Recently stopped smoking - diving implications for lung discharge?

Bradburn Fentress wrote:
> "Joe English" <jenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
> news:4a549$41eaf5a4$ce504905$29622@allthenewsgroup s.com...
>
>
>>Never said 95% of restaurant patrons were smokers. I said "their crowd
>>was 5%" if what it was before the holidays (actually Dec 31.) Maybe it
>>was 6% or 8% maybe it was 3% or 4% -don't misrepresent what I said.
>
>
> Read your comment again. You are indeed claiming that the ban caused 95% of
> that restaurant's customers to go to another same restaurant in another
> county because it allowed smoking.
>
> Maybe you meant something else.
>
>
>
>
>
Quote :
I went to the local Outback for dinner, their crowd was 5% of what
it was before the holidays.

You said :
I am suspicious of any claim that implies 95% of restaurant patrons
in Buffalo New York are smokers

I never said 95% of Buffalo New York are smokers

Actually I only flew into Buffalo I was between Niagra and Buffalo very
near the Buffalo Airport.

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105971556.473391.127600@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
(snip)>
> >
> > > It's called lessee faire. Live and let live.
> >
> > I thought lessee faire meant free rent.
>
> NOW it's really down to your level, Greg -- picking on my typo of one
> extra "e" in "lesse", even after an explanation of its meaning followed
> immediately. As I've often said, when a discussant run out of
> anything of SUBSTANCE, s/he usually resorts to being a typo cop.

Any chance you guys mean to be discussing "laissez-faire"?

(snip)

chilly wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105971556.473391.127600@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> (snip)>
> > >
> > > > It's called lessee faire. Live and let live.
> > >
> > > I thought lessee faire meant free rent.
> >
> > NOW it's really down to your level, Greg -- picking on my typo of
one
> > extra "e" in "lesse", even after an explanation of its meaning
followed
> > immediately. As I've often said, when a discussant run out of
> > anything of SUBSTANCE, s/he usually resorts to being a typo cop.
>
> Any chance you guys mean to be discussing "laissez-faire"?
>
> (snip)

What else? No one is mistaken about it, whether its spelled laisse
(google web search asked the same question "Do you mean laissez-faire",
or lesse faire, and produced 9,960 hits on laise-faire and other
references obviously meant laissez-faire.

Only Greg would think of the lawyer cheap shot of "free rent".
-- Bob.

"chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message
news:UfQGd.102144$Xk.95942@pd7tw3no...
>
> Any chance you guys mean to be discussing "laissez-faire"?

I'm thinking it's, "Lassie says, 'Timmy is fair.'" A comment on how
sleeping on the farmhouse floor and being fed regularly can lead to
satisfaction on a TV series in the 1950's and 1960's. I could be wrong
though. Let's keep reading the posts to find out.

Greg Mossman wrote:

> What's with calling DAN over every little ridiculous query? So when
someone
> has a real question or a diving emergency, he's put on hold for 2 or
3 hours
> while DAN's limited staff resources try to come up with witty and
factual
> responses to questions like "can I dive after I've quit smoking?", "I

> stubbed my toe, will this predispose me to DCS?", or "can I dive
after I ate
> eggs for breakfast?"

DAN has a separate number for emergencies (919-684-8111 or
919-684-4326), and one for non-emergency medical information
(919-684-2948, ext. 222). You will not be tying up the emergency
hotline with queries (none of which, I'm sure, DAN would find
ridiculous).

Maggie

chilly wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105971556.473391.127600@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> (snip)>
>
>>>>It's called lessee faire. Live and let live.
>>>
>>>I thought lessee faire meant free rent.
>>
>>NOW it's really down to your level, Greg -- picking on my typo of one
>>extra "e" in "lesse", even after an explanation of its meaning followed
>>immediately. As I've often said, when a discussant run out of
>>anything of SUBSTANCE, s/he usually resorts to being a typo cop.
>
>
> Any chance you guys mean to be discussing "laissez-faire"?
>
> (snip)
>
>
there we go agaon pionten ote spellan steaks

But yes, Chilly, I think that is what was meant.

Don't think restricting your depth makes particular sense as it's the first
10m where the biggest percentage effect is felt. It may be worthwhile
checking with DAN, I don't know and I didn't.What I do know is that the
amount of air I used on a dive dropped massively after 6 months of not
smoking and my air usage went from mediocre to excellent. I coughed up some
nasty stuff in the first couple of months but it just helped to reinforce
that I was doding the right thing by not putting more of it back in my
lungs.

12 years on .... still a non-smoker, still want a cigarette after a dive but
haven't given into temptation yet. Good luck

Martin

"Meatball" <chris122@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1105664556.794091.184680@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
Hi!
I stopped smoking 8 days ago and will be going on an 8 day dive
vacation this Saturday.
While not a heavy smoker, I've been doing it for 20 years. I am
experiencing coughing up the stuff I've been sucking in my lungs. This
is to be expected, but it just dawned on me that it may have impact on
my upcoming diving?
I know the dangers of diving with a cold, flying, etc, but anyone care
to comment on impact on healing (non-smoking) lungs?
I just went to the dentist today and had deep cleaning. He commented
on how improved my teeth, gums, and mouth are. He took xrays to show
improvements. (I have reduced smoking for the last 3 months in
preparation).
Maybe I keep depth to less than 30 feet?
I will be diving Jamaica...and set this up as my reward for stopping,
and validating need to stop!

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105971556.473391.127600@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

>> Short-term discomfort? Why would you be discomforted if you weren't
>> addicted?
>
> Greg, your "argument" is really wearing thin, even for a scheister
> (sp?)
> lawyer who doesn't even know the "proof of evidence" in various Federal
> courts in the USA. (Evidence in the groups.google archives).

You mean the time where I quoted a U.S. Supreme Court case to demonstrate
how wrong you were? Yep, it's all in the archives.

But here, when you say that you suffered discomfort from lack of cigarettes
on a flight, and also say you weren't addicted, your two statements simply
don't add up to the truth. Any lawyer worth a dime would make you look like
a fool during cross-examination. I was letting you off easy by giving you a
chance to explain yourself, but your evasive technique of turning the
question around simply doesn't fool anyone.

Again, answer the question: If you weren't addicted, as you claim, how
could you possibly have been discomforted by being deprived of your
cigarettes?

>> > It's called lessee faire. Live and let live.
>>
>> I thought lessee faire meant free rent.
>
> NOW it's really down to your level, Greg -- picking on my typo of one
> extra "e" in "lesse", even after an explanation of its meaning followed
> immediately. As I've often said, when a discussant run out of
> anything of SUBSTANCE, s/he usually resorts to being a typo cop.

I'm not picking on typos. I simply had no idea that someone could make such
a typo that would turn laissez into lessee. You must have real fumbling
fingers. Perhaps all the bounce dives you've done in the past are catching
up with you. Either that, or you're still suffering withdrawals from your
nicotine and/or alcohol addictions. Fortunately you're not a surgeon.

If instead it was simply a stupid spelling mistake, why didn't you just say
so? I'm surprised that someone with a doctorate could have such poor
spelling, but then you wonder about a lot of the people that get awarded
doctorates nowadays. I've had some real dumb professors in my day.

>> The Archives of General Psychiatry is a tabloid?
>
> Yes, based on the crap it prints.

I see. So when you demand studies, and I produced peer-reviewed studies
from reputable journals in the subject, you dismiss them as crap.

Most of us can tell who's spewing the crap here. Hint: it ain't me.

> Greg, tell us what kind of LAW you practice. I doubt very, very, very
> seriously that it's the kind you appear in court to prosecute or defend
> anyone, because based on what I see in your SKILL (or lack thereof) in
> arguing about factual matters, and your TACTICS of asking silly
> questions
> that you would have been laughed out of court before the other attorney
> rips you apart.

I'm as actively practicing law as you are actively teaching. But when I was
practicing, my clients were a lot happier with my services than your
students were with your teaching skills. I didn't have to sue anyone to
squelch their comments.

> BTW, of all those cases involving bent divers suing UWATEC on the
> defect
> of the pre-1996 Uwatec Aladin Nitrox computer, did you ever play any
> role
> in any of them as a DIVER or LAWYER? I wonder why.

They told me you were an expert witness so I figured the case would have to
be trumped up nonsense that might tarnish my sterling reputation.

<tucsondiver@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105977667.834651.216810@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

>> What's with calling DAN over every little ridiculous query? So when
> someone
>> has a real question or a diving emergency, he's put on hold for 2 or
> 3 hours
>> while DAN's limited staff resources try to come up with witty and
> factual
>> responses to questions like "can I dive after I've quit smoking?", "I
>
>> stubbed my toe, will this predispose me to DCS?", or "can I dive
> after I ate
>> eggs for breakfast?"
>
> DAN has a separate number for emergencies (919-684-8111 or
> 919-684-4326), and one for non-emergency medical information
> (919-684-2948, ext. 222). You will not be tying up the emergency
> hotline with queries (none of which, I'm sure, DAN would find
> ridiculous).

How do you know it's not the same guy answering the phone and they just
publish two numbers so they look busy?

You're sure they wouldn't find my question about eggs ridiculous? I bet
they laugh at some of the questions, though hopefully not with the naive
diver still on the phone.

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105971556.473391.127600@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> >> Short-term discomfort? Why would you be discomforted if you
weren't
> >> addicted?
> >
> > Greg, your "argument" is really wearing thin, even for a scheister
> > (sp?)
> > lawyer who doesn't even know the "proof of evidence" in various
Federal
> > courts in the USA. (Evidence in the groups.google archives).
>
> You mean the time where I quoted a U.S. Supreme Court case to
demonstrate
> how wrong you were? Yep, it's all in the archives.

Yup. That's it.

The "evidence of proof" in the 4 different kinds of courts are as basic
as it can possibly get. I cited you the reference of the article on
"Statistics and Law", written by a Harvard Law Professor, to show the
4 different kinds of "burden of proof" -- in particular, "beyond a
shadow of a doubt" is the HIGHEST requirement, in criminal law courts.

The Supreme Court blurp you dug up was entirely unnecessary -- just ask
ANY trial lawyer in a criminal court, and he'll only laugh at you for
not knowing that simple fact. You Supreme Court blurp did not negate
that fact at all, contrary to what you thought. The "clear,
convincing,
and unequivocal evidence" is LESS stringent (in LAW; not in your
layman
understanding of those words) than the criminal court requirement for
conviction of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" (which was why OJ wasn't
convicted).

>
> But here, when you say that you suffered discomfort from lack of
cigarettes
> on a flight, and also say you weren't addicted, your two statements
simply
> don't add up to the truth.

Bullshit, Greg.

If I was accustomed to chewing gum, or sucking candy, and someone said
there could be no gum chewing or candy sucking during a flight, I would
experience the same "discomfort" too. You call that addiction?


>Any lawyer worth a dime would make you look like
> a fool during cross-examination.

That's why you're not a lawyer worth a damn, because I have just
demolished your pointless argument!


> I was letting you off easy by giving you a
> chance to explain yourself, but your evasive technique of turning the

> question around simply doesn't fool anyone.

Right. But I contradicted you DIRECTLY in both the Evidence of proof
in LAW and your silly argument equating "short-term discomfort" from
a non-additive habit to "addiction", haven't I?


>
> Again, answer the question: If you weren't addicted, as you claim,
how
> could you possibly have been discomforted by being deprived of your
> cigarettes?

The same way I would be deprived of the habit of chewing gum, say.
Is "gum chewing" an addiction?


> >> > It's called lessee faire. Live and let live.
> >>
> >> I thought lessee faire meant free rent.
> >
> > NOW it's really down to your level, Greg -- picking on my typo of
one
> > extra "e" in "lesse", even after an explanation of its meaning
followed
> > immediately. As I've often said, when a discussant run out of
> > anything of SUBSTANCE, s/he usually resorts to being a typo cop.
>
> I'm not picking on typos. I simply had no idea that someone could
make such
> a typo that would turn laissez into lessee. You must have real
fumbling
> fingers.

It was more than fumbling fingers, but no one but YOU could misread the
INTENT, given the "Live and let live" explanation. It was a careless
reference, equating "les" to "lais" and "se" (with accent) to "sez".
Simple. That's why there are THOUSANDS of webpages with the same
misspellings for the same "laissez-faire".

>
> If instead it was simply a stupid spelling mistake, why didn't you
just say
> so?

Given the stated "Live and Let live", I thought only YOU could have a
problem with it. The explanation is above. But you REALLY weren't
that stupid, were you? You were just being a spelling cop when you
ran out of substance.


>I'm surprised that someone with a doctorate could have such poor
> spelling, but then you wonder about a lot of the people that get
awarded
> doctorates nowadays. I've had some real dumb professors in my day.

Why should I care about inconsequential spellings in a ng post when it
misleads no one? Why don't you find a misspelling in my PUBLICATIONS?
There I could use spell-check, and there are copy-editors (low level
clerks) who tend to spellings and grammatical matters.

Let's face it, you resorted to being a spelling and grammar cop for
ALL the reasons those cops in ng are looked-down upon.

>
> >> The Archives of General Psychiatry is a tabloid?
> >
> > Yes, based on the crap it prints.
>
> I see. So when you demand studies, and I produced peer-reviewed
studies
> from reputable journals in the subject, you dismiss them as crap.

I also dismissed lots of publications in the Journal of the AMA and
other supposedly reputable journals of Medicine as crap too? Such
as that Lancet Study on "deep divers".

Should THAT surprise you?

Are you THAT naive to think that what appeared in Journal is
necessarily
NON-crap? That really showed your lack of academic upbring and utter
naievite. (I probably misspell that too <G>)

>
> Most of us can tell who's spewing the crap here. Hint: it ain't me.

That's certainly for OTHERS to judge.

>
> > Greg, tell us what kind of LAW you practice. I doubt very, very,
very
> > seriously that it's the kind you appear in court to prosecute or
defend
> > anyone, because based on what I see in your SKILL (or lack thereof)
in
> > arguing about factual matters, and your TACTICS of asking silly
> > questions
> > that you would have been laughed out of court before the other
attorney
> > rips you apart.
>
> I'm as actively practicing law as you are actively teaching. But
when I was
> practicing, my clients were a lot happier with my services than your
> students were with your teaching skills. I didn't have to sue anyone
to
> squelch their comments.

THAT's call evading my question! Were you EVER a lawyer who acted as
the prosecuting attorney or defense attorney in a case in court?

I know plenty of real-estate lawyers and other lawyers who do nothing
but print out some forms with clients names etc. on it and charge them
a fee. I am saying THAT's probably your kind of law, if you ever
practiced law at all.

Preparing Deeds? Preparing Wills? Preparing Real Estate Buy/Sell
statements?

>
> > BTW, of all those cases involving bent divers suing UWATEC on the
> > defect
> > of the pre-1996 Uwatec Aladin Nitrox computer, did you ever play
any
> > role
> > in any of them as a DIVER or LAWYER? I wonder why.
>
> They told me you were an expert witness so I figured the case would
have to
> be trumped up nonsense that might tarnish my sterling reputation.

Yeah. They knew they didn't need any lawyer to draw up a will or buy
a piece of real estate -- that's for sure.

-- Bob.