Re: Category 4 Charley Strikes Fla. Mainland

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/16/04 

Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 22:30:09 -0400

Psalm 110 wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:13:34 -0500, David Ball
> <wraith7@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> There's a big difference between saying something is
>> going to happen and PROVING it. Kindly offer some proof that the
>> category 4 storm that pounded Florida had as its proximate cause GW.
>> Something detailed would be nice.
>> BTW, the storm that pounded Edmonton occurred at a time when
>> temperatures have been among the lowest on record. Kind of escaped
>> your notice didn't it?
>
> You fail to distinguish between data, which is information, and
> deductive reasoning, which is examination of data to tease out
> causalities.

His point was that you had presented the former and done none of the latter.
Does this indicate you have suddenly clued in to your own idiocy?

> Data is not causality.

Exactly, so stop claiming that two points of data form a proof.

> It is information for functional thinking beings to ponder.
And when do you anticipate becoming a 'thinking being'? or pondering the
implications or lack of implications of weather reports.

> Sorry you never learned the difference.

The difference between David and you is that David does know the difference
and called you on it. To which you have made several inane statements that
show that you do not recognise your own mistake even though it is the
principle behind your rhetoric.

>
> Yeah, sure, spin you failures. The newspapers quote you as not having
> a clue. You didn't study data enough to learn the hidden causalities.

Since you have not presented any 'hidden causalities' you cannot claim that
he missed them. In fact, his post was calling you to provide some causality
instead of pulling it fresh and steaming from your anal orifice.

> You just surround yourself with lots of taxpayer's instruments and put
> a "knowing expression" on your face to hide the fact you can't predict
> the most powerful storm on the prairie 10 minutes before it starts.

www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/
RTGAM.20040712.wxedmon0712/BNStory/National/
"... In the capital, where there was a severe weather warning last night,
the West
Edmonton Mall's drains gave way, causing the shopping centre to flood"

My my. Such a pile of ***. Of course, they can only predict severe weather,
not exactly where and when. There were areas a few miles away that got
nothing but some rain. However, I am sure that all of the residents were
grateful for the warning that gave them time to prepare for whatever came.
Why are you not complaining about how the Hurricane down in Floriad missed
it's intended target of Tampa by moving inland too early? You expect wild
weather to be totally predictable do you?

>
> When the newspapers come asking what did the public buy with all that
> equipment expendatures and your salary, you quip "What are the Odds?"

Pretty good. When they give a severe storm warning you can be pretty sure
that SOMEONE will get a show.

>
> The odds of something that has already happened must have been 100% at
> the beginning of the event, and you are claiming you know what does
> and doesn't cause these things, so the ODDS are 100% that you don't
> know what causes these things.

Which is meaningless since they predict severe weather before hand which
saved billions in lives, property and crop losses.

>
> THEREFORE, you are just one of the bozos on this bus, nothing special.

THEREFORE, you are a turd with delusions of fertiliserdom.

Quantcast