Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
LucyR said:
That's because the umpire is blind and Claus is playing with himself.
That's because the umpire is blind and Claus is playing with himself.
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
CFLarsen said:
I can be moved....by evidence!
Then post it.
A CLAY CHI RUN
Well...
A CLAY CHI URN
Yes. Better.
A CLAY URCHIN
Ouch!
A LUNARY CHIC
If he gets his balls cut off.
ARCHAIC LUNY
True.
AURAL CHI NYC
Perhaps.
LAY CHINA CUR
He'd lay anything...
LUNACY CHAIR
Oy, oy, oy...
ACHY URI CLAN
Lucianarchy is a Uri Geller fan, so....it fits!
UCLA HAIR NYC
Lucianarchy is from California, but has no hair...hmmm...
LUCY CAN HAIR
No.
LURA ANY CHIC
Lure any chic? Not until he starts playing music instead of stealing it...
HI LUCY A NARC
Go to Lucianarchy's webpage and see the blatant enticement to drug abuse...
Well...
A CLAY CHI URN
Yes. Better.
A CLAY URCHIN
Ouch!
A LUNARY CHIC
If he gets his balls cut off.
ARCHAIC LUNY
True.
AURAL CHI NYC
Perhaps.
LAY CHINA CUR
He'd lay anything...
LUNACY CHAIR
Oy, oy, oy...
ACHY URI CLAN
Lucianarchy is a Uri Geller fan, so....it fits!
UCLA HAIR NYC
Lucianarchy is from California, but has no hair...hmmm...
LUCY CAN HAIR
No.
LURA ANY CHIC
Lure any chic? Not until he starts playing music instead of stealing it...
HI LUCY A NARC
Go to Lucianarchy's webpage and see the blatant enticement to drug abuse...
jj said:
A thread being opened up about me is me stalking? You're really confused.
Calling one a hypocrite is not defamation, it is a fact, because they don't seem to ask Bill and Claus for their evidence for their claims, but they ask others. They pick and choose.
T'ai Chi said:
Your deceit is becoming, well, I was going to say "legendary", but they don't really write legends about the likes of you, they write cautionary tales, instead.
Your evasion and failure to address Lucian's behavior, and how your own defamation campaign aids and abets his is noted.
I am stalking in a thread that Claus started about me? 
Too funny.
I addressed Lucian's behavior in another thread. I asked him to provide evidence for what he said re: Claus signing him up for porn, and etc. Did you not read that??
Evasion... kinda like those YES or NO questions you just can't manage to answer... ... ... ...
Saying someone is a hypocrite is not defamation.
Asking someone to provide evidence for their claims is not defamation.
Showing someone posts more to or about someone else is not defamation.
Asking someone to hold their friends to the standards they hold others to is not defamation.
Someone posts an anagram in jest and its not defamation. Then when I do it in jest, it is defamation. Again, hypocritical behavior.
I'm curious, are you still trying to make others believe counting is an experiment?
Too funny.
I addressed Lucian's behavior in another thread. I asked him to provide evidence for what he said re: Claus signing him up for porn, and etc. Did you not read that??
Evasion... kinda like those YES or NO questions you just can't manage to answer... ... ... ...
Saying someone is a hypocrite is not defamation.
Asking someone to provide evidence for their claims is not defamation.
Showing someone posts more to or about someone else is not defamation.
Asking someone to hold their friends to the standards they hold others to is not defamation.
Someone posts an anagram in jest and its not defamation. Then when I do it in jest, it is defamation. Again, hypocritical behavior.
I'm curious, are you still trying to make others believe counting is an experiment?
Yeah, so we're both hypocrites, so?
I at least admit my limitations...
Claus, is skewness/skew only called skew?
I'm asking YOU, not Bill. feel free to use internet sources, etc.
I'm also asking YOU, if you took a convenience sample in your astrology analysis. Did you?
I'm also asking YOU, is counting an experiment?
Still waiting on coherent answers from you on these questions.
I at least admit my limitations...
Claus, is skewness/skew only called skew?
I'm asking YOU, not Bill. feel free to use internet sources, etc.
I'm also asking YOU, if you took a convenience sample in your astrology analysis. Did you?
I'm also asking YOU, is counting an experiment?
Still waiting on coherent answers from you on these questions.
