All Hank, all the time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
No. You are fully capable of clicking the surgeon general report and reading it for yourself. (hint: go to chapter seven http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar...t/chapter7.pdf) And the way that the studies are usually weighed, it's in terms of your increased risk compared to the control population. So a non-smoker in Japan who lives with a smoker has a 1.9 increased chance of getting lung cancer than she would have had she not lived with the smoker, that risk is readjusted to 1.3 when other factors (such as diet) are taken into account.

"Relative Risk

Definition: Relative risk is a measure of how much a particular risk factor (say cigarette smoking) influences the risk of a specified outcome (say, death by age 70)

For example, a relative risk of 2 associated with a risk factor means that persons with that risk factor have a 2 fold increased risk of having a specified outcome compared to persons without that risk factor."

Isn't a relative risk of 2 considered insignificant?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


BTW, when you smear someone by taking something out of context, that involves repeating something that they said without also repeating another thing that puts the first thing in a different light. Just so we're clear on that.

Reading that sentence for form, it's clear you have polished off the bottle of Shiraz. Go to bed and try to get some rest so that you can acheive the mental fortitude to condemn those things that need to be condemned but which you have, to date, not condemned. Inexplicably.

Together we can end the hate.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
There is an two hours of my life I will never get back. I got Julia Sweeney because I have heard that name before but I am not sure where. Is she the old lady that disappeared and had the scandal surrounding her?

I think she is the actress who played ambiguous Pat on SNL......I didn't know she was a prominent atheist. Who knows.....I am pretty good at hangman though!!

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Is this a good time for me to predict that the Sox take four out of five this weekend?

(In my dreams.)

Is that the bet, cuz I was going to suggest the loser of the series buys the other guys' copy of "Tower"

Email me tomorrow.

[SlaveNoMore]

It was on this douchebag's watch that the current President of Iran - so enamoured by Mike Warrace and the Kossacks - led the "students" that raided the US Embassy and took all those Americans hostages:

Der SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?

Former "President" Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.

SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?

Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.

Say what you will about the retired GRF, GHWB or WHC, but none of these former POTUS' are an embarrassment to this country.

Carter is an embarrassing and deplorable piece of fucking shit.

[SlaveNoMore]

Or Danny Glover....

NICOLE Kidman has made a public stand against terrorism.

The actress, joined by 84 other high-profile Hollywood stars, directors, studio bosses and media moguls, has taken out a powerfully-worded full page advertisement in today's Los Angeles Times newspaper.

It specifically targets "terrorist organisations" such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.

"We the undersigned are pained and devastated by the civilian casualties in Israel and Lebanon caused by terrorist actions initiated by terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas," the ad reads.

"If we do not succeed in stopping terrorism around the world, chaos will rule and innocent people will continue to die.

"We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs."

A who's who of Hollywood heavyweights joined Kidman on the ad.

The actors listed included: Michael Douglas, Dennis Hopper, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Danny De Vito, Don Johnson, James Woods, Kelly Preston, Patricia Heaton and William Hurt.

Directors Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Michael Mann, Dick Donner and Sam Raimi also signed their names.

Other Hollywood powerplayers supporting the ad included Sumner Redstone, the chairman and majority owner of Paramount Pictures, and billionaire mogul, Haim Saban.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Is that the bet, cuz I was going to suggest the loser of the series buys the other guys' copy of "Tower"

Email me tomorrow.

That would mean Ty would owe me the book now. Sweet!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

"We need to...........stop terrorism at all costs."

....

It's surprising Belafonte would not join in, such a statement would play right into his treasonous agenda, day-O,

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It was on this douchebag's watch that the current President of Iran - so enamoured by Mike Warrace and the Kossacks - led the "students" that raided the US Embassy and took all those Americans hostages:



Say what you will about the retired GRF, GHWB or WHC, but none of these former POTUS' are an embarrassment to this country.

Carter is an embarrassing and deplorable piece of fucking shit.

This unphottoshopped pic says it all (I think even Ty condemned the guy below):

[Penske_Account]

Should profiling of airline passengers based on ethnicity or race be allowed?

So far


Yes
1893 votes (87%)

No
283 votes (13%)


FWIW, these things usually skew more left than one might expect. Apparently a lot of Dems read the journal......know thy enemy, indeed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Should profiling of airline passengers based on ethnicity or race be allowed?

So far


Yes
1893 votes (87%)

No
283 votes (13%)


FWIW, these things usually skew more left than one might expect. Apparently a lot of Dems read the journal......know thy enemy, indeed.

was the poll taken at Sebby's country club? did they ask the kitchen staff?

[Penske_Account]

Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, running as an independent, gets 53 percent of likely voters, with 41 percent for Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont and 4 percent for Republican Alan Schlesinger, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Looks like the referendum on the DEms anti-war agenda is going to be fairly clear cut (much like the 04 referendum on the issue). When the polyscientists look back at this election in 10-15 years (during President George P. Bush's terms) I wonder if they will date the seminal event in the turn of the tide in the 06 elections to the Lamont's victoury. I am predicting yes.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, running as an independent, gets 53 percent of likely voters, with 41 percent for Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont and 4 percent for Republican Alan Schlesinger, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Looks like the referendum on the DEms anti-war agenda is going to be fairly clear cut (much like the 04 referendum on the issue). When the polyscientists look back at this election in 10-15 years (during President George P. Bush's terms) I wonder if they will date the seminal event in the turn of the tide in the 06 elections to the Lamont's victoury. I am predicting yes.

Yeh, but wait till Ned breaks out the cash hoarde... He can bury Joe in spending.

And Ned's piece in the Journal two days ago wasn't a bad effort at appealing to moderates as a fiscal conservative/social moderate. He might not be as shrill and foolish as I thought based on his stump speeches.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yeh, but wait till Ned breaks out the cash hoarde... He can bury Joe in spending.

And Ned's piece in the Journal two days ago wasn't a bad effort at appealing to moderates as a fiscal conservative/social moderate. He might not be as shrill and foolish as I thought based on his stump speeches.

You don't hate Israel, do you?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
No. You are fully capable of clicking the surgeon general report and reading it for yourself. (hint: go to chapter seven http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar...t/chapter7.pdf) And the way that the studies are usually weighed, it's in terms of your increased risk compared to the control population. So a non-smoker in Japan who lives with a smoker has a 1.9 increased chance of getting lung cancer than she would have had she not lived with the smoker, that risk is readjusted to 1.3 when other factors (such as diet) are taken into account.

RT -

When you wrote this, why didn't you use the term "relative risk." That is what the 1.9 figure is, isn't it? Isn't it "relative risk" of 1.9, or did I read it wrong?

SD

"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine"

"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

"Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." - The National Cancer Institute

"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist