On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:53:54PM +0000, Paul Boyd wrote:
> beamends wrote:
> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way...
> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, full 
> stop. :-)

I agree.  If the purpose of banning them from pubs was to improve
health, then that purpose is better served by banning them entirely.
But that would screw the public finances even more, because tax from
tobacco more than pays for the extra health costs of tobacco.

There are, of course, other reason to ban cigarettes.  They smell bad,
taste bad, and are enjoyed by chav scum.  Ban cigarettes and track
suits! Encourage pipes, cigars, and tweed!

-- 
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

    Planckton: n, the smallest possible living thing

"David Cantrell"  wrote in message 
news:20091103114236.GD23105@bytemark.barnyard.co.uk...
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:53:54PM +0000, Paul Boyd wrote:
>> beamends wrote:
>> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way...
>> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, full
>> stop. :-)
>
> I agree.  If the purpose of banning them from pubs was to improve
> health, then that purpose is better served by banning them entirely.
> But that would screw the public finances even more, because tax from
> tobacco more than pays for the extra health costs of tobacco.
>
> There are, of course, other reason to ban cigarettes.  They smell bad,
> taste bad, and are enjoyed by chav scum.  Ban cigarettes and track
> suits! Encourage pipes, cigars, and tweed!
>
> -- 
> David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information
>
>    Planckton: n, the smallest possible living thing

If that makes me a chav scum has anyone got Billie Pipers phone number ?

cheers,
Simon

"beamends"  wrote in message 
news:BOqdnea6Mf8otm3XnZ2dnUVZ8jhi4p2d@bt.com...
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:42:36 +0000, David Cantrell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:53:54PM +0000, Paul Boyd wrote:
>>> beamends wrote:
>>> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way...
>>> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, full
>>> stop. :-)
>>
>> I agree.  If the purpose of banning them from pubs was to improve
>> health, then that purpose is better served by banning them entirely. But
>> that would screw the public finances even more, because tax from tobacco
>> more than pays for the extra health costs of tobacco.
>>
>> There are, of course, other reason to ban cigarettes.  They smell bad,
>> taste bad, and are enjoyed by chav scum.  Ban cigarettes and track
>> suits! Encourage pipes, cigars, and tweed!
>
> That's probably one of the most pompous, sanctimonious and arrogant posts
> I've ever read. What should be banned is idiots who people who tell
> others how to live their lives. I'm not a chav by a million miles, but
> I'd far rather be one than have to live next door to some Immaculate
> Conception like you!
>
>
>
> -- 
> I have become...............comfortably numb

Not sure can agree with you there. There was a whole set of em on uk.railway 
a while back. I rose to the challenge then but now would rather take the 
piss out of Holier than thou posts to show that dont care about such 
opinions.

So if anyone wants to give me more info on the evils of smoking they can 
email me directly.

Cheers,
Simon

On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 07:10:13AM -0600, beamends wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:42:36 +0000, David Cantrell wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:53:54PM +0000, Paul Boyd wrote:
> >> beamends wrote:
> >> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way...
> >> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, full
> >> stop. :-)
> > I agree.  If the purpose of banning them from pubs was to improve
> > health, then that purpose is better served by banning them entirely. But
> > that would screw the public finances even more, because tax from tobacco
> > more than pays for the extra health costs of tobacco.
> > There are, of course, other reason to ban cigarettes.  They smell bad,
> > taste bad, and are enjoyed by chav scum.  Ban cigarettes and track
> > suits! Encourage pipes, cigars, and tweed!
> That's probably one of the most pompous, sanctimonious and arrogant posts 
> I've ever read.

Well done, you win a prize for being the furthest divorced from your
sense of humour.

-- 
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

    You are so cynical.  And by "cynical", of course, I mean "correct".
         -- Kurt Starsinic

David Cantrell  wrote:
> beamends wrote:
>> David Cantrell wrote:
>> > Paul Boyd wrote:
>> >> beamends wrote:
>> >> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way...
>> >> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned,
>> >> full stop. :-) 
>> > I agree.  If the purpose of banning them from pubs was to improve
>> > health, then that purpose is better served by banning them
>> > entirely. But that would screw the public finances even more,
>> > because tax from tobacco more than pays for the extra health costs
>> > of tobacco. There are, of course, other reason to ban cigarettes. 
>> > They smell bad, taste bad, and are enjoyed by chav scum.  Ban
>> > cigarettes and track suits! Encourage pipes, cigars, and tweed! 
>> That's probably one of the most pompous, sanctimonious and arrogant
>> posts I've ever read.
> 
> Well done, you win a prize for being the furthest divorced from your
> sense of humour.

The line between irony and sanctimoniousness is as fine as the line 
between genius and insanity.

-- 
Martin S.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:09:38 +1300, MartinS <me@my.place> wrote:

> David Cantrell  wrote:
>> beamends wrote:
>>> David Cantrell wrote:
>>> > Paul Boyd wrote:
>>> >> beamends wrote:
>>> >> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way...
>>> >> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned,
>>> >> full stop. :-)
>>> > I agree.  If the purpose of banning them from pubs was to improve
>>> > health, then that purpose is better served by banning them
>>> > entirely. But that would screw the public finances even more,
>>> > because tax from tobacco more than pays for the extra health costs
>>> > of tobacco. There are, of course, other reason to ban cigarettes.
>>> > They smell bad, taste bad, and are enjoyed by chav scum.  Ban
>>> > cigarettes and track suits! Encourage pipes, cigars, and tweed!
>>> That's probably one of the most pompous, sanctimonious and arrogant
>>> posts I've ever read.
>>
>> Well done, you win a prize for being the furthest divorced from your
>> sense of humour.
>
> The line between irony and sanctimoniousness is as fine as the line
> between genius and insanity.
>


Had you ever considered that the route from genius to insanity is much  
shorter than the route from insanity to genius?

Greg.P.

"Greg.Procter"  wrote in message 
news:op.u2whvydtt7a1n0@promodel-5a9821...
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:09:38 +1300, MartinS <me@my.place> wrote:
>
>> David Cantrell  wrote:
>>> beamends wrote:
>>>> David Cantrell wrote:
>>>> > Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>> >> beamends wrote:
>>>> >> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way...
>>>> >> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned,
>>>> >> full stop. :-)
>>>> > I agree.  If the purpose of banning them from pubs was to improve
>>>> > health, then that purpose is better served by banning them
>>>> > entirely. But that would screw the public finances even more,
>>>> > because tax from tobacco more than pays for the extra health costs
>>>> > of tobacco. There are, of course, other reason to ban cigarettes.
>>>> > They smell bad, taste bad, and are enjoyed by chav scum.  Ban
>>>> > cigarettes and track suits! Encourage pipes, cigars, and tweed!
>>>> That's probably one of the most pompous, sanctimonious and arrogant
>>>> posts I've ever read.
>>>
>>> Well done, you win a prize for being the furthest divorced from your
>>> sense of humour.
>>
>> The line between irony and sanctimoniousness is as fine as the line
>> between genius and insanity.
>>
>
>
> Had you ever considered that the route from genius to insanity is much 
> shorter than the route from insanity to genius?
>
> Greg.P.

from experience ?

Cheers,
Simon

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:51:06 +1300, simon  wrote:

>
> "Greg.Procter"  wrote in message  
> news:op.u2whvydtt7a1n0@promodel-5a9821...
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:09:38 +1300, MartinS <me@my.place> wrote:
>>
>>> David Cantrell  wrote:
>>>> beamends wrote:
>>>>> David Cantrell wrote:
>>>>> > Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>>> >> beamends wrote:
>>>>> >> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way...
>>>>> >> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned,
>>>>> >> full stop. :-)
>>>>> > I agree.  If the purpose of banning them from pubs was to improve
>>>>> > health, then that purpose is better served by banning them
>>>>> > entirely. But that would screw the public finances even more,
>>>>> > because tax from tobacco more than pays for the extra health costs
>>>>> > of tobacco. There are, of course, other reason to ban cigarettes.
>>>>> > They smell bad, taste bad, and are enjoyed by chav scum.  Ban
>>>>> > cigarettes and track suits! Encourage pipes, cigars, and tweed!
>>>>> That's probably one of the most pompous, sanctimonious and arrogant
>>>>> posts I've ever read.
>>>>
>>>> Well done, you win a prize for being the furthest divorced from your
>>>> sense of humour.
>>>
>>> The line between irony and sanctimoniousness is as fine as the line
>>> between genius and insanity.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Had you ever considered that the route from genius to insanity is much  
>> shorter than the route from insanity to genius?
>>
>> Greg.P.
>
> from experience ?
>
> Cheers,
> Simon


I tend to get very nervous near cliff edges!

Greg.P.

"Greg.Procter"  wrote in message 
news:op.u2xsos1jt7a1n0@promodel-5a9821...
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:51:06 +1300, simon  wrote:
>
>>> Had you ever considered that the route from genius to insanity is much 
>>> shorter than the route from insanity to genius?
>>>
>>> Greg.P.
>>
>> from experience ?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Simon
>
>
> I tend to get very nervous near cliff edges!
>
> Greg.P.
Are you replying to Johns post in this one ?

Cheers,
Simon

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:25:24 흽, simon  wrote:

>
> "Greg.Procter"  wrote in message  > news:op.u2xsos1jt7a1n0@promodel-5a9821...
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:51:06 흽, simon  wrote:
>>
>>>> Had you ever considered that the route from genius to insanity is  >>>> much shorter than the route from insanity to genius?
>>>>
>>>> Greg.P.
>>>
>>> from experience ?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Simon
>>
>>
>> I tend to get very nervous near cliff edges!
>>
>> Greg.P.
> Are you replying to Johns post in this one ?
>
> Cheers,
> Simon
>

No, I was responding directly to you! =8^)
(somewhat obliquely, admittedly)

Greg.P.