What is the correlation in it's most simplest form? Is it's simplest form too complex for you to understand?
Man, just quit trying dude. This is sad.
What is the correlation in it's most simplest form? Is it's simplest form too complex for you to understand?
hey mr pot meet mr kettle
I come here to perpetuate lies? this lame has no direct correlation. he's not even man enough to respond directly to my questions that I've been repeating.
I've got nothing to hide. Cy on the other hand is hiding his "correlations" most simplest form.
Whats sad is you trying to pass off fallacies as correlations.Man, just quit trying dude. This is sad.
Whats sad is you trying to pass off fallacies as correlations.
Okay, put this to bed. What are you guys talking about -- a correlation between height and wing-span? There's obviously some correlation in that taller people on average will have a longer wingspan. You can use statistics and calculate standard deviations to demonstrate this. However, there is obviously also variance in proportion. People have varying height-to-wingspan ratios.
Is that what you're talking about? Can we move on now?
Got it dude. Under your definition of correlation, there is no correlation between height and standing reach. This is cute, like when an 8 year old tries to explain why the sky is blue.
What is the DIRECT correlation.. There is none. It holds no weight in this arena. You are clinging to semantics once again.
I stand here waiting to bring examples to the table. Show us the examples of why you're right and I'll shred them to pieces in an instant.