Posted by DR on June 03, 2005 at 23:54 [67.83.76.91]
In Reply to: Re: Please any help posted by Brian on June 03, 2005 at 17:31
Hi Brian,
You wrote...
"Couldn't resist - So many unbelievable factual errors - you seem ever more desperate to prove your point - amazing what you can pull off a browser search, isn't it DR, toss it into the mix, without possession of a single clue as to its application (or lack of) to the point, simply because they sound impressive."
I am desperate about nothing. But you're still debasing this discussion with needless ad hominem attacks. Perhaps I pulled that out of a browser search also?
And you wrote...
"You claim to understand peer review - yet offer no evidence of that."
No, rather I've ignored it. Look back on this thread, and you'll see that *you* introduced the concept -- I simply ignored it because I believe its neither germaine to the topic of gender ratios nor to a simple, observable statement by a friend of mine who said, "There are a lot of single women out there." I have not discussed peer review, nor will I.
You wrote...
"Occam's razor has nothing to do with data - NOTHING - it has to do merely with an aspect of logic dealing with the separation between generic universal concepts and objective reality. It is theoretical - NOT statistical - as in ratios of men vs. women."
Brian, you fail to understand that all empirical data rely upon a foundation of anecdotal assumption (e.g. Occam's Razor). I have demonstrated this point clearly in prior posts and will not discuss it again.
And you wrote...
"Null hypothesis does involve an assumption that some relationship or proportion is not significant but merely occurs by chance - rejection of said hypothesis dependent on the probability of chance falling to less than 5%.
So, what does this have to do with your "argument?" Nothing! You have no data!"
As I've mentioned, the data I've produced were anecdotal, observable and reliable based on the limited number of data we have. You seem shortsighted to the merits of anecdotal evidence -- clearly unable to derive conclusions without the statistical. That's sad. Ironically, you've cast your own aspertions about my intelligence (or lack thereof, as you claim) yet you provide no statistics in their assertion. Where is your data? :)
As mentioned in prior posts, observational trend data (such as diaper group rosters, the evolution of BDSM group gender ratios) are our best data at this time, supported by assumptions of "what's most likely" (Occam's Razor) and the Null hypothesis, which suggests that its more likely that men and women are alike in their sexual preferences -- vis-a-vis DLG and diaper play -- than they are disalike. All of which strongly *suggest* that women into DLG/diaper play equal the numbers to that of men.
Finally Brian, I will note that while you've roiled against my argument (gender parity) citing lack of data, you've concomitantly neglected to provide any empirical evidence of your own to suggest otherwise. Be true to your own standards, Brian. If you will only be satisfied with hard core empirical data, then provide them with your contradictions.
Without that Brian, all of your ramblings simply come off sounding like a cynical old man, incapable of building his own house, so he would rather rip down the house of his neighbor instead.
As for me, I've dated about 20 different submissive women -- all but one of them fiercely into DLG and/or diaper play -- but two years ago I met my slave, and we're happily together ever since. I've no need to offer what I've learned to anyone here Brian; I do it because I've found a philosophy that is pragmatic, is based on the observable, and works.
A real Daddy would build his own house Brian, and he would be true to his own standards. If you want to know how to best find that LG of your own -- my advice is to heed all of the advice I've given in prior posts, and to also find your own philosophy.
Now go away for a few days, as you always do, and think about what I've written to you. Best wishes.
Email: