Sunday, 5 December 2010

John Banzhaf is a liar

I've just been over to John Banzhaf's ASH website to see if he's said anything particuarly insane since the last time I visited and I see he is now claiming that ASH is 'America's first antismoking and nonsmokers' rights organization'.




This happens to be something I know a bit about. So let's see...

The Anti-Tobacco League was formed in Massachusetts in 1850.

The Anti-Cigarette League was formed in Chicago in 1899.

The Nonsmokers Protective League was formed in New York in 1911.

Action on Smoking and Health was formed in 1968.


Now, I pick my words carefully when dealing with this notoriously litigious individual, but let me say loud and clear that John Banzhaf is a liar.

Sue me, fatso.



[PS. New CATCH up now at Frank's gaff]

7 comments:

JJ said...

Just you wait!

Right...that's it...I'm telling big John.

Send me a good selection of good honest wines...and I'll forget the whole thing...and you can include party poppers, chocs and biscuits, all in time for Christmas - right?

manwiddicombe said...

He will probably justify the word "first" as meaning "premier" or "primary" rather than "chronologically first" .. .. ..

Ann W. said...

"Sue me, fatso."

LMAO, you tell him Chris......

westcoast2 said...

"'America's first antismoking and nonsmokers' rights organization'."

Notice the 'and'?

JBIII would no doubt argue that the examples given are single either/or groups where as ASH (US) is the first 'combined' organization.

Lawyers.....

Xopher said...

Some people will do anything for money - I won't but here's one who could bet money from the flat eath society.

A money grubbing whore.

Snowdon said...

westcoast2,

The Nonsmokers Protective League was definitely an anti-smoking group as well.

Funny how ASH are happy to use the word 'anti-smoking'. Don't anti-smoking groups claim that anti-smoking is a pejorative term invented by the tobacco industry?

CJS

westcoast2 said...

CJS

"The Nonsmokers Protective League was definitely an anti-smoking group as well."

Of course, but was it in the title?

I was making the point that unless every dot and comma is precise then lawyers (esp JBIII) will get around the charge of 'liar'.

This is how he makes statements, which seem outrageous to some, and gets away with it.

People have tried to discredit JBIII on many occasions, there was even a website against him.

Maybe the way forward is to use humour and ridicule?

So if logic fails because ASH use the word 'anti-smoking' then a hearty laugh might be more effective? Like how dumb is that?