If your considering copy and pasting your latest drive by spam here because you cant find any other place.
DONT!
Oprano has a ZERO tolerance policy for spam. Yours WILL be deleted. If you are looking for more exposure for your product please contact advertising@oprano.com for more information.
Legacy Archived Main BoardBusiness chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here.
Originally posted by [Labret]@Dec 2 2003, 11:51 AM Guess where conservative (logic) policy kicked in?
When did the first generation of "fatherless" kids hit teen/adulthood?
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 2 2003, 11:07 AM Opranoids..what should I do?
Show Labret his mistakes and be responcible for him failing his tests to Academia who compiled wrong
or leave him as is, with no clue, and pass the test to Professor with no clue with flying colors?
decissions, decissions....
Is it possible to show Labret his mistakes?
You may show the errors but can/will Labret accept them?
__________________
Pssst Click the Button Above
I once wanted to be a Gynecologist
But I couldn't find an opening
Serge, you are still operating under the assumption that the ROI in the "Soviet Union" per 100k was more than the United States. If you have the stats, post em please.
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 2 2003, 12:07 PM Opranoids..what should I do?
Show Labret his mistakes and be responcible for him failing his tests to Academia who compiled wrong
or leave him as is, with no clue, and pass the test to Professor with no clue with flying colors?
decissions, decissions....
As the old saying goes, you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Labret has no interest in learning anything from those he considers his "inferiors" or those he considers "inferior" to those he looks up to.
I consider myself lucky to have figured out years ago that you can learn something from EVERYONE including the most educated down to the illiterate.
Originally posted by [Labret]@Dec 2 2003, 12:10 PM Why dont you just say "niggers" and get it over with?
OK, so I found a reason besides your "Conservatives have taken over" concept as to why the prison population has increased over the years and that's your response? Brilliant.
Originally posted by [Labret]@Dec 2 2003, 11:13 AM Serge, you are still operating under the assumption that the ROI in the "Soviet Union" per 100k was more than the United States. If you have the stats, post em please.
WHICH STATS????
Stas given by Stalin?
REAL Stats which are guarded more than JFK murder files?
According to Stalin's stats, NOBODY was incarcerated in the USSR...because the Paradise on Earth has no social roots for Crime...
Is there is anything wrong with my stats? they confirm your point, don't they???
Originally posted by Peaches@Dec 2 2003, 11:14 AM Labret has no interest in learning anything from those he considers his "inferiors" or those he considers "inferior" to those he looks up to.
I am affraid just the opposite! He wants to engage entire Oprano board in doing his homework!
Originally posted by Vick@Dec 2 2003, 12:13 PM We still haven't covered what can be done to improve the situation with regards to incarceration rates?
Pick me, pick me!!
I would release all those who committed victimless drug crimes (and I include those who sell drugs - I don't consider people who make a conscious decision to buy drugs as "victims") and harsher punishments for those who rape and/or kill. And yes, my harsher punishments would help alleviate the prison population problems.
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 2 2003, 08:26 AM
yeap, all true!
and if Labret was a "rebel" he trys hard portraying himself on Oprano,
he'd be poking the questions to his professor..
WHICH stats this chart is based on??????????????????
but...one has to have a REAL backbone for that
;-)))
Rebel? Me thinks you got some sick sexual fantasies about me riding in on a Harley and grunge fucking you.
I am no rebel.
This all reminds me of what Adorno said, and only further proves my point.
Quote:
"Today anyone who is incapable of talking in the prescribed fashion, that is of effortlessly reproducing the formulas, conventions and judgements of mass culture as if they were his own, is threatened in his very existence, suspected of being an idiot or an intellectual."
Both of which I am accused of, as well as a "rebel".
a friendly little observation for Labret, or anyone that wants to throw contradictory ideas around without strong facts to back them up..........
"if you stir the shit on Oprano, ya better be ready for the stink."
Originally posted by spazlabz@Dec 2 2003, 08:32 AM a friendly little observation for Labret, or anyone that wants to throw contradictory ideas around without strong facts to back them up..........
"if you stir the shit on Oprano, ya better be ready for the stink."
spaz
What contradictory ideas was I flinging around like poo?
[quote]Originally posted by [Labret]@Dec 2 2003, 09:33 AM
Quote:
God its like beating my head against a fucking wall. Listen, we are all well aware how statistics are manipulated and created, in fact, we are required to take courses in statistics and methods of social research in order to learn to how to deal with such matters. Trust me, I am sure my knowledge of means of gathering and manipulating data sets is far above average and as a result I know which statistics I can accept and which ones I should be suspect.
I will say this one more time. Checks and fucking balances. I know you probably like to think its just a bunch of yes men standing around, circle jerking each other and making shit up without a care in the world, but your accusation that "facts" are just "created" in academia is so utterly absurd that I almost want to disregard your post and not respond. Evidently nothing I have said has sunk in. Academia works in such a way that one CANNOT just make shit up.
Mr. Bellesiles's book won the 2001 Bancroft Prize, the most prestigious award in the field of American history. Anti-gun activists seized upon his work, since it supports their view that the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" does not refer to individual gun ownership but to a collective establishment of "a well-regulated militia."
Trouble is, he seems to have made up his data. Other historians found that his sources either did not exist or contained completely different evidence.
And now Emory University has taken the unusual step of investigating his research to see whether it violated a university policy against academic dishonesty. Emory commissioned a blue-ribbon panel of historians—Stanley Katz of Princeton, Hanna Gray of the University of Chicago, and Laurel Thatcher Ulrich of Harvard—to examine Mr. Bellesiles's research, and the panel's report found him guilty. Mr. Bellesiles, while still maintaining his innocence, resigned.
Mr. Bellesiles developed his claim that early Americans seldom owned guns by studying wills, probate records, and other inventories of property, then counting the numbers of guns that turned up. Thus he claims that from 1765 to 1790 on the frontiers of northern New England and western Pennsylvania the gun ownership rate was only 14 percent.
To arrive at these figures, though, the panel found that Mr. Bellesiles lumped all kinds of different information together, then manipulated it statistically. Wills seldom mention specific property, other than keepsakes, and some inventories were intended to be just of farm implements. Probate information from the estates of women, who were less likely to own guns, was added into probate information from the estates of men. Conflating all of this together and then taking percentages of the number of times guns were mentioned allowed him to understate the number of firearms.
Mr. Bellesiles also uses certain records from local militias, in which citizens came together into ad hoc military units to repel Indian attacks, fight the British in 1812, or fight each other in the Civil War. He claims militiamen came to the fight basically unarmed. He cites one muster in 1746 in which only 57 percent of the men brought a gun. The review panel found this to be a blatant misrepresentation. The original records list only one company—composed of particularly poor citizens—as being 43 percent disarmed. Of the other five companies, every man brought a rifle in two of them. The total rate of gun ownership in the militia was 80 percent.
But the problems in Mr. Bellesiles's research went beyond mushy statistics-mongering and biased and selective interpretations. Mr. Bellesiles claimed to have used probate records in San Francisco. But those records turned out to have been destroyed in the great earthquake and fire of 1906. When asked to produce his original notes, Mr. Bellesiles said that he lost them when his office was flooded, an event that his colleagues at Emory dispute. When asked about fallacious data posted on his website, he insisted that some hacker had put it there.
Labret, you are a dipshit of the first order. This shit goes on all over the place in Academia today, precisely because leftards are the one overseeing the the other leftards.
Noam Chomsky (since you brought that issue back up) detests capitalism and the West in general, yet he has no problem owning a couple of boats, 2 houses, a sports car, and SUV, and assorted other goodies provided by capitalism. I called him on his hypocrisy (after a little research), and he shut the fuck up.
So, I'm gonna put your "One just cannot make shit up" quote right there along side your new economic theory that higher costs for business is an economic stimulant in the "Idiotic shit that flows off Labret's Keyboard" pile.
Any other contributions you'd like to make to it today, or will you be too busy "learning" that "AIDs was created by the Pat Robertson to kill fags" or some such similar tripe?
So, I'm gonna put your "One just cannot make shit up" quote right there along side your new economic theory that higher costs for business is an economic stimulant in the "Idiotic shit that flows off Labret's Keyboard" pile.
Any other contributions you'd like to make to it today, or will you be too busy "learning" that "AIDs was created by the Pat Robertson to kill fags" or some such similar tripe?
What a douchebag.
Thank you for proving my point. He got caught and ousted.
I feel bad for you.
Like I said, I could make shit up all day. It will get called out.
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 2 2003, 10:30 AM and here is my FAVORITE OFFICIAL USSR STATS:
99.99% of the eligable voters voted for the members of the...Communist Party!
how do you like those, Labret?
The communists are doing something wrong then, because about 102% of the population of Iraq voted for Hussein if I remember correctly. It ain't like the old days in Mother Russia, eh Serge?
[quote]Originally posted by [Labret]@Dec 2 2003, 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buff,Dec 2 2003, 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Labret
,Dec 2 2003, 09:33 AM]
Quote:
God its like beating my head against a fucking wall. Listen, we are all well aware how statistics are manipulated and created, in fact, we are required to take courses in statistics and methods of social research in order to learn to how to deal with such matters. Trust me, I am sure my knowledge of means of gathering and manipulating data sets is far above average and as a result I know which statistics I can accept and which ones I should be suspect.
I will say this one more time. Checks and fucking balances. I know you probably like to think its just a bunch of yes men standing around, circle jerking each other and making shit up without a care in the world, but your accusation that "facts" are just "created" in academia is so utterly absurd that I almost want to disregard your post and not respond. Evidently nothing I have said has sunk in. Academia works in such a way that one CANNOT just make shit up.
Mr. Bellesiles's book won the 2001 Bancroft Prize, the most prestigious award in the field of American history. Anti-gun activists seized upon his work, since it supports their view that the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" does not refer to individual gun ownership but to a collective establishment of "a well-regulated militia."
Trouble is, he seems to have made up his data. Other historians found that his sources either did not exist or contained completely different evidence.
And now Emory University has taken the unusual step of investigating his research to see whether it violated a university policy against academic dishonesty. Emory commissioned a blue-ribbon panel of historians—Stanley Katz of Princeton, Hanna Gray of the University of Chicago, and Laurel Thatcher Ulrich of Harvard—to examine Mr. Bellesiles's research, and the panel's report found him guilty. Mr. Bellesiles, while still maintaining his innocence, resigned.
Mr. Bellesiles developed his claim that early Americans seldom owned guns by studying wills, probate records, and other inventories of property, then counting the numbers of guns that turned up. Thus he claims that from 1765 to 1790 on the frontiers of northern New England and western Pennsylvania the gun ownership rate was only 14 percent.
To arrive at these figures, though, the panel found that Mr. Bellesiles lumped all kinds of different information together, then manipulated it statistically. Wills seldom mention specific property, other than keepsakes, and some inventories were intended to be just of farm implements. Probate information from the estates of women, who were less likely to own guns, was added into probate information from the estates of men. Conflating all of this together and then taking percentages of the number of times guns were mentioned allowed him to understate the number of firearms.
Mr. Bellesiles also uses certain records from local militias, in which citizens came together into ad hoc military units to repel Indian attacks, fight the British in 1812, or fight each other in the Civil War. He claims militiamen came to the fight basically unarmed. He cites one muster in 1746 in which only 57 percent of the men brought a gun. The review panel found this to be a blatant misrepresentation. The original records list only one company—composed of particularly poor citizens—as being 43 percent disarmed. Of the other five companies, every man brought a rifle in two of them. The total rate of gun ownership in the militia was 80 percent.
But the problems in Mr. Bellesiles's research went beyond mushy statistics-mongering and biased and selective interpretations. Mr. Bellesiles claimed to have used probate records in San Francisco. But those records turned out to have been destroyed in the great earthquake and fire of 1906. When asked to produce his original notes, Mr. Bellesiles said that he lost them when his office was flooded, an event that his colleagues at Emory dispute. When asked about fallacious data posted on his website, he insisted that some hacker had put it there.
Labret, you are a dipshit of the first order. This shit goes on all over the place in Academia today, precisely because leftards are the one overseeing the the other leftards.
Noam Chomsky (since you brought that issue back up) detests capitalism and the West in general, yet he has no problem owning a couple of boats, 2 houses, a sports car, and SUV, and assorted other goodies provided by capitalism. I called him on his hypocrisy (after a little research), and he shut the fuck up.
So, I'm gonna put your "One just cannot make shit up" quote right there along side your new economic theory that higher costs for business is an economic stimulant in the "Idiotic shit that flows off Labret's Keyboard" pile.
Any other contributions you'd like to make to it today, or will you be too busy "learning" that "AIDs was created by the Pat Robertson to kill fags" or some such similar tripe?
What a douchebag.
Thank you for proving my point. He got caught and ousted.
I feel bad for you.
Like I said, I can make shit up all day. It will get called out.
Dipshit, his book was praised, won awards, and went unchecked by YOUR leftist Academics for a few years before some Libertarians busted his ass.
There was no check or balance by any Academics until some private think tanks did their own investigation.
Originally posted by Buff@Dec 2 2003, 08:40 AM
Dipshit, his book was praised, won awards, and went unchecked by YOUR leftist Academics for a few years before some Libertarians busted his ass.
There was no check or balance by any Academics until some private think tanks did their own investigation.
Shut your cocksocket, bitch.
Quote:
Other historians found that his sources either did not exist or contained completely different evidence.
Sorry to burst your bubble, those are academics.
How can a university be held accountable for the research of someone outside the University? Sounds more like his publisher should have ran it by others before they published it.
This was not a thesis subject to the checks and balances of academia.
Make sense? Regardless, other academics nailed him. Good. And now he is ruined, see how that works there Buffy?
you are correct, I should have been clearer on what exactly I meant by contradictory.
It is contradictory to common sence.
an I back it up with facts and stats? Nope, and neither can you OR your beloved professor...................THATS the point I was making
guys, c'mon, let's go easy on Labret...
he spent too much time on GFY dealing with High Scholers,
it affected his brain a bit...
should we give him a week's time to recouperate and catch up?
;-)))
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 2 2003, 08:47 AM guys, c'mon, let's go easy on Labret...
he spent too much time on GFY dealing with High Scholers,
it affected his brain a bit...
should we give him a week's time to recouperate and catch up?
;-)))
Originally posted by Buff@Dec 2 2003, 08:46 AM
So you're saying there is no check on professors publishing books, just on idiots like you writing dissertations or theses in shit like sociology?
Labret... you're an ignorant little bitch.
Uhm, last time I checked, when you publish a book, you are not made to defend it in order to get it published. When you present a degree seeking dissertation or thesis, yes, you will be made to defend it.
Anyone can be published. I bet even your retarded ass could get something published.
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 2 2003, 08:47 AM guys, c'mon, let's go easy on Labret...
he spent too much time on GFY dealing with High Scholers,
it affected his brain a bit...
should we give him a week's time to recouperate and catch up?
;-)))
12-02-2003
Brilliant.
Linear Mode
