Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bored with debate with cc
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Snit
Jun 14, 2012, 5:16:00 PM6/14/12
to
Ok, the debate has bored me... unless there is some evidence to counter any
of the following eight claims I will likely not be responding to cc on this
topic, at least for a while. He simply is not going to be honest. And, of
course, I will continue to not respond to Carroll. I might respond to Onion
Knight or others who post on the topic - but cc and Carroll are just
repeating the same lies over and over and dodging the same questions over
and over. Even for me it has gotten to the point where it is not worth it
(and I have an amazing threshold in that area!). Ok, these are just some of
the facts that neither cc nor Carroll have any counter to - though they
clearly hate that they are true:
1) Snit is correct about how to create a linear trend line, being that his
procedure is the one recommended by MS and others (and he produced a video
showing his process was flawless). This does not mean that there are not
other forms of analysis that can be done, including different types of trend
lines or the weighting of data in a trend line, but cc's claim that Snit's
process was incorrect and that he missed steps is absurd and has been shown
to be false.
2) Snit was correct in saying their was an increase in desktop Linux usage,
esp. for the second half of 2011. The trend changed at the start of 2012
and went against the ideas that there would be a continued increase. Snit
did not predict this change of trend. Possible reasons for this trend were
not discussed in this ongoing absurd debate.
3) Snit was correct to note that the depictions of sigma lines found online
are often incorrect, such as the grossly incorrect one shown at the top,
here: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png> - and it is easy to see this
if you know what an inflection point is and how that is associated with a
correct depiction. He showed many examples of incorrectly drawn sigma lines
and cc was flat out wrong to deny that they were depicted incorrectly. cc
has since somewhat changed that story and is saying *some* of the ones Snit
indicated were wrong were not - but he has not produced a single example of
this.
4) Snit was correct to say the first sigma lines should be drawn at a
specific distance from the mean of the bell curve - the distance to the
inflection points. cc was flat out wrong to deny that the sigma line was
based on the distance from the mean and instead only knew it was tied to the
area under the curve. The actual definition of the standard deviation is
not tied to the area under the curve (though that area will always be the
same), it is the square root of the mean of the squares of the deviations
from the mean - which, visually, is based on the distance from the mean -
and will *always* be the distance from the mean to the inflection points.
Always. There are no exceptions to this.
5) Snit was correct in noting that the R^2 value does not indicate if the
process of creating a linear trend line is correct or not. cc was incorrect
to push the contrary idea (which he repeatedly did). The fact is a greater
R^2 value does not necessarily imply greater credibility for trend line, and
in the case of the trend line that I generated, there was no statement or
implication that the data was meant to be predictive in any way. The stated
purpose was to show that the current data was matching a past claim - and
the data did (though, as noted, this changed at the start of 2012 when the
trend changed).
6) Both cc and Steve Carroll will *never* admit that Snit's process for
generating a trend line was correct in that it followed the exact methods of
calculating trend lines on both the Microsoft and Apple sites (with the one
exception in terms of Excel of using the right click method of getting to
some tools as opposed to using the Ribbon). Other sites also describe the
process - and they all match with what Snit did. He made *no* mistake in
creating his linear trend line.
7) Both cc and Steve Carroll will *never* admit Snit was right to note that
cc was ignorant of the sigma line being, visually, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points, even though cc repeatedly made comments which
proved his ignorance.
8) Steve Carroll will never give a list of what names he will admit to
having used on Usenet. He knows the list would be very long - so long he
likely cannot even recall all the names he has used. He will run from this
question forever.
With that said, if cc does actually offer a counter, such as showing where a
depiction I claimed to be wrong is not so, I will respond - assuming I even
see his post on it. It has gotten to the point where he is so boring and
dishonest he is not worth reading. He just keeps either running from the
above facts or saying they are wrong without offering any *reasonable*
evidence for his claims.
--
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.
of the following eight claims I will likely not be responding to cc on this
topic, at least for a while. He simply is not going to be honest. And, of
course, I will continue to not respond to Carroll. I might respond to Onion
Knight or others who post on the topic - but cc and Carroll are just
repeating the same lies over and over and dodging the same questions over
and over. Even for me it has gotten to the point where it is not worth it
(and I have an amazing threshold in that area!). Ok, these are just some of
the facts that neither cc nor Carroll have any counter to - though they
clearly hate that they are true:
1) Snit is correct about how to create a linear trend line, being that his
procedure is the one recommended by MS and others (and he produced a video
showing his process was flawless). This does not mean that there are not
other forms of analysis that can be done, including different types of trend
lines or the weighting of data in a trend line, but cc's claim that Snit's
process was incorrect and that he missed steps is absurd and has been shown
to be false.
2) Snit was correct in saying their was an increase in desktop Linux usage,
esp. for the second half of 2011. The trend changed at the start of 2012
and went against the ideas that there would be a continued increase. Snit
did not predict this change of trend. Possible reasons for this trend were
not discussed in this ongoing absurd debate.
3) Snit was correct to note that the depictions of sigma lines found online
are often incorrect, such as the grossly incorrect one shown at the top,
here: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png> - and it is easy to see this
if you know what an inflection point is and how that is associated with a
correct depiction. He showed many examples of incorrectly drawn sigma lines
and cc was flat out wrong to deny that they were depicted incorrectly. cc
has since somewhat changed that story and is saying *some* of the ones Snit
indicated were wrong were not - but he has not produced a single example of
this.
4) Snit was correct to say the first sigma lines should be drawn at a
specific distance from the mean of the bell curve - the distance to the
inflection points. cc was flat out wrong to deny that the sigma line was
based on the distance from the mean and instead only knew it was tied to the
area under the curve. The actual definition of the standard deviation is
not tied to the area under the curve (though that area will always be the
same), it is the square root of the mean of the squares of the deviations
from the mean - which, visually, is based on the distance from the mean -
and will *always* be the distance from the mean to the inflection points.
Always. There are no exceptions to this.
5) Snit was correct in noting that the R^2 value does not indicate if the
process of creating a linear trend line is correct or not. cc was incorrect
to push the contrary idea (which he repeatedly did). The fact is a greater
R^2 value does not necessarily imply greater credibility for trend line, and
in the case of the trend line that I generated, there was no statement or
implication that the data was meant to be predictive in any way. The stated
purpose was to show that the current data was matching a past claim - and
the data did (though, as noted, this changed at the start of 2012 when the
trend changed).
6) Both cc and Steve Carroll will *never* admit that Snit's process for
generating a trend line was correct in that it followed the exact methods of
calculating trend lines on both the Microsoft and Apple sites (with the one
exception in terms of Excel of using the right click method of getting to
some tools as opposed to using the Ribbon). Other sites also describe the
process - and they all match with what Snit did. He made *no* mistake in
creating his linear trend line.
7) Both cc and Steve Carroll will *never* admit Snit was right to note that
cc was ignorant of the sigma line being, visually, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points, even though cc repeatedly made comments which
proved his ignorance.
8) Steve Carroll will never give a list of what names he will admit to
having used on Usenet. He knows the list would be very long - so long he
likely cannot even recall all the names he has used. He will run from this
question forever.
With that said, if cc does actually offer a counter, such as showing where a
depiction I claimed to be wrong is not so, I will respond - assuming I even
see his post on it. It has gotten to the point where he is so boring and
dishonest he is not worth reading. He just keeps either running from the
above facts or saying they are wrong without offering any *reasonable*
evidence for his claims.
--
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.
Steve Carroll
Jun 14, 2012, 5:36:49 PM6/14/12
to
And everyone else. Who wouldn't be bored of your tantrums? Or any of
your "debates"? Realistically, you're lucky that anyone ever talks to
you at all in COLA (or CSMA)... on any topic.
your "debates"? Realistically, you're lucky that anyone ever talks to
you at all in COLA (or CSMA)... on any topic.
cc
Jun 14, 2012, 5:25:02 PM6/14/12
to
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:16:00 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> Ok, the debate has bored me...
You're bored because you've been proven unequivocally wrong on this entire subject. The only thing you can do is repeat yourself, repeat yourself in third person (which is an interesting new twist), or dig yourself deeper in a hole. You once laughably claimed that you were willing to admit when you were wrong. Well here are two inescapable facts:
> Ok, the debate has bored me...
My trend line had a better R^2 value, and my trend line showed a different trend from yours. If you understand statistics even half of what you claim to (and that's seriously doubtful right now), then you would have to admit that I proved your claims wrong. It's mathematical fact at this point.
> I might respond to Onion Knight
--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
Tattoo Vampire
Jun 14, 2012, 7:23:00 PM6/14/12
to
Steve Carroll wrote:
> And everyone else. Who wouldn't be bored of your tantrums? Or any of
> your "debates"? Realistically, you're lucky that anyone ever talks to
> you at all in COLA (or CSMA)... on any topic.
Every one needs a good laugh now and then. When it comes to entertainment
> And everyone else. Who wouldn't be bored of your tantrums? Or any of
> your "debates"? Realistically, you're lucky that anyone ever talks to
> you at all in COLA (or CSMA)... on any topic.
value, Snit stands head and shoulders above the rest of the trolls.
--
Keyboard not found. Visualize "F1" to continue.
[tv]
Tattoo Vampire
Jun 14, 2012, 7:23:47 PM6/14/12
to
Snit wrote:
> Ok, the debate has bored me
It bored you enough you felt compelled to write a few thousand more words
> Ok, the debate has bored me
about it. :-P
Snit
Jun 14, 2012, 8:38:50 PM6/14/12
to
On 6/14/12 2:25 PM, in article
6cc2fbad-07a7-4869...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
You have *no* counter to those. None. Why do you keep posting as you show
you know I am right.
--
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
6cc2fbad-07a7-4869...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:16:00 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> Ok, the debate has bored me...
>
> You're bored because you've been proven unequivocally wrong on this entire
> subject. The only thing you can do is repeat yourself, repeat yourself in
> third person (which is an interesting new twist), or dig yourself deeper in a
> hole. You once laughably claimed that you were willing to admit when you were
> wrong. Well here are two inescapable facts:
> My trend line had a better R^2 value, and my trend line showed a different
> trend from yours. If you understand statistics even half of what you claim to
> (and that's seriously doubtful right now), then you would have to admit that I
> proved your claims wrong. It's mathematical fact at this point.
>
>> I might respond to Onion Knight
>
> HAHAHAHA! No shit you'll respond to a mysterious anonymous proxy user, who
> appears out of no where, injects himself into an argument he claims he knows
> nothing about, then proceeds to tell everyone (incorrectly) how right you are
> while simultaneousy making the exact same mistakes you do AND uses the exact
> same language and phrases that you do.
The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
> On Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:16:00 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> Ok, the debate has bored me...
>
> You're bored because you've been proven unequivocally wrong on this entire
> subject. The only thing you can do is repeat yourself, repeat yourself in
> third person (which is an interesting new twist), or dig yourself deeper in a
> hole. You once laughably claimed that you were willing to admit when you were
> wrong. Well here are two inescapable facts:
> My trend line had a better R^2 value, and my trend line showed a different
> trend from yours. If you understand statistics even half of what you claim to
> (and that's seriously doubtful right now), then you would have to admit that I
> proved your claims wrong. It's mathematical fact at this point.
>
>> I might respond to Onion Knight
>
> HAHAHAHA! No shit you'll respond to a mysterious anonymous proxy user, who
> appears out of no where, injects himself into an argument he claims he knows
> nothing about, then proceeds to tell everyone (incorrectly) how right you are
> while simultaneousy making the exact same mistakes you do AND uses the exact
> same language and phrases that you do.
You have *no* counter to those. None. Why do you keep posting as you show
you know I am right.
--
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
Snit
Jun 14, 2012, 8:40:47 PM6/14/12
to
On 6/14/12 4:23 PM, in article 7ktfhzs9j6yc$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
a mistake I was open and honest about it. There simply is no doubt about
this... nobody has even tried to counter the facts I note in the first link
in my .sig, though cc and Carroll keep babbling and running.
They both know I am right... it really is that obvious.
--
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> And everyone else. Who wouldn't be bored of your tantrums? Or any of
>> your "debates"? Realistically, you're lucky that anyone ever talks to
>> you at all in COLA (or CSMA)... on any topic.
>
> Every one needs a good laugh now and then. When it comes to entertainment
> value, Snit stands head and shoulders above the rest of the trolls.
The bottom line is I proved myself right. On the few areas where I did make
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> And everyone else. Who wouldn't be bored of your tantrums? Or any of
>> your "debates"? Realistically, you're lucky that anyone ever talks to
>> you at all in COLA (or CSMA)... on any topic.
>
> Every one needs a good laugh now and then. When it comes to entertainment
> value, Snit stands head and shoulders above the rest of the trolls.
a mistake I was open and honest about it. There simply is no doubt about
this... nobody has even tried to counter the facts I note in the first link
in my .sig, though cc and Carroll keep babbling and running.
They both know I am right... it really is that obvious.
--
The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
Snit
Jun 14, 2012, 8:44:29 PM6/14/12
to
On 6/14/12 4:23 PM, in article 1djtcol2s0ybc$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
my .sig.
Neither cc nor Carroll will ever refute the claims I posted there. If I let
them, though, they will continue the debate for *years*, though they would
just never get to the points that were being discussed nor even try to back
their accusations.
It really is this simple: cc pretend to be knowledgeable about things he is
clueless about, and Carroll follows me around trolling and lying over his
heart-ache from 2004 which he never got over... which is repulsive given how
he claims to now be married to another woman.
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Ok, the debate has bored me
>
> It bored you enough you felt compelled to write a few thousand more words
> about it. :-P
I like to post a summary to be able to point to... it is the first link in
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Ok, the debate has bored me
>
> It bored you enough you felt compelled to write a few thousand more words
> about it. :-P
my .sig.
Neither cc nor Carroll will ever refute the claims I posted there. If I let
them, though, they will continue the debate for *years*, though they would
just never get to the points that were being discussed nor even try to back
their accusations.
It really is this simple: cc pretend to be knowledgeable about things he is
clueless about, and Carroll follows me around trolling and lying over his
heart-ache from 2004 which he never got over... which is repulsive given how
he claims to now be married to another woman.
Onion Knight
Jun 14, 2012, 9:00:05 PM6/14/12
to
and attack and threaten.
Onion Knight
Jun 14, 2012, 9:20:09 PM6/14/12
to
On Jun 14, 9:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Ok, the debate has bored me... unless there is some evidence to counter any
> of the following eight claims I will likely not be responding to cc on this
> topic, at least for a while. He simply is not going to be honest. And, of
> course, I will continue to not respond to Carroll. I might respond to Onion
> Knight or others who post on the topic - but cc and Carroll are just
> repeating the same lies over and over and dodging the same questions over
> and over. Even for me it has gotten to the point where it is not worth it
> (and I have an amazing threshold in that area!). Ok, these are just some of
> the facts that neither cc nor Carroll have any counter to - though they
> clearly hate that they are true:
I have never seen anyone as cowardly as either of them. You kept
> Ok, the debate has bored me... unless there is some evidence to counter any
> of the following eight claims I will likely not be responding to cc on this
> topic, at least for a while. He simply is not going to be honest. And, of
> course, I will continue to not respond to Carroll. I might respond to Onion
> Knight or others who post on the topic - but cc and Carroll are just
> repeating the same lies over and over and dodging the same questions over
> and over. Even for me it has gotten to the point where it is not worth it
> (and I have an amazing threshold in that area!). Ok, these are just some of
> the facts that neither cc nor Carroll have any counter to - though they
> clearly hate that they are true:
proving your points as they just cut the material out. Then they would
insist they were right. Just idiotic.
> 1) Snit is correct about how to create a linear trend line, being that his
> procedure is the one recommended by MS and others (and he produced a video
> showing his process was flawless). This does not mean that there are not
> other forms of analysis that can be done, including different types of trend
> lines or the weighting of data in a trend line, but cc's claim that Snit's
> process was incorrect and that he missed steps is absurd and has been shown
> to be false.
insisted otherwise but you proved your point.
> 2) Snit was correct in saying their was an increase in desktop Linux usage,
> esp. for the second half of 2011. The trend changed at the start of 2012
> and went against the ideas that there would be a continued increase. Snit
> did not predict this change of trend. Possible reasons for this trend were
> not discussed in this ongoing absurd debate.
assume the numbers are correct there is no doubt you are right on this
too.
> 3) Snit was correct to note that the depictions of sigma lines found online
> are often incorrect, such as the grossly incorrect one shown at the top,
> here: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png> - and it is easy to see this
> if you know what an inflection point is and how that is associated with a
> correct depiction. He showed many examples of incorrectly drawn sigma lines
> and cc was flat out wrong to deny that they were depicted incorrectly. cc
> has since somewhat changed that story and is saying *some* of the ones Snit
> indicated were wrong were not - but he has not produced a single example of
> this.
happened. Even though Steve and CC are lying assholes you did teach me
something. Thank you.
I would love to see CC try to find an example of you being wrong on
this. Every time you asked he just insisted you were and provided no
link. With the one link you show above it is completely clear you are
right. I did not see any other examples. Can you show them to me?
> 4) Snit was correct to say the first sigma lines should be drawn at a
> specific distance from the mean of the bell curve - the distance to the
> inflection points. cc was flat out wrong to deny that the sigma line was
> based on the distance from the mean and instead only knew it was tied to the
> area under the curve. The actual definition of the standard deviation is
> not tied to the area under the curve (though that area will always be the
> same), it is the square root of the mean of the squares of the deviations
> from the mean - which, visually, is based on the distance from the mean -
> and will *always* be the distance from the mean to the inflection points.
> Always. There are no exceptions to this.
why he was wrong. CC is a lying idiot who will never admit he was
wrong and Steve will back CC no matter how much he has to lie.
> 5) Snit was correct in noting that the R^2 value does not indicate if the
> process of creating a linear trend line is correct or not. cc was incorrect
> to push the contrary idea (which he repeatedly did). The fact is a greater
> R^2 value does not necessarily imply greater credibility for trend line, and
> in the case of the trend line that I generated, there was no statement or
> implication that the data was meant to be predictive in any way. The stated
> purpose was to show that the current data was matching a past claim - and
> the data did (though, as noted, this changed at the start of 2012 when the
> trend changed).
than I would trust Steve or CC. They are both ignorant liars.
> 6) Both cc and Steve Carroll will *never* admit that Snit's process for
> generating a trend line was correct in that it followed the exact methods of
> calculating trend lines on both the Microsoft and Apple sites (with the one
> exception in terms of Excel of using the right click method of getting to
> some tools as opposed to using the Ribbon). Other sites also describe the
> process - and they all match with what Snit did. He made *no* mistake in
> creating his linear trend line.
> 7) Both cc and Steve Carroll will *never* admit Snit was right to note that
> cc was ignorant of the sigma line being, visually, the distance from the
> mean to the inflection points, even though cc repeatedly made comments which
> proved his ignorance.
> 8) Steve Carroll will never give a list of what names he will admit to
> having used on Usenet. He knows the list would be very long - so long he
> likely cannot even recall all the names he has used. He will run from this
> question forever.
doing this but his own actions show he knows this to be true. He also
assumes others do this which says a lot about him.
> With that said, if cc does actually offer a counter, such as showing where a
> depiction I claimed to be wrong is not so, I will respond - assuming I even
> see his post on it. It has gotten to the point where he is so boring and
> dishonest he is not worth reading. He just keeps either running from the
> above facts or saying they are wrong without offering any *reasonable*
> evidence for his claims.
useless assholes.
Snit
Jun 14, 2012, 9:33:46 PM6/14/12
to
On 6/14/12 6:00 PM, in article
de15ab66-16e1-4e23...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, "Onion
I would love if Carroll would stop stalking me... but he has been doing so
from forum to forum since 2004... and emailing me and contacting my employer
and people in my life.
He is a sick man who is consumed with hatred.
de15ab66-16e1-4e23...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, "Onion
from forum to forum since 2004... and emailing me and contacting my employer
and people in my life.
He is a sick man who is consumed with hatred.
Snit
Jun 14, 2012, 10:43:33 PM6/14/12
to
On 6/14/12 6:20 PM, in article
7ade3e8b-4dc2-49f1...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, "Onion
>> 1) Snit is correct about how to create a linear trend line, being that his
>> procedure is the one recommended by MS and others (and he produced a video
>> showing his process was flawless). This does not mean that there are not
>> other forms of analysis that can be done, including different types of trend
>> lines or the weighting of data in a trend line, but cc's claim that Snit's
>> process was incorrect and that he missed steps is absurd and has been shown
>> to be false.
>
> Your video proved your method was exactly correct. They lied and
> insisted otherwise but you proved your point.
Absolutely correct.
>> 2) Snit was correct in saying their was an increase in desktop Linux usage,
>> esp. for the second half of 2011. The trend changed at the start of 2012
>> and went against the ideas that there would be a continued increase. Snit
>> did not predict this change of trend. Possible reasons for this trend were
>> not discussed in this ongoing absurd debate.
>
> Might be interesting to discuss this but based on your graphs if we
> assume the numbers are correct there is no doubt you are right on this
> too.
Absolutely correct.
>> 3) Snit was correct to note that the depictions of sigma lines found online
>> are often incorrect, such as the grossly incorrect one shown at the top,
>> here: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png> - and it is easy to see this
>> if you know what an inflection point is and how that is associated with a
>> correct depiction. He showed many examples of incorrectly drawn sigma lines
>> and cc was flat out wrong to deny that they were depicted incorrectly. cc
>> has since somewhat changed that story and is saying *some* of the ones Snit
>> indicated were wrong were not - but he has not produced a single example of
>> this.
>
> This was something I did not know and so it is good this debate
> happened. Even though Steve and CC are lying assholes you did teach me
> something. Thank you.
>
> I would love to see CC try to find an example of you being wrong on
> this. Every time you asked he just insisted you were and provided no
> link. With the one link you show above it is completely clear you are
> right. I did not see any other examples. Can you show them to me?
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif> From:
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>
Lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean, esp. on the graph
to the right.
<http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif> From:
<http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>
Lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean.
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif> From:
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
Lines clearly shown at way too far a distance from the mean (this is the one
I use in my example).
And some that appear correct:
<http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/SDIntro>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg>
<http://www.spcforexcel.com/explaining-standard-deviation#standard-deviatio
There may have been other examples.
>> 4) Snit was correct to say the first sigma lines should be drawn at a
>> specific distance from the mean of the bell curve - the distance to the
>> inflection points. cc was flat out wrong to deny that the sigma line was
>> based on the distance from the mean and instead only knew it was tied to the
>> area under the curve. The actual definition of the standard deviation is
>> not tied to the area under the curve (though that area will always be the
>> same), it is the square root of the mean of the squares of the deviations
>> from the mean - which, visually, is based on the distance from the mean -
>> and will *always* be the distance from the mean to the inflection points.
>> Always. There are no exceptions to this.
>
> I saw CC's quotes on this and your video which very clearly explained
> why he was wrong. CC is a lying idiot who will never admit he was
> wrong and Steve will back CC no matter how much he has to lie.
Absolutely correct.
>> 5) Snit was correct in noting that the R^2 value does not indicate if the
>> process of creating a linear trend line is correct or not. cc was incorrect
>> to push the contrary idea (which he repeatedly did). The fact is a greater
>> R^2 value does not necessarily imply greater credibility for trend line, and
>> in the case of the trend line that I generated, there was no statement or
>> implication that the data was meant to be predictive in any way. The stated
>> purpose was to show that the current data was matching a past claim - and
>> the data did (though, as noted, this changed at the start of 2012 when the
>> trend changed).
>
> This goes somewhat over my head by I would trust you on it far more
> than I would trust Steve or CC. They are both ignorant liars.
To explain a bit more: the R^2 value shows how well the line fits the data
you use... but if you eliminate data, or even reduce its weighting, you have
to be careful - doing this too much can lead to extreme errors. Imagine
this: you end up removing all but two points out of, say, 100... suddenly
the line you draw between them as a "trend" is the exact line you draw
between then to make a line graph - the R^2 value seems *perfect* at a 1.0.
You have a perfect trend line... but you do not. You have eliminated data
and have lost sight of any changes in the trends. This is what cc did with
his work (though not to that extent). He got a higher R^2 value but it lead
to him missing the big picture: the trend change at the start of 2012. My
trend lines showed very clearly where the trend changed... pretty flat at
the start of 2011, a big upswing at the end of 2011, and a huge drop at the
start of 2012.
Now there are other forms of trend lines that can show such - a linear trend
line is just one (if you watch my video you can see the other options Excel
offers by default). If you have a upward moving curve, as is often seen
with population growth, for example, a linear trend line is not as likely to
as useful as an exponential trend line (the growth, or the trend, is
exponential)
>> 6) Both cc and Steve Carroll will *never* admit that Snit's process for
>> generating a trend line was correct in that it followed the exact methods of
>> calculating trend lines on both the Microsoft and Apple sites (with the one
>> exception in terms of Excel of using the right click method of getting to
>> some tools as opposed to using the Ribbon). Other sites also describe the
>> process - and they all match with what Snit did. He made *no* mistake in
>> creating his linear trend line.
>
> This is a repeat of point 1. No fair!
Fair enough. My mistake (what! Yes, I admit to making mistakes).
>> 7) Both cc and Steve Carroll will *never* admit Snit was right to note that
>> cc was ignorant of the sigma line being, visually, the distance from the
>> mean to the inflection points, even though cc repeatedly made comments which
>> proved his ignorance.
>
> Overlaps with point 4. You are repeating yourself.
Again you are correct. My mistake.
>> 8) Steve Carroll will never give a list of what names he will admit to
>> having used on Usenet. He knows the list would be very long - so long he
>> likely cannot even recall all the names he has used. He will run from this
>> question forever.
>
> The reason is clear in that he uses lots of names. I have not seen him
> doing this but his own actions show he knows this to be true. He also
> assumes others do this which says a lot about him.
Exactly. While the Google Groups search kinda sucks, this will give an
indication of how often Carroll assumes others are "socks or shills":
<http://goo.gl/6JrUf>. He cannot accept that others are not like him and do
not need to create a false "army" to back up their claims. I prefer to use
evidence than to use the lies he uses. His socks are just one form of his
lies. He is also very good at finding the mentally weak and using them for
his own purposes. Really sick of him.
>> With that said, if cc does actually offer a counter, such as showing where a
>> depiction I claimed to be wrong is not so, I will respond - assuming I even
>> see his post on it. It has gotten to the point where he is so boring and
>> dishonest he is not worth reading. He just keeps either running from the
>> above facts or saying they are wrong without offering any *reasonable*
>> evidence for his claims.
>
> But you did respond. I agree with you that you should stop. They are
> useless assholes.
Hard to argue against.
7ade3e8b-4dc2-49f1...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 9:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Ok, the debate has bored me... unless there is some evidence to counter any
>> of the following eight claims I will likely not be responding to cc on this
>> topic, at least for a while. He simply is not going to be honest. And, of
>> course, I will continue to not respond to Carroll. I might respond to Onion
>> Knight or others who post on the topic - but cc and Carroll are just
>> repeating the same lies over and over and dodging the same questions over
>> and over. Even for me it has gotten to the point where it is not worth it
>> (and I have an amazing threshold in that area!). Ok, these are just some of
>> the facts that neither cc nor Carroll have any counter to - though they
>> clearly hate that they are true:
>
> I have never seen anyone as cowardly as either of them. You kept
> proving your points as they just cut the material out. Then they would
> insist they were right. Just idiotic.
Welcome to COLA.
> On Jun 14, 9:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Ok, the debate has bored me... unless there is some evidence to counter any
>> of the following eight claims I will likely not be responding to cc on this
>> topic, at least for a while. He simply is not going to be honest. And, of
>> course, I will continue to not respond to Carroll. I might respond to Onion
>> Knight or others who post on the topic - but cc and Carroll are just
>> repeating the same lies over and over and dodging the same questions over
>> and over. Even for me it has gotten to the point where it is not worth it
>> (and I have an amazing threshold in that area!). Ok, these are just some of
>> the facts that neither cc nor Carroll have any counter to - though they
>> clearly hate that they are true:
>
> I have never seen anyone as cowardly as either of them. You kept
> proving your points as they just cut the material out. Then they would
> insist they were right. Just idiotic.
>> 1) Snit is correct about how to create a linear trend line, being that his
>> procedure is the one recommended by MS and others (and he produced a video
>> showing his process was flawless). This does not mean that there are not
>> other forms of analysis that can be done, including different types of trend
>> lines or the weighting of data in a trend line, but cc's claim that Snit's
>> process was incorrect and that he missed steps is absurd and has been shown
>> to be false.
>
> Your video proved your method was exactly correct. They lied and
> insisted otherwise but you proved your point.
>> 2) Snit was correct in saying their was an increase in desktop Linux usage,
>> esp. for the second half of 2011. The trend changed at the start of 2012
>> and went against the ideas that there would be a continued increase. Snit
>> did not predict this change of trend. Possible reasons for this trend were
>> not discussed in this ongoing absurd debate.
>
> Might be interesting to discuss this but based on your graphs if we
> assume the numbers are correct there is no doubt you are right on this
> too.
>> 3) Snit was correct to note that the depictions of sigma lines found online
>> are often incorrect, such as the grossly incorrect one shown at the top,
>> here: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png> - and it is easy to see this
>> if you know what an inflection point is and how that is associated with a
>> correct depiction. He showed many examples of incorrectly drawn sigma lines
>> and cc was flat out wrong to deny that they were depicted incorrectly. cc
>> has since somewhat changed that story and is saying *some* of the ones Snit
>> indicated were wrong were not - but he has not produced a single example of
>> this.
>
> This was something I did not know and so it is good this debate
> happened. Even though Steve and CC are lying assholes you did teach me
> something. Thank you.
>
> I would love to see CC try to find an example of you being wrong on
> this. Every time you asked he just insisted you were and provided no
> link. With the one link you show above it is completely clear you are
> right. I did not see any other examples. Can you show them to me?
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm>
Lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean, esp. on the graph
to the right.
<http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif> From:
<http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm>
Lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean.
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif> From:
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html>
Lines clearly shown at way too far a distance from the mean (this is the one
I use in my example).
And some that appear correct:
<http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/SDIntro>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg>
<http://www.spcforexcel.com/explaining-standard-deviation#standard-deviatio
There may have been other examples.
>> 4) Snit was correct to say the first sigma lines should be drawn at a
>> specific distance from the mean of the bell curve - the distance to the
>> inflection points. cc was flat out wrong to deny that the sigma line was
>> based on the distance from the mean and instead only knew it was tied to the
>> area under the curve. The actual definition of the standard deviation is
>> not tied to the area under the curve (though that area will always be the
>> same), it is the square root of the mean of the squares of the deviations
>> from the mean - which, visually, is based on the distance from the mean -
>> and will *always* be the distance from the mean to the inflection points.
>> Always. There are no exceptions to this.
>
> I saw CC's quotes on this and your video which very clearly explained
> why he was wrong. CC is a lying idiot who will never admit he was
> wrong and Steve will back CC no matter how much he has to lie.
>> 5) Snit was correct in noting that the R^2 value does not indicate if the
>> process of creating a linear trend line is correct or not. cc was incorrect
>> to push the contrary idea (which he repeatedly did). The fact is a greater
>> R^2 value does not necessarily imply greater credibility for trend line, and
>> in the case of the trend line that I generated, there was no statement or
>> implication that the data was meant to be predictive in any way. The stated
>> purpose was to show that the current data was matching a past claim - and
>> the data did (though, as noted, this changed at the start of 2012 when the
>> trend changed).
>
> This goes somewhat over my head by I would trust you on it far more
> than I would trust Steve or CC. They are both ignorant liars.
you use... but if you eliminate data, or even reduce its weighting, you have
to be careful - doing this too much can lead to extreme errors. Imagine
this: you end up removing all but two points out of, say, 100... suddenly
the line you draw between them as a "trend" is the exact line you draw
between then to make a line graph - the R^2 value seems *perfect* at a 1.0.
You have a perfect trend line... but you do not. You have eliminated data
and have lost sight of any changes in the trends. This is what cc did with
his work (though not to that extent). He got a higher R^2 value but it lead
to him missing the big picture: the trend change at the start of 2012. My
trend lines showed very clearly where the trend changed... pretty flat at
the start of 2011, a big upswing at the end of 2011, and a huge drop at the
start of 2012.
Now there are other forms of trend lines that can show such - a linear trend
line is just one (if you watch my video you can see the other options Excel
offers by default). If you have a upward moving curve, as is often seen
with population growth, for example, a linear trend line is not as likely to
as useful as an exponential trend line (the growth, or the trend, is
exponential)
>> 6) Both cc and Steve Carroll will *never* admit that Snit's process for
>> generating a trend line was correct in that it followed the exact methods of
>> calculating trend lines on both the Microsoft and Apple sites (with the one
>> exception in terms of Excel of using the right click method of getting to
>> some tools as opposed to using the Ribbon). Other sites also describe the
>> process - and they all match with what Snit did. He made *no* mistake in
>> creating his linear trend line.
>
> This is a repeat of point 1. No fair!
>> 7) Both cc and Steve Carroll will *never* admit Snit was right to note that
>> cc was ignorant of the sigma line being, visually, the distance from the
>> mean to the inflection points, even though cc repeatedly made comments which
>> proved his ignorance.
>
> Overlaps with point 4. You are repeating yourself.
>> 8) Steve Carroll will never give a list of what names he will admit to
>> having used on Usenet. He knows the list would be very long - so long he
>> likely cannot even recall all the names he has used. He will run from this
>> question forever.
>
> The reason is clear in that he uses lots of names. I have not seen him
> doing this but his own actions show he knows this to be true. He also
> assumes others do this which says a lot about him.
indication of how often Carroll assumes others are "socks or shills":
<http://goo.gl/6JrUf>. He cannot accept that others are not like him and do
not need to create a false "army" to back up their claims. I prefer to use
evidence than to use the lies he uses. His socks are just one form of his
lies. He is also very good at finding the mentally weak and using them for
his own purposes. Really sick of him.
>> With that said, if cc does actually offer a counter, such as showing where a
>> depiction I claimed to be wrong is not so, I will respond - assuming I even
>> see his post on it. It has gotten to the point where he is so boring and
>> dishonest he is not worth reading. He just keeps either running from the
>> above facts or saying they are wrong without offering any *reasonable*
>> evidence for his claims.
>
> But you did respond. I agree with you that you should stop. They are
> useless assholes.
Kari Laine
Jun 14, 2012, 11:25:29 PM6/14/12
to
Snit
Jun 14, 2012, 11:42:44 PM6/14/12
to
On 6/14/12 8:25 PM, in article
mLudnTZ3OuTkM0fS...@giganews.com, "Kari Laine"
I would be open to any comments on the actual topic. If you think I am
wrong I am open to listening.
mLudnTZ3OuTkM0fS...@giganews.com, "Kari Laine"
wrong I am open to listening.
White Spirit
Jun 15, 2012, 6:29:34 AM6/15/12
to
> de15ab66-16e1-4e23-878a-a4d43bf34...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Anonymous Proxy?
>
> Knight" <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So never talk to him or me again. But you can't stop. You must troll
> > and attack and threaten.
> I would love if Carroll would stop stalking me... but he has been doing so
> from forum to forum since 2004... and emailing me and contacting my employer
> and people in my life.
Do you know that talking to oneself is the first sign of madness, Mr
> Knight" <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So never talk to him or me again. But you can't stop. You must troll
> > and attack and threaten.
> I would love if Carroll would stop stalking me... but he has been doing so
> from forum to forum since 2004... and emailing me and contacting my employer
> and people in my life.
Anonymous Proxy?
William Poaster
Jun 15, 2012, 6:39:28 AM6/15/12
to
--
Floppy not responding. Press any key to format HARD DRIVE instead
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft.
That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
-- Linus Torvalds (2003-09-28)
Every time Windows had a rebirth I would get hold of it
and buy a new machine to run it on believing that they (M$)
must now have got things right and finally created an operating
environment that could excite, impress and enthral me.
But each time their system got more ham-fisted, more insulting
and more indifferent to the pleasures and interests of the **consumer**.
-- Stephen Fry - December 2008 --
Windows is like a hooker; they're both easy,
and using either puts you at risk of viruses.
-- Kelsey Bjarnason --
comp.os.linux.advocacy
Micro$oft, the company that makes spreading malware easy.
Tattoo Vampire
Jun 15, 2012, 7:10:36 AM6/15/12
to
Onion Knight wrote:
> This was something I did not know and so it is good this debate
> happened. Even though Steve and CC are lying assholes you did teach me
> something. Thank you.
Snit is talking to himself again. How cute!
> This was something I did not know and so it is good this debate
> happened. Even though Steve and CC are lying assholes you did teach me
> something. Thank you.
Tattoo Vampire
Jun 15, 2012, 7:11:55 AM6/15/12
to
Onion Knight wrote:
> So never talk to him or me again. But you can't stop. You must troll
> and attack and threaten.
Hi, Snit! They let you have a laptop in that rubber room they locked you in?
> So never talk to him or me again. But you can't stop. You must troll
> and attack and threaten.
William Poaster
Jun 15, 2012, 7:34:37 AM6/15/12
to
Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 15/6/2012 12:11, wrote:
> Onion Knight wrote:
>
>> So never talk to him or me again. But you can't stop. You must troll
>> and attack and threaten.
>
> Hi, Snit! They let you have a laptop in that rubber room they locked you in?
Would it be a rubber laptop too?
> Onion Knight wrote:
>
>> So never talk to him or me again. But you can't stop. You must troll
>> and attack and threaten.
>
> Hi, Snit! They let you have a laptop in that rubber room they locked you in?
--
chrisv
Jun 15, 2012, 8:31:28 AM6/15/12
to
William Poaster wrote:
>Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 15/6/2012 12:11, wrote:
>
>> Onion Knight wrote:
>>
>>> So never talk to him or me again. But you can't stop. You must troll
>>> and attack and threaten.
>>
>> Hi, Snit! They let you have a laptop in that rubber room they locked you in?
>
>Would it be a rubber laptop too?
If only his dad had worn a rubber, that disease would not be infesting
>Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 15/6/2012 12:11, wrote:
>
>> Onion Knight wrote:
>>
>>> So never talk to him or me again. But you can't stop. You must troll
>>> and attack and threaten.
>>
>> Hi, Snit! They let you have a laptop in that rubber room they locked you in?
>
>Would it be a rubber laptop too?
the planet.
Steve Carroll
Jun 15, 2012, 9:25:56 AM6/15/12
to
to anyone this is the case.
Steve Carroll
Jun 15, 2012, 9:24:17 AM6/15/12
to
On Jun 14, 7:20 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 9:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok, the debate has bored me... unless there is some evidence to counter any
> > of the following eight claims I will likely not be responding to cc on this
> > topic, at least for a while. He simply is not going to be honest. And, of
> > course, I will continue to not respond to Carroll. I might respond to Onion
> > Knight or others who post on the topic - but cc and Carroll are just
> > repeating the same lies over and over and dodging the same questions over
> > and over. Even for me it has gotten to the point where it is not worth it
> > (and I have an amazing threshold in that area!). Ok, these are just some of
> > the facts that neither cc nor Carroll have any counter to - though they
> > clearly hate that they are true:
>
> I have never seen anyone as cowardly as either of them. You kept
> proving your points as they just cut the material out. Then they would
> insist they were right. Just idiotic.
Snit is the only coward here... and the question he runs from
> On Jun 14, 9:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok, the debate has bored me... unless there is some evidence to counter any
> > of the following eight claims I will likely not be responding to cc on this
> > topic, at least for a while. He simply is not going to be honest. And, of
> > course, I will continue to not respond to Carroll. I might respond to Onion
> > Knight or others who post on the topic - but cc and Carroll are just
> > repeating the same lies over and over and dodging the same questions over
> > and over. Even for me it has gotten to the point where it is not worth it
> > (and I have an amazing threshold in that area!). Ok, these are just some of
> > the facts that neither cc nor Carroll have any counter to - though they
> > clearly hate that they are true:
>
> I have never seen anyone as cowardly as either of them. You kept
> proving your points as they just cut the material out. Then they would
> insist they were right. Just idiotic.
currently is why he didn't use as accurate a regression model as he
could when analyzing data for a trend (and notably, idiots like you
call that an "attack").
Additionally, Snit claimed there was a correlation between UI
improvements in Linux and its marketshare. He was asked to show it but
there, too, Snit ran like the cowardly weasel that he is.
IOW... Snit is doing what he's done for a decade on usenet (and
probably in real life), making claims and not supporting them while
creating numerous shitfests where he throws his cowardly tantrums.
cc
Jun 18, 2012, 9:05:24 AM6/18/12
to
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 6/14/12 2:25 PM, in article
> 6cc2fbad-07a7-4869...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well here are two inescapable facts:
> > My trend line had a better R^2 value, and my trend line showed a different
> > trend from yours. If you understand statistics even half of what you claim to
> > (and that's seriously doubtful right now), then you would have to admit that I
> > proved your claims wrong. It's mathematical fact at this point.
>
> The indisputable facts
> On 6/14/12 2:25 PM, in article
> 6cc2fbad-07a7-4869...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well here are two inescapable facts:
> > My trend line had a better R^2 value, and my trend line showed a different
> > trend from yours. If you understand statistics even half of what you claim to
> > (and that's seriously doubtful right now), then you would have to admit that I
> > proved your claims wrong. It's mathematical fact at this point.
>
Yes, yes they are. They are also the only relevant points, and the points you seem to dodge more than others.
Steve Carroll
Jun 18, 2012, 12:49:50 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 7:05 am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 6/14/12 2:25 PM, in article
> > 6cc2fbad-07a7-4869...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> On Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 6/14/12 2:25 PM, in article
> > 6cc2fbad-07a7-4869...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> > <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well here are two inescapable facts:
> > > My trend line had a better R^2 value, and my trend line showed a different
> > > trend from yours. If you understand statistics even half of what you claim to
> > > (and that's seriously doubtful right now), then you would have to admit that I
> > > proved your claims wrong. It's mathematical fact at this point.
>
> > The indisputable facts
>
> Yes, yes they are. They are also the only relevant points, and the points you seem to dodge more than others.
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/edd65e9dcec15bd2
>
> > > Well here are two inescapable facts:
> > > My trend line had a better R^2 value, and my trend line showed a different
> > > trend from yours. If you understand statistics even half of what you claim to
> > > (and that's seriously doubtful right now), then you would have to admit that I
> > > proved your claims wrong. It's mathematical fact at this point.
>
> > The indisputable facts
>
> Yes, yes they are. They are also the only relevant points, and the points you seem to dodge more than others.
Onion Knight
Jun 18, 2012, 3:34:54 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 1:05 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 6/14/12 2:25 PM, in article
> > 6cc2fbad-07a7-4869...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> On Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> > On 6/14/12 2:25 PM, in article
> > 6cc2fbad-07a7-4869...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> > <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well here are two inescapable facts:
> > > My trend line had a better R^2 value, and my trend line showed a different
> > > trend from yours. If you understand statistics even half of what you claim to
> > > (and that's seriously doubtful right now), then you would have to admit that I
> > > proved your claims wrong. It's mathematical fact at this point.
>
> > The indisputable facts
>
> Yes, yes they are. They are also the only relevant points, and the points you seem to dodge more than others.
>
> --
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
If you think Snit is wrong why do you keep running? Why not list the
>
> > > Well here are two inescapable facts:
> > > My trend line had a better R^2 value, and my trend line showed a different
> > > trend from yours. If you understand statistics even half of what you claim to
> > > (and that's seriously doubtful right now), then you would have to admit that I
> > > proved your claims wrong. It's mathematical fact at this point.
>
> > The indisputable facts
>
> Yes, yes they are. They are also the only relevant points, and the points you seem to dodge more than others.
>
> --
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
steps he missed? Why not speak of your fucked up claims about sigma
lines? Why are you such an asshole?
cc
Jun 18, 2012, 3:48:51 PM6/18/12
to
--
"While pregnant for me, my mom continued to drink, at least for the 1st trimester if not more." -- Snit
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.anxiety-panic/msg/348b7c92ea83520b?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
Snit
Jun 18, 2012, 4:29:18 PM6/18/12
to
On 6/18/12 12:48 PM, in article
86cd3f5d-755a-4699...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
You are the one crying and running. Come on, cc, why won't you comment on
your cock-sure claims of the sigma lines being depicted correctly when they
clearly were not?
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
Where the sigma lines are clearly drawn at too far of a distance from the
mean (more info here: <http://goo.gl/AqFlD>)
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
<http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>
In those examples the sigma lines clearly not at a far enough distance from
the mean (esp. in the right-most image on the top link)
Once you know the sigma lines should be drawn at a specific distance from
the mean (the distance from the mean to the inflection points), it is easy
to see why those depictions are done poorly. But here are just some of
*your* statements of strong disagreement where you proved yourself ignorant:
cc:
-----
There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird
axis labeling.
-----
Snit's so fucking stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn
based on distance from the mean, not area under the curve.
-----
| The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve -
| which is easy to see when the images screw it up, esp. when
| they do so really badly, like in some of the ones I showed
| you.
They are not wrong.
------
LOL!!!! All of those links are fine. The first sigma lines
cover 68% of the area UNDER THE CURVE.
-----
If you would like to prove, on any single one of the links
you call incorrect, that the first sigma lines do not bound
an area that is 68.2% of the area UNDER THE CURVE, then I
would like to see it.
-----
Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious.
Please, post more on this subject.
------
But all you can do is run like a little baby, cc.
Not even you believe your BS. That is very, very clear. Here are the
facts:
1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend
line in Excel. I did no such thing.
2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.
3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.
4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).
--
86cd3f5d-755a-4699...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
your cock-sure claims of the sigma lines being depicted correctly when they
clearly were not?
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
Where the sigma lines are clearly drawn at too far of a distance from the
mean (more info here: <http://goo.gl/AqFlD>)
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
<http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>
In those examples the sigma lines clearly not at a far enough distance from
the mean (esp. in the right-most image on the top link)
Once you know the sigma lines should be drawn at a specific distance from
the mean (the distance from the mean to the inflection points), it is easy
to see why those depictions are done poorly. But here are just some of
*your* statements of strong disagreement where you proved yourself ignorant:
cc:
-----
There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird
axis labeling.
-----
Snit's so fucking stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn
based on distance from the mean, not area under the curve.
-----
| The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve -
| which is easy to see when the images screw it up, esp. when
| they do so really badly, like in some of the ones I showed
| you.
They are not wrong.
------
LOL!!!! All of those links are fine. The first sigma lines
cover 68% of the area UNDER THE CURVE.
-----
If you would like to prove, on any single one of the links
you call incorrect, that the first sigma lines do not bound
an area that is 68.2% of the area UNDER THE CURVE, then I
would like to see it.
-----
Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious.
Please, post more on this subject.
------
But all you can do is run like a little baby, cc.
Not even you believe your BS. That is very, very clear. Here are the
facts:
1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend
line in Excel. I did no such thing.
2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.
3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.
4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).
--
Snit
Jun 18, 2012, 4:30:19 PM6/18/12
to
On 6/18/12 12:34 PM, in article
cfc6d567-9c21-46c6...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, "Onion
cc runs because not even he believes his BS. Here are the facts:
1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend
line in Excel. I did no such thing.
2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.
3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.
4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).
There is no reasoned debate about any of these facts.
--
cfc6d567-9c21-46c6...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, "Onion
1) cc was wrong to say I missed steps in the creation of a linear trend
line in Excel. I did no such thing.
2) cc was wrong to claim the incorrect depictions I showed him of sigma
lines were, in fact, incorrect. But they were.
3) cc was wrong to say I was pushing the correlations I noted as being proof
of the causation I had spoken of earlier. I did no such thing.
4) cc was wrong to deny the fact that on a depiction of a normal
distribution you can visually see where the sigma lines should be drawn
based on the distance from the mean (specifically, the distance from the
mean to the inflection points).
--
Onion Knight
Jun 19, 2012, 12:20:15 AM6/19/12
to
On Jun 15, 1:24 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 7:20 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 9:16 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ok, the debate has bored me... unless there is some evidence to counter any
> > > of the following eight claims I will likely not be responding to cc on this
> > > topic, at least for a while. He simply is not going to be honest. And, of
> > > course, I will continue to not respond to Carroll. I might respond to Onion
> > > Knight or others who post on the topic - but cc and Carroll are just
> > > repeating the same lies over and over and dodging the same questions over
> > > and over. Even for me it has gotten to the point where it is not worth it
> > > (and I have an amazing threshold in that area!). Ok, these are just some of
> > > the facts that neither cc nor Carroll have any counter to - though they
> > > clearly hate that they are true:
>
> > I have never seen anyone as cowardly as either of them. You kept
> > proving your points as they just cut the material out. Then they would
> > insist they were right. Just idiotic.
>
> Snitis the only coward here... and the question he runs from
> On Jun 14, 7:20 pm, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 9:16 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ok, the debate has bored me... unless there is some evidence to counter any
> > > of the following eight claims I will likely not be responding to cc on this
> > > topic, at least for a while. He simply is not going to be honest. And, of
> > > course, I will continue to not respond to Carroll. I might respond to Onion
> > > Knight or others who post on the topic - but cc and Carroll are just
> > > repeating the same lies over and over and dodging the same questions over
> > > and over. Even for me it has gotten to the point where it is not worth it
> > > (and I have an amazing threshold in that area!). Ok, these are just some of
> > > the facts that neither cc nor Carroll have any counter to - though they
> > > clearly hate that they are true:
>
> > I have never seen anyone as cowardly as either of them. You kept
> > proving your points as they just cut the material out. Then they would
> > insist they were right. Just idiotic.
>
> currently is why he didn't use as accurate a regression model as he
> could when analyzing data for a trend (and notably, idiots like you
> call that an "attack").
>
> Additionally,Snitclaimed there was a correlation between UI
> could when analyzing data for a trend (and notably, idiots like you
> call that an "attack").
>
> improvements in Linux and its marketshare. He was asked to show it but
> there, too,Snitran like the cowardly weasel that he is.
>
> IOW...Snitis doing what he's done for a decade on usenet (and
> probably in real life), making claims and not supporting them while
> creating numerous shitfests where he throws his cowardly tantrums.
Why use a more complex model when a simple model proved his point? You
> creating numerous shitfests where he throws his cowardly tantrums.
keep making claims about him being wrong but can't actually find any
place where he is. Meanwhile you run from all the places he shows you
and you sock puppet CC to be wrong.
Steve Carroll
Jun 19, 2012, 10:25:55 AM6/19/12
to
couldn't possibly do.
Snit
Jun 19, 2012, 2:06:34 AM6/19/12
to
On 6/18/12 9:20 PM, in article
3b46fb2f-bc11-454a...@fr28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, "Onion
* Linux usage went up in the latter half of 2011.
* The trend changed in 2012 and it then dropped.
cc has admitted his data model missed this and just assumed these trends
were "errors" in the data... though he was never able to show that these
data points were any less reliable than the other we used... and, in fact,
it was cc who asked us to use these numbers!
3b46fb2f-bc11-454a...@fr28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Additionally,Snitclaimed there was a correlation between UI
>> improvements in Linux and its marketshare. He was asked to show it but
>> there, too,Snitran like the cowardly weasel that he is.
>>
>> IOW...Snitis doing what he's done for a decade on usenet (and
>> probably in real life), making claims and not supporting them while
>> creating numerous shitfests where he throws his cowardly tantrums.
>
> Why use a more complex model when a simple model proved his point? You
> keep making claims about him being wrong but can't actually find any
> place where he is. Meanwhile you run from all the places he shows you
> and you sock puppet CC to be wrong.
My method showed what needed to be shown:
>> Additionally,Snitclaimed there was a correlation between UI
>> improvements in Linux and its marketshare. He was asked to show it but
>> there, too,Snitran like the cowardly weasel that he is.
>>
>> IOW...Snitis doing what he's done for a decade on usenet (and
>> probably in real life), making claims and not supporting them while
>> creating numerous shitfests where he throws his cowardly tantrums.
>
> Why use a more complex model when a simple model proved his point? You
> keep making claims about him being wrong but can't actually find any
> place where he is. Meanwhile you run from all the places he shows you
> and you sock puppet CC to be wrong.
* Linux usage went up in the latter half of 2011.
* The trend changed in 2012 and it then dropped.
cc has admitted his data model missed this and just assumed these trends
were "errors" in the data... though he was never able to show that these
data points were any less reliable than the other we used... and, in fact,
it was cc who asked us to use these numbers!
Steve Carroll
Jun 19, 2012, 12:15:49 PM6/19/12
to
> 3b46fb2f-bc11-454a-9eb2-5a540eb49...@fr28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, "Onion
poster named kaba responded with:
"I gather there are two questions here:
1) Is the trendline approriately fitted to that data?
2) Is the trendline useful in some way? " - kaba
Logical questions by kaba... and, of course, they highlight the 2 most
important reasons for even bothering to create a trend line at all.
You then dishonestly changed your claimed reason for creating your
trend line to the following ridiculous reason:
"Not quite: the question was merely if the process of creating the
trend line was correct - did it follow the process of creating a
linear trend line that is supported by the build in "linear trend
line" properties of the program." - Snit
As anyone can see, you abandoned all statistical goals for your trend
line... your statistical argument died with that abandonment.
>
> Knight" <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Additionally,Snitclaimed there was a correlation between UI
> >> improvements in Linux and its marketshare. He was asked to show it but
> >> there, too,Snitran like the cowardly weasel that he is.
>
> >> IOW...Snitis doing what he's done for a decade on usenet (and
> >> probably in real life), making claims and not supporting them while
> >> creating numerous shitfests where he throws his cowardly tantrums.
>
> > Why use a more complex model when a simple model proved his point? You
> > keep making claims about him being wrong but can't actually find any
> > place where he is. Meanwhile you run from all the places he shows you
> > and you sock puppet CC to be wrong.
>
> My method showed what needed to be shown:
You sought outside help for your statistical trend line argument and a
> Knight" <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Additionally,Snitclaimed there was a correlation between UI
> >> improvements in Linux and its marketshare. He was asked to show it but
> >> there, too,Snitran like the cowardly weasel that he is.
>
> >> IOW...Snitis doing what he's done for a decade on usenet (and
> >> probably in real life), making claims and not supporting them while
> >> creating numerous shitfests where he throws his cowardly tantrums.
>
> > Why use a more complex model when a simple model proved his point? You
> > keep making claims about him being wrong but can't actually find any
> > place where he is. Meanwhile you run from all the places he shows you
> > and you sock puppet CC to be wrong.
>
> My method showed what needed to be shown:
poster named kaba responded with:
"I gather there are two questions here:
1) Is the trendline approriately fitted to that data?
2) Is the trendline useful in some way? " - kaba
Logical questions by kaba... and, of course, they highlight the 2 most
important reasons for even bothering to create a trend line at all.
You then dishonestly changed your claimed reason for creating your
trend line to the following ridiculous reason:
"Not quite: the question was merely if the process of creating the
trend line was correct - did it follow the process of creating a
linear trend line that is supported by the build in "linear trend
line" properties of the program." - Snit
As anyone can see, you abandoned all statistical goals for your trend
line... your statistical argument died with that abandonment.
0 new messages