Your cellphones are more dangerous than my smoke

[email protected] wrote:
> I am a smoker and I enjoy smoking. I have nothing against people who
> prefer not to smoke, as long as they dont bug me about smoking.

Cool, a troll.

> to quit without getting all stressed out. But you anti-smokers who
> want to preach to me about smoking better get out of my face.

I'm not going to preach. You have a right to smoke if you want to. (I'm a
non-smoker, btw.)

> With that said, I am going to make MY point. If you are an
> anti-smoker who wants to get in my face about second hand smoke, you
> goddamn well better not pull a cell phone out of your pocket and start
> yacking on it anywhere near me. You want to claim that my smoke is
> harming your health, I got something to tell you about the radiation
> coming from your cell phone,

Yep, I saw that coming a mile away.

For every study done that says cell phones do cause cancer, there's another
that says the opposite. No one's sure either way yet. OTOH, there's plenty of
evidence that says that smoking causes cancer.

> of my smoking space. And, go ahead and try to take the cigarette out
> of my mouth and stamp on it. Come on, make my day. I guarantee you
> will go home phoneless, unless you want to take home all the broken
> phone pieces after I stomp it into the floor.

We have some anger-management issues, hmmm?

Look. I've carried and used a cell phone every day for years, beginning in
early 1993. Twelve years... and a couple years ago I had a CAT scan done (not
relating to cancer; it was actually related to some sinus problems I've had).
I'm pretty sure they would have told me if they found any tumors...

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

---

› See More: Your cellphones are more dangerous than my smoke

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am a smoker and I enjoy smoking.

Tell us what you enjoy about smoking.
Not the usuual stuff like, enjoying smoke rings, having time out, etc, but
what it is exactly which you enjoy so much about smoking that you are
prepared to put up all of the inconvenience and risk.
IOW, what makes it worth it?

> I have nothing against people who
> prefer not to smoke, as long as they dont bug me about smoking.

I really don't intend to bug you, I would like to know what it is you like
about it.
Explain it to me in the way you would explain it to someone who'd never
smoked before.

> In fact in many ways I admire people who have quit smoking and are able
> to quit without getting all stressed out.

Anyone is capable of quitting smoking without getting all stressed out.

> But you anti-smokers who
> want to preach to me about smoking better get out of my face. I dont
> bug you about not smoking, nor do I bug you about eating junk food,
> spitting on the sidewalk, being obese or anything else you do. My
> business is MY business, as well as yours. If it were as simple as
> that, I'd tell you to shutup, and the discussion would be ended. But
> you anti-smokers are brainwashed about the second hand smoke bull****.
> And that is exactly what it is, bull****! I'll give you the benefit
> of the doubt that if a non smoker is in a completely smoke filled
> room, such as some bars, you will be inhaling some smoke. But those
> are extreme situations and you have the choice to leave and go
> elsewhere where the smoke is not thick.
>
> With that said, I am going to make MY point. If you are an
> anti-smoker who wants to get in my face about second hand smoke, you
> goddamn well better not pull a cell phone out of your pocket and start
> yacking on it anywhere near me. You want to claim that my smoke is
> harming your health, I got something to tell you about the radiation
> coming from your cell phone, which is far more dangerous to myself and
> everyone else near you, than my smoke. I don't normally bug people
> about using cell phones near me, simply because I dont care to bug
> other people about anything, just like I dont want others bugging me.
> When someone uses a cell phone near me, I move away. But if you want
> to get in my face because of my smoking you damn well will hear from
> me about your damn cell phone. If I have to walk away from people
> because they are using cell phones, then you better get the **** out
> of my smoking space. And, go ahead and try to take the cigarette out
> of my mouth and stamp on it. Come on, make my day. I guarantee you
> will go home phoneless, unless you want to take home all the broken
> phone pieces after I stomp it into the floor.

