The Gospel

[ImaginalDisc]

Correct. We don't miss your endless preaching, we don't miss your superior attitude and we certainly don't miss your continued and complete inability to understand the correct use of the question mark.

Maybe you could ask your imaginary friend about that.

Psst, she has four imaginary friends. The Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and the Guy Who Give a ****.

 

[kurious_kathy]

I love this picture, where did you find it? Thanks RT, you made me smile!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Here: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/blissninny.htm


Enjoy.

 

[RandFan]

Kathy, if you have the time, I will look at your book, and outline to you, in detail why your beliefs are asinine, bigoted, and amoral. I'm not saying that you'll wake up, but I'll try.

Bears repeating.

 

[ceo_esq]

Look at you being all intellectually dishonest and skipping the "sign above Jesus' head by positing that each author saw only a little bit of the sign" example.

Sorry for not responding earlier. I haven't had time to consider those Gospel texts in any detail, and I'm not as familiar with them as I now am with the "last words" texts, so I'm reluctant to say whether the argument you propose is qualitatively the same thing as what I proposed for the "last words". What I did there was not to explain how a formal contradiction in the text might plausibly have arisen (which, I tend to agree, can probably be done with any conflicting texts). Rather, it was to show that there actually was no formal internal contradiction in the case of the "last words". The "crucifixion sign" passages you're now referring to may actually contain an internal contradiction, in which case even offering a practical explanation for why it's there doesn't erase the contradiction. I'll try to look the passages you cited over again when I have time.

Please explain how this has anything to do with the fact that my asking for your evidence to your assertions that I use rude terminology more than the "average poster." Since you admit you reported the post, what then did you further need to get a dig in at me in the thread about it? What purpose did that serve except for you to feel superior?

You misunderstand. I didn't report any post (as in to the mods). I was saying that I reported to you what the forum software indicated in response to the query I input, which I already related to you in some detail.

Sorry, it does not work that way. It is not my job to gather your data for you. I am fairly certain you understand the burden of proof. Now post your evidence. Not your reports of what you found, actual evidence.

This is not unlike if I gave you a footnote or citation to an easily available source and you refused to acknowledge it until I sent you my personal hard copy in the mail with a conveniently placed Post-It at the relevant page. The evidence is the publicly available data set comprising the forum records. We both have the same access to it. It is under both of our noses, figuratively speaking. Out of curiosity, how would you suggest I present this in a suitably pre-chewed format to you, to the extent you are really interested and not just jerking my chain?

 

[Ducky]

You misunderstand. I didn't report any post (as in to the mods). I was saying that I reported to you what the forum software indicated in response to the query I input, which I already related to you in some detail.

In that case, let's address this below, with the rest of what you said.

This is not unlike if I gave you a footnote or citation to an easily available source and you refused to acknowledge it until I sent you my personal hard copy in the mail with a conveniently placed Post-It at the relevant page. The evidence is the publicly available data set comprising the forum records. We both have the same access to it. It is under both of our noses, figuratively speaking. Out of curiosity, how would you suggest I present this in a suitably pre-chewed format to you, to the extent you are really interested and not just jerking my chain?

Except you didn't give a citation, you simply said "I found that you did this x many times." Here's the problem: Your original statement was that I use the terms "idiot" and "moron" more than the average user does in an insulting way. Leave aside your demonstrated ability to not know my humor from my insults, and the fact that your judgement of such activity not meeting the standards of the forum rules is simply a judgement call you are not in a position of authority to enforce, you have several problems providing evidence for your little ad-hominem there. Here they are:

1) in order to establish "average poster" you need to break down alot of data, which you did not do. Last I checked there were 1,485,409 posts and 8,037 members. You need to establish mean numbers to determine what is average not only for the useage of the term "idiot" and "moron" but for the statistical mean of those posts to the rest of the average poster's posting. You see, you not only have to determine what is an "average" poster in terms of post count, and number of posts per day but also what percentage of of posts overall for the mean numbers are using those insulting terms. Then you can have an accurate picture of how often I am insulting someone above the "average poster."

2)The reason you have to take into account overall post count and average posts per day is simple: I average 16 posts per day according to the forum. You said you found 12 in the past week that were insulting. That makes 12 out of 84 posts in the past week alone that you claim I was insulting someone with the word "idiot" or "moron." This equates to roughly 14% of my posts being insulting (and this number is not accurate either, as we don't know what of the past week was actually posted in terms of number of posts. It could have been higher than 84, but against my overall posting habit it evened out to 16 per day. Careful for the regression to mean.) After determining on what percentage I am using those insulting terms, you would then have to take the percentage of insulting posts from other posters against their overall posts of that timeframe and compare percentages.

Since I average 16 posts per day, and I assume you don't read them all, I would posit that your assumption about whether I am more or less insulting that the average poster is skewed by the fact you haven't read every single one of my posts.

You have not presented any evidence to support your assertion, and you can now admit it was your mistake to make such an unfounded assertion without knowing all facts regarding my posting habit. The excuse that you don't know a proper way to present such evidence is nothing short of laughable considering your intelligence. You are certainly smart enough to create a format graphing such statistical evidence.

Now, are you going to provide evidence that I use the terms "idiot" and "moron" more than the average poster on this forum, or are you going to apologize for making the rash assumption that I am any more or less rude than the average poster on this forum based on your own bias and limited scope of knowledge of my overall posting habits?

 

[David Swidler]

Y'know, I was gonna suggest that the moderators move this thread to Abandon All Hope, but I can't even find my way back the original discussion to determine whether in fact this is a derail....

 

[kmortis]

David,
It's most definatly a derail. ANY time wookie sex, gay or otherwise, enters into the discussion, you can almost bet that it's a derail. Granted, some of the discussions revolving around Fowl & ceo could be seen as a modern day illustration to the problems concerning the interpretation of the Bible, in general, and the Gospels, in particular. You have minsintreprtation, misrepresentation, questionable application of statistics, pedantitry and general confusion over the topic at hand.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

What I did there was not to explain how a formal contradiction in the text might plausibly have arisen (which, I tend to agree, can probably be done with any conflicting texts). Rather, it was to show that there actually was no formal internal contradiction in the case of the "last words".

No, what you did was post an unsupported assertion then ignore all comments.

Ossai

 

[Mephisto]

I will tell you when he almost broke my neck...all of a sudden he was stopped even in the middle of this beating. I attribute that to the supernatural power of God to stop him at that crucial moment. All of a sudden he let go.

Wouldn't a God who truly loved you have stopped this beating before it got so serious? As Kopji asked, do you think God sent this person to beat you? You can't blame God for only the good things that happen, right? If God is omniscient, then he knew you were going to get beaten, yet did nothing to stop it until your neck was nearly broken, why?

Maybe he wants YOU to learn a lesson.

 

[Ladewig]

Hi Ladewig, You are right I forgot to get back to you on that one. When it comes to the book the Muslims follow I would have to sit down with this person and take the time to pick out the big differences in what they believe and what the Holy Bible teaches. I am not purposely wanting argue their religion verses Christianity, but I would have to tell this person I believe they are being deceived and if they want to have a heart to heart on the difference between what they believe and what I believe I would like to sit down and talk with them. It would be the work of the Holy Sprit to possibly open that persons eyes if possible. I can't say they would ever come to faith in Christ, but I could never rule out the possibility either. Gods timing in each and every persons life, not mine.
I guess I would hope to be someone God could use to reach that person?

Here's the problem Kathy. When asked why anyone should believe the Bible, you replied that

(1) "Once someone comes to faith in Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit happens, something happens to make God's Word come alive."
(2) "There are so many applicable lessons in scripture."
(3) "There are things I have seen and expereiced with God that I can honestly say He has shown me He is true to His word."

The catch is that people of many other faiths give those very same responses when they are asked "why should we believe your scriptures."
If your response is identical to their responses, then skeptics really have no reason to put more credence in your holy scriptures than in theirs. So, is there something unique to your religion - some evidence that you could provide to a members of a skeptic board? If not, then I must ask you: why don't you go preach to a more receptive audience than the one you find here.

