By the power vested in me, I declare the winner to be.....Hiroad (with some latitude as it appears our boy was having a meeting with Mr. Al K. Hol)
The check's in the mail.
Muscatine
A little bit about a lot of things
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Yep, well he was gone longer than I predicted (a little over 3 1/2 days rather than 2 days). However, I'm humblified and grateful and humiliated, etc. I shall donate my entire purse of winnings to.........The Little Sisters of Liberty project:
http://www.americanprofile.com/article/3455.html
Do you think the one we have in front of city hall is one of these, or is it known that it dates from a much earlier period? |
|
|
Now Mallory, take a few days and try to read this. If you have trouble with the big words, let us know.
I'm working on it. No problem yet with the big words but I'd like some help on the equations. Like tell me what the terms mean and where the values come from. You can do the first two or so if you like just to get me started.
First, any paper that uses Joe Lieberman as the third or fourth most liberal member of Congress and considers the ACLU conservative and the Wall Street Journal the most liberal of the news sources they used must be suspect. It's safe to say they selected their samples from Congress, the think tanks and the media to skew the results to agree with their preconceived ideas. I think they moved the center position from 50% to about the 20% area so nearly everything they analyzed had to be higher than that and thus "liberal". There is plenty of evidence that they were doing some skewing and it wasn't to disprove what they want you to believe. Some quotes that suggest it. ...adjusted scores... ...sometimes included... Instead our method estimates the score ...we omited instances... ...we omited cases... ...omit the ACLU data... Our results exclude RANDII ...we recorded adjusted scores... ...we selected an observation we estimated... ...we estimate the centrist U. S. voter... ...excluded observations... We arbitrarily chose... We assume gwe is distributed... We define cm to be the estimated adjustment... We assume that the utility he or she receives... We assume that the utility it receives... We assume that eyj is distributed... ...is a somewhat arbitrary choice... ...if the latter is one's criteria...
And I repeat, the equations make no sense. Prove me wrong if you can.
YOU are being MISLEAD. |
|
|
Or maybe even "misled".
Priceless. |
- Popular Topics
- Homeowner
- Crime
- Politics
- Board Meetings
- Children
- Environment
- Lost Pets
- Advertise Here!
-
Promote Your Business or Product for $10/mo
For just $10/mo you can promote your business or product directly to nearby residents. Buy 12 months and save 50%!
