Danny Baker

[eFestivals]

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

Someone else has already confirmed in this thread that what I'd hinted at about Baker indeed happened.

If you want to research it, go ahead. If you want to call me a liar on the basis of something you know nothing about, then f**k off.

But please don't make the same error that is often made by some of the more stupid posters here, that if it can't be found on the net then it never happened. The world did not start on August 6, 1991.

Therefore to say <snip> is nasty

How?

I wished nothing on anybody (which I've been falsely accused of).

I did not wish Baker dead (which I've been falsely accused of).

I did not say I had no sympathy for him (which I've been falsely accused of).

I simply said that if someone has to have cancer I'd prefer it was him to others.

[Gre]

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.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Gre

[eFestivals]

I can and will blame you, because your communication was poor enough to cloud your point.

A certain number of people will get cancer this year, yes. But not a fixed number.

that certain number IS a fixed number. Once it's known it doesn't change.

While I'm in no way claiming to have expressed myself perfectly, when I've mentioned "fixed number" it's always been within the context of a fixed time frame, so shouldn't have been difficult to grasp what I was getting at.

[strudders]

Someone else has already confirmed in this thread that what I'd hinted at about Baker indeed happened.

If you want to research it, go ahead. If you want to call me a liar on the basis of something you know nothing about, then f**k off.

[Gre]

that certain number IS a fixed number. Once it's known it doesn't change.

While I'm in no way claiming to have expressed myself perfectly, when I've mentioned "fixed number" it's always been within the context of a fixed time frame, so shouldn't have been difficult to grasp what I was getting at.

[eFestivals]

Then your going to have to educate me, I have not called you a liar at any stage. Just going on what I know to be the truth (different from yours obviously) that Danny Baker had not hurt anybody through his TV appearances... If this did happen then I would love to know! I will even bring pop corn.

He was paid by the tories to pretend to be on the dole and loving living it up off the taxpayer, and put forwards by them for use in a World In Action or similar documentary. That documentary was then used as justification for the demonisation of people on benefits as worthless scroungers, and for benefit cuts. Years later, when he'd got fame for his own doings, he was asked about it, admitted the circumstances, and said he had no regrets for doing it.

No you said

And I am just saying that is nasty... simple.

The bit you've bolded and taken out of its full context is of course nasty.

Within the full context it is not. Within that full context, it is not possible for no one to have cancer; so no one extra is getting cancer, the only thing that is changed is the recipient of that cancer.

At most, I slightly over-stated things by saying "then I can't think of a better recipient", when I can think of a small number of others I'd prefer to have cancer in his place. That error wasn't for any nastiness, it was merely because it's what I typed at the time without putting into it the thought I'd have done if I knew it was going to be analysed at the level of every word.

Tho of course, if others had been analysing it at the level of every word instead of pretending I'd said something different to what I did say, then I'd have not needed to make 90% of the posts I have done here.

[eFestivals]

Its not fixed though. Fixed either implies planning, forethought or no change from one period to the next. None of those hold here.

I refer you to the dictionary definition of fixed.

Then I refer you to the context where I've used it. There is no talk of different periods, just talk of one, specific period.

I've said that there is a fixed number of cases in ("this year") a specific period in time.

Tell me again how I've used it wrongly.

No, you've come across as saying "a certain number of people will get cancer this year. Now that Danny Baker has cancer that means there is one less bout of cancer to go round the rest of us."

see above.

Anyway. Cancer is shit.

That we can fully agree on.

Edited November 2, 2010 by eFestivals

[brighteyes]

You know a thread isn't worth reading through when the argument has got to the point of dictionary definitions.

Anyway, I'm off to buy a lottery ticket, reckon I've got a good chance of predicting the fixed numbers this week.

[ampersand]

You know a thread isn't worth reading through when the argument has got to the point of dictionary definitions.

Anyway, I'm off to buy a lottery ticket, reckon I've got a good chance of predicting the fixed numbers this week.

[Ed209]

You know a thread isn't worth reading through when the argument has got to the point of dictionary definitions.

Anyway, I'm off to buy a lottery ticket, reckon I've got a good chance of predicting the fixed numbers this week.

[Ed209]

this is one of your ploys. You stick to a specific (and this time irrelevant) concept, and then sit back laughing while people try and decipher your meaning

the only way the number of people who have cancer is fixed, is if you have a cut-off point (a month or a year or whatever), and then you can have a number that won't change, so yes, it's fixed in that sense. But there isn't a pre-determined number of people who will get cancer, so whether one person or another million get it, has no bearing on who else will get it. So to say you'd prefer someone got it to another person, is irrelevant, meaningless, and nasty.

or have you another meaning of fixed up your sleave?

[eFestivals]

this is one of your ploys. You stick to a specific (and this time irrelevant) concept, and then sit back laughing while people try and decipher your meaning

the only way the number of people who have cancer is fixed, is if you have a cut-off point (a month or a year or whatever), and then you can have a number that won't change, so yes, it's fixed in that sense. But there isn't a pre-determined number of people who will get cancer, so whether one person or another million get it, has no bearing on who else will get it. So to say you'd prefer someone got it to another person, is irrelevant, meaningless, and nasty.

or have you another meaning of fixed up your sleave?

Yeah, it's all a ploy. A ploy that has you 100% agreeing that I've done things in acceptable way here.

(see the bit in bold above, and my quote below)

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

We got to this rather irrelevant place via my original comment, where I was wishing cancer on no one at all, but where I said if someone had to have it I'd prefer it was Baker over others.

And there's nowt wrong with that - I'm saying I prefer it swapped to him from another.

[eFestivals]

it's fixed AFTER the fact. It has no relevance to who or how many people will get it.

Correct.

I never made the claim you seem to think I did.

Given that my initial comment was based in the idea of cancer being swapped to Baker from someone else, the statistical angle I took is fully applicable (tho on a tangent from what I'd originally said).

I'll remind you again with what I said, that has caused you such mis-placed outrage.

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]

if he recovers, does that mean that someone else will have to get it?

Yes. Unless there's a cure discovered.

Ask a stupid question....

[eFestivals]

I know what you said, it still doesn't make any sense (the idea that a cancer patient can be swapped..? ). You're still making the claim that you're suggesting you didn't...

I'm not outraged... more confused by your (il)logic

It wasn't necessarily meant to make medical sense - it makes as much medical sense as all the other posts in this thread directly about Baker, none at all. Wishing him well mnakes no medical sense and serves no useful purpose, but it didn't stop people saying it did it?

I simply said that if someone had to have cancer I'd prefer it was Baker over others.

WFT is so difficult to understand with that?

God, are things gonna get difficult around here when the evil witch finally pops her clogs.

[eFestivals]

...what?

get a stupid answer..?

Yep.

[eFestivals]

really...??

Oh FFS, get over yourself.

This whole frigging thread makes no sense.

Baker tells the world he's ill, world stupidly believes that only good things can be said about Baker - is nowhere near sane.

But I'm the fruitcake, OK.

[dakyras]

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.

Edited November 2, 2010 by dakyras

[windy_miller]

Because at any time there is only a certain percentage of people with cancer.

So that means if Baker is within the percentage that does, then there's one person who is not because their place has been taken by Baker.

That scenario is only able to be altered by altering the percentage that has cancer.

Just because you're choosing to view the scenario differently to me, doesn't make my take on that statistical reality wrong. It's not.

What *IS* wrong is the view - that you and others have assumed (I've not said it) - that the percentage moves. It does move, yes, but at any moment in time it is fixed (after all, a person cannot be included in the 'has' side of things if they don't). I was working from that 'fixed'.

I realise it's not a particularly smart angle to take on things such as cancer - but it's far smarter than the made up versions of what I'd initially said that has got things to here.

[Ed209]

And that percentage will alter the moment someone else gets cancer. Again, let me reiterate that the statistics follow the cancer rate, not the other way round. Therefore the chance of me getting cancer has no bearing on the number that all ready have it.

Correct, but a completely and utterly meaningless statement. You may as well have stated that 1 + 1 = 2.

[eFestivals]

I think Neil knows he was wrong on this one, but you know an admittance of this will never ever happen.

That statistical line came from what I initially said. The way I have worked that statistical line matches what I initially said.

The problem you are having is grasping the meaning behind what I originally said, which is why you're thinking that statistical angle as nuts. It's well off-tangent, but it DOES tie in with the angle of my original statement.

What I originally said was this....

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.

While it's not as clear in what I'm meaning as it might have been, I'm trying to say "if one person has to have cancer then I'd rather it was Baker than anyone else" - working from the idea that the one instance of cancer is swapped to him from another.

While one instance of cancer or swappable cancer isn't medically accurate, it's no less medically accurate or useful than all the "I hope he gets better" posts, so the medical accuracy of my comment is no different to anyone else's.

[Ed209]

That statistical line came from what I initially said. The way I have worked that statistical line matches what I initially said.

The problem you are having is grasping the meaning behind what I originally said, which is why you're thinking that statistical angle as nuts. It's well off-tangent, but it DOES tie in with the angle of my original statement.

What I originally said was this....

While it's not as clear in what I'm meaning as it might have been, I'm trying to say "if one person has to have cancer then I'd rather it was Baker than anyone else" - working from the idea that the one instance of cancer is swapped to him from another.

While one instance of cancer or swappable cancer isn't medically accurate, it's no less medically accurate or useful than all the "I hope he gets better" posts, so the medical accuracy of my comment is no different to anyone else's.

[ampersand]

statistically, this is one of the funniest thread that there's been on here this year. which is a shame based on the topic subject.

[eFestivals]

Again, you've said this. But if you look at the link i posted above the facepalm, then you're clearly stating that Baker having it lessens the chances of someone else having it, based on fixed percentages blah blah blah... which is all bullshit "to anyone with a grasp of statistics "

Not with there being X number of cases detected within this year it's not.

If there's 1000 cases of cancer this year, there's ONLY 1000 cases. If Baker is one of those cases, then it means that another is free of cancer because Baker has that person's place.

It was a weak angle for me to take to try and explain my original point because it didn't help people grasp my original point any better (and you've clearly still not got it now ), but the angle I took holds true.

I only took that angle because of the stupid interpretation some took of my original comment. All I've learned from this is how pointless it is arguing with the stupid who are determined to remain stupid.

[windy_miller]

Not with there being X number of cases detected within this year it's not.

If there's 1000 cases of cancer this year, there's ONLY 1000 cases. If Baker is one of those cases, then it means that another is free of cancer because Baker has that person's place.

It was a weak angle for me to take to try and explain my original point because it didn't help people grasp my original point any better (and you've clearly still not got it now ), but the angle I took holds true.

I only took that angle because of the stupid interpretation some took of my original comment. All I've learned from this is how pointless it is arguing with the stupid who are determined to remain stupid.