outside heaters

[mikhailfaradayski]

equal rights nazis

You have a very weak and inaccurate view of what Nazism did.

incorrect, you have not read enough of my views of the nazis to make such a judgement.

Its merely a round-the-houses-way of finger pointing at those who seem to display a draconian view towards the use of energy in a manner that they disapprove of. Maybe uptight-bloody minded-allornothing-eco-warriors may be a more acceptable term, it just doesn't ring out quite as well.

Please don't take that too literally. I am aware of the atrocoties that they were guilty of.

Although not at the darkest point of the nazi's evil, a brief trip to colditz whilst passing by a few years ago did sort of add a human element to the sorry saga to me

 

[JohnD]

rather inaccurate then to describe someone as a Nazi because they have a sincere opposition to tobacco smoke.

How about calling them "eco-mass murderers?" Just as accurate

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

a bit of storm>teacup.

Yes, rather inaccurate, granted, but just an illustration of the OTT attitude that some people display to what amounts to a minor problem.

'eco-mass muderers' doesn't work for me in this context. They haven't killed anything, they just have a bloody minded stop-at-nothing way of trying to impose their views and mandates upon others (in our society where freedom and liberty should be embraced by all quarters) I think in some sort of loose comparision, this is more akin to the way of the nazi.

In fact, thinkning on about it, tree-hugging sandal wearing hippy would be more appropriate than 'murderer' of any description

 

[JohnD]

I haven't yet heard of ecologists arresting smokers or gas-heater uses by the million, or even smashing the windows of their homes and depriving them of their livelihoods, let alone trying to kill them all

A very poor analogy.

It seems to me that the pro-smoking lobby has lost its grip on reality in considering itself to be persecuted.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

er, yeh, whaeva. Im not quite sure where this is now going. I have already said that my comments were intended to be illustrative and not meant to be taken so literally. You may have a point, but its not really worth looking too deeply into, so i'll leave that there.

I don't feel persecuted, but can't speak for any member of any lobby to whom i am not affiliated. Just to re-iterate, incase you didn't read my earlier post - I have no problem with going outside to smoke. However, i do feel that trying to ban smoking in the free air in a public place ( where there isn't a specific case for it ) is going too far. I don't think it would be fair to those who smoke to be banned from sitting in the middle of a pub beer garden, do you?
If Mrs. Faradayski and myself decided to go to a local park for a picnic of cucumber sandwiches and pimms and we decided to sit in the centre of a 1 acre field where there was nobody within a 200metre radius of us, why should i be prevented from having a smoke afterwards?

I sort of agree and disagree with coljack about the smoking directly outside a doorway. If the law said something like 'no smoking within 6 ft of a doorway' then i would be happy to comply. ( i think that this may be how the law is set out in Canada) However, i don't fully agree that all smoke exhausted from a smokers lungs just travels back through the door way. Surely this is not true?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

don't be silly

you know as well as I do what you typed

and it was not clot

Ah - I see that the mods are still unable to resist using their power to delete posts, make those of their own arguing with posters and then deleting the ones where their victims try to defend themselves.

No - it was not "clot", it was "c**t" - care to put forward a rational and consistent explanation of why that's not allowed, and why I am also not allowed to respond to what you wrote? Or will you just, by erasing what I write, show once more that you cannot actually justify yourself?