Deuteronomy 14:18
You must not eat bats.
Discuss.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
There’s, like, no meat on a bat anyway.
This is another easy one that the ‘Biblical literalists’ can tick off that they keep holy.
In this Judeo-Christian nation of ours, as the right likes to proclaim we are, we don’t seem to be applying Deuteronomy very well…
Take care of the poor and forgive debt on a regular basis…doesn’t sound like the culture proclaimed by any Bible-thumper I know.
Moreover, 15:6 links debt-holding with power, and the corollary, indebtedness being a form of slavery, we witness in droves – it’s what makes the big banks run, owning millions and millions of people.
Huckleberry Graham has this to say, as it seems he single-handedly has concluded an interrogation of Tsarnaev, analysis of all the contents of his home, and run down all the leads and clues in the case…
THEY’RE GOING TO KILL US IN OUR BEDS!!!!!!11!!
THEY’RE GOING TO TAKE OUR WIMMINSES!!!!!!!1!
BE AFRAID, VERY VERY AFRAID!!!1!!!
Ahem.
I’ll quote cheapshotBob now..
We are surrounded by fiends, amoral, duplicitous fiends, and I don’t refer to terrorist sleeper cells.
And you “KNOW” Bible-thumpers Schmucko? Name some.
Many of us openly give to charities. Libtards want the government to give tax $$$ instead of digging into their wallets. Puddy challenged libtards on the Katrina hurricane to take some people in. Not one HA libtard stepped up to the plate.
The Salvation Army proved conservatives openly give long ago. Don’t remember the study? Ask the unemployed moron salt licker ylb for a taste of the crazed databaze.
Since God commanded the Israelites not to eat bats… you better eat up. We surely would not want you to follow God’s command eh Schmucko?
@5
MIT political scientists Michele Margolis and Michael Sances say you, and your Salvation Army, are quite wrong.
‘especially their own congregation’
Yup, conservatives are SOOOOO generous – donating to clubs they belong to, many of them dedicated to bashing other of God’s children that they don’t like or approve of.
Another piddlmyth blown out of the water…how do you say?
KABLAMMMMOOOOOO!!!!
LOL Sean Hannity
You mean like ‘Do not kill’ and ‘Love your neighbor’, those kinds of God’s commands?
How’s your side at keeping those holy, piddl?
So you believe that it is better to hand over money to untaxed corporations that use it to build luxury megachurches with reclining leather seats, state-of-the-art broadcasting studios and gold filagree on the stage, who send bibles to starving people in Africa, than it is to foster and support a system that actually feeds people and that doesn’t concern itself with who worships what?
– James Madison
Puddy asked Schmucko
Simon And Garfunkel cue the music…
The Sounds… Of Silence!
OWS Fraggy@9,
Show anywhere on this blog where we who think right have said that. You can even ask the unemployed moron salt licker ylb for a taste of the crazed databaze. It will be a cold day in Hell before the unemployed moron salt licker ylb finds something!
Wait for it… Come on the unemployed moron salt licker ylb… Prove Puddy right for OWS Fraggy!
I always assumed that part of the bible was the left over eating guide for a primitive tribe who lacked refrigeration and hi tech animal science.
When members of the tribe ate “the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.”, too often, they died. So don’t eat bats.
Same with pigs and trichinosis.
@ 12
I think the part about eating Bats may stem from the fact that they carry rabies, where the legends of demon possession and Werewolves come from. The primitives who originally started these legends were illiterate desert people, with little fresh water, and no fuel to cook their food except for burning dung.
Ummm no Schmucko… The Salvation Army proved that comparing everyday giving in Sioux City vs. San Francisco; conservatives who made less money gave a higher percentage than the rich SF libtards!
Sux to be Schmucko! He went qwiet… Maybe he’s eating some bat and scrambled eggs for breakfast!
@ 6
Lib Sci:
1. That paper isn’t peer-reviewed. It’s a working paper and it has text like ‘Figure ??’.
2. They derived their assessment of statistical insignificance in part by dropping Utah from their assessment. That would be like climate skeptics dropping 1998 from their temperature data, wouldn’t it?
3. They also dropped D.C., probably because it’s fairly populous and there isn’t much donated money coming out of it. On the contrary – the money, instead, is going into D.C. Oh, and it’s heavily Blue.
So by dropping the least helpful two regions out of 51, they reach a conclusion of statistical insignificance.
It’s a 56 page paper and I didn’t read in depth, but that’s what I took out of it. I do look forward to the peer-reviewed publication, specifically whether the referees will permit dropping data which, if included, would disprove their conclusions.
So Goldy and SJ’s ancestors are illiterate desert people?
Do tell OWS Fraggy!
What you say? Oh my… Puddy skips a lot of Schmucko’s links… It’s mostly Daily Kooks responses. He scours the ‘Nets for a quick fix response!
I am honored to have new testament Christians friends. Some of the nicest, most honest people I have ever met. They truly do live the christian life that Jesus asks. They quietly do good works for their family and the community and they give Christians a good name. They act with tolerance and love.
On the other side of the coin, I spend no time around any bible thumpers. The hypocrites who profess love Jesus and then do opposite of his teachings. They divorce. They punish the poor and the gays and minorities. They covet money. They act with intolerance and hate.
@ 6
Lib Sci, here’s a bigger flaw:
Data Description and Research Design
…
We obtained data on giving to nonprofit organizations from the Internal Revenue Service’s annual Statistics of Income (SOI) sample, an organization-level time series of donations from 1982 to 2008.21 The SOI is based on an annual, nationally representative sample of tax-exempt organizations.22 The sample does not include places of worship, as these organizations are not required to file with the IRS. We also restrict the sample to 501(c)(3) organizations, as the 501(c)(4) “social welfare” code is commonly used by advocacy groups and, more recently, electioneering organizations. Finally, we only look at organizations with less than $500,000 in assets, in order to ensure that we are measuring within-state contributions.23
So, they exclude religious organizations from their analysis, and they exclude large charities. What is the result, Lib Sci?
It means the Greenwood Food Bank donations from local Democrat citizens of Seattle are included, but the Phinney Ridge Lutheran Church Food Bank donations from local religious citizens of Seattle are not.
It also means you are arguing about Salvation Army donations by promoting an un-reviewed study by political scientists that exclude Salvation Army donations as part of their Research Design.
Heads you win, tails I lose, in other words.
If you go back far enough, everyone’s ancestors were illiterate desert/forest/plains/beach people. There is no dishonor was that.
@ 18
And then there’s that whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing……
Really? Not Puddy’s ancestors.
Wait for it…
Blast from my dorm past:
Your mother eats batshit off cave walls.
http://www.hashguam.com/index......erick-song
@ 22
Don’t do it….
Why is it s hard for Puddy to understand that he has chosen not to be a Jew? I told the Jews not to ear bats. If Puddy wants to eat bats, he can do so. If he wants to eat ham with a glass of swine milk, go to it!
So, for Puddy and others, let Me offer some truths …
1. I am not Jesus’ Dad.
I never had intercourse with Mary and Jesus was no more My son then Puddy or his buddy SJ. I am just what I am .. just God, no one’s Dad!
2. “Thou shall not kill,” means not buying assault rifles.
I did say “thou shall not kill” and anyone who buys an assault weapon is insulting My word.
3. Charity and worship of false gods, negate each other.
I did create charity, but charity given to convert others is not charity, it is the worship of false Gods.
4. Beware of those who claim to teach in My name.
Truth does not need My name as its justification. Those who say they speah for Me should be suspect. My teachers teach truth. They do not have the need to blame me for their teachings.
@ 25
Ever tried to milk a pig, God?
Kind of a cruel joke, wasn’t it, to give those filthy shits 10 teats?
Puddy …
Your ancestors were not illiterate????
Where in your bible does it say that Adam and Eve could read and write?
Oops, your bible doe snot say when writing was created!
So lets see …
The oldest writing we can find is about 5000 years old in Mesopotamia. Are you Mesopotamiian? Hittite? Or are you from some part of the world that did not have writing then?
@26 Serial conservative
Piglets milk sows.
You can figure that out.
@ 28
So, when they’re done we turn the piglets upside down for the milk?
They were, like, the first milk bottles?
You one creative dude, God.
Puddy eats similar to the old Israelites.
Wait for it…
God, can you make a pre-cured pig next time you go evolutioning? It takes too long to make bacon and that Serrano ham is SO expensive.
SJ, where in the Bible does it say they could not read? You are trying to prove a negative by a negative! Is this how all liberals think?
@ 32
You are SO wrong, Puddy.
The serpent read to them. We should be looking in snake dens for the oldest written word.
Ahhh yes Puddy forgot the serpent! Oh man…
The Torah does nto say that Adanm and Eve were illiterate, but it also doe say that they were not alone as humans in the world … unless yo think Cain committed incest (which it does not say either).
so, by your logic, when Cain had intercourse it was with humans not descended from the First Couple, maybe they could read?
As for your ancestors, for $100 you can now pay 23&me to read the word of God, your own genome. If you are actually a believer, why not get this done?
Chuck Schumer: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Should Face Death Penalty
Puddy … where do you and your religion stand on this? Would you reward Tsarnaev by killiong him? Would you release him from the torment he should fee for the rest of his life?
Schumer simply does not get it. The Tsarnaev brothers and their like minded see execution as a reward.
A life sentence … a life of humilation .. is a far worse punishment then the kindly act of death administered by injection or hanging.
It may seem illiberal of me, but I think we should consider punishements worse than death. To start with, why not amputate his legs?
If Tsarnaev is to live, make it a life in solitary. Decorate his wall with pictures of his victims, play the voices of those who survived on a 24/7 loop, assure that he has no food that does not taste of bitterness ….
@ 36
assure that he has no food that does not taste of bitterness ….
Bomber might have already assured that of himself. One of his gunshot wounds was to the head, through the throat, and appears by one account I read to have been self-inflicted.
He won’t be a pretty picture for quite awhile if that’s true.
Yeah, but that 72 virgin thingy won’t be happening now that they were both in Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Hospital.
Butt SJ, Schumer is a proponent of your religion He’s a big anti-gun nut.
By giving this scumbag life prison you are making him a live remembrance for Al Qaeda. Wait a minute… SJ may be on the right track here. Puddy would make sure he has pork to eat every day of his life.
What were you trying to say SJ
God speaks through David Ortiz:
After thanking Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick and the city’s police department, Ortiz yelled “This is our fucking city!” Ortiz added: “And nobody’s going to dictate our freedom. Stay strong.”
http://www.hollywoodreporter.c.....ers-443391
Behold the Word of God.
@15
That’s true. It’s from a presentation that the author Margolis was invited to give at the American Political Science Association annual meeting. I presume they’re competent to evaluate her and her work.
Moreover, and I suppose you didn’t read this part, or you surely would have commented, the purpose of the paper was to examine and try to reproduce finding published by Arthur Brooks of the AEI to much fanfare and that have become part of the popular lexicon – that contends that conservatives and Republicans are more generous than liberals and Democrats.
Brooks was apparently statistically sloppy and used a flawed data set (more on data below) – and these authors used both appropriate measures and a number of different data sets and were unable to reproduce Brooks’ findings – unable to reject the null hypothesis – showing that Brooks was full of shit.
Had you bothered to read the paper you’d understand the rationale for this, and that your snide assertions about their reasoning is completely malicious.
Leaving out DC from their scatter analysis asking whether charitable giving was a dependent variable on voting for Bush was because of it’s outlier behavior from the actual states that are grouped together. Utah was considered an outlier because of it’s preponderance of Mormons and the authors’ contention that enforced giving is not the same as pure charity.
From the authors…
Moreover, they did the analysis with and without both DC and Utah, and with other maneuvers to exclude potential artifacts. In fact, none of the ways they looked at the data yielded a positive (or negative) relationship between Republican voting and charitable giving. The r-squared values – the fraction of the observed behavior attributable to the model being tested – were all very small.
Puddy,
For $100, 23&Me will read your genome and send you a report that will tell you about your ancestors.
Since it should be true for you that your DNBA ISA the Word of God, it seems to me that this would be something you must do.
I also think this would interest your wife … we know that India represents a cross orads of ancestry because all BUT the Europeans migrated through Indian to become the Asians, Polynesians,and “aboriginals.”
The latter is relevant to the Adam and Eve Story because contrary to modern African American myth, most modern Africans are not descended directly from the common human root (the ‘san of South Africa) but from a Bantu population that about 20,000 years ago in West Africa. The people who migrated out of Africa, did so long before that and the closest genomes to them are likely the aboriginals. So, it is not surprising that genomes form south show the same roots.
Put another way, your DNA adds greatly to the meagre Adam and Eve story and in her case, your wife may be closer to Eve than you are!
At a guess, there is
to Puddy ctd
a good chance that you might actually LEARN something that is indisputably from God!
Isn’t it a sin to not listen to your God?
@19
Um, wrong again, cheapshot.
You describe part of their data set only, the set they used to analyze giving to small secular organizations.
The authors…
For their other analyses, they used the set Brooks did, the 2000 Social Capital Benchmark Survey. They also applied the same analyses to both the 2000 General Social Survey and the 2000 American National Election Study. Finally they used a dataset called the Personal Study of Income Dynamics.
Several of these surveys are broken down both by the politics and religiosity of the giver, and the type of organization being donated to, including differentiating local congregations and more distant religious organizations.
You say above what might be the only factually true statement you’ve made on the topic….
I did.
It grows so tiresome debunking cheapshotBob’s either misapprehensions or malicious mischaracterizations.
Again and again and again it’s the same story….stupid or lying.
Climate change the other day (what a doozy that was – he was on a tear throwing out ID’ers and YEC’ers and apples-to-oranges comparisons), political and social science today. I would love if someone on these threads could show me a time he earnestly and honestly discussed a factual topic.
The problem with the assertion that conservatives and religious fanatics “give” t charities is their definition of charity.
Sadly, in the US, “non profit” does not mean what most of us might think. E.g. Mitt Romney is major investor in “Bright Horizons.” BH is .. for tax purposes .. no profit but it can produce returns. Often these returns to investors are themselves non taxable .. as in life estate donations.
Another example is Puddy’s giving. he does give and gives a lot .. bt all or ost of that is to his religion. So Puddy gets a tax deduction for “giving” to what the rest of us may see as his social club. Why is a gift to a chruch deductible bit a gift to a yacht club (BTW also a non profit) not free of tax?
Why is a gift to some missionary organization that preaches the killing o gays (in Uganda) tax deductible but a gift to a political organization devoted to educating Americans about the evils of Rand Paul no deductible?
Does anyone really think that Harvard and the Vatican are NOT profit making?
The worst offenders, in my opinion, are the wealthy who create foundations to immortalize their own beliefs and pay their own hewirs to manage these “non profits.”
@ 45
Well, after looking a little deeper, I realize that it wasn’t 51 states/districts they looked at, but only 14. They excluded data from 2 of 14, or from 14% of the original study, to derive nonsignificance.
They also were unable to determine the exact method of determining percentage of income given by Brooks and so they substituted their own. They excluded donations by people who don’t make enough to itemize, since I don’t know otherwise how they find out from the IRS how much money was reported as donated. Do people who don’t make enough to itemize not count? Apparently they don’t in that measure.
It’s pretty hard to derive statistical significance when you’re comparing 9 red states to 3 blue states, Lib Sci. It’s even harder when you change the parameters reported by another author, substitute different methods, and then use those differences to question the first author’s conclusions.
Even when they looked at 51 states (incl. D.C.) their graphs on page 37 and page 38 show a trend for higher donations as a percent of income correlated with percent of the vote going to GWB43 in 2004. Statistically significant or not, the red line isn’t flat in either graph. The redder states give more of their income.
Let’s see that report peer-reviewed and published. Until then, all of the numbers they reported, unless they broke it down into secular vs. non-secular donations, show that Red states donate more than Blue states. Your yabbut is that it isn’t a statistically significant difference. My retort is that 1.2% of income vs. 0.9% of income means that conservatives donate 33% more as a percent of their income than do liberals (page 8, line 3). Sounds significant when couched in those terms.
It’s not surprising that a couple of liberal poly sci types from Columbia don’t see a 33% difference as ‘substantively meaningful’. To a guy in Oklahoma making $20K and dropping an Andrew Jackson into the collection plate on Sunday, there’s probably a different perspective, even if he’s unable to deduct it.
@46
Yes, indeed, sj, I agree completely.
@ 47
Two unsuccessful attempts to edit – damn Ajax. MIT, not Columbia. Strike ‘liberal’ from the first line of the last paragraph.
Bob,
Your attempts to “debunk” this paper is as amusing as it is amateurish!
“1. That paper isn’t peer-reviewed.”
No shit, Sherlock! This is called a “Working Paper” submitted to a working paper series. In many disciplines working papers are an informal, but important, part of peer review. This particular working paper also went through another part of the informal peer review process–being presented to colleagues at an academic conference. Most papers that eventually get published in the peer reviewed literature go through one or both of these processes prior to publication.
The point of making a working paper available is to solicit criticism of methods, theory, interpretation of results, data, etc. Who knows…may even a amateur like you, Bob, could identify a substantive flaw that the authors could correct prior to submission.
“It’s a working paper and it has text like ‘Figure ??’.”
