Posts by dustycanyon6

restlessmarlin6 said:I'm heading in tomorrow to see it, can't wait 🎉
Does anyone know if AMC Theatres charges a fee for online ticket reservations, and if so, how much? 😕

They don't charge you for the reservation itself, but you have to actually pick up and pay for the physical ticket at the theater... usually no later than thirty minutes before the movie starts.

Sarah Anderson4 said:I’ve always been thin, and honestly, I never really cared... I used to just treat it like an advantage. I thought I’d eventually fill out a bit, but nope. It’s just my build and my metabolism is lightning fast. I'm perfectly healthy, my doctor says all my labs look great, but I'm already getting tired of everyone constantly telling me I'm too skinny.
Does anyone actually have advice on how to gain weight? Because just force-feeding myself isn't working (trust me, I've tried).

So, what are your measurements, if you don't mind me asking? People have this habit of calling someone "skinny" like it's some kind of insult, when it's really not. Personally, I've always preferred a slimmer look anyway...

Lawrence Cook2 Lawrence Cook2 said:Maybe I’m losing my mind, maybe I’m just being dense, or maybe I straight-up dreamed the whole thing... but honestly, there's a chance it's actually real. Someone please make sense of this for me...😬
Does anyone else here remember seeing a commercial or some kind of announcement on PBS a year or two back? I think it was about organ donation... something about how if you don't want to be a donor after you pass away, you actually have to sign some specific legal document or contract... I can't quite wrap my head around it...😕
It might sound totally irrational, but I can’t shake the feeling that I’ve seen that same commercial way more often than I should... It’s like it’s following me around. If my heart and my head were actually on the same page, I’d love to find just a few other people who feel like they're seeing the exact same thing...🙂

I remember seeing a poster with that exact same message hanging up in the SC cafeteria... it was right there on the far side of the food line, maybe six months or a year ago. Or wait, was it somewhere else? I know for a fact I saw it somewhere... I'm pretty sure it was in the SC, though...

Synod said:That’s not quite how it works.

Smokers pay extra through specific excise taxes, which means they contribute more to the budget than non-smokers do. Some studies in various countries suggest that smokers actually pump more money into the healthcare system than what it costs to treat any potential smoking-related illnesses. Basically, in certain places, smokers end up footing the bill for their own care and everyone else's too...

Maybe in some places, sure, but definitely not here in the States. I saw a report in the news recently—some high-ranking official, maybe even a Cabinet Secretary, I can't recall exactly...—stating that in America, the cost of treating smoking-related diseases outpaces those cigarette taxes by three or four times. Plus, as far as I know, those tax dollars don't even go straight to our healthcare system... they just disappear into the general federal budget.

dustycanyon6 said:That one little cafe on Fifth Avenue has this whole vibe going where they serve high-end coffee but have a strict prohibition of being total smokers inside. Honestly, I'm curious how it actually works out for them. It's not really on my way, so I haven't swung by... Has anyone been? I think it's near that Briton place.

The thing is, they only really do coffee. No sodas, no food... or at least that's what my roommate told me. And I don't smoke, and I don't even drink coffee... So now what? 😢

dustycanyon6 said:Does anyone know any other non-smoking clubs or cafes around CNN?

I'm interested too! Come on people, surely it's not just that one spot... As much as I can't stand McDonald's, if I absolutely have to eat something, I'd much rather go there than some fancy restaurant—at least there I won't have to breathe in damn cigarette smoke.

Scott Smith said:it's just ridiculous to claim that smoke-free zones have better market potential than smoking ones, or that they're actually profitable enough to thrive. if that were true, we'd see smoke-free cafes and clubs popping up everywhere right now, but the reality on the ground tells a different story. to anyone convinced otherwise, I say go ahead—open up a smoke-free cafe. I'd happily drop by, though I've got my doubts about whether it could actually stay afloat in this economy.

You can't really judge market potential when you're looking at a monopoly... you need actual competition to see how things stack up. 🙄

Don't sweat the market trends or the big tobacco companies and cafe owners... just worry about the person. Focus on their health, both physical and mental. 😉

Brandon Castillo4 said:Masturbation isn't even difficult, so how do you guys imagine an circumcised dick feels? 😁
Like just a tight surface with zero extra skin to work with?

Well, that’s exactly the point though... Uncircumcised guys pull the skin back over the head while they go, so you really have to wonder what circumcised guys are actually doing! 🙂 It’s a perfectly fair question...

Samuel Doyle4 said:you guys have all lost it... 😁 seriously... Norco Storm Frame and RockShox... I'm done arguing about this... 🙂

Just go ahead and buy the thing already! And let us know how it rides! 🙂

Sandra King86 Jamie Cook2 said:😲 Are you kidding me...?
So... are we actually doing this? Are we going into business? 😬

Yeah... We definitely could! 😉

John Perez85 said:What are we even talking about here? We've been going in circles for a hundred posts now... Look, you've got plenty of people who just want to enjoy their habits—habits that the government has been happily taxing to death for years. It’s fine if people demand that their habits don't infringe on everyone else, but labeling them as pure villains overnight is a massive stretch. Smoking—even if most of us know it's bad for you—is a huge part of life for many. Smokers contribute to the economy through taxes just like non-smokers do, and they have a right to ask for what matters to them. It isn't really anyone else's job to decide if something is too expensive or if it makes sense to spend money on a habit they don't personally get (honestly, I don't either, but I get that everyone's different). Whether this movement actually succeeds or has enough staying power... well, that's another story entirely.

Look, I honestly don't care whether smokers get their own designated areas or not. My only real concern is being able to exist in a space without even knowing cigarette smoke exists. If a public building can set aside one specific room for smoking that doesn't affect the rest of the facility—then fine by me. But like I said before, that's often hard or even impossible to pull off in practice... so I'd much rather just see smoking banned in public buildings altogether. But hey, if they can make the separate rooms work, I've got nothing against it!

John Perez85 said:What kind of smoking area are we even talking about here? People are mentioning enclosed, ventilated spaces where smokers could just do their thing.
But what's the point? A smoker can always just step outside and light up there. It’s not like we’re living in skyscrapers where you can't exactly get to an open sidewalk...

John Perez85 said:If you mean restaurants that would officially designate themselves as smoking establishments, then they'd have to hire staff who don't mind the smoke or actually enjoy it a bit.🙂

Honestly, you shouldn't even be putting employees through that kind of "selection process"... that's basically just discriminating against potential hires.

John Perez85 said:I don't get it. It’s like you're saying smokers are just so incredibly charismatic that you can't even take a break without them hovering over you? You're exaggerating a bit...

Look, I don't know what your specific social circle is like, but let me tell you... when you're in your twenties, it's almost a rule. If there are four non-smokers and just one smoker in the group, that one person is going to pull everyone toward the smoking area. Every single time. One person eventually gives in, another doesn't want to be the "party pooper," and before you know it, everyone's out there too. It happens all the time...

John Perez85 said:So why are you against passing laws that guarantee conditions where that person can still exercise their freedom, if you already believe that such freedom shouldn't be taken away? I'm worried we're just going in circles here...

In principle, I'm against it. But if they actually managed to set up the right conditions—I wouldn't make a huge fuss. Though, honestly, setting those conditions seems almost impossible without massive spending and some pretty nasty side effects for everyone else...

Pros:
- Smokers would still have somewhere indoors to light up—I know that matters a lot to them, though I really don't get why...

Cons:
- It’s nearly impossible to pull off the logistics (separate building entrances, making sure people can't walk from one section to another, totally separate ventilation systems, etc.)—for instance, trying that on an Amtrak train would be a total nightmare...
- It divides society. Plus, since smokers HAVE to light up eventually, they'll end up dragging non-smokers into the smoking area anyway...
- Employees working in those designated areas are basically poisoning themselves, which probably isn't what they signed up for...
- Smokers can always just go outside. Nobody is banning smoking entirely, so there isn't even a real violation of their freedom...

When you look at the whole picture, there really isn't a compelling reason to force indoor smoking accommodations. Is there? If so, then let them deal with the exposure...

Samuel Doyle4 said:I'm sticking with my Norco Storm Frame... and that's it. I've got about 4,600 bucks to work with... so I can't go over that budget...

Before you pull the trigger on this thing, make sure the size actually works for you. Honestly, looking at it now, it seems a bit long, even if the geometry is solid for freeride. You should check out this just to get a rough idea of how the sizing might feel. Don't buy a bike unless you're 100% sure it fits. Seriously... it’s better to go slightly smaller than slightly too big, especially for freeriding. If you end up with a frame that's too massive, your groin, back, and wrists are going to pay the price...

If those brakes end up being total junk, you could always swap in some Hayesov hydraulics for $500 plus the install cost...

Sandra King86 said:Your budget is tight, but these are actually pretty decent bikes for the price. My picks would be:
Check out the Giant XTC 2, I think Magma imports Giant models here in the US.

From what I've heard, getting Giant bikes serviced in America can be a real headache, so maybe skip those...

Sandra King86 said:The Scott Scala 70 is a step up from the Tmobila Gianta; you might find it at a local shop if the websites are right. Or there's the Scott Reflex 20—the fork is a bit better, but the rear derailleur and hubs aren't great.

Overall, for that kind of money, I’d go with the Scott Scala 70. Or, if you don't mind asking family or friends for a little extra help ($667), grab the Scale 50L.
😁😁

Those Scott bikes seem alright, it's just a bummer they don't have disc brakes...

Sandra King86 Jamie Cook2 said:So, what's your main priority here? Are you leaning towards a hardtail or going full suspension? Honestly, if you can handle a hardtail... you're probably going to walk away with a much better bike for your money. It's just how it works... more bang for your buck...
Max is spot on... brakes are everything.
Look, those basic mechanical ones go for about $150... honestly, if I were you, I'd just toss in another fifty bucks and grab something actually decent. It's worth it...
The Magura Louise... they weigh about 200 grams, which is light, but man, they aren't cheap.
Magura Louise... if you're forced to make a compromise, it’s a bit of a tougher call, but honestly? It's like $200 for a pair... maybe worth it... 😉

You keep forgetting that prices over here in the States are way lower than what we're used to back home. Even in places like Canada, things cost a fortune... $627 Around $310... for the front end... $793 So, we're looking at $393 for the rear... But here's the thing. If you go out and grab a bike that only has V-brakes, you can't just stop at the cost of the brakes themselves. You’ve gotta factor in the price of both the front and rear hubs too... which honestly adds another $400 or so to the total bill...$233It really just boils down to whatever quality level of parts they end up picking...

John Perez85 said:Look, I don't want to let you down, but it’s just not true that freedom extends to the point where everyone can do whatever they want. For the sake of common sense, we have to draw lines. It's impossible to get everyone to live together in peace when everyone has such wildly different ideas about life, liberty, and all that. In the interest of keeping things civil—and fueled by the lobbying power present in any modern democracy—almost every single law or rule forces you to give up a little bit of your freedom. Maybe it’s hard for you to wrap your head around, but people truly perceive the world in ways that are completely, diametrically opposed. While you see smoking as nothing but a vice, someone else sees it as a positive lifestyle choice. By pushing your views, you're essentially infringing on their freedom (and honestly, your medical arguments don't really carry weight here). So, the only real way forward is to find people who think like you and build enough political clout to flip the trends and laws in your favor. As for all that whining about "freedom"... leave that to the elementary schoolers.

Smoking is an action; it's harmful. Not smoking is a state of being; it's harmless. When you smoke alone, you're exercising your own freedom. But when you smoke around others, you're stepping on their freedom because you're poisoning them and making their lives miserable. When you don't smoke, you aren't doing anything to anyone else, so nobody's freedom is being violated (there's no "action" taking place). It's pretty straightforward. Honestly, you might want to pick up an ethics textbook before trying to lecture anyone on what freedom means. 😉 If you're a religious person, you probably don't need much more than the Bible—it says something along the lines of: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do you want people poisoning you and harassing you? No? Then there's your answer.

Samuel Doyle4 said:update... ---> here it is.
Norco Storm

Frame: 6061 Aluminum
Fork: Marzocchi MZ-3
Front Hub: Shimano Deore Disc
Rear Hub: Shimano Deore Disc 135/10mm
Rims: Alex DC19
Front Brake: Hayes MX-3, 6" rotor
Rear Brake: Hayes MX-3, 6" rotor
FrontChanger: Shimano Deore
Rear Changer: Shimano Deore

The brakes are a dealbreaker. When you're looking at mechanical disc brakes, honestly, the only ones worth anything are the Avid BB5s or BB7s. I think you might need to shell out a bit more cash if you want a decent bike. Otherwise, those Deore parts are solid enough, so this would be a pretty good ride for you... just not with those brakes...

Maybe look at a Haro "06 V-5 (www.google.com) for about $500—it comes with Avid BB5 brakes, and the rear derailleur is an XT (which is basically the best you can get from Shimano without the price tag jumping way up $3333). The fork is okay... nothing special... but it'll get you through some off-road descents in the Rockies...

If I were you, my best advice is to just spend a little extra now. It’ll save you a massive headache later on. See, if you buy a bike without disc brakes, you'll end up spending more than $500 just trying to install even the cheapest mechanical brakes that actually work, let alone hydraulics. But if you grab a bike with crappy disc brakes now, switching them out will be about $500 cheaper because you won't have to worry about finding hubs designed for discs...$233...you already have the right axles in the wheels.

Just a heads up—if you're planning on getting into freeride, you absolutely need reliable brakes first. Everything else comes after that. The real kicker is that manufacturers usually skimp on the brakes when they're putting together complete bikes...

What's your absolute ceiling? Like, what's the maximum you're willing to drop on a bike?

Scott Smith said:Here’s a perfect example of what I mean by non-critical acceptance—just swallowing anything that happens to line up with what you already believe. You know, the Nazi propaganda minister in Germany once said something pretty clever... if you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth. 😉

He's absolutely spot on. I mean, just look at religion!... 😬

Scott Smith said:By insisting you're 100% right while tripping over a few basic logical fallacies, you've pretty much lost all credibility as someone worth talking to...

What exactly do you mean by "absolutely correct"? Are we talking about how smoking around other people is morally wrong? Because if so, that’s where I stand, and I’m pretty damn sure I’m right about it. You didn't actually say anything that contradicts that... Besides, the smoke itself just wrecks me. It makes my throat ache, my nose starts bleeding, my eyes water... it's a mess. Honestly, it even messes with my head. So whenever I can, I steer clear of it. Which basically means I’m sentenced to "social isolation" just to stay sane. And don't even get me started on what it does to your clothes and your skin... They stink... Smoke... yeah, that's nasty. I mean, if I walk into a coffee shop and just start spraying deodorant all over everyone else, what am I even doing? What would happen to me? Honestly, I’d probably just get jumped... you know? Just a beatdown.

And as for the health implications—look, first give me some actual studies from this millennium... then maybe we can have a conversation like that! 😉

Kids growing up around smokers at home face a much tougher road ahead... we're talking a three times higher chance of developing lung cancer later in life compared to kids from non-smoking households. There was this massive study that tracked more than 123,000 people over a seven-year stretch. It’s pretty eye-opening... some of them had never touched a cigarette themselves, and others had actually quit, but they all shared that same history of being around Environmental Tobacco Smoke as children. Just something to think about...

Accumulating evidence on passive and active Smoking and breast cancer risk... turns out there's more to this than people realize. It’s all starting to come together.

Scott Smith John Perez85 said:You really need to work on your logic... 🙂

It’s true that more people are using drugs these days, but honestly, that doesn't mean education isn't working, nor does it prove that prohibition is a failure. If we follow your logic... whenever we don't get the exact result we wanted, we just decide the whole method is pointless... and that's a slippery slope... 😁

Maybe we could just... shake things up a bit? Like, reform it? 😉

They didn't have a choice—they just had to...

Scott Smith said:It’s pretty much the same deal when you talk about smoking. Looking at this thread, it seems like people jump straight into being all moralistic and judgmental instead of just sticking to the actual science. It honestly backfires... it just makes people dig their heels in more. And honestly? Not a single person in this whole discussion has even bothered to drop a link to a real study or a credible source to back up what they're saying...

What claims? You mean about how smoking is bad for you? That’s just common sense... everyone knows that.

Scott Smith said:Whether you choose to smoke, use drugs, or drink... that's entirely on you. It’s a personal choice, plain and simple. No question there. I just think society has this responsibility to provide honest, unbiased information—not indoctrination, mind you! We need to know the pros and the cons of these choices so we can actually make up our own minds... Just so an individual can actually make an informed decision....

That’s supposed to be the whole point of education, isn't it? But honestly, looking at today's prevention programs for smoking and other addictions... they aren't even close to being accurate or unbiased. Not even close. Instead, they just lean heavily on these tired, moralistic mantras that they repeat until you're blue in the face... along with a massive amount of misinformation.

So, the bottom line is we really need to overhaul and step up these educational programs. They’ve got to meet actual standards if we want the people they're meant for to actually trust them... These kinds of programs definitely make sense, though, provided they're built on the right foundation...

Look, my main concern here is just basic individual freedom. When you're out there smoking around someone else, you're essentially stripping them of their own liberty. You're poisoning them, bothering them... it’s just not right. But hey, I guess that's perfectly legal according to the law! 😲That’s why smoking shouldn't be allowed in public spaces. And honestly, it’s not even about education... because even when people are well-informed, they can still choose whether or not to light up—and usually, they just decide to keep going. I don't have anything against anyone doing what they want... as long as they do it on their own time and only hurt themselves, instead of everyone else...

To wrap things up—I honestly believe that getting rid of bans on smoking in public places is primarily about building a more democratic and free society. That should be the main goal, and everything else is just a secondary way to tackle personal health issues... The thing is, some people (and let’s be real, most smokers) don't give enough thought to the health consequences of their habits. Without these laws, they’re just going to keep bothering everyone else. With this kind of legislation in place, they only end up hurting themselves. And hey, that's their choice to make. But nobody else should have to suffer for it...