Huge wrote:

On 2009-02-10, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2009-02-09, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

Try getting funding for a fair & neutral study on the effects of
passive smoking - it doesn't exist.

None so blind, etc.

Where did you copy & paste that lot from? Sorry, Gogle may be good, but you
have to read the results & understand them.

Aww, how sweet, the unqualified junkie thinks he "understands".

It's a sign of how seriously nicotine, carbon monoxide and a whole raft
of toxic organic compounds and radionucleides can **** over what new
brain cells someone had to start with. I can remember someone ranting to
a colleague about the "toxic chemicals" that were produced by
pharmaceutical companies and agribusiness. All the time she ranted she
was waving a cancer stick around and sucking on it between rants. When
he pointed out that each lungful contained more carcinogens than were
present in the annual production of pesticides she seemed to miss the
point.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...


One day, if you think hard enough, you will get the full picture.
Active smoking is proven to be dangerous to the active smoker,
passive smoking isn't dangerous to anyone.

There you go again.. still lying to avoid feeling guilty about the
harm you inflict on others.

No Dennipoo's, I don't feel guilty because I don't inflict harm on others.

I think you should contact the US Military in Afghanistan. Instead of
using high tech weapons, they could just issue the soldiers with 20
Marlborough each & wait for a prevailing wind. According to you, Al-Qaeda
would be on its arse in a matter of days.

Listen to yourself man, you are hysterical.

Listen to yourself, you are stupid.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message m...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...


One day, if you think hard enough, you will get the full picture.
Active smoking is proven to be dangerous to the active smoker,
passive smoking isn't dangerous to anyone.

There you go again.. still lying to avoid feeling guilty about the
harm you inflict on others.

No Dennipoo's, I don't feel guilty because I don't inflict harm on
others. I think you should contact the US Military in Afghanistan.
Instead
of using high tech weapons, they could just issue the soldiers with
20 Marlborough each & wait for a prevailing wind. According to you,
Al-Qaeda would be on its arse in a matter of days.

Listen to yourself man, you are hysterical.

Listen to yourself, you are stupid.

Ner ner ne ner ner. Thats sums up your argument I believe.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Huge wrote:
On 2009-02-12, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2009-02-10, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2009-02-09, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

Try getting funding for a fair & neutral study on the effects of
passive smoking - it doesn't exist.

None so blind, etc.

Where did you copy & paste that lot from? Sorry, Google may be
good, but you have to read the results & understand them.

Aww, how sweet, the unqualified junkie thinks he "understands".

The last resort of someone who's argument has fallen flat on its
arse - the personal insult.

You cut & pasted irrelevant crap without reading it, simply to
support your prejudice.

Couldn't find the Black Swan, so you resort to ad hominum argument.
How sweet.

I think I've just taken the high ground.

You just carry on thinking that - I already know you're delusional.

And I think you are irrationally prejudiced. Found the black swan yet?



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Mark wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote
I think I've just taken the high ground.

So you were the coughing and whizzing stinkbomb going up the hill.

Don't you mean wheezing? Smoking improves concentration & memory, perhaps
you should start?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...

Smoking improves concentration & memory, perhaps you should start?

Only in addicts.
Non smokers don't need to smoke to regain their abilities.

It obviously hasn't improved your memory as you are repeating the same old
cr@p.
It showed you to be stupid last time just as it is now.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...

Smoking improves concentration & memory, perhaps you should start?

Only in addicts.
Non smokers don't need to smoke to regain their abilities.

What? You are gibbering again man. That makes no sense.

It obviously hasn't improved your memory as you are repeating the
same old cr@p.
It showed you to be stupid last time just as it is now.

Is that really the best respose you can come up with?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...

Smoking improves concentration & memory, perhaps you should start?

Only in addicts.
Non smokers don't need to smoke to regain their abilities.

What? You are gibbering again man. That makes no sense.

Try having a fag then you might get back enough brain power to understand.


It obviously hasn't improved your memory as you are repeating the
same old cr@p.
It showed you to be stupid last time just as it is now.

Is that really the best respose you can come up with?

I only state the facts.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...

I can't be arsed to even look at the rest of the ****e you have
Googled to support your claim. I could find you 30+ studies, all
credible & published in scientific journals subject to critical peer
review that show the opposite - that non smoking partners of active
smokers are less likely to develop cancer, heart disease, diabeties &
ingrowing toenails.

Less likely than who?

I think you are just a rabid drug addict who will lie about anything to
justify your harm to others.
You are typical of people with chemical abuse problems and will stop at
nothing to get your fix.

The sooner it becomes illegal to smoke anywhere other people are the
better.

Children, children, is this really necessary? We all agree that smoking
causes cancer and other diseases. We know that "second-hand" smoke is
objectionable to many people, and can be assumed to have a relatively
minor level of harmful effects. Exactly how harmful it is will be very
difficult to assess with confidence. Can't we leave it there?

"Gib Bogle" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...

I can't be arsed to even look at the rest of the ****e you have Googled
to support your claim. I could find you 30+ studies, all credible &
published in scientific journals subject to critical peer review that
show the opposite - that non smoking partners of active smokers are less
likely to develop cancer, heart disease, diabeties & ingrowing toenails.

Less likely than who?

I think you are just a rabid drug addict who will lie about anything to
justify your harm to others.
You are typical of people with chemical abuse problems and will stop at
nothing to get your fix.

The sooner it becomes illegal to smoke anywhere other people are the
better.

Children, children, is this really necessary? We all agree that smoking
causes cancer and other diseases. We know that "second-hand" smoke is
objectionable to many people, and can be assumed to have a relatively
minor level of harmful effects. Exactly how harmful it is will be very
difficult to assess with confidence. Can't we leave it there?

Not if you think it is minor!

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:59:42 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message m...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...


One day, if you think hard enough, you will get the full picture.
Active smoking is proven to be dangerous to the active smoker,
passive smoking isn't dangerous to anyone.

There you go again.. still lying to avoid feeling guilty about the
harm you inflict on others.

No Dennipoo's, I don't feel guilty because I don't inflict harm on
others. I think you should contact the US Military in Afghanistan.
Instead
of using high tech weapons, they could just issue the soldiers with
20 Marlborough each & wait for a prevailing wind. According to you,
Al-Qaeda would be on its arse in a matter of days.

Listen to yourself man, you are hysterical.

Listen to yourself, you are stupid.

Ner ner ne ner ner. Thats sums up your argument I believe.

These complex discussions are leaving the rest of us behind.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:51:05 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2009-01-23, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
-------------------8
How odd that when it comes to carcinogenesis, you apparently don't
"know enough about chemistry".


It's called "selective dyslexia", where anything that conflicts with
your strongly held preconceived ideas is impossible to read.

I think we all suffer from it to some extent. ;-)

Especially the anti smoking hysterics.

Is it hysterical to be anti-smoking because it smells and taints everything
in range?

An ex-smoker (the worst kind?)

"Appelation Controlee" wrote in message
...

Is it hysterical to be anti-smoking because it smells and taints
everything
in range?

An ex-smoker (the worst kind?)

Ex smokers have demonstrated the capacity to learn from their mistakes,
smokers have not.

Appelation Controlee wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:51:05 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2009-01-23, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
-------------------8
How odd that when it comes to carcinogenesis, you apparently don't
"know enough about chemistry".


It's called "selective dyslexia", where anything that conflicts with
your strongly held preconceived ideas is impossible to read.

I think we all suffer from it to some extent. ;-)

Especially the anti smoking hysterics.

Is it hysterical to be anti-smoking because it smells and taints
everything in range?

No need for hysteria at all. We could have had reasonable legislation that
allowed both parties 'choice'. But that's not what the fanatics wanted.
They wanted punative legislation.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

dennis@home wrote:
"Appelation Controlee" wrote in message
...

Is it hysterical to be anti-smoking because it smells and taints
everything
in range?

An ex-smoker (the worst kind?)

Ex smokers have demonstrated the capacity to learn from their
mistakes, smokers have not.

Gibbering again Dennipoo's? What on earth does that sentance mean? Some
choose to smoke, some choose not too.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Gib Bogle wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...

I can't be arsed to even look at the rest of the ****e you have
Googled to support your claim. I could find you 30+ studies, all
credible & published in scientific journals subject to critical peer
review that show the opposite - that non smoking partners of active
smokers are less likely to develop cancer, heart disease, diabetes
& ingrowing toenails.

Less likely than who?

I think you are just a rabid drug addict who will lie about anything
to justify your harm to others.
You are typical of people with chemical abuse problems and will stop
at nothing to get your fix.

The sooner it becomes illegal to smoke anywhere other people are the
better.

Children, children, is this really necessary? We all agree that
smoking causes cancer and other diseases. We know that "second-hand"
smoke is objectionable to many people, and can be assumed to have a
relatively minor level of harmful effects. Exactly how harmful it is
will be very difficult to assess with confidence. Can't we leave it
there?

We could indeed. Except we are dealing with hysterical, irrational
fanatics.

dennis@home wrote:
"Gib Bogle" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...

I can't be arsed to even look at the rest of the ****e you have
Googled to support your claim. I could find you 30+ studies, all
credible & published in scientific journals subject to critical
peer review that show the opposite - that non smoking partners of
active smokers are less likely to develop cancer, heart disease,
diabeties & ingrowing toenails.

Less likely than who?

I think you are just a rabid drug addict who will lie about
anything to justify your harm to others.
You are typical of people with chemical abuse problems and will
stop at nothing to get your fix.

The sooner it becomes illegal to smoke anywhere other people are the
better.

Children, children, is this really necessary? We all agree that
smoking causes cancer and other diseases. We know that
"second-hand" smoke is objectionable to many people, and can be
assumed to have a relatively minor level of harmful effects. Exactly how
harmful it is will be very difficult to assess with
confidence. Can't we leave it there?

Not if you think it is minor!

Black Swan Dennipoo's.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...

Smoking improves concentration & memory, perhaps you should start?

Only in addicts.
Non smokers don't need to smoke to regain their abilities.

What? You are gibbering again man. That makes no sense.

Try having a fag then you might get back enough brain power to
understand.

OK, I've had a fag, several in fact.

Only in addicts.

No, nicotine improves concentration & memory in everyone.

Non smokers don't need to smoke to regain their abilities.

That assumes that non smokers have lost some abilities?

It obviously hasn't improved your memory as you are repeating the
same old cr@p.
It showed you to be stupid last time just as it is now.

Is that really the best respose you can come up with?

I only state the facts.

Only the ones that suit your hysteria.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:20:48 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Appelation Controlee wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:51:05 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2009-01-23, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
-------------------8
How odd that when it comes to carcinogenesis, you apparently don't
"know enough about chemistry".


It's called "selective dyslexia", where anything that conflicts with
your strongly held preconceived ideas is impossible to read.

I think we all suffer from it to some extent. ;-)

Especially the anti smoking hysterics.

Is it hysterical to be anti-smoking because it smells and taints
everything in range?

No need for hysteria at all. We could have had reasonable legislation that
allowed both parties 'choice'. But that's not what the fanatics wanted.
They wanted punative legislation.

How would this 'choice' have worked, Dave? Would it mean that we would
still have had a choice to leave a pub because it was full of cigarette
smoke?
Sorry for the sarcy edge, but most smokers I've heard want to be able to
continue to smoke without having to stand outside in the ****ing rain to do
so. This tends to translate into the rest of us either staying home or
having our clothes and hair stink of stale tobacco smoke after an evening
out. This is seriously unpleasant, and has sufficient stature as an
argument not to be diverted into an ad hominem spat.
The only trouble is that smokers don't appreciate just how unpleasant it
is.

Appelation Controlee wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:20:48 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Appelation Controlee wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:51:05 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2009-01-23, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
-------------------8
How odd that when it comes to carcinogenesis, you apparently
don't "know enough about chemistry".


It's called "selective dyslexia", where anything that conflicts
with your strongly held preconceived ideas is impossible to read.

I think we all suffer from it to some extent. ;-)

Especially the anti smoking hysterics.

Is it hysterical to be anti-smoking because it smells and taints
everything in range?

No need for hysteria at all. We could have had reasonable
legislation that allowed both parties 'choice'. But that's not what
the fanatics wanted. They wanted punative legislation.

How would this 'choice' have worked, Dave? Would it mean that we would
still have had a choice to leave a pub because it was full of
cigarette smoke?

Very simple. Pubs could have chosen to be smoking or non smoking. The non
smoking venue protected by legal enforcement like we have today. Then you
could go to a non smoking pub & I could have gone to a smoking pub. Market
forces would decide how many of each there were.

Sorry for the sarcy edge, but most smokers I've heard want to be able
to continue to smoke without having to stand outside in the ****ing
rain to do so.

'Snoutcasts' as they are known. Most venues have more than one bar,
remember the old Public Bar, Snug & Private Bar? Offices & factories could
have had smoking rooms - cigarette smoke isn't a difficult particulate to
filter out.

This tends to translate into the rest of us either
staying home or having our clothes and hair stink of stale tobacco
smoke after an evening out. This is seriously unpleasant, and has
sufficient stature as an argument not to be diverted into an ad
hominem spat.
The only trouble is that smokers don't appreciate just how unpleasant
it is.

I certainly do. I wouldn't wish to inflict that unpleasantness on anyone.

The problem here is that punative legislation designed to punish & demonise
smokers couldn't have been passed on the grounds of it being 'unpleasant'.
They had to invent a health risk.

The multi billion £ pharmaceutical industry saw stopping smoking as a
massive profit centre, something they needed since the number of 'new' drugs
they can market is in decline. The marketing budgets are astronomical and
are used to influence politicians, the medical profession & the media. The
myth of passive smoking was born & is constantly reinforced.

The anti smoking lobby is fanatical anyway & didn't need much encouragement.
Look at the ASH website where they talk about 'tobacco control strategy's'
'smoking cessation services' & 'freeing the world from tobacco'. Rabid.

We could have had 'choice', but that's not a word that's allowed by the new
puritans. The Oxford Pipe Club, for example, can no longer smoke during
its meetings.

Thanks for a reasonable discussion.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , Gib Bogle
writes
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...

I can't be arsed to even look at the rest of the ****e you have
Googled to support your claim. I could find you 30+ studies, all
credible & published in scientific journals subject to critical peer
review that show the opposite - that non smoking partners of active
smokers are less likely to develop cancer, heart disease, diabeties &
ingrowing toenails.
Less likely than who?
I think you are just a rabid drug addict who will lie about anything
to justify your harm to others.
You are typical of people with chemical abuse problems and will stop
at nothing to get your fix.
The sooner it becomes illegal to smoke anywhere other people are the
better.

Children, children, is this really necessary? We all agree that
smoking causes cancer and other diseases. We know that "second-hand"
smoke is objectionable to many people, and can be assumed to have a
relatively minor level of harmful effects. Exactly how harmful it is
will be very difficult to assess with confidence. Can't we leave it there?

not been here long, have you ?


--
geoff

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...


I certainly do. I wouldn't wish to inflict that unpleasantness on anyone.

Liar, you keep telling everyone that your smoking has no effect on them.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...

Smoking improves concentration & memory, perhaps you should start?

Only in addicts.
Non smokers don't need to smoke to regain their abilities.

What? You are gibbering again man. That makes no sense.

Try having a fag then you might get back enough brain power to
understand.

OK, I've had a fag, several in fact.

They didn't help much though.


Only in addicts.

No, nicotine improves concentration & memory in everyone.

Rubbish.
You are an addict.
The reason you are an addict is because you get a low when you are deprived
of your drug.
You develop a resistance to the drug meaning the highs get lower and the
lows get lower.
As you are a long term smoker you need the drug just to function on the same
level as a non smoker.
It doesn't improve your concentration or memory, it just gets you somewhere
near the normal that the rest of use enjoy.
Then you start getting the low again and forget what you have been told
already.


Non smokers don't need to smoke to regain their abilities.

That assumes that non smokers have lost some abilities?

It doesn't say that.
Have a fag and try again.

Appelation Controlee wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:20:48 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Appelation Controlee wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:51:05 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2009-01-23, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
-------------------8
How odd that when it comes to carcinogenesis, you apparently don't
"know enough about chemistry".

It's called "selective dyslexia", where anything that conflicts with
your strongly held preconceived ideas is impossible to read.

I think we all suffer from it to some extent. ;-)
Especially the anti smoking hysterics.
Is it hysterical to be anti-smoking because it smells and taints
everything in range?
No need for hysteria at all. We could have had reasonable legislation that
allowed both parties 'choice'. But that's not what the fanatics wanted.
They wanted punative legislation.

How would this 'choice' have worked, Dave? Would it mean that we would
still have had a choice to leave a pub because it was full of cigarette
smoke?

Absolutely, *if the one next door had the legal means to self declare
'no smoking'*. And enforce it.

Sorry for the sarcy edge, but most smokers I've heard want to be able to
continue to smoke without having to stand outside in the ****ing rain to do
so. This tends to translate into the rest of us either staying home or
having our clothes and hair stink of stale tobacco smoke after an evening
out. This is seriously unpleasant, and has sufficient stature as an
argument not to be diverted into an ad hominem spat.
The only trouble is that smokers don't appreciate just how unpleasant it
is.

Absolute ********, Its only your 'one size must fit all' mentality that
makes it be that way. You cant see that allowing pubs to make their own
choices, and the customers to make theirs, IF the government allowed
them to have that authority, solves everyones problems.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Absolute ********, Its only your 'one size must fit all' mentality that
makes it be that way. You cant see that allowing pubs to make their own
choices, and the customers to make theirs, IF the government allowed them
to have that authority, solves everyones problems.

Of course your ******** fails to address the primary reason for the ban.
H&S requires the landlord to provide a safe *smoke free* working environment
which is somewhat difficult to do if smoking is allowed.
Employing smokers doesn't work as that is discrimination and the employer
*still* needs to provide the safe environment even if the smoker wants to
kill himself.

On 14 Feb, 22:32, "dennis@home" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in et...



Absolute ********, Its only your 'one size must fit all' mentality that
makes it be that way. You cant see that allowing pubs to make their own
choices, and the customers to make theirs, IF the government allowed them
to have that authority, solves everyones problems.

Of course your ******** fails to address the primary reason for the ban.
H&S requires the landlord to provide a safe *smoke free* working environment
which is somewhat difficult to do if smoking is allowed.
Employing smokers doesn't work as that is discrimination and the employer
*still* needs to provide the safe environment even if the smoker wants to
kill himself.

This group is great!

How a discussion about beeswax changed to smoking.

This group also made me the "boiler expert" in my family.

David wrote:
On 14 Feb, 22:32, "dennis@home" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
et...



Absolute ********, Its only your 'one size must fit all' mentality
that makes it be that way. You cant see that allowing pubs to make
their own choices, and the customers to make theirs, IF the
government allowed them to have that authority, solves everyones
problems.

Of course your ******** fails to address the primary reason for the
ban.
H&S requires the landlord to provide a safe *smoke free* working
environment
which is somewhat difficult to do if smoking is allowed.
Employing smokers doesn't work as that is discrimination and the
employer *still* needs to provide the safe environment even if the
smoker wants to
kill himself.

This group is great!

How a discussion about beeswax changed to smoking.


What a stupid fellow you are Sir. Do you not know that one has to have a Fag
to wake one up in the Dorm. and then to prepare one's breakfast. When
approaching the hive, then it is indeed necessary to have a fag.

I could wax on, Honey.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...


I certainly do. I wouldn't wish to inflict that unpleasantness on
anyone.

Liar, you keep telling everyone that your smoking has no effect on
them.

If you paid attention Dennipoo's, you would know that my stance on this has
been consistant. I've only ever said that it isn't a health problem.

I find diesel fumes, cheap perfume, fat women in leggings and people from
Dudley unpleasant, but like passive smoking they aren't a health risk.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Absolute ********, Its only your 'one size must fit all' mentality
that makes it be that way. You cant see that allowing pubs to make
their own choices, and the customers to make theirs, IF the
government allowed them to have that authority, solves everyones
problems.

Of course your ******** fails to address the primary reason for the
ban. H&S requires the landlord to provide a safe *smoke free* working
environment which is somewhat difficult to do if smoking is allowed.

Employing smokers doesn't work as that is discrimination and the
employer *still* needs to provide the safe environment even if the
smoker wants to kill himself.

But thats entirely the point Dennipoo's. Passive smoking is a myth. There
is no health risk.

The legislation is entirely about punishing smokers. Not that its working
of course, smoking has increased by around 6.5% in the last 10 years.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

dennis@home wrote:


Smoking improves concentration & memory, perhaps you should
start?

Only in addicts.
Non smokers don't need to smoke to regain their abilities.

What? You are gibbering again man. That makes no sense.

Try having a fag then you might get back enough brain power to
understand.

OK, I've had a fag, several in fact.

They didn't help much though.


Only in addicts.

No, nicotine improves concentration & memory in everyone.

Rubbish.
You are an addict.
The reason you are an addict is because you get a low when you are
deprived of your drug.
You develop a resistance to the drug meaning the highs get lower and
the lows get lower.

You clearly have never smoked, it doesn't work like that at all.

As you are a long term smoker you need the drug just to function on
the same level as a non smoker.

Errm. No.

It doesn't improve your concentration or memory, it just gets you
somewhere near the normal that the rest of use enjoy.

What part of 'improves' don't you understand?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Passive smoking is a myth. There is no health risk.

You believe that which is fair enough, but the point is that non-smokers
may well not believe it, and may not appreciate being "smoked at".

Andy Burns wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Passive smoking is a myth. There is no health risk.

You believe that which is fair enough, but the point is that
non-smokers may well not believe it, and may not appreciate being
"smoked at".

Precisely why we should have 'smoking' and 'non smoking' areas/venues. Then
eveyone could have freedom to choose.

But we don't because of hysterical fanatics like Dennis.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Precisely why we should have 'smoking' and 'non smoking' areas/venues. Then
eveyone could have freedom to choose.

In the couple of pubs I know which had a non-smoking area before the
ban, it didn't work out that way; in a mixed group the smokers never
wanted to sit in the non-smoking area.

The Medway Handyman wrote:


I find diesel fumes, cheap perfume, fat women in leggings and people from
Dudley unpleasant, but like passive smoking they aren't a health risk.


O but the cheap perfume could be a health risk...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7547815.stm

as could the diesel fumes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7888735.stm

and fat women (at least to themselves and their offspring):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7874804.stm

Couldn't find anything about health risks of leggings (to others). Spoke
too soon:

http://health.yahoo.com/women-gyn/vaginal-yeast-infections-prevention/healthwise--aa10674.html

Dudley is the odd one out...

:-)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Andy Burns wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Precisely why we should have 'smoking' and 'non smoking'
areas/venues. Then eveyone could have freedom to choose.

In the couple of pubs I know which had a non-smoking area before the
ban, it didn't work out that way; in a mixed group the smokers never
wanted to sit in the non-smoking area.

Currently its having a strange social effect. My daughter doesn't smoke but
most of her friends do. When they nip outside en masse for a fag, she finds
herself sitting alone in the bar. Now she goes outside with them.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Rod wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


I find diesel fumes, cheap perfume, fat women in leggings and people
from Dudley unpleasant, but like passive smoking they aren't a health
risk.


O but the cheap perfume could be a health risk...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7547815.stm

as could the diesel fumes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7888735.stm

and fat women (at least to themselves and their offspring):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7874804.stm

Couldn't find anything about health risks of leggings (to others). Spoke
too soon:

http://health.yahoo.com/women-gyn/vaginal-yeast-infections-prevention/healthwise--aa10674.html


Dudley is the odd one out...

:-)

Bravo!!

I am sure if you look hard enough, you will find evidence that Dudley is
indeed injurious to health, though. Its probably joy rider capital of
the North.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Rod wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


I find diesel fumes, cheap perfume, fat women in leggings and people
from Dudley unpleasant, but like passive smoking they aren't a health
risk.


O but the cheap perfume could be a health risk...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7547815.stm

as could the diesel fumes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7888735.stm

and fat women (at least to themselves and their offspring):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7874804.stm

Couldn't find anything about health risks of leggings (to others).
Spoke too soon:

http://health.yahoo.com/women-gyn/vaginal-yeast-infections-prevention/healthwise--aa10674.html


Dudley is the odd one out...

:-)

Bravo!!

I am sure if you look hard enough, you will find evidence that Dudley is
indeed injurious to health, though. Its probably joy rider capital of
the North.



What is concerning (to me) is that the first three of those were at my
fingertips having been read in the last few days. :-)

Having a Dudley accent is probably dangerous - as people are likely to
take action to reduce the auditory impact of it in any way they can,
violently if necessary.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...

Smoking improves concentration & memory, perhaps you should start?

Only in addicts.
Non smokers don't need to smoke to regain their abilities.

What? You are gibbering again man. That makes no sense.

Try having a fag then you might get back enough brain power to
understand.

OK, I've had a fag, several in fact.

They didn't help much though.


Only in addicts.

No, nicotine improves concentration & memory in everyone.

Rubbish.
You are an addict.
The reason you are an addict is because you get a low when you are
deprived of your drug.

dennis, you really are the most clueless **** (as usual)

you don't get highs and lows with nicotine, just a feeling that you need
more

You develop a resistance to the drug meaning the highs get lower and
the lows get lower.
As you are a long term smoker you need the drug just to function on the
same level as a non smoker.

total ********

It doesn't improve your concentration or memory,

wrong

it just gets you somewhere near the normal that the rest of use enjoy.
Then you start getting the low again and forget what you have been told
already.


Non smokers don't need to smoke to regain their abilities.

That assumes that non smokers have lost some abilities?

It doesn't say that.
Have a fag and try again.


--
geoff

Rod wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Rod wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


I find diesel fumes, cheap perfume, fat women in leggings and people
from Dudley unpleasant, but like passive smoking they aren't a
health risk.


O but the cheap perfume could be a health risk...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7547815.stm

as could the diesel fumes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7888735.stm

and fat women (at least to themselves and their offspring):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7874804.stm

Couldn't find anything about health risks of leggings (to others).
Spoke too soon:

http://health.yahoo.com/women-gyn/vaginal-yeast-infections-prevention/healthwise--aa10674.html


Dudley is the odd one out...

:-)

Bravo!!

I am sure if you look hard enough, you will find evidence that Dudley
is indeed injurious to health, though. Its probably joy rider capital
of the North.



What is concerning (to me) is that the first three of those were at my
fingertips having been read in the last few days. :-)

Having a Dudley accent is probably dangerous - as people are likely to
take action to reduce the auditory impact of it in any way they can,
violently if necessary.

Well as an asthmatic, second hand diesel and second hand smoke and
perfume do react badly with me. I also smoke, so I can't complain.

Wood dust and superglue kill me dead..I am pretty sure MDF dust was a
hugely contributory factory in getting pleurisy..

As to fat women in leggings..well all i can say is that how these
entities manage to get pregnant at all is quite beyond me..I can only
surmise that there are some pretty desperate blokes out there who will
shag anything, even if its merely out of pity. One would have thought
that Darwinian imperatives would have removed them from the face of the
earth by now.

Along with Dudley. And Slough.

BUt life's rich tapestry is a source of amazement to us all.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:


Smoking improves concentration & memory, perhaps you should
start?

Only in addicts.
Non smokers don't need to smoke to regain their abilities.

What? You are gibbering again man. That makes no sense.

Try having a fag then you might get back enough brain power to
understand.

OK, I've had a fag, several in fact.

They didn't help much though.


Only in addicts.

No, nicotine improves concentration & memory in everyone.

Rubbish.
You are an addict.
The reason you are an addict is because you get a low when you are
deprived of your drug.
You develop a resistance to the drug meaning the highs get lower and
the lows get lower.

You clearly have never smoked, it doesn't work like that at all.

Clearly you are an addict and can't tell how it works, just like most other
addicts.


As you are a long term smoker you need the drug just to function on
the same level as a non smoker.

Errm. No.

Errrm, yes.


It doesn't improve your concentration or memory, it just gets you
somewhere near the normal that the rest of use enjoy.

What part of 'improves' don't you understand?

If you consider taking a drug in an attempt to get back to normal an
improvement it explains why you are still an addict and will probably remain
so even after your legs are amputated and you have had a triple bypass.
That's the trouble with addictions, they cloud the addicts mind and make
them think garbage just as you are doing now.