Ex White watch

[MightyWhite]

The angriest I've seen our lass was the morning after the night I'd been a little bit of a bender in Cardiff.

Whatever floats ya boat fella

[Ontolly]

The angriest I've seen our lass was the morning after the night I'd been a little bit of a bender in Cardiff.

Whatever floats ya boat fella

I see what you did there. Very good.

[MightyWhite]

The angriest I've seen our lass was the morning after the night I'd been a little bit of a bender in Cardiff.

Whatever floats ya boat fella

I see what you did there. Very good.

[Tommy]

Being asked to look at online surveys, Being shown video evidence of your husband pissing through the letterbox of Costa coffee - I guess it's all relative. There's just no pleasing some women.

I probably shouldn't have sent it to her whilst she was at work, that might have been part of the problem -



Later on, she sent this too -

right so the main methodological issues that make this survey design utterly absurd and the results near impossible to interpret in any sort of meaningful or reliable way are relatively apparent but basically this dude's survey suffers from two major critical flaws - a near complete lack of any sort of clear or concise conceptualization of his dependent variables and a measurement approach so sloppy and disfigured he'd probably have better luck just making up answers than he would distributing this to real people. the survey fails the tests of reliability (the ability of the survey to replicate the same results with repeated tests) and validity (the ability of the survey to measure accurately the variables it purports to measure) for the following reasons -

- double-barrelled questions which ask more than one question or make more than one statement in the same item, a fatal flaw which totally and utterly discounts the possibility that respondents may not share the same opinion about all statements and effectively sends the validity of your data straight into the garbage
- leading questions which destroy the validity of the researcher's data because in asking questions that hint at the answer the researcher wants to hear he's essentially constructing and fulfilling a self-fulfilling prophecy that contributes little to nothing new in the way of reliable, unbiased knowledge
- presumption that all respondents responding to the survey do not have anything but utterly positive views about their team - i hope i don't have to explain why removing entirely any and all options to express negative views on a survey biases and mangles that data to the point where you sincerely might as well just be making up whatever shit you want to hear

if this dude really isn't sure how to conceptualize his variables because he's working from the ground up and doesn't know what kind of framework is going to emerge from his data then the best thing he can do is just isolate and treat each statement as a separate dependent variable, measured on a likert scale for manageable quantitative analysis. once he's got his dataset, he can run a principle components or factor analysis to eliminate the redundant intercorrelations and overlaps in his responses and condense the whole questionnaire into a much smaller set of variables that he can then name and analyze in whichever way he sees fit. of course, the big question is that of how the fuck any university allowed this dude to do a serious dissertation while lacking the fundamentals of how to both design and meaningfully analyze an efficient and methodologically sound questionnaire (i hate to sound patronizing here but from a researcher perspective this really is basic stuff, maybe intermediate at best), which remains utterly beyond me

One o' t' cross beams's gone out o' skew on t' treadle.

[moscowhite]

Do you even like me. what the fuck is this

That's a spectacular response.

[MightyWhite]

Later on, she sent this too -

right so the main methodological issues that make this survey design utterly absurd and the results near impossible to interpret in any sort of meaningful or reliable way are relatively apparent but basically this dude's survey suffers from two major critical flaws - a near complete lack of any sort of clear or concise conceptualization of his dependent variables and a measurement approach so sloppy and disfigured he'd probably have better luck just making up answers than he would distributing this to real people. the survey fails the tests of reliability (the ability of the survey to replicate the same results with repeated tests) and validity (the ability of the survey to measure accurately the variables it purports to measure) for the following reasons -

- double-barrelled questions which ask more than one question or make more than one statement in the same item, a fatal flaw which totally and utterly discounts the possibility that respondents may not share the same opinion about all statements and effectively sends the validity of your data straight into the garbage
- leading questions which destroy the validity of the researcher's data because in asking questions that hint at the answer the researcher wants to hear he's essentially constructing and fulfilling a self-fulfilling prophecy that contributes little to nothing new in the way of reliable, unbiased knowledge
- presumption that all respondents responding to the survey do not have anything but utterly positive views about their team - i hope i don't have to explain why removing entirely any and all options to express negative views on a survey biases and mangles that data to the point where you sincerely might as well just be making up whatever shit you want to hear

if this dude really isn't sure how to conceptualize his variables because he's working from the ground up and doesn't know what kind of framework is going to emerge from his data then the best thing he can do is just isolate and treat each statement as a separate dependent variable, measured on a likert scale for manageable quantitative analysis. once he's got his dataset, he can run a principle components or factor analysis to eliminate the redundant intercorrelations and overlaps in his responses and condense the whole questionnaire into a much smaller set of variables that he can then name and analyze in whichever way he sees fit. of course, the big question is that of how the fuck any university allowed this dude to do a serious dissertation while lacking the fundamentals of how to both design and meaningfully analyze an efficient and methodologically sound questionnaire (i hate to sound patronizing here but from a researcher perspective this really is basic stuff, maybe intermediate at best), which remains utterly beyond me

To which your response was "Ok duck, put kettle on. There's a good girl".

I hope.

[Dods]

Later on, she sent this too -

right so the main methodological issues that make this survey design utterly absurd and the results near impossible to interpret in any sort of meaningful or reliable way are relatively apparent but basically this dude's survey suffers from two major critical flaws - a near complete lack of any sort of clear or concise conceptualization of his dependent variables and a measurement approach so sloppy and disfigured he'd probably have better luck just making up answers than he would distributing this to real people. the survey fails the tests of reliability (the ability of the survey to replicate the same results with repeated tests) and validity (the ability of the survey to measure accurately the variables it purports to measure) for the following reasons -

- double-barrelled questions which ask more than one question or make more than one statement in the same item, a fatal flaw which totally and utterly discounts the possibility that respondents may not share the same opinion about all statements and effectively sends the validity of your data straight into the garbage
- leading questions which destroy the validity of the researcher's data because in asking questions that hint at the answer the researcher wants to hear he's essentially constructing and fulfilling a self-fulfilling prophecy that contributes little to nothing new in the way of reliable, unbiased knowledge
- presumption that all respondents responding to the survey do not have anything but utterly positive views about their team - i hope i don't have to explain why removing entirely any and all options to express negative views on a survey biases and mangles that data to the point where you sincerely might as well just be making up whatever shit you want to hear

if this dude really isn't sure how to conceptualize his variables because he's working from the ground up and doesn't know what kind of framework is going to emerge from his data then the best thing he can do is just isolate and treat each statement as a separate dependent variable, measured on a likert scale for manageable quantitative analysis. once he's got his dataset, he can run a principle components or factor analysis to eliminate the redundant intercorrelations and overlaps in his responses and condense the whole questionnaire into a much smaller set of variables that he can then name and analyze in whichever way he sees fit. of course, the big question is that of how the fuck any university allowed this dude to do a serious dissertation while lacking the fundamentals of how to both design and meaningfully analyze an efficient and methodologically sound questionnaire (i hate to sound patronizing here but from a researcher perspective this really is basic stuff, maybe intermediate at best), which remains utterly beyond me

To which your response was "Ok duck, put kettle on. There's a good girl".

I hope.

No, it should have been the classic "don't you worry your pretty little head over it". They hate that.

[the flying pig]

...Later on, she sent this too -

right so the main methodological issues that make this survey design utterly absurd and the results near impossible to interpret in any sort of meaningful or reliable way are relatively apparent but basically this dude's survey suffers from two major critical flaws - a near complete lack of any sort of clear or concise conceptualization of his dependent variables and a measurement approach so sloppy and disfigured he'd probably have better luck just making up answers than he would distributing this to real people. the survey fails the tests of reliability (the ability of the survey to replicate the same results with repeated tests) and validity (the ability of the survey to measure accurately the variables it purports to measure) for the following reasons -

- double-barrelled questions which ask more than one question or make more than one statement in the same item, a fatal flaw which totally and utterly discounts the possibility that respondents may not share the same opinion about all statements and effectively sends the validity of your data straight into the garbage
- leading questions which destroy the validity of the researcher's data because in asking questions that hint at the answer the researcher wants to hear he's essentially constructing and fulfilling a self-fulfilling prophecy that contributes little to nothing new in the way of reliable, unbiased knowledge
- presumption that all respondents responding to the survey do not have anything but utterly positive views about their team - i hope i don't have to explain why removing entirely any and all options to express negative views on a survey biases and mangles that data to the point where you sincerely might as well just be making up whatever shit you want to hear

if this dude really isn't sure how to conceptualize his variables because he's working from the ground up and doesn't know what kind of framework is going to emerge from his data then the best thing he can do is just isolate and treat each statement as a separate dependent variable, measured on a likert scale for manageable quantitative analysis. once he's got his dataset, he can run a principle components or factor analysis to eliminate the redundant intercorrelations and overlaps in his responses and condense the whole questionnaire into a much smaller set of variables that he can then name and analyze in whichever way he sees fit. of course, the big question is that of how the fuck any university allowed this dude to do a serious dissertation while lacking the fundamentals of how to both design and meaningfully analyze an efficient and methodologically sound questionnaire (i hate to sound patronizing here but from a researcher perspective this really is basic stuff, maybe intermediate at best), which remains utterly beyond me

i warrant that mrs dski would be sneering on the other side of her face if she had even half an inkling of what the big man is packing in the trouser department

[Blackwhite]

i warrant that mrs dski would be sneering on the other side of her face if she had even half an inkling of what the big man is packing in the trouser department

Are you trying to imply she might have a stroke?

[The Tin Man]

if this dude really isn't sure how to conceptualize his variables because he's working from the ground up and doesn't know what kind of framework is going to emerge from his data then the best thing he can do is just isolate and treat each statement as a separate dependent variable, measured on a likert scale for manageable quantitative analysis. once he's got his dataset, he can run a principle components or factor analysis to eliminate the redundant intercorrelations and overlaps in his responses and condense the whole questionnaire into a much smaller set of variables that he can then name and analyze in whichever way he sees fit.

That is definitely one for Private Eye's pseuds corner. It might actually mean something but what your head be like if you did understand something like that.What kind of brain could come up with that? It's not exactly poetry is it?

[Quiffy]

if this dude really isn't sure how to conceptualize his variables because he's working from the ground up and doesn't know what kind of framework is going to emerge from his data then the best thing he can do is just isolate and treat each statement as a separate dependent variable, measured on a likert scale for manageable quantitative analysis. once he's got his dataset, he can run a principle components or factor analysis to eliminate the redundant intercorrelations and overlaps in his responses and condense the whole questionnaire into a much smaller set of variables that he can then name and analyze in whichever way he sees fit.

That is definitely one for Private Eye's pseuds corner. It might actually mean something but what your head be like if you did understand something like that.What kind of brain could come up with that? It's not exactly poetry is it?

thing is, the twitter pic suggest she's quite young and shaggable, so is forgiveable for such pretentious follies. anyway i very much doubt she intended it for a football messageboard so is forgiveable. i think i forgive her.

[FarmersBoy]

A sprinkling of Leeds players in the news on the Football League show last night

Prutts scoring a 30 yarder for Swindon, Matthew Spring seeing red for Orient and Lubo getting a consolation goal for Carlisle

[AndyPaul]

Oldham vs Tranmere on sky tonight

Featuring for Oldham - Aiden White, Warren Feeney and Paul Dickov.

Featuring for Tranmere - Tony Warner, Andy Robinson and Enoch!

Its going to be shit But I suppose interesting to see White in action due to out inability to replace Tony Dorigo

[Blackwhite]

Oldham vs Tranmere on sky tonight

Featuring for Oldham - Aiden White, Warren Feeney and Paul Dickov.

Featuring for Tranmere - Tony Warner, Andy Robinson and Enoch!

Its going to be shit But I suppose interesting to see White in action due to out inability to replace Tony Dorigo

How was it fella? Was out but fucking hell I bet it was great Dickov still looking annoyingly buyable?

[AndyPaul]

Oldham vs Tranmere on sky tonight

Featuring for Oldham - Aiden White, Warren Feeney and Paul Dickov.

Featuring for Tranmere - Tony Warner, Andy Robinson and Enoch!

Its going to be shit But I suppose interesting to see White in action due to out inability to replace Tony Dorigo

How was it fella? Was out but fucking hell I bet it was great Dickov still looking annoyingly buyable?

I'll be honest I can barely build up the enthusiasm for champions league and premiership games on TV so there was no fucking way I was gonna waste my energy changing the channel to watch that shite.

[Blackwhite]

I'll be honest I can barely build up the enthusiasm for champions league and premiership games on TV so there was no fucking way I was gonna waste my energy changing the channel to watch that shite.

And you coulda binna contenda...

[FarmersBoy]

So it looks like we'll be playing Brighton next Season Congrats to Gus Poyet and Casper Ankergran and the players of Brighton

[gazurtoids]

Gus Poyet can get fucked.

[MightyWhite]

Gus Poyet can get fucked.

Bloody good manager though.

[gazurtoids]

Gus Poyet can get fucked.

Bloody good manager though.

Aye, seems so.