AnthonyCG, my point was that a and b contradict each other, and that you cannot logically hold both of these positions. I'm not saying if a or b are true or not, only that they are mutally exclusive. 

 No, the two viewpoints a) there are far more effective/efficient ways for beginners to improve than studying openings and b) don't play bad openings because you learn less and are more likely to lose are not mutually exclusive.

Well, well. This is not about chess (which I know little about), but about logic (which I've taught). Anyway, I guess arguing about this is a waste of time.

I wonder did your students learn anything...

Arctor, have a look here. It's a pretty good place to begin. 

How does the Danish play second fiddle when one comes out of the sicilian and one comes out of e4 e5

Good question, 2200ismygoal. 

 Oye vey! Do I really have to explain it?? It's a loose analogy, because in both openings white gambits off the same two pawns...... Yes, beyond that there is very little similarity. I stand corrected: It's more like third or fourth fiddle.....

 Interesting point! So the Danish Gambit is seen less frequently because it loses the popularity contest....not neccessarily because of any theoretical flaws (we're talking club level here, not the GM stratosphere). I agree. I know players who'd rather watch Nascar than play 2.Nf3 against 1...c5. But most aren't desperate to get away from 1...e5. Of course, I like to try 2.Qh5 once in a while, but that's another story.......

There are known simple ways for Black to get a comfortable game against the Danish.  While Black can probably get an advantage against the Smith-Morra, he will have to suffer through White's initative and be well booked-up.