Lambton Health Unit must get their "facts" from Bawb!
Fuming Mad
"Second-hand smoke increases the risk of serious illness, particularly
heart disease and lung cancer. It is responsible for over 5000 deaths
per year in Canada"
I'll remind everyone that the Canadian Cancer Society's website clearly
quotes **330 estimated** deaths. But I guess Lambton doesn't want to be
under fire since they didn't reference Health Canada like LYING SACK OF
SHIT Bawb mistakingly did.
--
_________________________________________________
"Fuming Mad scores a technical win in his claim that you lie." --- David
MacLean, referring to Lying Bawb on can.talk.smoking, November 9, 2001
"Well, I can vouch for Mr. Broughton and myself. We may well be
assholes..." --- Lech K. Lesiak, aka, Leech The Lying Sack of Shit, on
behalf of Bawb 'Rediculous' Broughton:
mailto:rbro...@broughton.ca rbro...@broughton.ca
mailto:b...@broughton.ca b...@broughton.ca
mailto:rbro...@smartt.com rbro...@smartt.com
(can.talk.smoking; Aug. 12, 2001)
>>>> Shut up, Bawb.
>>>
>>> Eat me.
>>
>> HAHAHHAHAAHHAHAA... still working on your study of blowjobs, Bawb?
>> Sounds like you're "broadening" the scope of your study... :P
>>
> Are you volunteering to participate?
(can.talk.smoking; Aug. 28, 2001)
"the Justice Department contends smokers did not realize that cigarettes
were hazardous. This is undoubtedly true of a certain type of smoker;
namely, the type of smoker whose brain has been removed with a melon
scoop"
(Dave Barry; October 24, 1999)
"Big Tobacco" is little more than authorized tax collectors...
"I've never been impressed by claims that someone want's to quit, but
can't. Bullshit. As long as your desire to smoke exceeds your desire to
quit, you'll smoke. The moment your desire to quite exceeds your desire
to smoke, you can quit. This ain't rocket science." -- Dave Hitt,
alt.smokers, Nov. 4, 2001
Robert Broughton
> http://www.lambtonhealth.on.ca/smoking/second.asp
>
> "Second-hand smoke increases the risk of serious illness, particularly
> heart disease and lung cancer. It is responsible for over 5000 deaths
> per year in Canada"
>
> I'll remind everyone that the Canadian Cancer Society's website clearly
> quotes **330 estimated** deaths.
I'll remind everyone that Fumin bin Lyin, as usual, is clearly trying to
deceive people on this. The "330 estimated" figure that bin Lyin quotes
applies only to lung cancer, and does not include deaths from emphysema,
throat cancer, and all the other diseases that cigarette smoke causes.
bin Lyin knows this. Here is a quote from his own posting to
can.talk.smoking, dated Nov. 4, 2001:
"Health Canada figures estimate that every year at least 330 non-smokers
die from lung cancer due to exposure to second-hand smoke."
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"I cannot name even one anti-smoking zealot that drives an SUV"
-"Fumin bin Lyin", mailto:nazi_...@fumingmad.com
Fuming Mad
> > http://www.lambtonhealth.on.ca/smoking/second.asp
> >
> > "Second-hand smoke increases the risk of serious illness, particularly
> > heart disease and lung cancer. It is responsible for over 5000 deaths
> > per year in Canada"
> >
> > I'll remind everyone that the Canadian Cancer Society's website clearly
> > quotes **330 estimated** deaths.
>
> I'll remind everyone that Fumin bin Lyin, as usual, is clearly trying to
> deceive people on this. The "330 estimated" figure that bin Lyin quotes
> applies only to lung cancer, and does not include deaths from emphysema,
> throat cancer, and all the other diseases that cigarette smoke causes.
>
> bin Lyin knows this. Here is a quote from his own posting to
> can.talk.smoking, dated Nov. 4, 2001:
>
> "Health Canada figures estimate that every year at least 330 non-smokers
> die from lung cancer due to exposure to second-hand smoke."
So why would the Canadian Cancer Society ignore the thousands of other
deaths in their figures?
Bawb --> I actually looked pretty hard and failed to find your 4000+
figure. All I could find was this:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/cessation/health_facts/second_hand.html
C'mon... where is it, liar?
Robert Broughton
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> > http://www.lambtonhealth.on.ca/smoking/second.asp
>> >
>> > "Second-hand smoke increases the risk of serious illness,
>> > particularly heart disease and lung cancer. It is responsible for
>> > over 5000 deaths per year in Canada"
>> >
>> > I'll remind everyone that the Canadian Cancer Society's website
>> > clearly quotes **330 estimated** deaths.
>>
>> I'll remind everyone that Fumin bin Lyin, as usual, is clearly trying
>> to deceive people on this. The "330 estimated" figure that bin Lyin
>> quotes applies only to lung cancer, and does not include deaths from
>> emphysema, throat cancer, and all the other diseases that cigarette
>> smoke causes.
>>
>> bin Lyin knows this. Here is a quote from his own posting to
>> can.talk.smoking, dated Nov. 4, 2001:
>>
>> "Health Canada figures estimate that every year at least 330
>> non-smokers die from lung cancer due to exposure to second-hand smoke."
>
> So why would the Canadian Cancer Society ignore the thousands of other
> deaths in their figures?
>
Why don't you call them on the phone and ask them?
Fuming Mad
> > So why would the Canadian Cancer Society ignore the thousands of other
> > deaths in their figures?
> >
> Why don't you call them on the phone and ask them?
I'll bet you already have! I'll also bet they asked you to cite a
reference for the 4000+ figure, and you clammed up so much you hung up
on them! Bawb? You've never showed me a Health Canada reference. The
closest you came was pointing me to Health Canada's homepage, which was
hardly a reference at all.
I'm really trying to understand this discrepancy, and you're not helping
at all. In fact, you're only proving to me that the antis are liars. I'm
starting to think that the 4000/5000 figure is derived from some number
of deaths figure related to cancer that has nothing to do with smoking,
but is mysterious being grouped as one and the same. In other words, a
big fat lie. Anytime you wanna confess, Bawb, we're all ears -- or I
guess eyes, in this case.
Robert Broughton
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> > So why would the Canadian Cancer Society ignore the thousands of
>> > other deaths in their figures?
>> >
>> Why don't you call them on the phone and ask them?
>
> I'll bet you already have!
I'll bet that I haven't.
Fuming Mad
> >> Why don't you call them on the phone and ask them?
> >
> > I'll bet you already have!
>
> I'll bet that I haven't.
I'll bet you wish you weren't a coward and could do it!
Man, this discussion is degenerating fast... and Bawb still hasn't cited
a source for "cranial-anal inversion" let alone the 4000+ figure...
Robert Broughton
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> >> Why don't you call them on the phone and ask them?
>> >
>> > I'll bet you already have!
>>
>> I'll bet that I haven't.
>
> I'll bet you wish you weren't a coward and could do it!
>
Another history lesson is called for here.
Fumin bin Lyin, September 29: "I'd also bet anything that I'm not a smoker,
and have never been one."
October 1: bin Lyin refuses to bet $200 that he is not a smoker.
November 18: bin Lyin still has not bet anything ($5? $30?) that
he is a non-smoker.
Fuming Mad
> Another history lesson is called for here.
>
> Fumin bin Lyin, September 29: "I'd also bet anything that I'm not a smoker,
> and have never been one."
>
> October 1: bin Lyin refuses to bet $200 that he is not a smoker.
>
> November 18: bin Lyin still has not bet anything ($5? $30?) that
> he is a non-smoker.
Bawb's never put his money where his mouth is either, so it's not like
he has any kind of 'edge' over me!
(of course, no one else is even reading this except Bawb and I, so why
am I making this 'clear'?!)
--
_________________________________________________
"Fuming Mad scores a technical win in his claim that you lie." --- David
MacLean, referring to Lying Bawb on can.talk.smoking, November 9, 2001
"Well, I can vouch for Mr. Broughton and myself. We may well be
assholes..." --- Lech K. Lesiak, aka, Leech The Lying Sack of Shit, on
behalf of Bawb 'Rediculous' Broughton:
mailto:rbro...@broughton.ca rbro...@broughton.ca
mailto:b...@broughton.ca b...@broughton.ca
mailto:rbro...@smartt.com rbro...@smartt.com
(can.talk.smoking; Aug. 12, 2001)
>>>> Shut up, Bawb.
>>>
>>> Eat me.
>>
>> HAHAHHAHAAHHAHAA... still working on your study of blowjobs, Bawb?
>> Sounds like you're "broadening" the scope of your study... :P
>>
> Are you volunteering to participate?
(can.talk.smoking; Aug. 28, 2001)
"the Justice Department contends smokers did not realize that cigarettes
were hazardous. This is undoubtedly true of a certain type of smoker;
namely, the type of smoker whose brain has been removed with a melon
scoop"
(Dave Barry; October 24, 1999)
"Big Tobacco" is little more than authorized tax collectors...
"I've never been impressed by claims that someone wants to quit, but
can't. Bullshit. As long as your desire to smoke exceeds your desire to
quit, you'll smoke. The moment your desire to quit exceeds your desire
Robert Broughton
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> Another history lesson is called for here.
>>
>> Fumin bin Lyin, September 29: "I'd also bet anything that I'm not a
>> smoker, and have never been one."
>>
>> October 1: bin Lyin refuses to bet $200 that he is not a smoker.
>>
>> November 18: bin Lyin still has not bet anything ($5? $30?) that he is
>> a non-smoker.
>
> Bawb's never put his money where his mouth is either,
That's a lie. I said that I was putting up $200. All Fumin bin Lyin had
to do was designate a neutral party in Kitchener-Waterloo to collect $200
from me and $200 from bin Lyin, then arrange for bin Lyin to go to a lab
and submit a urine sample.
Fumin bin Lyin wrote that he was unwilling to do this because he would
have had to put his real name on the lab test. Here's another possible
explanation: bin Lyin knew it was a dead certainty that nicotine would
turn up in the urine test.
Fuming Mad
> Fumin bin Lyin wrote that he was unwilling to do this because he would
> have had to put his real name on the lab test. Here's another possible
> explanation: bin Lyin knew it was a dead certainty that nicotine would
> turn up in the urine test.
God damn it, Bawb! I wish you weren't such a nutbar or I'd love to prove
you wrong. If only you knew the truth..................... actually,
you'd just yammer on about something else I did "wrong", so I guess it
doesn't make much difference anyway.
Robert Broughton
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> Fumin bin Lyin wrote that he was unwilling to do this because he would
>> have had to put his real name on the lab test. Here's another possible
>> explanation: bin Lyin knew it was a dead certainty that nicotine would
>> turn up in the urine test.
>
> God damn it, Bawb! I wish you weren't such a nutbar or I'd love to prove
> you wrong.
I'm sure you would love to. Maybe you can figure out a way to make this
posting disappear.
-----
From: Robert Broughton (rbro...@brou8ghton.ca)
Subject: Lying Mad continues to avoid putting his money where his mouth is
Newsgroups: can.talk.smoking
Date: 2001-09-30 17:50:46 PST
In article <XNIt7.1493$Uf2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Lying Mad <?@?.?> writes:
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> > I'll bet Lying Bawb will drown anyday, now...
>> How much are you betting? How about $100, and "anyday" is defined as
>> "between now and Oct. 15, 2001?
> > Bawb? Think about it... you've got to be at least twice my age,
If you're 17 years old, I would be three times your age.
> so even
> if I was a smoker, chances are you're gonna die long before I do...
No, it's an even bet.
> And another thing... I said "I'll bet", not "I'll bet money", so you
> can't keep asking me "how much"!
>
Another lie. See below.
>> > I'd also bet anything that I'm not a smoker, and have never been one,
>> Anything, eh? How about $200? Prove it, liar.
> How 'bout $1 googol? hahahaha...
> There's no possible way of proving this to you,
Yes, there is. All you have to do is arrange for a urine test.
The lab taking the test would mail the results to me and the
neutral party that will be holding the money.
So, you'll bet "anything"? How much? I'm waiting.
-----
Emphasis on the following:
Fumin bin Lyin: "I'd also bet anything that I'm not a smoker, and have never been
one,"
Truthful Bob Broughton: "Anything, eh? How about $200? Prove it, liar."
rumik
> Bawb "Rediculous" Broughton wrote:
>
> > Another history lesson is called for here.
> >
> > Fumin bin Lyin, September 29: "I'd also bet anything that I'm not a smoker,
> > and have never been one."
> >
> > October 1: bin Lyin refuses to bet $200 that he is not a smoker.
> >
> > November 18: bin Lyin still has not bet anything ($5? $30?) that
> > he is a non-smoker.
>
> Bawb's never put his money where his mouth is either, so it's not like
> he has any kind of 'edge' over me!
> (of course, no one else is even reading this except Bawb and I, so why
> am I making this 'clear'?!)
Not true, FM. People the world over are reading this.
Everybody knows what a liar and a loser Bawb is.
Specially the people of New Westminster, BC. I guess
that's why he got such a huge vote in the last elections. :-)
NJSPANKY
PROVE IT. Thats just more bullshit as usual. Second hand smoke has never been
proven to harm anyone. (FACT)
NJSPANKY
WAS ALL THROWN OUT IN THE COURTS BECAUSE THEY CHANGED NUMBERS AND LEFT REPORTS
OUT . ANYTHING REGARDING SECOND HAND SMOKE AND THE 1993 E P A STUDY IS NOT
VALID. WILL YOU PEOPLE NEVER LEARN? DRIVING YOUR CAR TO THE SMOKE FILLED
RESTAURANT IS MORE HARMFULL THAN SITTING IN THE RESTAURANT FOR AN HOUR. ITS NOT
EXPOSURE THAT DOES THE HARM . ITS THE DOSE.
Lech K. Lesiak
> PROVE IT. Thats just more bullshit as usual. Second hand smoke has never been
> proven to harm anyone. (FACT)
It certainly harms me. I get nauseous within a couple of minutes of
entering a smoke-filled room, and get horrible headaches in addition.
You may not call that harm, but I do.
Cheers,
Leech the Lying Sack of Shit
Lech K. Lesiak
> tELL EVERYONE HOW THE E P A MESSED UP THEIR STUDY ON SECOND HAND SMOKE . IT
> WAS ALL THROWN OUT IN THE COURTS BECAUSE THEY CHANGED NUMBERS AND LEFT REPORTS
> OUT . ANYTHING REGARDING SECOND HAND SMOKE AND THE 1993 E P A STUDY IS NOT
> VALID.
OK, we'll ignore that one. There are plenty of other studies that
conclude much the same.
Cheers,
Leech the Slimey Serb
Robert Broughton
Do you claim that first-hand cigarette smoke has never been proven to
harm anyone?
Fuming Mad
> Do you claim that first-hand cigarette smoke has never been proven to
> harm anyone?
I'll bet Bawb's never heard of a common cause fallacy, let alone a straw
man, ad hominem, or false dichotomy. I'll bet he refuses to learn what
they are, too.
Robert Broughton
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> Do you claim that first-hand cigarette smoke has never been proven to
>> harm anyone?
