Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: Martin Smith <burning.giraffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:40:21 +0200
In article <CbHRe.9650$p5.5152@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
"jtaylor" <jtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Martin Smith" <burning.giraffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:burning.giraffe-D0A18A.19481101092005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > In article <WrERe.9574$p5.7419@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
> > "jtaylor" <jtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > "Martin Smith" <burning.giraffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:burning.giraffe-D1DDAD.16341201092005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See that's the difference between you and me. When you say
> something
> > > > > > wrong, I just say it right. When I say something wrong, you attack
> me.
> > > > >
> > > > > No.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not attacking you. I am asking questions about and posting
> > > responses
> > > > > to your postings.
> > > > >
> > > > > To attack someone, "ad hominem", is not a legitimate (or honourable)
> > > method
> > > > > of argument. Examples of such a tactic would be to call someone "a
> > > fool",
> > > > > or similarly insult them.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure you don't think of your responses as attacks, but they are.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you just correct the error? I'm never offended when someone
> > > > corrects my errors. You never do that. You always just attack.
> > >
> > >
> > > Why do you feel that asking you questions is "attacking" you?
> >
> > Maybe I'm paranoid as well as being an idiot. Humor me and stay on the
> > subject. If I made an error, please correct it. You have a bag with 150
> > balls in it. 17 are white; the rest are black. You draw a sample of 80
> > balls. What is the expected number of white balls in the sample?
>
> A number of 6 is not unlikely - why do you think it is?
I've answered this. I said I think 6 is less likely than 7, 8, or 9. You
disagree with my analysis, so please correct my error, if there is one.
The problem is this: You have a bag containing 150 balls. 17 are white,
and the rest are black. You draw a sample of 80 balls from the bag. What
is the expected number of white balls in your sample?
.
- References:
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: Martin Smith
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: jtaylor
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: The Filthy Sanchez
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: jtaylor
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: The Filthy Sanchez
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: jtaylor
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: Martin Smith
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: jtaylor
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: Martin Smith
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: Martin Smith
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: jtaylor
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: Martin Smith
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: jtaylor
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: Martin Smith
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: jtaylor
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: Martin Smith
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- From: jtaylor
- Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- Prev by Date: Re: UK: Computer alert saves drowning girl
- Next by Date: Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- Previous by thread: Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- Next by thread: Re: Armstrong Doping Evidence an Obvious Fabrication
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|