Seeing the light — 8 Comments

  1. Heh! The scales are falling from his eyes? A Damascene conversion? Don't be too sure, GD. Once an anti-smoker, always an anti-smoker. But it's interesting, nevertheless, that he is starting to realise that what we have known for years is an actual fact.

    How will he deal with it, I wonder? Will he be able to reconcile these realisations with his ideological stance?

    I've been saying for some time now that e-cigs are really going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons in TC, and it looks like I was right. We're seeing all sorts of schisms appearing in 'Public Health' and the TC community.

    However, the bottom line is "the mortgage has to be paid" and "The payments on the Range Rover Vogue come up every month", so e-cigs must be quashed, post-haste! Can't have any new technology queering the pitch! Heaven forbid that the gravy train should grind to a halt!

    • Can you imagine the effect on a cardinal if he is given definitive proof that God doesn't exist?  I presume the reaction would mainly be one of denial [I couldn't possibly have been wrong all those years] through to disbelief [Maybe it's only proof that God doesn't exist now].  I presume he would carry on believing in God despite the proof?

      Some day in the [hopefully not too distant] future, they'll look back in amazement at the Puritanical Period and wonder how people put up with such control and brainwashing.  Maybe it will become known as Prohibition II?



    • It did, and of course I can be bothered.  I don't want the place cluttered with superfluous comments?  Must be minor teething problems on the new site!  😉

  2. Is this your new site? Though I'd make a superfluous comment just to try it out. Enjoyed the post. 

    • It is indeed, and I'm glad you had to ask, as presumably you can't see a difference?  There are differences [I defy anyone to notice them!] and hopefully it's a bit faster?

  3. You must remember though that Michael Siegel is the man who "produced" the evidence of the horrendous health effects of passive smoke.He has always argued that his evidence is accurate even though he utilised scientific research that was never intended to be used in the way that he used it.I regularly commented on his blog for a year or two ,until i decided that trying to debate the issues with a "learned man" afforded little common sense.In my view,once an anti,always an anti,and stuff the science.

    • Welcome Simes!  I never trust an Anti, no matter how reformed.  Even if he turned and said that everything he had ever researched or published was completely wrong, the damage he did in the past can't be repaired.

      The fact is that an Anti by definition belongs to a mindset that believes that regulating a person's life and lifestyle, and treating grown adults like imbeciles is a good thing.

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting