For this to be an open debate as you've suggested, why don't you start by revealing who made this comment and from which list it came from.
I have to agree with Steve; I never get upset until I verify what I am told. (Just the way I am. I "have" to see for myself.) I am like that with everyone. (Including family) so, don't feel bad!
Had to laugh at the sarcastic humor in your post, though; I love the "Three Stooges" too. ;o)
Expect no quarter, sir. You have said smokers should be treated as human beings (except for you misguided wish to force smoking bans on private property with employees; you're just plain wrong about that). You will never be respected by your fanatic colleagues again.
They are intolerant bigots; such people should never be rewarded by being granted their desires.
You wrote, on being a secret tobacco front, "Especially not driving a Saturn SL. You would think if I was being paid off by the tobacco companies, the first thing I would do would at least be to upgrade to an SL2 -- or, at very least, an SL1???"
Now Dr. Siegel, we all know that Philip Morris grew you from an embryo and inserted you 20 years ago into the Antismoking Lobby as a secret weapon. They used genes from tobacco stem cells to ensure that your would develop properly and subjected you to calculated dosages of secondary smoke at the entrances to your workplace so as to get you subliminally addicted and, at the appropriate pivotal moment in history, trigger you from "passive" to "active" status.
As for the Saturn upgrade, I'm afraid I can't help you. I'm still waiting for them to upgrade me from a Schwinn to a Raleigh.
;>
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
LOL, Michael! You better stop or he will be forced to break his promise to me, and turn you in as contraband when they come to arrest him for his traitorous activities!
BTW, where is my Schwin?? 
"I'm going to go straight to the point. It is my opinion that the anti-smoking activists are traitors in our midst, that they are pharmaceutical nicotine stooges."
-see how that works?
"I'm going to go straight to the point. It is my opinion that the anti-smoking activists are traitors in our midst, that they are pharmaceutical nicotine stooges."
-see how that works?
marcus aurelius
The truth is getting out there "slowly" marcus...
Dr. Siegel,
I will have to give you a “tip of the hat” for showing morality when so many in tobacco control have no shame. No lie too big, no tax too high or restriction tight enough!
We are now seeing the effects of those lies here in Washington State. Many bars and clubs are “on the ropes” financially. Haven’t see many closings yet, but will see some by summer. Lost our first non-profit bingo…provided funds for the Boys/Girls Clubs in Spokane. All of this pain and suffering is funded by the American Cancer Society, which in turn is funded not only by those who donate to this group, but by “Big Pharma” through such fronts as The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Between the money “donated” by Big Pharma and funds from the Master Settlement Agreement we’ve created legions of “grant whores” who take the money spent by smokers to make them into the scum of society. Now these folks want smokers fired from their jobs. Since it is no longer acceptable to degrade people of color, those of different religions or even homosexuals, Americans seem determined to find another group that they can reap their ill will towards. What does ACS or RWJF get for their donations? Increased sales of pharmaceutical nicotine. What a great marketing ploy! Spend millions with this “marketing campaign” and reap billions in profits! It all makes for some strange bedfellows!
So, Doc…best of luck, but these folks will stop at nothing! They will call you everything bad they can think of. When I was at journalism school many years ago…one of the first things you were taught was “follow the money.” I have over time and most of the “tobacco control movement” is rotten to the core.
His accusation:
"I'm going to go straight to the point. It is my opinion that Michael Siegel is a traitor in our midst, that he is a tobacco stooge."
I had some time today, and dug around a bit. I can't help it; it is my nature to find all the details.
Would it be this one; "tp-talk" where you were "met with Censorship?"
http://www.smokefree.net/tp-talk/
List Administrator/s Michael Tacelosky|Bill Godshall|Joe Cherner
Monday, December 05, 2005
Rest of the Story Author Expelled from Tobacco Control List-Serve; Dissent is Met with Censorship
The author of this blog was expelled from the tobacco control list-serve tp-talk (which stands for tobacco policy talk) Friday.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2005/12/rest-
of-story-author-expelled-from.html
If so, it explains why Bill hasn't came here praising the action... LOL Since it is a "private; censored" forum, I chose not to join, to find out. Of course, Bill can come and deny this post if this wasn't the "list serve" the comment was on.
Perhaps iopener2000 should read the comments I posted on this blog at that time about that situation.
Perhaps iopener2000 should read the comments I posted on this blog at that time about that situation.
Bill Godshall
Do the comments explain why, you would censor and then accuse a respected scientist, such as Dr. Siegel; of being "a traitor and a tobacco stooge" where his colleagues could read the statement but, where he could not defend himself?
I don't want to waist my time if they don't. I am curious to know though... ;o)
Iopener 2000-
I appreciate your support, but just so my readers don't think that Bill had anything to do with my expulsion from the list-serve, let me make it clear that he did not. He, in fact, has stated that he would not have taken that action. His name may be listed as a moderator on that list-serve, but he was not the primary moderator and not the one who made the decision. Bill has actually been very supportive of my right to express my opinions.
I must say at this time that it is quite ironic that readers of that list-serve are not aware of my comments supporting the Cal-EPA's conclusion of a link between secondhand smoke and breast cancer. I just find it ironic because in the interest of "shielding" these tobacco control practitioners from my "divisive" questioning of firing smokers and banning smoking everywhere, they are also "shielded" from me communicating my opinion about this aspect of the secondhand smoke issue. Oh well! I guess censorship cuts both ways.
I read the post, and i confirm the fact that Bill had expressed his disagreement on your explusion in the form of "i wouldn't have done that".
Yes, apparently he's been supportive of your right to express your opinion. However, it seemps that in Bill's mind the very same right doesn't deserve to be supported when the people in question are smokers (or smokers right organizations) that speak against bans, smoking restriction measures and even social discrimination against them.
This is not being right-supportive. It's being selectively right supportive. It's too easy to support the right of speech when those who are silenced or censored are your kind, your colleagues, those whom you agree with or those you like it.
If, by other hand, you aren't shy of giving to the "others" the same treatment that you oppose for your "friends", then this way of being "right supportive" means very little to me.
Iopener 2000-
I appreciate your support, but just so my readers don't think that Bill had anything to do with my expulsion from the list-serve, let me make it clear that he did not. He, in fact, has stated that he would not have taken that action. His name may be listed as a moderator on that list-serve, but he was not the primary moderator and not the one who made the decision. Bill has actually been very supportive of my right to express my opinions. Michael Siegel
I read the post, and i confirm the fact that Bill had expressed his disagreement on your explusion in the form of "i wouldn't have done that". tR1cKy
Was this stated "here," on the "list serve," or both, Bill? (Just curious)
Because, IMO; if it was only stated here on Dr. Mike's blog, you are allowing them to censor you also. But, that is your choice, I guess.
I am still curious to know if this was the list serve that allowed such a comment, though... No one is saying; yes or no... LOL
IMO, It wasn't a "hard" question considering the statement itself has already been posted, and the person that wrote it on the list serve, seems not to have backbone enough to come here and defend or post proof of their accusation.
As for this;
I must say at this time that it is quite ironic that readers of that list-serve are not aware of my comments supporting the Cal-EPA's conclusion of a link between secondhand smoke and breast cancer. Michael Siegel
Dr. Mike, I can't believe you buy it; let alone verbally support it. Your choice, though. You may get lucky and they might reconsider censoring you, on the grounds of that comment; and allow you back on the list serve... (bet that would make your day; it would make Stanton Glantz’s. IMO, he needs all the support he can get.) LOL
For your "readers" Dr. Mike, you being a scientist; I hope you already know the risk factors. ;o)
Causes of breast cancer
Epidemiological study has identified certain risk factors that increase the possibility that a woman will get breast cancer, although not all women with breast cancer have these traits, and many women with all of these traits do not develop the disease. Risk factors include age (the incidence of breast cancer is rare in women under 35—most cases occur in women over 60); a history of breast cancer in a close blood relative; and a history of breast cancer or benign proliferative breast disease. A high cumulative exposure to female sex hormones (estrogen and progesterone) appears to increase the risk of some breast cancers. Hormonally related risk factors include early menarch (before age 12), late menopause (after age 55), having no children or postponing childbirth, and obesity in women over 50. Many other possible associations are under study, such as those relating to postmenopausal estrogen replacement, alcohol and fat consumption, lack of exercise, and exposure to pesticides and other environmental chemicals. Tumors in women of African descent are known to be particularly aggressive.
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0857015.html
Iopener 2000-
The accusation about me being a "tobacco stooge" was made on a different list-serve, not the one that I was kicked off of. To be honest, I have no idea what they are saying about me on the list-serve I was expelled from, because I have no way of seeing those messages now or in taking part in the discussion.
And yes - you're probably right. If they knew what I wrote about the conclusions on secondhand smoke and breast cancer, they would probably be kicking themselves for bumping me off the list.
After all, it truly appears that what they are looking for is "discussion" that supports the dogma of the movement, not actual "discussion" of the issues!
The accusation about me being a "tobacco stooge" was made on a different list-serve, not the one that I was kicked off of. To be honest, I have no idea what they are saying about me on the list-serve I was expelled from, because I have no way of seeing those messages now or in taking part in the discussion. Michael Siegel.
In light of this, I assume that you could, and hopefully did; respond to the accusation on the offending "list serve"... If so, what was the response; if you don't mind me asking?
After all, it truly appears that what they are looking for is "discussion" that supports the dogma of the movement, not actual "discussion" of the issues!
Michael Siegel
I agree... (Don't you just hate it when that happens? LOL) ;o)
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
