EAGLE Netlist conversion

[Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su]

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:nvRjd.5321$op3.200292@news.xtra.co.nz...

[snip]

There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice
of
words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to think
about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene
etc.

No, it is benzpyrene. AFAICT, all those couldn't exist in the smoke
because they would've been burned up in the combustion.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/3,4-Benzpyrene.asp?q=3%2C4-Benz
pyrene

[snip]

Cheers
Terry

 

[Terry Given]

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:nvRjd.5321$op3.200292@news.xtra.co.nz...

[snip]


There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice

of

words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to think
about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene

etc.

No, it is benzpyrene. AFAICT, all those couldn't exist in the smoke
because they would've been burned up in the combustion.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/3,4-Benzpyrene.asp?q=3%2C4-Benz
pyrene

[snip]

I'll give you a hint:

"for your assertion to hold, smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for
cancer. Best not to think about Benzene, Xylene or Toluene"

All of which are carcinogens we encounter daily (its in unleaded
petrol), in direct contradiction to the requirement for smoking to be
the ONLY cause of cancer. Likewise we probably better ignore ultraviolet
radiation - skin cancer etc etc.

Although you are quite correct that none of the 3 would survive in
cigarette smoke as they are highly flammable. I just seemed to remember
reading something about benzene-like nasties in cigarette smoke, hence
the aside which perhaps obfuscated the sentence, but thanks for the info.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Terry Given]

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:eX1kd.142$944.7362@news.xtra.co.nz...

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:


"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:nvRjd.5321$op3.200292@news.xtra.co.nz...

[snip]



There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice

of


words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to

think

about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene

etc.

No, it is benzpyrene. AFAICT, all those couldn't exist in the smoke
because they would've been burned up in the combustion.



http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/3,4-Benzpyrene.asp?q=3%2C4-Benz

pyrene

[snip]


I'll give you a hint:

"for your assertion to hold, smoking would need to be the ONLY cause

for

cancer. Best not to think about Benzene, Xylene or Toluene"

All of which are carcinogens we encounter daily (its in unleaded
petrol), in direct contradiction to the requirement for smoking to be
the ONLY cause of cancer. Likewise we probably better ignore

ultraviolet

radiation - skin cancer etc etc.

Although you are quite correct that none of the 3 would survive in
cigarette smoke as they are highly flammable. I just seemed to

remember

reading something about benzene-like nasties in cigarette smoke, hence
the aside which perhaps obfuscated the sentence, but thanks for the

info.

Cheers
Terry


Sorry about the confusion.

Benzine is a carcinogen according to the gov't.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts3.html

However, this is what the gov't has to say about xylene:

How likely are xylenes to cause cancer?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined
that xylene is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans.

Human and animal studies have not shown xylene to be carcinogenic, but
these studies are not conclusive and do not provide enough information
to conclude that xylene does not cause cancer.


This is what the gov't has to say about toluene:

How likely is toluene to cause cancer?

Studies in humans and animals generally indicate that toluene does not
cause cancer.

The EPA has determined that the carcinogenicity of toluene can not be
classified.

Perhaps I am mistaken re. Xylene and Toluene, but perhaps not. But I
knew Benzene was a nasty one. IMO all evil hydrocarbon solvents are to
be avoided - we are hydrocarbons .

I mentioned it here a while back, but in the late 70s a friend of mine
did a study for the NZ military on the effects of radar installations on
health. They looked at the medical history of pretty much the whole
military, and found no correlation at all to radar proximity. OTOH they
found that armourers didnt make it past 65, and painters fared little
better. Johns conclusion? Bugger the RF, stay the hell away from nasty
chemicals.

Almost every day we are discovering work-related illnesses - almost all
of which involve people handling nasty chemicals (hell, often with no
PPE at all, workers saturated in evil shit like DDT or 2,4,5T).

And of course recent studies have shown a HUGE increase in Leukaemia for
kids who live next door to petrol stations - 5x or so.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:18:57 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark
Remover" wrote:

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:nvRjd.5321$op3.200292@news.xtra.co.nz...

[snip]

There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice
of
words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to think
about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene
etc.

No, it is benzpyrene. AFAICT, all those couldn't exist in the smoke
because they would've been burned up in the combustion.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/3,4-Benzpyrene.asp?q=3%2C4-Benz
pyrene

Benzo-A-Pyrene.

I know. I was one of ~125 coders, who coded a collection of ~3,000,000
pages of documents. After a few months, words like benzo-a-pyrene seem
to lose their meaning.

Also ASHRAE, which, of course, we all pronounced "ash tray".

Cheers!
Rich


Cheers!
Rich

 

[Chuck Harris]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

snip

Sick building syndrome was a big hoopla back in those days. With all
....
tobacco smoke.

This is exactly the wrong thing to do. What banning tobacco smoke does
is, it removes the best possible indicator of poor ventilation.
They got rid of the visible smoke, so the benzene, formaldehyde,
all manner of volatile organic hydrocarbons, bacterial spores, fungal
spores, viral spores, active viruses, live bacteria, carbon
monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, radon, dust mite feces, dust mites,
dust, human effluvia, etc, etc, etc, built up.

And the motherfuckers _still_ blame smoking for all their ills.

Stupid motherfucking nazi assholes.


Same thing happened with commercial airliners; the smoke used to
concentrate in the inevitable aging cracks, making them naked-eye
visible. Kinda like Magnafluxing.

Yet, inspite of Rich's twaddle, life is now mostly tolerable for
nonsmokers. It used to be a living hell when smokers would light
up in classrooms, halls, offices, theaters, restaurants, airplanes,
bathrooms, stores,... everywhere. Even the segration didn't work. The
smoke in the back of the plane always reached gag me levels in the
front, smoke from the bar/smoking sections of restaurants, always clouded
up the token nonsmoking section..

The funny part is smokers are so dumb that they think their smoke won't
be noticed by non smokers, if they just fan at it with their hands, or
suck on a mint, ... if they aren't *seen* smoking. Well, I've got news
for the smokers, we can smell you when you enter the room... and you reek!
Your attempts to cover the smoke with Glade air fresheners makes you homes
smell like cheap motels, or trailers. A cross between a urinal cake and
an ashtray.

Not that I mind smoking very much...

-Chuck Harris

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Frank Bemelman wrote:

"sparky" <sparky@world.net> schreef in bericht
news:82yid.4164$Pd2.1737045@monger.newsread.com...

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:418a6ac2$0$559$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> schreef in bericht
news:57qko0d8sdcogp22543kle3vcco9f1cfrt@4ax.com...
Fox News Reports Arafat Dead

Let us hope that his successor is peace-thinking.

Let us hope that his successor is peace-thinking too.

http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/1994a.html

And let us also hope that Israel starts acting normal.

Arafat is the father of terrorism. No person who is against
terrorism will mourn his passing.

Israel is acting in good faith considering that Arafats terrorists
are continually killing Isreali women and children.

Let's have a look at the counter:
http://www.geocities.com/tents444/counters.htm#bann

974 Isrealis, 3426 Palestines.

Who is continually killing who? And who is supporting
Israel by donating money *every day* so they can arm
themselves for their holy task? I know of one:
http://www.rense.com/general31/rege.htm

And when you still have some time left, read the full text:
http://www.billbuckel.com/pal-corr.htm

Or a snippet from the above link:

"The $3 billion per year of U.S. tax money used to support Israeli tyranny
has impact beyond injustice to Palestinians. It also puts ordinary Americans
who travel or work abroad at risk. Desperate people strike back at tyranny
in desperate ways. In recent years, two American embassies (in Kenya and
Tanzania) and a war ship (the USS Cole) have been retaliation targets. The
U.S. Government indictment against Kenya bombers, alleged that they
conspired to attack Americans anywhere in order to pressure the United
States to stay out of the Middle East. [Terrorist gets life with no parole
in embassy blast, Columbus Dispatch, 6/13/01, Page A3, Ref.3] [X]
Accordingly, the first step toward getting freedom and justice in Palestine
and reducing anti-American feelings abroad is to stop all U.S. financial aid
to Israel, until there is a long-term solution in place. "

I have no more to say.
Thanks, Frank.
----------------

Well *I* fucking do!!!

Palestinians made it clear a LONG time ago, that they were unwilling
to tolerate the existence of Israel and would keep killing them till
Israel was "pushed into the sea". As long as they demand that a nation
of millions simply move or be killed, I very much LIKE for us to pay
the bill for Israel's defense and it would even be fine with me if we
HELPED the Israeli's kill ALL of them who are unwilling to live in
peace. We cannot tolerate these vicious criminals in the modern world.
Whether it is one guy who can't get along with his wife, or one
neighborhood that simply makes it plain that they are going to try to
kill a bunch of other people, we should simply go in and shoot them
ALL! Give them one warning that this will not be tolerated in future,
and then simply kill every neighborhood that has been a criminal
terrorist breeding ground! When they look around and see neighborhoods
like theirs being massacred and bulldozed, they will stop or they will
die, as is appropriate!!!

If Israel was using bombs on unarmed citizens, it would be different.
But THEY AREN'T! ANYONE who does that needs to be rooted out like a
cancer on an emergency basis!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jim Thompson wrote:

Democrats, having a meeting to decide why they lost the election,
decided it was because Bush fought a dirty campaign.

My view on that:

(1) I didn't see a single Kerry ad that wasn't an out-and-out lie.
----------------

Lying slightly to defeat evil is a virtuous act!

(2) Kerry had a "plan", but never gave any particulars... I guess
expecting, "Elect me, then I'll tell you".
-------------------

It was spelled out clearly, to everyone who actually wanted to know.
You were simply disingenuous about claiming you did, else you'd have
gone to their website.

(3) Taxing anyone over $200K gets every small business owner in the
US... not too smart.
----------------------

Crucial to the final equality of workers.
Tax the rich back to the level of the rest of us.
Require any business to pay each person working the SAME per hour.

(4) Never answering any question until 24 hours later, so he could run
a poll.
-----------------------

Lie. Republicans always lie, they seem to think it makes their dicks
larger to tempt fate that way, actually it just makes them stupid
dicks.

(5) Why do leftists hate Texans?
---------------------------

It's not merely Texans, it's ANY slack jawed moron stupid enough to
identify with dirt instead of ideas.

(6) Looking at a Red/Blue map, looks like the Blues choose appearance
over substance...
---------------------

Lie. The blue was simply the educated people in the USA. We're getting
real close to a Majority now, one of these years its gonna be all over
for your beloved Dark Ages.

the whole core of the US went for Bush.
------------------------

Population-wise, the "core" of the USA is nearly empty. The population
is in the north and on the coasts. Look at the light-at-night satellite
photos from orbit.

New England
and the Left Coast look like a bunch of sick puppies.
--------------------------

Then why do they have the lion's share of technical production to
their credit, and several of those states rank next to nations in
terms of their productivity.

The red is all scattered dirt farmers.

(7) Looks to me like it's time to penalize the Blue states, and do
away with any deductions for state/city income taxes... stop the
leaching off of the core... Boston, New York, LA and SF deserve the
fruit of their seed ;-)
----------------------------

If you in the red all died, we could repopulate the farm industry
in a few weeks. Us city kids mostly came from the country, TO GET
AWAY FROM YOU SHIT!! The rest of you slack-jawed morons are useless
and waste of resources and skin. Without a few hauling jobs you'd
be useless and unnecessary!

But if we blue disappeared, you'd GET your wish and return the
Dark Ages and in months you'd be back to the digging stick as your
average technology!

...Jim Thompson
--------------------

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:55:20 -0500, Chuck Harris wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

snip

Sick building syndrome was a big hoopla back in those days. With all
...
tobacco smoke.

This is exactly the wrong thing to do. What banning tobacco smoke does
is, it removes the best possible indicator of poor ventilation.
They got rid of the visible smoke, so the benzene, formaldehyde,
all manner of volatile organic hydrocarbons, bacterial spores, fungal
spores, viral spores, active viruses, live bacteria, carbon
monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, radon, dust mite feces, dust mites,
dust, human effluvia, etc, etc, etc, built up.

And the motherfuckers _still_ blame smoking for all their ills.

Stupid motherfucking nazi assholes.


Same thing happened with commercial airliners; the smoke used to
concentrate in the inevitable aging cracks, making them naked-eye
visible. Kinda like Magnafluxing.


Yet, inspite of Rich's twaddle, life is now mostly tolerable for
nonsmokers. It used to be a living hell when smokers would light
up in classrooms, halls, offices, theaters, restaurants, airplanes,
bathrooms, stores,... everywhere. Even the segration didn't work. The
smoke in the back of the plane always reached gag me levels in the
front, smoke from the bar/smoking sections of restaurants, always clouded
up the token nonsmoking section..

The funny part is smokers are so dumb that they think their smoke won't
be noticed by non smokers, if they just fan at it with their hands, or
suck on a mint, ... if they aren't *seen* smoking. Well, I've got news
for the smokers, we can smell you when you enter the room... and you reek!
Your attempts to cover the smoke with Glade air fresheners makes you homes
smell like cheap motels, or trailers. A cross between a urinal cake and
an ashtray.

Not that I mind smoking very much...

I know. Antismokerists are infamous for their hyperreactivity. Light up,
and some anti will go into hysterics half-way across town!

And of course, they'd much rather be breathing SUV exhaust.

But maybe there's a genetic defect that causes that hyperreactivity.
I remember as a kid, in the back of the family station wagon, when
Mom or Dad would light up, we really liked the aroma. It's almost
like a friendly campfire. But I suppose you hate campfire smoke
too.

Well, you've almost got your wish - you've been very effective at
cramming your religion down everybody's throat, with your shame and
blame. When they have the gall to go for an outright ban, however,
they might find that they have a civil war on their hands. You think
the war on drugs is a mess? Hah! Just wait till they declare war on
smokers!

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Fred Bloggs]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Democrats, having a meeting to decide why they lost the election,
decided it was because Bush fought a dirty campaign.

My view on that:

(1) I didn't see a single Kerry ad that wasn't an out-and-out lie.

----------------
Lying slightly to defeat evil is a virtuous act!



(2) Kerry had a "plan", but never gave any particulars... I guess
expecting, "Elect me, then I'll tell you".

-------------------
It was spelled out clearly, to everyone who actually wanted to know.
You were simply disingenuous about claiming you did, else you'd have
gone to their website.



(3) Taxing anyone over $200K gets every small business owner in the
US... not too smart.

----------------------
Crucial to the final equality of workers.
Tax the rich back to the level of the rest of us.
Require any business to pay each person working the SAME per hour.



(4) Never answering any question until 24 hours later, so he could run
a poll.

-----------------------
Lie. Republicans always lie, they seem to think it makes their dicks
larger to tempt fate that way, actually it just makes them stupid
dicks.



(5) Why do leftists hate Texans?

---------------------------
It's not merely Texans, it's ANY slack jawed moron stupid enough to
identify with dirt instead of ideas.



(6) Looking at a Red/Blue map, looks like the Blues choose appearance
over substance...

---------------------
Lie. The blue was simply the educated people in the USA. We're getting
real close to a Majority now, one of these years its gonna be all over
for your beloved Dark Ages.



the whole core of the US went for Bush.

------------------------
Population-wise, the "core" of the USA is nearly empty. The population
is in the north and on the coasts. Look at the light-at-night satellite
photos from orbit.



New England
and the Left Coast look like a bunch of sick puppies.

--------------------------
Then why do they have the lion's share of technical production to
their credit, and several of those states rank next to nations in
terms of their productivity.

The red is all scattered dirt farmers.



(7) Looks to me like it's time to penalize the Blue states, and do
away with any deductions for state/city income taxes... stop the
leaching off of the core... Boston, New York, LA and SF deserve the
fruit of their seed ;-)

----------------------------
If you in the red all died, we could repopulate the farm industry
in a few weeks. Us city kids mostly came from the country, TO GET
AWAY FROM YOU SHIT!! The rest of you slack-jawed morons are useless
and waste of resources and skin. Without a few hauling jobs you'd
be useless and unnecessary!

But if we blue disappeared, you'd GET your wish and return the
Dark Ages and in months you'd be back to the digging stick as your
average technology!



...Jim Thompson

--------------------
-Steve

Right- FUCK HIM and all the other *scum* in JESUSLAND- that so-called
"core" of the US consists of welfare client states- worthless parasitic
trash.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:16:53 -0500, Chuck Harris wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

like a friendly campfire. But I suppose you hate campfire smoke
too.

Well, you've almost got your wish - you've been very effective at
cramming your religion down everybody's throat, with your shame and
blame. When they have the gall to go for an outright ban, however,
they might find that they have a civil war on their hands. You think
the war on drugs is a mess? Hah! Just wait till they declare war on
smokers!

Good Luck!
Rich



Hi Rich,

Why is it me imposing my "religion" on smokers when I insist that they stop,
and not the smoker imposing his "religion" on us when he inflicts his
smoke on a whole room full of people?

It's a religion when you make rules compelling privately-owned
establishemnts to prohibit an activity that everyone who goes there
has done, freely and willingly, since before you were even born.

You seem incapable of comprehending the fact that, if there's smoke
in a place, you are not required to enter.

There have _always_ been ample smoke-free places, but that's not good
enough for you zealots. You want to _force_ _everyone_ to conform to
your own personal rule set.

And it shows all of the rest of the symptoms of being a religion,
the most obvious being the swallowing whole of dogma which has been
shown to have been fraudulent.

Just one smoker in a room makes everyone
in the room breath his smoke.

Well, if they were there first, don't go in the room. How stupid
can you people get?

As to campfires, and your fondness for your parent's smoke, kids of smokers
are just as nicotine addicted as their parents, they just don't know it.

Whether I'm addicted to anything or not is none of your, or anybody else's,
business, and making it so is another symptom of religious fanatacism.

But, you're converted, so saying facts is like teaching a brick to sing.

Good Luck,
Rich

 

[Bert Hickman]

Fred Bloggs wrote:

<SNIP>

Right- FUCK HIM and all the other *scum* in JESUSLAND- that so-called
"core" of the US consists of welfare client states- worthless parasitic
trash.

Now don't hold back Fred, tell us what you REALLY think....

 

[Chuck Harris]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:16:53 -0500, Chuck Harris wrote:


Why is it me imposing my "religion" on smokers when I insist that they stop,
and not the smoker imposing his "religion" on us when he inflicts his
smoke on a whole room full of people?


It's a religion when you make rules compelling privately-owned
establishemnts to prohibit an activity that everyone who goes there
has done, freely and willingly, since before you were even born.

So, what you are saying is that if I am bothered by smoke, I have no right
to attend college, go to a restaurant, a ball game, work in an office,
shop in an electronics store, shop in a auto parts store.... I should just
go hide my head in shame while smokers are free to roam? Bah!

You seem incapable of comprehending the fact that, if there's smoke
in a place, you are not required to enter.

There have _always_ been ample smoke-free places, but that's not good
enough for you zealots. You want to _force_ _everyone_ to conform to
your own personal rule set.

Hardly! If you could contain your smoke, I wouldn't care what you did,
but you cannot. In every apartment I ever lived in, the smoke passed through
the walls and into my space. It was enough to put a visible haze
in the air. Why do you think I should live like that so you can continue
to smoke?

To paraphrase the old libertarian phrase: Your rights end at my nose!

And it shows all of the rest of the symptoms of being a religion,
the most obvious being the swallowing whole of dogma which has been
shown to have been fraudulent.


Just one smoker in a room makes everyone
in the room breath his smoke.


Well, if they were there first, don't go in the room. How stupid
can you people get?

That "room" used to be every public place in this country, from theaters,
to ice cream shops. For some reason, you seem think your right to
stink up the air trumps my right to breathe clean air.

As to campfires, and your fondness for your parent's smoke, kids of smokers
are just as nicotine addicted as their parents, they just don't know it.


Whether I'm addicted to anything or not is none of your, or anybody else's,
business, and making it so is another symptom of religious fanatacism.

What I said wasn't passing a judgement on the child for being addicted,
just a statement of why children of smokers often like the smell of smoke.

But, you're converted, so saying facts is like teaching a brick to sing.

Good Luck,
Rich

Thanks, I've been pretty lucky so far,

-Chuck

 

[Robert Monsen]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:16:53 -0500, Chuck Harris wrote:


Rich The Philosophizer wrote:


like a friendly campfire. But I suppose you hate campfire smoke
too.

Well, you've almost got your wish - you've been very effective at
cramming your religion down everybody's throat, with your shame and
blame. When they have the gall to go for an outright ban, however,
they might find that they have a civil war on their hands. You think
the war on drugs is a mess? Hah! Just wait till they declare war on
smokers!

Good Luck!
Rich



Hi Rich,

Why is it me imposing my "religion" on smokers when I insist that they stop,
and not the smoker imposing his "religion" on us when he inflicts his
smoke on a whole room full of people?


It's a religion when you make rules compelling privately-owned
establishemnts to prohibit an activity that everyone who goes there
has done, freely and willingly, since before you were even born.

You have a point. However, it also used to be quite acceptable to beat
your kids in public, or dump oil down the drain into the bay, or for
companies to dump their offal into public streams. The fact that this is
no longer legal is a good thing, in my opinion.

You seem incapable of comprehending the fact that, if there's smoke
in a place, you are not required to enter.

Well, I can understand smoking in bars. If an establishment wants to
allow smoking, then another will not (there are far more non-smokers
than smokers, so I'm guessing that the non-smoking bars will do better,
but who knows, maybe alcohol and smoke go together...)

There have _always_ been ample smoke-free places, but that's not good
enough for you zealots. You want to _force_ _everyone_ to conform to
your own personal rule set.

And it shows all of the rest of the symptoms of being a religion,
the most obvious being the swallowing whole of dogma which has been
shown to have been fraudulent.

If this is true, then there are lots of faithful. I'm guessing most
people think smoking is a bit vulgar. Some dislike the odor. Others are
unable to breathe after being around it. Many are afraid of the fire
hazard it presents in apartment buildings. Even smokers, for the most
part, understand that it's offensive; there are special gums and
toothpastes for smokers.

Just one smoker in a room makes everyone
in the room breath his smoke.


Well, if they were there first, don't go in the room. How stupid
can you people get?

The smoke lingers for hours. It smells bad. It makes some people cough,
and probably contributes to the formations of cancers.

As to campfires, and your fondness for your parent's smoke, kids of smokers
are just as nicotine addicted as their parents, they just don't know it.


Whether I'm addicted to anything or not is none of your, or anybody else's,
business, and making it so is another symptom of religious fanatacism.

I think it would be ok with me if you were addicted to, say, heroin, as
long as you didn't drive in my neighborhood while under the influence.
Smoking is an obnoxious, nasty, smelly, hurtful, offensive thing.
Smokers just don't get it. I didn't when I smoked, years ago.

But, you're converted, so saying facts is like teaching a brick to sing.

This is always true.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:01:36 +0000, Robert Monsen wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:16:53 -0500, Chuck Harris wrote:
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
like a friendly campfire. But I suppose you hate campfire smoke
too.
Well, you've almost got your wish - you've been very effective at
cramming your religion down everybody's throat, with your shame and
blame. When they have the gall to go for an outright ban, however,
they might find that they have a civil war on their hands. You think
the war on drugs is a mess? Hah! Just wait till they declare war on
smokers!
Hi Rich,
Why is it me imposing my "religion" on smokers when I insist that they stop,
and not the smoker imposing his "religion" on us when he inflicts his
smoke on a whole room full of people?
It's a religion when you make rules compelling privately-owned
establishemnts to prohibit an activity that everyone who goes there
has done, freely and willingly, since before you were even born.

You have a point. However, it also used to be quite acceptable to beat
your kids in public, or dump oil down the drain into the bay, or for
companies to dump their offal into public streams. The fact that this is
no longer legal is a good thing, in my opinion.

So, now are you really, in fact, in all honesty, claiming that my
choice to inhale the smoke of a burning plant is equivalent to
child abuse?

Do you have any idea how ill that would be?

You seem incapable of comprehending the fact that, if there's smoke in
a place, you are not required to enter.

Well, I can understand smoking in bars. If an establishment wants to
allow smoking, then another will not (there are far more non-smokers
than smokers, so I'm guessing that the non-smoking bars will do better,
but who knows, maybe alcohol and smoke go together...)

Obviously, they do, and have done so since both have been discovered.

There have _always_ been ample smoke-free places, but that's not good
enough for you zealots. You want to _force_ _everyone_ to conform to
your own personal rule set.

And it shows all of the rest of the symptoms of being a religion, the
most obvious being the swallowing whole of dogma which has been shown
to have been fraudulent.

If this is true, then there are lots of faithful.

This is kind of a "duh," in my book. Just look at the recent US erection,
where 51% or more of the entire US population chose to go for four more
years of being Bush whacked.
(yes, these are jokes, based upon a few other, very old, jokes. And, FWIW,
even _I_ know how supernally lame they are, but WTF?)

I'm guessing most
people think smoking is a bit vulgar.

Of course! Self-righteousness is one of the most outstandingly obvious,
not to mention annoying and possibly dangerous, attributes of the
zealots.

Some dislike the odor.

I have no problem with this. I have been observed to ask before lighting
up, and felt a little pity for the poor nonsmoker who felt all
uncomfortable simply letting me know that he prefers not to have the
guy at the next stool smoking, because he doesn't care for it. That is
perfectly OK for me, and I have _always_ honored that preference. We
_do_ all breathe the same air, I'm not _that_ abysmal of an idiot.

But there is a Hell of a lot of difference between one nonsmoker and
one smoker discovering that the nonsmoker would rather not have smoke
in her face, versus making some grand sweeping all-encompassing rule
that declares that _nobody_ is allowed to smoke _anywhere_ that a
nonsmoker _might_ show up.

Others are
unable to breathe after being around it.

This is, possibly, true. But still, it's no excuse to call out the
gendarmes to bust the heads of somebody who's sneaking a smoke all
the way across town. And, of course, being all superior and wise
an' shit, I'll invoke the ol' "rather breathe car exhaust" saw.

Many are afraid of the fire
hazard it presents in apartment buildings.

This, for people who have not entirely abanoned their capacity for
rational thought, is an entirely different issue.

Even smokers, for the most
part, understand that it's offensive; there are special gums and
toothpastes for smokers.

This is such a non-sequitur that it'd almost be comical, if it weren't
so tragic.

So, you want to "break your habit" and join the fold of the redeemed?

Feh.

Just one smoker in a room makes everyone
in the room breath his smoke.

(*notwithstanding this is purest busshlit[SIC]. I've already addressed
hyperoverreactivity disorder.*)

Well, if they were there first, don't go in the room. How stupid can
you people get?

The smoke lingers for hours. It smells bad. It makes some people cough,
and probably contributes to the formations of cancers.

So, given all these plain, observable, verifiable facts, what is it
about your disorder that _compels_ you to inflict that environment on
yourself? You _do_ still have the alternative to _not_ dive head-first
into my cesspool of smokerist sin and depravity. ;-) i.e., you could
stay home, instead of going on crusades. But that doesn't feed your
self-righteousness, does it?

As to campfires, and your fondness for your parent's smoke, kids of
smokers are just as nicotine addicted as their parents, they just don't
know it.
Whether I'm addicted to anything or not is none of your, or anybody
else's, business, and making it so is another symptom of religious
fanatacism.

I think it would be ok with me if you were addicted to, say, heroin, as
long as you didn't drive in my neighborhood while under the influence.

This is a whole nother issue where the linear thinkers completely
miss the mark. It _does not matter_ _what_ substance or meme a person
is addicted to or indulging in - what matters is, how does _that
one individual's_ _behavior_ affect those around him? If you're driving
impaired, then it is your _driving behavior_ that needs to be regulated
for the safety of others. If a driver can't be bothered to stay between
the lines, then regardless of what the excuse, the community has a
"right" to try to keep that individual from doing harm, and dispensing
consequences if she does, _regardless_ of what agency of impairment
is at work.

And, by the way, let me gushingly, with maximal sarcasm, let you know
how much I have longed for your divine tolerance of my addiction(s).
</sarcasm>

Smoking is an obnoxious, nasty, smelly, hurtful, offensive thing.

Yeah, to you. And you have a right to an atmosphere free of OHSNOTs.

But when you try to impose that particular atmosphere on your
neighbor's house, is when you cross the line to religious fanatic.

Smokers just don't get it. I didn't when I smoked, years ago.

Oh, we get it in spades. From more than one side, thank you very
much.

Do you feel better about yourself now that you've been saved?

But, you're converted, so saying facts is like teaching a brick to
sing.

This is always true.

Mother loves you. This is also always true.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Chuck Harris]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:38:19 -0500, Chuck Harris wrote:

So, what you are saying is that if I am bothered by smoke, I have no right
to attend college, go to a restaurant, a ball game, work in an office,
shop in an electronics store, shop in a auto parts store.... I should just
go hide my head in shame while smokers are free to roam? Bah!


No, of course not! Are you constitutionally incapable of noticing the
all-or-nothing thinking involved here?

You don't like smoke.

That's OK.

But it is wrong to impose your preferences on _PLACES WHERE YOU WOULD
NEVER GO ANYWAY!!!!!!!!!!!_

And I have not. I am not a member of the legislature, I don't make the
laws. I do, however, enjoy that more and more places that I frequent forbid
smoking... I enjoy it a lot.

But let's talk about that. Should there be separate parks for smokers
and non smokers? Even though we are outside, the smoke from some gentle
soul such as yourself infringes my space from sometimes hundreds of yards
away. You don't know this because you have long since lost the ability
to smell anything but the harshest of smells.

I live in a town where there was only *one* nearby electronics store. The
employees drew straws to see who was going to smoke for the shop each day.
The air was that thick! Well, by your reasoning, I should give up electronics
so I wouldn't have to go to that shop. I avoided shopping there as much
as I could, but I needed parts, and they were the only show in town. They
were usually very crowded, so the wait for service was often nearly an hour.
When I shopped there, I always got all buzzy and lightheaded from the smoke.
How was I to avoid waiting in that shop?

Every restaurant in town had a smoking section that was 3/4 of the building,
and a nonsmoking section that was located back by the toilets and kitchen.
There was nothing to separate the air from the two sections. And further,
the non smokers outnumbered the smokers 10 to 1! Yet, we all had to suffer
the smoke of a couple of diehard guys like you (who frequently even lit
up in the nonsmoking sections). Should I be forced to not
eat in restaurants? Back then, I avoided it like the plague.

We had two theaters in town. Both allowed smoking in any seat. The air
got so thick that you could see the picture extend from the screen all the
way back to the projector. I suppose that I should be a pal and not go to
the movies?

The Ice cream parlors, there were two, all suggested that you shouldn't smoke,
but they couldn't stop you (no business could) But there was always smokers
that felt the need to share their ciggies with the crowd. The ice cream always
tasted like an ashtray smells. Was that right?

Both of the grocery stores in town had ash trays in every isle....

The local college had ashtrays in every hallway, and usually several in the
classrooms. Every seat in the massive theaters that were the lecture halls
had an ashtray in the armrests. No education for the non smokers, I suppose?

Elevators in all of the hotels and apartment buildings in town had those nice
little ashtrays bolted to their walls. Imagine how much fun that was
for a non smoker. I used the stairs whenever practical... even the dank
musty air in the staircases was preferable to the smoky elevators.

Bear in mind in each of these places the non smokers easily outnumbered the
smokers 10-to-1. Yet all of the non smokers had to suffer the smoke of a few
guys like you.

Things like the above are what laws are made of.

_THAT_ is what demonstrates that antismokerism is nothing more than a
religion, and a pretty lame one at that. All your gods guarantee is
that when you die of old age, you won't have any cigarette smoke in
your lungs keeping the dust mite feces company.

Religion n. 1. The service and adoration of God or a god as expressed
in forms of worship. 2. One of the systems of faith and worship.
3. The profession of practice of religious beliefs; religious observances
collectively;pl., rites. 4. Devotion or fidelity; conscientiousness.
5. An awareness or conviction of the existence of a supreme being, arousing
reverence, love, gratitude, the will to obey and serve, and the like; as
man only is capable of religion.

Let's see,

1) No, I don't worship antismoking, I rarely even think about it.
2) faith and worship? I have no faith in antismoking, and I surely
don't worship it, as I understand the term.
3) anti smoking isn't a belief, it is a preference. Thinking that
not smoking is healthier than smoking is an easily verifiable belief.
4) devotion, or fidelity, Well, yes I am always against smoking, but devotion
implies that I regularly spend time and effort, on antismoking, but
I rarely even think about it...
5) supreme being? I don't think this can apply.

I think calling antismoking a religion is a little specious.

And there is no amount of whooptedoo that can change the fact that
cancer is entirely self-inflicted. You can deny it all day long, but
that does not make it not true.

Why is it that baby children get cancer? Fish, dogs and other animals
get cancer too. How did they inflict this on themselves? The "non
smoking" wife of a friend who was a heavy smoker got emphysema, and
later lung cancer (and died a cruel, very painful death). Does living with
her husband count as self-infliction?

Did the folks that got cancer from ground water that was contaminated
with hexavalent chromium inflict the cancer on themselves?

What about the employees of Johns-Mansfield the asbestos manufacturer?

Blaming the victim? Maybe you'd be served to ask yourself, from whence
blame? What is the payoff from your victimhood?

But no, these are advanced concepts that require the participation of a
functional consciousness to grasp.

Rich, the level of denial and self delusion you express is simply staggering.
You need to look at smoking and cancer objectively, rather than through a
lens of distortion that makes you think the vandalism you daily do to your body
is a good choice.

Denial isn't just a river in Africa.

-Chuck Harris

 

[Robert Monsen]

Rich The Rationalizer wrote:

Smokers just don't get it. I didn't when I smoked, years ago.


Oh, we get it in spades. From more than one side, thank you very
much.

Do you feel better about yourself now that you've been saved?

How do I feel now that I've quit? Healthier. Less smelly. Less offensive
to others. Less annoying to my friends and acquaintances who do not
smoke. Less likely to make midnight pilgrimages to the 7/11. Less
concerned about the possibility of getting lung cancer or heart disease.
Younger looking. Richer. Liberated, from a stinking habit I picked up in
high school, thinking it was fun to be bad, and then spent 12 years
trying to beat after it became clear that it wasn't really so fun.

It's a really hard addiction to break, but well worth it. I recommend a
structured program, not using tobacco for 1 hour after waking up, 1 hour
after eating, or 1 hour before going to bed, and changing brands weekly
to a 'weaker' brand over a period of 4 weeks. It worked for me. Nicotine
gum or patches may also help, but they weren't available when I quit.
Put the money you save on cigarettes in a bottle, and use it to buy
yourself something fun (electronics?) every month. Try to get everybody
in the house to quit at once, or it's just too hard. Watch out for
weight gain!

On the other hand, after nearly 20 years, I still get the occasional
whiff of smoke, and it smells intoxicating, and brings back the
astonshing rush of pleasure a cigarette can provide. Then I start to cough.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:03:12 GMT, "Genome" <dna@nothere.net> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:ajocp056psv73q51tq8r0m72aa0iaa8fjs@4ax.com...
Ignore Cuatro and get all your papers dumped in the floor ;-)

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/DeskAttack.jpg

...Jim Thompson

http://www.mabot.com/random/bovril/

Yep. Black cats are neat creatures.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:25:42 -0800, "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the
Dark Remover\"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:ajocp056psv73q51tq8r0m72aa0iaa8fjs@4ax.com...
Ignore Cuatro and get all your papers dumped in the floor ;-)

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/DeskAttack.jpg

...Jim Thompson
--

At least I know where all te Fat Cats are at.. ;-P

Cuatro is a BIG cat... bigger than my Dachshunds.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Joerg]

Hi Jim,

Yep. Black cats are neat creatures.

Our dogs don't share that opinion. And they can be quite vocal about it.

One of them once made off with a schematic sketch. She laid down in the
living room and placed it in front of her, guarding it with
determination. The amazing thing was that there wasn't a single hole in
the paper.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Charles Schuler]

I'll share a basement attack story. My Dad loved electronics and earned his
living that way. He built an awesome hi-fi system in the 1950's with a huge
corner reflector speaker and a balls-to-the-wall amplifier. The amp was
based on the Williamson Negative Feedback circuit. For those who don't
know: http://www.cosmos2000.org/audio/william2.htm

The family dog at that time was "Buttons." Buttons did not behave all that
well and thus was relegated to spending his nights in the basement. He peed
on Dad's awesome amplifier (which was on the basement floor at the time) and
the amplifer never again worked the same ... it was prone to motorboating
after Buttons watered it.

Never mess with pets!