lgarvin

lgarvin

69p

313 comments posted · 3 followers · following 2

1 week ago @ Macleans.ca - Nickname challenge: Gu... · 0 replies · +5 points

B*tchy& Cracky?

1 week ago @ Macleans.ca - Nickname challenge: Gu... · 1 reply · +4 points

Sniffy & Scratchy

2 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - Spur of the moment bon... · 0 replies · 0 points

Place on Ground - This Side Down
Do Not Eat

2 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - Today in symbolism · 0 replies · +2 points

Has Mr. Duceppe never heard of Intensity Targets?

2 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - 'The minister's signat... · 0 replies · +4 points

What a cringing coward Mr. Kenney has turned out to be...If this is the way that the Conservatives choose to communicate with their "base" then their opinion of that base must be pretty damn low.

The Lord hates a coward, Mr. Kenney.

2 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - Caption Challenge: Ign... · 0 replies · 0 points

Two Guys No Clue

2 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - Caption Challenge: Ign... · 0 replies · +2 points

I did too watch the gold medal game!! Have you never heard of streaming video? This is me and Justin celebrating the OT goal... while continuing to work hard for the people of Canada.

3 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - 'I totally support my ... · 0 replies · 0 points

For point one, see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conject...

Main Entry: 1con·jec·ture
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈjek-chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjectura, from conjectus, past participle of conicere, literally, to throw together, from com- + jacere to throw — more at jet
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : supposition
2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved


Has the proposition been proved? No, it has not. It is, therefore, "conjecture."

For points two and three, see your previous comments.

3 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - 'I totally support my ... · 2 replies · 0 points

Your first statement is wrong, your second statement is silly, your third statement is ridiculous & redundant.

3 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - 'I totally support my ... · 4 replies · 0 points

Why do you keep asking me what I'm saying instead of simply reading what I'm saying?

I understand the talking points that you have cut and pasted, I simply don't give them much credence.

Just to be extra clear: the conjecture is the theory that tree rings were an accurate proxy for a thousand years... up until 1960, and the assumption is that some man-made effect (global warming, possibly?) caused the divergence between the two variables post 1960.