Taro T

1. Explain to me, Mr. Reading Comprehension, how stating "Lori had some good advice" is messing with her? 2. Yes. And, you have apparently never been to a game at Mile High. It is a SLIGHT exaggeration, but I can say that because when the populations of the rest of the Broncos' market are added up, Colorado makes up slighly less than 1/2 the entire market. It definitely isn't the vast majority of the market as the region noted for the Bills was, and the point I was making was that portion of the market alone is 28% larger than the Bills market is. 3. I know the Bills know where their fan base comes from. I'm not certain what that has to do with the current discussion.

If you aren't including Denver as a comparable as a small market, why throw it in there in the 1st place? Also, (using 2000 data, current would make Buffalo's size even smaller in comparison) Buffalo's MSA had 1,170,111 people, Denver's 2,581,506. Throwing in your additional areas (minus Toronto, when Bills games start getting even 10,000 Canadians in attendence, then we'll consider adding TO; although I did include Erie even though only 1/3 of the people there are Bills fans) plus Elmira to Buffalo's total gives WNY 3,372,342 and only counting the state of Colorado (which is ENTIRELY Denver's market and only a small portion of it) gives Denver's market 4,301,261. So locally, Buffalo's market is only 45% of Denver's and even comparing Buffalo's region to only a portion of Denver's puts Buffalo's market at 78% the size of Denver's. Lori had some good advice. Do your homework next time.

Not only is Denver one of the 20 largest MSA's, they draw fans from at least a 6 state area. They have many STH's in Wyoming and further out. If NYC, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Cincy ALL didn't have teams, then a slight case could be made for Denver and Buffalo being comparables.

Considering the hole in the ozone layer was undetectable prior to the mid-'80's, do you have a reason for us to believe it didn't exist prior to the ability to detect it?

g) blood test. That would get painful after a while.

I can't really say anything about Magnolia, because you couldn't pay me to see it; but LiT was extremely disappointing.

1,2 what's in the stew, 3, 4 no one's really sure, 5,6 what's in the mix, 7, 8 this stuff tastes ....

In the sense that they don't slam the opponent in the corner and then walk out with the puck while their opponent is laying in a heap, you are correct. However, Sabre pressure in the offensive zone leads to a LOT of turnovers for the Sabres - especially for the Briere line and whatever line Roy is playing on. While that isn't necessarily a "classic" forecheck, those turnovers are definitely due to strong forechecking.

Well, they're 80% "heritable", so there is a 20% component to luck that's due to environment, or stated another way luck can be due to being in the right place at the right time (which is what most people consider luck in the 1st place). So 20% of luck is due to being lucky.

As near as I can tell, and I could be mistaken as this whole issue becomes rather convoluted (at least in the minds of some people), the apparent regression towards the mean of IQ scores supports eugenics because the people that get scores high enough to warrant inclusion in the eugenics program (or are the smart people out of the program, again it gets confusing) do so due to luck so they and their children don't actually warrant inclusion in the program (or warrant exclusion from the program) so pretty soon we end up where no one is allowed to breed and PETA finally realizes their ultimate goal of animals living free of human encumbrances.

Throw in a little bit of luck and they have the rest of the tools already in place.

No experience with it. American Cancer Society website seems to have a lot of info about it. Sorry to hear your mother has it. I hope they found it soon enough.

Something about that sentence that just doesn't sound right. I always thought they were doing something else to them.

1. Rockpile 2. R. Rich 3. JÂy RÛßeÒ 4. dave_b 5.

Thanks.

I will take your word for it that the correlation between the 2 is significantly lower. My bad. I made an assumption off the word "somewhat". (A rather poor assumption, it would appear.) Out of curiosity, (because at this moment I don't have time to try to track it down although I'm pretty sure links to it have been posted somewhere in 1 of the 30 threads on this subject, sorry) do you know off hand what a typical parent - child IQ correlation is or what range is typical?

The parents' scores differing from the children's scores is not due to luck. It is a reflection of an expected correlation between the scores of close to but less than 1.0 and the variance within the population. Just when I think I'm out, I get dragged back again.

Well, if the parents had been able to work one of those Trojan thingies the children wouldn't be around, so it has to be the parents' error that is causing the children's apparent regression toward the mean. I'm sure I'm going to need much more of before this chain of threads die their merciful death.

That sucks.

In his extremely simplistic original example, you would be correct. However, there are going to be other variables (time of day, alertness, mental state, health, medication, etc.) that will effect the "true IQ". A "perfect test", as he has mentioned in his description at varying times, would detect the subject's "true IQ" at the time the person took the test without any measurement error. As these regressors change for an individual subject upon a retest, even a "perfect test" would/could end up resulting in a different "true IQ" even though the error term in the regression was 0 both times. So, even with an IQ test, you can have variation in an individual's test results without measurement error. I guess I am having a hard time with agreeing that a "perfect test" would have measurement error. If the test IS perfect in design, implementation, and execution; there would not be measurement error.

After this post, I'm pretty sure I'm out of the whole discussion. But, 1st, one final question: why do you insist upon stating that IF you have measurement error, extreme scores will tend to move closer to the mean? While measurement error can be a factor, this will occur whether or not there is measurement error (at least as most of the world would define measurement error). (Also, depending upon the magnitude and the form of the measurement error, the effect you are expecting might not be observable.) You have stated that you agree with this, and then you go and continue to repost that you don't agree with it (as in the post I am quoting). Either you are as obtuse as CTM/BJ states, in which case there is no reason to continue this discussion; or you are jerking our chains, in which case there is no reason to continue this discussion. Or quite possibly both, in which case there is definitely no reason to continue the discussion. Wraith seems to suggest a 4th possibility, that you actually understand what you are trying to say but don't have the statistical background to state it properly. I doubt the likelihood of that possibility, but even if that is the case, your continual insistance to continue using your own vernacular makes continuing this discussion too frustrating to bother with.

All the Great Society legislation passed under his watch. So I wouldn't exactly say he did "nothing else".

I did not state what you think I did on point 2. I said you would expect an INDIVIDUAL that scored a 180 on the test to get it again the 2nd time. Especially, if you assume that you have a "perfect test" and the magnitude of the individual variation is small, then MOST of the people that scored a 180 would have done so because that is what their underlying score should be. There would be a few "true 170's" that scored the 180 on the 1st test and fewer "true 190's" that scored 180 on the 1st test. So, upon retesting, the majority of the people that scored 180 the 1st time would score 180 AGAIN. You would get a few 170's, and fewer 190's. Thus, a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL would be expected to get the 180 again. But the AVERAGE score of the subpopulation as a whole would be expected to be lower than 180. I thought stating to be clear and straight forward. Also, and I think you already realize this, but am not positive of that; some of the people that get 160's and 170's on the 2nd test will be people whose "true score" is in fact 180 (there may even be some 190's going there on the 2nd one as well) and conversely for the 2nd test 190's. EDIT: You do realize that the "average" score for an INDIVIDUAL is that individual's score? That is NOT necessarily the "average" score for the subpopulation that you are referring to. Although a particular individual WOULD be expected to get a 180 on the perfect retest, the average score of the individuals taking that perfect retest would be less than 180.

Losman is definitely playing better this season. Playing well at the beginning of games and at the end is a start. And to be honest, if at this stage in his development he's only going to be successful for part of the game, those are the parts that I want him to be successful in. If the defense were stronger, with the special teams the Bills have, that would be enough to win a few more games. Heck, it was the formula they often used when Flutie was at the helm. Score early, have the D keep it close, and then turn it on in the 4th.

Actually, that just reinforces my point. Thanks for playing.