On 6/18/12 9:15 PM, in article firstname.lastname@example.org, "Onion Knight" <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 10:45 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 18, 3:11 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> What I did not do, of course, was show that this increase was based on the >>> *causative* factors I spoke of >> >> Bullsh*t... the facts show that you even called it an "overall >> claim" (which clearly places it in the realm of causation) that UI >> improvements **will** (this one word highlights your lie here) bring >> new users: >> >> "Now I have theories and reasons for this - and, frankly - it would >> not really be contrary to my overall claims that focus on the UI, if >> successful, will bring new users." -Snit >> >> That's clearly a 'cause and effect' statement if there ever was one. >> That you have the nerve to say you're speaking outside the realm of >> causation is absurd. >> >>> - I was very clear the data merely correlated >>> with the prediction I made based on those factors. You got confused between >>> causation and correlation... as did cc. >> >> You're confused and you're lying... and no one is falling for it. > > You have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. Even your own > quotes show Snit making a prediction based on causes he thinks will > lead to a change. Then he showed that the change correlated with the > prediction. In 2011. He admitted it did not in 2012. > > You are too fucking stupid to understand causation and correlation.
As noted elsewhere: Steve confuses the concepts of showing a correlation, which I did (my vague prediction correlated well with the data of the latter half of 2011) and proof of causation (something I never said the data proved).
It really is not a hard concept... Carroll simply screwed up based on his own ignorance and is now lying. Oh well. That is what Carroll does.