gould, 1 woman in 7 dies of breast cancer **IF** no woman below 80 years old
died of anything but breast cancer. Check the facts, and that is what you find
(some female journalists did in fact check the facts and boy were they ****ed
at what they found out).

*you* quoted the 2,500 deaths as a fact, and when I asked what your source was,
you tell us that number is reprinted all over the place, AND that it is my
responsibility find out if the number is true or not.

dood, *you* posted the number. please back it up, or give it up.

what is the source of that information, for if it is true it means than more
than 3 times as many people die of CO poisoning each year as die of ALL
recreational boat accidents causes combined?

You can verify the statistics independently
through a search engine. There might be 100 sites with the same statistics.

The figure of about 2500 remains fairly constant for North American (US and
Canadian) deaths each year for CO poisoning from all sources, (not just
boats).
There are more CO deaths from
motor vehicles, space heaters, etc than from boats, but the boat number is
disproportionate when one considers the
hundreds of millions of people using automobiles, cooking appliances, and
space
heaters on a given day vs. the tens of thousands actually underway in a
motorized pleasure craft at any one time.

CO poisoning is the leading cause of
accidental death by poisoning in the United States. Not all exposures are
fatal, but the severity of the problem is also illustrated by the fact that
10,000 to 15,000 people will require medical treatment or hospitalization for
CO exposure in a typical year. (From all sources, not just boats).

On 18 Jul 2004 14:00:07 GMT, something compelled
(JAXAshby), to say:

dood, *you* posted the number. please back it up, or give it up.

This asshole would argue with an anchor.

--

Should one become obsessively paranoid over the possibility of
getting killed by CO on one's boat?

No, probably not.

Should one take reasonable precautions against getting killed by
CO on one's boat?

Yeah, sure. CO detectors don't cost much, and fresh air is free.

Steve Daniels wrote:
On 18 Jul 2004 14:00:07 GMT, something compelled
(JAXAshby), to say:

dood, *you* posted the number. please back it up, or give it up.

This asshole would argue with an anchor.


The anchor would win.

Jax and Harry seem to use the exact same debate tactics


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Steve Daniels wrote:
On 18 Jul 2004 14:00:07 GMT, something compelled
(JAXAshby), to say:

dood, *you* posted the number. please back it up, or give it up.

This asshole would argue with an anchor.


The anchor would win.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Y7BKc.90025$WX.58730@attbi_s51...
Jax and Harry seem to use the exact same debate tactics



Not quite. Harry at least has some wit & style.

Gary Warner wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Y7BKc.90025$WX.58730@attbi_s51...
Jax and Harry seem to use the exact same debate tactics



Not quite. Harry at least has some wit & style.



Actually, I have quite a bit, but there's no reason to waste much of it
here.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:29:39 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:
Gary Warner wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Y7BKc.90025$WX.58730@attbi_s51...
Jax and Harry seem to use the exact same debate tactics



Not quite. Harry at least has some wit & style.



Actually, I have quite a bit, but there's no reason to waste much of it
here.
====================================

Maybe we should start awarding wit points and style points as separate
categories, and then tabulate by on topic/off topic. Harry wins off
topic for either category in my opinion although Chuck threatens for
style points. Now we need some serious "on topic" contributors -- wit
and style optional.