peterms

Quite a lot of places, then, if smoking in public rooms should still be allowed. It's not the people who are ill who should have to go wait outside or go somewhere else - it's the people who have chosen to slowly kill themselves off. No, you are not allergic to getting eaten by crocodiles, and no offense but OH MY GOD that is a poor analogy :roll: isnt getting eaten by a crocodile bad for you then? You haven't really got this analogy thing, have you?

I think in principle the idea of separate smoking premises sounds reasonable. Personally, I'd rather have the smokers shut away in premises of their own, than have them standing in a smoky huddle around the doorway or monopolising the outside seats. If we were starting from a level playing field, it might work. But we're not. We're starting from a position where pubs see smoking as the status quo, where they have financial incentives to sell fags, where landlords are fearful that if they introduce a no-smoking rule by choice, they will lose some customers who they know and speak to, with the uncertain prospect of other, as yet unknown people replacing them. In that situation, I can see why most of them will opt for what they see as the safe option of allowing smoking. After a couple of years of being smoke-free, I'd be happy to see an option introduced of becoming a smoking premises. That would probably involve having to install effective ventilation, taking steps to protect the staff (yes, even the ones who say they don't mind, same as requiring safety equipment in any other of the settings where we have had to require it), and probably some licensing or planning regulation to preserve some kind of balance. That might involve setting a maximum ratio of smoking to non-smoking premises, and probably also some kind of taxation to remove any financial incentive to become a smoking area. Something like that might have the effect of creating more choice, without just lapsing into the default position we've had up till now. It might even help reinforce the idea that smoking really is seriously intrusive and unpleasant to a lot of people, and that smokers should be made to practice their habit in a way which recognises this and pays more than lip service to it.

Oh well, if THAT'S all.... :shock: No real effects on other people, then. Except they might find your speech a little indistinct.

Exactly. The story really hinges on Spurs being willing to pay a certain figure, but with no information about whether Villa are or aren't willing to do so. It's just journos with empty column inches to fill. Again.

Well of course. The point is not whether smokers are inside or outside, but whether they impose their smoke on other people. Similarly, I have no problem with people shooting up, but would complain if they leave their needles where I might injure myself on them. If they were smoking inside a pub, and doing so in a hermetically sealed bag or a wet suit or something, I really wouldn't care. That's their choice, that's their freedom. If I step outside into a cloud of noxious gas given off by smokers huddled round the door, or can't sit in a beer garden without having their smoke drifting all over me, I don't like it and wish they would go somewhere very far away. That's just common sense, isn't it? To use the farting analogy that several people have quoted, I think it's commonly acknowledged that farting in a lift is a pretty antisocial thing to do. Smoking in enclosed premises where other people are present is very similar in respect of the effect and the inability of other people to avoid it without physically removing themselves from the premises. Actually, let's cut out the crap about freedom and all the other fine principles. Smokers who oppose the ban really don't give a flying **** about anyone else and in particular other people's freedoms, and that's really all it's about. Since they have (generally) shown themselves unwilling to accommodate other people's needs on a voluntary basis, they clearly need to be compelled to do so.

Reminds me of the "Hitchhiker's Guide" bit about the disco where the smell of rancid sweat was sprayed from nozzles... We've had the ban up here for a year, and it's brilliant. All the nonsense about pubs having to close because of loss of custom has been shown to be untrue. The only problem is the gaggle of smokers outside the doors of pubs, offices, etc. Next step is to drive them further down the road so we don't have to walk through them to get in. After that, the next goal will be to make them congregate in a field well away from built-up areas. But only when wind conditions permit.

Dont think so no. How about you? That's not what your file says. I'm just reading it now...

Did you get that tip from a plant? Do you have clearance to repeat it?

I really like that as well. Also looks good if you blank out the plants at the bottom - makes it a bit more mysterious.

Maybe, but only...If young Nigel says he's happy. Nigel just needs a helping hand...

Non! You have missed my point... He is a poet... ...but I reject the quotidien explanation of the ground staff. It was poetry, nothing less.

Merde alors! You must be crazee! Monsieur Cantona, 'e ees a poet of the highest standing! And you, you must be one of the seagulls who follow the trawler... I spit in your general direction...

Does it help that I tell you that you´re not alone? You know, that's just what my doctor said.

Can someone close this thread? It's full of no news, loads of bullshit, but I can't stop checking it. The amount of time I'm wasting is ridiculous. Please help me.

...and some more...

Few more from today:

It's a Canon EF 70-200 f4 L USM. review here. Tripod mount is extra, as in eye-wideningly, hyperventilatingly, disproportionately extra.

Can't believe how small the depth of field is on this...like two threads of a screw...

Thanks. It's a Canon EOS 20D, with a 70-200mm zoom. Needs a tripod as well, with the weight and the tiny depth of field.

Eventually found one of these, from a place in Dortmund. Have just started messing around with it.

Yes. But for those of us who can't easily find time to read the 54 pages which have been written on this thread in the last 4 days, is there any way of getting a summary?

I can't cope with this. It was on page 297 just three days ago.

Less than that. But those days are gone.

Well, there was Oscar Arce. "In the late 1960s Aston Villa had a trio of midfielders who really should have been given the chance to play together, but never did. Their names - Jimmy Brown, Oscar Arce and Barrie Hole. Work it out for yourselves." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/funny_old_game/1704104.stm

Exactly. Man U's use of Larsson, together with Chelsea's use of, er, no-one while their key players were injured, was a key factor this year. And if you look at what Sheringham contributed after the age of 34, well it doesn't look at all bad, does it? Zola... I have no problem with signing older players to do a job. Relying on them alone would be a problem, but then I think injuries aren't confined to our zimmer-frame-wielding comrades.