Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
omg omg omg 156 omg omg omg 156
View Poll Results: What's better than 2 potatoes?
yes
3 8.57%
no
4 11.43%
Thanks Obama
16 45.71%
I'm not answering that!
12 34.29%

02-20-2016 , 09:37 PM
I didnt recognize you peli. Nice disguise.
02-20-2016 , 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelicanpoker
My girlfriend got mad at me cos i was talking to a girl i work with and get along with really well. Doesn't matter, still had sex.


Jealousy sex, she must have put the effort
02-20-2016 , 09:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wisski
So the hole in my wall is still there and the guy who built the house didn't put a sill pan or any flashing below the old door, so the subfloor was rotten... But there's subfloor between the plate of the upper wall and the floor joist, is problem. But I'm going to ignore it
Did you tack up a tarp at least? You're gonna coyotes!
02-20-2016 , 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelicanpoker
My girlfriend got mad at me cos i was talking to a girl i work with and get along with really well. Doesn't matter, still had sex.
Curse your whorish ways!
02-20-2016 , 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMurder3
I would have gone with hearsay or assumes facts not in evidence.
If it don't fit, you musta quit
02-20-2016 , 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LonelyBox
I didnt recognize you peli. Nice disguise.
Im not sure what nationality the cat is but probably not asian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJ46671
Ouch.
That stings.
A lot.
(hug)

Us not srs's need to stick together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonelyBox
Jealousy sex, she must have put the effort
Top 5 oat fer sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJ46671
Curse your whorish ways!
Not sure if srs

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJ46671
If it don't fit, you musta quit
Find a loophole then submit
02-20-2016 , 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJ46671
Ouch.
That stings.
A lot.
Lies!
You'd be upset with yourself if you did more than idle trolling in omg..
And we both know it!
02-20-2016 , 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristy
-it started with us disagreeing about my response that the blurb isn't even ready for a debate of "correlation does not equal causation" because there are so many ways to simply attack the correlation.
That is where I think you're wrong.

-Your brocolli analogy isn't as good as mine, because the blurb is titled,
"The Simple Way Fathers Can Increase Their Offspring’s IQ And Career Prospects"
And sets a point of success at child's age 42.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristy
Also, Greg's new info showed that the authors already saw some pretty significant limitations BEFORE we find out if they accounted for a genetic component of IQ, education levels, whether time spent by single fathers in addition to, or in lieu of routine family support yielded similar "Peen-owner only" results etc...

Or you know, if as an example, something different like Dad spending one of those hours doing something like laundry so Mom could spend the hour with the kid might provide even greater increases in IQ and success.
None of this is what correlation means. That's where we disagree. Which is what I thought, but you said that wasn't it.
02-20-2016 , 10:26 PM
You're trolling now right?
02-20-2016 , 10:27 PM
We already wrapped up the Great Correlation Debate.

Cliffs: the article didn't provide a value for time spent, so you lost.
02-20-2016 , 10:28 PM
Seriously, I drew you pictures and everything
02-20-2016 , 10:34 PM
I hope you're trolling? I mean they were nice pictures, but they also have nothing to do with correlation, what I thought the study was measuring, or what the study actually measured.

& the study provided categories of relative involvement.

Taking an article on a study & pretending it is the entire study is also silly.
02-20-2016 , 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristy
Lies!
You'd be upset with yourself if you did more than idle trolling in omg..
And we both know it!
I've been known to put a bit of effort into my trolling. I was so much younger then.
02-20-2016 , 11:07 PM
But who is trolling the trolls?
02-20-2016 , 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMurder3
I hope you're trolling? I mean they were nice pictures, but they also have nothing to do with correlation, what I thought the study was measuring, or what the study actually measured.

& the study provided categories of relative involvement.

Taking an article on a study & pretending it is the entire study is also silly.
1. I took YOUR definition of positive correlation, and condescending graph explanation, and obliterated your point.

2. And the new info is not what I was discussing yesterday on some psychic premonition that we'd find out more today...I was commenting on how infuriating the wording is as a mother and woman.

3. Lastly, you and your slow pony are very welcome aboard the blurb/synopsis bus. I think you'll find that I said that first, and then re-iterated it at least a half dozen times since yesterday.
02-20-2016 , 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMurder3
X axis: hours a father spends with his kid in a week

Y axis: kid's IQ

If the average graph moves up & to the right, there's a correlation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristy
You contend that a positive correlation exists. It doesnt, imho...





Seriously, how awkward are your peak kid's prom, school experience, bathroom breaks?

The correlation, stated out right and definitively--as it was in the synopsis--does not exist.
.
02-20-2016 , 11:18 PM
No...you goalpost shifted & have made it clear you're trying to "win" an argument & complain more about a survey I never supported rather than engage in a good faith discussion of any actual difference of opinion, which is what I mistakenly thought we were doing.

I won't be engaging in this sort of discussion with you anymore. It's a waste of time & I thought you had less intellectually dishonest motives.
02-20-2016 , 11:20 PM
Yes? I made a quick comment to try to figure out why we were disagreeing without spelling out the exact parameters. Kool?
02-20-2016 , 11:32 PM
I had 5 hot dogs at .50$ each
02-20-2016 , 11:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LonelyBox
I had 5 hot dogs at .50$ each
The amount of money you spent on hot dogs was both correlated with & caused by the # of hot dogs purchased.

We're they delicious? I'm hungry.
02-21-2016 , 12:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMurder3
The amount of money you spent on hot dogs was both correlated with & caused by the # of hot dogs purchased.

We're they delicious? I'm hungry.
Nice use of words for such a meaningless sentence. You sure are a lawyer.

They were very good, but it's such an inconsistant meal. In other words, I'm steal hungry.
02-21-2016 , 12:21 AM
I had 3 corn dogs for dinner. The menu was in gibberish i didnt know what the **** language i was looking at. Corn dogs was the only thing i knew.

Turns out i should have ordered a hoagie. I should have asked someone what i was looking at but i was surrounded by hipsters.
02-21-2016 , 12:24 AM
You should have just got a hero
02-21-2016 , 12:30 AM
I didnt see a hero on the menu. I don't even know what a hero is.

That must mean... omg... gregorio, you're a hipster :/
02-21-2016 , 12:46 AM
A hero is like a sub

      
m