Re: Ove Interest?

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:36:28 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:59:01 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

On 2/19/2025 9:39 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:07:12 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation
means he
can deny a correlation.
>

>

>
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
>

...

>
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports
detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the
AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
>

>
Uneducable.
>

>
indeed.

>
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
>
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
>
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.

>
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.

>
lol...as if that isn't 'affirming the consequent'.
>

>
Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy that is committed when it
is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the
antecedent is true as Krygowski did in the following statement:
>
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
>
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.

>
>
nope, sorry dumbass. This is just a lame attempt at a defense on your
part because you're still butthurt from being corrected when you
insisted "correlation is not causation".
>
>

>
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.

>
Sure dumbass....Plants do _not_ grow faster when fertilized. Maybe
that'll work with the anti-science trump/musk sycophants being put in
charge of the USDA, but for those of us that actually respect and
understand science it's just another willfully ignorant magatard trying
to sound as if he has a fucking clue. HINT: you don't.
>
We're being told prayer works just as well. Tel ya what, dumbass, You
take two of the same species and variety of plants in identical
conditions, except that you give one fertilizer and pray over the other.
Let us know how well that works out....
>

>
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated

>
seeing you criticize others for lack of education is almost as funny as
seeing tommy do it.
>

>
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.

>
says the willfully ignorant magatard who wrote "if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized. That is
clearly false."
>
lol..The dumbass still making the dumbshine state proud.

 
<grin> If plants really do grow faster when fertilized, Dummy, how
come the freshly fertilized grass my wife set a big flower pot over
didn't grow faster?
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
The phrase you two seek is , "Necessary but not sufficient."

>
Ok. That works, but in the case of applying fertilizer, "beneficial
but not sufficient" works better.

An additional point is that I'm pretty sure the onion and garlick I'm
going to peel for my meatloaf today would not even benefit from an
application of fertilizer.

That's all for now, my kitchen is calling my name

--
C'est bon
Soloman