How would you convince your girlfriend to quit smoking?

I met my first girlfriend in a university. My only problem with her was that she was a chain smoker. She knew that I never smoked so she refrained from smoking in my car. However, she told her friend who was sitting at the back that she had the urge to smoke. I felt like a jerk for not telling her to go ahead and smoke. On the other hand, I was concerned for her health. She was very young and healthy at that time, but I was concerned for the long term effects, especially if I was to live with her for a long time.

I'm single at this moment. Recently, I went to a jazz cafe where I saw a very attractive woman. I felt the urge to ask her out, but I decided not to after seeing her take out another cigarette. I saw her smoking earlier when I was in my car at the parking lot. She stood near me in the cafe at one time. Now the question is, if I managed to ask her out, how would I get her to quit smoking? I know that I couldn't get her to quit right away. I know a lot of smokers. If I knew that I could eventually get her to quit, say within months or even years, then I would've started a conversation with her.

Heh quiting smoking is a metaphore for killing someone, just so you know. A smoke ain't that bad it isn't like you are licking out an ashtray. There are these neat mentol sigarettes, there is a tiny bubble with mint in the back, squeeze it when it's almost smoked up and it's the same as chewing gum, perfect breath.

Make peace with it or break up with her.

Quote:

---

A smoke ain't that bad it isn't like you are licking out an ashtray.

---

Not if you consider ingesting over 4000 different chemicals, mostly all which are harmful to the human body. Second-hand smoke is actually worse than sucking on the cigarette itself because the inhaler doesn't get the benefit of a filter. And a smoker, especially a heavy smoker, doesn't realize just how bad they smell....something I found out after my sense of smell started returning after I quit.

Noone is going to quit unless they want to do so themselves. I know....I was a smoker for 33 years. I was an athlete in my younger days and have still kept myself in good physical condition. I eat healthy, and lead a very active life. And even though I knew how bad cigarettes were for my health...I still smoked.

One day I was downtown at city hall to get some paperwork done for my home. After parking my vehicle on the 8th level of a nearby parking garage, I took the stairs down...after all, I'm still in good shape, right? Going down is no problem but...on the way back up, I got to the 6th floor and I started getting dizzy, short of breath, and my heart felt like it was going to burst. I thought to myself...what a crappy way to die....on the 6th floor stairwell in a downtown parking garage. I could just imagine some vagrant finding me, taking all the cash and my credit card out of my wallet, and then pissing all over me in the excitement.

I had three cigarettes left in the pack I was smoking. After I smoked those, they were the last. That was almost 10 months ago.

My suggestion? Take her out for some fun activity that requires strenuous physical exertion...and no, sex doesn't count~D If she doesn't get it after that.....

I am not a heavy smoker but I am in perfect shape, maybe it's just your age acting up. I have no trouble getting to the twelth floor I never take an elevator, I hate things I can't get out off, I always take the stairs.

Apply a nicotine patch to little Shaka Khan. Whenever she needs a smoke, you both win

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I am not a heavy smoker but I am in perfect shape, maybe it's just your age acting up. I have no trouble getting to the twelth floor I never take an elevator, I hate things I can't get out off, I always take the stairs.

---

It's probably both. Smoking always reduces lung capacity, it's just that you got plenty to spare, so it takes decades before it starts to become a problem. Excepting top athletes of course, there's a reason why it's very rare with smoking athletes.

Quote:

---

Second-hand smoke is actually worse than sucking on the cigarette itself because the inhaler doesn't get the benefit of a filter.

---

Evidence or propaganda?

Tell me, how many death certificates cite second hand smoking as the cause of death?

Have a wild guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

It's probably both. Smoking always reduces lung capacity, it's just that you got plenty to spare, so it takes decades before it starts to become a problem. Excepting top athletes of course, there's a reason why it's very rare with smoking athletes.

---

I am no athlete, I just cycle a bit, but I am not very serious about it, I just like the forest here. Spotting birds that sort of stuff. I am 37 but I never noticed that I can do less than when I was 18, just gotten stronger really, and I have been smoking since I was 16 or so. I know it isn't good for you but I don't think it's all that bad either really.

Give her a different stick to suckle....

I think she has to want it, as ReluctantSamurai says. Otherwise you could try to make her join a fundamentalist christian church.

As for second hand smoke, wouldn't the smoker her/himself also inhale some of it? And whether it would end up on my death certificate doesn't concern me. I don't want that stinking stuff in my face, my hair and my clothes and that's what I care about. They're okay as long as I'm not downwind from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I think she has to want it, as ReluctantSamurai says. Otherwise you could try to make her join a fundamentalist christian church.

As for second hand smoke, wouldn't the smoker her/himself also inhale some of it? And whether it would end up on my death certificate doesn't concern me. I don't want that stinking stuff in my face, my hair and my clothes and that's what I care about. They're okay as long as I'm not downwind from them.

---

Christian fundies aren't that opposed to smoking, are they? Wouldn't it be better to get her to join a Salafist group?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Christian fundies aren't that opposed to smoking, are they? Wouldn't it be better to get her to join a Salafist group?

---

Wrong way around. In Christianity, your body is god's temple and you should take good care of it, that's why smoking is usually not okay, although it may not be seen as a great sin. I've seen so many muslims who smoke but wouldn't touch alcohol that I'm not sure that is the right direction to take. Salafists may be different, but they also make it more likely for your girlfriend to get a secret police escort, so there may be unwanted side effects. If she looks cute in a hijab, I'd consider that a bonus though. Both have a risk of her opening a topic called "How would you convince your boyfriend to quit being a heathen?" however.

I don't really think there is consensus on the subject of smoking nicotine within Salafi groups, but I understand that most of them would outright reject it.

As much as I am in no position to be giving advice on something like this, I don't think it is appropriate for you to be commenting on her lifestyle if this is a girl you are only even considering dating at this stage. It's not fair to her and I don't think you would come across well doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Evidence or propaganda?

Tell me, how many death certificates cite second hand smoking as the cause of death?

Have a wild guess.

---

Yeah, I also call BS on that one.

I also agree with Rhyf, dating is to early to try and change someones habits. Deal with it or move on.

Quote:

---

I am no athlete, I just cycle a bit, but I am not very serious about it, I just like the forest here. Spotting birds that sort of stuff. I am 37 but I never noticed that I can do less than when I was 18, just gotten stronger really, and I have been smoking since I was 16 or so. I know it isn't good for you but I don't think it's all that bad either really.

---

Dude...you're talking to someone who smoked for 33 years. I know all the rationalizations, all the excuses. When you have your moment of truth, you will stop deluding yourself and quit.

Quote:

---

I am not a heavy smoker but I am in perfect shape, maybe it's just your age acting up

---

Not hardly. I am still at the weight I was 30 years ago, I ride my bike 5-10 miles/day, and I can still put in a 9 or 10 hour day doing construction work. But when enduring a heavy cardiovascular stress in a short time period......fail.

Quote:

---

Evidence or propaganda? Tell me, how many death certificates cite second hand smoking as the cause of death? Have a wild guess.

---

Don't need to guess. From the CDC:

For nonsmokers, breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk for heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.1,3
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke increase their heart disease risk by
25–30%.3
It is estimated that secondhand smoke exposure caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths annually (during 2005–2009) among adult nonsmokers in the United States.1
Stroke is caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.1


Lung Cancer

Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.3
Secondhand smoke exposure causes an estimated more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths annually (for 2005–2009) among adult nonsmokers in the United States.1

Care to read the report:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...general_facts/

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

I met my first girlfriend in a university. My only problem with her was that she was a chain smoker. She knew that I never smoked so she refrained from smoking in my car. However, she told her friend who was sitting at the back that she had the urge to smoke. I felt like a jerk for not telling her to go ahead and smoke. On the other hand, I was concerned for her health. She was very young and healthy at that time, but I was concerned for the long term effects, especially if I was to live with her for a long time.

