🚀 go-pugleaf

Frank vd Eijkhof wrote:
> 
> 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 ;-)

Well I'm glad we agree - it's a list with statistical drawbacks. I think
the drawbacks are sufficiently large such that they mean the list has no
interest to me, hence I made a brief post to support the original poster
whilst chiding him gently for repeating the whole thing.


> 
> The attack you responded on was a bit overdone,

It was wasn't it.

> 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.

It was nice of you to put quotes around what I said - only I said
nothing like that. Mentioning I knew what I was talking about was
necessary shorthand - the alternative would be to sprew forth reams of
stats theory to back up what I was saying. I can give a good argument
only it would not be short and it would not be interesting.

> 
> >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.

His point - if he had a clear one - was so agressive and obfustrating
that it warranted the reply it got. If somebody is going to put words in
my mouth and offer shot-gun deformation then I have to do the best to
make it clear where I'm coming from. If somebody says I'm flying in the
face of statistical theory when in fact I'm very likely to have forgoten
more than they ever knew about it (statistically speaking :)   ) then I
don't think it's too grandstanding of me to mention that I have Ph.d in
the subject.

> 
> >> 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? ;-)

So many people seem to think you can't have an argument without taking
offense against the other person. Mind you since the other guy has just
posted to the effect that I should 'piss off' and seems to be of the
opinion that I should have my head kicked in for muddying the waters
with facts then it seem that statistically speaking you're right to
think I might have hard feelings towards you. Actually though I don't.
It's been a pleasure posting with you. Merry crimbo. 

> Frank

Mark

-- 
Saturnalia
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5676/sat.html

I'm sorry, I can't argue unless you've paid.