Bigfatbillsfan
-
Posts
1,211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bigfatbillsfan
-
-
Got your back on this one OC.
Considering the ease with which your posting devolves into homosexual propaganda this is the last thing anyone would ever want to hear from you.
-
Got it. Do you wonder why I call you my sock puppet?
I guess you didn't see the irony in that post. Or didn't understand it.
-
freakin' isn't a word. How embarrassing for you. Did ya see that little thing after the "n" in freakin? Do you think that maybe it means something? Face it, you are really not very good at this game.
What game is that? I didn't know we were playing a game. And no, putting a ' after freakin doesn't make it a word.
-
A letter to the editor doesn't count as a "published paper". Tom may be a dick and an arrogant prick who's quick to criticize and late never admits a mistake but he's not a troll like you have claimed. He's been around here a long time and has boosted his post count by using his own default mechanism of "You're an idiot'. We busted his chops for stating that members here would vouch for his bona fides, only because it's fun to bust his balls. He understands that and would be disappointed if we didn't. You on the other hand cry about everything. You claim you shouldn't be put in your place because this is a football board? Did you come here to talk football or politics or just schit? BTW, I've written workplace manuals affecting hundreds of people and millions of dollars. Does that put me on equal footing with your letter to the editor?
I cry about everything? Can you give me an example of my "crying"? Does your work place manual put you on equal footing? You're putting me in my place? We're all on equal footing in a message board. That's my point. Once again, you're not even responding to the argument, your responding to the fictional argument in your head. But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions.
I usually try to talk politics, you guys are the ones that turn it into a **** slinging contest. In your case it usually devolves further into things involving male genitalia.
So let me give you my opinion. Tom is an arrogant prick who is also a moron that resorts to straw man arguments when he doesn't know what he's talking about. He has an inflated sense of self worth due to his being surrounded by idiots like you who tongue his nuts. That's just my opinion though.
-
The more I think about this the more I'm coming to the center in the gun control argument. Rather than limiting clip sizes and getting rid of guns that some people think are "scary" just pass the back round check legislation? Make sure the person buying it isn't a criminal, or mentally unstable, or not buying a gun every week and it really doesn't matter what people are carrying.
But then again, you might accidentally shoot off your dick like that one guy did once. Based on that you could argue that if you allow the populous at large to have guns you're putting dicks at risk.
-
This, and not using the bully pulpit enough. If he had used that when Congress ignored him re bringing Fannie & Freddie under control maybe we wouldn't be in the shape we are in now. Regardless, if he'd would have made a big enough deal out of it, even if Congress did nothing we would not have got what came after him.
:w00t: :w00t: -
"PEER" review, you freakin' mongoloid.
So now we're going to cling to misspelled words and typos because we don't have an argument? Please, by all means do. I don't mind having my spelling corrected, it's not that good. But please don't try to use it in place of your argument that isn't.
Oh, and since we're back on to typos and misspellings I should tell you that freakin' isn't word.
-
And I'm letting you know that I have a not just a degree in an actual science that's more rigorous that what you studied, but published papers...so if you want to argue pedigrees with me, you will lose.
"My argument has more weight, because I have a degree that involved statistics." Get real. If that mattered, I have you beat. It doesn't matter, AND your argument's senseless.
I'm not trying to argue pedigrees with you. I have a published paper also. What the hell does that matter on a football message board? And I didn't say my argument has "more Weight" but that it has some weight. Once again you are confusing what someone actually said with what you want them to say so that you can spew your frothy mouthed rhetoric.
The only thing you're proving is that you are a sad, sad man. And an arrogant idiot with an inflated sense of self worth. I think my favorite part of the climate change thread is where you asked everyone to fill me in on what your degree is in because you think you're so important that everyone should know. And no one did, because they either don't remember, don't know, or don't care.
Like me, here, you're only a poster on a message board.
The fact that you're continuing to BS your way thru that thread is quite funny though. Half of what you post isn't even responsive to my part of the argument.
You're an idiot, and a !@#$ing moron. Don't like it? go !@#$ yourself.
-
Maybe you should head back to whatever paper mill gave you your diploma and ask for a class or two in "proof reading".
If this were a paper for school I would agree with you. But this is a football message board. It's really not that important. So no, I'm not going to waste my time proof reading posts. If you can't deduce that the work "one" should have been in there you're as big a moron as Tom.
-
Don't forget the part where he hauled out "I have a master's degree," then bitched about other people bragging about their pedigrees.
BF-squared's posting patterns only make sense if you assume he has some physical infirmary that inhibits remembering anything beyond three minutes ago. Dumbass doesn't even know what he's posting on a post-to-post basis.
First off, I just received my masters. It's not like I'm some sort of mover and shaker in the world of sociology. I don't even work in the field at the moment. I'm just letting you my argument has some weight behind it due to knowledge of statistics and data management. You're the only bitching that at some degrees aren't "real degrees".
Does your brain produce some sort of chemical that confuses you when it comes to what someone else said verses what you said?
You're and idiot, and a !@#$ing moron.
Oh... and I almost forgot. You're also Captain Straw Man!!
-
So, you respond to me with a fabricated quote, pretending that's what I said? Your 13 year-old girly tactics won't work here. Go cry and have your tantrum someplace else.
Hey, be happy I gave you a response to begin with. You're not worth one.
I see he's moved on to the "FOX NEWS!!!" portion of his 'argument'. Go ahead connor, let out all the hate!
:w00t: :w00t: First off, I'm not connor, second, I love coming here to let out all the hate. -
"Pier review?" Is that what you do when you have oceans of data to correlate.
And again...you're confusing correlation and causation. And you obviously don't know what "correlation" even is. It doesn't indicate causation, it indicates DEPENDENCE. Which is why your original global warming statement was nonsense - dependence isn't causation, but you're still treating it as though it is, on the basis of "Well, it's really, really strong". I'm guessing your degree didn't involve any sort of oral defense of a thesis, did it? Because you would have flunked it, post-haste (unless your perfessers were as dumb as you are - not unlikely, I'd wager).
And AGAIN...you completely misread what I said about car ownership and gun violence. Car ownership correlates with gun violence more strongly than gun ownership correlates with gun violence. Read it again. Read all the words. Then read them again until you understand. Then assume you don't (because you probably still won't), and read them again.
What?
Ok, either you're mentally retarded, very confused, or just trolling at this point.
Dependence can be used as a subcategory when mapping data. When you have two correlating variables the end game of the data mapping to to find causation, or lack there of. Now you're just making **** up.
And as far as pier review: When you have oceans of data you map it, analyze it, and if you feel there is a correlative relationship that a result of causation you would publish your study and THEN it is turned out for peir review.
While it's been great watching you try to bull **** your way thru this thread, I have to return to the real world now. But I have to offer you a heart felt congratulations. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone beat the **** out of their own ego.
See ya later Captain Straw Man...
-
Right, that's what happened. You didn't haul out the " I have a masters degree and I've been doing advanced stats for 3 years". You didn't try to posit that as a "I know this and you don't" argument...on a board that is rife with know it alls, from all sorts of fields, all of whom use stats on a daily basis, and many of whom have been doing it for a lot more than 3 years.
None of that happened.
I said I've been running statistics, not advanced stats. I did not however claim that my knowledge of stats is an argument ender.
-
That's funny...you're trying to make a semantic point, not that you thought he was wrong, but that he couldn't be taken seriously. You're actually making a straw man argument about your own straw man. You've invented the meta-strawman.
Please point out where I claimed that his lack of attention in reading the article is what makes him wrong about a fine constituting extortion. It just makes him hard to take seriously. Your opinion that this is me saying he is wrong because of that is semantic.
-
Aptitude in Sociology, couched in the false assumption that this is the only field in which advanced statistical methodology is used, being put forward as an "argument ender", on this board, of all places?
Nice. The phrase: "thrown to the wolves" comes to mind.I know that an experienced marketing(the only useful application of sociology) person would at least ensure that they knew the audience first, right?
Statistics is used in almost every field of study. Nor did I claim it was an argument ender.
-
Doesn't matter...it's still a fallacy, not a type of correlation. And it still doesn't make any sense. What the hell is a "fallacious correlation?"
Where did I say it causes gun violence? I said it CORRELATES with gun violence more strongly than gun ownership does. I never said anything about cause.
Thus, the point: despite posting "correlation does not equal causation," you clearly can't distinguish between the two.
Holy !@#$ are you kidding me? Really? Are you?
This is what I'm talking about. You arguing against your own stupid straw man arguments. This is what I've been telling you the entire !@#$ing thread. Go back and read what I've been saying. The only way you get that correlation is through flooding the fields with variables. Data mapping is a tool used to find the causation, or lack of causation behind the correlation. That's what I've been saying. When you have correlation without causation it is illusory correlation, or propter hoc, fallacious. You pick.
The assertion that the world is warming comes from analyzing and mapping millions of data points from thousands of locations all over the world over a massive amount of time. Then taking the results and publishing them for pier review and seeing if they hold up against scrutiny. This has been done plenty of times with most of the worlds climatologists concluding that the earth is warming due to a rise in CO2 levels. You can find plenty of these PIER REVIEWED articles and studies online and in most scientific journals.
So yes, in the case of climate change, the STRONG correlation between Global Temperatures and CO2 holds up under scrutiny and makes a much stronger case for causation.
In the case of the Strong correlation between car ownership and gun violence: Because most of the population owns a car a person who commits a violent act with a gun is likely to own a car does not make a strong case for causation.
Do you see the difference now you dumb piece of ****.
God, I almost spit my coffee out of my mouth when I read what I think was supposed to be your "gotcha" post.
You spent 2+ pages arguing against yourself Captain Straw Man.
-
Listen dipschit, the government can do it because they are the government.The've made it clear. Why do you think there is a resistance here?
I think there is a resistance here because you are willfully ignorant idiots. I mean listen to your assertion:
The government is now using it's almost limitless resources to extort money from a bar. They need to do this because they are running out of money, even though they have almost limitless resources. Yes, that 2500 dollars is going to go a long way toward funding the entire government of NYC. Oh, and also they are doing it just because they can. You know, because they're the government... or some **** like that.
Also, after you complete a sentence, there should be a space before you start the next one.
Your straw man:
Holy ****, you're an idiot. You can't even pay attention to yourself.
Are you normally this confused as to what constitutes a straw man? I didn't say that proved him wrong. I said it proves he's didn't pay attention and that makes it hard to take him seriously. The assertion that I claim he is wrong about a fine constituting extortion because he missed the fact that the "fat ass" was a female came from you. You then proceeded to argue against the words you put in my mouth, a position that I don't hold. That is a straw man.
Good night Captain Straw Man!
-
Every hear of human resources??
You have no clue what the hell you're talking about do you?
-
So forcing someone to pay a "fine" for a bogus charge and if they don't they'll end up spending a shitload more fighting this charge sounds like some form of extortion to me. Have you not been paying attention? All the governments are broke and are coming up with all sorts of creative ways to raise revenue.
Wait a second, earlier on in the thread KDickforbrains claimed the the government had almost unlimited resources. Why would they need to extort money from a bar due to the fact that they're broke? Which one is it? Are they broke? Or do they have almost limitless resources?
This is not extortion, this is a government employee doing something stupid because she was frothing at the mouth to catch a "bad guy".
IT WAS YOUR STRAW-MAN, YOU !@#$ING IDIOT.
Sure, whatever you say Straw Man.
-
No, it's not. What the !@#$ is a "propter hoc correlation," anyway? There's no such thing as a "propter hoc correlation". "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy, you can't slice-and-dice it to apply "propter hoc" to describe a correlation. Perhaps you mean "coincidental correlation"? Because "propter hoc correlation" doesn't even make any !@#$ing sense.
And it's a STRONG correlation, not a weak one. Stronger than the correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. And there's a valid reason why that is. And any sociologist should be able to divine it very quickly.
You, of course, can't. Christ, you don't even know the definition of "strong" and "weak" correlation.
Propter hoc is short for Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
So why don't you go ahead and fill me in. Since this has turned into you trying to stroke your ego by arguing everything but the point. Tell me, why does owning a car cause gun violence?
-
"I think the one thing we can all agree on is that there is a correlation between CO2 emissions and the greenhouse effect. While correlation is not proof of causation, it is very strong evidence that CO2 emissions have a causal relationship with the greenhouse effect. Therefore the greenhouse effect is man made and is responsible for Global Warming which is why the average temperature around the globe has declined. Also, there's an extremely high correlation between gun violence and car ownership. That much is indisputable. However, the correlation between gun violence and car ownership is in no way reflective of a causal relationship because everyone knows that correlation alone is NOT evidence of causation."
I wouldn't consider myself a sociologist, nor have I claimed that sociology is a hard science. It's just the overall study of social relationships and popular behavior. It's not like Physics or Biology.
This is not even my position on the matter. But anyways, just to muddy the waters I voted for !@#$ you BFBF just !@#$ you.
-
I like the feel of this years team. I get the feeling the players are hungry and more talented. The coaches look to be a vast improvement over last year too... Time will tell of course, but things are looking up. Our coaches look to be more involved and Nix reinforced many positions with what looks to be some good depth. The biggest and most notable change will be on defense with our new DC. Then right behind that will be the go go offense that is being installed... WE will have a fun team to watch...and cheer for, unless you can not get off the stick and want to find non constructive things to say about the team.
I'm hoping this is true, but it's just hard to get excited after the past few years. But I do admit, there does seem to be a bit of electricity in the air this year. Let's hope it translates into Ws on the field.
-
Ok, ok we get it, it's a !@#$ing fine. Now please explain the justification for the fine......for the second time.
As I said before it's a horseshit fine and won't stand up when it goes before a judge. There isn't a justification for the fine. But it's quite a jump from a stupid government employee trying to impose a bull **** fine to the government is running some sort of extortion racket.
You missed that it's a female employee.
Therefore you're wrong.
Captain Straw Man strikes again.
-
And the correlation between car ownership and gun violence being greater than the correlation between gun ownership and gun violence is NOT an illusory correlation - it's both real, and meaningful. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of sociology should be able to figure out why inside of three minutes.
No, it is a propter hoc correlation and is weak at best and it may have some meaning but not much. Someone with knowledge in statistics such as you claim to have would know that. You don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore and are just trying to BS your way out of it. Like a said before, you're trying to knock over the chess pieces and **** all over the board.
Not until we find BF-squared's personal "fried crap" recipe. That will no doubt take two hours to cook.
It's sitting right next to you straw man argument.
Can't We All Just Get Along?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Ok this is hard for me.... as you know. But I have also come to respect most of the people on this board that I butt heads with. Even... Oh god, ...this is hard to say... even.. ...3rd. There, it's out.
But you're all still !@#$in' idiots.