Azazello1313 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 no problem with that at all now, my question to you is: Do you really and truly think that is what Ice1 was trying to do? (Please answer with a simple yes or no using Occam's razor as a guide in helping you answer the question.) (And as you answer, please keep in mind that Ice1 also revealed that he didn't understand how longitudinal studies are conducted.) in order to answer that I would have to read all his posts. sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) in order to answer that I would have to read all his posts. sorry. I was thinking the same thing. I quit after his first reply back to me and realized it was pointless to try to make heads or tails of what the Oprah either of them are talking about because I didn't care enough to go back and sift through it all. It has been entertaining though. Edited February 3, 2012 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 yes, and it is a perfectly correct interpretation given that you wrote this Edit to add: I think he was talking about bushwacked when he made the comment about a lack of education (although I am scared to assume anything). Come on wiegie, context. What you are missing is the fact they applied their parameters to an old study, then another in 2010 for linkage. They didn't appear to speak with anyone over the course of the study mentioned, just applied their data points. Their work was just published in January. The reason I even mentioned 20 years was that was the approximate duration of said study. The moment they injected their framework definition of cognitive Right-Wing Ideology (Conservatism, Authoritarianism) the reference point changes. They didn't even attempt to prove it against an opposing political viewpoint. I thought you indicated you actually read the study? Believe as you like, I guess we simply disagree. I do agree that there is a correlation between cognitive ability and prejudice. I do not believe the hypothesis conclusion tied to political structure especially when looking only at one side of the coin. Further, the linkage of (Conservatism, Authoritarianism) looks to be grabbed out of thin air especially given the modern day views of a decentralized vs. a centralized government structure. Yes it was Buswacked but that is another story. She thinks I am masquerading as someone else....An old member, Rush, or Glenn Beck. Not really sure. Oh well, that is probably a better conversation for the conspiracy thread. I finally decided Snooki was a better name for her than Wacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I was thinking the same thing. I quit after his first reply back to me and realized it was pointless to try to make heads or tails of what the Oprah either of them are talking about because I didn't care enough to go back and sift through it all. It has been entertaining though. Typical Friday! Glad to have a small part in your entertainment for the day! Back to work> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) Come on wiegie, context. What you are missing is the fact they applied their parameters to an old study, then another in 2010 for linkage. They didn't appear to speak with anyone over the course of the study mentioned, just applied their data points. Their work was just published in January. The reason I even mentioned 20 years was that was the approximate duration of said study. uh, the way the studies worked is that individuals were interviewed when they were young and then the same people were interviewed again about twenty years later two separate such sets of interviews were conducted (one for cohorts born in 1958 and another for cohorts born in 1970) So your claim that the same people were not interviewed for the underlying longitudinal studies is incorrect. And for the record nobody was claiming that the research findings were gospel, as I wrote in the other thread more than a week ago there could definitely be stuff wrong with their research, but your criticisms are ill-informed at best. Edited February 3, 2012 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 uh, the way the studies worked is that individuals were interviewed when they were young and then the same people were interviewed again about twenty years later two separate such sets of interviews were conducted (one for cohorts born in 1958 and another for cohorts born in 1970) I thought this part in particular was crystal clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 I just want to thank everyone who posted for their concern over my situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The guy owns a body shop. What I meant was we didn't do anything related to his product. We took him out for a day that was his personal pleasure. Doesn't matter if it was for personal pleasure - sure he could get audited and then have to show some proof but all he has to say is that he had clients with him so it's a write-off. And..man, this thread took a turn for the...interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I was not going to refuse anything. I just got off the phone from acc't and was informed that anytime a company check is written for over $600 it is standard to send a 1099 to the recipient of the check.It does not cause any extra taxes to the income already reported by the recipient. As I said, I was not familiar with this so I was trying to find out. I posted here for waiting for return call. They have the info they need and 1099 is on the way. This is always a good place to get info. Thanks to all that replied. A good discussion peppered with the usual humor. I'm a little late to the game but glad you got it resolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=3626175 http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/02/rove-blas...astwood-ad.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 What exactly does the whistle emoticon imply? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 What exactly does the whistle emoticon imply? It means I am a whistle-blower who is reporting your unclaimed income to the IRS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 It means I am a whistle-blower who is reporting your unclaimed income to the IRS. I have my doubts about that answer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Wrong again - nobody thinks wiegie's opinions are interesting. :chuckle: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.