Re: Linearity- Multiple Regrression
- From: Richard Ulrich <Rich.Ulrich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:44:19 -0500
On 11 Nov 2005 08:05:11 -0800, "Reef Fish"
<Large_Nassau_Grouper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip, what was just responded to.]
>
> 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.
I should say, Bob Ling has been notable for seldom giving
any specifics with his insults and name-calling. - In this
most recent post, I could detect that he wanted details on
why I thought he should have backed off from criticizing
back in July -- I think I've given that to him now.
Bob says, "Look in the archives." But they don't show
what he believes, just like the texts he cites don't say
what he believes. Bob is not paying enough attention.
And he doesn't give a damn. It must be that he quit
posting in July because he became bored.
I seem to defend my -- our? -- quackery rather successfully.
Word twisting? In comparison to Bob's inarticulate front, yes.
But he has the difficulty of preaching a message that
no one around here has any inclination to believe.
Most of the time, that has had to do with approaches to
regression, and *his* contention that just about nothing,
(no meaning, that is) can be inferred from observational
studies. That includes epidemiology, and that includes
the "notion" that statistical evidence is worthwhile in showing
that smoking causes cancer.
Bob lays the title 'quack" on everyone in the social sciences,
and doesn't notice that no one agrees with him, in general or
in particulars. In the last go-round, he gave his reference
from the Tukey book, and a gloss on Box, and not a person
sides with his *reading* of those sources.
Accusing of "lying" .... Disagreeing on perceptions is not lying.
Posting error, with hostility and malice, and persevering
despite strong evidence presented surely gives an appearance
of "lying" and that is what Bob has been guilty of before, in
trying to show my incompetence and "errors". See his exploits
on arguing competency in using Google.
I don't lie. That's practically a lie, to assert it again, given
the whole history. I *do* present arguments that Bob is
unwilling or unable to meet. I *do* see that nobody hardly ever
agrees with Bob when he calls me names, and other people
do call him troll and net.kook, and recommend kill-filing
him.
>
> 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 surely have been letting us get away with it, hasn't he?
Is he fooling himself? not paying enough attention?
I can't think of a single piece of bad advice that he has
ever prevented *me* from "getting away with".
It's all rhetoric for him, and he doesn't give a damn how
sad he looks at it, but he doesn't pay enough attention
to realize how bad he looks at it.
--
Rich Ulrich, wpilib@xxxxxxxx
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Linearity- Multiple Regrression
- From: Richard Ulrich
- Re: Linearity- Multiple Regrression
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Linearity- Multiple Regrression
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Linearity- Multiple Regrression
- Prev by Date: Re: Linearity- Multiple Regrression
- Next by Date: Re: should I treat centre as fixed or random effect in a multi-centre trial?
- Previous by thread: Re: Linearity- Multiple Regrression
- Next by thread: Richard Ultich the sci.stat.math resident Quack is beating his Dead Horses AGAIN
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|