Comments

  1. julian says

    Umm… Yeah I’ll take a punch to the dick. It generally doesn’t hurt much so long as it’s just the dick and arguing with drunken Yankee fans has never proven very helpful…so,um, yeah.

    Give me sec.

    ….

    Ok, I’m ready.

  2. says

    You’ll have a lot of punching to do in any statistics department, that’s for sure*.

    * How sure? Just ask the statisticians. You might want to do it before you punch them though; they may not be too helpful afterwards.

  3. says

    I’m with Noodle and Janne. Since I’m now working with a Bayesian statistician, the noun “prior” has come out of my mouth a fair number of times. But I’m not a dood, so maybe you aren’t referring to me.

  4. says

    Of course, I’m a dumbasse for mistyping my own blog URL. Oh well. Maybe I deserve that punch, though I don’t have a dicke to be a target.

  5. csrster says

    He’s right. Whatever the merits or demerits of the Bayesian approach may be, its proponents are, to a dood, bellends.

  6. says

    Is there any fucken d00d on earth who has ever used the word “prior” as a noun who doesn’t deserve a massive punch right in the motherfucken dicke?

    No.

  7. Pramod says

    @Chebag: what makes you think he is sad and/or hateful? If you follow CPP in the academic blogging community, you’ll know he’s actually a nice helpful guy, but with an unfortunate tendency to unconventional spelling.

  8. says

    “Is there any fucken d00d on earth who has ever used the word “prior” as a noun who doesn’t deserve a massive punch right in the motherfucken dicke?”

    Yes. Errr, I mean no!

  9. says

    ummmmmm, doooooood. The work “prior” ALSO is the title of a member of a religious order, usually the person next in rank below an abbot (abbotess).

    So yes, the word prior can validly be used as a noun, in which case the person using the word DOES NOT deserve a muthafucken punch to the dickkee

  10. David says

    your previous posts have shown a bias against formal statistics, and this one adds a little bit of confirmation to that.

  11. ChasCPeterson says

    No.

    iswydt

    It’s stupid. You guys are really really bad at meaningful distinctions. But anything for that ‘gotcha!’, eh?’

  12. says

    <blockquote?It’s stupid. You guys are really really bad at meaningful distinctions. But anything for that ‘gotcha!’, eh?’
    Very well then. What meaningful distinction would make striking a woman in the pussy acceptable to you?

    Thanks in advance for delineating a (presumably not exclusive) list of reasons that makes punching women in the pussy acceptable. Make sure you clear it with your friends over here at FFTB first though; I suspect you’ll have difficulty getting the feministas to approve the list of acceptable reasons to assault women, let alone in the genitalia.

    Best of luck, Dr. Real Scientist.

  13. John Greg says

    No one deserves a kick in/on the anything just for using a word; however….

    Is there any fucken d00dette on earth who has ever used the word “prior” as a noun who doesn’t deserve a massive punch right in the motherfucken cunte?

    So, how does that one track? Can you defend one but not the other?

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>