[hackula1]

> but it is certainly a toxic substance, in the medical sense.

Excuse me for not accepting the pseudo-science weasel word "toxic". Vitamin C is toxic at certain levels. If you do not bring in more specifics, then what you are saying is meaningless. Just saying "I choose to reserve judgement, but have a gut feeling that it will be shown to be more harmful than cigarettes" is about as far as strong a claim you can make based on the evidence you have presented.

[chimeracoder]

> "I choose to reserve judgement, but have a gut feeling that it will be shown to be more harmful than cigarettes"

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything like that - certainly never that I felt that they would be shown to be more harmful than cigarettes.

> Excuse me for not accepting the pseudo-science weasel word "toxic".

I don't know why you think that a medical term is a "pseudo-science weasel word".

> If you do not bring in more specifics, then what you are saying is meaningless.

It's a lot less meaningless than the original statement "e-cigarettes are harmless", which is backed not by rigorous scientific research on e-cigarettes themselves, but rather (at best) on fairly questionable reasoning based on a misunderstanding of drug toxicology.

[hackula1]

> Please don't put words in my mouth

Putting words in your mouth is typically claiming you said X. I am suggesting that you instead, SHOULD have said Y.

> I don't know why you think that a medical term is a "pseudo-science weasel word".

"Cloud" is a technical word in computing with a specific meaning. This does not stop tech marketers from using it to mean things it does not. "Toxic" and "toxins" are medical words that are abused to the point of being meaningless much like "cloud". You are calling something harmful (to your credit, you do not specify how harmful) without specifying a dosage. Water is toxic at certain levels. Words that give a strong impression one way or the other, but are broad and do not commit to specifics are weasel words.

> It's a lot less meaningless than the original statement "e-cigarettes are harmless", which is backed not by rigorous scientific research on e-cigarettes themselves, but rather (at best) on fairly questionable reasoning based on a misunderstanding of drug toxicology.

I agree that you are "more right" than the OP, however, "harmless" and "toxic" are both just as bad in the context where dosage is not specified. It would be misleading to say that asbestos is harmless, although pretty much accurate at small enough levels. It would also be technically accurate to say that most things are toxic at some sufficiently high level.

In a nutshell, this debate between you and the OP is useless without specifying the amount being consumed.