Danny Baker

[eFestivals]

so you really do think there's a finite 'supply' of cancer, and it has to have it's victims??

There *IS* a particular statistical instance of cancer. That is a reality that is inescapable.

From that statistical reality, it *DOES* mean that if one person has it, then others do not.

[worm]

Ive said some pretty twattish things on here in the past, but your stand on this is f**king childish Neil. To hold no sympathy for a person with a potential terminal illness because of something he did in his formative years is pathetic and you can dig and dig, and accuse people of not understanding your point all you like, but it is you that is wrong here - no one else.

Dole scroungers exist, as do tax evaders, both equally repellant - and Danny Baker has no more influence on their existence or the way they are percieved than you or I. And I'm sure given his time again he would have chosen not to do that piece on World In Action.

Grow up man. He has a family, including 3 children.

Edited November 2, 2010 by worm

[ampersand]

It does to anyone with a grasp of statistics.

[ampersand]

that's such a skewed view

'statistically' is irrelevant

[eFestivals]

that's just bollocks Neil.

If my wife, or I, had cancer, I wouldn't think "I wish someone else had it instead of me" because it's an insanley illogical thought to have. If I didn't have it, doesn't mean someone else has to.

it's mad

There *IS* a particular statistical instance of cancer. That is a reality that is inescapable.

From that statistical reality, it *DOES* mean that if one person has it, then others do not.

So nothing illogical.

[eFestivals]

he's obviously never heard of fluctuating percentages of breast cancer rates for example.

Care to show me how any statistical study of current cancer rates fluctuates?

[windy_miller]

It does.

If there's (say) 1% of people that get cancer this year, it means that 99% do not.

I've simply expressed the view we all have that if it were possible to move people between the 'do' and 'don't' groups, we would do - so that those we care most about don't get it and those we care least for get it instead.

As ever, it's all too complicated for some brains.

[ampersand]

Care to show me how any statistical study of current cancer rates fluctuates?

[worm]

There *IS* a particular statistical instance of cancer. That is a reality that is inescapable.

From that statistical reality, it *DOES* mean that if one person has it, then others do not.

[windy_miller]

There *IS* a particular statistical instance of cancer. That is a reality that is inescapable.

From that statistical reality, it *DOES* mean that if one person has it, then others do not.

[ampersand]

Just to reiterate the point I made above, Cancer has no knowledge of statistics. It is the statistics that have the knowledge about cancer.

This year you say there is a 1% chance of getting cancer. Once that 1% of the population has cancer it does not mean that nobody else this year can get it. It may turn out that 2% get cancer this year, so next year you would have a 2% chance of getting it.

[worm]

None of what I say makes a jot of difference to his condition. Just as none of what you say makes a jot of difference to his condition. Has this not occurred to you?

[eFestivals]

If you're looking at this from a perspective of statistics Neil then you have to realise that the statistics are a direct result of people contracting it. The less people that contract it, the lower the statistic. Each person that gets cancer adds to the statistic.

It isn't the case that there is a pre-defined amount of people that will get it. That's just fatalistic bollocks I'm afraid.

As is the opposite view of your last line, that all people will get it. Which negates all meaning in those words.

It *IS* the case that not all people get it; which translates into others not getting it.

And that's a view of the facts which my words sit happily with. I'll remind you of what I said 9as opposed to the fantasy vierw of what I've said that some are enjoying lying about, which makes a deliberate insult no worse that anything Harman has said (are you noting this ampertwat? )

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]

His post wasn't about having an effect on his condition, it was about your attitude towards a fellow human being.

My "attitude towards a fellow human being"?

An attitude that says "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." - which is completely different to your pretence of my attitude.

And my attitude is not an attitude that is bring about bad consequences for anyone.

If Baker had the same attitude, I would never have posted those words.

Meanwhile I'm sure your thinking "those bastard Russians, Americans and British, they caused Hitler to die before his time".

[Big Vern]

Just so we're clear on this, has Hitler got cancer?

[eFestivals]

Just so we're clear on this, has Hitler got cancer?

Dunno.

But if he had, the over-riding view is that it's obligatory to feel sorry for him.

[Ed209]

I've not wished it on anyone either. Why can't you grasp that VERY simple fact?

And no different to how you wouldn't want your loved one to get cancer, nor would I.

And as it's the case that only a percentage of people get cancer, then Baker having it lessens the chances of your or my loved ones getting it - that's how statistical realities pan out, and what I was working from.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Ed209

[ampersand]

clickety f**k

cancer rates drop. surely it can't be!

Fewer people are getting cancer in the first place: the incidence of cancer has decreased 1.3% per year in men from 2000 to 2006, and 0.5% per year in women from 1998 to 2006.

Edited November 2, 2010 by ampersand

[Big Vern]

there's a big gap between feeling sorry for someone and being happy for them (for their cancer)

[eFestivals]

I have a fairly good grasp of statistics, and Neil, you've written one of the most incorrect things that has been written on the internet today.

Take two people, persons A and persons B. There is a probability of them getting cancer. A or B getting cancer are independent events! It really isn't too difficult to grasp that if person A gets cancer then that has no influence on whether person B gets cancer or not. i.e. P[A|B] = P[A]. For someone who calls people stupid constantly, you really have made a f**king howler

Ed - I refer you to the simple examples used with dice to get statistics into people's heads, which you've clearly forgotten.

There is the individual (before each roll) statistical view - which you've mirrored above. The statistical likelihood of throwing a six is identical before each throw, regardless of whether a six was thrown previously.

But there is also the cumulative statistical view, which says something entirely different - that things average out.

Given my words, if your understanding of statistics was all you're believing then you'd have realised which I was coming from.

[eFestivals]

there's a big gap between feeling sorry for someone and being happy for them (for their cancer)

Absolutely.

Care to show me any posts here that have expressed delight at Baker having cancer?

So stop with the made-up bollocks, eh?

[ampersand]

Ed - I refer you to the simple examples used with dice to get statistics into people's heads, which you've clearly forgotten.

There is the individual (before each roll) statistical view - which you've mirrored above. The statistical likelihood of throwing a six is identical before each throw, regardless of whether a six was thrown previously.

But there is also the cumulative statistical view, which says something entirely different - that things average out.

Given my words, if your understanding of statistics was all you're believing then you'd have realised which I was coming from.

[eFestivals]

like suggesting that some people who have commented on your original post in this thread, would be sad if it was Hitler having cancer?

Yep - they've said it's wrong to have anything but positive thoughts to a fellow human being in those circumstances.

It's taken Godwin's law to show that view as the bollocks it is.

[Badlands]

Dunno.

But if he had, the over-riding view is that it's obligatory to feel sorry for him.

[worm]

As is the opposite view of your last line, that all people will get it. Which negates all meaning in those words.

It *IS* the case that not all people get it; which translates into others not getting it.