Bungee Jumper

And the solution to that is to draft Brady Quinn.

Of course, that roughing the kicker call was nonsense...but no worse than that egregious roughing the passer call against the Colts. The officiating was horrible yesterday.

Because you fail to distinguish between a bad individual performance of 80 yards, and a game plan where he was asked threw for 80 yards on 13 attempts (and was sacked four times). That, and your main complaint seems to be that it bores you. Never mind that that same game plan - protect the ball, keep Manning & Co. off the field, and let the Colts make the mistakes - let them hang with an undefeated team for nearly a full four quarters, and almost sneak out a win. It's not good enough, because you were bored.

The same way I have a thousand posts in a month. I type very fast.

So the problem isn't that he's bad, the problem is that the game plan is boring as sh--...therefore the QB is bad. You people are unbelievable.

A handful of us in this country still care about issues. Only a handful, though. Doesn't change the fact that he is well-spoken, though.

PPP: You have two cows. You never shut up about how their better than the other guys two cows. Neither one of you realizes they're the same !@#$ing cows. Alaska Darin: You have two lemmings... DC Tom: You have two cows. They're !@#$ing idiots.

Respectfully, I disagree. It's not racist, after all, to say that Bush speaks poorly. Obama is well-spoken. Not "well-spoken for a black man". Well-spoken, period.

NEW YORK CORPORATION: You have a cow. Her husband used to be president...

Conversely, maybe the receivers can't seem to get open because it's so damn easy to generate consistent pressure against this line by rushing 4 that opponents are dropping seven men into coverage. A better question than any being asked would be: where the hell is the play-action pass?

If this were a Colts board, most people here would be calling for Manning's head and Sorgi to start, because they didn't beat a 3-5 team badly enough.

Don't know how serious a question it can be when your second word of the post is "democraps".

Yes, I do. You're just wrong.

I am right. I can mathematically prove I'm right. I've explained why I'm right. Other people have explained why I'm right. You're just too friggin' stupid to understand.

But as I keep telling you, YOUR SIMULATION IS A MEANINGLESS PIECE OF sh--!

I'm published in astronomy, too. An statistical analysis of galactic rotation. I understand you. You're wrong. I've explained it in great detail why you're wrong. You simply can't accept the fact that you don't know sh--. And you will see regression OF THE ERROR TOWARD THE MEAN ERROR. There's a simple way to prove it: Instead of retesting the ones that "do best", retest the ones that show the most difference from their "true IQ" (i.e. if your error has a standard deviation of 6, retest those that are 9 or more away from their "true IQ"). That difference will decrease "on average", because the ERROR regresses, because that is what your simulation is actually measuring. Conversely, you could take the error completely out of your simulation. Test your population, then test them again. "On average", people who score very well/poorly will score less well/poorly even in the absence of error, because chance (i.e. the probability distribution of a normal distribution) dictates it. Alternately...take a pair of dice - oh, no, wait, we've already established that you honestly think there's error in dice that cause regression toward the mean. Alternately...stop playing with Excel and DO THE MATH. But you can't...you don't actually know how to do the math, do you? You couldn't even tell me what a gaussian integrated over all space is, or what that means, or why it's relevant to this discussion, could you? Can you "standard error" for me? What's the mathematical definition of "variance" in a continuous distribution? More like pesticide, really. It still amazes me that the entire scientific community can disagree with you...and you're right, and the rest of the world is wrong.

Well, there's something you don't hear every day. There's just too many Genny Cream Ale jokes here...

Well, you see...if you keep repeating incorrect nonsense over and over, eventually the error will cause the nonsense to regress toward the true value of what you're trying to say...

I thought I did, but it seems to have regressed toward the mean today, so I must have been wrong...

I tried reading it a month ago. I found it insufferable. Gave up after about sixty painful pages. And I know I'm in the minority as someone who hates it...but God, I hate that book.

http://www.amazon.com/Other-Battle-Luftwaf...ie=UTF8&s=books Peter Hinchliffe..."The Other Battle". It's a history of the British night bombing campaign against Nazi Germany. Very readable, lots of techincal detail but not the least bit dry and unreadable, lots of first-person anecdotes and interviews without being sappy. Eric Bergerud's writing is similarly readable and informative... http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Fire-Land-So...ie=UTF8&s=books http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Sky-Air-South-P...ie=UTF8&s=books ...but neither of his books include the overall campaign narrative that Hinchliffe has. Still, if you're looking for something to read yourself, you can't go wrong with any or all of those three (and I've seen them in bookstores, so they are all still in print). I actually wish more people would read Bergerud's "Touched With Fire"; it's an excellent portrayal of how utterly !@#$ed-up combat really is, parts of it being as applicable to Afghanistan or Iraq today as it is to the South Pacific in the early 40's.

I'm crushed. I was so badly looking for your approval.

You're a !@#$ing retard. My post was not an opinion for you to agree or disagree with . It was mathematical fact. You can stop trying to explain yourself already. I understand perfectly what you're trying to say. Have for about 20 pages. You're just an idiot.

They're numbers. You wouldn't understand them anyway.

What does it matter what you or I believe? Particularly when it's factual information that anyone with a brain can look up in about thirty seconds, like I did.