Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Swamp Gas' started by GATORAZ, Oct 1, 2013.
Again, you're using speculation to attempt to invalidate the value of sample size.
Lol, no, more straw grasping. I said it was an assertion, you said "It's not a statistical assertion" I said yeah, it was an assertion, not a statistical one, i.e. you'd constructed a straw man.
Is "grasping at straws" just your goto deflection? It's getting kind of boring.
"5 is statistically insignificant to determine that someone sucks"
"yeah but maybe it isn't insignificant because he sucks?"
(dear god help me)
You're refusing to answer. You've granted shortcomings will result in a small sample size, so do you grant that among these could be his inability to catch which, however insignificant, is better supported than, say, hangovers?
I did not. I've said this already. I'm not sure if you're just not reading or incapable of comprehending.
I'm showing how you're grasping at straws and deflecting when I say such.
Frankly, you have very little understanding of statistics and I'm really trying to help you understand how flawed your argument is.
If you're just going to respond with "grasping at straws" when I'm discussing fundamentals of statistics, I guess I should just concede that you don't care.
You're attempting to invalidate the importance of sample size with speculation. I don't understand how you don't see that.
Nothing wrong there, just feigned disgust for lack of showing how it's wrong. Makes perfect sense that you'd throw less often to those who suck than those who don't.
"0 is statistically insignificant to determine that Halapio can't catch"
"well maybe he has 0 because he can't catch; he's a guard."
is the exact same reasoning.
But again, purely assumptive. Not quantifiable. Valueless.
Does "teaching me fundamentals of statistics" include randomly saying "I didn't make a statistical assertion" when I said you made an assertion, i.e. not a "statistical" one?