🚀 go-pugleaf

mlwilliams writes:

>There is no point wasting good counter arguments on mindless drivel - I
>was merely pointing out that I'm qualified to recognise mindless drivel
>when this particular subject is being addressed. I suppose you like to
>hear stats-mumbo jumbo from somebody who's just pulling it out of the
>air and then waste time setting them right and endure the ensuing back
>and forth as if it were all just a matter of opinion?

Nope. IIRC, the question was whether the named gamelist was valuable.
And though I see the statistical drawbacks of the list, I consider
the list as a nice check on the quality of computergames.
Some years ago the author of the list argued with his readers about a good
votingsystem; I think that in the complex space of variables where his list
resides, the protocol he uses is good enough. Or you write a better one ;-)

The attack you responded on was a bit overdone, but your response ('Me big
boy, you listen or I hit') too... You're 'qualified'(as you put it above) by
argument, not by mentioning your title. And I think that you _can_ give a good
argument.

>The rest of that reply was in exactly the same vein as the part that
>invited me to dismiss 'statistical theory' on the grounds he didn't
>understand sampling theory.

But IMO his point was different, as I stated above.

>> PS. If you start giving real args, I will start reading your posts again!
>PS - Introduce yourself to logic. How will you know without reading
>them?

It was a gentle way of saying 'if you don't bully, I will talk again'. I don't
like to exclude you on such a tiny thing.

No hard feelings? ;-)

Frank