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.
Thanks for the ping.
The "true conservative" smokers here on FR will never understand this. They are blind to any hints that their own smoking behaviors can be the problem. Much like the person addicted to alcohol, many of the tobacco addicts here truly believe that everyone else is to blame for society as a whole coming down on them.
Its nanny's, its liberals, its folks who want to control them. Of course these people do want just that but the vast majority that are voting for bans are just the average Joe who want to breath air without cigarette smoke.
This denial of the true state of affairs interferes with their ability to deal realistically with the true reasons for the smoking bans. Even thought I do notice that by repetition I have made some small headway that the issue is the smell and not the danger of SHS, they have still failed to appreciate how truly offensive the smoke is to nonsmokers.
This failure is partly biological in that they have a greatly reduced sense of smell and are desensitized to their smoke and partly psychological. The psychological is a defense against confronting how obnoxious their habit truly is to the average nonsmoker and most importantly a defense against any potential hindrance of their ability to get the next fix.
All in all if it were not for the effect of the precedent that is being set by the laws being passed to inhibit their behaviors this would be just another sad side effect of addictions.