On 27/08/2011 21:47, David Rance wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Why don't you try getting a life?

Most likely Dave has already got a life and he is trying to hang on
to it
and his health by avoiding passive smoking.

Could you name someone who as died from passive smoking? Anywhere in
the world will do.

Roy Castle, the entertainer.

Nope.

It is well documented that Roy Castle did die of passive smoking, but if
you are simply going to contradict anyone who doesn't agree with you
then I shall not waste my time with you.

Roy Castle died of lung cancer, like many non smokers do, but it wasn't
caused by the myth of passive smoking.

The types of lung cancer affecting smokers & non smokers are entirely
different & occur in entirely different parts of the lung.

Inconvenient I know, but true nevertheless.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 27/08/2011 22:44, The Medway Handyman wrote:


Roy Castle died of lung cancer, like many non smokers do, but it wasn't
caused by the myth of passive smoking.

The types of lung cancer affecting smokers & non smokers are entirely
different & occur in entirely different parts of the lung.

Inconvenient I know, but true nevertheless.



Very true - there are a lot of myths about smoking, perpetuated by those
with an agenda and propagated by those who slavishly believe whatever
they're told.

For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson decided
to look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke Lies, and the
Nanny State"

It can be downloaded here as a doc or PDF file:

Jon

On 28/08/2011 00:40, Jon wrote:


It can be downloaded here as a doc or PDF file:


Oops, here

http://www.joejackson.com/smoking.php

"Jon" wrote in message
...

Very true - there are a lot of myths about smoking, perpetuated by those
with an agenda and propagated by those who slavishly believe whatever
they're told.

Mostly by the addicts.


For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson decided to
look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke Lies, and the
Nanny State"

Addicts and their suppliers always like to look at studies and ignore those
that don't agree with their findings.
remember how many decades the smoking lobby told everyone that smoking
didn't harm the addicts?
remember how many decades the smoking lobby claimed smoking was not
addictive.
Now they claim passive smoking does no harm.

You just can't trust the smoking industry or the addicts, they lie, they lie
lots.

There is no way an addict will admit that he has helped to kill someone and
they will cling on to any sliver of evidence to say they didn't, such is
life and death.

Its pointless arguing with addicts until they are cured.


It can be downloaded here as a doc or PDF file:

Jon

On 28/08/2011 18:57, dennis@home wrote:


"Jon" wrote in message
...

Very true - there are a lot of myths about smoking, perpetuated by
those with an agenda and propagated by those who slavishly believe
whatever they're told.

Mostly by the addicts.


For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson
decided to look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke
Lies, and the Nanny State"


Hello Dennipoos.

You are well known around here for being a thick ****. This does
nothing to avoid that opinion.

Addicts and their suppliers always like to look at studies and ignore
those that don't agree with their findings.

The anti smoking fascists do exactly that. Any study refuting the
passive smoking myth are suppressed and never published - and they are
legion & many fold.

remember how many decades the smoking lobby told everyone that smoking
didn't harm the addicts?

Remember how the ASF spent years trying to denigrate smokers?

remember how many decades the smoking lobby claimed smoking was not
addictive.

You are going to have to provide some evidence for that.

Now they claim passive smoking does no harm.

You just can't trust the smoking industry or the addicts, they lie, they
lie lots.

Nothing like the anti smoking lobby. When it comes to lies, false
information & fudged reports they are in a league of their own.

Perhaps you would like to check out the well known anti smoking charity
Action on Smoking & Health?

Let me know when you do, we can talk about funding & lying.


There is no way an addict will admit that he has helped to kill someone
and they will cling on to any sliver of evidence to say they didn't,
such is life and death.

There is no way a small minded idiot like you would ever develop the
intellectual capacity to think for himself.


Its pointless arguing with addicts until they are cured.

Its pointless arguing with thick ****s like you.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 28/08/2011 18:57, dennis@home wrote:


"Jon" wrote in message
...

Very true - there are a lot of myths about smoking, perpetuated by
those with an agenda and propagated by those who slavishly believe
whatever they're told.

Mostly by the addicts.


For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson
decided to look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke
Lies, and the Nanny State"


Hello Dennipoos.

You are well known around here for being a thick ****. This does
nothing to avoid that opinion.

Addicts and their suppliers always like to look at studies and ignore
those that don't agree with their findings.

The anti smoking fascists do exactly that. Any study refuting the
passive smoking myth are suppressed and never published - and they are
legion & many fold.

remember how many decades the smoking lobby told everyone that smoking
didn't harm the addicts?

Remember how the ASF spent years trying to denigrate smokers?

remember how many decades the smoking lobby claimed smoking was not
addictive.

You are going to have to provide some evidence for that.

Now they claim passive smoking does no harm.

You just can't trust the smoking industry or the addicts, they lie, they
lie lots.

Nothing like the anti smoking lobby. When it comes to lies, false
information & fudged reports they are in a league of their own.

Perhaps you would like to check out the well known anti smoking charity
Action on Smoking & Health?

Let me know when you do, we can talk about funding & lying.


There is no way an addict will admit that he has helped to kill someone
and they will cling on to any sliver of evidence to say they didn't,
such is life and death.

There is no way a small minded idiot like you would ever develop the
intellectual capacity to think for himself.

I think you have it slightly wrong there

If Deennis were to call any part of his imagined word into question, his
whole wall would come crumbling down

Take drugs dennis, take lots of them



--
geoff

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Jon" wrote in message
...

Very true - there are a lot of myths about smoking, perpetuated by
those with an agenda and propagated by those who slavishly believe
whatever they're told.

Mostly by the addicts.


For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson
decided to look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke
Lies, and the Nanny State"

Addicts and their suppliers always like to look at studies and ignore
those that don't agree with their findings.
remember how many decades the smoking lobby told everyone that smoking
didn't harm the addicts?
remember how many decades the smoking lobby claimed smoking was not
addictive.
Now they claim passive smoking does no harm.

You just can't trust the smoking industry or the addicts, they lie,
they lie lots.

There is no way an addict will admit that he has helped to kill someone
and they will cling on to any sliver of evidence to say they didn't,
such is life and death.

Its pointless arguing with addicts until they are cured.

Well, report back when you've been cured of your addiction to stupidity

What drugs have you tried dennis ?

Alcohol
caffeine
ketamine

?

What has addled those grey cells in your cranium?


--
geoff

On Aug 28, 12:40*am, Jon wrote:

For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson decided
to look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke Lies, and the
Nanny State"

It can be downloaded here as a doc or PDF file:

Jon

In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced"
than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent?

On 29/08/2011 16:01, mike wrote:

In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced"
than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent?


Do I really need to explain that to you?

Jon

On Aug 30, 12:10*am, Jon wrote:
On 29/08/2011 16:01, mike wrote:

In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced"
than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent?

Do I really need to explain that to you?

Jon

You (by which I mean someone with an analytical mind so obviously not
you) could go through that article and point out assumptions, errors,
mischaracterisations and contradictions in virtually every sentence.

It has no scientific rigour and doesn't cite sources, so I don't know
where you get the notion that it contains "REAL facts" as opposed to
the less reliable lower case real facts or, indeed, facts. (It does
have a lot of exclamation marks though, doesn't it?)

It starts off from the premise - which it revisits frequently - that
any contrary view is "hysteria".

It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David
Icke's alien lizards.

Clearly, though, as an appeal to emotion, it finds its audience in the
sort of folk who just want their prejudices reinforced.

I imagine you mean it's balanced in the sense that creationism offers
a "balance" to evolution or that "psychic powers" offer a balance to
Uri Geller bending the ****ing spoon when you're not looking.

No doubt you checked out the "What Can be Done?" section. Amongst all
the front-organizations for the tobacco industry, you'll have seen the
link to Jackson's buddy, pro-smoking, pro-DDT, pro-asbestos, anti-
evolution, anti global warming loon and Glenn Beck-a-like, Steve
Milloy. Do you get your tinfoil hats from the same place?

So, yes, by all means explain why "singer" Joe Jackson's yellow
journalism is more valid than similar self-justifciation from "singer"
Gary Glitter.

In article ,
mike wrote:

It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David
Icke's alien lizards.

Thank you for mentioning the latter. Gillian McKeith is merely one
example of what has become a regrettably common phenomenon, but
David Icke does appear to have taken the Velikovsky, von Däniken
and Hubbard approaches to a new, er, dimension!

The trolls on this thread are far less amusing.


Regards,
A loyal subject of Her Reptilian Majesty.

On 30/08/2011 11:52 p.m., wrote:
In ,
wrote:

It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David
Icke's alien lizards.

Thank you for mentioning the latter. Gillian McKeith is merely one
example of what has become a regrettably common phenomenon, but
David Icke does appear to have taken the Velikovsky, von Däniken
and Hubbard approaches to a new, er, dimension!

The trolls on this thread are far less amusing.


Regards,
A loyal subject of Her Reptilian Majesty.

Velikovsky! Ah, it takes me back ...

On 30/08/2011 13:08, mike wrote:
On Aug 30, 12:10 am, wrote:
On 29/08/2011 16:01, mike wrote:

In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced"
than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent?

Do I really need to explain that to you?

Jon

You (by which I mean someone with an analytical mind so obviously not
you) could go through that article and point out assumptions, errors,
mischaracterisations and contradictions in virtually every sentence.

It has no scientific rigour and doesn't cite sources, so I don't know
where you get the notion that it contains "REAL facts" as opposed to
the less reliable lower case real facts or, indeed, facts. (It does
have a lot of exclamation marks though, doesn't it?)

It starts off from the premise - which it revisits frequently - that
any contrary view is "hysteria".

It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David
Icke's alien lizards.

Clearly, though, as an appeal to emotion, it finds its audience in the
sort of folk who just want their prejudices reinforced.

I imagine you mean it's balanced in the sense that creationism offers
a "balance" to evolution or that "psychic powers" offer a balance to
Uri Geller bending the ****ing spoon when you're not looking.

No doubt you checked out the "What Can be Done?" section. Amongst all
the front-organizations for the tobacco industry, you'll have seen the
link to Jackson's buddy, pro-smoking, pro-DDT, pro-asbestos, anti-
evolution, anti global warming loon and Glenn Beck-a-like, Steve
Milloy. Do you get your tinfoil hats from the same place?

So, yes, by all means explain why "singer" Joe Jackson's yellow
journalism is more valid than similar self-justifciation from "singer"
Gary Glitter.


Calm down man, stop raving. Go & have a fag.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message
, mike
writes
On Aug 28, 12:40*am, Jon wrote:

For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson decided
to look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke Lies, and the
Nanny State"

It can be downloaded here as a doc or PDF file:

Jon

In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced"
than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent?

Not read it but ...

I think that the general thrust is that he has gone out to find real
facts rather than the oft peddled assumptions

Paul Gadd's sexual preferences are out of tune with the current commonly
accepted norms. I'm not sure what the relevance is

--
geoff

On Aug 30, 1:39*am, geoff wrote:
In message
, mike
writesOn Aug 28, 12:40 am, Jon wrote:

For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson decided
to look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke Lies, and the
Nanny State"

It can be downloaded here as a doc or PDF file:

Jon

In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced"
than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent?

Not read it but ...

I think that the general thrust is that he has gone out to find real
facts rather than the oft peddled assumptions.

If you've not read it, you're "peddling assumptions" and you should
read it for the "real facts". Or for the insight into delusion or
maybe just the lulz.