Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #115246
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! |
| Date | 2012-06-19 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CC061E15.3A23%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <c8c913d5-2ab4-4b1c-b692-87979340dbd3@googlegroups.com> <CC05E93E.39D9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <6caed515-4527-48ad-9e98-c88e6cce771e@googlegroups.com> <CC0603B0.3A01%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <0d2ef3f1-3015-4ba6-abd9-4e336d38e70f@googlegroups.com> |
On 6/19/12 11:21 AM, in article
0d2ef3f1-3015-4ba6-abd9-4e336d38e70f@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:23:44 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Really... when you look at the data it is obvious it is there. There is
>> *no* doubt. Your flawed analogy to global warming is absurd and irrelevant.
>>
>
> You still don't get it.
If I did not get how stupid and wrong you were I would not be able to keep
pointing it out:
1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend line
in Excel. I did no such thing.
2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.
3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.
4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).
5) cc was wrong to deny I showed an upward trend in Linux usage, based on
the data we were both using. The upward trend was in the latter half of
2011: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>.
There is no reasoned debate about any of these facts.
> Really, this is basic stuff. When there are record lows in the winter, or
> record snowfall, or record Linux usage it does not mean that there were
> measurement errors, or that the records didn't actually happen.
Good to see you admit I am right on that... before you claimed those data
points which proved you were wrong were "erroneous".
> What it does mean is that these were blips or anomalies.
And now you finally show you figured out that the increase was temporary...
as I have been telling you. Of course, at times you showed before you
understood this:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
But then you back pedaled on that and claimed it had always been at 1% (you
confused your trend line with the actual data!):
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
> So basing trends on global warming based on such a small sample size of
> outrageously anomalous numbers is fucking stupid. Same with Linux usage.
If the summer is hot, to note that the months that are hot have a higher
temperature makes sense. And if you predicted the higher temperature based
on sun spots or El Nino or the number of socks Carroll uses, then it is fair
and correct to say that the data *correlated* with your prediction. This,
of course, would not prove causation.
And you are right: this is the same for Linux usage. If the usage goes up,
to note that the months that show higher usage makes sense (before you
called these data "erroneous", a claim you have backed away from). And if
you predicted the higher use based on UI improvements or better applications
or the number of socks Carroll uses, then it is fair and correct to say that
the data *correlated* with your prediction. This, of course, would not
prove causation.
> Anyone with any basic knowledge of stats or even some decent common sense will
> tell you that.
You screwed up and tried to used the data that showed a hot summer (by
analogy) or an increase in Linux usage (by fact) and insisted that meant the
trend should continue. This, of course, is not something that I ever said.
I noted, however, I did not expect there to be a drop... based on my
predictions, which were not from the trend lines, I had predicted a
continued increase (though not necessarily or even likely at the same level)
or a leveling off. As I have noted, the 2012 data showed a drop... going
against my prediction.
Of course, you and Carroll did not understand the topic well enough, nor my
views, to see where I was actually wrong. Instead you made up all sorts of
stories about me as you made absurd claims. Remember the following facts
you keep running from:
1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend line
in Excel. I did no such thing.
2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.
3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.
4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).
5) cc was wrong to deny I showed an upward trend in Linux usage, based on
the data we were both using. The upward trend was in the latter half of
2011: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>.
There is no reasoned debate about any of these facts. I have repeated them
so many times Hadron has thought it insane... but what is *really* insane is
that *EVERY TIME* you and Carroll have run from these facts.
You two are both such cowards that even when facts are posted an "insane"
number of times, the *best* you can do is snip and run from them. I mean,
really, why not actually comment on them and either try to refute them (you
will fail, given how they are all correct) or you could be honest and just
admit I am right.
But you will just run. You *know* you cannot refute them... so you snip and
run and "team up" with an obsessive whacko who has been harassing me and
trolling me and lying about me since 2004 when his girlfriend dumped him and
he stupidly blamed me.
> Since I can recognize these facts, and I know how to deal with them, that's
> why my trendline fit the data so much better and showed a different trend and
> blasted your asinine statements out of the water.
Honest question: are you just screwing around spewing nonsense to see how
many times I will respond? If so you have done a good job of yanking my
chain... but if you really believe the BS you spew you are *amazingly*
stupid and lost.
Which is it?
--
The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
The "stats" debate. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 13:38 -0700
Re: The "stats" debate. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-18 14:43 -0700
Re: The "stats" debate which cc still runs from Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 14:53 -0700
OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-18 16:14 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-18 21:13 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 07:21 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 16:26 +0200
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 07:51 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 07:59 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 17:16 +0200
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:23 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 09:01 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 10:20 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 08:00 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:13 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 08:30 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:58 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 09:46 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 10:23 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 11:21 -0700
Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:16 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:27 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:33 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:39 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:41 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:49 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 13:23 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 18:34 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 16:16 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 18:35 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 05:27 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 08:36 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 08:43 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 08:47 -0700
Watch cc run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 09:34 -0700
Watch cc run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 09:59 -0700
OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 10:57 -0700
Re: OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 11:10 -0700
cc and Carroll lie about their running. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 11:48 -0700
Re: cc and Carroll lie about their running. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 11:57 -0700
cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 12:26 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 12:39 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 13:56 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 14:15 -0700
Wow... cc proves he is a coward *again*! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 14:59 -0700
Re: Wow... cc proves he is a coward *again*! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:16 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:24 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 19:45 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-20 22:52 -0400
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 04:07 +0000
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 21:10 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:57 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-21 08:16 -0600
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:55 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 05:14 -0700
Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 09:17 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 10:08 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 10:52 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 11:03 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 11:27 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 11:53 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 13:13 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 12:35 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 13:50 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 14:27 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 15:30 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 05:03 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 06:11 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:34 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 08:00 -0700
cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 14:38 -0700
Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:51 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:58 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-21 22:31 -0400
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 22:23 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 08:04 +0100
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:38 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 07:29 -0400
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 05:04 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:37 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 19:27 -0400
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2012-06-22 09:45 +0100
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 07:30 -0400
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 14:33 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:13 -0700
Re: OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:14 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:59 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:45 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 23:00 -0700
csiph-web