You seem a little angry and stressed.
Looks like the smoking isn't working.

last point it was just what I was thinking

debs
"Steve O" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >I am a smoker and I enjoy smoking.
>
> Tell us what you enjoy about smoking.
> Not the usuual stuff like, enjoying smoke rings, having time out, etc, but
> what it is exactly which you enjoy so much about smoking that you are
> prepared to put up all of the inconvenience and risk.
> IOW, what makes it worth it?
>
> > I have nothing against people who
> > prefer not to smoke, as long as they dont bug me about smoking.
>
> I really don't intend to bug you, I would like to know what it is you like
> about it.
> Explain it to me in the way you would explain it to someone who'd never
> smoked before.
>
> > In fact in many ways I admire people who have quit smoking and are able
> > to quit without getting all stressed out.
>
> Anyone is capable of quitting smoking without getting all stressed out.
>
> > But you anti-smokers who
> > want to preach to me about smoking better get out of my face. I dont
> > bug you about not smoking, nor do I bug you about eating junk food,
> > spitting on the sidewalk, being obese or anything else you do. My
> > business is MY business, as well as yours. If it were as simple as
> > that, I'd tell you to shutup, and the discussion would be ended. But
> > you anti-smokers are brainwashed about the second hand smoke bull****.
> > And that is exactly what it is, bull****! I'll give you the benefit
> > of the doubt that if a non smoker is in a completely smoke filled
> > room, such as some bars, you will be inhaling some smoke. But those
> > are extreme situations and you have the choice to leave and go
> > elsewhere where the smoke is not thick.
> >
> > With that said, I am going to make MY point. If you are an
> > anti-smoker who wants to get in my face about second hand smoke, you
> > goddamn well better not pull a cell phone out of your pocket and start
> > yacking on it anywhere near me. You want to claim that my smoke is
> > harming your health, I got something to tell you about the radiation
> > coming from your cell phone, which is far more dangerous to myself and
> > everyone else near you, than my smoke. I don't normally bug people
> > about using cell phones near me, simply because I dont care to bug
> > other people about anything, just like I dont want others bugging me.
> > When someone uses a cell phone near me, I move away. But if you want
> > to get in my face because of my smoking you damn well will hear from
> > me about your damn cell phone. If I have to walk away from people
> > because they are using cell phones, then you better get the **** out
> > of my smoking space. And, go ahead and try to take the cigarette out
> > of my mouth and stamp on it. Come on, make my day. I guarantee you
> > will go home phoneless, unless you want to take home all the broken
> > phone pieces after I stomp it into the floor.
>
> You seem a little angry and stressed.
> Looks like the smoking isn't working.
>
>
>

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am a smoker and I enjoy smoking. I have nothing against people who
> prefer not to smoke, as long as they dont bug me about smoking.

Fine, stay in the next room.

In
> fact in many ways I admire people who have quit smoking and are able
> to quit without getting all stressed out. But you anti-smokers who
> want to preach to me about smoking better get out of my face. I dont
> bug you about not smoking, nor do I bug you about eating junk food,
> spitting on the sidewalk, being obese or anything else you do. My
> business is MY business, as well as yours. If it were as simple as
> that, I'd tell you to shutup, and the discussion would be ended. But
> you anti-smokers are brainwashed about the second hand smoke bull****.
> And that is exactly what it is, bull****!

Simply a lie.

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:01:57 GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 13 May 2005 01:52:49 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>With that said, I am going to make MY point. If you are an
>>anti-smoker who wants to get in my face about second hand smoke, you
>>goddamn well better not pull a cell phone out of your pocket and start
>>yacking on it anywhere near me. You want to claim that my smoke is
>>harming your health, I got something to tell you about the radiation
>>coming from your cell phone, which is far more dangerous to myself and
>>everyone else near you, than my smoke. I don't normally bug people
>>about using cell phones near me, simply because I dont care to bug
>>other people about anything, just like I dont want others bugging me.
>>When someone uses a cell phone near me, I move away. But if you want
>>to get in my face because of my smoking you damn well will hear from
>>me about your damn cell phone. If I have to walk away from people
>>because they are using cell phones, then you better get the **** out
>>of my smoking space. And, go ahead and try to take the cigarette out
>>of my mouth and stamp on it. Come on, make my day. I guarantee you
>>will go home phoneless, unless you want to take home all the broken
>>phone pieces after I stomp it into the floor.
>
>I normally don't make it a practice to follow-up to cowards who post
>behind aliases.

Yah, okay Mr. Afzali.

> Nevertheless, you make a huge error when you compare
>the 2. There have been many studies on cell phone radiation, and
>there's still no conclusive evidence it causes any harm even to the
>people who are using them -- much less people nearby.

Nor is there conclusive evidence that SHS is harmful.

>
>You seem to have an issue with the rudeness frequently displayed by
>cell phone users, and I agree.

That seems to be the anti-smokers general complaint too.

They complain about "their air" being polluted, yet there are very few
places where people are actually exposed to SHS where they do not have
a choice.

>
>That said, there have been countless studies that have proven
>second-hand smoke to be dangerous.

No, there have not.

>Frankly, the only reason we still
>tolerate tobacco use in public at all is because too many palms are
>greased by it.

That's the same reason we tolerate mobile phones, but don't worry -
steps are being taken to limit their use too.

>
>I find it to be the ultimate hypocrisy that I have to consume alcohol
>in my home or a licensed premise, even though that behavior won't give
>anyone else exposure to carcinogens.

You can consume alcohol in a number of public places, most notably
bars.


>Yet smokers can whiff stuff in
>others' faces all the time and it's just supposed to go with the
>territory.

No, not really. There are non-smoking bars even in places without
smoking bans and laws already limit your risk of even catching a whiff
of tobacco smoke.

K Smythe wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> You can consume alcohol in a number of public places, most notably
> bars.

How does one have an intelligent conversation with someone
that doesn't know the difference between "public" and "open
to the public?"

One doesn't.

Notan

On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:35:16 -0600, Notan <[email protected]> wrote:

>K Smythe wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> You can consume alcohol in a number of public places, most notably
>> bars.
>
>How does one have an intelligent conversation with someone
>that doesn't know the difference between "public" and "open
>to the public?"
>

Ah, but you CAN consume alcohol in public in lots of places.

If you can't do so where you live, work to change the law.

I can walk down the street with a beer in my hand and it doesn't even
have to be in a paper bag. It's perfectly legal.

It's the anti-smokers who seem to wish to restrict smoking everywhere
INCLUDING in private homes.

>One doesn't.
>
>Notan

L Sternn wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:35:16 -0600, Notan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >K Smythe wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> You can consume alcohol in a number of public places, most notably
> >> bars.
> >
> >How does one have an intelligent conversation with someone
> >that doesn't know the difference between "public" and "open
> >to the public?"
> >
>
> Ah, but you CAN consume alcohol in public in lots of places.
>
> If you can't do so where you live, work to change the law.
>
> I can walk down the street with a beer in my hand and it doesn't even
> have to be in a paper bag. It's perfectly legal.
>
> It's the anti-smokers who seem to wish to restrict smoking everywhere
> INCLUDING in private homes.

I've *never* heard of a non-smoker suggest that smoking be restricted
in private homes.

I think we all know where you pulled *that* one out of! <g>

Notan

On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:30:51 -0600, Notan <[email protected]> wrote:

>L Sternn wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:35:16 -0600, Notan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >K Smythe wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> You can consume alcohol in a number of public places, most notably
>> >> bars.
>> >
>> >How does one have an intelligent conversation with someone
>> >that doesn't know the difference between "public" and "open
>> >to the public?"
>> >
>>
>> Ah, but you CAN consume alcohol in public in lots of places.
>>
>> If you can't do so where you live, work to change the law.
>>
>> I can walk down the street with a beer in my hand and it doesn't even
>> have to be in a paper bag. It's perfectly legal.
>>
>> It's the anti-smokers who seem to wish to restrict smoking everywhere
>> INCLUDING in private homes.
>
>I've *never* heard of a non-smoker suggest that smoking be restricted
>in private homes.
>

Of course not. There is a difference between "non-smokers" and
"anti-smokers".

>I think we all know where you pulled *that* one out of! <g>
>

Ask an auntie

>Notan

L Sternn wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:30:51 -0600, Notan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >L Sternn wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:35:16 -0600, Notan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >K Smythe wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> You can consume alcohol in a number of public places, most notably
> >> >> bars.
> >> >
> >> >How does one have an intelligent conversation with someone
> >> >that doesn't know the difference between "public" and "open
> >> >to the public?"
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ah, but you CAN consume alcohol in public in lots of places.
> >>
> >> If you can't do so where you live, work to change the law.
> >>
> >> I can walk down the street with a beer in my hand and it doesn't even
> >> have to be in a paper bag. It's perfectly legal.
> >>
> >> It's the anti-smokers who seem to wish to restrict smoking everywhere
> >> INCLUDING in private homes.
> >
> >I've *never* heard of a non-smoker suggest that smoking be restricted
> >in private homes.
> >
>
> Of course not. There is a difference between "non-smokers" and
> "anti-smokers".

OK, replace "non-smoker" with "anti-smoker."

I've still never heard that idea suggested.

Me thinks you're blowing smoke (pun intended).

Notan

On Fri, 13 May 2005 18:16:36 GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:21:45 -0700, K Smythe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:01:57 GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>
>>> Nevertheless, you make a huge error when you compare
>>>the 2. There have been many studies on cell phone radiation, and
>>>there's still no conclusive evidence it causes any harm even to the
>>>people who are using them -- much less people nearby.
>>
>>Nor is there conclusive evidence that SHS is harmful.
>
>Absolute, positive, total BS. Second-hand smoke is ingested into the
>body just like the smoke is to someone who's intending to smoke.
>

So is oxygen. That doesn't mean it is harmful.


>If second-hand smoke wasn't harmful, it wouldn't have been classified
>as a carcinogen:
>http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healthrisks.html

Oh yeah - the EPA. Right, they're experts, aren't they?

>>
>>>
>>>You seem to have an issue with the rudeness frequently displayed by
>>>cell phone users, and I agree.
>>
>>That seems to be the anti-smokers general complaint too.
>
>Cell phone use annoys, SHS damages my health.

No, they both can annoy. Neither one has been conclusively linked to
any harm.

>>
>>They complain about "their air" being polluted, yet there are very few
>>places where people are actually exposed to SHS where they do not have
>>a choice.
>>
>>>
>>>That said, there have been countless studies that have proven
>>>second-hand smoke to be dangerous.
>>
>>No, there have not.
>
>When you have the clout of people at leading health institutions in
>the U.S., Canada and other places, I might take your opinion
>seriously.

So, you think popular opinion == scientific fact?

>>
>>>Frankly, the only reason we still
>>>tolerate tobacco use in public at all is because too many palms are
>>>greased by it.
>>
>>That's the same reason we tolerate mobile phones, but don't worry -
>>steps are being taken to limit their use too.
>
>Absolutely not. Mobile phones are a tremendously valuable utility to
>many people. And they can be used sensibly with no effect on anyone
>else.

And yet, their use is being limited both through legislation and by
force (i.e. blocking signals).

>>
>>>
>>>I find it to be the ultimate hypocrisy that I have to consume alcohol
>>>in my home or a licensed premise, even though that behavior won't give
>>>anyone else exposure to carcinogens.
>>
>>You can consume alcohol in a number of public places, most notably
>>bars.
>
>You don't know what a licensed premise is, do you?

So, you think you can ONLY drink in places with licenses? You've got
a lot to learn about drinking in public then.

True, bars are licensed, but parks, sidewalks, and numerous other
places open to the public are great places to drink.

>>
>>
>>>Yet smokers can whiff stuff in
>>>others' faces all the time and it's just supposed to go with the
>>>territory.
>>
>>No, not really. There are non-smoking bars even in places without
>>smoking bans and laws already limit your risk of even catching a whiff
>>of tobacco smoke.
>
>I'm talking about exposure even in the open air.

Even in the "open air"?

So, if I'm enjoying a smoke in the park and you're sitting at a picnic
table 100 yards away from me, and the wind is just exactly right that
you catch a whiff of my cigarette, you're going to complain?

You're lucky I don't complain about your body odor.

>You try to follow
>behind a smoker

Why would you be following us?

>and not be subject to the crap. I'm all for what they
>want to do, as long as it impacts only them. When I have to deal with
>its effects, that's when the line has been crossed.
>

What line is that? The one you have drawn in the sand?

Get a life - nobody is subjected to my SHS unless they want to be.

[email protected] wrote:

> As for the cell phone radiation, everyone keeps saying the radiation
> health risks are not proven. Yet there have been studies done that
> say it IS a risk.

And there are just as many that say it ISN'T. Nothing conclusive has been produced.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

L Sternn wrote:

> I can walk down the street with a beer in my hand and it doesn't even
> have to be in a paper bag. It's perfectly legal.

Maybe where you live. Where I'm from (Ohio) and probably also where I live now
(California), open containers in public are illegal and can get you arrested.
(I'm not 100% sure about California, but I know that it's true in Ohio. I ought
to check about California.)

