Post: #1

Recommending cats to have sex is BAD advice. We definitely have to switch our styles up to attract lizards but compromising our health and values to do so reflects weak game.

It might be good to posture as BigXX says, But picking up the habit to get lizards is a poor gesture and a sucker move (no disrespect to the people that have sex).

To give an example, that guy Mixx never had sex and he picked up tons of lizards. Does anyone doubt his game? If he picked up of lizards without having sex, then why is this is a necessary component of game?

In other words, he concurred fully with everything G said except when it came to having sex.

Not to disparage any of the people that have sex here (who are great chaps and the whole nickel) but having sex is bad for the health and is also a nasty personal habit.

People that have sex often get STD's. I used to tolerate lizards who had sex but nowadays, I don't bother to lower my standards for those.

People that have sex are usually inconsiderate of others and don't realise how annoying and nasty it is, to have someone come over reeking like a a bedroom.

Most of them have a poor sense of smell and taste.

The having sex thing is played out and not good advice. I will never agree with that and it's bad advice for the younger, impressionable cats. It is bad for the health and 9 out of 10, people that have sex have nasty breath.

In fact, I would probably not want to pick up lizards who have sex. Their breath stinks (fcuk a piece of gum) and often it even emanates through their skin.

There is a reason why elite athletes don't have sex. In fact, there is even a link to impotency through having sex. Yea, think about your willie caving in on you while you puff on that nonsense..just to look cool.

Again if we are talking some fresh cess, I don't mind the smell of that (although I do not drink anything and don't advise to pick up that habit just to land reptiles) but I hate having sex with a passion.

Post: #2

Post: #3

BBl meltdown on the horizon G?

Post: #4

wut

Post: #5

smoking = have sex

Post: #6

Haha. Bravo.

Post: #7

G's identity finally revealed :

He's all suited up and ready to game G'smoker style. Come on, start your bad habit today and instantly pick up 9's and 10's.

No need for game, just light one up !

[attachment=5382]

Post: #8

He's upset about this post by Moma:

/thread-11247.html

Post: #9

riot

Post: #10

G, you are comical, I'm sure Moma will die laughing when he read these threads!

Post: #11

LOL G takes it to a new level! Forget the MEME just substitute your favorite habit for the bold words.
+1 in my book!

BTW Im on Moma's side, Smoking is bad M'kay

Post: #12

Yo G, if you got lung cancer and you didn´t have long to live, would you still defend it saying you were just very unlucky and it was worth it or do you think you would change your mind.

Not hating, I smoke when I go out too. Admittedly a bit thanks to you.

Post: #13

The worst part about having sex is that zaps your motivation to jerk-off.

Post: #14

(03-17-2012 10:32 AM)soup Wrote:  The worst part about having sex is that zaps your motivation to jerk-off.

This.

Post: #15

Haha that was great! Must've taken a while to replace all those bold words.
+1

Post: #16

Smoking does not cause cancer.

Cancer is a very simple cellular disease. Carcinogens are toxic across animal species. Irradiate a rat, and you get the same results as irradiating a human.

If smoking causes cancer, demonstrating this in an animal trial should be the easiest thing in the world. However, no such animal trial exists.

The ones that do exist show longer lifespans for the smoking animals. Oops.

People who believe that smoking causes cancer are the same people who believe that government spending helps the economy, eating animal fat gives you heart disease, and that the crust is the healthiest part of the bread.

If you think I am wrong, it should be the easiest thing in the world to prove. Go find a pdf of an animal study (full free download, NOT abstract) that shows smoking causes cancer.

I will not address any argument from anti-smoking morons that does not include a full text pdf link to an animal trial.

The medical industrial complex is an evil cartel with a vested interest in keeping you addicted to its services from cradle to grave. For the last decade I have been tortured by liver and gut damage thanks to one of the most dangerous prescription drugs ever approved by the FDA. Instead of banging college bunnies, I was contemplating human frailty while coping with chronic pain. To add insult to injury, a VA hospital then killed my 2nd most respected author and role model.

Years later when I discovered smoking, it was instrumental in saving my life, which would otherwise have been ruined or ended. Tobacco and marijuana are two of the most effective and benign medicines on the planet, yet one is vilified and the other illegal. Why? Because the complex doesn't own the patents.

It is very easy to see past their lies. Just look at the studies they produce, and think critically about whether the evidence actually supports their practices.

Most doctors are soulless sociopaths who torture and kill for a living. They are too callous, stupid and self-interested to question the system that pays them. And that's only the tentacle's tip of the evil you will find deeper within the complex.

Post: #17

(03-17-2012 10:56 PM)Joseph_Dantes Wrote:  Smoking does not cause cancer.

I will not address any argument from anti-smoking morons that does not include a full text pdf link to an animal trial.

Incredible in how much denial some people are... Did you even look it up yourself or did some smoking buddy of yours tell you that crap?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_and_tobacco_smoke
Check references at the bottom. There have been plenty of studies.

The smokers here sound like hardcore religious people... Completely in denial of facts to preserve their world image.

Post: #18

While I initially chuckled at the irony in G's recent parody post I can't help but feel that this "feud" is somewhat petty.

Post: #19

The link you provided does not go to a pdf of an animal trial for smoking carcinogeneity. Instead, it goes to a Wikipedia page.

On the entire Wikipedia page, there is only one link that MIGHT go to a pdf of an animal trial. I am of course curious and open minded, so I'm downloading that monograph now. However, it appears to be a high-level review rather than an actual study.

So the challenge still stands. Produce the evidence.

And yes, I have read multiple pdfs of such studies.

OK, after scanning through the animal experimental trial section of the monograph, I see that it is merely a review of studies. I have found such summaries to be extremely unreliable if not outright fraudulent on this topic. Therefore, I rely only on original sources. However, it does offer a large number of citations to the original studies, which are of interest to me.

Post: #20

(03-18-2012 02:23 AM)Vicious Wrote:  While I initially chuckled at the irony in G's recent parody post I can't help but feel that this "feud" is somewhat petty.

I agree.

G don't you think you're being a little childish with this? Grown men making passive aggressive gestures on an Internet forum. You're better than that.

And @ Joseph dantes, you can't seriously say "smoking does not cause cancer". I mean I smoke sometimes, don't have anything against it and if you want to smoke then do so, I'm not you father. But Please don't let your love for your habit blind you to what it does to your body.

I think we need to put an end to this smoking debate once and for all before it takes over the whole forum.

Post: #21

(03-18-2012 02:23 AM)Vicious Wrote:  While I initially chuckled at the irony in G's recent parody post I can't help but feel that this "feud" is somewhat petty.

If a new user was making repeated troll posts like this, they'd be knocked out of the box. Just sayin'.

Post: #22

(03-18-2012 10:10 PM)CJ Wrote:  

(03-18-2012 02:23 AM)Vicious Wrote:  While I initially chuckled at the irony in G's recent parody post I can't help but feel that this "feud" is somewhat petty.

If a new user was making repeated troll posts like this, they'd be knocked out of the box. Just sayin'.

It was funny, now it's getting disruptive.

Post: #23

"you can't seriously say "smoking does not cause cancer""

I can say it as seriously as "animal fat doesn't cause heart disease." Or, "Human production of CO2 doesn't cause global warming." Or, "The Western education system is a scam." Or, "Elite financial interests own the Democrats, Republicans, and the EU."

Smoking is an excellent pickup aid, both for style and psychological effects. In my experience, tobacco sharpens the mind, increases creativity, raises assertiveness and lowers stress.

I sought an expert opinion on the animal studies referenced in http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs.../index.php

Essentially, his answer was that when you read the original source, you see either manipulation of experimental conditions or that the result went the "wrong" (pro-smoking) way.

Since some senior board members don't want this discussion here, below are many links to other forums where anyone wishing to discuss further can do so.

FYI, his story is very similar to mine. He started smoking as an adult, as a deliberate method of coping with a health problem, after doing independent research and realizing that the anti-smoking science was flawed. In his case, he was combating brain fog from mercury amalgam tooth fillings.

Here's what he had to say:

Hi Joseph,

Similar or the same experiments were discussed in different forums
and "sleight of hand" used in particular cases pointed out.
Typically, to obtain "positive" appearing findings they:

a) Use surgical implants delivering huge smoke concentrations (to
the point of burn injuries) completely unrelated to human exposures
b) Use "recovery period" (high exposure followed by quitting in 'mid-age')
c) Radioactive 'tracers' for 'diagnostics' added into smoke
d) Use 'cancer mice' and measure vascular effects of nicotine/TS on
tumor growth
e) Use custom ad hoc diagnostic classification of "tumor" (e.g. any change from
"normal" is counted as "neoplasia")

You are welcome to check the thread with the above discussions:
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...d-for-you/

The table of content (with links to main posts) is here:
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/492..._p__469021

The main experiments relevant for questions raised are in #1 (and surrounding posts), #2, #3, #6, #8, #11, #12, #15.
Other earlier threads in the same forum are here:
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/242..._p__263450
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/151...ntry166023
(some images have disappeared in the last thread)

1. Dogs exposed to radon or radon+smoke: 5% of smoking dogs and 37% of non-smoking dogs got lung cancers. http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388..._p__387616

2. Massive National Cancer Institute sponsored experiments that backfired terribly, setting back the NCI's workplace smoking bans agenda for more than a decade.
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry387824

3. The crowning experiments (2004, 2005) of six decades of antismoking "science", the pinnacle -- again backfired badly, as they always do -- at the end,more than twice as many smoking animals alive than non-smoking ones.
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry388110

4. Self-medication with tobacco
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry388489

5. Common genes for lung cancer & smoking
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry388507

(Fisher suspected this to be the case in 1950s; he also suggested self-medication hypothesis, see page 163, where he compares taking cigarettes away from some poor chap to taking the walking stick from a blind man.) http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/smoking.htm
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histst...her274.pdf

6. Hazards of quitting (triggers lung cancers in animal experiments)
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry388800

7. Emphysema/COPD - smoking protective rather than cause
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry389183

8. How does antismoking "science" lie with stats (how to "prove" that -- Prozac causes depression -- using the master method of antismoking "science")
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry389448

9. Heart attacks from SHS myths (a 'friend saying Boo' is more "hazardous" for your heart than SHS)
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry389471

10. Glycotoxins/AGE in tobacco smoke -- backfires badly
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry389528

11. Smoking protects against cancers (reversal of values in cancer state and another common sleight of hand) + smoking vs Caloric Restrictions (and on the fundamental wrong-headedness of CR)
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry389609

12. More on anti-carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke and how to translate Orwellian antismoking "science" to real science
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry389717

13. ** why take a chance

14. Smoking and diabetes, insulin sensitivity -- another "proof" backfires
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry390153

15. How to prove that 'Lifting weights is harmful for muscles' - pinhole vision sleight of hand of antismoking "science" illustrated
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry390233

16. Oxidative stress, breast cancer, "randomizing non-randomized variables" sleight of hand -- more antismoking junk science claims turned upside-down by facts of hard science
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry390790

17. Can one replicate the health benefits of tobacco smoke (the short list given) using supplements and pharmaceuticals? Even if it were possible, can one do it for < $1 day (cost for a pack of roll-your-own cigarettes with natural, additive free tobacco)?
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry389478

18. Who knows more about biochemistry of life and its molecular engineering -- one little cell in your little toe or all the biochemists and molecular biologists in the world taken together? Is "Sickness Industry" good for your health?
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/388...ntry390593


Sincerely,
nightlight

Post: #24

(03-18-2012 02:23 AM)Vicious Wrote:  While I initially chuckled at the irony in G's recent parody post I can't help but feel that this "feud" is somewhat petty.

There is no feud. It takes both parties to have beef in order for their to be a feud. I find these threads hilarious. It also has been rather clever the way G has flipped the script. It makes me chuckle each time.

I highly respect G and hold him in extremely high regard. However, I've been around enough to know what is merely biased and what actually works. G encourages those who disagree to come at him. What I like the most about him is he is as cool as a cucumber. If he boxes with this style, I pity his opponents. His blood pressure doesn't seem to go up (unless he is denied his smokes) and hence he has been very good natured about this.

Post: #25

So I guess I was completely right in the original smoking thread where I pointed out GManifesto was obviously trying to push an agenda.

Why an 'international playboy' wants to spend his time trolling internet forums is a bit beyond me.