The USSR

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:37 am

Sundara wrote:In the end, the law is just to ensure safetey on "everyone" adult or not. But everyone knows that! :) RIGHT?!


I think thats the mistake too many of our politicians mistake. Law should create a fair, moral, and predictable framework for individuals to carry on their lives vis-a-vis each other. Ensuring our safety is just an incidental part of what the law is about. When Law quashes individual freedoms in order to carry out some vague purpose of 'ensuring safety', then it becomes immoral. Should we outlaw McDonalds because it makes people fat and sick? Should we outlaw mountain climbing because people routinely die as a result. Or how about king crab fishing, the most dangerous profession? Should automobiles, truly the most dangerous example of all, be banned simply because it would save thousands of lives every year?

See where I'm going with this? If the goal is simply to ensure safety, then there are a lot of things we take for granted that are in jeopardy. Where exactly does one draw the line?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:08 am

Corth wrote:
Sundara wrote:In the end, the law is just to ensure safetey on "everyone" adult or not. But everyone knows that! :) RIGHT?!


I think thats the mistake too many of our politicians mistake. Law should create a fair, moral, and predictable framework for individuals to carry on their lives vis-a-vis each other. Ensuring our safety is just an incidental part of what the law is about. When Law quashes individual freedoms in order to carry out some vague purpose of 'ensuring safety', then it becomes immoral. Should we outlaw McDonalds because it makes people fat and sick? Should we outlaw mountain climbing because people routinely die as a result. Or how about king crab fishing, the most dangerous profession? Should automobiles, truly the most dangerous example of all, be banned simply because it would save thousands of lives every year?

See where I'm going with this? If the goal is simply to ensure safety, then there are a lot of things we take for granted that are in jeopardy. Where exactly does one draw the line?


What morality says it's ok to hurt people, then?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:39 am

Ok, here's some sources for <b>Kifle</b>. I tried to avoid anything that looked like an anti-smoking site, and looked for more "medical-y" kinds of sites.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/health ... ndtobacco/
<a href="http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20070829/smoking-may-turn-on-lung-cancer-genes">Really Long Link Corth Whined About</a>
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Sci...274..430D
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editori ... id=372#ref

That last one is interesting because I caught mention of Benzopyrene, so I looked that up too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzopyrene

It mentions Benzopyrene in various foods, but also mentions that the digestive tract has protection against these. Just mentioning that because someone brought up food as a carcinogen earlier and this makes it seem a non-issue, or at least far less dangerous than inhaling the same substances.

Actually, it mentions car exhaust too... but apprently it's mostly diesel engines not regular car engines. Wonder how that applies to biodiesel...



Ok, bored of searching and it's getting late. Let's see though...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1562147.stm
http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/topics/Passive_Smoking
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... xed=google
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=7952544&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus">Another Long Link I didn't Notice Before</a>

Just wanted to check on asthma and found those. I have asthma, which I developed in 8th grade and I'd always theorized it was due to being around a lot of smokers.

Thanks, guys. :P
Last edited by Sarvis on Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kegor
Sojourner
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: St. Cloud, MN
Contact:

Postby Kegor » Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:01 am

After reading some of the stuff you have wrote Sarvis, I can't help but wonder if you have any of the following phobias.

Aerophobia- Fear of drafts, air swallowing, or airbourne noxious substances.
Allodoxaphobia- Fear of opinions.
Anthropophobia- Fear of people or society.
Bacteriophobia- Fear of bacteria.
Cancerophobia or Carcinophobia - Fear of cancer.
Cenophobia or Centophobia- Fear of new things or ideas.
Chemophobia- Fear of chemicals or working with chemicals.
Contreltophobia- Fear of sexual abuse.
Coulrophobia- Fear of clowns.
Dipsophobia- Fear of drinking.
Eleutherophobia- Fear of freedom.
Enosiophobia or Enissophobia- Fear of having committed an unpardonable sin or of criticism.
Eremophobia- Fear of being oneself or of lonliness.
Eurotophobia- Fear of female genitalia.
Foniasophobia- Fear of killers, murderers, and serial killers.
Genophobia- Fear of sex.
Heterophobia- Fear of the opposite sex. (Sexophobia)
Hypengyophobia or Hypegiaphobia- Fear of responsibility.
Ideophobia- Fear of ideas.
Iophobia- Fear of poison.
Isolophobia- Fear of solitude, being alone.
Ithyphallophobia- Fear of seeing, thinking about or having an erect penis.
Methyphobia- Fear of alcohol.
Misophobia- Fear of being contaminated with dirt of germs.
Nanosophobia- Fear of a Dwarf (Dwarfs), Midget (Midgets), and Little People.
Nebulaphobia- Fear of fog. (Homichlophobia)
Necrophobia- Fear of death or dead things.
Neophobia- Fear of anything new.
Nosophobia or Nosemaphobia- Fear of becoming ill.
Olfactophobia- Fear of smells.
Optophobia- Fear of opening one's eyes.
Panophobia or Pantophobia- Fear of everything.
Paraskavedekatriaphobia- Fear of Friday the 13th.
Patroiophobia- Fear of heredity.
Philophobia- Fear of falling in love or being in love.
Phobophobia- Fear of phobias.
Phronemophobia- Fear of thinking.
Pnigophobia or Pnigerophobia- Fear of choking of being smothered.
Pharmacophobia- Fear of drugs.
Radiophobia- Fear of radiation, x-rays.
Rectophobia- Fear of rectum or rectal diseases.
Satanophobia- Fear of Satan.
Scelerophibia- Fear of bad men, burglars.
Social Phobia- Fear of being evaluated negatively in social situations.
Spirtophobia- Fear of a match, matches, or match book.
Toxiphobia or Toxophobia- Fear of poison or of being accidently poisoned.
Traumatophobia- Fear of injury.
Tropophobia- Fear of moving or making changes.


The full list of phobias for your enjoyment. :)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:30 am

Sarvis wrote:Ok, here's some sources for <b>Kifle</b>. I tried to avoid anything that looked like an anti-smoking site, and looked for more "medical-y" kinds of sites.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/health ... ndtobacco/
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/2 ... ncer-genes
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Sci...274..430D
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editori ... id=372#ref

That last one is interesting because I caught mention of Benzopyrene, so I looked that up too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzopyrene

It mentions Benzopyrene in various foods, but also mentions that the digestive tract has protection against these. Just mentioning that because someone brought up food as a carcinogen earlier and this makes it seem a non-issue, or at least far less dangerous than inhaling the same substances.

Actually, it mentions car exhaust too... but apprently it's mostly diesel engines not regular car engines. Wonder how that applies to biodiesel...



Ok, bored of searching and it's getting late. Let's see though...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1562147.stm
http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/topics/Passive_Smoking
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... xed=google


Just wanted to check on asthma and found those. I have asthma, which I developed in 8th grade and I'd always theorized it was due to being around a lot of smokers.

Thanks, guys. :P


Well, it's my birthday today, so I'm gonnna spend some time with the wife now that I'm up, but I was curious, so I checked your first source. Now, that charity is not an independant research entity. It is part of the British government -- who I suspect is much like the US in their anti-smoking campaign (although I'm not positive of this and don't feel like background checking it right now). Regardless, if you look through their research, the two studies that were performed were only a meta-analysis; however, they used a 95% confidence interval rather than the EPAs 90-93%. With one study's findings, they found an increase of 1-1.24 (24%) which, by the standards of the science community, is a non-factor. This was for people living with a smoker (meaning they get more second hand smoke than the normal restaurant/bar customer) I would imagine the percentage increase to be even lower for patrons of bars/restaurants. I believe this mainly because they found a 1-2.1 (110%) increase in workers having jobs which are "highly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke." Most people's thoughts of "highly exposed" when it comes to second hand smoke are living with a smoker; however, this showed only a .24 increase, so, it makes you wonder, what jobs are they listing on this meta-analysis? The Hopkins studied flight attendents (small area, stale air), which most would also classify as "highly exposed." Again, this was also a meta-analysis, so this is borrowed research from a number of different studies (none of which were listed) where you also have to question the data gathering techniques. It is easier to use critical thinking while looking over the raw data (such as with the WHO and Hopkins) from one large research project than it is with multiple (I think I read somewhere that the amount of studies was greater than 20) studies. I'll check the rest later, but you have to understand, I am looking at this from a highly skeptical vantage point, and when the research presents the notion that .24% is a "strong relationship," I get wary.

Also note: While I'm sure second-hand smoke is, in very large amounts, hazardous to your health, just like anything else, I am mostly looking for research that would indicate that the amount of smoke a patron of a bar/restaurant/living with a smoker is anything more than a scare tactic. If I warm my hands by the fire, it is beneficial. If I put my hand in the fire, it hurts. Heat, in moderation is beneficial or deadly. Walking past your car in a parking garage, while exhaust fumes are deadly (common knowledge: suicides), will not kill me or have any noticable effect on my overall wellbeing. So, to be more precise in what I'm saying and what I'm asking: I'm aware smoking causes cancer. I'm aware that anything, in abundance, can be harmful and deadly; however, the amount of second-hand smoke, as reported by every credible report I could find (even those which supposedly support the claim against second-hand smoke by sub 1.0-2.0 increases), seems to be much greater than what a regular patron of a bar/restaurant/spouse and especially one walking past a smoker to enter a building. It is definately not, by my personal research and by what I would consider common sense (I can explain later if you want), a deadly killer that the media and partisan reports have made it out to be.

Lastly, I know I didn't look at the rest of your links, and I do apologize. I don't want you to think that I'm disregarding the rest because I found faults in the first. That's not the case. I just don't want to look through them at the moment and I wanted to make sure those links deal primarily with second-hand smoke because I don't think anyone is arguing that smoking (ingesting 20+ cigarettes a day) is not bad for your health.

Edit:

The second link refers to people who "...a history of heavy smoking..." and later says, “these were heavy smokers or people who had been heavy smokers..." Below heavy smokers are light smokers and then there are social smokers... then there are people who are exposed to second-hand smoke. Again, we know smoking is bad, but this says nothing about the limited exposure to second-hand smoke or second-hand smoke in general.

The third link only notes that there is a carcinogen in tobacco smoke which can cause cancer. Since it was an abstract only, I can't really say what this implies since, as we can easily find, carcinogens are found in many places; however, the amounts of these chemicals that one needs to be exposed to before any serious consequences occurs is the more important factor. Just as an example, burnt food inside an oven (when reburnt) will create and emit benzopyrene as well. So, when you're at a restaurant that uses gas ovens, you not only get the formaldehyde as a byproduct, you also get benzopyrene if the ovens are not very clean (And I suspect baking ovens in local restaurants aren't kept up that well on average). That is two carcinogens found in cigarettes which are also found in your local restaurant. One of which is emitted as a byproduct moreso in the oven rather than cigarettes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/chemicalworld ... 03,00.html

Your last link was nothing but a compilation of statistics with vague references to external studies. The only one that had anything to do with second-hand smoke used a study only to identify the seperate carcinogens. It had nothing at all to do with the amount necessary to become a hazard, how much exposure would one need to have before they reached those levels, and so-on.

Here's a quick link if you want to know more about where you can also find these carcinogens

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news ... 0f&k=60193

What levels are required to cause a serious health hazard? I'm not sure... the article didn't say; however, I have yet to find an article releasing the same data in relation to second-hand smoke either.

From what I can find on the internet, in relation to second-hand smoke, and smoking in general, the same questions seem to be dodged.

1) What is the amount of second-hand smoke exposure needed to cause a serious health risk -- and I define serious as one which would cause somebody to adjust their lifestyle (not to mention forcing a change in others' lifestyles) in order to lead a life they would not be able to lead without the change.

2) If the carcinogens in cigarettes are so deadly, why are they commonly found in other daily items which are not under fire?


-- The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health found that 884 of the chemicals available for use in cosmetics have been reported to the government as toxic substances.

http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/ ... l_care.htm

Are we going to ban all cosmetics now because if I kiss a lady at a nightclub, and if she has lipstick on, I may get cancer? No more cosmetics at nightclubs? Should we ban titty clubs as well? I mean, those girls have more make-up on than a mary kay representative has in her box of face-paint. I could get cancer from a stripper! Are we going to then say that if you use lotion, you're not allowed to touch anybody because the lotion may rub off on somebody and give them cancer? WTF?! LANOLIN! HE SHE TOUCHED ME WITH LANOLIN! ARREST THIS LADY! Seriously, this ban on public smoking is a very ignorant response to public paranoia based on incomplete evidence, statistic stacking, misrepresenting the facts, and propaganda released by supposedly non-biased, independant research facilities.
Last edited by Kifle on Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:18 pm

Sarvis,

Please edit out that long link you put in for a source on smoking. Its screwing up the formatting for this page of the thread..

Also, if you want an answer, then clarify what you are referring to when you ask me "What morality says it's ok to hurt people, then?"
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Zabam
Sojourner
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: NM, USA@7000'

Postby Zabam » Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:47 pm

Kifle,

Nice Job!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:47 pm

Corth wrote:Sarvis,

Please edit out that long link you put in for a source on smoking. Its screwing up the formatting for this page of the thread..

Also, if you want an answer, then clarify what you are referring to when you ask me "What morality says it's ok to hurt people, then?"


Sorry, I forget not everyone uses a good browser like Opera. :P

I was referring to your claim that morality should be a component that determines law, in reference to the harm various actions we take can cause to others. I know, I know... we chose to be in the same space as a smoker, but that does not equate to choosing to get lung cancer or asthma. Sorry, but it doesn't. It's like saying buying toys from China is choosing to have your children ingest lead. Or choosing to walk through the Bronx at midnight and getting shot.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:48 pm

And unfortunately is it the same law makers that feel a family should be happy living on hotdogs that feel the minimum wage should not be raised .. "Look it works on paper" why cant you do it in reality :)

standards of living apply ...

And I am done responding .. this is the time in a discussion you say '' ok you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to my own" ..
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."

-Italian Proverb
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:52 pm

Sarvis,

Ok, I'm not a technologically savvy as you and still use Internet Explorer. Can you please fix that post so I don't have to keep scrolling left and right to read everything posted here?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:04 pm

Corth wrote:Sarvis,

Ok, I'm not a technologically savvy as you and still use Internet Explorer. Can you please fix that post so I don't have to keep scrolling left and right to read everything posted here?


Err... I did already. At this point it must be Kifle's quote although it's fine for me now.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:06 pm

Yeah, must be the quote. Oh well. One of these days I'll get around to installing a different browser.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sundara
Sojourner
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2001 6:01 am
Contact:

Postby Sundara » Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:04 pm

Corth wrote:
Sundara wrote:In the end, the law is just to ensure safetey on "everyone" adult or not. But everyone knows that! :) RIGHT?!


I think thats the mistake too many of our politicians mistake. Law should create a fair, moral, and predictable framework for individuals to carry on their lives vis-a-vis each other. Ensuring our safety is just an incidental part of what the law is about. When Law quashes individual freedoms in order to carry out some vague purpose of 'ensuring safety', then it becomes immoral. Should we outlaw McDonalds because it makes people fat and sick? Should we outlaw mountain climbing because people routinely die as a result. Or how about king crab fishing, the most dangerous profession? Should automobiles, truly the most dangerous example of all, be banned simply because it would save thousands of lives every year?

See where I'm going with this? If the goal is simply to ensure safety, then there are a lot of things we take for granted that are in jeopardy. Where exactly does one draw the line?


I totally understand and see where you are coming from, Corth because man is given or "should" be given free will to do what they want with their lives, hopefully where it doesn't harm others or themselves in the process however, drawing the line somewhere may never happen in this life time because just as the law is there to ensure safety and what not for it's people, there is also alot of corruption that goes along with it due to greed and power.
When poverty comes knocking on your door, love escapes through the window.

-German Proverb-
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:29 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:Sarvis,

Ok, I'm not a technologically savvy as you and still use Internet Explorer. Can you please fix that post so I don't have to keep scrolling left and right to read everything posted here?


Err... I did already. At this point it must be Kifle's quote although it's fine for me now.


I edited it out. I'm not sure what's up with it at this point. Sarvis broke the thread!
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:44 pm

Oops... looks like I had two really long links, it should be ok now. Sorry!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:16 pm

Rofl.. yeah it works now. Thanks Sarvis.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Gurns
Sojourner
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Gurns » Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:25 am

Kifle wrote:With one study's findings, they found an increase of 1-1.24 (24%) which, by the standards of the science community, is a non-factor.

I'm afraid that is incorrect. Factors contributing to death and disease are assessed, and can be definitely concluded to be present, at all levels of risk.

I suspect you have listened too much to the objections of the tobacco industry. Part of their efforts to discredit the link between secondhand smoke and disease was to claim that "sound science" "required" a 100% increase in risk. That's bogus. They made that up. Both experimental and statistical methods can establish far smaller relationships.

For one discussion of the tobacco industry efforts, with lots of references, see http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/91/11/1749

Kifle wrote:While I'm sure second-hand smoke is, in very large amounts, hazardous to your health, just like anything else, I am mostly looking for research that would indicate that the amount of smoke a patron of a bar/restaurant/living with a smoker is anything more than a scare tactic.

OK. Selected quotes from another piece by one of the authors of the above. This is an editorial, and obviously the authors have a point of view. But they also cite original research, published in various medical journals.

Glantz and Parmley wrote:Editorial: Even a Little Secondhand Smoke Is Dangerous
Stanton A. Glantz, PhD; William W. Parmley, MD
JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). 2001;286:462-463

Glantz and Parmley wrote:The tobacco industry's efforts ... to undermine the scientific evidence that passive smoking causes disease.[6-8] One common theme is that the dose of toxins a nonsmoker inhales is tiny compared with the dose the smoker receives, implying that the risks are trivial or nonexistent. ... The real measure of effect should not be the dose of one chemical or another, but rather the biological effect of breathing the secondhand smoke.

The article by Otsuka and colleagues[9] in this issue of THE JOURNAL adds substantially to the case that short-term passive smoking adversely affects endothelial function in ways that immediately compromise the cardiovascular system.[10] The investigators demonstrated that, in healthy young volunteers, just 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke compromised the endothelial function in coronary arteries of nonsmokers in a way that made the endothelial response of nonsmokers indistinguishable from that of habitual smokers.

Glantz and Parmley wrote:The findings of Otsuka et al [9] are important not only because they illustrate the importance of preventing nonsmokers from any exposure to secondhand smoke, but also because they help to explain the relatively large risk of death and other cardiac events associated with passive smoking compared with active smoking. Passive smoking increases the risk of cardiac death or morbidity about 30% [15-21] compared with a doubling to quadrupling of risk associated with active smoking. Thus, the effect of passive smoking is as high as one third the effect of active smoking even though the dose of at least some of the constituents is much less than what the smoker inhales.[1]

Glantz and Parmley wrote:While most people think of cancer when they think of active and passive smoking, it is important to emphasize that heart disease is also an important consequence of tobacco smoke exposure.


I won't bother listing the references here. But while it may be tough to get into the JAMA site itself, but an anti-smoking group has made the full version available online. So you can get the full editorial, and check the citations if you want to look at the original research.
http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/9.1 ... gerous.pdf

Kifle wrote:Seriously, this ban on public smoking is a very ignorant response to public paranoia based on incomplete evidence, statistic stacking, misrepresenting the facts, and propaganda released by supposedly non-biased, independant research facilities.

Nope. If you get into the medical journals, you'll see there's a lot more research out there, supporting the conclusion that there are significant health risks of secondhand smoke. The misrepresentations, statistic stacking, and propaganda are from the tobacco companies.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:46 am

Gurns wrote:
Kifle wrote:With one study's findings, they found an increase of 1-1.24 (24%) which, by the standards of the science community, is a non-factor.

I'm afraid that is incorrect. Factors contributing to death and disease are assessed, and can be definitely concluded to be present, at all levels of risk.

I suspect you have listened too much to the objections of the tobacco industry. Part of their efforts to discredit the link between secondhand smoke and disease was to claim that "sound science" "required" a 100% increase in risk. That's bogus. They made that up. Both experimental and statistical methods can establish far smaller relationships.

For one discussion of the tobacco industry efforts, with lots of references, see http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/91/11/1749

Kifle wrote:While I'm sure second-hand smoke is, in very large amounts, hazardous to your health, just like anything else, I am mostly looking for research that would indicate that the amount of smoke a patron of a bar/restaurant/living with a smoker is anything more than a scare tactic.

OK. Selected quotes from another piece by one of the authors of the above. This is an editorial, and obviously the authors have a point of view. But they also cite original research, published in various medical journals.

Glantz and Parmley wrote:Editorial: Even a Little Secondhand Smoke Is Dangerous
Stanton A. Glantz, PhD; William W. Parmley, MD
JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). 2001;286:462-463

Glantz and Parmley wrote:The tobacco industry's efforts ... to undermine the scientific evidence that passive smoking causes disease.[6-8] One common theme is that the dose of toxins a nonsmoker inhales is tiny compared with the dose the smoker receives, implying that the risks are trivial or nonexistent. ... The real measure of effect should not be the dose of one chemical or another, but rather the biological effect of breathing the secondhand smoke.

The article by Otsuka and colleagues[9] in this issue of THE JOURNAL adds substantially to the case that short-term passive smoking adversely affects endothelial function in ways that immediately compromise the cardiovascular system.[10] The investigators demonstrated that, in healthy young volunteers, just 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke compromised the endothelial function in coronary arteries of nonsmokers in a way that made the endothelial response of nonsmokers indistinguishable from that of habitual smokers.

Glantz and Parmley wrote:The findings of Otsuka et al [9] are important not only because they illustrate the importance of preventing nonsmokers from any exposure to secondhand smoke, but also because they help to explain the relatively large risk of death and other cardiac events associated with passive smoking compared with active smoking. Passive smoking increases the risk of cardiac death or morbidity about 30% [15-21] compared with a doubling to quadrupling of risk associated with active smoking. Thus, the effect of passive smoking is as high as one third the effect of active smoking even though the dose of at least some of the constituents is much less than what the smoker inhales.[1]

Glantz and Parmley wrote:While most people think of cancer when they think of active and passive smoking, it is important to emphasize that heart disease is also an important consequence of tobacco smoke exposure.


I won't bother listing the references here. But while it may be tough to get into the JAMA site itself, but an anti-smoking group has made the full version available online. So you can get the full editorial, and check the citations if you want to look at the original research.
http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/9.1 ... gerous.pdf

Kifle wrote:Seriously, this ban on public smoking is a very ignorant response to public paranoia based on incomplete evidence, statistic stacking, misrepresenting the facts, and propaganda released by supposedly non-biased, independant research facilities.

Nope. If you get into the medical journals, you'll see there's a lot more research out there, supporting the conclusion that there are significant health risks of secondhand smoke. The misrepresentations, statistic stacking, and propaganda are from the tobacco companies.


Well, I don't really feel like rewritting another novel post, so I'm going to try to make this short. In epidemiology, it is not a mistake -- there needs to be a 1.0-2.0 increase or it is found as non-causal. Look it up. The smaller percentile, by scientific standards, can show a possible link, but in no way indicates causality (mainly that in the event of A and B, C happens, neither A or B can be attributed to the cause of C -- at least not solely). Causality is a very strong word in the scientific community, and they are very (honest researchers) careful about using the word. Also, epidemiology is a field in which the studies are generally conducted (in the case of long-term effects and attributing causality of external factors in the deteriorating health of organisms) over long periods of time. Within those periods of time, one can, and will, come into contact with a number of things that can also be attributed to the health degeneration. As with the case of lung cancer in non-smokers, we can conclude that, especially in cities, the environmental polution is also a reasonable cause. In the case of heart disease, the eating habits should also be taken into consideration. Through my brief reading of Glantz's study, I was unable to find where he also documented the eating habits of his case group. It is a well-known fact that our eating habits are in the top 5 (I'm not commiting to 1 or 2) causes of heart disease in non-smokers. Granted, his findings of the initial effects should be looked at closer, but it is also well documented that short-term effects, even when exposed to the causing agent on a semi-regular basis, can have no noticable long-term effects.

As for your link of the industry's attempts, I'm quite aware of most. I could also point you to the obviously tacky and flawed anti-smoking campaign "truth." Honestly, they even named it "truth" so that idiots will make the association and not question. That campaign is quite the marketing ploy imo.

Here's some of glantz's study for you. Even Harvard wouldn't accept the data. Oddly enough, the amount of decrease in heart attacks/disease his study claims is an impossibility. Look at where he works.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/35676.html

Honestly, I've sifted over quite a few medical journals over the past three years both in school (I did an intensive research project for philosophy of science on the subject), during other debates, and this current debate. From what I've read from both sides reading over credentials, my personal conclusion is that: If there is a correlation between ETS and elevated health risks (Note: ETS in the form that the average person encounters), it has not been proven to this date. There are studies on both sides of the fence, and, oddly enough, one of the most damning studies against ETS health risks was performed by a known advocate of anti-tobacco mentality, the WHO -- who then tried to hide the study and released a second study in an attempt to cover up their findings.

Through all the evidence available that I have found and that has been brought to my attention, I find no rational reason that this government should infringe upon the rights of its citizens afforded to them by the constitution and philosophy of the founders (and previous philosophies which greatly influenced the founders -- Locke, etc.). The rights of private property are probably the most important rights we are afforded. They not only greatly impact the quality of living of the citizens and the economy, but also diminish the very reasons we entered into a social contract.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teyaha
Sojourner
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Teyaha » Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:58 am

interesting subject

my family owns 3 McDonald's


the minimum wage increase will affect us less than the rising gas prices are

because, we have tens of thousands of dollars worth of food trucked to us a month

we are already presenting the $3 big mac. a sandwich that was just over a dollar when i started working there 18 years ago.

the other thing that will more greatly affect a place like McDonald's is the current push over illegal immigration

we do our part and verify ss#'s, but it isnt our jobs (nor can we afford it) to do lenghtly background checks on $6 an hour positions that have the highest turnover you can possibly imagine

INS raided a mcd's in nevada last week. so the question is - are you folks willing to shell out $6 for a big mac (assuming you eat 'em..but the reasoning remains on all luxury items) because us 'americanos' all decided to make immigration the forefront issue and kick out the only people even WILLING to do those jobs that eveyrone here is arguing about?

minimum wage is the least of this societies problems

funny but true - just saw that wal-mart documentary tonight. eery to read this afterwards
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:20 pm

You know, I can't help but feel that if you're having that much trouble finding and retaining (even illegal) workers, you may not be paying enough!

Just a thought...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teyaha
Sojourner
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Teyaha » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:26 pm

Sarvis wrote:You know, I can't help but feel that if you're having that much trouble finding and retaining (even illegal) workers, you may not be paying enough!

Just a thought...


have you actually worked in a fast food place?

not many people can handle the stress it entails, and the customer abuse since so many look down on a mcdonald's employee as the lowest-rung, and feel it's ok to throw their drinks at them because their kid didnt like the color of this weeks happy meal toy

i'm sure pay has something to do with it - although it's highly unlikely those same 'illegal's will be working at google programming your search engine choice making 80k a year which is sort of the minimum to have a life anymore
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:33 pm

Right, so what I'm saying is that the pay for these positions does not match the stress involved.

It's the same reason my company sees a lot of turnover (though likely not as much as a McDonald's.)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teyaha
Sojourner
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Teyaha » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:38 pm

Sarvis wrote:Right, so what I'm saying is that the pay for these positions does not match the stress involved.

It's the same reason my company sees a lot of turnover (though likely not as much as a McDonald's.)


which goes back to my original question - are you willing to pay $6-8 american dollars for one big mac sandwich?

we cant pay a new employee $30k a year to make french fries, unless you want your small 4 ounce serving of french fries to cost $5

but at the same time, we - you and i - have no real control over it. we have no control over the avearge price of the cheapest, lowest grade of gasoline right now or the fact that the US dollar may as well be a Peso at the rate it's dropping.


it wont be minimum wage alone that breaks the camels back - it's all of the above coming at us from all sides in the last 4 years.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:49 pm

There's a huge difference between $6/hr and $15/hr. Why does everyone exaggerate like that?

Also, I'm not willing to pay $1 for a Big Mac. :P

Anyway, I'm curious as to how much the hiring process costs you. I can't imagine it's free to interview, do all the paperwork and whatever else. If you find a necessity to hire constantly, that is taking money too. If (going by your exaggeration) you did pay the fry guys $15/hr and they started sticking around, how much would you save in the cost of constantly hiring people?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu Oct 04, 2007 9:01 pm

teyaha. i bought the cannon mark ii and i love it.

now i gotta figure out how to make money with it so I can buy more cameras and lenses. I'm thinking wedding photography is a sure bet, but i want to consider other things like opening up a home studio or doing school photos ect...

email me michael_kittrell@yahoo.com.
Teyaha
Sojourner
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Teyaha » Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:54 pm

kiryan wrote:teyaha. i bought the cannon mark ii and i love it.

now i gotta figure out how to make money with it so I can buy more cameras and lenses. I'm thinking wedding photography is a sure bet, but i want to consider other things like opening up a home studio or doing school photos ect...

email me michael_kittrell@yahoo.com.


unfortunately, due to three herniated discs in 2004 (aint life grand?) i had to abandon photography as a business for now :( i simply cant get around very well anymore - and that's post surgery

weddings - the real key here is the fact you are on location for up to 8 hours. because of this, you need the following:

1) two of everything - you have to have backups. you are being paid to be out there, it's a one shot deal. if your camera dies on ya, you'll need a backup. also having two cameras means the ability to have different lenses ready at all times

2) lenses - generally something in the 17-40 range, something in the 28-70 or 28-105 range, and 70-200. all 2.8 and all IS will make life easier on you for dealing with churches that will not allow you to use flash of any kind. again, two of everything (find a place you can rent on the weekends)

3) costs - generally you get to eat at weddings. that's aperk, especially some of the more lavish mendhi's i got to do. mmmmm. anyway...determine the value of your photographic time per hour, the costs of prints whereever you plan to go including proofs and such, and try to mark up all prints cost + 100%. i dont recommend giving them a cd or dvd as you will lose out on future print sales. if you want to make tha an option - make it expensive to compensate


weddings is cut-throat now since the digital revolution. it's also very hard work if you want to be good, and the better wedding photographers barely pull down $40k a year (the really popular ones like gary fong and bambi cantrell are exceptions to the rule)

Bambi Cantrell has the best series of books on the business. she has a real eye and her style is easily reproduced with a little practice


check out www.fredmiranda.com it's one of the only decently modreated places where you can get information about various photographic styles in a helpful manner without it degenerating into a nikon vs. canon whine fest. they have specific areas on studio setups (for quality lighting, budget around $4k...just for the lighting)

and have fun. you have a job, dont make this a second one
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:01 pm

Teyaha wrote:
unfortunately, due to three herniated discs in 2004 (aint life grand?) i had to abandon photography as a business for now :( i simply cant get around very well anymore - and that's post surgery


Ouch, that sucks on many levels... :(

Can't you just have the girls come to you though?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:28 am

I'll just say that it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of you. It's the responsibility of government to make what you need to take care of yourself more accessible in a competitive, fair market.

The second you take the responsibility of making your own life away from the individual - you give that responsibility to the government.

Do you really want the government to make your life for you?
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Botef
Sojourner
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Eastern Washington
Contact:

Postby Botef » Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:47 pm

In soviet russia, loud outs laugh!
Sunamit group-says 'imrex west, tibek backstab touk i think his name is on entry'
// Post Count +1
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:19 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:I'll just say that it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of you. It's the responsibility of government to make what you need to take care of yourself more accessible in a competitive, fair market.

The second you take the responsibility of making your own life away from the individual - you give that responsibility to the government.

Do you really want the government to make your life for you?


Actually, by most accounts of the formation of government from Socrates on, the government's job is to oversee the education and well-being of society. If that sometimes means picking up the slack where the free-market disenfranchises, then so be it. When you neglect the well-being of the majority of your citizens, the government isn't doing it's job.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:35 pm

Kifle wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:I'll just say that it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of you. It's the responsibility of government to make what you need to take care of yourself more accessible in a competitive, fair market.

The second you take the responsibility of making your own life away from the individual - you give that responsibility to the government.

Do you really want the government to make your life for you?


Actually, by most accounts of the formation of government from Socrates on, the government's job is to oversee the education and well-being of society. If that sometimes means picking up the slack where the free-market disenfranchises, then so be it. When you neglect the well-being of the majority of your citizens, the government isn't doing it's job.


See <b>Ragorn</b>, I'm not the only one who falls for Teffie's bait!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Postby Tasan » Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:49 pm

As far as I understand it, most of the smoking bans were not induced by customers but rather by the concern for health of employees.

OSHA makes many restrictions to protect workers and hopefully keep the cost of health care etc. down by trying to limit the amount of people injured by negligent employers or their own stupidity. Are you going to start arguing that OSHA is an evil government device and should never have been created?

I'm sorry you can't smoke in a bar, but I can't walk around naked, punching people in the face either; and last time I checked, punching someone in the face didn't end up as a significant increase to risk.
Danahg tells you 'yeah, luckily i kept most of it in my mouth and nasal membranes, ugh'

Dlur group-says 'I have a dead horse that I'm dragging down the shaft with my 4 corpses. Anyone want to help me beat it?'

Calladuran: There are other games to play if you want to play with yourself.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:27 am

Tasan wrote:As far as I understand it, most of the smoking bans were not induced by customers but rather by the concern for health of employees.

OSHA makes many restrictions to protect workers and hopefully keep the cost of health care etc. down by trying to limit the amount of people injured by negligent employers or their own stupidity. Are you going to start arguing that OSHA is an evil government device and should never have been created?

I'm sorry you can't smoke in a bar, but I can't walk around naked, punching people in the face either; and last time I checked, punching someone in the face didn't end up as a significant increase to risk.


Actually, you can. They're called nudist colonies and boxing rings. Do we ban those now too? So, if you want to go someplace and punch somebody while walking around naked, go to the appropriate place. See, unlike you, I don't have that option anymore because even the places it was acceptable for me to smoke have been regulated beyond the reach of any rational interpretation of the constitution.

And, to be honest, I wasn't aware OSHA had the authority to ban smoking in privately owned establishments. Yeah, they can make you wear safty goggles and gloves. They can regulate the proper use of heavy machinery and the such, but I'm almost positive that the actions of customers is outside of their reach. Lastly, if you want to go back up and read the research done by Hopkins, you'll notice that even in those studies, there was hardly a measureable increase in health risks due to ETS and working conditions.
Last edited by Kifle on Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:29 am

Sarvis wrote:
Kifle wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:I'll just say that it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of you. It's the responsibility of government to make what you need to take care of yourself more accessible in a competitive, fair market.

The second you take the responsibility of making your own life away from the individual - you give that responsibility to the government.

Do you really want the government to make your life for you?


Actually, by most accounts of the formation of government from Socrates on, the government's job is to oversee the education and well-being of society. If that sometimes means picking up the slack where the free-market disenfranchises, then so be it. When you neglect the well-being of the majority of your citizens, the government isn't doing it's job.


See <b>Ragorn</b>, I'm not the only one who falls for Teffie's bait!


To be honest, I think Tef makes up the "bait" excuse just because he doesn't want to feel retarded when he says shit you'd expect out of an uneducated highschool kid.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Postby Tasan » Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:16 am

Kifle wrote:Actually, you can. They're called nudist colonies and boxing rings. Do we ban those now too? So, if you want to go someplace and punch somebody while walking around naked, go to the appropriate place. See, unlike you, I don't have that option anymore because even the places it was acceptable for me to smoke have been regulated beyond the reach of any rational interpretation of the constitution.


Wow, way to take a hypothetical and really run with it. You win.

I never said OSHA was the body concerned with the ban. I only referenced another government agent.

Statistics can be used to prove anything. Fourfty percent of all people know that.

I know what really kills smokers, it's obviously too much time near microwaves and gas stoves.

Also, please legalize drugs and lift all restrictions on guns. Thanks.
Danahg tells you 'yeah, luckily i kept most of it in my mouth and nasal membranes, ugh'



Dlur group-says 'I have a dead horse that I'm dragging down the shaft with my 4 corpses. Anyone want to help me beat it?'



Calladuran: There are other games to play if you want to play with yourself.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:27 am

Strictly enforcing laws regarding immigration will not kick the cost of a big mac to over $6 any longer than the short months it will take for the economy to stabilize.

The economy did just fine before without the mass influx of illegal immigrants, and it would be just fine if we pushed them out.

It's the illegal part of illegal immigration that's really costing the country.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:29 am

Kifle wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Kifle wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:I'll just say that it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of you. It's the responsibility of government to make what you need to take care of yourself more accessible in a competitive, fair market.

The second you take the responsibility of making your own life away from the individual - you give that responsibility to the government.

Do you really want the government to make your life for you?


Actually, by most accounts of the formation of government from Socrates on, the government's job is to oversee the education and well-being of society. If that sometimes means picking up the slack where the free-market disenfranchises, then so be it. When you neglect the well-being of the majority of your citizens, the government isn't doing it's job.


See <b>Ragorn</b>, I'm not the only one who falls for Teffie's bait!


To be honest, I think Tef makes up the "bait" excuse just because he doesn't want to feel retarded when he says shit you'd expect out of an uneducated highschool kid.


I make up what excuse? Kifle, I think you misread something.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:33 am

Kifle wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:I'll just say that it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of you. It's the responsibility of government to make what you need to take care of yourself more accessible in a competitive, fair market.

The second you take the responsibility of making your own life away from the individual - you give that responsibility to the government.

Do you really want the government to make your life for you?


Actually, by most accounts of the formation of government from Socrates on, the government's job is to oversee the education and well-being of society. If that sometimes means picking up the slack where the free-market disenfranchises, then so be it. When you neglect the well-being of the majority of your citizens, the government isn't doing it's job.


To oversee something is simply to direct, to look over or examine. It means sometimes picking up the slack where a _fair_ market disenfranchises a large number of people.

1%-5% of people will always fall through the cracks. Spending your time and effort to baby them is an extreme opportunity cost to people who are statistically better investments.

The pont being? You can't save everybody. Trying would be illogical when you consider the extreme costs. To take it a step further, to accept responsibility is to accept that there is a line where you'd do more harm than good.

Furthermore, I disagree with your assessment. From even earlier than Socrates in socieites in the Orient, the formation of government was always to govern, with the following subsets: overseeing markets, tending to regulations, developing fair market constructs, and trying to catch a good number of the people who fall through the cracks which have always been governmental responsibilities.

You made the point that when a government neglects the well being of a majority of its citizens, that it's not doing it's job.

I disagree with that as well - when a government neglects the well being of 98% of its citizens, it isn't doing it's job.

Placing responsibility on the individual, the family social sturcture, and community institutions, rather than the federal government, is the best way to ensure people don't fall through the cracks.

In human history NO government of any significant size has been able to care for 98% of its people when it accepts responsibility for them.

It is a simple question of command and computation. Government isn't able to make all the decisions for all of its people. The Soviets tried, the Chinese tried, and many, may societies have tried and failed.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:24 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:I'll just say that it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of you. It's the responsibility of government to make what you need to take care of yourself more accessible in a competitive, fair market.

The second you take the responsibility of making your own life away from the individual - you give that responsibility to the government.

Do you really want the government to make your life for you?


Actually, by most accounts of the formation of government from Socrates on, the government's job is to oversee the education and well-being of society. If that sometimes means picking up the slack where the free-market disenfranchises, then so be it. When you neglect the well-being of the majority of your citizens, the government isn't doing it's job.


To oversee something is simply to direct, to look over or examine. It means sometimes picking up the slack where a _fair_ market disenfranchises a large number of people.

1%-5% of people will always fall through the cracks. Spending your time and effort to baby them is an extreme opportunity cost to people who are statistically better investments.

The pont being? You can't save everybody. Trying would be illogical when you consider the extreme costs. To take it a step further, to accept responsibility is to accept that there is a line where you'd do more harm than good.

Furthermore, I disagree with your assessment. From even earlier than Socrates in socieites in the Orient, the formation of government was always to govern, with the following subsets: overseeing markets, tending to regulations, developing fair market constructs, and trying to catch a good number of the people who fall through the cracks which have always been governmental responsibilities.

You made the point that when a government neglects the well being of a majority of its citizens, that it's not doing it's job.

I disagree with that as well - when a government neglects the well being of 98% of its citizens, it isn't doing it's job.

Placing responsibility on the individual, the family social sturcture, and community institutions, rather than the federal government, is the best way to ensure people don't fall through the cracks.

In human history NO government of any significant size has been able to care for 98% of its people when it accepts responsibility for them.

It is a simple question of command and computation. Government isn't able to make all the decisions for all of its people. The Soviets tried, the Chinese tried, and many, may societies have tried and failed.


Judging by your response, you really don't know much about political philosophy, do you? I wish I would have taped the Locke course I taught last semester, you could have learned a lot. I think this is where I insert my "lol" and walk away.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:47 am

Kifle wrote:Judging by your response, you really don't know much about political philosophy, do you? I wish I would have taped the Locke course I taught last semester, you could have learned a lot. I think this is where I insert my "lol" and walk away.


Judging by your response, you really don't know much about applying someone else's ideas to actual knowledge, do you?

Locke was a simple fool and it's no suprise to me that you have latched onto his generic and vague western ideas of social contracts that consider only one side of the governmental equasion.

Basically, it's no surprise that you would insert a 'lol' and walk away - that's what Locke would have done - because you lack the intellectual courage to even try to respond to the most basic of arguments that I presented in the above post.

1) The computation problem. Government cannot make all the decisions for the people - the equasion is too complex.

2) That the formation of government is primarily to govern, that is to say, to represent the dominating power in a given society. In many times in human history, governments have been formed not for the welfare of the society being governed. You ignore Asian history for what I must guess is simply ignorance.

3) That no government of significant size has been able to care for 98% of it's people when it accepts responsibility for them.

You really don't know much about political philosophy, do you?

You don't even consider the fact that, in your own words, "the government's job is to oversee the education and well-being of society."

Think about that for just a minute. Is an individual the society? Is the society the individual?

I think it is safe to conclude that society != individual.

Take it just one baby intellectual step further and ask yourself: "is what is benefical to society always beneficial to the individual?"

The answer is unequivocally no.

The original argument I made that it is not the government's responsibility to take care of you stands firm.

According to you, anyway. Lol. *walks away*
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Gurns
Sojourner
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Gurns » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:14 pm

Kifle wrote:In epidemiology, it is not a mistake -- there needs to be a 1.0-2.0 increase or it is found as non-causal. Look it up.

In the first link I posted, they cite an epidemiologist objecting to exactly what you are saying. He objected that someone had said:
D. Trichopoulos wrote:that I have expressed the view that only a fourfold risk should be taken seriously. That is correct, but only when the finding stands in a biological vacuum or has little or no biological credibility. We all take seriously small relative risks when there is a credible hypothesis in the background. Nobody disputes that the prevalence of boys at birth is higher than that of girls (an excess of 3%), that men have a 30% higher death rate compared with women of the same age...

This fellow is correct, of course. Because twofold or fourfold or whatever, that's an arbitrary number. It's a rule of thumb. Any such number must be an arbitrary number, because epidemiology alone isn't sufficient to establish causality in the scientific sense that you are presenting.

What the epidemiologists are saying with this rule of thumb is that if you don't know much about what you're looking for, you need to get that large of an effect to be pretty sure you've got something interesting. Doesn't mean it really is a causal relationship, just that it is probably going to be worth following up.

But if the mechanisms by which there is an effect are known, then it is certainly possible to accurately conclude that factors with small effects are causal. You can't draw that conclusion from epidemiology alone, but you should never draw a causal conclusion from a correlational result, no matter what the effect size is. (Note: If an epidemiologist discovered something with both a high absolute risk and a high relative risk, I'd recommend quick action, even if the mechanisms aren't understood, but that's just common sense, it's not establishing causality.)

For ETS, it's not just epidemiology that points to the dangers. One paper summarized it like this:
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v21/n ... 5809a.html wrote:The conclusion that ETS is a human lung carcinogen is based on the total weight of evidence...including (1) ...dozens of epidemiologic studies conducted in many different countries; (2) the well-established link between active smoking and lung cancer, and the absence of a threshold level of exposure below which the risk is not elevated; (3) biological measurements of ETS uptake and metabolism by nonsmokers; and (4) supporting evidence of ETS carcinogenicity from animal bioassays and genotoxicity.

The pieces are there, so the conclusion is clear: Being in a home, bar, restaurant, or other enclosed area of the sort, for any normal length of time, where folks are smoking, causes an increase in one's risk of disease and death.

Kifle wrote:The rights of private property

The right of private property is limited, just like all rights are limited. We don't have absolute freedom of speech, and we don't have the right to do whatever we want with our property. Even following Locke strictly (which the founders didn't) doesn't preclude zoning regulations.

And in this situation, a bar is private property, but is a public facility. There are all sorts of laws governing such, like health codes for food preparation and fire codes for safety equipment and capacity. The founders didn't guarantee the right to smoke in a bar, just like they didn't guarantee the right of public facility property owners to have emergency exits that open inward.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:21 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:Judging by your response, you really don't know much about political philosophy, do you? I wish I would have taped the Locke course I taught last semester, you could have learned a lot. I think this is where I insert my "lol" and walk away.


Judging by your response, you really don't know much about applying someone else's ideas to actual knowledge, do you?

Locke was a simple fool and it's no suprise to me that you have latched onto his generic and vague western ideas of social contracts that consider only one side of the governmental equasion.

Basically, it's no surprise that you would insert a 'lol' and walk away - that's what Locke would have done - because you lack the intellectual courage to even try to respond to the most basic of arguments that I presented in the above post.


Again, lol. Locke would have just walked away? No, see, he didn't respond to quite a few of his critics because he saw them as idiots, as did Kant; however, there was one person he did continually write letters to discussing his epistemology and metaphysics -- the running joke is that Locke killed the man by what he wrote (the man had a heart attack while reading the last letter).

So, like Locke, I will just lol again, and tell you this: when you write something that isn't based soley on misinterpreted political philosophy, biased opinions, and an overall lack of knowledge on the subject, I'll respond with a more substantial reply. In the mean-time, I'm going to lightly skim over your idiocy and do more important things -- like taking a crap and wiping my ass. You really should learn to practice a bit of humility and just accept that sometimes, people know more about a subject than you -- admit your ignorance instead of making yourself look more uninformed.

/lol, /walk away
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:06 pm

Gurns wrote:
Kifle wrote:In epidemiology, it is not a mistake -- there needs to be a 1.0-2.0 increase or it is found as non-causal. Look it up.

In the first link I posted, they cite an epidemiologist objecting to exactly what you are saying. He objected that someone had said:
D. Trichopoulos wrote:that I have expressed the view that only a fourfold risk should be taken seriously. That is correct, but only when the finding stands in a biological vacuum or has little or no biological credibility. We all take seriously small relative risks when there is a credible hypothesis in the background. Nobody disputes that the prevalence of boys at birth is higher than that of girls (an excess of 3%), that men have a 30% higher death rate compared with women of the same age...

This fellow is correct, of course. Because twofold or fourfold or whatever, that's an arbitrary number. It's a rule of thumb. Any such number must be an arbitrary number, because epidemiology alone isn't sufficient to establish causality in the scientific sense that you are presenting.

What the epidemiologists are saying with this rule of thumb is that if you don't know much about what you're looking for, you need to get that large of an effect to be pretty sure you've got something interesting. Doesn't mean it really is a causal relationship, just that it is probably going to be worth following up.

But if the mechanisms by which there is an effect are known, then it is certainly possible to accurately conclude that factors with small effects are causal. You can't draw that conclusion from epidemiology alone, but you should never draw a causal conclusion from a correlational result, no matter what the effect size is. (Note: If an epidemiologist discovered something with both a high absolute risk and a high relative risk, I'd recommend quick action, even if the mechanisms aren't understood, but that's just common sense, it's not establishing causality.)

For ETS, it's not just epidemiology that points to the dangers. One paper summarized it like this:
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v21/n ... 5809a.html wrote:The conclusion that ETS is a human lung carcinogen is based on the total weight of evidence...including (1) ...dozens of epidemiologic studies conducted in many different countries; (2) the well-established link between active smoking and lung cancer, and the absence of a threshold level of exposure below which the risk is not elevated; (3) biological measurements of ETS uptake and metabolism by nonsmokers; and (4) supporting evidence of ETS carcinogenicity from animal bioassays and genotoxicity.

The pieces are there, so the conclusion is clear: Being in a home, bar, restaurant, or other enclosed area of the sort, for any normal length of time, where folks are smoking, causes an increase in one's risk of disease and death.

Kifle wrote:The rights of private property

The right of private property is limited, just like all rights are limited. We don't have absolute freedom of speech, and we don't have the right to do whatever we want with our property. Even following Locke strictly (which the founders didn't) doesn't preclude zoning regulations.

And in this situation, a bar is private property, but is a public facility. There are all sorts of laws governing such, like health codes for food preparation and fire codes for safety equipment and capacity. The founders didn't guarantee the right to smoke in a bar, just like they didn't guarantee the right of public facility property owners to have emergency exits that open inward.


When I turn to Locke, I am not attempting to paraphrase him as the absolute political authority; however, because of his direct and enormous influence of our founders, I think his philosophy carries with it a certain amount of credibility. That being said, I think we can agree that both Locke and the founders (especially Jefferson) saw private property as, not just a right, but the backbone and foundation of society. Since it has such weight in the ideologies of these men, I believe that regulations and restrictions of the right of private property should be treated in a delicate manner. The complete ban of an action, which is still in debate, is not what I would consider delicate. I don't think it is responsible to take such actions that limit our use of our private property without more dialogue which isn't already biased towards one viewpoint; and, unfortunately, that is hard to do -- regardless of how hard it is, though, I think such decisions deserve as much. I think it was a hasty decision (relatively) based on biased opinion, misintrepreted facts, and fear.

As for the scientific discussion, I believe we are just reading different things into what is being presented. Case in point, I believe that the man above strengthens my agrument while you feel he vindicates yours. What I see is him saying, 'in perfect conditions, I would require a fourfold increase.' To me, scientifically, if you require such stict standards in a field, you do not decrease the standards by over three hundred percent because we are not in a vacuum. No other scientific body is going to do that. In physics, they test their hypothesis' within vacuums when they can; however, we all know this does not mirror reality. I would expect the same in any other field, especially epidemiology. This does not mean we should make inferences where we deem necessary. This paves the way for personal bias to be more of a factor that which should be allowed in science. This is why psychology and sociology, among other soft sciences, are still not given the credibility they may or may not deserve. Basically he's saying, to me, is that since we can't truely know because of the external conditions and variables, we're allowed to guess...

In the same quotation he's comparing something easily gained through empirical data (birth rates and death rates) to something that has myriad variables the researchers aren't even aware of (second hand smoke, heart disease, cancer). This is not a fair comparison and is a excellent example of how arguments that are supposed to be scientific can be muddied by statistical stacking and misquoting. In this case, the statistics he uses are out of context. This shows to me that this argument is so weak that he has to use logical fallicies to prove it.

As to what you said afterwards, I do agree, and that is my point. They can't, and haven't shown causality in this case; therefore, it is irresponsible to make a regulation based on an immature set of studies. There is no difinitive link, as of yet, that either disproves or proves the claims about ETS; therefore, how is it 1) fair and 2) intelligent to alter the lives of citizens in regards to one of the most important values and rights of this country? The simple answer is that it isn't.

Lastly, I'm not seeing where you're getting this conclusion from your numbered evidence -- I'll reply directly...

1) Dozens of studies from different countries: You're right, there have been dozens of studies -- a large number of which claim the opposite of the other. This to me would indicate that either there is no causal relationship, the causal relationship is a non-factor, or each side is stacking data in their favor. Either way, this point proves nothing except that their is no way to make an educated conclusion based on the evidence and studies at present.

2) In relation to direct smoking and an absence of a threashold: Again, how could you definitively conclude something when the threashold is not found? And, knowing that there is a threashold, whether absolute, relative, or fuzzy, should be found before taking such drastic steps. Lastly, as it is with countless other phenomena in this world, direct exposure, continuosly for decades, may be a serious risk, but that does not mean that the risk is a factor when moderate or light exposer is in question. Because this has not been answered only reinforces the hastiness and irresponsibility of the decision on the smoking bans.

3) Metabolism in non-smokers: Metabolism =/= cancer. Sitting next to a fire is enough to get me warm (an effect of fire), but it will not burn me (another effect of fire). Nicotine raises the metabolism. So your evidence that ETS causes cancer is the apparent effects of a non-carcinogenic property of the smoke? Does it show they are inhaling smoke and garnering some effect from it? Sure does, but, again, like the analogy of the fire, it is a far cry from causal proof of ETS induced cancer. Also, nicotine is highly addictive. It is known as one of the most addictive drugs next to heroin. Are the non-smokers who are exposed to ETS craving a cigarette while they eat their food like a smoker is? Do they crave nicotine when they leave the bar/restaurant? No. What does this indicate? That the leves of nicotine absorbed are, for the most part, a non-factor...

4) As for this, I'm pleading ignorance on the subject. I have not once looked at, or heard about, the toxicity reports or studies of ETS in relation to animals. Again, there are reasons I would not commit to a causal relationship shown in the studies because of the obvious biological differences; however, if those difference between spiecies was shown as a non-factor, and, if the studies were repeatable and credible, I would definately include them in my overall opinion on the subject; however, it does not change my stance now on the behavior of our government in relation to research that has yet to reach adulthood.

Gurns, good stuff. We just have two different views, and I don't think either of us are going to be swayed on the subject. We've both seen the evidence and clearly take different things from it. So, I hate to do this, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:58 am

Kifle wrote:So, like Locke, I will just lol again, and tell you this: when you write something that isn't based soley on misinterpreted political philosophy, biased opinions, and an overall lack of knowledge on the subject, I'll respond with a more substantial reply. In the mean-time, I'm going to lightly skim over your idiocy and do more important things


You know, for someone who so unwittingly gave me my argument, you sure can talk out of your ass. But that's where you get everything out of, don't you?

teflor the ranger wrote:I'll just say that it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of you.

Kifle wrote:the government's job is to oversee the education and well-being of society.

society != you

I'm sorry, who's uninformed? It's called intellectual cowardice when you can't admit you made a mistake. How can you even claim to know any more than I do when you can't even understand the immediate and gross difference between the individual and society?

Reason? Biased opinions. Misinterpretation. Inability to apply a textbook quote to actual knowledge.

Congratuations, tool.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:21 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:So, like Locke, I will just lol again, and tell you this: when you write something that isn't based soley on misinterpreted political philosophy, biased opinions, and an overall lack of knowledge on the subject, I'll respond with a more substantial reply. In the mean-time, I'm going to lightly skim over your idiocy and do more important things


You know, for someone who so unwittingly gave me my argument, you sure can talk out of your ass. But that's where you get everything out of, don't you?

teflor the ranger wrote:I'll just say that it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of you.

Kifle wrote:the government's job is to oversee the education and well-being of society.

society != you

I'm sorry, who's uninformed? It's called intellectual cowardice when you can't admit you made a mistake. How can you even claim to know any more than I do when you can't even understand the immediate and gross difference between the individual and society?

Reason? Biased opinions. Misinterpretation. Inability to apply a textbook quote to actual knowledge.

Congratuations, tool.


Lol
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:35 am

Kifle wrote:


Above: Your words when adjusted for value.

We'll go ahead and try a different route, let's try asking you a question.

How is it the responsibility of the government to take care of YOU?
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:59 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:


Above: Your words when adjusted for value.

We'll go ahead and try a different route, let's try asking you a question.

How is it the responsibility of the government to take care of YOU?


I know I'm going to regret this but...

Isn't the government's purpose to prevent the execution of force against an individual? How is that NOT taking care of that individual?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:00 am

Sarvis wrote:I know I'm going to regret this but...

Isn't the government's sole purpose (that you'd admit) to prevent the execution of force against an individual? How is that NOT taking care of that individual?


Sorry Sarvis, but I'm waiting for Kifle's reply. I want to give him at least a chance to respond unmolested and give him a chance to actually display his knowledge.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:15 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:I know I'm going to regret this but...

Isn't the government's sole purpose (that you'd admit) to prevent the execution of force against an individual? How is that NOT taking care of that individual?


Sorry Sarvis, but I'm waiting for Kifle's reply. I want to give him at least a chance to respond unmolested and give him a chance to actually display his knowledge.


No thanks. I find its easier to laugh you off than get frustrated at your unwarrented arrogance. You're an idiot.

P.S.

Lol
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:41 am

Kifle wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:I know I'm going to regret this but...

Isn't the government's sole purpose (that you'd admit) to prevent the execution of force against an individual? How is that NOT taking care of that individual?


Sorry Sarvis, but I'm waiting for Kifle's reply. I want to give him at least a chance to respond unmolested and give him a chance to actually display his knowledge.


No thanks. I find its easier to laugh you off than get frustrated at your unwarrented arrogance. You're an idiot.

P.S.

Lol


Unfortunatly, Sarvis, I apologize for making you wait for Kifle's intellectual cowardice. Cowardice comes from those who had nothing to defend in the beginning.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests