out. But you anti-smokers who
> want to preach to me about smoking better get out of my face.

I'm not going to preach. You have a right to smoke if you want to. (I'm a
non-smoker, btw.)

> With that said, I am going to make MY point. If you are an
> anti-smoker who wants to get in my face about second hand smoke, you
> goddamn well better not pull a cell phone out of your pocket and start
> yacking on it anywhere near me. You want to claim that my smoke is
> harming your health, I got something to tell you about the radiation
> coming from your cell phone,

Yep, I saw that coming a mile away.

For every study done that says cell phones do cause cancer, there's another
that says the opposite. No one's sure either way yet. OTOH, there's plenty of
evidence that says that smoking causes cancer.

> of my smoking space. And, go ahead and try to take the cigarette out
> of my mouth and stamp on it. Come on, make my day. I guarantee you
> will go home phoneless, unless you want to take home all the broken
> phone pieces after I stomp it into the floor.

We have some anger-management issues, hmmm?

Look. I've carried and used a cell phone every day for years, beginning in
early 1993. Twelve years... and a couple years ago I had a CAT scan done (not
relating to cancer; it was actually related to some sinus problems I've had).
I'm pretty sure they would have told me if they found any tumors...

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Steve O

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

< VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com> wrote in message
news:dej8811s7jb0743
bf9jp5ah30mp32bqjh4@
4ax.com...
>I am a smoker and I enjoy smoking.

Tell us what you enjoy about smoking.
Not the usuual stuff like, enjoying smoke rings, having time out, etc, but
what it is exactly which you enjoy so much about smoking that you are
prepared to put up all of the inconvenience and risk.
IOW, what makes it worth it?

> I have nothing against people who
> prefer not to smoke, as long as they dont bug me about smoking.

I really don't intend to bug you, I would like to know what it is you like
about it.
Explain it to me in the way you would explain it to someone who'd never
smoked before.

> In fact in many ways I admire people who have quit smoking and are able
> to quit without getting all stressed out.

Anyone is capable of quitting smoking without getting all stressed out.

> But you anti-smokers who
> want to preach to me about smoking better get out of my face. I dont
> bug you about not smoking, nor do I bug you about eating junk food,
> spitting on the sidewalk, being obese or anything else you do. My
> business is MY business, as well as yours. If it were as simple as
> that, I'd tell you to shutup, and the discussion would be ended. But
> you anti-smokers are brainwashed about the second hand smoke bullshit.
> And that is exactly what it is, bullshit! I'll give you the benefit
> of the doubt that if a non smoker is in a completely smoke filled
> room, such as some bars, you will be inhaling some smoke. But those
> are extreme situations and you have the choice to leave and go
> elsewhere where the smoke is not thick.
>
> With that said, I am going to make MY point. If you are an
> anti-smoker who wants to get in my face about second hand smoke, you
> goddamn well better not pull a cell phone out of your pocket and start
> yacking on it anywhere near me. You want to claim that my smoke is
> harming your health, I got something to tell you about the radiation
> coming from your cell phone, which is far more dangerous to myself and
> everyone else near you, than my smoke. I don't normally bug people
> about using cell phones near me, simply because I dont care to bug
> other people about anything, just like I dont want others bugging me.
> When someone uses a cell phone near me, I move away. But if you want
> to get in my face because of my smoking you damn well will hear from
> me about your damn cell phone. If I have to walk away from people
> because they are using cell phones, then you better get the XXXX out
> of my smoking space. And, go ahead and try to take the cigarette out
> of my mouth and stamp on it. Come on, make my day. I guarantee you
> will go home phoneless, unless you want to take home all the broken
> phone pieces after I stomp it into the floor.

You seem a little angry and stressed.
Looks like the smoking isn't working.

debs

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

last point it was just what I was thinking

debs
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ej725F3cq81U1@
individual.net...
>
> < VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com> wrote in message
> news:dej8811s7jb0743
bf9jp5ah30mp32bqjh4@
4ax.com...
>
> Tell us what you enjoy about smoking.
> Not the usuual stuff like, enjoying smoke rings, having time out, etc, but
> what it is exactly which you enjoy so much about smoking that you are
> prepared to put up all of the inconvenience and risk.
> IOW, what makes it worth it?
>
>
> I really don't intend to bug you, I would like to know what it is you like
> about it.
> Explain it to me in the way you would explain it to someone who'd never
> smoked before.
>
>
> Anyone is capable of quitting smoking without getting all stressed out.
>
>
> You seem a little angry and stressed.
> Looks like the smoking isn't working.
>
>
>

Cyrus Afzali

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Fri, 13 May 2005 01:52:49 -0500, VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com wrote:

>With that said, I am going to make MY point. If you are an
>anti-smoker who wants to get in my face about second hand smoke, you
>goddamn well better not pull a cell phone out of your pocket and start
>yacking on it anywhere near me. You want to claim that my smoke is
>harming your health, I got something to tell you about the radiation
>coming from your cell phone, which is far more dangerous to myself and
>everyone else near you, than my smoke. I don't normally bug people
>about using cell phones near me, simply because I dont care to bug
>other people about anything, just like I dont want others bugging me.
>When someone uses a cell phone near me, I move away. But if you want
>to get in my face because of my smoking you damn well will hear from
>me about your damn cell phone. If I have to walk away from people
>because they are using cell phones, then you better get the XXXX out
>of my smoking space. And, go ahead and try to take the cigarette out
>of my mouth and stamp on it. Come on, make my day. I guarantee you
>will go home phoneless, unless you want to take home all the broken
>phone pieces after I stomp it into the floor.

I normally don't make it a practice to follow-up to cowards who post
behind aliases. Nevertheless, you make a huge error when you compare
the 2. There have been many studies on cell phone radiation, and
there's still no conclusive evidence it causes any harm even to the
people who are using them -- much less people nearby.

You seem to have an issue with the rudeness frequently displayed by
cell phone users, and I agree.

That said, there have been countless studies that have proven
second-hand smoke to be dangerous. Frankly, the only reason we still
tolerate tobacco use in public at all is because too many palms are
greased by it.

I find it to be the ultimate hypocrisy that I have to consume alcohol
in my home or a licensed premise, even though that behavior won't give
anyone else exposure to carcinogens. Yet smokers can whiff stuff in
others' faces all the time and it's just supposed to go with the
territory.

ouroboros rex

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

< VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com> wrote in message
news:dej8811s7jb0743
bf9jp5ah30mp32bqjh4@
4ax.com...
>I am a smoker and I enjoy smoking. I have nothing against people who
> prefer not to smoke, as long as they dont bug me about smoking.

Fine, stay in the next room.

In
> fact in many ways I admire people who have quit smoking and are able
> to quit without getting all stressed out. But you anti-smokers who
> want to preach to me about smoking better get out of my face. I dont
> bug you about not smoking, nor do I bug you about eating junk food,
> spitting on the sidewalk, being obese or anything else you do. My
> business is MY business, as well as yours. If it were as simple as
> that, I'd tell you to shutup, and the discussion would be ended. But
> you anti-smokers are brainwashed about the second hand smoke bullshit.
> And that is exactly what it is, bullshit!

Simply a lie.

K Smythe

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:01:57 GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
wrote:

>On Fri, 13 May 2005 01:52:49 -0500, VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com wrote:
>
>
>I normally don't make it a practice to follow-up to cowards who post
>behind aliases.

Yah, okay Mr. Afzali.

> Nevertheless, you make a huge error when you compare
>the 2. There have been many studies on cell phone radiation, and
>there's still no conclusive evidence it causes any harm even to the
>people who are using them -- much less people nearby.

Nor is there conclusive evidence that SHS is harmful.

>
>You seem to have an issue with the rudeness frequently displayed by
>cell phone users, and I agree.

That seems to be the anti-smokers general complaint too.

They complain about "their air" being polluted, yet there are very few
places where people are actually exposed to SHS where they do not have
a choice.

>
>That said, there have been countless studies that have proven
>second-hand smoke to be dangerous.

No, there have not.

>Frankly, the only reason we still
>tolerate tobacco use in public at all is because too many palms are
>greased by it.

That's the same reason we tolerate mobile phones, but don't worry -
steps are being taken to limit their use too.

>
>I find it to be the ultimate hypocrisy that I have to consume alcohol
>in my home or a licensed premise, even though that behavior won't give
>anyone else exposure to carcinogens.

You can consume alcohol in a number of public places, most notably
bars.

>Yet smokers can whiff stuff in
>others' faces all the time and it's just supposed to go with the
>territory.

No, not really. There are non-smoking bars even in places without
smoking bans and laws already limit your risk of even catching a whiff
of tobacco smoke.

Cyrus Afzali

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:21:45 -0700, K Smythe <nospam@dev.null> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:01:57 GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
>wrote:

>
>Nor is there conclusive evidence that SHS is harmful.

Absolute, positive, total BS. Second-hand smoke is ingested into the
body just like the smoke is to someone who's intending to smoke.

If second-hand smoke wasn't harmful, it wouldn't have been classified
as a carcinogen:
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healthrisks.html
>
>
>That seems to be the anti-smokers general complaint too.

Cell phone use annoys, SHS damages my health.
>
>They complain about "their air" being polluted, yet there are very few
>places where people are actually exposed to SHS where they do not have
>a choice.
>
>
>No, there have not.

When you have the clout of people at leading health institutions in
the U.S., Canada and other places, I might take your opinion
seriously.
>
>
>That's the same reason we tolerate mobile phones, but don't worry -
>steps are being taken to limit their use too.

Absolutely not. Mobile phones are a tremendously valuable utility to
many people. And they can be used sensibly with no effect on anyone
else.
>
>
>You can consume alcohol in a number of public places, most notably
>bars.

You don't know what a licensed premise is, do you?
>
>
>
>No, not really. There are non-smoking bars even in places without
>smoking bans and laws already limit your risk of even catching a whiff
>of tobacco smoke.

I'm talking about exposure even in the open air. You try to follow
behind a smoker and not be subject to the crap. I'm all for what they
want to do, as long as it impacts only them. When I have to deal with
its effects, that's when the line has been crossed.

Notan

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

K Smythe wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> You can consume alcohol in a number of public places, most notably
> bars.

How does one have an intelligent conversation with someone
that doesn't know the difference between "public" and "open
to the public?"

One doesn't.

Notan

L Sternn

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:35:16 -0600, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:

>K Smythe wrote:
>
>How does one have an intelligent conversation with someone
>that doesn't know the difference between "public" and "open
>to the public?"
>

Ah, but you CAN consume alcohol in public in lots of places.

If you can't do so where you live, work to change the law.

I can walk down the street with a beer in my hand and it doesn't even
have to be in a paper bag. It's perfectly legal.

It's the anti-smokers who seem to wish to restrict smoking everywhere
INCLUDING in private homes.

>One doesn't.
>
>Notan

Notan

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

L Sternn wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:35:16 -0600, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ah, but you CAN consume alcohol in public in lots of places.
>
> If you can't do so where you live, work to change the law.
>
> I can walk down the street with a beer in my hand and it doesn't even
> have to be in a paper bag. It's perfectly legal.
>
> It's the anti-smokers who seem to wish to restrict smoking everywhere
> INCLUDING in private homes.

I've *never* heard of a non-smoker suggest that smoking be restricted
in private homes.

I think we all know where you pulled *that* one out of! <g>

Notan

L Sternn

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:30:51 -0600, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:

>L Sternn wrote:
>
>I've *never* heard of a non-smoker suggest that smoking be restricted
>in private homes.
>

Of course not. There is a difference between "non-smokers" and
"anti-smokers".

>I think we all know where you pulled *that* one out of! <g>
>

Ask an auntie

>Notan

Notan

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

L Sternn wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:30:51 -0600, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>
>
> Of course not. There is a difference between "non-smokers" and
> "anti-smokers".

OK, replace "non-smoker" with "anti-smoker."

I've still never heard that idea suggested.

Me thinks you're blowing smoke (pun intended).

Notan

VietnamVet49@Notmail.com

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Fri, 13 May 2005 18:16:36 GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
wrote:

>On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:21:45 -0700, K Smythe <nospam@dev.null> wrote:
>
>
>
>Absolute, positive, total BS. Second-hand smoke is ingested into the
>body just like the smoke is to someone who's intending to smoke.
>
>If second-hand smoke wasn't harmful, it wouldn't have been classified
>as a carcinogen:
>http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healthrisks.html
>
>Cell phone use annoys, SHS damages my health.
>
>When you have the clout of people at leading health institutions in
>the U.S., Canada and other places, I might take your opinion
>seriously.
>
>Absolutely not. Mobile phones are a tremendously valuable utility to
>many people. And they can be used sensibly with no effect on anyone
>else.
>
>You don't know what a licensed premise is, do you?
>
>I'm talking about exposure even in the open air. You try to follow
>behind a smoker and not be subject to the crap. I'm all for what they
>want to do, as long as it impacts only them. When I have to deal with
>its effects, that's when the line has been crossed.
>

While I clearly stated that a person is getting SHS in a smoky bar
(even though it's danger is questionable), you go on whining about
smoke in open air. Uhhhhhh, why are you following behind a smoker?
It sounds to me like you are trying to get a free nicotine high
without paying for a pack of smokes. Otherwise, dont follow them.
You have the choice. And if you want to talk about having to breathe
other people's smoke, I surely hope you do not drive a car. Car
exhaust is polluting everyone, and is far more dangerous than tobacco
smoke. And I hope you dont heat your home in winter or burn your
leaves in fall, because both of these create smoke that the rest of us
have to breathe. Maybe someone should call the police and have you
arrested the next time you start your car or turn on your furnace.
Both of those out out far more pollutants and are far more harmful
than tobacco smoke. Come to think of it, there are volcano's all
around the world that spew out all sorts of smoke. Maybe you should
sue God for allowing them !!! But guess what. Fire and thus the
resulting smoke is part of this world. The world was created by fire.
If a smoker is not burning his tobacco, some farmer will be burning
off his fields to get rid of weeds, and there will be smoke. While
smoking is not natural, and I do believe it is at least somewhat
harmful for the smoker, it's not the ultimate cause of cancer. What
is the cause is all the unnatural smoke pollutants in our environment,
such as car exhaust. If you want to breathe 100% pure air, I'm afraid
you are going to have to move to another planet, or else get yourself
an oxygen tank and mask. Things have been burning on this planet
since the beginning of time, and there was not all this cancer and
stuff until mankind developed all these chemicals that are now burned
in our cars and burned in garbage dumps and power plants and who know
where else.

As for the cell phone radiation, everyone keeps saying the radiation
health risks are not proven. Yet there have been studies done that
say it IS a risk. Of course well all know how much money these phone
companies have, and they got their lawyers who protect their
businesses, even if there is harmful radiation. It's the same way the
tobacco companies stay in business. That's just the way things work
in our society. Driving a car is risky too, so maybe they should
outlaw cars. If you dont think that cellphone radiation is dangerous,
stick your head in your microwave oven and turn it on for a minute.
It's the same difference, just works faster. Yes, people are rude
with the way they yell into their cellphones in public, and there are
times I'd like to take their phone and shove it up their bungholes.
But I have a choice to walk away. However, until I walk away, my body
tissues are being microwaved, and that is harmful to my health.
Just like a non-smoker, I dont own a cellphone and never will. Yet, I
have to accept other people's radiation with a smile, or walk away.
This is the same way I expect others to accept my smoke with a smile,
or walk away. The same way we all have to accept each other's car
exhaust, etc etc....

K Smythe

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com wrote:

> As for the cell phone radiation, everyone keeps saying the radiation
> health risks are not proven. Yet there have been studies done that
> say it IS a risk.

And there are just as many that say it ISN'T. Nothing conclusive has been produced.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

L Sternn wrote:

> I can walk down the street with a beer in my hand and it doesn't even
> have to be in a paper bag. It's perfectly legal.

Maybe where you live. Where I'm from (Ohio) and probably also where I live now
(California), open containers in public are illegal and can get you arrested.
(I'm not 100% sure about California, but I know that it's true in Ohio. I ought
to check about California.)

> It's the anti-smokers who seem to wish to restrict smoking everywhere
> INCLUDING in private homes.

Not the ones that I know. My wife gets physically sick if she is in a room with
any amount of smoke (due to allergies), so she doesn't hang out with smokers.
However, if you were to make that assertion to her she'd probably laugh at you.
We both feel that smoking is okay for others to do, just not around us - and I
don't believe any of my friends and acquaintances who don't smoke would be in
favor of such a ridiculous restriction on smoking. I don't smoke, but why
should I restrict what other people do in the privacy of their own homes?

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"K Smythe" <nospam@dev.null> wrote in message
news:iao981hbe7en2jh
lsfrss871t5gldondri@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:01:57 GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
> wrote:
>
>
> Yah, okay Mr. Afzali.

Narrow-minded attitude detected.

>
>
> Nor is there conclusive evidence that SHS is harmful.

So that means that it is safe?

>
>
> That seems to be the anti-smokers general complaint too.
>
> They complain about "their air" being polluted, yet there are very few
> places where people are actually exposed to SHS where they do not have
> a choice.

So a smoker is entitled to go anywhere and smoke, but I have to be the one
to make a choice if I don't want to be exposed to it? Sounds kind of
moronic to me.

>
>
> No, there have not.

Actually, yes there have.

>
>
> That's the same reason we tolerate mobile phones, but don't worry -
> steps are being taken to limit their use too.

So, what you are saying is that you approve of cell phones limits, but find
smoking limits to be unnecessary because they don't appeal to you.

>
>
> You can consume alcohol in a number of public places, most notably
> bars.
>
>
>
> No, not really. There are non-smoking bars even in places without
> smoking bans and laws already limit your risk of even catching a whiff
> of tobacco smoke.

And there are places that ban the use of cellphones. Problem solved- no
need for further controls. If you don't want to be bothered by cell phones,
you have a choice, just like non-smokers. Quit your childish whining and
play by the rules you expect everyone else to play by.

BTW- I smoked for over 20 years. None of your bullshit flies with me. I
know the direct effects.

>

K Smythe

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:39:04 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

> VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com wrote:
>
>
>And there are just as many that say it ISN'T. Nothing conclusive has been produced.

Much like the SHS studies

K Smythe

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:50:03 -0600, "SS" < nospam1336479852@wop
dj.net>
wrote:

>
>"K Smythe" <nospam@dev.null> wrote in message
> news:iao981hbe7en2jh
lsfrss871t5gldondri@
4ax.com...
>
>Narrow-minded attitude detected.

Actually, the narrow-mindedness seems to be on the part of Cyrus.

>
>
>
>So that means that it is safe?

No. Are you incapable of understanding simple English?

>
>
>So a smoker is entitled to go anywhere and smoke, but I have to be the one
>to make a choice if I don't want to be exposed to it? Sounds kind of
>moronic to me.
>

Well of course it does, because you have twisted my words.

Tell us where you go where you encounter smoke?

The only place I can think of where this is likely to happen is a bar.

If you don't like bars that allow smoking, find one that doesn't.
They exist even in places where it has not been legislated.

>
>Actually, yes there have.

Exactly zero.

>
>
>So, what you are saying is that you approve of cell phones limits, but find
>smoking limits to be unnecessary because they don't appeal to you.

That all depends on who is doing the limiting.

I have no problem with business owners prohibiting cell phones or
smoking in their establishments.

The "don't worry" bit was a bit of sarcasm of course, because in some
cases, the gov't is mandating it, just as some politicians are even
now attempting to ban smoking while driving (even if there are no
passengers and the car is privately owned and operated).

>
>
>And there are places that ban the use of cellphones. Problem solved- no
>need for further controls.

That's pretty much been my point all along. As long as the free
market rules the day, the only thing left to do is "vote" with your
wallet.

>If you don't want to be bothered by cell phones,
>you have a choice, just like non-smokers. Quit your childish whining and
>play by the rules you expect everyone else to play by.

Actually, cell phones don't really bother me at all.

>
>BTW- I smoked for over 20 years. None of your bullshit flies with me. I
>know the direct effects.

Oh well - I've smoked for over 20 years and I am aware of the direct
effects too.

I've never claimed that smoking was "safe", so I'm not sure what
"bullshit" you're referring to.

>
>

Robert Wagner

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:32:00 -0500, VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com wrote:

>As for the cell phone radiation, everyone keeps saying the radiation
>health risks are not proven. Yet there have been studies done that
>say it IS a risk. Of course well all know how much money these phone
>companies have, and they got their lawyers who protect their
>businesses, even if there is harmful radiation. It's the same way the
>tobacco companies stay in business. That's just the way things work
>in our society. Driving a car is risky too, so maybe they should
>outlaw cars. If you dont think that cellphone radiation is dangerous,
>stick your head in your microwave oven and turn it on for a minute.
>It's the same difference, just works faster.

Do you understand the concept of dosage? A microwave oven emits
hundreds of watts, at a frequency (2.45 GHz) specially tuned to affect
water and fat. A cellphone emits .2 watt at a frequency (1.9 GHz) that
isn't absorbed by all that water in your brain.

If you're so upset by microwaves, consider shooting down communication
satellites, blowing up radar sites, outlawing wireless LAN such as
IEEE 802.11g and Bluetooth (avoid airport terminals, hotel lobbies and
Starbucks), banning leaky CATV coax and cellphone relay stations. They
all operate in the 2GHz band.

Is there a newsgroup alt.luddite better suited to such nescience?

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

K Smythe wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:39:04 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Much like the SHS studies

So why are the people arguing the "smoking's ok, cell use sucks" side ignoring
that?

*snif*snif* I smell a troll... either that, or someone just felt the need to
stop by alt.cellular and vent.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Mij Adyaw

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

Here is my two cents:

Smokers should be banned from smoking in public whether in buildings or on
city sidewalks, parks, or any other outdoor environment. We should not have
to be subjected to breathing their second hand smoke. I would only allow
them to smoke on their own property or in their own cars and would fine them
$5000 for throwing a cigarette out the window. The cigarette companies
should come up with a self-contained hood that goes over the head of a
smoker like an astronaut suit. It would keep all of the smoke in and force
it down the smoker's lungs so that there will be no second hand smoke. The
smoker would really get his money's worth from a pack of cigarettes because
there would be no waste as second hand smoke. That is the real solution if
someone would please invent it. All smokers would be required to wear the
smoker's suit and therefore there would be no need for smoking bans because
all of the smoke would go into the smoker's lungs and none would escape as
second hand smoke. Good idea huh?

