Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Have sweeties for pudding, but a different kind from usual.can't you think of something i don't already have 3 times a week?
Have sweeties for pudding, but a different kind from usual.can't you think of something i don't already have 3 times a week?
You gonna try 'em?We had our carpets pulled up and floorboards treated so we can use them. The joiner found this old pack of woodbines under some of them.
I think they are from 1916 or thereabouts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbine_(cigarette)
I think there's a gap in the market for something similar. Basically a rollie sized fag, but pre-rolled, with a little filter, of some nice tobocco.
...since the smoke cannot in the nature of things be continually inhaled without the corresponding process of exhalation; for which reason Scriblerus Redivivus appears
to me more correct in defining smoking as "the sucking in of smoke at one part of the mouth, and the ejection thereof at the other."
But yet he, too, goes astray in the latter part (as I think) of his definition. For I will maintain that if I suck in the smoke at the right side of my mouth and eject it, also on the right side, I have smoked. Whereas Scriblerus would seem to imply that it is necessary that the smoke should be ejected at some other part, diverse from that at which it was sucked in; whereas, so long as the smoke is exhaled, as far as I know, it is indifferent at what part-whether at mouth, nose, eyes, or ears. So I censure Scriblerus Redivivus for this definition of smoking, and do define it as follows:-
"Smoking is the complex act by which we participate in the fumes of tobacco, and for which three things are required (1) the inhalation of the smoke; (2) the retention thereof within the body for a space of time; (3) the exhalation of some part thereof from the mouth, nose, eyes, or ears taken separately or taken conjunctively."* In which definition I would direct your attention to the term "some part" as being significant, and, as far as I know, novel.
...the upholders of the doctrine of metaphysical participation object that the pleasure received is incomplete if one smoke in the dark. Whence it followeth that the
watching of the smoke, as it escapes from the bowl or mouth, has a large part in the process of participation; some even going so far as to make this contemplation of the smoke the essence of participation, and the physical effect only an inseparable accident thereof.
And it is alleged by many that one who smokes in total darkness knows not even whether his pipe is in or out, and will often continue inhaling contentedly his own breath, his pipe containing nought but burnt-out ashes. But if this doctrine were true then it follows that to view others smoking would be an equal pleasure to smoking oneself...
The Strange Use of Cigarettes at 1980s Chinese Weddings
Found photographs in a Beijing garbage dump unveil a fading wedding ritualtime.com
been smoking a pack a day for 30+ years now - so ashamed but it's my thing
Far out Bill, the hazy plateau of rum’s inner light on a January Sunday