Question about propylene glycol
Shannon Hooge
any possible effects, real or hypothesized, that this additive may have?
Also, where could I find a list of tobaccos that do not contain this
additive? TIA for the great info and discussion.
--
After eatin' an entire bull, a mountain lion felt
so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a
hunter came along and shot him. THE MORAL: When
you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jim Beard
> I recently learned what PG is and how it is used. Does anybody know of
> any possible effects, real or hypothesized, that this additive may have?
1. An adverse affect on the taste,
2. An adverse affect on the burn characteristics,
3. A personal reaction, perhaps due to idiosyncratic allergy (but maybe
not), of increasing distaste for smoking, the more propylene glycol there
is in the tobacco being smoked.
> Also, where could I find a list of tobaccos that do not contain this
> additive? TIA for the great info and discussion.
There is no such list. There is suspicion that those who store, age, and
wholesale leaf for blending may be using propylene glycol in small
quantity, perhaps to inhibit mold or to add sweetness, or for some other
reason or combination of reasons, so ensuring that any tobacco is totally
free from propylene glycol may be impossible. Unless you want to spend
$50,000 for a gas chromatograph, mass spectrum analyzer, computer
workstation, and software, and learn to use all of that properly.
You can count on a heavy dose of the stuff in all drugstore tobaccos.
Likewise, you can count on it being present in most if not all McClelland
blends, and if not present you will soon recognize that McClelland does
not blend for flavor too skillfully without resort to the chemist's flask.
You will also find a heavy does of it or something similar in most
tobaccos manufactured on the Continent. Unlike, McClelland, when you do
find a Danish or Dutch tobacco that does not contain it, the taste from
skillful blending will likely be quite good.
Craig Tarler uses propylene glycol as the carrier for flavorings for his
aromatics, but his premium tobaccos have no propylene glycol added at the
manufacturing state. If tobacco was delivered to him with propylene
glycol already present, he probably could not detect small quantities of
it.
Friedman & Pease likewise will not add propylene glycol, but at least one
would-be supplier to them has had his offering shipped back to him because
the tobacco was too wet upon arrival, was dried in an oven to proper
moisture content, and the next day was too wet again! (Guess what soaks
up moisture from the ambient air?) Leaf containing an amount of propylene
glycol not detectable by Gregory's nose and taste buds would likely pass
inspection.
Among the UK tobaccos, God only knows what is in Condor, and to a lesser
extent Saint Bruno (the two most popular pipe tobaccos in the UK), and
Ogdens of Liverpool uses some sort of very heavy casing but I think not
propylene glycol. Sobitol perhaps?
The UK firms that follow the old recipes will add none at the
manufacturing stage (British law de facto prohibited humectants until
1986, and allowed no more than 2 percent by weight of a limited range of
mostly natural flavorings, all of which had to be completely dissolved in
the carrier -- usually alcohol). That said, there are some UK pipe
tobaccos that have been found to contain a significant amount of propylene
glycol, and traces have been found in tobaccos by a manufacturer that I
would never have believed would knowingly allow such in other than his
American-style aromatics.
If you wish to avoid propylene glycol, I would recommend:
1. Avoid American-style aromatics and all drugstore tobaccos, and their
European counterparts.
2. Buy tobaccos made in the Lake District (i.e. Samuel Gawith & Co.,
Gawith, Hoggarth & Co.), excluding GHC's American-style aromatics.
(?How can anyone make a true American-style aromatic without including the
quintessential American-style rubbish?)
3. Buy tobaccos from Friedman & Pease.
4. Buy tobaccos made by British manufacturers that generally follow the
old recipes. (E.g. Murray & Sons)
5. Buy premium tobaccos from Cornell & Diehl (but not the aromatics).
No cheers for propylene glycol for any reason in any tobacco.
Bleach!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
j...@blckhrse.clark.net
UNIX is not user-unfriendly. It merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gervais
Jim Beard wrote in message <29258022...@blckhrse.clark.net>...
Pascal Essers
> You can count on a heavy dose of the stuff in all drugstore tobaccos.
> Likewise, you can count on it being present in most if not all McClelland
> blends, and if not present you will soon recognize that McClelland does
> not blend for flavor too skillfully without resort to the chemist's flask.
Jim, could you explain that to me a bit more? Do you really mean ALL McC's,
so not only the bulk? And why do you consider them as "not blend for flavor
too skillfully"?
Regards!
Pascal
http://www.xs4all.nl/~falparsi/Pipes/index.htm
************************
Reply-adress is spam-proof,
Please remove GEENTROEP
************************
Jim Beard
> >The more PG in the tobacco the harder it is on the roof of my mouth. I can get nearly
> >2 hours from a large bowl, so I think I'm smoking slowly enough, but even drawing on
> >a cold pipe filled with a high PG tobacco hurts.
On 20 Oct 1999, Mark Sweany <msw...@uswest.net> wrote ...
> PR just isn't that big a deal, in moderation. You can find it in lots
> of processed foods, and most of us consume a certain amount of it every
> day, without having any kind of adverse reactions.
For some of us, it is that big a deal, moderation or otherwise.
One example. Some months back, I had an eye go bloodshot, for reason or
reasons unknown. When it did not recover after a few days, I started
using some of my wife's eye drops. The eye worsened dramatically, and
shortly I was at first the doctor's (general practitioner) and then at the
opthomologist's. After much examination and diagnostics, I was told to
buy and use eye drops that did not contain any preservative.
I bought a couple of boxes of such eyedrops made by Amgen, and headed
home. Once home, I checked to see what the preservative in my wife's
eyedrops was. Propylene glycol. The switch from PG-preservative eyedrops
to preservative-free eyedrops immediately put my eye on the path to
recovery, so today I buy not only expensive PG-free tobacco but also
expensive PG-free eyedrops.
And the list does not stop there. PG is FDA-approved for a great many
foods, particularly the low-fat sort of thing it seems. And when
something does not agree well with me, I have learned to check the
ingredients list for PG, and when I find it avoid that item in the future.
There is a lot of stuff that my wife thinks I should be eating because it
is "healthy" that I do not eat, because I physically do not cotton to the
propylene glycol in it.
Perhaps I am the exceptional case, but somehow I doubt it. I am not
happy with the effect the stuff has on me when I encounter it, nor am I
happy with the idea that others may be encountering the same problems I
have but be unaware of the most likely cause.
> Gas chromatography outfits, like everything else electronic, have
> plummeted in price. I almost bought an older HP outfit that a company
> had replaced a couple years ago. If I had known I was going to get into
> these kind of discussions then, I would have jumped on it. <g>
I don't think there is any chance of even a used set-up being cheap enough
to fit in my budget, but if you know of someone who wants to essentially
donate one, I was pretty good at qual and quant in high school chemistry
and am quite computer-friendly, especially when it comes to UNIX machines.
Cheers!
Jim Beard
> > You can count on a heavy dose of the stuff in all drugstore tobaccos.
> > Likewise, you can count on it being present in most if not all McClelland
> > blends, and if not present you will soon recognize that McClelland does
> > not blend for flavor too skillfully without resort to the chemist's flask.
Pascal replied,
>Jim, could you explain that to me a bit more? Do you really mean ALL McC's,
>so not only the bulk? And why do you consider them as "not blend for flavor
>too skillfully"?
And I am pleased to elaborate.
When I returned from the UK in mid-1995, I tried a whole bunch of things
trying to find a satisfactory tobacco available locally, as the tobaccos
I had been smoking in the UK were not available in the pipe shops and
ordering the stuff from the UK was greviously expensive. McClelland
tobaccos were among those highly touted, and I tried a number of them.
My estimate, from smoking the tobaccos, not doing a scientific
quantitative chemical analysis, was that humectant content in the
McClelland tobaccos ranged from marginally unacceptable to absolutely
and horribly saturated with the stuff.
It was brought to my attention that McClelland made pipe tobaccos claimed
to be humectant-free. I reconsidered my earlier findings, and concluded
that I was probably right the first time, though it was possible the
humectant was added before McClelland got their hands on the tobacco.
Further, the tobaccos claimed to be humectant free were unsatisfactory in
taste. I put this down to lack of skill in blending without extensive use
of the chemist's flask. Perhaps when McClelland has been blending some
tobaccos without use of the chemist's flask for a few decades, or longer,
they will be able to produce an excellent tobacco with great taste despite
the absence of the chemical-feast flavorings. Perhaps. But they ain't
there yet.
(Indeed, it has not been that many years since Mary McNeil, at an event
in Richmond, declared in the presence of Ned (Tobacco House) and others
that McClelland's reason for using humectant in all their tobaccos was
they could not provide the required shelf life without doing so.
McClelland has since started making tobaccos claimed to be humectant free,
but to repeat, they ain't there yet, when it comes to providing taste
without the travesty of humectant and flavorings.)
Above and beyond this, I personally heard it from Mary McNeil herself that
McClelland does not pay any particular attention to the nicotine and tars
content of their tobaccos, "preferring to concentrate on taste." First,
any tobacco manufacturer that does not pay particular attention to
ingredients as important as nicotine and tars is incompetent to start
with. And Second, given my findings in that regard for McClelland
tobaccos with the least pourings-of-the-chemical-flask content, they are
incompetent at that as well.
I recognize there are many who like McClelland tobaccos. Whether this is
simply because it is what they learned to like early on, and their taste
once formed has remained constant, whether they simply have never smoked
good tobacco of any other type (and as a practical matter, even today,
most U.S. pipe smokers probably have never heard of Samuel Gawith, or
Gawith, Hoggarth, and Co., and likely have never tried tobaccos by
J.F. Germain or Murray, Sons & Co), or whether they simply have
preferences that differ from mine, I cannot say.
I generally do not go out of my way to bash McClelland. If all pipe
smokers had my preferences in tobacco, McClelland would be out of business
in a twinkling. But this is not the case, and if McClelland can prosper
by providing others with something _they_ enjoy and find satisfactory,
power to them.
But, I repeat, but, since the British have been demonstrating for decades,
or should I say centuries, that they are capable of producing superb pipe
tobaccos without lavish use of the chemist's outpourings, I suspect that
McClelland may not match their offerings during my lifetime. As I much
prefer those superb tobaccos of minimal chemicalish adulterant, I expect
to buy quantities of tobacco from the Lake District, limited amounts of
tobaccos from other UK manufacturers and U.S. blenders such as Friedman &
Pease and Cornell & Diehl, and perhaps an occassional sample from
McClelland just to see if the tobacco is still as bad as I remember it
being. Who knows. Perhaps I will totally lose my sense of taste in my old
age, and I will be able to buy, smoke, and enjoy McClelland tobaccos at a
small fraction the cost of the tobaccos I am smoking today!
And yes, I do rant on this subject now and then. I could not in good
conscience do otherwise. I believe the difference between high-quality
tobacco and humectant-and-flavoring-laden rubbish was the main reason I
failed in three or four serious attempts to take up the pipe during the
early 1960s to mid 1970s in the U.S. and succeeded in taking up the pipe
during 1993-1995, in the UK. Others who may be encountering the problems
I had need to be aware that the problem may be in the tobaccos (more
precisely, the additives to the tobaccos), rather than in their lack of
quality pipes or knowledge of how to smoke skillfully or lack of
appreciation for what pipe smoking can be. And a rant every now and then
helps keep general awareness of such matters in mind for those who will be
advising the struggling newbies.
Cheers for superb tobaccos!
No cheers for humectant-laden rubbish.
Magnulus
>Further, the tobaccos claimed to be humectant free were unsatisfactory in
>taste.
I have tried a few of the McClelland tobaccoes, most of them I tried I found
lacking in something. Except for the aromatics, they didn't seem "goopy" or
wet.
>
>Above and beyond this, I personally heard it from Mary McNeil herself that
>McClelland does not pay any particular attention to the nicotine and tars
>content of their tobaccos, "preferring to concentrate on taste." First,
>any tobacco manufacturer that does not pay particular attention to
>ingredients as important as nicotine and tars is incompetent to start
>with.
Huh? It's possible that some companies make products for just the casual
smoker, not ex-cigarette smoker or hard-core nicotine user? I have tried some
of the Lake District tobaccoes, and some of them would bowl me over if I smoked
them in anything but a tiny corn cob. I did not find the taste necessarily all
that good. Strong, yes, but I like a light to medium taste most of the time.
I guess I could say " different strokes for different folks". I would not
measure a tobacco just by it's nicotine content.
I will admit though, that McClellands seems to err on the side of light flavor
and body too often for my taste, making it harder for the novice smoker to
smoke slowly. I have found some Virginias from Cornell and Diehl I like better-
I actually find the flakes harder to pack, and I like the looser cut C&D uses..
---------------------------
remove nospam to respond
Bill Triplett
>I recognize there are many who like McClelland tobaccos. Whether this is
>simply because it is what they learned to like early on, and their taste
>once formed has remained constant, whether they simply have never smoked
>good tobacco of any other type (and as a practical matter, even today,
>most U.S. pipe smokers probably have never heard of Samuel Gawith, or
>Gawith, Hoggarth, and Co., and likely have never tried tobaccos by
>J.F. Germain or Murray, Sons & Co), or whether they simply have
>preferences that differ from mine, I cannot say.
I *greatly * prefer McCelland over Gawith Hoggarth and Co... Not for
any of the reasons you list.... I tried Gawith (I think I got some
samples from you?) before I tried McCelland... Too much of a perfume
at the start of the bowl... Yes, it goes away, but by that time its
too late... I prefer 'some' PG to that perfume... Why do they have
to add that junk and spoil a perfectly good high quality tobacco? :)
----------------
Bill Triplett
----------------
Pascal Essers
thanks for you're extensive answer.
I personnaly am used to smoke a lot of different tobacco's. I still like to
have 7-8 tobacco's open wich all differ in taste. I consider the tinned
McClellands as a nice part of that variety. I know the Frogs are almost a
sin to smoke, I am mainly talking about the straight virginia's and the
Va-Per. I hardly compare them with the Gawiths or Esotericas wich I enjoy
also alot. In stead of comparing and choosing a winner I appreciate the
differences. I agree, for the lonely Island I would choose Esoterica or
Gawith, but I am glad to be able to smoke McClellands better tobaccos also.
--
Paul Szabady
are real to to that individual, it does not follow that everyone will
have the same reaction to that substance - especially if that reaction
seems to be allergic. So while Jim, by his understandings of his
negative experiences, finds propylene glycol to be the culprit and
avoids it like the plague, many will have no reaction to it and for them
the propylene glycol issue will seem over-blown.
It also does not follow that because one doesn't like a particular
manufacturer's tobaccos, that those blends are incompetent and that the
manufacturer doesn't know how to blend "without the benefit of the
chemist's flask." Now propylene glycol is used predominantly as a
carrier for added flavoring and casing, and as a means to preserve
moisture long term. While some might argue that the taste of PG is
noticeable and perhaps offensive, the quality of the tobaccos used, the
aging of those tobaccos and the nature and the quality of the blend and
its subsequent flavors and aroma are really a separate issue. No blender
uses PG as a 'flavoring'. Furthermore I don't think that any tobacco
blender blends with nicotine and "tars" as their primary and ultimate
concern (other than as a final 'strength' of the tobacco) and Jim's
experience that their tobaccos were too light in nicotine for his taste,
does not mean that the blend was unskilled in its execution - it just
didn't provide the strength that he was accustomed to and preferred.
That McClelland or any other blender does not manufacture
'full-strength' ropes, plugs and twists does not mean they are
incompetent.
Further complicating is Jim's use of the ambiguous term "tars": while I,
as a writer, particularly appreciate the difficulty and the slipperiness
of trying to describe taste sensations in words, and while I know that
Jim is not satisfied with his use of that word to accurately describe
what he means, it does distort the issue. His use of it is private and
doesn't really square with the common meaning of it, a meaning which has
pariah- like associations with its use and larger understanding in
cigarette smoking. "Tar" is a 'Bad Thing'.
I further wish that Jim would identify which McC blends he found to be
so incompetent and inferior to the UK blends he prefers. I have smoked
many of McC's virginia and virginia/perique find and find them to be
world-class in blending and execution. Their skill with incorporating
perique seemlessly into blends is unsurpassed, exceeding even my
much-loved Three Nuns and the Murrays-produced Dunhill 'Elizabethan',
and matched by Escudo and the skilled and savvy Gregory Pease.
I have smoked McC's 2010, 2015, 2035, #22, Dark Star, St. James Woods,
Brindle Flake, Black Parrot and Beacon and find them equal in blending
skill, aging and execution to their European equivalents that I haved
smoked: Gawith Best Brown, Full Virginia Flake, Dunhill Light Flake,
Capstan Medium, Dobie's Four Square Curlies, Gawith & Hoggarth's Dark
and Brown Flakes, Dunhill Elizabethan, Three Nuns, Escudo, Rattray's
Brown Clunee, Old Gowrie, Hal o' the Wynd, and Marlin Flake,
Esoterica-Germain Dorchester, Dunbar, Peacehaven, Tilbury, MacBaren's
Virginia #1 and Roll Cake and the Stokkebye's Navy Flake, Twist Flake
and Curly Cut. Whether one might prefer one of that laundry-list of
tobaccos versus another, is a question of personal taste rather than a
question of competence of the blender. While I wish that European (both
Continental and UK) blenders would leave top-dressings and flavorings
out of their tobaccos, their use doesn't imply incompetence: they're
just not fulfilling my needs as a smoker. So I think the charge that
McClelland is "incompetent" is over-stated. While I appreciate and enjoy
a good rant and voicing of strong opinions and reactions, they can
distort the issue. And since we are without reliable knowledge of which
tobaccos contain PG and how much they contain, and reaction to its use
is so variable, the issue is still open for me. Perhaps adapting some of
the labelling of contents used in the food industry would help, though
I'm sure the cigarette industry would fight that vehemently: the
revelation that all the macho Marlboro men were really grooving on
chocolate would puncture that media image immediately.
Paul Szabady
Jim Beard
> While one's reactions to a specific substance, like propylene glycol,
> are real to to that individual, it does not follow that everyone will
> have the same reaction to that substance - especially if that reaction
> seems to be allergic. So while Jim, by his understandings of his
> negative experiences, finds propylene glycol to be the culprit and
> avoids it like the plague, many will have no reaction to it and for them
> the propylene glycol issue will seem over-blown.
All true, but somewhat off the mark. I know the problems I have had with
propylene glycol, and I know how difficult it was to identify the culprit
I have at long last concluded was responsible for my inability to find
satisfaction in the pipe in 1961 (give or take a year), 1964, 1966, and
the early 1970s, despite considerable effort. And I suspect that a great
many others who would enjoy the pleasures of the pipe never become
pipesmokers simply due to the rubbish in the tobaccos they tried. Had I
not been posted to the UK, and made one final attempt to take up the pipe
where tobaccos with minimal adulterants were readily available, I would
not be a pipe smoker today.
That it took me so long to come to appreciate the pipe, and that I could
easily have missed out on the experience entirely, does not make me happy.
And this unhappy state of affairs I blame entirely on omniprevalent use of
humectant and rubbish additives by the U.S. pipe tobacco manufacturers.
If you wonder why I rant, this is the root reason.
Pipe smoking has been in secular decline since 1925, and I believe we as a
society are the worse off for it. And I believe that extensive use of
humectants such as propylene glycol and diethylene glycol are a
significant factor in this decline. Add to that the fact that humectants
are not necessary (as the British demonstrated for decades), and that most
pipe smokers actually prefer the tobaccos with fewer or no additives when
given a choice of similar tobaccos, one with and one without the rubbish,
and you have my rationale for arguing that humectants should not be added
to any tobacco.
> It also does not follow that because one doesn't like a particular
> manufacturer's tobaccos, that those blends are incompetent and that the
> manufacturer doesn't know how to blend "without the benefit of the
> chemist's flask."
Again, true, but again, off the mark. When one of the owners of a
pipe tobacco manufacturing company tells me the company pays no particular
attention to tars and nicotine in its blends, I will state immediately
that either the owner is a liar (and I am not inclined to call Mary McNeil
a liar) or its blenders are incompetent. It does not matter whether the
nicotine and tar content is low or high, or whether there is a variety of
strengths for each. But if these _very_important_factors do not receive
"particular attention," the blenders are incompetent. Tar and nicotine
content is far too important to be left to chance.
My second assertion, that McClelland's inability to produce a product not
heavily laden with humectant and flavorings that provides satisfactory
taste indicates incompetence in that arena as well, is perhaps open to
debate. But I am far from the only one who finds McClelland's "additive
free" tobaccos to be lacking, and the shortage of tars and nicotine has
little to do with the shortage of taste. Tars, perhaps something, but
nicotine, a whole different matter altogether.
> Now propylene glycol is used predominantly as a
> carrier for added flavoring and casing, and as a means to preserve
> moisture long term. While some might argue that the taste of PG is
> noticeable and perhaps offensive, the quality of the tobaccos used, the
> aging of those tobaccos and the nature and the quality of the blend and
> its subsequent flavors and aroma are really a separate issue. No blender
> uses PG as a 'flavoring'.
Some _do_ argue that PG is noticeable and offensive. Not "some might. "The
remainder of this passage above is true, but so what? This is not being
disputed, nor is it relevant to the demerits of using PG.
>Furthermore I don't think that any tobacco
> blender blends with nicotine and "tars" as their primary and ultimate
> concern (other than as a final 'strength' of the tobacco)
Nicotine and "tars" are not a primary and ultimate concern, true, but they
are a damn important concern for anyone attempting to blend quality
tobacco. Whether the intent is to have quantities large or small of
these, one _must_ know what level a particular tobacco should have and
blend to provide it. One must not ignore the issue in hope that if one
shuts one's eyes to the existence of the substances the anti-tobacco
zealots will quit yammering about them. It will not gain respite from the
zealots, and it will be detrimental to one's tobacco!
>and Jim's
> experience that their tobaccos were too light in nicotine for his taste,
> does not mean that the blend was unskilled in its execution - it just
> didn't provide the strength that he was accustomed to and preferred.
Again, true, but again, off the mark. McClelland's tobaccos are too light
in nicotine (and tars) for my taste, but this is not why I consider their
blending unskilled.
> That McClelland or any other blender does not manufacture
> 'full-strength' ropes, plugs and twists does not mean they are
> incompetent.
Again, true, but again, off the mark. You are impugning to me things I
did not say, and did not imply.
> Further complicating is Jim's use of the ambiguous term "tars": while I,
> as a writer, particularly appreciate the difficulty and the slipperiness
> of trying to describe taste sensations in words, and while I know that
> Jim is not satisfied with his use of that word to accurately describe
> what he means, it does distort the issue. His use of it is private and
> doesn't really square with the common meaning of it, a meaning which has
> pariah- like associations with its use and larger understanding in
> cigarette smoking. "Tar" is a 'Bad Thing'.
My use of the term "tars" is not private. It has been posted to a.s.p.
more than once over the past few years, and the a.s.p. is a public forum.
And the common usage of the term in the UK (the originators of the
English language, I might note) is as I use it, not as it may be used by
scoundrels, zealots, and Madison Avenue copywriters. And I will be damned
if I will let those scum of the intellectual earth deprive me of using a
traditional, perfectly good word simply because _they_ would have it
associated with 'Bad Things.'
> I further wish that Jim would identify which McC blends he found to be
> so incompetent and inferior to the UK blends he prefers.
All that I have tried. And they were so poor I did not consider it worth
keeping a list of all the individual blends in that category. As much as
I believe in individualism, when every individual tobacco from a
manufacturer proves to be uniformly unsatisfactory, eventually you quit
trying to track the individual tobaccos and and simply write off the
entire category.
'>I have smoked
> many of McC's virginia and virginia/perique find and find them to be
> world-class in blending and execution. Their skill with incorporating
> perique seemlessly into blends is unsurpassed, exceeding even my
> much-loved Three Nuns and the Murrays-produced Dunhill 'Elizabethan',
> and matched by Escudo and the skilled and savvy Gregory Pease.
How much did McClelland pay for that endorsement? <grin>
Seriously (and the above was intended to be humor, not expression of any
suspicion that Paul is selling endorsements), if you like the stuff, smoke
it with my blessings! But accept that I do not feel the same way, and
that I will warn others of the reasons I do not feel the same way.
> I have smoked McC's 2010, 2015, 2035, #22, Dark Star, St. James Woods,
> Brindle Flake, Black Parrot and Beacon and find them equal in blending
> skill, aging and execution to their European equivalents that I haved
> smoked: Gawith Best Brown, Full Virginia Flake, Dunhill Light Flake,
> Capstan Medium, Dobie's Four Square Curlies, Gawith & Hoggarth's Dark
> and Brown Flakes, Dunhill Elizabethan, Three Nuns, Escudo, Rattray's
> Brown Clunee, Old Gowrie, Hal o' the Wynd, and Marlin Flake,
> Esoterica-Germain Dorchester, Dunbar, Peacehaven, Tilbury, MacBaren's
> Virginia #1 and Roll Cake and the Stokkebye's Navy Flake, Twist Flake
> and Curly Cut. Whether one might prefer one of that laundry-list of
> tobaccos versus another, is a question of personal taste rather than a
> question of competence of the blender. While I wish that European (both
> Continental and UK) blenders would leave top-dressings and flavorings
> out of their tobaccos, their use doesn't imply incompetence: they're
> just not fulfilling my needs as a smoker. So I think the charge that
> McClelland is "incompetent" is over-stated.
Hmmm. Perhaps I _should_ be suspicious that Paul is selling endorsements
after all! That one should be worth quite a bundle! <grin>
> While I appreciate and enjoy
> a good rant and voicing of strong opinions and reactions, they can
> distort the issue. And since we are without reliable knowledge of which
> tobaccos contain PG and how much they contain, and reaction to its use
> is so variable, the issue is still open for me. Perhaps adapting some of
> the labelling of contents used in the food industry would help, though
> I'm sure the cigarette industry would fight that vehemently: the
> revelation that all the macho Marlboro men were really grooving on
> chocolate would puncture that media image immediately.
Well, I for one much enjoy Bob's Flake, which is indeed chocolate
flavored. And very pleasant during the Christmas season, and at other
times as well. And not nearly as fattening as the edible chocolate.
Cheers!
Jim Beard
> Hi Jim,
> thanks for you're extensive answer.
Thank you for providing the opportunity for the extensive answer.
> I personnaly am used to smoke a lot of different tobacco's. I still like to
> have 7-8 tobacco's open wich all differ in taste. I consider the tinned
> McClellands as a nice part of that variety. I know the Frogs are almost a
> sin to smoke, I am mainly talking about the straight virginia's and the
> Va-Per. I hardly compare them with the Gawiths or Esotericas wich I enjoy
> also alot. In stead of comparing and choosing a winner I appreciate the
> differences. I agree, for the lonely Island I would choose Esoterica or
> Gawith, but I am glad to be able to smoke McClellands better tobaccos also.
YPYM, YTYP. Or, to expand that to full length, You pays your money, you
takes your pick. Tastes do differ. And some things very important to me
may be of less or no interest to some others. But I think I have valid
points, that some will appreciate and find useful.
Cheers!
Jim Beard
> I *greatly * prefer McCelland over Gawith Hoggarth and Co... Not for
> any of the reasons you list.... I tried Gawith (I think I got some
> samples from you?) before I tried McCelland... Too much of a perfume
> at the start of the bowl... Yes, it goes away, but by that time its
> too late... I prefer 'some' PG to that perfume... Why do they have
> to add that junk and spoil a perfectly good high quality tobacco? :)
Bill,
I can sympathize with your problem. I love 1792, except for that nearly
overwhelming taste of Tonka bean at the start of the smoke. Yes, letting
the tobacco air out for a few days or weeks does help, and the Tonka
beans's effect does diminish as you go down the bowl, but I find myself
reaching for the Curly Cut rather than the 1792 just because of that
problem with start-up. Of course, I rather like the perfume that Gawith
puts in its tobaccos. An acquired taste, perhaps? And perhaps I will
someday acquire a taste for Tonka beans! (but don't hold your breath
waiting on it.)
Cheers!
Jim Beard
> Huh? It's possible that some companies make products for just the casual
> smoker, not ex-cigarette smoker or hard-core nicotine user? I have tried some
> of the Lake District tobaccoes, and some of them would bowl me over if I smoked
> them in anything but a tiny corn cob.
There are tobaccos from the Lake District that are quite mild in nicotine
and tars. Most manufacturer's of quality pipe tobaccos make a variety of
tobaccos, in a variety of strengths and tastes. My complaint arises when
a company claims to pay no particular attention to matters that are
of great importance to all veteran pipe smokers. Tell me you intend this,
or intend that, and I will say , Fine. But tell me you pay no attention
to such matters, and I will say you have just declared yourself an
incompetent.
Oh, yes, FWIW. Gawith, Hoggarth & Co. even makes a line of American-style
aromatics. Mr. Gawith felt that their popularity in the U.S. suggested
that such tobaccos were suitable for some, and he was quite interested in
providing (at a reasonable profit, mind you) whatever pipe smokers might
find to suit their fancy best.
> I did not find the taste necessarily all
> that good. Strong, yes, but I like a light to medium taste most of the time.
> I guess I could say " different strokes for different folks". I would not
> measure a tobacco just by it's nicotine content.
Not _just_ by nicotine content. Nor would I equate more nicotine to
better. But the tars and nicotine content of a given tobacco should be
there _by_deliberate_ intent_ and not simply result from chance or
happenstance.
> I will admit though, that McClellands seems to err on the side of light flavor
> and body too often for my taste, making it harder for the novice smoker to
> smoke slowly.
This is a valid point, but distinct from those factors I did rant about.
> I have found some Virginias from Cornell and Diehl I like better-
> I actually find the flakes harder to pack, and I like the looser cut C&D uses..
Craig Tarler prides himself on "his cut." My understanding is he is the
only one in the U.S. that uses it, and needless to say he thinks it is
great.
Cheers!
Mike Cox
Jim Beard wrote:...
>
> On 21 Oct 1999, Paul Szabady <sza...@ix.netcom.com> wrote ...
Hi All,
I think that I am sensitive to P.G. as well. I also have tried to smoke
just about every VA, and english style tobacco that I can. I tried to
smoke # 6 and #12 MC for a while. It nearly made me give the pipe the
boot, as I found little satisfaction in smoking these two blends from
MC . Went back to EMP for a while but it has almost a bitterness about
it that kinda lingers about the more you smoke of it. But most of all,
the smell of the Mc is almost like that of tomato catsup. Weird to me
the Mc's, I find that most real English Made has more of a leathery
spice nuance that will not cloy like the Mc does. The Mc smells almost
of ethyl acetate or something like ripe bananas perhaps. Never noticed
anything like that from C&D either. I find myself thinking that the
Gawith flakes are really good , I find them quite more to my tastes. I
think the perfume taste has more to do with the fermentation going on
than additives, although I have had some flakes that almost taste like
aqua velva when really fresh but that dissipates real fast whilst
smoking. I think that I have had some Rattrays of old that had a similar
nose to the perfume effect and found that it oxidizes real fast as well
turning a different color of brown in just a few days after opening.
This must be due to one of two things , either a lack of preservatives
or else whatever it is cased with makes the stuff oxidize real fast. I
would really like to believe that it is the first option but then I am
not a analytical chemist either. Sometime I notice a bit of a vinegar
odor as well in most true english made's. Seems that tobacco should be a
organic living thing and dousing it chemicals would most likely keep the
product more like what it was when it was made ,but at what expense in
the long run ? I Really think I can do without the preservatives myself.
I would rather have it a more natural state with no adulterations that
might have long term effects on the guy behind the pipe or the pipe
itself. As Jim so well puts it "No Cheers for the Chemist's flask in my
tobacco ! "
Best ,
Mike Cox
Bill Triplett
he choose that cut to make blending easier, but since I know nothing
about blending, that would be a shot in the dark....
>
>Craig Tarler prides himself on "his cut." My understanding is he is the
>only one in the U.S. that uses it, and needless to say he thinks it is
>great.
>
>Cheers!
>
>j...@blckhrse.clark.net
> UNIX is not user-unfriendly. It merely
> expects users to be computer-friendly.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Bill Triplett
----------------
Stephen M.H. Lawrence
Jim Beard <j...@blckhrse.clark.net wrote:
> Perhaps I am the exceptional case, but somehow I doubt it
PG, in pipe tobaccos, usually leaves me with tiny sores along the gumline,
not to mention nausea and dizziness. You are not alone.
Steve
Pascal Essers
you often mentioned an other Gawith (Hogard,,) wich tobacco;s are only
available in the UK. Is there a webpage where blends of this Gawith
are described? I did some searching but found only a pic of an artist
who made it for Gawith Hogard.
Thansk in advance
--
Best Regards!
Pascal
http://www.xs4all.nl/~falparsi/Pipes/index.htm
************************
Reply-adress is spam-proof,
Please remove GEENTROEP
************************
Jim Beard <j...@blckhrse.clark.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
29434531...@blckhrse.clark.net...
Volunteer Briars
I usually try to stay out of the heated debates on such subjects. This one on
PG has some questions that I just have not heard answered to my satisfaction.
I fully understand Jim's adversion to it and do not question his not wanting to
use it in anything. There are some substances that I seem to have an allergy
to and I try to avoid them like the plague.
Now here are my comments. I presently smoke many different tobaccoes from many
different blending companies including all of those in the states and several
from England and the continent. Some are aromatics and I am quite sure contain
PG, and some are suppossed to be unadulterated, so I have no ax to grind one
way or the other.
I have heard many rant against the evils of PG in pipe tobacco. Almost in the
same breath, tell will tell me how good PG is in a cigar humidor. For what
it's worth, Jim is not one of these people and I don't even know if he smokes
cigars or not. When I have questioned them concerning this, I have been told
that the PG is sprayed on the pipe tobacco and is only in the "air" in the
humidor. Well, in the words of the Oracle in Buford, "that is plain horse
sh....." I am not a rocket scientist and don't believe that it takes one to
realize that if PG is in the air, a certain amount is going to absorbed by the
cigars. Does this change the way the cigars will taste? If it changes the way
pipe tobacco tastes and smokes, then it is going to certainly change the way a
cigar smokes and tastes. The whole point of this epistle is why do the same
people declare that PG is terrible in pipe tobacco and great for cigars?
It would seem reasonable to my feeble mind that it is either good for ALL
tobacco or good for none. Do I think that PG has a taste? Yes! And I prefer
to only use distilled water in my humidors. As always, I ask not that you
agree with me, but that you only think about it. You are each smart enough to
reach your own conclusions.
Happy smokin',
Earl
JHowell982
whatever, in the humidifying element. It stays there, and does not become
airborne. Only the water evaporates; the PG stays put. Really, it does. PG
is hydrophilic, but only to a certain extent, and that certain extent equates
to about 70% relative humidity. Sprayed on pipe tobacco, PG absorbs water from
the air so the tobacco doesn't dry out. In the cigar humidor, the PG is mixed
with distilled water and contained in the humidifying element which never
touches the cigars, and simply regulates the amount of moisture in the air. If
there's less than 70%, the water evaporates from the element; if there's more
than 70%, the PG absorbs moisture from the air. It's not quite that simple in
practice, 'cause lots of people have trouble keeping the right humidity, but
that's the basic idea. PG really IS great stuff because it happens to
stabilize at exactly the right humidity for cigars, but given the choice I
wouldn't have it added to my pipe tobacco, either. It may seem strange that
the water evaporates while the PG doesn't, but lots of things stay behind when
water evaporates. If you can keep salt just saturated, for instance, it
stabilizes a closed environment at exactly 75% RH.
<< Almost in the
same breath, tell will tell me how good PG is in a cigar humidor. For what
it's worth, Jim is not one of these people and I don't even know if he smokes
cigars or not. When I have questioned them concerning this, I have been told
that the PG is sprayed on the pipe tobacco and is only in the "air" in the
humidor. Well, in the words of the Oracle in Buford, "that is plain horse
sh....." I am not a rocket scientist and don't believe that it takes one to
realize that if PG is in the air, a certain amount is going to absorbed by the
cigars. Does this change the way the cigars will taste? If it changes the way
pipe tobacco tastes and smokes, then it is going to certainly change the way a
cigar smokes and tastes. The whole point of this epistle is why do the same
people declare that PG is terrible in pipe tobacco and great for cigars?
It would seem reasonable to my feeble mind that it is either good for ALL
tobacco or good for none. Do I think that PG has a taste? Yes! And I prefer
to only use distilled water in my humidors. As always, I ask not that you
agree with me, but that you only think about it. You are each smart enough to
reach your own conclusions.
>>
Jack
"Whenever A injures or annoys B on pretense of saving or improving X, A is a
scoundrel." -- H.L. Mencken
Volunteer Briars
(JHowell982) writes:
>Well, no, PG is NOT in the air in a cigar humidor. PG is in the Oasis,
>sponge,
>whatever, in the humidifying element. It stays there, and does not become
>airborne. Only the water evaporates; the PG stays put. Really, it does. PG
>is hydrophilic, but only to a certain extent, and that certain extent equates
>to about 70% relative humidity.
This is the same song and dance that I have heard for years from ASC. I'm
sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. I also understand that the salt slush
is 75% RH. There is also salt in the air in that solution. That is why some
of the cigars taste salty (because of where they were rolled and the components
in the air. This is also why some of the Scotches have a salty and peaty
taste.
Like I said in the other post....YMMV.
Happy smokin',
Earl
JHowell982
sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. I also understand that the salt slush
is 75% RH. There is also salt in the air in that solution. That is why some
of the cigars taste salty (because of where they were rolled and the components
in the air. This is also why some of the Scotches have a salty and peaty
taste.
Like I said in the other post....YMMV.
Happy smokin',
Earl
>>
OK, there's no need for you to use PG in your humidor if you don't wish to --
just add minute amounts of distilled water and watch the humidity level
closely. I must not be sensitive to PG, because I've never noticed any effect,
taste or otherwise, on my cigars from PG, and sometimes I even use little
homemade humidifying elements with oasis and PG in tins of pipe tobacco. And I
sympathize with anyone who is sensitive -- with an allergy, it can be that the
most minute trace provokes a reaction. Having a daughter who is just that
allergic to any dairy product, I have to scrutinize labels for the tiniest
inclusion. In the case of tobacco humidification for non-sensitive people,
though, I think that the amount of PG present when PG is sprayed directly onto
pipe tobacco is not really comparable to what *may* be present in miniscule
amounts when carried into the air by evaporating water in a cigar humidor. Not
ever having tried to humidify cigars with salt, I'll have to take your word for
the taste. I'll grant that evaporation must not leave ALL adulterants behind,
or Scotch would have no taste, either. So, I guess it's a matter of degree.
Pipe smokers, including me, tend to dislike PG because it's added directly to
the tobacco and there's no way to get rid of it. Cigar smokers, including me,
tend to like it because it provides a convenient way to regulate humidity in a
humidor. No doubt there's a subset of people who are so sensitive to PG that a
cigar from one of my humidors would either taste funny or provoke a reaction.
So, I'll be sure to offer a sermon on the evils of PG the next time one of my
so-called friends shows up and starts using the word "Bolivar" in every
sentence. You can't be too careful when it comes to liability. In fact, all
you pipe/cigar smokers out there, you'd better send me your PG-tainted cigars.
I'll dispose of them properly. ; )
JHowell982
of the cigars taste salty (because of where they were rolled and the components
in the air. This is also why some of the Scotches have a salty and peaty
taste.
>>
home with salt. FWIW, I've also heard that some cigars taste salty because the
rollers have sweaty hands. Everyone who is repelled by that thought, send me
your cigars. As for Scotch and the rest, I think there's a difference between
the salt present in air at seaside, with a roiling sea, pounding surf, and
constant onshore wind, and what would be carried into the air by quiescent
evaporation. Again, it's a matter of degree, but I think the gulf between the
amount of PG present in PG-cased pipe tobacco and a cigar kept in a
PG-regulated humidor is made no closer by your argument.
Sam F.
volb...@aol.com (Volunteer Briars) wrote:
> Howdy Folks,
>
> I usually try to stay out of the heated debates on such subjects.
This one on
> PG has some questions that I just have not heard answered to my
satisfaction.
> I fully understand Jim's adversion to it and do not question his not
wanting to
> use it in anything. There are some substances that I seem to have an
allergy
> to and I try to avoid them like the plague.
>
> Now here are my comments. I presently smoke many different tobaccoes
from many
> different blending companies including all of those in the states and
several
> from England and the continent. Some are aromatics and I am quite
sure contain
> PG, and some are suppossed to be unadulterated, so I have no ax to
grind one
> way or the other.
>
> I have heard many rant against the evils of PG in pipe tobacco.
>
> Earl
>
I thought that the PG solution was to
1. Maintain the appropriate humidity percentage, which plain water would
not do. I have used salt in the past, but that can get very messy.
2. Retard mold and fungus. Salt does this as well.
I have used distilled water with some disastrous effect. I had to throw
away a humidor and everything in it. Fortunately it was not full.
Sam F.
Gregory Pease
jhowe...@aol.com (JHowell982) wrote:
> << That is why some
> of the cigars taste salty (because of where they were rolled and the
components
> in the air. This is also why some of the Scotches have a salty and peaty
> taste.
> >>
> Just reread your post -- I thought you were talking about humidifying cigars
at
> home with salt. FWIW, I've also heard that some cigars taste salty because
the
> rollers have sweaty hands. Everyone who is repelled by that thought, send me
> your cigars. As for Scotch and the rest, I think there's a difference between
> the salt present in air at seaside, with a roiling sea, pounding surf, and
> constant onshore wind, and what would be carried into the air by quiescent
> evaporation.
Yes, there is a very great difference.
> Again, it's a matter of degree, but I think the gulf between the
> amount of PG present in PG-cased pipe tobacco and a cigar kept in a
> PG-regulated humidor is made no closer by your argument.
Indeed, salt does not evaporate, and the water vapor which comes off even a
saturated solution of salt will not be salty. Here's an experiment to
demonstrate this. Dissolve as much table salt as possible in a couple cups
of water, making a saturated solution. Put this in a saucepan on the stove,
and rig a place over the top of it, at an angle, so the condensed water
vapor can drip into another vessel. Turn on the heat, collect the
condensate, and taste it. Pure water. No salt.
PG, on the other hand, WILL volatilize, but much more slowly than water, and
at higher temperatures for the same vapor pressure. The likelihood of any PG
getting into the cigars in a room temperature humidor is very low.
When *large* quantities of PG are used in pipe tobaccos, the result is a
sticky, wet mass. With some blends, you can even dry the stuff out
completely in an oven, and if the environment is humid, the stuff will suck
the moisture from the air quickly, yielding the original sticky, wet mass
within hours. Clearly, the PG was not driven off by the oven abuse.
Regards,
Gregory
--
Gregory Pease
Friedman & Pease
http://www.friedman-pease.com
rpe...@mindspring.com
wrote:
That is distillation. And there would be no salt in the evaporated
water either. If you let water with salt crystals in it evaporate
very slowly, the little cubes of NaCl will be much larger than in a
salt shaker.
Gregory Pease
wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:33:34 -0700, "Gregory Pease" <sky...@value.net>
> wrote:
>>Indeed, salt does not evaporate, and the water vapor which comes off even a
>>saturated solution of salt will not be salty. Here's an experiment to
>>demonstrate this. Dissolve as much table salt as possible in a couple cups
>>of water, making a saturated solution. Put this in a saucepan on the stove,
>>and rig a place over the top of it, at an angle, so the condensed water
>>vapor can drip into another vessel. Turn on the heat, collect the
>>condensate, and taste it. Pure water. No salt.
>
> That is distillation. And there would be no salt in the evaporated
> water either. If you let water with salt crystals in it evaporate
> very slowly, the little cubes of NaCl will be much larger than in a
> salt shaker.
The only point I was trying to make is that even under extreme conditions,
the evaporated water will not be salty. It all comes down to the heat of
vaporization of the various dissolved components. Salt's is very high. PG's
is not as high, but is certainly higher than water's, so there will be
little if any PG in the water vapor in a closed environment. And, no salt at
all.
>>PG, on the other hand, WILL volatilize, but much more slowly than water, and
>>at higher temperatures for the same vapor pressure. The likelihood of any PG
>>getting into the cigars in a room temperature humidor is very low.
>>
>>When *large* quantities of PG are used in pipe tobaccos, the result is a
>>sticky, wet mass. With some blends, you can even dry the stuff out
>>completely in an oven, and if the environment is humid, the stuff will suck
>>the moisture from the air quickly, yielding the original sticky, wet mass
>>within hours. Clearly, the PG was not driven off by the oven abuse.
Shannon Hooge
ovewhelming and incredibly informative. Thanks to all for the great
information. I believe I can now figure our which of my own tobaccos
have PG and can figure out how much is too much. I can't say that I am
allergic to it, but having smoked some tobaccos with low or no pg, I can
tell a difference. It isn't really a flavor difference, but more of a
mouth-feel thing. I'll work out the variations and see what I like.
Again, thanks to all for the information!
Gregory, I must say that your encyclopedic knowledge of all things
tobacco related has convinced me that I should try your tobaccos.
Cheers and a good life!
rpe...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>In article <38162a5...@news.mindspring.com> , rpe...@mindspring.com
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:33:34 -0700, "Gregory Pease" <sky...@value.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>>Indeed, salt does not evaporate, and the water vapor which comes off even a
>>>saturated solution of salt will not be salty. Here's an experiment to
>>>demonstrate this. Dissolve as much table salt as possible in a couple cups
>>>of water, making a saturated solution. Put this in a saucepan on the stove,
>>>and rig a place over the top of it, at an angle, so the condensed water
>>>vapor can drip into another vessel. Turn on the heat, collect the
>>>condensate, and taste it. Pure water. No salt.
>>
>> That is distillation. And there would be no salt in the evaporated
>> water either. If you let water with salt crystals in it evaporate
>> very slowly, the little cubes of NaCl will be much larger than in a
>> salt shaker.
>
>The only point I was trying to make is that even under extreme conditions,
>the evaporated water will not be salty. It all comes down to the heat of
>vaporization of the various dissolved components. Salt's is very high. PG's
>is not as high, but is certainly higher than water's, so there will be
>little if any PG in the water vapor in a closed environment. And, no salt at
>all.
Certainly Mr. Pease, my role in life is to confuse issues as much as
possible.
caclark
combining with other chemicals to form carcinogens.
I wonder what the statistics for all tobacco-related health risk claims
would be if the additives weren't added.
Mike Gervais <mger...@lonepeaklabeling.com> wrote in message
news:7uj7l0$2qr$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Told like it is, and thanks.
>
> Jim Beard wrote in message <29258022...@blckhrse.clark.net>...
> >On 19 Oct 1999, Shannon Hooge <shan...@my-deja.com> wrote ...
> >> I recently learned what PG is and how it is used. Does anybody know of
> >> any possible effects, real or hypothesized, that this additive may
have?
> >
> >1. An adverse affect on the taste,
> >
> >2. An adverse affect on the burn characteristics,
> >
> >3. A personal reaction, perhaps due to idiosyncratic allergy (but maybe
> >not), of increasing distaste for smoking, the more propylene glycol there
> >is in the tobacco being smoked.
> >
> >> Also, where could I find a list of tobaccos that do not contain this
> >> additive? TIA for the great info and discussion.
> >
> >There is no such list. There is suspicion that those who store, age, and
> >wholesale leaf for blending may be using propylene glycol in small
> >quantity, perhaps to inhibit mold or to add sweetness, or for some other
> >reason or combination of reasons, so ensuring that any tobacco is totally
> >free from propylene glycol may be impossible. Unless you want to spend
> >$50,000 for a gas chromatograph, mass spectrum analyzer, computer
> >workstation, and software, and learn to use all of that properly.
> >
> >You can count on a heavy dose of the stuff in all drugstore tobaccos.
> >Likewise, you can count on it being present in most if not all McClelland
> >blends, and if not present you will soon recognize that McClelland does
> >not blend for flavor too skillfully without resort to the chemist's
flask.
> >
> >You will also find a heavy does of it or something similar in most
> >tobaccos manufactured on the Continent. Unlike, McClelland, when you do
> >find a Danish or Dutch tobacco that does not contain it, the taste from
> >skillful blending will likely be quite good.
> >
> >Craig Tarler uses propylene glycol as the carrier for flavorings for his
> >aromatics, but his premium tobaccos have no propylene glycol added at the
> >manufacturing state. If tobacco was delivered to him with propylene
> >glycol already present, he probably could not detect small quantities of
> >it.
> >
> >Friedman & Pease likewise will not add propylene glycol, but at least one
> >would-be supplier to them has had his offering shipped back to him
because
> >the tobacco was too wet upon arrival, was dried in an oven to proper
> >moisture content, and the next day was too wet again! (Guess what soaks
> >up moisture from the ambient air?) Leaf containing an amount of
propylene
> >glycol not detectable by Gregory's nose and taste buds would likely pass
> >inspection.
> >
> >Among the UK tobaccos, God only knows what is in Condor, and to a lesser
> >extent Saint Bruno (the two most popular pipe tobaccos in the UK), and
> >Ogdens of Liverpool uses some sort of very heavy casing but I think not
> >propylene glycol. Sobitol perhaps?
> >
> >The UK firms that follow the old recipes will add none at the
> >manufacturing stage (British law de facto prohibited humectants until
> >1986, and allowed no more than 2 percent by weight of a limited range of
> >mostly natural flavorings, all of which had to be completely dissolved in
> >the carrier -- usually alcohol). That said, there are some UK pipe
> >tobaccos that have been found to contain a significant amount of
propylene
> >glycol, and traces have been found in tobaccos by a manufacturer that I
> >would never have believed would knowingly allow such in other than his
> >American-style aromatics.
> >
> >If you wish to avoid propylene glycol, I would recommend:
> >
> >1. Avoid American-style aromatics and all drugstore tobaccos, and their
> >European counterparts.
> >
> >2. Buy tobaccos made in the Lake District (i.e. Samuel Gawith & Co.,
> >Gawith, Hoggarth & Co.), excluding GHC's American-style aromatics.
> >(?How can anyone make a true American-style aromatic without including
the
> > quintessential American-style rubbish?)
> >
> >3. Buy tobaccos from Friedman & Pease.
> >
> >4. Buy tobaccos made by British manufacturers that generally follow the
> >old recipes. (E.g. Murray & Sons)
> >
> >5. Buy premium tobaccos from Cornell & Diehl (but not the aromatics).
> >
> >No cheers for propylene glycol for any reason in any tobacco.
> >Bleach!
Jim Beard
> According to various sources, propylene glycol breaks down during pyrolisis,
> combining with other chemicals to form carcinogens.
Please ask your "various sources" to identify the "carcinogen" products of
pyrolysis of PG. If such were really true, I can assure you the
anti-tobacco zealots would have been shouting it from the roof tops for
years, as it would give them a _real_ _actual_ reason to oppose smoking.
> I wonder what the statistics for all tobacco-related health risk claims
> would be if the additives weren't added.
The statistics would be BS, just as they are when the additives are
present. I have no fondness for tobacco larded with additives, but the
statistics and the arguments put forth by the anti-tobacco zealots have
nothing to do with reality and everything to do with a desire to dictate
what others may and may not do.
FWIW, the first claim "in a scientific journal" that smoking tobacco might
cause cancer was put forth by a small-town physician in France. The date
that comes to mind is 1870s, but I could be way off on that. He had
observed all of seven deaths due to cancer, and all (or was it most?, or
some?) were of people that smoked pipes. While use of additives in
tobacco was by no means unknown in those days, it most likely was minimal
and probably nothing like the current petrochemicalish varieties in
widespread use today. He wrote up a scare-monger paper and got it
published in what passed for a scholarly journal in those days. The sample
size was too small for any meaningful statistical analysis, and he had not
one shred of scientific evidence of any causal mechanism, and later
statistical studies on pipe smoking did nothing to support his contention,
but all that was and remains irrelevant in the eyes of the anti-tobacco
crusaders. You still see assertions that "So-and-so in France pointed out
the carcinogenic nature of tobacco over a century ago!" usually in
condemnation of cigarettes, which were rarely smoked in rural France in
that era, but the anti-tobacco zealots have never been ones to allow
reality to intrude on what they wished to say...
But returning to the question of paragraph 3 above, no cheers for
Disraeli's third category of:
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
chad_pe...@my-deja.com
Are you saying there is no scientific evidence to suggest that tobacco
is a carcinogen? Just want to clarify.
Escudo in a Peterson bulldog.
In article <31236552...@blckhrse.clark.net>,
Jeff Folloder
> Jim,
>
> Are you saying there is no scientific evidence to suggest that tobacco
> is a carcinogen? Just want to clarify.
Jeff dons his trusty flak jacket and kevlar helmet for the rest of this
thread. FWIW, the increase in consumption of tobacco products directly
coincides with the industrialization and increase in population density of
the world's living spaces. A statistical argument could be made that
pollutants from industrialization and the combustion of fossilized and
refined fuel source are the true source of the increase in the incidence of
cancers among the same population. Damn, how does one protect oneself
against self-tossed napalm?
--
Jeff Folloder
"Well, it isn't *all* bad, now is it?"
Frank N. Furter, The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Colonel Panic
> chad_pe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Jim,
> >
> > Are you saying there is no scientific evidence to suggest that tobacco
> > is a carcinogen? Just want to clarify.
>
> Jeff dons his trusty flak jacket and kevlar helmet for the rest of this
> thread. FWIW, the increase in consumption of tobacco products directly
> coincides with the industrialization and increase in population density of
> the world's living spaces. A statistical argument could be made that
> pollutants from industrialization and the combustion of fossilized and
> refined fuel source are the true source of the increase in the incidence of
> cancers among the same population. Damn, how does one protect oneself
> against self-tossed napalm?
I share your opinion on that, Jeff. While I would never deny that tobacco is
probably a factor, I should think that all of the other crap that we breath,
eat, drink and otherwise assimilate on a 24/7 basis rather overshadows the
risks inherent in a few pipefuls of tobacco a day.
I do have an extra pair of asbestos Underoos here if you want 'em, Jeff. I
hope you don't mind Spiderman...
Sh*ts and grins,
Terry
--
Dyslexics have more fnu.
Gregory Pease
<jeff@#despam#folloder.com> wrote:
> chad_pe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> Jim,
>>
>> Are you saying there is no scientific evidence to suggest that tobacco
>> is a carcinogen? Just want to clarify.
>
> Jeff dons his trusty flak jacket and kevlar helmet for the rest of this
> thread. FWIW, the increase in consumption of tobacco products directly
> coincides with the industrialization and increase in population density of
> the world's living spaces. A statistical argument could be made that
> pollutants from industrialization and the combustion of fossilized and
> refined fuel source are the true source of the increase in the incidence of
> cancers among the same population. Damn, how does one protect oneself
> against self-tossed napalm?
I've been making this argument for years, and it only seems to matter to
those who already think this way. By and larger, in this forum, we preach to
the choir of reasonable folks. The antis, on the other hand, when presented
with cogent arguments, simply jump up and down, sputter and spittle, and,
though they can't form a reasoned response, refuse to accept the fact that
their beloved statistics, pre-masticated by "journalists," could, in fact,
be incorrect, or even irrational.
There is little doubt that tobacco use is a contributing *factor* to some
disease pathologies. However, until the medical industry (and I refer mainly
to the commerce of medicine, not the science) is motivated to labor to
isolate confounding environmental factors from the sample populations, all
they can do is blow smoke. But, they blow smoke with sufficient authority
that many are willing to accept it, wholesale.
Many ideopathic diseases are probably labeled as "smoking related" simply
because there's no other apparent cause. There's little support for studying
the long term effects of vehicle exhaust and other environmental toxins,
partly because we consider these things "necessary," while smoking is
considered a "habit." If enough of us for whom smoking is a "hobby" were to
make a loud enough noise about this, and present ourselves as learned,
reasoned beings, there's some possibility that we could instigate some form
of change.
Steve Masticola sez, "Pipe smokers will change the world, if they don't run
out of matches first." Maybe we can change the world if we are not run out
of town first...
--
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed citizens can change the world; indeed,
it's the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead
Aaron Munn
smoke, but I think it breaks down into water when burnt.
I don't think anybody can seriously deny the assosciation between tobacco use
and some diseases. OTOH, the choice to smoke is not an entirely rational one,
but is subjective and personal. Likewise, telling someone not to smoke, "for
their own good", is just as subjective, and is also a "value judgement",
pitting one person's value's against anothers. It's an example of the use of
"should" as a bludgeon, to equate the offender as a social outcast.
---------------------------
remove nospam to respond
El Canejo
filter-tip cigarettes as a means of protecting ourselves from the "air???"!
Tom K.
Colonel Panic <absi...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<38284DB1...@teleport.com>...
Jeff Folloder wrote:
> chad_pe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Jim,
> >
> > Are you saying there is no scientific evidence to suggest that tobacco
> > is a carcinogen? Just want to clarify.
>
> Jeff dons his trusty flak jacket and kevlar helmet for the rest of this
> thread. FWIW, the increase in consumption of tobacco products directly
> coincides with the industrialization and increase in population density
of
> the world's living spaces. A statistical argument could be made that
> pollutants from industrialization and the combustion of fossilized and
> refined fuel source are the true source of the increase in the incidence
of
> cancers among the same population. Damn, how does one protect oneself
> against self-tossed napalm?
I share your opinion on that, Jeff. While I would never deny that tobacco
Jim Beard
> > Are you saying there is no scientific evidence to suggest that tobacco
> > is a carcinogen? Just want to clarify.
>
> Jeff dons his trusty flak jacket and kevlar helmet for the rest of this
> thread. FWIW, the increase in consumption of tobacco products directly
> coincides with the industrialization and increase in population density of
> the world's living spaces. A statistical argument could be made that
> pollutants from industrialization and the combustion of fossilized and
> refined fuel source are the true source of the increase in the incidence of
> cancers among the same population. Damn, how does one protect oneself
> against self-tossed napalm?
As anecdotal evidence goes, not too bad. Of course, I prefer to plot per
capita consumption of tobacco for my most and least favorite countries for
a few decades worth, and see how changes in economic and international
political standing correlate with changes in tobacco use. (Singapore was
doing great until Lee Kwan Yew cracked down on tobacco, Japan seemed to be
headed for the top of the worldwide heap but lately it has been overtaken
by South Korea and Japanese politicians are talking about campaigning
against tobacco so methinks its day in the Sun is moving toward the end of
evening nautical twilight, Russian tobacco consumption was skyrocketing
from the 1970s until the Soviet Union fell apart and I don't know whether
to call that a plus or a minus for correlation with economic and political
effects, the Danes really should be doing better economically given their
consumption of pipe tobacco but then and again they are not doing all that
badly either,...). Of course, you can simply argue that tobacco
consumption was increasing because the national leadership had better
things to do than worry about wisps of smoke and their effects, and only
when they ran out of better things to do did they turn their attention to
the Injun weed....
But how does one explain the continuing increased incidence of breast and
cervical cancer, that has been on the upswing for decades now? And surely
the "good physicians" are not going to blame those problems on tobacco.
Unless women have found some unique and nonobvious manner of enjoying the
leaf!
And further, per capita tobacco use in the U.S. actually has been
declining since the mid-1960s, when the first Sturgeon General's report on
smoking was published. But the incidence of cancer and circulatory system
problems and other problems blamed on tobacco use continues to climb.
Now, I can understand a delay in the effects of reduced tobacco
consumption showing up in the effects arena, but over 30 years of delay
and the effects expected are still not showing up? Makes one wonder if the
claimed causual relationship was there to begin with....
Jim Beard
> Are you saying there is no scientific evidence to suggest that tobacco
> is a carcinogen? Just want to clarify.
A few decades back, a chemist did an exhaustive analysis of tobacco. He
found around 475 substances he considered biologically active, and enough
inert substances to bring the tally of chemical compounds to nearly ten
times that number. Some of those substances, such as ammonia, were and
are quite nasty in their effects on the human body. But people are
constantly exposed to lots of things that are quite nasty in their effects
on the human body. Try the nitric and sulphuric acid in the air, for
example, along with the carbon monoxide.
To date, no one has ever presented scientific proof that anything in
tobacco, under the conditions in which it is commonly used, causes cancer
or any other ailment. There is ample evidence that some of the things in
tobacco, administered in sufficient quantity under conditions not
resembling common use of tobacco, can do exceedingly nasty things. But
that is not even sound evidence, much less proof, that use of tobacco has a
causal relationship to cancer, artheriosclerosis or other circulatory or
heart problem, or anything else.
There is a large and ever expanding corpus of statistical studies, alleged
to link tobacco use to all sorts of adverse health effects. Apart from
the fact that correlation is not a demonstration of causation (as any
sophomore can tell you -- but P(iled)h(igher and)D(eepers) will dispute),
careful review of the studies leaves one convinced that the only thing
firmly established is that some people do not like tobacco and will
misrepresent anything to disparage it.
Is there "evidence" ___to suggest___ that tobacco is (or, better phrased,
contains) "a carcinogen"? Decide what you will accept as evidence, and
what you will accept as "suggesting," and you can tailor your answer
however you want it. And not even lie. Just be misleading as hell.
Now, what precisely is your question? And your intention in asking it?
And don't hand me the "Just want to clarify" bullshit. Your phrasing is
far too careful, and too carefully crafted to put a twist on it's
implication, to be evidence of a simple desire for clarity.
Dan Paden
industrialization and the combustion of fossilized and refined fuel
source are the true source of the increase in the incidence of cancers
among the same population."
True. I don't think anyone would deny that tobacco can be a *factor* in
cancer or other diseases. The crucial question--always--is: how MUCH of
a factor? Considering that all the diseases in question have *also*
been linked to poor diet, lack of exercise, stress, pollution, etc., I
think that a study that controls for one, and only one, of these would
be extremely hard to make. I read the Surgeon General's report before I
started smoking at the age of sixteen. Saying that their results
regarding the hazards of pipe smoking were "inconclusive" is
understating the matter considerably, and I have seen nothing since to
make me change my mind. I am firmly convinced that pipe smoking--even
*heavy* pipe smoking--will harm *very* few people, and moderate pipe
smoking poses so little risk to people that take reasonably good care of
themselves that it really isn't worth worrying about. You probably take
a bigger risk every time you drive on the highway.
An Exceedingly Ornery Critter --Have you ever noticed how all the
people who say you're obsessed suffer from a short attention span?--
John Hamilton McGrath
Journal stating:
A much higher percent of smoking lab rats, wearing double-knit leisure suits
died of lung cancer than the somewhat less sophisticated, non-smoking nudist
lab rats.
John
----------
In article <31340491...@blckhrse.clark.net>, "Jim Beard"
<j...@blckhrse.clark.net> wrote:
> On 09 Nov 1999, chad_pe...@my-deja.com wrote ...
>> Are you saying there is no scientific evidence to suggest that tobacco
>> is a carcinogen? Just want to clarify.
>
> A few decades back, a chemist did an exhaustive analysis of tobacco. He
> found around 475 substances he considered biologically active, and enough
> inert substances to bring the tally of chemical compounds to nearly ten
> times that number <snip>
Robert Michael Alexander / T.D.C.
> ...I read the Surgeon General's report before I
>>started smoking at the age of sixteen. Saying that their results
>>regarding the hazards of pipe smoking were "inconclusive" is
You gotta be B.S.'n right?
God, I have to meet you some day if this is true.... I mean it, I'll I
donno when, make a vacation to your area of the woods and converse.
Although I didn't read it, I have skimmed through a few parts of it
when I decided to start smoking, and that was in grade school.
------------
"If the jury feels that the law under wich the defendant is accused
is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of
the accused, OR FOR ANY REASON wich appeals to their logic or PASSION,
the jury has the power to aquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."
U.S. v. Moylan 417 F.2d 1002,1006 [Emphasis added]
[Empty]
richard bies
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Jim Beard wrote:
> On 09 Nov 1999, chad_pe...@my-deja.com wrote ...
> > Are you saying there is no scientific evidence to suggest that tobacco
> > is a carcinogen? Just want to clarify.
>
> A few decades back, a chemist did an exhaustive analysis of tobacco. He
> found around 475 substances he considered biologically active, and enough
> inert substances to bring the tally of chemical compounds to nearly ten
> times that number. Some of those substances, such as ammonia, were and
> are quite nasty in their effects on the human body. But people are
> constantly exposed to lots of things that are quite nasty in their effects
> on the human body. Try the nitric and sulphuric acid in the air, for
> example, along with the carbon monoxide.
>
> To date, no one has ever presented scientific proof that anything in
> tobacco, under the conditions in which it is commonly used, causes cancer
> or any other ailment. There is ample evidence that some of the things in
> tobacco, administered in sufficient quantity under conditions not
> resembling common use of tobacco, can do exceedingly nasty things. But
> that is not even sound evidence, much less proof, that use of tobacco has a
> causal relationship to cancer, artheriosclerosis or other circulatory or
> heart problem, or anything else.
>
Slight exception: tobacco smoke is found to contain traces of
nitrosamines, which are believed to be carcinogenic. (These are compounds
typically formed when meat is cooked over an open flame -- formed in
abundance. A hamburger grilled will swamp huge quantities of tobacco
smoke. Eating is obviously bad for your health -- but just living
guarantees death.....) But consider some of the distinguishing marks of
this species, and how we got here -- for nearly forty-thousand years,
[since the visit of Promethius?] we have cooked our food [consistently
enough that one of the only differences in basic behavior to have been
found between the wild wolf and the domestic dog is that the wolf prefers
his meat raw, the dog, cooked]. If nitrosamines were all <that>
dangerous, we wouldn't be here.
>
> There is a large and ever expanding corpus of statistical studies, alleged
> to link tobacco use to all sorts of adverse health effects. Apart from
> the fact that correlation is not a demonstration of causation (as any
> sophomore can tell you -- but P(iled)h(igher and)D(eepers) will dispute),
> careful review of the studies leaves one convinced that the only thing
> firmly established is that some people do not like tobacco and will
> misrepresent anything to disparage it.
>
One of the ploys of the antis is a reverbration of the old objection to
experimenatal science -- it is impossible to <prove> a negative (an
infinite number of runs would be necessary). Science -- and this species
-- runs on probability, not absolutes. The billions spent trying to show
nicotine to be a carcinogen, with failure to show the link, is as close to
<proof> of that negative as we get in this life. r.m.bies
Jim Beard
To: san...@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Cancer and smoking
Message-ID: <31453112...@blckhrse.clark.net>
Lance,
(and readers of a.s.p.)
Your piece below makes me wonder if you have simply swallowed whole
the propaganda of the anti-tobacco zealots, or if you are simply a bit
thick-headed, or if you are simply a very sophisticated troll. I am
generally not greatly impressed by those who would claim a higher
qualification by virtue of their medical education, and your piece gives
me no reason to reconsider my attitude.
As I may be perhaps too quick to attack on occasion, I am responding
on-group, and have deleted nothing from your missive's content, so our
respective views may be examined and judged by any who would care to do so.
On 10 Nov 99, Lance Sang <san...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
>Hello Jim,
>
> I wanted to reply to you off-group regarding female cancers and smoking.
> Don't know if you noticed my introduction to the group, but I am a recently
> retired gynecologist.
> (I'm not qualified to comment on bthe breast cancer part of your post)
A genuine specialist, I take it. When you have specialized to the point
you know everything about nothing, you may safely claim divine authority
for your assertions, as no one can disprove them for they are germane to
nothing and therefore untestable.
> A point of clarification is needed, and I think you'll not mind it, because
> you have the reputation of being a stickler for accuracy. (Amen to that.)
I am perhaps even more of a stickler for being honest about the limits to
accuracy, and in the uncertain world we live in those limits are often
onerous. But yes, when possible, I much prefer to be accurate.
> The incidence of *early stage* cervical cancer has indeed increased, but not
> the prevalence.
If I understand what you wrote in the above sentence, more women are
contracting cervical cancer, but more of them are being cured by one means
or another (perhaps by death), so the number with cervical cancer at any
given time has not increased.
I fail to see how this detracts from the assertion I made, that the
incidence of cervical cancer has been on an upswing. The "incidence" of a
disease is the number of new cases occurring per population unit (usually
per 100,000) per time unit (usually year). Prevalence depends on
incidence, on cure rate, and on the numbers afflicted/nonafflicted being
removed from the population by death. It is the number with the disease
per population unit at some specific point in time. But to recap my
starting line, when you say "the incidence...has indeed increased," you
have echoed what I said, slightly rephrased. The rest is irrelevant to my
assertion, quoted far below.
> The difference being that more women are routinely getting
> screened with Pap tests, and the disease is diagnosed early enough to enable
> a cure in the majority of women fortunate enough to have the diagnosis made
> at that early stage.
> In contrast, of all the women who are first diagnosed with more advanced, or
> even terminal disease, there are well done studies showing that this
> subgroup of women had not had the mass screening done that could have
> enabled early detection and treatment.
All of which has nothing to do with incidence of cervical cancer.
Incidence of *early detection* is a different subject entirely.
> Where am I going with this?
>
> With our societal problems as they are, lower socioeconomic groups still
> have the highest rates of advanced cervical cancer. Possibly due to
> decreased availability of the health care system and lack of effective
> education on the need for Pap testing.
>
> As you may know, there is a proven causal link between infection from HPV
> (Human PapillomaVirus) and the development of cervical cancer. HPV infection
> is found to be more common in women
> who had young age at first intercourse, as well as multiple partners at that
> young age.
>
> Interestingly, although there is not yet a proven causal relationship, there
> are suggestions that some populations with early intercourse and multiple
> partners, as well as lower socio-economic classes, do have higher rates of
> cigarette smoking as compared to other population groups.
Why do you write, "not yet a proven causal relationship"? Do you expect a
causal relationship to be proven? Why? What is there about early
intercourse that would cause cigarette smoking? Or vice versa? Or how
does lower socio-economic status cause or result from tobacco use? How
does this square with statistical data (of dubious import, granted)
that pipe smokers tend to be of higher socio-economic status than
average in the population? What is your purpose in lumping together age
of first intercourse, number of partners, socio-economic class, and
cigarettes as if association automatically entailed a finding of guilty
and execution by guillotine or something? (And yes, that was a
deliberately not_merely_mixed_but transmongrified metaphor.)
> There *may* be a cigarette-related risk factor involved, but likely not by a
> direct route.
And pigs *may* someday sprout wings and fly, but nothing you have cited
allows a plausible inference to the assertion you have just made.
> Sorry if this sounded like a lecture, but this stuff fascinates me, and I
> thought you might be interested as well.
>
> Comments are invited.
May I suggest you start exercising your ability to think and digest
information while ingesting verbiage on such subjects. And especially
prior to regurgitating it before others.
> Best.
> Lance
If this is your best, please spare me your worst.
And did you really mean what you wrote? Or were your intentions honorable
but your efforts somehow a less than clear exposition of what you wanted to
say?
> Jim Beard <j...@blckhrse.clark.net> wrote in message
> news:<31302082...@blckhrse.clark.net>...
> <snip>
> But how does one explain the continuing increased incidence of breast and
> > cervical cancer, that has been on the upswing for decades now? And surely
> > the "good physicians" are not going to blame those problems on tobacco.
> > Unless women have found some unique and nonobvious manner of enjoying the
> > leaf!
> >
> > And further, per capita tobacco use in the U.S. actually has been
> > declining since the mid-1960s, when the first Sturgeon General's report on
> > smoking was published. But the incidence of cancer and circulatory system
> > problems and other problems blamed on tobacco use continues to climb.
> > Now, I can understand a delay in the effects of reduced tobacco
> > consumption showing up in the effects arena, but over 30 years of delay
> > and the effects expected are still not showing up? Makes one wonder if
> the
> > claimed causual relationship was there to begin with....
Roger
products in the paper and in the actual cigarette to help them burn. These
chemicals have a known effect on laboratory animals to produce cancer, one
type of cancer is gynecological.
HPV also produces gynecological cancers. The two are only related if the
young females who are having sex at too early an age with too many partners
smoke a cigarette after each intercourse. At that rate a pack a day for
twenty years will kill ya, but you would probally die of exhaustion before.
Smoking some Veermaster (slowler now after I got dizzy)
Roger
<chad_pe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:80dfik$1f3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Now, what precisely is your question? And your intention in asking
> it?
> > And don't hand me the "Just want to clarify" bullshit. Your phrasing
> is
> > far too careful, and too carefully crafted to put a twist on it's
> > implication, to be evidence of a simple desire for clarity.
>
> Er, Jim, why so defensive? I can assure you I did not sit and "craft"
> my phrasing carefully. Just wanted to get your opinion.
>
> The "bullshit" comment was uncalled for.
Mike Gervais
intellectually, but I *must* chime in here. Lance is liked *and* respected
within our circle. The egregious snarl below is most disappointing. Send an
apology to Lance via private email. If he is half the gentleman you are he
will post it to the group for all to see.
baeo...@leru.net
Jim Beard wrote:
--
B. Rhodes Sr.
'One of the reasons Arnie (Arnold Palmer) is playing so well is
that, before each tee-shot,
his wife takes out his balls and kisses them - Oh my God, what have
I just said?'
(USTV commentator)
Joshua Rosenblatt
<ducking>
Joshua Rosenblatt
I would like to publicly state that in my brief conversations with Lance in
email, he has shown himself to be both intelligent, friendly, open-minded and
good natured. In this newsgroup I have come to respect and admire not only his
taste in pipes and tobaccos (of course, they are very similar to mine, he he
he) but also the attitude with which he expresses himself. I can say the
same about many in this newsgroup, IMNSHO, we are some of the finest people on
the internet as a whole. I for one would hate to see Lance (or anyone else
here) shirk away from expressing his opinions - whether based on experience or
not - on ANY subject brought up in this newsgroup.
I have not been on this newsgroup very long compared to most; I was first
introduced in July of this year and in such a short time I have learned an
immense amount about not only pipes & tobacco, but many more subjects to
boot. I have been pleased by the nature of the group and the genuinely good
nature of the vast majority of it's posters. I am saddened to see us, a group
so sensitive to trolls and the like, to regress into what seems to me to be
petty bickering and name calling.
Furthermore, I believe (whether you agree or not) that this newsgroup is more
than just a forum to simply discuss pipes, tobaccos and pipe related topics...
though I have learned tremendously from many of you about such subjects, and
thoroughly enjoy those particular threads. I tend to view ASP as an online
pipe club; a place for pipe smokers to meet, gather and discuss whatever topics
arise. Imagine if you will:
<fade in> We are all sitting in a comfortable, dimly lit room surrounded by
books, pleasant artwork, oriental rugs under our outstretched feet, and perhaps
a little Coltrane or maybe Gershwin as some backdrop muzak. Dozens upon dozens
of us are relaxing together, reclining in our big, soft naugahyde chairs
enjoying our favorite blends and our favorite beverages while enjoying a myriad
of conversations. <cut to jeff Schwartz tamping the ash in his corncob, is it
CVS Burley or 3 Nuns?> Dozens of conversations springing up in various
corners of the warm and welcoming room, many friendships are forming. <cut to
Robert Crim donating an Aldo Velani to a slightly intimidated newcomer> Some
of us are discussing the aging of tobaccos, other's recount fond memories of
pipes past, the topics revolve and evolve into a vast amalgamation of
knowledge, experience and opinion...as we slowly and truly enjoy the tobaccos
of our choice. <cut to Robert Alexander slowly stroking his Meerschaum, which
we can only assume is filled with Veermaster, as his wife looks on in envy>
One corner is discussing stereotypes, another the joys of latakia or perique,
or Janet Reno, or Mastro De Paja grading, various historical figures, Grecian
vs Sardinian briar, existentialism, the latest pipe show, flyfishing, the
newest reissued tobacco, health issues, the virtues of everclear, JRR Tolkien,
the history of Charatan, etc. etc. etc. <pan into tranquil smoke cloud in
center of room, a large smoke ring climbing through it, a la Colonel Panic>
Suddenly, in one of the back corners the discussion regresses to intellectual
masturbation and soon rises to the point of screaming and, eventually, into
verbal abuse -a bit of name calling, begins...then quickly settles down due to
the obvious consternation of the surrounding gentlefolk.. Soon, another
corner breaks out with cries of prejudice, lack of sensitivity and accusations
of being (aghast) "obtuse". Simultaneously, a member is chastised for
selecting an unwarranted topic. <cut to a wet and tarry pipecleaner being
removed from a Nording's stem> A few minutes later, in the middle of the
room, one of us is loudly reprimanded for some unclear transgression against
another, who is then belittled by several spectators to the outburst. <pan
across room, several arguments seen while most members look around in awe and
objection> Before long, the soft, warm din of our friendly conversations is
slowly being overrun by egotistical displays and petty bickering. A
nationalist frenzy breaks out on the left side of the room, a bipartisan debate
on the right....a few drinks get spilled and an ottoman is aggressively kicked
over. <cut to several dirty pipecleaners in ashtray> A few fine folks
stand up from their comfortable chairs, look around in distaste and walk out.
My Dorchester is smoking to hot, I place it on the table to let it cool and
turn to Mike Gervais and Robert Peterson, we continue discussing ebay's latest
snafu. Damn, I cannot hear them anymore. <cut to record skipping on
turntable> The chatter gets louder... I gather my pipe, baccy and
lighter....grab my suede-patched tweed coat... pull up my trousers (oops, I
forgot my suspenders) and bid farewell. "See y'all tomorrow ...." <fade
out>
Lance Sang wrote:
> To the group:
>
> I sent the original mail -privately- to Jim Beard, and he responded
> privately, but, for reasons that are unclear to me, he chose to post this
> private mail to our public forum as well.
>
> I've not been around the group long enough to know what the etiquette is on
> this issue, if there is any.
>
> Jim's reply to me was answered by me, privately, in what I considered to be
> a satisfactory, polite, manner.
> If he disagrees with this statement, I'm certain that he will notify you of
> his feelings.
>
> I look forward to discussing issues such as the qualities of different pipes
> and tobaccos in this group, but you may be absolutely certain that there
> will be no more posting by me on other issues, i.e. health-related, that
> might generate another apparent surge of emotions from this respected, long
> time member of asp.
>
> No further comments come to mind, except to express, as I did to Jim, my
> amazement over the intensity and emotion of his reply to me.
>
> Thank you
> Lance
>
> Jim Beard <j...@blckhrse.clark.net> wrote in message
> news:31424492...@blckhrse.clark.net...
Aaron Munn
tobacco contains the most, I have read, and flue-cured contains the least.
Usually, tobacco with less nicotine has less nitrosamines, because there is
less nitrogen in the leaf to start with.
There was a thread a while back about "Star-cure" that uses microwaves during
curing to eliminate most of the nitrosamines.
chad_pe...@my-deja.com
Lance Sang
I sent the original mail -privately- to Jim Beard, and he responded
privately, but, for reasons that are unclear to me, he chose to post this
private mail to our public forum as well.
I've not been around the group long enough to know what the etiquette is on
this issue, if there is any.
Jim's reply to me was answered by me, privately, in what I considered to be
a satisfactory, polite, manner.
If he disagrees with this statement, I'm certain that he will notify you of
his feelings.
I look forward to discussing issues such as the qualities of different pipes
and tobaccos in this group, but you may be absolutely certain that there
will be no more posting by me on other issues, i.e. health-related, that
might generate another apparent surge of emotions from this respected, long
time member of asp.
No further comments come to mind, except to express, as I did to Jim, my
amazement over the intensity and emotion of his reply to me.
Thank you
Lance
Jim Beard <j...@blckhrse.clark.net> wrote in message
news:31424492...@blckhrse.clark.net...
Michael G. Duran
> Lance,
> (and readers of a.s.p.)
>
> Your piece below makes me wonder if you have simply swallowed whole
> the propaganda of the anti-tobacco zealots, or if you are simply a bit
> thick-headed, or if you are simply a very sophisticated troll. I am
> generally not greatly impressed by those who would claim a higher
> qualification by virtue of their medical education, and your piece gives
> me no reason to reconsider my attitude.
Wow, and Lance was accused of being a troll....
[snicker]
Michael
Anton Botes
Joshua Rosenblatt wrote in message <382A6C5D...@pacbell.net>...
>
> <SNIP>........
>....................................<SNIP>
Nice turn of phrase you got, Joshua.
Well. Yes, seems like tempers are a bit touchy, lately. It's a pity, since I
think most of the acrimony could have been avoided. Still, I think the most
important thing is that no grudges should be held. This is by far the most
civilized, polite newsgroup I have encountered, and it holds a wealth of
knowledge that would be a pity to lose. In the course of browsing through
the articles in the group, you come to ..appreciate.. the writings of some
contributors, and are amazed at the knowledge displayed. This said, everyone
has something to contribute, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
If these opinions are based on incorrect facts, in your opinion, all you can
do is TRY to argue about it. Live and let live.
BTW, one day I would really like to be able to smoke a Dunhill just to find
out for myself if it really smokes better than a, say, Peterson. Heh. Just a
personal curiosity.
Cheers
Anton Botes
Robert Crim
Great read!! Sounds like a typical night in a pub or in an old
colonial tavern. I'm keeping it for old times sake. Care to describe
the characters in there?
Robert
Jeff Schwartz
I don't think I have to tell you how much I respect you, your experience and
the knowledge that you graciously share with us here on asp. In this light I
am somewhat taken aback by the tone of your post and your reaction to
Lance's opinions. I am not saying that you aren't entitled to disagree, even
strongly, with the opinions expressed by another member of our fine group.
But to question the integrity of a respected member is another thing
altogether. Everyone has the right to have a bad day so I will attribute
this to that.
--
Jeff Schwartz
Remove nospam to reply
--
Jim Beard <j...@blckhrse.clark.net> wrote in message
news:31424492...@blckhrse.clark.net...
Jim Beard
> Jim,
> I don't think I have to tell you how much I respect you, your experience and
> the knowledge that you graciously share with us here on asp. In this light I
Jeff's response seems to be a fair sample of a.s.p. opinion on my reply to
Lance, so perhaps I should elaborate a bit more on why the tone and
attitude is what it is. Luckily, I still have not sent my response to
Lance's second missive, and it will do nicely, so this and my e-mail to
Lance (below) will go out together.
Cheers!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
j...@blckhrse.clark.net
UNIX is not user-unfriendly. It merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 99 17:25:27 -0400
From: "Jim Beard" <j...@blckhrse.clark.net>
To: san...@worldnet.att.net
On 11 Nov 99, Lance Sang <san...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
> I'm really sorry you took any meaning to my mail other than that which was
> intended.
Lance,
I first started to respond to what I "thought" you meant in your message,
but trying to translate what you actually wrote into what I thought you
meant and then reply to that in coherent fashion without engendering
confusion on the part of any third party who might read the response
proved to be too much of a chore. I took the simple way out, and
addressed what you wrote, and I did find a great deal I did not like in
that.
> I don't think I'm 'thickheaded', and I am new enough to using newsgroups
> that I am just now learning what trolls are. If you consider me to be in
> that category, you are badly mistaken.
I truly hope this is the case.
> Your phrase regarding divine authority is taken by me as a misguided insult;
> you may have had experiences with doctors who either tried to project a
> divine image, or have yourself deified them.
You first cite your standing as a retired gynecologist, presumably as a
means of establishing your bona fides for information to follow. And then
you declare yourself not qualified to comment on the breast cancer issue.
Implicitly, you have declared that I am not qualified to comment on
either. If one is qualified by medical training and experience as a
gynecologist to comment on cervical cancer, but this does not qualify one
to comment on breast cancer, how can one such as myself not qualified by
medical training and suitable specialized experience be qualified to
comment on either?
The implicit arrogance of such assertions offends me, as I have found much
evidence that the medical profession is as likely to be wrong in its
beliefs about the nature of the human body as those outside the
profession, and far too often unhesitant to use its unwarranted status in
furtherance of actions detrimental to health in general.
I have heard it cogently argued that on balance, the medical profession
consistently did more harm than good from the time of Hippocrates until
well into the 20th Century. And it was not greater knowledge or skill on
the part of physicians that tipped the balance the other way but the
introduction of new pharmaceuticals (the sulfa drugs, or penicillin,
depending on which medical historian's judgment you accept).
The fellow presenting the argument was an MD, and a medical historian,
who had rendered long and honorable service in the medical services office
of the Central Intelligence Agency. The last is at least prima facie
evidence the man is neither lacking in integrity nor a deliberate liar,
and he held that the views he had expressed were universally accepted and
considered patently true among historians of medicine.
Beyond that, the track record of physicians in the latter half of this
century is not exactly unblemished. In the U.S. in particular, this
nation is spending over 10 percent of GNP on medical services and
products, and my personal estimation is that we are badly served.
The list of medical practices initially prohibited and later adopted when
use outside the U.S. demonstrated their effectiveness, the vast suffering
inflicted on ulcer sufferers by standard treatments into the 1990s when all
that was needed for most was eradication of a bacterium inhabiting the
lining of the duodenum and stomach, the list of medical procedures and
products enthusiastically adopted by MDs and later prohibited or abandoned
when the predictable results materialized, all provide evidence that the
medical profession knows much less than it professes and is not reluctant
to inflict damage or undertake risky procedures of no evident value so long
as it collects a hefty fee for doing so.
The medical profession's pronouncements on tobacco are just one more
demonstration of ignorance on the part of a profession that is far more
ignorant than it is willing to admit, perhaps even to itself.
> I can't be held responsible for your experiences, but I am truly amazed at
> your reaction to my post to you. You don't know me at all, and I put nothing
> in that post that could rationally be taken by the reader to infer that I
> had this high opinion of myself - I know I don't.
You write as if you do. Perhaps it is not intended; merely unthinking
arrogance. But if so, my comment on thick-headedness pertains.
> In previous posts about tobacco-health related subjects, I made it clear
> that I was not an anti-smoking zealot, but rather a smoker for all my adult
> life, who, in my role as a physician, did not assume the knee-jerk anti
> reaction that is all too common, but I have rather informed about the known,
> as well as the unknown risk factors to my patients. Please recall that I
> practiced in a population of younger women, many of whom were, or were
> planning on being pregnant.
>
> If you want to see true confusion, look at some of the papers regarding
> tobacco use in pregnancy - there is so much controversy / fact vs. myth, and
> added to that, there is the emotional issue of what actions of the mother
> *might* affect her baby.
>
> But I did not mention that in my post to you. I clearly stated that there
> were "associations", and not proven causal relationships. My thrust was
> really to inform you that those who assert positively that smoking is a
> causative agent in cervical cancer -may- have a tenuous link, but there is
> no direct relationship known.
I am highly scornful of "associations" postulated or even observed, in the
absense of evidence that there is or plausibly may be in fact some type of
causal relationship. If "guilt by association" is to be the accepted
manner of judging things, we are all in terrible straits, in all areas of
life and not just those pertaining to tobacco and its use.
> I believe that I also noted that these issues fascinate me, because they
> defy the order, the science, the proven facts, etc. that are accepted in
> general medicine.
> For example, nobody will dispute that diabetics are at great risk for blood
> vessel disease, kidney disease, and visual problems -- all that has been
> proven beyond any doubt.
>
> My post was nothing more than what I felt to be an interesting observation,
> not yet proven, nor likely to be proven anytime soon, if at all.
> Interesting, to me, but somehow I incurred your wrath.
Interesting observations, of association where there is no evidence of any
causal relationship, and indeed where a priori there is no reason to
suspect there is likely to be any causal relationship, that further
associates tobacco with adverse effects, does indeed incur my wrath.
It is the sort of thing I expect from the more sophisticated of the
anti-tobacco zealots, but not the sort of foolishness I am inclined to
suffer gladly.
> I truly have enjoyed the factual posts that you have put on asp, and, even
> as an old hand at pipe smoking myself, I've learned from you, and have
> looked forward to seeing your opinions on pipe and tobacco issues. Your
> dissemination of knowledge to the newer smokers is admirable.
>
> I will continue to look forward to reading your posts, but, my friend, I
> think I will withdraw from sending simple posts on medical issues that
> interest me - they are obviously too provocative, without my having intended
> them to be so.
>
> Best,
> Lance
And by the by, as you did not contest it, I take it I did interpret your
key sentence on cervical cancer correctly, that the incidence of it
(number of those contracting the disease per time period per population
unit) is in fact increasing. If that is true, my assertion that started
off this whole thing stands, as originally written.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Beard [mailto:j...@blckhrse.clark.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 7:52 PM
> To: san...@worldnet.att.net
>
>
> Lance,
>
> Your piece below makes me wonder if you have simply swallowed whole the
> propaganda of the anti-tobacco zealots, or if you are simply a bit
> thick-headed, or if you are simply a very sophisticated troll. I am
> generally not greatly impressed by those who would claim a higher
> qualification by virtue of their medical education, and your piece gives
> me no reason to reconsider my attitude.
>
> As I may be perhaps too quick to attack on occasion, I am responding
> on-group as well as direct, so our respective views may be examined and
> judged by any who would care to do so.
>
> On 10 Nov 99, Lance Sang <san...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
> deliberately not merely mixed but transmongrified metaphor.)
**----------- Included file [LANCE.TXT] ends here ----------**
Dan Paden
find out for myself if it really smokes better than a, say, Peterson.
Heh. Just a personal curiosity."
I would hesitate to claim much authority for my opinion, as I own but
one Dunhill and only two Petes, but it seems to me that there is a
slight difference in taste without there necessarily being a difference
in quality. The difference in taste is so slight that I am not, to this
minute, 100% convinced that it is not a figment of my imagination.
Perhaps I just have a tin tongue.
Lance Sang
thanks for their support:
I have again replied privately to Mr. Beard.
There are only two comments that I would like to make public:
1) Mr. Beard appears to be actively trying to make asp an inhospitable place
for me. He will not succeed.
2) As I told Mr. Beard privately, my killfile now has its second occupant.
Cheers!
Lance
Jim Beard <j...@blckhrse.clark.net> wrote in message
news:31556191...@blckhrse.clark.net...
> On 11 Nov 1999, "Jeff Schwartz" <ja...@nospamix.netcom.com> wrote ...
> > Jim,
> > I don't think I have to tell you how much I respect you, your experience
and
> > the knowledge that you graciously share with us here on asp. In this
light I
> > am somewhat taken aback by the tone of your post and your reaction...
>
> Jeff's response seems to be a fair sample of a.s.p. opinion on my reply to
> Lance, so perhaps I should elaborate a bit more on why the tone and
> attitude is what it is. Luckily, I still have not sent my response to
> Lance's second missive, and it will do nicely, so this and my e-mail to
> Lance (below) will go out together.
>
> Cheers!
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> j...@blckhrse.clark.net
> UNIX is not user-unfriendly. It merely
> expects users to be computer-friendly.
<large, well-warranted snip>
kt...@my-deja.com
I'm not sure anything you wrote is even worthy of a response. Clearly
you have utter distain for the medical profession for some reason, and
you are letting your intense emotions cloud any objective judgement you
once had. You spin a good yarn, but do not back anything up with
facts. You seem fascinated with small, anecdotal studies you claim took
place "decades ago", while you ignore the mountains of large, very well
designed, prospective studies that have been published in the last 20
years. Clearly you have not read any of them, and are incapable of
understanding their results.
I find your gross generalizations about the medical profession as a
whole to be assinine, and they way you discredit everybody other than
yourself to be distasteful. How is it that everybody else in the world
is always wrong (no matter what their qualifications) and you are
always right?
rpe...@mindspring.com
take the difference between what a Dunhill would cost and what you
would spend for another brand of nice pipe. Invest it in some Cognac
and enjoy that.
thursto...@my-deja.com
> Beyond that, the track record of physicians in the latter half of this
> century is not exactly unblemished. In the U.S. in particular, this
> nation is spending over 10 percent of GNP on medical services and
> products, and my personal estimation is that we are badly served.
I must say, Jim, the arrogance you display with your assertions that
the medical profession does more harm than good is truly astounding.
You appear to be the most naive person posting on this newsgroup. If
not for doctors and the medical profession who would take care of the
life thereatening afflictions to which all of us are subject? Would
you rush in to the hospital at 3 am to perform an appendectomy on a
deathly ill child? Will you be the one resuscitating that mother of
three who just got hit by a drunk driver and is now in hemodynamic
shock from a shattered spleen? Is it you who would perform the
emergency cesarian section to save the life of an unborn child? Are
you willing to take on the responsibility of removing a colon cancer
that has developed in a middle aged father of five? Do you even
realize that others benefit from such treatment, or are you so plumb
with yourself that you cannot see beyond your leather smoking chair?
Sit back,light your pipe, and let the rest of society shoulder the
burden. I'm sure the 3 year old child dying of leukemia would love to
hear one of your tall tales.
Jim Beard
> I must say, Jim, the arrogance you display with your assertions that
> the medical profession does more harm than good is truly astounding.
The assertion that the medical profession did -- on balance, over all --
more harm than good until well into the 20th Century came from a medical
historian and an MD. My comment is that the profession's track record is
not exactly unblemished since that time.
I will grant that doctors have been doing good things since the time of
Hippocrates, and even before. But they have also been doing damage,
regularly and routinely. Consider some of the examples you posed.
appendectomy on a deathly ill child -- I can match that to a grandfather
dead because an MD did not recognize the difference between a problem with
a gall bladder and a problem with an appendix. By the time he operated
and found his mistake, gangrene had set in, and in the 1930s that usually
was, and in this case definitely was, fatal. Perhaps grandpa would have
been done for in any case, but the "treatment" given encouraged him to
remain physically active when rest might have allowed his body's natural
defenses to overcome the problem.
shattered spleen -- not in good shape, regardless of modern medical
science, and description of how the damage was done is nicely inflammatory
but irrelevant to the merits of the medical profession.
emergency cesarian to save an unborn child? -- how many medical doctors
are performing how many abortions each and every day to _take_ the lives of
unborn children? Any bets on how many are saved versus how many are
killed Monday through Friday?
child dying of leukemia -- Your wording says it all. dying. Not
"recovering due to the miracles of modern medicine." And the doctors most
likely will do little to prolong it, and nothing to make it easier or more
pleasant, though they may well administer an experimental "course of
treatment" having exactly the opposite effect..
And while the medical profession has officially sanctioned the "War on
Drugs" you might find it interesting to check the numbers on the tons of
tranquilizers and other mind-altering drugs prescribed by the medical
profession each year. Some of that undoubtably has good effects, but the
aggregate damage from legally prescribed but unnecessary use of
psychotropic drugs in the U.S. may well rival the damage from the illegal
ones, though the latter gets more attention due to the illegality and
associated circumstances. But if you have paid off the medical profession
and have the receipt in tangible form as a prescription, you may get high
and experience the pleasure with impunity!
To sum up, rather than continue all day, I recognize that doctors and
para-medics and nurses and others with medical training can and do do good
things. I also recognize that not all they do is good, and that those
who specialize in medical history will tell you that for most of recorded
history the damage outweighed the good. And I question if the aggregate
balance has changed all that much in recent decades.
A few hundred years from now, medical historians may well be looking back
and wondering how the medical profession in the late 20th Century could
have been so far off track on so many "treatments" inflicted on its
patients. Even judged based on what we already know, today, could it be
that the incidence of malpractice suits and the cost to doctors of
malpractice insurance is not _entirely_ due to a judicial system
dysfunctional in dealing with medical malpractice?
And to put this on topic for this news group, my distrust of the medical
profession in general does indeed extend to distrust of its pronouncements
on tobacco and uses thereof. Tobacco may well have some harmful effects,
but most everything in life may have some harmful effects, in some way or
under some circumstances. I know from personal experience that tobacco
has beneficial effects, that the medical profession scorns. And
misjudgments delivered by the medical profession do have consequences I
find repugnant, with respect to both tobacco and other matters.
To phrase it differently: Physician, heal thyself of thy many
sicknesses, before labeling my fondness for tobacco a sickness.
thursto...@my-deja.com
Seems pretty obvious to everybody, without you pointing it out, that no
one person or profession is perfect.
It also seems obvious that your strong emotional bias against the
medical profession has to do with the death of your grandfather in the
1930's, and your love for tobacco in the 1990's. If that is the case,
so be it, but do not profess to be some kind of expert on anything to
do with medicine or the medical profession. You are forgetting that
medicine has advanced by leaps and bounds in the last 30 years, let
alone this century. One misdiagnosis by a doctor in the 1930s, before
the time of sophisticated imaging, diagnostic and treatment modalities
has little to do with the way things are done today.
I suggest you stick to threads that at least fall into the realm of
something that you may understand and appreciate: tobacco. You have
stated that you do not have an MD or a PHd, and it is clear that you
have neither the academic or professional background to engage in a
debate on the merits of modern medicine or medical research. I doubt
whether you have EVER read a medical juornal, let alone any of the
hundreds of recent papers on the effect of smoking on health. All your
responses are based on anecdotes of things that may have happened
decades ago, or things that unnamed experts have told you. You are not
a man of science who strives to contribute to society in a positive
way, but rather an armchair philosopher who seems content to sit back
and criticise, while others break their backs to further humanity.
BS is an easy dish to serve up, and you have given us all a very large
helping.
Dan Paden
Robert Michael Alexander / T.D.C.
I have to agree with you, Jim, as you are most accurate
in your statements, as I will agree there would be NO other COUNRTY
on this PLANET at this time where I would feel more at ease
in a Life-death situation but none by that would I want to place my
body in the hands of our Medical so called Profession...
I agree with your statements as I have found them to be true and
correct,,,
I also stand by awaiting the Firing Squad next to you on this point.
----------
"Those who would trade freedom for security,
deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin
[Empty]
Robert Michael Alexander / T.D.C.
as the consular representative of the Tesas Republic in
Houston at the West side.
They must step 50 paces turn and hold fire 'til a
virgin drops a handkerchief [and they must use dis-infected bullets]
heheheh heheheh eheheheh haaaa haahahahahah ahahahahahah ahahhhah
>On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:15:24 -0500, "Jeff Schwartz" <ja...@nospamix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>This is not addressed to any particular poster so...
Just a group of posters? huh!?
>>
>>My fellow aspers, this certainly has been an emotionally charged thread.
Why? I'm just getting aroused
>>There is no mistake about that. I truly believe that both Jim and Lance are
>>gentlemen with high degrees of integrity and both harbor strong passions for
>>our wonderful hobby. We should honor their integrity and our common passion
>>for the pipe and tobacco and not make matters worse. There is no need to
>>impugn the integrity of anyone even if we strongly disagree with either of
>>their opinions.
>>
>>My hope is that Jim and Lance will work out their differences in an amicable
>>manner that honors both their standings in our fine group. Towards that
>>goal, we should encourage them to do so.
No one NEEDs to work out differences, they each have their own
viewpoint... let the games continue!~AMEN.
>>
>>Enough from me.
>>
>>Smoking CVS Golden Burley in a fugly :)
>>--
>>Jeff Schwartz
>>Remove nospam to reply
>>--
>>
>>
The original colonies were established by separate charters from
the Crown of England. When each colony severed its ties with England,
they became a legally separate and independent sovereign nation.
-Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. 209
[Empty]
Robert Michael Alexander / T.D.C.
next disagreement comes along.
heeeeheeeee heeeheeeheee heeheehee hehehehehehe hehehe hehehe hehe hee
heee heeehheheheheheheheheheh ee eee hheeeeeehhheee heheheh ehheeh
hehe ehehehehehe eheh eh eeh eh ehhehhe ehe heh ehehehehehheheheheh
ooohhhhhh houwouha haaa haaa heheahahaaa
-----
There has been created a fictional Federal "state within a state"
- Howard v. Commissioners of Sinking Fund U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct 465, 476
-See also 31 C.F.R. Part 51.2 wich identifies a fictional state
**and this fictional "STATE" is identified by the use of two letter
**abbreviations like CA, TX, LA as distinguished from the authorized
**abbreviations like Calif., Tex., La.
[Empty]
kt...@my-deja.com
> appendectomy on a deathly ill child -- I can match that to a
grandfather
> dead because an MD did not recognize the difference between a problem
with
> a gall bladder and a problem with an appendix. By the time he
operated
> and found his mistake, gangrene had set in, and in the 1930s that
usually
> was, and in this case definitely was, fatal.
Well, Jim, without the doctors, EVERYBODY with appendicitis would die,
including the young child in the example.
> shattered spleen -- not in good shape, regardless of modern medical
> science, and description of how the damage was done is nicely
inflammatory
> but irrelevant to the merits of the medical profession.
Totally untrue. Do you not realize, as most people do, that a patient
with a shattered spleen will die without an emergent operation? Such a
procedure could not be done without modern medicine.
> emergency cesarian to save an unborn child? -- how many medical
doctors
> are performing how many abortions each and every day to _take_ the
lives of
> unborn children? Any bets on how many are saved versus how many are
> killed Monday through Friday?
How does one woman chosing to have an abortion negate the fact that a
dedicated obstetrician saved the life of an unborn baby and his/her
mother? If you are refering to balances, I think it is pretty obvious
that obstetricians deliver far more babies than are aborted. All
obstetricians deliver babies, most do not perform abortions. If you
knew anything about the medical profession you would have known that.
> child dying of leukemia -- Your wording says it all. dying. Not
> "recovering due to the miracles of modern medicine." And the doctors
most
> likely will do little to prolong it, and nothing to make it easier or
more
> pleasant, though they may well administer an experimental "course of
> treatment" having exactly the opposite effect..
News flash, Jim, leukemia is a curable disease, thanks to modern
medicine. Also,are you totally oblivious to the fact that doctors play
a crucial role in palliation? In fact, palliative care is a distinct
specialty.
> And while the medical profession has officially sanctioned the "War on
> Drugs" you might find it interesting to check the numbers on the tons
of
> tranquilizers and other mind-altering drugs prescribed by the medical
> profession each year. Some of that undoubtably has good effects, but
the
> aggregate damage from legally prescribed but unnecessary use of
> psychotropic drugs in the U.S. may well rival the damage from the
illegal
> ones, though the latter gets more attention due to the illegality and
> associated circumstances. But if you have paid off the medical
profession
> and have the receipt in tangible form as a prescription, you may get
high
> and experience the pleasure with impunity!
You are not qualified to judge whether or not any or all patients on
such drugs required them fo serious medical conditions. Whao is it
that is paying off the medical profession anyways?
> To sum up, rather than continue all day, I recognize that doctors and
> para-medics and nurses and others with medical training can and do do
good
> things. I also recognize that not all they do is good, and that those
> who specialize in medical history will tell you that for most of
recorded
> history the damage outweighed the good.
Please provide names and references as to which medical historians
believe this, and where they have published their beliefs.
I agree with the previous poster. Please stick to topics that you
actually know something about, you may find that people will actually
listen to your opinions if you do.
jd...@gte.net
thurstonhowell+AEA-my-deja.com wrote in message +ADw-80i2ge+ACQ-d8e+ACQ-1+AEA-nnrp1.deja.com+AD4-...
+AD4-Jim,
+AD4-
+AD4-Seems pretty obvious to everybody, without you pointing it out, that no
+AD4-one person or profession is perfect.
+AD4-
+AD4-It also seems obvious that your strong emotional bias against the
+AD4-medical profession has to do with the death of your grandfather in the
+AD4-1930's, and your love for tobacco in the 1990's. If that is the case,
+AD4-so be it, but do not profess to be some kind of expert on anything to
+AD4-do with medicine or the medical profession. You are forgetting that
+AD4-medicine has advanced by leaps and bounds in the last 30 years, let
+AD4-alone this century. One misdiagnosis by a doctor in the 1930s, before
+AD4-the time of sophisticated imaging, diagnostic and treatment modalities
+AD4-has little to do with the way things are done today.
+AD4-
+AD4-I suggest you stick to threads that at least fall into the realm of
+AD4-something that you may understand and appreciate: tobacco. You have
+AD4-stated that you do not have an MD or a PHd, and it is clear that you
+AD4-have neither the academic or professional background to engage in a
+AD4-debate on the merits of modern medicine or medical research. I doubt
+AD4-whether you have EVER read a medical juornal, let alone any of the
+AD4-hundreds of recent papers on the effect of smoking on health. All your
+AD4-responses are based on anecdotes of things that may have happened
+AD4-decades ago, or things that unnamed experts have told you. You are not
+AD4-a man of science who strives to contribute to society in a positive
+AD4-way, but rather an armchair philosopher who seems content to sit back
+AD4-and criticise, while others break their backs to further humanity.
+AD4-
+AD4-BS is an easy dish to serve up, and you have given us all a very large
+AD4-helping.
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4-Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
+AD4-Before you buy.
Jeff Schwartz
My fellow aspers, this certainly has been an emotionally charged thread.
There is no mistake about that. I truly believe that both Jim and Lance are
gentlemen with high degrees of integrity and both harbor strong passions for
our wonderful hobby. We should honor their integrity and our common passion
for the pipe and tobacco and not make matters worse. There is no need to
impugn the integrity of anyone even if we strongly disagree with either of
their opinions.
My hope is that Jim and Lance will work out their differences in an amicable
manner that honors both their standings in our fine group. Towards that
goal, we should encourage them to do so.
Enough from me.
Smoking CVS Golden Burley in a fugly :)
Lance Sang
As far as I am concerned, the matter is already dropped.
I've already posted my feelings, and I truly wish to hear no more on the
subject of Mr. Beard's conflict with me.
Thanks again to the asp people who have defended me, both in public and
private posts.
As they say, Enough Already, Dammit!
Let's have everybody get off this thread and go back to pipes and tobaccos.
<BG>
Lance
Jeff Schwartz <ja...@nospamix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:80jv9p$jo9$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
Joshua Rosenblatt
he he he