I'm single at this moment. Recently, I went to a jazz cafe where I saw a very attractive woman. I felt the urge to ask her out, but I decided not to after seeing her take out another cigarette. I saw her smoking earlier when I was in my car at the parking lot. She stood near me in the cafe at one time. Now the question is, if I managed to ask her out, how would I get her to quit smoking? I know that I couldn't get her to quit right away. I know a lot of smokers. If I knew that I could eventually get her to quit, say within months or even years, then I would've started a conversation with her.

---

OK - I think the guys are just to nice - so I'm gonna be the bastard and say it.

Shaka, buddy, this is a downright creepy line of thought. You're looking at this girl as though she's a promising piece of marble that you can chip the undesirable parts off until you have your ideal woman. She's a human being - she has free will and she does what she WANTS.

So - here's what you can do - go up to her and say the following, "Hey baby, I'd totally date you but you need to give up the smokes."

Make sure to be carrying a bag of ice for your balls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

OK - I think the guys are just to nice - so I'm gonna be the bastard and say it.

Shaka, buddy, this is a downright creepy line of thought. You're looking at this girl as though she's a promising piece of marble that you can chip the undesirable parts off until you have your ideal woman. She's a human being - she has free will and she does what she WANTS.

So - here's what you can do - go up to her and say the following, "Hey baby, I'd totally date you but you need to give up the smokes."

Make sure to be carrying a bag of ice for your balls.

---

I take it that you're a chain smoker and you get into fits of rage if someone tries to get you to stop, even if that person is concerned for your health. I know some people who are like you. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about forcing someone.

If you're not a chain smoker, well then I guess you haven't been with one. I had a roommate who chain smoked, and the smell got on all of my clothes. The other people didn't like how I smelled.

I was just being nice too. I get annoyed when my coworker goes out to smoke in the middle of a conversation with our client. To be fair, that was during dinner time so it was more relaxed than a business meeting. However, he has smoked during our visits to the factory. We had to wait for him to start a business meeting. I didn't say anything about it to him, although one of our clients was annoyed when we had to wait for him.

Quote:

---

It is estimated that secondhand smoke exposure caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths annually

---

Quote:

---

Secondhand smoke exposure causes an estimated more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths annually

---

So no evidence just a guess then. Be wary of weasel words.

Quote:

---

I take it that you're a chain smoker and you get into fits of rage if someone tries to get you to stop, even if that person is concerned for your health.

---

First off, it's none of your business. Second, this stinks of "I know what's best for you, now go away, do as your told and shut up".

Neither is good for a relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

So no evidence just a guess then. Be wary of weasel words.

---

No, they are pretty definite about second hand smoke being unhealthy (sentences prior to the estimate). Estimated is not a weasel word. Estimated means that they know in terms of statistics how big the correlation between being exposed to second hand smoke (aka being around smokers) and dieing from stroke or other cardiovascular disease is and that they have run the numbers to calculate the effects of that correlation on a whole population.

Is it on the death certificates then? If not, then it's not the cause of death.

To my mind there's far too much nannying going on nowadays. Fat, salt, sugar, fast food, alcohol, cigarettes, vapers = bad.

Nannying fussbuckets = good.

Go read my sig.

Definition of estimate.

Quote:

---

roughly calculate or judge the value, number, quantity, or extent of.
"the aim is to estimate the effects of macroeconomic policy on the economy"synonyms: roughly calculate, approximate, make an estimate of, guess, evaluate, judge, gauge, reckon, rate, appraise, form an opinion of, form an impression of, get the measure of, determine, weigh up;

---

A guess then :smug:

Quote:

---

No, they are pretty definite about second hand smoke being unhealthy

---

Like I said, be wary of weasel words. People use them all the time without thinking.

"Eating at MacDonalds" won't ever be listed as a cause of death either, so I guess eating every meal at MacDonalds every day is healthy.

"Lack of excercise" isn't listed either, so I can sit in the couch all day with no worries.

What an outrageously silly statement.

And no, an estimate is not a guess. Go take a statistics class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I am no athlete, I just cycle a bit, but I am not very serious about it, I just like the forest here. Spotting birds that sort of stuff. I am 37 but I never noticed that I can do less than when I was 18, just gotten stronger really, and I have been smoking since I was 16 or so. I know it isn't good for you but I don't think it's all that bad either really.

---

IIRC it starts to be really notable after 35, before that your body can keep up with repairs. COPD normally starts to appear after 30-50 years of smoking for example, so it take a while. There's also quite a bit of difference between smoking 2 cigarettes a day and 20.

Quote:

---

Is it on the death certificates then? If not, then it's not the cause of death.

---

Strawman argument if there ever was one:inquisitive: Thousands of people die every year from cardiovascular diseases due to high fat diets and sedentary lifestyles, for instance. That cause of death won't be listed either, but it's damn certain what killed them. It's a fact that smoking kills the smoker eventually. It's not illogical that people die from being exposed secondhand to the very same toxins that kill those who inhale them directly. You asked for data on deaths attributed to secondhand smoke, and you got a best estimate from a source whose business it is to track such things. If you don't like it.....

......go have another smoke~:smoking:

Quote:

---

And no, an estimate is not a guess. Go take a statistics class

---

An estimate is a guess. Go take an English class as you obviously don't understand the language.

Quote:

---

Thousands of people die every year from cardiovascular diseases due to high fat diets and sedentary lifestyles, for instance.

---

And you called my response a strawman.

There has never even been a proven link between lung cancer and smoking, never mind second hand smoking. Or even that hair-brained idea of third hand smoking.

People need to stop being hard of thinking and swallowing all the propaganda.

Follow the money as the Yanks say.

Quote:

---

go have another smoke

---

I stopped smoking five years ago.

Here's your proof....

Quote:

---

A 2011 study found that more than four in five lung cancers are caused by smoking. 5 In 2002, lung cancer killed around 33,600 people - about one person every 15 minutes. 9

Tobacco smoke was first shown to cause lung cancer in 1950. 10 This study found that people who smoked 15-24 cigarettes a day had 26 times the lung cancer risk of non-smokers. And people who smoked less than 15 cigarettes a day still had 8 times the lung cancer risk of non-smokers.

After these first results came out, UK scientists began a large study of smoking in British doctors, which Cancer Research UK has helped to fund. 11 This British Doctors’ Study has provided much of our current knowledge about the dangers of smoking.

---

Quote:

---

There is some evidence that smoking could also cause other cancers including bowel cancer and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

---

Weasel words bolded.

Now then summat for you to mull over my prohibitionists friends...

Quote:

---

Their findings, published today in the online edition of Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, suggests that "nature" (in the form of protective longevity genes) may be more important than "nurture" (lifestyle behaviors) when it comes to living an exceptionally long life. Nir Barzilai, M.D., the Ingeborg and Ira Leon Rennert Chair of Aging Research and director of the Institute for Aging Research at Einstein, was the senior author of the study. - See more at: https://www.einstein.yu.edu/news/rel....1CXt1Dtn.dpuf

---

Quote:

---

Overall, people with exceptional longevity did not have healthier habits than the comparison group in terms of BMI, smoking, physical activity, or diet. For example, 27 percent of the elderly women and an equal percentage of women in the general population attempted to eat a low-calorie diet. Among long-living men, 24 percent consumed alcohol daily, compared with 22 percent of the general population. And only 43 percent of male centenarians reported engaging in regular exercise of moderate intensity, compared with 57 percent of men in the comparison group. - See more at: https://www.einstein.yu.edu/news/rel....1CXt1Dtn.dpuf

---

https://www.einstein.yu.edu/news/rel...-expectations/

Like I said, learn to think for yourselves.

Exceptionally irrelevant to the discussion.

Kudos for finding a study which has nothing to do with the subject of the thread whatsoever.


And "estimate" in the context used here is a mathematical term. In this context, "estimate" describes something which is pretty darn certain, way above the level of a "guess".

When I estimate the length of a side of a triangle, for example, I'm not just guessing. I estimate a length I can be quite confident is very close to the exact number. Or for a more practical example, take crowd counting. You can do it by counting the number of people in a small section deemed to contain an average number of person, then multiplying that section with the total number of sections. The number you get is an estimate, but it's pretty damned accurate. Far better than a simple guess.

I suggest you learn your own language properly.

And yeah, 'follow the money'... Less smoking means less tax income for the state and less profit for companies, which in turn creates even less taxes. Clearly, this is a ploy by the government to get more taxes by taxing people less. Evil gubmintz.

First global warming now second hand smoking, if it turns out IA has been wearing a tinfoil hat this whole time I wouldnt be surprised.

I love you guys you're so predictable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I love you guys you're so predictable.

---

Instead of meaningless remarks, how about you dig up a mathematical paper using the word "estimate" with the meaning of "guess"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I love you guys you're so predictable.

---

Weasel words! LULZ, he's just guessing guys!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

I take it that you're a chain smoker and you get into fits of rage if someone tries to get you to stop, even if that person is concerned for your health. I know some people who are like you. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about forcing someone.

If you're not a chain smoker, well then I guess you haven't been with one. I had a roommate who chain smoked, and the smell got on all of my clothes. The other people didn't like how I smelled.

I was just being nice too. I get annoyed when my coworker goes out to smoke in the middle of a conversation with our client. To be fair, that was during dinner time so it was more relaxed than a business meeting. However, he has smoked during our visits to the factory. We had to wait for him to start a business meeting. I didn't say anything about it to him, although one of our clients was annoyed when we had to wait for him.

---

Can't abide cigarettes - hated living with smokers at university, would never date one.

So you're pretty much wrong on all counts there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Like I said, be wary of weasel words. People use them all the time without thinking.

---

I meant pretty definite as an euphemism for: bluntly asserting facts.

If you read the quoted bit posted by ReluctantSamurai you don't find any qualifiers like maybe, probably or likely. You find bald assertions.

An estimate is not the same as a guess, either. It's probably a bit subtle for you but estimate refers to extrapolation of data. Whatever people colloquially use it for, in the context of statistics and reporting it has a very specific meaning and the difference with a guess is that you have data and used statistically sound techniques to back up your claims.

Now, if you want to argue that the techniques used to derive the estimate are either wrong (say, using a binomial distribution instead of poisson distribution in queuing theory) or the data is bad (using unrepresentative sample sizes) or that the CDC forgot to control for other causes which need to be taken into account... that's another issue entirely and I'm sure the CDC would be keen to share in your advanced understanding of second hand smoke.

Just because estimate is often colloquially used to refer to a wild guess does not mean the authors of a report on statistics make the same mistake.

Quote:

---

Just because estimate is often colloquially used to refer to a wild guess does not mean the authors of a report on statistics make the same mistake.

---

Well put:bow:

In using the word "estimate" within the material quoted, it means there is a variance +/- from the number of deaths given. But....it's a FACT, that smoking kills and debilitates people with numerous cancers and other diseases.

Quote:

---

There has never even been a proven link between lung cancer and smoking, never mind second hand smoking.

---

Really? With all the hundreds (thousands?) of studies done that prove the link between smoking and lung cancer I cannot believe that anyone lives in such ignorant bliss as to make a claim like this. And no, I'm not going to waste my time finding you all kinds of links to such studies (which you obviously wouldn't believe anyway), you can do that for yourself if you wish. The CDC link I posted is as good as any......

But I do agree with this:

Quote:

---

Second, this stinks of "I know what's best for you, now go away, do as your told and shut up". Neither is good for a relationship.

---

Forcing ones beliefs on someone else is never going to work, in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

There has never even been a proven link between lung cancer and smoking, never mind second hand smoking. Or even that hair-brained idea of third hand smoking.

---

With that type of proof, lead sweeteners are perfectly safe. So is radiation. Or anything outside acute posioning.

Studies estimate that about 95% of the people getting COPD in the UK are smokers, or about 15% of the total smoking population. About 50% of the smokers gets no lung problems at all. With all those weasel words, it's clear that there's no proof between smoking and COPD. I mean, you could be a chain smoker and would've gotten COPD even if you didn't smoke. So cause of death can't be 100% certain to be done by smoking. And since you can't write killing cause to be smoking, clearly smoking doesn't kill, even if COPD does.

Did I mention that the 1950 study got similar numbers? 93-95% of all lung cancer cases happened to smokers (who were about 37-40% of the population). Purely circumstancial evidences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Like I said, learn to think for yourselves.

---

I can, in fact I am so good at it I can spot "weasel words" as well as anybody. From your own article:

Quote:

---

Their findings, published today in the online edition of Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, suggests that "nature" (in the form of protective longevity genes) may be more important than "nurture" (lifestyle behaviors) when it comes to living an exceptionally long life.

---

Quote:

---

The elderly participants were asked about their lifestyles at age 70, considered representative of the lifestyle they’d followed for most of their adult lives.

---

Quote:

---

In previous studies of our centenarians, we’ve identified gene variants that exert particular physiology effects

---

Quote:

---

"This study suggests that centenarians may possess additional longevity genes that help to buffer them against the harmful effects of an unhealthy lifestyle."

---

Quote:

---

While longevity genes may protect centenarians from bad habits

---

I also don't think you understood the article. Check out this paragraph, which kind of paints their findings in a different light from that which you presented:

Quote:

---

"Although this study demonstrates that centenarians can be obese, smoke and avoid exercise, those lifestyle habits are not good choices for most of us who do not have a family history of longevity," said Dr. Barzilai. "We should watch our weight, avoid smoking and be sure to exercise, since these activities have been shown to have great health benefits for the general population, including a longer lifespan."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Evidence or propaganda?

Tell me, how many death certificates cite second hand smoking as the cause of death?

Have a wild guess.

---

I think I had read somewhere that it had zero to do with harming anyone, except for triggering asthmatic symptoms in extant asthmatics. Now where did I read that bit....

Never recall seeing this term before. Do all disciplines employ the term "weasel words?" Maybe my courses were in the wrong field.

RE: the OP topic - Seriously? You would consider dating a person if you reasonably believe you can change their lifestyle? Seems like you might have the cart way out in front of the horse there? Perhaps after a few more encounters you might find that smoking isn't a big part of their life? Perhaps you find out that they are really into torturing their mates. Either way I think before you go attempting to alter a persons lifestyle I think you should find out if they even give a flip for your opinion.

I think the OP has been misunderstood.

All he's saying is that he is hesitant to consider dating long-term smokers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I think the OP has been misunderstood.

All he's saying is that he is hesitant to consider dating long-term smokers.

---

Well then, dont. Or do. Or whatever.

I found a fair rule of thumb is to not get together with a girl if you from the start want to change something about her. Plenty off time to find out about the little quirks later...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Well then, dont. Or do. Or whatever.

I found a fair rule of thumb is to not get together with a girl if you from the start want to change something about her. Plenty off time to find out about the little quirks later...

---

That's a good rule of thumb.

5 sigma confidence? Either it's there or not! Get these weasel words out of my science!

Knew I had read it somewhere...

Source

Obviously this study only calls into question the carcinogenic character of second hand smoke, the numerous other health issues associated with it were not "debunkd" at all. Moreover, the more commonly held opinion based on other studies is that it IS carcinogenic.

Quote:

---

What this study basically showed is what people kind of knew already: At low passive exposures the risk is not that great

---

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there's a big difference between being exposed to second-hand smoke from a partner/spouse that smokes half a pack a day, to one that chain smokes two or three packs a day. And that pales in comparison to working in a bar or bowling alley where the smoke is so thick you'd think there was a brush fire happening in the johns......

But then there's this:

Quote:

---

The study doesn’t cover the many other ill effects of breathing somebody else’s cigarette smoke, of course, which include asthma and possibly cardio-pulmonary disease.

---

Oops:creep:

Bottom line for the OP was summed up pretty well by K AD: probably not a good idea to hook up with someone if you're looking to change something about that person right from the get-go....

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there's a big difference between being exposed to second-hand smoke from a partner/spouse that smokes half a pack a day, to one that chain smokes two or three packs a day. And that pales in comparison to working in a bar or bowling alley where the smoke is so thick you'd think there was a brush fire happening in the johns......

But then there's this:



Oops:creep:

Bottom line for the OP was summed up pretty well by K AD: probably not a good idea to hook up with someone if you're looking to change something about that person right from the get-go....

~:smoking:

---

disagree. i hook up with people, change them for the better and then move on to another project that deserves my attention. Thats just how i roll, improving humanity, creating a better world for our offspring, 1 gall at a time.

marry me

Answer for the OP: Just take up chewing tobacco and spit on her porch, then she asks you what the **** you are doing, just compromise that you give up the chew if she gives up the cigs.


OR... you could move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

marry me

---

tell me, how big are your flaws in comparison to your boobs?

I don't have boobs, but my penis is below-average. My flaws are as big as you want them to be, baby. Does that help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

disagree. i hook up with people, change them for the better and then move on to another project that deserves my attention. Thats just how i roll, improving humanity, creating a better world for our offspring, 1 gall at a time.

---

That's a nice twist to getting rejected and self-awareness, improving humanity by not getting any ;)

On to you mia muca

pm me, and we can work something out. i dont usually do guys, but i guess ill take on for team humanity.

I know we quite often get derailed from topic...

But turning a thread into a contact site for a homosexual meeting with small dick preference...

Yepp, it's a first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

pm me, and we can work something out. i dont usually do guys, but i guess ill take on for team humanity.

---

The gods will cry, duo penoty from the tenth circle of hell. And Montmorency will like but that's normal.

eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

eh?

---

It will make sense eventually

nothing you say has ever made sense... to anyone. including yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

eh?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

nothing you say has ever made sense... to anyone. including yourself

---

LOL, you clearly missed the Unicorn reference there, didn't you?

You are such a "pick the yellow pill" guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lurker Below

Never recall seeing this term before. Do all disciplines employ the term "weasel words?" Maybe my courses were in the wrong field.

---

Weasel words are a topic of study in sociolinguistics, particularly involving their use in marketing. Someone can use words to give customers a certain impression, which may very well be inaccurate, but in such a way that they can't really be called out for lying or false advertising either.

For instance, if you buy some tortillas or whatever with the words "25% Larger!" boldly printed near the top of the package. It gives the impression that they're big, but doesn't actually tell you anything. Larger than what? Competitors' tortillas? Which ones? Not all tortillas sold by competitors are the same size, so these can't be 25% larger than all of them. Or are they 25% larger than tortillas previously sold by the same company? Chances are that same company sells tortillas in multiple sizes, too. Are they 25% larger than the average tortilla on the market? They may not even be that big to begin with, because it doesn't matter how big they are. You can say tiny tortillas are 25% larger, or that enormous ones are, and it's just as appropriate because there's no frame of reference.

Or when Geico tells you you could save up to 15% or more on car insurance. Why is the number even there? "Up to 15%" includes everything from no savings at all (which is not very impressive to a consumer) all the way to 15%. "Or more" includes every number higher than 15%. So ultimately, it means the same thing as "you might be able to save some as yet unknown amount of money on your car insurance," which is kind of brainlessly obvious. 15% sounds like an impressive figure in a way that 1% doesn't, so even though it adds nothing in literal meaning to the ad, it makes people think of higher savings than they might otherwise.

In reference to product promotion any basic speech class will point out the strategies of marketing. It doesn't take a class with 5 syllables to get there. In reference to intellectual research using such a term seems rather demeaning, almost bullying. Show me a study with NO option for the exception and for me, it loses some of its credibility. My question was rhetorical. The point I wanted to forward but was avoiding being too forward in making it, was that replying to a post with "WEASEL WORDS! OMG! GTFO!" kind of responses is pointless, inane, demeaning, a waste of both the posters and readers time, etc...