Focus

Joined

• started 86 topics
• posted 1,067 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Focus

• 
  18

  Doubletalk

  by Norm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  some times the inconstancies and contradictions in the watchtower literature seems almost unbelievable.

  the double standard of the watchtower writers seems to be without limit.. one of the explanations for this is that some watchtower articles deals with how jehovah's witnesses want to be perceived and how they want to be treated by society in general, and the contradictory articles deals with how the faithful and loyal witnesses should regard their enemies and outsiders.

  in psalm 139 this is spoken of as a complete hatred.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Focus

  JanH wrote:
  

  Francois,
  quote:
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  For the Nazis, the common enemy was the Jews. When visiting Germany in WWII, the Japanese congratulated Hitler on his use of the Jew as the common enemy. "Yes," Hitler said, "If the Jew didn't exist, we'd have to invent him."
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  I have read a lot of books and texts about and by Hitler, and I have to say it sounds extremely unlikely that Hitler ever said anything like that.

  Absolutely, JanH. All the evidence is that Hitler genuinely believed that the Jew was wicked.

  I have seen the words attributed only to dear Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister in charge of the "Information" (Propaganda). While the quote may be apocryphal, Goebbels did share more than a first name with 'Da Judge' Rutherford... if you know what I mean.

  --
  Focus
  (Anti-Defamation League Class)
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Focus

  AlanF opined on May 6, 2001 at 11:25:34 AM:
  

  To BugEye:
  You can't disobey a "Law of Physics". Therefore there are no penalties.

  I must weigh into this serious discussion with the observation that AlanF is talking through his hat here!

  Correct, instead, is almost the opposite:
  You can't disobey a "Law of Physics". Therefore there are whatever penalties (for disobeying) that anyone can imagine.

  For any who do not understand - "every green cow I have seen is one of Jehovah's Witnesses" is a truism; the principle being that of truth in vacuo.

  Sorry, AlanF. Homer nodded too, and having to read nonsense like 'c-squared is faster than c' can make one careless.

  --
  Focus
  (Feet Class)
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Focus

  I will work through the math and come back here with an opinion as to whether the stated proximity is to be expected (also, please put an email address in the body of your text). Just a couple of points to be clarified first:

  larc wrote:
  

  Focus, Thank you for your thoughts. Let me provide a little more detail [..] Also it was possible to add the fifty other ratings and correlate this total

  larc, there are many measures ("metrics") for correlation, as I'm confident you are aware. The additive method of arriving at a "rest of population" score table is IMO most meaningful if the correlation coefficient being computed is one of rank - is it, and what formula is being used? Also, who says a 0 and a 9 score for a particular food item are "worth" as much as a 4 and a 5? Where one is computing a sum (or mean; same end result here) of 50 scores, this point is very moot. Linearity is an assumption.

  square root

  I take it if the correlation coefficient was -ve, the logic you use would require the "square root" to be defined as the negative square root of the absolute value of the coefficient (rather than i times the positive value thereof?)

  I want to congratulate you on your first point of contention. You are absolutely right about similiar but wrong judgements producing overestimates. No one among the reviewers or the editor mentioned this. In measurement theory for 90 years, they have assumed that [..] Thanks again, for your comments they were well thought out.

  Note that you can use a Monte Carlo (stochastic) technique yourself (just in Excel, say) to bypass the math and see whether pseudo-random evaluations still produce the closeness you have stated.

  --
  Focus
  (Thinking for oneself occasionally is a profitable exercise Class)
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Focus

  larc stated:
  

  Alan,
  Since you are mathematicly gifted, I would like run an idea by you.

  AlanF has not yet responded, so I'll put my oar in if I may. What I don't comment on, I don't have an issue with.

  It has to do with the degree of accuracy in human judgements. The standard method for determining this is to correlate one person's quantified judgements, e.g., on a rating scale, with another person's judgements. The correlation coefficient is assumed to be the proper index of accuracy. This has been the standard metric for the past 90 years. However, there is a problem here. One person is being compared to imperfect standard, i.e., another person. Therefore, the correlation is an underestimate of one person's accuracy.

  The last statement is incorrect. The two people could be making the same, though wrong, judgements (could happen for a variety of reasons - to name but one, common socio-economic-educational sources of "error") - in which case the correlation coefficient would be an overestimate (not an underestimate) of the target person's accuracy.

  If a person could be compared to a "true score", this would be a better index. Empirical tests have been done by correlating one person's score with the sum of a larger number of others.

  Please be very explicit here - there are at least two very different ways to interpret what you have just stated.

  Did you mean using a population "average" instead of a second individual for the purpose of comparison?

  Measurement theory assumes that as a larger sum is used, the error term decreases, since error between people is random,

  Please justify the last clause. Most "random" things aren't.

  therefore, the sum approaches the theoretical true score.

  I do not understand this statement - please be specific and use precise terminology. Is regression towards the mean meant?

  There is a body of research using this line of reasoning. Another approach is to correct the correlation between two people by taking the square root of the correlation.

  As a typically-defined correlation coefficient belongs to [-1,1], half the range will produce an imaginary result when square-rooted.

  No one, to date, has tyed these to methods together. I conducted an experiment and found the correlation between (1) the summed scores approach and (2) the square root approach is .982.

  You do not mention sample size. One cuckoo doth not a spring make, or however the saying goes.

  Not bad, for a result in the "soft science" of psychology. I met great resistance from the journal reviewers and the journal editor. Finally, the editor wrote that if I obtained the empirical results from a second sample and applied it back to math corrections in the first sample, he would give it another look. I am in the process of doing this within the next two weeks. Anyway, I ran this by you to see if you had any thoughts on my logic or the math involved.

  If you are more specific, I am sure meaningful opinions can be expressed.

  --
  Focus
  (The Generation of Random Numbers is FAR too important to be left to Pure Chance! Class)
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Focus

  riz noted:
  

  CunningLinguist.
  Hmmmmmm... Focus, oh nevermind.

  Nor is it a question of tongue in cheeks!

  --
  Focus
  (antitype of Master-Baiter Class)
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Focus

  darkcloud quoted Hawking in an attempt to refute AlanF:
  

  Imaginary time may sound like science fiction but it is in fact a well-defined mathematical concept.

  darkcloud, a 7-dimensional vector space is also a totally well-defined mathematical concept.

  However, to assign real-life meaning to such is impossible, and it is in that context that the terms were used in the beginning of this thread.

  I therefore think you are misinterpreting Hawking by, ummm, an angle of about pi: what you quote supports AlanF, rather than confounding him.

  The usefulness of an imaginary dimension in all sorts of branches of physics stems (pun) purely from the fact that it is easier to add than to multiply [ e^(i*x) = cos(x) + i * sin(x) and all that ].

  It does not make the imaginary real, You Know - merely useful.

  Note that I mentioned 7-dimensional vector space before in my example of a well-defined mathematical concept. I did not mention 4-, 5-, 6-, 8-, 9- etc. dimensional vector spaces as the vector product (cross-product) cannot be defined for them (it has meaning only for 3- and 7- dimensional vector spaces). When you have understood this, and the proof of this, please do come and debate with me. Till then, kindly accept my assurance that AlanF is far more correct than are you.

  --
  Focus
  (Topological Physicist of the CunningLinguist Class)
• 
  25

  The elusive Brother Some.

  by Norm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the elusive brother some and the watchtower society.. in brooklyn , they have for years been bothered by a shady and very mystical brother.

  they usually call him some.

  we receive constant reassurances from the watchtower that what is printed in the literature is the truth.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Focus

  Dear (Now Ex-) Brother Norm

  For the above act of apostasy (quoting as you did from Old Truth), you are hereby disfellowshipped.

  While the fact that you are not one of Jehovah's Witnesses might make some believe that such a sanction is meaningless, there is indeed sound theological evidence(*) to support its propriety - without a doubt, as is obvious to every truly consecrated child of Christ.

  Brother Some
  (Physical Facts of Focus Class)

  (*) Unfortunately, the sound theological evidence is too complex for you to understand.
• 
  16

  JW Venus Williams has been NAUGHTY

  by Focus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a reliable source (other than the national enquirer, that is) has reported that jw venus williams has been spotted in public passionately kissing an older male called "frankie" outside a mall near palm beach gardens, florida, and then getting into a car with him.

  the couple met at the art institute of fort lauderdale.... is this chaste behavior as required by the watchtower?.

  how long before the 20-year old gets the chop?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Focus

  A reliable source (other than the National Enquirer, that is) has reported that JW Venus Williams has been spotted in public passionately kissing an older male called "Frankie" outside a mall near Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and then getting into a car with him. The couple met at the art institute of Fort Lauderdale...

  Is this chaste behavior as required by the Watchtower?

  How long before the 20-year old gets the chop?

  --
  Focus
  ("Bringing God's People into DISREPUTE" Class)
• 
  57

  Your best caption please.

  by nicolaou in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we all know how this works, just give us your best caption for this pic' .

  [why do i get the feeling that 'gutter' will crop up more than once?].

  nic'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Focus

  "I'd like to teach the world to lie, in perfect harmony"

  or

  "Look at those nice pictures of the people who make fun of us being tortured and killed by Jehovah God, honey.. look at the little girl, her puppy and her doll falling into the abyss. Doesn't she look like that Amy in your class, the one who said that Jehovah's Witnesses were wrong? Serves her right!"

  --
  Focus
  (Focussed Class)
• 
  33

  The difference between a JW and an IDIOT

  by Focus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Focus

  Jedi larc asked:
  

  Focus,
  Are you an attorney?

  No, I am honest.

  If not, you missed your calling.

  I assume you did not mean that as an outright insult...

  And said Kismet:

  [sundry praise snipped]
  You are too much like Friend then you may care to admit.

  Do you require to pay more attention to your reading skills, Kismet? I am not legalistic. I concern myself with substance over form. I write as I think and believe. I do not ally myself with, or support, that which I know to be wicked and evil. I will take personal risks and make RL sacrifices in order to destroy things that should be destroyed. And I tell and honor truth.

  Therefore, any similarity between myself and the deceitful, tricky, unpleasant, weasel-wording, hypocritical, double-agenda'd, thoroughly despicable members of the F iend Class is very much in the eye of the blind beholder.

  Which is perhaps why we don't see a certain objectionable mouthpiece of the spider around here that often now..

  Not that you should read me as being at all hostile to that vicious little toe-rag! In fact, I wish him only the best, and have the will and the means to get him where he truly needs to go (perhaps he doesn't see it quite that way, yet).

  Know what I mean?

  --
  Focus
  (Anti-WT Class)