Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,909 Excellent

About msommer

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Helsingør, Home of Hamlet

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Tennessee Titans

Recent Profile Visitors

17,564 profile views
  1. In the "not familiar with how science gets consensus" group, I believe.
  2. What if the ignorance (to be concise) is used to proclaim that that specific bit of science doesn't work/apply/matter? Isn't that technically denying science?
  3. Unless the women under 18 were the reason behind him amassing his fortune (Still an idiot and a creep)
  4. A spinoff of an exchange that happened last night when I implied that rejecting that polling in general is science based (i.e. it works when you understand the presmises) was a bit "science denying"-y which some took a bit of objection to. As a consequence I decided to post a poll to determin how much sience you have to deny before you can be said to be a "science denier" Looking forward to seeing the results of the braintrust in here!
  5. No worries. The specific discipline behind polling is Psephology - Wiki has this to say of the discipline As for margin of error, I found this link (breaking it down into component error factors) to be interesting and concise
  6. So, not getting your point. You agree that polls are scientifically based. You agree that polls have a margin of error. Yet, in your you seem to state that it is ok to disbelieve polls on a general principle (which is not described (care to?)). So, yeah, I'm shuked here
  7. Are you denying the science behind polls? (I recommend everyone get thoroughly acquainted with the concept of "margin of error" when discussing polls)
  8. Those were not as focused on back then, probably since they couldn't be
  9. No. Your question shows you need to bone up on how polls work (pay close attention to the concept of margin of error). HTH
  10. I don't know, I think there were plenty of emergencies, just as many per capita as today, only no one other than the first responders could deal with them anyway so it wasn't an issue
  11. Interesting. A bit science denying (polls don't matter). A bit deflecting (nativist vs racist, and I don't support Trump but I defend him anyway). I could name a few posters that sound like him (does he claim to have voted for Gary Johnson? ) 2020 will show if there are enough of the same ilk to keep Trump in power.