Visitor Messages

Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 20 of 102
  1. byhisello99
    08-20-2015 03:32 PM
    byhisello99
    One of my core skills is translating business smoke screens. PP is a business and uses smoke screens. The three percent is a smoke screen, and a needless one.

    Three percent of services is not the percentage of women who get abortions. According to PP's own statements, that's ten percent. So, what is?

    Thee percent of services is not the percentage of offerings in their portfolio that are represented by abortion. They have far more than 33 offerings. What's left?

    It's not three percent of generated revenue, and unlikely three percent of budget.

    It can only be the number of client visits, or patient visits, or transactions - they're all the same thing - that result in an abortion. And, that figure is probably quite accurate.

    One patient visit for an ultrasound or a pap smear or to get birth control help is a "service" as is an abortion. Three percent of services as abortions is very credible.

    Fifty one percent of business revenue from three percent of transactions is unusual but well inside the Three Sigma Rule. Fifty-one percent of revenue from ten percent of clients is unremarkable in the extreme. Fifty-one percent of revenue from a single offering in the portfolio is not usually a good business model, but it doesn't have to be good as long as women keep getting pregnant and want abortions.

    PP's own numbers support that scenario with different figures: There are between 350K and 400K abortions done at PP each year, or close to 40% of the total performed in the U.S. That is legal and let's leave morals, ethics and politics out of it. There are perhaps twelve million total visits by about three and a half million uniquely identifiable women each year. Three percent of the visits involve an abortion, the others are prenatal care, pap smears, what have you. And ten percent of the women who visit PP get abortions.

    Of all the figures available, three percent is the most accurate while still being the most useless. It's a business smoke screen whose purpose is a mystery to me. I've encountered literally thousands of business smoke screens. This one serves no purpose I can discern.

    PP does slightly less than half of the abortions performed annually in the U.S. That's legal and no one with any ideology should be hiding that number behind an irrelevancy. About ten percent of the women who use PP services every year get an abortion. So what? If one has no objection to abortions, then that number is probably somewhat too low.

    And, "revenue" and "budget" or "income" are not the same thing. PP generates revenue. About half comes from abortions. The rest comes from other services. And a large part of PP's budget comes not from generated revenue but from donations such as government grants.

    More spin undoubtedly on the way. Film at eleven. Except on MSNBC, of course.
  2. byhisello99
    08-19-2015 09:12 PM
    byhisello99
    "I think a big problem for planned parenthood is that, even though abortions make up only 3% of the services they provide annually, it's pretty much all they're known for to the lay person."

    If they have ten million clinic visits and three hundred thousand are for abortions (that's about the right annual number of abortions) then three percent of their services are abortions. Fifty-one percent is the low estimate on planned parenthood's annual revenue derived from abortions. And, PP does between 27 and 40% of the abortions done annually in the country.

    Whether one supports or opposes abortions, one should be able to deal in relevant facts (51% of revenue) versus irrelevant facts (3% of services).

    Only a troglodyte would oppose supporting women's health such as GYN checkups, prenatal care, birth control and the thousand other things that fall into that category. The absolutists on this subforum use false dichotomies daily. "If you don't want Planned Parenthood doing abortions then you oppose supporting women's health and just want to dominate women." That pure unadulterated bullshit.

    The three percent number is spin. Just like Senator Feinstein's statement that Hillary Clinton didn't write the classified emails. Of course she didn't. Only three agencies in government can (not may legally, actually have the capacity) to create Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) documents. No one who has ever dealt with SCI would claim or even believe that Mrs. Clinton wrote the emails.

    The SCI thing, by the way, is a real thread-the-needle problem for her spin doctors. She was authorized access to SCI. If she ever saw the emails and failed to recognize it for what it was, whether marked or not, she's at minimum negligent, most probably stupid, and perhaps a criminal.

    Of the three agencies that have the capacity to create SCI, two are military and simply are not subject to cover up orders. Military members are REQUIRED to refuse to obey illegal orders, something Obama learned the hard way. The CIA, however, might play ball. That's what happened with the Bengazi Talking Points. A senior political appointee accepted responsibility for changing them in order not to embarrass the state department. I actually believe him. After all, the primary function of the CIA is to protect executive departments' reputations, right?

    I'm sure a Clinton underling somewhere will take the fall for the SCI. Which raises the question that will never be posed to Mrs. Clinton: How will President Clinton's selection of underlings differ from Secretary Clinton's? That question has been hanging ever since then-Secretary Clinton blamed the cover up of murder and child prostitution in the department, and persecution of the whistleblower, on underlings. She had nothing to do with it. Except for her selection criteria for the underlings.

    This whole spin machine makes me sick. And journalists allow these folks to get away with it.
  3. Minerva
    08-08-2015 08:15 PM
    Minerva
    Hydrogeology
  4. vedera
    06-17-2015 07:01 AM
    vedera
    If you change your MBTI to xxxx, it disappears from view.
  5. Ktheprogbulldog
    05-26-2015 07:02 AM
    Ktheprogbulldog commented on Do you Like Where You Live?
    I live in Northern Illinois, and the winters here are also terrible.
  6. byhisello99
    05-08-2015 12:55 PM
    byhisello99
    I would give you the details, but then I would be guilty of an infraction. I'm byhisello99@yahoo.com.
  7. byhisello99
    05-08-2015 10:00 AM
    byhisello99
    As you may be aware infraction proceedings are secret and revealing them is itself an infraction.

    I did not realize Larkin is a moderator. It just occurred to me that I need to know who these people are so I can avoid ever replying to them. I think I know how to find out who they are.

    Your revelation makes many many many many many many many things much clearer.
  8. plotthickens
    05-07-2015 07:55 PM
    plotthickens
    Well, thankfully the corruption is fixable, and it's easily started by people shopping at Farmer's Markets. Really, it's that simple.
  9. TzarAlexander
  10. bobabrowncoat
    04-26-2015 06:40 PM
    bobabrowncoat commented on INTJf Minecraft Server
    http://intjforum.com/showpost.php?p=295647&postcount=1 Fifth paragraph tells how to subscribe without posting.
  11. Weltschmerzer
    04-25-2015 07:43 PM
    Weltschmerzer
    What did you score on the SAT/PSAT?
  12. Weltschmerzer
    04-25-2015 07:22 PM
    Weltschmerzer
    You can study fairly cheaply, at least if the GRE is anything like the LSAT.
  13. Weltschmerzer
    04-25-2015 04:06 PM
    Weltschmerzer commented on The GRE
    Not to be a dick, but how the hell did you pull Stanford with that GRE score?
  14. LexRex
    04-22-2015 05:07 PM
    LexRex
    Yes it is. He said people go to stanford because sometimes it's the cheaper option. That is almost never the case.
  15. LexRex
    04-22-2015 03:46 PM
    LexRex
    Somebody who got into stanford would get a full ride at 80% of colleges in the nation.
  16. Warrior
    04-15-2015 04:27 PM
    Warrior
    I have had that image come to mind once or twice.
  17. Monte314
    04-11-2015 08:03 PM
    Monte314
    Yellow Pig.
  18. Monte314
    04-11-2015 06:55 PM
    Monte314
    Yes, I have this book. It is top-notch... and it it mentions "YP"...
  19. Monte314
    04-10-2015 08:23 PM
    Monte314
    Spivak? Which one? There are several... Watch out for "YP"...

    And Bartle is an excellent writer.
  20. Monte314
    04-10-2015 04:08 PM
    Monte314
    Wow... a ChemE taking an advanced analysis class. Most impressive!

About Me

  • About Doomination
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Ohio, USA
  • Personality
    MBTI Type
    xxxx
    Brain Dominance
    Left

Statistics

Total Posts
Visitor Messages
General Information
  • Last Activity: Yesterday 07:40 PM
  • Join Date: 04-25-2011
  • Referrals: 3

Friends

Showing Friends 1 to 5 of 5
  • Anemoi
    • Anemoi is online
  • Da Truth
    • Da Truth is offline
  • Monte314
    • Monte314 is online
  • rbc
    • rbc
    • Veteran Member
    • rbc is offline
  • Tauriel
    • Tauriel is offline

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.