We'll see who she is when she gets cancer.
-
vaseleos0 — 17 years ago(December 23, 2008 12:30 PM)
educate yourself,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage#Alcohol_consumption_an d_health
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Use
. -
Chainsaw69 — 17 years ago(December 23, 2008 09:41 PM)
Educate myself through wikipedia?
The "article" you sent applies to tobacco as well. Moderate amounts have a lower risk - just like alcohol, just like anything. Like I said before, smoking related illnesses are directly related to the amount of cigarettes smoked, how long the smoke is held and how deep the smoke is inhaled. Nictotine has also been linked to a decrease in the risk of Alzheimer's and dementia.
And please, don't be an idiot by bringing ethanol and non-drinking alcohols into it because we're talking about drinking alcohol. It's like comparing codeine to heroin just because they're both opiates.
I like a girl who eats & brings it up. A sassy little frassy with bulimia -
Chainsaw69 — 17 years ago(December 27, 2008 11:28 PM)
Yeah, I agree. Education is great. However, I prefer to educate myself through sources that are a bit more reliable than wikipedia.
Comparing drinking alcohol to other forms of alcohol is idiotic. As I said before, it's as idiotic as comparing codeine to heroin just because they are both opiates.
And I never said that tobacco products only contain nicotine, just like drinking alcohol contains more than alcohol (including nitrosamine - one of the same carcinogens in tobaco smoke). I was making a comparison to the article on wikipedia you posted (which is hardly a reliable source to begin with) about how drinking alcohol moderately decreases the risks of Alzhiemer's and dementia with nicotine which does same thing.
I like a girl who eats & brings it up. A sassy little frassy with bulimia -
vaseleos0 — 17 years ago(December 28, 2008 12:51 PM)
you are saying that the information in these two WP articles, are 'unreliable'?
if yes, do you have evidence to support your assertion?
http://www.imdb.com/board/20609017/board/flat/112214103#119136928
read my message correctly. it reads, '
alcohol is useful (disinfectant, etc.), tobacco smoking is not.
'.
alcohol beverages contain alcohol.
for example, you can use an alcohol beverage as a disinfectant. do you understand?
then buy substance extracts, because tobacco smoking will be banned completely. -
Chainsaw69 — 17 years ago(December 28, 2008 04:12 PM)
Yes, it's common knowledge that wikipedia is a terrible source because anybody can edit it and write whatever they want. Therefore, it is unreliable.
for example, you can use an alcohol beverage as a disinfectant. do you understand?
Wrong. It depends on the drinks alcohol content (which needs to be very high) and the other substances in the drink. Try pouring a beer on your wound next time you cut yourself and see how long it takes for it the become infected. Alcoholic beverages are made for enjoyment, the same as tobacco products. Rubbing alcohol etc is made as a disinfectant.
It's an idiotic comparison.
I like a girl who eats & brings it up. A sassy little frassy with bulimia -
vaseleos0 — 17 years ago(December 30, 2008 09:46 PM)
'common knowledge'? the Argumentum ad populum[1] fallacy, rendered your argument invalid.
i said educate yourself. i did not say presume again.
'Wrong.'? of course not, because i never said that any percentage of alcohol content in alcoholic beverages is adequate for all infection instances.
the other substances are irrelevant. we are talking about alcohol only.
'beer'? i would use the beverage that has the highest percentage of alcohol content.
do not presume again.
for what these products are sold for is irrelevant.
alcohol can be used as a disinfectant, and it is used as a disinfectant if there is nothing else someone could use to disinfect and/or to prevent an infection.
what 'idiotic comparison'? i did not compare something, i stated a few facts.
that is all.
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum -
Chainsaw69 — 17 years ago(December 30, 2008 10:52 PM)
Type in wikipedia and reliability into a search engine and see what comes up. Here's just one of many articles on its reliability
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=83640
Also, try submitting a paper to a major university or college with wikipedia references throughout and see what grade you get (if they even bother grading it at all).
Yes, alcohol (such as rubbing alcohol) is useful but drinking alcohol (such as vodka and scotch) is made for enjoyment. Instead of going back and forth on the various types of drinking alcohol that can be substituted as a disinfectant you could just say whether or not you'd support prohibition laws.
I like a girl who eats & brings it up. A sassy little frassy with bulimia -
wijdan — 17 years ago(January 05, 2009 05:57 PM)
Is there something wrong with taking the time to look at sources in a particular Wikipedia article before dismissing it as unreliable? If the sources are valid than there's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as a point of information. If you were writing a paper, you would use the sources at the bottom of the Wikipedia article as a reference, not the article itself.
I don't know of any other place where you can find such an ENORMOUS wealth of information all in one place, in several different languages, and with the ability to look at sources, edit history, the talk page, and so on. I wish people wouldn't pull out the tired, "It's not reliable" excuse. The article you mentioned is about slander of the author's Wikipedia page. I looked at it just now, it looks fine to me. I think this is the best part of the author's collumn,
(Note: Within an hour of the posting of this column, Wikipedia pulled the defamatory accusation that Farah is "a noted homosexual" from its bio. Later, most of the bio was pulled. However, the cached version still remains.)
Isn't Wikipedia great? People can edit to deface Wikipedia all they want but there is always someone who will come along and revert it back. -
cofjohn — 17 years ago(July 19, 2008 09:42 AM)
"My 3 uncles have smoked all their lives, they're getting on now and are absolutely fine."
Thats lucky, many of my family members died young from smoking-related illnesses, they had smoked all their lives as well. In fact I never even saw 2 of my grandparents because they died young (i.e. 50s) from smoking-related illnesses. And I had to watch my Grandmother smoke herself to her death at 69, she looked more like a 90 year old in her last few years. She had a pretty good diet as well.
It is possible for some people to be less affected by cigarrettes, one of my Granddads is still alive at 78 -albeit in pretty poor health, had 2 heart attacks now- but more people do suffer the consequences from a lifetime of smoking in my experience. I really hate the things with a passion. -
DeadlySinner — 17 years ago(July 20, 2008 03:07 AM)
"Blah blah blah cancer blah blah blah.
My 3 uncles have smoked all their lives, they're getting on now and are absolutely fine."
What, are you saying that cigs are completely safe and will not negatively affect you in any way?
"Why don't you make like the bass guitar and be inaudible? -
xx_frostique — 17 years ago(July 19, 2008 12:51 PM)
Well I don't know why everyone on here is so disgusted and shocked by the fact that she smokes. I mean sure, it's bad for you and everyone around you but in the modeling world smoking is no big deal and almost ALL the models smoke.
http://rocketrend.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/models-who-smoke/
Just a short list. A lot of those girls are considered the best of the best.
They do it to keep their weight down. And also because 3/4 of their day is just waiting - waiting for hair and makeup, waiting for your turn, waiting for the technical crew to finish up.