Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece From: preece@uicsl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: bars without smoking - (nf) Message-ID: <2384@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 15-Jul-83 00:00:52 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2384 Posted: Fri Jul 15 00:00:52 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jul-83 21:20:59 EDT Lines: 27 #R:ittvax:-81800:uicsl:4300039:000:1279 uicsl!preece Jul 8 08:29:00 1983 I think that posting references to documentation of a claim, along with brief statements of the findings referred to, is more than sufficient to meet the burden of proof. If someone asks for proof one assumes he is willing to be convinced. If he says you must not only identify proof, but must read it to me as well, one assumes he isn't really willing to be convinced. Frankly, typing the documents into the net would serve no further purpose than the posting of the references. If you're willing to believe the statements of the doctors who did the research, it doesn't matter much whether you read the article or just know that the article exists and reaches a stated conclusion. The tobacco lobby would simply deny the possibility of the research being correct. They haven't accepted the idea that smoking is harmful, let alone inhalation of someone else's smoke. This whole discussion is silly. The obnoxiousness and rudeness of public smoking should be obvious to anyone. Common sense should convince anyone that if smoking is harmful, indirect smoking is at least somewhat dangerous (if you've got proof that there is a quantum effect causing a discontinuity in the amount of smoke versus harm to breather curve, convince me). scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece