View Single Post
Old January 16, 2009, 06:58 PM   #98
David Armstrong
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone.
Seems lots of sinners fall back on that to try to excuse their bad behavior.
I think that is why I post against using what you are asserting.
Rarely do I assert much without providing the facts or findings to go with the assertion That is the problem, you seem unable to understand the difference between facts, findings, probabilities and your own beliefs.
No, I don't know others intentions unless they tell me.
So you assume everyone is trying to lie to you and decieve you unless they specifically tell you they are not? Strange sort of system there.
Actually, I think some who use statistics and quote studies may not have really looked at and examined the studies themselves and so context and meaning of what those statistics show are misunderstood.
Actually, given your record in the past and given you discussion here, it is obvious that you do not have the ability to accurately determine that. As others have pointed out, of course, you are not alone in that. But, as mentioned before, that you (or others) cannot figure out how to use that the material in no way indicates a problem with the data, the analysis, or the findings.
Presenting something as fact without a reference and then telling a person who questions the statement to go look it up is rather discourteous and lacks credibility.
That's a nice opinion. The fact is that your inability or unwillingness to conduct a search on your own is not indicative of anything other than the fact that you are too lazy to do it on your own. If you disagree with the findings presented by somebody the proper response is to go and look at the material yourself and offer the evidence contradicting the findings, not to start whining "I don't believe you, prove it prove it." If you don't think the findings presented are right, show why they aren't right.
Actually, it was a previous post you made not peetzakiller and the stat was out of context and plainly so.
As I mentioned, and as peetzakilla demonstrated, your inability to understand the context or figure out how to apply to your issue is not a problem with the data, the context, the findings, etc.
No, I think it would (and has) made the dialogue much better and useful.
I would challenge you to find any public forum where communication and posts are done in that manner.
I rest my case.
Again, never confuse knowledge and confidence with surety and arrogance. But obviously attempting to have an intelligent, reasoned discussion with you based on knowledge and a reasonable understanding of what is being talked about has once again failed. Back to the ignore list you go. I would ask that you be polite enough to do the same, but I doubt that you will be that honorable. Bye now.
David Armstrong is offline  
Page generated in 0.11138 seconds with 7 queries