Fracture update 3 or 4

Ted Waldron wrote:

Mary Malmros wrote:

so she's got the awful
look and isn't even getting high out of the bargain.

That look she has is from smoking.

Feh. I smoked 3 packs a day for 30 years and I NEVER was that thin. I
would LOVE to be gaunt.

--
Cheers,
Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
-- Lionel

On 6/12/06 9:57 PM, in article
, "Ted Waldron"
wrote:

In article ,
Mary Malmros wrote:

so she's got the awful
look and isn't even getting high out of the bargain.

That look she has is from smoking. It is a combination of gaunt and
leathery skin from not getting enough oxygen to the skin cells. If she
got a beauty mole on the tip her nose, and a couple flying monkey
attendants, it would complete the picture.

From what I see on a daily basis in health care, someone who continues to
smoke has to be (being benevolent about it) not very bright. Questionable
judgment.

Vincent Walker wrote in
:




On 6/12/06 9:38 PM, in article
, "Ted Waldron"
wrote:


Molly Ivins is a syndicated columnist, she worked for the New York
Times at one time in the mid 70s to early 80s, and didn't have a
great relationship with the newspaper, (She became their Rocky
Mountain Bureau Chief, which she liked because it got her away from
New York) She hasn't work for the New York Times, its other papers
or the media company in almost 25 years.

I am guessing that you are confusing Maureen Dowd with Molly Ivins,
who wrote some of the most acerbic comments about the Lewinsky affair
than anyone else. I don't consider her at all liberal, compare to
NYT columnists Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert.

Personally I take all columnists with a grain of salt. Their job
is
be confrontational. The only pundits I take seriously are the
Magliozzi brothers. Some of the "Onion" columnists are objective and
thought provoking as well.

It's possible (don't forget, I am from NY and read the Times on a
regular basis a long time ago). Time really flies when you get old and
sometimes I lose perspective about how long ago I read or did
something. It may be that the columns I've read by Ivins were
published in the Washington Post-It's been a long while. I stopped
reading pundits years ago. I've even stopped reading the WSJ
editorials. I'm just so tired of brainless ideologues.

Kinda puts you out of the running as a qualified judge of Ivins vs.
Coulter, no?

BTW, Jay Leno is hosting Coulter and George Carlin on Wednesday night.
Based on the kind of stuff that Coulter writes when she has all the time
she needs to think it over and (presumably) some form of editorial
oversight, I'm betting she's reduced to a twitching, screaming bundle of
invective within two minutes.

Vincent Walker wrote:


On 6/12/06 9:57 PM, in article
, "Ted Waldron"
wrote:

In article ,
Mary Malmros wrote:

so she's got the awful
look and isn't even getting high out of the bargain.
That look she has is from smoking. It is a combination of gaunt and
leathery skin from not getting enough oxygen to the skin cells. If she
got a beauty mole on the tip her nose, and a couple flying monkey
attendants, it would complete the picture.

From what I see on a daily basis in health care, someone who continues to
smoke has to be (being benevolent about it) not very bright. Questionable
judgment.

Having been a smoker for 30 and who is reasonably
bright, I can attest that most smokers are
swimming up that long river in Africa (de-Nile).
BTW, I did quit, 15 years ago.

Mary Malmros wrote:
Vincent Walker wrote in
:



On 6/12/06 9:38 PM, in article
, "Ted Waldron"
wrote:


Molly Ivins is a syndicated columnist, she worked for the New York
Times at one time in the mid 70s to early 80s, and didn't have a
great relationship with the newspaper, (She became their Rocky
Mountain Bureau Chief, which she liked because it got her away from
New York) She hasn't work for the New York Times, its other papers
or the media company in almost 25 years.

I am guessing that you are confusing Maureen Dowd with Molly Ivins,
who wrote some of the most acerbic comments about the Lewinsky affair
than anyone else. I don't consider her at all liberal, compare to
NYT columnists Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert.

Personally I take all columnists with a grain of salt. Their job
is
be confrontational. The only pundits I take seriously are the
Magliozzi brothers. Some of the "Onion" columnists are objective and
thought provoking as well.
It's possible (don't forget, I am from NY and read the Times on a
regular basis a long time ago). Time really flies when you get old and
sometimes I lose perspective about how long ago I read or did
something. It may be that the columns I've read by Ivins were
published in the Washington Post-It's been a long while. I stopped
reading pundits years ago. I've even stopped reading the WSJ
editorials. I'm just so tired of brainless ideologues.

Kinda puts you out of the running as a qualified judge of Ivins vs.
Coulter, no?

BTW, Jay Leno is hosting Coulter and George Carlin on Wednesday night.
Based on the kind of stuff that Coulter writes when she has all the time
she needs to think it over and (presumably) some form of editorial
oversight, I'm betting she's reduced to a twitching, screaming bundle of
invective within two minutes.

we can only hope.

On 6/13/06 9:29 AM, in article , "VtSkier"
wrote:


Kinda puts you out of the running as a qualified judge of Ivins vs.
Coulter, no?

Please relay to Ms. Malmros, that I have read numerous columns by Ivins the
last one about 10 years ago (Not to mention the 10 solid years I've
participated on several political boards). - whether or not the vehicle is
the NYT or the WP doesn't negate the fact that she has no more validity than
Coulter. Coulter, Ivins and Malmros are all morons.

On 6/13/06 9:28 AM, in article , "VtSkier"
wrote:



Having been a smoker for 30 and who is reasonably
bright, I can attest that most smokers are
swimming up that long river in Africa (de-Nile).
BTW, I did quit, 15 years ago.

The comment was made towards those who continue to smoke and the young
people who are taking up the habit. You quit that's the important thing and
the cannot change the past. One of the most misunderstood things is the fact
that even when you overlook lung cancer, long term smoking causes
irreversible damage to the lungs via COPD and that alone can cause premature
death. COPD doesn't have a time table - it can hit at 5 years or 25 years.
Destruction of the sensitive alveoli tissue impedes the transfer of O2 and
CO2 making it more difficult to get oxygen to the body and it severely
impedes the ability of the body to fight off infection and rid itself of
pulmonary obstructions (fluid/phlegm). Pneumonia is a very dangerous hazard
for COPD'ers.

The implications for you, specifically, is to get a flu shot every year and
get a pneumonia vaccination every 5 years. For those that are continuing to
smoke there are all sorts of aids to assist you - you just have to make the
commitment. Motivation? Think of all the lift tickets you can buy with the
money you save on cigarettes.

Vincent Walker wrote:


On 6/13/06 9:29 AM, in article , "VtSkier"
wrote:


Kinda puts you out of the running as a qualified judge of Ivins vs.
Coulter, no?

Please relay to Ms. Malmros, that I have read numerous columns by Ivins the
last one about 10 years ago (Not to mention the 10 solid years I've
participated on several political boards). - whether or not the vehicle is
the NYT or the WP doesn't negate the fact that she has no more validity than
Coulter. Coulter, Ivins and Malmros are all morons.

Vinnie,
I'm in the smoking part of this thread, not the political pundit
part. I don't read pundits either particularly, at least not with
a purpose. I do think what Ann Coulter writes is drivel and as
you say, designed to play to her audience. Can she be as dumb as
she appears to be? So, please do your own "relaying". Thanks.

Vincent Walker wrote in
:




On 6/13/06 9:29 AM, in article ,
"VtSkier" wrote:


Kinda puts you out of the running as a qualified judge of Ivins vs.
Coulter, no?

Please relay to Ms. Malmros,

Ms. Malmros can read the newsgroup just fine, son.

that I have read numerous columns by
Ivins the last one about 10 years ago

As I was saying...

(Not to mention the 10 solid
years I've participated on several political boards). - whether or not
the vehicle is the NYT or the WP doesn't negate the fact that she has
no more validity than Coulter. Coulter, Ivins and Malmros are all
morons.

Newsflash: Humpty Dumpty has just redefined the word "moron"! It now
means, "Anyone who doesn't agree with Vincent Walker"! Now GET WITH THE
PROGRAM, MORONS!

Mary Malmros wrote:

Newsflash: Humpty Dumpty has just redefined the word "moron"! It now
means, "Anyone who doesn't agree with Vincent Walker"! Now GET WITH THE
PROGRAM, MORONS!

Well, since it was originally defined by a vote at a convention, I
suppose another vote could be taken easily enough. If enough voters
agree with Mr. Vincent's definition does it become official and binding
on dictionary editors? In particular, where does the OED stand on the
issue? Inquiring minds want to know.