Security measures?
Aug 13th 2005, 8:26 am
#106
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:49:49 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:
>>
>>
>>>So? My reply was a comment upon your assertion that "He
>>>would have lived to be a lot older than 66". You have no
>>>way of knowing that - something else might well have killed
>>>him at that age, if he had NOT developed lung cancer! (LIFE
>>>is essentially a fatal disease - what actually causes one's
>>>departure is largely in the hands of fate.)
>>
>>
>> Not knowing how long one will live is hardly a reason to kill oneself
>> at an early age.
>Define "early age". People may live longer nowadays than
>when Social Security set "retirement age" at 65 (which many
>people did not live to see, at that time), but it's still
>considered old enough so death is not entirely unexpected!
>(And FWIW, for most of Disney's life, most adult males
>somoked, since the studies connecting it to lung cancer
>weren't published until long after WW2.)
Hardly
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/schools/keydates.html
1930 Researchers in Cologne, Germany, make a
statistical correlation between cancer and smoking.
1933 Chesterfield begins running ads in the New York
State Journal of Medicine, with claims such as: “Just as pure as the
water you drink … and practically untouched by human hands.�
The Children’s Act is repealed and replaced by
the Children and Young Persons Act. Under Section 7 of the Act it
was made illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 16.
1939 “Tobacco misuse and lung carcinoma� by Franz
Hermann Muller of the University of Cologne, is the first major report
to find a strong link between smoking and lung cancer.
1939-1945 World War II: As part of the war effort, US President
Roosevelt makes tobacco a protected crop. Cigarettes are include in
soldiers’ rations. Tobacco companies send millions of free cigarettes
to troops.
1943 Advertising: Philip Morris places an ad in the US
National Medical Journal which reads: “Don’t smoke is advice hard for
patients to swallow. May we suggest instead ‘Smoking Philip Morris?’
Tests showed three out of every four cases of smokers’ cough cleared
on changing to Philip Morris. Why not observe the results for
yourself?�
1947 A massive (43%) increase in cigarette tax results
in a 14% drop in cigarette consumption among British men.
1950 Drs Wynder and Graham, of Washington University,
USA, published a study showing that of 650 men with lung cancer, 95%
had been smoking for 25 years of more.
1951 The first large-scale epidemiological study of the
relationship between smoking and lung cancer was carried out by Dr
(now Professor Sir) Richard Doll and Professor (subsequently Sir)
Austin Bradford Hill and published in the British Medical Journal.
Doll and Hill interviewed 5,000 patients in British hospitals and
found that of the 1,357 men with lung cancer, 99.5% were smokers.
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:
>>
>>
>>>So? My reply was a comment upon your assertion that "He
>>>would have lived to be a lot older than 66". You have no
>>>way of knowing that - something else might well have killed
>>>him at that age, if he had NOT developed lung cancer! (LIFE
>>>is essentially a fatal disease - what actually causes one's
>>>departure is largely in the hands of fate.)
>>
>>
>> Not knowing how long one will live is hardly a reason to kill oneself
>> at an early age.
>Define "early age". People may live longer nowadays than
>when Social Security set "retirement age" at 65 (which many
>people did not live to see, at that time), but it's still
>considered old enough so death is not entirely unexpected!
>(And FWIW, for most of Disney's life, most adult males
>somoked, since the studies connecting it to lung cancer
>weren't published until long after WW2.)
Hardly
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/schools/keydates.html
1930 Researchers in Cologne, Germany, make a
statistical correlation between cancer and smoking.
1933 Chesterfield begins running ads in the New York
State Journal of Medicine, with claims such as: “Just as pure as the
water you drink … and practically untouched by human hands.�
The Children’s Act is repealed and replaced by
the Children and Young Persons Act. Under Section 7 of the Act it
was made illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 16.
1939 “Tobacco misuse and lung carcinoma� by Franz
Hermann Muller of the University of Cologne, is the first major report
to find a strong link between smoking and lung cancer.
1939-1945 World War II: As part of the war effort, US President
Roosevelt makes tobacco a protected crop. Cigarettes are include in
soldiers’ rations. Tobacco companies send millions of free cigarettes
to troops.
1943 Advertising: Philip Morris places an ad in the US
National Medical Journal which reads: “Don’t smoke is advice hard for
patients to swallow. May we suggest instead ‘Smoking Philip Morris?’
Tests showed three out of every four cases of smokers’ cough cleared
on changing to Philip Morris. Why not observe the results for
yourself?�
1947 A massive (43%) increase in cigarette tax results
in a 14% drop in cigarette consumption among British men.
1950 Drs Wynder and Graham, of Washington University,
USA, published a study showing that of 650 men with lung cancer, 95%
had been smoking for 25 years of more.
1951 The first large-scale epidemiological study of the
relationship between smoking and lung cancer was carried out by Dr
(now Professor Sir) Richard Doll and Professor (subsequently Sir)
Austin Bradford Hill and published in the British Medical Journal.
Doll and Hill interviewed 5,000 patients in British hospitals and
found that of the 1,357 men with lung cancer, 99.5% were smokers.
--
Martin
Aug 13th 2005, 9:28 pm
#107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
Asbestos causes documented lung cancer; you're referring to Silicosis as
an obstructive lung disease. Note you snipped out Radon as a cause of
lung disease MORE prevalent than other causes because exposure levels
are so hard to document. With such snippage you should be tailoring
your own nerd contest winning trousseau...
Tim K
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
> > Asbestosis ...
> ... is not a type of cancer.
> > ... Mesotheliomia ...
> Mesothelioma is most common in people who have had heavy or prolonged
> exposure to asbestos dust--and who smoke.
> > You don't know WTF you're talking about again.
> Are you sure?
> > Both of those are environment causes of lung cancer far more
> > common than Radon induced tumors.
> They are not causes of cancer, they are diseases. Asbestosis is a
> type of fibrosis caused by (substantial) exposure to asbestos dust.
> It is not a form of cancer, nor is it an environmental characteristic.
> Pleural mesothelioma is associated with asbestos exposure (most people
> who develop it have been exposed to asbestos), but smoking
> dramatically increases the chances of developing mesothelioma if one
> has already been exposed to asbestos (as much as 90 times the baseline
> for unexposed non-smokers). It's a rare form of cancer in any case,
> although it is invariably fatal. Asbestosis is not a prerequisite to
> mesothelioma, and most people who have asbestosis will not develop
> mesothelioma.
an obstructive lung disease. Note you snipped out Radon as a cause of
lung disease MORE prevalent than other causes because exposure levels
are so hard to document. With such snippage you should be tailoring
your own nerd contest winning trousseau...
Tim K
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
> > Asbestosis ...
> ... is not a type of cancer.
> > ... Mesotheliomia ...
> Mesothelioma is most common in people who have had heavy or prolonged
> exposure to asbestos dust--and who smoke.
> > You don't know WTF you're talking about again.
> Are you sure?
> > Both of those are environment causes of lung cancer far more
> > common than Radon induced tumors.
> They are not causes of cancer, they are diseases. Asbestosis is a
> type of fibrosis caused by (substantial) exposure to asbestos dust.
> It is not a form of cancer, nor is it an environmental characteristic.
> Pleural mesothelioma is associated with asbestos exposure (most people
> who develop it have been exposed to asbestos), but smoking
> dramatically increases the chances of developing mesothelioma if one
> has already been exposed to asbestos (as much as 90 times the baseline
> for unexposed non-smokers). It's a rare form of cancer in any case,
> although it is invariably fatal. Asbestosis is not a prerequisite to
> mesothelioma, and most people who have asbestosis will not develop
> mesothelioma.
Aug 13th 2005, 10:02 pm
#108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
Timothy Kroesen writes:
> Asbestos causes documented lung cancer ...
Asbestos exposure appears to increase the risk of lung cancer, but
that increase pales in comparison to the increase in risk in people
who are exposed to asbestos _and_ are smokers (the risk in such people
is perhaps 90 times higher than it is in non-smokers without asbestos
exposure).
> ... you're referring to Silicosis as an obstructive lung disease.
I didn't refer to silicosis at all.
> Note you snipped out Radon as a cause of lung disease MORE prevalent
> than other causes because exposure levels are so hard to document.
Radon is most likely the other significant cause of lung cancer, after
smoking.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> Asbestos causes documented lung cancer ...
Asbestos exposure appears to increase the risk of lung cancer, but
that increase pales in comparison to the increase in risk in people
who are exposed to asbestos _and_ are smokers (the risk in such people
is perhaps 90 times higher than it is in non-smokers without asbestos
exposure).
> ... you're referring to Silicosis as an obstructive lung disease.
I didn't refer to silicosis at all.
> Note you snipped out Radon as a cause of lung disease MORE prevalent
> than other causes because exposure levels are so hard to document.
Radon is most likely the other significant cause of lung cancer, after
smoking.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 13th 2005, 10:24 pm
#109
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:28:26 GMT, "Timothy Kroesen"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> With such snippage you should be tailoring
>your own nerd contest winning trousseau...
or DIY vasectomy?
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> With such snippage you should be tailoring
>your own nerd contest winning trousseau...
or DIY vasectomy?
--
Martin
Aug 13th 2005, 11:15 pm
#110
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
> The first worries about the health effects of tobacco smoking date
> from roughly the mid-nineteenth century. The link between smoking and
> lung cancer was known by at least 1950 (only a few years after WWII).
> The Surgeon General of the United States formally announced this link
> in 1964 (my grandfather quit smoking cold turkey on the same day, and
> he did not die of lung cancer).
The most memorable film I have ever seen in my life was one about
the risks of smoking that my schol showed in 1958, when I was 8.
It was the way the lobe of cancerous lung wobbled as the surgeon
dropped it into a kidney bowl that made damn sure I never started.
That was in New Zealand, but I think the film was American; it
didn't need the Surgeon-General's say-so for somebody to take the
risk seriously.
============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557
> from roughly the mid-nineteenth century. The link between smoking and
> lung cancer was known by at least 1950 (only a few years after WWII).
> The Surgeon General of the United States formally announced this link
> in 1964 (my grandfather quit smoking cold turkey on the same day, and
> he did not die of lung cancer).
The most memorable film I have ever seen in my life was one about
the risks of smoking that my schol showed in 1958, when I was 8.
It was the way the lobe of cancerous lung wobbled as the surgeon
dropped it into a kidney bowl that made damn sure I never started.
That was in New Zealand, but I think the film was American; it
didn't need the Surgeon-General's say-so for somebody to take the
risk seriously.
============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557
Aug 14th 2005, 6:50 am
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
Most likely, doc???
YOU implied to put it (Radon) right behind smoking in your original
(snipped) statement as causal effect for lung cancer.... then you
confirm your idiocy again. Document Radon exposure as anything near as
significant as smoking (or Asbestos) in lung cancer development please.
Tim K
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
> > Asbestos causes documented lung cancer ...
> Asbestos exposure appears to increase the risk of lung cancer, but
> that increase pales in comparison to the increase in risk in people
> who are exposed to asbestos _and_ are smokers (the risk in such people
> is perhaps 90 times higher than it is in non-smokers without asbestos
> exposure).
> > ... you're referring to Silicosis as an obstructive lung disease.
> I didn't refer to silicosis at all.
> > Note you snipped out Radon as a cause of lung disease MORE
prevalent
> > than other causes because exposure levels are so hard to document.
> Radon is most likely the other significant cause of lung cancer, after
> smoking.
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
YOU implied to put it (Radon) right behind smoking in your original
(snipped) statement as causal effect for lung cancer.... then you
confirm your idiocy again. Document Radon exposure as anything near as
significant as smoking (or Asbestos) in lung cancer development please.
Tim K
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
> > Asbestos causes documented lung cancer ...
> Asbestos exposure appears to increase the risk of lung cancer, but
> that increase pales in comparison to the increase in risk in people
> who are exposed to asbestos _and_ are smokers (the risk in such people
> is perhaps 90 times higher than it is in non-smokers without asbestos
> exposure).
> > ... you're referring to Silicosis as an obstructive lung disease.
> I didn't refer to silicosis at all.
> > Note you snipped out Radon as a cause of lung disease MORE
prevalent
> > than other causes because exposure levels are so hard to document.
> Radon is most likely the other significant cause of lung cancer, after
> smoking.
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 14th 2005, 9:47 am
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
Timothy Kroesen writes:
> Most likely, doc???
Yes, after smoking.
> YOU implied to put it (Radon) right behind smoking in your original
> (snipped) statement as causal effect for lung cancer ...
Yes. I've now said several times that radon is probably the second
most prevalent cause of lung cancer after smoking.
> Document Radon exposure as anything near as
> significant as smoking (or Asbestos) in lung cancer development
> please.
Radon exposure is about twenty times less prevalent as a cause of lung
cancer than smoking, mainly because so many people smoke and because
the vast majority of lung cancers are caused by smoking in
consequence.
Radon is much more prevalent in the environment than asbestos, which
is why it is thought to account for many cases of lung cancer (after
smoking). Few people are regularly or heavily exposed to asbestos.
While occasional exposure to asbestos may cause or encourage lung
cancer, that, too, is increasingly rare, and it only really becomes a
problem when combined with smoking.
In any case, the most definite connection between any environmental
factor and lung cancer is that between smoking and the disease. If
nobody smoked, lung cancer would be quite rare.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> Most likely, doc???
Yes, after smoking.
> YOU implied to put it (Radon) right behind smoking in your original
> (snipped) statement as causal effect for lung cancer ...
Yes. I've now said several times that radon is probably the second
most prevalent cause of lung cancer after smoking.
> Document Radon exposure as anything near as
> significant as smoking (or Asbestos) in lung cancer development
> please.
Radon exposure is about twenty times less prevalent as a cause of lung
cancer than smoking, mainly because so many people smoke and because
the vast majority of lung cancers are caused by smoking in
consequence.
Radon is much more prevalent in the environment than asbestos, which
is why it is thought to account for many cases of lung cancer (after
smoking). Few people are regularly or heavily exposed to asbestos.
While occasional exposure to asbestos may cause or encourage lung
cancer, that, too, is increasingly rare, and it only really becomes a
problem when combined with smoking.
In any case, the most definite connection between any environmental
factor and lung cancer is that between smoking and the disease. If
nobody smoked, lung cancer would be quite rare.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 14th 2005, 9:49 am
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
Jack Campin - bogus address writes:
> The most memorable film I have ever seen in my life was one about
> the risks of smoking that my schol showed in 1958, when I was 8.
> It was the way the lobe of cancerous lung wobbled as the surgeon
> dropped it into a kidney bowl that made damn sure I never started.
> That was in New Zealand, but I think the film was American; it
> didn't need the Surgeon-General's say-so for somebody to take the
> risk seriously.
Actually seeing pictures of how smoking damages the lungs can be very
persuasive.
Ultimately it's a matter of deciding which is more important: yielding
to peer pressure or living a long and healthy life. This applies not
just to smoking but to the use of many other drugs, and other reckless
and self-destructive activities. Smoking is a little bit unusual in
that one must force oneself to do it initially, as it's not inherently
pleasurable for most people (drinking coffee is a bit the same way).
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> The most memorable film I have ever seen in my life was one about
> the risks of smoking that my schol showed in 1958, when I was 8.
> It was the way the lobe of cancerous lung wobbled as the surgeon
> dropped it into a kidney bowl that made damn sure I never started.
> That was in New Zealand, but I think the film was American; it
> didn't need the Surgeon-General's say-so for somebody to take the
> risk seriously.
Actually seeing pictures of how smoking damages the lungs can be very
persuasive.
Ultimately it's a matter of deciding which is more important: yielding
to peer pressure or living a long and healthy life. This applies not
just to smoking but to the use of many other drugs, and other reckless
and self-destructive activities. Smoking is a little bit unusual in
that one must force oneself to do it initially, as it's not inherently
pleasurable for most people (drinking coffee is a bit the same way).
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 14th 2005, 10:04 am
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:49:35 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Actually seeing pictures of how smoking damages the lungs can be very
>persuasive.
They made me give up smoking.
--
Martin
wrote:
>Actually seeing pictures of how smoking damages the lungs can be very
>persuasive.
They made me give up smoking.
--
Martin
Aug 14th 2005, 7:21 pm
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
"Probably" again??? Why not do ANY research to back up your
statements???
Please *document* the Radon exposure *levels* of the average human on
this planet; then correlate them to lung cancer development;... then
make the statement you did. Otherwise your statement is meaningless and
unsubstantiated, as usual.
Tim K
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
> > Most likely, doc???
> Yes, after smoking.
> > YOU implied to put it (Radon) right behind smoking in your original
> > (snipped) statement as causal effect for lung cancer ...
> Yes. I've now said several times that radon is probably the second
> most prevalent cause of lung cancer after smoking.
> > Document Radon exposure as anything near as
> > significant as smoking (or Asbestos) in lung cancer development
> > please.
> Radon exposure is about twenty times less prevalent as a cause of lung
> cancer than smoking, mainly because so many people smoke and because
> the vast majority of lung cancers are caused by smoking in
> consequence.
> Radon is much more prevalent in the environment than asbestos, which
> is why it is thought to account for many cases of lung cancer (after
> smoking). Few people are regularly or heavily exposed to asbestos.
> While occasional exposure to asbestos may cause or encourage lung
> cancer, that, too, is increasingly rare, and it only really becomes a
> problem when combined with smoking.
> In any case, the most definite connection between any environmental
> factor and lung cancer is that between smoking and the disease. If
> nobody smoked, lung cancer would be quite rare.
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
statements???
Please *document* the Radon exposure *levels* of the average human on
this planet; then correlate them to lung cancer development;... then
make the statement you did. Otherwise your statement is meaningless and
unsubstantiated, as usual.
Tim K
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
> > Most likely, doc???
> Yes, after smoking.
> > YOU implied to put it (Radon) right behind smoking in your original
> > (snipped) statement as causal effect for lung cancer ...
> Yes. I've now said several times that radon is probably the second
> most prevalent cause of lung cancer after smoking.
> > Document Radon exposure as anything near as
> > significant as smoking (or Asbestos) in lung cancer development
> > please.
> Radon exposure is about twenty times less prevalent as a cause of lung
> cancer than smoking, mainly because so many people smoke and because
> the vast majority of lung cancers are caused by smoking in
> consequence.
> Radon is much more prevalent in the environment than asbestos, which
> is why it is thought to account for many cases of lung cancer (after
> smoking). Few people are regularly or heavily exposed to asbestos.
> While occasional exposure to asbestos may cause or encourage lung
> cancer, that, too, is increasingly rare, and it only really becomes a
> problem when combined with smoking.
> In any case, the most definite connection between any environmental
> factor and lung cancer is that between smoking and the disease. If
> nobody smoked, lung cancer would be quite rare.
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 14th 2005, 7:50 pm
#116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
Timothy Kroesen writes:
> "Probably" again??? Why not do ANY research to back up your
> statements???
It's probably not a good idea to ask me about research when you've not
cited any yourself.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> "Probably" again??? Why not do ANY research to back up your
> statements???
It's probably not a good idea to ask me about research when you've not
cited any yourself.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 14th 2005, 9:13 pm
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
...and probably a better idea to research before your initial post which
spouted 'supposed facts...
Tim K
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
> > "Probably" again??? Why not do ANY research to back up your
> > statements???
> It's probably not a good idea to ask me about research when you've not
> cited any yourself.
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
spouted 'supposed facts...
Tim K
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
> > "Probably" again??? Why not do ANY research to back up your
> > statements???
> It's probably not a good idea to ask me about research when you've not
> cited any yourself.
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 14th 2005, 9:19 pm
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
Timothy Kroesen writes:
> ...and probably a better idea to research before your initial post which
> spouted 'supposed facts...
Anyone can check up on what I said. I never try to get people to
believe what I say just because I say it. Instead I try to make sure
that what I'm saying is correct, confident in the knowledge that they
will be able to verify it if they look it up.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> ...and probably a better idea to research before your initial post which
> spouted 'supposed facts...
Anyone can check up on what I said. I never try to get people to
believe what I say just because I say it. Instead I try to make sure
that what I'm saying is correct, confident in the knowledge that they
will be able to verify it if they look it up.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 15th 2005, 12:44 am
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Security measures?
SO that's why your statements generally generate a guflaw...
Tim K
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
> > ...and probably a better idea to research before your initial post
which
> > spouted 'supposed facts...
> Anyone can check up on what I said. I never try to get people to
> believe what I say just because I say it. Instead I try to make sure
> that what I'm saying is correct, confident in the knowledge that they
> will be able to verify it if they look it up.
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Tim K
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
> > ...and probably a better idea to research before your initial post
which
> > spouted 'supposed facts...
> Anyone can check up on what I said. I never try to get people to
> believe what I say just because I say it. Instead I try to make sure
> that what I'm saying is correct, confident in the knowledge that they
> will be able to verify it if they look it up.
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