And another failed statement. You ignore the fundamental whipsaw implicit in your actions.T'ai Chi said:I am stalking in a thread that Claus started about me?
Yeah, pretty amazing that you managed to stalk somebody about something unrelated on a thread about you, too.
I addressed Lucian's behavior in another thread. I asked him to provide evidence for what he said re: Claus signing him up for porn, and etc. Did you not read that??
Well, if I used your logic (like when you accused me of stalking you when I agreed with you in the pot thread), I'd say "well, so now you're stalking Lucian, too".
The fact that you rebuke him on one issue does not excuse the fact that you create apologia for him elsewhere.
Evasion... kinda like those YES or NO questions you just can't manage to answer... ... ... ...
And again, you dishonestly insist that I answer your failed questions. Your dishonest, leading questions, with their obvious, malicious agenda, do not warrant an answer. I've given them what they deserve, an examination for what one must stipulate in order to even be able to utter an answer.
Saying someone is a hypocrite is not defamation.
Really? So, you claim that lying about others is not defamation? Could you explain this novel theory, please?
Asking someone to provide evidence for their claims is not defamation.
A dishonest summary of the dishonest fashion in which you have attempted to shift the burden from your failure to support your quack statistics to the people who have not only done their duty by pointing out bias mechanisms (that is their only duty, and then only should they notice such) but also point you to specific examples, which you have ignored and attempted to wish away).
Your statistics are a fraud, your insistance on trying to shift the burden dishonest, and your claim that those pointing out error metrics have not provided evidence purely defamatory.
Showing someone posts more to or about someone else is not defamation.
Straw man.
Asking someone to hold their friends to the standards they hold others to is not defamation.
A classic example of a suborned, failed question, stated in conclusion form. Your statement PRESUMES that the person in question does not, in fact, hold their friends to the same standards. It is a classic example of attempting to suborn the discussion.
It also illicitly assumes that your opponents are friends, or even associated in any substantial form.
Someone posts an anagram in jest and its not defamation. Then when I do it in jest, it is defamation. Again, hypocritical behavior.
Straw man.
I'm curious, are you still trying to make others believe counting is an experiment?
If your crank metric is not an experiment, you have no way to validate it, and therefore it means nothing.
If your crank metric IS an experiment, you have no controls, and therefore no validation.
Take your choice. In either case since you HAVE thrown your junk statistics in Claus' face you have, irrevocably, claimed that it has meaning.
Since you've done that, YOU have to select. Is your count an experiment or not? If it is, yes, it's a very poor one, one that provides no validation. If it isn't, then you have no validation at all.
In either case, you have no evidence or cause to ever even mention your metric in the fashion that you have. Each assertion of your metric is asserting quackery.
I don't get to decide if your quackery is an attempted experiment, you do. You get to choose which way your junk statistics goes down as quackery.
No, jj, the difference is I don't really think you're stalking at all. I was just using your trumped up extra-exxageration language that you throw around when you get in a tizzy.
How is, for example, the question:
In statistics, is the word for the skew or skewness of a dataset only called skew? That is, is the word skewness incorrect to use as a term for skew?
You've still utterly failed to address this.
dishonest, leading, malicious, etc etc ? Can't you just quit with your pseudo CourtTV analysis and answer this YES or NO?
Further repetition of those words won't impress anyone anymore than they already didn't.
No, but calling someone a hypocrite after they've behaved hypocritical, is most certainly not defamation, but rather an accurate description.
A count is a real thing, not fake.
No, not strawman. You're arguing over N(x,y), and that is exactly what N(x,y) estimates.
I'll note you failed to adequately address that question.
[
Your first "If" doesn't follow logically. A count has meaning by being a count. I count 10 trees outside my window, or I estimate the true number of trees by counting all the trunks I see. Some trunks might be covered up by leaves from trees, but it is a good estimate. No "validation" is needed, as it certainly means something.
Your second "If" is moot, as counting isn't an experiment, but a descriptive study.
But anyway, I'm asking (and have been asking...) you if you still claim counting to be an experiment. Why do you suddenly turn this around and ask me?? Can't you answer the question I put toward you?
Oh, right....it is a "whipsaw" when I ask it to you, but not when you ask it to me??? Please see definition of 'hypocrite' for further education.
This is what I have been asking you for what seems like forever to clarify your stance on, jj. You won't be able to get away with attempting to turn this around on me.
