The Heritage Foundation just asked teens and took them at their word, right?

Yes, how did you know?

Oops, forgot to post the link: [link]

eta:

Dr. Bearman said: "Our analyses showed that pledgers are less likely to get tested for S.T.D.'s, be diagnosed as having an S.T.D. and to see a doctor because they are worried about having an S.T.D. Most S.T.D. infections are asymptomatic, and therefore, people don't know that they have an S.T.D. unless they get tested. The use of self-report data for S.T.D.'s is therefore extremely problematic."

Yes, how did you know?

Heh. Didn't read the report, I just kind of figured.

ION not-of-this-world, NASA says it will send people to the Moon to build a base sometime in the next 10-15 years.

[link]

Hmmm.... I'm getting hungry for Tang and Space Food Sticks....

Yeah, right. Not holding my breath.

Moonbase! Suh-weet! (eta: but they said 2020 at the latest, I can't take that to the bank?)

Yes -t-- that is a pretty apt description of my boss.

Superweak, Sophia.

ita, thanks!

But the authors of the new study used different methods of statistical analysis from those in an earlier one that was widely publicized, making direct comparisons difficult.

It what where now?

Challenging earlier findings, two studies from the Heritage Foundation reported yesterday that young people who took virginity pledges had lower rates of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases and engaged in fewer risky sexual behaviors.

This is another example of the Neocons blatant disregard for truth. The study is a misrepresentation of the data (this 'study' is based on the same data as the earler studies). It's a dirty stinking lie that could never be published in a legitimate journal. But it won't matter. These lies will be repeated over and over again. That's why the scum at the Heritage Foundation cooked them up.

The study is a misrepresentation of the data (this 'study' is based on the same data as the earler studies).

Shouldn't it be called a meta-analysis, if it was only a re-analysis of somebody else's data? Or, a meta-non-analysis, which is a more accurate description of what these people actually did.

I'm in agreeance with Rick that telling lies about science is bad and, let me check, I think sends Christians to hell. I mean, the scientists know they're lies, and that means at least some of the public policy people will know they're lies, but the number of people who won't know they're lies, and the number of people who know and don't care, makes me want to throw things.

Like, glass test tubes, or HCl, or neurotoxins.