Janic wrote:izyMENTROPOh good? Can you tell me what numbers I like?Janic, it is no less concrete and real but more representative than the raw figures that you like.
The 2 and the 9. And don't deny it.
Janic wrote:izyMENTROPOh good? Can you tell me what numbers I like?Janic, it is no less concrete and real but more representative than the raw figures that you like.
The 2 and the 9. And don't deny it.
Janic wrote:RAJThe 2 and the 9. And don't deny it.
however this could have been the case, if only because I would have lacked clarity in what I am expressing.It's the problem of the writing, sometimes it doesn't pass the joke. Or was it not funny!
izentrop wrote:Janic, it is no less concrete and real but more representative than the raw figures that you like.
Obamot wrote:I have to tell you in which language that vaccination does not work
GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:The non-raw figures are, as can be seen, extremely more representative than the raw figures.
except that you are not "forced" to post biased information, unless you are paid for?.Do not feel obliged to lay 3 screen pages completely off topic on the pretext that I copied 5 lines of the latest statistics published today, bringing elements relating to the title of the thread.
Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "
Users browsing this forum : Google [Bot] and 252 guests