>
> I'll bet Bawb's never heard of a common cause fallacy, let alone a straw
> man, ad hominem,
Where have you been, bin Lyin? Did your parents take away your computer
privileges again?
Fuming Mad
> Where have you been, bin Lyin? Did your parents take away your computer
> privileges again?
I didn't have anything to post because I noticed you and your cavalcade
of lies went on hiatus.
Paul Smith
proven to
> > harm anyone?
>
> I'll bet Bawb's never heard of a common cause fallacy, let
alone a straw
> man, ad hominem, or false dichotomy. I'll bet he refuses to
learn what
> they are, too.
All of which is irrelevant to the question. Wiggle, wiggle,
wiggle.
-- Happy Hunting!! -- Paul
Houston, TX, USA
ICQ #73314929
Researching: VA - WHITE,LIPSCOMB,HILL,JOHNSON,SAUNDERS,
TALBOT,TATE,EVANS
NC - SMITH, BOSWELL, RHODES, CAPEHART,MORRIS,
MARSHE, BRITT,SHAW
View my American Ancestry at:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~paulrsmith
****************
FREE Credit Card Referral Program. Quick money
AND residual, lifetime income! CHECK IT OUT !!
http://smithecomservices.tripod.com
***************************************
Robert Broughton
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> Where have you been, bin Lyin? Did your parents take away your computer
>> privileges again?
>
> I didn't have anything to post
You didn't have anything to post yesterday or today either.
Mewurry
They found second hand smoke as not being harmfull to anyone. And there are
many others if you really want to look them up. The chest diseases clinic has
been searching for 20 years and cannot find any link to second-hand smoke and
diseases.
David MacLean
"Lech K. Lesiak" <lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.101120...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
But there are vastly MORE that show no statistically significant difference
in risk between non-smokers exposed to SHS and those not exposed to SHS.
However, you KNEW that, Lech, since a full list of all studies having to do
with heath risk to second hand smoke and non-smokers was posted in
alt.smokers while you were spewing forth your hatred in that newsgroup.
The majority of such studies show no statistically significant difference in
the rates of cancers and heart disease and the other so-called smoking
related diseases between exposed non-smokers and unexposed non-smokers.
But here you are, repeating that same old lie.
David MacLean
"Lech K. Lesiak" <lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.101120...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
>
> > PROVE IT. Thats just more bullshit as usual. Second hand smoke has never
been
> > proven to harm anyone. (FACT)
>
> It certainly harms me. I get nauseous within a couple of minutes of
> entering a smoke-filled room, and get horrible headaches in addition.
>
> You may not call that harm, but I do.
>
The world should be responsible for your psychosomatic illnesses?
Lech K. Lesiak
> The world should be responsible for your psychosomatic illnesses?
Nope, only smokers.
Cheers,
Lech
David MacLean
"Lech K. Lesiak" <lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.101120...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
>
> > The world should be responsible for your psychosomatic illnesses?
>
> Nope, only smokers.
Smokers should be responsible for your psychosomatic illnesses?
Robert Broughton
Inconsiderate smokers should be responsible for the harm that they do to
other people.
Robert Broughton
> Then look up theworld health organization.
No need to. I know exactly where to find them.
> They found second hand smoke
> as not being harmfull to anyone.
Only in your imagination, and the imagination of Chris Proctor, a BAT
"scientist". If I have to choose between believing the WHO and
professional liars like Chris Proctor, I'll choose the WHO every time.
David MacLean
"Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
news:9uhl66$gnt$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> In <wtRO7.24243$Wb7.95757@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>
>
> > "Lech K. Lesiak" <lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.A41.4.05.101120...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
> >> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, David MacLean wrote:
> >>
> >> > The world should be responsible for your psychosomatic illnesses?
> >>
> >> Nope, only smokers.
> >
> > Smokers should be responsible for your psychosomatic illnesses?
> >
> Inconsiderate smokers should be responsible for the harm that they do to
> other people.
>
You think that psychosomatic illness it harm caused by smokers?
Robert Broughton
Huh?
Lech K. Lesiak
> You think that psychosomatic illness it harm caused by smokers?
You can, of course, prove that my nausea and headaches are somehow
self-induced and not connected to ETS?
David MacLean
"Lech K. Lesiak" <lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.101120...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
>
> > You think that psychosomatic illness it harm caused by smokers?
>
> You can, of course, prove that my nausea and headaches are somehow
> self-induced and not connected to ETS?
>
On the contrary, Lech. I'll put you in the same position that you and
others of your ilk have tried to place smokers for decades. You prove that
your nausea and headaches are NOT self-induced.
David MacLean
> In <g84P7.25806$Wb7.101037@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>
>
> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> > news:9uhl66$gnt$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >> In <wtRO7.24243$Wb7.95757@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > "Lech K. Lesiak" <lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:Pine.A41.4.05.101120...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
> >> >> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, David MacLean wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > The world should be responsible for your psychosomatic illnesses?
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope, only smokers.
> >> >
> >> > Smokers should be responsible for your psychosomatic illnesses?
> >> >
> >> Inconsiderate smokers should be responsible for the harm that they do
> >> to other people.
> >>
> >>
> > You think that psychosomatic illness it harm caused by smokers?
> >
> Huh?
Sorry. You think that psychosomatic illness is harm caused by smokers?
Isn't it funny, however, that Lech had no trouble understanding, typo and
all, but you did not?
I would have to say that Lech is moderately smarter than you are.
Which is damning with faint praise.
Robert Broughton
>> >>
>> > You think that psychosomatic illness it harm caused by smokers?
>> >
>> Huh?
>
> Sorry.
You should be.
> You think that psychosomatic illness is harm caused by smokers?
No, I KNOW that arteriosclerosis, emphysema, and various types of
cancer are illnesses caused by smokers.
Fuming Mad
> > Sorry.
>
> You should be.
All hail Osama bin Bawb! [sarcasm]
> > You think that psychosomatic illness is harm caused by smokers?
>
> No, I KNOW that arteriosclerosis, emphysema, and various types of
> cancer are illnesses caused by smokers.
The problem is you DON'T KNOW that other things cause those illnesses,
too. You're delusional because you think that if smoking ceased to
exist, the world would be rid of virtually all disease and problems.
Lech K. Lesiak
> On the contrary, Lech. I'll put you in the same position that you and
> others of your ilk have tried to place smokers for decades. You prove that
> your nausea and headaches are NOT self-induced.
OK. I've been in restaurants where I could not detect ETS. I would
develop a mild headache and upon undressing after getting home, would
find that my clothing reeked of stale tobacco smoke.
Getting a headache, and learning of the presence of ETS after the fact is
evidence to me that it's not psychosomatic.
Cheers,
Lech
David MacLean
> In <oppP7.29481$Wb7.108036@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>
>
> >> >>
> >> > You think that psychosomatic illness it harm caused by smokers?
> >> >
> >> Huh?
> >
> > Sorry.
>
> You should be.
I was being polite. If you want sincerity in any apology made by me to you,
you can find it in the dictionary between syphilis and shit.
>
> > You think that psychosomatic illness is harm caused by smokers?
>
> No, I KNOW that arteriosclerosis, emphysema, and various types of
> cancer are illnesses caused by smokers.
To non-smokers? You'll have a difficult time upholding that little item of
faith with reputable evidence.
Robert Broughton
> "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> news:9uli26$ooa$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>> >
>> > Sorry.
>>
>> You should be.
>
> I was being polite.
Only because you're not allowed to embarass your friends at Philip
Morris/Altria.
>
>> > You think that psychosomatic illness is harm caused by smokers?
>>
>> No, I KNOW that arteriosclerosis, emphysema, and various types of
>> cancer are illnesses caused by smokers.
>
> To non-smokers? You'll have a difficult time upholding that little item
> of faith with reputable evidence.
>
No, it's actually very easy for me to uphold it.
Robert Broughton
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> No, I KNOW that arteriosclerosis, emphysema, and various types of
>> cancer are illnesses caused by smokers.
>
> The problem is you DON'T KNOW that other things cause those illnesses,
You have very little information on what I know and don't know, and
insufficient intelligence to interpret what information you do have.
Fuming Mad
> You have very little information on what I know
That's because you know so "very little", Bawb! AHAHAHAHAHA!
David MacLean
"Lech K. Lesiak" <lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.101120...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
Let me get this straight. You've been in restaurants where you could NOT
detect ETS, in other words, there was no visual clues and, more importantly,
there was no odor of "stale tobacco smoke", yet when you got home your
clothing "reeked" of stale tobacco smoke?
I can come up with not one but THREE different explanations for the above
situation that do not rely, inherently, on tobacco smoke causing your
headache.
1. You went into a restaurant which did have ETS, but your conscious mind
shut down recognition. It's call cognitive dissonance. You put yourself in
a situation which your belief system refused to allow you to be in, and
therefore, some mental compromise goes into effect. Unfortunately,
psychosomatic illness is not the domain of the conscious mind, but the
subconscious mind.
2. You went into a restaurant which did NOT have ETS, got a headache, and in
attempting to explain it, created an olfactory hallucination of clothing
reeking of stale tobacco smoke.
3. You made the whole story up.
Either of these explanations work, and I daresay, each explains the factors
that makes your "conclusions" about the described situation very difficult
for all but the most gullible to swallow, those being the fact that you
failed to detect tobacco smoke odor in the restaurant where it would be
strongest, the fact that you failed to detect the odor on your clothing on
the way home, which, by basic laws of physics would have the odor growing
weaker, and the fact that you only detected the odor at home where,
rationally, the smell would be at its weakest for the entire period,
restaurant to home.
Lech, rather than proving that your self-described headaches and nausea are
not psychosomatic in nature, the evidence that you offer seems to more
strongly support the hypothesis that the headaches and nausea are indeed
psychosomatic.
Care to try again?
David MacLean
> In <dKvP7.29501$Wb7.110354@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>
>
> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> > news:9uli26$ooa$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >> >
> >> > Sorry.
> >>
> >> You should be.
> >
> > I was being polite.
>
> Only because you're not allowed to embarass your friends at Philip
> Morris/Altria.
If you are so sure that I am an agent provacateur from PM, then take my
challenge.
The only reason that you do not is that you fear that you will have to
modify your world view, which would be difficult, considering the amount of
concrete you've poured into it.
>
> >
> >> > You think that psychosomatic illness is harm caused by smokers?
> >>
> >> No, I KNOW that arteriosclerosis, emphysema, and various types of
> >> cancer are illnesses caused by smokers.
> >
> > To non-smokers? You'll have a difficult time upholding that little item
> > of faith with reputable evidence.
> >
> No, it's actually very easy for me to uphold it.
With reputable evidence?
Fuming Mad
> 3. You made the whole story up.
He signs his messages with "Leech the Lying Sack of Shit" --- need I say
more?
Robert Broughton
> "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> news:9umg85$qtc$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>> > I was being polite.
>>
>> Only because you're not allowed to embarass your friends at Philip
>> Morris/Altria.
>
> If you are so sure that I am an agent provacateur from PM, then take my
> challenge.
>
I'm not sure that you are an agent provacateur from PM, but I'm far from
convinced that you are not one.
>> >>
>> >> No, I KNOW that arteriosclerosis, emphysema, and various types of
>> >> cancer are illnesses caused by smokers.
>> >
>> > To non-smokers? You'll have a difficult time upholding that little
>> > item of faith with reputable evidence.
>> >
>> No, it's actually very easy for me to uphold it.
>
> With reputable evidence?
>
Yes.
Lech K. Lesiak
> He signs his messages with "Leech the Lying Sack of Shit" --- need I say
> more?
Any idea why I do that? Hint - ask Dave Hitt.
Cheers,
Leech the Slimey Serb
Lech K. Lesiak
> 1. You went into a restaurant which did have ETS, but your conscious mind
> shut down recognition. It's call cognitive dissonance. You put yourself in
Not likely. I don't go into restaurants where I see people smoking or
where I detect tobacco odours.
>
> 2. You went into a restaurant which did NOT have ETS, got a headache, and in
> attempting to explain it, created an olfactory hallucination of clothing
> reeking of stale tobacco smoke.
Olfactory hallucination. Now that's a new one. The next time it happens
I'll ask my SO if my clothing smells of stale tobacco.
> 3. You made the whole story up.
You can believe that if you like, but I think my history in this NG puts
paid to that accusation.
> Lech, rather than proving that your self-described headaches and nausea are
> not psychosomatic in nature, the evidence that you offer seems to more
> strongly support the hypothesis that the headaches and nausea are indeed
> psychosomatic.
Really? Care to suggest a test to prove it one way or the other?
Robert Broughton
> David MacLean wrote:
>
>> 3. You made the whole story up.
>
> He signs his messages with "Leech the Lying Sack of Shit" --- need I say
> more?
>
Well, you could apologize to Paul Smith for saying that he was fired
by Compaq. You could admit that your claim that "dozens" of Kitchener-Waterloo
businesses were done in by the no-smoking bylaw was false. Or admit that
you lied (twice) when you claimed that I was a pro-gambling advocate.
You've already admitted that when you said that a friend of yours was
coming over to beat the shit out of me, it was an "empty threat". You
admitted that your claim about "anti-smoking zealots that drive SUV's" was
based on no factual evidence. (See .sig below.) Of course, in both of
these cases, it took six months or so for you to admit that you just made
this stuff up.
Also, you could tell us if the Extraterrestrial Rangers of Canada have
found any good crop circles recently.
David MacLean
> In <eCKP7.29706$Wb7.116407@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>
>
> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> > news:9umg85$qtc$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >> > I was being polite.
> >>
> >> Only because you're not allowed to embarass your friends at Philip
> >> Morris/Altria.
> >
> > If you are so sure that I am an agent provacateur from PM, then take my
> > challenge.
> >
> I'm not sure that you are an agent provacateur from PM, but I'm far from
> convinced that you are not one.
Then take my challenge, sir. If you are right, you stand to gain
enormously. If you are wrong, all you have expended is a little effort in
research, which, for you, would be a learning experience.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> No, I KNOW that arteriosclerosis, emphysema, and various types of
> >> >> cancer are illnesses caused by smokers.
> >> >
> >> > To non-smokers? You'll have a difficult time upholding that little
> >> > item of faith with reputable evidence.
> >> >
> >> No, it's actually very easy for me to uphold it.
> >
> > With reputable evidence?
> >
> Yes.
If it is "actually very easy" for you to uphold the claim that
arteriosclerosis, emphysema, ***and*** various types of cancer is caused in
non-smokers by smokers with reputable evidence, then please do so.
We shall see just how reputable your evidence is.
BTW, note the emphasis on the "and", which was in your original wording.
"and" does not mean "or", so you have to provide reputatble evidence that
ALL those things are *caused* by smokers in non-smokers.
And save yourself some embarassment. Before you go posting a bunch of
websearch results, at least attempt to read and comprehend what they are
saying.
Unless, of course, you don't mind choking on your own posts.
David MacLean
"Lech K. Lesiak" <lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.101120...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
Of course. And if you really put your mind to it, you could too.
And that's exactly the point, isn't it. The burden of proof has now been
shifted to you, and you don't like it. You try to wriggle off the hook.
And if I were convinced that you have a physical rather than mental reaction
to ETS, then I'd probably let you off that hook.
But you really give up to easily. You believe that you have reactions that
are caused physically by ETS. Prove it!
Lech K. Lesiak
> But you really give up to easily. You believe that you have reactions that
> are caused physically by ETS. Prove it!
Well, I've certainly proved it to my satisfaction, but you dismiss my
evidence as an "olofactory hallucination". What would it take to convince
you?
Cheers,
Leech the Lying Sac de Merde
Robert Broughton
> "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> news:9uoa4a$u0s$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>> In <eCKP7.29706$Wb7.116407@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>>
>>
>> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:9umg85$qtc$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>> >> > I was being polite.
>> >>
>> >> Only because you're not allowed to embarass your friends at Philip
>> >> Morris/Altria.
>> >
>> > If you are so sure that I am an agent provacateur from PM, then take
>> > my challenge.
>> >
>> I'm not sure that you are an agent provacateur from PM, but I'm far
>> from convinced that you are not one.
>
> Then take my challenge, sir.
What for?
>> >> >> No, I KNOW that arteriosclerosis, emphysema, and various types of
>> >> >> cancer are illnesses caused by smokers.
>> >> >
>> >> > To non-smokers? You'll have a difficult time upholding that
>> >> > little item of faith with reputable evidence.
>> >> >
>> >> No, it's actually very easy for me to uphold it.
>> >
>> > With reputable evidence?
>> >
>> Yes.
>
> If it is "actually very easy" for you to uphold the claim that
> arteriosclerosis, emphysema, ***and*** various types of cancer is caused
> in non-smokers by smokers with reputable evidence, then please do so.
>
Why?
> We shall see just how reputable your evidence is.
>
Who's this "we" you refer to?
David MacLean
"Lech K. Lesiak" <lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.101120...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
>
> > But you really give up to easily. You believe that you have reactions
that
> > are caused physically by ETS. Prove it!
>
> Well, I've certainly proved it to my satisfaction, but you dismiss my
> evidence as an "olofactory hallucination". What would it take to convince
> you?
>
Some objective evidence, rather than your mere subjective say-so.
David MacLean
> In <xJRP7.29773$Wb7.119493@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>
>
> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> > news:9uoa4a$u0s$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >> In <eCKP7.29706$Wb7.116407@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:9umg85$qtc$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >> >> > I was being polite.
> >> >>
> >> >> Only because you're not allowed to embarass your friends at Philip
> >> >> Morris/Altria.
> >> >
> >> > If you are so sure that I am an agent provacateur from PM, then take
> >> > my challenge.
> >> >
> >> I'm not sure that you are an agent provacateur from PM, but I'm far
> >> from convinced that you are not one.
> >
> > Then take my challenge, sir.
>
> What for?
To prove your courage?
Ah, what was I thinking? This is an usenet conversation with Robert
Broughton. Please carry on as before.
>
> >> >> >> No, I KNOW that arteriosclerosis, emphysema, and various types of
> >> >> >> cancer are illnesses caused by smokers.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > To non-smokers? You'll have a difficult time upholding that
> >> >> > little item of faith with reputable evidence.
> >> >> >
> >> >> No, it's actually very easy for me to uphold it.
> >> >
> >> > With reputable evidence?
> >> >
> >> Yes.
> >
> > If it is "actually very easy" for you to uphold the claim that
> > arteriosclerosis, emphysema, ***and*** various types of cancer is caused
> > in non-smokers by smokers with reputable evidence, then please do so.
> >
> Why?
To show that you can actually do what you say you can do?
Ah, what was I thinking? This is an usenet conversation with Robert
Broughton. Please carry on as before.
>
> > We shall see just how reputable your evidence is.
> >
> Who's this "we" you refer to?
we : Function: pronoun, plural in construction
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wE; akin to Old High German wir
we, Sanskrit vayam
Date: before 12th century
1 : I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and
another or others : I and another or others not including you -- used as
pronoun of the first person plural; compare I, OUR, OURS, US
2 : 1I -- used by sovereigns; used by writers to keep an impersonal
character
Sorry, sir. I was unaware that your grasp of English is so poor as to not
understand that "we" means you and I.
If *you* think that your evidence is reputable, then why are you afraid to
produce that evidence, *especially* since you claim that it is easy for you
to do so?
Lech K. Lesiak
> Some objective evidence, rather than your mere subjective say-so.
Such as?
Robert Broughton
> "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> news:9upfbs$pt$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>
>> > We shall see just how reputable your evidence is.
>> >
>> Who's this "we" you refer to?
>
> we : Function: pronoun, plural in construction Etymology: Middle
> English, from Old English wE; akin to Old High German wir we, Sanskrit
> vayam
> Date: before 12th century
> 1 : I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I
> and another or others : I and another or others not including you --
> used as pronoun of the first person plural; compare I, OUR, OURS, US 2 :
> 1I -- used by sovereigns; used by writers to keep an impersonal
> character
>
> Sorry, sir. I was unaware that your grasp of English is so poor as to
> not understand that "we" means you and I.
>
You expect me to believe that you are interested in seeing just how
reputable my evidence is? No, you are not interested.
Fuming Mad
> You expect me to believe that you are interested in seeing just how
> reputable my evidence is? No, you are not interested.
You're truly pathetic, Bawb. You're blatantly ignoring David's request
for you to prove that you're not just another "Lying Sack of Shit".
Ignorance yields gives us no choice but to say you are a liar since you
don't provide any proof of the contrary.
David MacLean
> In <TZ2Q7.30103$Wb7.124359@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>
>
> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> > news:9upfbs$pt$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >
> >> > We shall see just how reputable your evidence is.
> >> >
> >> Who's this "we" you refer to?
> >
> > we : Function: pronoun, plural in construction Etymology: Middle
> > English, from Old English wE; akin to Old High German wir we, Sanskrit
> > vayam
> > Date: before 12th century
> > 1 : I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I
> > and another or others : I and another or others not including you --
> > used as pronoun of the first person plural; compare I, OUR, OURS, US 2 :
> > 1I -- used by sovereigns; used by writers to keep an impersonal
> > character
> >
> > Sorry, sir. I was unaware that your grasp of English is so poor as to
> > not understand that "we" means you and I.
> >
> You expect me to believe that you are interested in seeing just how
> reputable my evidence is? No, you are not interested.
>
Mr. Broughton, I am MOST interested in seeing how reputable your evidence
is. I would be extremely happy if indeed your evidence was reputable.
However, your hesitation indicates that even you are concerned with just how
well your evidence stands up to scrutiny. And that, sir, is the problem.
How are we to judge just how reputable your evidence is if you won't put
that evidence forward?
Are we just supposed to trust your word because you are such a nice guy and
have a reputation for always telling the truth?
I can hear Fuming Mad laughing out loud at that notion.
David MacLean
"Lech K. Lesiak" <lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.101120...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
>
> > Some objective evidence, rather than your mere subjective say-so.
>
> Such as?
>
Why should I restrict you? Any objective evidence will do. Hint:
objective evidence is checkable by any third party without relying on your
word.
Fuming Mad
> > Some objective evidence, rather than your mere subjective say-so.
>
> Such as?
Leech? I always thought you weren't as dumb as Bawb, but you're starting
to sound a lot like him. You're nothing more than a whiny, self-centred
anti-smoking zealot who *thinks* they're severely allergic to tobacco
smoke --- and apparently even the residual 'scent' of tobacco smoke,
too.
rumik
> Lying Bawb Broughton wrote:
>
> > You expect me to believe that you are interested in seeing just how
> > reputable my evidence is? No, you are not interested.
>
> You're truly pathetic, Bawb. You're blatantly ignoring David's request
> for you to prove that you're not just another "Lying Sack of Shit".
> Ignorance yields gives us no choice but to say you are a liar since you
> don't provide any proof of the contrary.
Hi FM,
There has never been any doubt in this newsgroup that
Bawb is the greatest liar there is. And his soul-mate
Leach is a close second. Bawb has never been able to
back up any of his wild claims. A typical wannabe
politician, he also holds the title of Loser of the Decade.
Robert Broughton
>>
> Mr. Broughton, I am MOST interested in seeing how reputable your
> evidence is.
I told you that it was very reputable.
> However, your hesitation indicates that even you are concerned with just
> how well your evidence stands up to scrutiny.
"Hesitation" is the wrong word. Try "refusal". I don't owe you any
favours.
> Are we just supposed to trust your word because you are such a nice guy
> and have a reputation for always telling the truth?
>
Again, who's this "we"? You and Fumin bin Lyin?
> I can hear Fuming Mad laughing out loud at that notion.
So, bin Lyin in a friend of yours? Well, now he has at least one, but
your friends at Philip Morris may not approve of the company you keep.
Robert Broughton
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> You expect me to believe that you are interested in seeing just how
>> reputable my evidence is? No, you are not interested.
>
> You're truly pathetic, Bawb. You're blatantly ignoring David's request
I'll bet that when Fumin bin Lyin heard that the Taliban are fleeing from
Kandahar, he was wondering if they could get away faster if they had
SUV's.
Lech K. Lesiak
> Leech? I always thought you weren't as dumb as Bawb, but you're starting
> to sound a lot like him. You're nothing more than a whiny, self-centred
> anti-smoking zealot who *thinks* they're severely allergic to tobacco
> smoke --- and apparently even the residual 'scent' of tobacco smoke,
> too.
OK. I'm convinced. I'll stop now.
David MacLean
> In <gT7Q7.30121$Wb7.125898@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>
>
> >>
> > Mr. Broughton, I am MOST interested in seeing how reputable your
> > evidence is.
>
> I told you that it was very reputable.
But the only basis I have for analyzing your ability to judge whether or not
a piece of evidence is reputable or not is my past history with you.
Considering the fact that you claim that "Health Canada says..." and justify
that claim with hearsay evidence, I would rate your ability to judge the
reputability of evidence as very low to non-existent.
>
> > However, your hesitation indicates that even you are concerned with just
> > how well your evidence stands up to scrutiny.
>
> "Hesitation" is the wrong word. Try "refusal". I don't owe you any
> favours.
>
And I am not *asking* for any favors. What I am asking is that you back up
your proclamations with the evidence that *you* say is so easy for you to
produce. Such a request is well within the domain of normal discourse, and
refusal to grant it implies that either you do not have the evidence easily
available, or that you, yourself, do not believe that the evidence that you
do have is reputable.
Either way, it implies that you have knowingly made false statements.
> > Are we just supposed to trust your word because you are such a nice guy
> > and have a reputation for always telling the truth?
> >
> Again, who's this "we"? You and Fumin bin Lyin?
"We", in this case, means a minimum of myself and Fuming Mad. There are
more that do not trust your word, either because they know you or because
they do not. However, two individuals, under the conditions of the
statement, constitute "we" in normal English usage, so I do not see your
difficulty.
Of course, if English is not your native language, then say so, and I will
make allowances.
>
> > I can hear Fuming Mad laughing out loud at that notion.
>
> So, bin Lyin in a friend of yours? Well, now he has at least one, but
> your friends at Philip Morris may not approve of the company you keep.
Never met Fuming Mad, nor have I met you. Whether or not he will become a
friend is a function of time.
As to my so-called "friends at Philip Morris", name one and show reason to
believe that he/she is my friend.
And, while you're at it, find out what brand I smoke before you conclude
that I work for PM.
Robert Broughton
> "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> news:9urm0i$4nl$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>> In <gT7Q7.30121$Wb7.125898@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mr. Broughton, I am MOST interested in seeing how reputable your
>> > evidence is.
>>
>> I told you that it was very reputable.
>
> But the only basis I have for analyzing your ability to judge whether or
> not a piece of evidence is reputable or not is my past history with you.
And your point is...? What matters here is MY ability to judge whether or
not a piece of evidence is reputable, not yours.
>
>
>> > However, your hesitation indicates that even you are concerned with
>> > just how well your evidence stands up to scrutiny.
>>
>> "Hesitation" is the wrong word. Try "refusal". I don't owe you any
>> favours.
>>
>>
> And I am not *asking* for any favors.
I told you already, the answer is "no".
>
> Either way, it implies that you have knowingly made false statements.
>
No, it doesn't.
>> >
>> Again, who's this "we"? You and Fumin bin Lyin?
>
> "We", in this case, means a minimum of myself and Fuming Mad.
Are you the person that Fumin bin Lyin said was going to "come beat the
shit" out of me?
> There are
> more that do not trust your word,
There are at least two who don't trust yours.
> As to my so-called "friends at Philip Morris", name one and show reason
> to believe that he/she is my friend.
>
It is a undisputed fact (see
http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?if=avpidx&DOCID=2047549814 ) that a
newsgroup posting of yours found its way into a Philip Morris filing
cabinet. Explaining how it got there is your problem, not mine.
> And, while you're at it, find out what brand I smoke before you conclude
> that I work for PM.
>
There's lots of people who work for PM who don't smoke their cigarettss.
David MacLean
> In <nG2R7.33368$Wb7.147871@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>
>
> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> > news:9urm0i$4nl$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >> In <gT7Q7.30121$Wb7.125898@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Mr. Broughton, I am MOST interested in seeing how reputable your
> >> > evidence is.
> >>
> >> I told you that it was very reputable.
> >
> > But the only basis I have for analyzing your ability to judge whether or
> > not a piece of evidence is reputable or not is my past history with you.
>
> And your point is...? What matters here is MY ability to judge whether or
> not a piece of evidence is reputable, not yours.
As long as you keep your conclusions to yourself, this is absolutely true.
However, you have decidedly NOT kept your conclusions to yourself.
>
> >
> >
> >> > However, your hesitation indicates that even you are concerned with
> >> > just how well your evidence stands up to scrutiny.
> >>
> >> "Hesitation" is the wrong word. Try "refusal". I don't owe you any
> >> favours.
> >>
> >>
> > And I am not *asking* for any favors.
>
> I told you already, the answer is "no".
Must be really terrible for you to have a philosophy of life that is so
shakey that you are unwilling to defend it.
>
> >
> > Either way, it implies that you have knowingly made false statements.
> >
> No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does. Again, you attempt "creative editing" to make it appear as if
I have said something that I have not. The part you missed was:
"What I am asking is that you back up
your proclamations with the evidence that *you* say is so easy for you to
produce. Such a request is well within the domain of normal discourse, and
refusal to grant it implies that either you do not have the evidence easily
available, or that you, yourself, do not believe that the evidence that you
do have is reputable."
You've made two claims in support of another claim (that arteriosclerosis,
emphysema, ***and*** various types of cancer is caused in non-smokers by
smokers); that reputable evidence exists and that you can provide it easily.
Since you do not provide the evidence, that you say you can, the conclusion,
that you are making false statements, flows logically from your actions (or
lack thereof).
> >> >
> >> Again, who's this "we"? You and Fumin bin Lyin?
> >
> > "We", in this case, means a minimum of myself and Fuming Mad.
>
> Are you the person that Fumin bin Lyin said was going to "come beat the
> shit" out of me?
If Fuming Mad has made such threats, then I was not privy to them. Nor do I
condone them. In addition, having you whine and plead for your life holds
no interest for me; I get more than enough Broughton whining simply
challenging you to produce the evidence that you claim to be able to produce
most easily.
>
> > There are
> > more that do not trust your word,
>
> There are at least two who don't trust yours.
There are plenty more, as well, sir. Which is why I do not rely on simply
my word. I make a claim, I back it up with evidence.
You, sir, cannot say the same.
>
> > As to my so-called "friends at Philip Morris", name one and show reason
> > to believe that he/she is my friend.
> >
> It is a undisputed fact (see
> http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?if=avpidx&DOCID=2047549814 ) that a
> newsgroup posting of yours found its way into a Philip Morris filing
> cabinet. Explaining how it got there is your problem, not mine.
But you already *have* the explanation. Can you say with utmost certainty
that your posts do not end up in the files of your political opponents?
>
> > And, while you're at it, find out what brand I smoke before you conclude
> > that I work for PM.
> >
> There's lots of people who work for PM who don't smoke their cigarettss.
Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand.
Robert Broughton
> "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> news:9v2tao$fm5$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>> In <nG2R7.33368$Wb7.147871@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>>
>>
>> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:9urm0i$4nl$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>> >> In <gT7Q7.30121$Wb7.125898@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Mr. Broughton, I am MOST interested in seeing how reputable your
>> >> > evidence is.
>> >>
>> >> I told you that it was very reputable.
>> >
>> > But the only basis I have for analyzing your ability to judge whether
>> > or not a piece of evidence is reputable or not is my past history
>> > with you.
>>
>> And your point is...? What matters here is MY ability to judge whether
>> or not a piece of evidence is reputable, not yours.
>
> As long as you keep your conclusions to yourself, this is absolutely
> true. However, you have decidedly NOT kept your conclusions to yourself.
That's correct, but I've chosen not to share them with you.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >> > However, your hesitation indicates that even you are concerned
>> >> > with just how well your evidence stands up to scrutiny.
>> >>
>> >> "Hesitation" is the wrong word. Try "refusal". I don't owe you any
>> >> favours.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > And I am not *asking* for any favors.
>>
>> I told you already, the answer is "no".
>
> Must be really terrible for you to have a philosophy of life that is so
> shakey that you are unwilling to defend it.
>
If you want, you can tell us what it's like to be an asswipe.
>
>
>> > Either way, it implies that you have knowingly made false statements.
>> >
>> No, it doesn't.
>
> Yes, it does.
No, it doesn't.
> Again, you attempt "creative editing" to make it appear
> as if I have said something that I have not. The part you missed was:
>
> "What I am asking is that you back up your proclamations with the
> evidence that *you* say is so easy for you to produce. Such a request
> is well within the domain of normal discourse, and refusal to grant it
> implies that either you do not have the evidence easily available, or
> that you, yourself, do not believe that the evidence that you do have is
> reputable."
>
> You've made two claims in support of another claim (that
> arteriosclerosis, emphysema, ***and*** various types of cancer is caused
> in non-smokers by smokers);
That is correct. You have claimed that only psychosomatic illnesses are
caused to non-smokers by smokers. You are wrong, and only a fool would
believe you.
> that reputable evidence exists and that you
> can provide it easily. Since you do not provide the evidence, that you
> say you can, the conclusion, that you are making false statements, flows
> logically from your actions (or lack thereof).
No it doesn't.
>>
>> Are you the person that Fumin bin Lyin said was going to "come beat the
>> shit" out of me?
>
> If Fuming Mad has made such threats, then I was not privy to them.
Neither was anyone else.
> Nor
> do I condone them.
That seems to depend on which side of your mouth you're talking from.
> In addition, having you whine and plead for your
> life holds no interest for me;
Huh?
>
>> > There are
>> > more that do not trust your word,
>>
>> There are at least two who don't trust yours.
>
> There are plenty more, as well, sir. Which is why I do not rely on
> simply my word. I make a claim, I back it up with evidence.
>
No, you don't.
> You, sir, cannot say the same.
>
Yes, I can. "When I make a claim, I back it up with evidence." There, I
just "said the same".
>
>> > As to my so-called "friends at Philip Morris", name one and show
>> > reason to believe that he/she is my friend.
>> >
>> It is a undisputed fact (see
>> http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?if=avpidx&DOCID=2047549814 ) that a
>> newsgroup posting of yours found its way into a Philip Morris filing
>> cabinet. Explaining how it got there is your problem, not mine.
>
> But you already *have* the explanation.
I have, so far, two explanations. Nob Odie's is more believable than
yours.
> Can you say with utmost
> certainty that your posts do not end up in the files of your political
> opponents?
>
Glad you mentioned that. I'll be making a posting on this shortly. You
will have a hard time convincing anyone that there are "political
opponents" of yours at Philip Morris.
>
>> > And, while you're at it, find out what brand I smoke before you
>> > conclude that I work for PM.
>> >
>> There's lots of people who work for PM who don't smoke their
>> cigarettss.
>
> Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand.
>
Billie Jean King.
David MacLean
> In <dH9R7.1$8z4.208@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>
>
> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> > news:9v2tao$fm5$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >> In <nG2R7.33368$Wb7.147871@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:9urm0i$4nl$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >> >> In <gT7Q7.30121$Wb7.125898@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Mr. Broughton, I am MOST interested in seeing how reputable your
> >> >> > evidence is.
> >> >>
> >> >> I told you that it was very reputable.
> >> >
> >> > But the only basis I have for analyzing your ability to judge whether
> >> > or not a piece of evidence is reputable or not is my past history
> >> > with you.
> >>
> >> And your point is...? What matters here is MY ability to judge whether
> >> or not a piece of evidence is reputable, not yours.
> >
> > As long as you keep your conclusions to yourself, this is absolutely
> > true. However, you have decidedly NOT kept your conclusions to yourself.
>
> That's correct, but I've chosen not to share them with you.
The sentence to which you were referring to had, as the object, "your
conclusions". This means that the pronoun "them" in your reply would
correspond to that object. Therefore, your statement could be rewritten,
without changing the meaning, as "That's correct, but I've chosen not to
share my conclusions with you."
But this is a false statement; you share your conclusions with me (and
anybody else who reads your posts) all the time. It is only when I request
evidence (that you say that you can easily show) to back up those
conclusions that you balk.
Now, please note that, unlike Fuming Mad, I do not immediately jump to the
conclusion that, because you made a false statement, you are lying. On the
contrary. To lie, one has to knowingly make a false statement. Mistakenly
making a false statement is not lying, and given the calibre of your posts,
it is quite simple to conclude that because the thread went beyond your
personal limit of two messages, you got confused and made a mistake.
In fact, it is difficult to conclude anything other than confusion and error
on your part.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >> > However, your hesitation indicates that even you are concerned
> >> >> > with just how well your evidence stands up to scrutiny.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Hesitation" is the wrong word. Try "refusal". I don't owe you any
> >> >> favours.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > And I am not *asking* for any favors.
> >>
> >> I told you already, the answer is "no".
> >
> > Must be really terrible for you to have a philosophy of life that is so
> > shakey that you are unwilling to defend it.
> >
>
> If you want, you can tell us what it's like to be an asswipe.
If you'd like, I'll simply repost you last twenty usenet articles to this
group, and you can read them for the first time. Perhaps they'll overcome
your adamant denial and you will then gain the knowledge you seek.
>
> >
> >
> >> > Either way, it implies that you have knowingly made false statements.
> >> >
> >> No, it doesn't.
> >
> > Yes, it does.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Are you speaking ex cathedra, or just off the cuff? And do you know the
difference?
>
> > Again, you attempt "creative editing" to make it appear
> > as if I have said something that I have not. The part you missed was:
> >
> > "What I am asking is that you back up your proclamations with the
> > evidence that *you* say is so easy for you to produce. Such a request
> > is well within the domain of normal discourse, and refusal to grant it
> > implies that either you do not have the evidence easily available, or
> > that you, yourself, do not believe that the evidence that you do have is
> > reputable."
> >
> > You've made two claims in support of another claim (that
> > arteriosclerosis, emphysema, ***and*** various types of cancer is caused
> > in non-smokers by smokers);
>
> That is correct. You have claimed that only psychosomatic illnesses are
> caused to non-smokers by smokers. You are wrong, and only a fool would
> believe you.
Incorrect, and you will not find any support for that notion. Please, sir.
Read the thread before you comment. Requesting that Lech support, with
objective evidence, that his reported symptoms are NOT psychosomatic, nore
requesting that you support, with reliable evidence (that you also claim
that you have ready access to) your notion that arteriosclerosis, emphysema,
***and*** various types of cancer is caused in non-smokers by smokers is
decidedly not the same thing as claiming that "only psychosomatic illnesses
are caused to non-smokers by smokers".
If you are going to tell the world what I've claimed, then at least get the
claim right, instead of relying only on what you *wish* that I had said.
>
> > that reputable evidence exists and that you
> > can provide it easily. Since you do not provide the evidence, that you
> > say you can, the conclusion, that you are making false statements, flows
> > logically from your actions (or lack thereof).
>
> No it doesn't.
Point out the flaw in the logic, sir - if you can.
>
>
> >>
> >> Are you the person that Fumin bin Lyin said was going to "come beat the
> >> shit" out of me?
> >
> > If Fuming Mad has made such threats, then I was not privy to them.
>
> Neither was anyone else.
Are you now saying that you made up the threat, sir?
>
> > Nor
> > do I condone them.
>
> That seems to depend on which side of your mouth you're talking from.
Please, sir, if you are going to make such a claim, then at least have the
decency to back it up.
>
> > In addition, having you whine and plead for your
> > life holds no interest for me;
>
> Huh?
Ah, Mr. Broughton, you are so easily confused.
>
>
> >
> >> > There are
> >> > more that do not trust your word,
> >>
> >> There are at least two who don't trust yours.
> >
> > There are plenty more, as well, sir. Which is why I do not rely on
> > simply my word. I make a claim, I back it up with evidence.
> >
> No, you don't.
Again, a claim without backup.
>
>
> > You, sir, cannot say the same.
> >
> Yes, I can. "When I make a claim, I back it up with evidence." There, I
> just "said the same".
I wonder if the Green Party is aware that their candidate is a nursery
school dropout who never mastered the complexities of playground?
>
> >
> >> > As to my so-called "friends at Philip Morris", name one and show
> >> > reason to believe that he/she is my friend.
> >> >
> >> It is a undisputed fact (see
> >> http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?if=avpidx&DOCID=2047549814 ) that a
> >> newsgroup posting of yours found its way into a Philip Morris filing
> >> cabinet. Explaining how it got there is your problem, not mine.
> >
> > But you already *have* the explanation.
>
> I have, so far, two explanations. Nob Odie's is more believable than
> yours.
>
In your opinion, and we both know the esteem with which I hold your
opinions.
> > Can you say with utmost
> > certainty that your posts do not end up in the files of your political
> > opponents?
> >
> Glad you mentioned that. I'll be making a posting on this shortly. You
> will have a hard time convincing anyone that there are "political
> opponents" of yours at Philip Morris.
Ah gee, Mr. Broughton. Another claim. And another disappointment.
>
> >
> >> > And, while you're at it, find out what brand I smoke before you
> >> > conclude that I work for PM.
> >> >
> >> There's lots of people who work for PM who don't smoke their
> >> cigarettss.
> >
> > Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand.
> >
> Billie Jean King.
Is there something you find difficult about the concept of "employee"? And
is it doubly difficult for you when it comes to an "employee" of PM *who
smokes*?
Please try again. It is amusing to see to what lengths you will go in order
to make a fool out of yourself.
Howling Mad Not
David MacLean wrote:
> "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> news:9v3iut$h81$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> > In <dH9R7.1$8z4.208@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
<snipped>
David MacLean....
What a shame that individuals such as yourself are such a rarity these days...
--
There is no need to find a cure for cancer according to some individual(s).
The following are the proverbial words posted Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:29:56 on
can.talk.smoking by a nameless politician/anti smoker.
The "drastic change" that is necessary is to address the causes of cancer, not
waste millions of dollars a year looking for a cure.
Robert Broughton
Only because you choose to read them.
> > > Must be really terrible for you to have a philosophy of life that is so
> > > shakey that you are unwilling to defend it.
>> If you want, you can tell us what it's like to be an asswipe.
> If you'd like, I'll simply repost you last twenty usenet articles to this
So, this is not the day that you're going to tell us about your
philosophy of life.
>
>>
>> >> > Either way, it implies that you have knowingly made false
>> >> > statements.
>> >> >
>> >> No, it doesn't.
>> >
>> > Yes, it does.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>
> Are you speaking ex cathedra, or just off the cuff? And do you know the
> difference?
>
I'm speaking ex cathedra, and yes, I know the difference.
>
>> > Again, you attempt "creative editing" to make it appear
>> > as if I have said something that I have not. The part you missed
>> > was:
>> >
>> > "What I am asking is that you back up your proclamations with the
>> > evidence that *you* say is so easy for you to produce. Such a
>> > request is well within the domain of normal discourse, and refusal to
>> > grant it implies that either you do not have the evidence easily
>> > available, or that you, yourself, do not believe that the evidence
>> > that you do have is reputable."
>> >
>> > You've made two claims in support of another claim (that
>> > arteriosclerosis, emphysema, ***and*** various types of cancer is
>> > caused in non-smokers by smokers);
>>
>> That is correct. You have claimed that only psychosomatic illnesses are
>> caused to non-smokers by smokers. You are wrong, and only a fool would
>> believe you.
>
> Incorrect,
"only a fool would belive you".
> and you will not find any support for that notion. Please,
> sir. Read the thread before you comment. Requesting that Lech support,
> with objective evidence, that his reported symptoms are NOT
> psychosomatic, nore requesting that you support, with reliable evidence
> (that you also claim that you have ready access to) your notion that
> arteriosclerosis, emphysema, ***and*** various types of cancer is caused
> in non-smokers by smokers is decidedly not the same thing as claiming
> that "only psychosomatic illnesses are caused to non-smokers by
> smokers".
>
> If you are going to tell the world what I've claimed, then at least get
> the claim right,
I did.
>>
>> >> Are you the person that Fumin bin Lyin said was going to "come beat
>> >> the shit" out of me?
>> >
>> > If Fuming Mad has made such threats, then I was not privy to them.
>>
>> Neither was anyone else.
>
> Are you now saying that you made up the threat, sir?
>
>
>> > Nor
>> > do I condone them.
>>
>> That seems to depend on which side of your mouth you're talking from.
>
> Please, sir, if you are going to make such a claim, then at least have
> the decency to back it up.
>
No need to. When you use Fumin bin Lyin as an ally, you're desparate.
>
>> > You, sir, cannot say the same.
>> >
>> Yes, I can. "When I make a claim, I back it up with evidence." There, I
>> just "said the same".
>
> I wonder if the Green Party is aware that their candidate is a nursery
> school dropout who never mastered the complexities of playground?
>
Are you also wondering about whether the Taliban's escape would have been
more effective if they had been equipped with SUV's?
>
>
>> >> > As to my so-called "friends at Philip Morris", name one and show
>> >> > reason to believe that he/she is my friend.
>> >> >
>> >> It is a undisputed fact (see
>> >> http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?if=avpidx&DOCID=2047549814 )
>> >> that a newsgroup posting of yours found its way into a Philip Morris
>> >> filing cabinet. Explaining how it got there is your problem, not
>> >> mine.
>> >
>> > But you already *have* the explanation.
>>
>> I have, so far, two explanations. Nob Odie's is more believable than
>> yours.
>>
>>
> In your opinion, and we both know the esteem with which I hold your
> opinions.
>
Yes, and we both know the esteem with which I hold yours.
>> > Can you say with utmost
>> > certainty that your posts do not end up in the files of your
>> > political opponents?
>> >
>> Glad you mentioned that. I'll be making a posting on this shortly. You
>> will have a hard time convincing anyone that there are "political
>> opponents" of yours at Philip Morris.
>
> Ah gee, Mr. Broughton. Another claim. And another disappointment.
>
You're disappointed that you weren't invited to our party?
>
>
>> >> > And, while you're at it, find out what brand I smoke before you
>> >> > conclude that I work for PM.
>> >> >
>> >> There's lots of people who work for PM who don't smoke their
>> >> cigarettss.
>> >
>> > Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand.
>> >
>> Billie Jean King.
>
> Is there something you find difficult about the concept of "employee"?
Not at all. Billie Jean collects a regular paycheque from PM.
>
> Please try again.
No. You made a fool of yourself by challenging me to name an employee of
PM that does not smoke a PM brand. I did so. You only asked me to name
one, and one is all you're getting.
Fuming Mad
> Are you also wondering about whether the Taliban's escape would have been
> more effective if they had been equipped with SUV's?
No, he's not, Bawb, and neither am I, nor anyone else.
--
_________________________________________________
"Fuming Mad scores a technical win in his claim that you lie." --- David
MacLean, referring to Lying Bawb on can.talk.smoking, November 9, 2001
"Well, I can vouch for Mr. Broughton and myself. We may well be
assholes..." --- Lech K. Lesiak, aka, Leech The Lying Sack of Shit, on
behalf of Bawb 'Rediculous' Broughton:
mailto:rbro...@broughton.ca rbro...@broughton.ca
mailto:b...@broughton.ca b...@broughton.ca
mailto:rbro...@smartt.com rbro...@smartt.com
(can.talk.smoking; Aug. 12, 2001)
>>>> Shut up, Bawb.
>>>
>>> Eat me.
>>
>> HAHAHHAHAAHHAHAA... still working on your study of blowjobs, Bawb?
>> Sounds like you're "broadening" the scope of your study... :P
>>
> Are you volunteering to participate?
(can.talk.smoking; Aug. 28, 2001)
"the Justice Department contends smokers did not realize that cigarettes
David MacLean
Mr. Broughton, before you get confounded by a chicken and egg debate, could
you accept that I would not even have the choice to read or not read them as
I see fit if you had not posted them in the first place?
Your attempt to weasel out of the trap that you set for yourself is totally
hillarious.
>
> > > > Must be really terrible for you to have a philosophy of life that is
so
> > > > shakey that you are unwilling to defend it.
>
> >> If you want, you can tell us what it's like to be an asswipe.
>
> > If you'd like, I'll simply repost you last twenty usenet articles to
this
>
> So, this is not the day that you're going to tell us about your
> philosophy of life.
*** ALERT - Robert Broughton editting so that he doesn't have to deal with
the words written again ***
The entire paragraph was:
"If you'd like, I'll simply repost you last twenty usenet articles to this
group, and you can read them for the first time. Perhaps they'll overcome
your adamant denial and you will then gain the knowledge you seek."
*** END ALERT ***
Mr. Broughton, if you ask my philosophy, I am quite likely to tell you.
Unlike you, I have yet to duck a direct question from you, and, again unlike
you, I have nothing to hide.
By the way, sir, are you completely unaware that your requirement to edit my
words in order to come up with what I am sure is to you a witty comeback
illustrates the broad expanse of the yellow streak running up your back and
your total lack of ability in original thought.
Why don't you try, just once, to come up with a sharp comeback without
resorting to surgery on my words?
>
> >
> >>
> >> >> > Either way, it implies that you have knowingly made false
> >> >> > statements.
> >> >> >
> >> >> No, it doesn't.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, it does.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't.
> >
> > Are you speaking ex cathedra, or just off the cuff? And do you know the
> > difference?
> >
> I'm speaking ex cathedra, and yes, I know the difference.
Apparently not, for in order to speak ex cathedra, one has to speak by
virtue of or in exercise of one's office or position.
I suppose that I could ask you for your bona fides, but I imagine that that
is yet another thing that you will refuse to to.
>
> >
> >> > Again, you attempt "creative editing" to make it appear
> >> > as if I have said something that I have not. The part you missed
> >> > was:
> >> >
> >> > "What I am asking is that you back up your proclamations with the
> >> > evidence that *you* say is so easy for you to produce. Such a
> >> > request is well within the domain of normal discourse, and refusal to
> >> > grant it implies that either you do not have the evidence easily
> >> > available, or that you, yourself, do not believe that the evidence
> >> > that you do have is reputable."
> >> >
> >> > You've made two claims in support of another claim (that
> >> > arteriosclerosis, emphysema, ***and*** various types of cancer is
> >> > caused in non-smokers by smokers);
> >>
> >> That is correct. You have claimed that only psychosomatic illnesses are
> >> caused to non-smokers by smokers. You are wrong, and only a fool would
> >> believe you.
> >
> > Incorrect,
>
> "only a fool would belive you".
Stop making a fool out of yourself. You have your newsreader. You have a
web brower. If your news server does not keep aricles more than a couple of
days, then do a Google search and point out exactly where I claimed that
"only psychosomatic illnesses are coaused to non-smokers by smokers".
You cannot do so.
>
> > and you will not find any support for that notion. Please,
> > sir. Read the thread before you comment. Requesting that Lech support,
> > with objective evidence, that his reported symptoms are NOT
> > psychosomatic, nore requesting that you support, with reliable evidence
> > (that you also claim that you have ready access to) your notion that
> > arteriosclerosis, emphysema, ***and*** various types of cancer is caused
> > in non-smokers by smokers is decidedly not the same thing as claiming
> > that "only psychosomatic illnesses are caused to non-smokers by
> > smokers".
> >
> > If you are going to tell the world what I've claimed, then at least get
> > the claim right,
>
> I did.
A false statement made while you know the statement is false. You sir, are
a liar. However, that is hardly surprising since you are a politician as
well.
Not a very good one, mind you, but a politician none-the-less.
>
> >>
> >> >> Are you the person that Fumin bin Lyin said was going to "come beat
> >> >> the shit" out of me?
> >> >
> >> > If Fuming Mad has made such threats, then I was not privy to them.
> >>
> >> Neither was anyone else.
> >
> > Are you now saying that you made up the threat, sir?
> >
> >
> >> > Nor
> >> > do I condone them.
> >>
> >> That seems to depend on which side of your mouth you're talking from.
> >
> > Please, sir, if you are going to make such a claim, then at least have
> > the decency to back it up.
> >
> No need to. When you use Fumin bin Lyin as an ally, you're desparate.
A truly Freudian slip on your part, Mr. Broughton. Your subconscious mind
was so appalled at the words you attempted to purvey that it would not allow
you to even spell the word correctly - and then forced you to ignore the
spell check warning.
>
> >
> >> > You, sir, cannot say the same.
> >> >
> >> Yes, I can. "When I make a claim, I back it up with evidence." There, I
> >> just "said the same".
> >
> > I wonder if the Green Party is aware that their candidate is a nursery
> > school dropout who never mastered the complexities of playground?
> >
> Are you also wondering about whether the Taliban's escape would have been
> more effective if they had been equipped with SUV's?
No sir, I cannot say that I thought anything at all about this irrelevancy
until you mentioned it.
But if you think that your party affiliation is irrelevant, then that just
goes to show how little you think.
>
> >
> >
> >> >> > As to my so-called "friends at Philip Morris", name one and show
> >> >> > reason to believe that he/she is my friend.
> >> >> >
> >> >> It is a undisputed fact (see
> >> >> http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?if=avpidx&DOCID=2047549814 )
> >> >> that a newsgroup posting of yours found its way into a Philip Morris
> >> >> filing cabinet. Explaining how it got there is your problem, not
> >> >> mine.
> >> >
> >> > But you already *have* the explanation.
> >>
> >> I have, so far, two explanations. Nob Odie's is more believable than
> >> yours.
> >>
> >>
> > In your opinion, and we both know the esteem with which I hold your
> > opinions.
> >
> Yes, and we both know the esteem with which I hold yours.
On the balance of it, you get the better deal. After all, you are exposed
to original thought, whereas I am exposed to your barely hidden "I know you
are but what am I."
Tell me sir, do you intend to go to your grave with your attitudes petrified
and your originality fossilized? Or do you, way down in your secret soul of
souls still wish that one day, the good fairy will come by and magically
make you all grown up?
>
>
> >> > Can you say with utmost
> >> > certainty that your posts do not end up in the files of your
> >> > political opponents?
> >> >
> >> Glad you mentioned that. I'll be making a posting on this shortly. You
> >> will have a hard time convincing anyone that there are "political
> >> opponents" of yours at Philip Morris.
> >
> > Ah gee, Mr. Broughton. Another claim. And another disappointment.
> >
> You're disappointed that you weren't invited to our party?
What Party?
>
> >
> >
> >> >> > And, while you're at it, find out what brand I smoke before you
> >> >> > conclude that I work for PM.
> >> >> >
> >> >> There's lots of people who work for PM who don't smoke their
> >> >> cigarettss.
> >> >
> >> > Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand.
> >> >
> >> Billie Jean King.
> >
> > Is there something you find difficult about the concept of "employee"?
>
> Not at all. Billie Jean collects a regular paycheque from PM.
Main Entry: em·ploy·ee
Variant(s): or em·ploye /im-"plo(i)-'E, (")em-; im-'plo(i)-"E, em-/
Function: noun
Date: 1822
: one employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a position
below the executive level
BTW, the U.S. government receives regular cheques from PM. Does that make G
Dubya a PM employee?
>
> >
> > Please try again.
>
> No. You made a fool of yourself by challenging me to name an employee of
> PM that does not smoke a PM brand. I did so. You only asked me to name
> one, and one is all you're getting.
>
Please sir. The original challenge was "Name one employee of PM who smokes
who does not smoke a PM brand."
Billie Jean King is not an employee of PM, and she does not smoke. So you
failed to provide a single name that met the challenge.
But thanks for playing.
And, by the way, if your "reputable evidence" is so lacking in applicability
to the challenge as your answer of Billie Jean King to the challenge of
naming a smoking employee of PM who does not smoke a PM brand, it is not
worth the time and effort.
Consider yourself relieved of that challenge.
Robert Broughton
>
> Mr. Broughton, if you ask my philosophy, I am quite likely to tell you.
> Unlike you, I have yet to duck a direct question from you, and, again
> unlike you, I have nothing to hide.
OK, then why don't tell us what it's like to spend your life as an
asswipe?
>> I'm speaking ex cathedra, and yes, I know the difference.
> Apparently not, for in order to speak ex cathedra, one has to speak by
> virtue of or in exercise of one's office or position.
> I suppose that I could ask you for your bona fides, but I imagine that that
> is yet another thing that you will refuse to to.
I'm the Pope. Didn't you know that? Now, bend over.
>
>> >> > Again, you attempt "creative editing" to make it appear
>> >> > as if I have said something that I have not. The part you missed
>> >> > was:
>> >> >
>> >> > "What I am asking is that you back up your proclamations with the
>> >> > evidence that *you* say is so easy for you to produce. Such a
>> >> > request is well within the domain of normal discourse, and refusal
>> >> > to grant it implies that either you do not have the evidence
>> >> > easily available, or that you, yourself, do not believe that the
>> >> > evidence that you do have is reputable."
>> >> >
>> >> > You've made two claims in support of another claim (that
>> >> > arteriosclerosis, emphysema, ***and*** various types of cancer is
>> >> > caused in non-smokers by smokers);
>> >>
>> >> That is correct. You have claimed that only psychosomatic illnesses
>> >> are caused to non-smokers by smokers. You are wrong, and only a fool
>> >> would believe you.
>> >
> then do a Google search and point out exactly where I
> claimed that "only psychosomatic illnesses are coaused to non-smokers by
> smokers".
>
> You cannot do so.
>
"Lech, rather than proving that your self-described headaches and nausea are
not psychosomatic in nature, the evidence that you offer seems to more
strongly support the hypothesis that the headaches and nausea are indeed
psychosomatic." - David "Fool" MacLean, Dec. 6, 2001.
>
> Tell me sir, do you intend to go to your grave with your attitudes
> petrified and your originality fossilized?
Do you? Keep on smoking, and you'll get there sooner.
>
>>
>> >> >> > And, while you're at it, find out what brand I smoke before you
>> >> >> > conclude that I work for PM.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> There's lots of people who work for PM who don't smoke their
>> >> >> cigarettss.
>> >> >
>> >> > Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand.
>> >> >
>> >> Billie Jean King.
>> >
>> > Is there something you find difficult about the concept of
>> > "employee"?
>>
>> Not at all. Billie Jean collects a regular paycheque from PM.
>
> Main Entry: em·ploy·ee
> Variant(s): or em·ploye /im-"plo(i)-'E, (")em-; im-'plo(i)-"E, em-/
> Function: noun
> Date: 1822
> : one employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a position
> below the executive level
>
Yep. Billie Jean is an employee. I wonder if Sen. Jesse Helms knows about
this?
Fuming Mad
> OK, then why don't tell us what it's like to spend your life as an
> asswipe?
A-HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHA! Obviously you want some advice on how to
be one, eh Bawb!
> I'm the Pope. Didn't you know that? Now, bend over.
*LOL* oh man, are you drunk, Bawb?! This is too much... I think your
'expanding' study of blowjobs is out of control!
> Do you? Keep on smoking, and you'll get there sooner.
Will he, Bawb? Is this like you saying even though you're at least twice
my age, you're gonna outlive me?
Robert Broughton
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> OK, then why don't tell us what it's like to spend your life as an
>> asswipe?
>
> A-HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHA! Obviously you want some advice on how to
> be one, eh Bawb!
>
Let that be a lesson to you: if you want to become informed on a subject,
ask an expert.
>> I'm the Pope. Didn't you know that? Now, bend over.
>
> *LOL*
Yeah, I thought this was pretty funny, too.
>> Do you? Keep on smoking, and you'll get there sooner.
>
> Will he, Bawb? Is this like you saying even though you're at least twice
> my age, you're gonna outlive me?
>
I thought we established that I was THREE times your age. Keep on
smokin', bin Lyin. You had better watch out for those SUV-driving
Talibans, too.
David MacLean
> In <98vR7.1$__3.366@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Mr. Broughton, if you ask my philosophy, I am quite likely to tell you.
> > Unlike you, I have yet to duck a direct question from you, and, again
> > unlike you, I have nothing to hide.
