Britain's secret spy-on-every-call-and-email plan

missedthebus · Post by **missedthebus** » Wed May 06, 2009 5:59 pm

Magma wrote:
missedthebus wrote:Political Science follows the quantitative approach i.e. seeking to qualify (dis)prove a theory using maths.
Yeah, totally. But doesn't that generally rely on weighing things up to see which one's better? Do you often end up with 100% "truths" with it rather than "this approach is x% likely to be x% better"?

Not that it's not useful, but I still don't think it qualifies for "truth" in the same way that, say, Pythagoras would.

A truth or certainty in terms of Physics or a a mathematical theory is in no way comparable to a quantitative evaluation in politics. Very true. I just felt that you disregarded the fact that politics can be analysed in this way as well.

Sorry not picking fights

Magma wrote:Perhaps you could elaborate a bit further so that the conversation could get a bit more useful?

Alien Pimp, please do.

alien pimp · Post by **alien pimp** » Wed May 06, 2009 6:01 pm

now you're telling me the probability of links being worth a click is insignificant!
make up your mind man, shall i click on them before i diss them or not?

a final brief advice please!

click or no click before diss?

i was to make a poll about it, but i don't want to draw attention from the one about the smartest ninja

PS: by click i mean click and read

alien pimp · Post by **alien pimp** » Wed May 06, 2009 6:17 pm

Neurotik wrote:So to sum up; click before diss .

Awesome!
Everyone agrees?

missedthebus · Post by **missedthebus** » Wed May 06, 2009 6:35 pm

alien pimp · Post by **alien pimp** » Wed May 06, 2009 6:37 pm

that was uncalled for and i can find bigger pics than yours to post in your threads

missedthebus · Post by **missedthebus** » Wed May 06, 2009 6:39 pm

sorry

Jubz · Post by **Jubz** » Wed May 06, 2009 6:50 pm

missedthebus wrote:sorry

So you should be you meanie.

magma · Post by **magma** » Wed May 06, 2009 7:01 pm

I think everyone agrees and has always agreed that you shouldn't criticise things before reading them. Were you just trolling with all the truth stuff?

Edit : Neurotik makes a good point... too many 'less respected' links and you end up with a Boy Cried Wolf effect... Doesn't mean that there isn't truth there, but I think people who disseminate links should try and keep their quality high. This thread was a good post so got a good reaction.

alien pimp · Post by **alien pimp** » Wed May 06, 2009 7:15 pm

alien pimp wrote:i thought it's a half measure "yes" after all that stuff that followed, good to have a clear stand.

don't mind me, i'm unimportant, important is the fact that:
that stands against what the majority of the wise men here think, there's no need for me to dig for posts, almost everyone here reduced at least once all internet to wikipedia and all wikipedia to its mistakes, and used that to diss something that wasn't even from wikipedia....
which also raised this question earlier:
so it's not totally uncool to post links?
so all the people who got their butt kicked just because their arguments were supported by links (the content linked being totally disregarded most of the times) weren't as bad as most of the mature and intelligent people here claimed?
anyone thinks differently?

Britain's secret spy-on-every-call-and-email plan

Who is online