In case it wasn't obvious, I want the mis-attribution in post #76 corrected. Hangar? mods?
- Status
it was antoks quote, not yours...and its the forum software coding that mis-assigned it...not me.I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you mis-attributed that quote to me out of incompetence rather than malice. I have to wonder, if the situations were reversed, whether you'd apply your knowledge of common sense and basic science consistently and assume the reverse
Last edited:
sorry but i didnt copy and paste HIS quote into a reply that was clicked on for YOUR name. The forum software had a glitch...it happens. I clicked on his post for a reply and it gave me HIS text...but for some odd reason YOUR name was in the header...i certainly didnt type it in there myself thats for sure. I was able to copy and paste his name there instead of yours so its fixed now.
...and IM the arrogant one?
...its this sort of immature attitude that needs to stop.
Ok, this is way off topic but I just wondered if anyone else thought it ironic that... Of all the Dr's / Health professionals quoted in the article, the only one with some positive inclinations was also the only one who had actually conducted a study regarding the potential risks associated with the e-cig?
Mike
Oh wait.... maybe it isn't so off topic...lol
Mike
Oh wait.... maybe it isn't so off topic...lol
Stop interrupting our flame war!
Kidding - yeah, that is an interesting observation.
sorry but i didnt copy and paste HIS quote into a reply that was clicked on for YOUR name. The forum software had a glitch...it happens. I clicked on his post for a reply and it gave me HIS text...but for some odd reason YOUR name was in the header...i certainly didnt type it in there myself thats for sure. I was able to copy and paste his name there instead of yours so its fixed now.
...and IM the arrogant one?
Quoted for irony. Of course it's impossible that it was you who made a mistake.
And with that, I'm done with you.
I agree...analogs have had many, many years of testing and the results have been in for a loooong time---they kill people, yet they have never been banned (that I'm aware of). Let's give e-cigs the same consideration.
LOL ...Sorry for the interference Strayling
Just that I'm stuck up here in da nosebleed section right behind a huge pilar and can't see a dang thing on the field anyway!
I can see the BigAss scoreboard though .... Looks like the Home team is Way ahead at the moment.
Just that I'm stuck up here in da nosebleed section right behind a huge pilar and can't see a dang thing on the field anyway!
I can see the BigAss scoreboard though .... Looks like the Home team is Way ahead at the moment.
LOL ...Sorry for the interference Strayling
Just that I'm stuck up here in da nosebleed section right behind a huge pilar and can't see a dang thing on the field anyway!
I can see the BigAss scoreboard though .... Looks like the Home team is Way ahead at the moment.
Maybe I'm not really understanding the hometeam's stance here. I don't remember seeing Hangar say that there should be a ban or that E-cigs should be taken off the market. What I did hear him say is that he doesn't know for sure that these are safer than cigarettes. I don't know for sure either, but I'm leaning pretty far for safer. I thought the hometeam was about keeping them available for those who wanted them and relaying as much info as we all have to help. I don't remember seeing a sticky on this forum that said that if we don't all have the same viewpoint that we'd be labeled a troll. Testing is a valid point. There should be comprehensive testing to find out everything there is to know about vaping the liquids with the hw that we use. I just hope that it's done concurrently with our use. Even if they find it's 100% safe, there could be other information that testing could help with. Compositions of the liquids after burning, what happens to the atomizer after prolonged use, battery safety issues... These could point manufactures to develop and build better E-cigs in the future.
One thing that we have to all acknowledge is that there is going to be every kind of viewpoint on this forum. There will be super positive and many people who are not convinced totally. These will also be the viewpoints of many of the general public until full testing is done. Rather than flame all of them to death, why not do as some have done and post some information, viewpoints and if all else fails, agree to disagree (Yvilla, Sun). I can't remember a time when flaming was an effective way to win an arguement either way. It just makes us lose track of the important talking points.
kevin
If anyone wants to join a discussion about health claims there is one here - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ing/12317-how-valid-vaping-health-claims.html
Maybe I'm not really understanding the hometeam's stance here. I don't remember seeing Hangar say that there should be a ban or that E-cigs should be taken off the market. What I did hear him say is that he doesn't know for sure that these are safer than cigarettes. I don't know for sure either, but I'm leaning pretty far for safer. I thought the hometeam was about keeping them available for those who wanted them and relaying as much info as we all have to help. I don't remember seeing a sticky on this forum that said that if we don't all have the same viewpoint that we'd be labeled a troll. Testing is a valid point. There should be comprehensive testing to find out everything there is to know about vaping the liquids with the hw that we use. I just hope that it's done concurrently with our use. Even if they find it's 100% safe, there could be other information that testing could help with. Compositions of the liquids after burning, what happens to the atomizer after prolonged use, battery safety issues... These could point manufactures to develop and build better E-cigs in the future.
One thing that we have to all acknowledge is that there is going to be every kind of viewpoint on this forum. There will be super positive and many people who are not convinced totally. These will also be the viewpoints of many of the general public until full testing is done. Rather than flame all of them to death, why not do as some have done and post some information, viewpoints and if all else fails, agree to disagree (Yvilla, Sun). I can't remember a time when flaming was an effective way to win an arguement either way. It just makes us lose track of the important talking points.
kevin
Thank you, Kevin...you seem to get it along with a few others here. This thread should have been welcomed to an open discussion of the subject matter as seen by all viewpoints...and thats what i was attacked for...again...i say let this thread stand for what it is...a lesson for newbies on what they can expect from certain members of this board (thankfully not ALL!). It'll help them to see who's willing to be open and honest and who is not quite frankly.
Last edited:
Actually, re-reading the posts here, there's blame on both sides for the flaming war. People should choose their words better before hitting submit. It's so easy to push someones button with the wrongly worded phrase.
Their are doctors stating the exact opposite of what hanger is stating.
Common sense would tell you removing 4000 chemicals from a situation would make it healthier. Getting rid of combustion also makes it healthier. the ONLY true unknown is the long term affects of vaping the flavor.
Its like saying that if you eat fast food 3 times a day and cut it down to 1 time a day that it isn't any healthier for you.
Common sense would tell you removing 4000 chemicals from a situation would make it healthier. Getting rid of combustion also makes it healthier. the ONLY true unknown is the long term affects of vaping the flavor.
Its like saying that if you eat fast food 3 times a day and cut it down to 1 time a day that it isn't any healthier for you.
Thank you, Kate...you seem to get it too...and your concerns are indeed valid and worthy of a mature, honest and open discussion. Im going to be reading that one in its entirety.
Hangar... you have been to my place.. we talked. I know you play the Devil's Advocate because you find it beneficial to have both sides of the story. I agree. But you would not go to the "Bon Jovi Fan Club" website and start saying Bon Jovi is a fake and can't sing and wears a hair piece (well u might.. I wouldn't lol!) cause people there LIKE him and would be ......! So all I am saying is if you are here for debate... go on.. by all means... but if you are here for conversation? This is the e-cig fan club... so change the topic lol
By the way... next Vapers Club meeting date is set... hope you can make it next time.
I grew sick of reading this after 5 pages.
Simply put...
We know nothing about vaping.
We know plenty about smoking.
We know about smoking cause our grandparents smoked for 40 years and then someone studied them. No one VOLUNTEERED for a study that they were TOLD might give them cancer!!!They smoked. They got cancer. They were studied.
In 40-50 years... if any of us are still alive... we will be studied. Then we will know if vaping is safe.
In the meantime.. F u all.. I am doin it
Viva la Vaping!!! Woohoo!!!
PS.. second day with zero nic... only cheated ONE time!!!! So YES.. many people DO cut back with this.. not take in MORE nic!
PS.. I wish this article were anywhere BUT WebMD... I really thought they were unbiased.. but MAKE kids smoke? Come on!!! If they want to smoke.. they won't vape.. they will buy a freakin pack of cigs for $10!
LOL on the taste-o-... comment re:analogs... I agree... never again!!!!
By the way... next Vapers Club meeting date is set... hope you can make it next time.
I grew sick of reading this after 5 pages.
Simply put...
We know nothing about vaping.
We know plenty about smoking.
We know about smoking cause our grandparents smoked for 40 years and then someone studied them. No one VOLUNTEERED for a study that they were TOLD might give them cancer!!!They smoked. They got cancer. They were studied.
In 40-50 years... if any of us are still alive... we will be studied. Then we will know if vaping is safe.
In the meantime.. F u all.. I am doin it
Viva la Vaping!!! Woohoo!!!
PS.. second day with zero nic... only cheated ONE time!!!! So YES.. many people DO cut back with this.. not take in MORE nic!
PS.. I wish this article were anywhere BUT WebMD... I really thought they were unbiased.. but MAKE kids smoke? Come on!!! If they want to smoke.. they won't vape.. they will buy a freakin pack of cigs for $10!
LOL on the taste-o-... comment re:analogs... I agree... never again!!!!
Things kinda went downhill starting at post #23. Explicitly insulting the reasoning abilities of the majority of posters doesn't make for productive debate. Anyhow, I apologise for taking the bait and will try not to in future.
Okay, this will be my last attempt to get you to take the blinders off, Hangar.
If you go back to my first post on this thread, on page 3, you will see that it was not an "attack" post whatsoever.
I quoted a portion of a post of yours, and calmly explained to you that it exhibited a fundamental and total misaprehension of the meaning of the concept of tobacco "harm reduction", which is based on years of solid scientific research going back to 1974. See:
Harm Reduction Journal | Full text | Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers
Your initial stance that I quoted in that first post, that ecigs maybe shouldn't or couldn't be characterized as harm reduction products was squarely based on your misunderstanding the term.
But things degenerated from there, in my opinion. You went on the attack for my very assertion that ecigs are, in fact, harm reduction products. Maybe you felt challenged because I pointed out your mistake, but in any event you stridently changed your tune with your door 1/door 2 scenario, arguing with no basis in fact but rather on speculation and fear-mongering that "we cant classify ecigs as true harm reduction unless its truly tested FIRST and found to be truly safer over extended usage...which to me means NO MORE CANCER worries"
I (and others) went on simply trying to educate you, pointing out the well documented and scientifically proven fact that it is the combustion involved in smoking that carries the cancer risk, and offering you cite after cite to the opinions of medical and public health experts on the basic concepts of tobacco harm reduction and the place within them that ecigs occupy.
Your response? More attack, calling me "unreasonable" and more, and an outright refusal to understand that those disagreeing with you were not discounting the need or desireability of further testing on ecigs, but were instead only trying to educate you that their use is indeed, as it stands now and based on sound science, a viable and valid harm reduction strategy for anyone smoking cigarettes.
How you take my posts as having a "political" agenda is beyond me. Your use of the term "common sense" as applied to basic scientific principles in your latest posts astounds me. I really can only conclude that perhaps you were hurt that I made public your ignorance, and are only striking out due to that, rather than actual belief in some of the things you are saying. That's why I finally gave up and called BS on you.
But as I said, this is one last ditch effort - you really ought to read the journal article cited in this post. While not expressly addressing ecigs, it certainly lays out the science underlying the harm reduction movement.
If you go back to my first post on this thread, on page 3, you will see that it was not an "attack" post whatsoever.
I quoted a portion of a post of yours, and calmly explained to you that it exhibited a fundamental and total misaprehension of the meaning of the concept of tobacco "harm reduction", which is based on years of solid scientific research going back to 1974. See:
Harm Reduction Journal | Full text | Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers
Your initial stance that I quoted in that first post, that ecigs maybe shouldn't or couldn't be characterized as harm reduction products was squarely based on your misunderstanding the term.
But things degenerated from there, in my opinion. You went on the attack for my very assertion that ecigs are, in fact, harm reduction products. Maybe you felt challenged because I pointed out your mistake, but in any event you stridently changed your tune with your door 1/door 2 scenario, arguing with no basis in fact but rather on speculation and fear-mongering that "we cant classify ecigs as true harm reduction unless its truly tested FIRST and found to be truly safer over extended usage...which to me means NO MORE CANCER worries"
I (and others) went on simply trying to educate you, pointing out the well documented and scientifically proven fact that it is the combustion involved in smoking that carries the cancer risk, and offering you cite after cite to the opinions of medical and public health experts on the basic concepts of tobacco harm reduction and the place within them that ecigs occupy.
Your response? More attack, calling me "unreasonable" and more, and an outright refusal to understand that those disagreeing with you were not discounting the need or desireability of further testing on ecigs, but were instead only trying to educate you that their use is indeed, as it stands now and based on sound science, a viable and valid harm reduction strategy for anyone smoking cigarettes.
How you take my posts as having a "political" agenda is beyond me. Your use of the term "common sense" as applied to basic scientific principles in your latest posts astounds me. I really can only conclude that perhaps you were hurt that I made public your ignorance, and are only striking out due to that, rather than actual belief in some of the things you are saying. That's why I finally gave up and called BS on you.
But as I said, this is one last ditch effort - you really ought to read the journal article cited in this post. While not expressly addressing ecigs, it certainly lays out the science underlying the harm reduction movement.
xkcd - A Webcomic - Duty Calls
So...back to the article (if anyone still cares about it).
I went looking for Michael Erisksen who was quoted twice on page 3, indicating he was highly skeptical that people would switch entirely away from tobacco with e-cigs, and suspected people would dangerously increase their intake of nicotine.
It took me about ten seconds to find his contact details and two minutes to write a brief story (I bought it just to use in smoke-ban areas, liked it so much I quit smoking entirely. Don't feel like I'm taking in significantly more nicotine than before, and since my GP says my BP/pulse/heart-sounds are 'perfect' I'm probably right).
He wrote back saying "Thank you for your time! I appreciate your feedback and am encouraged by your experience. The next step that is needed is to try to scientifically document that your experience (or something similar) is happening on a widescale basis and that there [aren't any] untoward experiences."
I shouldn't have to spell it out that polite emails of positive experiences to folks like Dr Eriksen can sway them from being ambivalent and skeptical to cautiously optimistic about e-cigs. And it's a better use of one's time than arguing about...stuff.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
