Forces generates their money through donations and advertisements on their website. They are not spokespeople for the tobacco companies and has stated several times their disgust with the companies. I don't imagine they would be biting the hand that fed them if they were stooges as they are being accused of.
I donate to Forces, NYCLASH and still need to send a check to SmokersClub. I am not a lackey or spokesperson for the tobacco companies either. Actually, you might want to say that the tobacco companies works for me, seeing that I pay THEM everytime I purchase a pack of cigarettes. I also pay into the MSA which means that the antis works for me too. So as your boss, I suggest they put up of shut up.
I no longer donate to the so called charities such as the American Cancer, Lung or Heart association. I refuse to give money to organizations and have them dictate my life. I no longer give blood, and my name has been removed from the organ donor bank. Why? Because I am a dirty rotten smoker and God forbid should anyone recieve my organs. To all you antis out there, please keep that in mind should the day you or a loved one might need a kidney for now or another organ when I pass. What I regret the most is that they have put me in the position to even have to think about it that way.
I like the term "proven (and probable)". I might be mistaken, but isn't proof absolute? I evidence may suggest something, but proof is supposed to be solid and undeniable. So that statement alone proves that these people aren't that bright to begin with.
Doctor concludes...'It's interesting how these anti-smoking groups can be so loud and forceful in making the accusation, but when challenged to back it up, they become absolutely silent'
Volley Bill= Chirp
(K) Carl== Chirp, Chirp
Ding Dong ===Chirp,Chirp,Chirp,Chirp,Chirp,Chirp,Chirp,
Mike wrote:
"But this further demonstrates my point that the tobacco control movement has been brainwashed with the idea that any opposition to the anti-tobacco agenda is prima facie evidence of being a Big Tobacco front, is it not?"
Of course not. Just because a few smokefree advocates criticize an extremist right-to-smoke group (that calls smokefree advocates Nazis) does NOT demonstrate that the entire tobacco control movement has been brainwashed into believing that any opposition to the anti tobacco agenda (whatever that is) is prima facie evidence of being a Big Tobacco front.
Mike should stop making absurd conspiratorial allegations about the tobacco control movement.
Bill,
At this point your ACTIONS (and those of TC)have spoken so loudly I cannot HEAR a word you say.
Bill i seem to recollect you have made accusations regarding the funding of FORCES yourself in the customary bigoted and anti tobacco manner.BTW WHO IS FUNDING YOU,YOU'RE EXTREMELY SILENT ON THIS ISSUE.Frankly,i don't give a damn who funds what AS LONG AS THE RESEARCH IS ACCURATE AND TELLS THE TRUTH.Something the antis are rather silent on ,when Pharma money pays for the research to achieve the scaremongering about tobacco.This is the greatest scam isn't it Bill,"there are no conspiratorial issues",just out and out deceit and lies .TOBACCO CONTROL = TOTAL CONTROL =TOTAL CORRUPTION.
Bill-criticize an extremist right-to-smoke group
Bill,
what is your definition of "extremist"?
Someone who stands up to bullies whether these bullies be Governmental, organisational or individual?
Someone that has the gall to state their beliefs and be willing to discuss and debate with dissenting voices?
Someone willing to debate the science and evidence with rationality?
Go on Bill, shock us all, how do you define extremist?.
GreatScot
Damn Bill, you owe me (or rather my company since I'm at work) a new keyboard because your comment just made me spit out the tea I was about to swallow.
OH, and if you'll re-read your history, you find the term "Nazi" does indeed properly describe the actions of the TC crowd.
Again, you spout off full of indignation and self-righteousness and yet, cannot offer one shred of evidence to back up your claims, etc.
Pot, kettle, black Bill.........you give that phrase new meaning.
Bill; Is predictably non sensical as usual, defending only his own deep seated denials.
Forces should be more pro-active in defending themselves. Lest they loose the ability to do it later due to innaction today.
