Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-19-2018, 05:46 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,123
I think its also interesting to compare and contrast this with the claims or Marco Rubio, who made the story his parents told him about fleeing Castro a centerpiece of his political identity, despite the fact that they actually left 2 and a half years before the revolution.

I would be one thing if Warren was running on her identity as a native American, but near as I can tell it was her opponents who brought it up.
  #102  
Old 10-19-2018, 05:46 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Seriously, worst case scenario Warren can be accused of believing her mother when she was told a family story.

I've been told I am descended from William Bradford, and I have told this to a large number of people. I personally haven't seen the documentation tracing the line (although my father says that my aunt has it), and so it is entirely possible that I am wrong. I don't think that this in any way indicates that I am unfit for public office.
Who are you going to vote for? Me, or my opponent: crooked BradFAKE!!
  #103  
Old 10-19-2018, 06:25 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Yes. Yes you are. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the "around" numbers I gave and your strongly emotional reaction to it is extremely weird.
I'm really curious; why is it appropriate to "round" 0.10% down to 0.09% ?

I really don't get it. If you'd said "Sorry, for the minor arithmetical mishap" I'd have said "I didn't think it was anything else I'm over-reacting because of [Doper name censored] who likes to make errors in his favor and then accuse me of 'nitpicking' if I correct him."

But you didn't. You doubled down. What gives?
  #104  
Old 10-19-2018, 06:35 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Most likely scenario is that they don't want a bunch of dopes with 1% ancestry to declare themselves "Cherokee Princesses" and further dilute what it means to them to be Native American so they get overly defensive about the whole thing.

It doesn't contradict any claim unless you have a statement from the people in question saying "No, that was never the case".

No, this is a case of Republicans going apeshit to smear and attack someone because of the "lol political correctness I guess YOU'RE the real hypocrite NOW, huh???" nonsense bullshit that the right wing delights in and Trump exemplifies. The only reason this has ever been a story is because of Republicans bringing it up in any possible context again and again because they were just sure that she had no such ancestry. Now it's all frantic backpedaling and "Uh, that doesn't count though!" because God forbid they just admit that they were acting like assholes. It's no more complicated than that.
Do you feel the Cherokee Nation is also a bunch of assholes?
  #105  
Old 10-19-2018, 06:50 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,644
Quote:
I'm really curious; why is it appropriate to "round" 0.10% down to 0.09% ?

I really don't get it. If you'd said "Sorry, for the minor arithmetical mishap" I'd have said "I didn't think it was anything else I'm over-reacting because of [Doper name censored] who likes to make errors in his favor and then accuse me of 'nitpicking' if I correct him."

But you didn't. You doubled down. What gives
I wasn't "rounding", I was giving rough number. And I'm not "doubling down", I'm responding to someone acting like a crazy person. You are really, really, really taking this vastly more seriously and emotionally than it remotely merits.
  #106  
Old 10-19-2018, 06:55 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin' View Post
Oh sure, now the "One Drop" rule doesn't apply.
This.
  #107  
Old 10-19-2018, 06:56 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,644
The full numbers are 1.5625 and 0.09765625. Is that good enough to prevent your aneurysm?
  #108  
Old 10-19-2018, 07:07 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,377
In this country, with this country's history? She is an Indian because she's even part Indian. That's how bias works. That's why there are political cartoons of her in a war bonnet (even though she's of Leni Lenape and Cherokee descent and they don't wear war bonnets).

She's an Indian now, like Vin Diesel is black, regardless of what they were passing for before.
  #109  
Old 10-19-2018, 08:34 PM
Haldurson Haldurson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 172
It's all semantics, except when there is a legal decision that X% is the cut-off point. The definition of native american, with regards to the law, is a legal definition, and nothing more. There is no real biological definition for race, because it's an artificial construct based on what people look like, which is totally subjective. And the second part of the arbitrary cut-off is what constitutes a reliable test. What percentage of an error rate for the test is acceptable? Because, almost no test is 100% accurate and definitive. We've had problems with DNA identification before, we've had problems with contamination by the lab and the people doing the tests. And how reliable is the science itself?
  #110  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:40 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haldurson View Post
It's all semantics, except when there is a legal decision that X% is the cut-off point. The definition of native american, with regards to the law, is a legal definition, and nothing more. There is no real biological definition for race, because it's an artificial construct based on what people look like, which is totally subjective. And the second part of the arbitrary cut-off is what constitutes a reliable test. What percentage of an error rate for the test is acceptable? Because, almost no test is 100% accurate and definitive. We've had problems with DNA identification before, we've had problems with contamination by the lab and the people doing the tests. And how reliable is the science itself?
I've heard this sort of reasoning described as science denial when used in other contexts. You might have a good point though.
  #111  
Old 10-20-2018, 12:40 AM
elfkin477 elfkin477 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Posts: 22,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
From everything I've seen, it looks like this is a case of a little white lie that got out of hand and the cover up ends up causing more damage than the crime. The original claims I heard against Warren were that she used her minority status to get hired. There is no evidence I have seen that would support this. It is also interesting to note that she listed herself as white and not native american when she applied to school and also never applied for any scholarships etc. that she would have been eligible for if she were native american. If we look at the first time she appears in any record as a native american it coincides with a time when Harvard was under pressure to be seen as more diverse. During those years she is listed as a minority.

What seems most likely to me is that Harvard, being under pressure to show it was a diverse place, asked Warren to allow herself to be listed as a minority. This isn't a great thing to do in my opinion, but it's far less nefarious than lying on an application and taking a position away from a true minority.
I have read several people suggesting that it was Harvard's idea to list her as a Native American and that she just let them but I don't get it. If she never claimed NA ancestry in any of her student or employment paperwork how did the university get the idea to list her as a minority on the staff & faculty page? Surely they didn't just decide that everyone with high cheek bones was part NA and ask them if it was true.
__________________
Stalk follow me on Twitter

Last edited by elfkin477; 10-20-2018 at 12:41 AM.
  #112  
Old 10-20-2018, 01:46 AM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
In this country, with this country's history? She is an Indian because she's even part Indian. That's how bias works. That's why there are political cartoons of her in a war bonnet (even though she's of Leni Lenape and Cherokee descent and they don't wear war bonnets).

She's an Indian now, like Vin Diesel is black, regardless of what they were passing for before.
This is just not true. Someone who has merely a "family legend" of distant Native ancestry, and no connection to any specific tribe (even the DNA test she had done could not pinpoint a specific tribe or even whether the ancestry came from North America or South America - where are you getting Lenape from?) is not "an Indian just because she's even part Indian" regardless of this country's history. The "one drop rule" may apply in various times and places in America to varying degrees, but in the present day, it doesn't become reality just because you say it does.

Also it's inaccurate to say that "Vin Diesel is black." Vin Diesel in his own words is "of ambiguous ethnicity". That is how he defines himself. He says he identifies as "a person of color", which is not the same thing as being simply "black." He is not universally perceived as being black; if he was, he would not have been cast as an Italian-American soldier in Saving Private Ryan or any number of other ethnicities he has portrayed.

The lines between "white", "non-white", "Indian", "black", etc, are a hell of a lot blurrier than you seem to think they are, and they're entirely dependent on cultural factors that vary by place and time. This isn't the antebellum south, and there's nobody who's actually enforcing any of this as if there are official rules and laws.
  #113  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:05 AM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by elfkin477 View Post
I have read several people suggesting that it was Harvard's idea to list her as a Native American and that she just let them but I don't get it. If she never claimed NA ancestry in any of her student or employment paperwork how did the university get the idea to list her as a minority on the staff & faculty page? Surely they didn't just decide that everyone with high cheek bones was part NA and ask them if it was true.
Nothing I have seen so far contains any specifics on this; so as far as I know none of the parties involved have discussed the details this occurrence with the press. Facts of the matter that seem not to be in dispute are that Warren listed herself as white on her college application, was listed as a minority in the literature for Harvard and the law review, but in subsequent applications identified herself as white.

There is also the fact that she was described as a minority - that is the exact word used to describe her status in the literature during her time at Harvard. I believe this distinction does have some importance.

So, things not in dispute AFAIKT are when she listed herself as white, the literature describing her as a minority, the statements she made about discrimination her mother faced due to Native American ancestry, and the DNA results showing Native American ancestry several generations removed.

So, with those facts that are not being disputed, several scenarios are possible. One would be she was pressured to allow herself to be marketed as a minority. Another is that it was all her idea and thought it would be good for her career.

Politically, however, I don't see any way this really benefits Warren in regards to how she stands in relation to her progressive platform. In the one scenario you have someone who faked being a true minority in order to bolster her career. In the other scenario, you have someone who really believes they should be considered a minority yet never applied for any of the aid available to help minorities - what does that say about the usefulness of those forms of aid? It also seems odd to me that one of the lines of defense I often hear is "she never took anything set aside for native americans," and that seems to be an odd line of defense considering that as someone with a disadvantage she should use the aid as a way to level the playing field without it having any negative conotations.

Last edited by Mr. Nylock; 10-20-2018 at 03:07 AM.
  #114  
Old 10-20-2018, 11:08 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by elfkin477 View Post
I have read several people suggesting that it was Harvard's idea to list her as a Native American and that she just let them but I don't get it. If she never claimed NA ancestry in any of her student or employment paperwork how did the university get the idea to list her as a minority on the staff & faculty page? Surely they didn't just decide that everyone with high cheek bones was part NA and ask them if it was true.
No, it was her idea. Or at least she said it was. She said, in one interview, that one reason she listed herself that way was that she hoped it would help her connect with others who were like her. She also said that she often spoke of her NA ancestry.
  #115  
Old 10-21-2018, 06:46 PM
split p&j split p&j is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 303
Answering the OP, no she is not a minority. Of course like I said in the Kamala Harris thread "I consider Native Americans to be white. Same with Asians, Iraqi's, Syrians, Pakistanis ect. It really goes by the hair. The fact that white people don't see this is a problem with white people."

To expand, just because white people think they don't share traits with the peoples I've mentioned doesn't make it so. They used to think Irish and Italians weren't white also

That said I totally believe having some NA blood was an issue for her parents, no matter how small the percent was.

Last edited by split p&j; 10-21-2018 at 06:47 PM.
  #116  
Old 10-21-2018, 09:45 PM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,239
I hold a bachelor's in Genetics and having read Bustamante's report I find the protocol troubling.

The significance of genetic testing comes down to the math. A "genetic match" doesn't mean much if the statistics are not firm in comparison to a known reference population. So, in a hypothetical criminal trial a lab technician saying there is a "genetic match" should be challenged with the question, "What are the odds that any random person pulled off the street would also match?" Any answer to such a question depends upon knowing the frequency of various alleles in a reference population.

The problem is Bustamante used very limited reference populations with no particular reason to believe the control populations were representative of Warren's background. He compared her "European" ancestry against populations of "Americans of predominantly European ancestry from Utah (n = 99 individuals) and British individuals of European ancestry from Great Britain (n = 86 individuals). " And, as has been noted, he used populations "from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. (It is not possible to use Native American reference sequences from inside the United States, since Native American groups within the US have not chosen to participate in recent population genetics studies.)" as a comparison for matching native ancestry.

But there is one additional part of the report that seems off. Bustamante mentions a 13.4 centiMorgan segment that is presumed to be of native ancestry. That is the largest of five segments identified as of native ancestry. Five out of 660,173 segments that could be matched against the sample populations. 5 out of 660,173 is a LOT lower than would be expected for an ancestry match from a non-admixed ancestor from 6 to 10 generations ago. That may be accounted for by the lack of a native reference population from within the United States. But it is off by a TON.

The fragment size of 13.4 centiMorgans is unusual too as the other four fragments identified are substantially smaller. I would expect the various fragments to be approximately the same measure if they came from the same non-admixed ancestor.

In short, this was not a particularly robust examination to attempt to determine whether Warren has ancestry from any of the native peoples of the United States.
  #117  
Old 10-21-2018, 10:05 PM
Chingon Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 332
A bachelors you say?
__________________
Children need encouragement. If a kid gets an answer right, tell him it was a lucky guess. That way he develops a good, lucky feeling.
  #118  
Old 10-21-2018, 10:21 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
I hold a bachelor's in Genetics and having read Bustamante's report I find the protocol troubling.

The significance of genetic testing comes down to the math. A "genetic match" doesn't mean much if the statistics are not firm in comparison to a known reference population. So, in a hypothetical criminal trial a lab technician saying there is a "genetic match" should be challenged with the question, "What are the odds that any random person pulled off the street would also match?" Any answer to such a question depends upon knowing the frequency of various alleles in a reference population.

The problem is Bustamante used very limited reference populations with no particular reason to believe the control populations were representative of Warren's background. He compared her "European" ancestry against populations of "Americans of predominantly European ancestry from Utah (n = 99 individuals) and British individuals of European ancestry from Great Britain (n = 86 individuals). " And, as has been noted, he used populations "from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. (It is not possible to use Native American reference sequences from inside the United States, since Native American groups within the US have not chosen to participate in recent population genetics studies.)" as a comparison for matching native ancestry.

But there is one additional part of the report that seems off. Bustamante mentions a 13.4 centiMorgan segment that is presumed to be of native ancestry. That is the largest of five segments identified as of native ancestry. Five out of 660,173 segments that could be matched against the sample populations. 5 out of 660,173 is a LOT lower than would be expected for an ancestry match from a non-admixed ancestor from 6 to 10 generations ago. That may be accounted for by the lack of a native reference population from within the United States. But it is off by a TON.

The fragment size of 13.4 centiMorgans is unusual too as the other four fragments identified are substantially smaller. I would expect the various fragments to be approximately the same measure if they came from the same non-admixed ancestor.

In short, this was not a particularly robust examination to attempt to determine whether Warren has ancestry from any of the native peoples of the United States.
Here's a crazy thought - if one needs to go to this level of analysis to determine if they are a minority they should perhaps err on the side of considering themselves not particularly disadvantaged.
  #119  
Old 10-22-2018, 10:02 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
I hold a bachelor's in Genetics and having read Bustamante's report I find the protocol troubling.

The significance of genetic testing comes down to the math. A "genetic match" doesn't mean much if the statistics are not firm in comparison to a known reference population. So, in a hypothetical criminal trial a lab technician saying there is a "genetic match" should be challenged with the question, "What are the odds that any random person pulled off the street would also match?" Any answer to such a question depends upon knowing the frequency of various alleles in a reference population.

The problem is Bustamante used very limited reference populations with no particular reason to believe the control populations were representative of Warren's background. He compared her "European" ancestry against populations of "Americans of predominantly European ancestry from Utah (n = 99 individuals) and British individuals of European ancestry from Great Britain (n = 86 individuals). " And, as has been noted, he used populations "from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. (It is not possible to use Native American reference sequences from inside the United States, since Native American groups within the US have not chosen to participate in recent population genetics studies.)" as a comparison for matching native ancestry.

But there is one additional part of the report that seems off. Bustamante mentions a 13.4 centiMorgan segment that is presumed to be of native ancestry. That is the largest of five segments identified as of native ancestry. Five out of 660,173 segments that could be matched against the sample populations. 5 out of 660,173 is a LOT lower than would be expected for an ancestry match from a non-admixed ancestor from 6 to 10 generations ago. That may be accounted for by the lack of a native reference population from within the United States. But it is off by a TON.

The fragment size of 13.4 centiMorgans is unusual too as the other four fragments identified are substantially smaller. I would expect the various fragments to be approximately the same measure if they came from the same non-admixed ancestor.

In short, this was not a particularly robust examination to attempt to determine whether Warren has ancestry from any of the native peoples of the United States.
As mentioned in a recent post a single 15 cM match seems to be typical for a 4th-cousin match at GedMatch. (For comparison, Elizabeth Warren would be 4th cousin with a same-generation descendant of Neoma Ocie, the alleged half-breed Cherokee.)

I realize the actual arithmetic involved gets complicated, and would want to hear more about the "non-admixed ancestor' reference sample. But, by itself, the 13.4 cM match doesn't seem too short.
  #120  
Old 10-22-2018, 10:28 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
Here's a crazy thought - if one needs to go to this level of analysis to determine if they are a minority they should perhaps err on the side of considering themselves not particularly disadvantaged.
That is a pretty crazy thought. You think Warren took this test to prove she was disadvantaged?
  #121  
Old 10-22-2018, 05:42 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
Here's a crazy thought - if one needs to go to this level of analysis to determine if they are a minority they should perhaps err on the side of considering themselves not particularly disadvantaged.
I found the inference made in this post to be so astoundingly ignorant that I did a Search on the poster. But he does NOT appear to be an extravagant right-winger or endorser of Stupidism.

@ Mr. Nylock What happened?
  #122  
Old 10-22-2018, 08:57 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That is a pretty crazy thought. You think Warren took this test to prove she was disadvantaged?
I think that in this instance the fact that she was trying to take a DNA test was the wrong way to try to prove her point. I think there is just so much wrong with it in a way, starting with the fact that many prominent tribes don't even use DNA testing to determine their status. Secondly, the fact that she uses something other than native american DNA to prove her native american heritage a little disgusting. One of the most tone deaf things I've ever seen a politician do.
  #123  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:02 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I found the inference made in this post to be so astoundingly ignorant that I did a Search on the poster. But he does NOT appear to be an extravagant right-winger or endorser of Stupidism.

@ Mr. Nylock What happened?
I would not call myself an endorser of stupid - I do have plenty of stupid thoughts. Perhaps, if my thoughts seem ignorant to you, you could try to counter them with some well informed rebuttal instead of spending all sorts of time digging into my post history. If you did good research on me as a poster you will see how often I accept someone else's point of view if presented with valid information.
  #124  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:23 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock
Here's a crazy thought - if one needs to go to this level of analysis to determine if they are a minority they should perhaps err on the side of considering themselves not particularly disadvantaged.
I would not call myself an endorser of stupid - I do have plenty of stupid thoughts. Perhaps, if my thoughts seem ignorant to you, you could try to counter them with some well informed rebuttal instead of spending all sorts of time digging into my post history. If you did good research on me as a poster you will see how often I accept someone else's point of view if presented with valid information.
So. Now you're defending your earlier ridiculous comment, and saying you need a cite to refute it? And inviting me to ... to do what exactly? Perform the trivial Google searches that you obviously didn't bother to do? It is to laugh.

You may force me to retract my half-compliment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
Secondly, the fact that she uses something other than native american DNA to prove her native american heritage a little disgusting.
This is very confused. I don't think Senator Warren claims to have any DNA expertise at all. The expert she consulted we shall agree to disagree on whether that consultation was wise at all presumably used the best diagnostics available to him.

Oh. And BTW, Warren's DNA was compared against Central and South Americans largely of pre-Columbian ("Native") ancestry. I'll let the experts determine whether those people are considered "Native Americans" or whether that term is reserved for "Natives" of the Continental United States.
  #125  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:58 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
So. Now you're defending your earlier ridiculous comment, and saying you need a cite to refute it? And inviting me to ... to do what exactly? Perform the trivial Google searches that you obviously didn't bother to do? It is to laugh.

You may force me to retract my half-compliment.



This is very confused. I don't think Senator Warren claims to have any DNA expertise at all. The expert she consulted we shall agree to disagree on whether that consultation was wise at all presumably used the best diagnostics available to him.

Oh. And BTW, Warren's DNA was compared against Central and South Americans largely of pre-Columbian ("Native") ancestry. I'll let the experts determine whether those people are considered "Native Americans" or whether that term is reserved for "Natives" of the Continental United States.
This discussion is just getting very boring. I'm sure you're right and I'm wrong and I'm just some bigot right wing asshole on the internet blah blah blah.
  #126  
Old 10-22-2018, 10:11 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
This discussion is just getting very boring. I'm sure you're right and I'm wrong and I'm just some bigot right wing asshole on the internet blah blah blah.

At least you aren't trying to manipulate things by using a different number of significant digits than he approves of!
  #127  
Old 10-23-2018, 03:22 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
At least you aren't trying to manipulate things by using a different number of significant digits than he approves of!
Since you're tripling-down on your innumeracy:
The problem was never the number of sig figs you displayed. It was that your numbers were incorrect regardless of the choice of number of sig figs.

Was your primary math education Common Core? Or somethinge else?
  #128  
Old 10-23-2018, 03:26 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
This discussion is just getting very boring. I'm sure you're right and I'm wrong and I'm just some bigot right wing asshole on the internet blah blah blah.
You implied that Warren claimed Native American ancestry, and in particular had the DNA test done, to show she was "disadvantaged." Do you stand by this?

Answer yes or No freely and I won't respond. Continue to snipe and snark and I may do the same.
  #129  
Old 10-23-2018, 03:45 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Since you're tripling-down on your innumeracy:
The problem was never the number of sig figs you displayed. It was that your numbers were incorrect regardless of the choice of number of sig figs.

Was your primary math education Common Core? Or somethinge else?

I said "the spread was given from 6 to 10 generations--that ranges from about 1.5% to 0.09%" this was accurate to two digits (with the two full numbers being (1.5625 and 0.09765625.) You then jumped in with this extremely hyperbolic reaction:



Quote:
Nitpick about arithmetic: To two sig figs, the correct numbers are 1.6% and 0.10%.

Am I being petty to point this out? What I find petty is people twisting numbers to favor their argument, but twisting by an amount just small enough, that if someone points out the blunder it's the correction that looks petty.

With all kinds of highly obnoxious font modifications that didn't copy over in the paste. But there is absolutely nothing wrong or inaccurate in my numbers and you are coming off as seriously weird in this thread.
  #130  
Old 10-23-2018, 10:42 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
You implied that Warren claimed Native American ancestry, and in particular had the DNA test done, to show she was "disadvantaged." Do you stand by this?

Answer yes or No freely and I won't respond. Continue to snipe and snark and I may do the same.
Meh, I'm just going to ignore everything you write to me and about me in this thread; you are taking this thread in a tedious and wholly uninteresting direction.
  #131  
Old 10-24-2018, 07:30 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
Meh, I'm just going to ignore everything you write to me and about me in this thread; you are taking this thread in a tedious and wholly uninteresting direction.
Libeling Senator Warren with a blatant falsehood is "interesting." Objecting to the libel is "tedious." Got it.

With that ... Yes, I agree ignoring each other is for the best.
  #132  
Old 10-24-2018, 07:53 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 22,372
Moderator Note

Mr. Nylock and septimus, take your snipping at each other to the Pit, or just ignore each other as you've stated your intentions to be. Either way, keep it out of this thread.

Let's all get back to the original topic of this thread, please.

Last edited by engineer_comp_geek; 10-24-2018 at 07:54 AM.
  #133  
Old 10-24-2018, 08:04 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius DrFidelius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,278
Are you all missing the point that she only took the DNA test after being taunted by the Bully in Chief?
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017