Le site greensmartliving.com est-il sûr ?

I have no idea why this particular website is listed as poor. The company is responsible, has a good rep, and will deliver what they promise. I suspect that a general overall reduction of harm will result from the use of this companies products. Furthermore, and I don't know how to explain this, but as I see no negative comments, I wonder just how did the we site receive it's negative rating? Is there some pre-bias that your users are not privy or some moral judgments in the prejudice that this site received? I thought WOT is a great tool, but now I am startling to question the unstated moral objectives of this tool (or perhaps coherence by some unnamed federal agency) which is biasing the WOT results nere? Any other users experiencing default negative ratings on sites that prove to be good, trustworthy, and/or productive businesses? Has WOT been unduly biased by the "religious right" in order to make needless and misguided moral decisions about our personal choices. I believe so, and I am no longer using WOT, as good as the tool is at rooting our absolute internet offal, as trustworthy and unbiased feedback from users. Someone obviously has their finger on the scale, and I want to know who, and for what purpose. Precise enough WOT? I hope you are monitoring some of the user feedback. When dealing in trust it is imperative that the trustee (is this the right form?) understand the motivation of the trust authority. Otherwise, if the NSA has been in your shorts recently, I propose that you either close up shop and open from a different country;(god I have just suggested outsourcing jobs - strongly against my principles), or hide your product under layers of trusted security so the NSA can't watch your activities, or especially those of your users. Keep no permanent records, and have the multiple triggers and mechanisms to wipe databases in the case that some unnamed fascist organization attempts to collect your records. Either way, lots of work. I love your product in general. Please do not let this become a social engineering tool, although that my e a way to profit, it is always the path to oblivion). One more thing, I did not consider till now. How influential have the tobacco companies been in generating this pre-judgmental bias against this web site. If anyone can provide some legitimate reason why this site was blacklisted, please let me know. If anyone is interested in setting up a more transparent system for evaluating web context, please contact me, as I feel that this is going to be very important for us to proceed into the future, especially with newly documented reasons to distrust of the C.A.'s (Thank you Snowden). Don't get me going on the NSA and trust, just google(v) (is lower case google a verb?) for yourself. Something tell me that the reason behind this site's negative rating, after several positive reviews from actual user, was make for some misguided moral concerns, or even more likely for business (financial) concerns (tobacco companies come into mind). Perhaps I missed something, as I am not at my mental peak at this time of the evening. Thanks for listening to my rant, 97%monkey

This site offers a good alternative for those who are addicted to cigarette smoking. I have used this site and this product and it has helped me quit smoking. Although the e-cigarette delivers nicotine, it does not deliver tar and there is no smoke, only water vapor that is not harmful to anyone. A bad rating for this website is unfounded and unfair.