Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: The US slides back to the caves (Score 1) 455

by narcc (#47769177) Attached to: Limiting the Teaching of the Scientific Process In Ohio

if you just keep looking you will always disprove the null hypothesis.

No, you won't. You can't disprove the null hypothesis. (Er, unless you know the population parameters exactly, but that's pretty damn rare.) There's a very good reason we use terms like 'reject' and 'failed to reject'.

Comment: Re:More uncalled for advice from ADD boy? (Score 1) 437

by narcc (#47762567) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

Out of curiosity, why do you call it an "ADD comment"?

While I'm thinking about it, if this is so unimportant to you, why do you continue to engage me?

What to know what I think? I think you're deeply insecure. I think you really need imaginary foes to fight against to make yourself feel important. Why else would you care so much about what a bunch of anonymous people say on a web forum?

Comment: Re:More uncalled for advice from ADD boy? (Score 1) 437

by narcc (#47762003) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

Well, considering that you insisted on engaging me several days after I made the post that so offended you, I figured you cared very deeply about my thoughts and opinions.

Your continued participation in this "discussion" seems to support that belief.

I really cannot see how you can continue to pretend that your advice is of any value

Pretend? Do you not think that the ability to ignore uses that cause you serious distress is valuable? It seems to me that that is exactly the sort of advice you need!

It will clearly improve your life significantly. Just think of all the hours of angst you'll spare yourself!

Comment: Re:Correction (Score 1) 437

by narcc (#47757763) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

I don't see why I have to put up with condescending bullshit just because I'm not going to roll over when

For perspective: It's the comments section on a website.

A handy tip: You can effectively ignore users by clicking the little "Alter Relationship" bobble beside their name. Then use the Configuring Comments feature to knock your foes down to -6.

Comment: Re:They're not gamers. (Score 1) 273

by narcc (#47744895) Attached to: Among Gamers, Adult Women Vastly Outnumber Teenage Boys

Would you call someone a car enthusiast because he drives his toyota corolla to work every day?

No, I'd call him a driver. Think: "A person who drives is a driver."

To continue: A person who dives is a diver. A person who dines is a diner. A person who runs is a runner. A person who calls is a caller.

We can all agree with that. Why is there contention when we say that a person who games is a gamer?

The term gamer is associated with gaming enthusiasts, as it should be.

As it should be? No. I'll agree that the term carries with it additional connotations, particularly where video games are concerned. It is, however, important to note that those additional connotations are decidedly negative!

See, when the simple term was corrupted, self-described "gamers" rallied to redefine the term; stripping out the negative bits and emphasizing what they considered the positives.

To now abandon the original meaning (simply, one who games) further corrupts the term. If the "gamer" communities' goal was to shake off the negative connotations attached to the term, then their better off sticking to the uncorrupted use of the word -- not further corrupting it! It does little more than further isolate "gamers", allowing additional negative stereotypes to arise.

The problem with this argument is that it waters the definition down to the distinction without a difference level in order to justify (very poorly) feminist incursions into the gaming sphere.

Oh, you're one of those. Never mind, you can't reason with an MRA.

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson