Eyes Uncoordinated, Now Hillary Cancels ANOTHER Event!!

[Arkady]

The assertion was not false and I backed it up.

No. As you'll remember, what you did was to make a false assertion about her campaign financing, and then when challenged to back it up, you acted like a little bitch and tried to hide behind a wall of material that didn't even mention campaign financing. Then when your cowering was pointed out, you devolved into a bunch of large-font bolded tantrums. Then, when I pointed out, again, what the challenge had actually been and how you hid from it, you indulged in your usual obscenity-laced whimpering. You do recall all that, right? You can't really have thought anyone in the forum would have missed how thoroughly you got pwned, could you?

 

[RickWA]

You could freeze frame any human being ever put on film and do the same thing. People look nuts when frozen in motion, often due to uncoordinated eyes or asymmetrical expressions. It's a thing.

Do those eyes look coordinated to you?

How about those?

Very, VERY dutiful offering - it's almost like you are on staff or something. Hackey McShillsalot meets Lackey VonStooge.

 

[RickWA]

No bullet too small or slow moving for you to jump in front of...adorable.

Exactly. He's dropped any semblance of basic human autonomy. There's no service he won't offer a Democrat...any Democrat.

 

[Fast Eddy]

Her eyes look like marbles rolling around. I bet she cancels the debate.

 

[Arkady]

Very, VERY dutiful offering - it's almost like you are on staff or something. Hackey McShillsalot meets Lackey VonStooge.

What do you think about the underlying issue: whether we can sensibly diagnose medical issues by freeze framing video and finding frames where a person's eyes look weird? Or do you prefer to ignore the underlying issue and just stick to personally attacking posters?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

What do you think about the underlying issue: whether we can sensibly diagnose medical issues by freeze framing video and finding frames where a person's eyes look weird? Or do you prefer to ignore the underlying issue and just stick to personally attacking posters?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Just imagine these pathetic right wing cretins who sit at their computers, staring at their screens, freeze framing videos just to create a new trope about "Hillary's eyes."

 

[Capitalist]

Just imagine these pathetic right wing cretins who sit at their computers, staring at their screens, freeze framing videos just to create a new trope about "Hillary's eyes."

I don't know what you jackasses are talking about. The top post was about a video. She's jacked up in the video. Freeze frames not necessary.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I don't know what you jackasses are talking about. The top post was about a video. She's jacked up in the video. Freeze frames not necessary.

See above. Try to pay attention to the threads.

 

[Capitalist]

See above. Try to pay attention to the threads.

Yes. I know. Freeze frames still not necessary. Video alone is telling.

Thanks for your repetition. It's ever so helpful.

Thanks for your repetition. It's ever so helpful.

 

[Arkady]

Just imagine these pathetic right wing cretins who sit at their computers, staring at their screens, freeze framing videos just to create a new trope about "Hillary's eyes."

That's what I've been wondering about lately. Are these just amateur propagandists, or a the third-stringers at places like the Heritage Foundation "paying their dues" by sitting around churning out memes for the mentally impaired?

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Just imagine these pathetic right wing cretins who sit at their computers, staring at their screens, freeze framing videos just to create a new trope about "Hillary's eyes."

What freeze framing?

Oh, you're talking about Arkady. My bad, though I wouldn't consider him a right winger.

 

[Capitalist]

That's what I've been wondering about lately. Are these just amateur propagandists, or a the third-stringers at places like the Heritage Foundation "paying their dues" by sitting around churning out memes for the mentally impaired?

I'll bet you can shit out some statistics that would shed some light on the subject.

Here's something you've never commented on:

What is your method of separating good stats from bad?

Corroboration? Verification with other stats? How do you know THOSE stats are worth corroborating against?

Government? Trust? What's your method?

 

[Arkady]

I'll bet you can shit out some statistics that would shed some light on the subject.

Sure: 98.2% of Capitalist's posts fail to offer anything of use to 100% of forum participants.

Government? Trust? What's your method?

Partly I look at the source. Is it some partisan coming up with purpose-built stats according to ad hoc (and often opaque) methods? Or is it a large and respected organization mostly staffed by technicians, carrying out long-established surveys using published methods? A nice rule of thumb is that if the statistician is an infamous insider trader hiding behind a pseudonym taken from a violent movie anarchist, that's probably a good one to be skeptical about.

 

[Capitalist]

Sure: 98.2% of Capitalist's posts fail to offer anything of use to 100% of forum participants.



Partly I look at the source. Is it some partisan coming up with purpose-built stats according to ad hoc (and often opaque) methods? Or is it a large and respected organization mostly staffed by technicians, carrying out long-established surveys using published methods? A nice rule of thumb is that if the statistician is an infamous insider trader hiding behind a pseudonym taken from a violent movie anarchist, that's probably a good one to be skeptical about.

So it's all about "trust me" not 2+2=4.

We have global warming not because the math makes sense but because the IPCC is a "large and respected organization." The economy is doing great not because it's the truth but because the government is a "large and respected organization" and says it's doing great.

As I always suspected. You don't really deal in statistics at all. You deal strictly in politics.

 

[Arkady]

So it's all about "trust me" not 2+2=4

No. It's about rationally assessing the credibility of the source.

We have global warming not because the math makes sense but because the IPCC is a "large and respected organization."

THINK!

You aren't, personally, going to set up and run a network of hundreds of thousands of temperature stations around the globe, right? So, to know whether the globe is warming or not, you're going to have to rely on someone's data. And you're not going to go door to door spot-checking their thermometers, nor will you go line-by-line checking their math. Assuming you don't want to turn this isn't a full-time job, it'll come down to the question of who do you trust. The IPCC's overall report (that temperatures are rising) is consistent with what NASA, NOAA, the Met Office, and the Japan Meteorological agencies instrument records show. It's also consistent with indirect evidence like glacier retreat and shifting growing zones. And it's consistent with what the vast majority of experts tell pollster they believe. So, what's on the other side to reject all that? You've got a handful of non-scientist bloggers, none of whom are independently collecting data, but rather are simply cherry picking the data of one of those sources to try to show that over whatever time range they insist we look out, a contrary trend could be said to exist. Which is going to seem more credible?

I realize you have no understanding of stats, so you're just left bleating your partisan political beliefs. But even without doing your homework you should be able to get a sense for where those who have done their homework are coming out.

 

[marvin martian]

So it's all about "trust me" not 2+2=4.

We have global warming not because the math makes sense but because the IPCC is a "large and respected organization." The economy is doing great not because it's the truth but because the government is a "large and respected organization" and says it's doing great.

As I always suspected. You don't really deal in statistics at all. You deal strictly in politics.

The Soviets called them "useful idiots". You'll notice @Arkady's sources are invariably .gov or state-run media. Presumably, that's a condition of his employment with Correct The Record.

 

[Arkady]

The Soviets called them "useful idiots". You'll notice @Arkady's sources are invariably .gov or state-run media. Presumably, that's a condition of his employment with Correct The Record.

No. As you know, I use a great many sources that aren't .gov and that aren't state run media. But you like to lie. We get that.

 

[marvin martian]

No. As you know, I use a great many sources that aren't .gov and that aren't state run media. But you like to lie. We get that.

Who's "we"? You and @Saladin2?

 

[Capitalist]

No. It's about rationally assessing the credibility of the source.

Yes. I know. You've made that abundantly clear. It's a lie.

It SHOULD be about the math. But it's not. It's about that fickle whore "credibility."

Congratulations on the conclusion of your math career/hobby whateverthefuck you call it. There's good money in shystering.

 

[Arkady]

Who's "we"? You and @Saladin2?

The whole forum. Your penchant for lying has to be obvious even to the right-wingers, at this point.