🚀 go-pugleaf

Bruce Watson (anon3c67@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
> In article <48744h$sv8@Mars.mcs.com>, Ed Dambik <dambik@MCS.COM> wrote:
> >Bruce Watson (anon3c67@nyx.cs.du.edu) (Bruce Watson) wrote:
> >> In article <47vtnc$l18@Mercury.mcs.com>, Ed Dambik <dambik@MCS.COM> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >You mean money CORRUPTS the process? So when the anti-smoking funds 
> >> >are passed out to various researchers (e.g., Glantz), the facts change 
> >> >accordingly too? OK. Fair enough.
> >
> >> There is anti-smoking money and then there is tobacco MONEY.
> >> With their MONEY, the tobacco companies have tried to rewrite scientific
> >> knowledge with regard to the effects of tobacco. Happily, only
> >> smokers believe them.
> >
> >I see. Anyone who disagrees must be tainted by tobacco money. 

> Anyone who disagrees the results of tens of thousands of studies
> spanning many decades that smoking is not harmful does so either
> out of gross ignorance or has bought into propaganda paid for 
> by tobacco money. Who else would spend a dime to try to refute 
> the obvious?

How come every single time I start arguing against ETS being a risk,
you switch to primary smoking? Why is that? Don't you have an argument?