tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post595118063525303990..comments2024-03-25T18:49:00.608+00:00Comments on The Pub Curmudgeon: An MP repentsCurmudgeonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-75315398494114774662011-08-17T21:44:47.213+01:002011-08-17T21:44:47.213+01:00Mr Robinson: Thanks for the laugh. Quoting Policy ...Mr Robinson: Thanks for the laugh. Quoting Policy Exchange's <a href="http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/2010/03/that-policy-exchange-nonsense.html" rel="nofollow">quite absurd nonsense</a> shows that you're reaching somewhat in your argument. If that is your level of 'proof', it's quite hilarious that you're castigating others for not providing any.<br /><br />I'd give up, if I were you. It's not just me who laughed themselves silly at the £13bn figure. So did the Telegraph, The Spectator and even the Guardian.Dick Puddlecotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481866882188932892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-54155192848261774782011-08-17T13:47:49.678+01:002011-08-17T13:47:49.678+01:00@Mr Robinson I have created 2 special posts for yo...@Mr Robinson I have created 2 special posts for you.<br /><br />http://daveatherton.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/more-scepticism-on-the-harm-of-passive-smoking-from-professor-philippe-even/<br /><br />http://daveatherton.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/scientists-and-scholars-dissent-on-the-harm-of-passive-smoking/Large Melot Pleasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03791208850153972310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-86307812574329890702011-08-17T13:04:52.569+01:002011-08-17T13:04:52.569+01:00@ Mr Robinson.
Sorry to get to the debate late bu...@ Mr Robinson.<br /><br />Sorry to get to the debate late but sorry for the hyperbole but in my opinion it is one of the biggest scientific frauds of the 20th century is the 'harm' of SHS to restrict smoking. <br /><br />Dr. Jerome Arnett a pulmonolgist wrote this in 2008 <br /><br />“Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.”Large Melot Pleasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03791208850153972310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-65420946792959503952011-08-12T17:19:04.795+01:002011-08-12T17:19:04.795+01:00Mr Robinson,
Shift work is a higher risk factor fo...Mr Robinson,<br />Shift work is a <a href="http://www.sjweh.fi/download.php?abstract_id=410&file_nro=1" rel="nofollow">higher risk factor for heart disease</a> than passive smoking.<br />So I really think pubs and restaurants should only work under normal working hours. If they are closed<br />during the evening and at weekends then this will save lives even more lives. I really don't we should consign even more people to death for what amounts to a hobby for someone else and it is, well, a little scary.Fredrik Eichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985306468872702882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-60672937956606481662011-08-12T02:24:38.444+01:002011-08-12T02:24:38.444+01:00Mr Robinson - I did indeed say that, sadly, withou...Mr Robinson - I did indeed say that, sadly, without irony. What I meant to say was that it wasn't an unreasonable figure - on the basis that we were discussing statistics. My fault for not making myself clear. To take your point further I don't take any of this lightly, but unless we actually see the deaths, then for any of us indulging in the luxury of debating this subject, they are just numbers.<br /><br />Funny...I thought I was the Darwinist!!<br /><br />One final thought, to put the 600 deaths per year in context. In 2007, 646 people died from "Passive Driving" or pedestrians as they are more commonly known. Here's the link to the Office of National Statistics - http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208<br /><br />Many people view driving a car as being a dangerous hobby that isn't really necessary, but no-one has seriously tried to get it banned yet!<br /><br />I don't think that anyone here actually believes that smoking is good for you. I even think that they will admit that passive smoking can cause some harm. Some will probably admit that the smoking ban isn't the only factor in the closing down of pubs. BUT, what I think we all agree on (on this side of the argument) is that no-one was given a choice! There has to be a middle ground that is more reasonable for all!<br /><br />We would meet you half way, Mr Robinson; would you compromise?PetesQuizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13620433090438752385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-81652645085033970902011-08-11T20:55:53.615+01:002011-08-11T20:55:53.615+01:00Stonewall, stonewall, stonewall...
I feel like a ...Stonewall, stonewall, stonewall...<br /><br />I feel like a Darwinist trolling a Creationism website!<br /><br />If you tell someone that lightning is dangerous, they will point out Roy Sullivan and say it really is not.<br /><br />If you suggest falling from an airplane might endanger your health, they will cite Alan Magee and Nicholas Alkenmade and scoff at your burdensome over protection.<br /><br />Try to argue that smoking costs UK society £13.74 billion a year (just a number I pulled quickly, not vouching for it), and they say that Choice is paramount and smoking makes people happy, which is priceless. And think of the poor pubs that were forced to close! All these really high quality pubs that offered their customers exactly what they wanted, and the customers were sooo willing to patronize them, except that smoking ban has made their life absolutely unbearable! Sheesh...<br /><br />I'm under no delusion that I will change many minds here. Humans are blindingly stubborn, and I suppose I fall into that category too most times.<br /><br />But really, this little pity party that you have going here is just too much to resist jumping in!<br /><br />And the lengths you lot go to! Wow! Gary K. posts some unsourced (What USA gov data, Gary?) pro-smoking numbers, and people cheer and congratulate him without question? Really?<br /><br />And did Pete's Quiz honestly say "that would equate to about 600 deaths per year from lung cancer in passive smokers! Still more than I would've expected, but not unreasonable!" I'm not vouching for the numbers at all, but the mere fact that he consigned 600 people to death for what amounts to a hobby for someone else is, well, a little scary.<br /><br />Pete: I hope that I am just missing the sarcasm that laced that comment?<br /><br />@Curmudgeon<br />What is the psychological root for your denial, and your insistence on banging on about the harm the smoking ban causes?<br /><br />I am just thinking that your "Pubs closed since 1 July 2007" counter on the front page reflects a MUCH more casual statistical association than the anti-smoking figures you gleefully vilify.Mr. Robinsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-67718327935414794032011-08-11T16:07:06.261+01:002011-08-11T16:07:06.261+01:00Robbo's last comment basically boils down to &...Robbo's last comment basically boils down to "I don't like it, therefore I want it banned" - which, deep down, is the psychological root of the entire antismoker case.Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-27480725696277532432011-08-11T15:24:10.382+01:002011-08-11T15:24:10.382+01:00This is anon of 17.52. My figure of 1/200 or 0.5% ...This is anon of 17.52. My figure of 1/200 or 0.5% is a common estimate and is consistent with the anti tobacco industry's claim of 600 lc deaths from passive smoking each year assuming a relative risk of 1.2. Curm is correct. I remember 3,600 given for non smoking lc deaths. I have also come across the figure of 0.75%. All of these figures are rough estimates as exposure to passive smoking has fallen with smoking prevalence and in any case, is very difficult to quantify. Keep in mind that exposure to 4 hours a day for 20 years of passive smoking is claimed by the anti tobacco industry to increase your chance of getting lc during your life time by something of the order of 1/1000. For several reasons, I don't agree with it, but there is not much point in arguing. Employees in the hospitality industry collecting glasses for a few minutes a day in a room with an extraction system would be exposed, at their own choosing, to a minuscule amount of smoke. Note also that the median age for being diagnosed with lc is 71.<br />Gary K gives the yearly chance of getting lc, not the lifetime chance. Curm corrected PQ's error by diding by 75.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-24322488750433650862011-08-11T15:09:29.745+01:002011-08-11T15:09:29.745+01:00"However, even you must admit that the detrim..."However, even you must admit that the detrimental effects of secondhand smoke are real. Luckily we all have reams of solid scientific evidence to tell us just exactly how dangerous,"<br />.................<br /><br />The vast majority of those 'reams' are about children and parental smoking. As such, they have no bearing on adults and the social gatherings that are discussed here.<br /><br />Folks, antis do love to toss around a lot of big numbers that are completely not relevent.<br /><br />For every 5 studies there are probably 10 studies that torture the data of those 5 to get the desired results.<br /><br />Gary K.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-22303216622277876862011-08-11T10:36:17.538+01:002011-08-11T10:36:17.538+01:00I missed Mr Robinson's response earlier and it...I missed Mr Robinson's response earlier and it would be easy to continue to quote papers and experimental results at one another, but as with many of these debates (see also Global Warming - don't get me started on that!!) this type of approach generates more heat than light. There are vested interests on BOTH sides and in this case the anti smoking lobby shouted loudest.<br /><br />I suppose my main problem with the smoking ban is this. Why does a government insist on educating the whole population, giving us all the tools and information to make informed decisions, and then dictate to us how we must live our lives?<br /><br />In Victorian times (and later) when the general population was not educated there was a need for this type of legislation to 'protect the people'. Nowadays there should be a different choice whereby a government introduces legislation that gives individuals/businesses the tools to implement a ban as they see fit.<br /><br />If the smoking ban was lifted tomorrow, I reckon that about 90% of pubs would keep it and the rest would either operate a room-by-room system or lift the ban completely. Everyone would then have a choice!PetesQuizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13620433090438752385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-8245484245373252422011-08-11T00:54:43.200+01:002011-08-11T00:54:43.200+01:00Mr Robinson @14.58
'When in public, civilized...Mr Robinson @14.58<br /><br />'When in public, civilized societies generally dislike loud oafs, blaring music, excrement on the sidewalk, etc. These things don't cause cancer'.<br /><br />And outdoor ETS does?<br /><br />Keep digging....prognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-62238702782944480282011-08-10T19:52:14.850+01:002011-08-10T19:52:14.850+01:00Excellent work Gary K! That's good research. A...Excellent work Gary K! That's good research. Assuming the UK's population is a fifth of the USA's then that would equate to about 600 deaths per year from lung cancer in passive smokers! Still more than I would've expected, but not unreasonable! <br /><br />It's just a shame that these types of figures never came out some years ago...or maybe they did but were they shouted down/drowned out by the vested interests of the anti-smoking lobby?PetesQuizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13620433090438752385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-73843101257379760092011-08-10T19:11:36.401+01:002011-08-10T19:11:36.401+01:00Govt data(USA) says there are those 28,260 neversm...Govt data(USA) says there are those 28,260 neversmoker lung cancer deaths and that there are about 3,000 of them 'caused' by SHS exposure.<br /><br />Sooooo; if there were NO SHS exposure, at least 90% of the neversmoker lung cancer deaths would still occur!!!! :)<br /><br />Gary K.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-31954383468527785562011-08-10T18:55:33.565+01:002011-08-10T18:55:33.565+01:00Govt data(USA) tells us that there are 136 million...Govt data(USA) tells us that there are 136 million adult neversmokers and they account for 28,260 lung cancer deaths per year.<br /><br />That is an incidence rate of 2/10,000 and a 25% increased risk is 0.5/10,000 or 1/20,000.<br /><br />Note, those 20,000 SHS exposed neversmokers would have 4 lung cancer deaths anyway and the SHS 'caused' death is only 1 out of 5.<br /><br />Sooo; if a SHS exposed neversmokers dies from lung cancer, the odds are 4-1 against SHS being the cause.<br /><br />Gary K.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-86173227034572176632011-08-10T18:31:20.573+01:002011-08-10T18:31:20.573+01:00If you assume that people live for an average of 7...If you assume that people live for an average of 75 years, it's about 4,000 cases a year, which seems credible enough to me. <br /><br />But if something is suspected of causing an 20% increase in a negligible risk then it's not really something I'm particularly bothered about.Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-10448979799521026582011-08-10T18:25:25.759+01:002011-08-10T18:25:25.759+01:00I'm not sure about Anon's figures above. I...I'm not sure about Anon's figures above. If a non smoker has a 1 in 200 chance of getting lung cancer would mean that about 300,000 non smokers will get lung cancer (assuming a population of 60 million)! I genuinely don't know what the risks are, but this doesn't seem to be right to me.<br /><br />This is why I originally raised the point...we need accurate figures of the risk WITHOUT smoke to fully understand the real risks of passive smoking.PetesQuizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13620433090438752385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-91887330584791217822011-08-10T17:52:17.133+01:002011-08-10T17:52:17.133+01:00Pete's Quiz, the chance of a non smoker gettin...Pete's Quiz, the chance of a non smoker getting lung cancer is reckoned to about 1/200. Therefore a relative risk of 1.2 equates to an extra probability of 1/1000. This is for 20 years exposure at 4 hours a day. Even if this claim were true, the extra probability from spending a few minutes a week collecting glasses in a ventilated smoking room would be negligible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-65472359665870282862011-08-10T16:56:39.537+01:002011-08-10T16:56:39.537+01:00All of Robinson's posted SHS harm studies ref...All of Robinson's posted SHS harm studies refer to an 'association' between SHS and the diseases mentioned.<br /><br />An 'association' is NOT proof of 'causation' and never can be proof.<br /><br />Gary K.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-4826178732193999782011-08-10T14:58:36.215+01:002011-08-10T14:58:36.215+01:00@ Curmudgeon
"We can live in hope."
Can&...@ Curmudgeon<br />"We can live in hope."<br />Can't let you off that easily! :)<br /><br />@prog<br />In arguing against outdoor smoking, obviously we are not breathing "captive" air, so the health effects will be somewhat mitigated. Therefore, I turn to a stance of public politeness. When in public, civilized societies generally dislike loud oafs, blaring music, excrement on the sidewalk, etc. These things don't cause cancer, but we still ask people to wear headphones, clean up after their dog, etc. So, not matter how hard non-smokers try, I still wind up breathing their smoke as I walk by outside. The wind carries it. There is nothing they can do. I get disturbed. So, what is more important? Their addiction? Or me being able to walk in public without sneezing, itching my eyes, and blowing my nose?<br /><br />Facts and figures are sparser in this area, but here is one place to start when considering the toll of smoking outdoors:<br />http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/cigbuttarticles.htm<br />It's sad to see that so many smokers continue their disregard for others by just tossing their buts on the ground. Anecdotal, but it is rare that I see a smoker actually use a public ashtray when available, or carry their but to the trash when not. What gives? Why does smoker so often equal litterer? Just a pet peeve of mine...<br /><br />@Pete's Quiz<br />Yes, I am aware of that article. Please remember, that it is one article. Their study covered very specific factors, not the broader health issues that I have championed.<br /><br />Also, if you keep digging, you will find healthy debate as to the appropriateness of the study author's statistical analysis, as well as concerns about an author's past as a sham researcher shilling for the tobacco lobby... I'd probably call this one study a toss-up. So we have one study in the smoker's corner, and how many against? :)<br /><br />Just on a funny one-off note, I browsed a pro-smoker's website, and his list of "proof" that smoking causes little harm includes several US Surgeons General reports from the early 1960s. Yes, nearly 50 year old medical knowledge being proudly displayed as proof. Bizarre, no?<br /><br />Anyway, back on track.<br /><br />@Anonymous 10 August 2011 13:28<br />If you have thoroughly researched the issue, and you have come to a conclusion that you are confident in, then I fully endorse your right to go out and make your voice heard! Play fair, don't lie, and may the better side win! :)Mr. Robinsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-21919941365204719002011-08-10T13:28:12.543+01:002011-08-10T13:28:12.543+01:00Thank you, Mr R, for resolving a dilemma which I’v...Thank you, Mr R, for resolving a dilemma which I’ve found myself in over the last few years, with the burgeoning anti-alcohol movement looming on the horizon. <br /><br />I myself am a very, very rare drinker. I’m probably about as near as being teetotal as you get without actually <i>being</i> teetotal. A glass or two of champagne at a wedding or half a can of beer shared in the park with a friend on a sunny day are about my limit. I like alcohol very much, but it doesn’t really like me, so over time I’ve given up trying to keep up with everyone who can drink normally and accepted the fact that my physiological tolerance is ridiculously low. I don’t practise “responsible drinking” – I practise “positively frugal drinking!” Sad, but true. However, it does mean that alcohol simply doesn’t play a greatly important part in my daily life. They could bring in total alcohol prohibition tomorrow and from a personal perspective I wouldn’t bat an eyelid. There’s the principle, of course, but that’s a different thing.<br /><br />However, as a smoker, having experienced life as a target of the whole anti-smoking lobby, I recognise that when the anti-alcohol crunch comes (as it inevitably will) it’ll be people like me whose voices will carry the most influence in protesting against alcohol restrictions, because I can’t be immediately brushed aside as a “wicked drinker,” who “would say that” or as a mouthpiece for the evil brewery industry. <br /><br />It was the lack of vocal non-smokers’ support which enabled the ban to be brought in so easily, and it’s the ongoing lack of <i>active</i> non-smokers’ support which keeps the anti-smoking lobby pushing for ever-further restrictions. So, what to do? The temptation to stand on the sidelines smugly, refusing to assist the new victims of the same bullies – those people who resolutely refused to lend a hand when <i>I</i> was a target – is huge. On the other hand, wouldn’t it be nice to spoil the bullies’ game, now, when they think that smokers are a “done deal,” just when they were least expecting it, as they move onto their next target?<br /><br />Decisions! Decisions! How nice it is, as a smoker, for once to have a choice! And how kind of Mr R to illustrate to me the kind of people I’ll be helping by voicing my non-drinker objections to restrictions on alcohol consumption. Decision made.<br /><br />Of course, if there prove to be lots of non-smoking drinkers who are prepared to show that they aren’t all like Mr R, I might just change my mind, but as things stand at the moment the showing (with the exception of PQ above - thank you!) is not good ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-66195389840122377322011-08-10T13:12:32.815+01:002011-08-10T13:12:32.815+01:00Mr Robinson makes some interesting points. I'v...Mr Robinson makes some interesting points. I've followed the links supplied and I have a question.<br /><br />This is a quote from one of the links - "passive smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by 20 - 30%" in non smokers seems to be an accepted 'fact' - but what is the ACTUAL risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer? (this is important; for example if the risk is 1 in 1 million the increased risk becomes 1.25 in 1 million which would mean an extra 18 deaths per year in the UK!)<br /><br />When the causal link between smoking and lung cancer was first discovered the increased risk was 17 times - that's 1700% - this is a statistically significant number, 20 - 30% is not!<br /><br />I have a link of my own to a study covering over 100,000 people in California. The conclusion was "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."<br /><br />http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full<br /><br />Finally, I do not smoke and never have. I believe that pubs should have the choice whether they allow smoking or not.PetesQuizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13620433090438752385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-51053714290498896992011-08-10T10:44:03.535+01:002011-08-10T10:44:03.535+01:00Moves are afoot to try to ban smoking in outdoor p...Moves are afoot to try to ban smoking in outdoor public spaces. Where's the long list of links to statistically proven studies that support this agenda? <br /><br />I wasn't trying to be clever Mr R, I simply asked for ANY scientific evidence. Perhaps you would agree that such moves are totally unjustifiable? It just that organisations such as ASH appear to encourage such actions, based on moral judgement alone.prognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-6651804689843429982011-08-09T12:39:26.946+01:002011-08-09T12:39:26.946+01:00"If I may get personal for a moment... you se...<i>"If I may get personal for a moment... you seem to give up and say "So and so is not worth arguing with." "</i><br /><br />As you clearly regard smoking as an unmitigated evil and not something people can legitimately gain pleasure from doing, it is clear that any "debate" is likely to be fruitless.<br /><br /><i>"I applaud you though for not resorting to ad-hominem attacks or blatant nut-jobbery like some in this comment stream."</i><br /><br />It seems you can patronise for England, as well.<br /><br /><i>"I'll get my coat..."</i><br /><br />We can live in hope.Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-38004832100414281652011-08-09T12:24:10.818+01:002011-08-09T12:24:10.818+01:00"Yes, that is heartbreaking. Since he is 70, ..."Yes, that is heartbreaking. Since he is 70, we can safely assume that perhaps he began smoking before all of the health dangers were widely known. And so, he <strong>chooses</strong> to sit alone and be miserable because this oft-defended product has such a hold over him." - Mr. Robinson.<br />Mr. Robinson, I was shown images of diseased organs at school that were attributed to smoking and drinking and I could not wait to grow up enough to go to pubs to try it all out. And I don't<br />intend on letting future generations miss out on all the fun I have enjoyed. If you want to know what choice is , why not make a rule that you only neck your beer outside of a pub and see how long you last or why not ask your fellow drinkers to kneck their beer out side of pubs<br />and see how long they remain your friend.Fredrik Eichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985306468872702882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-13111981960964815882011-08-09T12:20:47.781+01:002011-08-09T12:20:47.781+01:00Ahh... so much to do....
@Ivan D
Did you not fol...Ahh... so much to do....<br /><br />@Ivan D<br /><br />Did you not follow the links I posted? Most of them have links to other resources, which in turn link to hundreds of peer reviewed pieces. And I must disagree with you that an authority such as The Mayo Clinic or The Cleveland clinic are suspect. If you distrust them, I fear you may beat risk for making other poor health choices...<br /><br />It is not my job to do your research for you. Simply saying "Nuh 'uh!" is not a valid retort. Please work your way through this list, as a starter -- there are hundreds more linked there for you -- and let me know what issues you have with their method and analysis. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/protection/hospitality/index.htm<br /><br />@Dick Puddlecote<br />Yes, there are a lot of people with opinions out there. But let's remember: one of anything is not proof. I've seen people in this very comment chain guilty of what you might fear the teetotalers are doing: hold up one piece as a rallying cry.<br /><br />As I argue with Ivan D, I try to list respected resources, with tonnes of trust built up, citing multiple, peer reviewed articles.<br /><br />We all know newspapers will print darn hear anything. Please don't be among the masses who just accept what they hear as the current soundbite. All I am asking for is that people read what is out there and really think about it.<br /><br />@Curmudgeon<br /><br />If I may get personal for a moment... you seem to give up and say "So and so is not worth arguing with." But I notice you do this as a sort of retreat. Having to respond to facts and such can be tiresome, I know, but it doesn't mean the argument is over. I applaud you though for not resorting to ad-hominem attacks or blatant nut-jobbery like some in this comment stream. Like I said before, let's focus on our common ground, and positive actions!<br /><br />@Just about everyone else<br /><br />Yes. You are quite clever. You have seen me for who I really am:<br /><br />A miserable old bastard who won't rest until I've taken away your cigarettes (they're bad for you!), your lovely wife (you've got ED from smoking anyway, so...), your car (you'll just mark up the leather with cigarette burns!), and finally, your cat (I will eat him for breakfast to fuel my mad rage.)<br /><br />You can't stop me. Soon my fascist brothers and I will pass a law banning blogs like this one! Mwah hah hah hah haaaa *cough* *cough* *cough* Damn smoker! Go stand somewhere else!<br /><br /><br /><br />I'll get my coat...Mr. Robinsonnoreply@blogger.com