Why don't you pussies

Lie detector tests aren't admissible in civil or criminal courts, and
statistically they are nearly 90% accurate. The reason why some science
isn't admissible even though it's almost always accurate is because certain
applications get blind faith when it isn't merited. This will be a part of
Tyler's argument, especially if he can't invalidate the science employed by
the UCI.

Tyler is going to file a lawsuit I guarantee it. The scientific methods
that ultimately are presented to the jury will be determined by a judge
after reviewing pre-trial motions to strike expert witness testimony.

I'm not so sure it's safe to assume that the UCI's methods will ultimately
be upheld by the arbitration panel. BTW, it will be a three judge panel,
one appointed by Tyler, one appointed by the UCI and the third appointed by
the consent of the first two (without input from the parties).
"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

snip

The homologous blood transfusion test would never be accepted by a

court

of law.





Dumbass -

They're not going to throw the blood doper in jail. It's only bike
racing.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.


Dumbass,

Ever hear of civil court?

Magilla

MagillaGorilla wrote in message ...

Cary Ellis's science is a lot better than the Kangaroos who said their
test is 100% infallible.

Who the hell is Cary Ellis?

DNA tests took years to be accepted because they needed to be reassured
all the false positives were worked out. Innocent people went to jail
over false positives for DNA tests.

Duh! There is no "false positives" because that isn't the way the DNA
analysis works.

Maybe you ought to know a little something about the things that you
want to talk about.

MagillaGorilla wrote in message ...

Cary Ellis's science is a lot better than the Kangaroos who said their
test is 100% infallible.

Who the hell is Cary Ellis?

DNA tests took years to be accepted because they needed to be reassured
all the false positives were worked out. Innocent people went to jail
over false positives for DNA tests.

Duh! There is no "false positives" because that isn't the way the DNA
analysis works.

Maybe you ought to know a little something about the things that you
want to talk about.

Tom Kunich wrote:


Who the hell is Cary Ellis?


probably this guy:

http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laur...s-autobio.html
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/kmullis.htm

Tom Kunich wrote:


Who the hell is Cary Ellis?


probably this guy:

http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laur...s-autobio.html
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/kmullis.htm

Tom Kunich wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote in message ...

Cary Ellis's science is a lot better than the Kangaroos who said their
test is 100% infallible.


Who the hell is Cary Ellis?


DNA tests took years to be accepted because they needed to be reassured
all the false positives were worked out. Innocent people went to jail
over false positives for DNA tests.


Duh! There is no "false positives" because that isn't the way the DNA
analysis works.

Maybe you ought to know a little something about the things that you
want to talk about.


Sorry, I meant Kary Mullis, I keep forgetting his name. He's the guy
who invented the technique called PCR (polymerase chain reaction).

And yes, there were false positives with DNA, loser. You obviously
don't know how it works.

The false positives were based on insufficient statistics for certain
gene loci. So people were convicted based on DNA matches to what were
really gene loci that were fairly common in the population. It took
years to get enough statistics to make the DNA test false positive rate
in the "1 in 3.5 billion" range.

So you can drop your little condescending lecture, Tom.

Magilla

Tom Kunich wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote in message ...

Cary Ellis's science is a lot better than the Kangaroos who said their
test is 100% infallible.


Who the hell is Cary Ellis?


DNA tests took years to be accepted because they needed to be reassured
all the false positives were worked out. Innocent people went to jail
over false positives for DNA tests.


Duh! There is no "false positives" because that isn't the way the DNA
analysis works.

Maybe you ought to know a little something about the things that you
want to talk about.


Sorry, I meant Kary Mullis, I keep forgetting his name. He's the guy
who invented the technique called PCR (polymerase chain reaction).

And yes, there were false positives with DNA, loser. You obviously
don't know how it works.

The false positives were based on insufficient statistics for certain
gene loci. So people were convicted based on DNA matches to what were
really gene loci that were fairly common in the population. It took
years to get enough statistics to make the DNA test false positive rate
in the "1 in 3.5 billion" range.

So you can drop your little condescending lecture, Tom.

Magilla

Tom's role here is to provide condescending lectures, Magilla. Tom is an
angry man. Tom break things when Tom mad. Tom no like Magilla. Magilla
hide.

Just kidding, Tom.

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote in message
...

Cary Ellis's science is a lot better than the Kangaroos who said their
test is 100% infallible.


Who the hell is Cary Ellis?


DNA tests took years to be accepted because they needed to be reassured
all the false positives were worked out. Innocent people went to jail
over false positives for DNA tests.


Duh! There is no "false positives" because that isn't the way the DNA
analysis works.

Maybe you ought to know a little something about the things that you
want to talk about.


Sorry, I meant Kary Mullis, I keep forgetting his name. He's the guy
who invented the technique called PCR (polymerase chain reaction).

And yes, there were false positives with DNA, loser. You obviously
don't know how it works.

The false positives were based on insufficient statistics for certain
gene loci. So people were convicted based on DNA matches to what were
really gene loci that were fairly common in the population. It took
years to get enough statistics to make the DNA test false positive rate
in the "1 in 3.5 billion" range.

So you can drop your little condescending lecture, Tom.

Magilla

Tom's role here is to provide condescending lectures, Magilla. Tom is an
angry man. Tom break things when Tom mad. Tom no like Magilla. Magilla
hide.

Just kidding, Tom.

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote in message
...

Cary Ellis's science is a lot better than the Kangaroos who said their
test is 100% infallible.


Who the hell is Cary Ellis?


DNA tests took years to be accepted because they needed to be reassured
all the false positives were worked out. Innocent people went to jail
over false positives for DNA tests.


Duh! There is no "false positives" because that isn't the way the DNA
analysis works.

Maybe you ought to know a little something about the things that you
want to talk about.


Sorry, I meant Kary Mullis, I keep forgetting his name. He's the guy
who invented the technique called PCR (polymerase chain reaction).

And yes, there were false positives with DNA, loser. You obviously
don't know how it works.

The false positives were based on insufficient statistics for certain
gene loci. So people were convicted based on DNA matches to what were
really gene loci that were fairly common in the population. It took
years to get enough statistics to make the DNA test false positive rate
in the "1 in 3.5 billion" range.

So you can drop your little condescending lecture, Tom.

Magilla

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote in message
...

Cary Ellis's science is a lot better than the Kangaroos who said their
test is 100% infallible.


Who the hell is Cary Ellis?


DNA tests took years to be accepted because they needed to be reassured
all the false positives were worked out. Innocent people went to jail
over false positives for DNA tests.


Duh! There is no "false positives" because that isn't the way the DNA
analysis works.

Maybe you ought to know a little something about the things that you
want to talk about.


Sorry, I meant Kary Mullis, I keep forgetting his name. He's the guy who
invented the technique called PCR (polymerase chain reaction).

Kary worked for Cetus and left a little after I got there. I was told that
he was so drugged up all the time that he was a danger to himself.

And yes, there were false positives with DNA, loser. You obviously don't
know how it works.

As a clue - I designed the power supply for the first and second generation
thermocyclers that makes the process possible. I just may have a little more
knowledge of the science than you do.

The false positives were based on insufficient statistics for certain gene
loci. So people were convicted based on DNA matches to what were really
gene loci that were fairly common in the population. It took years to get
enough statistics to make the DNA test false positive rate in the "1 in
3.5 billion" range.

What you are suggesting that the test gives "false positives" because people
don't know what they're looking at. Figures.

So you can drop your little condescending lecture, Tom.

For you, never a quicky, always a longy.