HHP: Pythagorean record and the Gaussian Copula-Function: How I learned to stop worrying and love

[Lucky Jim]

What I find frustrating is the people who think they have proven they have every idea of what they are talking about, just poo-pooing other peoples threads, instead of doing their own bulletproof research, to end all debate. Of course, I know its much easier to float into someone's thread and say you are wrong.

I haven't done that at all. I engaged the author on his points, and even had a civil back-and-forth with him, and we reached what amounts to an agreement on these issues. Have you not read the thread. And if so, what's your problem exactly?

[Malike]

There's a somewhat apocryphal quote used in Bull Durham and a few others floating around that are unverified, I think.

As for the other points, it's interesting - and maybe a bit frustrating - to watch those who've already proven they have no idea what they're talking about rush to applaud this thread, as if it somehow struck a blow for their side. It's a fine summation of the basic points, but it doesn't move the needle in their favor. Not an inch.

I'm curious as to who you are calling out, and I really don't have a problem. Comments like Wake me up when someone does the research I want to see, etc, I find lazy and useless. You fired a shot across the bow to some folks, and from reading the thread, I don't see how its justifiable to say what I've bolded. It was a well though out, nicely written, OP. Was it perfect or infallible? Nah. I don't see anyone in the thread saying the OP is iron clad, just giving him props for his attempt to make some sense out of the RA/RS differential debate.

[Malike]

Just an FYI - one (like champing at the bit) I think we all get wrong a lot (heck, dictionaries might have picked up baited already).

Thanks for catching the typo. Is it my grammar you are patrolling, or the entire thread? If you are checking the entire thread for mistakes, you've missed "for all intensive purposes", or perhaps the dictionaries assume that is acceptable, as well. Get on the ball, there are quite a lot of errors to be pointed out.

[Pickles]

Just an FYI - one (like champing at the bit) I think we all get wrong a lot (heck, dictionaries might have picked up baited already).

What do you know about dictionaries, child?

Gotta love it. The same three guys- pissing on anybody who wants to discuss something.

Ain't it lovely?

[Lucky Jim]

I'm curious as to who you are calling out, and I really don't have a problem. Comments like Wake me up when someone does the research I want to see, etc, I find lazy and useless. You fired a shot across the bow to some folks, and from reading the thread, I don't see how its justifiable to say what I've bolded. It was a well though out, nicely written, OP. Was it perfect or infallible? Nah. I don't see anyone in the thread saying the OP is iron clad, just giving him props for his attempt to make some sense out of the RA/RS differential debate.

Perhaps that's because you weren't involved in the million other threads on the issue? There are numerous people who argued bull-headedly against common sense, math, logic (and a number of other things) in numerous other threads - who've subsequently stepped in here praising the OP. That's fine, but it's frustrating.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I haven't done that at all. I engaged the author on his points, and even had a civil back-and-forth with him, and we reached what amounts to an agreement on these issues. Have you not read the thread. And if so, what's your problem exactly?

I would assume that to be me. I just don't see anything to these ongoing threads and find the rhetoric outweighing any substance. It sounds like that is only me. My apologies to the author of the OP.

[Malike]

Perhaps that's because you weren't involved in the million other threads on the issue? There are numerous people who argued bull-headedly against common sense, math, logic (and a number of other things) in numerous other threads - who've subsequently stepped in here praising the OP. That's fine, but it's frustrating.

Fair, enough. I thought you meant this thread. Apologies. I have worked 40 hours in the past three days, my mind is, going?

[Pickles]

Yes, everyone, Jim had already determined the limits of statistical analysis.

Any conversation beyond his determination is trolling.

So just shut up.

[Lucky Jim]

Thanks for catching the typo. Is it my grammar you are patrolling, or the entire thread? If you are checking the entire thread for mistakes, you've missed "for all intensive purposes", or perhaps the dictionaries assume that is acceptable, as well. Get on the ball, there are quite a lot of errors to be pointed out.

Someone's awfully fired up for 7pm (or earlier). Maybe some yoga?

I'm pretty sure "all intensive purposes" was a joke, but even if not, I'm not interested in calling people out on errors. I was piping in on yours because it's an interesting one (to me).

[Flash- bd]

I would assume that to be me. I just don't see anything to these ongoing threads and find the rhetoric outweighing any substance. It sounds like that is only me. My apologies to the author of the OP.

Yeah, it is only you. I read through the thread and made some light-hearted responses to it, including some praise for the OP's posts. From what I can tell this thread probably would've died a while ago if Lucky Jim hadn't taken such an interest in it, and, for large part, sustained the discussion.

I don't say Yeah, it is only you as an insult or an affront whatsoever, just putting it in perspective given the post above by a certain poster who will do anything to twist things so they fit his agenda, #1 rule of which is to find out anyway possible (ludicrous or no) to try and discredit or sway favor against Lucky Jim, CA-Oriole, and bd.

[Lucky Jim]

Yeah, it is only you. I read through the thread and made some light-hearted responses to it, including some praise for the OP's posts. From what I can tell this thread probably would've died a while ago if Lucky Jim hadn't taken such an interest in it, and, for large part, sustained the discussion.

I don't say Yeah, it is only you as an insult or an affront whatsoever, just putting it in perspective given the post above by a certain poster who will do anything to twist things so they fit his agenda, #1 rule of which is to find out anyway possible (ludicrous or no) to try and discredit or sway favor against Lucky Jim, CA-Oriole, and bd.

I treated this thread with tough love!

[CA-ORIOLE]

Yes, everyone, Jim had already determined the limits of statistical analysis.

Any conversation beyond his determination is trolling.

So just shut up.

Since I think Bd and Jim both have you on ignore at this point, I'd like to ask you an honest question. Is that really fair to Jim based on the discussion in this thread? The guy went above and beyond to be courteous here. If anything, I'm the one you should be calling out with your ridiculous point.

[Pickles]

Yeah, it is only you. I read through the thread and made some light-hearted responses to it, including some praise for the OP's posts. From what I can tell this thread probably would've died a while ago if Lucky Jim hadn't taken such an interest in it, and, for large part, sustained the discussion.

I don't say Yeah, it is only you as an insult or an affront whatsoever, just putting it in perspective given the post above by a certain poster who will do anything to twist things so they fit his agenda, #1 rule of which is to find out anyway possible (ludicrous or no) to try and discredit or sway favor against Lucky Jim, CA-Oriole, and bd.

Well, when the same three guys show up everytime to display their vast comprehension of statistical knowledge whenever somebody tries to discuss it at a less orthodox level, then I guess the shoe fits.

Congrats on spewing orthodoxy. I guess that makes you a real thinker. Just as you imagine yourself.

[Lucky Jim]

Since I think Bd and Jim both have you on ignore at this point, I'd like to ask you an honest question. Is that really fair to Jim based on the discussion in this thread? The guy went above and beyond to be courteous here. If anything, I'm the one you should be calling out with your ridiculous point.

You're ruining the value of my ignore function. [Kidding.]

[Pickles]

Since I think Bd and Jim both have you on ignore at this point, I'd like to ask you an honest question. Is that really fairly to Jim based on the discussion in this thread? The guy went above and beyond to be courteous here. If anything, I'm the one you should be calling out with your ridiculous point.

You, Jim, and BD, are about courteous as a wolfpack when somebody says something that offends your orthodox sensibilities. Ignore me then. You as well.

I'll say what I want to, and if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it wasn't said, more power to you.