Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 30 Jul 2025, 5:57 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 5:57 am

And?

1. "I posted my definition of survivorship bias..." To which I will reply with the usual and the video. 
2. Continue with your step 4 evasion
3. Continue to copy me

Either A, B, C, or D.

Let me break this down for your dumb ***. You see the 4 options to the question? Every option includes your definition, but only one is an example of survivorship bias. Your definition was half assed. Like all of your content.

When a sample fails to reflect "mortality" in the population being examined.

or

"Sampling error"

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors

Vegas » 30 Jul 2025, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 10:20 am

1. "I posted my definition of survivorship bias..." 

Same fundamentally flawed cut and pasted crap, over and over.

 

Blackvegetable » 30 Jul 2025, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 10:22 am

Same fundamentally flawed cut and pasted crap, over and over.

Did you think that was from me? Look at the **** quotations around that statement. I was quoting you! 


So **** stupid. 

Vegas » 30 Jul 2025, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 10:23 am

Did you think that was from me? Look at the **** quotations around that statement. I was quoting you! 

So **** stupid.

@Blackvegetable  wait a minute...wait...wait...wait. Are you saying that this whole time you thought my prediction 1 was me quoting myself?   You dumb ****. That prediction was me predicting what you would say followed by how I always respond to your repetitive ***. 


God you are stupid. 

*Huey » 30 Jul 2025, 8:46 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 8:46 am

Yes, that is quite a contradiction on Mr. Vegetbale's part.  

It is a shame he misrepresented the first segment of the five from yesterday.  He may have learned something if he wasn't repeating what he was told to think.

I'm surprised he'll even look considering he's such a ******....

Blackvegetable » 30 Jul 2025, 8:51 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 8:51 am

He only comments, succinctly, on the news....he doesn't fabricate it.

**** you gullible ****...oh, and hey, I got a condex for sale...  
 

It should be who is bald, bushy or landing strip

Blackvegetable » 30 Jul 2025, 8:51 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 8:51 am

ROG62 » 30 Jul 2025, 8:44 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 8:44 am

brown...you are...


 
now do the bobblehead nod...

He only comments, succinctly, on the news....he doesn't fabricate it.

 

Sir, you make me laugh.
 

*Huey » 30 Jul 2025, 11:00 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 11:00 am

Sir, you make me laugh.

You're being vague..

*Huey » 30 Jul 2025, 8:53 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 8:53 am

SIr, on the one hand you condemn a source because you feel they are biased and on the other you have a biased anonymous poster posing in his bathrobe and full face shower cap, with a good possibility he ives in his mother's basement, whose word you take as gospel.

Acknowledge you were answered, Sir.

Well said...



brown's sources are word until they don't agree with himself handler's narrative...
 

Blackvegetable » 30 Jul 2025, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 11:01 am

You're being vague..

*cue the usual* you're being stupidly obtuse...

Blackvegetable » 29 Jul 2025, 5:34 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2025, 5:34 pm

"Dems Blame Guns!"

I didn't catch any of the analysis, but Gutfeld must surely have needed to ice his face after that prolonged jam.

The second story?

"Gunman Kills 4 in NYC".

Their audience must be the dumbest herd of sheep on Earth.

Imagine being so **** slack jawed that you RECORD it...

A woman married to a man like that could be forgiven for drinking and seeking other men to father her children.

But you watch them?

Seems like you watch them everyday 
 

HarperLee » 30 Jul 2025, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 12:09 pm

But you watch them?

Seems like you watch them everyday

To whom?

Blackvegetable » 30 Jul 2025, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 12:10 pm

To whom?

Hiding behind a question again. I see you haven't answered any...including the one that I have asked for about 600 times now. 

Blackvegetable » 30 Jul 2025, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 12:10 pm

HarperLee » 30 Jul 2025, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 12:09 pm

But you watch them?

Seems like you watch them everyday

To whom?

 

Mr Vegetable, I now ou don't watch it or view it on a daily basis because 9 tome out of 10 you have the context of the discussions wrong.  And on those occasions where  said hey, what did the judge say or what did greg say you answers showed you do not watch it because you did not realize they were not there that day.

That sort of questioning is why a drunken bailiff or you would not wipe the floor with me in the courtroom.  I get you all the time.  That is why, Sir, you refuse to take a stand or answer questions.

Blackvegetable » 30 Jul 2025, 8:56 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 8:56 am

I don't have to...I get its "conservative" feed...

You people are **** morons.

post it...
 

Blackvegetable » 30 Jul 2025, 7:57 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2025, 7:57 am

You are the dumbest human being alive.

Seems YOU are the one that said how much you hated Tucker, and now you want to use him as a "source" for rebuttal??

Oh, the IRONY of that. And when this is your response, you seem to recognize that YOU GOT CAUGHT in your own hypocrisy!!

*Beekeeper » 31 Jul 2025, 7:16 am » wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2025, 7:16 am

Seems YOU are the one that said how much you hated Tucker, and now you want to use him as a "source" for rebuttal??

Oh, the IRONY of that. And when this is your response, you seem to recognize that YOU GOT CAUGHT in your own hypocrisy!!

Fondler,

You're an idiot.

There's Tuck-Tuck, Performance Artist and then there's Tuck-Tuck, the Stakeholder.




 

Blackvegetable » 31 Jul 2025, 7:22 am » wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2025, 7:22 am

Fondler,

You're an idiot.

There's Tuck-Tuck, Performance Artist and then there's Tuck-Tuck, the Stakeholder.

Still got nothing, huh??

Nice try, but your attempt here fell far short of anything that addressed your own hypocrisy.

*Beekeeper » 31 Jul 2025, 7:24 am » wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2025, 7:24 am

Still got nothing, huh??

Nice try, but your attempt here fell far short of anything that addressed your own hypocrisy.

No..

Same as it ever was.

You're a moron.