Bungee Jumper Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Looks like I was right. 858028[/snapback] But it's much more absurd when he says it himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Unless he's a far different man in the real world than he is on these discussion boards, he isn't fit for serious intellectual work. 858026[/snapback] priceless. Apparently the American Heart Association as well as a panel of professors around the country in the bio-med engineering field think i am fit for intellectual work. Otherwise i would have not been awarded a fellowship for my research. Whats funny is that you have been taken to school by numerous posters, numerous publications, and numerous textbooks, so now you are resorting to childish insults because you know you are wrong and have been backed into a corner. "ramius is dumb" "ramius has no credibility" "ramius cant think" "ramius isnt fit for intellectual work" All the meanwhile, i am sitting here laughing at how pathetic your repeated attempts at insults are. <yawn> Someone wake me when you come up with a good one. And in regards to message board opinions and credibility? Your opinion of anything carries very little weight to 99% of the posters on TBD, given your dubious posting history. Of course, you'll regress 99% to the mean and somehow twist it to say that only 5% think you are a moron, or some other crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 I'll grant you your first "you know this because . . . ?" It's conceivable there's some field of research in which good work doesn't require good thinking. Maybe Ramius has manged to stumble across such a field. 858026[/snapback] This is also hilarious, seeing that it comes from a person who read the title and abstract, probably couldnt understand a majority of the words, and has no clue what scientific field that the research falls under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Whats funny is that you have been taken to school by numerous posters, numerous publications, and numerous textbooks, Your statement is a lie. so now you are resorting to childish insults because you know you are wrong and have been backed into a corner. You are accusing me of childish insults? That's like Hitler accusing someone of excessive hate toward the Jews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Your statement is a lie. Only because you're completely delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Only because you're completely delusional. 858057[/snapback] You think so? Then back up his statement. Name the specific posters who have "taken me to school" and give specific examples. Name the publications which have "taken me to school" and show me which specific content in those publications I was taken to school by. Be sure to give specific quotes from those publications, as well as from me. Finally, name the textbooks which have taken me to school, including page numbers and appropriate quotes, and show how these disproved specific posts. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 You think so? Then back up his statement. Name the specific posters who have "taken me to school" and give specific examples. Name the publications which have "taken me to school" and show me which specific content in those publications I was taken to school by. Be sure to give specific quotes from those publications, as well as from me. Finally, name the textbooks which have taken me to school, including page numbers and appropriate quotes, and show how these disproved specific posts. Good luck. 858070[/snapback] All the evidence needed... http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=53427 I'll notice how you didnt respond to either of my comments from above, thereby proving you have no clue what my research was on, and that you didnt in fact, understand what was written. Also, nice lack of a comeback to the fact that i have won a research fellowship, based on my ability to think critically and formulate a research plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 All the evidence needed... http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=53427 I'll notice how you didnt respond to either of my comments from above, thereby proving you have no clue what my research was on, and that you didnt in fact, understand what was written. Also, nice lack of a comeback to the fact that i have won a research fellowship, based on my ability to think critically and formulate a research plan. 858117[/snapback] The link you provided is a link to your own ignorant discussion about regression toward the mean. As for the rest of your post, you've contributed nothing intelligent to these boards ever, at least not that I've seen. Either you have no critical thinking skills, or you have such skills but are choosing not to use them here. Either way, I don't see why I should spend my time on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 The link you provided is a link to your own ignorant discussion about regression toward the mean. As for the rest of your post, you've contributed nothing intelligent to these boards ever, at least not that I've seen. Either you have no critical thinking skills, or you have such skills but are choosing not to use them here. Either way, I don't see why I should spend my time on you. 858213[/snapback] You would have a bit of a point if you could at least muster someone who's supported you in your positions. But it's been a fairly unanimous one-sided display of intelligence. Even when Wraith tried to help you out, you had to revert to a form of misremembering a formula. Note that the people slamming their heads on the monitor arguing with you don't need to resort to misremembering facts or data to prove their points. The monkey jumper has been on this board long enough, that if he was wrong, there'd be a line of people pointing out his mistakes. Where are they? So anyhow, how's that contestant search coming along? Guess we'll never get that answer either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 You think so? Then back up his statement. Name the specific posters who have "taken me to school" and give specific examples. Name the publications which have "taken me to school" and show me which specific content in those publications I was taken to school by. Be sure to give specific quotes from those publications, as well as from me. Finally, name the textbooks which have taken me to school, including page numbers and appropriate quotes, and show how these disproved specific posts. 858070[/snapback] All of them, all of them,...and all of them. I don't have to PROVE to you that you're an idiot when you've already proven it to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 All of them, all of them,...and all of them. I don't have to PROVE to you that you're an idiot when you've already proven it to everyone. 858260[/snapback] Well, since it's been pretty much empirically proven that you CAN'T prove that to him, it's good that you don't have to prove it to him. (Something tells me that he will misinterpret that comment as well. ) HBD, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Well, since it's been pretty much empirically proven that you CAN'T prove that to him, it's good that you don't have to prove it to him. (Something tells me that he will misinterpret that comment as well. ) HBD, btw. 858297[/snapback] But it's not my birthday. Since the true value of birthdays is July 2nd, my birthday today is just measurement error... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 But it's not my birthday. Since the true value of birthdays is July 2nd, my birthday today is just measurement error... 858300[/snapback] Wouldn't the actual true value be July 1-1/2? (Or July 1-3/4, counting Leap Days?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 You would have a bit of a point if you could at least muster someone who's supported you in your positions. But it's been a fairly unanimous one-sided display of intelligence. Even when Wraith tried to help you out, you had to revert to a form of misremembering a formula. Note that the people slamming their heads on the monitor arguing with you don't need to resort to misremembering facts or data to prove their points. The monkey jumper has been on this board long enough, that if he was wrong, there'd be a line of people pointing out his mistakes. Where are they? So anyhow, how's that contestant search coming along? Guess we'll never get that answer either. 858239[/snapback] To which positions are you referring? I'll often voice a middle of the road comment, and that will usually get agreement from some, disagreement from others. My suggestion for eugenics is considered non-mainstream, at least by the intellectually shallow standards of early 21st century America. The fact that no crowd of people arose to support my view doesn't make it stupid (as you seem to be implying), it just means it's unpopular with this particular crowd. Go to the Mensa forums, and you'll see a fair number of people who at very least believe smart people should be having more kids. Wraith works with statistics for a living, and I'm grateful to him for coming to my assistance in the regression to the mean discussion. Unfortunately, his words were ignored, as were my words, and the sources to which I linked. Some people are content to be ignorant. You point out I misremembered a formula from an undergrad class. That's certainly true, but I later provided a link to the correct formula; which otherwise wouldn't have entered the discussion. The correct version of the formula did a better job of proving my point than the misremembered version, so it wasn't like I was "misremembering facts or data to prove [my point]," as you implied. In the regression toward the mean discussion, Bungee Jumper is wrong. Unlike Wraith, most posters either don't have the knowledge and intelligence to see this error, or else lack the self-confidence to point it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 All of them, all of them,...and all of them. I don't have to PROVE to you that you're an idiot when you've already proven it to everyone. 858260[/snapback] In other words, you're entitled to make unsupported, false statements. If someone calls you on it, you'll just say the statement is too obvious to need proof. Hey, maybe I should enter your world. From now on, everything I say is too obvious to need any proof either. There's really no point in me trying to prove anything to you, as you'll just ignore the proof anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 In other words, you're entitled to make unsupported, false statements. If someone calls you on it, you'll just say the statement is too obvious to need proof. No, I'm saying I don't have to prove what's already proven. You've already proved you're an idiot. I don't have to prove it further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 To which positions are you referring? Pick any one. Since you insist on continuing this cluster, let's stay on PPP topics. I'll leave the QB debates to others who turned the conversations to the equivalent of your favorite QB's December bombs into the western end of RWS. I'll often voice a middle of the road comment, and that will usually get agreement from some, disagreement from others. My suggestion for eugenics is considered non-mainstream, at least by the intellectually shallow standards of early 21st century America. The fact that no crowd of people arose to support my view doesn't make it stupid (as you seem to be implying), it just means it's unpopular with this particular crowd. I think that eugenics have been resoundly blasted by scientists who do this for a living, nothwithstanding your inability to differentiate between heritability and inheritability. I'll leave all the fun of slamming you on scientific grounds to them. I asked you a simple question, to which which I haven't gotten a response. How would you implement your master plan? I recall seeing something about getting smart women out of the work force to have babies, and paying $100 to crack ho's to stop having babies. But I'd like something more concrete. Your super statistician whiz of a marketing research professor surely could come up with something for the new order. Go to the Mensa forums, and you'll see a fair number of people who at very least believe smart people should be having more kids. Of course Mensa people talk about sex. It's much less complicated than the actual act. Wraith works with statistics for a living, and I'm grateful to him for coming to my assistance in the regression to the mean discussion. Unfortunately, his words were ignored, as were my words, and the sources to which I linked. Some people are content to be ignorant. Yup, use Wraith's defense of your misremembered formula, yet ignore the other published scientists, who unanimously called you an idiot. Would that be an example of regressing to the mean, in your definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Wraith works with statistics for a living, and I'm grateful to him for coming to my assistance in the regression to the mean discussion. Unfortunately, his words were ignored, as were my words, and the sources to which I linked. Some people are content to be ignorant. 858304[/snapback] Actually, if you read the threads, Wraith said at least three times that you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I think that eugenics have been resoundly blasted by scientists who do this for a living, nothwithstanding your inability to differentiate between heritability and inheritability. I'll leave all the fun of slamming you on scientific grounds to them. You're wrong. The only scientific basis a eugenics program requires is for intelligence to be at least partially genetic. Those who would deny genetic influence on intelligence are political idealogues with no credibility whatsoever. I asked you a simple question, to which which I haven't gotten a response. How would you implement your master plan? You did receive an answer, you just don't remember it. The government should provide intelligent women with financial incentives to have more kids; while also providing less intelligent women with financial incentives to obtain sterilizations. Yup, use Wraith's defense of your misremembered formula, yet ignore the other published scientists, who unanimously called you an idiot. Would that be an example of regressing to the mean, in your definition? It's stuff like this which leads me to dislike you. Wraith never defended my misremembered formula. He defended my (correct) discussion of regression toward the mean. In case his defense wasn't enough, I've provided a number of links to credible sources which support the way I've described regression toward the mean. In searching for those links, I didn't come across anyone who supported Bungee Jumper's strange view of the matter. If I'm ignoring published scientists, it's because they're ignoring the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Actually, if you read the threads, Wraith said at least three times that you're wrong. 858579[/snapback] At first, he did say I was wrong. He didn't realize what it was we were debating, and thought you guys were attacking the periphery of what I was saying. It took him a while to realize that people like you and Ramius were actually disagreeing with the core of my explanation of regression toward the mean. Once it finally dawned on him that people with your credentials were being so monumentally stupid, he came to my defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts