[traditional1]

"You know what? I STILL chew tobacco, sometimes nicotine gum and I even smoke occasionally. I'm a total nicotine addict, but I bristle at those who think their habit should be imposed on others. Your reply is full of crap. You tried to turn the issue to "outside, on your property" when the comments that prompted your reply, and my retort, were with respect to smoke filling a hotel room through a ventilaton system. Look at your own excerpt on your own cry-baby reply if you don't remember. You expressly demonstrated that you don't care if your stinky smoke enters a hotel room via a ventilaton system, irritating those in the non-smoking room or those who are allergic to your smoke. Victimhood? Your original reply casted YOU as the victim. The entire tone was as follows: "Poor me, a misunderstood victim of horrible PC think! People that don't like my smoke and who complain about it are big meanies!" Pure hogwash of an argument. It is about common decency, which you demonstrated you lack, not PC think. And I don't act the victim. I already mentioned that I retaliate. Blow smoke in my face and I won't run to the government. I will get even. Ruin my hotel stay and I will demand a refund or a new room from the hotel (and they will respond as the chain in question here did - kicking you rude people out!). I've hocked lugies on the back of rude smokers who blow smoke in my face and refused to move their filthy habit away from me when I asked them to. I give people every opportunity to act the decent human being. If they refuse and act like you, I respond in kind. "

Yawn

As all the anti-smoke zealots, you are all hat and no cattle.

[bluefish]

Yawn. As all the anti-smoke zealots, you are all hat and no cattle.

Keep digging. Your laughable responses only paint you further into a corner.

Your response to which I'm replying demonstrates that you have nothing left. It may be funny sounding, sort of like a Dan Ratherism, but it is meaningless. Simply stating something doesn't make it so, however much you may wish it to be.

Once again, I'm not an anti-smoker, which should be clear from the fact that I admitted to smoking. Perhaps you can't read.

Look and you will find posts where I rail against the government passing laws against smoking and Internet tobacco sales or passing laws establishing "sin" taxes. I tend to be quite libertarian in my views.

I may not be anti-smoking, but I AM anti-rude jerk. Why? Because people like you are the ones who ultimately cause our freedoms to be restricted. Your initial reply to which I responded qualified for a calling out.

Now, your label no longer works, so let's dispense with your cute Dan Ratherism next:

I demonstrated that you were generally an anti-social jerk in my initial reply to your ridiculous, overly defensive tirade towards a poster who merely stated that smoke enters non-smoking rooms via ventilation systems.

Your response proved you to be a liar with your silly attempt to back pedal on your statemsnts. I pointed out that your own citation in the initial post contradicted your statements in a follow-up reply.

Next, I demonstrated how you were a hypocrite in your accusations concerning victimhood, since your inital post was nothing more than your own whining and crying about being a victim.

You now know that you can't lie or make blatantly hypocrtical statements in your own defensive victimhood.

Your last resort is to lie, and issue a cute one-liner with no meaning or demonstrable basis in truth.

Given your final non-response and general retreat, who now is actually the one that is "all hat and no cattle" in this exchange? Who is backing away, beaten down, unable to put together a logical argument at this point?

I really do not expect to educate you or win you over. I'm merely demonstrating for others what you are. Pure bluster, with no basis for it.