-mij

< VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com> wrote in message
news:fiu981p632cn83q
julggajkrflpp388cf1@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 18:16:36 GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
> wrote:
>
>
> While I clearly stated that a person is getting SHS in a smoky bar
> (even though it's danger is questionable), you go on whining about
> smoke in open air. Uhhhhhh, why are you following behind a smoker?
> It sounds to me like you are trying to get a free nicotine high
> without paying for a pack of smokes. Otherwise, dont follow them.
> You have the choice. And if you want to talk about having to breathe
> other people's smoke, I surely hope you do not drive a car. Car
> exhaust is polluting everyone, and is far more dangerous than tobacco
> smoke. And I hope you dont heat your home in winter or burn your
> leaves in fall, because both of these create smoke that the rest of us
> have to breathe. Maybe someone should call the police and have you
> arrested the next time you start your car or turn on your furnace.
> Both of those out out far more pollutants and are far more harmful
> than tobacco smoke. Come to think of it, there are volcano's all
> around the world that spew out all sorts of smoke. Maybe you should
> sue God for allowing them !!! But guess what. Fire and thus the
> resulting smoke is part of this world. The world was created by fire.
> If a smoker is not burning his tobacco, some farmer will be burning
> off his fields to get rid of weeds, and there will be smoke. While
> smoking is not natural, and I do believe it is at least somewhat
> harmful for the smoker, it's not the ultimate cause of cancer. What
> is the cause is all the unnatural smoke pollutants in our environment,
> such as car exhaust. If you want to breathe 100% pure air, I'm afraid
> you are going to have to move to another planet, or else get yourself
> an oxygen tank and mask. Things have been burning on this planet
> since the beginning of time, and there was not all this cancer and
> stuff until mankind developed all these chemicals that are now burned
> in our cars and burned in garbage dumps and power plants and who know
> where else.
>
> As for the cell phone radiation, everyone keeps saying the radiation
> health risks are not proven. Yet there have been studies done that
> say it IS a risk. Of course well all know how much money these phone
> companies have, and they got their lawyers who protect their
> businesses, even if there is harmful radiation. It's the same way the
> tobacco companies stay in business. That's just the way things work
> in our society. Driving a car is risky too, so maybe they should
> outlaw cars. If you dont think that cellphone radiation is dangerous,
> stick your head in your microwave oven and turn it on for a minute.
> It's the same difference, just works faster. Yes, people are rude
> with the way they yell into their cellphones in public, and there are
> times I'd like to take their phone and shove it up their bungholes.
> But I have a choice to walk away. However, until I walk away, my body
> tissues are being microwaved, and that is harmful to my health.
> Just like a non-smoker, I dont own a cellphone and never will. Yet, I
> have to accept other people's radiation with a smile, or walk away.
> This is the same way I expect others to accept my smoke with a smile,
> or walk away. The same way we all have to accept each other's car
> exhaust, etc etc....
>
>
>
>

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

Mij Adyaw wrote:

> smoker's suit and therefore there would be no need for smoking bans because
> all of the smoke would go into the smoker's lungs and none would escape as
> second hand smoke. Good idea huh?

Don't you think that's a little.... extreme?

(Or were you being sarcastic?)

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Mij Adyaw

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

No. It is necessary to protect the health of the individuals that the smoker
does not care about.

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:d63es8$cgt$1@ra
tbert.glorb.com...
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
>
> Don't you think that's a little.... extreme?
>
> (Or were you being sarcastic?)
>
> --
> JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
>
> "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
> --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> No. It is necessary to protect the health of the individuals that the smoker
> does not care about.

If cigarette smoke was so pervasive that your measures would be required, my
wife (who, as I mentioned upthread, is allergic to cigarette smoke) would get
violently ill whenever she walked into a public place.

Since that doesn't happen, I'm forced to conclude that your steps to curb SHS
are not necessary.

I'm not saying SHS isn't a problem; just that it's not so much of a problem
that we need smokers to wear spacesuits in public. :P

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

PRSmith

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com wrote:
> But you anti-smokers are brainwashed about
> the second hand smoke bullshit. And that is exactly what it
> is, bullshit!

Your opinion is noted -- and rejected.

> Come on, make my day. I guarantee you will
> go home phoneless, unless you want to take home all the broken
> phone pieces after I stomp it into the floor.

Watch it, guys. Tough guy talking {smirk}.

VietnamVet49@Notmail.com

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Fri, 13 May 2005 23:20:51 GMT, Robert Wagner
<spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:32:00 -0500, VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com wrote:
>
>
>
>Do you understand the concept of dosage? A microwave oven emits
>hundreds of watts, at a frequency (2.45 GHz) specially tuned to affect
>water and fat. A cellphone emits .2 watt at a frequency (1.9 GHz) that
>isn't absorbed by all that water in your brain.
>
>If you're so upset by microwaves, consider shooting down communication
>satellites, blowing up radar sites, outlawing wireless LAN such as
>IEEE 802.11g and Bluetooth (avoid airport terminals, hotel lobbies and
>Starbucks), banning leaky CATV coax and cellphone relay stations. They
>all operate in the 2GHz band.
>
>Is there a newsgroup alt.luddite better suited to such nescience?
>

Well, you ALMOST made the connection. In theory, what you are saying
is that the radiation from a cell phone compered to a microwave oven
is very minimal. However, it is in a similar frequency range. So,
instead of boiling a cup of water in one minute, it would take days if
not weeks. So, if you stuck your hand in the microwave, it would
destroy all the cells in your hand in a minute or so. But, in effect
a cell phone is then only destroying one or two cells at a time.

Is this not about the same as second hand smoke. The person actually
inhaling on the cigarette is getting the "microwave effect", or full
effect of the smoke. The SHS is only a very tiny amount, just like
the "cellphone effect".

Thus my original message comes back to life.
If people want to bug me about my SHS possibly hurting one cell in
their lungs, I have a valid excuse to complain about their phone
possibly harming one cell in my body.
Expose a non-smoker to cig smoke every day, 24 hours a day, and they
may actually develop an illness from the SHS. Expose a person to
cellphone radiation every day, and they may lose enough cells to cause
illness.

If a non-smoker sits in a smoky bar for hours each day, even I (as a
smoker) agree that the smoke will at least cause them to cough.
Expose a non-cellphone user to other people's cellphones everywhere
they go, in stores, at work, outdoors, at public events, etc. And
those phones WILL have an effect on others.

,,,,, It's one in the same ,,,,,

VietnamVet49@Notmail.com

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

L Sternn

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:30:59 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>K Smythe wrote:
>
>So why are the people arguing the "smoking's ok, cell use sucks" side ignoring
>that?

Can you identify those people?

I thought not.

Have a good day and leave (those with an ounce of sense) us alone.

>
>*snif*snif* I smell a troll... either that, or someone just felt the need to
>stop by alt.cellular and vent.

L Sternn

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:47:57 -0600, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:

>
>OK, replace "non-smoker" with "anti-smoker."
>
>I've still never heard that idea suggested.
>
>Me thinks you're blowing smoke (pun intended).

Sorry but they have.

You need to decide whether or not you're going to approach smoking
rationally, or whether you're going to approach it irrationaly.

If a bar wants to ban smoking, so be it - that is their right,

I the gov't wants to ban smoking, that is a perversion of the free
market.

L Sternn

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 87
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 23:37:10 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.230.124.46
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net
X-Trace: fed1read07 1116052621 68.230.124.46 (Sat, 14 May 2005 02:37:01 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 02:37:01 EDT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.smokers:374545 alt.cellular:176548 alt.quit.smoking.support:65176

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:43:42 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>L Sternn wrote:
>
>
>Maybe where you live. Where I'm from (Ohio)

Say no more you pitiful putrid cesspool.

> and probably also where I live now
>(California),

Ah, California - the only place that makes Canada look good.

> open containers in public are illegal and can get you arrested.

Oh my - he's drinking a beer - he must be a criminal.

Do you have any idea how stupid that is?

Fortunately, in most places you can walk down the street with whatever
kind of alcoholic beverage you like.

>(I'm not 100% sure about California,

Nobody's sure about California.

>but I know that it's true in Ohio. I ought
>to check about California.)

Ohio - what a state.

Ever heard that Neil Young song about you?

Rest assured, we (Patriotic Americans) will NEVER forget Kent State.

I'll also never forget my own experiences in Ohio.

You morons make West Virginia look sophisticated.

>
>
>Not the ones that I know.

you probably know very few if any "anti-smokers".

> My wife gets physically sick if she is in a room with
>any amount of smoke (due to allergies),

Darwin, baby!

>so she doesn't hang out with smokers.

Very good! She's learned not to frequent places where she will be
exposed to smoke.

If only the rest of you morons could figure that out.

>However, if you were to make that assertion to her she'd probably laugh at you.

Sorry, but I don't give a shit about the opinion of some whore who
consented to marry you.

>We both feel that smoking is okay for others to do, just not around us - and I
>don't believe any of my friends and acquaintances who don't smoke would be in
>favor of such a ridiculous restriction on smoking. I don't smoke, but why
>should I restrict what other people do in the privacy of their own homes?

Hey, that's what's being put on the table.

Don''t shoot the messenger, you XXXXing moron!

Your Name Here

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On 12 May 2005, wrote:

> I am a smoker and I enjoy smoking. I have nothing against people who
> prefer not to smoke, as long as they dont bug me about smoking. In
> fact in many ways I admire people who have quit smoking and are able
> to quit without getting all stressed out. But you anti-smokers who
> want to preach to me about smoking better get out of my face. I dont
> bug you about not smoking, nor do I bug you about eating junk food,
> spitting on the sidewalk, being obese or anything else you do. My
> business is MY business, as well as yours. If it were as simple as
> that, I'd tell you to shutup, and the discussion would be ended. But
> you anti-smokers are brainwashed about the second hand smoke bullshit.
> And that is exactly what it is, bullshit! I'll give you the benefit
> of the doubt that if a non smoker is in a completely smoke filled
> room, such as some bars, you will be inhaling some smoke. But those
> are extreme situations and you have the choice to leave and go
> elsewhere where the smoke is not thick.
>
> With that said, I am going to make MY point. If you are an
> anti-smoker who wants to get in my face about second hand smoke, you
> goddamn well better not pull a cell phone out of your pocket and start
> yacking on it anywhere near me. You want to claim that my smoke is
> harming your health, I got something to tell you about the radiation
> coming from your cell phone, which is far more dangerous to myself and
> everyone else near you, than my smoke. I don't normally bug people
> about using cell phones near me, simply because I dont care to bug
> other people about anything, just like I dont want others bugging me.
> When someone uses a cell phone near me, I move away. But if you want
> to get in my face because of my smoking you damn well will hear from
> me about your damn cell phone. If I have to walk away from people
> because they are using cell phones, then you better get the XXXX out
> of my smoking space. And, go ahead and try to take the cigarette out
> of my mouth and stamp on it. Come on, make my day. I guarantee you
> will go home phoneless, unless you want to take home all the broken
> phone pieces after I stomp it into the floor.

This is class warfare.

Smokers: rural, working class, non-cell-phone using.
Used to bar fights.

Cell phone users: urban, more professional, non-smoking.
Find bar-fight type challenges laughable.

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

< VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com> wrote in message
news:ug2b81p10omra7j
u9cbskvs9g01ap9c106@
4ax.com...

>
> Well, you ALMOST made the connection. In theory, what you are saying
> is that the radiation from a cell phone compered to a microwave oven
> is very minimal. However, it is in a similar frequency range. So,
> instead of boiling a cup of water in one minute, it would take days if
> not weeks. So, if you stuck your hand in the microwave, it would
> destroy all the cells in your hand in a minute or so. But, in effect
> a cell phone is then only destroying one or two cells at a time.
>
> Is this not about the same as second hand smoke. The person actually
> inhaling on the cigarette is getting the "microwave effect", or full
> effect of the smoke. The SHS is only a very tiny amount, just like
> the "cellphone effect".
>
> Thus my original message comes back to life.
> If people want to bug me about my SHS possibly hurting one cell in
> their lungs, I have a valid excuse to complain about their phone
> possibly harming one cell in my body.
> Expose a non-smoker to cig smoke every day, 24 hours a day, and they
> may actually develop an illness from the SHS. Expose a person to
> cellphone radiation every day, and they may lose enough cells to cause
> illness.
>
> If a non-smoker sits in a smoky bar for hours each day, even I (as a
> smoker) agree that the smoke will at least cause them to cough.
> Expose a non-cellphone user to other people's cellphones everywhere
> they go, in stores, at work, outdoors, at public events, etc. And
> those phones WILL have an effect on others.

Actually, no they will not, as the need for extremely close contact is
needed for any of this to possibly happen. And unlike SHS, multiple phone
users in close proximity do not saturate the air with anything but noise-
the close proximity is still needed.

I've sat in a smoke-filled room many times, as well as around many cell
phones. I've always come away smelling like a cigarette in the first case,
but never like a cell phone in the second.

>
> ,,,,, It's one in the same ,,,,,
>

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

< VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com> wrote in message
news:7s3b811ou3dfmg7
pf7ag7095a85nao0vme@
4ax.com...

>
> Here is some good info about SHS. YOU be the judge.
> http://www.davehitt.com/facts
>
>
>

Yep, you're right. They say the same things now about SHS they use to say
about :

DDT
Agent Orange
Asbestos
Mercury

Glad to see we learned from those.

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message
news:e36b81plll8btpl
alf1raho5lumtuhhrcd@
4ax.com...

>
> Sorry but they have.
>
> You need to decide whether or not you're going to approach smoking
> rationally, or whether you're going to approach it irrationaly.
>
>
> If a bar wants to ban smoking, so be it - that is their right,
>
> I the gov't wants to ban smoking, that is a perversion of the free
> market.

But in order to be rational about this discussion, you have to be able to
substitute words for "smoking" in the past two statements and still agree.
Words like

pornography
heroin
gambling
nudity

If you are unable to use all of those words with conviction in the last two
sentences, the rationality of your discussion comes under suspicion.

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message
news:mh6b811inuo2mn0
o500gmjempmpgm8j7ml@
4ax.com...

<snip the low IQ response to Steve>

Thank you for showing us your true mentality in your last response. All I
needed was a little banjo music in the background to make the setting
complete. BTW- cousins are already kin.

Notan

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

SS wrote:
>
> "L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message
> news:e36b81plll8btpl
alf1raho5lumtuhhrcd@
4ax.com...
>
>
> But in order to be rational about this discussion, you have to be able to
> substitute words for "smoking" in the past two statements and still agree.
> Words like
>
> pornography
> heroin
> gambling
> nudity
>
> If you are unable to use all of those words with conviction in the last two
> sentences, the rationality of your discussion comes under suspicion.

Somewhere, the word "public" has to be incorporated.

As far as I'm concerned, what one does in the privacy of ones home,
or in places designated for that specific action, are that persons
business. In addition to smoking, if you want to sit around naked,
shooting up heroin, while gambling and watching porn, go for it.

While I might not enjoy hearing about it, it's your business.

But, if those things are done in public, it becomes (partially)
my business.

Notan

Robert Wagner

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:33:13 -0500, VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com wrote:

>On Fri, 13 May 2005 23:20:51 GMT, Robert Wagner
><spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>Well, you ALMOST made the connection. In theory, what you are saying
>is that the radiation from a cell phone compered to a microwave oven
>is very minimal. However, it is in a similar frequency range. So,
>instead of boiling a cup of water in one minute, it would take days if
>not weeks. So, if you stuck your hand in the microwave, it would
>destroy all the cells in your hand in a minute or so. But, in effect
>a cell phone is then only destroying one or two cells at a time.

A cup of water exposed to cellphone radiation would never boil. The
slight heat gain caused by radiation would dissipate to the
environment faster than it's coming in, according to the second law of
thermodynamics.

If someone poked your arm with his finger every minute for a twenty
years, it wouldn't punch a hole in your skin. A bullet moving at 1,000
ft/sec would make a hole. A researcher might add up the cumulative
energy in finger pokes and find it is several times higher than the
energy carried by the bullet. Why does speed make a difference?

High-frequency radiation causes molecular damage by splitting water
molecules into free radicals (ions) of O and H. Waves with frequency
above visible light (500 GHz) are ionizing; those below the frequency
of light, such as microwaves, are non-ionizing. That's ONE reason you
can't measure risk by watts alone.

Some scientists postulate that, although radio-frequency waves do not
cause cancer directly by modifying genes or delivering radicals, they
'stress' proteins so as to promote the action of natural carcinogens.
This is in dispute. Even if true, the dose/response (Q factor) of
non-ionizing waves is sure to be below the weakest ionizing ones:
alpha particles.

>Is this not about the same as second hand smoke. The person actually
>inhaling on the cigarette is getting the "microwave effect", or full
>effect of the smoke. The SHS is only a very tiny amount, just like
>the "cellphone effect".
>
>Thus my original message comes back to life.
>If people want to bug me about my SHS possibly hurting one cell in
>their lungs, I have a valid excuse to complain about their phone
>possibly harming one cell in my body.

Good analogy. It shows why both fears are irrational.

>If a non-smoker sits in a smoky bar for hours each day, even I (as a
>smoker) agree that the smoke will at least cause them to cough.
>Expose a non-cellphone user to other people's cellphones everywhere
>they go, in stores, at work, outdoors, at public events, etc. And
>those phones WILL have an effect on others.

>,,,, It's one in the same ,,,,,

The 'assaults' of background radiation, sunlight, airborne
hydrocarbons, dust, etc. have been present since life began, a
billion years ago. Our bodies are designed to handle them in small
doses.

But we're not designed to live at 30,000 feet, where cosmic rays
average 1.6 watts (1.6 Joules/s). An hour in an airplane exposes you
to the same energy as 16 hours talking on a cellphone (assuming it
transmits 50% of the time), but the biological risk is many times
higher because high-energy protons are ionizing whereas radio waves
aren't. During sunspot flares, the cosmic ray level increases 20
times.

Suppose an employer required workers to take a chest X-ray every day.
Most people would consider that an outrageous exposure to radiation,
and gladly vote for a law banning the practice. They don't realize
airline pilots and flight attendants are exposed every day to that
much radiation -- about 70 micro Sieverts (uSv). If you think that's
bad, a CAT scan delivers 40,000 uSv.

Why aren't they worried? Because the dose required to increase the
risk of cancer by 1% is 250,000 uSv. Hypothetically, if a cellphone
transmitted alpha particles, an hour on a cellphone would deliver .1
uSv. You'd have to spend 287 years on the hypothetical cellphone,
talking 24 hours/day, to increase the risk of cancer 1%. Because real
cellphones don't cause ionization, my common sense says their danger
should be lower.

Reference:
http://hypertextbook.com/physics/modern/radiobiology/
http://www.emraa.org.au/mobphones/DrFrench.htm

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:42861EC8.5864639E@ddress.com...

>
> Somewhere, the word "public" has to be incorporated.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, what one does in the privacy of ones home,
> or in places designated for that specific action, are that persons
> business. In addition to smoking, if you want to sit around naked,
> shooting up heroin, while gambling and watching porn, go for it.
>
> While I might not enjoy hearing about it, it's your business.
>
> But, if those things are done in public, it becomes (partially)
> my business.
>

Absolutely agreed. My point was that in making those statements, you need
to show it as a global philosophy, not a mypoic statement to bolster a
single argument.

Notan

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

SS wrote:
>
> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> news:42861EC8.5864639E@ddress.com...
>
>
> Absolutely agreed. My point was that in making those statements, you need
> to show it as a global philosophy, not a mypoic statement to bolster a
> single argument.

Apparently, great minds *do* think alike! <g>

Notan

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"SS" < nospam1336479852@wop
dj.net> wrote in message
news:2NednWQcM98DvBv
fRVn-iA@adelphia.com...
>

>
> Absolutely agreed. My point was that in making those statements, you need
> to show it as a global philosophy, not a mypoic statement to bolster a
> single argument.
>
>

Two points of clarification to my last post. First, I'm not accusing Notan
of making those statements. Second, if you read the statements made, the
first instance is a public place- a bar.

L Sternn

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Fri, 13 May 2005 17:00:34 -0700, "Mij Adyaw" <mijadyaw@nospam.net>
wrote:

>Here is my two cents:
>
>Smokers should be banned from smoking in public whether in buildings or on
>city sidewalks, parks, or any other outdoor environment. We should not have
>to be subjected to breathing their second hand smoke. I would only allow
>them to smoke on their own property or in their own cars and would fine them
>$5000 for throwing a cigarette out the window.

But you'd leave fines for littering other types of garbage as they
are?

That doesn't seem right. Litter is litter, but most of the litter you
see is not smoking-related.

> The cigarette companies
>should come up with a self-contained hood that goes over the head of a
>smoker like an astronaut suit. It would keep all of the smoke in and force
>it down the smoker's lungs so that there will be no second hand smoke. The
>smoker would really get his money's worth from a pack of cigarettes because
>there would be no waste as second hand smoke. That is the real solution if
>someone would please invent it. All smokers would be required to wear the
>smoker's suit and therefore there would be no need for smoking bans because
>all of the smoke would go into the smoker's lungs and none would escape as
>second hand smoke. Good idea huh?

No.

>
>-mij
>
>
>
>< VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com> wrote in message
> news:fiu981p632cn83q
julggajkrflpp388cf1@
4ax.com...
>

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

L Sternn wrote:

> Can you identify those people?

Yes. Everyone posting to this thread who is pointing to the studies about cell
phone radiation and saying "Look at what they say!" is ignoring the point I
originally made (for every study saying yes, there's another one saying no). Go
back and re-read.

> Have a good day and leave (those with an ounce of sense) us alone.

You guys started the discussion and brought it here. Someone who is,
apparently, irritated that he's not allowed to smoke in many public places,
decided to come here and rant about cell phone usage.

No one forced you to post to alt.cellular. I hang out in alt.cellular. Sorry if
my opinions offend you.

I'm actually trying to be objective about this. I even share some of the
outrage about smoking being banned in a lot of places. Just because I don't
smoke doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to, as long as your smoking doesn't
adversely affect my health.

I don't expect everyone to be objective, but I do expect everyone to read what
was said previously in this thread. Your question could have been answered
easily by just going back and reading the other posts more carefully.

If you don't want me to be a part of this thread, don't crosspost future
replies into alt.cellular. If you do continue to crosspost, don't whine when I
reply to you.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

L Sternn

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Sat, 14 May 2005 09:44:59 -0600, "SS" < nospam1336479852@wop
dj.net>
wrote:

>
>"L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message
> news:e36b81plll8btpl
alf1raho5lumtuhhrcd@
4ax.com...
>
>
>But in order to be rational about this discussion, you have to be able to
>substitute words for "smoking" in the past two statements and still agree.
>Words like
>
>pornography
>heroin
>gambling
>nudity
>
>If you are unable to use all of those words with conviction in the last two
>sentences, the rationality of your discussion comes under suspicion.
>

What a crock of shit.

cigarettes are not pornography, nor heroin, nor gambling, nor nudity.

And FWIW, most places allow 3 out of 4 of those things in private
businesses.

L Sternn

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

On Sat, 14 May 2005 09:40:45 -0600, "SS" < nospam1336479852@wop
dj.net>
wrote:

>
>< VietnamVet49@Notmail
.com> wrote in message
> news:7s3b811ou3dfmg7
pf7ag7095a85nao0vme@
4ax.com...
>
>
>Yep, you're right. They say the same things now about SHS they use to say
>about :
>
>DDT
>Agent Orange
>Asbestos
>Mercury
>
>Glad to see we learned from those.
>

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

L Sternn wrote:

> You need to decide whether or not you're going to approach smoking
> rationally, or whether you're going to approach it irrationaly.

Well, gee, I'm trying to be rational and objective, and you're still getting
pissy with me...

> If a bar wants to ban smoking, so be it - that is their right,
>
> I the gov't wants to ban smoking, that is a perversion of the free
> market.

No rights are ever guaranteed. Even the Constitutional rights we share in the
US are limited... everyone likes to forget that they are granted based on us
not infringing on others' rights. And the rights granted to businesses are
typically MORE restrictive than individual rights.

And at least in this country, the whole smoking/non-smoking debate boils down
to the smokers' rights to enjoy nicotine vs. the non-smokers' rights to be able
to avoid it.

(I don't know if you live in the US. If not, a similar concept probably exists
where you live, especially if you live in Western Europe.)

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

L Sternn wrote:

>
> Say no more you pitiful putrid cesspool.

Ah, but *we're* supposed to be rational. Riiiiight. You're obviously making a
rational statement right there. :)

> Oh my - he's drinking a beer - he must be a criminal.
>
> Do you have any idea how stupid that is?

Maybe it is. The point was that it ISN'T perfectly legal everywhere. The
statement doesn't work as a blanket statement. If you want, I'm sure I could
find other places where it's not legal too.

> Ohio - what a state.
> Ever heard that Neil Young song about you?
> Rest assured, we (Patriotic Americans) will NEVER forget Kent State.

I am very familiar with the song. The local radio stations in Northeast Ohio
play it every May 4th, in memory of the protesters that died.

Of course, if you're going to blame someone, instead of blaming everyone who
lives or has lived in the state since that day, you might want to blame the
person who sent the National Guard in when the personnel going in were
obviously not well-equipped to handle the situation. That'd be Governor Rhodes.

*SOMETHING* had to be done (unless you think that setting fire to buildings is
ok). But the situation was horribly, horribly mis-handled.

But that's ok - I'm sure you and your buddy the OP must think that everyone
living in Ohio condones what happened that day. Yeah, THAT'S the kind of
critical thinking America needs more of!

> I'll also never forget my own experiences in Ohio.
> You morons make West Virginia look sophisticated.

Hm, another blanket statement. Ohio's got a lot of different areas, from rural
Southeast Ohio (part of Appalachia) to the bigger cities, to small farming
communities. I'm sorry you had a bad experience there, but judging from your
tone, it's probably because you went in with a shitty attitude in the first place.

> Sorry, but I don't give a shit about the opinion of some whore who
> consented to marry you.

*pat on the head*

It's okay, Bunky, go take your meds and you'll be just fine. :)

>
> Hey, that's what's being put on the table.
>
> Don''t shoot the messenger, you XXXXing moron!

I wonder how you would have reacted if I didn't partially agree with you. Man,
then you'd REALLY be pissed. :)

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

Your Name Here wrote:

> This is class warfare.
>
> Smokers: rural, working class, non-cell-phone using.
> Used to bar fights.
>
> Cell phone users: urban, more professional, non-smoking.
> Find bar-fight type challenges laughable.

Uhhhhh....

Those generalizations are almost as bad as the ones Sternn was making...

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Norm

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

L Sternn wrote:

>
> But you'd leave fines for littering other types of garbage as they
> are?
>
> That doesn't seem right. Litter is litter, but most of the litter you
> see is not smoking-related.
>

I'll agree with L here, litter is litter. The fine should be $5000 and it
should apply to any amount or type of litter. Theres never any reason to
litter. Its odd though that some people who are otherwise considerate seem
to think its ok to throw cig butts on the ground just anywhere. Why is that?

>
> No.

Why not, do you think there might be, uh, some problem with inhaling all
that smoke?

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message
news:vdhc81ppth143aa
g33tom5qgo738p9ei8k@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 09:40:45 -0600, "SS" < nospam1336479852@wop
dj.net>
> wrote:
>
say[color=darkred]
>
> You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Why? Because I can pull reports about all of those that show at one point
there was inconclusive proof of their potential harm?

The only idiots here are the ones that show a very narrow-minded approach to
the subject. Judging by your posts, its pretty clear to see that there's no
need to count into three digits for your IQ. The words, "Redneck White
Trash" keep popping into my head everytime I read your replies.

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message
news:o9hc819jo66jutb
9dhj009auqm76eols2l@
4ax.com...

>
> What a crock of shit.
>
> cigarettes are not pornography, nor heroin, nor gambling, nor nudity.

True, but three out of the four are not directly linked to dying or any
health risks.

>
> And FWIW, most places allow 3 out of 4 of those things in private
> businesses.

Not so quick, genius- how many of those that do go on are regulated by the
government? Can you say, "All of them?" And MOST places do not allow any
of the four of them.

Thank you for showing the inability to use critical thinking skills.

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message
news:tugc81p96eec74q
irb1opov2v3kfph5jh2@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 17:00:34 -0700, "Mij Adyaw" <mijadyaw@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
on[color=darkred]
have[color=darkred]
them[color=darkred]
>
> But you'd leave fines for littering other types of garbage as they
> are?
>
> That doesn't seem right. Litter is litter, but most of the litter you
> see is not smoking-related.

And the litter that is smoking related is directly responsible for a large
number of fires every year, unlike the rest. And before you ask for a firm
number (which I don't have), let me say this- more than zero is not
acceptable.

>
force[color=darkred]

The[color=darkred]
because[color=darkre
d]
if[color=darkred]
because[color=darkre
d]
as[color=darkred]
>
> No.

Disagreeing because the directions would be too hard to follow?

Alex W.

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"Norm" <normgrant999@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:9zthe.1354105$6l.260340@pd7tw2no...
> L Sternn wrote:
>
in buildings[color=dark
red]
environment. We[color=darkred]
second hand[color=darkred]
property or in[color=darkred]
cigarette[color=dark
red]
garbage as they[color=darkred]
the litter you[color=darkred]
>
> I'll agree with L here, litter is litter. The fine should
be $5000 and it
> should apply to any amount or type of litter. Theres never
any reason to
> litter. Its odd though that some people who are otherwise
considerate seem
> to think its ok to throw cig butts on the ground just
anywhere. Why is that?

I can't speak for others, but I dislike disposing of my
cigar butt in a trashcan because of the fire hazard.
Tossing a butt on non-flammable concrete or tarmac seems a
less dangerous proposition than flicking it into a bin that
is likely to contain highly flammable paper and plastic.

For me, it has always been a good indication of the
hypocrisy of anti-smoking policies and legislation that on
the one hand smokers are vilified and penalised for failing
to dispose of the detritus of their habit, but that local
authorities commonly fail to offer a safe alternative. It
is neither expensive nor logistically difficult to place
concrete buckets filled with sand at strategic locations
(bus stops, frex) and have them emptied by the same crews
who empty the regular public trashcans. In fact, I'd hazard
a guess that local businesses could well be persuaded to
sponsor such public ashtrays at no cost to the community....

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

Alex W. wrote:
> I can't speak for others, but I dislike disposing of my
> cigar butt in a trashcan because of the fire hazard.
> Tossing a butt on non-flammable concrete or tarmac seems a
> less dangerous proposition than flicking it into a bin that
> is likely to contain highly flammable paper and plastic.

That's an interesting and totally logical assumption. And it's probably true in
most places. And it's great to know that there are people out there who want to
be responsible...

Unfortunately, the risk can be worse around here if you throw the butt out. I'm
in the desert, and the weeds here burn very hot and very fast. Drive I-15
through my part of Southern California, or drive I-15 through Nevada or the
southern half of Utah for that matter (all desert), flick your cigarette out
the window and you may be setting some weeds on fire, which could cause a big
blaze within minutes.

The *safest* thing to do is to stick the butt in the ashtray and throw it out
in a garbage can later when it's not smoldering.

> For me, it has always been a good indication of the
> hypocrisy of anti-smoking policies and legislation that on
> the one hand smokers are vilified and penalised for failing
> to dispose of the detritus of their habit, but that local
> authorities commonly fail to offer a safe alternative.

Agreed.

> It
> is neither expensive nor logistically difficult to place
> concrete buckets filled with sand at strategic locations
> (bus stops, frex) and have them emptied by the same crews
> who empty the regular public trashcans. In fact, I'd hazard
> a guess that local businesses could well be persuaded to
> sponsor such public ashtrays at no cost to the community....

Agreed.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Notan

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"Alex W." wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I can't speak for others, but I dislike disposing of my
> cigar butt in a trashcan because of the fire hazard.
> Tossing a butt on non-flammable concrete or tarmac seems a
> less dangerous proposition than flicking it into a bin that
> is likely to contain highly flammable paper and plastic.
>
> For me, it has always been a good indication of the
> hypocrisy of anti-smoking policies and legislation that on
> the one hand smokers are vilified and penalised for failing
> to dispose of the detritus of their habit, but that local
> authorities commonly fail to offer a safe alternative. It
> is neither expensive nor logistically difficult to place
> concrete buckets filled with sand at strategic locations
> (bus stops, frex) and have them emptied by the same crews
> who empty the regular public trashcans. In fact, I'd hazard
> a guess that local businesses could well be persuaded to
> sponsor such public ashtrays at no cost to the community....

Bullshit.

You see the streets as your public trashcan.

Why should taxpayers be forced to clean up after your
filthy habit?

Notan

Mij Adyaw

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

Cigarettes thrown out of windows create many fires.

"L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message
news:tugc81p96eec74q
irb1opov2v3kfph5jh2@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 17:00:34 -0700, "Mij Adyaw" <mijadyaw@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> But you'd leave fines for littering other types of garbage as they
> are?
>
> That doesn't seem right. Litter is litter, but most of the litter you
> see is not smoking-related.
>
>
> No.
>
>

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

Notan wrote:

> Bullshit.
>
> You see the streets as your public trashcan.

> Why should taxpayers be forced to clean up after your
> filthy habit?

I can understand not wanting to start a fire.

But that's easier to do if you let the cigarette sit in your ashtray until it's
done smoldering.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Notan

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

Steve Sobol wrote:
>
> Notan wrote:
>
>
>
> I can understand not wanting to start a fire.
>
> But that's easier to do if you let the cigarette sit in your ashtray until it's
> done smoldering.

I've seen many a person not just flick one cigarette out the car window,
but entire ashtrays full of cigarettes.

Notan

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

Notan wrote:

> I've seen many a person not just flick one cigarette out the car window,
> but entire ashtrays full of cigarettes.

Okay, did you read my suggestion directly to Kook-of-the-Week? I may not have
made it clear, but I was suggesting to throw out the butts at the next stop.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Notan

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 13
X-Trace: sv3-Ugmr5yY/ bWzW+kmJS1B1k070+fAP
nC9FYYnpAZqZ8GFy5swE
kgMrmYs8IhyiW9vlaN1v
SR7NdBCrU0G!dqDjHB9z
b/ A3Vv+dJJ10KWPWB33S6A
/ L44yoLNibtr68hUkzZYQ
=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.smokers:374605 alt.cellular:176585 alt.quit.smoking.support:65235

Steve Sobol wrote:
>
> Notan wrote:
>
>
> Okay, did you read my suggestion directly to Kook-of-the-Week? I may not have
> made it clear, but I was suggesting to throw out the butts at the next stop.

Sorry, I missed that one.

Notan

Steve Sobol

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

Notan wrote:

> Sorry, I missed that one.

That's okay, I probably wasn't clear enough anyhow. It's not that I condone
littering, just that I understand where the poster was coming from...

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

DevilsPGD

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

In message < 3endv7F43ap6U1@indiv
idual.net> "Alex W."
<ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>I can't speak for others, but I dislike disposing of my
>cigar butt in a trashcan because of the fire hazard.
>Tossing a butt on non-flammable concrete or tarmac seems a
>less dangerous proposition than flicking it into a bin that
>is likely to contain highly flammable paper and plastic.
>
>For me, it has always been a good indication of the
>hypocrisy of anti-smoking policies and legislation that on
>the one hand smokers are vilified and penalised for failing
>to dispose of the detritus of their habit, but that local
>authorities commonly fail to offer a safe alternative. It
>is neither expensive nor logistically difficult to place
>concrete buckets filled with sand at strategic locations
>(bus stops, frex) and have them emptied by the same crews
>who empty the regular public trashcans. In fact, I'd hazard
>a guess that local businesses could well be persuaded to
>sponsor such public ashtrays at no cost to the community....

This has been done at many buildings in Calgary, and even some
restraunts. Some people use them, but at the end of the day there are
still cigs on the ground within eyesight of the ashtray.

--
Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts
have no place in organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers

Alex W.

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:d66aoh$u0t$1@ra
tbert.glorb.com...
> Notan wrote:
>
>
>
> I can understand not wanting to start a fire.
>
> But that's easier to do if you let the cigarette sit in
your ashtray until it's
> done smoldering.

If there is an ashtray, that would be the reasonable
approach. But more and more, there is no ashtray because
antismoking regulations force smokers out of offices, shops
and restaurants onto sidewalks and into other public spaces
(car parks) where neither the local authority nor the
nearest shops feel obliged to provide such receptacles.

Alex W.

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"DevilsPGD" <spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:ackd81dd5kabu5v
ruds5m1m7pq4voi9d0l@
news.readfreenews.ne
t...
> In message < 3endv7F43ap6U1@indiv
idual.net> "Alex W."
> <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
a[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
on[color=darkred]
failing[color=darkre
d]
It[color=darkred]
hazard[color=darkred
]
community....[color=darkred]
>
> This has been done at many buildings in Calgary, and even
some
> restraunts. Some people use them, but at the end of the
day there are
> still cigs on the ground within eyesight of the ashtray.

Then deputise a Calgary traffic warden to stand there and
issue tickets for every butt that goes astray. They do
exactly this in Birmingham (England, not Alabama).

My point was always that this particular problem -- like so
many others -- arises through needless antagonism and can be
solved or even avoided in the first place with a small
modicum of forethought and reasonable accommodation.

Alex W.

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:d661b2$shu$1@ra
tbert.glorb.com...
> Alex W. wrote:
a[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
>
> That's an interesting and totally logical assumption. And
it's probably true in
> most places. And it's great to know that there are people
out there who want to
> be responsible...
>
> Unfortunately, the risk can be worse around here if you
throw the butt out. I'm
> in the desert, and the weeds here burn very hot and very
fast. Drive I-15
> through my part of Southern California, or drive I-15
through Nevada or the
> southern half of Utah for that matter (all desert), flick
your cigarette out
> the window and you may be setting some weeds on fire,
which could cause a big
> blaze within minutes.

We had this discussion on alt.smokers a while back, and as
it turns out, cigarettes are, while an obvious culprit, not
a major cause of bushfires. If memory serves, they are
identified as the cause in around 7 per cent of cases and,
according to one Australian statistic, cause only one per
cent of damage per acreage burned.

.... which doesn't excuse irresponsible and dangerous
behaviour, of course. It merely puts the issue in
perspective.

>
> The *safest* thing to do is to stick the butt in the
ashtray and throw it out
> in a garbage can later when it's not smoldering.

First in the ashtray, then under the tap (faucet for the
leftpondians), then in the rubbish.

Alex W.

2005-05-19, 11:52 am

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:42869EAB.9136C881@ddress.com...
> "Alex W." wrote:
a[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
on[color=darkred]
failing[color=darkre
d]
local[color=darkred]

It[color=darkred]
crews[color=darkred]

hazard[color=darkred
]
community....[color=darkred]
>
> Bullshit.
>