kbordson

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    7,045

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by kbordson

  1. kbordson
    I thought she was mocking you. Nope. In that post, I was conceding that he was correct.
  2. kbordson
    Oh you would be surprised by how much shit we are willing to put up with for, long legged, flat bellied, perky boobied amazing assed companionship. Now if she could drink like the gorgeous goddess posted above well.....I wold forgive her if she were a cannibal. OK.... shah. (sitting down across the table with a "we need to talk" look) You seem to be a smart guy. Did you EVER stop to think about your choices in women and how that might be causing some of the problems that you have with relationships? You complain about how divorces would be worse than putting a bullet in your head but yet focus your priority on a mate selection by appearance and beer drinking ability. Think about this. Mature people typically don't want to destroy a person that he/she loves/d (look through the thread on ex-es... there is some helpful insight in there) Honestly though - Women are NOT the enemy. (gives you "that look" before getting up to let you think) edit to correct typo
  3. kbordson
    ummmm... "no need for further argument"? This IS Speakers Corner, ya know. Besides, I have some BS comments and ignorant opinions. This is a TRAGIC murder and suicide. This is an example of how ANY person can be trusting and become deceived. Even those with guns. But you can NOT say that this "proves" that having a gun got this poor woman killed. This was an anecdotal case and anecdotal evidence is not "good science." Neither are anecdotes in the other direction. You might want to explain that better. Anecdotal evidence exists to support both sides of this argument. It is equally useless both ways. OOOHHHH! I read that differently!! I thought you were implying that NEITHER DEATH were anecdotes in the other direction. Then... yes! You are correct!!
  4. kbordson
    Admit it... You're just looking for a spanking... well..... she was talking about maybe playing for the other team. Never been spanked by a girl before.
  5. kbordson
    ummmm... "no need for further argument"? This IS Speakers Corner, ya know. Besides, I have some BS comments and ignorant opinions. This is a TRAGIC murder and suicide. This is an example of how ANY person can be trusting and become deceived. Even those with guns. But you can NOT say that this "proves" that having a gun got this poor woman killed. This was an anecdotal case and anecdotal evidence is not "good science." Neither are anecdotes in the other direction. You might want to explain that better. Are you saying that if you show a case that this "causes" that, as long as I can defend it with a "yeah.. well, there's THIS case" to counter it, then that would be "better" science? Let's see how that works- Cigarette smoking and lung cancer -my dad smoked. He developed lung cancer - George Burns smoked. He did not. Thus "proving" that smoking does not cause cancer.
  6. kbordson
    ummmm... "no need for further argument"? This IS Speakers Corner, ya know. Besides, I have some BS comments and ignorant opinions. This is a TRAGIC murder and suicide. This is an example of how ANY person can be trusting and become deceived. Even those with guns. But you can NOT say that this "proves" that having a gun got this poor woman killed. This was an anecdotal case and anecdotal evidence is not "good science."
  7. kbordson
  8. kbordson
    That's is NOT what he said.... Let me recap that part of the conversation. The study does not in fact "prove" that he would likely be dead. That is extending the conclusions well beyond the study parameters. You could say there is a strong correlation between firearms possession and assault. But... not to be too much of a snot... it does not PROVE that he would likely be dead.
  9. kbordson
    Not "proves" Suggests. (you can even say "strongly suggests" depending on your definition of "strongly")
  10. kbordson
    doncha mean Phili?
  11. kbordson
    HD Nightster 1200
  12. kbordson
    It's starting to sound like they're all flawed. Which numbers do we believe? Firearms ARE dangerous. This study made some interesting commentary on how a gun might "empower" someone and with that it might place him/her in danger. LIFE is dangerous. (You jump out of planes from 13k!!) As far as what to "believe"? Have a level of distrust for anything that is told to you. Numbers can and do lie. BUT... learn how to sift through some of that. Statistics are BORING (if taught wrong)... but it's a very helpful tool in understanding. Don't seek to "believe".... try to "understand"
  13. kbordson
    sorry, banesanura I'm just a smart ass....
  14. kbordson
    Good points I thought his invention of heaven was touchingly beautiful and in many ways does justify religion.... (but not the atrocities done in it's name... but lets not drag this to sc) But.... is withholding unrequested opinions "lying"? and is having an internal filter a "good" thing or not?
  15. kbordson
    All these other polls just got me thinking...
  16. kbordson
    Yeah... that would make her NOT want to have sex with him.... witty come back though. Remember that for all you guys that picked "intelligence" on the dating preferences.
  17. kbordson
    BOTH sides can and DO "fudge" or even make up the numbers. This is a topic that isn't always based on fact. (as evidenced by this thread) People have strong opinions to both sides of the debate. To have a "real" study is unrealistic. You can not have a double blind, placebo controlled randomized study. 1. It would NEVER past any IRB. 2. "Blind"?! I would hope not (humor....) But people will still have his/her bias. That will influence what you say, what you read, and even how you think (not that would be an interesting study.... MRI of pro and anti beliefs while reading studies of the topic) Anyway.... I just wanted to spar over the "facts" and counter someone that posted a thread about a less than proven statement. (where is J. anyway)
  18. kbordson
    isn't that what those lil blue diamonds are for? Better living through chemistry. edit to add: This post was not sponsored by pfizer. I have no disclosure of any possible conflicts of interest. Nor is one to assume personal or use by other "personal" persons due to the posting of this comment.
  19. kbordson
    "random stuff" Example: "What are you doing?" Answer: "this, that and the other." Nothing real important but .... stuff.
  20. kbordson
    When I heard "mean spirited," I thought it was referring to how the "pretty people" treated the "losers." And "Mark" never asked anyone if "these pants make me look fat"... they were just free with the mean lil snipes. (poor mark... even with the stubby lil nose)
  21. kbordson
    They are few and far between, but they are out there. Look up Lott and Mustard because they're lobbyist. Lott was discredited for unethical behavior - basically cherry picking his data. And.... I also question the findings in this study. But... it's easier in American Medicine to discredit those that are against the "popular" beliefs. (not saying Lott did or didn't cherry pick.... but why didn't this study use a 99% CI?)
  22. kbordson
    I disagree. Examining the end results of 40 with / 49 without firearms in Philadelphia with less than convincing data should not be what people would use to make "informed" decisions.
  23. kbordson
    WINNER!!! g We ended up married.
  24. kbordson
    Some other valid reasons to say "no": Post partum - SIX WEEKS!!! Let that area HEAL!!! Let the body build back up before you throw another bun in that oven! Post operative - (depends on the surgery preformed) Long distance relationships/TDY.... (and for the record - guys say "no" too... it's not just females with a "cold shoulder")
  25. kbordson
    He didn't want to go to jail.