Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(04-07-2025, 10:15 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-07-2025, 09:34 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Is nearly 9 equal to 9?  No.
Is more than 9 equal to 9?  No.

Stating otherwise is incorrect.  Knowing this and using the incorrect data in the manner that you did makes it a lie.  Now you’re trying to justify the lie.  Does that make you unethical as well?

You answered a question I didn't ask.
The original text was "nearly 90%" Right?
Would you call any percentage that is less than 85 or greater than 89 "nearly 90%"?

Copycat can't answer right now, he's in the concussion protocol, and I must say, it's his own fault.  I warned him that debating you with logic and reason was like running into a wall, but he just wouldn't listen.  Maybe next time he'll remember to put on a helmet first.

Anyway, in the spirit of keeping the conversation going, I'll say that 89.7% could fairly be described as nearly 90%.

(04-07-2025, 02:40 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-07-2025, 10:15 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You answered a question I didn't ask.
The original text was "nearly 90%" Right?
Would you call any percentage that is less than 85 or greater than 89 "nearly 90%"?

Copycat can't answer right now, he's in the concussion protocol, and I must say, it's his own fault.  I warned him that debating you with logic and reason was like running into a wall, but he just wouldn't listen.  Maybe next time he'll remember to put on a helmet first.

Anyway, in the spirit of keeping the conversation going, I'll say that 89.7% could fairly be described as nearly 90%.

OK let's say then that the number meant by "nearly 90%" is 85.0% to 89.7%.
Say he has 100 patients. Say he is ethical and doesn't discuss politics unless they volunteer the info without prompting.  For him to confidently say that "nearly 90%" of his patients are liberal, what is the minimum number of patients who would have to volunteer that information?

(04-07-2025, 03:23 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-07-2025, 02:40 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Copycat can't answer right now, he's in the concussion protocol, and I must say, it's his own fault.  I warned him that debating you with logic and reason was like running into a wall, but he just wouldn't listen.  Maybe next time he'll remember to put on a helmet first.

Anyway, in the spirit of keeping the conversation going, I'll say that 89.7% could fairly be described as nearly 90%.

OK let's say then that the number meant by "nearly 90%" is 85.0% to 89.7%.
Say he has 100 patients. Say he is ethical and doesn't discuss politics unless they volunteer the info without prompting.  For him to confidently say that "nearly 90%" of his patients are liberal, what is the minimum number of patients who would have to volunteer that information?

Lol, suuuuuure you can.

(04-07-2025, 09:10 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-07-2025, 08:08 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Did you just admit that you were wrong about something????  My work here is done.

You're still simping for a guy who tried to get his sailors sent to the brig in his place.

You do know it was just a movie, right?

(04-07-2025, 09:10 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-07-2025, 08:08 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Did you just admit that you were wrong about something????  My work here is done.

You're still simping for a guy who tried to get his sailors sent to the brig in his place.

How did you gather it was sailors? It was Marines.

Today's a bad day to be a terrorist
Supreme Court grants Trump request to lift stay halting Venezuelan deportations.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme...portations

(04-07-2025, 09:13 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-07-2025, 09:10 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You're still simping for a guy who tried to get his sailors sent to the brig in his place.

How did you gather it was sailors? It was Marines.

Well I know it's called Guantanamo Bay naval Base, not Guantanamo Bay Marine base. I missed the part where they were Marines. I apologize, I know there's a difference. Not sure if Marines who do bad things go to a brig or if it has some other name, point remains, Jack Nicholson character bad, Jack Nicholson character try to make men serving under him take punishment he deserved.

New bombshell study reveals 'assassination culture' spreading on the left under President Trump

A disturbing new report reveals that violent political rhetoric online, including calls for the murder of public figures like President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, is being increasingly normalized, particularly on the left...

(04-07-2025, 10:15 AM)Cmikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-07-2025, 09:34 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Is nearly 9 equal to 9?  No.
Is more than 9 equal to 9?  No.

Stating otherwise is incorrect.  Knowing this and using the incorrect data in the manner that you did makes it a lie.  Now you’re trying to justify the lie.  Does that make you unethical as well?

You answered a question I didn't ask.
The original text was "nearly 90%" Right?
Would you call any percentage that is less than 85 or greater than 89 "nearly 90%"?

Let’s cut to the chase instead of you taking 5 post to trying to convince everyone that since 89% is nearly 90% then 91% is too.          
Clearly in this case and most cases the intent is, was and will always be “less than 90%”.  Just admit it, you exaggerated to make a point and what started as a tongue in cheek play on words on my end has gone on way too long.

(04-08-2025, 07:32 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]New bombshell study reveals 'assassination culture' spreading on the left under President Trump

A disturbing new report reveals that violent political rhetoric online, including calls for the murder of public figures like President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, is being increasingly normalized, particularly on the left...

Yup.. Seeing it everywhere.. Nothing but cowards.. At this point, I'd keep all the illegals and deport all libtards.. Them, their families and their [BLEEP] pets.

(04-08-2025, 08:25 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-08-2025, 07:32 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]New bombshell study reveals 'assassination culture' spreading on the left under President Trump

A disturbing new report reveals that violent political rhetoric online, including calls for the murder of public figures like President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, is being increasingly normalized, particularly on the left...

Yup.. Seeing it everywhere.. Nothing but cowards.. At this point, I'd keep all the illegals and deport all libtards.. Them, their families and their [BLEEP] pets.

Dang!  What did Fluffy do to you?

(04-08-2025, 09:14 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-08-2025, 08:25 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Yup.. Seeing it everywhere.. Nothing but cowards.. At this point, I'd keep all the illegals and deport all libtards.. Them, their families and their [BLEEP] pets.

Dang!  What did Fluffy do to you?

It's more about what Libtard did to Fluffy. He's permanently scarred and we can't rehab him from that.

(04-08-2025, 08:05 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-07-2025, 10:15 AM)Cmikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You answered a question I didn't ask.
The original text was "nearly 90%" Right?
Would you call any percentage that is less than 85 or greater than 89 "nearly 90%"?

Let’s cut to the chase instead of you taking 5 post to trying to convince everyone that since 89% is nearly 90% then 91% is too.          
Clearly in this case and most cases the intent is, was and will always be “less than 90%”.  Just admit it, you exaggerated to make a point and what started as a tongue in cheek play on words on my end has gone on way too long.

I wasn't going to say that.
No one disputed that it would be unethical for him to ask. Therefore any statistics he has would be self selected and self reported, and you can never extrapolate that kind of data.  If only 9 out of 100 patients offered their political opinion, then all he could say is 9% or nearly 10% of his patients are liberal, even if every single one who offered their opinion was liberal.
There are two important things we don't quite know, but we can work through the scenarios.
1) Is the true number (a) 85%, or (b) 89%?
2) Was every single patient who self-reported (a) liberal, or (b) was some number of them non-liberal?
You can take these two unknowns and draw up four possible scenarios.
In the 2b scenarios, depending on the number of non-liberals who self report, you easily get to needing more than 90% total to report. In 1a2b, if 90 patients report, but six of them are not liberal, then all the doctor can ethically say is "over 80%" of his patients are liberal, not "nearly 90%".  If he has six non liberal patients who voluntarily discuss politics with him, he would need a total of 91 out of 100 patients to report before he could claim that his patients are "nearly 90% liberal".  In 1b2b, the numbers are worse, he would need 95 out of 100 to voluntarily report.

(04-08-2025, 10:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-08-2025, 08:05 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Let’s cut to the chase instead of you taking 5 post to trying to convince everyone that since 89% is nearly 90% then 91% is too.          
Clearly in this case and most cases the intent is, was and will always be “less than 90%”.  Just admit it, you exaggerated to make a point and what started as a tongue in cheek play on words on my end has gone on way too long.

I wasn't going to say that.
No one disputed that it would be unethical for him to ask. Therefore any statistics he has would be self selected and self reported, and you can never extrapolate that kind of data.  If only 9 out of 100 patients offered their political opinion, then all he could say is 9% or nearly 10% of his patients are liberal, even if every single one who offered their opinion was liberal.
There are two important things we don't quite know, but we can work through the scenarios.
1) Is the true number (a) 85%, or (b) 89%?
2) Was every single patient who self-reported (a) liberal, or (b) was some number of them non-liberal?
You can take these two unknowns and draw up four possible scenarios.
In the 2b scenarios, depending on the number of non-liberals who self report, you easily get to needing more than 90% total to report. In 1a2b, if 90 patients report, but six of them are not liberal, then all the doctor can ethically say is "over 80%" of his patients are liberal, not "nearly 90%".  If he has six non liberal patients who voluntarily discuss politics with him, he would need a total of 91 out of 100 patients to report before he could claim that his patients are "nearly 90% liberal".  In 1b2b, the numbers are worse, he would need 95 out of 100 to voluntarily report.

That leaves the 2a scenarios. In these scenarios, less than 90% of his patients self-report, but every single one of these is liberal. That would be a remarkable result. Describing this result as simply "nearly 90% of my patients are liberal" would not be doing justice to the actual situation, it would be a bit deceptive. A less deceptive way to describe that situation would be "every single time one of my patients brings up politics, they are liberal, and about 90% of my patients are bringing up politics." If it truly was an "every single time" phenomenon, he would have led with that.

(04-08-2025, 09:22 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-08-2025, 09:14 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Dang!  What did Fluffy do to you?

It's more about what Libtard did to Fluffy. He's permanently scarred and we can't rehab him from that.

All it would take is replacing that chicken shaped tofu with some red meat and Fluffy would be rehabbed.

(04-08-2025, 08:05 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-07-2025, 10:15 AM)Cmikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You answered a question I didn't ask.
The original text was "nearly 90%" Right?
Would you call any percentage that is less than 85 or greater than 89 "nearly 90%"?

Let’s cut to the chase instead of you taking 5 post to trying to convince everyone that since 89% is nearly 90% then 91% is too.          
Clearly in this case and most cases the intent is, was and will always be “less than 90%”.  Just admit it, you exaggerated to make a point and what started as a tongue in cheek play on words on my end has gone on way too long.

If he does that, there's nowhere to go except back to his original claim, which he can't back up with any actual evidence.

Gun Control Darling David Hogg Watches His Group Fade Fast

The gun-control group announced it would cut ties with 13 of its 16 full-time staffers last week.

March for Our Lives, the gun control organization founded in the wake of the 2018 Parkland shooting, is facing significant financial challenges, leading to the layoffs of 13 out of its 16 full-time employees.

The decision, made last week, marks a major setback for the group, which was once one of the most prominent voices in the gun control movement.

In a statement to The 19th, Jaclyn Corin, a 24-year-old Parkland survivor and co-founder of March for Our Lives, expressed the tough realities the organization is facing.

https://www.lifezette.com/2025/04/gun-co...-fade-fast

(04-08-2025, 03:47 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Gun Control Darling David Hogg Watches His Group Fade Fast

The gun-control group announced it would cut ties with 13 of its 16 full-time staffers last week.

March for Our Lives, the gun control organization founded in the wake of the 2018 Parkland shooting, is facing significant financial challenges, leading to the layoffs of 13 out of its 16 full-time employees.

The decision, made last week, marks a major setback for the group, which was once one of the most prominent voices in the gun control movement.

In a statement to The 19th, Jaclyn Corin, a 24-year-old Parkland survivor and co-founder of March for Our Lives, expressed the tough realities the organization is facing.

https://www.lifezette.com/2025/04/gun-co...-fade-fast

Your going to see more and more of this as the money out of Washington dries up.

Funny thing is one of the only bills Biden sponsered created the "gun-free" or "Safe zones" this type of mass shooting capitalize on.

Same tactic used in Butler PA last year. Create a soft target then turn a nut case loose.