The paper was likely written in a mark-up language called TeX, using the LaTeX macro package, that natively produces postscript documents, not PDF. Clearly, since every table and figure reference has ??, there was a failure in the conversion process converting the LaTeX into PDF. That almost certainly happened at SSRN.
Zero for one in substantive criticisms, Bob.
“They derived their assessment of statistical insignificance in part by dropping Utah from their assessment.”
No they didn’t. For one subset of the many different types of analyses they present, they slice things up three ways: (1) All states, (2) excluding D.C., and (3) excluding D.C. and Utah. None of the results (1, 2 or 3) were statistically significant, whether including D.C. and Utah or not.
BTW: That series of analyses is, but, one of many. In other series of analyses, using different data sets and different units of analysis, they did not drop D.C. and Utah, or individual individual observations from those two geopolitical entities.
“That would be like climate skeptics dropping 1998 from their temperature data, wouldn’t it?”
No. It would be like scientists (whether climate skeptic or not) doing analysis on the full dataset and then alternative analyses with potential outliers dropped.
“3. They also dropped D.C., probably because it’s fairly populous and there isn’t much donated money coming out of it. On the contrary – the money, instead, is going into D.C. Oh, and it’s heavily Blue.”
Again…the analysis did not change whether D.C. was included or not. Your bad.
“So by dropping the least helpful two regions out of 51, they reach a conclusion of statistical insignificance.”
Wrong, Bob. You either didn’t read or didn’t understand the analysis. Zero for two.
“It’s a 56 page paper and I didn’t read in depth, but that’s what I took out of it. I do look forward to the peer-reviewed publication, specifically whether the referees will permit dropping data which, if included, would disprove their conclusions.”
It is not really a 56 page paper, Bob. It is only 26 pages of text. You, apparently, only looked at a couple of figures, made up your own incorrect interpretation of what they did, and made an jackass of yourself.
Here’s an idea. If you want to analyze and comment on something…read the whole thing first. Your laziness in this case makes a fool out of you.
“So, they exclude religious organizations from their analysis, and they exclude large charities. What is the result, Lib Sci?”
No, Bob, they did not exclude religious organizations in general.
This paper used multiple data sets available from different sources (and with different strengths and weaknesses) to try and understand giving by partisanship from a number of different angles.
One of their series of analyses used IRS data. The IRS doesn’t collect information on contributions to some types of religious organizations.
Zero for three+!
“It also means you are arguing about Salvation Army donations by promoting an un-reviewed study by political scientists that exclude Salvation Army donations as part of their Research Design.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The only part of your statement that is slightly correct is that the paper is “unreviewed.” It is not an “unreviewed” paper. Rather, it is not published in a peer reviewed publication.
But it will be published in a peer reviewed journal. The paper is quite comprehensive, well written, and the statistical approaches well done. This paper significantly advances the prior literature (really, it leap-frogs the prior peer reviewed literature) on the topic.
In addition, it shows the severe limitations of Arthur Brooks’ much cited analysis. But it goes way beyond that in looking at things like how control of the White House affects partisan patterns of charitable giving, thus making any static analysis suspect.
You ought to read the paper carefully, Bob. And, you know…get back to us if you find any substantive flaws.
@47
You are either shameless or very very stupid.
Your post is a miasma of lies and distortions. Let’s look at a couple…
NO, emphatically. Brooks’ original definition of a red state or a blue state yielded 10 red states and three blue, plus DC. The authors used Brooks’ definition to start with, and found it lacking. They then used other definitions and data sets, trying to find what Brooks claimed – and could not verify his contentions.
Again, no – you either can’t read or are lying – you’re still batting 1.000, cheapshot. After analyses of the original 13 states + DC, they looked at all states in a variety of ways – and in some of these analyses excluded Utah and DC as outliers – and in all of these permutations could not exclude the null hypothesis.
That’s exactly their criticism of Brooks, moron. Moreover, he didn’t do statistical calculations in his NON-PEER-REVIEWED BOOK from the AEI that is bandied about as the conventional wisdom. They’ve done a VASTLY MORE ROBUST analysis than Brooks, in the hope of repeating his observations, or finding them lacking, as one does in good scientific work, bozo.
They found Brooks’ analysis and assertions completely lacking.
That’s a complete mischaracterization of what they did, for reasons above and in the prior posts. You simply cannot speak the truth, can you, cheapshot?
Oh, indeed – you are a virtuoso when it comes to making incorrect and misleading assertions sound correct and significant – it’s what you do.
Ordinary people call it lying.
The ‘liberal poly-sci types’ are from MIT. Can’t even get that right?
Look, bobby, either academic writing is not your strong suit, or you’re being willfully dishonest. If you actually have a criticism that takes more than 10 seconds to refute, and actually reflects an accurate portrayal of the manuscript, I’d love to hear it. Otherwise, I’m tired of wasting my time with you.
You’ve essentially proven that anything you write here is almost guaranteed to be wrong. I’ll leave it to our fellow community members here to choose who they believe – me or you.
@5 “Many of us openly give to charities. Libtards want the government to give tax $$$ instead of digging into their wallets.”
Get rid of government and make the poor live on the charity of the rich who, of course, will demand cheap (or free) labor in return. Oh, and the breadline is in a fundie church, and you have to submit to proselytizing or you don’t eat! That’s conservative ideology in a nutshell.
@14 “The Salvation Army proved that comparing everyday giving in Sioux City vs. San Francisco; conservatives who made less money gave a higher percentage than the rich SF libtards!”
All this proves is conservatives will do anything to get a tax deduction.
Bob @ 47,
“Well, after looking a little deeper, I realize that it wasn’t 51 states/districts they looked at, but only 14. They excluded data from 2 of 14, or from 14% of the original study, to derive nonsignificance.”
You moron, they only did that because they were trying to replicate the Brooks study. In other analyses they used all states.
Holy shit, are you an idiot!
“They also were unable to determine the exact method of determining percentage of income given by Brooks and so they substituted their own.”
Uh-huh. I address that a few lines down.
“They excluded donations by people who don’t make enough to itemize, since I don’t know otherwise how they find out from the IRS how much money was reported as donated. Do people who don’t make enough to itemize not count? Apparently they don’t in that measure.”
What the fuck are you talking about? They didn’t use any information from individual returns. They used form 990s from 501(c)(3)s.
“It’s pretty hard to derive statistical significance when you’re comparing 9 red states to 3 blue states, Lib Sci.”
Indeed! But that is really a criticism for Arthur Brooks, not Margolis and Sances.
“It’s even harder when you change the parameters reported by another author”
That is really a failure of Brooks. Good published science must be replicable by other competent researchers using the same data. Brooks, apparently, failed to describe his methods sufficiently.
“substitute different methods”
They replicated Brooks methods for one family of analyses, you idiot. Then they then went way beyond Brooks’ analysis.
“and then use those differences to question the first author’s conclusions.”
BobFail™
“Even when they looked at 51 states (incl. D.C.) their graphs on page 37 and page 38 show a trend for higher donations as a percent of income correlated with percent of the vote going to GWB43 in 2004. Statistically significant or not, the red line isn’t flat in either graph. The redder states give more of their income.”
This merely reflects your ignorance of what the concept of “statistical significance” means. Sheesh! I thought we had you straightened out on that with the election analyses.
“Let’s see that report peer-reviewed and published.”
I am quite certain you will soon have your wish.
“Until then, all of the numbers they reported, unless they broke it down into secular vs. non-secular donations, show that Red states donate more than Blue states.”
No…in fact they don’t.
“Your yabbut is that it isn’t a statistically significant difference.”
In science, we have some generally agreed-upon conventions. So…this isn’t Liberal Scientist’s personal “yabbut.”
“My retort is that 1.2% of income vs. 0.9% of income means that conservatives donate 33% more as a percent of their income than do liberals (page 8, line 3). “
I see that NUMERACY isn’t one of your strong suits, either, Bob.
“Sounds significant when couched in those terms.”
Sorry, Bob…how things “sound” to you is not a valid and accepted criterion for significance.
“It’s not surprising that a couple of liberal poly sci types from Columbia don’t see a 33% difference as ’substantively meaningful’.”
Right…because this is your own invention (both the “numbers,” and the “criterion for significance.” Additionally, I must presume that you are inventing the political affiliation of the authors (as if that matters).
“To a guy in Oklahoma making $20K and dropping an Andrew Jackson into the collection plate on Sunday, there’s probably a different perspective, even if he’s unable to deduct it.”
Thank you for that irrelevant “nugget of wisdom,” Bob.
@50
Bravo.
I stand aside in deference to your superior expertise – this is really much more up your alley than mine – though we seem to have the same assessment of cheapshot’s ‘critique’.
@15 Bob The Climate Change Denier is lecturing us about peer review?
