Phone-A-Friend gender for female contestants

Message

Rexer25 · #126 Post by **Rexer25** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:51 pm

SOX404Guru wrote:Thank you MarleysGh0st!!! And thanks for trying to dig up the earlier data.

To answer your question: I'm writing a book regarding gender-based myths women possess. One of the chapters covers the "glass ceiling" and I used the success of men on the show as an example. I want to use the Phone A Friend data to show that even women realize that their most knowledgeable friend is frequently a man. I'm using the data for October for each season of the syndicated series for the PAF data.

I hope that doesn't dissuade you from digging up that info. A gap in my research throws doubt on its credibility.

Thank you again!

FTR

Rexer25 · #127 Post by **Rexer25** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:52 pm

SOX404Guru wrote:Thank you pcmaxey, and thank you again MarleysGh0st. Wow, women have used male Phone A Friends over 80% of the time for the 4 seasons I analyzed. I suspected it would be over 50%, but never thought it would be that high. What a revelation! It'll make a great addition to my book's section on Intelligence & Ambition.

I am still in need of 2005 and 2006 October data. Does anyone know where I might be able to find it? The http://www.wwtbam.biz/test.php archives don't give names of Phone A Friends.

I'm willing to pay for the transcripts, even if I have to get official transcripts but I've been unable to locate them on Disney, ABC, or Buena Vista.

Any suggestions?

Thanks again.

FTR

Rexer25 · #128 Post by **Rexer25** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:53 pm

SOX404Guru wrote:Thanks again pcmaxey! You've already been so helpful that I'll grab those files myself (as soon as the owner lets me in).

Bob78164, nervousness, fear of public appearance and public humiliation were among the reason many websites gave to explain why only 11 of the first 100 contestants were women. Even after they adjusted the double-blind phone quiz selection process, women still represented only 20% of the first 600 contestants.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would turn down being a PAF for this reason, but then again, I find it hard to believe anyone wouldn't jump at a chance to be on "Millionaire".

Mark

FTR

Ritterskoop · #129 Post by **Ritterskoop** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:03 pm

Bob78164 wrote:I plan to give this thread a day or so to reach its natural conclusion, and then lock it. The point, in the unlikely event that the book in fact becomes prominent, is to prevent our new buddy from rewriting history by editing his posts. --Bob

Not a fan of lockage. I understand your intent but owuld prefer we don't lock anything.

Deleting porn is good, and requires no member vote. But this is different.

TheConfessor · #130 Post by **TheConfessor** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:15 pm

Bixby17 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:I plan to give this thread a day or so to reach its natural conclusion, and then lock it. The point, in the unlikely event that the book in fact becomes prominent, is to prevent our new buddy from rewriting history by editing his posts. --Bob
I strongly disagree with your intention to lock this thread.

If you want to preserve his posts so that they can't be edited, quote what he wrote in your own post. That would be a way of doing it without ending discussion.

If you lock a post, nobody can respond to the post and bump it up to the top ever again. Unless they are a moderator and can unlock the post.

Our board has a long history of not "locking" posts, and I would prefer to keep that our history unless there were dire extreme reasons to lock a post. Reasons I can't even think of.

As someone who has been a moderator of another MB, the best moderation is of the sort that doesn't impose itself on others.

I agree with Bixby. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. And now that you've telegraphed your intentions, you've given the guy both opportunity and motive to do what you hoped to prevent.

a1mamacat · #131 Post by **a1mamacat** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:18 pm

I have to agree about NOT locking it. You can delete his membership so he can't come back to change it, if you must do something. Locking would be a form of censorship, and I don't think that is something this community is willing to accept.

ItsAMadMadMadMadCow · #132 Post by **ItsAMadMadMadMadCow** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:03 am

peacock2121 wrote:LOL - mythical breast?

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#133 Post by **Bob78164** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:08 am

a1mamacat wrote:I have to agree about NOT locking it. You can delete his membership so he can't come back to change it, if you must do something. Locking would be a form of censorship, and I don't think that is something this community is willing to accept.

Actually, I don't think my Moderator powers extend to deleting memberships. But the community seems pretty clearly to think that my idea was a bad one, so I'll drop it. --Bob

#134 Post by **littlebeast13** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:24 am

I concur with the others on not locking this or any other thread. And while I'm also opposed to deleting this turd's membership, I do think our spamming buddy indiandumbass from this morning needs to go, and I see another suspicious member in the list (sakuhe2009), though I see no posts. Is this the reference to spam Cal was referring to in the other thread this afternoon? If so, let me know and I'll bump him out too.

Moderating P2, I have a lot of experience throwing spammers out on their ear....

lb13

cindy.wellman · #135 Post by **cindy.wellman** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:29 am

Tread carefully though... Remember, one day you may be on the receiving end of having everyone disagree with you.

Ritterskoop · #136 Post by **Ritterskoop** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:34 am

littlebeast13 wrote:I concur with the others on not locking this or any other thread. And while I'm also opposed to deleting this turd's membership, I do think our spamming buddy indiandumbass from this morning needs to go, and I see another suspicious member in the list (sakuhe2009), though I see no posts. Is this the reference to spam Cal was referring to in the other thread this afternoon? If so, let me know and I'll bump him out too.

Moderating P2, I have a lot of experience throwing spammers out on their ear....

lb13

That post was the porno I was referring to. I presume, anyway. I didn't click on it but the subject title was bad enough. That one I would ban.

I vote to let this morning's poster stay a bit, if he returns. One day each of us will have an unpopular opinion, and will want to be heard. He is offensive but not in a personal attack way, and even seemed to be trying to be courteous sometimes. If we delete everyone who pisses us off, there'll be no one left after a while.

#137 Post by **littlebeast13** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:40 am

Ritterskoop wrote:
littlebeast13 wrote:I concur with the others on not locking this or any other thread. And while I'm also opposed to deleting this turd's membership, I do think our spamming buddy indiandumbass from this morning needs to go, and I see another suspicious member in the list (sakuhe2009), though I see no posts. Is this the reference to spam Cal was referring to in the other thread this afternoon? If so, let me know and I'll bump him out too.

Moderating P2, I have a lot of experience throwing spammers out on their ear....

lb13
That post was the porno I was referring to. I presume, anyway. I didn't click on it but the subject title was bad enough. That one I would ban.

I vote to let this morning's poster stay a bit, if he returns. One day each of us will have an unpopular opinion, and will want to be heard. He is offensive but not in a personal attack way, and even seemed to be trying to be courteous sometimes. If we delete everyone who pisses us off, there'll be no one left after a while.

The porno post was by indianstudent, who ws this morning's spammer (and who I already removed). I'm pretty sure that's not what Cal was referring to in the short thread this afternoon, and I was wondering if something was posted by the sakuhe2009 name that has the same earmarks of a spammer that indianstudent had. If he did, it was deleted while I was gone, and I was wanting to know if there was a spam from that poster. If so, I'm going to delete his membership too.

Sox was the turd I was referring to who I said I was not going to remove. I have no problem with someone wanting to ruffle feathers with their brilliant opinions...

lb13

Ritterskoop · #138 Post by **Ritterskoop** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:51 am

littlebeast13 wrote:
Ritterskoop wrote:
littlebeast13 wrote:I concur with the others on not locking this or any other thread. And while I'm also opposed to deleting this turd's membership, I do think our spamming buddy indiandumbass from this morning needs to go, and I see another suspicious member in the list (sakuhe2009), though I see no posts. Is this the reference to spam Cal was referring to in the other thread this afternoon? If so, let me know and I'll bump him out too.

Moderating P2, I have a lot of experience throwing spammers out on their ear....

lb13
That post was the porno I was referring to. I presume, anyway. I didn't click on it but the subject title was bad enough. That one I would ban.

I vote to let this morning's poster stay a bit, if he returns. One day each of us will have an unpopular opinion, and will want to be heard. He is offensive but not in a personal attack way, and even seemed to be trying to be courteous sometimes. If we delete everyone who pisses us off, there'll be no one left after a while.

The porno post was by indianstudent, who ws this morning's spammer (and who I already removed). I'm pretty sure that's not what Cal was referring to in the short thread this afternoon, and I was wondering if something was posted by the sakuhe2009 name that has the same earmarks of a spammer that indianstudent had. If he did, it was deleted while I was gone, and I was wanting to know if there was a spam from that poster. If so, I'm going to delete his membership too.

Sox was the turd I was referring to who I said I was not going to remove. I have no problem with someone wanting to ruffle feathers with their brilliant opinions...

lb13

I saw only one piece of crud, which you are correct was from indianstudent. I have no opinion on sakuhe and didn't see anything by that poster. Assume it's a valid person until we find out otherwise.

I am intrigued to see if Sox returns. That was energizing, even after the fact.

Corn · #139 Post by **Corn** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:55 am

well, if you're willing to take my word for it, the sakuhe or whatever id (the one that ended in mail.ru) was most definitely a porn spammer.

Ritterskoop · #140 Post by **Ritterskoop** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:16 am

Corn wrote:well, if you're willing to take my word for it, the sakuhe or whatever id (the one that ended in mail.ru) was most definitely a porn spammer.

I believe you. I just wasn't willing to testify as I was not a witness to that one.

TheCalvinator24 · #141 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:11 am

Yes, the other new member was a spammer. Not even a subtle one like indianstudent.

Beebs52 · #142 Post by **Beebs52** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:23 am

Please do not lock the post. I ditto what everybody else has said.

#143 Post by **littlebeast13** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:23 am

Ritterskoop wrote:I am intrigued to see if Sox returns. That was energizing, even after the fact.

Did you notice he was among the members lurking around 12:30 AM Bored Time right before I went to bed...?

lb13

Bored Sweeper · #144 Post by **Bored Sweeper** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:02 am

No need to lock the thread. This is what I get paid for...

<SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP>

#145 Post by **Bob78164** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:25 pm

He's ba-a-ack! --Bob

MarleysGh0st · #146 Post by **MarleysGh0st** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:41 pm

Bob78164 wrote:He's ba-a-ack! --Bob

Ooooh! Did you see this quote?

I can't believe Millionaire has more data on it than Jeopardy.

He manages to slam both of our groups at once!

peacock2121 · #147 Post by **peacock2121** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:53 pm

A different bored, the same ass.

SOX404Guru · #148 Post by **SOX404Guru** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:53 pm

Sorry Bob, you must have confused someone else for me. I haven't returned. I'm here now because I just received an email saying someone responded to the message string.

Glad I did though because you guys have had some interesting things to say since I last visited.

littlebeast13, I wasn't lurking around at the end of October. I just stayed logged on while waiting for the final October transcript that I needed for my research. If you're interested, women used male phone-a-friends 80% of the time.

Again, thanks for everyone's help! I'm glad I could spice things up a bit. Your passionate responses provided confirmation that my research will be of interest to many (even those who resent it).

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!!!

SOX404Guru · #149 Post by **SOX404Guru** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:12 pm

Oh I see, you guys saw me on the Jeopardy post.

I wasn’t slamming either message board. I’m just surprised that a show that has been around as long as Jeopardy has doesn’t have more research on it about gender performance. So I have to shell out $600 for a stay-at-home mom to do the research for me.

By the way peacock2121, the primary objective of my book is to save lives by increasing awareness of and funding for heart disease (as I stated earlier). Speaking of Millionaire and Jeopardy, what do the shows have in common other than superior male performance? The hosts of both shows suffer from heart disease (which is what kills 44% of women (even though only 8% of women realize it) compared to just 3.3% from breast cancer (which is what the majority of women believe to be their biggest health risk)).

cindy.wellman and Ritterskoop, never have wiser words been spoken. It’s the behavior from people like peacock that prevents the media from saying anything as controversial as “breast cancer isn’t nearly as serious as heart disease.” This has resulted in the deaths of thousands of men and women each year.

Have a wonderful Christmas all!!!

#150 Post by **littlebeast13** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:43 pm

SOX404Guru wrote:littlebeast13, I wasn't lurking around at the end of October. I just stayed logged on while waiting for the final October transcript that I needed for my research.

You must think I'm stupid or something....

lb13

WWTBAM Bored

Phone-A-Friend gender for female contestants

Re: PAF being stressful for women