Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Smoke detectors
Smoke detectors
Hey nicotine addicts, what do you do about your smoke detectors at home?
Doesn't your tobacco spew set off your smoke detectors? The thing is,
nicotine addicts would probably be slower to smell a fire then
non-smokers because their olfactory sense is diminished, so you need a
smoke detecter, but doesn't you set it off when you smoke?
good night
Hey nicotine addicts, what do you do about your smoke detectors at home?
Doesn't your tobacco spew set off your smoke detectors? The thing is,
nicotine addicts would probably be slower to smell a fire then
non-smokers because their olfactory sense is diminished, so you need a
smoke detecter, but doesn't you set it off when you smoke?
good night
Re: Smoke detectors
.
Idiot Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
> Hey nicotine addicts, what do you do about your smoke detectors at home?
> Doesn't your tobacco spew set off your smoke detectors? The thing is,
> nicotine addicts would probably be slower to smell a fire then
> non-smokers because their olfactory sense is diminished, so you need a
> smoke detecter, but doesn't you set it off when you smoke?
>
> good night
Too bad there wasn't such a thing as an idiot, rude, and brainless
troll detector. We could then have some kind of a warning that
hypocrites like this candy-ass trouble maker were close at hand.
Notice how "Mr. Helper Guy" is a really a nut-case Voxie wannabe with
his gratuitous and obligatory insults to smokers on a newsgroup that
he obsessively trolls. Bottom line is that these creeps are all alike
in their disdain for smokers.
Tell us, Troll "Twinkie" Shane, what is your psychological motivation
behind your constantly calling these fine people "addicts". You surely
have a logical, educated, and mature answer to that, right? Tell us
what motivates you to feed your net addiction so readily. You claim
that you've explained why you troll here. We know you haven't. So
here's your chance to prove The BIG N wrong. Explain to us your need
to provide us with this mindless, useless, and unnecessary piece of
childishness. No backpedalling now, you spineless coward. Try to
answer the question without your usual evasiveness and "Babs Broughton
head-up-the-ass" sidestepping. Here's your chance Troll "Twinkie"
Shane. Tell us about the motivation behind this current troll-
dropping. Think it through, moron. We already know the answer but we
want to hear it from you. Why the unsolicited insult.
You better lighten up on those twinkies, Twinkie. They're effecting
what little is left of that addled mind of yours. Poor sap.
TBN - lovin' the freak show.
.
Idiot Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
> Hey nicotine addicts, what do you do about your smoke detectors at home?
> Doesn't your tobacco spew set off your smoke detectors? The thing is,
> nicotine addicts would probably be slower to smell a fire then
> non-smokers because their olfactory sense is diminished, so you need a
> smoke detecter, but doesn't you set it off when you smoke?
>
> good night
Too bad there wasn't such a thing as an idiot, rude, and brainless
troll detector. We could then have some kind of a warning that
hypocrites like this candy-ass trouble maker were close at hand.
Notice how "Mr. Helper Guy" is a really a nut-case Voxie wannabe with
his gratuitous and obligatory insults to smokers on a newsgroup that
he obsessively trolls. Bottom line is that these creeps are all alike
in their disdain for smokers.
Tell us, Troll "Twinkie" Shane, what is your psychological motivation
behind your constantly calling these fine people "addicts". You surely
have a logical, educated, and mature answer to that, right? Tell us
what motivates you to feed your net addiction so readily. You claim
that you've explained why you troll here. We know you haven't. So
here's your chance to prove The BIG N wrong. Explain to us your need
to provide us with this mindless, useless, and unnecessary piece of
childishness. No backpedalling now, you spineless coward. Try to
answer the question without your usual evasiveness and "Babs Broughton
head-up-the-ass" sidestepping. Here's your chance Troll "Twinkie"
Shane. Tell us about the motivation behind this current troll-
dropping. Think it through, moron. We already know the answer but we
want to hear it from you. Why the unsolicited insult.
You better lighten up on those twinkies, Twinkie. They're effecting
what little is left of that addled mind of yours. Poor sap.
TBN - lovin' the freak show.
Re: Smoke detectors
Silly Ass Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
> Hey nicotine addicts, what do you do about your smoke detectors at home?
> Doesn't your tobacco spew set off your smoke detectors? The thing is,
> nicotine addicts would probably be slower to smell a fire then
> non-smokers because their olfactory sense is diminished, so you need a
> smoke detecter, but doesn't you set it off when you smoke?
>
> good night
So just one more time, Twinkie, for those who may have missed it. Why
is it that you impose your trolling upon this newsgroup with your
gratuitous insults and mindless twaddle? Tell us again why you feel
your disparaging remarks and generalized attacks upon some very fine
people justify you being a troll and are beneficial to this group. Let
us hear, one more time, how input such as what you've demonstrated
here, lends itself to your "noble and virtuous" cause to "help"
smokers - you transparent hypocrite.
Fess up, Twinkie, you're a lonely. bitter, angry, and envious Voxie
wannabe who truly despises smokers and uses this forum to release your
childish and cowardly frustration on anonymous individuals. Candy-
asses like you and the rest of your troll gal-pals, wouldn't have the
courage to speak to any smoker in such a manner in the real world.
Unless of course you brought with you several changes of panties. LOL!
Yeah, we got your number, Twinkie. We've had it a all along. You're
just too dense, and too much in denial, to realize and accept that
fact. Wake up and smell the smoke, doofus. You're, at best, just
another angry sad-sack.
TBN - lovin' the sight of a hypocrite tripping over his own clown-
shoes.
Silly Ass Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
> Hey nicotine addicts, what do you do about your smoke detectors at home?
> Doesn't your tobacco spew set off your smoke detectors? The thing is,
> nicotine addicts would probably be slower to smell a fire then
> non-smokers because their olfactory sense is diminished, so you need a
> smoke detecter, but doesn't you set it off when you smoke?
>
> good night
So just one more time, Twinkie, for those who may have missed it. Why
is it that you impose your trolling upon this newsgroup with your
gratuitous insults and mindless twaddle? Tell us again why you feel
your disparaging remarks and generalized attacks upon some very fine
people justify you being a troll and are beneficial to this group. Let
us hear, one more time, how input such as what you've demonstrated
here, lends itself to your "noble and virtuous" cause to "help"
smokers - you transparent hypocrite.
Fess up, Twinkie, you're a lonely. bitter, angry, and envious Voxie
wannabe who truly despises smokers and uses this forum to release your
childish and cowardly frustration on anonymous individuals. Candy-
asses like you and the rest of your troll gal-pals, wouldn't have the
courage to speak to any smoker in such a manner in the real world.
Unless of course you brought with you several changes of panties. LOL!
Yeah, we got your number, Twinkie. We've had it a all along. You're
just too dense, and too much in denial, to realize and accept that
fact. Wake up and smell the smoke, doofus. You're, at best, just
another angry sad-sack.
TBN - lovin' the sight of a hypocrite tripping over his own clown-
shoes.
Re: Smoke detectors
In article
<d9325fe2-3f34-4c11-99a6-2fa5f0675e78@27g2000hsf.googlegroups,com >,
The BIG N <nizo1@verizon,net > wrote:
> Silly Ass Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
>
> > Hey nicotine addicts, what do you do about your smoke detectors at home?
> > Doesn't your tobacco spew set off your smoke detectors? The thing is,
> > nicotine addicts would probably be slower to smell a fire then
> > non-smokers because their olfactory sense is diminished, so you need a
> > smoke detecter, but doesn't you set it off when you smoke?
> >
> > good night
>
> So just one more time, Twinkie, for those who may have missed it. Why
> is it that you impose your trolling upon this newsgroup with your
> gratuitous insults and mindless twaddle? Tell us again why you feel
> your disparaging remarks and generalized attacks upon some very fine
> people justify you being a troll and are beneficial to this group. Let
> us hear, one more time, how input such as what you've demonstrated
> here, lends itself to your "noble and virtuous" cause to "help"
> smokers - you transparent hypocrite.
Nothing I have said is insulting. Its not my fault you are a nicotine
addict. You are blaming the messenger for the message. If you have
trouble accepting the reality I share here, there's always a kill file.
Well, at least there is for those of us who use a real news server.
> Fess up, Twinkie, you're a lonely. bitter, angry, and envious Voxie
> wannabe who truly despises smokers and uses this forum to release your
> childish and cowardly frustration on anonymous individuals. Candy-
> asses like you and the rest of your troll gal-pals, wouldn't have the
> courage to speak to any smoker in such a manner in the real world.
> Unless of course you brought with you several changes of panties. LOL!
Lonely? Bitter? Angry? Believe what you want, but I am hardly lonely,
angry, and bitter. If you prefer to regard me that way, that's your
problem, not mine. In reality, it is you who is lonely, bitter, and
angry. After all, the reality you face as a nicotine addict is indeed
harsh.
> Yeah, we got your number, Twinkie. We've had it a all along. You're
> just too dense, and too much in denial, to realize and accept that
> fact. Wake up and smell the smoke, doofus. You're, at best, just
> another angry sad-sack.
Hah! It is you who exudes anger. You remind me of a wild animal who's
trying to fight for its food, but in your case, what you are fighting
for is nicotine addiction.
In article
<d9325fe2-3f34-4c11-99a6-2fa5f0675e78@27g2000hsf.googlegroups,com >,
The BIG N <nizo1@verizon,net > wrote:
> Silly Ass Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
>
> > Hey nicotine addicts, what do you do about your smoke detectors at home?
> > Doesn't your tobacco spew set off your smoke detectors? The thing is,
> > nicotine addicts would probably be slower to smell a fire then
> > non-smokers because their olfactory sense is diminished, so you need a
> > smoke detecter, but doesn't you set it off when you smoke?
> >
> > good night
>
> So just one more time, Twinkie, for those who may have missed it. Why
> is it that you impose your trolling upon this newsgroup with your
> gratuitous insults and mindless twaddle? Tell us again why you feel
> your disparaging remarks and generalized attacks upon some very fine
> people justify you being a troll and are beneficial to this group. Let
> us hear, one more time, how input such as what you've demonstrated
> here, lends itself to your "noble and virtuous" cause to "help"
> smokers - you transparent hypocrite.
Nothing I have said is insulting. Its not my fault you are a nicotine
addict. You are blaming the messenger for the message. If you have
trouble accepting the reality I share here, there's always a kill file.
Well, at least there is for those of us who use a real news server.
> Fess up, Twinkie, you're a lonely. bitter, angry, and envious Voxie
> wannabe who truly despises smokers and uses this forum to release your
> childish and cowardly frustration on anonymous individuals. Candy-
> asses like you and the rest of your troll gal-pals, wouldn't have the
> courage to speak to any smoker in such a manner in the real world.
> Unless of course you brought with you several changes of panties. LOL!
Lonely? Bitter? Angry? Believe what you want, but I am hardly lonely,
angry, and bitter. If you prefer to regard me that way, that's your
problem, not mine. In reality, it is you who is lonely, bitter, and
angry. After all, the reality you face as a nicotine addict is indeed
harsh.
> Yeah, we got your number, Twinkie. We've had it a all along. You're
> just too dense, and too much in denial, to realize and accept that
> fact. Wake up and smell the smoke, doofus. You're, at best, just
> another angry sad-sack.
Hah! It is you who exudes anger. You remind me of a wild animal who's
trying to fight for its food, but in your case, what you are fighting
for is nicotine addiction.
Re: Smoke detectors
>
> Nothing I have said is insulting.
Calling people names isn't insulting. Why, you are as stupid as you
are ignorant, you silly ass.
>
> Lonely? Bitter? Angry? Believe what you want, but I am hardly lonely,
> angry, and bitter.
Yes you are. Your need and craving to be a part of more than 600
newsgroups and your constant insignificant, mindless, and gratuitous
troll-dropping are merely the beginnings of your profile.
Prancing from group to group dispensing your silly Martha Stewart-
like personal advice and suggestions to complete strangers on a
regular and habitual basis? You tell me, Nancy.
>If you prefer to regard me that way, that's your
> problem, not mine.
No problem at all, Twinkster, merely an observation and a pleasure to
behold. And of course, coming from The BIG N, right on the mark.
>
> Hah! It is you who exudes anger. You remind me of a wild animal who's
> trying to fight for its food, but in your case, what you are fighting
> for is nicotine addiction.
Further evidence (in writing, no less) of your pitiful lack of powers
of observation, woeful attempt at logic, super defensive response,
general stupidity, and desperate need to feed your frustrations. And
yet you STILL haven't answered the question as to why you need to be
an insulting and continually unwanted troll on this newsgroup. C'mon
pudge-boy, wake up and taste the onion rings.
TBN - fire'n one up and enjoyin' the worm squirm. LOL!
>
> Nothing I have said is insulting.
Calling people names isn't insulting. Why, you are as stupid as you
are ignorant, you silly ass.
>
> Lonely? Bitter? Angry? Believe what you want, but I am hardly lonely,
> angry, and bitter.
Yes you are. Your need and craving to be a part of more than 600
newsgroups and your constant insignificant, mindless, and gratuitous
troll-dropping are merely the beginnings of your profile.
Prancing from group to group dispensing your silly Martha Stewart-
like personal advice and suggestions to complete strangers on a
regular and habitual basis? You tell me, Nancy.
>If you prefer to regard me that way, that's your
> problem, not mine.
No problem at all, Twinkster, merely an observation and a pleasure to
behold. And of course, coming from The BIG N, right on the mark.
>
> Hah! It is you who exudes anger. You remind me of a wild animal who's
> trying to fight for its food, but in your case, what you are fighting
> for is nicotine addiction.
Further evidence (in writing, no less) of your pitiful lack of powers
of observation, woeful attempt at logic, super defensive response,
general stupidity, and desperate need to feed your frustrations. And
yet you STILL haven't answered the question as to why you need to be
an insulting and continually unwanted troll on this newsgroup. C'mon
pudge-boy, wake up and taste the onion rings.
TBN - fire'n one up and enjoyin' the worm squirm. LOL!
Re: Smoke detectors
Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
> Lonely? Bitter? Angry?
You obviously are.
Lonely? Yep - you've been trolling here for years.
Bitter? Obviously (see above).
Angry? Obviously (see above).
While it is generally true that smokers have a diminished sense of
smell, smoke detectors are a benefit to anyone who has ever or will ever
be alerted to smoke prior to their realizing that something is burning
or smoldering and is at risk of bursting into flames.
Fire is no less devastating to non-smokers than it is to smokers, so if
you had any sense you'd realize that non-smokers should be just as
careful about making sure their smoke detectors are in working order as
smokers.
It is also generally true that females have a more sensitive sense of
smell than males so by your logic female non-smokers should hardly worry
about whether their smoke detectors are working or not. It is pure
stupidity to think that way.
I found this quote from a Scottish government site, but since the laws
of physics do not vary from country to country, I think they are relevant:
"In 2006, 2,693 dwellings fires (39 per cent of the total number of
dwellings fires) occurred in dwellings without a smoke detector. This
compares to the 2,916 (42 per cent) dwellings fires which occurred in
dwellings where a smoke detector was present, operated and raised the
alarm. In the 10 years covered by this bulletin, the majority of fatal
casualties have occurred in dwellings fires where either a smoke alarm
was absent or the smoke detector was present but failed to operate."
Furthermore, if you look at a chart a little bit further down, you'll
find that the majority of fatalities occurred during times when most
people are sleeping.
http :// www .scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/04/25114918/3
So if you think you don't have as much need to check your smoke detector
as a smoker because your sense of smell is so keen, you may want to ask
yourself how alert you are in a deep sleep and if you could react
quicker than a smoke detector and escape a fire.
Also, if you think that because you don't smoke your risk of
experiencing a fire is significantly diminished, think again.
Most fires are related to cooking (38%) followed by heating equipment (19%).
http :// www .nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID•2&itemID#186&URL=Research%20&%20Reports/Fire%20statistics/Major%20causes%20of%20fire
This is a PSA from someone who is sensible and realizes that fires are
dangerous to everyone and are not a joking - or a trolling - matter.
Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
> Lonely? Bitter? Angry?
You obviously are.
Lonely? Yep - you've been trolling here for years.
Bitter? Obviously (see above).
Angry? Obviously (see above).
While it is generally true that smokers have a diminished sense of
smell, smoke detectors are a benefit to anyone who has ever or will ever
be alerted to smoke prior to their realizing that something is burning
or smoldering and is at risk of bursting into flames.
Fire is no less devastating to non-smokers than it is to smokers, so if
you had any sense you'd realize that non-smokers should be just as
careful about making sure their smoke detectors are in working order as
smokers.
It is also generally true that females have a more sensitive sense of
smell than males so by your logic female non-smokers should hardly worry
about whether their smoke detectors are working or not. It is pure
stupidity to think that way.
I found this quote from a Scottish government site, but since the laws
of physics do not vary from country to country, I think they are relevant:
"In 2006, 2,693 dwellings fires (39 per cent of the total number of
dwellings fires) occurred in dwellings without a smoke detector. This
compares to the 2,916 (42 per cent) dwellings fires which occurred in
dwellings where a smoke detector was present, operated and raised the
alarm. In the 10 years covered by this bulletin, the majority of fatal
casualties have occurred in dwellings fires where either a smoke alarm
was absent or the smoke detector was present but failed to operate."
Furthermore, if you look at a chart a little bit further down, you'll
find that the majority of fatalities occurred during times when most
people are sleeping.
http :// www .scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/04/25114918/3
So if you think you don't have as much need to check your smoke detector
as a smoker because your sense of smell is so keen, you may want to ask
yourself how alert you are in a deep sleep and if you could react
quicker than a smoke detector and escape a fire.
Also, if you think that because you don't smoke your risk of
experiencing a fire is significantly diminished, think again.
Most fires are related to cooking (38%) followed by heating equipment (19%).
http :// www .nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID•2&itemID#186&URL=Research%20&%20Reports/Fire%20statistics/Major%20causes%20of%20fire
This is a PSA from someone who is sensible and realizes that fires are
dangerous to everyone and are not a joking - or a trolling - matter.
