In Defense of Smokers

In Defense of Smokers

Interesting read.

http :// www .lcolby,com /

Re: In Defense of Smokers

In article <agq274lutf4e0bbsmt0j82m2451kq3hp3b@4ax,com >,
Bill <wsblevins@hotmail,com > wrote:
>Interesting read.
>
> http :// www .lcolby,com /

Pure bullshit.

Re: In Defense of Smokers

anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:

>In article <agq274lutf4e0bbsmt0j82m2451kq3hp3b@4ax,com >,
>Bill <wsblevins@hotmail,com > wrote:
>>Interesting read.
>>
>> http :// www .lcolby,com /
>
>Pure bullshit.

From one who is an expert in the subject.

Re: In Defense of Smokers

After killfiling his ass, it's sure nice not to see his posts

-- Johnny O.
-----------------------------------------------
http :// s118.photobucket,com /albums/o102/WJUStudent/Tobacco/

"Richard Evans" <infodex@mindspring,com > wrote in message
news:co43749ikqqa9temo14kmvbdt1uj6v9v4o@4ax,com ...
> anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <agq274lutf4e0bbsmt0j82m2451kq3hp3b@4ax,com >,
>>Bill <wsblevins@hotmail,com > wrote:
>>>Interesting read.
>>>
>>> http :// www .lcolby,com /
>>
>>Pure bullshit.
>
> From one who is an expert in the subject.
>

Re: In Defense of Smokers

I was of coarse talking about bruce, whom I assume posted that it was BS lol

-- Johnny O.
-----------------------------------------------
http :// s118.photobucket,com /albums/o102/WJUStudent/Tobacco/


"JohnnyO" <treble 2-at-yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:C qdnZeNmpsXEu VnZ2dnUVZ rTinZ2d@wavecable,com ...
> After killfiling his ass, it's sure nice not to see his posts
>
> -- Johnny O.
> -----------------------------------------------
> http :// s118.photobucket,com /albums/o102/WJUStudent/Tobacco/
>
> "Richard Evans" <infodex@mindspring,com > wrote in message
> news:co43749ikqqa9temo14kmvbdt1uj6v9v4o@4ax,com ...
>> anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <agq274lutf4e0bbsmt0j82m2451kq3hp3b@4ax,com >,
>>>Bill <wsblevins@hotmail,com > wrote:
>>>>Interesting read.
>>>>
>>>> http :// www .lcolby,com /
>>>
>>>Pure bullshit.
>>
>> From one who is an expert in the subject.
>>
>

Re: In Defense of Smokers

On Jul 6, 11:52 pm, Richard Evans <info...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
> >In article <agq274lutf4e0bbsmt0j82m2451kq3h...@4ax,com >,
> >Bill  <wsblev...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> >>Interesting read.
>
> >> http :// www .lcolby,com /
>
> >Pure bullshit.
>
> From one who is an expert in the subject.

Richard;

Please ignore this excrement-for-brains whose greay matter burned out
long ago with excessive abuse of mary-jane.

Re: In Defense of Smokers

Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article <agq274lutf4e0bbsmt0j82m2451kq3hp3b@4ax,com >,
> Bill <wsblevins@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>>Interesting read.
>>
>> http :// www .lcolby,com /
>
>
> Pure bullshit.

Be specific - what part did you find to be "bullshit"?

Did you even read it?

You need not answer these openly. We know the answers.

Re: In Defense of Smokers

In article <g_-dnQ4CP_NjWu_VnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast,com >,
not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article <agq274lutf4e0bbsmt0j82m2451kq3hp3b@4ax,com >,
>> Bill <wsblevins@hotmail,com > wrote:
>>
>>>Interesting read.
>>>
>>> http :// www .lcolby,com /
>>
>>
>> Pure bullshit.
>
>Be specific - what part did you find to be "bullshit"?

What do you mean "what part"?

All of it.

It's nothing but smoker rationalization from start to finish.

>Did you even read it?

Of course I did.

>You need not answer these openly. We know the answers.

Do you?

Re: In Defense of Smokers

On Jul 7, 10:07 pm, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
> In article <g -dnQ4CP NjWu VnZ2dnUVZ umdn...@comcast,com >,
> not much of anyone  <no.s...@pl.ease> wrote:
>
> >Bruce Watson wrote:
> >> In article <agq274lutf4e0bbsmt0j82m2451kq3h...@4ax,com >,
> >> Bill  <wsblev...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> >>>Interesting read.
>
> >>> http :// www .lcolby,com /
>
> >> Pure bullshit.
>
> >Be specific - what part did you find to be "bullshit"?
>
> What do you mean "what part"?
>
> All of it.
>
> It's nothing but smoker rationalization from start to finish.
>

Colby's famous appearance on The Daily Show, June 7, 2002:

Steven Colbert - Mr. Colby, are you a medical doctor?

Lauren Colby - Oh no.

SC- Have you ever done research in a laboratory setting?

LC- Oh no.

SC- With all this expertise, what conclusions have you come to?

LC- Smoking does not cause lung cancer.

Re: In Defense of Smokers

Malcolm <rbronews2@broughton.ca> wrote:

>On Jul 7, 10:07 pm, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>> In article <g -dnQ4CP NjWu VnZ2dnUVZ umdn...@comcast,com >,
>> not much of anyone  <no.s...@pl.ease> wrote:
>>
>> >Bruce Watson wrote:
>> >> In article <agq274lutf4e0bbsmt0j82m2451kq3h...@4ax,com >,
>> >> Bill  <wsblev...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>>
>> >>>Interesting read.
>>
>> >>> http :// www .lcolby,com /
>>
>> >> Pure bullshit.
>>
>> >Be specific - what part did you find to be "bullshit"?
>>
>> What do you mean "what part"?
>>
>> All of it.
>>
>> It's nothing but smoker rationalization from start to finish.
>>
>
>Colby's famous appearance on The Daily Show, June 7, 2002:
>
>Steven Colbert - Mr. Colby, are you a medical doctor?
>
>Lauren Colby - Oh no.
>
>SC- Have you ever done research in a laboratory setting?
>
>LC- Oh no.
>
>SC- With all this expertise, what conclusions have you come to?
>
>LC- Smoking does not cause lung cancer.

"Appeal to Authority"

Joy Nazi: Mr. Mickey, are you a medical doctor?

Me: Oh no.

Joy Nazi: Have you ever done research in a laboratory setting?

Me: Oh no.

Joy Nazi: With all this expertise, what conclusions have you come to?

Me: If you drink antifreeze, you may go blind or die.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Me: It's raining.

Joy Nazi: Are you a meteorologist?

Me: Oh, no.

Joy Nazi: Have you ever forecast the weather?

Re: In Defense of Smokers

Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article <g -dnQ4CP NjWu VnZ2dnUVZ umdnZ2d@comcast,com >,
> not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>
>>Bruce Watson wrote:
>>
>>>In article <agq274lutf4e0bbsmt0j82m2451kq3hp3b@4ax,com >,
>>>Bill <wsblevins@hotmail,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Interesting read.
>>>>
>>>> http :// www .lcolby,com /
>>>
>>>
>>>Pure bullshit.
>>
>>Be specific - what part did you find to be "bullshit"?
>
>
> What do you mean "what part"?
>
> All of it.

Actually, there were quite a few irrefutable facts presented.

>
> It's nothing but smoker rationalization from start to finish.
>

You obviously didn't read it.

>
>>Did you even read it?
>
>
> Of course I did.
>

Liar.

>
>>You need not answer these openly. We know the answers.
>
>
> Do you?

Yes.

Re: In Defense of Smokers

In article <fsOdnUxAIqualeXVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast,com >,
not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article <g_-dnQ4CP_NjWu_VnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast,com >,
>> not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>>
>>>Bruce Watson wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <agq274lutf4e0bbsmt0j82m2451kq3hp3b@4ax,com >,
>>>>Bill <wsblevins@hotmail,com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Interesting read.
>>>>>
>>>>> http :// www .lcolby,com /
>>>>
>>>>Pure bullshit.
>>>
>>>Be specific - what part did you find to be "bullshit"?
>>
>> What do you mean "what part"?
>>
>> All of it.
>
>Actually, there were quite a few irrefutable facts presented.

Only a nicotine addict in denial would say that.

>> It's nothing but smoker rationalization from start to finish.
>
>You obviously didn't read it.

I read it. Lauren and I conversed here on alt.smokers

>>>Did you even read it?
>>
>> Of course I did.
>
>Liar.

I read it. It isn't that long. But it's exactly what the
smoke wants to here. Rationalization.

>>>You need not answer these openly. We know the answers.
>>
>> Do you?
>
>Yes.

Nicotine addicts think they have the answers if it supports
their addiction.

Re: In Defense of Smokers

Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article <fsOdnUxAIqualeXVnZ2dnUVZ uWdnZ2d@comcast,com >,
> not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>
>>Bruce Watson wrote:
>>
>>>In article <g -dnQ4CP NjWu VnZ2dnUVZ umdnZ2d@comcast,com >,
>>>not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bruce Watson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <agq274lutf4e0bbsmt0j82m2451kq3hp3b@4ax,com >,
>>>>>Bill <wsblevins@hotmail,com > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Interesting read.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http :// www .lcolby,com /
>>>>>
>>>>>Pure bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>Be specific - what part did you find to be "bullshit"?
>>>
>>>What do you mean "what part"?
>>>
>>>All of it.
>>
>>Actually, there were quite a few irrefutable facts presented.
>
>
> Only a nicotine addict in denial would say that.
>

IOW, you can't find anything specific to refute.

>
>>>It's nothing but smoker rationalization from start to finish.
>>
>>You obviously didn't read it.
>
>
> I read it. Lauren and I conversed here on alt.smokers
>

That conversation doesn't show up on my newsserver.

Since you're a known liar, I'll need some proof.

>
>>>>Did you even read it?
>>>
>>>Of course I did.
>>
>>Liar.
>
>
> I read it. It isn't that long. But it's exactly what the
> smoke wants to here. Rationalization.

I actually thought it went a bit too far to be objective, but to counter
the aunties it seemed perfectly reasonable.

I believe there are certain risks involved in smoking, but I choose to
acept them. So what?

I know there are risks involved with drinking too, but I willingly
accept them too.

I also realize that there are certain risks involved with driving to
work, but I accept those too.

>
>
>>>>You need not answer these openly. We know the answers.
>>>
>>>Do you?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> Nicotine addicts think they have the answers if it supports
> their addiction.


The only "support" I need to justify my habit is that I choose to do it.

Your opinions don't factor into it. Suck it Bwucie.

Re: In Defense of Smokers

In article <X_adnWXF9tGkvOXVnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@comcast,com >,
not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article <fsOdnUxAIqualeXVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast,com >,
>> not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>>>
>>>Actually, there were quite a few irrefutable facts presented.
>>
>> Only a nicotine addict in denial would say that.
>
>IOW, you can't find anything specific to refute.

I'm not going to argue Colby with you. An addict will
believe what he wants about his drug. I can't win. The drug
always wins.

Re: In Defense of Smokers

anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:

>In article <X_adnWXF9tGkvOXVnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@comcast,com >,
>not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>>Bruce Watson wrote:
>>> In article <fsOdnUxAIqualeXVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast,com >,
>>> not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Actually, there were quite a few irrefutable facts presented.
>>>
>>> Only a nicotine addict in denial would say that.
>>
>>IOW, you can't find anything specific to refute.
>
>I'm not going to argue Colby with you. An addict will
>believe what he wants about his drug. I can't win. The drug
>always wins.

People get addicted to lots of things, including their misguided
notions about what other people are addicted to. In what way is your
response the slightest bit different from the "addicts" you are so
willing to bad mouth? You are going to believe what you want. Facts
won't change our mind. You obviously go into withdrawal if you aren't
constantly posting your drivel. You are in utter denial that pipe
smoking might not be the bugaboo you so desperately want it to be. For
that matter, that desperation is characteristic of an addict.

So, how are you not an addict?