Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi

08-12-2015 , 04:00 PM
But it doesn't matter because Exponent is the scientific sultan.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by heh
Because no pats fan in this thread has cautioned that today's questioning was largely meaningless and more geared towards a potential settlement than anything else. You never disappoint.
you know, I think it might be 60% this was posturing for a settlement. but I wouldn't discount completely that Berman showed legit leanings for how he might rule. The NFLPA appeal did include large arguments that it was a faulty case b/c the evidence was weak, that "general awareness" was a made up thing, that the investigation was promised to be independent but was not, etc - and these were things the Judge grilled Pash on. I think it's surprising to a lot of folks b/c it was assumed that this would be a CBA ruling but the appeal was not *just* CBA technical complaints
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenewsavman
Meanwhile in the International Journal of Epidemiology in a study entitled Geographical differences in cancer incidence in the Amazon basin of Ecuador in relation to residence near oil fields



Epidemiology is the science that studies the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease conditions in defined populations.

And we have Exponent:

"Compatible with" doesn't mean proven. And indeed, the study you quote recommends further study of the issue.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneel B4 Zod
you know, I think it might be 60% this was posturing for a settlement. but I wouldn't discount completely that Berman showed legit leanings for how he might rule. The NFLPA appeal did include large arguments that it was a faulty case b/c the evidence was weak, that "general awareness" was a made up thing, that the investigation was promised to be independent but was not, etc - and these were things the Judge grilled Pash on. I think it's surprising to a lot of folks b/c it was assumed that this would be a CBA ruling but the appeal was not *just* CBA technical complaints
I don't think it's unreasonable to guess at Berman's leanings at all. I just rejected the notion that no Pats fan had thought this was somewhat meaningless and we're still to get to the meat of it later.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
"Compatible with" doesn't mean proven. And indeed, the study you quote recommends further study of the issue.
Thank god they realized they had used separate gauges to measure the cancer rates and willing to do more testing.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
Stolen from a Pats homer forum....

Awesome
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
The question "does second hand smoke cause cancer" is an active topic of scientific research. And of course it hasn't ever been proven scientifically that oil spills have caused an increase in cancer. Such a study would be extraordinarily difficult to carry out.


See those teeny tiny little numbers....note there is a lot of them.

That's science.

And back in Ecuador:

Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenewsavman


See those teeny tiny little numbers....note there is a lot of them.

That's science.

And back in Ecuador:




Your science is broken bro
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
"Compatible with" doesn't mean proven. And indeed, the study you quote recommends further study of the issue.
lol
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:23 PM
Man quests only for knowledge and Exponent only serves mankind.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
Your science is broken bro
look again; careful though, you might learn something!
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:27 PM
So that's a single study. There has been research shown that up to 85% of scientific studies are wrong. Of course chevron commissions another study! The cited study is hardly conclusive.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
So that's a single study. There has been research shown that up to 85% of scientific studies are wrong. Of course chevron commissions another study! The cited study is hardly conclusive.
And of course they would choose Exponent for this and there would be no conflicts of interest when Exponent's largest shareholder is on Chevron's board.

It's one thing to be a warhawk, and another having a monetary interest in the results of a particular study. Neocon definitely worse.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:37 PM
Yeah, for as lunatic and devastating as neocon policy is, I'm pretty sure the Patriots did not pay AEI to commission a study of the Wells report.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by heh
And of course they would choose Exponent for this and there would be no conflicts of interest when Exponent's largest shareholder is on Chevron's board.



It's one thing to be a warhawk, and another having a monetary interest in the results of a particular study. Neocon definitely worse.

When preparing a study for the legal defense of a firm, is there a requirement that there not be this sort of conflict? It seems fine. If exponent prepares a biased garbage study it can get shredded in court, right?
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
When preparing a study for the legal defense of a firm, is there a requirement that there not be this sort of conflict? It seems fine. If exponent prepares a biased garbage study it can get shredded in court, right?
Unless SenorKeeed is the judge, sure.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:40 PM
To quote the WaPo article about the study again:

Quote:
When the AEI analysts looked more closely at how such a mistake could have been made, what they found “astonished” them, says the report’s co-author Stan Veuger. The Wells report “relies on an unorthodox statistical procedure at odds with the methodology the report describes.” Translation: The Wells report said it would use one equation but then used a different (and weird) equation to arrive at its numbers.

“It was really clumsy,” Veuger says. “It’s the kind of mistake you’d see in freshman statistics class.”

Another phrase possibly applies to all of this:

Falsifying results.
Not sure how someone's foreign policy positions bear on whether or not the Wells Report used a different formula to arrive at its results than it claimed to.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nath
Yeah, for as lunatic and devastating as neocon policy is, I'm pretty sure the Patriots did not pay AEI to commission a study of the Wells report.

What exactly is wrong with a defendant hiring a firm to prepare a scientific report for its defense? Is science only allowed to be used by plaintiffs?
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nath
Yeah, for as lunatic and devastating as neocon policy is, I'm pretty sure the Patriots did not pay AEI to commission a study of the Wells report.
Yeah, I doubt they did.

It's amusing to see how far SenorKeed will stretch and wiggle to make his arguments, even when they're so obviously set to double standards depending on who is being discussed.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
What exactly is wrong with a defendant hiring a firm to prepare a scientific report for its defense? Is science only allowed to be used by plaintiffs?
There's nothing wrong with defendants doing this.

There's something wrong with idiots like you refusing to glance at contradictory evidence because you something something cheaters.

I mean, you're defending Exponent because other people criticized them, without even bothering to look at the criticism.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nath
To quote the WaPo article about the study again:



Not sure how someone's foreign policy positions bear on whether or not the Wells Report used a different formula to arrive at its results than it claimed to.

Some sources simply are not reputable. The AEI is one such source. Also this subject is so far outside of the authors are of expertise that there is no reason to listen to them at all. They are political economists. What does political economy have to do with physics?
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
Some sources simply are not reputable. The AEI is one such source. Also this subject is so far outside of the authors are of expertise that there is no reason to listen to them at all. They are political economists. What does political economy have to do with physics?
But Exponent that you have defended are truly reliable. This is why everyone thinks you're a joke and not in a Mitch Hedberg good way.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by heh
There's nothing wrong with defendants doing this.

There's something wrong with idiots like you refusing to glance at contradictory evidence because you something something cheaters.

I mean, you're defending Exponent because other people criticized them, without even bothering to look at the criticism.

Show me some criticism of the pats exponent report by someone with relevant credentials who is reputable and unbiased and I will gladly read it.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
Show me some criticism of the pats exponent report by someone with relevant credentials who is reputable and unbiased and I will gladly read it.
And this is why you're a joke. Exponent are repeatedly bought for their opinion, but they are somehow unbiased in your world and every counterclaim "requires more studies" or some such bs.
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote
08-12-2015 , 04:50 PM
Of course they are hired for their opinion! They aren't running a charity ffs!
Patriots Cheating Containment Thread:  This episode - Ballghazi Quote

      
m