Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #115683

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

Show all headers | View raw

On Friday, June 22, 2012 10:34:26 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> 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. 

I was unaware that you considered mathematical facts to be lies. 

R^2 values of two trendlines over the same dataset can be compared to see which trend line fits better. This is a fact. Mine had a better R^2 value.

There is a well-defined (several actually) method for determining outliers. This is a fact. I found the outliers, you did not.

The latter half of 2011, which you love to point to, is mostly made up of outliers. This is a fact.

You have changed datasets to just using the later half of 2011 to try and prove your point, since my trendline refuted your original point using your original data set. This is a fact.

You refuse to acknowledge that the 2011 data you now insist on using is made up of almost entirely outliers, even though it's not a matter of opinion. This is a fact.

You confuse R^2 with outliers and try to point to the high R^2 value for your 2011 data as some sort of proof of non-existence of outliers. This is a fact.

There have been no lies from me at all this entire time. I cannot say the same for you though. You consistently try to pretend I've said things I have not, and continue to repeat those things even though you've been correct numerous times. I'm sorry you got your ass handed to you, but unfortunately for you, it's math and cannot really be refuted.

Desktop Linux has been flatlined for quite some time now. Most people with common sense realize this to be true, and now I've proven it to you. 

-- 
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis 

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