Re: There's No Arguing With Conservatives ... No, Seriously


Saying that that "resultant path" is random is the same thing as
saying that the movement is random, dumbass. And no, you're not
getting out of this by adding "most likely" to your claim.

in probabilities rarely is anything 100%, so yea, most likely would be
correct, and a term I used all along. And like I explained
intelligent intent does not preclude randomness. I know this is all
so far over your head though.

Dumbass, ANY intent precludes randomness. By the very definition of
random.

You've already had several people correctly explain to you why this is
wrong, on many levels.

you and a few other people all being wrong does not make you correct.
You have offered NO evidence whatsover the path is not random, and
even if you could prove it wasn't, you cannot explain how you can use
that information to reliably make a prediction.

Actually you have been given several explanations as to why the
movement is not random; your inability to understand is your own
problem.

But the movements are not random, which means your entire argument
falls apart like a stack of cards.

idiot. The distribution of movements throughtout the path is random.
You cannot prove otherwise. You repeating the lie over and over makes
it no more true the Sarah Palin refusing funding for the bridge.

You have *speculated* that the movments are random based on YOUR
inability to understand fighting. Sorry chump, but you don't get to
use your own speculation as evidence, no matter how convinced you are
that you're right.

It's so easy that even a retard like you should be able to get
it. But you still don't.

You ad hominems aren't going to help your cause, either.

well, you clearly are retarded. You don't get a simple real-life
application of the binomial distribution function, even though you had
it explained to you dozens of times.

Your example was wrong because your understanding of the underlying
concepts is wrong - all across the board. You don't understand
fighting, and you don't understand the math. Combined with your
arrogance, the result is a perfect trifecta of stupidity.

Actually Hal, YOU are the one who keeps adhering to something that has
been shown conclusively to be wrong. YOU are the one who is repeating
the same bull*** over and over again.

you've proven nothing. Not once. Never. All you have is claims of
argumentum ad populum. Nothing else. Ever. If so, state it again.
And show some proof this time.

Why? Are you actually going to *think* this time instead of blindly
dismissing it? If you want to see your argument shredded, do a Google
and look for yourself - it's not hard to find. I'm not going to waste
my time explaining to you *again* the many various reasons you were
wrong.

Your exact words on the subject were that you assumed the process was
"quite complex" followed by a rant about how you were sure nobody else
here could figure out how it works.

horse***.

Yeah, that's what the rest of us said, right before explaining to you
how to do the math. Then you went off on another tangent, lying about
having meant some other kind of lottery all along. Face it, Hal -
this was just one of many examples of you putting your foot in your
mouth and being too fucking stupid to even know it's in there.

Actually Hal, anyone with a high-school education can tell you the
odds of *any* lottery just by knowing how many numbers there are and
what the range of numbers is. In fact the *only* person in the
discussion who did NOT know the simple math behind it was YOU. Did
you graduate from high-school Hal?

I was the guy getting the good grades while you cheated on tests and
copied your homework from the smart kids.

I think you've got that reversed, chump. Actually, I carried a 3.8
from my freshman year in high-school to my graduation from college;
dropped to a 3.6 as a post-grad. I attribute the drop to working a
full time job at the time.

how many numbers are there? Without checking. How many choices and
how many numbers in each choice? What, they use little balls right?
with numbers on them? Without checking, how many balls, and how many
numbers on each ball?

Depends on the lottery - which one are you referring to? In any
event, the answer to your question would be:

n! / (c! × (n - c)!) where 'n' represents the possible digits and 'c'
is the number of
digits you need to pick. And as I explained to you last time, the
exclaimation point does *not* mean the numbers need to be shouted.

Without pencil and paper what is your chance of
winning if you buy one ticket? Don't think too many people could
calculate that without any knowledge of the system.

I'd probably need to grab a pencil and paper; but the difference
between you and me is that I could actually *do* it with a pencil and
paper. YOU COULDN'T.

Unlike you I am man enough to admit I didn't know how it worked.

It was one of the few times when you've actually owned up to your
ignorance.

That doesn't mean I don't know how to calculate the odds.

No... the fact that you flaty declared "Actually I am sure the process
is quite complex, and I'm
equally sure you don't really have any clue how it works." means that
you don't know how to calclulate the odds. Those are your EXACT WORDS
jackass. You went back and forth for several posts about how *nobody*
could figure out the odds, until several of us posted the *simple*
math that would solve it for you.

Face it, dipwad. For all your bluster and bull*** about how
intelligent you think you are, you are the ONLY PERSON IN THE
DISCUSSION who did not understand the math. The ONLY one. Everyone
else KNEW.

I just don't know what the numbers are, fool.

Nor do you understand the math. In fact, at the time you didn't even
realize there *was* math that would allow us non-lottery-commission
types to figure it out!!

Nothing more than your own bias showing. The fact remains, you cannot
make a comparison based on one group and with no controls. It doesn't
matter how much you'd like to believe the results, they simply do not
follow from the evidence presented.

sure got you riled up, though. ;)

It doesn't take much to get me stoked about calling you out for
stupidity.

Logically it isn't even an argument, moron. You cannot make a
comparison when your data consists of only one group. This is basic
stuff - not quite as basic as some of the other basic *** you've
flubbed over the years, but still quite basic.

truth is, you know nothing about the group or methods. You just
dismissed it all because it doesn't match your lies. Just like the
study said you would.

Anyone with even a basic amount of experience in research can tell you
why their study is invalid. YOU accept it because it says what you
like to hear; and you'll continue to believe it no matter how many
holes are pointed out to you - just like the study says you will.

She is on record as asking for a less expensive bridge. Of course her
state took the money; how many times do you suppose states turn down
federal funding.

how many times do you suppose she has to lie about it?

How many times do your libs need to lie about it?

The reality is, claiming to have "stopped" the bridge was a gross
exaggeration on her part.

uh, gee, dya think?

Yep; I've thought so from the time she said it.

However, pretending that she supported the
bridge as originally proposed in congress is *ALSO* a gross
exaggeration, on the part of the left.

doesn't change the fact she blatantly lied.

Exaggerated. She actually *did* oppose the uber-expensive bridge; but
she supported a cheaper one.

Both campaigns have been basically full of *** from the beginning,
and it's getting worse every day. Relatively speaking, this one
doesn't bother me as much as some others - on both sides.

like I've said before, I don't think it matters either way. No matter
who wins the robber-barons will continue to raid the treasury, steal
public lands, force people out of their homes and into a life of
indentured servitude. Short of a bloody revolution nothing can make
them change their corrupt and evil ways.

That may be the one thing you and I agree on.

need to borrow some ammo?

Nope... I've got plenty.
.

Loading