TexasCHLforum.com

westex1948 wrote:

PUCKER wrote:

WildBill wrote:Pipes have "an aroma". Cigarettes [and cigars] just plain stink!

I love the aroma of a pipe and/or a cigar...I love cigars (even have my own "Cigar Shack" in the backyard) but I DETEST cigarettes/cigarette smoke...crazy, eh? LOL

:.......A really top notch cigar is really great...(not from 7-11)...

nothing like a 69 cent black &mild after a hard days work. I do enjoy a quality Cigar once in a blue moon while sippin' quality whiskey.

BTW, Cigarettes are detestable :vomit face:

Good for OG... I knew I liked that place for some reason.

Keith B wrote:While e-cigs don't have the same smell as regular cigarettes, their effects on 2nd hand 'smoke' from them is still not clear. Many use propylene glycol (same stuff used in theatrical fog machines) as the smoke agent, and I know of individuals who have allergies to it. While the levels of exposure may or may not trigger any reaction, I don't think we still know the potential effects on the user or others.

Wow, I knew this stuff is used as a deicing agent on aircraft but am amazed at the variety of other uses it has according to wikipedia.

MadMonkey wrote:Good for OG... I knew I liked that place for some reason.

Ha ha ha, see there,I actually did you a favor posting my rant. Now maybe you and others will eat there more often. And the lines will be shorter for those in the DFW area (unless of course I've actually drummed up more business for them and the lines will be longer). Smile

Main thing I'll miss are the cheese biscuits and Walt's shrimp at Red Lobster....oh, and their Caesar salad. My stomach is growling just thinking about it. But I eat quite often at Pappadeaux so that's OK.

We spent 3 nights in Montgomery Bell SP just west of Nashville last October on our way back from our CG hosting gig in Virginia. The woman in the camper next to us (50 yards away) smoked cigarettes. In the still Fall air, she smelled up the whole park. YUK!

"sheeple - People unable to think for themselves. Followers. Lemmings. Those with no cognitive ablilities of their own."

It always amazes me how some people throw around derogatory terms like "sheeple." So, according to the first post, OG caters to "sheeple" and all those who eat there are "sheeple" because the restaurant made a decision, instituted a policy and stood by it. (Doesn't sound very sheepish do far...) This policy, in the management's opinion, would please the majority of their patrons, thereby protecting/improving the profitability of the business. In addition, this policy violates no laws, nor anyone's rights or liberties. However, because a single person got all in a tizzy (and from the sound of things, it's a person who wasn't even personally affected), now the restaurant and all of its patrons are categorically being called sheeple.

I, for one, actively seek out restaurants which are completely non-smoking. I do this not because of some groupthink, follower, or lemming mentality. I do it because smoking (and most smokers... sorry, but it's true) stinks and is dirty, and those things make my meal less than enjoyable. If a restaurant does allow smoking, I just go somewhere else (and I don't rant about it on internet forums the next day while encouragin others to boycott the place on behalf of my bruised sensibilities). While I rarely eat at OG (I think their food is pretty aweful), their policy on smoking/e-cigs certainly wouldn't bother me. How many time have we heard "if you don't want to watch it, change the channel?" How is this issue any different? If you want to satisfy your oral fixations in public, go for it. But don't slam a business and all of its patrons just because you disagree with a policy. Just go eat elsewhere.

Keith B wrote:While e-cigs don't have the same smell as regular cigarettes, their effects on 2nd hand 'smoke' from them is still not clear. Many use propylene glycol (same stuff used in theatrical fog machines) as the smoke agent, and I know of individuals who have allergies to it.

It's funny that most who would object to the smoke probably eat that stuff every day. It is amazing what it is used in. I read labels for many things that I buy and I refuse to buy any food product containing proplyene glycol. I was at a crawfish boil one weekend. Since I like to cook I was looking at the containers of the various spices, hot sauces, etc. I found that the main ingredient for one of the cayenne pepper extracts was propylene glycol. As I recall is around 25% or more of the product. I ate the crawdads anyway - I was hungry.

Keith B wrote:And I understand the Olive Garden manager's decision to say the same thing and that way they don't have to make a decision of real or e-cig and who can and can't 'smoke' in the restaurant.

That is what bugs me is when policies are in place so that people don't have to make a decision or think. I thought that was what managers were hired to do.

I love tobacco in all it's forms - cigars, (hand rolled premiums for me) cigarettes, chewing and dipping.

That said, I support Olive Garden's policy.

It's America. If they think banning smokes of every stripe's best for their business - fine by me. There's plenty of restaurants (many far superior) to choose from.

E-cigarettes? The name alone sounds hysterically funny.

I plan to try some just for the novelty...

Warhammer wrote:"sheeple - People unable to think for themselves. Followers. Lemmings. Those with no cognitive ablilities of their own."

It always amazes me how some people throw around derogatory terms like "sheeple." So, according to the first post, OG caters to "sheeple" and all those who eat there are "sheeple" because the restaurant made a decision, instituted a policy and stood by it. (Doesn't sound very sheepish do far...) This policy, in the management's opinion, would please the majority of their patrons, thereby protecting/improving the profitability of the business. In addition, this policy violates no laws, nor anyone's rights or liberties. However, because a single person got all in a tizzy (and from the sound of things, it's a person who wasn't even personally affected), now the restaurant and all of its patrons are categorically being called sheeple.

I, for one, actively seek out restaurants which are completely non-smoking. I do this not because of some groupthink, follower, or lemming mentality. I do it because smoking (and most smokers... sorry, but it's true) stinks and is dirty, and those things make my meal less than enjoyable. If a restaurant does allow smoking, I just go somewhere else (and I don't rant about it on internet forums the next day while encouragin others to boycott the place on behalf of my bruised sensibilities). While I rarely eat at OG (I think their food is pretty aweful), their policy on smoking/e-cigs certainly wouldn't bother me. How many time have we heard "if you don't want to watch it, change the channel?" How is this issue any different? If you want to satisfy your oral fixations in public, go for it. But don't slam a business and all of its patrons just because you disagree with a policy. Just go eat elsewhere.

Well said Warhammer. I was having trouble connecting the "sheeple" comments to the policy of OG.

The act of labeling people sheeple is self-degrading as it declares the speaker arrogant...

I, also, don't like the term "sheeple." If the OP poster doesn't want to eat at OG because of the policy on e-cigs or serving reheated food, that is his prerogative. Just like the OP stated, it is a personal decision on where he goes and spends his money. I may not patronize a business for a particular reason, but I won't join anyone trying to "boycott" a business for any reason. This includes e-cigs and CHL.

WildBill wrote:That is what bugs me is when policies are in place so that people don't have to make a decision or think. I thought that was what managers were hired to do.

The management made a decision. Someone didn't like the decision and resorted to online name calling.

I have to admit my reaction is mixed. Part of me thinks and part of me thinks

Setup: I smoke. I DO NOT smoke in places where prohibited, or near people who do not want me to. I DO NOT object to smoking being restricted, as smoke affects more than just the smoker. I'm trying to quit using a e-cig with much lower nicotine doses. But, this post is about principle, NOT smoking..

IMHO there "may" be a double standard at play here. In a running thread, a member commented on a recent discovery that certain pawn shop was posted 30.06, and he had informed the management that he would not shop there and would make sure it was known they were posted and other CHLs probably wouldn't either. It fell on deaf ears at the shop. However, his post on the forum led to a series of "thumbs up" "good job" and general agreement that he had done a service. On the other hand, the OP of this thread did a similar thing at OG, but the reaction of the forum seems to be, "too bad, go someplace else" or "more food for me" or "I hate cigarettes and e-cigs, so too bad for you"

It is a given that any property owner and business can determine the rules on their property. No debate there. Also, if you hate cigarettes, or pipes or cigars, that's fine by me. My point is that no one seemed to care about OGs fact-less decision to ban e-cigs, while they often express displeasure at establishments mindlessly banning CHLs, simply because they disagree with one chosen activity (smoking), and agree with another activity (carrying a concealed weapon). If we need/want a society that makes decisions based on fact, not fear or ignorance, when it comes to our 2A rights, then we should support, or at least respect, those that challenge or object to other fear based decisions, even if we don't like the legal activity in question. My $.02 (being devalued by the hour).

G26ster said what I could have said had I not been in the rant mode. With that said, I'm done posting "RANTS", just too much drama. But I did state that it was a rant in my original post. Sorry about that, I'll be civil from now on.

So, on to other things for me.........I'm going to the range tomorrow after stopping by the gunshow to pick up a G17C (hopefully).

Since one of the previous few posts were jabs in my direction I'll issue my final response which I hope clears up my stance and not a double standard on my part.
OG provides me a bowl of Chicken Gnocchi soup that I really enjoy. This is a service to me that I can not get somewhere else. Believe me when I tell you that if OG was posted 30.06 and I could find a good bowl of Chicken Gnocchi soup elsewhere I would take my business there instead. Minute Maid Park in Houston does not allow smoking nor can I carry my gun there but they provide me with a product that I enjoy that I can not get anywhere else. Therefore they will continue to get my money. The pawn shop that is posted 30.06 also performs a service to me BUT I can get that service somewhere else. Therefore I will not go to that pawn shop.