vpFREE2 Forums

Smoking Rant over and done

#1

In a message dated 1/11/2003 11:06:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
vpfreevp@yahoo.com writes:

It would be nice if members would exercise restraint
when discussing controversial subjects. Occasional
remarks on smoking, politics etc. shouldn't be a problem,

I'm not a big fan of the somewhat more restrictive speech code that exists on
the other major VP board but I do think Skip Hughes is on target with a "no
discussion of smoking" policy. No one has ever, to my knowledge, "won" an
argument on this subject and probably, never even changed one single mind.

But if you are going to introduce it, don't get upset when you get responses
and follow ups to those responses. I do hope that the ethnic reference I made
was construed as part of the reductio ad absurdum I was attempting with my
non smoking buddy, Quadzilla, and not meant to demean anyone.

Personally, BTW, I don't smoke habitually but will light a good cigar on
occasion. I try to do it when alone or away from others as I know it can be
irritating. I've never failed to respond to a polite request to stop
(sometimes by moving). Unlike some, I do not consider politeness and the
consideration of others to be a sign of weakness or dependency. I HAVE used
cigar smoke as an offensive weapon when I was otherwise unarmed.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

I do hope that the ethnic reference I made
was construed as part of the reductio ad absurdum I was attempting

with my

non smoking buddy, Quadzilla, and not meant to demean anyone.

i found your words to be derogatory, not funny, unnecessary to the
smoking discussion, and offensive

Frank

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, chiefvrwc2@a... wrote:

#3

I understood immediately that the reference contained no ill will, and I
believe that apologizing was the right thing to do. The fact is that some
of us forget every now and then that others don't always see the thought
behind the words, they only see the words. So while some immediately
appreciate the "taking it to the absurd" approach, others (regardless of
race or ethnicity) do not. But the mere fact that the "reductio ad
absurdum" was used is a strong indication that no ill will was intended. The
tactic in this case relies on use of a perceived stereotype that no longer
IS a perceived stereotype, in order to be effective. If the writer did not
see that important distinction, the tactic would not have been used.

Still, the words could be hurtful, and apparently were. I hope that the
writer's apology will be accepted at face value by those who were offended
and that the rest of us will be a little more careful when making our
points.

lb (my real initials, not alias initials)

···

i found your words to be derogatory, not funny, unnecessary to the
smoking discussion, and offensive

#4

I wonder how many would have been offended had the chief said "Dirty
Jew" or "Dirty N*****"? Maybe offending a person of Asian ancestry
carries less weight than someone of Jewish or African ancestry in
this group? Since only myself and Frank objected to the slang I have
to wonder.

WW

Still, the words could be hurtful, and apparently were. I hope that

the

writer's apology will be accepted at face value by those who were

offended

and that the rest of us will be a little more careful when making

our

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Lawrence Boxer" <ljboxer@e...> wrote:

points.

lb (my real initials, not alias initials)

> i found your words to be derogatory, not funny, unnecessary to the
> smoking discussion, and offensive
>

#5

Since only myself and Frank objected to the slang I have to wonder.<<

This is the kind of situation that most people go to great lengths to avoid
getting involved in. It is awkward, highly flammable, and in this group
it's off topic. Most members of this group do not post. I think it's fair
to assume that many of them read the reference, did not like it, but did not
post their objection.

The writer has already apologized, twice. I was offended by his remark but I
accept the apology at face value, and I'm ready to move on to other topics
and other arguments. How about you?
lb

···

I wonder how many would have been offended had the chief said "Dirty
Jew" or "Dirty N*****"? Maybe offending a person of Asian ancestry
carries less weight than someone of Jewish or African ancestry in
this group? Since only myself and Frank objected to the slang I have
to wonder.

WW

#6

Half-time Jets-Raiders, so here's a question on a new topic.

Admittedly, most locals steer clear of Strip hotels due to less than optimum
pay tables. But a link to a story about lower than expected earnings of
major chains recently appeared here, and the story quoted a Mandalay
marketing person (I believe) as saying that Luxor was now being marketed to
low-end clientelle. I was surprised. I thought that when we moved from the
Flamingo to Luxor we were taking a step up!

Anybody got anything to add about whether or not Luxor has fallen in
prestige, or about any of the other Strip properties? Do some of you locals
enjoy hanging around these casinos, regardless of whether or not you do most
of your playing there? Or is at, as it appears to be, like two seperate
cities, one for the locals, who have their own places, and one for the
uneducated touristas, who are relagated to the low-pay Strip carpet joints?
Does it upset you when you drive into the Gold Coast parking structure and
see a few California licence plates? If so, I'll move my car.

lb