Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan:
I say the same thing in defense of smokers and drinkers. Why the fuck are people so pissed about our "bad" habits when statistically we are doomed to take a dirt nap before we can even dream of collecting social security? I think, however that fatties are different because most smokers and drinkers tend to get sick and die quick while fatties just have years of related expensive health problems. I realize that some smokers may linger with health problems but those are probably the ones who quit smoking before the full effect could be realized.

Originally posted by former gov't:
Maybe because no one ever died from secondary fatness or being run over by someone who had consumed too many ho-hos and got behind the wheel.
Jeez, this Board is obsessed with fat people!

a. I drink a lot and have excellent health. I also smoke from time to time and I can do 45 min on a treadmill at high speed with no strain at all. My blood pressure is low and my resting heart rate is @ 60-64 (when I'm not irate and it flies off the handle).

b. I never ever drive drunk, like 90% of those who partake. Secondary smoke is a fictional PC concept for the tofu frutitcake crowd of lifestyle police. You can smoke at my table whenever you like - hell, blow it right in my face while I eat. The sort of soft personality who imposes his health concerns on the rest of us is exactly the type who ought to be put on a barge to Antartica.

If you're going to say its wrong to rip on fatties, then its also wrong to rip on drinkers and smokers. A little consistency is in order, since without consistency, your position is hypocritical.

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Fat v. 2dHandSmoke

Huh. Good to know.

Antoher thing I've noticed, is that children of smokers (I'm talking adults whose parents smoked around them when they were children), especially heavy smokers, tend to be grossed out by smoking and never touch cigarettes. And that children of obese people I know, both child children and adult children, are often also obese.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sparklehorse
Edited to avoid outing.

(Why aren't you worried about my arms and legs?)

I've always fallen for a woman's mind before her body. What can I say?

[evenodds]

Originally posted by purse junkie
Try these in the silver if it's an evening wedding:

http://www.stuartweitzman.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=20

Sorry, too technologically impaired to post the picture. Anyway, I'd go with a lighter colored sandal as well.

Concur with the light colored sandal. I might stick to more of a fleshtone, but ridiculously I associate silver and gold with old lady shoes.

E/O

[purse junkie]

Secondary smoke is a fictional PC concept for the tofu frutitcake crowd of lifestyle police. You can smoke at my table whenever you like - hell, blow it right in my face while I eat. The sort of soft personality who imposes his health concerns on the rest of us is exactly the type who ought to be put on a barge to Antartica.

If you're going to say its wrong to rip on fatties, then its also wrong to rip on drinkers and smokers. A little consistency is in order, since without consistency, your position is hypocritical. [/QUOTE]

Wrong. Kill yourself in your own house if you want--though I've watched someone die of emphysema and it's a gasping, miserable way to go, so I rather hope you won't--but don't impose it on the public. It's a needless carcinogen and not unreasonable for nonsmokers to want to avoid it, and I don't hear reeking smokers offering to pay for my dry-cleaning when my coat can't shake their ashtray stench.

If you eat like a pig at McDonald's or drink yourself into cirrhosis it has no direct impact on me whatsoever; sure, I'll pay indirectly for your inflated health care costs, but either vice or decaying old age'll make us all burdens on the system at some point so we all share that one no matter what.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Re: working around the fat, absolutely not, unless they are all in those electric wheely-carts, which I now give a wide berth, but that's a wheely-cart problem not a weight problem. But living with them? Yes, actually, I do. Particularly for children with obese parents, but also for other family members exposed to the diet/exercise habits of their loved ones. The children of the obese are far more likely to themselves become obese and die of complications thereof than children exposed to second hand smoke are to die of second-hand-smoke-related illnesses, even given the evidence that SHS slightly increases the chance of a SIDS death in resident infants. Dietary and exercise practices, good and bad, do tend to rub off on the rest of one's family (and children, after all, have to eat what they are given).

And, since you asked, the EPA's much touted 1993 second hand smoke report (still the primary document cited by anti-smoking activists, including Bloomberg justifying the recent NYC ban), which was roundly and pretty justifiably criticized as having no scientific basis whatsoever since it ignored the 2/3 of SHS studies that had findings that didn't support the EPA's position, found a relative risk rate of 1.19 for second hand smoke - this when any relative risk rating of less than 2.0 is considered by the EPA to be inconsequential and indistinguishable from a sample error. That report also found (based on no studies) that non-smokers working full-time in smoky environments (bars) got the equivalent of 1/5 of a cigarette per day, though repeated studies both before and since have found non-smokers in smoky workplaces get the equivalent of 6 cigarettes per year.

BR(unpleasantness of SHS is a MUCH better argument for smoking bans than health)C

I also think the risks related to second-hand smoke are vastly inflated. I don't see why ANYONE would mislead society into thinking that something exists when it doesn't...

And I'm an ex-smoker. But maybe we know best. I've inhaled less smoke (much less) from second-hand in the past three years than I did in one night of first-hand smoke on a Friday night.

Edited to say that it's all about empirical evidence, and as DS said, there just isn't any. And they're have been PLENTY of studies (not conducted by Big Tobacco) that have tried to prove otherwise...

I did not order Harry Potter earlier, but when I went to the grocery store at lunch I noticed they were going to be selling it tomorrow for $19.99, is that a good price or should I check out Wal-Mart first which will also be selling the book tomorrow I'm sure.

[leagleaze]

Hi folks. In response to the concern Bilmore mentioned, Even Odds suggested the name Omni Legal News as nice and ambiguous. So, I registered the above address. Presently it is just being redirected, when I have a chance I will make it so it becomes an actual address of its own, hopefully, solving the problem Alex mentioned.

It will be operation in a while. When you use it it will actually bring you to a numerical address. The numerical address is the same as lawtalkers.com. This is what I will have to change when I have a chance later, so it actually uses a different numerical address.

L

[bilmore]

Originally posted by RedLady
I did not order Harry Potter earlier, but when I went to the grocery store at lunch I noticed they were going to be selling it tomorrow for $19.99, is that a good price or should I check out Wal-Mart first which will also be selling the book tomorrow I'm sure.

I would guess that, by Monday, you'll be able to download it for free from some web site.

[evenodds]

Originally posted by RedLady
I did not order Harry Potter earlier, but when I went to the grocery store at lunch I noticed they were going to be selling it tomorrow for $19.99, is that a good price or should I check out Wal-Mart first which will also be selling the book tomorrow I'm sure.

NPR had a story this morning. Apparently, Sam's Club has it for 17 and Costco for a dollar less.

I might have the figures slightly off since i was asleep, but Costco was the lowest.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I also think the risks related to second-hand smoke are vastly inflated.

Me too. However, Steve had it right - I try to avoid blowing smoke at non-smokers in public places for the same reason I try to avoid copious farts.

It's not gonna kill 'em, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

Originally posted by evenodds
NPR had a story this morning. Apparently, Sam's Club has it for 17 and Costco for a dollar less.

I might have the figures slightly off since i was asleep, but Costco was the lowest.

No Costco in my neck of the woods, so Wal-Mart it probably is.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by RedLady
No Costco in my neck of the woods, so Wal-Mart it probably is.

The Wal-Mart web site is listing the book for $17.97

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/searc...y=harry+potter

aV

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore
Me too. However, Steve had it right - I try to avoid blowing smoke at non-smokers in public places for the same reason I try to avoid copious farts.

It's not gonna kill 'em, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

Exactly. I consider it a sad, sad statement about the state of people's manners that everyone assumes that the only grounds they have to complain about smokers imposing their intrusive activities on them involuntarily is to make it a public health issue. How about "it is bad manners to smoke in front of other people without first securing their permission, unless in a designated smoking area?"

BR(though I still think the proprieters of establishments should be able to designate them or not as smoking zones as they see fit, and I say this as a non-smoker who hates stinky smoky sweaters)C

[Shape Shifter]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...uesplitting_dc

(Spree: More tonguesplitting. According to the article, one of the major drawbacks to having a forked tongue is that it makes it difficult to eat ice cream.)