Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

Rachel Squires · Sat May 17, 2008 4:32 pm

hang on a minute, please do correct me if I'm wrong, but are we ALL ex-scientists?????
OMG what does that say about us!!!!!!!!

ina · Post: # 103751Post **ina** » Sat May 17, 2008 4:35 pm

Rachel Squires wrote:hang on a minute, please do correct me if I'm wrong, but are we ALL ex-scientists?????
OMG what does that say about us!!!!!!!!

What does it say about scientists? A lot of them (us, of course) are highly intelligent, articulate, and really nice people!

I'm not quite a scientists -I'm a scientific assistant. I had thought of doing a PhD, but decided the culture of publish or perish was not for me. So I work in science at the bottom end... Much nicer.

Rachel Squires · Sat May 17, 2008 4:46 pm

don't blame you. I was a technician so looked after both undergrads and post grads. I also got the chance to do a PhD part time but couldn't face the thought of seven years worth of study, coupled with seven years of setting up the same practical classes again and again and again.

Good times though and I do miss them sometimes as I miss the people. I guess that's why I feel so at home on the ISH forum!!!

Post: # 103790Post **MKG** » Sat May 17, 2008 6:53 pm

Rachel Squires wrote:hang on a minute, please do correct me if I'm wrong, but are we ALL ex-scientists?????
OMG what does that say about us!!!!!!!!

Yep, you see! That's the History of Science module in a nutshell.

Module 5 (Sub-module A) Chemicals: are they nice or icky?
Module 5 (Sub-module B) Chemistry for beginners (Set Theory)

Rachel Squires · Sat May 17, 2008 7:09 pm

You are deep MKG, very deep.

fancy doing my essay on existentialism and phenomenology for me? I could get on then with the 'chain letter' string instead!

Or would that be a major cop out

Post: # 103795Post **MKG** » Sat May 17, 2008 7:22 pm

Damn! Missed one which I liked

Module 5 (Sub-module C) A wider view of wildly overcomplicated and unnecessarily duplicitous chemical terminology (0.75 credits)

glenniedragon · Sat May 17, 2008 8:09 pm

I'm an ex-nurse and OH is a biomedical scientist so quite science orientated. Critique of scientific papers has taken up many hours of both our lives! there do seem to be a lot of sciencey folk hanging around here.....

kind thoughts
Deb

The Riff-Raff Element · Sat May 17, 2008 8:42 pm

MKG wrote:Damn! Missed one which I liked

Module 5 (Sub-module C) A wider view of wildly overcomplicated and unnecessarily duplicitous chemical terminology (0.75 credits)

Wehey! Sounds like I might have a job. I shall, of course, demand that the little scrotes call me MISTER Doust and I shall take a register at the begining of each lecture (I won't be providing notes) to find out just who is spending their student loan on a life of alcohol soaked indolence and sexual depravity.

Everyone should have a hobby after all.

Rachel Squires · Sat May 17, 2008 9:21 pm

hey Jon, we could combine our modules for a post grad qualification - your 'A wider view of wildly overcomplicated and unnecessarily duplicitous chemical terminology' and my 'Basic Communication (with subsidiary course on spelling)' to offer a module about a subject that you can tell people that you can spell but you don't understand!!! We might just manage a post doc in official language for the unsuspecting yet!

Nite all

QuakerBear · Mon May 19, 2008 11:58 am

Back to statistics: Has anyone seen those TV adverts that say ' 80% fat free'? That means it's one fifth fat! I might as well munch of a block of lard, ggrrr, rant, rant, stomp, stomp....

Not going to talk about language much, despite being a bad speller I notice the your/you're and their/there/they're differneces and today I've been told they don't matter and no-one bothers with them any more and I'm being stupid for caring. Double gggrrrr.

ina · Post: # 104024Post **ina** » Mon May 19, 2008 12:03 pm

I "love" that, too - 80% fat free indeed... Or if they advertise sweeties like liquorice or winegums as 98% fat free - well, they are almost pure sugar, and there isn't supposed to be any fat in them - they are still bad for you!

And no, you are not stupid for caring. I do bother. Well, I try to.

glenniedragon · Mon May 19, 2008 12:21 pm

What about 'too busy to breathe' tag line for a face cream with added Oxygen! 'contains 15% pure Oxygen', wow 6% less than atmosphere, thats gotta be good for me- right? winds me up every time!

kind thoughts
Deb

Annpan · Post: # 104033Post **Annpan** » Mon May 19, 2008 12:47 pm

glenniedragon wrote:What about 'too busy to breathe' tag line for a face cream with added Oxygen! 'contains 15% pure Oxygen', wow 6% less than atmosphere, thats gotta be good for me- right? winds me up every time!

kind thoughts
Deb

I miss having a TV for just these occasions.... what a stupid line 'too busy to breathe'

What about too busy to bother buying your crappy cream.

Brij · Post: # 104034Post **Brij** » Mon May 19, 2008 12:48 pm

MKG wrote:Brij - anyone who can use the term encyclopaedia so correctly deserves a stab at the job

Why thank you

red · Post: # 104061Post **red** » Mon May 19, 2008 2:08 pm

QuakerBear wrote:Back to statistics: Has anyone seen those TV adverts that say ' 80% fat free'? That means it's one fifth fat! I might as well munch of a block of lard, ggrrr, rant, rant, stomp, stomp....

.

ha yes I noticed some healthy crips/biscuit things in the shop that were only 10% fat. I thought.. so imagine replacing every 10th one with a disc of fat .... how is that healthy...