Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Newspaper tonight
Newspaper tonight
Tonight, as I read today's Philadelphia Daily news over dinner at a
Wegmans' cafe, I found two items of interest to smokers.
First, there was a brief column about how the FDA is reevaluating the
method used to test how much nicotine, smokers ingest from different
kinds of cigarettes. The current method dates back to the 1930's. The
FDA feels its testing method is outmoded and underestimates the amount
of nicotine smokers ingest, so they are looking for a more accurate test.
Sometimes, when I read the Daily News, I read the Dear Abby column.
Tonight was one of those times. One letter in today's column caught my
eye. It was a warning from one smoker to others. I want to share the
warning with you smokers because I really do care about you.
The writer of this particular letter warned readers to avoid putting
cigarette butts in your toilet. If you dispose of a lot of cigarette
butts in your toilet, the filters in the butts can clog up your toilet.
Filters are not water soluble. So, take this as a warning not to flush
your cigarette butts down your toilet; otherwise, you might incur a big
plumbing bill in order to fix the resulting mess.
Tonight, as I read today's Philadelphia Daily news over dinner at a
Wegmans' cafe, I found two items of interest to smokers.
First, there was a brief column about how the FDA is reevaluating the
method used to test how much nicotine, smokers ingest from different
kinds of cigarettes. The current method dates back to the 1930's. The
FDA feels its testing method is outmoded and underestimates the amount
of nicotine smokers ingest, so they are looking for a more accurate test.
Sometimes, when I read the Daily News, I read the Dear Abby column.
Tonight was one of those times. One letter in today's column caught my
eye. It was a warning from one smoker to others. I want to share the
warning with you smokers because I really do care about you.
The writer of this particular letter warned readers to avoid putting
cigarette butts in your toilet. If you dispose of a lot of cigarette
butts in your toilet, the filters in the butts can clog up your toilet.
Filters are not water soluble. So, take this as a warning not to flush
your cigarette butts down your toilet; otherwise, you might incur a big
plumbing bill in order to fix the resulting mess.
Re: Newspaper tonight
Junkmeister Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
> Tonight, as I read today's Philadelphia Daily news over dinner at a
> Wegmans' cafe, I found two items of interest to smokers.
>
Wow, another round of fine dining and haute cuisine for our self-
proclaimed expert on bad habits. Wegman's cafe!! Damn, this doofus has
style. How were the cheese fries?? LOL!
<snip Martha Stewart-like twaddle and gratuitous ass-kissing>
TBN
Junkmeister Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
> Tonight, as I read today's Philadelphia Daily news over dinner at a
> Wegmans' cafe, I found two items of interest to smokers.
>
Wow, another round of fine dining and haute cuisine for our self-
proclaimed expert on bad habits. Wegman's cafe!! Damn, this doofus has
style. How were the cheese fries?? LOL!
<snip Martha Stewart-like twaddle and gratuitous ass-kissing>
TBN
Re: Newspaper tonight
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:44:20 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>Tonight, as I read today's Philadelphia Daily news over dinner at a
>Wegmans' cafe, I found two items of interest to smokers.
>
>First, there was a brief column about how the FDA is reevaluating the
>method used to test how much nicotine, smokers ingest from different
>kinds of cigarettes. The current method dates back to the 1930's. The
>FDA feels its testing method is outmoded and underestimates the amount
>of nicotine smokers ingest, so they are looking for a more accurate test.
It is not the FDA's method, it is the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) method and it dates
back to 1967. The technical name for it is the Cambridge Filter Method.
http :// cancercontrol.cancer.gov/TCRB/monographs/7/m7_1.pdf
You uncritically believe EVERYthing you read in the newspaper.
>Sometimes, when I read the Daily News, I read the Dear Abby column.
>Tonight was one of those times. One letter in today's column caught my
>eye. It was a warning from one smoker to others. I want to share the
>warning with you smokers because I really do care about you.
>
>The writer of this particular letter warned readers to avoid putting
>cigarette butts in your toilet. If you dispose of a lot of cigarette
>butts in your toilet, the filters in the butts can clog up your toilet.
>Filters are not water soluble. So, take this as a warning not to flush
>your cigarette butts down your toilet; otherwise, you might incur a big
>plumbing bill in order to fix the resulting mess.
Another falsehood. Try a little common sense.
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:44:20 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>Tonight, as I read today's Philadelphia Daily news over dinner at a
>Wegmans' cafe, I found two items of interest to smokers.
>
>First, there was a brief column about how the FDA is reevaluating the
>method used to test how much nicotine, smokers ingest from different
>kinds of cigarettes. The current method dates back to the 1930's. The
>FDA feels its testing method is outmoded and underestimates the amount
>of nicotine smokers ingest, so they are looking for a more accurate test.
It is not the FDA's method, it is the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) method and it dates
back to 1967. The technical name for it is the Cambridge Filter Method.
http :// cancercontrol.cancer.gov/TCRB/monographs/7/m7_1.pdf
You uncritically believe EVERYthing you read in the newspaper.
>Sometimes, when I read the Daily News, I read the Dear Abby column.
>Tonight was one of those times. One letter in today's column caught my
>eye. It was a warning from one smoker to others. I want to share the
>warning with you smokers because I really do care about you.
>
>The writer of this particular letter warned readers to avoid putting
>cigarette butts in your toilet. If you dispose of a lot of cigarette
>butts in your toilet, the filters in the butts can clog up your toilet.
>Filters are not water soluble. So, take this as a warning not to flush
>your cigarette butts down your toilet; otherwise, you might incur a big
>plumbing bill in order to fix the resulting mess.
Another falsehood. Try a little common sense.
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 12 Jul 2008, 09:09
-- deleted messages --
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 12 Jul 2008, 11:55
-- deleted messages --
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 12 Jul 2008, 17:33
-- deleted messages --
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 12 Jul 2008, 19:34
-- deleted messages --
Re: Newspaper tonight
On Jul 12, 10:34 am, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
> >> I already explained I was in USMC Third Recon
>
> >You didn't explain how you landed in Laos or Cambodia, asswipe. You
> >wrote that you were in Camp Lejeune and Okinawa.
>
> Recon scouts don't LIVE in enemy territory. We lived on Okinawa and made excursions. We
> landed by fast rope.
Excursions into Laos and Cambodia? According to you, this activity
happened in 1965. And, according to you, you were discharged in 1963.
You're a serial liar.
>
> >> and studied law at La Salle.
>
> >By your own admission, you didn't study law AT La Salle. All you did
> >was send in some money for a correspondence course. You lied, asswipe.
>
> It was a legit law school, good enough to pass the Bar exam.
Except that you didn't pass the bar exam. And, as has been pointed out
by Shawn, there's nothing legitimate about La Salle.
Your claim to have studied law was a deliberate attempt to mislead
people, as well as an effort to bluff your way out of false claims you
made about the tobacco industry's record on litigation. In other
words, a lie.
>
> >> The second two are about semantics.
>
> >Nonsense.
>
> >Gambling is a legal activity in many places on the planet. Does that
> >mean that there's no such thing as a gambling addict? Of course not.
>
> Gambling addicts are not addicted to gambling, they are addiced to the dopamine stimulated
> by gambling.
In other words, they are addicted to gambling, liar.
> Same for the other addictions. That was my point, which you deleted by
> quoting out of context.
No, there's no issue of context here, liar.
>
> >One could argue that your "tobacco is legal" claim is simply
> >ridiculous instead of a lie. Taken in the context of other tobacco
> >industry talking points you have parroted about addiction, I vote for
> >"lie".
>
> Tobacco IS legal. One could argue that your insimuations of tobacco industry involvement
> are ridiculous.
I wasn't "insimuating" anything, liar. Just keep digging a deeper hole
for yourself. I'll toss in some dirt when it gets to be deep enough.
On Jul 12, 10:34 am, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
> >> I already explained I was in USMC Third Recon
>
> >You didn't explain how you landed in Laos or Cambodia, asswipe. You
> >wrote that you were in Camp Lejeune and Okinawa.
>
> Recon scouts don't LIVE in enemy territory. We lived on Okinawa and made excursions. We
> landed by fast rope.
Excursions into Laos and Cambodia? According to you, this activity
happened in 1965. And, according to you, you were discharged in 1963.
You're a serial liar.
>
> >> and studied law at La Salle.
>
> >By your own admission, you didn't study law AT La Salle. All you did
> >was send in some money for a correspondence course. You lied, asswipe.
>
> It was a legit law school, good enough to pass the Bar exam.
Except that you didn't pass the bar exam. And, as has been pointed out
by Shawn, there's nothing legitimate about La Salle.
Your claim to have studied law was a deliberate attempt to mislead
people, as well as an effort to bluff your way out of false claims you
made about the tobacco industry's record on litigation. In other
words, a lie.
>
> >> The second two are about semantics.
>
> >Nonsense.
>
> >Gambling is a legal activity in many places on the planet. Does that
> >mean that there's no such thing as a gambling addict? Of course not.
>
> Gambling addicts are not addicted to gambling, they are addiced to the dopamine stimulated
> by gambling.
In other words, they are addicted to gambling, liar.
> Same for the other addictions. That was my point, which you deleted by
> quoting out of context.
No, there's no issue of context here, liar.
>
> >One could argue that your "tobacco is legal" claim is simply
> >ridiculous instead of a lie. Taken in the context of other tobacco
> >industry talking points you have parroted about addiction, I vote for
> >"lie".
>
> Tobacco IS legal. One could argue that your insimuations of tobacco industry involvement
> are ridiculous.
I wasn't "insimuating" anything, liar. Just keep digging a deeper hole
for yourself. I'll toss in some dirt when it gets to be deep enough.
Re: Newspaper tonight
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:03:40 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm <rbronews2@broughton.ca> wrote:
>On Jul 12, 10:34 am, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>>
>> >> I already explained I was in USMC Third Recon
>>
>> >You didn't explain how you landed in Laos or Cambodia, asswipe. You
>> >wrote that you were in Camp Lejeune and Okinawa.
>>
>> Recon scouts don't LIVE in enemy territory. We lived on Okinawa and made excursions. We
>> landed by fast rope.
>
>Excursions into Laos and Cambodia? According to you, this activity
>happened in 1965. And, according to you, you were discharged in 1963.
>You're a serial liar.
I said it happened BEFORE 1965, when recon was moved to Vietnam. Go back and reread what I
said.
>> >> and studied law at La Salle.
>>
>> >By your own admission, you didn't study law AT La Salle. All you did
>> >was send in some money for a correspondence course. You lied, asswipe.
>>
>> It was a legit law school, good enough to pass the Bar exam.
>
>Except that you didn't pass the bar exam. And, as has been pointed out
>by Shawn, there's nothing legitimate about La Salle.
The Wikipedia quotation posted by Shawn explicitly said La Salle WAS legitimite in three
states, one of them being California.
>Your claim to have studied law was a deliberate attempt to mislead
>people, as well as an effort to bluff your way out of false claims you
>made about the tobacco industry's record on litigation. In other
>words, a lie.
I never claimed to be a licensed lawyer, just to know more than the average lay person
like you.
>> >> The second two are about semantics.
>>
>> >Nonsense.
>>
>> >Gambling is a legal activity in many places on the planet. Does that
>> >mean that there's no such thing as a gambling addict? Of course not.
>>
>> Gambling addicts are not addicted to gambling, they are addiced to the dopamine stimulated
>> by gambling.
>
>In other words, they are addicted to gambling, liar.
The phrase 'in other words' means the two are logically the same. You misuse it here.
Addition to dopamine is NOT the same as addiction to gambling.
>> Same for the other addictions. That was my point, which you deleted by
>> quoting out of context.
>
>No, there's no issue of context here, liar.
Weak response noted.
>> >One could argue that your "tobacco is legal" claim is simply
>> >ridiculous instead of a lie. Taken in the context of other tobacco
>> >industry talking points you have parroted about addiction, I vote for
>> >"lie".
>>
>> Tobacco IS legal. One could argue that your insimuations of tobacco industry involvement
>> are ridiculous.
>
>I wasn't "insimuating" anything, liar. Just keep digging a deeper hole
>for yourself. I'll toss in some dirt when it gets to be deep enough.
Oh my, a spelling flame. I WROTE a commercial spell checker and compiled its dictionary of
200K words. That I choose to write without a crutch, like you use, proves I'm a liar.
We've truly become a consumer society when a person's worth is determined by his toys
rather than the content of his words.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:03:40 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm <rbronews2@broughton.ca> wrote:
>On Jul 12, 10:34 am, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>>
>> >> I already explained I was in USMC Third Recon
>>
>> >You didn't explain how you landed in Laos or Cambodia, asswipe. You
>> >wrote that you were in Camp Lejeune and Okinawa.
>>
>> Recon scouts don't LIVE in enemy territory. We lived on Okinawa and made excursions. We
>> landed by fast rope.
>
>Excursions into Laos and Cambodia? According to you, this activity
>happened in 1965. And, according to you, you were discharged in 1963.
>You're a serial liar.
I said it happened BEFORE 1965, when recon was moved to Vietnam. Go back and reread what I
said.
>> >> and studied law at La Salle.
>>
>> >By your own admission, you didn't study law AT La Salle. All you did
>> >was send in some money for a correspondence course. You lied, asswipe.
>>
>> It was a legit law school, good enough to pass the Bar exam.
>
>Except that you didn't pass the bar exam. And, as has been pointed out
>by Shawn, there's nothing legitimate about La Salle.
The Wikipedia quotation posted by Shawn explicitly said La Salle WAS legitimite in three
states, one of them being California.
>Your claim to have studied law was a deliberate attempt to mislead
>people, as well as an effort to bluff your way out of false claims you
>made about the tobacco industry's record on litigation. In other
>words, a lie.
I never claimed to be a licensed lawyer, just to know more than the average lay person
like you.
>> >> The second two are about semantics.
>>
>> >Nonsense.
>>
>> >Gambling is a legal activity in many places on the planet. Does that
>> >mean that there's no such thing as a gambling addict? Of course not.
>>
>> Gambling addicts are not addicted to gambling, they are addiced to the dopamine stimulated
>> by gambling.
>
>In other words, they are addicted to gambling, liar.
The phrase 'in other words' means the two are logically the same. You misuse it here.
Addition to dopamine is NOT the same as addiction to gambling.
>> Same for the other addictions. That was my point, which you deleted by
>> quoting out of context.
>
>No, there's no issue of context here, liar.
Weak response noted.
>> >One could argue that your "tobacco is legal" claim is simply
>> >ridiculous instead of a lie. Taken in the context of other tobacco
>> >industry talking points you have parroted about addiction, I vote for
>> >"lie".
>>
>> Tobacco IS legal. One could argue that your insimuations of tobacco industry involvement
>> are ridiculous.
>
>I wasn't "insimuating" anything, liar. Just keep digging a deeper hole
>for yourself. I'll toss in some dirt when it gets to be deep enough.
Oh my, a spelling flame. I WROTE a commercial spell checker and compiled its dictionary of
200K words. That I choose to write without a crutch, like you use, proves I'm a liar.
We've truly become a consumer society when a person's worth is determined by his toys
rather than the content of his words.
Re: Newspaper tonight
On Jul 12, 9:33 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:03:40 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm <rbrone...@broughton.ca> wrote:
> >On Jul 12, 10:34 am, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
> >> >> I already explained I was in USMC Third Recon
>
> >> >You didn't explain how you landed in Laos or Cambodia, asswipe. You
> >> >wrote that you were in Camp Lejeune and Okinawa.
>
> >> Recon scouts don't LIVE in enemy territory. We lived on Okinawa and made excursions. We
> >> landed by fast rope.
>
> >Excursions into Laos and Cambodia? According to you, this activity
> >happened in 1965. And, according to you, you were discharged in 1963.
> >You're a serial liar.
>
> I said it happened BEFORE 1965, when recon was moved to Vietnam.
In 1964? Doesn't matter at all, since you wrote that you were
discharged in 1963.
Go back and reread what I
> said.
>
> >> >> and studied law at La Salle.
>
> >> >By your own admission, you didn't study law AT La Salle. All you did
> >> >was send in some money for a correspondence course. You lied, asswipe.
>
> >> It was a legit law school, good enough to pass the Bar exam.
>
> >Except that you didn't pass the bar exam. And, as has been pointed out
> >by Shawn, there's nothing legitimate about La Salle.
>
> The Wikipedia quotation posted by Shawn explicitly said La Salle WAS legitimite in three
> states, one of them being California.
Did it say that it was illegitimate in the other 47? I'm not
impressed, asswipe.
>
> >Your claim to have studied law was a deliberate attempt to mislead
> >people, as well as an effort to bluff your way out of false claims you
> >made about the tobacco industry's record on litigation. In other
> >words, a lie.
>
> I never claimed to be a licensed lawyer, just to know more than the average lay person
> like you.
You've claimed all sorts of things, asswipe, and hardly any of them
have held water.
>
> >> >> The second two are about semantics.
>
> >> >Nonsense.
>
> >> >Gambling is a legal activity in many places on the planet. Does that
> >> >mean that there's no such thing as a gambling addict? Of course not.
>
> >> Gambling addicts are not addicted to gambling, they are addiced to the dopamine stimulated
> >> by gambling.
>
> >In other words, they are addicted to gambling, liar.
>
> The phrase 'in other words' means the two are logically the same. You misuse it here.
Nonsense, asswipe. You got caught in a lie, and you continue to try to
lie your way out of it. You should consider picking up your remaining
marbles and going home.
>
> Oh my, a spelling flame. I WROTE a commercial spell checker and compiled its dictionary of
> 200K words.
Was this before or after you "attended" LaSalle? Or did you do it
while negotiating a cease-fire near the end of the six-day war in
1967?
> That I choose to write without a crutch,
Too bad that you're incapable of living without a crutch, asswipe.
On Jul 12, 9:33 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:03:40 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm <rbrone...@broughton.ca> wrote:
> >On Jul 12, 10:34 am, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
> >> >> I already explained I was in USMC Third Recon
>
> >> >You didn't explain how you landed in Laos or Cambodia, asswipe. You
> >> >wrote that you were in Camp Lejeune and Okinawa.
>
> >> Recon scouts don't LIVE in enemy territory. We lived on Okinawa and made excursions. We
> >> landed by fast rope.
>
> >Excursions into Laos and Cambodia? According to you, this activity
> >happened in 1965. And, according to you, you were discharged in 1963.
> >You're a serial liar.
>
> I said it happened BEFORE 1965, when recon was moved to Vietnam.
In 1964? Doesn't matter at all, since you wrote that you were
discharged in 1963.
Go back and reread what I
> said.
>
> >> >> and studied law at La Salle.
>
> >> >By your own admission, you didn't study law AT La Salle. All you did
> >> >was send in some money for a correspondence course. You lied, asswipe.
>
> >> It was a legit law school, good enough to pass the Bar exam.
>
> >Except that you didn't pass the bar exam. And, as has been pointed out
> >by Shawn, there's nothing legitimate about La Salle.
>
> The Wikipedia quotation posted by Shawn explicitly said La Salle WAS legitimite in three
> states, one of them being California.
Did it say that it was illegitimate in the other 47? I'm not
impressed, asswipe.
>
> >Your claim to have studied law was a deliberate attempt to mislead
> >people, as well as an effort to bluff your way out of false claims you
> >made about the tobacco industry's record on litigation. In other
> >words, a lie.
>
> I never claimed to be a licensed lawyer, just to know more than the average lay person
> like you.
You've claimed all sorts of things, asswipe, and hardly any of them
have held water.
>
> >> >> The second two are about semantics.
>
> >> >Nonsense.
>
> >> >Gambling is a legal activity in many places on the planet. Does that
> >> >mean that there's no such thing as a gambling addict? Of course not.
>
> >> Gambling addicts are not addicted to gambling, they are addiced to the dopamine stimulated
> >> by gambling.
>
> >In other words, they are addicted to gambling, liar.
>
> The phrase 'in other words' means the two are logically the same. You misuse it here.
Nonsense, asswipe. You got caught in a lie, and you continue to try to
lie your way out of it. You should consider picking up your remaining
marbles and going home.
>
> Oh my, a spelling flame. I WROTE a commercial spell checker and compiled its dictionary of
> 200K words.
Was this before or after you "attended" LaSalle? Or did you do it
while negotiating a cease-fire near the end of the six-day war in
1967?
> That I choose to write without a crutch,
Too bad that you're incapable of living without a crutch, asswipe.
Re: Newspaper tonight
Mincing Babs Broughton <rbrone...@SASHAY.ca> wrote:
>
> Too bad that you're incapable of living without a crutch, asswipe.
Too bad you have to be so bitchy you prancing and skipping
milquetoast. You are incapable of living without being a poof. You
silly candy-ass. LOL!
TBN
Mincing Babs Broughton <rbrone...@SASHAY.ca> wrote:
>
> Too bad that you're incapable of living without a crutch, asswipe.
Too bad you have to be so bitchy you prancing and skipping
milquetoast. You are incapable of living without being a poof. You
silly candy-ass. LOL!
TBN
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 12 Jul 2008, 23:19
-- deleted messages --
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 13 Jul 2008, 16:04
-- deleted messages --
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 13 Jul 2008, 19:03
-- deleted messages --
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 14 Jul 2008, 02:00
-- deleted messages --
