BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)
-   -   Update on ecigs... (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/151153-re-update-ecigs.html)

iBoaterer[_2_] February 27th 12 08:35 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
In article ,
says...

On 2/26/12 10:25 PM, BAR wrote:
In b.com,
says...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:20:09 -0500, wrote:
In articlep_Kdnelbdrumw9fSnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
dump-on-
says...

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.


What are your qualifications to question anyone else's
qualifications?

He learned English real good in Kansas. That's gotta count fer sumpin.


I am curious as to why the great Harry Krause went to a school out in
the middle of nowhere. Couldn't he get into any of the local schools of
higher learning? It is also interesting that he was only able to secure
a job at a newspaper with little to no significance. Funny too that he
never got another newspaper job. He did go into union organizing, not
much needed there but the ability to rabble rouse.




You should refocus your curiosity on the academic incompetence that kept
you out of even an open enrollment two year community college.

As for the Kansas City Star, when I worked there it was considered one
of the 10 best newspapers in the United States. Some years later, the
newsroom employees who owned the paper sold it off to a conglomerate and
it began its downward slide, as virtually all formerly independent
newspapers do once they are acquired.

I never actually applied for a newspaper or news job anywhere. During a
journalism honorary society induction ceremony in Kansas City sponsored
by the Kansas City Star, at which everyone got roaring drunk, I was
asked by the then managing editor of the morning edition if I wanted a
summer job. I stopped by the paper the next day and the managing editor
hired me on the spot, without an application or resume. Turns out one of
my professors at school knew the managing editor and had recommended I
be hired for the summer job.

At the end of the summer, just before I started my senior year, the
managing editor asked me if I thought I could finish up school and work
on the paper. He got the city editor to jiggle schedules so I was able
to take my remaining classes in the AM and through mid-day and drive my
derelict car to the paper five late afternoons a week.

After some years at the Kansas City, I was recruited by The Associated
Press at the behest of Harry F. Rosenthal, a very well known senior AP
reported and editor, and David Halberstam, an author. I was flown to New
York and interviewed directly by Keith Fuller of the AP and Wes
Gallagher, who at that time was the AP's general manager.

While with the AP, I was promoted to Correspondent in Charge of smaller
bureaus in three states, and covered first-hand two horrific disasters,
one involving a bridge and the other a huge coal mine explosion. On the
basis of that work, I was invited to New York again and offered a TV
news job at ABC News. I wasn't that interested, but I did get to meet
Jimmy Breslin at ABC. His last newspaper gig went down the drain with
the collapse of the World Journal Tribune. Breslin took me to an
"expensive" lunch at his favorite hot dog stand, where we became friends
after both of us dripped mustard on our shirts.

So, you see, I never sought a newspaper job, not my first one and not my
last "news" job. I did OK in the news biz for a guy with a B.A. in
English and an M.A. in English and, of course, along the way, I managed
to take a number of university level science and math classes. But even
with that formal education in my background, I don't feel comfortable
predicting what the fuel will be for cars two decades from now.

So, Bertie, have you ever taken and passed any university-level courses
in math or science?

Didn't think so.


Do you really expect everyone here to believe that? Sounds like a Yale
degree to me.

X ` Man[_3_] February 27th 12 09:22 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
On 2/27/12 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:54:41 -0500, 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.



You think "peers" should be pro-smoking?

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

JustWait[_2_] February 27th 12 09:41 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
On 2/27/2012 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:54:41 -0500, wrote:

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


Did you know I don't see your posts, until somebody else snerks at them?


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.



Happy John February 27th 12 09:57 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:30:51 -0500, 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.


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.


X ` Man[_3_] February 27th 12 09:58 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
On 2/27/12 4:41 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/27/2012 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:54:41 -0500, wrote:

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


Did you know I don't see your posts, until somebody else snerks at them?




I don't see iboater's posts, either. And there are others on my "Don't
Bother to Read" list.

Happy John February 27th 12 09:59 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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.

X ` Man[_3_] February 27th 12 10:03 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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.

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

X ` Man[_3_] February 27th 12 10:04 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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.

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

oscar[_2_] February 27th 12 11:41 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:23:34 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:
On 2/26/12 10:25 PM, BAR wrote:
In b.com,
says...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:20:09 -0500, wrote:
In articlep_Kdnelbdrumw9fSnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
dump-on-
says...

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.


What are your qualifications to question anyone else's
qualifications?

He learned English real good in Kansas. That's gotta count fer

sumpin.

I am curious as to why the great Harry Krause went to a school

out in
the middle of nowhere. Couldn't he get into any of the local

schools of
higher learning? It is also interesting that he was only able to

secure
a job at a newspaper with little to no significance. Funny too

that he
never got another newspaper job. He did go into union organizing,

not
much needed there but the ability to rabble rouse.






You should refocus your curiosity on the academic incompetence that

kept
you out of even an open enrollment two year community college.



As for the Kansas City Star, when I worked there it was considered

one
of the 10 best newspapers in the United States. Some years later,

the
newsroom employees who owned the paper sold it off to a

conglomerate and
it began its downward slide, as virtually all formerly independent
newspapers do once they are acquired.



I never actually applied for a newspaper or news job anywhere.

During a
journalism honorary society induction ceremony in Kansas City

sponsored
by the Kansas City Star, at which everyone got roaring drunk, I was
asked by the then managing editor of the morning edition if I

wanted a
summer job. I stopped by the paper the next day and the managing

editor
hired me on the spot, without an application or resume. Turns out

one of
my professors at school knew the managing editor and had

recommended I
be hired for the summer job.



At the end of the summer, just before I started my senior year, the
managing editor asked me if I thought I could finish up school and

work
on the paper. He got the city editor to jiggle schedules so I was

able
to take my remaining classes in the AM and through mid-day and

drive my
derelict car to the paper five late afternoons a week.



After some years at the Kansas City, I was recruited by The

Associated
Press at the behest of Harry F. Rosenthal, a very well known senior

AP
reported and editor, and David Halberstam, an author. I was flown

to New
York and interviewed directly by Keith Fuller of the AP and Wes
Gallagher, who at that time was the AP's general manager.



While with the AP, I was promoted to Correspondent in Charge of

smaller
bureaus in three states, and covered first-hand two horrific

disasters,
one involving a bridge and the other a huge coal mine explosion. On

the
basis of that work, I was invited to New York again and offered a

TV
news job at ABC News. I wasn't that interested, but I did get to

meet
Jimmy Breslin at ABC. His last newspaper gig went down the drain

with
the collapse of the World Journal Tribune. Breslin took me to an
"expensive" lunch at his favorite hot dog stand, where we became

friends
after both of us dripped mustard on our shirts.



So, you see, I never sought a newspaper job, not my first one and

not my
last "news" job. I did OK in the news biz for a guy with a B.A. in
English and an M.A. in English and, of course, along the way, I

managed
to take a number of university level science and math classes. But

even
with that formal education in my background, I don't feel

comfortable
predicting what the fuel will be for cars two decades from now.



So, Bertie, have you ever taken and passed any university-level

courses
in math or science?



Didn't think so.


You are such an interesting fella. You ought to write an autobiography

BAR[_2_] February 28th 12 01:24 AM

Update on ecigs...
 
In article ,
says...

On 2/26/12 10:25 PM, BAR wrote:
In b.com,
says...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:20:09 -0500, wrote:
In articlep_Kdnelbdrumw9fSnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
dump-on-
says...

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.


What are your qualifications to question anyone else's
qualifications?

He learned English real good in Kansas. That's gotta count fer sumpin.


I am curious as to why the great Harry Krause went to a school out in
the middle of nowhere. Couldn't he get into any of the local schools of
higher learning? It is also interesting that he was only able to secure
a job at a newspaper with little to no significance. Funny too that he
never got another newspaper job. He did go into union organizing, not
much needed there but the ability to rabble rouse.




You should refocus your curiosity on the academic incompetence that kept
you out of even an open enrollment two year community college.

As for the Kansas City Star, when I worked there it was considered one
of the 10 best newspapers in the United States. Some years later, the
newsroom employees who owned the paper sold it off to a conglomerate and
it began its downward slide, as virtually all formerly independent
newspapers do once they are acquired.

I never actually applied for a newspaper or news job anywhere. During a
journalism honorary society induction ceremony in Kansas City sponsored
by the Kansas City Star, at which everyone got roaring drunk, I was
asked by the then managing editor of the morning edition if I wanted a
summer job. I stopped by the paper the next day and the managing editor
hired me on the spot, without an application or resume. Turns out one of
my professors at school knew the managing editor and had recommended I
be hired for the summer job.

At the end of the summer, just before I started my senior year, the
managing editor asked me if I thought I could finish up school and work
on the paper. He got the city editor to jiggle schedules so I was able
to take my remaining classes in the AM and through mid-day and drive my
derelict car to the paper five late afternoons a week.

After some years at the Kansas City, I was recruited by The Associated
Press at the behest of Harry F. Rosenthal, a very well known senior AP
reported and editor, and David Halberstam, an author. I was flown to New
York and interviewed directly by Keith Fuller of the AP and Wes
Gallagher, who at that time was the AP's general manager.

While with the AP, I was promoted to Correspondent in Charge of smaller
bureaus in three states, and covered first-hand two horrific disasters,
one involving a bridge and the other a huge coal mine explosion. On the
basis of that work, I was invited to New York again and offered a TV
news job at ABC News. I wasn't that interested, but I did get to meet
Jimmy Breslin at ABC. His last newspaper gig went down the drain with
the collapse of the World Journal Tribune. Breslin took me to an
"expensive" lunch at his favorite hot dog stand, where we became friends
after both of us dripped mustard on our shirts.

So, you see, I never sought a newspaper job, not my first one and not my
last "news" job. I did OK in the news biz for a guy with a B.A. in
English and an M.A. in English and, of course, along the way, I managed
to take a number of university level science and math classes. But even
with that formal education in my background, I don't feel comfortable
predicting what the fuel will be for cars two decades from now.

So, Bertie, have you ever taken and passed any university-level courses
in math or science?

Didn't think so.


Why do you feel compelled to open up and explain your entire
professional life to a guy on the Internet whom you have declared many
times is an idiot and not worth your time.

I am on schedule to retire in 8 years, prior to reaching the age of 60.
Accomplished without a pension from any company or relying upon social
security. I think I have done pretty well for myself. Pretty well for an
uneducated former jar-head.



BAR[_2_] February 28th 12 01:26 AM

Update on ecigs...
 
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.


Funny thing is that OSHA doesn't regulate all chemicals. There are some
chemicals that people are exposed to so infrequently that they don't
have MSDS's for them.

BAR[_2_] February 28th 12 01:38 AM

Update on ecigs...
 
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.



BAR[_2_] February 28th 12 02:02 AM

Update on ecigs...
 
In article , 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.

X ` Man[_3_] February 28th 12 02:30 AM

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

On 2/27/12 4:16 PM,
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:54:41 -0500, 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.



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.

X ` Man[_3_] February 28th 12 02:32 AM

Update on ecigs...
 
On 2/27/12 8:38 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleEfydnbPGk7EkYNbSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com, 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.




snerk No wonder you like Rick Sanctimonious.


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

X ` Man[_3_] February 28th 12 02:33 AM

Update on ecigs...
 
On 2/27/12 8:24 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On 2/26/12 10:25 PM, BAR wrote:
In b.com,
says...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:20:09 -0500, wrote:
In articlep_Kdnelbdrumw9fSnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
dump-on-
says...

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.


What are your qualifications to question anyone else's
qualifications?

He learned English real good in Kansas. That's gotta count fer sumpin.

I am curious as to why the great Harry Krause went to a school out in
the middle of nowhere. Couldn't he get into any of the local schools of
higher learning? It is also interesting that he was only able to secure
a job at a newspaper with little to no significance. Funny too that he
never got another newspaper job. He did go into union organizing, not
much needed there but the ability to rabble rouse.




You should refocus your curiosity on the academic incompetence that kept
you out of even an open enrollment two year community college.

As for the Kansas City Star, when I worked there it was considered one
of the 10 best newspapers in the United States. Some years later, the
newsroom employees who owned the paper sold it off to a conglomerate and
it began its downward slide, as virtually all formerly independent
newspapers do once they are acquired.

I never actually applied for a newspaper or news job anywhere. During a
journalism honorary society induction ceremony in Kansas City sponsored
by the Kansas City Star, at which everyone got roaring drunk, I was
asked by the then managing editor of the morning edition if I wanted a
summer job. I stopped by the paper the next day and the managing editor
hired me on the spot, without an application or resume. Turns out one of
my professors at school knew the managing editor and had recommended I
be hired for the summer job.

At the end of the summer, just before I started my senior year, the
managing editor asked me if I thought I could finish up school and work
on the paper. He got the city editor to jiggle schedules so I was able
to take my remaining classes in the AM and through mid-day and drive my
derelict car to the paper five late afternoons a week.

After some years at the Kansas City, I was recruited by The Associated
Press at the behest of Harry F. Rosenthal, a very well known senior AP
reported and editor, and David Halberstam, an author. I was flown to New
York and interviewed directly by Keith Fuller of the AP and Wes
Gallagher, who at that time was the AP's general manager.

While with the AP, I was promoted to Correspondent in Charge of smaller
bureaus in three states, and covered first-hand two horrific disasters,
one involving a bridge and the other a huge coal mine explosion. On the
basis of that work, I was invited to New York again and offered a TV
news job at ABC News. I wasn't that interested, but I did get to meet
Jimmy Breslin at ABC. His last newspaper gig went down the drain with
the collapse of the World Journal Tribune. Breslin took me to an
"expensive" lunch at his favorite hot dog stand, where we became friends
after both of us dripped mustard on our shirts.

So, you see, I never sought a newspaper job, not my first one and not my
last "news" job. I did OK in the news biz for a guy with a B.A. in
English and an M.A. in English and, of course, along the way, I managed
to take a number of university level science and math classes. But even
with that formal education in my background, I don't feel comfortable
predicting what the fuel will be for cars two decades from now.

So, Bertie, have you ever taken and passed any university-level courses
in math or science?

Didn't think so.


Why do you feel compelled to open up and explain your entire
professional life to a guy on the Internet whom you have declared many
times is an idiot and not worth your time.

I am on schedule to retire in 8 years, prior to reaching the age of 60.
Accomplished without a pension from any company or relying upon social
security. I think I have done pretty well for myself. Pretty well for an
uneducated former jar-head.




Why? Because you make it so easy.

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

thumper February 28th 12 03:56 AM

Update on ecigs...
 
On 2/25/2012 10:44 AM, BAR wrote:

There is nothing irrational about your fears, they are your fears and
your fears alone. What you don't have is the right to foist your
irrationality and fears upon the rest of society. You are free to live
on your property and live your irrational and fear filled life all alone
without interference from anyone.


So you do understand my thoughts on religion.


JustWait[_2_] February 28th 12 04:21 AM

Update on ecigs...
 
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...

X ` Man[_3_] February 28th 12 12:14 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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.

BAR[_2_] February 28th 12 12:24 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
In article , dump-on-
says...

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.


The outlaw them completely. Why should people benefit from taxes on
cigarettes.

BAR[_2_] February 28th 12 12:27 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
In article , lid says...

On 2/25/2012 10:44 AM, BAR wrote:

There is nothing irrational about your fears, they are your fears and
your fears alone. What you don't have is the right to foist your
irrationality and fears upon the rest of society. You are free to live
on your property and live your irrational and fear filled life all alone
without interference from anyone.


So you do understand my thoughts on religion.


I don't think anyone understands you. Your mind is warped, your views
are off the charts and you are generally an unpleasent person.

X ` Man February 28th 12 12:32 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
On 2/28/12 7:24 AM, BAR wrote:
In , dump-on-
says...

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.


The outlaw them completely. Why should people benefit from taxes on
cigarettes.



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.

X ` Man February 28th 12 12:34 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
On 2/28/12 7:27 AM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says...

On 2/25/2012 10:44 AM, BAR wrote:

There is nothing irrational about your fears, they are your fears and
your fears alone. What you don't have is the right to foist your
irrationality and fears upon the rest of society. You are free to live
on your property and live your irrational and fear filled life all alone
without interference from anyone.


So you do understand my thoughts on religion.


I don't think anyone understands you. Your mind is warped, your views
are off the charts and you are generally an unpleasent person.


Considering where certain people and a certain political party in the
USA are trying to take religion, it is rational to believe that there is
an effort to turn this country into a Christian version of an
ayatollahville.

BAR[_2_] February 28th 12 12:36 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
In article , dump-on-
says...

On 2/27/12 8:24 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,

says...

On 2/26/12 10:25 PM, BAR wrote:
In b.com,
says...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:20:09 -0500, wrote:
In articlep_Kdnelbdrumw9fSnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
dump-on-
says...

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.


What are your qualifications to question anyone else's
qualifications?

He learned English real good in Kansas. That's gotta count fer sumpin.

I am curious as to why the great Harry Krause went to a school out in
the middle of nowhere. Couldn't he get into any of the local schools of
higher learning? It is also interesting that he was only able to secure
a job at a newspaper with little to no significance. Funny too that he
never got another newspaper job. He did go into union organizing, not
much needed there but the ability to rabble rouse.




You should refocus your curiosity on the academic incompetence that kept
you out of even an open enrollment two year community college.

As for the Kansas City Star, when I worked there it was considered one
of the 10 best newspapers in the United States. Some years later, the
newsroom employees who owned the paper sold it off to a conglomerate and
it began its downward slide, as virtually all formerly independent
newspapers do once they are acquired.

I never actually applied for a newspaper or news job anywhere. During a
journalism honorary society induction ceremony in Kansas City sponsored
by the Kansas City Star, at which everyone got roaring drunk, I was
asked by the then managing editor of the morning edition if I wanted a
summer job. I stopped by the paper the next day and the managing editor
hired me on the spot, without an application or resume. Turns out one of
my professors at school knew the managing editor and had recommended I
be hired for the summer job.

At the end of the summer, just before I started my senior year, the
managing editor asked me if I thought I could finish up school and work
on the paper. He got the city editor to jiggle schedules so I was able
to take my remaining classes in the AM and through mid-day and drive my
derelict car to the paper five late afternoons a week.

After some years at the Kansas City, I was recruited by The Associated
Press at the behest of Harry F. Rosenthal, a very well known senior AP
reported and editor, and David Halberstam, an author. I was flown to New
York and interviewed directly by Keith Fuller of the AP and Wes
Gallagher, who at that time was the AP's general manager.

While with the AP, I was promoted to Correspondent in Charge of smaller
bureaus in three states, and covered first-hand two horrific disasters,
one involving a bridge and the other a huge coal mine explosion. On the
basis of that work, I was invited to New York again and offered a TV
news job at ABC News. I wasn't that interested, but I did get to meet
Jimmy Breslin at ABC. His last newspaper gig went down the drain with
the collapse of the World Journal Tribune. Breslin took me to an
"expensive" lunch at his favorite hot dog stand, where we became friends
after both of us dripped mustard on our shirts.

So, you see, I never sought a newspaper job, not my first one and not my
last "news" job. I did OK in the news biz for a guy with a B.A. in
English and an M.A. in English and, of course, along the way, I managed
to take a number of university level science and math classes. But even
with that formal education in my background, I don't feel comfortable
predicting what the fuel will be for cars two decades from now.

So, Bertie, have you ever taken and passed any university-level courses
in math or science?

Didn't think so.


Why do you feel compelled to open up and explain your entire
professional life to a guy on the Internet whom you have declared many
times is an idiot and not worth your time.

I am on schedule to retire in 8 years, prior to reaching the age of 60.
Accomplished without a pension from any company or relying upon social
security. I think I have done pretty well for myself. Pretty well for an
uneducated former jar-head.




Why? Because you make it so easy.


I am glad you are comfortable enough with me to provide me with your
life's history.



BAR[_2_] February 28th 12 12:37 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
In article ,
says...

On 2/28/12 7:24 AM, BAR wrote:
In , dump-on-
says...

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.


The outlaw them completely. Why should people benefit from taxes on
cigarettes.



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.


Legal is legal. Besides tobacco built the USA. If there was no tobacco
then we would have been just a very large lumber yard.


BAR[_2_] February 28th 12 12:42 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
In article ,
says...

On 2/28/12 7:27 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
lid says...

On 2/25/2012 10:44 AM, BAR wrote:

There is nothing irrational about your fears, they are your fears and
your fears alone. What you don't have is the right to foist your
irrationality and fears upon the rest of society. You are free to live
on your property and live your irrational and fear filled life all alone
without interference from anyone.

So you do understand my thoughts on religion.


I don't think anyone understands you. Your mind is warped, your views
are off the charts and you are generally an unpleasent person.


Considering where certain people and a certain political party in the
USA are trying to take religion, it is rational to believe that there is
an effort to turn this country into a Christian version of an
ayatollahville.


The interesting thing is that there is no specific language in the US
Constitution that provides for the separation of church and state. That
issue was left to the states to decide. But, the people's right to keep
and bear arms was ensured by its language.

Let's say Maryland was to return to its Catholic roots and it had a
constitutional amendment that says Catholicism was the Maryland State
religion. There would be nothing the Congress could do or that the
SCOTUS could do to stop that.

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."

X ` Man[_3_] February 28th 12 12:55 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
On 2/28/12 7:42 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On 2/28/12 7:27 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
lid says...

On 2/25/2012 10:44 AM, BAR wrote:

There is nothing irrational about your fears, they are your fears and
your fears alone. What you don't have is the right to foist your
irrationality and fears upon the rest of society. You are free to live
on your property and live your irrational and fear filled life all alone
without interference from anyone.

So you do understand my thoughts on religion.

I don't think anyone understands you. Your mind is warped, your views
are off the charts and you are generally an unpleasent person.


Considering where certain people and a certain political party in the
USA are trying to take religion, it is rational to believe that there is
an effort to turn this country into a Christian version of an
ayatollahville.


The interesting thing is that there is no specific language in the US
Constitution that provides for the separation of church and state. That
issue was left to the states to decide. But, the people's right to keep
and bear arms was ensured by its language.

Let's say Maryland was to return to its Catholic roots and it had a
constitutional amendment that says Catholicism was the Maryland State
religion. There would be nothing the Congress could do or that the
SCOTUS could do to stop that.

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."



I wouldn't bet my retirement cache on the legal validity of *that*
posit. The Supremes have ruled negatively on attempts by states to
"establish" state religion or religious observance or practice.

Still, there's time remaining in political selection process of the
pro-superstition party. Maybe Monsieur Rick will try to promote his
brand of religion as a required national religion. He's become the
"laugh a day" guy.




--


iBoaterer[_2_] February 28th 12 01:48 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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.

iBoaterer[_2_] February 28th 12 01:49 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:22:59 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

On 2/27/12 4:16 PM,
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:54:41 -0500, 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.



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.


I'm pro freedom. I've stated here in this thread many, many times. I
don't care how much someone smokes. Get your kids to smoke. Take them to
the smoking lounge at the airport, I don't care.
BUT, smokers are DIRECTLY harming the health of innocent people. THAT is
the problem.

iBoaterer[_2_] February 28th 12 01:50 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
In article , says...

On 2/27/2012 4:16 PM,
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:54:41 -0500, wrote:

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


Did you know I don't see your posts, until somebody else snerks at them?


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.


I guess that means that you read the peer reviewed studies and chose to
not comment on them.

iBoaterer[_2_] February 28th 12 01:51 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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_] February 28th 12 01:52 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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_] February 28th 12 01:53 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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_] February 28th 12 02:01 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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_] February 28th 12 02:14 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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_] February 28th 12 03:17 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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 February 28th 12 04:58 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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_] February 28th 12 05:08 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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_] February 28th 12 05:58 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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_] February 28th 12 06:21 PM

Update on ecigs...
 
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.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com