Bruce wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 22 Jan, 12:01, Bruce wrote:

Modern science has brought us rivers and watercourses that are
polluted with dioxins, one of the most toxic groups of chemicals
ever known,

If by "modern" you mean "the chemistry of 50 years ago".

Chemistry's not still as filthy as it was a few decades ago.


Perhaps true, but dioxin levels are increasing, as are the substances
that mimic female hormones, leading to a massive drop in male
fertility.

Where did you get that from, the Daily Wail?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 22 Jan, 12:01, Bruce wrote:

Modern science has brought us rivers and watercourses that are
polluted with dioxins, one of the most toxic groups of chemicals
ever known,

If by "modern" you mean "the chemistry of 50 years ago".

Chemistry's not still as filthy as it was a few decades ago.


Perhaps true, but dioxin levels are increasing, as are the substances
that mimic female hormones, leading to a massive drop in male
fertility.

Where did you get that from, the Daily Wail?


Numerous high quality sources, not including the rag you mentioned.

When it hits that rag, perhaps people will begin to realise just how
much of a problem it is.

Samantha Booth wrote:
"Appelation Controlee" wrote in message

You sound just like Stewie out of Family Guy.

And you sound like a stuck record

It's almost painful watching you two - both decent folk - doing this.
It's become an argument about an argument.

I appreciate that but I simply asked a question on here which I have
always done. I don't need replies with Bollox. bugger and anything
else he cares to throw into it.

But arse is OK.

Telling me what I have done for years
in cleaning is rubbish. I know what methods work for me and no amount
of qualifications you can throw at it will persuade me otherwise.

So, never mind the facts, your pre concieved, ill informed opinions rule.

If you wish to waste your time and money using chemicals (yes,they are
chemicals) that simply don't work then carry on.

If you really want to clean things properly without using chemicals that
Womans Weekly have decided are 'bad', then buy some microfibre cloths.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Bruce wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 22 Jan, 12:01, Bruce wrote:

Modern science has brought us rivers and watercourses that are
polluted with dioxins, one of the most toxic groups of chemicals
ever known,

If by "modern" you mean "the chemistry of 50 years ago".

Chemistry's not still as filthy as it was a few decades ago.


Perhaps true, but dioxin levels are increasing, as are the
substances that mimic female hormones, leading to a massive drop in
male fertility.

Where did you get that from, the Daily Wail?


Numerous high quality sources, not including the rag you mentioned.

Which are?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
Samantha Booth wrote:
"Appelation Controlee" wrote in message

You sound just like Stewie out of Family Guy.

And you sound like a stuck record

It's almost painful watching you two - both decent folk - doing this.
It's become an argument about an argument.

I appreciate that but I simply asked a question on here which I have
always done. I don't need replies with Bollox. bugger and anything
else he cares to throw into it.

But arse is OK.
Compared to what you say its rather mild. I dont think I have ever swore on
DIY before

Telling me what I have done for years
in cleaning is rubbish. I know what methods work for me and no amount
of qualifications you can throw at it will persuade me otherwise.

So, never mind the facts, your pre concieved, ill informed opinions rule.

Yes they do, thanks

If you wish to waste your time and money using chemicals (yes,they are
chemicals) that simply don't work then carry on.

I will waste my time and money on what I want because guess what, they are
mine to waste, thanks for the concern.

If you really want to clean things properly without using chemicals that
Womans Weekly have decided are 'bad', then buy some microfibre cloths.

I use them regulally and have aprox 20 of them. They are superb


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:44:40 +0000
Tim S wrote:

Samantha Booth coughed up some electrons that declared:

I have been watching "How Clean Is Your House". In the programme they
melted in the microwave some Beeswax to polish some old furniture. It can
be heated over a pan of hot water too they said.

I ordered some from eBay and have a problem.

When I do that and leave it to go cool it goes rock hard. What do I need
to add to it to make sure the beeswax stays soft so I can use it. I am
sure they added some kind of oil to it?? Maybe wrong but they said it was
the best way to polish old furniture.


