Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #460017 > unrolled thread
| Started by | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-28 09:52 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-07-28 12:50 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 10:25 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 13:01 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 13:34 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 17:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-28 16:02 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 16:27 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 17:29 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 09:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 12:21 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 09:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 11:44 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 12:19 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 12:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 16:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 16:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 18:28 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 18:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 18:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 19:37 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 16:17 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-29 20:43 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 13:53 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 14:52 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 16:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-30 13:29 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 08:32 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 09:02 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 16:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-29 17:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 18:27 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:01 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 19:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:25 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 20:09 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 20:34 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-30 05:01 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 05:25 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 08:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 09:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 12:52 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 08:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 09:09 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-30 09:30 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 09:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 10:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-07-30 18:56 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 12:48 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 13:02 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-30 20:40 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-30 16:40 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 12:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 13:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 13:43 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-30 20:49 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-30 16:49 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 13:53 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 14:07 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 09:08 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 09:28 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 09:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 10:34 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 10:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 13:28 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 13:52 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 18:32 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-07-31 20:49 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 17:44 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:09 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 18:38 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:56 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 19:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-08-01 02:47 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 19:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 20:35 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 20:19 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:02 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 18:35 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 19:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 19:59 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 20:36 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 08:50 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 10:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 11:28 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 11:31 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 11:36 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 11:43 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 11:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 12:05 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 12:31 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:36 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 12:40 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 12:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 13:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 13:25 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 13:35 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 15:34 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 08:29 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-02 09:46 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 21:17 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 10:22 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 18:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 12:50 -0700
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c45a2772-3341-4531-b6ff-b96b34d91f58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460568 |
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 7/31/18 9:08 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 7/30/18 1:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:43:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>> On 7/30/18 10:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> Very good, "Hugh"... but I'm also not buying your 'stats as reality' > >>>>>>>> argument. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And just where was that claim ever made? Because by definition, > >>>>>>> the field of Statistics is not deterministic, but stochastic. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Carroll makes things up and posts bizarre accusations to put you on the defensive and work to keep the light off of his games. > >>>>> > >>>>> And now the expected back peddling (with it's own cheering section) begins... > >>>> > >>>> Ah, your blame game victim mentality shows itself again. > >>> > >>> It's just reality... you guys dug too deep, you both know the reality of what I'm > >>> saying and you're now trying to soften your landing. "Hugh" has done this many > >>> times... but you live there ;) > >> > >> Ah, another game of yours: you denied basic stats and evidence > > > > Correction: I'm denying certain kinds of stats aren't suitable as conclusive evidence. > > Reading is fundamental. > > > >>>> For most people they can learn what they do not know... or at least try. > >>> > >>> Translation: Snit has *no* comeback for someone pointing out the idiocy of > >>> hh's absurd 'analogy'. > >> > >> Now you are pretending I did not talk about his analogy and why it is > >> pertinent. > > > > How can it even be labeled an "analogy" to what I've mentioned when it's > > based on things that are known? This actually makes sense to you?! > > > > You continue to insist ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and you obviously agree as you failed to address the issue at all... again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 10:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fsbktqFrmr9U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460575 |