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
@26 “those filthy shits”
Yup, we can count on Bob to swallow whole every old wives’ tale there is. Hate to tell you this, Bob, but pigs are clean animals and many people adopt them as pets. So quit slandering my piggy pals! It’s you humans who are the filthiest critters of the animal realm. Just look at your mine tailings, waste ponds, power plants, etc., and what you’ve done to the oceans and your own hives.
I LOVE that.
@57 Which leads me to this … bats shouldn’t eat humans. They’re full of mercury.
@32 How the hell could they read when language hadn’t been invented yet? (Yes, it’s a safe bet that Adam and Eve communicated with gestures and grunts.)
@33 “We should be looking in snake dens for the oldest written word.”
Republicans try to take credit for everything.
@37 “One of his gunshot wounds was to the head, through the throat ….”
Good luck trying to get him to talk …
Liberal Scientist @50,
Bravo to you, too. You actually provided a better metaanalysis. While I assumed Bob is simply “unskilled” in scientific literacy, you add the hypothesis that he might be willfully trying to mislead. It’s a tough call.
I think Roger Rabbit distills our analyses down to their essence:
@38 It’s hard to believe anyone thinks 72 virgins is paradise.
@63
Today’s exchanges make me wonder – what does he (cheapshot) get out of this, or expect to?
MD from Brown, head of radiology at a small hospital – probably isn’t a compete moron (though god knows there are some STUPID doctors).
He comes here, though, and tries to foist off authoritative-sounding criticisms on a range of technical topics and gets very publicly SPANKED. Not just disagreed with, but demolished.
I think he looks like a laughingstock at this point – the thing is, did he expect to get away with the bullshit, and then doubled-down when he should have folded? Or does he think that getting his original assertions ‘out there’ is somehow accomplishing something, despite ultimately being shown to be a pin-head?
I don’t know, but it’s a further demonstration of, when dealing with Republicans, it almost always boils down to….
Stupid, or lying?
@65 Wouldn’t you love to play poker with Bob? He’d be great fun in a poker game if he brings a lot of money with him, because he doesn’t know when to quit.
My God doesn’t speak to Puddy through a blog. He talks to Puddy directly!
Written as a true libtard!
Liberal Scientist @ 65,
There is another possibility that has crossed my mind. Bob always has the talking point du jour ready to dump into the comment threads.
Perhaps he volunteers for some organization to test their little “nuggets” to find which ones are easily demolished versus the ones that nobody knows anything about or cannot counter very strongly.
This occurred to me during the election season when Bob sometimes seemed to “lead” on some talking points that were eventually discussed nationally. And, at some point, Bob suggested he had some kind of information connection with Karl Rove. I forget the details, however.
It is, of course, quite possible that Bob was simply the recipient of a shared meme stream, but would beat the mainstream and alternative media in getting it into discussion.
I mean, you could imagine Bob hyperventilating over some new right-wing bullshit talking point that seems too good to be true, and making a mad dash to the computer to “show us.”
It doesn’t explain why he would persist in doing so after getting demolished time and time again (which is your point).
Maybe we should just ask:
Hey, Bob, is your participation in the comment threads a way of testing talking points for some organization?
If so, who and what do you get out of it?
If not, what (aside from mental illness (Hi Puddy!)) could explain your habit of repeatedly “sharing” talking points that ultimately make you look foolish?
Grunts Roger? Stupid as always…
So much for that wild ASS bomb lobbing rant.
From 3,
Liberal Scientist, I don’t think a career as a money lender is in your future.
The future of America.
Spuddypud and Sideshow Bob will be pleased.
67. Puddybud spews:
Isn’t it a sin to not listen to your God?
My God doesn’t speak to Puddy through a blog. He talks to Puddy directly!
04/21/2013 at 12:43 pm
Well ..
1.Claiming t hear directly from God is considered blasphemy by some … you?
2. I referred to your DNA .. do you question that it was written by God? If so, oughtn’t you learn to read it?
@69
Yeah, that’s an interesting notion that has crossed my mind as well.
Might Bob be earning merit badges with the Whidbey chapter of the Junior Rove Rangers? The Koch Corps? The APEC Brigades?
I’ve also notice a certain vituperative quality to some of his posts lately – none of that ‘I make you think, you make me think’ bullshit he started with – he’s gotten more of an edge to him. He seems personally offended at things…OWS, pot-smokers, the music of the Grateful Dead…I think he must have been frighted by a hippie when he was a child!
‘cmon bobby – tell us, are you working for someone?
@71
Quite correct, TYA, and proudly so.
@ Spuddy
That voice or voices you hear in your head? Thats not Jesus.
@68 “Written as a true libtard!”
I’m a Democratic party hack and liberal propagandist. Deal with it.
When I think about the possibility of an afterlife, I don’t see what’s so great about going to Heaven. If it’s full of self-righteous, pompous fundamentalist Christians, wouldn’t it be torture to have to endure those people for eternity?
But going to Hell is, well….hell! Does anyone know if there’s beer, pizza and decent cigars is Purgatory?
Apropos our discussion today of an academic paper and its use of statistics, and cheapshotBob’s misunderstanding of same, and his defense of a prior flawed book that happily supports his particular conceit, I offer these two paragraphs…
It’s from Krugman’s column of April 18, wherein he discusses the demolition of the paper that told all the conservatives/austerians what they wanted to hear.
Turns out it was ALL WRONG!
SCIENCE!
@70 Oh that’s right, the world is only 6,000 years old, and all its fauna and flora were created in a few days. So of course Adam was born with language skills, even though he had no one to talk to. Silly me.
What’s not clear to me is why Adam would need the ability to talk after Eve was created, because from then on she did all the talking and his only function was to listen, you can bet on that!
Oh, and puddles, can you tell us which language Adam and Eve spoke? I assume it was English, but if not, can you throw further light on this mystery?
@80 “she did all the talking and his only function was to listen”
That’s bunk!
@81 How do you know? Certainly not from your personal experience.
@78 If your bunkmates are self-righteous, pompous fundamentalist Christians, it means you’re in Hell.
@79 It could’ve been worse. At least they weren’t turned loose on relativity.
@ 84
Of course not, Einstein was a Jew. Adam and Eve weren’t Jewish.
@78,
Don’t have any bunk mates,rodent! Thanks for playing, though!
@84 By “they” I meant Reinhart and Rogoff.
@86 “Your” in #83 has a generic, not personal, meaning.
From 78,
I don’t think all faiths believe in Purgatory. You won’t get an answer from Jews, Muslims and a lot of Christians.
Anybody believe in Purgatory? I don’t believe in Heaven, Hell or Purgatory, but I have no clue as to what follows this life.
And where is this in the Bible SJ?
And you know this how OWS Fraggy?
Puddy does with FACTS! See #93 DUMB & Silly Wabbit!
Correct silly one.
Sux to be the DUMB & Silly Wabbit! And then from Chapter 3 DUMB & Silly Wabbit
Too bad Roger DUMB & Silly Wabbit doesn’t know or understand that dust covered table paperweight he possesses, God’s Word, The Bible!
@89 “I have no clue as to what follows this life.”
Reincarnation. You start out as the lowest form of life (i.e., Republican) and are repeatedly recycled as progressively higher forms of life (e.g., Democrat) until you attain the highest lifeform (Rabbit).
@93 See #94.
Everyone knows that Adam and Eve spoke and wrote English. Since the King James bible is in English and that was good enough for Jesus so it was good enough for Adam and Eve.
Of course people shouldn’t eat bats. Bats carry rabies.
@93 “Too bad Roger DUMB & Silly Wabbit doesn’t know or understand that dust covered table paperweight he possesses, God’s Word, The Bible!”
Actually, I print your comments and line my litter box with them.
Really? Great Job there VSC!
U R A GENIUS!
The Prosecution Rests Your Honor! No sentient life form there in #98!
Really, puddles, a bible literalist. The heck with science you say.
From 98,
Why do you have a litter box, Roger? Do you have cats? I’ve never heard of a rabbit owning cats.
@90 Puddybud spews:
1.Claiming t hear directly from God is considered blasphemy by some … you?
And where is this in the Bible SJ?
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying … he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:13-16
@100 Nobody there except us rabbits. =:D<
@102 Nope, no cats, you figure it out from there.
Do rabbits use litter boxes?
Mass Shooting Of The Day (TM)
Four victims and a shooter will killed at an apartment complex in Federal Way, Washington, last night. The shooter was killed by police, not by an Alert Citizen With A Gun (TM; patent pending).
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_new.....e-say?lite
Roger Rabbit Commentary: It never ends, does it? You crazy humans just like to shoot each other, even more than you like to shoot at rabbits and other harmless little critters. Someone should confiscate all your guns.
Weren’t we talking about eating bats?