Epithet

Glanced at it. Why?

Or read Sándor's book to be told the opposite...

There's a WKCR tribute.

But meta-funny is a high-growth market these days.

It's a post-op. (At least that way this won't get canned.)

In honour of Patrick and the women.

I was waiting and watching and learning and biding my time before archiving it, but then bam! Coitus interruptus. Begin the revolution.

Where was this announcement made? I should consider myself lucky I'm finding out about the Solal in time. How is the Terrasson?

The link is broken?

Girl next door? You could probably drive a truck through that thing.

I just knew Schoenberg was an idiot. Glad I have confirmation. [cue Gurrelieder: Tom and Jerry sequence]

Don't we have a board member that can shake an excuse for this out of Mr Jeremy personally?

Anyone have recommendations for The Wooden Prince?

Since according to the 2000 Census the median age in the U. S. is 35.3 , the sampling error is huge and of a type that could explain the under-reporting of females if we assume that the more promiscuous females tend to be younger females . Not necessarily. Doesn't this just mean that nobody was surveying 8-year-olds? As I see it, if the median age was high and if younger women are more promiscuous with older men, you're going to be counting men's relationships that aren't reciprocated by the women you sampled. On the other hand, if younger women were more promiscuous with older men twenty years ago as well, you're going to be counting relationships they had with men who are older than the median and they aren't being sampled much either. But what if people are more promiscuous now? Will it still cancel out?

Well DUH! Don't you think that being aware of all the possibilities would affect what kind of statistics were gathered in the first place? Did they think to include prostitites or other likely "high activity/random partners" women in their sampling? [...] I still don't think you understood what you quoted of me, why drawing whatever-conclusion-it-was from whatever-percentage-fact-it-was doesn't work, and how it wasn't claimed by the researchers. Good news to give the missus. Since according to the 2000 Census the median age in the U. S. is 35.3 , the sampling error is huge and of a type that could explain the under-reporting of females if we assume that the more promiscuous females tend to be younger females . Only on the assumption that the younger females are being more promiscuous with older males, i.e. if the more promiscuous males are younger, it's to a lesser degree than for the females. Right?

?!?! One minute you're saying that your hypothetical situation suggests the false conclusion that the men must be lying due to irrelevant (you say 'plausible') percentage reports. And that the researchers need to consider more of the 'possibilities'. Nowhere did the researchers use percentages like that to draw their conclusion, and even if they did, it'd be a question of using the right statistic, not of considering extra possibilities. Given this, you must have changed your position a great deal to come up with: Thank you. My point exactly. Now on the third go at it (I'll assume the average woman vs average number of partners stuff has been aborted) you're saying that if they dropped the 10% most prolific women you'd conclude that the men are over-reporting and/or the women were under-reporting... OK, you can push this one a little further, but I guess it's easier to just claim just general foul play: Yeah, thanks for the funny platitudes.

Now that's really funny! I pose it because the answer to it is clearly the the same as that of an already-answered question, and this appears to have eluded you. It means of course that your distinction between the average woman's number of partners and the average number of partners a woman's had is no distinction at all. That is, unless you think the study is computing, say, the number of partners of a woman with an average-size bust, or average height, or anything else. But surprise, surprise—they never talk about the 'average woman' anyway: 'The women reported on average 8.6 lifetime sexual partners. The men claimed 31.9.' And of course it's miles away from your percentages and other unrelated facts.

Well, Jesus, yes I did. That's my point I'm wondering if the study is looking at the average number of partners among women collectively or the number of partners that the "average woman" reports. Totally different outcomes. Yeah, and what could 'the average woman' possibly mean in this context?

Or maybe a lot of guys encounter the same few women, relatively and proportionally speaking. Look at it this way - Let's assume a group of twenty men and twenty women, each in a relationship with another. Let's also say that there's two women in this group who are "available" and eight of the twenty guys have sex with both of them, maybe just once apiece, over the course of two years, in addition to the sex with their regular partner. The other eighteen women and twelve men remain in comitted monogamous relationships for the same time. That's 36 different pairings among the group, but 40% of the men have had three partners, and 90% of the women have only had one. Of course, the other 10% of the women will have had nine partners in this time, but since they're only 10% of the women, is their activity considered "unusual", and therefore discounted, whereas the men's activity is considered "normal" because, after all, 40% is a rather "significant percentage"? Think about it - in this hypothetical (and not too far-fetched) example, isn't it most likely to be reported as "40% of men report having sex with three different partners in a two year span; 90% of women report remaining monogamous during the same time; Men MUST be lying!"? I think that's a quite plausible potential reporting of totally accurate data. Now, extrapolate this out over a longer time span and a broader population base. Are the men really lying, or are the researchers just not considering all the possibilities? This may have nothing to to with the particular story above, but my point is this - I'll believe anybody's statistics until somebody else can contradict them. Which usually takes about five minutes... Jesus. Did you even stop to think that, in your little situation, the average number of partners the men had is the same as the average number of partners the women had? The article explicitly notes a discrepancy between the averages.

But is it as good as the six-year old Varèse?

Hell yeah. I got something out of that post.

Lots of recommendations for Hindemith's Elementary Training for Musicians, I see.

Sonny Clark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_scientist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_tipping With less garbage the editors might stand a chance. (Who am I kidding? What editors?) I bet those articles sampled by Nature aren't nearly obscure enough to reveal the crap.