Select your preferred language.

Last Online: 7 hrs, 13 mins ago

Actions _
Gameplay Stats _
Member since:
May 18, 2008
Steam Rating:
4.5 - Master of Nothing
Playing time:
14.5 hrs past 2 weeks
Counter-Strike
14.2 hrs
Half-Life
0.3 hrs
Friends _

M!$$sэxY aka. GheTToQuEEn
Last Online: 36 days ago

Steam Profile

§§-HamburG-Schindler-§§

Profile _

Steffen W

Germany 

Lets talk about Sex Baby


Groups _
! Smoking Rocks. Anti smokers need to die! (wuahaha) - Public
179 Members  |  2 In-Game  |  16 Online  |  0 In Group Chat

Sick of anti smokers and their maligned attitudes.

"Oh they enjoy smoking, I don't like it, therefore I must make an ass of myself and try to spoil their enjoyment"

There's always somebody that will enjoy something you don't, doesn't make you superior, just makes you different.

Anti-smokers need another bandwagon to jump on. Bunch of uninformed arrogant twunts.

And I quote:
"[...] An awkward fact is that the results of the many studies on the effects of ETS exhibit little consistency in RRs, with a dispersion (in those on spousal smoking, for example) ranging from 0.51 (based on eleven cancer cases) to 4.82 (based on eight). On the most strict reckoning a large majority of results show that the relative risk could be negative (ie below 1.0) which implies a reduced risk of lung cancer from higher exposure – that is, a protective effect from ETS – just as inoculation protects against subsequent infection.

Of course, since each research study examines only a small sample of the total universe (some fewer than a dozen cases of lung cancer), allowance must be made for a margin of error, which is conventionally pitched at 5%. The resulting 95% probability is shown with a varying ‘confidence interval’ which conveys the range within which the true relative risk is likely to fall. For example, the result of the Butler study in 1988, based on a tiny sample of eight lung cancer cases and a probability of only 90% (in place of 95%), yielded a ‘best estimate’ for the RR of 2.02 (that is, twice the risk of lung cancer from ETS exposure) but the range of the confidence interval is shown as 0.48 - 8.56 at 90%.

In layman’s language this means we can be 90% certain (not even 95% in this study) that the true relative risk fell somewhere between 0.48 – which implies a strong protective effect from exposure to ETS – and 8.56, which implies a much enhanced risk of cancer.[...]"

An excerpt from "Smoking Out The Truth"
Forest President, Lord Harris of High Cross,
8 March 2005

Read it yourself, and get something else to feel superior about.
http://www.forestonline.org/files/pdf/Smoking%20Out%20The%20Truth.pdf

Visit ! Smoking Rocks. Anti smokers need to die! (wuahaha)'s profile

Hamburg is so SexY - Public
46 Members  |  0 In-Game  |  1 Online  |  0 In Group Chat

!! Anna's Fans !! - Public
91 Members  |  1 In-Game  |  3 Online  |  0 In Group Chat