The New News Thread.

This is the place for topical debate and discussion about anything in the world (non-Queen related).

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:07 pm

pigs, maybe?

Image

nah, it might offend another certain group of people :(
I see you standing there. You think you so cool. Why don't you just..... fuck off!
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

I know what's right and what's wrong

      
 
Posts: 2719
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:09 pm

Just imagine if women wanted revenge rather than equality!! We’d be truly fucked.

Cuz y’know, if they DID want to round us up and push us into ovens...

...all I’m saying is I’m not very good with ovens.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby musicalprostitute » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:14 pm

The worst thing about you, Elly, is that even if I was to say that I was wrong, that - after some true reflection - I had decided that 'feminazi' was not an appropriate word to describe a group of extremists, you would still bring it up time and time again (months after the discussion); you do this with relevance to our little science chat: I accepted that I was not winning that argument (and admitted that I was the least scientifically minded person I knew) and signed off, stating 'fair enough'...yet you still bring it up in literally every post to me. You do not want to agree - even if it is sensible to do so (and better for everyone else here who has to read our same old shit), but rather continue disagreeing for the sake of it.
 
musicalprostitute
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

Defend yourself, I bring catastrophe

      
 
Posts: 4271
Images: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Essex and Cardiff.
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 455 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:18 pm

musicalprostitute wrote:The worst thing about you, Elly, is that even if I was to say that I was wrong, that - after some true reflection - I had decided that 'feminazi' was not an appropriate word to describe a group of extremists, you would still bring it up time and time again (months after the discussion); you do this with relevance to our little science chat: I accepted that I was not winning that argument (and admitted that I was the least scientifically minded person I knew) and signed off, stating 'fair enough'...yet you still bring it up in literally every post to me. You do not want to agree - even if it is sensible to do so (and better for everyone else here who has to read our same old shit), but rather continue disagreeing for the sake of it.


Nope, if you admit that it’s inappropriate, stop using it, and edit the original thread, I’ll applaud you on your introspection.

I bring up your scientific problems whenever you fall into the same traps again, eg dismissing a scientific study without any real grasp on the methodology or statistical basis. Needless to say, I don’t bring it up in ‘literally every post’. All I’d need to do is find one post in which I haven’t, and that assertion would be proven false. Let’s try...ah there we go. Two replies back.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby musicalprostitute » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:19 pm

Elessar wrote:
musicalprostitute wrote:
But I still maintain that a single study of 327 men cannot give a fair enough picture. That is all I am saying. A very, very, miniscule hint of the way things may be? Maybe. A true picture? No.


Then you don’t know how cross-sectional studies work.


No, I am not expert at such things - and I openly admit that (and expect the same old patronising and picking posts from your superior self), but I can still give my opinion that a study as small as this still does not give a fair picture; multiple studies or a much bigger one maybe.

And I am not saying my view is the correct one for everyone. It is my view and I believe it. I am not saying anyone else should.
 
musicalprostitute
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

Defend yourself, I bring catastrophe

      
 
Posts: 4271
Images: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Essex and Cardiff.
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 455 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:24 pm

musicalprostitute wrote:No, I am not expert at such things - and I openly admit that (and expect the same old patronising and picking posts from your superior self), but I can still give my opinion that a study as small as this still does not give a fair picture; multiple studies or a much bigger one maybe.


Oh, a bigger one might be okay?

How large do you think the sample size should be? I take it you’ve done your own power calculation and worked out the sample size necessary to reach a pre-determined threshold for stastical significance within well-defined confidence intervals?

Or have you just thought: Nah, 300 seems small, should probably have an least five faasand guv!
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:34 pm

Elessar wrote:Just imagine if women wanted revenge rather than equality!! We’d be truly fucked.

Cuz y’know, if they DID want to round us up and push us into ovens...

...all I’m saying is I’m not very good with ovens.


women are good with ovens though. don't worry, they won't push us in them. in stead, they make nice, delicious pies in them for us men to enjoy. the love of the man goes through the stomach. didn't jew know?
I see you standing there. You think you so cool. Why don't you just..... fuck off!
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

I know what's right and what's wrong

      
 
Posts: 2719
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:39 pm

action wrote:
Elessar wrote:Just imagine if women wanted revenge rather than equality!! We’d be truly fucked.

Cuz y’know, if they DID want to round us up and push us into ovens...

...all I’m saying is I’m not very good with ovens.


women are good with ovens though. don't worry, they won't push us in them. in stead, they make nice, delicious pies in them for us men to enjoy. the love of the man goes through the stomach. didn't jew know?


And then we can Goebbel them up
Last edited by Elessar on Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby musicalprostitute » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:39 pm

Elessar wrote:
musicalprostitute wrote:The worst thing about you, Elly, is that even if I was to say that I was wrong, that - after some true reflection - I had decided that 'feminazi' was not an appropriate word to describe a group of extremists, you would still bring it up time and time again (months after the discussion); you do this with relevance to our little science chat: I accepted that I was not winning that argument (and admitted that I was the least scientifically minded person I knew) and signed off, stating 'fair enough'...yet you still bring it up in literally every post to me. You do not want to agree - even if it is sensible to do so (and better for everyone else here who has to read our same old shit), but rather continue disagreeing for the sake of it.


Nope, if you admit that it’s inappropriate, stop using it, and edit the original thread, I’ll applaud you on your introspection.

I bring up your scientific problems whenever you fall into the same traps again, eg dismissing a scientific study without any real grasp on the methodology or statistical basis. Needless to say, I don’t bring it up in ‘literally every post’. All I’d need to do is find one post in which I haven’t, and that assertion would be proven false. Let’s try...ah there we go. Two replies back.


Fair enough. I did not mean 'literally every post' literally; I should have stated 'regularly'. You are correct.
 
musicalprostitute
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

Defend yourself, I bring catastrophe

      
 
Posts: 4271
Images: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Essex and Cardiff.
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 455 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby musicalprostitute » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:41 pm

Elessar wrote:
musicalprostitute wrote:No, I am not expert at such things - and I openly admit that (and expect the same old patronising and picking posts from your superior self), but I can still give my opinion that a study as small as this still does not give a fair picture; multiple studies or a much bigger one maybe.


Oh, a bigger one might be okay?

How large do you think the sample size should be? I take it you’ve done your own power calculation and worked out the sample size necessary to reach a pre-determined threshold for stastical significance within well-defined confidence intervals?

Or have you just thought: Nah, 300 seems small, should probably have an least five faasand guv!


No. I just meant that I find it hard to accept that one can take a fair picture of a whole group of people solely based on a study this small. How many would be big enough? I confess I have no idea - but 327 men does seem incredibly miniscule for any study.
 
musicalprostitute
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

Defend yourself, I bring catastrophe

      
 
Posts: 4271
Images: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Essex and Cardiff.
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 455 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:46 pm

Elessar wrote:
action wrote:
Elessar wrote:Just imagine if women wanted revenge rather than equality!! We’d be truly fucked.

Cuz y’know, if they DID want to round us up and push us into ovens...

...all I’m saying is I’m not very good with ovens.


women are good with ovens though. don't worry, they won't push us in them. in stead, they make nice, delicious pies in them for us men to enjoy. the love of the man goes through the stomach. didn't jew know?


And then we can Goebbel them up


Image
I see you standing there. You think you so cool. Why don't you just..... fuck off!
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

I know what's right and what's wrong

      
 
Posts: 2719
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby The__KingOfRhye » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:47 pm

I don't know if I like where this conversation is Göring.
 
The__KingOfRhye
The Show Must Go On
 
User avatar

 

Would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?

      
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:33 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 255 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:48 pm

The__KingOfRhye wrote:I don't know if I like where this conversation is Göring.


:lol:
I see you standing there. You think you so cool. Why don't you just..... fuck off!
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

I know what's right and what's wrong

      
 
Posts: 2719
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:51 pm

musicalprostitute wrote:No. I just meant that I find it hard to accept that one can take a fair picture of a whole group of people solely based on a study this small. How many would be big enough? I confess I have no idea - but 327 men does seem incredibly miniscule for any study.


They’ll have picked the number intentionally based on prior calculations. Well, the number they picked was 345 but 18 were excluded for various reasons.

The sample required varies in size depending on what you’re looking at. As I said, bodybuilding and sexism are both quite common so there’ll be plenty within a 345 cohort. To look at rarer qualities, larger samples are needed.

Sometimes a much smaller sample is perfectly acceptable. You’d be happy to conclude from one man jumping off a skyscraper and dying that jumping from a skyscraper is dangerous, and that’s just a sample of one! Sometimes a much larger sample is needed, eg when looking at very rare diseases.

Sometimes having too large a sample size can amplify small differences and lead to type I errors (ie falsely rejecting the null hypothesis). A great example of this was the Brexit vote...

Sometimes very small sample sizes are all that is required...there’s a paper on this...I’ll try to dig it out...

Edit: Here it is: http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.as ... id=2199953
It actually applies more to looking for specific effects and phenomena so doesn’t particularly apply to what we’re talking about but it does expand on the idea that a sample size is chosen based on what’s being looked. And, as it says, for a population study, power calculations are done in advance to determine sample size.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby musicalprostitute » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:08 pm

Elessar wrote:
musicalprostitute wrote:No. I just meant that I find it hard to accept that one can take a fair picture of a whole group of people solely based on a study this small. How many would be big enough? I confess I have no idea - but 327 men does seem incredibly miniscule for any study.


They’ll have picked the number intentionally based on prior calculations. Well, the number they picked was 345 but 18 were excluded for various reasons.

The sample required varies in size depending on what you’re looking at. As I said, bodybuilding and sexism are both quite common so there’ll be plenty within a 345 cohort. To look at rarer qualities, larger samples are needed.

Sometimes a much smaller sample is perfectly acceptable. You’d be happy to conclude from one man jumping off a skyscraper and dying that jumping from a skyscraper is dangerous, and that’s just a sample of one! Sometimes a much larger sample is needed, eg when looking at very rare diseases.

Sometimes having too large a sample size can amplify small differences and lead to type I errors (ie falsely rejecting the null hypothesis). A great example of this was the Brexit vote...

Sometimes very small sample sizes are all that is required...there’s a paper on this...I’ll try to dig it out...

Edit: Here it is: http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.as ... id=2199953
It actually applies more to looking for specific effects and phenomena so doesn’t particularly apply to what we’re talking about but it does expand on the idea that a sample size is chosen based on what’s being looked. And, as it says, for a population study, power calculations are done in advance to determine sample size.


Cheers for finding the relevant link; I will take a gander with an open mind.
 
musicalprostitute
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

Defend yourself, I bring catastrophe

      
 
Posts: 4271
Images: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Essex and Cardiff.
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 455 times

PreviousNext

Return to Views Of The World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests