Re: Google Group scistatmath


Richard Ulrich wrote:
Commenting on just a few lines in Bob's post --

On 15 Nov 2006 14:38:51 -0800, "Reef Fish"
<large_nassua_grouper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

I have been involved in EVERY noisy thread in this group since
I joined it in early 2005.

That's probably true.

That is unquestionably true because I KNOW what each NOISY
offender was, what each ERROR was made, and in every single
case, my correction of the error was correct, the incessant noise
notwithstanding.

As the Scottish poet Robbie Burns said -

<snip Ulrich's impertinence.

..
Are these supposed to be irrelevant matters of *style*, or what?

I can say authoratively, that without
exception, the noisy threads originated from ERRORS by
discussants that were corrected by me (sometimes by others).
If those who made the errors simply recognize their own errors
and move on, there wouldn't be any noise!

So?
Why does everyone credit Bob with the noise?

EVERYONE? Why don't you NAME them -- those other than
the noise makers themselves -- Richard Ulrich, Bob O'Hara,
Illywhacker, m00es, the Afonsos, and about half a dozen
other NON-contributors and non-readers who pops out to make
their noise.

Just go down the list of posters you see NOW, and tell us which
of them are among the "everyone" credit Bob with the noise?
Your counting is as seriously flawed as your statistical practice,
Richard Ulrich!


Even posting to Luis, where Bob knows the material
and Luis does not, Bob's posting is obnoxious style and
bad net-citizenship.

As in posting SUBJECTS of "*** you Bob", and posting
racial slurs and other typical Afonso insults? He does that
even to Jack Tomsky, and to everyone who corrects his
errors. You are MAD, Richard Ulrich, with your own NOISE.


But Richard Ulrich alone generated 80% of ALL the noise in
this group because he made so many errors and he argued
and argued about each of them -- and to the best of my knowledge
he STILL makes the same errors.

- Right, in part.

Right in WHOLE. The 80% is a conservative underestimate.
Richard Ulrich is the ONLY ONE who would bring back the same
errors and started them all over again.


Going further -- When I mention our previous disputes, I *try*
to represent his view fairly and honestly.

Richard Ulrich uses "misrepresentation" as his excuse and
false synonym for "present his view fairly and honestly".

You have NEVER done so, not even once; and you are not
doing it now, not by a long shot.


If Bob wants to take a historical review of these "issues",
perhaps we could set up a format of restating in no more
than 25-50-100? words, with Statement/ Rebuttal/ Statement/
Rebuttal/ for each. I'm convinced that Bob does not have
ability at verbal argument to look at all good at that.
[snip, rest]

Some of the issues took 10 times the number of words to explain
thoroughly and completely to THIS readership. Richard Ulrich is
the one who is impervious to ALL explanations, as in the simple
definition of a LINEAR MODEL, and holds the Guinness World
Record for being the ONLY person on earth who had claimed and
even defended his error of calling the regression fit of

Y = b X

a NON-LINEAR model, because the intercept is constrained to
be zero.

--
Rich Ulrich, wpilib@xxxxxxxx
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html

-- Reef Fish Bob.

.

Quantcast