On 10/1/12 2:53 PM, Bret Cahill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> The question is, what are the odds of that being a coincidence? >> >>>>>>>>>> You can't apply statistical analysis to data set of one. >> >>>>>>>>> What other earth like planets are being used by climate scientists to >>>>>>>>> make their now widely accepted projections? >> >>>>>>>> Now you're just funnin' me. >> >>>>>>> That's a common AGW denier argument, that the earth is a data set of >>>>>>> one, >> >>>>>> It's not my argument, >> >>>>> Above you wrote: >> >>>>> "You can't apply statistical analysis to data set of one." >> >>>>> If you continue to try to fake a math or science background you'll get >>>>> cross posted to the math groups. >> >>>> Unlike some, I don't tout my credentials. >> >>> That's is _guaranteed_ to be the case when you have none. >> >> Not even close. I could tout fake credentials. > > If they can't be found by others in some archive, they ain't > credentials.
Is your inability to read for comprehension an isolated problem? Or is it part of a larger cognitive deficit? You might wanna get it checked out. You claim that I can't tout my credentials because I don't have any. But not having credentials doesn't stop anyone from boasting that he does. Sure, they ain't credentials if they don't exist, but that would be impossible for you to check. Suppose I claimed to have a PhD in mathematics from Cambridge. How could you check that I don't? > >>> Anyway you dodged the issue: >> >>> You cannot fake a math background. >> >> Of course I could fake a math background on a newsgroup. I could find a >> mathematician to ghost write posts. > > If you think that is easy you don't know many mathematicians.
So you've now conceded that I can fake a math background on newsgroup, but it just wouldn't be easy? OK.
> It would be a whole lot easier not to mention profitable to buy off an > appeals panel. > More of your probability? > > >>> It's easy. Just introduce an interesting concept in math and cross >>> post to the math groups. >> >> Not even close. I could be adept at and self-taught in mathematics. >> That would enable me to "introduce an interesting concept in math" and >> have no credentials. Or I could post "an interesting concept in math" >> that wasn't my idea. > > You'ld need to understand it to discuss the implications.
In the first case, I am adept at understanding it; in the second case, I might be clever enough to understand it even if I couldn't generate it. Neither case requires credentials.
> You'd dig yourself into a hole so fast you'd quickly start changing > the subject.
Now you're fantasizing about what might happen if I did something I have no intention of doing. What is it with you and credentials? > >> There's just no way to check credentials on a newsgroup. > > Not a single poster here ever goes to the law liberry?
How are you gonna check my credentials at the "liberry"?
> No one has access to AllFeds or All States?
What good would that do them? How are they gonna look me up?
> Finally, credentials aren't the same thing as being able to fake a > math background.
Thanks for sharing. So what?
> As Doc told the Patron, "look, you cannot cheat at chess." > >> Which is why I don't bother to post mine. > > No one believes that except maybe a confederacy of dunces
You mean that you don't believe it. Try to imagine how little I care about what you believe.
>that smart people would want on the _other side_.
The other side of what?
>> It doesn't matter though. > > True. You are already on a SS mental disability.