About Us

X ` Man[_3_]

On 2/28/12 4:30 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:14:00 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

On 2/28/12 1:22 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:30:45 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

On 2/27/12 8:19 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:22:59 -0500, X ` Man

Every majority that wants to discriminate against a minority has Peer
Reviewed studies to prove they are right whether it is Goebbels, David
Duke or Rick Santorum.
When all of the "peers" are anti smoking groups it is not surprising
that they come to the same conclusion about very low levels of second
hand smoke.

You think "peers" should be pro-smoking?

No but they should be pro freedom.

There are acceptable threshold limit values on every chemical in
cigarette smoke but they do not apply if the source is cigarette
smoke.

GOOD.

So you admit this is not science, tt is prejudice.

Naw. I don't buy your argument so I'm just playing with the language.

Cigarette smoke is not one of those trade-off thingies you like so much.
It's like Hitler...there's no reason to compromise about it...it's all
bad and *anything* that can be done to eliminate cigarettes is a good
thing.

We just have to hope the environmental weenies do not use second hand
smoke as a precedent (infinitesimally small trace amounts of a
chemical) to come after our BOATS (just to stay on topic). No matter
how clean burning your engine is, there are still trace amounts of all
sorts of chemicals in the exhaust. They could even cite the fiberglass
that out gases for years or the paints and preservatives used on wood.
Bottom paint is a super fund site compared to SHS.
Somehow I bet you think these are all harmless because they meet some
threshold limit value..

I can't do much more than giggle at your attempts to build your case
here. Sorry.

--
http://tinyurl.com/7mhuxdj

X ` Man[_3_]

On 2/28/12 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:32:14 -0500, X `
wrote:

I would argue that it makes sense to continue to raise the taxes on
cigarettes to the point where they are so expensive, the market for them
collapses. Unfortunately, the tobacco companies are now concentrating
selling their deadly wares to minors in third world countries. I'm sure
at some point there will be a worldwide ban on the manufacture and sale
of the damned things.

If you can believe the news, pot is selling for $150-300 an ounce.
That does not seem to be limiting the market.

The motivations for growing and smoking pot are different than for
smoking cigarettes.

--

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:48:15 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:54:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

Did you and Scotty see the "peer reviewed" studies I posted? You haven't
responded.... odd....

Every majority that wants to discriminate against a minority has Peer
Reviewed studies to prove they are right whether it is Goebbels, David
Duke or Rick Santorum.
When all of the "peers" are anti smoking groups it is not surprising
that they come to the same conclusion about very low levels of second
hand smoke.

Then show me some peer reviewed studies that says that second hand smoke
is NOT harmful.

When all the peers are advancing an anti smoking agenda, I would not
expect any other result,.

Well, I asked you to show me some peer reviewed studies that state that
second hand smoke is NOT harmful.

JustWait[_2_]

On 2/28/2012 4:35 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/28/12 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:32:14 -0500, X `
wrote:

I would argue that it makes sense to continue to raise the taxes on
cigarettes to the point where they are so expensive, the market for them
collapses. Unfortunately, the tobacco companies are now concentrating
selling their deadly wares to minors in third world countries. I'm sure
at some point there will be a worldwide ban on the manufacture and sale
of the damned things.

If you can believe the news, pot is selling for $150-300 an ounce.
That does not seem to be limiting the market.

The motivations for growing and smoking pot are different than for
smoking cigarettes.

So says you... and being as at least half of my friends are still tokers
I can tell you, you are wrong...

X ` Man[_3_]

On 2/28/12 5:34 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/28/2012 4:35 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/28/12 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:32:14 -0500, X `
wrote:

I would argue that it makes sense to continue to raise the taxes on
cigarettes to the point where they are so expensive, the market for
them
collapses. Unfortunately, the tobacco companies are now concentrating
selling their deadly wares to minors in third world countries. I'm sure
at some point there will be a worldwide ban on the manufacture and sale
of the damned things.

If you can believe the news, pot is selling for $150-300 an ounce.
That does not seem to be limiting the market.

The motivations for growing and smoking pot are different than for
smoking cigarettes.

So says you... and being as at least half of my friends are still tokers
I can tell you, you are wrong...

I'm sure you know a lot more about druggies than I do. I only have one
buddy who smokes a joint from time to time.

oscar[_2_]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:42:40 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:
On 2/28/12 5:34 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/28/2012 4:35 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/28/12 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:32:14 -0500, X `

wrote:

I would argue that it makes sense to continue to raise the
taxes on
cigarettes to the point where they are so expensive, the
market for
them
collapses. Unfortunately, the tobacco companies are now
concentrating
selling their deadly wares to minors in third world countries.
I'm sure
at some point there will be a worldwide ban on the manufacture
and sale
of the damned things.

If you can believe the news, pot is selling for $150-300 an
ounce.
That does not seem to be limiting the market.

The motivations for growing and smoking pot are different than
for
smoking cigarettes.

So says you... and being as at least half of my friends are still
tokers
I can tell you, you are wrong...

I'm sure you know a lot more about druggies than I do. I only have
one
buddy who smokes a joint from time to time.

Who would know more about drug and alcahol abuse than the learned
spouse of a doctoral candidate who did her dissitation on the very
subject. Just saying.

BAR[_2_]

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 2/28/12 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:32:14 -0500, X `
wrote:

I would argue that it makes sense to continue to raise the taxes on
cigarettes to the point where they are so expensive, the market for them
collapses. Unfortunately, the tobacco companies are now concentrating
selling their deadly wares to minors in third world countries. I'm sure
at some point there will be a worldwide ban on the manufacture and sale
of the damned things.

If you can believe the news, pot is selling for $150-300 an ounce.
That does not seem to be limiting the market.

The motivations for growing and smoking pot are different than for
smoking cigarettes.

Please enlighten us.

BAR[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:42:40 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:
On 2/28/12 5:34 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/28/2012 4:35 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/28/12 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:32:14 -0500, X `

wrote:

I would argue that it makes sense to continue to raise the
taxes on
cigarettes to the point where they are so expensive, the
market for
them
collapses. Unfortunately, the tobacco companies are now
concentrating
selling their deadly wares to minors in third world countries.
I'm sure
at some point there will be a worldwide ban on the manufacture
and sale
of the damned things.

If you can believe the news, pot is selling for $150-300 an
ounce.
That does not seem to be limiting the market.

The motivations for growing and smoking pot are different than
for
smoking cigarettes.

So says you... and being as at least half of my friends are still
tokers
I can tell you, you are wrong...

I'm sure you know a lot more about druggies than I do. I only have
one
buddy who smokes a joint from time to time.

Who would know more about drug and alcahol abuse than the learned
spouse of a doctoral candidate who did her dissitation on the very
subject. Just saying.

Somebody should have told her she didn't have to marry one to understand
the deficiencies in a drug and alcohol abuser.

Happy John

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:03:37 -0500, X ` Man wrote:

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.

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.

Harry, he made no mention of trying to 'dispute' anything. He asked where it was. Amen, that's all
she wrote.

60 Minutes is not a Fox News program.

Happy John

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:04:49 -0500, X ` Man wrote:

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.

Not to start anything, but what the hell is a 'scientifically acceptable URL'?

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