It costs very little to produce a legal notice demanding a retraction.
They are a registered charity seeking donations. If the impuning of their reputation could affect their ability to solicit those donations and no proof is offered to substantiate claims; simply sending a letter of intent, unless a retraction is offered immediately, would certainly turn the tables.
If a few public appologies were offered, who is defamed then?
All of the partnered co-conspirators.
Off topic;
"Adenocarcinoma, which is not blamed on smoking or SHS is the only kind of LC which respods to chemo, so I suspect she had adenocarcinoma of the lung. If so, it canot be linked to SHS exposure." Dave K
Michael; can you offer your opinion here, is this factual;
Smoking and ETS atributed lung cancers are not treated with Chemo?
I seem to remember in the case of Heather Crowe, she was used up physically, telling the world to support smoking bans while TC advocates spoke many times discussing her Chemo treatments to maximize the impact.
FORCES............................
As a member from FORCES beginnings the integrity of every single researcher,donator member and the orginazation in general has 100% credibility,
Adhom attacks by BIG ANTI TOBACCO over all of the years have NOT shown that Tobacco politics have ever had one cents worth of influence on this decent group of my fellow Americans that put their own money where their mouth is. The research done by the heroic volunteers has never been de- bunked in any way while the BIG ANTI TOBACCO CARTEL is based on prostituted scientific studies paid for by taxpayers of this country,Available copies of public grants recieved under FOIA and data practices paints the accurate picture of who is paying for media time and designer studies that float the anti tobacco boat.
It is a insult for anyone from BIG ANTI TOBACCO to say other, I salute you FORCES for standing up for citizens attacked by their own governments practice of bad public funding and policy. This reminds me, send a donation and sign up more members.
As an afterthought;
I heard in a similar negotiated retraction, settlement included, a one dollar donation to the charity which might also be demanded.
So the name of the defaming party could be added to the charity sponsors list to offset and evidentiary damage in the future referencing the defaming statement.
Of course they run their own show, and I have no right to tell them what to do. As I am sure I will be told.
This is like anti-gun groups stating that the NRA is just a front group for Smith & Wesson.
People want the freedom to protect themselves.
People want the freedom to Smoke.
Apparently we can't have the freedom to be worthy of any freedom...it's the new unAmerican way.
Bill, due to your silence I can only surmise that your definition of extremist is anyone that does not agree with you.
Here is a couple of quotes to help you.
This quote is quite apt for FORCES
Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"
This one could have been about Tobacco Control Organisations
Robert F. Kennedy -
"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
GreatScot
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything."
Joseph Stalin
*****
"Who needs censorship when we have self-censorship. When news is being withheld, or neutralized, at best, how can we expect anything but cynicism from those who read our daily papers? Maybe the reason many aren't buying newspapers isn't that they can get information for free on the Internet, but because they don't believe what they read, and how can they?"
Jane Lyn Stahl
*****
"The United States has only one party - the property party. It's the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican."
Gore Vidal
*****
"The people will believe what the media tells them they believe."
George Orwell
*****
"Politicians and the media have conspired to infantilize, to dumb down, the American public. At heart, politicians don't believe that Americans can handle complex truths, and the news media, especially television news, basically agrees."
Tom Fenton, CBS foreign correspondent
*****
"Americans are too broadly under informed to digest nuggets of information that seem to contradict what they know of the world ... Instead, news channels prefer to feed Americans a constant stream of simplified information, all of which fits what they already know. That way they don't have to devote more air time or newsprint space to explanations or further investigations."
Tom Fenton, CBS foreign correspondent
*****
"Our government will soon become what it is already a long way toward becoming, an elective dictatorship."
Senator J. William Fulbright
*****
"And in the general hardening of outlook that set in ... practices which had been long abandoned - imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions ... and the deportation of whole populations - not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive."
George Orwell, 1984
Bill - Maybe you did not actually read my post, but I am not finding fault with anti-smoking groups for "criticizing" FORCES. They have every right to do that. I am finding fault - specifically - with these groups falsely accusing FORCES of being a Big Tobacco front group and insinuating that FORCES receives major funding from the tobacco companies.
It is the false accusation, and not the criticism, that I find problematic.
And just to remind you, a false accusation of this nature is potentially defamatory. Is this really something that you want to defend?
Harley makes a great point. If something is proven, then isn't it understating the case to say it is probable? Maybe they should have said proven OR probable front groups? That would have been the sleazy tactic to try to protect themselves from having to make an outright accusation that FORCES is a tobacco front group.
This is precisely the tactic that ANR is using when it lists FORCES under the heading "Front Groups and Allies." If they are accused of calling FORCES a front group, they can claim that they were actually calling them an ally. But by lumping them together, it puts into the readers mind that FORCES is a front group.
Maybe I should have my own list, entitled "Anti-Smoking Groups and Blatant Conniving Liars." Then I can leave it up to the imagination as to which category each group falls under. But all the groups will be tainted with the connotation of being blatant conniving liars.
Bill wrote:
"[D]oes NOT demonstrate that the entire tobacco control movement has been brainwashed into believing that any opposition to the anti tobacco agenda (whatever that is) is prima facie evidence of being a Big Tobacco front."
Bill's correct. A few examples doesn't prove the entire tobacco control movement has been brainwashed. How many examples would be sufficient for you Bill or should Dr. Siegel modify his statement and just say many/most?
I remember a city council meeting in our city when a lady stood up, pointed at the spokesman for the restaurant association and shouted (yes, shouted), "They're a front for Big Tobacco." This is the same restaurant association that Carl mentioned recently endorsing a statewide ban. I forget the name of that woman's group, but you can add it to the list.
Btw Bill, not long ago you didn't know what the tobacco control movement was. Today it's the anti tobacco agenda (whatever that is).
You've already stated you like taxes on cigarettes and other roadblocks to prevent smoking so you're not fooling anyone with your feigned ignorance of what those are.
Just to add another example of the Anti-Smoking tactics we all experience, we at Freedom To Choose managed to get a story published in several national newspapers last month. It was the first time that we had had received any national coverage since we started back in February last year. As a result of this, our spokesman, Bob Feal-Martinez received a phone call from a reporter from one of the main stream papers, usually much favoured by ASH. It seemed that ASH had been touting a story which is designed to destroy our credibility. They wanted this journalist to write that F2C were sponsored by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association and by implication were in the pay of Big T. Clearly ASH thought the journalist would just write the story but they mis-calculated on that occasion. The TMA were asked by the newspaper if it is true, which was obviously denied. The reporter therefore contacted us for our side of the story. To say we were annoyed was an understatement. The reporter admitted his source was ASH. The reporter did not write the story and we got the distinct impression he was not amused at being used by ASH. This is the clearest proof yet that ASH is, perhaps, growing very concerned that our message is getting out there.
Thanks James and Loraine for sharing these insights. I can tell you from the inside that this is not just an occasional occurrence. The entire movement is, indeed, indoctrinated with the idea that all of the groups that oppose tobacco policies are fronting for Big Tobacco. We do not yet have a conception that there are actually people out there who are independent of Big Tobacco yet who oppose what they see as government infringement upon their rights. While I do not agree with these individuals and groups on all aspects (although I do on some), it is important to recognize them for what they are and not to falsely accuse them of being something they are not.
I'm still confused as to why Bill seems to be defending defamation. Does it make it right just because we are working for a noble cause?
Godshall: “Just because a few smokefree advocates criticize an extremist right-to-smoke group (that calls smokefree advocates Nazis)…”
Actually, we call you fascists more often than Nazis, Bill. And if you were less ignorant about almost everything else, you would understand that fascism is not just castor oil and force, but a doctrine of economics. It envisioned private industries remaining private, but their priorities, productions and advertisement were set by state regulations. Isn’t that what you “smoke-free advocates” preach in the name of “public health”, Bill? The state in a “fascio” (bundle) with private industry, which in turn collects direct and indirect taxation and delivers it to the state as part of the state’s share in the joint venture while keeping the rest of the profits? Isn’t this what is currently happening in the US for tobacco, food, and so on? Isn’t this what Philip Morris is doing, kissing “public health’s” ass whilst selling cigarettes and delivering 70% of what it collects to the state?
So, the “smoke-free advocates” are fascists because they want the tobacco industry to survive (why don’t they call for outright prohibition?) in a “fascio” with them and with the state as a pimp. It is not an insult, it is a historical statement. During fascism, the castor oil and the beating came if people refused this absurd solution. Today fascism has been replaced with bans, beating with fines and even imprisonment, and the castor oil is the slander.
Talking about that, Bill, there is also the issue of your continuous slandering and insinuations about us being paid by BT, that you and the rest of your kind keep on making about FORCES in forums and web sites because you cannot face the issues we bring forward.
Don’t worry, we are keeping track of you - and one of these days you and your rotten heroes will pay a nice CASH contribution to anti-fascist FORCES -- so I advice you to start saving and to keep your dirty fingernails moving on the keyboard. You are building our case.
That’s not a threat, Bill. It is a promise. Keep smiling.
Regards to all,
Now; if someone could just convince
PM and BAT to make public statements confirming they don't fund Forces.
TC would be knocked on their proverbial asses permanently.
With apologies flowing like an avalanche at the insistence of their own insurers.
They, for the first time would have to admit opposition does exist in the real public and their favorite mode of defense would be defeated.
If she had smoked inside they used to do, she would have been killed. Smoking bans save lives.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,266781,00.html
"Smoking bans save lives"
Bill??? Is that you? If it is, grow up.
There, how do you like being accused of something I have no proof of?
Smoking bans save lives >>
That's probably about the only way they would (laugh).
Maybe a little OT.
Here in Ohio the American Cancer Society is suing the Ohio Department of Health as of today.
Looks strange in print, doesn't it?
It's over the private club exemption.
The OLBA filed a suit too on this earlier.
Oh well....there it is in all its ugliness.
Issue 4 and Issue 5's mating will certainly produce a demon that makes Damien look like a sweet lovely child.
Maybe the OLBA simply cut a deal for Tracy Sabetta to get more umbrellas in her frou-frou drinks at Applebees during her exciting "girls night out" happy hours.
Issue 4 (the bad boys last year supported by Big Tobacco as Issue 5/SmokeFREE Ohio pushed down Ohioans throats in the media) and Issue 5 (the do-gooders looking out for all of us) are now holding hands and all singing "Kum-By-Yah" together.
Cognitive dissosance doesn't quite describe the harmony of this particular little dirty ditty.
About that "proof" that FORCES is a lackey which consisted of their predicting that Hawaii would lose business, especially from Japan.
Sorry I didn't copy the URL for this thing but it was US & World News from Travel & Tourism, 3/12/07, under the headline, "Hawaii Tourism Slumps on Heels of Smoking Ban" :
HONOLULU, Hawaii - Mar. 12 -- According to Travel Hawaii LLC, Hawaii's tourism industry is in a slump, with overall January arrivals down nearly 6 percent from January 2006 and the lucrative Japanese market down over 12 percent. The decline comes on the heels of Hawaii's strict new smoking ban, which went into effect in November.
So it seems that stating the truth is a telltale marker of general corruption.
---
As for Mr. Bill, he's just weaseling-- as he usually does when he's "caught." From a blatant accusation of tobacco frontery, he withdraws to a mere "criticize" and pretends that that's all that he was saying all along. As though his previous fulminations weren't written on the record and couldn't be consulted. No analogies intended, but I simply make note that pathological liars engage in this very kind of magical thinking that never considers that those on the other end have logical, critical or independent minds. Or even short-term memories. They truly believe that whatever they happen to say at any given moment will, because they've said it, simply become The Truth.
----------------
Columbus Musician--
Got a link to some of that?
Bill wrote: "Mike should stop making absurd conspiratorial allegations about the tobacco control movement."
Yet, on Feb 22, 2002, Bill made similar - unsubstantiated - accusations against research on spit tobacco:
"Unfortunately, during the past decade (while spit tobacco companies touted Rodu's research, which they funded), ..."
To which Rodu, since recently Bill's co-author, replied:
"On February 22 this forum received comments from [...] and Bill Godshall, both of whom stated that the harm-reduction research conducted by my research group at the University of Alabama at Birmingham was funded by a tobacco company. This is incorrect."
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
The issue of conflicted funds is anything but a new debate.
"The Tobacco dance" circa 1998
http://www.geocities.com/~msrc/f...src/
forward.htm
At the Seventh World Conference on Tobacco and Health held in Perth, Australia in 1990, Stanton Glantz gave the keynote address in which he said, among other things:
"The main thing the science has done on the issue of ETS, in addition to help people like me pay mortgages, is it has legitimized the concerns that people have that they don't like cigarette smoke. And that is a strong emotional force that needs to be harnessed and used. We're on a roll, and the bastards are on the run. And I urge you to keep chasing them." (Emphasis added)
For one paragraph at least Mr. Glantz told the truth: He's in the thing to pay his mortgage and, all the bad science and propaganda claims aside, the basic fact behind the tobacco war is that some people simply don't like cigarette smoke.
************
LETTER TO SCIENCE MAGAZINE
Criticizing their "scientific" reporting of the smoking issue.
June 19, 1996
Mr. Steve LaphamLetters to Editor
Science Magazine
1333 H St. NWWashington, DC 20005
Dear Mr. Lapham,
Part of the American scientific community is excommunicating a group of its members - ostensibly those who accept research money from tobacco companies (Report, "Tobacco Money Lights up a Debate", Jon Cohen, Science, 26 April, 1996). The anti-smoking crusaders (ASC), led by Stanton Glantz, have won again. In a long and brilliantly effective campaign, the ASC have transformed the discussion of a public health issue into a holy war against smoking. To do this they have established 3 major dicta.
(1) Smoking kills 440,000 Americans annually.
(2) Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) kills 50,000 Americans annually.
(3) Anyone who questions the validity of (1) or (2) is a tool of the tobacco industry.
(3) is necessary because serious scientists recognize that (1) is questionable and
(2) preposterous.
Good scientists encourage criticism of their results. By honest give and take they refine their theories and advance knowledge. The ASCs, unable to defend their often shoddy science, have changed the subject to attacking the tobacco industry and impugning the motives of scientists who accept its funding. THE REAL OR ALLEGED EVILDOING OF THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PUBLIC POLICY DISCUSSION OF THE DANGERS OF SMOKING. No money will corrupt an honest scientist, and Federal money (Stanton Glantz' specialty) will corrupt a dishonest scientist as thoroughly as tobacco money.
The war on smoking has obviously become part of political correctness, or the American form of Lysenkoism. Lysenkoism, the subjugation of science to ideology, is named for Trofim Lysenko, Stalin's favorite scientist, who suppressed all genetic research in the Soviet Union and damaged Soviet science and agriculture for decades. It is easy to see why genetic research should be anathema to Stalinists, but can anyone enlighten me as to why smoking is the abomination of the politically correct?
Russell Baker, in his Observer column on the anti-smoking crusade (NY Times, May 31, 1994) noted that "crusades typically start by being admirable, proceed by being foolish, and end by being dangerous." In my opinion, the stages of the anti-tobacco crusade were:
(1) Admirable - demonstrating the relationship of primary smoking to lung cancer.
(2) Foolish - claiming that ETS is a serious health hazard.
(3) Dangerous - stifling dissent by defaming the opposition.
Defaming one's critics is a durable technique of crusaders, from Lysenko in the USSR to our own Salem witch hunters, Senator Joe McCarthy, and now Stanton Glantz and his fellow ASCs.
If Glantz' lucrative and effective propaganda has been able to harm the career of so distinguished an epidemiologist as Theodore Sterling, I can see why young scientists are afraid to protest. But where are the leaders of the AAAS, or other retirees, like me, who are free speak out? For 37 years I was proud to be a Federal government scientist, first at NBS (now NIST) and then NIH. The 1993 EPA report was merely embarrassing, but the current surrender to Lysenkoism is shameful and frightening.
Signed,
Rosalind B. Marimont
(1) Smoking kills 440,000 Americans annually.
(2) Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) kills 50,000 Americans annually.
(3) Anyone who questions the validity of (1) or (2) is a tool of the tobacco industry.
(3) is necessary because serious scientists recognize that (1) is questionable and
(2) preposterous.
Circa 1992 - Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco, filed a report with EPA claiming 53-56,000 deaths per year are attributable to ETS.
January, 1993 - EPA releases its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking" based on a meta analysis of 11 separate studies (Glantz not included -- they never endorsed his work). It uses a figure of 3,000 deaths per year attributable to ETS.
November 14, 1995 - CRS files Library of Congress report 95-1115 SPR in which it rejects EPA and 3 other studies as not statistically significant and tainted by poor research and analysis. For instance, EPA found 119 lung cancers among non-smoking spouses where 100 would have been expected. This equals a risk ratio of 1.19. Anything below 2.0 is generally considered statistically insignificant.
The CRS report was produced in response to an OSHA ruling that would ban smoking in Federal workplaces. It found no basis for such a ban.
1996 - November 11, Glantz capitulates, accepting the 3,000 figure.
The American Heart Association wants to attribute 50,000 fatal heart attacks per year to ETS.
It would not be until mid-1998 that a Federal judge handed down an opinion siding with the tobacco industry on the issue and the tide shifted a bit on the ETS issue.
Dr Siegel, I know you're a nice chap but why do you refer to tobacco control as a noble cause? It's not.
"If Glantz' lucrative and effective propaganda has been able to harm the career of so distinguished an epidemiologist as Theodore Sterling, I can see why young scientists are afraid to protest."
Here is what they did to Sterling;
http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/
...hg_internal.cfm
Mein Fuhrer von Glans has succeeded in turning science into a farce.I dread to think how much he has cost the taxpayer over the years,and for what ? Turning Public Health into the corrupt institution it is today.Is this his belief of progress.To sit in his ivory tower directing his emails worldwide in his campaign to ban smoking and remove dissenters from his boys club,AKA The Ku Klux Klan of anti smoking.If he cannot win his arguements by his use of the twisted science that is his speciality,he shouts down his opposition and batters them to death with his baloney.
This is a great news---if a bit OT
http://
www.morningadvertiser.co....articleid=30073
(posted on Smoker Club, Inc)
Better start scrambling Bill 'n Buds!!!
A Europen trend I would welcome in USA
From Kevin's link:
" How Theodore D. Sterling and Associates serves Big Tobacco:
On demand or by proposal, generates "studies" for Big Tobacco, even attacking evidence that secondhand smoke is dangerous.
Example: In 1997, Elia Sterling received $87,000 for a research proposal titled "Critically Review the Major Currently Used Mathematical Models of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Risk."
Represents the tobacco industry’s perspective, and that of their gambling industry fronts, in ASHRAE committees.
For a fee, testifies for the defense in secondhand smoke-related litigation.
Testifies in favor of Big Tobacco’s positions in OSHA hearings. "
Change Big Tobacco to Anti-Tobacco and Sterling's name to Glantz or Repace, flip a couple negatives to positives and what's the difference?
Scientific integrity on parade:
Different subject same old garbage!
http://www.reuters.com/
articlePr...829984220070418
~snip~
'Scientists who doubt the scope and cause of climate change have trouble getting funding and academic posts unless they conform to an "alarmist scenario," said Roger Helmer, a British member of the European Parliament, at a panel discussion on appropriate responses to rising global temperatures.'
~snip~
"Today's scientific consensus very often turns out to be tomorrow's redundant theory," he said. He said that scientific journals refused to take papers from scientists who doubted climate change'
SHS propaganda and it's success has made this massive transfer of wealth a very likely possibility. Never seems to dawn on the Anti's that these science swindles will really affect their futures. Wonder how that will smell to them?
Consensus is....
The debate is over....
For the future of the children.....
Yada yada yada..
Kevin, Thanks for the link to TobaccoScam. What a site! I've only quickly glanced it so far, but loved THIS under the SHS section "a little is dangerous":
5 minutes exposure = smoking a cigarette...
20 minutes exposure = smoker’s blood platelets...
30 minutes exposure = smoker’s arteries...
And lingering cholesterol effects...
120 minutes = greater risk of irregular heartbeat...
Summary of brief exposure risks...
All of these effects not only increase the long term risks of developing heart disease, but also increase the immediate risk of heart attack. And if someone suffers a heart attack while breathing secondhand smoke, it will likely be worse.
http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/
...ondhand_lid.cfm
Doc,
You really have to explain to me how it is possible I'm still alive, after smoking for 39 years now, and having been exposed to SHS constantly for all of my 54 years?
Or maybe it's the Bills, Carls, and Cathy's I need to asking this of?
And they talk about the tobacco companies lying? ROFLMAO
Lynda;
I believe what they are trying to prove with those numbers is; smoking is the only cure if you are expossed even for minutes to the evil smoke.
It is the only logical conclusion left.
This Sounds to me, like the work of one of those Tobacco industry lackeys we hear about so much.
"And if someone suffers a heart attack while breathing secondhand smoke, it will likely be worse."
That's too funny :P
Bill, I went to the mailbox this afternoon and there was still no check.
Either you're lying or I'm being ripped off. Please let me know which one it is. I'm pissed off at somebody but I'm not sure who yet.
Didn't check the mailbox, but I see Bill is engaging in a most telling silence. No answers yet.
Hmmmmmmm...
.
And now for something completely different remember how PM it was pointed out is partnering with Tobacco free Kids in support of the FDA regulations deal?
This is the mating call of a TFK Tobacco stooge bird;
For Immediate Release
July 16, 2001 Contact: Joel Spivak/Michael Berman 202.296.5469
Philip Morris Hasn’t Changed – Company’s Report to Czech Government Argues Dead Smokers Are Good for Government Budgets
Statement of Matthew L. Myers, President Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
Excerpt;
"This report is also a much-needed warning to policy makers at all levels in the United States and around the world that """Philip Morris has not changed and cannot be trusted""" when it says it wants to play a constructive role in developing laws and treaties to regulate tobacco products. The same Philip Morris that told the Czech government that smokers dying early is a good thing {{{is also asking Congress to pass its version of Food and Drug Administration regulation of tobacco,}}}"
http://tobaccofreekids.org/Scrip...hp3?
Display=377
Peta is busy creating the next wave of TC style advocacy. In Canada we have a physicians for a smoke free something now Peta is doinf the same thing except as you will notice they are not afraid to come right out and advertise killing a few opponents is acceptable.
http://www.physicianscam.com/art...les/
7things.htm
" When longtime PCRM spokesperson Dr. Jerry Vlasak addressed the "Animal Rights 2003" convention, he openly endorsed the murder of doctors who use animals in their research. "I don't think you'd have to kill---assassinate---too many," Vlasak told the assembled activists. "I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives."
We better start listening a little more carfully to these TC fanatics, they may be supporting more than what we know. In the competitive would of lobby group extremizm if they are not promoting murder yet, they likely soon will be.
Here's the Hawaii article that required a URL:
Hawaii Tourism Slumps on Heels of Smoking Ban
Published: Mon, 12 Mar 2007, 17:15:00 GMT
Edited by Carly Zander
http://www.send2press.com/
newswi...05_Hawaii.shtml
Remember Kevin,
Adoph was all for animal rights.
"I don't think you'd have to kill---assassinate---too many," Vlasak told the assembled activists."
These folks give me the willies!!!!
Essential Actions site I could not help to notice that this group seems pretty upset that Jazz vocalist and guitarist George Benson was on this web site. It seems the antis are pretty upset that George is playing a concert sponsored by a cigarette maker. Of course they posted for everyone to send a chain letter to him in protest. It seems the antis might be upset that anyone but themselves are allowed to make money through tobacco. Of course Benson is earning his
I noticed Bill did not sign on to the form letter posted. Then again maybe Bill just might have taken a little walk over to the Hill District in Pittsburgh and proclaimed to the neighborhood where George Benson grew up, that George is a shill of the tobacco companies, and George's music is tainted because of tobacco dollars. If tou have not done it yet Bill, its Friday, maybe tonight after dark would be a good time to spread the good word in the Hill District. After all you are on the side of rightiousness. You just may survive the night. Breezin baby just a breezin.
I might add a similar group operating in identical strategy promotions is advocating to kill people to get what they want.
Bill has offered no proof TC does not intend to kill people as well.
Well, that's the way it works. People don't do what you want, you torment, torture, and/or kill them until they do. TC doesn't mind if you kill smokers, they just won't come right out and SAY it. People have been killed directly because of the type of hate TC spreads, but hey, I'm sure they were thinking like PETA, won't have to kill too many to get what we want.
Hi, guys.
Jalestra, as usual, more right than I wish you were; as you noted, we are to be exterminated by force.
But people who have been conned by such personality types as these following may be amenable to reason.
While the examples given may not always, the characteristics apply in various situations.
http://dslweb.nwnexus.com/jmashm...npd/
traits.html
(Put in separate URLS on same site for ease and to ensure certain pertinant articles aren't missed.)
http://www.bullyonline.org/workb...ully/
serial.htm
http://www.bullyonline.org/
workb...l.htm#Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/relat...ated/
jargon.htm
http://www.bullyonline.org/relat...ed/
minority.htm
(Esp. link to 'Brain scan shows reaction to pain' at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
3178242.stm
http://www.bullyonline.org/relat...lated/
snoop.htm
http://www.bullyonline.org/relat...lated/
cyber.htm
http://www.fastcompany.com/magaz.../
open_boss.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/magaz..._boss-
quiz.html
http://www.internetidiot.net/soc...pathy-
links.htm
In the following (included as interesting parallel with now) must ignore pioneering psychiatric notions which revealed, I think, more about founders than patients.
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documen...ts/
osstitle.htm
So - lack of empathy; pathogically selfish; no conscience; no embarrassment having been cauight lying - simply uses repetition of lie (Big Lie), denial, subject change, story change or attack of questioner; controlling, manipulative, can be charming and plausible, even when engaging in abusive behaviour; gravitate to positions of control over others; contempt for victims; short-term thinking - can't envision future consequence of actions; wants whatever he wants as soon as he wants it, and if other people suffer, that's probably amusing; may claim selfish acts are for public good; megalomaniac - feel self is only one of importance - you know the rest, and see examples daily.
But if history continues to repeat, as it so obviously is now doing, it may never do so again; we must fight on in the metaphorical trenches and the streets from which we are now being chased, for there will be nowhere left to go for any life at all.
Commenting by HaloScan
