Aztecs cut out hearts. So it's cool what the muslims are doing
Ozone fucking stupid
Ozone fucking stupid
Is it okay (in a strictly moral sense) if I cut off Ozone's balls because ancient shamans in Northern Europe were ritualistically castrated by their tribes?
God damn you guys are stupid fucktards. Way to continue missing the point. I'm not saying Islam is okay, I'm saying nearly all religions are bad. Islam is just the latest example.
I might. But still...Ozone doesn't have the guts to confront muslims. He likes the safety of going after Christians because they won't cut his head off
God damn you guys are stupid fucktards. Way to continue missing the point. I'm not saying Islam is okay, I'm saying nearly all religions are bad. Islam is just the latest example.
Your point is stupid, not missed. Hope this helps
People can back more than one candidate, you know.
People can back more than one candidate, you know.
Sure, but when showing that information, everybody knows you don't show it on a pie chart where everything is supposed to add up to 100%....
Well... everybody with a job knows this anyway. Most of them. Except for the Fox News folks it seems...
And thanks for confirming my second point that most of you won't get the problem diagram.
Lookit Mr. Pie Chart superiority guy here.People can back more than one candidate, you know.
Sure, but when showing that information, everybody knows you don't show it on a pie chart where everything is supposed to add up to 100%....
Well... everybody with a job knows this anyway. Most of them. Except for the Fox News folks it seems...
And thanks for confirming my second point that most of you won't get the problem diagram.
The problem is you don't appreciate abundance.God damn you guys are stupid fucktards. Way to continue missing the point. I'm not saying Islam is okay, I'm saying nearly all religions are bad. Islam is just the latest example.
Your point is stupid, not missed. Hope this helps
Stupid? You mean like the news sources that you wingers follow?
![]()
I'm sure most of you won't understand the problem with this diagram...
People can back more than one candidate, you know.
Lookit Mr. Pie Chart superiority guy here.People can back more than one candidate, you know.
Sure, but when showing that information, everybody knows you don't show it on a pie chart where everything is supposed to add up to 100%....
Well... everybody with a job knows this anyway. Most of them. Except for the Fox News folks it seems...
And thanks for confirming my second point that most of you won't get the problem diagram.
It isn't going to add up to 100% if people were allowed to back more than one candidate in the poll. It would add up to 100% if the options were as follows: Mitt, Palin, Huck, or More than one candidate. But putting that on the chart wouldn't give the intended information, which was to show which candidate had a more backers.
They were showing the percentage of people polled that were in support of each candidate, and it's obvious they allowed them to pick more than one candidate.
HTH. OzoneFS.
You really don't get it. There are no regulations or laws governing pie chart percentages. I guess they could have adjusted the percentages to add up to 100% (but that wouldn't have been very honest), or put it in a bar graph (which is the approved method of showing data with more than one response choice). If they wanted to be as clear as possible, they could have published the entire statistical study. But obviously they flashed that on screen for a few seconds, so that wasn't really necessary.People can back more than one candidate, you know.
Lookit Mr. Pie Chart superiority guy here.People can back more than one candidate, you know.
Sure, but when showing that information, everybody knows you don't show it on a pie chart where everything is supposed to add up to 100%....
Well... everybody with a job knows this anyway. Most of them. Except for the Fox News folks it seems...
And thanks for confirming my second point that most of you won't get the problem diagram.
It isn't going to add up to 100% if people were allowed to back more than one candidate in the poll. It would add up to 100% if the options were as follows: Mitt, Palin, Huck, or More than one candidate. But putting that on the chart wouldn't give the intended information, which was to show which candidate had a more backers.
They were showing the percentage of people polled that were in support of each candidate, and it's obvious they allowed them to pick more than one candidate.
HTH. OzoneFS.
ROFL, ask anybody with a job. You don't convey that type of information on a pie chart, you do it on a bar chart. Pie charts are for reporting information where each section is a piece of the 100% whole. If Fox was trying to show what you suggest, they would have used a bar chart.
God damn you guys are stupid fucktards. Way to continue missing the point. I'm not saying Islam is okay, I'm saying nearly all religions are bad. Islam is just the latest example.
God damn you guys are stupid fucktards. Way to continue missing the point. I'm not saying Islam is okay, I'm saying nearly all religions are bad. Islam is just the latest example.
God damn you guys are stupid fucktards. Way to continue missing the point. I'm not saying Islam is okay, I'm saying nearly all religions are bad. Islam is just the latest example.
Your point is stupid, not missed. Hope this helps
Stupid? You mean like the news sources that you wingers follow?
![]()
I'm sure most of you won't understand the problem with this diagram...