bluemonday Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 Ermmm.... sorry to have to say this, Slim... but something involving pots, kettles and an extremely dark colour spring to mind. For examples? Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Fixed. Ans had it right at the start of the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Ermmm.... sorry to have to say this, Slim... but something involving pots, kettles and an extremely dark colour spring to mind. For examples? Fixed. I don't get that, you've added an "s" to example? Was that meant to be a witty put-down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 Ermmm.... sorry to have to say this, Slim... but something involving pots, kettles and an extremely dark colour spring to mind. For examples? Fixed. I don't get that, you've added an "s" to example? Was that meant to be a witty put-down? Well it all started with the original comment from Lonan: 'Ermmm.... sorry to have to say this, Slim... but something involving pots, kettles and an extremely dark colour spring to mind. ...and then Slim said 'for example?' ...and then I said 'fixed' to example(s). Sorry for any confusion. It was a quick attempt to sort of show there would be more than one example where Slim demonstrates this tendency, hence the use of the word examples which is the plural of example. See what I did now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 It was a quick attempt to sort of show there would be more than one example where Slim demonstrates this tendency, hence the use of the word examples which is the plural of example. How about one then? I try to debate genuinely, and if I've missed something I'm happy to have it pointed out. Generalising and insulting without actually saying what the problem is, isn't a great help. Or you could reply to the points rather than just talk about me? Like explain to me that if first hand smoke kills, why doesn't second hand smoke? No links to propoganda, in your own words. You're apparently against that, so stop doing it eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 It was a quick attempt to sort of show there would be more than one example where Slim demonstrates this tendency, hence the use of the word examples which is the plural of example. How about one then? I try to debate genuinely, and if I've missed something I'm happy to have it pointed out. Generalising and insulting without actually saying what the problem is, isn't a great help. Or you could reply to the points rather than just talk about me? Like explain to me that if first hand smoke kills, why doesn't second hand smoke? No links to propoganda, in your own words. You're apparently against that, so stop doing it eh? That wasn't an insult. You haven't had one of those yet. Whilst it may have been a debate, you have spent most of it trying to link the unlinkable, and going off the original topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Whilst it may have been a debate, you have spent most of it trying to link the unlinkable, and going off the original topic. What? The original topic is someone saying there's no evidence for claims. Aren't you in agreement with her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 Whilst it may have been a debate, you have spent most of it trying to link the unlinkable, and going off the original topic. What? The original topic is someone saying there's no evidence for claims. Aren't you in agreement with her? Bollocks - read it properly and listen to the clip. She says: (CLAIM) 'people are actually smoking less in the home since the ban was brought in'. She says (CLAIM): 'There's no evidence to suggest children in the Isle of Man have been exposed to more second hand smoke, since the public ban on lighting up was introduced in March last year' and refers to (CLAIMS) 'studies' to back her claims. These claims are bogus is my assertion for all of the psuedo-science clap-trap reasons I gave earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 These claims are bogus is my assertion for all of the psuedo-science clap-trap reasons I gave earlier. Like I said above, it's a shame she double-contradicted herself, particularly when she's responding to bogus evidence. Christ knows what kind of selfish idiot would smoke at home when their kids were there though. What's wrong with these people? Just ban fags then, nuke them all from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 These claims are bogus is my assertion for all of the psuedo-science clap-trap reasons I gave earlier. Like I said above, it's a shame she double-contradicted herself, particularly when she's responding to bogus evidence. Just ban fags then, nuke them all from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Just let smokers go to smoking pubs and non-smokers to non smoking pubs - and let everyone be happy, whilst protecting children from additional smoke exposure by people smoking more (longer) at home. Anyone illiberal enough to disagree with that just gets gassed - problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I love smoking threads, they're brillo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Just let smokers go to smoking pubs and non-smokers to non smoking pubs - and let everyone be happy, whilst protecting children from additional smoke exposure by people smoking more (longer) at home. Anyone illiberal enough to disagree with that just gets gassed - problem solved. Can we just find the old thread and link it in here? It's the staff that's the problem Albert, and the mates of smokers, you know it is. The bans working well, the majority of people are happy with it. Sarahc: Me too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 The bans working well, the majority of people are happy with it. I spose you heard that from some of the 'thousands' now reclaiming the smoke free pubs like they said they would did you? You should get out more Slim, it's an eye opener. Conversation in pubs saying how bad the ban is, far outweigh those about how good it is. Anyhoo it's now academic, there won't be that many pubs left soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Heart attack drop and the statistics were unrelated - that was my point. Yes I do still dispute much of the evidence, and e.g. studies. But, as much as you cherry pickers want to divert the issue, let's stick to the point shall we - there is no serious scientific evidence for the claim being made by Anita Imberger - either way. Though with similar levels of smoking prevalance, off-licence sales shooting up, and people only able to do it in certain places - I know what I'd be putting my money on. Albert, I'm fascinated where you get you opinions and theories from. When I am confronted by a complex, disputed issue I usually turn to primary sources publishing peer reviewed science. You seem to turn to popular journalism and sites which like black backgrounds, claim the establishment is out to get them and which reach conclusions exactly at variance to organizations like the CDC, WHO, the US Surgeon General, the National Health Service etc. Now I'm confused by Mr Snowdon's site - why if he is so certain passive smoking isn't a risk hasn't he been able to convince these authorities. I read his list of papers, but note it doesn't include this one, or this one, or this one, or this one - guess what I could go on! You go to the BBC and find a report which claims the 17% reduction in heart attack admissions MAY be wrong - I go a review of the paper and find this: A growing body of literature strongly supports an associationbetween indoor air smoking bans and quick reductions in ACS admissions. The first study that examined this relationship was performed in Helena, MT, and showed a 40% reduction in ACS admissions after introduction of a smoking ban as compared with a nonsignificant increase in a community without a smoking ban [1]. Although initial reactions to this finding were decidedly mixed given its single location and magnitude of reduction, further epidemiologic studies have supported these findings. A 39% reduction in ACS admissions was seen in Bowling Green, OH, after enactment of smoke-free legislation [2], while a 27% reduction was seen in Pueblo, CO, after a comparable smoking ban was enacted [3]. Similar results were seen across diverse communities in New York, Canada, and Italy, with a large study from Rome (population, 2.7 million) showing a 7.9% reduction in ACS events in patients aged 65 to 74 years and an 11.2% reduction in patients aged younger than 65 years after enactment of smoke-free legislation [4] I see increasingly detailed attempts to use science to examine these issues - obviously its difficult to get a totally clear picture, but pure and simple I see increasingly nuanced analyses of a complex problem - all you seem to see is humbug. I most definitely don't see pseudo science and cherry picking and wonder if you are the one with over selective use of sources! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.