Greetings from Mr. Powarski

...who deny

Of course, you know that this is the same attitude as the warmingists. "I'm Convinced! Don't confuse me with facts!"

Assigning blame does not establish causality.

In fact, when you draw a graph correlating cancer with personality type, the smoker/nonsmoker correlation falls below the noise floor.

The type A, rigid thinkers, with no emotional release, or even in denial of his own emotions, is the most likely to give himself cancer.

Cheers! Rich

How about for incontinence, and his pissy attitude?

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"John Larkin" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Sure you can do that. Indoor smoking in companies is already banned, which solves the larger part of the stink problem. How did you deal with that 'problem' 20-30 years ago? Anyway, IMO, smoking or not has little to do with stupidity. That's why I mentioned Einstein.

If you need good/bad indicators when selecting candidates, I am sure there are much better ones than smoking habits.

I'm not for hire. It does raise another question though...

Do you take orders from customers who smoke?

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove \'q\' and \'.invalid\' when replying by email)

As an employee, I had little choice. As soon as I got my own business,

25 years ago, I made sure I didn't hire smokers. It's easy to tell who they are, by the smell.

He was a pipe smoker, no? That's not as dangerous, addictive, or as stinky as cigarettes. Nobody smokes 60 pipes a day.

Since you won't answer the question, I assume that you do smoke. Do you admit that smoking causes lung and throat cancer and other diseases? If so, why don't you quit? If you deny the causality, I have to question all your reasoning abilities.

I can't tell, and "customers" is usually big aerospace companies, not individuals. I did refuse to sell weighing equipment to the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, as I also refused to help a certain smallish nation make nuclear weapons. Someone else did both, I assume, but I don't want kilodeaths caused on my account.

I lost two people that I really loved to lung cancer, and I hate cigarettes and the criminals who make them. Is that "narrow minded"?

John

By that logic we should ban tobacco and approve marijuana.

--
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

"John Larkin" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Yes it is. You're putting inappropriate labels on people. It is in fact *very* narrow minded. You express dislike of smokers, and that you don't want to hire them (indicator of stupidity if nothing else). Has it ever occurred to you that these people you dislike so much are in fact also 'really loved' by their friends and family?

If I could throw a magic switch and make all smoking dissappear like magic, I would do that without any hesitation.

But if I could throw a magic switch and make narrow minded persons like you dissappear, I would do it also.

Since there are no such magic switches, there is little to worry about and you may continue to live your ignorant life.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove \'q\' and \'.invalid\' when replying by email)

Maryjane does similar lung damage, as any smoke will do, but at least few people smoke 60 joints per day.

John

I told you I loved them, and cigarettes killed them. But, given a choice as to who to hire, I know that nonsmokers are more reliable employees (fewer sick days, fewer extended breaks out on the sidewalk), are statistically more intelligent, and don't stink. Just business.

Then why do you continue to smoke? Can't you throw your own switch?

Strange values you have, to want to kill people you disagree with.

Thanks for your dispensation. I'm just grateful you don't have a button that will kill me.

John

"John Larkin" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Don't stretch my words. Doing that is an indicator of stupidity and indeed shows you are narrow minded beyond hope.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)

But I'm having fun, so who cares?

Enjoy your smoke.

John

--
Finally, you\'ve said something that almost makes sense.

--- Come on, Frank.

You've been nice and tolerant in the past, but now that Larkin's got a "new" building that he wants to keep free of tobacco smoke residue and he's building picosecond stuff which can be affected by that residue, what's wrong with his looking for non-smokers? Even if they go outside to smoke on their break times, when they come back in they'll still be exhaling that stuff and compromising his business which, by the way, might be keeping them off the street.

Sorry, but I've got to agree with JL on this one.

-- JF

"John Larkin" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

You don't care, that's for sure.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove \'q\' and \'.invalid\' when replying by email)

"John Fields" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Don't apologize for agreeing, but keep an open mind. Tying smoking habits to stupidity is - I've said it before - plain stupid.

BTW, I *am* nice and tolerant. Even to smokers. But don't give me shit. I won't eat it. JL is a narrow minded character, brilliant when it comes to electronics, but a true dumb-ass in every other aspect of life. Understandable perhaps, you can't expect someone to excel in every possible aspect of life.

Not that I am perfect, no way. Far from it ;)

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove \'q\' and \'.invalid\' when replying by email)

Not hiring smokers is not necessarily narrow-minded. I don't like being around smokers because they smell bad even when they're not smoking (Heavy smokers smell all the time, and light ones bring a cloud of stench with them coming back from one of their breaks). If I were in a position to hire people who'd work close to me I wouldn't hire a smoker, and if they were to work someplace else I'd probably still not hire them. But as far as I'm concerned people that I don't come in contact with can smoke as much as they want to. They still run up my health insurance costs.

robert

The case has been made, based on real statistics, that smoking reduces the health care costs of non-smokers. Enough smokers die in middle age that their old-age retirement health costs are avoided. One of the cig companies actually used that argument in a trial where a state (Florida?) was suing to recover medical care costs.

John

...

Proper ventilation. Banning smoking doesn't "clean" the air, it just removes your best indicator of inadequate ventilation, so all of the truly toxic, but invisible and odorless crud in the air builds up without you noticing.

And when it starts to get stinky, they just cover it up with air-wick, which adds even _more_ crud to the air.

Thanks, Rich

"John Fields" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Yep, and now we are waiting for you ;)

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove \'q\' and \'.invalid\' when replying by email)

That may work for the state but does not for a company.

--
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.