Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: on weapons and rape deterrence . . . on Kennedy and Smith the Seattle attorneys

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162

    on weapons and rape deterrence . . . on Kennedy and Smith the Seattle attorneys

    I was reading today on the use of weapons as a deterrent against certain crimes.

    In case you folks did not know, there was a Dept of Justice study done several years ago about women on college campuses and their perception of and experience of rape, sexual assault of other types and other more miscellaneous and less serious or merely perceived sexual crimes.

    The community of Seattle's capitol hill has been complaining about what they regard as high and increasing violent crime rates against the community. Some of the high and increasing crime has been rape against women and some of it has been foolish and at times vicious assault against those of an actual or perceived different sexual orientation.

    Anyway, as for the city of Seattle and its anti-knife laws, the city of Seattle is acting immorally, I believe, in depriving some women (and for that matter, men) of a reasonable method of self-defense that would be chosen by some people who do not choose the expense and training of carrying a firearm or the liability of possible misuse of that firearm.

    The survey done by the US Government has on page 19 of its summary the question of "protective actions." In slightly more than 1/2 of rapes and attempted rapes does the victim use physical force to stop or deter the attack. You can see the graph on page 22 of the report. Note that the USgov report does not report the success rates of the use of the variety of various weapons against an attacker. Physical force is used to somewhat stop rapes in about half of completed rapes and the rapes still occur, though admittedly they are less in frequency if the victim does not resist with force.

    gunowners.org has an article by a fellow who discusses several of the studies as well as university policies in the area near where he lives.

    Apparently, per several studies, woman who "resists" an attempted rape by brandishing a firearm has a 99% or better chance that there will be no rape and what seems to be a zero.zero% reported chance of injury to herself.
    However, there are persons such as myself or various women who are not going to carry a firearm unless they have had so much bad results--including rape and/or robbery first--to them to establish the need and even the ones who carry do not carry it everywhere.

    A woman who resists without a weapon has, reportedly, about a 31% chance of the rape being completed and of 40% chance of injury to herself, injury that is in addition to the rape itself or the sexual contact as part of an attempted rape.

    The fellow notes,

    To make matters worse, the University appears to go to some length to make sure that female students are not informed that a firearm affords them their greatest protection against rape. I looked through the informational brochures published and distributed by the University's Program Against Sexual Violence, and there was no mention of the option of protecting oneself with a weapon. Even the handout on self-defense classes listed only facilities teaching hand-to-hand fighting skills -- [and] no firearms instructors.

    The fellow who wrote the piece is apparently a physician, a profession known for care, caution and saving lives.
    He gives his name and contact information Robert J. Woolley is a staff physician at Boynton Health Service. He welcomes comments at wooll005@tc.umn.edu. The article is found at Guns Effective Defense Against Rape | Womens Voice

    Guns Effective Defense Against Rape | Womens Voice


    In August of 2015, I was at Denny Blaine Park and I was threatened by a fellow who seemed to have every intention of throwing my camera into the lake or engaging in violence with me about it. He began his conversation with me by saying, "Your camera or your card." I had on my belt an empty holster which I think he had not noticed at first. I believe that the empty holster, in his case, was enough for him and his friend to back off and then allege that they were calling the Seattle police, who in fact never showed up, despite his claim they would be there in 3 minutes.

    Having had the experience of being assaulted several times and threatened a number of times, and having reported some of those assaults and threats to SPD, it should be noted that none of the officers who took the reports or followed up encouraged me in possession or use of weapons as a self-defense measure.

    Where I am from, we pray for people who do wrong or what is irritating. As for attorneys Kennedy and Smith, I can understand somewhat your doing what you consider to be your job . . . but because I regard the conduct of the city and your actions in defending the conduct of the city in depriving people of reasonable methods of self-defense, I pray that God show you folks the right way!

    I don't know enough to know if God would show up in response to my praying, but I would naturally be better off with you two on my side rather than opposing me.

    I believe it is likely that there are women who would carry a knife but who do not carry a firearm and/or have not chosen to engage in months of hand-to-hand self-defensive combat training.

    By prohibiting and discouraging reasonable knife-carrying for self-defense, I suspect that the city of Seattle has the blood of at least a few rape victims on its hands.

    Defending or promoting the choice and conduct of the city of Seattle in this matter is a poor choice, I believe.

    God show you the right way and may others be praying for you and any who defend the conduct of the city of Seattle in prohibiting knife carrying for self-defense!

    z

    z
    Last edited by zaitz; 03-25-2016 at 05:28 PM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Morals have little to do with your natural rights .... accept the tyranny or not...your choice.

  3. #3
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    yet again z...not one bloody cite in your rambling epistle about the studies several years ago...sigh

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    yet again z...not one bloody cite in your rambling epistle about the studies several years ago...sigh

    ipse
    would you remind me, which studies are those?

    thanks!

    z

  5. #5
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    yet again z...not one bloody cite in your rambling epistle about the studies several years ago...sigh

    ipse
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    would you remind me, which studies are those?

    thanks!

    z
    The ones you mention, allude to, and ramble about without providing a cite to.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    I was reading today on the use of weapons as a deterrent against certain crimes.

    In case you folks did not know, there was a Dept of Justice study done several years ago about women on college campuses and their perception of and experience of rape, sexual assault of other types and other more miscellaneous and less serious or merely perceived sexual crimes.
    SNIP...

    The survey done by the US Government has on page 19 of its summary the question of "protective actions." In slightly more than 1/2 of rapes and attempted rapes does the victim use physical force to stop or deter the attack. You can see the graph on page 22 of the report. Note that the USgov report does not report the success rates of the use of the variety of various weapons against an attacker. Physical force is used to somewhat stop rapes in about half of completed rapes and the rapes still occur, though admittedly they are less in frequency if the victim does not resist with force.

    gunowners.org has an article by a fellow who discusses several of the studies as well as university policies in the area near where he lives.

    Apparently, per several studies, woman who "resists" an attempted rape by brandishing a firearm has a 99% or better chance that there will be no rape and what seems to be a zero.zero% reported chance of injury to herself. SNIP...
    Not posting the link to your "photography" page this time?


    Add.:
    To those unfamiliar with "zaitz" and feeling like solus's and my post are unprovoked: He has a tendency to avoid posting cites to back up what he discusses, likes to trail off on tangents, and may or may not be on here to troll while trying to get more visitors to his "photography" website.
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 03-25-2016 at 11:09 PM. Reason: Addendum
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    The ones you mention, allude to, and ramble about without providing a cite to.



    Not posting the link to your "photography" page this time?


    Add.:
    To those unfamiliar with "zaitz" and feeling like solus's and my post are unprovoked: He has a tendency to avoid posting cites to back up what he discusses, likes to trail off on tangents, and may or may not be on here to troll while trying to get more visitors to his "photography" website.
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

    This is a fairly significant and well-known study. If you wish or wished in the past to have an intelligent conversation about the topic, it would have behooved you to have been familiar with it, since everyone who wishes to discuss the topic intelligently would know it . . . and anyone can easily find it on the net by searching for it with a few keys words.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    A yr 2000 study from Janet Reno ? I don't think I am willing to spend the time reading that one.

    Other may...so thanks for the link to the pdf.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    --snipped-- . . . and anyone can easily find it on the net by searching for it with a few keys words.
    It is incumbent on the one providing the information to include a valid cite. No one appreciates a game of hide and seek to substantiate information.

    Our Forum Rules even address that.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-26-2016 at 08:07 AM. Reason: fixed it
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    You mean that the anti-gun idiot lied again? I thought that a rape-whistle would prevent rapes. I know the other thing that the anti-reason group would say, "if you would just consent you would not be raped."



    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    You mean that the anti-gun idiot lied again? I thought that a rape-whistle would prevent rapes. I know the other thing that the anti-reason group would say, "if you would just consent you would not be raped."



    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    on what topic are you suggesting that I have been lying, if I may ask?

    thanks!

    Also, in case you did not notice, part of what I refer to in my op is

    "The article is found at Guns Effective Defense Against Rape | Womens Voice

    Guns Effective Defense Against Rape | Womens Voice"

    and that article/essay may be found at https://www.gunowners.org/wv26.htm

    Is there something lying or false about my reference to that article or in some of the information found in that article?

    God show you the right way!
    Last edited by zaitz; 03-26-2016 at 11:22 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    on what topic are you suggesting that I have been lying, if I may ask?

    thanks!

    Also, in case you did not notice, part of what I refer to in my op is

    "The article is found at Guns Effective Defense Against Rape | Womens Voice

    Guns Effective Defense Against Rape | Womens Voice"

    and that article/essay may be found at https://www.gunowners.org/wv26.htm

    Is there something lying or false about my reference to that article or in some of the information found in that article?

    God show you the right way!
    I never once implied that you had lied.... reread the post. I was pointing out that the anti-gun groups have been lying or are just too stupid to be breathing.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    ok, while your referenced study was published in 2000 (not several years ago) it used 1996 data from 4.5K 'random' telephone interviews. barely viable research methodology since the validity is questionable as the interviewee can't assess body language or clarify any type of language terminology. (report acknowledges the validity issue ~ quote: Of course, many other methodological issues in addition to the use of behaviorally specific screen questions and survey context will have to be addressed in the quest to design surveys capable of achieving more accurate estimates of rape and other forms of sexual victimization. unquote)

    the report is self serving and was published, but IMHO appears extremely biased to prove a point on the reality of females ARE being victimized, quote
    conclusion
    The sexual victimization of college students has emerged as a controversial issue, pitting feminist scholars who claim that the sexual victimization of women is a serious problem against conservative commentators who claim that such victimization is rare and mostly a fictitious creation of ideologically tainted research. unquote.

    thanks for the cite, begrudgingly given as it was, however, once again your frame of reference using the study, as mentioned in your initial post, does not match your rambling post or any type of point you felt needed making.

    ipse

    added: the term 'weapon' was used twice; the term 'gun' was used once; the term 'knife' was used once; and the term 'firearm' wasn't used at all.
    Last edited by solus; 03-26-2016 at 01:03 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  13. #13
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Had to turn in, didn't see this til now.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

    This is a fairly significant and well-known study. If you wish or wished in the past to have an intelligent conversation about the topic, it would have behooved you to have been familiar with it, since everyone who wishes to discuss the topic intelligently would know it . . . and anyone can easily find it on the net by searching for it with a few keys words.
    Whether or not I am familiar with it is irrelevant. This forum is dedicated to thorough discussion based on facts and credible cites (a formality the antis do not seem to care to engage in). In case you missed it, here is rule #5 (which you may have skimmed over too quickly when reading the rules prior to joining):
    "(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc."

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    It is incumbent on the one providing the information to include a valid cite. No one appreciates a game of hide and seek to substantiate information.

    Our Forum Rules even address that.
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    SNIP...thanks for the cite, begrudgingly given as it was, however, once again your frame of reference using the study, as mentioned in your initial post, does not match your rambling post or any type of point you felt needed making.
    SNIP...
    Thank you both, especially for wording it better than I could.
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 03-26-2016 at 03:22 PM.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    Had to turn in, didn't see this til now.



    Whether or not I am familiar with it is irrelevant. This forum is dedicated to thorough discussion based on facts and credible cites (a formality the antis do not seem to care to engage in). In case you missed it, here is rule #5 (which you may have skimmed over too quickly when reading the rules prior to joining):
    "(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc."

    Thank you both, especially for wording it better than I could.
    I am not sure if you folks have read your own rule, but the rule is specifically referring to "rule[s] of law" and moreover, the context makes it clear that this is the meaning and intent of the rule #5.

    I am not opposed to being more specific in providing a link to sources . . . but it is a bit poor of you folks to take one rule that twice refers specifically to law and rules of law and apply a rule about quoting a rule of law when you are complaining or irritated that I summarized academic research--academic research that everyone who knows the topic in question would know.

    I could be wrong, but unless I am mistaken, most of you never violate the nonexistent rule you accuse me of violating, and the reason is that most of you folks rarely or never cite academic research. Of course, maybe I am wrong and it is simply that I have not bothered to read several dozen posts by any one of you in particular . . .

    but sure, if you don't cite any academic research you (or most of you) would also manage to not break the non-existent rule . . . and many of your posts are empty posts or posts of complaint, rather than bringing us useful news and information.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Rule 5 is not a mandatory rule to cite an authority.

    Of course not doing so does not add credence to the point trying to be made.

    Still one's point may be correct even without a cite (or even to a wrong cite); I'm sure all can agree with this statement.

  16. #16
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Z, sorry, but put your hand down and wipe the shocked look off your face... as this is not the first time you have been asked to provide cites to your sometimes rambling and incoherent postings about odd tangents....

    every time you are asked...

    next...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  17. #17
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Rule 5 is not a mandatory rule to cite an authority.

    Of course not doing so does not add credence to the point trying to be made.