Dozens of times you have been told that your style pushes us away from Christianity more than it draws us to it. Dozens of times you have been given examples of religious people who post on this board who do not receive the same response than you do. Dozens of times you have been told that skeptics want evidence stronger than "God's Word came alive to me" and "there are many applicable lessons in the Bible." Dozens of times you have been told that playing "Johnny one-note" will produce no positive results. And yet. And yet, you persist in playing the fundamentalist preacher in the worst possible way. Again, I ask, why don't you go find a more receptive audience for your preaching? Surely there are people who want to hear the Word of God presented in the only way you know how to present it. Why don't you go find them instead of wasting your time here?

Many of the posters on this board can quote scripture better than you can. Yet, you feel the need to tell us about the Bible. Here's one for you, Kathy. The parable of the soil and seeds ( Luke 8:4-15) - consider this board to be the path and when you try to plant your seed by preaching, NONE of it takes root and all of it is all trampled underfoot and eaten by birds. If you believe that you must sow the seed of God's Word, then go find fertile ground. Do what the Bible tells you to do. Again, I ask, why don't you go find a more receptive audience for your preaching?

Mature believers in the Word will often seek spiritual guidance from a minister or church elder when they are faced with a difficult problem. Perhaps you should seek advice from someone with more experience in spreading the Gospel. There is a good chance that such a person may ask you, why don't you go find a more receptive audience for your preaching?


And in case you really didn't get the point, why don't you go find a more receptive audience for your preaching?

 

[Pauliesonne]

I thought I would just pop in and say Hi! I haven't been on-line too much lately. I did share something the other day on another board pertaining to this topic that I may want to share to bring us back to discussing this topic again. "Why Is The Gospel An Offense?"

你最在觸怒我從來有了的人知道的不幸。

 

[ceo_esq]

Except you didn't give a citation, you simply said "I found that you did this x many times." Here's the problem: Your original statement was that I use the terms "idiot" and "moron" more than the average user does in an insulting way.

Just for the sake of accuracy, the original statement was that I had the impression that you directed those terms at other posters more often than the average poster does, full stop. I did not address the way in which you did so; only later, when I consulted the data, did I try to exclude instances that did not seem to be intended as insults, on the subsequently confirmed supposition that you'd object to their being counted (despite technically falling within the scope of my statement). That was simply a small gesture in your favor.

Leave aside your demonstrated ability to not know my humor from my insults,

If this is the case, I submit that the problem lies in your inability to know when your humor is insulting. Though really, as far as courtesy is concerned, if other people cannot distinguish your humor from insults, that's usually considered to be a responsibility for the speaker to address.

and the fact that your judgement of such activity not meeting the standards of the forum rules is simply a judgement call you are not in a position of authority to enforce,

I'm happy to leave this aside too, since it is irrelevant to my statement.

you have several problems providing evidence for your little ad-hominem there.

There's not really any argumentum ad hominem there, but no time for another lesson in rhetoric now.

Here they are:

1) in order to establish "average poster" you need to break down alot of data, which you did not do. Last I checked there were 1,485,409 posts and 8,037 members. You need to establish mean numbers to determine what is average not only for the useage of the term "idiot" and "moron" but for the statistical mean of those posts to the rest of the average poster's posting.

This is incorrect, and here's why. As emphasized several times already, my statement referred to raw frequency only, or the simple number of occurrences, not statistical frequency, or the likelihood of an occurrence expressed as a percentage of total posts. The total number of posts overall, like the total number of posts for any poster, are irrelevant to a raw frequency count.

You see, you not only have to determine what is an "average" poster in terms of post count, and number of posts per day but also what percentage of of posts overall for the mean numbers are using those insulting terms.

I could do that, and it might be useful and/or interesting, but my assertion did not refer to statistical frequency, it is not something I "have to" do.

It's arguably something you now ought to do, though, and here's why: you said recently "You completely missed the point that I am no more or less using this in volume to all my posts than anyone else on this forum." In fact, I did not miss that point, but it remains your point and, even if true, does not contradict mine, as I made no claims regarding statistical frequency expressed by reference to post volume. Your point is distinct from my point; it constitutes a new substantive claim (although I realize you are essentially trying to assert it as an affirmative defense to the claim I made). It now falls to you to back it up.

Purely for the purposes of my point, the average poster (average with respect purely to raw frequency of directing a relevant term toward another forum member, that is) is a hypothetical poster who, during the reference period, calls another poster "idiot" or "moron" a number of times equal to the aggregate number of times all members did so divided by the number of members. That is the mean raw frequency per member.

I suppose we might also be led to consider the median and mode, but I hope you will agree that, with 8K+ members and a relatively small aggregate number of uses of the relevant terms during the reference period, both of those figures would be zero.

Of course, as I already pointed out, it is not even necessary to calculate the mean raw frequency in order to determine that the poster with the highest raw frequency, fella name of fowlsound, exceeded the mean during the reference period, because the contrary is mathematically impossible for a set of at least two members.

Having already determined that you and the poster with the highest raw frequency are, fortuitously, the same person, it turns out that the only figure we really need to retain with respect to the hypothesisis is your raw frequency, which was already cited.

Regarding your suggestion of graphing the data, I really doubt there's any need - now that you understand that overall numbers of posts and so forth are not relevant to my assertion - to present visual aids for such a simple calculation that has been verbally explained.

Then you can have an accurate picture of how often I am insulting someone above the "average poster."

Again, even if statistical frequency rather than raw frequency would provide a more informative picture, this relates to your claim rather than mine.

In light of what I have already explained, the remainder of your post is not pertinent.

 

[Ducky]

Just for the sake of accuracy, the original statement was that I had the impression that you directed those terms at other posters more often than the average poster does, full stop. I did not address the way in which you did so; only later, when I consulted the data, did I try to exclude instances that did not seem to be intended as insults, on the subsequently confirmed supposition that you'd object to their being counted (despite technically falling within the scope of my statement). That was simply a small gesture in your favor.

I've already quoted your claim above. You can spin how you wish, but your claim was specifically that I used those terms more than the average poster. You did not make a distinction between "raw" and "statistical" frequency. You made a broad assuming statement with no evidence, and you have yet to present it, other than your word.

If this is the case, I submit that the problem lies in your inability to know when your humor is insulting. Though really, as far as courtesy is concerned, if other people cannot distinguish your humor from insults, that's usually considered to be a responsibility for the speaker to address.

Hmm. How do you know if I am aware when my humor is insultnig or not? How exactly are you determining this, and who are you to make the decision on that for the moderator team to tell people how you think they should act?

I'm happy to leave this aside too, since it is irrelevant to my statement.

Whatever.

There's not really any argumentum ad hominem there, but no time for another lesson in rhetoric now.

The hell it isn't. Your statement that I am more insulting than the average poster is an unsubstantiated claim of yours. You have no presented evidence to support that. When you gave second hand acounts of your "reasearch" the problems with your claim and your anecdotal evidence were made apparent. All you are doing now is sidestepping that.

This is incorrect, and here's why. As emphasized several times already, my statement referred to raw frequency only, or the simple number of occurrences, not statistical frequency, or the likelihood of an occurrence expressed as a percentage of total posts. The total number of posts overall, like the total number of posts for any poster, are irrelevant to a raw frequency count.

Shifting the goalposts. Your original statement makes no distinction between the two, and you have ingored my point that your impressions based on your "raw frequency" can be, and are, quite skewed.

I could do that, and it might be useful and/or interesting, but my assertion did not refer to statistical frequency, it is not something I "have to" do.

Oh, no. You do not have provide evidence, but you would need to then admit it was an unsubstatiated claim and withdraw said claim. I'll leave that up to you.

It's arguably something you now ought to do, though, and here's why: you said recently "You completely missed the point that I am no more or less using this in volume to all my posts than anyone else on this forum." In fact, I did not miss that point, but it remains your point and, even if true, does not contradict mine, as I made no claims regarding statistical frequency expressed by reference to post volume. Your point is distinct from my point; it constitutes a new substantive claim (although I realize you are essentially trying to assert it as an affirmative defense to the claim I made). It now falls to you to back it up.

Wrong again. The burden of proof is on you to substatiante your claim with evidence. You've posted anecdotal evidence, and it was shown to be faulty. Either present solid evidence or withdraw the claim.

Purely for the purposes of my point, the average poster (average with respect purely to raw frequency of directing a relevant term toward another forum member, that is) is a hypothetical poster who, during the reference period, calls another poster "idiot" or "moron" a number of times equal to the aggregate number of times all members did so divided by the number of members. That is the mean raw frequency per member.

I've already explained how this statistical method is flawed and could show skewed results.

I suppose we might also be led to consider the median and mode, but I hope you will agree that, with 8K+ members and a relatively small aggregate number of uses of the relevant terms during the reference period, both of those figures would be zero.

Inductive. Unless you've crunched the numbers, you're just speculating.

Of course, as I already pointed out, it is not even necessary to calculate the mean raw frequency in order to determine that the poster with the highest raw frequency, fella name of fowlsound, exceeded the mean during the reference period, because the contrary is mathematically impossible for a set of at least two members.

And again, "raw frequency" doesn't actually make a valid point. I've explained this to you, however it seems to be the only straw you can cling to before admitting you made an unsubstatiated and offhanded comment about me with no supporting evidence.

Having already determined that you and the poster with the highest raw frequency are, fortuitously, the same person, it turns out that the only figure we really need to retain with respect to the hypothesisis is your raw frequency, which was already cited.

See above. You're beating the same drum over and over.

Regarding your suggestion of graphing the data, I really doubt there's any need - now that you understand that overall numbers of posts and so forth are not relevant to my assertion - to present visual aids for such a simple calculation that has been verbally explained.

They most certainly are relevant to your position. Your use of an ambiguous term such as "average" has broad implications, and you cannot cherry pick your data. If you want the average, then you have to take the average of all posts and posters to determine if I am out of the mean. And your word that you searched and found "x" means nothing either. Show your work.

Again, even if statistical frequency rather than raw frequency would provide a more informative picture, this relates to your claim rather than mine.

In light of what I have already explained, the remainder of your post is not pertinent.

I am not making a claim, I am pointing out your supportive logic is inductive and flawed. You have made unsubstatiated claims, and not provided the evidence. Instead you have acted as a pedant and refused to understand where your cherry picking of stats is flawed and could skew results.

Try again, counselor.

 

[kmortis]

Hmm. How do you know if I am aware when my humor is insultnig or not? How exactly are you determining this, and who are you to make the decision on that for the moderator team to tell people how you think they should act?

Besides, this whole argument is over a thread that no one really takes all that seriously anymore. It left the rails about page 5 and only due to a good team of doctors has it managed to crawl along this far.

Ceo,
Really...is this all that important to you? I mean, IIRC, you're a lawyer, right? don't yuo get enough of this at work?

You are helping to derail a thread for about three pages now, by complaining about threads being derailed. Does this make any sense?

Fowl,
If he responds with anything other than "you're right, I'm done with this thread", I say we pepper him with the Holy Monkey Poo. I get TM to restock me.

 

[ceo_esq]

I've already quoted your claim above.

You have in the past, but in the post to which I was responding, you were only paraphrasing it, and not especially closely either.

You can spin how you wish, but your claim was specifically that I used those terms more than the average poster. You did not make a distinction between "raw" and "statistical" frequency.

No, but that simply underscores that your inference that it was one rather than the other was unwarranted. I realize that as originally stated it could plausibly be taken either way, but I clarified which one was intended long ago.

You made a broad assuming statement with no evidence, and you have yet to present it, other than your word.

I've already explained this too many times. Anyone could verify any suspicions regarding my word with a modicum of effort.

How do you know if I am aware when my humor is insultnig or not? How exactly are you determining this, and who are you to make the decision on that for the moderator team to tell people how you think they should act?

Telling people when I think they're being insulting is not an act rightfully reserved to the moderators, fowlsound.

The hell it isn't. Your statement that I am more insulting than the average poster is an unsubstantiated claim of yours.

Please indicate where I've made the claim - specifically and unqualifiedly, not paraphrased or spun - that you are more insulting than the average poster. (It's irrelevant, of course, to the definition of an argumentum ad hominem.)

You have no presented evidence to support that. When you gave second hand acounts of your "reasearch" the problems with your claim and your anecdotal evidence were made apparent.

If you know the first thing about evidentiary argument, you have been concealing it from me for months. None of the issues you raised were relevant. Moreover, if you had the slightest bona fide interest in this question you could have verified my findings many times over by now.

Shifting the goalposts. Your original statement makes no distinction between the two, and you have ingored my point that your impressions based on your "raw frequency" can be, and are, quite skewed.

The expression of the original claim was arguably subject to more than one interpretation. I clarified it. Your inference was unwarranted. Move on. It does not matter to my assertion whether raw frequency data are "skewed", so long as they are as I described them, since the assertion stands alone. It is not being relied on to provide the basis for any other statement.

I've already explained how this statistical method is flawed and could show skewed results.

As I pointed out, it doesn't matter to my statement if the method presents a potentially misleading picture. As I already explained, I am not interested in "interpreting" the data. I only made an assertion, and a limited one at that, of their content. All the rest of it, you introduced.

With regard to method, adjectives like "flawed" and "skewed" only take on meaning by reference to the goal or purpose of the method. The only goal of this method was to confirm or deny the proposition that over a given period, your raw "idiot/moron" frequency exceeded the mean raw frequency for all members. How, exactly, was my method seriously flawed or skewed with respect to this sole purpose?

Inductive. Unless you've crunched the numbers, you're just speculating.

It's not too relevant because the mean is the figure we're interested in. But seriously - you have a series of more than 8,000, fewer than 200 of which have a (raw frequency) value other than zero. I don't know if a determination that the mode and median values are zero really deserves to be called "number crunching" unless one's really not used to using one's head for that purpose, which may or may not be true in your case. And by the way, it's also possible to arrive at that conclusion deductively from the basis of the figures 8,000 and 200 and the definition of median and mode. You are too much sometimes.

And again, "raw frequency" doesn't actually make a valid point. I've explained this to you, however it seems to be the only straw you can cling to before admitting you made an unsubstatiated and offhanded comment about me with no supporting evidence.

By making a valid point, I assume you mean validly supporting some other proposition or notion. Yet I did not cite the point in support of anything else, so the question of whether it was "valid", as opposed to merely technically true, is rather moot.

They most certainly are relevant to your position. Your use of an ambiguous term such as "average" has broad implications, and you cannot cherry pick your data. If you want the average, then you have to take the average of all posts and posters to determine if I am out of the mean.

I think we've clarified any ambiguity by now, and the senses in which all terms are being used have been made explicit. Your protests are groundless.

And your word that you searched and found "x" means nothing either. Show your work.

Fowlsound, what have I already told you about people not taking you seriously if you refuse to lift a finger for the few seconds it would take to look at the available data? Even though the software will present it for you in exactly the same way I could if you were standing in front of me!

 

[kmortis]

You have in the past, but in the post to which I was responding, you were only paraphrasing it, and not especially closely either.

<snip pedanditry>

Fowlsound, what have I already told you about people not taking you seriously if you refuse to lift a finger for the few seconds it would take to look at the available data? Even though the software will present it for you in exactly the same way I could if you were standing in front of me!

YEAY!!! Holy Monkey Poo time!!!

**Dances the dance of Holy Monkey Poo Flinging**

ceo, I normally have a lot of respect for you. You can be quite intelligent and thoughtful, but right now you're acting like a pedantic ass. The worst sort of poo-bucket around. Seriously.

 

[ceo_esq]

kmortis:

If you can't beat 'em...

Happy?

Sheesh.

 

[kmortis]

Much. Doesn't that feel better?

 

[Ducky]

You have in the past, but in the post to which I was responding, you were only paraphrasing it, and not especially closely either.

Still not evidence. Just words.

No, but that simply underscores that your inference that it was one rather than the other was unwarranted. I realize that as originally stated it could plausibly be taken either way, but I clarified which one was intended long ago.

No, you shifted your stance three times. First it was the "average" then it was "average over past two weeks" then it aws "raw posting over last 2 weeks." While you continually shift the goalposts, you betray to us all exactly how far your ego will push you to not admit you made an unsubstantiated claim and apologise for it. It wasn't teh first either, you also claimed I was out to "punish" trolls, though we've gone over how you could not possibly know my motives.

I've already explained this too many times. Anyone could verify any suspicions regarding my word with a modicum of effort.

Except it is not my job to do this work. Your claim, you provide the evidence.

Telling people when I think they're being insulting is not an act rightfully reserved to the moderators, fowlsound.

Except you weren't telling me you thought I was being insulting in any meaningful way. You issued an order "Be polite and civil." much along the same lines as when you quoted forum rules to me. Stop trying to weasel out of what you said.

Please indicate where I've made the claim - specifically and unqualifiedly, not paraphrased or spun - that you are more insulting than the average poster. (It's irrelevant, of course, to the definition of an argumentum ad hominem.)

blah blah. You're denying now that your intention was to say I am more rude than anyone else?

If you know the first thing about evidentiary argument, you have been concealing it from me for months. None of the issues you raised were relevant. Moreover, if you had the slightest bona fide interest in this question you could have verified my findings many times over by now.

No, again, your job is to provide the evidence to your claims. That is not my responsibility, and sadly, you know this. You know full well the burden of proof is on you, as you made the claim.

The expression of the original claim was arguably subject to more than one interpretation. I clarified it. Your inference was unwarranted. Move on. It does not matter to my assertion whether raw frequency data are "skewed", so long as they are as I described them, since the assertion stands alone. It is not being relied on to provide the basis for any other statement.

So it doesn't matter if your point is supported by specious evidence? Sorry, that doesn't work. You made the assertion, and did not specify anything but "average." Therefore, to cherry pick your data is simply underhanded.

As I pointed out, it doesn't matter to my statement if the method presents a potentially misleading picture. As I already explained, I am not interested in "interpreting" the data. I only made an assertion, and a limited one at that, of their content. All the rest of it, you introduced.

It doesn't amtter if your arguments and evidence is misleading? Are you kidding me? Yes you made an assertion. The truth of which you have already decided without knowing all facts surrounding posting habits. That you would use misleading evidence and arguments is very telling.

With regard to method, adjectives like "flawed" and "skewed" only take on meaning by reference to the goal or purpose of the method. The only goal of this method was to confirm or deny the proposition that over a given period, your raw "idiot/moron" frequency exceeded the mean raw frequency for all members. How, exactly, was my method seriously flawed or skewed with respect to this sole purpose?

So, your evidence is good because it confirms your goal to establish I use the words "idiot" and "moron" more than the average poster? Sorry, that's confirmation bias. Your assertion is still unsubstantiated, and you are still sidesteppnig providing evidence.

It's not too relevant because the mean is the figure we're interested in. But seriously - you have a series of more than 8,000, fewer than 200 of which have a (raw frequency) value other than zero. I don't know if a determination that the mode and median values are zero really deserves to be called "number crunching" unless one's really not used to using one's head for that purpose, which may or may not be true in your case. And by the way, it's also possible to arrive at that conclusion deductively from the basis of the figures 8,000 and 200 and the definition of median and mode. You are too much sometimes.

All this in response to me pointing out you are making braod assumptions with no evidence. Your hole is getting deeper. Keep digging. Also, you have not shown any work for your numbers there, fella. Still inductive, still assuming.

By making a valid point, I assume you mean validly supporting some other proposition or notion. Yet I did not cite the point in support of anything else, so the question of whether it was "valid", as opposed to merely technically true, is rather moot.

Oh I see. Misleading evidence proves misleading assertions. Gotcha.

I think we've clarified any ambiguity by now, and the senses in which all terms are being used have been made explicit. Your protests are groundless.

Not at all. You shifted the goalposts. My points show your intellectual dishonesty and pedantry here.

Fowlsound, what have I already told you about people not taking you seriously if you refuse to lift a finger for the few seconds it would take to look at the available data? Even though the software will present it for you in exactly the same way I could if you were standing in front of me!

Once again: Burden of proof is not on me. You know that very well.

Do you think anyone is taking you seriously here, sir? You made broad and insulting assertions, provided misleading and skewed evidence to support them, and your ego refuses to let you drop this issue or just withdraw the statement causing a 3 page derail. Considering your initial protest was about derailing this thread, I find that absolutely hysterical. Thank you for helping me derail this thread further.

Now, provide the evidence or withdraw the assertion.