Danny Baker

[eFestivals]

No it doesn't. Someone contracting cancer has an effect upon the statistical average you are taking from that population.

Ahhh ... the wonderful "moving the goalposts to make my point hold up" method.

You'd only have a point with that if that was what I said. I didn't.

[ampersand]

There is only the moral high ground to attack me with once a person has proven me wrong by wishing cancer on their loved one instead of Baker.

And that ain't going to happen, is it?

[eFestivals]

everyone still thinks you're a c**t for what you've said. i'm not wrong in thinking that.

ahh - OK.

Does your loved one that you wish had cancer instead of Baker know that's what you're wishing on them then?

Cos that's the only way I could be wrong.

[Ed209]

Yes, but cancer doesn't go ... this year I'm going to get exactly 100,000 people in this 10,000,000 population. In the same way that a coin doesn't go, in these 10,000,000 toses I'm going to get exactly 5,000,000 heads

[eFestivals]

how is wishing cancer on a loved one the same as you not wishing cancer on baker? or are you admitting that you have wished cancer on him? make up your mind.

the simple fact is that you have stated a preference to someone having cancer. no-one else does that. everyone else has human decency.

I stated a preference IN PREFERENCE TO SOMEONE ELSE.

I did not say "Baker has cancer? Good". Did I?

And you have the same preference as me. As does everyone.

[eFestivals]

Yes, but cancer doesn't go ... this year I'm going to get exactly 100,000 people in this 10,000,000 population. In the same way that a coin doesn't go, in these 10,000,000 toses I'm going to get exactly 5,000,000 heads

You're right, it doesn't.

But THERE IS a fixed number of people it'll get this year.

And just the same as everyone else, I have preferences for who I'd like to not be the ones to get it. Which I expressed.

If I'm wrong, please do tell me which of your loved ones you'd have preferred to get cancer before Baker.

[RABun]

Why was me saying "Ah well, if someone has to have cancer, then I can't think of a better recipient of it than the man who is responsible for one of Thatcher's more enduring myths." a shitty thing to say?

[worm]

Ahhh ... the wonderful "moving the goalposts to make my point hold up" method.

You'd only have a point with that if that was what I said. I didn't.

[ampersand]

And just the same as everyone else, I have preferences for who I'd like to not be the ones to get it. Which I expressed.

[ampersand]

And you're the biggest 'goal post' mover I've ever come across Neil.

[Paul ™]

Danny Baker is a c**t though

[eFestivals]

It's precicely what you've been saying.

No it's not - it's what you're fantasising I've been saying. It's your delusion.

It's only an 'indisputable statistical reality' in relation to one population studied in the past.

No, it's an indisputable statistical reality at any point in time. At any point in time the number of people with cancer is fixed.

But Baker getting cancer adds one more stat to the overall count being taken for now.

No, Baker getting cancer puts him into the group that has it now, whose numbers are fixed.

And you're the biggest 'goal post' mover I've ever come across Neil.

Did you move the goalposts to make your last post hold true?

There is no dispute to be had. You moved the goalposts.

[eFestivals]

i just wish the number is low as possible. that's my preference.

And mine too.

Why are believing I'm thinking different to that? Where have I remotely suggested something different?

say it was one of your favourite reggae stars, would you still be pleased cos it's not a loved one that's in the unlucky percentage? or is it just cos you dislike baker and it was really just a mean and nasty thing to say?

Yes, I'd prefer it were anyone rather than my loved ones.

Are you going to tell me that you think different?

I dislike Baker, because as Paul TM has just posted, he's a c**t - that has deliberately caused harm to the lives of millions.

And on the basis of his own doings, (as I've said) I'd prefer he had cancer than most others in place of him.

[sifi]

I think it's a bit sad that people are talking semantics about who has cancer, frankly.

I thought this board was a bit above that.

[worm]

No, Baker getting cancer puts him into the group that has it now, whose numbers are fixed.

[ampersand]

I think it's a bit sad that people are talking semantics about who has cancer, frankly.

I thought this board was a bit above that.

[eFestivals]

Not if he gets it it isn't. It grows by one.

Tell you what, why don't you have your different argument on a different basis on a bit of paper in your front room by yourself?

Then these forums don't have to put up with your idiot crap.

[Ed209]

But THERE IS a fixed number of people it'll get this year.

[eFestivals]

i'm sure neil will also be relieved that it's lily allen that's had a miscarriage as opposed to one of his loved ones.

In exactly the same way, I am.

If that's so wrong of me, please do tell me which of your own loved ones you'd have preferred to have had a miscarriage instead of Lily.

And before anyone starts with the same stupidity as has gone on right thru this thread, I'll make it clear that none of that is wishing anything on anybody, it's merely referencing the fact of the matter of what has sadly happened to Lily along with the fact that I'm pleased that one of my loved ones hasn't had to go thru a miscarriage again.

Still, I'm sure the narrowed minded morons can have a field day.

It's a good job I've got ampersand's parents address, so I can pass his wishes that one of them had cancer instead of Baker and that one had miscarried instead of Lily.

[eFestivals]

No there's not. Fixed by who or what? The number of people it will get this year is a random number.

The number of people who will get it this year will be a fixed number.

The number is fixed by the number of people who get cancer.

After all, there's no time travellers with cancer who will be dipping in and out of 2010 to make the number keep changing, is there?

Edited November 2, 2010 by eFestivals

[Ed209]

The number of people who will get it this year will be a fixed number.

After all, there's no time travellers with cancer who will be dipping in and out of 2010 to make the number keep changing, is there?

[ampersand]

In exactly the same way, I am.

If that's so wrong of me, please do tell me which of your own loved ones you'd have preferred to have had a miscarriage instead of Lily.

[strudders]

So we are all arguing about Cancer again...

For the record Nobody should have to put up with cancer. The fact Danny Baker has it is immensely sad regardless of what anybody's opinion of the chap are.

Having cremated my mother not more than six weeks ago after a 3 year battle with it, which involved breast removal, and then a slow death due an invasive 70mm tumour in her brain, I will share my experience:

Cancer is shit. Its f**king shit, regardless of type. It eats away the very soul of a person and destroys them.

It effects everybody they know. Taking the person they loved and changes them into a empty husk of their former self.

Now if some would all like Danny Baker to fall under a bus? OK, that's nasty but yeah OK I can live with that, or we wish Danny Baker to be hit by a large one tonne weight whilst walking his dog down Fulham high street.. that would be unfortunate and slightly amusing but ultimately sad.

However Danny Baker regardless of his political leanings, general twatness and his somewhat stupid and middle class demeanour never hurt anybody (Neil if your going to jump on this statement I want names, addresses, published press stories and grave locations before I will accept its as truth as I just dont believe it)

Therefore to say

Ah well, if someone has to have cancer, then I can't think of a better recipient of it than the man who is responsible for one of Thatcher's more enduring myths.

[eFestivals]

Great, you're meaning of fixed then is that the number 11 is 11. 11 isn't 10 or 12 or anything else. Brilliantly insightful stuff.

Most other people when talking about fixed numbers kind of assume this one, and actually mean that it is a predetermined number. The number of cancer sufferers is not a predetermined number, it is a random number. And we observe a realisation of this random number.

But I can't be arsed with this anymore. Its totally pointless trying to discus something with you

It might be a random number - but a fixed random number. There is just one number for the number of people who get cancer this year, and that number becomes fixed at whatever the number is.

Feel free to go off in a huff, but don't go blaming me for your failure to understand what I've said. While my explanations might not have been as clear as they might have been they were perfectly understandable, and accurate.

[eFestivals]

can't i hope that no-one does and be sad when it does happen to some poor person?

you can do if you like, but most people prefer to have hopes that have at least a little relevance towards the facts rather than none at all. Doing things your way guarantees disappointment.