Be Excellent To Each Other

On the way to work this morning, I saw a shocking poster. You may have seen the one I mean - they're supposedly everywhere.

It showed a (part) of a person. A particular type of person, one who is hated on sight by a sizeable part of the UK population. It suggested that they are unclean, smelly even. It called them by a nasty-sounding little name, a two-syllable word with a hard 'k' right in the middle. A really satisfying jibe for the active bigot, one that you can really emphasize to show your disgust, for the kind of filth that this (nationwide, prominent) poster campaign hopes you will now hate.

I was shocked. I knew that there were people who had irrational hatred (and fear?) of 'those kinds of people', but I didn't realise that this nation had become so right-wing over these last few immigration n' terrorism filled years, and that 'those people' had become so despised, just for being different.

I am appalled.

Wait, wait....... it was a mirror, wasn't it? Do I get points?

If you're going to have a rant, can you be a little less abstract and fill in the blanks for the rest of us? It's like having a conversation with my wife, who assumes you've heard the previous few thoughts in her head before she starts talking out loud halfway through.

I think he may be talking about the Weklsh.

Oh for fuck's sake.

He's trying to imply that people who deliberately inhale noxious gases, then expel them in order to POISON BABIES, are in some way human.

Oh. That makes even less sense. I thought he was talking about pikeys.

Hang on - we hate whelks now?

It makes perfect sense, you just must not have seen the poster.

mackems? dirty dirty mackems?

I too thought he was talking about pikeys, but perhaps that says more about my pregidouses than anything else...

Because I quite like whelks, with a bit of vinegar.

Craster - then start a whelks thread. Like.

Is it the P word we are not, apparently, allowed to say then?

Pakis?

We can't be entirely sure that you haven't already, CUS.

Aye.



This..lol

Tch. I said in the first line that there's a poster campaign going on. If you don't understand this thread, then there you go. But! You *might at a later date*! Fancy that.

There were Doctor Who baddies who did this (almost I think):

I'll keep an eye out for posters inflaming anti-whelkism tendencies amongst Middle Englanders then.

And then presumably all will be revealed and understanding will flood through my poor synapses. Finally, finally, I'll understand one of your excellently obtuse posts.

But the poor whelks, though, eh?

Seriously, I have not seen these posters.
They won't be where I live but I might see one or two when visiting Sheepeh if it's widespread.

Mr Chris, you're never a lawyer, what do you do really?

He's in marketing. He does poster campaigns decrying the presence of whelks in our society.

I don't spend my life trying to understand and help those poor unfortunates with communication problems, if that's what you mean.

How about those with reading disabilities?

In any case, thanks to all and sundry for seemingly being unwilling (or unable) to give chance to an attempt at a serious discussion, ironically coming after some of you were bleating and moaning that there are too many "silly posts" going on and stuff. Ironically further because further people still were asking for this thread to be made. Still, that'll teach that cunt CUS eh? Ho ho! Please now continue with whatever the fuck it is you want, then, and if I do want to raise a point in the future, I'll just call it e.g. "Chips" and say "I like chips", and we can have the bestest, most bland, most pointlessly 'Yes, I also want to post a reply stating that I agree with everyone else' forum evar!

Chill, fella! Your earlier post was a little cryptic, to say the least, so people replied with a little frivolity.

I'd guess a reason for that is that no-one felt particularly comfortable in coming right out with "What, you mean pikeys/pakis?", which was the only real response given that you left it out of your post, and no-one else has seen the posters in question.

I don't come across many of those, thankfully.



To be fair, given the fact it was in reference to a poster most people haven't seen, and given the inclusion of references to terrorism and all the rest of it, I'm sure more than one person genuinely didn't understand what you were talking about. Well, as the thread above makes clear, more than one person did actually think you were talking about actual ethnic minorities (a moderately likely misunderstanding due to the terrorism thing, see).

I got it, but only after several read throughs.*


I thought your irony gland exploded earlier today? Huggy kissy.

Anyway, how many times have we done the smoking thing to death, anyway? What's left to debate?


*And Dr A telling me what you were talking about.

Yes, it was a leading question! It was a trick! People who people say are good do it all the time, I had hoped to similarly incite adorations.

Mr. Chris has stabbed this forum to death right in its beautiful, hirsuite heart, with all the evil hate he has flowing vilely through him.

Mr. Chris - It has been debated to death - but, I know at least a few folks wanted to talk of how it is harmful and bad in Smoker's Fancy. Seeing the poster this morning that I saw - which I hope to find a copy of online somewhere, but not as yet - inspired me to start it. That was all, I swear, I'm clean.

