ARmy Rumour SErvice

you had to be born within the sound of Bow bells.

What if the wind was blowing the other way, a very strong rather noisy wind.
Could you then be classed as a 'Upwind Cockney'.......just asking, like?

Of course Southerners are notorious for getting words arrse about face.....
......hence 'Wind up Cockney'

Originally Posted by Joker62

There is no such thing as the Cockney accent, it's a London accent with the addition of Cockney rhyming slang which was introduced by certain East End villains who were worried that their conversations were being eavesdropped on by the Peelers, so came up with Cockney to disguise their real activities.

Londoners are know as Cockneys by the ignorant who assume that all Londoners speak like Dick Van fkin Dyke, to be a Cockney, you had to be born within the sound of Bow bells.

Not a lot pf people know that.

I do, you told me annnnndddnyoldiron annnnndddnyoldiron

Originally Posted by jarrod248

I do, you told me annnnndddnyoldiron annnnndddnyoldiron

Most people do. The rest don't give a fuck.

Originally Posted by Monty417

Most people do. The rest don't give a fuck.

I don't give a fuck, but then again, when did I?

Huggs Bison, I thought I was full of shit, but you really are stealing the Maryland.

Originally Posted by BuggerAll

Why shouldn't I generalise? I'm making a comment on a general observation. I see people under stress shaking and they are generally, not always and not only, but generally, the smokers.

If you want me to speculate further I will. It may be that my observation is wrong and that there is no link between smoking and shaking when under stress. It could be that weak people are attracted to smoking and that smoking has the effect of making them more able to cope with stress or it could be that there is something in the chemicals that lower people's long term resistance to stress while giving them a short term hit.

I don't know but I suspect the latter.

Hans Eysenk did some serious research oin this topic, back in "the early days" when the claimed link between smokimh and cancer was essentially based entirely on fairly dodgy statistics. (Note that AFTER the claim was made, GPS - who had very little idea of the true cause of death - increasingly started putting "lung cancer" on death certificates. The number of Brits shown to have died from lung cancer back in the years, judging by what was reported oin death certificates, pretty much doubled from one year to the next.) Eysenk's research had already shown a strong link between "personality types" and eventual cause of death. The two biggest causes of death there in the UK are heart disease and cancer - people who can be shown to be "of a nervous disposition" seem to disptroportionately die from cancer. He suggested that if that were so, then "people of a nervous disposition" might actually take up smoking as a kind of "nerve tonic", and that they subsequently die from cancer is completely unconnected. It's what statisticians call "the ice cream - drowning fallacy". (People who eat ice cream are VERY much more likely to drown than people who don't. Not because icecream CAUSES drowning, but because when the sun is shining on a nice summer day, people are prone to eat ices, and immerse themselves in large bodies of water - like the sea - where the chance of drowing is greatly increased.) The causational relationship between tobacco and cancer wasn't adequately show until around 20 years after the statistical link had been pointed out. Remember that VERY few medics are scientists. The skills REALLY required to become a doctor have far more to do with linguistics than with science.

Originally Posted by Jockharvey

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer

If you have not already done so, please check out the above link. I know that some will know what to expect and will not open it, some will have opened it already and decide to contradict it, and some will open it and say "ohhhh Shit!"

Try it.

My wife never smoked. She was an active member of a gym, she was not overweight and she didn't have a pinched up Higgs Bosun face or personality.

She died of a heart attack.

She was just 52.

Fuck off with your shit links.

Originally Posted by BigRonW

Hans Eysenk did some serious research oin this topic, back in "the early days" when the claimed link between smokimh and cancer was essentially based entirely on fairly dodgy statistics. (Note that AFTER the claim was made, GPS - who had very little idea of the true cause of death - increasingly started putting "lung cancer" on death certificates. The number of Brits shown to have died from lung cancer back in the years, judging by what was reported oin death certificates, pretty much doubled from one year to the next.) Eysenk's research had already shown a strong link between "personality types" and eventual cause of death. The two biggest causes of death there in the UK are heart disease and cancer - people who can be shown to be "of a nervous disposition" seem to disptroportionately die from cancer. He suggested that if that were so, then "people of a nervous disposition" might actually take up smoking as a kind of "nerve tonic", and that they subsequently die from cancer is completely unconnected. It's what statisticians call "the ice cream - drowning fallacy". (People who eat ice cream are VERY much more likely to drown than people who don't. Not because icecream CAUSES drowning, but because when the sun is shining on a nice summer day, people are prone to eat ices, and immerse themselves in large bodies of water - like the sea - where the chance of drowing is greatly increased.) The causational relationship between tobacco and cancer wasn't adequately show until around 20 years after the statistical link had been pointed out. Remember that VERY few medics are scientists. The skills REALLY required to become a doctor have far more to do with linguistics than with science.

IMO opinion, this is central to the debate about smoking - statistics are used to 'situate the appreciation' if one uses military terms.

I am a smoker, and I can appreciate that tobacco smoke is obnoxious to many and I respect their right to be in an environment free of my smoke. But I reject the ludicrous 'global warming science' that the non-smoking evangelists employ. Utter tosh.

Originally Posted by Oyibo

IMO opinion, this is central to the debate about smoking - statistics are used to 'situate the appreciation' if one uses military terms.

I am a smoker, and I can appreciate that tobacco smoke is obnoxious to many and I respect their right to be in an environment free of my smoke. But I reject the ludicrous 'global warming science' that the non-smoking evangelists employ. Utter tosh.

I gave up a few weeks back. after forty odd years. My heart has developed a murmer, resulting in my doctor and every female relative I've got telling me to quit. Personally, I think they're ALL full of shit. The Doc can quote (but not actually UNDERSTAND!) staistics, but he can't clarify a simple question like "Do these statistics refer to pipe somers, or cigarette smokers, or don't you KNOW?" Pipe smoke is alkaline, and doesn't need to be inhaled to get your "hit" from the combustion products, cigarette smoke is acid - the product of MUCH higher combustion temperatures - and DOES need to be inhaled. So we're actually talking about two substances that are about as dsifferent as it's pysically possible to get - acid and alkaline. My degree was psychology, and to get a professional qualification as a psychologist you MUST pass the "statistics" paper (which I did!) I gave up my pipe basically because tobacco these days costs more money than I'm prepared to part with. I don't doubt that 40-something years of smoking has damaged my health somewhat.... but unlike my GP, I DO doubt that the "somewhat" is very substantial. To the utter amazement of my family, I just stopped cold. No patches, no gum, no sprays. It wasn't difficult, and no I'm not "tempted". I have been shocked by the level of medical medleing in the debate over "second hand smoke". The NHS gives massive prominence to any research that suggests that Secondary smoking is dangerous.... but ignores any that suggests it might NOT be dangerous. The first two serious papers on the topic made totally different conclusions: one that seconday smoke was hugely dangerous, the other that it might be slightly dangerous, but HOW dangerous was so small as to be unmeasureable. The design of the experiment which concluded that secondary smoke is dangerous could have ben used as an example of "How NOT to perform an experiment".... but the NHS gave it an absurd degree of positive publicity (while totally ignoring the other paper) The NHS approved study had talked to the survivng spouses of a (disaapointingly small) number of people who'd been smokers and who'd died of cancer. Any and ALL subsequent ill-health on the partof the surviving spouse was then blamed on secondary smoke. Problem was, they signally screwed-up defining their terms. Let'ssay Mrs Ethel Bloggs' husband Bert dies of cancer, after three or four years lingering on the edge. Unsurprisingly, Ethel, having witnessed the last days of her old man, gives up the forty a day habit she's maintained for the last fifty years... and as a result now shows up in the NHS survey as a NON SMOKER!!! Any smoke-related health problems she has are blamed on her late husband's habit. Did I mention that it was a really BADLY designed experiment?!! Take yourchild to A&E with a bucket stuck on its head, and the doctor-in-training who serves you will proudly anounce that your chld is suffering from Beucepahalitis (which is Greek for "has a bucket stuck on his head") Because that's what "Doctoring" is ABOUT: describing your symptoms back to you in a dead language. New Doctors learn new words faster and in greater numbers than a two year old child. They are however NOT encouraged to dabble in SCIENCE.