Orton's Arm Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 No. I mean, I can. I've already verified those are your exact words. As can anyone who can use the friggin' search function of the board. So do it yourself. No. If you want to prove that I used an exact phrase, you provide the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 No. If you want to prove that I used an exact phrase, you provide the link. They're YOUR WORDS. If you don't even know what you said, there's a far more fundamental problem at work here than just your ignorance. This is why, by the way, it is impossible to discuss anything with you. You're woefully imprecise with your verbage. That's why I keep harping on THE MATH. If you'd do THE MATH, rather than try to explain what you mistakenly think the math is with what you mistakenly think the correct terminology is, this discussion would have ended months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 They're YOUR WORDS. If you don't even know what you said, there's a far more fundamental problem at work here than just your ignorance. This is why, by the way, it is impossible to discuss anything with you. You're woefully imprecise with your verbage. That's why I keep harping on THE MATH. If you'd do THE MATH, rather than try to explain what you mistakenly think the math is with what you mistakenly think the correct terminology is, this discussion would have ended months ago. You've made no effort to prove they're my exact words. Nor, for that matter, have you provided any relevant math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Christ! Cant you three keep your stupid shiit in one thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 You've made no effort to prove they're my exact words. Nor, for that matter, have you provided any relevant math. Yes, that's right, I've made no effor to prove that you said what you said. This is because I don't feel particularly compelled to waste my time proving to you that you say what you say. You said it, why do I have to PROVE you said it? Anyone with a pulse can go to the Err America thread, and look at the fifth post on the 20th page, and see it in print. I don't need to prove it. And I haven't provided relevant math because, frankly, it's nearly impossible to type equations in ASCII text (unless you understand LaTeX, which I highly doubt). Want me to email you a PDF explaining all this? Or would that not be credible, because it's not a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Yes, that's right, I've made no effor to prove that you said what you said. This is because I don't feel particularly compelled to waste my time proving to you that you say what you say. You said it, why do I have to PROVE you said it? Anyone with a pulse can go to the Err America thread, and look at the fifth post on the 20th page, and see it in print. I don't need to prove it. And I haven't provided relevant math because, frankly, it's nearly impossible to type equations in ASCII text (unless you understand LaTeX, which I highly doubt). Want me to email you a PDF explaining all this? Or would that not be credible, because it's not a link? I can provide you a link on a website if you think that would help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Christ! Cant you three keep your stupid shiit in one thread? Sounds reasonable, though I'd prefer three threads: 1. A thread for an intelligent discussion about things that actually matter. 2. A thread for debates about esoteric concepts such as regression toward the mean, the definition of "expected value," etc. 3. A thread for name-calling and other insults. The problem is that Bungee Jumper and Ramius would participate in thread #1, but only with thread 2 or thread 3-type material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The distinction you're attempting to create does not exist in the article BlueFire found. Here's the relevant quote: Your statements are also directly contradicted by the Wikipedia article You claim that the phrase "expected value" has a different meaning depending on whether it's applied to a single trial, or to multiple trials. Care to support that with a link? The fact that you cant tell the difference in any given roll in a larger distribution, and 1 single solitary die roll, tells me all i need to know about your lack of fundamental math knowledge. Math link And there, i provided a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The fact that you cant tell the difference in any given roll in a larger distribution, and 1 single solitary die roll, tells me all i need to know about your lack of fundamental math knowledge. Math link And there, i provided a link. Um, thanks for at least managing to provide a link to ESPN. I suppose you really are doing your best, and I should be patient with you. Maybe once you start making correct assertions, you'll be able to find links which actually support what you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Yes, that's right, I've made no effor to prove that you said what you said. This is because I don't feel particularly compelled to waste my time proving to you that you say what you say. You said it, why do I have to PROVE you said it? Anyone with a pulse can go to the Err America thread, and look at the fifth post on the 20th page, and see it in print. I don't need to prove it. And I haven't provided relevant math because, frankly, it's nearly impossible to type equations in ASCII text (unless you understand LaTeX, which I highly doubt). Want me to email you a PDF explaining all this? Or would that not be credible, because it's not a link? You've been arguing about regression toward the mean for over 50 pages, and you're just now offering to provide relevant math? I don't (yet) want to take you up on your offer to put that PDF file together. What I would like to know is the point that this hypothetical math would be intended to illustrate. The test/retest phenomenon itself exists, at least according to people at Stanford, Duke, the University of Chicago, Berkeley, etc. I don't think you're seriously planning to continue disputing the phenomenon itself, and you'd look foolish if you did. I think we both agree that in a test/retest situation, where the correlation between test and retest is less than 1, those who obtain extreme scores the first time around will tend to score closer to the population's mean upon being retested. If your math wouldn't be intended to dispute that point, then what would you be trying to show with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 You've been arguing about regression toward the mean for over 50 pages, and you're just now offering to provide relevant math? I don't (yet) want to take you up on your offer to put that PDF file together. What I would like to know is the point that this hypothetical math would be intended to illustrate. The test/retest phenomenon itself exists, at least according to people at Stanford, Duke, the University of Chicago, Berkeley, etc. I don't think you're seriously planning to continue disputing the phenomenon itself, and you'd look foolish if you did. I think we both agree that in a test/retest situation, where the correlation between test and retest is less than 1, those who obtain extreme scores the first time around will tend to score closer to the population's mean upon being retested. If your math wouldn't be intended to dispute that point, then what would you be trying to show with it? You can pick up a book and see the relevant math. A better idea would be: show us the math that proves you right. You can't. It doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 So if I took a giant Dookie, and that Dookie had 4 pieces of peanut and 3 pieces of corn in it, what would 3.5 mean in this instance? link? I thought so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 So if I took a giant Dookie, and that Dookie had 4 pieces of peanut and 3 pieces of corn in it, what would 3.5 mean in this instance? link? Stop trying to spread your ignorant pro-dookie propaganda... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Stop trying to spread your ignorant pro-dookie propaganda... Eugenics for dookies is not a vain pursuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Um, thanks for at least managing to provide a link to ESPN. I suppose you really are doing your best, and I should be patient with you. Maybe once you start making correct assertions, you'll be able to find links which actually support what you're saying. I simply did what you have been doing. providing a useless link that does nothing to further my cause. No link that i post is going to cure your mathematical, biological, and economical ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Stop trying to spread your ignorant pro-dookie propaganda... Sycophant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I simply did what you have been doing. providing a useless link that does nothing to further my cause. No link that i post is going to cure your mathematical, biological, and economical ignorance. But you didn't provide a credible link. Like Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Sycophant Celibate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Celibate Hardawayite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Eugenics for dookies is not a vain pursuit. Except that if your dookies are extreme, they're wrong and they'll regress toward the mean. Which means a eugenics program can't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts