Ocean is a proper noun now? ;-) -- jon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Monday, August 4, 2003, 2:09:01 PM, you wrote: WW> err Ocean WW> ----- Original Message ----- WW> From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> WW> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> WW> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 2:04 PM WW> Subject: Re: Where are the non-smokers? >> yeah and you have to cross the chesapeake bay bridge to get there :P >> >> Actually I am talking about the DC suburbs; western MD is also stunningly >> beautiful and quite cheap once you are out of commuting distance to DC. I >> liked the WV panhandle quite a bit and it was similar country. >> >> Dana >> >> William Wheatley writes: >> >> > LOL you're talking about the WEST coast of maryland, come out to the WW> eastern >> > shore sometime its life at its best. >> > Nice slow and beautiful, nice people lower costs awesome roads, its my WW> home >> > i gotta miss it :) >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 12:17 PM >> > Subject: Re: Where are the non-smokers? >> > >> > >> > > mmm ok there was clean indoor air but what else is to miss? The WW> traffic? >> > > Driving up and down 270 at rush hour had me talking, quite seriously, >> > about >> > > arming photon torpedos.... Wait there are the housing prices.. who can >> > > resist paying $1000 a month for a studio? Then there is the ozone... WW> who >> > > needs to smoke when the air quality index spends so much time on red? >> > > >> > > LOL >> > > Dana >> > > >> > > William Wheatley writes: >> > > >> > > > hehe yea MD was i think the 1st or 2nd state to have a statewide WW> smoking >> > > > ban. I think it was first >> > > > with CA being second with a FAR stricker rule but it was defiantly WW> sweet >> > > > living in such a great state. >> > > > >> > > > I miss my old maryland *sniff* >> > > > >> > > > :) >> > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> > > > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 12:05 PM >> > > > Subject: Re: Where are the non-smokers? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > exactly. And bars and restaurants are different cases; bars WW> probably >> > do >> > > > > have a higher percentage of smoker patrons. >> > > > > >> > > > > Seems to me that Montgomery County MD was non-smoking ten years WW> ago >> > and it >> > > > > certainly has a healthy population of restaurants. I will grant WW> that >> > the >> > > > > overall affluent demographic there may be a factor in this but >> > > > demographics >> > > > > in general play into this a lot. Smoking it less common among the >> > > > educated, >> > > > > I seem to remember reading; assuming that is true a blue-collar WW> bar >> > > > > conceivably could lose business if all its mechanic/tow truck WW> driver >> > > > > customers decide to get a six pack and hang out at each other's WW> houses >> > > > > instead of going out.... I know that's a stereotype but I am just >> > giving >> > > > an >> > > > > example. >> > > > > >> > > > > Dana >> > > > > >> > > > > Ian Skinner writes: >> > > > > >> > > > > > The other way that "up too" could be misleading is of only one >> > > > establishment >> > > > > > lost that much business for this or any other fact, they are WW> then >> > held >> > > > up as >> > > > > > both the example and the reason you can say up too... even if WW> all >> > the >> > > > other >> > > > > > places are not suffering like this..... >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -------------- >> > > > > > Ian Skinner >> > > > > > Web Programmer >> > > > > > BloodSource >> > > > > > Sacramento, CA >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:51 AM >> > > > > > To: CF-Community >> > > > > > Subject: Re: Where are the non-smokers? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I question whethet this is in fact the case. Somebody somewhere WW> has >> > > > > > probably studied it but I don't have any statistics to hand. WW> Still, >> > that >> > > > > > link wasnproof of anything either. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Dana >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Matthew Small writes: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Actually, I don't ever think there was a message that WW> non-smokers >> > did >> > > > not >> > > > > > > frequent bars & restaurants because of smoking. the ban was WW> to >> > > > > > non-smokers >> > > > > > > that work in those places, and to protect non-smoking WW> customers >> > from >> > > > being >> > > > > > > exposed to smoker's air. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > That being said, and the fact that I have fully supported the >> > smoking >> > > > ban >> > > > > > in >> > > > > > > a restaurant, if the facts are true that banning smoking is >> > causing >> > > > > > > restaurants to lose that much (30% - 50%) of their business, WW> then >> > I >> > > > > > support >> > > > > > > repealing the ban in favor of very stringent rules for WW> separating >> > the >> > > > > > > smoking section from a non-smoking section - e.g. completely >> > enclosed >> > > > > > > smoking areas, different ventilation systems, etc. Of course, >> > that >> > > > does >> > > > > > not >> > > > > > > protect the non-smoking workers. I don't know what to do about >> > them. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > - Matt Small >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> > > > > > > From: "Angel Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > > > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 10:54 AM >> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Where are the non-smokers? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Well... >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > It does say something about Non Smokers. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If you ban smoking...and you lose 20% to 50% of your WW> sales... >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Then that means you have lost smoking customers. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > It also means that those smoking customers whom you have WW> lost, >> > have >> > > > > > > > *not* been replaced with non-smoking customers. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Part of the reasoning for the ban was that there were WW> thousands >> > of >> > > > > > > > non-smokers that do not frequent bars and restaurants WW> because of >> > the >> > > > > > > > smoke,ergo if there was no smoking these people would WW> patronise >> > > > these >> > > > > > > > institutions. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -Gel >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > > > > From: William Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > That doesn't say anything about non smokers it simply says WW> the >> > > > smokers >> > > > > > > > are going where they can still pollute the air thats all. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> WW> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
