# Smoking kills (your Mac)



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

How smoking can ruin your Mac | Technically Incorrect - CNET News



> Two readers in different parts of the country claim that their Applecare warranties were voided due to secondhand smoke. Both readers appealed their cases up to the office of God Steve Jobs himself. Both lost.


Here's the Consumerist report to which the above story refers.

Wow...


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Smoke makes computers disgusting to work on, and I have no doubt the tar and other crap damages the components. I have no sympathy for those that smoke at their computers, or around others.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

John Clay said:


> Smoke makes computers disgusting to work on, and I have no doubt the tar and other crap damages the components. I have no sympathy for those that smoke at their computers, or around others.


+1; well said...


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

John Clay said:


> Smoke makes computers disgusting to work on, and I have no doubt the tar and other crap damages the components. I have no sympathy for those that smoke at their computers, or around others.


Ugh... 

I still have flashbacks to a particularly disgusting Performa 5200 I had to service, the user complained that the machine didn't recognize the 32mb SIMM they had installed. 

Opening the machine it wasn't hard to see why, the SIMM slot was completely encrusted in disgusting crud which left my fingers stained for a couple weeks. 

Yuck!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

It should be noted that in order to do as much damage to the computer as the posts above are suggesting, you'd have to have smoked A LOT for SOME CONSIDERABLE TIME in a VERY poorly ventilated room.

Smoking is a disgusting habit in the first place, but yes opening up a Mac that REEKS because of years of smoking abuse and with all its components covered in that ... residue ... is gross and unpleasant for the tech. Just don't do it.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

The machine belonged to a freelanceer who sat in front of it smoking 10 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

I encountered their 6500 a couple years later and it was almost as bad and all the more puzzling since it had been sitting on the floor.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

I once quit a job because one of my co-workers was a non-stop smoker. I'm talking 8 straight hours of smoke. This was in the 80s when you could smoke at your desk. I complained a few times but smokers had all the rights back then. I heard years later he died of lung cancer while in his mid-50s.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

Should have the option to add an air filter to your computer.


----------



## Chas3 (Jul 14, 2007)

Its the worst when I acquire old stereo equipment, clean every component by hand, and the things still reek of smoke.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I haven't had the experience of a smoke-contaminated computer, but I once moved into a room that a heavy smoker had lived in for a year. Before I moved in, I spent hours scrubbing the room from top to bottom. I had to scrub everything — ceiling, walls, lights, windows and steam clean the carpet and it still stunk somewhat after. The yellow crap running down the walls as I washed them was incredible. So I can understand that if this guy had a computer in the room that he sat in front of, it would be equally disgusting.

Good on Apple for not putting up with this.


----------



## SD-B (Oct 28, 2009)

I am going to take a guess and assume that non of you are Smokers??


----------



## GarageRock (Oct 5, 2008)

I admit, it is a disgusting habit, but I've always smoked near my computers...In fact, my comp room is the only room I smoke in, but I keep an air can nearby, and give the iMac, and PC a quick blast on a regular basis. I also keep air circulating with my ceiling fan, and in the summertime, my windows are always open...so far no problems!! I know it's going somewhere, 

I've worked on disgusting systems in my days, this one is by far the funniest one I had from a friend's PC: 

http://files.me.com/garagerock/qgunqk


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

After reading through this thread I have to say:

All you smoke Nazi's are the disgusting part of smoking. Bunch of intolerant judgmental prudes if you ask me.

Sure, as pointed out, sit in a room THICK with smoke (visibly thick) and it gets pretty darned gross. But aside from Cheech & Chong...who does this? I smoked for 32 years and quit a year and a half ago (not a puff since). I don't like being around smokers now for obvious reasons. But RARELY, have I ever encountered a situation where there was that much smoke. I'm a clean freak and I smoked in my home for years. I found the odd little bit of grunge from tobacco. But never any kind of 'disgusting goo' that everyone talks about. One booger doesn't make a 'pile of snot' here folks.

But it cracks me up to no end the perceived worries you people who've never smoked have about secondhand smoke. The fact of the matter is, there are more dangerous toxins in the air that will potentially do you more damage on the street corner in downtown YYZ at noon than there are in a smokey bar or home (downtown Calgary is surprisingly clean compared to TO!).

Sure, there's always an exception to that rule. There's an exception to all rules. Always a sob story. "I know a guy who ate a cheesburger every day and is dead now from a heart attack...blah, blah"

You people have bought in, heavily, to the news reel propaganda about the dangers of second hand smoke and the attempt to label the whole idea of smoking as "pure evil".

Yeah smoking is bad for you. No doubt about it. It can kill you if you are a steady smoker. One of the bigger mistakes I ever made was becoming a smoker. But it's not the devil either.

But walking through a cloud of tobacco smoke a couple of times a day to get into a building is NOT going to hurt you one ioda! Nada. Zip! NO CREDIBLE SCIENCE THERE! NONE! Going out on the weekend for an evening in a smoky bar is not going to hurt you one ioda! Nada. Zip! NO CREDIBLE SCIENCE THERE! NONE!

(and unless you have the funding source - don't show me a bunch of idiot studies paid for by self-interested parties. Funding source first - study second! Even then - remember, for every one that shows a correlation, there's one that shows none.).

So the reality is more likely that you 'just don't like the smell and the way it gets in your clothes and stuff'. Well guess what? I don't like your cologne, perfume, farts, shampoo, deodorant, nor your pheromones! They infiltrate things around me and make me want to retch! You STINK! Quite frankly I think you are disgusting for smelling this way too. GOD some people REEK!

Furthermore, to applaud Apple is to support a corporation, or company into shirking it's responsibilities to it's commitment based on faulty logic is just poor judgment altogether. Next time maybe they wont back _your _warranty because you're fat and put undo stress on the keyboard! Or some other idiotic 'weasel clause'. Yeah- support this stance and it's no different then your insurance company refusing your claim because of a pre-existing health issue that you didn't let them know about even though you were unaware, or something equally "weasle-y". Anything to avoid a pay-out. Applauding that kind of corporate behavior is one of the things that's wrong with the world. I suppose you like Bell's practices too?

Having smokers smoke outside, or in their own homes/space so as not to offend people is where this should STOP! The push to go further and eliminate smoking from our culture and the world is just plain evil in itself. To vilify 'anything a smoker touched' is just fear mongering and creating a demographic in the population to be treated as second class citizens. Are you fat from caloric intake? I think YOU are a disgusting second class citizen too! (how does that feel?)

Public health suffers from a whole hell of a lot of other threats to it than smoking right now. However it's easier for all involved (especially those that LOVE a bandwagon to ride!) to vilify smokers than say...fat people, adrenaline junkies, any dangerous sport, or hobby, etc. How about corporate practices? Air pollution (gas chromatography readings in downtown areas consistently show serious health dangers)? Etc.?

*Sorry we couldn't service your iMac, if only you'd operated it above 3,500' asl where the air is pure! _Then_ we'd honour your warranty! We don't see operating our products in a downtown area as taking very good care of them!

** And by the way - coming straight from the mouth of a research Oncologist (devout non-smoker) from John's Hopkins - "_If you smoked one cigarette a day every day for the rest of your life and developed lung cancer - the cancer probably didn't come from the cigarette. If it came from anything in the cigarette it wasn't the tobacco, it was the chemicals that are added. Tobacco once a day is pretty benign, but that fact doesn't serve the lobby groups against big tobacco, nor in some people's minds the public interest_."

Now you can all post what an idiot I am as I laugh at your gullibility to the media (you folks are also scared stiff of terrorists carrying H1N1 right now too aren't you?").


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

LOLs a defensive smokers. :lmao:
Yes... I am a previous smoker, and yes... I fully realize how disgusting it is now. 

If any father's or Mom's want their kids to quit smoking, just have their kids work in computer service on a smoker's machine. 

I've seen hundreds over the years, and of course of varying degrees, but they all stink like crazy when you turn them on. Many have caused my gag-reflex to kick in. I've seen so many white Macs with a yellow tinge to them. 

I don't even accept smokers machines as trade-ins anymore. 

Good on Apple for not exposing their employees to these disgusting machines.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I have never smoked a cigarette in my life, but agree with Griz. This sort of feel-good grannyism is difficult to watch. I take no pleasure in the fact that people were denied warranty coverage for some problem they were not aware of causing. Does the Apple warranty specifically state that it is invalidated if the machine is purchased by a smoker? If not, they had better rewrite the thing...right after repairing these devices.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Griz: assuming you were serious: "denial" is not just a river in Egypt.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> I have never smoked a cigarette in my life, but agree with Griz. This sort of feel-good grannyism is difficult to watch. I take no pleasure in the fact that people were denied warranty coverage for some problem they were not aware of causing. Does the Apple warranty specifically state that it is invalidated if the machine is purchased by a smoker? If not, they had better rewrite the thing...right after repairing these devices.





> *Limitations:*
> 
> (ii) Damage to the Covered Equipment caused by accident, *abuse*, *neglect*, misuse (including faulty installation, repair, or maintenance by anyone other than Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider), unauthorized modification, *extreme environment* (including extreme temperature or humidity), *extreme physical* or electrical *stress or interference*, fluctuation or surges of electrical power, lightning, static electricity, fire, acts of God *or other external causes*;


Seems pretty much covered to me.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Sorry but having spent 2 weeks helping to scrub the nicotine haze from the walls and ceilings of a house formally inhabited by smokers I can fully understand why anyone would refuse to mess with a smoked computer. Clearly coating the workings of your computer with cigarette smoke has to be considered abuse.

FWIW Each surface had to be scrubbed and rinsed 3 times and even then it took 2 coats of primer and 2 coats of paint to keep the remaining 5h!t from bleeding through.

NEVER AGAIN!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

*for Griz again: Science rules.*

Instructional ehMac link




.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

HowEver said:


> Instructional ehMac link
> 
> .


Ohhh.... I think I'll take the informed opinion of an Oncologist at a premiere research hospital over that drivel. How did I get that opinion? Spending the day face to face with the guy and having a long conversation about cancer, society, and my smoking in his presence. Extremely nice guy married to a woman who was equally intelligent and well read.

Thanks though.

Corporate propaganda to sell cigarettes is essentially no different than the pendulum being swung to the other side by the anti-smoking lobby (which actually runs on some pretty big budgets!). As usual the truth is in the middle somewhere.

Ever wonder how Arnold Schwarzenegger gets away with smoking one cigar a day or so? No chemicals added, and he does it in moderation.


----------



## SD-B (Oct 28, 2009)

LOL

Thank you Grizz......i got a good morning giggle from your post.
I live downtown and used to have a condo right on Yonge by St Clair.
There was a Starbux nearby i would spend time at, outside.

Never would a day go by where I would laugh at someone frantically waving away some smoke slightly wafting their way from a smoker 40 ft away----yet, they were 5 ft from the corner, near lights, at a busy intersection with cars and trucks idling waiting for the red to change.........

/sighs.......there are hundreds of thousands of boomers whose parents smoked back in a time where it was fashionable to do so that will die of heart attacks and other diseases far more often then they will die of second hand smoke.........i find intolerance to be one of the ugliest traits a person can have and it sure shows up in the anti smoking brigade far too often.

I AGREE and think it is Appalling that Apple has denied those people. If this is the way it will go then that need to be legally entered into the contract.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Griz said:


> ** And by the way - coming straight from the mouth of a research Oncologist (devout non-smoker) from John's Hopkins - "_If you smoked one cigarette a day every day for the rest of your life and developed lung cancer - the cancer probably didn't come from the cigarette. If it came from anything in the cigarette it wasn't the tobacco, it was the chemicals that are added. Tobacco once a day is pretty benign, but that fact doesn't serve the lobby groups against big tobacco, nor in some people's minds the public interest_."


That is, as they say, smoke and mirrors. (Minus the mirrors.)

Of course, in moderation, most things that can kill you are far less likely to kill you. One cigarette a day? Maybe that's your quantity but it's an addictive substance, people crave it, and they don't smoke one a day unless (and not even always then) they are on life support and can't get out from the oxygen tent long enough to smoke more.

One cigarette a day? Who does that?

As for the percentage of people dying... Let's say you had 100 chances to walk in front of a bus. As a smoker, you may only take that step once--that's enough--you are compelled to take that step, sooner or later, bus 10, 50 and, rarely, 99 or 100. Non-smokers choose not to walk in front of that bus at all.

And for the purpose of this thread, it's an electric-powered bus.



