Black Brunch....hahhah have you guys heard about these retards yet?

[Archer77]

::)If the statistics and studies are posted by you, then of course not!! You'll just make up whatever you want them to mean anyway. This thread should give you the perfect opportunity to explain how "this data is imprecise" means "this data is infallible" and then post 10 pages of unrelated text to "support" that.

You're just mad because i made you look like a fool.  All your whining about a sample size of ten demonstrated your ignorance. In the end my original statement was correct.  You didn't read any of the information on methodology I provided and you looked like a bigger fool than usual.  You gave me an early Christmas present.

[Al Doggity]

You're just mad because i made you look like a fool.  All your whining about a sample size of ten demonstrated your ignorance. In the end my original statement was correct.  You didn't read any of the information on methodology I provided and you looked like a bigger fool than usual.  You gave me an early Christmas present.

  Every single person who posted in that thread said you were wrong.

[Archer77]

Every single person who posted in that thread said you were wrong.

Nope. They agree with your idiotic argument that the stats were limited to a sample size of ten which its not. You set up a false argument based on your ignorance.  I showed you exactly why you were wrong.  Review the thread.  Total backfire. Did read any of the information I gave you?  Did you read anything about the methodology or did you stop at the number ten?  Admit you were wrong. 

[Al Doggity]

Nope. They agree with your idiotic argument that the stats were limited to a sample size of ten which its not. You set up a false argument based on your ignorance.  I showed you exactly why you were wrong.  Review the thread.  Total backfire. Did read any of the information I gave you?  Did you read anything about the methodology or did you stop at the number ten?  Admit you were wrong. 

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.0

That was not my argument. It was YOUR argument:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202273/table/tab_7_5/?report=objectonly

This explains why they use a sample size of ten. It's so serial incidents don't inflate the total number of rapes and sexual assaults. I may have made this point before.

It was wrong and everyone knew you were bullshitting:

 I agree with Al D, it seems to me you are trying to prop up a false argument by deliberately using the wrong term.

[Al Doggity]

  Countdown to you posting 10 pages of unrelated text in a sad attempt to bury the last post.

[andreisdaman]

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.0

That was not my argument. It was YOUR argument:

It was wrong and everyone knew you were bullshitting:

Now you see what I go through

[Al Doggity]

Now you see what I go through

I feel u, bruh!   

[Archer77]

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.0

That was not my argument. It was YOUR argument:

It was wrong and everyone knew you were bullshitting:

You are wrong and I gave you the reason why in the thread you made.  They limited the number of INCIDENTS to ten in order to prevent outliers effecting the national data.   It's right in the information I posted for you. Review the information.  This was my original argument.  When I started to review the data I saw that my original argument was right.   In summation, the data is accurate and you are wrong.  Do you still believe the sample size was only ten?  If you do you would be wrong.  

I feel u, bruh!   

And the whining begins.  Are you every going to provide any information to back up any of your claims?

[Al Doggity]

Countdown to you posting 10 pages of unrelated text in a sad attempt to bury the last post.

[Archer77]

Is the sample size limited to ten cases?   I proved my position in the very thread you posted to attack me.   Did you read your own thread?  

[Al Doggity]

Is the sample size limited to ten cases?   I proved my position in the very thread you posted to attack me.   Did you read your own thread?  

LOL You didn't prove anything! That wasn't even the topic. You pulled it out of thin air to deflect. You claimed that the people who compiled the study that the results were virtually 100% accurate despite the fact that the statistics you were citing were accompanied by a warning to interpret them with caution.
This is the opening post from that thread:

So, this is a question another poster and I have had and rather than hijack a thread, was hoping the helpful GetBlerg family could help us out with maths and sciences.

A government poll in crime can be found at this link:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodology

Some of the poll questions have fewer than 10 respondents.
Under a section titled "Standard Error Computations" there is the following line:

(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).

Do you think this means that the data is extremely reliable or that the people who put together the poll feel it might be unreliable?

So, not only didn't you prove your position, it wasn't even the topic of discussion and everyone in the thread could tell what you were doing!

[Archer77]

LOL You didn't prove anything! That wasn't even the topic. You pulled it out of thin air to deflect. You claimed that the people who compiled the study that the results were virtually 100% accurate despite the fact that the statistics you were citing were accompanied by a warning to interpret them with caution.
This is the opening post from that thread:


So, not only didn't you prove your position, it wasn't even the topic of discussion and everyone in the thread could tell what you were doing!

You need to read your own thread on the subject.  I can tell you didn't.  As I expected you totally misinterpreted the data.  And why did they say to interpret with caution?  Because the data they posted didn't accurately represent series incidents.  They admit that in the information I posted.  You didn't read anything.  You need to read the information again or more accurately for the first time.  Everything you need is in your thread.

[Archer77]

Read your own thread.  Seriously, I can tell you didn't.  By the way, I'm a better bodybuilder.  From your photos your fat as fuck.  What is hilarious is that you were whining about how I was misinterpreting the data but in the end you were completely clueless. 

[tonymctones]

Read your own thread.  Seriously, I can tell you didn't.  By the way, I'm a better bodybuilder.  From your photos your fat as fuck.  What is hilarious is that you were whining about how I was misinterpreting the data but in the end you were completely clueless. 

haha albert has posted photos?

where?

[Archer77]

haha albert has posted photos?

where?

His real identity.  He's a gimmick.  I also recommend you read the thread he posted to make me look bad that made him look like a fool.

[Al Doggity]

Read your own thread.  Seriously, I can tell you didn't.  By the way, I'm a better bodybuilder.  From your photos your fat as fuck.  What is hilarious is that you were whining about how I was misinterpreting the data but in the end you were completely clueless. 

Meltdown mode complete !!     

Good god, man. I pray retardo actually does weigh in on that thread. The only thing that could make it more hilarious.

[Al Doggity]

His real identity.  He's a gimmick.  I also recommend you read the thread he posted to make me look bad that made him look like a fool.

How many am I up to now? 5. Anyone who disagree with you basically.

[Archer77]

Meltdown mode complete !!      

Good god, man. I pray retardo actually does weigh in on that thread. The only thing that could make it more hilarious.

Read your own thread, Al.  You're either as ignorant as you seem or lying. Get back to me when you actually do some reading.  And your wife is an ugly pan faced beast.

so he posted pics of himself or of his gimmick?

where are said pics?

Someone sent them to me or says they are of him.

[tonymctones]

His real identity.  He's a gimmick.  I also recommend you read the thread he posted to make me look bad that made him look like a fool.

so he posted pics of himself or of his gimmick?

where are said pics?

[tonymctones]

Meltdown mode complete !!     

Good god, man. I pray retardo actually does weigh in on that thread. The only thing that could make it more hilarious.

dont worry brain child, if I am going to read any thing today its going to be for work so I can earn more to pay for your welfare payments

[Al Doggity]

  I agree with Al D, it seems to me you are trying to prop up a false argument by deliberately using the wrong term.

[Al Doggity]

dont worry brain child, if I am going to read any thing today its going to be for work so I can earn more to pay for your welfare payments

Are you still pretending to be a college graduate? Here's a tip: it's more convincing if you run your posts through spellcheck first. The fact that you spell at a third grade level gives it away.

[Archer77]

His comment is based on the false and ignorant claims you made about the study sample being limited to only ten people.  You are wrong about that. I've shown you that you are wrong yet you keep holding on.  Read your own thread.  I don't know how I can help you anymore than I have.


The study sample isn't limited to ten but thousands
The cap of ten refers to the limit on series incidents to a total of ten in order to prevent outliars from tainting the national data.


All of this is in the thread your created.  You did not bother to read it.  PS, your wife is ugly.

[Al Doggity]

Read your own thread, Al.  You're either as ignorant as you seem or lying.

Oh, I read it LOL. In this very thread, you pretended to be making a different argument because your argument in that thread was so stupid!  

[tonymctones]

Are you still pretending to be a college graduate? Here's a tip: it's more convincing if you run your posts through spellcheck first. The fact that you spell at a third grade level gives it away.

lol 3 college degrees there boss, when I get a benefit from spelling correctly here I will do so.

Now where are these pics?