need to ask this one

[Zazu]

Ah, if only I could get Vallium in the giant spray bottles....

Folks, a quick reminder of the rules here: No bashing other individuals or other boards -- present or not. Simple enough?

If anyone doesn't understand that, we can arrange for a week's time-out.

Now play nice so we don't have to close this thread and go back to talking about things this board is *supposed* to be about.

Zazu, Moderator,
StupidGuestTricks.com

[ICStupidPeople]

Thanks for the reminder Zazu! Smoking threads do tend to bring out the worst in me, as the scientific evidence that I have seen (and I have read through a plethora of journal articles about it) does not support the fact that cigarette smoke is an allergen, regardless of what some would like you to believe.

It IS shown to cause asthma and a multitude of other breathing problems without question, but, no study that I could find linked second hand smoke to allergies. In fact, many tried to prove that it does, but their findings were not significant to support their claim.

People say there are hundreds of studies showing it is, but yet have not offered even one in support of their theory. Could it be possible that it is? Sure, but so could it be possible that God exists, regardless of all of the scientific evidence supporting evolution. The reality is, what people WANT to be true does not support the scientific evidence of what is true in reality. THERE ARE NO STUDIES THAT SHOW A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 2ND HAND SMOKE AND ALLERGIES THAT HAVE EVER BEEN PUBLISHED IN A REFERREED JOURNAL TO MY KNOWLEDGE. IF YOU THINK ONE EXISTS, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO SHOW ME, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE METHODOLOGY.

Once again, I know I'm just a peon that doesn't have the vast knowledge of walking through a hospital and hearing what they are studying (but never reading the journal articles published from their research that don't support their hypotheses), but my simple research (albeit on the computer through CU's measly excuse for databases since they aren't even an accredited university) doesn't make me as knowledgeable as some. Maybe I can drive by the National Jewish Hospital tomorrow and become an expert on allergens?? Oh boy!! I think I will!!

[Princess Susi]

I need say nothing to anyone personally because the words that others post, speak quite loudly for themselves! I try to be polite when I address others and treat people with respect, not call names. I guess not everyone learned to play nice when they were young. It is a pity because for the most part we are a good group of people and SHOULD support one another here and not be cruel to others on this board. It makes me quite sad when I read posts that attack others and call names and use hurtful language. To hurt another human because you don't happen to like what they say or even agree with what they believe is such a shame. And to find comedy in striking out at someone else with viscious glee is questionable behavior. I am not sure I understand how anyone can attack others with such delight and find laughter in their cruelty to other people on this board. I am sorry, but I just don't get it. :(

Better get the 50 gallon drum of the valium, Zazu, we need enough to go around when everyone finds themselves with a target on their ass! Who is next? :(
Susi

And as far as my opinion on smoking and allergies is concerned, I am entitled to what I believe, BUT I am quite finished with the discussion here, since it has been obvious that we cannot have a pleasant debate about the subject without being held up for ridicule for our opinions. I am done with this conversation. Good night.

[ICStupidPeople]

Holy Hypocracy batman!! Nothing like calling someone a liar (then harrassing them in PM's <cough>) then taking your ball and going home (twice) after being unable to back up your initial claim that they are a liar by saying they were rude and called names (not to mention asking for the closure of a thread that portrays the complainer as a silly person for not being able to back their "factual" claims TWICE). This was all while you accused them of not knowing how to do research because they didn't have to use the 1980 version of going to a library to find an article (For the record, I have had to request ONE hard copy of a journal article due to it being too old to be online ONCE, and it was from 1981. Pretty much everything after that is now available electronically).

Perhaps I'm not as overly sensitive as some, but I don't give a chit if people that I have nothing in common with on the internet like me or not. I base my opinions on current scientific studies that support one side or another of an issue, not what i WANT to believe. If one can offer up studies that support their side, I am more than willing to read and interpret them. I don't go by "experience". Sorry.

Experience changes. Science does too, but not as quickly as experience.

If people are hurt by any comments I've made. Get over it. It's the internet. If words on a screen upset you that much, it's time to step away from the computer and reevaluate what is going on because I should not have that much power over anyone on a computer screen.

Remember, I can't make you feel one way or another, you CHOOSE to feel that way. If my comments bother you, it's YOUR choice to allow them to. Don't give me that much power. Seriously. Noone can MAKE you feel a certain way. You CHOOSE to feel that way. Don't give me or anyone that much power to upset you!!! (that'll be $150 an hour for that advice)

[Big Wallaby]

As they say over at 419eater.com, it's time for a clicky (insert smiley of a padlock here).

[Kwahati]

Okay, sorry I've been away from this thread for awhile, but I'm back and better than ever (and I have scientific studies that state I am 22.6% better than I was on Wednesday, so you can't argue that!)

First: I just figured out what Susi did with her first couple of posts. She gave reasons she could quote pure science on the subject and then failed to do so. This lead to me (and I'm sure others) thinking "Well, crap! I'm not a scientist and I don't spend most of my life perusing medical journals (although I probably do spend more time with them than is absolutely healthy for a non-scientist) so there's no way I can honestly answer her claims!" See the bait and switch there? [it's hard to find a good analogy here because I'm a tech guy (as discussed in other threads) and it turns out that there are a lot of tech guys on the internet. If tech were a little more obscure to most people, it would be like me explaining my qualifications and then telling everyone "I have seen many studies that show Internet Explorer is vastly superior to Firefox" and then not actually quoting any of them (possibly because they don't exist).] It's a BS workaround to claim superior knowledge of a subject because of something as unverifiable as "I spend time around people who study it" but then not quote any of those real expert's views while at the same time be claiming to interject "real science" into the conversation.

Second: If real science is cited against you in a debate, and you don't have any real science to back up your claim, then it's probable that you are wrong or will at least be voted against by any worthwhile judge of said debate. (So there's not a whole lot of reason to continue the argument unless you're going to quote some studies, which I am eager to see if they exist in such abundance that you can absorb their knowledge simply by being in the same building as said studies. (and I am willing to buy any of the following arguments for not having done so yet: (a) I figured people would believe me without actually quoting the study. (b) I thought I did quote science, but it turned out I forgot. Or (c) my study isn't published yet, so it's hard to quote at the moment, but give me a couple of months, and prepare to be astounded [this is a nod to a couple of my favorite scientists at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History (I did some tech work there and spent a lot of time with scientists of all fields, but the mineral sciences guys are the most fun!). They're working on a certain kind of rock that most people say is a transition form of zircon (those fake diamond things). They have done studies which show that it is not at all a zircon and in fact a brand new kind of rock which needs to be named and classified etc. The studies they've done are in the peer review process which takes place before they can be published legitimately. Regardless of that this study hasn't been published yet, these scientists explained it (in the simplest terms possible, I'm sure) to me, and I believe them.])

Third: You know I love you ICSP (and not just because of your shaved kitty and humorously Oriented husband) but we need to be careful. This is a debate that most people come into with their own opinion already formed (i.e. not tabula rasa judges) so when our side attacks people rather than arguments, no matter how wrong you've proven they are, it can turn sympathizers against our side and make them blind even to truths like science. Further, one of the things our side should be developing in this debate is something of a moral high-ground. That is, "we're the good ones and we go out of our way to keep our smoke away from you so anyone who is still complaining is probably just coming near us for the purpose of picking a fight." When we attack people with words, it leads via an indirect leap of logic to that we'd also attack people with smoke. In this way, we risk losing our moral high ground.

Fourth: To those who say we should close this thread, I suggest that conversation is good for it's own sake in that it forces us to use our minds. According to the game Brain Age 2, if you don't use your mind, it may weaken over time! Further, when suggesting ideas, there's something to be said for the value of information spreading via critical pedagogy. If I present an idea, if you agree with it and hadn't heard it yet, you might go mention it to a friend and discuss it. Then that friend might mention it to another friend and on down the line... If I suggest something and you don't agree with it, you might go to a friend and say "you'll never believe what I heard some jackass suggest today" and then that friend may mention it to another and again, on down the line, people keep hearing the idea and critically discussing it. Either way, once you light the candle of an idea, you can't stop the shine! (Closing the thread does not support the value of critical pedagogy or critical thinking and therefore must be voted against. [/flashback to c-x debate])

[ICStupidPeople]

Third: we need to be careful. This is a debate that most people come into with their own opinion already formed (i.e. not tabula rasa judges) so when our side attacks people rather than arguments, no matter how wrong you've proven they are, it can turn sympathizers against our side and make them blind even to truths like science. Further, one of the things our side should be developing in this debate is something of a moral high-ground. That is, "we're the good ones and we go out of our way to keep our smoke away from you so anyone who is still complaining is probably just coming near us for the purpose of picking a fight." When we attack people with words, it leads via an indirect leap of logic to that we'd also attack people with smoke. In this way, we risk losing our moral high ground.

Yet ANOTHER reasonable and most EXCELLENT post!! I completely agree, and rather than responding to the pm's I received calling me "snarky" by the opposing side in the forum, I should have kept that portion in PM's. Going forward, I will focus on my wording to try to avoid the misrepresentation of this side of the debate.

I do have some questions for those allergic though. Since an allergy to any particular chemical must be determined by a doctor, I am interested to hear what exact chemical cigarette smoke contains that no other smoke contains that is causing your allergic reaction? Also, is this chemical in all cigarettes, or just certain brands?

[Zazu]

Okay folks, apparently I wasn't adequately clear in my previous post in this thread. Let me try it again using very small words:

DO NOT HARASS OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS SITE, INCLUDING THE MODERATORS!

How do you tell if you're harassing someone? Telltale indicators include:

1. Posting to a thread more than once per day without new punchlines.
2. Engaging in back-and-forth posting with one other member.
3. Repeating yourself, especially when the repeats use ALL CAPS.
4. Sending PMs on the same topic as being discussed in threads.
5. Not shutting up when a Moderator asks you to.

I am thus obliged to lock this thread and give some of you a short time-out from posting. Rest assured folks, nobody is being banned -- yet. If you notice anyone still missing after a week, you can assume they decided to take their toys and go home.

Now the rest of you go play nice, and show these folks a good example.

Zazu, Moderator,
StupidGuestTricks.com