When or ever?

A prediction has to be PRIOR to the action (or non-action).

An excuse is what YOU give when something does NOT happen the way you think it will.

What if Saddam launches a chemical attack on Kuwait tomorrow, will you eat crow then?

Hmmm, then my prediction will have been proven false.

But, I will RIGHT NOW predict that tomorrow (Sunday) there will NOT be any chemical attack on Kuwait launched by Saddam.

Now, if I am proven right ONCE AGAIN (100% accuracy so far), will YOU eat crow?

No, you won't. Because you didn't say there WOULD be an attack did you?

Which brings us back to YOU offering nothing but EXCUSES when things don't happen the way you think they should.

While I can PREDICT the events with 100% accuracy.

100% accuracy.

No chemical attack on Kuwait on Sunday launched by Saddam.

100% accuracy.

Pucker up and kiss my ass.

For some things, like human behavior, you cannot apply math to it all of the time.

Read BF Skinner.

I have given valid reasons why Saddam isn't using WOMD, and you call them excuses.

That is because they are excuses.

They are not excuses, they are guesses why he hasn't used them.

No, they are excuses for why something that you think SHOULD happen has NOT happened.

Valid guesses, because Saddam wants to get support from his neighbors against the US.

No, that is a specific excuse for why he hasn't used them.

Otherwise, you would be able to predict that Saddam WOULD NOT use nuke/chem/bio weapons
-because-
he wants the support of his neighbors which he would not get if he used them.

There. That is a prediction.

Now, what happens when Saddam USES nuke/chem/bio weapons?

Well, your PREDICTION is proven WRONG.

Then you have to make EXCUSES for why you were WRONG.

I took statisical analysis in college, I had to in order to get my associates.

You are so stupid that you can't tell a "WMD" from a rocket and you insisted that I was spelling "Niger" wrong.

hahahahahahhahahahahaha

Your college education seems to be lacking in many areas.

Post #92,879 by orion 3/29/03 4:52:42 PM Reply	When or ever? When it is proven correct? How do you know it won't be seen as false? You are pretty darn well sure of yourself. What if Saddam launches a chemical attack on Kuwait tomorrow, will you eat crow then? Or will you claim it was the US faking the attack to make Saddam look bad? I took statisical analysis in college, I had to in order to get my associates. For some things, like human behavior, you cannot apply math to it all of the time. I have given valid reasons why Saddam isn't using WOMD, and you call them excuses. They are not excuses, they are guesses why he hasn't used them. Valid guesses, because Saddam wants to get support from his neighbors against the US. "Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?" -John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link\|http://www.farscape.com\|FarScape]
Post #92,935 by Ashton 3/29/03 9:56:26 PM Reply	Class failed you. There are some things for which there is insufficient evidence - in fact, most things.. that people concern themselves about, BTW. As to this game? Sorry there is no set of answers that will explain why logic is not enough. Some days ya just have to bite a cat. Cats like to play a lot, too.. Ashton
Post #93,000 by Brandioch 3/30/03 2:26:22 AM Reply	No, they are excuses. A prediction has to be PRIOR to the action (or non-action). An excuse is what YOU give when something does NOT happen the way you think it will. What if Saddam launches a chemical attack on Kuwait tomorrow, will you eat crow then? Hmmm, then my prediction will have been proven false. But, I will RIGHT NOW predict that tomorrow (Sunday) there will NOT be any chemical attack on Kuwait launched by Saddam. Now, if I am proven right ONCE AGAIN (100% accuracy so far), will YOU eat crow? No, you won't. Because you didn't say there WOULD be an attack did you? Which brings us back to YOU offering nothing but EXCUSES when things don't happen the way you think they should. While I can PREDICT the events with 100% accuracy. 100% accuracy. No chemical attack on Kuwait on Sunday launched by Saddam. 100% accuracy. Pucker up and kiss my ass. For some things, like human behavior, you cannot apply math to it all of the time. Read BF Skinner. I have given valid reasons why Saddam isn't using WOMD, and you call them excuses. That is because they are excuses. They are not excuses, they are guesses why he hasn't used them. No, they are excuses for why something that you think SHOULD happen has NOT happened. Valid guesses, because Saddam wants to get support from his neighbors against the US. No, that is a specific excuse for why he hasn't used them. Otherwise, you would be able to predict that Saddam WOULD NOT use nuke/chem/bio weapons -because- he wants the support of his neighbors which he would not get if he used them. There. That is a prediction. Now, what happens when Saddam USES nuke/chem/bio weapons? Well, your PREDICTION is proven WRONG. Then you have to make EXCUSES for why you were WRONG. I took statisical analysis in college, I had to in order to get my associates. You are so stupid that you can't tell a "WMD" from a rocket and you insisted that I was spelling "Niger" wrong. hahahahahahhahahahahaha Your college education seems to be lacking in many areas.

Welcome to IWETHEY!