Are you aware that the one fire chief who was asked to evaluate the test was from Cobb County, Georgia?

Are you in anyway familiar with Cobb County, Georgia?

Why do you believe he was chosen to evaluate the test?

The biggest problem with Sotomayor's Ricci decision is that she evidently thought it so obvious she was not inclined to give any reasons. THAT is what put her outside the mainstream.

This is a rather bizarre objection. The ruling states that the lower court's reasoning explained all that needed to be said. Why do they need to repeat themselves?

And when you have Clarence Thomas who goes years at a time without asking litigants a question on the bench, it's pretty weird to go after Sotomayor for brevity.

Anyway, there was an existing ruling that spelt out the details and the appeals court thought it was just fine. Unless this is just a Southern Strategy way of calling her a lazy spic, I don't see the point of this objection.

POTW was googled and I got a list from the free dictionary:

Acronym Definition

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works

POTW Player of the Week

POTW Picture of the Week

POTW Poem of the Week (website)

POTW Post of the Week

POTW Patient of the Week (House, TV show)

POTW Parting of the Ways (Doctor Who)

POTW Patents on the Web

POTW Point Out the Women (Dota clan)

POTW Publicly Operated Treatment Work

Care to pick one?

Nonsense. I strongly disagree with Kennedy on his weighting of the percentage breakdown. It was a sample of 77 people, which is tiny. It's ridiculous to talk about detailed stat sets when you're dealing with a situation where if three or four guys didn't get a decent night's sleep because the baby was crying, or were stressed after arguing with their wives, or a hundred other reasons, it could be enough to significantly skew the racial percentages of passers and failers. The sample size is just too small.

For example, imagine a Gallup poll on Barack Obama's approval rating. The sample consists of 77 non-randomly selected interviewees. Is that an opinion poll you would take seriously?

Are we discussing a poll of random people or are we discussing actual numbers of real people?

The numbers referred to in the majority opinion were not obtained by a random sampling. They were the actual numbers (percentages) of pass/fail rates among different subsets of those

I grow weary of this. If you sincerely believe that 77 is a large enough sample to statistically invalidate a test, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Are you proud that you voted based on skin color?

Idiot.

I voted for Obama because I thought he would be a much better president than McCain (a belief to which I still cling, albeit with ever-increasing desperation). But if it had been a close call on the merits, I would have voted for Obama because of his race. Because the election of a black president was, I believe, a very meaningful and inspiring milestone in this country's history.

Does that make me a racist?

I'm one of those loons who believes that, in the abscence of significant statistical evidence, the actual content of the promotion test should be examined for evidence of racial bias.

Imagine that -- actually looking at the fucking content of the fucking test. What a crazy person I am for even thinking of such an idea.

Actually, the actual results should give a pretty good picture of whether a test is discriminatory or not, regardless of what the content of the test actually is. It's results that count, not theory.

In this case, the actual results of the test seem to indicate that the test was, in fact, discriminatory.

How much more appropriate could it be than to use the actual results of the test in question? It seems to me that those results would certainly measure up to your "significant statistical evidence" test.

You missed his point. He means that the results invalidate the test on its face. There is no valid test that can ever be given that would produce that outcome in any field.

See how easy it is to understand now?

I have seen testing for decades, and it is true those who answer more questions correctly get a higher raw score. Unfortunately, such results can not be allowed to stand unadjusted, now can they?

POTW = People Other Than White.

Had you asked, I could have saved you all that trouble.

Not a hard question.

Are you proud you voted based on skin color?

I grow weary of this. If you sincerely believe that 77 is a large enough sample to statistically invalidate a test, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Fine. You apparently are having a hard time accepting the fact that those 77 people are the ones who actually took the test in question and they took the test at the time in question and the results clearly indicate that the test was discriminatory under EEOC rules.

The results don't count.

New Haven should have ignored them. New Haven should have told the EEOC to stick their rules up their collective asses.

Right.

Uh, huh.

I grow weary of trolls.

I'd ask you if you're proud of beating your wife, but I'm afraid of the answer I'd get.

Very familiar with Cobb county. It encompasses northern suburban Atlanta around Marrietta. I have a good freind in Marrietta who does computer networking for a company in Atlanta. He's got a great house on a lake stocked with bass. If you're into fishing you'd love his place. I am hoping you are not trying to suggest anything negative about Cobb county.

Sorry to digress. I was speaking about the test being validated for racial fairness. Your fire Chief in Cobb county would have attested to it's usefulness to asess job related knowledge; it is also vetted to test for any tones of racial bias. Not saying it was a perfect test, but at least it was prepared by experts in that field.