I've grown used to the Larry insults, to a point where
I expect them.
-sm
--- Chris Stoner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> > I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you.
> if you go for
> > personal insults that's your thing.
> >
> And it very well might be my thing.
But barring giving each respondent an IQ test, it seems a fairly good litmus...
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie Fisher
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations
Equating a college graduate with intelligence isn't always the best way
to go. I don't have a degree and I are very the smart yes. Now, where
did I put my lottery tickets?
- Jim
Jerry Johnson wrote:
>Not really, Larry.
>
>The percentages might be higher with Daily Show viewers, but what abou
Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you. if you go for
> personal insults that's your thing.
>
And it very well might be my thing. I'm just trying to point out that
based on your declaration of Sam's inability to deal with declarative
statements, it's apparently
ROTFL!
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:26:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Bill O'Reilly, wrong again
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You're right. It appears that a self-selecting group of younger,
intelligent people
I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you. if you go for
personal insults that's your thing.
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:01:26 -0400, Chris Stoner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> pom·pous adj. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated
> dignity;
>
> I would characterize your statemen
pom·pous adj. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated
dignity;
I would characterize your statement about Sam's supossed 'problem(s)
with declarative sentances' as being quite pompous. Thats not an
insult, its what it was (IMO). Is it ok for you to speak (write) in an
insultin
I would suggest that being obnoxious is not the way to go either. Quit
with the insults.
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:07:48 -0400, Chris Stoner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually it doesn't. This declarative sentence states that a higher
> ratio of Stewart listeners completed four years of college w
No its a matter of proportions. 8 of 10 vs 6 of 10. A simple test of
proportions will return a statistically significant chi square showing
that the difference in proportions is not likely due to chance.
larry
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:01:13 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The N
--- William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hope you're not one of the 20% of Daily show
> viewers
> > that thinks it's a real news show.
>
> Neither am I one of the percent of O'Reilly viewers
> that believes his
> is a news show too... ;-)
>
> Where did the 20% figure come from? I went
But my wife listens to me spout off about political stuff every night (and
sometimes I am even humorous!). That means that I could claim 100% of my
viewing audience has a 4 year college degree. So percentages really don't
matter...
Ray
At 02:11 PM 9/30/2004, you wrote:
>Even if you take thos
Even if you take those numbers, which I assume are for example only,
you still have a higher percentage of total viewership with 4 years of
college watching the Daily Show.
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie Fisher
[Todays T
Not really, Larry.
The percentages might be higher with Daily Show viewers, but what about the actual people totals.
If the Factor's pop is larger, he may have more college grads total than the Daily Show has.
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/30/04 01:52PM >>>
Are you sure about that? You
Actually it doesn't. This declarative sentence states that a higher
ratio of Stewart listeners completed four years of college which does
not mean the same thing as 'there are more four year graduates viewing
Stewarts show'. There is not enough evidence in this particular
sentence to determin
The Nielson report has no details. The way I read this
is:
If Stewart has 40,000 viewers and 80% have four year
degrees and O'Reilly has 2 million viewers and 60%
have four year degrees than viewers of the Daily show
are more likely to have four year degrees.
Since I don't have the details I was
> I hope you're not one of the 20% of Daily show viewers
> that thinks it's a real news show.
Neither am I one of the percent of O'Reilly viewers that believes his
is a news show too... ;-)
Where did the 20% figure come from? I went back and re-read the
article and didn't see that.
Oddly enough
Are you sure about that? You seem to have a problem with declarative sentances.
"Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four
years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor,"
according to Nielsen Media Research."
More likely means that there are more viewers
> If you're going to put it that way...
> I bet there are more people with four year degrees
> that watch O'Reilly than Stewart.
But you see that is not what the data shows, which was the point of
the article. you did read the article, no?
The data points out that people with four years of coll
--- William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And who
> says having four years of college makes you less
> likely to partake in the occasional blunt?
>
> It doesn't, but...
> Four years of college does tend to make one more
> educated, better
> read, better suited to discern logical arguments,
If you're going to put it that way...
I bet there are more people with four year degrees
that watch O'Reilly than Stewart. It's the fact that
O'Reilly is so successful he gets a larger variety.
Are you saying that if you don't have a four year
degree your an idiot?
-sm
--- Kevin Graeme <[EMAI
Also lets look at the size of the audiences?
What, O'Reilly's audience is bigger, so naturally we should expect it
to be less educated?
And who
says having four years of college makes you less
likely to partake in the occasional blunt?
It doesn't, but...
Four years of college does tend to make
You're right. It appears that a self-selecting group of younger,
intelligent people watch Stewart while a great number of idiots of all
ages flock to O'Reilly!
;-p
-Kevin
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:14:48 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also lets look at the size of the audiences
Also lets look at the size of the audiences? And who
says having four years of college makes you less
likely to partake in the occasional blunt?
I believe its all about the age group, Stewarts
audience is mainly 18 to 25 while OReillys is all
over the place
Again, Im not a big OReilly fan
a GSBer or a UChicago alum?
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: Jim Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:11:36 -0500
>Subject: Re: Bill O'Reilly, wrong again
>To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Hey, don't call O'Reilly a M
Are you a GSBer or a UChicago alum?
- Original Message -
From: Jim Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:11:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Bill O'Reilly, wrong again
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hey, don't call O'Reilly a Maroon - that i
Hey, don't call O'Reilly a Maroon - that implies he's a University of
Chicago alumnus, and I wouldn't give him that much credit :)
- Jim
Kevin Graeme wrote:
>Yeah, I laughed my ass off when I read that. And O'Reilly tries to
>pawn it off as a joke. What a maroon.
>
>-Kevin
>
>
>On Thu, 30 Sep 2
Yeah, I laughed my ass off when I read that. And O'Reilly tries to
pawn it off as a joke. What a maroon.
-Kevin
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:48:21 -0400, Howie Hamlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This guy is so pompous that it's scary...
>
> 'Stoned slackers' watch Jon Stewart?
>
> Bill O'Reilly's vi
This guy is so pompous that it's scary...
'Stoned slackers' watch Jon Stewart?
Bill O'Reilly's viewers are actually less educated than Stewart's
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:45 p.m. ET Sept. 28, 2004
NEW YORK - The folks at Comedy Central were annoyed when Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly k
28 matches
Mail list logo
