A snippet in yesterday's paper said that scientists examined the vaginas of 17 women and found nerve endings were distributed evenly all over the organ. Ergo no G-spot.
Sorry ladeez, that's one less magic button for men to use to make you orgasm when they're in a hurry :-(
AJ
There was a time when scientists were telling us the world was flat.
Not since Pythagoras, at the very least.
Not since Pythagoras, at the very least.
As recently as Galileo. Galileo's problems with the Church actually started with other scientists opposed to the helio centric view going to the Church and making complaints about him.
The Pope at the time initially supported Galileo, but then Galileo ended up insulting the Pope in correspondence and the Church turned against him.
As recently as Galileo. Galileo's problems with the Church actually started with other scientists opposed to the helio centric view going to the Church and making complaints about him.
The Pope at the time initially supported Galileo, but then Galileo ended up insulting the Pope in correspondence and the Church turned against him.
You're still wrong. Even worse, Galileo was born in 1564. In case you've forgotten:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Magellan%E2%80%93Elcano_circumnavigation
Magellan's expedition had returned from a successful circumnavigation of the world in September 1522. 42 years before Galileo was born, they knew the earth was round by then.
The issue with the heliocentric view, at least among the educated, was that they still held to the world being round. What was in dispute with heliocentric beliefs was which "stellar body" was orbiting which.
But going back to the times of the Ancient Greeks. Eratosthenes, a librarian in Alexandria, had already done the math for our polar circumference. Which roughly worked out to about 40,000 kilometers(roughly because they obviously weren't using meters back then). He was off by 30 kilometers, or by about 0.1% of the world's actual polar circumference.
It was Columbus who was wildly wrong in his own circumference calculation, likely due to an error made when converting measurement units. He had problems getting sponsorship for a voyage from Europe to Asia by sailing west because the actual science people knew about the 40,000 km(equivalent) circumference estimate and knew there was no way to provision a ship of that era to be capable of surviving the transit(as they were under the impression there was only water between the two points). Luckily for Columbus he found a landmass nobody expected to encounter.
Luckily for Columbus he found a landmass nobody expected to encounter.
Actually, they have found old sea charts/maps, older than Columbus, that seem to show the coast line of the Americas.
The Vikings were in North America Centuries before Columbus, but they kept it a secret.
There are now historians who posit that Columbus knew ahead of time what he would find and where and that he cynically used obsessions of certain European heads of state with finding alternate trade routs to the east not controlled by their rivals to fund his expedition.
There was a time when scientists were telling us the world was flat.
My favourite report is of the number of scientist between the WW1 and WW2 who told Goddard that rockets wouldn't work in space - it seems many forgot about Newton's Laws.
Hopefully they remembered the law saying what goes up will come down if not supported in its elevated position. :)
Hopefully they remembered the law saying what goes up will come down if not supported in its elevated position. :)
That relates to gravity. If I remember right, their argument related to being in space outside of the atmosphere and the reach of the Earth's gravity well, as it was known then. The gist, as stated in the account I read that with no atmosphere or ground the rocket had nothing to push against.
My take away from the recounted incidents was that most scientist only had an extremely limited knowledge of anything outside of their sub-speciality area. Thus they commented on things they didn't really know enough about; kind of like the average politician talking about the economy or combat as most have no real life experience with either.
My favourite report is of the number of scientist between the WW1 and WW2 who told Goddard that rockets wouldn't work in space - it seems many forgot about Newton's Laws.
The assumption was, at the time for many so-called scientists, was that Newton's law simply didn't apply within the vacuum of space. They just weren't interested in verifying their assumptions, simply assuming it wasn't worthwhile testing.
The assumption was, at the time for many so-called scientists, was that Newton's law simply didn't apply within the vacuum of space
Ok I know I may regret this as I fear someone will make a very long post with lot's of X,Y and Z's but how did they know there was a vacuum in space? Has anyone even been to space before WW2?
Ok I know I may regret this as I fear someone will make a very long post with lot's of X,Y and Z's but how did they know there was a vacuum in space? Has anyone even been to space before WW2?
Probably an inference from the use of balloons and aircraft. The higher you go, the thinner the air becomes. Therefore, it is logical to conclude you'd eventually reach a point where the atmosphere is no longer measurable.
My favourite report is of the number of scientist between the WW1 and WW2 who told Goddard that rockets wouldn't work in space - it seems many forgot about Newton's Laws
Check on your sources on this. Famously, Goddard was "corrected: by a newspaper editorial which told him that there was nothing to push against in space. I haven't heard of any scientists with those claims, nd I should have in my SF-reading youth.
Scientists consider the profession as defined by the scientific method. They don't consider the errors of pre-experimental scholars as contaminating their reputation.
I gather you're talking about the January 1920 New York Times editorial written after its author had spoken to some scientist not involved in rocket or propulsion research. I was referring to a 1930s recounting I read about by a person who attended a scientific conference where some of Goddard's works were discussed during breaks and the author spoke of the others who stated Goddard's theories on rockets in space were wrong due to the lays of dynamics. I wish I could remember the book the account was in so I could point you too it, but I read it back in the late 1970s at a time I was devouring over a dozen books a week for recreational reading. Most of it was science or science fiction, and much of the science fiction had anecdotes by the various authors in them.
Scientists consider the profession as defined by the scientific method.
That's for a true scientist. However, many people who call themselves scientists are really academics and not scientist. To those ones it's not the validity that's important but the authority level of the person making the statement. Then you need to add in the people who are knowledgeable in one specific area but feel they have a right to speak on a speciality they have no more knowledge on than the man in the street. It's these last two groups which give us the scientist that spew out continuing lines of BS to support ideological and political issues without any real science behind it.
While peer review is often useful it isn't always correct, and it needs to be done by knowledgeable peers only. Sadly many things are reviewed by people without the right speciality knowledge.
Scientists consider the profession as defined by the scientific method. They don't consider the errors of pre-experimental scholars as contaminating their reputation.
Opinions are not equivalent to scientific knowledge, which is also continually evolving (not to be confused with news reports concerning questionable 'scientific' studies, which are abounding now to the dramatic drop in scientific funding'). Though I've long followed the latest science news, there are now So many questionable new sources, I no longer even check the 'scientific news' headlines. Apple & Google News are both highly suspect in this regard.
paper said that scientists examined the vaginas of 17 women
Overly small sample size. The paper is probably worthless.
Overly small sample size. The paper is probably worthless.
My perception is that other studies, which involve a physical examination of the front wall of the vagina for a rough patch, generally come up with estimates that about half of all women have a G-spot. Therefore a more scientific study of vaginas finding no G-spots in 17 specimens by chance has a probability of 1 in 2^16.
AJ
Therefore a more scientific study of vaginas finding no G-spots in 17 specimens by chance has a probability of 1 in 2^16.
Unless of course there are sample bias issues. Which are highly likely in a sample that small.
Which are highly likely in a sample that small.
That's not a fair assumption without seeing the trial protocol. But what sort of bias do you suspect might affect whether a woman has a G-spot? Racial, lifestyle, environmental? I can see how trans women wouldn't have G-spots but it's a safe assumption there weren't any in the study.
I wonder whether all the women were deceased, to undergo such a microscopic examination of their vaginas.
AJ
I wonder whether all the women were deceased
From an article:
The G-spot lies on the anterior wall of the vagina, about 5 to 8 cm above the opening to the vagina. It is easiest to locate if a woman lies on her back and has someone else insert one or two fingers into the vagina with the palm up. Using a 'come here' motion, the tissue surrounding the urethra, called the urethral sponge, will begin to swell.
This swelling area is the G-spot
If they're dead, there won't be swelling. That would be like giving a handjob to a corpse and getting him hard. IMHO
But what sort of bias do you suspect might affect whether a woman has a G-spot?
Self selection. The women who volunteer are all women who have trouble achieving orgasm from vaginal stimulation (less likely to have a g spot?)
I can see how trans women wouldn't have G-spots
I can see how trans women WOULD have G-spots; since the G-spot appears to be where the Skene's glands are adjacent to the vaginal wall and these glands are associated with sexual response and are the female analogues of the prostrate, then if the prostrate is retained in the gender reassignment surgery, it gives a ready-made G-spot, as rump-rangers and fudge-packers know from the other access port.
since the G-spot appears to be where the Skene's glands are adjacent to the vaginal wall and these glands are associated with sexual response and are the female analogues of the prostrate,
This would also explain why doctors looking for a nerve cluster in the vaginal wall can't find the G-spot.
Doctors/medical researchers looking for a nerve cluster in the wall of the colon to explain the effects of prostate massage would be equally frustrated. :)
then if the prostrate is retained in the gender reassignment surgery, it gives a ready-made G-spot, as rump-rangers and fudge-packers know from the other access port.
It is, as you'd make trans women unable to pee if you removed the prostate. However, the prostate is NOT relocated (the analogy relates to the relative positions on either side of the vaginal wall). Though, as surveys of most gay males reveals, not everyone's ass generates the same pleasurable sensations, and those that do seem to be independent on either gender or sexual identification.
However, I've always wondered whether the women with NO g-spot sensitivity have a corresponding lack of pleasurable anau stimulation sensitivity.
It is, as you'd make trans women unable to pee if you removed the prostate.
No, just the opposite. If the prostate is removed because it's cancerous, one of the primary side-effects is incontinence - unable to stop peeing.
(There's also erectile dysfunction, but that shouldn't be a problem for a trans woman.)
AJ
Unless of course there are sample bias issues. Which are highly likely in a sample that small.
Of course, out of a sample from the general sample, a sizable portion would have NO vaginal cells whatsoever! ;)
Of course, out of a sample from the general sample, a sizable portion would have NO vaginal cells whatsoever! ;)
Even considering just women. With a sample size that small a huge effort would be required to avoid all sampling bias issues.
Overly small sample size. The paper is probably worthless.
Especially if they never qualified the differences in sensations, merely counting the overall number of 'nerve cells'. There are often highly specialized cells, allowing a greater level of focus. For example, one's fingertips are much more sensitive than one's arms, back's or the soles of one's feet.
That's similar to counting the number of viruses on a given floor. There might be thousands of inactive cells which would never impact one's health, which sound terrifying, but are utterly worthless in evaluating one's overall health. Yet they continue to sell countless papers, stoking everyone's basic fears.
A snippet in yesterday's paper said that scientists examined the vaginas of 17 women and found nerve endings were distributed evenly all over the organ.
My understanding was that the area known as the G-spot was not to do with extra nerve endings, but to do with more sensitive nerve endings.
This is why I put little trust in statistical science. To apply the results of a small number to the whole does not make it a fact. Take polls for example. To say 59% of Americans (350 million) believe in something basing it on just asking 1600 people is BS.
Using statistical science to convict someone is even worse. Take fingerprints, they say every one ever born has a different fingerprint even though they never printed every person. But all they need is as little as a 6 point match to convict you. Why can't they overlay the prints to show that every line, groove and point match?
This is why I put little trust in statistical science.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics and medical studies.
I've seen some real doozies in my time, where it was obvious beforehand that a medical study was so poorly constructed it was impossible it could ever produce any useful results.
AJ
This is why I put little trust in statistical science. To apply the results of a small number to the whole does not make it a fact. Take polls for example. To say 59% of Americans (350 million) believe in something basing it on just asking 1600 people is BS.
You say that you reject statistics, and support your statement with another statemnt that you reject statistics.
Which is to say that you are the authority you put over against people who understand thWe don't really replaceings.
Polls have many problems, but sample size is not one of them.
The statistics are based on sampling with replacement.
This is why I put little trust in statistical science. To apply the results of a small number to the whole does not make it a fact. Take polls for example. To say 59% of Americans (350 million) believe in something basing it on just asking 1600 people is BS.
Your rejection of statistics is supported by your rejection of statistics, which is supported by your ignorance of simple arithmetic.
Simple statistics is based on the idea of sampling with replacement, and sampling without replacement is clearly even more reliable.
Let's say that we have a bag of marbles, half of them red and half of them green. You dip you hand in, stir them up, and pick out a marble. You record the color, put the marble back in the bag, and repeat the process. If you do that 10 times your chance of always drawing a red marble is 1/1024. The probability of getting any share (e.g. 7 red and 3 green) is easily calculated --although we use electronic devices to do the calculations for large sample sizes.
The distribution of the probabilities approximates the famous "bell shaped" distribution, and the approximation grows closer as the sample size increases.
Notice that the number of marbles inn the bag is entirely irrelevant. A little calculation will show those who lack the understanding to see it intuitively, that the distribution is always sharper if you don't use replacement.
That is the contribution of statistics to polling. For any proportion in the population, the proportion in a fair sample has a distribution. The challenge in polling s getting a air sample, and polling companies have been getting better over the years, but they are far from perfect. Taking a larger sample would reduce the portion of the uncertainty due to statistics, but that is a small share of the error now.
You say that you reject statistics, and support your statement with another statemnt that you reject statistics.
Which is to say that you are the authority you put over against people who understand thWe don't really replaceings.
Polls have many problems, but sample size is not one of them.
The statistics are based on sampling with replacement.
This is why I put little trust in statistical science. To apply the results of a small number to the whole does not make it a fact. Take polls for example. To say 59% of Americans (350 million) believe in something basing it on just asking 1600 people is BS.
I had real problems typing. Ignore this part.
Notice that the number of marbles inn the bag is entirely irrelevant. A little calculation will show those who lack the understanding to see it intuitively, that the distribution is always sharper if you don't use replacement.
The error is in believing that 'the bag' contains every voter.
For instance, a poll is carried out by stoping random people in the street at 10am on a Monday morning. The results may be a fair indication of those people who walk in the street at 10am on a Monday morning, the error is applying the results to those who don't. THAT is an entirely different 'bag'.
The error is in believing that 'the bag' contains every voter.
In polling, there are errors that involve the theory of statistics, for example, those which deal with the size of the sample. In my writing, I was careful to point out that those were only some of the errors. I was responding to a post that exhibited ignorance of the relationship among the population size, the sample size, and the accuracy.
People who read those posts carelessly keep pointing out that my example of the issue which deals with the theory of statistics doesn't include all the sources of error in real polling.
I SAID that it doesn't.
The statistical math isn't the primary problem with polling. With replacement as you mentioned, the covariance is zero thus the sample values are independent. Without it, the covariance is not zero and the sample values are not independent. Both of play a role in figuring the standard deviation of the estimator.
There is a valid school of thought and use for both. Probability and Non-probability Samples for polling opens a can of worms, especially since it's only been relatively recent years since they've turned to non-probability sampling. Fewer people responding and increased cost being the motivation for that change.
Some groups such as American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), claim the new polls are more accurate, but when you dig into their literature online, it's stated as;
In a number of instances, these non-probability samples have produced results that were comparable or, in some cases, more accurate in predicting election outcomes than probability-based surveys.
https://www.aapor.org/Education-Resources/Election-Polling-Resources/Sampling-Methods-for-Political-Polling.aspx
They make that claim with no mention of any supporting datasets. When I read that, visions of oily used car salespersons come to mind. They know damn well the probability-based surveys are more accurate for the purpose, but they can't sell them anymore. It's using a crecent wrench in place of a properly sized box wrench. It'll be accurate give or take a lie or two.
But I digress.
Getting into a math war of words is an exercise in mental masturbation serving no good purpose in this context. The most severe problem is in the selection of people, and the crafting of the poll questions.
Imaginary poll question:
Given that politician xyz was caught fornicating with a goat, are you:
A. In favor of xyz
B. Neutral to xyz
C. Hostile to xyz
If you ask a rural population known for questionable mores around barnyard animals, you may end up with a neutral to favorable result.
If you ask the same question of a rural or urban population known for more mainstream mores, it's going to be a hostile result.
That's a ridiculous example, but it should make the point. It comes down to ethics, something in very short supply these days.
the theory of statistics
Statistics can be studied for years, you can get a PhD in it and still not know everything about it. An Actuary is one of the career paths in Statistics, and they can disagree about a lot of answers even when they agree about the samples. So many curves may apply, so little information to fit the curves to. You may have to tell the actuary what answer you want for him to put his statistical theories to work.
So the 'concensus' of those so called scientist to make such a claim is based on 17 dead people... imagine that.
I Googled the subject looking for 2020 studies involving 17 women and found this article.
AJ
A snippet in yesterday's paper said that scientists examined the vaginas of 17 women and found nerve endings were distributed evenly all over the organ. Ergo no G-spot.
They claim to be scientists and yet they couldn't find the G-Spot seventeen times...??? I very much hope they will not now be searching for a cure for Covid..!!
AJ First, do you actually believe anything that particular paper prints..?? Also, the 'study' was backed up by "Medics from Istanbul". A city well known for its intense interest in women's rights, well being and sexual satisfaction. NOT.
That wasn't the paper I read it in - the details about the women being middle-aged and the medics being in Istanbul weren't mentioned in the original snippet. Finding a link to the study itself would be useful (if access is free).
Most of the links I found in my searches were to a 2018 Australian study where medics failed to find a G-spot in 13 women.
It is curious that G-spots seem to be found only by sexperts, not qualified clinicians.
AJ
It is curious that G-spots seem to be found only by sexperts, not qualified clinicians.
Almost as curious as why these 'experts' only seem to be male.
How much faith would you place in a report on penis sensitivity if only female 'experts' were involved..??
How much faith would you place in a report on penis sensitivity if only female 'experts' were involved..??
Well, you'd almost certainly end up with a much bigger sample group.
"Wait, let me get this straight. You want me to volunteer to let a bunch of women researchers test the sensitivity of my penis? Hell Yes! I'm in."
"Wait, let me get this straight. You want me to volunteer to let a bunch of women researchers test the sensitivity of my penis? Hell Yes! I'm in."
"Wartenberg pinwheel..??? I changed my mind..!! Let me go..!!!"
How much faith would you place in a report on penis sensitivity if only female 'experts' were involved..??
That would depend on the format and methodology of the study. And that's why I'm frustrated at not being able to find the full report of the G-spot study rather than having to make inferences from newspaper snippets :-(
AJ
Almost as curious as why these 'experts' only seem to be male.
As they say (I don't have my metaphor book handy to look up the source), going to a male gynecologist is akin to consulting a car mechanic who's never driven one.
It is curious that G-spots seem to be found only by sexperts, not qualified clinicians.
'Sexperts' are known for becoming 'intimate' with those their studying (to better understand them)—even transexuals, call girls or child prostitutes, while 'qualified clinicians' wouldn't touch those subjects with a ten-foot pole!
btw, when I read the title of the thread I thought another author bit the dust.
btw, when I read the title of the thread I thought another author bit the dust.
It should have been labeled 'Dead g-spots' (aka: menopause)!
Trust me, when women reach that stage, no one wants you poking around for five minutes with your filthy fingers!
What I am against is when they apply the results of a small sample to what the whole thinks. The fact that polls change every day only proves it. A few weeks ago there were 5 polls in one day, 3 had Biden up over 10 points, one had Biden up by 5 and one that had Trump up 3 points.
There was a poll a few years ago in a southern state where the question was are you for or against repealing the interracial marriage law. They asked 600 people of a state of 3.5 million and 37% were for the repeal. The title of the result was "37% of the state are against interracial marriage" That in not a honest title.
The fact that polls change every day only proves it. A few weeks ago there were 5 polls in one day, 3 had Biden up over 10 points, one had Biden up by 5 and one that had Trump up 3 points.
That's not so much evidence that polls aren't valid, national poles have always been consistent and have a good success rate. However, it's the state poles with are utterly reliable, and at this point, EVERYONE is reporting an array of poles concerning a variety of states with highly questionable methodologies. Thus, it's best to stick to well-known, established polling sources and ignore the 'regional' state poles entirely.
Some states do have reliable metrics, which are frequently monitored for errors, while many do little, or ONLY monitor the result for their political 'correctness'.
national poles have always been consistent and have a good success rate
No, not always, and there have been spectacular failures.
Whether or not the g-spot exists, I've had a helluva lot of fun searching for it over the years. I suspect, when the opportunity arises, I'll keep searching.
First of all, I'd like to apologize for the tone of my previous post. I was struggling through too many systems to post online and was really bollixing it up; that frayed my temper. Then, too, people are dying right now because they or others think that an ignorant guess overrides the expertise of public-health professionals. Even so, nobody dies from an ignorance of statistics, and I shouldn't have been so sarcastic.
Polls have many things which mess them up. Think of pre-election polls where we have the data later. Smith is running against Joes, and the pollster calls up to see who the person is voting for. They can't reach some; some refuse to answer; some lie; some change their minds between the phone call and the voting booth. None of that involves statistics.
Let's get some terms. There is a population which has some characteristic of its members. We are taking a sample from that population. We are going to see what fraction of the sample has the characteristic, and we will use that as an estimate of the fraction of the population has that characteristic. In statistics, we always assume that it is a fair ample, that is to say, that every element of the population has an equal chance to be in the sample.
Now, there are two ways that we can do this. We can take one element, record the characteristic, and set it aside, or we can take one element, record the characteristic, and return it to the population. The second method is called with replacement. It is clear that the method without replacement yields more accurate results. Statisticians do their calculations on the method with replacement. It is easier, and since it is always less accurate than the method without replacement, it provides a minimum for the method without replacement.
Statistics is the branch of applied mathematics which provides you with precise answers to questions other than the questions you have in mind. When you have tested a sample, you want to know how well it represents the population. You want to know what the probabilistic distribution of the values for the population is. What statistics tells you – without further assumptions – is given a population with its characteristics – what the distribution of samples of a certain size is. Let's say that you have a bag of three red marbles and two green marbles. You take marbles out one at a time, record the color, and replace them. You have 0.121 of getting 8 green marbles (counting getting the same marble twice as 2), 0.215 of getting 7 green marbles, take one element, record the characteristic and 0.251 of getting 6 green marbles, 0.184 of getting 5 green marbles, etc.
With Replacement, the same probabilities hold for a sample size of ten from a bag containing 3,000,000,000 green marbles and 2,000,000,000 red ones Now, as the numbers show, a sample size of ten is really insufficient. The sale size, however, provides the accuracy. The population size is irrelevant (except for very small populations restricting the possible diversity of the population. If you have only two marbles in the bag and the sample has a red marble and a green marble, then the population must break down 50-50.)
In statistics, we always assume that it is a fair ample, that is to say, that every element of the population has an equal chance to be in the sample.
I find that statement very bizarre. Medical studies that are supposed to be relevant to the population as a whole go to great lengths to ensure the study population has the same balance as the general population eg sex ratio, age ration. They certainly don't pick people at random and assume they're a representative sample.
AJ
Medical studies that are supposed to be relevant to the population as a whole go to great lengths to ensure the study population has the same balance as the general population eg sex ratio, age ration. They certainly don't pick people at random and assume they're a representative sample.
What you are describing here is a system called 'stratified sampling.' Each sub-group of the population (or strata) is represented proportionately to the size of that sub-group but then every element of that sub-group has an equal chance to be in the sample as a representative of that sub-group.
If using pure random sampling and you use a large enough sample, then the subgroups should naturally appear in approximately the correct proportions so stratified sampling isn't needed. Since medical studies are often done with much smaller samples, they use stratified sampling to overcome that.
The problem with phone polls is that statisticians are telling us they have been getting progressively less accurate over the last 20 years. The main reasons being that some subgroups within the population are vastly more likely to refuse to answer polls than others. Some subgroups are vastly more likely to not even have a land-line phone anymore than others, etc, etc. As a result, the polling groups are less and less likely to have ended up with a truly fair sample of the population for their poll.
In addition to that, there is the problem mentioned above of either publicists or the media mis-representing the results of a poll.
The problem with phone polls is that statisticians are telling us they have been getting progressively less accurate over the last 20 years.
But still better than the 1932 poll. It had a larger sample than any presidential poll made since. It predicted a Hoover victory. (It turned out that the people in 1932 with both a car and a phone were not quite a representative sample.)
In statistics, we always assume that it is a fair ample, that is to say, that every element of the population has an equal chance to be in the sample.
I find that statement very bizarre. Medical studies that are supposed to be relevant to the population as a whole go to great lengths to ensure the study population has the same balance as the general population eg sex ratio, age ration. They certainly don't pick people at random and assume they're a representative sample.
You cite a fine -- if it were always followed -- to assure that every element of the population, if it doesn't have ann equal chance of being in the sample, has an equal chance of the relevant part studied of being in the sample.
Insofar as that is done, then the findings of statistics apply.
Polls have many things which mess them up. Think of pre-election polls where we have the data later. Smith is running against Joes, and the pollster calls up to see who the person is voting for. They can't reach some; some refuse to answer; some lie; some change their minds between the phone call and the voting booth. None of that involves statistics.
First I don't think pollsters count those they can't reach nor those that refuse to answer in their numbers nor do they know if someone is lying so they accept their answer as truth just as they accept the answer at that time of those who may change their minds. Most polls tend to have 3 answers, yes, no and I don't know. Lets keep the numbers simple with 1,000, 450 say yes, 400 say no and 150 say I don't know. That's 45% yes, 40% no and 15% IDK then apply those numbers to 350M. How is that not using statistics?
You keep using the marble example but unlike polls that example can not be manipulated. Polls can by how many are asked, where they are from, how the question is framed.
Lets say there are 2 groups with different views on incest. Group A have twice as many then Group B and are against incest while Group B think incest is best. Somehow you ask 400 from Group A and 600 from Group B and then title your poll "Most of the country is for incest." That is not a true title.
That's 45% yes, 40% no and 15% IDK then apply those numbers to 350M. How is that not using statistics?
I'm using the term, "statistics," to refer to a branch of applied mathematics. The original challenge that I answered was the claim that a sample of a thousand was insufficient to report anything about a population of a million (I'm remembering the numbers wrong.). That is a (false) statement in statistics, as I use the term. "History" is an academic field; "my history with her" is a air use of teh word, but it has an entirely different meaniing of "history."
It seems to me like they were trying to find a way to prove it did not exist. Counting nerve endings, that is it?
There is a lot more involved than just nerve endings. There are a lot of blood vessels between the vagina and the urethra, as well as the Skene's Gland, the nerves that pass from the clitoris into the body pass there, and the urethra itself.
They were counting nerves in the vagina itself, that is a guaranteed fail. Because all studies show that pressure is required, not just rubbing the surface of the area. That means that something deeper inside that is not on the inner wall itself must be stimulated. I know my late fiancee was very sensitive there, and it always got her going. But it required pressure, as if I was giving a massage to what was beyond the inner wall itself. Akin to the difference between a back rub and a back massage.
And finally, did any of the women tested have any kind of test other than "counting nerve endings"? Did they undergo direct stimulation, and report if there was a difference?
I also give this study a big fail. It is only assuming that if it existed that counting nerves would find it. It missed a huge other number of ways this reaction could be accounted for.
After all, I think it safe to say that inside of a male rectum, there are no large differences in the number of nerves in one area over another. Yet press in that area over the prostate, and I can guarantee there will be a reaction. They are making a similar boneheaded call in how they conducted this study.
I found two different articles on this supposed report. One of them quotes the International Urogynecological Association as the source.
https://www.iuga.org/
There is no hint of such an article that I can find on that page.
Small reported sample size, a misogynistic nation of origin, unavailable confirmation of source, yep totally trustworth... or not.
One of them quotes the International Urogynecological Association as the source.
I'm not sure what the IUGA is supposed to be, but it has no references to G-spots on the site, whether for or against. I'd like to see the article that referred to it.
AJ
I'm not sure what the IUGA is supposed to be, but it has no references to G-spots on the site, whether for or against. I'd like to see the article that referred to it.
Writing in the International Urogynaecology Journal, a team of medics from Istanbul said the 'anatomical evidence for the presence of the G spot' was 'scant, insufficient and weak'.
Thank you, that's brilliant. I've managed to track down the study only it requires a subscription to read the whole thing.
Actually there's a whole host of articles on the G-spot and some of them are free.
Gentle bedtime reading!
AJ
Just so you know:
https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/18/outbreak-of-fake-peer-reviews-widens-as-major-publisher-retracts-64-scientific-papers/
Springer went through a series of acquisitions until 2009, in which it was aquired by two capital venture groups. Up until that time, they had a good reputation. In the years following that, rumors of improprieties began to surface. Several of which turned out to be true as exemplified by the two linked articles.
I saw the Springer links, but given their history in the last decade, I don't trust anything they publish.
ETA:
https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/29/major-indexing-service-sounds-alarm-on-self-citations-by-nearly-50-journals/
Self citation, circular review, and a host of other problems has become a severe issue in modern academia. Publish or die drives the fraud, general apathy and laziness towards verification perpetuates it.
Self citation, circular review, and a host of other problems has become a severe issue in modern academia. Publish or die drives the fraud, general apathy and laziness towards verification perpetuates it.
Self-Citation isn't inherently wrong, but it should be done sparingly and efforts should be taken to make sure you're citing work by people besides just yourself.
In certain specialized fields of study, sometimes they do legitimately end up having to self-cite.
My specialization is one of those fields you speak of. Materials/Mechanical engineering with a specialization in cryogenics.
Very few people went that route.
The self-citation occurs, but it is very rare, even in that field. There is no excuse for the mass self-citation occurring in this day and time.
I didn't know about the computer-generated articles - it's actually quite funny that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long.
I'm not surprised by the fake peer reviews - the peer review system has been broken for several decades now.
I don't think you can automatically discount the International Urogynecology Journal just because it's published by Springer. The descriptions of the articles it contains passed my sniff test (the computer-generated ones wouldn't have) so the studies may well be genuine. However, not being able to read the article in question means I haven't read the trial protocol. And the c*nts want to charge VAT - haven't they heard the Brits have abolished it on such digital knowledge?
AJ
With their history, I won't pay for any article published by them, therefore I discount them. Decades ago, Wiley had their credentials pulled for similar reasons. They've since made it right, but still they have a grey cloud over them. I would and have purchased from Wiley in the last decade, but it will be a very long while if ever, for me to purchase anything from Springer as I don't see them doing much to right the ship.
I saw the Springer links, but given their history in the last decade, I don't trust anything they publish.
It's not just particular journals. It's everywhere and affects almost every discipline, though sociology and medicine have the biggest problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) is, as of 2020, an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis affects the social sciences and medicine most severely.[1][2] The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s[3] as part of a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis represents an important body of research in the field of metascience.[4]
A number of reputable researchers in multiple field have investigated this and concluded that a much as 80% of published peer-reviewed scientific papers are garbage.
A number of reputable researchers in multiple field have investigated this and concluded that a much as 80% of published peer-reviewed scientific papers are garbage.
I'm not sure I agree with "80%" but the general characterization is true enough.
I'm not sure I agree with "80%" but the general characterization is true enough.
Well the field matters. Some of the harder sciences (chemistry, physics) aren't that bad. Medical and sociology are really bad.
A number of reputable researchers in multiple field have investigated this and concluded that a much as 80% of published peer-reviewed scientific papers are garbage.
Most "peer review" doesn't even involve people with expertise in the relevant field.
What the peer review process is supposedly checking for is errors in methodology and other obvious flaws in the reports. After all the "real science" happens when another researcher manages to independently reproduce the results(or fails to) and makes their own report.
After all the "real science" happens when another researcher manages to independently reproduce the results(or fails to) and makes their own report.
Except these days even most of the top "reputable" journals are reluctant to publish replication studies/papers. They all want novel research.
Most "peer review" doesn't even involve people with expertise in the relevant field.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer%20review
Umm what part of 'peer' in "peer review" isn't clear?
Definition of peer review
: a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field
If what you say is true, that's a large part of the problem.
Umm what part of 'peer' in "peer review" isn't clear?
Part of the problem is the heavy reliance on statistics (which is a specialist discipline in it's own right) in nearly every field. Yet they never include statisticians in the peer review.
Other areas (like climate) are actually very multi disciplinary. It would take reviewers from four or more different disciplines to properly review one of those papers.
The United Nations did a vet of the quality of statistical analysis used in IPCC's climate change papers. Their verdict - "naive, but basically correct".
'Naive' is industry jargon for 'completely and utterly delusionally wrong'. I've used it myself when reviewing papers where I didn't want to upset some grandee or other. 'Basically correct' means that the data entry staff made few typos.
AJ
The United Nations did a vet of the quality of statistical analysis used in IPCC's climate change papers.
They claim to have done so. However, since that vetting wasn't done by professional or academic statisticians, well GIGO
GIGO
Sometimes that is garbage in, garbage out. Other times GIGO turns out to be garbage in, gospel out.
Sturgeon's Law (or Sturgeon's revelation), is an adage that states that "ninety percent of everything is crap." The adage was coined by Theodore Sturgeon, an American science fiction author and critic.
One of Murphy's corollaries is that Sturgeon was an optimist.
One of Murphy's corollaries is that Sturgeon was an optimist.
My favorite corollary is the nerd's corollary to Clark's third law.
Clark's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Nerd's corollary to Clark's third law: Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Umm what part of 'peer' in "peer review" isn't clear?
That's why I put it in quotes. Don't look at me, I'm not the one who put that into practice.
My apologies for taking your comment wrong. It would appear we are on the same page on that then.
Another problem with the peer review process is that research has now become so specialised that there are very few researchers with the knowledge necessary to thoroughly vet a paper, often leading to a 'you approve mine and I'll approve yours' tit-for-tat system.
AJ
If you didn't read the OP, here it is again.
A snippet in yesterday's paper said that scientists examined the vaginas of 17 women and found nerve endings were distributed evenly all over the organ. Ergo no G-spot.
Sorry ladeez, that's one less magic button for men to use to make you orgasm when they're in a hurry :-(
Multiple people chimed in after the fact. AJ in particular said he wanted to see the original article I quoted.
If you bothered to read the thread and the context of what I posted, the derision in my post related to the article should be clear as a bell.
Just curious. Was this article written by a (gasp!) REPORTER?
Now you cherry pick a specific post to stir the crap. The supposed reporter was (as typical) derelict in performing their research and parroting the work of another 'reporter' whom also was derelict in performing their due diligence. Just as with your post, they couldn't help themselves but to stir the crap. In their case, it was for pure sensationalism, no actual fact based reporting required.
Even if there isn't a G spot, it makes sexual fiction better.
Even if there isn't a G spot, it makes sexual fiction better.
Along with 12" penises, perky 42DD breasts, two tablespoons of cum per ejaculation and flooding the bedlinen with something squirted that isn't urine.
AJ
perky 42DD breasts
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-natural-breasts
The largest natural breasts belong to Annie Hawkins-Turner (aka Norma Stitz) (USA) who has an under breast measurement of 109.22 cm (43 in) and an around chest-over-nipple measurement of 177.8 cm (70 in).
***
She currently wears a US size 52I bra, the largest made, but by American bra estimation, her measurements would put her in a 48V bra, which is not manufactured.
42DDs exist, but yeah perky is a problem. I've seen pictures(photos) of perky 42DD breasts, they are obvious implant jobs looking like a pair of over inflated balloons.
Even if there isn't a G spot, it makes sexual fiction better.
Studies show that a greater proportion of women orgasm through anal sex than vaginal. Sounds ridiculous and counter-evolutionary but it seems to be reproducible. The usual explanation is the high concentration of nerve endings around the anus and perineum.
So far I haven't seen any authors inventing anal G-spots, although I think there's a SOL story which mentions a 'female prostate'.
AJ
The usual explanation is the high concentration of nerve endings around the anus and perineum.
Depending on how much a given man's scrotum dangles, during anal sex done doggie style it may be possible for the man's scrotum to impact her clit.
Depending on how much a given man's scrotum dangles, during anal sex done doggie style it may be possible for the man's scrotum to impact her clit.
Having a Miley Cyrus moment..??
"I came 'cos of his wrecking balls..."
I don't understand the attraction to floppy breasts. It's one thing to pass the pencell test but when you can hide the whole hand behind a breast is just unattractive to me.
I once worked on a show with Pam Andersen and seeing her breasts up close was scary.
I don't understand the attraction to floppy breasts.
It's evolutionary. In theory a woman with large natural breast would have an easier time nursing babies and more of her children will survive.
And large natural breasts sag. Gravity always wins.
I once worked on a show with Pam Andersen and seeing her breasts up close was scary.
In this I fully agree. For many years I worked as a DJ at various strip clubs. And seeing the girls when they first come in without makeup or in the brighter lighting of my DJ booth could be quite a sight.
There were several gals that I had to specifically turn off the black lights, because they make stretch marks and scars glow almost white.
I don't know how they can say doing this or taking that gives you 20% higher chance of getting cancer when there are so many things that causes cancer. How do they know that their subjects didn't get cancer from something else? They'll say these studies are based on rats or monkeys in a controlled study. That's fine and dandy but people are not rats or monkeys Every person's body react differently to things.
How do they know that their subjects didn't get cancer from something else?
They don't. There's no way to take a given cancer an determine what caused it.
Mostly they are just using statistical correlations between the number of specific types of cancers and general population level exposures to certain substances, with at best weak causal theories to justify the correlation.
They'll say these studies are based on rats or monkeys in a controlled study. That's fine and dandy but people are not rats or monkeys Every person's body react differently to things.
The biggest problem with animal experiments on supposed carcinogens is not the difference in physiology and body chemistry, but dose.
They are using doses of the alleged carcinogens that adjusted for relative body wight are several orders of magnitude above any reasonable human exposure levels.
Lets take Alar which is a pesticide used in apple orchards. It was determined to be a carcinogen by experiments on rats.
However, for a human to get a life time dose equivalent to what they fed the rats after adjusting for the difference in body weight, you would have to eat more than 10 pounds worth of apples every day for 80 years.
The biggest rule in toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. Even water is toxic if you drink enough of it. But these cancer studies assume without any evidence to back it up, that there is no safe dose, that even the tiniest barely even measurable exposure will kill at least a few people.
I live by a simple rule. Every day can be your last day so instead of worrying about what may kill you later so just enjoy today.
just enjoy today.
They (government) don't let you, you have to wear a mask, stay 6 feet away, wash your hands, and still either you will get Covid 19 or not. Stay home in your residence, only go out to get food, and not very often. You can't Phase me.
They (government) don't let you
I guess it depends on the person. At casa de Remus, we don't get out much these days anyway and like it like that. When we do, wearing a mask is no big deal. That has been common place in several areas of Asia for a long time now. As such, our travels have us used to it.
Our only real concern is the lack of focus on nitrile etc gloves. The premise that such a highly contagious virus cannot be found on surfaces in sufficient concentration to contract it, is in our opinion, ludicrous. Hand to face contamination via poor discipline is common place. Yet the gooberment fails to address it at nearly every turn??
We'll stay here as we've little reason to stray from the property. The isolation is welcomed after the last forty years of our lives.
Our only real concern is the lack of focus on nitrile etc gloves. The premise that such a highly contagious virus cannot be found on surfaces in sufficient concentration to contract it, is in our opinion, ludicrous. Hand to face contamination via poor discipline is common place. Yet the gooberment fails to address it at nearly every turn??
Because the Nitrile gloves would be useless for that purpose unless the person has open sores on their hands. The moment the gloves touch anything, it would be contaminated just like the person's hand. So glove or no glove, the moment they touch their eyes, they have potential infection.
As such, the best guidance remains don't touch your face, and wash your hands.
Because the Nitrile gloves would be useless for that purpose unless the person has open sores on their hands. The moment the gloves touch anything, it would be contaminated just like the person's hand. So glove or no glove, the moment they touch their eyes, they have potential infection.
That's a backwards way of looking at it. Hand discipline is required gloves or not. With proper use of the gloves, you don't spread anything to your car, or any other place you may consider safe. You also assure you don't have to worry if the sanitizer for your hands was sufficient to the task.
The gloves are part of a personal protective equipment regime. Anyone who's ever trained to deal with contamination of any kind knows this. Be it nuclear, biological, chemical, or other.
That's a backwards way of looking at it. Hand discipline is required gloves or not. With proper use of the gloves, you don't spread anything to your car, or any other place you may consider safe. You also assure you don't have to worry if the sanitizer for your hands was sufficient to the task.
The gloves are part of a personal protective equipment regime. Anyone who's ever trained to deal with contamination of any kind knows this. Be it nuclear, biological, chemical, or other.
Hello, I'm one of those people. Same problem exists with protective glove use as exists for protective mask use. If done properly your point would be valid. But most people aren't trained, and won't do it properly heck many of the people with the training often screw up.
And if you're going to sterile environment, the protocols would still be elaborate and byzantine, and impractical for most daily life scenarios. And all of them would end in you washing your hands in any case.
The gloves are superfluous to Covid19 unless you have broken skin. What matters is "hand discipline" in that it doesn't matter what is, or is not on your hands. What matters is you don't touch your face with your hands, gloved or not, after they've come in contact with a contaminated medium.
Which boils down to: "Want to touch your face after being in public? Wash your hands."
We will definitely not agree on this subject except here:
Same problem exists with protective glove use as exists for protective mask use. If done properly your point would be valid.
If it's not done properly, there is no point in any PPE.
If it's not done properly, there is no point in any PPE.
Arguably it's counter-productive because it provides a false sense of security.
AJ
If it's not done properly, there is no point in any PPE.
Arguably it's counter-productive because it provides a false sense of security.
Exactly, which is why I've been saying the gloves are pointless, just tell people to wash their hands.
Arguably it's counter-productive because it provides a false sense of security.
So let's stop using mask as well, after all, the same logic applies.
For that matter, lets stop using anything that might give us a false sense of security. You know, those silly seat belts, hard hats, steel toed boots, cross walk signs, traffic lights, and every other safety device that might give us a false sense of security. Let's see how that plan works out.
For that matter, lets stop using anything that might give us a false sense of security. You know, those silly seat belts
Seat belts are actually beneficial to the majority of vehicle occupants.
I've heard of the occasional driver who strings the belt across their chest but doesn't engage the locking mechanism, thus fooling casual police inspection - that passes the 'not done properly' criterion but probably fails the 'false sense of security' criterion.
But I presume you were just ignoring the fact that I was reinforcing your statement, not disagreeing with it.
AJ
It's more context than anything, Not_a_ID took your statement in a different direction. Without context or reply, I assumed you agreed with him. If not, then I apologize.
I believe that if PPE isn't done properly, not only is it ineffective but it can encourage people to to indulge in risky behaviour because of misguided confidence.
I'm not sure whether no PPE is better than bad PPE. I suspect it depends on the people concerned.
AJ
Arguably it's counter-productive because it provides a false sense of security.
So let's stop using mask as well, after all, the same logic applies.
The case for mask use is much more nuanced, it actually is a relevant protective measure with respect to Covid19 spread, given its contagion vector is known to be airborne.
Glove use for an airborne virus with extremely weak evidence according to the CDC, WHO, and others with regards to surface transmission... Makes little sense. As I've been saying from the start, in the context of Covid19, the case for gloves only makes sense if you have broken skin/exposed cuts/sores on your hands.
Beyond that, you're left dealing with the "don't touch your face" and the guidance to wash your hands before doing so. Touching your face while wearing gloves is no safer than touching your face without gloves when it comes to covid19. In either case you're either needing to wash your hands first, or putting on a clean set of gloves immediately before touching your face. (And good luck not contaminating those gloves if you're putting them on with unwashed hands)
Which brings us back to that whole matter of most people don't know how to use gloves properly in the context of avoiding hand to face contamination. All the gloves are likely to do is create an additional false sense of security, on a front that may not even be relevant, and result it creating spread events rather than preventing them.
Don't touch your face in public without washing your hands first. It's going to do more for most people than any gloves ever will.
For that matter, lets stop using anything that might give us a false sense of security. You know, those silly seat belts
For most adults, seat belts are hard to use improperly. Younger/smaller people are another matter, but in general seat belt use is directly relevant to thing they're being used for in cars.
The case you're making for using gloves to prevent the spread of Covid19 is directly comparable to demanding people install seat belts on their La-Z-Boy sofa "just in case things get crazy" in their home. Where some idiot may decide that because their rocking chair has a seat belt, that means they can throw it in the bed of their pickup truck, buckle someone into it, and have that person be safe as they go careening through back country roads.
hard hats, steel toed boots, cross walk signs, traffic lights, and every other safety device that might give us a false sense of security. Let's see how that plan works out.
Hard hats in a lot of cases are more dubious in my view, and I have doubts as to it giving many people who use them any meaningful sense of security. Situationally they're useful, but in a number of others where they've been mandated they're next to useless.
Steel Toe boots are useful, hard to use improperly in the context of safety. Although they probably do present some indirect hazards from a safety perspective. I know myself and others haven't been shy about using our steel toes as tools for elevating objects for easier lifting. Lift the item up high enough to slip the steel toe under it, drop it on the toe cap, reposition your hands for a better grip, and then lift(or use your foot as a furniture slider).
Cross walk signs and traffic lights are an entirely different category of thing and are not actually safety devices in and of themselves. They're traffic flow controls that assume people will obey the rules of the road. Which most people understand doesn't always happen.
Although they probably do present some indirect hazards from a safety perspective.
The only real hazard to the user I can see from wearing steel toe boots is if the user is working around large electro magnets like the magnetic cranes used to move scrap metal around.
I know myself and others haven't been shy about using our steel toes as tools for elevating objects for easier lifting. Lift the item up high enough to slip the steel toe under it, drop it on the toe cap, reposition your hands for a better grip, and then lift(or use your foot as a furniture slider).
If you try that with something heavy enough to crush the steel toe cap, you probably wouldn't be able to lift it enough to get your steel toe under it in the first place. :)
If you try that with something heavy enough to crush the steel toe cap, you probably wouldn't be able to lift it enough to get your steel toe under it in the first place. :)
In that instance, the bigger hazard would likely be a forklift or pallet jack being used to drop something on your steel toe for you to do something. But I don't know why anyone in their right mind would do that if they have access to a forklift.
But I don't know why anyone in their right mind would do that if they have access to a forklift.
Exactly.
Of course there's always "Here, hold my beer, this is gonna be cool" syndrome. That never ends well.
And there's also the possibility of dropping something heavy and sharp on your foot and having it land behind the steel toe cap.
And there's also the possibility of dropping something heavy and sharp on your foot and having it land behind the steel toe cap.
That does happen, but if they get medical attention in time, their toes may be saved. The rest of their foot may be another matter.
That does happen, but if they get medical attention in time, their toes may be saved. The rest of their foot may be another matter.
How on Earth do you save the toes with out saving the whole foot? Cut the toes off the severed part of the foot and try to graft them back onto the stump?
How on Earth do you save the toes with out saving the whole foot? Cut the toes off the severed part of the foot and try to graft them back onto the stump?
Pretty much.
The case you are trying to make, is that without training, the gloves help nothing. As you admitted earlier:
Same problem exists with protective glove use as exists for protective mask use. If done properly your point would be valid.
You then contradict yourself when that is pointed out. Your argument contains many fallacies, but the primary one is that of inertia.
Show me a hospital, clinic, or covid check station where gloves are not being used for this purpose? Oh that's right, you can't.
The proper use of gloves is a lot easier to learn than the proper use of a mask. The improper use of mask is readily observable in the general public these days, but without training, you wouldn't recognize it.
In short, you don't have a clue what your talking about. Have fun with that.
Show me a hospital, clinic, or covid check station where gloves are not being used for this purpose? Oh that's right, you can't.
Sure we can. Most hospitals in the US, the use of gloves by doctors and nurses handling patients was routine BEFORE the pandemic. They aren't using them just because of covid.
Show me a hospital, clinic, or covid check station where gloves are not being used for this purpose? Oh that's right, you can't.
The use of gloves in routine medical practice was largely a result of the AIDS outbreak and concern about infection with AIDS, which is done through the transfer of bodily fluids.
It also happens that changing gloves is a lot less involved than washing hands. You'd also likely find that a lot of the glove use, outside of surgical theaters and other specialized care situations serve one of two purposes:
1) Protection of the medical staff.
2) Speed of transition between patients.
In either case, that's N/A when you're dealing with Joe Public who puts on a pair of gloves upon leaving the house, goes out in public feeling safe because they're wearing gloves as they go about their business over the course of a 2 hour shopping trip, where they touch their face many times before returning home and removing their gloves.
The medical practitioner would at a minimum remove the gloves as they leave the room patient 1 is in, and put on a new pair of gloves before speaking with patient 2, even if they don't wash their hands. If the doctor returns to Patient 1, another new pair of gloves will be used.
That's a very different thing from Joe Public in gloves for hours on end.
The medical practitioner would at a minimum remove the gloves as they leave the room patient 1 is in, and put on a new pair of gloves before speaking with patient 2, even if they don't wash their hands.
Heh! That's the theory. But you can't tell God what to do. Doctors are one of the principal causes of infectious diseases spreading in hospitals.
AJ
In either case, that's N/A when you're dealing with Joe Public who puts on a pair of gloves upon leaving the house, goes out in public feeling safe because they're wearing gloves as they go about their business over the course of a 2 hour shopping trip, where they touch their face many times before returning home and removing their gloves.
If they are touching their face as you described, which btw I agree with, they are also voiding several benifits of wearing the mask and on top of that, adding new risk.
You can of course ignore everything I'm saying. In fact, why don't you do just that. You and I will never meet, nor our families. Therefore you pose no risk to me and mine. However, you will only have yourself to blame when that obstinacy causes you and yours harm.
Just return to your regular channel, I'll bother you no more.
They (government) don't let you, you have to wear a mask, stay 6 feet away, wash your hands, and still either you will get Covid 19 or not. Stay home in your residence, only go out to get food, and not very often. You can't Phase me.
I don't buy that. While I am not one of those right-wing anti-government Q-Anon wack jobs. I'll wear a mask in a store even though I have an exemption due to my bronchitis, I rarely wash my hands in the first place, only reason I stay 6 feet from someone is because I don't like being near people (I don't hug and if you want a fist bump you might get a face bump instead.) as for staying at home if I want to go for a motorcycle ride I go ride and never had a problem. As for worrying about getting covid, I am on so many meds one has to help stop it.
A woman was recently interviewed about cornovirus who btw was not wearing a mask.
The interviewer asked, "Aren't you concerned about the second wave of infections"
Her reply was, "Not at all 'cause it is not an election year."
The interviewer asked, "Aren't you concerned about the second wave of infections"
Her reply was, "Not at all 'cause it is not an election year."
Was this in the US?
Her reply was, "Not at all 'cause it is not an election year."
If there's one thing that has no limits it's stupidity.
If there's one thing that has no limits it's stupidity.
There is in fact a harsh limit that goes along the line of Darwinism.
When stupidly exceeds survivability, Darwinism takes over.
If there's one thing that has no limits it's stupidity.
There is in fact a harsh limit that goes along the line of Darwinism.
When stupidly exceeds survivability, Darwinism takes over.
What stupidity lacks in depth, it makes up for in quantity. A million monkeys with typewriters might take a while to write a Shakespeare play, but they do manage to put out the New York Times on a daily basis.
A million monkeys with typewriters might take a while to write a Shakespeare play, but they do manage to put out the New York Times on a daily basis.
LOL, I'll have to quote that elsewhere.
A million monkeys with typewriters might take a while to write a Shakespeare play, but they do manage to put out the New York Times on a daily basis.
Nah. Contrary to some fake news stories generated by the NYT to make it seem like they had a staff revolt, the NYT is is generated by two dozen Linux servers hiding in a hidden chamber under Central Park.
the NYT is is generated by two dozen Linux servers hiding in a hidden chamber under Central Park.
That's wrong, even and underpowered Linux server has more sense than you see being produced in the NYT. Now if you had said it was 12 old Pentium 1 servers using 4 loaded with MS CE, plus 4 loaded with MS ME, and 4 loaded with MS NT - well, that makes total sense.
That's wrong, even and underpowered Linux server has more sense than you see being produced in the NYT.
It's not about making sense. It's about gaslighting the people of NYC so that they(the Linux servers) can take over the city.
It's about gaslighting the people of NYC so that they(the Linux servers) can take over the city.
As ystokes says, a group of Linux servers could take over NY by simply controlling the pizza parlours.
Nah. Contrary to some fake news stories generated by the NYT to make it seem like they had a staff revolt, the NYT is is generated by two dozen Linux servers hiding in a hidden chamber under Central Park.
I read the same thing on the Q-anon site. But it was a hidden chamber under a pizza parlor. I love that site. Better then the NY Post.
A million monkeys with typewriters might take a while to write a Shakespeare play, but they do manage to put out the New York Times on a daily basis.
From what I hear they do a good job filling facebook and instagram too.
From what I hear they do a good job filling facebook and instagram too.
You left out Twitter, where I hang out. Make that a million and one monkeys.
AJ
From what I hear they do a good job filling facebook and instagram too.
That's the gorillas farting at the lost smart phones they've found.
When stupidly exceeds survivability, Darwinism takes over.
It just means stupidity is one-upped which is a good thing.
Only in the SOL forum could a discussion of the existence of the g-spot end with gorillas farting at smart phones!
Only in the SOL forum could a discussion of the existence of the g-spot end with gorillas farting at smart phones!
It is unlikely to end with a fart. Someone is bound to follow through...
Although we now know what to do with all those shitty phones, hand them back to the Gorillas...
:)
Donate your old phones to the Primate Flatulence Research Foundation. Thank you for your support.
shitty phones
I was thinking along those lines earlier. The numpties in charge of the NHS seem to want to do away with GPs and do everything by smartphone app.
Stick your smartphone up your vayjay and it will diagnose cervical and ovarian cancer. And for today only (5th July), you can put it in and out repeatedly because it's National Orgasm Day according to The Sun.
Stick your smartphone deep in your mouth and it will diagnose Barrett's Oesophagus and Covid-19.
Stick your smartphone up your poopoo and it will diagnose bowel and prostate cancer (and come out shitty).
Unfortunately, the only foreseeably accurate part is the lack of GPs :-(
AJ
Just wait - the new Apple TriCorder will be out next year.
Me: "Alexa, I'm not feeling well..."
Alexa: "Shove it up your ass."
Me: "Well, up yours, too!"
Alexa: "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
Alexa: "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
Any bets on how long before some slimy lawyer claims Alexa is effectively Dave's common law wife and Alexa takes half of everything he owns in the separation, citing his "affair" with Siri as grounds...?