So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more >smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted toYou pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain about this government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.
save lives . . .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their
lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives
don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a >mercenary . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more >>smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted toYou pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain about this >government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.
save lives . . .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their
lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives >>don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a >>mercenary . . .
Get a life before it is too late.
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:16:42 -0000 (UTC), TonySee David? Sarcasm and a downright lie. That is all he has.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more >>>smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to >>>save lives . . .You pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain about this >>government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their >>>lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives >>>don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a >>>mercenary . . .
Get a life before it is too late.
I get it Tony, you see the extra lives lost as a good investment -
Right?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more >smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to
save lives . . .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her bestYou pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain about this government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their
lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives >don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a >mercenary . . .
Get a life before it is too late.
In article <part1of1.1.8$Ko2mBO0$cgiQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzDavid, if you read the history of the poster rich80105 you will see that he is by far the most abusive person here and that typically I respond to his abuse. He has undertaken a planned and deliberate attack against me in particular for some years because I call him out on his lies, defamation and abusive behaviour. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth when he addresses new folk here but disagree with him and suddenly his true self appears. His history is one of attacking anything that is not left wing and he does so with sarcasm and worse. I recommend not jumping to conclusions.
says...
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
You pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain about thishttps://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.htmlSo who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more
smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to
save lives . . .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their
lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives
don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a
mercenary . . .
government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.
Get a life before it is too late.
hey now, why the abusive comments? As my mother used to say: if can't
say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to theI do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence (typical of him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out some >important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this
newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any missing >context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted was >wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other people
are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate
response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.8$Ko2mBO0$cgiQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >says...
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
You pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain about this >> government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.htmlSo who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more
smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to
save lives . . .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their
lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives
don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a
mercenary . . .
Get a life before it is too late.
hey now, why the abusive comments? As my mother used to say: if can'tDavid, if you read the history of the poster rich80105 you will see that he is
say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
by far the most abusive person here and that typically I respond to his abuse.
He has undertaken a planned and deliberate attack against me in particular for
some years because I call him out on his lies, defamation and abusive behaviour. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth when he addresses new folk here but disagree with him and suddenly his true self appears. His history is one of
attacking anything that is not left wing and he does so with sarcasm and worse.
I recommend not jumping to conclusions.
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the >message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out some >important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this
newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any missing >context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted was >wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other peopleI do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence (typical of
are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate
response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse.
him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
In article <part1of1.1.8$Ko2mBO0$cgiQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.htmlYou pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain about this
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more
smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to
save lives . . .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their
lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives
don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a
mercenary . . .
government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.
Get a life before it is too late.
hey now, why the abusive comments? As my mother used to say: if can't
say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the
message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out some >important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this
newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any missing >context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted was >wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other people
are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate
response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
I do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence (typical
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the
message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out some >> >important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this
newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any missing >> >context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted was >> >wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other people
are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate
response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse.
of
him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
In this particular instance he posted links to two news stories along
with a bit of commentary that broadly paraphrases the contents of those >news stories.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.I certainly do not believe Newshub is a relaible source - they are seriously biased. RNZ is better but still not exactly impartial, however I think there is
some effort to improve that. at least I hope so.
I yearn for real journalism, it is sadly lacking in our mainstream media. A few
are active in minor sites but some of those are just as biased.
While, like any news outlet, they will have certain biases the reportsThe government repealed something which had yet to be enacted. I don't necessarily agree with them but the idea that it will result in any deaths is hard to prove and questionable. Smokers have free will utimately. As do people
are based on verifiable facts. The Government *did* repeal a piece of >legislation and various experts, including government departments,
broadly agree on what the effect of repealing that legislation will be.
who climb mountains, how far do we go in protecting those folk and how far do
we go to save the cost of treatment or rescue when they fall? Hard question to
answer but not to those who are biased, they see only one side.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:nicotine is known as one of the most addictive of all legally
In article <part1of1.1.Gl6l5TYmfOSmAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>says...OK David. Rich has a history of abuse not only against me, he has driven some >folks away.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.8$Ko2mBO0$cgiQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzDavid, if you read the history of the poster rich80105 you will see that he >>>is
says...
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more >>> >> >smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to >>> >> >save lives . . .https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
You pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain about thishttps://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best >>> >> >to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their >>> >> >lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives >>> >> >don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite >>> >> >a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a >>> >> >mercenary . . .
government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.
Get a life before it is too late.
hey now, why the abusive comments? As my mother used to say: if can't
say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
by far the most abusive person here and that typically I respond to his >>>abuse.
He has undertaken a planned and deliberate attack against me in particular >>>for
some years because I call him out on his lies, defamation and abusive
behaviour. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth when he addresses new folk here
but disagree with him and suddenly his true self appears. His history is one
of
attacking anything that is not left wing and he does so with sarcasm and >>>worse.
I recommend not jumping to conclusions.
Admittedly I can't comment on past behaviour given my ~15+ year absence >>from this newsgroup. And even now I don't read it much as to often when
I come here I just see people hurling abuse at each other (though I
guess at least its not as bad as nz.politics)
If you stay here you will be able to make your own judgement.
I certainly do not believe Newshub is a relaible source - they are seriously >biased. RNZ is better but still not exactly impartial, however I think there is
I do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence (typical >>>of
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the
message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out some >>> >important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this
newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any missing >>> >context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted was >>> >wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other people
are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate
response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse.
him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
In this particular instance he posted links to two news stories along
with a bit of commentary that broadly paraphrases the contents of those >>news stories.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
some effort to improve that. at least I hope so.
I yearn for real journalism, it is sadly lacking in our mainstream media. A few
are active in minor sites but some of those are just as biased.
While, like any news outlet, they will have certain biases the reportsThe government repealed something which had yet to be enacted. I don't >necessarily agree with them but the idea that it will result in any deaths is >hard to prove and questionable. Smokers have free will utimately. As do people >who climb mountains, how far do we go in protecting those folk and how far do >we go to save the cost of treatment or rescue when they fall? Hard question to >answer but not to those who are biased, they see only one side.
are based on verifiable facts. The Government *did* repeal a piece of >>legislation and various experts, including government departments,
broadly agree on what the effect of repealing that legislation will be.
Reading the posted new stories along with others on this subject from
other sources I don't see any "opinions based on zero evidence" here.
But perhaps I'm missing something and the tresury is wrong somehow?
In article <part1of1.1.Gl6l5TYmfOSmAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzOK David. Rich has a history of abuse not only against me, he has driven some folks away.
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.8$Ko2mBO0$cgiQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzDavid, if you read the history of the poster rich80105 you will see that he >>is
says...
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more >> >> >smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to >> >> >save lives . . .https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
You pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain about this >> >> government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best >> >> >to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their
lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives >> >> >don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a
mercenary . . .
Get a life before it is too late.
hey now, why the abusive comments? As my mother used to say: if can't
say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
by far the most abusive person here and that typically I respond to his >>abuse.
He has undertaken a planned and deliberate attack against me in particular >>for
some years because I call him out on his lies, defamation and abusive
behaviour. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth when he addresses new folk here >> but disagree with him and suddenly his true self appears. His history is one >>of
attacking anything that is not left wing and he does so with sarcasm and >>worse.
I recommend not jumping to conclusions.
Admittedly I can't comment on past behaviour given my ~15+ year absence
from this newsgroup. And even now I don't read it much as to often when
I come here I just see people hurling abuse at each other (though I
guess at least its not as bad as nz.politics)
I certainly do not believe Newshub is a relaible source - they are seriously biased. RNZ is better but still not exactly impartial, however I think there is some effort to improve that. at least I hope so.I do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence (typical >>of
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the
message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out some
important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this
newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any missing
context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted was
wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other people
are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate
response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse.
him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
In this particular instance he posted links to two news stories along
with a bit of commentary that broadly paraphrases the contents of those
news stories.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
While, like any news outlet, they will have certain biases the reportsThe government repealed something which had yet to be enacted. I don't necessarily agree with them but the idea that it will result in any deaths is hard to prove and questionable. Smokers have free will utimately. As do people who climb mountains, how far do we go in protecting those folk and how far do we go to save the cost of treatment or rescue when they fall? Hard question to answer but not to those who are biased, they see only one side.
are based on verifiable facts. The Government *did* repeal a piece of >legislation and various experts, including government departments,
broadly agree on what the effect of repealing that legislation will be.
Reading the posted new stories along with others on this subject from
other sources I don't see any "opinions based on zero evidence" here.
But perhaps I'm missing something and the tresury is wrong somehow?
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 22:17:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is not the topic. The topic, your topic, is about the deaths supposedly caused by the repeal of one not enacted change. That is highly questionable.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:nicotine is known as one of the most addictive of all legally
In article <part1of1.1.Gl6l5TYmfOSmAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>says...OK David. Rich has a history of abuse not only against me, he has driven some >>folks away.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.8$Ko2mBO0$cgiQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>> >says...David, if you read the history of the poster rich80105 you will see that >>>>he
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more >>>> >> >smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to >>>> >> >save lives . . .https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
You pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain about >>>> >>thishttps://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best >>>> >> >to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their >>>> >> >lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives >>>> >> >don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying >>>> >> >and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite >>>> >> >a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a >>>> >> >mercenary . . .
government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.
Get a life before it is too late.
hey now, why the abusive comments? As my mother used to say: if can't >>>> >say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
is
by far the most abusive person here and that typically I respond to his >>>>abuse.
He has undertaken a planned and deliberate attack against me in particular >>>>for
some years because I call him out on his lies, defamation and abusive
behaviour. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth when he addresses new folk >>>>here
but disagree with him and suddenly his true self appears. His history is >>>>one
of
attacking anything that is not left wing and he does so with sarcasm and >>>>worse.
I recommend not jumping to conclusions.
Admittedly I can't comment on past behaviour given my ~15+ year absence >>>from this newsgroup. And even now I don't read it much as to often when
I come here I just see people hurling abuse at each other (though I
guess at least its not as bad as nz.politics)
If you stay here you will be able to make your own judgement.
I certainly do not believe Newshub is a relaible source - they are seriously >>biased. RNZ is better but still not exactly impartial, however I think there >>is
of
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the
message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out some >>>> >important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this
newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any missing >>>> >context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted was >>>> >wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other people >>>> >are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate
response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse. >>>> I do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence >>>>(typical
him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
In this particular instance he posted links to two news stories along >>>with a bit of commentary that broadly paraphrases the contents of those >>>news stories.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
some effort to improve that. at least I hope so.
I yearn for real journalism, it is sadly lacking in our mainstream media. A >>few
are active in minor sites but some of those are just as biased.
While, like any news outlet, they will have certain biases the reports >>>are based on verifiable facts. The Government *did* repeal a piece of >>>legislation and various experts, including government departments, >>>broadly agree on what the effect of repealing that legislation will be. >>The government repealed something which had yet to be enacted. I don't >>necessarily agree with them but the idea that it will result in any deaths is >>hard to prove and questionable. Smokers have free will utimately. As do >>peoplewho climb mountains, how far do we go in protecting those folk and how far >>do
we go to save the cost of treatment or rescue when they fall? Hard question >>to
answer but not to those who are biased, they see only one side.
available chemicals - stopping people starting to smoke is the most
effective action that can be taken. The expert advice commissioned by >government indicated that the value of the cost to the country of the >legislation was significantly higher than the additional tax revenue >generated.
We do spend some money on minimising deaths from climbing accidents,Again, not the point, that was one example. If you add all of the causes of death which are caused by people and remove smoking what remains would be hugely more than deaths caused by smoking. In other words add up all non-smoking deaths caused by human activity which includes driving, swimming, mountain climbing and hundreds of other activiteis that would dwarf smoking deaths - so the point is entirely valid - where do you draw the line? This and the last government have drawn a line, different lines. To say one was wrong and the other right is impossible to prove. So the topic is politically driven, not for humanitarian reasons.
but they are far fewer than the deaths from nicotine addiction.
Reading the posted new stories along with others on this subject from >>>other sources I don't see any "opinions based on zero evidence" here.
But perhaps I'm missing something and the tresury is wrong somehow?
In article <part1of1.1.gA3j9t9xn1Pu$g@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzClimbing mountains is only one example of hundreds, add up all tghe deaths caused by voluntary human activit and smoking would be a small percentage. This topic is political, not humanitarian.
says...
I certainly do not believe Newshub is a relaible source - they are seriously >> biased. RNZ is better but still not exactly impartial, however I think there >>is
I do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the
message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out some >> >> >important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this
newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any missing >> >> >context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted was >> >> >wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other people >> >> >are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate
response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse.
(typical
of
him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
In this particular instance he posted links to two news stories along
with a bit of commentary that broadly paraphrases the contents of those
news stories.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
some effort to improve that. at least I hope so.
I yearn for real journalism, it is sadly lacking in our mainstream media. A >>few
are active in minor sites but some of those are just as biased.
While, like any news outlet, they will have certain biases the reportsThe government repealed something which had yet to be enacted. I don't
are based on verifiable facts. The Government *did* repeal a piece of
legislation and various experts, including government departments,
broadly agree on what the effect of repealing that legislation will be.
necessarily agree with them but the idea that it will result in any deaths >>is
hard to prove and questionable. Smokers have free will utimately. As do >>people
who climb mountains, how far do we go in protecting those folk and how far >>do
we go to save the cost of treatment or rescue when they fall? Hard question >>to
answer but not to those who are biased, they see only one side.
I think the point is that the legislation, had it been left in place,
would have saved lives over time. People will now die who otherwise
might not have. The Treasury apparently agrees this is the case, and
Nicola has said in the past that they expect to receive additional tax >revenue as a result of this change which implies National agrees too,
though its possible she simply mis-spoke.
I've seen peoples free will raised as a reason not to do anything
further (people can choose to quit or not - the choice is theirs, not
ours), but I question whether people addicted to smoking at this point
truly have free will in this particular area of their lives given the >addictiveness of the product and the fact they'll keep buying it almost >regardless of the price or what other sacrifices they end up making to
afford it.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.gA3j9t9xn1Pu$g@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>says...Climbing mountains is only one example of hundreds, add up all tghe deaths >caused by voluntary human activit and smoking would be a small percentage. This
I certainly do not believe Newshub is a relaible source - they are seriously
(typical
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the
message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out some >>> >> >important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this
newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any missing >>> >> >context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted was >>> >> >wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other people >>> >> >are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate
response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse. >>> >> I do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence
of
him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
In this particular instance he posted links to two news stories along
with a bit of commentary that broadly paraphrases the contents of those >>> >news stories.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
biased. RNZ is better but still not exactly impartial, however I think there
is
some effort to improve that. at least I hope so.
I yearn for real journalism, it is sadly lacking in our mainstream media. A >>>few
are active in minor sites but some of those are just as biased.
While, like any news outlet, they will have certain biases the reportsnecessarily agree with them but the idea that it will result in any deaths >>>is
are based on verifiable facts. The Government *did* repeal a piece of
legislation and various experts, including government departments,
broadly agree on what the effect of repealing that legislation will be. >>> The government repealed something which had yet to be enacted. I don't
hard to prove and questionable. Smokers have free will utimately. As do >>>people
who climb mountains, how far do we go in protecting those folk and how far >>>do
we go to save the cost of treatment or rescue when they fall? Hard question >>>to
answer but not to those who are biased, they see only one side.
I think the point is that the legislation, had it been left in place,
would have saved lives over time. People will now die who otherwise
might not have. The Treasury apparently agrees this is the case, and
Nicola has said in the past that they expect to receive additional tax >>revenue as a result of this change which implies National agrees too, >>though its possible she simply mis-spoke.
I've seen peoples free will raised as a reason not to do anything
further (people can choose to quit or not - the choice is theirs, not >>ours), but I question whether people addicted to smoking at this point >>truly have free will in this particular area of their lives given the >>addictiveness of the product and the fact they'll keep buying it almost >>regardless of the price or what other sacrifices they end up making to >>afford it.
topic is political, not humanitarian.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:through under urgency. That cost depends on how many get ill and/or
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 22:17:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is not the topic. The topic, your topic, is about the deaths supposedly >caused by the repeal of one not enacted change. That is highly questionable. The topic is the cost of the repeal of legislation that was pushed
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:nicotine is known as one of the most addictive of all legally
In article <part1of1.1.Gl6l5TYmfOSmAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>says...OK David. Rich has a history of abuse not only against me, he has driven some
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.8$Ko2mBO0$cgiQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>> >says...David, if you read the history of the poster rich80105 you will see that >>>>>he
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from morehttps://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to
save lives . . .
You pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain about >>>>> >>thishttps://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their >>>>> >> >lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives
don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying >>>>> >> >and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite >>>>> >> >a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a >>>>> >> >mercenary . . .
government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.
Get a life before it is too late.
hey now, why the abusive comments? As my mother used to say: if can't >>>>> >say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
is
by far the most abusive person here and that typically I respond to his >>>>>abuse.
He has undertaken a planned and deliberate attack against me in particular
for
some years because I call him out on his lies, defamation and abusive >>>>> behaviour. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth when he addresses new folk >>>>>here
but disagree with him and suddenly his true self appears. His history is >>>>>one
of
attacking anything that is not left wing and he does so with sarcasm and >>>>>worse.
I recommend not jumping to conclusions.
Admittedly I can't comment on past behaviour given my ~15+ year absence >>>>from this newsgroup. And even now I don't read it much as to often when >>>>I come here I just see people hurling abuse at each other (though I >>>>guess at least its not as bad as nz.politics)
folks away.
If you stay here you will be able to make your own judgement.
I certainly do not believe Newshub is a relaible source - they are seriously >>>biased. RNZ is better but still not exactly impartial, however I think there >>>is
of
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the >>>>> >message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out some >>>>> >important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this
newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any missing >>>>> >context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted was >>>>> >wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other people >>>>> >are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate
response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse. >>>>> I do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence >>>>>(typical
him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
In this particular instance he posted links to two news stories along >>>>with a bit of commentary that broadly paraphrases the contents of those >>>>news stories.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
some effort to improve that. at least I hope so.
I yearn for real journalism, it is sadly lacking in our mainstream media. A >>>few
are active in minor sites but some of those are just as biased.
While, like any news outlet, they will have certain biases the reports >>>>are based on verifiable facts. The Government *did* repeal a piece of >>>>legislation and various experts, including government departments, >>>>broadly agree on what the effect of repealing that legislation will be. >>>The government repealed something which had yet to be enacted. I don't >>>necessarily agree with them but the idea that it will result in any deaths ishard to prove and questionable. Smokers have free will utimately. As do >>>people
who climb mountains, how far do we go in protecting those folk and how far >>>do
we go to save the cost of treatment or rescue when they fall? Hard question >>>to
answer but not to those who are biased, they see only one side.
available chemicals - stopping people starting to smoke is the most >>effective action that can be taken. The expert advice commissioned by >>government indicated that the value of the cost to the country of the >>legislation was significantly higher than the additional tax revenue >>generated.
Do you have evidence to support that assertion, Tony? certainly cancerAgain, not the point, that was one example. If you add all of the causes of >death which are caused by people and remove smoking what remains would be >hugely more than deaths caused by smoking. In other words add up all >non-smoking deaths caused by human activity which includes driving, swimming, >mountain climbing and hundreds of other activiteis that would dwarf smoking >deaths - so the point is entirely valid - where do you draw the line?
We do spend some money on minimising deaths from climbing accidents,
but they are far fewer than the deaths from nicotine addiction.
This andThe scientists and public servants giving advice tot he government
the last government have drawn a line, different lines. To say one was wrong >and the other right is impossible to prove. So the topic is politically driven,
not for humanitarian reasons.
Reading the posted new stories along with others on this subject from >>>>other sources I don't see any "opinions based on zero evidence" here. >>>>But perhaps I'm missing something and the tresury is wrong somehow?
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
Certainly not, they are very left wing with those opinions
well-stirred throughout their articles. RNZ is my primary source of
NZ news and I keep wishing they would get better.
But what is more important, is their selection of what *not* to
report. As an example, overseas there are big farmers' protests, and
in Brazil, big protests against their left-wing government -- ignored
by our media. Locally, yesterday there was a gathering of 200 NZDSOS
at Parliament to present a petition to end the harmful Covid
"vaccines" -- Deputy PM Winston Peters and another minister met them
to receive the petition, and speeches were made on both sides. NZ
media coverage of this event: Zero.
So, no, *not* reliable sources, and not even "reliable enough".
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 23:36:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyNobody knows, it is a guess at best.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:through under urgency. That cost depends on how many get ill and/or
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 22:17:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is not the topic. The topic, your topic, is about the deaths supposedly >>caused by the repeal of one not enacted change. That is highly questionable. >The topic is the cost of the repeal of legislation that was pushed
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:nicotine is known as one of the most addictive of all legally
In article <part1of1.1.Gl6l5TYmfOSmAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>says...OK David. Rich has a history of abuse not only against me, he has driven >>>>some
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.8$Ko2mBO0$cgiQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>> >says...David, if you read the history of the poster rich80105 you will see that >>>>>>he
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from >>>>>> >> >morehttps://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted >>>>>> >> >to
save lives . . .
You pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain about >>>>>> >>thishttps://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her >>>>>> >> >best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their
lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. >>>>>> >> >Lives
don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying >>>>>> >> >and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a
mercenary . . .
government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.
Get a life before it is too late.
hey now, why the abusive comments? As my mother used to say: if can't >>>>>> >say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
is
by far the most abusive person here and that typically I respond to his >>>>>>abuse.
He has undertaken a planned and deliberate attack against me in >>>>>>particular
for
some years because I call him out on his lies, defamation and abusive >>>>>> behaviour. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth when he addresses new folk >>>>>>here
but disagree with him and suddenly his true self appears. His history is >>>>>>one
of
attacking anything that is not left wing and he does so with sarcasm and >>>>>>worse.
I recommend not jumping to conclusions.
Admittedly I can't comment on past behaviour given my ~15+ year absence >>>>>from this newsgroup. And even now I don't read it much as to often when >>>>>I come here I just see people hurling abuse at each other (though I >>>>>guess at least its not as bad as nz.politics)
folks away.
If you stay here you will be able to make your own judgement.
I certainly do not believe Newshub is a relaible source - they are >>>>seriously
of
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the >>>>>> >message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out some >>>>>> >important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this
newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any missing >>>>>> >context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted was >>>>>> >wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other people >>>>>> >are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate
response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse. >>>>>> I do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence >>>>>>(typical
him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
In this particular instance he posted links to two news stories along >>>>>with a bit of commentary that broadly paraphrases the contents of those >>>>>news stories.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
biased. RNZ is better but still not exactly impartial, however I think >>>>there
is
some effort to improve that. at least I hope so.
I yearn for real journalism, it is sadly lacking in our mainstream media. A >>>>few
are active in minor sites but some of those are just as biased.
While, like any news outlet, they will have certain biases the reports >>>>>are based on verifiable facts. The Government *did* repeal a piece of >>>>>legislation and various experts, including government departments, >>>>>broadly agree on what the effect of repealing that legislation will be. >>>>The government repealed something which had yet to be enacted. I don't >>>>necessarily agree with them but the idea that it will result in any deaths >>>>ishard to prove and questionable. Smokers have free will utimately. As do >>>>people
who climb mountains, how far do we go in protecting those folk and how far >>>>do
we go to save the cost of treatment or rescue when they fall? Hard question >>>>to
answer but not to those who are biased, they see only one side.
available chemicals - stopping people starting to smoke is the most >>>effective action that can be taken. The expert advice commissioned by >>>government indicated that the value of the cost to the country of the >>>legislation was significantly higher than the additional tax revenue >>>generated.
die, and smokers do tend to get addicted to nicotine. The advisers
have told the government that the cost of health services for the
additional smoking addicts is significantly higher than the amount of
excise tax raised. Not much questionable about that, but if you do
have a question ask away.
You should have read what I wrote. I only referred to deaths that are caused by people, some cancers are some are not but there are hundreds of human activites that cause death.Do you have evidence to support that assertion, Tony? certainly cancerAgain, not the point, that was one example. If you add all of the causes of >>death which are caused by people and remove smoking what remains would be >>hugely more than deaths caused by smoking. In other words add up all >>non-smoking deaths caused by human activity which includes driving, swimming, >>mountain climbing and hundreds of other activiteis that would dwarf smoking >>deaths - so the point is entirely valid - where do you draw the line?
We do spend some money on minimising deaths from climbing accidents,
but they are far fewer than the deaths from nicotine addiction.
is a major cause of death, but it and other illnesses are not on your
list, and they are not significantly affected by the repeal of the >non-smoking legislation. The legislation does not affect other types
of death however, so is irrelevant to the repeal of the smoking
legislation.
Absolutely, it is highly questionable.This andThe scientists and public servants giving advice tot he government
the last government have drawn a line, different lines. To say one was wrong >>and the other right is impossible to prove. So the topic is politically >>driven,
not for humanitarian reasons.
have told them that the long term costs of the legislation repeal are >significantly higher than the additional money raised through selling
more tobacco products. Are you claiming that independent assessment is
wrong?
Reading the posted new stories along with others on this subject from >>>>>other sources I don't see any "opinions based on zero evidence" here. >>>>>But perhaps I'm missing something and the tresury is wrong somehow?
On 2024-03-03, Willy Nilly <wn@qwert.com> wrote:Yes, and they are man made deaths.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Speaking of deaths can we include the excess deaths here that we are not >allowed to talk about.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
Certainly not, they are very left wing with those opinions
well-stirred throughout their articles. RNZ is my primary source of
NZ news and I keep wishing they would get better.
But what is more important, is their selection of what *not* to
report. As an example, overseas there are big farmers' protests, and
in Brazil, big protests against their left-wing government -- ignored
by our media. Locally, yesterday there was a gathering of 200 NZDSOS
at Parliament to present a petition to end the harmful Covid
"vaccines" -- Deputy PM Winston Peters and another minister met them
to receive the petition, and speeches were made on both sides. NZ
media coverage of this event: Zero.
So, no, *not* reliable sources, and not even "reliable enough".
The misery caused by the "vaccines" is proabably as much as the affects of >smoking. It is hard to prove otherwise as the data is not publicly
avaliable.
Speaking of deaths can we include the excess deaths here that we are not >allowed to talk about.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.gA3j9t9xn1Pu$g@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>says...Climbing mountains is only one example of hundreds, add up all tghe deaths caused by voluntary human activit and smoking would be a small percentage. This
I certainly do not believe Newshub is a relaible source - they are seriously
(typical
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the
message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out some >>> >> >important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this
newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any missing >>> >> >context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted was >>> >> >wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other people >>> >> >are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate
response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse. >>> >> I do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence
of
him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
In this particular instance he posted links to two news stories along
with a bit of commentary that broadly paraphrases the contents of those >>> >news stories.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
biased. RNZ is better but still not exactly impartial, however I think there
is
some effort to improve that. at least I hope so.
I yearn for real journalism, it is sadly lacking in our mainstream media. A >>>few
are active in minor sites but some of those are just as biased.
While, like any news outlet, they will have certain biases the reportsnecessarily agree with them but the idea that it will result in any deaths >>>is
are based on verifiable facts. The Government *did* repeal a piece of
legislation and various experts, including government departments,
broadly agree on what the effect of repealing that legislation will be. >>> The government repealed something which had yet to be enacted. I don't
hard to prove and questionable. Smokers have free will utimately. As do >>>people
who climb mountains, how far do we go in protecting those folk and how far >>>do
we go to save the cost of treatment or rescue when they fall? Hard question >>>to
answer but not to those who are biased, they see only one side.
I think the point is that the legislation, had it been left in place,
would have saved lives over time. People will now die who otherwise
might not have. The Treasury apparently agrees this is the case, and
Nicola has said in the past that they expect to receive additional tax >>revenue as a result of this change which implies National agrees too, >>though its possible she simply mis-spoke.
I've seen peoples free will raised as a reason not to do anything
further (people can choose to quit or not - the choice is theirs, not >>ours), but I question whether people addicted to smoking at this point >>truly have free will in this particular area of their lives given the >>addictiveness of the product and the fact they'll keep buying it almost >>regardless of the price or what other sacrifices they end up making to >>afford it.
topic is political, not humanitarian.
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 23:37:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyThey have everything to do with the issue, just a logical extension of the argument.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.gA3j9t9xn1Pu$g@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>says...Climbing mountains is only one example of hundreds, add up all tghe deaths >>caused by voluntary human activit and smoking would be a small percentage. >>This
I certainly do not believe Newshub is a relaible source - they are >>>>seriously
(typical
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the >>>> >> >message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out >>>> >> >some
important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this
newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any
missing
context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted >>>> >> >was
wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other people >>>> >> >are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate
response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse. >>>> >> I do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence
of
him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
In this particular instance he posted links to two news stories along >>>> >with a bit of commentary that broadly paraphrases the contents of those >>>> >news stories.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
biased. RNZ is better but still not exactly impartial, however I think >>>>there
is
some effort to improve that. at least I hope so.
I yearn for real journalism, it is sadly lacking in our mainstream media. >>>>A
few
are active in minor sites but some of those are just as biased.
While, like any news outlet, they will have certain biases the reports >>>> >are based on verifiable facts. The Government *did* repeal a piece of >>>> >legislation and various experts, including government departments,hard to prove and questionable. Smokers have free will utimately. As do >>>>people
broadly agree on what the effect of repealing that legislation will be. >>>> The government repealed something which had yet to be enacted. I don't >>>> necessarily agree with them but the idea that it will result in any deaths >>>>is
who climb mountains, how far do we go in protecting those folk and how >>>>far
do
we go to save the cost of treatment or rescue when they fall? Hard >>>>question
to
answer but not to those who are biased, they see only one side.
I think the point is that the legislation, had it been left in place, >>>would have saved lives over time. People will now die who otherwise
might not have. The Treasury apparently agrees this is the case, and >>>Nicola has said in the past that they expect to receive additional tax >>>revenue as a result of this change which implies National agrees too, >>>though its possible she simply mis-spoke.
I've seen peoples free will raised as a reason not to do anything
further (people can choose to quit or not - the choice is theirs, not >>>ours), but I question whether people addicted to smoking at this point >>>truly have free will in this particular area of their lives given the >>>addictiveness of the product and the fact they'll keep buying it almost >>>regardless of the price or what other sacrifices they end up making to >>>afford it.
topic is political, not humanitarian.
Those activities have little to do with smoking, and the deaths that
are caused by nicotine poisoning. They have nothing to do with the
effects of the repeal of legislation.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more >smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to
save lives . . .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their
lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives
don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a >mercenary . . .
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-03, Willy Nilly <wn@qwert.com> wrote:Yes, and they are man made deaths.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Speaking of deaths can we include the excess deaths here that we are not >>allowed to talk about.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
Certainly not, they are very left wing with those opinions
well-stirred throughout their articles. RNZ is my primary source of
NZ news and I keep wishing they would get better.
But what is more important, is their selection of what *not* to
report. As an example, overseas there are big farmers' protests, and
in Brazil, big protests against their left-wing government -- ignored
by our media. Locally, yesterday there was a gathering of 200 NZDSOS
at Parliament to present a petition to end the harmful Covid
"vaccines" -- Deputy PM Winston Peters and another minister met them
to receive the petition, and speeches were made on both sides. NZ
media coverage of this event: Zero.
So, no, *not* reliable sources, and not even "reliable enough".
The misery caused by the "vaccines" is proabably as much as the affects of >>smoking. It is hard to prove otherwise as the data is not publicly >>avaliable.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:A very informed guess. There are quite good statistics on the risk of
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 23:36:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyNobody knows, it is a guess at best.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:through under urgency. That cost depends on how many get ill and/or
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 22:17:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is not the topic. The topic, your topic, is about the deaths supposedly >>>caused by the repeal of one not enacted change. That is highly questionable. >>The topic is the cost of the repeal of legislation that was pushed
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:available chemicals - stopping people starting to smoke is the most >>>>effective action that can be taken. The expert advice commissioned by >>>>government indicated that the value of the cost to the country of the >>>>legislation was significantly higher than the additional tax revenue >>>>generated.
In article <part1of1.1.Gl6l5TYmfOSmAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>says...OK David. Rich has a history of abuse not only against me, he has driven >>>>>some
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.8$Ko2mBO0$cgiQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>> >says...David, if you read the history of the poster rich80105 you will see that
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from >>>>>>> >> >morehttps://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted >>>>>>> >> >to
save lives . . .
You pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain about >>>>>>> >>thishttps://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her >>>>>>> >> >best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their
lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. >>>>>>> >> >Lives
don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying >>>>>>> >> >and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a
mercenary . . .
government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.
Get a life before it is too late.
hey now, why the abusive comments? As my mother used to say: if can't >>>>>>> >say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
he
is
by far the most abusive person here and that typically I respond to his >>>>>>>abuse.
He has undertaken a planned and deliberate attack against me in >>>>>>>particular
for
some years because I call him out on his lies, defamation and abusive >>>>>>> behaviour. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth when he addresses new folk >>>>>>>here
but disagree with him and suddenly his true self appears. His history is
one
of
attacking anything that is not left wing and he does so with sarcasm and
worse.
I recommend not jumping to conclusions.
Admittedly I can't comment on past behaviour given my ~15+ year absence >>>>>>from this newsgroup. And even now I don't read it much as to often when >>>>>>I come here I just see people hurling abuse at each other (though I >>>>>>guess at least its not as bad as nz.politics)
folks away.
If you stay here you will be able to make your own judgement.
I certainly do not believe Newshub is a relaible source - they are >>>>>seriously
of
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the >>>>>>> >message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out some
important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this >>>>>>> >newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any missing
context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted was
wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other people >>>>>>> >are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate >>>>>>> >response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse. >>>>>>> I do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence >>>>>>>(typical
him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
In this particular instance he posted links to two news stories along >>>>>>with a bit of commentary that broadly paraphrases the contents of those >>>>>>news stories.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
biased. RNZ is better but still not exactly impartial, however I think >>>>>there
is
some effort to improve that. at least I hope so.
I yearn for real journalism, it is sadly lacking in our mainstream media. A
few
are active in minor sites but some of those are just as biased. >>>>>>While, like any news outlet, they will have certain biases the reports >>>>>>are based on verifiable facts. The Government *did* repeal a piece of >>>>>>legislation and various experts, including government departments, >>>>>>broadly agree on what the effect of repealing that legislation will be. >>>>>The government repealed something which had yet to be enacted. I don't >>>>>necessarily agree with them but the idea that it will result in any deaths >>>>>is
hard to prove and questionable. Smokers have free will utimately. As do >>>>>people
who climb mountains, how far do we go in protecting those folk and how far
do
we go to save the cost of treatment or rescue when they fall? Hard question
to
answer but not to those who are biased, they see only one side. >>>>nicotine is known as one of the most addictive of all legally
die, and smokers do tend to get addicted to nicotine. The advisers
have told the government that the cost of health services for the >>additional smoking addicts is significantly higher than the amount of >>excise tax raised. Not much questionable about that, but if you do
have a question ask away.
Rates of death by category are fairly well documented. The biggest areYou should have read what I wrote. I only referred to deaths that are caused by
Do you have evidence to support that assertion, Tony? certainly cancerAgain, not the point, that was one example. If you add all of the causes of >>>death which are caused by people and remove smoking what remains would be >>>hugely more than deaths caused by smoking. In other words add up all >>>non-smoking deaths caused by human activity which includes driving, swimming,
We do spend some money on minimising deaths from climbing accidents, >>>>but they are far fewer than the deaths from nicotine addiction.
mountain climbing and hundreds of other activiteis that would dwarf smoking >>>deaths - so the point is entirely valid - where do you draw the line?
is a major cause of death, but it and other illnesses are not on your
list, and they are not significantly affected by the repeal of the >>non-smoking legislation. The legislation does not affect other types
of death however, so is irrelevant to the repeal of the smoking >>legislation.
people, some cancers are some are not but there are hundreds of human activites
that cause death.
That is what we have statisticians, economist, and experts in
This and
the last government have drawn a line, different lines. To say one was wrong >>>and the other right is impossible to prove. So the topic is politically >>>driven,
not for humanitarian reasons.
And your evidence for that assertion?The scientists and public servants giving advice to the governmentAbsolutely, it is highly questionable.
have told them that the long term costs of the legislation repeal are >>significantly higher than the additional money raised through selling
more tobacco products. Are you claiming that independent assessment is >>wrong?
Reading the posted new stories along with others on this subject from >>>>>>other sources I don't see any "opinions based on zero evidence" here. >>>>>>But perhaps I'm missing something and the tresury is wrong somehow?
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:06:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more >>smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to
save lives . . .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their
lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives >>don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a >>mercenary . . .
That would be Swarbrick of the green party wouldn't it?
Aren't they the party who wants to legalise pot?
Bill.
On 4 Mar 2024 04:11:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
Speaking of deaths can we include the excess deaths here that we are not >>allowed to talk about.
Today's not-allowed-to-call-it-vaxx-death: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350196421/silent-killer-two-months-diagnosis-death
Excerpts:
"I call it turbo cancer," Alan says, outside the Christchurch home she
bought him not long before she got sick. "It was just unbelievable
that it was just that quick." ... "You wouldn’t know she was ill."
Worryingly, especially for young healthy women - there were almost no >indicators and no history of bowel cancer in the family.
...
Just eight days after her wedding, Jade Blackman died at 5.15pm on
January 11.
...
Jade had a particular type of bowel cancer called BRAF which her
oncologist told Angela was "ripping through" young outwardly fit and
healthy people. At the same time the oncologist was dealing with Jade,
she had 12 others with the same type of bowel cancer, in the same age >bracket.
...
"It’s coming from somewhere," Alan shakes his head, as he looks sadly
at photos of his daughter, "but I just have no idea where."
On 2024-03-03, Willy Nilly <wn@qwert.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Speaking of deaths can we include the excess deaths here that we are not >allowed to talk about.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.
Certainly not, they are very left wing with those opinions
well-stirred throughout their articles. RNZ is my primary source of
NZ news and I keep wishing they would get better.
But what is more important, is their selection of what *not* to
report. As an example, overseas there are big farmers' protests, and
in Brazil, big protests against their left-wing government -- ignored
by our media. Locally, yesterday there was a gathering of 200 NZDSOS
at Parliament to present a petition to end the harmful Covid
"vaccines" -- Deputy PM Winston Peters and another minister met them
to receive the petition, and speeches were made on both sides. NZ
media coverage of this event: Zero.
So, no, *not* reliable sources, and not even "reliable enough".
The misery caused by the "vaccines" is proabably as much as the affects of >smoking. It is hard to prove otherwise as the data is not publicly
avaliable.
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 17:43:44 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:06:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more >>>smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to >>>save lives . . .https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their >>>lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives >>>don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a >>>mercenary . . .
That would be Swarbrick of the green party wouldn't it?
Aren't they the party who wants to legalise pot?
Bill.
Cannabis has a markedly different effect on mortality than nicotine -
it is relatively trivial in terms of killing users.
The Green Party seem to have other more important issues to talk about these days.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 04:42:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyYoun really are unpleasant - the policy does not rely on killing anybody - that is not a fact - it is political rhetoric.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:A very informed guess. There are quite good statistics on the risk of
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 23:36:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyNobody knows, it is a guess at best.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The topic is the cost of the repeal of legislation that was pushed >>>through under urgency. That cost depends on how many get ill and/or
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 22:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is not the topic. The topic, your topic, is about the deaths >>>>supposedly
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.Gl6l5TYmfOSmAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>says...OK David. Rich has a history of abuse not only against me, he has driven >>>>>>some
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.8$Ko2mBO0$cgiQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>> >says...David, if you read the history of the poster rich80105 you will see >>>>>>>>that
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from >>>>>>>> >> >morehttps://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just >>>>>>>> >> >wanted
to
save lives . . .
You pathetic fool. You have nothing of consequence to complain >>>>>>>> >>abouthttps://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her >>>>>>>> >> >best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying >>>>>>>> >> >their
lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. >>>>>>>> >> >Lives
don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for >>>>>>>> >> >quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with >>>>>>>> >> >being a
mercenary . . .
this
government so your resort to innuendo and outright lies.
Get a life before it is too late.
hey now, why the abusive comments? As my mother used to say: if can't >>>>>>>> >say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
he
is
by far the most abusive person here and that typically I respond to >>>>>>>>his
abuse.
He has undertaken a planned and deliberate attack against me in >>>>>>>>particular
for
some years because I call him out on his lies, defamation and abusive >>>>>>>> behaviour. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth when he addresses new >>>>>>>>folk
here
but disagree with him and suddenly his true self appears. His history >>>>>>>>is
one
of
attacking anything that is not left wing and he does so with sarcasm >>>>>>>>and
worse.
I recommend not jumping to conclusions.
Admittedly I can't comment on past behaviour given my ~15+ year absence >>>>>>>from this newsgroup. And even now I don't read it much as to often when >>>>>>>I come here I just see people hurling abuse at each other (though I >>>>>>>guess at least its not as bad as nz.politics)
folks away.
If you stay here you will be able to make your own judgement.
biased. RNZ is better but still not exactly impartial, however I think >>>>>>there
of
Rather than shooting the messenger, how about actually reply to the >>>>>>>> >message? If you believe something posted was incorrect or left out >>>>>>>> >some
important context, it would be helpful to everyone reading this >>>>>>>> >newsgroup if you actually stated what was wrong or provided any >>>>>>>> >missing
context along with reliable references to back that up.
If you can't find any reliable information to prove what was posted >>>>>>>> >was
wrong, then perhaps it isn't wrong which is perfectly ok. Other >>>>>>>> >people
are allowed to be right and hurling insults isn't an appropriate >>>>>>>> >response to that. Its not worth anyones time reading pointless abuse. >>>>>>>> I do not need to do that he posted opinions based on zero evidence >>>>>>>>(typical
him) and I posted one in return - I plan to continue to do so.
In this particular instance he posted links to two news stories along >>>>>>>with a bit of commentary that broadly paraphrases the contents of those >>>>>>>news stories.
Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources. >>>>>>I certainly do not believe Newshub is a relaible source - they are >>>>>>seriously
is
some effort to improve that. at least I hope so.
I yearn for real journalism, it is sadly lacking in our mainstream media. >>>>>>A
few
are active in minor sites but some of those are just as biased. >>>>>>>While, like any news outlet, they will have certain biases the reports >>>>>>>are based on verifiable facts. The Government *did* repeal a piece of >>>>>>>legislation and various experts, including government departments, >>>>>>>broadly agree on what the effect of repealing that legislation will be. >>>>>>The government repealed something which had yet to be enacted. I don't >>>>>>necessarily agree with them but the idea that it will result in any >>>>>>deaths
is
hard to prove and questionable. Smokers have free will utimately. As do >>>>>>people
who climb mountains, how far do we go in protecting those folk and how >>>>>>far
do
we go to save the cost of treatment or rescue when they fall? Hard >>>>>>question
to
answer but not to those who are biased, they see only one side. >>>>>nicotine is known as one of the most addictive of all legally >>>>>available chemicals - stopping people starting to smoke is the most >>>>>effective action that can be taken. The expert advice commissioned by >>>>>government indicated that the value of the cost to the country of the >>>>>legislation was significantly higher than the additional tax revenue >>>>>generated.
caused by the repeal of one not enacted change. That is highly questionable.
die, and smokers do tend to get addicted to nicotine. The advisers
have told the government that the cost of health services for the >>>additional smoking addicts is significantly higher than the amount of >>>excise tax raised. Not much questionable about that, but if you do
have a question ask away.
for example lung cancer from smoking, depending on how many were
smoked and length of time since starting smoking. For the comparison
of an increase in excise taxes over say the next three years, they
would have been able to estimate how many new smokers would appear,
and how many current smokers would continue, and from that estimate
costs of health needs going out into the future under different
scenarios. By discounting back, they appear to have fund that you
would have to set aside at least double the increase in excise tax to
meet those future additional health needs - on a present day basis, it
gives a future cost that is clearly more than the short term taxes
raised. Combine that with the inhumanity of deliberately setting out a
tax policy that relies on killing more New Zealanders. it is no wonder
that what the government have done is not enthusiastically endorsed by
most people - almost certainly including Shane Reti who be well aware
of the problems it leaves for the future.
Please don't change the subject - I was, and very clearly, discussing deaths caused by human beings. Thgat deos not include many cancers and heart disease in many cases.Rates of death by category are fairly well documented. The biggest areYou should have read what I wrote. I only referred to deaths that are caused >>by
Do you have evidence to support that assertion, Tony? certainly cancerAgain, not the point, that was one example. If you add all of the causes of >>>>death which are caused by people and remove smoking what remains would be >>>>hugely more than deaths caused by smoking. In other words add up all >>>>non-smoking deaths caused by human activity which includes driving, >>>>swimming,
We do spend some money on minimising deaths from climbing accidents, >>>>>but they are far fewer than the deaths from nicotine addiction.
mountain climbing and hundreds of other activiteis that would dwarf smoking >>>>deaths - so the point is entirely valid - where do you draw the line?
is a major cause of death, but it and other illnesses are not on your >>>list, and they are not significantly affected by the repeal of the >>>non-smoking legislation. The legislation does not affect other types
of death however, so is irrelevant to the repeal of the smoking >>>legislation.
people, some cancers are some are not but there are hundreds of human >>activites
that cause death.
old age, cancer, heart disease, road accidents - what others come even
close to those?
So prove me wrong.That is what we have statisticians, economist, and experts in
This and
the last government have drawn a line, different lines. To say one was >>>>wrong
and the other right is impossible to prove. So the topic is politically >>>>driven,
not for humanitarian reasons.
epidemiology and other sciences - good estimates can be made of many
of these variables.
Not an assertion.And your evidence for that assertion?The scientists and public servants giving advice to the governmentAbsolutely, it is highly questionable.
have told them that the long term costs of the legislation repeal are >>>significantly higher than the additional money raised through selling >>>more tobacco products. Are you claiming that independent assessment is >>>wrong?
Reading the posted new stories along with others on this subject from >>>>>>>other sources I don't see any "opinions based on zero evidence" here. >>>>>>>But perhaps I'm missing something and the tresury is wrong somehow?
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:06:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more >smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to
save lives . . .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best
to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their
lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives >don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a >mercenary . . .
That would be Swarbrick of the green party wouldn't it?
Aren't they the party who wants to legalise pot?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The statistics for expected deaths for the countries included in the
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 04:43:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyMan made deaths are millions per year world wide.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-03, Willy Nilly <wn@qwert.com> wrote:Yes, and they are man made deaths.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.Speaking of deaths can we include the excess deaths here that we are not >>>>allowed to talk about.
Certainly not, they are very left wing with those opinions
well-stirred throughout their articles. RNZ is my primary source of >>>>> NZ news and I keep wishing they would get better.
But what is more important, is their selection of what *not* to
report. As an example, overseas there are big farmers' protests, and >>>>> in Brazil, big protests against their left-wing government -- ignored >>>>> by our media. Locally, yesterday there was a gathering of 200 NZDSOS >>>>> at Parliament to present a petition to end the harmful Covid
"vaccines" -- Deputy PM Winston Peters and another minister met them >>>>> to receive the petition, and speeches were made on both sides. NZ
media coverage of this event: Zero.
So, no, *not* reliable sources, and not even "reliable enough".
The misery caused by the "vaccines" is proabably as much as the affects of >>>>smoking. It is hard to prove otherwise as the data is not publicly >>>>avaliable.
If there are any (and there is no clear evidence of that; just a small >>number of blog posts . . .) they would have affected this chart: >>https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-cumulative-per-100k-economist?tab=chart&facet=none&country=AUS~NZL~CAN~USA~GBR~NOR~SWE
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 22:01:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 17:43:44 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:06:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more >>>>smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to >>>>save lives . . .https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best >>>>to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their >>>>lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives >>>>don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying
and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite
a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a >>>>mercenary . . .
That would be Swarbrick of the green party wouldn't it?
Aren't they the party who wants to legalise pot?
Bill.
Cannabis has a markedly different effect on mortality than nicotine -
Really? Who told you that?
No of course not, but it is prescribed for some purposes where theit is relatively trivial in terms of killing users.
That a good reason to promote it? How about all the other damage it
does? Should that just be ignored?
The Green Party seem to have other more important issues to talk about these days.
Most of it involves pushing socialism and very little to do with the >environment, except perhaps when they are pimping the climate fraud.
Bill.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 04:43:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyMan made deaths are millions per year world wide.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-03, Willy Nilly <wn@qwert.com> wrote:Yes, and they are man made deaths.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources.Speaking of deaths can we include the excess deaths here that we are not >>>allowed to talk about.
Certainly not, they are very left wing with those opinions
well-stirred throughout their articles. RNZ is my primary source of
NZ news and I keep wishing they would get better.
But what is more important, is their selection of what *not* to
report. As an example, overseas there are big farmers' protests, and
in Brazil, big protests against their left-wing government -- ignored
by our media. Locally, yesterday there was a gathering of 200 NZDSOS
at Parliament to present a petition to end the harmful Covid
"vaccines" -- Deputy PM Winston Peters and another minister met them
to receive the petition, and speeches were made on both sides. NZ
media coverage of this event: Zero.
So, no, *not* reliable sources, and not even "reliable enough".
The misery caused by the "vaccines" is proabably as much as the affects of >>>smoking. It is hard to prove otherwise as the data is not publicly >>>avaliable.
If there are any (and there is no clear evidence of that; just a small
number of blog posts . . .) they would have affected this chart: >https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-cumulative-per-100k-economist?tab=chart&facet=none&country=AUS~NZL~CAN~USA~GBR~NOR~SWE
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:16:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyDeaths from all causes is not the subject - Why do you persist in changing the subject?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The statistics for expected deaths for the countries included in the >comparison above will have included deaths from all causes - they show
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 04:43:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyMan made deaths are millions per year world wide.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-03, Willy Nilly <wn@qwert.com> wrote:Yes, and they are man made deaths.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources. >>>>>>Speaking of deaths can we include the excess deaths here that we are not >>>>>allowed to talk about.
Certainly not, they are very left wing with those opinions
well-stirred throughout their articles. RNZ is my primary source of >>>>>> NZ news and I keep wishing they would get better.
But what is more important, is their selection of what *not* to
report. As an example, overseas there are big farmers' protests, and >>>>>> in Brazil, big protests against their left-wing government -- ignored >>>>>> by our media. Locally, yesterday there was a gathering of 200 NZDSOS >>>>>> at Parliament to present a petition to end the harmful Covid
"vaccines" -- Deputy PM Winston Peters and another minister met them >>>>>> to receive the petition, and speeches were made on both sides. NZ >>>>>> media coverage of this event: Zero.
So, no, *not* reliable sources, and not even "reliable enough".
The misery caused by the "vaccines" is proabably as much as the affects of >>>>>smoking. It is hard to prove otherwise as the data is not publicly >>>>>avaliable.
If there are any (and there is no clear evidence of that; just a small >>>number of blog posts . . .) they would have affected this chart: >>>https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-cumulative-per-100k-economist?tab=chart&facet=none&country=AUS~NZL~CAN~USA~GBR~NOR~SWE
the significant increase in deaths due to Covid in those countries,
but for some of the countries with a lot of man made deaths, such as
Israel and Ukraine, those statistics would be distorted by man-made
deaths.
Mortality from guns for example is higher in the USA than in NewIrrelevant to the subject.
Zealand, but such man-made deaths are not believed to have increased >significantly over the period covered in the charts - the increased
number of deaths can be attributed to Covid.
In New Zealand, Covid precautions lowered the number of deaths fromIrrelevant.
influenza and from road accidents for example.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 23:30:46 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Because you were asking for statistics based on man-made deaths -
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:16:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyDeaths from all causes is not the subject - Why do you persist in changing >>the
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The statistics for expected deaths for the countries included in the >>>comparison above will have included deaths from all causes - they show >>>the significant increase in deaths due to Covid in those countries,
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 04:43:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Man made deaths are millions per year world wide.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-03, Willy Nilly <wn@qwert.com> wrote:Yes, and they are man made deaths.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources. >>>>>>>>Speaking of deaths can we include the excess deaths here that we are not >>>>>>>allowed to talk about.
Certainly not, they are very left wing with those opinions
well-stirred throughout their articles. RNZ is my primary source of >>>>>>>> NZ news and I keep wishing they would get better.
But what is more important, is their selection of what *not* to >>>>>>>> report. As an example, overseas there are big farmers' protests, and >>>>>>>> in Brazil, big protests against their left-wing government -- ignored >>>>>>>> by our media. Locally, yesterday there was a gathering of 200 NZDSOS >>>>>>>> at Parliament to present a petition to end the harmful Covid
"vaccines" -- Deputy PM Winston Peters and another minister met them >>>>>>>> to receive the petition, and speeches were made on both sides. NZ >>>>>>>> media coverage of this event: Zero.
So, no, *not* reliable sources, and not even "reliable enough". >>>>>>>>
The misery caused by the "vaccines" is proabably as much as the affects >>>>>>>of
smoking. It is hard to prove otherwise as the data is not publicly >>>>>>>avaliable.
If there are any (and there is no clear evidence of that; just a small >>>>>number of blog posts . . .) they would have affected this chart: >>>>>https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-cumulative-per-100k-economist?tab=chart&facet=none&country=AUS~NZL~CAN~USA~GBR~NOR~SWE
but for some of the countries with a lot of man made deaths, such as >>>Israel and Ukraine, those statistics would be distorted by man-made >>>deaths.
subject?
which would be very difficult to define. Population statistics forYou keep avoiding tyhe issue. Go away unless you can get back on track.
total deaths are fairly reliable, and Covid deaths are as well-defined
as health experts around the world could make them - the graph I
posted does not need to define Covid deaths however - they are just
looking at changes to overall mortality rates through the Covid
period.
Completely irrelevant. Get on track.Irrelevant to the subject.
Mortality from guns for example is higher in the USA than in New
Zealand, but such man-made deaths are not believed to have increased >>>significantly over the period covered in the charts - the increased >>>number of deaths can be attributed to Covid.
No, it is very pertinent to the subject. I have not posted statistics
from countries such as Israel or Ukraine where war/conflict deaths
quite possibly exceed deaths from Covid.
Irrelevant.
In New Zealand, Covid precautions lowered the number of deaths from >>>influenza and from road accidents for example.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Because you were asking for statistics based on man-made deaths -
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:16:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyDeaths from all causes is not the subject - Why do you persist in changing the >subject?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The statistics for expected deaths for the countries included in the >>comparison above will have included deaths from all causes - they show
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 04:43:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyMan made deaths are millions per year world wide.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-03, Willy Nilly <wn@qwert.com> wrote:Yes, and they are man made deaths.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources. >>>>>>>Speaking of deaths can we include the excess deaths here that we are not >>>>>>allowed to talk about.
Certainly not, they are very left wing with those opinions
well-stirred throughout their articles. RNZ is my primary source of >>>>>>> NZ news and I keep wishing they would get better.
But what is more important, is their selection of what *not* to
report. As an example, overseas there are big farmers' protests, and >>>>>>> in Brazil, big protests against their left-wing government -- ignored >>>>>>> by our media. Locally, yesterday there was a gathering of 200 NZDSOS >>>>>>> at Parliament to present a petition to end the harmful Covid
"vaccines" -- Deputy PM Winston Peters and another minister met them >>>>>>> to receive the petition, and speeches were made on both sides. NZ >>>>>>> media coverage of this event: Zero.
So, no, *not* reliable sources, and not even "reliable enough".
The misery caused by the "vaccines" is proabably as much as the affects of
smoking. It is hard to prove otherwise as the data is not publicly >>>>>>avaliable.
If there are any (and there is no clear evidence of that; just a small >>>>number of blog posts . . .) they would have affected this chart: >>>>https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-cumulative-per-100k-economist?tab=chart&facet=none&country=AUS~NZL~CAN~USA~GBR~NOR~SWE
the significant increase in deaths due to Covid in those countries,
but for some of the countries with a lot of man made deaths, such as
Israel and Ukraine, those statistics would be distorted by man-made
deaths.
Irrelevant to the subject.
Mortality from guns for example is higher in the USA than in New
Zealand, but such man-made deaths are not believed to have increased >>significantly over the period covered in the charts - the increased
number of deaths can be attributed to Covid.
Irrelevant.
In New Zealand, Covid precautions lowered the number of deaths from >>influenza and from road accidents for example.
Speaking of deaths can we include the excess deaths here that we are not >allowed to talk about.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You are correct, the statement "Man made deaths are millions per year
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 23:30:46 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Because you were asking for statistics based on man-made deaths -
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:16:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyDeaths from all causes is not the subject - Why do you persist in changing >>>the
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The statistics for expected deaths for the countries included in the >>>>comparison above will have included deaths from all causes - they show >>>>the significant increase in deaths due to Covid in those countries,
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 04:43:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Man made deaths are millions per year world wide.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-03, Willy Nilly <wn@qwert.com> wrote:Yes, and they are man made deaths.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources. >>>>>>>>>Speaking of deaths can we include the excess deaths here that we are not
Certainly not, they are very left wing with those opinions
well-stirred throughout their articles. RNZ is my primary source of >>>>>>>>> NZ news and I keep wishing they would get better.
But what is more important, is their selection of what *not* to >>>>>>>>> report. As an example, overseas there are big farmers' protests, and >>>>>>>>> in Brazil, big protests against their left-wing government -- ignored >>>>>>>>> by our media. Locally, yesterday there was a gathering of 200 NZDSOS >>>>>>>>> at Parliament to present a petition to end the harmful Covid >>>>>>>>> "vaccines" -- Deputy PM Winston Peters and another minister met them >>>>>>>>> to receive the petition, and speeches were made on both sides. NZ >>>>>>>>> media coverage of this event: Zero.
So, no, *not* reliable sources, and not even "reliable enough". >>>>>>>>>
allowed to talk about.
The misery caused by the "vaccines" is proabably as much as the affects >>>>>>>>of
smoking. It is hard to prove otherwise as the data is not publicly >>>>>>>>avaliable.
If there are any (and there is no clear evidence of that; just a small >>>>>>number of blog posts . . .) they would have affected this chart: >>>>>>https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-cumulative-per-100k-economist?tab=chart&facet=none&country=AUS~NZL~CAN~USA~GBR~NOR~SWE
but for some of the countries with a lot of man made deaths, such as >>>>Israel and Ukraine, those statistics would be distorted by man-made >>>>deaths.
subject?
I asked for no such thing. SO why did you change the subject?
So lets get back on trackwhich would be very difficult to define. Population statistics forYou keep avoiding tyhe issue. Go away unless you can get back on track.
total deaths are fairly reliable, and Covid deaths are as well-defined
as health experts around the world could make them - the graph I
posted does not need to define Covid deaths however - they are just
looking at changes to overall mortality rates through the Covid
period.
Completely irrelevant. Get on track.
Irrelevant to the subject.
Mortality from guns for example is higher in the USA than in New >>>>Zealand, but such man-made deaths are not believed to have increased >>>>significantly over the period covered in the charts - the increased >>>>number of deaths can be attributed to Covid.
No, it is very pertinent to the subject. I have not posted statistics
from countries such as Israel or Ukraine where war/conflict deaths
quite possibly exceed deaths from Covid.
Irrelevant.
In New Zealand, Covid precautions lowered the number of deaths from >>>>influenza and from road accidents for example.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 01:36:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt was absolutely on topic, you made it so, and your failure to address my statement tells us all we need to know - you are deliberately trying to destroy the thread you started because you have lost any traction with your arguments. >>>which would be very difficult to define. Population statistics for
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You are correct, the statement "Man made deaths are millions per year
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 23:30:46 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Because you were asking for statistics based on man-made deaths -
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:16:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Deaths from all causes is not the subject - Why do you persist in changing >>>>the
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The statistics for expected deaths for the countries included in the >>>>>comparison above will have included deaths from all causes - they show >>>>>the significant increase in deaths due to Covid in those countries, >>>>>but for some of the countries with a lot of man made deaths, such as >>>>>Israel and Ukraine, those statistics would be distorted by man-made >>>>>deaths.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 04:43:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Man made deaths are millions per year world wide.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-03, Willy Nilly <wn@qwert.com> wrote:Yes, and they are man made deaths.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Most would consider RNZ and Newshub to be reliable enough sources. >>>>>>>>>>Speaking of deaths can we include the excess deaths here that we are >>>>>>>>>not
Certainly not, they are very left wing with those opinions >>>>>>>>>> well-stirred throughout their articles. RNZ is my primary source of >>>>>>>>>> NZ news and I keep wishing they would get better.
But what is more important, is their selection of what *not* to >>>>>>>>>> report. As an example, overseas there are big farmers' protests, and
in Brazil, big protests against their left-wing government -- ignored
by our media. Locally, yesterday there was a gathering of 200 NZDSOS
at Parliament to present a petition to end the harmful Covid >>>>>>>>>> "vaccines" -- Deputy PM Winston Peters and another minister met them >>>>>>>>>> to receive the petition, and speeches were made on both sides. NZ >>>>>>>>>> media coverage of this event: Zero.
So, no, *not* reliable sources, and not even "reliable enough". >>>>>>>>>>
allowed to talk about.
The misery caused by the "vaccines" is proabably as much as the >>>>>>>>>affects
of
smoking. It is hard to prove otherwise as the data is not publicly >>>>>>>>>avaliable.
If there are any (and there is no clear evidence of that; just a small >>>>>>>number of blog posts . . .) they would have affected this chart: >>>>>>>https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-cumulative-per-100k-economist?tab=chart&facet=none&country=AUS~NZL~CAN~USA~GBR~NOR~SWE
subject?
I asked for no such thing. SO why did you change the subject?
world wide." was totally off topic, and I was wrong to respond to it.
Wrong, they are doing no such thing and your lack of evidence is no surprise.So lets get back on tracktotal deaths are fairly reliable, and Covid deaths are as well-definedYou keep avoiding tyhe issue. Go away unless you can get back on track.
as health experts around the world could make them - the graph I
posted does not need to define Covid deaths however - they are just >>>looking at changes to overall mortality rates through the Covid
period.
Completely irrelevant. Get on track.
Irrelevant to the subject.
Mortality from guns for example is higher in the USA than in New >>>>>Zealand, but such man-made deaths are not believed to have increased >>>>>significantly over the period covered in the charts - the increased >>>>>number of deaths can be attributed to Covid.
No, it is very pertinent to the subject. I have not posted statistics >>>from countries such as Israel or Ukraine where war/conflict deaths
quite possibly exceed deaths from Covid.
Irrelevant.
In New Zealand, Covid precautions lowered the number of deaths from >>>>>influenza and from road accidents for example.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
So our government is on track to reward support from the tobacco
industry, and is willing to put up with more tobacco deaths (that will
cost more than the additional excise they will bring in) as a result.
Is there anything more that needs to be said?Not by you because you are lost in your own quagmire.
That may be the "man made deaths" you were referring to, but of course >Costello is a woman . . .OK back to the cowardly sarcasm you go - no surprise there.
On Tue, 05 Mar 2024 05:05:12 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 22:01:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 17:43:44 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:06:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
So who was Right - the Minister who just wanted $1.5 billion from more >>>>>smoking in the next four years, or Chloe Swarbrick, who just wanted to >>>>>save lives . . .https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-looking-at-all-options-to-hit-smokefree-targets-as-politicians-give-impassioned-speeches.html
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018928347/smoke-signals-the-tobacco-industry-language-that-found-its-way-into-ministerial-papers
Yes, Chloe Swarbrick was right - and Casey Costello was doing her best >>>>>to get a measurable outcome from the tobacco industry - copying their >>>>>lines well to set the Coalition up for more political donations. Lives >>>>>don't matter to the coalition government - it is all about repaying >>>>>and keeping big donors who have bought sympathetic policies for quite >>>>>a high price. Ask Mark Mitchell - there is nothing wrong with being a >>>>>mercenary . . .
That would be Swarbrick of the green party wouldn't it?
Aren't they the party who wants to legalise pot?
Bill.
Cannabis has a markedly different effect on mortality than nicotine -
Really? Who told you that?
Most governments have talked about the higher level of harm that
nicotine presents over cannabis.
Google it yourself - here is just one
article of many: >https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7517-2-21
it is relatively trivial in terms of killing users.
That a good reason to promote it? How about all the other damage itNo of course not, but it is prescribed for some purposes where the
does? Should that just be ignored?
beneficial effects outweigh the potential for harm.
The Green Party seem to have other more important issues to talk about these days.
Most of it involves pushing socialism and very little to do with the >>environment, except perhaps when they are pimping the climate fraud.
That possibly depends on what you describe as socialism - they are
similar to the policies of many past National Party governments, such
as those of Holyoake and Bolger - remember the slogan of the Bolger >Government of aiming for "equal opportunity"?
... Socialism isn't about equal opportunity. For equal
opportunity, freedom and equality under the law are all that is
required. Socialism is about equality of outcome regardless of the
quality of that outcome. Socialism requires a large bureaucracy,
intrusive regulations and the use of force.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 126:33:21 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,958 |