Re: 9/11/06 Cartoon for "Portuguese Statistics for Dummies"

Reef Fish wrote:
Russell.Martin@xxxxxxx wrote:
Reef Fish wrote:
Russell.Martin@xxxxxxx wrote:
Reef Fish wrote:
FRAME 1:

Voice on phone: Hello?

Licas on phone: Daddy, I've been stuck on my first Statistics problem
for two weeks! I'm SO in over my head!
What am I
doing at sci.stat.math?


FRAME 2:

Voice on phone: Licas, your anxiety may be preventing you from
spotting
connections you otherwise would. Pretend
it's not
homework. Make it a game, and let the sun
shine in.


FRAME 3:

Licas looking out window at sunshine and two birds in sky ... pondering


FRAME 4:

Licas on phone: Everything's fine here, thanks.

Voice on phone: Okay. I see it. Bye.


Disclaimer: Any resemblance between the above cartoon and Trudeau's
nationally syndicated Doonsbury cartoon of 9/11/06; or between the
Afonsos, real or imaginary, in sci.stat.math, is entirely
coincidental.

-- Reef Fish Bob.

Funny, but to be consistent I must say it is a gratutious
yanking of Afonso's chain, disclaimer not withstanding.

Cheers,
Russell

Actually, I wish Doonsbury had been a bit funnier in the
coincidental resemblance of M.I.T. to the sci.stat.math.

Yeah, but one can't control that.


But there is absolutely NOTHING gratuitous about yanking
Afonso's chain. YOu thought so ONLY BECAUSE of
your own IGNORANCE about Afonso's posts in the past
weeks and months (because you had them killfiled)

Just like Nag, you presume wrongly.

No. I don't presume anything. You're taking a more conciliatory
tone,

Actually I wasn't being non-conciliatory before. I'm just
calling for some comity for the sake of the NG. I know it
is hopeless in Afonso's case, but I hold out hope in your
case.

so I'll simply skip to the ONLY TRUE statement you've made
in this post to PROVE your own ignorance, when you agreed that
you read no more than 1/10 of what Afonso wrote, and probably
no more than that of my response to Afonso.

Actually, distpite your disaghreement below, I wrote "I've
probably read at least 1/10 of his posts", which is correct.


You were BLIND to what we wrote. I have a photographic
memory. Remember?

I remember that you claim you do.

Even thought the film is a little wet at
times.


:-)

You had argued that you didn't KNOW the content of all those
derogatory SUBJECTS Afonso posted because you didn't
read any of it. Remember?

Not exactly, but I do recall saying that I had ignored
some threads with his posts and I suspected that was the
case with many of the people here. Since you made such
a fuss that time, I went through the threads I had completely
skipped just to see if I'd missed anything important. I'd
missed the usual, which means I'd missed nothing important,
at least to me. I suppose it was more important to you.

That's quite different from what
you're saying now, that you read it and just ignored them.

I ignore many, I read some. His posting method and
frequent changes of title make it hard for the news reader
to correctly show the relationships, which discourages
following the discussion even if there was anything worth
following, so I usually read the first one and the reply
from whoever shows it is wrong (often you), after which
there is usually little but rehashing of old points and
trading of insults. Once in a while I'll read another few
just to confirm that the rehashing and insults are still flying.
IOW I sample which is the reasonable thing to do when
one has finite resources of time, especially for such
foolishness.


Big skip of ... let's just say your obfuscation ... nevertheless
your LIES about how much you've read.

You're overinterpretting whatever it is you think I wrote.


Note I never said
I killfiled Afonso. I just ignore most of his posts because
I know there will be nothing to learn about statistics from
the vast majority of them, even those that deal with
statistics since those are elementary (even for me) or
wrong. I don't killfile anyone, I just ignore what I decide
is not worth paying attention to.

and
you're also equally IGNORANT about my responses to
all of the Afonsos.

Wrong again. I've read a number of them and scanned
many more, but mostly for amusement since most are
either repeats of earlier statistics points or your running
battle of insults.


You chose to stick your head in the sand.


No, I just choose to ignore noise as much as possible.

You have absolutely NO credibility in whatever you said
about what you didn't read.

That's true about what I didn't read, of course, but
you have no way of *knowing* what I didn't read,
and whatever method you're using to make your
*estimate* of what I've read is subject to huge bias.


Then only posts of mine you read are those that I called
on Richard Ulrich's Quackery and malpractice -- unfortunately
for YOU, you don't know enough about Statistics to have
fallen prey to Ulrich's snake-oil salesmen talk, and you
even rose to make some snide remarks equating me to
some ancient sci.stat.math person whom I've never seen,
based on YOUR ignorance of what statistics I have posted.

Wrong. Those remarks were not snide, and certainly not
meant to be as I compared you to one of the great heroes
of Western civilization, Roland. Where I come from being
compared to a hero is a good thing. Like many heroes of
that age of literature, including Roland, unfortunately you
also have flaws, which was the point I was making in order
to help you. Well, no good deed ever goes unpunished.


Russell, your case is one ignorance leads to another.

As you can see from reading the above, you are wrong
about that. I'm glad your knowledge of statistics is much
better than that.


I am glad that since I was busy, you're getting a little feel
of the sleezy characters around this group, like NAG.

You two deserve one another.

That was why I said in the signal vs noise post I made that

RF> Both NAG and Russell Mars had been making NOTHING
RF> but NOISE -- both of them. (see my follow-up to Russell
RF> to come, and the fact that he had killfiled most of mine and
RF> Afonso's posts).

Unfortunately, as I've had to point out, you too are adding
noise, and much more than I.

If you want to criticize, be at least a responsible citizen to READ
what you hadn't read BEFORE criticizing.

See above.

See below,

NAG has been around this group for only a couple of weeks.
Anyone read any of his crap would have had him pegged for
an ignorant and worthless troll.

If you had read 1/2, or even 1/4, nay, ... or even 1/10 of
Afonso's posts, you wouldn't be sticking your foot in your
mouth as readily as you do now!

Actually, I've probably read at least 1/10 of his posts,

Probably much less!

That's your opinion, based on your incorrect premises.


just so I could know what you're complaining about,
but that's still too many to be worth the effort.

That's why you were BLIND, just like having killfiled him, (and me).

Which I didn't do.

Don't forget about my photographic memory.

Then you'll recall I never mentioned killfiling anyone.


No time to find the prove of your lies now. because I am no my way
to the cruise. Now go wipe off that SUBJECT with "Bob Ling" on
it where you were arguing with NAG.

He seems to have dropped it, so there is no reason to
add to the already high noise levels. If you would
point out Afonso's mistakes and then just drop it,
and spend the remaining time posting some more
of your excellent lectures of stat topics, the signal
to noise ratio would go up. Yes, he'll post some
drivel and name calling, but even newbies can see
through that.


I'll see you both after I have the access of the internet from the
cruiseship, which may be tomorrow.

-- Reef Fish Bob.


Cheers,
Russell

.

Relevant Pages