Dick Puddlecote spoke for many of us when he wrote 'Why it's right to rejoice at Smokefree South West's demise'.
What makes me laugh is the way tobacco control campaigners are such sensitive souls, happy to dish it out but not so happy when it's their turn to take a bit of stick.
As Dick pointed out, several anti-smoking campaigners took to Twitter to complain about "unkind", "unnecessary" or "unpleasant" remarks.
The latter comment - directed at Forest by Stirling University's Linda Bauld - was unjustified, I think. Interviewed by the BBC I just stated the facts as I saw them.
Smokefree South West, I said, had shot themselves in foot when they used public money to campaign in favour of plain packaging.
I listed other anti-tobacco groups and asked, not unreasonably, why local taxpayers' should have to pay for a regional anti-smoking group when they were already paying for local NHS smoking cessation services and national anti-smoking campaigns.
We then repeated those points in a series of tweets. Linda wasn't happy.
But can you imagine the reaction from anti-smoking campaigners if Forest had hit the buffers, funding wise?
Actually I do have some idea how they would respond because in 2001 we lost a third of our funding when one tobacco company withdrew financial support.
The Guardian, naturally, was only too happy to publish the details:
Britain's biggest tobacco manufacturer, Gallaher, has withdrawn its financial support for the pro-smoking lobby group Forest, robbing the organisation of up to a third of its funds.
The company, which is behind brands such as Benson and Hedges, Silk Cut and Hamlet, wants to concentrate on promoting its products but the decision is a body blow to Forest, which receives 96% of its £300,000 a year budget from the cigarette industry.
Anti-smoking campaigners welcomed the news … Action on Smoking and Health, said: "If even the tobacco industry doesn't want to support Forest, what are they there for?"
Had social media existed back then the response would have been many times worse. And that's fine. It goes with the territory. If you don't like it, look away.
Unlike Smokefree South West we lost only a third of our funding but it was still a significant blow. As we struggled with our reduced situation two long-serving members of staff were made redundant, another had to go part-time, and we were forced to give up our central London office.
But we didn't whinge about it. This was our response:
Simon Clark, Forest's director, said the loss of funds was "a bit of a blow", which might mean some more "belt tightening" at the organisation which had to cut its full-time staff from six to four when the US company, Philip Morris, withdrew funds a few years ago.
He said: "The show goes on. We are looking to branch out and run other campaigns, not under the heading of Forest, on issues such as fatty foods and dairy products. Some doctors are promoting the idea that such foods should be taxed more to raise money for health services, as they had argued with cigarettes."
See Cigarette firm stops cash for pro-smoking group (Guardian).
As it happens Gallaher renewed their support (but not at the same level) in 2005 but it was a difficult time.
The big difference between Forest, which operates in the private sector, and groups like Smokefree South West which operate in the public sector and are dependent on public money, is this.
If every last penny of tobacco industry funding was withdrawn I am reasonably confident Forest would continue in some shape or form. We certainly wouldn't pack up and take our ball home without a fight.
We'd seek funding elsewhere and if that failed volunteers would, I'm sure, keep the candle burning.
Our ability to campaign and provide a 24/7 media operation would be severely compromised but - like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail - we'd battle on.
Why? Well, it's a running joke that few anti-smoking groups tweet in the evening or at weekends. There's a reason for that. (Do I have to spell it out?)
In contrast, if you follow the likes of Chris Snowdon, Dick Puddlecote and me (in the UK) and Carl Phillips (in the US) you'll know we're on social media morning, noon and night, seven days a week.
We don't switch on and off according to 'normal' working hours. This is more than a nine-to-five job or interest to us.
Public health campaigners don't understand that. They dismiss us as stooges of Big Tobacco, conveniently ignoring the fact that we genuinely believe what we say and we'd say it irrespective of any relationship some of us might have with the tobacco industry.
For a more in-depth analysis of the mindset of public health activists (including the so-called 'moderate' ones) and their tenuous grasp on reality, I recommend the latest post by Carl Phillips: Dear "public health": you seriously cannot figure out why people hate you?
Needless to say, I agree with almost every word.