RussiaGate

[Elixir]

The problem is the High Confidence where there is nothing given to support that allegation also admits the judgement still carries a risk of being wrong. That is as nonsensical as a definite maybe.. It's not the sort of thing scientists buy or courts buy.

"High confidence" always comes with a risk of being wrong, whether it's .00001% chance of being wrong or not. I am surprised you claim not to know this.

In WP's lexicon, 9,999 out of 10,000 means "probably not".

Probably also means probably not.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"High confidence" always comes with a risk of being wrong, whether it's .00001% chance of being wrong or not. I am surprised you claim not to know this.

In WP's lexicon, 9,999 out of 10,000 means "probably not".

Probably also means probably not.

Good point.

 

[whichphilosophy]

"High confidence" always comes with a risk of being wrong, whether it's .00001% chance of being wrong or not. I am surprised you claim not to know this.

In WP's lexicon, 9,999 out of 10,000 means "probably not".

Probably also means probably not.

Having worked with Engineers, they also use the expression definite maybe.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In WP's lexicon, 9,999 out of 10,000 means "probably not".

Probably also means probably not.

Having worked with Engineers, they also use the expression definite maybe.

Engineers also like Simpsons' jokes and references, neither alternative fact of which has anything to do with this thread.

 

[Elixir]

Engineers also like Simpsons' jokes and references, neither alternative fact of which has anything to do with this thread.

One thing about idiots - they tend to assume that everyone else is as stupid as they are.

 

[funinspace]

In WP's lexicon, 9,999 out of 10,000 means "probably not".

Probably also means probably not.

Having worked with Engineers, they also use the expression definite maybe.

Engineers also like Simpsons' jokes and references, neither alternative fact of which has anything to do with this thread.

As an electrical engineer, I would have to insist on qualifying that statement about Engineers also liking Simpsons' jokes...that is only many engineers, possibly even most engineers, but most probably not all engineers, as I have never found the Simpsons to be interesting to watch.

As for 'definite maybe', at least that one isn't a contradiction, depending on how one means it...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In WP's lexicon, 9,999 out of 10,000 means "probably not".

Probably also means probably not.

Having worked with Engineers, they also use the expression definite maybe.

Engineers also like Simpsons' jokes and references, neither alternative fact of which has anything to do with this thread.

As an electrical engineer, I would have to insist on qualifying that statement about Engineers also liking Simpsons' jokes...that is only many engineers, possibly even most engineers, but most probably not all engineers, as I have never found the Simpsons to be interesting to watch.

As for 'definite maybe', at least that one isn't a contradiction, depending on how one means it...

Being a Geotech Engineer, we work in the gray space of uncertainty and only deal with what we might know. Regardless, "High Confidence" has already been explained here and for some reason, there are posters that want to continue pretending there is some uncertainty as to what "High Confidence" means. And that is a red herring, because even if it meant "assured", they'd still balk because the CIA hasn't briefed them personally on the intelligence.

 

[Elixir]

In WP's lexicon, 9,999 out of 10,000 means "probably not".

Probably also means probably not.

Having worked with Engineers, they also use the expression definite maybe.

Engineers also like Simpsons' jokes and references, neither alternative fact of which has anything to do with this thread.

As an electrical engineer, I would have to insist on qualifying that statement about Engineers also liking Simpsons' jokes...that is only many engineers, possibly even most engineers, but most probably not all engineers, as I have never found the Simpsons to be interesting to watch.

As for 'definite maybe', at least that one isn't a contradiction, depending on how one means it...

Being a Geotech Engineer, we work in the gray space of uncertainty and only deal with what we might know. Regardless, "High Confidence" has already been explained here and for some reason, there are posters that want to continue pretending there is some uncertainty as to what "High Confidence" means. And that is a red herring, because even if it meant "assured", they'd still balk because the CIA hasn't briefed them personally on the intelligence.

You guys are too generous. Certainly the English language is heavily nuanced, which allows for a lot of ambiguity. But "probably also means probably not" is a simple, straightforward lie from a simple straightforward liar. I leave it to individual readers to divine the motivation behind presenting such falsehoods... I have my ideas.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I called it a "red herring" which isn't being generous at all.

 

[Will Wiley]

• High confidence generally indicates judgments based on high-quality information, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. However, high confidence judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.[1]
  .

• 
  
  When they use the word "generally" it becomes meaningless.
  
  High confidence means it is based in high quality information except for the times when it doesn't mean that. it generally means that but sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Elixir]

• High confidence generally indicates judgments based on high-quality information, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. However, high confidence judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.[1]
  .

• 
  
  When they use the word "generally" it becomes meaningless.

• 
  
  
  Great catch, Will. Here's the improved version:
  
  *High confidence indicates judgments based on high-quality information, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. However, high confidence judgments still carry small-to-negligible risk of being wrong.
  
  Much better.
  
  I, for one, am highly amused watching you Trumpapologists having to come up with innocent explanation after innocent explanation for the virtual armory of smoking guns that this corrupt and incompetent cabal has left strewn about the political playing field. The usual tactic is in play - explain one at a time, each in its own context, then scream bloody murder when anyone points out that your myriad "explanations" are not only non-consilient, but are contradictory.
  It's a hoot!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

• High confidence generally indicates judgments based on high-quality information, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. However, high confidence judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.[1]
  .

• 
  
  When they use the word "generally" it becomes meaningless.

• Speechless.
  
  

  High confidence means it is based in high quality information except for the times when it doesn't mean that. it generally means that but sometimes it doesn't.

  Okay, I'll try. "Generally" is used because otherwise it becomes a warranty of sorts. In the real world, all rules have exceptions, so terms like "generally" get used. Seriously, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. All you are bringing up now are wood fragments.

 

[Will Wiley]

Okay, I'll try. "Generally" is used because otherwise it becomes a warranty of sorts. In the real world, all rules have exceptions, so terms like "generally" get used. Seriously, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. All you are bringing up now are wood fragments.

No "generally"is used so they can lie to you but still allow you to justify to yourself that you support them.

They repeatedly lie to you but you just want an excuse to keep telling us how good and decent they are

 

[funinspace]

In WP's lexicon, 9,999 out of 10,000 means "probably not".

Probably also means probably not.

Having worked with Engineers, they also use the expression definite maybe.

Engineers also like Simpsons' jokes and references, neither alternative fact of which has anything to do with this thread.

As an electrical engineer, I would have to insist on qualifying that statement about Engineers also liking Simpsons' jokes...that is only many engineers, possibly even most engineers, but most probably not all engineers, as I have never found the Simpsons to be interesting to watch.

As for 'definite maybe', at least that one isn't a contradiction, depending on how one means it...

Being a Geotech Engineer, we work in the gray space of uncertainty and only deal with what we might know. Regardless, "High Confidence" has already been explained here and for some reason, there are posters that want to continue pretending there is some uncertainty as to what "High Confidence" means. And that is a red herring, because even if it meant "assured", they'd still balk because the CIA hasn't briefed them personally on the intelligence.

You guys are too generous. Certainly the English language is heavily nuanced, which allows for a lot of ambiguity. But "probably also means probably not" is a simple, straightforward lie from a simple straightforward liar. I leave it to individual readers to divine the motivation behind presenting such falsehoods... I have my ideas.

Uhm...my comments were primarily on Simpson jokes and engineers while playing with some of the same words...as I had already commented on "Probably also means probably not." phrase in the below linky:

That might be the single stupidest assertion per character that I have ever seen in writing.
Coming soon from your local alt-realist: "Certainly also means certainly not".

LOL...I dunno I think there is a lot of competition in that area. But yes, that is quite a stupid statement or abuse of language.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In WP's lexicon, 9,999 out of 10,000 means "probably not".

Probably also means probably not.

Having worked with Engineers, they also use the expression definite maybe.

Engineers also like Simpsons' jokes and references, neither alternative fact of which has anything to do with this thread.

As an electrical engineer, I would have to insist on qualifying that statement about Engineers also liking Simpsons' jokes...that is only many engineers, possibly even most engineers, but most probably not all engineers, as I have never found the Simpsons to be interesting to watch.

As for 'definite maybe', at least that one isn't a contradiction, depending on how one means it...

My point was that stating all engineers use "definite maybe" and like the Simpsons blahblahblah are both alternative facts which have nothing to do with the thread.

 

[Malintent]

Okay, I'll try. "Generally" is used because otherwise it becomes a warranty of sorts. In the real world, all rules have exceptions, so terms like "generally" get used. Seriously, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. All you are bringing up now are wood fragments.

No "generally"is used so they can lie to you but still allow you to justify to yourself that you support them.

They repeatedly lie to you but you just want an excuse to keep telling us how good and decent they are

It would be inappropriate to comment on evidence presented in an ongoing investigation. Therefore, this specific usage of "generally" is a way to comment on what was meant by a comment, without violating the integrity of the specific investigation.

"Generally" is a way to give more information about something without committing a violation of inappropriate disclosure, or making a final commitment on a matter that is still open.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

HOW THE WHITE HOUSE AND REPUBLICANS BLEW UP THE HOUSE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

The evidence is now clear that the White House and Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, have worked together to halt what was previously billed as a sweeping investigation of Russian interference in last year’s election. “We’ve been frozen,” Jim Himes, a Democratic representative from Connecticut who is a member of the Committee, said.

The freeze started after last Monday’s hearing, where James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, revealed that the F.B.I. has been investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia since last July. Comey also said that there was no evidence to support Trump’s tweets about being wiretapped.

Today, the House panel was scheduled to hear from three top officials who had served under the Obama Administration: Sally Yates, the former Deputy Attorney General, who briefly served as acting Attorney General, before being fired by President Trump; John Brennan, the former head of the C.I.A.; and James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. But last week Nunes cancelled today’s hearing.

“The Monday hearing last week was, I’m sure, not to the White House’s liking,” said Himes. “Since Monday, I’m sorry to say, the chairman has ceased to be the chairman of an investigative committee and has been running interference for the Trump White House, cancelling hearings.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...licans-blew-up-the-house-russia-investigation

This thing just keeps getting worse.

 

[Opoponax]

Either this thing is going to explode and splatter shit all over everyone near it, or all the information is going to come out and it'll be like the air being let out of a balloon because of it's innocuousness. I don't hold out much hope for the latter. This is going to be a shitstorm. The only question is how far Paul Ryan and the GOP gang will go to hide it.

Prior to all this, I would have thought that every Republican/Tea Bagger who got a whiff of this would have gone running for the door--or at least distanced themselves from it. But they're not. The sheer arrogance is breathtaking. Or maybe that's an indicator that there really is nothing to see here. But man, that doesn't seem likely. Trump's judgment thus far has been really shitty. Even the people around him rush out poorly written executive orders when there was no need to. Spicer looks and sounds, despite the seeming impossibility of it, worse and worse as each day goes by.

Required Rhetorical Question: what if Obama had been in this deep with something like this?

I only ask this^ because I can't believe that the average Obama voter would've been so unflinchingly supportive.

Fuck it. Whatever. I still naively think the truth will win out.

 

[RavenSky]

Fuck it. Whatever. I still naively think the truth will win out.

I do too. My fear is how much damage has been done in the meantime.

 

[barbos]

Fuck it. Whatever. I still naively think the truth will win out.

Me too, I think we will learn that Russia had no links to Trump.