Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #115675

Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/22/12 5:03 AM, in article
54c0a0e1-7e47-4cb0-b150-6c4d4ac48fed@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:30:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/21/12 1:50 PM, in article
>> acf34017-6524-4ba0-9b60-8d549e16fe92@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> 
>>>> Claiming that cc is wrong without knowing what he did is just
>>>> stupid... and you've engaged in enough stupidity already... to the
>>>> point where it looks like everyone has "better knowledge" on the topic
>>>> than you do;)
>>> 
>>> Excellent link. Thanks. I wonder what sentence Snit will pull out and
>>> misunderstand.
>> 
>> Remember, Carroll just follows me around lying and trolling.  He does not
>> even try to make sense.
> 
> What in that link was a lie or a troll? I understand that probably alot of
> what was written there doesn't make sense to you, but I'm not sure how linking
> to a mathematical process is lying or trolling.

This whole stupid debate has been filled with you lying.  It is the reason
you run from every question asked of you.  You know you are an ignorant sod
who is a no-nothing pretending to be knowledgeable.  Here, prove me wrong
and do something other than run from the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then explain how you missed the upward trend in the latter half of 2011:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>.  Clear as day
there... and even obvious in the initial data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>.

You have to be pretty dense to *not* see that there is an upward trend and
then a downward trend in that data.  And, with that data, overall there is
an upward trend, but based on the last few data points clearly not fitting
with the overall trend (the data is not linear), it would be absurd to use
that trend line - or any *linear* trend line - as a predictive tool.  Using
a linear trend line is not going to work to be a good predictive tool for
non-linear data.  

This whole time you have been just playing games - showing off your
ignorance.  And you know it.  It is the reason you keep making excuses for
avoiding questions.  The three most recent:

1) For a normal distribution, how can you visually tell if the sigma lines
are drawn correctly?

2) For question 1, can this placement be based on the distance from the mean
to any other element on the curve - and if so, what element?

3) Given this data: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>, does this show a steady rate, an
increase, or a decrease for the second half of 2011?

There are more, of course - they are linked in my .sig - but you will
*never* answer them.  Even you know, cc, that you are ignorant.  That is why
you keep snipping. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you will run - because you know I am right about you.  It is not as if
even you believe your drivel.


-- 
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

Thread

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? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 22:35 -0400
                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. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 19:02 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 20:24 -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: Help with understanding outliers Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 22:42 -0400
                Re: Help with understanding outliers Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:22 +0200
                Re: Help with understanding outliers Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-23 14:32 +0000
                Re: Help with understanding outliers Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2012-06-23 11:02 -0400
                Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:31 -0700
                Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:21 -0700
                Re: Help with understanding outliers Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2012-06-23 16:45 +0100
                Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 10:18 -0700
                Re: Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 18:58 -0700
                Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 19:55 -0700
                Re: Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:52 -0700
                Re: Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:52 -0700
                Re: Help with understanding outliers Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-23 22:48 -0400
                Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 19:04 -0700
                Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 20:22 -0700
                Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:20 +0200
                Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:12 -0700
                Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-24 14:59 -0500
                Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-25 05:31 -0700
                Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-25 06:45 -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. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-23 09:09 +0200
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2012-06-23 00:25 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:10 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:22 -0700
                Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:59 -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

csiph-web