Bungee Jumper

Actually, LA's been clean for almost a full day now...

His Noodly Appendage is religion. Sorry.

Intelligent design is religion. It's not testable, and not falsifiable, ergo not science. Period. End of discussion.

Can we add "insulted" to that? I want duelling made legal again...

Actually, it's pretty well documented in sources outside this board that the MSM has a liberal bias that is, like I said, covert and unconscious, rather than the overt and conscious bias of FoxSnooze.

Not entirely. I'd say the American public took a deep breath and said "Well, these guys are inept. Maybe the other guys can do better." Because the American public has the attention span of a ferret on crystal meth. They tend to forget that there's a reason they voted the other !@#$s out of office, so they vote them back in.

But that's not because of error, you idiot!!!!! A normally distributed measurement regresses toward the mean because it is a normally distributed measurement, not because it's "wrong".

That phenomenon would also need to exist first.

Hey, I had to pick someone off the bench. It was his lucky day. Give me a f'in break already...

No, actually I'm trying to simplify. I'm hoping he can understand you can't bifurcate your sample set and treat it in two different ways and say the results are the same. I already tried the "You're just measuring error" tack with him. He didn't get it.

Well...she does have a decent rack.

He's on the bench. Reyes isn't. How good can he be?

And O'Malley intends to return Maryland's troops home from Iraq...

Of course, you're talking about Herm Edwards. So that may very well be three coaching changes.

26 sacks in 212 attempts. If you want to kill him, shoot him. It's kinder.

Hakuna Macaca.

According to VA, mankind began 5000 years ago in a great big garden, where we'd still be if it wasn't for the !@#$ing liberals. Don't take him too seriously.

Not good for McGahee...but is anyone really THAT worried about having Thomas back there? I'd think so far this season he's shown himself to be capable at the very least. It's not like Peters is out and they have to replace him with some fan from the bleachers or worse (like Aaron Merz). RB is one position where the Bills do actually have some depth.

"Mainstream". Which, when it comes to the media, is nearly synonymous with "liberal", for the reasons given in my earlier post.

It was his agenda.

Which is EXACTLY the response I predicted: discard those sub-mean scorers who score too high, and those that score too low move toward the mean. You don't even realize that that is the EXACT OPPOSIT of what you do at the other end of the scale, do you? Of course you're seeing something that looks like regression toward the mean...you're treating opposite ends of the distribution differently.

Tommy Franks? Retired... You don't know the first thing about Rumsfeld's job performance, I'm sure...

No, it doesn't. It illustrates that people who do "better than they should" will not tend to do "better than they should" the second time around. Apply the same reasoning to the other end of the scale, and someone with a 40 IQ who scores 50 the first time should score closer to 40 the second...which is movement away from the overall mean of 100. It is, however, regression toward the mean of the error, which is what you're measuring. And I already know what your stupid little potato-head response is going to be to this: discard those people, and only include those 40-IQ people who scored lower than they should, because they are regressing toward the mean...

Fox Snooze IS RIGHT WING because that was Rupert Murdoch's stated intent in creating it. What part of that is unclear? Rupert Murdoch has come out and said so publicly. I've heard him say so, most spefically in early 2003 in an interview with Niel Cavuto, the transcript of which I'm trying to locate for you right now...

So for your second experiment, you set up different conditions from your first by arbitrarily eliminating anyone who's disproportionately unlucky, then compare it to the first, and say "Aha! It's different!" Of course it's different. All you've done is arbitrarily chosen a subset of your data that proves your point, while arbitrarily eliminating the subset that disproves your point. And all you've proven is that you're a !@#$ing retard: you can't arbitrarily discard data just because it's inconvenient!!! Particularly in this case: you're discarding error in the negative direction (i.e. "unlucky"), to prove that positive error (i.e. "lucky") is, in fact positive. Which is not regression toward the mean, it's !@#$ing error!!!! How you honestly believe you know what you're talking about is beyond comprehension. Literally, I know three year olds that have a better understanding of this than you do.