Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ping cc: which of your comments do you *really* believe?
41 views
Skip to first unread message
Snit
May 8, 2012, 4:54:14โฏPM5/8/12
to
I showed you these:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
Two of your responses to that:
cc #1: defending Excel / Pages for using the standard way to come up
with the trend line being discussed (a linear trend line):
-----
| Below you blame Excel and Pages for *both* using something other
| than "standard methods".
Incorrect.
-----
cc #2: denying that Excel does a tend line in the "standard" way, and
by extension, Pages since it comes up with the same result:
-----
The "standard" way to add trend lines to an Excel chart is not the
same as the "standard" way to do an analysis to come up with the
correct trend line.
-----
Do you agree with your first statement, where you deny the two programs are
using some non-standard way to come up with a linear trend line, or your
second statement where you claim Excel (and by extension Pages) 'is not the
same as the "standard" way" ... to come up with the correct trend line'?
You cannot have it both ways - either they do it the standard / correct way
or they do not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
cc #1:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
cc #2:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
Do you agree with your first statement where you claim it has always been at
1% or your second statement which claims there has been a "significant down
trend"? Yes, I know you have tried to excuse your clear contradiction by
saying you were mocking the data you asked me to look at... but, come on,
which do you *really* believe. Keep in mind the evidence supports that
there has been a recent and significant downtrend:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>. I
suggest you pick that one, given how it fits the data *you* provided. But
that is just my suggestion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
cc #1, admitting he used different data
-----
using Snit's numbers from the link plus ....
-----
cc #2, denying he used different data:
-----
> In other words, if you use different data you get a
> different result.
No.
-----
cc #3, back to admitting he used different data:
-----
I used the exact same data you used, plus ...
-----
So did you use the same data I did (the data you asked me to) or did you use
that data *plus* other data? You make both claims. Which do you want to
claim is your current belief?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will not, of course, give reasoned answers to any of those. You are, of
course, simply lying and begging for my attention. I do hope you are
enjoying it. I know I enjoy rubbing your nose in your own mess...
--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
"I am not claiming Excel and Pages are incorrect." - cc
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
Two of your responses to that:
cc #1: defending Excel / Pages for using the standard way to come up
with the trend line being discussed (a linear trend line):
-----
| Below you blame Excel and Pages for *both* using something other
| than "standard methods".
Incorrect.
-----
cc #2: denying that Excel does a tend line in the "standard" way, and
by extension, Pages since it comes up with the same result:
-----
The "standard" way to add trend lines to an Excel chart is not the
same as the "standard" way to do an analysis to come up with the
correct trend line.
-----
Do you agree with your first statement, where you deny the two programs are
using some non-standard way to come up with a linear trend line, or your
second statement where you claim Excel (and by extension Pages) 'is not the
same as the "standard" way" ... to come up with the correct trend line'?
You cannot have it both ways - either they do it the standard / correct way
or they do not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
cc #1:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
cc #2:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
Do you agree with your first statement where you claim it has always been at
1% or your second statement which claims there has been a "significant down
trend"? Yes, I know you have tried to excuse your clear contradiction by
saying you were mocking the data you asked me to look at... but, come on,
which do you *really* believe. Keep in mind the evidence supports that
there has been a recent and significant downtrend:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>. I
suggest you pick that one, given how it fits the data *you* provided. But
that is just my suggestion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
cc #1, admitting he used different data
-----
using Snit's numbers from the link plus ....
-----
cc #2, denying he used different data:
-----
> In other words, if you use different data you get a
> different result.
No.
-----
cc #3, back to admitting he used different data:
-----
I used the exact same data you used, plus ...
-----
So did you use the same data I did (the data you asked me to) or did you use
that data *plus* other data? You make both claims. Which do you want to
claim is your current belief?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will not, of course, give reasoned answers to any of those. You are, of
course, simply lying and begging for my attention. I do hope you are
enjoying it. I know I enjoy rubbing your nose in your own mess...
--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
"I am not claiming Excel and Pages are incorrect." - cc
Steve Carroll
May 8, 2012, 5:08:18โฏPM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 2:54ย pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> I showed you these:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
Show him using cell formulas (=TREND)
> I showed you these:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
I've no horse in the race... but i think I know how he came up with a
"flatlined" trend. I'd ask to see his video;)
cc
May 8, 2012, 5:19:40โฏPM5/8/12
to
On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 4:54:14 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> I showed you these:
Yes you did. And both are hilarious, although I suggest watching the movie first to fully appreciate the hilarity.
> I showed you these:
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>
> Two of your responses to that:
>
> cc #1: defending Excel / Pages for using the standard way to come up
> with the trend line being discussed (a linear trend line):
> -----
> | Below you blame Excel and Pages for *both* using something other
> | than "standard methods".
> Incorrect.
> -----
>
> cc #2: denying that Excel does a tend line in the "standard" way, and
> by extension, Pages since it comes up with the same result:
> -----
> The "standard" way to add trend lines to an Excel chart is not the
> same as the "standard" way to do an analysis to come up with the
> correct trend line.
> -----
>
> Do you agree with your first statement, where you deny the two programs are
> using some non-standard way to come up with a linear trend line, or your
> second statement where you claim Excel (and by extension Pages) 'is not the
> same as the "standard" way" ... to come up with the correct trend line'?
>
> You cannot have it both ways - either they do it the standard / correct way
> or they do not.
And before you ask, we both used the same data set. So you are missing some key steps before doing the trendline. I have said that many times now. Please stop lying.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> cc #1:
> -----
> It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
> -----
> cc #2:
> -----
> Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
> -----
>
> Do you agree with your first statement where you claim it has always been at
> 1% or your second statement which claims there has been a "significant down
> trend"? Yes, I know you have tried to excuse your clear contradiction by
> saying you were mocking the data you asked me to look at... but, come on,
> which do you *really* believe.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> cc #1, admitting he used different data
> -----
> using Snit's numbers from the link plus ....
> -----
> cc #2, denying he used different data:
> -----
> > In other words, if you use different data you get a
> > different result.
> No.
> -----
> cc #3, back to admitting he used different data:
> -----
> I used the exact same data you used, plus ...
> -----
>
> So did you use the same data I did (the data you asked me to) or did you use
> that data *plus* other data? You make both claims. Which do you want to
> claim is your current belief?
>
I've explained all this numerous times.
--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
Chris Ahlstrom
May 8, 2012, 5:49:47โฏPM5/8/12
to
After swilling some grog, Steve Carroll belched this bit o' wisdom:
Ye gods, the obsessiveness.
Anyway, I hate graphs like that, exaggerating a very small range of
numbers, with no attempt at uncertainty estimates.
Shee, we learned how to estimate plus-and-minus in our sophomore
chemistry class.
--
One bright Sunday morning, in the shadows of the steeple,
By the Relief Office, I seen my people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there whistling,
This land was made for you and me.
Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back,
This land was made for you and me.
As I went walking, I saw a sign there,
And on the sign it said: "No Trespassing."
But on the other side, it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.
-- Woody Guthrie, "This Land Is Your Land" (verses 4, 6, 7)
[If you ever wondered why Arlo was so anti-establishment when his dad
wrote such wonderful patriotic songs, the answer is that you haven't
heard all of Woody's songs]
Anyway, I hate graphs like that, exaggerating a very small range of
numbers, with no attempt at uncertainty estimates.
Shee, we learned how to estimate plus-and-minus in our sophomore
chemistry class.
--
One bright Sunday morning, in the shadows of the steeple,
By the Relief Office, I seen my people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there whistling,
This land was made for you and me.
Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back,
This land was made for you and me.
As I went walking, I saw a sign there,
And on the sign it said: "No Trespassing."
But on the other side, it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.
-- Woody Guthrie, "This Land Is Your Land" (verses 4, 6, 7)
[If you ever wondered why Arlo was so anti-establishment when his dad
wrote such wonderful patriotic songs, the answer is that you haven't
heard all of Woody's songs]
Steve Carroll
May 8, 2012, 5:58:46โฏPM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 3:49ย pm, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Steve Carroll belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > On May 8, 2:54ย pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> I showed you these:
>
> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>
> > Show him using cell formulas (=TREND)
>
> > I've no horse in the race... but i think I know how he came up with a
> > "flatlined" trend. I'd ask to see his video;)
>
> Ye gods, the obsessiveness.
>
> Anyway, I hate graphs like that, exaggerating a very small range of
> numbers, with no attempt at uncertainty estimates.
>
> Shee, we learned how to estimate plus-and-minus in our sophomore
> chemistry class.
Yeah... but Snit has a month problem now... It's his time of the
> After swilling some grog, Steve Carroll belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > On May 8, 2:54ย pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> I showed you these:
>
> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>
> > Show him using cell formulas (=TREND)
>
> > I've no horse in the race... but i think I know how he came up with a
> > "flatlined" trend. I'd ask to see his video;)
>
> Ye gods, the obsessiveness.
>
> Anyway, I hate graphs like that, exaggerating a very small range of
> numbers, with no attempt at uncertainty estimates.
>
> Shee, we learned how to estimate plus-and-minus in our sophomore
> chemistry class.
month;)
Randall Flagg
May 8, 2012, 7:29:36โฏPM5/8/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:54:14 -0700, Snit wrote:
> You
Is your wife working and tending to the household while you spend all day in
newsgroups, Snit? :-)
> You
Is your wife working and tending to the household while you spend all day in
newsgroups, Snit? :-)
Snit
May 8, 2012, 7:36:27โฏPM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/12 2:19 PM, in article
20877748.3485.1336511980435.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynei5, "cc"
Ah, insults because you cannot figure out which of your own comments you
believe.
Come on, just try to pick one. Which of your contrary claims do you think
is correct? Or do you now think neither is? They clearly cannot both be
correct.
> I'm saying the same thing in both, and if you hadn't snipped after one single
> word in the first quote that would be apparent.
You are contradicting yourself - at one time saying Excel uses the standard
methods and at another denying they do.
> Excel generates a least squares regression line for a given input.
For example, on the data you asked me to look at. And I did. And these were
the results:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
You do not like that the trend line went contrary to your claims - it goes
up - so you freaked out.
> This is "standard" in a sense, but not the only way to get a linear regression
> line.
Nobody said there were not other options to look at the data. But, of note,
you asked me to graph that data - and your request said nothing about using
a different method.
Your complaint with the method only came into being once you realized you
had self-nuked. And that I was laughing at you.
By the way: I still am. :)
> The input you are giving Excel is not "standard" in any sense, nor
> correct.
It is the data - the input - you asked me to use.
Another self-nuke by you.
> That is what I have said multiple times now, and it is evident above, even
> with taking such minimal quotes, that that is what I was saying. YOU fucked
> up, not Excel.
Ah, I used the data you asked me to and that was completely wrong of me. I
should never do as you ask. LOL! You self-nuking here is amazing!
> And before you ask, we both used the same data set.
I had no intention to ask. I do not care one whit what data set you are
using in your lame whining nor what methods you are using to try to get out
of the fact you made a mistake and self-nuked.
> So you are missing some key steps before doing the trendline. I have said that
> many times now.
The fact you claim I am missing steps is irrelevant. I have shown you the
steps that are required and showed you that I followed those steps (or used
the exact same commands - I used a right-click option to get to a feature
and not the ribbon... oh no!)
> Please stop lying.
Poor cc: he self-nukes and cannot admit it so he makes false accusations.
Waaaaahhhh... LOL!
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> cc #1:
>> -----
>> It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
>> -----
>> cc #2:
>> -----
>> Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
>> -----
>>
>> Do you agree with your first statement where you claim it has always been at
>> 1% or your second statement which claims there has been a "significant down
>> trend"? Yes, I know you have tried to excuse your clear contradiction by
>> saying you were mocking the data you asked me to look at... but, come on,
>> which do you *really* believe.
>
> Obviously Linux has been at 1% for quite some time now. YOU said "Look at
> January" as if that single data point meant anything, and I mocked you and
> your arbitrary date choosing by saying it had trended downward since then.
So you do agree it has been trending downward since January... and thus you
disagree with your first claim that it has always been at 1% (it cannot have
always been at *anything* when it has been changing).
OK, fair enough: you are saying you were wrong in your #1 statement and
right in your #2 statement. Excellent. Good to see you admit that.
> You see how I used two different scales?
Consistency is not your strong point. Sure.
> One short time period to mock you (starting in January), and one longer time
> period (10 years) to make my actual points.
Oh, the idea that it has trended around 1% for some time is not in
contention (though, as I have noted, I have not been following the trends
for 10 years). I am merely noting how you contradict yourself.
And how I find it amusing to see you self nuke. Goodness, you are funny!
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> cc #1, admitting he used different data
>> -----
>> using Snit's numbers from the link plus ....
>> -----
>> cc #2, denying he used different data:
>> -----
>> | In other words, if you use different data you get a
>> | different result.
>> No.
>> -----
>> cc #3, back to admitting he used different data:
>> -----
>> I used the exact same data you used, plus ...
>> -----
>>
>> So did you use the same data I did (the data you asked me to) or did you use
>> that data *plus* other data? You make both claims. Which do you want to
>> claim is your current belief?
>
> I used both, moron.
You went back and forth. But let's stick to the data set you asked me to
use:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
The linear trend line is clearly going up. You never have been able to
admit that.
> I gave equations for both sets of data. Adding one additional data point (as
> would be "standard" anyway) did little to change the equations. Lately I've
> just been referring to calculations made using ONLY your data,
Are you calling the data you asked me to use my data now? Or are you
referring to the 12 month data I initially used? You flip flop and get
yourself so tied up into knots I really do not know which you mean.
And the funny thing is I bet you have no idea, either.
> so we can compare apples to apples (although why you would not use the most
> current data is beyond me, but after watching your video it becomes a little
> clearer), but in the original thread I gave equations for both. You are
> seriously stupid.
You gave equations. How lovely. Are those the equations you are saying
prove the way Excel and Numbers handle the linear trend lines are wrong? Or
are you saying Excel and Numbers handle that work correctly now? You go
back and forth on it so often it is impossible to know what you are
currently thinking.
But it is fun to make fun of your inconsistencies and your self-nuking. It
is not like you will ever be honest about it.
> I've explained all this numerous times.
Oh, you have made up all sorts of funny stories... funny enough where you
are still getting attention from me. But face it, the facts prove you
wrong:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
And while perhaps this does not speak well of me, I love how clearly pissed
off you are that the data proves you wrong. It just is great! You are very
amusing when you are freaking out trying to recover from your many
screw-up's... you just tie yourself into knots more and more and more. You
offer a very funny comedy show!
--
"I mischaracterize things you say." - cc
20877748.3485.1336511980435.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynei5, "cc"
believe.
Come on, just try to pick one. Which of your contrary claims do you think
is correct? Or do you now think neither is? They clearly cannot both be
correct.
> I'm saying the same thing in both, and if you hadn't snipped after one single
> word in the first quote that would be apparent.
methods and at another denying they do.
> Excel generates a least squares regression line for a given input.
the results:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
You do not like that the trend line went contrary to your claims - it goes
up - so you freaked out.
> This is "standard" in a sense, but not the only way to get a linear regression
> line.
you asked me to graph that data - and your request said nothing about using
a different method.
Your complaint with the method only came into being once you realized you
had self-nuked. And that I was laughing at you.
By the way: I still am. :)
> The input you are giving Excel is not "standard" in any sense, nor
> correct.
Another self-nuke by you.
> That is what I have said multiple times now, and it is evident above, even
> with taking such minimal quotes, that that is what I was saying. YOU fucked
> up, not Excel.
should never do as you ask. LOL! You self-nuking here is amazing!
> And before you ask, we both used the same data set.
using in your lame whining nor what methods you are using to try to get out
of the fact you made a mistake and self-nuked.
> So you are missing some key steps before doing the trendline. I have said that
> many times now.
steps that are required and showed you that I followed those steps (or used
the exact same commands - I used a right-click option to get to a feature
and not the ribbon... oh no!)
> Please stop lying.
Poor cc: he self-nukes and cannot admit it so he makes false accusations.
Waaaaahhhh... LOL!
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> cc #1:
>> -----
>> It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
>> -----
>> cc #2:
>> -----
>> Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
>> -----
>>
>> Do you agree with your first statement where you claim it has always been at
>> 1% or your second statement which claims there has been a "significant down
>> trend"? Yes, I know you have tried to excuse your clear contradiction by
>> saying you were mocking the data you asked me to look at... but, come on,
>> which do you *really* believe.
>
> Obviously Linux has been at 1% for quite some time now. YOU said "Look at
> January" as if that single data point meant anything, and I mocked you and
> your arbitrary date choosing by saying it had trended downward since then.
disagree with your first claim that it has always been at 1% (it cannot have
always been at *anything* when it has been changing).
OK, fair enough: you are saying you were wrong in your #1 statement and
right in your #2 statement. Excellent. Good to see you admit that.
> You see how I used two different scales?
> One short time period to mock you (starting in January), and one longer time
> period (10 years) to make my actual points.
contention (though, as I have noted, I have not been following the trends
for 10 years). I am merely noting how you contradict yourself.
And how I find it amusing to see you self nuke. Goodness, you are funny!
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> cc #1, admitting he used different data
>> -----
>> using Snit's numbers from the link plus ....
>> -----
>> cc #2, denying he used different data:
>> -----
>> | In other words, if you use different data you get a
>> | different result.
>> No.
>> -----
>> cc #3, back to admitting he used different data:
>> -----
>> I used the exact same data you used, plus ...
>> -----
>>
>> So did you use the same data I did (the data you asked me to) or did you use
>> that data *plus* other data? You make both claims. Which do you want to
>> claim is your current belief?
>
> I used both, moron.
use:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
The linear trend line is clearly going up. You never have been able to
admit that.
> I gave equations for both sets of data. Adding one additional data point (as
> would be "standard" anyway) did little to change the equations. Lately I've
> just been referring to calculations made using ONLY your data,
referring to the 12 month data I initially used? You flip flop and get
yourself so tied up into knots I really do not know which you mean.
And the funny thing is I bet you have no idea, either.
> so we can compare apples to apples (although why you would not use the most
> current data is beyond me, but after watching your video it becomes a little
> clearer), but in the original thread I gave equations for both. You are
> seriously stupid.
prove the way Excel and Numbers handle the linear trend lines are wrong? Or
are you saying Excel and Numbers handle that work correctly now? You go
back and forth on it so often it is impossible to know what you are
currently thinking.
But it is fun to make fun of your inconsistencies and your self-nuking. It
is not like you will ever be honest about it.
> I've explained all this numerous times.
are still getting attention from me. But face it, the facts prove you
wrong:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
And while perhaps this does not speak well of me, I love how clearly pissed
off you are that the data proves you wrong. It just is great! You are very
amusing when you are freaking out trying to recover from your many
screw-up's... you just tie yourself into knots more and more and more. You
offer a very funny comedy show!
--
"I mischaracterize things you say." - cc
Snit
May 8, 2012, 7:38:46โฏPM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/12 2:49 PM, in article joc4dm$kil$3...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
Call it a weakness of mine... but I do enjoy it.
> Anyway, I hate graphs like that, exaggerating a very small range of
> numbers, with no attempt at uncertainty estimates.
Oh, I made no claims as to the numbers offering any predictive value or
anything like that. I simply noted the trend line was moving up.
And it is.
And cc *hates* it. Which makes me smile.
> Shee, we learned how to estimate plus-and-minus in our sophomore
> chemistry class.
Irrelevant to the discussion, but I am glad you found something to be proud
of in your life.
--
Proof cc is clueless about his Xerox claims:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/b8aa8b17d0a6dfde>
<ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Steve Carroll belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On May 8, 2:54ย pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> I showed you these:
>>>
>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>>
>> Show him using cell formulas (=TREND)
>>
>> I've no horse in the race... but i think I know how he came up with a
>> "flatlined" trend. I'd ask to see his video;)
>
> Ye gods, the obsessiveness.
Yeah, I tend to go over the top in proving egotistical jerks they are wrong.
> After swilling some grog, Steve Carroll belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On May 8, 2:54ย pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> I showed you these:
>>>
>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>>
>> Show him using cell formulas (=TREND)
>>
>> I've no horse in the race... but i think I know how he came up with a
>> "flatlined" trend. I'd ask to see his video;)
>
> Ye gods, the obsessiveness.
Call it a weakness of mine... but I do enjoy it.
> Anyway, I hate graphs like that, exaggerating a very small range of
> numbers, with no attempt at uncertainty estimates.
anything like that. I simply noted the trend line was moving up.
And it is.
And cc *hates* it. Which makes me smile.
> Shee, we learned how to estimate plus-and-minus in our sophomore
> chemistry class.
of in your life.
--
Proof cc is clueless about his Xerox claims:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/b8aa8b17d0a6dfde>
cc
May 9, 2012, 8:33:13โฏAM5/9/12
to
On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 7:36:27 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>
> The fact you claim I am missing steps is irrelevant.
LOL! It's the most relevant part of this whole conversation. YOU FUCKED UP! You didn't do many of the steps necessary in order to do a "standard" analysis. Excel can't read your mind and do all these steps for you. It's a tool. And you seriously misused it. This is hilarious.
>
>
> The fact you claim I am missing steps is irrelevant.
>
> You gave equations. How lovely.
> Are those the equations you are saying
> prove the way Excel and Numbers handle the linear trend lines are wrong?
Now that I've answered all your questions, repeatedly, how about you stop running and answer these two questions:
Do you think your analysis would be acceptable in a college level stats course?
Why did you choose a linear trend line? Is it because Excel highlighted that option so you thought it was standard?
Steve Carroll
May 9, 2012, 12:54:06โฏPM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 6:33ย am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 7:36:27 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> > The fact you claim I am missing steps is irrelevant.
>
> LOL! It's the most relevant part of this whole conversation. YOU FUCKED UP! You didn't do many of the steps necessary in order to do a "standard" analysis. Excel can't read your mind and do all these steps for you. It's a tool. And you seriously misused it. This is hilarious.
>
>
>
> > You gave equations. ย How lovely.
>
> Well I thought we were doing "standard" analysis.
Apparently Snit forgot that it was he who brought predictions and
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 7:36:27 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> > The fact you claim I am missing steps is irrelevant.
>
> LOL! It's the most relevant part of this whole conversation. YOU FUCKED UP! You didn't do many of the steps necessary in order to do a "standard" analysis. Excel can't read your mind and do all these steps for you. It's a tool. And you seriously misused it. This is hilarious.
>
>
>
> > You gave equations. ย How lovely.
>
> Well I thought we were doing "standard" analysis.
correlations into this:
"While it is great that my predictions have come true about desktop
Linux usage increasing as usability issues are focused on..." - Snit
Your reply asked:
"Is there some evidence out there that the increase in usage is due to
usability issues being focused on?" - cc
And Snit snapped back with:
"The correlation fits with my prediction. I know, I know, the word
"correlation" has more than five letters and will confuse you, but go
beg someone else to help you understand what it means." - Snit
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e9e30f0d7bf7b139
It's funny (and ironic) to see Snit's attempt to hammer you with these
words here... as it is to see his current stance that seeks to
distance himself from predictions and correlations with his "standard"
trendline method. LOL!
Tthis is exactly the kind of thing that Snit does as he spews all over
the ng that you are an idiot, a liar, etc., while he simultaneously
crows about how he always owns up to being wrong... yada, yada.
> > Are those the equations you are saying
> > prove the way Excel and Numbers handle the linear trend lines are wrong?
>
> I used Excel to get the equations. I did little to no work, Excel did everything, including putting the equation on the trendline.
>
> Now that I've answered all your questions, repeatedly, how about you stop running and answer these two questions:
>
> Do you think your analysis would be acceptable in a college level stats course?
>
> Why did you choose a linear trend line? Is it because Excel highlighted that option so you thought it was standard?
>
> --
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
This priceless gem shall ever live in infamy... along with Snit's
'trendline' video ;)
Snit
May 14, 2012, 8:23:48โฏPM5/14/12
to
On 5/9/12 5:33 AM, in article
26046654.371.1336566793441.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmk20, "cc"
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
Notice, I made a linear trend line dealing with one year's worth of data.
You asked me to do it for two years worth of data... clearly thinking this
would show something other than it did. I did as you asked: made a trend
line for the two years of data. Then you whined about what type of trend
line I used and the range of data I used (I used what you *asked* me to!)
and then you made up a story of my not doing it correctly, so I proved you
wrong about that:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
Which, again, proved me right. But you want to pretend I was wrong. Have
fun!
Face it, cc, you were completely wrong. But you never will face it - no
matter what the data and evidence proves. Oh well.
--
"It's legal. What more advocating need be done?" -cc
26046654.371.1336566793441.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmk20, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 7:36:27 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> The fact you claim I am missing steps is irrelevant.
>
> LOL! It's the most relevant part of this whole conversation. YOU FUCKED UP!
> You didn't do many of the steps necessary in order to do a "standard"
> analysis. Excel can't read your mind and do all these steps for you. It's a
> tool. And you seriously misused it. This is hilarious.
>
>>
>> You gave equations. How lovely.
>
> Well I thought we were doing "standard" analysis.
>
>> Are those the equations you are saying
>> prove the way Excel and Numbers handle the linear trend lines are wrong?
>
>
> I used Excel to get the equations. I did little to no work, Excel did
> everything, including putting the equation on the trendline.
>
> Now that I've answered all your questions, repeatedly, how about you stop
> running and answer these two questions:
>
> Do you think your analysis would be acceptable in a college level stats
> course?
>
> Why did you choose a linear trend line? Is it because Excel highlighted that
> option so you thought it was standard?
Yawn. You are just babbling over your mistake:
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 7:36:27 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> The fact you claim I am missing steps is irrelevant.
>
> LOL! It's the most relevant part of this whole conversation. YOU FUCKED UP!
> You didn't do many of the steps necessary in order to do a "standard"
> analysis. Excel can't read your mind and do all these steps for you. It's a
> tool. And you seriously misused it. This is hilarious.
>
>>
>> You gave equations. How lovely.
>
> Well I thought we were doing "standard" analysis.
>
>> Are those the equations you are saying
>> prove the way Excel and Numbers handle the linear trend lines are wrong?
>
>
> I used Excel to get the equations. I did little to no work, Excel did
> everything, including putting the equation on the trendline.
>
> Now that I've answered all your questions, repeatedly, how about you stop
> running and answer these two questions:
>
> Do you think your analysis would be acceptable in a college level stats
> course?
>
> Why did you choose a linear trend line? Is it because Excel highlighted that
> option so you thought it was standard?
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
Notice, I made a linear trend line dealing with one year's worth of data.
You asked me to do it for two years worth of data... clearly thinking this
would show something other than it did. I did as you asked: made a trend
line for the two years of data. Then you whined about what type of trend
line I used and the range of data I used (I used what you *asked* me to!)
and then you made up a story of my not doing it correctly, so I proved you
wrong about that:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
Which, again, proved me right. But you want to pretend I was wrong. Have
fun!
Face it, cc, you were completely wrong. But you never will face it - no
matter what the data and evidence proves. Oh well.
--
"It's legal. What more advocating need be done?" -cc
cc
May 15, 2012, 8:41:51โฏAM5/15/12
to
On Monday, May 14, 2012 8:23:48 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/9/12 5:33 AM, in article
> 26046654.371.1336566793441.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmk20, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 7:36:27 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The fact you claim I am missing steps is irrelevant.
> >
> > LOL! It's the most relevant part of this whole conversation. YOU FUCKED UP!
> > You didn't do many of the steps necessary in order to do a "standard"
> > analysis. Excel can't read your mind and do all these steps for you. It's a
> > tool. And you seriously misused it. This is hilarious.
> >
> >>
> >> You gave equations. How lovely.
> >
> > Well I thought we were doing "standard" analysis.
> >
> >> Are those the equations you are saying
> >> prove the way Excel and Numbers handle the linear trend lines are wrong?
> >
> >
> > I used Excel to get the equations. I did little to no work, Excel did
> > everything, including putting the equation on the trendline.
> >
> > Now that I've answered all your questions, repeatedly, how about you stop
> > running and answer these two questions:
> >
> > Do you think your analysis would be acceptable in a college level stats
> > course?
> >
> > Why did you choose a linear trend line? Is it because Excel highlighted that
> > option so you thought it was standard?
Dodged questions...
> On 5/9/12 5:33 AM, in article
> 26046654.371.1336566793441.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmk20, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 7:36:27 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The fact you claim I am missing steps is irrelevant.
> >
> > LOL! It's the most relevant part of this whole conversation. YOU FUCKED UP!
> > You didn't do many of the steps necessary in order to do a "standard"
> > analysis. Excel can't read your mind and do all these steps for you. It's a
> > tool. And you seriously misused it. This is hilarious.
> >
> >>
> >> You gave equations. How lovely.
> >
> > Well I thought we were doing "standard" analysis.
> >
> >> Are those the equations you are saying
> >> prove the way Excel and Numbers handle the linear trend lines are wrong?
> >
> >
> > I used Excel to get the equations. I did little to no work, Excel did
> > everything, including putting the equation on the trendline.
> >
> > Now that I've answered all your questions, repeatedly, how about you stop
> > running and answer these two questions:
> >
> > Do you think your analysis would be acceptable in a college level stats
> > course?
> >
> > Why did you choose a linear trend line? Is it because Excel highlighted that
> > option so you thought it was standard?
> Yawn. You are just babbling over your mistake:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
>
> Notice, I made a linear trend line dealing with one year's worth of data.
> You asked me to do it for two years worth of data... clearly thinking this
> would show something other than it did. I did as you asked: made a trend
> line for the two years of data. Then you whined about what type of trend
> line I used and the range of data I used (I used what you *asked* me to!)
> and then you made up a story of my not doing it correctly, so I proved you
> wrong about that:
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>
> Which, again, proved me right. But you want to pretend I was wrong. Have
> fun!
>
> Face it, cc, you were completely wrong. But you never will face it - no
> matter what the data and evidence proves. Oh well.
>
Snit
May 15, 2012, 10:15:26โฏAM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/12 5:41 AM, in article
18826916.247.1337085711811.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yneo6, "cc"
line with the directions provided by the developers of the software. Yeah,
that is some *strong* argument you just made there. LOL!
And notice you did not complain that it was the wrong way until you realized
it proved you wrong - *after* you asked me to make the same type trend line
on the set of data you hand picked.
I mean really: you self-nuked. Just deal with it and move on.
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>>
>> Which, again, proved me right. But you want to pretend I was wrong. Have
>> fun!
>>
>> Face it, cc, you were completely wrong. But you never will face it - no
>> matter what the data and evidence proves. Oh well.
>>
> I've asked you repeatedly to show where I went wrong with my numbers.
Your numbers were the data from 24 months. Mine were from 12 months. I
accepted your 24 months of data... and did as you asked and made the same
linear trend line I had made with the 12 months I first used.
Only when you were proved wrong by the use of *your* numbers did you start
whining.
> So far you've come up with nothing.
You mean other than proof you were wrong. Sure.
> But, by all means, show where I went wrong. I used the same dataset as you,
> and Excel.
So show what you did... as I did. But you never will... because you are
simply whining about how you self-nuked. Poor cc... self-nuked and now you
just keep whining. Waaaaaaah.
--
๐๐๐
18826916.247.1337085711811.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yneo6, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Yawn. You are just babbling over your mistake:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
>>
>> Notice, I made a linear trend line dealing with one year's worth of data.
>> You asked me to do it for two years worth of data... clearly thinking this
>> would show something other than it did. I did as you asked: made a trend
>> line for the two years of data. Then you whined about what type of trend
>> line I used and the range of data I used (I used what you *asked* me to!)
>> and then you made up a story of my not doing it correctly, so I proved you
>> wrong about that:
>
> LOL your movie CONFIRMS you did it incorrectly, moron.
Riiiiiight: incorrectly in some way you cannot explain and that is in exact
>> Yawn. You are just babbling over your mistake:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
>>
>> Notice, I made a linear trend line dealing with one year's worth of data.
>> You asked me to do it for two years worth of data... clearly thinking this
>> would show something other than it did. I did as you asked: made a trend
>> line for the two years of data. Then you whined about what type of trend
>> line I used and the range of data I used (I used what you *asked* me to!)
>> and then you made up a story of my not doing it correctly, so I proved you
>> wrong about that:
>
> LOL your movie CONFIRMS you did it incorrectly, moron.
line with the directions provided by the developers of the software. Yeah,
that is some *strong* argument you just made there. LOL!
And notice you did not complain that it was the wrong way until you realized
it proved you wrong - *after* you asked me to make the same type trend line
on the set of data you hand picked.
I mean really: you self-nuked. Just deal with it and move on.
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>>
>> Which, again, proved me right. But you want to pretend I was wrong. Have
>> fun!
>>
>> Face it, cc, you were completely wrong. But you never will face it - no
>> matter what the data and evidence proves. Oh well.
>>
> I've asked you repeatedly to show where I went wrong with my numbers.
accepted your 24 months of data... and did as you asked and made the same
linear trend line I had made with the 12 months I first used.
Only when you were proved wrong by the use of *your* numbers did you start
whining.
> So far you've come up with nothing.
> But, by all means, show where I went wrong. I used the same dataset as you,
> and Excel.
simply whining about how you self-nuked. Poor cc... self-nuked and now you
just keep whining. Waaaaaaah.
--
๐๐๐
cc
May 15, 2012, 10:27:09โฏAM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:15:26 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/15/12 5:41 AM, in article
> 18826916.247.1337085711811.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yneo6, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yawn. You are just babbling over your mistake:
> >>
> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
> >>
> >> Notice, I made a linear trend line dealing with one year's worth of data.
> >> You asked me to do it for two years worth of data... clearly thinking this
> >> would show something other than it did. I did as you asked: made a trend
> >> line for the two years of data. Then you whined about what type of trend
> >> line I used and the range of data I used (I used what you *asked* me to!)
> >> and then you made up a story of my not doing it correctly, so I proved you
> >> wrong about that:
> >
> > LOL your movie CONFIRMS you did it incorrectly, moron.
>
> Riiiiiight: incorrectly in some way you cannot explain and that is in exact
> line with the directions provided by the developers of the software. Yeah,
> that is some *strong* argument you just made there. LOL!
I followed the exact same directions provided by the developers, and I used the exact same software. That is not the issue, as has been explained to you numerous times.
> On 5/15/12 5:41 AM, in article
> 18826916.247.1337085711811.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yneo6, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yawn. You are just babbling over your mistake:
> >>
> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
> >>
> >> Notice, I made a linear trend line dealing with one year's worth of data.
> >> You asked me to do it for two years worth of data... clearly thinking this
> >> would show something other than it did. I did as you asked: made a trend
> >> line for the two years of data. Then you whined about what type of trend
> >> line I used and the range of data I used (I used what you *asked* me to!)
> >> and then you made up a story of my not doing it correctly, so I proved you
> >> wrong about that:
> >
> > LOL your movie CONFIRMS you did it incorrectly, moron.
>
> Riiiiiight: incorrectly in some way you cannot explain and that is in exact
> line with the directions provided by the developers of the software. Yeah,
> that is some *strong* argument you just made there. LOL!
> And notice you did not complain that it was the wrong way until you realized
> it proved you wrong - *after* you asked me to make the same type trend line
> on the set of data you hand picked.
>
> I mean really: you self-nuked. Just deal with it and move on.
> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
> >>
> >> Which, again, proved me right. But you want to pretend I was wrong. Have
> >> fun!
> >>
> >> Face it, cc, you were completely wrong. But you never will face it - no
> >> matter what the data and evidence proves. Oh well.
> >>
> > I've asked you repeatedly to show where I went wrong with my numbers.
>
> Your numbers were the data from 24 months. Mine were from 12 months. I
> accepted your 24 months of data... and did as you asked and made the same
> linear trend line I had made with the 12 months I first used.
> Only when you were proved wrong by the use of *your* numbers did you start
> whining.
> > So far you've come up with nothing.
>
> You mean other than proof you were wrong. Sure.
> > But, by all means, show where I went wrong. I used the same dataset as you,
> > and Excel.
>
> So show what you did... as I did. But you never will... because you are
> simply whining about how you self-nuked. Poor cc... self-nuked and now you
> just keep whining. Waaaaaaah.
>
Is my average correct?
Is my standard deviation?
My control limits?
Do you think your analysis would be acceptable in a college level stats course?
Why did you choose a linear trend line? Did you think it was standard because Excel highlights that option?
Run, Snit! Run!
Snit
May 15, 2012, 10:58:51โฏAM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/12 7:27 AM, in article
16525566.611.1337092029698.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndz2, "cc"
Really... if you cannot make a point stop responding. If you have not
figured it out by now, my response will simply be to prove you wrong again.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
Complete proof of the trend line was moving up: based on your data and based
on your request for how I should form it. Your denials are just stupid.
Frankly you are - again - making a complete ass out of yourself.
You want to claim that both Excel and Numbers are screwed up in their linear
trend line creation. Great. Now show it... but you will not because they
are not.
--
๐๐๐
16525566.611.1337092029698.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndz2, "cc"
figured it out by now, my response will simply be to prove you wrong again.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
Complete proof of the trend line was moving up: based on your data and based
on your request for how I should form it. Your denials are just stupid.
Frankly you are - again - making a complete ass out of yourself.
You want to claim that both Excel and Numbers are screwed up in their linear
trend line creation. Great. Now show it... but you will not because they
are not.
--
๐๐๐
cc
May 15, 2012, 11:11:29โฏAM5/15/12
to
> Really... if you cannot make a point stop responding.
> If you have not
> figured it out by now, my response will simply be to prove you wrong again.
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>
> Complete proof of the trend line was moving up: based on your data and based
> on your request for how I should form it. Your denials are just stupid.
> Frankly you are - again - making a complete ass out of yourself.
> You want to claim that both Excel and Numbers are screwed up in their linear
> trend line creation. Great. Now show it... but you will not because they
> are not.
>
Snit
May 15, 2012, 3:48:07โฏPM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/12 8:11 AM, in article
20168912.1688.1337094689355.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynff7, "cc"
presenting any contrary evidence of your own. Boring. You are very, very
boring.
In your next post why not try to say something of value? You know, like why
I and the folks who make Excel and the folks who make Numbers all somehow
got it all wrong. I would love to see your support of your claims! Wait...
but you back pedal and deny the Excel and Numbers get it wrong... but then
you say that the results they get, using the correct method (remember, you
cannot say why my video where I show the method is wrong), is wrong.
Back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. Endlessly you make a
fool of yourself. It is just what you do.
--
๐๐๐
20168912.1688.1337094689355.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynff7, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Really... if you cannot make a point stop responding.
>
> Ironic. This thread was dead for a week until you revived it.
>
>> If you have not
>> figured it out by now, my response will simply be to prove you wrong again.
>
> LOL! By all means keep posting both links. I know I will.
>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>>
>> Complete proof of the trend line was moving up: based on your data and based
>
> LOL!
>
>> on your request for how I should form it. Your denials are just stupid.
>> Frankly you are - again - making a complete ass out of yourself.
>
> I'm completely right in this case. You just can't see it, or don't want to see
> it.
>
>
>> You want to claim that both Excel and Numbers are screwed up in their linear
>> trend line creation. Great. Now show it... but you will not because they
>> are not.
>>
>
> That is a lie of course. I used Excel's linear trend line creation, following
> the exact directions you linked to. I've told you this numerous times. You beg
> for me to show you where you screwed up, then you blatantly lie like this.
> Pathetic really.
Yawn. You keep saying you are right - without refuting my evidence nor
>> Really... if you cannot make a point stop responding.
>
> Ironic. This thread was dead for a week until you revived it.
>
>> If you have not
>> figured it out by now, my response will simply be to prove you wrong again.
>
> LOL! By all means keep posting both links. I know I will.
>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>>
>> Complete proof of the trend line was moving up: based on your data and based
>
> LOL!
>
>> on your request for how I should form it. Your denials are just stupid.
>> Frankly you are - again - making a complete ass out of yourself.
>
> I'm completely right in this case. You just can't see it, or don't want to see
> it.
>
>
>> You want to claim that both Excel and Numbers are screwed up in their linear
>> trend line creation. Great. Now show it... but you will not because they
>> are not.
>>
>
> That is a lie of course. I used Excel's linear trend line creation, following
> the exact directions you linked to. I've told you this numerous times. You beg
> for me to show you where you screwed up, then you blatantly lie like this.
> Pathetic really.
presenting any contrary evidence of your own. Boring. You are very, very
boring.
In your next post why not try to say something of value? You know, like why
I and the folks who make Excel and the folks who make Numbers all somehow
got it all wrong. I would love to see your support of your claims! Wait...
but you back pedal and deny the Excel and Numbers get it wrong... but then
you say that the results they get, using the correct method (remember, you
cannot say why my video where I show the method is wrong), is wrong.
Back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. Endlessly you make a
fool of yourself. It is just what you do.
--
๐๐๐
cc
May 15, 2012, 4:34:15โฏPM5/15/12
to
> In your next post why not try to say something of value? You know, like why
> I and the folks who make Excel and the folks who make Numbers all somehow
> got it all wrong.
> I would love to see your support of your claims! Wait...
> but you back pedal and deny the Excel and Numbers get it wrong... but then
> you say that the results they get, using the correct method (remember, you
> cannot say why my video where I show the method is wrong), is wrong.
> Back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. Endlessly you make a
> fool of yourself. It is just what you do.
>
>
How about in your next post you stop running from the questions?
Is my average correct?
Is my standard deviation?
My control limits?
Do you think your analysis would be acceptable in a college level stats course?
Why did you choose a linear trend line? Did you think it was standard because Excel highlights that option?
Snit
May 15, 2012, 4:53:49โฏPM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/12 1:34 PM, in article
25810529.289.1337114055130.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmk20, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
But you will not.
You made it up.
>> In your next post why not try to say something of value? You know, like why
>> I and the folks who make Excel and the folks who make Numbers all somehow
>> got it all wrong.
>
> You don't hesitate to lie.
Yawn. Empty accusations from you.
>> I would love to see your support of your claims! Wait...
>> but you back pedal and deny the Excel and Numbers get it wrong... but then
>> you say that the results they get, using the correct method (remember, you
>> cannot say why my video where I show the method is wrong), is wrong.
>
> I said exactly why your video is wrong, you forget to do a few things which is
> a nice way of saying you're too fucking stupid to do basic statistical
> analysis. I did EXACTLY what you did, plus the extra steps needed to do a
> correct analysis (ie I used additional correct formulas in Excel). If you're
> too stupid to look up what extra steps you needed to do, then all you have to
> do is ask.
In other words, you make vague claims and never say what I did wrong. And
ignore I proved I did it correctly. Boring.
I mean, really, if you believed your BS you would actually back it. You
know you cannot. So you run.
>> Back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. Endlessly you make a
>> fool of yourself. It is just what you do.
>
> Yawn. If you really thought I was making a fool of myself you wouldn't throw a
> hissy fit every time I linked to that hilarious video of yours.
Yeah, how horrible for me to show support for my views. LOL! I am pretty
much begging you to show any sign of support for your counter.
And you have none.
This is your norm - just insist you are right and give no evidence or
support. None.
> Why hasn't anyone else asked why I find your video so hilarious? Could it
> possibly be because they already know or did a quick search to find out?
Who else is paying attention to this? The only comments I have seen have
noted how lost you are. And you are.
> How about in your next post you stop running from the questions?
>
> Is my average correct?
> Is my standard deviation?
> My control limits?
I do not care about your irrelevant averages or other calculations... and
have done nothing to see how you made them or where you went wrong. I do
not care. Not even a little. Until or unless you want to show where you
think I went wrong, or until you want to share - as I did - what your
process is, I have completely ignored your claims on your "math". They are
not relevant.
> Do you think your analysis would be acceptable in a college level stats
> course?
Depends on the assignment!
> Why did you choose a linear trend line?
Because you asked me to (for the 24 months). Of course, based on the data
other forms of trend lines might have been a better fit, but that is not
what is being debated. The debate is about the linear trend line - the one
you think Excel and Numbers get wrong with their standard tools.
> Did you think it was standard because Excel highlights that option?
I know I did the linear trend line in the correct way. You claim I did not.
You offer no support nor evidence.
Face it: you are just spewing nonsense. Again.
--
๐๐๐
25810529.289.1337114055130.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmk20, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>> Yawn. You keep saying you are right - without refuting my evidence nor
>> presenting any contrary evidence of your own. Boring. You are very, very
>> boring.
>>
>
> I proved you wrong dozens of times. I posted all the info needed.
So quote or link to this proof of yours.
>> presenting any contrary evidence of your own. Boring. You are very, very
>> boring.
>>
>
> I proved you wrong dozens of times. I posted all the info needed.
But you will not.
You made it up.
>> In your next post why not try to say something of value? You know, like why
>> I and the folks who make Excel and the folks who make Numbers all somehow
>> got it all wrong.
>
> You don't hesitate to lie.
>> I would love to see your support of your claims! Wait...
>> but you back pedal and deny the Excel and Numbers get it wrong... but then
>> you say that the results they get, using the correct method (remember, you
>> cannot say why my video where I show the method is wrong), is wrong.
>
> I said exactly why your video is wrong, you forget to do a few things which is
> a nice way of saying you're too fucking stupid to do basic statistical
> analysis. I did EXACTLY what you did, plus the extra steps needed to do a
> correct analysis (ie I used additional correct formulas in Excel). If you're
> too stupid to look up what extra steps you needed to do, then all you have to
> do is ask.
ignore I proved I did it correctly. Boring.
I mean, really, if you believed your BS you would actually back it. You
know you cannot. So you run.
>> Back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. Endlessly you make a
>> fool of yourself. It is just what you do.
>
> Yawn. If you really thought I was making a fool of myself you wouldn't throw a
> hissy fit every time I linked to that hilarious video of yours.
much begging you to show any sign of support for your counter.
And you have none.
This is your norm - just insist you are right and give no evidence or
support. None.
> Why hasn't anyone else asked why I find your video so hilarious? Could it
> possibly be because they already know or did a quick search to find out?
noted how lost you are. And you are.
> How about in your next post you stop running from the questions?
>
> Is my average correct?
> Is my standard deviation?
> My control limits?
have done nothing to see how you made them or where you went wrong. I do
not care. Not even a little. Until or unless you want to show where you
think I went wrong, or until you want to share - as I did - what your
process is, I have completely ignored your claims on your "math". They are
not relevant.
> Do you think your analysis would be acceptable in a college level stats
> course?
> Why did you choose a linear trend line?
other forms of trend lines might have been a better fit, but that is not
what is being debated. The debate is about the linear trend line - the one
you think Excel and Numbers get wrong with their standard tools.
> Did you think it was standard because Excel highlights that option?
You offer no support nor evidence.
Face it: you are just spewing nonsense. Again.
--
๐๐๐
cc
May 16, 2012, 8:50:51โฏAM5/16/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:53:49 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/15/12 1:34 PM, in article
> 25810529.289.1337114055130.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmk20, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > How about in your next post you stop running from the questions?
> >
> > Is my average correct?
> > Is my standard deviation?
> > My control limits?
>
> I do not care about your irrelevant averages or other calculations...
LOL! They are completely relevant you idiot!
> On 5/15/12 1:34 PM, in article
> 25810529.289.1337114055130.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmk20, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > How about in your next post you stop running from the questions?
> >
> > Is my average correct?
> > Is my standard deviation?
> > My control limits?
>
> I do not care about your irrelevant averages or other calculations...
> and
> have done nothing to see how you made them or where you went wrong.
> I do
> not care. Not even a little. Until or unless you want to show where you
> think I went wrong, or until you want to share - as I did - what your
> process is, I have completely ignored your claims on your "math". They are
> not relevant.
> > Do you think your analysis would be acceptable in a college level stats
> > course?
>
> Depends on the assignment!
> > Why did you choose a linear trend line?
>
> Because you asked me to (for the 24 months).
> Of course, based on the data
> other forms of trend lines might have been a better fit, but that is not
> what is being debated.
> The debate is about the linear trend line - the one
> you think Excel and Numbers get wrong with their standard tools.
> > Did you think it was standard because Excel highlights that option?
>
> I know I did the linear trend line in the correct way. You claim I did not.
> You offer no support nor evidence.
Snit
May 16, 2012, 11:53:03โฏAM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/12 5:50 AM, in article
3048345.191.1337172651412.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlm14, "cc"
Your above BS is not relevant. Not even a little. If you want to show why I
(and thus Excel and Numbers) are wrong, you will need to do more than post
your conclusions you pulled out of thin air. You will need to show how you
came to your conclusions, but more importantly you need to explain why
nobody but you has noticed how both Excel and Numbers get it so wrong. You
have not done this. Nor will you. You are simply blustering and whining and
lying because, again, you were proved wrong. As far as my knowledge on
statistics, which you have started to attack, such is also not relevant -
given how the Excel and Numbers do the work for you. But, if you care, not
only have I taken multiple statistics classes, I have also helped design and
teach one. But that is not relevant... I am noting it simply to let you
know your blustering BS insinuations about how I do not know what a standard
deviation is are simply nonsense. Heck, I suspect I understand the
*concept* itself much better than you. Here is a quick test for you:
Take a look at this image:
<http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
It is from this site: <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml>
The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect. Can
you explain why? I bet not. I can... and can teach a grade school student
to recognize when they are correct or not (or at least roughly so). It
really is that easy.
But I bet you have no idea. Hey, you brought up the topic of personal
knowledge in relation to statistics, specifically mentioning the concept of
a standard deviation.
I bet you have no clue. One chance to prove me wrong. The ball is in your
court. But, face it, all you will do is run - but you have no clue.
Hey, because I am such a nice guy, when you blow it - and you almost
certainly will - I will provide you with an image that is correct (or at
least apparently so). And then you will *still* not see the problem... at
least I bet not.
Yeah, the fact you are clueless is just to be expected. You really are just
blustering.
--
๐๐๐
3048345.191.1337172651412.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlm14, "cc"
(and thus Excel and Numbers) are wrong, you will need to do more than post
your conclusions you pulled out of thin air. You will need to show how you
came to your conclusions, but more importantly you need to explain why
nobody but you has noticed how both Excel and Numbers get it so wrong. You
have not done this. Nor will you. You are simply blustering and whining and
lying because, again, you were proved wrong. As far as my knowledge on
statistics, which you have started to attack, such is also not relevant -
given how the Excel and Numbers do the work for you. But, if you care, not
only have I taken multiple statistics classes, I have also helped design and
teach one. But that is not relevant... I am noting it simply to let you
know your blustering BS insinuations about how I do not know what a standard
deviation is are simply nonsense. Heck, I suspect I understand the
*concept* itself much better than you. Here is a quick test for you:
Take a look at this image:
<http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
It is from this site: <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml>
The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect. Can
you explain why? I bet not. I can... and can teach a grade school student
to recognize when they are correct or not (or at least roughly so). It
really is that easy.
But I bet you have no idea. Hey, you brought up the topic of personal
knowledge in relation to statistics, specifically mentioning the concept of
a standard deviation.
I bet you have no clue. One chance to prove me wrong. The ball is in your
court. But, face it, all you will do is run - but you have no clue.
Hey, because I am such a nice guy, when you blow it - and you almost
certainly will - I will provide you with an image that is correct (or at
least apparently so). And then you will *still* not see the problem... at
least I bet not.
Yeah, the fact you are clueless is just to be expected. You really are just
blustering.
--
๐๐๐
cc
May 16, 2012, 12:16:54โฏPM5/16/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:53:03 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>
> Your above BS is not relevant. Not even a little. If you want to show why I
> (and thus Excel and Numbers) are wrong, you will need to do more than post
> your conclusions you pulled out of thin air. You will need to show how you
> came to your conclusions, but more importantly you need to explain why
> nobody but you has noticed how both Excel and Numbers get it so wrong.
I can show you exactly how I came to my conclusion as soon as you apologize for the lies in the previous paragraph. I have NEVER said Excel or Numbers got it wrong. I said YOU forgot steps. Once you acknowledge this I will be happy to educate you.
>
>
> Your above BS is not relevant. Not even a little. If you want to show why I
> (and thus Excel and Numbers) are wrong, you will need to do more than post
> your conclusions you pulled out of thin air. You will need to show how you
> came to your conclusions, but more importantly you need to explain why
> nobody but you has noticed how both Excel and Numbers get it so wrong.
> You
> have not done this. Nor will you.
cc
May 16, 2012, 12:26:58โฏPM5/16/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:53:03 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Take a look at this image:
> <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
>
> It is from this site: <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml>
>
> The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect. Can
> you explain why? I bet not. I can... and can teach a grade school student
> to recognize when they are correct or not (or at least roughly so). It
> really is that easy.
>
> But I bet you have no idea. Hey, you brought up the topic of personal
> knowledge in relation to statistics, specifically mentioning the concept of
> a standard deviation.
>
> I bet you have no clue. One chance to prove me wrong. The ball is in your
> court. But, face it, all you will do is run - but you have no clue.
>
> Hey, because I am such a nice guy, when you blow it - and you almost
> certainly will - I will provide you with an image that is correct (or at
> least apparently so). And then you will *still* not see the problem... at
> least I bet not.
>
> Yeah, the fact you are clueless is just to be expected. You really are just
> blustering.
>
>
There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird axis labeling. Red is +/- 1 sigma (68%) Red and Green are +/- 2 sigma (95%) and Red, Green and Blue are +/- 3 sigma (99%). It's the exact same graph as:
> <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
>
> It is from this site: <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml>
>
> The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect. Can
> you explain why? I bet not. I can... and can teach a grade school student
> to recognize when they are correct or not (or at least roughly so). It
> really is that easy.
>
> But I bet you have no idea. Hey, you brought up the topic of personal
> knowledge in relation to statistics, specifically mentioning the concept of
> a standard deviation.
>
> I bet you have no clue. One chance to prove me wrong. The ball is in your
> court. But, face it, all you will do is run - but you have no clue.
>
> Hey, because I am such a nice guy, when you blow it - and you almost
> certainly will - I will provide you with an image that is correct (or at
> least apparently so). And then you will *still* not see the problem... at
> least I bet not.
>
> Yeah, the fact you are clueless is just to be expected. You really are just
> blustering.
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg
http://www.spcforexcel.com/explaining-standard-deviation#standard-deviation
It's a typical graph of standard deviation of a normal distribution. I would love to hear your thoughts on why the image is incorrect.
Steve Carroll
May 16, 2012, 12:44:36โฏPM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 10:26ย am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:53:03 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> > Take a look at this image:
> > <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
>
> > It is from this site: <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml>
>
> > The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect. ย Can
> > you explain why? ย I bet not. ย I can... and can teach a grade school student
> > to recognize when they are correct or not (or at least roughly so). ย It
> > really is that easy.
>
> > But I bet you have no idea. ย Hey, you brought up the topic of personal
> > knowledge in relation to statistics, specifically mentioning the concept of
> > a standard deviation.
>
> > I bet you have no clue. ย One chance to prove me wrong. ย The ball is in your
> > court. ย But, face it, all you will do is run - but you have no clue.
>
> > Hey, because I am such a nice guy, when you blow it - and you almost
> > certainly will - I will provide you with an image that is correct (or at
> > least apparently so). ย And then you will *still* not see the problem... at
> > least I bet not.
>
> > Yeah, the fact you are clueless is just to be expected. ย You really are just
> > blustering.
>
> There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird axis labeling. Red is +/- 1 sigma (68%) Red and Green are +/- 2 sigma (95%) and Red, Green and Blue are +/- 3 sigma (99%). It's the exact same graph as:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svghttp://www.spcforexcel.com/explaining-standard-deviation#standard-dev...
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:53:03 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> > Take a look at this image:
> > <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
>
> > It is from this site: <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml>
>
> > The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect. ย Can
> > you explain why? ย I bet not. ย I can... and can teach a grade school student
> > to recognize when they are correct or not (or at least roughly so). ย It
> > really is that easy.
>
> > But I bet you have no idea. ย Hey, you brought up the topic of personal
> > knowledge in relation to statistics, specifically mentioning the concept of
> > a standard deviation.
>
> > I bet you have no clue. ย One chance to prove me wrong. ย The ball is in your
> > court. ย But, face it, all you will do is run - but you have no clue.
>
> > Hey, because I am such a nice guy, when you blow it - and you almost
> > certainly will - I will provide you with an image that is correct (or at
> > least apparently so). ย And then you will *still* not see the problem... at
> > least I bet not.
>
> > Yeah, the fact you are clueless is just to be expected. ย You really are just
> > blustering.
>
> There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird axis labeling. Red is +/- 1 sigma (68%) Red and Green are +/- 2 sigma (95%) and Red, Green and Blue are +/- 3 sigma (99%). It's the exact same graph as:
>
>
> It's a typical graph of standard deviation of a normal distribution. I would love to hear your thoughts on why the image is incorrect.
>
> --
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
> It's a typical graph of standard deviation of a normal distribution. I would love to hear your thoughts on why the image is incorrect.
>
> --
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
"The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect."
- Snit
Poor Snit...
Snit
May 16, 2012, 12:51:11โฏPM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/12 9:26 AM, in article
1803340.1853.1337185618834.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngr17, "cc"
a standard deviation represents. But I said I would give you a hint (I
know, I also said only one chance, but I am a very nice guy). This one is
done correctly (or at least apparently so):
<http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/SDIntro>
There is a significant difference in where the line for the first standard
deviation is drawn - and in the first image it is wrong. Clearly wrong. It
is not as if there is any question to this.
But you have no idea why... and this is after you tried to pretend to have
an understanding of the topic. Poor you... you just self-nuke at your ever
chance. My guess, even after seeing one done correctly (or at least
apparently so), you will *still* be clueless until I tell you why the first
one is *clearly* wrong.
> Red is +/- 1 sigma (68%) Red and Green are +/- 2 sigma (95%) and Red, Green
> and Blue are +/- 3 sigma (99%). It's the exact same graph as:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg
That one appears correct or at least very nearly so. It is clearly *not*
the same graph... it is correct.
> http://www.spcforexcel.com/explaining-standard-deviation#standard-deviation
That one also appears correct or at least very nearly so. Again: you do not
see why these ones are correct and the other I pointed you to is not. You
are demonstrating your ignorance.
> It's a typical graph of standard deviation of a normal distribution. I would
> love to hear your thoughts on why the image is incorrect.
Oh, I will let you know eventually. Fun to make you sweat for a while. Now
you have examples of ones done correctly and the one done *clearly*
incorrectly.
It is fun to see how you have no clue why it is incorrect - showing you have
no clue what a standard deviation even is in terms of the graph. It is so
funny watching you try to put down my knowledge on a topic where you clearly
are so clearly ignorant.
Hey, I *am* a nice guy, so more examples of incorrect images where the
standard deviation is shown incorrectly:
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
From:
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>
And: <http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>
From: <http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>
And: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
From: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
(Wow... that one is really bad... maybe it will give you a hint. But I
doubt it... I suspect you still will have no idea why it is clearly wrong).
You see, cc, you might know how to calculate a standard deviation - know the
math or be able to look up the formula - but you do not really understand
what it is you are calculating.
Ah, I love when you try to show off how knowledgeable you are about things
you are clearly quite ignorant about. In your defense, I have also just
pointed you to others who also share your ignorance, even though they should
know better. But, still, you are the one who decided to leave the topic
behind and start this pissing contest. I am just having fun and letting you
demonstrate your own ignorance.
And I enjoy that. Not sure if that speaks well of me - but it is not like
you do not deserve it. Your blustering and BS should be shot down by those
of us who are more knowledgeable than you.
Hey, how about this: once you make a direct admission that you are unable to
figure out why the bad examples I have shown you are not done correctly I
will tell you. But make a very clear statement that you simply are not able
to figure it out.
Then I will educate you. I will even be kind about it (though if you
maintain being a jerk I reserve the right to bring up your ignorance as yet
another example of where you pretended to be knowledgeable but clearly are
not).
--
๐๐๐
1803340.1853.1337185618834.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngr17, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:53:03 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Take a look at this image:
>> <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
>>
>> It is from this site: <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml>
>>
>> The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect. Can
>> you explain why? I bet not. I can... and can teach a grade school student
>> to recognize when they are correct or not (or at least roughly so). It
>> really is that easy.
>>
>> But I bet you have no idea. Hey, you brought up the topic of personal
>> knowledge in relation to statistics, specifically mentioning the concept of
>> a standard deviation.
>>
>> I bet you have no clue. One chance to prove me wrong. The ball is in your
>> court. But, face it, all you will do is run - but you have no clue.
>>
>> Hey, because I am such a nice guy, when you blow it - and you almost
>> certainly will - I will provide you with an image that is correct (or at
>> least apparently so). And then you will *still* not see the problem... at
>> least I bet not.
>>
>> Yeah, the fact you are clueless is just to be expected. You really are just
>> blustering.
>
> There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird axis labeling.
Incorrect. And this proves you do not understand the actual concept of what
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:53:03 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Take a look at this image:
>> <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
>>
>> It is from this site: <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml>
>>
>> The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect. Can
>> you explain why? I bet not. I can... and can teach a grade school student
>> to recognize when they are correct or not (or at least roughly so). It
>> really is that easy.
>>
>> But I bet you have no idea. Hey, you brought up the topic of personal
>> knowledge in relation to statistics, specifically mentioning the concept of
>> a standard deviation.
>>
>> I bet you have no clue. One chance to prove me wrong. The ball is in your
>> court. But, face it, all you will do is run - but you have no clue.
>>
>> Hey, because I am such a nice guy, when you blow it - and you almost
>> certainly will - I will provide you with an image that is correct (or at
>> least apparently so). And then you will *still* not see the problem... at
>> least I bet not.
>>
>> Yeah, the fact you are clueless is just to be expected. You really are just
>> blustering.
>
> There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird axis labeling.
a standard deviation represents. But I said I would give you a hint (I
know, I also said only one chance, but I am a very nice guy). This one is
done correctly (or at least apparently so):
<http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/SDIntro>
There is a significant difference in where the line for the first standard
deviation is drawn - and in the first image it is wrong. Clearly wrong. It
is not as if there is any question to this.
But you have no idea why... and this is after you tried to pretend to have
an understanding of the topic. Poor you... you just self-nuke at your ever
chance. My guess, even after seeing one done correctly (or at least
apparently so), you will *still* be clueless until I tell you why the first
one is *clearly* wrong.
> Red is +/- 1 sigma (68%) Red and Green are +/- 2 sigma (95%) and Red, Green
> and Blue are +/- 3 sigma (99%). It's the exact same graph as:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg
the same graph... it is correct.
> http://www.spcforexcel.com/explaining-standard-deviation#standard-deviation
That one also appears correct or at least very nearly so. Again: you do not
see why these ones are correct and the other I pointed you to is not. You
are demonstrating your ignorance.
> It's a typical graph of standard deviation of a normal distribution. I would
> love to hear your thoughts on why the image is incorrect.
you have examples of ones done correctly and the one done *clearly*
incorrectly.
It is fun to see how you have no clue why it is incorrect - showing you have
no clue what a standard deviation even is in terms of the graph. It is so
funny watching you try to put down my knowledge on a topic where you clearly
are so clearly ignorant.
Hey, I *am* a nice guy, so more examples of incorrect images where the
standard deviation is shown incorrectly:
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
From:
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>
And: <http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>
From: <http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>
And: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
From: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
(Wow... that one is really bad... maybe it will give you a hint. But I
doubt it... I suspect you still will have no idea why it is clearly wrong).
You see, cc, you might know how to calculate a standard deviation - know the
math or be able to look up the formula - but you do not really understand
what it is you are calculating.
Ah, I love when you try to show off how knowledgeable you are about things
you are clearly quite ignorant about. In your defense, I have also just
pointed you to others who also share your ignorance, even though they should
know better. But, still, you are the one who decided to leave the topic
behind and start this pissing contest. I am just having fun and letting you
demonstrate your own ignorance.
And I enjoy that. Not sure if that speaks well of me - but it is not like
you do not deserve it. Your blustering and BS should be shot down by those
of us who are more knowledgeable than you.
Hey, how about this: once you make a direct admission that you are unable to
figure out why the bad examples I have shown you are not done correctly I
will tell you. But make a very clear statement that you simply are not able
to figure it out.
Then I will educate you. I will even be kind about it (though if you
maintain being a jerk I reserve the right to bring up your ignorance as yet
another example of where you pretended to be knowledgeable but clearly are
not).
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 16, 2012, 12:57:25โฏPM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/12 9:16 AM, in article
27529429.1951.1337185014838.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj16, "cc"
Numbers come to their conclusion... and now you are saying that (and thus I,
since I am merely agreeing with them) are wrong. I forgot no steps. I left
out no steps.
Face it, if I had you would be screaming it from the hill tops. But you are
just blustering. I already proved I am correct. And you think it makes me
"squirm" to be correct and prove you wrong:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
LOL! Yeah, I am sooooo wrong that those linear trend lines are clearly
moving upward. LOL! You are just an idiot who likes to pretend to have
knowledge you do not. But bluster away... in the end you will *never* share
your "secret" about how Excel and Numbers (and thus myself, who is merely
agreeing with their conclusions) are wrong.
Oh, and you never did say which of your contradictory comments you really
believed. That was the question asked at the start of this thread... and
you ran from it. And then you claim I am "squirming" to watch you run and
bluster and show off your arrogance and ignorance.
Nope. I am laughing at you. Remember: I am the one who has proved I am
correct. You are the one who has made empty claims you, above, admit you
have not supported.
Hey, any luck figuring out what a standard deviation is? So far you have
shown you have no real clue.
--
๐๐๐
27529429.1951.1337185014838.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj16, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:53:03 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Your above BS is not relevant. Not even a little. If you want to show why I
>> (and thus Excel and Numbers) are wrong, you will need to do more than post
>> your conclusions you pulled out of thin air. You will need to show how you
>> came to your conclusions, but more importantly you need to explain why
>> nobody but you has noticed how both Excel and Numbers get it so wrong.
>
> I can show you exactly how I came to my conclusion as soon as you apologize
> for the lies in the previous paragraph. I have NEVER said Excel or Numbers got
> it wrong. I said YOU forgot steps. Once you acknowledge this I will be happy
> to educate you.
>
>> You
>> have not done this. Nor will you.
>
> I have given more than enough info that anyone with brains and Google can
> figure out exactly how to do it. Did I give you the exact steps? Not 100%. But
> that's because I enjoy watching you squirm.
>
Bottom line: you came to your "conclusion" in a way other than how Excel and
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:53:03 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Your above BS is not relevant. Not even a little. If you want to show why I
>> (and thus Excel and Numbers) are wrong, you will need to do more than post
>> your conclusions you pulled out of thin air. You will need to show how you
>> came to your conclusions, but more importantly you need to explain why
>> nobody but you has noticed how both Excel and Numbers get it so wrong.
>
> I can show you exactly how I came to my conclusion as soon as you apologize
> for the lies in the previous paragraph. I have NEVER said Excel or Numbers got
> it wrong. I said YOU forgot steps. Once you acknowledge this I will be happy
> to educate you.
>
>> You
>> have not done this. Nor will you.
>
> I have given more than enough info that anyone with brains and Google can
> figure out exactly how to do it. Did I give you the exact steps? Not 100%. But
> that's because I enjoy watching you squirm.
>
Numbers come to their conclusion... and now you are saying that (and thus I,
since I am merely agreeing with them) are wrong. I forgot no steps. I left
out no steps.
Face it, if I had you would be screaming it from the hill tops. But you are
just blustering. I already proved I am correct. And you think it makes me
"squirm" to be correct and prove you wrong:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
LOL! Yeah, I am sooooo wrong that those linear trend lines are clearly
moving upward. LOL! You are just an idiot who likes to pretend to have
knowledge you do not. But bluster away... in the end you will *never* share
your "secret" about how Excel and Numbers (and thus myself, who is merely
agreeing with their conclusions) are wrong.
Oh, and you never did say which of your contradictory comments you really
believed. That was the question asked at the start of this thread... and
you ran from it. And then you claim I am "squirming" to watch you run and
bluster and show off your arrogance and ignorance.
Nope. I am laughing at you. Remember: I am the one who has proved I am
correct. You are the one who has made empty claims you, above, admit you
have not supported.
Hey, any luck figuring out what a standard deviation is? So far you have
shown you have no real clue.
--
๐๐๐
cc
May 16, 2012, 1:03:54โฏPM5/16/12
to
cc
May 16, 2012, 1:17:46โฏPM5/16/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:51:11 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hey, I *am* a nice guy, so more examples of incorrect images where the
> standard deviation is shown incorrectly:
> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
> From:
> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>
>
> And: <http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>
> From: <http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>
>
> And: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
> From: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
> (Wow... that one is really bad... maybe it will give you a hint. But I
> doubt it... I suspect you still will have no idea why it is clearly wrong).
>
> You see, cc, you might know how to calculate a standard deviation - know the
> math or be able to look up the formula - but you do not really understand
> what it is you are calculating.
>
LOL!!!! All of those links are fine. The first sigma lines cover 68% of the area UNDER THE CURVE. Therefore taller normal distributions will have lines that are closer, and flatter curvers will have lines that are farther apart. Congratulations on a full display of ignorance.
> standard deviation is shown incorrectly:
> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
> From:
> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>
>
> And: <http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>
> From: <http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>
>
> And: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
> From: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
> (Wow... that one is really bad... maybe it will give you a hint. But I
> doubt it... I suspect you still will have no idea why it is clearly wrong).
>
> You see, cc, you might know how to calculate a standard deviation - know the
> math or be able to look up the formula - but you do not really understand
> what it is you are calculating.
>
If you would like to prove, on any single one of the links you call incorrect, that the first sigma lines do not bound an area that is 68.2% of the area UNDER THE CURVE, then I would like to see it.
This is just too hysterical.
cc
May 16, 2012, 1:07:11โฏPM5/16/12
to
Snit
May 16, 2012, 1:25:48โฏPM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/12 10:03 AM, in article
6624674.1897.1337187834704.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlq12, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
about why the images I am letting you know are wrong are just that - very
clearly wrong. Hey, I even found this one for you:
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>. It is not
just a little wrong or subtle in any way... it is just completely wrong. No
doubt. Really, same with the others, but at least they are not *that*
wrong. But, as I guessed - you have *no* idea why. None. You are just
clueless. Maybe someone will come in to try to help you. As I said, I will
as soon as you admit you have no idea why they are wrong.
But keep in mind: it is simply a fact that they are. This is not in
question - a standard deviation has a specific meaning and those images
depict it incorrectly.
> It's area under the curve, not distance from center you idiot. Jesus Christ,
> give up now.
Ok, time to give you a hint: it *very much is* the "distance from the
center"... which, by the way, is generally referred to as the "mean" (which
is not the same way you are a mean person, but the average). Again: There
is a very specific distance from the mean - one which is easy to see on a
graph - which you clearly are ignorant about. And that is a very clear
hint... maybe even you can figure out your error from there (happy
Googling!).
But keep in mind: if you merely admit you do not know how I can so easily
see the images are showing incorrect depictions I will let you know the
"secret" of what a standard deviation is and why it is so easy for me to see
the error in the images. Not that it is really a "secret", mind you... most
decent discussions on the topic of what a standard deviation is will give
you the answer.
cc:
-----
LOL! Really... that is just hilarious. Can you demonstrate your ignorance
just a little more for me. :)
--
๐๐๐
6624674.1897.1337187834704.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlq12, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>>> There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird axis labeling.
>>
>> Incorrect. And this proves you do not understand the actual concept of what
>> a standard deviation represents. But I said I would give you a hint (I know,
>> I also said only one chance, but I am a very nice guy). This one is done
>> correctly (or at least apparently so):
>> <http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/SDIntro>
>>
>> There is a significant difference in where the line for the first standard
>> deviation is drawn - and in the first image it is wrong. Clearly wrong. It
>> is not as if there is any question to this.
>>
>>
>> Incorrect. And this proves you do not understand the actual concept of what
>> a standard deviation represents. But I said I would give you a hint (I know,
>> I also said only one chance, but I am a very nice guy). This one is done
>> correctly (or at least apparently so):
>> <http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/SDIntro>
>>
>> There is a significant difference in where the line for the first standard
>> deviation is drawn - and in the first image it is wrong. Clearly wrong. It
>> is not as if there is any question to this.
>>
> There's a significant difference because they're not from the same dataset.
The dataset is irrelevant. Again, you are showing off you are ignorant
about why the images I am letting you know are wrong are just that - very
clearly wrong. Hey, I even found this one for you:
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>. It is not
just a little wrong or subtle in any way... it is just completely wrong. No
doubt. Really, same with the others, but at least they are not *that*
wrong. But, as I guessed - you have *no* idea why. None. You are just
clueless. Maybe someone will come in to try to help you. As I said, I will
as soon as you admit you have no idea why they are wrong.
But keep in mind: it is simply a fact that they are. This is not in
question - a standard deviation has a specific meaning and those images
depict it incorrectly.
> It's area under the curve, not distance from center you idiot. Jesus Christ,
> give up now.
center"... which, by the way, is generally referred to as the "mean" (which
is not the same way you are a mean person, but the average). Again: There
is a very specific distance from the mean - one which is easy to see on a
graph - which you clearly are ignorant about. And that is a very clear
hint... maybe even you can figure out your error from there (happy
Googling!).
But keep in mind: if you merely admit you do not know how I can so easily
see the images are showing incorrect depictions I will let you know the
"secret" of what a standard deviation is and why it is so easy for me to see
the error in the images. Not that it is really a "secret", mind you... most
decent discussions on the topic of what a standard deviation is will give
you the answer.
cc:
-----
There's a significant difference because they're not from the
same dataset. It's area under the curve, not distance from
center you idiot. Jesus Christ, give up now.
-----
same dataset. It's area under the curve, not distance from
center you idiot. Jesus Christ, give up now.
LOL! Really... that is just hilarious. Can you demonstrate your ignorance
just a little more for me. :)
--
๐๐๐
cc
May 16, 2012, 1:41:09โฏPM5/16/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:25:48 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>
> Ok, time to give you a hint: it *very much is* the "distance from the
> center"... which, by the way, is generally referred to as the "mean" (which
> is not the same way you are a mean person, but the average). Again: There
> is a very specific distance from the mean - one which is easy to see on a
> graph - which you clearly are ignorant about. And that is a very clear
> hint... maybe even you can figure out your error from there (happy
> Googling!).
>
Holy Shit! You are completely wrong! Standard deviation for a normal distribution is the percentage of the area UNDER THE CURVE! It is not distance from the mean. Repeat: it is not distance from the mean. Read most of the links you just linked to. They say the exact same thing. Don't you know what a Z Table is?
>
>
> Ok, time to give you a hint: it *very much is* the "distance from the
> center"... which, by the way, is generally referred to as the "mean" (which
> is not the same way you are a mean person, but the average). Again: There
> is a very specific distance from the mean - one which is easy to see on a
> graph - which you clearly are ignorant about. And that is a very clear
> hint... maybe even you can figure out your error from there (happy
> Googling!).
>
I'm sorry, Snit, but you're just absolutely wrong here.
Snit
May 16, 2012, 1:51:50โฏPM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/12 10:07 AM, in article
21501728.2035.1337188031909.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36, "cc"
- which is easy to see when the images screw it up, esp. when they do so
really badly, like in some of the ones I showed you.
But you refuse to admit you have no clue why they are wrong. As noted: this
is your norm. Some more hints: it has nothing to do with the data set (we
are assuming a normal (or bell) curve) and it very much *does* have to do
with the distance from the mean - but it is not a distance measured in
inches or whatever, it is a distance based on the curve itself. Yes, that
is another hint for you.
Come on, I keep giving you hints: it is about time for you to figure it out
and then lie and pretend you knew all along. :)
Keep in mind: just admit you have no idea what I am in reference to and are
lost when it comes to figuring out how I know those depictions are incorrect
and I will let you know the "secret" (which, as noted, is really anything
but - if you knew how to look things up online I am sure you could find the
answer in many, many place... you might even be able to understand it,
though with you I would not bet on that... even though the average 5th
grader can understand it with no problem).
--
๐๐๐
21501728.2035.1337188031909.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jesus, did you see the other links he said were incorrect. Snit's so fucking
> stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn based on distance from the mean,
> not area under the curve. Good lord. He's so fucking stupid it's beyond
> belief.
You made that up. The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve
> Jesus, did you see the other links he said were incorrect. Snit's so fucking
> stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn based on distance from the mean,
> not area under the curve. Good lord. He's so fucking stupid it's beyond
> belief.
- which is easy to see when the images screw it up, esp. when they do so
really badly, like in some of the ones I showed you.
But you refuse to admit you have no clue why they are wrong. As noted: this
is your norm. Some more hints: it has nothing to do with the data set (we
are assuming a normal (or bell) curve) and it very much *does* have to do
with the distance from the mean - but it is not a distance measured in
inches or whatever, it is a distance based on the curve itself. Yes, that
is another hint for you.
Come on, I keep giving you hints: it is about time for you to figure it out
and then lie and pretend you knew all along. :)
Keep in mind: just admit you have no idea what I am in reference to and are
lost when it comes to figuring out how I know those depictions are incorrect
and I will let you know the "secret" (which, as noted, is really anything
but - if you knew how to look things up online I am sure you could find the
answer in many, many place... you might even be able to understand it,
though with you I would not bet on that... even though the average 5th
grader can understand it with no problem).
--
๐๐๐
cc
May 16, 2012, 2:01:19โฏPM5/16/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:51:50 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/16/12 10:07 AM, in article
> 21501728.2035.1337188031909.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jesus, did you see the other links he said were incorrect. Snit's so fucking
> > stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn based on distance from the mean,
> > not area under the curve. Good lord. He's so fucking stupid it's beyond
> > belief.
>
> You made that up. The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve
> - which is easy to see when the images screw it up, esp. when they do so
> really badly, like in some of the ones I showed you.
>
> But you refuse to admit you have no clue why they are wrong.
They are not wrong. Where the sigma lines are drawn has everything to do with the dataset and shape of the bell curve. You're an absolutely incorrect here, and it's hysterical.
> On 5/16/12 10:07 AM, in article
> 21501728.2035.1337188031909.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jesus, did you see the other links he said were incorrect. Snit's so fucking
> > stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn based on distance from the mean,
> > not area under the curve. Good lord. He's so fucking stupid it's beyond
> > belief.
>
> You made that up. The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve
> - which is easy to see when the images screw it up, esp. when they do so
> really badly, like in some of the ones I showed you.
>
> But you refuse to admit you have no clue why they are wrong.
Snit
May 16, 2012, 2:09:16โฏPM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/12 10:41 AM, in article
29040477.645.1337190069327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yneh4, "cc"
benefit of the doubt and accept you are just so ignorant of what is being
said you think you are right about this. But what you are doing is proving
you have no idea why those images I showed you very clearly depicted the
line where the standard deviation should be incorrectly. But they did.
> It is not distance from the mean.
It is *also* that... a very specific distance. Again, not in inches or
millimeters or something like that, but based on a property of the curve.
Wow... that is a *huge* hint for you. I mean it is almost screaming the
"secret" to you. Can you figure it out from that hint? I am being kind and
giving you more and more, even though you are refusing to admit you do not
know and you are even fabricating stories about me.
> Repeat: it is not distance from the mean.
Oh, do keep repeating this. It will give me many quotes to show contrast to
the truth. :)
> Read most of the links you just linked to. They say the exact same thing.
I am talking about the visual depictions being incorrect. And the ones I
noted as being incorrect clearly are.
But you cannot figure out why.
And I love it.
Question: when I finally do point out the answer will you still deny it. I
bet yes. And then when I show multiple sources showing I am correct will
you *still* deny it.
Almost surely you will. You see: you prefer to pretend to know what you are
talking about and you avoid being educated. In this case there is a very
clear and simple answer... remember, it is something a child can see. But
you cannot... not yet because you are ignorant of what to look for
(ignorant, really, of a key part of what a standard deviation even is).
> Don't you know what a Z Table is?
>
> I'm sorry, Snit, but you're just absolutely wrong here.
LOL! The funny thing is you *really* think so. Ok, one more *huge* hint
for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you have
to (as you almost surely will).
Yeah, then see if you can find how that concept relates to the distance from
the mean in relation to standard deviations. Yes: I said it - the distance
from the mean. And, yes, in relation to standard deviations.
Is that enough, yet, to let you know why you are wrong? I hope so... but if
not I will take pity on you even more (and that is what it is, just complete
pity) and let you know soon. As I said, I predict that even then you will
be in denial... you *love* your ignorance.
--
๐๐๐
29040477.645.1337190069327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yneh4, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:25:48 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ok, time to give you a hint: it *very much is* the "distance from the
>> center"... which, by the way, is generally referred to as the "mean" (which
>> is not the same way you are a mean person, but the average). Again: There
>> is a very specific distance from the mean - one which is easy to see on a
>> graph - which you clearly are ignorant about. And that is a very clear
>> hint... maybe even you can figure out your error from there (happy
>> Googling!).
>>
>
> Holy Shit! You are completely wrong! Standard deviation for a normal
> distribution is the percentage of the area UNDER THE CURVE!
Nobody said it was not. You are making that up. But I will give you the
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:25:48 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ok, time to give you a hint: it *very much is* the "distance from the
>> center"... which, by the way, is generally referred to as the "mean" (which
>> is not the same way you are a mean person, but the average). Again: There
>> is a very specific distance from the mean - one which is easy to see on a
>> graph - which you clearly are ignorant about. And that is a very clear
>> hint... maybe even you can figure out your error from there (happy
>> Googling!).
>>
>
> Holy Shit! You are completely wrong! Standard deviation for a normal
> distribution is the percentage of the area UNDER THE CURVE!
benefit of the doubt and accept you are just so ignorant of what is being
said you think you are right about this. But what you are doing is proving
you have no idea why those images I showed you very clearly depicted the
line where the standard deviation should be incorrectly. But they did.
> It is not distance from the mean.
millimeters or something like that, but based on a property of the curve.
Wow... that is a *huge* hint for you. I mean it is almost screaming the
"secret" to you. Can you figure it out from that hint? I am being kind and
giving you more and more, even though you are refusing to admit you do not
know and you are even fabricating stories about me.
> Repeat: it is not distance from the mean.
the truth. :)
> Read most of the links you just linked to. They say the exact same thing.
noted as being incorrect clearly are.
But you cannot figure out why.
And I love it.
Question: when I finally do point out the answer will you still deny it. I
bet yes. And then when I show multiple sources showing I am correct will
you *still* deny it.
Almost surely you will. You see: you prefer to pretend to know what you are
talking about and you avoid being educated. In this case there is a very
clear and simple answer... remember, it is something a child can see. But
you cannot... not yet because you are ignorant of what to look for
(ignorant, really, of a key part of what a standard deviation even is).
> Don't you know what a Z Table is?
>
> I'm sorry, Snit, but you're just absolutely wrong here.
for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you have
to (as you almost surely will).
Yeah, then see if you can find how that concept relates to the distance from
the mean in relation to standard deviations. Yes: I said it - the distance
from the mean. And, yes, in relation to standard deviations.
Is that enough, yet, to let you know why you are wrong? I hope so... but if
not I will take pity on you even more (and that is what it is, just complete
pity) and let you know soon. As I said, I predict that even then you will
be in denial... you *love* your ignorance.
--
๐๐๐
Steve Carroll
May 16, 2012, 2:08:31โฏPM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 11:07ย am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:44:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On May 16, 10:26ย am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:53:03 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> > > > Take a look at this image:
> > > > <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
>
> > > > It is from this site: <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml>
>
> > > > The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect. ย Can
> > > > you explain why? ย I bet not. ย I can... and can teach a grade school student
> > > > to recognize when they are correct or not (or at least roughly so). ย It
> > > > really is that easy.
>
> > > > But I bet you have no idea. ย Hey, you brought up the topic of personal
> > > > knowledge in relation to statistics, specifically mentioning the concept of
> > > > a standard deviation.
>
> > > > I bet you have no clue. ย One chance to prove me wrong. ย The ball is in your
> > > > court. ย But, face it, all you will do is run - but you have no clue.
>
> > > > Hey, because I am such a nice guy, when you blow it - and you almost
> > > > certainly will - I will provide you with an image that is correct (or at
> > > > least apparently so). ย And then you will *still* not see the problem... at
> > > > least I bet not.
>
> > > > Yeah, the fact you are clueless is just to be expected. ย You really are just
> > > > blustering.
>
> > > There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird axis labeling. Red is +/- 1 sigma (68%) Red and Green are +/- 2 sigma (95%) and Red, Green and Blue are +/- 3 sigma (99%). It's the exact same graph as:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svghttp:......
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:44:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On May 16, 10:26ย am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:53:03 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> > > > Take a look at this image:
> > > > <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
>
> > > > It is from this site: <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml>
>
> > > > The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect. ย Can
> > > > you explain why? ย I bet not. ย I can... and can teach a grade school student
> > > > to recognize when they are correct or not (or at least roughly so). ย It
> > > > really is that easy.
>
> > > > But I bet you have no idea. ย Hey, you brought up the topic of personal
> > > > knowledge in relation to statistics, specifically mentioning the concept of
> > > > a standard deviation.
>
> > > > I bet you have no clue. ย One chance to prove me wrong. ย The ball is in your
> > > > court. ย But, face it, all you will do is run - but you have no clue.
>
> > > > Hey, because I am such a nice guy, when you blow it - and you almost
> > > > certainly will - I will provide you with an image that is correct (or at
> > > > least apparently so). ย And then you will *still* not see the problem... at
> > > > least I bet not.
>
> > > > Yeah, the fact you are clueless is just to be expected. ย You really are just
> > > > blustering.
>
> > > There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird axis labeling. Red is +/- 1 sigma (68%) Red and Green are +/- 2 sigma (95%) and Red, Green and Blue are +/- 3 sigma (99%). It's the exact same graph as:
>
>
> > > It's a typical graph of standard deviation of a normal distribution. I would love to hear your thoughts on why the image is incorrect.
>
> > > --
> > > <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
>
> > "The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect."
> > - Snit
>
> > Poor Snit...
>
> Jesus, did you see the other links he said were incorrect. Snit's so fucking stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn based on distance from the mean, not area under the curve. Good lord. He's so fucking stupid it's beyond belief.
>
> --
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
I'm waiting to see how he's gonna tie his new spin act into his
> > > It's a typical graph of standard deviation of a normal distribution. I would love to hear your thoughts on why the image is incorrect.
>
> > > --
> > > <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
>
> > "The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect."
> > - Snit
>
> > Poor Snit...
>
> Jesus, did you see the other links he said were incorrect. Snit's so fucking stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn based on distance from the mean, not area under the curve. Good lord. He's so fucking stupid it's beyond belief.
>
> --
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
"trend" line that he produced for the purpose of backing his
statement:
"The correlation fits with my prediction."
cc
May 16, 2012, 2:15:29โฏPM5/16/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>
> LOL! The funny thing is you *really* think so. Ok, one more *huge* hint
> for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
> pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
> you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you have
> to (as you almost surely will).
Yes, the first sigma lines are always at an inflection points. And ALL THE EXAMPLES YOU LINKED TO HAD THE LINES DRAWN AT INFLECTION POINTS. You're digging yourself into a huge hole here.
>
>
> LOL! The funny thing is you *really* think so. Ok, one more *huge* hint
> for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
> pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
> you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you have
> to (as you almost surely will).
So you were wrong again. And you still don't realize what you did wrong in your shitty analysis. This has been a hilarious day.
Snit
May 16, 2012, 2:27:04โฏPM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/12 11:01 AM, in article
8773420.809.1337191279615.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv35, "cc"
ignorant. Here are some sources for you
<https://www.msu.edu/user/sw/statrev/strv113.htm>
-----
The normal distribution has two "points of inflection" on
either side of the mean. These are the points where the shape
of the curve changes from concave to convex or convex to
concave. The distance along the X-axis from the mean (ฮผ) to
either of the points of inflection is called the standard
deviation and is represented by ฯ.
-----
<http://goo.gl/0Qg0d>
-----
For the theoretical model of the data given by the normal
distribution, there is a good graphical interpretation of the
standard deviation, as shown in Figure A.6. It is the
horizontal distance from the peak of the normal curve (the
mean), to the inflection points (the points where the curve
changes from being concave up to concave down or vice versa).
...
It can be shown that, for a normal distribution,
approximately 34% of the area under the graph is between the
mean and the inflection point to the left of the mean.
-----
And here are some of your incorrect claims:
cc:
-----
distance from the mean.
-----
In case you missed it, let me highlight the parts about it being the
distance from the mean:
-----
The distance ... from the mean to either of the points of
inflection is called the standard deviation...
-----
and:
-----
It is the horizontal distance from the peak of the normal
curve (the mean), to the inflection points (the points where
the curve changes from being concave up to concave down or
vice versa).
-----
Remember, you are the one who kept denying this LOL. As I noted: you have
merely been showing your ignorance on this.
Now that you have been told to look for the inflection point for where a
standard deviation should be correctly depicted, can you see why, for
example, the following depiction is incorrect:
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
Can you see where the lines claiming to show a standard deviation are *far*
away from the inflection point? Can you see why being that far outside of
the correctly drawn depiction means that the claim of the percentages in
that image are flat our wrong?
Oh, cc, we dance this dance so often - you pretending to be knowledgeable
and me showing you just how ignorant you are.
Now the question remains - how will play your hand? Now that I have taken
full pity on you and shown you specifically why and how you are wrong about
such a simple statistical concept, will you admit to it?
I bet not. If history repeats itself you will just insist you are right, no
matter what the facts prove.
--
๐๐๐
8773420.809.1337191279615.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv35, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:51:50 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 10:07 AM, in article
>> 21501728.2035.1337188031909.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jesus, did you see the other links he said were incorrect. Snit's so fucking
>>> stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn based on distance from the mean,
>>> not area under the curve. Good lord. He's so fucking stupid it's beyond
>>> belief.
>>
>> You made that up. The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve
>> - which is easy to see when the images screw it up, esp. when they do so
>> really badly, like in some of the ones I showed you.
>>
>> But you refuse to admit you have no clue why they are wrong.
>
> They are not wrong. Where the sigma lines are drawn has everything to do with
> the dataset and shape of the bell curve. You're an absolutely incorrect here,
> and it's hysterical.
>
OK, pity time for you... now you have made it clear you are completely
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:51:50 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 10:07 AM, in article
>> 21501728.2035.1337188031909.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jesus, did you see the other links he said were incorrect. Snit's so fucking
>>> stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn based on distance from the mean,
>>> not area under the curve. Good lord. He's so fucking stupid it's beyond
>>> belief.
>>
>> You made that up. The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve
>> - which is easy to see when the images screw it up, esp. when they do so
>> really badly, like in some of the ones I showed you.
>>
>> But you refuse to admit you have no clue why they are wrong.
>
> They are not wrong. Where the sigma lines are drawn has everything to do with
> the dataset and shape of the bell curve. You're an absolutely incorrect here,
> and it's hysterical.
>
ignorant. Here are some sources for you
<https://www.msu.edu/user/sw/statrev/strv113.htm>
-----
The normal distribution has two "points of inflection" on
either side of the mean. These are the points where the shape
of the curve changes from concave to convex or convex to
concave. The distance along the X-axis from the mean (ฮผ) to
either of the points of inflection is called the standard
deviation and is represented by ฯ.
-----
<http://goo.gl/0Qg0d>
-----
For the theoretical model of the data given by the normal
distribution, there is a good graphical interpretation of the
standard deviation, as shown in Figure A.6. It is the
horizontal distance from the peak of the normal curve (the
mean), to the inflection points (the points where the curve
changes from being concave up to concave down or vice versa).
...
It can be shown that, for a normal distribution,
approximately 34% of the area under the graph is between the
mean and the inflection point to the left of the mean.
-----
And here are some of your incorrect claims:
cc:
-----
It's area under the curve, not distance from center you
idiot. Jesus Christ, give up now.
-----
It is not distance from the mean. Repeat: it is not
idiot. Jesus Christ, give up now.
-----
distance from the mean.
-----
In case you missed it, let me highlight the parts about it being the
distance from the mean:
-----
The distance ... from the mean to either of the points of
inflection is called the standard deviation...
-----
and:
-----
It is the horizontal distance from the peak of the normal
curve (the mean), to the inflection points (the points where
the curve changes from being concave up to concave down or
vice versa).
-----
Remember, you are the one who kept denying this LOL. As I noted: you have
merely been showing your ignorance on this.
Now that you have been told to look for the inflection point for where a
standard deviation should be correctly depicted, can you see why, for
example, the following depiction is incorrect:
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
Can you see where the lines claiming to show a standard deviation are *far*
away from the inflection point? Can you see why being that far outside of
the correctly drawn depiction means that the claim of the percentages in
that image are flat our wrong?
Oh, cc, we dance this dance so often - you pretending to be knowledgeable
and me showing you just how ignorant you are.
Now the question remains - how will play your hand? Now that I have taken
full pity on you and shown you specifically why and how you are wrong about
such a simple statistical concept, will you admit to it?
I bet not. If history repeats itself you will just insist you are right, no
matter what the facts prove.
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 16, 2012, 2:28:32โฏPM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/12 11:15 AM, in article
18015575.141.1337192129200.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngo1, "cc"
> So you were wrong again. And you still don't realize what you did wrong in
> your shitty analysis. This has been a hilarious day.
Read the post entitled "Snit takes pity on CC; explains a basic statistical
concept to him". I am very specific as to how you screwed up and how you
proved your ignorance.
I also predicted you would deny it. And you will. You are such an
amazingly predictable idiot.
--
๐๐๐
18015575.141.1337192129200.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngo1, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> LOL! The funny thing is you *really* think so. Ok, one more *huge* hint
>> for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
>> pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
>> you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you have
>> to (as you almost surely will).
>
>
> Yes, the first sigma lines are always at an inflection points. And ALL THE
> EXAMPLES YOU LINKED TO HAD THE LINES DRAWN AT INFLECTION POINTS. You're
> digging yourself into a huge hole here.
So you have no idea what an inflection point is. LOL!
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> LOL! The funny thing is you *really* think so. Ok, one more *huge* hint
>> for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
>> pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
>> you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you have
>> to (as you almost surely will).
>
>
> Yes, the first sigma lines are always at an inflection points. And ALL THE
> EXAMPLES YOU LINKED TO HAD THE LINES DRAWN AT INFLECTION POINTS. You're
> digging yourself into a huge hole here.
> So you were wrong again. And you still don't realize what you did wrong in
> your shitty analysis. This has been a hilarious day.
concept to him". I am very specific as to how you screwed up and how you
proved your ignorance.
I also predicted you would deny it. And you will. You are such an
amazingly predictable idiot.
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 16, 2012, 2:55:29โฏPM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/12 10:17 AM, in article
1972849.1460.1337188666952.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmb39, "cc"
understand where this happens on a graph):
<https://www.msu.edu/user/sw/statrev/strv113.htm>
-----
The normal distribution has two "points of inflection" on
either side of the mean. These are the points where the shape
of the curve changes from concave to convex or convex to
concave. The distance along the X-axis from the mean (ฮผ) to
either of the points of inflection is called the standard
deviation and is represented by ฯ.
