Smoking in Public Places

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Oct 2004, 10:30

The writing is on the wall.

The front page of The Scotsman http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1 ... 1002101326

Personally, I can't wait to see the back of it. As for the artcile? I find the comments from the SLTA totally abhorrent.

I think smoking should be a totally private and children should not be allowed to witness it happening (A bit like the argument for the profanity filter here on POL, surely its a lot more harmful to give children a signal that smoking is acceptable?).

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 02 Oct 2004, 14:28

The Results of the Executive's consultation on smoking indicate a significant majority are in favour of smoking being banned in public places. (see The Scotsman, Sat 02 Oct).

Should Portobello Online lead the way and insist that anyone logging onto the Forum must do do so from a smoke free zone?

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 02 Oct 2004, 14:31

Pal of Porty wrote:Should Portobello Online lead the way and insist that anyone logging onto the Forum must do do so from a smoke free zone?

You are joking, I hope?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Oct 2004, 14:42

ecm wrote:
Pal of Porty wrote:Should Portobello Online lead the way and insist that anyone logging onto the Forum must do do so from a smoke free zone?

You are joking, I hope?

Great idea PoP. Im also against posting in the nude its revolting.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 02 Oct 2004, 14:45

I'm glad PoP has brought this up, because I have been considering this for some time. The way I see it working is that members would have to be facing a webcam at all times when logged on, to ensure compliance. Alternatively, we could insist on smoke-detectors being installed alongside the PC.

How do others feel about this?

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 02 Oct 2004, 14:50

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 02 Oct 2004, 18:54

Porty wrote: Im also against posting in the nude its revolting.

Damn - that's me out then.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Oct 2004, 19:38

Bellybabe wrote:
Porty wrote: Im also against posting in the nude its revolting.
Damn - that's me out then.

I could make an exception in your case.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 02 Oct 2004, 19:43

People should be allowed to light up in their own personal space i.e. home, garden etc. Webcam is going just a bit far.

Re smoking when out I think there should be smoking/no smoking areas in pubs/restaurants - people should still have a choice - only my opinion mind.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Oct 2004, 20:55

Sandra wrote: Webcam is going just a bit far.

No need for webcam. Administrator can invest $99.95 in this nifty bit of software that US employers are using to monitor employees who break workplace smoking laws.

http://www.smokesnooper.com

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 03 Oct 2004, 15:15

Porty wrote:No need for webcam. Administrator can invest $99.95 in this nifty bit of software that US employers are using to monitor employees who break workplace smoking laws.

http://www.smokesnooper.com

You made that up, didn't you?

And where's your 'hairdresser on fire' sig gone?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Oct 2004, 15:31

ecm wrote:
Porty wrote:No need for webcam. Administrator can invest $99.95 in this nifty bit of software that US employers are using to monitor employees who break workplace smoking laws.

http://www.smokesnooper.com
You made that up, didn't you?

And where's your 'hairdresser on fire' sig gone?

Don't know where its gone. Smoke snooper works by measuring 'keyboard slip' apparently fresh nicotine causes fingers to slip and increases the incidence of 'double letter' striking. Its not conclusive tho' hence all the furore.

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 03 Oct 2004, 15:34

Porty wrote:Don't know where its gone. Smoke snooper works by measuring 'keyboard slip' apparently fresh nicotine causes fingers to slip and increases the incidence of 'double letter' striking. Its not conclusive tho' hence all the furore.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Oct 2004, 17:23

Think I understand the signature thing. I have two browsers at home and the cookies must be different. Im using Mozilla at the mo and that was the browser I used to alter my profile.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 03 Oct 2004, 17:29

Porty wrote: Smoke snooper works by measuring 'keyboard slip' apparently fresh nicotine causes fingers to slip and increases the incidence of 'double letter' striking. Its not conclusive tho' hence all the furore.

I think you are having us on Porty - therre is nno such thingg as 'double letterr' strikingg.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Oct 2004, 17:45

Pal of Porty wrote:I think you are having us on Porty - therre is nno such thingg as 'double letterr' strikingg.

Why not read the smokesnooper site? In any case you have inadvertently proved that it works. I know you are a non-smoker and if I look at the sentence above there is not a single instance where your fingers have slipped of the key you were trying to use. You do have a problem with "Multiple striking" but I don't know what aspect of your life could be causing that to happen? Do you drink Pernod, perchance?

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 03 Oct 2004, 17:46

Porty wrote:Smoke snooper works by measuring 'keyboard slip' apparently fresh nicotine causes fingers to slip and increases the incidence of 'double letter' striking.

It sounds like one of those "Reeves and Mortimer" type ads - I like it!!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 03 Oct 2004, 18:11

Is this one of your internet business ideas? In case anyone thinks Porty is onto something (on something more like) the domain name www.smokesnooper.com is currently available.

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 03 Oct 2004, 18:26

He's pretty pleased with himself but I don't think it's got anything to do with shirt colour!

There's pink and then there's pink. It would all depend on the shade, the man and the occasion.

Is Porty's shirt a gentle candyfloss pink or a full on cerise number?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 03 Oct 2004, 20:51

Porty wrote: I could make an exception in your case.