Orton's Arm Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Saying the wrong sh-- over and over again doesnt make it right. Hence the reason you are STILL wrong and have no clue about what you are talking about. 856202[/snapback] If I could convert your post's irony into cash, I'd be Bill Gates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 If I could convert your post's irony into cash, I'd be Bill Gates. 857903[/snapback] You haven't listened to a thing anyone's posted on the subject, have you? Let me make this as clear as I can: we're right, you're wrong, we've proved it, YOU'VE proved it, shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 You haven't listened to a thing anyone's posted on the subject, have you? Let me make this as clear as I can: we're right, you're wrong, we've proved it, YOU'VE proved it, shut up. 857974[/snapback] Such confidence from someone who's so utterly wrong. Did you even read a single word of either of the articles to which I linked? How many articles were you able to find to support your deeply mistaken position? The last time I checked, you'd found a grand total of zero. Nor were you able to refute any of the logic I posed. That's because the logic is irrefutable: a score of 140 on an I.Q. test is more likely to signal a lucky 130 than an unlucky 150, because there are more 130s than 150s. Your (and Ramius's) inability to grasp such a simple concept, repeatedly explained, has significantly decreased your credibility in my eyes. Ramius never had any credibility to begin with, so I'm not as worried about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Such confidence from someone who's so utterly wrong. Did you even read a single word of either of the articles to which I linked? How many articles were you able to find to support your deeply mistaken position? The last time I checked, you'd found a grand total of zero. Nor were you able to refute any of the logic I posed. That's because the logic is irrefutable: a score of 140 on an I.Q. test is more likely to signal a lucky 130 than an unlucky 150, because there are more 130s than 150s. Your (and Ramius's) inability to grasp such a simple concept, repeatedly explained, has significantly decreased your credibility in my eyes. Ramius never had any credibility to begin with, so I'm not as worried about him. 858001[/snapback] How many textbooks did you find that support your egregiously erroneous blather? The last time I checked, you couldn't even define "variance", and you can't define "regression" without defining "variance". Well, you can't correctly define regression without it. You can make up all sorts of bull sh-- about "luck" and "measurement error", and spew some drivel that sort-of sounds like it might be "regression" if you were explaining it to your average table lamp. Too bad it's not even the least bit grounded in reality; otherwise, you might actually be capable of discussing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 How many textbooks did you find that support your egregiously erroneous blather? The last time I checked, you couldn't even define "variance", and you can't define "regression" without defining "variance". Well, you can't correctly define regression without it. You can make up all sorts of bull sh-- about "luck" and "measurement error", and spew some drivel that sort-of sounds like it might be "regression" if you were explaining it to your average table lamp. Too bad it's not even the least bit grounded in reality; otherwise, you might actually be capable of discussing it. 858012[/snapback] Why would you bring textbooks into this discussion, when you haven't been able to find any which support your own misguided view of regression toward the mean? Give me a link from a credible source which supports your views, and then try arguing with me. Because right now, you're full of enough hot air to significantly contribute to global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Why would you bring textbooks into this discussion, when you haven't been able to find any which support your own misguided view of regression toward the mean? Give me a link from a credible source which supports your views, and then try arguing with me. Because right now, you're full of enough hot air to significantly contribute to global warming. 858033[/snapback] "A link"? PICK UP A STATISTICS TEXTBOOK. I've got an even half-dozen on my bookshelf at home (excluding the stat mech and quantum physics textbooks, which are heavily statistical as well) that ALL say you're a horse's ass. Unfortunately, none of them actually exist as web pages...so the entire body of statistical and physics knowledge must be wrong, because you can't !@#$ing google it. Jesus Christ, you're a dope... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 "A link"? PICK UP A STATISTICS TEXTBOOK. I've got an even half-dozen on my bookshelf at home (excluding the stat mech and quantum physics textbooks, which are heavily statistical as well) that ALL say you're a horse's ass. Unfortunately, none of them actually exist as web pages...so the entire body of statistical and physics knowledge must be wrong, because you can't !@#$ing google it. Jesus Christ, you're a dope... 858036[/snapback] Your statement about stats books is incorrect--no reputable stats book would support your arguments about regression toward the mean. You may think you remember what those books have to say on the subject, but you're wrong. The nice thing about links is that you can't just make up whatever you feel like, or what you think you remember, and post it as an absolute fact. Others can see if the link says what you claim it says. The reason you can't provide a credible link to support your views is because no credible source is going to support you. I, however, was able to support my view with the Hyperstat link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Your statement about stats books is incorrect--no reputable stats book would support your arguments about regression toward the mean. Says the guy that hasn't !@#$ing read any of them. You may think you remember what those books have to say on the subject, but you're wrong. I don't "think" I remember what those books say; I read them. I could quote them, except 1) I can't post equations in this format, and 2) you wouldn't understand them anyway, so what's the point? The nice thing about links is that you can't just make up whatever you feel like, or what you think you remember, and post it as an absolute fact. Others can see if the link says what you claim it says. The reason you can't provide a credible link to support your views is because no credible source is going to support you. In other words, "It's not true, because I didn't read it on the web." If you could do the math, you could disprove your own bull sh--. You can't...you can't even define "regression" or "mean" (in fact, you've consistently defined "mean" incorrectly throughout this discussion). I'm not even sure you can define "toward". I, however, was able to support my view with the Hyperstat link. 858040[/snapback] Except that you demonstrably misunderstood that too, being unable to distinguish between the colloquial idea of "luck", the scientific idea of "error", and the mathematical ideas of "variance", "regression", and "mean". Yet another reason no one can discuss it with you: you don't even understand the basics. Like I said, pick up a statistics textbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Like I said, pick up a statistics textbook. 858054[/snapback] Your post consisted of excuses disguised as attacks. I've given a link to a very credible source, which supports what I've been saying about regression toward the mean. Obviously you're unable to do the same with your view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 548 posts for a thread that could be summed up in one quick visual: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Your post consisted of excuses disguised as attacks. I've given a link to a very credible source, which supports what I've been saying about regression toward the mean. Obviously you're unable to do the same with your view. 858062[/snapback] What part of "Pick up a textbook" do you not understand? If you did, you'd know that YOUR SOURCE IS WRONG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 What part of "Pick up a textbook" do you not understand? If you did, you'd know that YOUR SOURCE IS WRONG. 858263[/snapback] Yet another post without a link. What a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Yet another post without a link. What a surprise. 858295[/snapback] Read a !@#$ing textbook, moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Read a !@#$ing textbook, moron. 858298[/snapback] I refuse to pay $115 for a textbook because you're too stupid to understand regression toward the mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I refuse to pay $115 for a textbook because you're too stupid to understand regression toward the mean. 858309[/snapback] I'm not asking you to pay anything. You asked for a link to a credible source that proves you wrong. I'd think a graduate level textbook on the subject is a credible source, and it proves you wrong. You refuse to pay $115 for it because you're deathly afraid of realizing you're a fool. Not looking like a fool, mind you. You clearly embrace that with a passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I refuse to pay $115 for a textbook because you're too stupid to understand regression toward the mean. 858309[/snapback] You obviously didn't look in the Used and New section linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I'm not asking you to pay anything. You asked for a link to a credible source that proves you wrong. I'd think a graduate level textbook on the subject is a credible source, and it proves you wrong. You refuse to pay $115 for it because you're deathly afraid of realizing you're a fool. Not looking like a fool, mind you. You clearly embrace that with a passion. 858345[/snapback] The only way I'd be a fool is if I paid $115 to confirm what I already know about regression toward the mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 You obviously didn't look in the Used and New section linky 858351[/snapback] You're right: I didn't bother looking there. Whether I pay $40 or $115 doesn't matter: it's still not worth spending my own money just because Bungee Jumper refuses to admit he's dead wrong about regression toward the mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 The only way I'd be a fool is if I paid $115 to confirm what I already know about regression toward the mean. 858586[/snapback] I can guarantee you two things: 1) no textbook will "confirm" your delusions, 2) you'll think it will, because you're completely incapable of understanding it. You still haven't managed to define one basic statistical term correctly, in 28 pages. You couldn't read that textbook anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I can guarantee you two things: 1) no textbook will "confirm" your delusions, 2) you'll think it will, because you're completely incapable of understanding it. You still haven't managed to define one basic statistical term correctly, in 28 pages. You couldn't read that textbook anyway. 858608[/snapback] The only thing a textbook won't confirm is your idiotic notion of "regression toward the mean of error." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts