Err America files Chapter 11

[Ramius]

December 6th, 2006:

 

Its now Day 55. Holcomb's arm is still wrong, and still has no comprehension of regression toward the mean, error, heritability, inheritibility, or the genetic basis for intelligence, or the NFL QB position. He still continually beats his head against the wall. One cannot discuss this with him, as he cannot stop thinking he is right and 99.999% of the rest of the world is wrong. I liken this back to his irrational comments and "analysis" on JP Losman versus Kelly Holcomb. Looking at one side of an issue, ignoring facts, and making overall generally irrational and unsubstantiated claims. When pointed out that he is wrong, he continually shouts "I'm RIGHT, I'M RIGHT, I'M RIGHT" in hopes that somehow, someway, this will make his statements less wrong. So far his efforts have been futile and unsuccessful.

 

We never thought it would go on this long. We figured, that at some point, he would crack and realize he was wrong and run and hide. This almost happend on November 16th, but he keeps coming back for more. The Doctor will be pleasantly surprised with the hard headedness of the subject. Previous research shows that most normal subjects crack around Day 41-43. Here we are at 55 and counting. The Doctor will be able to get quite the research article out fo this subject. If the utter stupidity of the subject continues into the new year, we could be looking at a potential nobel prize.

 

~R 12/6/2006

[Bungee Jumper]

The only thing a textbook won't confirm is your idiotic notion of "regression toward the mean of error."

858733[/snapback]

 

Of course, you have absolutely no way of knowing that, since you won't read one.

 

But the internet told you so, and that's far more authorative.

[Ramius]

PS - Its a downright shame that the subject, holcombs arm, isnt female. It would have made for a nearly unstoppable contestant on America's Stupidest Woman®

[Taro T]

PS - Its a downright shame that the subject, holcombs arm, isnt female. It would have made for a nearly unstoppable contestant on America's Stupidest Woman®

858845[/snapback]

Actually, if some guy were that confused that he actually entered the competition, wouldn't he have a leg up on the competition, so to speak?

[Wacka]

Two people without a life:

holcombs arm and DCT/CTM/BJ.

 

Kill this thread already!

[Orton's Arm]

One cannot discuss this with him

You can't discuss this with me, for two very good reasons:

1. You don't know the first thing you're talking about

2. The only way you know how to express your views is to insult those who think differently

 

If you never say anything intelligent (and you don't), it'd be foolish to expect an intelligent discussion. Nonetheless, I've intelligently discussed regression toward the mean; which you were apparently too stupid to understand. So I provided links, which you either didn't read, or read and didn't understand. Then, because I fail to hack a path through the jungle of your own willful stupidity, you start throwing insults at me.

 

The fact I vanished for a while was because I'd found better ways to spend my time than wasting it on someone like you.

[Bungee Jumper]

Nonetheless, I've intelligently discussed regression toward the mean;

858968[/snapback]

 

Or something almost exactly unlike it.

 

Again...how can you say you "intelligently" discussed something, when you can't even define the words you're using. Tell us what "variance", "error", "mean", and "regression" are, genius...

[Ramius]

I've intelligently discussed regression toward the mean

 

by intelligently, do you mean trying to argue that you are right while thousands of people and textbooks claim you are wrong? Because thats been your only arguement for 40+ pages - "I'm right, you're wrong, because i am right"

 

 

So I provided links, which you either didn't read, or read and didn't understand.

 

I read them, and YOU are the one who didnt understand them. You cant even understand the things you have linked to. Also, instead of pasting crap from some random website, try read a stats textbook. Oh thats right, you wont, because it proves you are wrong.

 

The fact I vanished for a while was because I'd found better ways to spend my time than wasting it on someone like you.

858968[/snapback]

 

Did you manage to actually to talk to a woman, or did you just stick to stalking from afar this time?

[Bungee Jumper]

I read them, and YOU are the one who didnt understand them. You cant even understand the things you have linked to. Also, instead of pasting crap from some random website, try read a stats textbook. Oh thats right, you wont, because it proves you are wrong.

858974[/snapback]

 

No, because it's too expensive.

 

Moron never heard of !@#$ing libraries, apparently.

[Orton's Arm]

Or something almost exactly unlike it. 

 

Again...how can you say you "intelligently" discussed something, when you can't even define the words you're using.  Tell us what "variance", "error", "mean", and "regression" are, genius...

858972[/snapback]

No. I've done enough. I've provided links to credible sources which support what I've written about regression toward the mean. You've provided no links whatsoever to any sources which support your view. If you're unwilling to research this topic for yourself, or unable to understand what it is you've researched, that's your problem.

[Bungee Jumper]

No. I've done enough. I've provided links to credible sources which support what I've written about regression toward the mean. You've provided no links whatsoever to any sources which support your view.

858986[/snapback]

 

Link, again.

[Orton's Arm]

Link, again.   

858991[/snapback]

Wow! You've found a link to a place that lets you buy a statistics textbook! That must mean that every word you've ever written about stats is 100% correct!

 

I've found links to actual articles which confirm what I've been saying all along about regression toward the mean. Since you weren't able to understand those articles, you might want to buy that stats book for yourself.

[Ramius]

No, because it's too expensive.

 

Moron never heard of !@#$ing libraries, apparently. 

858985[/snapback]

 

Well obviously him and his little mensa super genius club message board are above libraries. Those places are for common folk like us.

 

His super genius club only uses the ultimate all-knowing knowledge source, wikipedia.

[Bungee Jumper]

Well obviously him and his little mensa super genius club message board are above libraries. Those places are for common folk like us.

 

His super genius club only uses the ultimate all-knowing knowledge source, wikipedia.

858996[/snapback]

 

Don't forget hyperstats.

[Orton's Arm]

Don't forget hyperstats. 

858998[/snapback]

And several other sources. As compared to the zero links you've provided which support your view. If your view of regression toward the mean was correct (it isn't) don't you think you'd be able to find links somewhere to support it? If statistics textbooks supported your view (which they don't) don't you think you'd be able to find a direct quote from one of them which would say so?

[Bungee Jumper]

And several other sources. As compared to the zero links you've provided which support your view.

 

Link AGAIN.

 

If your view of regression toward the mean was correct (it isn't) don't you think you'd be able to find links somewhere to support it? If statistics textbooks supported your view (which they don't) don't you think you'd be able to find a direct quote from one of them which would say so?

859006[/snapback]

 

Conversely, if your view were correct (it's not), you'd think you'd be able to describe it in terms of "variance". But then, you can't even define "variance".

[Orton's Arm]

Link AGAIN. 

It's very frustrating to argue with someone who A) is as totally wrong as you, B) refuses to provide links to support his position, and C) tries to make up for all this by repeatedly providing a link to a purchase opportunity for a stats book.

 

There's a very simple reason you can't find a single article from a credible source with which to support your position on regression toward the mean. There's a reason I'm able to find a number of articles from unrelated sources which support my position.

[Bungee Jumper]

It's very frustrating to argue with someone who A) is as totally wrong as you, B) refuses to provide links to support his position, and C) tries to make up for all this by repeatedly providing a link to a purchase opportunity for a stats book.

 

There's a very simple reason you can't find a single article from a credible source with which to support your position on regression toward the mean. There's a reason I'm able to find a number of articles from unrelated sources which support my position.

859024[/snapback]

 

I provided a link. To a book that "supports my position". (Though it's not "my position"...it's math.)

 

And I've found several articles from far more credible sources that "support my position". You haven't. There's a very simple reason for that: you're a !@#$ing moron.

[Orton's Arm]

I provided a link.  To a book that "supports my position".  (Though it's not "my position"...it's math.) 

 

And I've found several articles from far more credible sources that "support my position".  You haven't.  There's a very simple reason for that: you're a !@#$ing moron. 

859039[/snapback]

Assuming that stats book mentions regression toward the mean at all (which it may not), it will support what I've been saying. You haven't found any links to anything which would support the ignorant fallacies you've been spouting.

 

You say that it's not your position, it's math. Well, how about doing the math you said you would do? Here's what you promised:

 

What you really mean to ask is: Suppose you take a very large randomly chosen sample of people and administer an IQ test.  How will the people that score 140 score on the second administration of the test.  And I'll tell you EXACTLY how they'll score, as soon as I get a chance to do the math.  Shall we agree on a mean of 100, and a standard deviation of 15, with a measurement error of mean 0 and standard deviation of...let's say 3?

Let's see some action--math, links to sources that actually support you, something. Because you've done absolutely nothing this whole discussion except create a whole lot of hot air.

[Bungee Jumper]

Assuming that stats book mentions regression toward the mean at all (which it may not), it will support what I've been saying. You haven't found any links to anything which would support the ignorant fallacies you've been spouting.

 

Then don't take my word for it. READ A DAMN TEXTBOOK.

 

You say that it's not your position, it's math. Well, how about doing the math you said you would do? Here's what you promised:

 

What you really mean to ask is: Suppose you take a very large randomly chosen sample of people and administer an IQ test.  How will the people that score 140 score on the second administration of the test.  And I'll tell you EXACTLY how they'll score, as soon as I get a chance to do the math.  Shall we agree on a mean of 100, and a standard deviation of 15, with a measurement error of mean 0 and standard deviation of...let's say 3?

Let's see some action--math, links to sources that actually support you, something. Because you've done absolutely nothing this whole discussion except create a whole lot of hot air.

859048[/snapback]

 

 

And I haven't gotten to it yet. The answer's obvious; the math that proves you're an idiot is, however, rigorous.