Friend Who Smokes

OP
G

GouRonin

Guest
Yes you can get addicted to adrenaline. I think what people should look at more than the substance they are addicted to is the fact that addictive personalities will always be that way.
 
OP
M

Master of Blades

Guest
Originally posted by GouRonin

Your wish is my command.
:rolleyes:

Dont you mean that your command is my wish :p And porn is always hard to give up. It took me the better part of my young life and look at me now........:shrug:

:asian:
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
16,124
Reaction score
641
Location
Michigan
Originally posted by adrenaline

Rich Parsons - An Addiction is an addiction be it Nicotine heroin or adrenaline, or prescription pain killers.

Is it possible to become addicted to adrenaline or the rush that it causes ?

For argument sake just read:
First, let us say that you cannot be addicted to Adrenaline, yet to the rush it causes. So, if you are addicted to the rush it causes and the feeling or energy and power and excitement, then how do you get that rush and or feeling? You have to induce your body to give you the 'fix' you need, in this case Adrenaline. Thereby, saying you are addicted to Adrenaline to maintain the rush / feeling you want to obtain.

This negates the first assumption made of you cannot be addicted to Adrenaline.

Now, let us take this one step further, what gives you the Adrenaline dump? Fear or excitement or some other extreme emotion of feeling that usually is life threatening or could be perceived as life threatening. Therefore to get the Adrenaline to get the rush / feeling you have to put your self into life threatening or serious situations. So one could argue that you could be addicted to this type of situation. Now as most sane people would call this situation 'not normal' or even suicidal tendencies, one could argue that the person might be depressed.

So, is the person in question depressed and having suicidal tendencies and enjoying the Manic High they get from the Adrenaline Rush / Feeling or do they just have an addiction?

That Answer I cannot give, for that would depend upon the person at hand and much, much more data would be required before a determination could be made.

Just My Thoughts

Rich
 

ace

Master of Arts
Joined
May 26, 2002
Messages
1,573
Reaction score
16
Location
N.Y.
U stick these in the Cigeretts
When they light them they go boom

:bomb: :EG: :bomb:
:redeme:
 
OP
A

adrenaline

Guest
So is it possible to become addicted to the type of adrenaline rush that you get when in a fight, so therefore professional boxers might be addicted to the feeling they get when fighting and find it difficult to give up and when they continue to fight they get serious injuries like Parkinson's....
 
OP
K

Kirk

Guest
Peggy Noonen: "Them" [one group for whom liberals have no tolerance at all]
Wall Street Journal ^ | Nov 15, 2002 | Peggy Noonen

There's a lot to think about this week--the rise of Nancy Pelosi, the meaning of the Republican triumph--but my thoughts keep tugging toward a group of people who are abused, ostracized and facing a cold winter. It's not right what we do to them, and we should pay attention.

I saw them again the other day, shivering in the cold, in the rain, without jackets or coats. The looked out, expressionless, as the great world, busy and purposeful, hurried by on the street. They were lined up along the wall of a business office. At their feet were a small mountain of cigarette butts and litter.

They are the punished, the shamed. They are the Smokers. As they stood there--I imagined a wreath of smoke curling round their shoulders like the wooden collar of the stocks of the 17th century--I thought: Why don't we stop this?

For a decade now we have been throwing them out of our offices and homes and public spaces. We have told them they are unclean. We treat them the way India used to treat the untouchables. We have removed them from our midst because they take small tubes of soft white paper with flecks of tobacco stuffed inside, light them on fire and suck on them. This creates smoke, which pollutes the air.

"Second hand smoke kills." But--how to put it?--we all know that's just politically correct propaganda invented by the prohibitionists, don't we? If you spend 24 hours a day in a 4-by-4-foot room with a chain smoker you'll feel it, and you'll be harmed by it. But are you damaged by the guy down the hall who smokes in the office at work? No, you're not, and you know it. You just don't like it. Your nostrils are dainty little organs, and your nostrils trump his rights.

