Should CNN be proud of this?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2015, 10:20 AM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2015 10:27 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(26-08-2015 01:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 01:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  So I take it you don't know what field these "experts" hold their expertise and whether or not it is germane.....and that you just trust CNN.

Do you, you incredulous cunt? Facepalm

Why do you doubt the expert opinion of a panel convened by the State of Florida's own Department of Health?

Which he still obviously hasn't read even though Pappy linked to it pages ago. Guess what BlowMe, credentials are listed there.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
26-08-2015, 10:43 AM
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(26-08-2015 10:20 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 01:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Do you, you incredulous cunt? Facepalm

Why do you doubt the expert opinion of a panel convened by the State of Florida's own Department of Health?

Which he still obviously hasn't read even though Pappy linked to it pages ago. Guess what BlowMe, credentials are listed there.

You may have noticed that BlowJob doesn't often let facts alter his opinions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
26-08-2015, 07:38 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2015 09:24 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(26-08-2015 10:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 10:20 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Which he still obviously hasn't read even though Pappy linked to it pages ago. Guess what BlowMe, credentials are listed there.

You may have noticed that BlowJob doesn't often let facts alter his opinions.

I have.




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 12:37 AM
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(26-08-2015 10:19 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 12:57 AM)morondog Wrote:  You *fucking idiot*.

CNN can sensationalise the shit out of it. The opinion you disagreed with was that of the independent panel of experts.

Fucken idiot troll.

Which he still obviously hasn't read even though Pappy linked it pages ago.

I forgive you for calling me a troll.

Please, if you are going to interject in an exchange between me and morandog, at least pay attention to what is being said.

I was asking Morondog if he knew something. I never claimed the information wasn't available.

Now I will ask you if you know something. Does anyone on that panel of experts have any background in math or statistics? Why would it be important for that panel to contain people with such backgrounds?

If you don't know the answers to those questions, you simply are not yet intellectually equipped to participate in this discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 01:17 AM
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
I implore you to go fuck yourself Blowjob Smile It's the right thing to do.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
27-08-2015, 01:29 AM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2015 01:34 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(27-08-2015 12:37 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 10:19 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Which he still obviously hasn't read even though Pappy linked it pages ago.

I forgive you for calling me a troll.

Please, if you are going to interject in an exchange between me and morandog, at least pay attention to what is being said.

I was asking Morondog if he knew something. I never claimed the information wasn't available.

Now I will ask you if you know something. Does anyone on that panel of experts have any background in math or statistics? Why would it be important for that panel to contain people with such backgrounds?

If you don't know the answers to those questions, you simply are not yet intellectually equipped to participate in this discussion.

Blowjob is pulling the skeptical-about-skeptics line here. Which is to say, when the Department of Health in Florida convenes a panel of medical experts to conduct oversight on a potentially troubled program in one hospital, and the recommendations are thereafter ignored and subsequently more lives are lost; his first line of questioning starts at the statistical acumen of the expert panel and all others involved in the oversight and critique of the program, rather than the program itself.

Why is he defending the program at all costs, instead choosing to target the expert opinion of everyone involved who was not part of the program in question? We don't know, and he has as of yet refused to supply why that's his focus. When called out on it he merely switches the burden of proof, demanding that we supply evidence as to why we accept the expert opinion of the panel of experts assembled by a board of professionals working for the Department of Health, in which oversight is part of the fucking job.

One would think that it would be self evident (accepting professional expert opinions from their field of expertise, unless you have a compelling reason not to, which Blowjob has yet to supply), so one can only assume that Blowjob is up to his usual stupid incredulity and trollish behavior. Notice that he accepts the expertise of the hospital program without question, but feels the need to keep begging the question vis-a-vis the acumen of the various oversight bodies; he's not holding both bodies to the same standard, thus his entire bellyaching amounts to special pleading, which is par for the course when it comes to Blowjob.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-08-2015, 01:49 AM
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(27-08-2015 01:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  One would think that it would be self evident (accepting professional expert opinions from their field of expertise, unless you have a compelling reason not to, which Blowjob has yet to supply), so one can only assume that Blowjob is up to his usual stupid incredulity and trollish behavior.

Suppose you asked the panel of experts to decide if a coin is fair. They flip it 10 times and 7 times it comes up tails. Since it has landed on tails 7 times and on heads 3 times they conclude it is not fair. Why? Because they are experts at medicine and not at statistics or physics.

In this situation, your panel of experts was looking at and drawing conclusions about statistics. Shouldn't it have on it some people with a strong background in math/statistics?

After reading the CNN article EK....do make any mention how likely this hospital deviation from the mean is due to chance? If you asked everyone on that panel of experts, do you think anyone of them could tell you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 02:14 AM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2015 03:38 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(27-08-2015 01:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 01:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  One would think that it would be self evident (accepting professional expert opinions from their field of expertise, unless you have a compelling reason not to, which Blowjob has yet to supply), so one can only assume that Blowjob is up to his usual stupid incredulity and trollish behavior.
Suppose you asked the panel of experts to decide if a coin is fair. They flip it 10 times and 7 times it comes up tails. Since it has landed on tails 7 times and on heads 3 times they conclude it is not fair. Why? Because they are experts at medicine and not at statistics or physics.

I'm sorry, what was that? Are you claiming that nobody on that panel has any fucking idea how to do statistics, or that they didn't have access to any professional statistician capable of vetting the numbers? Because that's what you are saying, you are directly questioning their collective ability to do math. Do you have any reason to do this outside of vague generalizations? Do you have any evidence to doubt the particular outcome of this specific panel?

Why is doubting the statistical acumen of the expert oversight panel your go-to argument, and not doubting the lack of transparency from the very hospital that refuses to share the 'correct' numbers that it disputes with CNN? What gives you such great confidence in the information supplied by the hospital, but you dispute anything that questions it? Why are you not holding the hospital and it's program to the same level of skepticism that you're applying to everyone else?

Do you know for a fact that the hospital has expert statisticians on hand to accurately calculate their mortality rates (they are a hospital, not a university math department after all, it's not their expertise either)? And if so, once again, how come the hospital refuses to release their own 'correct' numbers? Facepalm

Selective skepticism is a sign of bias.


(27-08-2015 01:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In this situation, your panel of experts was looking at and drawing conclusions about statistics. Shouldn't it have on it some people with a strong background in math/statistics?

Where are you getting this information?

One, you are assuming that they based their recommendations solely on the statistics. We do not know that. The statistics might have been the red-flag that alerted the Department of Health, which then convened the panel to do an on-site inspection of their practices. I highly doubt that the expert panel based their non-binding recommendations solely upon the mortality rate; but rather took into account many factors during their inspection and oversight of the facility, program, and staff.

Two, you are also assuming that they didn't have anybody even remotely competent at math available to them, and you are once again doing so without reason or evidence.


(27-08-2015 01:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  After reading the CNN article EK....do make any mention how likely this hospital deviation from the mean is due to chance? If you asked everyone on that panel of experts, do you think anyone of them could tell you?

I think that they'd respectfully tell you that their recommendation was based on far more factors than just the mortality rate that you are so obsessed with (and, for the umpteenth time, that hospital itself refuses to offer their own 'correct' numbers to dispute the CNN ones).

On the other hand, I would tell you to fuck off. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
27-08-2015, 08:25 AM
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(27-08-2015 01:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 12:37 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I forgive you for calling me a troll.

Please, if you are going to interject in an exchange between me and morandog, at least pay attention to what is being said.

I was asking Morondog if he knew something. I never claimed the information wasn't available.

Now I will ask you if you know something. Does anyone on that panel of experts have any background in math or statistics? Why would it be important for that panel to contain people with such backgrounds?

If you don't know the answers to those questions, you simply are not yet intellectually equipped to participate in this discussion.

Blowjob is pulling the skeptical-about-skeptics line here. Which is to say, when the Department of Health in Florida convenes a panel of medical experts to conduct oversight on a potentially troubled program in one hospital, and the recommendations are thereafter ignored and subsequently more lives are lost; his first line of questioning starts at the statistical acumen of the expert panel and all others involved in the oversight and critique of the program, rather than the program itself.

Why is he defending the program at all costs, instead choosing to target the expert opinion of everyone involved who was not part of the program in question? We don't know, and he has as of yet refused to supply why that's his focus. When called out on it he merely switches the burden of proof, demanding that we supply evidence as to why we accept the expert opinion of the panel of experts assembled by a board of professionals working for the Department of Health, in which oversight is part of the fucking job.

One would think that it would be self evident (accepting professional expert opinions from their field of expertise, unless you have a compelling reason not to, which Blowjob has yet to supply), so one can only assume that Blowjob is up to his usual stupid incredulity and trollish behavior. Notice that he accepts the expertise of the hospital program without question, but feels the need to keep begging the question vis-a-vis the acumen of the various oversight bodies; he's not holding both bodies to the same standard, thus his entire bellyaching amounts to special pleading, which is par for the course when it comes to Blowjob.

I thought it obvious that his original target was our critical thinking skills. Consider

Which is, of course, fucking hilarious.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-08-2015, 08:32 AM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2015 10:54 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(27-08-2015 01:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 01:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  One would think that it would be self evident (accepting professional expert opinions from their field of expertise, unless you have a compelling reason not to, which Blowjob has yet to supply), so one can only assume that Blowjob is up to his usual stupid incredulity and trollish behavior.

Suppose you asked the panel of experts to decide if a coin is fair. They flip it 10 times and 7 times it comes up tails. Since it has landed on tails 7 times and on heads 3 times they conclude it is not fair. Why? Because they are experts at medicine and not at statistics or physics.

In this situation, your panel of experts was looking at and drawing conclusions about statistics. Shouldn't it have on it some people with a strong background in math/statistics?

After reading the CNN article EK....do make any mention how likely this hospital deviation from the mean is due to chance? If you asked everyone on that panel of experts, do you think anyone of them could tell you?

Completely false analogy. But the usual stupid tripe from you-know-who.
If a surgeon's cases have a higher than expected, or higher than acceptable rate of complications, then he/she needs additional training, or some sort of intervention. It's how medicine works, AND SHOCKINGLY how QA programs work in EVERY INDUStRY today. There are various models of these, (such as Six Sigma), but they work in about the same way. Quality Assurance has been PROVEN to improve outcomes. It makes patients safe. It's called "science".

No wonder this guy talks as if he's from the 18th Century. He IS !! Weeping

Dumbass. And I say that in the most charitable way possible. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: