Smokin!

[Peter Henry]

B.B....I am sorry mate...that was a well composed and intelligent post,which did not deserve to be dissected by my bottom burp musings! :oops:

BTW mate...that one you threw? Bit eggy wasn't it? :?

[Biker Biggles]

Vindaloo :twisted:

[philipMac]

When first learning Spanish my curious mind often sort the "rude" words in my new language.

ha ha. So, I think Pajero (or something similar) means ****** in spanish.

Whether it did or not didnt stop all of us calling our mates new 4*4 as the Mitsubishi ******.

Let me just tell you... hilarity ensued.

Particularly the way we did it continiously for three years until he kicked us out of th house.

[Anonymous]

http://www.fast-rewind.com/withnail4.jpg

.....ah..sorry...wrong thread..

[Peter Henry]

Phil...You are indeed correct but could lead to a little trouble as the word for a bird is ...pájaro which is very similar!

Another one to watch out for is pollo(chicken)...and polla...(willy!) :lol: :lol:

[Anonymous]

Phil...You are indeed correct but could lead to a little trouble as the word for a bird is ...pájaro which is very similar!

Another one to watch out for is pollo(chicken)...and polla...(willy!) :lol: :lol:

Damn....that confirms it. My girlfriend was always popping out for some of Jose's 'chicken' on our last hols

:evil:

Wait till she gets in.....thinking about it I wonder where she is? :? :lol:

[Peter Henry]

Rich...Oh yes a famous trick that one...the double "LL" is either pronounced as a "J" sound here in Spain or as a "Y" by South Americans.

But many a red face and knowing giggle has followed a waiter being asked if he has a nice bit of chicken/willy! :lol: :lol: :lol:

You will love this one too...

a dish wsher in Spanish is called a ..lavavajillas which is dangerously close to a....lavavaginas...no explanation required I am sure! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[philipMac]

Phil...You are indeed correct but could lead to a little trouble as the word for a bird is ...pájaro which is very similar!

Another one to watch out for is pollo(chicken)...and polla...(willy!) :lol: :lol:

That was some 24 carat solid gold derailing right there Peter.

Credit where credits due. 8)

While we are at it, in Patagonia, the further up the andes you go, the more the LL sounds like sh and less like y.

Hmmmmm.

[Peter Henry]

Phil...If your going to do a derail....go right for the engine all the way to the luggage waggon! That's what I say! :lol: :lol:

[ethariel]

Well after reading (well reading the first few pages then skimming a bit) this thread, some of the attitudes do scare me..

Some time ago a nutter (ignored by local plod as he played golf with thier chief constable) shot a load of people. The reaction to this was outcry by the majority and a small minority (semi auto rifle owners larger than .22) get stuffed. Hoooo Rahhhh Democracy in progress.

Some time ago a nutter (ignored by local plod as he played golf with thier chief constable) shot a load of people. The reaction to this was outcry by the majority and a small minority (all shooters whom owned or fired any pistol that takes a cartridge) get stuffed. Hoooo Rahhhh Democracy in progress.

Hunting with hounds gets the smack down laid on it (toffs and 400 year traditions destroyed). Hoooo Rahhhh Democracy in progress

Smoking Banned in Public Houses (and a few other spots) (smokers again a minority kicked in the goolies). Hoooo Rahhhh Democracy in progress.

Fart arsed Henry da to$$er MP for antibiking groups pushed through a Ban Motorcycles Bill (Oh bugger we are all stuffed now). Hoooo Rahhhh Democracy in progress.

well the last one may seem a bit extreme BUT what if it happens, UK Governments now have a proven track record in

A- Never awarding themselves less than a 10% (often 16% or higher) pay rise.

B- $hafting minority groups at every turn.

C- Taking away PERSONAL CHOICE from minority groups as it is now accepted as good by majority groups.

Some of you may not like my views but think on it, WE may be next.

[Biker Biggles]

I'm getting paranoid again.Where's me pills?My Jack Russell has just gone into hiding in case the dangerous dogs fascists start marching again.I'm sure it will all be for our own good if we let the nannies take over the asylum----won't it?

[philipMac]

Absolutely ethariel.

The moment society stops allowing us to chase and tear apart small animals for fun, THE DAY WE STOP ALLOWING ME HAVE MY M16 WITH ME AT OUR LOCAL CHURCH!!!..

well, I tell you. Thats the day I get out.

In the mean time, I will be carefully crafting my tin foil hat. TO STOP THEM MEDDLING WITH MY BRAIN WAVES.
I'd recommend you do the same good Sir.

[Biker Biggles]

Looks to me like you already got out,or is that NYC location put there to fool the nannies into leaving you alone.It won't work,they know where you are.They know everything. :twisted:

[Peter Henry]

"Yes your being watched"


*came the distant echoey voice* :?

[Samurai]

end of the day the ban has been approved so anyone that has a problem will just have to get over it.

Life is to short people, :D

[northwind]

Yes,quite,step outside.Unless you work for an increasing number of firms who ban their employees from smoking anywhere on their premises.The NHS has just introduced this,meaning that nobody can smoke on any land owned or operated by the NHS,including if you are standing outside.This is what I mean by authoritarianism.

How is that "authoritarianism"? Individual organisations and companies make that decision, not "The Gubmint".

[Daimo]

Would you agree that this law would save Non-Smoker lives :?:

No i don't agree at all.


Then I can understand why you think this law is so bad for Smokers. Sorry I could say more but I think you need to get educated on some of the facts about smoking. That warning mark on the packet - it really is true you know.

Yes but no offence, who are you tell tell a smoker or a non smoker what they can do with their own body?

Do not tell me I need educating.

[mysteryjimbo]

I applaude the decision.

I dont smoke, never have. As smokers are the minority, why should they be able to impose their smoke on me. Nobody has been told they cant smoke, just that they cant (and shouldn't) impose their habit on others.

The same view can be taken on religion etc. "Each to their own, just dont go forcing me to do the same."

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I applaude the decision.

I dont smoke, never have. As smokers are the minority, why should they be able to impose their smoke on me. Nobody has been told they cant smoke, just that they cant (and shouldn't) impose their habit on others.

The same view can be taken on religion etc. "Each to their own, just dont go forcing me to do the same."

They arent imposing their habit on anyone.

Land lords are being told they can no longer allow smoking on their PRIVATE property. Thats the only thing being forced.

You might not like it that people allow(ed) smoking on their premisices, but guess what? Its none (or certainly shouldnt be) any of your business!

[mysteryjimbo]

Its my business when i go to public places is it not?

It was my busisness on Valentines day when i took my other half out for a meal and a drink and came home smelling of smoke. I didnt ask for it, neither did i make an effort to sit by those people but i still suffered from their smoke.

I'm also asthmatic so i try to avoid it where ever possible. I believe this was brought about by both of my parents smoking when i was younger.

No ones saying people cant smoke, but as the minority, why should the majority suffer it?

I point you to this passive smoking document.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Its my business when i go to public places is it not?

Pubs/clubs/restaruants are NOT public places. They are private property open to the public for business. What they choose to allow on their property should be their business and theirs alone.

Why should the minority suffer for the majorities intollerance? As motorcyclists this is something we should empathise with.

And if smoking is in the minority, and is viewed with as much contempt by the majority as you suggest, surely pubs/clubs/restaruants will become non-smoking of their own accord? In fact, I think this is a route thats already being taken, most notably by Weatherspoons. I think the ban was completely unecessary as eventually most places would end up non-smoking by choice. If things had been left the way they were, non-smokers would have been happy because most places would end up being non-smoking, and smokers would be happy because there would still be places they could go for a smoke and a pint. But no, the government couldnt resist yet another opertunity to medle where they have no business.

For the record, I'm actualy a non-smoker, and view smoking as a disgusting. I just feel my personal prejudices dont warrant removing other peoples liberty just because it offends me.

[mysteryjimbo]

Its my business when i go to public places is it not?

Why should the minority suffer for the majorities intollerance? As motorcyclists this is something we should empathise with.



A minority that has little or no effect on the health of the general public.

[Anonymous]

For the record, I'm actualy a non-smoker,

You fibbin' little rodent

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/10500/10580_w.jpg

[Jelster]

And if smoking is in the minority, and is viewed with as much contempt by the majority as you suggest, surely pubs/clubs/restaruants will become non-smoking of their own accord? In fact, I think this is a route thats already being taken, most notably by Weatherspoons. I think the ban was completely unecessary as eventually most places would end up non-smoking by choice. If things had been left the way they were, non-smokers would have been happy because most places would end up being non-smoking, and smokers would be happy because there would still be places they could go for a smoke and a pint. But no, the government couldnt resist yet another opertunity to medle where they have no business.

Jordan, as allways your arguments have solid grounds. But consider this:

I think the dilema is because a large number of non smokers don't currently frequent pubs/clubs/bars because of the smoke (I certainly don't and many friends feel the same). Therefore that means that the majority of those that do, could well be smokers. Businesses then take the view that as their customers are largely smokers, they don't want to take the risk by banning smoking because it may ailenate their current customers, making it hard for them to step forward.

I understand your point in saying that the "Government couldnt resist yet another opertunity to medle where they have no business" but personally I feel it is for the greater good. I watched both my parents die of smoking related illnesses, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

And if smoking is in the minority, and is viewed with as much contempt by the majority as you suggest, surely pubs/clubs/restaruants will become non-smoking of their own accord? In fact, I think this is a route thats already being taken, most notably by Weatherspoons. I think the ban was completely unecessary as eventually most places would end up non-smoking by choice. If things had been left the way they were, non-smokers would have been happy because most places would end up being non-smoking, and smokers would be happy because there would still be places they could go for a smoke and a pint. But no, the government couldnt resist yet another opertunity to medle where they have no business.

Jordan, as allways your arguments have solid grounds. But consider this:

I think the dilema is because a large number of non smokers don't currently frequent pubs/clubs/bars because of the smoke (I certainly don't and many friends feel the same). Therefore that means that the majority of those that do, could well be smokers. Businesses then take the view that as their customers are largely smokers, they don't want to take the risk by banning smoking because it may ailenate their current customers, making it hard for them to step forward.

I understand your point in saying that the "Government couldnt resist yet another opertunity to medle where they have no business" but personally I feel it is for the greater good. I watched both my parents die of smoking related illnesses, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

.

Being the cynical person I am, I dont feel the government has the slightest interest in the greater good, and do think they had other options than an outright ban (perhaps Northys smoking licence idea could have been a viable alternative).

Your point about non smokers simply not going to pubs is certainly an important one though.

[timwilky]

And if smoking is in the minority, and is viewed with as much contempt by the majority as you suggest, surely pubs/clubs/restaruants will become non-smoking of their own accord? In fact, I think this is a route thats already being taken, most notably by Weatherspoons. I think the ban was completely unecessary as eventually most places would end up non-smoking by choice. If things had been left the way they were, non-smokers would have been happy because most places would end up being non-smoking, and smokers would be happy because there would still be places they could go for a smoke and a pint. But no, the government couldnt resist yet another opertunity to medle where they have no business.

Jordan, as allways your arguments have solid grounds. But consider this:

I think the dilema is because a large number of non smokers don't currently frequent pubs/clubs/bars because of the smoke (I certainly don't and many friends feel the same). Therefore that means that the majority of those that do, could well be smokers. Businesses then take the view that as their customers are largely smokers, they don't want to take the risk by banning smoking because it may ailenate their current customers, making it hard for them to step forward.

I understand your point in saying that the "Government couldnt resist yet another opertunity to medle where they have no business" but personally I feel it is for the greater good. I watched both my parents die of smoking related illnesses, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

.

Being the cynical person I am, I dont feel the government has the slightest interest in the greater good, and do think they had other options than an outright ban (perhaps Northys smoking licence idea could have been a viable alternative).

Your point about non smokers simply not going to pubs is certainly an important one though.

Not going to pubs because of the smoke is a fact. One of my locals is far too smoky that we will not go in. Suprisingly the landlord is a non smoker and still he has to be cajoled into turning on the useless filters and moans if we open windows so we just don't go. Main problem though is the bar staff, they slope off every 10 minutes for a cig, come back and pull your beer. As soon as you lift the glass you can smell where their smoky hands have been on the glass.