But you definitely wouldn't be harmed if the handful of smokers in your office were allowed to smoke only in a common room with good ventilation. Why wouldn't that be a civilized and acceptable compromise?

And why is it smoking that is the object of such fierce disdain?

Within blocks of where the smokers stood in front of the office building on Madison Avenue the other day, there were people who last night bought five rocks of crack cocaine. There were people who watch child porn. There were people who drive by with the sound up so you can hear the lyrics of the song they're listening to, which is about how women are ho's who should be shot. Talk about air pollution. There were people who gorge on food, people who drink too much, people who perform abortions in the eighth month of pregnancy--the eighth month, so late that the child could almost come out and shake his little fist and say "I wish you had not killed me!" Within blocks of where the smokers stood there were thousands of purveyors of and sharers in all the mutations and permutations of human woe, sin, malfeasance, messiness and degradation.

And they all get to stay inside. They all get to sit at their desks.

It's the smokers we ostracize.

It's odd, isn't it?

Actually it's crazy.

I think it is an insufficiently commented-upon irony that cigarette prohibition and the public shaming it entails is the work of modern liberals. They're supposed to be the ones who are nonjudgmental, who live and let live, but they approach smoking like Carry Nation with her ax. Conservatives on the other hand let you smoke. They acknowledge sin and accept imperfection. Also most of them are culturally inclined toward courtesy of the old-fashioned sort. If you tried to light up near a left-wing big-city attorney, she would cut off your hand the way Christopher chopped off Ralphie's the other night on "The Sopranos." But if you are a smoker and you go visit a nice little unsophisticated Baptist lady in a suburb of Tuscaloosa, she will not only allow you to smoke, she will scurry into the dining room to find the china ashtray she put away 10 years ago under the folded table cloths. She would do this so you could have a nice place to put your ashes. She wouldn't dream of making you uncomfortable. That would be impolite and inhospitable.

Modern liberals are not culturally inclined toward courtesy. They are inclined toward knowing what's good for you and passing ordinances to make sure you get the picture. The first Thank You For Not Smoking sign I ever saw was in 1976, on the desk of Massachusetts governor Mike Dukakis. I thought: I have seen the future, and it is puritanical.

Why do liberals punish smokers? Could we discuss this? Is it that it makes them feel clean? Some parts of our culture in which liberals largely call the shots--Hollywood, for instance--are fairly low and degraded. Maybe liberals can't face this, and make themselves feel clean if they ban unclean air? Or maybe banning smokers makes them feel safe, like they'll never die. Maybe it makes them feel in control. Maybe it makes them feel superior.

Or maybe they just want to bully someone.

Which gets me to Michael Bloomberg. New York is still suffering from 9/11, threatened by huge budget deficits, struggling with Wall Street's downturn, facing draconian tax increases including a brand new commuter tax--that'll certainly encourage new businesses to come here!--and trying to come to contract agreement with big unions. Our realistic and no-nonsense mayor has surveyed the scene, pondered the landscape, and come up with his answer: Ban all smoking in bars.

In bars, where the people we force out of our business offices seek refuge! In bars, where half of us plan to spend our last hours after Osama tries to take out Times Square. In bars, the last public place you can go to be a dropout, a nonconformist, refusenik, a time waster, a bohemian, a hider from reality, a bum, a rebel, a bore, a heathen. The last public place in which you can really wallow in your own and others' human messiness. The last place where you can still take part in that great American tradition, leaving the teeming marching soldiers of capitalism outside to go inside, quit the race, retreat and have a drink and fire up a Marlboro and . . . think, fantasize, daydream, listen to Steely Dan or Sinatra, revel in your loser-tude, play the Drunken Misery Scene in the movie of your life, meet a girl, meet a guy, meet a girl who's a guy. The last public place you could go to turn on, tune in, drop out and light up.

No more, says our mayor. Unclean! In this Bloomberg exhibits for the first time a bad case of mayoral mental illness. Something about being mayor of New York makes you, ultimately, nuts. In David Dinkins it manifested itself this way: Facing deep recession, rising crime and union strife he would contemplate our problems and then call an emergency press conference to announce his answer. The city of New York, he would say, will no longer do business with the racist government of South Africa. In Rudy Giuliani's case it was government by non sequitur--government by someone who needed an event as dramatic as 9/11 to provide a foe as big as his aggression.

For Mr. Bloomberg now, it is Bloomberg Has Decreed. Mr. Bloomberg doesn't allow smoking in his east side townhouse, Mr. Bloomberg will not allow it anywhere in New York. Those nasty working-class folk who still suck on cancer sticks while swilling Buds will be put down. Bloomberg Decrees.

What an idiot. What a billionaire snob bullyboy.

A short word on smokers. They are people who've made a deal. They are old-fashioned, and it's an old-fashioned deal. Their sense of life is essentially conservative: They know it is short, they know part of how you say thank you for it is to really feel it and enjoy it, and they know this life isn't the most transcendent and important one you'll be living. Smokers are disproportionately Catholic, did you know that? They know that eventually something will kill them. They accept death and illness as part of the equation. They love smoking so much, it so enhances their enjoyment of each day, that they'll gamble. Some of them, they know, will die in a car accident next year, so it won't matter if they smoked; some will die of old age at 97; some will get emphysema or lung cancer at 50 and pay the price. Fine. You buys your smokes and takes your chances. This is a hardy and, as I said, old=fashioned approach to life. It is not modern. Modern people think that if they're tidy, floss and eat fennel they'll never die, and if they get sick they'll clone themselves and go get reborn. Smokers are more stoic and sacramental. They don't want to be cloned, they want to go to heaven and see grandma. I made up the part about how they're disproportionately Catholic but I bet it's true and in any case why shouldn't I assert phony facts? The other side does.

No, I don't smoke. I used to. I still have some feeling for my old messier, more anarchic self, but now I don't like the smell of smoke and don't think I'll ever go back to it. But that doesn't mean no one else can. And it doesn't mean I won't let you light up.

We should let the smokers back inside and treat them as if they're human, because they are. Until then I hope the smokers huddled together in the cold realize they're outside because of the modern liberals' war against being human. I hope they organize building to building and raise money to fight the prissy prohibitionists of politics, the Bloombergs and their ilk, who can't keep you safe from muggings or suitcase nukes but make believe they're being effective by keeping you safe from a Merit Ultralight.
 
OP
E

Elfan

Guest
There is a story in The Journey. I belive it was Larry Tatum but I'm not sure. Anway, he was smokeing outside the Pasedena school one day when Mr. Parker came by and told him that that would limit his art or something along those lines. He threw the cirgerate down and hasn't smoked since.
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
16,124
Reaction score
641
Location
Michigan
Ok there are bad people and bad things out there.

If I saw someone watching child porn I would kick the (*$& out of them and then turn them into the police. If saw someone selling crack I would also turn them in to the police.

The child porn people do it in private and hide it as to the drug users so as to not be caught. The smokers blow their smoke into your face or hold their cigarettes away from their face so they can breath, but hold into your face. This all very rude, and they believe it to be their right to do so. Once I moved out of a smoking house, my sinus problems and headaches stopped. So, I know and see the immediate benefit of having no smoke around me.

Now as to my delicate nostrils, I offer up their delicate throats? Am I allowed to choke them so they cannot breath? Am I allowed to reduce the oxygen flow to their brain where reason is to take place? I personally think, I could kill a smoker and get off, because I was not in my right mind because I did not have enough oxygen in my blood to function properly. Yet, do I go out and kill these people who are nothing more than another drug addict? Nope I pity them and try to tell them they are no different then the guy down the street with the crack. Do I shun and not hang out with crack addicts? yes I shun them, Do I shun Child Porn, Yes I shun Child Porn. Do I shun Smokers, yes I do.

Just my over the edge and very liberal view points.
(* They are liberal since I have deemed not to kill all the smokers *)
 
OP
G

GouRonin

Guest
That's right. Kiddie porn is bad.

Consenting adult porn is good.

Mmmmkay?
 
OP
K

Kirk

Guest
LOL! I stumbled upon this article and totally thought, "I'll post
this, and get a reply for sure from Rich" hehehe ... I can't disagree
with you one bit. But I'm proud I'm right :p
 
OP
G

GouRonin

Guest
You can't smoke porn, but if you could, would second hand porn be harmful?
 
OP
F

fist of fury

Guest
Originally posted by GouRonin

You can't smoke porn, but if you could, would second hand porn be harmful?

But depending on how you watch your porn you could go blind. And second hand porn could be harmful to the person watching.
 
OP
G

GouRonin

Guest
Originally posted by fist of fury
But depending on how you watch your porn you could go blind. And second hand porn could be harful to the person watching.

Great. Now for the rest of the day when I lok at anyone I'll be thinking..."Hmmm...porn star or not?"

D@MN YOOOOOOUUUUU!
:cuss:
 

Nightingale

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
2,768
Reaction score
14
Location
California
Originally posted by Kirk

Peggy Noonen: "Them" [one group for whom liberals have no tolerance at all]
Wall Street Journal ^ | Nov 15, 2002 | Peggy Noonen

They are the punished, the shamed. They are the Smokers. As they stood there--I imagined a wreath of smoke curling round their shoulders like the wooden collar of the stocks of the 17th century--I thought: Why don't we stop this?


And they CHOSE to stand out there and smoke instead of inside, nice and warm, with everyone else. Their cigarettes are obviously more important to them.

For a decade now we have been throwing them out of our offices and homes and public spaces. We have told them they are unclean. We treat them the way India used to treat the untouchables. We have removed them from our midst because they take small tubes of soft white paper with flecks of tobacco stuffed inside, light them on fire and suck on them. This creates smoke, which pollutes the air.

Yep. It pollutes the air. The air here in Los Angeles, where I work, is plenty polluted. It doesn't need the additional yuck contained in cigarette smoke. I will not tolerate someone stinking up my home with a cigarette. A polite guest does not leave the home of the host reeking of stale smoke.

"Second hand smoke kills." But--how to put it?--we all know that's just politically correct propaganda invented by the prohibitionists, don't we? If you spend 24 hours a day in a 4-by-4-foot room with a chain smoker you'll feel it, and you'll be harmed by it. But are you damaged by the guy down the hall who smokes in the office at work? No, you're not, and you know it. You just don't like it. Your nostrils are dainty little organs, and your nostrils trump his rights.

You're assuming that someone has a "right" to smoke. They don't. I don't see it in the bill of rights, constitution or declaration of independence anywhere. What I do see is "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights... among these, LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." By smoking around other people who choose not to smoke (such as waitresses, who don't have a choice of whether or not to serve you), you are infringing on their right to life.

55% of people with asthma report cigarette smoke as one of their attack triggers. if it can cause an asthma attack (which can kill), one can logically draw the conclusion that second hand smoke causes conditions that can be lethal.


Second-hand smoke has serious effects on children's health

"Children of parents who smoke:

cough and wheeze more
have more ear infections
go to the hospital more often with bronchitis and pneumonia
have reduced lung function.
Children with asthma have more asthma attacks due to second-hand smoke. Their asthma attacks also tend to be more severe.

Children whose parents smoke 10 or more cigarettes a day have a greater chance of becoming asthmatic. A link has been shown between a mother's smoking and an infant's risk of dying from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome."

A U.S. analysis** of over 100 reports on p疆diatric diseases concluded that childrens exposure to tobacco smoke is responsible for up to:

13% of ear infection
(approximately 220,000 ear infections in Canadian children)*

26% of tympanostomy tube insertions
(approximately 16,500 in Canada)

24% of tonsillectomies and adenoidectomies
(approx. 2,100 Canadian operations)

13% of asthma cases
(approx. 52,200 cases in Canada)

16% of physician visits for cough
(approx. 200,000 visits in Canada)

20% of all lung infections in children under 5
(approx. 43,600 cases of bronchitis in Canada and 19,000 cases of pneumonia in Canada)

136-212 childhood deaths from lower respiratory infection
(approx. 13-20 in Canada)

148 childhood deaths from fires started by tobacco products
(approx. 15 in Canada)

1868-2708 SIDS deaths
(approx. 180-270 in Canada)





But you definitely wouldn't be harmed if the handful of smokers in your office were allowed to smoke only in a common room with good ventilation. Why wouldn't that be a civilized and acceptable compromise?

Because your smoking would prohibit a non smoking person with a medical condition (such as asthma) from entering that room... perhaps your secretary has asthma... can she walk in there to give you a phone message? NO. that's why.

And why is it smoking that is the object of such fierce disdain?

Because smokers continue to behave rudely and try to force the rest of society to breathe their smoke. I have no problem with anyone smoking as long as:

1. I don't have to breathe it.
2. I don't have to smell like it.
3. My family and pets don't have to breathe it or smell like it.
4. My home, car and workplace don't have to smell like it.

Within blocks of where the smokers stood in front of the office building on Madison Avenue the other day, there were people who last night bought five rocks of crack cocaine. There were people who watch child porn. There were people who drive by with the sound up so you can hear the lyrics of the song they're listening to, which is about how women are ho's who should be shot. Talk about air pollution. There were people who gorge on food, people who drink too much, people who perform abortions in the eighth month of pregnancy--the eighth month, so late that the child could almost come out and shake his little fist and say "I wish you had not killed me!" Within blocks of where the smokers stood there were thousands of purveyors of and sharers in all the mutations and permutations of human woe, sin, malfeasance, messiness and degradation.

The existance of these other problems have nothing to do with smoking, which is an additional problem. You're attempting to cloud the issue by saying "All these people are doing things that are REALLY wrong, and what I'm doing is just a little wrong, so go bother them!" Stick to the issue. and we've made laws against most of those other things anyway.

I think it is an insufficiently commented-upon irony that cigarette prohibition and the public shaming it entails is the work of modern liberals. They're supposed to be the ones who are nonjudgmental, who live and let live, but they approach smoking like Carry Nation with her ax.

Exactly. Live and let live. You have every right to smoke as long as it doesn't infringe on MY RIGHT TO NOT SMOKE.

Conservatives on the other hand let you smoke. They acknowledge sin and accept imperfection. Also most of them are culturally inclined toward courtesy of the old-fashioned sort. If you tried to light up near a left-wing big-city attorney, she would cut off your hand the way Christopher chopped off Ralphie's the other night on "The Sopranos." But if you are a smoker and you go visit a nice little unsophisticated Baptist lady in a suburb of Tuscaloosa, she will not only allow you to smoke, she will scurry into the dining room to find the china ashtray she put away 10 years ago under the folded table cloths. She would do this so you could have a nice place to put your ashes. She wouldn't dream of making you uncomfortable. That would be impolite and inhospitable.

Because the little Baptist lady is too polite to tell you to take your cigarette and shove it...somewhere. However, you are being impolite by stinking up her home so she'll be smelling it for days after you leave.

Modern liberals are not culturally inclined toward courtesy. They are inclined toward knowing what's good for you and passing ordinances to make sure you get the picture. The first Thank You For Not Smoking sign I ever saw was in 1976, on the desk of Massachusetts governor Mike Dukakis. I thought: I have seen the future, and it is puritanical.

This is completely off the smoking topic, but since he brought it up, I wanted to respond: Why is it that there were no riots by the protestors outside the republican national convention (liberals were the protestors) but the CONSERVATIVE protestors outside the democratic national convention have an incredible history of violence, which was continued during the last round of conventions? And, its conservatives who are blowing up clinics and doctors for doing something completely LEGAL.

Why do liberals punish smokers?

We don't. You punish yourselves.

You sacrifice:
Your looks
Your nice smell
Your lungs
Your life
Your family's health
Your health
shall I go on?

Could we discuss this? Is it that it makes them feel clean? Some parts of our culture in which liberals largely call the shots--Hollywood, for instance--are fairly low and degraded. Maybe liberals can't face this, and make themselves feel clean if they ban unclean air? Or maybe banning smokers makes them feel safe, like they'll never die. Maybe it makes them feel in control. Maybe it makes them feel superior.
Liberals try to ban smoking because:

Its unhealthy
It smells bad
It makes people who don't smoke smell bad
It causes cancer
It kills people

It has nothing to do with Hollywood, and everything to do with that little "Surgeon General's Warning" that's on the back of your cigarette box.

Or maybe they just want to bully someone.

Um...no.

Which gets me to Michael Bloomberg. New York is still suffering from 9/11, threatened by huge budget deficits, struggling with Wall Street's downturn, facing draconian tax increases including a brand new commuter tax--that'll certainly encourage new businesses to come here!--and trying to come to contract agreement with big unions. Our realistic and no-nonsense mayor has surveyed the scene, pondered the landscape, and come up with his answer: Ban all smoking in bars.

You're confusing the issue. The Smoking in Bars ban had nothing to do with 9/11, budget defecits, Wall street, commuter taxes, and unions. It had to do with smoking. Stay on topic please.


A short word on smokers. They are people who've made a deal. They are old-fashioned, and it's an old-fashioned deal. Their sense of life is essentially conservative: They know it is short, they know part of how you say thank you for it is to really feel it and enjoy it, and they know this life isn't the most transcendent and important one you'll be living.

Just because you chose to make a deal with the devil, doesn't mean you have to include everyone else in your deal. If I didn't have to breathe your smoke, you would have my complete support of your right to slowly kill yourself....but try smoking in my home, and you'll find yourself on the wrong end of a super-soaker.

http://www.gov.ns.ca/health/tcu/nsstatistics.htm#15
http://www.cancer.ca/english/RD_childrensecondhandsmoke.asp
 
OP
K

Kirk

Guest
You read wrong and left the topic as well.

There is no law against smoking. The article is saying that you
liberals feel you have to make laws to protect people from
themselves. The issue isn't blowing smoke in a non smoker's
face, the issue is being ABLE to smoke, in specific area, away
from non smokers. It wasn't a republican who made laws that
we should pass out needles so that the poor drug abuser, who
typically results to violating others civil rights, and commiting
crimes to get their next high, don't get infections, HIV, Hepatitis,
etc, it was a HUGE democrat agenda. He was trying to make the
point that so much energy is placed on ridiculing and harrasing
the smoker, who is NOT doing anything illegal, when they could
be putting that energy to better use. Your quoting of statistics,
whether wrong or right have no place in addressing this article,
because he's not saying that non smokers should be around
smokers, and the author is implying that a lot of statistics
involving second hand smoke have a political agenda, and aren't
true.

You couldn't possibly infer that you know what's going on
in the mind of all little Baptist Ladies, could you?

Plenty of other things cause pollution .. yet nothing is getting
attacked as much .. why? Because the other things don't have
billions of dollars worth of lobbyists. 1 Volcano erupting dumps
more chloroflourocarbons into the air at one time than the
entire human race has done since it's existance. Where's the
protest, and millions of dollars of research on preventing this?

If ya want cigarette smoking illegal, then join together and make
it so, this is democracy, that's how it works. Also, since you're
into stats and such, why don't you give me the percentage of
the number of Republicans that are members of H.E.M.P. and
other organizations looking to legalize marijuana (and no, NOT
just for medical purposes). The number of democrats? Is pot
smoking not pollution? Does it smell better than tobacco smoke?
Would second hand smoke from a marijuana smoker not get
someone high? Is getting high life threatening?


The main point of the article was hey, lets focus on the real
problems, not making sure an American adult wears a seatbelt,
or a smoker smokes in the privacy of his own home, or a
motorcyclist wears a helmet. I don't need you telling me HOW
to live my life, unless it hurts YOU (the figurative you, not you
specifically). We don't need laws to protect us from ourselves,
or government watch committees to do so.

You don't have the right to make your work place smell as you
see fit. Just the same as someone doesn't have the right to
stink it up with cigarette smoke, but that's not what the author
was saying either. A well ventilated room would prevent the
odor. Would you be just as militant about somebody with
really bad b.o. that left it all over the office? Where are the
masses in this capacity? Again, no money to be made there.


There's a lot of smokers who know the deal. They know it's
bad, stinks, is harmful to them. There's a lot that don't blow it
anyone's face, do it around anyone else (including kids), and
are trying like hell to quit. But they're also tired of being treated
like a second hand citizen. Tired of being labled because a jerk
blew smoke in your face ... if a Japanese person cut you off in
traffic, are all Japanese considered rude? Same applies to
smokers. Whatever the attitude, so is the response, if they're
not bothering you, and you're full of hate for them, then they'll
hate you right back. They're not lesser human beings because
they smoke, and treating them worse than the prostitute, heroin
addict, criminal, is NOT being the open minded liberal that they
claim to be.
 
OP
G

GouRonin

Guest
Those are some great argument.

What have they got to do with porn?

Stay on topic please.
:D
 
OP
K

Kirk

Guest
Originally posted by GouRonin

Those are some great argument.

What have they got to do with porn?

Stay on topic please.
:D

LOL!!! Okay, porn. It's common to hear "Mira los pinches nalgas"
said often while watching porn down here. What's a common
phrase heard in The Great White North?
 
OP
G

GouRonin

Guest
Originally posted by Kirk
LOL!!! Okay, porn. It's common to hear "Mira los pinches nalgas"
said often while watching porn down here. What's a common
phrase heard in The Great White North?

"OH GOD GOU! YOU'RE THE GREATEST!!!!!"
:iws:
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
16,124
Reaction score
641
Location
Michigan
Originally posted by Kirk

LOL! I stumbled upon this article and totally thought, "I'll post
this, and get a reply for sure from Rich" hehehe ... I can't disagree
with you one bit. But I'm proud I'm right :p

Kirk,

I guess you know me :D

Rich
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
16,124
Reaction score
641
Location
Michigan
Kirk,

Nightingale8472 has some good points that I agree with.

But here is why they cannot go sit in a room by themselves and smoke. We will ignore the secretary or the janitor who has to go in the room. My point is that while they are on smoke break everyone else is covering for them. I work in an engineering office and about 3:00 PM everyday a bunch of used to go down and get a pop and maybe an ice-cream bar and take a quick break. Many of the managers coming back from their smoke breaks were up set to find us gone. The clock watchers and there is at least one in every group had figured that the smokers got an extra hour off each day that was paid. We just wanted to go take a quick energy break and we caught flak and heat. Not Fair.

Now, I am sure Nightingale quoted medical insurance increase in cost to cover smokers, and she probably also included not only health insurance but also life insurance. Ever have a family member die of cancer, try to get life insurance that does not cost an arm or a leg. You would be better off being an orphan. All medical and life insurance goes up to deal with this issue, we all pay to cover the increased costs of smokers.

So am I a liberal or a conservative Kirk? just curious as how I come across?

Now back to your regularly scheduled second hand (* Adult *) Porn. And No Gou I have never been paid to have sex on camera so that question can be removed from your mind.

Respect to all
Rich

:)
 
Top