    Still one's point may be correct even without a cite (or even to a wrong cite); I'm sure all can agree with this statement.
    i agree but any semblance of relevance, e.g., Dept of Justice study done several years ago, which does not present any semblance of relevance, especially when it is discovered the study is 16 years olde and the data is from 1996.

    just saying...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    I am not sure if you folks have read your own rule, but the rule is specifically referring to "rule[s] of law" and moreover, the context makes it clear that this is the meaning and intent of the rule #5.

    I am not opposed to being more specific in providing a link to sources . . . but it is a bit poor of you folks to take one rule that twice refers specifically to law and rules of law and apply a rule about quoting a rule of law when you are complaining or irritated that I summarized academic research--academic research that everyone who knows the topic in question would know.

    I could be wrong, but unless I am mistaken, most of you never violate the nonexistent rule you accuse me of violating, and the reason is that most of you folks rarely or never cite academic research. Of course, maybe I am wrong and it is simply that I have not bothered to read several dozen posts by any one of you in particular . . .

    but sure, if you don't cite any academic research you (or most of you) would also manage to not break the non-existent rule . . . and many of your posts are empty posts or posts of complaint, rather than bringing us useful news and information.
    Perfectly aware of the literal/specific intent of rule #5.

    Also aware that interjecting something that is either not common knowledge or is contrary to accepted understanding requires more than a vague reference to be given serious consideration. That is generally where someone steps up and requests a cite. Failure to provide such reflects negatively on one's credibility.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I never once implied that you had lied.... reread the post. I was pointing out that the anti-gun groups have been lying or are just too stupid to be breathing.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    What anti-gun idiot in particular did you mean, if I may ask, if any?

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Perfectly aware of the literal/specific intent of rule #5.

    Also aware that interjecting something that is either not common knowledge or is contrary to accepted understanding requires more than a vague reference to be given serious consideration. That is generally where someone steps up and requests a cite. Failure to provide such reflects negatively on one's credibility.
    It might reflect negatively on my credibility, for less than a day, until when, asked for the URL location (or other location) of well-known gov-funded and gov-published academic research, I presented the link to it. Sure, the research may conceivably be flawed in some ways and I think it is and you folks think it is.

    I paraphrased a relatively noncontroversial statement from it, and I also went on to discuss other research where I did in fact provide the link/source.

    Then, afterwards, we kind of know that the one single statement which I excerpt from it was in fact what it says, if anyone has bothered to check.

    "You mean that the anti-gun idiot lied again?"

    You folks are quite quick to ask me to provide the URL of a well-known study . . . and the statement passes by . . .

    "You mean that the anti-gun idiot lied again?"

    Which "anti-gun idiot" would that be and what new lie, if any, did he tell, and how does that alleged lie relate to the opening post?

    In the context, a person might easily take "anti-gun idiot" to refer to me or to a source I was quoting or paraphrasing.

    I wrote that a little over half of completed rapes include resistance with force, if I recall, at least as reported by the gov done research survey as summarized in the report. Does anyone here wish to suggest that the number is sharply different from 55%? Are you simply suggesting, one or more of you, that is, that because the survey was done by telephone and/or because it was a survey, that the % might be somewhat different from 55%?

    Does anyone have an alternative and superior estimate? Or, are most of you merely professional or amateur agnostics who delight in believing that research simply should not be believed?

  21. #21
    Regular Member Geerolla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    WA, USA
    Posts
    118
    You really think a random phone survey from almost 20 years ago is reliable research and applicable to a present day discussion?


    Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    What anti-gun idiot in particular did you mean, if I may ask, if any?
    Which ones have been telling the truth?
    http://momsdemandaction.org/

    Bloomberg.
    http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/21/bl...to-start-fight

    So, which anti-gun group is honest and intelligent?

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/05/ye...g-gun-control/
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 03-27-2016 at 05:54 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Geerolla View Post
    You really think a random phone survey from almost 20 years ago is reliable research and applicable to a present day discussion?
    What a wonderfully acute observation! Is evidence and knowledge stale dated, must it be current and refreshed to be valid?

    Apropos my current reading, The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal by James Franklin

    For those uncomfortable with statistics, the Before Pascal in the title refers to the fact that Pascal first conceived of enumerating likelihoods, of statistics.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Geerolla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    WA, USA
    Posts
    118
    Right, how silly of me. Let me go find a mail-in survey from the 1950s and use it to confirm my bias. I'll be right back...


    Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

  25. #25
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    nightmare, if after pursuing your tome you have been pushing for the last several weeks, you are not acutely aware telephonically gathered data is not scientifically valid...then you might wish to pursue another more viable one.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •