"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...


Passive smoking has never killed anyone.

You can repeat that as many times as you like, it just proves that you don't
have a clue.
At least when you were claiming it hadn't kill insert name it was
impossible to prove but to claim anyone just shows you don't understand
epidemiology.
You could have claimed smoking never killed insert name and it would have
been hard to disprove but epidemiology shows that smoking does kill people,
the same as it shows secondary smoking does.
Now go and cut someone's grass and stop making stupid statements.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those
handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too
much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas.

So the barmaid is going to wear a face mask with filters and possibly an
air supply?

Why would a barmaid ever have to enter the dedicated smoking area?

And the smokers are going to pay more for their drinks to pay for this?

Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since the
smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have provided
heated spaces outside for smokers? One such did so by removing the kid's
play area...

There are easier solutions, like giving up the addiction.

Do get a life, Dennis.

--
*Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Again, just how large is this cigarette that takes 20 mins to smoke?

Exaggeration is a standard tactic used by anti smoking fascists.

And by addicted handymen.
Who said it was one fag and one break?
They used to take two or three an hour in some departments.

I hope that organisation went bust - through bad management. Perhaps it
was a government one?

Now we are down to they smoked it in only two minutes, how the hell did
they manage that?

In English?

--
*Acupuncture is a jab well done*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 30/08/11 00:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those
handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too
much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas.


In that situation it is essential, as those dangerous gases are part of the
work being done.

If I were an employer (and I'm not) why should I spend hard-to-come-by funds
on facilities for smokers, when them smoking contributes in no way at all to
the success of the organisation? If I was to give money away it would be
better to donate it to charity, where it would be beneficial to worthwhile
causes.

And if those smokers can't do a decent days work without needing to go
outside for cigarettes for more breaktime than a non-smoker needs, then
they're not fit for the job and I would replace them with someone who is.

No objection whatsoever if someone wants to smoke. But like any other
addiction when it starts to affect people around them or prevents them from
doing their job then it has gone too far and they need to wise up.

Like any addict, though, they can't accept any of this. Their minds are
closed to all reason. Woe betide anyone who gets in the way or suggests the
addict is wrong. They find anyway possible to justify to themselves and
others that to be addicted is normal and is their right.

"Adam Funk" wrote in message
...

An extremely libertarian perspective might be that employers should be
free to set whatever smoking/non-smoking policies they want,

Marconi banned smoking well before the smoking ban was made law (probably
5-10 years before).
Only a very small number of fool^W people smoked (less than 2%, must be
something to do with intelligence?) and it was annoying the hell out of the
rest of us so we pressured management to ban it or to put them elsewhere.

and prospective employees can accept them or go elsewhere;

A no smoking clause was added to the contracts of new employees.

*some* libertarians seriously argue against anti-discrimination laws on
the
grounds that, in the long term at least, racist employers will be less
successful than non-racist ones (because they are drawing employees
from a smaller pool selected without regard to competence). ("In the
long run we are all dead." -- J M Keynes)

On 29/08/11 23:22, The Medway Handyman wrote:


Even more enlightening to learn how extreme rabid anti smoking fascists can
be in the persecution of a minority.


Paranoia. That's another thing triggered by the perceived threat of addiction
withdrawal.

People are not persecuting you. They just want to lead their lives quite
happily away from the stench and risk associated with your smoke. That is not
persecution.

People around you shouldn't know or care that you smoke, unless you tell
them. The problem is that symptoms of addiction make it quite obvious and can
make you an unpleasant person to be around - just like with alcohol
addiction. Aside from the addiction symptoms smoking is physically unpleasant
in and of itself.

So you're free to indulge in your addiction. Do it on your own or with other
smokers and no-one will mind, you're not bothering anyone. But don't be under
the illusion that others should make efforts to accommodate you or
accommodate the unpleasant smells and side effects of the addiction.

On 29/08/11 23:20, The Medway Handyman wrote:


And thats not what I was talking about idiot.

Smoking has been demonised by the health police - fact.

With good reason..., just like drink driving and obesity and...


Alcohol is next on their lists - fact.

Undoubtedly. But unlike smoking, alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation without
affecting anyone else, and without becoming addicted.

In article ,
funkyoldcortina wrote:
On 30/08/11 00:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those
handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too
much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas.


In that situation it is essential, as those dangerous gases are part of
the work being done.

As they could also be, in a pub, etc.

If I were an employer (and I'm not) why should I spend hard-to-come-by
funds on facilities for smokers, when them smoking contributes in no
way at all to the success of the organisation?

Exactly the same applies to tea breaks, etc. Just as well you're not an
employer.

If I was to give money away it would be better to donate it to charity,
where it would be beneficial to worthwhile causes.

Great. You'd have done well as an employer a couple of centuries ago.

And if those smokers can't do a decent days work without needing to go
outside for cigarettes for more breaktime than a non-smoker needs, then
they're not fit for the job and I would replace them with someone who is.

See above. And above.

No objection whatsoever if someone wants to smoke. But like any other
addiction when it starts to affect people around them or prevents them
from doing their job then it has gone too far and they need to wise up.

See above. And above. And above.

Like any addict, though, they can't accept any of this. Their minds are
closed to all reason. Woe betide anyone who gets in the way or suggests
the addict is wrong. They find anyway possible to justify to themselves
and others that to be addicted is normal and is their right.

Studied addiction, have you? Perhaps you should.

--
*Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
funkyoldcortina wrote:
Undoubtedly. But unlike smoking, alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation
without affecting anyone else, and without becoming addicted.

Where did you get the idea that *all* smokers are addicted to it?

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:11:36 +1000, Elmo
wrote:

Sure, but how much good looking "strange" can you pick up at home?

Depends on what sort of 'home' it is.

On 30/08/11 14:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
On 30/08/11 00:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those
handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too
much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas.


In that situation it is essential, as those dangerous gases are part of
the work being done.

As they could also be, in a pub, etc.

If I were an employer (and I'm not) why should I spend hard-to-come-by
funds on facilities for smokers, when them smoking contributes in no
way at all to the success of the organisation?

Exactly the same applies to tea breaks, etc. Just as well you're not an
employer.

Actually no it doesn't. Asides from being a legal requirement, break times
and recuperation time are a vital part of making sure staff are happy and
well motivated. But if anything, providing *extra* facilities just for
smokers can actually demotivate non-smoking staff (I've seen the staff
surveys that prove it).


If I was to give money away it would be better to donate it to charity,
where it would be beneficial to worthwhile causes.

Great. You'd have done well as an employer a couple of centuries ago.

Plenty of modern large firms have altruistic and philanthropic activities,
some of them even going so far as to have whole departments that deal with it.


And if those smokers can't do a decent days work without needing to go
outside for cigarettes for more breaktime than a non-smoker needs, then
they're not fit for the job and I would replace them with someone who is.

See above. And above.

Sorry but I don't follow.
Person A (non smoker) is happy and gets x amount of breaktime at work.
Person B (smoker) is happy and gets x amount of breaktime at work.
Person C (smoker) can't function unless they get x amount of breaktime plus
an additional amount so they can regularly smoke.

Sorry, but which employer in their right mind would choose person C over A or B?



No objection whatsoever if someone wants to smoke. But like any other
addiction when it starts to affect people around them or prevents them
from doing their job then it has gone too far and they need to wise up.

See above. And above. And above.

Sorry, but see what above?


Like any addict, though, they can't accept any of this. Their minds are
closed to all reason. Woe betide anyone who gets in the way or suggests
the addict is wrong. They find anyway possible to justify to themselves
and others that to be addicted is normal and is their right.

Studied addiction, have you? Perhaps you should.


I have studied related areas of psychological and motivational theory at
postgraduate level.

On 30/08/11 14:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
Undoubtedly. But unlike smoking, alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation
without affecting anyone else, and without becoming addicted.

Where did you get the idea that *all* smokers are addicted to it?


It is so easy to become chemically addicted to nicotine that anyone who
smokes more than a few cigarettes for a short period of time undoubtedly *is*
addicted.

Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since the
smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have provided
heated spaces outside for smokers? One such did so by removing the kid's
play area...

I have noticed that certain parts of London that used to be vibrant are
now littered with empty gastro pubs. Bloody depressing to the casual
observer

In article ,
funkyoldcortina wrote:
Where did you get the idea that *all* smokers are addicted to it?


It is so easy to become chemically addicted to nicotine that anyone who
smokes more than a few cigarettes for a short period of time undoubtedly
*is* addicted.

That doesn't mean they *have* to smoke every 15 minutes as you imply. I've
never been able to smoke at my actual work and it's never bothered me. In
exactly the same way as plenty enjoy their alcohol but can wait until
after work before indulging.

--
*Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
stuart noble wrote:

Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since
the smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have
provided heated spaces outside for smokers? One such did so by
removing the kid's play area...

I have noticed that certain parts of London that used to be vibrant are
now littered with empty gastro pubs. Bloody depressing to the casual
observer

A rare event round here. A pub close to Clapham Junction - The Plough -
closed some time ago and was demolished. The site sat empty for some time.
Then building work commenced, and I assumed it was just more flats - like
the cinema and electrical wholesaler opposite were converted into. But
although there are flats, there's also a new pub.

--
*Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 30/08/2011 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble wrote:

Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since
the
smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have provided
heated spaces outside for smokers? One such did so by removing the
kid's
play area...

I have noticed that certain parts of London that used to be vibrant
are now littered with empty gastro pubs. Bloody depressing to the
casual observer

What does "vibrant" mean?


Full to the rafters with people enjoying a drink but not likely to be
leaving by ambulance. What I'd call normal drinkers

On 30/08/2011 00:49, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 30/08/2011 2:49 a.m., Kathy wrote:

No one is disputing that. Which bit of 'passive' confused you?

Passive or active, tobacco smoke causes illness.
It is also, as you have acknowledged, polluting and frequently
unpleasant. No matter how many times you scream that it is your right to
be a unpleasant polluter, you do not have the right to pollute other
people's airspace.


Even if we take health effects completely out of the equation, smoking
around people who hate tobacco smoke is like farting in a crowded lift.
Extremely discourteous. Although, according to TMH, anyone objecting in
this instance would be a stupid, puritanical fascist.

A big river in Africa.

What I'm actually suggesting is two lifts. But you deliberately chose
to misunderstand.

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

On 30/08/2011 13:08, mike wrote:
On Aug 30, 12:10 am, wrote:
On 29/08/2011 16:01, mike wrote:

In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced"
than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent?

Do I really need to explain that to you?

Jon

You (by which I mean someone with an analytical mind so obviously not
you) could go through that article and point out assumptions, errors,
mischaracterisations and contradictions in virtually every sentence.

It has no scientific rigour and doesn't cite sources, so I don't know
where you get the notion that it contains "REAL facts" as opposed to
the less reliable lower case real facts or, indeed, facts. (It does
have a lot of exclamation marks though, doesn't it?)

It starts off from the premise - which it revisits frequently - that
any contrary view is "hysteria".

It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David
Icke's alien lizards.

Clearly, though, as an appeal to emotion, it finds its audience in the
sort of folk who just want their prejudices reinforced.

I imagine you mean it's balanced in the sense that creationism offers
a "balance" to evolution or that "psychic powers" offer a balance to
Uri Geller bending the ****ing spoon when you're not looking.

No doubt you checked out the "What Can be Done?" section. Amongst all
the front-organizations for the tobacco industry, you'll have seen the
link to Jackson's buddy, pro-smoking, pro-DDT, pro-asbestos, anti-
evolution, anti global warming loon and Glenn Beck-a-like, Steve
Milloy. Do you get your tinfoil hats from the same place?

So, yes, by all means explain why "singer" Joe Jackson's yellow
journalism is more valid than similar self-justifciation from "singer"
Gary Glitter.


Calm down man, stop raving. Go & have a fag.



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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those
handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too
much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas.

So the barmaid is going to wear a face mask with filters and possibly an
air supply?

Why would a barmaid ever have to enter the dedicated smoking area?

So who is going to collect the glasses and do general supervision as need in
a pub?


And the smokers are going to pay more for their drinks to pay for this?

Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since the
smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have provided
heated spaces outside for smokers?

I know of none that have provided heated areas for smokers, not that i look
for them.

One such did so by removing the kid's
play area...

That's good, we wouldn't want kids being exposed to that nasty habit.

There are easier solutions, like giving up the addiction.

Do get a life, Dennis.

I have one, smoke free too.
I don't have any addictions to anything.
I suspect that some people are just going to get addicted to things more
easily than those that don't want to be addicts.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
funkyoldcortina wrote:
Undoubtedly. But unlike smoking, alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation
without affecting anyone else, and without becoming addicted.

Where did you get the idea that *all* smokers are addicted to it?

Its proven that it is an addictive drug.
What makes you think it is not addictive and that smokers aren't addicted.
Do you think they would harm themselves if they weren't addicted?
What sort of mental problem do self harmers have?
Maybe you think smokers need to be sectioned if they aren't addicted?


I remember the daytime TV when a spokes person from the tobacco industry
stated "Of course cigarettes aren't addictive, I have given up several
times". It made me laugh at how stupid he was.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2011 22:36, John Williamson wrote:
Fuschia wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:41:10 +0100, Ron Lowe wrote:
So you think it's perfectly reasonable to inflict your smoking stench
on others?

A straight 'yes' will suffice.

Of course he does.
He doesn't care that it causes other people to cough,make their eyes
sore and their clothes smell.
He doesn't care that it may start an asthmatic attack.
He's happy to ignore these things.
He's a smoker.

AKA a drug addict.

AKA someone indulging in a perfectly legal activity.

Exactly. I don't see why he cannot smoke in his own garden. How far will
this no-smoking thing go?
It's ridiculous.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
So the barmaid is going to wear a face mask with filters and possibly an
air supply?

Why would a barmaid ever have to enter the dedicated smoking area?

So who is going to collect the glasses and do general supervision as
need in a pub?

A barmaid doesn't collect glasses in a decent pub.


And the smokers are going to pay more for their drinks to pay for
this?

Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since
the smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have
provided heated spaces outside for smokers?

I know of none that have provided heated areas for smokers, not that i
look for them.

Doesn't stop you pontificating, though.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
So the barmaid is going to wear a face mask with filters and possibly
an
air supply?

Why would a barmaid ever have to enter the dedicated smoking area?

So who is going to collect the glasses and do general supervision as
need in a pub?

A barmaid doesn't collect glasses in a decent pub.

Do you think a decent pub is one where they have to use plastic disposable
glasses, to stop customers glassing each other when they can't get their
fix?



And the smokers are going to pay more for their drinks to pay for
this?

Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since
the smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have
provided heated spaces outside for smokers?

I know of none that have provided heated areas for smokers, not that i
look for them.

Doesn't stop you pontificating, though.

Well you have an opinion and I have one, I haven't tried to stop you
pontificating about yours even though it cr@p.

On 30/08/2011 11:52 p.m., wrote:
In ,
wrote:

It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David
Icke's alien lizards.

Thank you for mentioning the latter. Gillian McKeith is merely one
example of what has become a regrettably common phenomenon, but
David Icke does appear to have taken the Velikovsky, von Däniken
and Hubbard approaches to a new, er, dimension!

The trolls on this thread are far less amusing.


Regards,
A loyal subject of Her Reptilian Majesty.

Velikovsky! Ah, it takes me back ...

In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:
On 30/08/2011 11:52 p.m., wrote:
In ,
wrote:

It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David
Icke's alien lizards.

Thank you for mentioning the latter. Gillian McKeith is merely one
example of what has become a regrettably common phenomenon, but
David Icke does appear to have taken the Velikovsky, von Däniken
and Hubbard approaches to a new, er, dimension!

The trolls on this thread are far less amusing.


Regards,
A loyal subject of Her Reptilian Majesty.

Velikovsky! Ah, it takes me back ...

Ages in Chaoe, Worlds in Collision, ..?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On 30/08/11 23:05, Sacha wrote:
On 2011-08-30 20:09:14 +0100, "Christina Websell"
said:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2011 22:36, John Williamson wrote:
Fuschia wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:41:10 +0100, Ron Lowe wrote:
So you think it's perfectly reasonable to inflict your smoking stench
on others?

A straight 'yes' will suffice.

Of course he does.
He doesn't care that it causes other people to cough,make their eyes
sore and their clothes smell.
He doesn't care that it may start an asthmatic attack.
He's happy to ignore these things.
He's a smoker.

AKA a drug addict.

AKA someone indulging in a perfectly legal activity.

Exactly. I don't see why he cannot smoke in his own garden. How far will
this no-smoking thing go?
It's ridiculous.

Let's be fair, that was never the original premise and this thread has become
unhelpful and silly in that respect. The OP never asked for a way to stop
someone smoking on their own premises. He or She asked for suggestions to
divert the flow of smoke from *their* garden.

Well said.

The OP was looking for a way not to have to suffer his neighbour's smoke. He
didn't suggest he wanted to stop his neighbour smoking.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:02:12 +0100, Hugh - Was Invisible
wrote:

snip



One of my brothers in law did not smoke. He was a professional guitar
player. He died from lung cancer in his fifties after playing in
countless smoky places.



He probably had a **** most days; that does not mean it caused his lung cancer.

On 31/08/2011 09:59, Rover wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:02:12 +0100, Hugh - Was Invisible
wrote:

snip



One of my brothers in law did not smoke. He was a professional guitar
player. He died from lung cancer in his fifties after playing in
countless smoky places.



He probably had a **** most days; that does not mean it caused his lung cancer.

The overwhelming majority of lung cancer occurs in smokers. The link is
so high it would be foolish to suggest that passive smoking does not
cause a lot more.

I was surprised to note that research links smoking and passive smoking
with hearing loss. So my 45 a day habit might explain why my hearing is
so poor. Hopefully I gave up long enough ago that my risks of lung
cancer and heart disease are receding. Then again I have spent a lot of
time in smoky offices, pubs and clubs so perhaps I had better make my
funeral arrangements.

Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:
On 31/08/2011 09:59, Rover wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:02:12 +0100, Hugh - Was Invisible
wrote:

snip



One of my brothers in law did not smoke. He was a professional guitar
player. He died from lung cancer in his fifties after playing in
countless smoky places.



He probably had a **** most days; that does not mean it caused his
lung cancer.

The overwhelming majority of lung cancer occurs in smokers. The link is
so high it would be foolish to suggest that passive smoking does not
cause a lot more.

I was surprised to note that research links smoking and passive smoking
with hearing loss. So my 45 a day habit might explain why my hearing is
so poor. Hopefully I gave up long enough ago that my risks of lung
cancer and heart disease are receding. Then again I have spent a lot of
time in smoky offices, pubs and clubs so perhaps I had better make my
funeral arrangements.
My wifes hearing is crap she smokes MUCH less than I do.

She used to dance to punk bands though. I stood at the back of rick
bands listening to the sound balance.

Then she adopted headphones plugged into a computer.

Now all she can hear is headphones plugged into a computer. Doesn't hear
a damned thing I say anyway.

On 31/08/2011 18:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:
On 31/08/2011 09:59, Rover wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:02:12 +0100, Hugh - Was Invisible
wrote:

snip



One of my brothers in law did not smoke. He was a professional guitar
player. He died from lung cancer in his fifties after playing in
countless smoky places.



He probably had a **** most days; that does not mean it caused his
lung cancer.

The overwhelming majority of lung cancer occurs in smokers. The link
is so high it would be foolish to suggest that passive smoking does
not cause a lot more.

I was surprised to note that research links smoking and passive
smoking with hearing loss. So my 45 a day habit might explain why my
hearing is so poor. Hopefully I gave up long enough ago that my risks
of lung cancer and heart disease are receding. Then again I have spent
a lot of time in smoky offices, pubs and clubs so perhaps I had better
make my funeral arrangements.
My wifes hearing is crap she smokes MUCH less than I do.

She used to dance to punk bands though. I stood at the back of rick
bands listening to the sound balance.

Then she adopted headphones plugged into a computer.

Now all she can hear is headphones plugged into a computer. Doesn't hear
a damned thing I say anyway.

Funny that. My wife uses wireless headphones for the TV cos I can't
stand the constant drone. If I want her to hear she doesn't but if I
don't she does. She says the same of me. Seems to be a common affliction
between couples.
Never mind - over to the smoke free pub later when we will both talk -
and possibly even listen.

On 31/08/2011 18:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:
On 31/08/2011 09:59, Rover wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:02:12 +0100, Hugh - Was Invisible
wrote:

snip



One of my brothers in law did not smoke. He was a professional guitar
player. He died from lung cancer in his fifties after playing in
countless smoky places.



He probably had a **** most days; that does not mean it caused his
lung cancer.

The overwhelming majority of lung cancer occurs in smokers. The link
is so high it would be foolish to suggest that passive smoking does
not cause a lot more.

I was surprised to note that research links smoking and passive
smoking with hearing loss. So my 45 a day habit might explain why my
hearing is so poor. Hopefully I gave up long enough ago that my risks
of lung cancer and heart disease are receding. Then again I have spent
a lot of time in smoky offices, pubs and clubs so perhaps I had better
make my funeral arrangements.
My wifes hearing is crap she smokes MUCH less than I do.

She used to dance to punk bands though. I stood at the back of rick
bands listening to the sound balance.

Then she adopted headphones plugged into a computer.

Now all she can hear is headphones plugged into a computer. Doesn't hear
a damned thing I say anyway.

My mother is rather like that, she uses headphones to watch TV), but
that was through a different cause - she had always suffered tinnitus
and earwax and on a visit to the hospital a few years ago to have her
ears syringed, she felt that the force was much greater than normal and
instantly went quite deaf and it didn't wear off. Having deafened her in
both ears, the hospital then put her on a 12 month waiting list for
hearing aids!

SteveW

"Sacha" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-30 20:09:14 +0100, "Christina Websell"
said:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2011 22:36, John Williamson wrote:
Fuschia wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:41:10 +0100, Ron Lowe wrote:
So you think it's perfectly reasonable to inflict your smoking stench
on others?

A straight 'yes' will suffice.

Of course he does.
He doesn't care that it causes other people to cough,make their eyes
sore and their clothes smell.
He doesn't care that it may start an asthmatic attack.
He's happy to ignore these things.
He's a smoker.

AKA a drug addict.

AKA someone indulging in a perfectly legal activity.

Exactly. I don't see why he cannot smoke in his own garden. How far
will
this no-smoking thing go?
It's ridiculous.

Let's be fair, that was never the original premise and this thread has
become unhelpful and silly in that respect. The OP never asked for a way
to stop someone smoking on their own premises. He or She asked for
suggestions to divert the flow of smoke from *their* garden.
--

You can't, can you? They are perfectly entitled to smoke in their house or
their garden.
You will not die of it if you smell their smoke. It's got ridiculous.

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 22:50:25 +0100, Christina Websell wrote:

You can't, can you? They are perfectly entitled to smoke in their house
or their garden.

You miss the point in your anxiety to defend the habit. The OP never said
they were not entitled, you stupid woman. They merely asked if there was
a feasible way of keeping away from themselves.

You will not die of it if you smell their smoke. It's got ridiculous.

Again, your smoker's agenda is clouding the issue. They don't *like* the
smoke; that is the problem.




--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 22:50:25 +0100, Christina Websell wrote:

You can't, can you? They are perfectly entitled to smoke in their house
or their garden.

You miss the point in your anxiety to defend the habit. The OP never said
they were not entitled, you stupid woman. They merely asked if there was
a feasible way of keeping away from themselves.

You will not die of it if you smell their smoke. It's got ridiculous.

Again, your smoker's agenda is clouding the issue. They don't *like* the
smoke; that is the problem.

I wonder how many smokers would complain if their neighbour put the dog loo
or compost heap next to their patio/kitchen window.
Neither will kill them.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder how many smokers would complain if their neighbour put the dog
loo or compost heap next to their patio/kitchen window. Neither will
kill them.

I don't complain when neighbours have a bonfire or barbecue. It's called
living together in harmony.

--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder how many smokers would complain if their neighbour put the dog
loo or compost heap next to their patio/kitchen window. Neither will
kill them.

I don't complain when neighbours have a bonfire or barbecue. It's called
living together in harmony.

--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *

Dave Plowman London SW

I don't smoke but I do like a drink so the residue from my habbit is
urine. Following the smokers arguement they would not object if I poured
urine all over them would they?
Robbie

On 03/09/2011 10:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
I wonder how many smokers would complain if their neighbour put the dog
loo or compost heap next to their patio/kitchen window. Neither will
kill them.

I don't complain when neighbours have a bonfire or barbecue. It's called
living together in harmony.


Showing your age mate. There must be somebody you can blame for something?

In article ,
Roberts wrote:
I don't smoke but I do like a drink so the residue from my
habbit is urine. Following the smokers arguement they would not
object if I poured urine all over them would they?

Perhaps your neighbours wouldn't. But if I lived next door to you (or
them) I'd move.

--
*Never kick a cow pat on a hot day *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 03/09/2011 10:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
I wonder how many smokers would complain if their neighbour put the dog
loo or compost heap next to their patio/kitchen window. Neither will
kill them.

I don't complain when neighbours have a bonfire or barbecue. It's called
living together in harmony.

Neither do I. They have a barbecue half a dozen times a year. Another
neighbour has a bonfire once a month or so. The smokers next door are
out smoking half a dozen times a night, every night three feet from our
conservatory windows. Shutting the windows means we get no airflow and
is very uncomfortable in hot weather, opening them means our living room
fills with the stink.

SteveW