Bungee Jumper

How polluted, overcrowded, and poor is it now? "How much more" is a comparative. You haven't even established anything to compare to anything else. Just saying it doesn't make it true.

Actually, it woult be GGGG. "GGG" has an error of -1...but as that error causes regression toward the mean, it will become "GG", and hence you are correct...

As usual...no, it isn't. Clearly, if you've read the book (doubtful; if you have, it would be the first time you've bothered to attempt being informed on anything), you didn't bother to understand it. Again, as usual. Stephanopolous specifically states that they were not "covering up" any wrong-doing, they were protecting their privacy, and that Hillary got shrewish only at the idea that they should willingly make their private dealings a public spectacle. But Stephanopolous never stated there was anything wrong with Whitewater, he never implied it, he never implied there was a cover-up. He only said that the Clintons wanted to protect their privacy against the advice that it was politically counter-productive...

Did you actually read Snuffelupagus's autobiography, or just look at his dreamy picture on the cover? Because, having read it myself, I'm only seeing you tell half the story as written... ...as usual.

...without even questioning the implicit assumption that the country is full.

Yes, and when it comes to tax money, they eat up $1.1B for health care, which is proportionally less than the rest of the nation, which is all the study analyzed. Everything else you're posting is just blowing smoke.

Lana? Just home movies and amateur flicks...

"We won an election!" is pretty new...

Oooooh, Lana's gonna be jealous...

Where the hell is the Battle for the Death Star?

People would rather have ten heartfelt opinions than know one simple fact. And they usually don't know the difference. Coli, you started this thread to watch completely ignorant people argue over a paper they haven't read, didn't you? Admit it, you evil bastard...

Shouldn't you be out gassing Jews?

STOP REFERENCING HYPERSTATS. It's garbage. That's nothing more than a half-assed explanation for people like you who don't have the math skills to balance a checkbook. Pick up a stats textbook if you want to understand the subject.

I'm pretty sure he considered it ruined the very moment you posted in it.

Cars and busses use toxins? Ah, never mind...

Funniest post ever! (Look at his avatar.)

Yeah, I'm sure he knows jack sh-- about it. They just stuck a spare organ in him when he wasn't looking and sent him home. Can we invite BF back in here? Improve the intelligence of the board?

It's not a fight, it's a beat-down. The entire mathematical world is right, I agree with them, and you're stupid.

"No, I don't trust him. He's a !@#$ing bowler." Christ, you're a piece of work...

Yeah, perhaps there weren't voting irregularities. Perhaps their weren't in '04 and '00 either...and the whining is just partisan politics. Otherwise you have to assume that there WERE voting irregularities, and either 1) the voting process magically fixed itself, or 2) the lunatic Democrats (as opposed to the sane ones out there, of which there are many) who did the whining about voting irregularities don't actually care if the vote's fair if it's in their favor...and the whining is just partisan politics. Personally, I'd sooner believe in the proven fact of whiny partisanship than I would magic. I'd expect you to believe the opposite, else you'd have to admit you're whiny...

My God, it's a friggin' reflex. We say "Lott", you respond "Byrd".

Or voting irregularity is a partisan issue. Really...if there were voting irregularities, why wouldn't the same complainants whine now who did in '04? Because it's not about the validity of the election, it's about Die Partei.

Thanks to Coli for sending me the PDF, and if you want to know what the researchers were studying... Where, in the paper, health care costs are defined as "service use and cost of care" (in other words, the billions Merck contributes to the GDP per annum on FDA approvals isn't included, as it's not related to service use and cost of care. Got that, HA?). So, put simply, the study extrapolates (in a manner not unlike I posted earlier) that of the $430 billion (NOT $1.7 trillion) of the afore-defined health care costs nationally in 2000, $6.5 billion was incurred by "undocumented immigrants"; and of the $88 billion of those costs paid for by public (i.e. directly taxpayer funded) funds, only $1.1 billion of those costs were incurred by illegal immigrants. THAT is what the study says. That is what it studied, and that is what it said. Got that, Holcomb's Arm? Or do you have a bull sh-- Wikipedia article that says something completely different?

A military history of mud. Someone's PhD thesis, they managed to get published as an actual book. While it's certainly a valuable and necessary area of study for military history and science...for the casual military historian (which I'm really not), it's probably pretty dull. And even for the more serious historian, it can pretty much be summed up as "It's cold, wet, dirty, and sticky." Having the backstory was nice. Being able to read it in half an afternoon was nice. Doesn't make it good writing. Awesome. "The White Plague" and the three early novels reprinted in 2002 ("The Santaroga Barrier", "The Green Brain", and I forget the third) are his only non-Dune novels I've read, and I've always wanted to read more ("The Lazarus Effect", for example...which has been out of print for 15 years or so).

Of course not...but I was one. With parents. It's pretty bloody obvious, parent or no, that talking to your kids before snooping on them is better than snooping before talking. Beyond that...I wouldn't judge. And I didn't mean to sound like I was judging, or imply, either, that one shouldn't invade their child's privacy, or that one must try to maintain their child's trust. Just to say that 1) the reality, for better or worse, is that he IS talking about an invasion of privacy that can lead to some level of mistrust, and 2) his comfort level with such in his relationship with his son is only something he can judge... ...and probably the central point here. If he were perfectly comfortable snooping, he'd have done so. If he were perfectly uncomfortable, he wouldn't and wouldn't even mention it. That he has to ask is a pretty clear indication that he realizes it's a privacy and trust issue, and isn't quite sure how much of his son's privacy and trust he's willing to risk here.