impossible to think about the possibility he really thought us to believe it.. nee. but according to the "japan affair", i'd assume he really believes it for himself.

funny how everytime when he's stuck in an argument, he tries to get out of it by throwing random phrases in, so the original topic is being pushed away. so many posts only because of that phd remark.

btw.. b.s.meter?

oh, and dogue nine, eh? fascinating.. any advice concerning pantee addiction?

RayJones- I always throw around random phrases, why should this be any different. and I showed you a link, I didnt make the site, so the site should be treated seriously, because it is an actual site.

ckcsaber- thanx, your kind words mean alot (sarcasm)

skinwalker- you're getting gummed up in your old age. For one, all your 'points' were based on theories (once again) Its only theoretical that a PHD wouldnt do those things. Everyone is different.

insansesith- no it wasnt a good point, for reasons I addressed first. and I dont care what you appreciate. who said I was mocking you? I was making a point. Originally, actually, I was just spouting sutff. But then when I saw you guys were (for lack of a word that wont offend) gullible enoguh to take the bait, I ran with it. Thats pretty pathetic on your part.

RayJones, I simply let loose a random comment. If you wanna get back on topic lets do it.


You guys have refused to show me any real proof. Just basic theories and hypothesis. I have showed you an actual site that has showed you how the benefits outweigh the risks. If the speculation were true, then it'd be a different matter, but its not. I know several people who smoke pipes, and have for years. They are very healthy people as of now. Show me some proof, people.

Originally posted by yaebginn
RayJones- I always throw around random phrases, why should this be any different. and I showed you a link, I didnt make the site, so the site should be treated seriously, because it is an actual site.
and i would assume this site (and the "article" on it) is actually made by a person? and i'v just learned i cannot trust persons on the internet? or do you say that if you would have made a site which says you're a phd, it would have been trustable?

oh and i don't think anyone took the bait..

Originally posted by yaebginn
You guys have refused to show me any real proof. Just basic theories and hypothesis. I have showed you an actual site that has showed you how the benefits outweigh the risks. If the speculation were true, then it'd be a different matter, but its not. I know several people who smoke pipes, and have for years. They are very healthy people as of now. Show me some proof, people.

Dear Lord! For creation's sake will you?%!?&% stop being such a hard headed...argh...

Sorry about that.
Now seriously, people have been showing you proofs for 3 pages now yet you've rejected them all. Do we have to dig up the corpse of someone who died because of pipe smoking, making him live again just to tell you that it increases your chances of getting diseases?

what proof, lukeiamyourdad? Theories, risks? No actual evidence. and according to your warped interpretation of my logic, rayjones, your sites arent to be believed either, because they, too were made by someone.

So you're saying all those people who died of lung cancer and happen to smoke cigarettes are nothing but theories?
A simple coincidence?
They've pointed them out clear, this is a matter everyone knows about, even people who smoke(except for you it seems). They know it's harmful but do it anyway. It's the first time in my lifetime that I actually hear someone saying smoking is good for your physical health.

yeabginn, tell us what proof you'd accept as "qualified" to be a proof?

also, yes, i am well aware that according to that "warped logic" "my" site cant be trusted like yours cant, and then your "links" are untrue as you say ours are.
but then again, i'd refer to skinwalkers post.

read the rest of the thread please, or even the title, we are talking about pipes. cigaretes I know are bad for people. thats why I dont smoke cigarettes.

EDIT- whihc part of skins post? there was alot in there.

especially the part about "the importance of citations as well as the definition of Primary/Peer-reviewed literature."

also, what kind of proof is qualified?

here, quote the specific part, so I can understand better. and show me a guy who has died from smoking a pipe. The one guy you did show me died at 78, like, 8 years after the average death age.

but, yeabginn, it's not only about "dying" from it. mostly it's about health risks. cancer, losing a leg, weakened immune system etc..

dying is what you do anyways, who cares about a year more or less? it's mostly that i don't want to live 10 years with only the half of my lungs.

Originally posted by yaebginn
read the rest of the thread please, or even the title, we are talking about pipes. cigaretes I know are bad for people. thats why I dont smoke cigarettes.


I did read the entire thread. I do that before I post. You still smoke tobacco. It's still harmful.

From QuitSmokingSupport Site:

Cigar and pipe smoking, although they present some hazards to health, are thought to be less dangerous to health than cigarette smoking.

Only thought to be less dangerous yet no true proof. They don't say it's healthy neither.

QuitSmokingSupport (http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/facts.htm)

I encountered this and it put a smile on my face:

Mixtures for Loose Pipes (http://www.uktobacco.com/acatalog/uktobacco_com__Mixtures___Ready_Rubbed_35.html)

Note that at all products they put:

SMOKING KILLS

Oh a study here:

BBC News "Smokin a pipe damages health" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3766349.stm)

More:

Pipe Smoking is Very Dangerous (http://no-smoking.org/nov98/11-17-98-1.html)

ok, then it doesnt apply to me. I smoke outside. plenty of insulation. and it still said risk. its all risk and theories. no definite or even actual examples. and I didnt say its healthy, I said some studies said that it the life expentancy was greater for those who smoked pipes. thats theories and guessing, too. show me some proof people.

Originally posted by yaebginn
show me some proof people.

There IS no proof for you. You have routinely ignored every single scrap of evidence that we have shown you, and brushed them off as theories. You refuse to acknowledge that DOCTORS whose job it is to study these things have concluded that it is in fact unhealthy for you. Period. There is no health benefit to smoking, all it does it bad.

Originally posted by yaebginn
insansesith- no it wasnt a good point, for reasons I addressed first. and I dont care what you appreciate. who said I was mocking you? I was making a point. Originally, actually, I was just spouting sutff. But then when I saw you guys were (for lack of a word that wont offend) gullible enoguh to take the bait, I ran with it. Thats pretty pathetic on your part yes, gullable, that's why none of us fell for your "Ph.D" crap. You were mocking us and the entire senates existence by pulling such childish crap.
randomly spouting stuff is not allowed in these forums either. This is for SERIOUS discussion. If you refuse to accept scientific facts we present I suggest you no longer make threads or come to this forum.

InsaneSith- If you arent going to contribute to the debate, leave.

ET Warrior- They ARE theories, cause they have yet to be proven. Show me one thing where it doesnt say risk or theory. show me actual, hardcore stuff.

InsaneSith- If you arent going to contribute to the debate, leave.

He has contributed more than you have Yaebginn. Your side of the debate is not debate so much as it is you have simply said "Nope, not fact, just theory"

So fine, it's just a theory. But it's a theory that is so supported by evidence it may as well be accepted as fact. :dozey:

OH MY GOD SHOOT ME NOW!!!

Why are you being so hard headed?!?!?! Your definition of what's a "theory" and what's not rules EVERYTHING in textbooks and the internet FICTION.

So the Earth being round is a THEORY? So the exact acceleration of gravity without air resistance (being 9.80 m/s/s) is a THEORY? So running places gets you faster than walking there is a THEORY? Those are all FACTS, yet you are calling EVERYTHING in the WORLD a theory pretty much. Your definition of a theory is ridiculous.

Oh, and your "PHD" statement didn't prove a thing because we all KNEW that you didn't have one. For one thing, your grasp of grammar and spelling is clearly a thing to be ashamed of. For one thing, it's "you're" not "ur." And "your" is not spelled "ur" either. Also, someone with a Ph.D. would know that proper sentences begin with a capital letter. That is, if you wrote a thesis. And writing a thesis with "ur" and no capitalization would get you a failing grade. And a Ph.D. without going to college or pre-med school? Very nice accomplishment. To bad it can't be done. See, your "experiment" didn't do anything, it just proved to us that you are most likely a kid who hasn't even graduated from high school who's parents let you smoke pipes because of their negligence of the actual, factual health risks.

and it still said risk. its all risk and theories.

WOW. Just WOW. So, you're telling me that if I go swimming in a tank full of man-eating great white sharks while bleeding from my body there is just a risk that I could get severly mauled or killed by the sharks? No way... sharks only have the best olfactory sense in the world and can smell blood from over two miles away. They would kill me. Instantly. Because of the blood coming from me. That is a fact, yet there is still a risk of me getting in the tank. The risk is, if I get in, I get killed. So, I decide to get in and take that risk. I get killed. Oh whoops, I just proved your risk theory wrong. See what I mean?

Read all the proof that we have given you. If you want, I can get someone with a Ph.D. in health and medicine to phone you up personally and tell you that pipe smoking gives a higher risk of cancer. (And remember, I just utterly destroyed your risk idea. Utterly.)

If you want "hardcore" proof, as you call it, schedule an appointment with a morgue, hospital or lab and I'm sure they would be glad to show you two exhibits.

Exhibit A). A non-smokers lung.
Exhibit B). A smokers lung. (From cigs, pipes, cigars. You name it, they'll show it to you.)

Trust me, you will see an immediate difference. And it should be so graphic that you never need "hardcore" proof again.

And please, don't mock our intelligence with silly comments like, "i have PHD n00b! lOL i R0x0r5!!! ur all stupid!!!" (And I know I exaggerated, but that is exactly how your statement looked to us.)

Originally said by Epidemiologist Jane Henley
The significant risks we found should leave no doubt that all tobacco products cause disease and death.

Taken from This (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5120470/) article. Now, I know you don't believe in science, but I'd just like to point out, that she's an Epidemiologist. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=epidemiologist)

And, just incase you don't feel like taking the time to check that link, an epidemiologist is someone in the branch of medicine that deals with the study of the causes, distribution, and control of disease in populations. Meaning her life is DEVOTED to studying disease in humans. And her opinion on pipe smoking carries a LOT more weight than YOUR opinion, seeing as how her opinion is based off of a study of fifteen THOUSAND people.

Originally posted by yaebginn
I said some studies said that it the life expentancy was greater for those who smoked pipes.
come on, you do realize that those studies you talk about are just "theories" too? why should your "studies" be more true than those of the others? yet you havent shown us one single proof you like to talk about so much.. show us some proof! and dont say "i posted a link". we did, too. and dont say "you just have theories", yours is only a theory, either.
maybe you know someone, who should be dead already, but hasnt because he smokes pipe? the clou would be if you can show us somebody with a knife through his heart but who has no problems with it because he's a pipe smoker.

there is NO PROOF that can possibly meet yaebginn's standards. He appears to be a slightly mixed up kid with a lack of understanding of how science, medicine and the world works... plus a real lack of understanding of what a "theory" is.

Showing that, over a large number of people, pipe smokers have a much higher risk of getting cancer than none pipe smokers is a highly relevant and persuasive FACT... not a theory.

Showing an example of a single person who died from pipe smoking would prove nothing at all.
I'm sure you could find an example of a single person who died from chewing on a biro if you looked hard enough :rolleyes: . BUT (i'll try and spell it out simply) this wouldn't prove anything about the risks of biro chewing.
You can find odd instances of people who have been shot point-blank in the forehead and lived, but these individual cases wouldn't prove that being shot in the head didn't kill you.

Each of these would likely be a statistical anomaly (ie.. very flukey). In order to find out the actual risks you would need to look at LOTS and LOTS of cases (of peole chewing biros or being shot in the head) and see how many of them died. If your "single person proof" turned out to be the ONLY one in that group then they wouldn't have proved anything.

Get it? I really hope so...

Oddly, you seem to accept that cigarette smoking isbad for you, but by your standards there is no "proof" of this either... so why not just smoke cigarettes???

because it's danjeros :p

Originally posted by RayJones
come on, you do realize that those studies you talk about are just "theories" too?

it is a theory, and carries abourt as much weight as what you've shown me. Here, I'll do some of my own research, cause you guys are no help. I'll call up a doctor info hotline or whatever.

Showing that, over a large number of people, pipe smokers have a much higher risk of getting cancer than none pipe smokers is a highly relevant and persuasive FACT... not a theory. that IS a fact. I admit. bvut its still risk. Its a fact,. that the RISK is greater. but the risk still isnt definite. very few pipe smokers die before the average age from cancer. Some people I know have heart problems in their genes. Their great grandfather died before 60, his grandfather b4 60, father b4 60, and so on. That doesnt mean anything to do with smoking a pipe. Thats heart stuff, and its gene carried, more or less. but the people I know who smoke pipes are very healthy and strong and are doing fine, medical wise. The only thing is, when you smoke a pipe, follow the tips listed in the link I provided.

Originally posted by yaebginn
it is a theory, and carries abourt as much weight as what you've shown me.
tse. that was exactly what i said!

also, where is your proof that you and your "studies" are right?

Here, I'll do some of my own research, cause you guys are no help. I'll call up a doctor info hotline or whatever.
and what do you expect the doc to say?

Originally posted by yaebginn

that IS a fact. I admit. bvut its still risk. Its a fact,. that the RISK is greater. but the risk still isnt definite. very few pipe smokers die before the average age from cancer. Some people I know have heart problems in their genes. Their great grandfather died before 60, his grandfather b4 60, father b4 60, and so on. That doesnt mean anything to do with smoking a pipe. Thats heart stuff, and its gene carried, more or less. but the people I know who smoke pipes are very healthy and strong and are doing fine, medical wise. The only thing is, when you smoke a pipe, follow the tips listed in the link I provided.

Go jump out of a plane without a parachute. Sure there's a risk that you might die horribly, but you could also land on one of those inflatable fun houses.

Pipe smoking won't effect your heart health, however there's a good chance that your lips will become cancerous due to the nictotine contact.

even if u landed on a funhouse, ud die. but that depends on the altitude, the speed of the plane, the amount of funhouses currently inflated in your area. and that example wasnt valid. the chancesof that are way different. pipe smoke, there is a small chance.

rayjones- Iam not sure, I'll keep an open mind.

EDIT- and the experts arent always right.

from a warning label on my keyboard- warning some experts belive that use of any keyboard may cause serious injury.

hmm, if the experts say it, it must be true.

Originally posted by yaebginn
even if u landed on a funhouse, ud die. but that depends on the altitude, the speed of the plane, the amount of funhouses currently inflated in your area. and that example wasnt valid. the chancesof that are way different. pipe smoke, there is a small chance.


That's my point; it's still dangerous. You asked us if Pipe Smoking is dangerous, and we've told you yes it is. We've told you that although the risk of getting cancer in the lips isn't high, you can still get it.

then I got complaints on the vagueness of dangerous, so I changed it to fatally dangerous. er, dangerous to a fatal degree.

Originally posted by yaebginn
from a warning label on my keyboard- warning some experts belive that use of any keyboard may cause serious injury.

hmm, if the experts say it, it must be true.

And those experts are running off the data that shows prolonged use of keyboards greatly increases your risks of aquiring Carpal Tunnel (sp?) syndrome, which is a very painful problem.


pipe smoke, there is a small chance.
You think 30 percent higher risk of heart disease, a 27 percent higher risk of stroke and nearly triple the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compared to non-smokers. is a small chance? So you're saying that if you had a choice between taking a path through the mountains where there is a 2% chance of getting mauled by a mountain lion and taking a path where there is a 32% chance of getting mauled by a mountain lion, you'd have no problem choosing the second path? because it's not that big of a difference?

Or since there is a 5 fold increase in your chances of getting lung cancer, lets say there's a road that has a 10% instance of car crashes, approximately 1 out of every 10 cars the drive it have a wreck. That's pretty bad, but aNOTHER road has a 50% instance of car wrecks. On out of ever 2 cars have a wreck. The chances aren't small.

Depends (on the path question) if the 32percent one was more njoyable and had crops and good view and was much more enjoyable, I'd take the 32percent path. I am confident in my abilities to kill the mountain lion.

What the? You do understand that was just an analogy? You can't kill cancer or heart disease if you get them. You MIGHT be able to fend them off for awhile with the help of modern medicine, but it's going to suck and eventually they're going to kill you anyways.

So lets say it's an automated turret on this path, that will fire at 32% of the hikers. This turret has a 64% accuracy (Average death rate of people with cancer). Thusly, you have a 22.2% chance of dying while taking this other path. The first path has the same gun with the same accuracy, yielding a 1.3% chance of death. Yet you would still choose the second path because it has a better view?


Edit - and the numbers are actually worse than that, I'm giving you the 64% rate which is the average of all cancer, while Lung cancer is actually up around an 80% mortality rate.

Originally posted by yaebginn
rayjones- Iam not sure, I'll keep an open mind.

EDIT- and the experts arent always right.

i know. you kept an open mind for the last three pages.

and surely the experts arent always right. especially if they dont say what you want to hear.

again, prove that pipe smoking gives extra lifetime!

Originally posted by RayJones
come on, you do realize that those studies you talk about are just "theories" too?

Actually, they are not "theories" in the strict sense of the word as they are not supported by tested hypotheses. His information is pseudoscience. It clothes itself in the vernacular of science, but gives false information without providing successful or reproducible test.

Pseudoscience is easily believed by the gullible and the ignorant.

err.. ^___^;;;;;;;

exactly. that's why put it in those "-thingies.. what i wanted to point out was that it's not more reliable than everyones else sources (what i think he thought). but who am i telling that. i think you took notice of it..

*damns his english :P*

If that path had a possibility of making me live longer if I get past it, yes. I can jink and juke and hide in bushes to get next to it, then take it apart with my multitool. then go on and live longer because pipe smoke has a theory of longer living, too. skin, they are facts of theories. its a fact that there is a risk of cancer. a minor risk. and et, ur example is invalid, because this is from pipe smoking, not regular cigarette cmoking or whatever.

It's called an analogy Yaebginn. It doesn't matter how much you jink and jive, 22.2% of the time that gun will shoot you dead. Period.

Pipe smokings theory of longevity is not supported by TESTS and EXPERIMENTS though.

And no, my point is very valid, because we have shown studies have concluded that you have increase risks of lung cancer by 5 times by smoking a pipe. I checked the statistics at www.cancer.org), and statistically over 80% of people who aquire lung cancer die of it. This means that if you naturally had a 5% chance of getting lung cancer in your life (a fairly reasonable percentage) Then you have a 4% chance of dying of lung cancer in your life. If you smoke a PIPE, you have a 20% chance of dying of lung cancer. Why is the mathematics of this so difficult to comprehend?

the proof that you are right yeabginn??

also..

Originally posted by yaebginn
.. then take it apart with my multitool.
maybe you just need to turn it off mr. gyver. :D

Cigar and Pipe smoking are as dangerous as cigarette smoking (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-01/AAoP-Caps-0401101.php)
Cigar and pipe smoking are as dangerous as cigarettes to periodontal health.

“Cigarette, cigar and pipe smokers all had a much higher prevalence of moderate and severe periodontitis compared to former smokers and non-smokers,” explained Jasim Albandar, D.D.S., Ph.D., professor of periodontology at Temple University School of Dentistry and lead researcher of the study. “Research also indicated that there was a correlation with the number of missing teeth with the current, former and non-smokers having 5.1, 3.9 and 2.8 missing teeth, respectively.”

how did they lose those teeth? did it say? maybe they got into a fight. and my link did have a study. it said they took two pairs of twins. one pair smoked a pipe, the other did not. the pipe smoking twins lived longer.

Another Link (http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/body/drugs/effects/tobacco/you.html)

this says that your guy's theories only apply to people who smoke alot a day (more than two or three bowls a day. Meaning that all your facts and stuff only apply to heavy smokers.

Originally posted by yaebginn
how did they lose those teeth? did it say? maybe they got into a fight. and my link did have a study. it said they took two pairs of twins. one pair smoked a pipe, the other did not. the pipe smoking twins lived longer.

Another Link (http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/body/drugs/effects/tobacco/you.html)

this says that your guy's theories only apply to people who smoke alot a day (more than two or three bowls a day. Meaning that all your facts and stuff only apply to heavy smokers. read the article. And personally I'd trust a professional over some wacked out "freedom fighter". *giggles* I find it funny you choose that guy, since he supports marijuana leglaization AND is pro-drug. also appears to have very anti-government sentiments. *shrugs*

Periodontitis (http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=DS00369)

"Smoking is smelly and unhealthy. We should be considerate of others in all that we do, keeping in mind our company and our surroundings."

On the money.

"At the same time, moderate smoking is not harmful, can be quite pleasant, and is a great way to annoy busybodies."

Wait a minute. Didn't this guy just say smoking is 'smelly and unhealthy?' Uh yeah, I think he did. Kinda hypocritical there, ne? And don't give me claptrap about 'heavy' smoking. If he meant to say that, he would have put the word 'heavy' in there. He's just trying to rationalize and justify his position.

I am of the belief that taking NOXIOUS BURNING FUMES AND ASH into your lungs is stupid and unhealthy, no matter how you do it.

thats your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but you still havent proven it wrong. the professionals dont say the dosage. this counters what the pros say. This says that only in large doses, do your percentages make sense.

EDIT- Insanesith, arent you for that stuff, too? You have said sevral times that you are a pot head, I believe once in this thread ,even.

RogueNine- It is potentially unhealthly, but as he said before in that article, only in heavy doses.

Everyone stop tryignt o convince yae. Maybe he'll die and our problems will be over. :dozey:

yae, you say everyone is supplying "theroies". I wanna hear YOUR definition of a theory.

zbomber, I dont need to die for that, all you need is the discipline not to visit the debates that cause you problems.

There's NOTHING to disprove. This is some guy's opinion, based on his own hookah-smoking experiences. And like Sithy said, I'd much rather trust accepted medical studies done by experts who have spent YEARS on their research than some guy who thinks smoking is fun and beneficial because of all the 'benefits' it gives.

If you'd actually come up with some solid, emperical, scientifically and mathematically based research and numbers, and not some 'freedom fighter OMG THEY'RE OPPRESSING US, FIGHT BACK' hippie crap, then maybe we'd understand where you're coming from.

Until then, expect more of the same responses to your lunacy.

Originally posted by yaebginn
Insanesith, arent you for that stuff, too? You have said sevral times that you are a pot head, I believe once in this thread ,even. I'm for responsible marijuana usage, I believe hard drugs should remain illegal, they are too unsafe to even have any benefits outway the risks.

ZBomber, while you are my friend, please stay out of the senate if you can't contribute.

Thank you, InsaneSith, you displayed maturity.

But it doesnt matter who says it, an expert or a non expert if its correct.

I find it funny you choose that guy, since he supports marijuana leglaization AND is pro-drug. ok, hes for marijuana legalization, and what would you consider responsible usage?

Originally posted by InsaneSith
I'm for responsible marijuana usage, I believe hard drugs should remain illegal, they are too unsafe to even have any benefits outway the risks.

ZBomber, while you are my friend, please stay out of the senate if you can't contribute.

I did contribute, I was asking how exactly he decideds if something is a theory. I'm not going to post the same exact things you guys said, because you probably said it better than I could.

"Everyone stop tryignt o convince yae. Maybe he'll die and our problems will be over. "

Still contributes, i was stating that if he keeps smoking, and he dies, he'll have all the proof he needs. But wait! He wouldn't be able to know! So, why take the risk?

Originally posted by yaebginn
But it doesnt matter who says it, an expert or a non expert if its correct.


Who deems it correct? Who has the authority and the backing to say it is correct?

Responsible usage would be moderate smoking, just like we have moderate drinking laws. If you drink over a certain limit you are not allowed to drive, well If you smoke at all, you cannot drive. While you may be able to smoke and drive perfectly fine, I do not think it is worth the risk. Marijuana shouldn't be used as just some "escape reality" crap. It should be used in proper doses and in a safe fashion, never smoke alone.

This man though is obviously a drug addict wanting all drugs legalized with no limitations. I want marijuana legalized, but with limitations, because I grow tired of idiots handing ammunition to the anti-marijuana groups.

People need to realize you can use marijuana and still be a proper, upstanding person.


I am open to your links, but this last one really drives me off, this man obviously needs to spend time doing actual research, tested over and over again. I am willing to accept it should he give a layout for a reproducable study.