Re: APPEAL: Sci. Stat. Math. MODERATED

Janes said:

*** Date: Aug 8, 2007 9:55 AM
Author: James216440@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: APPEAL: Sci. Stat. Math. MODERATED

On 7 Aug, 22:32, Jack Tomsky <jtom...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My response> Tkink into count the nonsense and ignorance on fundamental points in Statistics Jack Tomsky a very learned BIOLOGIST that his immoderate> self- indulgence is crystal clear wiuld be the LAST person to be chosen. > Your classification what you think is an expert statistician reveals that, you too, are not. > I never took a class in biology in high school or college. I have never worked with biologists. I know virtually nothing about biology. Whenever I have my blood drawn, it's a traumatic experience for me and I nearly pass out. > So here, I'm being hailed as one of the world's foremost biologists. Isn't the Internet wonderful? > Jack


I am just a poor sad sack physical chemist so know next to nothing about statistics. But it is clear to any sentient being that Jack knows more statistics in his little finger then afonso will ever knowin his brain. I vote for Jack. There are also others who fall in Jack's category of being knowledgeable and helpful even to those that are more ignorant and weird then me. I would expect them to simply delete anything submitted by afonso. There is no purpose to be served by even bothering to read his drivel. All he does is fill the group with useless noise. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those on here who are
actually helpful and have a brain. Afonso fits neither category. Being a moderator should not be a bad job at all. Simply make up a list of morons and when they submit anything trash it automatically. It would quiet the group down and let us poor statistically ignorant
people learn without having to wade through piles of irrelevant crap. What is it about usenet that brings out the whackos and nut cases? Guys like Reef Fish at least were intellegent and generally knew what they talked about even if they did have egos that were outsized often resulting in posts that were on some archane and irrelevant fine point that meant little in the real world.


***My response


What to say of a text (supra) that forgets completely Jack Tomsky nonsense I indicated explicitly, among some others.
If you stands on you want (or cannot) analyse scrupulously, truly and without prejudice the errors I found Jack’s posts how can you be taken seriously?
Don’t you know that any discussion on Science must be limited on FACTS? Don’t you know James that every personal opinion about the authors must be excluded from a scientific discussion, that is forbidden to enter as an argument?
What is the School that failed o teach this?
Jack Tomsky *finger* relative to Hypotheses Tests and Empirical Distribution must be lacked.


***************
Luis
.

Relevant Pages
Loading