On 7/31/18 9:45 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 7/31/18 9:08 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 7/30/18 1:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:43:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 7/30/18 10:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Very good, "Hugh"... but I'm also not buying your 'stats as reality' >>>>>>>>>> argument. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And just where was that claim ever made? Because by definition, >>>>>>>>> the field of Statistics is not deterministic, but stochastic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carroll makes things up and posts bizarre accusations to put you on the defensive and work to keep the light off of his games. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And now the expected back peddling (with it's own cheering section) begins... >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, your blame game victim mentality shows itself again. >>>>> >>>>> It's just reality... you guys dug too deep, you both know the reality of what I'm >>>>> saying and you're now trying to soften your landing. "Hugh" has done this many >>>>> times... but you live there ;) >>>> >>>> Ah, another game of yours: you denied basic stats and evidence >>> >>> Correction: I'm denying certain kinds of stats aren't suitable as conclusive evidence. >>> Reading is fundamental. >>> >>>>>> For most people they can learn what they do not know... or at least try. >>>>> >>>>> Translation: Snit has *no* comeback for someone pointing out the idiocy of >>>>> hh's absurd 'analogy'. >>>> >>>> Now you are pretending I did not talk about his analogy and why it is >>>> pertinent. >>> >>> How can it even be labeled an "analogy" to what I've mentioned when it's >>> based on things that are known? This actually makes sense to you?! >>> >> >> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because they do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas of people from Mexico. >> >> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which is absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate your willful ignorance. >> >> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not ONE quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you think they are wrong. > ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and you obviously > agree as you failed to address the issue at all... again. Ah, you say it is not true. Such a strong argument from you! Seriously, when was your last post you made actually on the topic and not on your own meta-debates and dodges and blaming of others? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ce475aa7-7589-4dc2-aaa4-4cd6b9b83bf1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460584 |
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:34:53 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 7/31/18 9:45 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 7/31/18 9:08 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>> On 7/30/18 1:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:43:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/30/18 10:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Very good, "Hugh"... but I'm also not buying your 'stats as reality' > >>>>>>>>>> argument. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> And just where was that claim ever made? Because by definition, > >>>>>>>>> the field of Statistics is not deterministic, but stochastic. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Carroll makes things up and posts bizarre accusations to put you on the defensive and work to keep the light off of his games. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And now the expected back peddling (with it's own cheering section) begins... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ah, your blame game victim mentality shows itself again. > >>>>> > >>>>> It's just reality... you guys dug too deep, you both know the reality of what I'm > >>>>> saying and you're now trying to soften your landing. "Hugh" has done this many > >>>>> times... but you live there ;) > >>>> > >>>> Ah, another game of yours: you denied basic stats and evidence > >>> > >>> Correction: I'm denying certain kinds of stats aren't suitable as conclusive evidence. > >>> Reading is fundamental. > >>> > >>>>>> For most people they can learn what they do not know... or at least try. > >>>>> > >>>>> Translation: Snit has *no* comeback for someone pointing out the idiocy of > >>>>> hh's absurd 'analogy'. > >>>> > >>>> Now you are pretending I did not talk about his analogy and why it is > >>>> pertinent. > >>> > >>> How can it even be labeled an "analogy" to what I've mentioned when it's > >>> based on things that are known? This actually makes sense to you?! > >>> > >> > >> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because they do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas of people from Mexico. > >> > >> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which is absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate your willful ignorance. > >> > >> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not ONE quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you think they are wrong. > > > ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and you obviously > > agree as you failed to address the issue at all... again. > > Ah, you say it is not true. So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along the southern border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin landing on one side or the other? This actually makes sense to you?! > Such a strong argument from you! LOL! It's common sense, fool. > Seriously, when was your last post you made actually on the topic and > not on your own meta-debates and dodges and blaming of others? Asked Snit as he stared mindlessly into his mirror of projected delusions....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fsbv3kFu3g2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460592 |
On 7/31/18 10:54 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:34:53 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 7/31/18 9:45 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 7/31/18 9:08 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 7/30/18 1:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:43:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/30/18 10:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Very good, "Hugh"... but I'm also not buying your 'stats as reality' >>>>>>>>>>>> argument. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And just where was that claim ever made? Because by definition, >>>>>>>>>>> the field of Statistics is not deterministic, but stochastic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Carroll makes things up and posts bizarre accusations to put you on the defensive and work to keep the light off of his games. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And now the expected back peddling (with it's own cheering section) begins... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ah, your blame game victim mentality shows itself again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's just reality... you guys dug too deep, you both know the reality of what I'm >>>>>>> saying and you're now trying to soften your landing. "Hugh" has done this many >>>>>>> times... but you live there ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, another game of yours: you denied basic stats and evidence >>>>> >>>>> Correction: I'm denying certain kinds of stats aren't suitable as conclusive evidence. >>>>> Reading is fundamental. >>>>> >>>>>>>> For most people they can learn what they do not know... or at least try. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translation: Snit has *no* comeback for someone pointing out the idiocy of >>>>>>> hh's absurd 'analogy'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now you are pretending I did not talk about his analogy and why it is >>>>>> pertinent. >>>>> >>>>> How can it even be labeled an "analogy" to what I've mentioned when it's >>>>> based on things that are known? This actually makes sense to you?! >>>>> >>>> >>>> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because they do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas of people from Mexico. >>>> >>>> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which is absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate your willful ignorance. >>>> >>>> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not ONE quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you think they are wrong. >> >>> ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and you obviously >>> agree as you failed to address the issue at all... again. >> >> Ah, you say it is not true. > > So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along the southern > border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin landing on one side or > the other? This actually makes sense to you?! > >> Such a strong argument from you! > > LOL! It's common sense, fool. You are noting the simplified analogy to help you understand the BASICS of stats is not the same as the somewhat more complex stats that you failed to understand. Yes, to help you understand the more complex stats an easier example was used. And then you whine about that. -hh was VERY patient in trying to help you and you returned the favor by playing victim (again) and attacking him. >> Seriously, when was your last post you made actually on the topic and >> not on your own meta-debates and dodges and blaming of others? > > Asked Snit as he stared mindlessly into his mirror of projected delusions.... You cannot find such a post. Fair enough. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 13:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <714303b1-c414-44fa-9b19-0dc8e389638d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460616 |
