A question about diet
- Thread starter JuggerNaught
- Start date
Love to buddy. Got a lot of travel lined up this year already. Vegas in June being one. One day though...
So if things (plural) need to be addressed, and for 98% to be OK, you would need to have at least 100 things tested.
So are you lying, or do you not understand percentages?
Can't wait to hear this explained.
so just to be clear, 98% of something can only be possible if that something has 100 'parts'
Mitch, i understand you have sand in your little mangina over me for some reason. And i really don't care. Go find someone to play with
Mitch, i understand you have sand in your little mangina over me for some reason. And i really don't care. Go find someone to play with
Well if you're really gonna go here, I'm gonna have to school you again. Too easy but here goes. The answer to your question is "no". Something can have 50 parts with 49 of them OK and 1 not OK, and hit that 98%. However, your "Not OK" was stated in the plural, so at least 2. Therefore yes indeed there needs to be 100 parts or more for this to be possible. If your plural "things" was 5, then you would need 250 total parts, minimum, depending on rounding. And so on. But feel free to give an example where this is not the case. Hint: You're gonna need some time and you're gonna still be wrong, but good luck.
Edit: technically if you're employing rounding of the percentages to the nearest integer, you could get away with 80 parts. But only if your not OK things (plural) were exactly 2. 78/80 = 97.5%. I'm sure that's how the error occurred
I'm fascinated by the fact that everything you say is exaggerated, an outright lie, or just plain wrong, and yet you say all of it with such confidence. It's quite an extraordinary thing to behold.
Last edited:
Have they discussed balloon sinuplasty? That minor procedure permanently cured me of snoring, although I understand it's fairly rare to have adipose tissue in the sinus cavity
Nope that was never mentioned.
Stopped reading right there. So you're saying that you're an idiot. Thats nice. move along mitch.
No you didn't. Nice try.
Yep, sure did. Couldn't give a fuck less about what drips out of your brainpan and onto the keyboard if i had 30 minutes to warm up and stretch. I'm your world here Mitch, you are not mine. Begone little one.
Curious, do most of you believe the nutraceutical industry is that much different than Pharma from an ethics perspective?
Lot of snake oil but if you stick to the basic vitamins, protein powder, BCAAs etc I think you're good.
Paging absent.
Paging absent.
No. Both are driven by profit, pharma can atleast claim to have some kind of governing body that provides oversight to things like quality and efficacy. But nutraceutical are looked at as dietary supplements by the FDA so that menas they have 0 oversight and can claim whatever they want with their b.s.