But these were the frauds that said 600000000000000000000000000000000 ± 0.000000000002 Iraqis had been killed by W, personally, so I dunno.
REGURGE FOR Maintenant and the AFP's sophomoric image of "St Peter's".
Friday, March 27, 2009
When the Lancet smells blood
But these were the frauds that said 600000000000000000000000000000000 ± 0.000000000002 Iraqis had been killed by W, personally, so I dunno.
REGURGE FOR Maintenant and the AFP's sophomoric image of "St Peter's".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Apparently the Lancet is just as good at reading English as it is with estimation of war casualties.
"Condom science"? What's that? Figuring out which size to put on? How does Hook's law apply? Help me.
Yeah, I liked condomology too.
A Trojan horse in sheep's clothing?
"the traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids".
That's bullshit - there are a few other options, all just as realistic:
staying at home and forgoing all human contact
amputation of the genitals
masturbating a dozen times a day - what ? can't do that either ? Bummer.
Whether the Pope's error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear
Right - the lancet is totally wrong: it is perfectly clear that this is manipulating science to support dogma.
Then the Harvard guy (who's as much a scientist as Harvard can tolerate) is "manipulating" Condomology too?
Maybe there's also a harvard guy that thinks the moon is made of swiss cheese.
It's going to take a lot more than one lonely researcher to convince anyone that condoms aren't an efficient way to protect oneself.
I see Le Pew once again has proven his reading wit is as sharp as the dull end of a Lancet. Do PPers ever bother to actually understand something before letting flow the Piss of the Bleus?
AA, I don't think Pepe is dumb at all. What is happening here as far as I can tell is a mix of fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt (we've all had that as scientists) and a physicist's lack of appreciation for the complications in dealing with sociological questions.
Throw in an overriding distrust of priesters and you've got his point of view, exactly.
That we (you and I) are willing to give credence to the Harvard liar when we agree with him (saying it's all too complicated to make sense so deterministically as Pepe would like) shows that we've got a fere libenter homines id quod non volunt non credunt.
Still, Truth is on our side, because when a Harvard liar goes against his liar colleagues, most of the time he's right.
That's the beauty of statistical thinking.
as soon as they don't have one on hand, that "if only I had one" yields quickly to "ah, what the hell"
exactly - all the more reason to make sure they don't run out. But if you want to make the argument that a procedure that saves individual lives is detrimental to the whole, go ahead but so far I don't buy it a minute.
aa's back ? how refreshing.
Pepe, you'll never keep enough rubbers on hand over there. Here we have stores packed with them and do-gooder little sluts handing them out everywhere and still the AIDS rate in DC is extremely high. It's not the technology, it's people that are stupid. OK, some people.
As to my saying you're not dumb, well, in these PC times, I prefer to think of you as being differently endowed.
we like to be referred to as cerebrally tested
but anally unbeatable
Neurally networking challenged? Cartesian logically impaired? There must be a PC construct somewhere to describe this condition.
The Synapsinistras?
Post a Comment