Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/
--
Clint Sharp

"Clint Sharp" wrote in message
...
Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/
--
Clint Sharp

Were there any figures for advanced homo sapiens?

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS... my father was quite sexually active until the day
he died, at 90; and I'm following in my father's foot-steps ;-)

It is, for sure, a use-it-or-lose-it tool. With no kids in the house
to contend with, I'm probably more active than you young bucks... no
problem running around the house naked ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Cranky Old Git With Engineering Mind Faster Than a Speeding Prissy

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS... my father was quite sexually active until the day
he died, at 90; and I'm following in my father's foot-steps ;-)

It is, for sure, a use-it-or-lose-it tool. With no kids in the house
to contend with, I'm probably more active than you young bucks... no
problem running around the house naked ;-)

EEuuuuuu

Thats too much information.

don



...Jim Thompson

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS... my father was quite sexually active until the day
he died, at 90; and I'm following in my father's foot-steps ;-)

It is, for sure, a use-it-or-lose-it tool. With no kids in the house
to contend with, I'm probably more active than you young bucks... no
problem running around the house naked ;-)


Burglar deterrent?

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:30:11 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS... my father was quite sexually active until the day
he died, at 90; and I'm following in my father's foot-steps ;-)

It is, for sure, a use-it-or-lose-it tool. With no kids in the house
to contend with, I'm probably more active than you young bucks... no
problem running around the house naked ;-)


Burglar deterrent?


Hasn't been a burglary here in the 15 years I've lived in this
neighborhood. Probably because it's a cul de sac, with houses nestled
against fairly steep terrain, the only escape route is back down the
street... not the kind of risk a criminal likes to take, particularly
in an armed community ;-)

Plus every house is alarmed and monitored.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Cranky Old Git With Engineering Mind Faster Than a Speeding Prissy

In message , Jim Thompson
writes
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS...
Of course it is, just thought it might raise a smile, even if nothing
else was raised ;-)

It is, for sure, a use-it-or-lose-it tool. With no kids in the house
to contend with, I'm probably more active than you young bucks...
Umm, lets not compare notes eh?
no
problem running around the house naked ;-)
Euwhhh....

...Jim Thompson

--
Clint Sharp

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:58:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS...

Of course 'the register' article is.

It's a good example, though, of how ignorant fools, either
intentionally or as an artifact of their stupidity, create propaganda
by injecting misleading information, falsehoods, and/or irrelevancies.
Secondarily, it's an example of how 'faux science' gets promulgated.

Read the actual research report (to their credit they link to it).
There is only one mention of 'Republican', to denote that was McCain's
party. Barr was "Libertarian party" and Obama was "Democratic party."

The Register's comment about testosterone being "considered essential
for basic manliness" is misleading, as testosterone has multiple roles
in human behavior, and irrelevant to the experiment. The researcher's
clearly explained it.

"Across mammalian species, testosterone is critically linked to
dominance competition for hierarchical advancement in males [3]-[5].
When males win a dominance contest, their testosterone levels rise or
remain stable to resist a circadian decline, and when they lose, their
testosterone levels fall [3]-[5]. In men, the described pattern of
testosterone change after winning or losing has been demonstrated in
the context of direct, interpersonal competition (e.g., sports matches
and non-physical competitions) [4], [ e.g. 6]-[8]. In addition,
Bernhardt and colleagues [9] measured World Cup soccer fans'
testosterone changes after the outcome of a World Cup match, and they
found that vicariously-experienced competition (i.e. watching one's
favorite sports teams win or lose) drives testosterone increases in
winners and decreases in losers "

Hasn't got a blessed thing to do with 'political party' nor 'virility'

And to further illustrate, they predicted the results regardless of
which 'party' won.

"We predicted that males who voted for the losing presidential
candidates would have post-outcome testosterone decreases, and that
the males who voted for the winning candidate would have either stable
post-outcome testosterone or testosterone increases. On the basis of
inconclusive but principally null findings in past research and the
evolutionary perspective which suggests that testosterone plays a
lesser role in female mammalian competition, we predicted that female
voters would not show differential testosterone changes according to
the election outcome."

Not only that, but they specifically attempted to factor out political
viewpoint as well as 'enthusiasm' for the candidate.

"Moreover, the candidate choice effect on men's testosterone change
remained even when participants' conservatism, as measured by the RWA
scale [18], was partialled out of the analysis (F(1, 49), = 5.39, p =
0.03). Further still, the candidate choice effect was maintained when
adding an additional covariate which accounted for voters' intensity
of support for their candidate (F(1, 48), = 5.37, p = 0.03). "

And now, for any of this to amount to jack ****, you have to show that
Obama didn't win. lol

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:51:17 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:58:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS...

Of course 'the register' article is.

It's a good example, though, of how ignorant fools, either
intentionally or as an artifact of their stupidity, create propaganda
by injecting misleading information, falsehoods, and/or irrelevancies.
Secondarily, it's an example of how 'faux science' gets promulgated.

Read the actual research report (to their credit they link to it).
There is only one mention of 'Republican', to denote that was McCain's
party. Barr was "Libertarian party" and Obama was "Democratic party."

The Register's comment about testosterone being "considered essential
for basic manliness" is misleading, as testosterone has multiple roles
in human behavior, and irrelevant to the experiment. The researcher's
clearly explained it.

"Across mammalian species, testosterone is critically linked to
dominance competition for hierarchical advancement in males [3]–[5].
When males win a dominance contest, their testosterone levels rise or
remain stable to resist a circadian decline, and when they lose, their
testosterone levels fall [3]–[5]. In men, the described pattern of
testosterone change after winning or losing has been demonstrated in
the context of direct, interpersonal competition (e.g., sports matches
and non-physical competitions) [4], [ e.g. 6]–[8]. In addition,
Bernhardt and colleagues [9] measured World Cup soccer fans'
testosterone changes after the outcome of a World Cup match, and they
found that vicariously-experienced competition (i.e. watching one's
favorite sports teams win or lose) drives testosterone increases in
winners and decreases in losers "

Hasn't got a blessed thing to do with 'political party' nor 'virility'

And to further illustrate, they predicted the results regardless of
which 'party' won.

"We predicted that males who voted for the losing presidential
candidates would have post-outcome testosterone decreases, and that
the males who voted for the winning candidate would have either stable
post-outcome testosterone or testosterone increases. On the basis of
inconclusive but principally null findings in past research and the
evolutionary perspective which suggests that testosterone plays a
lesser role in female mammalian competition, we predicted that female
voters would not show differential testosterone changes according to
the election outcome."

Not only that, but they specifically attempted to factor out political
viewpoint as well as 'enthusiasm' for the candidate.

"Moreover, the candidate choice effect on men's testosterone change
remained even when participants' conservatism, as measured by the RWA
scale [18], was partialled out of the analysis (F(1, 49), = 5.39, p =
0.03). Further still, the candidate choice effect was maintained when
adding an additional covariate which accounted for voters' intensity
of support for their candidate (F(1, 48), = 5.37, p = 0.03). "


[snip]

So...

High Testosterone = Aggressive Behavior

Who would have ever thunk it ?:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Cranky Old Git With Engineering Mind Faster Than a Speeding Prissy

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS... my father was quite sexually active until the day
he died, at 90; and I'm following in my father's foot-steps ;-)

It is, for sure, a use-it-or-lose-it tool. With no kids in the house
to contend with, I'm probably more active than you young bucks... no
problem running around the house naked ;-)

You might wanna watch that, any old trespasser can turn you in,
apparently!

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/10/...8241256068372/

http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/21/ma...-being-naked-i

Sic Semper Tyrranis my adipose ass. lol

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:00:18 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:58:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS...

Of course 'the register' article is.

It's a good example, though, of how ignorant fools, either
intentionally or as an artifact of their stupidity, create
propaganda by injecting misleading information, falsehoods, and/or
irrelevancies. Secondarily, it's an example of how 'faux science'
gets promulgated.

Read the actual research report (to their credit they link to it).
There is only one mention of 'Republican', to denote that was
McCain's party. Barr was "Libertarian party" and Obama was
"Democratic party."

The Register's comment about testosterone being "considered
essential for basic manliness" is misleading, as testosterone has
multiple roles in human behavior, and irrelevant to the experiment.
The researcher's clearly explained it.

"Across mammalian species, testosterone is critically linked to
dominance competition for hierarchical advancement in males [3]-[5].
When males win a dominance contest, their testosterone levels rise
or remain stable to resist a circadian decline, and when they lose,
their testosterone levels fall [3]-[5]. In men, the described
pattern of testosterone change after winning or losing has been
demonstrated in the context of direct, interpersonal competition
(e.g., sports matches and non-physical competitions) [4], [ e.g.
6]-[8]. In addition, Bernhardt and colleagues [9] measured World
Cup soccer fans' testosterone changes after the outcome of a World
Cup match, and they found that vicariously-experienced competition
(i.e. watching one's favorite sports teams win or lose) drives
testosterone increases in winners and decreases in losers "

Hasn't got a blessed thing to do with 'political party' nor
'virility'

And to further illustrate, they predicted the results regardless of
which 'party' won.

"We predicted that males who voted for the losing presidential
candidates would have post-outcome testosterone decreases, and that
the males who voted for the winning candidate would have either
stable post-outcome testosterone or testosterone increases. On the
basis of inconclusive but principally null findings in past
research and the evolutionary perspective which suggests that
testosterone plays a lesser role in female mammalian competition,
we predicted that female voters would not show differential
testosterone changes according to the election outcome."

Not only that, but they specifically attempted to factor out
political viewpoint as well as 'enthusiasm' for the candidate.

"Moreover, the candidate choice effect on men's testosterone change
remained even when participants' conservatism, as measured by the
RWA scale [18], was partialled out of the analysis (F(1, 49), =
5.39, p =
0.03). Further still, the candidate choice effect was maintained
when adding an additional covariate which accounted for voters'
intensity of support for their candidate (F(1, 48), = 5.37, p =
0.03). "

And now, for any of this to amount to jack ****, you have to show
that Obama didn't win. lol


No but your comment proves you're incapable of comprehending English.

As always, when stuck, floppy lies.

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:31:04 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:00:18 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:58:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS...

Of course 'the register' article is.

It's a good example, though, of how ignorant fools, either
intentionally or as an artifact of their stupidity, create
propaganda by injecting misleading information, falsehoods, and/or
irrelevancies. Secondarily, it's an example of how 'faux science'
gets promulgated.

Read the actual research report (to their credit they link to it).
There is only one mention of 'Republican', to denote that was
McCain's party. Barr was "Libertarian party" and Obama was
"Democratic party."

The Register's comment about testosterone being "considered
essential for basic manliness" is misleading, as testosterone has
multiple roles in human behavior, and irrelevant to the
experiment. The researcher's clearly explained it.

"Across mammalian species, testosterone is critically linked to
dominance competition for hierarchical advancement in males
[3]-[5]. When males win a dominance contest, their testosterone
levels rise or remain stable to resist a circadian decline, and
when they lose, their testosterone levels fall [3]-[5]. In men,
the described pattern of testosterone change after winning or
losing has been demonstrated in the context of direct,
interpersonal competition (e.g., sports matches and non-physical
competitions) [4], [ e.g. 6]-[8]. In addition, Bernhardt and
colleagues [9] measured World Cup soccer fans' testosterone
changes after the outcome of a World Cup match, and they found
that vicariously-experienced competition (i.e. watching one's
favorite sports teams win or lose) drives testosterone increases
in winners and decreases in losers "

Hasn't got a blessed thing to do with 'political party' nor
'virility'

And to further illustrate, they predicted the results regardless
of which 'party' won.

"We predicted that males who voted for the losing presidential
candidates would have post-outcome testosterone decreases, and
that the males who voted for the winning candidate would have
either stable post-outcome testosterone or testosterone
increases. On the basis of inconclusive but principally null
findings in past research and the evolutionary perspective which
suggests that testosterone plays a lesser role in female
mammalian competition, we predicted that female voters would not
show differential testosterone changes according to the election
outcome."

Not only that, but they specifically attempted to factor out
political viewpoint as well as 'enthusiasm' for the candidate.

"Moreover, the candidate choice effect on men's testosterone
change remained even when participants' conservatism, as measured
by the RWA scale [18], was partialled out of the analysis (F(1,
49), =
5.39, p =
0.03). Further still, the candidate choice effect was maintained
when adding an additional covariate which accounted for voters'
intensity of support for their candidate (F(1, 48), = 5.37, p =
0.03). "

And now, for any of this to amount to jack ****, you have to show
that Obama didn't win. lol


No but your comment proves you're incapable of comprehending
English.

As always, when stuck, floppy lies.


As always, the liar accuses others of his own offense.

More lies, as usual. Unless you can show the study does not apply to the
2008 election, no need to reply.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS... my father was quite sexually active until the day
he died, at 90; and I'm following in my father's foot-steps ;-)

It is, for sure, a use-it-or-lose-it tool. With no kids in the house
to contend with, I'm probably more active than you young bucks... no
problem running around the house naked ;-)

It was on the news today, some bloke in Virginia got arrested for indecent
exposure as he made coffee naked in his own kitchen, he was reported by a
woman who saw him through the window.

However a prosecutor who was interviewed said that for a conviction it would
have to be proved that he intentionally exposed his private parts, the
circumstances would seem to suggest it was not intentional.

The man said he may sue the woman for trespass as she and her son were
taking a short cut through his garden at the time.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:58:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

What a pile of BS... my father was quite sexually active until the day
he died, at 90; and I'm following in my father's foot-steps ;-)


Total horse****.

Hipless retards couldn't **** before they were hipless, much less after
they became hipless.

You haven't been "hip" since the late sixties.

Your pathetic attempts at humor proves that. The jokes you tell were
old back in '68 when you learned them.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:58:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

It is, for sure, a use-it-or-lose-it tool.

More total horse****. A: NOT a "tool", and B: NOT a use it or lose it
scenario in any way whatsoever.

With no kids in the house
to contend with, I'm probably more active than you young bucks...


You spew a lot of fantasies in these groups. This is yet another.

no
problem running around the house naked ;-)

Kills the flies.

What a ****ing joke.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:01:44 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


So...

High Testosterone = Aggressive Behavior

Who would have ever thunk it ?:-)

...Jim Thompson


Yes, and claims of high testosterone leads to total horse**** claims
made here, among your peers.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:09:27 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:

The man said he may sue the woman for trespass as she and her son were
taking a short cut through his garden at the time.


Tresspass is a criminal offense, not one which can be sued for in a
civil court.

The cop should have charged her with the trespass offense, and for
contributing to the delinquency of a minor for inciting him to also
commit criminal trespass.

She should also be charged as being a peeping tom, or whatever the
charge is for that.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:53:24 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:51:30 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:31:04 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:00:18 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:58:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS...

Of course 'the register' article is.

It's a good example, though, of how ignorant fools, either
intentionally or as an artifact of their stupidity, create
propaganda by injecting misleading information, falsehoods, and/or
irrelevancies. Secondarily, it's an example of how 'faux science'
gets promulgated.

Read the actual research report (to their credit they link to it).
There is only one mention of 'Republican', to denote that was
McCain's party. Barr was "Libertarian party" and Obama was
"Democratic party."

The Register's comment about testosterone being "considered
essential for basic manliness" is misleading, as testosterone has
multiple roles in human behavior, and irrelevant to the
experiment. The researcher's clearly explained it.

"Across mammalian species, testosterone is critically linked to
dominance competition for hierarchical advancement in males
[3]-[5]. When males win a dominance contest, their testosterone
levels rise or remain stable to resist a circadian decline, and
when they lose, their testosterone levels fall [3]-[5]. In men,
the described pattern of testosterone change after winning or
losing has been demonstrated in the context of direct,
interpersonal competition (e.g., sports matches and non-physical
competitions) [4], [ e.g. 6]-[8]. In addition, Bernhardt and
colleagues [9] measured World Cup soccer fans' testosterone
changes after the outcome of a World Cup match, and they found
that vicariously-experienced competition (i.e. watching one's
favorite sports teams win or lose) drives testosterone increases
in winners and decreases in losers "

Hasn't got a blessed thing to do with 'political party' nor
'virility'

And to further illustrate, they predicted the results regardless
of which 'party' won.

"We predicted that males who voted for the losing presidential
candidates would have post-outcome testosterone decreases, and
that the males who voted for the winning candidate would have
either stable post-outcome testosterone or testosterone
increases. On the basis of inconclusive but principally null
findings in past research and the evolutionary perspective which
suggests that testosterone plays a lesser role in female
mammalian competition, we predicted that female voters would not
show differential testosterone changes according to the election
outcome."

Not only that, but they specifically attempted to factor out
political viewpoint as well as 'enthusiasm' for the candidate.

"Moreover, the candidate choice effect on men's testosterone
change remained even when participants' conservatism, as measured
by the RWA scale [18], was partialled out of the analysis (F(1,
49), =
5.39, p =
0.03). Further still, the candidate choice effect was maintained
when adding an additional covariate which accounted for voters'
intensity of support for their candidate (F(1, 48), = 5.37, p =
0.03). "

And now, for any of this to amount to jack ****, you have to show
that Obama didn't win. lol


No but your comment proves you're incapable of comprehending
English.

As always, when stuck, floppy lies.


As always, the liar accuses others of his own offense.

More lies, as usual.

Whines the liar.

Unless you can show the study does not apply to the
2008 election, no need to reply.

And more proof you're incapable of comprehending English.

The researchers argue it 'applies' to all mammalian species in all
competition(s) for hierarchical advancement and, in humans at least,
whether directly or vicariously involved. So, yes, it 'applies' to the
2008 election and, no, you don't "have to show that Obama didn't win"
for "any of this to amount to jack ****." For similar circumstances
you will get a statistically similar response regardless of who wins,
regardless of politics, and regardless of the competition because it
is a natural biological reaction inherent to all mammalian species.

You have a couple of choices now. You could break new ground and try
saying something intelligent for a change or shoot for making an even
bigger fool of yourself.

Frankly, I'd recommend the first since there's a near infinite amount
of fertile ground there for you to plow and you've pretty much already
maxed out the latter.

Yes... he IS a total retard.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:07:41 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:51:10 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:09:27 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:

The man said he may sue the woman for trespass as she and her son were
taking a short cut through his garden at the time.


Tresspass is a criminal offense, not one which can be sued for in a
civil court.

http://realestate.findlaw.com/trespa...ng-basics.html

"There are both criminal and civil trespass laws....
Civil trespass requires that the landowner initiate a private
enforcement action in court to collect any damages for which the
trespasser may be responsible (regardless of whether a crime has been
committed)."


The cop should have charged her with the trespass offense, and for
contributing to the delinquency of a minor for inciting him to also
commit criminal trespass.

She should also be charged as being a peeping tom, or whatever the
charge is for that.

Isn't it a shame that Nymbecile is so ignorant :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

With Half My Brain Tied Behind My Back
Still More Clever Than Mr.Prissy Pants

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:07:41 -0500, flipper wrote:

http://realestate.findlaw.com/trespa...ng-basics.html

"There are both criminal and civil trespass laws....
Civil trespass requires that the landowner initiate a private
enforcement action in court to collect any damages for which the
trespasser may be responsible (regardless of whether a crime has been
committed)."


You do know that laws vary from state to state, and this site's blanket
definitions may not be true in all states.

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:51:30 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:31:04 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:00:18 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:58:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS...

Of course 'the register' article is.

It's a good example, though, of how ignorant fools, either
intentionally or as an artifact of their stupidity, create
propaganda by injecting misleading information, falsehoods,
and/or irrelevancies. Secondarily, it's an example of how 'faux
science' gets promulgated.

Read the actual research report (to their credit they link to
it). There is only one mention of 'Republican', to denote that
was McCain's party. Barr was "Libertarian party" and Obama was
"Democratic party."

The Register's comment about testosterone being "considered
essential for basic manliness" is misleading, as testosterone
has multiple roles in human behavior, and irrelevant to the
experiment. The researcher's clearly explained it.

"Across mammalian species, testosterone is critically linked to
dominance competition for hierarchical advancement in males
[3]-[5]. When males win a dominance contest, their testosterone
levels rise or remain stable to resist a circadian decline, and
when they lose, their testosterone levels fall [3]-[5]. In men,
the described pattern of testosterone change after winning or
losing has been demonstrated in the context of direct,
interpersonal competition (e.g., sports matches and non-physical
competitions) [4], [ e.g. 6]-[8]. In addition, Bernhardt and
colleagues [9] measured World Cup soccer fans' testosterone
changes after the outcome of a World Cup match, and they found
that vicariously-experienced competition (i.e. watching one's
favorite sports teams win or lose) drives testosterone increases
in winners and decreases in losers "

Hasn't got a blessed thing to do with 'political party' nor
'virility'

And to further illustrate, they predicted the results regardless
of which 'party' won.

"We predicted that males who voted for the losing presidential
candidates would have post-outcome testosterone decreases, and
that the males who voted for the winning candidate would have
either stable post-outcome testosterone or testosterone
increases. On the basis of inconclusive but principally null
findings in past research and the evolutionary perspective which
suggests that testosterone plays a lesser role in female
mammalian competition, we predicted that female voters would not
show differential testosterone changes according to the election
outcome."

Not only that, but they specifically attempted to factor out
political viewpoint as well as 'enthusiasm' for the candidate.

"Moreover, the candidate choice effect on men's testosterone
change remained even when participants' conservatism, as
measured by the RWA scale [18], was partialled out of the
analysis (F(1, 49), =
5.39, p =
0.03). Further still, the candidate choice effect was maintained
when adding an additional covariate which accounted for voters'
intensity of support for their candidate (F(1, 48), = 5.37, p =
0.03). "

And now, for any of this to amount to jack ****, you have to
show that Obama didn't win. lol


No but your comment proves you're incapable of comprehending
English.

As always, when stuck, floppy lies.


As always, the liar accuses others of his own offense.

More lies, as usual.

Whines the liar.

Unless you can show the study does not apply to the
2008 election, no need to reply.

And more proof you're incapable of comprehending English.

The researchers argue it 'applies' to all mammalian species in all
competition(s) for hierarchical advancement and, in humans at least,
whether directly or vicariously involved. So, yes, it 'applies' to the
2008 election and, no, you don't "have to show that Obama didn't win"
for "any of this to amount to jack ****." For similar circumstances
you will get a statistically similar response regardless of who wins,
regardless of politics, and regardless of the competition because it
is a natural biological reaction inherent to all mammalian species.

Yep. But it was fun to see the register take a bite out of some right
wing ass for a change, they spend enough time on the other side. =)


You have a couple of choices now. You could break new ground and try
saying something intelligent for a change or shoot for making an even
bigger fool of yourself.

Frankly, I'd recommend the first since there's a near infinite amount
of fertile ground there for you to plow and you've pretty much already
maxed out the latter.

We all understand that you boys need to compensate in some fashion. As
you say, it's only natural. Perhaps less guns and more sports cars?

(Personally I suspect the actual behavioral effect is negligible. But you
didn't see me say that, I have a rep to consider.)

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:55:54 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:53:59 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:07:41 -0500, flipper wrote:

http://realestate.findlaw.com/trespa...ng-basics.html

"There are both criminal and civil trespass laws....
Civil trespass requires that the landowner initiate a private
enforcement action in court to collect any damages for which the
trespasser may be responsible (regardless of whether a crime has been
committed)."


You do know that laws vary from state to state, and this site's blanket
definitions may not be true in all states.

Yes, I know they vary but, while I don't know for a fact, I suspect
the basics are similar because the problem is similar.

I also suspect the idea came from his lawyer which, having been
charged, I presume he's retained.

Look. Trespass is a crime. That means that IF it has been committed,
the authorities are obligated to site the offender.

A civil judge and jury will laugh at you for taking someone to court
for trespass, if not one goddamned piece of property was damaged or
removed.

And IF something was damaged or removed, the authorities will be
adding other criminal charges to the person's list.

No harm, no foul is what they will declare, and it likely will not even
make it to ANY hearing.

Make more sense now?

Common sense is something that lacks seriously in a society that hunts
up the meaning of something on the net with EVERY encounter they have
because their life was so fruitless that they garnered no knowledge as
they came up in the world. You hunt it up, and think you know all about
it, yet your lack of common sense makes it glaringly apparent that you
not only know nothing about it now, but likely NEVER DID.

'flipper' fits you, because you flip through web sites thinking you know
all about the world from the crap you get there and using the crap in
your skull to filter and retain it. You would fail miserably in a
Jeopardy show, because there are no live search engines.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:13:58 -0500, flipper wrote:

Good luck on arresting someone for walking across the corner of your
yard.

If your yard has a perimeter defense (a fence, idiot), and posted
signs, you most certainly can have ANYONBE that breeches it to ANY degree
arrested.

You really are clueless about this.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:13:58 -0500, flipper wrote:


Try a "sit in" and see how "no foul" the judge rules after your
arrest.


civil cases have no arrest involved, idiot.

A civil case without damages will get laughed out of court.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:13:58 -0500, flipper wrote:

'flipper' fits you, because you flip through web sites thinking you know
all about the world from the crap you get there and using the crap in
your skull to filter and retain it. You would fail miserably in a
Jeopardy show, because there are no live search engines.

Thanks for the tip. I'll avoid Jeopardy.

Works a treat in real life, though.

You're an idiot... Right here... in real life, you dumb****.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:13:58 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:17:47 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:55:54 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:53:59 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:07:41 -0500, flipper wrote:

http://realestate.findlaw.com/trespa...ng-basics.html

"There are both criminal and civil trespass laws....
Civil trespass requires that the landowner initiate a private
enforcement action in court to collect any damages for which the
trespasser may be responsible (regardless of whether a crime has been
committed)."


You do know that laws vary from state to state, and this site's blanket
definitions may not be true in all states.

Yes, I know they vary but, while I don't know for a fact, I suspect
the basics are similar because the problem is similar.

I also suspect the idea came from his lawyer which, having been
charged, I presume he's retained.

Look. Trespass is a crime. That means that IF it has been committed,
the authorities are obligated to site the offender.

Good luck on arresting someone for walking across the corner of your
yard.


[snip]

I did that to a horse rider, a sheriff's deputy no less ;-)

Dropped the charges after I got an apology from the Sheriff.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

With Half My Brain Tied Behind My Back
Still More Clever Than Mr.Prissy Pants

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:09:08 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:14:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:13:58 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:17:47 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:55:54 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:53:59 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:07:41 -0500, flipper wrote:

http://realestate.findlaw.com/trespa...ng-basics.html

"There are both criminal and civil trespass laws....
Civil trespass requires that the landowner initiate a private
enforcement action in court to collect any damages for which the
trespasser may be responsible (regardless of whether a crime has been
committed)."


You do know that laws vary from state to state, and this site's blanket
definitions may not be true in all states.

Yes, I know they vary but, while I don't know for a fact, I suspect
the basics are similar because the problem is similar.

I also suspect the idea came from his lawyer which, having been
charged, I presume he's retained.

Look. Trespass is a crime. That means that IF it has been committed,
the authorities are obligated to site the offender.

Good luck on arresting someone for walking across the corner of your
yard.


[snip]

I did that to a horse rider, a sheriff's deputy no less ;-)

Dropped the charges after I got an apology from the Sheriff.

Hehe. That sounds like a good story. Do tell how you arrested the
deputy.


...Jim Thompson

Saw him crossing my acre, from my office window, ran out and
confronted him... so suddenly the horse threw him. Aaron ran out and
took a photo. End of story ;-)

And I misspoke... sheriff's "posse".

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

With Half My Brain Tied Behind My Back
Still More Clever Than Mr.Prissy Pants

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:05:58 -0500, flipper wrote:

You apparently confuse the legal term "damages" with physical property
damage.

Actually, it is you that confused it. I am fine.