Deinonychus antirrhopus

You're right you gotta love it. She actually left a comment on my blog slamming the two professors. So it is even sweeter when we consider that she looked at Bainbridge's trackbacks and dilgently commented at those trackbacks to advertise her post.

Sweeeet!

You can't make up silliness like this.

"when she makes a huge error."

You're right dude. I need to delete the percentage signs. It seems weird to me to report disembodied "underutilization units" but apparently that's what is done at UCLA. I am sorry for misrepresenting Mr. B. once again.

The problem with this here anklebiting post, however, is that nothing I said hinges on whether those numbers are percentages or units of underutilization.

You're not one of those limp-loped pissants that says "HEY! You wrote WHOSE instead of WHO'S!" and use that as an excuse to ignore a 30 page paper, are you?

In addition to your lame quibbling about percentage vs. raw score, your piece de resistance is that I failed to quote Mr.B.'s lame excuse for his shoddy analysis:

I know that Republican affiliation skews lower among individuals with post-graduate degrees, but I'm having trouble finding that data.

Since Mr. B. gave a reason for relying on the totally useless base rate of Republicans in the population, you think I misrepresented him.

The fact that he provided a lame excuse for his shoddy analysis doesn't make it any more rigorous.

It's like saying "I didn't have flour, so I used Pinot Grigio in the recipe!" He said, "I didn't have the real data necessary to do the analysis, so I just used irrelevant data!"

Okey-doke.

Bottom line: I put percentage signs where there shouldn't have been. My bad. But this had nothing to do with the analysis of why winoprof and his even-lamer-brained crony at Northwestern need to enroll in Stats 101.

You're not one of those limp-loped pissants that says "HEY! You wrote WHOSE instead of WHO'S!" and use that as an excuse to ignore a 30 page paper, are you?

No, but 11% vs. 11 can be a big differnce considering that the total "expected" number is 27. You mislead your readers into thinking that "Shortfall" is actually 1/4th what the UCLA data indicated.

Should we call you a moron for this? A bird brain? How about dim-wit?

In addition to your lame quibbling about percentage vs. raw score, your piece de resistance is that I failed to quote Mr.B.'s lame excuse for his shoddy analysis:

Yes, it is called selective quoting and is a dishonest tactic. So maybe we can all you lying dim-wit how's that?

Since Mr. B. gave a reason for relying on the totally useless base rate of Republicans in the population, you think I misrepresented him.

It is not "totally useless" in that it does provide an upper bound on the numbers. A lower bound would probably be more helpful, but it at least gives us some idea of the range on the number we expect to see. Bainbridge even indicated that it was an upper bound with his qualifying comment. Omitting the qualifying comment gives readers of your blog the impression that Bainbridge was being either stupid or deliberately dishonest, when in fact he was not.

The fact that he provided a lame excuse for his shoddy analysis doesn't make it any more rigorous.

It is a blog post, lying dim-wit, not a journal article. Perhaps if you weren't such an obnoxious know-it-all, and did some digging found the number and posted it, and sent him the link he'd correct his numbers and everything would be good. Instead you have to act like a snot nosed ass.

Finally, maybe you should enroll in logic 101. While it is true that "Republican affiliation skews lower among individuals with post-graduate degrees" it could be that his number is a good proxy for lawyers, or even that it is too low! You have no data, yourself and hence it might be close to his number or maybe even worse. You are comitting the fallacy fallacy. Just because his proxy data is not the right data does not mean he has gotten the wrong answer.

Steve: No, but 11% vs. 11 can be a big differnce considering that the total "expected" number is 27. You mislead your readers into thinking that "Shortfall" is actually 1/4th what the UCLA data indicated.

Deb: I agree with you that there are two ways to describe the shortfall in each category. For example, there are 17 women in the law school at UCLA, but you'd statistically expect 27.7. There are two ways to communicate this:

Bainbridge method: women are underutilized by 11 units

% method: The actual number of women is about 39% lower than expected

My criticism of your crony does not depend on whether you use percentages, like most statisticians or underutilization units, like Mr. B. Poor fellow, he parrotted your toothless criticism and posted it on his blog, providing further evidence for his statistical illiteracy.

The more interesting aspect of this debate is whether the qualification "I know that Republican affiliation skews lower among individuals with post-graduate degrees" was sufficient acknowledgment that he did not do the analysis properly. You think it was. I think it wasn't. You think using the percentage of Republicans in the population as an estimate of the percentage of Republicans who want to be law professors is close enough. I think it's nuts.

For the record Steve, you seem to have 14.6574 more units of statistical understanding than your wine-loving crony.

You can't pay for comedy like this, LOL.

I ashamed of you TangoMan, that you find humor in ridiculing the mentally disadvantaged like df.

Ashamed that you might do it better than I do, that is.

You are right, you can pay for this kind of comedy. The complete brazen way that she boldly proclaims her foolishness.

She's started tolling my comment boards.

And the funny thing is she thinks I'm a Republican. No, no really, . . I know you're all laughing your asses off, but she wrote it.

Just wanted you all to know that.

Hmm, the comedy does get richer the deeper she digs the hole.

You tease. I was hoping you meant that she had found your breast feeding post.

No, the breastfeeding post was really about the rise of wet nursing (BTW, did you read the requirements from India - phew!) so I would expect her to contort that into class warfare and women's subjugation, but she hasn't gotten around to that yet.

No, she's trolling on the Hoppe post but her comments here are far more entertaining. There are so many dark corners of the blogosphere that I just didn't know existed.

Oh, TangoMan, take my word for it, df is just from a dim corner ... she doesn't even rank with the real dark corners. We could show you some real dark corners.

You mean like Atrios and DU?

Pshaw. Amateurs.

I'm scared, really, really scared. On the few occasions I've visted Atrios and DU I've had to call my wife to hit me in the back of the head so that my eyes could roll back to normal.

I'll leave it to braver souls to forage in the morass. I've just finished reading df's post on Summers and Churchill. That's enough for me. I've got my hands full popping the blank slate fallacy and fighting off crazies who target us.

You guys certainly aren't on any blood pressure medicine if you willingly subject yourself to worse, though such self-punishment can't be healthy, unless of course, it is used to steel oneself for battle.

I salute you.

The ability to publicly, loudly, defiantly, unrepentantly step on one's own...unit may just be one of those talents that has no survival value at all. One can only hope.

Don't salute us, TangoMan, we're sick puppies.

look at you boys, slapping each other on the backs, pretending you're not a bunch of limp-lobed, lame-brained dimwits. And all because of me!

I don't know whether to be touched or take a shower.

My criticism of your crony does not depend on whether you use percentages, like most statisticians or underutilization units, like Mr. B. Poor fellow, he parrotted your toothless criticism and posted it on his blog, providing further evidence for his statistical illiteracy.

Sure. Maybe he is illiterate when it comes to statistics, but he at least can tell the difference between a percentage and the actual units in question.

The more interesting aspect of this debate is whether the qualification "I know that Republican affiliation skews lower among individuals with post-graduate degrees" was sufficient acknowledgment that he did not do the analysis properly. You think it was. I think it wasn't.

The problem is that this completely guts your claim of statistical illiteracy as it indicates he understands the problem. Further, acknowledging that there are data problems in the same post is better than many others I've seen. I don't see you attacking anybody but the conservatives....hmmm could you be a bigot?

You think using the percentage of Republicans in the population as an estimate of the percentage of Republicans who want to be law professors is close enough. I think it's nuts.

No, what I'm saying is that given his caveat of the data he used it isn't an unreasonable proxy to give us at least a possible idea of the numbers. Maybe in the end it will be lower, maybe quite a bit lower, but so long as the number is above 8% then he has a valid point.

Given this uttering from you blog, Deb:

All you rightwing bloggers look alike to me.

I strongly recommend the shower. Make sure to scrub really well between the ears; there's a lot of crud in there.

I'll leave it to braver souls to forage in the morass.
I'll take up that gauntlet! It's back to the fever swamp at Drum's for me. Where'd I put those hip waders...

I don't know whether to be touched or take a shower.
Shower, ummm. Hey babe, are ya cute? I kinda like the way you use big words to mask small thinking.

I'll take up that gauntlet! It's back to the fever swamp at Drum's for me. Where'd I put those hip waders...

Drum's? Nah, I can do that (Steve witnessed what to me felt like a single-handed battle against the hordes) - go for Atrios or DU and do battle. They are definitely more deeply committed over there :) {insert pun here}

Atrios bores me, him and his commenters appear to share a brain (or maybe just a couple of still-firing synapses). I like a little variety in my moonbats.

And my ban-expectancy at DU would be depressingly fast. I had a thought to go there and post just so I could wear the badge "I got banned at DU", but then I realized that it's so easy to get pitched there it would be like advertising you stole candy from babies. (And besides, it was right after the election and they had temporarily closed posting)

Hi Stevie boy,

No time or interest to keep squabbling with you about stats.

Now that the cherubic wino's on my radar, I'd like to have more fun with him. The hit I get from the chubby Republican catholic is that he's asexual or a closeted homosexual. (I'm a lesbian, so this is not homophobia - just hypothesis testing).

I've never encountered someone in the blogoshere that I knew was a right wing christian capitalist before. And I think this guys a closeted homosexual, to boot. So he's about as low in my pecking order as a person could be.

If he's an out homo, then I have an iota of respect for him. If he's an out hetero, then I have an iota less contempt for him.

Anyway, if anyone could point me to definitive answer to the question of whether professor birdbrain is a closeted homosexual, an out homosexual or an alleged heterosexual, i'd appreciate it.

Thanx!

Deb

Now there's some variety in a moonbat. I'm telling you guys, this girl *does* something for me.

I'm telling you, Ron, guys don't do much for me (except, of course, for David Duchovny.)

What's a moonbat? Geekspeak for dingbat?

So, you are looking for dirt to deliberately out somebody you don't agree with? Have I got that right?

Well, maybe I ought to describe myself, I earned an undergraduate degree from Princeton University and also earned a graduate degree in English Literature at Yale University. While at Yale, I began commuting to New York to study acting and was soon appearing in off-Broadway plays. In 1987 I abandoned my doctoral studies at Yale to pursue acting full time. My trademarks are my deadpan humor, my puppy dog eyes, and the cleft in my chin.

I don't want to give a definition of moonbat, it might ruin my chance at a date.

By the way Deb, you are familiar with the search function on MT and TypePad blogs right? We know basic math skills aren't your forte, so maybe your basic internet surfing skills are lacking as well.

Ron, your chances of a date are less than zero, so there's nothing to lose by defining moonbat. Trust me, bro'.

Steve - I find Bainbridge to be repugnant on multiple levels. This is the blogosphere. It's the zinfandel of debate - wimps should stay home. The chunky catholic dishes it out and he is more than deserving of being outed, if in fact, he's a closeted catholic.

Not sure what your comment re: searching is. And lay off the lame math criticisms - in my mind, you're less statistically stupid than birdbrain, but you're not an Einstein either, despite your comically inflated opinion of your statistical savvy.

Less than zero? Dang, another one slips my finely woven net. You'd think a good looking, easy to get along guy like me what can dance like Fred Astaire would be able to get something done with the ladies.

C'est la vie.

Moonbat is shorthand for Barking Moonbat. A human whose cerebral cortex has turned to silly putty causing him or her to mentally slide down the evolutionary ladder to the level of a winged rat who is influenced by the moon.
Also affectionately known as a "Democrat".

And you, babe, are a moonbat.

Hi twit,

I googled bainbridge and wife or homosexual or gay. Didn't find anything that lets me know whether the foie gras chumping, pinot gris slugging catholic law professor at ucla likes girls or boys. This is the best I could do.

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2003/11/leaders_have_to.html

Please, all you big strong boys out there on stevie's blog - could one of you direct me to information on the gluttonous moron's sexual proclivities?

Ron,

You must see how pathetic you look hitting on me and dissing me at the same time. I guess it's more fun than jacking off but sheesh man, you need to get a life.

Sorry, left out the obvious connection with the moon: lunar -> lunatic.

But hey, this is the zinfandel of debate.

You must see how pathetic you look hitting on me and dissing me at the same time.
I'm thinking one of us has seriously misunderstood the situation here.

Sorry Ron. You wouldn't happen to be birdbrain's boyfriend, would you?

Just a head's up, Steve. If you end this thread or ban me - it's the green light to out the closeted cherub. Make my day, man, please.

Well Steve, there isn't any need to go looking for the crazies, they're coming to you :-)

But I'm giving this one up to save your bandwidth. (And probably save all y'all's stomachs, too).

Not sure what your comment re: searching is.

Well moron girl, the question was asked as a hint to you to try searching his site to see if he has referenced his wife (which he has). Of course, maybe she is just a lie he uses to hide his being in the closet. Anyhow, you might want to work on doing...you know...the obvious such as searching his site with the built in search function.

Thanks forth the compliment on my mathskills, but I don't think you are qualified to make such assesments (passing 8th grade math would be a step in the right direction). I'm sorry to say, I can't return the favor with regard to your honesty or ability to construct a logical argument though.

Just a head's up, Steve. If you end this thread or ban me - it's the green light to out the closeted cherub. Make my day, man, please.

Well in about 4 days you'll get your green light. I typically close all comments after 5 days due to comment spam.

By the way, are you always this intimidated by men?

Dear dumb phuque,

If you think I'm intimidated by you, you're even dumber than I first thought. I'm toying with you - sparring to get my juices flowing to make more fun of the blubbering moron. Get it? I'm just using you. I don't give a rat's ass about you or any of the anklebiters who lurk here.

I reckon you hang out with lamebrained republican women who are just as stupid as you and you can't see when you are way out of your league.

So the effeminate cherub's got a wife - thanks for the info.

You really ought to charge for this, Steve. Comedy like this could pay for all kinds of bandwidth. Hell, you could get your own server.

I mean, this is the funniest thing I've seen since Puce came out.

I reckon you hang out with lamebrained republican women who are just as stupid as you and you can't see when you are way out of your league.

I have no idea of the political affiliation of most of the women I know...and I don't really care. And in case it hasn't gotten through that interminably thick skull I am not a Republican. I am in favor of,

• Pro-choice,
• Gay marriage
• Ending the drug war,
• keeping creationism out of schools,

That puts me at odds with most Republicans. I know you are slow on the up take, but I thought it would be obvious with links to the Cato Institute, the Von Misses Institute, and the general nature of my posts. You aren't real swift on this research thing are you?

If you think I'm intimidated by you, you're even dumber than I first thought.

You mean you actually think before you post? Now I find that hard to believe. It is okay Deb, just admit you feel inferior and you'll be on your way to recovery and your doctor can probably reduce your medication.

Does anybody else think it ironic that this paragon of the Left has decided that the best way she can slag Bainbridge's reputation is to try to label him as gay? Not that it is offensive or anything...after all Deb herself is a lesbian.

Slartibartfast, if df is really Treacher, Jim's gonna get some stern mail from me.

I'm sure that Deb's going to find some homosexual flavor to that "stern mail" comment. You're outed, Robin.

Must be more poor, y-chromosome-derived neurons but i am losing track of this thread very quickly. No idea what or who "Treacher" is. No idea what stern mail is, or whether the person who is being instructed to inflict it (Robin Roberts, chum of Slartibartfast) is male or female.

Confused, perplexed
Not clearly sexed
Too tired to post
Why not just coast?
In anklebiting land.

Pro-choice,
Gay marriage
Ending the drug war,
keeping creationism out of schools,
That puts me at odds with most Republicans
---
Do you hate and despise Dubya?

Do you believe he is the anti-Christ, even if you don't believe in Christian mumbo jumbo?

Would you buy a magnum of Dom Perignon or Opus One or Ridge Zinfandel if you learned he'd choked on a pretzel and croaked?

If you do not answer YES!!!!! to all these questions, then from where I stand, you're a rabid republican, even if you're pro-choice and anti-war.

If you do not answer YES!!!!! to all these questions, then from where I stand, you're a rabid republican, even if you're pro-choice and anti-war.

Does your court appointed doctor know you have access to a computer?

This is unbelievable!

For those of you who didn't read The Bell Curve, Murray & Hernstein argued that as our society became more technical and egalitarian that we'd see a cognitive stratification. I'd venture that many of us, when we were in high school, were exposed to people from a wide spectrum of SES and IQ range, but as we got on in life our networks narrowed in scope and we kind of forgot what it's like to deal with some people.

DF is a classic example of a little knowledge being dangerous, because she thinks she's coming off as quite the raconteur but she's evidently lacking the mental firepower to realize how she's being perceived.

I suppose that we can look on the internet as a vehicle to bridge the social stratification that is the heart of the Bell Curve Thesis, and my oh my, it sure can be an eye-opener.

TangoMan, you are not by any chance saying that df is .... *horror* ... a sociology major?

df, you've been playing in the blogosphere and you don't know Treacher? Yep, you got your first computer for Christmas, alright.

After considering this overnight, I believe I owe an apology to you guys, not just for stoking this moonbat's fire, but also for the revolting method that I used to do so.

And especially you, Steve, since you provide the forum. This piece of work didn't need stirred up.

Ron,

Don't sweat it. I don't think you stirred up DF at all since she seems to be in a state of being perpetually stirred up.

Steve, your "Update II" is very disturbing. It is evidence of the extreme and virulent bigotry rampant in this species of moonbat. Correlates to Bill of INDC's observations in the wild.

Stirred up I can tolerate; it became evident, however, that she is (at least borderline) unhinged. That is when I should have walked.

BTW did you catch the bio? It was from that David Dwhatshisname she mentioned. I thought it a fine touch...