ThxOne
Premium Member
Staff Member
No they relay information of events that have happened. Would a news paper be more to your liking or AN editorial on CNN?
- Status
ThxOne
"99.4% is not a whole number" is your most recent fuax pas.
When the news article said "more than 99%" had been vaccinated, you immediately jumped on the Democrat "lie" because "How can you vaccinate PART of a person?" as if the news report was all about a SINGLE person and not a group fo thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions.
You didn't understand that simple concept.
An average of 2.3 kids is really quite easy if you are dealing with even only 10 households. If those 10 have 23 kids between them, then you get an average of 2.3 per house. Yet, NONE of the houses have a partial child.
Wizardry? Satanism? Impossible? Probably in YOUR mind. But really, just simple mathematics.
Last edited:
I'd prefer an investigation with factual data presented.
Anyone with a phone can make YouTube videos about any subject they want. The gullible will take them as fact because "it was on the YouTube; it must be real!", ESPECIALLY if it supports their feelings or desired narrative.
Did you know there's a giant statue of a face on Mars?!?!?!
ThxOne
Premium Member
Staff Member
FOX News... just "anyone with a phone"? See, this is what I mentioned. If the corruption is of your side, this is what YOU do.
ThxOne
Premium Member
Staff Member
99.4% is NOT a whole number until you add other variables.
It is a question, how can you vaccinate part of a person? Your brain won't let you respond correctly which is to say "you can't". That's all I wanted to hear. I know 99% of blah blah blah thousand is possible. You don't know what I understand or don't understand so you have no place to make such a claim.
Here you go again.... with your variables. 2.3 Kids IF. Pretty sure it would be an average of 2.3 kids from the sample, not 2/3... what is that? 2 thirds? I know, you meant to say 2.3 per house.
Now to one of my old points to which you wanted to put in your sig. Is it EASIER to use the %, the fraction, the average for finding these numbers of kids or would it be easier to count the actual children to get the exact number?
Fair enough. Fox news declared Pelosi is guilty of insider trading.
Are you able to share a link to a video or a printed page where they made this claim?
Even a date range and I'll look it up myself.
Ahhhh, HERE is the proof. THIS guy is mad at Pelosi!
This seems more like a question than a declaration:
ThxOne
Premium Member
Staff Member
You make my diick hurt.
Does Nancy Pelosi have direct knowledge and influence on bills?
Does her husband trade stocks?
Did her husband buy shares in Nvidia ahead of the CHIP Bill?
Do you not see the conflict of interest?
Do you think there is nothing to see here, Nancy and her Husband are 100% Ethical and within the law?
I made this statement, please quote me correctly and accurately:
"Nancy Pelosi is 100% using her position to gain knowledge for stock trades. Corruption pointed out."
Did I not say that this would turn into a 10 page argument if the corruption was aimed at your side? Is this magic, sorcery, witchcraft????
99.4% is a factor or function, not really a number at all. Neither is "half" or "50%" when you are not applying them to a variable.
You got so excited that you were pointing out a big lie that you didn't stop to understand what the article was even trying to convey. The fact that you would even ASK "how can you vaccinate part of a person?" in the discussion of the article shows you totally missed the bigger concept.
You didn't comprehend it.
Yes, 2.3 per house. The "/" key is right next to the "." key, and I hit it by mistake.
"Here i go with my variables"? Do you mean "mathematics"? Then yes. here I go again doing simple "nefarious" math that you cannot seem to comprehend.
WOW. Do you not know that you NEED the actual total number of kids to figure out the average? You also need the actual total of households that exist where those kids live? Do you not know how the total can be more useful for some instances, but the average more useful for others?
Being dead serious: averages are probably 2nd or 3rd grade material. Did you not go, or just not understand how it all works?
ThxOne
Premium Member
Staff Member
99.4% is a factor or function, not really a number at all. Neither is "half" or "50%" when you are not applying them to a variable.
You got so excited that you were pointing out a big lie that you didn't stop to understand what the article was even trying to convey. The fact that you would even ASK "how can you vaccinate part of a person?" in the discussion of the article shows you totally missed the bigger concept.
You didn't comprehend it.
I comprehended it just fine. When I made the original statement it was in jest. However you and I am pretty sure Bobby, take EVERYTHING literal so at that point I wanted proof of how you vaccinate part of a person. The comprehension was lacking in your liberal minds. It's fine though. It helped both of you to think you won something.