Thanks Sam

The stuff I got was a blend of beeswax and canauba wax which seems to work
quite well from the tin (being sold as furniture polish). Given the pungent
odour, I suspect it has some solvent in it as well to keep it soft. It
certainly goes on as a paste, and then becomes harder and harder as it's
polished, which suggests to me a solvent is evaporating off.

It sounds like Sheila's turps suggestion might be on the money.

Cheers

Tim


Carnuba wax is even harder tha beeswax when the solvents have gone.
Don't get taken in by all this 'feeding the wood' crap, what a wax
does is to seal the pores so that the wood doesn't dry out. Despite
being hard it still wears away.

The best commercial waxes that I know are Liberon's Black Bison range. I
use a lot of this in my workshop. The one you'd want is the 'natural'.
The smell of the solvent goes in four or five days, some love it, some
hate it.

R.

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Telling me what I have done for years
in cleaning is rubbish. I know what methods work for me and no amount
of qualifications you can throw at it will persuade me otherwise.

So, never mind the facts, your pre concieved, ill informed opinions rule.

Have you actually tried any of these 'old wives tale' cleaning methods,
Dave? I suspect not.

I'll give one which does work. Dip tarnished brass in vinegar before
polishing with your favourite domestic brass cleaner. This dissolves the
hard oxidation and makes polishing *far* less work.

Other thing is supermarket cleaners don't give the ingredients. You might
well be using the common chemicals you seem to despise so much but hidden
behind fancy branding.

FWIW I now buy pretty well all such things in Lidl under a non advertised
brand. Which apart from being cheaper per bottle than the popular ones
also comes in larger quantities. I avoid anything called 'Mr Muscle' or
'Cillit Bang' like the plague. If I had my way they'd be prosecuted for
misleading advertising...

--


Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:54:11 -0800 (PST), Andy Dingley
wrote:

On 22 Jan, 11:05, Stephen Howard wrote:

Are they still using toluene?

Last I heard, they'd closed altogether (but were still using toluene
for markets that accepted it). As the product is still on the shelves,
I don't know who is producing it, or what's in it.

It's been removed from the once-legendary Evo-Stik and it's now not nearly as effective as it
used to be

AIUI, Evo-stik never "removed" anything from any product, but you
might find that today's 528 isn't quite the same stuff as the old Red
& Black that they simply don't make any more.

I called them about the 'new improved formula' after finding that it
gave numerous failures. The chap I spoke to said they'd had to stop
using Toluene - hence the new formulation.
So yes, not technically a removal - but as good as.

Regards



--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Numerous high quality sources, not including the rag you mentioned.

Which are?


Scientific and medical journals, research papers, quality "broadsheet"
newspapers.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Telling me what I have done for years
in cleaning is rubbish. I know what methods work for me and no
amount of qualifications you can throw at it will persuade me
otherwise.

So, never mind the facts, your pre concieved, ill informed opinions
rule.

Have you actually tried any of these 'old wives tale' cleaning
methods, Dave? I suspect not.

No I haven't. I know enough about chemistry and enough about cleaning not
to waste my time.

Interestingly, we now find out that the main proponent of these natural
chemicals seems to use microfibre cloths. These will be doing the bulk of
the cleaning and would work just as well without the natural, green
chemicals.

SNIP

Other thing is supermarket cleaners don't give the ingredients. You
might well be using the common chemicals you seem to despise so much
but hidden behind fancy branding.

Nope. It's easy enough to make an informed guess as to whats in them.
Apart from which, there would be no point in trying to sell them - they
don't work effectively and would cause complaints.

FWIW I now buy pretty well all such things in Lidl under a non
advertised brand. Which apart from being cheaper per bottle than the
popular ones also comes in larger quantities. I avoid anything called
'Mr Muscle' or 'Cillit Bang' like the plague. If I had my way they'd
be prosecuted for misleading advertising...

When I said 'go to Tesco' I didn't mean to suggest people bought high end
brands. I buy supermarket own brand value/budget stuff.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Telling me what I have done for years
in cleaning is rubbish. I know what methods work for me and no
amount of qualifications you can throw at it will persuade me
otherwise.

So, never mind the facts, your pre concieved, ill informed opinions
rule.

Have you actually tried any of these 'old wives tale' cleaning
methods, Dave? I suspect not.

No I haven't. I know enough about chemistry and enough about cleaning not
to waste my time.

Interestingly, we now find out that the main proponent of these natural
chemicals seems to use microfibre cloths. These will be doing the bulk of
the cleaning and would work just as well without the natural, green
chemicals.

SNIP

Other thing is supermarket cleaners don't give the ingredients. You
might well be using the common chemicals you seem to despise so much
but hidden behind fancy branding.

Nope. It's easy enough to make an informed guess as to whats in them.
Apart from which, there would be no point in trying to sell them - they
don't work effectively and would cause complaints.

FWIW I now buy pretty well all such things in Lidl under a non
advertised brand. Which apart from being cheaper per bottle than the
popular ones also comes in larger quantities. I avoid anything called
'Mr Muscle' or 'Cillit Bang' like the plague. If I had my way they'd
be prosecuted for misleading advertising...

When I said 'go to Tesco' I didn't mean to suggest people bought high end
brands. I buy supermarket own brand value/budget stuff.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk


They do indeed. I find sometimes I don't use anything at all only water and
a cloth. But for stubborn areas I will use the greener methods if I can.

Samantha Booth wrote:

Absolutely nothing you have said has convinced me to divert to Tesco and
buy chemicals.

Baking soda, vinegar, salt etc are all chemicals. You yourself are 100%
chemical.

I quite understand preferring to use basic chemicals to clean your house
than expensively marketed and packaged concoctions with their unpleasant
frangrances, but just about the only way you could clean stuff without
"chemicals" - and relying on chemical reactions - would be if you
scrubbed everything with sand.

Daniele

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Interestingly, we now find out that the main proponent of these natural
chemicals seems to use microfibre cloths. These will be doing the bulk of
the cleaning and would work just as well without the natural, green
chemicals.

Yes, I'm sure microfibre cloths are exactly what she uses to unblock
drains and clean her frying pans.

Daniele

Huge wrote:

On 2009-01-23, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Telling me what I have done for years
in cleaning is rubbish. I know what methods work for me and no
amount of qualifications you can throw at it will persuade me
otherwise.

So, never mind the facts, your pre concieved, ill informed opinions
rule.

Have you actually tried any of these 'old wives tale' cleaning
methods, Dave? I suspect not.

No I haven't. I know enough about chemistry

How odd that when it comes to carcinogenesis, you apparently don't "know
enough about chemistry".


It's called "selective dyslexia", where anything that conflicts with
your strongly held preconceived ideas is impossible to read.

I think we all suffer from it to some extent. ;-)

Bruce wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2009-01-23, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Telling me what I have done for years
in cleaning is rubbish. I know what methods work for me and no
amount of qualifications you can throw at it will persuade me
otherwise.
So, never mind the facts, your pre concieved, ill informed opinions
rule.
Have you actually tried any of these 'old wives tale' cleaning
methods, Dave? I suspect not.
No I haven't. I know enough about chemistry
How odd that when it comes to carcinogenesis, you apparently don't "know
enough about chemistry".


It's called "selective dyslexia", where anything that conflicts with
your strongly held preconceived ideas is impossible to read.

I think we all suffer from it to some extent. ;-)

No, its cognitive dissonance. When your mind set precludes you from
seeing fairies at the bottom of the garden, even when they are
demonstrably there ;-)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bruce wrote:

It's called "selective dyslexia", where anything that conflicts with
your strongly held preconceived ideas is impossible to read.

I think we all suffer from it to some extent. ;-)

No, its cognitive dissonance.


I'm sure there's a proper term for it, but "selective dyslexia" seems to
explain it rather better.


When your mind set precludes you from
seeing fairies at the bottom of the garden, even when they are
demonstrably there ;-)


Hmmmm ... ;-)

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Dingley
saying something like:

Victorian recipes for such things used everything up to and including
carbon disulphide!

Hoboy, that stuff stinks.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce saying
something like:

Perhaps true, but dioxin levels are increasing, as are the substances
that mimic female hormones, leading to a massive drop in male fertility.

Thank delawd for that; the world might stand some chance of recovery if
the parasites die back a bit.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:35:05 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce saying
something like:

Perhaps true, but dioxin levels are increasing, as are the substances
that mimic female hormones, leading to a massive drop in male fertility.

Thank delawd for that; the world might stand some chance of recovery if
the parasites die back a bit.

Not so fast, Mr Bond ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...42154209383351

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Appelation Controlee
saying something like:

Thank delawd for that; the world might stand some chance of recovery if
the parasites die back a bit.

Not so fast, Mr Bond ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...42154209383351

Yep, it's a problem. What we need is an across-the-board virulent
disease to thin the herd, by about 90%.

Huge wrote:
On 2009-01-23, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Telling me what I have done for years
in cleaning is rubbish. I know what methods work for me and no
amount of qualifications you can throw at it will persuade me
otherwise.

So, never mind the facts, your pre concieved, ill informed opinions
rule.

Have you actually tried any of these 'old wives tale' cleaning
methods, Dave? I suspect not.

No I haven't. I know enough about chemistry

How odd that when it comes to carcinogenesis, you apparently don't
"know enough about chemistry".

Only just spotted this post. I have never said that active smoking isn't a
cause of lung cancer, plenty of sound scientific evidence to support that
claim. However, the 'evidence' concerning passive smoking is utter bollox.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , The Medway
Handyman wrote

Only just spotted this post. I have never said that active smoking isn't a
cause of lung cancer, plenty of sound scientific evidence to support that
claim. However, the 'evidence' concerning passive smoking is utter bollox.


Yep, the evidence given out by the tobacco companies about passive
smoking is complete bollox. Go back a generation and they were telling
everyone that low tar cigarettes were also safe.

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

Alan wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman wrote

Only just spotted this post. I have never said that active smoking
isn't a cause of lung cancer, plenty of sound scientific evidence to
support that claim. However, the 'evidence' concerning passive
smoking is utter bollox.

Yep, the evidence given out by the tobacco companies about passive
smoking is complete bollox. Go back a generation and they were telling
everyone that low tar cigarettes were also safe.

The tobacco companies haven't published anything about the alleged dangers
of passive smoking.

If you want to think about bias, consider the position of the much more
powerful and influential multi national pharmaceutical companies who produce
'give up smoking' products.

In the past 20 years there have been very few new 'wonder drugs' they can
make huge profits from, other than AIDS and Statins.

Consider the marketing power of those companies. Statins for example, the
average manufacturers marketing budget is $1 us billion, more than three
times the development costs. Nicotine patches etc are easier to develop and
therefore have higher margins & bigger marketing budgets.

The evidence against active smoking is clear and concise. The current
hysteria about passive smoking is biased by funding from the pharmaceutical
industry, who only promote data that supports their cause and their huge
profits.

Try getting funding for a fair & neutral study on the effects of passive
smoking - it doesn't exist.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
Alan wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman wrote

Only just spotted this post. I have never said that active smoking
isn't a cause of lung cancer, plenty of sound scientific evidence to
support that claim. However, the 'evidence' concerning passive
smoking is utter bollox.

Yep, the evidence given out by the tobacco companies about passive
smoking is complete bollox. Go back a generation and they were telling
everyone that low tar cigarettes were also safe.

The tobacco companies haven't published anything about the alleged dangers
of passive smoking.

If they could prove the data is wrong do you think they would have remained
silent?
They have a lot of money at stake to prove smoking is safer and they can't.
I take that to mean that the claims about passive smoking being dangerous is
true.
You may not agree but as stated you aren't the brightest handyman about.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
Alan wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman wrote

Only just spotted this post. I have never said that active smoking
isn't a cause of lung cancer, plenty of sound scientific evidence
to support that claim. However, the 'evidence' concerning passive
smoking is utter bollox.

Yep, the evidence given out by the tobacco companies about passive
smoking is complete bollox. Go back a generation and they were
telling everyone that low tar cigarettes were also safe.

The tobacco companies haven't published anything about the alleged
dangers of passive smoking.

If they could prove the data is wrong do you think they would have
remained silent?

They no longer have the same spend as the pharmacutical giants. Look it up.

They have a lot of money at stake to prove smoking is safer and they
can't. I take that to mean that the claims about passive smoking
being dangerous is true.

Then you accept bad science.

You may not agree but as stated you aren't the brightest handyman about.

Sorry Dennis, personal insults don't support your rabid hysterical claims.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Huge wrote:
On 2009-02-09, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

Try getting funding for a fair & neutral study on the effects of
passive smoking - it doesn't exist.

None so blind, etc.

Where did you copy & paste that lot from? Sorry, Gogle may be good, but you
have to read the results & understand them.

Just a few to mention.
(4) This WHO study was withdrawn after it was found the results had been
deliberately biased.
(5) is unpublished & therefore bollox.
(7) & (8) are completely irrelevant to the passisive smoking debate.
(9) Sir Richard Doll is on public record as saying the risks of passive
smoking are irrelevant.
(10 - 39) are also completely & utterly irrelevant to any debate about
passive smoking.

As are the majority of the others that you have clearly never read. Go on,
admit it, you have never read a single one of the studies have you?

Typical rabid anti smoker, you will grab at any straw to suport your claims.

I can't be arsed to even look at the rest of the ****e you have Googled to
support your claim. I could find you 30+ studies, all credible & published
in scientific journals subject to critical peer review that show the
opposite - that non smoking partners of active smokers are less likely to
develop cancer, heart disease, diabeties & ingrowing toenails.

So lets avoid a ****ing contest. Lets cut to the chase.

Black Swan time.

Show me one single solitary death certificate anywhere in the world that
shows passive smoking as the cause of death. Just one and you have found
the Black Swan and my argument is dead in the water. Burden of proof is on
you.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
Alan wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman wrote

Only just spotted this post. I have never said that active smoking
isn't a cause of lung cancer, plenty of sound scientific evidence
to support that claim. However, the 'evidence' concerning passive
smoking is utter bollox.

Yep, the evidence given out by the tobacco companies about passive
smoking is complete bollox. Go back a generation and they were
telling everyone that low tar cigarettes were also safe.

The tobacco companies haven't published anything about the alleged
dangers of passive smoking.

If they could prove the data is wrong do you think they would have
remained silent?

They no longer have the same spend as the pharmacutical giants. Look it
up.

They have a lot of money at stake to prove smoking is safer and they
can't. I take that to mean that the claims about passive smoking
being dangerous is true.

Then you accept bad science.

You may not agree but as stated you aren't the brightest handyman about.

Sorry Dennis, personal insults don't support your rabid hysterical claims.

However the facts do, however you don't understand the facts and try to
justify your misguided beliefs by accusing people that do understand the
facts as being rabid and hysterical. It just adds to the evidence that you
are stupid.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...

I can't be arsed to even look at the rest of the ****e you have Googled to
support your claim. I could find you 30+ studies, all credible &
published in scientific journals subject to critical peer review that show
the opposite - that non smoking partners of active smokers are less likely
to develop cancer, heart disease, diabeties & ingrowing toenails.

Less likely than who?

I think you are just a rabid drug addict who will lie about anything to
justify your harm to others.
You are typical of people with chemical abuse problems and will stop at
nothing to get your fix.

The sooner it becomes illegal to smoke anywhere other people are the better.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
Alan wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman wrote

Only just spotted this post. I have never said that active
smoking isn't a cause of lung cancer, plenty of sound scientific
evidence to support that claim. However, the 'evidence'
concerning passive smoking is utter bollox.

Yep, the evidence given out by the tobacco companies about passive
smoking is complete bollox. Go back a generation and they were
telling everyone that low tar cigarettes were also safe.

The tobacco companies haven't published anything about the alleged
dangers of passive smoking.

If they could prove the data is wrong do you think they would have
remained silent?

They no longer have the same spend as the pharmacutical giants. Look it
up.

They have a lot of money at stake to prove smoking is safer and they
can't. I take that to mean that the claims about passive smoking
being dangerous is true.

Then you accept bad science.

You may not agree but as stated you aren't the brightest handyman
about.

Sorry Dennis, personal insults don't support your rabid hysterical
claims.

However the facts do, however you don't understand the facts and try
to justify your misguided beliefs by accusing people that do
understand the facts as being rabid and hysterical. It just adds to
the evidence that you are stupid.

Sorry Dennis, personal insults still don't support your rabid hysterical
claims.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...

I can't be arsed to even look at the rest of the ****e you have
Googled to support your claim. I could find you 30+ studies, all
credible & published in scientific journals subject to critical peer
review that show the opposite - that non smoking partners of active
smokers are less likely to develop cancer, heart disease, diabeties
& ingrowing toenails.

Less likely than who?

Errrm. The active smokers. Yunno, those partners. There is a clue in the
line "non smoking partners of active smokers are less likely...".

If you can't read a paragraph in a post properly, what chance have you got
of understanding simple facts?


I think you are just a rabid drug addict who will lie about anything
to justify your harm to others.

Don't have to Dennypoo's, I don't harm others.

You are typical of people with chemical abuse problem
s and will stop
at nothing to get your fix.

Calm down dear - its only a newsgroup. If you keep getting this het up you
will have a coniption fit. Chill out & have a fag.

The sooner it becomes illegal to smoke anywhere other people are the
better.

Oh dear. Back to the 'passive smoke kills fluffy bunnies at 100 metes'
thing.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...

I can't be arsed to even look at the rest of the ****e you have
Googled to support your claim. I could find you 30+ studies, all
credible & published in scientific journals subject to critical peer
review that show the opposite - that non smoking partners of active
smokers are less likely to develop cancer, heart disease, diabeties
& ingrowing toenails.

Less likely than who?

Errrm. The active smokers. Yunno, those partners. There is a clue in
the line "non smoking partners of active smokers are less likely...".

Not less likely than a non smoker who isn't poisoned by the ones that
supposedly love them then.
All you have proven there is that smoking is more dangerous than secondary
smoking!


If you can't read a paragraph in a post properly, what chance have you got
of understanding simple facts?

I think you have provided more evidence that you don't have a clue.



I think you are just a rabid drug addict who will lie about anything
to justify your harm to others.

Don't have to Dennypoo's, I don't harm others.

Liar.


You are typical of people with chemical abuse problem
s and will stop
at nothing to get your fix.

Calm down dear - its only a newsgroup. If you keep getting this het up
you will have a coniption fit. Chill out & have a fag.

The sooner it becomes illegal to smoke anywhere other people are the
better.

Oh dear. Back to the 'passive smoke kills fluffy bunnies at 100 metes'
thing.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Feb 10, 8:09*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in media.com...

dennis@homewrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
media.com...

I can't be arsed to even look at the rest of the ****e you have
Googled to support your claim. *I could find you 30+ studies, all
credible & published in scientific journals subject to critical peer
review that show the opposite - that non smoking partners of active
smokers are less likely to develop cancer, heart disease, diabeties
& ingrowing toenails.

Less likely than who?

Errrm. *The active smokers. *Yunno, those partners. *There is a clue in
the line "non smoking partners of active smokers are less likely...".

Not less likely than a non smoker who isn't poisoned by the ones that
supposedly love them then.

Sorry Dennipoo's, you lost me on that one, repeat it in English. Is
this the fluffy bunny argument again?

All you have proven there is that smoking is more dangerous than secondary
smoking!

Ah! At last you are getting the idea! Well done! Your concentration
level would of course be higher if you smoked.

One day, if you think hard enough, you will get the full picture.
Active smoking is proven to be dangerous to the active smoker, passive
smoking isn't dangerous to anyone.



If you can't read a paragraph in a post properly, what chance have you got
of understanding simple facts?

I think you have provided more evidence that you don't have a clue.

Oh do tell Dennipoo's, what evidence would that be?

Speaking of evidence, a while ago you made the outrageous claim that
smokers incurred additional costs to the tax payer that the NHS didn't
include in their (grossly exagerated) figures. Something to do with
aftercare.

I asked you about 5 times to provide the figures and every time you
evaded the question. I suspect because you made it up. A familiar
technique with hysterical anti smokers.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Bruce wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2009-01-23, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Telling me what I have done for years
in cleaning is rubbish. I know what methods work for me and no
amount of qualifications you can throw at it will persuade me
otherwise.

So, never mind the facts, your pre concieved, ill informed
opinions rule.

Have you actually tried any of these 'old wives tale' cleaning
methods, Dave? I suspect not.

No I haven't. I know enough about chemistry

How odd that when it comes to carcinogenesis, you apparently don't
"know enough about chemistry".


It's called "selective dyslexia", where anything that conflicts with
your strongly held preconceived ideas is impossible to read.

I think we all suffer from it to some extent. ;-)

Especially the anti smoking hysterics.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...


One day, if you think hard enough, you will get the full picture.
Active smoking is proven to be dangerous to the active smoker, passive
smoking isn't dangerous to anyone.

There you go again.. still lying to avoid feeling guilty about the harm you
inflict on others.

Huge wrote:
On 2009-02-11, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Active smoking is proven to be dangerous to the active smoker, passive
smoking isn't dangerous to anyone.

This is, of course, a lie posted by a deluded junkie, determined to pollute
the environment with the carcinogenic byproducts of his foul addiction.


I'm quite happy for him to pay all those taxes, then drop dead before
claiming his pension.

Andy

Huge wrote:
On 2009-02-11, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Active smoking is proven to be dangerous to the active smoker,
passive smoking isn't dangerous to anyone.

This is, of course, a lie posted by a deluded junkie, determined to
pollute the environment with the carcinogenic byproducts of his foul
addiction.

And this is, of course, a lie posted by a deluded anti smoker, determined to
persecute a minority without any evidence whatsoever.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Huge wrote:
On 2009-02-10, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2009-02-09, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

Try getting funding for a fair & neutral study on the effects of
passive smoking - it doesn't exist.

None so blind, etc.

Where did you copy & paste that lot from? Sorry, Google may be good,
but you have to read the results & understand them.

Aww, how sweet, the unqualified junkie thinks he "understands".

The last resort of someone who's argument has fallen flat on its arse - the
personal insult.

You cut & pasted irrelevant crap without reading it, simply to support your
predudice.

Couldn't find the Black Swan, so you resort to ad hominum argument. How
sweet.

I think I've just taken the high ground.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...


One day, if you think hard enough, you will get the full picture.
Active smoking is proven to be dangerous to the active smoker,
passive smoking isn't dangerous to anyone.

There you go again.. still lying to avoid feeling guilty about the
harm you inflict on others.

No Dennipoo's, I don't feel guilty because I don't inflict harm on others.

I think you should contact the US Military in Afghanistan. Instead of using
high tech weapons, they could just issue the soldiers with 20 Marlborough
each & wait for a prevailing wind. According to you, Al-Qaeda would be on
its arse in a matter of days.

Listen to yourself man, you are hysterical.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Andy Champ wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2009-02-11, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Active smoking is proven to be dangerous to the active smoker,
passive smoking isn't dangerous to anyone.

This is, of course, a lie posted by a deluded junkie, determined to
pollute the environment with the carcinogenic byproducts of his foul
addiction.
I'm quite happy for him to pay all those taxes, then drop dead before
claiming his pension.

Well exactly. Non smokers are a burden on the state. Bloody scroungers,
should be ashamed of themselves.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote
I think I've just taken the high ground.

So you were the coughing and whizzing stinkbomb going up the hill.


-