Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- From: "John M." <john_howard_morgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 29, 8:41 am, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:24:23 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:07 am, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:30:00 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 28, 1:34 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:29:30 +0100, Malcolm
<Malc...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <ok8ir6h1fe618ktt8mkcp0nmng9t249...@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil...@xxxxxxx writes
You didn't even understand your original post:-))
A pathetic response from a statistical ignoramus.
So you're an expert in statistics now?
It's not a requirement to be an expert to be able to spot:
A/ Ignorance or B/ Bullshit.
But the more experienced one is, the easier it is to spot one or the
other of them.
That's how I spot Malcolm as a fake :-))
Dunning and Kruger missed a prime opportunity to round out their
research when they overlooked you :-P
If they "missed a prime opportunity to round out their research",
their conclusion obviously applies to themselves :-))
And exactly what was this reflexive conclusion. You obviously had the
paper there at your fingertips as you wrote your response, so tell us
all about it.
.
- References:
- Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- From: John M.
- Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- From: John M.
- Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- Prev by Date: Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- Previous by thread: Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- Next by thread: Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|