Changes

: You have a point, but often the answer is those two populations are the same in result, because one liberal often does dominate a population having 99 moderates and no conservatives.  Moderates are often people who go along to get along.  One Hillary Clinton and 99 moderates may be just as liberal, and more effective, than 100 Hillarys (who can then conflict with each other) and no moderates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: You have a point, but often the answer is those two populations are the same in result, because one liberal often does dominate a population having 99 moderates and no conservatives.  Moderates are often people who go along to get along.  One Hillary Clinton and 99 moderates may be just as liberal, and more effective, than 100 Hillarys (who can then conflict with each other) and no moderates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::You must believe that Hillary is a very powerful person. Quite an admiration for Hillary from a self-confessed conservative. And I am not sure if moderate will like it to learn that you think that the are pushovers.

::You must believe that Hillary is a very powerful person. Quite an admiration for Hillary from a self-confessed conservative. And I am not sure if moderate will like it to learn that you think that they are pushovers.

::Anyway, just counting liberals and conservatives doesn't work either. If you think that moderates will under influence of Hillary swing towards Hillary, then compute the non-conservative bias which is (population-conservatives)/population or since you firmly believe in scales from zero to infinity (population-conservatives)/conservatives.  

::Anyway, just counting liberals and conservatives doesn't work either. If you think that moderates will under influence of Hillary swing towards Hillary, then compute the non-conservative bias which is (population-conservatives)/population or since you firmly believe in scales from zero to infinity (population-conservatives)/conservatives.  

::I said it before ''liberal bias of the population'' doesn't mention conservatives. If you find it unacceptable, call it something that mentions ''conservatives''. If you call it simply ''liberal bias'' lots of people will be deceived, and lots of people have been deceived.  It is in your hand to call it something that mentions ''conservatives''. [[User:order|Order]] 3 April, 11:20 AEST

::I said it before ''liberal bias of the population'' doesn't mention conservatives. If you find it unacceptable, call it something that mentions ''conservatives''. If you call it simply ''liberal bias'' lots of people will be deceived, and lots of people have been deceived.  It is in your hand to call it something that mentions ''conservatives''. [[User:order|Order]] 3 April, 11:20 AEST

::BTW: You didn't say before that you "found the deifinition unacceptable", you said that you "didn't see a definition". If you had said why you found the definition unacceptable, we could have had a short cut. [[User:order|Order]] 3 April, 11:20 AEST

::BTW: You didn't say before that you "found the definition unacceptable", you said that you "didn't see a definition". If you had said why you found the definition unacceptable, we could have had a short cut. [[User:order|Order]] 3 April, 11:20 AEST

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==