placeholder

As I pointed out, to apparently no avail. the headlines I saw had some variation of this headline from the NY Times Earthquake Kills at Least 2,100 in Turkey and Syria https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/02/05/world/turkey-earthquake or This Turkey and Syria Struck by Earthquakes— https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/turkeyearthquake Turkey and Syria: more than 2,000 people confirmed dead after two large earthquakes strike – latest updates https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/feb/06/turkey-earthquake-2023-live-updates-quake-tremor-latest-news More than 2,300 people dead in Turkey, Syria after 7.8-magnitude earthquake https://www.foxnews.com/world/people-dead-turkey-syria-after-7-8-magnitude-earthquake There are plenty more where those came from. What I didn't see in the headlines was that the earthquake only occurred in Turkey.

Thank your for your informed and mathematically sound comment on the issue.

From the report: "However, Friday’s report states investigations “did not identify any contemporaneous documentary evidence that members of the OSU coaching staff, including head coaches or assistant coaches, received or were aware of complaints regarding Strauss sexual misconduct.” Yet the report also notes that athletes said they openly discussed Strauss’ behavior in front of the coaching staff, and 22 coaches “confirmed to the Investigative Team they were aware of rumors and/or complaints about Strauss, dating back to the late 1970s and extending into the mid-1990s.” In other words, they found nothing in writing. 22 coaches knew about it but Jim Jordan didn't.

It wasn't about the christening of the earthquake. It's about saying where it happened. I've got a load of headlines on my side that back up what I'm saying. What you offer here is utterly irrelevant.

That makes as much sense as saying the earthquake was in Syria that's why it wasn't reported as such. I'm picking a fight? I point out an obvious flaw in a headline and you rush to its rescue. Projecting much?

Funny. I could say such a qualification might more aptly apply to someone who doesn't understand the concept of observer bias. Someone who cherry picks results that agree with their prejudices and than generalizes about them. But I think it's more down to ignorance than lack of native intelligence.

And actually, there was a lot of fluctuation leading up to the election. Out of the last 10 polls, 6 showed "leave" a ahead of "remain". 1 showed a tie. And only one pollster gave remain a 4 point margin https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/

I did a google search "Earthquake in Turkey" On the first page there were 2 headlines that didn't characterize the earthquake as being a Turkish and Syrian phenomenon.. And that's because they were focused on rescue efforts in Turkey. You've got nothing.

The great thing about ascribing motivation to actions is that such allegations can't be proved without a confession. What we do know is that there was an agreement. The UK seems poised to violate that agreement. Violating an agreement has consequences. If you want to turn it into a drama, go right ahead.

Guess what? The Trump administration has been defunct for over 2 years. It's a dubious assertion that the USA now has stronger ties with the UK. Not only was Biden against Brexit, but also very unhappy with what the Brits are attempting to do in relation to Northern Ireland.

Not surprised that you offer contrary to fact statements as some kind of proof. You might want to educate yourself about the validity of contrary to fact assertions: https://www.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.html

To reinforce your point here's what's called a poll of the polls before Brexit. Pro-Brexit got a lot stronger towards the end. https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/

Another mind reader. And apparently also an inhabitant of the meta-verse who can see alternate pasts. Remarkable.

The quake took place in 2 countries. And apparently was so strong in Syria that it wreaked enough destruction that it killed people. The headline should have included both countries. A subhead could have addressed the issue of the epicenter.

Did the earth quake in Syria or not?

I didn't say making amendments was touchy-feely. It was your stipulation re: goodwill. No amount of goodwill is going to get parties to amend an agreement unless both believe it will be in their respective interests to amend the agreement.

Actually, you do have a quarrel with me. Of course, it's possible. Political polling, which gets lambasted all the time, actually come quite close to predicting actual outcomes. Statistics couldn't be done in any useful way was it not valid to use small samples.

Why would the UK want to sell stuff to its largest market? Oh...wait a minute...

An agreement can be amended if both sides agree that it works to their mutual advantage. Let's keep the touchy-feely stuff out of this.

So, on the one hand you claim he's going to walk. On the other hand you claim that Romania doesn't afford suspects due process. So the way that they're not going to afford him due process is by letting him walk free?

What don't you understand about the fact that the UK signed an agreement with the EU obligating it to abide by certain rules?

Isn't Jim Jordan the guy who tried to cover up a sex scandal? I'll give you a hint: the answer is "yes".

The only lack of logic I see on display here is yours. The EU and the UK have signed an agreement. If the UK violates that ingredient, then the EU has every right not to subscribe to their side of the of the bargain. What is so difficult to understand about that?

I think you should take up your quarrel with mathematicians and tell them what they're getting wrong.

There's so much wrong here it's hard to know where to begin or end. But consider this: what evidentiary value does a poll consisting of one person have? To follow your line of thinking, apparently some. This is mathematically ridiculous.