Liverpool FC Forum

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:09 pm**

LFC2007 wrote:
Igor Zidane wrote:Nothing wrong with public transport ace, in liverpool anyway , it's cheap and pretty reliable .That's got nothing to do with smoking i know ,but i still had to pull you up there ace.

Not on a nationwide scale mate, in parts of Liverpool it's ok. You go to the South East and it's a different story, the same way in which it is expensive to travel long distances on the train e.g. in the Southwest if you wanted to travel up north there are long and costly connections.

It's cheaper and more convenient to go by car in many cases.

Without wanting to bore you , there are cheap long distance tickets for the train , it's just a matter of getting them early.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:16 pm**

It depends on location due to connections and the timing is not always appropriate. I'm not a fan of our train service. I've been on trains in Europe and the efficiency and comfort of their trains makes ours look like thomas the tank engine on ice skates.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:18 pm**

LFC2007 wrote:It depends on location due to connections and the timing is not always appropriate. I'm not a fan of our train service. I've been on trains in Europe and the efficiency and comfort of their trains makes ours look like thomas the tank engine on ice skates.

Tut Tut ace , you'll have me out of a job

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:25 pm**

Were you the script writer?

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:38 pm**

LFC2007 wrote:Were you the script writer?

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:56 pm**

LFC2007 wrote:
Bamaga man wrote:But I'll just let you know, infact some of you already may know this. ... But there was a kind of survey done in England. Where you had about 30 people in a pub in total, something like 15 were in the "smokers" side of the pub, and the other 15 in the non-smokers side. Both sets of people were having a drink.

Anyway the test tried to conclude which group of people were having a ' better ' time in the old rub a dub dub. The decibell level was much higher in the smokers side than that of the non-smokers. The smokers, all smoking, waving there fags around passing eachother cigarettes and drinking beer were seemingly the MUCH happier of the two sides. While the 'non-smokers' were in the other room with there hands on laps having a pleasant time.

And the test concluded that the smokers were more sociable and happier in the pub than the non smokers.
True story.

There you have it, conclusive scientific proof that smokers are happier than non-smokers.

I didnt say a thing about Science.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:59 pm**

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:03 pm**

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:06 pm**

I just knew you would take my comment in all seriousness.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:09 pm**

I just knew you would reply to it.

:rasp

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:12 pm**

A light-hearted comment and you pick up on it, must defend it.

:no

Get over it

:talktothehand

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:17 pm**

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:19 pm**

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:47 pm**

LFC2007 wrote:
destro wrote:As far as the difference between Cannabis and Cigs people will argue that it is less harmless than cigs but it is in fact just as much of a health risk as it has a higher tar content than a cig, so smoking cannabis brings the same health problems like bronchitis, emphysema and lung cancer etc,etc

Plus, Cannabis has a history of causing psychosis, resulting in Schizophrenia and other mental disorders. That is the key difference.

Alcohol is bad for the liver, it leads to cirrhosis.

When I addressed the comparison between alcohol and tobacco, you answered that it's the combination of a numpty person and alcohol. At the end of the day, I don't see why that must be an attenuating factor to defend alcohol.

Smoking is harmful for oneself. Smoking can be harmful to others and might result in serious ilness, true. So you have a substance, that as a result of entering a man's body can produce that. That's a fact.

Alcohol? the same thing. When it enters a man's body it messes with the nervous system and the mind, and as aresult it may provoke a violent attack that end up in the killing of a wife or a multiple accident. Then again, you have a substance that when contacting a man it influenciates it. And as a result you have a dead woman -- for instance. If it's not mentioned that the risk of getting a lung cancer being a passive smoker depends on how cancer prone is the patient, then it should not be mentioned that it's the combination of alcohol and violent people the combination that makes the disaster.

So I don't see how the fact of being this men numpty or aggressive per se is attenuating, because statistically you'll have people like that always in the society and statistically aswell it provokes deads, which is the thing that anti tobacco people use most to talk against it. It's a matter of a substance, it's effects on people, and it's consequences. But in one case it's attacked, and in the other isn't.

I can understand your point, but I have a slight different view.

Sorry to be redundant to explain my points LFC2007, but as I don't find the accurate words, I have to go in circles of words to say what I mean.

Don't get we wrong, I agree many anti-tobacco laws. Not smoking in closed rooms is common sense to me. I'm just against the hostility I can sense against us, smokers, sometimes they treat smokers as if they had the leprosy.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:09 pm**

me 8 pages in a day!

u all deserve a cigarette.

Liverpool FC Forum

July 1st - Comin up....