On May 17, 11:21Â am, Richard Charnin <
richardchar...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:14:23 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On May 17, 1:44Â am, Richard Charnin <
richardchar...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> > > Hey, trolls, are you up to it?
> > > Try to follow some actual SCIENTIFIC analysis for a change.
>
> > >
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29x...
>
> > > I just might challenge you all with a multiple choice test at some later date.
>
> > > Flash! The probability analysis will be referenced in a future book (not mine).
> > > No questions. That's all I am going to say about that.
>
> > What are you, a one trick pony?. How many threads are you going to
> > start with this same horseshit? There is absolutely nothing scientific
> > about your analysis. Of course you won't take questions because this
> > horseshit won't stand up to scrutiny. Â I have pointed out the
> > fallacies in your methods. Twice. You refuse to address any of the
> > points I made and instead try to pass of this bullshit in another
> > thread. In short, you are an irrelevant asshole who should simply be
> > ignored. Fuck off.
>
> YOU TELLING ME TO FUCK OFF?
> This one trick pony has trampled all over you.
>
Actually, you've stepped on your dick.
> How many more links will I post of the math proof?
The next one that has real proof and not junk science will be number
one.
> I will post links so often that it will make you retch.
I'm sure a lot of people will have that reaction.
> Each post exposes you as a charlatan troll,so you can expect many more.
>
Until you can address the objections I made to your analysis, it is
quite clear who the charlatan is. Valid science needs to be able to
stand up to the scrutiny of peer review. Obviously, you aren't up to
that task. You present your case an expect everyone to simply accept
your silly conclusions without question.
> I want everyone to see how the math proof reduces you to an irrelevancy.
> I will post it until you run off with a bigdog tail between your legs.
Actually, you have presented no math, just your final answer as to the
probabilities. We both know you will not reveal the steps you took in
reaching those conclusions because we both know it would be obvious
how lame your calculations are.