Re: Linearity- Multiple Regrression


Richard Ulrich wrote:
> Sorry, folks, Bob Ling is ranting again.
> Responding briefly to that --

No, you did not respond to ANY of the substance of what I advised the
OP on how he went badly astray and how he should have proceeded.

I have given him the roadmap that ANYONE doing the same or similar
problem can, and should, follow.

> [snip, some advice that the OP might or might not find useful.]
>
> Bob was last in this 'rant' mode was back in late July or so.

Instead of addressing the substance of my post, Richard Ulrich went
into HIS version of issues I had discussed, pointing out HIS errors,
and how he had malpracticed statistics.

Of course Richard Ulrich in his self-serving version completely
distorted the truth.

I would URGE readers to go back to the archives and read whatever
I have posted, and see that Ulrich was at best LYING, in an attempt
to conceal his blunders.
>
> At that time, within just a couple of weeks, he totally blew
> a *regression* question, no less --

That only shows the LACK of credibility in anything Richard Ulrich
says about me. I was having a discussion with Jerry Dallal, who
does know infinitely more about regression than Richard Ulrich.
The only ERROR in that thread was when Richard Ulrich stuck
his nose into our conversation and made a blunder HIMSELF,
miscopying what Jerry had posted.

It's all in the archives.

It would be a waste of everyone's time for me to rebut Ulrich on
anything else because it's ALL readily retrievable in the archives.
Note that Ulrich NEVER cited any specifics, only HIS verbal
version of distortion -- which is Ulrich's modus operandi, in his
attempt to defend his Quackery and Malpractice in statistics.

It's all deja vu.

< Richard Ulrich's self-serving distortions snipped -- interested
readers can, and SHOULD, read those threads themselves!!
Without any coaching from Richard, or ME. >


> Bob -- Why don't you go back to enjoying your vacation?

I AM! But I am not going to let Quacks like you get away so
easily with your LIES and bad advice to the OP, while going into
your baseless attack of me, without addressing ANY of the
model-building and multiple regressions issued I discussed in
THIS thread.

-- Bob.

At Sea Day in the Caribbean, having left Ocho Rio, Jamaica.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time To Teach Digital Etiquette
    ... they bully OTHERS by making incessant NOISE in the group. ... I spared naming Richard Ulrich this time because Richard ... Quackery, Malpractice, and Ignorance about Statistics, ... The other NOISE makers, m00es, Illywhacker, Bob ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Bob Ling versus normality
    ... > him to look at normality and outliers in the scatterplots of the ... But he certainly does not need Richard Ulrich to make ... > "struggling beginner", ... > -- Bob. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Richard Ulrichs SEVENTH post to distort: His most UNETHICAL proposal to date -- inviting
    ... comments developing the Theory of Bob. ... The responsibility of a poster to give CORRECT and SOUND advice ... many STATISTICAL errors as Richard Ulrich did and still ... thing of substance in STATISTICS. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Richard Ultich the sci.stat.math resident Quack is beating his Dead Horses AGAIN
    ... Here's a little comment on styles of responding in general, ... Bob Ling gets terribly upset when I cut too many of his words; ... > Now, Richard Ulrich is back, in two tedious replay of his same self- ... > After bungling my advice about the absolute lack of necessity om doing ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Is sum of two normally distributed variables normally distributed?
    ... Several of those are threads about Bob's lack of skill at Googling. ... I am sure including a few posted by Richard Ulrich. ... Bob, you've explicitly challenged me on Googling twice ... FAILED miserably to post ad hominem attacks on Bob Ling ...
    (sci.stat.math)