Passive smoking increases stillbirth risk, says study

[^_^ 5,021]

That's probably for the best.

I just looked it up and I was trying to make the point that if consumers are to make smart decisions (something insurers have been asking us to do for years) rates should be visibly advertised.

[Amby 490]

I don't understand why anyone's jumping on P&V's azz on this one. He says some outlandish things sometimes, sure; but in this regard, his posts here are based in simple math. He didn't claim second hand smoke is healthy.

In another thread on second hand smoke he said it's healthy

[^_^ 5,021]

In another thread on second hand smoke he said it's healthy

Yeah he said babies should have second hand smoke blown into their faces in the delivery room.

/no he didnt

[Dakine10 5,452]

What is the intended purpose behind this post?

Perhaps you can explain. Presumably it is not intended to antagonise (in violation of the TOS you are supposed to uphold).

It think it's a bit of dark humor. If you first read the thread title, and then what Charles posted "so if one doesn't want to pay child support, they should smoke?", you will understand.

[Amby 490]

Yeah he said babies should have second hand smoke blown into their faces in the delivery room.

/no he didnt

Remember the thread about not smoking in your apartment? He said secondhand smoke is not bad for people.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It think it's a bit of dark humor. If you first read the thread title, and then what Charles posted "so if one doesn't want to pay child support, they should smoke?", you will understand.

He doesn't seem to respond well if you don't like jokes.

[Zero Sum 305]

I don't understand why anyone's jumping on P&V's azz on this one. He says some outlandish things sometimes, sure; but in this regard, his posts here are based in simple math. He didn't claim second hand smoke is healthy.

His math is based on his standard of statistical significance. And that in itself invalidates the argument he was trying to make.

[Zero Sum 305]

You work in a hospital?

Your style is HAL, even the screen name is HAL-ish. Heck, HAL even made a guest appearance on VJ coinciding with you showing up.

I just did a search on that HAL. This is what I get.

http://www.visajourney.com/search/index.php?cx=007424365766759747816%3Auy9flr-th5y&cof=FORID%3A10&q=hal&sa=Search&siteurl=visajourney.com%2F#1098

*checks to make sure this is not ExPats*

I've seen that name used on these threads. What is that anyway?

In another thread on second hand smoke he said it's healthy

What? Did he mean that? Maybe we should ask him.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

His math is based on his standard of statistical significance. And that in itself invalidates the argument he was trying to make.

According to you. All I said was that the article was mis-representing the numbers and explained it.

I gave my opinion on the significance yes, however I explained the math and understanding of it based on the way the article was written.

Remember the thread about not smoking in your apartment? He said secondhand smoke is not bad for people.

I said it's not as bad as some would make it out to be.

There's a difference.

It's not harmful to 'everyone.'

[Zero Sum 305]

According to you. All I said was that the article was mis-representing the numbers and explained it.

I gave my opinion on the significance yes, however I explained the math and understanding of it based on the way the article was written.

I said it's not as bad as some would make it out to be.

There's a difference.

It's not harmful to 'everyone.'

What I think you are trying to do is mask a general ignorance of the topic by trivializing it behind pure numbers. Significance speaks to a whole other idea.

Significance strongly implies a true effect, something causal, something that is quite important. Take for example, your apparent defense of second hand smoke. Because you state that its not 'harmful to everyone'- it shouldn't be such a big deal, right? Well, sadly, a big deal it is, and effects are much more significant (there's that word again) than no smoke exposure.

[Amby 490]

Paul is a smoker, right?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul is a smoker, right?

No. I don't like to have stench on me.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

What is the intended purpose behind this post?

Perhaps you can explain. Presumably it is not intended to antagonise (in violation of the TOS you are supposed to uphold).

explain? what are you, the internet police? i'm asking why you're using "we" in your sentence construction. don't you have an answer instead of more questions?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

explain? what are you, the internet police? i'm asking why you're using "we" in your sentence construction. don't you have an answer instead of more questions?

Not for silly questions I don't.

Incidentally, I don't expect an answer to my question - since it was rhetorical in nature.

I do think its interesting that not laughing at your joke has lead to your initiating an antagonistic exchange. Very interesting indeed.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Ron Burgundy

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Not for silly questions I don't.

Incidentally, I don't expect an answer to my question - since it was rhetorical in nature.

I do think its interesting that not laughing at your joke has lead to your initiating an antagonistic exchange. Very interesting indeed.

i guess you're busy trying to deflect from the public embarrassment of not getting the joke in the first place.