OK, I'll play.
Thank you, by the way, for continuing to illustrate my point for me with the "political sewage" comment. I do find someone who claims impartiality and wishes to be a mediator or go-to guy when their purpose seems to be simply to promote themselves, their views, argue, and put themselves above other members to be ironic and hypocritical. But hey, that's just me.
I also love how you used my post as an excuse to once again intone that the majority of the forum members are blind and unwilling to "see the light" as it were. Kindly show me where I said anything remotely related to the junk in your 4th paragraph. What I posted has absolutely zero to do with blindly hanging on to e-cigs for dear life, and everything to do with the fact that you assert through your posts that almost everyone, save yourself, does. Get off your high horse and quit with the assumptions.
People are not as blind, stupid, or naive as you appear to believe, so quit with the condescending tone and people may actually listen to something you have to say.
You are not the sole beacon of wisdom in the darkness, and presenting yourself as such is what prevents any valid points you may have from being recognized.
Nowhere did I argue anything about the safety of e-cigs, but since you brought up common sense, I don't mind replying with a thought or two on that front. Now remember kids, this is aNToK's OPINION. Nothing more.
Lessee,
To say that noone knows the true answers with regard to health concerns, I agree. It's impossible to say without more evidence and study.
To say that it is safer simply because it contains less chemicals? How about flipping that a bit instead of slanting it.
To me, "common sense" dictates that the absence of fission of plant material, the absence of 99% (estimated, of course) of the additives acknowledged to be in cigarettes, and the fact that the major ingredients in e-liquid are known and understood fairly well, and are in fact contained in cigarettes in some amount anyway, leads me to the strong conclusion that e-smoking stands an overwhelming chance of being "LESS HARMFUL" to the body than smoking tobacco. How's that? Most people believe that nicotine is a poison and go into e-smoking accepting it as such after initially being addicted to smoking. If it were to turn out that it is not as harmful as currently believed, then that would be a nice little bonus.
Do you honestly believe that most members here think that e-cigs are 100% harmless? Give me a break. The vast majority of members here are addicted to nicotine and believe that e-cigs offer a less harmful method of dealing with their addiction. Some wish to quit, and others to simply minimize the health risks while enjoying their "fix". "Common sense", along with reams of anecdotal knowledge indicate that the probability for this being the case are rather high.
I'm rambling a bit, and it's lunchtime. Frankly, my post had nothing to do with your views on the dangers or warnings about e-cigs. It had to do with the way you present yourself and your arguments. You are not the underdog fighting to good fight for the benefit of the people. You come across as an arrogant, condescending wannabe know-it-all who belittles others who choose not to agree with him and then doesn't understand why people don't listen to him. Get over yourself and discuss things as an equal rather than from your false pedestal and I'm betting that the community will be much more receptive to your thoughts.
