🚀 go-pugleaf

Frank vd Eijkhof wrote:
> 
> In <3860A2...@signal.dera.gov.uk> mlwilliams <mwil...@signal.dera.gov.uk> writes:
> 
> >> Mr. Mark,
> >Dr Mark actually.
> 
> >Since my Ph.D is in statistics I'm hardly likely to argue that
> >statistical theory is wrong. Furthermore I'm highly likely to know a
> >damn sight more about it than you. The fact that you would make such a
> >purile statement disinclines me from bothering to address the rest of
> >your post.
> 
> The moment somebody throws his/her title as an argument in stead of
> giving good counter-args is the moment I stop listening to this person.
> 
> Good luck in your lonely tower...
> 
> Frank
> 


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?

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.

Mark



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

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