80's Rock

Garg, one word comes to mind with you last post……

NICE!

Men’s team too (foil).
Cannot win on the track, but can shoot with rifle or bow or stab any one who comes close.
Proud to keep the enemy at bay.

Neil Peart by far.

love it. Genius solution.

GG

@Guerrilla:

I don’t remember which “show” it was but someone did actually go up their and find it…

If so, it is the greatest kept secret in all of Judeo-Christianity!  PROOF of Genesis!

IF that were true, Creation would be MANDATORY in all public schools, and Darwin would be relegated to a footnote at most… right up there with theories of the Earth as the center of the solar system.

Ooh ooh! Thankew vewy mucho, dz!! Ewe r sew kynd.

@cystic:

At the same time, one could probably get an ob/gyn, a psychiatrist and a statistician together for a retrospective study - even if it’s a simple questionaire. … It could simply analyze feelings, thoughts etc. … Clinical depression is evaluable, as is anxiety, PTSD, and one can measure drug intake if your state/province has a DPIN system. Other out-comes too might be evaluated in terms of 3, 5, and 10 year morbidity, mortality etc. (i do believe some have been done with some equivocal data).

True, with the first. Though the problem with questionaires is that you have to be extremely careful with the wording. I fear that any study on this can very easily be manipulated by the according interest group who launched it. So, you could make a study testing depression etc., but that then must be done to women who have given birth, have aborted, have not been pregnant, and no question should somehow relate to pregancy.
Then, after evaluated for these three different groups, you could start to make some statitics out of that.
But, i fear that the above-mentioned statistics did not pay enough attention to that, something i conclude from the “30% to 60%”, an error i can not accept when having 1000, say “datapoints”.

The 2003 will be of about the record size as it seems, and the predictions are quite reliable. So, the answer is “yes, it can fluctuate that much”.
Something that usually is used against environmentalists, as some (other) fluctuations are normal, then the effect could be “just fluctuations”. The other side of the medal is never heard (not even by environmentalists): the same fluctuations could be “favoring” us, and the real man-made effect is much worse….