Alaska Darin Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Damn you, beat me to it. Some things never change, eh?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 That's because Wisconsiners have an 80% cheesehead heritability factor. See. You have a bias against Illinois! I am a victim of you not liking me because of where I graduated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Some things never change, eh?. I'm not worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 That's because Wisconsiners have an 80% cheesehead heritability factor. In the future you are going to have to look elsewhere for your cheeselayers. next generation your cheeselayers are onyl going to have 80% of the ability of their parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 In the spirit of Herr Holcombs nazi-like beliefs... http://health.msn.com/pregnancykids/kidshe...73>1=9145 http://health.msn.com/pregnancykids/kidshe...entid=100154188 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 In the future you are going to have to look elsewhere for your cheeselayers. next generation your cheeselayers are onyl going to have 80% of the ability of their parents. But if you shut Wisconsin off from the rest of the US, you will ensure that the cheesehead gene is protected and you will breed the uber cheeseheads for generations to come. Until some wise guy introduces nachos to the state, and the whole project comes crashing down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 In the spirit of Herr Holcombs nazi-like beliefs... http://health.msn.com/pregnancykids/kidshe...73>1=9145 http://health.msn.com/pregnancykids/kidshe...entid=100154188 Stop spreading liberal propaganda! That's my job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 But if you shut Wisconsin off from the rest of the US, you will ensure that the cheesehead gene is protected and you will breed the uber cheeseheads for generations to come. Until some wise guy introduces nachos to the state, and the whole project comes crashing down. We don't want to shut them off from the rest of the state. We just want to pay the best cheeseheads to breed better cheeseheads. Regression toward the mean won't occur, because it's an artifact of inaccurate cheesehead measurement... Of course, if you can't ACCURATELY measure cheeseheads, you can't accurately choose the best cheeseheads either, since you can't trust your measurements. So the program's flawed from inception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 But if you shut Wisconsin off from the rest of the US, you will ensure that the cheesehead gene is protected and you will breed the uber cheeseheads for generations to come. Until some wise guy introduces nachos to the state, and the whole project comes crashing down. Nachos are a thing of the past. Havent you seen? Salsa production peaked in the US in 1970, Mexico in 1974, in canada in 1982, and in Saudi Arabia in 2006. The US salsa production was 4.4 gigajars in the 1980's, and its down to 1.8 gigajars in 2007. In fact, our Salsa reserves may be empty in our lifetimes! Plus, OSEC has cornered the market on salsa, so the price of a jar of salsa is going to go through the roof very soon! The larger OSEC countries' salsa reserves are, the more their cartel allows them to produce. Hence, these countries have a strong incentive to exaggerate the size of their . . . reserves. Dr. PAco Gonzalez, a former senior executive of the National Mexican Salsa Company, has stated that Mexico's salsa reserves in particular, and OSEC's in general, are wildly exaggerated. He believes world salsa production is at its peak, and will fall 32% by 2020. But I'm sure you know more about all that than he does. We need to prepare for a salsa free snack-food economy in the near future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Nachos are a thing of the past. Havent you seen? Salsa production peaked in the US in 1970, Mexico in 1974, in canada in 1982, and in Saudi Arabia in 2006. The US salsa production was 4.4 gigajars in the 1980's, and its down to 1.8 gigajars in 2007. In fact, our Salsa reserves may be empty in our lifetimes! Plus, OSEC has cornered the market on salsa, so the price of a jar of salsa is going to go through the roof very soon! The larger OSEC countries' salsa reserves are, the more their cartel allows them to produce. Hence, these countries have a strong incentive to exaggerate the size of their . . . reserves. Dr. PAco Gonzalez, a former senior executive of the National Mexican Salsa Company, has stated that Mexico's salsa reserves in particular, and OSEC's in general, are wildly exaggerated. He believes world salsa production is at its peak, and will fall 32% by 2020. But I'm sure you know more about all that than he does. We need to prepare for a salsa free snack-food economy in the near future! I suggest Flat Earth Beet Chips. 100% Sugar Beet free, of course...we need those to make ethanol to power our cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Nachos are a thing of the past. Havent you seen? Salsa production peaked in the US in 1970, Mexico in 1974, in canada in 1982, and in Saudi Arabia in 2006. The US salsa production was 4.4 gigajars in the 1980's, and its down to 1.8 gigajars in 2007. In fact, our Salsa reserves may be empty in our lifetimes! Plus, OSEC has cornered the market on salsa, so the price of a jar of salsa is going to go through the roof very soon! The larger OSEC countries' salsa reserves are, the more their cartel allows them to produce. Hence, these countries have a strong incentive to exaggerate the size of their . . . reserves. Dr. PAco Gonzalez, a former senior executive of the National Mexican Salsa Company, has stated that Mexico's salsa reserves in particular, and OSEC's in general, are wildly exaggerated. He believes world salsa production is at its peak, and will fall 32% by 2020. But I'm sure you know more about all that than he does. We need to prepare for a salsa free snack-food economy in the near future! Are you sure about those statistics? I couldn't find any reference to them in Wiki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Are you sure about those statistics? I couldn't find any reference to them in Wiki. We're forgetting one important point here, though: nachos and salsa are different, and THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 We don't want to shut them off from the rest of the state. We just want to pay the best cheeseheads to breed better cheeseheads. Regression toward the mean won't occur, because it's an artifact of inaccurate cheesehead measurement... Of course, if you can't ACCURATELY measure cheeseheads, you can't accurately choose the best cheeseheads either, since you can't trust your measurements. So the program's flawed from inception. You obviously havent, but need to, consider the skill level of east german cheeseheads. Their kids are always going to grow up to be master cheeseburger creators, regarless of the environment they are raised in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 You obviously havent, but need to, consider the skill level of east german cheeseheads. Their kids are always going to grow up to be master cheeseburger creators, regarless of the environment they are raised in. Yes, I know. They inherit the cheesehead allelles from their parents. It has nothing to do with watching their cheesehead parents work as cheeseheads during their childhood. It's all genetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Yes, I know. They inherit the cheesehead allelles from their parents. It has nothing to do with watching their cheesehead parents work as cheeseheads during their childhood. It's all genetic. Where do you think the term "burger" came from? Sure the hell not from the Aztecs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME. I dunno. That sounds made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 I'm pretty sure there's nothing above worth reading. Same old nonsense. You're still clueless. And it's this attitude which causes you to misunderstand and misrepresent my views so consistently and so completely. Dude, if you're going to argue with me for over 50 pages about regression toward the mean--and if you're going to drag the whole PPP board into that debate--the least you can do is get some clue about the ideas you think you're arguing against. Which, quite frankly, you don't have right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 And it's this attitude which causes you to misunderstand and misrepresent my views so consistently and so completely. Dude, if you're going to argue with me for over 50 pages about regression toward the mean--and if you're going to drag the whole PPP board into that debate--the least you can do is get some clue about the ideas you think you're arguing against. Which, quite frankly, you don't have right now. No, the reason I misrepresent your views so consistently and completely is because YOU'RE WRONG. As I've proven time and time and time and time and time and time again. There's no disagreement over interpretation. You're just wrong. Period. I don't say you're wrong. MATHEMATICS says you're wrong. You don't comprehend this because YOU DON'T COMPREHEND MATH. For God's sake, you can't even do simple algebra, I had to explain the concept of a "constant" to you THREE TIMES before it sunk in. And you think people believe you understand something more advanced, like statistics? Hell, people are begging me to be merciful and stop highlighting your ignorance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 No, the reason I misrepresent your views so consistently and completely is because YOU'RE WRONG. As I've proven time and time and time and time and time and time again. There's no disagreement over interpretation. You're just wrong. Period. I don't say you're wrong. MATHEMATICS says you're wrong. You don't comprehend this because YOU DON'T COMPREHEND MATH. For God's sake, you can't even do simple algebra, I had to explain the concept of a "constant" to you THREE TIMES before it sunk in. And you think people believe you understand something more advanced, like statistics? Hell, people are begging me to be merciful and stop highlighting your ignorance... You've been arguing against a straw man. If my earlier post was long, it was because I needed the space to show how very badly you've misrepresented my views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 You've been arguing against a straw man. If my earlier post was long, it was because I needed the space to show how very badly you've misrepresented my views. And if I've spent 100 pages arguing with you, it was to show how badly incorrect your views are. I'm not misinterpreting you. I understand you perfectly. You're just incorrect. Again. Still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts