air conditioning may be making us fat
in [Europe]
|
From: Tim C. on 13 Jul 2006 13:58 On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:17:32 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Tim C. writes: > >> Metastatic? > >I believe he is referring to cancers that metastasize early, as >opposed to the metastases themselves. I was only guessing. > Some types of lung cancer are >in this category, and since they produce obvious symptoms only after >they have considerably advanced, sometimes people are diagnosed only >weeks before they die of the disease. One more reason not to smoke >(about 95% of lung cancers are caused by smoking). -- Tim C.
From: Tim C. on 13 Jul 2006 14:00 On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:12:20 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> But it does work for many others. > >It doesn't work for anyone. Other viruses, not other people, you pillock. -- Tim C.
From: Tim C. on 13 Jul 2006 14:02 On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:13:28 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Tim C. writes: > >> True, which has little to do with what I said. Exposure to one virus >> can provide varying degrees of resistance to a different one. > >For some virus families, but not others. It doesn't work for the >rhinoviruses and other virus families that cause the common >cold--which is why people continue to get colds even if they've had >colds before. > >> Tell me about the development of the smallpox vaccine. > >Smallpox is not a common-cold virus. True, and well snipped. -- Tim C.
From: Tim C. on 13 Jul 2006 14:03 On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:15:19 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Tim C. writes: > >> ...if you can't afford *adequate* treatment. > >Adequate and best are often synonyms. So? -- Tim C.
From: Tim C. on 13 Jul 2006 14:08
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:23:14 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > >> The target here is perfectly identified : it's a group of six posters. > >How did you identify them? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out. >> Every one in this group can rightfully claim they have been personally >> attacked by you. > >Not really. Not only wasn't it an attack to begin with, but it had no >identified targets. An attack doesn't have to have identified targets. A terrorist bomb going off in a crowded market. I suppose you will claim that the people in the market were the target(s). In which case one could ague that they were less identifiable than the targets of your recent attacks. -- Tim C. |