I've decided to devote an entire forum to one of our favorite anti-smokers, Bill Godshall. As some of you may know, Bill has given us quite a show and garnered quite a devoted following on Dr Mike Siegel's blog.

I've personally posted many replies to Bill's allegations over there in the last year only to have most go unanswered or ignored. Those that Bill does attempt to answer to defend his opinions have been most enlightening of the deep dark recesses of the typical anti-smoker's mind. This forum will explore the possible motivations behind Bill's reasoning to try to come to grips with the anti-smoking movement.

The title is temporary. According to Webster's the definition of bull**** as a verb is:

1 usually vulgar: to talk foolishly, boastfully, or idly
2 usually vulgar: to engage in a discursive discussion
transitive senses, usually vulgar: to talk nonsense to especially with the intention of deceiving or misleading

I beg you're pardon for the vulgarity, but unfortunately, there is no other good synonym identified in Webster's for the word, "bull****", especially in the transitive sense in which Bill usually frames his arguments. So if anyone has an better titles for this new forum, please post them here.

If not, then just sit back and enjoy the show to come, for you're bound to laugh at the comedy to follow.

Cheers,
Frank

In most cases when I am on that blog it is only because of a link with an article in a smoking newsletter. I go once read the article and the comments and if I feel strongly enough I will offer my own comments, post them, never to return.

In my opinion it is worthless to respond to an anti-smoker on a blog because they seem to have nothing better to do but to extend the discussion. In many cases they get off on tangents and just pick a fight. They are not going to change their stance, there is no point in dealing with them. The constant bickering just eats everyone else's time as they try to get to meaningful comments.

I say ignore this jerk and he will go away.

It may be he feels this way about you and therefore is not responding to your questions. You make your point by asking the question, let the individual reader make up their own answer, it is a form of education.

I took a look at this blog and made a couple of comments, but what really interested and fascinated me was this story about a social experiment that was conducted. I don't recall all of the details, but someone made a fake cigarette out of some sort of plastic material and somehow made the end look exactly like it was burning, therefore lit. He walked into a store with the fake cigarette in his mouth. Almost immediately, other people started coughing and waving their arms around. The premise was to prove that nonsmokers have been programmed to react negatively whenever they see someone smoking, and that imaginations run wild (obviously; since there was no smoke)...It's safe to say that the brainwashing of the public is a success.

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce:

In my opinion it is worthless to respond to an anti-smoker on a blog because they seem to have nothing better to do but to extend the discussion. In many cases they get off on tangents and just pick a fight. They are not going to change their stance, there is no point in dealing with them. The constant bickering just eats everyone else's time as they try to get to meaningful comments.

I was making similar comments on another forum this weekend.

The difference in your comments here and mine there I think it is worthwhile responding to them.

Our sticking to the topic just goes to show that they are pre-programmed by the anti-smoker talking points and are incapable of individual thought on the issue. The more they are engaged, the more apparent that becomes and thus the "lukers" are afforded evidence that the antis are nearly all either brainwashed or insane.

I've mentioned it here and have extensively discussed it elsewhere, the major difference between us and them is that we are quite capable of agreeing to disagree on certain points. The antis are totally incapable of that, as we have witnessed with the treatment Dr. Siegal has received.

I've referred to the antis and their mind set as a cult more than once, in fact I was referring to them in that manner long before I ever had an internet connection - they prove me correct each and every day with their assinine and idiotic pronouncements that only get more idiotic and assinine on a daily basis.

Anti-smokers are all Jim Jones wannabes..they expect all of their followers to drink the same koolaid and have fits when no one does.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Koza:
The title is temporary...

Thank God.

quote:

So if anyone has an better titles for this new forum, please post them here.

Damn, must try and think. LOL

Frank, if you're going through every post Bill has made there please be sure to get the one where he claims to have saved 10 million lives. I just love his humility.

Title.."Picking the Mind of an Anti"

quote:

Originally posted by snowbird:
Title.."Picking the Mind of an Anti"

Pretty good, Thomas.

If Frank wants to keep Bill as the subject, how about "Picking the Mind of Bill" or Picking the Minds of Bill and Friends"?

Or how about, "Picking Bill's Knows"? LOL