Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #680176 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-07 10:33 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-04-11 10:46 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 191 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-07 10:33 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-07 09:48 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-07 11:23 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-07 10:33 -0500
" Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-07 12:05 -0700
Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-07 17:51 -0700
Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 18:26 -0700
" Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-07 20:40 -0700
Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 20:52 -0700
Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-07 21:00 -0700
Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-08 04:05 +0000
Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 21:07 -0700
Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 21:06 -0700
Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-08 07:24 +0200
Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-08 11:54 -0400
Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-08 12:29 -0400
Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-08 19:33 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-04-09 21:06 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-10 08:32 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-07 11:43 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-07 12:34 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-07 12:52 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-07 11:58 -0600
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-08 16:55 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-04-09 21:10 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-12 06:40 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-11 19:24 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-04-12 19:59 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-15 08:13 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-15 08:48 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-18 11:19 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-08 16:54 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-08 09:04 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-08 11:29 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-08 12:22 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-08 11:22 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-08 12:17 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-08 12:29 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-08 23:46 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-09 14:10 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 11:28 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 11:32 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 11:05 -0500
Air causes cancer. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-09 10:54 -0700
Re: Air causes cancer. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 17:29 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-09 13:12 -0600
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 14:29 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-09 13:33 -0600
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 16:44 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-11 23:45 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-12 16:46 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-12 15:03 -0600
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 20:11 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-14 11:11 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-14 09:18 -0600
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 21:31 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-15 12:50 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-12 10:12 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-04-12 20:06 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-15 00:48 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-15 18:03 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-16 08:58 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 02:00 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-16 19:11 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 09:57 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 13:01 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-17 07:17 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 21:44 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-17 14:08 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-17 11:35 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-04-17 17:55 +0100
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-18 06:00 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-17 22:40 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-18 09:15 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-17 20:03 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-17 19:32 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-18 01:36 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 18:46 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-17 22:36 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-18 11:01 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-18 11:33 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-18 11:21 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-18 10:59 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-18 16:02 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-18 23:47 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-18 18:49 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-19 18:52 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-19 23:39 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 16:45 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 16:57 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-20 12:25 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-16 08:34 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 09:59 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 13:09 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-16 13:17 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-16 11:29 -0600
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-16 19:13 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-16 13:20 -0600
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 14:33 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 17:11 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)" <rjac@TheWor1d.com> - 2018-04-16 14:45 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 The Jews <jews@world-doomination.org> - 2018-04-16 17:11 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-17 01:34 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 13:04 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 17:07 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 16:59 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-16 22:31 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 15:46 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 20:50 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 21:46 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-17 05:52 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 21:14 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-18 12:47 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)" <rjac@TheWor1d.com> - 2018-04-16 14:43 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 The Jews <jews@world-doomination.org> - 2018-04-16 17:13 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sick old pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Ron Jacobson") <fsturluogh5@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 08:27 +0000
Al Gore fangirl, "kensi", taps out. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-16 15:25 -0700
Re: Al Gore fangirl, "kensi", taps out. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 21:51 -0500
Re: Al Gore fangirl, "kensi", taps out. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-16 22:24 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-04-18 00:22 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 21:39 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-04-18 05:21 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 13:37 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-18 14:55 -0600
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-18 23:48 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-18 18:56 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-19 11:44 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-19 18:52 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-18 11:06 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-18 11:34 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 12:20 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-16 19:14 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 14:56 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 17:13 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-09 04:33 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-09 06:17 +1000
Does smoking cause cancer? (was: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-09 01:43 +0200
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-09 09:57 +1000
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-09 02:02 +0200
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-09 10:12 +1000
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-08 19:36 -0500
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-09 03:45 +0200
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-08 23:50 -0400
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 20:12 -0500
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-09 11:40 +1000
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-08 23:56 -0400
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-09 14:05 +1000
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 11:27 -0400
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 07:36 +1000
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 17:01 -0500
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 08:14 +1000
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 21:09 -0500
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-10 08:34 -0500
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-10 04:51 -0400
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 11:52 -0500
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 17:22 -0400
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 07:36 +1000
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 17:13 -0500
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 08:23 +1000
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 19:43 -0500
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 11:02 +1000
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-10 04:58 -0400
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-10 04:40 -0400
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 21:08 -0500
Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 12:40 +1000
Ben Jacoby is neither funny nor informative, nothing good. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-09 19:54 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-08 19:34 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-09 10:52 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)" <rjac@TheWor1d.com> - 2018-04-09 07:59 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 11:05 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-04-09 19:19 +0100
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 13:36 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 17:34 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 16:58 -0500
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 The Equalizer <coming4you@never.invalid.net> - 2018-04-09 22:58 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 17:39 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 @ "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)" <rjac@TheWor1d.com> - 2018-04-09 13:05 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 @ Sick old pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Ron Jacobson") <fsturluogh5@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 21:27 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 @ "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 10:27 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Ser Gregor Clegane <sergregor@lannistermail.raven> - 2018-04-10 11:25 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2018-04-10 16:48 +0100
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 08:50 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-04-10 16:58 +0100
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-11 23:47 +0000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-11 17:53 -0600
In some Turkish bazar, somewhere... Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-09 10:04 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 08:14 +1000
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-10 04:53 -0400
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-04-07 07:57 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 22:41 -0700
Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 10:46 -0700
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-15 18:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <X_PAC.14635$k%2.12983@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #681103 |
On 4/15/2018 1:48 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/12/2018 7:06 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fj7mk1FnuahU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 10/04/2018 2:05 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 4/8/2018 11:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 9/04/2018 1:46 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:29 PM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:17 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> Still no proof cigarettes CAUSE cancer anymore than there is science >>>>>>>> that proves man-made CO2 causes global warming. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then you should smoke as many packs a day as you can afford, benj. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *snicker* >>>>>>> >>>>>> Gave up smoking years ago. You libs are always so violent wishing for >>>>>> people dead! You all need to be banned! >>>>>> >>>>>> If Tobacco "causes" cancer then why are there people 100 years old who >>>>>> smoked their whole life who don't have it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **Again: Tobacco does not "cause cancer". >>>> >>>> wrong. Tobacco companies were sued and lost because tobacco causes >>>> cancer. >>> >>> **Wrong. Tobacco does not cause cancer. CONSUMPTION of tobacco can >>> lead to an increase in the likelihood that a human may develop a >>> tobacco related cancer or some other tobacco related disease. >> >> Exactly, there is no evidence of causality, you merely have a correlation. >> >> Might have nothing to due with tobacco at all but might be related to >> another issue entirely,. >> >> >> > > like inhaling smoke of *burning tobacco leaves* causes higher rates > of cancer > Actually, it's appears to be the opposite. Evidence linking cancer and smoking PURE TOBACCO LEAVES is minimal, big link is to commercial tobacco products. "Additives" and "processing" are suspected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 08:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fji3oaF3g6bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #681154 |
On 16/04/2018 8:03 AM, benj wrote: > On 4/15/2018 1:48 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 4/12/2018 7:06 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fj7mk1FnuahU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 10/04/2018 2:05 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 4/8/2018 11:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 9/04/2018 1:46 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:29 PM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:17 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> Still no proof cigarettes CAUSE cancer anymore than there is >>>>>>>>> science >>>>>>>>> that proves man-made CO2 causes global warming. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then you should smoke as many packs a day as you can afford, benj. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *snicker* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gave up smoking years ago. You libs are always so violent wishing >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> people dead! You all need to be banned! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If Tobacco "causes" cancer then why are there people 100 years >>>>>>> old who >>>>>>> smoked their whole life who don't have it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **Again: Tobacco does not "cause cancer". >>>>> >>>>> wrong. Tobacco companies were sued and lost because tobacco causes >>>>> cancer. >>>> >>>> **Wrong. Tobacco does not cause cancer. CONSUMPTION of tobacco can >>>> lead to an increase in the likelihood that a human may develop a >>>> tobacco related cancer or some other tobacco related disease. >>> >>> Exactly, there is no evidence of causality, you merely have a >>> correlation. >>> >>> Might have nothing to due with tobacco at all but might be related to >>> another issue entirely,. >>> >>> >>> >> >> like inhaling smoke of *burning tobacco leaves* causes higher rates >> of cancer >> > Actually, it's appears to be the opposite. Evidence linking cancer and > smoking PURE TOBACCO LEAVES is minimal, big link is to commercial > tobacco products. "Additives" and "processing" are suspected. > > **Your anti-science ignorance is showing yet again. I suggest you read the science, BEFORE you make any more idiotic proclamations: https://truthinitiative.org/news/are-organic-or-natural-cigarettes-safer-smoke https://www.livescience.com/7914-warning-homegrown-tobacco-deadly.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/is-any-type-of-smoking-safe.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/ -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 02:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <%ZWAC.9515$sd3.5375@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #681164 |
On 4/15/2018 6:58 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 16/04/2018 8:03 AM, benj wrote: >> On 4/15/2018 1:48 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 4/12/2018 7:06 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fj7mk1FnuahU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 10/04/2018 2:05 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 4/8/2018 11:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/04/2018 1:46 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:29 PM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:17 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Still no proof cigarettes CAUSE cancer anymore than there is >>>>>>>>>> science >>>>>>>>>> that proves man-made CO2 causes global warming. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then you should smoke as many packs a day as you can afford, benj. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *snicker* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gave up smoking years ago. You libs are always so violent >>>>>>>> wishing for >>>>>>>> people dead! You all need to be banned! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If Tobacco "causes" cancer then why are there people 100 years >>>>>>>> old who >>>>>>>> smoked their whole life who don't have it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Again: Tobacco does not "cause cancer". >>>>>> >>>>>> wrong. Tobacco companies were sued and lost because tobacco causes >>>>>> cancer. >>>>> >>>>> **Wrong. Tobacco does not cause cancer. CONSUMPTION of tobacco can >>>>> lead to an increase in the likelihood that a human may develop a >>>>> tobacco related cancer or some other tobacco related disease. >>>> >>>> Exactly, there is no evidence of causality, you merely have a >>>> correlation. >>>> >>>> Might have nothing to due with tobacco at all but might be related to >>>> another issue entirely,. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> like inhaling smoke of *burning tobacco leaves* causes higher >>> rates >>> of cancer >>> >> Actually, it's appears to be the opposite. Evidence linking cancer and >> smoking PURE TOBACCO LEAVES is minimal, big link is to commercial >> tobacco products. "Additives" and "processing" are suspected. >> >> > > **Your anti-science ignorance is showing yet again. I suggest you read > the science, BEFORE you make any more idiotic proclamations: > > https://truthinitiative.org/news/are-organic-or-natural-cigarettes-safer-smoke > > > https://www.livescience.com/7914-warning-homegrown-tobacco-deadly.html > > https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/is-any-type-of-smoking-safe.html > > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/ Parroting a bunch of propaganda sites only shows your dishonesty. Trevor, you are just here to sell a lib agenda and we all know it. If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it (unless they chose to) That fact that you propagandists have an agenda is seen in your use of the disingenuous term "cause" rather than saying it seems to be factor. Trevor you couldn't make an honest statement if your life depended on it. (PS. I am not promoting sucking in combustion products as a safe practice, but science isn't politics.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 19:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fjj7m6FanuoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #681199 |
On 16/04/2018 4:00 PM, benj wrote: > On 4/15/2018 6:58 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 16/04/2018 8:03 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 4/15/2018 1:48 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 4/12/2018 7:06 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fj7mk1FnuahU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 10/04/2018 2:05 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 11:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/04/2018 1:46 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:29 PM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:17 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Still no proof cigarettes CAUSE cancer anymore than there is >>>>>>>>>>> science >>>>>>>>>>> that proves man-made CO2 causes global warming. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then you should smoke as many packs a day as you can afford, >>>>>>>>>> benj. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *snicker* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gave up smoking years ago. You libs are always so violent >>>>>>>>> wishing for >>>>>>>>> people dead! You all need to be banned! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If Tobacco "causes" cancer then why are there people 100 years >>>>>>>>> old who >>>>>>>>> smoked their whole life who don't have it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Again: Tobacco does not "cause cancer". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrong. Tobacco companies were sued and lost because tobacco causes >>>>>>> cancer. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Wrong. Tobacco does not cause cancer. CONSUMPTION of tobacco can >>>>>> lead to an increase in the likelihood that a human may develop a >>>>>> tobacco related cancer or some other tobacco related disease. >>>>> >>>>> Exactly, there is no evidence of causality, you merely have a >>>>> correlation. >>>>> >>>>> Might have nothing to due with tobacco at all but might be related to >>>>> another issue entirely,. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> like inhaling smoke of *burning tobacco leaves* causes higher >>>> rates >>>> of cancer >>>> >>> Actually, it's appears to be the opposite. Evidence linking cancer >>> and smoking PURE TOBACCO LEAVES is minimal, big link is to commercial >>> tobacco products. "Additives" and "processing" are suspected. >>> >>> >> >> **Your anti-science ignorance is showing yet again. I suggest you read >> the science, BEFORE you make any more idiotic proclamations: >> >> https://truthinitiative.org/news/are-organic-or-natural-cigarettes-safer-smoke >> >> >> https://www.livescience.com/7914-warning-homegrown-tobacco-deadly.html >> >> https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/is-any-type-of-smoking-safe.html >> >> >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/ > > Parroting a bunch of propaganda sites only shows your dishonesty. > Trevor, you are just here to sell a lib agenda and we all know it. **"Propaganda sites"? Bit of a stretch, even for you. > > If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it > (unless they chose to) **Bullshit. First off: * There are more than 100 different types of cancer. * Since there are so many different types of cancer, there are many different causes of those cancers. As for your insane claim: "If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it" It is known that excessive time spent under high level UV light (such as that found in direct Sunlight), is likely to lead to various types of skin cancer. People are still dying from skin cancer. It is known that smoking cigarettes, pipes, cigars, etc, will expose the user to a much greater chance of contracting various different cancers, including, but not limited to, lung cancer. Don't forget all the other diseases, almost unknown outside the smoking community. That fact that you propagandists have an agenda > is seen in your use of the disingenuous term "cause" rather than saying > it seems to be factor. **Liar. Trevor you couldn't make an honest statement if > your life depended on it. **Liar. > > (PS. I am not promoting sucking in combustion products as a safe > practice, but science isn't politics.) **No, you're just an anti-science, moronic liar. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 09:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pb2dkk$1ln$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681221 |
On 4/16/2018 4:11 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 16/04/2018 4:00 PM, benj wrote: >> On 4/15/2018 6:58 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 16/04/2018 8:03 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 4/15/2018 1:48 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 4/12/2018 7:06 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fj7mk1FnuahU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 10/04/2018 2:05 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 11:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 9/04/2018 1:46 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:29 PM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:17 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Still no proof cigarettes CAUSE cancer anymore than there is >>>>>>>>>>>> science >>>>>>>>>>>> that proves man-made CO2 causes global warming. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then you should smoke as many packs a day as you can afford, >>>>>>>>>>> benj. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *snicker* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gave up smoking years ago. You libs are always so violent >>>>>>>>>> wishing for >>>>>>>>>> people dead! You all need to be banned! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If Tobacco "causes" cancer then why are there people 100 years >>>>>>>>>> old who >>>>>>>>>> smoked their whole life who don't have it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Again: Tobacco does not "cause cancer". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrong. Tobacco companies were sued and lost because tobacco causes >>>>>>>> cancer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Wrong. Tobacco does not cause cancer. CONSUMPTION of tobacco can >>>>>>> lead to an increase in the likelihood that a human may develop a >>>>>>> tobacco related cancer or some other tobacco related disease. >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly, there is no evidence of causality, you merely have a >>>>>> correlation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Might have nothing to due with tobacco at all but might be related to >>>>>> another issue entirely,. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> like inhaling smoke of *burning tobacco leaves* causes higher >>>>> rates >>>>> of cancer >>>>> >>>> Actually, it's appears to be the opposite. Evidence linking cancer >>>> and smoking PURE TOBACCO LEAVES is minimal, big link is to >>>> commercial tobacco products. "Additives" and "processing" are >>>> suspected. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> **Your anti-science ignorance is showing yet again. I suggest you >>> read the science, BEFORE you make any more idiotic proclamations: >>> >>> https://truthinitiative.org/news/are-organic-or-natural-cigarettes-safer-smoke >>> >>> >>> https://www.livescience.com/7914-warning-homegrown-tobacco-deadly.html >>> >>> https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/is-any-type-of-smoking-safe.html >>> >>> >>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/ >> >> Parroting a bunch of propaganda sites only shows your dishonesty. >> Trevor, you are just here to sell a lib agenda and we all know it. > > **"Propaganda sites"? Bit of a stretch, even for you. > >> >> If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it >> (unless they chose to) > > **Bullshit. First off: > > * There are more than 100 different types of cancer. > * Since there are so many different types of cancer, there are many > different causes of those cancers. > > As for your insane claim: > > "If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it" > > It is known that excessive time spent under high level UV light (such as > that found in direct Sunlight), is likely to lead to various types of > skin cancer. People are still dying from skin cancer. > > It is known that smoking cigarettes, pipes, cigars, etc, will expose the > user to a much greater chance of contracting various different cancers, > including, but not limited to, lung cancer. Don't forget all the other > diseases, almost unknown outside the smoking community. > also, add ionizing radiation, like gamma rays, x-rays, cosmic particles, the "background" radiation from rocks, and from outer space, all can cause cancer. And we cannot get rid of those. and Tobacco plants, unlike others, absorb small amounts of radio active materials; https://www3.epa.gov/radtown/tobacco.html "Cigarettes made from tobacco still contain these radioactive elements. Lead-210 and polonium-210 emit mostly alpha and gamma radiation. The radioactive particles settle in smokers lungs, where they build up as long as the person smokes. (Unfiltered cigarettes allow the greatest amount of radionuclides to enter the lungs.) Over time, the radiation can damage the lungs and help cause lung cancer."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 13:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7G4BC.74349$VC2.69200@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #681247 |
On 4/16/2018 10:57 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/16/2018 4:11 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 16/04/2018 4:00 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 4/15/2018 6:58 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 16/04/2018 8:03 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 4/15/2018 1:48 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 4/12/2018 7:06 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:fj7mk1FnuahU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 10/04/2018 2:05 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 11:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/04/2018 1:46 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:29 PM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:17 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Still no proof cigarettes CAUSE cancer anymore than there is >>>>>>>>>>>>> science >>>>>>>>>>>>> that proves man-made CO2 causes global warming. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should smoke as many packs a day as you can afford, >>>>>>>>>>>> benj. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *snicker* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Gave up smoking years ago. You libs are always so violent >>>>>>>>>>> wishing for >>>>>>>>>>> people dead! You all need to be banned! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If Tobacco "causes" cancer then why are there people 100 years >>>>>>>>>>> old who >>>>>>>>>>> smoked their whole life who don't have it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Again: Tobacco does not "cause cancer". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrong. Tobacco companies were sued and lost because tobacco causes >>>>>>>>> cancer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Wrong. Tobacco does not cause cancer. CONSUMPTION of tobacco can >>>>>>>> lead to an increase in the likelihood that a human may develop a >>>>>>>> tobacco related cancer or some other tobacco related disease. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly, there is no evidence of causality, you merely have a >>>>>>> correlation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Might have nothing to due with tobacco at all but might be related to >>>>>>> another issue entirely,. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> like inhaling smoke of *burning tobacco leaves* causes higher >>>>>> rates >>>>>> of cancer >>>>>> >>>>> Actually, it's appears to be the opposite. Evidence linking cancer >>>>> and smoking PURE TOBACCO LEAVES is minimal, big link is to >>>>> commercial tobacco products. "Additives" and "processing" are >>>>> suspected. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> **Your anti-science ignorance is showing yet again. I suggest you >>>> read the science, BEFORE you make any more idiotic proclamations: >>>> >>>> https://truthinitiative.org/news/are-organic-or-natural-cigarettes-safer-smoke >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.livescience.com/7914-warning-homegrown-tobacco-deadly.html >>>> >>>> https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/is-any-type-of-smoking-safe.html >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/ >>> >>> Parroting a bunch of propaganda sites only shows your dishonesty. >>> Trevor, you are just here to sell a lib agenda and we all know it. >> >> **"Propaganda sites"? Bit of a stretch, even for you. >> >>> >>> If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it >>> (unless they chose to) >> >> **Bullshit. First off: >> >> * There are more than 100 different types of cancer. >> * Since there are so many different types of cancer, there are many >> different causes of those cancers. >> >> As for your insane claim: >> >> "If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it" >> >> It is known that excessive time spent under high level UV light (such as >> that found in direct Sunlight), is likely to lead to various types of >> skin cancer. People are still dying from skin cancer. >> >> It is known that smoking cigarettes, pipes, cigars, etc, will expose the >> user to a much greater chance of contracting various different cancers, >> including, but not limited to, lung cancer. Don't forget all the other >> diseases, almost unknown outside the smoking community. >> > > > also, add ionizing radiation, like gamma rays, x-rays, cosmic particles, > the "background" radiation from rocks, and from outer space, all can > cause cancer. And we cannot get rid of those. Sure you can, just pass a big "sky" tax where you pay for the amount of "sky" you are using. Common sense. Hey, somebody has to do SOMETHING to save the planet. > and Tobacco plants, unlike others, absorb small amounts of radio active > materials; Makes it easy. Just increase tobacco taxes. Even better, expand tax to ALL plants! Common sense. Save us now. > https://www3.epa.gov/radtown/tobacco.html > > "Cigarettes made from tobacco still contain these radioactive elements. > Lead-210 and polonium-210 emit mostly alpha and gamma radiation. The > radioactive particles settle in smokers lungs, where they build up as > long as the person smokes. (Unfiltered cigarettes allow the greatest > amount of radionuclides to enter the lungs.) Over time, the radiation > can damage the lungs and help cause lung cancer." >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 07:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fjki6uFkahlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #681247 |
On 17/04/2018 12:57 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/16/2018 4:11 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 16/04/2018 4:00 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 4/15/2018 6:58 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 16/04/2018 8:03 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 4/15/2018 1:48 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 4/12/2018 7:06 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:fj7mk1FnuahU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 10/04/2018 2:05 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 11:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/04/2018 1:46 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:29 PM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:17 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Still no proof cigarettes CAUSE cancer anymore than there is >>>>>>>>>>>>> science >>>>>>>>>>>>> that proves man-made CO2 causes global warming. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should smoke as many packs a day as you can afford, >>>>>>>>>>>> benj. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *snicker* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Gave up smoking years ago. You libs are always so violent >>>>>>>>>>> wishing for >>>>>>>>>>> people dead! You all need to be banned! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If Tobacco "causes" cancer then why are there people 100 years >>>>>>>>>>> old who >>>>>>>>>>> smoked their whole life who don't have it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Again: Tobacco does not "cause cancer". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrong. Tobacco companies were sued and lost because tobacco causes >>>>>>>>> cancer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Wrong. Tobacco does not cause cancer. CONSUMPTION of tobacco can >>>>>>>> lead to an increase in the likelihood that a human may develop a >>>>>>>> tobacco related cancer or some other tobacco related disease. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly, there is no evidence of causality, you merely have a >>>>>>> correlation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Might have nothing to due with tobacco at all but might be related to >>>>>>> another issue entirely,. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> like inhaling smoke of *burning tobacco leaves* causes higher >>>>>> rates >>>>>> of cancer >>>>>> >>>>> Actually, it's appears to be the opposite. Evidence linking cancer >>>>> and smoking PURE TOBACCO LEAVES is minimal, big link is to >>>>> commercial tobacco products. "Additives" and "processing" are >>>>> suspected. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> **Your anti-science ignorance is showing yet again. I suggest you >>>> read the science, BEFORE you make any more idiotic proclamations: >>>> >>>> https://truthinitiative.org/news/are-organic-or-natural-cigarettes-safer-smoke >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.livescience.com/7914-warning-homegrown-tobacco-deadly.html >>>> >>>> https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/is-any-type-of-smoking-safe.html >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/ >>> >>> Parroting a bunch of propaganda sites only shows your dishonesty. >>> Trevor, you are just here to sell a lib agenda and we all know it. >> >> **"Propaganda sites"? Bit of a stretch, even for you. >> >>> >>> If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it >>> (unless they chose to) >> >> **Bullshit. First off: >> >> * There are more than 100 different types of cancer. >> * Since there are so many different types of cancer, there are many >> different causes of those cancers. >> >> As for your insane claim: >> >> "If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it" >> >> It is known that excessive time spent under high level UV light (such as >> that found in direct Sunlight), is likely to lead to various types of >> skin cancer. People are still dying from skin cancer. >> >> It is known that smoking cigarettes, pipes, cigars, etc, will expose the >> user to a much greater chance of contracting various different cancers, >> including, but not limited to, lung cancer. Don't forget all the other >> diseases, almost unknown outside the smoking community. >> > > > also, add ionizing radiation, like gamma rays, x-rays, cosmic particles, > the "background" radiation from rocks, and from outer space, all can > cause cancer. And we cannot get rid of those. **Better tell benj. Here is his assertion: "If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it" Benj seems to be under the mistaken assumption that science is unaware of many of the reasons why humans contract various forms of cancer. Benj appears to also be under the mistaken assumption that cancer is one disease. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 21:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pb3n2s$1ut$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681317 |
On 4/16/2018 4:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 17/04/2018 12:57 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 4/16/2018 4:11 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 16/04/2018 4:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 4/15/2018 6:58 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 16/04/2018 8:03 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 4/15/2018 1:48 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/12/2018 7:06 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fj7mk1FnuahU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 10/04/2018 2:05 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 11:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/04/2018 1:46 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:29 PM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:17 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still no proof cigarettes CAUSE cancer anymore than there is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> science >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that proves man-made CO2 causes global warming. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should smoke as many packs a day as you can afford, >>>>>>>>>>>>> benj. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *snicker* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gave up smoking years ago. You libs are always so violent >>>>>>>>>>>> wishing for >>>>>>>>>>>> people dead! You all need to be banned! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If Tobacco "causes" cancer then why are there people 100 years >>>>>>>>>>>> old who >>>>>>>>>>>> smoked their whole life who don't have it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **Again: Tobacco does not "cause cancer". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrong. Tobacco companies were sued and lost because tobacco >>>>>>>>>> causes >>>>>>>>>> cancer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Wrong. Tobacco does not cause cancer. CONSUMPTION of tobacco can >>>>>>>>> lead to an increase in the likelihood that a human may develop a >>>>>>>>> tobacco related cancer or some other tobacco related disease. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Exactly, there is no evidence of causality, you merely have a >>>>>>>> correlation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Might have nothing to due with tobacco at all but might be >>>>>>>> related to >>>>>>>> another issue entirely,. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> like inhaling smoke of *burning tobacco leaves* causes higher >>>>>>> rates >>>>>>> of cancer >>>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, it's appears to be the opposite. Evidence linking cancer >>>>>> and smoking PURE TOBACCO LEAVES is minimal, big link is to >>>>>> commercial tobacco products. "Additives" and "processing" are >>>>>> suspected. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **Your anti-science ignorance is showing yet again. I suggest you >>>>> read the science, BEFORE you make any more idiotic proclamations: >>>>> >>>>> https://truthinitiative.org/news/are-organic-or-natural-cigarettes-safer-smoke >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.livescience.com/7914-warning-homegrown-tobacco-deadly.html >>>>> >>>>> https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/is-any-type-of-smoking-safe.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/ >>>> >>>> Parroting a bunch of propaganda sites only shows your dishonesty. >>>> Trevor, you are just here to sell a lib agenda and we all know it. >>> >>> **"Propaganda sites"? Bit of a stretch, even for you. >>> >>>> >>>> If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it >>>> (unless they chose to) >>> >>> **Bullshit. First off: >>> >>> * There are more than 100 different types of cancer. >>> * Since there are so many different types of cancer, there are many >>> different causes of those cancers. >>> >>> As for your insane claim: >>> >>> "If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it" >>> >>> It is known that excessive time spent under high level UV light (such as >>> that found in direct Sunlight), is likely to lead to various types of >>> skin cancer. People are still dying from skin cancer. >>> >>> It is known that smoking cigarettes, pipes, cigars, etc, will expose the >>> user to a much greater chance of contracting various different cancers, >>> including, but not limited to, lung cancer. Don't forget all the other >>> diseases, almost unknown outside the smoking community. >>> >> >> >> also, add ionizing radiation, like gamma rays, x-rays, cosmic particles, >> the "background" radiation from rocks, and from outer space, all can >> cause cancer. And we cannot get rid of those. > > **Better tell benj. Here is his assertion: > > "If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it" > > Benj seems to be under the mistaken assumption that science is unaware > of many of the reasons why humans contract various forms of cancer. Benj > appears to also be under the mistaken assumption that cancer is one > disease. > > > I am telling you, as you think tobacco products are healthy, unless you smoke them, and Science is telling you that cancer is caused by many things, which you deny. most all people do not realize that on the earths surface, we are at a minimum of 'background' radiation levels. this enables humanity and life to live long lives on the Earths surface. The air above attenuates the levels from space, and the rocks give off radiation too. this is not the case on the surface of the moon or mars. 3 years in space and you go blind from catarac's "Space Turns You Into a Bag of Cancer" "Outside the safe cocoon of Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field, subatomic particles zip around at close to the speed of light. This is space radiation, and it’s deadly. Aside from cancer, it can also cause cataracts and possibly Alzheimer’s. When these particles knock into the atoms of aluminum that make up a spacecraft hull, their nuclei blow up, emitting yet more superfast particles called secondary radiation. “You’re actually making the problem worse,” says Nasser Barghouty, a physicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center." https://boingboing.net/2013/01/04/how-space-radiation-hurts-astr.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 14:08 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fjlaabFp4cpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #681341 |
On 17/04/2018 12:44 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/16/2018 4:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 17/04/2018 12:57 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 4/16/2018 4:11 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 16/04/2018 4:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 4/15/2018 6:58 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 16/04/2018 8:03 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/15/2018 1:48 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2018 7:06 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:fj7mk1FnuahU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 10/04/2018 2:05 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 11:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/04/2018 1:46 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:29 PM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:17 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still no proof cigarettes CAUSE cancer anymore than there is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that proves man-made CO2 causes global warming. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should smoke as many packs a day as you can afford, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benj. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *snicker* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gave up smoking years ago. You libs are always so violent >>>>>>>>>>>>> wishing for >>>>>>>>>>>>> people dead! You all need to be banned! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If Tobacco "causes" cancer then why are there people 100 years >>>>>>>>>>>>> old who >>>>>>>>>>>>> smoked their whole life who don't have it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Again: Tobacco does not "cause cancer". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Tobacco companies were sued and lost because tobacco >>>>>>>>>>> causes >>>>>>>>>>> cancer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Wrong. Tobacco does not cause cancer. CONSUMPTION of tobacco can >>>>>>>>>> lead to an increase in the likelihood that a human may develop a >>>>>>>>>> tobacco related cancer or some other tobacco related disease. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Exactly, there is no evidence of causality, you merely have a >>>>>>>>> correlation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Might have nothing to due with tobacco at all but might be >>>>>>>>> related to >>>>>>>>> another issue entirely,. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> like inhaling smoke of *burning tobacco leaves* causes higher >>>>>>>> rates >>>>>>>> of cancer >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, it's appears to be the opposite. Evidence linking cancer >>>>>>> and smoking PURE TOBACCO LEAVES is minimal, big link is to >>>>>>> commercial tobacco products. "Additives" and "processing" are >>>>>>> suspected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **Your anti-science ignorance is showing yet again. I suggest you >>>>>> read the science, BEFORE you make any more idiotic proclamations: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://truthinitiative.org/news/are-organic-or-natural-cigarettes-safer-smoke >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.livescience.com/7914-warning-homegrown-tobacco-deadly.html >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/is-any-type-of-smoking-safe.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/ >>>>> >>>>> Parroting a bunch of propaganda sites only shows your dishonesty. >>>>> Trevor, you are just here to sell a lib agenda and we all know it. >>>> >>>> **"Propaganda sites"? Bit of a stretch, even for you. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it >>>>> (unless they chose to) >>>> >>>> **Bullshit. First off: >>>> >>>> * There are more than 100 different types of cancer. >>>> * Since there are so many different types of cancer, there are many >>>> different causes of those cancers. >>>> >>>> As for your insane claim: >>>> >>>> "If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it" >>>> >>>> It is known that excessive time spent under high level UV light (such as >>>> that found in direct Sunlight), is likely to lead to various types of >>>> skin cancer. People are still dying from skin cancer. >>>> >>>> It is known that smoking cigarettes, pipes, cigars, etc, will expose the >>>> user to a much greater chance of contracting various different cancers, >>>> including, but not limited to, lung cancer. Don't forget all the other >>>> diseases, almost unknown outside the smoking community. >>>> >>> >>> >>> also, add ionizing radiation, like gamma rays, x-rays, cosmic particles, >>> the "background" radiation from rocks, and from outer space, all can >>> cause cancer. And we cannot get rid of those. >> >> **Better tell benj. Here is his assertion: >> >> "If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it" >> >> Benj seems to be under the mistaken assumption that science is unaware >> of many of the reasons why humans contract various forms of cancer. Benj >> appears to also be under the mistaken assumption that cancer is one >> disease. >> >> >> > > > I am telling you, as you think tobacco products are healthy, unless you > smoke them, **Nope. Tobacco products are harmless, UNLESS they are used in the way the manufacturer intends. THEN, they are potentially very harmful. and Science is telling you that cancer is caused by many > things, which you deny. **Liar. I just explained that there are more than 100 different cancers that affect humans. Those cancers have many different causes. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 11:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pb57o1$i3a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681348 |
On 4/16/2018 11:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 17/04/2018 12:44 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/16/2018 4:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2018 12:57 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2018 4:11 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 16/04/2018 4:00 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/15/2018 6:58 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16/04/2018 8:03 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2018 1:48 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2018 7:06 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>> news:fj7mk1FnuahU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/04/2018 2:05 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 11:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/04/2018 1:46 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:29 PM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:17 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still no proof cigarettes CAUSE cancer anymore than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that proves man-made CO2 causes global warming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should smoke as many packs a day as you can afford,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benj.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *snicker*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gave up smoking years ago. You libs are always so violent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishing for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people dead! You all need to be banned!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Tobacco "causes" cancer then why are there people 100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smoked their whole life who don't have it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again: Tobacco does not "cause cancer".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Tobacco companies were sued and lost because tobacco
>>>>>>>>>>>> causes
>>>>>>>>>>>> cancer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong. Tobacco does not cause cancer. CONSUMPTION of
>>>>>>>>>>> tobacco can
>>>>>>>>>>> lead to an increase in the likelihood that a human may develop a
>>>>>>>>>>> tobacco related cancer or some other tobacco related disease.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Exactly, there is no evidence of causality, you merely have a
>>>>>>>>>> correlation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Might have nothing to due with tobacco at all but might be
>>>>>>>>>> related to
>>>>>>>>>> another issue entirely,.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> like inhaling smoke of *burning tobacco leaves* causes
>>>>>>>>> higher
>>>>>>>>> rates
>>>>>>>>> of cancer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, it's appears to be the opposite. Evidence linking cancer
>>>>>>>> and smoking PURE TOBACCO LEAVES is minimal, big link is to
>>>>>>>> commercial tobacco products. "Additives" and "processing" are
>>>>>>>> suspected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Your anti-science ignorance is showing yet again. I suggest you
>>>>>>> read the science, BEFORE you make any more idiotic proclamations:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://truthinitiative.org/news/are-organic-or-natural-cigarettes-safer-smoke
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.livescience.com/7914-warning-homegrown-tobacco-deadly.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/is-any-type-of-smoking-safe.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Parroting a bunch of propaganda sites only shows your dishonesty.
>>>>>> Trevor, you are just here to sell a lib agenda and we all know it.
>>>>>
>>>>> **"Propaganda sites"? Bit of a stretch, even for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it
>>>>>> (unless they chose to)
>>>>>
>>>>> **Bullshit. First off:
>>>>>
>>>>> * There are more than 100 different types of cancer.
>>>>> * Since there are so many different types of cancer, there are many
>>>>> different causes of those cancers.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for your insane claim:
>>>>>
>>>>> "If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from
>>>>> it"
>>>>>
>>>>> It is known that excessive time spent under high level UV light
>>>>> (such as
>>>>> that found in direct Sunlight), is likely to lead to various types of
>>>>> skin cancer. People are still dying from skin cancer.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is known that smoking cigarettes, pipes, cigars, etc, will
>>>>> expose the
>>>>> user to a much greater chance of contracting various different
>>>>> cancers,
>>>>> including, but not limited to, lung cancer. Don't forget all the other
>>>>> diseases, almost unknown outside the smoking community.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> also, add ionizing radiation, like gamma rays, x-rays, cosmic
>>>> particles,
>>>> the "background" radiation from rocks, and from outer space, all can
>>>> cause cancer. And we cannot get rid of those.
>>>
>>> **Better tell benj. Here is his assertion:
>>>
>>> "If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it"
>>>
>>> Benj seems to be under the mistaken assumption that science is unaware
>>> of many of the reasons why humans contract various forms of cancer. Benj
>>> appears to also be under the mistaken assumption that cancer is one
>>> disease.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I am telling you, as you think tobacco products are healthy, unless you
>> smoke them,
>
> **Nope. Tobacco products are harmless, UNLESS they are used in the way
> the manufacturer intends. THEN, they are potentially very harmful.
So you are stating that if one uses tobacco products NOT in the way the
manufacture intends, it is harmless.
>
> and Science is telling you that cancer is caused by many
>> things, which you deny.
>
> **Liar. I just explained that there are more than 100 different cancers
> that affect humans. Those cancers have many different causes.
>
ok, big subject area;
different cancers can have different causes
the same type of cancer can have different causes
a type of cancer can have 100's of different cellular cancerous variations
there are 100's of different types of cancer, (type-usually named for
region affected)
California says Coffiee causes Cancer,
below from;
http://dph.illinois.gov/topics-services/diseases-and-conditions/diseases-a-z-list/cancer-your-environment
What factors contribute to cancer?
*Cigarette smoking* is the leading cause of cancer. Cigarette smoke
contains more than 3,800 individual chemicals, and more than 40 are
carcinogenic (cancer causing).
Portions of the diet, especially fatty foods and alcoholic beverages ,
also are linked to cancer.
Skin exposure to ultraviolet radiation in sunlight is the primary cause
of melanoma, a skin cancer.
Sexual behavior that helps spread sexually transmitted diseases is
closely linked to cervical cancer in women.
Environmental pollution by chemicals in drinking water, air, food and in
the workplace may contribute to cancer. The harmful health effects of
chemicals depend on the dose, strength of the chemical compound, the
length of exposure and the general health of the individual. Outside the
workplace, very few cases of cancer are believed to be caused by
exposure to chemicals in the environment.
Most cancers may be prevented through the identification and control of
external factors. Approximately 30 percent of cancers are linked to
cigarette smoking. The remaining 70 percent are likely the result of
interaction among various factors.
How do chemicals cause cancer?
Some chemicals in the environment are toxic substances that can produce
cancer in humans and animals. Most chemicals act by causing the
initiation step in the cancer process (altering the DNA), but they also
can act as promoters.
What cancers are caused by chemicals?
Most cancer-causing chemicals were first recognized in workplace
settings. The workplace is unique because workers are often exposed to
large amounts of chemicals over long periods of time. The first
association of cancer with the workplace occurred in 1775. A London
doctor related cases of cancer of the scrotum among young chimney sweeps
to their *exposure to soot*. Other cause-and-effect relationships have
been noted in workers between –
benzene and leukemia;
asbestos and lung cancer; and
vinyl chloride and liver cancer.
Workers may be exposed to a combination of cancer-causing chemicals
(carcinogens), which increases their cancer risk. The risk of lung
cancer in asbestos workers who also smoke cigarettes is at least 50
times higher than the risk in nonsmoking asbestos workers. Reducing
chemical exposure can prevent most work-related cancers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 17:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1nnexoo.1h5awqzvn4ga3N%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #681389 |
[tpg snecked] Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> and Science is telling you that cancer is caused by many > >> things, which you deny. > > > > **Liar. I just explained that there are more than 100 different cancers > > that affect humans. Those cancers have many different causes. > > > > ok, big subject area; > > different cancers can have different causes > > the same type of cancer can have different causes > > a type of cancer can have 100's of different cellular cancerous variations > > there are 100's of different types of cancer, (type-usually named for > region affected) > > California says Coffiee causes Cancer, > > below from; > ><http://dph.illinois.gov/topics-services/diseases-and-conditions/diseases-a-z-list/cancer-your-environment> > > What factors contribute to cancer? [...] Toast causes cancer: <http://tinyurl.com/jukqsxs> <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/27/how-burnt-toast-became-linked-to-cancer-acrylamide> -- ^Ï^. Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> My pet rock Gordon just is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 06:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fjn22lF6vd0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #681389 |
On 18/04/2018 2:35 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/16/2018 11:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 17/04/2018 12:44 PM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 4/16/2018 4:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 17/04/2018 12:57 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 4/16/2018 4:11 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 16/04/2018 4:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/15/2018 6:58 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 16/04/2018 8:03 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2018 1:48 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2018 7:06 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>> news:fj7mk1FnuahU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/04/2018 2:05 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 11:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/04/2018 1:46 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:29 PM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2018 12:17 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still no proof cigarettes CAUSE cancer anymore than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that proves man-made CO2 causes global warming. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should smoke as many packs a day as you can afford, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benj. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *snicker* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gave up smoking years ago. You libs are always so violent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishing for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people dead! You all need to be banned! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Tobacco "causes" cancer then why are there people 100 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smoked their whole life who don't have it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again: Tobacco does not "cause cancer". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Tobacco companies were sued and lost because tobacco >>>>>>>>>>>>> causes >>>>>>>>>>>>> cancer. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong. Tobacco does not cause cancer. CONSUMPTION of >>>>>>>>>>>> tobacco can >>>>>>>>>>>> lead to an increase in the likelihood that a human may develop a >>>>>>>>>>>> tobacco related cancer or some other tobacco related disease. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Exactly, there is no evidence of causality, you merely have a >>>>>>>>>>> correlation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Might have nothing to due with tobacco at all but might be >>>>>>>>>>> related to >>>>>>>>>>> another issue entirely,. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> like inhaling smoke of *burning tobacco leaves* causes >>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>> rates >>>>>>>>>> of cancer >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, it's appears to be the opposite. Evidence linking cancer >>>>>>>>> and smoking PURE TOBACCO LEAVES is minimal, big link is to >>>>>>>>> commercial tobacco products. "Additives" and "processing" are >>>>>>>>> suspected. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Your anti-science ignorance is showing yet again. I suggest you >>>>>>>> read the science, BEFORE you make any more idiotic proclamations: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://truthinitiative.org/news/are-organic-or-natural-cigarettes-safer-smoke >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.livescience.com/7914-warning-homegrown-tobacco-deadly.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/is-any-type-of-smoking-safe.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Parroting a bunch of propaganda sites only shows your dishonesty. >>>>>>> Trevor, you are just here to sell a lib agenda and we all know it. >>>>>> >>>>>> **"Propaganda sites"? Bit of a stretch, even for you. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it >>>>>>> (unless they chose to) >>>>>> >>>>>> **Bullshit. First off: >>>>>> >>>>>> * There are more than 100 different types of cancer. >>>>>> * Since there are so many different types of cancer, there are many >>>>>> different causes of those cancers. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for your insane claim: >>>>>> >>>>>> "If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from >>>>>> it" >>>>>> >>>>>> It is known that excessive time spent under high level UV light >>>>>> (such as >>>>>> that found in direct Sunlight), is likely to lead to various types of >>>>>> skin cancer. People are still dying from skin cancer. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is known that smoking cigarettes, pipes, cigars, etc, will >>>>>> expose the >>>>>> user to a much greater chance of contracting various different >>>>>> cancers, >>>>>> including, but not limited to, lung cancer. Don't forget all the other >>>>>> diseases, almost unknown outside the smoking community. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> also, add ionizing radiation, like gamma rays, x-rays, cosmic >>>>> particles, >>>>> the "background" radiation from rocks, and from outer space, all can >>>>> cause cancer. And we cannot get rid of those. >>>> >>>> **Better tell benj. Here is his assertion: >>>> >>>> "If the "cause" of cancer were known, people wouldn't be dying from it" >>>> >>>> Benj seems to be under the mistaken assumption that science is unaware >>>> of many of the reasons why humans contract various forms of cancer. Benj >>>> appears to also be under the mistaken assumption that cancer is one >>>> disease. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> I am telling you, as you think tobacco products are healthy, unless you >>> smoke them, >> >> **Nope. Tobacco products are harmless, UNLESS they are used in the way >> the manufacturer intends. THEN, they are potentially very harmful. > > So you are stating that if one uses tobacco products NOT in the way the > manufacture intends, it is harmless. > **Nope. That is not what I said. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 22:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb5t4r$i1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #681389 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:35:09 -0500, Sergio wrote: > Sexual behavior that helps spread sexually transmitted diseases is > closely linked to cervical cancer in women. Wrong. A single, specific STD, HPV, is -- and there's a vaccine against it. Get vaccinated and you can engage in whatever sexual behavior you like without fear of cervical cancer. But of course we should expect conservative fearmongering about sex from you. :P -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 09:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fjndh7F9h41U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #681437 |
On 18/04/2018 8:40 AM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:35:09 -0500, Sergio wrote: > >> Sexual behavior that helps spread sexually transmitted diseases is >> closely linked to cervical cancer in women. > > Wrong. A single, specific STD, HPV, is -- and there's a vaccine against > it. Get vaccinated and you can engage in whatever sexual behavior you like > without fear of cervical cancer. > > But of course we should expect conservative fearmongering about sex from > you. :P > **Yep. In fact the HPV vaccine was invented right here in Australia. The Australian government almost immediately set-up a free vaccination for young women. As a result, Australia is on-track to wipe out cervical cancer within a few decades. All is not quite as it seems though. Several right wing politicians vigorously opposed the free vaccination, arguing that women should be allowed to die from one of the most insidious cancers known. Those same politicians have regularly fought against actions to reduce smoking rates. Arseholes. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 20:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <PXvBC.545$z83.27@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #681437 |
On 4/17/2018 6:40 PM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:35:09 -0500, Sergio wrote: > >> Sexual behavior that helps spread sexually transmitted diseases is >> closely linked to cervical cancer in women. > > Wrong. A single, specific STD, HPV, is -- and there's a vaccine against > it. Get vaccinated and you can engage in whatever sexual behavior you like > without fear of cervical cancer. > > But of course we should expect conservative fearmongering about sex from > you. :P > Don't worry Nads, as an ugly female Lib, you'll never have to worry about any opportunities for "whatever sexual behavior you like".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 19:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pb63mv$1ugn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681437 |
On 4/17/2018 5:40 PM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:35:09 -0500, Sergio wrote: > >> Sexual behavior that helps spread sexually transmitted diseases is >> closely linked to cervical cancer in women. > > Wrong. A single, Wrong, what is a STD ? Sexually Transmuted Dieeze. specific STD, HPV, is -- and there's a vaccine against > it. Get vaccinated and you can engage in whatever sexual behavior you like > without fear of cervical cancer. > > But of course we should expect conservative fearmongering about sex from > you. :P > get with Trump, he has no fear of sex, just the germs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 01:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb67e8$i1$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #681459 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:32:29 -0500, Sergio wrote: > On 4/17/2018 5:40 PM, Nadegda wrote: >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >> melt! On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:35:09 -0500, Sergio wrote: >> >>> Sexual behavior that helps spread sexually transmitted diseases is >>> closely linked to cervical cancer in women. >> >> Wrong. A single, > > Wrong, what is a STD ? Sexually Transmuted Dieeze. > > specific STD, HPV, is -- and there's a vaccine against >> it. Get vaccinated and you can engage in whatever sexual behavior you >> like without fear of cervical cancer. >> >> But of course we should expect conservative fearmongering about sex >> from you. :P >> >> > get with Trump, > > he has no fear of sex, > > just the germs. HPV can't explain Trump's escalatingly loopy behavior, ragestorms, general dullness and signs of incipient senility. There is, of course, a different STD that can, though ... <snicker> -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 18:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b72tjl.lpv.19.4@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #681471 |
On 2018-04-17 6:36 PM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:32:29 -0500, Sergio wrote: > >> On 4/17/2018 5:40 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>> melt! On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:35:09 -0500, Sergio wrote: >>> >>>> Sexual behavior that helps spread sexually transmitted diseases is >>>> closely linked to cervical cancer in women. >>> >>> Wrong. A single, >> >> Wrong, what is a STD ? Sexually Transmuted Dieeze. >> >> specific STD, HPV, is -- and there's a vaccine against >>> it. Get vaccinated and you can engage in whatever sexual behavior you >>> like without fear of cervical cancer. >>> >>> But of course we should expect conservative fearmongering about sex >>> from you. :P >>> >>> >> get with Trump, >> >> he has no fear of sex, >> >> just the germs. > > HPV can't explain Trump's escalatingly loopy behavior, ragestorms, general > dullness and signs of incipient senility. > > There is, of course, a different STD that can, though ... > > <snicker> > and here you are you sneakey deakey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 22:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pb6egu$bju$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681471 |
On 4/17/2018 8:36 PM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:32:29 -0500, Sergio wrote: > >> On 4/17/2018 5:40 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>> melt! On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:35:09 -0500, Sergio wrote: >>> >>>> Sexual behavior that helps spread sexually transmitted diseases is >>>> closely linked to cervical cancer in women. >>> >>> Wrong. A single, >> >> Wrong, what is a STD ? Sexually Transmuted Dieeze. >> >> specific STD, HPV, is -- and there's a vaccine against >>> it. Get vaccinated and you can engage in whatever sexual behavior you >>> like without fear of cervical cancer. >>> >>> But of course we should expect conservative fearmongering about sex >>> from you. :P >>> >>> >> get with Trump, >> >> he has no fear of sex, >> >> just the germs. > > HPV can't explain Trump's escalatingly loopy behavior, ragestorms, general > dullness and signs of incipient senility. > > There is, of course, a different STD that can, though ... > > <snicker> > don't worry, the FBI is on his case!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 11:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <25JBC.23652$DS3.5896@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #681471 |
On 4/17/2018 9:36 PM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:32:29 -0500, Sergio wrote: > >> On 4/17/2018 5:40 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>> melt! On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:35:09 -0500, Sergio wrote: >>> >>>> Sexual behavior that helps spread sexually transmitted diseases is >>>> closely linked to cervical cancer in women. >>> >>> Wrong. A single, >> >> Wrong, what is a STD ? Sexually Transmuted Dieeze. >> >> specific STD, HPV, is -- and there's a vaccine against >>> it. Get vaccinated and you can engage in whatever sexual behavior you >>> like without fear of cervical cancer. >>> >>> But of course we should expect conservative fearmongering about sex >>> from you. :P >>> >>> >> get with Trump, >> >> he has no fear of sex, >> >> just the germs. > > HPV can't explain Trump's escalatingly loopy behavior, ragestorms, general > dullness and signs of incipient senility. > > There is, of course, a different STD that can, though ... > > <snicker> > I"m pretty sure that STD explains those characteristics in Nads, though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web