Recently stopped smoking - diving implications for lung discharge?

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105794813.674425.305900@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > For a lawyer, your logic should be better than asking the question
you
> > did (apart from your lack of understanding of the word
"addictive").
> > I smoke a pack and a half a day because it was no more
self-destructive
> > than chewing gum, and cigs don't stick to the desk and your hair.
>
> I don't really want to know how your gum ended up in your hair, but I
can
> understand why cigarette smoke would make your hair, and your
clothes, and
> your hands all smell like cigarette smoke. Staining of the teeth.
> Coughing. Ostracism by your non-smoking peers.

That was why I finally decided to quit. As I said, NOT for health
reasons,
but I was tired of being ostracized by zealots who are very ignorant.


> Over thirty years you must
> have noticed some of this, yet you persisted in your behavior.
Merely
> stubborn or addicted?

You are not old enough to know that the smoker-bashing did not become
fashionable until the baby boomers came along. It was perfectly
acceptable
for many, many years of my early 30 years.


> > There are lots of so-called medical "studies" who conclusions are
no
> > more valid than a declarative statement without any scientifically
> > valid evidence. These tend to fool the gullible.
>
> So which of the surgeon general's warnings do you believe are not
supported
> by adequate studies?

Actually NONE of them. There was never any "controlled experiments" on

humans (a controlled experiment is the NECESSARY prerequisite to
ascertain
staatistical causal link). All the surgeon general's flunkies did was
to subject RATS to smoking the equivalent of 10,000 (or more)
cigarettes
a day, and conclude that there was a tendency for the RATS to have
cancer.

It's pure bull shit, Greg.


> People have been smoking and consequently dying from
> lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases in much greater
numbers than
> non-smokers for many years now. You believe it's just a coincidence?

In a word, "yes". That's call "spurious correlation", as years ago,
there
was a "study" in Sweden which showed the number of BABIES born in that
country for a number of years was highly correlated with the number of
stork=sighting reported.

A classic example of a spurious correlation. And there are good
reasons
to account for that phenomenon too, other than "babies are brought by
storks".

It's now much more scientifically valid to link cancer and heart
diseses
to one's GENES. For those brought up in a single-trunk family tree,
their GENES are so corrupt that their low IQ is just one of many of the
defects from generations of in-breeding.


> "Philip Morris USA agrees with the overwhelming medical and
scientific
> consensus that cigarette smoking is addictive.

That could well be true for most who smoke -- as I said in my original
post, YMMV. The addiction may be PSYCHOLOGICAL rather than PHYSICAL.

But if the government doesn't know how to sort out CAUSE by controlled
experiments, they won't know how to sort our psychological from
physical
either.

In any event, what has Philip Morris USA have to lose by agreeing with
some pointless mumble-jumble of the govmint, while merrily selling tons
and tons of their weeds?


> It can be very difficult to
> quit smoking, but this should not deter smokers who want to quit from
trying
> to do so."

That's about as worthless a statement as saying it can be difficult for
the regulars here to rid their INTERNET ADDICTION (which is certainly
psychological rather than physical) and their OC behavior, but that
should not deter ng addicts to quit trying to quit.

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105836246.139786.163650@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

> That was why I finally decided to quit. As I said, NOT for health
> reasons,
> but I was tired of being ostracized by zealots who are very ignorant.

I'm surprised you're such a pushover, succumbing to peer pressure so easily.

> You are not old enough to know that the smoker-bashing did not become
> fashionable until the baby boomers came along. It was perfectly
> acceptable
> for many, many years of my early 30 years.

It was also perfectly acceptable to beat your wife back then. Doesn't mean
it's right.

> Actually NONE of them. There was never any "controlled experiments" on
> humans (a controlled experiment is the NECESSARY prerequisite to
> ascertain
> staatistical causal link). All the surgeon general's flunkies did was
> to subject RATS to smoking the equivalent of 10,000 (or more)
> cigarettes
> a day, and conclude that there was a tendency for the RATS to have
> cancer.

A controlled experiment is not the necessary prerequisite to ascertain
statistical causal link. To be absolutely certain, perhaps, but when
there's such a high correlation of smokers and lung cancer most of us take
it on faith that there's a connection. Obviously a controlled experiment is
impossible, so you use the next best thing: commonsense.

> It's pure bull shit, Greg.

Tell that to all the smokers dead of lung cancer. Somehow I doubt they'll
agree.

> In a word, "yes". That's call "spurious correlation", as years ago,
> there
> was a "study" in Sweden which showed the number of BABIES born in that
> country for a number of years was highly correlated with the number of
> stork=sighting reported.

Just because a correlation hasn't been proven with a controlled experiment
doesn't necessarily mean it's spurious. How else would you explain the high
rates of lung cancer among smokers? Is it that the smoking section of
restaurants contain more radon? The U.S. government was secretly
irradiating smokers as an excuse to publicize the surgeon general who, prior
to cigarette warnings, no one had ever heard of? No other rational
explanation makes sense, whereas with your silly stork example, there's lots
of possibilities.

> It's now much more scientifically valid to link cancer and heart
> diseses
> to one's GENES. For those brought up in a single-trunk family tree,
> their GENES are so corrupt that their low IQ is just one of many of the
> defects from generations of in-breeding.

Genes are one factor, as is smoking. Put bad genes and smoking together and
you're really fucked.

> But if the government doesn't know how to sort out CAUSE by controlled
> experiments, they won't know how to sort our psychological from
> physical
> either.

A nicotine addiction certainly isn't physical to the extent of heroin since
withdrawals won't kill you. The withdrawal symptoms are purely
psychological as much as anything can be. However, the physical and the
psychological are so intimately entwined that it's no wonder the government
can't figure it out as neatly as your statistics.

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105836246.139786.163650@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>>That was why I finally decided to quit. As I said, NOT for health
>>reasons,
>>but I was tired of being ostracized by zealots who are very ignorant.
>
>
> I'm surprised you're such a pushover, succumbing to peer pressure so easily.
>
>
>>You are not old enough to know that the smoker-bashing did not become
>>fashionable until the baby boomers came along. It was perfectly
>>acceptable
>>for many, many years of my early 30 years.
>
>
> It was also perfectly acceptable to beat your wife back then. Doesn't mean
> it's right.
>
>
>>Actually NONE of them. There was never any "controlled experiments" on
>>humans (a controlled experiment is the NECESSARY prerequisite to
>>ascertain
>>staatistical causal link). All the surgeon general's flunkies did was
>>to subject RATS to smoking the equivalent of 10,000 (or more)
>>cigarettes
>>a day, and conclude that there was a tendency for the RATS to have
>>cancer.
>
>
> A controlled experiment is not the necessary prerequisite to ascertain
> statistical causal link. To be absolutely certain, perhaps, but when
> there's such a high correlation of smokers and lung cancer most of us take
> it on faith that there's a connection. Obviously a controlled experiment is
> impossible, so you use the next best thing: commonsense.
>
>
>>It's pure bull shit, Greg.
>
>
> Tell that to all the smokers dead of lung cancer. Somehow I doubt they'll
> agree.
>
>
>>In a word, "yes". That's call "spurious correlation", as years ago,
>>there
>>was a "study" in Sweden which showed the number of BABIES born in that
>>country for a number of years was highly correlated with the number of
>>stork=sighting reported.
>
>
> Just because a correlation hasn't been proven with a controlled experiment
> doesn't necessarily mean it's spurious. How else would you explain the high
> rates of lung cancer among smokers?

How would one explain the high rates of lung cancer among Missouri road
pavers? My uneducated grandpa worked over thirty years around road
paving materials. He, and four others in his section all died of lung
cancer - only one ever smoked tobacco (according to gramps). So, out of
a crew of 10, 5 have died from lung cancer (so far). Do the math, Greg.
Chemicals in the asphalt? Too many days breathing exhaust fumes on
major roadways? Smoking? Genetics? Bad air in their basements? We'll
never know because nobody ever did any epidemiological studies. In the
big picture, I realize these numbers are statistically insignificant,
but, anytime my gramp's COD is mentioned to someone that didn't know
him, they invariably want to link his demise to smoking - but he never
smoked tobacco in his entire miserable life. I still remember the day I
took him to the doctor for a routine checkup. Doc found a spot on his
lung, wanted to investigate further. Three years later, doc finally
convinced gramps to have a biopsy, four weeks later he died at the age
of 81. So, was it the biopsy afterall? Nobody will ever know.

During my actively employeed years, I lost two coworkers to lung cancer
- one had smoked 16 years earlier - but they both worked around
chemicals as did many others. What's up with that? Again, nobody will
ever know because they didn't ask *all* the questions.

I'm not gonna sit here and pretend smoking is a healthy thing to do, but
there's a lot about our environment that's also unhealthy, maybe even
more so.

The point of all this is simply to offer that for every expectation,
there's always exceptions. But until these exceptions are accounted
for, no amount of rat studies will ever be statistically relevant. One
doesn't have to masquerade live humans as lab rats, Greg, all they have
to do is look deeper at what has to be thousands of exceptions, and
they'd have a more accurate (and maybe more honest) answer - but they
have to want to look, they have to want to know the real truth.

> Is it that the smoking section of
> restaurants contain more radon? The U.S. government was secretly
> irradiating smokers as an excuse to publicize the surgeon general who, prior
> to cigarette warnings, no one had ever heard of? No other rational
> explanation makes sense, whereas with your silly stork example, there's lots
> of possibilities.

In many urban locales (not all), exposure to airborne toxins driving to
and from the restaurant is greater than the exposure inside a restaurant
with common-air sections. Mind you, I don't have a problem so much with
separating the two camps of people, many people don't like the odor of
smoking. If they left it at that I could accept it easier than the sham
that they are exposed to toxins *only* when inside a common-air
establishment. Currently, use of personal smoking materials is a major
focal point of a lot of control freaks in influential positions.
Anybody wanna ride down to the local burger doodle in my '54 Ford for
some bovine nourishment? We might even super-size it.

Give it a rest Greg, look a little less at what they are telling you,
and a little more at what they aren't telling you. They aren't telling
us much of anything about the lifetime backgrounds of the dead people,
more often than not, only that they smoked. What about those that died
of lung cancer than didn't smoke? How about the Surgeon General telling
us something about those that smoked, but also had other lifestyle risk
factors somewhere in their life? Where are those statistics and why are
we discussing those too? Where's the Surgeon General's funding for
learning all this other data? Until then, the SG's results are incomplete.

>
>
>>It's now much more scientifically valid to link cancer and heart
>>diseses
>>to one's GENES. For those brought up in a single-trunk family tree,
>>their GENES are so corrupt that their low IQ is just one of many of the
>>defects from generations of in-breeding.
>
>
> Genes are one factor, as is smoking. Put bad genes and smoking together and
> you're really fucked.
>
>
>>But if the government doesn't know how to sort out CAUSE by controlled
>>experiments, they won't know how to sort our psychological from
>>physical
>>either.
>
>
> A nicotine addiction certainly isn't physical to the extent of heroin since
> withdrawals won't kill you. The withdrawal symptoms are purely
> psychological as much as anything can be. However, the physical and the
> psychological are so intimately entwined that it's no wonder the government
> can't figure it out as neatly as your statistics.
>
>
>


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:cscu8e$ba9@library2.airnews.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > A controlled experiment is not the necessary prerequisite to ascertain
> > statistical causal link. To be absolutely certain, perhaps, but when
> > there's such a high correlation of smokers and lung cancer most of us
take
> > it on faith that there's a connection. Obviously a controlled
experiment is
> > impossible, so you use the next best thing: commonsense.
> >
> >
> >>It's pure bull shit, Greg.
> >
> >
> > Tell that to all the smokers dead of lung cancer. Somehow I doubt
they'll
> > agree.
> >
> >
> >>In a word, "yes". That's call "spurious correlation", as years ago,
> >>there
> >>was a "study" in Sweden which showed the number of BABIES born in that
> >>country for a number of years was highly correlated with the number of
> >>stork=sighting reported.
> >
> >
> > Just because a correlation hasn't been proven with a controlled
experiment
> > doesn't necessarily mean it's spurious. How else would you explain the
high
> > rates of lung cancer among smokers?
>
> How would one explain the high rates of lung cancer among Missouri road
> pavers? My uneducated grandpa worked over thirty years around road
> paving materials. He, and four others in his section all died of lung
> cancer - only one ever smoked tobacco (according to gramps). So, out of
> a crew of 10, 5 have died from lung cancer (so far). Do the math, Greg.
> Chemicals in the asphalt? Too many days breathing exhaust fumes on
> major roadways? Smoking? Genetics? Bad air in their basements? We'll
> never know because nobody ever did any epidemiological studies. In the
> big picture, I realize these numbers are statistically insignificant,
> but, anytime my gramp's COD is mentioned to someone that didn't know
> him, they invariably want to link his demise to smoking - but he never
> smoked tobacco in his entire miserable life. I still remember the day I
> took him to the doctor for a routine checkup. Doc found a spot on his
> lung, wanted to investigate further. Three years later, doc finally
> convinced gramps to have a biopsy, four weeks later he died at the age
> of 81. So, was it the biopsy afterall? Nobody will ever know.
>
> During my actively employeed years, I lost two coworkers to lung cancer
> - one had smoked 16 years earlier - but they both worked around
> chemicals as did many others. What's up with that? Again, nobody will
> ever know because they didn't ask *all* the questions.
>
> I'm not gonna sit here and pretend smoking is a healthy thing to do, but
> there's a lot about our environment that's also unhealthy, maybe even
> more so.
>
> The point of all this is simply to offer that for every expectation,
> there's always exceptions. But until these exceptions are accounted
> for, no amount of rat studies will ever be statistically relevant. One
> doesn't have to masquerade live humans as lab rats, Greg, all they have
> to do is look deeper at what has to be thousands of exceptions, and
> they'd have a more accurate (and maybe more honest) answer - but they
> have to want to look, they have to want to know the real truth.
>
> > Is it that the smoking section of
> > restaurants contain more radon? The U.S. government was secretly
> > irradiating smokers as an excuse to publicize the surgeon general who,
prior
> > to cigarette warnings, no one had ever heard of? No other rational
> > explanation makes sense, whereas with your silly stork example, there's
lots
> > of possibilities.
>
> In many urban locales (not all), exposure to airborne toxins driving to
> and from the restaurant is greater than the exposure inside a restaurant
> with common-air sections. Mind you, I don't have a problem so much with
> separating the two camps of people, many people don't like the odor of
> smoking. If they left it at that I could accept it easier than the sham
> that they are exposed to toxins *only* when inside a common-air
> establishment. Currently, use of personal smoking materials is a major
> focal point of a lot of control freaks in influential positions.
> Anybody wanna ride down to the local burger doodle in my '54 Ford for
> some bovine nourishment? We might even super-size it.
>
> Give it a rest Greg, look a little less at what they are telling you,
> and a little more at what they aren't telling you. They aren't telling
> us much of anything about the lifetime backgrounds of the dead people,
> more often than not, only that they smoked. What about those that died
> of lung cancer than didn't smoke? How about the Surgeon General telling
> us something about those that smoked, but also had other lifestyle risk
> factors somewhere in their life? Where are those statistics and why are
> we discussing those too? Where's the Surgeon General's funding for
> learning all this other data? Until then, the SG's results are
incomplete.
>
> >
> >
> >>It's now much more scientifically valid to link cancer and heart
> >>diseses
> >>to one's GENES. For those brought up in a single-trunk family tree,
> >>their GENES are so corrupt that their low IQ is just one of many of the
> >>defects from generations of in-breeding.
> >
> >
> > Genes are one factor, as is smoking. Put bad genes and smoking together
and
> > you're really fucked.
> >
> >
> >>But if the government doesn't know how to sort out CAUSE by controlled
> >>experiments, they won't know how to sort our psychological from
> >>physical
> >>either.
> >
> >
> > A nicotine addiction certainly isn't physical to the extent of heroin
since
> > withdrawals won't kill you. The withdrawal symptoms are purely
> > psychological as much as anything can be. However, the physical and the
> > psychological are so intimately entwined that it's no wonder the
government
> > can't figure it out as neatly as your statistics.
> >

If you want to justify having a smoke, jer, go right ahead. After all,
there are exceptions to all things. Look at the vehicle accident victims
that were thrown free from the wreck and managed to live, whereas they'd
have died if they'd had their seatbelt fastened. Exceptions . . . yeah,
that's it . . .

Smoking doesn't really hamper your circulation, make your skin pasty and
wrinkled, hurt your heart, cause you to have more coughs and colds than a
non-smoker . . . yeah, it's what they aren't telling you that's causing all
those things.

"chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message
news:mBoGd.89600$6l.22420@pd7tw2no...

> Smoking doesn't really hamper your circulation, make your skin pasty and
> wrinkled, hurt your heart, cause you to have more coughs and colds than a
> non-smoker . . . yeah, it's what they aren't telling you that's causing
> all
> those things.

It's the government conspiracy against Philip Morris & Co., don't you know?
Something to do with J. Edgar and ladies' underwear. Fortunately you
Canadians are immune to American intrigue and freely allow, no, make that
encourage your citizenry to smoke wherever and whenever possible for the
good of the country. I've heard that the remake of Dudley Do-Right will
feature him as a chain smoker.

All those Asians and Euros must be right for once. Smoke till you choke!

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:41ea1dd0$0$105$6c56adcd@news.qnet.com...
> "chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message
> news:mBoGd.89600$6l.22420@pd7tw2no...
>
> > Smoking doesn't really hamper your circulation, make your skin pasty and
> > wrinkled, hurt your heart, cause you to have more coughs and colds than
a
> > non-smoker . . . yeah, it's what they aren't telling you that's causing
> > all
> > those things.
>
> It's the government conspiracy against Philip Morris & Co., don't you
know?
> Something to do with J. Edgar and ladies' underwear. Fortunately you
> Canadians are immune to American intrigue and freely allow, no, make that
> encourage your citizenry to smoke wherever and whenever possible for the
> good of the country. I've heard that the remake of Dudley Do-Right will
> feature him as a chain smoker.

Actually, here at home, it is a civic law that we can not smoke on outdoor
patios. Even those that are up on rooftops and isolated from the general
public. However, you can go into the bar that owns the outdoor patio and
smoke. Or you can stand on the other side of the fence on the public
sidewalk fronting the patio and smoke while still chatting with your friends
that are inside the fence.

> All those Asians and Euros must be right for once. Smoke till you choke!

Yup, makes you smell good, your breath fresh and whitens your teeth.

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:41ea1dd0$0$105$6c56adcd@news.qnet.com...

> Smoke till you choke!

Is that possible? Isn't it, smoke to clear you lungs so you don't choke?
You've heard of SIDS? Smoking parents have lower incidences of SIDS. The
reason? It's so obvious.

Smokers live longer and experience better quality of life than non-smokers.
The medical industry want you to think otherwise to raise your health care
costs. (That's why your premium went up Greg!) The life insurance industry
too. They sell "lower premiums" for non-smokers. What they really do is
refund premiums to smokers and not tell the non-smokers. It's done on the
sly so the secret health benefits of smoking are not discovered.

AIDS a problem? Not for smokers. No smoker has yet died from AIDS.
Another tidbit the Surgeon General keeps hidden deep in the secret archives,
back in the titanium vault, in the middle of the remote mountain. (Only GWB
and a top general hold the two keys to open the vault.)

The reason? Quite obvious. To keep the supply of tobacco in the hands of
those in power. Sure some tobacco gets out - it has to. But the best
tobacco is kept by the very old and wise who have escalated to power from
being insiders or very rich. World order hinges on the status quo.

The next time a smoker tells you something about health, listen. Wisdom
doesn't grow on trees you know?

ben bradlee wrote:

> "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
> news:41ea1dd0$0$105$6c56adcd@news.qnet.com...
>
>
>>Smoke till you choke!
>
>
> Is that possible? Isn't it, smoke to clear you lungs so you don't choke?
> You've heard of SIDS? Smoking parents have lower incidences of SIDS. The
> reason? It's so obvious.
>
> Smokers live longer and experience better quality of life than non-smokers.
> The medical industry want you to think otherwise to raise your health care
> costs. (That's why your premium went up Greg!) The life insurance industry
> too. They sell "lower premiums" for non-smokers. What they really do is
> refund premiums to smokers and not tell the non-smokers. It's done on the
> sly so the secret health benefits of smoking are not discovered.
>
> AIDS a problem? Not for smokers. No smoker has yet died from AIDS.
> Another tidbit the Surgeon General keeps hidden deep in the secret archives,
> back in the titanium vault, in the middle of the remote mountain. (Only GWB
> and a top general hold the two keys to open the vault.)
>
> The reason? Quite obvious. To keep the supply of tobacco in the hands of
> those in power. Sure some tobacco gets out - it has to. But the best
> tobacco is kept by the very old and wise who have escalated to power from
> being insiders or very rich. World order hinges on the status quo.
>
> The next time a smoker tells you something about health, listen. Wisdom
> doesn't grow on trees you know?
>
>
>
Bastards!

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105836246.139786.163650@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > That was why I finally decided to quit. As I said, NOT for health
> > reasons,
> > but I was tired of being ostracized by zealots who are very
ignorant.
>
> I'm surprised you're such a pushover, succumbing to peer pressure so
easily.

What peer pressure? I am peerless! But the fact that I had to go
down from my office on the 7th floor of the Harvard Science Building
to the cold outside just to smoke a cigarette had much to do with
my decision to quit.

I decided it wasn't worth my time and aggrevation to fight the ignorant
politicians and lecture the ignorant zealots (such as I am lecturing
you now).

>
> > You are not old enough to know that the smoker-bashing did not
become
> > fashionable until the baby boomers came along. It was perfectly
> > acceptable
> > for many, many years of my early 30 years.
>
> It was also perfectly acceptable to beat your wife back then.
Doesn't mean
> it's right.

As a matter of fact, it wasn't acceptable to beat my wife back then.
Are YOU still beating your SO (or s/he whoever can put up with you)?


>
> > Actually NONE of them. There was never any "controlled
experiments" on
> > humans (a controlled experiment is the NECESSARY prerequisite to
> > ascertain
> > staatistical causal link). All the surgeon general's flunkies did
was
> > to subject RATS to smoking the equivalent of 10,000 (or more)
> > cigarettes
> > a day, and conclude that there was a tendency for the RATS to have
> > cancer.
>
> A controlled experiment is not the necessary prerequisite to
ascertain
> statistical causal link.

Greg, this stuff is WAY over you head. Stop displaying your ignorance
about STATISTICS and what it takes to ascertain CAUSE, where there's
some uncertainty as to whether you know ANYTHING about statistics.


> To be absolutely certain, perhaps, but when
> there's such a high correlation of smokers and lung cancer most of us
take
> it on faith that there's a connection. Obviously a controlled
experiment is
> impossible, so you use the next best thing: commonsense.

That's exactly the kind of bullshit the economist say, about the lack
of necessity to conduct controlled experiments to ascertain cause.
It's
pure bullshit.
>
> > It's pure bull shit, Greg.


> > In a word, "yes". That's call "spurious correlation", as years
ago,
> > there
> > was a "study" in Sweden which showed the number of BABIES born in
that
> > country for a number of years was highly correlated with the number
of
> > stork=sighting reported.
>
> Just because a correlation hasn't been proven with a controlled
experiment
> doesn't necessarily mean it's spurious. How else would you explain
the high
> rates of lung cancer among smokers? Is it that the smoking section
of
> restaurants contain more radon? The U.S. government was secretly
> irradiating smokers as an excuse to publicize the surgeon general
who, prior
> to cigarette warnings, no one had ever heard of? No other rational
> explanation makes sense, whereas with your silly stork example,
there's lots
> of possibilities.


Greg, your gobbledy gook is what is usually said by those with NO
training whatsoever in statistics and completely IGNORANT about
the subject of "design of experiments" in statistics.

Any further discussion of this topic will be highly counterproductive,
as it would be useless for me to discuss Real or Complex Analysis in
Mathematics, or Topology, or any number of other topics in which your
knowledge is pre-kintergarden level.

Enroll in a course in Experimental Design in statistics or a course of
mine in Data Analysis, then you may open your eyes (if you don't flunk
the course).

-- Bob.

"chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message
news:czpGd.89803$6l.51479@pd7tw2no...

> Actually, here at home, it is a civic law that we can not smoke on outdoor
> patios. Even those that are up on rooftops and isolated from the general
> public. However, you can go into the bar that owns the outdoor patio and
> smoke.

That's the exact opposite of the situation here in L.A. and in many other
parts of the US of A. Smoking is only allowed on outdoor patios, never
indoors. Maybe that's why we have more air pollution.