Weyalan

Members
  • Content Count

    1,322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

110 F'n Saint

About Weyalan

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    d'Entrcasteaux Channel

Recent Profile Visitors

5,591 profile views
  1. Weyalan

    what once was

    Personally, I like the wild frontiers of SA, the site would be the poorer if only Sailing was up for discussion. There are always a handful of fuckwits, but some of them are at least entertaining fuckwits, and for the rest, ignore works. Don't you go changin'!
  2. Weyalan

    Australian Sailing

    I don't think he is splitting hairs at all... it is equally important to consider whether sailors are feeling disenfranchised from the sailing clubs just as much as whether they are feeling let down by the governing body... it about the sailors, not the clubs
  3. Weyalan

    what once was

    Seems pretty straightforward to me... His implictation being that the high traffic / post count areas are Political Anarchy & Covid Anarchy and that these don't really mesh with the "Sailing" implied by calling your site "sailing anarchy". Not saying he's right, but he ain't obfuscatory.
  4. Weyalan

    Dealing with uncooperative crew

    Last delivery I did, coastal, only about 300 NM, but still, a delivery... woke up around 3am, checked GPS at nav station... holy cow, threading the needle between a rocky point on the landward side, and a rocky reef on the other side... maybe 0.2 NM apart, pitch black, running at about 11 knots... poked my head up and asked the other 2 guys if they knew where they were... nope, steering north and kinda following the lights of another boat, that they now couldn't see. Can you hear breaking water to the left? I asked. Uhuh. Can you hear breaking water to the right? I asked. Uhuh. Was not happy, didn't sleep much at all thereafter.
  5. Weyalan

    Remembering Those Who Died

    Arguing that we should ease restrictions because in the scheme of things there haven't been very many deaths is ignoring the elephant in the room... how man deaths would there have been if we hadn't had these restrictions?
  6. Weyalan

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    Fuck me, another tremendous body swerve from the Duncan... the initial point you tried to make was that the recession we are going to have in Australia would cost lives in Australia because lower gdp per capita = lower life expectancy, and this was supposed to justify easing restrictions in Australia sooner and accepting the consequences.... and you posted a graph as evidence But your evidence was a graph that patently did not show that lower GDP = lower life expectancy for countries in the upper echelons of GDP per capita (countries like Australia). And when it was pointed out to you that the graph that you presented as evidence of your premise did not, in fact, support your position, its suddenly all about the third world now, not the lives potentially lost in Australia... Again, every single time your point gets refuted, it suddenly wasn't your point after all...
  7. Weyalan

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    Its not about how many people have died, its about how many people have not died. Unfortunately, for people like you who seem to need to count them (probably on your fingers and toes) you can't actually count the thousands (yes thousands, probably tens of thousands) of lives we have saved as a result of the current restrictions because they are just normal people who haven't got sick and died. And the reason they haven't died is the very same restrictions you find so palatable. So don't look at the number of deaths, look at the number of living. If you want to get some sort of feel for the number of lives saved, look at the stats from places who didn't impose the same level of restrictions...
  8. Weyalan

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    And, without actually doing any real statistical analysis (because, frankly, you don't deserve it), and allowing, for the sake of argument, that the data points given are valid (even though the curve purporting to represent them is patently invalid bollocks) then what I think the data shows is that very low GDP per capita does correlate to low life expectancy, but that when you reach a certain level of GDP per capita (approx 25% of the way along your X-axis, then increased GDP per capita has negligible impact on life expectancy (and at the extreme end of GDP per capita, has a small negative impact on life expectancy) which rather refutes the basic premise of your stated position, does it not? You're welcome.
  9. Weyalan

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    See this is the problem all over agian... Your previous salvo was to tell me to refute the data or fuck off. So the data was refuted (and it wasn't a highbrow exercise, lemme tell you), and suddenly its not about the data any more... goalposts whizzing over the horizon again 30 seconds spent on the Internets with Mr and Mrs Google will always identify somebody who espouses the world view you wanna present, no matter how ill-informed, left-field, right-wing or generally egregious... there ain't nothing you can believe that somebody else "out there" doesn't also believe. However if you wanna use their "evidence" (sic) to support your position, at least take the time to make sure that is isn't quasi-data using psuedo statistics to illustrate something that it patently doesn't illustrate, or at least have the balls to man up and admit that it was (again) bollocks.
  10. Weyalan

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    The "best fit line" from 0 to 36000 is based on over 150 data points The "best fit line from 36000 to 70,000 is based on 8 data points This means that almost half of your graph best fit curve is based on about 5% of your data points Also the fit line that supposedly represents the data points is entirely above the data points for almost half the range of the graph. If you think I need to provide a more detailed refutation of patently obvious sketchy statistical analysis, you don't know as much as you think you do about statistical analysis.
  11. Weyalan

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    Ah yeah, the draw a random line through some points method of statistical analysis... actuaries everywhere giggling into their sleeve
  12. Weyalan

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    In fact lets do a summary: Dunce: The Police Are Cunts Everyone else: No they aren't Dunce: Its all about our constitutional rights: Everyone else: No its not Dunce: But all these people are useless dole bludgers Everyone else: Really? Even everyone employed by any level of government? Dunce: Yes! They don't contribute! Everyone else: So tax contributions don't count? Dunce: Adam Brandts Money tree! Everyone else: What? Dunce: The government runs a deficit so government employees are useless cunts Everyone else: Don't be ridiculous Dunce: Only private enterprise achieves anything Everyone else: You are kidding, right? Dunce: Only foreign income counts Everyone else: Huh? Christ on a pogo-stick, you've moved the goalposts so many times that the full forward is dizzy, but you are still talking bollocks.
  13. Weyalan

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    Ok, so now we are talking about balancing the national budget... it gets confusing because every time somebody points out that you are talking utter, utter bollocks, you change the subject.
  14. Weyalan

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    Oh, so now only foreign income counts as contributing to the bucket. Riiiiight....
  15. Weyalan

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    We all get it. Its just that "it" is illogical. Just because a govt employee is draining from the bucket as wages doesn't mean that they cannot also be contributing to the bucket, and not just by paying tax, but also by producing things (goods, or services) of value.