On Oct 28, 12:51*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 10/26/2011 5:11 AM, Tom S. wrote:



On Oct 26, 3:08 am, *wrote:

Whatever. I think it's far more the case that everyone here knows
exactly what I mean. The problem is they don't agree with me because
they are members of the far right. Those folks have trouble
understanding anyone but themselves. Any time you present ideas that are
either moderate or even slightly to the left of center it either
confuses or enrages them, or both. So try reading what I write a bit
more carefully. I think you'll find that I'm writing on a level everyone
here should understand. If you can't I think it's not me that has the
problem. Maybe it's you.

Well, maybe it's YOU?

Maybe it's the fact you're an incoherent, pompous, immature dolt.

Hey Dan, here's what I am talking about. Everyone understands me just
fine. Take this right winger, for example. He understood what I wrote.
But as I also said about the right wingers, everything I write either
enrages or confuses them or both. From the level of his personal attack
against me, I'd say this one is enraged . But that is to be expected
when you can't come up with a cogent argument backed by facts that
proves me to be wrong about something. So, they call me names.

Hawke

It sounds to me as if they are just describing your actions. Immature
because you will not admit you are wrong about the damage to the White
House. Pompous because you bring up having gone to college as if it is
something special. I expect a large majority of the people who post
here have graduated from college. And incoherent because you make up
your own definitions as to what words mean. It sounds to me as if
they understand you all right.

What you write does not enrage me. I mean to say why should I get mad
just because you can not make a cogent coherent statement. Some of
the things you say confuse me because you use your own definitions of
words that differ from the standard convention. And I have come up
with cogent arguments backed by fact that prove you wrong about saying
there was no damage done by departing Clinton staff. So wail away at
the keyboard and try to worm out of it, but anyone reading this now or
as long as it is archived on the internet can see how immature you
are.


Dan

On 10/28/2011 11:26 AM, wrote:

Well, maybe it's YOU?

Maybe it's the fact you're an incoherent, pompous, immature dolt.

Hey Dan, here's what I am talking about. Everyone understands me just
fine. Take this right winger, for example. He understood what I wrote.
But as I also said about the right wingers, everything I write either
enrages or confuses them or both. From the level of his personal attack
against me, I'd say this one is enraged . But that is to be expected
when you can't come up with a cogent argument backed by facts that
proves me to be wrong about something. So, they call me names.

Hawke

It sounds to me as if they are just describing your actions. Immature
because you will not admit you are wrong about the damage to the White
House.

Why should I admit to something that I don't believe is true? Or is so
petty that it was never worth mentioning and only was by political
opponents. The question for you is why do you value the accusations that
come only from right wing opponents of the Clinton's?


Pompous because you bring up having gone to college as if it is
something special.

I only brought it up in the first place to establish that I have a
degree in a field that a lot of discussions take place in. That means
I'm not just some ignorant or untrained amateur like most folks here
are. Second, only about 25% of adult Americans have completed a college
degree. Meaning 75% don't have one. The fact that 75% don't have one
does mean having one is special. Of course, that's by my definition of
special.


I expect a large majority of the people who post
here have graduated from college.

Statistically speaking that would not be true. As I said 75% of people
don't have a degree and people in the "trades" in general are even less
inclined to have one. So you might "expect" the majority of people who
post here have degrees the statistics say otherwise. Excuse me if I
choose to go with statistics over your expectations.


And incoherent because you make up
your own definitions as to what words mean. It sounds to me as if
they understand you all right.

Like I said, they do understand me. They just don't like hearing points
of view that are not from the far right side. As to making up my own
definitions that is not something I alone do. So do most people.



What you write does not enrage me. I mean to say why should I get mad
just because you can not make a cogent coherent statement.

Obviously I make cogent and easily understandable statements all the
time. Otherwise you would not understand me. As to why what I write
would make you mad is because I express opinions you strongly disagree
with. FYI that sort of thing makes many on the right very angry.


Some of
the things you say confuse me because you use your own definitions of
words that differ from the standard convention.

So you believe. But I think the problem is your way of comprehending
what is written. You are very rigid in your thinking and are not good at
grasping anything besides the obvious.


And I have come up
with cogent arguments backed by fact that prove you wrong about saying
there was no damage done by departing Clinton staff. So wail away at
the keyboard and try to worm out of it, but anyone reading this now or
as long as it is archived on the internet can see how immature you
are.


Some might agree with your assessment, Dan. But not everyone. In fact,
many people would agree with me that a small amount of breakage in the
White House isn't properly described as damage. Especially when the
claims are made by right wingers who are out to smear the Clinton's
name. Moreover, I doubt many people will agree with you that what I have
said is in any way immature. What I think they will think is that you
were really desperate to be right about the Clinton's doing a lot of
"damage" to the White House. So you constructed an ineffective argument
to back that assertion up, and that the truth is what I have maintained
all along, and that is the White House was not damaged by the Clintons'.
Characterizing it that was was politically done and didn't reflect the
truth.

Hawke

On Oct 29, 1:02*pm, Hawke wrote:



Why should I admit to something that I don't believe is true? Or is so
petty that it was never worth mentioning and only was by political
opponents. The question for you is why do you value the accusations that
come only from right wing opponents of the Clinton's?

The question I have is why do you not believe it is true? Certainly
there are enough facts that say it is true. I do not only value the
accusations made by right wing opponents of the Clintons. I just
thought it strange that you can not bring yourself to believe what is
well documented to be true.

* Pompous because you bring up having gone to college as if it is

something *special.

I only brought it up in the first place to establish that I have a
degree in a field that a lot of discussions take place in. That means
I'm not just some ignorant or untrained amateur like most folks here
are. Second, only about 25% of adult Americans have completed a college
degree. Meaning 75% don't have one. The fact that 75% don't have one
does mean having one is special. Of course, that's by my definition of
special.

If you post logical coherent statements, everyone will believe you are
intelligent. No need to bring up that you went to college. I do not
think I ever said if I went to college, but perhaps I did. I figure
that if I post intelligent things, people will think I am intelligent
regardless of whether I went to college or not. And if they think I
am intelligent, then I probably am somewhat special.

* I expect a large majority of the people who post

here have graduated from college.

Statistically speaking that would not be true. As I said 75% of people
don't have a degree and people in the "trades" in general are even less
inclined to have one. So you might "expect" the majority of people who
post here have degrees the statistics say otherwise. Excuse me if I
choose to go with statistics over your expectations.

Yes No and Maybe. You need to consider that those that read and post
in RCM might not be considered the general public. So while a college
degree might be not especially common in the general public, I think
it may be very common amoung those that post here. So I would suggest
you are not so hot with statistics as you confuse a small group as
being representative of the general public. Did you take statistics
in college?

* *And incoherent because you make up

your own definitions as to what words mean. *It sounds to me as if
they understand you all right.

Like I said, they do understand me. They just don't like hearing points
of view that are not from the far right side. As to making up my own
definitions that is not something I alone do. So do most people.

What you write does not enrage me. *I mean to say why should I get mad
just because you can not make a cogent coherent statement.

Obviously I make cogent and easily understandable statements all the
time. Otherwise you would not understand me. As to why what I write
would make you mad is because I express opinions you strongly disagree
with. FYI that sort of thing makes many on the right very angry.

It really does not bother me that you express opinions, whatever they
are. I do try to point out to you where you make logical errors.
Such as the one above on statistics.


* *Some of

the things you say confuse me because you use your own definitions of
words that differ from the standard convention.

So you believe. But I think the problem is your way of comprehending
what is written. You are very rigid in your thinking and are not good at
grasping anything besides the obvious.

Actually I am very good at grasping ideas beyond the obvious. But
believe when posting in a public place such as RCM where there are
many people with different opinions, that one needs to express oneself
concisely. It may have something to do with having edited a lot of
technical stuff where sloppy writing is not accepted.


* And I *have come up

with cogent arguments backed by fact that prove you wrong about saying
there was no damage done by departing Clinton staff. *So wail away at
the keyboard and try to worm out of it, but anyone reading this now or
as long as it is archived on the internet can see how immature you
are.

Some might agree with your assessment, Dan. But not everyone. In fact,
many people would agree with me that a small amount of breakage in the
White House isn't properly described as damage.

But the statement you said was false clearly said $15,000 in damages.
That is what you said was false.

Especially when the
claims are made by right wingers who are out to smear the Clinton's
name. Moreover, I doubt many people will agree with you that what I have
said is in any way immature. What I think they will think is that you
were really desperate to be right about the Clinton's doing a lot of
"damage" to the White House. So you constructed an ineffective argument
to back that assertion up, and that the truth is what I have maintained
all along, and that is the White House was not damaged by the Clintons'.
Characterizing it that was was politically done and didn't reflect the
truth.



I do not think the actions of the Clinton's staff do not have
anything to do with the Clintons. I can not conceive of the Clintons
condoning what was done. And it was probably the action of one or two
people, not the actions of most of the staff. Likely it was done by
someone who was about to be out of a job and someone who had worked
really hard to keep the Democrats in the White House. So I am not in
the least bit desperate to be right about Clinton's staff doing a lot
of damage. That all happened a long time ago. But that is what the
GAO reports says. You are the one that is desperately defending
something. I am just trying to see if you can accept facts.


Dan


Hawke

On 10/29/2011 1:11 PM, wrote:
On Oct 29, 1:02 pm, wrote:



Why should I admit to something that I don't believe is true? Or is so
petty that it was never worth mentioning and only was by political
opponents. The question for you is why do you value the accusations that
come only from right wing opponents of the Clinton's?

The question I have is why do you not believe it is true? Certainly
there are enough facts that say it is true. I do not only value the
accusations made by right wing opponents of the Clintons. I just
thought it strange that you can not bring yourself to believe what is
well documented to be true.

I'm not saying there was nothing damaged in the White House. I'm saying
I take issue of whether it was incidental to having been there for eight
years and of many people coming and going. I'm taking issue of whether
the things that were broken or needing repair should have been
characterized as "damaged". I also take issue of the reports that the
White House was trashed by the Clinton's when they left. But I'm sure
there were things that were broken or damaged when the Clinton's left.
What would you expect after living somewhere for eight years. I don't
dispute that. But that **** is completely trivial.



Pompous because you bring up having gone to college as if it is

something special.

I only brought it up in the first place to establish that I have a
degree in a field that a lot of discussions take place in. That means
I'm not just some ignorant or untrained amateur like most folks here
are. Second, only about 25% of adult Americans have completed a college
degree. Meaning 75% don't have one. The fact that 75% don't have one
does mean having one is special. Of course, that's by my definition of
special.

If you post logical coherent statements, everyone will believe you are
intelligent. No need to bring up that you went to college. I do not
think I ever said if I went to college, but perhaps I did. I figure
that if I post intelligent things, people will think I am intelligent
regardless of whether I went to college or not. And if they think I
am intelligent, then I probably am somewhat special.

If you tell me you have an engineering degree then when you make
comments about loads, and stress in building things I'm going to accept
that you know what you are talking about, having been trained for that
kind of thing. I expect the same thing when I tell you I am trained in
political science. What's odd about that? The problem is that I would
defer to you in engineering stuff. But nobody wants to do anything but
argue with me and these are people with no education past high
school....in anything let alone in political science.



I expect a large majority of the people who post

here have graduated from college.

Statistically speaking that would not be true. As I said 75% of people
don't have a degree and people in the "trades" in general are even less
inclined to have one. So you might "expect" the majority of people who
post here have degrees the statistics say otherwise. Excuse me if I
choose to go with statistics over your expectations.

Yes No and Maybe. You need to consider that those that read and post
in RCM might not be considered the general public. So while a college
degree might be not especially common in the general public, I think
it may be very common amoung those that post here. So I would suggest
you are not so hot with statistics as you confuse a small group as
being representative of the general public. Did you take statistics
in college?

I did. From what I learned there I can tell you that a newsgroup about a
trade like metalworking will probably have mainly tradesmen in it. If it
was an engineering group I'd expect most people would have college
degrees. Assuming most people here are metal working related workers I
think it's a fair assumption that most people in this group don't have
degrees. 75% of the public has no college degree. If we are
representative of that population then most people here don't have a
degree. If we are representative of metalworkers in general then you
would expect that population to be less well educated than the general
public.



And incoherent because you make up

your own definitions as to what words mean. It sounds to me as if
they understand you all right.

Like I said, they do understand me. They just don't like hearing points
of view that are not from the far right side. As to making up my own
definitions that is not something I alone do. So do most people.

What you write does not enrage me. I mean to say why should I get mad
just because you can not make a cogent coherent statement.

You get mad because my statements are in direct conflict with what you
believe in not because they are incoherent. If they were incoherent then
you would simply not understand what my statements meant. You may not
get mad at my statements but lots of right wingers do, I guarantee you
that. Why else would they vilify me? Because they agree with me?



Obviously I make cogent and easily understandable statements all the
time. Otherwise you would not understand me. As to why what I write
would make you mad is because I express opinions you strongly disagree
with. FYI that sort of thing makes many on the right very angry.

It really does not bother me that you express opinions, whatever they
are. I do try to point out to you where you make logical errors.
Such as the one above on statistics.

To make a charge that I've made a statistical error you have to prove
it. But you don't have a clue how many people here have college degrees.
You just made a guess. OTOH, I estimated based on education level
statistics how many people here should have a college education. If you
think I am wrong then I say show me that more than 50% of the people
here have a degree in something.



Some of

the things you say confuse me because you use your own definitions of
words that differ from the standard convention.

So you believe. But I think the problem is your way of comprehending
what is written. You are very rigid in your thinking and are not good at
grasping anything besides the obvious.

Actually I am very good at grasping ideas beyond the obvious. But
believe when posting in a public place such as RCM where there are
many people with different opinions, that one needs to express oneself
concisely. It may have something to do with having edited a lot of
technical stuff where sloppy writing is not accepted.

I guess that explains it. You aren't editing things here though. You are
having a casual conversation that is on another level. It's informal.
Anything goes. The last thing you would do is be formal or like an
editor in any way. Many people here don't have good grammar or very good
at writing. You ought to be taking that into account.



And I have come up

with cogent arguments backed by fact that prove you wrong about saying
there was no damage done by departing Clinton staff. So wail away at
the keyboard and try to worm out of it, but anyone reading this now or
as long as it is archived on the internet can see how immature you
are.

Some might agree with your assessment, Dan. But not everyone. In fact,
many people would agree with me that a small amount of breakage in the
White House isn't properly described as damage.

But the statement you said was false clearly said $15,000 in damages.
That is what you said was false.

It's only false if the damage was intentional and if it was really worth
15K. From what I could tell it sounded like a lot less than that.
Removing 62 keyboards doesn't even sound like damage at all to me. Or
cell phones. So what is it a few door knobs and some minor things here
and there. I have a hard time calling that damage. So maybe I'm right in
not calling that kind of thing damage. It does sound good if you're
trying to smear someone by calling it that. How do you know that isn't
what we're dealing with?

Especially when the
claims are made by right wingers who are out to smear the Clinton's
name. Moreover, I doubt many people will agree with you that what I have
said is in any way immature. What I think they will think is that you
were really desperate to be right about the Clinton's doing a lot of
"damage" to the White House. So you constructed an ineffective argument
to back that assertion up, and that the truth is what I have maintained
all along, and that is the White House was not damaged by the Clintons'.
Characterizing it that was was politically done and didn't reflect the
truth.



I do not think the actions of the Clinton's staff do not have
anything to do with the Clintons.

Who do you think actually did this "damage". Bill and Hillary. Or was it
some of the staff that worked there over the eight years? Blaming the
Clinton's for things some 20 year old staffers did isn't fair is it? But
that's how it came out. The damage was done by the Clinton's.


I can not conceive of the Clintons
condoning what was done. And it was probably the action of one or two
people, not the actions of most of the staff. Likely it was done by
someone who was about to be out of a job and someone who had worked
really hard to keep the Democrats in the White House. So I am not in
the least bit desperate to be right about Clinton's staff doing a lot
of damage. That all happened a long time ago. But that is what the
GAO reports says. You are the one that is desperately defending
something. I am just trying to see if you can accept facts.


I don't have trouble with facts. I believe them any time they are
proven. But in this case it's up to interpretation. None of us saw the
damage. We don't know who did it or if it was intentional. We don't know
what was paid to fix it. All we know is that things had to be repaired
and the estimate was 15 or 20K. I don't even know how accurate those
guesses are. But I accept that as a fact. The rest of it I don't know
with the degree of certainty you seem to have.


Hawke

On Oct 30, 7:01*pm, Hawke wrote:






I did. From what I learned there I can tell you that a newsgroup about a
trade like metalworking will probably have mainly tradesmen in it.

Bad assumption. RCM is not about a trade like metalworking. Note the
R. That stands for recreational.
In other words it is a group about recreational metalworking. Which
tends to say the people who frequent it do metalworking for fun not as
a trade. In other words it is not a newsgroup about a trade. It is a
newsgroup for people that enjoy metalworking.

If it
was an engineering group I'd expect most people would have college
degrees. Assuming most people here are metal working related workers I
think it's a fair assumption that most people in this group don't have
degrees. 75% of the public has no college degree. If we are
representative of that population then most people here don't have a
degree. If we are representative of metalworkers in general then you
would expect that population to be less well educated than the general
public.


Ah but we are not representative of metalworkers in general. We are a
bunch of people who have a hobby of metalworking and like to discuss
metalworking. And I do not know where you get the idea that
machinists are less educated that the general public.


It really does not bother me that you express opinions, whatever they
are. *I do try to point out to you where you make logical errors.
Such as the one above on statistics.

To make a charge that I've made a statistical error you have to prove
it. But you don't have a clue how many people here have college degrees.
You just made a guess. OTOH, I estimated based on education level
statistics how many people here should have a college education. If you
think I am wrong then I say show me that more than 50% of the people
here have a degree in something.


The error you made was assuming that the folks that post in RCM are
representative of the general public. But they are not. Just the
fact that they post in a newsgroup means they are different from the
general public.
I do not have to prove how many people here have college degrees to
know you made an error, You made an error you in your initial
assumption. That is the statistical error you made.

I guess that explains it. You aren't editing things here though. You are
having a casual conversation that is on another level. It's informal.
Anything goes.

Anything goes. I guess that includes bad logic, false statements,
lies, etc. That may apply to you, but I try to be rational even in
informal conversations.

Dan

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:07:02 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 30, 7:01*pm, Hawke wrote:






I did. From what I learned there I can tell you that a newsgroup about a
trade like metalworking will probably have mainly tradesmen in it.

Bad assumption. RCM is not about a trade like metalworking. Note the
R. That stands for recreational.
In other words it is a group about recreational metalworking. Which
tends to say the people who frequent it do metalworking for fun not as
a trade. In other words it is not a newsgroup about a trade. It is a
newsgroup for people that enjoy metalworking.

If it
was an engineering group I'd expect most people would have college
degrees. Assuming most people here are metal working related workers I
think it's a fair assumption that most people in this group don't have
degrees. 75% of the public has no college degree. If we are
representative of that population then most people here don't have a
degree. If we are representative of metalworkers in general then you
would expect that population to be less well educated than the general
public.


Ah but we are not representative of metalworkers in general. We are a
bunch of people who have a hobby of metalworking and like to discuss
metalworking. And I do not know where you get the idea that
machinists are less educated that the general public.


It really does not bother me that you express opinions, whatever they
are. *I do try to point out to you where you make logical errors.
Such as the one above on statistics.

To make a charge that I've made a statistical error you have to prove
it. But you don't have a clue how many people here have college degrees.
You just made a guess. OTOH, I estimated based on education level
statistics how many people here should have a college education. If you
think I am wrong then I say show me that more than 50% of the people
here have a degree in something.


The error you made was assuming that the folks that post in RCM are
representative of the general public. But they are not. Just the
fact that they post in a newsgroup means they are different from the
general public.
I do not have to prove how many people here have college degrees to
know you made an error, You made an error you in your initial
assumption. That is the statistical error you made.

I guess that explains it. You aren't editing things here though. You are
having a casual conversation that is on another level. It's informal.
Anything goes.

Anything goes. I guess that includes bad logic, false statements,
lies, etc. That may apply to you, but I try to be rational even in
informal conversations.

Dan





Hack is a douche bag.

On 10/30/2011 7:07 PM, wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:01 pm, wrote:






I did. From what I learned there I can tell you that a newsgroup about a
trade like metalworking will probably have mainly tradesmen in it.

Bad assumption. RCM is not about a trade like metalworking. Note the
R. That stands for recreational.
In other words it is a group about recreational metalworking. Which
tends to say the people who frequent it do metalworking for fun not as
a trade. In other words it is not a newsgroup about a trade. It is a
newsgroup for people that enjoy metalworking.

I would point out that the M in RCM stands for metalworking, and that is
a trade. While this is a recreational group that doesn't mean there are
not metalworking and related trades people here. Quite a few I would
bet. So you can't say definitively that my assumption of the percentage
of college graduates in the group is wrong. If you take any
representation you want; the people here represent the general public,
the people here represent a large proportion of tradespeople, the people
here represent a recreational group, or just about any other you want to
use the statistics still support the idea that by a wide margin that
most people in this group are not people with college degrees.


If it
was an engineering group I'd expect most people would have college
degrees. Assuming most people here are metal working related workers I
think it's a fair assumption that most people in this group don't have
degrees. 75% of the public has no college degree. If we are
representative of that population then most people here don't have a
degree. If we are representative of metalworkers in general then you
would expect that population to be less well educated than the general
public.


Ah but we are not representative of metalworkers in general. We are a
bunch of people who have a hobby of metalworking and like to discuss
metalworking. And I do not know where you get the idea that
machinists are less educated that the general public.

Personal experience for one and the fact that machinists are
tradespeople and they are not as highly educated as the general public
is. I spent many years going to college and that goes back to the 1970s.
I never ran into anyone there who was a machinist. If you were a
professional machinist what college degree would you pursue? I mean if
you had a profession why would you be in college unless you wanted out
of it and into something else?


It really does not bother me that you express opinions, whatever they
are. I do try to point out to you where you make logical errors.
Such as the one above on statistics.

To make a charge that I've made a statistical error you have to prove
it. But you don't have a clue how many people here have college degrees.
You just made a guess. OTOH, I estimated based on education level
statistics how many people here should have a college education. If you
think I am wrong then I say show me that more than 50% of the people
here have a degree in something.


The error you made was assuming that the folks that post in RCM are
representative of the general public. But they are not. Just the
fact that they post in a newsgroup means they are different from the
general public.

I would question your assumptions here. First off, I don't see why
people in RCM are not representative of the general public. If so, in
what way, and where is your proof? Second, in what way are people that
post to a newsgroup different from the public? How do you know that?



I do not have to prove how many people here have college degrees to
know you made an error, You made an error you in your initial
assumption. That is the statistical error you made.

To prove me wrong all you have to do is prove that more than 25% of the
people in RCM have college degrees. You don't know my assumption is
wrong. You have no proof that it's wrong. You think it is but you don't
have any proof. So you can't say truthfully that my assumption is wrong
unless you can prove it first. But you don't have any way to do that.



I guess that explains it. You aren't editing things here though. You are
having a casual conversation that is on another level. It's informal.
Anything goes.

Anything goes. I guess that includes bad logic, false statements,
lies, etc. That may apply to you, but I try to be rational even in
informal conversations.


Yep, all of that. But, like you, I don't apply those things to myself
either. That doesn't mean most people here don't lie, make false
statements, or use faulty logic. I doubt any of them will admit to it
either.

Hawke

On 10/30/2011 8:32 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:07:02 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 30, 7:01 pm, wrote:






I did. From what I learned there I can tell you that a newsgroup about a
trade like metalworking will probably have mainly tradesmen in it.

Bad assumption. RCM is not about a trade like metalworking. Note the
R. That stands for recreational.
In other words it is a group about recreational metalworking. Which
tends to say the people who frequent it do metalworking for fun not as
a trade. In other words it is not a newsgroup about a trade. It is a
newsgroup for people that enjoy metalworking.

If it
was an engineering group I'd expect most people would have college
degrees. Assuming most people here are metal working related workers I
think it's a fair assumption that most people in this group don't have
degrees. 75% of the public has no college degree. If we are
representative of that population then most people here don't have a
degree. If we are representative of metalworkers in general then you
would expect that population to be less well educated than the general
public.


Ah but we are not representative of metalworkers in general. We are a
bunch of people who have a hobby of metalworking and like to discuss
metalworking. And I do not know where you get the idea that
machinists are less educated that the general public.


It really does not bother me that you express opinions, whatever they
are. I do try to point out to you where you make logical errors.
Such as the one above on statistics.

To make a charge that I've made a statistical error you have to prove
it. But you don't have a clue how many people here have college degrees.
You just made a guess. OTOH, I estimated based on education level
statistics how many people here should have a college education. If you
think I am wrong then I say show me that more than 50% of the people
here have a degree in something.


The error you made was assuming that the folks that post in RCM are
representative of the general public. But they are not. Just the
fact that they post in a newsgroup means they are different from the
general public.
I do not have to prove how many people here have college degrees to
know you made an error, You made an error you in your initial
assumption. That is the statistical error you made.

I guess that explains it. You aren't editing things here though. You are
having a casual conversation that is on another level. It's informal.
Anything goes.

Anything goes. I guess that includes bad logic, false statements,
lies, etc. That may apply to you, but I try to be rational even in
informal conversations.

Dan





Hack is a douche bag.


Can't come up with anything better than that? Thanks for proving to
everyone you're an airhead with nothing to contribute besides calling
people names. You're such a ****.

Hawke

On Nov 1, 1:25*pm, Hawke wrote:


I would point out that the M in RCM stands for metalworking, and that is
a trade. While this is a recreational group that doesn't mean there are
not metalworking and related trades people here. Quite a few I would
bet. So you can't say definitively that my assumption of the percentage
of college graduates in the group is wrong. If you take any
representation you want; the people here represent the general public,
the people here represent a large proportion of tradespeople, the people
here represent a recreational group, or just about any other you want to
use the statistics still support the idea that by a wide margin that
most people in this group are not people with college degrees.


From a very old post.


Now that I actually have sort of figured out how to create a
newsgroup, I
went looking for the original Charter for this group. Turns out this
particular newsgroup was started in 1992 by a guy named Jim
Kirkpatrick at
the University of Wyoming. To my knowledge, Jim is no longer actively
posting to the group, though the FAQ still resides on the University
of
Wyoming system.

Wherever you are, Jim, thanks.

Here's the official original charter for the group.

Charter
-------

Proposed Charter -- REC.CRAFTS.METALWORKING

The USENET newsgroup, rec.crafts.metalworking, is a newsgroup which
discusses
various aspects of working with metal, such as (but not limited to):

machining, as on a lathe, milling machine, grinder, etc.;

numerical control of such machines;

welding, whether by gas, arc, mig, tig, thermite, or other methods;

casting various metals by various methods;

hardening/tempering various metals;

blacksmithing/forging;

spinning and hammer work;

sheet metal work;

jewelry-making;

purchasing and/or reconditioning metalworking tools and machinery;

interesting projects;

books on metal technologies and history;

Example areas of interest:

knife/sword making;

automotive repair;

steam engine (model/scale, though full-sized discussions are
welcome!);

art work, such as bronze castings and sculptures;

gunsmithing;

toolmaking, such as for woodworking, further metalworking, etc.;

While the bulk of the discussion will probably be directed towards
small-scale "home" shops, industrial/production discussions are also
quite welcome.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mike Graham | Metalworker by trade
mikegraham at sprint dot ca | Weld to live, like to weld.
Caledon, Ontario, Canada | Weird by nature
http://metalmangler.homepage.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"By Fire and Iron doth he make Bread."


Still a mistake in how to apply statistics. The group does not
represent the general public. As just one example, this newsgroup is
almost all male. The general public is not.

If it
was an engineering group I'd expect most people would have college
degrees. Assuming most people here are metal working related workers I
think it's a fair assumption that most people in this group don't have
degrees. 75% of the public has no college degree. If we are
representative of that population then most people here don't have a
degree. If we are representative of metalworkers in general then you
would expect that population to be less well educated than the general
public.

Ah but we are not representative of metalworkers in general. *We are a
bunch of people who have a hobby of metalworking and like to discuss
metalworking. *And I do not know where you get the idea that
machinists are less educated that the general public.

Personal experience for one and the fact that machinists are
tradespeople and they are not as highly educated as the general public
is. I spent many years going to college and that goes back to the 1970s.
I never ran into anyone there who was a machinist. If you were a
professional machinist what college degree would you pursue? I mean if
you had a profession why would you be in college unless you wanted out
of it and into something else?

My belief is that machinists are more educated than the general
public. You yourself have said you do not post about metalworking
because you do not know much about metalworking. And you probably did
not meet any machinists because very few would be taking Political
Science classes. Did you take many computer courses? If you had you
might have run across machinists learning CNC. That is where the
machinists would be found trying to keep up with the state of the art
in computer control.



It really does not bother me that you express opinions, whatever they
are. *I do try to point out to you where you make logical errors.
Such as the one above on statistics.

To make a charge that I've made a statistical error you have to prove
it. But you don't have a clue how many people here have college degrees.
You just made a guess. OTOH, I estimated based on education level
statistics how many people here should have a college education. If you
think I am wrong then I say show me that more than 50% of the people
here have a degree in something.

The error you made was assuming that the folks that post in RCM are
representative of the general public. *But they are not. *Just the
fact that they post in a newsgroup means they are different from the
general public.

I would question your assumptions here. First off, I don't see why
people in RCM are not representative of the general public. If so, in
what way, and where is your proof? Second, in what way are people that
post to a newsgroup different from the public? How do you know that?


One the people in RCM are nearly all men unlike the general
population. Two most of them are computer literate, unlike a lot of
the general population. Three they are interested in metalworking.
Four a significant percentage are retired.


I do not have to prove how many people here have college degrees to
know you made an error, *You made an error you in your initial
assumption. *That is the statistical error you made.

To prove me wrong all you have to do is prove that more than 25% of the
people in RCM have college degrees. You don't know my assumption is
wrong. You have no proof that it's wrong. You think it is but you don't
have any proof. So you can't say truthfully that my assumption is wrong
unless you can prove it first. But you don't have any way to do that.


Not the way things work. You are the one contending that the people
that post in RCM are representative of the general public. -And using
that in an argument. So the burden of proof is up to you.


So did you ever take any courses in statistics? A quick look at CSU
Chico did not find any requirement to take either statistics or
econmics.


Dan

I guess that explains it. You aren't editing things here though. You are
having a casual conversation that is on another level. It's informal.
Anything goes.

Anything goes. *I guess that includes bad logic, false statements,
lies, etc. *That may apply to you, but I try to be rational even in
informal conversations.

Yep, all of that. But, like you, I don't apply those things to myself
either. That doesn't mean most people here don't lie, make false
statements, or use faulty logic. I doubt any of them will admit to it
either.

Hawke

On 11/1/2011 12:47 PM, wrote:

While the bulk of the discussion will probably be directed towards
small-scale "home" shops, industrial/production discussions are also
quite welcome.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mike Graham | Metalworker by trade
mikegraham at sprint dot ca | Weld to live, like to weld.
Caledon, Ontario, Canada | Weird by nature
http://metalmangler.homepage.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"By Fire and Iron doth he make Bread."


First thing I notice is: Make Graham...metalworker by trade. Hmmm,
didn't I say something about tradesmen being members here?




Still a mistake in how to apply statistics. The group does not
represent the general public. As just one example, this newsgroup is
almost all male. The general public is not.

That's a mistake, by the way. Gender is not a disqualifier as to being a
representative of the general public. In fact both sexes are members of
the general public. Men can be used as representatives of the general
public. It just depends on what you are trying to find out and how you
weight the data.


If it
was an engineering group I'd expect most people would have college
degrees. Assuming most people here are metal working related workers I
think it's a fair assumption that most people in this group don't have
degrees. 75% of the public has no college degree. If we are
representative of that population then most people here don't have a
degree. If we are representative of metalworkers in general then you
would expect that population to be less well educated than the general
public.

Ah but we are not representative of metalworkers in general. We are a
bunch of people who have a hobby of metalworking and like to discuss
metalworking. And I do not know where you get the idea that
machinists are less educated that the general public.

Personal experience for one and the fact that machinists are
tradespeople and they are not as highly educated as the general public
is. I spent many years going to college and that goes back to the 1970s.
I never ran into anyone there who was a machinist. If you were a
professional machinist what college degree would you pursue? I mean if
you had a profession why would you be in college unless you wanted out
of it and into something else?

My belief is that machinists are more educated than the general
public. You yourself have said you do not post about metalworking
because you do not know much about metalworking. And you probably did
not meet any machinists because very few would be taking Political
Science classes. Did you take many computer courses? If you had you
might have run across machinists learning CNC. That is where the
machinists would be found trying to keep up with the state of the art
in computer control.

Beliefs are one thing. To know is another, which is why we do research.
You have a belief and if you want to find out if it's true or not then
you get into the area of hypothesis testing. Your hypothesis; that
machinists are more educated than the general public would be exactly
the kind of thing social science research would try to find out. But you
would need to do the research before you could say your belief is
anything but that. You could test that hypothesis and get a better idea
if it's true or not but that is where the statistics come in.

My idea that tradespeople are less educated is based on statistics. I'm
fairly sure that high school educated men and tradesmen have less in the
way of college education than does the general public. I wouldn't bet my
life on that but I'm pretty sure. I'm also sure those statistics are
available and have been done already by someone. It's just a matter of
finding them.




It really does not bother me that you express opinions, whatever they
are. I do try to point out to you where you make logical errors.
Such as the one above on statistics.

To make a charge that I've made a statistical error you have to prove
it. But you don't have a clue how many people here have college degrees.
You just made a guess. OTOH, I estimated based on education level
statistics how many people here should have a college education. If you
think I am wrong then I say show me that more than 50% of the people
here have a degree in something.

The error you made was assuming that the folks that post in RCM are
representative of the general public. But they are not. Just the
fact that they post in a newsgroup means they are different from the
general public.

No that's wrong. My assumption wasn't that members here are
representative of the general public. I said the members here are less
likely to have a degree than the general public. You can disprove my
assertion by simply proving that more than 25% of the people in this
group have a college degree. I doubt you can do that though.



I would question your assumptions here. First off, I don't see why
people in RCM are not representative of the general public. If so, in
what way, and where is your proof? Second, in what way are people that
post to a newsgroup different from the public? How do you know that?


One the people in RCM are nearly all men unlike the general
population. Two most of them are computer literate, unlike a lot of
the general population. Three they are interested in metalworking.
Four a significant percentage are retired.

If anything the fact everyone is male means it's more likely that they
don't have a college degree because the majority of people graduating
from college in the last decade are females. Also retired men that are
in their 60s or older also probably don't have a degree. Simply being
computer savvy enough to be in a newsgroup doesn't indicate any high
level of education either. So I think your assumptions are just that.
They're not backed up by the facts or by reason. They're just your
personal theories.


I do not have to prove how many people here have college degrees to
know you made an error,

Then how else would you know I made an error?



You made an error you in your initial
assumption. That is the statistical error you made.

What error? That the members here are not representative of the general
public? I hate to tell you this but in many ways they are representative
of the general public. Probably in most ways. In statistics they
certainly are representative of the public in many ways. But I'm saying
in one way they are not, that they are not as well educated as the norm.

To prove me wrong all you have to do is prove that more than 25% of the
people in RCM have college degrees. You don't know my assumption is
wrong. You have no proof that it's wrong. You think it is but you don't
have any proof. So you can't say truthfully that my assumption is wrong
unless you can prove it first. But you don't have any way to do that.


Not the way things work. You are the one contending that the people
that post in RCM are representative of the general public. -And using
that in an argument. So the burden of proof is up to you.

I didn't use a statistical proof in this case. I used reason and logic
and what I said is my theory. I didn't say I had concrete proof. Given
the facts I know I told you my theory. If you disagree with my
conclusion then it is up to you to explain, or prove, why I am wrong.



So did you ever take any courses in statistics? A quick look at CSU
Chico did not find any requirement to take either statistics or
econmics.

I did, but it was not in the regular course work for a bachelor's
degree. It was in graduate school.


Hawke

On Nov 1, 12:28*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 10/30/2011 8:32 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:





On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:07:02 -0700 (PDT), "
*wrote:

On Oct 30, 7:01 pm, *wrote:

I did. From what I learned there I can tell you that a newsgroup about a
trade like metalworking will probably have mainly tradesmen in it.

Bad assumption. *RCM is not about a trade like metalworking. *Note the
R. *That stands for recreational.
In other words it is a group about recreational metalworking. *Which
tends to say the people who frequent it do metalworking for fun not as
a trade. *In other words it is not a newsgroup about a trade. *It is a
newsgroup for people that enjoy metalworking.

If it
was an engineering group I'd expect most people would have college
degrees. Assuming most people here are metal working related workers I
think it's a fair assumption that most people in this group don't have
degrees. 75% of the public has no college degree. If we are
representative of that population then most people here don't have a
degree. If we are representative of metalworkers in general then you
would expect that population to be less well educated than the general
public.

Ah but we are not representative of metalworkers in general. *We are a
bunch of people who have a hobby of metalworking and like to discuss
metalworking. *And I do not know where you get the idea that
machinists are less educated that the general public.

It really does not bother me that you express opinions, whatever they
are. *I do try to point out to you where you make logical errors.
Such as the one above on statistics.

To make a charge that I've made a statistical error you have to prove
it. But you don't have a clue how many people here have college degrees.
You just made a guess. OTOH, I estimated based on education level
statistics how many people here should have a college education. If you
think I am wrong then I say show me that more than 50% of the people
here have a degree in something.

The error you made was assuming that the folks that post in RCM are
representative of the general public. *But they are not. *Just the
fact that they post in a newsgroup means they are different from the
general public.
I do not have to prove how many people here have college degrees to
know you made an error, *You made an error you in your initial
assumption. *That is the statistical error you made.

I guess that explains it. You aren't editing things here though. You are
having a casual conversation that is on another level. It's informal.
Anything goes.

Anything goes. *I guess that includes bad logic, false statements,
lies, etc. *That may apply to you, but I try to be rational even in
informal conversations.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

Hack is a douche bag.

Can't come up with anything better than that? Thanks for proving to
everyone you're an airhead with nothing to contribute besides calling
people names. You're such a ****.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Benny has been grasping at straws for years.

His posts remind me of the little kid who says anything to get
attention that he desperately needs.

It is a damning confession as to what little to no love his father and
mother gave him

TMT