F$#@King smokers!

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Quote by Gaard
<<nonsmokers will always say that it's bad for you and smokers will always say it isn't that bad for you>>



Quote by Valinos
<<I never said smoking isn't bad for you. It just isn't as bad as the meda wants you to think.>>


 

Kerouactivist

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2001
4,665
0
76
I wanna quit smoking on one hand but, on the other hand I love it so much.

I just wish people would stop pissing and moaning about smokers all the time, you pretty much have branded us as outcasts. We can't smoke hardly anywhere inside anymore, and now everyone is griping about smokers smoking outside, what next no smoking except indoors in your own home, and then what, are you going to make it illegal.

I wish you facists would just shutup and deal with it.
 

jamie2833

Senior member
May 1, 2001
396
0
0
wow, so many thoughts and comments made, i wsh i could knock out a response to all of them but instead i will just post my thoughts on smoking.

ok, first off it isn't just non-smokers that get annoyed when a smoker is smoking close by, i have a friend who smokes and she does not like it at all when i am smoking close to her........sometimes we are on the same together taking turns to go on the internet etc she pushes me off the chair when i accidently blow smoke in her direction!

i dont really care too much about where i smoke, as someone posted earlier in this thread about passive smoke affecting your health being so low then i would smoke in a hospital if it was aloud. but if i get the impression someone does not want me lighting a 'smoke' then i will move away from them and go elsewhere to smoke or smoke later on.

i used to work in a place where they had a smoking room and that place stunk like crazy the walls were yellow and it was almost like a little 'hell' room, it had a ventilation system in it though and i dont know what it was about the room, maybe it was the humming noise or the smell i like so much about smoking that i liked about it. sometimes i would go sleep in there! LOL!

since it is a fact that passive smoking is a very low risk of affecting your health then what the hell are you moaning about, i mean other than the smell you dont like and someone blowing smoke in your face, why should you care about others that smoke? sure they are losing out and are slowly dying, but so is everyone else.
to be able to smoke you usually have to be over 16, well in england anyway, sometimes higher in different countries, everyone who is old enough to smoke knows the risks involved and are grown up enough to make their own decision, it's the under-age smokers you want to give a $hit about, as not always they are responsible for taking the habit up, peer pressure etc.

it is either one or the other, illegal or not illegal which is it to be? ban it altogether or dont? someone has to make a decision, and not make up new rules about where you can smoke etc etc that is unfair. i allow you the right to smoke, but dont smoke here, go somewhere else...........i got to another place and i find out i am not allowed to smoke their, etc etc etc.

i personally think the world should ban smoking, even though it is a bad habit and even though i love to smoke, when you give up smoking or if you dont smoke, the world is a much nicer place to be, more pleasant, food tastes better and the smell goes away from all your clothes and furniture etc.

when the world (read governments and politicians etc) sorts out it's priorites and realises that smoking is not number one then it would be easier for everyone.
i think they should sort out the things that need sorting out before banning smoking etc etc.

you waste your time trying to get people to stop smoking, who cause the problem in the first place, when you could be doing something more effective, something like raising some kind of charity donation appeal to help starving people in 3rd world countries, i think that is more important than b!tching about smokers.

it's all about what society let's you to do and it is all screwed up.


can we smoke? = yes you can

it's accepted that we can smoke, if we dont like it, then we have a choise, we dont have to smoke, if someone else wants to though let them.

can we smoke? no you cannot, it's against the law.

ok then we cant smoke, no choice in the matter.

you gotta have rules in life or everyone would make their own, but you cant make rules FOR rules can you?

it's also down to how people react to rules, one person would say 'no smoking? fine i will give it up' another person would say 'no smoking? that's not fair! you can do this to me'

if people just stopped making cigarettes then people would have no choice about it and would HAVE to give up, if the goverment made this decision it would be a great idea. sure it would p!ss millions of people off, but it would also be saving those very same lives from cancer and prevent them from killing themselves quicker than they already are. people would soon come to realise it is the right decision.

i do however intend on giving up smoking, as it does affect my health, running to the bus stop wears me out, before i started smoking i could run for days. however i will give up when I want to and not because people want me to stop because they dont like it, while i have the choice i choose to smoke, i love the taste and it gives me something to do while the next map is loading in my game of counter-strike, or when i am downloading an mp3 on my cruddy 56k modem.....why wont BT understand i NEED cable!!!!


oh yeah and one last thing, that guy who said he would sue tobacconist companys or whatever and said he would burn loads of dollar bills, he be polluting the air and enviroment as much as one cigarette probably 2 in fact and if he waves that burning dollar in front of me i will sue his ass, oh the irony!

i will also b1tch-slap him, just for the record








 

Quaoar

Banned
Oct 7, 2002
68
0
0
smokers come to me. everything on me is oppositte of earth.

Here fat is thin
short is tall
small is large
no really means no
jerboy is straight
smoking is safe

 

Valinos

Banned
Jun 6, 2001
784
0
0
Originally posted by: ergeorge

LoL The Jpurnal of Theoretics is a quack operation if I ever saw one!
Take a look at some of the other articles (GUT, Antigravity, papers published from PO boxes.
That paper is a poster child for how to lie with statistics.

Can I get some substantial evidence that the Journal of Theoretics is a "quack operation?" As soon as you show me some unbiased proof that its not a reliable source then I'll retract my statement...until then, you still lose. Don't cry too hard that you had your feelings hurt on an Internet message board...its ok, I'm sure mom still loves you.
 

Aceman

Banned
Oct 9, 1999
3,159
0
0
Valinos,
People submit papers from a PO BOX address!

If you look at a site and it is slanted one way, it's usually not a good sign. Even the American Lung Association and numerous other reliable sources will not say ANYWHERE that smoking WILL cause terminal health problems and no reliable source will say that secndhand smoke WILL OR CAN cause terminal health problems. Some say that secondhand smoke MAY pose health risks.

A big difference between MAY, CAN, and WILL!
 

Aceman

Banned
Oct 9, 1999
3,159
0
0
Originally posted by: rh71
Aceman, do you (or would you) smoke around your kids ?

Trying to set me up to make me out to be such a BAD parent?????????

Yes, I do smoke around my children.

Yes, I do have a child that was diagnosed with severe asthma at 1 year old. I also had the leading pediatics and asthma specialist in the Air Force tell me that my smoking neither caused or triggered his asthma. Furthermore, my smoking does not trigger any asthma attacks in him. When we moved from Omaha, NE to Minneapolis, MN, my son went from an asthma attack every two weeks and being rushed to the ER to an asthma attack 1-2 times a year. I do not smoke around him while he is sick or has an asthma attack/

And finally, DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT CALLING ME TERRIBLE AND ABUSIVE FOR SMOKING AROUND MY CHILDREN. There is no law I am breaking by smoking around them.

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
<<And finally, DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT CALLING ME TERRIBLE AND ABUSIVE FOR SMOKING AROUND MY CHILDREN. There is no law I am breaking by smoking around them.>> I wouldn't say terrible or abusive (maybe a little inconsiderate ), but I also wouldn't base being a terrible or abusive parent by the fact that I'm breaking any laws or not.
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: Valinos
Originally posted by: ergeorge

LoL The Jpurnal of Theoretics is a quack operation if I ever saw one!
Take a look at some of the other articles (GUT, Antigravity, papers published from PO boxes.
That paper is a poster child for how to lie with statistics.

Can I get some substantial evidence that the Journal of Theoretics is a "quack operation?" As soon as you show me some unbiased proof that its not a reliable source then I'll retract my statement...until then, you still lose. Don't cry too hard that you had your feelings hurt on an Internet message board...its ok, I'm sure mom still loves you.
You want proof? Look at all the journal articles listed under the "1" reference. J Cancer, JAMA, J Natl Cancer Inst.....all peer-reviewed, all highly creditable. What's laughable is that the author thinks he can utterly discount all these articles essentiallly on semantics alone. Sure, not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer....but it does greatly increase the likelyhood of developing various respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The data is all there, he just chooses to ignore it. He even states that he believes the tobacco industry folks when they testified that they "didn't believe smoking causes cancer" (who have every reason in the world to lie their asses off), and yet he disagrees with data published in the most respected medical and scientific journals. The only place you'll find articles like his are on the "Unconventional Science" sites scattered around the internet. Strangely, you won't find any of this stuff on PubMed or Entrez searches. Why? Because it's crap that no real journal will publish.


Here are a few abstracts from the first page of journal articles brought up via a PubMed search for "smoking and cancer".


New approaches to lung cancer prevention.

McWilliams A, Lam S.

Lung Tumor Group, British Columbia Cancer Agency, University of British Columbia, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 4E6. slam@ bccancer. bc.ca

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death worldwide. The overall 5-year survival rate remains disappointing at 14% or less. Several clinician- and community-based interventions show promise for reducing lung cancer incidence through prevention and smoking cessation. However, long-term heavy smokers retain a significant lung cancer risk despite smoking cessation. Half of newly diagnosed lung cancers are now found in former smokers. An additional strategy of lung cancer control through chemoprevention needs to be developed. Advances in optical imaging technologies and genome science will continue to improve our ability to identify individuals with the highest risk of lung cancer for chemoprevention. More accurate surrogate endpoint biomarkers are becoming available for phase II trials of new agents. A number of promising agents are currently being tested in phase II and III trials for prevention of lung cancer.


Molecular epidemiology of smoking and lung cancer.

Shields PG.

Lombardi Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, The Research Building, W315, 3970 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.

Lung cancer is the single most common cause of death, and almost all of it is due to tobacco smoking. Before the widespread use of cigarettes in this century, lung cancer was a rare illness. Tobacco smoke is a complex mixture of numerous mutagens and carcinogens. Over the last 40 years, the type of cigarettes most frequently used has been changing, namely the increased use of low tar and nicotine cigarettes. This has been accompanied by an increased risk of lung cancer due to a smokers' need to maintain blood nicotine levels, which in turn causes the need for smoking more cigarettes per day and deeper inhalation. This phenomena has led to the increasing rates of lung adenocarcinoma, compared to squamous cell carcinoma. It also probably explains, in part, the greater risk of lung cancer in women compared to men (in addition to some biological differences). The study of lung cancer involves many types of biomarkers, including those that measure exposure, the biologically effective dose and harm. The use of these has allowed us to understand many parts of lung carcinogenesis. Genetic susceptibilities play a large role in lung cancer risk. They govern smoking behavior (affecting dopamine reward mechanisms due to nicotine and nicotine metabolism), carcinogen metabolism and detoxification, DNA repair, cell cycle control and other cellular responses. The need for the study of lung cancer is highlighted by the need to improve cessation rates and reduce exposure among persons who cannot quit smoking, for better prevention strategies for former smokers and an understanding of environmental tobacco smoke risk. doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1205832


Polymorphic metabolizing genes and susceptibility to atherosclerosis among cigarette smokers.

Salama SA, Au WW, Hunter GC, Sheahan RG, Badary OA, Abdel-Naim AB, Hamada FM.

Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.

Atherosclerosis (AR) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the US and cigarette smoking is a major contributing factor to the disease. Like cigarette smoking in lung cancer, genetic susceptibility may be an important factor in determining who is more likely to develop AR. However, the current emphasis has been on susceptibility based on altered cardiovascular homeostasis. In this investigation, we studied 120 AR patients and 90 matched controls to elucidate the association between polymorphisms in some metabolizing genes (GSTM1, GSTT1, CYP2E1, mEH, PON1, and MPO) and susceptibility to AR. We found that the GSTT1 null allele and the fast allele of mEH(*) (exon 4) are associated with risk for AR. Furthermore, the combined genotypes GSTM1 null/ CYP2E1(*)5B, GSTM1 null/mEH YY, and GSTT1 null/mEH YY are significantly associated with susceptibility to AR (OR = 15.42, 95% CI = 1.33-77.93, P = 0.021; OR = 3.48, 95% CI = 1.63-8.04, P = 0.0008; OR = 3.4; 95% CI = 0.99-17.38, P = 0.05; respectively). We have also conducted cytogenetic analysis to elucidate if induction of chromosome aberrations (CAs) is a biomarker of AR susceptibility. We found that among cigarette smokers (AR patients and smoker controls), individuals having the GSTM1 null allele had a significantly higher frequency of CAs compared to those with the normal allele (P < 0.05). This association was not found among nonsmokers. In addition, individuals who had inherited the CYP2E1(*)5B allele exhibited a significantly higher CA frequency (8.0 +/- 0.82) compared to those with the CYP2E1 wild-type genotype (4.31 +/- 0.35). Since the analysis of genetic susceptibility factors is still in its infancy, our study may stimulate additional investigations to understand the roles of genetic susceptibility and cigarette smoking in AR. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 40:153-160, 2002. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.


And finally, here's the rundown on smoking compliments of the Morbidity and Mortality World Report

Cigarette smoking continues to be a leading cause of death in the Unites States, and imposes substantial measurable costs to society. From 1995?1999, smoking killed over 440,000 people in the United States each year.

Each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States costs the nation an estimated $7.18 in medical care costs and lost productivity.

Estimates show that smoking caused over $150 billion in annual health-related economic losses from 1995 to 1999 including $81.9 billion in mortality-related productivity losses (average for 1995?1999) and $75.5 billion in excess medical expenditures in 1998.

The economic costs of smoking are estimated to be about $3,391 per smoker per year.

Smoking caused an estimated 264,087 male and 178, 311 female deaths in the United States each year from 1995 to 1999.

Among adults, the study estimates that most deaths were from lung cancer (124,813), ischemic heart disease (81,976) and chronic airway obstruction (64,735).

Excluding adult deaths from exposure to secondhand smoke, adult males and females lost an average of 13.2 and 14.5 years of life respectively, because they smoked.

Smoking during pregnancy resulted in an estimated 599 male infant and 408 female infant deaths annually.

For men, the average number of annual smoking-attributable cancer and cardiovascular disease deaths in 1995?1999 fell while the number of respiratory disease deaths remained stable.

For women, the average number of annual smoking-attributable cancer and respiratory disease deaths in 1995?1999 rose while the number of cardiovascular deaths fell.

Smoking-attributable neonatal expenditures were estimated at $366 million in 1996 or $704 per maternal smoker.


And on and on and on and on. Kindly present us all with whatever you can dig up in real journals that indicates smoking isn't as harmful as 99.9% of journal articles state and we'll stop calling your pathetic "Journal" quackery.

 

teddymines

Senior member
Jul 6, 2001
940
0
0
Originally posted by: Jugernot
Well, My girlfriend had her tonsills out last year and the doc who did the work on her said she was having problems breathing... so he suctioned out her lungs and all he got was nasty yellow-brownish muck thought the suction tube. She has been smoking for 20 years (she only 33) and it's going to kill her. She knows it and doesn't care.

All she says is she hopes when she gets cancer, she goes quick like on all the smoking commercials.
Run away real fast. Trust me on this one: the last thing you want to be doing when you're in your mid-years is snaking a rubber tube down a tracheotomy hole and sucking out lung phlegm from an emphysema patient.

Seriously, people who are that stubborn and look at death so casually have lost the ability to love. Ask yourself what kind of mother would she make?

 

giguana

Senior member
Apr 3, 2002
791
0
0
It's not always an addiction either. My coworker stopped cold-turkey and he admitted it was no large effort to stop. He's been smoking for more than 10 years (he's young enough). The birth of his kid gave him a good reason too. Other people just have no urge to stop...

Some people are more likely to become addicted than other people. Like in my family, genetically, I am more seseptible to addiction than a lot of other people. Some people could stop cold turkey after 10 years but for a lot of other people they are addicted and can't stop after their first or second cigarette.
 

giguana

Senior member
Apr 3, 2002
791
0
0
Hey look everybody it an Phillip Morris employee.

You must also must take into consideration that some poeple might have some respetory (sp?) problems. Like me i almosted died from bronchitias (sp?) and i have alergies

if i get next to anything that is not fresh air ( for more than an hour or two ) i have a hard time to breathe. So i am glad there are starting to get bans on smokers


Dude you just proved Valinos right. Learn how to spell and speak ENGLISH before you decide to post.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
<<Learn how to spell and speak ENGLISH before you decide to post. >>

Learn hot to not be an ass before you decide to post.

See? It's real easy to insult people...and it says more about the insulter than the insultee.
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,844
1,049
126
Originally posted by: Aceman
Originally posted by: rh71
Aceman, do you (or would you) smoke around your kids ?

Trying to set me up to make me out to be such a BAD parent?????????

Yes, I do smoke around my children.

Yes, I do have a child that was diagnosed with severe asthma at 1 year old. I also had the leading pediatics and asthma specialist in the Air Force tell me that my smoking neither caused or triggered his asthma. Furthermore, my smoking does not trigger any asthma attacks in him. When we moved from Omaha, NE to Minneapolis, MN, my son went from an asthma attack every two weeks and being rushed to the ER to an asthma attack 1-2 times a year. I do not smoke around him while he is sick or has an asthma attack/

And finally, DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT CALLING ME TERRIBLE AND ABUSIVE FOR SMOKING AROUND MY CHILDREN. There is no law I am breaking by smoking around them.

Sore spot I see. Look, what you do behind your doors is none of my business. It was hypothetical. Not once have I mentioned law in any of my posts here. I don't wish for smoking to be against the law. People can choose to do what they feel as long as it doesn't break any laws. Within that, people are expected to treat each other with a certain level of respect (hence my mention of the word morals in a previous post). I didn't state smokers have no morals (that was funny, by the way). I insinuated that inconsiderate smokers (who blow smoke wherever they feel like) are not using their moral judgment. Consideration is what I'm after. Read any of my posts in this thread.

Think of it this way, read Fausto's last post above with the facts and tell me that you're not likely to die of lung cancer ahead of anything else. Then think about how your child will feel about you leaving him/her earlier than you should because of lung cancer. I would want my parent to stick around for as long as possible... but that's just me. I'd care about how my child would feel later on.. if it's not for his best interest, it's mine.

Again, I'm not telling you what you should be doing - as a smoker or as a parent. Smokers who think non-smokers are against them because "non-smokers feel they'll die from 2nd-hand smoke" don't get the whole point. Either that, or they never gave a sh!t about anything to begin with.
 

teddymines

Senior member
Jul 6, 2001
940
0
0
This topic comes up every few weeks. The bottom line:

Some smokers want to quit, and attacking them with complaints and health concerns does not help.

Some smokers do NOT want to quit, no matter how logical it seems to you that they should. Their reasons are their own, and nothing you say can change their minds.

There are about 0.00001% of smokers who read these posts and say, "OMG, I didn't know that! I'm quitting right now!" *snuffs out cig*

So all that this wasted bandwidth could possibly do is influence the last subset. Before you write, what are the odds you'll reach one of them?
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,844
1,049
126
Originally posted by: teddymines
This topic comes up every few weeks. The bottom line:

Some smokers want to quit, and attacking them with complaints and health concerns does not help.

Some smokers do NOT want to quit, no matter how logical it seems to you that they should. Their reasons are their own, and nothing you say can change their minds.

There are about 0.00001% of smokers who read these posts and say, "OMG, I didn't know that! I'm quitting right now!" *snuffs out cig*

So all that this wasted bandwidth could possibly do is influence the last subset. Before you write, what are the odds you'll reach one of them?

Hey, you could use your arguments for any argument in this world. Agree to disagree?
 

austonia

Senior member
Nov 16, 1999
898
0
76
Aceman
Platinum Member

"And finally, DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT CALLING ME TERRIBLE AND ABUSIVE FOR SMOKING AROUND MY CHILDREN. There is no law I am breaking by smoking around them."



So by not breaking the law, that makes it OK. You would fit right in with the CEO elite. I am sure your kids appreciate smelling like sh!t and inahling your nasty carcinogens. Sorry to burst your little bubble but that is terrible and abusive to smoke around your kids. I feel sorry for them and for you too because you don't see your own ignorance.


 

Armitage

Banned
Feb 23, 2001
8,086
0
0
Originally posted by: Valinos
Originally posted by: ergeorge

LoL The Jpurnal of Theoretics is a quack operation if I ever saw one!
Take a look at some of the other articles (GUT, Antigravity, papers published from PO boxes.
That paper is a poster child for how to lie with statistics.

Can I get some substantial evidence that the Journal of Theoretics is a "quack operation?" As soon as you show me some unbiased proof that its not a reliable source then I'll retract my statement...until then, you still lose. Don't cry too hard that you had your feelings hurt on an Internet message board...its ok, I'm sure mom still loves you.

Here's a simple one: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-3/VAF-pub.htm

This guy apparently thinks spherical trig is something new. This would get laughed out of any serious peer review. I didn't bother reading it enough to see if he got it right.

How about this: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/4-4/pairs.pdf

A pointless discussion of the Bode formula. I mean really pointless, as in I don't know what his point was and my field is astrodynamics.

I don't know enough particle physics & relativity to raise the BS flag directly on the papers that deal with that stuff. But I'm sure I would have heard of it if somebody actually found a GUT or demonstrated gravity manipulation or quantum gravity or the existencse of aether as some of these papers claim.

And their breadth of authors is certainly suspicious. You see the same names over & over publishing often several papers on different subjects in the same issue. Not a sign of a broad following.

And finally, the bit about publishing from a PO box? Affiliation does matter. All the conspiracy theorists will scream bloody murder on this, but part of the vetting process in science is your affiliation. I don't have time to keep up with half the material in my field, so I'm certainly not going to waste it reading stuff from unaffiliated authors. The probability that it's worthwhile is just to low. If it's published with an affiliation, it has almost certainly gone through an extensive internal peer review. If these guys are worth their salt why doen't they have a university or corporation behind them? If you're good, you'll be working in the field, you'll have no problem with this.







 

teddymines

Senior member
Jul 6, 2001
940
0
0
rh71: Exactly. Few people come here to have their minds changed. It is either ventage and the associated bickering, or along the lines of "Passat or Maxima?"
 

giguana

Senior member
Apr 3, 2002
791
0
0
Learn hot to not be an ass before you decide to post.

I pride myself on being an ass when it comes to ignorant people trying to think beyond their education and IQ's.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: teddymines
rh71: Exactly. Few people come here to have their minds changed. It is either ventage and the associated bickering, or along the lines of "Passat or Maxima?"

I think that the point of this thread is not to change people's minds, but to just rant. I'm sorry that smokers can't see that what they are doing is wrong, but I've lived around them long enough to know that they don't care one bit about my health when it comes to cigs and I've learned to accept that. I just stay away from smokers and remember their faces so that I can reject them if they ask for a date or if they want to hang out with me and I can do it while making them look like an idiot. Hey, they mess with me, I mess with them. That's how I get even with them and live in the same world with them. In the future, I plan on building a machine that spews out tons of black smoke and whenever I see a smoker near me I will point it at them and watch them run away coughing It will be so great. Of course I will be wearing a gas mask. It will be cumbersome at first, but worth it to see them realize just what they put everyone else through. Just the other day I was getting off of the freeway and stopped at a stoplight at the end of the ramp. I looked at the curb and there was about 50 cig butts laying there in a heap. It's just sad. Anyone who disagrees, you will cause me to lose ALL respect for ALL smokers. I would not want my child to grow up in a world that you live in. If you were sitting in the hospital slowly dying for an entire year in extreme pain, I would just walk past and say "Good riddence".

Smokers: If you think non-smokers should complain about something else roll just tell me what would be a worthy complaint to you? What is SOOOOOO much more important than a person's health? And tell me just how breathing in toxic smoke can not have a negative impact on your health? Anyone who thinks that smoke does not cause health problems should go back to kindergarten. Actually, they shouldn't because I wouldn't want them around those children. They should be exiled for their ignorance.
 

Aceman

Banned
Oct 9, 1999
3,159
0
0
So by not breaking the law, that makes it OK. You would fit right in with the CEO elite. I am sure your kids appreciate smelling like sh!t and inahling your nasty carcinogens. Sorry to burst your little bubble but that is terrible and abusive to smoke around your kids. I feel sorry for them and for you too because you don't see your own ignorance.



Your opinion is just that, YOUR opinion. There was once a Nurse Practitioner at the local VA that spewed that same crap. Until, about 3 other soldier along with me, reported her to her supervisor. She's no longer spewing that crap at the VA. Not sure if she's spewing that crap at any hospital any more. You are entitled to your opinion. You however, are not entitled to pass judgement on me based on your opinion.
 

cremator

Senior member
Sep 21, 2001
643
0
0
Wow aceman you must feel powerful, reporting a nurse that was actually trying to help you. I think we all see how fit of a parent you really are...now before you kids get to enjoy a full life, they are going to be rotting piles of smouldring flesh piled up in a hostipital bed on an iron lung....Good job dad.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |