squirtfan1

profile

Details

Date Joined: August 2004
Location: Flower
Profile URL: https://www.adultdvdtalk.com/profile/squirtfan1

Recent Forum Posts

Public Broadcasting Targeted By House 7/13/2005 10:12 PM
<link>

For Walter Burns. (topic moved) 7/5/2005 11:26 PM
Walter Burns and Denver Don are now star crossed. Thanks for quoting me in "Star Crossed". When I visited L.A. 9 out of 10 were part-time bartenders, bouncers, and waitress/waiters and stated that they are trying to make it big in Hollywood. I admired their determination to become a big star in Hollywood, but I could not help but laugh knowing they were more likely to pick up a hooker and finding the woman is actually a man than becoming a big movie star in Hollywood. I know a couple people that have been in films and commercials, but they never made it big. They are lucky if they have 4 sentences in a film.

Quote of the moment 7/3/2005 11:18 PM
"It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man." Albert Einstein 1946 "If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew." Albert Einstein 1922 "Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics; I can assure you that mine are still greater." Albert Einstein 1943

Disgracing the American flag 6/27/2005 12:10 PM
Personally, I do not like seeing the desecration of the flag, especially in the United States. But knowing that this rarely happens in the United States and the bill was <link> , this is another Congress time waster. This is Karl Rove's bill to wedge a patriotic issue on the Sentors or House members that vote otherwise. Knowing Karl Rove, he may add some provision on the bill to make the bill less appealing to getting more Democrats to vote against the bill, so he can frame the issue during the 2006 re-election.

Public Broadcasting Targeted By House 6/23/2005 11:11 PM
<link>

Public Broadcasting Targeted By House 6/22/2005 2:53 PM
[invalid URL removed]PBS allies fight proposed cuts: 'Don't Can Oscar'

Public Broadcasting Targeted By House 6/18/2005 3:42 PM
<link> Public television stations and National Public Radio would lose 25 percent of their funding next year under a bill cleared by a House committee Thursday night, although some of their funding for future years would be restored. The moves came as the House Appropriations panel approved a tightly drawn spending bill for labor, health and education programs. The bill contains $142.5 billion in spending under lawmakers' control, but makes cuts to many of the more than 500 programs funded by the bill. President Bush's No Child Left Behind education initiative would be cut by $806 million -- more than 3 percent.

Schiavo Autopsy Shows Massive Brain Damage 6/16/2005 7:16 PM
The whole case is sad. I like the way South Park spun the Terri Schiavo case in their episode. Kenny left a living will but the lawyer was missing the last page. Cartman acted as my Best Friend and wanted the doctors to remove the feeding tube, so he can get Kenny's Play Station. Kyle and Stan wanted the feeding tube left in, so Kenny can live. Both sides contacted the media and made a big deal of the case. When the lawyer found the last page of the will, Kenny's dying wish was not for them to publicize his case.

Public Broadcasting Targeted By House 6/16/2005 7:02 PM
<link> It amazes me how the Department of Justice is going after things that sells sex and violence and at the same time threatening to cut funding to a channel, that does not sell sex and violence, because it is considered "too liberal".

How do you squirt? 6/9/2005 8:06 PM
myk wrote: There is no statistician worth a crap that doesn't use software. Are you suggesting that we do complex regressional analysis with an abacus? If your best 'criticism' beyond noted spelling errors is that I use software when doing statistical analysis, then I don't know where to begin. Its like trying to teach a rudimentary vocabulary before reviewing the social implications of the Magna Carta. Again, you misstate the issue-it isn't statistics. You should be grateful for this since you clearly don't have a firm grasp on them. You can do the most elegant of statistical comparisons, but if you're doing it with crap data, your results are statistical crap. While I would seriously doubt an attempt you might make at statistical analy...

In Memory of Chloe Jones 6/9/2005 7:15 PM
Tragic news. Condolences to Chloe Jone's family, friends, and fans. May Chloe Jones rest in peace.

How do you squirt? 6/9/2005 4:31 PM
myk wrote: I don't know if you're quick enough to realize it, but you've had an ephphany in your sarcasm. Yes, the exact same researcher can have multiple studies published, and some of them can be good and some of them can be crap. And the ones I cited came from peer reviewed journals, indicating they are more likely to be true , while the ones you try to cite do not, so can be considered of lower academic and factual value (or crap, to the layperson). As to comparing your A in statistics to my A+ in infallability, you'll note that I was kidding when I was discussing my infallibility course. I wish that I could say the same of your 'statistics'. Knowing how to say 'six sigma' or 'hypothesis test' means nothing if you cannot judge the qua...

How do you squirt? 6/8/2005 2:40 PM
myk wrote: Forgive me for not requoting my typos from last night. Its a bit hard to type one-handed while bouncing a fussy infant with the other. If underlining them made you feel better. then I guess my karma is increased by one. The same researcher can produce good research and bad research, and can sometimes come to contradictory viewpoints in the same subject. Its one of those little ambiguities of life that you can't always have a perfect answer every time. That's why the best journals use the peer review process, where at least 3 other researchers in your field review your findings before its published. Tries to weed out what is utter crap. The sources I cited are the only peer reviewd ones. Yours are utter crap. Is that clear enoug...

How do you squirt? 6/8/2005 12:02 AM
myk wrote: I'll type slowly and politely to try to make thiws point. If you have really inrerresting and relevant information you want to bublish, you publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now, this isn't a guarantee, but its a heck of a lot better than any other standard that exists. The work on FE=Pee that I cited was from a peer reviewed journal you can pull up in pubmed or medline. Ones refuting it are not. Hence, my data is good, yours is crap. You may have a lot of crap, but crap none the less. I have no 'bias' on this subject. Just an unbiassed understanding of physiology and anatomy and the scientific literature. My moniker isn't 'itsnotFEitspissfan', so if someone here has a bias, I think he's pretty easy to find. And...

How do you squirt? 6/7/2005 6:38 PM
myk wrote: Just because 2 researchers are using the same "scientific method" and come to different results, it doesn't make the results equally vaulauble. Lets say that one of the researchers is bright, unbiassed, and has unlimited resources to set up his project. The other is a moron who has already decided what answer he wants to find and is just looking for a way to get to that comclusion, but his budjet is only $3.95 so h does all of his research renting porn videos. Now then, even though there are 2 studies, one is absolute crap while the other is OK. I turn by back on studies that are A)utter crap B) biased or C) lack a mechanistic explanation of their findings. If you can't understand the diference between good data and ba...

How do you squirt? 6/7/2005 3:46 PM
myk, I was hoping for a better argument then you provided. Talks about unbiased information and opinions are laughable. You point to two studies that do not DENY the existence in their conclusions, but that does not stop you from denying it. You point to 6 data points that support your opinion, but disregard the thousands of data points in numerous studies that are contrary to your view point. Every scientist and engineer knows the more data points you have the better it supports your argument. I like the spin of "quality" on the journals. Researchers all use the same "scientific methods" to come up with their conclusions. It does not look like I am the one in the state of denial. You continuously drew lines in the s...

How do you squirt? 6/4/2005 10:01 PM
Congratulations you found 3 studies to my 9 studies. Like I said myk, you would find some articles that support your opinion. It is funny how you mention an article in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology by Dr. Terence Hines entitled, The G-Spot: A Modern Gynecologic Myth. Sexual researchers picked a part his data because he cites relevant articles that support the existence of a female prostate gland as the so-called G- Spot, but ends up concluding that it does not exist . Don't forget to mention that the article states If the G-Spot does exist , it will certainly be more than a system of glands and ducts. If an area of tissue is highly sensitive, that sensitivity must be mediated by nerve endings, not ducts. He is not denyi...

Gia Paloma's New Boobies!! 6/4/2005 6:32 PM
With the new boob job, it does not look like those breasts can suck themselves. I would happy to help her out.

How do you squirt? 6/4/2005 4:08 PM
myk wrote: This discussion is almost as much fun as getting hopped up on Ritalin and playing whack-a-mole. You misunderstand statistics and the scientific method. Although I do note that the class was directed to engineers, so there must have been some _extreme_ oversimplifications. :) Your proposal is that the fluids are different. The null hypothesis would be that they are not different. You are obligated to prove that they are different, within a level of statistical power. This statistical power is what allows you to ignore the null hypothesis. These are tools for determining sample sizes for studies. The 'scientists' that have done the research. Getting back to not trusting a man with an erection, don't trust a researcher that call...

How do you squirt? 6/3/2005 7:41 PM
- random - wrote: It matters little what I, or anybody for that matter, says. Even if someone handed you a dozen books from prominent physicians with assessments that differ from the 3 or 4 books you've read, you still wouldn't even think to change your opinion. Your views are biased. You're a "squirtfan". I'm a "nothing". I just look at science recorded in medical journals. I'll take those words over the words of any of the fringe-doctors who have devoted their lives to publishing their opinions/finds in order to profit from a small, specialty market. Edited by - - random - on 6/3/2005 6:51:52 PM Edited by - - random - on 6/3/2005 7:02:19 PM I didn't know that medical doctors can sexually stimulate their patients. Is...