Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:05:19 06/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2002 at 16:58:20, Rolf Tueschen wrote: [snip] >Of course you did. Simply because I made clear resp. I wrote in the earlier >parts of the debate that I know exactly the difficulties and theories of >statistics. That is why I asked you, out of astonishment, if you had experience >with statistics, then I explained that in stats it's very important to clarify >the parameters in _advance_. So, if you say that I don't know what I am talking >about, then this is a forbidden insult in the presence of the rules of this >forum. You can write pages about the errors in my postings, but you have no >right to state that I have no idea about what I'm talking about. This is >insultive. Like the people of SSDF you take ad hominems as replacement for lack >of arguments. > >I still think that you have honest motivations, but it seems to be a question of >bafflement. Simply do it my way. Criticize me but then tell me what exactly was >weong and why. Perhaps it is a problem of communication. For instance, an argument that all the organisms in a statistical study must be identical is clearly absurd. At any rate, I think we are not communicating very well. You seem to think there is some defect with the SSDF experiment. What is it exactly?
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.