I resemble that remark. We caregivers have to clean the toilet, then get sanitized so we can cook a tasty & nutritious meal, while getting punched in the face. Call it job security.
I resemble that remark. We caregivers have to clean the toilet, then get sanitized so we can cook a tasty & nutritious meal, while getting punched in the face. Call it job security.
Trollminator wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Sally was graduated (past passive - like you would ever know what that means) Beta Gamma Sigma with a 3.99 GPA from a top 40 university in the WORLD. And exactly how did you do in school? Oh, you went to Plumber's school? I am sure your parents appreciate how you can put tubing together and unclog a commode. They must be very proud of you. During Christmas when Uncle Fatty comes to visit you can clean up the mess he makes in the bathroom. Well done!
Wow, pretty triggered I see. As has been said before, anyone who feels the need to announce their GPA on an anonymous chat, specially when not asked, is suffering from some serious insecurity issues. Look we are already convinced you have a panda-level IQ, you've ensured that through your most intelligent posts.
To know about sally's 3.99:
-- an undergraduate GPA.
-- Top 40 is based on the graduate school not undergraduate.
-- Beta Gamma Sigma is only for business majors.
So, a BA degree with a high GPA at a school that is not top 40 for undergraduate.
Bebaeos Gnosis Spoude
Bebaeos Gnosis Spoude wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Wow, pretty triggered I see. As has been said before, anyone who feels the need to announce their GPA on an anonymous chat, specially when not asked, is suffering from some serious insecurity issues. Look we are already convinced you have a panda-level IQ, you've ensured that through your most intelligent posts.
To know about sally's 3.99:
-- an undergraduate GPA.
-- Top 40 is based on the graduate school not undergraduate.
-- Beta Gamma Sigma is only for business majors.
So, a BA degree with a high GPA at a school that is not top 40 for undergraduate.
Bebaeos Gnosis Spoude
I think all accurate. I think based on research universities.
Sally Vix wrote:
I think all accurate. I think based on research universities.
Please explain the research you were involved with as an undergraduate business major.
Bebaeos Gnosis Spoude wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
I think all accurate. I think based on research universities.
Please explain the research you were involved with as an undergraduate business major.
LOL . . . . hint for Sally: undergraduates are not involved in research work (graduate level).
Sally Vix wrote:
You guys discussing consensus in science are way-off base. Please read this. I posted previously.
What is the role of consensus in science? The answer is simple: It has no role whatsoever. ‘Consensus’ is neither part of the scientific method nor a goal in science. It is a tool used by non-scientists searching for trends in the thinking among scientists. When used as a tool for understanding, it can be harmless. But when it's used to manufacture a false climate of authority, it can be very harmful indeed.
The myth that science seeks to achieve a consensus has been debunked many times. But activists continually revive it. One article at Ars Technica, a computer news site that sometimes talks about global warming, is typical. They point out that we have agreed-upon criteria for determining statistical significance. Once a finding has accumulated enough supporting evidence, they claim, it is considered ‘settled,’ and need not be re-investigated.
This is not true. No scientist uses the phrase ‘settled science’ to support their conclusions. If they did, their papers would be ignored and they'd be laughed off the podium. Consensus implies cognitive closure, which is sternly resisted in science.
Yes, we use standards and conventions, just like ordinary mortal humans. When we write in English, we use the same rules of syntax. We use the same type of mathematics, the same counting system, and the same definition of the gram. In a given country, we all agree to drive on the same side of the road. One might reasonably call this a consensus. But it would be sloppy reasoning—a form of equivocation—to imply that any of this is the method by which science builds knowledge. Either the activists are unfamiliar with how science works, or they are making a basic error of logic, or they are being disingenuous.
Consensus is a social phenomenon, not a part of science. Scientists are human, and they're susceptible to human weakness, and the urge to conform is one of them. When they succumb to it, science suffers.
One example is the question of whether HIV is the causal agent of AIDS. As a practical matter, if introducing a virus into a patient causes the disease and eliminating the virus cures it, that is good enough for most scientists to consider the subject no longer worth studying. Science tries to solve problems, and if the problem goes away, scientists turn to something else that is more pressing and interesting.
A better example is stomach ulcers. Most scientists considered ulcers to be uninteresting. They thought, as many people did, that they were caused by stress. That idea turned out to be incorrect, and the two people who discovered it received a well-deserved Nobel prize.
But this most emphatically does not mean that consensus played any role, either before the discovery or afterward. Even if the opinions of physicians and scientists had been measured, and some universally agreed threshold, say 50% + 1, or maybe 95%, of their opinions had been reached, it still would have no bearing on whether the stress theory was true. If consensus was a meaningful criterion, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall would not have investigated the bacteria hypothesis, and they might never have discovered the true cause.
It literally pains me to agree with you but this is correct.
Now, as far as practical matter for the general public, agreeing with this "scientific consensus" is usually smart because, well, what else do they have to go on?
agip wrote:
Oh pleeze oh pleeze
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bolton-willing-to-defy-white-house-and-testify-if-court-clears-the-way-according-to-people-familiar-with-his-views/2019/11/07/dd72d73c-00aa-11ea-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_bolton-10am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans
Not sure how much he can really add at this point. Seems like the key players have already testified except for Giuliani
If Bolton testifies, it would be a high profile Trump appointee testifying.
That would be a pretty big deal, certainly couldn't be labeled a Democrat or a Never-Trumper.
And it would be bigger than any name who has spoken on the record.
All of the names of the people who have testified, the public mostly learned because of this inquiry.
Bolton was the hand picked National Security Advisor who quit over disputes with Trump, who replaced the other guy who quit over disputes with Trump (McMaster) who replaced the temporary guy (Kellogg) who was in for the guy who was fired for lying to the FBI and is still awaiting sentencing (Michael Flynn).
I’m not sure a degree or high GPA or whatever is the sole criterion. Knew a lawyer who liked “The Fugitive.”
I said, “Yeah, it’s based on the Sam Shepard case {blank stare}...F. Lee Bailey {blank stare}...right of the accused to a trial free of excessive publicity {blank stare}...”, and so on...
Sally Vix wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Sally, you are always making accusations about Biden and Hunter, but here is an opinion from someone with direct knowledge of the situation:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-backed-allegations-biden-credible-testified-us-official/story%3fid=66807238I'm sure Trump was told the same thing, whether he believed what he wanted to believe or just wanted an annoucement of an investigation is not yet known.
I will certainly read that. Thanks.
BS. You will not read it. You never read anything. If for some reason you decide to read it out of spite, you will not be able to understand it because you are a moron. You are the biggest moron I have ever heard of.
Sally Vix wrote:
Unfortunate wrote:
When Sally was asked about Trump giving his a form his brother works for a $33M contract Sally's comments (made 1-2 days ago) was limited to something on the lines of: "that is worrisome." And that was the end of her "concern."
I don't have the means or the inclination to launch a full-blown investigation into this. You guys want to ignore the extortion of Joe Biden so why should I care about this? I actually do care more about this than you guys and gals do about Biden and Ukraine. But I have other things to do.
I called it! Of course you won't investigate this. You won't read it as I said you wouldn't. You are lazy. You are a dumb*ss. You pull your opinion out of thin air. You don't care more about this than others here because you won't even spend the time to investigate. I suggest that perhaps you have some sort of ADHD. You are still a dumb*ss regardless, but you might be a dumb*ss who also has ADHD. You go do those other things and don't bother us with your dumb*ss ignorant opinions.
Evidence against Roger Stone is damning. Dude is gonna be on ice for life, or for what he calls a life...
Racket wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
You guys discussing consensus in science are way-off base. Please read this. I posted previously.
What is the role of consensus in science? The answer is simple: It has no role whatsoever. ‘Consensus’ is neither part of the scientific method nor a goal in science. It is a tool used by non-scientists searching for trends in the thinking among scientists. When used as a tool for understanding, it can be harmless. But when it's used to manufacture a false climate of authority, it can be very harmful indeed.
The myth that science seeks to achieve a consensus has been debunked many times. But activists continually revive it. One article at Ars Technica, a computer news site that sometimes talks about global warming, is typical. They point out that we have agreed-upon criteria for determining statistical significance. Once a finding has accumulated enough supporting evidence, they claim, it is considered ‘settled,’ and need not be re-investigated.
This is not true. No scientist uses the phrase ‘settled science’ to support their conclusions. If they did, their papers would be ignored and they'd be laughed off the podium. Consensus implies cognitive closure, which is sternly resisted in science.
Yes, we use standards and conventions, just like ordinary mortal humans. When we write in English, we use the same rules of syntax. We use the same type of mathematics, the same counting system, and the same definition of the gram. In a given country, we all agree to drive on the same side of the road. One might reasonably call this a consensus. But it would be sloppy reasoning—a form of equivocation—to imply that any of this is the method by which science builds knowledge. Either the activists are unfamiliar with how science works, or they are making a basic error of logic, or they are being disingenuous.
Consensus is a social phenomenon, not a part of science. Scientists are human, and they're susceptible to human weakness, and the urge to conform is one of them. When they succumb to it, science suffers.
One example is the question of whether HIV is the causal agent of AIDS. As a practical matter, if introducing a virus into a patient causes the disease and eliminating the virus cures it, that is good enough for most scientists to consider the subject no longer worth studying. Science tries to solve problems, and if the problem goes away, scientists turn to something else that is more pressing and interesting.
A better example is stomach ulcers. Most scientists considered ulcers to be uninteresting. They thought, as many people did, that they were caused by stress. That idea turned out to be incorrect, and the two people who discovered it received a well-deserved Nobel prize.
But this most emphatically does not mean that consensus played any role, either before the discovery or afterward. Even if the opinions of physicians and scientists had been measured, and some universally agreed threshold, say 50% + 1, or maybe 95%, of their opinions had been reached, it still would have no bearing on whether the stress theory was true. If consensus was a meaningful criterion, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall would not have investigated the bacteria hypothesis, and they might never have discovered the true cause.
It literally pains me to agree with you but this is correct.
Now, as far as practical matter for the general public, agreeing with this "scientific consensus" is usually smart because, well, what else do they have to go on?
You think these straw man arguments are correct?
Sally doesn't even tell us where she got this tripe.
Fat hurts wrote:
Racket wrote:
It literally pains me to agree with you but this is correct.
Now, as far as practical matter for the general public, agreeing with this "scientific consensus" is usually smart because, well, what else do they have to go on?
You think these straw man arguments are correct?
Sally doesn't even tell us where she got this tripe.
Straw man arguments? Lol, sit back down. And I say this as someone who is actually a published scientist.
I mean, mathematician, but same thing pretty much
Sally Vix wrote:
Sally was graduated (past passive - like you would ever know what that means) Beta Gamma Sigma with a 3.99 GPA from a top 40 university in the WORLD. And exactly how did you do in school? Oh, you went to Plumber's school? I am sure your parents appreciate how you can put tubing together and unclog a commode. They must be very proud of you. During Christmas when Uncle Fatty comes to visit you can clean up the mess he makes in the bathroom. Well done!
Oh my Dear Lord! I am so embarrassed for you right now that I am blushing. Please stop. Please go away. Beta Gamma Sigma? Are you even freakin' kidding me? That is the business school equivalent of the National Society of High School Scholars. A complete scam targeting people who have no real accolades who would like to pay for one. You were duped because of your ego into paying a fee, currently $75, to "join" Beta Gamma Sigma. What a scam. You think this is prestigious? What a foolish person you are.
Wow you are so dumb.
agip wrote:
how the heck can anyone support trump? Here is yet another example of how he is a tax cheat. You want a lifetime tax cheat to be your president?
For sh/t's sake wake up, trumpbros.
Wake up lib! They are all tax cheats! Look at what the Clintons did with their foundation, look at Soros! They cheat bigly all the time but trump is doing great things for this country everyday so he's different, and you are just another unamerican deep state sheep. Leave this great country if you can't handle all the winning! :)
Sally paid $75 to be called a beta?