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 bad, I hope I don't run into anything you design. And 6 sigma is quality management /failure prevention plan. Nothing to do with the 'scientific method', but a nice bit of jargon to try to make youreself sound more professional.
The point I'm trying to make is, most of the studies you have quoted are absolute crap. Lots of data points mean nothing if the data isn't good.
To be honest, I've stepped back from no lines, just tried wasting civility.
Porn Squirting doesn't exist. As shown on video, it is pee. No question about it. Now, I have given a bit of ground...
There is a bit of glandular tissue down there of unknown function, I dunno what they do, but heck, since I'm not certain, I'll give ground, But it is small, with difuse glandular output-more likely to ooze than spray. The volumes produced would be small, too. So if at the end of orgasm there is a little gush, or the sheets are damp, then fine, you 'squirted'. If it sprays out 10 feet and can fill a drinking glass, its pee.
I'm glad you've had experiences, but as far as debate goes, anecdote is meaningless. You've been peed on, it didn't taste as much as urine as you'd think it would (although how much urine you'f consumed to compare I don't know), it turned you on, and you've found a bunch of mediocre information that makes you feel that it isn't pee even though it is.
Did you know your article: 'Examination of the ejaculate of six women failed to detect elevated levels of prostatic acid phosphatase and the substance appeared similar in biochemical properties to urine' has the same researcher as some of my references that contradict your viewpoint? How is her findings more credible in your case and less credible in my case? How do you turn your back on her other work claiming she is a bias researcher or some moron with an agenda, but then support her conclusion on one study that supports your viewpoint? Nice spin of facts.How is six sigma not a scientific method? Do a search on the site for hypothesis testing and you come up with 760 pages on the subject. Are you denying or discrediting my experience again that I do not use hypothesis testing? You seem like an expert on my experiences. Is it coincident that Loraine and I experienced it and believe in FE? Do we fall into your porn stars trying to sell DVDs, researchers selling snake oil, or someone selling a site? You sounded 100% confident on your bias opinion but the facts you supply do not support your beliefs 100%. Face the facts, I am not the one that seems to be stretching the truth on their posts to back their viewpoint.
Paying trib-ute to SinncentVanSage 1412 Posts 12/04
Posted - Jun 7 2005 : 7:48PM
Step 1: Be a woman who is able to squirt. Step 2: Eat a bunch of asparagus. Step 3: Empty your bladder. Step 4: Rub yourself off to a squirting orgasm. Step 5: Test both fluids with every thinkable method you know.
I guess this ADT (asparagus diet test) would be considered a crap study, no?
Back to the roots: She gave me pleasure no gauge can measure.
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 I really hate pseudocscience and people that make crap up and try to convince me that I'm wrong because I'm trapped in the monovision of mainstream.
As to your six sigman excretia, if you look at the definintion of six sigma, it is "Literally, refers to the reduction of errors to six standard deviations from the mean value of a process output or task opportunities, ie about 1 error in 300,000 opportunities. In modern practice, this terminology has been applied to a quality improvement methodology for industry." Thus, as I said, it has nothing to do with statistical analysis except as it applies to failure scenarios. It has nothing to do with 'hypothesis testing', which is a separate issue. Don't debate statistical tools you don't understand with someone that uses them.
Spin the facts any way you want. You obviously proved that in your mind your opinion is somehow better than my opinion. Somehow your facts are better than my facts. Like I said, you are entitled to your own opinion. I found it funny how you cited the same sex researcher's work that I have been citing. This is the same book that I advised people to read, which validates my point for people to educate themself by reading the book. I find it funny how the person's research is crap when I cite it for my viewpoint, but somehow her data is only good when it supports your case. To anyone that does not sound like an unbiased opinion. Even when you type slowly, you still spell incorrectly. I might as well ripe the hypothesis testing pages in my college textbooks and my six sigma books, since YOU THINK I don't understand them. I'll ask my old professor that she made a mistake when I received an A on the topic. I guess the million of dollars that I saved companies using six sigma as well as lean manufacturing methodologies is worth nothing contrary to want my companies thought. From your posts, it sounds like you never make mistakes. It does not sound like I am the one making crap up (half gallonI have no 'bias' on this subject). Obviously, you talk like you are the one living my life.
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 enough?
Educating yourself by reading a book doesn't matter if the book is crap. It just proves that you can read.
Oh, and while you're pointing out typos (slightly better than ad hominem attacks, but only slightly) you might want to 'ripe' your six-sigma jargon our of your textbook...if it was included in a class you got an 'A' in, I'd suggest requesting at least a partial refund on your tuition. And since you even admit that you use it for improving manufacturing methadologies and not hypothesis testing, you should chose a better jargon-y term to use next time.
As to the 'half a gallon/liter whatever volume I've cited, I have to admit I don't stand on porn sets with graduated cylinder to measure the outpuy . Just random numbers to make a point. As you know, but chose to be obtuse enough not to get.
There you go again. My studies are good and yours is crap, though we cite the same researcher. So my A in Statistics has no meaning in the argument, but your A+ in my infallibility class in medical school does. Keep drawing lines in the sand and back away when proven wrong and draw another line. Whatever makes you sleep at night.
Since when did I admit to not using hypothesis testing? If you are such a statistics whiz, here is a question for you? Let's say I am run a test to see if a change in a process actual has any bearing on the outer diameter of a part. I run 50 samples for setup A and I obtain an average of 2.000" on the outer diameter. I run 50 samples for setup B and I obtain an average of 2.025" on the outer diameter. Clearly, there is a difference in the readings, but how can I tell for sure that there is a statistical difference that is not caused by standard deviation or variation if I can not use hypothesis testing? FYI, I have used hypothesis testing a number of times in my line of work.
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 quality of the information that goes into the process. You are suffering from a classic garbage in-garbage out, with such bias due to your sexual interests that you don't know or don't care.
And I don't know where the 'drawing lines in the sand' bit comes from, although it is mildly tiresome. Usually it refers to someone that issues challanges, and when those are met, backs down and issues a new, usually lesser challange. I've issued no challange, only rebutted mediocre data and poor understandings of statistics. If being inconsistent in guessing exactly how much liquid a certain adult film star can produce without measuring it myself is what you consider 'lines in the sand', then guilty as charged, and move on. I'll just say 'a bunch' next time instead of chosing a volume. And if saying that with the little bits-o-glandular matter in the pelvis that a woman _can_ make a bit of fluid, just no where near porn-o-explosion, then fine, I'll take that too. The end result being, if a woman is 'squirting' more than you did, its pee.
As to my background is statistics, I am funded by the NIH to study the molecular, genetics and epidemiology as it relates to complex human disease states. Its a bit more difficult than your 2-tailed T test that you'd run, and to answer your question you would need the accuracy and precision of the measuring device, the acceptable tolerance of the part being produced (is .025 on average close enough? this is, after all, engineering), the p value you were striving for (which would also include power calcualtions to determine if your sample size is sufficient) and it would be nice to see the mean, mode, and median of the data sets as well as any statistical outliers, as even though the averages may be OK, you may have a bigger spread of data in the new set. If you're really having trouble with this problem, I'd be happy to fire up SAS and give you some suggestions.
The interesting thing here is none of this crap matters to the point at hand. It doesn't matter how you analyze statistics. You can be the finest statistician in the world, and if you can't judge the quality of your initial information, you're just a fool with an A++ in statistics. The data for there being a large reservoir of fluid in a womans pelvis that sprays out a la cytheria is not there. Any large volume of fluid that sprays from a woman's urethra is pee. If it comes out her eyes, its probably tears. Her nose, its snot. You get the point. I can spray fluid out of my urethrea, and I'm not even female! I do it several times a day. So you quote some studies. Published in the Norewgian journal of Dentistry, Orthopedic Surgery, and G-spot analysis. Or from Squirters.com. Congrats. They're crap. In the absence of a mechanistic explanation, all data is suspect. and there's no mechanism.
In the end, whack off to girls peeing all you want. But that's all it is, pee. PPPPPPPPP Just don't try to piss on my boot and tell me its raining.
Paying trib-ute to SinncentVanSage 1412 Posts 12/04
Posted - Jun 8 2005 : 10:09PM
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Benjamin Disraeli
The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself. Sir Winston Churchill
It doesn't taste like piss but we need to do a chi square test to be sure. But first I have to check out whether the adhesion of the stuff is bigger than its cohesion. I just need to know whether my face is wet or not. Vincent van Gauge
I guess I rather leave the research to others. I believe in squirting, and that's enough for me. Now squirters of all countries, unite and squirt all over me. In the best case I'd have lifelong fun, period. In the worst case I'd have lifelong fun and in the end I would learn I drank tasteless urine in gallons. You know what? I don't believe this would happen and otherwise I wouldn't give a shit. Because urine is one thing, but...
Back to the roots: She gave me pleasure no gauge can measure.
There you go again. Believe what you want to believe. Whatever makes you sleep at night. If you want to pass as some expert in statistics, but admit to using software to do your analysis, it is your prerogative.
SAS - Oh look there is the buzz word I used before Operations Research. Coincidence? Maybe I do know what I am talking about.
If you want to act like some medical expert that knows 100% for sure that FE is urine, while never experiencing it and ignoring medical studies that contradict your opinion, it is your prerogative. If you want to think that I do not know what I am talking about, though I am speaking from experience while you do not, it is your prerogative. If you want to believe some researcher's work is good when you cite it, but crap when I cite it (though she has received many awards for her research), it is your prerogative. If you want to believe your statistics training and experience is better than my statistics training and experience, it is your prerogative. Believe what you want to believe, it is your prerogative. Whatever makes you sleep at night.
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 analysis, the bigger issue is you don't seem to understand that data can have different quality, or different likelyhood of being true. That statistical analysis is done by the authors of the study, not by you or me. So when you're trying to make the point that 5, or 10, or 100 studies agree with you, while I only cite 1, or 3, or 10, so you must be right, it isn't so. You see, most of the 'studies' you cite are biased, either by people trying to sell you something or by having poor methadology, relegating them to lesser journals, book chapters, or web sites. if it comes up on 'Google' but not 'pubmed', then its crap. And if it comes up on 'sexnet', or 'the squirting web ring', its even bigger crap. Heck, I ran through most of your 'references' in an earlier thread-most had no data at all, just the assertation that what they said was so. And you tally that up as 'one' in your favor.
A second issue is mechanism. Even _if_ you had data to support that clear liquid coming out of a urethrea might not be urine, you have to have a mechanism that can account for it, or your methadology is in doubt. If I claimed that I could crap gold nuggets, and brought my excrement to be analyzed and you found gold in it, you would have to demonstrate a way that my body could turn chicken fried steak into gold-demonstrate a organ, or biological process that could lead to this miraculous transformation. So not only isn't there any 'there' there, as far as there being something special in pee, there's no place to put the not-pee stuff in a woman. Ya, a teaspoon of something somewhere, I don't know. The rest is pee.
I sleep fine at night, thanks. And I really dont care if women evolve to have a prostate equivalent the size of a mellon that sprays cotton candy out of a magical orifice in their perinium. No dog in this fight whatsoever. You, it appears, are turned on by something but squeemed enough about it to be looking for psychological cover. It makes you feel better to whack to 'squirting' rather than peeing, and you've created an elaborate network of support for this belief using bad science, bad data, poor statistics, and people that are trying to sell you exactly what turns you on. On one hand, you should be glad. There are few that find exactly what hits their buttons, and you certainly have done that. I hope eventually you're able to admit what you enjoy and abandon the charlatans that are selling a bill of goods that doesn't match the package delivered.
Like I said before, believe what you want to believe, it is your prerogative. I am the poster in this thread trying to answer SaintCara's question. I am NOT the one that is hijacking this thread because it differs from my opinion.
