Thrown out of an FBO...

Judah wrote:

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

Judah wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote in news:45551f12.7993328
@news.pcisys.net:

Judah wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote in news:4554e3a0.648968
:

No, it just means that many liberals are hypocrites in addition to
doing things (programs like welfare) that ruin lives and result in
the deaths of innocent Americans.

But liberals can't see what their failures have done.

Have you sampled a thousand random liberals to come to this
conclusion?

Nope. I judge them by what they have done and continue to do.

You mean you have met ALL liberals?

Wow, I don't remember meeting you.

I think he meant liberal policies and their effects, not meeting all
liberal people.

It doesn't matter what he meant.

He's all ****ed off at Jay for making a generalization about charter
pilots, and in the same breadth he does the same about liberals.

Doesn't that seem strangely ironic?

Two different people making these comments. I said nothing about Jay
but did note the truth about liberals/progressives.

Ron Lee

"mike regish" wrote:

I know. He just exposed them. They've always been like that. They just hid
it better.
mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

George Bush didn't magically change all Republicans, or even the party,
all by himself in the span of 6 years.

Matt

W is somewhat liberal IMO. He is hardly a Reagan conservative but he
does stand by his convictions and is an honorable man. He has done a
fair job of fighting the muslim radicals who want to kill Americans
but he is wrong on the illegal worker (erroneously called immigration)
amnesty program, protecting our borders, Katrina relief, etc

Ron Lee

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
entire
population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

The "facts" that one infers describe a known *portion* of the population.
You cannot prove anything about 100% of a population with statistics. It is
impossible.

Again, the only one who is tossing "100%" around is you.



Not true. We can prove that a medicine is effective at treating a malady
without testing its effectiveness on 100% of its population.

You cannot use statistics to prove that a medicine will be effective on 100%
of the population.

So what? That is what confidence intervals are for. But you already knew that,
right?



We can prove that
chronic smokers have a higher risk of bladder and lung cancers than their
peers
who have never smoked without needing to find the entire populations of
smokers
and non smokers.

The very term "risk" precludes an absolute statement about 100% of the
population. That's why statistics can be used to describe risk. You can
use statistics to prove "risk", but you cannot use statistics to prove
actual outcomes. In this example, you cannot use statistics to prove that
100% of chronic smokers WILL have bladder and lung cancers. The best you
can do is prove that it is likely a certain percentage of them will.

Of course you cannot prove something that is not true.



Those are two different things. If you fail to comprehend that, you have no
idea what statistics actually is.

Statistics has nothing to do with it.

Not true but then again, I don't believe that the original poster said
100%.

Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire population.

Maybe.


That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.

Sort of like somebody stating that they know their politics will be different
because they "are from mass [sic]," right?


I'm not surprised you're having trouble understanding this. You're a woman.
Those people are the least mathematically inclined around!

I understand just fine, thank you.

Judah wrote:

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

Judah wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote in news:45551f12.7993328
@news.pcisys.net:

Judah wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote in news:4554e3a0.648968
:

No, it just means that many liberals are hypocrites in addition to
doing things (programs like welfare) that ruin lives and result in
the deaths of innocent Americans.

But liberals can't see what their failures have done.

Have you sampled a thousand random liberals to come to this
conclusion?

Nope. I judge them by what they have done and continue to do.

You mean you have met ALL liberals?

Wow, I don't remember meeting you.

I think he meant liberal policies and their effects, not meeting all
liberal people.

It doesn't matter what he meant.

He's all ****ed off at Jay for making a generalization about charter
pilots, and in the same breadth he does the same about liberals.

Doesn't that seem strangely ironic?

No because I think you're confused about who said what. However, nobody said
anything about "all" liberals, but there were comments about liberal
policies. It would be silly to assume anyone thinks that all self-proclaimed
liberal are resonsible for all liberal policies and their effects. HTH.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Actually he gave two reasons for this post. I believe the first reason
was to
share the experience, which he thought was pretty unbelievable. The
secondary
reason was because it was fun to watch the reactions from other posters
who are
predictable, such as yourself. There was not "would" involved.

correction: should be no "would" involved.



Wow...having trouble with the English language too?

Not at all, thank you for asking. But I speak several other languages, if
you'd prefer another. I hope you don't make any typos!



First of all, the presence of any other reason is irrelevant. If trolling
was ANY reason for posting according to Jay, then he's trolling. Having
other reasons doesn't take away from the desire to troll.

And where can we find this new law of trolling that apparently doesn't need
any support other than you say so?
I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew that
you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?

Secondly, the word "would" is an English language construct to describe a
future outcome.

Among other definitions.

Given that Jay's reasons (both of them) related to his
desire for a future outcome, it is simply *absurd* for you to claim that
"there was no 'would' involved" (even if that were a grammatically correct
phrase).

I disagree. I also find it amazing that you think Jay has some crystal ball
and knew that you *would* post.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Again, the only one who is tossing "100%" around is you.

You wish that were the case, obviously.

Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire
population.

Maybe.

No maybe about it. By definition.

That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.

Sort of like somebody stating that they know their politics will be
different
because they "are from mass [sic]," right?

Yes, much like that. So?

I understand just fine, thank you.

Clearly, you do not. You're welcome.

Pete

Wadda maroon...

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
entire
population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

To you...?

Nope.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


Care to explain what you might have been trying to say?

And yourself...

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
The secondary
reason was because it was fun to watch the reactions from other posters
who are
predictable, such as yourself. There was not "would" involved.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Not at all, thank you for asking. But I speak several other languages, if
you'd prefer another.

I doubt you'd do any better in some other language.

[...]
And where can we find this new law of trolling that apparently doesn't
need
any support other than you say so?

It's not a "law of trolling". It's a simple matter of intent. Part of
Jay's intent was to troll. That's trolling.

Suppose a person mugs another person, killing them in the process. Suppose
also that the mugger was looking to a) obtain some property from the other
person, and b) murder the other person.

Does the fact that they wanted property from the other person negate the
fact that their intent was also murder? Do we decide that the mugger was
not a murderer, even though they DID intent to murder, simply because they
also wanted to obtain property?

No, of course not. Your assertion that Jay's other motive somehow obscures
this motive to troll is, quite frankly, idiotic.

I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew
that
you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?

I did NOT think it was just a troll, until Jay admitted that it was. In
that respect, I admit he was quite successful. There's a true art to
trolling, as an effective troll can be accomplished only by hiding the fact
that one *is* trolling.

Secondly, the word "would" is an English language construct to describe a
future outcome.

Among other definitions.

The other definitions, such as they are, are irrelevant. The "would" with
respect to the definition *I* was using is still appropriate, and very much
"there".

I disagree. I also find it amazing that you think Jay has some crystal
ball
and knew that you *would* post.

No crystal ball is needed when predicting another person's reaction, based
on previous experience with that person. It's the reason that, as I said,
most of the regulars in this newsgroup are *very* predictable.

But in any case, Jay has in so many words admitted that he "knew I would
post". I find it remarkable that you would even consider debating that
point. Of all the points in this thread, it is the most directly provable,
since Jay has written an explicit statement to that effect.

Pete