 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2006Anyone here ever talk about Low Carbing anymore????
Or has this site been taken over by trolls? Not sure why so many are angered by low carbers....jelous perhaps? What is that saying...I might be fat but your stupid, and I can lose weight but you...? LOL It looks like many of the regulars are still here in addition to a few newbies, like myself, though the discussion traffic appears to be a bit low right now. It sure does look like this group does attract a large number of Trolls. I would guess that a lot of that has to do with the fact that the people here have adopted a way of life that is different than the one preached by the masses and that these Trolls are either convinced that they need to "save" us or they have an inferiority problem. > It looks like many of the regulars are still here in addition to a few > newbies, like myself, though the discussion traffic appears to be a bit [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > one preached by the masses and that these Trolls are either convinced > that they need to "save" us or they have an inferiority problem. In the past, it's been relatively low-profile for trolls compared to many groups. In recent weeks, a splendidly boneheaded bunch has tromped in and peed in the corners. Happens every now and again in real life, so why shouldn't it happen here? So the regulars sorta sit back until all those bladders are empty and the w.nkers have it out of their systems. Most realize that it's happened before and will likely happen again and during that time, few real folks post. Give it a little time... Interesting how the talk has evolved in the past year. A lot of the discussion was about products then. Heh... Pastorio >> It looks like many of the regulars are still here in addition to a few >> newbies, like myself, though the discussion traffic appears to be a bit [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Pastorio What scares me is that while it's not as bad as the weightlifting NG, it has that potential. Shame. > In recent weeks, a splendidly boneheaded bunch has tromped > in and peed in the corners. Happens every now and again in real life, so > why shouldn't it happen here? Sometimes I think that Western and especially American society really needs to start up a eugenics program. Then I realize that society has a need for the micro brained chest thumpers, or rather it would if it was realized that we would all be much better off if we took them out of the general public and gave them a broom or a shovel. "Interesting how the talk has evolved in the past year. A lot of the discussion was about products then. Heh... Pastorio " I guess it wasn't peeing in the corners when Bob started several of his totally off topic political thread rants. But when someone else makes posts that have nothing to do with LC, then it is. > "Interesting how the talk has evolved in the past year. A lot of the > discussion was about products then. Heh... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > totally off topic political thread rants. But when someone else > makes posts that have nothing to do with LC, then it is. Oh, look. Somebody has been waiting to do what he condemns me for. Too funny... And I "started" them, huh? Like in demolishing your featherweight prattling. Still smarting from that? I guess I hit you back first, right...? "Mommy, Bobby hit me back first...Waa waa waa..." <LOL> Moron. Pastorio > Or has this site been taken over by trolls? It's a newsgroup not a site and as such can't be taken over by anyone. Anyone including on-topic regulars for that matter. Newsgroups under alt.* can't ban trolls. Newsgroups under the other major hierarchies can. Would anyone like to build a charter for sci.support.diet.low-carb or soc.support.diet.low-carb? Doing so would be a great deal of effort but there are regulars who always put in a lot of effort. > Not sure why so many are angered by low carbers....jelous perhaps? The worldwide average IQ is 100. That means half are below that level. > What is that saying...I might be fat but your stupid, and I can lose > weight but you...? > LOL Exactly. There's a great abundance of stupid people in the world and they are coming on-line by the millions. It's like the joke about billions of monkeys at keyboards and one accidentally producing Shakespear. In the real world what happens is some of the monkeys discover ASDLC by mistake. > The worldwide average IQ is 100. That means half are below > that level. As usual you are without a clue. If the worldwide median IQ was 100, that would mean half are below that level. It's not surprising that you do not know the definitions or uses of the measurements of central tendencies. It's really quite the time for you to quit posturing as some sort of scientific brainiac, and live more within your means. "The worldwide average IQ is 100. That means half are below > that level. As usual you are without a clue. If the worldwide median IQ was 100, that would mean half are below that level. " Didn't you just repeat what he said? And WTF does that have to do with my post? Oh thats right, you are the resident troll... > "The worldwide average IQ is 100. That means half are below >> that level. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Didn't you just repeat what he said? No. > > > The worldwide average IQ is 100. That means half are below > > > that level. Discarding the ones who score *at* 100. To really be half you'd have to toss a coin to get half of the 100-scorers on each side. > > As usual you are without a clue. > > If the worldwide median IQ was 100, that would mean half are below that > > level. Large populations allow the statistics to form a curve near the standard Gaussian. With an actual Gaussian distribution the mean and media are at the same point. For IQ, how far off the median is the mean? Below some point folks are too stupid to breath and that cuts off the bottom and there's no level above which people become non-functional. Unless you have the raw data saying that the mean is actually as high as 101 you're babbling. > Didn't you just repeat what he said? There's a technical difference between mean/average and median/center. Very large or small scores can skew the average. Any one large or small score only eliminates one other small or large score so there's no skewing. Problem is you'd need the actual data to tell if there's any skewing present. > And WTF does that have to do with my post? You complained that there are dumb posters. He demonstrated that sometimes smart equals dumb. I demonstrated that sometimes verbose equals dumb. We're exemplars of your frustration. 12. Doug Freyburger Jan 27, 10:43 am "Discarding the ones who score *at* 100. To really be half you'd have to toss a coin to get half of the 100-scorers on each side. " Doug is as clear and lucid as ever. What exactly does tossing a coin have to do with how many people have IQ's above or below 100? > > Discarding the ones who score *at* 100. To really be half you'd > > have to toss a coin to get half of the 100-scorers on each side. > > Doug is as clear and lucid as ever. What exactly does tossing a coin > have to do with how many people have IQ's above or below 100? At least we've established that we don't have to worry about you scoring exactly at 100 and thus being at the center and not on either side of center. > "The worldwide average IQ is 100. That means half are below > > that level. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Didn't you just repeat what he said? I think when people use the word "average" they mean the "mean." The mean is what you get when you add all the numbers together, and divide by the number of numbers. So, 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 10= 20. Divide that by 5, because you added 5 numbers. You get 4, so 4 is your average, or your mean. But more than half of your numbers are below 4, actually. Good Point. If 100 is the mean IQ, I wonder what the standard deviation is? > Good Point. If 100 is the mean IQ, It's not. I'ts the median, not the mean. Already covered this earlier in the thread. >I wonder what the standard > deviation is? Differs for each test, which is why raw IQ numbers are meaningless. The only time you can make a judgement about what an IQ number means is if you know the specific test the person took. Or if their score is 100. Othewise, just an IQ "score" by itself is meaningless. It's so refreshing to have low-carb arguments and flames again, instead of all these strangers. ;) > > Good Point. If 100 is the mean IQ, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Differs for each test, which is why raw IQ numbers are meaningless. Hm. I think you mean, 'raw IQ numbers are meaningless without reference to the error rate specific to the test in question.' If the standard deviation differed based on what test was taken, it wouldn't be "standard." > The only time you can make a judgement about what an IQ number means is > if you know the specific test the person took. Or if their score is > 100. Othewise, just an IQ "score" by itself is meaningless. IQ tests do ultimately just tell you how well a person took a test - however, good IQ tests (the current WAIS, the NART or NAART, etc) are designed to approximate 'G', and this is usually accomplished through painstaking validation procedures. All of the quality published IQ tests out there are designed to approximate the same construct ("G" - or "general intelligence"), so actually, a 110 IQ score on the National Adult Reading Test (NART) *is* comparable to a 110 score on the Wechsler - precisely because of the way both instruments were designed. > It's so refreshing to have low-carb arguments and flames again, instead > of all these strangers. ;) Hope you'll excuse me. I do a lot of psychological assessment for a living and I thought this was interesting enough to butt into. > Good Point. If 100 is the mean IQ, I wonder what the standard > deviation is? Fifteen IQ points. > Would anyone like to build > a charter for sci.support.diet.low-carb or soc.support.diet.low-carb? What would be involved in doing so and how does one go about it? I personally think that this is a great idea. It is really annoying to have to filter through the posts when only one out of about ten is on topic. I subscribe to a number of technical groups and when some idiot starts posting a bunch of crap that doesn't belong there all that has to happen is for someone to report it and the messages disappear and we never seem to hear from said individual again? > > Would anyone like to build > > a charter for sci.support.diet.low-carb or soc.support.diet.low-carb? > > What would be involved in doing so and how does one go about it? There's a process involved. Groups to look at are news.groups and news.announce.newgroup. I'm in the process for another group so I can't be a proponent for SSDLC but I can help with the process. Probably better to discuss in e-mail. I don't spamtrap my address. > I personally think that this is a great idea. It is really annoying to > have to filter through the posts when only one out of about ten is on > topic. Part of the problem is that alt.* is a deliberate anarchy. By and large ISPs will blow off TOS complaints about folks who troll alt.* groups. View alt.* as a trial area for the real groups. > I subscribe to a number of technical groups and when some idiot starts > posting a bunch of crap that doesn't belong there all that has to > happen is for someone to report it and the messages disappear and we > never seem to hear from said individual again? A number of places archive all posts so they don't disappear except maybe from your own server. Newsgroups in the "Big-8" are taken more seriously for complaints, though. Technical groups tend to be under sci.* or comp.* (I'm active on comp.unix.admin since it's topic is my day job). Complaints in those hierarchies get more attention from ISPs. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.