The principle of "fan ownership" is to own the club; not to be consulted on every little thing which takes your fancy.
I'm not sure that non-smokers are "vindictive sods" as Arnos Grove so ineloquently puts it. Perhaps they just don't wish to breathe poisonous fumes. Is that so unreasonable?
The principle of fan ownership? Having a vote on the design of your football shirts. On ticket prices. On how much season tickets cost. Voting in your board members. Take a look at clubs like FC United. A club run by fans for fans. And by the way there is nothing poisonous about the water vapour of efags.
Poisonous or not - I'm not so sure. If people are driven to puff away at the things I'd have thought there must be some chemicals present. Anyway - why do you feel that it should be your right to inflict it upon others who do not wish it? If you must indulge then do so outside.
@ chris Agreed. Fan ownership is exactly that: ownership. Consultation upon minutiae would be impractical.
Personally I don't consider a change of policy that will cost the club money in loss of revenue from the bar sales as trivial. Before any ban which affects fans, this should be discussed with members. If people object to vaping for reasons only known to themselves, it is not harmful to others, why not have Scores allowing vaping and the Vere for people who object.
Vaping is now officially banned, albeit not by the government, in almost all of the same places cigarettes are banned. Trains, the underground, most shops, bars and clubs.
Although I really enjoyed mine in my 90 days of no smoking in 2014, I don't think WWFC are acting in any way differently from the rest of the country.
Manchester Utd, City and Chelsea have all banned vaping in their stadiums. Most rail and bus companies and aircraft have also instigated bans. There must be some reason behind this.
Loss of revenue from bar sales?? How many people actually do this "vaping"? I cannot think that the amount of money involved here could be anything but trivial.
As for owning a car - ridiculous comparison. Most people need to own a car to even get to Adams Park, never mind other small issues like getting to work, shopping, children to/from school, wife to the hairdressers/vaping shop. etc. Smoking, or sticking an e/fag in your mouth, is a purely self indulgent act.
As for owning a car - ridiculous comparison. Most people need to own a car to even get to Adams Park, never mind other small issues like getting to work, shopping, children to/from school, wife to the hairdressers/vaping shop. etc. Smoking, or sticking an e/fag in your mouth, is a purely self indulgent act.
What's ridiculous is your claim that vape fumes are poisonous but vehicle emissions aren't.
If you care to read carefully I did not "claim" that vehicle emissions are not poisonous. I said that the comparison is ridiculous - and I have already told you why.
@AlgernonFudgebucket said:
If you care to read carefully I did not "claim" that vehicle emissions are not poisonous. I said that the comparison is ridiculous - and I have already told you why.
I'll try it another way then.
You have grave concerns about inhaling second hand vape fumes (not poisonous) but are intensely relaxed about people breathing in your vehicle exhaust fumes (highly poisonous).
Talking of ridiculous claims are you a scientist Chairgirl? Can you back up your claim that vaping is not harmful?
"If people object to vaping for reasons only known to themselves, it is not harmful to others, why not have Scores allowing vaping and the Vere for people who object."
It wasn't that long ago (60 odd years ago) that proper smoking was deemed good for you and passive smoking was unheard of.
I smoke and personally I would not smoke inside anywhere if it was banned or not , I think if I vaped I would feel the same . It does not seem quite right any more to smoke or vape inside anywhere and I can understand why non a vaper/smokers would prefer vaping to be banned in enclosed spaces . I don't smoke in my own house and would not vape in it either . What I do disagree with is condescending comments by the holier than thou brigade calling it self indulgent and the like . Vaping is an addiction to nicotine as much as smoking . Self indulgence , selfishness and the like does not come into it , it is a need to satisfy craving .
Satisfying a craving is self indulgence. The use of the word "satisfy" somewhat gives it away.
And there is nothing "condescending" or "holier than thou" about not wanting to breathe in other peoples' fumes.
As for the comparison with vehicle emissions - obfuscation. Car exhausts, etc. may well be more noxious; however in this day and age motor vehicles are considered essential. Are any holier than thou smokers, or vapers, on here non-drivers or never users of any form of motorised public transport?
@drcongo I can't believe that this is one of the most read threads on gasroom2 - currently showing 2K views! hats off to @chairgirl - you certainly hit a nerve with this one.
Comments
The principle of "fan ownership" is to own the club; not to be consulted on every little thing which takes your fancy.
I'm not sure that non-smokers are "vindictive sods" as Arnos Grove so ineloquently puts it. Perhaps they just don't wish to breathe poisonous fumes. Is that so unreasonable?
The principle of fan ownership? Having a vote on the design of your football shirts. On ticket prices. On how much season tickets cost. Voting in your board members. Take a look at clubs like FC United. A club run by fans for fans. And by the way there is nothing poisonous about the water vapour of efags.
Our model of fan ownership is fine, thanks.
Poisonous or not - I'm not so sure. If people are driven to puff away at the things I'd have thought there must be some chemicals present. Anyway - why do you feel that it should be your right to inflict it upon others who do not wish it? If you must indulge then do so outside.
@ chris Agreed. Fan ownership is exactly that: ownership. Consultation upon minutiae would be impractical.
I really hope that you don't own a car, because that definitely does emit 'poisonous fumes'. Perhaps you'd care to confirm?
I'm no scientist but I reckon pollution from traffic is a slightly greater problem that some vapour from an e-cig.
@AlgernonFudgebucket however, I fully agree that fan ownership is definitely not about being consulted on every trifling matter.
Not sure that a vaping referendum is any sort of priority at the FC.
Personally I couldn't care less if the club made everyone vape outside - still think that it's essentially driven by vindictiveness though.
@Chris it is fine while results are acceptable
Personally I don't consider a change of policy that will cost the club money in loss of revenue from the bar sales as trivial. Before any ban which affects fans, this should be discussed with members. If people object to vaping for reasons only known to themselves, it is not harmful to others, why not have Scores allowing vaping and the Vere for people who object.
Vaping is now officially banned, albeit not by the government, in almost all of the same places cigarettes are banned. Trains, the underground, most shops, bars and clubs.
Although I really enjoyed mine in my 90 days of no smoking in 2014, I don't think WWFC are acting in any way differently from the rest of the country.
To suggest a vote on that is ridiculous.
Manchester Utd, City and Chelsea have all banned vaping in their stadiums. Most rail and bus companies and aircraft have also instigated bans. There must be some reason behind this.
Loss of revenue from bar sales?? How many people actually do this "vaping"? I cannot think that the amount of money involved here could be anything but trivial.
As for owning a car - ridiculous comparison. Most people need to own a car to even get to Adams Park, never mind other small issues like getting to work, shopping, children to/from school, wife to the hairdressers/vaping shop. etc. Smoking, or sticking an e/fag in your mouth, is a purely self indulgent act.
What's ridiculous is your claim that vape fumes are poisonous but vehicle emissions aren't.
If you care to read carefully I did not "claim" that vehicle emissions are not poisonous. I said that the comparison is ridiculous - and I have already told you why.
I'll try it another way then.
You have grave concerns about inhaling second hand vape fumes (not poisonous) but are intensely relaxed about people breathing in your vehicle exhaust fumes (highly poisonous).
I think that's quite odd.
Talking of ridiculous claims are you a scientist Chairgirl? Can you back up your claim that vaping is not harmful?
"If people object to vaping for reasons only known to themselves, it is not harmful to others, why not have Scores allowing vaping and the Vere for people who object."
It wasn't that long ago (60 odd years ago) that proper smoking was deemed good for you and passive smoking was unheard of.
I know its the Torygraph but news just in!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12037518/E-cigarettes-contain-flavouring-chemical-linked-to-deadly-popcorn-lung.html
This is officially the worst thread on this board, with some spectacularly silly claims on both sides.
Doctor C the voice of reason as usual.
I can't imagine how anyone can get so infuriated on either side of this debate.
Do what I do and stick to snuff tobacco. Straight up the nose, no vapour.
I think it's what you get when the team is doing reasonably well and no-one can think of anyone they want OUT!!!
I smoke and personally I would not smoke inside anywhere if it was banned or not , I think if I vaped I would feel the same . It does not seem quite right any more to smoke or vape inside anywhere and I can understand why non a vaper/smokers would prefer vaping to be banned in enclosed spaces . I don't smoke in my own house and would not vape in it either . What I do disagree with is condescending comments by the holier than thou brigade calling it self indulgent and the like . Vaping is an addiction to nicotine as much as smoking . Self indulgence , selfishness and the like does not come into it , it is a need to satisfy craving .
I think you should make it a stickie...
We've just banned them at work - only allowed in the smoking shelter. (we have about 5000 employees in the UK!) Terrible things. Thank you HR!
Satisfying a craving is self indulgence. The use of the word "satisfy" somewhat gives it away.
And there is nothing "condescending" or "holier than thou" about not wanting to breathe in other peoples' fumes.
As for the comparison with vehicle emissions - obfuscation. Car exhausts, etc. may well be more noxious; however in this day and age motor vehicles are considered essential. Are any holier than thou smokers, or vapers, on here non-drivers or never users of any form of motorised public transport?
I'm outraged about the lack of outrage of all the outrage on this thread......
PS: @chairgirl - are you a wind up?
@drcongo I can't believe that this is one of the most read threads on gasroom2 - currently showing 2K views! hats off to @chairgirl - you certainly hit a nerve with this one.