Must see this thread on Pittsburgh Media Scoops and Gossip:
http://www.voy.com/158430/8305.html
What a jerk!

As for you not being on my blogroll:

I never linked to "Three Rivers Online." I linked to "Mirror Universe" a long time ago. I don't remember why I stopped linking. My link list is what I used to read every day. It's reached a size that I didn't want it to get any larger.

Probably you were cut because I wanted to add something else. Meeting people physically and getting to know them as offline friends drives up a blogs interest to me.

You were an easy cut. I've never met you that I remember. You also pop up on Pittsburgh Bloggers' All Headlines page (I read every headline that comes up, which is why I'm annoyed with some blogs that keep posting weeks-old stuff as new). I could cut you without losing your posts, and I could pick and choose posts based on how they intrigued me.

You immediately assumed that I cut you out of "Christian charity." Your immediate assumption was that you were cut out of some sinister "Christian" motive, when it was actually based on a strategy to maximize how much I can cover in what time I have. I can't sit here all day reading blogs and news sites.

You attributed bad motives to me based on your own prejudice, not on evidence. I don't suppose you'd be willing to admit you're wrong, would you?

My life has gone non-linear lately, for a variety of reasons, mostly involving too much to do and not enough energy and time to do them in. I haven't used my blog list in 2 months. Some of those blogs are now dead -- as are some of the blog owners, actually. UnSpace could use an overhaul, and not just in the blogroll. When I have time, if I have time, I'll get to it.

Actually, I never looked for mirror universe but still...It actually isn't that a big deal. It just seemed that as soon as I started to promote Mr. Dawkins my link disappeared! Perhaps it was coincidental. Just like the fact that the reason you're a Christian is that you were born in a Christian country. If you were born in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia you would be telling me why women can't drive or shouldn't receive an education and swearing that those policy choices had something to do with "God". Coincidences abound in this universe. I don't think it has anything to do with a loving activist God however. But now that you're here I guess I'll respond to what you said here:

Let’s take a simple example:

Everyone walks into the cafeteria in 6th grade. We start flipping coins — nickels, actually. If you win, you get to keep calling and you get the other guy’s coin and you play against the next person. When it got to me, I called it right.

For 20 minutes. Along the way, everyone else ran out of money. We kept going, just to see how long I could do it. 20 minutes. Figure 3x a minute — that’s 60 heads/tails called in a row, different coins, different flippers. No way to rig the table, coin called before the flip, lands on the table to prevent some of the standard magic tricks we all knew. 60 is a lowball estimate, and the odds would be 2^60 — over a billion billion.

Finally, I offered everyone “double or nothing.” They’d get their money back. I called edge. The coin was flipped to ensure it couldn’t possibly land “edge.” But it did.

I still haven’t figured out the odds on that. It’s the only time I’ve ever seen a coin come up edge on a hard table — ever.

How do we explain this? The null hypothesis, that it was random, requires this to be a once in the history of humanity, dating back to at least Homo habilis. And that’s without the “edge” call. There’s no way a scientific paper with that bad a P value would ever be accepted. The null hypothesis would, under any other circumstance, be considered absurd. If this were a lone event, one might consider it, but this isn’t.

Scientific explanation? I’d love to see that.

Fraud? If there’s a way to gimmick it, I don’t know it, even now, and neither would any of the others. The table was chosen at random, coins switched, different people flipping the coins, except me. I wound up with everyone else’s money, although I did give it back just because I’m a nice guy and they were all (but Floyd, who was used to this sort of stuff happening when I was around) terrified of me — I tried buying my way back into their good graces.

You could claim I’m lying. There was no video. Video could be gimmicked. I can’t do this on command. I’ve got witnesses, but you could claim they’re lying, too.

You could claim I’m crazy and that all the witnesses are crazy, that we all hallucinated it. From a neuroscience perspective, that would make no sense, but you don’t seem to be up on your neuroscience — or string theory and the criticism thereof.

One way or the other, you’ll deny this, and that’s the problem. This is what happened.

There’s no way to treat this from a scientific perspective. Irreproducible events cannot be quantified scientifically.

If we can’t even come to terms on something simple like this, something that most people who know me would consider “common” and “unremarkable,” how do we discuss the existence of a hyper-dimensional being who doesn’t seem to want to cooperate in providing scientific proof of his/her/it’s existence?

See the problem? But can you see why I might be forced to consider the existence of a being not of our universe?

And like I said, the coin incident isn’t unusual, except that it’s the one event that lends itself to some mathematical analysis.

What’s been happening lately has just gotten a lot more personal and nasty. Taking care of sick, dying and dead I don’t know was fun; when I know them it’s miserable. The whole thing leading up to me recently calling a version of CYS in another city to report on the activities of a child molester — that I’d love to forget.

And by the way, FD is a fine individual. I still can’t figure out your obsession with him. I’m also not sure what the pope’s haberdashery has to do with anything. It looks juvenile on your part.

Well I'm not sure what a null hypothesis is but it sounds like what you're talking about is probability or the basis of an older Twilight Zone episode (were you able to read people's mind for the rest of the day...no?)Just for the record, I don't think the improbable is a sign of a divine being. I think the scientific explanation would be percentages. X amount of throws equals x amount of results, some even highly improbable. There are poker players who get royal flushes. I don't think it means Jesus is watching.

Are you using this as a metaphor perhaps? Out of curiosity, have you actually read or seen what Dawkins, Dennett or Harris have been talking about? They're actually fairly high brow about it but I think they reach the same conclusions. They address a lot of the issues that you're bringing up. You should probably look at the rebuttals from the source works.

I'm aware of the TZ episode, and no, I didn't get to read minds.

The problem I'm trying to point out is that science has a terrible track record in trying to deal with rare events for which the variables are unknown and/or uncontrollable. Witness the whole argument over meteorites coming from the sky:

http://www.meteorite.fr/en/basics/meteoritics.htm

I'm not speaking metaphors. The consistent abnormal statistical events follow me around. When you start leaving for everything an hour early to leave time for stopping at the medical emergency or car accident, you know life has gotten weird. When your idea of a date is to go out driving with your wife so you can stop at accidents and render assistance until the ambulance and cops show up, you've gotten a little too used to the weirdness. How many car wrecks have you been the first on-scene at? That was before I worked as a volunteer or professionally as a paramedic -- in fact, it's why I went into that field.

The weirdness isn't proof that "Jesus is messing with me," necessarily, but it is proof that there's something I clearly cannot explain from a standard scientific framework that assumes nothing outside this universe can affect anything inside this universe. Our knowledge is incomplete, and I have to deal with the data I'm dealt. Ever wonder why I'm so fascinated with time travel from within the framework of physics?

BTW: Royal Flush odds: 1:649,750. Odds of calling heads or tails right for 60 times in a row = 1:1,152,921,504,606,846,976 (a low estimate). Ratio of those odds 1:1,774,407,856,263 (rounded to the nearest integer). The odds of being right 60 times in a row are almost 2 trillion times greater against than the odds of a royal flush. Heck, it's four times greater against than the odds of being dealt three royal flushes in a row. One expects a royal flush to be dealt occasionally in a poker game, given the number of poker games played. Twice in a row -- unlikely. Three times in a row -- someone's stacking the deck. Given the number of heads/tails being called, one would never expect 60 calls right in a row. Someone was doing the coin flip equivalent of stacking the deck. None of the humans involved were capable, so....

I've read Dawkins. He reminds me of the Fundamentalist Creationists. They all use the same twisted logic, setting up straw men, knocking them down, and then declaring victory -- much as in the video that started this discussion.

That's the strange thing about this: the atheists are taking on the tactics of the extreme religious. Too fervent belief in anything appears to corrupt human logic.

I'm willing to seriously consider the concept that I might be wrong. Most fundamentalists, whether Christian, Muslim, or Atheist, aren't. That, I believe, is the difference.

Are you serious about not knowing what a "null hypothesis" is?

Wikipedia has a great article on it. Nancy thinks you're pulling my leg, but then again, she's had way too many statistical classes. I learned it in genetics and radiochemistry, both of which were pretty statistics-heavy.

I'd include the link to the wiki article, but those captchas always give me trouble.

(( posted this on my site, where the formatting makes more sense...)

Mullah Rob, or as I also call my arch nemesis "The Fightin' Theist!", has responded to me over in the Commentary section. Everyone is invited by the way. Not sure if I should respond here or at Quicktopic but a couple of quick points. Here's something that Rob said that chews at my craw so to speak:

"I've read Dawkins. He reminds me of the Fundamentalist Creationists. They all use the same twisted logic, setting up straw men, knocking them down, and then declaring victory -- much as in the video that started this discussion. That's the strange thing about this: the atheists are taking on the tactics of the extreme religious. Too fervent belief in anything appears to corrupt human logic."

1.) I really hate this argument. The mean ol' Dawkins argument, sniff and/or sob. AS if Richard Dawkins waits around in the bushes after Sunday service and bashes innocent lil' Christians over the head with a baseball bat and does it for GAWD KNOWS WHY. The fiend. I mean, really, what has the Christian Right or Radical Islam or Scientology done that would upset a man dedicated to logic, reason and the "evidence" (a word that Dawkins uses with a caress and emphasis not unlike that of Sagan's "billions and billions of stars".)? Actually, I kind of answered this question when Oliver Willis brought up the mean ol' atheist argument. I said this:

Okay Oliver I'll bite: What is the evil Atheist agenda? I sort of thought this was a war of self defense. We were nice enough to let you dream your silly dreams of happy ending afterlives and eternal hellfire (for the other guy usually) until theists decided they knew what was best in terms of stem cell research, or that our kids should be programmed to be stupid, or that prayer is a replacement for cancer therapy or that anyone should die for jihad or Jesus...enough is enough as Saint Richard Dawkins has said in his first epoch...

The Big Three of Atheist writers (Dennett, Dawkins, Harris) are primarily acting in the self defense of reason and logic. The only prescription I can see, even though I'm not sure they've spelled it out, is that religion should be taken out of the equation when it comes to science questions certainly and probably all public policy questions where evidence can be measured. Magical thinking, and yes the mindset for the psychic believer is the same as that of the religious person (You think atheists are more likely to listen to psychics or church folk? Care to place a wager anyone...?, should not have a role in policy decisions. Sounds rational to me.

So I ask you Oliver: What is the evil Atheist agenda other than reasoned debate?

And then Oliver said this:

Again I say, reread what you wrote and you'll see why atheists come off so badly. "Silly little dreams", etc. Why is there the need to belittle folks? I don't belittle atheists, they've got as much claim to their belief as any shaman, priest, or mullah. Why is it the loudest voices on the side of atheism nowadays feel the need to condemn everyone not marching down their path? Again, it's just the flip side of Falwell and Robertson and as much a turnoff as those guys.

Posted by: Oliver Willis | Jan 21, 2007 1:49:35 PM

And then I said that:

Oliver: Not when it comes to policy issues! You're not looking at this in context. When did the Big Three arrive on the scene? They arrived on the scene when the Christian Right started intervening in various issues including stem cell research and global warming and of course the rise of patriarchal radical islam...That's the context. I find your argument not unlike me pointing out how mean you are toward the republicans and that nice Mr. Bush (How could you sniff...)and being ignorant of right wing radio or the fact that republicans own most mainstream media...the reason you're an asshole is that you're fighting other assholes and you're using their weapons. Good for you I say. Please apply this knowledge to what the Big Three are doing.

Two, we're running out of time for niceties. More than likely, our first and probably last nuclear exchange will be between factions of true believers. We need to create as few people as possible who are confident that a wondrous afterlife awaits them no matter what evil they do here.

Three, and I challenge you again, other than not being nice to believers (and why can't you say nice things about Mr. Bush?), to find policy matters that atheists are pushing--based on logic and reason--that we're pushing that's similar to what the Christian Right is doing in terms of stem cell research or their overall war against evolution science and reason? What bill? What initiative?...other than: you have a very silly belief system that you probably shouldn't be using to kill people over....

Posted by: Philip Shropshire | Jan 21, 2007 8:43:30 PM

Sounds familiar doesn't it? I might note that while its great that you've read Dawkins (What? The cover of "The God Delusion?") that you're engaging in ad hominem attacks again. That's when you name call as opposed to tackling the meat of the subject. What are the examples of Mr. Dawkins twisted logic? I have to confess: After reading and watching two (Harris and Dawkins) of the Big Three in action for hours at a time--often under vicious attack from fundies or other scientists--that these guys who are promoting logic and reason seem, from this vantage point, to be, well, quite logical and reasonable. Examples of the twisted logic of Mr. Dawkins (Spock's dad as far as I can tell..), please.

And I challenge you to answer the question that Oliver ducked: What is the evil Atheist agenda? To be fair, I don't think one has been articulated by any of the Big Three. As I stated above, I think the only agenda is to take magical thinking out of, certainly, matters of science policy and probably all public policy issues where evidence can be weighed. For example, in my fantasy heaven like world, we would determine health care law by looking at the best practices in Europe (less religious but arguably much more Christian in that they've eliminated child poverty in some EU countries...) and elsewhere and not insurance industry shills and the Christian Coalition that somehow never fails to either support or critique their agenda. I know. Kinda wiccan crazy eh?

I await your response. I might have something to say about your coin thing. I think your message is that you hit a coin flip 60 times in a row and that's evidence of a concerned higher intelligence? As opposed to, say, winning the lottery or having loving children instead of parrots or being cured of your diabetes? That's his/her/its message to you? No wonder you're depressed. Why can't he or she or it be more straightforward? Ahhhh the mystery that you need so much. You must really need the eggs. More on that later.

Hey guys, there's another English person about, :)
I'm a new on www.threeriversonline.com
looking forward to speaking to you guys soon

 
Hi all looking ford to getting some good laughs from this forum, witch I all ready have this place crazy but in a good way.
 
See ya :)

What about the possibility of pulling out of Iraq, letting Iran invade and lose resources fighting their own kind,
and then come in and mop up the dregs?

Didn't we already try that? When we backed Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war? I guess Saddam wasn't dregs then...

Hello,
I searched for such site. Thanks you

Concerning 2004/2006 Election Fraud:

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm

Dec.12, 2000 is a day that will live in infamy. Bush needed the help of five right-wing Republicans on the Supreme Court to stop the recount in Florida and enable him to steal the election. There has been an ongoing controversy regarding the 2004 election. State and national pre-election and exit polls pointed to a Kerry victory. Those who claim that Bush won fair and square are relentless in their attempts to thrash polling analyses which suggest that fraud occurred. Since the media will not release tell-tale precinct-level data, analysts must rely on publicly available polling data. And they have determined that the polls provide powerful statistical evidence of fraud. So-called ”voter fraud” has been shown to be non-existent. It’s a distraction from the evidence of massive “election fraud”. Voters don’t fix elections, politicians do. A few days after the 2004 election, naysayers were quick to dismiss statistical analyses of “spreadsheet-wielding Internet bloggers” as another left-wing “conspiracy theory”.

 

They continue to maintain that pre-election and exit polls which indicated a Kerry win were biased, but have not provided plausible statistical evidence to back up their claim. Instead, they have resorted to tortured explanations: Kerry voters were more likely to respond to exit pollsters; exit poll interviewers sought out Kerry voters; Gore 2000 voters must have lied or forgot when they told the exit pollsters that they voted for Bush 2000 ; exit polls are not true random samples; U.S. exit polls are not designed to detect fraud; preliminary exit poll data was inaccurate because women voted early and Republicans voted late; Gore 2000 voters defected to Bush at twice the rate that Bush voters defected to Kerry; Bush was an incumbent war president; a powerful Republican GOTV campaign headed by Karl Rove mobilized millions of Christian fundamentalists for Bush, etc. All of these explanations are not supported by factual data and have been thoroughly debunked.

Harvey Pekar and his Pittsburgh illustrator Ed Piskor will speak and show some work at Slippery Rock University's Kaleidoscope Arts Festival http://academics.sru.edu/HFPA/kaleidoscope/performers.htm on April 20th at 12:30 p.m.. Does anyone at this site have some suggestions about how we can best get the word out to those who'd like to be there. Should be fun.

Well I can mention this on my website! You might try pitching the writers at Pittsburgh metroblogging a week before the event.