smoking and the pub

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by budwieser

Personally, i find the thought of you urinating on me far more disgusting than someone smoking next to me. How do we know you don`t have Hep B or C or AIDS?
Get your priorities right and please keep your personal fetishes to yourself.

Do you ask smokers if they have cancer before you allow them to sit next to you?

Someone smoking next to you is horrrible all that smoke, which sticks to you, and doesnt smell nice either

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

Someone smoking next to you is horrrible all that smoke, which sticks to you, and doesnt smell nice either

What's almost as bad is someone who's just been for a smoke sitting next to you and you get that attractive stale stench wafting over you too.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ B

What's almost as bad is someone who's just been for a smoke sitting next to you and you get that attractive stale stench wafting over you too.

?

[Mal]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

?

The Riddler?

[c_r]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

As indeed have oral sex and exposure to sunlight - Have either of those been banned?

But of course oral sex and sun bathing have never had any adverse effect on any third party. That's the point with passive smoking.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Mal

The Riddler?

No, just wondering what Russ meant by his statement.

---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:13 ----------

Originally Posted by c_r

But of course oral sex and sun bathing have never had any adverse effect on any third party. That's the point with passive smoking.

So, you're telling me that the transfer of human bodily fluids from someone who is HIV positive has never had an effect on, say for example, an unborn child? I'm sure that's an enormous psychologial and emotional relief to many of the pregnant women in the sub Saharan continent.

And women who contract melanoma during pregnancy have no residual impact on their unborn children?

Why, thank you......doctor.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

No, just wondering what Russ meant by his statement.

Is it not blindingly obvious? When a smoker has just indulged in their addiction and returns to sit next to you (as happens to me in work on a daily basis), their stale stench fills the area you're sitting in.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Is it not blindingly obvious? When a smoker has just indulged in their addiction and returns to sit next to you (as happens to me in work on a daily basis), their stale stench fills the area you're sitting in.

Yes, it was blindingly obvious - which is why I asked.

So whilst you're quite content to run around exchanging bodily fluids with strangers in your lycra clad alter ego you take issue with the stale stench of smokers who comply with the law of the land by not polluting your personal space with their smoke (smell is different from actual smoke you do understand?).

Well pardon me all over the place Russ - but that's a very bizarre interpretaion of "love thy neighbour" & "Do unto others" if you don't mind me saying so.

[c_r]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

No, just wondering what Russ meant by his statement.

---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:13 ----------



So, you're telling me that the transfer of human bodily fluids from someone who is HIV positive has never had an effect on, say for example, an unborn child? I'm sure that's an enormous psychologial and emotional relief to many of the pregnant women in the sub Saharan continent.

And women who contract melanoma during pregnancy have no residual impact on their unborn children?

Why, thank you......doctor.

Hey thanks Doctor, good to hear from you too!

Please keep killing yourself if you must but don't expect me to mourn come July 1st!

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by c_r

Hey thanks Doctor, good to hear from you too!

Please keep killing yourself if you must but don't expect me to mourn come July 1st!

Sorry, was that a rebuttal of what I said or are you just terminally pathetic at defending ill founded statements?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Yes, it was blindingly obvious - which is why I asked.

So whilst you're quite content to run around exchanging bodily fluids with strangers in your lycra clad alter ego you take issue with the stale stench of smokers who comply with the law of the land by not polluting your personal space with their smoke (smell is different from actual smoke you do understand?).

The difference of course being that any strangers I'm exchanging bodily fluid with in my "lycra clad alter ego" are fully aware of what will happen and are completely accepting of this as it's part and parcel of the job.

Very poor analogy.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Well pardon me all over the place Russ - but that's a very bizarre interpretaion of "love thy neighbour" & "Do unto others" if you don't mind me saying so.

Actually I do mind, as that's a typically low, poor quality and uncalled-for dig at my faith on your part.

[c_r]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Sorry, was that a rebuttal of what I said or are you just terminally pathetic at defending ill founded statements?

Well I sort of gave up to be honest - I thought you were a bit thick with your original ridiculous statement about oral sex and skin cancer. Prove me wrong if you can!

I will be quite happy about the ban when it comes into force and I really do not mind if people smell of smoke its upto them I inflict my farts on anyone near me when I need to blow and sometimes they smell a hell of a lot worse than smoke on clothes

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ B

The difference of course being that any strangers I'm exchanging bodily fluid with in my "lycra clad alter ego" are fully aware of what will happen and are completely accepting of this as it's part and parcel of the job.

Very poor analogy.



Actually I do mind, as that's a typically low and poor quality dig at my faith on your part.

Sorry Russ, but it shows your wanton disregard for your own health that you would get into a ring with a stranger without first insisting that they, beyond physical injury, don't represent a threat to your health - yet you're happy to bleat on about the "smell" of smokers who are complying with your right to be protected from the by products of their addiction - a perfectly good analogy I think you'll find.

Let's not get hung up on your "faith" perseution complex. I stated it was a bizarre interpretation of one of the tenets of your faith and that is exactly what it is - I'm not about to get into a theological debate over a display of your own contradictiory ignorance, sorry.

Lets move on and stick to the subject at hand.

---------- Post added at 22:50 ---------- Previous post was at 22:49 ----------

Originally Posted by c_r

Prove me wrong if you can!

I think you'll find I already did.