S
S o r n i
Guest
GeeDubb wrote:
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>> p.p.s. perhaps it's time for you to ask one of the experts that
>> allegedly surround you about the true meaning of say...the 1 in 8
>> likelyhood of a woman getting breast cancer and how that does not
>> equal a 12 % chance...
>
> Mitch didn't claim a 1 in 3 chance of getting breast cancer. He
> claimed a 1 in 3 to get any kind of cancer (see the quote below) so
> I'm not sure why you're on the attack. Where are you getting your
> information to counter his?
>
> "1 in 3 and actually moving towards 1 in 2, my friend. Put a person
> on either side of you and one of you will definitely get cancer.
> That is a really scary way to look at it."
And, cancer aside, there's clear evidence that Mr. A-lot did NOT post his
comments twice; there seems to be a bad bot afoot.
> Now off for an afternoon ride.
At least someone's making sense.
/BS
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>> p.p.s. perhaps it's time for you to ask one of the experts that
>> allegedly surround you about the true meaning of say...the 1 in 8
>> likelyhood of a woman getting breast cancer and how that does not
>> equal a 12 % chance...
>
> Mitch didn't claim a 1 in 3 chance of getting breast cancer. He
> claimed a 1 in 3 to get any kind of cancer (see the quote below) so
> I'm not sure why you're on the attack. Where are you getting your
> information to counter his?
>
> "1 in 3 and actually moving towards 1 in 2, my friend. Put a person
> on either side of you and one of you will definitely get cancer.
> That is a really scary way to look at it."
And, cancer aside, there's clear evidence that Mr. A-lot did NOT post his
comments twice; there seems to be a bad bot afoot.
> Now off for an afternoon ride.
At least someone's making sense.
/BS