On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maybe this is a vocabulary problem. I think it goes much deeper. > See, the scans of one of each, sure, > that has only anecdotal validity. It's still science, for certain meaning > of "science", because you get journal articles about individual patients, > but it's no more than suggestive. Please try to follow here, because that > is not the study that Larry posted. Yes it is. It's the same study done three times. Two people, 90 people and 28 people. > THAT one was -- dammit don't want to look again -- something like a hundred > people. But if the sample was truly random, it's sometime like > confirmation. Larry, I am going to assume that you looked at that thing for > statistical significance, right? > Cause I understand the concept, but I would have to look up standard > deviation and start from there, and Sammy here obviously doesn't have a > clue or he'd be talking about it. PURE BS! If a scientist ever made nickle form an oil company everything they ever say for the rest of their lives is bunk in your mind. NOW, you say the science is sound even though you know it was the equivalent of Bill Maher saying if you don't agree you're inferior. I will pay someone to prove it. But I will not pay them a large enough amount to do a continued study to make my study look legit. No way. This is n the up an up. > I read it. You're offended by the idea that he thinks people who don't > agree with him have something that is biologically wrong with him. We all > understand that. But you're saying that a study of 100 people is invalid > because somebody who didn't conduct it said something about a different set > of activities, and the statistical significance of the results is > irrelevant. No, I'm saying it was a publicity stunt that for a radio station that some people took seriously. Again if it was tied to anything right leaning it would be bunk before it started. Now miraculously science can never be wrong. > And I am telling you that it can offend you until you are blue in the face, > but it still won't make "see what the scientists had to say about it" mean > "predetermined" results. I'm not offended. I'm sad that you would carry on like this. Try using the first part of the sentence. I decided to find out what was BIOLOGICALLY WRONG with people who DON'T AGREE WITH ME. Say it out load if you need to. Then say this out load: I'm sofa king we Todd did. :P > Please tell me you're this stupid on purpose, because you're scaring me. I > am not sure what to call your reasoning (?) here but it's definitely not > logic. Don't be afraid, embrace the knowledge, let it seep in. There might be hope. >> and claim conservatives can only think in black and white? Is that what >> you got >> > out of it? > > No, Sam. That is not what I got out of it. That's what Larry claimed and that's why we're discussing it. Do you not pay attention? >> Predetermined outcome was there's a tiny weenie difference that we >> could use to define the two different groups but we shouldn't because >> that's not what the data tells us. > > > That's not the usual meaning of predetermined, Sam. You might want to look > these big words up before you use them. I added the "teeny-weeny" surprise but you should realize what outcome they expected without me spelling it out over and over and over again. You can stop at anytime you know. <delete> . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346943 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
