About Us

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article ,
says...

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 2/27/12 4:57 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:30:51 -0500, X ` wrote:

On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote:

Where are the independently duplicated and peer reviewed research that
shows that second hand smoke causes health problems?

The medical and scientific fields are rife with incorrect conclusions,
sub-standard methods and politically driven persons.

What are your qualifications to find, understand, and judge legitimate
medical research?

You are too funny. What are you qualifications to question anyone else's
qualifications?

I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed medical
research in scientific publications, you ought to have some recognizable
qualifications.

Hate to interrupt, but you gotta admit he got you with that question! The conclusions he stated
regarding the incorrect conclusions, etc, of research doesn't require special qualifications. An
hour or two of 60 Minutes once in a while will demonstrate same.

I don't see how he "got" me. I'm smart enough and educated enough to
know I don't have the education and knowledge to reasonably dispute
published, peer-reviewed research in medical/scientific areas. I have
two college degrees; BAR has none.

Your two college degrees proved that you sat through enough lectures and
passed the exams to obtain your degrees. They do not confer upon you any
level of smartness.

I don't dispute that from time to time there have been problems with
research, but that doesn't mean I am going to accept the Luddite view of
the world presented by Fox News and the other non-believers in science.

"From time to time there have been problems with research?" Your problem
is just like many others who have a sense of academic entitlement. You
believe that because you have the "degrees" that others who have the
"degrees" are above reproach. Everyone has an agenda and you need to
find out what that agenda is and make sure that the agenda isn't
affecting the research. Or, that the agenda isn't clouding their
judgment in whatever they are doing.

So, did you see the peer reviewed studies that I posted that show that
second hand smoke is indeed unhealthy?

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X ` Man wrote:

On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote:

Where are the independently duplicated and peer reviewed research that
shows that second hand smoke causes health problems?

The medical and scientific fields are rife with incorrect conclusions,
sub-standard methods and politically driven persons.

What are your qualifications to find, understand, and judge legitimate
medical research?

You are too funny. What are you qualifications to question anyone else's
qualifications?

I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed medical
research in scientific publications, you ought to have some recognizable
qualifications.

And that might be relevant if you could show him some "peer-reviewed
medical research in scientific publications".

Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications to judge it.
I don't, and I have two university degrees.

He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was. He obviously would like to see it. If
one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much legitimate medical research is
understandable - especially the conclusions.

And I posted cites of MANY peer reviewed studies on second hand smoke.
BAR and Scotty chose to ignore them!

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article , says...

On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X ` wrote:

On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote:

Where are the independently duplicated and peer reviewed research that
shows that second hand smoke causes health problems?

The medical and scientific fields are rife with incorrect conclusions,
sub-standard methods and politically driven persons.

What are your qualifications to find, understand, and judge legitimate
medical research?

You are too funny. What are you qualifications to question anyone else's
qualifications?

I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed medical
research in scientific publications, you ought to have some recognizable
qualifications.

And that might be relevant if you could show him some "peer-reviewed
medical research in scientific publications".

Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications to judge it.
I don't, and I have two university degrees.

He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was. He obviously would like to see it. If
one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much legitimate medical research is
understandable - especially the conclusions.

He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I posted a
long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs.

Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs?

I didn't see any URL's.

I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I went
to the next post...

I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I wonder
why....

oscar[_2_]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com,
dump-on-
says...

On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In
articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote:

Where are the independently duplicated and peer
reviewed research that
shows that second hand smoke causes health problems?

The medical and scientific fields are rife with
incorrect conclusions,
sub-standard methods and politically driven persons.

What are your qualifications to find, understand, and
judge legitimate
medical research?

You are too funny. What are you qualifications to
question anyone else's
qualifications?

I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed
medical
research in scientific publications, you ought to have
some recognizable
qualifications.

And that might be relevant if you could show him some
"peer-reviewed
medical research in scientific publications".

Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications
to judge it.
I don't, and I have two university degrees.

He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was.
He obviously would like to see it. If
one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much
legitimate medical research is
understandable - especially the conclusions.

He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I
posted a
long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs.

Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs?

I didn't see any URL's.

I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I
went
to the next post...

I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I
wonder
why....

Probably because you are a fruitcake.

JustWait[_2_]

On 2/28/2012 9:01 AM, oscar wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com,
dump-on-
says...

On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In
articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote:

Where are the independently duplicated and peer
reviewed research that
shows that second hand smoke causes health problems?

The medical and scientific fields are rife with
incorrect conclusions,
sub-standard methods and politically driven persons.

What are your qualifications to find, understand, and
judge legitimate
medical research?

You are too funny. What are you qualifications to
question anyone else's
qualifications?

I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed
medical
research in scientific publications, you ought to have
some recognizable
qualifications.

And that might be relevant if you could show him some
"peer-reviewed
medical research in scientific publications".

Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications
to judge it.
I don't, and I have two university degrees.

He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was.
He obviously would like to see it. If
one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much
legitimate medical research is
understandable - especially the conclusions.

He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I
posted a
long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs.

Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs?

I didn't see any URL's.
I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I
went
to the next post...

I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I
wonder
why....

Probably because you are a fruitcake.

I keep telling him he is in my filters but he chooses to ignore that...
I wonder why....??

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article , says...

On 2/28/2012 9:01 AM, oscar wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com,
dump-on-
says...

On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In
articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote:

Where are the independently duplicated and peer
reviewed research that
shows that second hand smoke causes health problems?

The medical and scientific fields are rife with
incorrect conclusions,
sub-standard methods and politically driven persons.

What are your qualifications to find, understand, and
judge legitimate
medical research?

You are too funny. What are you qualifications to
question anyone else's
qualifications?

I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed
medical
research in scientific publications, you ought to have
some recognizable
qualifications.

And that might be relevant if you could show him some
"peer-reviewed
medical research in scientific publications".

Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications
to judge it.
I don't, and I have two university degrees.

He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was.
He obviously would like to see it. If
one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much
legitimate medical research is
understandable - especially the conclusions.

He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I
posted a
long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs.

Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs?

I didn't see any URL's.
I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I
went
to the next post...

I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I
wonder
why....

Probably because you are a fruitcake.

I keep telling him he is in my filters but he chooses to ignore that...
I wonder why....??

And you keep replying. SO you know the studies are here, go read them
and get back to me.

Oscar

On 2/28/2012 10:17 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 2/28/2012 9:01 AM, oscar wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, wrote:
In ,
says...
On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com,
dump-on-
says...

On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In
articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote:

Where are the independently duplicated and peer
reviewed research that
shows that second hand smoke causes health problems?

The medical and scientific fields are rife with
incorrect conclusions,
sub-standard methods and politically driven persons.

What are your qualifications to find, understand, and
judge legitimate
medical research?

You are too funny. What are you qualifications to
question anyone else's
qualifications?

I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed
medical
research in scientific publications, you ought to have
some recognizable
qualifications.

And that might be relevant if you could show him some
"peer-reviewed
medical research in scientific publications".

Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications
to judge it.
I don't, and I have two university degrees.

He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was.
He obviously would like to see it. If
one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much
legitimate medical research is
understandable - especially the conclusions.

He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I
posted a
long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs.

Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs?

I didn't see any URL's.
I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I
went
to the next post...

I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I
wonder
why....

Probably because you are a fruitcake.

I keep telling him he is in my filters but he chooses to ignore that...
I wonder why....??

And you keep replying. SO you know the studies are here, go read them
and get back to me.

You sure are a bossy little girl, Plume.

--
O M G

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article m,
says...

On 2/28/2012 10:17 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 2/28/2012 9:01 AM, oscar wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, wrote:
In ,
says...
On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com,
dump-on-
says...

On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In
articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote:

Where are the independently duplicated and peer
reviewed research that
shows that second hand smoke causes health problems?

The medical and scientific fields are rife with
incorrect conclusions,
sub-standard methods and politically driven persons.

What are your qualifications to find, understand, and
judge legitimate
medical research?

You are too funny. What are you qualifications to
question anyone else's
qualifications?

I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed
medical
research in scientific publications, you ought to have
some recognizable
qualifications.

And that might be relevant if you could show him some
"peer-reviewed
medical research in scientific publications".

Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications
to judge it.
I don't, and I have two university degrees.

He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was.
He obviously would like to see it. If
one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much
legitimate medical research is
understandable - especially the conclusions.

He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I
posted a
long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs.

Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs?

I didn't see any URL's.
I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I
went
to the next post...

I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I
wonder
why....

Probably because you are a fruitcake.

I keep telling him he is in my filters but he chooses to ignore that...
I wonder why....??

And you keep replying. SO you know the studies are here, go read them
and get back to me.

You sure are a bossy little girl, Plume.

Uh, if he's not going to read them, why did he want them so badly?

JustWait[_2_]

On 2/28/2012 11:58 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 2/28/2012 10:17 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 2/28/2012 9:01 AM, oscar wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, wrote:
In ,
says...
On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com,
dump-on-
says...

On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In
articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote:

Where are the independently duplicated and peer
reviewed research that
shows that second hand smoke causes health problems?

The medical and scientific fields are rife with
incorrect conclusions,
sub-standard methods and politically driven persons.

What are your qualifications to find, understand, and
judge legitimate
medical research?

You are too funny. What are you qualifications to
question anyone else's
qualifications?

I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed
medical
research in scientific publications, you ought to have
some recognizable
qualifications.

And that might be relevant if you could show him some
"peer-reviewed
medical research in scientific publications".

Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications
to judge it.
I don't, and I have two university degrees.

He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was.
He obviously would like to see it. If
one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much
legitimate medical research is
understandable - especially the conclusions.

He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I
posted a
long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs.

Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs?

I didn't see any URL's.
I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I
went
to the next post...

I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I
wonder
why....

Probably because you are a fruitcake.

I keep telling him he is in my filters but he chooses to ignore that...
I wonder why....??

And you keep replying. SO you know the studies are here, go read them
and get back to me.

You sure are a bossy little girl, Plume.

I don't chase red herrings...

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article , says...

On 2/28/2012 11:58 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 2/28/2012 10:17 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 2/28/2012 9:01 AM, oscar wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, wrote:
In ,
says...
On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com,
dump-on-
says...

On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In
articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote:

Where are the independently duplicated and peer
reviewed research that
shows that second hand smoke causes health problems?

The medical and scientific fields are rife with
incorrect conclusions,
sub-standard methods and politically driven persons.

What are your qualifications to find, understand, and
judge legitimate
medical research?

You are too funny. What are you qualifications to
question anyone else's
qualifications?

I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed
medical
research in scientific publications, you ought to have
some recognizable
qualifications.

And that might be relevant if you could show him some
"peer-reviewed
medical research in scientific publications".

Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications
to judge it.
I don't, and I have two university degrees.

He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was.
He obviously would like to see it. If
one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much
legitimate medical research is
understandable - especially the conclusions.

He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I
posted a
long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs.

Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs?

I didn't see any URL's.
I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I
went
to the next post...

I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I
wonder
why....

Probably because you are a fruitcake.

I keep telling him he is in my filters but he chooses to ignore that...
I wonder why....??

And you keep replying. SO you know the studies are here, go read them
and get back to me.

You sure are a bossy little girl, Plume.

I don't chase red herrings...

Yeah, you'd rather stick your head in the sand. I simply can't imagine
anybody who would just flat deny good sound science. My 12 year old
knows better than that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
update	Paul Oman	Boat Building	0	June 20th 08 06:37 PM
GB update	Eisboch	General	38	November 16th 04 05:03 PM
"26 Again" update	FamilySailor	ASA	3	August 20th 04 08:44 PM

Menu

About Us