e-liquid vapor is simply water vapor? Wow, that's news to me...
It helps to know who you are talking to if you quote them.
If you are meaning the "50% water vapor", how do you transform that into "simply water vapor"?
Why Vapers are getting a BAD NAME.
- Thread starter LEDBETTER122
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It helps to know who you are talking to if you quote them.
If you are meaning the "50% water vapor", how do you transform that into "simply water vapor"?
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...9160-analysis-electronic-cigarette-vapor.html
Did they ever Figure out what the Remaining 17% Was?
You don't know what, why you ignored the "50%" right above that sentence? Why you didn't quote the whole thing when you finally did quote it?
I have a pretty good idea of why on both accounts.
Obviously, you don't own anything, and do not understand much about the rights of private property. Have you been living under a rock or something?
Where I live, if somebody posts signs on their property (no tresspassing, or no hunting) and you defy those signs by doing something without their permission, it is a violation of tresspassing laws. We call the Sheriff. (Of course, if they're a no nonsense bunch, they don't call the Sheriff, they just pick you up and throw you out into the road from where you came.
In America, people work hard to own things. Unfortunately, there will always be people who pervasively disregard that which lawfully belongs to others.
If somebody bought 20 acres and a house and barn, and they don't want trespassing or hunting there, they owe you no explanation.
If you don't like it, work hard and buy your own private property. Simple.
Another good reason to quote I guess. It was there the first time I saw it.
Obviously, you don't own anything, and do not understand much about the rights of private property. Have you been living under a rock or something?
Where I live, if somebody posts signs on their property (no tresspassing, or no hunting) and you defy those signs by doing something without their permission, it is a violation of tresspassing laws. We call the Sheriff. (Of course, if they're a no nonsense bunch, they don't call the Sheriff, they just pick you up and throw you out into the road from where you came.
In America, people work hard to own things. Unfortunately, there will always be people who pervasively disregard that which lawfully belongs to others.
If somebody bought 20 acres and a house and barn, and they don't want trespassing or hunting there, they owe you no explanation.
If you don't like it, work hard and buy your own private property. Simple.
The last sentence, is debatable. The liberals want the right to impose upon private property, in the name of the common good. In the northwest, it's for a trail that connects all open space lands together, & they have to go through private property in order to do it. The GPU fights are very entertaining to say the least. There are places you can't collect rain water, grow vegetables, growing organic food or natural fed animals, be off grid with solar panels, all in the name of making sure nobody is self sufficient so that everybody relies on the gov. Socialism I believe is the term for that. So, even a private property owner really isn't a private property owner anymore in this day and age. What works for the goose, must also work for the gander.
Last edited:
You're right, my bad. Just trying to relay how much the concept of private and private property has changed. Business owners don't get a say, condo owners are in peril, with vaping or smoking or both, and that's just one little aspect of private property issues on board. It fits in the topic, but in another persons articulated voice.
I wish I would've thought about that for the answer to the "we be southern, we so bad" property rights rant in defense of the ANTZ telling people they can't smoker OR vape on their own property.
The PNW is insane for the property rights stuff you mention. I would not do well there.
Obviously, you'd rather make your point about me rather than the points up for discussion.
Where I live, if somebody posts signs on their property (no tresspassing, or no hunting) and you defy those signs by doing something without their permission, it is a violation of tresspassing laws. We call the Sheriff. (Of course, if they're a no nonsense bunch, they don't call the Sheriff, they just pick you up and throw you out into the road from where you came.
Still going to vape there, and still not going to get caught.
So, if someone with private property had signs that said no vaping, and this applied to their outdoors, would you not vape there? Likewise, if government had law in place that said no vaping in parks or on beaches, would you not vape there?
All this in response to my point of "if some place disallows vaping, then it behooves vaper to ask why." Instead you go on some diatribe that changes nothing about my vape everywhere position.
Last edited:
Actually it is. The many should noy have to cater to the few, they should have just had him rat in a classroom if it was that much of a problem. However i would like to note that it all worked out in the end, a friend of mine introduced me to sunflower seed bitter later that year SO GOOD
Would you prefer that bars had drive throughs?
I would say there is some truth that legal immigrants may know more than some "actual citizens" but then I would suggest to you that there are few countries that have the opportunities that the US has for immigrants. I know of no other country that does as much to accommodate immigrants. I do wish our own citizenry had more knowledge of history, politics, economics, etc.. I have often thought we would be better off if in addition to being required to own property to be allowed to vote that you should be required to take a test on politics, history, current events, etc to obtain your voter's registration card.
Not sure what your point is own how many people are in prison.
It appears we are drastically cutting our military spending. The last article I read even suggested our service men and women will be paying some of their medical care costs. Imagine that, the defenders of our freedom will be required to pay for some of their medical benefits while welfare recipients will continue to get theirs for free.
Welfare is a burden, 49% of the population (counts those on medicare) are on the dole. While I am sure there are many that deserve some form of assistance the vast majority have turned welfare in to the family business, passed down through the generations. End it now.
Not that simple - we're veering way off topic here but if a kid eats peanut butter, doesn't wash his hands, then opens a bathroom door and the allergic kid grabs the handle after, it could cause a reaction. Lots of examples of that - drinking fountains, etc. If you allow the whole school to bring peanut butter the risk increases proportionally because let's face it, kids aren't that clean. When it comes to life and death matters I'd think a kid's right to go to school without fear of dying outweighs someone's craving for peanut butter. For them it's a minor inconvenience, for the kid it's their life. Peanut allergies are much more common now than they used to be (no one knows why yet).
Almond butter is awesome too.
Not that simple - we're veering way off topic here but if a kid eats peanut butter, doesn't wash his hands, then opens a bathroom door and the allergic kid grabs the handle after, it could cause a reaction. Lots of examples of that - drinking fountains, etc. If you allow the whole school to bring peanut butter the risk increases proportionally because let's face it, kids aren't that clean. When it comes to life and death matters I'd think a kid's right to go to school without fear of dying outweighs someone's craving for peanut butter. For them it's a minor inconvenience, for the kid it's their life. Peanut allergies are much more common now than they used to be (no one knows why yet).
Almond butter is awesome too.
And if a kid has a PBJ for breakfast and touches the same bathroom door?
Perhaps it's the kid's parents responsibility to take care of matters even if it means their kid doesn't get to go to a public school.
You remind me of a story I heard (I think here) of a lady buying a house next to a neighbor's tree she allegedly couldn't live next to and demanded it be cut down. Screw that. People are responsible for themselves and if they can't be in the general public they shouldn't expect the general public to change for them.
If you're deathly allergic to food flavorings or PG you've got bigger things to worry about in public than ecig vapor.
Key word there is public. Every child has the right to attend a public school which is funded by the taxpayers, including the parents of the allergic child. It's also a huge liability for the school if a child dies there because of something a policy could have prevented. I agree with you about the woman and tree but a public school is a different matter entirely. I know of a lot of private schools also that don't allow peanuts because of liability issues.
Seriously, the right to eat peanut butter outweighs the risk of death to an allergic kid? I don't understand that mentality, I really don't.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
