Jump to content
Hookah Forum

Mr. Scratch

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Mr. Scratch

  • Rank
    Pasha - Majestrate of Mu'ussel
  1. [quote name='Mathazar']Hookah-Hookah took down the Hookah Lounge Director Page.  It's no longer available to view on their website.[/quote] It could be that they are finally learning a lesson or two about customer relations.  On the other hand, they haven't taken down the link indicator, and they still have the stuff they ripped off from SacredNarghila.  Have they learned the lesson about plagerism and stealing?  Or are have they just taken it down temporarily in the hopes that the fuss will die down, only to put it back up later once they build a customer base? I think I'll wait awhile to see how they are going to behave in the long run before I go ordering from them.  [quote]Hookah-Hookah did their part by taking down the listing,  now you can hopefully put an end to your agressions toward them and start enjoying some AWESOME ma'asell[/quote] I don't think this had anything to do with HookahCulture having "aggressions toward" hookah-hookah.com.  He was the victim of theft, and wanted the theft to come to a stop.  That is not aggression, that is seeking justice.  
  2. [quote name='Mathazar']Chances are,  you're going to find these flavors to be OUTSTANDING!!!  Aren't you even a LITTLE bit curious about their flavors.    [...]Then at least when you're bashing their company you'll have a better perspective on their flavors,  and perhaps you won't feel compelled to bash them as bad as you have been.Someone as avid about hookah smoking as you are,  I would suspect that you'd want to try every good flavor out there,  and Hookah-Hookah has some pretty decent stuff.[/quote] I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to what this is all about.  Nobody is denying that hookah-hookah might have a decent product, or even an excellent product.  The quality of their ma'assel is not material to the discussion. The question is, is it ethical to support a company that behaves unethically.  Keep in mind that sending an unethical company money is interpreted by them as indicating that unethical behavior is either profitable, or at least does not hurt their profits.  That is not a lession I would like any company to learn. To a lot of people, ethics are not a thing to be traded in for comfort and pleasures, they are to be stuck to even when times get their toughest (and doing without a tasty flavor cannot really be interpreted as even coming close to suffering through a tough time).  I won't trade in my ethics for a scoop  of freakin' ice cream or a shiny bauble, or be distracted from them by someone jangling some shiny keys in front of my face.  They might have the most delicious product in the world, but if they are assholes, then they aren't getting my money.   It isn't just them; I occasionally buy Asian antiques for resale.  One of the sources for this stuff that I'm acquainted with offers some remarkable stuff for reasonably low prices, but he is a genuine jerk who treats his customers like he thinks they are morons.  As tempting as his merchandise is, he'll have to sell it to someone else. Back on the topic of the AF GS Grape; the company told me that they stand by the quality of their ma'assel, and if I'm not satisfied with their product to go ahead and send it back to them for an exchange.  I usually just take my lumps on a bad purchase like this, but in a situation where I've paid a premium for a product and I think there is something wrong with it, I think I'm going to take them up on their guarantee ASAP.    
  3. Given the high reccomendations of folks on the list, I went ahead and ordered a 250g jar of Al Fakher Golden Seal Grape.  Here is the complaint I sent the company (which will remain nameless here for now, because I don't think this is their fault): ----- My friend Aaron recently ordered a 250g container of Al Fakher Golden Seal Black Grape from you as a holiday gift for me.We opened the package when it arrived in the mail.  We could immediately tell that the packaging of the AFGS grape had been damaged when we took out the cardboard container, as you could hear the rattling of the hard plastic pieces.  Sure enough, once it was opened we could see that the plastic had been badly shattered, as if it had been dropped on a hard surface.  However, the vacuume-seal bag appeared to be intact, so I took it home.  A several days later I opened it for a smoke.The first thing that struck me upon opening the bag was the powerful odor of rotting fruit.  It smelled like grape alright, but it smelled like a bushel of grapes that had been left to decompose in the summer sun for a week. The smell was so powerful that it rapidly permeated the room, and later neccesitated my having to remove it and the tupperware container it sits in from the house entirely.However, I've had ma'assel in the past whose flavor has been entirely different from it's unsmoked aroma, so I loaded up a bowl, screened it with tinfoil, and put a coal on.  Far from the smooth, sweet flavor of other Al Fakher flavors I've had, this had a sour harsh taste reminiscent of burning hair.  Assuming I was burning the ma'assel, I repeatedly removed the coal and stirred the bowl up to stop any scorching.  After this failed to improve the taste, I removed the bowl entirely,dumped it out, washed it in the sink.  Then I put more AFGS grape in, and this time screened it with a steel screen (which in my epxerience almost never results in burnt ma'assel).  While it wasn't as harsh this time, it still had the sour unpleasant taste as my previous experiment.My question is this; is it supposed to taste like this, or did I just get a really bad batch.  If this is normally the way that AFGS tastes, I'll just take the hit on it - it wouldn't be the first ma'assel I've bought that turned out to be a waste of money.  However, if there is something wrong with the batch itself, I was wondering if it might be possible to exchange this nasty stuff for something that is up to AF usual quality standards?Please let me know what you think of this situation, and if it might be possible toexchange it.-Mr. Scratch
  4. Mr. Scratch


    [quote name='Roketsloth']i have a hard time taking someone seriously...who is insulting me for not being able to "read, right, and se".  I don't care if you're dutch, polish, or american...if you're going to insult my intelligence, learn how to do it without f**king it up.[/quote] You must be a total internet NOOB if you don't realize that spelling flames are considered the lowest form of insult on just about any forum.  This is even more true when they are directed at somone who is speaking English as a second language (and doing a prtty damn good job of it anyway). [quote name='Roketsloth']To avoid this later...i'll help you out, [b]i don't give a sh*t about this situation.  it's over, stop discussing it, lameass.  [/b][/quote] Uh, if you "don't give a sh*t" then why are you here bawling your freaking eyes out whenever somone takes a much-warranted swipe at the theives at hookah-hookah?  What does it matter to you?  If you "dont give a sh*t" then why do you keep coming back over and over and over again, with your dumb-assed,  mistaken comments and your pointless, petty insults aimed at everyone who criticises the company? If you "don't give a sh*t", then why are you bending over backward to defend them, when you have already admitted that they have cheated HookahCulture?   That doesn't appear to be the behavior of somone who "doesn't give a sh*t' at all. As for your statement "[b]it's over, stop discussing it[/b]", it seems to me that it is YOU who keeps coming back here, time and time again, to mewl and whine about it.  This thread would have already been dead and gone if it weren't for you. Frankly, I hope you keep flapping your lips.  As long as you keep yapping, this thread will remain active. As long as this thread is at the top of the board, it means more people find out about the unsavory theft that hookah-hookah has committed.
  5. Mr. Scratch


    [quote name='To100YearsToLate']Is this argument really necessary? I dont know how you guys got there, but its stolen material.  Hookah Culture should be compensated for the work he did.[/quote] What?  Stolen?!  You mean I can't just go and copy someone elses material, stick my name on it an call it my own? And compensating someone for their hard work when all I have to do is rip it off?  Unheard of!  I thought everything on the internet was supposed to be free! Don't you know that if I can wrap my grubby mitts around it without a cop throwing me in the pokey it must be public domain? 
  6. [quote name='Belphegor'] Hey guys, i was on Nakhla's website and i saw that el basha has a flavor called silver, heres the link [url="http://www.nakhla.com/docs/groupc.htm"]http://www.nakhla.com/docs/groupc.htm[/url] if anyone has tried it or know what  it is, i would much appriciate some info, it looks tasty.[/quote] What, you didn't know that we're all smoking elemental metals now?  Sheesh, where have you been?  I'm waiting for my 250g jar of AF cadmium-flavor ma'assel to arrive any day now!
  7. [quote name='Hookagirl']Hello friends, im quite new to hooka smoking, i  bough my first hooka yesterday, my best friend said that she would send me some shisha in the mail, something like el waha jasmine flavor, does this taste good? have any of  you tried it?[/quote] I haven't tried the Waha jasmine yet, but if you are new to hookah smoking, you might consider starting with some sweeter fruit flavors as well (preferably first).  In my experience the jasmine and rose ma'assel have bitter, perfumey flavors that don't appeal to new smokers as well as the more pleasant and familiar strawberry and melon.  
  8. [quote name='nematocyst'] hey guys i was thinking about ordering some al fakher plum but i havent read any reviews on it, if anybody has tried it, it would be helpful to know what its like[/quote] Tried it once.  One of the weaker AF flavors IMO. Not as sweet as I expected it to be. Not a particularly smooth smoke either.
  9. Mr. Scratch

    check out this news article...

    [quote name='E.G.] [quote name='Mr. Scratch]The tobacco banners have already lied themselves blue in the face about everything from the number of tobacco-related deaths in the US' date=' to the supposed increase in cancer rates among those who are subjected to second-hand smoke (and for those who haven't looked at it' date=' the actual research by the World Health Organization revealed there was no link between the two - in spite of the fact that WHO tried to cover up their results when they came to light).[/QUOTE''] Links, please? I think I may have seen the WHO studies a long time ago on a newsgroup far far away, but I'm not sure. I'd like to look at them (again?). [/QUOTE] The WHO has buried their findings because they didn't like the results, but they were leaked to and reported by the London Telegraph.  The LT link is expired, but there are plenty of reports on their finding via other sources.  Here is the report via the Sunday Telegraph: UK Sunday Telegraph...Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - OfficialHeadline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - OfficialByline: Victoria MacDonald, Health CorrespondentDateline: March 8, 1998The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.The World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.-------The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. -------The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."-------Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." [quote]As for the fictionalizing of tobacco-related deaths in the US, that's a new one to me, and goes absolutly contrary to damn near everything medical and health researchers have found. Got any articles? [/quote] It does go  contrary to the reports of medical and health researchers, but that is because the research is cooked up bullcrap.  This was demonstrated in federal court, when a judge presiding in a case against the EPA's passive-smoking study declared their supportive data to be "cherry-picked".  Cecil of the straight dope explains it best: [url="http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html"]http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html More: [url="http://www.junkscience.com/feb01/perske.htm"]http://www.junkscience.com/feb01/perske.ht...eb01/perske.htm[/url]://http://www.straightdope.com/columns.../perske.htm[/url]://http://www.straightdope.com/columns.../perske.htm [url="https://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html%5b/url"]]https://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html[/url]://http://www.junkscience.com/feb01/pe...-28-98.html Unfortunately, you can't depend on the reputation of a researcher on such topics; once they get in the pocket of a lobby or a social movement, truth goes out the window. A good example of this is the CDC's Kellerman release of gun-death statistics about a dozen years ago that found that a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to shoot someone the owner knows ("such as a friend or family member") than an intruder.  Quite an idictment of firearms, eh?  Too bad their research didn't hold up to the scrutiny of the Senate committee who financed them.  When the Senators asked the CDC to turn over their raw data, Kellerman refused to do it.  It turned out he had based his entire study on a couple of Washington districts populated by econimically depresssed minorities where high drug-crime rates were prevelent.  Since drug dealers who shoot each other in criminal disputes usually know each other, this allowed him to state the conclusion that a gun was more likley to be used on someone the owner knew, and then added in the bit about "such as a friend or family member" for emotional effect.  The Senate was infuriated that the CDC had abused the taxpayer's money, and defunded the wing of the CDC that initiated the report.  But in spite of this, you STILL see the 43:1 stat being bandied about, because people don't know the history of the research.  Just like you see keep seeing these smoking-death stats ballooning up larger and larger every year.[/quote]
  10. Mr. Scratch

    check out this news article...

    [quote name='MR Bubble']I have had plenty of friend who loved to smoke the machine like a demon, but never had any urge to pick up a cigarette. Even after days of no hooka session. Oh, and they were running fools too. Never added any time to their 2-mile tested run run either. Heck, I knew a lady (used lightly[img]http://www.hookahforum.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif[/img]) who quit cigarettes while smoking one bowl of maassel each night. She felt better later on too.  [/quote] I've observed this as well; once people are introduced to a quality, tasty ma'assel, they don't like the taste of cigarettes.  Coffin-nails just don't provide the same quality of smoke. But you won't hear that from the Doc because it doesn't support his thesis, which is that tobacco is evil, and all tobacco users absolutely must end up as cancer-ridden, cig addicted nicojunkies. Whether hookah smoking is better or worse though, the truth is you can't rely on these people to give you the straight poop.  The tobacco banners have already lied themselves blue in the face about everything from the number of tobacco-related deaths in the US, to the supposed increase in cancer rates among those who are subjected to second-hand smoke (and for those who haven't looked at it, the actual research by the World Health Organization revealed there was no link between the two - in spite of the fact that WHO tried to cover up their results when they came to light). [quote] Too bad some do-good anti-tobaccoist is trying to take my machines away. How ironic he isn't worried about the .44 Magnum that will remove the knee cap of the first person who decides to remove my machines.[/quote] Too true!  While the tobacco grabbers have been very intent on publicizing the death-by-cancer rates among smokers, maybe it is time smokers publicize the death-by-acute-lead-poisoning rates among smoke grabbers! 
  11. [quote name='Mathazar']Mr. Scratch........You probably already know what I'm going to say...lol....but, personally,  I thought the Al-Fakher Strawberry sucked.  I couldn't taste ANYTHING!  [/quote] Mathazar, If you can't taste AF strawberry, then I can only conclude that you've got freakin' calluses on your tongue from your 15 bowl-a-day hookahholism ferchrissakes! I find AF strawberry to be one of the most potent tastes out there.  In fact, I agree with Fumystery, that it is actually a bit too strong a flavor to smoke on your own, it is almost overwhelmingly heavy and sweet with unadulterated strawberryness.
  12. I've found the Al Fakher strawberry is very good, and does have an actual strawberry flavor.  Just watch out for the buzz though.  It can sneak up on you after awhile.
  13. Mr. Scratch

    check out this news article...

    [quote name='HookahCulture']That article is propaganda.[/quote] Welcome to the world of yellow journalism.  Writing a balanced story about the pros and cons of a new phenomenon doesn't sell enough papers. A journalist doesn't feel like he's done his job unless he's tracked down every partisan extremist on a given topic, and allowed they nut to screech about the impending DOOM that will strike us all down if product-A is allowed to be used. As a gun collector and 2nd Amendment supporter, I've been through all this before -- I've seen total outright lies about firearms being fed through the media in order to fan up public hysteria. Journalists have about as much integrity as any used car salesman, and are half as likely to tell the truth.    
  14. Mr. Scratch

    AL Amir Pomegranate Review

    [quote name='Mathazar']You could have summed-up your Pomegranate review in two words:IT SUCKED!!!   [/quote] Well, the reason I didn't say that the pom sucked was because, in my book, it really didn't.  Yes, it was weak on flavor, but it was still very smokable.  I judged it on a number of factors; flavor, yes, but also smoothness of smoke, underlying taste of the tobacco, nicotine presence, and others.  It actually did pretty well in my book, except in the (admittedly pretty important) flavor category.  Even with the low rating I'd give it in this category, I'd say the AA Pom failed not because it's flavor was bad, but because it's good flavor simply wasn't strong enough. Flavors that "suck" are things like Al Waha coconut (which is like smoking soap shavings) and Nakhla cappucino (which is like smoking the contents left at the bottom of a bird cage):  sh*t that makes me cough, stick out my tongue, shake my head in dismay, rub my parched throat, make me feel like I might puke, and force me to give up in disgust after five minutes.  The Pom didn't make me want to do any of this; I smoked every bit of it until the bowl was completley burned out.  In fact, if I had more, I'd smoke that too.  I just don't know if I would lay my hard earned shekels down to buy it, given the presence of better flavors out there. [quote]That Pomegranate was SO bad,  I'm surprised George has the nerve to advertise it.  It only makes him look bad when he sells lousy products.  He should have known better than to introduce a product like that to unsuspecting customers  .  But,  of course,  I've already told him that,  and he acknowledged that he got the message,  so I won't mention it again.[/quote] I still appreciate George's efforts.  In fact, I think what George did shows some integrity, even if many people don't care for the Amir flavors.  It gives his potential customers and opportunity to try out a new product before they spend their money.  If a lot of them don't care for it, then he's avoided some unhappy customers.  If they DO like it, then he'll be able to sell a few more jars of it. As for those "unsuspecing costomers" that did buy it, not realizing they wouldn't like it;  the same thing probably went for George himself.  It is possible that since these are new flavors, George made this purchase not knowing what he was going to get.  Having received the product, he'll sell some of it and see if anyone cares for it.  If they don't, then he'll notice in awhile that nobody purchases these flavors, and he'll stop carrying them.  It isn't really his fault about the flavor of the product, 'cause he doesn't make it, and he can't really be held accountable for people's taste.  If you are annoyed about the purchase you made (and I can understand why you would be), I think that the Al Amir company would be a more suitable target of your ire, cause they made the stuff and decided to release it.  Just my opinion.
  15. Mr. Scratch


    [quote name='Roketsloth']You know what, kofod, why don't you mind your own f**king business?  Who i do business with is none of your concern...[/quote] <Mr. Scratch taps on Roketsloth's shoulder from behind.> Pardon me, but it was I who called your ethics into question, not Kofod. As for why your purcheses are my "f**cking business" and "concern"; they are such because you made them so.  You are the one here who came here, dismissed Hookahcultures' complaint with a wave of your hand, and announced that you were going to buy from HookahHookah anyway in spite of what they had done.  This makes your patronage a matter of legitimate discussion.  Had you not brought the matter up in the course of your own arguement, then it would not be an issue.  So you can't very well snivel now about how we're prying into your private affairs when it is you who came here trumpeting about them in the first place.  Well...not quite true, I suppose: you CAN very well snivel about it, it's just that I don't really care.   You brought it on yourself.