Orton's Arm

A post like this will get you seven free oral sex sessions from Ramius, but only four from the more stingy Bungee Jumper. BJ only does a so-so job at living up to his name . . . Edit: Ramius is using your post in his sig. That means you're getting a bonus of at least two sessions above and beyond what I mentioned earlier. If you're really persuasive, you can probably wheedle him into giving you a bonus of three.

Since you can't find a link which supports your views, you may as well use an emoticon instead.

First impressions can be so accurate.

That's your idea, and isn't supported by the links that either BlueFire or I found. In BlueFire's link, the expected value of a discrete distribution is found by the probability-weighted summation of all possible outcomes. In other words, the expected value of a die roll is 3.5.

I'm sorry, but the only type of refutation I'll accept is one that involves a credible source. That means a link. You can't just throw around terms like "statistics 101" or "sophomore [sic]-level physics class" and pretend that you speak for all the statistics or physics professors out there. You don't. You speak only for yourself; and you do need to back up your claim with a link if you want to be taken seriously.

You consistently claim that thousands of published scientists and journals support your own views, yet you're consistently unable to provide any links to credible sources to back up that claim. The only one who's been supporting his views with links to credible sources is me.

I'll agree with the heart of your post up to a point. If you're, say, the 49ers of a while back, and if you have Montana and Young as your two QBs, you don't draft a QB with a first day pick. I don't care if he's the best player available or not. You have to ask yourself over the course of several years, will this player have a realistic opportunity to significantly upgrade this team? The answer to that question depends on how good a player the pick himself is, as well as the caliber of player he'd be replacing. But I completely agree that it almost never makes sense to take an inferior player just because you think you're desperate to find anything with which to fill that position.

Okay, you got me. I should have been more careful about word choice when putting this thread together.

Anyone else convinced Tom is full of himself?

I realize Wikipedia isn't always correct, but its level of credibility is infinitely higher than is your own. If you want me to believe its definition of expected value is incorrect, you're going to have to find a credible source to back you up. Your own, unsupported word carries zero credibility.

The previous "attempts" you've made to expose my so-called "gross errors" have only made you look ignorant and stupid. I see that this time around, you've chosen the prudent path of sticking to generalized insults. If you say, "You're an idiot for making this post," it's much harder to expose your own ignorance and error than if you say, "Your post is incorrect based on facts 1, 2, and 3." And hey, maybe someone will make the mistake of believing there must be some truth to the vague accusations you're once again throwing my way.

I'll add the concept of expected value to the long list of things you have no clue about.

"Holcombian evolution" is a catch-phrase invented by people too ignorant (or too dishonest) to admit that the evolutionary forces I've been describing are Darwinian. If you selectively breed for a trait, the next generation will have a greater preponderance of that trait. Over the course of a number of generations, selective breeding or natural selection can turn one species into an entirely different one. At present, stupid people are having more children than are smart people. We are selectively breeding for stupidity. I refuse to blind myself to the Darwinian implications of that fact, which is why I'm being accused of creating a new theory.

Ahhh, regression toward the mean. Thanks for bringing that up. I have a lot more I want to say about that. For example . . . just kidding, just kidding! I'm not really going to try to make this thread about regression toward the mean. I'll give you credit: that was a pretty good dig.

Read the whole post again, numskull. Actually read it, if you think you're capable of that. Bungee Jumper pointed out (correctly) that when two smart people have kids, their children will generally have above-normal levels of intelligence. They won't, on average, be quite as smart as their parents are. He concluded that neither selectively breeding for stupidity (which is what we're currently doing) or a eugenics program, would make any long-term difference to the gene pool. Either way, he felt, things would simply drift back toward the population's average I.Q. over the long run. It finally dawned on me that Bungee Jumper's line of reasoning would undermine the entire basis for Darwinism. Nearly every trait has a narrow-sense heritability of less than 1. This means that if two very tall parents have children, their kids will generally be tall, but not quite as tall as their parents. And that's not just true for height, but for almost any trait you care to name. And guess what? Darwinism still produces results anyway. If you give a species' smartest members a survival or reproductive advantage, that species will gradually get smarter. That simple fact was nicely illustrated by the fact that humans evolved from apes; and apes from less intelligent ancestors. To argue that this fact no longer holds true is anti-scientific. Unfortunately, the same forces which once worked to increase humans' intelligence are now working to decrease the intelligence of the species.

I suggest you take a remedial-level class in reading. I wrote that if what Bungee Jumper had been saying was actually true, it would undermine the basis for Darwinism. Given that Bungee Jumper's assertions were a bunch of horse manure, I was quite comfortable in my conclusion that the basis for Darwinism had not, in fact, been undermined.

I'd re-sign Clements and Kelsay. Then I'd use the 1st round pick on Okoye, and picks 2 & 3 on OGs. Bill Walsh once said that the key to winning football games is a good pass rush from your front 4 in the 4th quarter. If Okoye works out, he'd significantly upgrade the Bills' talent and depth along the DL; and help give us that 4th quarter pass rush Walsh talked about. If Kyle Williams and John McCargo improve, so much the better. How about you?

Yes, it's very different from last year. Last year, we used our first pick on a SS. This year, it'll be a CB! You know what else we could do in 2007? McGahee isn't the world's greatest RB, he doesn't seem like he really wants to be here, he doesn't seem to have the "show up every Sunday" character Marv's been talking about, and he's in the last year of his contract. It wouldn't exactly shock me if Marv traded McGahee away for a 3rd round pick. You can never have too many DBs, so maybe that's where that 3rd round pick will go . . .

With Nate Clements on his way out the door, the Bills are likely to use their first round pick on a CB. That move will plug the most immediate hole in the secondary. But then you have DT: Larry Triplett isn't living up to the hype, John McCargo is an unknown, and Tim Anderson isn't the answer. Even if McCargo and Kyle Williams both become Pro Bowl caliber players, the Bills would still benefit from another presence at DT. I could see them trading their second and third round picks away to get a pick toward the end of the first round; and using that pick on a DT. Most of their second-day picks would be used to address the needs on the offensive line; with the occasional pick being used to build depth at LB and the secondary. Yes, the 2007 draft will be very different than the one from 2006.

A single critical insight forms the foundation upon which Darwinism rests. Whenever a trait gives organisms a reproductive or survival advantage, that trait will become increasingly widespread in subsequent generations. Stupid people are having more children than smart people; and have been for some time. We are selectively breeding ourselves for stupidity. The solution is a eugenics program. Unfortunately, people have been trained to think politically/emotionally about this (Nazi Germany, gas chambers, etc.) rather than scientifically (selective breeding, Darwinism, the needs of a technologically advanced society).

What?! Bungee Jumper/DC Tom made an unfair and inaccurate assumption about what someone else was thinking? That's like Mike Williams sneaking another cookie out of the cookie jar when no one's looking. Totally unheard-of, I say!

No, you're spreading anti-Darwinistic, intellectually shallow propaganda in a pitiful attempt to discredit the concept of a eugenics program. Your 50+ pages of blather about regression toward the mean was (originally) intended to reinforce one of the objections you'd attempted to raise.

People in general are more aware of other people's faults than they are of their own. Molson isn't the idiot Tom's described, but his way of presenting himself makes it seem like he only considers one side of the issue. Molson would probably argue that there are times when there is a right or wrong answer. And in his defense, if improving America's security was the question, the Iraq War was clearly the wrong answer. To call his opposition to Bush "unthinking" would be unfair. Most of Bush's policies have been formulated without any apparent regard for what's best for America or for the world. Given that fact, I can see why those who oppose Bush most strongly have apparently gained the highest level of credibility in Molson's eyes. I agree with Molson's fundamental assertion that the Bush presidency has done far more harm than good. What I'd like to see him do is spend time talking about the ways in which politicians have failed beyond just their failure to oppose Bush.

You never could pass up the chance to call someone an idiot, could you? Seems to me you've come to these boards for three reasons: 1. The chance to put other people down 2. The chance to "show off" what you think is your own intelligence 3. The chance to spread propaganda Sometimes (as in my case) 1 and 3 go together.

I'm willing to offer those teams a better deal: in exchange for just $40 million, I'll go 24 months without coaching the Pacers, Knicks, or the Pistons. If that's not a good enough deal, I'll also refrain from coaching the Lakers or the Heat at no additional charge.