Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #116298

Summary of cc's statistical BS

Show all headers | View raw

Summary of where you have been wrong, cc: be aware some of these comments
are not complete descriptions of your erroneous claims (the nature of a
summary!).  I am happy to go into more detail on any of the points if you
wish... and it is easy to predict you will run away crying in full knowledge
you have displayed your ignorance for all to see and are too cowardly and
dishonest to admit to it:

1) You were wrong to claim it was a "fact" that some data points
   were outliers: the reality is that there is no clear
   definition nor single standard way to determine such, and thus
   such determinations are subjective and *not* "facts".

2) You made a rather silly claim to say that 17% of the data are
   "outliers" - especially when those data are in a direct series
   tied to a *very* clear trend that includes 25% of the data.

3) Outliers are atypical - you clearly are stretching to call 17%
   of the data, which occurs in a clear pattern, "atypical" to the
   data.

4) You have clearly placed a great deal of focus on the
   correlation coefficient even though it is unwise to do so at
   the expense of a focus on the visual graphs / visible trends.

5) You were wrong to deny that the sigma lines can be correctly
   drawn based on the distance from the mean to the inflection
   points. 

6) You were wrong to deny that the poorly done depictions I showed
   you were, in fact, poorly done.  They were unambiguously wrong.

7) You were wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a
   linear trend line in Excel.  I did no such thing (and you
   never were able to list any steps I missed in creating a
   linear trend line, nor explain why the MS site and others
   would also miss these "steps" you spoke about)

8) You were 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.

9) You repeatedly snip and ignore comments which are contrary to
   your claimed views.
   
There is no reasoned debate about any of these facts. As is your habit, you
pretend to be knowledgeable on topics you are clearly ignorant about.  In
your ignorance, for example, you missed the upward trend in the latter half
of 2011 (though at times you did speak of the drop in 2012 - you
"selectively" missed what did not fit your agenda).  As such, not only have
you proved yourself ignorant, you have also proved yourself (again) to be
dishonest.

My prediction: you will never admit to any of the points listed above.  As
noted, you are simply too cowardly and dishonest.  But you are amusing.  :)




-- 
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: 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. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-25 22:46 -0700
      Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-26 11:59 -0500
        Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-26 10:28 -0700
          Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-26 10:34 -0700
            Summary of cc's  statistical BS Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-26 18:27 -0700
              Re: Summary of cc's  statistical BS cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-27 05:39 -0700
                Re: Summary of cc's  statistical BS Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-27 08:55 -0700
                Re: Summary of cc's statistical BS Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-27 22:07 -0700
            Summary of cc's  statistical BS Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-27 12:24 -0700
              Re: Summary of cc's statistical BS Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-27 22:01 -0700
                Re: Summary of cc's statistical BS Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-28 07:20 -0400
          Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-26 13:18 -0500

csiph-web