Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.arch.arithmetic > #70
| From | ]v[etaphoid <met@phoid.con> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | uk.sport.football.clubs.liverpool, comp.arch.arithmetic, alt.support.learning-difficulties |
| Subject | Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... |
| Date | 2014-07-01 00:05 +1000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <lorqs4$ig1$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <lork88$231$1@dont-email.me> <mn.f3817de67535b1a1.134914@pompous-donkey-tours.com> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Pope Pompous XVIII submitted this idea : > ]v[etaphoid wrote on 2014-06-30 : >> Hi All, >> >> A friend and I were having a spirited discussion about arithmetic in the >> discussion below. He contends that because Catholics only allow men priests >> to molest boys, they are only half as likely as the general population to >> be paedophiles, since there are no women. >> >> He's such a funny fellow... >> >> "On a more wholesome note, do you believe that the incidence of paedophilia >> amongst Catholic priests would be consistent with your quoted global >> incidence rates of 3-4%?" >> >> "No I don't. I'm not sure you know this but the Catholic priesthood is for >> men only. Straight away that reduces the average by half. I do hope you are >> able to understand this simple bit of arithmetic." > > Yes I could have phrased it better. I also readily admit I've always been > useless at maths. > > Let's try again: if paedophiles number 3-4% of the general adult population, > male and female, then it follows that the number of paedophile priests *as a > percentage of the adult population, male and female* is much lower than 3-4%, > given the number of priests is only a small percentage of the adult > population. > > That better? Nope. Attempting to rewrite flawed logic retrospectively does not make it better, nor is it an issue of phrasing, as was evidenced by your backdooring it out of the thread. "Straight away that reduces the average by half..." Although I will admit to enjoying the irony of your attempted maths-based insult, "I do hope you are able to understand this simple bit of arithmetic". Nice touch, moron! Better stick to Nazis and your vehement denials of Saurez's guilt...
Back to comp.arch.arithmetic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
]v[aths for fun and profit... ]v[etaphoid <met@phoid.con> - 2014-06-30 22:12 +1000
Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... "Mentalguy2k8" <mentalguy2k8@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 13:35 +0100
Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... Pope Pompous XVIII <popepompousxviii@popesnews.invalid> - 2014-06-30 14:57 +0100
Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... ]v[etaphoid <met@phoid.con> - 2014-07-01 00:05 +1000
Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... Earl Cup <earlcup@yahoo.com> - 2014-07-01 00:22 +1000
Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... Pope Pompous XVIII <popepompousxviii@popesnews.invalid> - 2014-06-30 15:25 +0100
Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... Paul Pot <PMD@SIBU.HQ> - 2014-07-01 00:15 +0100
Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... "Mentalguy2k8" <mentalguy2k8@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 17:29 +0100
Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... ]v[etaphoid <met@phoid.con> - 2015-09-24 23:35 +1000
Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... Prof. ]v[etaphoid <met@phoid.com.canadia> - 2017-11-10 22:53 +1100
csiph-web