RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Oh the dramaso you sarcastically asked me if I've ever taken a "probability" class, referring to how science works. then you defended your methods as working on "likelihood" not "probability", while simultaneously inferring in almost every post that your methods are scientific and not voodoo.
my posts on TA also infer likelihood, not exactitudes or quantified probabilities... yet you hold TA to a standard of proff that you don't hold your "scientific fundamental" approach to.
I will stick to your rules of semantics if you wish...
probability that you are a professional academic = .58093
probablility that you are a wanna be academic = .93285
probability that you are an American wanna be academic = .96473
I base this on your unskilled use of sarcasm and constant reference to scientific norms, constraints which you don't even apply to your own fundamental methods. I also base it on the fact that you make condescending blanket statements to squash other people's position instead of supporting your own position.