Zombie
Well-Known Member
LOL, man I already said I'm not going to put much stock into an outlier poll. We're not on the same side of this disagreement.
I just think you're being a little dramatic is all.
Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
I just think you're being a little dramatic is all.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Or people become dismissive when they disagree, but don't feel like it's worth arguing about. At least that's been my experience.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Yeah pretty much.Yet, you run to Harambe's defense. Because.... I said he sounded upset? Riiight.
Weird how he doesn't think the very basic fallacy he's making is not worth discussing. I thought he maybe didn't know what he was talking about. But no, it's probably just his disagreements. He doesn't have the time to dazzle us with his deep statistical understanding.
Doubt it. I interrupted a religious service, and you decided to gang up on the blasphemer with your fellow faithful.
The fallacy is this: You're not using truly accurate data in the first place. It's all self reported, which is not the best way to measure anything.
The model you appear to be using, axing an outlier, is reserved for truly quantifiable data. IE; a pool of patients with a median stay cost of 12k, but an average stay cost of 34k. That's when you axe the outlier that has a stay in the 200k range to get viable data. In less quantifiable means of analytics(polls), you should be just taking all of the data and doing the numbers. Just with a grain of salt.
The only problem here, is that you think it's important to argue over. I'm not trying to convince you to think differently, I'm simply saying I don't care to correct you, and it won't matter if I do or don't.
Gibberish. You used the poll as a fact, and didn't take anything with a grain of salt.
I pointed out that the poll is an outlier and doesn't match with the other polls during the same period. You used it because it shows the numbers that you like. I thought maybe you looked into the poll and was going to provide an answer similar to the post by BP about why the questions and trends point to the poll being meaningful. You didn't. And you still haven't. And now I suspect you can't. I don't even know what this response you gave is.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
I'm struggling to understand what this even means. Have a good one man.
I didn't use a poll as a fact, I used a fact that there's polling data. You pushed it up a notch.
It means you saw someone attacking Trump, and another challenging that attack, and you automatically jumped in to help your teammate. It's pretty obvious.
I quoted you. That's the nice thing about the modern world, it's more difficult to lie when we have records of everything. But no carry on with that stuff about outliers with quantifiable numerical data or whatever mindnumbing nonsense you were saying.
Or... it means I contributed to the threads purpose?
60% disapproval rating, and half of all Americans believing we should start impeachment now is relevant. Talking a whole lot of **** because you misunderstood what the thread was about is your problem.
Also relevant,
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/us/politics/patten-fara-manafort.html
Another rat, fleeing the ship.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/us/politics/patten-fara-manafort.html
Another rat, fleeing the ship.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Why don't do go back and reread my first response to you, and let me know how this makes any sense.
You know, you're generally one of my favorite posters on this site, but you're coming across really poorly right now.