Velvet - You probably did not realize that the word “gullible” is not even in the dictionary. Go ahead - look it up!
Really? Dictionary dot com thinks it is. I also found a listing in my Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary. Or have I just been whooshed? :smack:
rayh I thought about putting my $.02 in that pit thread but I was just too lazy to read through it.
velvetjones, thank you for that. I’m at work so I’m only laughing on the inside.
(And yes, I fell for it too, many years ago.)
Snrrt
Yes it is - in fact, it’s in there twice. Check it out!
I am definitely going to remember that one… 
Cigarette for cigarette, you’re right. However the logic is that if you smoke cigarettes with more nicotine in them you’ll smoke fewer of them - you satisfy the addiction with fewer puffs per day.
The point of the suit is that the tobacco companies knew, before they released them, that “light” cigarettes were just as bad for you as standard ones, and that they would sell more cigarettes as you need more of them to give you your hit of nicotine. That’s the measure of their veniality and why they deserve no break whatsoever (especially the DoJ one that saved them over $100,000,000,000).
Yeah, it’s a good one. I wish I could take credit for it, but I think it’s an oldie too.
I just love the way my hair blows back when I get royally whooshed. It’s invigorating! Just like my Marlboro Ultra Light 100s used to be.