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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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...

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.

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.