>
> OK, then why don't tell us what it's like to spend your life as an
> asswipe?
Didn't I make myself clear? I have no idea what it's like to spend ones
life as an "asswipe". For that, I have to go to the experts; the ones who
have had experience living life as an "asswipe".
Which is why I offerred to repost your last twenty posts in this newsgroup.
>
> >> I'm speaking ex cathedra, and yes, I know the difference.
>
> > Apparently not, for in order to speak ex cathedra, one has to speak by
> > virtue of or in exercise of one's office or position.
>
> > I suppose that I could ask you for your bona fides, but I imagine that
that
> > is yet another thing that you will refuse to to.
>
> I'm the Pope. Didn't you know that? Now, bend over.
Sorry, but I'm not Catholic. If I were, the thought of you being pope would
make me convert.
BTW, you don't appear to have noticed, but your claim to being Pope is
semantically equal to your claim that arteriosclerosis, emphysema, ***and***
various types of cancer is caused in non-smokers by smokers: they are simply
pronouncements by you which you refuse to back up with evidence.
>
>
> >
> >> >> > Again, you attempt "creative editing" to make it appear
> >> >> > as if I have said something that I have not. The part you missed
> >> >> > was:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "What I am asking is that you back up your proclamations with the
> >> >> > evidence that *you* say is so easy for you to produce. Such a
> >> >> > request is well within the domain of normal discourse, and refusal
> >> >> > to grant it implies that either you do not have the evidence
> >> >> > easily available, or that you, yourself, do not believe that the
> >> >> > evidence that you do have is reputable."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You've made two claims in support of another claim (that
> >> >> > arteriosclerosis, emphysema, ***and*** various types of cancer is
> >> >> > caused in non-smokers by smokers);
> >> >>
> >> >> That is correct. You have claimed that only psychosomatic illnesses
> >> >> are caused to non-smokers by smokers. You are wrong, and only a fool
> >> >> would believe you.
> >> >
>
> > then do a Google search and point out exactly where I
> > claimed that "only psychosomatic illnesses are coaused to non-smokers by
> > smokers".
> >
> > You cannot do so.
> >
> "Lech, rather than proving that your self-described headaches and nausea
are
> not psychosomatic in nature, the evidence that you offer seems to more
> strongly support the hypothesis that the headaches and nausea are indeed
> psychosomatic." - David "Fool" MacLean, Dec. 6, 2001.
>
Mr. Broughton, I am truly concerned at your lack of reading comprehension.
Arguing the specific, in this case Lech's symptoms and the possibility that
they are psychosomatic in nature, is NOT equivalent to arguing the general,
which, according to you is "only psychosomatic illnesses are caused to
non-smokers by smokers".
Drawing such a conclusion from the above is entirely equivalent to drawing
the conclusion that all Green Party members are idiots from the premise
"Robert Broughton is a Green Party member", and "Robert Broughton is an
idiot".
I have drawn no such conclusion and made no such claim. In fact, I am
acquainted with some local Green Party members, and some are decidedly not
idiots. Therefore, it would be false to fact to conclude that Green Party
membership has anything at all to do with whether a person is an idiot or
he/she is not.
Is that clear to you, sir? Or would you rather remain in your fantasy
world?
> >
> > Tell me sir, do you intend to go to your grave with your attitudes
> > petrified and your originality fossilized?
>
> Do you? Keep on smoking, and you'll get there sooner.
Then how do you explain the fact that you got there before me despite your
non-smoking status?
>
> >
> >>
> >> >> >> > And, while you're at it, find out what brand I smoke before you
> >> >> >> > conclude that I work for PM.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> There's lots of people who work for PM who don't smoke their
> >> >> >> cigarettss.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Billie Jean King.
> >> >
> >> > Is there something you find difficult about the concept of
> >> > "employee"?
> >>
> >> Not at all. Billie Jean collects a regular paycheque from PM.
> >
> > Main Entry: em·ploy·ee
> > Variant(s): or em·ploye /im-"plo(i)-'E, (")em-; im-'plo(i)-"E, em-/
> > Function: noun
> > Date: 1822
> > : one employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a position
> > below the executive level
> >
>
> Yep. Billie Jean is an employee. I wonder if Sen. Jesse Helms knows about
> this?
Member of the board of directors is hardly below the level of executive.
Oh, I'm sorry. I had no intention of pointing out your lack of experience
with any position above that of middle management. Ah well, the cat is out
of the bag.
But sir, debating whether or not Billie Jean King is or is not an employee
makes for a lot of words and you feel that you can exhibit some smugness
(how you ever got the notion that you could be smug about anything is one of
those unexplainable facts of nature), but you choose to ignore the fact that
you did not meet the entire challenge as originally put forth. To refresh
your memory:
"Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand."
Ms. King does not smoke, so she hardly meets the challenge.
Robert Broughton
> "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> news:9v67hs$kl1$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>> In <98vR7.1$__3.366@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mr. Broughton, if you ask my philosophy, I am quite likely to tell
>> > you. Unlike you, I have yet to duck a direct question from you, and,
>> > again unlike you, I have nothing to hide.
>>
>> OK, then why don't tell us what it's like to spend your life as an
>> asswipe?
>
> Didn't I make myself clear?
No, you didn't.
> I have no idea what it's like to spend ones
> life as an "asswipe".
You don't have a mirror in your bathroom?
>
> Which is why I offerred to repost your last twenty posts in this
> newsgroup.
>
Which was a silly idea.
>
>> >> I'm speaking ex cathedra, and yes, I know the difference.
>>
>> > Apparently not, for in order to speak ex cathedra, one has to speak
>> > by virtue of or in exercise of one's office or position.
>>
>> > I suppose that I could ask you for your bona fides, but I imagine
>> > that
> that
>> > is yet another thing that you will refuse to to.
>>
>> I'm the Pope. Didn't you know that? Now, bend over.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not Catholic. If I were, the thought of you being pope
> would make me convert.
You'll never get to be a Cardinal with that attitude.
You're truly concerned that you're not fooling anyone.
> Arguing the specific, in this case Lech's symptoms and
> the possibility that they are psychosomatic in nature, is NOT equivalent
> to arguing the general, which, according to you is "only psychosomatic
> illnesses are caused to non-smokers by smokers".
>
The tobacco industry claimed for years that their products did not cause
lung cancer. emphysema, etc., generally using weasel words like "the
evidence is not conclusive". They've given up on this, as a result of
being hauled into courtrooms around the planet. Now, they are trying to
sell the idea that even though first-hand cigarette smoke causes all
these diseases, second-hand smoke miraculously does not. Instead of
promoting this idea on their corporate stationery, they promote it
through their network of asswipes. Tell your contact(s) at Philip Morris to
forget it: We're not buying this nonsense.
>
>> > Tell me sir, do you intend to go to your grave with your attitudes
>> > petrified and your originality fossilized?
>>
>> Do you? Keep on smoking, and you'll get there sooner.
>
> Then how do you explain the fact that you got there before me despite
> your non-smoking status?
>
You're suggesting that I'm typing this from my grave? I'm truly concerned
about your lack of reading comprehension.
>
>
>>
>> >> >> >> > And, while you're at it, find out what brand I smoke before
>> >> >> >> > you conclude that I work for PM.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> There's lots of people who work for PM who don't smoke their
>> >> >> >> cigarettss.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM
>> >> >> > brand.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Billie Jean King.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is there something you find difficult about the concept of
>> >> > "employee"?
>> >>
>> >> Not at all. Billie Jean collects a regular paycheque from PM.
>> >
>> > Main Entry: em·ploy·ee
>> > Variant(s): or em·ploye /im-"plo(i)-'E, (")em-; im-'plo(i)-"E, em-/
>> > Function: noun
>> > Date: 1822
>> > : one employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a
>> > position below the executive level
>> >
>> >
>> Yep. Billie Jean is an employee. I wonder if Sen. Jesse Helms knows
>> about this?
>
> Member of the board of directors is hardly below the level of executive.
>
Billie Jean King is a employee of Philip Morris. She does not smoke
Virginia Slims, Marlboro, or any other Philip Morris/Altria brand. Your
ill-conceived challenge was a failure.
David MacLean
> In <jkJR7.80$__3.6317@localhost>, David "Asswipe" MacLean wrote:
>
>
> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> > news:9v67hs$kl1$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >> In <98vR7.1$__3.366@localhost>, David MacLean wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Mr. Broughton, if you ask my philosophy, I am quite likely to tell
> >> > you. Unlike you, I have yet to duck a direct question from you, and,
> >> > again unlike you, I have nothing to hide.
> >>
> >> OK, then why don't tell us what it's like to spend your life as an
> >> asswipe?
> >
> > Didn't I make myself clear?
>
> No, you didn't.
>
> > I have no idea what it's like to spend ones
> > life as an "asswipe".
>
> You don't have a mirror in your bathroom?
>
> >
> > Which is why I offerred to repost your last twenty posts in this
> > newsgroup.
> >
> Which was a silly idea.
Just because something goes over your head does not make it silly, Mr.
Broughton. And you certainly should know that by now considering the vast
amount of experience you've had with things, even very simplistic things,
going right over your head.
>
> >
> >> >> I'm speaking ex cathedra, and yes, I know the difference.
> >>
> >> > Apparently not, for in order to speak ex cathedra, one has to speak
> >> > by virtue of or in exercise of one's office or position.
> >>
> >> > I suppose that I could ask you for your bona fides, but I imagine
> >> > that
> > that
> >> > is yet another thing that you will refuse to to.
> >>
> >> I'm the Pope. Didn't you know that? Now, bend over.
> >
> > Sorry, but I'm not Catholic. If I were, the thought of you being pope
> > would make me convert.
>
> You'll never get to be a Cardinal with that attitude.
Thank heaven for small mercies.
Mr. Broughton, it is so utterly simple to fool you that it's almost
pathetic.
I guess you don't include yourself in the abovementioned "anyone".
>
> > Arguing the specific, in this case Lech's symptoms and
> > the possibility that they are psychosomatic in nature, is NOT equivalent
> > to arguing the general, which, according to you is "only psychosomatic
> > illnesses are caused to non-smokers by smokers".
> >
> The tobacco industry claimed for years that their products did not cause
> lung cancer. emphysema, etc., generally using weasel words like "the
> evidence is not conclusive". They've given up on this, as a result of
> being hauled into courtrooms around the planet. Now, they are trying to
> sell the idea that even though first-hand cigarette smoke causes all
> these diseases, second-hand smoke miraculously does not. Instead of
> promoting this idea on their corporate stationery, they promote it
> through their network of asswipes. Tell your contact(s) at Philip Morris
to
> forget it: We're not buying this nonsense.
>
Now, when I used "we", it meant in the first instance you and I, and in the
second instance a minimum of Fuming Mad and myself. In each case you
challenged my usage, even though, it was quite simple to tell who "we" were
in each instance from context.
In the above "We're not buying this nonsense.", is your MPD acting up.
>
> >
> >> > Tell me sir, do you intend to go to your grave with your attitudes
> >> > petrified and your originality fossilized?
> >>
> >> Do you? Keep on smoking, and you'll get there sooner.
> >
> > Then how do you explain the fact that you got there before me despite
> > your non-smoking status?
> >
> You're suggesting that I'm typing this from my grave? I'm truly concerned
> about your lack of reading comprehension.
Read my words again. The grave has never petrified attitutes; it eliminates
them. It does not fossilize originality; it abolishes them.
Again, your lack of reading comprehension amazes me.
However, if "typing this from my grave" can be construed as a euphemism for
communicating while dead, the point could be made that this is partially
true; you appear to be quite dead from the neck up.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >> >> >> > And, while you're at it, find out what brand I smoke before
> >> >> >> >> > you conclude that I work for PM.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> There's lots of people who work for PM who don't smoke their
> >> >> >> >> cigarettss.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM
> >> >> >> > brand.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Billie Jean King.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Is there something you find difficult about the concept of
> >> >> > "employee"?
> >> >>
> >> >> Not at all. Billie Jean collects a regular paycheque from PM.
> >> >
> >> > Main Entry: em·ploy·ee
> >> > Variant(s): or em·ploye /im-"plo(i)-'E, (")em-; im-'plo(i)-"E, em-/
> >> > Function: noun
> >> > Date: 1822
> >> > : one employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a
> >> > position below the executive level
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Yep. Billie Jean is an employee. I wonder if Sen. Jesse Helms knows
> >> about this?
> >
> > Member of the board of directors is hardly below the level of executive.
> >
> Billie Jean King is a employee of Philip Morris. She does not smoke
> Virginia Slims, Marlboro, or any other Philip Morris/Altria brand. Your
> ill-conceived challenge was a failure.
*** ALERT Robert Broughton editing again ALERT ***
What Mr. Broughton edited out, I can only assume to spare himself some
embarrassment, was the following:
>Oh, I'm sorry. I had no intention of pointing out your lack of experience
>with any position above that of middle management. Ah well, the cat is out
>of the bag.
>
>But sir, debating whether or not Billie Jean King is or is not an employee
>makes for a lot of words and you feel that you can exhibit some smugness
>(how you ever got the notion that you could be smug about anything is one
of
>those unexplainable facts of nature), but you choose to ignore the fact
that
>you did not meet the entire challenge as originally put forth. To refresh
>your memory:
>
>"Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand."
>
>Ms. King does not smoke, so she hardly meets the challenge.
>
*** END ALERT ***
Read the original challenge again, Mr. Broughton. Have some ten year old go
over it with you, and have him/her ensure that you sound out the words and
look up, in the dictionary, those words that you don't understand. It should
not take long, even if you have to look up every word, because it is a short
sentence.
Robert Broughton
> "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> news:9v836u$n96$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>>
>> > Which is why I offerred to repost your last twenty posts in this
>> > newsgroup.
>> >
>> Which was a silly idea.
>
> Just because something goes over your head does not make it silly,
Just because something is silly doesn't mean that it went over my head.
>> You're truly concerned that you're not fooling anyone.
>
> Mr. Broughton, it is so utterly simple to fool you that it's almost
> pathetic.
>
Greater minds than you have attempted and failed.
>> >
>> The tobacco industry claimed for years that their products did not
>> cause lung cancer. emphysema, etc., generally using weasel words like
>> "the evidence is not conclusive". They've given up on this, as a result
>> of being hauled into courtrooms around the planet. Now, they are trying
>> to sell the idea that even though first-hand cigarette smoke causes all
>> these diseases, second-hand smoke miraculously does not. Instead of
>> promoting this idea on their corporate stationery, they promote it
>> through their network of asswipes. Tell your contact(s) at Philip
>> Morris
> to
>> forget it: We're not buying this nonsense.
>>
>>
> Now, when I used "we", it meant in the first instance you and I, and in
> the second instance a minimum of Fuming Mad and myself.
However, when I used "we", I was referring to the non-smoking public. Tell
your contact(s) at Philip Morris to forget it: We're not buying this
nonsense.
>> >
>> Billie Jean King is a employee of Philip Morris. She does not smoke
>> Virginia Slims, Marlboro, or any other Philip Morris/Altria brand. Your
>> ill-conceived challenge was a failure.
>
> *** ALERT Robert Broughton editing again ALERT ***
>
** ALERT David "Asswipe" MacLean making another pathetic attempt at
damage control ++
>>
>>"Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand."
>>
>>Ms. King does not smoke, so she hardly meets the challenge.
Not only does she not smoke a PM brand, she doesn't smoke any BAT or RJR
brands either.
>>
>>
> *** END ALERT ***
>
> Read the original challenge again, Mr. Broughton.
I've read it already. Your ill-conceived challenge was a failure.
** END ALERT **
David MacLean
> In <r6OR7.110$__3.8252@localhost>, David "Asswipe" MacLean wrote:
>
>
> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> > news:9v836u$n96$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >>
> >> > Which is why I offerred to repost your last twenty posts in this
> >> > newsgroup.
> >> >
> >> Which was a silly idea.
> >
> > Just because something goes over your head does not make it silly,
>
> Just because something is silly doesn't mean that it went over my head.
>
> >> You're truly concerned that you're not fooling anyone.
> >
> > Mr. Broughton, it is so utterly simple to fool you that it's almost
> > pathetic.
> >
>
> Greater minds than you have attempted and failed.
Greater minds than I would not bother to attempt to converse with you, let
alone attempt to fool you. Lesser minds than mine already have fooled you.
In the final analysis, your above statement is merely yet another attempt at
ego defense. Now why you would expend such effort in defending your ego
when that ego is only a facade designed to mask the paucity of spirit you
hold within is one of those mysteries of life. You know the type of mystery
I mean, do you not? They are the type of mystery that is mildly puzzling
but not worth the time or effort to puzzle out.
>
> >> >
> >> The tobacco industry claimed for years that their products did not
> >> cause lung cancer. emphysema, etc., generally using weasel words like
> >> "the evidence is not conclusive". They've given up on this, as a result
> >> of being hauled into courtrooms around the planet. Now, they are trying
> >> to sell the idea that even though first-hand cigarette smoke causes all
> >> these diseases, second-hand smoke miraculously does not. Instead of
> >> promoting this idea on their corporate stationery, they promote it
> >> through their network of asswipes. Tell your contact(s) at Philip
> >> Morris
> > to
> >> forget it: We're not buying this nonsense.
> >>
> >>
> > Now, when I used "we", it meant in the first instance you and I, and in
> > the second instance a minimum of Fuming Mad and myself.
>
> However, when I used "we", I was referring to the non-smoking public. Tell
> your contact(s) at Philip Morris to forget it: We're not buying this
> nonsense.
*You* speak for the non-smoking public? Are you paid by the post? Or by
the word?
Or, more to the point, by the evasion?
And who hired you? It would seem that the human resources department of the
non-smoking public is falling down on the job. The non-smoking public would
have been better served if they had hired a lawn chair to speak for them.
At least they would not be consistently disappointed with the results.
>
> >> >
> >> Billie Jean King is a employee of Philip Morris. She does not smoke
> >> Virginia Slims, Marlboro, or any other Philip Morris/Altria brand. Your
> >> ill-conceived challenge was a failure.
> >
> > *** ALERT Robert Broughton editing again ALERT ***
> >
> ** ALERT David "Asswipe" MacLean making another pathetic attempt at
> damage control ++
Ego again. Mr. Broughton, nothing that you have said even remotely comes
close to "damage" that needs to be controlled.
What I am pointing out is the simple fact that you refuse to discuss what I
have said, and insist on attempting to discuss merely what you wish that I
had said.
This is hardly the tactic that one would expect from a person who truly
believes that his position is unassailable. But then, we both know that you
know that your position is not unassailable; in fact, it is really quite
weak.
One suggestion though: if you do not like me pointing out boldly the
rhetorical tricks you use, then stop using them.
>
> >>
> >>"Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand."
> >>
> >>Ms. King does not smoke, so she hardly meets the challenge.
>
> Not only does she not smoke a PM brand, she doesn't smoke any BAT or RJR
> brands either.
>
"Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand."
^^^^^^^^^^
This is the fifth time you've seen the challenge. Could it be that your
insistance that Billie Jean King fits the challenge is not the result of
abject stupidity on your part but merely the indication that your last visit
to the optometrist was far too long ago?
> >>
> >>
> > *** END ALERT ***
> >
> > Read the original challenge again, Mr. Broughton.
>
> I've read it already. Your ill-conceived challenge was a failure.
Apparently, you did not take my advice to "Have some ten year old go over it
with you, and have him/her ensure that you sound out the words and look up,
in the dictionary, those words that you don't understand."
Mr. Broughton, have you ever had the experience of watching a freshly weaned
puppy being handed a bone that is as big or bigger than he is? One can
admire the courage of this puppy as he attacks the bone, but most never even
think about the amount of courage involved. Even for those who do, this
consideration will not overcome the mirth generated, for it is absolutely
hilarious, at least to the watchers. The pupply thinks that the situation
is serious.
As long as you continue to evade the challenge and insist that someone who
does not fit the primary criteria of the challenge is, indeed, a complete
answer to the challenge, the challenge is not, as you call it, a failure.
Far from it, for you lack the ability to comprehend the purpose of the
challenge in the first place.
The person who gave the puppy the bone was not likely to have the intention
of having the puppy master it. The purpose was most likely to invoke the
humorous behaviour on the part of the puppy.
Sit, Mr. Broughton! Stay! Good boy!
Fuming Mad
> *You* speak for the non-smoking public? Are you paid by the post? Or by
> the word?
>
> Or, more to the point, by the evasion?
>
> And who hired you? It would seem that the human resources department of the
> non-smoking public is falling down on the job. The non-smoking public would
> have been better served if they had hired a lawn chair to speak for them.
> At least they would not be consistently disappointed with the results.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Bawb's never been representative of the non-smoking
public, though, David. He represents the anti-smoking public.
> Sit, Mr. Broughton! Stay! Good boy!
hahahaha... I don't think Bawb deserves to be equated with dogs... he's
more suited to be compared with dog shit!
Robert Broughton
> "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> news:9v8v76$pg5$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>> In <r6OR7.110$__3.8252@localhost>, David "Asswipe" MacLean wrote:
>>
>>
>> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:9v836u$n96$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>> >>
>> >> > Which is why I offerred to repost your last twenty posts in this
>> >> > newsgroup.
>> >> >
>> >> Which was a silly idea.
>> >
>> > Just because something goes over your head does not make it silly,
>>
>> Just because something is silly doesn't mean that it went over my head.
>>
>> >> You're truly concerned that you're not fooling anyone.
>> >
>> > Mr. Broughton, it is so utterly simple to fool you that it's almost
>> > pathetic.
>> >
>> >
>> Greater minds than you have attempted and failed.
>
> Greater minds than I would not bother to attempt to converse with you,
> let alone attempt to fool you.
LAME.
>
>> >> The tobacco industry claimed for years that their products did not
>> >> cause lung cancer. emphysema, etc., generally using weasel words
>> >> like "the evidence is not conclusive". They've given up on this, as
>> >> a result of being hauled into courtrooms around the planet. Now,
>> >> they are trying to sell the idea that even though first-hand
>> >> cigarette smoke causes all these diseases, second-hand smoke
>> >> miraculously does not. Instead of promoting this idea on their
>> >> corporate stationery, they promote it through their network of
>> >> asswipes. Tell your contact(s) at Philip Morris
>> > to
>> >> forget it: We're not buying this nonsense.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Now, when I used "we", it meant in the first instance you and I, and
>> > in the second instance a minimum of Fuming Mad and myself.
>>
>> However, when I used "we", I was referring to the non-smoking public.
>> Tell your contact(s) at Philip Morris to forget it: We're not buying
>> this nonsense.
>
> *You* speak for the non-smoking public?
YOU sure as hell don't.
>
>> >> Billie Jean King is a employee of Philip Morris. She does not smoke
>> >> Virginia Slims, Marlboro, or any other Philip Morris/Altria brand.
>> >> Your ill-conceived challenge was a failure.
>> >
>> > *** ALERT Robert Broughton editing again ALERT ***
>> >
>> ** ALERT David "Asswipe" MacLean making another pathetic attempt at
>> damage control ++
>
> Ego again. Mr. Broughton, nothing that you have said even remotely
> comes close to "damage" that needs to be controlled.
>
> What I am pointing out is the simple fact that you refuse to discuss
> what I have said,
What I'm pointed out is the simple fact that you challenged me to name an
employee of Philip Morris who does not smoke PM products. I produced the
name of Billie Jean King, a high-profile employee of PM who does not
smoke PM products. I don't know whether she has any Kraft products in the
fridge.
> Far from it, for you lack the ability to comprehend the
> purpose of the challenge in the first place.
>
Nonsense, I know exactly what your purpose is.
Robert Broughton
Fumin bin Lyin <?@?.?> writes:
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Bawb's never been representative of the non-smoking
I'll bet that Fumin bin Lyin once attempted to be the representative
of his 5th grade homeroom. His classmates instead chose the kid who
was extorting bin Lyin's lunch money.
Fuming Mad
> I'll bet that Fumin bin Lyin once attempted to be the representative
> of his 5th grade homeroom. His classmates instead chose the kid who
> was extorting bin Lyin's lunch money.
Since you think saying "I'll bet" can be judged as a lie, you're a liar,
Bawb, since when I was in 5th grade, I went home for lunch and never
carried around any lunch money at all! HA! Just another conviction in
the ongoing series of Lying Bawb's lies.
Also, since you're so obsessed with childhood, Bawb, why don't you make
up a story about when I started smoking since you're bent on believing
that I'm a smoker, which I am not and have never been?!
David MacLean
> In <zd2S7.70$YA3.6531@localhost>, David "Asswipe" MacLean wrote:
>
>
> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> > news:9v8v76$pg5$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >> In <r6OR7.110$__3.8252@localhost>, David "Asswipe" MacLean wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:9v836u$n96$1...@venn.bc.ca...
> >> >>
> >> >> > Which is why I offerred to repost your last twenty posts in this
> >> >> > newsgroup.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Which was a silly idea.
> >> >
> >> > Just because something goes over your head does not make it silly,
> >>
> >> Just because something is silly doesn't mean that it went over my head.
> >>
> >> >> You're truly concerned that you're not fooling anyone.
> >> >
> >> > Mr. Broughton, it is so utterly simple to fool you that it's almost
> >> > pathetic.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Greater minds than you have attempted and failed.
> >
> > Greater minds than I would not bother to attempt to converse with you,
> > let alone attempt to fool you.
>
Then why couldn't you ignore it, Mr. Broughton? The fact is that your
vehement protest says that it hit home.
>
> >
> >> >> The tobacco industry claimed for years that their products did not
> >> >> cause lung cancer. emphysema, etc., generally using weasel words
> >> >> like "the evidence is not conclusive". They've given up on this, as
> >> >> a result of being hauled into courtrooms around the planet. Now,
> >> >> they are trying to sell the idea that even though first-hand
> >> >> cigarette smoke causes all these diseases, second-hand smoke
> >> >> miraculously does not. Instead of promoting this idea on their
> >> >> corporate stationery, they promote it through their network of
> >> >> asswipes. Tell your contact(s) at Philip Morris
> >> > to
> >> >> forget it: We're not buying this nonsense.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > Now, when I used "we", it meant in the first instance you and I, and
> >> > in the second instance a minimum of Fuming Mad and myself.
> >>
> >> However, when I used "we", I was referring to the non-smoking public.
> >> Tell your contact(s) at Philip Morris to forget it: We're not buying
> >> this nonsense.
> >
> > *You* speak for the non-smoking public?
>
> YOU sure as hell don't.
I never once claimed to. You did.
>
> >
> >> >> Billie Jean King is a employee of Philip Morris. She does not smoke
> >> >> Virginia Slims, Marlboro, or any other Philip Morris/Altria brand.
> >> >> Your ill-conceived challenge was a failure.
> >> >
> >> > *** ALERT Robert Broughton editing again ALERT ***
> >> >
> >> ** ALERT David "Asswipe" MacLean making another pathetic attempt at
> >> damage control ++
> >
> > Ego again. Mr. Broughton, nothing that you have said even remotely
> > comes close to "damage" that needs to be controlled.
> >
> > What I am pointing out is the simple fact that you refuse to discuss
> > what I have said,
>
> What I'm pointed out is the simple fact that you challenged me to name an
> employee of Philip Morris who does not smoke PM products.
Before you go claiming the "simple fact", you had best be sure that you have
your facts straight. Right from the beginning, when the challenge was
initially given, the phrasing was as follows:
"Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand."
Every time the challenge was repeated, the quote was a cut and paste from
the original. The challenge was NEVER to name an employee of Philip Morris
who does not smoke PM products. The challenge was, has always been and
continues to be "Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM
brand."
> I produced the
> name of Billie Jean King, a high-profile employee of PM who does not
> smoke PM products. I don't know whether she has any Kraft products in the
> fridge.
Billie Jean King does not smoke, so her name is not in the hat of eligible
responses.
>
> > Far from it, for you lack the ability to comprehend the
> > purpose of the challenge in the first place.
> >
>
> Nonsense, I know exactly what your purpose is.
You do? Then why do you continue to aid and assist me in that purpose?
Robert Broughton
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> I'll bet that Fumin bin Lyin once attempted to be the representative of
>> his 5th grade homeroom. His classmates instead chose the kid who was
>> extorting bin Lyin's lunch money.
>
> Since you think saying "I'll bet" can be judged as a lie,
Do YOU think that it's OK to tell lies about people, as long as you put
"I'll bet..." at the beginning of the sentence?
> Also, since you're so obsessed
> with childhood, Bawb, why don't you make up a story about when I started
> smoking since you're bent on believing that I'm a smoker, which I am not
> and have never been?!
>
You said, "I'd also bet anything that I'm not a smoker, and have never been
one." When you say, "I'll bet anything", it means that you're telling an
even bigger lie.
Robert Broughton
> "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> news:9vd8uh$173$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>> >> However, when I used "we", I was referring to the non-smoking
>> >> public. Tell your contact(s) at Philip Morris to forget it: We're
>> >> not buying this nonsense.
>> >
>> > *You* speak for the non-smoking public?
>>
>> YOU sure as hell don't.
>
> I never once claimed to. You did.
>
It's very pretentious of you to discuss who speaks for the non-smoking
public, and who doesn't. We non-smokers will decide for ourselves what
our agenda is, and who speaks for us. We will not be asking you for input
on this.
>
>
>> >> >> Billie Jean King is a employee of Philip Morris. She does not
>> >> >> smoke Virginia Slims, Marlboro, or any other Philip Morris/Altria
>> >> >> brand. Your ill-conceived challenge was a failure.
>> >> >
>> >> > *** ALERT Robert Broughton editing again ALERT ***
>> >> >
>> >> ** ALERT David "Asswipe" MacLean making another pathetic attempt at
>> >> damage control ++
>> >
>> > Ego again. Mr. Broughton, nothing that you have said even remotely
>> > comes close to "damage" that needs to be controlled.
>> >
>> > What I am pointing out is the simple fact that you refuse to discuss
>> > what I have said,
>>
>> What I'm pointed out is the simple fact that you challenged me to name
>> an employee of Philip Morris who does not smoke PM products.
>
> Before you go claiming the "simple fact", you had best be sure that you
> have your facts straight. Right from the beginning, when the challenge
> was initially given, the phrasing was as follows:
>
> "Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand."
>
> Every time the challenge was repeated, the quote was a cut and paste
> from the original. The challenge was NEVER to name an employee of
> Philip Morris who does not smoke PM products.
Yes, it was. Not only that, but you changed the words "work for PM" to
"employee of PM", then scraped up a self-serving definition of the word
"employee".
>
>> I produced the
>> name of Billie Jean King, a high-profile employee of PM who does not
>> smoke PM products. I don't know whether she has any Kraft products in
>> the fridge.
>
> Billie Jean King does not smoke, so her name is not in the hat of
> eligible responses.
>
>
>> > Far from it, for you lack the ability to comprehend the purpose of
>> > the challenge in the first place.
>> >
>> >
>> Nonsense, I know exactly what your purpose is.
>
> You do?
Yes, I do.
Fuming Mad
> Do YOU think that it's OK to tell lies about people, as long as you put
> "I'll bet..." at the beginning of the sentence?
Yes because they're not lies but opinions. No, it's not "OK" per se...
but it's not a lie, either.
> You said, "I'd also bet anything that I'm not a smoker, and have never been
> one." When you say, "I'll bet anything", it means that you're telling an
> even bigger lie.
So, there are "categories" of lies, eh Bawb? Isn't this like admitting
that you believe in "small" lies that are "more OK" than the "big" ones?
Fuming Mad
> It's very pretentious of you to discuss who speaks for the non-smoking
> public, and who doesn't. We non-smokers will decide for ourselves what
> our agenda is, and who speaks for us. We will not be asking you for input
> on this.
Careful how you use the word "we" in the general sense, there, Bawb. I'm
a non-smoker, and I think David has far more credibility than you ever
had or ever will have.
Carl Drud
>Yes, it was. Not only that, but you changed the words "work for
>PM" to "employee of PM", then scraped up a self-serving
>definition of the word "employee".
No it was not. You're lying.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dH9R7.1%248z4.208%40localhost&output=gplain
"Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM
brand." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
Carl
David MacLean
> In <DZsS7.251$YA3.17350@localhost>, David "Asswipe" MacLean wrote:
>
>
> > "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@brou8ghton.ca> wrote in message
> > news:9vd8uh$173$1...@venn.bc.ca...
>
> >> >> However, when I used "we", I was referring to the non-smoking
> >> >> public. Tell your contact(s) at Philip Morris to forget it: We're
> >> >> not buying this nonsense.
> >> >
> >> > *You* speak for the non-smoking public?
> >>
> >> YOU sure as hell don't.
> >
> > I never once claimed to. You did.
> >
> It's very pretentious of you to discuss who speaks for the non-smoking
> public, and who doesn't. We non-smokers will decide for ourselves what
> our agenda is, and who speaks for us. We will not be asking you for input
> on this.
>
It is far more pretentious for you to claim to speak for millions of people
that you have never met, without being able to show that they have appointed
you their spokesperson.
Mr. Broughton, I believe that you are projecting.
> >
> >
> >> >> >> Billie Jean King is a employee of Philip Morris. She does not
> >> >> >> smoke Virginia Slims, Marlboro, or any other Philip Morris/Altria
> >> >> >> brand. Your ill-conceived challenge was a failure.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > *** ALERT Robert Broughton editing again ALERT ***
> >> >> >
> >> >> ** ALERT David "Asswipe" MacLean making another pathetic attempt at
> >> >> damage control ++
> >> >
> >> > Ego again. Mr. Broughton, nothing that you have said even remotely
> >> > comes close to "damage" that needs to be controlled.
> >> >
> >> > What I am pointing out is the simple fact that you refuse to discuss
> >> > what I have said,
> >>
> >> What I'm pointed out is the simple fact that you challenged me to name
> >> an employee of Philip Morris who does not smoke PM products.
> >
> > Before you go claiming the "simple fact", you had best be sure that you
> > have your facts straight. Right from the beginning, when the challenge
> > was initially given, the phrasing was as follows:
> >
> > "Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand."
> >
> > Every time the challenge was repeated, the quote was a cut and paste
> > from the original. The challenge was NEVER to name an employee of
> > Philip Morris who does not smoke PM products.
>
> Yes, it was. Not only that, but you changed the words "work for PM" to
> "employee of PM", then scraped up a self-serving definition of the word
> "employee".
>
If this is the case, then support the claim.
Let me help:
Message-ID: <dH9R7.1$8z4.208@localhost>
YOUR words were:
"There's lots of people who work for PM who don't smoke their cigarettss."
(Note that I have left int the typographical error)
My challenge, the first time that it was uttered by me, was:
"Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dH9R7.1%248z4.208%40localhost&output=gp
lain
if you don't believe me.
> >
> >> I produced the
> >> name of Billie Jean King, a high-profile employee of PM who does not
> >> smoke PM products. I don't know whether she has any Kraft products in
> >> the fridge.
> >
> > Billie Jean King does not smoke, so her name is not in the hat of
> > eligible responses.
> >
> >
> >> > Far from it, for you lack the ability to comprehend the purpose of
> >> > the challenge in the first place.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Nonsense, I know exactly what your purpose is.
> >
> > You do?
>
> Yes, I do.
Then reveal that purpose for all to see!
Be warned, however, that if you accept this challenge (why to the words,
"Yeah, sure!" echo in my mind?), you just might reveal more about yourself
than you do about me, and you just might reveal more about yourself than you
are actually willing to reveal.
Robert Broughton
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> Do YOU think that it's OK to tell lies about people, as long as you put
>> "I'll bet..." at the beginning of the sentence?
>
> Yes
Is that "yes, it's OK to tell lies about people"?
> because they're not lies but opinions. No, it's not "OK" per se...
> but it's not a lie, either.
This was a lie that you posted on August 30, 2001:
-----
"I bet people like Bawb, Bwucie, and Pox Poopie will try to say why
gambling is a good thing, ignoring all the negatives that it promotes
and creates."
-----
This is not an opinion. It is a lie, unless this "Bawb" you refer to
is someone other than me.
>
>> You said, "I'd also bet anything that I'm not a smoker, and have never
>> been one." When you say, "I'll bet anything", it means that you're
>> telling an even bigger lie.
>
> So, there are "categories" of lies, eh Bawb? Isn't this like admitting
> that you believe in "small" lies that are "more OK" than the "big" ones?
>
Well, why did you say, "I'll bet anything I'm not a smoker", instead of
"I'll bet I'm not a smoker", or "I am not a smoker"? We've already
established that the "I'll bet anything" part was a lie, because you were
unwilling to bet "anything".
Robert Broughton
>> >
>> It's very pretentious of you to discuss who speaks for the non-smoking
>> public, and who doesn't. We non-smokers will decide for ourselves what
>> our agenda is, and who speaks for us. We will not be asking you for
>> input on this.
>>
>>
> It is far more pretentious for you to claim to speak for millions of
> people that you have never met, without being able to show that they
> have appointed you their spokesperson.
>
We non-smokers will decide for ourselves what our agenda is, and who
speaks for us. We will not be asking you for input on this.
>>
>> Yes, it was. Not only that, but you changed the words "work for PM" to
>> "employee of PM", then scraped up a self-serving definition of the word
>> "employee".
>>
>>
> If this is the case, then support the claim.
>
> Let me help:
>
> Message-ID: <dH9R7.1$8z4.208@localhost>
>
> YOUR words were:
>
> "There's lots of people who work for PM who don't smoke their
> cigarettss." (Note that I have left int the typographical error)
>
Yes, and the "first time that it was uttered by me".
> My challenge, the first time that it was uttered by me, was:
>
> "Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand."
>
As I pointed out earlier, you substituted "employee" for
"work for", and added the "who smokes" qualification.
Billie Jean King works for Philip Morris. She doesn't smoke their
cigarettes.
>> >> >
>> >> Nonsense, I know exactly what your purpose is.
>> >
>> > You do?
>>
>> Yes, I do.
>
> Then reveal that purpose for all to see!
>
Why? Nob Odie did a good job of it.
Fuming Mad
> Is that "yes, it's OK to tell lies about people"?
Why do you ask? Am I (or you) supposed to be some kind of almighty
judgment figure on the morality of lying?!
> This was a lie that you posted on August 30, 2001:
My God, Bawb... you must spend your life "researching" everything I
post... how can you pull this kind of stuff out of your ass at a
moment's notice?!
> This is not an opinion. It is a lie, unless this "Bawb" you refer to
> is someone other than me.
hahhahahhaha...... who knows........ maybe "Bawb" *is* someone else...
mouahahaha!
But seriously... fine then, "Robert" --- then you better quick define
what an opinion is to make your point more than just another piece of
mindless banter.
> Well, why did you say, "I'll bet anything I'm not a smoker", instead of
> "I'll bet I'm not a smoker", or "I am not a smoker"? We've already
> established that the "I'll bet anything" part was a lie, because you were
> unwilling to bet "anything".
OK. I'm not a smoker.
(now you'll probably call this a lie, so by adding "I'll bet", it
provides somewhat of an intimidation factor)
David MacLean
> In <lBPS7.436$YA3.25681@localhost>, David "Asswipe" MacLean wrote:
>
>
> >> >
> >> It's very pretentious of you to discuss who speaks for the non-smoking
> >> public, and who doesn't. We non-smokers will decide for ourselves what
> >> our agenda is, and who speaks for us. We will not be asking you for
> >> input on this.
> >>
> >>
> > It is far more pretentious for you to claim to speak for millions of
> > people that you have never met, without being able to show that they
> > have appointed you their spokesperson.
> >
> We non-smokers will decide for ourselves what our agenda is, and who
> speaks for us. We will not be asking you for input on this.
If it was, indeed, you non-smokers deciding for yourself, you would not hear
a peep out of me on this subject. However, it is you and you alone who have
decided that you speak for all non-smokers. This is absurd and highly
presumptuous on your part.
Which is what I am pointing out.
>
>
> >>
> >> Yes, it was. Not only that, but you changed the words "work for PM" to
> >> "employee of PM", then scraped up a self-serving definition of the word
> >> "employee".
> >>
> >>
> > If this is the case, then support the claim.
> >
> > Let me help:
> >
> > Message-ID: <dH9R7.1$8z4.208@localhost>
> >
> > YOUR words were:
> >
> > "There's lots of people who work for PM who don't smoke their
> > cigarettss." (Note that I have left int the typographical error)
> >
> Yes, and the "first time that it was uttered by me".
>
> > My challenge, the first time that it was uttered by me, was:
> >
> > "Name one employee of PM who smokes who does not smoke a PM brand."
> >
> As I pointed out earlier, you substituted "employee" for
> "work for", and added the "who smokes" qualification.
>
Your words were NOT the challenge. MY words were the challenge.
You have not answered the challenge Mr. Broughton, even though you have
claimed to.
You have four options, sir. Option one is to meet the challenge as given.
Option two is to admit that you cannot meet the challenge as given. Option
three is to completely ignore the challenge and drop all references and
responses to it. And option four, the option that you seem to be following
currently is to insist that a reply that does NOT meet the challenge as
given actually does meet the challenge as given.
Personally, I hope that you continue with option four. Not only does it
make you look foolish, but your continued insistance makes you look
stubbornly foolish.
> Billie Jean King works for Philip Morris. She doesn't smoke their
> cigarettes.
>
Billie Jean King does not smoke and therefore does not meet the criteria of
the challenge "employee of PM who smokes".
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> Nonsense, I know exactly what your purpose is.
> >> >
> >> > You do?
> >>
> >> Yes, I do.
> >
> > Then reveal that purpose for all to see!
> >
>
> Why? Nob Odie did a good job of it.
Let me repeat another challenge:
In Message-ID: <5USG7.6541$Of4.84437@localhost>
"If you and your ASH buddies can find a paper trail that shows me
being paid any amount of money by the tobacco companies for services
rendered to them, I will donate 100 times that amount to any anti-smoking
organization you care to name. Fair enough?"
And it Message-ID: <oPWG7.6578$Of4.86266@localhost>
"I must conclude that from your lack of acknowledgement of this challenge,
and your attempt to ignore completely that even you, despite the distinct
possibility on your part to be subject to paranoia and delusion, aren't
willing to spend any time pursuing a matter which, by your implications,
could turn out to be extremely popular.
So let's sweeten the pot. Not only will I donate 100 times that amount to
any anti-smoking organization you care to name, I will also give you,
personally, the same amount.
If you or any of your ASH buddies can find a paper trail that says any
tobacco company paid me a dollar, that means $100.00 for ASH (or any other
anti-smoking organization) and $100.00 for you.
Find $10,000.00 and that means a cool million to you and a cool million to
your organization.
The standard of evidence will be the standard of a Canadian Civil Court.
Prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the paper trail existed at the
times stated, and that there was no interference in order to gain the goal,
and the money is yours."
Fuming Mad
> If you or any of your ASH buddies can find a paper trail that says any
> tobacco company paid me a dollar, that means $100.00 for ASH (or any other
> anti-smoking organization) and $100.00 for you.
>
> Find $10,000.00 and that means a cool million to you and a cool million to
> your organization.
>
> The standard of evidence will be the standard of a Canadian Civil Court.
> Prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the paper trail existed at the
> times stated, and that there was no interference in order to gain the goal,
> and the money is yours."
hahahahahahaha... this will surely shut Bawb up real good!
Robert Broughton
> Truthful Bob Broughton wrote:
>
>> Is that "yes, it's OK to tell lies about people"?
>
> Why do you ask? Am I (or you) supposed to be some kind of almighty
> judgment figure on the morality of lying?!
In your case, obviously not. For most people. the "morality of lying"
isn't a judgement call, unless we're talking about lies of a "hey, your
hair looks really nice today" variety.
>
>> This was a lie that you posted on August 30, 2001:
>
> My God, Bawb... you must spend your life "researching" everything I
> post... how can you pull this kind of stuff out of your ass at a
> moment's notice?!
>
Actually, it's easy to come up with past newsgroup postings; maybe
MacLean will explain it to you. It certainly wasn't necessary to pull it
out of my ass.
Here's the lie that you snipped: "I bet people like Bawb, Bwucie, and Pox
Poopie will try to say why gambling is a good thing, ignoring all the
negatives that it promotes and creates."
>> This is not an opinion. It is a lie, unless this "Bawb" you refer to is
>> someone other than me.
>
>
>> Well, why did you say, "I'll bet anything I'm not a smoker", instead of
>> "I'll bet I'm not a smoker", or "I am not a smoker"? We've already
>> established that the "I'll bet anything" part was a lie, because you
>> were unwilling to bet "anything".
>
> OK. I'm not a smoker.
Then how come you've made 216 postings to alt.smokers since May 6, 2001?
Fuming Mad
> > OK. I'm not a smoker.
>
> Then how come you've made 216 postings to alt.smokers since May 6, 2001?
Because I can't stand anti-smoking zealots.