OT: was it, in fact, only advisory?

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:39:50 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hayter.org (Roger Hayter) wrote:

I just got 80/200 (first / only go), and I'm a man, not known for a high EQ but it may indicate something, even against the few here that have taken it so far?. ;-)

Whilst they could well be, maybe we should ask someone who gets nearer the 200 mark what they think of them?
ON the other hand they could be high quality questions, cleverly designed to not be obvious to someone looking to just get a good score, rather than rating their EQ?
When I was an IT trainer we hosted some of the bigger 'online' testing services (Prometric etc) and we would sometimes be asked to take one of the tests on a subject we weren't familiar, just to see what would happen. 'Most of us' got poor scores because we didn't *know* the answers and weren't able to 'see' what the person setting the test was asking for. My mate (and mentor at work, the one I mentioned elsewhere who is interested in the brain lateralization thing) took something like 50 of these tests before failing one!
His 'ability' was to get inside the head of the test writer and pickup on the tiny / tell-tail clues that pointed one to the right answer, even without actual knowledge on the subject.
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm surprised at you taking a test which didn't offer a "none of the above" option in the answers.
--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

<snip> >I'm surprised at you taking a test which didn't offer a "none of the

Of course you are, just as you will be surprise how this whole Brexit things turns out as you don't have a clue about that either! ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:48:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Of course I am (by the stink that is left in my clothes and the potential of the issues caused by passive smoking) but we will see who has the better handle on all this.

Thank you. Thank you for highlighting both your lack of understanding of all of this and your bigotry towards both me and non-smokers.
But you covered your lack of understanding perfectly with the weasel words 'seems to be', already admitting how unsure you were.
Ok, in the vague effort to help you understand ... I am not 'offended' by smokers or them smoking. I am 'affected' physically (as acknowledged by others) by the smoke and fumes making me cough, feel nauseous and my eyes sting, along with the incidental stink left on my clothes and the risks of passive smoking.

Excellent.

And back to the pointless willy waving.

Grow up.

Aww bless, I love it when you come out with this sort of BS as a way of making yourself feel important. You can do better though (I hope). ;-(
But even in that feeble rebuke you again completely miss what EQ is and therefore it's not surprising you can insult both me and my wife with lines like:
"I would have thought that living with you would be mnore inclined to make a heroin addict out of her".
... and (pretend to) not consider the impact? That or you must have forgotten to include the smiley face?
Unlike you though, I don't throw my toys out of the pram and pretend to be a victim, because my EQ allows me to understand it as just the ramblings of some nutter on the Internet. ;-)
So, tell me again how someone shooting up or snorting coke makes my closes smell of either or puts me at risk of passive heroin or cocaine abuse?
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This degree of objection to the transient smell of a brief exposure to tobacco smoke in the open air is frankly abnormal. And the risk of harm from this degree of passive smoking is much less than that of being hit by a small asteroid. It took 100s of millions of pounds, tens of thousands of subjects and meticulous exclusion of confounding factors to reliably detect a harmful effect of passive smoking in those exposed to daily hours in the same room as smoker. The effect exists, but it is remarkably small.
The point must come when the harrying of smokers for the convenience and pleasure of the majority becomes oppressive.
--

Roger Hayter

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well not really. I'm not that bothered about the passive smoking risk, since I seldom smell the smoke these days. It's merely that, rare or not, it's unpleasant.
We had a rellie visit and she brought the BF. He went outside to smoke, fair enough. But the smell transferred to him, from the smoke, and then to all the rooms he went into, subsequently. I could still smell it after they left the next day. Of course it goes off fairly quickly.
I grew up in a 2-smoker household, where the solution to a fuggy atmosphere was to open the door to the stairwell so the smoke would go upstairs.
My first year at CERN I shared living premises with a smoker who was content to leave full ashtrays (that he had filled up) all over the house. And if I met him and others for lunch, the smokers would each light up immediately they had finished lunch, and fuck to those still eating.
It was soon after that that I decided I would not eat lunch with smokers any more, and smoking would not be permitted in any house that I rented or owned. I suspect that this was quite radical in 1969.
--
There's no obfuscated Perl contest because it's pointless.

- Jeff Polk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:25:15 +0100, Tim Streater

Yup.

But the strange thing was I bet it didn't smell of socks or perfume or BO at any time after so I didn't need to wear off.

Great.

I really don't think they can smell it themselves (well, not at the time they stub it out anyway) but when they do (when it becomes excessive, even for them) they don't like it either.

Yup. Arrogance, awareness or lack of consideration in the extreme.

Yup. I was behind you around 1977. ;-)
My Ex's Dad came round once and in spite of polite requests to not smoke in the house by my then Mrs and I he took no notice. That was the last time he came round (our suggestion).
Any true mates would respect our views or just smoke in the garden.
We went round a some smoking friends the other day (to fix their aircon) and they ventilated the place before we got there and went outside to smoke themselves. They were true friends and appreciated our presence didn't leave them smelling of anything (and left them with working aircon). ;-)
I've not gone to several mates weddings or other parties, simply because smoking was allowed (then) and they didn't want to 'cause a fuss', even though they would have preferred it No Smoking. What a sad world when the innocent can't stand up for themselves.
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/10/2017 21:22, T i m wrote:

I've only allowed someone to smoke in my car once - I was giving him a lift from Manchester to Nottingham as he didn't feel safe to to drive himself, having just been informed at work that his mother had died.
SteveW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 21:37:27 +0100, Steve Walker

Now there is someone with a high EQ. ;-)
*We* know that the occasional passive smoke is unlikely to hurt us and there are odd times (as you cited above) that the risk to the headlining or seat material is 'worth it' (and you can always get in the shower or put your clothes straight in the washing machine when you got home). ;-)
Before I gave it up (because of the smoke) I ran a mobile disco and after every smoking gig I'd have to put all my clothes straight in the washing machine because they would still *stink* if I went near them the next day (fabrics seem more absorbent of such smells than say the speakers and stuff). I really can't think of the exposure to any other thing (that you would be come across in everyday life especially) that would be so persistent and strong?
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/10/17 21:22, T i m wrote:

What a sick sad fuck you are to be sure.
--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:34:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

In your completely worthless opinion. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:58:54 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hayter.org (Roger Hayter) wrote:
<snip> >> Ok, in the vague effort to help you understand ... I am not 'offended'

Well, as far as you are concerned I'm guessing Roger? Many people I know would find walking though the smoke trail of a smoker 'unpleasant', just as they would if it were BO or some extra strong perfume. However, it's the only thing I know that makes some people feel physically nauseous.

You could be right and I have never stressed that point. However, the point is though that I would be at even less risk, however small the risk was in the first place, if I didn't encounter it (or an asteroid) at all? Just in the same way I'd prefer people to not use their phones whilst driving, to check their tyre pressures regularly and make sure they take their blood pressure tablets. [1]

That's all I need to hear mate ... that I am being put to *any* amount of extra risk because of someone else's choice / habit. What if I liked walking along and flailing my fists around .... if it happens to land on your face it's just one of those things eh (and is unlikely to kill you)?

That only ever happens when the smokers have already decided their right to oppress others has taken place mate. There would be no 'No Smoking' if it wasn't for smokers forcing their lifestyle choice on those who didn't request to join in?
Cheers, T i m
[1] A driver 'passed out', mounted the pavement and knocked the brick wall down just behind my Mum and daughter walking along the pavement ... because he had forgotten to take his meds that morning.
Butterfly effect / chaos theory.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Many things we do, particularly driving, cause *some* danger to others. So smoking is hardly unique in that respect. "Flailing one's fists around" someone however is deliberate, criminal assault, even if you don't hit them.
By the way, is aggressively calling someone "mate" the thing you do before hitting them because they've smoked a cigarette, or looked at your wife, or something equally prone to bringing out your psychopathic urges?
--

Roger Hayter

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 21:47:34 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hayter.org (Roger Hayter) wrote: <snip>

Of course.

No, true. However, most of us drive (or have stuff like goods driven) about for is so we are all to blame.

Why though? How can you 'accidentally' catching your cigarette on the back of my hand or clothes be any different to me liking to do something and your face coming into 'accidental' contact with my fist? Why is it what the smoker 'chooses to do' any less pre-meditated or without consequence than what a non-smoker does?

Are you asking me personally?
If yes, then I'm afraid once again it might say more about you and what appears to be your blind defence of what you feel should be considered 'perfectly acceptable', versus the rights of the people not wanting to join in.
When you try to single me out here, maybe you could consider that I actually represent the majority who still regularly have to 'suffer' the side effects of an anti-social (as determined by the laws of the land) and ever shrinking minority.
Maybe it was more acceptable years ago ... before we realised how dangerous, destructive and anti-social it really is, but times they are a changing and whist I'm personally happy they are, none of it (other those things within my own control) is down to me Roger (assuming you find the use of your name less threatening than the genuine use if the term 'mate'?). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
<snip> >> Heroin abuse on the other hand is almost completely harmless to the user

Of course, however, my point still stands (and one of the key points re the idea of people being allowed to smoke in spaces shared by non-smokers) is that if you were in a room with 1 smoker, 10 heroine addicts, 10 coke heads and even 10 hard drinkers ... it would be the *single* smoker who would impact *all* the others and potentially, none of the other 30 people would impact the smoker at all.
*That* is one of the key issues with smoking (in proximity of non-smokers).
*Of course* there could be other issues, like theft, or violence (be it to mug someone to buy coke, beer or tobacco) but that wasn't the key point.
I really feel sorry for anyone whose life isn't satisfying enough that they need to have an artificial 'high' to make it all worthwhile (it's different if done medically to mask physical / mental pain etc in the same way I use white noise to mask my tinnitus now and again).
The thing I understood from the very beginning is for to have the high you *must* have the low (or the high simply becomes the norm and no longer a high) and then you are on a slippery slope.
Part of not wanting to be 'out of control' is having responsibility to others and with friends, family, co-workers or elderly parents you never really know when that might be.
In the same way I don't gamble (as in the 'game', rather than 'taking a punt or gamble on something now and again (like buying something from eBay / whatever)), it's just that the risk (and knowing the odds behind such risks) meant that the potential rewards were never considered 'worth it'. I don't buy lottery tickets or scratch cards either.
That also extends to not buying any 'extended warranties' on anything where the overall cost over many different instances exceeds the cost of the projected risk.
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You can run the same mindlessly silly line about food, tea, coffee etc.

Nope, most obviously with food again.

Nope, most obviously with food again.

Nope, most obviously with food again.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that's saying something.

Ditto.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They've also dropped the drink drive limit to as near zero as practical. Rest of the UK is now well above most other countries.
--
*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not actually defending smoking or smokers. Just trying to point out the nonsense of not allowing them to smoke inside in comfort in a pub or whatever in a way which has no effect on non smokers. Smacks to me of big brother.
--
*If you think this van is dirty, you should try having sex with the driver*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 00:18:58 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"

It comes across as such when you try to provide them a 'fit' in society when fundamentally what they do (outside their own homes and even inside, if there are pets, children or other adults present who aren't given a vote), is antisocial.

It's funny then that no such solution was offered before the ban?

When in fact (when seen though the stinging eyes of a non smoker) it's just common sense and a balancing of human rights.
The non-smoker does not inflict anything on a smoker, other than the freedom not to be oppressed.
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which is why I think premises should be available purely for smokers if it is commercially viable. Which many pub owners thought it was. And no-one has provided any reasonable arguments against this. Just the usual intolerant rants.
--
*IF ONE SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMER DROWNS, DO THE REST DROWN TOO?

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.