Griz said:


> Ohhh.... I think I'll take the informed opinion of an Oncologist at a premiere research hospital over that drivel. How did I get that opinion? Spending the day face to face with the guy and having a long conversation about cancer, society, and my smoking in his presence. Extremely nice guy married to a woman who was equally intelligent and well read.
> 
> Thanks though.
> 
> ...


----------



## biovizier (Dec 21, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Seems pretty much covered to me.


Which completely misses the point, eyeroll smiley not withstanding.

The warranty was not cancelled because of "abuse, neglect". If it had been, that would be somewhat valid since tar accumulation generally leads to dust accumulation which could cause shorts or cause overheating. However, the onus is still on Apple to state what quantifiable test is used to determine where on the spectrum of smoke damage or tar accumulation the line is drawn saying whether the degree of tar buildup constitutes routine exposure or abuse. Apple doesn't get to decide unilaterally and arbitrarily whether or not they will honour a contract.

But again, that wasn't even the basis for warranty cancellation in this case. The reason given was the completely fabricated "biohazard" from "second hand smoke". Something is considered a biohazard where exposure to it carries the risk of release of, or infection from a biological agent. Tar, etc. from smoking might be considered a chemical hazard, not a biological one.

Second hand smoke is what the computer experienced -- exposure to the airborne smoke exhaled from the smoker and coming off the smoker's cigarette. The technician would be exposed to third-hand (not second hand) smoke, which carries a much lower exposure hazard of airborne particles.

Both reasons given are technically incorrect. This suggests that they aren't a part of an established policy, but rather something made up on the spot. If those were the reasons why the computer was denied service, then implicitly the computer was not damaged as a result of the smoke.

A repair technician grossed out by the tar is within their rights to refuse to work on it. But by cancelling the warranty, Apple prevents the owner from seeking out somebody, eg. at an AASP, that isn't too big a sissy to put on a pair of gloves to do their job.

So what's a customer to do? A recent thread said Apple has allowed their quality to slip to #4 in terms of reliability, while coincidentally Apple aggressively pushes AppleCare, and yet Apple holds all of the cards when deciding whether or not they will honour it...

For the record, I don't smoke, and my Macs aren't exposed to cigarette smoke either.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Smokers complain that their "rights" are being infringed by holier-than-thou non-smokers, to which I respond with a quote from Mr. Hand: *"You go to hell! You go to hell and you die!"* (audio)

My dad smoked in the home his entire life - 30 years in the house they currently own. We've been systematically ripping out rugs and anything else that could hold in scent and replacing with hardwood or ceramic floors. Whenever I go to visit for a week or two, upon returning to Mexico my suitcase reeks. Everything I had with me, regardless of whether it is "clean", goes right into the laundry.

Smoking is f-ing disgusting. It's extremely annoying to those who have to suffer its effects, and demonstrates a total disrespect of the smoker to anyone in the vicinity.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

HowEver said:


> That is, as they say, smoke and mirrors. (Minus the mirrors.)
> 
> Of course, in moderation, most things that can kill you are far less likely to kill you. One cigarette a day? Maybe that's your quantity but it's an addictive substance, people crave it, and they don't smoke one a day unless (and not even always then) they are on life support and can't get out from the oxygen tent long enough to smoke more.
> 
> One cigarette a day? Who does that?


Ummmm......yeah.... kind of within the point I was making. 

I thought that was obvious.

Nevertheless, there ARE people who smoke very little. 

What might actually really blow you away is just how many people claim to be non-smokers, yet, stashed away is a package of cigarettes that often go stale before all 25 are smoked.

In my smoking days, I was pretty good at picking them out. The overwhelming majority are women (interestingly). I've sized women up and said "Hey, I know you smoke, let's go sneak one...OK?" There's the initial knee-jerk denial, followed by the look around, then the whispered... "...mine are my glove compartment, I have to go get them....". I've had a few GFY looks, but funnily enough, 8 mo.s later I see them sneaking a smoke during a social drinking event. 

I always loved that! And there are a TON of them out there.

Those folks though, will likely NEVER be ill from smoking. They just don't do it enough. More likely they will get cancer from some chemical off their dry cleaning, or something. Perhaps from swimming in water that has been loaded with industrial waste (stirred up from sediments in a lake/river perhaps).

But yeah, I'm not claiming that smoking is good for you or anything. It's a bad habit. Duh! So is drinking. So is unsafe sex. So is alot of things we do as humans. But we hold utter contempt for smokers because we've been such sheep and swallowed the tripe a large media machine has thrown at us.

"We must stop people from smoking themselves to death, _at all costs_!" Was terribly bought into by alot of groups and institutions. Now it truly is "at all costs". Making some folks social pariahs to satisfy a hypocritical agenda.

Much like SD-B I always laughed at the obese people that would crank on me for smoking anywhere withing a light-years' distance of a building entrance as they waddled along with their "McIcky's" bag of transfat. The smart money was on me and my cigarettes to live past 65 I think.

But it's also a social need it seems to have someone, or more appropriately, some group to hate for any reason at all. Without that nemesis factor, it seems we have no identity. This is rather strong in Canadians and Americans. Since we can't hate racial minorities anymore without being labeled as bigots, and hating fat people is just mean, and almost any other group of people with a benign behavioral trait is off limits... Smokers are it!

Besides they already fit the mold of "they smell funny", which sociologically seems to be a strong attribute needed to instill in any group singled out for hatred. This is fully documented and has been explained before as relating to an evolutionary need to smell things that are "good" or "bad". Our most useful sense - and our weakest thanks to our evolutionary path.


**CubaMark - Yes! Anecdotal evidence! Always useful in generalizing traits to a greater population! I once knew a couple of guys from Iraq who weren't terrorists! So I can tell you - the odds of one being a terrorist are pretty slim! (or vice versa!)

Just because you got a social disease from a blond woman doesn't mean they are all diseased!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Seems pretty much covered to me.


Seems not at all covered to me. May as well decide to reject the warranty because someone lives in San Francisco and "tule fog" exposes the elements to undue moisture. I'm surprised you would read that warranty and believe it applied specifically to smoking.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury, it isn't that smokers are necessarily hated, it's just that some other people don't want to be smokers without having made that choice themselves, nor do they want to clean or fix those toxic gooed electronics.

As for the "GFY looks" you got, those clearly were anti-smoking responses and nothing further. ...

I'm reminded of comic Ron White talking about the choices some people make, and by all means picture him on stage, as always, with microphone in one hand and scotch and cigarette in the other:



Ron White said:


> There was a guy down in Florida who said that the age of 53 years old, he was in good enough physical condition to withstand the wind, rain and hail of a force-3 hurricane. Now, let me explain somethin' to ya: it isn't that the wind is blowin', it's what the wind is blowin'. If you get hit by a Volvo, it doesn't matter how many sit-ups you did that morning. If you have a "Yield" sign in your spleen, joggin' don't really come into play. "I can run 25 miles without stopping." "You're bleedin'." "5hit!"


----------



## thegoat54 (Nov 20, 2007)

I don't smoke. Never have, never will.

I somewhat agree with what Apple has done here. The question is where do you draw the line?

If I bring my laptop to a friend’s house and someone happens to be smoking there, lets say once or twice ever (this has never actually happened BTW), and a couple years later my logic board fails. Is Apple going to have some kind of Nicotine meter and deny my warranty just because they found traces of tar and tell me I abused it?

I had a friend who had a terrible experience with a Bell cell phone. He had extended warranty on it, and the power button on the Cell phone (which was also the End Call Button) stopped working. If he popped the battery on and off the phone enough times, sometimes it would get it to turn on. And thats how he noticed he couldn't end calls, or exit menus, or turn the phone on and off. All other functions of the phone worked fine. After taking it in for service he was denied because of "water damage". He swears up and down there he never got it wet, and demanded them that they show him the "water damage", but it was no good. His contract was voided and he was out the phone and the extended warranty. 

I find it too convenient that the only thing wrong with the phone happens to be the most frequently used button, sounds like it just wore out. 

I just hate when companies push you around like that, and leave you no recourse except hiring a lawyer.


----------



## Bryce (Dec 26, 2007)

SD-B said:


> LOL
> 
> Thank you Grizz......i got a good morning giggle from your post.
> I live downtown and used to have a condo right on Yonge by St Clair.
> ...


As the ban smoking wagon continues to proliferate, there shall be more situations where
something else will be banned, besides the smoking of tobacco.

Have never smoked, and neither did my parents. yet at age 63 have Lymphona and Lupus, neither which are smoke induced. If one disease doesn't kill you, something else will. 

As to the yucky computer problem; worked in one of the five Toronto area school boards 
before the stupid amalgamation of Mr. Harris, and could tell which computers were utilized by smokers of cigarettes when the machines came in to my shop for repairs.

Ironically, the smokers who used pipes or cigars , their machine were somewhat less dirty, for some reason.

If the machines were really bad, I set them outside on a shelf ledge in a wire enclosure for a day or so, with the cover on off (these were older Commodore machines) just to get rid of the smell. Then too, if the computers were really messed, the best solution was a spray of cleaning solution followed a waiting period followed by a shot of high pressure water, followed by a quick dry with a pressure of air.

Most of the time that's all that was needed, but other times, the machine was ready for the dumpster.

Oh, and computer monitors would get ever so cloudy screens in a room of smokers, daily wipe downs with a chemical cleaner was de rigeur. 

Bottom line, smoking is a dirty problem, but then so is dwelling near asteel mill, or quarrying operation or an oil refinery. Would these external problems also invalidate one's warranty?

Warranties can cover only so much and then; well it's up to you and the techie.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Hilarious -- smokers ranting angrily about their "rights".

Dear Smoker; your rights end at my nose. When you're wafting that crap in my breathing space, you are abusing my rights.

Go somewhere and smoke yourself silly, that's your right and your decision. Pollute the air going into my lungs with your disgusting stench and you are now infringing on my rights. 

Even if secondhand smoke wasn't a proven hazard, it reeks something awful. Smokers and ex-smokers are often blind to this, I guess because they've spent many years yearning to breathe in that stench. How many times I wished I could summon up a disgusting fart at will right next to some oblivious smoker polluting everyone at the bus stop and see how the smoker would react. No doubt they would move away at minimum and probably offer a comment as well. But if I ask some selfish ass waving his stench-stick in my face to move away from a public area, I'm the nazi zealot infringing on HIS rights? The logic of an addict is awesome.

If someone brought in their iMac to a shop that they had let their cat use as a litterbox, I think it would reasonably be within anyone's rights to refuse to service that. Infusing your machine with retch-inducing cigarette smoke is no different. Just because you smokers love that smell, doesn't give you the right to inflict it on everyone else.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Hilarious -- smokers ranting angrily about their "rights".
> 
> Dear Smoker; your rights end at my nose. When you're wafting that crap in my breathing space, you are abusing my rights.everyone else.



Yeah, that's great then. Smokers can smoke anywhere up to your nose!

**This has already been covered.

And please go take a shower - your cologne stinks (along with your cultural cooking) and your rights end at MY nose too!

Please _try _to think beyond your own indignance?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This looks like a good spot to drop this:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Certainly any tech should be well with in his rights if he refused to work on such a machine. If the owner wants to go to the trouble of finding a certified tech that is also a heavy smoker and have them perform the labour, then it would be reasonable to ask Apple to provide the provide the needed parts, if the machine is still under warranty AND the accumulated slime had not caused the cooling system to fail to properly cool the guts of said computer.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Griz said:


> Yeah, that's great then. Smokers can smoke anywhere up to your nose!
> 
> **This has already been covered.
> 
> ...


No, they can smoke anywhere where their secondhand smoke isn't polluting the public or shared air that goes into my nose or anyone else's nose who doesn't agree to breathe it.

I agree about cologne and other strong smells. But the difference with secondhand smoke is that it's proven to be dangerous. That's why people have banned it in workspaces, someone who breathes it in all day can be harmed by it.

Think beyond my own indignance? You're the one who has written a novel-sized rant in this thread already and indignantly called people nazis. You've already set the bar, my friend. You speak for those who want to selfishly inflict their choices on others with no regard at all for that effect.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Certainly any tech should be well with in his rights if he refused to work on such a machine. If the owner wants to go to the trouble of finding a certified tech that is also a heavy smoker and have them perform the labour, then it would be reasonable to ask Apple to provide the provide the needed parts, if the machine is still under warranty AND the accumulated slime had not caused the cooling system to fail to properly cool the guts of said computer.


Quite reasonable.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Macfury, it isn't that smokers are necessarily hated, it's just that some other people don't want to be smokers without having made that choice themselves, nor do they want to clean or fix those toxic gooed electronics.


I understand completely. I have no patience for cigarette smoke myself. But until Apple specifically excludes nicotine damage from their list of warranty coverage, I think it behooves them to pay somebody enough to clean out the goo. I don't see any reason to cheer Apple on refusing to honour a warranty, just because a smoker happens to be involved. I might, on the other hand, agree with a position in which they announce publicly that they will no longer honour such warranties in the future. That creates an expectation that may lead to improved health habits, instead of merely punishing someone for what has already happened.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> proven to be dangerous.


In your mind maybe.

Again, since you clearly DIDN'T read the posts:

A. show me the funding source FIRST
B. _Then _show me the studies findings about second hand smoke.
C. Then show me the methodology (you'll notice that often that is never published)

Much like that nice study that showed cannabis kills brain cells that was quoted for YEARS (still actually). Only recently it comes out that the researchers pumped a couple of days worth of pot smoke into a mask on the face of monkeys all at once and it took up to 5 minutes each time to complete the "delivery".

Can you say oxygen deprivation? Hey guess what MILK causes brain damage (we'll just deliver a weeks worth at once down your throat over the course of 5 minutes...ok?).

Yeah - Even University students have proven again and again (common undergrad study) that there are more toxins in the air to harm you than cigarette smoke in a variety of public & non-public locations.

As for thinking beyond my own indignation....how do you think I arrived at this point of view? Hell, even when I smoked I thought all smoking was bad as arsenic (which is often an added chemical BTW!), and even I believed that tripe being fed to us by the media.

Seriously, I give up. I know your mindset, your heels are dug in deep, and I stop here. 

*Sorry to upset your categorized world built on assumptions so callously like I did.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Griz said:


> In your mind maybe.
> 
> Again, since you clearly DIDN'T read the posts:
> 
> ...


LOL, you didn't upset my world at all, my friend. You just remind me that irrational defenders of private selfishness will use any and all fractured logic to support their views.

By the way, do you work for the tobacco industry or something? Prove to you that secondhand smoke is dangerous - seriously?:lmao: That sounds like the same kind of tactic the climate change deniers use. There are a vast array of medical and scientific bodies and governments that are convinced of the science around secondhand smoke and this is why they have enacted legislation to limit exposure to it. I think the onus of proof is on you, since recognition of the danger of secondhand smoke is the publicly accepted status quo.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> LOL, you didn't upset my world at all, my friend. You just remind me that irrational defenders of private selfishness will use any and all fractured logic to support their views.
> 
> By the way, do you work for the tobacco industry or something? Prove to you that secondhand smoke is dangerous - seriously?:lmao: That sounds like the same kind of tactic the climate change deniers use. There are a vast array of medical and scientific bodies and governments that are convinced of the science around secondhand smoke and this is why they have enacted legislation to limit exposure to it. I think the onus of proof is on you, since recognition of the danger of secondhand smoke is the publicly accepted status quo.


Right!

Here let me talk your language:

"Baaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh. Baaaaaahhhhhhhh!"

Does that clear it up?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

What next?

Galileo was wrong?

Darwin was a fraud?

Welcome to 2009.

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I smoke, not a lot and didn't start buying my own cigarettes until about 8 years ago, always just bummed the occasional one off smoker friends before that. But I never smoke indoors, I can't stand even my own second hand smoke, plus I don't want the house to stink. I know it is a nasty habit/addiction and I have quit only to start again on numerous occasions. The next time (very soon) will have to be quitting for good because I know if it isn't it's probably gonna do me in.

I'm of mixed minds about Apple's response to working on machines of smokers. On the one hand I can appreciate the smell issue, but I am certainly willing to bet that working on the odd machine that was used by a smoker would present zero actual health risk to that person, so I think the whole"toxic" argument is rather bogus. 

Additionally if we are talking about machines that are under warranty then they have to provide some sort of disclaimer in the warranty that this is the case that they will not work on the machines of smokers who smoke in the presence of the computer, otherwise I feel it is arbitrary and smacks of bad will on Apple's part.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

HowEver said:


> What next?
> 
> Galileo was wrong?
> 
> ...


Galileo was actually wrong for much of his life by decree of the Church and much public opinion. He was confined to house arrest for the rest of his life (or a good chunk of it) if I'm not mistaken.

Darwin was also considered a kook and his theories were laughed at publicly for years for "daring to propose". The very idea of coming from apes! Why the Bible states we were made in God's image and who in their right mind would question the Bible? It's widely accepted that that is how humans came to be!

Sounding familiar? 

Excellent examples! Excellent!


(I'm not comparing myself to those guys though. I'm not the first to express what I wrote - just not afraid to - that's all.)


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Writing "I'm not comparing myself to these guys" and "Smoking won't kill me slowly and painfully" doesn't make either statement true.




Griz said:


> Galileo was actually wrong for much of his life by decree of the Church and much public opinion. He was confined to house arrest for the rest of his life (or a good chunk of it) if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> Darwin was also considered a kook and his theories were laughed at publicly for years for "daring to propose". The very idea of coming from apes! Why the Bible states we were made in God's image and who in their right mind would question the Bible? It's widely accepted that that is how humans came to be!
> 
> ...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> I understand completely. I have no patience for cigarette smoke myself. But until Apple specifically excludes nicotine damage from their list of warranty coverage, I think it behooves them to pay somebody enough to clean out the goo. I don't see any reason to cheer Apple on refusing to honour a warranty, just because a smoker happens to be involved. I might, on the other hand, agree with a position in which they announce publicly that they will no longer honour such warranties in the future. That creates an expectation that may lead to improved health habits, instead of merely punishing someone for what has already happened.


This logic is the same reason why hair dryers have warning labels not to use in showers and washing machines tell people not to go inside. 

I suppose Apple could also include in their warranty agreement, "If you computer starts to reek like crap and turn yellow after continued cigarette smoke exposure, Apple will also not cover any damage from spraying Freebreeze directly on the logic board. "


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Even ladders come with warning labels these days. (And they aren't always placed on the top step.)











No matter. If cigarette smokers heeded the warnings on the actual box of what they smoke, they would never, ever light one up.

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

*Computer cigarette lighters*

Cigarette ighters do not come pre-installed, so... today on Craigslist:






















> Selling a lot of 185 computer cigarette lighters. We used to do custom computer cases, and we bought these parts by the box directly from the factory. We are no longer in that business (now we have a TV/film studio) so we are selling inventory.
> 
> It's a cigarette lighter + jack that fits into your computer case. The jack can be used to charge cell phones, or to light cigarettes with the included lighter.


If you don't want to buy the lot ($5 x 925 units) you can get them individually for $5 each on eBay.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

HowEver said:


> "Smoking won't kill me slowly and painfully" doesn't make either statement true.


Ok smartass - explain to me where I actually say that?

Further, I've stated already smoking is a bad habit.

Apparently smoking is not the issue here - literacy is.

MY POINT, which clearly you and others have missed, is that smoking is NOT the demon it's made out to be. Further, and more to the point a bit of cigarette smoke is not going send someone into cancerous thros, and impregnate their teenagers!

I quit smoking, FINALLY, because it's bad for me. Had I only smoked a bit (difficult but some can do just that), I wouldn't have bothered quitting (likely) because it's pretty benign at low levels. Everyone is just led to believe the stuff is as toxic as liquid mercury or something.

DO YOU GET IT?

HUH?

I'm just not on the mindless bandwagon of sheep that gullibly suck up all the anti-smoke campaign propaganda that goes WAY too far.

Personally, I think alot of folks just feel that way because they have that mindset (that we've seen in many conservative personalities) that without someone to either legislate, cajole, or fear-monger them away from behaviours they will do it because, on their own, they lack willpower. Also, they NEED an authoritarian body in their life to take what is said (or make it up - either way) and laid down as gospel. It gives them a sense of order of the world (laughable as the thought is). These folks NEED rules and regulation...deeply.

Some do it anyway, and then through self-loathing and guilt decry the very behaviour to distance themselves from it. OBVIOUSLY NOT EVERYONE! However, there is a solid contingent. This was recently shown (again!) in the public eye with the look at congressmen (or senators?) in the US and their personal behaviours vs those they decry while in office.

Essentially, I just wish people would stop freaking out because other people smoke and quit trying to ram their own morality down the throats of others simply because others made a poor choice in their eyes. Quit being Nazis about smokers. That's all. It just creates more intolerance and feeds support for poor science.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The problem here is what is reasonable... Being a smoker doesn't void your home owner insurance (which is a far greater risk to your house than it is to your computer... with the threat of fire and all... ) so why should it effectively void your computer warranty? 

It is not *expected* that smoking while using your computer would void your warranty... where has this* ever* been stated??!! If Apple wants to change the rules of the game that is their prerogative... 

However, they should make a public and definitive declaration before putting it into force, not arbitrarily applying a policy without forewarning. Changing the rules in the midst of play is not fair, right or just...

It is* NOT* a no brainer that smoking while using your computer will void your warranty... not even close!!! (And this is coming from someone who doesn't do so.)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

HowEver said:


> No matter. If cigarette smokers heeded the warnings on the actual box of what they smoke, they would never, ever light one up.


Heeded... yes but tell me honestly... did you *always* do everything and not do everything your mother told you to do or not to do....?  Kind of like religion/the law isn't it... you are told what is right and wrong... but that free will thing keeps getting in the way.  Ahh, to be a human being... oh but wait we are supposed to be automatons... Do what ever we are told is right and good for us... 

Really?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

As a former smoker, I can pass along some insight if anyone is interested regarding smoking and the use of a Mac.

I began to smoke when I was 13 year old and continued smoking a pack and a half to two packs every day for 42 years. Then in 2000, I had a heart attack. It was August 23 and my cardiologist ordered me to quit. "Quit or die" were his exact words.

I quit and haven't had one since.

For the record, he was amazed at the condition of my lungs when reviewing my heart related x-rays and scans. He at first did not believe that I was a smoker as my lungs were healthy and clear. And yes, I inhaled every one of those smokes.

I used to sit at my Mac both at work and at home and smoke continually. Never once did one ever fail, but the beige coloured ones of old were definitely yellowed.

I cannot see how Apple would have a legal ground to stand on if it imposed a condition of warranty on smokers. That seems goes against personal rights and is simply wrong. As for repairs, what lunacy to say it is toxic to a tech person making that repair. With today's technology, they should simply wear protective gear if they are that worried about it, ie: latex gloves and a mask. That way they will look as ridiculous as Apple's fears appear to be in this regard.

As a non smoker for nearly 10 years now, I still have some compassion for those who can't give up the killer weed.

And more to the point, I wonder just how many of the anti-smoking crowd here puff away on another certain kind of weed all the while condemning smokers. My bet is that percentage is pretty big.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Those are good points.

Have these consumer stories been confirmed?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Seems to me the title of this thread is wrong. It should read: Smoking Kills your Apple warranty.

It's funny because I have a 11year old G4 Sawtooth that's been exposed to plenty of tobacco smoke and it's still going strong. Amazingly enough, it still has the original ROM battery too.

No matter how you feel about smoking or smokers, there is no legitimate reason for Apple to refuse to honor the warranty solely because the machine is used in a smoking environment ---none....period...full stop!


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Question: build up from smoking, could this not harm the operation of the electronic equipment? More so than just dust accumulation.

I also believe we have heard from those who work on these machines telling us of their terrible condition. Apple can't predict every contigency of their agreement, but I understand that some of those out there belive this is unfair to smokers, however just because you smoke doesn't mean your warranty is void, it is only void if your computer has residue caked on etc. I am guessing it is determined on a case by case basis. At least this way I e could argue to keep their warranty, versus standardization of this problem.

As for smokers rights... Sure they have them, and maybe they have been infringed over the years, but where it stops and rightfully so is forcing others to smoke with you (second hand), whether they want to or not. It doesn't matter about studies or how many other pollutants are in the air, forcing others to inhale additional toxins is not fair, just so a smoker can get their nicotine fix.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Griz said:


> Right!
> 
> Here let me talk your language:
> 
> ...


:clap:

Excellent rejoinder Dr. Griz. Your reasoned and cleverly worded reply certainly settles the scientific issue of second hand smoke once and for all. How could anyone doubt your credibility on the subject now? If only every major medical organization, scientific organization and government could be convinced by your rapier logic.

One small tip though, I think you should use more ALL CAPS IN YOUR RESPONSES. It really helps to convince others. And also more name-calling. Labelling others "Nazis" and "gullible sheep" really drives home those points.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

... Phew!

Now back on Planet Earth, regarding the issue of whether Apple has the right to refuse to service smoke contaminated machines, I think they do on several levels.

For the sake of argument, let's say someone decided to coat the inside of their Mac with a few of the hundreds of known poisons that exist in cigarette smoke and linger on surfaces that smoke settles on. Maybe some cyanide and lead for example. Plus they add some repulsive fragrance to it. Then their Mac stops working and they bring it into an Apple Store for warranty service.

Should Apple demand that their employees, who are repulsed by the smell and worried about the exposure to the toxins applied, be forced to handle this machine? Some have suggested that Apple should provide gloves and masks for their employees to handle these machines. Why should they have to? How about Apple telling the person to get the thing cleaned first and bring it back? Or as eMacMan suggested earlier in the thread, find an Apple Authorized Service rep who is a heavy smoker and won't mind the exposure to do the work.

In their defence Apple has quoted the section of their warranty that refers to abuse from exposure to extreme environments. They have also referred to the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules regarding exposure to toxic substances, which include nicotine. Why should Apple employees have to handle something that they find personally repugnant and requires the donning of safety gear to work on? Shouldn't the onus be on the person who contaminated the machine in the first place?

Since this issue has hit the news, there are reports all over the internet and even in this thread about how disgusting it is to work on a heavy smoker's computer. There are also many reports from computer techs that indicate the smoking actually damages the machines. They are full of delicate mechanical and electrical parts. Certainly it's feasible to think that the heavy coatings of stinky gunk that smokers can leave on their surroundings could also adversely affect those machines. 

I think Apple is likely on very firm ground for denying service.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

If smoke did nothing else it would almost certainly impair the efficiency of cooling fans and reduce the ability of internal components to radiate excess heat. That alone would constitute abuse every bit as much as duct taping over the ventilation openings.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Griz said:


> Essentially, I just wish people would stop freaking out because other people smoke and quit trying to ram their own morality down the throats of others simply because others made a poor choice in their eyes. Quit being Nazis about smokers. That's all. It just creates more intolerance and feeds support for poor science.


I call Godwin's Law against this thread and especially Griz.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> In their defence Apple has quoted the section of their warranty that refers to abuse from exposure to extreme environments. They have also referred to the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules regarding exposure to toxic substances, which include nicotine. Why should Apple employees have to handle something that they find personally repugnant and requires the donning of safety gear to work on? Shouldn't the onus be on the person who contaminated the machine in the first place?


OSHA specifies how much of a substance a worker may be exposed to and under what conditions. It also specifies the type of protective gear a worker must wear when exposed. It does not provide an excuse to avoid all items that have been in contact with cigarette smoke. I believe the OSHA guideline declares the maximum safe level for nicotine exposure at 500 micrograms per cubic metre... OF AIR! This does not hold true for gunk.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I'm with Apple on this one.
> 
> I hate being around smokers. If I am outside in the wilderness and they light up and I am hundreds of feet away I can smell the stench. In a line up at the bank I can smell it on someone who is not next to me. Smoking cigarettes defies logic and good judgement on every level. An expensive habit without merit that has a negative effect on your health and wrecks your possessions? Idiocy.
> 
> ...


A. It sounds to me like your real problem is that you just don't like the smell and find it "icky" and "gross". Sounds like the arguement a teenage girl would make quite frankly. There's alot of things in this old world that I don't like the smell of, and find unpleasant. Just walking across town I can point out a half a dozen.

Surgery is pretty damned "icky" and so is working on your car's engine. But you don't see reasonable people pulling out the "icky" factor to outlaw it do you? Sodomy is pretty "icky" too and we know where most normal people sit with those laws (unless you voted for Stephen Harper's party of reformers).

B. You argue that it is just idiotic to do something detrimental to your health. Well, then, how about all those idiots that mountain bike down the Mt. Seymor in Vancouver? That is just plain idiotic to me. One good smack with your head on a tree and you are dead, dead, DEAD! Personally I don't think I should be on the hook financially for those fools making such a poor decision. Why should I have to have my taxes pay for their misfortune that they brought on themselves? These people should be treated like smokers are getting treated as far as I'm concerned. Heck, if they get injured, get yourself off the mountain! Never mind putting others at risk to chopper you out. Then spend millions putting pins in your spine. How could someone _knowingly _ risk their health like that?

*In fact that ranks right up there with those fat people going through the drive thru at McDonald's and Wendy's. Another trans fat blast for their arteries. Where does everyone sit with the fatties chowing down on fast food and other garbage? How come you're not dumping on them?

As much as you hate the smell of smokers 100 feet away. I hate the look of a fat bastard 100 feet away! They both come down to aesthetics so why not argue both? What? No balls? Or you just go after the group that socially you can get away with making pariahs?
_
**I'm not directing this at you MazterCBlazter specifically - just those that share your arguement. "You" in this case is generic. Please don't take personal offense. _

*I'm just being hypothetical of course (I'm not exactly svelte myself either). Sorry to the overweight crowd, but I'm using you as an example.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

ertman said:


> I call Godwin's Law against this thread and especially Griz.


Doesn't apply in this case IMO.

"Smoke Nazi" is a common term and was brought out at the _outset _of my arguement, not at the end.

By Godwin's Law the Seinfeld episode "The Soup Nazi" would never have gone past 5 minutes. "Soup Nazi" is an accepted term.

Godwin's Law, I believe applies to the _degradation _ of using Nazi-type-isms to throw mud rather than elicit a point, or in this case label a concept right out of the gate.

No?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Anyone who thinks that its just gunk and icky has obviously not worked on a computer that has been exposed to a lot of cigarette smoke. It truly is a biohazard.


----------



## biovizier (Dec 21, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Anyone who thinks that its just gunk and icky has obviously not worked on a computer that has been exposed to a lot of cigarette smoke. It truly is a biohazard.


As I already explained, anyone who thinks cigarette smoke is a biohazard doesn't have a clue. That includes the person at Apple that used that as an excuse for not honouring the warranty.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

biovizier said:


> As I already explained, anyone who thinks cigarette smoke is a biohazard doesn't have a clue. That includes the person at Apple that used that as an excuse for not honouring the warranty.


Ok... "Chemical Hazard" then. Whatever...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I drink a lot of coffee by my machine, if it spills and effects my mac, I don't expect it to be replaced and/or fixed.

I wonder if this will make it's way to cars, I'm not a mechanic, but I could only imagine the filth.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

And let's strike one point for MazterCBlazter as he crosses his arms, pouts and stomps his feet shouting "YOU CAN'T MAKE ME! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!"

Ignoring the obvious real world examination of where his facts came from, WHO PAID FOR THEM, and generally swallowing all that is fed to him by mass media because his world would come crashing down around him if he thought that the agencies of the world weren't benevolent and serving the greater good of the world!

I would postulate that the "brain damage" occurs in the spoon fed mind that just accepts what he hears, rather than thinks it out and questions the inconsistencies in what he hears. 

All this summed up in the graphic that says "I WANT..." I don't give a #$% what you want! Impose _your _wishes on someone else or I will impose mine on you!

Applying Godwin's law here and taking a bit of a liberty with the intent - MazterCBlazter has just initiated that by not bothering to actually READ what was written, just dump on it as a whole like a child (or a someone blindly clinging to their religion). No different than the intent of marking the end of an argument with the use of hurling foul insults. Never mind the fact that he doesn't even recognize the fact that I don't support smoking and that's not at all what is being said. He just is shocked that any quarter be given to the ultra-anti-right-wing front that wants the very idea of smoking stricken from the dictionary for the rest of history because he doesn't like it.


MCB has his "faith" in the government, corporations, and institutions to lead us all down the Yellow Brick Road of hypocrisy - so keep posting your propaganda without any reference to where it came from and where the money originated.

**Ever notice how all the anti-pot research is all funded by either the US ONDCP, or other self-interested agency? Ever notice how the 3rd party independent studies with no ties to either side always get shunted aside and out of the way despite being reputable (e.g. World Class Universities, non-partisan think tanks, etc.).?

So, again...where's the brain damage here?


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

JumboJones said:


> I drink a lot of coffee by my machine, if it spills and effects my mac, I don't expect it to be replaced and/or fixed.
> 
> I wonder if this will make it's way to cars, I'm not a mechanic, but I could only imagine the filth.


No, it doesn't. Your engine compartment get grimy and gooey all by itself!

The interior however, does get dirty. But it's his/her interior, not ours.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> I drink a lot of coffee by my machine, if it spills and effects my mac, I don't expect it to be replaced and/or fixed.


Uhmm not even remotely the same...  You *know* that it is expected, it is not known or expected that smoking while working on your computer would void the warranty.

As I said before Apple can do so if they choose, but they should make it known before arbitrarily doing so, it is definitely bad will on their part.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## biovizier (Dec 21, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Ok... "Chemical Hazard" then.


Much better.

I would still disagree about the relative exposure risk of a tech occasionally having to work with cigarette residue as opposed to someone inhaling first- or second-hand smoke on an ongoing basis, but at least you are referring to the correct type of hazard.

Unfortunately, some other posters have proven themselves clueless beyond hope, it seems.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> OSHA specifies how much of a substance a worker may be exposed to and under what conditions. It also specifies the type of protective gear a worker must wear when exposed. It does not provide an excuse to avoid all items that have been in contact with cigarette smoke. I believe the OSHA guideline declares the maximum safe level for nicotine exposure at 500 micrograms per cubic metre... OF AIR! This does not hold true for gunk.


There is much recent studying of the effects of the gunk that the smoke leaves behind. Cigarette smoke contains a blend of many known poisons, I've read up to 250 different ones, including things like lead and cyanide. When the smoke settles and condenses on things, there is evidence that those chemicals are still very much present.

I would doubt that a light smoker would leave enough residue behind to effect anything and the computer or other items probably wouldn't stink. But many of can attest to thick coatings of cigarette residue we have seen left behind by heavy smokers. When I cleaned up the room I wrote about earlier, the light fixture and light bulbs were caked with this stuff, mixed with dust. If I had scraped it off, it would have released it back into the air around me. I tossed the whole thing.

Computers draw air in to cool the components. A computer's innards would be the main place where a heavy smoker's residue would collect, especially if he's a geek and spends hours per day in front of it. Beyond the toxic hazard a thick coating of gunk could easily impair the operation of the mechanical and electronic components within.

Again, if you coat your Mac with crap, disgusting and toxic crap, that in all likelihood could interfere with the operation of the machine, why should Apple be held responsible for cleaning it up and compell their employees to endure working on something like that? If it was any other kind of crap that the person was coating their computer with nobody would be debating this. But this case evokes all the kneejerk reactions around smoker's and their so-called "right" to leave the toxic remnants of their addiction wherever they please.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I'm with Apple on this one.
> 
> I hate being around smokers. If I am outside in the wilderness and they light up and I am hundreds of feet away I can smell the stench. In a line up at the bank I can smell it on someone who is not next to me. Smoking cigarettes defies logic and good judgement on every level. An expensive habit without merit that has a negative effect on your health and wrecks your possessions? Idiocy.
> 
> ...



Yeah, well your sentiments are needless to say extreme: "I have walked away from employment and business opportunities when it involved being around smokers. I have ended friendships and love interests due to their smoking habits."

So I don't put much value in your opinion on this topic... anyone who hates/dislikes intensely someone because of their smoking to the point of ending friendships/relationships is a zealot on the issue and just a little obsessive. Not likely to get a balanced viewpoint here.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## biovizier (Dec 21, 2005)

MazterCBlazter said:


> it is a definite health hazard.


That doesn't make it a biohazard. If you hadn't been so quick with your knee-jerk response, you would look less like a clueless idiot now, your later edit not withstanding. FAIL indeed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There is much recent studying of the effects of the gunk that the smoke leaves behind. Cigarette smoke contains a blend of many known poisons, I've read up to 250 different ones, including things like lead and cyanide. When the smoke settles and condenses on things, there is evidence that those chemicals are still very much present.
> 
> I would doubt that a light smoker would leave enough residue behind to effect anything and the computer or other items probably wouldn't stink. But many of can attest to thick coatings of cigarette residue we have seen left behind by heavy smokers. When I cleaned up the room I wrote about earlier, the light fixture and light bulbs were caked with this stuff, mixed with dust. If I had scraped it off, it would have released it back into the air around me. I tossed the whole thing.
> 
> ...


Sure they can choose not to, but I still say that without forewarning that it is bad will on their part.

How many smokers look inside their machines (can look inside their machines in the case of Macbooks and iMacs) to be able to realise that their smoking is gunking up their machine on the inside. There are a few people here who have serviced machines so they know that it does, but the average individual certainly does not, they wouldn't even consider it.

If Apple is not going to service (void the warranty) the machines of smokers who smoke in the presence of their computers, they should state it publicly on their web site and in the terms and conditions of their warranty. Period. It is the right thing to do.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

biovizier said:


> Much better.
> 
> I would still disagree about the relative exposure risk of a tech occasionally having to work with cigarette residue as opposed to someone inhaling first- or second-hand smoke on an ongoing basis, but at least you are referring to the correct type of hazard.
> 
> Unfortunately, some other posters have proven themselves clueless beyond hope, it seems.


Taint the biohazard. That goo coating the interior of the computer has to be cleaned and it is an absolutely disgusting job. It will also add hours to the repair time. Dust is one thing that 5h!t is another and a tech should have the right to refuse to work on it without fear of reprisal. Like I said earlier let the smoker seek out a smoker to do the work and let him pay for the extra time required for a thorough cleaning.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Anyone that smokes cigarettes is doing something that is stupid to the extreme. So it is my choice to keep people that are stupid enough to embrace this idiotic habit out of my life.
> 
> The main reason is that if I go to their homes, my clothes start to smell like smoke, if they are in my vehicle or home, the smell of the smoke gets on the furniture and lingers for days and I despise it.
> 
> No apologies.


None expected and I still have my opinion that your opinion is extreme.


----------



## biovizier (Dec 21, 2005)

MazterCBlazter said:


> So said the Mayor of the forum, we basically said the same thing. So you are saying that he is also a clueless idiot as well?


It was The Mayor's post to which I was responding in the first place.

After pointing out their incorrect usage of the term and referring to my earlier post, The Mayor took the time to go back, read what I wrote earlier, and albeit grudgingly, acknowledged the mistake by using the correct term. Therefore not an idiot.

Now, if despite being shown why they were mistaken, they had continued to obstinately insist that they were not, well then there wouldn't be much hope for them, would there?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## biovizier (Dec 21, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> Taint the biohazard. That goo coating the interior of the computer has to be cleaned and it is an absolutely disgusting job. It will also add hours to the repair time. Dust is one thing that 5h!t is another and a tech should have the right to refuse to work on it without fear of reprisal.


Yes, I get all that, and for the most part agree.



> Like I said earlier let the smoker seek out a smoker to do the work and let him pay for the extra time required for a thorough cleaning.


But like I said even before you did, Apple removed that option by voiding the warranty.

So even if the failure had nothing to do with the smoke deposits -- statistically, some smokers will end up getting a Mac with a defective part -- Apple is trying to get off the hook for the repair. Did they say "this damage is not covered because it is a result of smoke build-up"? No. Did they say "we will cover the repair but there will be a surcharge for cleaning"?, No. They claimed a non-existent "biohazard" to refuse to cover the repair altogether.

The numerous anecdotes in this thread and elsewhere would seem to suggest that while unpleasant, occasionally having to work on a tar-encrusted computer is par for the course in the field of computer repair. If Apple wants to do things differently, the onus is on them to make it clear that their policy is different up front. Some clueless front line boob that doesn't even know what a "biohazard" is (let alone quantifying a chemical hazard) shouldn't be the one with the final say.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There is much recent studying of the effects of the gunk that the smoke leaves behind. Cigarette smoke contains a blend of many known poisons, I've read up to 250 different ones, including things like lead and cyanide. When the smoke settles and condenses on things, there is evidence that those chemicals are still very much present.


All of which OSHA has quantified and created regulations for.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I have heard that at a high end specialty car lot in Vancouver if the vehicle is filthy or reeks of smoke they will not work on it. Period. Supposedly they tell the owners of the smoked in vehicles to take it home, get it professionally cleaned, and not to ever bring it to them in that condition.


They're free to turn down any work they choose, I suppose. What would you say if they decided to turn down any car that smelled of curry?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Thankfully not a Mac.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

gmark2000 said:


> Thankfully not a Mac.


I wouldn't want to see this persons bathroom either... a slob is a slob, smoker or not...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Griz said:


> No, it doesn't. Your engine compartment get grimy and gooey all by itself!
> 
> The interior however, does get dirty. But it's his/her interior, not ours.


You must buy those cars without warrantees on interior components


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

screature said:


> Uhmm not even remotely the same...  You *know* that it is expected, it is not known or expected that smoking while working on your computer would void the warranty.


Really? Search coffee spills and warrantee and see how many times this get asked. 

If you're a smoker and you haven't realized that residue from this habit doesn't ruin the things you own then your computer warrantee is the last thing you should be worried about.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> They're free to turn down any work they choose, I suppose. What would you say if they decided to turn down any car that smelled of curry?


The O is supposed to stay with the B!


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> Yeah, well your sentiments are needless to say extreme: "I have walked away from employment and business opportunities when it involved being around smokers. I have ended friendships and love interests due to their smoking habits."
> 
> So I don't put much value in your opinion on this topic... anyone who hates/dislikes intensely someone because of their smoking to the point of ending friendships/relationships is a zealot on the issue and just a little obsessive. Not likely to get a balanced viewpoint here.


That's not zealous, obsessive, or extreme. Second hand smoke is dangerous and unpleasant to be around. People end relationships for a lot less serious things and nobody calls them zealots.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

biovizier said:


> As I already explained, anyone who thinks cigarette smoke is a biohazard doesn't have a clue. That includes the person at Apple that used that as an excuse for not honouring the warranty.


You explained it but we simply don't believe you as there's more evidence against your opinion that supporting it.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Griz said:


> Doesn't apply in this case IMO.
> 
> "Smoke Nazi" is a common term and was brought out at the _outset _of my arguement, not at the end.
> 
> ...


I doubt smoke nazi is a "common" term, but rather an a way of provoke emotional responses of others, just so you can stand back and either make fun, or state their argument is invalid. Either way, it is inappropriate to compare this situation and the people involved as nazis. 

Wow, your argument of soup nazi... thats clever, but the soup nazi is a particular TV show of Seinfeld not an argument in a thread... good try but no.... hmmmm cigar?

And your point about Godwin's law, you are indeed degrading other people, and are throwing mud rather than citing an elicit point. So in this case, according to you stated point about what Godwin's law is, you are indeed succumbing to it as you have quite clearly demonstrated in this thread you are purposefully and successfully attempting to elicit emotional responses by your comments instead of rationally presenting your argument.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Griz said:


> And let's strike one point for MazterCBlazter as he crosses his arms, pouts and stomps his feet shouting "YOU CAN'T MAKE ME! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!".....
> 
> ....I would postulate that the "brain damage" occurs in the spoon fed mind that just accepts what he hears, rather than thinks it out and questions the inconsistencies in what he hears.
> 
> ...


I believe what you are doing in the first three paragraphs also falls under your interpretation of the Godwin's Law, which in itself is an abuse of that law, in an attempt to distract, censor and to miscast an argument as a hyperbole.



Griz said:


> Ignoring the obvious real world examination of where his facts came from, WHO PAID FOR THEM, and generally swallowing all that is fed to him by mass media because his world would come crashing down around him if he thought that the agencies of the world weren't benevolent and serving the greater good of the world!


So the tobacco industry's studies are more accurate. You claim no one is phrasing their arguments properly, while you lace your responses with so much insults, unrelated items and innuendo to distract from the argument and claim victory when they respond in kind, or at all.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

gmark2000 said:


> Thankfully not a Mac.


A shot from the Microsoft Windows development lab.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> That's not zealous, obsessive, or extreme. Second hand smoke is dangerous and unpleasant to be around. People end relationships for a lot less serious things and nobody calls them zealots.


Never have I heard of anything like this before, ever. But fine if you think friendships are worth ending because someone smokes, then I guess you are in the MCB camp of zealots.  Fair weather friends to say the least...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> Really? Search coffee spills and warrantee and see how many times this get asked.
> 
> If you're a smoker and you haven't realized that residue from this habit doesn't ruin the things you own then your computer warrantee is the last thing you should be worried about.


It is common sense that water and electricity don't mix. It is not common sense that the smell of cigarette smoke in a computer would void a warranty.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> You explained it but we simply don't believe you as there's more evidence against your opinion that supporting it.


That is because you don't know what a bio hazard is... 

A biological hazard or biohazard *is an organism, or substance derived from an organism*, that poses a threat to (primarily) human health. This can include medical waste or samples of a microorganism, virus or toxin (from a biological source) that can impact human health.

It isn't rocket science, it is just the English language.... Geeessshh, instead of opinions why not spend some time and look something up!!!

When was the last time you saw this on a pack of cigarettes:










The answer is never because cigarette smoke *ISN"T* a biohazard. If it was, cigarettes would have to carry the biohazard symbol. So enough opinions, try and deal with some facts.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

screature said:


> Never have I heard of anything like this before, ever. But fine if you think friendships are worth ending because someone smokes, then I guess you are in the MCB camp of zealots.  Fair weather friends to say the least...


At least they will always have online forums. Actually, this raises a question: is it the second hand smoke as it relates to their senses, or is it the actual idea of smoking that is anathema to them. Simply put could they maintain a friendship by agreeing to only have contact via electronic means? What if they discovered one of their chums here on ehmac was a smoker?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

screature said:


> It is common sense that water and electricity don't mix. It is not common sense that the smell of cigarette smoke in a computer would void a warranty.


It's also common sense that smoking kills, but obviously this doesn't compute for some.

And it's not just a smell, it develops a film of goop as well and it's hard as hell to get off of everything. If a smokers teeth and hands get stained while still being washed and brushed every day, just imagine what the things that aren't washed develops.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Cigarette smoke is waste from an biological source, tobacco, and is a threat to human health.


But it is not an organism, so it is not a biohazard.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SD-B (Oct 28, 2009)

I'm not going to go through here to find the post I saw by a Mac Tech that said he had worked on numerous White Macbook's that had begun to yellow from smoke and how disgusting it was...

Overly familiar with anti-smokers that see smoke everywhere, believe they are inhaling second hand smoke from everyone yet jogging in the midst of heavy downtown traffic inhaling car fumes....I found this page quite interesting.....


White MacBooks showing premature discoloration? -- Engadget



> months or years of wear and tear, but reports coming out of Mac forums and websites of three- and four-week old white MacBooks sporting heavy staining on the trackpads and wrist rests are causing no small amount of alarm among the Apple faithful. Having ruled out heat, smokers, and people not washing their hands enough, commenters are now starting to use ugly terms like "manufacturing defect" to explain why disparate white MacBooks are all showing signs of heavy use barely weeks out of the box, with afflicted users reportedly unable to remove the stains even armed with the harshest of cleaning agents. While it's too soon to really gauge the scope of this supposed problem, if we owned a MacBook we might start using external input devices just to be safe, and if we were in the market for a new one, well, we might even drop the extra loot for that fancy -- and seemingly stain-resistant -- black edition




Quote:



Originally Posted by screature View Post




> Never have I heard of anything like this before, ever. But fine if you think friendships are worth ending because someone smokes, then I guess you are in the MCB camp of zealots. Fair weather friends to say the least...





> Then get out of your sheltered existence. This is not a rare or unusual standard.


Screature, WHY would you wish to be friends with people that close minded?

Unfortunately the world is full of intolerant people and its only becoming worse.
Funily enough i cant say I have EVER heard of anyone having died of lung cancer that was not a smoker but whose parents where especially back in the days where ones parents smoked in their cars or people did in the work place etc.....

I could not, nor would not, waste my precious time with anyone so intolerant of others, no matter the cause.
It is by far one of the ugliest traits a person can possess IMHO!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> It's also common sense that smoking kills, but obviously this doesn't compute for some.
> 
> And it's not just a smell, it develops a film of goop as well and it's hard as hell to get off of everything. If a smokers teeth and hands get stained while still being washed and brushed every day, just imagine what the things that aren't washed develops.


It isn't about smoking kills... it is about smoking around your computer voiding your warranty... 

Riddle me this... If it is soooo *obvious* that smoking around your computer, which have been in use for decades now, why is it that this is only NEWS now...?  Maybe because it isn't sooo obvious that smoking around your computer would void your warranty....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Cigarette smoke is waste from an biological source, tobacco, and is a threat to human health.


Not an answer to my question at all... because you don't have one... Doesn't make it it a biohazard, educate yourself...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> +1
> 
> Some people just don't get it.
> 
> ...


+1 agreed some people just don't get it...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Then get out of your sheltered existence. This is not a rare or unusual standard.


Ha! :lmao: That is a good one, I think you are the one living the sheltered existence... ending friendships with people because they happen to smoke... exactly who is leading a shelter existence....  Get over yourself!


----------



## SD-B (Oct 28, 2009)

> t's also common sense that smoking kills, but obviously this doesn't compute for some.



As does alcohol for many. As does fried food for many others, as Does a sedentary lifestyle for quite a few people, as can sex if not safely covered, and so on and so on and so on.


I highly doubt most of the people most intolerant of smokers, who feel as you do, who are single, ALWAYS wear a condom......I doubt they all have the healthiest eating habits or never eat red meat, big thick steaks, etc;.......

Its so easy to point fingers at smokers because it has become so politically correct to do so.
It reminds me of those that point and wag fingers at Israel, yet let other nations completely off of the hook, but thats an entirely other argument.............but intolerance is everywhere it seems these days.


Of the men in this forum wagging their fingers at all smokers and having the nerve to suggest they would not be friendly with someone that smoked..........i wonder how many of you will end up dying of a heart attack?????

This possibility doesnt seem to compute with many people either, many of which whom are non smokers and feeling rather full of themselves in the meantime LOL


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Tobacco is an organism. The smoke is waste from an organism. By the definition provided by screature it is a biohazard.


Wrong! Smoke is not a waste product from an organism... does the a tobacco plant excrete smoke as a waste product..? NO. 

You can twist and turn all you like... smoke is NOT a biohazard.. if it was cigarette packages would have to carry the biohazard symbol... 










They don't. How much logic and definitions does one have to present to you before you will concede you are wrong? Smoke is a health threat yes, it is not a biohazard, which has a specific definition.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> It does when you burn it.


When you burn it you create a chemical reaction that is not part of the biological processes of that organism. 

Look, in your zealotry you obviously have decided to put blinders on regarding logical argumentation even when faced with indisputable facts, like I said you can twist and turn all you want and say that a banana is the same thing as a cucumber because they have the same shape and they are both plants... it doesn't make it so.

You are being quite illogical on this issue in this debate so on this topic with you I am done...

We will have to agree to disagree as I see no road forward. Peace out.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> This is OLD NEWS. I've heard about this happening over the last 10+ years. Back before I owned a Mac and was putting up with Windows some computer shops even had it on signs that they would not work on smokers PC's. I knew of smokers that RMAed motherboards covered in gunk from smoke that had the warranties denied.
> 
> Nothing new here.



BS it is new and you know it. If it wasn't it wouldn't be news, this is a FIRST for Apple, repair shops can do whatever they want, warranties are another matter as they are policy for a manufacturer.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> So far as Apples official policy I am unaware of the specifics of their history.


.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

ertman said:


> I believe what you are doing in the first three paragraphs also falls under your interpretation of the Godwin's Law, which in itself is an abuse of that law, in an attempt to distract, censor and to miscast an argument as a hyperbole.
> 
> So the tobacco industry's studies are more accurate. You claim no one is phrasing their arguments properly, while you lace your responses with so much insults, unrelated items and innuendo to distract from the argument and claim victory when they respond in kind, or at all.


Firstly, if...Big IF you had worked your way through the thread you'd find I insulted no individual first. I dumped on some pretty flimsy arguments that lean on public rhetoric, etc. But until people started accusing me of 'brain damage', and attacking me myself as an individual I did not actually lace anything with insults. I responded to. You would know that if you worked through the thread in it's entirety...didn't do that did you?

So again explain to me how I started this off? Oh was it by presenting an argument, and/or point of view that differed significantly from the 'club mentality' revolving around an opportunity to dump on a group who choose a particular behaviour?

Yeah, right the use of the word Nazi... PUH-LEEEAAAASE! What are you? Made of glass? How about "anti-smoking freak' instead? How about OCD? How about intolerant buffoon? How about MazterCBlazter? Do those work better for you than that dreaded N - word?

Well, I guess I sure asked for it though didn't I? Having the gall to propose a point of view that goes against the grain and ignores 'politically correct science'. Then I get some one trying to be smart and dumping on my after barely reading, or even considering what was proposed in the first place.

Also, WTF does the tobacco industry have to do with this...what conclusion of a conclusion did you draw from what you scanned anyway? HUH?  Clearly you don't even understand my point nor have much experience with politics and science. More likely, again - you didn't READ!

It's like the idea _you_ propose about the flying monkeys! (get it?)

I at least conceded many valid points in my arguments (until some idiot started bashing me on a personal level). So many that responded are too damn afraid to give any quarter to what are valid arguments I present based both in science and in culture (yourself included). Funny how a PhD in oncology could have a conversation about this, yet the members here are smarter than he is.

So here, this should fit in with the myopic anti-smoking-at-all-costs-crowd:

"All smokers should be lined up and shot for daring to pollute our world with their freedom to harm themselves and that awful odour of tobacco!"

Does that fit better with you all? Yeah I thought so. 

*And just because you haven't heard the term, proves only that you need to get out more. Are you kidding me about the Soup Nazi term? Do you read? Seinfeld-isms are now a part of our lexicon, like it or not, use them or not. Don't believe it - tough titty buddy I hear them from coast to coast to coast in my travels in Canada, and the US (of course).

Anyway, I should know better to present any kind of alternate point of view on this board anyway. Something I've been reminded of...again.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

screature said:


> BS it is new and you know it. If it wasn't it wouldn't be news, this is a FIRST for Apple, repair shops can do whatever they want, warranties are another matter as they are policy for a manufacturer.


Smoking argument aside (and MazterCBlazter's insults to me).

I'm inclined to agree with Screature on this one.

Buddy I've been banging around PCs since just after punch cards were programs and you are just making this crap up (see your following post too). You're not talking to a bunch of weekend warriors surfing porn and reading email here from Grandma.

This IS out of left field for Apple, or any other manufacturer.

I second the BS call.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Griz said:


> Smoking argument aside (and YOUR insults to me).
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with Screature on this one.
> 
> ...


Sorry Gris but I'm confused but are you saying I insulted you...  We have had our disagreements for sure... but i don't recall insulting you... "grow up" after your post of "lighten up" in another completely unrelated thread is hardly an insult... you are certainly capable of dishing it it out and I even commended your "statesmanlike" reply to SINC in the other thread for your final posting. So I am bit surprised if you are suggesting I was insulting you when I was merely giving back equally what you seem to have no problem with yourself doing yourself.

If I am misinterpreting I do apologize, but for how thick others skin have to be to take your comments without exception, I would have thought your's would be a little thicker, IF you are saying I insulted you.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

screature said:


> Sorry Gris but I'm confused but are you saying I insulted you...  We have had our disagreements for sure... but i don't recall insulting you... "grow up" after your post of "lighten up" in another completely unrelated thread is hardly an insult... you are certainly capable of dishing it it out and I even commended your "statesmanlike" reply to SINC in the other thread for your final posting. So I am bit surprised if you are suggesting I was insulting you when I was merely giving back equally what you seem to have no problem with yourself doing yourself.
> 
> If I am misinterpreting I do apologize, but for how thick others skin have to be to take your comments without exception, I would have thought your's would be a little thicker, IF you are saying I insulted you.


NO sorry bad quote I was using your response as a springboard. My bad.

I just agree the guy is now just making stuff up.

And why do people have to be 'thick-skinned' to take a discourse on how we've been manipulated into being smoke-Nazis? Good God I hope no one starts a discourse on the perceived evils of cannabis, or, climate change or something else with differing viewpoints.

This has nothing to do with the other thread.

An valid point is a valid point whether it comes from a major jerk, or a Nobel Prize winner (I'm not calling you either).


(I figure a grown-up could've figured that out  )



*Edited that post to work now...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

^^^ Okie Dokie, just checkin'


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Griz said:


> Firstly, if...Big IF you had worked your way through the thread you'd find I insulted no individual first. I dumped on some pretty flimsy arguments that lean on public rhetoric, etc. But until people started accusing me of 'brain damage', and attacking me myself as an individual I did not actually lace anything with insults. I responded to. You would know that if you worked through the thread in it's entirety...didn't do that did you?


Yep, I did. So your saying that it is ok to throw insults if someone else does this? The idea of throwing insults because someone else did it first sounds a bit childish to me. Even in this paragraph instead of discussing how you think I am strictly in error, you use language to provoke an emotional response by me.

The


> You would know that if you worked through the thread in it's entirety...didn't do that did you?


 is what I am referring to. This is not an argument about how I misinterpret, or misstated, which i could actually do as your posts are long and lacking substance. 



> But since you claim that you do not insult first, here you go, your first post.
> All you smoke Nazi's are the disgusting part of smoking. Bunch of intolerant judgmental prudes if you ask me.


 This is an attack on the people posting in this thread, this isn't a generalization, by saying that "All you.... Bunch of intolerant...." versus let say, "I think people are being intolerant about.....". 




Griz said:


> So again explain to me how I started this off? Oh was it by presenting an argument, and/or point of view that differed significantly from the 'club mentality' revolving around an opportunity to dump on a group who choose a particular behaviour?
> 
> Yeah, right the use of the word Nazi... PUH-LEEEAAAASE! What are you? Made of glass? How about "anti-smoking freak' instead? How about OCD? How about intolerant buffoon? How about MazterCBlazter? Do those work better for you than that dreaded N - word?


this is more proof that when challenged you throw insults rather than discussing, this furthermore demonstrates a lack of reasoning in your arguments, where you would rather see an emotional response than to actually discuss any issues, just so you can dump on a person.

As for using the word Nazi. Thats fine, if used in context. I don't believe that saying that smoking or its side effects are equatable to nazi-ism. You can argue perhaps, that people are being intolerant about smokers...etc. However, calling people nazis because they hold a different belief than you is no different than what you claim the smoking nazis are doing to you.




Griz said:


> Well, I guess I sure asked for it though didn't I? Having the gall to propose a point of view that goes against the grain and ignores 'politically correct science'. Then I get some one trying to be smart and dumping on my after barely reading, or even considering what was proposed in the first place.


Although I am guessing this is directed toward me, I fail to see your point. Since I have yet to dump on you, but rather disagree with the structure of your argument. I read your posts and I could also see you referring to others in this statement, but I fail to see how "dumping" on either the "group" mentality or a person to start with and then individual afterwards is really achieving your goals. I generally look forward to discussing with people who have different opinions then myself, however, from actually reading your post, you are quite set in your opinion and attempting to convince you would be a waste of keystrokes, as you would never be convinced as science is the best explanation, not the entire one.



Griz said:


> Also, WTF does the tobacco industry have to do with this...what conclusion of a conclusion did you draw from what you scanned anyway? HUH?  Clearly you don't even understand my point nor have much experience with politics and science. More likely, again - you didn't READ!


Once again you attempt to present an argument in the form of a response to provoke me instead of discussing the issue. I read your post, it was a challenge to your accepted beliefs about how harmful is smoking to the smokers and other around them. From actually reading your post, it would seem to indicate that you would not review any evidence that was provided by posters that could have a relation to anti-smoking organizations, due to possible biases, but you do not present any evidence but of your own to back up your claims. This relates to my off the cuff remark about the tobacco industry, as the majority of the science that supports your opinion has been funded by the tobacco industry, and I do not find that their "evidence" is more reliable than many of the anti-smoking advocates. 



Griz said:


> It's like the idea _you_ propose about the flying monkeys! (get it?)
> 
> 
> > No, please clarify
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Good post ertman. I looked at the post you responded to and thought "Blech, what a mess." You took the time and energy to go over it point by point. Maybe Griz will learn something about presenting an argument that others can take seriously.

On the subject of secondhand smoke and other smoking issues he claims to represent the voice of reason as opposed to all those he calls smoke-Nazis. Yet his opinion goes against the scientific evidence accepted by all major medical organizations and governments, that secondhand smoke is deadly. 

To back up this view against such a weight of accepted science, he obliquely mentions the opinion of a doctor he claims he talked to about smoking, and he considers this his "valid arguments". And those who are not convinced by his anecdotal information are representing a "club mentality" and standing for "politically correct science"? That would be _*proven*_ science, unless Griz has some very compelling information to the contrary.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

this whole argument is stupid and pointless. if your computer is harmed by smoke its no different to it being harmed by liquid, sawdust or a cat. the machine isnt breaking down due to a failed component, its breaking down due to neglect. 

neglect isn't covered under applecare..says so in the 3rd or 4th paragraph

the whole biohazard thing is moronic, i couldnt agree more, but you cant bring in a gunked up smoky busted ass computer and expect the warranty to cover it.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

broad said:


> this whole argument is stupid and pointless. if your computer is harmed by smoke its no different to it being harmed by liquid, sawdust or a cat. the machine isnt breaking down due to a failed component, its breaking down due to neglect.
> 
> neglect isn't covered under applecare..says so in the 3rd or 4th paragraph
> 
> the whole biohazard thing is moronic, i couldnt agree more, but you cant bring in a gunked up smoky busted ass computer and expect the warranty to cover it.


I agree to this post. I believe I had suggested something similar.

I too agree it has nothing to do with a "biohazard", that is an unfortunate tangent, that got the ball rolling.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broad said:


> this whole argument is stupid and pointless. if your computer is harmed by smoke its no different to it being harmed by liquid, sawdust or a cat. the machine isnt breaking down due to a failed component, its breaking down due to neglect.
> 
> neglect isn't covered under applecare..says so in the 3rd or 4th paragraph
> 
> the whole biohazard thing is moronic, i couldnt agree more, but you cant bring in a gunked up smoky busted ass computer and expect the warranty to cover it.


If you actually read the original story, there is no indication what-so-ever that the computer problem was the result of smoking.



> "Today, April, 28, 2008, the Apple store called and informed me that due to the computer having been used in a house where there was smoking, that has voided the warranty and they refuse to work on the machine, due to 'health risks of secondhand smoke.'"





> Then along came Ruth, who took her son's iMac to an authorized repair center. After five days, they apparently told her they couldn't work on it because it was contaminated with cigarette smoke and was therefore a bio-hazard.


There is absolutely no indication that they were dealing with "a gunked up smoky busted ass computer." That is an assumption started here in this thread.

The problem is that there are so many opinions here being expressed based on personal bias rather than on facts.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

broad said:


> this whole argument is stupid and pointless. if your computer is harmed by smoke its no different to it being harmed by liquid, sawdust or a cat. the machine isnt breaking down due to a failed component, its breaking down due to neglect.
> 
> neglect isn't covered under applecare..says so in the 3rd or 4th paragraph
> 
> the whole biohazard thing is moronic, i couldnt agree more, but you cant bring in a gunked up smoky busted ass computer and expect the warranty to cover it.


:clap: *End of discussion.* (I'm sure the whining will however continue)


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

> I think that you are misunderstanding what I am stating. i am willing to listen to any valid arguments that you may present, i just haven't seen anything much aside from a post of your opinion, with no evidence of support, and the outright refusal to review any material that anyone else provides without all the references possible with that material. This is a thread posting, not an article in the journal of medicine. I find it insulting that instead of trying to present the logical argument behind your position to me, you would rather attack my inability to read, understand, or my inability to listen, when that all i have been doing since we started this conversation.
> 
> I have been ignoring most of your comments toward others, as you have said that you have begun insulting back, and since they are not directed at myself, unlike the posting i am responding to, I feel no need to.
> 
> ...



ertman,

Looooooong hard day for me - can't believe it's just Wed. and I don't have the patience to go through this and point out your own idiocy in pointing out my own idiocy. Besides I need sleep anyway.

So...long story short...

Meh! I still stand by what I say.

But for the record, you're right I _did_ insult a GROUP  just as people who still smoke were insulted as a GROUP _originally_.

And if you _read_ the original post in the thread (I rest my case!) - you'd see my oncology reference and it's source.

Too bad the children on the board who counted themselves as part of an insulted group decided to take offence and offer a retort by insulting me as an _individual_ (glad to see they were self-identifying as "smoke-Nazis" and counted themselves offended! What does that say?).


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Hey Griz, you can sure tell who the ex-smokers are in this thread. LOL

All I have to say is that if it were true, that tobacco smoke causes electronics to fail, than my 11year old G4 and my 5yr old G5 should have been dead long ago. Not to mention my Cinema Display, my TV, my CRT, external drives, printers, etc, etc.

All I'm getting from this is whinny Apple techs and CSRs reneging on the warranty.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

kps said:


> Hey Griz, you can sure tell who the ex-smokers are in this thread. LOL
> 
> All I have to say is that if it were true, that tobacco smoke causes electronics to fail, than my 11year old G4 and my 5yr old G5 should have been dead long ago. Not to mention my Cinema Display, my TV, my CRT, external drives, printers, etc, etc.
> 
> All I'm getting from this is whinny Apple techs and CSRs reneging on the warranty.


:lmao:


Amen!


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

> If you actually read the original story, there is no indication what-so-ever that the computer problem was the result of smoking.


id beseech you to read a little slower perhaps...




> The second report was from Ruth who took it to an Authorized Apple reseller. She was told that the tar that built up inside the computer made it uneconomical to repair. Even with only one smoker in the house.


MacMod - Connecting Smart Mac Users - Another way to void your AppleCare: Smoking.

the page linked to in the first post isnt the only one on the net reporting this...numerous ones make direct mention of the fact that the warranty was voided a)because of smoke/tar buildup in the machine and b) the "biohazard" angle, which ill admit is ridiculous.

oh, and this is from the very first article, in case it was missed 



> Dena set up an appointment at the same Apple store. They told me that they would take pictures of the computer - both inside and out before determining whether to proceed and that if the only problem was the optical drive, they'd probably just replace it. Dena called me earlier this week to deliver the "bad news." She said that the computer is beyond economical repair due to tar from cigarette smoke!


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Griz said:


> ertman,
> 
> Looooooong hard day for me - can't believe it's just Wed. and I don't have the patience to go through this and point out your own idiocy in pointing out my own idiocy. Besides I need sleep anyway.
> 
> ...


Yes, I had read that, but I didn't realize that is what you were referring to, you are forgetting you have a few typed pages of posts you are talking about. 

Actually, despite your information being hearsay, I actually believe it is fairly accurate. I have heard similar things myself. So, I think that your "quote" sound reasonable. I believe it has something to do with the amount of cigarette smoke you lungs can process without any real harm.

As for how it relates to the dangers of smoking, I bet that the oncologist you are quoting would also state the chances of developing lung cancer does increase as the level of smoking increases. 

I still disagree with much of the "biohazard" stuff, although that could be some interesting results if that gets researched, and as it relates to the computers or other electronics being harmed by smoking. It does seem entirely possible, but without further research claiming either-way doesn't really seem scientific.



Griz said:


> Too bad the children on the board who counted themselves as part of an insulted group decided to take offence and offer a retort by insulting me as an _individual_ (glad to see they were self-identifying as "smoke-Nazis" and counted themselves offended! What does that say?).


Hey man, I am willing to let this go if you are.

But for the record, all I was trying to do was to have a positive argument about topics brought up in this thread, and was treated with disrespect.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

come on..its the internet...if someone isn't dissing you you aren't saying enough!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

kps said:


> Hey Griz, you can sure tell who the ex-smokers are in this thread. LOL
> 
> All I have to say is that if it were true, that tobacco smoke causes electronics to fail, than my 11year old G4 and my 5yr old G5 should have been dead long ago. Not to mention my Cinema Display, my TV, my CRT, external drives, printers, etc, etc.
> 
> All I'm getting from this is whinny Apple techs and CSRs reneging on the warranty.





Griz said:


> :lmao:
> 
> Amen!


Nice try. The only whining is coming from offended smokers. No worries... smokers are a dying breed. Both figuratively and literally. The more nails in the coffin to smoking, the better - and I unabashedly rejoice every-time a new measure is taken. tptptptp

Sha na na na.... sha na na na.....


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

ehMax said:


> Nice try. The only whining is coming from offended smokers. No worries... smokers are a dying breed. Both figuratively and literally. The more nails in the coffin to smoking, the better - and I unabashedly rejoice every-time a new measure is taken. tptptptp
> 
> Sha na na na.... sha na na na.....


Why should I be offended? Just because I smoke doesn't mean that don't think it's a filthy habit and wish I never started, but BS is BS and Apple has no right to disqualify smokers from their rights to the warranty.

Hey, hey....gooood bye!


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

My god, this is the thread that never dies.

Can we not just apply a little bit of logic and common sense here and wrap this up already? You're all sitting here arguing over semantics and personal feelings when in reality, it doesn't even matter. So here's a bit of logic for you, free of charge:

1- Apple (or anyone for that matter) cannot refuse warranty because you are a smoker. They CAN however refuse warranty if they can prove that smoking caused the damage. It's not rocket science; Computers need cool air. They get the cool air through vents and fans. If the buildup from smoking slows down the fans (which it can do!) or causes excess heat in any way, _you caused the damage_. No warranty. Just like if your vents are blocked by pet hair. Just like if you spill a drink in the machine. Doesn't matter how you slice it, if you adversely affected the machine in such a way as to cause damage, _and they can prove it (which is easy to do)_, you should be out of warranty. Common sense!

2- If you're a smoker, sure you have a right to smoke. Just like the employee working on your computer has a right to refuse the work until the machine is clean. You have a choice to smoke or not, they have a choice to work on it or not. That does not equal no warranty; it means it's your responsibility to get it cleaned at your own cost to a reasonable level so the tech is comfortable working on it. Or if the tech is ok with it as is, then so be it. _But it should be their choice._ If you walked into work and someone puked all over your desk, would you want to work on the desk? Would you clean it up yourself? You have a right to a reasonably clean and safe work environment, _and so do the techs._ Is this stuff really that hard to comprehend?

3- I fully believe smokers have the right to smoke. However, the vast majority of smokers don't fully realize the extent of their actions, and how they infringe on others' rights. _Us non-smokers have rights too._ You have the right to smoke, and I have the right to not be forced to smell your smoke. Guess what: if you're standing next to me outside smoking I CAN SMELL IT. If you just inhaled, and jump on a bus then exhale, I CAN SMELL IT. If you just had a smoke and step into an elevator and breathe with your mouth open, I CAN SMELL IT. If you smoked in a closed environment all day then sit next to me, I CAN SMELL IT. Is this really news to anyone? Can you not tell when you're affecting others? Let's even go as far as leaving the entire health issue aside, just so there's no silly rebuttal of "I don't believe the studies". The fact is, I have the right to not have to endure the _smell_. So do your kids. And life partner. And house painter. And plumber. So if you want to smoke, by all means, smoke. But pay attention to your actions and don't impose yourself on others. Oh wait... I hear it coming, so let me pre-empt the "but what about perfume" argument. I agree! People should use all scents in extreme moderation! Some people have allergies, and you should be understanding of others. But that doesn't give you a license to smoke around others. It's like saying "car accidents kill people, so I can stab people... what's the difference?". Don't use other people's ignorance to justify your own. That doesn't make it any better.

4- Just because you're a smoker and you come on here and say "xyz machine has never failed on me" doesn't mean the effects are harmless. Older machines didn't require as much cooling as they do now. And your environment affects things too (temperature of the room, placement of the vents, etc). True story: I spilled coke in my laptop once, and after 3 days of drying, it was working again. Does that mean that I can claim "spilling coke in a machine will NOT cause damage"? Of course not! 

Honestly people. Can we not just use our brains for a moment and put this moronic thread to a rest?

A7


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I'm very torn because I want to add to your excellent post a7mc (which I agree with in all parts) without keeping the thread alive. 

So, after some consideration, I've decided to just say something with additional facts, no opinions beyond my agreement above, and hope the thread dies because people were bored. 

Here's the additional point I wanted to contribute:

Tar and other "smoke residue" is in fact bad for computers. Getting enough tar on components to affect the machine can be the subject of debate and will probably be ultimately determined by a court, but its nonetheless a fact that tar/cigarette smoke residue _is_ bad for computers. So are other air pollutants. Indeed, if something in the air is bad for _humans_, it's probably bad for computers too.

Someday, a self-cleansing mechanism of computers will be invented that imitates the function of the self-cleaning mechanism of our lungs, so that short-term exposure to harmful pollutants can be recovered from with zero ultimate effect. Until then, people who use their computers in polluted environments (which includes abnormal dust/pollen levels, pet dander, deep fryer stations and yes, smoke) should research, invest in and use air cleaners to protect, enhance and extend the useful life of these expensive and important pieces of electronic equipment.

There. That was pretty damn safe and boring. The Swiss would be proud.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

I'm either too lazy or uninterested to read the entire thread.... but did a tech actually refuse to work on someone's computer because they were a smoker and the computer smelled of smoke residue, or did it have a build up of smoke residue, or is this just a general thread about the possibility of smoke damaging your computer?


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

im too lazy and uninterested in you being lazy and uninterested to reply.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broad said:


> id beseech you to read a little slower perhaps...


 Ok my bad, I did miss that about Ruth's case.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> Nice try. The only whining is coming from offended smokers. *No worries... smokers are a dying breed. Both figuratively and literally. The more nails in the coffin to smoking, the better*- and I unabashedly rejoice every-time a new measure is taken. tptptptp
> 
> *Sha na na na.... sha na na na..... *


Wow way outta line Mr. Mayor way... way outta line... give me my vacation now but that is a damned insensitive, and asinine thing to say. 

Most smokers wish they weren't and had never started, but they are addicted to one of the most addictive substances there is and struggle against it constantly. 

What a boorish, self important thing to say, basically wishing death on smokers... Christ I can't even began to express my outrage at you saying such a f**king stupid thing.  tptptptp beejacon

Being a smoker doesn't make you a bad person, it just means you have a flaw like every other person on the planet.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

a7mc said:


> ... 3- *I fully believe smokers have the right to smoke. However, the vast majority of smokers don't fully realize the extent of their actions, and how they infringe on others' rights. Us non-smokers have rights too. You have the right to smoke, and I have the right to not be forced to smell your smoke. Guess what: if you're standing next to me outside smoking I CAN SMELL IT. If you just inhaled, and jump on a bus then exhale, I CAN SMELL IT. If you just had a smoke and step into an elevator and breathe with your mouth open, I CAN SMELL IT. If you smoked in a closed environment all day then sit next to me, I CAN SMELL IT. Is this really news to anyone? Can you not tell when you're affecting others? Let's even go as far as leaving the entire health issue aside, just so there's no silly rebuttal of "I don't believe the studies". The fact is, I have the right to not have to endure the smell. So do your kids. And life partner. And house painter. And plumber. So if you want to smoke, by all means, smoke. But pay attention to your actions and don't impose yourself on others. *
> 
> A7


I fully agree a7mc. I have yet to kick the addiction (I smoke not a whole lot - so you think it would be easier) but I keep trying.

I never smoke in public and that includes outside at work (I don't smoke at work at all). I don't smoke in the house, for the reasons you mention, plus I don't even like my own second hand smoke. I always go out in the back yard (we have 1/4 acre property so I'm not even bothering the neighbours) and this includes rain and -20 temperatures.

I am a very conscientious smoker, the *only* other people I smoke in the presence of are other smokers. This is the way it should be and if every smoker were so conscientious I think there would be less disdain for them and perhaps more understanding that it is an addiction and one of the hardest to kick.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

ertman said:


> *Actually, despite your information being hearsay, I actually believe it is fairly accurate. I have heard similar things myself. So, I think that your "quote" sound reasonable. I believe it has something to do with the amount of cigarette smoke you lungs can process without any real harm.
> 
> As for how it relates to the dangers of smoking, I bet that the oncologist you are quoting would also state the chances of developing lung cancer does increase as the level of smoking increases.*
> 
> Hey man, I am willing to let this go if you are.


Bold = exactly! A good chunk of my point!

Fair enough!

Hatchet buried!

Cheers!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Wow way outta line Mr. Mayor way... way outta line... give me my vacation now but that is a damned insensitive, and asinine thing to say.
> 
> Most smokers wish they weren't and had never started, but they are addicted to one of the most addictive substances there is and struggle against it constantly.
> 
> ...


My reading of ehMax's post wasn't the same as yours screature. To put this in context, my mother died from lung cancer early (61), after a lifetime of smoking. I encouraged her to quit since I was a small child, and she tried, but she couldn't.

When ehMax said that "smokers are dying breed both literally and figuratively", I took that as a statement of fact, not wishing death on anyone. Smoking _IS_ dying out as a habit, and everyone knows that if you smoke, statistically you will probably reduce your lifespan by about 15 years on average. I don't see where that is wishing death on anyone.

Later where he says, "the more nails in the coffin _*to smoking*_, the better" he is clearly wishing for smoking to die out as a habit, through more regulation and people quitting. His sentences may have been worded in a way that might be confused to look like he is wishing death on people, but I don't think they actually say that.

Contrary to what some might think here, I am not an anti-smoking Nazi. I feel like the loss of my mother to the habit, gives me some authority in speaking out against the habit though. I have many friends and people I respect who smoke — although I wish they didn't, and have many friends who are ex-smokers. 

When I was younger in the '70s and '80s almost everyone I knew smoked. When I moved into my first apartment and I was furnishing the place, I actually purchased ashtrays, because in those days, I knew nobody would even ask me if they could smoke and would probably just grab a plate or something to use as their ashtray. That was normal back then. Thankfully times have changed.

A small but vocal subset of smokers have continuously reacted strongly to every constraint that has been put on their behaviour since the 1970s, each time claiming that their "rights" were being infringed upon, even though it is their activity that is infringing on others rights. This is just more of the same, then after that constraint becomes accepted, the smokers admit, "Well that was reasonable, but this new thing is going too far." I remember each of these controversies. I remember my mother railing about the inconvenience of having to extinguish her cigarette before she entered a store, when that was brought in many years ago.

Then there was the imposition of smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants in the '80s. About as useful as having peeing and non-peeing sections in a pool. I remember sitting with a friend in a crowded restaurant having breakfast one Sunday morning. A little old lady came in, saw a just vacated table next to ours in the non-smoking section, sat down and immediately lit up. I leaned over and as gently as possible said, "Excuse me Ma'am, but this is the non-smoking section". She instantly flew into a rage, "You #%$ non-smokers are going too goddam far!! Next thing you know we'll have to go outside if we want to have a goddam smoke!!" (She was prescient, ha ha ) The manager came over to deal with the commotion and asked *us* to move rather than dealing with the yelling old lady. We paid our bill and left.

So screature, I salute your conscientiousness in not imposing your smoke on others and I wish you well in your quest to quit the habit. I know it's not easy. If anything, I think that non-smokers asserting their right to not have to be around cigarette smoke as helping smokers in that quest, making it ever more difficult to carry on the habit without having to go to special effort.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ... When ehMax said that "smokers are dying breed both literally and figuratively", I took that as a statement of fact, not wishing death on anyone. Smoking _IS_ dying out as a habit, and everyone knows that if you smoke, statistically you will probably reduce your lifespan by about 15 years on average. I don't see where that is wishing death on anyone.
> 
> Later where he says, "the more nails in the coffin _*to smoking*_, the better" he is clearly wishing for smoking to die out as a habit, through more regulation and people quitting. His sentences may have been worded in a way that might be confused to look like he is wishing death on people, but I don't think they actually say that...


Perhaps... But as the Mayor he should exhibit better discretion and diplomacy. *No worries... smokers are a dying breed. Both figuratively and literally.* Anyway you look at it, at the very, very least it is insensitive in the extreme and an extremely poor choice of words.

If he said *smoking* is a dying practice fine, but he was speaking about PEOPLE DYING!!!!! It infuriates me all over again just writing this... then to close it off... Sha na na na.... sha na na na.....  .... makes my friggin blood boil. 

It must be nice to be the Mayor and feel that you can say whatever you like with impunity as the final word.    

Please understand GA my anger is not directed at you, but responding to you makes me angry all over again.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Please understand GA my anger is not directed at you, but responding to you makes me angry all over again.


Yep, I understand. 

I probably shouldn't attempt to speak for ehMax and what he meant, just that my reading of his post was different, speaking as someone who has had a close relative die from smoking. Seeing ehMax's character as revealed on this forum, I really don't think he was wishing for anyone to die, but possibly his wording may have been poorly chosen.

This whole issue seems to bring up a lot of strong feelings, I know it does in my case.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Nice try. The only whining is coming from offended smokers. No worries... smokers are a dying breed. Both figuratively and literally. The more nails in the coffin to smoking, the better - and I unabashedly rejoice every-time a new measure is taken. tptptptp
> 
> Sha na na na.... sha na na na.....


Agreed. Not entirely sure how the truth is insensitive, or any such thing. You've made your bed, now you have to lie in it.

I'm glad that it's illegal to smoke near buildings, and in restaurants, etc. I just wish police would start enforcing the existing bylaws. Too many people smoke right outside office buildings stores, and apartments/condos.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

screature said:


> Wow way outta line Mr. Mayor way... way outta line... give me my vacation now but that is a damned insensitive, and asinine thing to say.
> 
> Most smokers wish they weren't and had never started, but they are addicted to one of the most addictive substances there is and struggle against it constantly.
> 
> ...


Reading it back I can agree I used poor choice of words and that they could be taken in a certain context.... _from someone who didn't know me_ that is. 

Do not wish death upon smokers?  No. 

Do I wish death to smoking. Yes. 

Do I get incredibly angry when smokers feel they have some sort of right to expose me to their smoke or gunk filled computers? Yes. 

Am I extremely happy every time there is a new measure to decrease my exposure to smoking? Yes. 

I want death to smoking and that is what I was singing my sha na na's too. I have lost family and friends to smoking. I have current family suffering from the effects of smoking and I see the grip that smoking has them in. Smoking is the business of death and sickness and I don't wish it on anyone and especially get my back up when people think they have the right to expose me to it.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

Someone insults smokers as a group to that extent and you all chime in with cheers.

I insult smoke Naz-er- anti-smoking zealots as a group and I get lambasted.

Nice self-rightous folk around here!tptptptp

Sound like some folk around here would have been goose-steppin with the best of them.

NOW THERE IS GODWIN'S LAW!!!!

Thread DEAD!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Griz said:


> Someone insults smokers as a group to that extent and you all chime in with cheers.


To what extent are you talking about?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Kill it ehMax, do us all a favour, call it a day and lock this thread up.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Agreed, it's time to butt out.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

You know smokers, you don't actually smoke. The cigarette does all the smoking, you are just the sucker!


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> Agreed. Not entirely sure how the truth is insensitive, or any such thing. You've made your bed, now you have to lie in it.


Do you drive... Have you ever flown in a plane... Taken a train... A shower... A bath....?

These can all potentially kill you... some with greater statistical frequency than from smoking... I guess you have no sympathy/empathy for people who partake in these activities and happen to die either, they made their bed let them lie in it... 



ehMax said:


> Do not wish death upon smokers?  No.


Well nice to know... was the  really necessary... if you truly want to express some sort of apology (which I am not so sure that you do) I don't think it was... at least not if you are sincere.



ehMax said:


> ...especially get my back up when people think they have the right to expose me to it.


I don't think anyone here ever did.. I certainly didn't.

Personally I don't believe I have the right to smoke, I only have the *freedom* to do so, non-smokers have a *right* to breathe clean, smoke free air, that is why, personally I take the steps that I do (as already mentioned).



ehMax said:


> You know smokers, you don't actually smoke. The cigarette does all the smoking, you are just the sucker!


Poor attempt at levity... 

The thing that I have the most trouble with is the disdain and outright hatred from nonsmokers towards smokers. If you truly believe that smoking is a bad thing (which it is) then why express your vitriol towards those afflicted rather than against the real culprit which is the practice itself. There are many, many choices that we make in life that can lead to our death and the death of others and rarely if ever do I see such disdain.

Do we not have sympathy/empathy for those addicted to heroine (a substance that is on par with the additive properties of nicotine) and have safe injection sites and needle exchange programs...? Do we not condemn the pusher and not the junkie...? Yet somehow nicotine and smoke is another class altogether and the addict is only due condemnation, scorn and ridicule.

Something to think about.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

broad said:


> im too lazy and uninterested in you being lazy and uninterested to reply.


but you already did


----------



## DDKD726 (Feb 21, 2005)

Can we go ahead and move this to the everything else section? It's not about computers anymore...


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

DDKD726 said:


> Can we go ahead and move this to the everything else section? It's not about computers anymore...


I second that...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

screature said:


> Do you drive... Have you ever flown in a plane... Taken a train... A shower... A bath....?
> 
> These can all potentially kill you... some with greater statistical frequency than from smoking... I guess you have no sympathy/empathy for people who partake in these activities and happen to die either, they made their bed let them lie in it...
> 
> ...


My question to you is, was it really necessary to assume that I wanted smokers dead in the first place? 

As I said in my followup, I want smoking gone..... the act of smoking gone. I don't hold disdain for people who are addicted to smoking. I do hold disdain for those who might have a smoke / gunk filled computer and think that an Apple service tech should be forced to service it.... which is what this thread _was_ about. 

And, I thought the joke about smoking was funny. I've got lots more too.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> My question to you is, was it really necessary to assume that I wanted smokers dead in the first place?


Are not the Mayor.. do you not hold a place of certain esteem and associated decorum...?

I am beginning to regret my contribution to you...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Sorry to re-light this thread, but found a funny comic over at *Joy of Tech*. 










Admit it Nitrozac & Snaggy.... This thread inspired that comic.  

They really got the looks of the average Mac service bench down pat.


----------

