"The thing (uniquely) about smoking is that those who 'partake' not only do themselves harm but do so to all around them."
That just isn't true. There are any number of 'acceptable behaviours' that cause a great deal of harm to others.
The 'thing' about anti-smoking campaigners and associated fanatics is that they, invariably, adopt the aggressive stance that you have in common with patchbruce.
'A Voter' offered a perfectly valid opinion. His delivery of it may have been off-topic and, perhaps, a wee bit OTT but I don't think it deserved such an angry response. His opinion didn't offend me in the slightest but your response, and that of patchbruce, did because it was a display of a particular kind of behaviour that I find intolerable.
You don't speak for me or the rest of humankind. I'm a non-smoker and have no need of patches, of the bruce brand or any other, to protect me. Patchbruces presumptuosness, in that regard, could attract the kind of aggressive response that was addressed to 'A Voter'. The smoking ban was introduced, I'm told, for your protection and mine. Is it working? If not, what other sanctions would you introduce to restrict or punish smokers?
If you give it some thought, you may come to realise how dangerous it is to cultivate ideas that rely, solely, upon the demonisation of particular segments of society. Independence supporters, and many others who have fallen foul of such propaganda and the hysteria that it induces, could tell you a thing or two about that, I suppose.
I didn't, EH. The link was offered by 'A Voter' in post #7.
The pact7:09pm on 04 Oct 201011. patchbruce "Frankly your selfishness in your post shows through. if you want to smoke, go in to your house and shut the door and smoke to your hearts content. This is not about controling your life but protecting others from you."
Once more the cry goes up! Pariah! Leper! Unclean!
Not what I'd consider a reasonable response and not quite what one would expect from someone who says, "Frankly your selfishness in your post shows through."
Might I remind you that tobacco is a nice wee earner for the UK Treasury and that previous studies have shown that, far from being a drain on the NHS smokers contribute more in tax than is required to treat smoking-related illness.
Having said that, I agree that the smoking ban was a good thing but, like many others, I didn't like the way it was planned, promoted or implemented.
I'm old enough to remember when smoking was actively promoted and supported by the media and government. It's a bit rich to then blame those who are addicted for the ills of the world, including the financial travails of 'very?' businessmen.
Sheath your weapon (self-righteousness) and get off your horse!
The arguments about oil may be of paramount importance to the governments of the UK and US but they are, I think, completely separate from events leading to and following the Lockerbie murders. The victims of that crime and their relatives were never the primary concern of those who manufactured, manipulated and withheld evidence before and during the Megrahi 'show trial'.
That the US and UK authorities chose to profit from the crime rather than apprehend and prosecute the prime suspects, who were known to US and other intelligence services, speaks volumes about their notion of the pursuit of justice. The bad news for everyone, most of all the families of the victims, is that the real culprits may have been allowed to walk free and may never be brought to justice.
Like many others, I'd like to see a complete investigation but there's little hope that either government will ever consent to that. To my mind, they are, at best, accessories after the fact. Why would they initiate proceedings that would prove their guilt beyond doubt?
So, who is left to speak for the victims, other than their families and the public at large? I've no idea! If anyone with the power to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion gave a damn they'd have done it by now!
How could anyone imagine that self-serving politicians, corrupt officials and big business are capable of it?
So, you think that all of this is about one man and that his guilt or innocence depends upon a 'point of view'?
What if I were to express the opinion that you planted explosives on PanAm 103? What if I were to suggest that your reference to the 270 victims is a disgraceful attempt to gather support for your 'point of view' by means of a well-used and thoroughly dishonest device? What if I had the power to make it impossible for you to refute my allegations?
You, and he, might think it's his blog, but you'd both be wrong!
Who pays for the BBC? Who pays his wages?
Isn't defeat wonderful?10:44pm on 13 May 2010213. enneffess "What puts her miles above you in credibility and respect is that she doesn't react to any criticism in the same way as you do, but debates topical issues and comes to an agreement with other bloggers. As a result, those debates come to a good conclusion with every participant having had some ideas rejected and others accepted. I've had ding-dong arguments with eye_write, but it has never once descended to your level."
That may have been true at some time, eneffess, but it, certainly, hasn't been the case during recent discussions.
I really don't want to pursue this. I've no idea what is going on in other contributors' lives and, for that reason, I'm reluctant to harangue, harry or hound but recent blogs don't support your opinion.
Some of what eye_write has written was quite obscene and deeply disturbing. She is intelligent and articulate but she has sown discord and declared open season on fellow nationalists, for no good reason.
When she agrees with someone who classifies others here as dogs, I object.
When she suggests that some of us should be discarded because we've outlived our usefulness, I object.
When she characterises people of my generation as drunken, bitter and sad, I object.
When she declares that all of our hopes, plans and aspirations die with us, I object.
I have six children, sixteen grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. If eye_write thinks that my hope for the future diminishes as I get closer to death she is either as mad as a March hare or talking for effect! If she has children, she'll think again!
When she asserts that others should be silenced because she predicts that their lives will be shorter than her own, I object more strongly than I can say!
My daughter was bright, vivacious, intelligent and wonderful in more ways than I can describe, but she was dead within ten months of having a deadly disease diagnosed. Death is certain. Thankfully, the timing of it is not within the power or gift of eye_write! I could die tonight as could she or any of her loved-ones but none of those possibilities would fuel my political fervour or hasten the delivery of a political goal, however dearly held.