-----
<http://goo.gl/0Qg0d>
-----
For the theoretical model of the data given by the normal
distribution, there is a good graphical interpretation of the
standard deviation, as shown in Figure A.6. It is the
horizontal distance fromt he peak of the normal curve (the
will be closer.
> Congratulations on a full display of ignorance.
As predicted: even though you have been fully proved wrong you will never
admit to it. Never.
> If you would like to prove, on any single one of the links you call incorrect,
> that the first sigma lines do not bound an area that is 68.2% of the area
> UNDER THE CURVE, then I would like to see it.
>
> This is just too hysterical.
As noted, I already proved you wrong in the post entitled " Snit takes pity
on CC; explains a basic statistical concept to him":
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c2dd6ee7ff9719a8>
But here is a more graphical way of showing how wrong one of the depictions
(and you) are:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
If you want, I can show you more resources which will explain to you how the
standard deviation line should be at the inflection point (or the point
where the concavity changes, or where the sign of the second derivative
changes... all the same... not that you have the capacity to understand
this).
--
๐๐๐
1972849.1460.1337188666952.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmb39, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:51:11 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey, I *am* a nice guy, so more examples of incorrect images where the
>> standard deviation is shown incorrectly:
>> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
>> From:
>> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>
>>
>> And: <http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>
>> From: <http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>
>>
>> And: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
>> From: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
>> (Wow... that one is really bad... maybe it will give you a hint. But I
>> doubt it... I suspect you still will have no idea why it is clearly wrong).
>>
>> You see, cc, you might know how to calculate a standard deviation - know the
>> math or be able to look up the formula - but you do not really understand
>> what it is you are calculating.
>
>
> LOL!!!! All of those links are fine. The first sigma lines cover 68% of the
> area UNDER THE CURVE.
Nope. They should, but they do not (you can tell this easily if you
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:51:11 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey, I *am* a nice guy, so more examples of incorrect images where the
>> standard deviation is shown incorrectly:
>> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
>> From:
>> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>
>>
>> And: <http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>
>> From: <http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>
>>
>> And: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
>> From: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
>> (Wow... that one is really bad... maybe it will give you a hint. But I
>> doubt it... I suspect you still will have no idea why it is clearly wrong).
>>
>> You see, cc, you might know how to calculate a standard deviation - know the
>> math or be able to look up the formula - but you do not really understand
>> what it is you are calculating.
>
>
> LOL!!!! All of those links are fine. The first sigma lines cover 68% of the
> area UNDER THE CURVE.
understand where this happens on a graph):
<https://www.msu.edu/user/sw/statrev/strv113.htm>
-----
The normal distribution has two "points of inflection" on
either side of the mean. These are the points where the shape
of the curve changes from concave to convex or convex to
concave. The distance along the X-axis from the mean (ฮผ) to
either of the points of inflection is called the standard
deviation and is represented by ฯ.
-----
<http://goo.gl/0Qg0d>
-----
For the theoretical model of the data given by the normal
distribution, there is a good graphical interpretation of the
standard deviation, as shown in Figure A.6. It is the
mean), to the inflection points (the points where the curve
changes from being concave up to concave down or vice versa).
...
It can be shown that, for a normal distribution,
approximately 34% of the area under the graph is between the
mean and the inflection point to the left of the mean.
-----
changes from being concave up to concave down or vice versa).
...
It can be shown that, for a normal distribution,
approximately 34% of the area under the graph is between the
mean and the inflection point to the left of the mean.
-----
> Therefore taller normal distributions will have lines that are closer, and
> flatter curvers will have lines that are farther apart.
This is not on contention. On the "taller" curves the inflection points
> flatter curvers will have lines that are farther apart.
will be closer.
> Congratulations on a full display of ignorance.
admit to it. Never.
> If you would like to prove, on any single one of the links you call incorrect,
> that the first sigma lines do not bound an area that is 68.2% of the area
> UNDER THE CURVE, then I would like to see it.
>
> This is just too hysterical.
on CC; explains a basic statistical concept to him":
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c2dd6ee7ff9719a8>
But here is a more graphical way of showing how wrong one of the depictions
(and you) are:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
If you want, I can show you more resources which will explain to you how the
standard deviation line should be at the inflection point (or the point
where the concavity changes, or where the sign of the second derivative
changes... all the same... not that you have the capacity to understand
this).
--
๐๐๐
cc
May 16, 2012, 2:39:45โฏPM5/16/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:28:32 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/16/12 11:15 AM, in article
> 18015575.141.1337192129200.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngo1, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> LOL! The funny thing is you *really* think so. Ok, one more *huge* hint
> >> for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
> >> pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
> >> you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you have
> >> to (as you almost surely will).
> >
> >
> > Yes, the first sigma lines are always at an inflection points. And ALL THE
> > EXAMPLES YOU LINKED TO HAD THE LINES DRAWN AT INFLECTION POINTS. You're
> > digging yourself into a huge hole here.
>
> So you have no idea what an inflection point is. LOL!
I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed incorrect examples. Funny how you're now questioning the applications used to generate those graphs!
> On 5/16/12 11:15 AM, in article
> 18015575.141.1337192129200.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngo1, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> LOL! The funny thing is you *really* think so. Ok, one more *huge* hint
> >> for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
> >> pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
> >> you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you have
> >> to (as you almost surely will).
> >
> >
> > Yes, the first sigma lines are always at an inflection points. And ALL THE
> > EXAMPLES YOU LINKED TO HAD THE LINES DRAWN AT INFLECTION POINTS. You're
> > digging yourself into a huge hole here.
>
> So you have no idea what an inflection point is. LOL!
Face it, you're wrong. You've also lied repeatedly in this thread, and you don't understand how to do basic statistical analysis. You dug up a week old thread because you're so enraged that I keep linking to that hilarious video you made, showing your incompetence. Then you tried to change the subject with your hilarious misunderstand of standard deviation.
By all means, keep this party going. You've been a source of entertainment in an otherwise slow week.
Steve Carroll
May 16, 2012, 3:01:19โฏPM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 12:39ย pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:28:32 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 5/16/12 11:15 AM, in article
> > 18015575.141.1337192129200.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngo1, "cc"
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:28:32 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 5/16/12 11:15 AM, in article
> > 18015575.141.1337192129200.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngo1, "cc"
the choice comments Snit has has made about correlations and
predictions regarding UI improvement and Linux marketshare (remember,
the original topic?) ;)
Snit
May 16, 2012, 3:10:33โฏPM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/12 11:39 AM, in article
27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
I have never met anyone who goes so far out of their way to stay as ignorant
as you, cc. Wow. Just wow
> Funny how you're now questioning the applications used to generate those
> graphs!
>
> Face it, you're wrong.
I think you really believe that... that is what makes you so funny.
> You've also lied repeatedly in this thread, and you don't understand how to do
> basic statistical analysis. You dug up a week old thread because you're so
> enraged that I keep linking to that hilarious video you made, showing your
> incompetence. Then you tried to change the subject with your hilarious
> misunderstand of standard deviation.
Yawn. After proving himself completely ignorant and unable to admit to his
errors, cc again claims I am wrong in some way he cannot describe or
explain. Man, I better take his claims real seriously.
> By all means, keep this party going. You've been a source of entertainment in
> an otherwise slow week.
cc:
-----
distance from the mean.
-----
But I kept letting cc know he was wrong. Even proved it:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c2dd6ee7ff9719a8>
And I showed him how one of the images we talking about clearly depicted
things incorrectly: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
But cc cannot let it go - he could not accept he was wrong. So here are
more references to prove him wrong. But even on reading these, cc, will
never admit to his errors.
Once again, cc is going out of his way to prove how he prefers to argue and
fight and remain ignorant instead of being educated, even about something
that is, frankly, amazingly easy. The first standard deviation *is* the
distance to the inflection point. There is no doubt about this. None.
Except in cc's head - where he insists on remaining ignorant.
<http://jcsites.juniata.edu/faculty/kruse/ma116/stdDevAppl.htm>
-----
All normal curves start concave-up and switch to concave-down
1 standard-deviation less than the mean.
-----
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution>
-----
The inflection points of the curve occur one standard
deviation away from the mean (i.e., at x = ฮผ โ ฯ and x = ฮผ +
ฯ).
-----
The vertical axis in the graph delineates relative
frequencies, which could be scaled as either percentages or
proportions, and the horizontal axis represents units of
zโthat is, distances from the mean of the distribution, with
each unit of z equal to one standard deviation. The mean of
the distribution (z=0) stands precisely at its center, and
plus-and-minus one standard deviation (+1z and โ1z) fall
precisely at the points where the curved outline of the
distribution on either side of the mean changes from convex
to concave.
-----
<http://www.eurosixsigma.com/sixsigma/sixsig_detail.htm>
-----
The 'fatness' (variation) of the curve is measured by the
standard deviation, the distance between the mean and the
point either side where the curve changes from convex to
concave. This distance is also known as the sigma -
mathematicians use Greek letters to represent things, and
(mu) is used for the mean, and (sigma) is used for the
standard deviation.
-----
I am sure there are many more examples one could easily pull up... and not a
single one to back cc's ignorant denials.
But cc will *never* admit to it. 100% predictable.
--
๐๐๐
27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:28:32 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 11:15 AM, in article
>> 18015575.141.1337192129200.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngo1, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL! The funny thing is you *really* think so. Ok, one more *huge* hint
>>>> for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
>>>> pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
>>>> you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you
>>>> have
>>>> to (as you almost surely will).
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the first sigma lines are always at an inflection points. And ALL THE
>>> EXAMPLES YOU LINKED TO HAD THE LINES DRAWN AT INFLECTION POINTS. You're
>>> digging yourself into a huge hole here.
>>
>> So you have no idea what an inflection point is. LOL!
>
> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
> changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
> incorrect examples.
LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after being
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:28:32 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 11:15 AM, in article
>> 18015575.141.1337192129200.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngo1, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL! The funny thing is you *really* think so. Ok, one more *huge* hint
>>>> for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
>>>> pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
>>>> you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you
>>>> have
>>>> to (as you almost surely will).
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the first sigma lines are always at an inflection points. And ALL THE
>>> EXAMPLES YOU LINKED TO HAD THE LINES DRAWN AT INFLECTION POINTS. You're
>>> digging yourself into a huge hole here.
>>
>> So you have no idea what an inflection point is. LOL!
>
> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
> changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
> incorrect examples.
shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
I have never met anyone who goes so far out of their way to stay as ignorant
as you, cc. Wow. Just wow
> Funny how you're now questioning the applications used to generate those
> graphs!
>
> Face it, you're wrong.
> You've also lied repeatedly in this thread, and you don't understand how to do
> basic statistical analysis. You dug up a week old thread because you're so
> enraged that I keep linking to that hilarious video you made, showing your
> incompetence. Then you tried to change the subject with your hilarious
> misunderstand of standard deviation.
errors, cc again claims I am wrong in some way he cannot describe or
explain. Man, I better take his claims real seriously.
> By all means, keep this party going. You've been a source of entertainment in
> an otherwise slow week.
-----
I have to show you how to take an average and standard
deviation?
-----
deviation?
It's area under the curve, not distance from center you
idiot. Jesus Christ, give up now.
-----
It is not distance from the mean. Repeat: it is not
idiot. Jesus Christ, give up now.
-----
distance from the mean.
-----
But I kept letting cc know he was wrong. Even proved it:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c2dd6ee7ff9719a8>
And I showed him how one of the images we talking about clearly depicted
things incorrectly: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
But cc cannot let it go - he could not accept he was wrong. So here are
more references to prove him wrong. But even on reading these, cc, will
never admit to his errors.
Once again, cc is going out of his way to prove how he prefers to argue and
fight and remain ignorant instead of being educated, even about something
that is, frankly, amazingly easy. The first standard deviation *is* the
distance to the inflection point. There is no doubt about this. None.
Except in cc's head - where he insists on remaining ignorant.
<http://jcsites.juniata.edu/faculty/kruse/ma116/stdDevAppl.htm>
-----
All normal curves start concave-up and switch to concave-down
1 standard-deviation less than the mean.
-----
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution>
-----
The inflection points of the curve occur one standard
deviation away from the mean (i.e., at x = ฮผ โ ฯ and x = ฮผ +
ฯ).
-----
<http://goo.gl/0Qg0d>
-----
For the theoretical model of the data given by the normal
distribution, there is a good graphical interpretation of the
standard deviation, as shown in Figure A.6. It is the
horizontal distance fromt he peak of the normal curve (the
mean), to the inflection points (the points where the curve
changes from being concave up to concave down or vice versa).
...
It can be shown that, for a normal distribution,
approximately 34% of the area under the graph is between the
mean and the inflection point to the left of the mean.
-----
<http://vassarstats.net/textbook/ch2pt3.html>
<http://goo.gl/0Qg0d>
-----
For the theoretical model of the data given by the normal
distribution, there is a good graphical interpretation of the
standard deviation, as shown in Figure A.6. It is the
horizontal distance fromt he peak of the normal curve (the
mean), to the inflection points (the points where the curve
changes from being concave up to concave down or vice versa).
...
It can be shown that, for a normal distribution,
approximately 34% of the area under the graph is between the
mean and the inflection point to the left of the mean.
-----
-----
The vertical axis in the graph delineates relative
frequencies, which could be scaled as either percentages or
proportions, and the horizontal axis represents units of
zโthat is, distances from the mean of the distribution, with
each unit of z equal to one standard deviation. The mean of
the distribution (z=0) stands precisely at its center, and
plus-and-minus one standard deviation (+1z and โ1z) fall
precisely at the points where the curved outline of the
distribution on either side of the mean changes from convex
to concave.
-----
<http://www.eurosixsigma.com/sixsigma/sixsig_detail.htm>
-----
The 'fatness' (variation) of the curve is measured by the
standard deviation, the distance between the mean and the
point either side where the curve changes from convex to
concave. This distance is also known as the sigma -
mathematicians use Greek letters to represent things, and
(mu) is used for the mean, and (sigma) is used for the
standard deviation.
-----
I am sure there are many more examples one could easily pull up... and not a
single one to back cc's ignorant denials.
But cc will *never* admit to it. 100% predictable.
--
๐๐๐
Steve Carroll
May 16, 2012, 3:32:35โฏPM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 1:10ย pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
(snip red herring based grand-standing by Snit)
> I am sure there are many more examples one could easily pull up... and not a
> single one to back cc's ignorant denials.
You're going on and on about standard deviation... so here's a related
question, relating back to, you know, the original topic:
Are you claiming that Excel automatically utilized standard deviation
when you created your trend line in your video?
Recall that you wrote:
"The correlation fits with my prediction."
You've yet to support your allegation that there is a correlation
between UI improvement and Linux Marketshare, so an obvious question
still remains:
How did you arrive at this "prediction" if not via the use of a
predictive trend line? The other obvious question: Did you use the
trend line in your video? ;)
(snip red herring based grand-standing by Snit)
> I am sure there are many more examples one could easily pull up... and not a
> single one to back cc's ignorant denials.
question, relating back to, you know, the original topic:
Are you claiming that Excel automatically utilized standard deviation
when you created your trend line in your video?
Recall that you wrote:
"The correlation fits with my prediction."
between UI improvement and Linux Marketshare, so an obvious question
still remains:
How did you arrive at this "prediction" if not via the use of a
predictive trend line? The other obvious question: Did you use the
trend line in your video? ;)
cc
May 16, 2012, 3:29:43โฏPM5/16/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 3:10:33 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/16/12 11:39 AM, in article
> 27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
> > changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
> > incorrect examples.
>
> LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after being
> shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
>
>
Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious. Please, post more on this subject.
> On 5/16/12 11:39 AM, in article
> 27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
> > changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
> > incorrect examples.
>
> LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after being
> shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
>
>
>
> > By all means, keep this party going. You've been a source of entertainment in
> > an otherwise slow week.
>
> cc:
> -----
> I have to show you how to take an average and standard
> deviation?
> -----
Snit
May 16, 2012, 4:04:13โฏPM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/12 12:29 PM, in article
3448022.14.1337196583871.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynam14, "cc"
you know how.
Hint: yes, I know you will run - it is all you can do. And then you will
insist you are right. But keep blustering, cc... it is not like you have
not been proved completely wrong.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/cdbd8b4fedacb70a>
Where is your counter? Do you have *anything* to back up your BS denials
and lies? Of course not. And you never will.
>>> By all means, keep this party going. You've been a source of entertainment
>>> in
>>> an otherwise slow week.
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> I have to show you how to take an average and standard
>> deviation?
>> -----
>
> Yes, you complained because I didn't show you how to take an average or
> standard deviation. You're funny! Please keep it up.
You are, of course, lying. I never asked you to do either. And I showed
you facts you were clearly clueless about:
cc:
now that you have been shown it *is* the distance from the mean
(specifically: to either of the points of inflection). Black and white.
You were simply wrong. There is no gray area here. But you will never
admit to your error... you are simply too predictable in your BS.
--
๐๐๐
3448022.14.1337196583871.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynam14, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 3:10:33 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 11:39 AM, in article
>> 27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
>>> changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
>>> incorrect examples.
>>
>> LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after being
>> shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
>>
>>
>
> Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious. Please, post more
> on this subject.
Oh, do tell: what do you think I got wrong. By all means, be as clear as
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 3:10:33 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 11:39 AM, in article
>> 27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
>>> changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
>>> incorrect examples.
>>
>> LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after being
>> shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
>>
>>
>
> Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious. Please, post more
> on this subject.
you know how.
Hint: yes, I know you will run - it is all you can do. And then you will
insist you are right. But keep blustering, cc... it is not like you have
not been proved completely wrong.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/cdbd8b4fedacb70a>
Where is your counter? Do you have *anything* to back up your BS denials
and lies? Of course not. And you never will.
>>> By all means, keep this party going. You've been a source of entertainment
>>> in
>>> an otherwise slow week.
>>
>> cc:
>> -----
>> I have to show you how to take an average and standard
>> deviation?
>> -----
>
> Yes, you complained because I didn't show you how to take an average or
> standard deviation. You're funny! Please keep it up.
you facts you were clearly clueless about:
cc:
-----
It's area under the curve, not distance from center you
idiot. Jesus Christ, give up now.
-----
It is not distance from the mean. Repeat: it is not
distance from the mean.
-----
I mean, really, can't you even admit your above quotes show your ignorance
It's area under the curve, not distance from center you
idiot. Jesus Christ, give up now.
-----
It is not distance from the mean. Repeat: it is not
distance from the mean.
-----
now that you have been shown it *is* the distance from the mean
(specifically: to either of the points of inflection). Black and white.
You were simply wrong. There is no gray area here. But you will never
admit to your error... you are simply too predictable in your BS.
--
๐๐๐
cc
May 21, 2012, 1:28:08โฏPM5/21/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:04:13 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/16/12 12:29 PM, in article
> 3448022.14.1337196583871.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynam14, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 3:10:33 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 5/16/12 11:39 AM, in article
> >> 27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
> >> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
> >>> changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
> >>> incorrect examples.
> >>
> >> LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after being
> >> shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious. Please, post more
> > on this subject.
>
> Oh, do tell: what do you think I got wrong. By all means, be as clear as
> you know how.
>
You're links to bad examples, clearly aren't bad examples as the lines are at the inflection points. I trust PhD Math professors, the software they use, and finally (and the least) my own eyes. You're discounting professionals using professional software in most of those links, by hand drawing and eyeballing inflections points in the incorrect spot (not to mention trying to compare inflections points on two different normal distributions).
> On 5/16/12 12:29 PM, in article
> 3448022.14.1337196583871.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynam14, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 3:10:33 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 5/16/12 11:39 AM, in article
> >> 27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
> >> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
> >>> changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
> >>> incorrect examples.
> >>
> >> LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after being
> >> shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious. Please, post more
> > on this subject.
>
> Oh, do tell: what do you think I got wrong. By all means, be as clear as
> you know how.
>
I noticed you had another minor hissy fit in my absense, starting many more topics on things that have been addressed before. Hilarious, but there's really no more reason to talk about this little side discussion. You don't know how to do a statistical analysis, as seen from your video below and the fact that you try to eyeball inflection points and think you can do it better than the software packages these professionals (in most cases. Some links were students) were using to generate the graphs.
I look foward to whatever video/crayon drawing you try to pass off as serious work next. Keep the laughs coming.
Snit
May 21, 2012, 3:48:11โฏPM5/21/12
to
On 5/21/12 10:28 AM, in article
fab82506-3045-4229...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
belittle me for your own ignorance? I mean, really, look at the top image
here:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
Clearly the lines are not at the inflection points. Not even close. If you
know what an inflection point is this is *obvious*. It is not like it is a
little off; it is *grossly* off. And I show that as you go down the images.
The more this "debate" goes on the more you just prove how ignorant you are
on the topic. Just completely lost. And, of course, this is your norm.
> I trust PhD Math professors, the software they use, and finally (and the
> least) my own eyes. You're discounting professionals using professional
> software in most of those links, by hand drawing and eyeballing inflections
> points in the incorrect spot (not to mention trying to compare inflections
> points on two different normal distributions).
The lines are *not* drawn at the inflection points. This is not something
that is debatable. This is not a matter of opinion or something that is up
for debate. This is yet another case where you simply are wrong. Not
maybe... not could be... you *are* wrong. Period. There is *no* debate on
this... there will simply be you claiming something that is obviously wrong.
Again, look at my image... there is *no* doubt I am correct. Anyone with
even a slight clue as to what is meant by an inflection point can see this.
But keep arguing against me. It is amazing how arrogant you get when you
are completely and utterly wrong. My sureness is not from arrogance - I
know, 100%, I am right about this. But feel free to pretend you are just as
sure... based on your extreme ignorance.
> I noticed you had another minor hissy fit in my absense, starting many more
> topics on things that have been addressed before. Hilarious, but there's
> really no more reason to talk about this little side discussion. You don't
> know how to do a statistical analysis, as seen from your video below and the
> fact that you try to eyeball inflection points and think you can do it better
> than the software packages these professionals (in most cases. Some links were
> students) were using to generate the graphs.
>
> I look foward to whatever video/crayon drawing you try to pass off as serious
> work next. Keep the laughs coming.
Your, simply, are wrong. There is no debate or "hissy fit"... there is just
my noting that I am correct.
Elsewhere I have noted that Excel and Numbers are correct. You keep saying
that they give the wrong answer - then you blame me... going so far as to
make up a story about me missing a step you cannot even come up with.
Face it, cc, you have made a complete and utter fool of yourself *again*.
You repeatedly claim to be knowledgeable in areas you are not. Repeatedly.
And you back yourself into a corner by doing so over and over and over.
--
๐๐๐
fab82506-3045-4229...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:04:13 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 12:29 PM, in article
>> 3448022.14.1337196583871.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynam14, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 3:10:33 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/12 11:39 AM, in article
>>>> 27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
>>>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second
>>>>> derivative changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in
>>>>> your supposed incorrect examples.
>>>>>
>>>> LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after
>>>> being shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious. Please, post
>>> more
>>> on this subject.
>>
>> Oh, do tell: what do you think I got wrong. By all means, be as clear as
>> you know how.
>
> You're links to bad examples, clearly aren't bad examples as the lines are at
> the inflection points.
Ok, so you have no idea what an inflection point is. Got it. But why
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:04:13 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 12:29 PM, in article
>> 3448022.14.1337196583871.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynam14, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 3:10:33 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/12 11:39 AM, in article
>>>> 27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
>>>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second
>>>>> derivative changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in
>>>>> your supposed incorrect examples.
>>>>>
>>>> LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after
>>>> being shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious. Please, post
>>> more
>>> on this subject.
>>
>> Oh, do tell: what do you think I got wrong. By all means, be as clear as
>> you know how.
>
> You're links to bad examples, clearly aren't bad examples as the lines are at
> the inflection points.
belittle me for your own ignorance? I mean, really, look at the top image
here:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
Clearly the lines are not at the inflection points. Not even close. If you
know what an inflection point is this is *obvious*. It is not like it is a
little off; it is *grossly* off. And I show that as you go down the images.
The more this "debate" goes on the more you just prove how ignorant you are
on the topic. Just completely lost. And, of course, this is your norm.
> I trust PhD Math professors, the software they use, and finally (and the
> least) my own eyes. You're discounting professionals using professional
> software in most of those links, by hand drawing and eyeballing inflections
> points in the incorrect spot (not to mention trying to compare inflections
> points on two different normal distributions).
that is debatable. This is not a matter of opinion or something that is up
for debate. This is yet another case where you simply are wrong. Not
maybe... not could be... you *are* wrong. Period. There is *no* debate on
this... there will simply be you claiming something that is obviously wrong.
Again, look at my image... there is *no* doubt I am correct. Anyone with
even a slight clue as to what is meant by an inflection point can see this.
But keep arguing against me. It is amazing how arrogant you get when you
are completely and utterly wrong. My sureness is not from arrogance - I
know, 100%, I am right about this. But feel free to pretend you are just as
sure... based on your extreme ignorance.
> I noticed you had another minor hissy fit in my absense, starting many more
> topics on things that have been addressed before. Hilarious, but there's
> really no more reason to talk about this little side discussion. You don't
> know how to do a statistical analysis, as seen from your video below and the
> fact that you try to eyeball inflection points and think you can do it better
> than the software packages these professionals (in most cases. Some links were
> students) were using to generate the graphs.
>
> I look foward to whatever video/crayon drawing you try to pass off as serious
> work next. Keep the laughs coming.
my noting that I am correct.
Elsewhere I have noted that Excel and Numbers are correct. You keep saying
that they give the wrong answer - then you blame me... going so far as to
make up a story about me missing a step you cannot even come up with.
Face it, cc, you have made a complete and utter fool of yourself *again*.
You repeatedly claim to be knowledgeable in areas you are not. Repeatedly.
And you back yourself into a corner by doing so over and over and over.
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 21, 2012, 9:03:55โฏPM5/21/12
to
On 5/21/12 10:28 AM, in article
fab82506-3045-4229...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
show off how ignorant he is. It really is some of his best work ever.
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 21, 2012, 9:09:27โฏPM5/21/12
to
On 5/16/12 11:39 AM, in article
27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:28:32 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 11:15 AM, in article
>> 18015575.141.1337192129200.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngo1, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL! The funny thing is you *really* think so. Ok, one more *huge* hint
>>>> for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
>>>> pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
>>>> you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you
>>>> have
>>>> to (as you almost surely will).
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the first sigma lines are always at an inflection points. And ALL THE
>>> EXAMPLES YOU LINKED TO HAD THE LINES DRAWN AT INFLECTION POINTS. You're
>>> digging yourself into a huge hole here.
>>
>> So you have no idea what an inflection point is. LOL!
>
> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
> changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
> incorrect examples.
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:28:32 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 11:15 AM, in article
>> 18015575.141.1337192129200.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngo1, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL! The funny thing is you *really* think so. Ok, one more *huge* hint
>>>> for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
>>>> pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
>>>> you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you
>>>> have
>>>> to (as you almost surely will).
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the first sigma lines are always at an inflection points. And ALL THE
>>> EXAMPLES YOU LINKED TO HAD THE LINES DRAWN AT INFLECTION POINTS. You're
>>> digging yourself into a huge hole here.
>>
>> So you have no idea what an inflection point is. LOL!
>
> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
> changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
> incorrect examples.
LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after being
shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
I have never met anyone who goes so far out of their way to stay as ignorant
as you, cc. Wow. Just wow
as you, cc. Wow. Just wow
> Funny how you're now questioning the applications used to generate those
> graphs!
>
> Face it, you're wrong.
> graphs!
>
> Face it, you're wrong.
I think you really believe that... that is what makes you so funny.
> You've also lied repeatedly in this thread, and you don't understand how to do
> basic statistical analysis. You dug up a week old thread because you're so
> enraged that I keep linking to that hilarious video you made, showing your
> incompetence. Then you tried to change the subject with your hilarious
> misunderstand of standard deviation.
> basic statistical analysis. You dug up a week old thread because you're so
> enraged that I keep linking to that hilarious video you made, showing your
> incompetence. Then you tried to change the subject with your hilarious
> misunderstand of standard deviation.
Yawn. After proving himself completely ignorant and unable to admit to his
errors, cc again claims I am wrong in some way he cannot describe or
explain. Man, I better take his claims real seriously.
errors, cc again claims I am wrong in some way he cannot describe or
explain. Man, I better take his claims real seriously.
> By all means, keep this party going. You've been a source of entertainment in
> an otherwise slow week.
> an otherwise slow week.
cc:
-----
I have to show you how to take an average and standard
deviation?
-----
-----
I have to show you how to take an average and standard
deviation?
-----
It's area under the curve, not distance from center you
idiot. Jesus Christ, give up now.
-----
It is not distance from the mean. Repeat: it is not
idiot. Jesus Christ, give up now.
-----
distance from the mean.
I am sure there are many more examples one could easily pull up... and not a
single one to back cc's ignorant denials.
single one to back cc's ignorant denials.
But cc will *never* admit to it. 100% predictable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really... I would not believe someone could be as completely lost as cc had
he not so adamantly insisted he is.
Anyway... that is plenty... as you note, it just goes on and on and on... cc
will *never* admit to being wrong, no matter how much of a complete fool he
shows himself to be.
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 24, 2012, 10:23:29โฏAM5/24/12
to
Hey, cc: you never gave one of your amusing responses to the following.
Come on, try to show how right you are. You are sooooo funny!
LOL!
On 5/16/12 11:39 AM, in article
27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
distance from the mean.
Come on, try to show how right you are. You are sooooo funny!
LOL!
On 5/16/12 11:39 AM, in article
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:28:32 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 11:15 AM, in article
>> 18015575.141.1337192129200.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngo1, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL! The funny thing is you *really* think so. Ok, one more *huge* hint
>>>> for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
>>>> pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
>>>> you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you
>>>> have
>>>> to (as you almost surely will).
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the first sigma lines are always at an inflection points. And ALL THE
>>> EXAMPLES YOU LINKED TO HAD THE LINES DRAWN AT INFLECTION POINTS. You're
>>> digging yourself into a huge hole here.
>>
>> So you have no idea what an inflection point is. LOL!
>
> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
> changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
> incorrect examples.
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:28:32 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 11:15 AM, in article
>> 18015575.141.1337192129200.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngo1, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL! The funny thing is you *really* think so. Ok, one more *huge* hint
>>>> for you. Huge. I mean, really, this is giving it away... but I am taking
>>>> pity on your ignorance and your self-humiliation and feeling a bit bad for
>>>> you. Consider the concept of an "inflection point". Look it up if you
>>>> have
>>>> to (as you almost surely will).
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the first sigma lines are always at an inflection points. And ALL THE
>>> EXAMPLES YOU LINKED TO HAD THE LINES DRAWN AT INFLECTION POINTS. You're
>>> digging yourself into a huge hole here.
>>
>> So you have no idea what an inflection point is. LOL!
>
> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
> changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
> incorrect examples.
LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after being
shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
I have never met anyone who goes so far out of their way to stay as ignorant
as you, cc. Wow. Just wow
shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
I have never met anyone who goes so far out of their way to stay as ignorant
as you, cc. Wow. Just wow
> Funny how you're now questioning the applications used to generate those
> graphs!
>
> Face it, you're wrong.
> graphs!
>
> Face it, you're wrong.
I think you really believe that... that is what makes you so funny.
> You've also lied repeatedly in this thread, and you don't understand how to do
> basic statistical analysis. You dug up a week old thread because you're so
> enraged that I keep linking to that hilarious video you made, showing your
> incompetence. Then you tried to change the subject with your hilarious
> misunderstand of standard deviation.
> basic statistical analysis. You dug up a week old thread because you're so
> enraged that I keep linking to that hilarious video you made, showing your
> incompetence. Then you tried to change the subject with your hilarious
> misunderstand of standard deviation.
Yawn. After proving himself completely ignorant and unable to admit to his
errors, cc again claims I am wrong in some way he cannot describe or
explain. Man, I better take his claims real seriously.
errors, cc again claims I am wrong in some way he cannot describe or
explain. Man, I better take his claims real seriously.
> By all means, keep this party going. You've been a source of entertainment in
> an otherwise slow week.
> an otherwise slow week.
cc:
-----
I have to show you how to take an average and standard
deviation?
-----
-----
I have to show you how to take an average and standard
deviation?
-----
It's area under the curve, not distance from center you
idiot. Jesus Christ, give up now.
-----
It is not distance from the mean. Repeat: it is not
idiot. Jesus Christ, give up now.
-----
distance from the mean.
Tattoo Vampire
May 24, 2012, 9:41:33โฏPM5/24/12
to
Snit wrote:
> But
In all seriousness, Snit... where in the world do you find the time to post
so often (and long) to Usenet?
--
Keyboard not found. Visualize "F1" to continue.
[tv]
> But
In all seriousness, Snit... where in the world do you find the time to post
so often (and long) to Usenet?
--
Keyboard not found. Visualize "F1" to continue.
[tv]
Steve Carroll
May 25, 2012, 7:19:49โฏPM5/25/12
to
On May 24, 7:41ย pm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> > But
>
> In all seriousness, Snit... where in the world do you find the time to post
> so often (and long) to Usenet?
Fact: Every time he has ever been asked this kind of question he
> Snit wrote:
> > But
>
> In all seriousness, Snit... where in the world do you find the time to post
> so often (and long) to Usenet?
doesn't respond for awhile... presumably to make it appear like he's
been "busy". You'll also notice that his posting schedule will wane
for a bit...but then it will snap right back. You can safely bet your
child's eyes on this ;)
For some unexplained reason he believes people are as stupid as he
needs them to be. Very weird.
Tattoo Vampire
May 25, 2012, 10:06:11โฏPM5/25/12
to
Steve Carroll wrote:
> Fact: Every time he has ever been asked this kind of question he
> doesn't respond for awhile... presumably to make it appear like he's
> been "busy". You'll also notice that his posting schedule will wane
> for a bit...but then it will snap right back. You can safely bet your
> child's eyes on this ;)
>
> For some unexplained reason he believes people are as stupid as he
> needs them to be. Very weird.
Come to think of it, you're right about his posting habits changing after
> Fact: Every time he has ever been asked this kind of question he
> doesn't respond for awhile... presumably to make it appear like he's
> been "busy". You'll also notice that his posting schedule will wane
> for a bit...but then it will snap right back. You can safely bet your
> child's eyes on this ;)
>
> For some unexplained reason he believes people are as stupid as he
> needs them to be. Very weird.
someone comments on the sheer volume of stuff he cranks out.
At least numb fuckhead trolls like d00fus don't pretend to be gainfully
employed as Snot does.
--
Regards,
[tv]
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
Snit
May 25, 2012, 10:20:21โฏPM5/25/12
to
On 5/25/12 7:06 PM, in article jppdqj$egj$1...@news.albasani.net, "Tattoo
your fictitious version of mine. I mean, really, I know you are sore losers
- but really, do you feel so poorly about yourself you *have* to advertise
your lack of self confidence so publicly every day?
--
๐๐๐
Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> Fact: Every time he has ever been asked this kind of question he
>> doesn't respond for awhile... presumably to make it appear like he's
>> been "busy". You'll also notice that his posting schedule will wane
>> for a bit...but then it will snap right back. You can safely bet your
>> child's eyes on this ;)
>>
>> For some unexplained reason he believes people are as stupid as he
>> needs them to be. Very weird.
>
> Come to think of it, you're right about his posting habits changing after
> someone comments on the sheer volume of stuff he cranks out.
>
> At least numb fuckhead trolls like d00fus don't pretend to be gainfully
> employed as Snot does.
You morons need to get a life... stop trying to live vicariously through
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> Fact: Every time he has ever been asked this kind of question he
>> doesn't respond for awhile... presumably to make it appear like he's
>> been "busy". You'll also notice that his posting schedule will wane
>> for a bit...but then it will snap right back. You can safely bet your
>> child's eyes on this ;)
>>
>> For some unexplained reason he believes people are as stupid as he
>> needs them to be. Very weird.
>
> Come to think of it, you're right about his posting habits changing after
> someone comments on the sheer volume of stuff he cranks out.
>
> At least numb fuckhead trolls like d00fus don't pretend to be gainfully
> employed as Snot does.
your fictitious version of mine. I mean, really, I know you are sore losers
- but really, do you feel so poorly about yourself you *have* to advertise
your lack of self confidence so publicly every day?
--
๐๐๐
William Poaster
May 26, 2012, 5:39:27โฏAM5/26/12
to
Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 26/5/2012 03:06, wrote:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> Fact: Every time he has ever been asked this kind of question he
>> doesn't respond for awhile... presumably to make it appear like he's
>> been "busy". You'll also notice that his posting schedule will wane
>> for a bit...but then it will snap right back. You can safely bet your
>> child's eyes on this ;)
Ah, so when Michael Snit Glasser is challenged about his " real work" &
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> Fact: Every time he has ever been asked this kind of question he
>> doesn't respond for awhile... presumably to make it appear like he's
>> been "busy". You'll also notice that his posting schedule will wane
>> for a bit...but then it will snap right back. You can safely bet your
>> child's eyes on this ;)
how he finds the time to post *so* many messages, he runs away.
>> For some unexplained reason he believes people are as stupid as he
>> needs them to be. Very weird.
> Come to think of it, you're right about his posting habits changing after
> someone comments on the sheer volume of stuff he cranks out.
>
> At least numb fuckhead trolls like d00fus don't pretend to be gainfully
> employed as Snot does.
--
Old age and guile will always beat youth & stupidity.
Wintrolls are idiots & many have great difficulty realising that to walk,
they need to put one foot in front of the other *repeatedly*,
& that they don't necessarily need to use their knuckles at all.
Steve Carroll
May 26, 2012, 2:29:34โฏPM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 3:39ย am, William Poaster <w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
> Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 26/5/2012 03:06, wrote:
>
> > Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> >> Fact: Every time he has ever been asked this kind of question he
> >> doesn't respond for awhile... presumably to make it appear like he's
> >> been "busy". You'll also notice that his posting schedule will wane
> >> for a bit...but then it will snap right back. You can safely bet your
> >> child's eyes on this ;)
>
> Ah, so when Michael Snit Glasser is challenged about his " real work" &
> how he finds the time to post *so* many messages, he runs away.
The irony here is that people like Hadron, in true herd-like fashion,
> Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 26/5/2012 03:06, wrote:
>
> > Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> >> Fact: Every time he has ever been asked this kind of question he
> >> doesn't respond for awhile... presumably to make it appear like he's
> >> been "busy". You'll also notice that his posting schedule will wane
> >> for a bit...but then it will snap right back. You can safely bet your
> >> child's eyes on this ;)
>
> Ah, so when Michael Snit Glasser is challenged about his " real work" &
> how he finds the time to post *so* many messages, he runs away.
cover for people like Snit (mainly by looking the other way) as they
call you Linux guys the "herd". What these hypocrites have going is
every bit the "herd" they claim for others. If Hadron had a beef and a
brain he'd leave Snit out of certain statements he makes because
Snit's presence immediately turns Hadron into a member of Snit's
'hypocrisy herd' without his realizing it. As he said, he hasn't
'seen" Snit doing bad things or some such... but that's his f*cking
problem for talking without knowing the facts.
Snit
May 26, 2012, 4:24:25โฏPM5/26/12
to
On 5/26/12 2:39 AM, in article fvk699-...@alpha-one.wpnetwork.org,
it. Such questions are asked, almost exclusively, to turn the topic from
Linux and technology - the topics that most scare the herd.
>>> For some unexplained reason he believes people are as stupid as he
>>> needs them to be. Very weird.
>
> Seems a common trait amongst anti-linux trolls & fuckwits.
Yawn. I wish you and your herd were *not* stupid... I wish you would stop
lying. I am not the one saying I want anyone to *be* stupid... that is
Carroll's claim. Not mine. He is projecting - he wants people to be stupid
enough to not only be sucked into his BS off topic comments about me but to
be stupid enough to believe him.
Are you that stupid? Simple question: are you stupid enough to believe
Carroll?
>> Come to think of it, you're right about his posting habits changing after
>> someone comments on the sheer volume of stuff he cranks out.
>>
>> At least numb fuckhead trolls like d00fus don't pretend to be gainfully
>> employed as Snot does.
>
> Who'd employ them, really?
Carroll's ex-girlfriend (or current or whatever - who cares) tracked me down
to one of the colleges I work for. Carroll himself has posted how to find
out what classes I am teaching and when (for that one college). If Carroll
is denying he knows I work he is lying... though I have not been reading
enough of his drivel to see if he has made that direct claim. But the
bottom line is that he knows I work and even threatened to contact my
employer and claim I was impersonating the person his then-girlfriend
bragged about tracking me down to be.
Carroll has no reasoned response or defense for his outrageous behavior.
But you are of the herd, and the herd fears me, so you will side with anyone
who attacks me - no matter how dishonest the attack.
Then you wonder why I generally avoid any discussion of my personal life...
as you show you are happy when people lie about it.
Just how stupid are you? Stupid enough to at least pretend to believe
Carroll... that much is clear.
--
๐๐๐
"William Poaster" <w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
> Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 26/5/2012 03:06, wrote:
>
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> Fact: Every time he has ever been asked this kind of question he
>>> doesn't respond for awhile... presumably to make it appear like he's
>>> been "busy". You'll also notice that his posting schedule will wane
>>> for a bit...but then it will snap right back. You can safely bet your
>>> child's eyes on this ;)
>
> Ah, so when Michael Snit Glasser is challenged about his " real work" &
> how he finds the time to post *so* many messages, he runs away.
My personal life is not relevant. I generally ignore any questions about
> Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 26/5/2012 03:06, wrote:
>
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> Fact: Every time he has ever been asked this kind of question he
>>> doesn't respond for awhile... presumably to make it appear like he's
>>> been "busy". You'll also notice that his posting schedule will wane
>>> for a bit...but then it will snap right back. You can safely bet your
>>> child's eyes on this ;)
>
> Ah, so when Michael Snit Glasser is challenged about his " real work" &
> how he finds the time to post *so* many messages, he runs away.
it. Such questions are asked, almost exclusively, to turn the topic from
Linux and technology - the topics that most scare the herd.
>>> For some unexplained reason he believes people are as stupid as he
>>> needs them to be. Very weird.
>
> Seems a common trait amongst anti-linux trolls & fuckwits.
lying. I am not the one saying I want anyone to *be* stupid... that is
Carroll's claim. Not mine. He is projecting - he wants people to be stupid
enough to not only be sucked into his BS off topic comments about me but to
be stupid enough to believe him.
Are you that stupid? Simple question: are you stupid enough to believe
Carroll?
>> Come to think of it, you're right about his posting habits changing after
>> someone comments on the sheer volume of stuff he cranks out.
>>
>> At least numb fuckhead trolls like d00fus don't pretend to be gainfully
>> employed as Snot does.
>
> Who'd employ them, really?
to one of the colleges I work for. Carroll himself has posted how to find
out what classes I am teaching and when (for that one college). If Carroll
is denying he knows I work he is lying... though I have not been reading
enough of his drivel to see if he has made that direct claim. But the
bottom line is that he knows I work and even threatened to contact my
employer and claim I was impersonating the person his then-girlfriend
bragged about tracking me down to be.
Carroll has no reasoned response or defense for his outrageous behavior.
But you are of the herd, and the herd fears me, so you will side with anyone
who attacks me - no matter how dishonest the attack.
Then you wonder why I generally avoid any discussion of my personal life...
as you show you are happy when people lie about it.
Just how stupid are you? Stupid enough to at least pretend to believe
Carroll... that much is clear.
--
๐๐๐
Tattoo Vampire
May 26, 2012, 9:33:03โฏPM5/26/12
to
Snit wrote:
> Then you wonder why I generally avoid any discussion of my personal life...
Your personal life apparently consists of posting to Usenet hundreds of
> Then you wonder why I generally avoid any discussion of my personal life...
times a month.
Tattoo Vampire
May 26, 2012, 9:34:20โฏPM5/26/12
to
Snit wrote:
> You morons need to get a life... stop trying to live vicariously through
> your fictitious version of mine. I mean, really, I know you are sore losers
> - but really, do you feel so poorly about yourself you *have* to advertise
> your lack of self confidence so publicly every day?
Quit projecting, Mikey.
> You morons need to get a life... stop trying to live vicariously through
> your fictitious version of mine. I mean, really, I know you are sore losers
> - but really, do you feel so poorly about yourself you *have* to advertise
> your lack of self confidence so publicly every day?
Say, do you ever go outside? You know, leave the house and stuff?
Tattoo Vampire
May 26, 2012, 9:34:49โฏPM5/26/12
to
William Poaster wrote:
> Who'd employ them, really?
Apparently no one, since they seem to be perched here like buzzards most of
> Who'd employ them, really?
the time.
Snit
May 27, 2012, 12:22:53โฏAM5/27/12
to
On 5/26/12 6:33 PM, in article 1xo7piyqijgr$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
certainly *not* the case with me. You are projecting.
--
๐๐๐
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Then you wonder why I generally avoid any discussion of my personal life...
>
> Your personal life apparently consists of posting to Usenet hundreds of
> times a month.
While to you Usenet might be all there is to a personal life, that is
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Then you wonder why I generally avoid any discussion of my personal life...
>
> Your personal life apparently consists of posting to Usenet hundreds of
> times a month.
certainly *not* the case with me. You are projecting.
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 27, 2012, 12:24:06โฏAM5/27/12
to
On 5/26/12 6:34 PM, in article 2z4qgnjszobt$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
that to them and would not. All comes down to them having lost some Usenet
debates so now they cry. Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
especially this absurd group. They should grow up.
--
๐๐๐
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> You morons need to get a life... stop trying to live vicariously through
>> your fictitious version of mine. I mean, really, I know you are sore losers
>> - but really, do you feel so poorly about yourself you *have* to advertise
>> your lack of self confidence so publicly every day?
>
> Quit projecting, Mikey.
They are the ones making up derogatory stories about my life. I do not do
> Snit wrote:
>
>> You morons need to get a life... stop trying to live vicariously through
>> your fictitious version of mine. I mean, really, I know you are sore losers
>> - but really, do you feel so poorly about yourself you *have* to advertise
>> your lack of self confidence so publicly every day?
>
> Quit projecting, Mikey.
that to them and would not. All comes down to them having lost some Usenet
debates so now they cry. Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
especially this absurd group. They should grow up.
--
๐๐๐
Tattoo Vampire
May 27, 2012, 1:27:51โฏAM5/27/12
to
Snit wrote:
> Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
> especially this absurd group.
That's extremely funny coming from you, one of the most prolific posters to
> Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
> especially this absurd group.
COLA of all time.
Tattoo Vampire
May 27, 2012, 1:28:44โฏAM5/27/12
to
Snit wrote:
> While to you Usenet might be all there is to a personal life, that is
> certainly *not* the case with me. You are projecting.
The numbers say it all.
> While to you Usenet might be all there is to a personal life, that is
> certainly *not* the case with me. You are projecting.
Snit
May 27, 2012, 1:35:51โฏAM5/27/12
to
On 5/26/12 10:28 PM, in article 1ocgkqq1jgbmb$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
it because you fear talking about Linux and technology.
--
๐๐๐
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> While to you Usenet might be all there is to a personal life, that is
>> certainly *not* the case with me. You are projecting.
>
> The numbers say it all.
I cannot stop you and other trolls from making up stories about me. You do
> Snit wrote:
>
>> While to you Usenet might be all there is to a personal life, that is
>> certainly *not* the case with me. You are projecting.
>
> The numbers say it all.
it because you fear talking about Linux and technology.
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 27, 2012, 1:59:05โฏAM5/27/12
to
On 5/26/12 10:27 PM, in article ijfysobtjqrl$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
that important. You and your idiot trolls are the one who make that claim.
--
๐๐๐
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
>> especially this absurd group.
>
> That's extremely funny coming from you, one of the most prolific posters to
> COLA of all time.
Who cares how often you post? I am not the one who is claiming Usenet is
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
>> especially this absurd group.
>
> That's extremely funny coming from you, one of the most prolific posters to
> COLA of all time.
that important. You and your idiot trolls are the one who make that claim.
--
๐๐๐
William Poaster
May 27, 2012, 5:38:45โฏAM5/27/12
to
Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 27/5/2012 06:27, wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
>> especially this absurd group.
>
> That's extremely funny coming from you, one of the most prolific posters to
> COLA of all time.
I'll say it is, damn funny. LOL
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
>> especially this absurd group.
>
> That's extremely funny coming from you, one of the most prolific posters to
> COLA of all time.
Michael Snit Glasser, in his case "The Prescott Computer Guy" means he's
glued to his PC stalking & posting thousands of message a month!
--
Micro$oft, the company that makes spreading malware easy.
I think we blew it!
-- Robert E. Lee after Gettysburg.--
Tattoo Vampire
May 27, 2012, 10:50:03โฏAM5/27/12
to
William Poaster wrote:
> I'll say it is, damn funny. LOL
> Michael Snit Glasser, in his case "The Prescott Computer Guy" means he's
> glued to his PC stalking & posting thousands of message a month!
He should register prescottusenetguy.org :-D
> I'll say it is, damn funny. LOL
> Michael Snit Glasser, in his case "The Prescott Computer Guy" means he's
> glued to his PC stalking & posting thousands of message a month!
Foster
May 27, 2012, 10:51:19โฏAM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 10:50:03 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> He should register prescottusenetguy.org :-D
Do you ever post anything useful TV?
> He should register prescottusenetguy.org :-D
chrisv
May 29, 2012, 8:47:42โฏAM5/29/12
to
Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>Snit wrote:
*thread plonk*
>Snit wrote:
*thread plonk*
Steve Carroll
May 30, 2012, 12:41:00โฏAM5/30/12
to
On May 27, 8:50ย am, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> William Poaster wrote:
> > I'll say it is, damn funny. LOL
> > Michael Snit Glasser, in his case "The Prescott Computer Guy" means he's
> > glued to his PC stalking & posting thousands of message a month!
>
> He should register prescottusenetguy.org :-D
We've already seen enough of Snit's domain reg follies ;)
> William Poaster wrote:
> > I'll say it is, damn funny. LOL
> > Michael Snit Glasser, in his case "The Prescott Computer Guy" means he's
> > glued to his PC stalking & posting thousands of message a month!
>
> He should register prescottusenetguy.org :-D
Right, Mr. Honest and Honorable (Snit)? LOL!
Snit
May 31, 2012, 7:35:14โฏPM5/31/12
to
On 5/21/12 10:28 AM, in article
fab82506-3045-4229...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
fab82506-3045-4229...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second
>>>>> derivative changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in
>>>>> your supposed incorrect examples.
>>>>>
>>>> LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after
>>>> being shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
>>>
>>>>> derivative changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in
>>>>> your supposed incorrect examples.
>>>>>
>>>> LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after
>>>> being shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
>>>
>>> Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious. Please, post
>>> more on this subject.
>>>
>> Oh, do tell: what do you think I got wrong. By all means, be as clear as you
>> know how.
>
> You're links to bad examples, clearly aren't bad examples as the lines are at
> the inflection points.
Come on, cc, can't you now admit you were flat out wrong about this? Now
>>> more on this subject.
>>>
>> Oh, do tell: what do you think I got wrong. By all means, be as clear as you
>> know how.
>
> You're links to bad examples, clearly aren't bad examples as the lines are at
> the inflection points.
that I have shown you that an inflection point can be visually identified by
where the concavity changes, do you not see why the top image at that link
is *clearly* wrong?
Below you go on and on and on about how you just know I must have been
wrong... are you *still* sticking to that?
> I trust PhD Math professors, the software they use, and finally (and the
> least) my own eyes.
drawn at the inflection points? Is that really what your "own eyes" tell
you? If so you need glasses!
> You're discounting professionals using professional software in most of those
> links, by hand drawing and eyeballing inflections points in the incorrect spot
> (not to mention trying to compare inflections points on two different normal
> distributions).
inflection points? Remember: it is where the concavity of the curve changes
(as I have told you and shown you references to back it). It is a pretty
trivial thing to see - once you understand it.
And, clearly, when you posted the comments I am replying to you did *not*
understand this. But you will never admit to it - which makes you very,
very funny to me.
Yeah, I admit it: that does not speak particularly well of me - but when
arrogant, dishonest, miserable cretins such as yourself go out of your way
to belittle me and lie about me, I *do* enjoy shoving your nose in how very,
very wrong you are about simple concepts.
> I noticed you had another minor hissy fit in my absense, starting many more
> topics on things that have been addressed before. Hilarious, but there's
> really no more reason to talk about this little side discussion.
how much you will lie and deny. It is not as if you will suddenly admit
your comments showed *obvious* ignorance about simple facts. You will not -
that is what makes you so funny!
> You don't know how to do a statistical analysis, as seen from your video below
> and the fact that you try to eyeball inflection points and think you can do it
> better than the software packages these professionals (in most cases. Some
> links were students) were using to generate the graphs.
where graphs get it wrong (at least when they are as wrong as the ones I
showed you as being wrong... I mean, really, they were pretty bad!)
> I look foward to whatever video/crayon drawing you try to pass off as serious
> work next. Keep the laughs coming.
for a while. If you want the mocking to end, just admit to your errors or,
at the very least, stop lying about me. Heck, an apology for your
accusations and insults would be appropriate to - and include in your
apology an admission how it was wrong of you to even claim to contact my
employer (a claim you made in email). Yeah, I know you denied it... and now
your errors are being mocked publicly.
See how your poor behavior, open dishonesty, and absurd insults end up
coming back to bite you on your arse?
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 31, 2012, 8:02:31โฏPM5/31/12
to
On 5/15/12 7:27 AM, in article
16525566.611.1337092029698.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndz2, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Riiiiiight: incorrectly in some way you cannot explain and that is in exact
>> line with the directions provided by the developers of the software. Yeah,
>> that is some *strong* argument you just made there. LOL!
>
> I followed the exact same directions provided by the developers, and I used
> the exact same software. That is not the issue, as has been explained to you
> numerous times.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
You keep making this claim - but then ignore the proof you are wrong.
And I find that funny. :)
--
๐๐๐
16525566.611.1337092029698.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndz2, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Riiiiiight: incorrectly in some way you cannot explain and that is in exact
>> line with the directions provided by the developers of the software. Yeah,
>> that is some *strong* argument you just made there. LOL!
>
> I followed the exact same directions provided by the developers, and I used
> the exact same software. That is not the issue, as has been explained to you
> numerous times.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
You keep making this claim - but then ignore the proof you are wrong.
And I find that funny. :)
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 31, 2012, 8:07:15โฏPM5/31/12
to
On 5/16/12 9:26 AM, in article
1803340.1853.1337185618834.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngr17, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:53:03 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Take a look at this image:
>> <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
>>
>> It is from this site: <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml>
>>
>> The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect. Can
>> you explain why? I bet not. I can... and can teach a grade school student
>> to recognize when they are correct or not (or at least roughly so). It
>> really is that easy.
>>
>> But I bet you have no idea. Hey, you brought up the topic of personal
>> knowledge in relation to statistics, specifically mentioning the concept of
>> a standard deviation.
>>
>> I bet you have no clue. One chance to prove me wrong. The ball is in your
>> court. But, face it, all you will do is run - but you have no clue.
>>
>> Hey, because I am such a nice guy, when you blow it - and you almost
>> certainly will - I will provide you with an image that is correct (or at
>> least apparently so). And then you will *still* not see the problem... at
>> least I bet not.
>>
>> Yeah, the fact you are clueless is just to be expected. You really are just
>> blustering.
>
> There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird axis labeling.
Now that you know the line *should* be at the inflection point, and that the
inflection point can be visually recognized by where the concavity changes,
can you see why the lines (color changes) are wrong?
It is pretty trivial to see... are you denying you can see it?
> Red is +/- 1 sigma (68%) Red and Green are +/- 2 sigma (95%) and Red, Green
> and Blue are +/- 3 sigma (99%). It's the exact same graph as:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg
That one looks correct to me. It is at least not grossly and obviously wrong
like the one I point to, above.
> http://www.spcforexcel.com/explaining-standard-deviation#standard-deviation
The ones at the bottom of that page look correct to me. They are at least
not grossly and obviously wrong like the one I point to, above.
> It's a typical graph of standard deviation of a normal distribution. I would
> love to hear your thoughts on why the image is incorrect.
You have now heard my thoughts... the line / color change is not at the
inflection point (where the concavity changes). When looking at the image
it is quite clearly incorrect (though some of my other examples are even
more incorrect):
<http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
Are you able to see this or not?
--
๐๐๐
1803340.1853.1337185618834.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngr17, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:53:03 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Take a look at this image:
>> <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
>>
>> It is from this site: <http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml>
>>
>> The claimed lines for the standard deviations are clearly incorrect. Can
>> you explain why? I bet not. I can... and can teach a grade school student
>> to recognize when they are correct or not (or at least roughly so). It
>> really is that easy.
>>
>> But I bet you have no idea. Hey, you brought up the topic of personal
>> knowledge in relation to statistics, specifically mentioning the concept of
>> a standard deviation.
>>
>> I bet you have no clue. One chance to prove me wrong. The ball is in your
>> court. But, face it, all you will do is run - but you have no clue.
>>
>> Hey, because I am such a nice guy, when you blow it - and you almost
>> certainly will - I will provide you with an image that is correct (or at
>> least apparently so). And then you will *still* not see the problem... at
>> least I bet not.
>>
>> Yeah, the fact you are clueless is just to be expected. You really are just
>> blustering.
>
> There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird axis labeling.
Now that you know the line *should* be at the inflection point, and that the
inflection point can be visually recognized by where the concavity changes,
can you see why the lines (color changes) are wrong?
It is pretty trivial to see... are you denying you can see it?
> Red is +/- 1 sigma (68%) Red and Green are +/- 2 sigma (95%) and Red, Green
> and Blue are +/- 3 sigma (99%). It's the exact same graph as:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg
That one looks correct to me. It is at least not grossly and obviously wrong
like the one I point to, above.
> http://www.spcforexcel.com/explaining-standard-deviation#standard-deviation
The ones at the bottom of that page look correct to me. They are at least
not grossly and obviously wrong like the one I point to, above.
> It's a typical graph of standard deviation of a normal distribution. I would
> love to hear your thoughts on why the image is incorrect.
You have now heard my thoughts... the line / color change is not at the
inflection point (where the concavity changes). When looking at the image
it is quite clearly incorrect (though some of my other examples are even
more incorrect):
<http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif>
Are you able to see this or not?
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 31, 2012, 8:14:34โฏPM5/31/12
to
On 5/16/12 10:17 AM, in article
1972849.1460.1337188666952.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmb39, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:51:11 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey, I *am* a nice guy, so more examples of incorrect images where the
>> standard deviation is shown incorrectly:
>> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
>> From:
>> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>
>>
>> And: <http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>
>> From: <http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>
>>
>> And: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
>> From: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
>> (Wow... that one is really bad... maybe it will give you a hint. But I
>> doubt it... I suspect you still will have no idea why it is clearly wrong).
>>
>> You see, cc, you might know how to calculate a standard deviation - know the
>> math or be able to look up the formula - but you do not really understand
>> what it is you are calculating.
>
> LOL!!!! All of those links are fine.
Do you see, now, why they are not? Why the lines are not drawn at the
inflection points (where the concavity changes)? To be more specific:
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
The red to green color change is too close to the mean. Fairly easy to see.
<http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>
Again: The red to green color change is too close to the mean. Fairly easy
to see.
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
This one is the easiest to see. The sigma lines are drawn *far* too far
from the mean - way out from the inflection point (I show this more here:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>). With the top two, at a glance,
I can see where you *might* miss the error, but on this one there is just no
doubt... those lines are *obviously* wrong. Very, very wrong.
You claimed they were "fine".
Do you see your mistake yet?
> The first sigma lines cover 68% of the area UNDER THE CURVE. Therefore taller
> normal distributions will have lines that are closer, and flatter curvers will
> have lines that are farther apart. Congratulations on a full display of
> ignorance.
You do realize nobody said that the lines would not be closer or further
based on the size and proportions of the bell curve... right? You do
realize your display of "knowledge" there just served to show you had no
idea what you were looking for. Right? Come on, cc, you *have* to know
this by now - not even you can be *that* ignorant.
> If you would like to prove, on any single one of the links you call incorrect,
> that the first sigma lines do not bound an area that is 68.2% of the area
> UNDER THE CURVE, then I would like to see it.
Easy: esp. with the last the lines are not at the inflection point. It is
at the inflection points where you would get the correct percentages.
> This is just too hysterical.
Absolutely agreed. And mocking you and your errors, given your lying and
insulting of me, is a true joy. :)
--
๐๐๐
1972849.1460.1337188666952.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmb39, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:51:11 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey, I *am* a nice guy, so more examples of incorrect images where the
>> standard deviation is shown incorrectly:
>> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
>> From:
>> <http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>
>>
>> And: <http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>
>> From: <http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>
>>
>> And: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
>> From: <http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
>> (Wow... that one is really bad... maybe it will give you a hint. But I
>> doubt it... I suspect you still will have no idea why it is clearly wrong).
>>
>> You see, cc, you might know how to calculate a standard deviation - know the
>> math or be able to look up the formula - but you do not really understand
>> what it is you are calculating.
>
> LOL!!!! All of those links are fine.
Do you see, now, why they are not? Why the lines are not drawn at the
inflection points (where the concavity changes)? To be more specific:
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
The red to green color change is too close to the mean. Fairly easy to see.
<http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>
Again: The red to green color change is too close to the mean. Fairly easy
to see.
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
This one is the easiest to see. The sigma lines are drawn *far* too far
from the mean - way out from the inflection point (I show this more here:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>). With the top two, at a glance,
I can see where you *might* miss the error, but on this one there is just no
doubt... those lines are *obviously* wrong. Very, very wrong.
You claimed they were "fine".
Do you see your mistake yet?
> The first sigma lines cover 68% of the area UNDER THE CURVE. Therefore taller
> normal distributions will have lines that are closer, and flatter curvers will
> have lines that are farther apart. Congratulations on a full display of
> ignorance.
You do realize nobody said that the lines would not be closer or further
based on the size and proportions of the bell curve... right? You do
realize your display of "knowledge" there just served to show you had no
idea what you were looking for. Right? Come on, cc, you *have* to know
this by now - not even you can be *that* ignorant.
> If you would like to prove, on any single one of the links you call incorrect,
> that the first sigma lines do not bound an area that is 68.2% of the area
> UNDER THE CURVE, then I would like to see it.
Easy: esp. with the last the lines are not at the inflection point. It is
at the inflection points where you would get the correct percentages.
> This is just too hysterical.
Absolutely agreed. And mocking you and your errors, given your lying and
insulting of me, is a true joy. :)
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 31, 2012, 8:48:57โฏPM5/31/12
to
On 5/16/12 10:41 AM, in article
29040477.645.1337190069327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yneh4, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:25:48 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> Ok, time to give you a hint: it *very much is* the "distance from the
>> center"... which, by the way, is generally referred to as the "mean" (which
>> is not the same way you are a mean person, but the average). Again: There
>> is a very specific distance from the mean - one which is easy to see on a
>> graph - which you clearly are ignorant about. And that is a very clear
>> hint... maybe even you can figure out your error from there (happy
>> Googling!).
>
> Holy Shit! You are completely wrong! Standard deviation for a normal
> distribution is the percentage of the area UNDER THE CURVE! It is not distance
> from the mean. Repeat: it is not distance from the mean.
Do you see now where I was *exactly* right: where it is a very specific
distance from the mean which is easy to see on a graph (at least with basic
precision)... the inflection point, or where the concavity changes.
You denied this... but now that you have been shown massive amounts of
evidence can you not admit you were wrong?
Of course you cannot admit to it - you *hate* admitting you were wrong...
even though you *clearly* were.
And given what a lying, demeaning jerk you are I *love* it. Yeah, I really
enjoy shoving your nose in your mess.
--
๐๐๐
29040477.645.1337190069327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yneh4, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:25:48 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> Ok, time to give you a hint: it *very much is* the "distance from the
>> center"... which, by the way, is generally referred to as the "mean" (which
>> is not the same way you are a mean person, but the average). Again: There
>> is a very specific distance from the mean - one which is easy to see on a
>> graph - which you clearly are ignorant about. And that is a very clear
>> hint... maybe even you can figure out your error from there (happy
>> Googling!).
>
> Holy Shit! You are completely wrong! Standard deviation for a normal
> distribution is the percentage of the area UNDER THE CURVE! It is not distance
> from the mean. Repeat: it is not distance from the mean.
Do you see now where I was *exactly* right: where it is a very specific
distance from the mean which is easy to see on a graph (at least with basic
precision)... the inflection point, or where the concavity changes.
You denied this... but now that you have been shown massive amounts of
evidence can you not admit you were wrong?
Of course you cannot admit to it - you *hate* admitting you were wrong...
even though you *clearly* were.
And given what a lying, demeaning jerk you are I *love* it. Yeah, I really
enjoy shoving your nose in your mess.
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 31, 2012, 8:51:43โฏPM5/31/12
to
On 5/16/12 11:01 AM, in article
8773420.809.1337191279615.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv35, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve - which is easy to
>> see when the images screw it up, esp. when they do so really badly, like in
>> some of the ones I showed you.
>>
>> But you refuse to admit you have no clue why they are wrong.
>>
> They are not wrong. Where the sigma lines are drawn has everything to do with
> the dataset and shape of the bell curve. You're an absolutely incorrect here,
> and it's hysterical.
Do you see now why I was (and am) correct: it is easy to see when the image
is screwed up (at least when the screw up is significant, as in this
example: <http://goo.gl/HtsTx>).
I mean, really, now that you know to look for where the concavity changes,
can't you admit you can see where they image is wrong? Here is more info on
that if you need it: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>.
Face it, cc, it is not as if you were wrong just once or twice - you kept
making the same *clearly* incorrect claim and saying it was hysterical how
wrong I was... when I was *clearly* right.
Don't you find that at least a little bit funny? I know I do!
--
๐๐๐
8773420.809.1337191279615.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv35, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve - which is easy to
>> see when the images screw it up, esp. when they do so really badly, like in
>> some of the ones I showed you.
>>
>> But you refuse to admit you have no clue why they are wrong.
>>
> They are not wrong. Where the sigma lines are drawn has everything to do with
> the dataset and shape of the bell curve. You're an absolutely incorrect here,
> and it's hysterical.
Do you see now why I was (and am) correct: it is easy to see when the image
is screwed up (at least when the screw up is significant, as in this
example: <http://goo.gl/HtsTx>).
I mean, really, now that you know to look for where the concavity changes,
can't you admit you can see where they image is wrong? Here is more info on
that if you need it: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>.
Face it, cc, it is not as if you were wrong just once or twice - you kept
making the same *clearly* incorrect claim and saying it was hysterical how
wrong I was... when I was *clearly* right.
Don't you find that at least a little bit funny? I know I do!
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 31, 2012, 8:58:03โฏPM5/31/12
to
On 5/16/12 11:39 AM, in article
27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> So you have no idea what an inflection point is. LOL!
changes, can you see why you above claim is wrong? Can you see, for
example, where the top image at the following link is incorrect:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
I showed you several examples where the images were incorrect - but this one
is just *way* off. Come on, cc, can't you admit to it yet?
No.
You will not.
No matter how wrong you are - and how many times you make the same erroneous
claim - you will *never* admit to your error. In fact, it makes it harder
for you to admit how wrong you are because you made your claim so many times
and so emphatically.
You just are not willing to eat crow and admit to your mistake.
But I will laugh at you for it - not just because you were so cock sure
(hey, we all make mistakes) but because you repeatedly lie about me and spew
absurd insults about me.
And now you have become my laughing stock... and while I am sure the rest of
COLA is bored to tears over this and is ignoring all of my posts to you
where I am rubbing your nose in your errors, I know *you* are looking at the
posts... and I know you are sitting there *knowing* how wrong you are and
were.
And you know I am right about how you are too ashamed to admit to your
mistake. So you and I get to know how much you are stewing in your
humiliation. Oh, you will deny it... no need to even do so, I know you will
not admit to it - but we both know it is true.
You made a fool of yourself and you did it as you lied about me repeatedly
and made up silly insults. And now you are sitting there humiliated,
knowing the target of your trolling has, again, proved you massively wrong
and is getting a big kick out of it.
So I let you know how much I enjoy it... knowing my joy will be your
displeasure.
And knowing you will try to hide it and will deny it and will run from it...
but, deep down, you know I am exactly correct.
And I love it.
--
๐๐๐
27931839.2107.1337193585938.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> So you have no idea what an inflection point is. LOL!
>
> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
> changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
> incorrect examples.
Now that you know an inflection point is the place where the concavity
> I know exactly what an inflection point is. It's where the second derivative
> changes sign, and it's exactly where the sigma lines are in your supposed
> incorrect examples.
changes, can you see why you above claim is wrong? Can you see, for
example, where the top image at the following link is incorrect:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
I showed you several examples where the images were incorrect - but this one
is just *way* off. Come on, cc, can't you admit to it yet?
No.
You will not.
No matter how wrong you are - and how many times you make the same erroneous
claim - you will *never* admit to your error. In fact, it makes it harder
for you to admit how wrong you are because you made your claim so many times
and so emphatically.
You just are not willing to eat crow and admit to your mistake.
But I will laugh at you for it - not just because you were so cock sure
(hey, we all make mistakes) but because you repeatedly lie about me and spew
absurd insults about me.
And now you have become my laughing stock... and while I am sure the rest of
COLA is bored to tears over this and is ignoring all of my posts to you
where I am rubbing your nose in your errors, I know *you* are looking at the
posts... and I know you are sitting there *knowing* how wrong you are and
were.
And you know I am right about how you are too ashamed to admit to your
mistake. So you and I get to know how much you are stewing in your
humiliation. Oh, you will deny it... no need to even do so, I know you will
not admit to it - but we both know it is true.
You made a fool of yourself and you did it as you lied about me repeatedly
and made up silly insults. And now you are sitting there humiliated,
knowing the target of your trolling has, again, proved you massively wrong
and is getting a big kick out of it.
So I let you know how much I enjoy it... knowing my joy will be your
displeasure.
And knowing you will try to hide it and will deny it and will run from it...
but, deep down, you know I am exactly correct.
And I love it.
--
๐๐๐
Snit
May 31, 2012, 9:06:46โฏPM5/31/12
to
On 5/16/12 12:29 PM, in article
3448022.14.1337196583871.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynam14, "cc"
the concavity of the curve changes. You clearly did not know this, hence
the reason you could not tell the image at the top of this link was drawn
incorrectly:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
Yeah, you now claim to understand what an inflection point is - and maybe
you do - but clearly you did not. And the concept is key to understanding
what a standard deviation is. And you are the one who made up stories about
me not knowing what a standard deviation is... so I am having fun rubbing
your nose in your own mess.
And I love it.
Care to just admit you were ignorant and wrong? Care to apologize for your
false accusations and lies about me?
Ok, even for me this is getting to be a bit much... I have rubbed your nose
in your mess a whole lot. And, predictably, you have read every one of my
messages and are now stewing in your humiliation.
Perhaps I should give you a break for a while. But you are fun to prove
wrong - you are always so eager to try to sound knowledgeable about topics
you are clearly ignorant about... and so eager to lie about and belittle
those who clearly know more than you.
I will likely keep asking you if you can see where the top image in the
above link is wrong, but other than that it is getting to the point where
this is getting old. You have had your lies and your BS and your cock-sure
attitude shoved down your throat in a pretty massive way. To do more might
be getting a bit cruel... and as much as I enjoy mocking your arrogance in
being so wrong, and as much as I like to see you squirm and like to shove
your nose in your own mess, I am a nice guy and do not want to scar you too
badly.
I want to give you a chance to learn and grow from this. Maybe on the next
topic we disagree about you will learn to *think* before you make absurd
insults and start lying about me... and you will stop pretending to have
knowledge about topics you are clearly ignorant about.
Deal? Can you do that? No need to even answer... to do so you would have
to admit to some facts you just are not willing to admit to. But try to
work on these things... and I will let bygones be bygones. Just stop
dancing the same silly dance and you will feel better about yourself.
--
๐๐๐
3448022.14.1337196583871.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynam14, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after being
>> shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
>
> Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious. Please, post more
> on this subject.
I have been and will do so again if you want! The inflection point is where
>> LOL! The funny thing is you might actually believe this... even after being
>> shown this: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
>
> Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious. Please, post more
> on this subject.
the concavity of the curve changes. You clearly did not know this, hence
the reason you could not tell the image at the top of this link was drawn
incorrectly:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png>
Yeah, you now claim to understand what an inflection point is - and maybe
you do - but clearly you did not. And the concept is key to understanding
what a standard deviation is. And you are the one who made up stories about
me not knowing what a standard deviation is... so I am having fun rubbing
your nose in your own mess.
And I love it.
Care to just admit you were ignorant and wrong? Care to apologize for your
false accusations and lies about me?
Ok, even for me this is getting to be a bit much... I have rubbed your nose
in your mess a whole lot. And, predictably, you have read every one of my
messages and are now stewing in your humiliation.
Perhaps I should give you a break for a while. But you are fun to prove
wrong - you are always so eager to try to sound knowledgeable about topics
you are clearly ignorant about... and so eager to lie about and belittle
those who clearly know more than you.
I will likely keep asking you if you can see where the top image in the
above link is wrong, but other than that it is getting to the point where
this is getting old. You have had your lies and your BS and your cock-sure
attitude shoved down your throat in a pretty massive way. To do more might
be getting a bit cruel... and as much as I enjoy mocking your arrogance in
being so wrong, and as much as I like to see you squirm and like to shove
your nose in your own mess, I am a nice guy and do not want to scar you too
badly.
I want to give you a chance to learn and grow from this. Maybe on the next
topic we disagree about you will learn to *think* before you make absurd
insults and start lying about me... and you will stop pretending to have
knowledge about topics you are clearly ignorant about.
Deal? Can you do that? No need to even answer... to do so you would have
to admit to some facts you just are not willing to admit to. But try to
work on these things... and I will let bygones be bygones. Just stop
dancing the same silly dance and you will feel better about yourself.
--
๐๐๐
owl
Jun 1, 2012, 1:43:51โฏAM6/1/12
to
post of the decade
TomB
Jun 1, 2012, 11:58:25โฏAM6/1/12
to
On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
This coming from a guy who complains about people snipping stuff
because they don't feel like being on usenet 24/7 ;-)
--
linux: the choice of a GNU generation
(k...@cis.ufl.edu put this on Tshirts in '93)
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
>
> post of the decade
Hehe, no kidding :-)
>
>> Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
>
> post of the decade
This coming from a guy who complains about people snipping stuff
because they don't feel like being on usenet 24/7 ;-)
--
linux: the choice of a GNU generation
(k...@cis.ufl.edu put this on Tshirts in '93)
Snit
Jun 1, 2012, 12:06:26โฏPM6/1/12
to
On 6/1/12 8:58 AM, in article 201206011...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
I have *never* complained about people snipping stuff *because they don't
feel like being on usenet 24/7".
Again: you are lying... and doing so to please the herd. It is not as if
you really believe the BS you spew... you just are sucking up.
--
๐๐๐
<tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
>>
>> post of the decade
>
> Hehe, no kidding :-)
>
> This coming from a guy who complains about people snipping stuff
> because they don't feel like being on usenet 24/7 ;-)
You made that up... yes, you lied.
> On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
>>
>> post of the decade
>
> Hehe, no kidding :-)
>
> This coming from a guy who complains about people snipping stuff
> because they don't feel like being on usenet 24/7 ;-)
I have *never* complained about people snipping stuff *because they don't
feel like being on usenet 24/7".
Again: you are lying... and doing so to please the herd. It is not as if
you really believe the BS you spew... you just are sucking up.
--
๐๐๐
Steve Carroll
Jun 1, 2012, 12:17:24โฏPM6/1/12
to
On Jun 1, 9:58ย am, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
>
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
>
> > post of the decade
>
> Hehe, no kidding :-)
>
> This coming from a guy who complains about people snipping stuff
> because they don't feel like being on usenet 24/7 ;-)
In Snit's case it's narcissism... he's stuffed so full of self
> On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
>
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> Really: there is more to life than Usenet...
>
> > post of the decade
>
> Hehe, no kidding :-)
>
> This coming from a guy who complains about people snipping stuff
> because they don't feel like being on usenet 24/7 ;-)
importance he believes no one should snip a single character of his
delusional drivel, even after they have shown it to be delusional
drivel.
TomB
Jun 1, 2012, 1:48:56โฏPM6/1/12
to
On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> This coming from a guy who complains about people snipping stuff
>> because they don't feel like being on usenet 24/7 ;-)
>
> You made that up... yes, you lied.
>
> I have *never* complained about people snipping stuff *because they don't
> feel like being on usenet 24/7".
Omg...
This coming from a guy who complains about people snipping stuff
(which is something I do because I don't feel like being on usenet
24/7).
Better?
--
I would like to urinate in an OVULAR, porcelain pool --
> On 6/1/12 8:58 AM, in article 201206011...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
><tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
8<
><tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This coming from a guy who complains about people snipping stuff
>> because they don't feel like being on usenet 24/7 ;-)
>
> You made that up... yes, you lied.
>
> I have *never* complained about people snipping stuff *because they don't
> feel like being on usenet 24/7".
This coming from a guy who complains about people snipping stuff
24/7).
Better?
--
I would like to urinate in an OVULAR, porcelain pool --
Snit
Jun 1, 2012, 2:27:39โฏPM6/1/12
to
On 6/1/12 10:48 AM, in article 20120601...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
Your claim is contrary to the evidence. You snip in a way almost completely
consistent with a desire to avoid talking about topics the herd would not
want you to discuss. You can claim this is coincidence... but, frankly,
that is just silly.
No: you snip to avoid upsetting the herd. Even though you are (or at least
were) on the periphery of it, you have a clear and obvious desire for a
sense of belonging to the COLA cult-like group. I have posted many examples
of this... and you have no counter.
--
๐๐๐
consistent with a desire to avoid talking about topics the herd would not
want you to discuss. You can claim this is coincidence... but, frankly,
that is just silly.
No: you snip to avoid upsetting the herd. Even though you are (or at least
were) on the periphery of it, you have a clear and obvious desire for a
sense of belonging to the COLA cult-like group. I have posted many examples
of this... and you have no counter.
--
๐๐๐
TomB
Jun 2, 2012, 6:55:31โฏAM6/2/12
to
On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
8<
> No: you snip to avoid upsetting the herd. (...)
Yet another ludicrous Snit statement. Add it to the pile!
8<
--
We're living in a golden age. All you need is gold.
-- D.W. Robertson.
Snit
Jun 2, 2012, 10:37:46โฏAM6/2/12
to
On 6/2/12 3:55 AM, in article 201206021...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
demands (and, frankly, so as to not embarrass yourself), but the evidence is
repeatedly shown.
Heck, whenever I talk about your complete freak-out, which was clearly
pushed by the herd pressuring you, you just snip and run from it. In other
words: you repeatedly support my claims.
You have offered no other reason for your irrational actions - no alternate
reason why you would behave in such an irrational and clearly angry way.
None. Bottom line: you let the herd get to you... you fear their rejection
and you felt if you did not prove yourself to them you risked this.
Want to prove me wrong: easy! Acknowledge the obvious fact that you were
flat out wrong to contact my ISP and try to have my account cancelled
because I merely quoted Stallman and noted how repulsive his comments are.
It is not as though there is any doubt my claims are right or like you or
anyone has offered a reasoned "counter". Here, if you need a "refresher":
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/74ee97574b4984d4>
Bottom line: Stallman wants teens, in public schools, to have uncensored
access to porn... no restrictions. This is what he says. And he clearly
considers child porn to be a part of the porn that should not be censored.
This is what *he* says... and clearly something the herd will ostracize you
for if you just honestly admit to it.
So there is your chance: be honest... do the right thing... and prove me
wrong.
But you *will* snip and run. You fear the herd. You do not have a reasoned
counter... you know your actions were wrong... so now you just snip in fear.
--
๐๐๐
>> Your claim is contrary to the evidence. You snip in a way almost completely
>> consistent with a desire to avoid talking about topics the herd would not
>> want you to discuss. You can claim this is coincidence... but, frankly, that
>> is just silly.
>>
>> No: you snip to avoid upsetting the herd. Even though you are (or at least
>> were) on the periphery of it, you have a clear and obvious desire for a sense
>> of belonging to the COLA cult-like group. I have posted many examples of
>> this... and you have no counter.
>
>> consistent with a desire to avoid talking about topics the herd would not
>> want you to discuss. You can claim this is coincidence... but, frankly, that
>> is just silly.
>>
>> No: you snip to avoid upsetting the herd. Even though you are (or at least
>> were) on the periphery of it, you have a clear and obvious desire for a sense
>> of belonging to the COLA cult-like group. I have posted many examples of
>> this... and you have no counter.
>
> Yet another ludicrous Snit statement. Add it to the pile!
And yet you have no counter. None. Not a shred. You deny... as the herd
demands (and, frankly, so as to not embarrass yourself), but the evidence is
repeatedly shown.
Heck, whenever I talk about your complete freak-out, which was clearly
pushed by the herd pressuring you, you just snip and run from it. In other
words: you repeatedly support my claims.
You have offered no other reason for your irrational actions - no alternate
reason why you would behave in such an irrational and clearly angry way.
None. Bottom line: you let the herd get to you... you fear their rejection
and you felt if you did not prove yourself to them you risked this.
Want to prove me wrong: easy! Acknowledge the obvious fact that you were
flat out wrong to contact my ISP and try to have my account cancelled
because I merely quoted Stallman and noted how repulsive his comments are.
It is not as though there is any doubt my claims are right or like you or
anyone has offered a reasoned "counter". Here, if you need a "refresher":
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/74ee97574b4984d4>
Bottom line: Stallman wants teens, in public schools, to have uncensored
access to porn... no restrictions. This is what he says. And he clearly
considers child porn to be a part of the porn that should not be censored.
This is what *he* says... and clearly something the herd will ostracize you
for if you just honestly admit to it.
So there is your chance: be honest... do the right thing... and prove me
wrong.
But you *will* snip and run. You fear the herd. You do not have a reasoned
counter... you know your actions were wrong... so now you just snip in fear.
--
๐๐๐
Chris Ahlstrom
Jun 2, 2012, 11:19:15โฏAM6/2/12
to
After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
> On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
> 8<
>
>> No: you snip to avoid upsetting the herd. (...)
>
> Yet another ludicrous Snit statement. Add it to the pile!
Time to let it compost.
More ludicrous statements:
--
I do. And I don't use Windows to earn my income like those guys.
The reason I mock these guys is its these guys who call me a liar when I
say "wicd is great" for example, of a "liar" because, err, I suggested a
regular incremental back up using something cron'd and stable like
rsnapshot is better than RANDOM cmplete backups which risk losing up to
a months work. You work it out.
Also Ahlstrom claimed to be a C genius (along with Koehlmann) and did
not appear to understand that dereferencing a null pointer is an error -
EOS.
-- "Hadron" <h8jco7$d47$2...@news.eternal-september.org>
> On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
> 8<
>
>> No: you snip to avoid upsetting the herd. (...)
>
> Yet another ludicrous Snit statement. Add it to the pile!
More ludicrous statements:
--
I do. And I don't use Windows to earn my income like those guys.
The reason I mock these guys is its these guys who call me a liar when I
say "wicd is great" for example, of a "liar" because, err, I suggested a
regular incremental back up using something cron'd and stable like
rsnapshot is better than RANDOM cmplete backups which risk losing up to
a months work. You work it out.
Also Ahlstrom claimed to be a C genius (along with Koehlmann) and did
not appear to understand that dereferencing a null pointer is an error -
EOS.
-- "Hadron" <h8jco7$d47$2...@news.eternal-september.org>
TomB
Jun 2, 2012, 11:38:06โฏAM6/2/12
to
On 2012-06-02, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Yet another ludicrous Snit statement. Add it to the pile!
>
> And yet you have no counter. None. Not a shred.
Sure I do. I know my own reasons; you don't (although you surely
/think/ you do).
Seems like counter enough.
8<
> On 6/2/12 3:55 AM, in article 201206021...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
><tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
><tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>>> No: you snip to avoid upsetting the herd.
re-8<
>> Yet another ludicrous Snit statement. Add it to the pile!
>
> And yet you have no counter. None. Not a shred.
/think/ you do).
Seems like counter enough.
8<
Steve Carroll
Jun 2, 2012, 12:14:05โฏPM6/2/12
to
On Jun 2, 8:37ย am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/2/12 3:55 AM, in article 20120602125321....@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
many times by numerous posters.
> It is not as though there is any doubt my claims are right
False. The thing there is no doubt about is your inability to
comprehend what you've read... as has been amply demonstrated many.
many times prior to this one. One of my personal favorites:
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is clearly
disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much just throw it
away". - Snit
> or like you or
> anyone has offered a reasoned "counter".
Wrong... lots of reasoned "counter" has tossed your drivel in the
sh*tter where it belongs... if you'd lock the medicine cabinet for
more than a day or two you might have the mental capacity to spot it
(and why).
>ย Here, if you need a "refresher":
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/74ee97574b4...>
"published works". You're also misconstruing a core statement
surrounding that concept that Stallman made... one that you keep using
as the basis of your bogus arguments:
"No matter how disgusting published works might be, censorship is more
disgusting."
This statement means: No matter how disgusting published works might
be, censorship [of "published works"] is more disgusting.
You can't read so you misunderstood what Stallman was saying to the
point where you include illegal child rape videos, snuff films,
etc.... in fact, that's how you made the leap to your ridiculous
argument that Stallman want school teens to see, in their classroom,
videos of TomB's daughter being raped. Yes, you're *that* stupid.
> This is what he says. And he clearly
> considers child porn to be a part of the porn that should not be censored.
No, child porn is not and can not be "published works" as Stallman is
using that term.
(fearlessly snipping Snit's delusions where he is probably projecting
himself on Stallman)
> On 6/2/12 3:55 AM, in article 20120602125321....@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
>
> <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
> >> Your claim is contrary to the evidence. ย You snip in a way almost completely
> >> consistent with a desire to avoid talking about topics the herd would not
> >> want you to discuss. ย You can claim this is coincidence... but, frankly, that
> >> is just silly.
>
> >> No: you snip to avoid upsetting the herd. ย Even though you are (or at least
> >> were) on the periphery of it, you have a clear and obvious desire for a sense
> >> of belonging to the COLA cult-like group. ย I have posted many examples of
> >> this... and you have no counter.
>
> > Yet another ludicrous Snit statement. Add it to the pile!
>
> And yet you have no counter. ย None. ย Not a shred. ย You deny... as the herd
> demands (and, frankly, so as to not embarrass yourself), but the evidence is
> repeatedly shown.
>
> Heck, whenever I talk about your complete freak-out, which was clearly
> pushed by the herd pressuring you, you just snip and run from it. ย In other
> words: you repeatedly support my claims.
>
> You have offered no other reason for your irrational actions - no alternate
> reason why you would behave in such an irrational and clearly angry way.
> None. ย Bottom line: you let the herd get to you... you fear their rejection
> and you felt if you did not prove yourself to them you risked this.
>
> Want to prove me wrong: easy!
Of course! It's child's play, in fact... and it's been done many,
> <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
> >> Your claim is contrary to the evidence. ย You snip in a way almost completely
> >> consistent with a desire to avoid talking about topics the herd would not
> >> want you to discuss. ย You can claim this is coincidence... but, frankly, that
> >> is just silly.
>
> >> No: you snip to avoid upsetting the herd. ย Even though you are (or at least
> >> were) on the periphery of it, you have a clear and obvious desire for a sense
> >> of belonging to the COLA cult-like group. ย I have posted many examples of
> >> this... and you have no counter.
>
> > Yet another ludicrous Snit statement. Add it to the pile!
>
> And yet you have no counter. ย None. ย Not a shred. ย You deny... as the herd
> demands (and, frankly, so as to not embarrass yourself), but the evidence is
> repeatedly shown.
>
> Heck, whenever I talk about your complete freak-out, which was clearly
> pushed by the herd pressuring you, you just snip and run from it. ย In other
> words: you repeatedly support my claims.
>
> You have offered no other reason for your irrational actions - no alternate
> reason why you would behave in such an irrational and clearly angry way.
> None. ย Bottom line: you let the herd get to you... you fear their rejection
> and you felt if you did not prove yourself to them you risked this.
>
> Want to prove me wrong: easy!
many times by numerous posters.
> It is not as though there is any doubt my claims are right
comprehend what you've read... as has been amply demonstrated many.
many times prior to this one. One of my personal favorites:
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is clearly
disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much just throw it
away". - Snit
> or like you or
> anyone has offered a reasoned "counter".
sh*tter where it belongs... if you'd lock the medicine cabinet for
more than a day or two you might have the mental capacity to spot it
(and why).
>ย Here, if you need a "refresher":
>
>
> Bottom line: Stallman wants teens, in public schools, to have uncensored
> access to porn... no restrictions.
You're lying... again. Stallman did mention the restriction of
> Bottom line: Stallman wants teens, in public schools, to have uncensored
> access to porn... no restrictions.
"published works". You're also misconstruing a core statement
surrounding that concept that Stallman made... one that you keep using
as the basis of your bogus arguments:
"No matter how disgusting published works might be, censorship is more
disgusting."
This statement means: No matter how disgusting published works might
be, censorship [of "published works"] is more disgusting.
You can't read so you misunderstood what Stallman was saying to the
point where you include illegal child rape videos, snuff films,
etc.... in fact, that's how you made the leap to your ridiculous
argument that Stallman want school teens to see, in their classroom,
videos of TomB's daughter being raped. Yes, you're *that* stupid.
> This is what he says. And he clearly
> considers child porn to be a part of the porn that should not be censored.
using that term.
(fearlessly snipping Snit's delusions where he is probably projecting
himself on Stallman)
Snit
Jun 2, 2012, 1:14:53โฏPM6/2/12
to
On 6/2/12 8:38 AM, in article 201206021...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
overboard because they were getting on your case.
There is nothing more complex about your actions than that. It is not as if
you (or anyone) has found flaw with my comments about Stallman and his
repulsive views:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/74ee97574b4984d4>
Bottom line: Stallman wants teens, in public schools, to have uncensored
access to porn... no restrictions. This is what he says. And he clearly
considers child porn to be a part of the porn that should not be censored.
This is what Stallman says.
--
๐๐๐
<tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-06-02, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> On 6/2/12 3:55 AM, in article 201206021...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
>> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>
>>>> No: you snip to avoid upsetting the herd.
>
> re-8<
>
>>> Yet another ludicrous Snit statement. Add it to the pile!
>>
>> And yet you have no counter. None. Not a shred.
>
> Sure I do. I know my own reasons; you don't (although you surely
> /think/ you do).
>
> Seems like counter enough.
>
> 8<
I do know your reasons: you are working to please the herd... and you went
> On 2012-06-02, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> On 6/2/12 3:55 AM, in article 201206021...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
>> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>
>>>> No: you snip to avoid upsetting the herd.
>
> re-8<
>
>>> Yet another ludicrous Snit statement. Add it to the pile!
>>
>> And yet you have no counter. None. Not a shred.
>
> Sure I do. I know my own reasons; you don't (although you surely
> /think/ you do).
>
> Seems like counter enough.
>
> 8<
overboard because they were getting on your case.
There is nothing more complex about your actions than that. It is not as if
you (or anyone) has found flaw with my comments about Stallman and his
repulsive views:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/74ee97574b4984d4>
Bottom line: Stallman wants teens, in public schools, to have uncensored
access to porn... no restrictions. This is what he says. And he clearly
considers child porn to be a part of the porn that should not be censored.
--
๐๐๐
Snit
Jan 30, 2014, 11:05:49โฏAM1/30/14
to
On 5/16/12 11:01 AM, in article
8773420.809.1337191279615.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv35, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:51:50 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
8773420.809.1337191279615.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv35, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/16/12 10:07 AM, in article
>> 21501728.2035.1337188031909.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jesus, did you see the other links he said were incorrect. Snit's so fucking
>>> stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn based on distance from the mean,
>>> not area under the curve. Good lord. He's so fucking stupid it's beyond
>>> belief.
>>
>> You made that up. The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve
>> - which is easy to see when the images screw it up, esp. when they do so
>> really badly, like in some of the ones I showed you.
>>
>> But you refuse to admit you have no clue why they are wrong.
>
> They are not wrong. Where the sigma lines are drawn has everything to do with
> the dataset and shape of the bell curve. You're an absolutely incorrect here,
> and it's hysterical.
>
OK, pity time for you... now you have made it clear you are completely
>> really badly, like in some of the ones I showed you.
>>
>> But you refuse to admit you have no clue why they are wrong.
>
> They are not wrong. Where the sigma lines are drawn has everything to do with
> the dataset and shape of the bell curve. You're an absolutely incorrect here,
> and it's hysterical.
>
ignorant. Here are some sources for you
<https://www.msu.edu/user/sw/statrev/strv113.htm>
-----
The normal distribution has two "points of inflection" on
either side of the mean. These are the points where the shape
of the curve changes from concave to convex or convex to
concave. The distance along the X-axis from the mean (ฮผ) to
either of the points of inflection is called the standard
deviation and is represented by ฯ.
-----
<http://goo.gl/0Qg0d>
-----
For the theoretical model of the data given by the normal
distribution, there is a good graphical interpretation of the
standard deviation, as shown in Figure A.6. It is the
horizontal distance from the peak of the normal curve (the
mean), to the inflection points (the points where the curve
changes from being concave up to concave down or vice versa).
...
It can be shown that, for a normal distribution,
approximately 34% of the area under the graph is between the
mean and the inflection point to the left of the mean.
-----
And here are some of your incorrect claims:
cc:
-----
It's area under the curve, not distance from center you
idiot. Jesus Christ, give up now.
-----
It is not distance from the mean. Repeat: it is not
distance from the mean.
-----
distance from the mean.
In case you missed it, let me highlight the parts about it being the
distance from the mean:
-----
The distance ... from the mean to either of the points of
inflection is called the standard deviation...
-----
and:
-----
It is the horizontal distance from the peak of the normal
curve (the mean), to the inflection points (the points where
the curve changes from being concave up to concave down or
vice versa).
-----
Remember, you are the one who kept denying this LOL. As I noted: you have
merely been showing your ignorance on this.
Now that you have been told to look for the inflection point for where a
standard deviation should be correctly depicted, can you see why, for
example, the following depiction is incorrect:
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
Can you see where the lines claiming to show a standard deviation are *far*
away from the inflection point? Can you see why being that far outside of
the correctly drawn depiction means that the claim of the percentages in
that image are flat our wrong?
Oh, cc, we dance this dance so often - you pretending to be knowledgeable
and me showing you just how ignorant you are.
Now the question remains - how will play your hand? Now that I have taken
full pity on you and shown you specifically why and how you are wrong about
such a simple statistical concept, will you admit to it?
I bet not. If history repeats itself you will just insist you are right, no
matter what the facts prove.
--
๐๐๐
0 new messages