FBI: Flight Diverted After NYC Woman Lights Up

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:21 -0700, Go Fig wrote:

In article , John Kulp
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:58:59 -0700, Go Fig wrote:


Do you have a cite that is *not* an advocacy piece or an opinion pice?
IOW - a
*source*.

What science can you point to that would justify the increasing
restrictions on smoking in public, do you really think you can find
science that's going to say it's dangerous for someone to be on a
public beach while others are smoking... As it now is on many public
beaches in Southern California.

What court decision do you have that says, if society says it wants to
do that, it can?

How bout more than 200 years of history.

200 years of stupidity doesn't mean anything other than 200 hundred
years of stupidity. So you don't have one do you? And, btw, if
cigarettes didn't exist and someone tried to put them into the market
today they would be laughed at if not locked up. Tells you all you
need to know about the crap doesn't it?


Withstanding that... no answer to the question I posed.

Meaning you have no legal basis whatsoever to prevent California from
regulating its beaches anyway they see fit.

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...

Only complete idiots would believe that cigarette smoke, whether taken
directly or
secondhand is harmful.

Sooo, you're saying that people who think it's harmful are idiots. You're
full of surprises.


http://tinyurl.com/73uos

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:49:06 -0500, "Jim Davis"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...

Only complete idiots would believe that cigarette smoke, whether taken
directly or
secondhand is harmful.

Sooo, you're saying that people who think it's harmful are idiots. You're
full of surprises.

I was being sarcastic, which went right over your head.

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:49:06 -0500, "Jim Davis"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...

Only complete idiots would believe that cigarette smoke, whether taken
directly or
secondhand is harmful.

Sooo, you're saying that people who think it's harmful are idiots. You're
full of surprises.

I was being sarcastic, which went right over your head.

Yeah - Whatever you say.
No matter,
The cites have been posted,
The facts are there,
and you're famous, last word babbling & changing the subject won't change
anything.

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:42:45 -0500, "Jim Davis"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:49:06 -0500, "Jim Davis"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...

Only complete idiots would believe that cigarette smoke, whether taken
directly or
secondhand is harmful.

Sooo, you're saying that people who think it's harmful are idiots. You're
full of surprises.

I was being sarcastic, which went right over your head.

Yeah - Whatever you say.
No matter,
The cites have been posted,
The facts are there,
and you're famous, last word babbling & changing the subject won't change
anything.



The usual Davis Drivel.

Larry in AZ writes:

In that case, we need to begin throwing all those careless, sneezing,
coughing, spitting criminals into jail..!

People who are sick are generally not so voluntarily.

However, isolation and exclusion have been used in the past in the case of
particularly dangerous contagious diseases (including the flu).

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:27:42 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Because it is so large, mainly.

No, on a percentage basis.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Larry in AZ writes:

In that case, we need to begin throwing all those careless, sneezing,
coughing, spitting criminals into jail..!

People who are sick are generally not so voluntarily.

However, isolation and exclusion have been used in the past in the
case of particularly dangerous contagious diseases (including the
flu).


Talking about yourself again Anthony? You made yourself into a pathetic,
sick loser. You should be barred from appearing anywhere due to the
twisted contagion you spew.

Does anyone know if the woman lighted up with compact fluorescent,
conventional lightbulbs, or had she ingested large quantities of
chemiluminescent liquids, resulting in her body starting to glow green ?

Was the brightness of her body really disrupting the other passengers ?
How bright did she become ?

And more importantly, the the light emanating from her body emphasise
the shape of certain curvy bodyparts that woudl normally be hidden ?

John Doe wrote:

Does anyone know if the woman lighted up with compact fluorescent,
conventional lightbulbs, or had she ingested large quantities of
chemiluminescent liquids, resulting in her body starting to glow green ?

Was the brightness of her body really disrupting the other passengers ?
How bright did she become ?

And more importantly, the the light emanating from her body emphasise
the shape of certain curvy bodyparts that woudl normally be hidden ?

I don't know about her, but on Get Smart, the movie, I saw Agent 86 try
to use a match to scrape gum off his shoe. He ended up being tackled by
a FAM.