Mr irony gland itself has an ironically gland and in fact t'was that which did explode earlier. Ironically enough.

I thought it was only my missus who did that.

I'm actually a politician. I will eat your babies. In lieu of that, I'll kill your jokes.



Yes, I saw that thread. But from my point of view, honestly, what's the point? Both sides are so entrenched that the only reasonable course of action left open is to get Worral-Thompson representing FOREST and that ghastly humourless bint from ASH to slug it out in an Ultimate Fighting ring.

I'm not sure how the debate (and whatever the parameters of that debate might be these days) can be moved beyond one side saying "your habit is clinically proven to harm you and me, so quite smoking or fuck off, or both" and the other side saying "but we should be able to do that, it's our human rights and civil liberties, innit. It's what my grandfather died for in the War".

That's my genuine contribution to the debate - what debate can usefully be had any more? Which is a reasonable question to pose, isn't it?


Phew! That's a relief. A worryingly close call, there.

Oh, I get it! It's about smoking. Um, I don't like smoke.

Oh, was it something like this poster?

Cos if so, your first post makes perfect ironical sense now.

However, whilst searching for what could be the one you're on about, I found this little beauty:



I reckon the competition was fixed, if she only came third.

Poké... mon. Trainers of.

Right?

Or is this the super thing to do with Grim... that you were talking about? Or maybe it was the BETEO 'super offer', and you offered to turn people into celebrities with an amazing poster campaign and CRUELLY turned it around against them. With the letter K somewhere in the middle of it.

I suggest being less cryptic in future. And past.

That reads like a threat...


Very much this.

It absolutely is of course absolutely, and the very spirit of your question sir is exactly what I have been attempting to in any way provoke, inspire, or tediously bore from out of folks. You are a lawyer again.


Yes, that didn't go well at all. Which is a shame because it's actually just me trying to have some fun (good clean fun that everyone can enjoy) with tedious forum technical stuff, but ah well.


Mmm, nor that. Still, I'd have hoped that the Party Favour since posted would have added some meat to the skeleton of the idea in your mind*. Okay, I'll tell you now - it's genuinely a really cool thing, of limited but hopefully popular interest, and it's coming next week. It's not *quite* as hard to acquire as I thought, but this seems a recent event. So it's not quite as awesome, but it is still pretty awesome.

The thread itself was absolute bobbins though, and I apologise for such shitness.


Noted. Not so many fans of the cryptic here, then. Hey, we live, we learn. I hope.

* Some Meat To The Skeleton Of The Idea In Your Mind is the best album title that never was.

Nope. I can't find it anywhere, and I'm not going to try and describe it. It's from Keep Britain Tidy, which adds another level of hilariousness to it, maybe even two levels. Oh, three levels, ha-ha-ha. No, four! Ahahahaha!

That was a jolly reference (but obviously rewritten as a solo piece) to A Bit Of Fry And Laurie. I realise that if you haven't watched it then it might seem instead like I was just going mad, and further evidence of whatever you - I don't mean you specifically, I mean the general you used when someone is being a loudmouth twat as I am now - want to make it.

Oh. *noticing something* Hey - this wasn't some attempt to bring about "OMG YOU SAID PAKIS" tediousness or such. I hadn't even thought of pikeys. Full credit to forumite andyb for 'getting it', without needing to see the poster in question. Apologies to forumite andyb if you don't want my credit. I now feel justified. If only one person understands, then this will all be worth it.

Who is andyb?

So, smoking, eh? Or, we can not bother. Or, you can start again in a different thread.

I smoke. I like smoking. It is good as I commute so much and live alone in depression, wishing I could get a girlfriend near me. However, I'm fucking off somewhere soon, and I will be hardly commuting at all. This is excellent news, and I am going to therefore QUIT smoking then, as I won't "need to" anymore.

I look forward to calling all smokers cunts and generally being a horrible person, some time after then (oh, I'm just joking!!! )

Oof, that's not very cool is it :?

Also, I should probably say that the word isn't actually "smoking" or "smokers", although that it is a two-syllable word with a 'k' in the middle.

I smoke, and certainly feel a pang of guilt exhaling whenever small children walk by me on the street, but I can't help but feel the dangers of passive smoking have been massively over-stated by the anti-smoking lobby. "Passive smoking" is a very nebulous subject to do credible academic research on, and it's striking how rarely you see claims about the terrifying threat of passive smoking being backed up by real statistics.

Undeniably, smoking is an unpleasant habit, and something that all of us would be better off not getting involved with. That governments are keen to stop us doing it should come as no great surprise. However, I'm also sick of the modern preoccupation with longevity of life over getting on and living life, and so will always have a certain respect for those who were stupid enough to take up the habit in the first place.

I suspect the only argument that's going to get me to give up is the financial one (i.e. saving myself hundreds of pounds every year).

Passive smoking is not over-stated.

I'm hoping to leave the house I'm living in asap as the passive smoking there is making me cough up chewy shit.
I also get more coughing bouts and headaches there...I want to leave before something else happens. Not good.
As for children, yes the merest hint of smoke imo is veh bad.

I'm stating facts mind...the only thing that will make you give up is yourself.
I smoked 20-30 a day for quite a few years and tried several attempts at giving up. I finally did on my last attempt, 5 years ago this summer.

Huh - smoking. I told you it was too cryptic.

I smoke, have done for twelve years without a break. I reckon I've done it now, and I'm a bit fed up. I've always liked smoking, if not the fact that I was 'a smoker'. Besides, I promised my dad I'd quit before I hit 30.

GRIM... IS CONFUSED

The capitals match your avatar nicely though.

I, for one, enjoy your crypticality.

Cryptic is fine. Do, however, expect for it to be countered with whelks.

I'm not a biologist or a doctor, so obviously feel free to ignore absolutely everything that follows. For the purposes of disclosure, I quit smoking 5 years ago, but do not despise smokers. Although I do think you're all weak willed fools who may as well just be burning £5 notes every day

Passive smoking may well be a nebulous subject to do research on, but one wonders why one would need to.

Here's my thinking (such as it is).

Inhaling smoke from cigarettes indisputably damages the health of the smoker. Lots. Indisputably. Lots and lots.

I therefore cannot see how that same smoke, either after being breathed in and exhaled out by the smoker or just wafting off from the tip, fails to be harmful to the person sat next to you just because they're not holding the cigarette.

Logically, if smoke = harmful for the smoker, then that very same smoke must be harmful to the person sat next to you breathing it in. For me to be wrong, your lungs must somehow magically purify the smoke of all toxins and carcinogens before you exhale it, which doesn't happen.

And yes, passive smokers will inhale smoke at a lower rate and in smaller quantities than the smokers, but:

(a) passive smoking exposure obviously builds up with time and density of smokers, and bar staff (before the ban) were at a reasonably worrying risk of lung cancer and all that, as they were surrounded by hundreds of smokers for hours on end. We've all been in busy bars where merely breathing in is like smoking a fag, for heaven's sake. See also people who live in a smoking household where everyone smokes indoors.

(b) you only need to smoke one fag to develop lung cancer anyway. You'd have to be mahoosively unlucky, of course, but as there is (as I understand it) a running percentage chance of the carcinogens triggering a cancerous mutation each time they're inhaled, it's a risk. So therefore the same risk applies to a one off passive smoker, and much much more so to those who are repeatedly exposed to passive smoking. And it's not a risk that they're chosing to take. It's one that the smoker is inflicting on them.

As we've now banned smoking in enclosed public spaces we've probably done enough to reduce as far as is reasonably possible the risks to the general public of passive smoking, short of banning smoking outside as well (which would be taking things unecessarily too far). There's still the matter of people who smoke in their own houses around their children - these people are absolute 100% cunts, of course, but if we start mandating that they can't smoke in their own homes we've pretty much banned smoking, which I think we'd all agree would be a silly thing to do (see also every other attempt at prohibition). We should, however, ban smoking whilst pregnant. This has documented ill-effects to the baby, and if you can't get yourself together enough to quit smoking for just 9 months for the sake of the health of your unborn child, you may as well just repeatedly punch yourself in teh bump, too. It makes me very, very sad when I see pregnant women (usually young women/girls) smoking.

So, there we are.

The passive smokers won the legislative argument, and it's just the poor kids (born or yet to be born) living with smoking parents that are left carrying the can(cer) for the rest of us.

It's quite opposite where I live - flyposters everywhere inciting Isamic fundamentalism. The most common is 'GLOBAL WAR ON ISLAM' and I'm always tempted to scrawl 'Where do I sign up?' underneath.

What annoys me about passive smoking and the medical community is that it's one of those areas where people you would like to rely on as dispassionate scientists don't behave that way at all. They have a definite agenda and many will openly admit that the dangers of passive smoking have been exaggerated beyond what is really supported by the evidence in order to further their crusade to see smoking consigned to history altogether. Having said that I still support the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces as there is certainly enough evidence for it to be a prudent and entirely justifiable course of action. I just hate being lied to and patronised.

THIS IS LOTS OF FUN YES. (I'm the kid before you get funny.)