thoughts?

[This is a simple issue. Government has the obligation to protect workers from hazardous chemical exposure and does so in many industries including dry cleaning, painting, and pest control. All of these businesses would undoubtedly be more profitable without this interference, but few would argue that worker safety is not justification enough.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Wanda Hamilton,

quote:

Originally posted by NicoNazi:
thoughts?

[This is a simple issue. Government has the obligation to protect workers from hazardous chemical exposure and does so in many industries including dry cleaning, painting, and pest control. All of these businesses would undoubtedly be more profitable without this interference, but few would argue that worker safety is not justification enough.

Why should bars be any different? Cigarette smoke is indeed a hazardous chemical and workers should be protected BECAUSE EXPOSRE REALLY IS HARMFUL.

All still use chemicals that can harm some. Some have a lower tolerence to these chemicals then others. It is a matter of dosage.

Chlorine is a harmful chemical, yet we allow our children to bathe in it at public swimming pools.

Your Father worked in a smoked filled bar for 35 years, yet he lives. I know of an individual that entered a Pet Store once, and died from a reaction to Cat dander.

Do we ban Cats from pet stores.

This is, of course, your entire argument in a nutshell.

The thing is, NicoNazi, though you BELIEVE ETS is harmful, the science doesn't support you. Further, all the measurable substances in ETS in such places as bars are well below OSHA thresholds for those substances in the workplace. WHICH IS WHY OSHA (the federal agency in charge of the nations's workplace safety) has not banned tobacco smoke in the workplace.

You want desperately to blame someone or something for your father's health conditions, but ETS is not the culprit. If it were, then ALL long-term bar owners/bartenders would have those conditions. Further, your father's generation is the longest lived and healthiest generation in our history, even though they smoked heavily and were around tobacco smoke virtually everywhere.

You need to try to be rational about this and not just blind yourself to the facts. You do not help yourself or your father in your irrational fear and anger.

Are there two NicoNazis on this forum?

The first one said his dad was a closet smoker and has a cough.

Now the 2nd one says his father never smoked and has emphysema.

Unless I'm confusing posts, I say it's time to ban this frigging liar.

I noticed the same thing, Squeezer. Can't keep his stories straight.

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer:
Are there two NicoNazis on this forum?

The first one said his dad was a closet smoker and has a cough.

Now the 2nd one says his father never smoked and has emphysema.

Unless I'm confusing posts, I say it's time to ban this frigging liar.

I noticed this, too, but couldn't find the other post so I thought I must be thinking of another forum or something.

But you guys are remembering the "my father was a closet smoker" post as well, so...which one is the truth, huh?

Regards,
Jenny

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer:
Are there two NicoNazis on this forum?

The first one said his dad was a closet smoker and has a cough.

Now the 2nd one says his father never smoked and has emphysema.

Dennis Quinn, the great ENGLISH instructor, could point out to all of you my use of the [brackets] around my post. [Brackets] indicate that my post was quoted from another individual, not myself. That is why I used [brackets].

My story is remains as straight as Hugh Hefner!

Then Nico, why no comment on Wands's outstanding post?

OSHA has never established ETS as a problem. Your post claims it to be in the same manner as those chemicals that OSHA has forbidden, or limited exposure to.

Is this just another example of "I heard it, therefor it must be true?"

Didn't see the brackets. In fact, I didn't even read the whole post. I apologize.

Thoughts on your post? Big deal. Carries as much weight as saying my grandmother lived into her 90's because she was subjected to SHS most of her life.

Call me a nitpicker but who or what is the source of the bracketed paragraphs that began this topic? Sitting there by themselves with no attribution I consider them an incomprehensible non sequitur. The Nazi asks for "thoughts" on them, implying that they are worth any thought.

quote:

You could have done a quotation this way

Source: "My Da," H Henry, Boomtown Times, 3/31/05, p. 2.

"Or you could have done it this way." Source: "My Da," H Henry, Boomtown Times, 3/31/05, p.2

Or even this way: Frank Jones was quoted in the Boomtown Times as saying: "Blah, blah, blah." ["My Da," H Henry, Boomtown Times, 3/31/05, p2].

Uh, NicoNazi, the appropriate way to do a quotation is with quotation marks (and to cite a source). Or you could have used the handy quotation tool on the post box, which would have set off the quotation. And, by the way, to quote someone else without giving attribution is plagiarism.

Since you did not use the appropriate conventions of written discourse, it was impossible to tell you were quoting someone else. Your fault, naughty boy. Mrs. Grundy (the generic name for a strict English teacher) will have to take you out to the woodshed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Wanda Hamilton,

"[Brackets] indicate that my post was quoted from another individual, not myself. That is why I used [brackets]."

In the wonderful classic by Lewis Carroll called Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty tells Alice that a word means whatever he wants it to mean, "nothing more, nothing less." And Alice asks wonderingly whether words can really have so much latitude. The answer in the real world, of course, is no. Obviously, if each of us tries to make words mean what we want them to mean without respect to what most people take them to mean, we couldn't communicate.

Well, the same holds true for rules of mechanics, spelling, and usage. Thus, even though one of our posters asserts that square brackets mean something is being quoted, that's not true.

The most common use of square brackets [ ] is to enclose words inside a quoted passage for coherence. A writer wishing to quote another uses quotation marks around the quoted material, and those quote marks amount to a promise to the reader that every jot & tittle of the material within the quotes is EXACTLY the same as in the original material. Thus, for example, if I'm quoting someone else but I have to insert some material within the quotes in order to have it make sense, I would use brackets to enclose the inserted material. Here's an illustration.

Imagine that someone had written the following: "In small doses it's sort of fun to have Niconazi around. He shoots from the lip without thinking and is so easy and so much fun to beat up on."

Now imagine that for some reason I decided to quote the second part of that statement but not all of it. I would have to substitute a name in place of "he" because otherwise readers would not know to whom "he" refers. Thus I would write as follows: "[Niconazi] shoots from the lip without thinking and is so easy and so much fun to beat up on."

Here then we see the correct use of quote marks and of brackets.

It is also true that quoting without attribution is tantamount to plagiarism as well.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dennis quinn,

quote:

"[I agree with Dennis Quinn Completely]"

At least I [Redliner1989] think I [Redliner1989] do?

Right you are, Dennis, but (oh, the horror) you ended a sentence with a preposition!

That is something up with which I will not put!

LOL

Regards,
Jenny

PS: BTW, I just love using Carroll to illustrate things. He was kind of weird, but he sure knew how to use his words!

quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer Wiegand:
Right you are, Dennis, but (oh, the horror) you ended a sentence with a preposition!

That is something up with which I will not put!

I was quite disturbed by his use of dangling subjective adverb participles in the wrong tense.

Thx for the grammar lesson, fellas. Geez.

quote:

Unless I'm confusing posts, I say it's time to ban this frigging liar.

Oh, squeeker. You (and perhaps Red) might feel a little threatened by my posts. Guess I don't blame you.

You. crack. me. up.

quote:

Originally posted by NicoNazi:
Thx for the grammar lesson, fellas. Geez.

quote:

Unless I'm confusing posts, I say it's time to ban this frigging liar.

Oh, squeeker. You (and perhaps Red) might feel a little threatened by my posts. Guess I don't blame you.

You. crack. me. up.

First off, I already acknowledged my mistake in a prior post. So why are you quoting me now as if it hadn't been corrected? (However, I did accuse you of lying previously which you apparently were unable to refute)

Secondly, your posts are not threatening in the least. They are grade school level at best and I sincerely mean that.

Why haven't you cast your vote in the "Ban NicoNazi" thread, squeeker?

quote:

Oh, squeeker. You (and perhaps Red) might feel a little threatened by my posts. Guess I don't blame you.

You. crack. me. up.

No, I think you were cracked long before we met.

OBTW, you don't have an answer on the poll question that states:

Ban NicoNazi because he refuses to answer questions.

I'd like to make a couple points.

First, grammar is a word that refers to the rules by which any language works. It refers to things like verbs, nouns, and -- yes, even dangling participles. So, no grammar lesson was offered, but instead a lesson about mechanics or punctuation, things that have to do with the effective use of written symbols, not really with language or grammar.

Second, I would never presume to offer lesson in grammar OR mechanics on this board. That wouldn't be polite or appropriate. But someone invoked my name and asserted that I would agree with a point of usage that is not correct. Thus, I was compelled to respond. (Note use of the word compelled because I couldn't allow it to be said that I agreed with something that isn't true.)

Third, one poster on this board seems inordinately interested in what I do for a living. I don't know why and have not responded to this person's inquiries about the issue because what I do for a living has no bearing on the topics of discussion on this forum. However, I feel it necessary to point out that one does not need to be an English instructor to understand quotation conventions or the proper use of brackets in written prose; anyone who ever wrote a thesis for a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree would certainly understand those things regardeless of the area of study. Most such people would also have a grasp of basic logic as well, but not necessarily. Likewise, it's not necessary to have a degree to be an excellent writer or a superb logician, as is proven daily by many who write on this board, men and women who do not have degrees but who write with beauty and power and whose logic is clear and correct.