h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Not wishing to interrupt or raise the temperature, but I think I can help on one point:

"Thank you for the reminder on the Breast cancer issue. I remember hearing that argument before. I cant remeber any "hysterical screaming" against it though?"

The "screaming" Della may be referring to was the attempt by myself and others to correct a mistake she made in mathematics. I have never denied the link between abortion and breast cancer. However, Della did, a long, long time ago, say something along the lines of "I haven't had an abortion, therefore my risk of breast cancer is cut by 50%. I haven't [done something else, can't remember what], therefore my risk of breast cancer is cut by another 50%. Therefore my risk of breast cancer is zero.".

I and others quite forcefully and repeatedly pointed out that if you reduce a risk by 50%, then reduce the residual risk by 50%, you have not reduced the risk to zero - you've reduced it to 25%. The idea that by simply not having an abortion and not doing whatever the other thing was [ can't remember] you entirely eliminate the risk of breast cancer is a fallacy dangerous to the point of being potentially fatal. As I may have pointed out at the time, *MY* risk of breast cancer is non-zero.



SorB,

The statement from Della was that having a baby reduces your chances of getting breast cancer by 50%. She has had two kids and hence she has zero chance of getting cancer.

By this argument anyone who has two abortions has a 100% chance of getting breast cancer.

Alf

Are you sure?

I was pretty sure that one 50% reduction came from the whole "not had an abortion, had a kid" thing, and the OTHER 50% reduction - the one she assumed took her down to zero risk - came from something else entirely, something not reproduction related. Ooh, I wish I could remember what it was.

SoRB

I love this! Arguing about essentially a semantic detail which still gives the same basic outcome.

I thought it was about having two kids as I pulled Della up on it about 8 months later and spent sometime getting the original post as proof.

I do not remember anything about abortion in the thread as it was a fairly civil thread up until that point and you tried to instil the fact that Della was still at risk even after having two kids.

F19585?thread=262768&skip=575&show=200

Also see post 642 further down for some amusingly shrill annoyance that MEN are having the temerity to be concerned about her health.

Note that although the name at the top of the post is "Adele", this was in fact Della. The pretence was that "Adele the Divided" was Della's sister. Della maintained this pretense for quite some time (see post 1233 in the same thread, for instance), then hotly denied she'd ever done any such thing.

SoRB

<>

Well, my mother has had four kids, no abortions, and has breast cancer. Well, *had*. She had a breast removed about four years ago, followed by radiation treatment (she refused to have chemo) and is still alive and kicking at age 76 even though she still smokes her face off every day.

So . . . ?


az

You are indeed correct, SorB. Not sure whether your correct version or my incorrect version is worse really.

Ah well, that's my one instance of being wrong for this year.

Hasn't she mellowed in her old age.

<< She has had two kids.>>
correction, three...

That's not all the screaming there was, there was a complete denial of the link, you know, SorB/Hoo/Member/Number knows it (he was Member back then..)

Jus' sayin' ....

"correction, three..."

Yeah, thanks Della, we'd already established that Alfster's memory was faulty and that in fact your mistake was nothing to do with the *number* of children you'd had, merely the fact of your having had them, not had an abortion or HRT, and lacking family history of breast cancer.

"That's not all the screaming there was, there was a complete denial of the link"

No, there was not. Please stop lying.

If you're not lying, you will be able to supply a link to the, and I quote, "complete denial" of which you speak.

You will now either ignore that option, or claim that to find a link corroborating you would be too much trouble, and will hope your lie will be challenged no further. You will do that because you have not learned or changed at all in a little over two years.

"SorB...was Member back then."

Again with the confusion. As we've already established in this thread, Della, the one who was dishonestly operating two accounts and pretending to be two different people was YOU.

SoRB

I wonder why someone who has on numerous occassions complained about harrasment and bullying comes on to a thread she claims is operated by someone who "bullied" her by immitating her name and harrasing her so much that he was punished by TPTB?

Especially when we were having a very civilised debate about legalised terminations. Is it that you dont have anything furhter to say Della and have to admit that your arguments are simply very personal kne jerk feelings and do not constitute coherent arguments after all?

Sorry for barging into you thread Alf.

It's a free country! And hopefully, it will remind people of the importance of having regular checks for breast cancer.



Now, now: let's not have any argy-bargy!!! Stating the obvious is not really considered debate is it......



No problems.

"Is it that you dont have anything furhter to say Della"

Since she has unsubscribed, entirely predictably, I'd say so.

"You will now [...] ignore that option [to show you're not a liar]. You will do that because you have not learned or changed at all in a little over two years".

Gosh, I'm right again. You'd think I'd get bored of being right all the time, wouldn't you?

SoRB

<>

Yeah, know what you mean. It would be nice to be surprised once in awhile . . .


az

<>

Your maths does not equate to what Della said either! Her statement is not about 50% of the residual but 50% of the total.

e.g. half of a round cake is filled with cream and half of said cake is topped with pink icing. So cake with both could be 50% or less, not necessarily 25% and cake with nothing COULD possibly be 0%. Sorry about cake example but I know you'll follow Alf.

I agree that assuming that the risk is 0 is incorrect but you also made the wrong assumption.

Sorry.



Alex.

<<>

Your maths does not equate to what Della said either! Her statement is not about 50% of the residual but 50% of the total.

e.g. half of a round cake is filled with cream and half of said cake is topped with pink icing. So cake with both could be 50% or less, not necessarily 25% and cake with nothing COULD possibly be 0%. Sorry about cake example but I know you'll follow Alf.

I agree that assuming that the risk is 0 is incorrect but you also made the wrong assumption.
Sorry.



Alex.>

Well, that matches your wrong assumption of assuming that it was I who wrote the text above. It was in fact SorB.

Sorry.



Alf

(Sorry about the sarcasm)

So you did not write post 1?

Alex.

This bit:
<>

Would I "forcefully and repeatedly" do anything

Most of that post is a pasted bit of blurb that SorB wrote. The only lines I wrote were the few at the bottom of the post.

Note very obvious where the pasted bit starts and finishes. THe 50% stuff is alsofurther down which is where I thought you had seen it.

Removes lump of sarcasm.

Ok.

Anyway, not sure my maths is right now. Not wholly convinced as SoRB always wangles arguments around so that he wins. Or tries to. I have spotted this tactic now and am on guard to keep to the original contention rather then him changing it round to one that he knows he can win.



Alex.