Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Provisional paper ballots in Ohio

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Jason McNorton

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 6:36:53 PM11/20/04
to
President/Vice President
Bush, George W. Republican 76,631 55.92%
Kerry, John F. Democratic 59,710 43.57%


Total Votes 137,036

So far..

Wow, this isn't even close. Bush won Ohio hands down (and the
election). There will not be any question of it now.

Message has been deleted

Jason McNorton

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 7:56:35 PM11/20/04
to
In article <abc-A1EBC3.1...@28-72.newscene.com>, a...@def.ghi
says...
> In article <MPG.1c099115d...@news-40.giganews.com>,
> There isn't any question of it now. The only ones "questioning" it are
> conspiracy-theorist-nutcase-Bush-haters who just can't believe that Bush
> won. Again.

I know.. The 'count every vote' crowd will shut up when Bush gains as
grows his advantage.

William R. Walsh

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 9:31:13 PM11/20/04
to
Hi!

(I'm asking for it, yes...but so what?)

I don't see a single thing in this post that's Mac or Mac-advocacy
related...

William The Nitpicker


ZnU

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 1:54:04 AM11/21/04
to
In article <MPG.1c09a3b7...@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <abc-A1EBC3.1...@28-72.newscene.com>, a...@def.ghi
> says...
> > In article <MPG.1c099115d...@news-40.giganews.com>,
> > Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > President/Vice President
> > > Bush, George W. Republican 76,631 55.92%
> > > Kerry, John F. Democratic 59,710 43.57%
> > >
> > >
> > > Total Votes 137,036
> > >
> > > So far..
> > >
> > > Wow, this isn't even close. Bush won Ohio hands down (and the
> > > election). There will not be any question of it now.
> >
> > There isn't any question of it now. The only ones "questioning" it are
> > conspiracy-theorist-nutcase-Bush-haters who just can't believe that Bush
> > won. Again.
>
> I know.. The 'count every vote' crowd will shut up when Bush gains as
> grows his advantage.

Why would Bush's victory reduce the importance of fair elections? I know
many Republicans sometimes have trouble understanding this kind of
thing, but believe it or not there are some people who are actually
interested in the integrity of the democratic process for its own sake.

--
"Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against
these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat."

--George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., Sept. 17, 2004

Jason McNorton

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 4:36:09 AM11/21/04
to
In article <znu-1245E5.0...@individual.net>, z...@acedsl.com
says...

> In article <MPG.1c09a3b7...@news-40.giganews.com>,
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <abc-A1EBC3.1...@28-72.newscene.com>, a...@def.ghi
> > says...
> > > In article <MPG.1c099115d...@news-40.giganews.com>,
> > > Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > President/Vice President
> > > > Bush, George W. Republican 76,631 55.92%
> > > > Kerry, John F. Democratic 59,710 43.57%
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Total Votes 137,036
> > > >
> > > > So far..
> > > >
> > > > Wow, this isn't even close. Bush won Ohio hands down (and the
> > > > election). There will not be any question of it now.
> > >
> > > There isn't any question of it now. The only ones "questioning" it are
> > > conspiracy-theorist-nutcase-Bush-haters who just can't believe that Bush
> > > won. Again.
> >
> > I know.. The 'count every vote' crowd will shut up when Bush gains as
> > grows his advantage.
>
> Why would Bush's victory reduce the importance of fair elections? I know
> many Republicans sometimes have trouble understanding this kind of
> thing, but believe it or not there are some people who are actually
> interested in the integrity of the democratic process for its own sake.

Cause there's no evidence of any wrong doing, and Bush won big. Some
democrats have a terrible time with that stuff.

forge

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 5:55:28 AM11/21/04
to
In article <MPG.1c0a1d87...@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Cause there's no evidence of any wrong doing, and Bush won big. Some
> democrats have a terrible time with that stuff.

I love how you say that in spite of the bizarre situation in Volusia
County where the blackboxvoting.org people found the actual signed poll
tapes in the dumpster and the election supervisor inside printing up
duplicates with thousands more votes for Bush than there were on the
originals.

Or how there were almost 100,000 more votes in Ohio than there were
registered voters. Or how some counties in Florida and Ohio with black
box machines or even optical-scan machines came out with Bush ahead by
thousands or tens of thousands of votes in spite of the fact those
counties had far more Democrats registered to vote than Republicans.

The provisional ballots are not the be-all end-all of this election.

Tim Smith

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 6:23:54 AM11/21/04
to
In article <MPG.1c0a1d87...@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason McNorton
wrote:

>> Why would Bush's victory reduce the importance of fair elections? I know
>> many Republicans sometimes have trouble understanding this kind of thing,
>> but believe it or not there are some people who are actually interested
>> in the integrity of the democratic process for its own sake.
>
> Cause there's no evidence of any wrong doing, and Bush won big. Some
> democrats have a terrible time with that stuff.

You seem to have trouble with the concept of "fair elections". Whether or
not there was any wrong doing in *this* election is irrelevant. The point
is that changing the system so that wrong doing, or simple error, is easier
to commit and harder to detect is a bad idea.

--
--Tim Smith

Message has been deleted

forge

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 8:33:14 AM11/21/04
to
In article <abc-9382BC.0...@28-71.newscene.com>,
Mike <a...@def.ghi> wrote:

> Source? A *credible* source? Blackboxvoting.org doesn't count.

Why wouldn't it? They're nonpartisan, Mike. Just because they want to
see elections actually MEAN something, they're crackpots and should be
discredited? Yeah, that's a valid philosophy. Uh, not.

> So no Democrats ever vote for Bush?

Tens of thousands? In Florida? After what happened in 2000? I don't
bloody think so.

ZnU

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 11:23:01 AM11/21/04
to
In article <MPG.1c0a1d87...@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

Well, first off, there is fairly widespread evidence of voting patterns
that don't seem to make much sense. But, leaving that aside, I'd like to
point out that *lack of evidence of wrongdoing does not prove there was
no wrongdoing*. That's the big argument against the present electronic
machines; the way they work, you wouldn't *expect* there to be any
evidence left after tampering.

Jason McNorton

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 5:32:51 PM11/21/04
to
In article <forge-670365....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
fo...@diespammers.youneedageek.com says...

> In article <abc-9382BC.0...@28-71.newscene.com>,
> Mike <a...@def.ghi> wrote:
>
> > Source? A *credible* source? Blackboxvoting.org doesn't count.
>
> Why wouldn't it? They're nonpartisan, Mike. Just because they want to
> see elections actually MEAN something, they're crackpots and should be
> discredited? Yeah, that's a valid philosophy. Uh, not.

non-partisan? Give me a BREAK. The owner of the site Bev Harris trolls
Democraticunderground.com for money.

> > So no Democrats ever vote for Bush?
>
> Tens of thousands? In Florida? After what happened in 2000? I don't
> bloody think so.

Whatever. What you'd like to think has no bearing on reality.

Jason McNorton

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 5:34:51 PM11/21/04
to
In article <znu-EF985B.1...@individual.net>, z...@acedsl.com

*conspiracy internet theories that there was wrongdoing proves
absolutely nothing*

That's a much bigger fact you need to face.

ZnU

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 5:44:15 PM11/21/04
to
In article <MPG.1c0ad404d...@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

But you can't dispute them. The system is so inherently insecure that
you have no real basis for claiming there was no tampering. Now, I'm not
saying there was. I'm just saying I don't know, and neither do you, and
neither does anyone else (with the exception of whoever did the
tampering, if such occurred). With the way the system is designed, it's
really just unknowable. That's *not good*.

> That's a much bigger fact you need to face.

--

forge

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 6:32:15 PM11/21/04
to
In article <MPG.1c0ad3929...@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Tens of thousands? In Florida? After what happened in 2000? I don't
> > bloody think so.
>
> Whatever. What you'd like to think has no bearing on reality.

Hm. So much for civil discourse. Cocksucker.

Jason McNorton

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 6:44:23 PM11/21/04
to
In article <forge-C5D880....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
fo...@diespammers.youneedageek.com says...

Don't get your panties in a wad.

Tim Smith

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 8:26:02 PM11/21/04
to
In article <znu-666D36.1...@individual.net>, ZnU wrote:
> But you can't dispute them. The system is so inherently insecure that
> you have no real basis for claiming there was no tampering. Now, I'm not
> saying there was. I'm just saying I don't know, and neither do you, and
> neither does anyone else (with the exception of whoever did the
> tampering, if such occurred). With the way the system is designed, it's
> really just unknowable. That's *not good*.

He's trying really really hard to ignore this, for some reason.

--
--Tim Smith

forge

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 10:51:38 PM11/21/04
to
In article <MPG.1c0ae4524...@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > > Whatever. What you'd like to think has no bearing on reality.
> >
> > Hm. So much for civil discourse. Cocksucker.
>
> Don't get your panties in a wad.

Fuck you, asshole. "What you'd like to think has no bearing on reality,"
my hairy white ass.

Jason McNorton

unread,
Nov 21, 2004, 11:32:48 PM11/21/04
to
In article <forge-2C73CF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
fo...@diespammers.youneedageek.com says...

Is this the friendly 'tolerant' leftwing I keep hearing about?

forge

unread,
Nov 22, 2004, 12:15:49 AM11/22/04
to
In article <MPG.1c0b27e74...@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Fuck you, asshole. "What you'd like to think has no bearing on reality,"
> > my hairy white ass.
>
> Is this the friendly 'tolerant' leftwing I keep hearing about?

I was through being tolerant when Jeb got reelected in 2002 and Bitch
Cunt Katherine Harris got a cushy spot in Congress in spite of the fact
they blatantly handed Florida to that pigfucking brother of Jeb's on
2000. All you "shut up and get over it" assfuckers can kiss my big white
butt. Repeatedly.

ed

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 8:45:54 PM11/23/04
to
In news:forge-E48FDB....@comcast.dca.giganews.com,
forge <fo...@diespammers.youneedageek.com> typed:

> In article <MPG.1c0a1d87...@news-40.giganews.com>,
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Cause there's no evidence of any wrong doing, and Bush won big. Some
>> democrats have a terrible time with that stuff.
>
> I love how you say that in spite of the bizarre situation in Volusia
> County where the blackboxvoting.org people found the actual signed
> poll tapes in the dumpster and the election supervisor inside
> printing up duplicates

of course there's an explanation for all that:
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/03AreaWEST04EPOL111804.htm

> with thousands more votes for Bush than there
> were on the originals.

cite?

> Or how there were almost 100,000 more votes in Ohio than there were
> registered voters.

again, previously explained; the raw numbers on the election website can be
double booked. you can't simply add them all up and get the right number.

> Or how some counties in Florida and Ohio with black
> box machines or even optical-scan machines came out with Bush ahead by
> thousands or tens of thousands of votes in spite of the fact those
> counties had far more Democrats registered to vote than Republicans.

a trend that's been going on for years.

Snit

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 10:42:07 PM11/23/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
mJRod.25809$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/23/04 6:45 PM:

Curious, Ed, what your explanation is for the findings here:

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/index.html

From the Summary:

----- Start Quotes -----

Because many factors impact voting results, statistical tools are necessary
to see the effect of touch-screen voting. Multipleregression analysis is a
statistical technique widely used in the social and physical sciences to
distinguish the individual effects of many variables. This
multiple-regression analysis takes account of the following variables by
county:
- number of voters
- median income
- Hispanic population
- change in voter turnout between 2000 and 2004
- support for President Bush in 2000 election
- support for Dole in 1996 election

When one controls for these factors, the association between electronic
voting and increased support for President Bush is impossible to overlook.
The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county's use of electronic voting
is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush.

----- End Quotes -----

More and more it seems that statistically Bush gained some sort of
unbelievable advantage from the electronic voting machines.


--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)


Jason McNorton

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 11:33:14 PM11/23/04
to
In article <mJRod.25809$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, news@no-
atwistedweb-spam.com says...

Oh dear, you proved forge's leftwing insanity wrong.

Expect a pelting of profanity soon.

ed

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 11:33:14 PM11/23/04
to
In news:BDC9511F.13703%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

what do YOU think about it (the data, not the results)? i've broken down
previous studies w/ what i thought was flawed about them, and when i break
them down, you poo-poo them with no rebuttal. i'll state my opinions below,
but this conversation stops if you dismiss them w/out analyzing the data.

fundamentally, i have a couple problems w/ the paper:
1- w/ the way they handled the results- they allow only two possibilities
in their interpretation of the data, and both assume that the voting was
screwed up.
2- they're treating people as if their vote preferences can be easily
predicted based on trends and party affiliation, and that deviations from
this indicate a problem- this is simply not the case if you look at the
historical data- staunchly republican states will vote for democrats and
stauchly democratic states will vote for republicans, and certainly swing
states swing!

what i would *really* like to see is a study that takes a look at the new
voter registrations from 2000 - 2004, and which way they would vote; both
camps suggested before the election that the get-out-the-vote drives would
be critical for this election, and many pundits have credited bush's victory
to a better pr campaign. and as we know, bush has more support among the
wealthy, which tend to live in areas where they could afford more
sophisticated voting machines. if data supported that kerry actually held
an advantage in the swing states in this area and he still lost, then i
would be suspicious of the results.

most of the statistical analysis i've seen regarding this election simply
make too many unsupported assumptions (many of them conviniently ignored,
some contradicted right w/in the study), and some of them make other
obviously fatal assumptions (like not being able to correctly interpret
margin of error!).

hey, i voted for kerry, but there simply isn't any good evidence to support
that he lost any way other than fairly.

Snit

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 12:12:56 AM11/24/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
eaUod.25847$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/23/04 9:33 PM:

>> Curious, Ed, what your explanation is for the findings here:
>
> what do YOU think about it (the data, not the results)? i've broken down
> previous studies w/ what i thought was flawed about them, and when i break
> them down, you poo-poo them with no rebuttal. i'll state my opinions below,
> but this conversation stops if you dismiss them w/out analyzing the data.

I believe this data leads supports the idea that there should be a full fact
finding investigation.

I have no desire to dwell on your error there. We all make mistakes, and
you simply were caught in one. No big deal - unless you feel the need to
dwell on it.


>
> hey, i voted for kerry, but there simply isn't any good evidence to support
> that he lost any way other than fairly.

Would you now support a full fact finding investigation?

ed

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 12:34:04 AM11/24/04
to
In news:BDC96668.13729%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

i want to be clear here- are you contending that i misinterpreted the margin
of error in that story you posted, and stating that i was incorrect when i
stated the author was incorrect in his interpretation? j

>> hey, i voted for kerry, but there simply isn't any good evidence to
>> support that he lost any way other than fairly.
>
> Would you now support a full fact finding investigation?

no, as i believe it'd be a waste of money.


Snit

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 12:50:03 AM11/24/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
g3Vod.25857$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/23/04 10:34 PM:

As I said, I have no desire to dwell on your errors, as discussed in this
post:

http://snipurl.com/av13



>>> hey, i voted for kerry, but there simply isn't any good evidence to
>>> support that he lost any way other than fairly.
>>
>> Would you now support a full fact finding investigation?
>
> no, as i believe it'd be a waste of money.

LOL. OK, tells me everything I need to know... there is nothing that would
make you become interested in verifying the facts.

if you can think of something that would, please correct me.

--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France

ed

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 1:21:52 AM11/24/04
to
In news:BDC96F1B.13732%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,

a simple yes or no will answer the question, without diving into the details
of the previous posts.

>>>> hey, i voted for kerry, but there simply isn't any good evidence to
>>>> support that he lost any way other than fairly.
>>>
>>> Would you now support a full fact finding investigation?
>>
>> no, as i believe it'd be a waste of money.
>
> LOL. OK, tells me everything I need to know... there is nothing that
> would make you become interested in verifying the facts.
>
> if you can think of something that would, please correct me.

i stated it in my response earlier.


Snit

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 1:49:04 AM11/24/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
4MVod.25873$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/23/04 11:21 PM:

>>> i want to be clear here- are you contending that i misinterpreted
>>> the margin of error in that story you posted, and stating that i was
>>> incorrect when i stated the author was incorrect in his
>>> interpretation? j
>>
>> As I said, I have no desire to dwell on your errors, as discussed in
>> this
>> post:
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/av13
>
> a simple yes or no will answer the question, without diving into the details
> of the previous posts.

The previous post contains all the details.

You failed to see the significance of having two estimations being "off" in
the same direction, each around two standard deviations off in favor of
Bush. Even though both were within, or close to being within, the margin of
error, it is unlikely to have both be off in the same direction by two
standard deviations. While this is not proof, this certainly leads to a
reasonable question, since the chance of this happening by chance is fairly
slim.

The chance of an estimation being off two standard deviations is about 5%.
Since it was a fair hypothesis from *before* the election that there would
be tampering in the direction of Bush, it is fair to look at just that data,
which brings the chance to 2.5%

If we go with the 5%, the chance of having two independent data sets being
off by that amount drops to 5% of 5%, or .25% (or 1 in 400). If we go with
looking at just one direction, the chance drops even lower to a little over
.06% (or 1 in 1600). Now we are no longer within a comfortable range where
chance can safely be stated to have caused this.

Now there were other states that could have been brought into this, so there
may be some bias as to which of the contested states are being looked at...
and that has not been taken into consideration. Still, the percentage
chance that the polls were off as much as they were is certainly something
worth questioning.

This is something that is generally covered in intro stats classes... not
rocket science.


>
>>>>> hey, i voted for kerry, but there simply isn't any good evidence to
>>>>> support that he lost any way other than fairly.
>>>>
>>>> Would you now support a full fact finding investigation?
>>>
>>> no, as i believe it'd be a waste of money.
>>
>> LOL. OK, tells me everything I need to know... there is nothing that
>> would make you become interested in verifying the facts.
>>
>> if you can think of something that would, please correct me.
>
> i stated it in my response earlier.

What do you think an investigation would find? Why are you so against
finding that? I do not expect you to answer, but I really would like to
know.

ed

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 1:55:12 AM11/24/04
to
In news:BDC97CF0.13866%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
> 4MVod.25873$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/23/04 11:21 PM:
>
>>>> i want to be clear here- are you contending that i misinterpreted
>>>> the margin of error in that story you posted, and stating that i
>>>> was incorrect when i stated the author was incorrect in his
>>>> interpretation? j
>>>
>>> As I said, I have no desire to dwell on your errors, as discussed in
>>> this
>>> post:
>>>
>>> http://snipurl.com/av13
>>
>> a simple yes or no will answer the question, without diving into the
>> details of the previous posts.
>
> The previous post contains all the details.

*sigh*. are you so deliberately obtuse that you can't answer a simple yes
or no question?

> You failed to see the significance of having two estimations being
> "off" in the same direction, each around two standard deviations off
> in favor of
> Bush.

that's because there is essentially no significance (especially when dealing
w/ only 2 data points), since the margin of error in the polls is +/- 4%.
i.e. it's just as likely to be off in one direction as the other.

> Even though both were within, or close to being within, the
> margin of error, it is unlikely to have both be off in the same
> direction by two standard deviations.

it wasn't.

> While this is not proof, this
> certainly leads to a reasonable question, since the chance of this
> happening by chance is fairly slim.
>
> The chance of an estimation being off two standard deviations is
> about 5%. Since it was a fair hypothesis from *before* the election
> that there would
> be tampering in the direction of Bush, it is fair to look at just
> that data, which brings the chance to 2.5%

hahahaaaa! oh yeah, hahahaaaa!

> If we go with the 5%, the chance of having two independent data sets
> being off by that amount drops to 5% of 5%, or .25% (or 1 in 400).
> If we go with looking at just one direction, the chance drops even
> lower to a little over .06% (or 1 in 1600). Now we are no longer
> within a comfortable range where chance can safely be stated to have
> caused this.
>
> Now there were other states that could have been brought into this,
> so there may be some bias as to which of the contested states are
> being looked at... and that has not been taken into consideration.
> Still, the percentage
> chance that the polls were off as much as they were is certainly
> something worth questioning.
>
> This is something that is generally covered in intro stats classes...
> not rocket science.

i've taken plenty of stats; you should consider some.

>>>>>> hey, i voted for kerry, but there simply isn't any good evidence
>>>>>> to support that he lost any way other than fairly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you now support a full fact finding investigation?
>>>>
>>>> no, as i believe it'd be a waste of money.
>>>
>>> LOL. OK, tells me everything I need to know... there is nothing
>>> that would make you become interested in verifying the facts.
>>>
>>> if you can think of something that would, please correct me.
>>
>> i stated it in my response earlier.
>
> What do you think an investigation would find? Why are you so against
> finding that? I do not expect you to answer, but I really would like
> to know.

if i need to answer it again, perhaps your obtuseness isn't so deliberate
after all.


Snit

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 2:12:28 AM11/24/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
kfWod.25880$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/23/04 11:55 PM:

>>>> As I said, I have no desire to dwell on your errors, as discussed in this
>>>> post:
>>>>
>>>> http://snipurl.com/av13
>>>
>>> a simple yes or no will answer the question, without diving into the
>>> details of the previous posts.
>>
>> The previous post contains all the details.
>
> *sigh*. are you so deliberately obtuse that you can't answer a simple yes
> or no question?

No.

And I just proved it... though I am not sure you will get how. :)



>> You failed to see the significance of having two estimations being "off" in
>> the same direction, each around two standard deviations off in favor of Bush.
>
> that's because there is essentially no significance (especially when dealing
> w/ only 2 data points), since the margin of error in the polls is +/- 4%.
> i.e. it's just as likely to be off in one direction as the other.

Well, that is debatable. The general prediction before the election was
that it would be off in a specific direction, and that held out to be the
case. Long before the election it was clear that there may be some
tinkering - in Bush's favor - that was possible to be happening.

Even if you were right, though, and we were not looking for a particular
direction, the chance of them both being off in the same direction is only
50%. Now we also have to look at *how* far off they were... and we see that
both were off around 2 standard deviations. There is about a 5% chance of
being off that far. The chance of both being off that far, *and* in the
same direction is not very high. As shown below, it is about 1 in 400, with
the caveats discussed below.



>> Even though both were within, or close to being within, the
>> margin of error, it is unlikely to have both be off in the same
>> direction by two standard deviations.
>
> it wasn't.

Wasn't what? Off approximately two standard deviations?


>
>> While this is not proof, this certainly leads to a reasonable question, since
>> the chance of this happening by chance is fairly slim.
>>
>> The chance of an estimation being off two standard deviations is about 5%.
>> Since it was a fair hypothesis from *before* the election that there would be
>> tampering in the direction of Bush, it is fair to look at just that data,
>> which brings the chance to 2.5%
>
> hahahaaaa! oh yeah, hahahaaaa!

Do you have a point to make, or is that just nervous laughter?


>
>> If we go with the 5%, the chance of having two independent data sets being
>> off by that amount drops to 5% of 5%, or .25% (or 1 in 400). If we go with
>> looking at just one direction, the chance drops even lower to a little over
>> .06% (or 1 in 1600). Now we are no longer within a comfortable range where
>> chance can safely be stated to have caused this.
>>
>> Now there were other states that could have been brought into this, so there
>> may be some bias as to which of the contested states are being looked at...
>> and that has not been taken into consideration. Still, the percentage chance
>> that the polls were off as much as they were is certainly something worth
>> questioning.
>>
>> This is something that is generally covered in intro stats classes... not
>> rocket science.
>
> i've taken plenty of stats; you should consider some.

Again, if you have a point to make, make it.

If not, so be it, but do not pretend you have one.

Until then, do you mind looking at these graphs:

http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif
http://www.westgard.com/ls14f7.gif
http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/standarddev/color-chart-blue2.jpg

And telling me if it which, if any, look like reasonable graphs of standard
deviations to you? Which are flawed, and in what way are they flawed?

I am not even sure you know what a "real" standard deviation looks like. I
am always amazed at how few people - even those who know some stats - get
this simple test wrong (and as I looked for graphs how many sites claiming
to explain SD get it wrong!). Here is a hint, the errors in the incorrect
one(s) should pop out almost instantly if you really know what a SD is.

Also: What do you think an investigation would find? Why are you so against


finding that? I do not expect you to answer, but I really would like to
know.

--

ed

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 4:22:42 AM11/24/04
to
In news:BDC9826C.1386A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
<snip>

>> that's because there is essentially no significance (especially when
>> dealing w/ only 2 data points), since the margin of error in the
>> polls is +/- 4%. i.e. it's just as likely to be off in one direction
>> as the other.
>
> Well, that is debatable. The general prediction before the election
> was
> that it would be off in a specific direction, and that held out to be
> the
> case. Long before the election it was clear that there may be some
> tinkering - in Bush's favor - that was possible to be happening.
>
> Even if you were right, though, and we were not looking for a
> particular direction, the chance of them both being off in the same
> direction is only 50%.

"only" 50%? you know that means it was just as likely to happen as not,
right?


<snip>


>> i've taken plenty of stats; you should consider some.
>
> Again, if you have a point to make, make it.
>
> If not, so be it, but do not pretend you have one.
>
> Until then, do you mind looking at these graphs:
>
> http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif
> http://www.westgard.com/ls14f7.gif
> http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/standarddev/color-chart-blue2.jpg
>
> And telling me if it which, if any, look like reasonable graphs of
> standard deviations to you? Which are flawed, and in what way are
> they flawed?
>
> I am not even sure you know what a "real" standard deviation looks
> like. I
> am always amazed at how few people - even those who know some stats -
> get
> this simple test wrong (and as I looked for graphs how many sites
> claiming
> to explain SD get it wrong!). Here is a hint, the errors in the
> incorrect one(s) should pop out almost instantly if you really know
> what a SD is.

wow. that is a loaded question, as i suppose it depends on what you mean by
what a "real" standard deviation is to begin with; you must think it's
something special given that you've put it in quots and all. a standard
deviation, is simply a number that's the square root of the variance, so i'm
not sure what you're getting at when you question what a "real" one looks
like. it's simply a number- so whatever you think a real number "looks
like" is it.

now, typically when i plot standard deviation (what i think of when i think
"standard deviation plot"), it's to compare different groups of data- i
would typically toss the groups on the x-axis, and the sd of each group on
the y-axis. in a plot like this, i'm probably hoping for a relatively flat
line. however, it may look something like this:
x
x x x x x x
x x x
x
in this example, if the sd of snit's annoyance level is represented on the
y-axis, and the x-axis represents the months of the year so far, i would
recommend you adjust the dosage of your medication to whatever they were in
the summer time. =D

now, all that being said, all 3 of the plots you posted are perfectly fine
(approximate) representations of the population that fall w/in 1-3 standard
deviations of a normal distribution as long as you understand that as you
move out from the mean the ranges are inclusive.

now that i've answered your question, it's your turn =D :
http://tinyurl.com/5qgkj
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&frame=right&rnum=21&thl=863709232,863708630,863665611,863577168,863562756,863536667,863532072,863525077,863742777,863679681,863574155,863530555&seekm=fKimd.21893%246q2.12718%40newssvr14.news.prodigy.com#link22


> Also: What do you think an investigation would find?

nothing.

> Why are you so
> against finding that?

because i don't want my money wasted to find a whole lot of nothing.

> I do not expect you to answer, but I really
> would like to
> know.

i've answered this previously; why do you keep asking it?


Snit

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 10:44:01 AM11/24/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
CpYod.25898$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/24/04 2:22 AM:

> In news:BDC9826C.1386A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
> <snip>

Ahhh... you snipped my disproof of your insinuation that I could not answer
yes / no questions.

Why is that?

>>> that's because there is essentially no significance (especially when
>>> dealing w/ only 2 data points), since the margin of error in the
>>> polls is +/- 4%. i.e. it's just as likely to be off in one direction
>>> as the other.
>>
>> Well, that is debatable. The general prediction before the election was that
>> it would be off in a specific direction, and that held out to be the case.
>> Long before the election it was clear that there may be some tinkering - in
>> Bush's favor - that was possible to be happening.
>>
>> Even if you were right, though, and we were not looking for a particular
>> direction, the chance of them both being off in the same direction is only
>> 50%.
>
> "only" 50%? you know that means it was just as likely to happen as not,
> right?

Silly question. If you had read the rest of the paragraph instead of
dishonestly snipping it you would have, perhaps, understood my point. Here
is the rest of the paragraph for you, again.

Now we also have to look at *how* far off they were... and we see that
both were off around 2 standard deviations. There is about a 5% chance

of being off that far. The chance of both being off that far, *and* in
the same direction is not very high. As shown below, it is about 1 in


400, with the caveats discussed below.

See, I was not suggesting that the evidence is based on a 50/50 chance, as
you insinuate, but on a potential 400 to 1 chance, though I do discuss some
caveats (below).

>>>> If we go with the 5%, the chance of having two independent data sets being
>>>> off by that amount drops to 5% of 5%, or .25% (or 1 in 400). If we go with
>>>> looking at just one direction, the chance drops even lower to a little over
>>>> .06% (or 1 in 1600). Now we are no longer within a comfortable range where
>>>> chance can safely be stated to have caused this.

Please note that I went with your unsupported claim and accepted the 1:400
stat and not the 1:1600 which would have been reasonable to do.


>>>>
>>>> Now there were other states that could have been brought into this, so
>>>> there may be some bias as to which of the contested states are being looked
>>>> at... and that has not been taken into consideration. Still, the percentage
>>>> chance that the polls were off as much as they were is certainly something
>>>> worth questioning.
>>>>
>>>> This is something that is generally covered in intro stats classes... not
>>>> rocket science.
>>

>>> i've taken plenty of stats; you should consider some.
>>
>> Again, if you have a point to make, make it.
>>
>> If not, so be it, but do not pretend you have one.
>>
>> Until then, do you mind looking at these graphs:
>>
>> http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif
>> http://www.westgard.com/ls14f7.gif
>> http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/standarddev/color-chart-blue2.jpg
>>
>> And telling me if it which, if any, look like reasonable graphs of standard
>> deviations to you? Which are flawed, and in what way are they flawed?
>>
>> I am not even sure you know what a "real" standard deviation looks like. I
>> am always amazed at how few people - even those who know some stats - get
>> this simple test wrong (and as I looked for graphs how many sites claiming to
>> explain SD get it wrong!). Here is a hint, the errors in the incorrect
>> one(s) should pop out almost instantly if you really know what a SD is.
>
> wow. that is a loaded question, as i suppose it depends on what you mean by
> what a "real" standard deviation is to begin with; you must think it's
> something special given that you've put it in quots and all. a standard
> deviation, is simply a number that's the square root of the variance, so i'm
> not sure what you're getting at when you question what a "real" one looks
> like. it's simply a number- so whatever you think a real number "looks
> like" is it.

Can you identify the graphs that appear to be accurate or nearly so?

Can you identify the graphs that are clearly *not* accurate?

If you are truly familiar with the concept of a standard deviation, then the
incorrect graph(s) should be very obvious.

I find it quite telling that this is something you are not able to do. It
shows a lack of a basic understanding of what a standard deviation is.

<snip of your obfuscation of the question>>



>> Also: What do you think an investigation would find?

> nothing.

It would find the facts, I would hope. Facts are not, as you say, nothing.
Facts are important.


>
>> Why are you so against finding that?
>
> because i don't want my money wasted to find a whole lot of nothing.

Let me guess: you have never spend any time or money trying to find
yourself. :)

>> I do not expect you to answer, but I really would like to know.

> i've answered this previously; why do you keep asking it?

It is a test to see if you understand the simple stats involved in this
question.

So far you clearly do not.


--
"ok, let's have at it! i'm ready for you to throw your statistical
knowledge in my face!" - ed


ed

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 1:13:26 PM11/24/04
to

Snit wrote:
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
> CpYod.25898$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/24/04 2:22 AM:
<snip>

umm, no, you snipped my explanation, which tells you that all 3 of the


plots you posted are perfectly fine (approximate) representations of
the population that fall w/in 1-3 standard deviations of a normal
distribution as long as you understand that as you move out from the

mean the ranges are inclusive. that's what those graphs are intended
to do, and that's what they do. as i stated,

what do *you* imagine is wrong with them?

> >> Also: What do you think an investigation would find?
>
> > nothing.
>
> It would find the facts, I would hope. Facts are not, as you say,
nothing.
> Facts are important.
> >
> >> Why are you so against finding that?
> >
> > because i don't want my money wasted to find a whole lot of
nothing.
>
> Let me guess: you have never spend any time or money trying to find
> yourself. :)
>
> >> I do not expect you to answer, but I really would like to know.
>
> > i've answered this previously; why do you keep asking it?
>
> It is a test to see if you understand the simple stats involved in
this
> question.
>
> So far you clearly do not.

ha! i think you're imagining there's something there that there isn't;
i've answered- if i'm incorrect, please, by all means state what's
wrong.

while you're at it:

Snit

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 1:35:23 PM11/24/04
to
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote in post
1101320006.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 11/24/04 11:13 AM:

>> Can you identify the graphs that appear to be accurate or nearly so?
>>
>> Can you identify the graphs that are clearly *not* accurate?
>>
>> If you are truly familiar with the concept of a standard deviation, then the
>> incorrect graph(s) should be very obvious.
>>
>> I find it quite telling that this is something you are not able to do. It
>> shows a lack of a basic understanding of what a standard deviation is.
>

> umm, no, you snipped my explanation, which tells you that all 3 of the
> plots you posted are perfectly fine (approximate) representations of
> the population that fall w/in 1-3 standard deviations of a normal
> distribution as long as you understand that as you move out from the
> mean the ranges are inclusive. that's what those graphs are intended
> to do, and that's what they do.

Yet, at least one clearly has the standard deviation lines drawn incorrectly
on the bell curve. Why do you not recognize which ones? You have claimed
to have a good understanding of what a standard deviation is, and have even
suggested that I do not. Yet, when a simple question is placed before you,
you give an incorrect answer. How do you account for that?

> as i stated,
>
> what do *you* imagine is wrong with them?

There is something wrong with one or more of the graphs. Can you find the
error now?

My guess: you will not be able to identify which of the depictions of a
standard deviation are clearly incorrect. More than that, you will claim
that there is nothing clearly wrong with the depictions... while it is clear
to anyone who is truly familiar with the concept of a standard deviation
that one or more are clearly wrong.

Eventually I will give you the answer... but first I will have some fun
watching you evade and pretend like there no answer. I might also post this
in a separate thread... so we can see how many others can recognize the
error in one or more of the depictions.

ed

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 2:11:51 PM11/24/04
to

as i've said (three times now), all 3 of the plots you posted are


perfectly fine (approximate) representations of the population that

fall w/in 1-3 standard deviations of a normal distribution. do you
have your panties in a bunch and think the sdsu one is "wrong" because
it's not drawn to graph isn't drawn to scale?

ed

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 2:11:38 PM11/24/04
to

as i've said (three times now), all 3 of the plots you posted are


perfectly fine (approximate) representations of the population that

Snit

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 2:14:18 PM11/24/04
to
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote in post
1101323511....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 11/24/04 12:11 PM:

In what way do you think it is not drawn to scale?

Is that the only error you see in the depictions?

Snit

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 2:16:09 PM11/24/04
to
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote in post
1101323498....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 11/24/04 12:11 PM:

>> There is something wrong with one or more of the graphs. Can you find the
>> error now?
>>
>> http://www.robertniles.com/stats/graphics/stndv.gif
>> http://www.westgard.com/ls14f7.gif
>>
> http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/standarddev/color-chart-blue2.jpg
>>
>> My guess: you will not be able to identify which of the depictions of a
>> standard deviation are clearly incorrect. More than that, you will claim
>> that there is nothing clearly wrong with the depictions... while it is clear
>> to anyone who is truly familiar with the concept of a standard deviation that
>> one or more are clearly wrong.
>>
>> Eventually I will give you the answer... but first I will have some fun
>> watching you evade and pretend like there no answer. I might also post this
>> in a separate thread... so we can see how many others can recognize the error
>> in one or more of the depictions.
>
> as i've said (three times now),

This is at least the second time you have claimed you have stated this
"three times".

When does the count go to four? Seems you math knowledge is not what you
would like me to believe.

:)

> all 3 of the plots you posted are
> perfectly fine (approximate) representations of the population that
> fall w/in 1-3 standard deviations of a normal distribution. do you
> have your panties in a bunch and think the sdsu one is "wrong" because
> it's not drawn to graph isn't drawn to scale?
>

Responded to elsewhere... let's keep this to one sub-thread.

ed

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 9:02:41 PM11/24/04
to
In news:BDCA2C09.13922%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

wow, seeing as how they were posted 12 seconds apart, and the message is
exactly the same, you'd think a computer consultant as knowledgeable as
yourself might figure out that it was probably a server glitch.

>> all 3 of the plots you posted are
>> perfectly fine (approximate) representations of the population that
>> fall w/in 1-3 standard deviations of a normal distribution. do you
>> have your panties in a bunch and think the sdsu one is "wrong"
>> because
>> it's not drawn to graph isn't drawn to scale?
>>
>
> Responded to elsewhere... let's keep this to one sub-thread.

you seem to think this was an actual repost?


ed

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 9:04:46 PM11/24/04
to
In news:BDCA2B9A.13921%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

the intervals between the sds are not the same (on the x scale), and the
amount of the the population shaded doesn't correspond to the percentages
that would be covered at those standard deviations.

> Is that the only error you see in the depictions?

they weren't "errors" to begin with- they simply weren't drawn to scale.
what, now not only do you not know stats, you don't know how to read graphs?
=D and again, if you image other errors are present, please share.


Snit

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 10:31:05 PM11/24/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
25bpd.26529$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/24/04 7:04 PM:

Ok, but I would not say that is true, at least not clearly and obviously, on
all three.

>
>> Is that the only error you see in the depictions?
>
> they weren't "errors" to begin with- they simply weren't drawn to scale.

There is something more fundamentally wrong than that. Yet you can not
identify it. Why is that?

> what, now not only do you not know stats, you don't know how to read graphs?
> =D and again, if you image other errors are present, please share.

I will, evidentially... but I find it amusing that you do not have a good
grasp of what a standard deviation is or where it falls on a bell curve.

The ironic thing is you tried to pretend you knew stats - yet this is a
relatively basic concept. Here is your hint - and it is a big one - where
do you think the first standard deviation falls on a bell curve?

Snit

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 10:31:59 PM11/24/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
53bpd.26528$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/24/04 7:02 PM:


>>> as i've said (three times now),
>>
>> This is at least the second time you have claimed you have stated this "three
>> times".
>>
>> When does the count go to four? Seems you math knowledge is not what you
>> would like me to believe.
>>
>> :)
>
> wow, seeing as how they were posted 12 seconds apart, and the message is
> exactly the same, you'd think a computer consultant as knowledgeable as
> yourself might figure out that it was probably a server glitch.

Clever excuse on your part. Do you think I will buy it?


--
"He's guilty of committing the crime, not of breaking the law."
- CSMA Troll playing silly semantic games

ed

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 10:48:38 PM11/24/04
to
In news:BDCAA03F.13A11%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
> 53bpd.26528$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/24/04 7:02 PM:
>
>
>>>> as i've said (three times now),
>>>
>>> This is at least the second time you have claimed you have stated
>>> this "three times".
>>>
>>> When does the count go to four? Seems you math knowledge is not
>>> what you would like me to believe.
>>>
>>> :)
>>
>> wow, seeing as how they were posted 12 seconds apart, and the
>> message is exactly the same, you'd think a computer consultant as
>> knowledgeable as yourself might figure out that it was probably a
>> server glitch.
>
> Clever excuse on your part. Do you think I will buy it?

no, i don't think you understand computers enough to believe it.


ed

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 11:07:07 PM11/24/04
to
In news:BDCAA009.13A10%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

well, spit it out then. what is it? demonstrate your great knowledge!

>> what, now not only do you not know stats, you don't know how to read
>> graphs? =D and again, if you image other errors are present, please
>> share.
>
> I will, evidentially...

well, i look forward to you "evidentially" getting to it.

> but I find it amusing that you do not have a
> good grasp of what a standard deviation is or where it falls on a
> bell curve.

don't have a good grasp of where it falls on a bell curve? i look forward
to your comments about this!

> The ironic thing is you tried to pretend you knew stats - yet this is
> a relatively basic concept. Here is your hint - and it is a big one
> - where
> do you think the first standard deviation falls on a bell curve?

+/- one standard deviation covers approximately 68% of the data.
why don't you just spit out what you're getting at? afraid to look like a
fool? =D

oh yeah, and you keep forgetting to answer the questions here:
http://tinyurl.com/5qgkj


Snit

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 11:52:05 PM11/24/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
LTcpd.26550$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/24/04 9:07 PM:

Why not answer the question.

Why are you not able to identify the clear error in one or more of the
graphs.

Here, another hint: while calculus is not needed, it may help.


>
>>> what, now not only do you not know stats, you don't know how to read
>>> graphs? =D and again, if you image other errors are present, please
>>> share.
>>
>> I will, evidentially...
>
> well, i look forward to you "evidentially" getting to it.

And I am enjoying stringing you along. No doubt when I do reveal the
answer, or you stumble on to it from my hints, you will pretend you either
did know or that it does not matter that you do not.


>
>> but I find it amusing that you do not have a good grasp of what a standard
>> deviation is or where it falls on a bell curve.
>
> don't have a good grasp of where it falls on a bell curve? i look forward
> to your comments about this!

Where do you think it falls on the bell curve? Do you have any idea what a
standard deviation even is?


>
>> The ironic thing is you tried to pretend you knew stats - yet this is a
>> relatively basic concept. Here is your hint - and it is a big one - where do
>> you think the first standard deviation falls on a bell curve?
>
> +/- one standard deviation covers approximately 68% of the data.

Wow... you must be so proud to be able to read the graphs I have provided
you.

> why don't you just spit out what you're getting at? afraid to look like a
> fool? =D

LOL... here you are repeatedly showing off you have no idea what a SD is...
and you are concerned *I* will look the fool. That is funny.


>
> oh yeah, and you keep forgetting to answer the questions here:
> http://tinyurl.com/5qgkj

I have already offered my analysis of the data and pointed out where you
made errors.

Snit

unread,
Nov 25, 2004, 1:06:34 AM11/25/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
qCcpd.26542$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/24/04 8:48 PM:

Funny, coming from you, ed, someone who tried to explain statistics to me
but does not even know what an accurate visual depiction of a SD should look
like - in other words you have shown that you do not know what a SD even
*is*!

GreyCloud

unread,
Nov 26, 2004, 12:03:21 AM11/26/04
to

Snit wrote:

> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
> 53bpd.26528$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 11/24/04 7:02 PM:
>
>
>
>>>>as i've said (three times now),
>>>
>>>This is at least the second time you have claimed you have stated this "three
>>>times".
>>>
>>>When does the count go to four? Seems you math knowledge is not what you
>>>would like me to believe.
>>>
>>>:)
>>
>>wow, seeing as how they were posted 12 seconds apart, and the message is
>>exactly the same, you'd think a computer consultant as knowledgeable as
>>yourself might figure out that it was probably a server glitch.
>
>
> Clever excuse on your part. Do you think I will buy it?
>
>

I see you've run into a M$ troll.
Ain't nothin' dumber than a troll on OE 6.

--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r

Snit

unread,
Nov 26, 2004, 7:02:58 AM11/26/04
to
"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in post
Nd6dnZbWZOf...@bresnan.com on 11/25/04 10:03 PM:

>>>>> as i've said (three times now),
>>>>
>>>> This is at least the second time you have claimed you have stated this
>>>> "three times".
>>>>
>>>> When does the count go to four? Seems you math knowledge is not what you
>>>> would like me to believe.
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>
>>> wow, seeing as how they were posted 12 seconds apart, and the message is
>>> exactly the same, you'd think a computer consultant as knowledgeable as
>>> yourself might figure out that it was probably a server glitch.
>>
>> Clever excuse on your part. Do you think I will buy it?
>
> I see you've run into a M$ troll.
> Ain't nothin' dumber than a troll on OE 6.

He is just mad 'cause he wanted to give me a stats lesson, but when I asked
him if he could identify accurate visual depictions of a standard deviation
he was not able to do so.

Even after all sorts of hints, he has not been able to tell me even what a
standard deviation is... or where the first standard deviation falls on a
bell curve.

Somehow I think if I need any help with stats - which I am hardly an expert
in - I will find someone else other than ed to help me. :)

No matter if it was ed's error or his computer or his ISP or whatever, I do
not mind teasing him over his counting error.

GreyCloud

unread,
Nov 26, 2004, 7:00:01 PM11/26/04
to

Snit wrote:

> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in post
> Nd6dnZbWZOf...@bresnan.com on 11/25/04 10:03 PM:
>
>
>>>>>>as i've said (three times now),
>>>>>
>>>>>This is at least the second time you have claimed you have stated this
>>>>>"three times".
>>>>>
>>>>>When does the count go to four? Seems you math knowledge is not what you
>>>>>would like me to believe.
>>>>>
>>>>>:)
>>>>
>>>>wow, seeing as how they were posted 12 seconds apart, and the message is
>>>>exactly the same, you'd think a computer consultant as knowledgeable as
>>>>yourself might figure out that it was probably a server glitch.
>>>
>>>Clever excuse on your part. Do you think I will buy it?
>>
>>I see you've run into a M$ troll.
>>Ain't nothin' dumber than a troll on OE 6.
>
>
> He is just mad 'cause he wanted to give me a stats lesson, but when I asked
> him if he could identify accurate visual depictions of a standard deviation
> he was not able to do so.
>

I found this site that uses SD in market plots.

http://www.zealllc.com/2003/stddev.htm

I don't know if this relates to the argument tho.

> Even after all sorts of hints, he has not been able to tell me even what a
> standard deviation is... or where the first standard deviation falls on a
> bell curve.
>

I used to do SDs a long time ago in regards to test failures of certain
boards under test. It's basically an average of related data points.
But there is more to it than that. I'd have to reread the topic.

> Somehow I think if I need any help with stats - which I am hardly an expert
> in - I will find someone else other than ed to help me. :)
>

Well, I've yet to see any OE 6 users that do know.

> No matter if it was ed's error or his computer or his ISP or whatever, I do
> not mind teasing him over his counting error.
>
>

--

Snit

unread,
Nov 26, 2004, 7:14:42 PM11/26/04
to
"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in post
ZtGdnTbhCIl...@bresnan.com on 11/26/04 5:00 PM:

>>>>>>> as i've said (three times now),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is at least the second time you have claimed you have stated this
>>>>>> "three times".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When does the count go to four? Seems you math knowledge is not what you
>>>>>> would like me to believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :)
>>>>>
>>>>> wow, seeing as how they were posted 12 seconds apart, and the message is
>>>>> exactly the same, you'd think a computer consultant as knowledgeable as
>>>>> yourself might figure out that it was probably a server glitch.
>>>>
>>>> Clever excuse on your part. Do you think I will buy it?
>>>
>>> I see you've run into a M$ troll.
>>> Ain't nothin' dumber than a troll on OE 6.
>>
>>
>> He is just mad 'cause he wanted to give me a stats lesson, but when I asked
>> him if he could identify accurate visual depictions of a standard deviation
>> he was not able to do so.
>>
>
> I found this site that uses SD in market plots.
>
> http://www.zealllc.com/2003/stddev.htm
>
> I don't know if this relates to the argument tho.

Not real close. This is a better site... though it will give away the
answer I have been teasing ed over:

http://snipurl.com/ax1w

If you look part way down the page you will see this image:

http://snipurl.com/inflection_points

Ed was talking about SD and was trying to "teach" me what it was... so I
pointed him to several graphs, some with the SD correctly marked at the
inflection point, and some not. Most first year stats students are taught
that the first SD is the point where the curve goes from concave to convex,
but ed seems to not know this basic information. I think he knows the
formula, but does not know what the formula is finding or what it means
conceptually.

I am not a stats expert, but if I need help he does not seem to be someone
who would be likely to help me.


>
>> Even after all sorts of hints, he has not been able to tell me even what a
>> standard deviation is... or where the first standard deviation falls on a
>> bell curve.
>
> I used to do SDs a long time ago in regards to test failures of certain
> boards under test. It's basically an average of related data points.
> But there is more to it than that. I'd have to reread the topic.

It is where the curve goes from concave to convex.


>
>> Somehow I think if I need any help with stats - which I am hardly an expert
>> in - I will find someone else other than ed to help me. :)
>
> Well, I've yet to see any OE 6 users that do know.

:)



>> No matter if it was ed's error or his computer or his ISP or whatever, I do
>> not mind teasing him over his counting error.

--

GreyCloud

unread,
Nov 27, 2004, 2:41:38 PM11/27/04
to

Snit wrote:

This reminds me of a parallel or similar situation in Op Amps. The
zero-crossing. Of course it is mathematically different, but looks
similar except that it is based on trigonometry (sine wave).

I never liked stats all that much. Always had to create a graph of
board failures for higher management each month.

Snit

unread,
Nov 27, 2004, 2:51:51 PM11/27/04
to
"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in post
0cKdnUvmh6Q...@bresnan.com on 11/27/04 12:41 PM:

>> Not real close. This is a better site... though it will give away the
>> answer I have been teasing ed over:
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/ax1w
>>
>> If you look part way down the page you will see this image:
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/inflection_points
>>
>> Ed was talking about SD and was trying to "teach" me what it was... so I
>> pointed him to several graphs, some with the SD correctly marked at the
>> inflection point, and some not. Most first year stats students are taught
>> that the first SD is the point where the curve goes from concave to convex,
>> but ed seems to not know this basic information. I think he knows the
>> formula, but does not know what the formula is finding or what it means
>> conceptually.
>>
>> I am not a stats expert, but if I need help he does not seem to be someone
>> who would be likely to help me.
>>
>>>> Even after all sorts of hints, he has not been able to tell me even what a
>>>> standard deviation is... or where the first standard deviation falls on a
>>>> bell curve.
>>>
>>> I used to do SDs a long time ago in regards to test failures of certain
>>> boards under test. It's basically an average of related data points.
>>> But there is more to it than that. I'd have to reread the topic.
>>
>> It is where the curve goes from concave to convex.
>
> This reminds me of a parallel or similar situation in Op Amps. The
> zero-crossing. Of course it is mathematically different, but looks
> similar except that it is based on trigonometry (sine wave).

Hmmm, not familiar with that, but if I can make a hunch, they are sort of
similar in that the zero points on a standard sine wave are the places where
the curve goes from concave to convex. On a bell curve the points would be
above the zero point, as a bell curve never actually reaches zero. :)

As sine curve would also have an infinite number of such places where the
curve goes from concave to convex, while a bell curve would have only two.
Those two points fall at -1 and +1 standard deviations from the mean.


>
> I never liked stats all that much. Always had to create a graph of
> board failures for higher management each month.

I am far, far from a stats expert, but based on some of the databases I
created at Intuit and the tracking I did of employee incentive data, I was
pulled into another department to help the "experts" in that area understand
the trends in call stats. There is no doubt the people there, as a whole,
had much better stats and math backgrounds than me, but they often could not
relate the numbers to what they really meant for the floor.

Then again, I had the tendency to do a whole lot of work where I would work
with the numbers figuring that somehow I would be able to find the stats I
needed to work out reasonable numbers. Generally this worked out well... if
I could not do the actual stats, someone else could help me with them. A
few times I did end up doing a lot of work only to find that the info I
wanted to get at was not something we were going to be able to get... but so
be it. The "stats" people had the weakness of offering all sorts of stats
that I am sure were perfectly accurate but held no purpose for helping us to
understand our improve processes. In the end, we each had strengths /
weaknesses. In that way we made a good team, each with our own strengths.

ed

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:42:53 AM11/29/04
to

GreyCloud wrote:
<snip>

>
> I see you've run into a M$ troll.
> Ain't nothin' dumber than a troll on OE 6.

OE6 is quite a nice news reader, thank you very much. please, tell me,
what do you think is so wrong w/ it for news?

ed

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:38:43 AM11/29/04
to

i did, in many different ways.

> Why are you not able to identify the clear error in one or more of
the
> graphs.
>
> Here, another hint: while calculus is not needed, it may help.

you appear to be talking about the inflection point- that would have
been covered by one of my previous answers. did you not know that was
covered by one of my previous answers?

> >>> what, now not only do you not know stats, you don't know how to
read
> >>> graphs? =D and again, if you image other errors are present,
please
> >>> share.
> >>
> >> I will, evidentially...
> >
> > well, i look forward to you "evidentially" getting to it.
>
> And I am enjoying stringing you along. No doubt when I do reveal the
> answer, or you stumble on to it from my hints, you will pretend you
either
> did know or that it does not matter that you do not.
> >
> >> but I find it amusing that you do not have a good grasp of what a
standard
> >> deviation is or where it falls on a bell curve.
> >
> > don't have a good grasp of where it falls on a bell curve? i look
forward
> > to your comments about this!
>
> Where do you think it falls on the bell curve?

i already told you- at +/- 68%; you seem to want to know explicitly
that it's on the inflection point- you do realize that two answers tell
you the EXACT same thing, right?

> Do you have any idea what a
> standard deviation even is?

i already told you previously what it was.

> >> The ironic thing is you tried to pretend you knew stats - yet this
is a
> >> relatively basic concept. Here is your hint - and it is a big one
- where do
> >> you think the first standard deviation falls on a bell curve?
> >
> > +/- one standard deviation covers approximately 68% of the data.
>
> Wow... you must be so proud to be able to read the graphs I have
provided
> you.

yeah, and that answers your question. you know that, right?

> > why don't you just spit out what you're getting at? afraid to look
like a
> > fool? =D
>
> LOL... here you are repeatedly showing off you have no idea what a SD
is...
> and you are concerned *I* will look the fool. That is funny.

umm, no, i told you *exactly* what a sd is- it's the sq. root of the
variance.

> > oh yeah, and you keep forgetting to answer the questions here:
> > http://tinyurl.com/5qgkj
>
> I have already offered my analysis of the data and pointed out where
you
> made errors.

1- you didn't answer the questions
2- you didn't analyze the data (that's a different article)
3- i asked for an explanation of where you got your numbers, and you
couldn't provide it.

ed

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:41:26 AM11/29/04
to

funny, you don't seem to realize that those are only representative
graphs of a normal curve w/ where the standard deviations fall, and
that to read a graph, you shouldn't simply rely on the pretty pictures
since they are not, as i stated, to scale.

ed

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:38:56 AM11/29/04
to

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 2:56:19 PM11/29/04
to
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote in post
1101742886.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 11/29/04 8:41 AM:

>> Funny, coming from you, ed, someone who tried to explain statistics to me but
>> does not even know what an accurate visual depiction of a SD should look like
>> - in other words you have shown that you do not know what a SD even *is*!
>
> funny, you don't seem to realize that those are only representative
> graphs of a normal curve w/ where the standard deviations fall, and
> that to read a graph, you shouldn't simply rely on the pretty pictures
> since they are not, as i stated, to scale.

It is more than not just being to scale... and when I asked you what you
meant by being off scale you answered honestly - they were not drawn so each
standard deviation from the norm was the same distance from one another.

I even gave you the hint of calculus, which is often used to look at curves
and the different points of note on the curves.

Face it, ed, you had no idea where the standard deviation falls on a bell
curve. That would have been fine had it not been for you trying to shove
you "advanced" knowledge in my face.

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 2:56:55 PM11/29/04
to
Great commentary, ed.

Well done.


"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote in post

1101742736.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 11/29/04 8:38 AM:

--

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 2:58:39 PM11/29/04
to
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote in post
1101742723....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 11/29/04 8:38 AM:

>> Why not answer the question.
>>
> i did, in many different ways.
>
>> Why are you not able to identify the clear error in one or more of the
>> graphs.
>>
>> Here, another hint: while calculus is not needed, it may help.
>>
> you appear to be talking about the inflection point- that would have been
> covered by one of my previous answers. did you not know that was covered by
> one of my previous answers?

Wow... you read my posts on this. Good job!

The graphs were more than not just being to scale, which was your only
complaint... and when I asked you what you meant by being off scale you


answered honestly - they were not drawn so each standard deviation from the
norm was the same distance from one another.

I even gave you the hint of calculus, which is often used to look at curves
and the different points of note on the curves.

Face it, ed, you had no idea where the standard deviation falls on a bell
curve. That would have been fine had it not been for you trying to shove
you "advanced" knowledge in my face.

--

GreyCloud

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 1:33:37 PM11/29/04
to

ed wrote:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! They don't call it Outhouse Distress for nothing.
It's one of the crappiest newsreader and mail program I've ever used.

Elizabot v2.0.2

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 6:23:27 PM11/29/04
to
Snit wrote:
> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote in post
> 1101742886.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 11/29/04 8:41 AM:
>
>
>>>Funny, coming from you, ed, someone who tried to explain statistics to me but
>>>does not even know what an accurate visual depiction of a SD should look like
>>>- in other words you have shown that you do not know what a SD even *is*!
>>
>>funny, you don't seem to realize that those are only representative
>>graphs of a normal curve w/ where the standard deviations fall, and
>>that to read a graph, you shouldn't simply rely on the pretty pictures
>>since they are not, as i stated, to scale.
>
>
> It is more than not just being to scale... and when I asked you what you
> meant by being off scale you answered honestly - they were not drawn so each
> standard deviation from the norm was the same distance from one another.
>
> I even gave you the hint of calculus, which is often used to look at curves
> and the different points of note on the curves.

You've said nothing about how f"(x)=0 at the inflection points. This is
very important. As you've written nothing about the second derivative of
the function, I can only conclude that you are bluffing your knowledge here.

> Face it, ed, you had no idea where the standard deviation falls on a bell
> curve. That would have been fine had it not been for you trying to shove
> you "advanced" knowledge in my face.

Face it, Snit. You're the one with less than advanced knowledge.

--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04

By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 8:06:13 PM11/29/04
to
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
41abaf71$0$204$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 4:23 PM:

>>>> Funny, coming from you, ed, someone who tried to explain statistics to me
>>>> but does not even know what an accurate visual depiction of a SD should
>>>> look like - in other words you have shown that you do not know what a SD
>>>> even *is*!
>>>
>>> funny, you don't seem to realize that those are only representative
>>> graphs of a normal curve w/ where the standard deviations fall, and
>>> that to read a graph, you shouldn't simply rely on the pretty pictures
>>> since they are not, as i stated, to scale.
>>
>> It is more than not just being to scale... and when I asked you what you
>> meant by being off scale you answered honestly - they were not drawn so each
>> standard deviation from the norm was the same distance from one another.
>>
>> I even gave you the hint of calculus, which is often used to look at curves
>> and the different points of note on the curves.
>
> You've said nothing about how f"(x)=0 at the inflection points. This is
> very important. As you've written nothing about the second derivative of
> the function, I can only conclude that you are bluffing your knowledge here.

You think I am bluffing when I tell you that the first standard deviation
(in each direction) falls on the inflection points?

Why do you think that is a bluff?

And why are you trying to change the topic? The idea that inflection points
are almost always a part of a first year calculus class is nothing worth
debating.

>
>> Face it, ed, you had no idea where the standard deviation falls on a bell
>> curve. That would have been fine had it not been for you trying to shove
>> you "advanced" knowledge in my face.
>
> Face it, Snit. You're the one with less than advanced knowledge.

I may have less "advanced" knowledge in other areas of math... I am
certainly not well versed in advanced math. If I was, I would not find it
so funny that you were trying to shove concepts down my throat that you
could not even recognize on a graph.

Let me guess... next you will take a class and want me to do your homework.
No thanks. Who cares what else you or I know... the point was you were
spewing info that relied on the concept of a SD but you could not even
recognize such basic things as where a SD should be on a graph... other than
to know that they should be equally separated from each other.

Elizabot v2.0.2

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 8:20:55 PM11/29/04
to
Snit wrote:
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41abaf71$0$204$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 4:23 PM:
>
>
>>>>>Funny, coming from you, ed, someone who tried to explain statistics to me
>>>>>but does not even know what an accurate visual depiction of a SD should
>>>>>look like - in other words you have shown that you do not know what a SD
>>>>>even *is*!
>>>>
>>>>funny, you don't seem to realize that those are only representative
>>>>graphs of a normal curve w/ where the standard deviations fall, and
>>>>that to read a graph, you shouldn't simply rely on the pretty pictures
>>>>since they are not, as i stated, to scale.
>>>
>>>It is more than not just being to scale... and when I asked you what you
>>>meant by being off scale you answered honestly - they were not drawn so each
>>>standard deviation from the norm was the same distance from one another.
>>>
>>>I even gave you the hint of calculus, which is often used to look at curves
>>>and the different points of note on the curves.
>>
>>You've said nothing about how f"(x)=0 at the inflection points. This is
>>very important. As you've written nothing about the second derivative of
>>the function, I can only conclude that you are bluffing your knowledge here.
>
>
> You think I am bluffing when I tell you that the first standard deviation
> (in each direction) falls on the inflection points?
>
> Why do you think that is a bluff?

You're bluffing about how well you know statistics. It's *extremely*
obvious that you know don't know shit if you don't understand the
importance of f"(x)=0 at the inflection points, Snit.

> And why are you trying to change the topic? The idea that inflection points
> are almost always a part of a first year calculus class is nothing worth
> debating.

The fact that you think my pointing out that f"(x)=0 at the inflection
points is somehow changing the topic tells me all I need about how well
you understand statistics, calculus, and bell curves.

>>>Face it, ed, you had no idea where the standard deviation falls on a bell
>>>curve. That would have been fine had it not been for you trying to shove
>>>you "advanced" knowledge in my face.
>>
>>Face it, Snit. You're the one with less than advanced knowledge.
>
>
> I may have less "advanced" knowledge in other areas of math... I am
> certainly not well versed in advanced math. If I was, I would not find it
> so funny that you were trying to shove concepts down my throat that you
> could not even recognize on a graph.

You sure as hell don't understand the full significance of inflection
points if you think I'm trying to change the topic. Face it, Snit.
You're bluffing your knowledge here.

> Let me guess... next you will take a class and want me to do your homework.
> No thanks. Who cares what else you or I know... the point was you were
> spewing info that relied on the concept of a SD but you could not even
> recognize such basic things as where a SD should be on a graph... other than
> to know that they should be equally separated from each other.

I never bothered pointing out where the inflection points are on those
stupid graphs that you found, Snit.

Why don't you admit that you have no idea what I was talking about when
I mentioned the second derivative of the function that describes a bell
curve, Snit? You've all but admitted it above when you claimed I was
changing the topic.

You obviously have a very poor grasp of calculus and statistics and how
they apply to bell curves. Your pretending that I need your help about
this is completely ludicrous.

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 8:29:48 PM11/29/04
to
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
41abcafb$0$200$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 6:20 PM:

The topic was where the SD falls on a graphical representation of a bell
curve. If you recall, I am the one who brought up the idea that calculus
was related. Do you think it is not related? Were you ignorant of the fact
that the first SD falls on the inflection points?

In any case, if you want to continue this discussion with me, I need to know
that you are not just doing do to be hostile.

Do you agree to end hostilities? If not, what is the point in continuing
the conversation?

Elizabot v2.0.2

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 8:34:13 PM11/29/04
to

I see you are still bluffing about how well you understand statistics.

You are the one who is ignorant here, Snit. Specifically about f"(x)=0
at the inflection points and it's significance.

Why do you think that f"(x)=0 at the inflection points is changing the
topic?

> In any case, if you want to continue this discussion with me, I need to know
> that you are not just doing do to be hostile.
>
> Do you agree to end hostilities? If not, what is the point in continuing
> the conversation?

I obviously know much more about the topic that you, and I really am not
in the mood to be your teacher.

Is it too much for me to ask you to admit that you don't know what I'm
talking about?

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 8:49:12 PM11/29/04
to
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
41abce16$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 6:34 PM:

Because it is not directly on the topic of which of the graphs is visually
incorrect.

Funny how you and ed suddenly learn so much once I tell you the answer.


>
>> In any case, if you want to continue this discussion with me, I need to know
>> that you are not just doing do to be hostile.
>>
>> Do you agree to end hostilities? If not, what is the point in continuing
>> the conversation?
>
> I obviously know much more about the topic that you, and I really am not
> in the mood to be your teacher.

Yawn. I do not care who knows more about the topic.

In any case, why the obfuscation of my question?


>
> Is it too much for me to ask you to admit that you don't know what I'm
> talking about?

Why would I claim your lies are correct?

So, care to end hostilities between us?

I do.

Elizabot v2.0.2

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 9:01:48 PM11/29/04
to

Actually the topic has been about standard deviations, Snit. And
considering you don't understand the significance of f"(x)=0 at the
inflection points, I'd say that your knowledge is very poor indeed.

> Funny how you and ed suddenly learn so much once I tell you the answer.

Funny how you still don't even understand the significance of f"(x)=0 at
the inflection points.

You have so much egg on your face, and you don't even realize it.

>>>In any case, if you want to continue this discussion with me, I need to know
>>>that you are not just doing do to be hostile.
>>>
>>>Do you agree to end hostilities? If not, what is the point in continuing
>>>the conversation?
>>
>>I obviously know much more about the topic that you, and I really am not
>>in the mood to be your teacher.
>
>
> Yawn. I do not care who knows more about the topic.

It is all too obvious that I know more than you.

> In any case, why the obfuscation of my question?
>
>>Is it too much for me to ask you to admit that you don't know what I'm
>>talking about?
>
>
> Why would I claim your lies are correct?

Please provide proof that anything that I've said about f"(x)=0 at the
inflection points is a lie.

> So, care to end hostilities between us?
>
> I do.

Then stop pretending that I'm lying about the inflection points. It is
all too obvious that you have no idea what I am talking about.

For you to pretend that what I have written here and call me a liar over
this proves to me that you are nothing but a decitful, hate-filled,
lying little troll.

Admit that you don't know the significance of f"(x)=0 at the inflection
points and be done with it. Either that or Google something up and try
to bluff your way even more.

ed

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 9:31:51 PM11/29/04
to
In news:BDD0CCF3.1480B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote in post
> 1101742886.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 11/29/04
> 8:41 AM:
>
>>> Funny, coming from you, ed, someone who tried to explain statistics
>>> to me but does not even know what an accurate visual depiction of a
>>> SD should look like
>>> - in other words you have shown that you do not know what a SD even
>>> *is*!
>>
>> funny, you don't seem to realize that those are only representative
>> graphs of a normal curve w/ where the standard deviations fall, and
>> that to read a graph, you shouldn't simply rely on the pretty
>> pictures
>> since they are not, as i stated, to scale.
>
> It is more than not just being to scale... and when I asked you what
> you
> meant by being off scale you answered honestly - they were not drawn
> so each standard deviation from the norm was the same distance from
> one another.

i also said (in the same sentence) "and the amount of the the population


shaded doesn't correspond to the percentages that would be covered at those

standard deviations." that part covers the fact that the first SD occurs at
the inflection point.

> I even gave you the hint of calculus, which is often used to look at
> curves
> and the different points of note on the curves.
>
> Face it, ed, you had no idea where the standard deviation falls on a
> bell curve.

no, you just don't understand that the second half of my statement covers
that.

> That would have been fine had it not been for you trying
> to shove
> you "advanced" knowledge in my face.

no, it's *basic* stats, and you don't understand it.


ed

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 9:35:26 PM11/29/04
to
In news:BDD0CD7F.1480D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote in post
> 1101742723....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 11/29/04 8:38
> AM:
>
>>> Why not answer the question.
>>>
>> i did, in many different ways.
>>
>>> Why are you not able to identify the clear error in one or more of
>>> the graphs.
>>>
>>> Here, another hint: while calculus is not needed, it may help.
>>>
>> you appear to be talking about the inflection point- that would have
>> been covered by one of my previous answers. did you not know that
>> was covered by one of my previous answers?
>
> Wow... you read my posts on this. Good job!
>
> The graphs were more than not just being to scale, which was your only
> complaint... and when I asked you what you meant by being off scale
> you answered honestly - they were not drawn so each standard
> deviation from the norm was the same distance from one another.

i also said (in the same sentence) "and the amount of the the population


shaded doesn't correspond to the percentages that would be covered at those

standard deviations." that part covers the fact that the first SD occurs at

the inflection point. it's basic snit, and you don't seem to get it still.

> I even gave you the hint of calculus, which is often used to look at
> curves and the different points of note on the curves.
>
> Face it, ed, you had no idea where the standard deviation falls on a
> bell curve.

sure i do- my comments covered it, but you apparently couldn't relate the
two (basically identical concepts) in your mind.

> That would have been fine had it not been for you trying
> to shove
> you "advanced" knowledge in my face.

it's *basic* stats, and you still don't get it.


Elizabot v2.0.2

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 9:43:53 PM11/29/04
to
ed wrote:
> In news:BDD0CD7F.1480D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
>
>>"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote in post
>>1101742723....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 11/29/04 8:38
>>AM:
>>
>>
>>>>Why not answer the question.
>>>>
>>>
>>>i did, in many different ways.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why are you not able to identify the clear error in one or more of
>>>>the graphs.
>>>>
>>>>Here, another hint: while calculus is not needed, it may help.
>>>>
>>>
>>>you appear to be talking about the inflection point- that would have
>>>been covered by one of my previous answers. did you not know that
>>>was covered by one of my previous answers?
>>
>>Wow... you read my posts on this. Good job!
>>
>>The graphs were more than not just being to scale, which was your only
>>complaint... and when I asked you what you meant by being off scale
>>you answered honestly - they were not drawn so each standard
>>deviation from the norm was the same distance from one another.
>
>
> i also said (in the same sentence) "and the amount of the the population
> shaded doesn't correspond to the percentages that would be covered at those
> standard deviations." that part covers the fact that the first SD occurs at
> the inflection point. it's basic snit, and you don't seem to get it still.

I doubt he understands about the area under the curve and how it is
related, either. I'm sure he's off googling up something, as he seems to
have run away from the conversation about statistics that he and I were
having.

>
>>I even gave you the hint of calculus, which is often used to look at
>>curves and the different points of note on the curves.
>>
>>Face it, ed, you had no idea where the standard deviation falls on a
>>bell curve.
>
>
> sure i do- my comments covered it, but you apparently couldn't relate the
> two (basically identical concepts) in your mind.
>
>
>>That would have been fine had it not been for you trying
>>to shove
>>you "advanced" knowledge in my face.
>
>
> it's *basic* stats, and you still don't get it.

Yep. I suppose it was unfair of me to step it up a notch. :-)

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:34:41 PM11/29/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
O%Qqd.51748$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 11/29/04 7:35 PM:

>>>> Why not answer the question.
>>>>
>>> i did, in many different ways.
>>>
>>>> Why are you not able to identify the clear error in one or more of
>>>> the graphs.
>>>>
>>>> Here, another hint: while calculus is not needed, it may help.
>>>>
>>> you appear to be talking about the inflection point- that would have
>>> been covered by one of my previous answers. did you not know that
>>> was covered by one of my previous answers?
>>
>> Wow... you read my posts on this. Good job!
>>
>> The graphs were more than not just being to scale, which was your only
>> complaint... and when I asked you what you meant by being off scale
>> you answered honestly - they were not drawn so each standard
>> deviation from the norm was the same distance from one another.
>
> i also said (in the same sentence) "and the amount of the the population
> shaded doesn't correspond to the percentages that would be covered at those
> standard deviations." that part covers the fact that the first SD occurs at
> the inflection point. it's basic snit, and you don't seem to get it still.

LOL... yes, it is basic... yet you missed it, repeatedly, on simple graphs.

That is the point. You pretended you were going to teach me about what a SD
is, but you clearly were not familiar with such basic information.


>
>> I even gave you the hint of calculus, which is often used to look at
>> curves and the different points of note on the curves.
>>
>> Face it, ed, you had no idea where the standard deviation falls on a
>> bell curve.
>
> sure i do- my comments covered it, but you apparently couldn't relate the
> two (basically identical concepts) in your mind.

You never mentioned the inflection point, or the place where the curve goes
from concave to convex. You were not able to determine which graphs did not
show the first SD at the inflection point.


>
>> That would have been fine had it not been for you trying to shove you
>> "advanced" knowledge in my face.
>
> it's *basic* stats, and you still don't get it.

You are too funny... you miss something even *you* call basic, and then are
too ashamed to admit it.

Why could you not identify the graphs which were incorrect? Can you now?

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:36:00 PM11/29/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
rYQqd.51747$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 11/29/04 7:31 PM:


None of this explains why you were not able to identify the graphs that were
clearly wrong.

Now that I have given you the answer you pretend you knew it all along...
yet you were not able to answer the questions about such basic knowledge.

You were saying?

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:38:28 PM11/29/04
to
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
41abde6a$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 7:43 PM:

>> it's *basic* stats, and you still don't get it.
>
> Yep. I suppose it was unfair of me to step it up a notch. :-)


Neither you nor ed were able to answer questions on "basic" stats. Now you
are both whining about it.

Get over it already.

Elizabot v2.0.2

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:41:52 PM11/29/04
to
Snit wrote:
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41abde6a$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 7:43 PM:
>
>
>>>it's *basic* stats, and you still don't get it.
>>
>>Yep. I suppose it was unfair of me to step it up a notch. :-)
>
>
>
> Neither you nor ed were able to answer questions on "basic" stats. Now you
> are both whining about it.

What part of "I didn't bother to play that silly game of yours" is too
difficult for you to understand?

> Get over it already.

Have you figured out the significance of f"(x)=0 at the inflection
points yet?

I didn't think so. You aren't fooling anybody here. Except yourself,
like always.

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:49:50 PM11/29/04
to
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
41abec00$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 8:41 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>> 41abde6a$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 7:43 PM:
>>
>>
>>>> it's *basic* stats, and you still don't get it.
>>>
>>> Yep. I suppose it was unfair of me to step it up a notch. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Neither you nor ed were able to answer questions on "basic" stats. Now you
>> are both whining about it.
>
> What part of "I didn't bother to play that silly game of yours" is too
> difficult for you to understand?

Yet you want to jump into the "game" now... once I have provided the
answers. And then you want to pretend you knew the answers all along.

Go sell that manure somewhere else. I am not buying it.


>
>> Get over it already.
>
> Have you figured out the significance of f"(x)=0 at the inflection
> points yet?

Many years ago. Do you want to end hostilities and discuss it?


>
> I didn't think so. You aren't fooling anybody here. Except yourself,
> like always.


See the hostilities you are pushing here? On one hand you pretend like you
want to discuss the significance of f"(x)=0 at the inflection points, and on
the other hand you make absurd accusations and insults. Your actions are
not rational.

Elizabot v2.0.2

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:53:31 PM11/29/04
to

I see you are still unable to figure out the significance of f"(x)=0 at
the inflection points.

Please resume your trolling.

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:58:43 PM11/29/04
to
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
41abeebb$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 8:53 PM:

>> See the hostilities you are pushing here? On one hand you pretend like you
>> want to discuss the significance of f"(x)=0 at the inflection points, and on
>> the other hand you make absurd accusations and insults. Your actions are
>> not rational.
>
> I see you are still unable to figure out the significance of f"(x)=0 at
> the inflection points.

If that is what you see, then you need glasses. If that is how you
interpret my comments, you need to improve your reading comprehension.
>
> Please resume your trolling.

It is sad that my offer to end hostilities between us has been used by you
to become another tool to continue silly games and trolling by both of us.

There is nothing I can do to prevent you from doing so, but I could simply
not respond to you - so yes, we are both trolling currently as we post back
and forth. Steve has joined the game. You, he, and I may enjoy the game,
but csma suffers from it.

The difference being I am asking for it to stop, and you are unwilling to
let it.

Elizabot v2.0.2

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 11:23:10 PM11/29/04
to
Snit wrote:
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41abeebb$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 8:53 PM:
>
>
>>>See the hostilities you are pushing here? On one hand you pretend like you
>>>want to discuss the significance of f"(x)=0 at the inflection points, and on
>>>the other hand you make absurd accusations and insults. Your actions are
>>>not rational.
>>
>>I see you are still unable to figure out the significance of f"(x)=0 at
>>the inflection points.
>
>
> If that is what you see, then you need glasses. If that is how you
> interpret my comments, you need to improve your reading comprehension.

This thread is supposed to be about the standard deviation and
inflection points. Just trying to keep you from spinning too far off
topic, Snit.

And I see that you are still unable to figure out the significance of

f"(x)=0 at the inflection points.

>>Please resume your trolling.


>
>
> It is sad that my offer to end hostilities between us has been used by you
> to become another tool to continue silly games and trolling by both of us.
>
> There is nothing I can do to prevent you from doing so, but I could simply
> not respond to you - so yes, we are both trolling currently as we post back
> and forth. Steve has joined the game. You, he, and I may enjoy the game,
> but csma suffers from it.
>
> The difference being I am asking for it to stop, and you are unwilling to
> let it.

First of all. let me thank you for complying with my request that you
resume your trolling. I'm glad you can finally be honest and admit
that's what you've been doing.

All you have to do is stop trolling and I will stop rubbing your face in
it, Snit.

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 11:34:23 PM11/29/04
to
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
41abf5ae$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 9:23 PM:

>>>> See the hostilities you are pushing here? On one hand you pretend like you
>>>> want to discuss the significance of f"(x)=0 at the inflection points, and
>>>> on the other hand you make absurd accusations and insults. Your actions
>>>> are not rational.
>>>
>>> I see you are still unable to figure out the significance of f"(x)=0 at
>>> the inflection points.
>>
>> If that is what you see, then you need glasses. If that is how you
>> interpret my comments, you need to improve your reading comprehension.
>
> This thread is supposed to be about the standard deviation and
> inflection points. Just trying to keep you from spinning too far off
> topic, Snit.

The question I asked was about being able to find graphs where the 1st SD
lines were not drawn correctly. Neither you nor ed were able to do so until
*after* I gave the answer away.

Since then you have tossed around many accusations and bizarre claims, and
have even gone off onto vertical tangent.


>
> And I see that you are still unable to figure out the significance of
> f"(x)=0 at the inflection points.

How do you see that? Is that what you mistakenly understand from my refusal
to head off onto your vertical tangent?


>
>>> Please resume your trolling.
>>
>>
>> It is sad that my offer to end hostilities between us has been used by you
>> to become another tool to continue silly games and trolling by both of us.
>>
>> There is nothing I can do to prevent you from doing so, but I could simply
>> not respond to you - so yes, we are both trolling currently as we post back
>> and forth. Steve has joined the game. You, he, and I may enjoy the game,
>> but csma suffers from it.
>>
>> The difference being I am asking for it to stop, and you are unwilling to
>> let it.
>
> First of all. let me thank you for complying with my request that you
> resume your trolling. I'm glad you can finally be honest and admit
> that's what you've been doing.

We both are trolling in this thread. We are not having a meaningful
discussion. We are pushing accusations at one another. You may not be able
to admit to it it, but what we are doing here - and we both are doing it -
is a form of trolling. Clearly it amuses us both, or we would stop.

The reason I am not stopping is I truly hope to get to a place of reduced or
eliminated hostilities, so I am willing to play your game ... as you are
clearly enjoying it.


>
> All you have to do is stop trolling and I will stop rubbing your face in
> it, Snit.

Please define what you will refer to as trolling. As it stands now, the
term is too vague... please be specific. If you can be, we may have a deal.
I, too, will stop rubbing your face into your trolling.

Thank you for moving in a productive direction. I hope it continues.

Elizabot v2.0.2

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 11:42:21 PM11/29/04
to
Snit wrote:
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41abf5ae$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 9:23 PM:
>
>
>>>>>See the hostilities you are pushing here? On one hand you pretend like you
>>>>>want to discuss the significance of f"(x)=0 at the inflection points, and
>>>>>on the other hand you make absurd accusations and insults. Your actions
>>>>>are not rational.
>>>>
>>>>I see you are still unable to figure out the significance of f"(x)=0 at
>>>>the inflection points.
>>>
>>>If that is what you see, then you need glasses. If that is how you
>>>interpret my comments, you need to improve your reading comprehension.
>>
>>This thread is supposed to be about the standard deviation and
>>inflection points. Just trying to keep you from spinning too far off
>>topic, Snit.
>
>
> The question I asked was about being able to find graphs where the 1st SD
> lines were not drawn correctly. Neither you nor ed were able to do so until
> *after* I gave the answer away.

I didn't bother to enter the thread until that point. It's not that I
wasn't *able* to, Snit.

I wanted to see the direction of your troll before I entered.

> Since then you have tossed around many accusations and bizarre claims, and
> have even gone off onto vertical tangent.

f"(x)=0 at the inflection points is directly related to the subject at
hand. Admit your ignorance. Maybe you can ask Rick G. to help you. He
seems pretty smart.

>>And I see that you are still unable to figure out the significance of
>>f"(x)=0 at the inflection points.
>
>
> How do you see that? Is that what you mistakenly understand from my refusal
> to head off onto your vertical tangent?

LOL! You really don't understand its significance, huh?


--

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 11:49:54 PM11/29/04
to
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
41abfa2d$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 9:42 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>> 41abf5ae$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 9:23 PM:
>>
>>
>>>>>> See the hostilities you are pushing here? On one hand you pretend like
>>>>>> you want to discuss the significance of f"(x)=0 at the inflection points,
>>>>>> and on the other hand you make absurd accusations and insults. Your
>>>>>> actions are not rational.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I see you are still unable to figure out the significance of f"(x)=0 at
>>>>> the inflection points.
>>>>>
>>>> If that is what you see, then you need glasses. If that is how you
>>>> interpret my comments, you need to improve your reading comprehension.
>>>>
>>> This thread is supposed to be about the standard deviation and inflection
>>> points. Just trying to keep you from spinning too far off topic, Snit.
>>>
>>
>> The question I asked was about being able to find graphs where the 1st SD
>> lines were not drawn correctly. Neither you nor ed were able to do so until
>> *after* I gave the answer away.
>>
> I didn't bother to enter the thread until that point. It's not that I wasn't
> *able* to, Snit.

Just as my not wanting to talk to you about math does not show I am not
*able* to... right? Is that what you are saying?


>
> I wanted to see the direction of your troll before I entered.

In what way do you consider it trolling?


>
>> Since then you have tossed around many accusations and bizarre claims, and
>> have even gone off onto vertical tangent.
>>
> f"(x)=0 at the inflection points is directly related to the subject at hand.
> Admit your ignorance. Maybe you can ask Rick G. to help you. He seems pretty
> smart.

Again you are making unfounded accusations of ignorance. May I ask why? It
certainly is not a good direction to go if you want to end hostilities, as I
do.


>
>>> And I see that you are still unable to figure out the significance of
>>> f"(x)=0 at the inflection points.
>>>
>>
>> How do you see that? Is that what you mistakenly understand from my refusal
>> to head off onto your vertical tangent?
>>
> LOL! You really don't understand its significance, huh?

What leads you to that conclusion? Hate to tell you this, but if you really
understood what you were talking about, you would have seen the several
clues I have snuck into my posts to you that show you I do.

You seem to have missed them. See if you can find any or all of them...
somehow I doubt you will.

No comments?

Elizabot v2.0.2

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 11:56:38 PM11/29/04
to
Snit wrote:
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41abfa2d$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 9:42 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>>>41abf5ae$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 9:23 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>See the hostilities you are pushing here? On one hand you pretend like
>>>>>>>you want to discuss the significance of f"(x)=0 at the inflection points,
>>>>>>>and on the other hand you make absurd accusations and insults. Your
>>>>>>>actions are not rational.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see you are still unable to figure out the significance of f"(x)=0 at
>>>>>>the inflection points.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If that is what you see, then you need glasses. If that is how you
>>>>>interpret my comments, you need to improve your reading comprehension.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This thread is supposed to be about the standard deviation and inflection
>>>>points. Just trying to keep you from spinning too far off topic, Snit.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The question I asked was about being able to find graphs where the 1st SD
>>>lines were not drawn correctly. Neither you nor ed were able to do so until
>>>*after* I gave the answer away.
>>>
>>
>>I didn't bother to enter the thread until that point. It's not that I wasn't
>>*able* to, Snit.
>
>
> Just as my not wanting to talk to you about math does not show I am not
> *able* to... right? Is that what you are saying?

But you *did* actually talk about math in the previous post and you were
wrong. I can understand your reluctance to enter a subject that you have
little understanding about.

Your dishonesty lies in your refusal to admit your ignorance.

>>I wanted to see the direction of your troll before I entered.
>
>
> In what way do you consider it trolling?

You've been bluffing having knowledge that you apperently do not have.

>>>Since then you have tossed around many accusations and bizarre claims, and
>>>have even gone off onto vertical tangent.
>>>
>>
>>f"(x)=0 at the inflection points is directly related to the subject at hand.
>>Admit your ignorance. Maybe you can ask Rick G. to help you. He seems pretty
>>smart.
>
>
> Again you are making unfounded accusations of ignorance. May I ask why? It
> certainly is not a good direction to go if you want to end hostilities, as I
> do.

I read your previous post, Snit. It is now even more apparent that you
truly have no idea what you are talking about wrt f"(x).

>>>>And I see that you are still unable to figure out the significance of
>>>>f"(x)=0 at the inflection points.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How do you see that? Is that what you mistakenly understand from my refusal
>>>to head off onto your vertical tangent?
>>>
>>
>>LOL! You really don't understand its significance, huh?
>
>
> What leads you to that conclusion? Hate to tell you this, but if you really
> understood what you were talking about, you would have seen the several
> clues I have snuck into my posts to you that show you I do.

You've already verified my suspicions about your lack of knowledge in a
previous post.


--

Snit

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 11:59:22 PM11/29/04
to
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
41abfd86$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 9:56 PM:

You are asking me about something that does not exist. I am not impressed.

--

Elizabot v2.0.2

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 12:21:45 AM11/30/04
to

Where do you get that idea from?

Snit

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 12:38:22 AM11/30/04
to
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
41ac0369$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 10:21 PM:

LOL. Do you really not know?

Elizabot v2.0.2

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 12:53:09 AM11/30/04
to

I know that *you* don't know! f"(x)=0 at the inflection points
definitely exists for the type of curve we were discussing.

ed

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 1:59:55 AM11/30/04
to
In news:BDD13861.1492F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
> O%Qqd.51748$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 11/29/04 7:35 PM:
>
>>>>> Why not answer the question.
>>>>>
>>>> i did, in many different ways.
>>>>
>>>>> Why are you not able to identify the clear error in one or more of
>>>>> the graphs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here, another hint: while calculus is not needed, it may help.
>>>>>
>>>> you appear to be talking about the inflection point- that would
>>>> have
>>>> been covered by one of my previous answers. did you not know that
>>>> was covered by one of my previous answers?
>>>
>>> Wow... you read my posts on this. Good job!
>>>
>>> The graphs were more than not just being to scale, which was your
>>> only complaint... and when I asked you what you meant by being off
>>> scale
>>> you answered honestly - they were not drawn so each standard
>>> deviation from the norm was the same distance from one another.
>>
>> i also said (in the same sentence) "and the amount of the the
>> population shaded doesn't correspond to the percentages that would
>> be covered at those standard deviations." that part covers the fact
>> that the first SD occurs at the inflection point. it's basic snit,
>> and you don't seem to get it still.
>
> LOL... yes, it is basic... yet you missed it, repeatedly, on simple
> graphs.

are you telling me you don't understand the direct correlation between the
amount of the population covered by one standard deviation (as i stated)
under the normal curve, and the location of said standard deviation to the
inflection point? and you admit it after so much hype? wow.

> That is the point. You pretended you were going to teach me about
> what a SD is, but you clearly were not familiar with such basic
> information.

see above.

>>> I even gave you the hint of calculus, which is often used to look at
>>> curves and the different points of note on the curves.
>>>
>>> Face it, ed, you had no idea where the standard deviation falls on a
>>> bell curve.
>>
>> sure i do- my comments covered it, but you apparently couldn't
>> relate the two (basically identical concepts) in your mind.
>
> You never mentioned the inflection point, or the place where the
> curve goes from concave to convex. You were not able to determine
> which graphs did not show the first SD at the inflection point.

ok, so you *clearly* can't relate the two concepts. point taken.

>>> That would have been fine had it not been for you trying to shove
>>> you "advanced" knowledge in my face.
>>
>> it's *basic* stats, and you still don't get it.
>
> You are too funny... you miss something even *you* call basic, and
> then are too ashamed to admit it.
>
> Why could you not identify the graphs which were incorrect? Can you
> now?

as i said, all graphs are fine for what they are; to read more into them
then they are shows that you have problems understanding what they are for.


ed

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 2:00:24 AM11/30/04
to
In news:BDD138B0.14930%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

i was (and am) saying you're dumb, and you prove it more with every post.


Snit

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 2:35:05 AM11/30/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
cUUqd.51965$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 11/30/04 12:00 AM:

>>> no, it's *basic* stats, and you don't understand it.
>>
>>
>> None of this explains why you were not able to identify the graphs that were
>> clearly wrong.
>>
>> Now that I have given you the answer you pretend you knew it all along... yet
>> you were not able to answer the questions about such basic knowledge.
>>
>> You were saying?
>
> i was (and am) saying you're dumb, and you prove it more with every post.

Poor ed... when facts do not support his claims, he has to resort to name
calling.

Pitiful, ed... just pitiful.

Snit

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 2:36:53 AM11/30/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
KTUqd.51964$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 11/29/04 11:59 PM:

>>> i also said (in the same sentence) "and the amount of the the
>>> population shaded doesn't correspond to the percentages that would
>>> be covered at those standard deviations." that part covers the fact
>>> that the first SD occurs at the inflection point. it's basic snit,
>>> and you don't seem to get it still.
>>
>> LOL... yes, it is basic... yet you missed it, repeatedly, on simple
>> graphs.
>
> are you telling me you don't understand the direct correlation between the
> amount of the population covered by one standard deviation (as i stated)
> under the normal curve, and the location of said standard deviation to the
> inflection point? and you admit it after so much hype? wow.

No. That is not at all what I am saying. Is your reading comprehension so
poor you believe it is?

What I have been saying is that you were unable to correctly point out
graphs that did not show the SD falling on the inflection point.

You were not able to... that is simply a fact. Easy to show in Google.

ed

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 2:39:50 AM11/30/04
to
In news:BDD17125.14A11%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
> KTUqd.51964$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 11/29/04 11:59 PM:
>
>>>> i also said (in the same sentence) "and the amount of the the
>>>> population shaded doesn't correspond to the percentages that would
>>>> be covered at those standard deviations." that part covers the
>>>> fact that the first SD occurs at the inflection point. it's basic
>>>> snit,
>>>> and you don't seem to get it still.
>>>
>>> LOL... yes, it is basic... yet you missed it, repeatedly, on simple
>>> graphs.
>>
>> are you telling me you don't understand the direct correlation
>> between the amount of the population covered by one standard
>> deviation (as i stated) under the normal curve, and the location of
>> said standard deviation to the inflection point? and you admit it
>> after so much hype? wow.
>
> No. That is not at all what I am saying.

so you're saying the two are the same?

Snit

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 2:48:05 AM11/30/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
atVqd.51971$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 11/30/04 12:39 AM:

>>>>> i also said (in the same sentence) "and the amount of the the population
>>>>> shaded doesn't correspond to the percentages that would be covered at
>>>>> those standard deviations." that part covers the fact that the first SD
>>>>> occurs at the inflection point. it's basic snit, and you don't seem to
>>>>> get it still.
>>>>
>>>> LOL... yes, it is basic... yet you missed it, repeatedly, on simple
>>>> graphs.
>>>
>>> are you telling me you don't understand the direct correlation
>>> between the amount of the population covered by one standard
>>> deviation (as i stated) under the normal curve, and the location of
>>> said standard deviation to the inflection point? and you admit it
>>> after so much hype? wow.
>>
>> No. That is not at all what I am saying.
>
> so you're saying the two are the same?

No. I was not saying that, either. Is your reading comprehension so poor
you believe it is?

What I was saying is that you were unable to correctly point out graphs that


did not show the SD falling on the inflection point.

You were not able to... that is simply a fact. Easy to show in Google. Is
something that you deny?

ed

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 2:52:36 AM11/30/04
to
In news:BDD173C5.14A24%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
> atVqd.51971$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 11/30/04 12:39 AM:
>
>>>>>> i also said (in the same sentence) "and the amount of the the
>>>>>> population shaded doesn't correspond to the percentages that
>>>>>> would be covered at those standard deviations." that part
>>>>>> covers the fact that the first SD occurs at the inflection
>>>>>> point. it's basic snit, and you don't seem to get it still.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL... yes, it is basic... yet you missed it, repeatedly, on
>>>>> simple graphs.
>>>>
>>>> are you telling me you don't understand the direct correlation
>>>> between the amount of the population covered by one standard
>>>> deviation (as i stated) under the normal curve, and the location of
>>>> said standard deviation to the inflection point? and you admit it
>>>> after so much hype? wow.
>>>
>>> No. That is not at all what I am saying.
>>
>> so you're saying the two are the same?
>
> No.

ok, simple yes or no question then- do you think the two "problems" of the
population being shaded not corresponding to the correct percentages at the
first sd, and the sd not occuring at the inflection point are essentially
the same problem? just a yes or no will do now.

Snit

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 2:58:12 AM11/30/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
8FVqd.51976$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 11/30/04 12:52 AM:

No comment?

You spend so much effort trying to run from you history.

No question you will ask, no claim you will make, no suggestion you will
offer will change the facts:

you were unable to correctly point out graphs that did not show the SD
falling on the inflection point.

Not a big deal, just ironic considering your claims.

ed

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 3:00:01 AM11/30/04
to
In news:BDD17624.14A32%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
> 8FVqd.51976$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 11/30/04 12:52 AM:
>
>>>>>>>> i also said (in the same sentence) "and the amount of the the
>>>>>>>> population shaded doesn't correspond to the percentages that
>>>>>>>> would be covered at those standard deviations." that part
>>>>>>>> covers the fact that the first SD occurs at the inflection
>>>>>>>> point. it's basic snit, and you don't seem to get it still.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL... yes, it is basic... yet you missed it, repeatedly, on
>>>>>>> simple graphs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> are you telling me you don't understand the direct correlation
>>>>>> between the amount of the population covered by one standard
>>>>>> deviation (as i stated) under the normal curve, and the location
>>>>>> of said standard deviation to the inflection point? and you
>>>>>> admit it after so much hype? wow.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. That is not at all what I am saying.
>>>>
>>>> so you're saying the two are the same?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> ok, simple yes or no question then- do you think the two "problems"
>> of the population being shaded not corresponding to the correct
>> percentages at the first sd, and the sd not occuring at the
>> inflection point are essentially the same problem? just a yes or no
>> will do now.

no answer?

>>> I was not saying that, either. Is your reading comprehension so
>>> poor you believe it is?
>>>
>>> What I was saying is that you were unable to correctly point out
>>> graphs that did not show the SD falling on the inflection point.
>>>
>>> You were not able to... that is simply a fact. Easy to show in
>>> Google. Is something that you deny?
>
> No comment?

i left it there deliberately; the comment that's to follow depends on the
answer to your question above.

Snit

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 3:09:08 AM11/30/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
5MVqd.51978$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 11/30/04 1:00 AM:

>>>>>>>>> i also said (in the same sentence) "and the amount of the the
>>>>>>>>> population shaded doesn't correspond to the percentages that
>>>>>>>>> would be covered at those standard deviations." that part
>>>>>>>>> covers the fact that the first SD occurs at the inflection
>>>>>>>>> point. it's basic snit, and you don't seem to get it still.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL... yes, it is basic... yet you missed it, repeatedly, on
>>>>>>>> simple graphs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are you telling me you don't understand the direct correlation
>>>>>>> between the amount of the population covered by one standard
>>>>>>> deviation (as i stated) under the normal curve, and the location
>>>>>>> of said standard deviation to the inflection point? and you
>>>>>>> admit it after so much hype? wow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. That is not at all what I am saying.
>>>>>
>>>>> so you're saying the two are the same?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> ok, simple yes or no question then- do you think the two "problems"
>>> of the population being shaded not corresponding to the correct
>>> percentages at the first sd, and the sd not occuring at the
>>> inflection point are essentially the same problem? just a yes or no
>>> will do now.
>
> no answer?

Most observant of you. Did you need help to figure that out? As I said
before, no question you will ask, no claim you will make, no suggestion you


will offer will change the facts:

you were unable to correctly point out graphs that did not show
the SD falling on the inflection point.

Not a big deal, just ironic considering your claims.

ed

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 3:15:42 AM11/30/04
to
In news:BDD178B4.14A3B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

hey snit, do i have a deal for you. you can add me to your little honor and
honesty code list:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/honor/

now, since we're both on the list, we should deal with each other in a
honorable and honest manor. in that spirit, it would be great if you could
honestly answer a specific, simple question, with a honest and honorable yes
or no:
- do you think the two "problems" of the population being shaded in a manner


not corresponding to the correct percentages at the first sd, and the sd not
occuring at the inflection point are essentially the same problem? just a
yes or no will do now.

hey, by the way, how is one "held accountable" for violating the code? will
we voluntarily agree to leave the newsgroup or something? what if there is
disagreement about whether the code's been violated? is it put up to a vote
or something?


Snit

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 3:38:19 AM11/30/04
to
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
N_Vqd.51980$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 11/30/04 1:15 AM:

Thank you. You have been added. I am impressed. Since you and I are the
only two people on the list at this time, I welcome you to suggest any
changes. If we both agree, I will change the site.

> now, since we're both on the list, we should deal with each other in a
> honorable and honest manor.

On would hope. Yes... very good.

> in that spirit, it would be great if you could honestly answer a specific,
> simple question, with a honest and honorable yes or no:

I will answer honestly and with honor... but I can not guarantee it will be
with a yes or no. Not all questions can be answered that way, with the ol'
example of "have you stopped beating your wife". That question can not be
honestly (or honorably!) answered yes or no (assuming one is not a wife
beater, of course). Furthermore, there is nothing dishonorable or dishonest
about not wanting to answer a question.

> - do you think the two "problems" of the population being shaded in a manner
> not corresponding to the correct percentages at the first sd, and the sd not
> occuring at the inflection point are essentially the same problem? just a
> yes or no will do now.

It depends on the context and the specifics. I have no desire to delve into
this question further, as it certainly runs the risk of bringing up past
"wrongs" and accusations that I feel should be let go.


>
> hey, by the way, how is one "held accountable" for violating the code? will
> we voluntarily agree to leave the newsgroup or something? what if there is
> disagreement about whether the code's been violated? is it put up to a vote
> or something?

I have no answers for these things (and if I did, it would not be fair to
hold you to them if you were not aware before your agreement)... for now,
the only thing I have stated is that any changes need to be unanimous. Of
course, of this were to grow and we were to get, say, 10 names on it and 9
wanted a change, that does not imply that the change could not take place...
the 1 person who disagreed would just have their name removed at their
request.

I am certainly open to ideas. I think permanent leaving CSMA is a bit
strict... but I could see a "expulsion" time. Of course, this is not really
enforceable, but hopefully it will lead to better conversations. I also
hope that people do not act in a petty way and use the "rules" as a way to
attack one another... if you, for example, were to slip and bring up past
accusations, it would not be right for me to insist you stop posting for a
month or whatever - one would hope I could simply remind you and you would
apologize... and, of course, the same goes the other way. My intent is not
to create a rule based band of zombies, but to encourage civility and
harmony... but to in no way discourage different ideas or view points. If
anything, my ideal would be to have people feel more free to disagree... as
even heated debates would be less likely to sink to personal attacks (or
stay there if they did head that direction).

Thanks for joining. Must say, I am surprised... pleasantly so.

ed

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 3:52:54 AM11/30/04
to
In news:BDD17F8B.14A42%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:

umm, in that case, please give the context and specifics when you think it's
yes, and when it's no. feel free to show otherwise, but i can't think of
*ANY* circumstances with a normal distribution (as you posted) where it
would depend on the context and the specifics. i see the above two
scenarios as the exact same scenario- if it were shaded correctly, it would
be shaded up to the inflection point, which would be labeled as the first
sd. conversely, if the sd label on the x-axis were correct, it would be
shaded up to there, which would still correspond to the inflection point.
i.e. one and the same. but your answer is pretty much enough for me to
proceed to give you my comments to your statements:

> As I said before, no

> question you will ask, no claim you will make, no suggestion you
> will offer will change the facts:
> you were unable to correctly point out graphs that did not show
> the SD falling on the inflection point

given that my position on my question above is that the two scenarios in the
question above are the same, i believe i had pointed this out sufficiently
to anyone familiar with statistics. if you can point out a scenario to the
above where this is not correct, i welcome it.

> Not a big deal, just ironic considering your claims

not ironic at all. see above.

> I have no desire to
> delve into this question further, as it certainly runs the risk of
> bringing up past "wrongs" and accusations that I feel should be let
> go.

hey, is the stats conversation the past or present? i wasn't done with it
yet! =D

i still think you should have just went with it by yourself if you really
believed in it, but we'll give it a try this way. =D


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages