Also, you cannot extend your lifetime by driving less. You can reduce the chances of having an accident. You’re confusing the average outcome with the most likely outcome.

Edit: What bar have you been to that charges you £4 for a beer?

I don’t mind not smoking at pubs and restaurants, mostly because the drinks there are too expensive and smoker or not, you’re a fool to throw your money away for a beer that costs $2 and pay $6 for someone to open it and walk 4 feet.

That aside, you can greatly extend you lifespan by cutting your driving in half. As you are much more likely to die in a tangled burning car, then from cigarette smoke.

Both are painful by the way, and likely you’ll be screaming in either case!

Sorry to remind the puritanical crowd that yes, life is a terminal ride, and removing smoking won’t prolong your life in any way shape or form!

And as if that wasn’t enough it also makes his deletion of user comments from that same page even more rampantly hypocritical. I give his irony-proof helmet another two months. It can’t possibly stand up to this kind of barrage for long.

Another thing Hitt does that bothers me is that he adopts a rather patronising and insulting tone. He refers to me as “Andy boy” — and even calls me that while talking to me. I don’t like “Andy” on its own, but when it’s someone who’s never actually met me and who I actively dislike and who I have never invited to call me Andy that’s downright impolite.

Okay, sure, so I call him a twat on my blog, which is hardly polite, but after I do that I thoroughly explain what I mean by it and my justifications for saying so. I think I’ve done everything that the normal rules of civility demand of me. But you just don’t start calling people by patronising nicknames to their faces. That’s not on.

Whenever I refer to him I use his actual name, with no modifiers. I could call him “Dave Shitt” if I wanted to. Possibly it may even get a laugh from some of the less intellectual people reading this, but I don’t because it would diminish my point. When I talk to him I remain (generally) polite and as unconfrontational as the message allows. He, on the other hand, says things like this:

You see, this blog is designed for people who are smarter than average. But I’ll let you hang around anyway, at least until I get tired of you.

How is that helpful? What that is is a pathetic ad hominem attack. You can tell because he makes no particular attempt to answer my main argument (aside from asking for clarifying questions, which I answered) whereas he expends seemingly endless effort in patronising me, attacking my credibility, and generally trying to antagonise me (which is working, of course, but I’m choosing not to rise to it).

(Note: when I called him a twat this was not ad hominem, as I attacked his argument and from there concluded that he was a twat, not vice versa.)

For the record, he’s now taken to deleting my posts on his blog (presumably because he lacks the technical skills to ban me). Now I would naturally presume that in that case he’ll ask Harley to stop criticising my blog entries there and start commenting here instead, because otherwise he’s basically inviting people to post nasty things about me and deleting anything I say to defend myself (which is the kind of thing a twat would do).

Let’s see what he does. I wonder what it will be.

I think its because he assumes that everyone that argues against him is.
If we look at the definition of “nanny state” and consequent derivations, i’m not sure we’ll find it includes arguments against bad use of statistics.

Or being anti-smoking because of the dangerous effects of secondary smoke and potential health risks to an individual. I have no objection to smoking, people should feel free as long as they don’t cause health detriment to people who choose not to smoke.

Its not hard to find a website that lists all the things in cigarette smoke and they include the following; Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen cyanide and ammonia.

Now if i took a junior chemistry kit down to my local pub with the intention of creating all of these things and releasing them into the atmosphere would people against anti public-smoking laws be prepared to go into that pub?

Well worth a look, particularly the bit where he accuses me of being “caught in a lie [and trying] to weasel out of it” because I corrected his misrepresentation of what I said. I think he must be wearing some kind of industrial grade irony-proof helmet.