Patriotic Fervor

It's too late for you, man! You tangle with this guy, he'll eat you alive! (Indeed, that's what he's doing now!)

Insurance companies being what they are (actuaries who love to make money hand over fist), they are expert at putting their money where their collective mouths are. They overlook nothing. Everything is studied, assigned a risk value, and studied some more. It never ends.

Make no mistake - these guys know exactly what they're doing.

They make the studies mentioned because they want to put a probability on future events if they are going to insure them. They are risking their money, and risk management is what they live for.

They want to know what the chances are of a red car being involved in a crash, or it's driver being ticketed, so they can set rates that will insure they make a profit (oh, it's always a nice one!) on the transaction.

While statisticians doubtless drool over information like this, it's not a stretch to say that given red cars have a shown propensity for being involved in costly adventures, shall we say, that they will in the future be more likely to be be found to have continued said propensity.

That insight doesn't require a Ph.D. in statistical analysis.

Actually, the only one here who seems to be having difficulty interpreting the data is you.

__________________
....and that's the way I see it!

eom

I think this is where the 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' saying must come from.

SammyBlueCat

Back to Salisbury for a minute. Someone tried to put him down because he was a back-up quarterback and had a short career. I believe his comeback was "yeah and you were there holding the towels".

Anyways he seems like an honest commentator.

Specter on the other hand...

eom

wasn't specter the one who gave frank perdue a pass on manslaughter?
now he's a comcast lackey.

PatsFanInVa

Analogize in haste, repent at leisure.

Forget the red sportscar.

Regardless of the propensity of authorities to believe the red sportscar is speeding while the VW bug is not -- even if we had one make of car in only 1 color -- if you are the one guy driving 65 who gets pulled over, you still have to pay the ticket.

And as the other guys whizz by, they're just as likely to think "serves you right," as they are to think "aww poor guy got pulled over." More likely, for that matter.

Crap I just made another analogy.

All I'm saying is, get used to it. Regardless of what facts are aired, there will be a great number of people who think, and I use the term loosely, that we're "dirtier" than other NFL teams.

So just learn to not give a crap, in terms of other fans. It's just that simple.

That's not to say we can't say "YEAH, Go Salisbury!" if he makes a pro-Pats or pro-objectivity point. Just saying, all you guys saying "this whole season was ruined by..."

Well, it's kind of true, but we don't get normal seasons anymore, not for a while, that's my take. There will always be a jackass discrediting whatever we achieve. That's just the way it is.

So I'm just advocating being ready for it, getting past the point where others' opinions can affect us. It seems sort of masochistic.

PFnV

PatriotsReign

If you think about the baseball/steriod investigations, it's all based upon what people have said, not evidence. I'm sure there are many, many current & former NFL people who would testify that video taping and signal stealing has been going on forever in the NFL. That would make a mockery of any investigation.

Espionage in the NFL is part of the great, great stories former players & coaches love to talk about. Hell, I've heard stories on NFL films about players stealing playbooks, ect.

So if there was a league-wide investigation, there would be plenty of witnesses. Especially considering none of this stuff is illegal like steroids.

glutton79

okay, regarding the red sports car analogy- some of you may understand statistics, but you apparently don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

red cars are more likely to be ticketed and involved in accidents, yes. now, is that because the red color of the car actually causes accidents, or because people who drive faster and more aggressively are more likely to purchase a red car to begin with? frankly, it's difficult to prove either way, but the latter seems far more plausible. thus, if you're not a particularly fast or aggressive driver, purchasing a red car probably won't *cause* you to have an accident.

as a comparison, it's like the often-cited statistic that people who live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced. does that mean that living together first somehow causes divorce, many years later? or does it mean that people who are willing to live together before they get married are just more open to the idea of divorce regardless?

see, statistics are more helpful when you combine them with a little logic.

glutton79

more on topic, I've always liked sean salisbury. and in this case, I hope the other media idiots can stop running their mouths long enough to actually listen to him, because he has a very valid point here.

Bertil

The first time the Rams made it INTO the Red Zone was in the 4th Quarter. Thoes whiners deserved to lose. They thought it was their right to just walk over the Pats. Their stupid Coach never even went to the hurry up until it was too late and that is what cost them the game. Just writing this I'm having Deja Vu all over again...

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Keegs

the sun isn't red.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.