Yes, 2.3 per house. The "/" key is right next to the "." key, and I hit it by mistake.
"Here i go with my variables"? Do you mean "mathematics"? Then yes. here I go again doing simple "nefarious" math that you cannot seem to comprehend.
Which is why I didn't give you too much shit for the /
WOW. Do you not know that you NEED the actual total number of kids to figure out the average? You also need the actual total of households that exist where those kids live? Do you not know how the total can be more useful for some instances, but the average more useful for others?
Being dead serious: averages are probably 2nd or 3rd grade material. Did you not go, or just not understand how it all works?
Holy cow. Ok... so take your small sample of 10 families... let's make it 100. Use your same math. You use it to get an average and in this case it's 2.3 kids per home. Now for the other variable. The number of homes is actually 5,000. Instead of counting the children in all 5,000 homes you can simply slide over your average. There you have it, 2.3 kids per 5,000 homes. Lazy math. Nefarious because the cuunt doing the numbers is on salary and went home early by using this math but still got paid for the whole day. Lazy and Nefarious.
You got so excited that you were pointing out a big lie that you didn't stop to understand what the article was even trying to convey. The fact that you would even ASK "how can you vaccinate part of a person?" in the discussion of the article shows you totally missed the bigger concept.
You didn't comprehend it.
I comprehended it just fine. When I made the original statement it was in jest. However you and I am pretty sure Bobby, take EVERYTHING literal so at that point I wanted proof of how you vaccinate part of a person. The comprehension was lacking in your liberal minds. It's fine though. It helped both of you to think you won something.
Yes, 2.3 per house. The "/" key is right next to the "." key, and I hit it by mistake.
"Here i go with my variables"? Do you mean "mathematics"? Then yes. here I go again doing simple "nefarious" math that you cannot seem to comprehend.
Which is why I didn't give you too much shit for the /
WOW. Do you not know that you NEED the actual total number of kids to figure out the average? You also need the actual total of households that exist where those kids live? Do you not know how the total can be more useful for some instances, but the average more useful for others?
Being dead serious: averages are probably 2nd or 3rd grade material. Did you not go, or just not understand how it all works?
Holy cow. Ok... so take your small sample of 10 families... let's make it 100. Use your same math. You use it to get an average and in this case it's 2.3 kids per home. Now for the other variable. The number of homes is actually 5,000. Instead of counting the children in all 5,000 homes you can simply slide over your average. There you have it, 2.3 kids per 5,000 homes. Lazy math. Nefarious because the cuunt doing the numbers is on salary and went home early by using this math but still got paid for the whole day. Lazy and Nefarious.
You are making unequivocal statements based on your feelings.
You won't believe a woman was ***** unless you see it happen (no matter what her testimony is), but you are 100% sure Pelosi is doing insider trading based on speculation you saw on YouTube or Faux news. You have no evidence. You likely have little to no understanding of the stock market. You likely don't even know what stocks were traded and what info could be considered "insider". There has been no investigation.
YOUR words: ""Nancy Pelosi is 100% using her position to gain knowledge for stock trades. Corruption pointed out."
I'm 100% sure I cannot be the only one who sees the dichotomy here.
ThxOne
Premium Member
Staff Member
See, I post my common sense opinion of a Democrat, You attack me personally. Talk about leading with your emotions.
"There has been no investigation" Does this mean no laws have been broken?
ThxOne
Premium Member
Staff Member
When an investigator goes to a Judge to obtain a warrant and he or she gives this information to a Judge do you think there is enough there for the warrant?
I comprehended it just fine. When I made the original statement it was in jest. However you and I am pretty sure Bobby, take EVERYTHING literal so at that point I wanted proof of how you vaccinate part of a person. The comprehension was lacking in your liberal minds. It's fine though. It helped both of you to think you won something.
it took ALL this time, and ALL of these back-and-forths of you fighting to prove your math correct, for you to come up with the "I was joking" backpedal? Too little, and WAY too late, bub.
Holy cow. Ok... so take your small sample of 10 families... let's make it 100. Use your same math. You use it to get an average and in this case it's 2.3 kids per home. Now for the other variable. The number of homes is actually 5,000. Instead of counting the children in all 5,000 homes you can simply slide over your average. There you have it, 2.3 kids per 5,000 homes. Lazy math. Nefarious because the cuunt doing the numbers is on salary and went home early by using this math but still got paid for the whole day. Lazy and Nefarious.
Holy crap, you really DON'T understand how averages work. I truly apologize for making the assumption that you knew how they are calculated and what they mean.
No, you cannot just arbitrarily change one of the variables AFTER you have come up with an average of numbers. That's not how math works. if you add 90 homes or 4.990 homes to the mix, you have to count all the kids in those additional homes, then recalculate.
Please tell me you are just joking that you don't know at your age how averages are computed. PLEASE.
Averages have nothing to do with "lazy" math, they have to do with providing data in a meaningful way.
Knowing that there are 73.1 million people under 18 in the US right now is good for education data, but tells you nothing about the average household size in the US.
Knowing there are now 329.5 million people in the US but only 281.4 million in 2000 is great, but does it tell you whether families are getting bigger or smaller? Nope. That's where (wait for it) AVERAGES come into play.
AVERAGES tell us that the households in America are getting smaller over time. AMAZING.
it took ALL this time, and ALL of these back-and-forths of you fighting to prove your math correct, for you to come up with the "I was joking" backpedal? Too little, and WAY too late, bub.
Holy cow. Ok... so take your small sample of 10 families... let's make it 100. Use your same math. You use it to get an average and in this case it's 2.3 kids per home. Now for the other variable. The number of homes is actually 5,000. Instead of counting the children in all 5,000 homes you can simply slide over your average. There you have it, 2.3 kids per 5,000 homes. Lazy math. Nefarious because the cuunt doing the numbers is on salary and went home early by using this math but still got paid for the whole day. Lazy and Nefarious.
Holy crap, you really DON'T understand how averages work. I truly apologize for making the assumption that you knew how they are calculated and what they mean.
No, you cannot just arbitrarily change one of the variables AFTER you have come up with an average of numbers. That's not how math works. if you add 90 homes or 4.990 homes to the mix, you have to count all the kids in those additional homes, then recalculate.
Please tell me you are just joking that you don't know at your age how averages are computed. PLEASE.
Averages have nothing to do with "lazy" math, they have to do with providing data in a meaningful way.
Knowing that there are 73.1 million people under 18 in the US right now is good for education data, but tells you nothing about the average household size in the US.
Knowing there are now 329.5 million people in the US but only 281.4 million in 2000 is great, but does it tell you whether families are getting bigger or smaller? Nope. That's where (wait for it) AVERAGES come into play.
AVERAGES tell us that the households in America are getting smaller over time. AMAZING.
ThxOne, post: 8802284, member: 675210
See, I post my common sense opinion of a Democrat, You attack me personally. Talk about leading with your emotions.
"Nancy Pelosi is 100% using her position to gain knowledge for stock trades. Corruption pointed out."
You call that a 'common sense opinion of a democrat"? Man, when you paint yourself intoa corner, you'll say ANYHTING to try to unfvck yourself, huh?
"There has been no investigation" Does this mean no laws have been broken?
No, it means no proof has been found that laws were broken. You KNOW that laws were broken and must have the evidence. Why not share it and get her and Paul convicted?
If they break the law, then they should be tried and convicted.
I haven't seen you post anything about Trump's insider trading deals. Do those not concern you at all?
See, I post my common sense opinion of a Democrat, You attack me personally. Talk about leading with your emotions.
"Nancy Pelosi is 100% using her position to gain knowledge for stock trades. Corruption pointed out."
You call that a 'common sense opinion of a democrat"? Man, when you paint yourself intoa corner, you'll say ANYHTING to try to unfvck yourself, huh?
"There has been no investigation" Does this mean no laws have been broken?
No, it means no proof has been found that laws were broken. You KNOW that laws were broken and must have the evidence. Why not share it and get her and Paul convicted?
If they break the law, then they should be tried and convicted.
I haven't seen you post anything about Trump's insider trading deals. Do those not concern you at all?
Last edited:
ThxOne
Premium Member
Staff Member
I said it was in jest WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY back then. You and your buddy wanted to argue instead.
If you can change and add variables to prove your point then so can I and I did.
- Status
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
About this thread
- Start date
- Participants
- Who Replied
- Replies
- 19,273
- Views
- 812,421
- Last reply date
- Last reply from
- administrator
