Smokers, again. Or should I say, LOSERS!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Aug 17, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Lenses aren't the only things to suffer.

    The GazetteAugust 16, 2010

    Smokers cost Quebec $930M a year: study

    33% of hospital beds occupied by current or ex-smokers

    A study commissioned by the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control
    suggests smokers cost Quebec's
    health-care system $930 million a year.

    MONTREAL - A new study suggests smokers are taking a substantial toll
    on Quebec’s health-care
    system to the tune of $930 million each year.

    The study was commissioned by the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco
    Control.

    The findings revealed that 32.6 per cent of hospital beds in Quebec
    are occupied by people who
     
    RichA, Aug 17, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA TROLLS again. Or should I say, LOSER!

    <anti-smoking propaganda snipped>

    This has what to do with photography and cameras? You POS TROLL.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Aug 17, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:15:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >Lenses aren't the only things to suffer.
    >
    > The GazetteAugust 16, 2010
    >
    >Smokers cost Quebec $930M a year: study
    >
    >33% of hospital beds occupied by current or ex-smokers
    >
    >A study commissioned by the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control
    >suggests smokers cost Quebec's
    >health-care system $930 million a year.
    >
    >MONTREAL - A new study suggests smokers are taking a substantial toll
    >on Quebec’s health-care
    >system to the tune of $930 million each year.


    If 33% of the hospital beds in Quebec are occupied by current or
    ex-smokers, then non-smokers are costing Quebec twice as much money as
    current or ex-smokers.

    Start smoking. Improve your chances of not having to go into the
    hospital.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:16:46 -0400, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:15:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Lenses aren't the only things to suffer.
    >>
    >> The GazetteAugust 16, 2010
    >>
    >>Smokers cost Quebec $930M a year: study
    >>
    >>33% of hospital beds occupied by current or ex-smokers
    >>
    >>A study commissioned by the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control
    >>suggests smokers cost Quebec's
    >>health-care system $930 million a year.
    >>
    >>MONTREAL - A new study suggests smokers are taking a substantial toll
    >>on Quebec’s health-care
    >>system to the tune of $930 million each year.

    >
    >If 33% of the hospital beds in Quebec are occupied by current or
    >ex-smokers, then non-smokers are costing Quebec twice as much money as
    >current or ex-smokers.
    >
    >Start smoking. Improve your chances of not having to go into the
    >hospital.


    Well, if we're going to be rational about it, you have to compare it
    to what you'd expect by random chance. What percentage of Quebec-folk
    alive today are current or ex-smokers?

    Note also that what got cut off in Rich's post was "The findings
    revealed that 32.6 per cent of hospital beds in Quebec are occupied by
    people who *either smoke or used to smoke heavily.*" So that
    percentage doesn't include everyone who smokes or used to - just the
    heavy smokers. So the question is what percentage of the genpop are or
    were heavy smokers.
     
    John A., Aug 18, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:15:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Lenses aren't the only things to suffer.
    >>
    >> The GazetteAugust 16, 2010
    >>
    >>Smokers cost Quebec $930M a year: study
    >>
    >>33% of hospital beds occupied by current or ex-smokers
    >>
    >>A study commissioned by the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control
    >>suggests smokers cost Quebec's
    >>health-care system $930 million a year.
    >>
    >>MONTREAL - A new study suggests smokers are taking a substantial toll
    >>on Quebec's health-care
    >>system to the tune of $930 million each year.

    >
    > If 33% of the hospital beds in Quebec are occupied by current or
    > ex-smokers, then non-smokers are costing Quebec twice as much money as
    > current or ex-smokers.
    >
    > Start smoking. Improve your chances of not having to go into the
    > hospital.



    I recently asked a cute young lady if she smoked after sex.
    She said she'd never looked.


    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 18, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "John A." <> wrote in message
    news:...


    > Note also that what got cut off in Rich's post was "The findings
    > revealed that 32.6 per cent of hospital beds in Quebec are occupied by
    > people who *either smoke or used to smoke heavily.*" So that
    > percentage doesn't include everyone who smokes or used to - just the
    > heavy smokers. So the question is what percentage of the genpop are or
    > were heavy smokers.


    If they were heavy non-smokers, would they still have been hospitalized?


    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 18, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 17, 8:31 pm, John A. <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:16:46 -0400, tony cooper
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:15:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > >wrote:

    >
    > >>Lenses aren't the only things to suffer.

    >
    > >> The GazetteAugust 16, 2010

    >
    > >>Smokers cost Quebec $930M a year: study

    >
    > >>33% of hospital beds occupied by current or ex-smokers

    >
    > >>A study commissioned by the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control
    > >>suggests smokers cost Quebec's
    > >>health-care system $930 million a year.

    >
    > >>MONTREAL - A new study suggests smokers are taking a substantial toll
    > >>on Quebec’s health-care
    > >>system to the tune of $930 million each year.

    >
    > >If 33% of the hospital beds in Quebec are occupied by current or
    > >ex-smokers, then non-smokers are costing Quebec twice as much money as
    > >current or ex-smokers.

    >
    > >Start smoking.  Improve your chances of not having to go into the
    > >hospital.

    >
    > Well, if we're going to be rational about it, you have to compare it
    > to what you'd expect by random chance. What percentage of Quebec-folk
    > alive today are current or ex-smokers?
    >
    > Note also that what got cut off in Rich's post was "The findings
    > revealed that 32.6 per cent of hospital beds in Quebec are occupied by
    > people who *either smoke or used to smoke heavily.*" So that
    > percentage doesn't include everyone who smokes or used to - just the
    > heavy smokers. So the question is what percentage of the genpop are or
    > were heavy smokers.


    About 40% were smokers in the 1960's. About 15% now.
     
    RichA, Aug 18, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    ASCII Guest

    Re: RichA TROLLS again. Or should I say, LOSER!

    Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >
    ><anti-smoking propaganda snipped>
    >
    >This has what to do with photography and cameras? You POS TROLL.


    The fact that trying to sell used equipment is much more difficult if the
    previous owner was a smoker, unless a sepia tint is something of value.
     
    ASCII, Aug 18, 2010
    #8
  9. Re: RichA TROLLS again. Or should I say, LOSER!

    On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:13:05 -0700, ASCII <> wrote:

    >Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >>
    >><anti-smoking propaganda snipped>
    >>
    >>This has what to do with photography and cameras? You POS TROLL.

    >
    >The fact that trying to sell used equipment is much more difficult if the
    >previous owner was a smoker, unless a sepia tint is something of value.


    And more people die from car accidents than smoking. (BTW: most smokers
    never die from smoking related illnesses). So by this logic of yours, all
    people should stop driving cars because camera equipment that they carry in
    their car is much more difficult to resell after its been in a car
    accident. Driving is not a requirement of life, it's a choice, but it puts
    more people in hospitals than anything. Not to mention the air-pollution in
    cities from car exhausts that subjects each citizen of every city to as
    many carcinogens as if they had smoked two packs of cigarettes a day just
    by inhaling city air. This doesn't even count the amount of lead
    contamination in all the soils of every city from the nearly century-long
    use of leaded-fuels. Any city lot can be declared a highly contaminated
    HAZMAT zone if tested for lead. Did you not know this? Driving of ALL cars
    should be made ILLEGAL by your logic.

    (I've no doubt that the lead in city-soils will lead to the downfall of
    humanity no different than the use of lead-pipes did in Rome. All of you
    show signs of major brain-damage already, you just don't realize it.)

    Holy ****, you fools are the most ignorant and childishly manipulative
    trolls on earth.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Aug 18, 2010
    #9
  10. Re: RichA TROLLS again. Or should I say, LOSER!

    On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:13:05 -0700, ASCII <> wrote:

    >Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >>
    >><anti-smoking propaganda snipped>
    >>
    >>This has what to do with photography and cameras? You POS TROLL.

    >
    >The fact that trying to sell used equipment is much more difficult if the
    >previous owner was a smoker, unless a sepia tint is something of value.


    And more people die from car accidents than smoking. (BTW: most smokers
    never die from smoking related illnesses). So by this logic of yours, all
    people should stop driving cars because camera equipment that they carry in
    their car is much more difficult to resell after its been in a car
    accident. Driving is not a requirement of life, it's a choice, but it puts
    more people in hospitals than anything. Not to mention the air-pollution in
    cities from car exhausts that subjects each citizen of every city to as
    many carcinogens as if they had smoked two packs of cigarettes a day just
    by inhaling city air. This doesn't even count the amount of lead
    contamination in all the soils of every city from the nearly century-long
    use of leaded-fuels. Any city lot can be declared a highly contaminated
    HAZMAT zone if tested for lead. Did you not know this? Driving of ALL cars
    should be made ILLEGAL by your logic.

    (I've no doubt that the lead in city-soils will lead to the downfall of
    humanity no different than the use of lead-pipes did in Rome. All of you
    show signs of major brain-damage already, you just don't realize it.)

    Holy ****, you fools are the most ignorant and childishly manipulative
    trolls on earth.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Aug 18, 2010
    #10
  11. On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:00:57 -0400, gamer_reg wrote:

    >>About 40% were smokers in the 1960's. About 15% now.

    >
    > The only depressing part about that Rich is there is a far lesser chance
    > YOU will succumb to second hand smoking effects.
    >
    > I will look on the brighter side though. Maybe you'll get hit by a bus.


    Poor bus...

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Aug 18, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:53:27 -0400, wrote:

    >On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:05:43 -0500, SneakyP
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>RichA <> wrote in news:aaa73a76-d9b7-4215-8580-
    >>:
    >>
    >>> Lenses aren't the only things to suffer.
    >>>
    >>> The GazetteAugust 16, 2010
    >>>
    >>> Smokers cost Quebec $930M a year: study

    >>
    >>Smokers are paying their cost-share of Medicare in the form of higher
    >>taxation on cigars/cigarettes/tobbacos here in the U.S.
    >>
    >>I'm so glad smokers support our taxes with all those additional costs they
    >>pay for. Probably one of the very few ways our Sybil Troll adds something
    >>positive to our society.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>:)

    >
    >I would probably agree with your assessment of adding something to our
    >society but in a different direction.
    >
    >I might point out that through exercising their right of choice they
    >have added to our society by perpetuating the God given right of free
    >choice!


    Second-hand smoke notwithstanding.
     
    John A., Aug 18, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
    news:...
    > wrote:
    >>>
    >>> :)

    >>
    >> I would probably agree with your assessment of adding something to our
    >> society but in a different direction.
    >>
    >> I might point out that through exercising their right of choice they
    >> have added to our society by perpetuating the God given right of free
    >> choice!

    >
    > And made themselves candidates for a long-term
    > Darwin award too!



    Many want to quit, but are so addicted, they can't.


    As long as we are OT:
    Moderate drinkers tend to live longer than those who either abstain or drink
    heavily.

    http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAndHealth.html



    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 18, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    David Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:15:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA
    > <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Lenses aren't the only things to suffer.
    >>
    >> The GazetteAugust 16, 2010
    >>
    >>Smokers cost Quebec $930M a year: study
    >>
    >>33% of hospital beds occupied by current or ex-smokers
    >>
    >>A study commissioned by the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco
    >>Control
    >>suggests smokers cost Quebec's
    >>health-care system $930 million a year.
    >>
    >>MONTREAL - A new study suggests smokers are taking a
    >>substantial toll
    >>on Quebec's health-care
    >>system to the tune of $930 million each year.

    >
    > If 33% of the hospital beds in Quebec are occupied by
    > current or
    > ex-smokers, then non-smokers are costing Quebec twice as
    > much money as
    > current or ex-smokers.


    There are several ways to look at this and why statistics
    like this are meaningless.

    1) Probably 50% are occupied by men so men are the problem.
    2) If no one smoked, 100% would be occupied by people so
    people are the problem.
    3) If the smokers did not smoke, they would be in the beds a
    few years later and just defer the costs.
    4) Do the same reasoning with: overweight, race, hair color,
    etc, etc.

    If you assume the presence of something is the cause of the
    outcome, you can prove anything you want. The media does it
    all of the time.

    David
     
    David, Aug 18, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "David" <> wrote in message
    news:i4gqge$4fu$-september.org...
    >
    >
    > "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:15:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Lenses aren't the only things to suffer.
    >>>
    >>> The GazetteAugust 16, 2010
    >>>
    >>>Smokers cost Quebec $930M a year: study
    >>>
    >>>33% of hospital beds occupied by current or ex-smokers
    >>>
    >>>A study commissioned by the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control
    >>>suggests smokers cost Quebec's
    >>>health-care system $930 million a year.
    >>>
    >>>MONTREAL - A new study suggests smokers are taking a substantial toll
    >>>on Quebec's health-care
    >>>system to the tune of $930 million each year.

    >>
    >> If 33% of the hospital beds in Quebec are occupied by current or
    >> ex-smokers, then non-smokers are costing Quebec twice as much money as
    >> current or ex-smokers.

    >
    > There are several ways to look at this and why statistics like this are
    > meaningless.
    >
    > 1) Probably 50% are occupied by men so men are the problem.
    > 2) If no one smoked, 100% would be occupied by people so people are the
    > problem.
    > 3) If the smokers did not smoke, they would be in the beds a few years
    > later and just defer the costs.
    > 4) Do the same reasoning with: overweight, race, hair color, etc, etc.
    >
    > If you assume the presence of something is the cause of the outcome, you
    > can prove anything you want. The media does it all of the time.



    The only thing you prove is the existence of a relationship. It takes more
    to prove the significance of the relationship in terms of cause and effect.
    I agree with you, the media and politicians' omit that vital step.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 18, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    GregS Guest

    In article <4c6bf4b9$0$5552$-secrets.com>, "Peter" <> wrote:
    >"David" <> wrote in message
    >news:i4gqge$4fu$-september.org...
    >>
    >>
    >> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:15:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Lenses aren't the only things to suffer.
    >>>>
    >>>> The GazetteAugust 16, 2010
    >>>>
    >>>>Smokers cost Quebec $930M a year: study
    >>>>
    >>>>33% of hospital beds occupied by current or ex-smokers
    >>>>
    >>>>A study commissioned by the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control
    >>>>suggests smokers cost Quebec's
    >>>>health-care system $930 million a year.
    >>>>
    >>>>MONTREAL - A new study suggests smokers are taking a substantial toll
    >>>>on Quebec's health-care
    >>>>system to the tune of $930 million each year.
    >>>
    >>> If 33% of the hospital beds in Quebec are occupied by current or
    >>> ex-smokers, then non-smokers are costing Quebec twice as much money as
    >>> current or ex-smokers.

    >>
    >> There are several ways to look at this and why statistics like this are
    >> meaningless.
    >>
    >> 1) Probably 50% are occupied by men so men are the problem.
    >> 2) If no one smoked, 100% would be occupied by people so people are the
    >> problem.
    >> 3) If the smokers did not smoke, they would be in the beds a few years
    >> later and just defer the costs.
    >> 4) Do the same reasoning with: overweight, race, hair color, etc, etc.
    >>
    >> If you assume the presence of something is the cause of the outcome, you
    >> can prove anything you want. The media does it all of the time.

    >
    >
    >The only thing you prove is the existence of a relationship. It takes more
    >to prove the significance of the relationship in terms of cause and effect.
    >I agree with you, the media and politicians' omit that vital step.
    >


    They also forgot to mention the 4 Billion revenue in cigarette tax from
    Quebec and Ontario.

    Is it strange? It cost 930 million for security at G8 G20.
     
    GregS, Aug 18, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:21:52 -0500, Die Wahrheit
    <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:48:17 -0400, John A. <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:53:27 -0400, wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:05:43 -0500, SneakyP
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>RichA <> wrote in news:aaa73a76-d9b7-4215-8580-
    >>>>:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Lenses aren't the only things to suffer.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The GazetteAugust 16, 2010
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Smokers cost Quebec $930M a year: study
    >>>>
    >>>>Smokers are paying their cost-share of Medicare in the form of higher
    >>>>taxation on cigars/cigarettes/tobbacos here in the U.S.
    >>>>
    >>>>I'm so glad smokers support our taxes with all those additional costs they
    >>>>pay for. Probably one of the very few ways our Sybil Troll adds something
    >>>>positive to our society.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>:)
    >>>
    >>>I would probably agree with your assessment of adding something to our
    >>>society but in a different direction.
    >>>
    >>>I might point out that through exercising their right of choice they
    >>>have added to our society by perpetuating the God given right of free
    >>>choice!

    >>
    >>Second-hand smoke notwithstanding.

    >
    >I'm not sure if this is the best place to send something like you
    ><http://fightingback.homestead.com/> but it's at least a start. Not that it
    >will do any good. Your bliss of self-induced ignorance is much more
    >compelling than wanting to educate yourself, only to find out that you've
    >been made into a goose-stepping fool by your own people and government.
    >Your desire for psychotic bliss is a much more potent attractor than your
    >desire for harsh facts and reality. Don't feel too bad about this, there's
    >many millions more just as ignorant as you.


    It's ok, dude; I realize that's just the nicotine talking.
     
    John A., Aug 18, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "John A." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:21:52 -0500, Die Wahrheit
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:48:17 -0400, John A. <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:53:27 -0400, wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:05:43 -0500, SneakyP
    >>>><> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>RichA <> wrote in news:aaa73a76-d9b7-4215-8580-
    >>>>>:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Lenses aren't the only things to suffer.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The GazetteAugust 16, 2010
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Smokers cost Quebec $930M a year: study
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Smokers are paying their cost-share of Medicare in the form of higher
    >>>>>taxation on cigars/cigarettes/tobbacos here in the U.S.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I'm so glad smokers support our taxes with all those additional costs
    >>>>>they
    >>>>>pay for. Probably one of the very few ways our Sybil Troll adds
    >>>>>something
    >>>>>positive to our society.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>:)
    >>>>
    >>>>I would probably agree with your assessment of adding something to our
    >>>>society but in a different direction.
    >>>>
    >>>>I might point out that through exercising their right of choice they
    >>>>have added to our society by perpetuating the God given right of free
    >>>>choice!
    >>>
    >>>Second-hand smoke notwithstanding.

    >>
    >>I'm not sure if this is the best place to send something like you
    >><http://fightingback.homestead.com/> but it's at least a start. Not that
    >>it
    >>will do any good. Your bliss of self-induced ignorance is much more
    >>compelling than wanting to educate yourself, only to find out that you've
    >>been made into a goose-stepping fool by your own people and government.
    >>Your desire for psychotic bliss is a much more potent attractor than your
    >>desire for harsh facts and reality. Don't feel too bad about this, there's
    >>many millions more just as ignorant as you.

    >
    > It's ok, dude; I realize that's just the nicotine talking.



    He's just another version of our troll.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 18, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Twibil Guest

    On Aug 18, 4:51 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    >
    >
    > > I might point out that through exercising their right of choice they
    > > have added to our society by perpetuating the God given right of free
    > > choice!

    >
    > And made themselves candidates for a long-term
    > Darwin award too!


    Free hint: Everyone dies eventually. Nothing you can do to prevent it.
    Nor should there be.

    It's neither possible nor desirable to outlaw everything that *might*
    shorten your life, and if you'd honestly examine your own you'd
    doubtless find that there are many things *you* do which fall into
    that category: driving on freeways, for example.

    That being the case, playing holier-than-thou and claiming that
    smokers tempt fate whilst there are literally hundreds of other
    behaviorial factors that are equally chancy in terms of long-term
    survivability reeks of either hypocrisy or ignorance: your choice.
     
    Twibil, Aug 18, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    peter Guest

    Twibil wrote:
    > On Aug 18, 4:51 am, bugbear<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> I might point out that through exercising their right of choice they
    >>> have added to our society by perpetuating the God given right of free
    >>> choice!

    >>
    >> And made themselves candidates for a long-term
    >> Darwin award too!

    >
    > Free hint: Everyone dies eventually. Nothing you can do to prevent it.
    > Nor should there be.
    >
    > It's neither possible nor desirable to outlaw everything that *might*
    > shorten your life,


    If you want to shorten your life, be my guest. Just don't affect the
    length or quality of mine.


    >
    > That being the case, playing holier-than-thou and claiming that
    > smokers tempt fate whilst there are literally hundreds of other
    > behaviorial factors that are equally chancy in terms of long-term
    > survivability reeks of either hypocrisy or ignorance: your choice.


    See above. I do not want to pay for illness.


    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Aug 18, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. The Freek

    Re: Attention: SMOKERS

    The Freek, Jun 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    563
    The Freek
    Jun 24, 2003
  2. Anon

    You say SIM, I say SEM

    Anon, Mar 17, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    550
    Randal T. Rioux
    Mar 18, 2006
  3. RichA

    Should all smokers be taken out and shot?

    RichA, Aug 8, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    702
    Peter
    Aug 10, 2010
  4. Zulus Vulva

    Greece in new crackdown on smokers and tobacco ads

    Zulus Vulva, Sep 1, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    341
    Runge 124
    Sep 3, 2010
  5. Old Gringo38

    Smokers in the crowd

    Old Gringo38, Nov 10, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    885
    G. Morgan
    Nov 12, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page