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