Cycle - You must be banned or poor

[Mick F]

Not cycling but in the same theme of people making bizarre assumptions - I'm a lifetime tea-totaller. Once when I told someone I didn't drink I got the slightly sheepish question "what ... you've ... um ... had a problem, then? A reformed alcoholic?

I get the same about smoking.

I'm a lifetime non-smoker, but the normal questionnaire question is, "Are you a smoker or a non-smoker?"
I can't answer that other than, "Neither".

Non-smoker is a term like non-drinker. They don't cover "Never".

Same as the OP.
Banned, or poor?
"Neither."

[bigjim]

Generally I don't find an assumption of banned or poor, however, I have noticed than when pushing the bike through the shopping precinct the Big Issue seller never tries to sell me one, whereas when just walking (not wearing bike clothes) they always do. Make of that what you will!

Round here most Big Issue sellers are East European so where he originates it's maybe accepted that you can't afford a car. Much like India I've been told.

[TrevA]

I've never come across such an accusation in London. How weird to assume someone's poor (although I am lol), or banned (I'm not).

In London, a bike is simply the best way to get about. Only a fool would drive in central London and why pay thousands to stand on a crowded tube train on the way to work. There are some unenlightened Londoners who haven't yet realised that Bike is Best though.

You can tell the city bankers and lawyers on bikes by their Rapha cladding and the steed of choice - Pinarello or Cervelo.

[CliveyT]

I'm a lifetime non-smoker, but the normal questionnaire question is, "Are you a smoker or a non-smoker?"
I can't answer that other than, "Neither".

And I bet you still want access to the NHS that the smokers pay for through their 'NHS tax'

[maff1977]

what's wrong with being poor anyway. there's only poor cos there's rich. you're either one or the other or inbetween.

[mrjemm]

I'm a lifetime non-smoker, but the normal questionnaire question is, "Are you a smoker or a non-smoker?"
I can't answer that other than, "Neither".

Non-smoker is a term like non-drinker. They don't cover "Never".

Eh? Why would non-smoker not include those that never smoked? Are you wishing for a higher level of non-smoking credibility? I tried one cigarette in 1987 I think; does that me a smoker? Or perhaps 'merely' a non-smoker?

I recall in India it being normal to ask/state whether 'veg' or 'non veg', referring to whether you are a veggie or not. Presumably the large proportion of veggies in India are thus for religious reasons, and I'd doubt they'd ever eaten meat.

I am pretty certain that someone who is non something simply does not partake, however long they've not done so. Not quite the same as how alcoholics are described as always being so, despite having not touched a drop for a long time.

[Bicycler]

I tried one cigarette in 1987 I think; does that me a smoker? Or perhaps 'merely' a non-smoker?

Apply the Clinton test. Did you inhale?

[Mick F]

What's the difference between "not"and "never"?
Quite a lot.

If I'd smoked for 40years and stopped completely, then I was asked a year later if I was a smoker or not, what would I answer?

There's a great deal of difference between not and never.

[Vantage]

The question usually applies to your current status.
If asked,"Were you a smoker?" you might answer, "Never".
As for the length if time, why does that matter? I smoked for about 15 years and quit cold turkey January 30 2012. As far as I'm concerned, I'm a non smoker.

Wondering how this thread turned into a smoking non smoking thread......

[Mark1978]

The doctors usually ask two questions. "Do you smoke?" "Have you ever smoked?"

Presumably further questions would follow.

[Mick F]

My point was that the question of the OP was one or the other. No choice but one or the other.

Smoker or non-smoker?
Poor or banned?

I've never smoked, I've never been poor, and I've never been banned.
That's very different to having stopped smoking, become well off, and got my licence back.

[Mick F]

It must be twenty years since I last swam a stroke.
I was a good swimmer.

Am I now a non-swimmer?

[Vantage]

When I part train part cycle commuted some years ago, I had a comment from one of guards, you'll soon have saved up for a car. Couldn't understand that I chose to leave my car at home and cycle.

The most expensive bike I ever bought was a Proflex Attack LE for £900 in my early 20's. The look on a work colleagues face when I mentioned the price after he asked was of sheer horror. He said I could have bought a car for that price. My exact response evades me these days but I certainly don't remember admiring his flabby beer belly (although I am filling out a bit lately ) or looking upon his clapped out rusting Astra van with any sense of envy.

[Dean]

It must be twenty years since I last swam a stroke.
I was a good swimmer.

Am I now a non-swimmer?

An ex-swimmer.

In the same way that the category "non-smokers" would contain both people who's never smoked and those who'd quit smoking, "non-swimmer" would contain those who can't swim and those who haven't swam for x number of years.

I'm currently a smoker, but went with ex-smoker during the fallow years when I'd packed in. But I'd have ticked non-smoker.

And I can't swim. Never got it.

Mick, have you ever been tested for autistic traits? I don't mean this in a confrontational way at all, and it's probably something that all of us have to a certain extent, but the lack of perception of nuance and the (apparent) need for strict categories is quite characteristic.

Mind you, I agree, three categories (non-smoker, ex-smoker and current smoker) would probably be a more sensible way to phrase the question.

[Mick F]

Mick, have you ever been tested for autistic traits? I don't mean this in a confrontational way at all, and it's probably something that all of us have to a certain extent, but the lack of perception of nuance and the (apparent) need for strict categories is quite characteristic.

You've sussed me out.
Well done.

Since having had it pointed out to me and doing some tests, and realising it for myself, I've never been happier as it's explained all sorts of things about my life. Why the heck did I have to wait until I was in my 60's!

TBH, it's me that's right, and everyone else is wrong - or not quite right. It's all to do with reality. My reality isn't the same as other people's reality, but it doesn't mean that my reality is the wrong one.

Now I'm relaxed and happy about all this, I'm perhaps worse (in the eyes of others).