jmog

On Oct 15, 2021:

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 10:08 pm
posted by gut

LMFAO.  I never said viral load isn't correlated with transmission.  It's not the only factor.  Look it up.  Viral load is not the measure of the contagiousness of a disease, the R0 is.  That's really fucking basic, guy.

And for the record, my first response to you was disagreeing that the unvaccinated don't threaten the vaccinated.  I was not commenting on viral load but mutations and increased transmissibility.  That's all I've said, and I'm not wrong.  This whole viral load bullshit is your own strawmen argument.  But go ahead and continue refuting stuff I never argued and calling me an idiot.  Or maybe learn some basic reading comprehension.


Now why don't you get back to that SS model you lied about building trying your damnest to back into a number that you obviously pulled out of your ass. 

Social security model? Are you fucking insane?


A simple calculation that you learn how to do in high school algebra isn’t really a model.


Do you even think before you post this bull shit?


jmog replied to "Political memes only II" at 07:02 am

Gut’s M.O.

On Oct 14, 2021:

jmog replied to "Political memes thread" at 06:06 pm
posted by gut

No you aren't.  You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about because you clearly don't understand NPV and Real/Nominal. The math is simple and your assumptions, errr your new assumptions, are garbage.

Just stop already.  It's OK not to be an expert on every subject.

I literally said that someone who starts at $20/hr will contribute $600k over their lifetime.


You said I was wrong.


I showed the math to prove I was right.


You moved the goalposts to talk about present value of money, which by the way chemical engineers take a whole semester on for project ROI and viablity, FYI. 


I never said they put in $650k of 2021 dollars, you decided to change it to that once you realized I was right.


Its ok to admit when you are wrong.

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 06:03 pm
posted by gut

This proves nothing.  Viral load is only one factor in contagiousness when comparing different variants.  Can you even Google, bro?

Stop.  Just stop.  You DO NOT KNOW what you are talking about. 

Your last line is rather ironic, don't you think...a little tooooo ironic, yeah I really do think.


Show that viral load isn't directly proportional or directly related to transmissibility to counter my claim or just admit you were wrong.


Its rather easy.

jmog replied to "Political memes thread" at 05:51 pm
posted by gut

So that would be a big fat "NO" that you don't understand time value of money, Real vs. Nominal, or how to build economic models and do comparisons?

And you always initiate the insults.  You don't want to get clowned and called a whiny bitch, then stop doubling and tripling down on your ignorant bullshit and calling people names because you don't know what you're talking about.

You calling someone a whiny bitch is rather ironic, keep it up. I was proven right by math, you started calling me a whiny bitch because you were proven wrong and changed the argument, aka moving the goalposts.

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 05:45 pm
posted by gut

Your post immediately above this one said I was "flat wrong" about unvaccinated not being a threat.  I'd try to explain to you how unvaccinated people create threat/risk that aren't directly related to actually giving you Covid, but I have my doubts you're capable of comprehending the logic. 

And the above post is, I believe, an ad hominem attack, unprovoked before I had even directed a post at you.  Then you start with your usual intellectual dishonest tricks of strawman arguments and moving the goal posts, and whine like a bitch when you get called on it. 

Also, viral load =/= contagiousness/transmissibility.  I suspect you know better, but I think we give you too much credit.  You don't understand basic facts, and that's what makes you a hack not worth engaging.

Your last paragraph once again shows you are full of shit.


That is literally how they determine who is more contagious. Plenty of articles out there about this, google it. First paper that comes up when you google transmission vs viral load, plus a multitude of others.


Here's a paper that uses empirical statistical data as well as mathematical models to predict it and gives a viral load threashold before a person is considered "contagious".


Care to refute?


https://elifesciences.org/articles/63537 



jmog replied to "Political memes thread" at 05:37 pm
posted by gut

Look, the whiny bitch leads out with the insults, again. What did you say that implies about your argument?  I didn't insult you in either post, and just said you're wrong (and you definitely are).  Every time someone says you're wrong, YOU are always the first to go right to the personal insults.  Or at least that's my experience in my last two exchanges with you.

Stay in your intellectual lane, because every time you wander out of it you get wrecked.

I can't believe you actually said I started the insults.


Did you get Alzheimer's all the sudden or dementia? You may want to go back and read your own posts, or just edit them to save face.



jmog replied to "Political memes thread" at 05:35 pm
posted by gut

Oh JFC....here you go again, clowning yourself at an increasingly alarming rate, and then moving the goal posts and engaging intellectually dishonest arguments (but maybe "intellectual" is a poor choice of words).

Before I waste my time further responding to the rest of your bullshit, do you actually understand the time value of money, and the difference between real and nominal inflation?

It's really simple guy - you said "someone making $20 per hour will pay in over $600k in their lifetime".  No.  That math is very easy.  You said nothing about where that person is in their career, or what their REAL wage increases will be.  The FACT is, middle class wages have seen very, very little real wage growth in the past 30+ years.  Given that trend, regardless of inflation the present value of their contributions - and present value is the relevant comparison - is less than $250k.

I really fucking hope you don't build bridges.


I see back to the ad hominem once you are proven wrong.


I said someone who is in their 20s and starts making $20/hr. 


You assumed I meant someone who never gets a raise for some dumb fucking reason.


I can't help it if you don't understand the math and the logical discussion, not my problem (see, ad hominem is GREAT!).


Don't quit your day job because logical reasoning is not your forte, did you let SnL take over your account?


If you want to discuss the present value of money, which is a valid concern, then we also have to discuss the ROI if you invested same/said contributions in a normal retirement age mutual fund which would average 6-8% per year over the course of 35 years.


That would take my $600k into the $2 million dollar range.


I bet you don't want to go there, however, and will resort back to your bull shit ad hominem. 


Stick to real scenarios, not someone who gets no raise for 35 years. It may help your dumb arguments.


Let me know if you want me to share the table with the calculations as it appears you are having problems with them SnL.

On Oct 13, 2021:

jmog replied to "Browns season 2021" at 07:57 am
posted by gut

LMFAO.....now that the Browns are actually good and you're all paying attention - you're going to be SOOOOOOO pissed at the rules and officiating.

Welcome to being relevant

Will you look here, gut being a troll/moron in another thread about different topics.


Did he just channel is SnL vibe and just pull the "I know I'm wrong so I will just act like a douchebag on every thread"?

On Oct 12, 2021:

jmog replied to "Political memes thread" at 12:51 pm
posted by gut

You pay FICA on every dollar you earn, starting as a teenager working part-time.  But your benefit is calculated only off your top 35 years of contributions.

And, again, your math is way off.  A person making $20 per hours would contribute less than $250k (INCLUDING the employer share, ignoring inflation) over 45 years.

So your math and assumption is that the person got no raise in 35 years? Come on, use an ACTUAL realistic assumption.


If you use 3% raise per year, which is typical and actually low as that is including no promotions at all, just same job and cost of living increases...that's $500,000 contributed from 20 to 65 for someone who starts at $20/hr.


If we assume some promotions or other raises and that puts that average wage increase per year at 4% the number is $654,000 contributed.


You are that hell bent on trying to prove me wrong that you pulled a completely non realistic case rather than realistic. How many people do you know that work for 45 years and don't get yearly raises?


My dad is nearing that age of 65, he makes $35/hr now, when he was 20 he made $7/hr full time (about 5x what he made at 20).


I have been working for 20 years and I make 3x what I did at 20 already. 


My dad works a union hourly job, I am a salaried engineer (for comparison). 


Come on, be smarter than that.


I literally said that a person making $20/hr in their 20s will contribute $600k (with their employer contributions) by the time they are 65. That is factual information you tried to dispute with some asinine "never get a raise" fictional person.


I have never met anyone who worked from their 20s to 60s, the whole time, and didn't make WAY more in their 60s than they did in their 20s.


You hate me so much you made up some BS scenario in your mind to try to prove me wrong, when in fact I was right.


I can share the spreadsheet if you can't do the math, I will copy/paste the math here for you (yes, I am boardering on ad hominem and I know that, but you are getting ridiculous, almost as bad as SnL was).

On Oct 10, 2021:

jmog replied to "Supply chain issues" at 10:01 pm

This is a good quandary.


I am in manufacturing facilities weekly and they are all dealing with this as is my company now.


I hear from them multiple different answers from labor shortages due to no one wanting to work, to shipping delays as seen in the maps above, to deliver delays from China specifically.


To be honest I haven’t looked much into it myself, just going off what different manufacturers are telling me personally.



jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 09:46 pm
posted by gut

I'd like to see you try.

You seem like a smart guy.  Yet spread ignorant bullshit on a small message board.  Go Find Yourself.

I see you still don’t understand how this works…



https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/delta-infection-unvaccinated-and-vaccinated-people-have-similar-levels-of-virus


https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people


https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1



There’s 5 links, my original plus 4 more, that ALL say that the delta variant viral load is the same or similar in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.


It’s literally the first 5 or so links based on the simple google search I showed earlier.


I quickly scanned them all and only the CDC link suggested that while the viral loads were similar that vaccinated MAY fight/knock down the viral load faster than unvaccinated making their transmissibility window shorter.


That’s a guess since they don’t know if the unvaccinated are people who had covid and therefore have same or more antibodies than vaccinated.


So, let’s hear your next ad hominem gut.







jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 09:37 pm
posted by gut

Well that settles it then.  One study is gospel.  I'm sure I could shit all over it if it were actually worth my time.

I know you're full of shit.  And so do you.  The difference is, the former is an honest take and the latter is a psychopath.

Ad hominem again, just proves you have lost the debate or just don’t have the ability to develop your own argument.


See, typically how a debate goes is one side gives an argument, backed up by evidence (like the link I provided), and the other then provides their own evidence to back their own argument and explains why their evidence supersedes their other sides evidence.


You appear to believe once someone disagrees with you, even if they provide evidence, that it’s kosher to just act like a complete dickhead to said person like you are in 4th grade (which is why I mentioned I thought your mama jokes were next, you were acting so juvenile).


Calm down, take a xanax, come back in the morning with a valid argument and evidence to back it up. 


I promise I will actually read it even though you didn’t read the one I provided.  


jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:26 pm
posted by gut

No, I really didn't.  I provided no proof to dispute your equally unproven quack claim.  I simply corrected your misinformation.

Feel free to post your "science" backing your claims.  You know Queen and I will embarass you.

Already posted an article that linked to a study.


Your turn to dispute it with another study.


Or you think I need to provide like 5 or 10 studies before you stop the ad hominem bullshit?


jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:24 pm
posted by queencitybuckeye

You claimed that the word potentially has a meaning in scientific journals that it's equally likely or unlikely. That is an incorrect interpretation.

No I did not. You again didn’t read what I said.


I said it EITHER means they didn’t test that at all or properly yet they BELIEVE it to be true so said it needs further study.


OR 

It means they did a few tests and got similar/inconsistent results for both “sides” yet they believe one side over the other to be true and said it needs to be studied more.


I never said it means either side is just as likely.


Read again, without changing what I said to suit your argument.


jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:21 pm
posted by gut

Then maybe stop ignoring ESTABLISHED science that refutes your beliefs?

You're a fucking hack.  You're QO with a Phd. It's obvious to everyone else with similar bonafides.

Typically people result to these kinds of posts when they don’t know how to argue their point.


And I don’t have a PhD. Masters in Chemical Engjneering and 2 BS’s (ChemEng and Applied Math).


Once you get back to formulating a coherent response to the argument rather than attacking the person, come back to the topic at hand.


Post a study that contradicts mine, that the viral loads for delta variant is significantly higher in unvaccinated.



jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:19 pm

At least Queen is trying to stay on topic, even if he is trying to change what I claimed.


Gut is just going off the rails, a “your mom” joke or “I slept with your wife” joke will be next for him.

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:17 pm
posted by queencitybuckeye

It does not mean what you claimed it meant, that it is no more likely than unlikely. That was a lie, sir.

I didn’t say that unvaccinated or vaccinated were more likely, you did.  Your bolded study didn’t help your statement at all.


I said that it’s inconclusive or equal amount of transmissibility among the delta variant.


So what will you say next that I didn’t actually claim?


jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:15 pm
posted by gut
JMOG is an abject partisan hack.  I used to respect him, even after I knew he supported Trump.  But some shit he posts is just absolutely shameful for what he claims as education and experience.

Keep up the ad hominem, but at least get the attacks right.


I don’t and never did support Trump.  I thought Trump was a compete asshole and a disgrace as a person in that office.


I do believe that his actual policies were better than the far left, but that’s about all.


As a libertarian it isn’t hard to like someone’s policies over the far left however.


So you can argue the points or keep up the ad hominem, but at least get the insults you are trying correct.  I always have and always will think Trump is an asshole.


jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:12 pm
posted by queencitybuckeye

Reputable study = those that agree with you.



Nope, plenty of reputable studies I have read in the past over many scientific topics that I didn’t agree with when I read it. It either changed my mind or it lead me to read more to get a clearer picture.




Login

Register

Already have an account? Login