Interesting and Humour - page 3997
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I don't care about statistics, I judge from my own experience. When I quit smoking 13 years ago, a month later my sense of smell opened up and I could smell what I'd forgotten. Then one day I ran towards a bus and was surprised to find myself running so easily and not out of breath at all. Also, my coughing in the morning was gone. And many other improvements. I don't give a shit about the research of American tobacco corporations, they'll do anything for the money.
Individual intolerance. So?
I thought I made it clear: "There's no statistically significant evidence of harm from smoking tobacco."
That's all I wanted to say.
I think I made it clear: "There is no statistically significant evidence of harm from smoking tobacco."
Since you cited them you agree with that statistical evidence, and at the same time the harms of smoking are present.
with respect
P.S. no need to write things that are not true.
Statistics is a "science", for instance, by compiling a survey as you see fit, you can get both one opinion and the other from the same person.
Since you cited them you agree with this statistical evidence and at the same time the harm from smoking is present.
with respect
P.S. no need to write things that are not true.
Statistics is a "science", for instance, by compiling a survey as you see fit, you can get both one opinion and the other from the same person.
Do you understand what you are writing? Agree with statistics that don't exist?
Have some poison or something. With a cigarette.
Do you understand what you are writing? Agree with statistics that don't exist?
You have had at least 3 people present evidence of the harms of smoking and you insist, "there is no statistical evidence of the harms of smoking tobacco"...
respectfully.
I know what I am writing about, do you know what you are writing about?
you have had at least 3 people provide you with evidence of the harms of smoking and you insist, "there is no statistical evidence of the harms of smoking tobacco"...
Respectfully.
The point is that this evidence is provided by anti-smoking people, hence the people concerned.
you cannot accept evidence from interested parties as evidence )
The point is that this evidence is provided by anti-smoking campaigners and therefore by interested parties.
You can't take the evidence of interested parties as evidence )
respectfully.
I know what I am writing about, do you know what you are writing about?
you have had at least 3 people present evidence of the harms of smoking and you insist, "there is no statistical evidence of the harms of smoking tobacco"...
respectfully.
Well, if that's evidence, I can only take my leave. Get well.
I don't give a shit whether you smoke or not.
Respectfully.
If you don't give a shit, then why does everyone say left and right that smoking is bad for you?
Why does everyone say left and right that smoking is bad for you?
Respectfully.
Because it is true, it is true, it corresponds to reality.
With respect.
You are far from the truth, you are stuck with someone else's truth.