Bigfatbillsfan

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.

Considering the ease with which your posting devolves into homosexual propaganda this is the last thing anyone would ever want to hear from you.

I guess you didn't see the irony in that post. Or didn't understand it.

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.

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.

:w00t: :w00t:

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.

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.

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.

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!!

Hey, be happy I gave you a response to begin with. You're not worth one. :w00t: :w00t: First off, I'm not connor, second, I love coming here to let out all the hate.

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...

I said I've been running statistics, not advanced stats. I did not however claim that my knowledge of stats is an argument ender.

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.

Statistics is used in almost every field of study. Nor did I claim it was an argument ender.

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.

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. 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!

You have no clue what the hell you're talking about do you?

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". Sure, whatever you say Straw Man.

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 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'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.

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. Captain Straw Man strikes again.

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. It's sitting right next to you straw man argument.