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 7/31/18 10:54 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:34:53 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 7/31/18 9:45 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>> On 7/31/18 9:08 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/30/18 1:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:43:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 7/30/18 10:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Very good, "Hugh"... but I'm also not buying your 'stats as reality' > >>>>>>>>>>>> argument. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> And just where was that claim ever made? Because by definition, > >>>>>>>>>>> the field of Statistics is not deterministic, but stochastic. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Carroll makes things up and posts bizarre accusations to put you on the defensive and work to keep the light off of his games. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> And now the expected back peddling (with it's own cheering section) begins... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ah, your blame game victim mentality shows itself again. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It's just reality... you guys dug too deep, you both know the reality of what I'm > >>>>>>> saying and you're now trying to soften your landing. "Hugh" has done this many > >>>>>>> times... but you live there ;) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ah, another game of yours: you denied basic stats and evidence > >>>>> > >>>>> Correction: I'm denying certain kinds of stats aren't suitable as conclusive evidence. > >>>>> Reading is fundamental. > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> For most people they can learn what they do not know... or at least try. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Translation: Snit has *no* comeback for someone pointing out the idiocy of > >>>>>>> hh's absurd 'analogy'. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Now you are pretending I did not talk about his analogy and why it is > >>>>>> pertinent. > >>>>> > >>>>> How can it even be labeled an "analogy" to what I've mentioned when it's > >>>>> based on things that are known? This actually makes sense to you?! > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because they do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas of people from Mexico. > >>>> > >>>> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which is absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate your willful ignorance. > >>>> > >>>> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not ONE quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you think they are wrong. > >> > >>> ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and you obviously > >>> agree as you failed to address the issue at all... again. > >> > >> Ah, you say it is not true. > > > > So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along the southern > > border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin landing on one side or > > the other? This actually makes sense to you?! > > > >> Such a strong argument from you! > > > > LOL! It's common sense, fool. > > You are noting ... common sense... which is why you failed to spot it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 18:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fscgtiF3886U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460630 |
On 7/31/18 1:52 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> Ah, you say it is not true. >>> >>> So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along the southern >>> border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin landing on one side or >>> the other? This actually makes sense to you?! >>> >>>> Such a strong argument from you! >>> >>> LOL! It's common sense, fool. >> >> You are noting the simplified analogy to help you understand the BASICS of stats is not the same as the somewhat more complex stats that you failed to understand. Yes, to help you understand the more complex stats an easier example was used. And then you whine about that. -hh was VERY patient in trying to help you and you returned the favor by playing victim (again) and attacking him. Notice how you dodged this. You have been called out on your logical fallacy by multiple people, and it has been easy to quote your logical fallacy. I note the fact multiple people have pointed it out largely because of your idiotic claims that you being able to scavenge and forge quotes ABOUT me says something about me that my own words do not. In this case, though, what others are noting about you is current and easy to see. You simply have eschewed all efforts to help you understand the stats concepts which have repeatedly alluded you. >>>> Seriously, when was your last post you made actually on the topic and >>>> not on your own meta-debates and dodges and blaming of others? >>> >>> Asked Snit as he stared mindlessly into his mirror of projected delusions.... >> >> You cannot find such a post. Fair enough. > > ... common sense... which is why you failed to spot it. > -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 20:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsc0auFrbomU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460592 |
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:54:20 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:34:53 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 7/31/18 9:45 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> >> On 7/31/18 9:08 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> >>>> On 7/30/18 1:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:43:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> >>>>>> On 7/30/18 10:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Very good, "Hugh"... but I'm also not buying your 'stats as >> >>>>>>>>>> reality' >> >>>>>>>>>> argument. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> And just where was that claim ever made? Because by >> >>>>>>>>> definition, >> >>>>>>>>> the field of Statistics is not deterministic, but stochastic. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Carroll makes things up and posts bizarre accusations to put >> >>>>>>>> you on the defensive and work to keep the light off of his >> >>>>>>>> games. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> And now the expected back peddling (with it's own cheering >> >>>>>>> section) begins... >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Ah, your blame game victim mentality shows itself again. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> It's just reality... you guys dug too deep, you both know the >> >>>>> reality of what I'm saying and you're now trying to soften your >> >>>>> landing. "Hugh" has done this many times... but you live there ;) >> >>>> >> >>>> Ah, another game of yours: you denied basic stats and evidence >> >>> >> >>> Correction: I'm denying certain kinds of stats aren't suitable as >> >>> conclusive evidence. >> >>> Reading is fundamental. >> >>> >> >>>>>> For most people they can learn what they do not know... or at >> >>>>>> least try. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Translation: Snit has *no* comeback for someone pointing out the >> >>>>> idiocy of hh's absurd 'analogy'. >> >>>> >> >>>> Now you are pretending I did not talk about his analogy and why it >> >>>> is pertinent. >> >>> >> >>> How can it even be labeled an "analogy" to what I've mentioned when >> >>> it's based on things that are known? This actually makes sense to >> >>> you?! >> >>> >> >>> >> >> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you >> >> understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no >> >> evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because they >> >> do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas of people >> >> from Mexico. >> >> >> >> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being >> >> provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which is >> >> absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate your >> >> willful ignorance. >> >> >> >> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not ONE >> >> quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you think they >> >> are wrong. >> >> > ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and >> > you obviously agree as you failed to address the issue at all... >> > again. >> >> Ah, you say it is not true. > > So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along the > southern border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin landing > on one side or the other? This actually makes sense to you?! This logical fallacy is known as the "extended analogy". -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 17:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fsce3jF2mn3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460628 |
On 7/31/18 1:49 PM, vallor wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:54:20 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:34:53 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> On 7/31/18 9:45 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 7/31/18 9:08 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/30/18 1:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:43:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/30/18 10:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Very good, "Hugh"... but I'm also not buying your 'stats as >>>>>>>>>>>>> reality' >>>>>>>>>>>>> argument. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And just where was that claim ever made? Because by >>>>>>>>>>>> definition, >>>>>>>>>>>> the field of Statistics is not deterministic, but stochastic. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Carroll makes things up and posts bizarre accusations to put >>>>>>>>>>> you on the defensive and work to keep the light off of his >>>>>>>>>>> games. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And now the expected back peddling (with it's own cheering >>>>>>>>>> section) begins... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ah, your blame game victim mentality shows itself again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's just reality... you guys dug too deep, you both know the >>>>>>>> reality of what I'm saying and you're now trying to soften your >>>>>>>> landing. "Hugh" has done this many times... but you live there ;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah, another game of yours: you denied basic stats and evidence >>>>>> >>>>>> Correction: I'm denying certain kinds of stats aren't suitable as >>>>>> conclusive evidence. >>>>>> Reading is fundamental. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For most people they can learn what they do not know... or at >>>>>>>>> least try. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Translation: Snit has *no* comeback for someone pointing out the >>>>>>>> idiocy of hh's absurd 'analogy'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now you are pretending I did not talk about his analogy and why it >>>>>>> is pertinent. >>>>>> >>>>>> How can it even be labeled an "analogy" to what I've mentioned when >>>>>> it's based on things that are known? This actually makes sense to >>>>>> you?! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you >>>>> understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no >>>>> evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because they >>>>> do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas of people >>>>> from Mexico. >>>>> >>>>> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being >>>>> provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which is >>>>> absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate your >>>>> willful ignorance. >>>>> >>>>> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not ONE >>>>> quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you think they >>>>> are wrong. >>> >>>> ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and >>>> you obviously agree as you failed to address the issue at all... >>>> again. >>> >>> Ah, you say it is not true. >> >> So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along the >> southern border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin landing >> on one side or the other? This actually makes sense to you?! > > This logical fallacy is known as the "extended analogy". > And it ties into another of his fallacies... Carroll insists that because he was able to scavenge and forge a bunch of quotes over MANY years and at least ten groups this means I am wrong about... something. He never really quotes me being wrong about whatever he thinks I am wrong about. But here we see you, me, chrisv, -hh, and others all noting how wrong he is. No need to dig back through the years. Now, to be fair, people speaking ABOUT him is not really evidence of him being wrong (his own words are), but by HIS "logic" he has been proved wrong. Again. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 18:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21243072-4213-469a-bb80-10de4eb76c50@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460638 |
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:44:39 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 7/31/18 1:49 PM, vallor wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:54:20 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > >> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:34:53 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>> On 7/31/18 9:45 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>> On 7/31/18 9:08 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>> On 7/30/18 1:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:43:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 7/30/18 10:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Very good, "Hugh"... but I'm also not buying your 'stats as > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reality' > >>>>>>>>>>>>> argument. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> And just where was that claim ever made? Because by > >>>>>>>>>>>> definition, > >>>>>>>>>>>> the field of Statistics is not deterministic, but stochastic. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Carroll makes things up and posts bizarre accusations to put > >>>>>>>>>>> you on the defensive and work to keep the light off of his > >>>>>>>>>>> games. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> And now the expected back peddling (with it's own cheering > >>>>>>>>>> section) begins... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ah, your blame game victim mentality shows itself again. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It's just reality... you guys dug too deep, you both know the > >>>>>>>> reality of what I'm saying and you're now trying to soften your > >>>>>>>> landing. "Hugh" has done this many times... but you live there ;) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ah, another game of yours: you denied basic stats and evidence > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Correction: I'm denying certain kinds of stats aren't suitable as > >>>>>> conclusive evidence. > >>>>>> Reading is fundamental. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> For most people they can learn what they do not know... or at > >>>>>>>>> least try. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Translation: Snit has *no* comeback for someone pointing out the > >>>>>>>> idiocy of hh's absurd 'analogy'. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Now you are pretending I did not talk about his analogy and why it > >>>>>>> is pertinent. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How can it even be labeled an "analogy" to what I've mentioned when > >>>>>> it's based on things that are known? This actually makes sense to > >>>>>> you?! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you > >>>>> understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no > >>>>> evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because they > >>>>> do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas of people > >>>>> from Mexico. > >>>>> > >>>>> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being > >>>>> provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which is > >>>>> absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate your > >>>>> willful ignorance. > >>>>> > >>>>> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not ONE > >>>>> quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you think they > >>>>> are wrong. > >>> > >>>> ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and > >>>> you obviously agree as you failed to address the issue at all... > >>>> again. > >>> > >>> Ah, you say it is not true. > >> > >> So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along the > >> southern border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin landing > >> on one side or the other? This actually makes sense to you?! > > > > This logical fallacy is known as the "extended analogy". Why are you munging text, Snit? > > And it ties into another of his fallacies... Carroll insists that > because he was able to scavenge and forge a bunch of quotes over MANY > years and at least ten groups this means I am wrong about... something. LOL! Strike while the iron is hot, eh? I had nothing to do with *your* list, liar. Just because Scott is unable to grasp the fact that this "analogy" isn't remotely analogous doesn't mean he doesn't still see you for what you are. > He never really quotes me You're lying, I quote your lies and BS all the time. Everyone has quoted you, to your repeated denials. > But here we see you, me, chrisv, -hh, and others all noting how wrong he is. You're adding chrisv to the "analogy" list of people who were willing to publicly display they don't actually know what one is? Where did he do that? Or are you just lying... again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 18:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fsch8uF3avsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460642 |
On 7/31/18 6:09 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >>> And it ties into another of his fallacies... Carroll insists that >> because he was able to scavenge and forge a bunch of quotes over MANY >> years and at least ten groups this means I am wrong about... something. > > LOL! Strike while the iron is hot, eh? I had nothing to do with *your* list, liar. > Just because Scott is unable to grasp the fact that this "analogy" isn't remotely > analogous doesn't mean he doesn't still see you for what you are. > >> He never really quotes me > > You're lying, I quote your lies and BS all the time. Everyone has quoted you, > to your repeated denials. > >> But here we see you, me, chrisv, -hh, and others all noting how wrong he is. > > You're adding chrisv to the "analogy" list of people who were willing to publicly > display they don't actually know what one is? Where did he do that? Or are you > just lying... again? > As could be easily predicted, you failed to understand basic logic. You claim that because others have said things about me (many of those "others" being your socks even) this "proves" I am as YOU claim. Here multiple people are pointing out your ignorance of stats and your inability to understand what an analogy is. Based on YOUR criteria, you should accept what others say about you. But you will not... not even when you are quoted doing as we note you are doing! You will forever play the victim and use double standards. This is 100% predictable. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 18:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f4436c6-947c-4c5f-8eb2-7306e66cea9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460647 |
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:38:40 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 7/31/18 6:09 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > > >>> And it ties into another of his fallacies... Carroll insists that > >> because he was able to scavenge and forge a bunch of quotes over MANY > >> years and at least ten groups this means I am wrong about... something. > > > > LOL! Strike while the iron is hot, eh? I had nothing to do with *your* list, liar. > > Just because Scott is unable to grasp the fact that this "analogy" isn't remotely > > analogous doesn't mean he doesn't still see you for what you are. > > > >> He never really quotes me > > > > You're lying, I quote your lies and BS all the time. Everyone has quoted you, > > to your repeated denials. > > > >> But here we see you, me, chrisv, -hh, and others all noting how wrong he is. > > > > You're adding chrisv to the "analogy" list of people who were willing to publicly > > display they don't actually know what one is? Where did he do that? Or are you > > just lying... again? > > As could be easily predicted, you failed to understand basic logic. So ya got nothin' in the way fo quotes from chrisv... figures,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 19:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fsciu0F3kv0U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460649 |
On 7/31/18 6:09 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >>> And it ties into another of his fallacies... Carroll insists that >> because he was able to scavenge and forge a bunch of quotes over MANY >> years and at least ten groups this means I am wrong about... something. > > LOL! Strike while the iron is hot, eh? I had nothing to do with *your* list, liar. > Just because Scott is unable to grasp the fact that this "analogy" isn't remotely > analogous doesn't mean he doesn't still see you for what you are. > >> He never really quotes me > > You're lying, I quote your lies and BS all the time. Everyone has quoted you, > to your repeated denials. > >> But here we see you, me, chrisv, -hh, and others all noting how wrong he is. > > You're adding chrisv to the "analogy" list of people who were willing to publicly > display they don't actually know what one is? Where did he do that? Or are you > just lying... again? As could be easily predicted, you failed to understand basic logic. You claim that because others have said things about me (many of those "others" being your socks even) this "proves" I am as YOU claim. Here multiple people are pointing out your ignorance of stats and your inability to understand what an analogy is. Based on YOUR criteria, you should accept what others say about you. But you will not... not even when you are quoted doing as we note you are doing! You will forever play the victim and use double standards. This is 100% predictable. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 02:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsclafF3is6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460642 |
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:09:22 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:44:39 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 7/31/18 1:49 PM, vallor wrote: >> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:54:20 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: >> > >> >> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:34:53 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 7/31/18 9:45 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> >>>>> On 7/31/18 9:08 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 7/30/18 1:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:43:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 7/30/18 10:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Very good, "Hugh"... but I'm also not buying your 'stats >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as reality' >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> argument. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> And just where was that claim ever made? Because by >> >>>>>>>>>>>> definition, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the field of Statistics is not deterministic, but >> >>>>>>>>>>>> stochastic. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Carroll makes things up and posts bizarre accusations to >> >>>>>>>>>>> put you on the defensive and work to keep the light off of >> >>>>>>>>>>> his games. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> And now the expected back peddling (with it's own cheering >> >>>>>>>>>> section) begins... >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Ah, your blame game victim mentality shows itself again. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> It's just reality... you guys dug too deep, you both know the >> >>>>>>>> reality of what I'm saying and you're now trying to soften >> >>>>>>>> your landing. "Hugh" has done this many times... but you live >> >>>>>>>> there ;) >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Ah, another game of yours: you denied basic stats and evidence >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Correction: I'm denying certain kinds of stats aren't suitable >> >>>>>> as conclusive evidence. >> >>>>>> Reading is fundamental. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> For most people they can learn what they do not know... or at >> >>>>>>>>> least try. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Translation: Snit has *no* comeback for someone pointing out >> >>>>>>>> the idiocy of hh's absurd 'analogy'. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Now you are pretending I did not talk about his analogy and why >> >>>>>>> it is pertinent. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> How can it even be labeled an "analogy" to what I've mentioned >> >>>>>> when it's based on things that are known? This actually makes >> >>>>>> sense to you?! >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you >> >>>>> understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no >> >>>>> evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because >> >>>>> they do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas >> >>>>> of people from Mexico. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being >> >>>>> provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which >> >>>>> is absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate >> >>>>> your willful ignorance. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not >> >>>>> ONE quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you >> >>>>> think they are wrong. >> >>> >> >>>> ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and >> >>>> you obviously agree as you failed to address the issue at all... >> >>>> again. >> >>> >> >>> Ah, you say it is not true. >> >> >> >> So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along >> >> the southern border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin >> >> landing on one side or the other? This actually makes sense to you?! >> > >> > This logical fallacy is known as the "extended analogy". > > Why are you munging text, Snit? > >> > And it ties into another of his fallacies... Carroll insists that >> because he was able to scavenge and forge a bunch of quotes over MANY >> years and at least ten groups this means I am wrong about... something. > > LOL! Strike while the iron is hot, eh? I had nothing to do with *your* > list, liar. > Just because Scott is unable to grasp the fact that this "analogy" isn't > remotely analogous doesn't mean he doesn't still see you for what you > are. https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#analogy -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 19:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a72365cd-be02-4c3f-a3f1-344bd79c48c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460655 |
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 8:47:45 PM UTC-6, vallor wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:09:22 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:44:39 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 7/31/18 1:49 PM, vallor wrote: > >> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:54:20 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:34:53 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> >>> On 7/31/18 9:45 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> >>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> >>>>> On 7/31/18 9:08 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> >>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> >>>>>>> On 7/30/18 1:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:43:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> On 7/30/18 10:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Very good, "Hugh"... but I'm also not buying your 'stats > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as reality' > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> argument. > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> And just where was that claim ever made? Because by > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> definition, > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the field of Statistics is not deterministic, but > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> stochastic. > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Carroll makes things up and posts bizarre accusations to > >> >>>>>>>>>>> put you on the defensive and work to keep the light off of > >> >>>>>>>>>>> his games. > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> And now the expected back peddling (with it's own cheering > >> >>>>>>>>>> section) begins... > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> Ah, your blame game victim mentality shows itself again. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> It's just reality... you guys dug too deep, you both know the > >> >>>>>>>> reality of what I'm saying and you're now trying to soften > >> >>>>>>>> your landing. "Hugh" has done this many times... but you live > >> >>>>>>>> there ;) > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Ah, another game of yours: you denied basic stats and evidence > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Correction: I'm denying certain kinds of stats aren't suitable > >> >>>>>> as conclusive evidence. > >> >>>>>> Reading is fundamental. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> For most people they can learn what they do not know... or at > >> >>>>>>>>> least try. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Translation: Snit has *no* comeback for someone pointing out > >> >>>>>>>> the idiocy of hh's absurd 'analogy'. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Now you are pretending I did not talk about his analogy and why > >> >>>>>>> it is pertinent. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> How can it even be labeled an "analogy" to what I've mentioned > >> >>>>>> when it's based on things that are known? This actually makes > >> >>>>>> sense to you?! > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you > >> >>>>> understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no > >> >>>>> evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because > >> >>>>> they do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas > >> >>>>> of people from Mexico. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being > >> >>>>> provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which > >> >>>>> is absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate > >> >>>>> your willful ignorance. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not > >> >>>>> ONE quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you > >> >>>>> think they are wrong. > >> >>> > >> >>>> ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and > >> >>>> you obviously agree as you failed to address the issue at all... > >> >>>> again. > >> >>> > >> >>> Ah, you say it is not true. > >> >> > >> >> So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along > >> >> the southern border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin > >> >> landing on one side or the other? This actually makes sense to you?! > >> > > >> > This logical fallacy is known as the "extended analogy". > > > > Why are you munging text, Snit? > > > >> > And it ties into another of his fallacies... Carroll insists that > >> because he was able to scavenge and forge a bunch of quotes over MANY > >> years and at least ten groups this means I am wrong about... something. > > > > LOL! Strike while the iron is hot, eh? I had nothing to do with *your* > > list, liar. > > Just because Scott is unable to grasp the fact that this "analogy" isn't > > remotely analogous doesn't mean he doesn't still see you for what you > > are. > > https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#analogy What's the "rule" being argued over in this "analogy"? All I see is hh trying to foist coin flipping probability into an area it doesn't belong because there are 'knowns' from which to calculate it. This is unlike the example I mentioned of rape, where the unknowns don't allow for the same kind of calculation. Things like false incident reports or unreported incidents, etc. don't lend themselves well to estimates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 20:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fsco3pF4lalU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460656 |
On 7/31/18 7:58 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 8:47:45 PM UTC-6, vallor wrote: >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:09:22 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:44:39 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 7/31/18 1:49 PM, vallor wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:54:20 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:34:53 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/31/18 9:45 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/31/18 9:08 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/18 1:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:43:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/18 10:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very good, "Hugh"... but I'm also not buying your 'stats >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as reality' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And just where was that claim ever made? Because by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the field of Statistics is not deterministic, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stochastic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carroll makes things up and posts bizarre accusations to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put you on the defensive and work to keep the light off of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his games. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And now the expected back peddling (with it's own cheering >>>>>>>>>>>>>> section) begins... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, your blame game victim mentality shows itself again. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's just reality... you guys dug too deep, you both know the >>>>>>>>>>>> reality of what I'm saying and you're now trying to soften >>>>>>>>>>>> your landing. "Hugh" has done this many times... but you live >>>>>>>>>>>> there ;) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ah, another game of yours: you denied basic stats and evidence >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Correction: I'm denying certain kinds of stats aren't suitable >>>>>>>>>> as conclusive evidence. >>>>>>>>>> Reading is fundamental. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For most people they can learn what they do not know... or at >>>>>>>>>>>>> least try. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: Snit has *no* comeback for someone pointing out >>>>>>>>>>>> the idiocy of hh's absurd 'analogy'. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now you are pretending I did not talk about his analogy and why >>>>>>>>>>> it is pertinent. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How can it even be labeled an "analogy" to what I've mentioned >>>>>>>>>> when it's based on things that are known? This actually makes >>>>>>>>>> sense to you?! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you >>>>>>>>> understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no >>>>>>>>> evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because >>>>>>>>> they do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas >>>>>>>>> of people from Mexico. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being >>>>>>>>> provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which >>>>>>>>> is absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate >>>>>>>>> your willful ignorance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not >>>>>>>>> ONE quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you >>>>>>>>> think they are wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and >>>>>>>> you obviously agree as you failed to address the issue at all... >>>>>>>> again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah, you say it is not true. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along >>>>>> the southern border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin >>>>>> landing on one side or the other? This actually makes sense to you?! >>>>> >>>>> This logical fallacy is known as the "extended analogy". >>> >>> Why are you munging text, Snit? >>> >>>>> And it ties into another of his fallacies... Carroll insists that >>>> because he was able to scavenge and forge a bunch of quotes over MANY >>>> years and at least ten groups this means I am wrong about... something. >>> >>> LOL! Strike while the iron is hot, eh? I had nothing to do with *your* >>> list, liar. >>> Just because Scott is unable to grasp the fact that this "analogy" isn't >>> remotely analogous doesn't mean he doesn't still see you for what you >>> are. >> >> https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#analogy > > What's the "rule" being argued over in this "analogy"? All I see is hh > trying to foist coin flipping probability into an area it doesn't belong > because there are 'knowns' from which to calculate it. This is unlike > the example I mentioned of rape, where the unknowns don't allow > for the same kind of calculation. Things like false incident reports > or unreported incidents, etc. don't lend themselves well to estimates. > > > > -hh explained, very patiently, why your nonsense tied to your ignorance of basic stats did not hold water. You rejected the lesson... and played victim. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 20:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fscn5tF4et2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460655 |
On 7/31/18 7:47 PM, vallor wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:09:22 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:44:39 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> On 7/31/18 1:49 PM, vallor wrote: >>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:54:20 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:34:53 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 7/31/18 9:45 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/31/18 9:08 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/18 1:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:43:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/18 10:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very good, "Hugh"... but I'm also not buying your 'stats >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as reality' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And just where was that claim ever made? Because by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the field of Statistics is not deterministic, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stochastic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carroll makes things up and posts bizarre accusations to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> put you on the defensive and work to keep the light off of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> his games. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And now the expected back peddling (with it's own cheering >>>>>>>>>>>>> section) begins... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, your blame game victim mentality shows itself again. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's just reality... you guys dug too deep, you both know the >>>>>>>>>>> reality of what I'm saying and you're now trying to soften >>>>>>>>>>> your landing. "Hugh" has done this many times... but you live >>>>>>>>>>> there ;) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ah, another game of yours: you denied basic stats and evidence >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Correction: I'm denying certain kinds of stats aren't suitable >>>>>>>>> as conclusive evidence. >>>>>>>>> Reading is fundamental. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For most people they can learn what they do not know... or at >>>>>>>>>>>> least try. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Translation: Snit has *no* comeback for someone pointing out >>>>>>>>>>> the idiocy of hh's absurd 'analogy'. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now you are pretending I did not talk about his analogy and why >>>>>>>>>> it is pertinent. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How can it even be labeled an "analogy" to what I've mentioned >>>>>>>>> when it's based on things that are known? This actually makes >>>>>>>>> sense to you?! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you >>>>>>>> understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no >>>>>>>> evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because >>>>>>>> they do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas >>>>>>>> of people from Mexico. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being >>>>>>>> provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which >>>>>>>> is absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate >>>>>>>> your willful ignorance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not >>>>>>>> ONE quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you >>>>>>>> think they are wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>> ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and >>>>>>> you obviously agree as you failed to address the issue at all... >>>>>>> again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, you say it is not true. >>>>> >>>>> So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along >>>>> the southern border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin >>>>> landing on one side or the other? This actually makes sense to you?! >>>> >>>> This logical fallacy is known as the "extended analogy". >> >> Why are you munging text, Snit? >> >>>> And it ties into another of his fallacies... Carroll insists that >>> because he was able to scavenge and forge a bunch of quotes over MANY >>> years and at least ten groups this means I am wrong about... something. >> >> LOL! Strike while the iron is hot, eh? I had nothing to do with *your* >> list, liar. >> Just because Scott is unable to grasp the fact that this "analogy" isn't >> remotely analogous doesn't mean he doesn't still see you for what you >> are. > > https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#analogy > Love the site you picked. LOL! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 18:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba16898e-6b07-4ce9-b908-169e1f909a4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460628 |
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 2:49:37 PM UTC-6, vallor wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:54:20 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:34:53 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 7/31/18 9:45 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> >> On 7/31/18 9:08 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> >>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> >>>> On 7/30/18 1:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> >>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:43:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> >>>>>> On 7/30/18 10:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Very good, "Hugh"... but I'm also not buying your 'stats as > >> >>>>>>>>>> reality' > >> >>>>>>>>>> argument. > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> And just where was that claim ever made? Because by > >> >>>>>>>>> definition, > >> >>>>>>>>> the field of Statistics is not deterministic, but stochastic. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Carroll makes things up and posts bizarre accusations to put > >> >>>>>>>> you on the defensive and work to keep the light off of his > >> >>>>>>>> games. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> And now the expected back peddling (with it's own cheering > >> >>>>>>> section) begins... > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Ah, your blame game victim mentality shows itself again. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> It's just reality... you guys dug too deep, you both know the > >> >>>>> reality of what I'm saying and you're now trying to soften your > >> >>>>> landing. "Hugh" has done this many times... but you live there ;) > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Ah, another game of yours: you denied basic stats and evidence > >> >>> > >> >>> Correction: I'm denying certain kinds of stats aren't suitable as > >> >>> conclusive evidence. > >> >>> Reading is fundamental. > >> >>> > >> >>>>>> For most people they can learn what they do not know... or at > >> >>>>>> least try. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Translation: Snit has *no* comeback for someone pointing out the > >> >>>>> idiocy of hh's absurd 'analogy'. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Now you are pretending I did not talk about his analogy and why it > >> >>>> is pertinent. > >> >>> > >> >>> How can it even be labeled an "analogy" to what I've mentioned when > >> >>> it's based on things that are known? This actually makes sense to > >> >>> you?! > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you > >> >> understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no > >> >> evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because they > >> >> do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas of people > >> >> from Mexico. > >> >> > >> >> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being > >> >> provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which is > >> >> absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate your > >> >> willful ignorance. > >> >> > >> >> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not ONE > >> >> quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you think they > >> >> are wrong. > >> > >> > ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and > >> > you obviously agree as you failed to address the issue at all... > >> > again. > >> > >> Ah, you say it is not true. > > > > So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along the > > southern border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin landing > > on one side or the other? This actually makes sense to you?! > > This logical fallacy is known as the "extended analogy". LOL! The only "fallacy" here is yours. You don't know what you don't know, that's quite unlike estimations of coin flipping. That such a thing would need to be explained to anyone is bizarre. So far, 3 people who, coincidentally, all identify as liberals, are making the same error on this "analogy". Makes one wonder if there's a statistical connection between liberals and misusing analogies ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 18:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fsch24F3886U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460641 |
On 7/31/18 6:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >>>>>> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you >>>>>> understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no >>>>>> evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because they >>>>>> do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas of people >>>>>> from Mexico. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being >>>>>> provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which is >>>>>> absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate your >>>>>> willful ignorance. >>>>>> >>>>>> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not ONE >>>>>> quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you think they >>>>>> are wrong. >>>> >>>>> ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and >>>>> you obviously agree as you failed to address the issue at all... >>>>> again. >>>> >>>> Ah, you say it is not true. >>> >>> So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along the >>> southern border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin landing >>> on one side or the other? This actually makes sense to you?! >> >> This logical fallacy is known as the "extended analogy". > > LOL! The only "fallacy" here is yours. You are forever the victim, right? All of us who understand the basics of stats and get what an analogy is are somehow just abusing poor ol' Carroll merely because he is ignorance and lashing out with insults and lies. Man, must be rough to be you! > You don't know what you don't know, > that's quite unlike estimations of coin flipping. In both cases there are uncertainty, but the point -- which you missed -- is that with the use of stats you can get a pretty good estimate. > That such a thing would need to > be explained to anyone is bizarre. So far, 3 people who, coincidentally, all identify > as liberals, are making the same error on this "analogy". Makes one wonder if > there's a statistical connection between liberals and misusing analogies ;) Remember: you are the one who is insisting you do not understand the stats -hh used and cannot figure out even what an analogy is. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 18:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7ebb940-9ee0-4d89-875b-cdbc21223877@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460645 |
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:35:03 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 7/31/18 6:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > >>>>>> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you > >>>>>> understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no > >>>>>> evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because they > >>>>>> do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas of people > >>>>>> from Mexico. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being > >>>>>> provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which is > >>>>>> absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate your > >>>>>> willful ignorance. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not ONE > >>>>>> quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you think they > >>>>>> are wrong. > >>>> > >>>>> ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and > >>>>> you obviously agree as you failed to address the issue at all... > >>>>> again. > >>>> > >>>> Ah, you say it is not true. > >>> > >>> So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along the > >>> southern border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin landing > >>> on one side or the other? This actually makes sense to you?! > >> > >> This logical fallacy is known as the "extended analogy". > > > > LOL! The only "fallacy" here is yours. > > You are forever the victim, right? This has nothing to do with me, table turner. I responded to Scott after having read your message but, upon reading his reply again, I see it's possible I misread him. If so, I apologize for jumping the gun. If not, what I said stands... and you're not in good company ;) > All of us who understand the basics You said chrisv is on the "analogy" list, so let's see a quote by him. > > You don't know what you don't know, > > that's quite unlike estimations of coin flipping. > > In both cases there are uncertainty No, fool, the number of flips is *known* in his coin flipping "analogy". The difference between known and unknown is the issue here. Like I said, you don't even understand the point I raised. An actual analogy would be something like rapes, given how many are unreported (and how many are falsely reported) we don't really know the number there, either, so you can't say with any kind of certainty that you can prove rapes are committed more in one area than another. You can only say the data indicates it (or not). This is just simple common sense...that you're overlooking in your pursuit of 'stat worship' (hh has a *really* bad case of it). (snip total BS by a known pathological liar)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 19:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fscit2F3kv0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460648 |
On 7/31/18 6:55 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:35:03 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 7/31/18 6:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> ... >>>>>>>> You continue to insist the stats and analogies to help you >>>>>>>> understand the stats are meaningful to you but you have given no >>>>>>>> evidence they are not quite reasonable. You reject them because they >>>>>>>> do not fit your views, which are filled with bigoted ideas of people >>>>>>>> from Mexico. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your game is to set the standard NOT at good evidence being >>>>>>>> provided, which it has, but to say one must convince YOU, which is >>>>>>>> absurd because you argue merely to argue, and you celebrate your >>>>>>>> willful ignorance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You also move goal posts... look at your comments above... not ONE >>>>>>>> quote of -hh's stats and other support to suggest why you think they >>>>>>>> are wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>> ... that the alleged "analogy" isn't close to being one? True, and >>>>>>> you obviously agree as you failed to address the issue at all... >>>>>>> again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, you say it is not true. >>>>> >>>>> So, in your tiny, diseased brain you believe that all crimes along the >>>>> southern border are as known (statistically speaking) as a coin landing >>>>> on one side or the other? This actually makes sense to you?! >>>> >>>> This logical fallacy is known as the "extended analogy". >>> >>> LOL! The only "fallacy" here is yours. >> >> You are forever the victim, right? > > This has nothing to do with me, So you failing to understand relatively simply stats concepts, and being called out on that, and you using logical fallacies and being called out on it as those stats are explained to you in more simple terms, ALSO has nothing to do with you. It is all those mean people who victimize you by correcting your ignorant and dishonest claims. It is all about them. They are soooooo mean! LOL! I truly have never seen a victim mentality as extreme as yours. > table turner. I responded to Scott after > having read your message but, upon reading his reply again, I see it's > possible I misread him. If so, I apologize for jumping the gun. If not, > what I said stands... and you're not in good company ;) > >> All of us who understand the basics > > You said chrisv is on the "analogy" list, so let's see a quote by him. > >>> You don't know what you don't know, >>> that's quite unlike estimations of coin flipping. >> >> In both cases there are uncertainty > > No, fool, the number of flips is *known* in his coin flipping "analogy". Ah, the master of hair splitting cannot imagine a situation where you do not know the number of flips... but in such a case the more flips the closer to 50/50 you would expect to get to (over all). I went into more detail on this earlier. And -hh explained why your crying over some unknowns was at least largely accounted for in the stats. But you literally cannot understand, or pretend to so you can argue and not admit your initial point was shown to be wrong. Heck, at this point though I bet you do not even know what your initial point even was. Do you? If so, what was it? I bet you run off or snip or play victim again. Poor misunderstood Carroll... always the victim of those people who are better educated than he is. > The difference between known and unknown is the issue here. Like I > said, you don't even understand the point I raised. An actual analogy > would be something like rapes, given how many are unreported (and > how many are falsely reported) we don't really know the number there, > either, so you can't say with any kind of certainty that you can prove > rapes are committed more in one area than another. You can only say > the data indicates it (or not). This is just simple common sense...that > you're overlooking in your pursuit of 'stat worship' (hh has a *really* > bad case of it). > > (snip total BS by a known pathological liar) > -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web