2nd hand smoke
Wiilliam Redding
first?
bill
Fred
Truth. First hand smoke is usually filtered, second hand isn't.
Fred.
sharon
exactly why. I do know that my grandmother passed away about 23 years
ago, cause was lung cancer due to smoke. She never smoked a day, but my
grandpa did alot. The cancer caused a heart attack which she did not
recover from. I don't know if this will you any. It's just a thought
from another prospective. Noone smokes in our house or cars (or in our
family) I don't care who it is, including mom-in-law.
nice chatting,
Sharon Hill
Robert Broughton
neme...@mindspring.com (Wiilliam Redding) writes:
> Is it myth or truth to the saying that second hand smoke is as bad as
> first?
>
in cigaret smoke (and there are thousands of them) become more toxic
when they have been given a minute or so to cool down, as opposed
to being inhaled at a much higher temperature.
I have to ask, though... is it really necessary to spend millions
of dollars on studies like this? We know already that second-hand
smoke has all sorts of negative consequences. It causes IRREVERSABLE
hardening of the arteries, and causes people with asthma to have
even more trouble breathing. Further, no research whatsover is
necessary to convince me that second-hand smoke causes my eyes
to burn, gives me a sore throat, and causes my hair, skin, and
clothing to smell like something that's been dead for several days.
So, does it really matter which second-hand smoke is as bad as
first-hand smoke? Second-hand smoke is bad, period.
--
Spammer toll-free numbers: (800) 352-3288 ext. 2637, (877) 299-5465,
(888) 894-7694
Bob Broughton
mailto:rbrought@infomatch*xspam*.com
WWW: http://infomatch.com/~rbrought
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Wiilliam Redding
Actually, second hand smoke is filtered twice. Once by the cigarettes
filter and sedondly by the smoker'
s lungs. My guess is that the rreal problem is the smoke coming off
the lighted end of the cigarette--and into otheres lungs. Just a
guess.
bill
No...@none.none (Fred) wrote:
>In article <3776e090...@news.mindspring.com>, neme...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>Is it myth or truth to the saying that second hand smoke is as bad as
>>first?
>>
Wiilliam Redding
Bob,
Very well put. You are right.
bill
rbronews@infomatch*xspam*.com (Robert Broughton) wrote:
>In article <3776e090...@news.mindspring.com>,
> neme...@mindspring.com (Wiilliam Redding) writes:
>> Is it myth or truth to the saying that second hand smoke is as bad as
>> first?
>>
Dave Hitt
>I have continuously heard that 2nd hand smoke is worse.
It's called the big lie technique. Repeat it often enough and people
believe it.
>I'm not sure exactly why.
Because it's not.
> I do know that my grandmother passed away about 23 years
>ago, cause was lung cancer due to smoke.
No, you don't know that. You're guessing, because of the myths you've
been fed (and swallowed) over the years.
>She never smoked a day, but my
>grandpa did alot. The cancer caused a heart attack which she did not
>recover from.
Cancer doesn't generally cause heart attacks. It sounds like she was
in poor health. How old was she? It would well be the cause of death
was old age.
----
Hittman Chronicle Readers Arn't just Smarter: They're Smartenized!{R}
Ten Things You Should Know: http://home.nycap.rr.com/hittman/june99/ysk2.html
-Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
Dave Hitt
>In article <3776e090...@news.mindspring.com>,
> neme...@mindspring.com (Wiilliam Redding) writes:
>> Is it myth or truth to the saying that second hand smoke is as bad as
>> first?
>>
>I've read about studies indicating that some of the toxic chemicals
>in cigaret smoke (and there are thousands of them) become more toxic
>when they have been given a minute or so to cool down, as opposed
>to being inhaled at a much higher temperature.
Which studies? Where?
You've given us a perfect example of The Big Lie technique - repeat
something often enough and the gullible will believe it. Fact is
there are about 400 chemicals in smoke, most of them in concentrations
so tiny it takes very, very sensitive instruments to detect them.
That number has been inflated by nannies (the most common number they
quote is 4,000, an order of magnitude more) and repeated so often
people spout it as fact.
It ain't.
>
>I have to ask, though... is it really necessary to spend millions
>of dollars on studies like this? We know already that second-hand
>smoke has all sorts of negative consequences. It causes IRREVERSABLE
>hardening of the arteries,
Wrong. Made up. Sorry.
>and causes people with asthma to have
>even more trouble breathing.
This can be true, but smoking is so severely restricted now there is
no reason for an asthmatic to come in contact with it.
>Further, no research whatsover is
>necessary to convince me that second-hand smoke causes my eyes
>to burn, gives me a sore throat, and causes my hair, skin, and
>clothing to smell like something that's been dead for several days.
In other words, you don't like it. That's fine, just stay away from
the few places smoking is still allowed.
>So, does it really matter which second-hand smoke is as bad as
>first-hand smoke? Second-hand smoke is bad, period.
Fortunately for you all you have to do is avoid the very few places
where it is allowed and it won't be a problem.
You can do that, can't you? You're not one of those nannies that
insists that every place, everywhere accommodate your every whim, are
you?
Robert Broughton
Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave "Pussy" Hitt) writes:
>
> It's called the big lie technique. Repeat it often enough and people
> believe it.
>
Dave Hitt
>In article <37798d4c...@news3.newscene.com>,
> Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave "Pussy" Hitt) writes:
>>
>> It's called the big lie technique. Repeat it often enough and people
>> believe it.
>>
>Hey, Dave the Pussy is back. Beaten up anybody yet, Dave?
Hey, Robert the grade schooler is still here. Ever learn to debate
instead of name calling, Bobby?
Lets see, I replied with several facts, you ignored them and replied
with a personal attack. I think that tells everyone all we need to
know about the validity of your claims.
---
hit...@spamblocker.bigfoot.com
They can have my opposable thumb when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Robert Broughton
Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave "Pussy" Hitt) writes:
> rbronews@infomatch*xspam*.com (Robert Broughton) wrote:
>
>>In article <37798d4c...@news3.newscene.com>,
>> Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave "Pussy" Hitt) writes:
>>>
>>> It's called the big lie technique. Repeat it often enough and people
>>> believe it.
>>>
>>Hey, Dave the Pussy is back. Beaten up anybody yet, Dave?
>
> Hey, Robert the grade schooler is still here. Ever learn to debate
> instead of name calling, Bobby?
>
> Lets see, I replied with several facts,
No, you posted a troll.
Derek Todd
>
> rbronews@infomatch*xspam*.com (Robert Broughton) wrote:
>
> > neme...@mindspring.com (Wiilliam Redding) writes:
> >> Is it myth or truth to the saying that second hand smoke is as bad as
> >> first?
> >>
> >I've read about studies indicating that some of the toxic chemicals
> >in cigaret smoke (and there are thousands of them) become more toxic
> >when they have been given a minute or so to cool down, as opposed
> >to being inhaled at a much higher temperature.
>
> Which studies? Where?
>
> You've given us a perfect example of The Big Lie technique - repeat
> something often enough and the gullible will believe it. Fact is
> there are about 400 chemicals in smoke,
Actually, the literature is clear on this one; at least 4000 (four
thousand) different chemicals can be distinguished in cigarette smoke.
My evidence is;
Hoffmann D, and Wynder EL
Chemical constituents and bioactivity of tobacco smoke.
In;
Tobacco, A Major International Health Hazard
edited by Zaridge DG, and Peto R
London
World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer
1986, p. 145-165
> most of them in concentrations
> so tiny it takes very, very sensitive instruments to detect them.
> That number has been inflated by nannies (the most common number they
> quote is 4,000, an order of magnitude more) and repeated so often
> people spout it as fact.
>
> It ain't.
Where's _your_ evidence?
Many highly toxic biological agents can do their damage at very low
concentration. For example they can interfere with the normal signalling
processes between cells within the body. These chemical signals work at
very low concentrations, and are fundamental to the normal workings of
your body's tissues. (If you need a reference as evidence for that one,
just ask any high school biology student).
> >
> >I have to ask, though... is it really necessary to spend millions
> >of dollars on studies like this? We know already that second-hand
> >smoke has all sorts of negative consequences. It causes IRREVERSABLE
> >hardening of the arteries,
>
> Wrong. Made up. Sorry.
_You_ are wrong.
Take a look at the British government's White Paper (draft bill) on
tobacco smoking. It was generated in consultation with all the
interested parties, including the tobacco industry;
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4177/contents.htm
There's lots of info, backed up by solid evidence there;
1.17 Several hundred people a year in the UK are estimated to die from
lung cancer brought
about by passive smoking(20). Passive smoking almost certainly also
contributes to deaths from
heart disease - an even bigger killer than lung cancer(21).
1.18 Passive smoking, even in low levels, can cause illness(18).
Asthma sufferers are more
prone to attacks in smoky atmospheres. Children, more vulnerable than
adults and often with
little choice over their exposure to tobacco smoke, are at particular
risk.
> >and causes people with asthma to have
> >even more trouble breathing.
>
> This can be true, but smoking is so severely restricted now there is
> no reason for an asthmatic to come in contact with it.
>
> >Further, no research whatsover is
> >necessary to convince me that second-hand smoke causes my eyes
> >to burn, gives me a sore throat, and causes my hair, skin, and
> >clothing to smell like something that's been dead for several days.
>
> In other words, you don't like it. That's fine, just stay away from
> the few places smoking is still allowed.
You exaggerate, there's a long way to go. Take a look at Chapter 7 of
the White Paper to put things into realistic perspective - Here's a
small excerpt
7.11 Seven out of ten people do not smoke. Those people should not
have to breathe other
people's smoke when they go into a pub or restaurant if they do not wish
to. On the other
hand, if someone who smokes wants to spend the evening in a pub with
friends who either
smoke themselves, or who do not mind other people's smoke, they should
be able to do so. It
is a question of balance. But most people think more should be done to
restrict smoking in
public places(32). The Government is taking action which reflects that.
>
> >So, does it really matter which second-hand smoke is as bad as
> >first-hand smoke? Second-hand smoke is bad, period.
>
> Fortunately for you all you have to do is avoid the very few places
> where it is allowed and it won't be a problem.
>
> You can do that, can't you? You're not one of those nannies that
> insists that every place, everywhere accommodate your every whim, are
> you?
'Nannies' who don't want cancer or CHD.
Just another thought;
1.19 Children whose parents smoke are much more likely to develop lung
illness and other
conditions such as glue ear and asthma than children of non-smoking
parents(22). The Royal
College of Physicians has estimated that as many as 17,000 hospital
admissions in a single
year of children under 5 are due to their parents smoking(23). They also
estimate that one
quarter of cot deaths could be caused by mothers smoking. Women who
smoke while
pregnant are likely to reduce the birthweight, and damage the health, of
their baby(24).
Derek
Dave Hitt
>> Wrong. Made up. Sorry.
>
>_You_ are wrong.
>
>Take a look at the British government's White Paper (draft bill) on
>tobacco smoking. It was generated in consultation with all the
>interested parties, including the tobacco industry;
>
>http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4177/contents.htm
>
>There's lots of info, backed up by solid evidence there;
OK, I did. Most of the paper is about the effects on smokers, with
just a brief mention of SHS. I've never claimed that smoke is
harmless to the smoker.
>1.17 Several hundred people a year in the UK are estimated to die from
>lung cancer brought
>about by passive smoking(20). Passive smoking almost certainly also
>contributes to deaths from
>heart disease - an even bigger killer than lung cancer(21).
The reference to that seems to indicate it is another meta study (a
study of studies that allows cherry picking and twisting of data.) It
probably contains the meta study by the EPA, which was faked,
debunked, and thrown out by a court of law.
>1.18 Passive smoking, even in low levels, can cause illness(18).
>Asthma sufferers are more
>prone to attacks in smoky atmospheres.
This is true. Fortunately for them there is no need for them to ever
be exposed by unwanted smoke - they simply have to stay away from the
very few places where it is allowed.
> Children, more vulnerable than
>adults and often with
>little choice over their exposure to tobacco smoke, are at particular
>risk.
The WHO study, which they would have buried if not for the hounding of
the British press, showed that children of smokers were 11% LESS
likely to get lung cancer than children of non smokers. (This is not
a statistically significant number, but considering that the numbers
on the other side of zero were also insignificant, yet still
highlighted by these dishonest crusaders, it should be at the very
least, mentioned.)
> >and causes people with asthma to have
>> >even more trouble breathing.
>>
>> This can be true, but smoking is so severely restricted now there is
>> no reason for an asthmatic to come in contact with it.
>>
>> >Further, no research whatsover is
>> >necessary to convince me that second-hand smoke causes my eyes
>> >to burn, gives me a sore throat, and causes my hair, skin, and
>> >clothing to smell like something that's been dead for several days.
>>
>> In other words, you don't like it. That's fine, just stay away from
>> the few places smoking is still allowed.
>
>You exaggerate, there's a long way to go. Take a look at Chapter 7 of
>the White Paper to put things into realistic perspective - Here's a
>small excerpt
>
>7.11 Seven out of ten people do not smoke. Those people should not
>have to breathe other
>people's smoke when they go into a pub or restaurant if they do not wish
>to.
I agree. If they are unhappy with the policy of a particular pub or
restaurant they should not patronize it.
> On the other
>hand, if someone who smokes wants to spend the evening in a pub with
>friends who either
>smoke themselves, or who do not mind other people's smoke, they should
>be able to do so. It
>is a question of balance. But most people think more should be done to
>restrict smoking in
>public places(32).
Most people thought blacks should sit in the back of the bus just a
generation or two ago. (In fact, the tactics, arguments, and policies
of the aunties resembles that of racists very closely, right down to
the argument "they smell so bad.")
The Government is taking action which reflects that.
>
>>
>> >So, does it really matter which second-hand smoke is as bad as
>> >first-hand smoke? Second-hand smoke is bad, period.
>>
>> Fortunately for you all you have to do is avoid the very few places
>> where it is allowed and it won't be a problem.
>>
>> You can do that, can't you? You're not one of those nannies that
>> insists that every place, everywhere accommodate your every whim, are
>> you?
>
>'Nannies' who don't want cancer or CHD.
>
>Just another thought;
>
>1.19 Children whose parents smoke are much more likely to develop lung
>illness and other
>conditions such as glue ear and asthma than children of non-smoking
>parents(22).
Funny, the WHO study said just the opposite.
> The Royal
>College of Physicians has estimated that as many as 17,000 hospital
>admissions in a single
>year of children under 5 are due to their parents smoking(23). They also
>estimate that one
>quarter of cot deaths could be caused by mothers smoking. Women who
>smoke while
>pregnant are likely to reduce the birthweight, and damage the health, of
>their baby(24).
"Estimated", "estimate", "likely" - no proof, just guesses.
BTW, cot death is more prevalent among lower income families, and so
is smoking. It is just as likely the lifestyle of lower income folks
is as responsible. Fact is, it is still a mystery. It comes as no
surprise they're trying to hang it on smokers, though.
Fred Maack
Dave Hitt (Boy....@Hate.spammers) writes:
> Most people thought blacks should sit in the back of the bus just a
> generation or two ago.
The blacks weren't harming anyone though.
--
"John Angus is a fucking dickweed with a can of BORING shoved up his tight
purple butthole." --Nik June/30/1999
Nikolaus Maack Vs. John Angus.
The Venting Corner
Dave Hitt
>Actually, the literature is clear on this one; at least 4000 (four
>thousand) different chemicals can be distinguished in cigarette smoke.
>My evidence is;
>
>Hoffmann D, and Wynder EL
>Chemical constituents and bioactivity of tobacco smoke.
>In;
>Tobacco, A Major International Health Hazard
>edited by Zaridge DG, and Peto R
>London
>World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer
>1986, p. 145-165
Oops, I just noticed the source....
Sorry, but considering the rabidly anti-tobacco stance of the WHO, and
adding the fact that they tried to bury a rather complete study they
funded when it showed no harm from second hand smoke, and finally
under pressure from the british press issued a press release with an
outright lie in the title, anything from them should be considered
tainted, highly suspect, and likely wrong.
Fred Maack
Dave Hitt (Boy....@Hate.spammers) writes:
> Sorry, but considering the rabidly anti-tobacco stance of the WHO, and
> adding the fact that they tried to bury a rather complete study they
> funded when it showed no harm from second hand smoke, and finally
> under pressure from the british press issued a press release with an
> outright lie in the title, anything from them should be considered
> tainted, highly suspect, and likely wrong.
I'm sure when the Tabacco companies release reports about smoking they're
not biased at all either.
David MacLean
Robert Broughton <rbronews@infomatch*xspam*.com> wrote in message
news:7lg3h8$7c$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >
> >>In article <37798d4c...@news3.newscene.com>,
> >> Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave "Pussy" Hitt) writes:
> >>>
> >>> It's called the big lie technique. Repeat it often enough and people
> >>> believe it.
> >>>
> >>Hey, Dave the Pussy is back. Beaten up anybody yet, Dave?
> >
> > Hey, Robert the grade schooler is still here. Ever learn to debate
> > instead of name calling, Bobby?
> >
> > Lets see, I replied with several facts,
>
> No, you posted a troll.
>
In Mr. Broughton's mind, posting facts that he cannot refute equals
trolling.
David MacLean
Fred Maack <cs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:7lhdls$n...@freenet-news.carleton.ca...
>
> Dave Hitt (Boy....@Hate.spammers) writes:
> > Most people thought blacks should sit in the back of the bus just a
> > generation or two ago.
>
>
Are you saying that the bigots didn't think the blacks were harming anyone?
Or just you?
David MacLean
>
> Dave Hitt (Boy....@Hate.spammers) writes:
> > Sorry, but considering the rabidly anti-tobacco stance of the WHO, and
> > adding the fact that they tried to bury a rather complete study they
> > funded when it showed no harm from second hand smoke, and finally
> > under pressure from the british press issued a press release with an
> > outright lie in the title, anything from them should be considered
> > tainted, highly suspect, and likely wrong.
>
> I'm sure when the Tabacco companies release reports about smoking they're
> not biased at all either.
On the contrary, tobacco company reports are very biased. Two differences.
One, nobody believes that they are unbiased, and two, those reports are not
used as a basis for implementation of social policy.
Robert Broughton
Dave Hitt
>
>Dave Hitt (Boy....@Hate.spammers) writes:
>> Sorry, but considering the rabidly anti-tobacco stance of the WHO, and
>> adding the fact that they tried to bury a rather complete study they
>> funded when it showed no harm from second hand smoke, and finally
>> under pressure from the british press issued a press release with an
>> outright lie in the title, anything from them should be considered
>> tainted, highly suspect, and likely wrong.
>
>I'm sure when the Tabacco companies release reports about smoking they're
>not biased at all either.
Why are you so willing to swallow the lies of the WHO whole, while
rejecting the lies of the tobacco companies?
You're not naive enough to think that the WHO doesn't have an agenda,
are you?
Considering the facts presented here, which you can verify with just a
few minutes of diligent web searching, the WHO, the tobacco companies,
the EPA, and many of the charities collecting money for cancer are as
reliable, from a scientific standpoint, as the Creation Research
Institute and The Flat Earth Society.
*Every* source is biased. Every institution has an agenda - a few are
out in the open, many are rather well hidden, but easy to figure out
with just a little common sense. What is the agenda of the WHO and
the EPA, over and above public safety. It is the same as any other
government agency - increasing their own power and funding.
Here's a project for anyone reading this thread. The purpose of the
project: To determine if the EPA provides accurate, reliable
information and if their actions, rules, regulations and proclamations
are based on such information.
Let's concentrate on another one of the EPAs projects: PCBs. They
are going after them big time, to the tune of hundreds of millions of
dollars of expense for companies who produced them fifty years ago.
I have personally discussed the issue with some of the researchers at
the heart of this issue. Researchers who are biased, of course.
(Everyone is.) Go do some checking and see if you can find any
studies that show any harm from PCBs in humans. Then come back and
tell us how reliable the EPA is as a source of scientific data.
Dave Hitt
>
>Dave Hitt (Boy....@Hate.spammers) writes:
>> Most people thought blacks should sit in the back of the bus just a
>> generation or two ago.
>
>The blacks weren't harming anyone though.
In the minds of racists, they were.
Smokers aren't harming anyone either, other than themselves. In the
minds of raci^m^m^m^manti-smokers, they are. But the facts, the real
facts, are very clear - SHS is not harmful. The WHOs own study showed
that. So did 19 of the 30 studies the EPA stared out with when they
fabricated their 3,000 deaths number. They simply rejected them,
picked the ones that seemed to support their position, STILL couldn't
reach their number, doubled the margin of error (which would get any
real scientist fired), STILL couldn't get the number they wanted, so
rounded up.
Racists have plenty of studies, even a few current ones, that "prove"
blacks (or whatever other minorities they don't like) are inferior.
You're relying on the same kind of studies, produced with the same
types of approaches, to justify your discrimination.
What does that say about you?
Dave Hitt
>In article <7libg8$2ds$1...@dagger.videotron.ab.ca>,
> "David MacLean" <dmac...@matrikon.I.hate.spam.com> writes:
>>
>> Robert Broughton <rbronews@infomatch*xspam*.com> wrote in message
>> news:7lg3h8$7c$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>>> In article <377b41e0....@news.nycap.rr.com>,
>>> Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave "Pussy" Hitt) writes:
>>> > rbronews@infomatch*xspam*.com (Robert Broughton) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>In article <37798d4c...@news3.newscene.com>,
>>> >> Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave "Pussy" Hitt) writes:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It's called the big lie technique. Repeat it often enough and people
>>> >>> believe it.
>>> >>>
>>> >>Hey, Dave the Pussy is back. Beaten up anybody yet, Dave?
>>> >
>>> > Hey, Robert the grade schooler is still here. Ever learn to debate
>>> > instead of name calling, Bobby?
>>> >
>>> > Lets see, I replied with several facts,
>>>
>>> No, you posted a troll.
>>>
>>
>> In Mr. Broughton's mind, posting facts that he cannot refute equals
>> trolling.
>>
>What part of "support" and "non-smokers" do you not understand?
Notice how he still avoids the issue.
First he attacks the poster. When it fails to fluster me, he attacks
the post. Now he attacks the location of the post. Yet he still has
not addressed the facts.
Rather pathetic, isn't it?
Robert Broughton
Derek Todd <derek...@spamsmapspamyahoo.co.uk> writes:
You wasted your time typing all this, Derek. Dave Hitt is one of those
people who simply doesn't care if he bothers other people.
Point your Web browser at http://www.deja.com, and search "past" messages
for "pussy hitt". You will get about 100 matches, including this
masterpiece, posted to misc.consumers on May 23:
-----
From: Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt)
Subject: Re: MacDonalds verdict was VERY justified WAS Medicare and Bret's
Date: 23 May 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
unid...@mindspring.com wrote:
>On 22 May 1999 14:21:10 -0500, Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Fact: Coffee is a Hot beverage
>
>
>Not always
Fine, nit picker. If she spilled iced coffee on herself you'd be
defending her suit for a chilly pussy.
-----
What lessons can we learn from this?
1. Dave Hitt has a fascination with female anatomy. Being a
heterosexual myself, I don't have a problem with this, but most
men eventually outgrow the use of juvenile terms to describe
body parts.
2. He hasn't had any in several years.
3. He resumed trolling in a.s.n-s on June 29. I suspect that he ran
short of cigarets with a couple of days left until his next paycheck.
Hitt is a loser, and until he starts attacking people with axe handles
or guns (try "hitt axe" or "hitt gun" with Deja) it's better to just
ignore him. Add him to your killfile of mail filter. Or do what I do,
forward his threats of violence to mailto:ab...@bigfoot.com
Carl Drud
Robert Broughton <rbronews@infomatch*xspam*.com> wrote in message
>
> You wasted your time typing all this, Derek. Dave Hitt is one of those
> people who simply doesn't care if he bothers other people.
>
> Point your Web browser at http://www.deja.com, and search "past" messages
> for "pussy hitt". You will get about 100 matches, including this
> masterpiece, posted to misc.consumers on May 23:
> -----
And while your at www.deja.com Derek, don't forget to make a search on:
at...@istar.ca Errol the Grim Reaper aka Errol the Grimy
rrrrrrraaaahhhssss-HURL. A good friend and associate of Mr. Broughton. Just
a few highlights below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum: can.talk.smoking
Subject: Re: >Get a clue ----> It's the "SMOKE" stupid!
Date: 1999/05/05
Author: Errol the Grim Reaper <at...@istar.ca>
Yo Mark, darlin'! Hope we can share a PILLOW one day! In the meantime,
faggot, what's this "Never make threats, only promises" shit? Let me
guess -- you (or one of your [equally] mental-midget cohorts) hurt or kill
one or more anti-tobacco activists and that means that smoking in public
places and/or workplaces is okay, right? Take another drag, Mark! Whether
it's tobacco or something stronger, it's great practice for what you'll find
between little boys' legs!
Forum: can.talk.smoking
Subject: Re: Questions for John Luik (AIRSPACE press release)
Date: 1999/05/05
Author: Errol the Grim Reaper <at...@istar.ca>
Yo, MMM (Mental Midget Mark)! Just a minor detail, but the expression is
"....I COULDN'T care less....", not "....I COULD care less...." You
see....oh, forget it! Love ya'! Keep suckin' -- on butts, dicks, or
whatever else you like to suck on!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Best Regards
Carl Drud, Copenhagen, Denmark
David MacLean
Robert Broughton <rbronews@infomatch*xspam*.com> wrote in message
> In article <7libg8$2ds$1...@dagger.videotron.ab.ca>,
> "David MacLean" <dmac...@matrikon.I.hate.spam.com> writes:
> >
> >> In article <377b41e0....@news.nycap.rr.com>,
> >> Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave "Pussy" Hitt) writes:
> >> >
> >> >>In article <37798d4c...@news3.newscene.com>,
> >> >> Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave "Pussy" Hitt) writes:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It's called the big lie technique. Repeat it often enough and
people
> >> >>> believe it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>Hey, Dave the Pussy is back. Beaten up anybody yet, Dave?
> >> >
> >> > Hey, Robert the grade schooler is still here. Ever learn to debate
> >> > instead of name calling, Bobby?
> >> >
> >> > Lets see, I replied with several facts,
> >>
> >> No, you posted a troll.
> >>
> >
> > In Mr. Broughton's mind, posting facts that he cannot refute equals
> > trolling.
> >
> What part of "support" and "non-smokers" do you not understand?
Same part of "smokers" that you do not understand.
Fred Maack
Dave Hitt (Boy....@Hate.spammers) writes:
>>The blacks weren't harming anyone though.
> In the minds of racists, they were.
You've just proved how stupid you really are.
You're giving smokers an even worse name, if that is possible.
--
Chantal: I think your intolerance is more dangerous than cigarettes.
Robert: Cigarettes killed 3.6 million people worldwide last year. How many
people did intolerance kill?
-- alt.support.non-smokers (July/02/1999)
Fred Maack
"David MacLean" (dmac...@matrikon.I.hate.spam.com) writes:
> Same part of "smokers" that you do not understand.
I understand they're stupid... I don't think there is much else to understand.
David MacLean
>
> "David MacLean" (dmac...@matrikon.I.hate.spam.com) writes:
> > Same part of "smokers" that you do not understand.
>
> I understand they're stupid... I don't think there is much else to
understand.
Obviously, if you dehumanize people, there is very little left to
understand.
Robert Broughton
"Carl Drud" <carl...@usa.net> writes:
>
> Robert Broughton <rbronews@infomatch*xspam*.com> wrote in message
>>
>> You wasted your time typing all this, Derek. Dave Hitt is one of those
>> people who simply doesn't care if he bothers other people.
>>
>> Point your Web browser at http://www.deja.com, and search "past" messages
>> for "pussy hitt". You will get about 100 matches, including this
>> masterpiece, posted to misc.consumers on May 23:
>> -----
>
> And while your at www.deja.com Derek, don't forget to make a search on:
> at...@istar.ca Errol the Grim Reaper aka Errol the Grimy
> rrrrrrraaaahhhssss-HURL. A good friend and associate of Mr. Broughton.
That's correct. To learn more about Errol, point your Web browser at
http://grimreaper.org
We have some "Vancouver Cigarette Festival" t-shirts left.
Fred Maack
"David MacLean" (dmac...@matrikon.I.hate.spam.com) writes:
> Obviously, if you dehumanize people, there is very little left to
> understand.
He says as he blows poison in my face...
David MacLean
>
> "David MacLean" (dmac...@matrikon.I.hate.spam.com) writes:
> > Obviously, if you dehumanize people, there is very little left to
> > understand.
>
> He says as he blows poison in my face...
>
Please take your meds regularly, Mr. Maack. Since we have never met, and I
haven't been to Carleton in decades, there is no way that I could have blown
poison in your face. Since you harbor the delusion that I have, there is
obviously something psychologically wrong with you.
Fred Maack
"David MacLean" (dmac...@matrikon.I.hate.spam.com) writes:
> Please take your meds regularly, Mr. Maack.
If you mean oxygen, I'm fresh out. I live with three smokers so please
allow me to be bitter.
> Since we have never met, and I haven't been to Carleton in decades...
Exactly which Carleton are you taking about? The Carleton attached to my
mailing address is Carleton University in Ottawa. I don't attend Carleton
U but I've been there a few times.
>there is no way that I could have blown poison in your face.
I'm sure you're blowing it in someone's face.
>Since you harbor the delusion that I have, there is obviously something
>psychologically wrong with you.
Second hand smoke does that.
David MacLean
>
> "David MacLean" (dmac...@matrikon.I.hate.spam.com) writes:
> > Please take your meds regularly, Mr. Maack.
>
> If you mean oxygen, I'm fresh out. I live with three smokers so please
> allow me to be bitter.
Why should I "allow" you to be bitter? If you are old enough, then you live
with three smokers through your *choice*. If you are not old enough, then
your problem is with the law that does not give you the choice to move out,
not the smokers.
As for you being out of oxygen, are you saying that you are dead?
>
> > Since we have never met, and I haven't been to Carleton in decades...
>
> Exactly which Carleton are you taking about? The Carleton attached to my
> mailing address is Carleton University in Ottawa. I don't attend Carleton
> U but I've been there a few times.
Carleton University is what I meant. Likewise, I have not been in Ottawa
for decades.
>
> >there is no way that I could have blown poison in your face.
>
> I'm sure you're blowing it in someone's face.
If I do (which is supposition on your part), then it is that "someone" who
has the problem with me, not you.
>
> >Since you harbor the delusion that I have, there is obviously something
> >psychologically wrong with you.
>
> Second hand smoke does that.
>
Not according to all medical accounts of the effects of SHS.
Your blaming something for an effect that it does not cause. Mr. Maack, I
sincerely hope that you will contact a competent mental health professional.
<snip>
Dave Hitt
Robert, you are such a pathetic little man.
You couldn't handle any facts I posted, so you chose to attack me
personally. You even go so far as to scan through years worth of
posts to find one that you can yank out of context and make
grade-school jokes about.
I'm not in the least bit surprised.
----
A Flag Burning Amendment Everyone Should Like:
http://home.nycap.rr.com/hittman/july99/flag.html
greg...@my-deja.com
Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) wrote:
[snips from several different posts]
> ...the WHO, and adding the fact that they tried to bury a
> rather complete study they funded when it showed no harm from second
> hand smoke, and finally under pressure from the british press issued
> a press release with an outright lie in the title,
Strike One.
On 9 Mar 1998, WHO said of their passive smoking study,
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html
>> In February 1998, according to usual scientific practice, a
>> paper reporting the main study results was sent to a reputable
>> scientific journal for consideration and peer review. That is
>> why the full report is not yet publicly available.
Sure enough, in October 1998 the study shows up published in a
"reputable scientifice journal," the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute. The spousal and workplace exposures show an increased cancer
risk of around 1.16, which puts it extremely close to the EPA and CRS
reports. The study showed no or reduced lung cancer risk for childhood
exposure.
Remember, however, that dozens statistically signficant studies point to
ETS as a significant factor in SIDS deaths and asthma for children.
See the October-1998-published WHO study at:
http://jnci.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/19/1440
> [the EPA] picked the ones that seemed to support their position,
> STILL couldn't reach their number, doubled the margin of error (which
> would get any real scientist fired),
Strike Two. The EPA's rules allow it to use 90% confidence intervals if
it is reasonable to assume "no health BENEFITS." A CI of 95% must be
used if either benefits or detriments are likely. Hence, the judge, a
former tobacco lobbyist, quoted the tobacco industry's claim that the
EPA was pre-judging.
> This can be true, but smoking is so severely restricted now there is
> no reason for an asthmatic to come in contact with it.
> ...In other words, you don't like it. That's fine, just stay away
> from the few places smoking is still allowed.
Strike Three.
What about the home and restaurant? In other words, smokers kill their
children with SIDS and cause asthma, cause harm to the children of
parents who bring them into smoky areas, and kill waitresses.
Is Smoking A Sin?
http://www.geocities.com/soho/den/4411/smokesin.html
--
Greg M. Johnson
"A moderately bad man knows he is not that good; a
terribly bad man thinks he is sufficiently
good." --C.S. Lewis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.