On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 05:58:22 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 14:23:07 GMT, wmbjk
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 04:41:29 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Its not the odds...its the stakes.

That's like saying "it's the weight... not the arm", when in fact it's
the weight times the arm that's important. Here it's the odds times
the stakes. I doubt you believe your own theory anyway, otherwise you
wouldn't smoke.

Wayne

No one in either side of my family has ever had a smoking related
illness in recorded history. They all tend to live to ripe old ages
and suddenly stop around the 3 digit mark. Since I dont drink like
most of them did (I dont drink at all) perhaps Ill make the triple
digits

So you're just going to ignore that the two elements have to be taken
*together* to properly evaluate risk? Oh well.... Let's see if I have
this straight - when we're talking about low risk of death by mugging,
then it's the death part that's important, so action must be taken.
But if the discussion turns to low risk of death by smoking, it's the
odd's that are important, therefore no action is necessary? I musta'
missed that episode of the Twilight Zone.

BTW, I heard that family history thing from a guy who did some work
for me. Couple years later he was on oxygen. Maybe his relatives
smoked a different brand or something.

Wayne