|
statistics on smokers and education levels.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2002/02hus062.pdf
Smokers year 2000 25 years and over,
age adjusted Percent of persons
All persons ........................ 22.6
No high school diploma or GED ...... 31.9
High school diploma or GED ......... 29.2
Some college, no bachelors degree . 21.7
Bachelors degree or higher ........ 10.9
|
| |
| |
No surprise.
statistics on smokers and education levels.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2002/02hus062.pdf
Smokers year 2000 25 years and over,
age adjusted Percent of persons
All persons ........................ 22.6
No high school diploma or GED ...... 31.9
High school diploma or GED ......... 29.2
Some college, no bachelor's degree . 21.7
Bachelor's degree or higher ........ 10.9
|
| |
| |
News Server wrote:
No surprise.
See the thread on "Lowlife Smokers make Bad Spouses ---"
to see just how abjectly stoooooopid these cretinous
tobacco addicts truely are.
Subject = Percentage of smokers who had been divorced: 49%
Rambler the idiot wrote:
That's right ... 51% of all non-smokers get divorced, so
if you want to dramatically cut your chance of divorce,
start smoking.
Rambler the Village Idiot proclaimed:
ROTFLMAO ...
Math?!?
Let's see ... dip#@($ ....
There is a total population that get divorced.
That total population would be 100% of all people that get
divorced.
*IF* 49% of those people are smokers ... dip#@($
Then the remainder must be non smokers ... unless you've
got something that I don't know about.
So, idjit ... what is 100 minus 49?
Oh, I get it, "Math ain't your forte, is it dip#@($?"
Sorry if you can't follow the logic that was so
painstakingly laid out for you. Just crack another beer
and pick another object to argue with (I suggest starting
with a rock ... odds are better that you might be able to
last more than one round).
Get a life, and get a clue. Oh, and try a sense of humour
while your shopping.
Rambler
Bwahahahahhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahha
ahahaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahah
ahhahahhahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahhahaha!
|
| |
| |
rumik wrote:
S. O. Damocles wrote:
Which means that the percentage of "non-smokers" who had
been divorced is 51%.
So that tells me that non-smokers are LESS likely to hold
on to their marriage, or to conduct a long-lasting
relationship. No surprise there...
Did you buy your GED off the street corner, rumik, or
did you actually take the test?
No surprise.
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 17:33:14 -0600, "News Server"
<netnews@newsserver.org> wrote:
No surprise.
So you like to talk to yourself. Answering your own posts
under different names. You need help.
|
| |
| |
S. O. Damocles wrote:
rumik wrote:
Did you buy your GED off the street corner, rumik, or
did you actually take the test?
See? Didn't I tell you all that the anti-smokers will
get their panties in a knot?
Fun, isn't it?
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> writes:
statistics on smokers and education levels.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2002/02hus062.pdf
Smokers year 2000 25 years and over,
age adjusted Percent of persons
All persons ........................ 22.6
No high school diploma or GED ...... 31.9
High school diploma or GED ......... 29.2
Some college, no bachelor's degree . 21.7
Bachelor's degree or higher ........ 10.9
In other words, the anti-smoking crusade is nothing more than a
crusade to oppress the lower classes.
Thank you for confirming that all those vocal anti's are fascists at
heart.
Follow-up set to alt.smokers.pipes, as I only read that group.
Mart
--
Take it from the staff of a five-cat house: A group of cats is a
"conceit." They'd like to be a "pride" but that would fool no one.
--- Morely Dotes in news.admin.net-abuse.email
|
| |
| |
Mart van de Wege wrote:
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> writes:
In other words, the anti-smoking crusade is nothing more
than a crusade to oppress the lower classes.
As always.
Thank you for confirming that all those vocal anti's are
fascists at heart.
No need to be a fascist to suppress the lower classes, EVERY
society and governmental structure eventually does, unless
you are proposing pure communism?
Follow-up set to alt.smokers.pipes, as I only read that
group.
Follow-up set back to original, as everyone else
reads those groups.
Mart
|
| |
| |
rumik wrote:
S. O. Damocles wrote:
See? Didn't I tell you all that the anti-smokers will
get their panties in a knot?
Fun, isn't it?
It is fun watching addicts like yourself infect and destroy your
body, and even more fun knowing I profit from it. Please, smoke more
for me.
|
| |
| |
Fun, isn't it?
Said "Sod" Dumbocles:
It is fun
for me.
|
| |
| |
S. O. Damocles wrote:
rumik wrote:
It is fun watching addicts like yourself infect and destroy your
body, and even more fun knowing I profit from it. Please, smoke more
for me.
But smoking has actually *improved* my body.
Why else would you be so desperate to touch it?
|
| |
| |
rumik wrote:
S. O. Damocles wrote:
But smoking has actually *improved* my body.
Why else would you be so desperate to touch it?
You answered it yourself, with the adjective you used.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:50:06 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
It is fun watching addicts like yourself infect and destroy your
body, and even more fun knowing I profit from it. Please, smoke more
for me.
Is that all the fun in your miserable life?
You sure don't have much to live for.
Give it up already.
|
| |
| |
Jebediah Springfield wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:50:06 -0600, "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote:
Is that all the fun in your miserable life?
There's your dysfunctional "tobacco brain" misfireing again.
You sure don't have much to live for.
Watching you pathetic addicts suffer while it puts $$ in my
pocket give me much pleasure.
Have another smoke, junkie, and think of me while you
suck suck suck down your cancerous smoke.
|
| |
| |
