Al Gore is desperate for his Nic-O-Dick
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Five surgeons are discussing who were the best patients to operate on.
The first surgeon says, 'I like to see Accountants on my operating table because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.'
The second responds, 'Yeah, but you should try Electricians! Everything inside them is colour-coded.'
The third surgeon says, 'No, I really think Librarians are the best everything inside them is in alphabetical order.'
The fourth surgeon chimes in, 'You know I like Construction Workers. Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over at the end, and when the job takes longer than you said it would.'
But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed, 'You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains, and no spine, and there are only two moving parts - the mouth and the arsehole - and they are interchangeable'AMEN to that.
Posted by Gasdoc at 9:34 pm
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Posted by Gasdoc at 8:56 pm
Sunday, August 21, 2011
by Blad Tolstoy
Friday, August 19, 2011
Posted by Gasdoc at 6:18 pm
Sunday, August 07, 2011
Posted by Gasdoc at 12:08 pm
Friday, July 29, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
By Blad Tolstoy
Many of you are now aware of the article that appeared in 'Hemel Today' advocating the shooting of smokers by immature hack journalist Alan Dee on 24th July entitled: "Snipers could soon snuff out smoking." Similarly, the same article was printed in the 'Luton Herald and Post' dated 21st July 2011.
This is not humorous but very stupid and the respective editors should have prevented its transmission. For those who might consider my response extreme, then let me point out that this sick trend is a manifestation of a very dangerous undercurrent given carte blanche by the irresponsible actions of the toxic tobacco control lobby and two governments: the last one, New-Labour and this one, supposedly Conservative, who have given the green light for anything that intimidates or damages smokers to be okay.
This notion that shooting smokers is okay is not new. See for example, this article in Ham & High: 'Hampstead and Highgate Express':
“Smoking party goers shot by air gun sniper" 18 October 2007
SMOKERS at a party discovered their habit really was bad for their health when they stepped outside and were shot at by air rifle snipers. The victims were hosting a party in Kingsgate Road in Kilburn on October 6 but things turned sour just after midnight. Party host Adam Terry, 24, said: "We had the balcony doors open as several of us smoke. "My girlfriend went out on to the balcony for a cigarette, and came back in complaining that she had been hit - she'd felt a sharp pain in her shoulder. I went out to have a smoke, felt a very sharp pain in my head and when I put my hand up there to feel it, found that a small metal air rifle round had punctured the skin and I was bleeding." The housemates called police but before they arrived a third smoker went outside to locate the snipers and was shot in the back. Police arrived on the scene and checked the injuries. They told people not to go back out on the balcony for the rest of the night and to draw the curtains in case the windows were shot at. Mr Terry, who works as a civil servant, said: "We received a follow-up phone call the next day, and a visit from the forensics' team. The police confirmed that it would be difficult to find out who did it, but suggested a leafleting campaign on the road from where the shots were fired - Mazenod Avenue - warning about the dangers of shooting people in the head with air rifles."
And then there's this:
“Supposing ... Snipers were brought in to shoot smokers”
Charlie Brooker, The Guardian, Friday 17 February 2006
And then again there's this:
"UGANDAN KILLED FOR SMOKING IN PUBLIC"
No, it does not say the man was shot, but he was killed because people thought it was okay to kill a smoker. Again, the blame essentially may be laid at the feet of toxic tobacco control and weak politicians who are not prepared to respect people’s freedom of choice and with regard to a legal product, and think it is perfectly respectable to scapegoat smokers. After all, now that it is much more difficult to discriminate against and act violently towards ethnic minorities, someone else has to be a convenient whipping boy. What a low morality!
Lastly, if readers would like to see a whole catalogue of deaths related to smoking bans, some involving the killing of smokers for smoking, then take a good look at this collection of evils carefully catalogued by Samantha at Smokers’ Club:
No, I do not like the idea that press freedom should be curtailed, but at the same time, I cannot see that smokers and their non-smoking friends have any choice but to take to task, in the future, every newspaper that permits the kind of trash written by Alan Dee and his ilk. If that means legions of complaints to the Press Complaints Commission, MPs and Chicken Cameron, then so be it. The gloves are off!
Posted by Gasdoc at 9:28 pm
Thursday, July 21, 2011
by Blad Tolstoy
For those of you may dislike this mendacious piece of ASH toadywork as much as I do, you may be relieved to find that others don't care for her either. See here a little website dedicated to her and enjoy:
Anne Milton - Guildford MP (and Dipstick)
Posted by Gasdoc at 9:18 pm
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
by Blad Tolstoy
Some of you may have read this article, published today (18/07/2011) in the Herald of Scotland: “University says tobacco giant is “harassing staff”.
This article reports that Philip Morris International (PMI), using the Freedom of Information Act (FOI), has tried for almost a year to get hold of the full details of a project about smoking and young people undertaken by Stirling University’s Centre for Tobacco Control Research. So far, Stirling University has refused to accede to this request, claiming that PMI is harassing its staff and demanding that academic work be exempt form the FOI.
For those completely brainwashed by the notion that the tobacco industry is always the seat of all evil, such conduct by Stirling University might seem entirely justified. However, if so, they need to think again and hard!
To begin with, a precedent should not be set because one academic establishment does not like a request from the tobacco industry regarding its work – and particularly, when that university’s work will probably directly affect the tobacco company concerned.
Moreover, universities study all sorts of subjects and subsequently produce papers which may affect the future of the general public, in addition to commercial companies. Consequently, unless something relates to national security (such as military matters), there is no reason, in an open society, why academic work should not be subject to the FOI. By the same token, in my view and as someone who has worked extensively with charities, the fact that charities are exempt from the FOI doesn’t make sense either. Over the years, there have been a number of charities that have been subject to bad practices and sometimes unlawful activities. The public should have the right to access that data.
Returning to the subject of universities, it was only because of the FOI that the public was able to obtain the information relating to The University of East Anglia’s scandalous manipulation of information with regard to the subject of climate change. In fact, there have been countless times when ordinary citizens have made good use of the FOI and it is one of the few truly enlightened acts produced by the last government.
One cannot let this matter rest here, however, and it is worth examining more closely the possible motives of Stirling University’s Centre for Tobacco Control Research. Contrary to what the naïve might think, tobacco control does not consist of lots of “good guys” at all. Many years ago, it forwent honest scientific research in favour of an “ends justifies the means” strategy whereby any claim, however wild and unsubstantiated by proper scientific evidence, was justified in order to bring about the great Utopian goal of stopping everyone from smoking. Given that Stirling University’s Centre for Tobacco Control Research department is a hotbed of fanatical activism (its staff team include both Gerard Hastings and Linda Bauld) then there is a distinct possibility that it does have some dubious research to hide. On the other hand, if this is not true, then what does this particular academic institution have to be afraid of in permitting access to its work?
Whatever the case, the FOI must not be watered down to accommodate this rather arrogant academic establishment for if it is, then the public will not be as aware of matters that affect it as it should be and the concept of an open society will receive a major setback. Having said that, we are ruled by a pretty weak and unprincipled political establishment, hence, many rotten things are possible…