JFern's "Statistics"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As you can see, J.J. loves saying I say things that I didn't say. If you're going to claim I said stuff, have the intellectual honesty to quote where I said it, you ing pathetic fraud. 

[Alcon]

I must say that I like how you two are referring to eachother in third person, despite being mostly the only two people in the conversation.

[J. J.]

In any case, Isn't all the name calling back and forth a bit childish?   Calling someone else a fraud just because you don't agree with their position tends to reflect rather poorly on the maturity of the attacker IMO.

I do not call him JFRAUD because of his opinions, but because the lack of factual content of most of his posts, and that is a longstanding sitiuation.

Here are some examples:

quote author=jfern link=topic=10411.msg242338#msg242338 date=1097962816]

And it's bigger then that, the Republican party itself gave the orders to destroy Democratic voter registrations.

I hope that Kerry doesn't narrowly lose Nevada, or there will be civil war.

http://www.klastv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2432899&nav=168XS1G8

I am all for this idea.

The problem here is that those people complaining about it think that Republican Party and their employees should be required to help the Democrats conduct registration drives.

Stalin kinda thought the same thing about who should help the Communists.

<< edited by the vorlon for good taste >>.

They took registrations from Democrats saying they'd be registered, and then shreaded them. That's both election stealing and illegal.  Thousands of Democrats who thought they were registered are now not.

<< edited by the vorlon for good taste >>.

<< Gently suggests a nicer tone of voice in these discussions... >>

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And here is the situation [edited for language] of when he started being called JFRAUD:

fern that is by far the stupidest heading for a thread that I have ever seen.  You and any DEMOcrapweasel spinmasters who really believe that are XXXXX of the dumbest kind.  The XXXXXXX killed over 3,000 before and nobody takes any glee in that.  Oh but Kerry says it is a nuisance.  A NUISANCE.

You too are a nuisance.

They seem pretty happy about the latest OBL tape.

Kerry said he'd reduce the terrorism problem to that of a nuisance. Obviously having almost 3000 people killed in one of Al Gore's best counties is more than a nuisance.

I noticed jFRAUD still hasn't been able to answer my question.  I'll have to ask it again.

Are  you so sure that  John Kerry does not think terorism is a "nuisance" and that he considers it of very high priority?  This is a serious question.  What priority does he put on it?

A higher a priority than you've put to being anooying, and that's saying a lot.

Intersting, since he delayed a homeland security briefing for it.  He didn't even say, "I'm scheduling the briefing on ________ ."  These are some of Kerry's remarks on it:

They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time.

We're arranging it. It's at the end of the week I'll get it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/08/lkl.00.html

Now maybe Kerry just this it is annoying or "nusiance" but it is exceptionally serious.  

The one this started this thread is insightful, other than showing his attempt to "hijack a thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20462.180

[J. J.]

As you can see, J.J. loves saying I say things that I didn't say. If you're going to claim I said stuff, have the intellectual honesty to quote where I said it, you g pathetic fraud. 

If just quoted JFRAUD entirely, and he still objects.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, those random quotes from October about the Bush - Kerry race really prove that I said what you claim I said about statistics. You really destroyed me there with your superior arguing skills.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OK, I've got a rebuttal using some equally relevant comment.

Phew! I can return now the Carter bashing has stopped! Its a shame the UK never became a state, we'd elect more Democrats than you could shake a stick at. Funnily enough only a few years ago in the UK, under the 30 year secrecy rule a government report was leaked showing Prime Minister Wilson had began to pursue Union with the USA! It was the late 1960s, and Europe weren't being too accomodating, and Harold Wilson was worried about Britains future in the international and economic stage. Talks were aborted by the time the EEC application was received, and one negative was the fact that another California sized state would be too large and would have to be split into Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (depending on its status) and England would be split into around 5 states so it didnt have a cumbersome population but I thought I'd mention it as it just came back to me there.

This is interesting stuff, though I doubt very much that anything like this was seriously possible.  Other what-ifs might include Phillipine, Cuban or Peurto Rican statehood rather than independence and territorial status.  One thing's for sure - I'm glad the US isn't burdened with a lot more left-wing voters wherever they come from.  Of course this is one reason Republicans alway have and always will resist representation for D.C. and would resist P.R. statehood (not that either is being pushed by anyone).  The whole issue is of course moot if immigration trends towards the left. 

I'm of the school that thinks American exceptionalism and success is entirely based on laissez-faire capitalist ideals (aka freedom), so to me a bigger but more left wing country would actually be weaker.  For example - I would surmise that had the UK become a state or states 35 years ago the US would actually have a smaller GDP now, in spite of being more populous by 60mil.

Final note - one has to bash Carter!  The man is the most shameful ex-president ever, and that's saying something with Clinton still on the loose.

[J. J.]

Wow, those random quotes from October about the Bush - Kerry race really prove that I said what you claim I said about statistics. You really destroyed me there with your superior arguing skills.

JFRAUD, I am responding to James 42 question:

In any case, Isn't all the name calling back and forth a bit childish?   Calling someone else a fraud just because you don't agree with their position tends to reflect rather poorly on the maturity of the attacker IMO.

I do not call him JFRAUD because of his opinions, but because the lack of factual content of most of his posts, and that is a longstanding sitiuation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have problems answering relevent questions, I do not.

[Citizen James]

Bump

necromancer

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bump

Do you really want to bring up how most of the Republicans on this board think that a 94% correlation can never be statistically significant?

[Max Power]

Bump

Do you really want to bring up how most of the Republicans on this board think that a 94% correlation can never be statistically significant?

I think he does, JFraud.

[Virginian87]

JJ, why must you persist in calling jfern JFraud?  Sure, you may not agree with him.  Much of the time I think he's too liberal as well.  But this incessant name calling should stop.

[J. J.]

JJ, why must you persist in calling jfern JFraud?  Sure, you may not agree with him.  Much of the time I think he's too liberal as well.  But this incessant name calling should stop.

You'll note that I am not Max Power.

I did answer the question on this thread:

Wow, those random quotes from October about the Bush - Kerry race really prove that I said what you claim I said about statistics. You really destroyed me there with your superior arguing skills.

JFRAUD, I am responding to James 42 question:

In any case, Isn't all the name calling back and forth a bit childish?   Calling someone else a fraud just because you don't agree with their position tends to reflect rather poorly on the maturity of the attacker IMO.

I do not call him JFRAUD because of his opinions, but because the lack of factual content of most of his posts, and that is a longstanding sitiuation.

At one point, he actually claimed that something that happened in July of 1933, caused something in March of 1933.  You don't need to be a rocket scientist  to figure out the problem with his claim.

[Virginian87]

oops, sorry.  my bad.

[Gabu]

Holy Jesus God nobody cares about 940 heads, let this argument die already.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

At one point, he actually claimed that something that happened in July of 1933, caused something in March of 1933.  You don't need to be a rocket scientist  to figure out the problem with his claim.

I never claimed that, Mr. 94% insignificant.

[AuH2O]

hey there was a good joke on ATHF last night

the robot turkey villain on why he didn't show at a party:

"Sorry, I was in the future. It was too late to RSVP."

[Virginian87]

What was the 1933 claim all about?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What was the 1933 claim all about?

I was talking about how there was a deal worked out between the Nazis and the Catholics on the Condorcet and the Enabling Act, and J.J. seemed to think that somehow that required the Condorcet to happen first, even though I never said it. J.J. loves to put words into other people's mouths.

[J. J.]

What was the 1933 claim all about?

Since you've asked:

jfern would have been too cowardly to save anyone from Hitler. Ironic he calls someone a Nazi for only saving hundreds of thousands when he was completely vulnerable to the Germans and Italians.

What? Anyways, Pope Pius the XII was connected to the Enabling Act by the Catholic Centrist party.

And the pope never condemmed the killing of the 6 million jews, not even after the Axis powers were completely defeated.

When someone says the Pope runs the Catholic Center Party, he is essentially saying "I am a complete fool, uneducated in history and unwilling to admit error."

That being attributable to jfern.

Read this. That's future Pope XII signing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

Now do you admit error, you hypocrite?

That's the signing of the Concordat, not the Enabling Act.  The Concordat was something the Church had pushed for long before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler.  The Concordat did not support the Nazi Party in any way or condone its actions; it was an agreement not to interfere politically in exchange for the protection of religious freedoms.  At worst, Pacelli committed the same error Chamberlain did.

If you'd read the article, you'd see that this was linked to the Enabling Act. Hitler was very happy to get the Concordat signed.

If you'd read the article, you'd see that this was linked to the Enabling Act. Hitler was very happy to get the Concordat signed.

JFRAUD it is excepptionally hard to claim that the Concordat was related to Enabling Act.  The Enabling Act was adopted on March 31, 1933.  The Concordat with the Vatican was signed in July of 1933.  That's a bit like saying the victim died in March but was murdered in the following July.

It should be added that the Vatican had been trying to establish a Concordat (or Treaty) with the Weimar Republic in the 1920, which it was unable to do.  It was successful in dealing establishing ones with state (Lander?) governments (Bavaria, Prussia) in the 1920's, but there were no Nazi state governments until 1931.

Learn to read, idiot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Enabling Act was signed in March 1933 and the Concordat was signed in July 1933, it kinda hard to claim that the Concordat caused the Catholic Party to vote a certain way on the Enabling Act.

If you go to the thread, you can Jfern attempting to hijack the tread, plus his, "You hate me," post (it's been copied on a few others).  This might idicate why he's earned the nickname.

[??????????]

Bumperoo

[MODU]

Ahhhh . . . now it makes sense.  hahaha . . . I've often wondered what the hell he was jabbering on about.