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 predudice.
Couldn't find the Black Swan, so you resort to ad hominum argument. How sweet.
I think I've just taken the high ground.
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.
Well exactly. Non smokers are a burden on the state. Bloody scroungers, should be ashamed of themselves.
The Medway Handyman wrote >
So you were the coughing and whizzing stinkbomb going up the hill.
-
You just carry on thinking that - I already know you're delusional.
It's a sign of how seriously nicotine, carbon monoxide and a whole raft of toxic organic compounds and radionucleides can f*ck 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.
Listen to yourself, you are stupid.
Ner ner ne ner ner. Thats sums up your argument I believe.
And I think you are irrationally prejudiced. Found the black swan yet?
Don't you mean wheezing? Smoking improves concentration & memory, perhaps you should start?
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.
What? You are gibbering again man. That makes no sense.
Is that really the best respose you can come up with?
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!
These complex discussions are leaving the rest of us behind.
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.
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.
Gibbering again Dennipoo's? What on earth does that sentance mean? Some choose to smoke, some choose not too.
We could indeed. Except we are dealing with hysterical, irrational fanatics.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.