Cold Reading Demos at TAM2

[Clancie]

Bill,

I rephrased the question, just for you.

Please copy and paste the quote where Lurker says he did his own count and rejected the null hypothesis.

The only thing I see in that link is he says "Bill did a "J" count that rejected the null hypothesis". "Thanz and I did a "J" count that did not reject the null hypothesis."

You're claiming that he says otherwise. So....

Where is it?

Or do you think that (1) quoting you is the same as saying that's his result, too?

or (2) When he says his "J" count did NOT reject the null hypothesis (unlike yours ) he really means exactly the opposite of what he is saying?

He doesn't say what you claim he does, Bill, (and, as with your flawed "J" count, I think you already know this...which kind of makes your continued arguing even worse. ).

 

[Clancie]

And, Bill, I notice you're still trying to use my post (arguing about it while avoiding it) as a distraction in the hope no one will notice that you're still not addressing T'ai or Thanz's questions re your counting method.

 

[BillHoyt]

Bill,

I rephrased the question, just for you.

Please copy and paste the quote where Lurker says he did his own count and rejected the null hypothesis.

The only thing I see in that link is he says "Bill did a "J" count that rejected the null hypothesis". "Thanz and I did a "J" count that did not reject the null hypothesis."

You're claiming that he says otherwise. So....

Where is it?

Or do you think that (1) quoting you is the same as saying that's his result, too?

or (2) When he says his "J" count did NOT reject the null hypothesis (unlike yours ) he really means exactly the opposite of what he is saying?

He doesn't say what you claim he does, Bill, (and, as with your flawed "J" count, I think you already know this...which kind of makes your continued arguing even worse. ).

GO BACK TO THAT LINK.

"For kicks and giggles I did the count on "J" guesses versus non-"J" guesses for JE. I also did it under two criteria. The first is Bill Hoyt's method while the second was the method Thanz and I employed. Here are the results of the counts and what Poisson tells us:"

Lurker could not have been more clear.

 

[BillHoyt]

Look, Clancie, I'm giving you 1 hour from the time of that post. That would be 2:00 my time. I've had it with people leveling false accusations based on selective perception or selective retention.

 

[BillHoyt]

Less than half an hour, Clancie.

 

[BillHoyt]

Less than half an hour, Clancie.

Everybody makes mistakes, Clancie. The difference between people who are genuinely interested in what is real and all the others is that they check their work. They re-read the texts. They look for other sources. That is a necessary part of critical thinking. You've had that link for days. I provided it. I know you looked at it. I know you looked at it selectively. What is it going to take for you to adopt the hard discipline of critical reading and critical thinking, rather than this kaffee klatch pretense of yours? What is it going to take?

Less than 15 minutes.

 

[Sundog]

Can anyone say CLINICALLY OBSESSIVE?

 

[BillHoyt]

Can anyone say CLINICALLY OBSESSIVE?

She's fuming now. This can either be an object lesson or a hardening of the faculties for her. It is her choice, as it is mine to make abundantly clear she has libeled me. I don't take that lightly.

 

[BillHoyt]

Clancie,

AFAIC, you're toast. Butter your butt and slide on outta here. You're long past done.

 

[Clancie]

Gee, Bill, I'm so sorry I wasn't here on your time table.

Lol. Was anyone disputing that your counting method would yield the "J" count that you claimed? No. We argue that the method is flawed (and you still haven't addressed that).

So your post from Lurker is pointless. He used your method of counting and got your count and it rejected the null hypothesis. (Duh). He also says he used his own method and got a count that unlike yours did not reject the null hypothesis.

Nowhere does he say that his own count also rejected the null hypothesis....


But, Sundog is right. This is quite obsessive. Let's just agree that I'm an ignoramus. And yes, by all means, put me on your "ignore" list of one. (But, please, at least have the courtesy to put it in your sig line as I did for Claus).

However, (and I'm sorry to bring up such a sore point), but I notice, during your long countdown to my post (diversion #...what? I've lost "count")...that you still are ignoring Thanz and T'ai Chi's questions. (Hint: "Question 1...Answer 1"..."Question 2...Answer 2"....and so on...)

Now that I'm on "Ignore"...what will you do for diversion now? More leopard anecdotes? More about radioactive decay? More name-calling?

Options are getting limited, Bill. To answer? Or to keep up the obfuscations and diversions? Oh,...What ever will you do????

 

[CFLarsen]

Gee, Bill, I'm so sorry I wasn't here on your time table.

What an incredible hypocrite you are. You once demanded that I answer questions about JE's book right away, but when the shoe is on the other foot....

 

[Thanz]

Mr. Larsen -

What happened? I have addressed your points and asked you some questions to clarify your argument. You have since posted twice to this thread, but only to engage in your favoured pastime of taunting Clancie.

What's the matter? You can dish it but can't take it? Have you finally seen that I am correct, but aren't adult enough to admit it?

Well, you and Mr. Hoyt are quite a pair. Extremely condescending and rude, but when asked simple questions that show you to be wrong, you are nowhere to be seen. All bluster, no substance.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The thread was hijacked by the woos again. The hijacking was needed because Tr'oll stuck his foot in his mouth again.

So, are you going to answer the relevant questions put to you? You know, those pesky ones about the counting being independent or dependent?

They only require a one word answer, 'independent' or 'dependent'.

I've let that cat out of the bag, we know Tr'oll will be madly googling MMPP, and hoping to feign knowledge of it despite demonstrating he had no clue about the radioactive decay example.

Huh? What are you babbling about? I talked about radioactive decay, although I fail to see what use it is other than a diversion of yours. Please, address the above questions put to you.

This is like arguing with creationists. One shouldn't confuse them with the facts.

Attempted guilt by association.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

Your explanation is bull. Plain and simple.

You are comparing two calculated datasets, one of which (you claim) is flawed. And you still maintain that this comparison has value? Bull.

You cannot use the comparison of two calculations to show that the data used in one of the calculations is flawed. You have to show that the data itself is flawed.

Ergo, your comparison is worthless. Ergo, your point about Hoyt's data is invalid.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian when drunk!!

{burp}

 

[T'ai Chi]

Thanz,

Your explanation is bull. Plain and simple.

You are comparing two calculated datasets, one of which (you claim) is flawed. And you still maintain that this comparison has value? Bull.

You cannot use the comparison of two calculations to show that the data used in one of the calculations is flawed. You have to show that the data itself is flawed.

Ergo, your comparison is worthless. Ergo, your point about Hoyt's data is invalid.

CFLarsen,

Please stay focused here!.

Are the letter/name counts independent or dependent?

 

[CFLarsen]

Please stay focused here!.

Are the letter/name counts independent or dependent?

I am staying focused. Please don't derail my discussion with Thanz, please. If you have something to add about Thanz' comparison, let's hear it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I am staying focused. Please don't derail my discussion with Thanz, please. If you have something to add about Thanz' comparison, let's hear it.

I'm pretty sure your favorite color is yellow.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm pretty sure your favorite color is yellow.

Wrong, as usual. Please stay focused.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Wrong, as usual. Please stay focused.

CFLarsen,

Please stay focused here!. (focused on dodging/ignoring/running away from the following relevant question, that is)

Are the letter/name counts independent or dependent?