Richard Ultich the sci.stat.math resident Quack is beating his Dead Horses AGAIN

Richard Ulrich wrote:
> 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.

Let those readers who wanted to find out, read it for themselves and
decide for themself, without any coaching from Ulrich or me:

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

That should have been the END of it.


Now, Richard Ulrich is back, in two tedious replay of his same self-
serving tune, distorting everything that's in the archives for anyone
to see how wrong he was.

After I had already given the OP the roadmap about where he went
wrong and how he should have proceeded, Richard Ulrich then
followed my script TWO DAYS LATER (though not quite successfully,
because Richard obviously didn't understand it himself) to give the
sehwail further plagiarized advice, in which Ulrich's muddled mind
showed!

RU> [snip, most of the stuff about normality testing, etc.
RU> These are not essential to regression or to the Question
RU> being asked, so long as you have confirmed that all the
RU> data values are legitimate and reasonable, with no big
RU> outliers to confuse whatever is going on.]

"not essential"? Absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant!

I had already said it plainly and unambiguously to the OP two days
before Richard's attempted (but misplayed) plagiarism:


OP> A. Normality
OP> I started with checking the normality of the IVs and DV

RF> WHY? There is absolutely NOTHING in any
multiple-linear-regression
RF> model that requires ANY of the Ind. vars. or the Dep. Var. (which
is an
RF> aggregate of n observations from n DIFFERENT distributions, even
if
RF> you assume each of them is normal) to be Normal.
RF>
RF> Therefore, you work below is precisely Garbage In, Garbage Out,
RF> because all the numbers are 100% irrelevant to any regression
model
RF> you are trying to fit. It's a complete waste of computer and
human time.

Let me emphasize the "100% irrelevant" to any model and any problem
of the type the OP was attempting.

After bungling my advice about the absolute lack of necessity om doing
any
plot looking for normality, Richard Ulrich improvised this part
himself:

RU> with no big outliers to confuse whatever is going on.]

This is an unmistakable manufestation of Ulrich's OWN confusion about
those plots sehwail did, and my advice that they were 100% useless.

Outlier in WHAT? Any outlier in ANY of the independent OR the
dependent
variable is 100% irrelevant to the probability model about the ERRORS
(residuals) of the model, because no model had been fitted at that
stage!

That's the kind of Quakery characteristic of Ulrich's comment on any
linear model or regression problem. It sounds learned and reasonable
in his muddled mind, but absolute GARBAGE to anyone in the know.

I read Richard's bungled advice soon after he posted it, but decided
to let it go. Until Richard Ulrich felt compelled to bring out some
DEAD HORSESl that were entirely irrelevant to the PRESENT
THREAD or the PRESENT PROBLEM, and dwelled on his own
distorted fantasy on them, rather than addressing the actual problem
at hand or let the readers find his alleged fault of mine in his Dead
Horses.

Richard Ulrich's FINAL critique, comment, and advice (after having seen
mine) would have gotten him a grade of no better than 30 out of 100 if
he were in my data analysis course, for not knowing, and failing to
consider many of the RELEVANT steps in exploring nonlinear surfaces,
and for his absolute lack of technical substance in his "advice to
sehwail".

Anyone who is half way competent in data analysis and model building
could read Richard Ulrich's FINAL analysis for sehwail, and see for
themselves why Richard Ulrich is an incompetent Quack on the
subject.


Richard Ulrich, give it up.

You are bringing in your distorted Dead Horses only as your way of
trying to hide your inadequacy and malpractice in sehweil's problem.
OR, it is actually quite possible that you don't even KNOW how
ridiculously erroneous your adive to sehweil was! Or WHY!

I had told you many times before: your time will be better spent
LEARNING statistics and multiple regression yourself FIRST, with
the hours of tedious excuses posted for your own rationalization
and excuse.

You should pay need to the First Law of Holes,

"When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

That's my advice to you, RIchard Ulrich, the sci.stat.math resident
Quack
of statistics.

-- Bob.

Taking a few minutes from the cruise away from Montego Bay,
Jamaica, as my public service to combat statistical Quackery and
malpractice, exemplified by Mr. Richard Ulrich, formerly
Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, last verified (a few months ago)
as no longer employed in said department.

The public service would not have been taken had Richard Ulrich
not chosen to post his two lengthy, distorted, repeat of his Dead
Horses entirely false and faulty as well as irrelvant to the present
thread and discussion!

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Richard Ultich the sci.stat.math resident Quack is beating his Dead Horses AGAIN
    ... >> wrong and how he should have proceeded, Richard Ulrich then ... >> RU> These are not essential to regression or to the Question ... >> OP> I started with checking the normality of the IVs and DV ... >> After bungling my advice about the absolute lack of necessity om doing ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: assumption of Classification
    ... >> Richard Ulrich wrote: ... >> RU> normality is not the only assumption to be checked. ... If the clustering model assumes nothing about normality? ... That's a contradiction. ...
    (sci.stat.edu)
  • 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: assumption of Classification
    ... Here is a little more of the original, which Bob again ignores, ... normality is not the only assumption to be checked. ... Then Richard Ulrich ... That's a contradiction. ...
    (sci.stat.edu)