[ladysycamore]
> Perhaps. You don't know for sure. Just because he wrote
> what he did on that day, doesn't mean he'll be following that
> path FOREVER. I mean, sheesh already!!!
That she doesn't know for sure doesn't mean that she can't answer to something he said. The only thing she can go by are his statements; thus, it'd be nonsensical to assume he'd change his declared 'path'.
[MaggieL]
>> In the meantime, you won't engage on the topic of smoking,
>> because you'd rather play "red herring" about denial.
[ladysycamore]
> OhmyGoddess! LMAOROTF!!! So, now if one doesn't talk
> about a topic, they are in denial...baaahahah, that's a
> good one. Rock on dude!
Between your humorous exclamations, you might want to consider that MaggieL had presented a fairly good argument, which Sycamore mostly ignored. She then replied, warning that the smoking is the biggest threat to his health, a threat which he didn't seem to take too seriously in his previous postings; he didn't really reply her messages either, which made it look like he's either ignoring her. Why could he be ignoring Maggie's personally intense messages, which presented a compelling picture of what smoking can do to you? Either he doesn't really want to face up to the implications of his addiction (i.e. DENIAL), or he doesn't want to talk to MaggieL for some other mysterious reason.
(Sorry for talking for you here, Maggie)... but which one seems more likely, from her point of view? She's obviously very worried about his health, from personal experience, and he seems to be blowing it off. Maybe you want to be less aggressive next time when someone shows genuine concern for your significant other. How often do you have people genuinely *care* ?
[MaggieL]
>> Ah, addictive behavior, gotta love it...:-) A bit like the
>> five stages of grief, but postdated.
[ladysycamore]
> *sputters* I'll leave that one alone...for now.
This is somewhat infantile: 'Although your claim is obviously ridiculous, I will refuse to respond for it... right now. I will come back later and trouce your argument utterly.'
If you deride people's arguments, at least have the decency to back up your claims. How would you feel if I simply wrote: 'bah, you're wrong. I won't even tell you why, but you are. so there' ?
[ladysycamore]
> Not anymore. I quit a year ago, and on MY terms, and
> when *I* wanted to (which is how I wanted to quit)
That's great. When you get off your self-esteem pedestal, you may want to consider that cancer (and all other smoking-related diseases) doesn't care if you quit on *your* terms, or *how* you wanted to quit smoking.
If you smoke, stop doing it. As soon as you can possibly muster the willpower (or not, as MaggieL was implying was the case with Sycamore). Your ego doesn't play a role in how cancer affects you - the faster you stop, the less likely you are to die or to suffer from horrifying, expensive, and painful diseases - or both. The fact that you're letting Sycamore smoke while you stopped doesn't really say a lot about you, either (if it's around you). Passive smoking (and I'm certain you will claim that he never smokes around you) is quite likely to kill you, too. Pity you won't get to satisfy any addiction whilst killing yourself, though.
X.
Links:
http://www.wce.ac.nz/cancer/lifestyl...e/passive.html
http://www.forces.org/evidence/
http://www.helioshealth.com/cgi-bin/news/news.cgi?131
http://www.phonki.clara.net/cleanair/factin.htm
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/publicpla...lasummary.html