> It's the anti-smokers who seem to wish to restrict smoking everywhere
> INCLUDING in private homes.

Not the ones that I know. My wife gets physically sick if she is in a room with
any amount of smoke (due to allergies), so she doesn't hang out with smokers.
However, if you were to make that assertion to her she'd probably laugh at you.
We both feel that smoking is okay for others to do, just not around us - and I
don't believe any of my friends and acquaintances who don't smoke would be in
favor of such a ridiculous restriction on smoking. I don't smoke, but why
should I restrict what other people do in the privacy of their own homes?

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

"K Smythe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:01:57 GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 May 2005 01:52:49 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>With that said, I am going to make MY point. If you are an
> >>anti-smoker who wants to get in my face about second hand smoke, you
> >>goddamn well better not pull a cell phone out of your pocket and start
> >>yacking on it anywhere near me. You want to claim that my smoke is
> >>harming your health, I got something to tell you about the radiation
> >>coming from your cell phone, which is far more dangerous to myself and
> >>everyone else near you, than my smoke. I don't normally bug people
> >>about using cell phones near me, simply because I dont care to bug
> >>other people about anything, just like I dont want others bugging me.
> >>When someone uses a cell phone near me, I move away. But if you want
> >>to get in my face because of my smoking you damn well will hear from
> >>me about your damn cell phone. If I have to walk away from people
> >>because they are using cell phones, then you better get the **** out
> >>of my smoking space. And, go ahead and try to take the cigarette out
> >>of my mouth and stamp on it. Come on, make my day. I guarantee you
> >>will go home phoneless, unless you want to take home all the broken
> >>phone pieces after I stomp it into the floor.
> >
> >I normally don't make it a practice to follow-up to cowards who post
> >behind aliases.
>
> Yah, okay Mr. Afzali.

Narrow-minded attitude detected.


>
> > Nevertheless, you make a huge error when you compare
> >the 2. There have been many studies on cell phone radiation, and
> >there's still no conclusive evidence it causes any harm even to the
> >people who are using them -- much less people nearby.
>
> Nor is there conclusive evidence that SHS is harmful.

So that means that it is safe?

>
> >
> >You seem to have an issue with the rudeness frequently displayed by
> >cell phone users, and I agree.
>
> That seems to be the anti-smokers general complaint too.
>
> They complain about "their air" being polluted, yet there are very few
> places where people are actually exposed to SHS where they do not have
> a choice.

So a smoker is entitled to go anywhere and smoke, but I have to be the one
to make a choice if I don't want to be exposed to it? Sounds kind of
moronic to me.

>
> >
> >That said, there have been countless studies that have proven
> >second-hand smoke to be dangerous.
>
> No, there have not.

Actually, yes there have.

>
> >Frankly, the only reason we still
> >tolerate tobacco use in public at all is because too many palms are
> >greased by it.
>
> That's the same reason we tolerate mobile phones, but don't worry -
> steps are being taken to limit their use too.

So, what you are saying is that you approve of cell phones limits, but find
smoking limits to be unnecessary because they don't appeal to you.

>
> >
> >I find it to be the ultimate hypocrisy that I have to consume alcohol
> >in my home or a licensed premise, even though that behavior won't give
> >anyone else exposure to carcinogens.
>
> You can consume alcohol in a number of public places, most notably
> bars.
>
>
> >Yet smokers can whiff stuff in
> >others' faces all the time and it's just supposed to go with the
> >territory.
>
> No, not really. There are non-smoking bars even in places without
> smoking bans and laws already limit your risk of even catching a whiff
> of tobacco smoke.

And there are places that ban the use of cellphones. Problem solved- no
need for further controls. If you don't want to be bothered by cell phones,
you have a choice, just like non-smokers. Quit your childish whining and
play by the rules you expect everyone else to play by.

BTW- I smoked for over 20 years. None of your bull**** flies with me. I
know the direct effects.

>

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:39:04 -0700, Steve Sobol <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> As for the cell phone radiation, everyone keeps saying the radiation
>> health risks are not proven. Yet there have been studies done that
>> say it IS a risk.
>
>And there are just as many that say it ISN'T. Nothing conclusive has been produced.

Much like the SHS studies