This story is unavailable.

And a few odd ‘more for fun/interest’ questions.

I’m dying to hear your tail of trial from Kekistan. You know us Pastafarians are nearly held in as much contempt there as Atheists?

— — 
At some point, you were arguing with someone about Trump’s negatives, and I noticed you reference Rasmussen for Trump’s favorables. If I poke at

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

Rasmussen is at the ‘top’ end for Trump. I checked out the Rasmussen site… it seems credible, and while it is in the top end of RCP #’s it doesn’t look horribly statistically invalidly high. Yet neither could I find anything to support their methods were particularly superior to the others. Is there a particular reason you went with Rasmussen, or did you figure if he didn’t know enough to intelligently reference the other polling numbers you figured there was no point giving him any more ground than necessary?

I didn’t ask at the time because the fellow seemed like a bit of an idiot and I didn’t want to undermine/distract from where you were headed.

— — — -

Someone else you were arguing with over racism and the person got logic bound in the results in the tests from:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

Vs how the officers behaved. Again, didn’t want to interrupt the flow, but just curious if you looked at the test. I found it ‘interesting enough’ to take three of the tests. The results seemed fairly what I’d expect for myself…

“Your data suggest no automatic preference between Black people and White people.”

Same on the weapons test (no automatic preference between associating weapons to blacks nor whites, I didn’t cut n’ paste the result)

Slight automatic preference on women to family, men to career.

Anyway… if you have zero interest in such tests, don’t waste a lot of time on it.

Like what you read? Give Chip (Charles) Equins a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.