The first and last both rely on definitions of sexism that don't necessarily include prejudice. That doesn't support your claim. They allow for your definition, but they also allow for the "stereotyping" definition, which you claimed was incorrect.

The middle defines "sexist" as "male chauvinist", which is absurdly narrow, but if you consider that in agreement, that would give you WordNet and MSN Encarta. Beyond those two, I can not find a source that supports your claim.

As for the AHA, I doubt any of their employees put those titles into the web page. It is quite possible a sexist person put the titles in, and the titles remain there due to ignorance.

Yeah, the second two support my claim. And the first definition goes on to explain the origin of the word to be on the model of racist. Related word: male chauvinist. But back to my initial point, I can't honestly believe that anyone at the AHA would think that no women should be a Dr. Their website error only signals their belief that there aren't a lot of female Dr.s. Kudos to you, Taod, for proving them wrong.

I'm going to have to ask what dictionary you're relying on at this point. Most I search redirect the page to sexism (google web definitions, wikipedia, merriam-webster).

dictionary.com:
- pertaining to, involving, or fostering sexism

princeton's WordNet:
- discriminatory on the basis of sex

wiktionary.org:
- A person who discriminates on grounds of sex; someone who practises sexism


Only MSN Encarta seems to share your definition.

Touche. But she used the word sexist, which only incorporates the first definition of sexism.

Sexism has more than one definition, one of which doesn't imply superiority.

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Sexist would imply that being a Dr. somehow makes you superior. The word you are looking for is stereotypical. No?

That's a little sexist....AHA Jump Rope website choices for titles includes Dr. & Mrs., but not Dr. & Mr.

RBO, sorry I missed your phone call. We can talk tonight

I think that you have 2 dishwashers that you named Frank and Sandy...

And there goes the dishwasher too....

that is so awesome u r so lucky

LTYSAO - Tracy: 16 hours, though this is really going to suck when Nathaniel leaves in March.

Lauren, I was snowboarding...I even went down the south bowl.

A singles mixer would include both males and females, not just guys who are kinda male and strongly male. Mixed conclusion would benefit the ABA, because it would mean no strong link had been found and repeatedly found.

One other major problem with the study is that the data is self-reported. People who have pancreatic cancer are probably more accurate at reporting the number of sodas drank better than people who do not have pancreatic cancer.

Regardless of the article's poor word choice and the study's lack of observations, I still don't drink soda. It gives me gas.

proud parenting moment from yesterday: We dump the big tub of legos onto the floor, start rummaging through them to build a rocket or pool or helicopter and Payton says: "Dad, you find and I'll build"

I'm not sure that's how the American Beverage Association uses the term "mixed conclusions".

Likewise, there are "mixed ideas" on evolution, and "mixed results" on the dangers of smoking.

LTYSAO (last time you've seen an ohler)

Eric: 8 days.

Mixed means some found no correlation, some found a negative correlation, some found a positive.

Given the statistical work, I'll buy the sugars study and believe the theory of an additional link with soda, but the soda study uses too small of number to provide evidence of anything. It doesn't strengthen anything when you use bad data.

Well, obviously it is corroborating everything in the "mixed conclusions" that lies on the "causes pancreatic cancer" side.

But what does mixed conclusions mean? Some found it heavily correlated and others found it lightly correlated? Or is there just one study that opposes all the others?

:Pereira points out that the findings are biologically plausible, held up in non-smokers, remained similar after taking other dietary habits into account and are consistent with findings in Caucasian populations.

:Even though the new study has limitations, the findings do echo those of previous studies, says Laurence N. Kolonel, MD, PhD, a researcher at the Cancer Research Center and professor of public health at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu. With his colleagues, he evaluated the association between added sugars in the diet and pancreatic cancer risk, publishing the findings in 2007. “In our study, we found a positive association between high intake of fructose and pancreatic cancer,” he tells WebMD. “Since high-fructose corn syrup is the main sweetener in non-diet soft drinks, our findings and those of the present study are quite consistent.”

"Previous studies have produced mixed conclusions about whether consumption of soft drinks boosts the risk of pancreatic cancer." Not sure what is it corroborating?

but did you look at the previous studies it corroborated?

And I just got back from assisting disabled individuals ski.

INI

I'm writing Letters of Recommendation... cut... paste... change name... change pronoun.

Also, I looked at the statistics for the pancreatic cancer, soda link and that is a really small number of observations.

Sent the kids to a party with Ed. Waiting for another party myself.

I am in a supermarket parking lot listening to Brian Wilson remixed

where is everybody?

saw the donation notes on that AHA website. I think Ohlers are 2/3 of their online total WTG people and RightNow

Yea for Friday. It didn't snow today...but I did have a soft drink before I
read all this. I think I'm still good since it's the weekend.

And let's not forget the happiest of news.....

iiiiiiiiit's FRIDAY!!!

Oh yeah, and I gave up soft drinks one year ago - almost to the day.

but is the interview for a job or for research?

yeah, that soft drink story is not happy news for Frank.

Thanks for the happy notes. I got to call 4 people today and tell them they have been selected for an interview at MSU. So I got that going for me.

Oh yeah, and Nathaniel's cooking dinner.

happy news here is a plane ticket to Amsterdam... and a holiday train ticket to Prague as well. I could use a housesitter now though. New video game for the xbox, and gyros for lunch. Oh, and I worked the company-matching donation program for Lauren's project. That was sweet.

The last wind developer I worked with was fired when his lies caught up to him.

rsj: You missed a recent study on pancreatic cancer that found "People who drank two or more soft drinks a week had an 87% increased risk -- or nearly twice the risk -- of pancreatic cancer compared to individuals consuming no soft drinks".

happy news, so.. we own 2 toyotas that have missed all recalls so far. All city IT staff off-site this afternoon so the other consultant and I are the only ones in the room. Lauren usually does a very good job with her homework and school projects. Matto is always wittier than I am on facebook. There is beer in the fridge.

I feel like I missed something important. Anyone want to clue me in?

I have an interview on Monday with the VP of Invenergy. They are the largest independent wind developer in the U.S. They developed the Judith Gap wind farm in Montana, and Grand Ridge in LaSalle, IL. They are currently developing a wind farm in Vantage, WA along the Columbia, making the drive along I90 that much more interesting. So I got that going for me.

Somebody give me some happy news please....I need it.

pancreatic cancer in a can is evil? says who?