It’s hard enough to score a tin of FVF. Can you imagine?
Smoking was banned in the 5 boroughs in 2003 in most indoor places. I remember it well because I was a cigarette smoker working at a bar at the time. Your theoretical story isn't even plausible!Young Dani goes out drinking at some bar or pub. After a dozen cosmopolitans she glances over and sees a dude smoking a pipe.
Well she's done work in NY, Maine, San Diego, NJ, so when or where this occurred, we can't really say.5 boroughs in 2003
Wall Street Journal. Moderate fiscally conservative lean for the editorial board, for sure, but the ”news” is researched and presented with minimal bias, in my opinion. Some will disagree I am sure.Although the thread is more of a joke, I see that a few of you were tickled by the NYT.
Since I live in Croatia, feel free to recommend some more relevant US news portals.![]()
NY Ban - 2003Well she's done work in NY, Maine, San Diego, NJ, so when or where this occurred, we can't really say.
So the deniability of my plausibility is itself plausibly deniable.
Ok ok, she saw it in a movie!This person has quite possibly never seen an indoor smoker!
My comments are simply because it doesn't make any realistic sense for there to be any major pipe smoking boom. Especially in any largely populated areas because many of them have enacted various laws/ordinances around indoor smoking, flavored tobacco bans, shipping bans and barely existent B&M.OK. Wow.
So, Dani (whoever she is) sells a light story of literally four sentences to a fairly large audience, in one way or another, promoting this hobby / lifestyle of ours.
Along with a few other nonsense, she puts a bit of Charles Dickens into the story, romanticizing pipe smoking through Victorian aesthetics.
And you dissect her work experience and try to undermine her credibility because... why exactly?
Is it the NYT?
Is it the fiction part? (looking at you, Sherlock)
Help me out here.![]()
Nah I don't gotta undermine her she already writes for the NYT, it's redundant to attack her credibility.And you dissect her work experience and try to undermine her credibility because... why exactly?
Leave the lid off 🫡Though sour grapes may turn to wine, it's all just vinegar with time.![]()
The simplest explanation is the most likely. I doubt this was an industry cabal to plant desires in the populace through a newspaper.This happens to be adjacent to work that I do professionally (in two different ways, believe it or not) and if you guys will humor me, forgive me some snark, and allow me to theorize a possible way this type of thing happens:
---
Young Dani goes out drinking at some bar or pub. After a dozen cosmopolitans she glances over and sees a dude smoking a pipe. She says “That’s weird!” and giggles along with her friends. But maybe he's cute, so you know, whatever. The next morning her editors calls her, asking for a paragraph about what to expect in 2026! How exciting! She wakes up, takes some Advil and quickly pens up a paragraph for her editor.
Did she cite a study? No. Did she do an interview? No. Did she talk to industry insiders? No. Did she conduct any kind of investigation whatsoever? Nope. She just made it up.
The next thing you know, millions of people are reading her imagination in the New York Times about how Pipes will have their moment.
---
“But TimeKiller!” I hear you say. “You just made up a completely hypothetical, completely fictional scenario in your own head and wrote it up and then published for everyone to read as if it was real!”
Yes I did. Exactly like our lovely Dani did.![]()
True but they gate keep comments like Stalin’s own censor.Wall Street Journal. Moderate fiscally conservative lean for the editorial board, for sure, but the ”news” is researched and presented with minimal bias, in my opinion. Some will disagree I am sure.
